What steps he has taken to assess the equity of the distribution of lottery awards across the country. [123668]

We require distributors to take into account the need to ensure that all parts of the country have access to funding and the need to reduce economic and social deprivation. We monitor lottery awards given to each constituency and remain keen to encourage a fairer distribution of funding across the country.

Will my hon. Friend ensure that the distributing bodies press ahead with redressing imbalances throughout the country, so that Lincoln people can see the gap close between the welcome £9.5 million that they have so far received and the national average of £11.9 million?

Yes, that is exactly why we set up the report into lottery funding for coalfield areas and former mining communities. Last week my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a package of measures designed to ensure that those areas receive greater benefit from national lottery money. We have to try to get more equitable funding, while recognising that some areas of greater economic and social deprivation have not been as proactive as they might have been about getting their forms filled in and so attracting benefit from the lottery. Now, with the new powers under the National Lottery Act 1998, we are seeing changes and increases; it is all about equity.

Further to the point that I made at the Department's previous Question Time, has the Minister had time to consider the amount and proportion of funds going to outer London boroughs? Understandably, much of the money that goes to London goes to great national institutions, and although we accept that the quality of applications is an important factor, there is a feeling among those living on the outskirts of London that we are not being dealt with correctly.

I understand how the hon. Gentleman feels. The amount of money that has gone to my constituency of Vauxhall seems huge, because it has several major tourist attractions along the River Thames; however, little money has gone into community projects. Furthermore, if a constituency contains the head office of an organisation, that constituency is credited with having received the money given to the organisation, even if it is spent in many other places and none is spent in the constituency itself.

My hon. Friend touches on an important point about how we assess the sums that go to each constituency. Will she discuss with the National Lottery Charities Board how it arrives at its figures? Many of the grants included in figures sent to me were made not in my constituency but in that of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts). Although I have no objection to my hon. Friend's constituency receiving grants, I would prefer that they were not included in the allocation for my constituency. Will my hon. Friend the Minister also examine the assessment of ticket sales, whereby tickets sales in town centres are often allocated to only one constituency, even though they are bought by people from several neighbouring constituencies?

As I said, I fully understand hon. Members' concerns. It is frustrating to be told that one's constituency is receiving a lot of money when one knows that it is not, in fact, going there. Such matters will be the subject of our on-going discussions and of the negotiations surrounding the award of the new franchise. The ticket-buying public want to know where their money goes, and they want the figures to be clear and objective; similarly, we as Members of Parliament want to know what is happening in our constituencies.

First, will the Minister join me in wishing the England team all success in Euro 2000, and echo our hope for a peaceful, trouble-free tournament?

On the question of lottery funding, does the hon. Lady agree with the recent comments of the vice-chairman of Sport England, Des Wilson? He says that because of the Government's raid on the lottery and the recent decline in ticket sales,

many community organisations that could have taken a positive reply for granted five years back will now be disappointed. The money just won't be there.

Is not the truth that the Government's abuse of the lottery and total abandonment of the arm's-length and additionality principles will rob sports clubs throughout the country, especially those in areas that have done less well, of support for important projects that they could reasonably have expected to receive by now?

Of course I join the hon. Gentleman in sending the England team our best wishes for their first match tonight—and, indeed, for the whole tournament. We are especially keen for the tournament to be free of trouble, and for our supporters to represent our country in the best possible manner.

I believe that the hon. Gentleman has misquoted the vice-chairman of Sport England. I heard Des Wilson speak on Radio 5 just a few hours after that quote came out, and he did not say that. I remind the hon. Gentleman that when the lottery was set up five years ago, it was said that about £1.8 billion would go to sport over the first seven years of the contract. That was guaranteed. In fact, the sum will be increased. The hon. Gentleman can talk about percentages and new developments, but the amount going to sport over the seven years will be more than was originally promised. In addition, some of the money from the new opportunities fund goes directly to after-school activities related to sport. Of course, we want more people to play the lottery, because if people do not buy tickets, there will be no money for any of the good causes.

What action he is taking to promote take-up of digital TV. [123669]

We have set in place two firm tests of availability and affordability, which must be met before the full switchover to digital television can take place. In the meantime, we are working with the industry on a public information campaign about digital television, and we will shortly set up a viewers panel to ensure that policy is well informed by consumer concerns.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that when digital was rolled out, it was done in a way that perpetuated the anomalies inherent in the analogue system, in that some parts of the United Kingdom receive regional television coverage that is entirely inappropriate to the area? For example, my constituency, which is patently in the north-west, gets terrestrial television only from Wales and the midlands. Does my right hon. Friend agree that in any future broadcasting Bill, broadcasters should be required to provide appropriate regional television, and that the take-up of digital television would thereby be enhanced?

My hon. Friend raises a genuine concern with regard to analogue coverage, and I am well aware of the problems faced by a number of his constituents in that respect. Digital terrestrial television at present covers only about half of the country. That proportion will increase progressively over the next two years. My aim is to ensure that as digital television becomes universally available, it will provide a solution to the problem faced by my hon. Friend's constituents.

My hon. Friend's question highlights the fact that it is not only infrastructure that matters, but content as well. We have noted in recent days considerable concern about some of the content on television, particularly in relation to Channel 5. Government cannot and should not directly intervene, but I believe that the broadcasters have a commercial and a moral duty to take good account of the views of the public, and I urge them to do so.

Does the Secretary of State accept that one of the consequences of the roll-out of digital television is even more control of what people can receive is placed in the hands of the broadcasters? I am thinking, in particular, of access to sport. Individual broadcasters have a monopoly of the supply of television coverage of a particular sport to sections of the population who are keen on that sport. Should the Government now examine that issue?

We have put in place the list of protected sporting events that are of national importance and must be shown free to air on terrestrial television. Shortly after coming to office, we expanded that list to include more sporting events. In addition, it is important that the terrestrial broadcasters, not just the subscription broadcasters, ensure that sport forms a key part of their provision for the public. I certainly look to the terrestrial broadcasters to do that.

Does my right hon. Friend's definition of digital television include digital access to the internet? We do not want digital television sets that deliver only television programmes. We want them to offer internet access as well. Does my right hon. Friend's definition that digital television should be widespread and available to 95 per cent. or more of the population include internet access?

As my hon. Friend knows, perhaps more than most, the boundaries between what we previously described as television and personal telephonic communication have been merging rapidly in recent years. In my speech to the Royal Television Society in September, I made it clear that one of our aims is to ensure that universal access to the internet forms part of the universal availability of digital television.

If he will make a statement on his plans for the millennium dome. [123670]

The Millennium Commission's plans for the dome are, first, to help to ensure that the experience draws in increasing numbers of visitors throughout the rest of this year; they will experience the same great enjoyment as previous visitors. Secondly, it will assist with the regeneration of a previously derelict area of south-east London, which is in real need. Thirdly, it will provide a lasting legacy for the future.

In the same spirit, the Prime Minister made an amazing speech in February to outline why the dome was good for Britain. He said that the project was on target and on budget, that it would not take taxpayers' money, and that it would take only £400 million of lottery funds. Every one of us has projects in our constituencies that cry out for lottery funds, yet this hideous failure has gobbled up £538 million. Will the Secretary of State now stand up and say that enough is enough, and that not one penny more of lottery funds—or any other public funds—will be spent on that national humiliation?

May I make three points to the hon. Gentleman? First, it was the previous Government who began the project. Secondly, 85 per cent. of visitors to the dome say that it is a hugely enjoyable experience, which they would recommend to their friends and neighbours. Thirdly, the Millennium Commission has made it clear to the New Millennium Experience Company that it must cut its coat according to its cloth and operate within the budget that has been allocated to it.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the dome's detractors have failed to recognise the benefits that it has brought to its part of London? Before the millennium project, there were no transport links, other than heavy rail, for people travelling to central London. The site was one of the biggest derelict areas, and heavily contaminated. Without a project of the dome's size, it probably would not have been decontaminated and used. More importantly, the project brought economic development and jobs to an area of London where, only a few miles from here, there are some of the most deprived communities in this country.

What about Shropshire?

Opposition Members clearly do not understand the need for economic development and intervention to create jobs where there is no hope of jobs. Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking to ensure that that issue remains at the top of his agenda when he considers future uses for the dome?

I certainly give that undertaking, although I am not personally involved in the decision about the dome's future legacy. However, I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who are involved.

My hon. Friend's point about the dome's regeneration impact on the whole of south-east London is well made. That was one of the major reasons for the birth of the project, which was conceived by the Conservative party. Conservative Members' attempts to do down the project does them no credit and the country no good.

The Secretary of State's attempts, on the one hand to shed responsibility for what has gone wrong with the dome and place it with the previous Conservative Administration, and on the other to pretend that the project is a resounding success, are as convincing as the Prime Minister's performance at the Women's Institute conference last week. Are there any circumstances in which the Secretary of State would refuse the dome more money? How bad do things have to get? How deep must the hole be dug? In its contempt for history, its cheap gimmickry and its botched execution, the dome has become the perfect symbol of new Labour. Value for money, financial responsibility, lottery cash, and even public opinion, count for nothing, because what matters most to the Secretary of State and the chairman of the Millennium Commission is saving the Government's face.

The hon. Gentleman's assessment flies in the face of the assessment of the two and a half million people who have already visited the dome and enjoyed the experience enormously. Of course, the numbers have been lower than those originally projected, as everyone knows, and I accept that that has created financial problems. However, we have made it extremely clear to the New Millennium Experience Company that it must operate within the budget set for it. I was delighted that Mr. Gerbeau, the chief executive of NMEC, confirmed last week that he would not return to the Millennium Commission for extra funds.

All I can say is, come off it. The Government are not having much luck. Even the new millennium bridge is beginning to look a little like new Labour. From a distance it is a rather attractive proposition, but once tested, it is given to bouts of violent wobbling.

I know that the Government do not like answering questions about the dome's finances. All too often, we are batted away with bogus claims about commercial confidentiality. However, it is unusual not to get any response at all, not even a holding reply. Will the Secretary of State answer the question that I tabled on 25 May, and say which accountancy firms have been paid by the dome and for what purposes?

That question will be answered in due course in the normal way.

The hon. Gentleman takes the apparent initial difficulties with the millennium bridge between St. Paul's and Bankside rather lightly. I do not. The safety of pedestrians on bridge is surely paramount, which is why I have already asked Millennium Commission officials for urgent advice on what measures need to be taken to ensure the public's safety. I would have thought that that was rather more important than making a few cheap jokes, as the hon. Gentleman did.

If he will make a statement on access to museums. [123671]

Our policy is to encourage all museums to offer the widest possible access to their collections. We have enabled national museums that are funded by my Department and offer free admission to continue to offer it. We have scrapped entry charges for children and the over-60s to museums that currently charge for admission. Funds have been set aside to enable trustees to introduce a standard admission charge of £1 from September 2001, and to grant free admission to all those, including people with disabilities, who are in receipt of the major social security benefits.

Will the Minister scrap his fatuous, insulting and politically correct proposal that museums are to have funds withheld if they fail to attract enough ethnic minority visitors? If he will not scrap that ludicrous scheme, how are museums expected to distinguish between ethnic minorities and, for example, natives who are excessively suntanned? Will that ludicrous policy also apply to this place—which, thanks to the Prime Minister's indifference, is rapidly turning into the museum of democracy?

That scheme is a figment of the hon. Gentleman's imagination, fed by a peculiarly silly article in The Daily Telegraph. I assure him that there are no quotas and that there is no link between museum funding and ethnic minority visitor numbers. Of course we want people from all backgrounds to have access to the best of our culture. I regularly discuss that matter with the chairmen of trustees and the directors of our national museums and galleries, all of whom share the Government's enthusiasm for ensuring that our museums are accessible to the many, not the few. It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman does not share that vision.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is to be congratulated on presiding over a great increase in the number, and the enthusiasm, of people in this country who visit museums and art galleries. What discussions has my hon. Friend the Minister had with the Treasury on VAT, which, of course, limits the opportunities that we had hoped for as a result of my right hon. Friend's initiatives?

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his kind words. We have scrapped admission charges for children and pensioners at 23 museums and galleries, and, in the first year, child visitor figures are up 18 per cent. In the two months since we abolished admission charges for pensioners, recorded numbers of visitors over 60 have increased almost two and a half times, which is encouraging.

My right hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the tension between our ambition to ensure that our museums and galleries are accessible to the largest number of people, and the impact of the VAT regime, which penalises museums and galleries that charge for entry. With that in mind, I convened a meeting last year with the directors of national museums and galleries and the National Art Collections Fund, as a result of which the NACF produced an extremely helpful paper, which is assisting us in our discussions with the Treasury.

Is it still the Government's intention that there should be free access for all to national museums and galleries, and is not the issue essentially one of working out ways of bringing that about and calculating the cost? Will the views of people such as generous benefactors—for example, Sir Denis Mahon—be borne in mind when it comes to the crunch?

Further to the point about VAT, in the two months since the Budget, have the Minister and his colleagues made progress in the discussion about the possibility of adding national museums and galleries to the bodies covered by section 33 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994? That seems to be the most sensible way of avoiding the nonsense whereby the Government give cash grants to national institutions and then reclaim them through VAT.

I readily echo the tribute that the right hon. Gentleman paid to Sir Denis Mahon, who has been a most remarkable benefactor of our national museums and galleries. As we said in our pre-election document, "Create the future", access will be a cornerstone of our cultural policy, and we remain committed to making the best progress that we can towards extending free entry. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that section 33 of the VAT Act seems to be the most promising avenue to enable us to overcome that important snag, and we shall continue to explore it.

What legal advice did Ministers receive before deciding to introduce free admission for the over-60s rather than linking it to pension age? Has that advice been made available to other Departments?

If I may, I will write to my hon. Friend on that point. We had to make a judgment, and it did not seem sensible to persist with gender differentiation in free access for people of retirement age. I hope that she will feel that in opting for 60 rather than 65 we erred on the right side.

Is the Minister aware of the progress that has been made on charges by the national museum and galleries of Wales, with free entry available not only to children and pensioners but to students and unemployed people? Is not that a good model for the other parts of these islands, and will he congratulate the national museum of Wales and the National Assembly for Wales on that scheme?

I do, with pleasure.

The fact is that Labour stumbled into making a pledge about universal free access without having even thought about the Treasury implications. Is the Minister not aware of the growing frustration of museum directors and trustees about the way in which their service agreements are becoming increasingly intrusive, patronising and political? Does he not understand that they resent being bullied on access, when they have always tried to increase access anyway?

Now that the Government have completed the U-turn on their pledge for universal free admission, what practical assistance will the Minister provide to all the other museums throughout the country, many of which are local, which face an uncertain future under this Government?

I do not recognise what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. We did not make the pledge that he described. Far from what he says being correct, the chairmen of trustees and the directors of national museums and galleries appreciate the opportunity that the negotiation of funding agreements gives them to explore our shared objectives in depth.

As for the important issue of how we are to ensure better support for regional museums and galleries, I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the £15 million designation challenge fund, which is already in place, to the funds to support museums and galleries in education spending and investment in information technology, and to the extension of the heritage lottery fund's access fund by £3 million a year into the future.

How many schools are expected to benefit from the National Foundation for Youth Music in its first year. [123674]

The National Foundation for Youth Music's remit is to support activities for young people that take place largely outside the formal education sector. However, as applicants are encouraged to form partnerships with the wider community, there will be benefits for schools. The foundation is currently considering applications under Music Maker, which aims to benefit up to 120,000 children, and Singing Challenge, which will serve at least 15,000 children. The instrument amnesty has attracted approximately 5,000 unused instruments, which will be re-routed to up to 1,000 organisations working with young people.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that extremely heartening reply, which shows the support provided not only by the foundation but by the Government, highlighting the importance of music making and ensuring that all our children have the ability to deal with the difficulties of music and musical instruments. Did not the previous Government make the most swingeing and savaging attacks, reducing the ability of all our children to enjoy the pleasure of music making? Although every part of the country suffered severe deprivation under the Conservative Government, will he ask the foundation to ensure that some of the most seriously deprived areas of the country will be at the top of its list, so that their children have access to music and music making?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the serious decline in musical instrument teaching for young people in this country over the past 15 to 20 years. We have begun to put that right through the establishment of the national foundation and through money from the standards fund, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has also made available. Of course those initiatives will help in the areas that suffered most, especially in areas of social deprivation, where the need is arguably greatest.

Did the Secretary of State note the reported comments last week by the head of the Yehudi Menuhin school, who said that opportunities for teaching music, art and drama were being squeezed out of the curriculum in schools throughout the country? Does he recognise that that problem is far from being confined to the past, but is continuing and getting worse? Is the Secretary of State doing anything in conjunction with his colleague in the Department for Education and Employment to set the record straight?

I did note those comments, and they do not reflect what is happening across the country as a whole. The Secretary of State for Education and Employment has made £150 million available to local education authorities through the music standards fund. Several local education authorities, some controlled by the Conservative party, have not taken up that funding. The Department for Education and Employment cannot force local education authorities to take up the money, but it is there.

What proportion of the national lottery funds allocated to (a) the arts and (b) sport has been allocated to dance. [123675]

The Arts Council of England has awarded lottery funds to 563 dance projects, totalling over £136 million—11 per cent. of the total ACE lottery awards made. Sport England has awarded funds to six specific movement and dance projects totalling £697,016–0.1 per cent. of the total lottery funds awarded by Sport England. Sums awarded to other projects in which dance is an element further increase those totals.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, and for his continued interest in the development of dance in Britain, but is he aware that that very low figure for sport does not do justice to the fact that dance provides the main opportunity that many young girls have to develop kinaesthetic ability and enjoy competitive recreation? Will he ensure that the figure for sport is significantly increased in future, so that that population can be properly served?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's continuing interest in that subject and look forward to meeting him and my hon. Friends the Members for Salford (Ms Blears) and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) before long to pursue our discussion at a meeting in my Department. In the meantime, I shall certainly talk to my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport.

However, as my hon. Friend knows, it is not for us to instruct the lottery distributors what particular projects they ought to support, although, with his assistance, we can ensure that the significance of supporting dance in schools and as an aspect of sport is more widely appreciated.

When he last met the chief officer of the Royal Parks Constabulary to discuss the powers of constables. [123676]

I have met the acting chief officer of the Royal Parks Constabulary on several occasions to discuss that point. I will meet the new chief executive of the Royal Parks Agency regularly once he takes post on 10 July. I also meet, and receive advice from, the Royal Parks Advisory Board. We shall shortly undertake a review of the Royal Parks Constabulary.

Will the Minister confirm that the chief officer of the Royal Parks Constabulary and the chief constables of the Ministry of Defence and the British Transport police have asked for the powers set out in my Police Bill? What is he going to do about that and when?

As I said, we shall review the Royal Parks Constabulary, and the issue that my hon. Friend raises will undoubtedly be an important focus of that review.

What has been the percentage change in the (a) level of public subsidies and (b) size of audiences for live theatre in the past 10 years. [123677]

Public subsidy for theatre decreased by about 1 per cent. in real terms in the 10 years to 1997–98, but will have increased by 7.2 per cent. in real terms between then and 2000–01. Meanwhile, in the 10 years to 1997—the last year for which figures are currently available—audiences for subsidised theatre decreased by about 16 per cent.

Does not that reveal a bleak situation? The majority of live theatres around the country outside tourist areas represent an art form in decline. While we would all say that live theatre is an important part of the artistic inheritance of all the nations of Britain, perhaps the time has come to consider subsidising those of great artistic excellence and to reconsider transferring money to booming art forms—for example, the publication of books of poetry has doubled in the past five years—and the infinite opportunities that the new technologies present to provide live theatre and other art forms universally through the internet.

