Lord Campbell-Savours

The Prime Minister’s letter to the CEO of the Restoration and Renewal Delivery Authority and the CEO of the R&R Sponsor Body, which requests that it give consideration to decant locations outside of London, were deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 15 July. This letter is also publicly available on the parliamentary website.

The Government is keen to ensure the R&R of the Palace of Westminster delivers best value for money and would like the Sponsor Body to advise Parliament regarding a range of options as part of this process. As per the principle of exclusive cognisance, the location of Parliament is a matter for Parliament itself.

The Senior Deputy Speaker has asked me, as Chair of the Services Committee, to respond on his behalf. Trimble Manhattan Space Scheduling (Trimble) are engaged by Parliament to provide room booking software utilised by the Attendants office in managing meeting and committee rooms.

This contract has been held by the Parliamentary Digital Service (PDS) since 1 August 2012 and to date £95,536 has been spent. It is due to expire on 28 December 2020 and no further spend is expected on this contract.

Spend over the last four years with Trimble:

Financial Year 2016/17 spend - £0;

Financial Year 2017/18 spend - £23,868 (PDS);

Financial Year 2018/19 spend - £11,506 (PDS);

Financial Year 2019/20 spend - £7,956 (PDS).

The only parliamentary contract awarded to Trimble in the last four years is held by the Commons Northern Estate Programme (NEP).

A candidate does not have to report evidence of their disability in order to use the exemption brought forward by The Police and Crime Commissioner Elections (Amendment) Order 2020. This upholds the confidentiality of the candidate and is consistent with disability exemptions in place for elections across the UK, including UK Parliamentary general elections.

A candidate will need to make an assessment as to whether their disability meets the definition of disability provided in the 2020 Order. This uses the definition of disability contained within the 2010 Equality Act. There is also statutory guidance available on the meaning of disability under the Equality Act which should help candidates undertake this assessment.

All Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) are subject to mid-year and annual performance reviews that consider areas of governance, delivery performance, and strategic impact. The York and North Yorkshire (YNY) LEP was considered to have met the requirements in all three areas following its 2020-21 annual performance review. The delivery assessment took account of YNY LEP’s overall performance in delivering its Local Growth and Getting Building Fund programmes, including progress on the delivery of Askham Bryan projects being funded from these programmes.

In order to provide assurance on the robust stewardship of public funds and to meet governance performance requirements, LEPs are required to develop a local assurance framework that meets the mandatory governance, accountability, and transparency requirements set out in the National Local Growth Assurance Framework.

In so doing, LEPs must put in place appropriate data protection arrangements in line with the Data Protection Act 1998, the General Data Protection Requirements (GDPR), and the Data Protection Act 2018. YNY LEP is the data controller for data they collect including any relating to Askham Bryan College. The LEP should ensure it follows the appropriate procedures and that internal processes are compliant with the legislation.

LEPs are also required to have a legal personality and must abide by the laws and regulations that apply to the legal entity they adopt. YNY LEP is a private company limited by guarantee without share capital.

The then York, North Yorkshire, and East Riding (YNYER) Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) received local growth funding of £145.9m awarded in three rounds, announced in July 2014, January 2015, and January 2017. The funds were to be spent between financial years 2015-16 and 2020-21.

Funding awards were based on consideration of local Strategic Economic Plans (SEPs), developed by each LEP. Creating skilled and inspired people was a priority in the YNYER SEP and local growth funding supported investment in agri-tech and land-based engineering facilities at Askham Bryan College, as well as a digital farm hub at the College.

A condition of local growth funding allocations to LEPs was that all projects were subject to business cases that met an agreed local Assurance Framework including representing value for money to the taxpayer, being deliverable, and having a strong strategic fit. All LEP investments and investment decisions are publicly available on LEP websites, as the Assurance Framework requires.

In 2020, the Government announced the £900 million Getting Building Fund (GBF) to deliver jobs, skills, and infrastructure across the country. LEPs and Mayors were invited to propose shovel-ready infrastructure projects that would boost economic growth, and fuel local recovery and jobs. Funding awards were based on a consideration of the strategic fit and deliverability of each project. The £15.4m GBF award for the geographically reformed York and North Yorkshire LEP included support for a Digital Skills Academy at Askham Bryan College, again subject to a business case meeting the requirements of the LEP’s local assurance framework as outlined above.

The rules for provision of information by Local Enterprise Partnerships on their allocations to grant and loan applicants are set out in the National Local Growth Assurance Framework, which was published in January 2019.

