Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response and intrigued with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Bach. I am grateful to him for those and for the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. As I rather suspected, this simple amendment has disclosed that there is a need to examine the clarity of the legislation regarding breach, while absolutely accepting the problems faced by magistrates. I very deliberately did not include ““wilfully and persistently”” regarding a breach, because that was not what I was after. Wilful and persistent was covered deliberately by the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, in her contribution. There is merit in doing this, though; as I said, we are talking about the sentences but we must also consider what is going to happen to the person who has committed the breach and what the impact will be on the prison service. In our overcrowded prisons, there are currently vast numbers of people serving sentences for a breach since the 2003 Act. It was a small number before but it has become large, and there is nothing meaningful that can be done with them. That really is a waste of time and money, accepting that the magistrates have to do something. This should be thought through, which I hope is what the Minister will take away from this short debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 176A withdrawn. Amendment 176B not moved. Clause 63 agreed. Clause 64 agreed. Schedule 9 agreed. Clause 65 agreed. Amendment 177 not moved. Amendment 177ZA had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List. Clause 66 agreed. Clause 67 : Curfew requirement Clause 67 : Curfew requirement Debate on whether Clause 67 should stand part of the Bill.