---

Secure Training Centres: Use of Restraint (JCHR Report)

My Lords, I, too, join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for initiating this important debate. If my reply is on the short side, it is only because I share so much of the sentiments articulated by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner. This is a very sensitive and sometimes distressing area of the criminal justice system, but that is all the more reason why we should deal with it in a careful and thoughtful way. The Joint Committee has produced its report, which can be added to the growing list of reports that have dealt with youth justice. Of course, we have the anchor document of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in his inquiry on behalf of the Howard League and I share the concern of several noble Lords that we await the very long delayed government response to that. That inquiry, and the subsequent rule changes, followed the death of a young man, Gareth Wyatt, in circumstances involving the use of restraint. This important area deserves the full attention all of us in Parliament, because failure can have such tragic consequences. We have been reminded that secure training centres were set up to accommodate young offenders between the ages of 12 and 17 who were too young or too vulnerable to be in young offender institutions run by the Prison Service. As ever, a fine balance must be struck. It is a sad reality that staff in secure training centres are sometimes confronted with a risk or threat of violence from those whom they are charged to oversee, which always must be borne in mind when criticising the service. They are compelled to maintain a certain standard of behaviour and discipline among a group of offenders, who in many cases are very disturbed characters On the secure training centres, it is a salutary thought that England and Wales—Scotland is excluded because it does not have secure training centres—is just about the only jurisdiction in Europe which employs restraint by force in this way. The staff in these centres are, by and large, underpaid and, even more seriously, under-trained. It is the view of bodies such as the Howard League that restraint should be used only in exceptional circumstances where all else has failed and that there should be an on-the-spot inquiry after each incident. One of the more radical suggestions in the report from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, was that the child—I emphasise the word ““child””, although the Government persist in calling them trainees—should be involved in the inquiry. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds referred to that when he talked about restitution. I also share the concern that the guidelines for the use of restraint are not published. I shall be very interested to hear the Minister’s response to that. Obviously, with the volume of occasions on which restraint is customarily used, it is not possible to implement suggestions that there should be an inquiry every time. The committee was extremely critical of the Government’s attitude to the report. It contended that the Minister appeared to distinguish between the use of force or restraint and the application of violence, which has been the subject around the House today. It pointed out that no such distinction features in human rights law and, while the Government do not sanction violence against children, that is exactly what current legislation permits. The committee found that the Government suggested in their response that they are not obliged to comply with the general comments of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, but simply with the convention. That is not satisfactory. It is messy. Strictly speaking that it is true, but it ill behoves this country to be seen to be complying with our obligations so grudgingly. We should be concerned about applying the most rigorous standards, not about getting away with the barest minimum. I hope that the Minister will feel able to expand on that point. The committee also raised concerns about the use of the term, "““to ensure good order and discipline””," in the rules. This term appeared in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, it was absent from the 1998 rules, but has made a reappearance in the 2007 rules. The Joint Committee criticised this phrase as, "““imprecise, over-broad and inherently subjective””," and its view will increase confusion rather than clarify what is allowed. Can the Minister explain why that term was not considered appropriate to be included in the 1998 rules? If the Government are so sure that it is now necessary, I hope that they will take careful note of the committee’s comments. I shall be interested to hear from the Minister exactly what he proposes to do about that. I want also to ask him whether the circumstances in any of the four training centres since the rules came into force have required the restraint to be used to maintain ““good order and discipline””. If so, how many times? Is he in a position to tell the House whether these situations could have been properly resolved under the pre-2007 rules? I end by quoting the further observations of the committee in referring to the phrase ““good order and discipline””: "““Far from achieving clarity about the circumstances in which physical restraint can be used on a child, as recommended by the coroner in the Rickwood case, instead it brings confusion””." I shall be very interested to hear the Minister’s comments.