This part of the Bill on the release of prisoners on licence is welcome and the Government are doing precisely what is needed. However, although what the clause means will be evident to judges and lawyers, unfortunately, the public are missing out yet again. We are in danger of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory because having introduced the positive concept of custody plus, we are putting it to the public as imprisonment minus. We all seem to agree on the concepts in the chapter relating to the release of prisoners on licence, but I wonder whether we could not phrase the provisions in such a way that would enable the ordinary member of the public to understand them.

It is the old cliché; offenders get 12 months but are out after six. The chapter turns that round so that an offender will get six months but must keep his nose clean for another six. In their wording, the Government have failed to recognise that they need to change the public's perception. I tabled amendment No. 919, which, sadly, was not selected, but in which I defined ''sentence'' as the term of imprisonment, plus that which was served in the community or on licence. Until the terms are clear, not only for the Committee and for judges but for the public, the sentencing process will lack credibility. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to bring the public's perception in line with reality, so that a member of the public down at the Dog and Duck does not have to engage in judicial archaeology to understand why an individual leaves prison after six months. We can explain that honestly, and I hope that the Minister will do so. Otherwise, instead of calling the chapter ''Release of prisoners on licence'', we should call it ''The dishonest sentencing section.'' We need to restore that honesty, otherwise we shall be talking to ourselves and not involving members of the public in their criminal justice system.