I agree with my hon. Friend that those figures reveal that a small reduction in subsidy starves theatre of funds and results in a much greater decline in audiences. Therefore, reversing that decline, as we are in the process of doing, has been one of the important parts of the extra investment that we have put in place with the Arts Council. I am pleased that the Arts Council will allocate £1.4 million to literature in 2000–01, and more than 70 per cent. of that will be spent directly or indirectly on poetry.

I implore the Secretary of State to ignore what the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) has just said and to do all he can to encourage live theatre, which is one of Britain's national treasures, not only in the west end but in provincial theatres all over the country. When there is so much spare capacity, it is a great shame that people and young schoolchildren who would dearly love to go to live theatre are unable to do so. Will he ask the theatres to allow more people to see live theatre by encouraging either discount schemes or the use of spare capacity by schoolchildren?

For once, I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman. That is precisely the point of the new audiences fund, which we put in place two years ago and have continued since. It is aimed particularly at helping people who would not otherwise have the opportunity to do so, to see not only theatre but all forms of the performing arts. I am acutely aware of the plight of regional theatre—it has been highlighted by the Boyden report, which the Arts Council recently published—and, together with the Arts Council and the regional arts boards, we are considering how we can help in that matter.

What assessment he has made of the impact of millennium projects on the regeneration of urban areas. [123679]

Millennium projects are already making a significant impact in urban areas across the United Kingdom, providing new community facilities, cultural and educational resources, improved public spaces and boosted economies. The Lowry centre in Salford, the international centre for life in Newcastle and Tate Modern have all opened within the last couple of months. The Millennium Commission will be undertaking a detailed large-scale economic impact assessment of its capital projects this summer.

I am delighted that my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to attend the opening of the magnificent Lowry centre. I hope that he enjoyed the experience.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital for centres such as the Lowry to involve their local communities, as well as providing venues for world-class opera, ballet and other performances? Will he confirm that his Department intends to continue expanding the fund to build new audiences and, crucially, to invest in the skills, talent and creativity of local young people so that they see the Lowry as their theatre—their centre—and a place where they can express the talents that we all know they possess?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I pay tribute to the role that she has played, on Salford council and subsequently as Salford's Member of Parliament, in ensuring that the Lowry has been an enormous success.

The Lowry has already attracted a £72 million retail and leisure development—a commercial development—to an adjacent site. It has been a catalyst for the £4 million water quarter improvement programme in the area, and it is estimated that it has helped to create some 6,500 jobs in the local economy. That demonstrates that major cultural capital projects rooted in the support of the local community can be a major force for regeneration.

Can the right hon. Gentleman offer the House some assessment of the proportion of the jobs to which he just referred that have been created in the private sector, and the proportion created in the public sector? Can he also offer a rough indication of the proportion of those important jobs that he expects to be sustained?

I certainly expect the jobs in whole to be sustained. I do not know the exact breakdown between the public and private sectors, but I imagine that the overwhelming majority are in the private commercial sector, although some people will be directly employed by the Lowry centre.

Pursuant to his answer of 9 May 2000, Official Report, columns 379–80W, what liaison he has had with the devolved Administrations about nomination of the Forth bridge to UNESCO for world heritage site status; and if he will make a statement about how the UNESCO world heritage committee's priorities for action relate to the Forth bridge. [123680]

Although my Department liaises regularly with the devolved Administrations over United Kingdom world heritage site issues, including the possible order and timing of all future UK nominations, the Scottish Executive will decide when they wish to nominate the Forth bridge. UNESCO's world heritage committee is considering priorities for the number and types of sites it would like to see nominated from all countries in the future, and that will affect UK nominations.

When is the consideration to which my hon. Friend refers likely to reach a conclusion?

I cannot answer my hon. Friend on that point, as it will be a matter for the Scottish Executive. I can, however, tell him that the Forth bridge is a category A listed building and, as such, should be properly cared for, whether or not it is nominated as a world heritage site. Should it be nominated, there is an expectation—indeed, I would say a requirement—for the site to be properly maintained to the highest standards in accordance with a management plan.

What discussions he has had with the English Tourism Council about promoting and widening access to holidays for people with disabilities. [123682]

Widening access to tourism for everyone, including people with disabilities, is a key commitment for the English Tourism Council. I am pleased to note that, this summer, the ETC is publishing "Accessible Britain 2000", a complete list of accommodation awarded a category of accessibility by the tourist boards or Holiday Care under the national accessibility scheme.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. It is important, given the large number of people who cannot currently take a holiday, many of whom are disabled. Does he, like me, welcome the work done by other organisations such as the Association of British Travel Agents in promoting awareness, and in particular the scheme that it is pursuing with the Royal National Institute for the Blind? Does he agree that many small hoteliers in seaside towns still need advice and assistance from the ETC in making their establishments accessible, and will he consider the possibility of using the new opportunities fund for that purpose?

I certainly endorse what my hon. Friend says about the importance of encouraging and widening accessibility for people with disabilities. It is a notable fact that about 40 per cent. of the population do not take a holiday. I suspect that a substantial proportion of those do not do so because of difficulties of physical access. We need to continue to encourage the tourism industry to seek to overcome that. One of the features of the industry is that it is made up of many very small enterprises. We need to encourage and enable them to improve accessibility. The ETC will certainly seek to do that.

What discussions he has had with the football authorities about the football taskforce report on commercial issues, with special reference to the cost of going to professional football matches for families and children. [123683]

With my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, on 16 March I met representatives of the Football Association, the premier league and the football league to discuss the Government's response to the report. In further informal discussions with the football authorities and supporters groups, I have made clear the Government's desire that football's new regulatory body—whatever form it takes—should examine the costs of attending football matches.

My hon. Friend will know that the majority report expressed serious concerns about ticket pricing at some clubs and about the price of replica shirts supplied by some football clubs. Those are issues of great importance. Will she recognise the important step that has been taken by Burnley football club, which, newly promoted to the first division, has introduced a children's ticket to all parts of the ground for £35 for next season? Should not all premier clubs ensure that they issue concessionary tickets to all children?

I congratulate Burnley. Indeed, a number of other clubs have introduced quite innovative methods to ensure that children and families are attracted to football, but we take the issue seriously. As I have said, whatever form the regulatory body takes, when we announce our formal conclusions on the taskforce report, that will be a priority.

Does the hon. Lady agree that there should be a restoration of balance in favour of ordinary football-going supporters such as my brother and his family? There should be a restoration in the balance of interests, so that it is not just the commercial interests of big companies that take directors to football matches on a Saturday that are respected but those of ordinary football-goers who enjoy their Saturday.

I am sure that the hon. Lady's family are ordinary football supporters. They are the people without whom football would not be what it is. It is crucial that football clubs, whether they be in the premier league or in another division, realise the strength and importance of their supporters and look at things in the long term. They should not just go for the short-term effects of short money, with no long-term solutions for football.

If he will make a statement on the promotion of swimming in schools. [123684]

Swimming is important in its own right as a school sport and as an essential safety tool. That is why it remains a compulsory element of the national curriculum for physical education, which requires that, by the age of 11, pupils should be able to swim 25 m and should be aware of the principles of water safety.

I speak as someone who swims badly but persistently five times a week at the Living Well health club at No. 4 Millbank. Does the hon. Lady accept that I and many of my right hon. and hon. Friends are concerned about the diminution in opportunities in schools to participate in swimming? Will she guarantee to arrest the tide? Will she take this opportunity to spell out the importance not only of swimming in general, but of the excellent sport of synchronised swimming in particular?

The only information that the hon. Gentleman has not given me is the time that he goes swimming at the health centre, but I agree about the importance of swimming. Last October, I raised my concerns with Chris Woodhead of the Office for Standards in Education to encourage him and Ofsted to do more in terms of section 10 inspections of school swimming. It is something that a number of Members are interested in. Ofsted has now introduced an extra focused inspection on swimming. We will get the results of that very soon. They will be announced shortly.

Having watched synchronised swimming, I support it very much. It is a sport that requires a huge amount of physical effort; it is very demanding indeed.

What steps the commissioners have taken to transfer day-to-day fund management of UK equities and their fixed interest portfolio; and if he will make a statement. [123698]

The commissioners have decided to transfer day-to-day fund management of their United Kingdom equities and fixed-interest portfolio to Churches, Charities and Local Authorities Investment Management Ltd. Additionally, several experienced members of the in-house team will transfer to preserve continuity of management, which, over the years, has produced such good results for the commissioners. It is planned that the transfer will take place on 30 June 2000.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. One thing that he has not told us, however, is the cost implications. Will large costs and hefty fees be paid to CCLA? If so, what effect will those have on the commissioners' ability to help fund the Church?

The commissioners will, of course, pay CCLA a fee. However, an increase in the overall costs of fund management is not expected to affect the distributions that the commissioners make for support of the Church. The policy remains to provide the maximum sustainable level of support to the Church.

What assessment the commissioners have made of the contribution to the rural economy in England of repairs and renovations to churches. [123699]

The repair, renovation and development by parishes of rural churches make a significant financial contribution to the rural economy, to supporting and encouraging local skilled craftsman and businesses, and to maintaining rural community life.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, which confirms the Historic Houses Association's view that that activity maintains about 7,000 jobs in the sector. Does he agree that the traditional labour-intensive skills to which he referred would be further enhanced and encouraged if £18 million of the £123 million that the Church spends yearly on repairs and renovations did not go straight into paying VAT? Will he also use that information to press home those points on colleagues and Ministers in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions in time for the forthcoming rural White Paper?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the issue of VAT on church repairs, on which discussions are continuing with the Treasury and the DETR. We are also seeking to persuade the Government not only to review operation of the directive within the European Union, so that it will cover church repairs, but to reduce VAT to 5 per cent.

In support of the point made by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden), and in view of the encouragement that can be taken from the remarks just made by the hon. Gentleman, does the hon. Gentleman accept that, even when the Treasury has—as it often has—quite good arguments in principle for a general approach, there is a quite special problem in relation to churches, particularly small churches and large churches in small communities, for which the cost of repair and renovation is entirely disproportionate to anything that they can realistically raise?

