---

Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

My Lords, the Minister cited, in support of his arguments, the Carter review of prisons, which he described as a mixture of expansion of places and a degree of what he described as ““demand management.”” We have supported—or supported in part—the expansion of places; we certainly object to the idea of Titan prisons as part of that expansion. I would paraphrase ““demand management”” as letting out early slightly more people than they should, which is a mistake, and keeping people out who should possibly be in, which this is a measure of. It is not the right way to go about it. It is not right that someone who is, admittedly, confined to home, but having rather a comfortable time, should have that time taken into account if he receives a custodial sentence later on. No doubt, if he is a football hooligan, he is still able to watch television. That is why this particular case is the wrong way to go about it and why I intend to press this amendment and seek the opinion of the House. On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 62) shall be agreed to? Their Lordships divided: Contents, 112; Not-Contents, 132. Clause 22 [Credit for period of remand on bail: other cases]: [Amendment No. 63 not moved.] Clause 23 [Credit for period of remand on bail: transitional provisions]: [Amendment No. 64 not moved.] Clause 26 [Release of certain long-term prisoners under Criminal Justice Act 1991]: