I am of course grateful to the Minister for his reply, but this is a summary consideration of offences triable either way. There are advantages in magistrates rather than the Crown Court dealing with these matters. Given that offences are triable either way, it is only right that the magistrates should have larger powers of sentencing than they would otherwise have. The logic behind my amendment is extremely powerful. I am disappointed by the Minister’s reaction.
The fact that this was originally in the 2003 Act gives rise to the question of how much of that Act is still unimplemented. I am almost tempted to ask the Minister to do a calculation. I shall not do so, but a substantial part of that Act has fallen into desuetude for a variety of reasons. I am sure that the Government are extremely disappointed after having put so much effort into what was the flagship of their criminal justice strategy in the early 1990s. They must be deeply disappointed that so much of it has run into the sand.
I shall consider whether to bring this matter back on Report, but meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 [Consecutive terms of imprisonment]:
Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Kingsland
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 26 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
699 c638 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 00:58:03 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_448689
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_448689
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_448689