Section four Detainees under escort and Wales. These contracts provide for the escort of around 80,000 prisoners to court a month.18 Three members of the NPM – HMIP, IMBs and the Children’s Commissioner – have reported difficulties with the implementation of the new contracts, as well as general concerns about escorts. In the early days of the new contracts, both contractors experienced difficulties with staffing, the scheduling of vehicles and their technology. This resulted in late arrivals to prison from court and prisoners, particularly in London, being ‘locked out’ and diverted to other prisons or police custody suites. Even where late arriving prisoners were admitted to a prison, there were additional pressures on the establishment’s reception and first night procedures. These concerns were highlighted by HMIP but also by the IMBs at, for example, Wormwood Scrubs, Nottingham and Norwich. Under the new contracts, escort vehicles picked up prisoners from a number of points before taking them to court or prison, meaning that the prisoner picked up first often had a protracted journey. Despite long journeys, prisoners were not always routinely offered toilet breaks. The IMB at Wormwood Scrubs also noted that while prisoners were given drinking water, they were left without food for too long during very lengthy journeys. Although most prisoners reported a reasonable experience of escort arrangements, they also said they spent long periods in court cells or in transit before arriving at their prison. During inspections of local prisons, HMIP found delays in moving prisoners through reception caused by large groups arriving together late in the afternoon. HMIP also found disproportionate security procedures during escorts and on arrival at prisons. For example, prisoners transferring to Hatfield, an open prison, were nonetheless transported in secure vans. Some prisoners were handcuffed while disembarking from vehicles and walking the short distance to reception: this was disproportionate to the risk presented. The IMB at Wormwood Scrubs was concerned by last-minute cancellations of inter-prison transfers by the contractor. Prisoners were held in reception, ready for transfer, early in the morning only to be returned to their cells in the afternoon. This was clearly unsettling for prisoners and staff. The prisoner escort service was described by the local IMB as ‘unpredictable’ at Norwich and ‘extremely poor’ at Lewes. Of particular concern were children and young people arriving at their establishment late in the evening when induction processes could not be carried out properly and hot meals were often not available. Late arrivals may have been caused by late collections from court, or by vehicles dropping adults off first and leaving children with longer journeys. The IMBs criticised such late arrivals, particularly for children experiencing prison for the first time. The NPM members monitoring escorts were concerned that the new contracts permitted women and children under 18 to be transported in the same vehicles as adult men. While there were protocols to separate the different groups within vehicles, HMIP found that they were underdeveloped. Even escort staff reported that mixing men and women on the same van was problematic. Removable partitions to divide vehicles into separate compartments for men, women and 18 Category A prisoners are escorted by the Prison Service itself rather than by a private provider. 29