Those points were made to the Minister for the Arts when we saw him. It is not generally known that we have 16,000 parish churches in rural areas, and that they are among the best maintained in Europe. However, the additional burden of VAT on maintenance of those buildings is a serious burden on local, Church-worshipping communities.

What implications the commissioners' recently published 1999 results have for their support of the Church; and if he will make a statement. [123700]

The market value of the commissioners' assets stood at £4,400 million at the year end, and the assets provided £156 million in support of the Church's ministry. That sum includes an element of support targeted specifically at parish ministry in dioceses most in need of financial help. The total sum met 20 per cent. of the Church's overall running costs, in 1999, of approximately £760 million.

Given that, could more be done for the very poorest of parishes? Could some of those funds be used to enable clergy to have decent conditions of service? Could the conditions of service and rights of employment that have increasingly been made available to other people in society now be made available to the clergy as well?

In fact, £20.6 million of parish ministry support is provided by the Church Commissioners, and £15.1 million is targeted to support parish ministry in areas of greatest need. The archbishop's council is examining the content of the clergy remuneration package, the remuneration of clergy in relation to that of other groups and the financial circumstances of clergy, and its review will be given to the General Synod in November 2000.

If he will make a statement on the commissioners' policy on investment in Zimbabwe. [123701]

As at December 1999, the commissioners' overseas equities were valued at £648.1 million. The commissioners have no investments in Zimbabwe.

In the light of the brutal behaviour of the Zimbabwean Government at home, the way in which they have offended everybody abroad and the fact that they are now, without doubt, international pariahs, is the hon. Gentleman aware that that answer, on behalf of the Church Commissioners, warms the cockles of my heart?

I am pleased to be able to warm the cockles of the hon. Gentleman's heart. I should point out that the commissioners' overseas investments are managed externally by three fund managers. Those managers have discretionary powers to invest in all world equity markets, including those of the emerging economies, while complying with the commissioners' ethical criteria. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point in relation to those criteria.

What has been the increase in real terms in the level of rents charged for church land in the last 10 years. [123702]

I am not able to quantify the 10-year return on commissioners' farm lettings alone, but, over the last 10 years, the total return on all the commissioners' agricultural property has been 9.7 per cent.

When the commissioners next adjust the rents, could I urge them to read the inspiring words of the Books of Isaiah and Hosea on Christian charity, which urged that it should be extended beyond the human race to the animal species? Could not the Church Commissioners devise a way to reward those tenants who have already banned the cruel activity of fox hunting on their lands?

I would not wish to anticipate the statement of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but I will listen to it with great interest.

What advice the Church Commissioners have received about the growing of GM crops on Church land; and how they intend to monitor the results of the current round of trials. [123703]

Following extensive study and consultation, the Church of England's ethical investments advisory group—a copy of whose report has been placed in the House of Commons Library—has recommended to the commissioners that new agricultural tenancies should contain a clause restricting the use of genetically modified seeds and requiring the express consent of the commissioners to the use of their land for this purpose. The commissioners have considered and accepted this advice.

If it can be shown that there is no damage to the ecological system in introducing genetically modified crops—given, however, that controversy surrounds the subject—would the Second Church Estates Commissioner agree that it might be more sensible if the Church Commissioners were unilaterally to change their leases and take over control of matters relating to cropping on their land?

The Church Commissioners have taken fully into account the continued controversy concerning GM crops. In law, the commissioners have no power to change leases already granted, as their tenants enjoy freedom of cropping within the terms of their lease. As responsible stewards of the land that we own, we remain prudently aware of developments in this controversial area from many perspectives, including environmental stewardship.

If he will make a statement on recent trends in the number of vocations. [123704]

The trends in the number of vocations over the last four years have been rising in all categories—that is, among stipendiary ministry and also non-stipendiary and ordained local ministry. There are approximately 25 per cent. more ordinands in training than there were four years ago.

Is the hon. Gentleman confident that the Church Commissioners will be able to meet the expenses that that increase anticipates, particularly in respect of the long-term future regarding pensions?

The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the burden on the commissioners of meeting pension commitments entered into and to the need to provide a proper stipend and proper conditions for those within the Church. We are on target for that, but we are in the hands of actuaries, who often investigate these matters and give us their views.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Government amendments: Nos. 19, 22, 24, 25, 31, 101, 108 to 113 and 119.

The amendments relate to the electronic monitoring of community sentences proposed in the Bill. The measures will provide the probation service and other agencies with vital new tools to increase the protection of the public and to improve the effectiveness of community sentences through increased compliance and tougher enforcement.

The amendments relate to a change that we trailed in Committee, but before I say anything more, I would point out that these changes have nothing to do with the home detention curfew or electronic monitoring of prisoners on release on licence. I know that there has been some confusion on that point in the past, and I want to establish the facts early and to make it clear to hon. Members who want to address curfews and prisoners on licence that they will have the chance to do so, but now is not the time, as the amendments deal with other matters.

In Committee, I advised that, later in the Bill's passage, we would be considering how best to use electronic monitoring to strengthen enforcement of a range of orders. The amendments are the result of that further consideration. They replace clause 47 on monitoring of requirements in community rehabilitation orders and several other references to electronic monitoring of freestanding exclusion and curfew orders with a new, better-ordered and more comprehensive clause that enables the court, when imposing a community order, to secure the electronic monitoring of the offender's compliance with any of the requirements imposed by the terms of the order.

Obviously, that will include the electronic monitoring of offenders subject to curfew and exclusion. It will also, in due course, allow us to use technology such as voice verification systems, which could enable us to identify whether an offender is speaking from a location on an agreed list and whether the right person is responding to pre-planned or random checks. All such schemes would of course be properly piloted, but that is an example of the scope that the clause would open up in enforcing community sentences.

The amendments draw together powers enabling the electronic monitoring of the terms of freestanding curfew and exclusion orders and any requirements of any community order.

As I stated in Committee, the purpose of the amendments, apart from the obvious benefits in clarity and scope, is to enable electronic monitoring to be used to enforce more of the requirements of community orders. In addition, they apply to a wider range of those orders. Of course such schemes will be subject to the same rigorous testing and piloting as other new initiatives before they are rolled out.

The amendments also broaden the definition of an "affected person" in relation to exclusion requirements and orders to include not only those who have to give their consent to allow electronic monitoring to occur, but individuals who are, to some degree, being protected by the order or exclusion in question. The former group is already covered by the Bill, and hon. Members who were present in Committee will remember our short debate about persons who might have an interest.

An offender's victims would have an opportunity to be advised, as affected persons, about exclusion requirements and orders. That is reasonable and sensible. For example, if an offender, who hangs about a woman's house during the night, is excluded from those premises between the hours of 8 pm and 8 am, the victim should know that that is the case. That would tell her exactly what she should expect under the order, when the exclusion is in effect and when it is not. They are the only changes of substance that will be achieved under these amendments. The rest of the detail will remain effectively the same.

The Minister is right to say that the issues relating to whether it is appropriate for people to be released early on tags will arise in later debates. He knows from our extensive debates in Committee that there are many such issues, but I entirely agree that this is not the right debate in which deal with them. However, I shall put some specific questions to the Minister. He will be aware that our concern throughout—indeed, it has been expressed by Labour as well as Opposition Members—has been that proper account should be taken of working probation officers' views in particular.

The Minister is well aware that the National Association of Probation Officers has expressed grave concerns about several aspects of the Bill. As he says, he trailed in Committee the fact that further changes might be made, but has he fully consulted working probation officers and, in particular, has he taken account of the views of probation committees and the National Association of Probation Officers? The concerns expressed on both sides in Committee were real. Although it is only a relatively short time since the Committee completed its proceedings, the Government want to replace a fairly large chunk of the Bill and we want to be sure that they will not change it for the worse. I hope that the Minister will tell us about that.

I accept that many of the amendments in the group are consequential. We are discussing only one substantive change, although the grouping of amendments makes it seem as though there are many changes. We are discussing the major change in new clause 9, from which the other changes in detail flow. I hope that the Minister will also tell us whether he has taken account of the views of police officers, police organisations and the Council for Circuit Judges.

The Minister will recall that there was much discussion in Committee about whether circuit judges and lay magistrates, who are at the sharp end of using such provisions, had been consulted. There is a grave weakness in that the Government are making changes at a late stage, but they have not necessarily taken into account the views of those who will impose the sentences. There are still grave concerns. We want the Minister to tell us exactly who has been consulted on these further, detailed changes. Having said that, I do not propose to press him further, on the basis that he will deal with all those points.

I wish to raise with the Minister four short, slightly nuts-and-bolts points. I did not serve on the Committee and come to the matter slightly afresh, but the Minister knows my background in terms of sentencing and so on. When the Select Committee on Home Affairs visited an experiment in tagging and electronic monitoring in Manchester some months ago, the stipendiary magistrate told us that one of problems was that too many people who were not the defendant turned up or volunteered to be tagged and monitored to give the defendant a free hand elsewhere. That was happening quite a lot in Manchester and we were told that it was the only way in which a breach could be made. When a person reported for tagging, no accurate check was made on whether he was the one who had been sentenced. Can the Minister reassure me that that problem has been overcome?

Secondly, I speak as a sentencer when I say that quite often nowadays, when consent needs to be given, the law seems to change from time to time. For example, one used to have to get the defendant's consent before sentencing him to community service, but that is no longer the case. The new clause provides for consent on one occasion, but not on another. Although I see the point of needing consent, that leads me neatly to the third point.

Judges, recorders and stipendiaries find that many forms of sentence are being introduced nowadays and I can tell the Minister—I was about to say in confidence, but nothing I say here is confidential—that a lot of new sentences are not imposed by the courts because the form of words for them has not been issued by the Judicial Studies Board. That is a most extraordinary point to make, but it is true. It is terribly important that either the Home Office or the Lord Chancellor's Department makes sure that all sentencers are completely familiar with new forms of sentence that are being introduced and, furthermore, with the form of words to be used. If one does not know the form of words exactly, it is all too easy to think of another sentence, which might not be quite as good.

