Amendment 102 is grouped with amendments 701 to 703, 220, 704 to 708, 221 to 241, 711, 713 to 717 and 733.

Amendment 708 makes provision in section 204 for patients on suspension of detention from emergency or short-term detention where that suspension of detention is subject to conditions that the patient be accompanied or return to hospital and the patient fails to comply with those conditions.

Amendment 220 extends the absconding provisions contained in section 204 to cover patients who are detained in hospital as a result of section 85(5A). Amendment 223 modifies section 205(8) so that a patient who is absent without leave and in breach of his compulsory treatment order is no longer considered to be absent without leave once taken in under section 85 for breach of the order.

Amendment 225 adds a new provision to section 206 to make it clear that a patient who is subject to a compulsory treatment order and whose period of unauthorised absence has continued for longer than three months is not only no longer liable to be retaken, under section 205(4), but is no longer subject to the order. Without that provision, although the patient could not be retaken, the order would still be alive.

Amendment 226 corrects the drafting of section 207(1)(b) by removing the superfluous reference to a period of two months. Section 207 applies to any patient subject to a compulsory treatment order whose period of unauthorised absence is longer than 28 days and whose unauthorised absence ceases at least 14 days before the expiry of the order.

Amendments 228 and 235 prevent unnecessary duplication of section 60(3) reviews in sections 207 and 209 respectively. If it is necessary to carry out a section 60(3) review for the purposes of part 16 and the 14-day period within which the review is carried out overlaps with the two-month period within which a first or further review must be carried out, for the purposes of renewing the order it is not necessary to repeat those steps. Amendments 229, 231 and 232 are consequential on amendment 228 and improve the drafting of section 207.

Amendments 230 and 233 remove section 207(6), which was incorrect. That subsection provided that, if the patient absconded after the mandatory review procedures in part 7, chapter 2 had begun, those review procedures did not need to be repeated. That is not correct in the case of patients who have been absent without leave for a period exceeding 28 days. That is such a significant event that any such review must be started again from scratch. Amendments 236 and 239 remove the reference to section 207(6) from sections 209(2) and 210(2) respectively.

Amendments 237 and 240 clarify the application of subsections (3) to (5) of section 207 to sections 209 and 210 respectively. Those subsections provide the interface with part 7, chapter 2, which deals with the renewal of compulsory treatment orders. Amendments 238 and 241 provide that a period of unauthorised absence lasting for 28 days or less does not invalidate any of the review procedures carried out for the purposes of part 7, chapter 2 prior to the absence of the patient.

Amendment 711 introduces a new section providing a regulation-making power to enable provisions equivalent to those for absconding civil patients to be drawn up for patients subject to criminal orders. Amendments 701 to 707, 221, 222, 224, 227 and 234 are technical amendments to part 16 that improve the drafting and tidy things up after amendment at stage 2.

I move amendment 102.

Amendment 102 agreed to.