News

Although a High Court judge has ruled that children in prison are protected by the Children Act 1989, the conditions in which the prison service transports children remain untouched.

More than 20 months after Mr Justice Munby made his ruling, young people still have no option but to urinate in cells in the back of the vans transporting them, before being made to clean the vans up on arrival.

Inspections and first-hand accounts have revealed that children undergo lengthy journeys in the "sweat boxes", punctuated by too few comfort breaks and insufficient food. They are escorted by staff inadequately trained to work with young people and unaware of the Children Act’s requirements.

Penal reformers deplore these arrangements.

"Children are transported for a long time in inappropriate conditions and not given comfort breaks," says Fran Russell, assistant director at the Howard League for Penal Reform. "Allowing children to be treated in this way is incredible, especially as it is accepted that young people are the most vulnerable group to self-harm and committing suicide."

During the case that led to Mr Justice Munby’s ruling, which was taken to the High Court by the Howard League for Penal Reform, the judge asked the barrister for the Home Office what was being done to sort out the problems surrounding escort arrangements.

When the barrister explained that a letter had been sent to contractors reminding them of their responsibilities, the judge remarked that this was insufficient. He suggested that a human rights challenge to the practice would be successful.

Injury under escort
Chief inspector of prisons Anne Owers has also been critical of the practice. During the course of a joint inspection of Gloucestershire criminal justice area, she highlighted an incident where a 16-year-old offender was injured while being legitimately restrained by escort staff.

"Neither the escort nor prison staff managed the incident as a child protection matter, or were aware of the need to document it in accordance with child protection procedures," she noted in her report.

Escort contract managers confirmed that they had no child protection procedures and treated all defendants the same unless they were known to be vulnerable.

Owers said that this meant that while courts had special procedures for dealing with children and that the Children Act now applied to children in prison, during their journey between court and prison, when children would be at their most vulnerable, they were in the hands of staff untrained in and unaware of the special requirements for dealing with juveniles.

Monica Lloyd, head of thematic reviews at the prisons inspectorate and lead inspector for the Gloucester review, says: "[Escort] staff made the assumption that if they were old enough to go to prison, they were old enough to be treated like adult prisoners."

As a result, children were transported alongside adult prisoners, "even when this involved an element of risk", the Gloucester report found. Lloyd says the mix of prisoners in the vans was potentially unsafe. Owers confirms that no risk assessments were carried out beforehand.

Children travel in their own cells on the vans so they are safe from assault from other, perhaps adult, prisoners. But Owers warns that the noise from other prisoners can often be threatening.

"There is the danger that children could be mistreated," says Russell. "It also raises questions as to whether social services should be investigating the conditions these children are being subjected to because they have duties and responsibilities towards the children transported in their areas."

Alarmingly, the vehicles - security vans with cells in the back - fall short of what are acceptable standards in other vehicles as they are not fitted with seat belts.

Owers says there was a move some time ago to introduce seat belts, but it was argued that the only way a prisoner could be harmed in a prison van was if there was a side impact - and seat belts would not protect against that. "Imagine taking a school trip in a minibus without seat belts. You wouldn’t even think about it," says Owers.

Indeed, Department for Education and Skills guidance says that all minibuses and coaches carrying groups of three or more children aged between three and 15 must be fitted with a seat belt for each child.

A Home Office spokesperson insists the department has given the issue a lot of consideration, but that the benefits of seat belts have to be weighed up against the downsides: seat belts could be used to self-harm or as weapons against staff.

She adds that accidents are minimal, and that the confined space means that prisoners would not be "thrown around" too badly.

Another big issue is the length of journeys. Owers warns that the children can spend a very long time in an escort vehicle while it goes round other prisons before finally arriving at the juvenile establishment.

At worst, it can take 10 hours from when a young person finishes at court to when they arrive at prison, and that can include five or six hours in an escort vehicle.