Finally, is the Minister content that the new clause's requirements for electronic monitoring are not moving us into too heavy a cost area? Will the resources be available to ensure that those problems are dealt with?

I am glad to assure the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), who speaks with great authority on these matters, that the resources will indeed be available before the amendments are brought into effect. We are anxious to ensure that we pilot and evaluate before rolling out. That also gives us the opportunity to make an assessment as to cost and, therefore, of cost-effectiveness and value in terms of that process. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about individuals' rumoured swapping of identities in an attempt to fool those responsible for administering tagging, but I have yet to have brought to my attention a single substantiated case in which that happened. That point is developing the characteristics of an urban myth.

It is anecdotal.

As the hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position, it is anecdotal. However, we are determined to ensure that that anecdote has no substantive basis and that those responsible for administering the tag are alert to the possibility that there might be an attempt to subvert the system in such a way. So far, we are not aware of a single substantiated case in which that happened.

I endorse wholeheartedly the hon. Gentleman's expression of concern that sentencers should be informed and adequately and appropriately trained in the form of words used to impose sentences. It will be important to ensure—the process has already begun in relation to other aspects of the Bill—that magistrates and other sentencers have the knowledge of the content of the sentences that they are asked to impose necessary to give them the confidence to impose those sentences. With respect, those points are well made and certainly taken.

In response to the points made by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), who speaks for the Opposition on these matters, I say that he over-eggs the pudding. I do not accept that concerns exist to the extent that he suggests. I believe that anyone who wants to ensure that the public are better protected sees the potential that the new technology represents in providing that better protection, and giving victims of crime, and those who might otherwise become victims, a sense of security and safety.

I have spoken to sentencers, probation and chief probation officers and those who head probation committees, and have widely trailed our proposals. Those to whom I have spoken have broadly welcomed them, and I have no reason to believe that the Home Office probation unit has not received the same response from those whom it has consulted.

I hope that, on that basis, Opposition Members will give these modest and, in my view, non-controversial, proposals a fair wind.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 12—Exclusion of assault on police from power to release short-term prisoners on licence—

'In section 34A of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (power to release short-term prisoners on licence), after subsection (2)(b) there is inserted—

"(bb) the sentence is for any of the following offences—

(i) an offence under section 89 of the Police Act 1996 (assaulting, obstructing or resisting a constable);

(ii) an offence under section 38 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (assault with intent to resist arrest);

(iii) an offence under section 18, section 20, or section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (wounding, causing grievous bodily harm and causing actual bodily harm) committed against a constable in the execution of his duty.".'.

New clause 13—Court to have power to direct that power to release short-term prisoner on licence shall not apply—

'In section 34A of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (power to release short-term prisoners on licence), after subsection (2)(a) there is inserted—

"(ad) the court, when passing sentence, has directed that subsection (3) shall not apply in the interests of justice, or because of the serious nature of the offence, or because the offender is a persistent offender;".'.

New clause 14—Exclusion of offenders convicted of offences punishable by maximum term of ten years or more from power to release short-term prisoners on licence—

'In section 34A of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (power to release short-term prisoners on licence), after subsection (2)(a) there is inserted—

"(ac) the sentence is for an offence for which the maximum term of imprisonment is ten years or more;".'.

New clause 15—Exclusion of offenders subject to minimum sentence for burglary from power to release short-term prisoners on licence—

'In section 34A of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (power to release short-term prisoners on licence), after subsection (2)(a) there is inserted—

"(ab) the sentence was imposed under section 111 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (minimum of three years for third domestic burglary);".'.

New clause 16—Exclusion of sex offenders from power to release short-term prisoners on licence—

'In section 34A of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (power to release short-term prisoners on licence), after subsection (2)(a) there is inserted—

"(aa) the prisoner is subject to the notification requirements of Part I of the Sex Offenders Act 1997;".'.

New clause 17—Repeal of power to release short-term prisoners on licence—

'Sections 34A, 37A and 38A of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 are repealed.'.

Government amendments Nos. 40 to 44.

The purpose of the Opposition new clauses is clear: to abolish the home detention curfew scheme in its entirety. That comes as no surprise, as on several occasions the Leader of the Opposition and, indeed, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) have made no secret of the fact that it is to be one of their manifesto pledges. I consider that to be profoundly misguided, and contrary both to the public interest and to the safety and security of our fellow citizens who benefit from the scheme.

We have no intention of abandoning the scheme, which has had a highly successful performance record in the 16 months since its implementation. It was heralded by an all-party Select Committee report, which endorsed it, and to which a number of Opposition Members—including an Opposition spokesman—were knowing and willing signatories.

The scheme is designed to assist in the successful resettlement of selected short-term prisoners, supporting the transition from custody to the community. In the overwhelming majority of cases, that is exactly what it has achieved. At its introduction, it received the unanimous support of the Committee to which I referred—the Select Committee on Home Affairs—to which the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, among others, put his name. He has now reneged on that, and put his name to new clauses seeking to abolish or reduce the scheme. No doubt we shall be told why he has changed his mind.

The Committee's report said that the scheme would

provide adequate protection to the public because of the tagging element, and will give prisoners an opportunity to readjust to life outside prison.

That expectation has been borne out by experience.

Prison governors have shown great care in conducting risk assessments. Only about 30 per cent. of eligible offenders have been placed on home detention curfew to date, and the authorities have been notified of reoffending by fewer than 2 per cent. of those people while they have been on curfew. Overall, the scheme continues to have a high successful completion rate of about 94 per cent. I challenge Opposition Members to identify a scheme in the field of criminal justice, designed to protect the public in this way, that has a better record.

4.45 pm

Overall, the scheme continues to enjoy the high successful completion rate to which I have referred. It is an impressive record by any standards. Of course, we deeply regret any further offences committed on curfew, and all breaches, but the fact remains that, in the vast majority of cases, the careful risk assessment conducted before a prisoner is allowed to join the scheme is working properly and the right decisions are being made.

My knowledge of the matter is a little rusty. Perhaps the Minister can help me. If someone who is sentenced by the courts to six months' imprisonment is released at the earliest opportunity under a home detention curfew, how long does that person actually spend in prison, when the public have been told that he has been sent to prison for six months? How long will it be?

Sentencers know very well about the scheme. Indeed, it is not a scheme that is hidden from the public. They know very well that such a person would have an opportunity, if he were eligible—and only if he were eligible—to qualify for the scheme and to be released before the halfway mark at which he would normally be released.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, I will not give way again. If the hon. Gentleman would like to remain in his seat a bit, he may learn more about the scheme.

That is not a secret or hidden. It is the basis of the home detention curfew scheme and what it is designed to achieve. Someone who is sentenced to six months in those circumstances would become eligible for a HDC having served six weeks—one and a half months—of his sentence. That is not to say that, having become eligible, he would be granted release on HDC.

I hope that that assists the hon. Gentleman. It is not a secret. It is there. People will draw their own conclusions as to how best to reintegrate such people into the community. The all-party Select Committee unanimously found that the scheme was a good way of doing that. The hon. Gentleman may take a different view. Others will take the view that it is the right way. The conclusion that we have come to, having considered the all-party Select Committee's unanimous endorsement and the evidence of how the scheme is working, is that, on balance, it is the right way forward and that now is not the time to go along the route proposed by Opposition Members.

Many of the new clauses are about reducing the scope of the scheme by excluding various categories of offenders all together. I am glad to say that, in one instance—namely, new clause 10—the Opposition support our policy. Their new clause 16 recognises, as we do, that it makes eminent sense to strengthen the existing home detention curfew scheme by excluding from it sex offenders who are subject to the Sex Offenders Act 1997. That is, in any event, our practice; it has been from the outset. We now believe it right to put that in statute, but the other proposals tabled by the Opposition are far less helpful and are designed to undermine the scheme. We are simply not going to go along with that because, in our view, that is not the best way in which to protect the public.

Under new clause 12, the Opposition wish to exclude from the home detention curfew scheme those sentenced to a range of offences committed against the police, including assault; obstructing or resisting a constable; assault with intent to resist arrest; wounding; and causing grievous bodily harm or actual bodily harm to a police officer in the execution of his duty.

The aim of new clause 13 seems to be to exclude from the home detention curfew scheme any offender who the sentencing court has directed should not be eligible for the scheme, whether in the interests of justice, because of the serious nature of the offence, or because the offender is a persistent offender, while new clause 14 would exclude prisoners convicted of an offence for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years or more. New clause 15 would exclude from the scheme prisoners sentenced to a minimum of three years for a third domestic burglary.

The issue of whether there should be a statutory exclusion for sex offenders was raised initially when the House first considered the home detention scheme, during passage of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. At the time, we argued for retaining a discretion to consider whether to place an offender subject to the 1997 Act on the scheme in cases in which the risk assessment suggested that there was minimal or no risk to the public and that there would be a clear potential benefit to the chances of successful resettlement, treatment or supervision.

The example on sex offenders that we gave the House at that time was one in which release to a treatment centre was judged to be central to a prisoner's release plan, and curfew was considered to be necessary to support the likely completion of the treatment. In practice, in the 16 months since the scheme went live, it has been apparent that establishments have not identified circumstances that justify releasing on HDC offenders subject to the 1997 Act. In fact, only one such offender has been placed on the scheme, and that placement was contrary to policy because the Director General's approval had not been sought, which was highly regrettable.

We have, therefore, taken the view that the time has come to include in statute an exception—that, if one is subject to the 1997 Act, one will not qualify for HDC. The exception reflects current practice and puts the position beyond doubt. The statutory exclusion will also ensure that, in future, there are no errors of the type that permitted the release of that particular individual without the director general's approval. I am glad that the Opposition join us in taking that step.

