Conclusions and recommendations
Safety in Custody
1.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. 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. (Paragraph 27)
2.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. (Paragraph 28)
3.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. (Paragraph 29)
4.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. (Paragraph 37)
5.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. (Paragraph 44)
6.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. (Paragraph 45)
7.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. (Paragraph 53)
8.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. (Paragraph 54)
9.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. (Paragraph 67)
10.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. (Paragraph 68)
Disproportionality in custody
11.We welcome the Ministry of Justice’s commitment to implement in full the remainder of David Lammy’s recommendations within the next 12 months. The Ministry should set out what resource has been allocated to this piece of work. We recommend that the response to this Report provide a full and detailed timetable setting out how and by when those recommendations will be implemented. We recommend that that timetable be accompanied by an outline of how sufficient resources will be provided in the immediate and longer terms to ensure that disproportionality in the system is reduced now and remains so in future. (Paragraph 77)
Youth Justice Reform
12.We welcome development of the secure school model and agree with the Minister for Justice, Lucy Frazer QC MP, that this offers an opportunity to reform the existing estate to better meet the needs of the children it holds. It is disappointing that the timetable for opening has been subject to continued delays, with opening of the first school planned for 2020 now pushed back to 2022, five years after the original commitment to developing two secure schools. The Ministry of Justice should set out why the opening has been subject to repeated delays. We recommend that it guarantee that the first school will open as now planned in 2022, and set out what is being done to ensure that that opening is achieved on time. (Paragraph 91)
13.We welcome the Government’s long-term ambition to replace YOIs and STCs with secure schools, but we are concerned about the level of commitment demonstrated in achieving this aim, given the length of time it has taken to develop a single secure school. We recommend that the Ministry publish a timetable setting out how, where and when it plans to replace YOIs and STCs with secure schools and what resource has been allocated to ensure this commitment is achievable and is met. (Paragraph 92)
14.We welcome the Government’s commitment to reform the rest of the estate, but we are concerned that the youth estate in its current form is not meeting the needs of the children being held. We have heard about high levels of violence and self-harm and about staffing issues. The Ministry of Justice should set out specifically what reforms to the existing estate have taken place since the Taylor Review and what reforms are in progress or due to commence and complete over the next two years, before the new secure school opens. (Paragraph 98)
15.We welcome the recent announcement that officers working in youth custody will become Youth Justice Specialists after completing degree-level training, but we remain concerned about staff turnover in the youth estate, and the effect that staffing difficulties have on day-to-day running of the secure estate. The Ministry of Justice should set out its workforce strategy, specifically relating to staff in the youth custodial estate. We further recommend that the Ministry commission research into the reasons why staff turnover has been high. (Paragraph 99)
Resettlement and Reoffending
16.It is essential that children have access to appropriate Employment, Training and Education services when they leave custody, not least to reduce the risk and the rate of reoffending. The Ministry of Justice, Youth Custody Service and Youth Justice Board should continue to work together to ensure that all children and young people have adequate access to education and purposeful activity while in custody and that meaningful opportunities continue through into the community. (Paragraph 113)
17.Collaboration between agencies is imperative if children’s resettlement needs are to be met during their time in custody and followed through to the community. We recognise that the quality and ease of collaboration between agencies may vary between establishments and areas, but it is sub-optimal that children may be subjected to a number of different, uncoordinated resettlement plans. The Ministry of Justice and Youth Custody Service should set out what work is being done to reduce duplication and ensure that children have a single coordinated resettlement plan. (Paragraph 119)
18.It is apparent that accommodation is a significant problem for some children being release from custody. It is unacceptable that a child should not know until the day of their release where they will live the day after. We agree with the recommendation made by HM Inspectorate of Prisons and HM Inspectorate of Probation that the Ministry of Justice must develop a national accommodation strategy for children released from custody. We acknowledge the commitment made by the Minister of State to return to the Committee to report on progress made in these areas. (Paragraph 126)
19.We welcome the work being done to improve transition planning, and we note that work is under way in the Ministry of Justice on how best to manage transition into adult custodial settings for those who turn 18. While cut-off points between youth and adult justice are necessary, we acknowledge concerns, not least from Young Advisers with practical experience, that the simple change from being 17 to 18 may not denote full maturity in some young people who are in custody, and that the transition may prove to be what the Chief Inspector of Probation calls a ‘cliff edge’ for those individuals. (Paragraph 133)
20.While some transition planning may take place before a young person leaves the youth estate, we are not convinced that the adult estate is sufficiently equipped to support all those who make that move. We recommend that the Ministry of Justice mandate appropriate transition planning in the over-18 estate for those coming from youth estate to ensure that those who do so do not find themselves on a ‘cliff edge’. We recommend that the Ministry of Justice set out when the ‘transition from youth to adult custody’ policy framework will be published and how it will be implemented across the youth and the adult estates. The Ministry should also update us on the practical steps being taken in the interim to ensure that those young people who do make that transition receive the support they need and avoid any drop-off in service provision and support. (Paragraph 134)
Published: 10 February 2021 Site information Accessibility statement