This is a minor point that I would just like to ask the Minister about; it is such a minor point that I did not think that it was worth an amendment. It  is just a minor anxiety on my part. Subsection (1)(b) says that the responsible officer, in respect of an attendance centre, is

“the officer in charge of the attendance centre in question”.

Given that the responsible officer has a particular relationship to the offender, it may not always be the case that the person who is nominally in charge of the attendance centre is the person who has that relationship in care to the offender in question. I just wonder whether that wording raises any possibility of causing difficulties or confusion. If it does not, my anxiety is allayed.