Many of my constituents will be somewhat concerned about the Prime Minister's equivocal remarks about early release, which will probably now become a permanent feature of our criminal justice system. Was Harry Fletcher correct to point out that senior probation officers were overruled on early release decisions? Whom should one trust most: loyal, hard-working probation officers and servants of the Crown or Ministers obsessed with spin?

I have already said that the decision about early release on individuals was made against very specific criteria that were set down to the House of Commons. I repeat to the House that no prisoner who was serving a sentence for a serious violent offence was released. That was not part of the criteria that were followed. Nobody serving for a serious violent offence was released.

My right hon. Friend might have noticed gaps in the Chamber last week, as hon. Members from all parts of the House played a game of tag rugby with rugby league greats, the Rugby Football Union and the Rugby Football League, to support the British Asian Rugby Association in its work to bring people from all minorities into the community through participation in sport. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Ikram Butt, Heather Taylor, who is not a teacher, and all those connected with BARA on the work that they do in bringing together people of all creeds and minorities through sport to make a cohesive community in our country?

I welcome the co-operation between the Asian and British Rugby associations. I also understand that my hon. Friend has been asked to be the sports ambassador for rugby league, and I welcome him to his new post. Participation in sport helps to promote community cohesion and we will do everything to support it, even if voices off are not.

As the principal architect of the public-private partnership for London Underground, can the Prime Minister explain how £500 million was spent on lawyers and consultants to create a construction that has now collapsed, leaving the British taxpayer with £3.5 billion of bank loans and considerable uncertainty about the future of public transport in the capital?

I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman is saying. If Metronet pulls out, another company will be found to take its place, and another company will be found alongside the tube company that is the other private-sector company involved in the consortium. What the hon. Gentleman should remember is that we are engaged in one of the biggest civil engineering projects that has ever been undertaken in London. We are increasing the number of people using the tube from 1 billion a year to 1.5 billion a year. We are talking about a £17 billion investment that would always be done by private construction and engineering firms. We are committed as a Government to do something that the Conservative party is not prepared to do, and that is to provide £1 billion a year of extra money for investment in the tube. The number of stations already refurbished, the number of additional trains and the number of projects under way show our commitment to investment in the London Underground. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support us in that project.

I call Bob Marshall-Andrews.

Hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

Very helpful, thank you. The Government have recently decreed that Parliamentary Private Secretaries will sit on Select Committees. Parliamentary Private Secretaries are de facto part of the Executive, and Select Committees, at least in part, are intended to scrutinise that Executive. The conflict is obvious and apparent. How does that accord with the welcome and noble sentiments that my right hon. Friend expressed two weeks ago on the independence of Parliament?

My hon. Friend is raising an important issue, and I am sorry if we are going to lose his services in the next Parliament. He is referring to the role of Parliamentary Private Secretaries, but they will not sit on the departmental Select Committees for which they are Parliamentary Private Secretaries. I can give him that assurance.

According to official figures, more than 1,500 prisoners have Sky television in their own cells, five prisons have swimming pools for prisoners' use and two thirds of prisoners have keys to their own cells. Is the Prime Minister proud of that and what is he going doing to do about it?

We have increased sentences for those who commit the worst crimes. The hon. Gentleman should know that there are nearly 10,000 people in prison who are under indeterminate sentences as a result of the toughening of punishment. That is why we have raised the number of prison places from 60,000 to 80,000 and they will go up to 90,000 in the next few years. We are honouring our commitment to deal harshly with people who commit crimes.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the performance and behaviour of Greenbelt, a ground maintenance company that provides services to tens of thousands of homes throughout the UK? It charges up to £400 per household and provides little or no service. It is Farepak for homeowners. Last week, its lawyers sent a threatening letter to me and my constituent, Paula Hoogerbrugge. Paula, a single mum, has been monitoring the company's behaviour on a national basis. The lawyer also contacted her employers with a threat to silence her or get her sacked. Will the Prime Minister join me in condemning that behaviour?

I am grateful for that information and I will look into the matter that my hon. Friend raises.

In 2004, when the Prime Minister was Chancellor, a budget of £20 million for 2006-07 and £40 million for 2007-08 was announced for the drug treatment and testing programme in prisons. Since then, it has been cut to £12 million and £12.7 million respectively. Now that he is Prime Minister, will he consider revising those back to the original figures?

I have to tell the hon. Lady that since we took office there has been a big increase in the amount of drug treatment in prisons, which will continue in the next spending round.