Asked by: Emma Lewell-Buck (Labour - South Shields)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the oral contribution of the Minister of State for Justice during the debate on the Victims and Prisoners Bill of 4 December 2023, Official Report, column 138, when his Department plans to start a public consultation.
Answered by Mike Freer - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Government is committed to ensuring that the bereaved remain at the heart of the inquest process. We are therefore entirely sympathetic to the Hon Member’s campaign to establish a role for the bereaved in the registration of their loved one’s death following an inquest.
However, this is a sensitive and complex issue, and it is important that we identify the most appropriate solution, particularly in light of the provisions contained within the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill and the move towards an electronic register.
To support consideration of that solution, we will as the Minister of State for Justice, the Rt Hon Edward Argar MP, announced on 4 December (Hansard, column 138), be undertaking a full public consultation to gather the widest possible range of views. We aim to launch this consultation as soon as practicable in 2024.
Asked by: Emma Lewell-Buck (Labour - South Shields)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department has plans to allow historical sexual abuse victims to have a character witness during trial.
Answered by Rachel Maclean
The Department does not currently have any plans to allow historical sexual abuse victims to have a character witness during trial. In criminal trials, including those involving accusations of historical sexual abuse, rules of evidence do not permit the admission of evidence of the good character of a prosecution witness in order to bolster their credibility, even when they are the complainant.
Asked by: Emma Lewell-Buck (Labour - South Shields)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 15 April to Question 179142 on Young Offender Institutions: Restraint Techniques, if he will publish the (a) terms of reference and (b) names of panel members of the independent restraint and behaviour panel established by the Youth Custody Service; and what (i) criteria and (ii) selection process was used to appoint those members.
Answered by Alex Chalk - Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice
The terms of reference for the Youth Custody Service Independent Restraint Review Panel are attached. In order to provide the names of the panel members, we would need to obtain individuals’ permission, and therefore I will write to the Honourable Member once this has been received.
An application has been made by the Ministry of Justice Appointments Team for the Chair to be a direct appointment, subject to ministerial approval, who will lead on the application process for subsequent appointments. The terms of reference have been agreed and signed off by the current panel. A meeting is held fortnightly to review progress.
Asked by: Emma Lewell-Buck (Labour - South Shields)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the recommendations of Charlie Taylor's review into the use of pain-inducing restraint in the youth secure estate, what steps his Department has taken to ensure that (a) the Minimising and Managing Physical Restraint syllabus does not train escorts to secure training centres and secure children's homes in pain-inducing restraint techniques, (b) escort staff are not allowed to use restraint on children for good order and discipline and (c) escorts taking children to and from young offender institutions are trained in Minimising and Managing Physical Restraint.
Answered by Alex Chalk - Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice
Following Charlie Taylor’s review into the use of pain-inducing techniques the Ministry of Justice responded to all recommendations in June 2020. It remains the case that restraint should only be used where there is no other suitable alternative. In the first instance, the approach should always be to use behaviour management techniques that focus on de-escalation and diversion. In cases where restraint is used, it must always be necessary, proportionate and in accordance with the law.
To improve the monitoring of these instances, the Youth Custody Service established the independent restraint and behaviour panel in December 2020 as a multi-sector partnership with members providing independent and expert scrutiny on the use of pain-inducing techniques in establishments. The panel who reports to Ministers on a quarterly basis, reviews the use of pain-inducing techniques at a single youth secure establishment each month (rotating the establishment monthly) and then supports the establishment with actions focussed on the reduction of use.
The Ministry of Justice committed to removing pain-inducing techniques from the Minimising and Managing Physical Restraint (MMPR) syllabus in June 2020. Since then, the Youth Custody Service has been working on developing and implementing training to ensure that the revised syllabus is rolled out later this summer through the training of all staff. The use of pain-inducing techniques will be taught separately, for use as a last resort to prevent serious harm to a child or adult, in line with Recommendation 9.
Escorts transferring children to and from Secure Training Centre’s, Secure Children Homes and Young Offending Institutions have all received training in the MMPR syllabus which no longer includes training on pain-inducing techniques. The department is currently reviewing the policy in line with recommendation 14.
Asked by: Emma Lewell-Buck (Labour - South Shields)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the recommendation of Charlie Taylor's review into the use of pain-inducing restraint in the youth secure estate, what steps his Department has taken to remove pain-inducing techniques from the Minimising and Managing Physical Restraint syllabus.
Answered by Alex Chalk - Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice
Following Charlie Taylor’s review into the use of pain-inducing techniques the Ministry of Justice responded to all recommendations in June 2020. It remains the case that restraint should only be used where there is no other suitable alternative. In the first instance, the approach should always be to use behaviour management techniques that focus on de-escalation and diversion. In cases where restraint is used, it must always be necessary, proportionate and in accordance with the law.
To improve the monitoring of these instances, the Youth Custody Service established the independent restraint and behaviour panel in December 2020 as a multi-sector partnership with members providing independent and expert scrutiny on the use of pain-inducing techniques in establishments. The panel who reports to Ministers on a quarterly basis, reviews the use of pain-inducing techniques at a single youth secure establishment each month (rotating the establishment monthly) and then supports the establishment with actions focussed on the reduction of use.
The Ministry of Justice committed to removing pain-inducing techniques from the Minimising and Managing Physical Restraint (MMPR) syllabus in June 2020. Since then, the Youth Custody Service has been working on developing and implementing training to ensure that the revised syllabus is rolled out later this summer through the training of all staff. The use of pain-inducing techniques will be taught separately, for use as a last resort to prevent serious harm to a child or adult, in line with Recommendation 9.
Escorts transferring children to and from Secure Training Centre’s, Secure Children Homes and Young Offending Institutions have all received training in the MMPR syllabus which no longer includes training on pain-inducing techniques. The department is currently reviewing the policy in line with recommendation 14.
Asked by: Emma Lewell-Buck (Labour - South Shields)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the recommendation of Charlie Taylor's review into the use of pain-inducing restraint in the youth secure estate, what steps his Department has taken to establish an independent restraint and behaviour panel.
Answered by Alex Chalk - Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice
Following Charlie Taylor’s review into the use of pain-inducing techniques the Ministry of Justice responded to all recommendations in June 2020. It remains the case that restraint should only be used where there is no other suitable alternative. In the first instance, the approach should always be to use behaviour management techniques that focus on de-escalation and diversion. In cases where restraint is used, it must always be necessary, proportionate and in accordance with the law.
To improve the monitoring of these instances, the Youth Custody Service established the independent restraint and behaviour panel in December 2020 as a multi-sector partnership with members providing independent and expert scrutiny on the use of pain-inducing techniques in establishments. The panel who reports to Ministers on a quarterly basis, reviews the use of pain-inducing techniques at a single youth secure establishment each month (rotating the establishment monthly) and then supports the establishment with actions focussed on the reduction of use.
The Ministry of Justice committed to removing pain-inducing techniques from the Minimising and Managing Physical Restraint (MMPR) syllabus in June 2020. Since then, the Youth Custody Service has been working on developing and implementing training to ensure that the revised syllabus is rolled out later this summer through the training of all staff. The use of pain-inducing techniques will be taught separately, for use as a last resort to prevent serious harm to a child or adult, in line with Recommendation 9.
Escorts transferring children to and from Secure Training Centre’s, Secure Children Homes and Young Offending Institutions have all received training in the MMPR syllabus which no longer includes training on pain-inducing techniques. The department is currently reviewing the policy in line with recommendation 14.
Asked by: Emma Lewell-Buck (Labour - South Shields)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to clause 138 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, whether providers running secure 16 to 19 academies will be required to follow The Children’s Homes (England) Regulations 2015.
Answered by Alex Chalk - Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice
Secure 16 to 19 academies will be a new form of 16 to 19 academy and secure children’s home combined, legislation for both these entities will form the statutory basis for secure schools. They will require approval by the Secretary of State to provide secure accommodation and by Ofsted to register as children’s homes. Providers will therefore be required to apply to Ofsted for registration as children’s homes. As secure children’s homes, they will be subject to the Children’s Home (England) Regulations 2015.
Asked by: Emma Lewell-Buck (Labour - South Shields)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to clause 138 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, whether providers running secure 16 to 19 academies will be required to apply to Ofsted to register those establishments as children’s homes.
Answered by Alex Chalk - Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice
Secure 16 to 19 academies will be a new form of 16 to 19 academy and secure children’s home combined, legislation for both these entities will form the statutory basis for secure schools. They will require approval by the Secretary of State to provide secure accommodation and by Ofsted to register as children’s homes. Providers will therefore be required to apply to Ofsted for registration as children’s homes. As secure children’s homes, they will be subject to the Children’s Home (England) Regulations 2015.
Asked by: Emma Lewell-Buck (Labour - South Shields)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many children were in solitary confinement in (a) young offender institutions and (b) secure residential homes in England over the Christmas 2020 period.
Answered by Lucy Frazer - Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
Youth Custody Service (YCS) is committed to ensuring that every child in its care receives meaningful contact with staff and partner agencies throughout the course of every day.
YCS does not centrally collect individual child level data on the number of hours children have been in their rooms per day. YCS does collect management information on the average time out of room (TOOR) from the under 18 Young Offender Institutions (YOIs).
Asked by: Emma Lewell-Buck (Labour - South Shields)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many prosecutions for the offence of sexual assault by penetration under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 were made in cases where the victim had experienced county lines exploitation in each year since 2015.
Answered by Alex Chalk - Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice
The Government recognises the devastating impact of county lines activity on children and vulnerable people which can include both sexual and criminal exploitation. Prosecutions data involving offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 held centrally by the MoJ does not include such detailed information about the victim to indicate whether they had been a victim of county lines exploitation previously. This information may be held on court record, however to identify it would require access to detailed court records and transcripts, which would incur disproportionate cost.
However, the Ministry of Justice has published information on prosecutions, up to December 2019, for the following offences: ‘Sexual assault on a female – penetration’, ‘Sexual assault on a male – penetration’, Sexual assault of a male child under 13 - penetration’, ‘Sexual assault of a female child under 13 – penetration’ and ‘Causing sexual activity without consent – penetration’. These are available in the Outcomes by Offence data tool: