Better data over the use of handcuffs and other restraints on young innocent people in care is needed to help bring an end to the “brutal handcuffing of vulnerable children”, a cross-party group of MPs and peers has said.
In a letter to children’s minister Claire Coutinho, the signatories said they are concerned at what they call the “worrying prevalence” of vulnerable children being restrained and handcuffed unnecessarily by secure transportation providers.
They wrote that there have been instances of “innocent children outside the custodial system” being restrained during transport, but organisers from the Hope Instead Of Handcuffs campaign said the exact number of such instances is not known due to a lack of data.
The letter’s signatories, which include former Labour shadow chancellor John McDonnell, the DUP’s Jim Shannon, and peer and ex-Green party leader Baroness Bennett, asked that Ms Coutinho meet with them and members of the campaign group about the issue.
They demanded that the minister “urgently conduct a review of the data gaps in secure transportation, which preclude proper monitoring and scrutiny of providers’ restraint practices”, and said that “accountability and transparency can be increased across the sector”.
Image: Children’s minister Claire Coutinho
The letter added: “Shockingly, many secure transportation providers use restraints such as handcuffs on vulnerable children in care. To be clear, these are innocent children outside the custodial system. Some of these providers even advertise that they use handcuffs on their website.”
They said providers “should be required to record and report any instances of restraint to an appropriate body, which would be appointed by the government to monitor and scrutinise this data”, which they said would “bring secure transportation in line with other areas of the care system, improve transparency, and initiate a cultural change within the sector that will reduce, and ultimately end, the brutal handcuffing of vulnerable children”.
More on Childcare
Related Topics:
Serenity Welfare, a transport provider, said it does not use handcuffs on children and instead uses “non-violent de-escalation and mentoring as part of a humanistic and compassionate provision of care”.
But it also said other organisations train their staff to use restraint techniques against children, including head control and handcuffing.
In 2021, in evidence to the Human Rights (Joint Committee) inquiry on protecting human rights in care settings, Serenity Welfare said: “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,” they added.
A spokesperson for the Department for Education said: “The safeguarding and wellbeing of children and young people is of the utmost importance.
“Restraint should only be used in exceptional cases where it is necessary and proportionate; for example, if there was no other way to prevent a child from seriously harming themselves or others.
“We are continuing our work with the Hope Instead Of Handcuffs campaign to explore what further action is needed.”
Only a quarter of British adults think Sir Keir Starmer will win the next general election, as the party’s climbdown over welfare cuts affects its standing with the public.
A fresh poll by Ipsos, shared with Sky News, also found 63% do not feel confident the government is running the country competently, similar to levels scored by previous Conservative administrations under Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak in July 2022 and February 2023, respectively.
The survey of 1,080 adults aged 18-75 across Great Britain was conducted online between 27 and 30 June 2025, when Labour began making the first of its concessions, suggesting the party’s turmoil over its own benefits overhaul is partly to blame.
The prime minister was forced into an embarrassing climbdown on Tuesday night over his plans to slash welfare spending, after it became apparent he was in danger of losing the vote owing to a rebellion among his own MPs.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:21
Govt makes last-minute concession on welfare bill
The bill that was put to MPs for a vote was so watered down that the most controversial element – to tighten the eligibility criteria for personal independence payments (PIP) – was put on hold, pending a review into the assessment process by minister Stephen Timms that is due to report back in the autumn.
The government was forced into a U-turn after Labour MPs signalled publicly and privately that the previous concession made at the weekend to protect existing claimants from the new rules would not be enough.
More on Benefits
Related Topics:
While the bill passed its first parliamentary hurdle last night, with a majority of 75, 49 Labour MPs still voted against it – the largest rebellion in a prime minister’s first year in office since 47 MPs voted against Tony Blair’s Lone Parent benefit in 1997, according to Professor Phil Cowley from Queen Mary University.
It left MPs to vote on only one element of the original plan – the cut to Universal Credit (UC) sickness benefits for new claimants from £97 a week to £50 from 2026/7.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:21
Govt makes last-minute concession on welfare bill
An amendment brought by Labour MP Rachael Maskell, which aimed to prevent the bill progressing to the next stage, was defeated but 44 Labour MPs voted for it.
The incident has raised questions about Sir Keir’s authority just a year after the general election delivered him the first Labour landslide victory in decades.
And on Wednesday, Downing Street insisted Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, was “not going anywhere” after her tearful appearance in the House of Commons during prime minister’s questions sparked speculation about her political future.
The Ipsos poll also found that two-thirds of British adults are not confident Labour has the right plans to change the way the benefits system works in the UK, including nearly half of 2024 Labour voters.
Keiran Pedley, director of UK Politics at Ipsos, said: “Labour rows over welfare reform haven’t just harmed the public’s view on whether they can make the right changes in that policy area, they are raising wider questions about their ability to govern too.
“The public is starting to doubt Labour’s ability to govern competently and seriously at the same levels they did with Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak’s governments. Labour will hope that this government doesn’t end up going the same way.”
Image: Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves (right) crying as Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer speaks. Pic: Commons/UK Parliament/PA
It is hard to know for sure right now what was going on behind the scenes, the reasons – predictable or otherwise – why she appeared to be emotional, but it was noticeable and it was difficult to watch.
Her spokesperson says it was a personal matter that they will not be getting into.
More from Politics
Even Kemi Badenoch, not usually the most nimble PMQs performer, singled her out. “She looks absolutely miserable,” she said.
Anyone wondering if Kemi Badenoch can kick a dog when it’s down has their answer today.
The Tory leader asked the PM if he could guarantee his chancellor’s future: he could not. “She has delivered, and we are grateful for it,” Sir Keir said, almost sounding like he was speaking in the past tense.
Image: Rachel Reeves looked visibly upset behind Keir Starmer at PMQs. Pic PA
It is important to say: Rachel Reeves’s face during one PMQs session is not enough to tell us everything, or even anything, we need to know.
But given the government has just faced its most bruising week yet, it was hard not to speculate. The prime minister’s spokesperson has said since PMQs that the chancellor has not offered her resignation and is not going anywhere.
But Rachel Reeves has surely seen an omen of the impossible decisions ahead.
How will she plug the estimated £5.5bn hole left by the welfare climbdown in the nation’s finances? Will she need to tweak her iron clad fiscal rules? Will she come back for more tax rises? What message does all of this send to the markets?
If a picture tells us a thousand words, Rachel Reeves’s face will surely be blazoned on the front pages tomorrow as a warning that no U-turn goes unpunished.