Youth Justice - Justice Committee Contents

4  The secure estate

The composition of the estate

80.  Under-18s may currently be incarcerated in any of the 11 young offenders' institutions (YOIs) run by the prison service or private providers, the four privately-run secure training centres or the ten local authority secure children's homes. Generally speaking, younger children are detained in secure children's homes, slightly older children in secure training centres and the oldest in YOIs.[195] A place in a secure children's home costs around £212,000 a year, a place in a secure training centre £178,000 and a place in a YOI £65,000.[196] The figures for November 2012 show that 9.2% of under-18s in custody were held in a secure children's home, 14.8% in a secure training centre and 76% in a YOI.[197] Owing to the reductions in the use of custody outlined above, the secure estate is operating at an occupancy rate of 70%.[198] The YJB decommissioned 710 places between February 2008 and August 2010, with estimated savings of around £30 million per year,[199] and is currently undergoing another decommissioning exercise. The Secretary of State has already announced that Ashfield will cease to operate as a YOI later this year.

81.  Some organisations, including the Howard League, Prison Reform Trust and INQUEST, have criticised the decommissioning of places in secure children's homes.[200] In 2003, the YJB contracted with 22 homes to provide 297 places; as of 1 April 2012, only 166 places were provided in 10 homes. Deborah Coles, of INQUEST, was concerned that "too often very vulnerable children end up in secure training centres or in young offenders' institutions."[201] It is generally accepted that the needs of vulnerable children are most effectively catered for in secure children's homes, where managers are qualified social workers and staff in most cases hold higher level child care qualifications.[202] As we noted in chapter two, children in the youth justice system tend to have high levels of welfare needs; the statistics for children in the secure estate are even starker:

  • 11% of children in custody have attempted suicide.
  • 1 in 8 has experienced the death of a parent or sibling.
  • 40% have previously been homeless.
  • Two out of five girls and one out of four girls have reported suffering violence at home and one in three girls and one in 20 boys report having been sexually abused.
  • 39% have been on the child protection register or have experienced neglect or abuse.
  • A third of children in YOIs had a problem with drugs when they first arrived.
  • 18% of 13-18 year olds in custody had depression, 10% anxiety, 9% post-traumatic stress and 5% psychotic symptoms.[203]

82.  The YJB countered that the decommissioning of secure children's homes places reflected the fall in the number of younger children in the system and that, proportionally, they have decommissioned many more places in YOIs.[204] But Andrew Neilson, of the Howard League, questioned why the YJB was making decisions about future decommissioning at this stage, rather than awaiting the results of research they have commissioned into the relative effectiveness of secure institutions.[205]

83.  The Government is committed to developing and commissioning additional enhanced units within under-18 YOIs for children who "display complex needs and risks",[206] such as the Willow unit at HMYOI Hindley, which we visited during our inquiry, where prison officers are specially trained to deal with disruptive behaviour, staffing levels are three time higher and there is easier access to mental health provision and drug and alcohol services. Three staff work on the unit which houses a maximum of 13 offenders.

84.  However, the Centre for Social Justice reported concerns that the units focus on criminogenic risk rather than welfare, psycho-social, and vulnerability issues and that they contain a 'mish-mash' of children- including those with learning disabilities or mental health needs, and those who are difficult to deal with. Criteria about who these units are for were too vague, they argued.[207] Staff we met at HMYOI Hindley were clear that, while there is no exact science governing which offenders are placed in the unit, the aim of Willow is to enable young people to cope with custody and make the most of the opportunities available to them in prison; reducing re-offending is a "distant goal". An initial evaluation had shown improved outcomes post-release, but the scale of the challenges faced by the individuals in Willow means this translates into limited progress. John Drew argued that "most of the needs of more profoundly damaged children whom we encounter in custody are, in the long term, probably better met outside of custody than within custody."[208]

85.  Small, local institutions tend to offer the best outcomes for young offenders.[209] A recent inspection of the Young People's Unit at HMP and YOI Parc, which holds around 50 young people, found a direct link between the size of the establishment and the fact that few young people felt unsafe and that they had good relationships with staff.[210] The decommissioning of places in the custodial estate has had the "unfortunate consequence" that young people are being held further from home than before.[211] In March 2011, 30% of children were held over 50 miles from home, including 10% who were over 100 miles away.[212] Around half of the young people held in HMYOI Wetherby are more than 50 miles from home, with 14% more than 100 miles away.[213] Young people from London are particularly affected. The greater the distance, the less likely it is that young people will receive family support, and the harder it becomes for children's services to provide support and plan for resettlement. Carol Pounder told us that a visit to her son Adam Rickwood, who later died in custody, constituted a 200 mile trip.[214]

86.  The Government intends to align supply and demand more closely in future commissioning, partly to reflect the need for a more appropriate geographical distribution of places.[215] However, while its eventual intention is to devolve the budget, the Government plans to retain national commissioning of custodial places. Steve Crocker, representing the Association of Directors of Children's Services, noted in relation to the remand budget:

We will have children remanded into custody by Hampshire courts but we will have no say over where the children are to go, although the bill will be posted to us [...] We want to move to a much better position, where we are working with the Youth Justice Board to commission those places on a much more local basis than currently, because at the moment all children in Hampshire who get sent to custody are sent to Ashfield, which is north of Bristol. That makes any notion of rehabilitation, from 100 miles away, quite tricky.[216]

Frances Done stated that central commissioning of the secure estate "is always going to be necessary in a country as small as England and Wales";[217] but Enver Solomon suggested that commissioning at regional level was a more realistic prospect.[218]

87.  During our visit to Scandinavia, we visited MultifunC, a treatment programme for 14-18 year olds who exhibit "severe anti-social behavioural difficulties",[219] which seemed to us to offer a potential model for future provision, although it is not always easy to transplant directly programmes from one jurisdiction to another. MultifunC has been running in Sweden and Norway for several years with a 70% success rate,[220] as opposed to a 30-40% success rate with individuals of the same background undergoing other interventions, and a 20% success rate with individuals undergoing no interventions. It involves 6-9 months residential treatment followed by 3-6 months in the individual's "existing social environment". The key component is that staff work intensively with the individuals' families as well as with the individual; in this it shares many characteristics with Intensive Fostering and with Multi-Systemic Therapy, which we discuss in our next chapter. We were very struck by the small unit size, ethos and staffing of MultifunC, as well as its impressive outcomes.

88.  In the short term, enhanced units, such as the Willow unit at HMYOI Hindley, can provide a means of supporting particularly vulnerable young people in custody. However, they are not a panacea and cannot cater for the level of need within the secure estate. It is safer and more humane to detain young offenders in small, local units with a high staff ratio and where they can maintain links with their families and children's services. Such links can also lead to better planned resettlement and therefore reduce the likelihood of reoffending, although we do not believe that effective rehabilitation can often take place in the secure estate itself, as currently constituted. In the long-term, when the youth custody population has reduced further still, we would like to see a complete reconfiguration of the secure estate along these lines facilitated through regional commissioning of custodial places. We were impressed with the effective MultifunC treatment model used in Scandinavian countries and ask the Youth Justice Board to give serious consideration to whether a pilot scheme could be introduced in England and Wales.

Deaths in custody

89.  One of the most worrying issues brought to our attention related to the safety of young offenders in custody. In October 2012, INQUEST and the Prison Reform Trust published a report examining the deaths of under-18s and young adults in custody.[221] 33 under-18s have died since 1990, as well as over 400 18-24 year olds. The report identified common themes where deaths had occurred but noted the "apparent failure of state bodies and agencies to learn lessons."[222] Following a death in custody, and the initial police investigation, the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (PPO) conducts an investigation and produces a report which is passed to the coroner. Inquest juries increasingly return narrative verdicts in which a jury can establish any disputed facts and give an explanation of what they think are the most important issues contributing to the death, including individual or systemic failings. Under Rule 43 of the Coroners Rules 1984, a coroner has the power to report the circumstances of death to those authorities who have the power to take action to prevent the recurrence of such fatalities. Since 2008, Local Safeguarding Children Boards are also obliged to carry out serious case reviews following any unexpected child death in their area. However, many PPO, serious case review reports and Rule 43 reports are not made publicly available, and narrative verdicts are neither collated nor analysed by central government.[223]

90.  The authors called for an Independent Review "to examine the wider systemic and policy issues underlying the deaths of children and young people in prison."[224] In evidence, Deborah Coles elaborated that:

Our view of this was that, having seen death after death occurring and raising the same issues, we felt [...] that there needed to be an inquiry that could bring together the learning that has come out of those, bring together the narrative verdicts, the rule 43 reports, but also the information that we have about what does not work, in the hope that we can safeguard lives in the future.[225]

The Minister described the report as "a serious piece of work", which in the first instance he wanted the Independent Advisory Board on Deaths in Custody to review before he made a final decision as to whether to commission such an inquiry.[226]

91.  It is unacceptable that vulnerable young people continue to die in the custody of the state. We agree with INQUEST and the Prison Reform Trust that it is imperative to draw together and act upon the learning from these deaths gathered through coroners' Rule 43 recommendations and juries' narrative verdicts, to ensure that such deaths do not happen again. This may require an independent inquiry into the deaths of young offenders and young adults in custody, as the Ministry of Justice is now considering. We will revisit this matter once the Minister has announced the outcome of this consideration.

Use of force

92.  Many serious issues were raised in Fatally Flawed but we explored in particular the impact of the use of restraint on vulnerable young offenders. The Office of the Children's Commissioner found evidence in 2011 of a tendency in youth custody to focus on physical controls to manage risk and deal with challenging behaviour, rather than on relationships.[227] Restraint is supposed to be used as a "last resort", to prevent individuals from causing harm to themselves or others. However, there were 8,419 incidents of restrictive physical intervention used in the youth secure estate in 2011/12, up 6% from 2008/09 and 17% from 2010/11. 254 of these restraints involved injury to young people, 93% of which were minor.[228] 44% of BAME young men in custody surveyed by HM Inspectorate of Prisons in 2011/12 said that they had been physically restrained by staff, (compared with 32% of young white men).[229] HMYOI Ashfield in particular was criticised in February 2012 for its "extremely high" use of force, which had increased from an average of 17 cases each month to almost 150 a month between October 2010 and October 2011.[230]

93.  Adam Rickwood, aged 14, was subjected to 'nose distraction' shortly before he hanged himself in Hassockfield Secure Training Centre in 2004. His mother Carol told us the second inquest into his death, held in 2011, concluded that "it would have had a big impact on Adam's mental health; he would have felt frightened and vulnerable. They stated that the restraint on Adam played a big part in Adam taking his own life."[231] Deborah Coles added that the inquest recognised that:

[...] thousands of vulnerable children had been systematically subjected to unlawful restraint and that none of the regulation or inspection bodies did anything about it. That is a most shocking indictment [...] Mr Justice Blake accepted that what had been done to Adam was an assault on him, and also that it was inhuman and degrading treatment.[232]

94.  Gareth Myatt, aged 15, died in hospital in 2004, following a restraint incident at Rainsbrook secure training centre. He was held down by three officers using the double-seated embrace, which was banned two months later. An independent review of restraint in juvenile justice settings commissioned by the Government in 2007 found that restraint was "intrinsically unsafe" and could be "profoundly damaging psychologically".[233]

95.  As a result of these findings, in July 2012 the Government announced that a new system of Minimising and Managing Physical Restraint would be introduced in secure training centres and young offender institutions. It still allows for the use of pain-inducing techniques (although such techniques are not used in secure children's homes and are no longer used in Hassockfield).[234] Deborah Coles argued that:

One of the key things that came out of the inquest was the fact that there was no proper data collection, monitoring, analysis and transparency around the kind of restraint that was being used, and the fact that children were complaining about the physiological effects of being restrained. It is absolutely crucial that any new restraint that is going to be used is properly monitored and reported on—and, importantly, reported on to Parliament.[235]

Juliet Lyon told us that in her view:

It is difficult to see why staff cannot be trained in de­escalation to the point that they see that as a normal approach, rather than [...] children saying that it's normal for people to be placed in some kind of pain.[236]

96.  Nick Hardwick, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons said:

At the moment, the new restraint policy is still a matter of theory. We have not seen it put into practice yet. Where I do have a concern is about the use of pain compliance techniques on children. That does not just have an adverse consequence for the individual child; my concern is about what that does, if it is allowed, to the culture and ethos of the institution [...] [But] we welcome in the new policy the emphasis on de­escalation [...] I am very clear that far more of these situations can be de­escalated than currently is the case.[237]

