I, too, support the amendment, partly on the grounds that have been advanced—the potential conflict of interest. Also, I suspect that, despite the advantages that may flow from the introduction of other agencies in probation work, certain features of the justice system belong to the state; that is, they should be part of the public activity of the state. Sentencing in particular is the passing of judgment in the name of the state on right and wrong. The aspect that concerns me in this is pre-sentencing reports. We may move away from the notion that sentencing is a judgment on right and wrong pronounced in the name of the whole of society to its being influenced by private interests. It is important to keep certain aspects of the system strictly part of the public exercise of justice. That would be my anxiety if Clause 4 was to be repealed, so the careful safeguards being proposed against its repeal should be supported.
Offender Management Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Bishop of Chester
(Bishops (affiliation))
in the House of Lords on Monday, 11 June 2007.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Offender Management Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
692 c1470 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:47:54 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_401886
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_401886
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_401886