This Framework provides the Department, Government, stakeholders and the public with the necessary assurances that LEPs have the policies and processes in place to ensure the robust stewardship of public funds. Specifically, it requires LEPs to publish bids and undertake a clear process of recording decisions reached and communicating these in a timely fashion to the applicant.

The UK Government has secured early access to 457 million vaccines doses through agreements with eight separate vaccine developers. This includes agreements with BioNTech/Pfizer, University of Oxford/AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline/Sanofi Pasteur, Novavax, Janssen, Valneva, Moderna and CureVac.

In addition to the above, we have also funded fill and finish capability through a contract with Wockhardt in Wrexham, North Wales, as well as the expansion of the Valneva factory in Livingston, Scotland.

We have been monitoring the requirements across the supply chain from supplier through to patient for some time. There are clear supply chain plans in place for both the supply and onward deployment of all vaccine candidates. This includes materials, manufacturing, transportation, storage and distribution.

Vaccines and vials are a precious resource in very high demand across the world and therefore for security reasons it is not possible to provide detail about the size of our supplies and exact detail about future deliveries. It should be noted that the UK has a sufficient number of glass vials available, due to orders already placed.

Askham Bryan College’s application for capital funds to support the development of a calf and grower teaching building for cattle was included in the Yorkshire and Humber Institute of Technology proposal which was submitted on 21 November 2018.

The Yorkshire and Humber Institute of Technology proposal was approved on 7 November 2019.

Within the Yorkshire and Humber Institute of Technology proposal, Askham Bryan College were approved to receive £1,746,448 capital funds.

Askham Bryan College have been paid £489,880 to date. The balance of funding, £1,256,568, is due to be paid in this financial year (2021/22).

The Further Education Commissioner and the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) carried out a comprehensive analysis of local provision needs for Newton Rigg and the surrounding area in 2020. The core objective of this analysis was to establish if there was a need for college provision within the general vicinity of the Newton Rigg campus. It considered the location of neighbouring further education (FE) colleges in relation to travel to learn options and identified that most enrolments could be accommodated at other statutory FE institutions.

In total, 286 16 to 18 year-old students were enrolled onto land based further education courses at Newton Rigg, of which 70 were in residential accommodation. Where gaps in provision were identified, specifically agricultural provision, alternative arrangements for the next academic year have been agreed with Myerscough College in partnership with Ullswater Community College to ensure continuity of delivery of this provision in the Penrith area after Newton Rigg closes.

Both the Further Education Commissioner and the ESFA continue to have regular meetings with the senior leadership team at Askham Bryan College, and this includes, but is not exclusively related to, matters concerning the closure of Newton Rigg Campus.

During the analysis of local provision needs and subsequently the strategic review, the Further Education Commissioner, with support from the ESFA, has engaged with a significant number of stakeholders who had an interest in Newton Rigg, the implications of its proposed closure and the delivery of FE, including land-based provision within Cumbria. This included Cumbria County Council, Eden District Council, Cumbria Local Enterprise Partnership, all statutory FE colleges located within Cumbria, Scotland’s Rural College, the University of Cumbria, University of Central Lancashire, Lancaster University, National Farmers Union, Friends of Newton Rigg, current and former governors of Askham Bryan College and a range of industry stakeholders.

The strategic review commenced in July 2020 and completed in February 2021. This review engaged with local interested parties and all the educational institutions identified above to ascertain interest and options available to maintain specialist provision at the Newton Rigg campus. No suitable alternative solution was identified to maintain education provision at that site.

Following the decision by the University of Cumbria in 2010, to cease delivering the provision of further education funded by the Skills Funding Agency and the Young People’s Learning Agency, the Skills Funding Agency led an open and competitive procurement process, in accordance with Part B of Schedule 3 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2006, to secure an alternative provider or providers for the delivery of arts provision in Carlisle and predominately land-based provision at Newton Rigg. As a result of this competition, the funding for students studying further education at the University’s Brampton Road building was transferred to Carlisle College, and the funding for students studying further education at Newton Rigg, together with the further education assets at Newton Rigg, was transferred to Askham Bryan College. The procurement was subject to a review by Cabinet Office in 2011 and its findings have been published on gov.uk and are attached.

The successor organisation to the Skills Funding Agency, the Education and Skills Funding Agency now procure provision in accordance with the requirements of the Public Contracts Regulations, 2015. In some circumstances, for example the provision of education and training for young people, separate arrangements apply, but processes and procedures are fair and transparent. Where this applies, we use a mix of local negotiation and tendering appropriate to the circumstances in each case.

