The UK government’s consideration of expanding the use of PAVA spray – a chemical irritant legally used in adult prisons – into child establishments has ignited a contentious debate.
Aside from the scrutiny for its significant ethical and safety concerns, there’s a plausible argument and uncomfortable truth to be addressed here. Staff in these facilities are ill equipped and lack the necessary support and risk reduction measures to keep themselves safe – and therefore safeguard the vulnerable children in their care.
Adult establishments
The Howard League for Penal Reform argues that the use of PAVA spray in adult prisons has not achieved its intended goal of reducing violence but has instead damaged critical relationships between staff and inmates. Pilot assessments of PAVA use have revealed issues such as misuse and improper application and have raised concerns about its extension to environments with children who frequently experience physical interventions. The chief inspector of prisons Charlie Taylor has criticised the current system for not adequately teaching conflict and aggression management; a problem that some say could worsen with the introduction of PAVA.
Critics and legal professionals are divided. Some see introducing this new tool as a step in the wrong direction, contradicting movements toward banning pain compliance measures in secure settings. Following the successful implementation of the fabric wrist restraint alternative to metal cuffs – the “safety-cuff” – they argue that considering PAVA, legally classed as a section 5 firearm, is a step backwards.
PAVA is also positioned higher in the use of force hierarchy than pain compliance. The use of pain has the potential to be disguised or to go unreported as it’s harder to define and individually subjective as to which holds are actually less restrictive/painful. It could be argued that PAVA is a more straightforward use of force option – it’s either used, or it isn’t.
Other options
Officers facing violent situations across the secure estate have limited defensive options, and advocate for robust measures like PAVA to protect themselves. These attacks have included the use of weapons and multiple assailants attacking one another. It has been warned that without change, there is likely be a death. It must also be noted that a child applies to anyone up to the age of 18, however, there are many 19-year-olds in youth custody.
Mark Fairhurst, national chairman of the Prison Officers Association (POA), argues that officers have “nothing more than polo shirts” to protect themselves. Even some schools are implementing protective clothing as a non-aggressive alternative for physical protection.
There is an alternative to PAVA, which some people would favour due to the nature of its intended use. SOK (pronounced “soak”) is still an incapacitant spray but uses food and cosmetic grade chemicals with a recovery time of around five minutes, compared with PAVA with its capsicum-based chemicals, which has a recovery time of approximately 30 minutes.
The adoption of any new tools should be complemented by increasing staffing levels and improved environmental designs such as CCTV and body-worn cameras.
Ethical concerns
There are however arguments for alternative behaviour management techniques focusing on de-escalation, communication and conflict resolution, which delve into the roots of aggressive behaviour through therapeutic interventions rather than punitive approaches.
The potential expansion of PAVA spray use remains a deeply divisive issue. Although it offers a clear method to manage immediate threats, the broader implications for child welfare, ethical governance, and racial justice are profound.
Data shows that in adult establishments black people are more likely to be targeted by PAVA spray. The use of PAVA in youth custody establishments where there are a disproportionately high number of non-white young people, intensifies ethical concerns.
The ongoing debate underscores the necessity for a more integrated and compassionate approach to behaviour
management in youth custody, prioritising health and safety obligations.
Doug Melia is an international expert in the use of force and reducing restrictive practice.
