Offender Rehabilitation Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord McNally and Lord Haskel
Wednesday 5th June 2013

(11 years, 10 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Haskel Portrait The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I have to inform your Lordships that if this amendment is agreed, I cannot call Amendments 9 to 12 because of pre-emption.

Lord McNally Portrait Lord McNally
- Hansard - -

My Lords, I hope I am answering the amendment that the noble Lord has moved, because I am just wondering what Amendment 8 would actually do. It would remove paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Bill, which amends the 2003 Act and sets out the conditions under which the Secretary of State may top up supervision. I have already said that top-up supervision is a useful device to ensure that there is a reasonable period of supervision to enable a change to be made to the offending behaviour. Therefore, the amendment has the unusual and perhaps unintended effect of not removing the provision for top-up supervision that is contained in Clause 2.

Legislation

Debate between Lord McNally and Lord Haskel
Thursday 10th November 2011

(13 years, 5 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Haskel Portrait Lord Haskel
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords—

Lord McNally Portrait Lord McNally
- Hansard - -

I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Haskel.

Lord Haskel Portrait Lord Haskel
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The Leader of the House says there are fewer pages enacted. Is this because the legislation is poorly drafted and requires a lot of work by your Lordships?