|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Julie Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many times restraint has been used on a child in (a) secure children's homes, (b) secure training centres and (c) young offender institutions for the purposes of (i) preventing a criminal offence, (ii) preventing injury, (iii) preventing damage to property and (iv) maintaining good order and discipline in each month of the last three years. 
The data provided in the following table, for the period April 2008 to May 2009, have been supplied by the Youth Justice Board (YJB) and have been drawn from administrative IT systems, which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing and may be subject to change over time. They relate to use of restraint in secure training centres.
Central collection of information about the reasons for each restraint began in April 2008. The categories in the table relate to the purposes for which restraint was permitted under Rule 38(1) of the Secure Training Centre Rules 1998 during all or part of the period in question. Those purposes are: to prevent a trainee from escaping from custody; to prevent a trainee from injuring himself or others; to prevent damage to property; to prevent a trainee from inciting another trainee to cause injury or damage property; and to ensure good order and discipline. Prevention of a criminal offence is not, in itself, a purpose for which restraint is or was authorised under Rule 38(1). Ensuring good order and discipline ceased, at the end of July 2008, to be an approved purpose for using restraint.
Statistics relating to young offender institutions and secure children's homes are not collected in the format requested and obtaining them would require a search through individual records, which could not be carried out without disproportionate cost.
|Reasons for the use of restraint in secure training centres, April 2008 to May 2009|
|Escape from custody||Injury to self or others||Damage to property||Incitement to injure or cause damage||Good order and discipline||Total|
|(1 )Discontinued as a reason for restraint at the end of July 2008. Note: In July 2008, the Court of Appeal ruled that restraint could not be used in secure training centres for the purpose of ensuring good order and discipline (Re C v Secretary of State for Justice (2008) EWCA Civ 882).|
Stewart Hosie: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice whether his Department plans to make a submission to the Scottish Executive's National Conversation consultation on Scotland's constitutional future. 
The Commission on Scottish Devolution was established by majority vote in the Scottish Parliament and with the full support of the UK Government. UK Departments submitted evidence to the Commission during its first phase of evidence gathering.
A Steering Group has been established under the Chairmanship of the Secretary of State for Scotland to help the UK Government and the Scottish Parliament plan how to take forward the Calman recommendations and deliver stronger devolution within a stronger United Kingdom.
Jenny Willott: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how many incidents of self-harm by young adult (a) male and (b) female prisoners there were in each year from 2000 to 2005; and if he will make a statement; 
Claire Ward: The information requested in the three questions is combined in the following table. The self-harm incidents are broken down by age and gender and cover the period since 2003, after which improvements in how self-harm is recorded were introduced. These figures are not directly comparable with those recorded before 2003.
|Under-18 incidents||Young offender incidents||Adult incidents|
The data presented are drawn from NOMS administrative IT systems and do not include figures for STCs or SCHs. The detail collected is subject to the inaccuracies inherent in any large-scale recording system. While the figures shown have been checked as far as practicable, they must be approximate and not necessarily accurate to the last whole number shown. They are fit to be used for purposes of looking at trends and for comparing the relative magnitude of components.
The National Offender Management Service has a broad, integrated and evidence-based prisoner suicide prevention and self harm management strategy that seeks to reduce the distress of all those in prison. This encompasses a wide spectrum of Prison and Department of Health work around such issues as mental health, substance misuse and resettlement. Any prisoner identified as at risk of suicide or self-harm is cared for using the Assessment, Care in Custody and Teamwork (ACCT) procedures. Most self harm is not directly life threatening, but nevertheless can be extremely distressing for those who have to deal with it. A prisoner focused care planning system for those at risk, ACCT, has helped prisons manage self harm. There are no easy answers to managing self-harming behaviour but we remain committed to finding ways to reduce it.
Bridget Prentice: It is assumed the hon. Member is asking about Sharia councils. Sharia councils do not describe themselves as Sharia 'courts' because they do not have powers to enforce their decisions. Sharia councils are not part of the court system in England and Wales. There are a number of Sharia councils in England and Wales that, on a private basis, when the parties consent, apply Sharia principles to reach resolution of personal and contractual disputes. Some councils have several branches in major cities but councils are not unified under one system governing their approach to issues or their administration so their processes and even their interpretation of Sharia principles may differ.
I also refer the hon. Member to an answer given by my noble Friend Lord Bach on 21 May 2009, Official Report, House of Lords, column WA362. The Government have also commissioned a small-scale research project to investigate the number and distribution of Sharia councils in England and Wales. There has not been any recent ministerial discussions on Sharia councils.
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what mechanisms are available to police officers issuing a penalty notice for disorder for shop theft in the street to verify (a) the place of residence of the recipient and (b) whether the recipient has had a previous penalty notice for disorder for shop theft. 
Mr. Straw: The mechanisms available to police officers to verify (a) the address of a recipient are documentary evidence such as a passport or driving licence which the recipient might produce; and other sources such as the Police National Computer (PNC) and electoral register and (b) whether a previous Penalty Notice for Disorder has been issued are the PNC and local force penalty notice databases. Police officers on the street have access to this information.
Revised operational guidance to forces on the issue of PNDs for retail theft was issued on 16 July 2009. This makes it clear that before issuing a PND on the street, officers need to establish the place of residence of a recipient and whether a recipient has had a previous penalty notice for shop theft. The guidance can be found at:
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|