Recommendations & Conclusions
22 items
1
Conclusion
Third Report - IPP sentences
Accepted
Given the extensive and complex nature of the challenges faced by IPP sentenced individuals, we find the absence of detail in the IPP Action Plan surprising. It lacks a clear strategic priority and ownership, as well as operational detail, timeframes, and performance measures.
Read more
Given the extensive and complex nature of the challenges faced by IPP sentenced individuals, we find the absence of detail in the IPP Action Plan surprising. It lacks a clear strategic priority and ownership, as well as operational detail, timeframes, and performance measures.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government welcomes the recommendation and has commenced a review of the IPP Action Plan. They commit to providing full details of the refreshed action plan and associated governance within the committee's timeframe.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
2
Recommendation
Third Report - IPP sentences
Accepted
We recommend the MoJ and HMPPS develop a new action plan, which should include clear performance measures for each of its workstreams. The new action plan should also, against each workstream, include an accountable owner for the workstream, and a timeframe for completion of each workstream activity so that there …
Read more
We recommend the MoJ and HMPPS develop a new action plan, which should include clear performance measures for each of its workstreams. The new action plan should also, against each workstream, include an accountable owner for the workstream, and a timeframe for completion of each workstream activity so that there can be greater accountability and scrutiny. A new version of the IPP Action Plan should be published by the end of Q1 2023, with a report on the operation of the plan and any revisions to it published annually thereafter.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government acknowledges the issue but largely details existing work and initiatives to improve mental health support for all prisoners, including IPP offenders, and mentions the recently published draft Mental Health Bill, rather than committing to a new IPP-specific action plan.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
3
Conclusion
Third Report - IPP sentences
Accepted
The psychological harm caused by IPP sentences is a considerable barrier to progression for some IPP prisoners. The indefinite nature of the sentence has contributed to feelings of hopelessness and despair that has resulted in high levels of self-harm and some suicides within the IPP population. In addition to this, …
Read more
The psychological harm caused by IPP sentences is a considerable barrier to progression for some IPP prisoners. The indefinite nature of the sentence has contributed to feelings of hopelessness and despair that has resulted in high levels of self-harm and some suicides within the IPP population. In addition to this, IPP prisoners distrust the people and services that are necessary to support their progression. In identifying solutions to the IPP problem, the MoJ, HMPPS and Parole Board must acknowledge the psychological harm caused by the IPP sentence, and the challenges this presents regarding progression. The MoJ and HMPPS should also set out how they intend to improve access to mental health support for IPP prisoners, including transfers to secure hospitals and therapeutic settings.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government acknowledges the difficulty of returning prisoners to prison from secure hospitals and states that HMPPS and MoJ are working with DHSC and NHSE to improve the operational delivery of these returns, drawing on learning from the Long-Term High Security Estate.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
4
Recommendation
Third Report - IPP sentences
Acknowledged
Additionally, there are a small number of mentally unwell prisoners who are subsequently transferred to a secure mental hospital. For these prisoners, the process for post-tariff release is more complex, and we are not clear what support is offered to those who, after a period of treatment, are no longer …
Read more
Additionally, there are a small number of mentally unwell prisoners who are subsequently transferred to a secure mental hospital. For these prisoners, the process for post-tariff release is more complex, and we are not clear what support is offered to those who, after a period of treatment, are no longer deemed detainable under the Mental Health Act 1983, but do not go on to meet the Parole Board’s test for release, and are then transferred back to prison from the secure hospital. The MoJ, HMPPS and the Parole Board should set out what support is available to those prisoners who are remitted back to prison after a period of time spent under section in a secure hospital, and how they are supported to progress in their sentence.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government accepts that sufficient programme places should be provided for suitable IPP prisoners. It states that bespoke sentence planning and a review of prisoner location will be incorporated into the IPP Action Plan review, without committing to specific new actions.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
5
Recommendation
Third Report - IPP sentences
Accepted
We are concerned to hear that the availability of appropriate courses for IPP prisoners is limited. The MoJ and HMPPS must ensure that there are enough places on courses available to all those who need them. As part of the IPP action plan, the MoJ and HMPPS should set out …
Read more
We are concerned to hear that the availability of appropriate courses for IPP prisoners is limited. The MoJ and HMPPS must ensure that there are enough places on courses available to all those who need them. As part of the IPP action plan, the MoJ and HMPPS should set out what work is being done to expand provision of courses for IPP prisoners, reduce waiting lists, and ensure that IPP prisoners are being held in appropriate category prisons.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government defends its accredited programme evaluation approach and highlights that Professor Moran's evaluation of the Offender Personality Disorder Pathway was published in October 2022. It does not commit to new specific actions to expand course provision, reduce waiting lists, or ensure appropriate prison placements …
