To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what injuries were incurred by boys held in (a) Ashford, (b) Bradford and (c) Castington Young Offenders Institution following use of control and restraint in each month in (i) 2006 and (ii) 2007.

[Official Report, 5 December 2007, Vol. 468, c. 1262-66W.]

Letter of correction from Maria Eagle:

An error has been identified in the table provided in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis) on 5 December 2007.

The prisoner at Castington described in the table as having sustained a fractured wrist in March 2007 actually sustained this injury on 12 April 2007. This has come to light following the recent publication of HMCIP’s inspection report of Castington, in which Anne Owers commented on the number of wrist injuries sustained at Castington.

I apologise for the error.

Young Offender Institutions: Per Capita Costs (167802)

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the average cost of providing a place in (a) a young offender institution for 18 to 21 year olds, (b) a young offender institution for 15 to 17 year olds and (c) a secure training centre for under 15 year olds was in the latest year for which figures are available.

[Official Report, 17 November 2008, Vol. 483, c. 24W.]

Letter of correction from Maria Eagle:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) on 17 November 2008 regarding the average annual cost of a place in a Secure Training Centre in 2007-08. I regret that our written answer gave an incorrect figure.

Our answer showed the cost of a place in a Secure Training Centre for 2007-08 as £191,618. However, this was mistakenly derived from data relating to a later period, and also contained a calculation error which further inflated the figure. The correct figure for the average annual cost of a Secure Training Centre place as at 1 April 2007 was £178,013. I apologise for this error.

Departmental Public Opinion (236050)

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how much his Department has spent on (a) focus groups and (b) opinion polls in each year since its inception; how much he estimates will be spent on each category in 2008-09; and if he will make a statement.

[Official Report, 26 November 2008, Vol. 483, c. 1665-70W.]

Letter of correction from Jack Straw:

Errors have been identified in the parliamentary question tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) in November 2008 requesting information about expenditure on focus groups and opinion polls.

Unfortunately, the answer supplied included projects required which do not fall within the Ministry's definition of opinion polls. Opinion polls are surveys of a representative sample of the public where the primary focus is to gather information about their opinions on matters of public interest including the efficacy of government policies. It does not include other types of social research or consultation where the primary focus is gathering of information on individual's experiences including those of government policies, even if they are quantitative.

When checking the data provided in the response in our reply against similar information requested in a more recent PQ this point was noted. Revised figures are now contained in the reply and tables.

The correct answer should have been: (239037)

Between May 2007 and November 2008 the Ministry of Justice spent around £524,000 on focus groups, and £158,000 on opinion polls. The following table provides details of focus groups and opinion polls carried out by the Ministry of Justice since inception in 2007, and the estimates for such in 2008-09 as at November 2008.

Prisons: Explosives

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many (a) suspected and (b) viable explosive devices or components have been found in each prison in England and Wales in each of the last 12 years for which figures are available.

[Official Report, 1 June 2009, Vol. 493, c. 83-89W.]

Letter of correction from Maria Eagle:

Errors have been identified in the tables provided in the written answer given to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) on 1 June 2009 regarding suspected and viable explosive devices or components in prisons. It has come to my attention that the information given for one prison, HMP Parc, in two of the 12 years was incorrect due to a problem in the way the prison had recorded these incidents.

The Prison Service have confirmed that the correct figure for a viable explosive device or components in HMP Parc in the years 2004-05 and 2008-09 should have been recorded as a nil return instead of one viable device in each of the two years. These two reported viable incidents should have been placed in the “suspected” column of the two tables. This means that for 2004-05 there were four suspect and no viable devices at HMP Parc instead of three and one respectively. In 2008-09 there was one suspected device and no viable device at HMP Parc instead of one viable device and no suspect device.

The answer has been amended to reflect the changes and is as follows. All the other figures given in the answer have been re-checked and are accurate. A copy of this letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

I apologise for this error.

The correct entries are as follows:

Young Offenders: Restraint Techniques (275142)

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many incidents of (a) restrictive physical intervention (RPI) and (b) removal from association were recorded in respect of those held in each institution in the juvenile secure estate in each month between January 2007 and the latest month for which figures are available; and what the ratio was of (i) RPIs and (ii) removals from association to the number of children and young people in each such institution in each such month.

[Official Report, 16 June 2009, Vol. 494, c. 271-72W.]

Letter of correction from Maria Eagle:

Errors have been identified in the tables provided in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) on 16 June 2009.

Two parliamentary questions tabled earlier this month requested the following information:

how many incidents of (a) restrictive physical intervention (RPI) and (b) removal from association were recorded in respect of those held in each institution in the juvenile secure estate in each month between January 2007 and the latest month for which figures are available; and what the ratio was of (i) RPIs and (ii) removals from association to the number of children and young people in each such institution in each such month; [278239]

on how many occasions (a) nose, rib and thumb distraction and (b) pain compliant techniques were used on those of each (i) sex, (ii) age group and (iii) ethnic group (A) with and (B) without a disability in each institution in the juvenile secure estate in each month between January 2007 and the most recent month for which figures are available. [278240]

Both of these answers contained data which was provided by the Youth Justice Board. When checking the data provided in the response to PQ 278239 against similar information requested under the Freedom of Information Act, it was found that the tables referred to in the response published on 16 June 2009 contained a number of errors. I asked officials at the Youth Justice Board to recheck the statistical information which had been provided for the answers to the other questions that you tabled this month, and it was found that the tables provided in the response to PQ 278240 published on 16 June 2009 also contained a number of errors. Revised figures are now contained in the tables published with the ministerial correction to PQ 278240.

I apologise for these errors and would like to assure you that I am taking action to address the issue. I will place a copy of this letter and the tables in the House Libraries. I will also ask Table Office to allow a copy of the letter to be published in the correction section of the Official Report.

The correct answer should have been: (278239)

Restraint is only ever to be used by staff as a last resort, when all other approaches have either not succeeded or would not be appropriate.

Because of unruly and sometimes dangerous behaviour, there are occasions on which use of physical restraint is unavoidable. The interests and safety of everyone in the establishment must be considered. Other young people, staff and visitors' safety, as well as that of the young person whose behaviour is causing problems have to be taken into account.

The data contained in the tables have been supplied by the Youth Justice Board. Table A contains data on the number of restrictive physical interventions (RPIs) from April 2007 to March 2009. It is not possible to provide earlier details as comparable statistics across the under-18 secure estate have only been available since April 2007.

Table B contains data for the same period on the number of single separation incidents at secure training centres (STCs) and secure children's homes (SCHs). It is not possible to provide comparable data for young offender institutions (YOIs) as it is not collected centrally and could not be provided without disproportionate cost.

Table C contains data on the ratio of RPIs to the number of young persons in YOIs, STCs, and SCHs. Table D contains data on the ratio of single separation incidents to the number of young persons in STCs and SCHs.

Tables A to D have been placed in the Library.

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice on how many occasions (a) nose, rib and thumb distraction and (b) pain compliant techniques were used on those of each (i) sex, (ii) age group and (iii) ethnic group (A) with and (B) without a disability in each institution in the juvenile secure estate in each month between January 2007 and the most recent month for which figures are available.

[Official Report, 16 June 2009, Vol. 494, c. 272-78W.]

Letter of correction from Maria Eagle:

Errors have been identified in the tables provided in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) on 16 June 2009.

Two parliamentary questions tabled earlier this month requested the following information:

how many incidents of (a) restrictive physical intervention (RPI) and (b) removal from association were recorded in respect of those held in each institution in the juvenile secure estate in each month between January 2007 and the latest month for which figures are available; and what the ratio was of (i) RPIs and (ii) removals from association to the number of children and young people in each such institution in each such month; [278239]

on how many occasions (a) nose, rib and thumb distraction and (b) pain compliant techniques were used on those of each (i) sex, (ii) age group and (iii) ethnic group (A) with and (B) without a disability in each institution in the juvenile secure estate in each month between January 2007 and the most recent month for which figures are available. [278240]

Both of these answers contained data which was provided by the Youth Justice Board. When checking the data provided in the response to PQ 278239 against similar information requested under the Freedom of Information Act, it was found that the tables referred to in the response published on 16 June 2009 contained a number of errors. I asked officials at the Youth Justice Board to recheck the statistical information which had been provided for the answers to the other questions that you tabled this month, and it was found that the tables provided in the response to PQ 278240 published on 16 June 2009 also contained a number of errors. Revised figures are now contained in the following tables.

I apologise for these errors and would like to assure you that I am taking action to address the issue. I will place a copy of this letter and the tables in the House Libraries. I will also ask Table Office to allow a copy of the letter to be published in the correction section of the Official Report.

The correct answer should have been: (278240)

The following tables provide data supplied by the Youth Justice Board (YJB) which relate to secure training centres. Data for young offender institutions and secure children's homes are not collected centrally and cannot be provided without disproportionate cost.

YJB's code of practice makes it very clear that restraint is not to be used except as a last resort, when other approaches have not succeeded or would not be appropriate.

The independent Review of Restraint in Juvenile Secure Settings, which was published together with the Government's response on 15 December 2008, made important recommendations about improving practice and making sure restraint is used as sparingly as possible. The Government and the Youth Justice Board are working together to implement those recommendations.

Secure training centres currently use an approved system of restraint known as Physical Control in Care (PCC), which includes the rib and thumb distraction techniques. It formerly also included the nose distraction technique: use of this was discontinued in November 2007 in the light of some concerns about its suitability voiced by a panel of medical experts commissioned to review the PCC techniques.

The data provided show the use of nose, rib and thumb distraction techniques in secure training centres during the period January 2007 to March 2009. Information on the age, sex and ethnic origin of the young person restrained has been collected centrally by the YJB since April 2008. Data relating to disability are not collected centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

Table A analyses the data by type of distraction technique; Table B by sex; Table C by age; and Table D by ethnic group.