Offender Management Bill

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I am sorry that he thinks that something so fundamental should run counter to the Bill. In fact, that is the total opposite of its intention. I am trying neither to weaken the provision nor to strengthen it, as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, suggested; I am trying to explain the purpose of my amendment and to make it absolutely crystal clear who does what in the criminal justice system. I assure the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool and the noble Lord, Lord Warner, that I am neither squeamish nor apprehensive about punishment, and never have been. I have, however, always been one of those who believe that punishment should be given by those who are responsible for giving it, and it should be absolutely crystal clear who those people are. I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, that I based my amendment on the title of clause, which is about the provision of probation services. That phrase is reflected in two other subsections, which refer to what the Secretary of State has to do in exercising his functions in relation to any ““probation provision”” by making and carrying out arrangements. I think that the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Warner, were talking about the aims of courts, not about the aims of probation. That is absolutely right: the aims of courts are the sentences. That is their job, but that is not the aim of the Probation Service. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lady Warnock for explaining so clearly the distinction between those two and for saying that the words do matter. I always listen with great respect to what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, says. I agree with him, as did other noble Lords, that there is precious little between implementation and enforcement. I came down in favour of enforcement here, because the word was used in our previous debate. If, as a result of what we decree this afternoon, this matter is taken away to be considered for further processing in the Bill, as Ihope, I would not object one bit if the word ““implementation”” were substituted. However, the explanations of punishment that have been given do not stand up. They do not reflect the difference between the job of the courts and the job of probation. If the word ““punishment”” is related to the Probation Service, it does not help the service to do its work or people to understand what it does. Therefore, 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, 77; Not-Contents, 140. Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly. Clause 3 [Power to make arrangements for the provision of probation services]: