My Lords, I begin with the amendments proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas. It was not in the least bit churlish to raise this point about the process for the appointment of the new chair of the Parole Board. I have no reason to believe that this is not a fully effective appointments process, but I am not informed of the detail at this moment, and I will write to all noble Lords to set out what the position is.

I take it that the amendments proposed by the Government remove the need for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, to move his Amendments 155 and 156. I was not entirely clear on whether the noble and learned Lord is still moving Amendment 154, which relates to the law enforcement members of the Parole Board. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, I simply emphasise that nothing in the government amendments decides which individual members sit on which panel in individual cases. That remains the responsibility of the board, and that is right and proper. So I will not say anything further about that group of amendments.

I then come to Amendment 156ZA, proposed by my noble friend Lord Jackson. I thank him for the amendment because, as has been pointed out, it does raise some interesting and important issues. Once again, it is effectively a question of balance between all the various interests: victims, prisoners, confidentiality, details of health, et cetera. To recap, the provision for public parole hearings was introduced in 2022, allowing any hearing to be conducted in public if the chair of the Parole Board decides that it is in the interests of justice to do so. That changed the previous position, where all hearings were held in private. The amendment proposed by my noble friend would change that position so that all hearings would be in public by default, and a private hearing would take place only in exceptional circumstances.

The Government’s position on this amendment has not changed since it was explained in Committee and, if I may put it colloquially, the Government feel that we are still in the relatively early stage of developing and gaining experience from how the Parole Board manages public hearings. We are not yet ready to go as far as my noble friend would like us to go at this point. That is the essential answer to his point—but I do not close off the question at all. As has also been pointed out, it is part of a consideration of the continuous process of updating and reviewing the workings of the Parole Board as circumstances evolve.

To respond to the specific 8,000 hearings point raised by my noble friend, the Parole Board holds more than 8,000 hearings a year. This amendment would require the Secretary of State and the Parole Board to consider the merits of having a public hearing in every case. Victims would need to be contacted in every case, which would potentially add to their trauma. It is more complex and takes longer to have public hearings, and that may well delay proceedings further. To date, the Parole Board has published decisions for just 32 public hearing applications since 2022, eight of which have been granted. That suggests to the Government that the demand for public hearings is not, in fact, especially high, but I again emphasise that the situation is still evolving and that we need to continue to learn from the practice of the day. I very much understand the desire to create more openness, transparency and trust in the parole system, but I would not wish to create new administrative burdens on the system, potentially slowing it down. On the other hand, I do not feel that this amendment can be pursued at this point in time. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw it.

Amendment 156ZAA, tabled again by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, concerns the interval between hearings and seeks to allow the Parole Board to direct the period of time. It aims to deal with the problem, as he would put it, of repeated applications. The Government are not able to change their position from that set out in Committee. The current system already provides for flexibility in the time set for the prisoner’s next parole review, and it is HMPPS—not the board—that currently sets that interval. HMPPS considers a range of factors in deciding when to refer the prisoner to the Parole Board on behalf of the Secretary of State. Reasons must be given for the length of the interval between reviews, including the Parole Board’s reasons for declining to direct the prisoner’s release at the conclusion of the last review and the interventions required to allow them to progress. The closer the interval length is to the two-year limit, the greater the justification required for the time between reviews.

I take the point that there appear to be some examples of repeated hearings, which is a matter that I am prepared to investigate further with HMPPS. We would not want either to set hearings too soon or to change the system as it stands. In particular, the Government do not support an increase in the maximum hearing from two to four years. Where indeterminate sentence prisoners have served their tariff, unless the Parole Board is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that they should be confined, they will remain in prison. While the courts have not provided a limit on the time between reviews, the Government’s view is that the limit of two years strikes the right balance between allowing the prisoner time to demonstrate progress in custody and satisfying the rights that the prisoner has in law. I completely understand the question of balance and the interplay between the victims and prisoners, but the Government feel that the present position strikes the right balance.

The noble Lord asked me to say more about how we are looking after victims during this process. The victim contact scheme is the main mechanism for helping victims through the parole process. Victims who choose to sign up to the scheme are assigned a victim liaison officer, who can guide them through the parole process, answer their questions and help them forward their views on matters such as requesting licence conditions and submitting a victim personal statement.

We are currently testing victim-observed hearings in two probation regions and will roll them out more widely in due course. When a victim is observing a parole hearing, they do so remotely by videolink and are supported in-person by a victim representative, who is a member of the probation staff with a more detailed knowledge and experience of parole hearings than most victim liaison officers. They help to make the arrangements for the hearing and prepare the victims for the experience. They are on hand to guide victims through the hearing and answer their questions and are available afterwards.

We are offering a high level of support to victims who observe hearings, and the feedback from the testing has so far been largely positive. We are currently thinking carefully about what the right package of support for victims should be and are considering other suggestions on how the victim contact scheme can be improved, so that victims are fully supported.

I hope that gives the noble Lord a little more information; I am happy to supplement it in writing, if necessary. The ministry is very aware of the need to support victims in these circumstances and, as I said, is working hard to make sure that they get the right support. For those reasons, I urge him not to press his Amendment 156ZAA.

Amendment 153A agreed.

Amendment 154 not moved.