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
6
Conclusion
Third Report - IPP sentences
Deferred
Programmes, pathways and other interventions are often relied upon by HMPPS and the Parole Board to help determine risk, and so it is vital that they deliver the outcomes they purport to deliver. We are concerned about the lack of transparency surrounding programme evaluations, and so cannot be confident that …
Read more
Programmes, pathways and other interventions are often relied upon by HMPPS and the Parole Board to help determine risk, and so it is vital that they deliver the outcomes they purport to deliver. We are concerned about the lack of transparency surrounding programme evaluations, and so cannot be confident that existing IPP sentences 59 programmes deliver adequate outcomes for prisoners. Some programmes have been evaluated yet have been found ineffective; other programmes are being used and relied upon yet have not been evaluated or, where they have, the evaluation has not been published, as has been the case with Professor Paul Moran’s evaluation of the Offender Personality Disorder Pathway.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government states this recommendation is for the Parole Board to respond to, who has indicated they will undertake a review of their Listings Priority Framework, and the government awaits the outcome.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
7
Recommendation
Third Report - IPP sentences
Accepted
The Government should publish the commissioned report from Professor Paul Moran into the Offender Personality Disorder pathway by December 2022. In addition, the MoJ and HMPPS should set out what work is being done to ensure that all programmes delivered and relied upon by HMPPS and the Parole Board deliver …
Read more
The Government should publish the commissioned report from Professor Paul Moran into the Offender Personality Disorder pathway by December 2022. In addition, the MoJ and HMPPS should set out what work is being done to ensure that all programmes delivered and relied upon by HMPPS and the Parole Board deliver adequate outcomes for prisoners; and, where they do not, they should set out the process for reviewing delivery of those programmes. (Paragraph 81) Parole, release on licence and community-based barriers to progression
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government stated Professor Paul Moran’s report on the Offender Personality Disorder Pathway was published on Gov.uk on October 13, 2022. It also commits to reviewing current IPP prisoner case management in custody and refreshing guidance on IPP Progression Panels.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
8
Conclusion
Third Report - IPP sentences
Accepted
Our inquiry has highlighted wider resource issues within the Probation Service and the Parole Board. We have heard about frequent delays, untrained Parole Board members, frequent changes in professionals essential to the parole process, uncertainty following a negative parole decision and issues with the probation service. For the reasons set …
Read more
Our inquiry has highlighted wider resource issues within the Probation Service and the Parole Board. We have heard about frequent delays, untrained Parole Board members, frequent changes in professionals essential to the parole process, uncertainty following a negative parole decision and issues with the probation service. For the reasons set out, we consider the parole process as it stands, and the probation service’s involvement in it, to be ineffective, and posing a significant barrier to progression for IPP offenders. There needs to be sufficient resources for the Parole Board to consider IPP cases without undue delays. The Parole Board should prioritise people serving IPPs, and provide additional training to its members in understanding the impacts of the sentence. Only trained and experienced Parole Board members should oversee IPP cases.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government details existing measures to address staffing challenges within the Probation Service and commits to reviewing current case management practices for IPP prisoners in custody and refreshing guidance on IPP Progression Panels.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
9
Recommendation
Third Report - IPP sentences
Deferred
It is unacceptable that some prisoners do not have access to a community probation officer. HMPPS should set out why this is the case, and what work is being done to ensure that all IPP prisoners have access to a community probation officer to support them to progress through their …
Read more
It is unacceptable that some prisoners do not have access to a community probation officer. HMPPS should set out why this is the case, and what work is being done to ensure that all IPP prisoners have access to a community probation officer to support them to progress through their sentence. We are also concerned that in some cases, the probation officer may have little knowledge of, or prior contact with, the offender. There needs to be sufficient resource for community-based offender managers to provide IPP prisoners with the support needed to prepare for parole hearings. HMPPS should set out what it is doing to ensure that probation officers have an adequate level of contact with the offender prior to their parole hearing.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government states it will not reduce the eligibility period for licence termination from 10 to 5 years, but will review the policy and practice for suspending supervision in appropriate cases. The response does not address the core recommendation regarding access to community probation officers …
