I thank the noble Baroness for those questions. As to whether I was speaking of IPP specifically, I cannot off the top of my head recall whether the 2020 work was specifically in relation to IPP, but certainly the 2023 work, which is the most recent and the most valuable and which I highly recommend everyone to read, was specifically in relation to IPP when the Government were considering what to do following the JSC report when concern was expressed that recalls might be being made inappropriately. That inspector’s report took a sample of recalls, studied them very carefully; it was thought that a small number were questionable but that the vast majority were appropriate on the basis of the information that the probation officer had at the time.
Up to a point, the circumstances of the recall are part of a general picture of the dangerousness of the offender—I accept that. But the real point is that, when the Parole Board comes to consider public protection, it will have much more information, very often much more up-to-date and fuller, than the information that was before the probation officer at the time, who might well have to take a decision in an emergency on very limited information, but because of the risk, as they see it, to public protection. So it is very difficult, in the Government’s view, to give the Parole Board power to go all the way back and say, “This was inappropriate”. However, having said that, I would like to come back to the question of recall when we get to Amendments 154 and 168, to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. It is a question of executive re-release on recall, which might be another way of approaching that problem. So that is the Government’s position.
5.45 pm
Before I move on, let me say to the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, that the effect of the Government’s changes is that this recall after 14 years could no longer happen. In the press over the weekend there was an example of someone recalled after 12 years in the community, who sadly found that it was too much for them and took their own life. We do not know the full circumstances, but that could not happen if your Lordships and the other place decide to pass this legislation. That is a major change which I hope, combined with the reduction in the licence period, will significantly reduce these recall problems. I have not specifically replied to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, or the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, and all the others because it is common ground that we need to do something. My task is to explain what we are trying to do and where we are trying to get to.
As far as this group is concerned, that leaves Amendments 156 and 157 on the question of secondary legislation or primary legislation to change the qualifying period. I take the point of my noble friend Lord Hodgson about Amendment 156. The Government are also well aware of the concerns expressed about using delegated legislation to amend primary legislation. These provisions have been included to give a certain degree of flexibility. The Government have no intention whatever of increasing these periods or reversing these changes, but see some advantage in the flexibility that that mechanism gives. None the less, on this point, as on others, the Government will continue to listen to the arguments and come back with a position on Report.
I hope that I have covered the various points. I have not addressed the wider points about the prison system in general; that is for another day and I look forward to a further debate, but I hope that I have replied sufficiently for the moment.