I believe the host has stopped the video. I will continue, if I may. Amendment 1, as indicated, would require certification by two—[Inaudible] —the application of the release provisions to the prisoner. Of course if the result of the assessment is that the prisoner is found to be suffering from irreversible memory loss, the Bill’s provisions would not apply to that prisoner. The amendment creates a requirement for medical certification in all cases where the board considered the provisions might apply before such provisions—[Inaudible]—as part of the release assessment. That of course contrasts with the Bill’s current approach, which is to allow the Parole Board as an independent—[Inaudible]—prisoner has not disclosed. So the amendment alters the subjective test that requires the board to— [Inaudible]—which they had not disclosed to, I think I quote, “reasonably suspect” that the prisoner has such information. Again, the replacement of “believe” with “reasonably suspect” would lower the threshold—[Inaudible.]
Prisoners (Disclosure of Information About Victims) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Keen of Elie
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 20 May 2020.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Prisoners (Disclosure of Information About Victims) Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
803 c1142 Session
2019-21Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-26 21:37:37 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2020-05-20/2005208000014
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2020-05-20/2005208000014
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2020-05-20/2005208000014