Children and Young People in Custody (part 2): The Youth Secure Estate and Resettlement Contents

---

2Safety in Custody

The Secure Estate

5.When a child or young person is remanded or sentenced to custody in England and Wales, the Youth Custody Service decides whether to place the young person at a Young Offender Institution (YOI), Secure Training Centre (STC) or Secure Children’s Home (SCH).2

6.There are five Young Offenders Institutions in England and Wales for boys under 18: Cookham Wood, Feltham, Parc, Werrington and Wetherby. YOI Parc is run by G4S and the other YOIs are run by Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS).3 The YOIs have a combined total of around 850 places for boys aged 15 to17.4 Secure Training Centres are smaller establishments that accommodate between 60-to 80 boys and girls aged 12 to 17. There are currently two operational STCs: Oakhill run by G4S and Rainsbrook run by MTC Novo.5 Secure Children’s Homes accommodate boys and girls aged 10–17 assessed as particularly vulnerable. Seven in England and one in Wales provide justice placements, and they have around 104 places, contracted by the Youth Custody Service.6 The Department for Education, rather than the Ministry of Justice, is responsible for SCHs.7 In 2018/19, 73% of the youth custody population was housed in YOIs, 17% in STCs and 10% in SCHs.8

7.The graph below demonstrates the reduction achieved in the number of children and young people in custody over the past decade.9 It represents remarkable progress, a point that should be borne in mind as we go on to consider concerns to be raised later in this report about those who do remain in custody. Questions arise about the suitability for this changed cohort of the custodial institutions used, their location and distance from a child’s home, time spent out of cell, education provision, safety and racial disproportionality. Further questions arise about health care, especially mental health, and the capability, capacity and resource to deliver appropriate relevant and targeted rehabilitative activities for these children.

8.This changing cohort has presented tremendous challenges to staff in the youth custody system - on the front line and at managerial level. In a short time, staff have begun to deal with substantially different children and young people but with essentially the same tools used previously to pursue the prime aim of the youth justice system - to prevent reoffending. We have great admiration for these staff and pay tribute to their dedication and commitment to attempting to turn around the lives of the young people in their custody. As the overall numbers have fallen, the proportional challenges in providing safe, secure living and learning accommodation have risen. It is almost invariably the case that those children and young people who remain in custody have committed serious offences, frequently involving violence. As the Minister for Justice, Lucy Frazer QC MP, put it to us, the level of offending a child has committed has to be high before they are sent to custody: “The people in our youth estate have committed serious crimes,” she said, “and we have an obligation to public safety”.10

9.Everything we say in this Report is therefore set against a context in which the dedication, courage and commitment of those who choose to work with often challenging, troubled and sometimes dangerous children and young people deserves the fullest praise and thanks.

Table 1: Average monthly youth custody population, youth secure estate in England and Wales, years ending March 2001 to 2019

Source: Youth Justice Board and Ministry of Justice, Youth Justice Statistics 2018/1911

Safety

10.One of the primary duties of the Youth Custody Service is to maintain the safety of those sent to custody. A substantial number of those who submitted evidence to our inquiry have raised questions about the pace of improvements in this respect. In 2017, the Youth Custody Improvement Board12 established that the “youth estate was on the edge of coping with the young people it was holding.”13 Peter Clarke, former Chief Inspector of Prisons, HM Inspectorate of Prisons, has repeatedly warned of concerns about safety: in 2017, he reported that no YOI of STC officially inspected early that year was safe to hold children and young people;14 a year later, he saw signs of improvement but said children still felt unsafe, that bullying was a problem and that rates of violence against staff and boys were higher than in previous years;15 and in 2019 he found that “levels of violence remained high and bullying was a constant concern”16 Hazel Williamson, Vice-Chair, Association of Youth Offending Team Managers, told us that “I very much believe we have a system where children are slotted into an adult prison system, and therein lies the issue. It is part of the systemic issue around children’s youth custody”.17

11.In July 2019, Mr Clarke issued an Urgent Notification for Feltham A—the first of its kind to be issued for an institution holding children. The inspection found, that:

• the scale of problems in safety had overwhelmed systems designed to safeguard children;
• violence against staff had continued to rise dramatically, with assaults against staff, some very serious, rising by around 150% since January 2019;
• levels of self-harm had tripled since the previous inspection, and were 14 times higher than in January 2017; and
• use of force had risen: 74 per cent of children reported they had been physically restrained.

