| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Prisons: Explosives
Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many (a) suspected and (b) viable explosive devices or components have been found in each prison in England and Wales in each of the last 12 years for which figures are available. [275142]
[Official Report, 1 June 2009, Vol. 493, c. 83-89W.]
Letter of correction from Maria Eagle:
Errors have been identified in the tables provided in the written answer given to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) on 1 June 2009 regarding suspected and viable explosive devices or components in prisons. It has come to my attention that the information given for one prison, HMP Parc, in two of the 12 years was incorrect due to a problem in the way the prison had recorded these incidents.
The Prison Service have confirmed that the correct figure for a viable explosive device or components in HMP Parc in the years 2004-05 and 2008-09 should have been recorded as a nil return instead of one viable device in each of the two years. These two reported viable incidents should have been placed in the "suspected" column of the two tables. This means that for 2004-05 there were four suspect and no viable devices at HMP Parc instead of three and one respectively. In 2008-09 there was one suspected device and no viable device at HMP Parc instead of one viable device and no suspect device.
The answer has been amended to reflect the changes and is as follows. All the other figures given in the answer have been re-checked and are accurate. A copy of this letter will be placed in the Library of the House.
The correct entries are as follows:
| 2004-05 | ||
| Establishment | Suspected | Viable explosive devices or components |
| 2008-09 | ||
| Establishment | Suspected | Viable explosive devices or components |
Young Offenders: Restraint Techniques
David Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many incidents of (a) restrictive physical intervention (RPI) and (b) removal from association were recorded in respect of those held in each institution in the juvenile secure estate in each month between January 2007 and the latest month for which figures are available; and what the ratio was of (i) RPIs and (ii) removals from association to the number of children and young people in each such institution in each such month. [278239]
[Official Report, 16 June 2009, Vol. 494, c. 271-72W.]
Letter of correction from Maria Eagle:
Errors have been identified in the tables provided in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) on 16 June 2009.
Two parliamentary questions tabled earlier this month requested the following information:
how many incidents of (a) restrictive physical intervention (RPI) and (b) removal from association were recorded in respect of those held in each institution in the juvenile secure estate in each month between January 2007 and the latest month for which figures are available; and what the ratio was of (i) RPIs and (ii) removals from association to the number of children and young people in each such institution in each such month; [278239]
on how many occasions (a) nose, rib and thumb distraction and (b) pain compliant techniques were used on those of each (i) sex, (ii) age group and (iii) ethnic group (A) with and (B) without a disability in each institution in the juvenile secure estate in each month between January 2007 and the most recent month for which figures are available. [278240]
Both of these answers contained data which was provided by the Youth Justice Board. When checking the data provided in the response to PQ 278239 against similar information requested under the Freedom of Information Act, it was found that the tables referred to in the response published on 16 June 2009 contained a number of errors. I asked officials at the Youth Justice Board to recheck the statistical information which had been provided for the answers to the other questions that you tabled this month, and it was found that the tables provided in the response to PQ 278240 published on 16 June 2009 also contained a number of errors. Revised figures are now contained in the tables published with the ministerial correction to PQ 278240.
I apologise for these errors and would like to assure you that I am taking action to address the issue. I will place a copy of this letter and the tables in the House Libraries. I will also ask Table Office to allow a copy of the letter to be published in the correction section of the Official Report.
The correct answer should have been:
Maria Eagle: Restraint is only ever to be used by staff as a last resort, when all other approaches have either not succeeded or would not be appropriate.
Because of unruly and sometimes dangerous behaviour, there are occasions on which use of physical restraint is unavoidable. The interests and safety of everyone in the establishment must be considered. Other young people, staff and visitors' safety, as well as that of the young person whose behaviour is causing problems have to be taken into account.
The data contained in the tables have been supplied by the Youth Justice Board. Table A contains data on the number of restrictive physical interventions (RPIs) from April 2007 to March 2009. It is not possible to provide earlier details as comparable statistics across the under-18 secure estate have only been available since April 2007.
Table B contains data for the same period on the number of single separation incidents at secure training centres (STCs) and secure children's homes (SCHs). It is not possible to provide comparable data for young offender institutions (YOIs) as it is not collected centrally and could not be provided without disproportionate cost.
Table C contains data on the ratio of RPIs to the number of young persons in YOIs, STCs, and SCHs. Table D contains data on the ratio of single separation incidents to the number of young persons in STCs and SCHs.
Tables A to D have been placed in the Library.
David Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice on how many occasions (a) nose, rib and thumb distraction and (b) pain compliant techniques were used on those of each (i) sex, (ii) age group and (iii) ethnic group (A) with and (B) without a disability in each institution in the juvenile secure estate in each month between January 2007 and the most recent month for which figures are available. [278240]
[Official Report, 16 June 2009, Vol. 494, c. 272-78W.]
Letter of correction from Maria Eagle:
Errors have been identified in the tables provided in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) on 16 June 2009.
Two parliamentary questions tabled earlier this month requested the following information:
how many incidents of (a) restrictive physical intervention (RPI) and (b) removal from association were recorded in respect of those held in each institution in the juvenile secure estate in each month between January 2007 and the latest month for which figures are available; and what the ratio was of (i) RPIs and (ii) removals from association to the number of children and young people in each such institution in each such month; [278239]
on how many occasions (a) nose, rib and thumb distraction and (b) pain compliant techniques were used on those of each (i) sex, (ii) age group and (iii) ethnic group (A) with and (B) without a disability in each institution in the juvenile secure estate in each month between January 2007 and the most recent month for which figures are available. [278240]
Both of these answers contained data which was provided by the Youth Justice Board. When checking the data provided in the response to PQ 278239 against similar information requested under the Freedom of Information Act, it was found that the tables referred to in the response published on 16 June 2009 contained a number of errors. I asked officials at the Youth Justice Board to recheck the statistical information which had been provided for the answers to the other questions that you tabled this month, and it was found that the tables provided in the response to PQ 278240 published on 16 June 2009 also contained a number of errors. Revised figures are now contained in the following tables.
I apologise for these errors and would like to assure you that I am taking action to address the issue. I will place a copy of this letter and the tables in the House Libraries. I will also ask Table Office to allow a copy of the letter to be published in the correction section of the Official Report.
The correct answer should have been:
Maria Eagle: The following tables provide data supplied by the Youth Justice Board (YJB) which relate to secure training centres. Data for young offender institutions and secure children's homes are not collected centrally and cannot be provided without disproportionate cost.
YJB's code of practice makes it very clear that restraint is not to be used except as a last resort, when other approaches have not succeeded or would not be appropriate.
The independent Review of Restraint in Juvenile Secure Settings, which was published together with the Government's response on 15 December 2008, made important recommendations about improving practice and making sure restraint is used as sparingly as possible.
The Government and the Youth Justice Board are working together to implement those recommendations.
Secure training centres currently use an approved system of restraint known as Physical Control in Care (PCC), which includes the rib and thumb distraction techniques. It formerly also included the nose distraction technique: use of this was discontinued in November 2007 in the light of some concerns about its suitability voiced by a panel of medical experts commissioned to review the PCC techniques.
The data provided show the use of nose, rib and thumb distraction techniques in secure training centres
during the period January 2007 to March 2009. Information on the age, sex and ethnic origin of the young person restrained has been collected centrally by the YJB since April 2008. Data relating to disability are not collected centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
Table A analyses the data by type of distraction technique; Table B by sex; Table C by age; and Table D by ethnic group.
| Table A: Use of distraction techniques in secure training centr es by technique used, January 2007 to March 2009 | ||||||||||||||
| Nose distraction | ||||||||||||||
| 2007 | 2008 | |||||||||||||
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Feb | |
| Rib distraction | ||||||||||||||
| 2007 | 2008 | |||||||||||||
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Feb | |
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |