Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

I seek clarification from the Minister about the implications of this wide-ranging clause. It gives the Secretary of State power to amend by order the proportion of a custodial sentence of 12 months or more that must be served in prison before release. It also enables the Secretary of State to amend by order an extended sentence given for serious sexual or violent offences under clauses 207 and 208. Such sentences must be served before a prisoner is eligible for release on the recommendation of the Parole Board.

The clause does not qualify the power of the Secretary of State; he could, in theory, tell Parliament that rather than 50 per cent. of the original sentence being spent inside, 60 per cent., 75 per cent. or 99 per cent. will be spent inside. He could also say that the entirety of the extended sentence could be spent inside. I am uncomfortable with the clause, as it undermines the principle of legislation that the Government introduced on the basis of the Halliday report and other consultation.

It introduces custody plus and custody minus, and it introduces a regime under which people can be given a twin-part sentence. Usually, it is 12 months or under or 51 weeks or under. Some of us would like three months of the sentence to be spent inside and the rest outside. If a sentence is longer than 12 months it

should be split, and if it is an extended sentence there is an add-on for risk. We ought not to include a clause that could allow these provisions to be ripped up and rewritten by order—even one that required parliamentary approval. If we accept the principle that it is important to get sentencing guidelines and the balance between custody and licence right, we need primary and not secondary legislation. I would need a great deal of persuading that the clause should stay in the Bill.

This is simply a re-enactment of the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, subject to affirmative resolution. That may help the hon. Gentleman. The clause also enables the Secretary of State to amend by order the proportion of an extended sentence for certain sexual and violent offences, and that relates to clauses 207 and 208, which must be served before a prisoner is eligible for release on the recommendation of the Parole Board.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about the procedure that clause 240 provides for, but I can only reaffirm that it carries forward what is already in the 1991 Act.

I am aware of existing legislation. Is there absolutely no limitation on the Secretary of State's power? The clause will allow him to introduce draft orders removing all the licence provisions and also orders for non-custodial elements for general or extended sentences. There is no limitation on his powers; he could remove the provisions of custody plus and custody minus completely if he wished. Perhaps the clause remains in the Bill because the word-processor reprinted it without people having thought through its implications in the light of custody plus and custody minus.

Custody plus and custody minus are based on the principle that a sentence will be in halves. The clause is a legacy of the old regime; I wonder whether it is not a leftover. Perhaps there was a mini discussion among civil servants or Ministers, who said, ''Oh, look; it is not really consistent, but shall we leave it in?'' I guess that they said that it would be good to give the Secretary of State the opportunity to have lots of power, so they left it in. That is not a good enough reason for keeping it. Will the Minister confirm that it is unqualified, and explain how it is consistent with the new regime?

It does not relate to custody plus or to intermittent custody. I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, but the Government are understandably wedded to these new structures, as they form an important part of the Bill's sentencing provisions. However, I am happy to confirm that this power—as I say, it is a re-enactment—could alter the relevant proportion of sentences of 12-months plus, or of extended sentences, if that were the wish of the Secretary of State; and it would be subject to the affirmative resolution, so a case would have to made to the House of Commons and voted upon.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 15, Noes 2.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 240 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 241 and 242 ordered to stand part of the Bill.