The hour is late, and I do not want to take up too much time, but there is one aspect of what the Minister said that is not entirely clear to me.
As we understand it, the Bill would prescribe the circumstances under which the responsible officer must issue warnings and initiate breach proceedings. Breach would therefore become a statutory duty with no scope for practitioner, manager or manager discretion. I hear the Minister saying that there will be discretion, but can I point out the slight contradiction in the position that we have heard today?
The first thing we had when we started was the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, on the principles of the criminal justice system. We were told eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that we could not put that in the Bill because it would circumscribe possible action and limit the flexibility inherent in the system. We now hear that the Government want to limit that flexibility. It seems to me that we are coming with different voices to very similar arguments. I will not go on about that because the hour is late, but I expect we will return to that somewhat later.
Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 5 February 2008.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
698 c1044 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 00:30:05 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_443344
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_443344
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_443344