Index live · Last sync 23 May 2026

Source · Select Committees · Justice Committee

Third Report - IPP sentences

Justice Committee HC 266 Published 28 September 2022

Report Status

Government responded

Conclusions & Recommendations

22 items (15 recs)

Source

View on Parliament website ↗

Government Response

AI assessment · 22 of 22 classified

Accepted in Part 1

Recommendations

15 results

2 Accepted

Para 39

Develop new IPP Action Plan including performance measures, accountable owners, and timeframes

Recommendation

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 … Read more

Government Response 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.

Ministry of Justice

View Details →

4 Acknowledged

Para 59

Establish clear support for mentally unwell prisoners remitted to prison from secure hospitals

Recommendation

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 … Read more

Government Response 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.

Ministry of Justice

View Details →

5 Accepted

Para 71

Ensure sufficient availability of courses for IPP prisoners, reduce waiting lists and improve placements

Recommendation

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 … Read more

Government Response 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 for IPP prisoners.

Ministry of Justice

View Details →

7 Accepted

Publish Professor Moran's report and ensure all IPP programmes deliver adequate outcomes for prisoners

Recommendation

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 … Read more

Government Response 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.

Ministry of Justice

View Details →

9 Deferred

Para 94

Ensure all IPP prisoners have access to a community probation officer with adequate contact

Recommendation

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 … Read more

Government Response 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 or the adequacy of officer contact.

Ministry of Justice

View Details →

12 Acknowledged

Para 120

Implement strategies to tackle the IPP recall merry-go-round, examining thresholds and resettlement support

Recommendation

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 … Read more

Government Response 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 did not commit to specific actions regarding recall thresholds, approved premises, or alternatives to emergency recall.

Ministry of Justice

View Details →

13 Rejected

Para 121

Grant recalled IPP prisoners right to oral Parole Board hearings and annual reviews

Recommendation

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 … Read more

Government Response 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.

Ministry of Justice

View Details →

14 Accepted

Para 128

Recall of IPP sentenced individuals presents growing problem for resettlement and reintegration

Recommendation

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 … Read more

Government Response 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 use of Release on Temporary Licence (ROTL) to support reintegration.

Ministry of Justice

View Details →

15 Accepted

Provide updates on IPP prisoner resettlement, detailing Resettlement Passports and pre-release preparation

Recommendation

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 … Read more

Government Response 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.

Ministry of Justice

View Details →

17 Rejected

Require primary legislation to enable a comprehensive IPP resentencing exercise

Recommendation

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 … Read more

Government Response 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.

Ministry of Justice

View Details →

18 Rejected

Para 152

Bring forward legislation to enable IPP resentencing for all sentenced individuals

Recommendation

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 … Read more

Government Response 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.

Ministry of Justice

View Details →

19 Accepted in Part

Para 153

Prevent indefinite imprisonment of offenders due to lack of community resources

Recommendation

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 … Read more

Government Response 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 already available for licence variation.

Ministry of Justice

View Details →

20 Rejected

Para 154

Establish an expert committee to advise on practical implementation of IPP resentencing

Recommendation

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 … Read more

Government Response 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.

Ministry of Justice

View Details →

21 Rejected

Resentencing exercise for IPP prisoners must balance public protection, individual justice, and judicial independence.

Recommendation

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 … 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 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.

Ministry of Justice

View Details →

22 Rejected

Large-scale resentencing for IPP prisoners, despite complexity, urgently requires action from all state branches.

Recommendation

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 … Read more

Government Response 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.

Ministry of Justice

View Details →

Conclusions (7)

Observations and findings

1 Conclusion Accepted

Para 38

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.

Government Response 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.

View Details →

3 Conclusion Accepted

Para 58

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, …

Government Response 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.

View Details →

6 Conclusion Deferred

Para 80

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 …

Government Response 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.

View Details →

8 Conclusion Accepted

Para 93

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 …

Government Response 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.

View Details →

10 Conclusion Deferred

Para 104

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 …

Government Response 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.

View Details →

11 Conclusion 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

Government Response 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.

View Details →

16 Conclusion Rejected

Para 150

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 …

Government Response 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.

View Details →