Offender Management Bill

When the Minister responded to my amendment, she ended up by asking three questions. At this time of night, it is tempting for me to answer them simply by saying yes, no and no. I shall resist a little; I am sure that noble Lords will bear with me for two minutes. Those who have been here on the duty roster, waiting for a vote that will not happen, can go home and should not worry about it. If they listened to my introduction to the amendment, they will know that I said that it was probing. I always keep to my word. The Minister attacked the defects of my amendment. Well, what a surprise. I said that it was defective in the first place; it is there simply to raise issues and responses, which I received. Been there, done that. The Minister says—surprise, surprise—that the system suggested by my amendment is pretty much the same as the system now. Well, yes; my amendment suggests local commissioning and local power, but with contestability. The big change is in trying to ensure that contestability is encouraged. The Minister still says that we should not worry; there will be local commissioning. I worry because the power is not in local hands but with the Secretary of State. That is where my concern lies. The Minister ends by saying that overall my amendments are a recipe for confusion. As my wonderful mother-in-law would have said, she has one heck of a brass neck. After two days of debate in Committee, this Bill remains one recipe for confusion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 3 [Power to make arrangements for the provision of probation services]: [Amendments Nos. 35 to 37 not moved.]