§ 43 Clause 58, page 44, line 35, after ("any") insert ("particular").
§ Lord Williams of MostynMy Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 43. I speak also to Amendments Nos. 44 to 49 and 118 to 123.
On Amendment No. 43, in some cases the treatment requirement of a drug treatment and testing order may be for a period in a residential rehabilitation unit to be followed, say, by attendance at a non-residential day programme. Amendment No. 43 therefore clarifies the court's powers.
On Amendments Nos. 44 to 46, 49, and 118 to 123, as the Bill stands such an order may be made and administered only by the court which convicted the offender. There have been discussions with Association of Chief Officers of Probation (ACOP), which is a strong supporter of the order, on what will happen if an offender lives so far from the convicting court that review is unlikely to be practical. For instance, if a person in London is convicted and given an order in Leeds the treatment arrangements must be available in London but the review hearing is before Leeds. That is an absurd waste of expenditure and therefore these amendments are to correct those possible anomalies. It means that a court acting for the area in which the offender resides may be made responsible for administering the order if the court making the order thinks fit and does not itself act for that area.
Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 are minor pre-consolidation amendments identified in consultation with the Law Commission.
§ Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 43.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.