Category: Prison rules

Homelessness reduction

Last month we wrote about some of the current and upcoming changes outlined in the recently published Manage the Custodial Sentence Policy Framework. Also included in this document is a reference to a new duty that prisons now have in relation to resettlement. The Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 introduced a duty on public authorities in England, including prisons, to refer anyone who may be homeless or threatened with homelessness to local housing authorities.

The policy framework acknowledges this duty with the following paragraph, 4.46:

‘Governors must ensure that there are processes in place to comply with the duty to refer under the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 with effect from October 2018. This would usually be completed by 6 weeks before release. For short sentences the referral would need to be completed as soon as possible’.

The Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities has been updated with more details about this duty in Chapter 4. It says that public authorities such as prisons are ‘required to notify a housing authority of service users they consider may be homeless or threatened with homelessness (i.e. it is likely they will become homeless within 56 days)’.

Before making a referral, prisons must have your consent to do so and to include your contact details so that the housing authority can contact you about it. They should also allow you to identify the housing authority in England which you would like the notification to go to. You should be aware that is often much more difficult to get housing in an area which you have no local connection to – it is worth getting more advice from resettlement services in the prison if you are not sure about this.

The exact procedures for referrals will be different in different areas, as agreed between the prison and local authorities. It is the housing authority’s responsibility to make sure that these procedures are in place and to manage the referrals. However, the Code of Guidance says that ‘arrangements with prisons should ensure that the referral is made well in advance of the release date and that, with the individual’s consent, appropriate information is supplied with the referral’.

Please be aware that, unfortunately, a referral being made is no guarantee of getting housing for your release and that the prison’s responsibility under the Homelessness Reduction Act only extends to making the referral. However, this does not stop resettlement services from looking into alternatives for you or making referrals to other housing options if there are any.

After receiving the referral, it is up to the local housing authority as to what action is taken. As a minimum, housing authorities should always respond to any referral received. However, if the housing authority’s subsequent contact with you gives them reason to believe that you might be homeless or threatened with homelessness then it should trigger a homelessness application under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996. This means that they will consider your circumstances, eligibility and whether you might be in priority need, to decide what duties they owe you. They may also look at your local connection and whether you might be considered ‘intentionally homeless’. You should get advice from the resettlement services at the prison as to what this might mean for you. You can also get advice from Shelter on 0808 800 4444 – we understand that this number is usually already cleared so you shouldn’t need to add it to your PIN.

You can contact the Prison Reform Trust’s advice team at FREEPOST ND6125 London EC1B 1PN. Our free information line is open 3.30pm-5.30pm on Monday and Thursday, and 10.30am-12.30pm on Wednesday. The number is 0808 802 0060 and does not need to be put on your pin.

Offender Management in Custody (OMiC)

In November 2016 the Justice Secretary, then Liz Truss, announced 2500 additional prison officers as part of the Prison Safety and Reform white paper. This included ‘new dedicated officers, each responsible for supervising and supporting around six offenders’. Two justice secretaries later, and this approach has become part of what is now known as ‘Offender Management in Custody’ – or ‘OMiC’ for short.

In their annual report this year, HMPPS described OMiC as a key part of the response to self-inflicted deaths, self-harm and violence in prison. It is intended to improve safety by engaging with people, building better relationships between staff and prisoners and helping people settle in to life in prison. We understand that the keyworker model has currently been rolled out in about 15 prisons, with the aim for it to be rolled out across the male closed estate by next summer.

HMPPS has published a supporting document ‘Manage the Custodial Sentence Policy Framework’. It gives more details about how the keyworker system should work. Its states:

All prisoners in the male closed estate must be allocated a key worker whose responsibility is to engage, motivate and support them through the custodial period.
Key work is delivered within the male closed estate by staff who have completed the required training.
Governors in the male closed estate must ensure that time is made available for an average of 45 minutes per prisoner per week for delivery of the key worker role which includes individual time with each prisoner.
Within this allocated time, key workers can vary individual sessions in order to provide a responsive service, reflecting individual need and stage in the sentence. A key worker session can consist of a structured interview or a range of activities such as attending an ACCT review, meeting family during a visit or engaging in conversation during an activity to build relationships.

The document also sets out arrangements for further changes that will take place later next year as part of the OMiC approach. These changes will involve a move to having prison-based offender managers to manage the custodial part of sentences rather than the current system of being allocated offender managers in the community. We understand the plan is to implement this phase towards the end of 2019 – we will write about this in more detail closer to the time.

This document is particularly significant as it is the first in a new type of guideline being produced by the prison service, called ‘Policy Frameworks’. This is part of a move away from Prison Service Instructions in an effort to simplify the current instruction system and give greater discretion to governors. This has been a Government intention since 2015 and was also reflected in the subsequent 2016 white paper with a commitment to ‘look at each policy, and either replace it with the minimum mandatory requirements to ensure a safe, decent and lawful system, with consistency across the estate where this is deemed critical or get rid of it altogether.’ Giving governors greater discretion about how to run their prison could result in some innovative and worthwhile practice. However, without careful consideration of which policy areas should and shouldn’t be devolved there are risks of growing inconsistency and unfairness. The Prison Reform Trust will be taking a keen interest in the development of policy frameworks and where necessary advocate for important mandatory actions not to be lost in the process.

Please note, the above article focusses on prisons in England and Wales and may not apply elsewhere.

GDPR and Subject Access Requests

Recently there have been changes made to data protection law by the introduction of General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR). This means UK legislation has now been updated to the Data Protection Act 2018. In practice, many of the principles of GDPR are similar to those that existed under the Data Protection Act 1998 but there is a greater emphasis on things like individual rights and higher standards for consent. In line with these changes, HMPPS have published an updated Prison Service Instruction on the subject, PSI 03/2018.

There is one area which we expect to be of particular interest to people in prison. We are regularly asked about how you can get copies of personal information the prison holds about you. This is known as making a Subject Access Request (SAR), and is covered under GDPR under the ‘Right of Access’.

One of the barriers to this under the previous legislation was the fee that prisons usually charged, which could be up to £10. This is a considerable sum to someone relying on measly prison wages, and sometimes discouraged people from doing it. There has however been a welcome change to guidance about charging for Subject Access Requests. The Information Commissioners Office (ICO) is clear that under GDPR in fee cannot be charged to comply with a subject access request – except if a request is ‘manifestly unfounded or excessive’, or if a person requests further copies of their data following a request, when a “reasonable fee” be charged for the administrative costs of complying with the request.

If you would like a copy of information held by the prison about you, you can make a Subject Access Request by writing the request on a normal wing application, or by using the ‘Subject Access Request Form’ at the back of PSI 03/2018 – ask an officer for a copy of this or contact our service if you need one. Your request will be sent to the prison service data protection team to be processed. The prison has one month to respond to your request. This has changed from 40 days under the previous legislation.

You should be aware that there is some information which the prison does not have to share with you, even if it is on your file. This could be because it relates to another person, or because the information is being used for the prevention or detection of crime. If this is the case then the prison can lawfully redact this information from the copy they provide you.

If you find that personal data held by the prison is not accurate, you have the right to have it corrected. If it cannot be clearly proven that the data is inaccurate, the prison should still make a note on the record that you do not agree with the information – this might be the case with matters of opinion, for example.

You can complain about the contents of your file using the normal complaints procedure. If you are not happy with the response you can then ask The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to look into it. You should do this within a year of first seeing the information you are unhappy with. You can call their helpline on 0303 123 1113 or write to them at:

Information Commissioner’s Office
Casework and Advice Section
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF

If you would like us to send a copy of the new PSI or information about GDPR please contact us on the information below. Unfortunately, we cannot send copies of the full legislation due to the size of these documents.

Please note, the above article focusses on prisons in England and Wales and may not apply elsewhere.

Cell Searches

Any area you have access to in prison can be searched. This includes your cell.

Prison Service Instruction 09/2016 Cell, Area and Vehicle Searching says that the searching of cells must be carried out professionally and in a way which makes sure that prisoners receive fair treatment. It also says that it is important that prisoners’ “individual circumstances are taken into account, and reasonable adjustments are made.”

How regular searches are done depends on the prison you are in. Prisons in the High Security Estate must have a programme of routine searches in place. Other prisons must put in place a suitable programme of searching depending on what they think the risks and security needs of the prison are. However, all prisons must carry out a search if they get any information that there might be an unauthorised item in a cell.

There are two basic types of cell searches—a Routine Cell Search and a Routine-Plus Cell Search. A Routine search is a rub down search and a cell search, with no property record check. A Routine-Plus search is a full body search and may also involve a property record check, in addition to a cell search.

Routine-Plus searches must be done regularly in the High Security Estate. Outside the High Security Estate, they should be done according to local needs. Generally, Routine-Plus searches are carried out in any intelligence-led search.

In the female estate full body searches should only be carried out if there is a specific security concern. There is more information about rub downs and full body searches in PSI 07/2016 Searching of the Person.

Before the search takes place, you should be told that it is about to take place and what type of body search will be done. Officers can only search your cell without you there if they have information about unauthorised articles in your cell, or if there is an operational emergency in the prison. This is called an intelligence-led search.

When carrying out the search, prison staff must think about whether items in your cell could be made into something that might be harmful, either to yourself or someone else. If there is any doubt as to whether an item in the cell belongs to you or not, officers must check it against your Property Card. When the search is finished, officers should leave the cell as tidy as possible.

Before the search, you should be asked if you have any legal documents. If you do, officers can check to make sure that they are in fact legal documents and that there are no unauthorised items among your legal papers. They should try to do this without reading the papers. You should then be given a choice about whether you want to leave the documents in your cell in a sealed plastic pouch, or take them with you while the search takes place.

Under certain circumstances however, officers can search your legal papers without you present. They can do this for example, if the prison has an operational emergency or if they have information about a specific security threat. Officers doing the search must obtain permission from a senior manager first.

You should be asked at the beginning of the search whether you have any religious items. If you say yes, these items can then be searched by the officers, instead of by search dogs. After such items are searched, you should be offered a plastic pouch to put the items in – doing this means that the items will therefore not come into contact with any search dogs that might be used during the search. In some cases, you should be offered a change of bedding if the dogs have inspected your bedding and you feel that this contact has made the bedding unclean.

If an unauthorised item is found, this must be properly recorded in a Security Incident Report (SIR) and sent to Security. You may then have a charge laid against you. If the officers have found several items that they think may be unauthorised, they may lay a separate charge for each unauthorised item. Note that an item does not have to be in your possession for a charge to be laid, it can be in an area of the prison to which you have access. The charge will be quashed or dismissed if a review shows that you are allowed to have the item. Prison Service Instruction 47/2011 Prisoner Discipline Procedures explain this in more detail.

Please note, the above article focusses on prisons in England and Wales and may not apply elsewhere.

Confiscation orders

A number of people have contacted us recently asking about the impact of confiscation orders on other aspects of prison. If you have a confiscation order there are implications for things such as recategorisation, ROTL and HDC, particularly if you have defaulted and are currently serving the default term. People report difficulty getting to open conditions, finding that their ROTLS are refused or that they are taken back to closed conditions if they default.

Categorisation and open conditions

Both PSI 16/2010 Confiscation Orders and PSI 40/2011 Categorisation and Recategorisation Of Adult Male Prisoners are clear that being subject to a confiscation order does not automatically prevent you being categorised for or getting moved to open conditions. However, the prison will have to consider the impact of the order when assessing risk, particularly on the risk of abscond. They will consider whether you are in default, how much is outstanding, your ability and willingness to pay it, the amount of time to be served if not payed and whether you may have hidden money or other assets abroad. If you are considered to be at high risk of absconding for these or any other reasons, you will not be categorised for open conditions. The prison is expected to get information from relevant enforcement agencies to help make their decision.

If your confiscation order is enforced whilst you are in prison you will normally have your security category reviewed, as this is considered to be ‘a significant change of circumstances’. PSI 40/2011 says that enforcement of a confiscation order ‘may necessitate recategorisation to a higher security category’. Again, this is not automatic and the prison should take into account the full circumstances to make the decision, as above.

Release on Temporary Licence (ROTL)

If you are detained in default of a confiscation order you are still eligible to be considered for ROTL. PSI 13/2015 Release on Temporary Licence (ROTL) says that those detained in default of a confiscation order need ‘special consideration’ when making ROTL decisions. The PSI instructs that ‘the usual risk assessment must be undertaken, giving particular consideration to the risk of absconding in light of impending proceedings or the presence of the unpaid confiscation order, taking account of the individual circumstances of each case’. The prison must get input from the regional HMCS Confiscation Unit if your confiscation order is yet to be paid or if you are in default.

