Written evidence from Serenity Welfare (HCS0049)
1. General comments
1.1 Serenity Welfare welcomes the Human Rights (Joint Committee) inquiry into ‘Protecting human rights in care settings’. This submission addresses question 1 and 2 of the inquiry’s call for evidence.
2. About Serenity Welfare
2.1 Serenity Welfare is a uniquely integrated organisation that works with UK-wide local authorities, children’s charities, schools, alternative education providers, youth offending services and other healthcare professionals, to offer a comprehensive transportation and welfare service for vulnerable children and young adults, including those who are in or on the edge of care, 24-hours-a-day, seven days per week.
2.2 We provide safe, comfortable and secure transportation services to children aged between 10 and 17 across the UK, completing upwards of 200 journeys a year on average. We also offer 24/7 wrap around care, crisis intervention services, educational talks and presentations on gangs and county lines, and high-quality mentoring services.
2.3 This year, we launched our Hope instead of Handcuffs campaign. Our founder, Emily Aklan, decided to launch the campaign after being horrified to discover that children in or on the edge of care, some as young as 12-years-old, are often placed in handcuffs or subject to other forms of restraint by private transportation providers during secure transportation between care placements and other settings. To be clear, these children have not been involved, nor are suspected of being involved, in any criminal activity. We discuss the Hope instead of Handcuffs in more detail in our responses to the Committee’s call for evidence below.
3. Responses to questions
3.1 Children and young people who are in or on the edge of care often need to be transferred between care home placements, taken to school, hospital appointments, court appearances, or transported to other settings. Usually, this transport is arranged by the local authority or through contract arrangements with private transportation providers.
3.2 Most providers tasked with transporting these children have an official policy of only using handcuffs or restraint in exceptional circumstances. Yet many of these organisations train their staff to use restraint techniques against children, including head control and handcuffing. If a child who is deemed “high-risk” needs to be transported somewhere, they are automatically put in handcuffs or in caged vehicles similar to police vans. However, a child does not even need to be considered “high-risk” to be put in handcuffs: any child who displays signs of distress or upset risks being put in them or subject to other forms of restraint.
3.3 There are numerous reports of a deeply worrying prevalence of organisations and authorities handcuffing or restraining children, despite the practice being condemned by the Children’s Commissioner, the UN Committee Against Torture and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). A Ministry of Justice-sponsored report into juvenile restraint found that it is “intrinsically unsafe” and that “even where it does not end in physical injury, the experience and memory can be profoundly damaging psychologically”. We know that the use of restraint and handcuffs is a common feature of transporting children and young people in or on the edge of care, with some organisations advertising that they use handcuffs on their website. At Serenity Welfare, we can tell if a child has been handcuffed by other organisations from the marks left on their wrists.
3.4 Every child and young person has a right to be treated with respect and dignity. This human right is enshrined in Article 37 of the UNCRC, which also states that children have the right “not be punished in a cruel or hurtful way” and that their treatment should take into account their age and ability. Handcuffing innocent children during secure transportation violates this right, as it is extremely damaging to children, both physically and mentally. It is in no way a dignified way of treating these children, many of whom have too often already gone through a range of trauma, from domestic abuse to sexual exploitation to gang violence. These experiences have long-lasting, damaging impacts on these children, often making them disengaged from society. But this does not make them less worthy of compassionate care and the opportunities afforded to other children. Most importantly, their experiences do not make them criminals.
3.5 That is why the Hope instead of Handcuffs campaign, which is supported by MPs and peers from all major parties, is calling on the government to introduce vital new regulations to end the use of handcuffs against children who are in or on the edge of care during secure transportation, unless they represent an immediate danger to themselves or others and only if all other options have been exhausted. Positive behaviour support and other alternatives to de-escalate challenging behaviour should always be the preferred approach.
3.6 Central to our operation as an organisation is never to use handcuffs against children and we have a 100% success rate. Instead, our focus is always on non-violent de-escalation and mentoring as part of a humanistic and compassionate provision of care. We are licensed to use Maybo, an internationally renowned technique that allows us to understand a child’s psychological requirements and safely de-escalate emotionally charged situations. All of our staff members are also highly skilled in coaching and mentoring, meaning that if there is an incident of conflict or stress, our staff are able to diffuse the situation effectively, without the need for the use of force. We advocate for moving away from using restraint in the care system towards de-escalation, which is an effective method without being damaging to a child’s physical and mental wellbeing.
3.7 As outlined above, many providers of secure transportation services for children in or on the edge of care use handcuffs on innocent children. The practice is unregulated and unmonitored, as there is no obligation on these providers to report any instances of handcuffing to the appropriate authority.
3.8 Ofsted has no legal powers to inspect the practice of transportation providers. This is in contrast to inside children’s homes, where providers do need to report any instances of handcuffing or restraint to Ofsted. This data gap prevents us from having an empirical understanding of how widespread the use of restraint and handcuffs are during transportation, as well as monitoring whether the practice is increasing or decreasing – and why. A report published last December by the Children’s Commissioner in England stated that in 2019, restraint was used to overpower children around 6,300 times, which is a 16% increase from the previous year and the highest level in the last five years. If the use of restraint is increasing, it is likely that the use of handcuffs is too.
3.9 That is why the Hope instead of Handcuffs campaign is also calling on the government to mandate that all organisations involved in the transportation of children in or on the edge of care be legally obliged to report any instances of the restraining or handcuffing of children to the appropriate authority. This will, at the very least, enable us to monitor the practice, but will also help us to understand why handcuffs are being used and what changes need to be made to respond to these children’s needs in a way that is more humane and dignified. It will also increase accountability and in so doing, encourage providers to be more mindful and respectful of the human rights of the children in their care.
4. Additional remarks
4.1 We welcome the attention that restraint against children has gathered recently, with the Health and Social Care Select Committee recently looking at the use of restraint as part of its inquiry into children’s mental health. But we are concerned that the focus is usually on the use of restraint in health settings (as well as the youth justice system), rather than looking at the use of restraint in care settings. The House of Commons Education Select Committee is currently looking at children’s homes through an inquiry, but the Committee does not plan to look at the use of restraint in children’s homes or during transportation between children’s homes as part of this. Likewise, a summary of feedback received by the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care on its Case for Change report mentioned restraint as an issue raised by respondents, but only once and only in relation to the youth justice system. If we continue to miss these opportunities to address the use of restraint – and in particular, handcuffs – on innocent children in care settings, this harmful practice will continue to go on unchecked, to the detriment of these children’s wellbeing, dignity and human rights.
11/11/2021