Recommendation 5

HM Government · verbatim extract Accepted

Reasoning: We would first like to clarify a misunderstanding in the report index, which includes a reference as a header ‘HMPPS Psychology Service’ with 3 subheadings: Offender Behaviour Programmes (OBP) and interventions; availability and access to courses; and Offender Personality Disorder (OPD) pathway. For the sake of accuracy, HMPPS Psychology Services is a delivery group within HMPPS. It is not responsible for OBPs or OPD. With regard to volumes, the data used on the number of Accredited Programme places available, in paragraph 66, identifies a drop in delivery from 2015/16. However, this change relates to the responsibility (and data recording) for drug related Accredited Programme delivery being transferred to the Health Service in 2015/16 and not to a drop in provision. We accept that sufficient places on programmes should be provided for eligible and suitable IPP prisoners, where their sentence plans have identified a particular programme as one a prisoner needs to complete to reduce their risk. Not all prisons provide accredited programmes; however, all IPP prisoners are reviewed for their progression needs, including programme suitability. Where an appropriate programme is identified, they will either be transferred to the relevant prison or, in some cases (for example the Healthy Sex Programme), the provision can be brought to them. Places on accredited programmes and other interventions were affected by the pandemic due to regime restrictions. The data considered in paragraph 69 is during the Covid pandemic when waiting lists had increased given the pause and reduced delivery volumes. Delivery has increased in 2022/23 and HMPPS continues to prioritise IPP prisoners for programme spaces. HMPPS do, however, recognise that some of those serving IPP sentences have individualised, and bespoke needs and we are working to meet these needs rather than to increase accredited programme spaces where this is not identified as the core barrier to progression. The significant majority of those serving IPP sentences in custody have completed at least one accredited programme to address their risk. No one programme can address all the needs of any or every IPP prisoner. As identified in wider evidence, many IPP prisoners have issues related to high levels of psychological challenge, including neurodivergence, 6 IPP sentences: Government and Parole Board Responses to the Committee’s Third Report and complex childhood trauma that can present a barrier to engagement and learning in a group context. Hence, as HMPPS evidence stated, we are working with individual IPP prisoners to identify the most appropriate pathway and to provide bespoke sentence planning. This is an area of growth which will form part of the IPP Action Plan review. It is also important to note that the Parole Board’s assessment of a prisoner’s suitability for release is based upon areas of risk, rather than whether or not specific accredited programmes have been completed. We will look further into prisoner location as part of the IPP Action Plan activity, however some HMPPS Prison Groups have examined data on IPP prisoner location and found that the vast majority of cases are in prisons appropriate to their current needs. What might appear in data as an unsuitable prison does not necessarily indicate that it is.