§ 4. Mr. Stephen Day (Cheadle)
How many violent offenders have been released from prison early on the home detention curfew scheme; and if he will make a statement. 
§ 5. Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough)
What categories of offences have been committed by prisoners released under the home detention curfew scheme while they were on the scheme; and if he will make a statement. 
§ 14. Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold)
How many prisoners, in what categories, have been released on the Government's early release scheme to date. 
§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng)
As of 31 December 2000, 30,409 prisoners had been released on home detention curfew since the scheme began in January 1999. Of those, 5,573 had been convicted of an offence of violence. A table showing the breakdown of the original offences committed has been placed in the Library. A total of 533 prisoners have been reported to the Prison Service as having been convicted, charged or pending prosecution for an offence allegedly committed while on curfew. A table showing a breakdown of the offences by category has been placed in the Library. The most common offence types are motoring offences and theft.
§ Mr. Day
The Minister will be aware that the latest figures show an increase of 21 per cent. in the number of robberies. Does he believe that there is perhaps a connection between that and the fact that the Government have released more than 1,200 robbers back on to our streets before they have served even half of their sentence?
§ Mr. Boateng
No, I do not. The hon. Gentleman really ought to bear in mind his Government's record on the issue. The Criminal Justice Act 1991 introduced measures that provide for early release before completion of sentence for every prisoner, including robbers. What we are about is better management of the transition from prison to custody. The strategy is working, because there is a 94 per cent. success rate, which is better than that for any criminal justice measure that the Conservatives were ever able to introduce.
§ Mr. Leigh
Will the Minister confirm that 1,035 further offences were committed by criminals while subject to the scheme—including: threats to kill, three; actual bodily harm, 22; woundings, six; assaults, 35; rapes, two; indecent assaults, one; burglaries, 46; robberies, 17; and drug offences, 111? What does the right hon. Gentleman have to say to the 1,000 people who were robbed, burgled, indecently assaulted, raped, assaulted or wounded because of his scheme?
§ Mr. Boateng
I know that the hon. Gentleman gives these matters more serious consideration than his question reveals. He knows that the home detention curfew scheme was supported by the all-party Home Affairs Committee. He knows that his colleagues the hon. Members for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and for Woking (Mr. Malins) all supported the scheme, and did so because it has a failure rate of only 1.8 per cent. That is minuscule compared with the failure rate of schemes introduced by the Conservative party. The scheme is about 649 protecting the public better and it ought to be welcomed by the all-party consensus that originally appreciated its benefits.
§ Mr. Clifton-Brown
Whatever gloss the Minister may put on the scheme, he will know that those who are subject to it include 4,671 drug dealers who have been sentenced to 22 months or more but let out having served less than half their sentence. The drugs problem is particularly serious in Gloucestershire—there has been a huge increase in the number of registered drug addicts since the election—so surely it cannot be right to let people out before they have served their full sentence. It is insidious. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider revoking this half-baked scheme?
§ Mr. Boateng
What I do know, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is that the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 is making a real contribution in his county to the multi-agency approach to crime reduction—a fact which he ought to celebrate. The home detention curfew scheme contributes to the controlled and measured rehabilitation and release back to the community that underpins the measure. It is sensible, it is making a difference and it is contributing to crime reduction. That is why the hon. Members for Woking, for Surrey Heath and for Aldershot supported it and why the overwhelming majority of hon. Members support it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will come to support it and will abandon the mischievous and misguided campaign against it.
§ Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey)
Does the Minister accept that, despite the home detention curfew scheme—and as Lord Woolf said in his lecture last week—the public are given no greater protection when we keep in prison for short sentences a significant number of people who pose little danger to society?
Does the Minister agree with us and with Lord Woolf that people who receive a short sentence with no rehabilitation work at all are actually getting what Lord Woolf called a "soft option"—and an ineffective option—and that community sentences would be far more effective? Will he review the sentencing policy that sends many people to prison for short periods with no work done on them that prevents reoffending? Will he also ensure that people who are ill or addicted are treated either in hospital or in the community, where they can be far more effectively rehabilitated and are less likely to offend again?
§ Mr. Boateng
Each type of person to whom the hon. Gentleman referred will have been sentenced by the courts. It is the Prison Service's duty to implement and carry out sentences imposed by the courts, which take all matters, including the home detention curfew scheme and other factors, into account when passing sentence. The court determines that it is necessary that those people be in prison, and the Government must make sure that prisoners are held in safe, decent and humane conditions while we address the causes of their offending. That is what we are doing. We are investing record amounts in that, and we shall continue to do so.
§ Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)
Is the Minister proud that the figure of 31,000 includes those guilty of 650 manslaughter, of attempted murder, of actual and grievous bodily harm, of drug dealing, of cruelty to children, of sex offences, of burglary, of robbery, of violent disorder and, indeed, of affray? How does he justify the release, after serving only six weeks, or less than one third of their sentences, of no fewer than 218 people convicted of assaulting policemen? Why does he not understand that that decision on its own makes a mockery of his claim to support the police and is yet further proof of his Department's institutionalised wimpishness?
§ Mr. Boateng
The hon. Gentleman does himself no justice at all by that inane and absurd comment. He knows that our first duty is to protect the public. He also knows that the Criminal Justice Act 1991, as amended by the legislative provisions for the home detention curfew scheme, does that by controlling the release of those convicted and sentenced by the courts. It is the courts that determine the length of sentence. They impose a sentence knowing that in cases where individuals are eligible for it, the home detention curfew scheme will be the basis on which prisoners are released.
If the hon. Gentleman would like to join me in visiting his local prison and meeting the governor there, he will find out that the risk assessment carried out by the governor has contributed to the overwhelming success of the scheme. Ninety-four per cent. is a record for which Conservative Members would have given their right arm when they were in office.