Ken Clarke’s proposals on IPPs deserve a heartfelt welcome
The Justice Secretary, Kenneth Clarke, introduced his proposals for reform of sentencing policy in the house of commons this afternoon (7 Dec 2010). These concentrated on reducing re-offending by more effective rehabilitation of offenders in and outside prison, and ensuring that people who should not be in prison are no longer sent there. His proposals for reform of ‘Indeterminate Sentences for Public Protection’ (IPPs) include drastically reducing to the most serious violent or sexual offences the range of crimes for which IPPs are awarded , and giving more realistic guidance to parole boards to “focus indefinite imprisonment on those who clearly pose a very serious risk of future harm” — by implication removing the onus on the IPP prisoner to satisfy the parole board that he will not reoffend if released, and instead setting demanding conditions for refusing to release post-tariff IPP prisoners.
In his parliamentary statement and in reply to numerous mostly positive questions, Mr Clarke placed heavy emphasis on the need to punish offenders and repeatedly ridiculed any suggestion that his proposals would entail the release of thousands of murderers and rapists onto the streets. But the substance of his proposals, including those on IPPs, is strikingly liberal and enlightened. They will clearly be ferociously resisted by the obscurantists on the right wing of the Tory party and by the most reactionary of the tabloids, so their publication in much the form that has been foreshadowed in the past few months is an act of considerable courage on the part of both Ken Clarke and the prime minister. The proposals are now published in a government Green Paper for public consultation until 4 March 2011, and comments from interested persons and organisations as well as from private citizens are invited. The Green Paper lists 59 specific questions to which replies and reactions are invited. None of these relates specifically to IPPs.
The initial response of the Labour opposition to Ken Clarke’s statement was, in my view, disappointing. Sadiq Khan, the shadow Justice Secretary, concentrated on accusing Clarke of abandoning all the pledges in the Conservatives’ election manifesto designed to demonstrate a commitment to being “tough on crime” (in reply Clarke pointed out that Sadiq Khan had not criticised or opposed a single one of his specific Green Paper proposals, which was true, later claiming equally credibly that there was widespread support for his new approach in all three major parties in the house of commons). Sadiq Khan was of course in a difficulty: to have given the unreserved welcome to the proposals that they manifestly deserve would have been taken as a repudiation of the record of a succession of Labour home secretaries and justice secretaries, some of whom are still members of parliament. One of them — Jack Straw, predictably — claimed that the measures envisaged by Clarke would probably result in an increase in crime, a singularly ill-judged and unhelpful intervention in a situation where Ed Miliband’s new start requires a discreet abandonment and implicit repudiation of New Labour’s authoritarian and illiberal assaults on basic civil liberties when in office. Clarke’s new approach very clearly deserves strong support and the Labour party’s willingness to give it will be a vital litmus test of whether it has learned any lessons from past betrayals.
The Green Paper, ‘Breaking the Cycle Effective Punishment, Rehabilitation and Sentencing of Offenders’, is online at http://www.justice.gov.uk/consultations/docs/breaking-the-cycle.pdf (PDF). It runs to 96 pages and it will take some time to absorb it in detail. Its comments and proposals on IPPs are quoted in full below. They demonstrate that Clarke and his colleagues and officials have taken careful note of the powerful case against IPPs and especially against the way they are currently used, involving real injustice, even cruelty, for many of those serving them. The logical implication of the Green Paper’s own criticisms of IPPs is that the whole system should be abandoned. This however is clearly politically impossible. Given that IPPs are bound to continue in some form, Clarke’s proposals for reforming them are as good as we could possibly have expected, and far better than many of us feared. Here are the passages on IPPs:
40. Chapter 4 sets out proposals to reform adult sentencing so that we: …
– reserve Indeterminate Sentences for Public Protection (IPP) for the most serious offenders, and reform the release test applied by the Parole Board to strike a better balance. This will focus indefinite punishment on those who most clearly pose a very serious risk of future harm;
…
173. There has not been enough clarity in the way that prison sentences have been explained to victims and public. This has created confusion about how sentences work… This confusion has been exacerbated by the … growth in the use of indeterminate sentences where release is at the discretion of the Parole Board and no-one is clear how long the offender will actually spend in custody.
…
183. Public safety remains our primary concern and indeterminate sentences will always be appropriate for the most serious crimes. The Government has no intention of changing life sentences. However, we believe that indeterminate sentences of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPPs) should only be available for the most dangerous offenders. These sentences are imposed subject to an assessment of what offenders might do in the future rather than based simply on what they have actually done. Release is not automatic, but is at the discretion of the Parole Board.
184. The sentence of IPP was introduced in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and has been used on a much wider basis than expected. IPP prisoners are required to serve a minimum term after which the Parole Board can decide whether or not they are suitable for release. It was only intended and expected to be used in a limited number of cases, but there are already around 6,000 prisoners on an IPP sentence.
185. The current arrangements require offenders to satisfy the Parole Board that they do not present unmanageable risk in the community. Demonstrating this negative criterion can be extremely difficult which has led to a very low release rate of about 5%.
186. The limitations in our ability to predict future serious offending also calls into question the whole basis on which many offenders are sentenced to IPPs and, among those who are already serving these sentences, which of them are suitable for release.
187. The widespread use of IPPs has also further confused the sentencing framework, and can undermine public confidence since the court, the victim and the public have little or no means of knowing how long an individual spell in custody is likely to last or whether it will ever end.
188. It is also important that those who receive IPPs are able to reform themselves and that proper arrangements are in place for their rehabilitation. The larger the number of prisoners who are subject to the sentence, the more difficult this becomes.
189. For all these reasons, we believe that there is a strong case for ensuring IPPs are restricted to the exceptionally serious cases for which they were originally intended. We intend to bring forward reforms in order to achieve that. The previous Government took steps towards this in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 by removing the option to impose the sentence on those who would not otherwise have merited a sentence of at least four years (two in custody with the remainder on licence) but they are still used too widely.