The Youth Justice Board thought the notification “extremely worrying and shows the extent of the challenge faced by the YCS in making the secure estate safe.”18

12.In February 2019, the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) report on its investigation into Sexual Abuse of Children in Custodial Institutions: 2009–2017 concluded that “children in YOIs and STCs are not safe from harm, either physical of sexual […] The culture of these institutions, particularly their closed nature and focus on containment and control, has not provided an environment that protects children from either “.19

13.For the year ending March 2019:20

• there were around 6,300 Restrictive Physical Interventions (RPIs), some 16% more than in the previous year and the highest number in the last five years;21
• self-harm incidents increased by 3%, to more than 1,800 incidents, the highest number seen over the previous five years;
• there were around 2,200 assaults by children and young people in SCH and STCs,22 up 5% on the previous year and 70% higher than five years ago; and
• there were around 2,400 assault incidents by children in YOIs with an average monthly rate of assault incidents per 100 children and young people of 32.5.

14.The Youth Justice Board told us “we remain deeply concerned about the high levels of violence, separation and RPIs [Restrictive Physical Interventions] in the secure estate”.23 Local councils provide a range of youth services and play an essential role in supporting young people, including working to protect children and young people; the Local Government Association, which works to support, promote and improve local government has also expressed concerns:

“The current state of affairs is dangerous, counterproductive and will inevitably end in tragedy unless urgent corrective action is taken […]

This situation would not be acceptable for local authorities, schools or other public institutions charged with the care of children, and it should not be acceptable for Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS). Urgent action needs to be taken to ensure that young people are safe in custody.”24

15.We do not yet know what effect the additional restrictions on regime resulting from efforts to control covid-19 within the custodial estate may have on levels of self-harm, although the Minister of State, Lucy Frazer QC MP, told us that the number of self-harm incidents had fallen month on month since January 2020 and promised that figures demonstrating that reduction would be published in due course. Lucy Frazer also told us that lessons were being learned from that experience and said she would report back on those in due course, too.

Separation/segregation

16.Under the practice of separation a child or young person may be confined within an area as a means of control, without their permission or agreement. No member of staff is present in such cases, and the door is locked to prevent exit.25 In the year ending March 2019 there were around 3,000 single separation incidents in SCHS and STCs.26 This is 18% fewer cases than in 2018, and the first year-on-year fall since 2015. The monthly average rate of single separation incidents was 88.5 per 100 children and young people. Although this, too, is down on the previous year’s figure (94.9), it remains much higher than the rate five years ago (39.0).27

17.Under the rules for YOIs and STCs children can, in certain circumstances, be removed from association.2829 The Children’s Commissioner expressed concern that no official figures are published on the use of separation in YOIs.30

18.There are also concerns about the effect on children and young people of segregation and separation. At the practical level, Clinks told us that it restricts children’s access to vital services, including activities and interventions that support them to build new skills and prepare them for resettlement.31

19.At a more philosophical level, both the Equalities and Human Rights Commission and our colleagues on the Joint Committee on Human Rights have considered segregation potentially inhuman and degrading, particularly when it amounts to solitary confinement for long periods.32 The JCHR noted: “Evidence over several years shows that incidents of separation can ‘drift’, so that children end up in what amounts to solitary confinement (at least 22 hours per day without meaningful contact) which may be prolonged (at least 15 days’ duration).”33 The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child also argues that “solitary confinement should not be used for a child. Any separation of the child for others should be for the shortest possible time and used only as a measure of last resort for the protection of the child or others.”34

20.We took oral evidence from several ‘young adult advisers on criminal justice’, young people who have first-hand experience of the youth justice system and now work to influence policy and reform of that system. Joshua Kilembeka, one the advisers, spoke in general about the pressure of time in custody: “Being locked up for that amount of time, a young person loses hope. It is not only about mental health. They don’t build trust with the prison officers. It becomes a conflict, and violence will increase in the YOIs.”35 Nadine Smith, another adviser, said, specifically of segregation:

“It is going to sound like a bit of a weird analogy, but take a puppy, for example: you would not put a puppy in a cage and leave it there for 23 hours a day for a continuous period of time and not expect it to have pent-up rage or be aggressive or not want to interact with humans. I feel that putting a young person in a situation where they are stuck in a cell for 23 hours a day is counterproductive to what the youth estate should be trying to achieve.”36

21.In January 2020, the HM Inspectorate of Prisons thematic report Separation of children in young offender institutions concluded that current arrangements for separating children in YOIs did not safeguard children’s wellbeing.37 Peter Clarke, Chief Inspector of Prisons noted: “The weaknesses of current practice and oversight are of such a magnitude that we recommend an entirely new approach, and that current practice be replaced. A new model of separation should be implemented that enables managers to use separation to protect children from harm and prevents separated children being subjected to impoverished regimes.”38

22.The Inspectorate also found that children’s experiences of separation differed dramatically depending on which establishment they were held in and even between different units in the same YOI. Additionally, the regime offered to most separated children was found inadequate - nearly all spent long periods in their cell without meaningful human interactions. In the worst cases children left their cell for just 15 minutes a day.39 Mr Clarke reported significant failures of local and national oversight, and said checks were inadequate. The Inspectorate concluded that “most separated children experienced a regime that amounted to the widely accepted definition of solitary confinement. For some children their solitary confinement was prolonged in nature”. It recommended that “current models of separating children in young offender institutions should be replaced with a new system that ensures a regime is equivalent to their non-separated peers”.40

23.The Youth Custody Service submitted an action plan in February 2020, and partly agreed to HMIP’s recommendation to replace the current models of separation with a new system.41 The Youth Custody Service agreed to six of HMIP’s 10 recommendations and partly agreed to four. It agreed that every separated child should have meaningful contact and to improve safeguards committed to introducing a local manager at each establishment who will oversee children separated under Rule 49. Additionally, the Youth Custody Service agreed that reintegration planning for children separated under Rule 49 should take place sooner, and reintegration processes have therefore been put in place from the time when a child or young person is separated.

24.In June 2020, the Government published the findings of the separation taskforce. It identified issues believed to contribute to the system of separation’s having gone wrong, including: a lack of attention and focus by leadership; a lack of understanding about the purpose and value of separation; absence of regular training on use and impact of separation.42

25.Lucy Frazer QC MP, Minister of State for Justice, told the Committee that “we are now putting in place a policy and setting up a new policy on separation”.43 Helga Swidenbank, Executive Director, Youth Custody Service, added: “We are really keen to get it right and to do good quality research and engage with stakeholders in relation to policy. We are looking to a number of months before we will be able to publish the policy; in the meantime, we have tightened up on our governance and our data gathering. I know that governors are absolutely focused on the need to ensure that we have our separation practices and procedure working as well as they can be.”44

26.In spite of this progress, Peter Clarke, Chief Inspector of Prisons, was disappointed that other recommendations had been only partly agreed to. He told us: “For instance, we said the regime around education for those separated should be equivalent to their peers who are not separated. The response was, ‘We’ll partly agree that, but it is not really feasible to do it, so what we will do is aim for a similar regime.’ What the difference between similar and equivalent is I am not quite sure. That is the sort of response I find disappointing.”45 Mr Clarke went on: “If I can be blunt, I think it needs someone to get a grip and recognise that the system has not worked. There is no consistency across the country, each YOI is doing something entirely different, and it needs someone to get a grip and have a proper system that can guarantee to provide decent outcomes.”46

27.Throughout this inquiry, we have heard of significant concerns about the use of separation across the youth estate - the effect it has on the individual and on the institution itself. Concerns around the use of separation in the youth secure estate are of long standing. We find it unacceptable that data on separation in Young Offender Institutions is not gathered and published and recommend that the Ministry of Justice rectify this immediately.

28.The findings of HM Inspectorate of Prisons’ report on separation are serious and echo much of what has been reported in evidence to us and in other publications. We are concerned about differences in practice across the estate. The Ministry of Justice and Youth Custody Service should set out what is being done to ensure coherent and consistent practice across the estate.

29.We note the frustration of HM Inspectorate of Prisons about the extent to which its recommendations for action are implemented, and the pace of implementation. That said, we welcome the Government’s commitment to develop a new policy framework on separation and recommend that the Ministry of Justice and Youth Custody Service set out when this piece of work will be completed and when the new framework will be implemented.

Mental health provision

30.It is generally recognised that around a third of children in custody report a known mental health disorder.47 This highlights the importance of ensuring sufficient mental health service provision across the estate. Barnardo’s report that their workers see increasing cases involving children with mental health needs: “there are a number of concerns about how to ensure custodial settings are able to effectively meet the needs of these young people. At the current time custody often acts as a barrier to obtaining appropriate mental health support for young people.”48 The Independent Monitoring Boards (the collective body for the IMBs in each prison) told us:

“The long wait for secure mental health placements for YP with complex conditions and behaviours, due to insufficient availability of secure, specialist NHS mental health provision, is a constant issue reported by Boards in England. Wetherby IMB noted that many young people ‘wait indefinitely’ for suitable secure hospital provision, often waiting in the segregation unit. Feltham IMB expressed concern that prison is clearly not a safe or therapeutic environment for mentally ill YP such as those in its in-patient unit displaying unpredictable and violent behaviour. Concerted and co-ordinated action is needed by HMPPS and NHS England to address the needs of these YP.”49

31.The Howard League highlighted system-wide problems: “The Howard League legal team has seen an increasing number of children who have serious mental health problems, which professionals believe require treatment in hospital, who have been remanded or sentenced to custody because there is no appropriate therapeutic alternative.”50 The Children’s Commissioner raised similar issues:

“We know that there are many children in custody with mental health conditions, some of whom are not able to access the support they need. Sometimes this is because of pressures on the secure mental health system which prevent them from getting a bed in a mental health ward. On a visit to a YOI we were told of a child who had been assessed by a psychiatrist as being too unwell to stay in custody, but had waited in excess of 6 weeks to get a bed in a mental health ward.”51

32.G4S told us that Oakhill Secure Training Centre “has seen a vast increase in the array of mental health issues that young people present with. Front line staff are not specialists in mental health but the varied presentations impacts on behaviour management. Mental health concerns have an impact on the behaviour of all trainees as peers don’t understand the requirements and special needs of others. This can cause frustration and negative behaviour which can impact across site.”52

33.Among the young advisers on criminal justice who told us about their experience of mental health provision in custody, Jhanzab Khan said:

“My mother was diagnosed with cancer while I was in prison. That was a lot to deal with. My mother came to visit me. She had a bald head. I spoke to the doctors and they said that one of the things that contributed to cancer was stress, and I felt so guilty. I know that many other young people are dealing with lots of issues that are going on outside that lead to them self-harming and turning to substance misuse. There is generally no support for that and no mental health support. A listener might be there, but it is not good enough to just have another prisoner who is there to listen, because that prisoner is limited in what they can do.”53

34.Nadine Smith, another of the young advisers, spoke about the general effect the custodial environment has on a young person’s mental health:

The whole custodial setting, the whole scene, no matter what part of custody you are in, as a child, is a very traumatic situation. Even for the strongest and biggest of children, there are external environmental impacts. They have a lot of time to think about things.

There are no positive outlets either. If you are facing mental health issues, and you do not know how to manage them yourself, or you are not getting help or given an outlet, you are unable to express that. If I was working with a young person on the outside, I might say, “Do you want to go to boxing? If you’re feeling a lot of aggression and have lots of things going on, do you want to go to boxing to get that aggression out?” There is nothing like that for children in the estate. I think that is where we are missing a trick. In general, it is traumatising but, if young people have to be there, there should be positive outlets given to them to help them express themselves.”54

35.In response to these concerns, the Ministry of Justice told us the YCS, NHS England and NHS Improvement were working to improve mental health and emotional wellbeing services across the estate:

NHS England and NHS Improvement have led on the development of a framework for integrated care (SECURESTAIRS), which is being delivered in partnership with the Department for Education, YCS and Ministry of Justice.

SECURE STAIRS is a psychologically informed, trauma based framework for integrated care that creates a single plan around the child. It is based on the idea that “every interaction matters” and input from every member of staff is fundamental. It is focused on the child’s story, not on their diagnosis, offence, or other label.”55

36.Caroline Twitchett, Children’s Quality Lead, NHS England and NHS Improvement, told us: “The Secure Stairs programme … recognises the challenges of looking after children with very complex and challenging needs 24/7, and it supports staff with reflective practice and trauma informed training. That is all staff, from the top of YCS right down to cleaners and cooks.”56

37.A significant proportion of children in custody have a mental health need. The Secure Stairs model is a welcome development, but we are disappointed to hear that children are sometimes held in custody because of an absence of appropriate mental health treatment beds. In cases where the mental health of offenders is a substantial factor in their self-harm or their level of risk to staff or fellow offenders, we recommend that the Ministry work with the Department of Health and Social Care to identify mechanisms to ensure appropriate placement for individuals who require treatment and to make sure that young offenders are in the right place to receive the treatment they need.

Self-harm and mental health provision

38.Levels of self-harm in the youth secure estate are high and increasing. There were more than 1,800 self-harm incidents in the year to March 2019, a rise of 3% on the previous year and the highest number seen over the previous five years.57 The average monthly rate of self-harm incidents per 100 children and young people in custody has also doubled since March 2014, to 13.7 self-harm incidents per 100 children in custody per month.58 Some 36% of self-harm incidents resulted in injuries that needed medical treatment, which is again the highest proportion in the last five years. Table 2 shows the number of injuries requiring medical treatment as a result of self-harm from March 2014 to 2019.

39.The Chief Inspector of Prisons cited self-harm as one of the reasons why the Urgent Notification process was invoked for YOI Feltham A, where levels “had tripled since the previous inspection [and] were now 14 times higher than they were in January 2017”.59 Mr Clarke told us:

“What we found very clearly, and were told time and again by the boys in Feltham, was that they were self-harming out of frustration with the regime, out of frustration with restrictions, and they felt it was the only way in which they could gain attention, because other processes were not working. The broader lesson from that, which we take away very clearly, and which we saw not only at Feltham but we have learned from elsewhere, is that restrictive regimes keep neither staff nor detainees safe.”60

Table 2: The number of injuries requiring medical treatment to children and young people by severity of injury as a result of self harm, youth secure estate in England and Wales, years ending March 2014 to 2019

Source: Youth Justice Board and Ministry of Justice, Youth Justice Statistics 2018/19, January 202061

40.Independent Monitoring Boards were similarly concerned: “The Wetherby board noted that in April 2019 70% who self-harmed did it twice or more, with eight YP accounting for 70% of all self-harm that month. At Feltham the Board reported that the number of YP self-harming more than doubled in the year to October 2018, from 29 to 61.”62 The Youth Justice Board, too, notes that levels of self-harm are very high, with little sign of reduction.63

41.The Minister of State for Justice accepted self-harm was historically high, but saw signs of improvement: “from January we have seen a reduction in consecutive months”.64 The latest figures are not yet published.65

42.It is not yet clear what effect Covid-19 and necessary restrictions within institutions will have on children’s mental health and levels of self-harm, with evidence pointing to both increased difficulties and improvements for some. Keith Fraser, Chair, Youth Justice Board, told us: “Covid-19 could be viewed, first of all, as another adverse childhood experience for children, due to the circumstances in their home life and, secondly, in relation to mental health in children. There is some evidence at the moment, and we are testing its validity, of additional self-harm and an increase in attempted suicide.”66 HM Inspectorate of Prisons noted, however, in the July 2020 Report on short scrutiny visits to young offender institutions holding children that “The YOIs appeared calm and well ordered, and recorded self-harm had reduced since the start of the pandemic.”67

43.The Minister for Justice, Lucy Frazer QC MP, also told us that additional covid-19 restrictions had reportedly made some children and young people feel safer in custody:

we have heard from some children and male adults that they feel an element of safety in not being exposed to association. Some governors have reported that when children do not have to keep up the bravado of being with their peers for a long period in big groups it has made them feel a little safer. We have learned from that and, going forward, we are going to do more work in small groups, because people found that much safer and much easier to manage. That is a good thing that we are going to take forward from the Covid experience.68

44.Self-harm across the youth secure estate is alarmingly high. There has been a welcome reduction in consecutive months since January, but self-harm is at the highest level in the last five years. The Ministry of Justice and Youth Custody Service should set out what measures they have put in place specifically to address self-harm.

45.The Ministry of Justice and Youth Custody Service must also seek to understand why self-harm appears to have reduced during the Covid-19 pandemic, and what can be learned from that.

Use of Force in Secure Training Centres and Young Offender Institutions

46.Two main behaviour management techniques defined as ‘use of force’ have been developed specifically for staff working with children and young people in STCs and under-18 YOIs:

• Restrictive Physical Intervention (RPI): any occasion in which force is used to overpower or with the intention of overpowering a child or young person;69 and
• Minimising and Managing Physical Restraint (MMPR): a behaviour management and restraint system that emphasises appropriate de-escalation and deceleration techniques (non-physical interventions) to ensure that force is only ever used as a last resort.70

47.As we have noted, the children and young people held within the secure estate present complex challenges to themselves and to those charged with their care and rehabilitation. Within that context, we have heard concerns from a range of organisations about the use of force on children in custody. Clinks, for example, argues that “Restraint is a distressing and psychologically harmful experience for children, which can be physically painful and cause injury.”71 The Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists note that “Staff can misunderstand and misinterpret challenging behaviour and punish the person for “bad behaviour” rather than getting to the root of the problem.”72 The Equality and Human Rights Commission was also concerned about increasing use of force and other restrictive interventions on children.73

48.The direction of travel demonstrated in statistics on use of force techniques lends credence to these concerns. More than 7,200 use of force (RPI and MMPR) incidents were recorded in STCs and YOIs in the year ending March 2019,74 (an increase from 6,600 incidents in the year ending March 2018).75 This is an average of just over 600 incidents a month, and a rate of 59.6 incidents per 100 children and young people in STCs and YOIs per month. On 60 occasions children and young people required medical treatment for injury following use of force.76 MMPR techniques were involved in 68% of all use-of-force incidents (an average of 410 per month). The highest-level technique recorded in each MMPR incident was: pain-inducing for 3% of all incidents; high level for 50% of incidents; medium level for 31% of incidents and low level for 16% of incidents.77

49.HM Inspectorate of Prisons has raised further concerns. Based on inspection reports, HMIP found

“sound local governance arrangements at Parc, Rainsbrook and Oakhill (although there were still areas for improvement). However, elsewhere we found significant weaknesses in the monitoring and oversight of use of force and we repeated recommendations around fundamental aspects of governance such as timely completion of use of force statements, utilising body-worn cameras and the need for proper scrutiny of incidents.”78

50.The Inspectorate had particular concerns about governance of use of force in Feltham A; “there had been over 700 incidents [use of force] in […] six months. […] nearly 300 incidents had not been reviewed by specialist staff and over 900 use of force reports were outstanding at the time of inspection”.79

Furthermore, HMIP noted:

“Overall, we found too many examples of force being used that is not proportionate and not properly monitored. […] Disproportionate and unnecessary use of force has a negative impact upon children.”80

51.Feltham A has clearly had significant difficulties. Oakhill Secure Training Centre and HMP & YOI Parc have received more positive inspection reports, and G4S, which runs those institutions outlined how governance of use of force interventions works there:

“Use of Force/MMPR is reviewed by appropriate staff to ensure it has been used safely, appropriately and proportionately. The National Team (HMPPS) provide oversight and quality assure every Serious Injury and Warning Sign Incident. The YCS monitors at each site provide an additional level of scrutiny as does attendance at the weekly review meetings by the local authority Social Workers.

Each site holds monthly strategic meetings as well as the weekly Governance ones. The monthly meetings will look at and review any identified trends in the Use of Force/MMPR, plan strategically for reductions in violence that may lead to the Use of Force/MMPR and provide a platform for in-depth scrutiny by community bodies.

Both sites ensure that staff wear Body Worn Cameras which aid in capturing both visual and audio of an incident which in turn assist with the safeguarding of staff and young people.”81

52.We have no precise data on self-harm, but Peter Clarke gave an example: “What we found very clearly, and were told time and again by the boys in Feltham, was that they were self-harming out of frustration with the regime, out of frustration with restrictions, and they felt it was the only way in which they could gain attention, because other processes were not working”.82 It is also worth acknowledging, given the small number of children and young people now in custody, that data would be based on low figures, meaning that substantial percentage shifts in rates would reflect comparatively few individuals self-harming or not self-harming, as the Minister, Lucy Frazer, pointed out to us.83

53.Substantial concern has been expressed to us about use of force against children and young people across the youth custodial estate, and we note that sanctioned use of force has been rising. While there appear to be sound monitoring and governance arrangements at some establishments, such as Parc and Oakhill, this does not appear to be the case for others, as highlighted by HMIP.

54.We recommend that the Ministry of Justice and the Youth Custody Service set out the reasons why use of force is rising in youth custodial institutions and what steps are being taken to ensure that any such use is necessary and proportionate. We recommend that the Ministry and Youth Custody Service conduct a light-touch review of monitoring and governance processes in place for use of force involving children and young people in all the institutions that hold them to establish that those processes are sufficiently robust.

Pain-inducing techniques

55.The use of techniques specifically designed to cause children pain is a highly emotive issue on which opinion divides sharply. We heard evidence arguing that such techniques should simply not be used. We heard counter-arguments that the use of pain-inducing restraint may be necessary and proportionate, particularly in the context of an offender who is a danger to himself, to fellow inmates and to members of staff.

56.Pain-inducing restraint is currently permitted, as a last resort response, in Young Offenders Institutions and in Secure Training Centres, where there is a risk of serious harm.84 It is not permitted in Secure Children’s Homes, under the Children’s Homes (England) Regulations 2015.”85 The Ministry of Justice notes that “where restraint is used, it must always be necessary, proportionate and in accordance with the law. Staff are trained to resolve conflict verbally and restraint should only be used as a last resort where no other form of intervention is possible or appropriate”.86

57.There are strong arguments against any use of pain-inducing techniques. The Joint Committee on Human Rights, for example, has recommended their prohibition in YOIs. In their 2019 report Youth detention: solitary confinement and restraint, the JCHR concluded that “the deliberate infliction of pain on a child is incompatible with international human rights law. Article 37(a) of the UNCRC states unconditionally that: ‘No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’.”87 The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, in their report Sexual Abuse of Children in Custodial Institutions: 2009–2017, argued that “use of pain compliance should be seen as a form of child abuse and must cease”.88

58.Portsmouth YOT Partnership Management Board also argued that inflicting pain on children is akin to abuse: “if a parent were to inflict that kind of injury/trauma we would regard it as a concern.”89 The Standing Committee for Youth Justice have “ a longstanding opposition, as a point of principle, to the deliberate infliction of pain in children as part of any system of restraint. We believe the deliberate use of pain during restraint is damaging to children and causes unnecessary harm”.90 Nacro seeks “an absolute prohibition on the use of pain-inducing restraint techniques on children in custody.”91 The Children’s Commissioner “does not accept that there is any appropriate circumstance for the deliberate use of pain against children and has long called for its abolition”.92

59.The use of pain-inducing techniques in STCs also limits the judgement that an institution will receive during inspection. Ofsted reported:

“In STCs we see high levels of physical restraint and the quality and impact of monitoring processes is variable. Pain-inducing methods are used on children. Despite this being permitted by the ‘Minimising and Managing Physical Restraint’ guidance, we think this is not acceptable. We will limit the judgement of any STC that uses restraint techniques involving the intentional use of pain to no higher than requires improvement to be good.”93

60.Others, including Charlie Taylor and HMIP, express concern about use of pain-inducing techniques but none the less recognise that they may be necessary in specific circumstances. HM Inspectorate of Prisons told us:

“Inspections have identified disproportionate uses of force […] we saw officers applying pain to children already under restraint when there was no immediate risk of serious physical harm to staff or children and we also saw children being returned to their cells under full restraint with little attempt to review and -de-escalate.”94

61.Peter Clarke, the Chief Inspector, was clear, though, that a blanket ban could affect safety of children or staff:

“we do not consider the use of pain inducing techniques to be acceptable or appropriate as a routine method of behaviour management or intervention. […] We believe though that, in extremis, there must be provision for a member of staff to intervene to save life or very serious injury, and if the only way to do that is through the infliction of pain, in my view, there is a clear responsibility, and indeed in many ways a duty of care to the potential victim, to do whatever is possible to prevent that harm.”95

62.In October 2018, the Ministry of Justice announced a review into the use of pain-inducing techniques, led by Charlie Taylor, then Chair of the Youth Justice Board and now Mr Clarke’s successor at HMIP. In June 2020, the Ministry published the Independent review of the use of pain inducing techniques in the youth estate, alongside their response.96

63.Charlie Taylor recognised the need to continue to teach pain-inducing techniques for use in exceptional circumstances, but recommended removing pain-inducing techniques from the MMPR syllabus. He said: “Where children with a tendency towards violence are held, assaults with a deadly weapon, fights in which one party is much stronger than the other, strangulation, biting and eye-gouging are possible. It is naïve to think that in some cases these situations can be resolved without recourse to the use of physical force and this, in reality, means the application of pain. If a strong, post-pubescent child with an adult physique has another child in a strangulating headlock, it is impossible, without recourse to a painful intervention, to resolve it quickly enough to prevent life-changing injury or death”.97 Mr Taylor’s review also identified examples of where the use of PITS was recognised as necessary by individuals subject to them.

64.That said, Mr Taylor also identified “widespread overuse of restraint in YOI and STC. I often saw officers either fail to intervene when they could have stopped a situation from developing into a confrontation or too quickly moving to use restraint in circumstances in which it was not necessary”.98 His recommendations included: “the MMPR training programme should be amended to remove the use of pain-inducing techniques from its syllabus”.99

65.The Government responded:

“We fully accept this recommendation and will revise the MMPR manual so that the sections on pain-inducing techniques are removed and the syllabus is comprised only of behaviour management and restraint techniques. This will need to be accompanied by training and guidance for staff to ensure that they are aware of the implications of the change and can put it into practice.

As this represents a considerable change to the existing MMPR manual, sufficient time and resources will need to be allocated to ensure that the impact is fully researched and understood before any changes are implemented.”100

66.When we asked about the timeframe for the removal of pain inducing techniques from the MMPR syllabus, Helga Swidenbank, Executive Director, Youth Custody Service told us: “I am not in a position to be able to give you precise timing at the moment, because we currently have a team working through a review of the syllabus. As soon as we have done that, we will be able to inform the Committee of the timescales for the changes we are making. We are committed to doing that, and we are actively working our way through redesigning the syllabus of the course for delivery to our frontline staff.”101

67.Techniques specifically designed to cause pain to children should never be used as routine methods of managing offenders. Any use of such techniques should always be a last resort in the interests of safety from physical harm. None the less, we acknowledge the views of both Peter Clarke and Charlie Taylor that in the real-life circumstances of a Youth Offender Institution or a Secure Training Centre, the safety of staff and of of offenders themselves may on rare occasion require direct and immediate physical force that may inflict pain.

68.We welcome the Government’s commitment to remove pain-inducing techniques from the MMPR training manual and to focus it on behaviour management and restraint. We are disappointed that, six months after Charlie Taylor recommended this change, there is no indication of when it will happen. We recommend that the Ministry of Justice and Youth Custody Service remove pain-inducing techniques from the MMPR syllabus without further delay. The Ministry and Youth Custody Service should also set out a timeframe for conclusion of the review, redesign and delivery of the new syllabus.