HM Inspectorate of Prisons has found increasing evidence that de-escalation is being used more frequently.[238] During our visit to HMYOI Feltham, we met officers who told us about the institution's new policy to reduce the use of force, which involved four dedicated officers who focused on risk assessment, intelligence (as restraint tended to be used to prevent violence between offenders), mediation and debriefs. The Minister argued that the focus over the next two year would be on ensuring that all staff are trained, beginning in Rainsbrook STC in February 2013.[239]

97.  It is matter of serious concern to us that, despite the fact that the use of force in restraining young offenders has now been definitively linked to the death of at least one young person in custody, the use of restraint rose considerably across the secure estate last year. We welcome the fact that the new policy limits the use of force against young offenders but consider a more fundamental cultural shift is required. We intend to keep a watching brief on this issue and recommend that Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons reports on the implementation and impact of the new policy in more detail in his Annual Report to Parliament.

Looked after children and care leavers

98.  Children in care and care leavers are over-represented in the prison population. Despite accounting for less than 1% of the total population, the most recent survey of 15-18 year olds in custody[240] found that 30% of young men, and 44% of young women had spent time in care. The majority of children in care and who are considered to be looked after under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 lose their looked after status on entering custody. The only children who retain their care status while in custody are children under a full care order under s31 of the Children Act 1989, children who are classified as in need under s17 of the act, children remanded to secure training centres and secure children's homes and 16 and 17 year olds who have spent enough time in care to be considered 'relevant'. Under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, all children remanded into custody, but not those sentenced to custody, now automatically receive looked after status.[241]

99.  A thematic review of the care received by looked after children aged 15 to 18 in YOIs carried out by HM Inspectorate of Prisons in 2011 found that those who had been in care reported more vulnerability and greater need than those who had not. Meeting these needs requires collaboration across services, including social workers from the local authority's looked after children service. The Inspectorate was therefore concerned by its findings that:

  • There was a lack of clarity in most establishments about where the responsibility for looked after children should lie;
  • Three-quarters of safeguarding teams described barriers preventing effective communication between the YOI and the local authority. A third felt some social workers tried to end their involvement while the young person was in custody; and
  • Only half of young people interviewed said they had received a visit from their social worker during their time in custody.[242]

On a related point, looked after children in HMYOI Feltham told us they were unhappy at being unable to receive visits from siblings under the age of 18, who might be the only family members with whom they still have contact, if an appropriate adult was not prepared to accompany them to the YOI.

100.  A more recent inspection of HMP and YOI Parc also found that caseworkers "had to work hard to ensure that the relevant local authorities met their responsibilities."[243] This was further supported by evidence from Darren Coyne, representing the Care Leavers Association:

I work with young people who explain to me that on entering custody, even though they are entitled to a professional visit from a social worker, they do not receive one. It is not until they come close to release that they are re­engaged, but by that stage it is too late [ ...] In effect, they are abandoned in custody. I have met with young people who have told me that the first time their social worker or leaving care team worker knew they were in prison was when they came out and told them.[244]

101.  This has serious implications for the plight of these young people when they are released back into the community, lacking support from family networks as they do. The Parc inspection noted the consequence in the form of the relatively high number of young people who were released to bed and breakfast accommodation or who did not know where they would be staying until just before their release. The Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 was introduced to address variations in the support and financial assistance available to care leavers. However, the Care Leavers' Association noted that practice is still "often somewhat questionable with young care leavers [...] slipping through the cracks" as local authorities "jump through hoop after hoop after hoop to try to come away from their financial responsibilities".[245] Darren Coyne added:

When a young person in care gets to the age of 15 and a half, there should be a pathway plan in place. That pathway plan should be where they move from social services to leaving care, and it should be about their transition. The Children (Leaving Care) Act exists for that to happen. I meet with lots of young people in custody who don't even know what a pathway plan is, never mind have one written. How can that pathway plan, if not written in the first place, be linked to a sentence plan which can then be linked to a release plan, which can then be linked to resettlement and support in the community?[246]

102.  For those on Detention and Training Orders, this can also have implications for their length of stay in custody. An Independent Member of the Parole Board expressed concerns about the way services support former looked after children:

It is my experience over 10 years that very often Local Authorities do not discharge their duties under the Children Act which requires them to provide and update Pathway Assessments and Pathway Plans [...] Sometimes the Local Authority is not involved at all in the young prisoner's case and sometimes they decide not to carry out the assessment [...] Often Youth Justice Service staff are unaware of the obligations of Local Authorities and/or of the prisoner's status as a former looked after child. Consequently, no-one chases up [...] This means that the Parole Board has to decide on parole when the follow-up arrangements are at best uncertain. I am sure that this leads to a number of individuals being retained in custody longer than would be necessary if there were proper planning.[247]

Nick Hardwick agreed that because looked after children are less likely to have somewhere settled to stay, they are less likely to qualify for early release than a child who has not been looked after. Young people without family support also find it difficult to be granted release on temporary licence towards the end of their sentence.[248]

103.  The HMIP thematic review recommended that a designated social worker be stationed within each YOI with responsibility for looked after children; and three measures to ensure a stronger central lead and better coordination between Government Departments and agencies.[249] The YJB has announced a commitment to fund social worker posts in YOIs until 2014.[250] Nick Hardwick told us that:

One of the critical problems and difficulties was that the staff in the YOI often did not know what a young person was entitled to, and the social worker who was responsible for that young person out in the community too often had the attitude 'out of sight, out of mind, and we'll pick it up when the boy comes out again'. So having a specialist post in a YOI, a person who can make that link [...] is a good first step. We have seen, now that they are in place, the results of that in some inspections already, and they are positive.[251]

Staff in HMYOI Feltham were enthusiastic about the impact of having had a social worker based there over the preceding six months. We asked the Minister for Prisons and Rehabilitation if he would commit to guaranteeing funding beyond 2014; he replied "we will have to consider whether that funding could or should continue as and when we get nearer to that point".[252]

104.  However, despite this welcome progress, Nick Hardwick cautioned that children who have been looked after continue to be "dumped" in bed and breakfast accommodation without the support they need, telling us: "It is as good as giving them a return ticket. It is nonsensical."[253] Darren Coyne agreed that finding suitable accommodation for former looked after children on release should be the number one priority.[254] The Inspectorate's other recommendations were that:

  • The Youth Justice Board and the Department for Education should agree a strategy for the coordination of services for looked after children in custody that ensures that all agencies with statutory responsibilities for looked after children fulfil their obligations;
  • NOMS, in conjunction with the Association for the Directors of Children's Services and Chairs of Youth Offending Services Management Boards, should develop clear procedures relating to the care and management of looked after children in YOIs, accompanied by a comprehensive dissemination programme to assist staff in YOIs; and
  • There should be a national lead within NOMS with a role for ongoing review and development of the national procedures on the care and management of looked after children in YOIs, to ensure that are kept up to date and are properly implemented.[255]

These remain outstanding.

105.  Some of the most disturbing evidence we heard concerned the effective abandonment of looked after children and care leavers in custody by children's and social services, with devastating implications for their outcomes on release. We recommend that the Government should (a) continue to fund social workers in YOIs beyond its current commitment of 2014; and (b) in its response to our Report, set out how it is implementing the further three recommendations made by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons in its 2011 thematic review of the care of looked after children in custody. We also recommend that the relevant authorities do more to ensure that looked after children and care leavers in custody are able to maintain contact with family members during their detention, where appropriate.

195   Q 395 [John Drew] Back

196   Ministry of Justice, Transforming Youth Custody: Putting education at the heart of detention, Consultation Paper CP4/2013, 14 February 2014, p 10 Back

197   Youth Justice Board, Monthly Youth Custody Report - November 2012, January 2013, Figure 2.4 Back

198   Youth Justice Board, Monthly Youth Custody Report - November 2012, January 2013. The YJB commissions places on the basis that the estate should operate at a 93% occupancy rate.  Back

199   National Audit Office, The youth justice system in England and Wales: reducing offending by young people, HC 663, December 2010, para 2.19 Back

200   Howard League for Penal Refom, Insecure Future, 2012; INQUEST/Prison Reform Trust, Fatally Flawed: Has the state learned lessons from the deaths of children and young people in custody?, 2012 Back

201   Q 276 Back

202   Independent Commission on Youth Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour, Time for a Fresh Start, 2010, p 79. In contrast, staff in STCs complete a 9-week training course and some managers are qualified social workers; staff in YOIs receive generic training for prison officers, plus a seven-day Juvenile Awareness Staff Programme. Back

203   Prison Reform Trust, Bromley Briefings Prison Factfile, June 2012 Back

204   Q 395 [John Drew] Back

205   Ev 99; Q 25 Back

206   Ministry of Justice/Youth Justice Board, Developing the Secure Estate for Children and Young People in England and Wales - Plans until 2015, March 2012 Back

207   Ev 94 Back

208   Q 400 Back

209   Q 164 [Steve Crocker] Back

210   HM Inspectorate of Prisons, Report on an unannounced inspection of HMP & YOI Parc Young People's Unit 2-6 July 2012, p 5 Back

211   Ev 124 [HM Inspectorate of Prisons] Back

212   HM Inspectorate of Prisons/Youth Justice Board, Children and young people in custody 2011/12: An analysis of the experiences of 15-18 year olds in prison, 2012, p 17 Back

213   HM Inspectorate of Prisons, Report on an unannounced inspection of HMYOI Wetherby 30 January-3 February 2012, p 5 Back

214   Q 275 Back

215   Ministry of Justice/Youth Justice Board, Developing the Secure Estate for Children and Young People in England and Wales - Plans until 2015, March 2012 Back

216   Qq 161, 164 Back

217   Q 404 Back

218   Q 18 Back

219   This can include young people who have committed robberies and violent offences, but fall below the age of criminal responsibility. Back

220   Success is defined as no violent behaviour, no substance abuse, accepting adult rules and parental control over behaviour, pro-social behaviour, understanding of risks of deviant environments and positive feedback from families. Back

221   INQUEST/Prison Reform Trust, Fatally Flawed: has the state learned lessons from the deaths of children and young people in prison?, October 2012 Back

222   Ibid, p 53 Back

223   INQUEST/Prison Reform Trust, Fatally Flawed: Has the state learned lessons from the deaths of children and young people in prison?, October 2012 Back

224   Ibid, p 58 Back

225   Q 296 Back

226   Q 438 Back

227   Office of the Children's Commissioner, "I think I must have been born bad": Emotional well-being and mental health of children and young people in the youth justice system, June 2011 Back

228   Youth Justice Board/Ministry of Justice Statistics Bulletin, Youth justice statistics 2011/12, England and Wales, 31 January 2013, p 42 Back

229   HM Inspectorate of Prisons/Youth Justice Board, Children and young people in custody 2011/12: an analysis of the experiences of 15-18 year olds in prison, 2012 Back

230   HM Inspectorate of Prisons, Report on an unannounced short follow-up inspection of HMPYOI Ashfield, 11-13 October 2011, February 2012, para 2.86 Back

231   Q 284 Back

232   Q 285 Back

233   P Smallridge and A Williamson, Independent Review of Restraint in Juvenile Secure Settings, (London: 2008)  Back

234   INQUEST/Prison Reform Trust, Fatally Flawed: Has the state learned lessons from the deaths of children and young people in prison?, October 2012, pp 25-26 Back

235   Q 287. HM Chief Inspector of Prisons currently comments on the use of force in this Annual Report to Parliament. Back

236   Q 249 Back

237   Qq 249, 251 Back

238   Ev 124 Back

239   Q 439 Back

240   HMInspectorateofPrisons/YouthJusticeBoard,ChildrenandYoungPeopleinCustody2011/12:Ananalysisoftheexperiencesof15-18yearoldsinprison,2012 Back

241   Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act, section 104 Back

242   HM Inspectorate of Prisons, The care of looked after children in custody, May 2011 Back

243   HMI Inspectorate of Prisons, Report on an unannounced inspection of HMP & YOI Parc Young People's Unit 2-6 July 2012, 2012, p 5 Back

244   Q 256 Back

245   Ev 123 Back

246   Q 257 Back

247   Ev w27 [Matthew Fiander] Back

248   Qq 264-5 Back

249   HM Inspectorate of Prisons, The care of looked after children in custody, May 2011 Back

250   Ev 127  Back

251   Q 253 Back

252   Q 249 Back

253   Q 253 Back

254   Q 265 Back

255   HM Inspectorate of Prisons, The care of looked after children in custody, May 2011 Back

previous page contents next page

© Parliamentary copyright 2013
Prepared 14 March 2013