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
10
Conclusion
Third Report - IPP sentences
Deferred
Spending an indefinite period of time on licence in the community is detrimental to the mental health and rehabilitation of IPP offenders, and in many cases is not proportionate to the index offence. We welcome the introduction of automatic referral by the Secretary of State for licence termination at the …
Read more
Spending an indefinite period of time on licence in the community is detrimental to the mental health and rehabilitation of IPP offenders, and in many cases is not proportionate to the index offence. We welcome the introduction of automatic referral by the Secretary of State for licence termination at the 10-year point. We would welcome regular updates on the number of IPP offenders whose licence is terminated as a result of this mechanism.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejects the premise that IPP offenders are recalled unnecessarily and details existing and imminent changes to electronic monitoring policy. It does not address the core request for regular updates on licence termination numbers.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
11
Conclusion
Third Report - IPP sentences
Accepted
Furthermore, we support a reduction of the qualifying licence period from 10 years to five years. This change would go some way to restoring proportionality to the IPP sentence. The MoJ should initiate legislation to this effect as soon as possible. (Paragraph 105) 60 IPP sentences
Read more
Furthermore, we support a reduction of the qualifying licence period from 10 years to five years. This change would go some way to restoring proportionality to the IPP sentence. The MoJ should initiate legislation to this effect as soon as possible. (Paragraph 105) 60 IPP sentences
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government did not commit to reducing the qualifying licence period for IPP sentences, instead detailing existing and ongoing resettlement initiatives and investments, such as a £550m investment, the Prisoner Education Service, CAS3, and ROTL, aimed at supporting prison leavers including IPP offenders.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
12
Recommendation
Third Report - IPP sentences
Acknowledged
The recalled population of IPP offenders is a growing concern and will soon be larger than the population of IPP prisoners who have never been released from custody. The Government needs to devote far greater energy and resource to tackling the “recall merry-go-round”, ensuring that IPP prisoners who do secure …
Read more
The recalled population of IPP offenders is a growing concern and will soon be larger than the population of IPP prisoners who have never been released from custody. The Government needs to devote far greater energy and resource to tackling the “recall merry-go-round”, ensuring that IPP prisoners who do secure their release are able to live a successful life thereafter, avoiding unnecessary recall to prison. We agree with the Chair of the Parole Board that the Government should examine this issue in depth, covering, for example, the threshold for recalls, the use of Executive release, and the role of the Parole Board. The Government should discuss with local government how to ensure an adequate supply of approved premises that does not over burden specific local authorities. Emergency recalls should only be used as a last resort. Probation staff should be encouraged and supported to use alternative measures to emergency recall, such as adjusted reporting requirements, curfews and use of electronic tags.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government explained its historical decision not to abolish IPP sentences retrospectively and stated that the existing IPP Action Plan remains the best approach. It committed to reviewing the Action Plan in light of the committee's recommendations to ensure it offers the best support, but …
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
13
Recommendation
Third Report - IPP sentences
Rejected
The Parole Board should have a greater role in decision-making around recalls. All IPP prisoners who have been recalled, not having received a new custodial sentence for committing a further offence, should have the right to an oral parole board hearing within two months of their request. The probation service …
Read more
The Parole Board should have a greater role in decision-making around recalls. All IPP prisoners who have been recalled, not having received a new custodial sentence for committing a further offence, should have the right to an oral parole board hearing within two months of their request. The probation service should have to attend to explain their recall decision. Furthermore, all recalled IPP prisoners should be entitled to annual reviews by the Parole Board to consider whether they are fit for re-release.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejects the recommendations for the Parole Board to have a greater role in recall decisions, for oral hearings within two months, and for mandatory annual reviews for recalled IPP prisoners, stating existing processes are adequate and annual reviews could be disadvantageous.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
14
Recommendation
Third Report - IPP sentences
Accepted
As set out earlier in this Report, the recall of IPP sentenced individuals is a growing problem. IPP prisoners face particular challenges with resettlement, and careful consideration must therefore be given as to how they are prepared for their release and subsequently supported in the community. We agree with the …
Read more
