IPP Conference on the Church of England Criminal Justice Affairs Group, HMP Howell. The voices of IPP prisoners. Judge Toney Hooper QC a way forward. Facts and figures. Key aim of parole board. Probation prospective. Judge. The Prison reform Trust. Rory Stewart. Bishops asked government….

Worcester Diocese Searching for a way out: the dilemma of the sentence of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP)

Expediting Release of over tariff IPP prisoners

Tuesday 16^th October 2018. The Grange, HMP Hewell

IPP campaign group attended the conference aimed at those working in the criminal justice system, those who can influence policy, those concerned about IPP prisoners mental health professionals and interested people from faith communities. The purpose of the accordance  to better understand the human cost of the indeterminate nature of the IPP sentence and to identify any potential ways of influencing policy to reduce the number of IPP prisoners trapped in the prison system. The Objectives, To outline the key issues for IPP prisoners. To better understand the current IPP system. To identify ways un which IPP prisoners could be managed in the community and receive the support and resources needed to meet their needs. To identify any actions that CJAG  could support or take forward. finding a solutions away to accelerate the Release of IPP Prisoners  The following day IPP Campaign group/lobby Group day attended parliament for the secondary stage.

Video: the voice of IPP prisoners

• 
  
  
  
  

  There were 4 prisoners interviewed, all over tariff, having served between 8 and 12 years already, although the tariffs were 3 years or less.

  The main points which came across were that their mental health had suffered severely - at least one confessed to having suicidal thoughts, and all clearly struggled to retain any hope of release.

  The subject of recall came up, and the opinion was that recall was put into practice far too often and for insufficient reasons.

Facts and figures: Professor Jackie Hodges (Univ. of Warwick)

• The criminal justice system in the IPP sentence moved from a focus on what has already happened to a “preventive” focus, which meant a focus on the risk of reoffending.
• In 2017 there were still 3,350 IPPs still in prison.

The Parole Board and IPPs: Faith Geary

Key aim of the PB: “Maintaining fairness and increasing confidence in parole”

• The original Parole Board over 50 years ago was merely an advisory body, but is now an independent court-like body which orders the release of prisoners. Its sole focus is risk.

• In 2015 it had significant problems, including a huge backlog of hearings, with too few Parole Board members for the number of hearing requested.
• An increase in funding allowed extra PB members to be appointed.
• The introduction of electronic information sharing also improved the efficiency of getting information to PB members.

• The PB is trying to avoid deferrals on the day and to keep the overall deferral rate down, as well as react more swiftly to recalls, so that recalled IPP prisoners do not necessarily have to wait for months before having a chance for release again.
• In March 2018 there were about 2 300 IPP prisoners still in custody.

• The most difficult group of IPP prisoners to assess for release are those with mental health or other specific needs, because of the necessity of finding appropriate specialist support in the community.
• The John Worboys case has had an impact on public and governmental confidence in the PB, despite the new initiatives such as greater transparency about the PB decisions.

• However, the PB cannot bow to public opinion. It must always make its decisions based on the facts available at the time of the hearing.

Probation and IPPs: Sarah Chandler

Key issues: 1. Expediting release of IPPs

2. Striking the balance between desire to release more IPPs, and need for public   protection

Expediting release

• Get a sentence plan early in the sentence to get IPP prisoner ready for parole (IT’S A BIT LATE FOR THIS NOW – THEY ARE ALMOST ALL OVER TARIFF!!)
• Get individuals into the right prison for release – where possible prioritise IPPs for treatment
• Increase the involvement of psychology colleagues in reviewing core files and designing treatment pathways
• Offer increased access to electronic monitoring to give Prole Board confidence in risk management plans post-release
• Case File Reviews (CFRs) – these are NOT risk assessments, but are to be completed on all prisoners who are over tariff, have had 2 parole hearings, are currently in closed conditions and have not progressed to open conditions after 2 or more post-tariff parole reviews. These prisoners should be prioritised by probation.
• Improve availability of suitable risk-assessed accommodation, including follow-on accommodation after approved premises
• ETE (Education, Training, Employment) opportunities are vital, as well as access to mental health services

NOTES

• Changes in the Probation Service mean that offender management is moving more directly into the prisons. This restructuring is also likely to mean that there will be frequent changes of probation officer during an offender’s sentence. This means that probation officers will have to work much harder at getting  to know the prisoner and establishing a working relationship built on trust, much more quickly.

• On a more positive note, it was emphasised that probation can now change the licence conditions and do NOT have to recall prisoners for breaches. Probation can make the conditions more or less severe, depending on the individual. It remains to be seen how well this will work in practice.

IPPS – hope for release: Ryan Harman, Mark Day, Marc Conway (Prison Reform Trust)

Marc Conway, an IPP prisoner released just a few days before the conference, spoke movingly and vividly about his experiences. He is now working for the PRT.

Mark Day spoke about the work of the PRT and about the situation of IPPs.

• 2,745 IPPs in prison in March 2018.
• 2,434 have already served their tariff – almost 90%.
• Over 1,500 (nearly two-thirds of those over tariff) had a tariff of 4 years or less.

• Release rate for IPPs have increased sharply in the past 3 years.
• Even so, the current Parole Board predictions foresee around 2,000 IPPs still in custody in 2020, with the most optimistic prediction being around 1,500.
• A reduction below 1,000 by that date would require legal intervention.
• Rory Stewart (Prisons minister) has said there is no prospect of legislation.
• Recalls are also a huge problem – the rate has gone up, and over 900 IPP prisoners are currently in prison on recall.
• One recall issue is that if a person makes an allegation about an IPP prisoner on licence (even if it is untrue), the prisoner can be recalled.

Mark shared quotes from IPP prisoners which showed the mental stress the sentence has on them.

Self harm incidents per 1,000 prisoners for 2017:-

• Lifers             403
• Determinate           421
• IPPs                872

Policy options for the PRT

• Convert IPP sentences to determinate sentences, starting with the shortest tariff first
• “sunset provision” – all IPP sentences become determinate at a fixed point
• Change the release test
• Change the licence period
• Encourage a paper review for recalled IPPs
• Change criteria for recall

The PRT has already produced research on the IPP sentence (“Unjust Deserts: imprisonment for public protection”), and has given evidence to the Justice Committee, as well as trying to raise public awareness of prison issues generally.

Future research could include reasons for IPP recalls – why are they so high.

Workshop - Hope and Opportunity: building a rehabilitative culture with people serving indeterminate sentences: Dr. Jamie Bennett, Governor HMPGrendon and Springhill

HMP Grendon is a series of therapeutic communities where prisoners are encouraged to play an active part in the process of their own change and that of their peers.

Very high proportion of IPP prisoners.

Prisons with opportunity

IPP prisoners often have multiple needs and vary significantly in terms of their offences, background and ability to engage with interventions in order to reduce their risk.

Only 26% of IPP prisoners reported that a member of staff had helped them prepare for release.

KEY QUESTIONS

• Do we understand the needs of IPP prisoners?
• What services should be available to people serving IPP sentences?
• How can we provide these services?
• How can we ensure the right people access these services?

Prisons with hope

• A rehabilitative culture is one where all the aspects of our culture support rehabilitation; they contribute to the prison being safe, decent, hopeful and supportive of change, progression and stopping offending. A rehabilitative culture is not about being nicer to people but about working in a way that supports the evidence for what can help reduce offending.

• Royal College of Psychiatrists’ Enabling Environments award: quality mark given to those who can show that they are achieving an outstanding level of best practice in creating and sustaining a positive and effective social environment.

• Places where positive relationships promote well-being for all participants
• Places where people experience a sense of belonging
• Places where all people involved contribute to the growth and well-being of others
• Places where people can learn new ways of relating
• Places that recognise and respect the contributions of all parties in helping relationships
  
  
  2 prisons have the full award (Springhill is one), others have units with the award.
  
  
  KEY QUESTIONS

• What regimes and environments are best suited to support people serving IPP sentences?
• How can a sense of hope be sustained in conditions of indeterminacy?
• How can hope be sustained in the face of challenges, frustration and rejection?

Grendon tries to provide hope in a number of ways:-

• Collaborative relationships

e.g staff selected (with prisoner participation in the selection) for their ability to work positively with prisoners, ongoing support supervision and training for staff, shared social spaces such as eating together

• Nurturing positive self-identity

e.g use of first names as a norm, opportunities for meaningful activities, prisoner involvement in organising, hosting and delivering events

• Safety and security

e.g. community and peer involvement in establishing rules, resolving conflict and responding to rule violations

• Installation of a sense of hope

e.g. celebrating successes of individuals through certificates, letters and ceremonies, inviting model residents and ex-residents to give testimony of their individual journe

Plenary: Robert Jones, Archdeacon of Worcester

Some suggestions for possible ways forward to improve conditions for IPP prisoners – while not forgetting the need also to focus on the political aim of getting the sentence abolished

• Possibly have a wing just for IPP prisoners?
• Longer visits to enable prisoners to maintain family relationships
• Phones in cells
• Less moving around

Work shops that explored some of the issues in more dept.

                                      HMP Howell, Photograph by Katherine Gleeson

            

HMP Howell

IPP prisoners provided real accounts of there struggle  the failure and mental state mirrored by  Chaplin's who have observed them while in prison, All  Names  have been change for confidentiality .

Karl has as been in prison since age of 15 he received 5 years tariff and is still in prison 14 years on. He is unable to read or write as a result of a hidden disability Dyslexia and is not being supported with a scribe, under reasonable adjustments this is hindering his  progression . He has finished all his courses but more is added on and his recent is Behaviour Tc, in the hope they can modify the disability out of him. he went on to say  

"My Family abandoned me and moved back to their home country I have no one on the outside to come out too  but I suppose if they can abandon like that I don't need them. 

I am concerned the poor test criteria want support him until we focuses on assisting people rather punishing we will fail. Refer: know body knows, link on page.

Brian was recalled twice  has little understanding to what "rule he broke but no other   crime  committed when recalled.

Guest speaker Harry was  released a couple of month’s bake he spoke about his experience and  final message was clear” a policy change because  there is so much wrong additionally he was most concerned about recall / licence.

Via Video link

John, gave a very real account of the loss of his friend alike given a IPP sentence . He stated us IPPs prisoners  tend to stick together we have too. He described an account of how he watched his friend in the next cell mental health deteriorate day by day  and that he  could see he was  losing hope  but I couldn't do anything about it and one night  without a sound he hung himself I  have to live with this every time  I close my eyes at night and will do  for the rest of my life. 

Work Shop1, Judge Toney Hooper QC. How do we go forward? We can argue? “ The problem is The operation of the act" 

We need the straw and bricks if you like to create the argument and that we hear what the logicality of it.
With the sentence that passed in 2006

Legislation was doomed you might say floored from the start which makes matter worse. Absence of an end point for determinate is a very serious impediment indeed. What the answer might be though I'm not going to reveal it as I believe in a in a particular form of solution for this.

But first I will reflect on the importance of some alternative solution to recall. The challenges may what they be and what the answer is.  I believe very strongly of a particular form of solution for this for this difficulty which will reflect the importance of some alternate release.

This human rights act is really complicated. The legislation itself could be said to be in breach of the human rights because  whatever we are saying about parliament they retain the power to legislated whatever it choices to  legislated so it could be said that the act was implicit breach of the human rights act but could be in breach of the  “Operation of the act!  Under human rights .

Section 18 wounding or bodily harm with intent to commit grievous bodily harm, maximum sentence life in prison. “Suppose it was a category one greater harm and higher culpability for example a sustained repeated assault with the use of a weapon greater harm by culpability the starting point in the sentencing guidelines which I have here is 12 years in prison. 

So suppose it was a 12 year sentence past in 206 the half-way point would have been 20012 so he or she would have been eligible to come to the parole board in any time after 2012.

And I bet there are some people still serving who fill that exact crista, suppose then it had been converted to extended determinate sentence that would be regarded as 2 thirds of the way in titled to come to the parole board because its longer than 10 years, well it would be less than 10 years  it would just  be an extended  determinate sentence but entitled to come to the parole board after 2 thirds, that’s 2014 to ask to be released - if not released defiantly released in 2018 and that the arifmertick I hope you find quite compelling  because such as serious  offence as that in 206  you would still be released and receiving  IPP  for sentences  under the current guide lines would attract sentences at most determinate sentences between 3 and 5 years, they would have been well released.

It’s an illogical the sentence it’s as random as the day you where sentence. Gove looked like he was getting very close looking into things, In 2006 Gove got the money for the digitalisation of the justice system

In the case R v Roberts  Imprisonment for Public Protection [2016]EWCA Crim 71, the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) IPP) continues to bedevil the legal system. 

The court back then rejected the claim that the sentence had been come unlawful because the Lasbo would change? but they still went out of their way to say that was a real concern but they didn’t have to say that it was almost as though not for me to  interrupt but I just got the feeling as some what experienced of higher court judgements that they were sort of appealing to the secretary of state better nature to understand what the real damage is and that quite significant.

Case http://obiterj.blogspot.com/2016/03/imprisonment-for-public-protection-r-v.html

That there might be a public inquiry but that’s not favour of the month with so many people tied up with the big public inquires, but in the case of Roberts, did say was another amendment they past was a really serious augment it was for parliament not for the courts was to convert assisting IPPs into extended sentences, everyone would have and end point to work too. Chosen to be a year after the sentence was available and beginning to bed in and I think being applied to these higher cases.End

......................................................................

Concerns was noted by government agencies/solicitors... below  a snap shot.......

OAS’S the like hood Likelihood of behaviours, wing assessments  which is clearly unfair predictions as judged against the  same criteria even if they have changed The purpose was to share ideas and a way forward better ways to influence policy, to find a way out

More clarity is required to know what we need to say to the parole board / probation wanted and better test clarity of the criteria what you put before the parole board. Government agency’s expressed that the parole board is more complicated than it needs to be and that those that previously worked there stated the same.

Complaints about the same criteria test for when you enter prison and when you leave .Asking for a test with clarity to work towards rehabilitation that is diverse for prisoners that is fair and understandable, not based on one fits all.

Quote: prison Chaplin’s we want to play a greater role to support prisoners. We want to play greater role on helping prisoners I personally witnessed over time prisoners mental health suffer as a result of being on an IPP sentence. I am concerned. I wonder has there been any research been done to actually to see correlation between mental health and the deterioration.

Recipient: MPs were around at the time, what was they doing?

Mention was the lack of legal aid solicitors. And Solicitors stated they cannot afford to go in prison and defend prisoners. The “time we have given prisoners is the very minimalist.

Solicitors mentioned we only have bare minim advice to give to prisoners, we would like to give more but we get little budge to give them more advice that they require.

Parole and probation was accepting that continued detention is a setback to rehabilitation that want fairness and clarity for release. Oases a test that sent you to prison is the same for the release test though a prisoner may have changed filling it probation workers said they found difficult and didn’t understand the criteria as each person was different they found it hard to understand and relate to the persons .One said I had a week training which was not enough so she goggled it to understand the terminology. The speaker said the figures speak for themselves.

Talks in the works from parole board changing licence conditions: rewarding licence conditions and not recalling on minor issues but only if you’ve committed another crime.  Looking at having the same offender manger all the time whatever prison you go to. Tagging is mentioned once again, yes. 

*   Influenced by media this needs to end*

IPPs recall seemed to be higher with IPi.500 IPPs are serving less than 2 years, this is outrageous. Deferrals is not acceptable, these the parole board are looking to change to have one person to take over if anything goes wrong rather than deferring if a person is sick or unable to attend other….Prisoner who often commit breaches have extra sentences added to their sentences regardless if an IPP or not so it would make sense to reward, as one leading prison and its working. 

Change on Offender manager if you have 10 month or less to serve inmates have a community offender manager in with them to reduce risk. Serious reoffending rates are under 1%. Parole hearing failing’s families refused or not mad aware of parole hearings. Some prisoners want be released until mental health is set in place. Prisoner being held because they have a complex disorder a disability.

Recipient statment/question. 

That recall under minds the other not designed for those who are mentally ill or with disabilities. Prisoners needing intermediate's as risk to the inmate to rely on prisoner for support.

The Parole board did state in the minutes meeting 2016 that over tariff prisoners will all be out by 2018 - 2020 “” 2020 for complex cases. The parole board stated now that this was   too ambitious, time wasted waiting when more action could have been taken

50/% of inmates didn’t have an OASIS report 2 years back how has that changed?.

Recipient Questions: 

Why has it taken 15 + years of debate that we are still here talking about it with little change to show IPP prisoners? 3 justice Ministers well that says it all, perhaps that where the problem lies.

Recipient statement. 

A direct discrimination of prisoners having to do longer sentences as a result of their disability. Inmates who have Dyslexia, Dyspraxia OR personality disorders, Autism  the parole board are complex because they have a  disability and may it be added a disability that they will still have when they leave prison and so the questioned is why are they holding this “group despite finishing there  courses such my question  is are they being decimated.

A lot of discussion on the failed penile policy / breach of duty with continued incarceration

Recipient question:

Is this ok of the government to hold prisoners that have been released because they have nowhere to put them.

Quote Dr Emma Parmer who works in a prison said those with disability such as dyslexia Asperger’s….. Are doing double the sentence as they cannot assert themselves they don’t have reasonable adjustments such as scribe or intermediary and are relying on prisoners which is a risk to security/data.

Resumption of dangerous was modified in 2008 Significant was put at a later date, people questioned the change? Though there is a 1% an IPP prisoner is likely to commit another crime as recalls was mostly for breaches prisoners was unaware of due or a result of a learning disability/ misunderstanding.

Recipient statement. 

Section 18 and modify the threshold .Children of IPP prisoners bare brunt.

Mentioned. The impact direct access to legal aid the lack of solicitors and of brexit on IPP prisoners.

Self-harm and mental health issues high, inadequate information for assessment of risk/ Dangerousness But, judges could conclude that even with previous convictions, the offender was not dangerous. 50% of those sentenced to IPP had not been assessed by the Offender Assessment System, OASys. (Julia Long of the Public Protection Unit of NOMS, reported by Howard League.

The impossibility of demonstrating that not a risk to society. No resources for prisons to provide these; no capacity for parole to hear so many additional cases regardless 69…. being trained. No resources for prisons to provide these; no capacity for parole to hear so many additional cases.

Generic Parole Process, Cases Outstanding – Peak May 2015: 2,894 Lowest November 2017: 1,194

Recipient statement. Prisons are getting worse, old figures. Little systematic pre-release work carried out with little engagement likely to make future and extended supervision problematic

Mental health of IPP prisoners a big concern as the importance of progression.

 

Complaints from probation.

about filling in the OAS’S Criteria Test .probation argued they had one week training that they don’t understand the criteria. One probation officer quoted “I had to look it up on Google to try and attempt to understand it. That the test was not fit for all inmates because they were all diverse and unfair for those with disability /behaviour. 

Recipient statement. 
We have had too many justice Minister this was the problem and our current Minister must have a  gagging clauses silencing justice since we are all being locked  out. 

So now we are all pushing for legislative change, because of how unlikely that is to succeed otherwise. 

Regarding MP

• I want more accountability for their actions.
• i want complaints made easier.
• easy access encase of an emergency.
• Data register if your MP has brought up your concern  in  parliament
• MPs to accept cases regardless if they agree with the IPP sentence.  constituents don't have a choice    to go else where. public denied justice, left with no hope as a result failing Mps and processes.

1. Dr Emma Parlmer who sometime back I mention was at the perrie meetings stated that the parole members   predict risk by judgement, age, time, offence, substance .“that risk changes over time results of  OGRS scores  OAS’S the like hood  Likelihood of behaviours and wing assessments so it’s  clearly unfair predictions as judged against the same criteria  test . End 

2. Dr Karensa Hocken is a Chartered and Hcpc Registered Psychologist  BPS based At HMP Wharton specialises in assessment and treatment of those with intellectual or learning differences also at the  perrie meeting that those with intellectual disability’s Dyslexia/ Dyspraxia / ADHD Asperger's /Autism do double the sentences than  those who don't have a disability. End 

3. At path ways Professor Liam, Craig psychologist gave evidence at the parole board opd pathway that IPP trauma is acerbated or made worse and related to risk.End

Inmates with disabilities  make up our society but they are put at a disadvantage. Inmates are not being provided with reasonable adjustments, a duty under the Equality Act.

Failing to provide scribes or intermediary's to so you can communicate puts you at a substantial disadvantage in comparison to your peers that do not have a disability.  This puts a person at a loss of opportunity or diminishes there progress.  

Those with intellectual learning disabilities experience difficulties, short-term memory recalling information, expressing themselves, understanding ordinary social cues being a snap shot. They often need longer to process information or respond, sequencing events and dates, telephone dialling, surrounding noise -hearing auditory processing disorders and reading and writing. 

It is not good enough for a prison to expect an inmate to rely on a cell mate this puts the prisoner at risk t and their  children from others reading there information and data such as bank details children’saddresses not least to be black mailed .. If your reliant on favours they have to be paid back and this can be at a price as a result .it is time to treat those with intellectual disabilities with dignity and put the vulnerable on an even part then those without a disability people in risky situation. Take a look at an article

No one Knows.http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/No%20One%20Knows%20Nancy%20Loucks%20prevalence%20briefing.pdf 

The 17th October the following day the Family Campaign/lobby group attended parliament for the secondary stage of IPP/Research findings.

Parliament, we will go into depth in the following  week when i return from holiday. What i can say fir now on  the  topic of Act,s   Lucy Gampell OBE president of children for prisoner while in discustions

“Surely what about the rights of the child? The rights to contact and information , Under UN Convention on the rights of a child."  

                                                                                   Ann Horton, Mike Ford, Katherine Gleeson

I not an expert but children have the right to know, "when is Daddy or Mummy is coming home. Not knowing is dangling hope a form of child abuse mental or emotional/ cruelty. You cant  explain to a child when you as a family don't know.

Article 4 implementation of the Convention. Governments must do all they can to make sure every child can enjoy their rights by creating systems and passing laws that promote and protect children’s rights.

Article 8 (protection and preservation of identity every child has the right to an identity.

Governments must respect and protect that right, and prevent the family relationships from being changed unlawfully. Child (children) boy or girl between birth and physical maturity.  
  . Child (children) boy or girl between birth and physical maturity. One’s son or daughter. Someone lacking experience or understanding in something •    innocent or naive person.

....................................................................................................

Criminal Justice Centre School of Law University of Warwick .

Professor Jacqueline s. Hodgson

Imprisonment for public protection.

Where did the IPP sentences come from

• Broader CJ context of crime control& risk management starting in 1990s, replacing proportionality, where sentence reflects seriousness of the crime.
• “Preventive turn” in CJ Halliday Report (2001) recommended new determinate sentence for dangerous offenders not sentenced to life imprisonment
• 2003 CJA went further – indeterminate sentence to detain people for as long as they pose a risk to society.

IPP sentence?

“Although punitive in its effect, with far reaching consequences for the offender on whom it is imposed” the IPP “is concerned with future risk and public protection” rather than punishment for past behaviour.  Although

Rv jONES 2006 EWCA Crim 2486, PARA3)

Convicted of a specified offence + significant risk to members of the public of serious harm occasioned by the commission of further specified offences

Receive a minimum tariff - 1/3 were less than 2 years, could be 28 days- was removed for short sentences (under 4 years, effectively a 2 year tariff) in Criminal Justice & Immigration Act 2008

Remain on licence for at least 10 years

Who might be sentenced to an IPP?

• Specified offences = violence  & sexual offences with max sentence 1-10 year imprisonment or more
• 153 such offences. IPP imposed where old indeterminate life sentence would not
• Applied to young people and those without previous convictions, as well as recidivists

IPPs abolished by Legal Aid,

• Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 – but only retrospectively, leaving many still in the prison system Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 – but only retrospectively, leaving many still in the prison system

HOW WAS RISK DETERMINED POST DATE?

• significant risk of serious harm to members of the public .Vague terms (& “significant” only added after much debate in the House of Commons Standing Committee) despite Blunkett (2016) later saying was for those posing “a really serious risk to the population”
• Described as “labyrinthine proposals” in Lang& others [2004] EWCA Crim 2864 (para 16).
• Two routes requiring the Court to make an assessment (under s.229 CJA 2003)
  - of whether the person was dangerous (no previous convictions/under18)
  - of whether it was unreasonable to presume dangerousness (previous convictions/over 18)

ASESSING DANGEROUSNESS

• The Court makes an assessment of dangerousness if the person to be sentenced has no previous relevant conviction, or is under 18
• The Court:
  - must take account of all available info re nature & circumstances of offence
  - may take account of any information re pattern of behaviour of which offence forms part
  - may take into account any information about the offender

Rebutting the presumption of dangerousness

• The Court must operate a presumption of dangerousness if the person to be sentenced has one or more relevant previous convictions, or is over 18
• UNLESS Court considers this unreasonable if take into account these same 3 factors
  - all available info re nature & circumstances of offence
  - any information re pattern of behaviour of which offence forms part
  - any information about the offender
• Rebuttable presumption removed in 2008 Criminal Justice & Immigration Act

Inadequate information for assessment of risk/ Dangerousness

• The presumption of dangerousness equates offence seriousness with dangerousness. 
• But, judges could conclude that even with previous convictions, the offender was not dangerous
• However, broad nature of the provisions meant that IPP might be imposed without consideration of relevant information for risk assessment eg adequate pre-sentence reports, psychiatric reports. 
• 50% of those sentenced to IPP had not been assessed by the Offender Assessment System, OASys. (Julia Long of the Public Protection Unit of NOMS, reported by Howard League, 2007)
• Unfair & unjust sentences; proportionality abandoned in favour of sentencing for risk

The failure of IPPs

• Over use, did not target right offenders, used for less serious as well as grave offences
• Pushed up prison numbers – IPP population grew 135% 2005-2012. 8,000 more prisoners in 3 years.
• No forward planning
• Prison &parole systems unable to deal with so many indeterminate sentences and assessments – so unable to release prisoners, further increasing prison numbers
• Required to demonstrate no longer pose a risk, but systematically prevented from doing so – lack of resources & so opportunities
• Uncertainty for prisoners and delays of many years. 
  
  As one prison governor told HM Inspector of Prisons in 2008: “It is as though the government went out and did its shopping without first buying a fridge.

The impossibility of demonstrating that not a risk to society

• Anticipated access to offending behaviour courses
• No resources for prisons to provide these; no capacity for parole to hear so many additional cases
• ECtHR has held the post-tariff detention of prisoners t žto be arbitrary & unlawful, breaching Art. 5 ECHR, because of the failure to provide access to the rehabilitative courses required to prove risk reduction (James, ls & Lee v UK,18 September 2012)

The legacy of the IPPs

• Many remain in prison, years after serving their sentence

• Vulnerable populations put at further risk – IPP prisoners have highest rates of self harm

• žJames Ward was given a 10 month tariff and remained in prison for 11 years before f
• finally being released in 2017.
• Charlotte Nokes, a 30 year old with a drug addiction, was sentenced to 16 months and died in prison nine years later
• Scope reduced in 2008 & abolished in 2012, but thousands of people still serving IPPs
• In 2013, of the 5,809 people still serving IPPs, 3,570 had passed their tariff date.
• In 2017 there were 3,350 prisoners still serving IPPs – nearly half the number serving IPPs when they peaked at over 6,000 in 2012 inally being released in 2017.
• Charlotte Nokes, a 30 year old with a drug addiction, was sentenced to 16 months and died in prison nine years later
• Scope reduced in 2008 & abolished in 2012, but thousands of people still serving IPPs
• In 2013, of the 5,809 people still serving IPPs, 3,570 had passed their tariff date.
• In 2017 there were 3,350 prisoners still serving IPPs – nearly half the number serving IPPs when they peaked at over 6,000 in 2012

 A failure of penal policy

Kenneth Clarke, then Justice Secretary (2011), stated that IPPs were:

“unclear, inconsistent and have been used far more than was ever intended…That is unjust to the people in question and completely inconsistent with the policy of punishment, reform and rehabilitation.”

Yet, reform not retrospective, leaving many unaffected and trapped in the system. 

Michael Gove (2016) suggested using executive clemency to release those over tariff.

Serving an IPP

• I have to stay in custody until someone says I can leave. But when will that be? Because nothing is changing while I’m just sitting here every day waiting to be told what to do.’
• ‘When I first arrived I didn’t know what was happening, the Prison Service didn’t know, probation didn’t know, nobody knew what to do. After two years still no-one seems to know what they are doing.’
• ‘I have found it really hard to adjust to my sentence. I was told that IPP means ‘indefinite’ which is quite scary. I’m not justifying what I done but why do I need life? I would have preferred a fixed sentence that is longer, but at least I would have a light at the end of the tunnel.’
  Serving prisoners, on their experiences of IPPs
  (Howard League for Penal Reform, Indeterminate Sentences for Public Protection, 2007)

.................................................................................................

                                                               Speaker

Parole Board director Faith Geary

The Parole Board was created almost exactly 50 years ago in 1967

There were just 17 members (16 men, one woman) At that point in time the Board was advisory

There were no hearings.  The process was secret, with no reasons provided

Problems facing us in 2015?

- Significant delays/backlog
- Ahuge and diverse caseloads
- Outdated infastructure
- A lack of awareness of our work
- Insufficient resources
- Significant money paid tp prisoners for delays

HOW ARE WE DOING?

Generic Parole Process: Cases Outstanding – Peak May 2015: 2,894 Lowest November 2017: 1,194

But none of our decisions are easy or popular



Worboys case had an impact on the public, parliamentary and internal. Confidence and we are taking steps to repair the damage. Developing training for members in restorative.  Justice  Developing training for members in restorative  Justice.  We will pay the travelling expenses of victims who go to hearing.Welcome the new Victim Strategy. The Board has little direct contact with victims but we do now and a new Strategy for victims as well as treating them with respect and humanity."The system as a whole needs to improve.

Worboys case has had an impact on public, parliamentary and internal confidence.

 we are taking steps to repair the damage. We believe greater transparency is an opportunity – so far there have been over a thousand requests for summaries and c 300 summaries issued. We welcome the new reconsideration mechanism – but are working with MoJ to ensure it is workable and proportionate. We hope that the MoJ Review will give the Board more teeth.

Increasing transparency

Our processes:

Better information on our website

Videos on-line explain the parole process

Regional engagement to explain our work to the public

Our decisions:

Summaries of Parole Board decisions available to victims and the public

New decision-making framework

Member guidance (new handbook)

Our performance:

Performance data on-line

User-friendly annual report

Information and organisational learning from serious further offences

Our values:

Continued comms to prisoners and victims about how our work affects them

Engagement on social media

Regular blog posts on our website

But

"The law requires that an independent body should review the lawfulness of detention after the period for punishment.We are essentially a court and should make our decisions “without fear or favour”  " We should not, and will not, change our    decisions as a result of “pressure” "Our decisions are based on law, and the evidence presented. "Fairness is paramount

we are a court and are said make their decisions  “without fear or favour”.

                                                                                     Speakers

Probation and Indeterminate  Prisoners (IPPs) Expediting Release of over-tariff IPP. Sarah Chand Divisional Director, NPS Midlands

Improving outcomes for Prisoners

Probation and Prisoners (IPPs) Improving outcomes for Prisoner

•Reduce Parole Board Referrals by driving sentence plan earlier in sentence and where possible prioritising access to treatment for this group

•Review the possibility of intensive supervision in custody

•Increase the involvement of psychology colleagues in reviewing core files and designing treatment pathways

•Move Offender Management of custody cases into the prisons (ongoing)

•Parole Board continue to facilitate additional hearings

Striking the Balance

•Improved progression of IPP prisoners towards release: HMPPS and the Parole Board to work together

•It is the role of the National Probation Service and other criminal justice agencies to make sure we achieve the right balance, and ensure more IPPs are released where appropriate, and that this is done.

Midlands IPPs – current number

NPS Guidance for managing IPPs

Objectives 

IN improve stability of IPPs post release by providing a wrap around service targeting OM time and access to services promoting desistance

Offer increased access to electronic/GPS monitoring to allow improved parole board confidence in release plans

NPS Guidance for managing IPPs

Four Work Streams

Increase access to electronic monitoring to raise Parole Board confidence

Management oversight of IPP cases

Improve operational practice to better support IPP releases

Develop coherent packages which support desistan

Psychological case file reviews (CFRs)

Full or Basic – provide information of the index offence, psychological history, custodial behaviour, interventions, previous assessments and issues raised, summary section and next steps. A basic one will only include offence history, current sentence planning pathway and summary of main information and future considerations.

CFRs are not risk assessments and do not involve the psychologist interviewing the offender

They have been completed on all IPP prisoners who are over tariff, have had two parole hearings, currently located within the closed custody estate and have not progressed to open conditions after two or more post tariff parole reviews.

NPS expectations

•Ensure all IPPS have had a Personality Disorder screening completed.

•Prioritise IPP cases in custody where a CFR has been completed and/or within Parole window and pending parole report completion.

•Hold an IPP multi-agency progression panel meeting prior to completion of the parole report or addendum parole report being completed.  (If case is MAPPA level 2 or 3, MAPPA takes precedence.)

•Panel meeting covers CFR, risk assessments and risk management plans, progressive steps achieved or required, risk management action plan – what, who, when.

•If in the community, quarterly progress review meetings are held.

•Public protection and risk management are paramount.

Continuing to Work in Partnership

•Recognition that IPPs are members of our community – partner agencies are jointly responsible for them accessing services

•Improve availability of suitable risk-assessed accommodation

•Follow-on accommodation from Approved Premises needs to be established and agreed pre-release

•Access to meaningful highly supported ETE outcomes

•Access to mental health services

•Access to drug and alcohol services

.................................................................................... 

Prison Reform Trust 16 October 2018.

Speaker Mark Day...Jessica Jacobson and Hough. Research

The legacy of the IPP

IPPs Hope for Release?

Nearly nine in 10 are stuck in prison beyond tariff.

People in prison on a IPP 2,745.

Nearly nine in 10 have already served their tariff is 2,43

Nearly two thirds of those has a tarrif of four years or less. Less than 2 years-  2-4 years.

“IPP feels like a poison. Administered again and again each time I dare to hope.”

“My blood bubbles as I consider the delays, the lost post-tariff years, the missing documents in my dossier, the prejudicial inaccuracies in my OASys.”

Risk of harm?
IPP prisoners are more likely to self-harm

Self-risk incidents per 1,ooo prisoners quarterly update Dec 2017

872 IPP

421Determonate Sentences

403 Life

“I’m really struggling with my sentence, years over tariff.
I feel lost in a backward system. I feel like I am getting worse, mentally, physically and emotionally”

“I have been well behaved in prison and am trying my best to change, to satisfy my future parole board, but the prison is holding me back…
I am so sad and in despair, and if I am honest with you I am losing hope”

Successful release
Release rates for IPPs have risen sharply in the last three years.

Parole Board strategy (2016)

•Reduce backlog of oral hearings

–Release of IPPs within backlog

–Review IPP cases more regularly

•Less focus on determinate recall cases

•Risk appetite

–Improve readiness for release and release planning

Parole Board predictions (2016)

""""•NO IPP prisoners in custody by 2020

•On most optimistic forecast, c1,500 by 2020

•A reduction below 1,000 would require statutory intervention

Success is short lived for some Growing numbers are ending up back in prison 

2015 -400  a rising to 900 in 2018

Possible policy interventions

•Conversion

•Establish a sunset provision for all or some sentences

•Change Parole Board release test

•Change licence period

•Paper review of recalled IPP prisoners

•Change criteria for recall

 Prison Reform Trust strategy

Prison Reform Trust stratege

Research

Striving for freedom- A Probations Officers Prospective of IPP sentences

Marianna Partridge & Steve Hewitt. National Probation Service

Risk reduction – Offence focussed

Accredited Programmes

Thinking Skills Programme

RESOLVE anger management programme

Horizon sex offender programme

Personality Disorder programme

Non-accredited Programme

Psychology work

Drug and alcohol support

Therapeutic Community

 Non-offence focussed work

Employment, Training and Education

Therapeutic Community

Personality Disorder treatment unit e.g. Fens Service at HMP Whitemoor

Parole Request

 

PAROM1 – Probation Officer

Prison Offender Supervisor report

Prison security information

Psychology report

Programmes Reports

 Community Supervision

 

Accommodation

Probation Approved Premises

Standard

Specific e.g. Elliott House (MH)

Hospital – e.g. Reaside Clinic

Rehabilitation Unit – e.g. Phoenix Futures (substance misuse)

Supported accommodation

Family

Community supervision 

Offence focussed work

Accredited Programmes

One-to-one work

Drug and alcohol support / testing

Re-integration in the community

Education

Training

Grants from charity e.g. Care Trust, Glasspool and Worcester Municipal Charity.

Employment

Recall

Re-offending

Failure to comply

Approved Premises regulations / curfew

Absconding

Alternatives to recall

Further stringent measures to ensure service users risk is manageable within the community:

Why should we think about alternatives to recall?

What to consider before recalling a service user?

What alternatives to recall are available?

 New Licence variations

Case Studies - Dave (1)

 

Parents split-up when he was 18 months old

Passed around family and sexually abused by step-father

Fell in with anti-social group at school & started to use cannabis

Escalated to Class A drug use

3 robbery offences in 3 months – knife and lone female cashiers

Sentenced to IPP sentence with tariff of 5 years

Completed drug work in custody and Thinking Skills Programme

Released on Parole after 6 years

 Case Studies - Dave (2)

 

In community for 5 years working as central heating engineer

Youths in neighbourhood drove cars up and down road, partner went out to remonstrate, argument ensued and Dave went out to help / defend her and he reached into car and punched one of the youths.

Convicted of Common Assault and recalled

 What’s next? 

Peter ( 1)

In 2006 Peter and the victim Deborah had an argument during which he accused her of having an affair.  She informed Peter that she wished to terminate their relationship.  During this period, Peter is said to have smashed a wine bottle against a wall and then left the property.  Deborah decided to sleep in the same bed as her son on this evening.  Peter returned to the property later in the evening.  He is described as demonstrating changeable moods such as crying and then banging his head against walls.  He is also reported to have pushed Deborah away when she was trying to calm him down.  Deborah threatened to call the Police at which point Peter has smashed a phone against a wall.  Eventually after calming down, Peter has been allowed to stay at Deborah’s home.  He awoke the next morning, and collected his belongings and left the property. Peter had stolen Deborah’s bank card.  Upon discovering this, Deborah contacted her bank and was informed Peter had withdrawn £150 from her account.

Peter spent the remainder of the day with friends, drinking alcohol in various Birmingham City Centre licensed premises. He estimates that he had consumed approximately 20 pints of lager and cider, in addition to 'shorts' and had also snorted cocaine offered by friends. Peter returned to Deborah’s flat later that evening. Upon his return he found the door to the flat was locked from the inside, and he describes his anger erupting, as he was now convinced that his partner was being unfaithful to him. Peter forced entry into the flat. The fact that his partner was alone, did not defuse Peter’s anger. Upon gaining entry, he then attacked his partner by punching her, threatening to kill her, pinning her to the floor as she tried to make her escape and then kicking her, going to the kitchen collecting a knife and stabbing Deborah.

Sentenced to IPP with tariff of 42 months.

Peter (2) 

Peter Completed a number of courses in custody including Health Relationship programme enhanced Thinking skills programme (ETS) Alcohol awareness courses two COURSES TWO different prisons. A Parole hearing was held after he had been in custody for 5 years and moved to open Conditions.14 mounts lather he was released into the community after serving 6 years and 4 months. 

Peter (3)

After being in the community for a year Peter  was in Bar 12 with his new girlfriend of 7 days. They had both been drinking. An argument occurred between them and Peter slapped his partner across the abdomen whilst swearing at her. He then walked out. 

He was reported to police but not charged for this incident.

It was a breach of two of his licence conditions:

(i) To be of good behaviour 

(ii) Disclosing new intimate relationship to his Probation Officer 

What Next?

Henry (1)

•Parents separated when Henry was 2 years of age, he lived with his father who often was physically abusive.

•Convicted of Wounding Sec 20 in 2008 – received an IPP sentence with a 3 year tariff.

•Index offence was against the former partner of his partner; relationships are clearly a trigger point to violence.

•Heavy use of alcohol and drugs at the time.

•Completed Enhanced Thinking Skills (ETS), Level 1 & 2 Alcohol Awareness and Controlling Anger and Learning to Manage it (CALM) in custody. 

•Released on Parole in 2016; completed Building Better Relationships (BBR) on Licence.

  

Henry (2)

 

•Henry has been in the community for 2 years.

•In 2018 an incident arose: Probation Officer alerted that Henry had begun a new relationship with a female who had children; he had been staying overnight at her address and had been in contact with her children.

Considering the alternatives to recall –  

what next?

 Gerald (1)

 

•Gerald comes from a travelling community. He reported that his parents separated when he was 16 years of age. Gerald gave an account of a very turbulent and disruptive childhood characterised by poor parental attachments.  He stated that he had prolonged exposure to domestic violence perpetrated by his father against his mother and that he himself was subjected to physical violence, perpetrated by both of his parents. Amongst specific incidents that Gerald recalled, he stated that he had been hit around the legs with sticks and that a number of household items were thrown at him.  He stated that he had witnessed and been a victim to violence for as long as he could remember, adding that his own physical abuse was his first memory.

•Gerald pleaded guilty to a S18 Assault with intent against his then partner Diana and S20 unlawful wounding against his father.  Both offences took place during the period 6-9 January 2010.  The offence against Diana was a ferocious violent and sustained attack that started in the flat of his father on 07/01/10 and continued in other locations culminating in Diana being left unconscious in sub zero temperatures in a local playing fields on 08/01/10.  Gary’s father was injured when he attempted to stop his son attacking Diana and was prevented from calling the emergency services.

•Gerald was sentenced to an IPP sentence, with a tariff of 2 years.

•Gerald was detained in 2013 under section 47/49 of the Mental Health Act; for suffering with Persistent Delusional Disorder. He presently resides in a secure unit. Gerald has been detained at this unit since August 2013 - at present he is allowed escorted visits. An application was made for unescorted ROTLs and was approved in 2017. Following a ward round review also in 2017 I was informed that Gerald had been referred and accepted to low security however due to a long waiting list it was agreed that he would remain in medium security. Gerald is stable on medication and appears to be complying well with the hospitals regime, his mental state is also reported to have remained stable. He commenced self-medication in January 2017 and has been compliant with this for the last 12 months; and attends unprompted for his self-medication. Gerald has good insight into his mental illness and how substances have impacted upon his mental health and has expressed remorse about past acts of violence.  He denies having any violent thoughts now and wishes to carry on with his life and rehabilitation. He engages in ward activities, goes fishing, uses the community gym and also attends the care farm and walking group.

•Gerald has completed some relationship work in the secure unit, but this work is not an accredited programme. He is presently in Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) therapy, which is being used to treat the trauma that he has suffered as a result of the index offence.

Gerald (2)

 

•Tribunal set for December 2018 – What do you think the outcome will be?

•Following a successful tribunal an application for Parole will be made.

•What next for Gerald?

 Challenges we face:

•Robust risk management plan

•New initiative of alternatives to recall

•Limited availability of Approved Premises placements

•Options that are outside of our control – such as those involved with mental health tribunals

...................................................................

Bishop of London asks Government about purposeful activity for prisoners, and role in rehabilitation

On 15th October 2018 the Bishop of London, the Rt Revd Sarah Mullally, asked a question she had tabled to Government on prisons. Her follow up question and those of other Members is reproduced below:The Lord Bishop of London: To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they plan to ensure that every prisoner can participate in purposeful activity during their sentence.

       video: https://videopress.com/v/chWXG0nc

Download Original fileH.264 (MP4)THEORA (OGG)

     Lord Keen of Elie: My Lords, the introduction of offender management in custody and the associated staffing means that prisons will be better equipped to run fuller regimes with more opportunities for purposeful activity. Our education and employment strategy, launched in May, will create a system where prisoners are on a path to employment through increased opportunities to gain experience of work in communities while released on temporary licence

The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. In Prisons Week, does he accept that continuous efforts must be made to ensure that our prisons are places of safety for those serving their sentences, and are places of hope for those who intend to avoid reoffending once released? Although I welcome the constructive use of additional staff through the promising new offender management in custody scheme, I invite the Minister to acknowledge the important role that chaplaincies, community chaplaincies, charities and churches can play in the rehabilitation of offenders.

lord Keen of Elie: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate makes a very good point about the need for rehabilitation and for safety in prisons to be as effective as possible. In addition to the strategy that she mentioned, we have launched the education and employment strategy, ​which will create a system in which each prisoner is set on a path to employment from the outset. We hope that governors will be in a position to deliver that strategy by next April. I confirm that there are chaplaincy facilities in all our prisons, of course.

Baroness D’Souza (CB): My Lords, there has been considerable success in introducing theatre of all kinds and acting in some prisons. How far do the Government support those efforts and how far are they prepared to finance them?

Lord Keen of Elie: My Lords, I understand that the introduction of theatre is part of the wider educational programme in prisons. I am not able to say that there is any identified or closed funding for that aspect of the process.

Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab): My Lords, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons reported in June that 38% of those in young offender institutions are locked in their cells for more than 22 hours a day. How on earth can they receive any proper training and rehabilitation if they are locked up for such lengths of time? Why has the Ministry of Justice repeatedly refused to collect data on how long people are locked up in prison? Is it because it does not want to know, or because it knows that it will not like the answer?

Lord Keen of Elie: My Lords, on the last point, we do not have clear and identifiable data from all institutions that would enable us to determine how long prisoners actually spent in individual cells. That is clearly a matter for which individual governors have considerable responsibility. Regarding young offenders, the noble Lord may recollect the announcement made by the Secretary of State on 2 October about the introduction of the first secure school, which will open at Medway in 2020.

Lord Cormack (Con): My Lords, if we do not have this data why do we not get it?

Lord Keen of Elie: My Lords, it is a matter for consideration, but the collation of such data is a massive task and there are other, more immediate issues in our prisons to be addressed.

Lord German (LD): My Lords, one of the principal barriers to meaningful activity in prison is the unnecessary movement of prisoners between one prison and another. Courses and training are disrupted and the receiving prison frequently does not have the appropriate vacancy or the necessary course. Does the Minister acknowledge that problem, which is primarily caused by overcrowding in prisons? People are moved to create space and to wherever there is a space. That leads to a reduction in the amount of time that can be given to people to train and learn; when they leave they are without the appropriate skills.

Lord Keen of Elie: My Lords, I do not accept that there are unnecessary movements of prisoners between prisons. There are reasons why prisoners have to be moved from one institution to another from time to ​time. That is dependent on the category of prison and the category of prisoner. From time to time there may be disruption to courses that prisoners are undertaking, but there may equally be an issue about preparing them for release on licence or about trying to ensure that they come into closer contact with their family, for support.

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab): I return to the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza. I advise the Minister that this very afternoon my own daughter, as a professional opera singer, is in one of Her Majesty’s prisons in this city working with prisoners who are about to present a production of “Carmen”. Will he acknowledge that these interventions have a significant effect on the confidence and self-esteem of prisoners who are able to participate, but that not enough of them are able to do so? I ask him respectfully to reconsider the answer he gave and perhaps suggest that the Government put a little more effort into this.

Lord Keen of Elie: I am obliged to the noble Baroness, although I do not seek to reconsider my earlier answer. I acknowledge the importance of the work being done; of course it contributes to self-esteem and to the re-establishment of sensible relationships required of those in our prisons. It is part of an educational process that leads some prisoners to a point where they are able to secure suitable employment when they leave prison.

Via Parliament.uk

 Bishop of Gloucester highlights need for meaningful path away from offending

On the 6th of September 2018 Lord Bird asked Her Majesty’s Government “what plans they have to ensure that prisons and young offender institutions are safe and able to meet the rehabilitative needs of those imprisoned.” The Rt Revd Rachel Treweek, Bishop of Gloucester, asked a follow up question focusing on community-based sentences and rehabilitation involving meaningful work

The Lord Bishop of Gloucester: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for bringing this important debate today. It is encouraging to see some new energy in the Ministry of Justice, and some recent government announcements have been very encouraging, not least the female offender strategy. However, as has been said, it is important to acknowledge that so often prison will not be able to meet the rehabilitative needs of the people who are sent there. Many women are often in prison for only a few weeks and very often this exacerbates other issues, not least that of children separated from mothers, while also not enabling any meaningful work or rehabilitation to be engaged with. Alternative provision for vulnerable people must be available, well funded and trusted by those making sentencing decisions. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Vere of Norbiton, will be able to assure me that the Government will make a long-term commitment to funding community-based solutions, both for vulnerable people at risk of offending and for individuals who would be better served by community-based sentences.

I turn to the issue of those serving prison sentences. Safety and rehabilitation do not operate independently; they are mutually reinforcing. Problems with security and drugs are fuelled and exacerbated by boredom and frustration. Purposeful activity and meaningful work are not just essential to the broader goal of rehabilitation, they are necessary for the safe and effective operation of a prison. The Government’s recent announcements on security and training for staff are encouraging, but I fear that they have overlooked a key element, and that is hope. Meaningful activity is important—indeed, essential—because it provides hope: hope that today will bring something more engaging than the sight of a cell door; hope that this week may contain something more interesting, the possibility of building something good for the future; hope that, over the arc of a sentence, there will be an opportunity for key issues to be addressed; a meaningful path away from offending.

I am delighted that women’s prisons have now adopted a trauma-informed approach. At HMP Eastwood Park, in my diocese, prison officer numbers are being boosted, under the offender management in custody initiative, in order to implement key workers, which will allow more work directly with women. What cause do prisoners have for hope? Can the noble Baroness assure me that resources for appropriate rehabilitative engagement and meaningful work will be a cornerstone of the Government’s plans? Though it is coming from a bishop’s mouth, hope here is not an intangible concept or even a faith-based one: it is a very practical, on-the-ground concern about how prisoners approach and experience their sentences. It is a concern about rampant drug use and self-harm. Hope gives the motivation to be constructive rather than destructive. The Secretary of State has promised a new vision for prisons, which I hope will give each person in custody hope and a vision for their sentence.

Bishop of Rochester highlights social care challenges for prisons, and

 ROLE OF VOLUTARY SECTOR

Perhaps I may approach this subject in a slightly different way from other speakers by focusing on two specific areas in which I have some experience. As Bishop to Her Majesty’s Prisons, a few months ago I visited HMP Stafford, which is a prison with a growing elderly population. Carers commissioned by the local authority go into the prison to provide personal care for elderly prisoners, and when I met the governor and his senior team they were thinking positively and practically about adapting buildings and regimes to provide, in effect, a care home within the prison. As the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman observed in a report last year,

“prisons designed for fit, young men must adjust to the largely unexpected and unplanned roles of care home and even hospice”.

The challenge in HMP Stafford was clear, and while I commend those on the ground there for seeking a response, it did feel rather as if they were working on their own to find solutions; perhaps something more substantive, structured and deliberate is needed.

Some 17% of the prison population is now aged over 50. While, dare I say it, that in terms of your Lordships’ House that may not seem very old, it is the case that people in the prison population by and large age 10 years in advance of the general population, so it is a serious issue. A possible way forward was suggested when, later in that series of visits, I went to HMP Oakwood where I met fit, young prisoners who were offering informal care and support to older, infirm prisoners. While not wanting to let the public purse off the hook, I did wonder whether prison training programmes might be extended to include training and qualifications in care, thus enabling properly trained prisoners formally to support those prisoners who are their neighbours and in need of some care. Not only would the training do that, but it would give those prisoners a qualification which would enable them to find employment on release from prison. Perhaps the Minister might care to discuss that in due course with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice.​

I also wonder whether there is a mechanism whereby local authority funding formulae might be adjusted where there is a prison within the local authority area which houses a disproportionate number of elderly prisoners, given the demands that that places on the local authority concerned.

My second area of comment concerns partnerships between the voluntary, community and faith organisations with statutory and other agencies. Voluntary action and activity does not mean that it is unprofessional, nor does it mean that it should come on the cheap. Many voluntary and community sector organisations employ seriously professional people at proper wages. There is also, however—I hesitate a little in talking about this because again I do not want to let the public purse off the hook—a role for that which is voluntary, in terms of time and remuneration, where people offer their expertise and their skills.

In my own diocese of Rochester, we are working with a national charitable initiative called “The Gift of Years”, with funding from the Henry Smith Charity, to establish a network of Anna chaplains and Anna friends—Anna being an elderly woman mentioned in the gospel of St Luke. Our particular focus is the pastoral care of those living with dementia and that of their carers. After a relatively short period, we now have more than 30 trained and commissioned volunteers. We have one paid professional specialist, funded by the Henry Smith Charity, and our first remunerated dementia chaplain who is funded locally by churches in Bromley. On the partnership side of this initiative, we are finding that—surprise, surprise—the local authority is increasingly beating a path to our door. There are opportunities to work closely with other organisations such as the Abbeyfield housing society and the Heart of Kent Hospice, where our pastoral carers go in to offer support to residents and patients, and of course to their families.

I hope that as government policy develops in this area and as the Green Paper is brought forward, some attention might also be given not just to, as it were, the voluntary and community sector in its big institutional forms but also to the role of local initiatives and how the relatively modest funding that is needed for them might be provided in various ways, possibly by means of grant funds for which people could apply.

I believe that there may be patterns in both of the examples I have given for other places and in other dimensions of care. In relation to the Anna chaplaincy model, it is worth noting that many of those who offer their time and skills as chaplains and friends are themselves relatively elderly people. They find huge fulfilment in serving the needs of those in their own communities.

Baroness Manzoor (Con):…As noted by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester, the Green Paper will bring forward proposals to build on the seven principles set out by the Secretary of State: quality and safety in service provision; whole-person, integrated care with the NHS and social care systems operating as one; better practical support for families and carers; and a sustainable funding model for social care supported by a diverse, vibrant and stable market. However, we are looking at the exact proposals in the Select Committee’s report and the Government will of course

...................................................................................

Justice Committee evidence session, Prison Reform Trust director Peter Dawson spells out the challenge facing the Ministry of Justice—too many people in prison, and too few resources

There Is Still No Light At The End Of The Tunnel For Britain's Prisons

Recent figures paint a worrying picture that will only be solved with more resources and fewer prisoners in the system

prisons continue to hit the headlines for all the wrong reasons—and so they should. The publication last week of cataclysmic figures showing that violence and self-harm continue to rise rightly received widespread coverage in the media.

Previous records have been smashed. Self-harm and assaults have risen by 20% in only a year, and self-inflicted deaths are also going up again after a disappointinglybrief dip. Taken as a whole, the prison system appears to be in freefall.

However an equally concerning report was also published last week, almost unnoticed. For anyone with an interest in prisons—whether they live or work there, have family inside, or simply care about the welfare of those that do—its findings make for alarming reading. The National Audit Office published an overview of the Ministry of Justice, summarising its financial situation and performance against the objectives it has set itself. Its content, though couched in dispassionate terms, is startling given the crisis described by the statistics on violence.

The NAO describes a department that has two specific objectives relating to prisons. The first is to “get the basics right”. So one might expect that the Ministry of Justice would have a definition of “the basics”. It doesn’t. What ministers have said has concentrated on the physical condition of prisons—mending windows smashed due to lack of ventilation during a long hot summer, and ensuring that cells which should have been taken out of commission years ago are brought up to scratch. Few would argue against such necessary improvements—a clean properly equipped cell is a basic, but so is the right to spend a reasonable amount of time not cooped up in it.

As it stands, even on that limited definition, the NAO’s findings offer little comfort. It shows that the cost of the backlog of maintenance work in prisons—at an estimated £860m—is more than double what the department was actually able to spend in 2017/18. Meanwhile, a commitment to replace the worst of our crumbling Victorian prison estate has yet to see a single brick laid, despite being announced three years ago. In fact, the capital money put aside for that programme is being quietly siphoned off each year to pay salaries and other day to day running costs—to the tune of £235m last year alone. Yet the department expects to spend an extraordinary £1bn more in 2018/19 than its allocated running costs budget. A short term injection of cash, announced in this week’s budget, will see an extra £30 million for prisons this financial year and will be welcome—but with further cuts already in the pipeline for 2019/20 this is no long term fix.

The second specific departmental objective on prisons is “to ensure a sustainable prison population”. It’s good that there is at long last a political acceptance that ministers have some control over the size of our prison population. For too long, policy makers and their masters have abdicated their responsibility, suggesting that who goes to prison and for how long is somehow entirely determined by our courts, and nothing to do with government.

That’s always been an evasion—the overwhelming reason our prison population is so high is that government legislation has consistently pushed up sentence lengths. The Prison Reform Trust estimates that, without that legislation, we would currently have a prison population of around 70,000. That’s 13,000 less than we currently have—enough to eliminate the problem of overcrowding in our prisons.

What we still lack, however, is any plan to get to that sustainable level of imprisonment. There’s rarely much resistance to individual proposals to increase maximum penalties. Michael Gove’s only tangible impact on the prison population is likely to be in his current capacity as Secretary of State for the Environment—supporting a tenfold increase in the penalty available for serious animal cruelty offences—rather than any legacy from his time as justice secretary. David Gauke, one of Gove’s three successors in less than two years, has expressed support for a presumption against prison sentences of less than a year and, by general consent, “gets” the strategic issues. But a presumption against short prison sentences, and—much more importantly—a reversal of the gross inflation in sentences for serious offending seen during the last two decades, require parliamentary time which he hasn’t yet secured.

It’s very easy to sympathise with the embattled prisons minister, Rory Stewart, who has given himself over to a project to get intimately involved with the management of 10 prisons—rather than do battle with the Treasury and his own party over the need for more resources and fewer prisoners in the system as a whole. But there is little point setting strategic objectives for a department of state unless you are prepared to define what achieving them actually looks like on the ground—and then deliver the resources and a coherent plan to deliver them. The NAO’s report should serve as a stark reminder to ministers of the political responsibilities that only they can meet.

Peter Dawson is Director of the Prison Reform Trust and a former prison governor

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/britain-prisons-prisoners-rory-stewart_uk_5bd322fbe4b04d1f9a5582f8?platform=hootsuite The failing MoJ insists the government is committed to improving the situation and the justice secretary, David Gauke, did promise to improve conditions, prison officer training and recruitment.

" But the government’s proposals are still failing to date to reduce the spiralling levels of overcrowding, self-harm and deaths in custody there seems to be more concern with window dressing the issues and diluting each scandal.

Prions are made dangerous when there neglected and you put people in a cage and forget about their needs. Now we insist we Tasere inmates to kicking them while there down. Those who are vulnerable or have behaviour issues will bear the brunt, 50,000 volts, same charge as an electric fence charger uses on the farm to keep livestock in the pasture. The police use Tasers to stop criminals from running away without using lethal force. But we are talking about those locked in cells with know where to go?

'Torturous', Tornado teams are not just for riots, but pretty much lack of staff, any disturbance such as none compliance. "They've just literally got enough staff to lock the doors and get you out for your dinner. If something kicks off, 200 all angry want to kick off - they will bring the prison down." Read on

Tornado teams:  https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/prison-riot-squads-to-be-issued-with-tasers-2mdhhx33c

.............................................................................................

Hodge Jones and Allen

Inquest concludes into self-inflicted death of Matthew Gray at HMP Norwich

Norfolk Coroners Court, Carrow House, 301 Kings St, Norwich
17 September 2018 – 25 September 2018

A jury inquest into the death of 32-year-old Matthew Gray from Norfolk has concluded he died by misadventure, "highlighting limits on prison staff’s time and resources in its conclusions.

Matthew was found hanging in his cell on 20 March 2017 and died in hospital on 22 March 2017. His death was one of three that occurred at HMP Norwich over a four-month period last year.

Matthew, who had a history of health  and drug dependency, had voiced concerns for his safety in the run up to his death. He complained of being bullied by seven other inmates and was under threat due to debts he owed.

The jury sitting in front of Area Coroner, Yvonne Blake, found that evidence relating to specific individuals who Matthew was indebted to was not adequately communicated to relevant staff and that this could have significantly contributed to Matthew’s emotional state prior to his death.

They found that although there were systems and processes in place to share historical information about prisoners, evidence indicated that staff are limited by time and resource and often operate without full awareness of a situation. They concluded that officers operate as adequately as possible, given these limitations.

In the past Matthew had set light to his cell and been found with a ligature around his neck. He had also expressed to staff that he wished to end his life.

On 8 March 2017, Matthew jumped over the prison’s railings into netting below, explaining to officers that he was under threat from other prisoners that he owed money to. He was moved to segregation and at an adjudication hearing reported he was under threat, naming seven prisoners responsible for bullying him.

No action was taken to protect Matthew from this threat or to reassure him that he was safe. He was forcibly returned to the wing on 20 March 2017, where one of the prisoners that Matthew had identified was seen at his cell door. Shortly afterwards another prisoner reported to a prison officer that he had heard Matthew ripping up bed sheets and he was concerned Matthew may be making a ligature. Officers found that Matthew had blocked his observation panel, obstructed his cell door and was not responding when they spoke to him through the door. They left without attempting to force the door open.

They returned 16 minutes later to find Matthew hanging. He died in hospital the following morning, it was his birthday he was 29.

The seven-day inquest examined why Matthew’s concerns for his safety heard in the adjudication were not followed up, why officers routinely failed to look up a prisoner’s history before carrying out risk assessments and why he was returned to the wing without addressing his fear of violence being used against him and without consideration of his underlying mental health needs.

The family were represented at the inquest by Alice Hardy of London solicitors Hodge Jones & Allen, and Ruth Brander of Doughty Street Chambers.

Speaking on behalf of the family, Alice Hardy said: “Matthew Gray was the first of three young prisoners to die at HMP Norwich between March and July last year. His inquest has highlighted the significant strain that prison officers were under due to a severe lack of time and resources. This meant that too little was done to protect Matthew from known risks to himself and from others. It is hoped that increases in resourcing and staffing levels are made so that desperate and vulnerable young men are properly protected.”

Hodge Jones and Allen also acted for 36-year-old Joe Bartlett from Colchester in Essex who died at HMP Norwich on 5th April 2017 after being found in his cell with a ligature around his neck. At his inquest the jury noted that procedures to reduce the risks of self-harm and suicide were not adequately followed, there was insufficient information gathering, and there was a failure to recognise the seriousness of the bullying to which Joe was subjected and to respond accordingly.

The family were also advised by the charity, INQUEST.

Selen Cavcav, INQUEST caseworker, said: “Matthew’s history of attempted suicide and self-harm in custody, drug dependency and being subject to bullying made him particularly vulnerable.

The only people who could keep him safe in prison were the prison officers. Yet on the day Matthew died they knew nothing about him, having never even read his records.

Prisons are inherently dangerous environments, ill-equipped to protect people from harm. Recent attempts at reform and improvements have done little to protect those in need, like Matthew and those who died after him in Norwich prison. Effective change can only come from a dramatic reduction in the prison population, and investment in diversion and community alternatives.

..............................................................................................................................

'Alarming' rise in people self-harming at Swinfen Hall prison 2 October 2018

The number of prisoners self-harming at a Staffordshire jail has risen by almost 40%, a watchdog says.

Serious assaults on staff at Swinfen Hall prison near Lichfield have tripled, and there has been a "worrying increase" in inmates on constant watch.

"Black, Asian, Minority Ethnic (BAME) prisoners were also 1.6 times more likely to face disciplinary charges, the Independent Monitoring Board found.

The Prison Service said it was "working to improve support for prisoners".

The board's report on the jail, which holds more than 600 young offenders and category C inmates, covers May 2017 to April this year.

tt highlighted a lack of diversity in prison staffing, which gave BAME inmates a perception that "adversely" affected their treatment.

Figures show 38% of prisoners are BAME, compared to 5% of staff, which the prison acknowledged, the report said.

'Serious deficiency'

While BAME inmates facing multiple disciplinary charges could explain the higher figure, "the differences between the occurrence is stark and warrants thorough analysis", the board said.

The board said it was disappointed with the "alarming increase" in self-harming with 478 reports in 2017/18 compared with 346 the previous year, which had been a sharp reduction.

But the a long-standing vacancy for a psychologist to work with prisoners who had been abused or suffered trauma was "a serious deficiency", the watchdog added.

Although the number of serious assaults on staff had tripled from three in 2016/17 to nine in the last year - following the national trend - the jail still had the lowest incidence of serious assault on prisoners and staff compared to similar prisons.!

The Prison Service said it was working to recruit more black and Asian officers and had doubled the sentence for people who attack prison officers, adding: "Staff at Swinfen Hall have already benefitted from new body-worn cameras and increased CCTV.

............................................................................. 

Adam Watson HMP WINCHESTER is a cesspitt of humanity characterised by demoralised staff , veteran officers all resigning, serious violence, riots, a drug epidemic of proportions never seen before, mass self-harming, human suffering, suicides, mass delirium and sectioning to secure hospitals and death. Short tariff post tariff IPP prisoners here are suffering immeasurable delirium inflicting some of the worst self-harm wounds I have ever seen but IMB never mention them.

The disabled denied facilities despite the best efforts of staff, and that it is little more than a ‘prisoner warehouse. Independent Monitoring Board at HMP Winchester raise concerns that men are not always treated humanely.
https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/16909401.winchester-prison-slammed-over-squalid-conditions/?platform=hootsuite

Failings, Investigation launched after death man on remand at Walton jail

investigators are looking into the death of a 36-year-old at the Hornby Road prison

An investigation is underway following the death of an inmate at Walton prison.

Paul Jones died at the jail on Wednesday, prompting the launch of a probe by the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (PPO).

The cause of the death, which led to fellow prisoners being directed to support agencies including the Samaritans, has not yet been confirmed.

The 36-year-old died at HMP Liverpool on the afternoon of September 26.

Mr Jones was on remand at the Hornby Road jail, meaning his case was still going through the courts

Confirming his death, a Prison Service spokesperson today said: “HMP Liverpool remand prisoner Paul Jones died in prison on 26 September. Our thoughts are with Mr Jones’s family at this difficult time.

“As with all deaths in custody there will be an independent investigation by the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman.”

Staff at HMP Liverpool take part in a national walkout to protest against rising levels of death and violence.

It will be the latest PPO probe into deaths at Walton jail, which was the subject of a shocking inspection report in January and where at least seven men are believed to have taken their own lives in the past three years.

......................................................................................................................

The Prison Reform Trust has published its response to a stakeholder consultation on the Incentives and Earned Privileges (IEP) scheme.

You can read our response and our accompanying letter to the prisons minister, Rory Stewart,  03/10/2018 09:00:00

CONSULTATION ON DRAFT INCENTIVES AND EARNED PRIVILEGES POLICY FRAMEWORK 
FEEDBACK FORM  

Stakeholder Name Prison Reform Trust Name of person completing this form Ryan Harman Date Feedback Form Returned Leave blank – for internal use only 
Section 1- Context Please provide feedback on the Context section below 
The opening line of the Framework starts on the wrong foot. The phrase ‘in favour of those prisoners who play by the rules’ sets both a patronising and authoritarian tone, with an explicit threat to those who don’t conform. This is not a game for prisoners but their whole life. The language about positive reinforcement and procedural justice, well used later in the document, is conspicuously absent.   We also take issue, here and throughout the policy, with the inclusion of evidence of engaging with “rehabilitation” as a criterion for IEP decisions, articulated here by the phrase ‘those who want to turn their lives around’. We maintain that “ensuring prisoners engage with rehabilitation” is an inappropriate purpose of the IEP scheme. 

A successful return to life outside prison is incentive enough for all those prisoners for whom it is within reach. For an increasing number, the extreme length of their sentence means it is not, and there is an implicit dishonesty in requiring them to pretend that it is. There are others for whom rehabilitation is not in reality a meaningful concept from day to day. 

This would include foreign national prisoners who are often specifically excluded from rehabilitative opportunities, unconvicted and wrongly convicted prisoners, and also the many long term prisoners who have completed all the rehabilitative work expected of them but who still face many years in prison. For them, the construction of a meaningful existence, with purpose and hope, cannot be based on a continual reference back to offending which could be many years, or even decades behind them. Personal development, and the ability to be a valued and active citizen within the prison community, are likely to be the relevant and motivating factors in making their sentence survivable. 

So the focus of IEP should be about the wellbeing of the prison community, enabling a safe and just environment. It flies in the face of all that we know about desistance – and the approaches the prison service itself has adopted – to use the IEP scheme to force prisoners to “jump through hoops”. For an individual to engage in rehabilitative work meaningfully they need to be genuinely committed to it, engage through their own choice and for the purpose of real long-term goals as opposed to short term privileges.

Using the IEP scheme as a way to incentivise rehabilitative work can result in lazy approaches to engaging and motivating people which use punishment rather than understanding, compassion and encouragement.  The importance of establishing a positive culture and tone is underlined by recent prison inspection findings in one women’s prison where inspectors found that ‘Women valued their place at the prison; this attitude had a positive effect on their behaviour.  There was a nominal incentives and earned privileges (IEP) scheme, but all women were on the enhanced level during the inspection.  Women responded positively to warnings and demotions were rare.’ (HMP & YOI East Sutton Park, 2016).  
2 
In other words, it is legitimate to aim for a prison community in which the artificiality of an IEP scheme has become largely irrelevant, and which mimics “real life” in the community to a much greater degree. Our extensive consultation with prisoners on the theme of incentives suggests that prisoners value having trust placed in them, and being treated as adults. Much of the later guidance in this framework is in tune with that finding, but its opening and many of its mandatory rather than discretionary elements describe an approach which risks infantilising those whose behaviour it seeks to affect.

IEP was invented to avoid the creation of local and unauthorised systems of informal punishment. That remains a risk and a national IEP framework is necessary protection against it. But it must support an approach which treats prisoners as adults with rights and responsibilities, and which adopts the principle of normality for the design of their way of life in custody.   We are supportive of increased discretion for Governors to work with prisoners in their care about how to create a safe and just community, though this must be carefully balanced with clear mandatory requirements and as much done as possible to mitigate the frustration that will be caused by the inevitable inconsistencies within and between prisons.

This mitigation should include clearer language in the framework to distinguish between what is mandatory across the estate what is not. The universal use of “must” or “may” would be one way to avoid confusion. We point out a significant number of instances in section 7 where we believe the wrong judgement has been made about where the line between mandatory requirements and discretion has been drawn. But there is a separate issue about drafting which simply leaves that distinction unclear, with a high likelihood of generating complaint and confusion.  We also suggest amending para 1.2 to highlight why the interaction of different policy frameworks in this area is so important. In particular, it should make clear that the effect of the IEP policy is undermined if other procedures, for example the disciplinary system, categorisation and allocation, and ROTL, do not support the principles of positive reinforcement and procedural justice described at some length in this document. 

Section 2 - Purpose Please provide feedback on the Purpose section below 
The purpose statement is another missed opportunity to make clear what is intended to be different about the Policy Framework compared to the current policy. Again, there are no references to positive reinforcement or procedural justice.  Language here is crucial as it is indicative of the relationship between prisoners, staff and local privilege policies, and therefore the culture that the policy projects.

The idea of privileges ‘ensuring’ any particular behaviour is clearly the wrong approach and should be replaced with language relating to encouragement and incentivising behaviour.  We would suggest  “The system of privileges is a tool for supporting a safe and just environment in prison, and a necessary safeguard against the development of informal systems of punishment. But to achieve these goals it must prioritise reward ahead of sanctions and demonstrate scrupulous fairness in the way it operates.”     
3 
Women offenders  The redrafting of the IEP framework provides an opportunity for implementation of some of the commitments made in the Female Offender Strategy to improve conditions for women in custody.    The existing gender informed standards for working with women prisoners, contained in PSO 4800, which are to be replaced by a new Women’s Policy Framework to be published by the end of the year, are expected to set out more detailed measures aimed at developing a more gender informed approach to working with women in prison and in the community. 

PSO4800 makes clear that IEP schemes should identify and relate specifically to women.    However disappointingly this draft framework does not include any reference to women specific requirements and treatment.  The purpose section and the framework as a whole need to be examined to make clear the expectation for a gendered approach to be taken to meet the specific needs of women where they differ from those of men, and to ensure that the framework supports this.   Recent prison inspectorate reports have identified some areas for improvement in the existing operation of IEPs for women which there is an opportunity to address through this new framework.  A number of inspections noted that the IEP scheme worked well or reasonably well for women and was used appropriately (HMP & YOI Askham Grange, 2014; HMP & YOI New Hall, 2015; HMP & YOI East Sutton Park, 2016; HMP & YOI Styal, 2018).

However a number of areas of comment from inspectors merit consideration when reviewing the national framework.   For example, an inspection at HMP & YOI Low Newton in 2014 found the national scheme was ‘not flexible enough to motivate women.  The opportunity for enhancement was unobtainable for some as they had to have been in the prison for three months,’.  Another inspection noted that the new scheme introduced in 2013 ‘had generated some anxiety as women needed to demonstrate regularly that their behaviour warranted the enhanced status’ (HMP Send, 2014).  We also note that it was reported that ‘black and minority ethnic prisoners … felt they were treated less fairly in their experience of the IEP system’ in one prison (HMP & YOI Foston Hall, 2016).    

Why take a women specific approach?  The Ministry of Justice and HMPPS are well aware of women’s particular vulnerabilities and high rates of self-harm in prison and the disturbing increase in women’s deaths in prison in recent years (see the guidance on a whole systems approach to women offenders, published by the Ministry of Justice alongside the Female Offender Strategy, the recent reports of the Independent Advisory Panel on Deaths in Custody and INQUEST’s 2018 report Still Dying on the Inside).   Treating women and men equally does not mean that everyone should be treated the same.

Where the circumstances and needs of women and men are different, distinct approaches may be required to achieve equitable outcomes and the Equality Act 2010 allows women only or women-specific services. The Public Sector Equality Duty requires public services, including those delivered by the private and voluntary sector, to assess and meet the different needs of women and men. However, the Justice Committee concluded in 2014 that “the duty does not appear to have had the desired impact on the provision of gender specific services, or on broader policy initiatives.” 

4 
Section 10 of the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014 amended the Offender Management Act 2007 to give women’s services a statutory foothold, placing a duty on the Secretary of State for Justice to ensure that arrangements for supervision or rehabilitation identify specific need and so make appropriate provision for women.   The UK is signed up to the United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-Custodial Measures for Women Offenders (the Bangkok Rules) which require that the distinctive needs of women be recognised. The Rules stress the importance of providing physical and psychological safety for women and mandate the provision of diversionary measures and sentencing alternatives, “taking account of the history of victimisation of many women offenders and their caretaking responsibilities.” 

The UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women visited the UK in 2014 and raised concerns over the disproportionate number of black and minority ethnic (BME) women in prison, the number of women who have been subjected to violence prior to their imprisonment, and the number of young women who are incarcerated. She called for the development of “gender-specific sentencing alternatives” and recognition of “women’s histories of victimisation when making decisions about incarceration.”  We also refer you to the evidence in PRT’s recent reports Counted Out: Black, Asian and minority ethnic women in the criminal justice system (2017) and Still No Way Out: Foreign national women and trafficked women in the criminal justice system (2018) regarding the need to improve responses to minority ethnic women, foreign national women and trafficked women in prison.  All of which suggests that a gender neutral framework is not going to meet the government’s own policy intentions in relation to women offenders, still less its international commitments.  

Section 3 – Evidence  Please provide feedback on the Evidence section below 
We welcome the inclusion and prominence of the evidence section within the Policy Framework to direct Governors towards effective implementation.   The inclusion of procedural justice principles both here and in the guidance section is encouraging and has the potential to improve prisoners’ experience of the system. Similarly, promoting positive reinforcement addresses one of the major problems with the current system and could represent a real change if translated into practice. However, these principles are not reflected systematically or consistently elsewhere in the document. Where references are made elsewhere they are vague and permissive. To stand a chance of driving real cultural change, these must run through every part of the policy and not just appear as an optional extra. 

It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that there are two competing philosophies at play, and the framework is attempting to reconcile an evidence based approach (drawing on the importance of positive reinforcement and procedural justice) with a politically driven concern about appearing insufficiently “tough”. That confusion can only produce inconsistency and unfairness if not resolved and will be immediately perceived by prisoners. If the evidence matters it should be followed.  We have examined each section of the document for inclusion of these themes and have highlighted this in our response to each section.   

5 
The importance of monitoring schemes and staff training are two more key themes included here which are lost in the rest of the document. Monitoring is referenced in the outcomes section at 4.11 (annual review) 4.12 (accounting for protected characteristics) but these are not reflected in the requirements section other than meeting the requirement of the Lammy Review, and there in insufficient detail.   Equally, training, which will be essential if the principles of procedural justice and positive enforcement are to be embedded and the negative perception of the IEP scheme reversed, is not mentioned anywhere else in the document. Given the significant cultural shift required, implementation without dedicated and continuing resource for training is likely to fall short of the ambitions the framework sets out.  

Section 4 – Outcomes Please provide feedback on the Outcomes section below 
We disagree with outcome 4.1 in regards to rehabilitation, for the reasons we have outlined above.  Positive reinforcement is not properly represented in this section of the document. Outcome 4.2 states that privileges are earned by progression through IEP levels, but does not mention positive reinforcement. We recommend the inclusion of an outcome which states that positive reinforcement, through commendations or positive NOMIS entries, is used significantly more often than warnings and negative entries. 

Without such an outcome, the current perception amongst prisoners that IEP is more stick than carrot will remain. One way to achieve this would be for the establishment to create a new category, in NOMIS, for a register of the individual’s strengths, skills, and interests  Recent inspections at a number of women’s prisons found widespread perceptions of unfairness in IEP schemes.   For example, in HMP & YOI Downview (2017) ‘fewer than half of respondents felt the [IEP] scheme was fair and too few felt it encouraged a change in behaviour’ and ‘unemployed women on the basic level of the IEP scheme had little over an hour [out of cell on weekdays]’.  Perceptions of fairness were also low amongst women surveyed as part of the 2018 inspection of HMP & YOI Peterborough. 

Outcome 4.3 is an important inclusion. We agree that privilege levels should be ‘determined by patterns of behaviour’ rather than single incidents. We often speak to prisoners who feel that one out of character moment is enough to downgrade them amongst otherwise good behaviour. Looking at behaviour as a whole also minimises the impact of one subjective view of an incident or a less than constructive relationship with a particular staff member. Making sure that local privilege polices take a holistic approach is also important to establish procedural fairness and to distinguish the scheme from disciplinary processes. But the absence of such an holistic approach is one of the principal criticisms prisoners make of the current IEP implementation (despite a very similar policy intention in the current instruction).

So outcome 4.3 needs reinforcement by the measure suggested above, with a monitoring system that counts how often movements in IEP levels occur on the basis of single incidents or entries, and whether certain categories of prisoner are more likely than others to experience that departure from the policy intention.  Outcome 4.4 helpfully includes the importance of prisoners’ perceptions of fairness, but needs to say in terms how this is to be measured. It also of course needs to be clear that the policies are in fact fair, consistent and non-discriminatory and refer to the ways in 

6 
which this will be objectively assessed. It would be little consolation to a BAME prisoner if a prison overwhelmingly occupied by white prisoners perceived IEP as fair if the actual experience of the BAME prisoners amounted to discrimination.   We agree that consequences should be proportionate, as per outcome 4.5.

Although we agree that consequences, as well as privileges, should be decided and communicated without unnecessary delay, it is important that speed of process does not override fairness.  

Outcome 4.6 mentions but does not deal adequately with a crucial point about the need for consistency beyond the walls of a single prison and the disruption which can be caused by inconsistency. We regularly hear from people who have difficulties of this nature in the current system – for example being able to purchase something in one prison which is not permitted in possession on transfer. A better “outcome” would be that prisoners transferring from one prison to another suffer no detriment as a consequence. This will require the sending and receiving prisons to consider whether the privileges the prisoner has can be preserved as they are and, if not, what form of compensation will be paid to the prisoner by way of recognition for the detriment suffered. This cannot simply be that items of property are placed into storage, for example, when a prisoner has purchased an item in the expectation that they will be able to enjoy its use for the remainder of their sentence. 

Outcome 4.6 must not be limited to the prisons to which a prison generally transfers prisoners. It is obviously contrary to the principles of procedural justice if a prisoner is disadvantaged by being sent to a prison “out of area” – especially when such a move may already be a cause of distress. The principle of no detriment must apply to any move to any prison.  The inclusion of outcome 4.7 is an important one, though there are opportunities to remind Governors later in the document that the minimum legal entitlements for some of these things are very low (e.g. one shower per week).  Outcome 4.8 carries little force in the absence of a statement of the minimum standards of a safe, decent and legal regime.

This is a historic and fundamental failing, and the current focus on “delivering the basics” only serves to highlight the absence of a clear statement of what that phrase means. Without it, this framework risks legitimising treatment which falls below the UK’s international obligations, and cementing a variety of interpretations across the estate as to what is or is not acceptable. 

This has to be an area in which local discretion is not appropriate, and a prescriptive national set of standards applies, with the means for prisoners to seek redress where those standards are not met  Outcome 4.9 outlines key principles of procedural justice. In practice, the detail elsewhere in this document does not consistently deliver the means to deliver an admirable ambition.  The inclusion of outcome 4.10 is both concerning and confusing. It gives no indication of why public confidence in such a detailed aspect of prison management should be given a specific reference. Public confidence is axiomatic to everything prisons do, from preventing suicide and escape to supporting effective resettlement. So the signal this outcome gives to governors and prisoners is that it is intended to discourage Governors from any privileges which might catch the attention of tabloid press. 

This mindset is often contrary to what is productive for prisoners and prisons as a whole. We recall events such as that in HMP Leyhill when a putting course that was providing much needed physical activity for older prisoners was put out of action after negative headlines. Giving this issue such prominence is likely to undermine Governor’s confidence and stifle innovation. It should be removed completely.
7  
It is important for policies to be regularly reviewed, as per outcome 4.11. We would improve this to say that they should be reviewed ‘at least’ every 6 months and sooner if there is reason to believe the current system is discriminatory in any way. Both prisoners and frontline staff should be part of the review process. There are different purposes in reviewing the local policy and monitoring implementation. A review of local policy should include consultations with prisoners – at least twice a year – about what are provided as incentives and about the degree to which the policy is fair and equitable. Monitoring should include a focus on equal treatment, with regular updates on outcome measures.

Monitoring should be continuous and reviewed at least quarterly.  Outcome 4.12 is another important principle which should be better represented in requirements and guidance sections of the document.  It should also make clear that discrimination is avoided as a matter of fact – providing equal opportunity is not sufficient if the actual outcome of the process is discriminatory.  Even with the amendments we have suggested, this focus on outcomes counts for little without a section explaining the success measures against which the outcomes will be judged, and where responsibility, locally and centrally, lies for responding to failures to deliver those outcomes. The evidence that close monitoring of a scheme is crucial to its success, helpfully quoted in section 3, has not been followed in the construction of this framework.

t is a good example of where the distinction between what should be mandatory and what can be permissive has been missed. A mandatory requirement to review locally is insufficient – there should also be mandatory requirements for the key components of that review, including how they are assessed and measured. Leaving the methodology for review open to local discretion guarantees inadequate review in the prisons where it is most likely that the scheme is falling short of the ambitions this framework sets out.  

Section 5.1-5.2 Legal Requirements Please provide feedback on the Legal Requirements section below 
We are in favour of legal requirements being clearly stated at the top of the requirements section in this way. This could be improved by spacing out the different elements of  paragraph 5.1, and adding more detailed references to the relevant duties within the referenced legislation. For example, the wording from the Prison Rules could be included.   We have not seen the equality analysis for this framework (as distinct from the requirement it places on governors locally). As pointed out elsewhere, we believe that it is potentially discriminatory as currently set out, both in its impact on prisoners for whom rehabilitation is not a realistic objective and because of the inadequacy of prescribed systems to monitor and correct discriminatory impacts should they occur.   

Section 5.3-5.6 Privilege scheme structures Please provide feedback on privilege levels below 
We are in favour of Governors using their discretion to create further privilege levels – this could lead to some positive and innovative practice. However, allowing Governors to create levels above enhanced is meaningless if there are no prescribed criteria for
8 
incentive levels up to that point. This could result in schemes which devalue standard and enhanced status in order to incentivise additional levels.   We welcome the clarity regarding retention of IEP level on transfer, as there has been some inconsistent practice and messaging about this under the current system. It is an important recognition and unavoidable side effect of Governor’s discretion that levels may not be immediately comparable at the receiving establishment.   However, in line with a no detriment principle, where there is no obvious correlation between sending and receiving prisons, a prisoner should always be placed on the privilege level that is more rather than less generous than the one which they leave behind. This also reflects the principle of positive reinforcement in way that the current draft does not, as it leaves the decision to the receiving prison.  

Section 5.7-5.9 Criteria for progression/downgrading Please provide feedback on progression/downgrading section below 
The primary factors listed in paragraph 5.7 should be bulleted to be clearer. We comment on each of them in turn, as follows. 

• Work towards their rehabilitation through personal progression and engagement with sentence plans – as per our reasoning in section 2 of this form, this should be removed. 
• Substance free living – although we appreciate that possession and use of drugs  will inevitably affect someone’s privilege level, this should not be confused with using IEP schemes to incentivise engaging with substance misuse service and proactively tacking addiction. Not only is it inappropriate to relate such an important and challenging change to local behaviour schemes, it is also unlikely to be effective – in many cases people with addictions to alcohol and drugs have lost employment, homes and relationships as a result of their addiction, so the risk of downgrade in IEP level is unlikely to be a motivator.  
• Engaging in the prison regime – this is a more realistic expectation on which to base privilege levels. Care should be taken to recognise when someone is engaging with the regime as it is much easier to identify when someone does not. Regimes also need to be decent for prisoners to be able to achieve this – it would not be appropriate for people to be downgraded for being unable to complete daily tasks if they are not given enough time to do so. 

Contributing positively to prison life – this appears to be a reviewed version of ‘help other prisoners or prison staff’ in the current PSI. When judging on this criteria consideration must be given to the opportunities afforded to an individual. For example, those working full time on ROTL may have much less time in the establishment to demonstrate this. Similarly, we have heard from prisoners who report that a limit in the number of responsible and helpful roles such as peers or reps means that they cannot fulfil this criteria. Good judgement must also be exercised when it comes to this – what seems like a minor contribution from one person could actually represent a very positive step.  

9 
• Demonstrating specific desired behaviours – it not clear what this refers to – are these behaviours set specifically for the individual or those that the Governor has specified for the prison as a whole?  Paragraph 5.7 contains a couple of important lines at the end regarding procedural justice and positive reinforcement which should be separate for emphasis. These are that all prisoners must have the IEP scheme clearly explained to them, including how they can progress and that they can lose privileges for poor behaviour; and that positive verbal reinforcement for good behaviour or achievements both recognise and incentivise progress alongside formal reviews.   In paragraph 5.9, assaults on other prisoners should be viewed as seriously as assaults on staff. We welcome the removal from this paragraph of ‘drugs, mobile phones, abscond or possession of weapon’ as triggers for an immediate review and the removal of the ‘strong presumption that such incidents will lead to an immediate downgrade to basic level’. 

This should make for more balanced judgements on cases of this nature – however, it must be recognised that the approach of the current instruction is likely to be ingrained in many establishments and will require explicit guidance to reverse. We advise that a requirement is added that ‘decisions to downgrade from enhanced to basic are only made in the most serious of cases’.  In general in this section, there are questions about capacity and about provision. The risks for each should be made explicit: some prisoners will not progress, not through lack of willpower but due to incapacity. Withholding enhanced status due to lack of engagement in rehabilitation is doubly damaging (and unjust) for people who have learning disabilities. Prisoners’ contribution to the prison should be rewarded, but IEP schemes must find ways of recognising that many roles are limited.

(No prison can make everyone a Listener). And a privilege should not be held back because a person who wants to contribute lacks an opportunity to do so. 
We are interested as to the intention of the mention of “the Governor” in para 5.9. Is it intended that this is a decision that can only be taken by the governing Governor, and not delegated. If so, this should be made clear.  

Section 5.10-5.13 Reviews Please provide feedback on reviews below
We are pleased that minimum review periods for people on basic have been retained (these were missing from the draft we had sight of in 2016).   The Policy Framework is not clear about opportunities for prisoners to re-apply for Enhanced or other higher levels in the event of a negative decision after the first 3 months, only stating that reviews should take place at least annually. This interval is too long to incentivise someone working towards the Enhanced Level. The current PSI allows prisoners to apply for Enhanced at three monthly intervals if not successful after the initial 3 months – a similar opportunity should be a requirement of any new policy.  A minimum automatic review period of 12 months, referenced in paragraph 5.12, is only sufficient if there are more regular opportunities for people to apply for progression, as per

10 
our previous point. Without this, the minimum review period must be much less - we would advise a minimum of 3 months.  This section is an example of when language used confuses between guidance and mandatory actions. Despite sitting in the Requirements section of this document, it includes vague and permissive phrases such as ‘Governors should consider that evidence shows that schemes work best when positive enforcement is immediate.’ Given the emphasis of the principle set out in evidence we would expect this to be more clearly stated as mandatory practice – we suggest ‘Governors must ensure that positive reinforcement is a central element of policy and practice’.  

Paragraph 5.12 refers to the benefits of being able to move to a higher privilege level with the same ease as being downgraded.  The logical conclusion from the evidence on positive reinforcement is that it should be easier to move up than down and this should be the framework’s expectation, with performance across the prison measured against it.  Paragraph 5.13 states that prisoners must have the opportunity to make their case and mentions procedural justice principles in passing. 

A real commitment to procedural justice requires these principles to be explicitly stated here as mandatory requirements of the policy and process – we suggest the 4 principles at 7.4 in the guidance section should be listed here. But these must also be translated into mandatory requirements that apply nationally and without exception or local discretion. For example, the prisoner must be able to make their case face to face with the person taking the decision, have full sight of all the evidence on which a decision is to be based, and receive written reasons for the decision taken in a form that they understand so that any subsequent appeal can be properly informed.  We are concerned about the lack of requirements as to who conducts the review – we cover this more in the section related to guidance, below.  Finally, reviews are an opportunity to gain an understanding of the current needs of an individual, the factors that might be affecting behaviour, and set goals for them to address these and regain any lost privileges. This should be reflected within the Policy Framework.   

Section 5.14-5.15 Appeals Please provide feedback on appeals below 
The inclusion of a proper appeals process demonstrates a commitment to procedural justice but is undermined by lack of details about who can conduct them – this must be a more senior member of staff and this should be clearly stated in this section. There must also be a mandatory national minimum timescale for hearing and responding to appeals. Neither issue is appropriate for local discretion, and to allow it will undermine the scheme’s credibility with prisoners. 

Prisoners’ perceptions of fairness are far more likely to be influenced by differences between prisons than the perceptions of staff, simply because prisoners often transfer and staff rarely do.  This appeals process should be distinct from the standard internal complaints process. It should be available to challenge individual triggers/warnings as well as the decisions of reviews – the current system prevents people from adequately challenging warnings until a review stage which can be difficult when reviews are held some time after the warning 

11 
took place. Rectifying this would be an important step towards procedural justice and mark a significant improvement on the current system.  
Section 5.16 IEP forum Please provide feedback on the IEP forum below 
Putting recommendation 24 of the Lammy Review into practice marks considerable progress for the scheme.   The detailed guidance and reference to procedural justice principle in the associated Annex A are also very welcome, as well as the clear line of accountability. But the degree of local discretion allowed on which data should be examined and the inferences that can be drawn is unhelpful. 

The framework would be more helpful to governors and provide better assurance of a positive impact if it included a mandatory national framework for the presentation and interpretation of data from the sources mentioned. This has been done in the past to inform the way prisons look for evidence of discrimination and represents both a more efficient approach and one protected against inadequate or misleading treatment of numerical data in particular. 

The Lammy principle of “explain or reform” only works if the need to “explain” is consistently triggered.  Although we would not want to reduce the forums’ emphasis on race, this seems like an opportunity to ensure other protected characteristics are fairly represented too, beyond that of dual discrimination mentioned in the guidance at Annex A. In para 5.16, we would particularly draw attention to the absence of religion as a factor affecting representation in the forum.  

Section 5.17 Communication Please provide feedback on communication below 
Communication is an important part of procedural justice and much more should be made of this here to strengthen good practice. It should include:  

• Prisoners must always be told when they have been given a warning/trigger, as well as a commendation, and have the reasons explained to them. This should be verbally and in writing. 

• Prisoner must always be told the outcome of the review, and have the reasons explained to them. This should be verbally and in writing. 

• At the earliest opportunity, prisoners must be advised about the local privileges policy in any prison to which they are likely to be transferred, including the contents of the facilities list. This will prepare them for changes and minimise disruption by, for example, discouraging them from purchasing items which are not allowed in possession in those establishments.     

12 
Section 5.18-5.21 Facilities List Please provide feedback on the facilities list below 
We are confused about the implication of paragraph 5.20. It appears to suggest that any local addition to the Annex B list must be approved centrally in the Ministry of Justice, having passed through the office of the Prison Group Director – and that any addition approved in this way is then made part of the national facilities list. This would seem to undermine dramatically the real extent of local discretion to provide incentives and to innovate. If this is the actual intention of the instruction, at the very least the process of approving items for addition to the list should have a timetable attached, so that the centre can be held to account for responding in a prompt and reasoned way to requests that governors consider to be operationally necessary. 

The grounds for rejecting any request should be explicit and given in a form that can be communicated to staff and prisoners. 

Paragraph 5.21 should make reference to current PSI/PF about property.  In relation to Annex B, we welcome the simplification of the Facilities list and find that the separation into two parts is much clearer. The removal of limits allows for more sensible decision making per establishment, though it is important that local schemes are prevented from imposing limits which are manifestly unfair or unreasonable.  The facilities list is one of the key areas when inconsistency between prisons could cause frustration and confidence in the system – for example if an item someone has worked hard to earn for is later not allowed in possession. As indicated earlier, we believe a no detriment principle must be adopted, so that prisoners are compensated when they suffer detriment through no fault of their own and as a consequence of a difference in approach between prisons.

This principle must apply nationwide and not just in clusters that may be meaningful to the prison service but provide no consolation to prisoners with no control over where they are housed.  In general, the list contains no explanation for the items that it prohibits. While there may exceptionally be security considerations not to give reasons, the presumption should be the reverse, in line with the principle of procedural justice. So, for example, the prohibition on a shaving brush with a metal element looks curious when the previous item on the list is nail clippers – which are both metallic and sharp. A reason explaining the prohibition would remove the apparent inconsistency of approach.  We have specific comments about the contents of the list: 

• It appears that watches with digital displays on watches and alarm clocks are not permitted. This could disproportionately affect anyone who find this type of watch easier to use, such as people with learning disabilities or learning difficulties. We don’t understand why this prohibition exists and it should be explained if it is retained.

 • Bluetooth has clearly caused confusion across the estate recently, as it is increasingly difficult to purchase stereos without this facility. We understand that this has resulted in different establishments taking different approaches to this. This policy frame does little to address this confusion. The reality is that it may soon be impossible to source stereos without Bluetooth and this prohibition should be dropped. 

• Posters showing “indecent” material is open to an impossibly broad interpretation. It needs to be more detailed. 

• Non-prescription glasses (reading glasses) should be allowed 

13 
• It should not be possible for a prisoner in segregation to have a radio removed as a quasi or actual disciplinary measure. 

• The position of Cat B and dispersal prisons in relation to crockery and cutlery is unclear. We assume the intention is that they should benefit from the same approach as cat C prisons.   

Section 5.22 Private cash Please provide feedback on private cash below 
We welcome the increase in access to private cash, though the gap between basic and standard remains disproportionate. Those on basic should be able to access at least half the amount that someone on standard can, rather than less than a third.  However we note the potential for limited access to private cash, as well as limitations on prisoner pay (para 7.22), to have a detrimental impact on prisoners’ telephone contact with children and family. 

This may be particularly acute for women who, according to PSO4800, use the telephone on average more than men to maintain relationships. This may relate in part to the fact that they are generally held further from home, as well as the fact that they are significantly more likely than men to be the primary carer of dependent children when they go into prison (PRT, What about me? The impact on children when mothers are involved in the criminal justice system, 2018). 

As part of the Female Offender Strategy Lord Farmer has been asked to review the arrangements for women to maintain contact with their children and families and it would make sense to take its recommendations into account in developing this aspect of the IEP   

Section 5.23 In-cell televisions Please provide feedback on in-cell televisions below 
In-cell televisions should be provided free of charge for those who are unable to work due to age or disability and considered for people who are at risk of suicide or self-harm regardless of IEP level.  We appreciate there is further guidance about this is section 7, but this should at least be referenced here for clarity and should be mandatory.  

Section 5.24 Clothing Please provide feedback on clothing below 
Insistence on prison clothing is an unnecessary and outdated approach which only serves to dehumanise prisoners and lower self-esteem. We have long supported the recognition of this in the women’s estate and reversing that policy would be a needless backward step. In light of the legal action being taken on this issue, the only sensible thing to do would be to remove this regulation from all prisons and allow people to wear their own clothes at all stages in prison. A further benefit of this would be the reduction of complaints 

14 
targeted at transgender prisoners being allowed to wear their own clothing in the male estate. It is depressing that a framework that gives such apparent prominence to positive reinforcement and to considerations of decency and humanity should be requiring convicted prisoners to wear a uniform unless local discretion is exercised to prevent it. The female estate has shown that neither practical nor security concerns justify an insistence on prison clothing and this good practice should now be adopted as the norm across the male estate. 

No prisoner should be required to wear prison issue clothing unless that is their choice or their actions make it impossible to avoid. As it stands, the framework is inconsistent with the female offender strategy and existing guidance on the management of women in prison.  PSO4800 stipulates that for women in prison, maintaining and raising self esteem – important aspects of rehabilitation – is often linked to personal appearance.

As PSO4800 acknowledges, access to toiletries (not mentioned in the draft framework) should also not be restricted for women based on IEP status. All relevant guidance should ensure the specific needs of Muslim women and BAME women are accommodated in the provision of both clothes and toiletries, as well as ensuring adequate provision of sanitary products for all women and appropriate clothing and toiletries for pregnant and post-natal women 
Section 5.25 Handing and sending in Please provide feedback on handing and sending in below 
We are pleased to see that having books sent or handed in remains in the mandatory requirements. A reference to later information in section 7 should be included here.  

Section 6 - Constraints Please provide feedback on constraints below 
The constraint about use of ROTL, whilst welcome, should be clearer. It should be enough to say that ROTL eligibility should not be based on IEP level, and allow for the guidance in the corresponding ROTL documents to go into more detail. The final line in paragraph 6.2 and the subsequent paragraph 7.7 in the guidance section overly complicate the issue and risk confusion.  HDC should not be included as a privilege in any local privilege policy – this point was made in the previous draft we saw and should be retained.  

We are pleased to see that access to family days must not be part of any local privilege policy, but the policy should go further and prevent the use of access to family in any form as part of the IEP scheme. As Lord Farmer’s review made clear, the benefits of encouraging contact with family are varied and significant. They include resettlement and reduction in self harm for prisoners, but also, crucially, a reduction in suffering for partners and children. The use of family contact as a tool to manage institutional behaviour is inhumane and cruel to both prisoners and families. The government’s policy in the light of 

15 
Lord Farmer’s findings should be to seek to maximise family contact by all means for all prisoners. It has no place in an IEP scheme.   It is of course right that local policies must not undermine decency, as stated at paragraph 6.3. Showers are used as the example here, and it is again worth noting that the legal minimum is disgracefully low at one shower per week and that fortunately most establishments aim to achieve higher than this. It is therefore important that this constraint does not just mean adherence to legal minimums, but that an individual gets the same access to showers and other decency provisions as others regardless of IEP level – in other words if people on standard have daily access, then so should people on basic.  IEP levels should not restrict access to faith, education, library service, healthcare services or resettlement services. 

The specific exclusion of conjugal visits and access to a wider range of TV channels in paragraph 6.5 is at odds with the procedure set out earlier for governors to make proposals for a wider range of privileges. Both feature in the extensive feedback we have received from prisoners and, at the very least, the framework should give a detailed explanation of why they are specifically excluded (and presumably not therefore open to governors to propose as they seek to benefit from a supposedly greater discretion). The unreasoned exclusion of two potential privileges which would be seen by prisoners as particularly significant sends a clear and unfortunate signal about the actual priorities of the framework, as distinct from the evidence base on which it purports to draw.    

Section 7 - Guidance Please provide feedback on the guidance below 
Although the evidence-based guidance at the start of this section is welcome, we are not convinced that it is presented clearly or that its location within the document is the most logical, particularly given the repetition from the previous evidence section. This again feels like it has been just copied into the document rather than having been integrated properly.   Whilst we acknowledge that this section of the document is about guidance rather than mandatory actions, the language used is still too permissive particularly in relation to procedural justice and ethos which are the key mechanisms likely to drive positive change. Key decisions about what needs to be mandatory and what can be permissive have been misjudged. 

For example, paragraph 7.4 suggest that the 4 principles of procedural justice ‘can be embedded’ into local policies. Given the emphasis being placed on procedural justice and the cultural shift which it is striving to achieve, clearly these principles ‘must’ be embedded in local policies. Strengthening this assertion and similar evidence based guidance around ethos and positive reinforcement increases the chance of seeing changes in practice. Mandating adherence to these principles does not undermine the discretion which is being offered to Governors about how to deliver. It would also create a stronger link to the outcomes listed earlier in the document.  In paragraph 7.6 governors are encouraged to design their local IEP scheme to integrate with the Managing the Custodial Sentence Policy Framework which has now been
16 
published. Where OMiC is in place, we suggest that input from the key worker should be a requirement of reviews.   The second part of paragraph 7.6 makes an important point about the inclusion of other staff in reviews – this point is not necessarily relevant to the heading it falls under, perhaps sitting better under ‘Review considerations’ and is important enough in itself to be stated separately.

Paragraph 7.6 also makes reference to a policy framework for managing the custodial sentence. This is not attached and has not been subject to external consultation, so far as we are aware. Given the essential link between that framework and this document, we suggest that it should be made subject to consultation now. 

Paragraph 7.7 regarding ROTL and IEP is unnecessary and only serves to confuse the point made in the Constraints section. It should be completely removed.  The menu of suggested incentives is largely unchanged, with the exception of Enhanced Wings which have existed in practice in some establishments for many years. This is a missed opportunity to re-shape the way we incentivise people in prison and is likely to result in local schemes which feel very similar if not the same to the current system. Early themes coming from the consultation through our Prisoner Policy Network suggest that genuine responsibility, trust and choice are the most effective ways to incentivise people in prison. These elements are not as nearly as apparent as they could be within this guidance.  

• Enhanced Wings – enhanced wings as a privilege have advantages and disadvantages and much of this depends on what is practically on offer. Elements which increase the autonomy and responsibility which people have over their everyday life are more likely to be real incentives. Being able to prepare own meals, manage their own time, etc are good examples of this.   However, privileges like enhanced wings can result in a negative relationship with the IEP system if used incorrectly, with prisoners feeling like they are walking on eggshells to avoid any chance of being removed from the wing. The Policy Framework actually echoes this by suggesting a process that quickly returns to a standard wing anyone who breaks the rules’ – this is clearly at odds with the principle that it should be as easy to progress as it is to be downgraded ( or, in our interpretation of what the evidence requires, easier to progress than to be downgraded).  

Governors will also need to consider whether the use of enhanced wings has a positive impact on the prison population as whole, or whether it breeds resentment and damages motivation for those who feel it is unobtainable. 

• Visits – as indicated above, we maintain that family contact should not be part of the IEP scheme. Doing so fundamentally misunderstands the relationship between family contact, mental wellbeing and behaviour. Family contact should be seen as a potential solution for frustrations and resulting behaviour that a person may be experiencing and not a way of punishing them. Reduction of visits also punishes family members unnecessarily. Family contact should be maximised for all, and not used as a behaviour management tool.  Evidence supporting the crucial importance of family ties and particularly contact with children in order to support women’s rehabilitation in prison and upon release
17 
and in order to meet the best interests of children whose mothers are imprisoned is set out in our 2018 report on the impact on children of maternal imprisonment (What about me? 2018).  Linking family contact to the IEP scheme is inconsistent with the female offender strategy which identifies improving family ties as a particular area of focus for planned work to improve conditions in custody for women.  

• Time out of cell – again it is important to recognise that current expectations for for time out of cell and for access to physical exercise in most prisons are far too low. The absence of a clear statement of what basic decency requires – minimum standards in line with our international obligations – opens the way to a system of privileges where the bottom level is too low and used to justify provision at higher levels which also falls short of what prisoners can reasonably expect.  

• In-cell televisions – as per our previous comments, in-cell televisions should be provided free of charge for those who are unable to work due to age or disability. It should also be easy for individuals to opt out of in-cell televisions if they wish to use their wages on something else. Governors should not have the ability to remove TV sets other than in line with the procedures in this framework or as a disciplinary measure. Paragraph 7.14 appears to imply that this can be done as a unilateral measure independently of the safeguards either IEP or the disciplinary system provides. 

• The discretion in para 7.15 for governors to prohibit any material they consider “unsuitable” requires clarification. At the very least, governors should be required to give advance notice, with reasons, of any intention to prohibit a particular programme. 

• Games consoles and games – this is fine, provided there is consistency across the estate about what is permitted. We understand that current guidance has established some consistency, but HMPPS should be prepared to amend policy as market changes affect what is available for people to purchase. 

• Handing and sending in – Inclusion of this privilege at certain levels should not override common sense decisions about handing in of necessary items such as glasses, walking aids, important documents, etc. In practice, given the resources required to facilitate the handing in of items, it is more likely that this will be withheld than extended, contrary to the principle of positive reinforcement. 

• Clothing – we have already commented above on the changes made to clothing requirements as a result of legal action being taken. We welcome recognition here in relation to clothing for transgender prisoners and for faith and pastoral care, and the references to the associated guidance.  

• Access to private cash – we have included comments about this above  

• Prisoner Pay – being paid differing amounts for doing the same job is always likely to result in resentment and perception of unfairness in the system and is not reflective of normal employment practices in the community. Having access to more responsible and therefore better paid roles as a result of a person’s IEP level, is a more constructive practice. In general, the historic failure to increase prisoner pay in line represents a failing of a procedural justice in the prison service’s own practice, and generates understandable scepticism on prisoners’ part about the principles set out in this framework

18  
When discussing what parts of the current IEP scheme incentivise people, one of the points made by prisoners through our Prisoner Policy Network was the difference in value many privileges have for different people. For example, an older prisoner may have little need for the gym, have fewer people to visit them or send in private cash,  A possible solution that was suggested is that privileges should include a menu of options from which an individual can choose the things they would like access to.  We suggest greater sharing of good practice in this area going forward – HMPPS must play an active role in identifying effective and innovative practice and including it in the guidance section of future versions.  

Commendations and triggers We welcome guidance to include a system of commendation and triggers within local policy, and the assertion that an accumulation of either could lead to a review.

However it is not clear, given the importance placed elsewhere on positive reinforcement and procedural justice, why this is not a requirement.   IEP warnings are currently a central part of the negative perception associated with the scheme – prisoners report that they are highly subjective, they are often not told they have received one let alone have it properly explained and are often unable to challenge them effectively until the review stage at which point the incident could be many months previously. The difficulty of receiving a positive IEP comment compared to the ease of getting a warning is also a recurring theme. 

The guidance here must do more to address these specific issues and embed procedural justice principles on a practical level.  Review considerations We agree that reviews should be multi-disciplinary and, as mentioned elsewhere in the document, that they consider patterns of behaviour rather than one-off incidents. We hope that the implementation of the Offender Management in Custody model will go some way to addressing this as well, with better relationships and understanding of individuals contributing to more holistic decisions. However, we remain concerned about the practice of reviews being undertaken by a single member of staff, which the draft allows for. This increases the risk of procedural unfairness and undermines trust in the system. 

Double jeopardy Although we accept that there are circumstances when both the adjudications and IEP process are a necessary response to a person’s behaviour, this section does not address one of the most common complaints relating to IEP. Prisoners often contact us to inform us that their IEP level was downgraded in light of being placed on report for a particular incident, but when the adjudication for the same incident was found not guilty/no evidence the IEP decision is not reversed – or is reversed but only weeks later. It is crucial for procedural justice that this common occurrence is mandated for – we suggest automatic and immediate reviews of any IEP decision which was based solely or largely on an incident which is dismissed at adjudication  Transfers and consistency Paragraph 7.27 recognises the importance of clear information for prisoners about differences between prisons when being transferred.

This information should be available as early as possible when transfers are being considered to help mediate possible frustrations and to inform choices where a decision is needed. Recognising this as good practice is unlikely to be enough to ensure this practice is common. Information must be up to date and accurate – too often we hear from someone who has been transferred to a prison only to find it does not have the provision that staff at the sending prison told them it would have. Governors must make sure information about the local privilege policy (and 

19 
indeed other local policies as Policy Frameworks roll out) is easily available to staff across the estate so that they can inform prisoners before transfer. Prisoners must be told of what to expect, and in specific rather than general terms.  Considerations for prisoners with specific requirements We are pleased that prisoners with specific requirements are still recognised in the Policy Framework. However, there are elements here which should clearly be requirements to meet equality and diversity expectations, such as having local policies translated into relevant languages. Other statements such as ‘officially recognised appellants should be considered as eligible for Enhanced’ are clearly intended to be mandatory and yet are also included in the guidance as oppose to the requirements section of the draft. 

This section should also emphasise the importance of meeting with individuals or groups who might have specific requirements as part of the process for establishing and reviewing local policy.  

HMPPS has recently published a series of ‘Model of Operational Delivery (MOD)’ documents which include good practice for groups of prisoners with specific needs such as foreign national prisoners and older people in prison. Though these documents contain encouraging recognition of good practice, their lack of mandatory requirements mean that they could easily get lost amongst completing expectations. Cross referencing them in relevant places in Policy Frameworks such as this one would be an important step in keeping this at the forefront of Governor’s minds and tying together otherwise separate pieces of guidance. 

Paragraph 7.33 regarding decisions to place, or keep people with mental health issues or learning disabilities on basic, and paragraph 7.39 in relation those at risk of suicide or selfharm, should both be mandatory to ensure safeguarding standards are maintained. The phrase in paragraph 7.34 that “governors will want to..” is confusing and should be deleted. It should plainly be mandatory that governors agree this with local clinical teams, and unthinkable that they would not.  

As a separate response from the T2A alliance, of which PRT is a member, makes clear, para 7.35 is a wholly inadequate response to the challenge of taking into account what we now know about maturity and the development of the brain in young adults. It requires a much fuller treatment, with a mandatory requirement to ensure that the evidence on young adults and the government’s policy intentions, inform on a nationally consistent basis how IEP schemes affect them.  

Para 7.36 refers to the Separation Centre operating manual, which is not attached and we have not seen. It is impossible therefore to say whether this paragraph provides adequate protection for prisoners in those centres.  Paragraph 7.39 regarding prisoners at risk of suicide and self harm is plainly not suitable for a permissive rather than a mandated approach.

It is very troubling that the case by case consideration of prisoners in these circumstances should be described as something that governors “will want” to do, rather than must do.  In paras 7.40 to 7.42, we are concerned that the approach to people maintaining their innocence, whilst allowing Governor’s to make decisions about this, does not do enough to avoid blanket policies against this group which prisoners have reported being the practice in some establishments. Privilege levels in prison are unlikely to encourage someone to change their stance towards their offence, so blanket policies are likely only to demotivate those who might otherwise engage well with the prison regime. The fundamental problem remains the use of IEP to manipulate the desistance relationship. If
20 
IEP is reserved to enabling a safe and just community, as we recommend, the difficulty is immediately resolved.

 by Katherine Gleeson,Ann Horton and Mike Ford  

https://inquest.rit.org.uk/matthew-gray-inquest-concludes

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-45719342?platform=hootsuite

http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Consultation%20responses/IEP%20Stakeholder%20Feedback%20PRT.

 Conference and Parliament dictation  for