Offender Management Bill

rose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end insert ““but do propose the following amendment to Commons Amendment No. 11A in lieu— The Commons disagree to Lords Amendment No. 11 but propose the following Amendment in lieu- 11B: Line 4, leave out from ““shall”” to ““the”” in line 5 and insert ““ensure that measures are in place that will avoid”””” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, what the noble and learned Baroness has just said on the record was extremely helpful. I tabled my amendments in order to elicit from the noble and learned Baroness an explanation of why the Government had seen fit to provide a different drafting of conflict of interest. My first reading of the Government's amendment in the other place led me to believe that the provision had become so wishy-washy that it would not be effective. I always appreciate that parliamentary counsel wish to ensure that amendments are technically accurate and effective, but I felt that the intent of my amendment had also been watered down. Having listened to the noble and learned Baroness, I suspect that she has said enough already to satisfy me on this matter. I am particularly interested in what she said about the procedure that would pertain if and when the protections in Clause 4 were removed and one could have in the third sector what one now has in the public sector—that the person who provides a report in a court system as to disposal may also then be the person who is the lead provider in providing the intervention. That will be the most sensitive of times for one to judge whether or not there is a conflict of interest. I will formally move this Motion in case there are other noble Lords who wish to add anything to the debate. I suspect that that is somewhat unlikely given what the noble and learned Baroness has just said. I beg to move. Moved, as an amendment to Motion B, Motion B1, at end insert ““but do propose Amendment No. 11B to Commons Amendment No. 11A in lieu””.—(Baroness Anelay of St Johns.)