I beg to move amendment No. 554, in

clause 225, page 124, line 33, leave out 'and' and insert 'to'.

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 710, 556, 557, 559 to 563, and 567.

The amendments, with the exception of No. 567, amend the provisions for home detention curfew to accommodate intermittent custody. As currently drafted, the clause does not reflect the fact that during intermittent custody the defendant does not serve the custodial and licence periods in continuous, single blocks of time. Given that offenders serving intermittent custody will have been assessed as suitable for the sentence, which involves regular periods on licence in the community, it is likely

that they will also be suitable for release on home detention curfew, so the provisions for home detention curfew must be amended to apply to intermittent custody.

Amendments Nos. 554, 710, 556, 557 and 559 rephrase terms representing portions of an offender's sentence into numbers of custodial days left to be served. Amendments Nos. 560 and 561 ensure that the power to amend those portions by order refers to the new intermittent custody provisions. Amendment No. 562 omits a reference to subsection (3)(i), because it has been moved to subsection (4)(b) by amendment No. 560. Amendment No. 563 adds new definitions for terms used in calculating home detention curfew for intermittent custody.

Amendment No. 567 relates to the curfew conditions of home detention curfew licences. In the case of other prison sentences in which home detention curfew is granted, the curfew condition remains in place until the date the offender would have been released if he or she had not received home detention curfew. The wording is not appropriate for intermittent custody, with its intermittent licence periods. In that sentence, an offender will be subject to home detention curfew for the number of days equal to the number of custodial days that he or she would have had left to serve if they had not been released on home detention curfew.

As an example, to explain to hon. Members, who, I am sure, are following carefully, take an offender who has been given 60 days of custody within a 40-week sentence of intermittent custody to be served at weekends. If he is given home detention curfew, he will serve three quarters of that—45 days—in custody, which leaves 15 days. When he is released on his 45th day he will serve 15 days on home detention curfew. Following that, he remains on intermittent custody licence for the remainder of the 40 weeks. The intention is that the offender serves his home detention curfew in a single block following his release on the final day of custody, which is a much more sensible way of trying to accommodate home detention curfew and intermittent custody than trying to weave the home detention portions in between the periods of intermittent custody.

In other words, the home detention is saved up and put on the end, so that things are much clearer. One of the great advantages of that is that one would not have to put tags on and off during the sentence. There would be one period during which someone on intermittent custody would serve on the tag. That would be at the end, after the days had been added up, as in the example that I gave. I hope that that is clear.

The Minister could not have been clearer in his exposition. Consolidation of sentences is sensible and we all applaud it.

Has the Home Office done any research into the application of home detention curfews? We know that in general they work well—I think that the successful completion rate is about 90 per cent., which is good news. However, there is at least some evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, that there is an inconsistency among different institutions in their readiness to use

home detention curfew, and that prisoners' chances of securing a release via that mechanism vary considerably depending on whether they are in local prisons, which seem to use the scheme far less than other institutions. I am sure that the Minister would agree that at least broad consistency would be of benefit. Why do different institutions have different attitudes?

Following my hon. Friend's point, I wish to ask for two more bits of information. First, is there any developmental evidence of the success of the home detention curfew? Do we have year-by-year percentage comparisons of curfew periods that show whether there was reoffending? Secondly, are percentage figures available for prisoners who did not reoffend during the two years afterwards?

It might be helpful if the Minister set out, as this has been occasionally controversial, the normal procedure for home detention curfews. My understanding is that there are two control mechanisms: an electronic one and the rules that set out where and when a released prisoner must be. Those are interrelated, and we need to understand current practices. If somebody is released on a home detention curfew, what checks and balances are there to ensure that if they break the rules they will be picked up? How well does the technology work? There has been a battle to establish confidence in the system. It is a sensible system, as it allows for rehabilitation in the community. It is a good and worthwhile initiative.

My hon. Friend spoke about local prisons. The prison establishment, for obvious reasons, is spread throughout the country, and that means, for example, that a significant number of prisoners from the south-east of England are imprisoned many miles from home. The provision of places, however, is spread more evenly. What plans does the prisons estate have to reorganise—and it has been done several times before—the provision so that we can maximise the number of prisoners from London and the south-east who go to prison, particularly for less serious offences, in London and the south-east? That would greatly reduce the concerns of prisoners and their families.

A similar concern is felt in Wales. There are not enough prison places for prisoners there, and many Welsh prisoners are sent to English prisons. When I was at prisons in Swansea and Cardiff, I was struck that there may be spare capacity. I am aware, however, that Swansea prison has experienced rebuilding problems. There are some very good specialised prisons in Wales such as the one at Usk in Monmouthshire. Is there a likelihood that prisoners from London and from Wales will be imprisoned nearer home?

A research study on the first 16 months of the curfew scheme commissioned by the Home Office was published in June 2001. It showed that home detention curfew assists prisoners in their transition back into the community. The home detention curfew scheme came into operation in January 1999; since then, more than 64,000 offenders have participated in the scheme. There are about 3,000 prisoners on curfew at any one time. About 90 per cent. of prisoners complete home detention

curfew successfully, and less than 3 per cent. are reported to reoffend. The remaining recalls are due either to breaches of the curfew conditions or to an inability to monitor electronically—for example, if accommodation is lost—because in order to work the system needs suitable accommodation, with a telephone to which the monitoring device can be attached.

In practice, the curfew period usually lasts from 7 pm to 7 am, and the offender is electronically monitored by means of a tagging device linked to the telephone. I think that I am right in saying that the tagging device sends out a signal, and if that signal is not received by the monitoring device because the person has gone away from the home—in other words, the person has not complied with the curfew conditions—that is identified by the monitoring company. Inquiries will clearly be made as to the reason. It might be a legitimate reason—for instance, someone has suddenly been taken ill and had to go to hospital—but the person may have decided not to comply with the curfew conditions, in which case the HDC will be brought to an end.

As I have said, there are clear trigger points at which the contractors are required to send breach reports to the Prison Service. All breach reports are considered and, when appropriate, acted on within 24 hours. We carefully monitor the contractors to ensure that they are issuing breach reports at the appropriate time.

The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey raised a broader issue about prison places. I acknowledge that he and all hon. Members will be aware of the problem, particularly given the current population pressures on the Prison Service, and the difficulties that inherently result from trying to keep prisoners close to their families—something that the Prison Service works hard to achieve. When taking decisions about the provision of additional prison capacity, the Prison Service pays close regard to the point that he raised. For example there are two new prisons: one at Peterborough and one at Ashford—that is not Ashford in Kent, but the Ashford to the west of London.

Middlesex.

Yes. It is intended in part to meet the particular concern expressed by the hon. Gentleman. I am aware also of the concerns that he raised about Wales. We are aware of the difficulties. The Prison Service does its best, but it has to juggle a number of considerations. The first is the desire for prisoners to be close to their homes. The second is whether the prison is appropriate to the prisoner's category. The third is whether, within that category of prison, there is space to undertake courses that are a necessary part of their rehabilitation. At all times, those three factors are being juggled by the Prison Service as it tries to accommodate its strongest objective, which is to ensure that people can be close to home whenever possible.

Are presumptions made in favour of home detention curfew releases? It struck me, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey was speaking, that one deficiency is the lack of mother and baby units in secure detention—and those that we have are effectively in the wrong place to provide a service for large swathes of the country. An offending mother with a baby is a good example of a class of offender who could, as a priority, properly be released under the scheme instead of being sent to mother and baby units a long way from their other children and the rest of the family.

All those who are eligible for HDC will be considered. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the exclusions, but someone who fits the circumstances that he described who is eligible for HDC would clearly be considered, subject to meeting the requirements of the scheme—for instance, that there is accommodation to which they can be released. One of the reasons why people who would otherwise be eligible for getting HDC are not released is that they have nowhere to go where the monitoring device can be attached. Otherwise, subject to satisfactory accommodation being available and to meeting the other requirements of the scheme, there is no reason why people should not be able to participate in it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 710, in

clause 225, page 124, line 33, leave out from 'may' to end of line 36 and insert—

'(a) release on licence under this section a fixed term prisoner aged 18 or over, other than a prisoner serving a sentence of intermittent custody, at any time during the period of 90 days ending with the day on which the prisoner will have served the requisite custodial period, and

(b) release on licence under this section a prisoner serving a sentence of intermittent custody when 90 or less of the required custodial days remain to be served.'

No. 556, in

clause 225, page 124, line 37, leave out '(1)' and insert '(1)(a)'.

No. 557, in

clause 225, page 124, line 41, at end insert—

'(2A) Subsection (1)(b) does not apply in relation to a prisoner unless—

(a) the number of required custodial days is at least 56, and

(b) the prisoner has served—

(i) at least 42 of those days, and

(ii) at least three-quarters of the total number of those days.'.—[Hilary Benn.]

I beg to move amendment No. 558, in

clause 225, page 125, line 16, leave out from beginning to 'or' in line 17.

Subsection (3) lists those offenders not eligible for home detention curfew. Subsection (3)(h) relates to the prisoner's return to prison at any time under section 116 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, which provides that if an offender who has been released from prison commits another imprisonable offence before his sentence has expired, the court may order his return to prison to serve a period of imprisonment not exceeding the length of the period between the date of the new offence and the expiry date of the sentence. Section 116 applies to all

sentenced prisoners from the date of their release to the expiry date of the sentence, whether they are released on licence or not. The Bill repeals section 116, as offenders will remain on licence until the end point of their sentence: that is, there is no unexpired part of the sentence beyond the licence period. Clauses 232 and 233 provide for the recall of prisoners while on licence.

The amendment removes that category of prisoner from the list of exclusions for home detention curfew. Statutorily excluding from home detention curfew prisoners who have previously breached conditions while on licence unnecessarily limits the discretion of governors when considering such prisoners for release on HDC in future sentences. However, governors will, of course, continue to take such breaches into account when assessing whether an offender is suitable for release on HDC in future.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 559, in

clause 225, page 125, line 21, at end insert

'or, where the sentence is one of intermittent custody, the number of the required custodial days remaining to be served is less than 14'.

No. 560, in

clause 225, page 125, line 25, leave out '(1)' and insert

'(1)(a) or (b), (2A) or (3)(i)'.

No. 561, in

clause 225, page 125, line 28, at end insert 'or (2A)(b)(ii)'.

No. 562, in

clause 225, page 125, leave out lines 29 to 31.

No. 563, in

clause 225, page 125, leave out lines 32 and 33 and insert—

'(5) In this section—

''the required custodial days'', in relation to a person serving a sentence of intermittent custody, means—

(a) the number of custodial days specified under section 165, or

(b) in the case of two or more sentences of intermittent custody, the aggregate of the numbers so specified;

''the requisite custodial period'', in relation to a person serving any sentence other than a sentence of intermittent custody, has the meaning given by paragraph (a), (b) or (d) of section 224(3);

''sentence of intermittent custody'' means a sentence to which an intermittent custody order relates.'.—[Hilary Benn.]

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 225, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.