Government to push ahead with use of force to maintain secure college discipline

In its consultation on the rules that will govern secure colleges, the government has outlined the circumstances in which it believes force should be used. As well as its use in preventing injury, escape or damage to property, it also proposes that force be used to maintain good order and discipline.

The move has been taken by the government despite a 2008 Court of Appeal ruling that use of force to ensure good order and discipline violated the European Convention on Human Rights.

Currently, force to maintain discipline and order is not used in the secure youth estate but its use in other circumstances is rising. According to latest Ministry of Justice figures, the number of restraints per 100 young offenders rose by two per cent between 2011/12 and 2012/13.

Andrew Neilson, director of campaigns at the Howard League for Penal Reform, has criticised the proposals.

He said: “By reintroducing good order and discipline into the proposed secure college rules, the government is in danger of reversing years of progress and taking us back to the dark days when a child like Gareth Myatt could die after being restrained for refusing to clean a toaster.”

In 2004, 15-year-old Gareth Myatt died while being restrained by staff at the Rainsbrook secure training centre in Northamptonshire.

Other proposals outlined in the consultation are for young people to have a minimum of 30 hours a week of educational activities and a requirement that each is assessed when they enter custody and taught according to an individual learning plan. In addition, the government says boys and girls will be accommodated separately.

Also proposed is considerable freedom for each college over hiring of staff, with secure college principals free to recruit teaching staff without Qualified Teaching Status (QTS).

Other measures put forward are for young inmates to have a healthcare check within two hours of arrival. Before they are locked in their room on the first night they should also be offered food, drink, the option of a shower and provided with suitable clothing.

But Neilsen believes conflicts between the college’s joint roles as prison and school are inevitable.

He said: “Ministers may like to describe this as a school, not a prison, but in practice it will be both and there are inherent conflicts between both models – conflicts that will always be won out by the institution’s role as a prison and concerns around security.”

He is also concerned the secure college’s focus on education will make it harder for it to address the often complex problems young offenders have.

“It is unclear how the government expects children who have been failed by large educational establishments in the community to be somehow be helped by a large school which is also a prison. Ultimately there are serious welfare needs that must be addressed and poor educational outcomes are often a symptom of these. This is why we think the focus on education ahead of a broader approach will fail,” Neilsen added.

The first "pathfinder" secure college is set to be introduced in 2017 at Glen Parva young offender institution in the East Midlands and if successful could be rolled out across the secure youth estate in England and Wales. The search for a provider to run this first secure college will begin early next year.

The consultation closes on November 27.