My Lords, I again thank noble Lords for all the points made on this part of the Bill. I shall take it first in the general and then the particular. In the general, these amendments quite rightly put on the radar, the horizon and public consciousness the importance of dealing with prisoners who received their sentence when they were still under the age of 18. This is already a very important function that these amendments have performed. As for the question of the light at the end of the tunnel, I share the thoughts of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, that the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, were very pertinent as to what it feels like to be incarcerated in the dramatic circumstances that he related.

It is the Government’s view that these prisoners, among others, need to have light at the end of the tunnel. This is the whole purpose and thrust of the Government’s approach. In practical terms, as I understand it we have 32 prisoners in this position who have not been released, another 48 who have been recalled, and a hundred or so out in the community. These figures may not be exactly right; they are not quite the same as those given by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, although they are approximately the same. For the recalled cohort and for those in the community, the reduction in the licence period from 10 years to three will be significant and very much benefit those serving this DPP sentence. Against this background, the Government are not quite persuaded that these amendments would achieve our joint objective of providing this light at the end of the tunnel.

I turn to the proposals in Amendments 155 and 163. The first would reduce the qualifying period from three years to 18 months. Eighteen months is quite a short period. The Government are not persuaded that one and a half years is sufficient time for an offender to demonstrate their ability to reintegrate successfully into the community, so we are hesitant about this. This particular, very sensitive cohort needs careful management in the community. To reduce the time to 18 months risks setting them up to fail.

We feel similarly about an annual referral to the Parole Board. Getting into this kind of rhythm automatically without regard to the progress of a particular prisoner and the various factors in play could also risk setting people up to fail. The Government are not persuaded that this automaticity is a good idea. In any event, there is already a two-year referral period and people are often referred earlier. It is right to point out that the recently revised Parole Board guidance gives express priority to DPP prisoners, so I suggest that they are being properly served by the Parole Board and by the frequency of reviews. The Government are not persuaded on the detail of these amendments, although we accept the general thrust of the argument.

Basically the same applies to Amendment 162, which would require quarterly sentence planning reviews to be held to set out what is expected. I take the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, that the aim is to make sure that close attention is paid to future progress, that things are not allowed to slip back and that there are regular phases in the prisoner’s progress. The Government are not convinced that quarterly sentence planning reviews are, of themselves, necessarily the right way to go, but the IPP action plan requires that each prisoner has a robust and effective sentence plan, tailored to their individual needs and supporting those released into the community. Quarterly reviews would not necessarily allow sufficient time between them to ensure sufficient progress. Again, the Government are concerned about the details of the amendments, rather than the overall objective of dealing properly with these DPP offenders.

That aside, the Government very much recognise the need to support these offenders. There will be additional psychological support, in particular through the psychology services of HMPPS, and there will be operational delivery plans across England and Wales which are envisaged to include a priority focus for DPP prisoners.

When I spoke earlier of the possibility, between now and Report, of putting the action plan, or the need to have an action plan, on some kind of statutory basis, and possibly setting out in the statute, in broad terms, what the action plan should cover, it seems, to me at least, that there would be an important argument for providing that the action plan has to have a section on DPP offenders and has to demonstrate that these offenders are given priority and that there is an appropriate regime for them. A combination of that kind of provision in the action plan plus the existing priority given to DPP offenders by the Parole Board would go a very long way to achieving the joint objectives that noble Lords are envisaging. That is broadly the Government’s position.