---

Secure Training Centres: Use of Restraint (JCHR Report)

rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights on The Use of Restraint in Secure Training Centres (11th Report, HL Paper 65). The noble Lord said: My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to initiate a debate on this subject. I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which I am privileged to serve. In March this year the committee produced its report The Use of Restraint in Secure Training Centres, and the Government published their response on 17 July, just in time for this debate. The House will know that secure training centres house young offenders aged between 12 and 17 who are too vulnerable or young to be in young offender institutes run by the Prison Service. These centres are privately run, and there are four in the UK, at Medway, Oakhill, Hassockfield and Rainsbrook. The young people held there often have a violent background, and the use of violence against them needs to be avoided. This is not just a matter of training staff, but of developing strategies in secure training centres to reduce the need for restraint. By any standards, these are the very people most in need of human rights protection. The Ministry of Justice is responsible for legislation and for the Youth Justice Board, which oversees contracts for STCs and places children and young people into institutions. In July 2007, the new Secure Training Centre (Amendment) Rules came into force. They were not subject to parliamentary debate at the time. The rules allow staff in STCs to use force to, "““ensure good order and discipline””." Legitimate techniques, called ““physical control in care””, include restraint holds and something called distraction techniques; that is, "““inflicting pain to thumb, ribs or nose””." In fairness, I should point out that the nose distraction technique has since been suspended. I understand that, about two years ago, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, on behalf of the Howard League for Penal Reform, investigated the use of restraints. As a result, the Government decided to hold their own inquiry but, so far, that has not been published. Could the Minister enlighten the House about when the report and the Government’s comments on it might be available? The key conclusion of the JCHR report is that the effect of current UK law is that the Government have sanctioned violence against children and young people. We say that force used against young people and children in detention is ““rarely acceptable”” and requires significant justification. The practice runs the risk of breaching international human rights standards under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. According to that convention, the state needs to ensure that restraint does, "““not involve deliberate infliction of pain as a form of control””." In its report in 2002-03, the JCHR said that, "““the level of physical assault and the degree of physical restraint experienced by children in detention … represent unacceptable contraventions of [the] UNCRC””." Detention techniques, according to the Youth Justice Board, "““rely on techniques which create pain””." We heard evidence in which a young person, who subsequently died in a secure training centre, wrote a note saying that he had been punched in the nose and was told that that was an example of restraint. Even more sadly, two young people have died in STCs following restraint. Their inquests took place in the past year. The Government claimed that their reason for introducing the new amendment rules was to respond to the coroner’s recommendation regarding the death of one of the young people. In their response, the Government seem to dismiss the committee’s concern and the Government’s obligations under the UN convention by explaining that the UN committee’s comments are, "““not binding on signatory states””." The committee and I believe that the Government should seek to meet their obligations under the UN convention, as it seems clear that there is a lawful sanction of the use of pain against young people in STCs. I welcome the Government's response that they are seeking to, "““reduce the use of physical restraint in STCs””." We on the committee say that the amendment rules are ambiguous because ““good order and discipline”” is imprecise, broad and inherently subjective. Any confusion caused by the rules and the use of force can have tragic consequences, as we have seen. The Government insist that ““ensuring good order and discipline”” is not a catch-all phrase and that force must not be, "““used as a punishment or merely to secure compliance with staff instructions””." However, the committee heard evidence about force being used against boys who, for example, refused to go to bed. They were not causing any harm; they simply said that they were not going to go to bed. To use force against them seems to me and the committee to be excessive in the circumstances. The Government's response was to argue that the committee or others could not judge whether force was legitimate in such an example, "““without an understanding of all the circumstances in which it was made and of the establishment itself””," and that a continual refusal to go to bed might legitimise the decision to use force. My Lords, I beg to differ. A judicial review case was brought that challenged the new amendment rules. The Government will use the result of that to say that they are right and that the committee has gone too far in its criticisms; I am sure that that will be in the Minister’s brief. The court held that the rules are not legally uncertain, nor do they legitimise treatment which is in breach of Articles 3 or 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, it also stated: "““Whether conduct and/or treatment complained of in a future case is contrary to Articles 3 and/or 8 will depend on all the circumstances””." In other words, it may be legitimate to have these rules but the way in which they are given effect to may breach human rights. I could, although I shall not, go into greater detail about the court decision and its consequences. It is a matter of concern that the Government seem to be suggesting that it can be appropriate to use force in compliance with staff instructions. That goes against the code of practice of the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, and I think that the board is right. The rules were brought forward without any human rights impact assessment, which I suppose is legitimate. The committee called in its report and other reports for the Government to address human rights considerations in Explanatory Notes and Memoranda. The Government provide formal compatibility statements with affirmatives and super affirmatives but they say that to provide analysis for every statutory instrument would be onerous. I accept that analysing every SI might be onerous, but the committee recommends: "““Where secondary legislation raises significant human rights implications, we would expect to see sufficient analysis to facilitate effective parliamentary scrutiny””." I should like the Minister to ensure that officials communicate with committee staff with the aim of providing more human rights information on at least some SIs. I repeat that I am talking about SIs which have significant human rights implications, not the whole generality of subordinate legislation. Given that the Minister will himself or herself have to check that these things are human-rights compliant, it is not very much to ask that these matters should be reported publicly. I welcome the fact that the Government are meeting our recommendation to place in the Libraries of both Houses every six months detailed statistics about the number of restraint incidents. It was difficult for the committee to access this information during the inquiry; this will enable it to continue scrutinising the issue. Can the Minister suggest how Parliament can assess whether force is always being used legitimately? Can the detailed statistics promised to Parliament include a short commentary on the circumstances in which restraint was used, without going into too much detail about individual cases? It is regrettable that the Government will not place in the public domain the manual of constraint techniques. They say that that could be dangerous, but I am not sure that I follow their reasons. Surely having this information in the public domain would allow proper scrutiny and assessment of the physical controls to help to ensure that force did not turn into illegitimate violence. I believe that the Joint Committee on Human Rights has done a public service in producing the report and highlighting the needs of a small number of extremely vulnerable people. We believe that using violence against people who were subjected to violence before being put into detention can only breed violence. It can hardly lead to them coming out in a more peaceful and less violent frame of mind. The evidence shows that when young people come out of these centres, the likelihood of their reoffending is very high. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move. Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights on The Use of Restraint in Secure Training Centres (11th Report, HL Paper 65).—(Lord Dubs.)