I do not like having the noble Lord against me, but I do not believe that the Government are being illogical. First, he is right about the discretion to be given to the responsible officer. For all the reasons that have been suggested in the debate, that is right. As long as it is done within national standards, there is consistency and we can be assured that all responsible officers will do the right thing, there is a need for discretion. If there is a breach, it is inconsequential and there is good reason for it, no further action need be taken. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, looks rather quizzical: there is a need for ““reasonable excuse””.
When it comes to the general proposition of whether the new structure will work or whether people are convinced that it will, it is sensible to be able to make it clear that breaches will not be tolerated. The point then is that that is why the court is required to take action. Yet a great deal of discretion is given to the court to decide what action is taken. I see that I am not having much luck here, but it is an entirely consistent approach.
Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 6 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 c1075-6 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 00:51:05 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_444045
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_444045
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_444045