Which Way for Youth Custody?

 

Radical stuff from the Childrens Commissioner in her Longford Lecture this week- urging that Young Offender Institutions are closed now, that children aren’t remanded in custodial settings and that alternatives are developed even for those who commit the most serious offences.

Rachel de Souza is right that her message is politically inconvenient. But is it coherent in terms of policy?

I was surprised to read Rachel dismissing the Secure Schools initiative as a mere “tweak”. Despite current failings at Oasis Restore, replacing YOIs and the Secure Training Centre with more Secure Schools and Secure Childrens Homes has always looked a reasonable if ambitious long-term blueprint, despite its glacial progress so far. But it doesn’t satisfy Rachel’s desire for yet more fundamental change and the need to develop “genuine decent alternatives”.

The government response to the review on girls in custody also out this week illustrates the scale of the challenge of even modest reform to the system for this tiny group. Because as things stand a Secure Childrens Home can’t be required to accept every child referred to it, there’ll always be a need for a backstop form of custody to guarantee a court decision that a child should be detained can be implemented.

An enhanced protocol will see SCH’s working together to ensure more children deemed suitable for a placement can be accommodated in them. It’s a stretch to think that all of those currently held in YOI’s, mostly 16 and 17 years of age could easily be held safely in care-based facilities without significant investment not only in the number of places available but in staff capacity and regime development.

As for developing more wide-ranging alternatives to custody, it’s clear that the care sector is struggling to meet the needs of the children it’s already responsible for.  The  huge rise in the number of children deprived of their liberty by the High Court who can end up for months  in unregulated settings has in part been fuelled, according to the Nuffield Observatory, by the welcome falls in youth custody. Some children get locked up instead via the welfare system. The extent of what used to be called “transinstitutionalisation” needs further investigation.

Legal change and increased funding for open and secure residential care should bring down the numbers deprived of their liberty in this way over time. But the issue makes the case for a more integrated governmental approach to meeting the needs of all children in trouble. For example, by moving responsibility for youth justice to the Education Department. Or by broadening/reinventing the role of the Youth Justice Board. Without this, I can’t see Rachel’s radical vison taking root.

Also needed is proper consideration of the processes by which children end up behind bars. Neither the Gauke Sentencing Review nor Leveson’s Courts review looked at the effectiveness of arrangements for children. The interesting ideas for reforming the youth court in Charlie Taylor’s 2016 Youth Justice Review sit in some long grass somewhere in Whitehall. It’s time for a fresh look at these and other proposals for ensuring that decision-making about children in trouble across the board is appropriate to the task.  This is particularly true in respect of remand decision-making which is so often in Rachel’s memorable phrase “ a production line of pointlessness”

The Children’s Commissioner has opened up an important debate about how far and how fast we can go with youth justice reform. The disgraceful abuse faced by young men at Medomsley Detention Centre highlighted this week shows what can happen when punitive short sharp shock policies take hold in the justice system. Reform UK’s plan for “High Intensity Training Camps “has a worryingly familiar ring.

Labour has the opportunity, and many would say duty to chart an altogether more constructive course for youth justice.

More Questions than Answers on Fire Safety in Prisons

 

Prison fires and subsequent injuries remain of serious concern according to the recently published 2024-25 Annual Report of the Crown Premises Fire Safety Inspectorate (CPFSI). It’s a much more timely and useful publication than usual- the 2023-24 Report came out just four months ago- and it’s a troubling one.  

The latest update reveals that the 116 prisons in England saw 534 fire related injuries in the last financial year, 60 fewer than in 2023-4 but still three times more than occurred five years ago. Fire incidents have doubled over the last five years from 1308 to 2932.

The data in the Report, which includes all recorded fires, not only those where the Fire Service attends, shows double the rate of fires in private sector prisons than in public ones.

2,263 fires were recorded in the 101 public sector prisons – an average of 22.4 fires per prison. 669 fires were recorded at the 15 private jails, a rate of 44.6. The sectors are not directly comparable- for one thing there are 11 publicly run Open Prisons accommodating low risk prisoners and none in the private sector. It’s concerning to read that three private prisons accounted for more than 300 fires last year.

95% of prison fires are started deliberately with vapes responsible for causing more than two thirds of them. CPFSI is optimistic that a new Safer Vape Pen will prove a “significant advancement in prison safety” when it’s rolled out shortly. The device hasn’t been linked to any fires in the eight prisons where its being trialled.

But Young Offender Institutions for under 18s have also seen more fires in recent years although vapes aren’t available there. At Werrington and Wetherby misuse of electrical wiring was responsible for causing 97% of fires.

As the Report points out prisoners start fires for numerous reasons: challenging prison regimes, conflicts with other prisoners and staff and to inflict harm. It seems naïve to think new vape pens will eradicate prison fires altogether.  

Chief Inspector Peter Holland accepts that the figures in his Report clearly demonstrate the need for further concerted action to reduce the frequency and impact of fires. He says that 44% of prison cells still do not have suitable in cell fire detection. Presumably this is in line with  the Prison Service estimate of 21,000 cells failing to meet fire safety standards which was recently shared with MPs. The total number of actual cells (singles, doubles, and multi occupied rooms) in the system as a whole is not however clear -to me at any rate. 

I suggested that in their latest inquiry into the Ministry of Justice the Public Accounts Committee investigate the true extent of the fire safety challenge in prisons and the timescale over which HMPPS are looking to fix it.  They didn’t take up the suggestion so perhaps the Justice Committee should do so. It may not seem the highest priority just now, but issues like fire safety never are until they are.