190. This Government intends to restrict the sentence to those who would otherwise have merited a determinate sentence of at least ten years (i.e. at least five years in prison and the remainder on licence). This change ensures that the sentence applies to serious rather than broad categories of crime and will capture very serious sexual and violent offenders. Offenders who no longer receive an IPP would instead receive a determinate custodial sentence for the crime for which they have been convicted …
191. When IPP prisoners are released they are managed in the community under robust licence arrangements. All IPP offenders are also subject to Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements. The Parole Board performs a vital public protection function, but we need to consider whether the release test it applies for IPP prisoners achieves the right balance. Currently, the Parole Board is only able to release a prisoner where it is satisfied that the risk of doing so is considered to be no more than minimal. For an offender who has already been convicted of a serious offence, it can be extremely difficult to demonstrate minimal risk of re-offending particularly whilst the offender is living in the closed prison environment.
192. At least 40% (over 2,400) of IPP prisoners have already completed the minimum punishment term of their sentence in custody, known as the tariff.
193. We are exploring whether a new test for those who have served their punishment would focus indefinite imprisonment on those who clearly pose a very serious risk of future harm. There is no question of releasing any IPP offender into the community without some clear assessment of risk. The Parole Board would still refuse to release offenders where it is clear that this was necessary to keep the public safe.
…
227. … We also plan to change the law to provide for foreign nationals who are IPP prisoners to be removed from the UK at tariff expiry.
…
250.Consistently with the proposals for adult sentencing set out in Chapter 4 we also propose to make the following further changes:
…reform Detention for Public Protection (the juvenile equivalent of IPP) in line with the reforms for adult Indeterminate Public Protection sentences; …
We may expect a blizzard of misrepresentation (and rather less misunderstanding) of these and the Green Paper’s other proposals, accompanied by the usual knee-jerk populist (and entirely false) accusations that any liberalisation of policy of the kind envisaged is “soft on crime”, neglects the rights of victims, and will unleash huge gangs of violent crooks and paedophiles into the community. All the more reason for those of us who welcome the Green Paper (and wish it had been the product of a similarly enlightened Labour government) to respond positively to the invitation to contribute to the public debate on it, both by sending messages of strong but very specific support to the Ministry of Justice (see addresses below) but also by sending letters to the newspapers, especially in reply to ignorant attacks by others) and writing to one’s MP or to the shadow Justice Secretary to urge all-party endorsement of what, in the circumstances, is a brave and indeed revolutionary set of enlightened ideas for remedying many of the defects in the justice system bequeathed by New Labour.
Here is the Green Paper on responses to the consultation initiated by its publication today:
306. The consultation period will end on 4 March 2011, at which point all of the responses received will be analysed and considered.
307. Responses to the consultation can be submitted directly through the Ministry of Justice website at www.justice.gov.uk, via email to breakingthecycle@justice.gsi.gov.uk or by post to Breaking the Cycle, Ministry of Justice, 10.08, 10th Floor, 102 Petty France, London, SW1H 9AJ.
Finally, I should stress that these can only be one person’s instant reaction, written within a couple of hours of listening to the mini-debate in parliament and skimming through the Green Paper’s 96 pages. No doubt more careful study will reveal flaws and ambiguities that will need to be resolved or remedied. Still, I have no doubt that the general thrust is to be welcomed and supported, and that the specific proposals on IPPs, if implemented, will eventually remove most, if not quite all, of that system’s worst and most repressive features. But it will take time.
Footnote (9 December 2010): For examples of the hardship and injustice that IPPs are liable to inflict (on the relatives of offenders as well as on the offenders themselves), please see the three case histories recorded by Charlotte Rowles on the Guardian website on 7 December.
Brian
I look forward to reading the Green Paper, although (speaking as a Lecturer in Criminology) I may leave it until I can do it in work time! It certainly sounds like a step in the right direction.
One small point. You wrote:
I don’t think there’s necessarily any contradiction here; Clarke’s position may be more coherent than you’re giving it credit for. If we exclude the possibility of treating all crime as misguided responses to the conditions of life in an unjust society, to be dealt with through therapy and reconciliation, to talk of criminal justice is always to talk of punishment. When the Right (in which I include Jack Straw) talk about punishment they tend to mean inhumane forms and excessive levels of punishment, in which the “law-abiding majority” is thought to take a sadistic relish, and I would be very disappointed if Clarke gave that line of thinking any more currency. But talking about punishment per se is not necessarily illiberal, and I hope it proves not to be in this case.
Brian writes: Thank you for this, Phil. I agree entirely with most of what you say. I didn’t mean to suggest that Ken Clarke’s position was incoherent in repeatedly stressing (in the mini-dabate in parliament this afternoon rather than in the Green Paper) the central place of punishment in the purposes of prison. What I do suggest is that he feels obliged to put this emphasis on punishment in the hope of making his actual proposals, which in truth have little or nothing to do with punishment, more palatable to his right-wing colleagues and the feral tabloids. His proposals are focused, as I understand it, on reducing the rate of reoffending, especially by young and short-sentence offenders, on finding alternatives to prison for most offenders whose behaviour reflects drug or alcohol or mental illness or disorderly life problems, and on the reforms to the IPP régime summarised in my post. IOW, he recognises, as I hope all decent thoughtful people do, that there are thousands of people crammed into our prisons who don’t need to be there and ought not to be there, and he wants to find alternatives to prison for most such people instead of mindlessly assuming an ever-growing prison population and building more and more prisons to house it in.
As to punishment, my own personal view is that the only legitimate purposes of prison are deterrence, rehabilitation, and in a minority of cases the temporary removal of the offender from the community for the community’s protection pending his or her rehabilitation. I don’t think retribution, pay-back or revenge should play any part in the treatment of offenders in a civilised society. But I recognise that this is very much a minority view, held only by a handful of soggy Guardian-reading softies, and I wouldn’t expect a politician with hopes of re-election or possible promotion to espouse it — or at any rate to admit to espousing it. Nor do I regard as in any way illiberal those who do see a legitimate role for punishment as retribution or payment and thus a necessary element in imprisonment or other penalties for offences. I just don’t happen to agree with them. But my criticism of IPPs, for example, doesn’t depend in any way on my no doubt eccentric attitude to punishment.
Brian,
Your summary is most useful – thank you.
Ken Clarke’s proposals are courageous and warrant, if not whole-hearted support, at least a guarded welcome by an Opposition worthy of the name Labour. Not for the first time, I was disappointed with Sadiq Khan’s response.
At the minute, on prison reform and civil liberties the main parties have swapped roles. But what to expect from the sort of Labour with the likes of Jack Straw in it.
I wonder what our resident prison expert, Bob, feels?
Regards, Rob
Brian writes: Thanks, Rob. I agree with what you say, except that (a) I haven’t previously been disappointed in Sadiq Khan and I recognise the difficulty in which he finds himself on these issues, and (b) I haven’t yet found anything in the Clarke proposals that doesn’t deserve Labour’s whole-hearted support rather than merely “a guarded welcome”. If the Tories point out that this would constitute a “Labour U-turn” (the worst crime in any politician’s lexicon), so much the better. Executing a U-turn when you find you have been going down a one-way street the wrong way, or that you are in a cul-de-sac, is a perfectly sensible and creditable thing to do. Let the Straws and Blunketts object if they wish: they are yesterday’s men and, to misquote Cromwell, have sat there too long for any good they may be doing.
Ken Clarke seems to have addressed the point about IPPsbeing held over tariff because they can’t actually prove their risk is reduced. This issue to be considered by the Parole Board as at present they see the past crimes and the future risk is judged on that. Let’s hope the Parole Board start taking this into consideration in 2011. Also Ken Clarke stating IPP will only be given to those crimes warranting a 10 year determinate sentence. This should mean the IPP is given to the most violent and sexual crime. The media will most certainly whip up a storm with this. I think someone needs to tell the media barons that IPP sentences rarely go to muderers – they get life sentences with a fixed tariff. Murder has to have a mandatory sentence although manslaughter can get IPP. So we are not letting out murderers and rapists as they will have it. We are hopefully going to be letting out people who have had two violent or sexual offences (not necessarily rape) but who have worked hard and behaved in prison and who have completed the numerous courses asked of them. Many of these over tariff want to start afresh, many have learned their lesson after all with IPP they wilkl have strict licence conditions and MAPPA discussing them. One false move or a pint too many and they will be back inside within 24 hours awaiting a further Parole Board hearing which could mean a wait of 18-24 months. A serious deterrent if ever there was one.
Thought you might be interested:
Tom Brake (Lib-Dem MP), has asked questions in Parliament on 8th Dec
2010, relating to updated IPP figures.
As I understand the figures, in brief :
87 IPP’s were released on licence in 2010 compared to 54 in 2009.
However, at the end of 2010 there are 3,173 past their tariff compared
to 2,468 at the end of 2009.
So with all the extra Parole Board members and ‘improved’ system for
parole hearings they only released an extra 33, while those going past
their tariff increased by an extra 705.
If this is all that can be achieved by the Parole Board it gives an
indication that under the current system, despite
improvements, the situation is worsening.
There have now been a total of 187 IPP’s released, 47 of which have
been recalled since 2007 – although there’s no information as to whether
these were technical breaches or they have committed further offences.
Among the ones that have been released, there are some who were foreign
nationals and are deported at the end of their tariff, – there are no up
to date figures on these.
At the end of 2009 there had been 13 IPP’s who had committed suicide,
again I haven’t seen any up to date figures.
In a much earlier post (which I can’t find at the moment), someone
suggested that they would expect there to be a lot released very soon as
all those sentenced to short tariffs early on, now should have
completed all their courses and have done their statutory years at B,C
& D cats, however this doesn’t seem to be the case as the Parole
Boards are still maintaing the level of around 4% of IPP’s ever being on
out on licence (or deported).
I hope Ken Clarke has also realises this.
Brian writes: Thank you for this, Jo. The full reply by
Crispin Blunt to Mr Brake’s written PQ, with a mass of statistics on
IPPs as at 30 November 2010, is at
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2010-12-08a.29191.h.
Many of the figures are interesting and some are surprising. For
example, on 30 November, of the 3,173 offenders who were past their
tariff, 1,432 had a tariff of 730 days or less (approximately two years
or less), 2,601 had a tariff of 1,095 days or less (approximately three
years or less), and 3,080 had a tariff of 1,460 days or less
(approximately four years or less). Under the Green Paper
proposals presumably not one of these would have received an IPP
sentence at all — and these are only the figures for
IPP prisoners who are already past their tariffs.
(Incidentally these figures are not easy to reconcile: they must be
cumulative, i.e. the 3,080 must include the 2,601 which in turn must
include the 1,432.) It’s also striking that of the total of 6,375 IPP
prisoners, 165 are women, of whom 111 are past their
tariff. 40 IPP prisoners are aged between 15 and 17, and 229
between 18 and 20 — all serving what could effectively be life
sentences under current arrangements. Very, very disturbing. These and
the other figures supplied by Mr Blunt (the Parliamentary Under
Secretary of State in the Ministry of Justice, and Conservative MP for
Reigate) deserve to be widely disseminated.
The figures are issued by Kenneth Clarke’s own department, so it’s
a fair bet that he has indeed seen them. I imagine that the MoJ
probably arranged with Mr Brake that he would ask this question so that
the figures could be published. They strengthen the case for the
changes suggested in the Green Paper.
PS: I have transferred this comment from an earlier blog post
about IPPs, at https://barder.com/2882#comment-96260. Comments on that rather
elderly post are now closed.
Could I please ask you Brian What got you interested in the injustice of the IPP sentencing?
Brian writes: Thank you, Wendi. What a difficult question! I suppose that after I retired from the public service my interest in certain aspects of criminology and penal policy was awakened by my appointment to the then newly created Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) and the experience of sitting with two other judges — although I’m not myself a lawyer — to hear SIAC’s first ever case, which happened to raise numerous complex questions of law and equity in relation to national security and human rights. When SIAC’s remit was extended to cover appeals against indefinite detention without charge or trial, I decided that this was so contrary to basic principles of human rights that I couldn’t continue as a member of SIAC and I resigned, publishing my reasons in a widely read magazine and a national newspaper.
I continued to take an active interest in the stream of new criminal justice and anti-terrorism laws coming out of the home office under successive more or less authoritarian Labour home secretaries, many of which (the laws, but also in most cases the home secretaries as well) seemed to me abhorrent (although I am a life-long supporter of the Labour Party). One of these was of course the introduction of IPPs. When I began to look into these I was shocked by the major breach of fundamental principles of justice that they represented and also by how little public awareness of their basic defects there seemed to be. So I started writing about IPPs on my blog and wrote some letters to my MP and to the newspapers about them. After a while relatives of people serving IPPs began to send in comments to my blog about their experience of this sentence and how unfair and frightening it was.
The evidence began to build up as more and more people wrote in with more comments and information on the blog. And I was encouraged to pursue the campaign by an old friend who works as a volunteer in a local prison and who also began to find out more about these sentences, mainly (like me) from published documents and websites and parliamentary statements, and so forth. Now at last there does seem to be a chink of light at the end of the tunnel with Ken Clarke’s Green Paper, although there’s still a long way to go through this long, long tunnel before we get to the light at the end of it and a lot of things could still go wrong.
I don’t know if that answers your deceptively simple-looking question, but it’s the best I can do!
Hi Brian
Thank you for answering my question I feel now that I understand you more. I felt that I should ask because after feeling so alone for the last 4 yrs with nobody to turn to that could understand or would listen I found your blog I found that at last there were people that would understand my feelings of anger, resentment, isolation now I dont feel so alone . I used to vote labour until this unjust law came out and also lack of support from my them MP John Battle who refused to do anything even listen. Thank you once again for helping and supporting the families of these IPP prisoners it means alot.
Like Wendi and many others, for a long time I thought we were the only ones who found it impossible to be able to make any positive moves forward on this sentence and it felt as if no matter what he did obstacles were always put in his way. Reading so many other posts here and elsewhere has made me realise this is done to all IPP’s, all I don’t understand is why.
Brian, after reading your very interesting account of how you became interested in the injustice of the IPP sentence maybe you can help explain the following. Many IPP’s (including my friend) are refused parole due to ‘not sufficient evidence’, this being not sufficient evidence to prove they will not commit further offences I presume. What I’m not clear about is how anyone can provide proof as evidence that something won’t happen in the future. I can understand if someone is convicted of a violent offence and continues to be violent in prison that the evidence of being ‘non violent’ isn’t there.
But most of these people who are told there is ‘not sufficient evidence’ have been well behaved in prison, had responsible jobs in prison, done courses. What other ‘evidence’ can they provide – apart maybe from doing courses indefinitely, whether relevant or not.
I don’t know if I’m missing the point of ‘evidence’ but it seems a very obscure concept in parole board terms.
Brian writes: Thank you for this, Jo. You have put your finger on the fundamental illogicality and injustice at the heart of IPPs: the impossibility of proving not only a negative, but also a negative about the future! This basic flaw is explicitly recognised in the Green Paper (see the extracts in my post, above) and the Green Paper proposes a change which would largely put it right, namely revised guidance to the parole boards that they should refuse to release post-tariff IPP prisoners only if they “clearly pose a very serious risk of future harm”. Note the words ‘clearly’ and ‘very serious’. This would in effect relieve the IPP prisoner of the onus for demonstrating that he poses only a minimal risk of reoffending if released, and transfer the responsibility to the parole board of authorising release at the end of the tariff unless they identify ‘clear’ evidence of a ‘very serious risk’ of future harm if he is released. Let us hope that this enormously significant proposal is widely supported in the responses to the consultation, and then put into law unchanged without undue delay.
Dear Brian, and everyone, thanks again for all your continuing support. Brian, after reading your Blog, dated 7 December, ‘Ken Clarke’s proposals on IPPs deserve a heartfelt welcome’, I wrote in this mode to our Conservative MP, James Paice, although expressing disappointment in the lack of indication as to how current short-tariff prisoners will be affected by his proposals. Today (!), I had a response. He says he is ‘raising this issue with Ken Clarke to be sure he is aware of this problem when pursuing these proposals further’. Mr Paice says he will keep me informed of any developments. I know Ken Clarke IS aware of the problem, but at least, this is keeping up the pressure.
Brian writes: Thank you for doing this, Patricia. And three cheers for Mr Paice for taking it up with the Justice Secretary. All grist to the mill.
When we discussed this before, I was told by my MP that proposals would be brought forward. The proposals in the Green paper are better though I still wonder whether we need this regime at all – see Paras. 185-187 in the extract above. Those problems still remain albeit pushed more to the sidelines.
It is ridiculous for the Green Paper to say that IPP was only intended for the most serious cases. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 made sure that it was to be used extensively. It was very David Blunkett authoritarianism though you will probably disagree with me on that. Anyway, Jack Straw made it better and Clarke is to make it better still. Some welcome progress therefore.
As others have mentioned, there is also the current problem of those already on IPP. I don’t see any improvement there at this stage and Parole Board resources are certainly not going to be increased.
Brian writes: Thank you. I don’t disagree at all about IPPs reflecting David Blunkett authoritarianism. I agree too that paras 185-187 of the Green Paper, quoted in my post, amount to a lethal condemnation of the whole basis of IPPs and would amply justify abolishing them completely. I’m confident that abolition would be Ken Clarke’s preference in an ideal world. But as a matter of political reality, he must know that a proposal to abolish IPPs would arouse such intense opposition in the media and in his own party that it would stand no chance of being adopted as government policy and passed into law. I believe that his proposals for changes in the system are in fact so radical that if fully implemented, they would result in IPPs virtually disappearing: they would be imposed only for the most serious offences and would in effect merge into a variant of life sentences. I think we should all be glad to settle for that, even if we know that the case for complete abolition is unanswerable.
It’s true of course that the Green Paper is silent on what should be done about those currently serving IPP sentences, including those who are still in prison long past their tariffs. However, if — and it’s a biggish if — the Green Paper proposals go through and are passed into law, it’s difficult to see how the parole boards could continue to operate on the existing basis in regard to existing IPP prisoners. The Ministry of Justice would surely have to issue revised instructions to parole boards to apply the revised criteria to all applications for release after tariff forthwith: and that would mean that the onus would be on the parole boards to release an IPP prisoner on completion of his or her tariff unless they have specific evidence in each case that they “clearly pose a very serious risk of future harm”. But that’s a long way into the future, unfortunately: even if the Green Paper is approved unchanged after the end of the consultation period in March, the reforms will still have to wait until there’s a slot for them in the legislative programme, which could well not be before 2012 or even later. We must just hope that the very clear expression in the Green Paper of official dissatisfaction on the part of the responsible minister with the way the parole boards currently approach their task will gradually be reflected in a more flexible and less obsessively risk-averse approach on the part of parole boards, perhaps even before they are officially instructed to change their ways. It’s something to cling to, anyway.
i found that when my son was given 2 yrs ipp 3 yrs 4 months ago not even the solicitor new much about it .it took 3 yrs to do 1 course and now he has to wait till next year for another 2 when he was only down to do anothert 1 ,he has his parole hearing in may next year so obviously he wont get it because the courses wont be done in time which clearly isnt his fault but it will be him that will pay with another year 18 months of his life .hes suffering form depression due to the not knowing , hes hasnt slept properly for 3 months and finds it hard to deal with every day life in jail , if they could give them a min and max im sure it would give them light at the end of a very dark tunnel , everyone deserves a release date dont they , i feel so sorry for the ipp prisoners and there families something needs to be done.
