Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

It would be more appropriate for the Minister to respond at the end. Clearly, we are pleased that the concerns over the definition of domestic violence have been taken on board. I would have liked to have covered many other areas, including drug recovery wings, prisoner working and, as a starting point, prisoner volunteering—the listener schemes are very effective in that respect. I would also have liked to discuss the support that is provided to prisoners on release. Certainly there are some good organisations involved in that work, including Vision Housing, which is based in my constituency. It provides not only housing for ex-offenders but the support to ensure that they do not reoffend. Finally, it is entirely appropriate for the Government to undertake a review of indeterminate sentences. The issue was identified many years ago by, among others, Lord Carlile, whom Opposition Members like to quote. In relation to IPPs, he said:"““The consequence of the IPP provision has been unpredicted, remains unpredictable and is shocking to many.””—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 December 2007; Vol. 697, c. 189.]" The views of Lord Carlile in 2007 are likely to be repeated by many Members today. I would have also liked to touch on the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, restorative justice schemes and the age of criminal responsibility, which I suspect might have been somewhat controversial. In conclusion, this Bill contains many sound proposals. It is in good shape, but it is not perfectly formed yet. There are issues that we will need to address in Committee, but the Bill is making headway on our priorities, including tackling the scandal of reoffending and ensuring that providers are paid for by results, which will have a huge impact on the success of rehabilitation and on our ability to deliver a justice system that works.