I should say—without labouring the point on the Opposition's new clauses on other exceptions—that, although I share the sense of outrage and even disgust at some of the categories of offence dealt with in their new clauses, I really do not believe that the way to deal with those offenders is to exclude them from the scheme. The scheme is designed to smooth the transition from custody into the community. We believe that if that transition is made in the context of order and supervision, it is less likely that the individuals concerned will offend again. For that reason, and because we are satisfied that, in each of the instances highlighted in the Opposition's new clauses, we have in place sufficiently robust risk assessment standards and tools to assess individual cases and ensure that the public are well protected, we do not feel that the Opposition's new clauses take the matter any further forward.

We urge the House to reject the Opposition's new clauses and to accept our new clause 10, which we believe gets the balance right. Our new clause will ensure that the public are protected by providing for a smoother and more ordered transition for offenders from custody into the community, and it will uphold the HDC scheme—which would be undermined if the Opposition's new clauses were accepted. The scheme is working and it is founded on sound policy. I urge the House to reject the new clauses whose effect would be, in effect, to wreck it.

As the Minister said, the amendments deal with what the Government term their "home detention curfew scheme", which might be more accurately labelled as the special early release scheme for prisoners convicted of serious offences.

As the Minister rightly pointed out, the Opposition have disliked the scheme from the very beginning. Our reservations were made clear during the early proceedings on what became the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), and my hon. Friends the Members for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison)—whom I am glad to see in his place—and for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway).

New clause 17 would seek to scrap the home detention curfew scheme altogether. Our other new clauses would seek to ameliorate some of the worst aspects of the Government's early release scheme by excluding from it certain categories of offender or offence. The Opposition would wish, if possible, to press for divisions on new clause 12 and on new clause 17, although I understand that there might be procedural difficulties.

As I said, new clause 17 would scrap the special early release scheme altogether. New clause 12 would exclude from the scheme people convicted of assaults or other serious offences against police officers. The police, who are—particularly, but not exclusively—responsible for law and order in our inner-urban areas need the support and protection of the law. That includes being certain that when someone has been sentenced to prison for an assault on a police officer, they will serve the full term that the law prescribes and will not be let out of jail early because that suits the Government's release scheme.

New clause 13 would give the courts power to direct that the home detention curfew should not apply in particular cases. New clause 14 would exclude from the scheme offenders who were imprisoned for any offence that carried a maximum sentence of 10 years or more. That clause has been drafted with an eye to the Government's own proposals on immigration rules.

The Government are saying in their consultation document following the Tyson case that they propose, as a matter of rule, to exclude from entry to the United Kingdom anybody who has been convicted of an offence which, were it committed on British soil, would carry a maximum sentence of 10 years or more.

Through the new clause, we accept that the Government are right to identify such offences as serious, and worthy of condemnation and severe penalty. We are saying that, as a matter of justice, people who have been convicted of such serious offences and sent to prison for them should be excluded from the privilege of the early release scheme.

New clause 15 would exclude from the early release scheme burglars who had been persistent offenders and had been sentenced to a mandatory minimum prison term under the terms of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, which has been consolidated into the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.

I wish to refer to the Government's new clause 10 and how it relates to our new clause 16. New clause 10 would remove from the early release scheme people who were serving a sentence following conviction for which they had been included in the sex offenders register. I welcome that concession especially because it is an aspect of the law that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere has been pressing ever since the Government introduced their original proposals for the early release scheme. Time and again, my hon. Friend and other Opposition Members have argued that the scheme should, as a matter of policy and of justice, exclude people who have been convicted of serious sexual offences and who are on the sex offenders register.

5 pm

Hitherto, the Government have said that there is no need for such statutory exclusion. They have written into the rules for prison governors to follow in carrying out their risk assessment a detailed series of steps that each must follow when considering the case for the early release of a particular sex offender. Against that background, I am glad that the Government have come forward with a concession, at least as far as it goes.

In a genuinely non-adversarial spirit, I put it to the Minister that the Government's new clause still leaves a loophole. As I read it, it would not exclude from eligibility for early release a criminal who was on the register of sex offenders because of a previous conviction but who, at the time when his case was being considered, was serving another custodial sentence for a crime that was not a sexual offence. It is not an academic prospect. I recall within the past few weeks reading of a case where a convicted paedophile who had served time in prison for such offences was subsequently released, and thereafter charged with other offences. In the end, he was convicted of an offence which, although related to his sex crimes, was not a sexual offence.

I can envisage a situation, for example, where someone is convicted of the abduction of a child, of kidnapping or of assault. He might, because of his previous convictions and his known record of sexual offending, be sent to prison on account of that non-sexual offence. However, under Government new clause 10, he would be eligible for early release under the home detention curfew scheme. Our new clause 16 seeks to relate exclusion from the scheme to the offender rather than to the particular offence for which he is serving a sentence at the time when he comes up for consideration for early release.

I would welcome the Minister taking advice on this point of detail. It may be something on which the Government wish to reflect and to which they may wish to return to at a later stage in the Bill's consideration, if they share my concern about a potential loophole in the law.

The Opposition's objections to the early release scheme remain fundamental. More than 20,000 criminals have so far been released early from prison as a result of the scheme. They are being released at an earlier point in their sentence than the normal statutory remission of 50 per cent. There are just under 2,000 offenders who are now out of prison under the scheme, when the Opposition would argue that they should still be behind bars.

Part of our objection stems from the fact that a significant number of offences have been committed by people on early release. The Minister is right to say that the number is small as a proportion of the total number of people who have been released early, but we know of 395 offenders who have been released early and have gone on to commit other crimes. Those crimes have often not been trivial. They have included five cases of threats to kill, 51 violent crimes, three rapes and 135 burglaries, robberies, thefts and similar property crimes. That represents a large number of victims. It may seem small as a percentage on the Home Office statistical returns, but it means real anguish, grief and loss for those individuals and families who have been the victims of those criminals who the Government have chosen to let out early.

I understand the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument, but do he and his party think that if a significant number of people commit offences when they are on licence, no one should have the right to release on licence? Does he take the view that, if the reduction of a sentence leads to any risk of an offence being committed, that category of release should not be permitted by law?

I do not want to stray too far from the new clauses, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the Opposition's view is that there should be much greater honesty in sentencing, so that the sentence passed by the judge is the sentence served in prison.

My party and I believe that there is certainly a place for supervision under licence at the end of a determinate sentence or after someone has served the appropriate portion of a life sentence. We see a place for tagging being used to enforce supervision and for its use in support of non-custodial penalties, but we object to its use as an excuse for the early release—release earlier than under the normal statutory arrangements—of people on whom the courts passed a particular sentence knowing what the statutory rules were. We believe that that is an affront to justice and that is why we tabled the new clauses.

The Government's early release scheme adds to the dishonesty of our sentencing system.

Who introduced that sentencing system? Who was responsible for 18 years for the sentencing policy that we inherited? Who is now reviewing that policy? The answer is that Conservative Members were responsible for the system and the Government are reviewing it.

I remind the right hon. Gentleman that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), when he was Home Secretary, introduced proposals for honesty in sentencing, If the Labour party wants to pick a fight with us over our call for greater honesty in sentencing, no one will be more delighted than the Conservative party.

Let us consider the facts. A written answer from the Home Office at column 402W of Hansard on 23 May 2000 listed the average custodial sentences passed on people who had been released early and compared them with the actual term served. For burglars, for example, the average sentence passed by the judge was 19.3 months, whereas the average term served was 7.4 months. For arsonists, the average sentence passed was 22.8 months and the average served only 9.8 months. For wounding, an average sentence of 15.6 months was passed, but the average sentence served was 6.2 months.

Most of our constituents would be outraged at the gulf between the sentences passed by judges in court and the sentences actually served. They would want Parliament to take whatever steps it could today to redress the imbalance in the law and to provide for greater honesty in sentencing.

This is an important matter, and I have heard the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members talk about it on the radio. I have one simple question for the hon. Gentleman: is it the Conservative party's view that what the hon. Gentleman calls honesty in sentencing would mean that significantly more people would go to prison and serve significantly longer sentences? I had understood that the Conservative approach was that roughly similar sentences would be passed, and that there would be similar numbers of people in prison, but that judges would hand out shorter sentences, which would be served in full.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) has made our approach very clear. We believe that honesty in sentencing and length of sentence are distinct. We assume that honesty in sentencing is desirable as a good in its own right. In calling for the abolition of the statutory 50 per cent. remission, we assume that judges would take that into account in determining the length of sentence to be passed.

We assume that the average length of sentence would come down at first. We argue that sentences for particular crimes should be longer, especially mandatory minimum sentences for repeat offenders. We have said consistently that we would regard it as a Conservative Government's prime duty to ensure that sufficient prison places were provided to house the criminals whom judges decided to send to prison.

I agree with the principle underlying my hon. Friend's contribution, but my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) and I are the only two people in the Chamber who have sent people to prison. Does my hon. Friend accept that when a judge sentences a person to a term of imprisonment, he goes on to say that the person will serve half the sentence and that the remainder will be served on licence? I accept the use of the word "dishonesty" in this argument, but the sentencing judge is not guilty of any dishonesty.

Absolutely. The judge knows what he is doing. Our criticism of what I have termed dishonesty in sentencing is that although the arrangement is familiar to those who operate the courts and the criminal justice system, the general public do not understand it. The sentencing process must be made more transparent.

I turn now to the Government's claims for the home detention curfew scheme. The Government argue that the scheme is a rehabilitative measure that works. I want to repeat that the Opposition support effective rehabilitation measures. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald in particular has made clear her passionate determination to establish a more effective rehabilitative regime in our prisons.

However, the Home Secretary has said that he measures the success of the home detention curfew by the occurrence, or absence, of convictions for reoffending only during the curfew period. In a written answer of 7 April, he made it explicit that any offending that took place after the curfew period had ended was not a factor in defining the success rate of the home detention curfew scheme.

That seems a crazy way of carrying out an assessment. If the scheme works in terms of rehabilitating criminals, surely we ought to see some results, in that criminals subject to home detention curfew will be less likely to reoffend after the end of their sentence and the curfew period, than other prisoners who have not had the benefit of early release under the Government's scheme. I think that the Government's measurement of their scheme's success is deeply flawed.