Brian writes: Thank you for this: yet another example of the awful injustice in the way this ill-conceived system works (or doesn’t work). I think there’s good evidence that some members of the government have recognised what a bad system it is and that it badly needs to be reformed — as the Ministry of Justice Green Paper demonstrates. But reform will be bitterly resisted and even if in the end it’s approved, it will take at least 18 months to two years to come into effect. I’m afraid the tunnel is not only dark: it’s long, too. But don’t despair — yet.
Can I just wish all the families and friends of IPP prisoners a Merry Christmas and hopefully a better new year and lets keep the fight going we must keep chipping away for our loved ones.
I would just like to take this opportunity of thanking Brian for all his contributions during 2010 – he has made so many efforts on behalf of IPP prisoners and it is most appreciated.
I would ask people to respond to the Emmersons solicitor request for information on IPPs and to continue with their efforts next year. I have read this week that another person has got their IPP sentence overturned by the Appeal Court and a determinate sentence put in it’s place – so everyone must keep trying every avenue they can.
I wish everyone caught up in this IPP situation as good a Christmas as they can have and whatever happens do not give up hope – 2011 IS going to be a better year!
First of all , I would like to wish everyone a happy new year and I hope that it will be a year that will be better for us all.
I know prisoners need to do courses at present to ‘show they are not a risk’ and undoubtedly there are prisoners that are barred from doing the courses because they do not fit the criteria to take them. I should hope this is something else Mr Clarke has considered as some will be seriously disadvantaged if the said course are the only means to an end. Some prisoners cannot do them because they either have mental health problem, a low IQ or are protesting innocence. So, I would be keen to know how Mr Clarke can overcome this problem as I am of the view that, although the onus will be on the PB to have evidence that the prisoner is a serious risk,there will still be people trapped in this grotesque sentence after tariff simply because the PB will still have nothing to go on without some intervention to resolve the problem.
Brian writes: Thank you for this. If the Green Paper proposals are approved after the end of the consultation period, and if they are reflected in new instructions to the Parole Boards, and if the Parole Boards accept their logical implications (three very big ifs), then in the absence of specific evidence of serious risk, the Parole Board would be obliged to order the release of the prisoner once he had served his tariff: surely no court would agree with the argument that failure or inability to have completed a specific course while in prison amounted to a serious risk of reoffending. But speculating about such uncertain questions means crossing a lot of bridges long before we have come to them. Let’s concentrate for now on supporting the Green Paper proposals and rebutting any ignorant or malicious attacks on them.
I warmly reciprocate your good wishes for the new year and hope that 2011 will bring hope to all those affected by this wretched and unjust system. But the real reforms that we all want to see will take time to come into effect, even if they come through the consultation period unscathed, and a lot of patience is going to be needed.
Hi all
Im just about to leave home to sit in on my partners parole hearing im very nervous and scared. My hopes are that they either cat d him or release but there is a chance that they could send him to a cat c which the prison should of done months ago. At this parole they are using 13mths old reports and also a probation officer that has never met my partner even though he took over his case 6mths ago.Iwill keep you all updated on what happened.
Wendi,
I hope the experience was not too awful for you. I am not surprised to hear that ‘old’ reports are being used or that the probation officer has never met with your partner. Same experience with my family member – 8 different probation officers in 3 years!! Whatever happens do not give up hope.
Well im back home now what a load of crap, the parole board made a decision even before my partner went in the room he was told no they were not interested, so now we have to wait another 12mths so if anybody tells you that the parole board are looking after IPP’s its bull
Brian writes: I’m sorry to have this disappointing news. This kind of inadequate procedure seems, alas, all too common. Let’s just hope some good may come of the Green Paper proposals. But that’s very much a long term hope, I’m afraid.
Wendi, so sorry to hear about the parole hearing. I have thought they make up their mind beforehand, which doesn’t seem the right way to do things, it would be like a judge and jury deciding someone’s guilty based on paperwork, without having a trial.
At my friend’s last parole hearing, everyone recommended release, probation said to him there wasn’t any reason the parole board could give to keep him in, but because as is the problem with this sentence, the parole board don’t have to give a reason to keep him in, he has to provide enough evidence to be released – so they simply come up with the ‘not enough evidence’ reason for not releasing him – after doing all his courses and years past his tariff without anything negative written about him. I think they’re so risk averse they want everyone to go through the cat B, C & D prisons, then lots of home leaves and as many extra courses – whether they’re relevant or not.
All this takes many years, and this is never made clear when they’re sentenced. This is particularly difficult for those on short tariffs, some of whom must be thinking that they might as well have done something more serious and got a longer tariff because it makes no difference to the length of time they’re kept in.
Mary, thank you for still being here supporting us all.
Hi Wendi,
I am so sorry that you have had to experience this and that the PB has delivered this knock back.I am sure this must have been devastating as you go there with high hopes and hope that someone will give your loved one,s presentation proper consideration,not just the cursory glance which I am sure these people probably give. I hope that in time something will change with the PB as it is very wrong for those with IPP,s to be overlooked in this way.
Thank you Jo for acknowledging me – I really intend to continue with my support for as long as necessary. I feel particularly strongly about the people with an IPP that was given before the law changes in 2008 and cannot understand why no-one in the human rights field seems to be speaking up for them. I know of many many prisoners who got those very short sentences and yet remain in prison – whatever has happened to justice? I hope everyone who can has responded to the green paper in some form – it is important that everyone lets the government know how this barbaric sentence impacts on familes and friends, as well as the prisoners. IPP prisoners are such a drain on resources as well – wake up please Ministry of Justice.
Thank you all for the really nice comments it makes a difference to know you are not alone, this has made me stronger than ever and now i will make sure my voice is heard so the ministry of justice and the government beware. when my partner phoned last night he told me they are shipping him out next week to a cat c, pity they didnt do this months ago !
Wendi, I hope all goes well with the move to a cat C, it’s a pity he couldn’t have got moved to a D cat with the length of time he’s already done, and being so much over tariff.
As for parole boards, if approx 60% of all prisoners released from prison reoffend, then 40% don’t reoffend. So if parole boards are only releasing 4% of IPP’s eligible for release (PRT figures), I would have thought with their emphasis on being risk averse that the 4% they release would easily be in the 40% who don’t reoffend. But that’s not the case, actually 25% of the 4% they’ve released are back in prison: 187 released – 47 are back in prison.
So in trying understand this, it means either the parole board are no more able to predict a person’s future behaviour than the actual person serving the IPP is able to provide evidence of their future behaviour, or a disproportionate emphasis is placed by the parole board on completeing courses when there has never been any empirical evidence that the courses reduce reoffending, so the criteria they’re using to assess risk is flawed.
The Prison Reform Trust maintain they have evidence that having support of family, friends etc is one of the things that does reduce reoffending. Yet the IPP sentence by moving people all over the country to complete courses, and making it difficult for family and friends to maintain support as there is no release date is self defeating in as much as the one of the things that is known to reduce reoffending is what the sentence destroys.
Dear Jo D
You are so right in what you have written its a poor show that only187 have been released. my partner was moved to lindholme what a dirty dump , staff have no clue what they are doing, cant get a visit yet, when i do get chance they is only a vending machine in visits hall medical staff are rude unprofessional, medication only given out when they can be bothered i have put 3 complaints in already and he only been in since the18th jan, the place is a joke
As if things could not get any worse the new prison that my partner has been sent to cant assess him for a course and have suggested he put in for a transfer, like its so easy to do. It begs the question why the hell was he sent there in the first place what a waste of tax payers money and how incompetent the staff are that sort these transfers out.
Brian writes: I’m so sorry to hear of this new blow. I don’t blame you for feeling angry.
Can the IMB help to get this reconsidered, perhaps? An appeal to the Governor?
Wendi, sorry to hear what’s happened, it just shows what a mess all this is, we’ve had years of incompetence too.
Our new MP has been very helpful, especially when mentioning the waste of taxpayers money, I don’t know if yours would be of any help? Is your solicitor able to help as it is ‘stopping him progressing’ – which our solicitor used to challenge lots of issues under.
Wendi,
This should be challenged by way of judicial review, with the current prison listed as the defendant, on the grounds of ‘lack of progression’ and ‘allocation.’ Your partner needs to exhaust the comp procedure (comp 1, 1A and the back of the 1A) and send them to a solicitor promptly. Hope this helps.
Dear Wendi, I am sorry to read about all the problems. I bet the course is the HSF. I am starting to see a pattern here. The HSF is the ‘default’ course, for people who are proving hard to put under a heading, have done the other courses, but the trainee psychologist – and it will be a trainee I bet – just doesn’t feel confident enough to support a release. The trouble with the HSF is that it is done in so few prisons, and so few places are available, the waiting lists can be 2 years long. The assessment can only be done at the prisons who run the course, and a person has to apply to be transferred there, just to get an assessment. That means he has to move miles away from friends, family etc, and lose out all the priviledges he has built up in his current prison. Even then, will the course help? I asked the NOMs person, responsible for the HSF nationally, what follow up there has been on people completing the course. She says hardly any have, and been released, in spite of it running now for some years. Most of the people are lifers, in the true sense of the word. So, how it can be the recommended course for so many short-tariffers? I would welcome any observations on this.
Best wishes, Pat
Wendi – you must do as Lorna says – and never give up. I think Pat could be right about the HSF course – perhaps someone has the answer as to whether it is a viable course for rehabilitation and prevention of further offending – it seems that the government and the people responsible for the course don’t know – so who does?
Wendi – keep strong and take some comfort from all of us who are supporting each other in this difficult situation.
Hi all
thanks for all of the above it does help I have taken Lorna’s advice and let my partner know so he will get the ball rolling. He got a letter yesterday from the MOJ his next parole date is August 2012 then he will have served 7 yrs plus of an 18mth sentence how bad is that ? the other problem we are having to face is the prison they put him in now what a crap hole ( and that is being polite ) HMP Lindholme they hold the mail back they have also tampered with mail they mess the VO’s up so it upsets the inmates visits the food is unedible slop they are padded up like sardines and they have not a clue about IPP’s but yet Lowdham Grange are still shipping them out to there to this joke of a place
Wendi, it’s incredible that after over 5 years of this sentence there are still prisons that know nothing about IPP sentences – I read about another one, in Wales I think, that didn’t really know what an IPP was.
My friend says that those more recently sentenced are getting parole hearings on the date without delays, and those sentenced in the first few years are getting longer delays and just getting left behind. I suppose this is to make the figures look good so they can boast about how many hearings are on time, while the ones already overdue are being left because it won’t help their figures.
Has anyone else heard this?
JO D
I have not heard of this but very interested to find out more but to be honest nothing surprises me with this sentence its one cock up after another and instead of putting things right they seem to be digging a bigger hole to put our loved ones in.
I was wondering if anybody would be able to advise me. My partner was sentenced to an IPP in september 2005. He recieved a 18 months tariff and he is completing his 6th year now. I was wondering if anybody could tell me whether we could appeal against the IPP due to the fact that if he was sentenced after the 2008 changes then he would not have been given an IPP in the first place. Is there any graounds on which we could appeal. Also i have been informed if he ver comes out on licence he can NEVER go on holidays or out of the country with me. Is this true. Also is it true that if you have criminal convictions any insurance you apply for hits the roof. I am so worried about all this because everything seems so difficult. How is he suppose to start a fresh and do new things with his life if he is not allowed to do a lot of things due to his licence. How are we suppose to live a normal life in any way with all a licenec on our heads forever.It will be a life in prison but you just cant see the bars around you. Please please does anyone have any advice on any of this please.
Brian writes: Thank you, Sima. You will have seen Jo D’s sympathetic response at https://barder.com/3013#comment-98905. I am also passing on your comment by email to one or two other people with greater knowledge of the system than me, in case any of them can offer you advice. But at the moment it’s exceptionally difficult to predict what possible changes might be made. In the present harsh and punitive climate there may be no changes at all. Fingers crossed.
PS: I have tried to send you a longer reply by email to the email address that you supplied when posting your comments, but my email is being returned as undeliverable. If you would like to send me an email address that works (by message to brianlb[at]ntlworld[dot]com) I will try sending it again. Meanwhile those who received copies of my attempted email to you will only be able to communicate with you by posting further comments here.
Wendi – that’s a very good description that’s how we feel, that they’ve dug a big hole and just dumping all these IPP’s in it.
Sima – That’s exactly the position we’re in, my friend was sentenced in 2005 to around 18 months and feels he has just been forgotten about. Basically they’re being punished because the government didn’t get it right in the first place, if they had they wouldn’t be doing an IPP. Thare have been lots on these blogs with less than 2 years who were sentenced early on. For all these it is exceptionally cruel.
We were told we couldn’t appeal because it was the law at the time, even though it hasn’t been law for nearly 3 years.
It also makes a mockery of a life licence given for such short tariffs, it’s usually for proper life sentences but if it’s ok for someone before 2005 and after 2008 committing the same offence to not be on any licence past their sentence expiry, then to put the unfortunate few in between those dates on a life licence seems a further insult, I don’t know how an already overstretched probation will cope with all these extra life licences.
And yes insurance is another nightmare, house and car insurance, as well as not being able to go on family holidays. It’s not giving any hope of a normal life after an IPP.
Sorry if it’s not much help, but you’re definitely not alone.
Have you responded to the ‘Breaking the Cycle’ government paper? I’ve written to them, there’s only 2 days left but you can do it by email as well. Details are at the top of this blog on Brians introduction.
Thank you for your reply Jo its appreciated. Just someone answering the blog makes me feel better because you know someone is listening. Ive been told i should try and appeal. What comes of it god knows but maybe i should give it a go.
By the way Jo who told you that you cannot appeal. I mean the law says you would get an IPP if your offence merited a 10 years on determinate sentence which half would be in custody. So how can they justify an ipp on an 18 months tariff. It doesnt make sense.
Brian writes: I think you are confusing a proposal in the Ministry of Justice Green Paper, one which is open for consultation until this Friday and which is by no means certain to be adopted, with the present state of the law, which imposes no such limitation on the types of offence qualifying for an IPP. I suggest that you might read some of the other comments and blog posts on this website for a better understanding of IPPs under existing laws.
By the way, will you please send me in a message from this website (not in a comment on this blog post) your correct email address? I would appreciate it, as I have a message for you that you might find helpful. The email address you have given in your comments so far doesn’t work.
Sima, it was the solicitor who said he couldn’t appeal because the new 2 year limit wasn’t made retrospective, he’d have had to appeal against getting it under the original ruling, which he couldn’t as it was one of their listed offences.
As for the 10 years determinate sentence, I’ve seen it explained and will try to explain it as best as I remember it, but would appreciate anyone telling me if I’ve got it wrong.
As an example ‘Threats to Kill’ is eligible (on their list) for an IPP, because the maximum that can be given for this offence is 10 years or more. According to sentencing guidelines, if say someone wearing a mask pointed a gun at you while on your own on a dark road, and said he was going to kill you, he would probably get the maximum of 10+ years as a determinate sentence, 5+ years tariff as an IPP.
However (a real example) a husband and wife arguing in a restaurant, during which he said he was going to kill her for lying to him, police were called because of the disturbance and he had to appear in court. He also got an IPP for threats to kill, but only an 18 month tariff, because of the circumstances the sentencing guidelines say that as there were no weapons, it wasn’t an unsafe place, no premeditation, no intimidation the guidelines are to give a maximum of 4 years determinate sentence, maximum of 2 years tariff IPP.
The persons wife didn’t feel threatened, said they always argue like that and regularly visits him, but can’t understand why he’s doing a life sentence.
As far as I know this person is still in prison so will have done about 6 years as he got sentenced in 2005. There’s quite a few who’ve got IPP’s for ‘threats to kill’ that have been said in the heat of an argument. It’s the title of the offence that gets the IPP and the circumstances that determine the tariff.
That’s one of the many idiosyncracies that makes this sentence so unfair, and makes a bit more sense for Ken Clarke to introduce a 5 year minimum tariff.
Thank you Jo your reply is much appreciated. Its bad news really but what can we do. I dont understand how a life on licence can be healthy or normal for anyone. Not just the offender but the families too. Basically we will all be doing the licence period.
I have got to a point where i dont think anybody will listen to us. Especially those of us whose loved ones were sentenced before the 2008 changes. They have been forgotten and no green paper or no news papare mentions them or even remembers them. All changes will only affect recent IPP’s our loved ones will be left inside and nobody can do anything about it.
Brian writes: Thank you. Now that you have kindly sent me a valid email address I have sent you privately some suggestions and sources of information and advice that I hope you may find helpful.
Thank you Brian your help and advice is much appreciated.
Hi all
can i ask has anybody heard of a course called Life minus violence i need to know how long it takes to complete the course in prison?
Brian writes: Wendi, I don’t know anything about the prison course, but a website says this about it:
Its leading sponsor seems to be a Professor Jane Ireland, the University of Lancashire and Mersey Care NHS.
Hello everyone
I am so upset and confused. I spoke to my partners solicitor and he informed me that despite him doing everything by the book and him completing all courses asked for him, he may still get a knock back from parole. He asked me to read the information on the parole board site with regards to parole and open conditions am not sure if I have understood it properly but whatever I have interpreted has really stressed me out. It says in there that an IPP cannot be released in public unless he has done a stint in open conditions, unless there are exceptional circumstances and I mean exceptional. Basically they are saying you wont get released until you have done time in open conditions. Is this true can they really do that. My partner has already done 6 years from 18 months tariff. Moving him to open conditions could take another 12 months and then he will have to do further 12 months in open conditions once he is moved. How is this fair. How can it be right. So no matter how hard he tries he wont get released really. Can they really do this.
Thank you Brian for the information
I know good people are campaigning but I don’t think anyone is listening. This campaign and any changes could take years and years. I just cannot believe that the parole board can do this. It will take months and months to move him to a Cat D and then he will further do 12-18 months in there. He will have done 9 years by the time they even consider releasing him. Is it 100% chance that he will have to go through the CAT D route, is there 0% percent chance that he could get straight release. I mean is this the definite and only way. Will the parole board not even consider it. I feel like giving up on all of this, I have just lost faith and hope in everything. I am sorry if I am sounding so frustrated but I really do feel at the end of the tunnel with no light. My partner informed me that an inmate had previous sexual offences, completed the SOTP and got released, only to come back with more sexual offences but this time got an IPP after the 2008 changes. He completed the SOTP again and last week he got parole and is being released this week sometime. How does that work. Thank you.
Sima, it’s very difficult to predict how the parole board will act, and from somethings I hear it seems no more than a lottery.
My friend has known IPP’s released by parole boards who have been violent in prison, who refused to work and been up to all sorts in prison and others who abide by all the rules yet don’t get released.
Some might say it’s down to previous offences, but solicitors have stated they’ve got IPP’s released without going to a D cat who’ve got previous for manslaughter, and many other violent offences.
A lot of IPP’s do end up going to D cats, and it is the best way to show they can be trusted, but even that isn’t a guarantee of release as some still get refused parole.
There is nothing at all structured or straight forward about this sentence, and they’re treated differently at different prisons. IPP’s can be left for years in B & C cats, when they should be progressing, but they have to wait years for parole hearings then reports become out of date and have to be done again so there’s further delays. When my friend received his IPP he couldn’t even get from a B cat to a C cat without a parole hearing, but things have improved since then.
The ones who seem to have suffered most are those sentenced very early on, especially those given less than 2 years, most are still in prison one of the reasons being because they couldn’t make any progress in the first few years.
The government have wasted and are still wasting a lot of money keeping IPP’s in prison years past their tariff date when their risk to the public is minimal, but the way the IPP system is supposed to work with numerous reports, courses with inevitable waiting lists, various ‘tests’ so that no one can hope to navigate this over-complicated system in a few years.
That’s why it was unrealistic in the first place to allow it to be given to short tariffs, and very deceitful to not let anyone know what was going to happen when they were sentenced.
Thank you Jo, I appreciate your response. This IPP is just a joke. The govermnet, MP’s they are just looking out for themselves. Even Ken Clarke will end up doing what suits him and the public who have no idea about the suffering this IPP is causing to family and friends of IPP Prisoners. Parole board do not even care about justice, they make ther minds up just by looking at the prisoner and thats it. Thats what I believe. I cant believe what a joke this country has become.
Dear All
Just thought i would let you all know what a farce the probation service in Lindholme really are , my partner put in for the calm course which was recommended by the parole board was told in writing that he would be on the next one only to be told that now he cant do this course not because he does not fit the criteria just because they want him to do a 3 year one instead I was lead to believe that any course like that are good to reduce risk but to stop somebody progressing is bloody ridiculous dont you agree?
Has anybody seen this months Inside Time? very good article called IPP continues to plague the prison system written by Erica Restall. well worth reading comments after it as well.
Brian writes: Thank you for this, Wendi. The article is well worth reading and is available online: click
http://j.mp/gZZA2s.
Some of the comments appended to it, and their authors, will be familiar to Ephems readers.
Wendi, and others
I was looking on the governments site ‘Making Sense of Criminal Justice – Respond to Breaking the Cycle’, under Chapter One a response by Kev Mose says the success of courses is only measured by how many attend, and if it’s run by an outside agency, how much profit they make. It seems that whether the course changes the way people think or reduces re-offending is of no importance to anyone.
What a waste of taxpayers money.
Hi All
I dont know if any of you go on facebook . I have just read an article on Emmersons Solicitors facebook which has left me speachless, It starts BUS DRIVER JAILED FOR SEX ATTACKS, its also at http://www.kentonline.co.uk If anybody can read it can you give feedback please.
Brian writes: Thank you for this, Wendi. The web pages that you refer to are:
http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=199541636736012&id=167108843304010
and
http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kentonline/news/2011/march/24/bus_driver_jailed.aspx.
I’m afraid I think many of the comments on this item on the Emmersons Facebook page are misguided. Many IPP prisoners and their families, where the original offence was much less serious than those committed by the bus driver in this report, are victims of an inherently unjust and misconceived system, but that’s no excuse for wanting an equally unjust sentence to be imposed on the bus driver, however vile his offences. The judge in this case was in the best position to assess whether a determinate sentence was more appropriate than an indeterminate one (which could well have amounted to a life sentence in practice), and decided that it was. The judge’s reference to events in the offender’s Army career that “could have triggered the offences” shows that there may have been extenuating circumstances of which we know nothing, and so we can’t have an opinion on how much weight to give them. The fact that he described IPPs as ‘Draconian’ (i.e. very harsh) shows that he understood how devastating the effects of an IPP can be.
Those denouncing the judge’s decision and condemning him for not imposing an IPP are in no position to complain about the unfair impact of an IPP on their own or their loved ones’ lives. We should all rejoice, not complain, when a judge refrains from passing an IPP, partly on the grounds of the Draconian nature of IPPs.
Brian ,
I wholly agree with your comment about the bus driver.
Although he has admitted guilt,noone except those defending this man can possibly know the circumstances behind that admission.
What if his personal circumstances dictated how he should plea?.
Reason for putting that question forward is that ,whatver people may believe of the system,there are innocent people that get caught up in it and sometimes the prospect of a heavy sentence may just be too much too bear for someone because of their personal circumstances.e.g family life.
What if this man,s circumstances were the same?.
Then,also,there is another point about all this.
While there are people that are inherent sex offenders that are positively vile,there are also.innocent men that get wrongly convicted for sex offences without any evidence.What if this bus driver was convicted on hearsay.After all,it is admissble in trials of this natue and is open to abuse.What if he had been the subject of historic allegations and were later found to be untrue?. It does happen…
Brian writes: Thank you for this. I would just add that even if (as seems overwhelmingly likely) the bus driver was indeed guilty of the offences with which he was charged, there are no grounds whatever for questioning the judge’s decision to award a determinate rather than an indeterminate sentence. The judge was far better placed than any of us to assess any extenuating circumstances — and those of us who regard all IPPs as inherently vicious and unjust must rejoice when a judge opts not to inflict one.
Brian is of course right with his comment – but this bus driver case does highlight the injustice for people with the very short IPP tariffs, imposed before July 2008, who are still in prison for (in most cases) very much less serious offences. Obviously we do not know the full facts of the case but it does seem right that the judge gives a determinate sentence that is appropriate to the crime. We have all been arguing for years that IPPs are draconian and cruel – so we should accept that a judge is using his knowledge and powers to sentence without being draconian and unjust. We just need the government to apprciate this and change the IPP sentence into something more fair and humane. They should also review all the present IPP prisoners, particularly those with tariffs of less than 2 years.