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

I am conscious that we have only half an hour left of the morning sitting, but we have come to one of the most important clauses—important because it deals with the cost of the whole enterprise. I would have preferred a proper debate on the questions that flow from it, but we are not going to get one.

The explanatory notes include a section on the financial effects of the Bill. It states that the cost of implementation in the first year will be £34 million, that it will cost £195 million next year and £301 million, £361 million, £378 million and £390 million in the following four financial years, and that there will be costs of the order of £390 million a year thereafter. Those are described as gross costs. It next states:

''There will also be significant potential savings, although these have not yet been fully quantified.''

My first question relates to those two elements, the costs and the savings. Is the Minister able to tell us whether there has been any change in the gross costs since we started working on the Bill; and more important, has any work been done on what might be the potential savings of the changes?

My second question relates to whether further progress has been made regarding the implementation date of custody plus and custody minus. One of the bases on which the Bill was intended to proceed was that we should move to that new regime, but we have received mixed messages as to whether and when the money will be available. It is no good passing laws relating to new systems that will not be implemented for years.

My third question concerns the fact that the average cost of keeping a prisoner inside is now £36,000 a year, as confirmed by today's papers. It would be helpful for the Minister to put on record the average annual cost of dealing with a prisoner who has a non-custodial sentence—such as a suspended sentence or a community order—so that both we and the public can make a comparison.

I appreciate that, for reasons of time, the Minister might have to reply to my fourth point later. Starting on page 129 of the explanatory notes, there is a page-long list of things that are described in paragraph 640 as

''The main financial implications of the Bill for the public sector''.

Some of those items are amplified in the following notes, but others are not mentioned. That is a general concern, but I will just concentrate on two matters. Can the Minister give an indication of the cost of the move to recording witness statements on video, which is covered in clauses 121 and 122? That is not amplified elsewhere. More important is the controversial change that we have discussed:

''General limits on magistrates' court's power to impose imprisonment (clauses 137 to 139)'',

which will increase the power to change to up to 12 months. It is flagged up as having a cost but that cost is not explained, as far as I can see. In paragraph 656 there is a general description of the cost of clauses 137 to 139. Has any work been done to assess the costs that would be incurred if magistrates' powers were to be extended beyond 12 months?

Lastly, I refer to the breakdown of the cost implications of the key areas in the second half of the list on page 130, which is not set out in the paragraphs up to the end of paragraph 659. Can the Minister ensure that we have them as soon as possible?

The Bill is described by the Government as having huge financial implications. The most interesting question is how much money it is expected to save. Ministers in the Home Office and in the Lord Chancellor's Department keep talking about having a more efficient criminal justice system. I would hope that that would mean that there were some savings, not just additional costs.

I do not entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that a reading of the financial effects of the

Bill, as provided for in the explanatory notes, suggests that, by the standards of the Government's expenditure, there will be an enormous financial impact. There will be an enormous financial impact, but not necessarily for the reasons set out in the notes. I am not clear about the extent to which the increase in the number of people in custody is reflected in the notes. I suspect that it is not. I hazard the suggestion that that will be the single biggest element.

If the Minister were in a position to help us, he might take us into the realms of saying that the Bill will be substantial in every sense: a financial Bill rather than a legislative Bill. I would be grateful to hear from the Minister on that. Of the other costs, although they are certainly not insubstantial, £7 million or £8 million seems to be money that the Exchequer puts into petty cash these days; although those sums matter very much to the taxpayer and to those who have to scrutinise Government expenditure. I am particularly concerned about the financial effect of the rising prison population. It is a very opaque area because there is a great deal of uncertainty about the real effect of this legislation on the prison population.

I cannot add much to what I have already told the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey about the phasing in of the implementation. The Government continue to reflect on the best and quickest way of doing that. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the major determining factor in the introduction of custody plus, a measure on which everyone is very keen, is increasing the capacity of the probation service. More money is being invested in the service and more staff are being recruited to it. The sooner those staff are in place, the quicker the measures can be effected. It might help if I say that revised costs and savings, which was the central thrust of the questions, will be provided in the explanatory notes when the Bill goes to the other place.