As set out earlier in this Report, the recall of IPP sentenced individuals is a growing problem. IPP prisoners face particular challenges with resettlement, and careful consideration must therefore be given as to how they are prepared for their release and subsequently supported in the community. We agree with the Prison Reform Trust that efforts to successfully reintegrate IPP prison leavers into society must match those efforts being made to help them to achieve release.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government accepts the recommendation, highlighting a £550m investment from 2021 to improve access to employment, housing, and health services for prison leavers, including IPP offenders. They detail programs like the Prisoner Education Service, Banking and ID Administrators, Community Accommodation Service Tier 3, and the …
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
15
Recommendation
Third Report - IPP sentences
Accepted
We welcome the Government’s commitment to ensuring that all prison leavers leave prison with the basics, such as ID and a bank account, and ask that updates on this programme of work be provided to us. We would also welcome progress updates on the introduction of Resettlement Passports. As the …
Read more
We welcome the Government’s commitment to ensuring that all prison leavers leave prison with the basics, such as ID and a bank account, and ask that updates on this programme of work be provided to us. We would also welcome progress updates on the introduction of Resettlement Passports. As the passports are developed, we recommend that the MoJ works with stakeholders to give particular consideration as to how they can be used to meet the needs of IPP prisoners, including how resources such as psychologists can be most usefully deployed. In its response to this Report, the MoJ should also set out how IPP prisoners are prepared for their release, including the use of ROTL and the resettlement support and services that are available to prisoners who do not have a release date. (Paragraph 129) Resentencing
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government accepts the recommendations, detailing a £550m investment for prison leavers, including IPP prisoners, and outlining specific initiatives such as the Prisoner Education Service, banking and ID administrators, temporary accommodation via CAS3, and the use of ROTL for resettlement.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
16
Conclusion
Third Report - IPP sentences
Rejected
Our Report has set out various steps the Government needs to take to help address the IPP problem. But it is clear to us that, while these measures are necessary, they will not be sufficient on their own to deal with the problems that have been identified in the way …
Read more
Our Report has set out various steps the Government needs to take to help address the IPP problem. But it is clear to us that, while these measures are necessary, they will not be sufficient on their own to deal with the problems that have been identified in the way the IPP sentence continues to operate and is likely to operate in the coming years. The sentence is irredeemably flawed.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejects the implicit call for a fundamental solution to the IPP sentence's flaws, citing public protection risks from retrospective abolition and affirming that the current IPP Action Plan remains the best way forward, which will be reviewed.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
17
Recommendation
Third Report - IPP sentences
Rejected
As Lord Thomas noted in R v Roberts: “It was Parliament which legislated to establish a regime of sentences of IPP in terms which the courts have faithfully and IPP sentences 61 properly applied. It must, in our democracy and in accordance with the rule of law, be for Parliament …
Read more
As Lord Thomas noted in R v Roberts: “It was Parliament which legislated to establish a regime of sentences of IPP in terms which the courts have faithfully and IPP sentences 61 properly applied. It must, in our democracy and in accordance with the rule of law, be for Parliament to provide a correction for the outcome if it so wishes”. We agree. In our view, a comprehensive and adequate solution to the IPP problem can only be achieved by primary legislation that deals retrospectively with the continued operation of the sentence and that allows a resentencing exercise to be undertaken. Paragraph 151)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejects the recommendation for primary legislation to retrospectively address the IPP sentence and enable a resentencing exercise, citing public protection risks and asserting that the IPP Action Plan remains the best approach, which will be reviewed.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
18
Recommendation
Third Report - IPP sentences
Rejected
Our primary recommendation is that the Government brings forward legislation to enable a resentencing exercise in relation to all IPP sentenced individuals (except for those who have successfully had their licence terminated). This is the only way to address the unique injustice caused by the IPP sentence and its subsequent …
Read more
Our primary recommendation is that the Government brings forward legislation to enable a resentencing exercise in relation to all IPP sentenced individuals (except for those who have successfully had their licence terminated). This is the only way to address the unique injustice caused by the IPP sentence and its subsequent administration, and to restore proportionality to the original sentences that were given.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejects the primary recommendation to bring forward legislation for an IPP resentencing exercise, citing unacceptable risks to public protection and affirming that the existing IPP Action Plan is the best approach, which is under review.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
19
Recommendation
Third Report - IPP sentences
Accepted in Part
Concerns about available community resource for released offenders are valid and need to be taken into consideration. However, the lack of such resource is not a suitable reason for keeping people imprisoned indefinitely. We reiterate the words of our predecessor Committee: as a matter of policy and common sense rather …
Read more
Concerns about available community resource for released offenders are valid and need to be taken into consideration. However, the lack of such resource is not a suitable reason for keeping people imprisoned indefinitely. We reiterate the words of our predecessor Committee: as a matter of policy and common sense rather than law, it is wholly indefensible to incarcerate prisoners of any category beyond the expiry of their tariff or their eligibility for release on licence simply because of a lack of resources on the part of HM Prison Service or the Parole Board.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government partially accepts, disagreeing that recalls are unnecessary due to resource lack but committing to an independent inspection of recall culture. They also state that policy will imminently change to offer more flexible electronic monitoring for curfews for indeterminate prisoners, and alcohol monitoring is …
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
20
Recommendation
Third Report - IPP sentences
Rejected
We have not sought to set out the terms of the proposed legislation to enable the resentencing exercise, which will ultimately be for Parliament to consider. We do, however, recommend that it should comply with the key principles that we set out below. We also appreciate that establishing a resentencing …
Read more
We have not sought to set out the terms of the proposed legislation to enable the resentencing exercise, which will ultimately be for Parliament to consider. We do, however, recommend that it should comply with the key principles that we set out below. We also appreciate that establishing a resentencing exercise will be administratively complex. Accordingly, we recommend that the Government set up a time-limited small expert committee to advise on the practical implementation of the resentencing exercise in conjunction with the senior judiciary.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejects the recommendation for an expert committee to advise on an IPP resentencing exercise, reaffirming its stance against retrospective abolition due to public protection risks and reiterating commitment to the existing IPP Action Plan.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
21
Recommendation
Third Report - IPP sentences
Rejected
In establishing how to undertake a resentencing exercise of IPP prisoners and what legislation would be needed, it will be important to keep in mind the following three key principles: (Paragraph 175) a) Balancing protection of the public with justice for the individual offender: A resentencing exercise must strike a …
Read more
In establishing how to undertake a resentencing exercise of IPP prisoners and what legislation would be needed, it will be important to keep in mind the following three key principles: (Paragraph 175) a) Balancing protection of the public with justice for the individual offender: A resentencing exercise must strike a balance between protecting the public from the risk of IPP prisoners committing serious further offences if released and securing justice for individual offenders. To achieve that balance, it must be accompanied by sufficient resources to provide released IPP offenders with the support they need—including mental health support—to reintegrate into society. It must also avoid a one-size-fits-all approach and should prioritise the offenders most adversely affected by the sentence: those who were sentenced in the early years of the sentence, prior to the ‘seriousness threshold’ changes in 2008. Any resentencing exercise should also ensure that current sentencing practices designed to ensure protection of the public from serious violent and sexual offenders, such as the way Extended Determinate Sentences are applied and supported, serve as a model in relation to resentenced IPP offenders. b) The independence of the judiciary: We agree with Lord Thomas that undertaking a resentencing exercise would not interfere with the judicial independence of 62 IPP sentences sentencing. Indeed, it was the decision to curtail the usual discretion of judges to determine the most appropriate sentence for each offender that led to the initial proliferation of the IPP sentence. It would be important, therefore, for a resentencing exercise not to repeat that mistake. In resentencing IPP prisoners the judiciary must be able to make an independent and fair assessment of the individual circumstances of each case and have the discretion to determine an appropriate sentence. c) Measures to prevent retrospectively increasing the sentence: Any resentencing exercise must be constrained
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejects the recommendation for a resentencing exercise, stating it would pose unacceptable risks to public safety and that the existing IPP Action Plan is the preferred approach, thus not addressing the principles for how such an exercise should be undertaken.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
22
Recommendation
Third Report - IPP sentences
Rejected
We do not underestimate the complexity of undertaking a large-scale resentencing exercise for IPP prisoners. It would require careful thought, significant planning, and sufficient resource. However, the potential difficulties do not justify failing to grasp the nettle. All three branches of the state—the Government, Parliament, and the judiciary—must now rise …
Read more
We do not underestimate the complexity of undertaking a large-scale resentencing exercise for IPP prisoners. It would require careful thought, significant planning, and sufficient resource. However, the potential difficulties do not justify failing to grasp the nettle. All three branches of the state—the Government, Parliament, and the judiciary—must now rise to the challenge. (Paragraph 176) IPP sentences 63
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejects the recommendation, stating that retrospective abolition of IPP sentences would pose an unacceptable risk to public safety and that the existing IPP Action Plan remains the best approach for managing these offenders.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice