moved Amendment No. 45:
45: Clause 5, page 4, line 4, after ““offender’s”” insert ““, or his immediate family’s,””
The noble Lord said: I am not sure whether the noble Lord was in his place, though he may well have been, during the recent debate on the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. The amendment suggested that a specific criterion should be taken account of by a magistrate when considering a breach. This amendment raises a similar general point to the one made by the noble Earl and other Members of the Committee. It may, of course, invite a similar reply from the Government.
We are not seeking to have this amendment included in the Bill. We wish to draw it to noble Lords’ attention simply because there was a substantive debate on this issue in Committee in another place, which was, uncharacteristically, rather confused. The point here is very straightforward. I hope the Minister will agree that, for children who depend on their parents for the satisfactory fulfilment of their community disposition—transport is the most obvious, but not the only, example—the absence of parental support for religious reasons should be a complete answer to an alleged breach. The point is as straightforward as that. I beg to move.
Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Kingsland
(Conservative)
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 c1090 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 00:50:50 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_444092
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_444092
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_444092