5.15 pm

Our case boils down to this: it is a matter of justice that the early release scheme should be ended. Among the 20,000 criminals who have been released early so far there are 210 people who have either committed or attempted homicide. There are people responsible for 3,342 violent crimes. There are 1,187 burglars, 811 robbers, 4,433 thieves, 3,236 drug offenders and 125 arsonists. I believe that the Government's scheme is an insult to justice and an insult to the law-abiding constituents whom we are sent here to represent and to defend.

I think that we all agree that imprisonment has a number of roles. One is the proper punishment of offenders; another is the protection of the public. By definition, while people are in prison they cannot commit further crimes, although there is some argument about the effectiveness of deterrence when it comes to committing further crimes after they leave prison.

Prison must also have a rehabilitative role. If it is to carry out that role effectively, we need to keep the provision for early release on licence with, in these cases, the added safeguard of tagging. In cases in which people have benefited from the experience of imprisonment, and the risk of early release has been properly assessed, we believe that the scheme enables the proper transition for a number of prisoners from prison to freedom. We must not underestimate the fact that some people find that difficult to cope with, because for them, prison is an easy option, as they cannot offend while they are in, and coping with freedom is a challenge for them. It is in the interests of public safety that ex-prisoners are successfully reintegrated into the community.

As the Minister said in his opening remarks, eligibility for early release does not imply that a person will automatically be released. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) said that Conservatives Members would press for a vote on new clause 12, if not on one of the other new clauses in the group. In that case, the Liberal Democrats will oppose it.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) for his comments, particularly on the sex offences provisions in new clause 10, and I am grateful to the Minister for his reply to my question. I also admired his bravura performance of ministerial confidence. The scheme that he is defending—early release through home detention—is so alien to the common sense and sense of fairness of the majority of members of the public that it takes a performance such as his to try and sweep it under the carpet and get away with it.

It would be churlish of me not to welcome new clause 10 on sex offences and the fact that the Government have, after all, accepted the point that we pressed on them from the start—namely, that serious sex offenders who are liable to registration under the Sex Offenders Act 1997 should be statutorily prevented from being part of the scheme. That is right.

I listened to the Minister's rationale for the Government's original view that, under certain circumstances, it would be possible for sex offenders to be eligible for early release. According to a written answer of 6 April 2000, there has been only one case in which such an offender was released. As the Minister accepted in his remarks, that one case illustrates just what can go wrong and how seriously it can go wrong under the arrangements that the Government have allowed to be in place for home detention curfew. The person in question had committed a serious offence of unlawful sexual intercourse with a 15-year-old girl. He was given a sentence of six months. I think that in fact he did not even serve six weeks. Because of some administrative oversight, he was released after only 35 days, and his case was not considered by the Director General, which was one of the safeguards originally recommended by the Government. The system clearly did not work then; it will be much better if, by statute, sex offenders are not eligible for early release. Most members of the public would agree with that.

The public would also be concerned at the number of violent offenders who appear to have been released under the scheme. If the statistics read out by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury are correct, the number is significant. Members of the public would be concerned about the overall honesty of the system—a point that my hon. Friend was right to make. I agree with the gist of the intervention made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) about how the courts operate and that judges are honest in passing sentences. The dishonesty occurs when the length of time an offender spends in prison bears little relationship to the sentence passed—when offenders serve only a fraction of the time that the public are told they will serve.

In his response to my intervention, the Minister pointed out that, under the provisions, someone sentenced to six months could be, and in many cases is, released after only six weeks Six months must not mean six weeks. Such a bulging gap strains the credibility of the public and their confidence in the criminal justice system.

I cannot accept the Minister's defence—not among his best-considered remarks—to part of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury, as, in essence, the right hon. Gentleman was self-contradictory. He said that the previous Conservative Government had allowed prisoners to be released after serving only part of their sentence. That is correct, although towards the end of their period in office, they were moving towards a closer relationship between the sentence imposed and the length of time served.

However, the Minister is now adopting the position that the sentence should be less. In every case, the average sentences to which my hon. Friend referred are less than they would have been before the home detention curfew provisions were introduced. Prisoners are allowed on home detention curfew after they have served only a small fraction of their sentence in prison. We are not being honest in what we tell the public.

The public do not like such dishonesty. I am not convinced that they would be so severe in passing sentence. Research shows that, in the majority of cases—especially those involving non-sexual or non-violent offences—members of the public would not pass especially severe sentences. They do not constantly demand ever more severe sentences. What they want is honesty. That is the inconsistency in the Government's system.

The points made by my hon. Friend are correct. The new clauses will give a little assistance in improving a bad system—especially in cases involving police officers. It is unfair that the public should be told that a man who has assaulted a police officer will be given a sentence of six months, when that person will be out on the streets in six weeks. That cannot be honest.

I emphasise those points about honesty in sentencing because I am not against tagging as such. Tagging has an interesting history. It was pioneered by the previous, Conservative Government—[Interruption.] An hon. Member says it was abandoned. It was certainly not greeted by bouquets and assistance from the Labour Opposition. Whenever possible, they opportunistically extracted the maximum political advantage—whether or not their statements were consistent. They certainly did not hand out bouquets.

The previous Government were right to persist with tagging, even though there were some technical problems initially. Tagging is right as a sentence. It is also an acceptable way to deal with someone whose liberty needs to be constrained while awaiting a court appearance. It is better for such people to be tagged than to be locked up in prison. However, it should not apply to people sentenced for serious offences. The Minister will confirm that people are eligible to be tagged for offences when the courts have sentenced them to up to four years imprisonment. The offences committed can encompass serious offending.

It would be far better if we explored the use of tagging as a sentence in its own right and as an alternative in appropriate cases to people going to prison. For example, it is particularly appropriate for tagging to be considered for women prisoners. In the past few years, under the previous Government and under this Government, there has been an extraordinary growth in the number of women prisoners. Under this Government alone, the number of women in prison has risen by 30 per cent., which is faster than the rate at which men are being imprisoned. However, women do not tend to commit the serious violent offences that cause most concern to the public. The Government are creating more prison places to lock up more women while they are releasing under the home detention curfew scheme men who have been convicted of serious offences, including offences of violence.

The Government are getting criminal justice sentencing into a crazy mess. The system needs to be put right and our new clauses would go some way to doing that. However, the system is so dishonest that we need to take a much more root-and-branch approach. I hope that such an approach will come in due course so that we can give the public a system of sentencing that is honest with them and in which they can have confidence.

I do not think that it is so much honesty in sentencing—of course, we need that—but clarity in sentencing that we want. One of the problems that I face as a sentencer is that I must scratch my head before I pass a sentence. If I pass a sentence of six months, I tell the defendant that he will be released on licence after three months. Provided that he keeps his nose clean while he is on licence, that is the last he will hear about it. However, if he does not, he will return to prison to serve the balance of his sentence. The same principle applies if I pass a sentence of four years in the Crown court for a serious case of burglary. Before someone passes sentence, the question that he or she must ask is, "Wait a minute. Do I really want this person to serve four years, or shall I say four years on the basis that he or she will serve two?" It is a head-scratching exercise.

The home detention curfew scheme will cause a little more head scratching. As I understand it, when we pass a sentence, we do not mention the home detention curfew scheme at all. It is purely an administrative rather than a judicial matter. In sentencing a person, one passes what one considers to be the right sentence and warns about offending on licence. However, whether someone comes out under the home detention curfew scheme is an administrative decision and, unfortunately, the judge knows nothing about that—someone else makes the decision.

I hope that the Minister will confirm that the decision as to who, under the home detention curfew scheme, comes out and is tagged for the balance of the sentence is made not by the judiciary, but by either the Home Office or a prison governor. I might not have a problem if either of them takes the decision, but it makes it a bit difficult for the sentencer to understand whether the sentence that he has imposed will mean what he intends it to mean.

That takes us back to the thorny old question of whether release on a home detention curfew is meant to rehabilitate. Clearly, the scheme is Treasury-driven because it will save money. I remember that, in the 1980s, the Conservative party released many prisoners because it was cheaper to do that. I am sure that we did that.

Is there not a qualitative and profound difference between releasing people early to save money and home detention curfews that attend to the rehabilitative needs of the prisoner and to the protection of society?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I do not think that the home detention curfew scheme is rehabilitative. We need to see some pretty firm statistics to show that people do not reoffend, not just in the period while they are under the curfew, but in the period after the curfew. Rehabilitation is meant to be a long-term process.

The Minister will accept that we must be careful about sentencing in general. We must not take a mismatch approach by which we add to, and subtract from, the legislation each year. If the result of such an approach is that sentencers do not understand the sentences that they pass, that defendants need to employ a senior Queen's counsel to explain to them and that the public do not understand what is happening, we have a problem.

The Minister teased my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) about his work on the Home Affairs Committee, and I speak for my right hon. and hon. Friends when I say that my hon. Friend contributed massively to the Committee during the all-too-brief period for which he was a member of it. The Minister knows as well as I do that sometimes on Select Committees one has to cede point A to gain point B and that the fact that the report was unanimous does not mean that everyone agreed with all its conclusions. Otherwise, I would have been thought to have changed my mind at least six times on various issues in the past few months.

I am afraid that I am less charitable than the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) towards the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), but perhaps that is not a surprise, bearing in mind our respective positions. We have had a good debate, although I did not think we would.

It has been brief.

I hear the silent one mutter that it has been brief, but it has also been important in teasing out the issues and where we agree and where we do not. The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) made a serious and considered contribution to the debate, and I shall reflect on several of the remarks he made. I am bound to say that I come to a different conclusion on the home detention curfew scheme, but I welcome his support for electronic tagging and the new technology as an aid to sentences. We need to ensure, however, that we have greater clarity and transparency in sentencing, and I agree with the hon. Member for Woking in that respect.

I prefer the phrase "clarity and transparency" to the language adopted by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), which rather marred his contribution. He seeks to be all things to all people in this matter and seeks to give the impression that he would, given half the chance, be tougher on crime than me or the Government. That simply is not the case. He must understand that he is being disingenuous in his call for greater honesty in sentencing, thereby suggesting that the existing system is dishonest, bearing in mind the fact that it was successive Conservative Governments who were responsible for the sentencing system that we inherited.

The hon. Member for Woking argued that one has to cede some points in order to gain others, but the difficulty for his party is that it signed up to the sentencing system for 18 years. You cannot now wriggle out of the consequences of your actions in relation to existing sentencing policy and the framework that you established when you were in government. [Interruption.] I mean the Conservatives, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you, of course, had no part in it whatever.

We recognise that the sentencing framework is flawed and we are going to change it. I look forward to a considered and constructive contribution from, among others, the hon. Members for Hertsmere and for Woking, as well as the shadow Attorney-General, to that process. It has to be done, because we need greater clarity and transparency. I would argue that we also need, in some cases, greater toughness in terms of the length of sentences. It is however disingenuous of the Opposition, in their call for greater honesty in sentencing, to attempt to give the impression that longer sentences will necessarily be served as a result of such a policy being implemented. We believe some categories—certainly in the case of burglary and arguably in cases of violent crime, in which there has been an unacceptable increase—ought to lead to longer terms of imprisonment being served by offenders, hence the action taken by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in introducing the "three strikes and you're out" policy.

We have to understand that, although the home detention curfew scheme is designed to ensure a smoother and better-ordered transition between custody and freedom, it is part of the sentence. A home detention curfew and the paraphernalia of a tagged person are signs that society requires limitations on liberty and a certain form of order and conduct as part of a sentence served, not in a custodial setting, but in a home setting, as a precursor to ultimate liberty.

So that our debate is better informed, will the Minister state the relative cost, on a daily, monthly or annual basis, of a home detention order, a tagging order and a prison place; and, in the event of there being no tags or home detention orders, how many additional prison places the Government would need at their disposal?

I shall certainly write to the hon. and learned Gentleman with that detailed information. His intervention enables me to draw the House's attention to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Woking that the measure is Treasury-driven. That is a simplistic approach. As the figures that I will make available to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) will illustrate, a degree of saving to the public purse is entailed, but that should not cause the House to underestimate or ignore the added benefit and value of creating, after a rigorous process of risk assessment, a framework of law and technology around the offender by which that individual's transition front custody to the community is better managed.

That issue was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) in his intervention. The HDC scheme continues to have a high successful completion rate of about 90 per cent., and only 2 per cent. have been notified as having reoffended while on curfew. That demonstrates that, in the vast majority of cases, the careful risk assessment undertaken is working as it should, and that the care and attention given to the matter by governors is ensuring that public protection is enhanced by these arrangements for the return to the community of offenders who have been carefully selected as eligible and properly placed on the scheme. It also demonstrates that the risk assessment carried out manages and minimises the risk of individuals reoffending during that period.

rose—

I am not giving way now. The hon. Gentleman has just returned to the Chamber, and we must make progress.

The effectiveness of the risk assessment management and the minimisation of risk during the period that would otherwise have been served in custody are the proper measure of the success or otherwise of the scheme. That does not mean that one should overlook the ultimate goal of rehabilitation in the medium and longer term. That applies across the board, but we judge the success or otherwise of the scheme by what occurs during that period.

This group of amendments includes Government amendments Nos. 40 to 44, which are technical changes relating to the power to attach conditions to release licensees. The amendments will ensure that all young offenders who are released following a period of detention may have electronic monitoring or, in the case of over-18s, drug-testing requirements imposed as release conditions.

Amendments Nos. 40 to 44 correct a technical flaw in the current draft of the Bill which would prevent young offenders—including those up to 21 years of age—from having electronic monitoring or drug-testing conditions imposed. That, clearly, is undesirable, for the reasons outlined by the hon. Member for Hertsmere. Technology has something to offer sentencers in terms of public protection, and should be used.

The need for amendment arises from the fact that clauses 56 and 58 refer specifically to those released from sentences of imprisonment. However, sentences imposed on young offenders are not legally defined as sentences of imprisonment. Young offenders are sentenced to periods of detention and may serve their detention in accommodation other than a prison. The exclusion of young offenders from the provisions in the Bill was not intended, and the amendments remedy the situation, while retaining the proviso that drug testing conditions will not be available in respect of under-18s.

With that explanation, and following a good debate, I hope that the House will give the Government new clause and amendments the fair wind that they deserve.

I had not intended to contribute to the debate, but some of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks have provoked me, in a gentle way, to do so.

Any savings that will be achieved through the home detention curfew or by the tagging of early-release prisoners will fall to the benefit of the Treasury as a whole. I invite the Government to allow the Prison Service, which is already under huge financial strain—I speak as a Member of Parliament for a constituency that has within it Gartree prison and also part of the estate of the Glen Parva young offenders institution—to keep the savings made, so that it can reinvest that money in additional facilities at prisons and in additional services for prisoners, especially for the rehabilitation of prisoners.

I note that in my constituency prison, Gartree, the probation service is less well represented in terms of numbers—the quality, I am sure, is excellent—and the education services have had to be cut as a consequence of Government restrictions on Prison Service finances. I trust that the Government, who, I have no doubt, believe in honesty in all things, will allow honesty in financing, as well as honesty in sentencing.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 32 to 39, 63 to 96, 100, 103 to 107 and 117.

In Standing Committee, a new clause—now clause 55—was introduced to abolish the sentence of detention in a young offenders institution. Following the abolition of that sentence, all convicted defendants over the age of 18 will be sentenced as adults. The Government consulted on those proposals last year and there was broad agreement on them. In Committee, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said that further minor amendments would be tabled around the clause. We are now considering those amendments.

Despite the number of amendments—that may have caused a few raised eyebrows among Conservative Members—I assure hon. Members that they are minor and consequential. We are also considering an amendment to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to provide a power for the police to authorise a young person's release on bail for administering a reprimand or a final warning. If I take a few moments to explain the amendments and answer one or two questions about them, it may save later interventions. I am conscious that there is a great deal of interest in the next group of amendments.

New clause 11 and one set of amendments in the group deal with the repeal of the power to set up remand centres. No remand centres have ever been set up under that power. Clause 55 is founded on an acceptance of the age of majority as the best sentencing threshold. That removed the principal rationale for the existence of remand centres.

Another set of amendments in the group relates to the repeal of section 108 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. The amendments will ensure that all persons aged 18 or over who are detained for default in the payment of a fine, or for contempt of court, are treated in the same way.

A further set of amendments in the group will ensure that the legislation governing sentences issued by courts martial reflects as far as possible the changes that clause 55 makes to the civilian sentencing regime.

The main principle of abolishing the sentence of detention in a young offenders institution has not changed. The amendments, together with consequential changes to other legislation, make no substantive changes. They simply complete the legislative picture.

I am conscious of the interest in the next group of amendments. I therefore invite the House to give these amendments a fair wind.

The Parliamentary Secretary is right to say that there was some discussion in Standing Committee of the way in which the original provisions would apply to young offenders. We also accept that the Government's proposals were fairly trailed in Standing Committee. We divined that many amendments in the group were consequential.

All parties share a special concern about the treatment of young offenders. As the Parliamentary Secretary knows from our debate in Committee, before becoming Members of Parliament, many members of the Committee in differing professional capacities had experience of dealing with young offenders. I prosecuted and defended in juvenile courts over several years. It is fair to say that hon. Members are united in wanting to ensure a proper regime for young offenders.

We acknowledge the accuracy of the Parliamentary Secretary's comments on the relevant clause of the Prison Act 1952. It has not been used, and there is no reason for it to remain on the statute book. We are not therefore considering a matter of enormous division between the parties. However, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, as I asked the Minister of State, Home Office on an earlier group of amendments, to confirm whether the Government have consulted the National Association of Probation Officers, the Council for Circuit Judges and others about the further amendments. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) stressed, we think it important that those who are sentencing are clear about what the Government are doing.

In his helpful and considered contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for Woking referred to the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which the Minister of State has repeatedly prayed in aid on Second Reading, in Committee and in his remarks today. He and the Parliamentary Secretary will be aware that a substantial part of that report relates directly to young offenders.

I reject some of the more specious arguments used by the Minister of State in our earlier debate. Indeed, to use his own word, he was disingenuous. In examining the whole Select Committee report which, as he said repeatedly, is unanimous, one must look especially carefully at the sections relating to young offenders. I am sure that we are not divided on that. As the Government arrange the passage of the Bill through its remaining parliamentary stages, I hope that they will examine carefully what is contributed by experts in various professional fields dealing with young offenders, and that they will take into account further submissions.

In Committee, both Ministers said, fairly, that they had an open mind about looking at the treatment of young offenders and ideas that may be brought forward. I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary, in winding up the short debate on this group, confirmed that the Government's mind remains open to further suggestions. Clearly, this is an area in which there can be great scope for expert opinion to put forward new ideas all the time. In the light of concerns expressed about the disposal of young offenders in serious cases, arising from the treatment of Thompson and Venables in the James Bulger case, which we debated extensively in Committee, the Government must be careful to bear in mind the views of the European Court on such matters.

In relation to what was said about treating all those over 18 as adult offenders, in the past and under Governments of both parties it has been an article of faith in the criminal justice system that there are special factors affecting those between 18 and 21. The Parliamentary Secretary will recall that, in Committee, we debated the tragic history of suicides of young adults remanded to adult prisons, and of those in places such as Feltham and Armley. The Government take that suicide rate very seriously indeed, but I am earnest in urging the Parliamentary Secretary to say again that the Government recognise the particular vulnerabilities of those aged 18 to 21 who are serving sentences. In Committee, we had quite a lot of debate about whether 21 was a crucial age. The Government take such matters seriously, as both we and the Liberal Democrats sought to do in Committee, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will confirm that they will continue to do so.