Home Detention Curfew (HDC)

If you are currently detained in default of a confiscation order you are not eligible for HDC. This is because you are classed as serving a ‘term of imprisonment’, whereas HDC only applies to people serving a ‘sentence of imprisonment’.

If you are currently serving the initial criminal sentence you might be able to get HDC for that part of the sentence, if you would otherwise be eligible and suitable. If your confiscation order has not yet been enforced you could be released on HDC, but the prison must postpone the decision if it thinks there is unacceptable risk that you will not comply with the order of the court. The prison will consult with the prosecuting/enforcement authority and regional confiscation unit to assess this. Information about this is included in PSI 01/2018 Home Detention Curfew.

If your confiscation order has been enforced and the default term is due to commence when you have served the initial sentence, you may still be able to get HDC on the initial sentence and start the default term sooner. This means your default term would start on you HDC eligibility date (HDCED), if you have been granted HDC by that date, or on the date of the decision if it is made after this date.

Early Removal Scheme

As with HDC, the Early Removal Scheme only applies to those serving a sentence of imprisonment, so if you are currently detained in default of a confiscation order you will not be able to get this. If you are serving custodial time for the original offence but have an outstanding confiscation order, you will not normally be granted early removal either, though PSI 04/2013 The Early Removal Scheme and Release of Foreign National Prisoners says an exception can sometimes be considered, for example if you are serving a long sentence and the amount of money owed is relatively small.

Adjudications

If you are detained in default of a confiscation order you cannot be given additional days as the result of adjudications procedures.

If you would like more information or a copy of any of the Prison Service Instructions mentioned above please contact the Prison Reform Trust’s advice team at FREEPOST ND6125 London EC1B 1PN. Our free information line is open 3.30pm-5.30pm on Monday and Thursday, and 10.30am-12.30pm on Wednesday. The number is 0808 802 0060 and does not need to be put on your pin.

Please note, the above article focusses on prisons in England and Wales and may not apply elsewhere.

Peer-led information service toolkit published

Over the last 18 months Prison Reform Trust has been encouraged to discover a variety of peer led services which provide information to prisoners about rules and procedures in custody and which complement the work that our Advice and Information service delivers. These services help people understand the experiences they are having in prison, who they can go to for support and how to challenge any treatment which they think is not fair or decent.

By visiting and speaking to the staff and prisoners who are running these services we have collated examples of good practice and devised a step by step toolkit for setting up a peer led service information service in a prison. This has been supported by input from Prisoners’ Advice Service and St Giles Trust who have a wealth of experience and expertise in this field.

The toolkit has been made available to Governors and other staff through the HMPPS intranet and will also be sent to individual prisons. Further to this, Prison Reform Trust are offering consultation with interested prisons to discuss how a prisoner-led information service could be effectively implemented within their establishment.

Click this link to download the toolkit

Prisons sliding towards “punishment without purpose”

Letters and phone calls from prisoners reveal that, six months on from their introduction, new prison rules are undermining fairness and rehabilitation behind bars

Changes to prison rules introduced six months ago which include a ban on prisoners receiving books and other basic items are eliciting a strong sense of injustice in prisons and undermining opportunities for effective rehabilitation, a new briefing by the Prison Reform Trust reveals.

Contact from prisoners to the Prison Reform Trust’s advice and information service regarding the Incentives and Earned Privileges (IEP) scheme have nearly trebled in the past year since the changes were announced.

Prisoners in contact with the organisation report that the new scheme is limiting family contact and opportunities for education and learning – all factors which are vital to reduce people’s risk of reoffending. Concerns have been raised about the impact of the revised scheme on the mental health and wellbeing of prisoners. The impact of the changes to the IEP scheme is being monitored by the Ministerial Board on Deaths in Custody.

The changes, which were announced last April and introduced on 1 November 2013, include a ban on all sentenced prisoners receiving parcels such as books and other basic items, except for a one-off parcel at the start of their sentence and in exceptional circumstances. A new standardised list has been introduced from which prisoners now have to purchase items from their own, often meagre, prison wages.

One prisoner said:

“I am about to start a distance learning course. A friend of mine has done all these courses and is fully qualified and was going to send me all his books but we can’t have books sent in anymore.”

A prisoner said:

“The prison service/government keep saying how important it is to maintain family ties. So they put phone prices up, send us miles away from our families and stop us from having stamps and writing materials posted in. My partner used to send them all in for me so we can all stay in touch as much as possible and that has now come to a sudden stop and now my daughter wants to know why her daddy can’t write to her anymore … I know that if I lose my family because of this lack of contact, it will be straight back to square one and I know I will go straight back to crime as I’ll have nothing left to lose.”

A mother of a prisoner spoke about the impact of the ban at a recent meeting of the All Party Parliamentary Penal Affairs Group:

“We have heard a lot about the ban on books in recent weeks. But this is the one tangible link you can have with your family: … ‘I thought you might enjoy this – I did’ or ‘a few crosswords to keep you busy’. This prohibition isn’t only about reducing opportunities for learning. It also removes the last possibility of a gift, a tangible piece of human warmth.”

The new rules make it harder for people to progress IEP status and easier to be downgraded to the basic level. Prisoners must now “demonstrate a commitment towards their rehabilitation” by engaging in purposeful activity, behaving well and helping other prisoners. The rules introduce an automatic IEP review for bad behaviour, with a presumption of downgrading.

It is important that prison staff are able to provide opportunities to enable prisoners to use their time in constructive and meaningful ways. However, as the Chief Inspector of Prisons has highlighted, rates of purposeful activity in prisons have “plummeted” over the last year with the Inspectorate reporting the worst outcomes for six years. This makes it difficult for prisoners to demonstrate a “commitment to rehabilitation” under the new scheme.

In particular, the Prison Reform Trust is concerned that the changes are having a disproportionate impact on many elderly and disabled prisoners who cannot demonstrate a “commitment to rehabilitation” under the rules by engaging in purposeful activity or helping other prisoners. The new scheme is meant to take account of mitigating factors including a lack of operational resources or the impact of disabilities on an individual’s ability to progress IEP status.

However, one disabled prisoner contacted the Prison Reform Trust to highlight the impact the changes to the IEP scheme had had on him:

“I am wheelchair bound and dependent on my carer. My enhanced was taken away. Reason given, I am not helping others.”

Another prisoner said:

“The inmates who are now on basic are not trouble causers, they are people who cannot read, write, speak English very well and are well behaved people.”

One prisoner described how the new scheme had impacted on his sense of the fairness of the prison regime:

“From being a settled lifer, working years to gain trust and respect from a difficult enough system, I find myself regarded as nothing. The basic regime is inhumane; it will give me just over an hour out of my cell. For years I have contributed to our community, always worked. My behaviour has been impeccable and I have mentored many inmates in several fields. Now in one fell swoop Chris Grayling has taken everything from me.”

A disproportionate number of prisoners who harm themselves or take their own lives in prison are on the basic regime. Between 2007 and 2012, 8% of self-inflicted deaths investigated by the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman were of prisoners on the basic level. This is considerably higher than the national average percentage of prisoners on the basic regime (2%). Since the introduction of the changes, the Prison Reform Trust has heard from a number of prisoners reporting significant mental distress as a result of being placed on the basic regime.

One prisoner said:

“Prisoners who have been in the system for many years are having their IEP status reduced to basic. Some including myself have gone from enhanced to basic. My behaviour is impeccable, no adjudications, I work and help on the wing …I was judged in court, I am now being judged again … I have no one outside and a simple thing like a TV is a window to the open world and that’s been taken away. Depression is creeping in and unless the powers that be want to see an increase in deaths [and] suicides in custody then they have to amend this scheme fast.”

One elderly prisoner said:

“I am 65 years old and work full time or else I won’t have any money. Really I am one of the lucky ones. Some of the prisoners are disabled 70, 80 years old, locked behind their doors, no TVs, some have no radio, banged up 5.30 evening until 10, 11 am next day with no hot water, not opening for hot water for a drink. Not opening for them to go for medication, resulting in one man being taken to hospital. Another has self harmed.”

The changes create a new entry level between standard and basic. Restrictions include a lower rate of pay and a requirement to wear a prison uniform. A disproportionate amount of self-harm occurs in the early stages of custody, when prisoners are generally at their most vulnerable. In 2012, 16% of self-harm incidents occurred during an individual’s first month in prison. A punitive new entry level which marks people out from the rest of the prison population by putting them in uniforms may well increase incidences of self-harm.

Following criticism of the new scheme by the Chief Inspector of Prisons, the Shadow Secretary of State for Justice, leading authors, prison reformers and commentators from across the political spectrum, the briefing calls for an urgent review of the IEP scheme with a focus on ensuring opportunities for effective rehabilitation and the safe and decent treatment of people in prison.

Commenting, Juliet Lyon, Director of the Prison Reform Trust, said:

“Fairness and decency are the watchwords of a civilized prison system. Good professional relationships between staff and prisoners and clear communication, including giving reasons for rules, help to maintain a safe, disciplined environment. Now the legitimacy of prison regimes risk being undermined by low staffing levels, new mean and petty restrictions and a developing culture of punishment without purpose.”

Notes

A copy of the report Punishment without purpose: the Incentives and Earned Privileges (IEP) scheme and its impact on fairness, decency and rehabilitation behind bars, is available here

The Prison Reform Trust’s advice and information service, supported by the Hadley Trust, responds to approximately 5,000 prisoners and their families and prison staff each year.

What is the Incentives and Earned Privileges (IEP) scheme?
The Incentives and Earned Privileges (IEP) scheme was introduced in 1995 and is an essential tool of prison management. It enables people to move through defined levels in order to:

encourage responsible behaviour by prisoners
encourage effort and achievement in work and other constructive activity by prisoners
encourage sentenced prisoners to engage in sentence planning and benefit from activities designed to reduce reoffending
create a more disciplined, better-controlled and safer environment for prisoners and staff.

These aims are achieved by ensuring that privileges above the minimum are earned by prisoners through good behaviour and performance and are removed if they fail to maintain acceptable standards. When it was originally introduced the IEP scheme had three levels – basic, standard and enhanced. Prisoners were assigned onto these levels according to staff reports on their behaviour. Each level involves awards such as:

improved and extra visits
ability to earn more money in prison jobs
access to in-cell television
opportunity to wear own clothes
ability to access and use private cash resources
greater time out of cell for association.

What are the main changes to the IEP scheme?

The main changes to the IEP scheme, which were announced in April 2013 and came into force on 1 November 2013, are:

A ban on all sentenced prisoners receiving parcels including books and other basic items, except for a one-off parcel at the start of their sentence and in exceptional circumstances
To progress IEP status, prisoners must “demonstrate a commitment towards their rehabilitation” by engaging in purposeful activity, behaving well and helping other prisoners
An automatic IEP review for bad behaviour, with a presumption of downgrading
Changes to allow IEP reviews to be conducted by a single member of prison staff
The introduction of a new entry level between standard and basic. Restrictions at this level include lower rates of pay and a requirement to wear a prison uniform
A national standardised list of items available for each level
Restrictions on the use of television.

Recommendations

The government should conduct an urgent review of the current Incentives and Earned Privileges (IEP) scheme taking account of the following recommendations:

Rehabilitation and resettlement should be given priority so that all prisoners remain eligible for services essential to reducing reoffending, including family visits and education – access to these should not be determined by IEP status.
The requirement for prisoners to “demonstrate a commitment to rehabilitation” in order to progress IEP status should be reviewed in light of the impact of cuts to prison staff and regimes.
The ban on prisoners receiving parcels should be reviewed and reversed.
There should be a renewed commitment to ensuring the fair distribution of benefits, in particular by monitoring ethnicity and equal chances for prisoners with a physical disability, poor mental health or a learning disability.
New arrangements for reviewing IEP status should be monitored for their fairness and equality impact.
Given the evidence of increased risk of self-harm and suicide among prisoners who are maintained on the basic regime for extended periods, and on people during their first few weeks in custody, IEP schemes should be required to assess the impact of the regime on the prisoner’s mental health and wellbeing.
At all times, the basic regime should fully meet the tests of decency and conform to international standards.
Prison staff should receive updated guidance and training in how best to administer the IEP scheme clearly and fairly and in ways that help to maintain safety and decency.
Access to the enhanced level and the nature of its benefits should be re-considered to give equal access and benefits for short-term sentenced prisoners.
Remand prisoners awaiting trial and who are innocent until proven guilty should not be subject to the requirements of the IEP scheme.