Someone-
maybe President Lyndon Johnson -famously said that the first rule of politics is
to be able to count. This seems to have been lost on the UK Parliament’s Joint
Committee on Human Rights who earlier this month published an important report
on Youth detention: solitary confinement and restraint.
The report recommends
that the use of pain inducing techniques and solitary confinement of children
in detention should be banned because they cause physical distress and psychological
harm in both the short and longer term and are clearly not compliant with human
rights standards. So far so good, but
the report is far from clear about the children it considers to be in
detention.
The report’s
summary opens with the claim that “Around 2,500 children are detained by the
state in England and Wales at any one time.” When I saw it, I thought the
figure looked far too high and have now had a chance to look into it.
The
Committee reaches the 2,500 figures by adding together four basic types of
institution where they say children are detained. They are broadly correct that
900 children are detained in the Youth Secure Estate in relation to criminal
matters - Young Offender Institutions, Secure Training Centres and Secure
Children’s Homes. But the Committee is wrong to say that all of these are “under
custodial sentences for criminal convictions”. About a quarter are on remand.
The
Committee is also right that around 100 children are detained in Secure
Children’s Homes (SCHs) for welfare reasons (although its not clear that all of
these are aged 10-14 as the Committee claims)
It’s the
Committee’s figures on children with mental health issues and learning
disabilities which look seriously awry. On mental health, the Committee reports
that “around 1,200 children … are detained in Child and Adolescent Mental
Health Services (CAMHS) Tier 4 units, under the mental health legislation”. The source for the 1200 number is given as NHS England, 2017–18 NHS Benchmarking CAMHS Data. This is not publicly available data but the official responsible for it
has told me that she thinks there has been some mis-interpretation of it in the
Committee’s report as “We did not report data on detentions of children under
the Mental Health Act. We only collect data on CAMHS bed numbers and total
admissions to these (most of which will be on a voluntary basis, i.e. not detained)”.
The
Committee also reports that around 250 autistic children and children with
learning disabilities are detained in Assessment and Treatment Units (ATUs),
CAMHS units or other inpatient units, under the mental capacity legislation or
mental health legislation. This looks incorrect as well. It’s true that NHS data shows that at the end of October 2018 there were 250 inpatients under 18
with learning disabilities and/or autistic spectrum disorder receiving
inpatient care commissioned by the NHS in England. But it is very unlikely that
all of these were detained. The data shows that of the 2,350 inpatients of all ages
in care at the end of October 2018, 1,140 (48%) were in a secure ward.
A census undertaken by NHS England of young people in secure settings on 14 September 2016 which was published last year reported that 1,322 English young people were in secure units- 903 in the youth justice system, 107 for welfare reasons and 312 under the Mental Health Act. There is no mention of any children with autism and learning difficulties.
Maybe I’m nitpicking and what look like counting errors or definitional muddles do not detract from the report’s main conclusions. The Committee may take the view that their recommendations should apply not only to detained children but with even greater force to other children accommodated by the state. But then they should say so in clear terms.
A census undertaken by NHS England of young people in secure settings on 14 September 2016 which was published last year reported that 1,322 English young people were in secure units- 903 in the youth justice system, 107 for welfare reasons and 312 under the Mental Health Act. There is no mention of any children with autism and learning difficulties.
Maybe I’m nitpicking and what look like counting errors or definitional muddles do not detract from the report’s main conclusions. The Committee may take the view that their recommendations should apply not only to detained children but with even greater force to other children accommodated by the state. But then they should say so in clear terms.
Thanks very much Rob. It comes to something when a parliamentary committee can't get its basic facts right.
ReplyDelete