|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many (a) deaths from natural causes, (b) deaths from accidents and (c) self-inflicted deaths have occurred in (i) prisons, (ii) young offender institutions
and (iii) secure training centres in England and Wales since 1 January 2006. 
|Prisons||Young offender institutions||Secure training centres|
|Type of death||2006||2007( 1)||2006||2007( 1)||2006||2007( 1)|
|1 Up to and including 26th June 2007. 2 Includes all deaths where it appears the individual acted specifically to take their own life, not only those that received a suicide or open verdict at inquest. Annual numbers may change slightly from time to time as inquest verdicts and other information become available. 3 Awaiting further information before classification.|
|Purposeful activity targets between 1996-97 and 2003-04|
|National purposeful activity target|
Purposeful Activity ceased to be a key performance indicator (KPI) in 2004-05, and a national target is no longer set. However, it remains an establishment level key performance target (KPT). Establishments are set annual targets for prisoner activity and performance continues to be monitored internally.
Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice when HMPS Weare was sold; to whom she was sold and at what price; what the original cost was of (a) acquiring and (b) refitting her for use as a prison was; what her annual running costs as a prison ship were for each year she was so used; and how many inmates she was designed to hold. 
Mr. Hanson: The Weare was sold in May 2006 to a specialist ship broker as an accommodation barge. Further details of the sale are commercial-in-confidence. Maintenance costs for The Weare in each year since 1997 were published in response to a parliamentary question on 22 March 2005, Official Report, column 657W.
Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer of 21 June 2007, Official Report, columns 2132-34W, on probation: manpower, if he will estimate how many vacancies not classified as active vacancies there were for (a) probation officers and (b) probation service officers (i) nationally and (ii) in each probation area in England and Wales for each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. 
Mr. Hanson: I am unable to provide an estimate on how many vacancies within the probation service are not classified as active. Information on vacancies in the NFS was initially collated on the basis of establishment minus staff in post, when the NFS work force information reporting cycle was put in place in 2003. Probation Areas have since been required to report regularly on the number of active vacancies they have. An active vacancy is one which a Probation Area is actively trying to fill through a recruitment process. Information on vacancies was not collected prior to 2003.
Ms Keeble: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) what role the departmental controller in each of the secure training centres plays in (a) monitoring and (b) reporting on the use of physical restraint; 
(2) what system of monitoring the use of physical restraint is in place in each secure training centre to ensure that practice complies with guidelines set out in the Youth Justice Board paper on managing behaviour. 
Mr. Hanson: Under section 8 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, every contracted-out secure training centre shall have a monitor, who shall be a Crown servant appointed by the Secretary of State. The monitors functions are set out in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act and the Secure Training Centre Rules. Key functions are:
to keep the running of the centre under review, and report on it to the Secretary of State
to investigate, and report to the Secretary of State on, any allegations made against custody officers
to ensure that any person applying for certification as a custody officer is a fit and proper person and has received appropriate training.
When a young person has been subject to physical restraint, the Custody Officers involved complete a report immediately after the incident. This is signed by the unit manager, duty operations manager and duty director and copied to the monitor within 12 hours. The report details the reasons necessary for taking such action. The monitor checks that the report explains why physical restraint was considered necessary, who was present at the incident, who authorised the use of physical restraint, who applied the restraint and the exact methods used.
Any incident is also logged in a physical restraint care log book. Records are checked weekly by a nominated head of department and audited. Statistical information is given to the monitor on a weekly basis.
The Youth Justice Boards code of practice Managing Children and Young Peoples Behaviour in the Secure Estate applies to all establishments in the under-18 estate and covers other issues in addition to physical restraint. The Board undertakes separate assessments of compliance with the code.
Ms Keeble: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many times oxygen has been offered, or applied to, detainees following the use of restraint in secure training centres in each of the last three years. 
Mr. Hanson: Oxygen was administered to a trainee at Rainsbrook secure training centre on four occasions in 2005 and once in 2006 following restraint incidents. It was not administered on any occasion during 2004 (or during 2007 to date). The other three centres have not administered oxygen following a restraint incident on any occasion during this period.
Dr. Cable: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) what consultation process was undertaken when deciding whether to extend the physical restraint procedures in the 2006 Youth Justice Board code of practice; and if he will make a statement; 
(2) what steps he is taking to ensure that physical restraint is appropriately used within juvenile secure estates following changes to the 2006 Youth Justice Board code of practice; and if he will make a statement; 
(4) what discussions he has had with the Youth Justice Board (YJB) when considering changes to the physical restraint procedures outlined in the 2006 YJB code of practice; and if he will make a statement; 
The recent inquest into the death in 2004 of Adam Rickwood highlighted a lack of clarity in the law relating to the use of physical restraint in secure training centres. Section 9 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 places certain duties on custody officers in contracted-out secure training centres, including a duty to ensure good order and discipline. It states that the powers arising by virtue of those duties include power to use reasonable force where necessary. However, the purposes for which approved methods of physical restraint may be used, as set out in rule 38 of the Secure Training Centre Rules 1998, did not include ensuring good order and discipline. In consequence, the coroner recommended urgent action to clarify the law. In response to his recommendation, we laid before Parliament on 13 June the Secure Training Centre (Amendment) Rules 2007. They come into effect on 6 July.
Before laying the new rules, we consulted with the Youth Justice Board and the directors of secure training centres. The board and the directors were of the view that the change to the rules should be made as quickly as possible.
I or my officials have received seven letters and four e-mail messages making representations or seeking information on this subject, including a letter from the chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
The change to the rules does not affect the two other types of establishment in the under-18 secure estate: young offender institutions and secure children's homes, to which other rules or regulations apply.
The Youth Justice Board has not amended its code of practice, Managing Children and Young People's Behaviour in the Secure Estate (February 2006), and has no plans to do so. Section 10 of the code sets out the principles governing the use of physical restraint. The amendment to the rules does not affect those principles. Nor does it alter the particular techniques that may be used (though those techniques are not prescribed by the code). The particular techniques that may be applied vary between the three sectors of the estate. In secure training centres, methods approved by the Secretary of State may only be applied.
Use of physical restraint in the under-18 estate is monitored by the Youth Justice Board, in accordance with section 10 of the code of practice. Following the introduction of the code last year, all under-18 establishments were required to conduct an assessment of compliance. The assessments were audited by the Youth Justice Board. Establishments that were not able to demonstrate full compliance were required to draw up an action plan to achieve it.
All under-18 establishments must provide the board with monthly statistics on use of restraint. A new, improved system of data collection was introduced in April this year. The board is planning a further assessment of performance in relation to use of restraint later this year.
Dr. Cable: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many injuries occurred in juvenile secure units as a result of physical restraint in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Hanson: The information requested relating to the under-18 estate at large was not collected centrally before the introduction of the Youth Justice Boards new data collection system in April 2007.
However, since February 2006, the Youth Justice Board has required secure training centres to make specific reports of any injuries. It has had no reports of injuries to young people arising out of the use of restraint during this period.
Ms Keeble: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many unannounced inspections of each secure training centre have been carried out by the Commission for Social Care Inspection in each of the last five years. 
Mr. Hanson: Inspection of secure training centres was originally the responsibility of the Social Services Inspectorate and subsequently the Commission for Social Care Inspectorate (CSCI). CSCI began to include unannounced inspections in its secure training centre inspection programme from April 2006. Inspection of secure training centres transferred to the expanded Ofsted on 1 April 2007.
Mr. Hanson: Since February 2006, the Youth Justice Board has required secure training centres to make specific reports of any injuries. It has had no reports of injuries to young people arising out of the use of restraint during this period.
Harry Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what use was made of the chemical incapacitate known as PAVA to end the rooftop demonstration at Huntercombe Young Offenders Institution on 15 June; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Hanson: During the operation to bring a rooftop incident to a close, PAVA was deployed in circumstances which the intervention teams judged to present no risk to the safety of the young offenders. Operational assessment is that the deployment hastened the resolution of the incident.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|