Cost of keeping people in prison on indeterminate IPP sentences tops £1bn since 2012
Keeping people who are serving a controversial indefinite sentence beyond their minimum term in prison has cost the taxpayer more than £1bn since 2012, Sky News analysis has found.
Sky News has analysed data relating to those serving imprisonment for public protection (IPP) sentences.
This is a type of open-ended sentence that was abolished more than a decade ago following widespread concern over its implementation and psychological impact on inmates.
From April 2012 to December 2023, it cost the taxpayer an estimated £1.1bn to house unreleased IPP prisoners who were serving time beyond their original tariff – the term used to describe the minimum amount of time they had to spend in custody before they could be considered for release by the Parole Board.
It does not include those who have been recalled back to prison after initially being released under strict licence conditions.
The analysis comes as new data released by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) shows 2,852 people remain incarcerated under the IPP system, including those who have been recalled back into custody.
Of this number, 1,227 have never been released, while 1,210 are behind bars beyond their original tariff.
In the analysis, Sky News took the average cost of a prisoner in each financial year back to 2012/13 and multiplied that by the number of prisoners remaining on expired IPP sentences at the end of each year.
Adding together these costs for each year since 2012/13 comes to a total of £1.1bn.
What are IPP sentences?
Implemented in 2005 under the then Labour government, IPP sentences were intended for the most serious violent and sexual offenders who posed a significant risk of serious harm to the public but whose crimes did not warrant a life term.
Although the government’s stated aim was public protection, concerns quickly grew that IPP sentences were being applied too broadly and catching more minor offenders – with many serving time in prison much longer than their initial term.
In light of the criticisms, IPPs were scrapped in 2012 but the change was not applied retrospectively – meaning those who were in prison at the time the sentence was abolished were not able to benefit.
There have long been calls from campaigners for the government to review the use of IPP sentences – which have been described as “cruel and degrading” by Alice Jill Edwards, a torture expert at the UN.
In 2022 parliament’s Justice Select Committee published a report recommending a resentencing exercise, arguing the IPP sentence was “irredeemably flawed” and caused “acute harm” to those serving them due to the prisoner not knowing when they might be released.
Successive governments have been reluctant to carry out a resentencing exercise on the grounds it could compromise public safety.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Sky News speaks to families whose loved ones are being held in prison on open-ended sentences
However, Justice Secretary Alex Chalk – who has described IPPs as a “stain” on the justice system – has come under pressure to heed the committee’s calls due to the current capacity constraints in the prison system.
Data from the MoJ published last week shows the prison estate in England and Wales is approaching its operational capacity limit, with just 1,430 spaces left.
According to the campaigning organisation the Institute of Now, the number of people still inside on IPP sentences beyond their tariff could fill the equivalent of more than four average-size UK prisons.
Henry Rossi, a human rights campaigner and founder of The Institute of Now, said: “Far too many people, both prisoners and their families, have been subjected to psychological torture from this wicked sentence, which in so many cases, has led to suicides.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
In 2012 the government abolished IPP sentences, but they didn’t do this retrospectively
“Prisons are not the place to manage those that have served their time as punishment. The UK has blood on its hands and the government must urgently relook at this draconian sentence and release post-tariff IPP prisoners with the appropriate support.”
A MoJ spokesperson said: “We have reduced the number of unreleased IPP prisoners by three-quarters since we scrapped the sentence in 2012, with a 12% fall in the last year alone where the Parole Board deemed prisoners safe to release.
“We have also taken decisive action to curtail licence periods and continue to help those still in custody to progress towards release, including improving access to rehabilitation programmes and mental health support.”
The MoJ figures and Sky News analysis comes as a separate report from the Independent Monitoring Board (IMB) shows how care and separation units (CSUs) are regularly being used as a “stop gap” to manage prisoners with severe mental health needs – including those serving IPP sentences.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
It costs about £48,000 to keep someone in prison in the UK – and there are still just under 3,000 IPP prisoners behind bars
In one case, a man with a schizophrenia diagnosis cumulatively spent almost nine months in the CSU – also known as segregation or “the seg” – during which time the IMB said his mental health “dramatically deteriorated”.
In another example, an IPP prisoner with a personality disorder spent over 800 days in the CSU before they were transferred to an appropriate unit.
Read more:
Inside the lives of IPP prisoners
Reforms announced on indefinite prison sentences
Elisabeth Davies, IMB national chair, said: “Segregating any prisoner, especially those with mental health needs, is not a decision taken lightly by prison managers. While they clearly feel that they have no other option, CSUs should not be used as holding bays for these vulnerable individuals.
“While local IMBs found that overall staff worked hard to support prisoners in the best way that they could, collectively they have reported a disturbing picture of mentally unwell men spending lengthy periods in isolation, which often results in a deterioration of their mental health.
“If anything is to change, the solution is, and has always been, providing appropriate mental health provision in the community and tighter controls around the transfer times from prison to hospital.”
A government spokesperson said: “Segregation is an absolute last resort for those deemed a danger to themselves or others.
“Prisoners are entitled to the same care as they would receive in the community, which is why we guarantee the most vulnerable individuals are able to access mental health support tailored to their needs.”
The last blast furnaces left operating in Britain could see their fate sealed within days, after their Chinese owners took the decision to cut off the crucial supply of ingredients keeping them running.
Jingye, the owner of British Steel in Scunthorpe, has, according to union representatives, cancelled future orders for the iron ore, coal and other raw materials needed to keep the furnaces running.
The upshot is that they may have to close next month – even sooner than the earliest date suggested for its closure.
Read more: Thousands of jobs at risk as British Steel consults unions over closure
The fate of the blast furnaces – the last two domestic sources of virgin steel, made from iron ore rather than recycled – is likely to be determined in a matter of days, with the Department for Business and Trade now actively pondering nationalisation.
The upshot is that even as Britain contends with a trade war across the Atlantic, it is now working against the clock to secure the future of steelmaking at Scunthorpe.
The talks between the government and Jingye broke down last week after the Chinese company, which bought British Steel out of receivership in 2020, rejected a £500m offer of public money to replace the existing furnaces with electric arc furnaces.
The sum is the same one it offered to Tata Steel, which has shut down the other remaining UK blast furnaces in Port Talbot and is planning to build electric furnaces – which have far lower carbon emissions.
These steel workers could soon be out of work
However, the owners argue that the amount is too little to justify extra investment at Scunthorpe, and said last week they were now consulting on the date of shutting both the blast furnaces and the attached steelworks.
Since British Steel is the main provider of steel rails to Network Rail – as well as other construction steels available from only a few sites in the world – the closure would leave the UK more reliant on imports for critical infrastructure sites.
However, since the site belongs to its Chinese owners, a decision to nationalise the site would involve radical steps government officials are wary of taking.
They also fear leaving taxpayers exposed to a potentially loss-making business for the long run.
The dilemma has been heightened by the sharp turn in geopolitical sentiment following Donald Trump’s return to the White House.
The incipient trade war and threatened cut in American support to Europe have sparked fresh calls for countries to act urgently to secure their own supplies of critical materials, especially those used for defence and infrastructure.
Read more:
Car manufacturers fined £461m for collusion
There were no winners from Trump’s tariff gameshow
Gareth Stace, head of UK Steel, the industry lobby group, said: “Talks seem to have broken down between government and British Steel.
“My advice to government is: please, Jonathan Reynolds, Business Secretary, get back round that negotiating table, thrash out a deal, and if a deal can’t be found in the next few days, then I fear for the very future of the sector, but also here for Scunthorpe steelworks.”
British Steel declined to comment.
UK
Prince Andrew’s Pitch@Palace branded ‘crude attempt to enrich himself’ as Chinese spy documents set to be released
Prince Andrew’s efforts to make money from his Pitch@Palace project have been branded as a “crude attempt to enrich himself” at the expense of “unsuspecting tech founders”, as new documents may shed more light on what he and his team have been attempting to sell.
Today is the deadline for documents to be released relating to Prince Andrew‘s former senior adviser Dominic Hampshire and his interactions with the alleged Chinese spy Yang Tengbo.
In February, an immigration tribunal heard how the intelligence services had contacted Mr Hampshire about Mr Yang back in 2022. Mr Yang helped set up Pitch@Palace China, a branch of the duke’s scheme to help young entrepreneurs.
The alleged Chinese spy, Yang Tengbo, has links with Prince Andrew
Yang Tengbo. Pic: Pitch@Palace
Judges banned Mr Yang from the UK, saying his association with a senior royal had made Prince Andrew “vulnerable” and posed a threat to national security. Mr Yang challenged that decision at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC).
Since that hearing, media organisations have applied for certain documents relating to the case and Mr Hampshire’s support for Mr Yang to be made public. SIAC agreed to release some information of public interest. It is hoped they may include more details on deals that he was trying to do on behalf of Prince Andrew.
So what do we know about potential deals for Pitch@Palace so far?
In February, Sky News confirmed that palace officials had a meeting last summer with tech funding company StartupBootcamp to discuss a potential tie-up between them and Prince Andrew relating to his Pitch@Palace project.
The palace wasn’t involved in the fine details of a deal but wanted guarantees to make sure it wouldn’t impact the Royal Family in the future. Sky News understands from one source that the price being discussed for Pitch was around £750,000 – there are, however, reports that a deal may have stalled.
Photos we found on the Chinese Chamber of Commerce website show an event held in Asia between StartupBootcamp and Innovate Global, believed to be an offshoot of Pitch.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Who is alleged Chinese spy, Yang Tengbo?
Documents, released in relation to the investigations into Mr Tengbo, have also shown how much the duke has always seen Pitch as a way of potentially making money. One document from 21 August 2021 clearly states “the duke needed money at the time, and saw the relationships with China through Pitch as one possible source of funding”.
But Prince Andrew’s apparent intention to use Pitch to make money has led to concerns about whether he is unfairly using the contacts and information he gained when he was a working royal.
Norman Baker, former MP and author of books on royal finances, believes it is “a crude attempt to enrich himself” and goes against what the tech entrepreneurs thought they were signing up for.
Read more:
Who is Yang Tenbo?
Virginia Giuffre says she has days to live
Emails between Andrew and Epstein revealed
He told Sky News: “The data given by these business people was given on the basis it was an official operation and not something for Prince Andrew, and so in my view, Prince Andrew had no right legally or morally to take the data which has been collected, a huge amount of data, and sell it…
“And quite clearly if you’re going to sell it off to StartupBootcamp, that is not what people had in mind. The entrepreneurs who joined Pitch@Palace did not do so to enrich Prince Andrew,” he said.
Rich Wilson was one tech entrepreneur who was approached at the start of Pitch@Palace to sign up, but he stepped away when he spotted a clause in the contract saying they’d be entitled to 2% equity in any funding he secured.
He feels Prince Andrew is continuing to use those he made a show of supporting.
He said: “It makes me feel sick. I think it’s terrible – that he is continuing to exploit unsuspecting tech founders in this way. A lot of them, I’m quite grey and old in the tooth now, I saw it coming, but clearly most didn’t. And a lot of them were quite young.
“It’ll be their first venture and you’re learning on the trot, so to speak. So to take advantage of people in such a major way – that’s an awful, sickening thing to do.”
We approached StartupBootcamp who said they had no comment to make, and the Duke of York’s office did not respond.
With reports that a deal may have stalled, it could be a big setback for the duke – especially with questions still about how he’ll continue to pay for his home on the Windsor estate now that the King no longer gives him financial support.
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports12 months agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway