I am grateful for the way in which the hon. and learned Gentleman has raised the issue. There are 104 approved premises in England and Wales, including 14 run by voluntary management committees and one run by a private sector organisation. They are used primarily to supervise high risk of harm offenders on release from custody, and they make a crucial contribution to the protection of the public. I pay tribute to the staff who work in them, whose job is very demanding and difficult.

Hon. Members have mentioned the “Panorama” programme, which highlighted some of the issues relating to approved premises. Many people are working very hard and very successfully in the management of offenders, but stories that show problem areas always attract the attention of the media, so we do not hear about the occasions when the good work is carried out to a successful conclusion. Right at the start of our proceedings, I said that we had to be truthful with the public about what we can do in terms of the management of offenders. The expectation that offenders can be watched 24 hours a day, seven days a week is not realistic. However, they can be managed properly, and the multi-agency public protection arrangements that we have in the UK are unique and are working very well on the whole.

Section 9 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 introduced the term “approved premises” as the standard term to describe those establishments. Previously there had been no standardised names, with establishments operating as probation hostels, bail hostels or probation and bail hostels. The 2000 Act endorsed the concept of a single estate with a generic purpose, and it also emphasised the fact that these establishments are approved by the Secretary of State for a specific purpose and are therefore distinct from the other forms of supported accommodation available to offenders—the latter point is important, because the matter is not only about terminology.

The 2000 Act reflected the changes that had occurred in the use of approved premises over a period of years. Whereas historically hostels had often been used to provide suitable accommodation for  defendants who might otherwise have been remanded into custody—hence the term “bail hostel”—they are now targeted at high-risk offenders on release from custody on licence. I accept that the term has not entered common parlance and that the expression “bail hostel” is still more widely used outside the probation service, but it is misleading and entirely inappropriate for use in legislation.

On the question of whether the public will be adequately protected in future, public protection is at the heart of what we want to achieve. The MAPPA arrangements are important to us. There is no way that we would want to diminish those responsibilities to the public. I believe that the proposal set out in the clause is an entirely appropriate way to head forward. There are issues about accommodation in addition to approved premises which I am sure we will come back to when we consider the outcome of the child sex offenders review that the Government are currently undertaking. There are a great many issues around resettlement. I hope that with that explanation the hon. and learned Gentleman will be relatively happy and withdraw the amendment.