The government has no plans to publish documents concerning the funding and transfer of assets and land relating to the University of Cumbria’s acquisition of Newton Rigg College in 2007.

Askham Bryan College’s primary relationship with government is with the department and its executive agency, the Education and Skills Funding Agency. The department has overall responsibility for policies relating to the delivery of further education and higher education which are provided by Askham Bryan College.

On 8 April 2021, we published our response to the call for evidence on the need for standards for bio-based, biodegradable and compostable plastics: www.gov.uk/government/consultations/standards-for-biodegradable-compostable-and-bio-based-plastics-call-for-evidence.

While neither a specific assessment of oxo-biodegradable plastic sheeting used by farmers, nor an assessment comparing bio-based resin from starch and lactic acid in biodegradable products used in agriculture to oxo-biodegradable plastics has been made, the aforementioned call for evidence covered oxo-biodegradable plastics.

The Government response acknowledges that there is currently insufficient evidence demonstrating that oxo-biodegradable plastics perform as claimed and biodegrade, without residue, in a reasonable timeframe in the open environment. We continue to monitor the latest developments and evidence and are keen to see research published in international peer reviewed journals illustrating how these plastics degrade in the marine environment, open environment, and under the soil, specifically under naturalistic conditions, as opposed to experimental models of aging. We also welcome further research on the full environmental impacts of using bio-based plastics.

Over the coming months, we intend to commission a research project to further consider the evidence that has been supplied to the call for evidence within the context of wider literature and new research.

We do not plan to make representations to the European Commission on the usability and safety of oxo-biodegradable products in the farming industry.

On 8 April 2021, we published our response to the call for evidence on the need for standards for bio-based, biodegradable and compostable plastics: www.gov.uk/government/consultations/standards-for-biodegradable-compostable-and-bio-based-plastics-call-for-evidence.

While neither a specific assessment of oxo-biodegradable plastic sheeting used by farmers, nor an assessment comparing bio-based resin from starch and lactic acid in biodegradable products used in agriculture to oxo-biodegradable plastics has been made, the aforementioned call for evidence covered oxo-biodegradable plastics.

The Government response acknowledges that there is currently insufficient evidence demonstrating that oxo-biodegradable plastics perform as claimed and biodegrade, without residue, in a reasonable timeframe in the open environment. We continue to monitor the latest developments and evidence and are keen to see research published in international peer reviewed journals illustrating how these plastics degrade in the marine environment, open environment, and under the soil, specifically under naturalistic conditions, as opposed to experimental models of aging. We also welcome further research on the full environmental impacts of using bio-based plastics.

Over the coming months, we intend to commission a research project to further consider the evidence that has been supplied to the call for evidence within the context of wider literature and new research.

We do not plan to make representations to the European Commission on the usability and safety of oxo-biodegradable products in the farming industry.

On 8 April 2021, we published our response to the call for evidence on the need for standards for bio-based, biodegradable and compostable plastics: www.gov.uk/government/consultations/standards-for-biodegradable-compostable-and-bio-based-plastics-call-for-evidence.

While neither a specific assessment of oxo-biodegradable plastic sheeting used by farmers, nor an assessment comparing bio-based resin from starch and lactic acid in biodegradable products used in agriculture to oxo-biodegradable plastics has been made, the aforementioned call for evidence covered oxo-biodegradable plastics.

The Government response acknowledges that there is currently insufficient evidence demonstrating that oxo-biodegradable plastics perform as claimed and biodegrade, without residue, in a reasonable timeframe in the open environment. We continue to monitor the latest developments and evidence and are keen to see research published in international peer reviewed journals illustrating how these plastics degrade in the marine environment, open environment, and under the soil, specifically under naturalistic conditions, as opposed to experimental models of aging. We also welcome further research on the full environmental impacts of using bio-based plastics.

Over the coming months, we intend to commission a research project to further consider the evidence that has been supplied to the call for evidence within the context of wider literature and new research.

We do not plan to make representations to the European Commission on the usability and safety of oxo-biodegradable products in the farming industry.

On 8 April 2021, we published our response to the call for evidence on the need for standards for bio-based, biodegradable and compostable plastics: www.gov.uk/government/consultations/standards-for-biodegradable-compostable-and-bio-based-plastics-call-for-evidence.

While neither a specific assessment of oxo-biodegradable plastic sheeting used by farmers, nor an assessment comparing bio-based resin from starch and lactic acid in biodegradable products used in agriculture to oxo-biodegradable plastics has been made, the aforementioned call for evidence covered oxo-biodegradable plastics.

The Government response acknowledges that there is currently insufficient evidence demonstrating that oxo-biodegradable plastics perform as claimed and biodegrade, without residue, in a reasonable timeframe in the open environment. We continue to monitor the latest developments and evidence and are keen to see research published in international peer reviewed journals illustrating how these plastics degrade in the marine environment, open environment, and under the soil, specifically under naturalistic conditions, as opposed to experimental models of aging. We also welcome further research on the full environmental impacts of using bio-based plastics.

Over the coming months, we intend to commission a research project to further consider the evidence that has been supplied to the call for evidence within the context of wider literature and new research.

We do not plan to make representations to the European Commission on the usability and safety of oxo-biodegradable products in the farming industry.

The aim of speed management is to deliver a balance between safety objectives for all road users and mobility objectives, to ensure efficient travel, as well as environmental and community outcomes. The Department has published guidance designed to make sure that speed limits are appropriately and consistently set while allowing for flexibility to deal with local needs and conditions.

The regulatory emissions tests for type approval of new vehicles are conducted under dynamic rather than constant speeds in order to be more representative of real-world use. The Department does not have specific results for the situations outlined. Transport emission factors are used within the National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory to provide information on the emissions of vehicle fleets based upon factors such as their average speed, fuel type and engine capacity. These are also used within the Emissions Factor Toolkit, published by DEFRA, to assist local authorities carrying out assessment of local air quality.

No specific assessment has been made.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence’s guidelines describe best practice but are not mandatory, although health and care commissioners are expected to take them fully into account.

No specific assessment has been made.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence’s guidelines describe best practice but are not mandatory, although health and care commissioners are expected to take them fully into account.

Public Health England (PHE) is responsible for the central storage and distribution of ultra-low temperature COVID-19 vaccines. In its preparations to receive vaccines, PHE determined the freezer capacity requirement to support the United Kingdom programme during summer 2020 and secured the freezers against that requirement. These were commissioned and in service before arrival of the vaccine. They provide sufficient storage for approximately five million doses of COVID-19 vaccines which require minus 60 degree Celsius storage or below.

Public Health England has 58 ultra-low temperature freezers which provide sufficient storage for approximately five million doses of COVID-19 vaccines which require minus 60-degree Celsius storage or lower.

The ultra-low temperature freezers are located in two national storage facilities within Great Britain and Northern Ireland, to manage the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines across the four nations. The location of the facilities are not disclosed to maintain the integrity of the sites.

At a regional level the National Health Service has made preparations including sourcing of ultra-low temperature storage to support local delivery.

From 14 January, six community pharmacies in England started to offer the COVID-19 vaccination service, with an additional 65 pharmacy-led sites joining from the week commencing 21 January. More pharmacies will be stood up over the coming weeks and months.

The Department, NHS England and NHS Improvement and community pharmacy representative bodies will be working together to establish how community pharmacies’ role could be expanded further in the vaccination programme.

As health is a devolved matter, the commissioning of community pharmacies to provide COVD-19 vaccination in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are decisions for the respective devolved administrations.

Since the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) opened in March 2019, the Home Office has undertaken a broad range of communications and stakeholder engagement activity to encourage EU, European Economic Area (EEA) and European Free Trade Association (EFTA) nationals, and their family members, to apply for status under the EUSS and to explain why they should do so and secure their rights under the Citizens’ Rights Agreements.

We launched a further wave of UK-wide advertising in mid-May to help ensure they were aware of the EUSS and its benefits and of how to apply and access support in doing so if they needed it, although existing ILR holders need not apply. This built on the successful campaign already delivered – with £7.9 million having now been invested in such activity – with targeted adverts appearing on social media, website banners, catch up TV and radio up to the application deadline of 30 June.

The Home Office has also made available £22 million in grant funding for a network of now 72 organisations across the UK, which includes charities, local authorities and community groups, to engage with vulnerable groups and help them apply to the EUSS.

We are also continuing to engage with local authorities, the Devolved Administrations, employers, community groups and others to raise awareness of the EUSS and encourage those eligible who are yet to apply to do so.

Since the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) opened in March 2019, the Home Office has undertaken a broad range of communications and stakeholder engagement activity to encourage EU, European Economic Area (EEA) and European Free Trade Association (EFTA) nationals, and their family members, to apply for status under the EUSS and to explain why they should do so and secure their rights under the Citizens’ Rights Agreements.

We launched a further wave of UK-wide advertising in mid-May to help ensure they were aware of the EUSS and its benefits and of how to apply and access support in doing so if they needed it, although existing ILR holders need not apply. This built on the successful campaign already delivered – with £7.9 million having now been invested in such activity – with targeted adverts appearing on social media, website banners, catch up TV and radio up to the application deadline of 30 June.

The Home Office has also made available £22 million in grant funding for a network of now 72 organisations across the UK, which includes charities, local authorities and community groups, to engage with vulnerable groups and help them apply to the EUSS.

We are also continuing to engage with local authorities, the Devolved Administrations, employers, community groups and others to raise awareness of the EUSS and encourage those eligible who are yet to apply to do so.

A person who is issued with a UK Immigration status or Indefinite leave to Enter or Remain are provided with a visa in their passport, a biometric residence permit or an electronic visa confirming their status. Our decision notices also provide customers with details on their terms of leave.

A person who has applied to the EU Settlement Scheme or via the fully digital processes for the British Nationals (Overseas) and Points Based System routes, will have created a UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) account. They can use their UKVI account credentials to log into the online View and Prove service.

If an individual has been notified they have a digital certificate of application, they are able to use the View and Prove service to prove their rights:

https://www.gov.uk/view-prove-immigration-status

The Home Office also publishes information to assist EU national customers understand their immigration status. Further information can be found on our website: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/view-and-prove-your-immigration-status-evisa/your-immigration-status-an-introduction-for-eu-eea-and-swiss-citizens-accessible-version

For longer-term settled residents who wish to replace their visa for a biometric residence permit, they can submit an application for a biometric residence permit. Further information can be found on the gov.uk website: https://www.gov.uk/biometric-residence-permits/replace-visa-brp

An EU, European Economic Area (EEA) or European Free Trade Association (EFTA) national who was settled in the UK before 1 January 1973 may have acquired indefinite leave to enter or remain automatically under section 1(2) of the Immigration Act 1971.

Where they hold indefinite leave to enter or remain obtained in this way, or where an EU, EEA or EFTA national holds such leave obtained by applying for it under another immigration route, they do not need to apply for status under the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS), but they may do so if they wish given the benefits of doing so.

Indefinite leave to enter or remain granted under the EUSS (referred to as ‘settled status’) enables the holder to access additional rights in line with the Citizens’ Rights Agreements. For example, they can be absent from the UK for five consecutive years, rather than two years, before their settled status lapses, and they can sponsor certain family members to join them in the UK without meeting the requirements of the family Immigration Rules.

Where an EEA national was resident in the UK by 31 December 2020 based on free movement rights, they must apply to the EU Settlement Scheme for status under UK immigration law. The deadline for doing so was 30 June 2021, but late applications will be accepted where reasonable grounds exist for missing the deadline. This includes where someone has lived in the UK for many years and did not realise they needed to apply.

An EU, European Economic Area (EEA) or European Free Trade Association (EFTA) national who was settled in the UK before 1 January 1973 may have acquired indefinite leave to enter or remain automatically under section 1(2) of the Immigration Act 1971.

Where they hold indefinite leave to enter or remain obtained in this way, or where an EU, EEA or EFTA national holds such leave obtained by applying for it under another immigration route, they do not need to apply for status under the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS), but they may do so if they wish given the benefits of doing so.

Indefinite leave to enter or remain granted under the EUSS (referred to as ‘settled status’) enables the holder to access additional rights in line with the Citizens’ Rights Agreements. For example, they can be absent from the UK for five consecutive years, rather than two years, before their settled status lapses, and they can sponsor certain family members to join them in the UK without meeting the requirements of the family Immigration Rules.

Where an EEA national was resident in the UK by 31 December 2020 based on free movement rights, they must apply to the EU Settlement Scheme for status under UK immigration law. The deadline for doing so was 30 June 2021, but late applications will be accepted where reasonable grounds exist for missing the deadline. This includes where someone has lived in the UK for many years and did not realise they needed to apply.

Decisions on calling in applications are made in line with published call-in policy as set out in a Written Ministerial Statement by Nick Boles on 26 October 2012. The policy makes it clear that the power to call in a case will only be used very selectively. Air pollution levels are a potential consideration when considering whether to call in an application.

In December 2016, the Secretary of State declined to call in this application for his own determination. Following the categorisation of Canterbury as an air quality management area, he received requests to reconsider that decision. These requests were carefully considered having regard to his policy on calling in planning applications. The Secretary of State decided that his original decision, not to call in this application, should stand, and that the application should remain to be determined by the local planning authority.

Decisions on calling in applications are made in line with published call-in policy as set out in a Written Ministerial Statement by Nick Boles on 26 October 2012. The policy makes it clear that the power to call in a case will only be used very selectively. Air pollution levels are a potential consideration when considering whether to call in an application.

The Local Government Act 1972 allows local planning authorities (including National Parks) to arrange for the discharge of any of its functions by a committee, sub-committee, or an officer. The operation of such committees, including which applications are considered by members and the procedure by which they are governed, are administrative matters for the National Park Authority.

Like other planning committees, where a decision is made by a National Park planning committee, members should carefully consider all the evidence before them and must be prepared to modify or change their initial view in light of the arguments and evidence presented to them. They must make their final decision at the meeting with an open mind based on this evidence. The law requires that planning decisions are made in accordance with the local development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

National Park authorities must also promote and maintain high standards of conduct by their members. Members have to abide by their authorities’ code of conduct and this must be consistent with the seven ‘Nolan’ principles of standards in public life. National Park Authorities are responsible for ensuring members observe their codes of conduct and maintain high standards.

The Local Government Act 1972 allows local planning authorities (including National Parks) to arrange for the discharge of any of its functions by a committee, sub-committee, or an officer. The operation of such committees, including which applications are considered by members and the procedure by which they are governed, are administrative matters for the National Park Authority.

Like other planning committees, where a decision is made by a National Park planning committee, members should carefully consider all the evidence before them and must be prepared to modify or change their initial view in light of the arguments and evidence presented to them. They must make their final decision at the meeting with an open mind based on this evidence. The law requires that planning decisions are made in accordance with the local development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

National Park authorities must also promote and maintain high standards of conduct by their members. Members have to abide by their authorities’ code of conduct and this must be consistent with the seven ‘Nolan’ principles of standards in public life. National Park Authorities are responsible for ensuring members observe their codes of conduct and maintain high standards.

There are two settings in which a child aged 16 or under may be handcuffed: through interaction with the Police, or within a secure setting overseen by the Youth Custody Service.

Owing to the way in which police use of force data is collected, data is recorded on the number of times a tactic was used, not the number of unique events or people involved in incidents. 36,279 police handcuffing tactics were recorded for those aged under 18 in the year ending March 2020.

In 2019/20, in Young Offender Institutions and Secure Training Centres handcuffs were applied to children under the age of 16 on 117 occasions, involving 63 different individual children.

Any use of force, including the use of handcuffs by the Police or within a secure setting, must be reasonable and necessary in the circumstances, proportionate to the threat posed and only the minimum force necessary may be used.

The College of Policing is responsible for setting the standards and training to which police operate. Guidance on the use of force and restraint by the police is set out in the College of Policing Authorised Professional Practice, which includes guidance on how to deal with vulnerable people.

In Young Offender Institutions and Secure Training Centres, handcuffs are one of a range of approved restraint techniques. Handcuffs are used as an ethical and safer alternative to physical restraint technique. The use of handcuffs must always be reasonable and proportionate, and with the aim of preventing harm occurring to the young person or others. A report must be made every time handcuffs are used.

There are two settings in which a child aged 16 or under may be handcuffed: through interaction with the Police, or within a secure setting overseen by the Youth Custody Service.

Owing to the way in which police use of force data is collected, data is recorded on the number of times a tactic was used, not the number of unique events or people involved in incidents. 36,279 police handcuffing tactics were recorded for those aged under 18 in the year ending March 2020.

In 2019/20, in Young Offender Institutions and Secure Training Centres handcuffs were applied to children under the age of 16 on 117 occasions, involving 63 different individual children.

Any use of force, including the use of handcuffs by the Police or within a secure setting, must be reasonable and necessary in the circumstances, proportionate to the threat posed and only the minimum force necessary may be used.

The College of Policing is responsible for setting the standards and training to which police operate. Guidance on the use of force and restraint by the police is set out in the College of Policing Authorised Professional Practice, which includes guidance on how to deal with vulnerable people.

In Young Offender Institutions and Secure Training Centres, handcuffs are one of a range of approved restraint techniques. Handcuffs are used as an ethical and safer alternative to physical restraint technique. The use of handcuffs must always be reasonable and proportionate, and with the aim of preventing harm occurring to the young person or others. A report must be made every time handcuffs are used.