I am most grateful to the Minister and to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. On Clause 31, I understand the concern of the Minister about the potential lack of flexibility if the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice is required before action can be taken. I would like to reflect on that between now and Report. However, I simply do not understand why any change in the current situation is needed. The reasons have been very well given by both speakers from the Liberal Democrat Benches. The true effect of Clause 31 is to free the Home Secretary from the requirement to have regard to the public interest when exercising this power in exceptional cases. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said, why does he need freeing? In these circumstances, he can act only in the public interest and to remove that requirement would create not just uncertainty but suspicion in the minds of the public that there is some ulterior motive for the Secretary of State intervening.
Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Kingsland
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 27 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 c671-2 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2025-01-04 08:46:02 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_449854
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_449854
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_449854