I can give the hon. Gentleman some information about the cost of non-custodial sentences. For example, the cost of a community rehabilitation order is £2,030; including an accredited programme to it would add a further £350. A community punishment order costs £1,780; enhanced community punishment is slightly more costly at £1,895. A drug testing and treatment order costs £6,000, and a curfew order costs £1,600. The intensive control and change programme, which is in effect the equivalent of the intensive supervision and surveillance programme—ISSP—and which the probation service plans to pilot for 18 to 20-year-olds, costs about £6,000. I will reflect on the point that the hon. Gentleman made about further specific costing, where that is possible, in the explanatory notes. As I say, revised figures will be provided in further copies of the notes.

In relation to magistrates' sentencing powers and the courts' interpretation and use of the Bill's provisions, the Government have already said that they believe that the impact on the prison population will, when all the provisions have worked their way

through, be slightly below 1,000. I say that with the proviso that ultimately it will depend on courts' decisions on individual defendants. We must wait to see the sum total of all those decisions. We have tried to set out in the legislation the significant changes to the sentencing arrangements, particularly the new generic community sentences. They will provide greater flexibility, which, as everybody recognises, the system lacks at present. As effective community sentences are shown to reduce reoffending, the confidence of the courts and of the community in them will increase. We hope that that will be reflected in the position of the courts.

I understand the Minister's reasoning. Indeed, it can be seen from the list that some of the biggest costs are those of the probation service for community sentences. I fully appreciate that there will be savings if community sentences are used rather than custodial sentences. The Halliday report has suggested that the prison population will rise as a result of this legislation. The Minister has not yet been able to deal with that issue. He should perhaps write to the Committee on the matter. I am interested to know the Government's estimate of the cost implications.

I was in the process of making a point about the net impact of all that. We can see what is currently happening to the prison population and we understand what has happened to it over the last decade or so. As we have previously discussed, what has happened has been the product of less use of fines and greater use of community penalties. There has also been greater use of custody, with sentences increasing in length. That is the explanation for the situation, at a time when the total number of people coming before the courts has remained largely the same and when crime has fallen. It will be the interrelationship between those factors that will determine the outcome. As we have discussed, and as all members of the Committee will agree, more successful collection of fines is a fundamental precondition to building greater confidence in fines and therefore encouraging the courts to make greater use of them.

The Minister is being straightforward, but I want to push him one step further. First, does his projection, when everything is worked through to the increase of 1,000 in the prison population, take into account both the increase in average sentence that he referred to and the figure that my hon. Friend quoted? Figures for the last available year published yesterday show an increase by five months to two years and two months.

Secondly, does it take into account the prospective change for the magistrates courts' sentencing powers from six months to 12 months? I want to be clear that the expectation includes that, because the likelihood is that that will increase sentences passed by the magistrates court.

The assessment that the Government have made of just under 1,000 is based on the Bill's provisions, for obvious reasons. Separately from that, a process regarding custody length has been taking place. That is outwith the particular assessment in relation to the Bill but it has clearly informed the

projections that were published recently suggesting what may happen to the prison population in future.

In relation to magistrates' sentencing powers, I repeat the point that magistrates dealing with cases will have greater sentencing power. The current alternative would be for the case to be dealt with by the Crown court. There is no clear evidence that magistrates are likely to sentence more people to longer periods of custody than the Crown court would do under current arrangements.

It will remain to be seen how the interrelationship of all the changes contained in the Bill and the extent to which the courts make use of them will work. That will determine the answer to the question that the two hon. Gentlemen have quite rightly raised about the overall impact of those changes, especially on the prison population and, therefore, on the cost.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 270 ordered to stand part of the Bill.