---

Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, as ever, for his reply. I am always impressed by his arguments, and I am sure that I was impressed by the argument that he advanced in the case in which he said he appeared before me, although I cannot pretend that I remember much about it. However, there is one thing that he said that concerns me—his reference to the fact that he has consulted informally senior members of the judiciary. I am not sure that that is really good practice. I do not think that things should be referred to that have been discussed informally with the judiciary, because we are not in a position to know what exactly the judges have said. Indeed, I have consulted members of the judiciary about this and other clauses, but I do not think that those discussions should be referred to as an argument in support of an argument in this House. Having said that, I am not impressed with the answer, any more than I was with the letter from the Lord Chancellor, so I wish to test the opinion of the House. On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to? Their Lordships divided: Contents, 98; Not-Contents, 148. Clause 18 [Indeterminate sentences: determination of tariffs]: [Amendment No. 4 not moved.] Clause 28 [Release of prisoners after recall]: