Member

I was not entirely convinced, I have to confess, by the previous Minister’s comments in Committee last year that the changes made in the 2022 regulations definitively precluded all but a few hearings from being held in public. My amendment specifically addresses concerns about sensitive evidence and the concerns of the victims. It would permit such matters to be raised as a rationale for proceedings to be held in camera. I make the point that, under these measures, not every one of the 8,000-plus parole cases would be held in public; that is not the aim of the amendment, the permissive nature of which means that there is an expectation that the powers will be only lightly exercised in a minority of cases by the Secretary of State, with checks and balances in place to protect the operational independence of the Parole Board and a requirement to publish a review of the efficacy of the policy as it affects the “interests of justice” test, as well as public confidence in, and support of, the criminal justice system.