Given the lengths of time involved, Owers has frequently complained that insufficient comfort breaks are provided. A Home Office spokesperson says that escort contractors are required to make comfort breaks on journeys longer than 2.5 hours and that these would be planned into the journey.

But in her annual report for 2003, published last January, Owers highlighted evidence of young people forced to urinate in property bags during the journeys in five out of the seven establishments that had been fully inspected. She adds that children travelling to Onley Young Offender Institution do not even get issued with property bags. As a result they are forced to urinate in the cells in which they are transported - and are then made to clean the van on arrival at the prison. She slams the practice as humiliating, adding that the inspectorate has heard anecdotally that escort staff are reluctant to stop for breaks because they have to meet their deadlines.

Unmonitored journeys
These long, uncomfortable journeys also appear to be unmonitored. Unlike other vehicles undertaking long journeys, prison vans are not fitted with tachographs.

The Home Office spokesperson confirms that tachographs are not a legal requirement for prison vans. But the Road Haulage Association says that drivers in virtually all commercial vehicles - even those without a load - are expected to take a 45-minute break after 4.5 hours’ driving to assure the safety of the driver.

Owers argues that the issue needs careful monitoring. She says the inspectorate also wants to look at making one agency responsible for ensuring the young people get a meal at some point during the day. Under current arrangements, children can be expected to survive a long day on just several emergency snacks.

According to civil rights group Liberty, this combination of insufficient food, lengthy journeys and the practice of urinating in bags or cells almost certainly constitutes a breach of human rights. A spokesperson for the charity says there is no justification for subjecting someone to such "appalling and shocking" treatment.

Russell agrees. "If children were treated this way by any other agency, it would be considered abusive. But because they have offended, it has been considered as acceptable for far too long."

There is, however, a glimmer of hope as it has emerged that new contracts are set to be negotiated. These will replace the existing contracts, which were negotiated before the Youth Justice Board was established in 1998. Responding to a parliamentary question, prisons minister Paul Goggins confirmed: "New transport arrangements for journeys to and from young offender institutions will come into effect with new Prison Escort Custody Service contracts on 29 August 2004."

Under these contracts, juveniles would not be carried alongside adult prisoners in vans with cells, Goggins added.

Next year, new contracts for transport between prisons will also be negotiated.

A YJB spokesperson says providing a separate system for transporting young offenders will cost the board around £5m, and that this has been made available in its budget settlements with the Home Office. Action was not taken sooner because the board had to wait until the prison service contracts came up for renewal to include specific conditions for transportation of juveniles.

It is expected that, under the new contracts, multi-purpose vehicles, such as people carriers, will be used in some circumstances, although the use of vehicles with cells will continue. Young people transported in multi-purpose vehicles will have to wear seat-belts. It is likely the contracts will also include a specification that no prisoner will travel more than 2.5 hours without a comfort stop. Failure to adhere to the contract will lead to more severe penalties than under existing arrangements, the Home Office spokesperson warns.

Special training
There will also be provisions made for escort staff to receive training in dealing with juveniles, and for children to be taken directly to the YOI wherever possible. Journeys will be monitored through tachographs and reports on all journeys.

Russell says she is "astounded" that the Home Office has allowed the current arrangements to go on for so long, particularly given the judge’s comments in the Howard League ruling. However, she welcomes the planned new contracts as a step in the right direction.

She still believes, however, that vehicles with cells should not be used at all as they are "totally inappropriate for children". She says: "These children have just been sentenced to imprisonment and are extremely anxious. Leaving them hungry and thirsty in cells is only going to put them at greater risk of self-harm and suicide."

Owers too welcomes the move towards new contracts, describing it as long overdue. She promises to keep a close eye on how the new arrangements pan out to ensure conditions are improved. Her future inspection reports will be eagerly awaited. - Community Care’s Back on Track campaign is calling for a reduction in the number of children in custody and for improvements in the youth justice system. See www.communitycare.co.uk/backontrack

Five practices on the YJB’s hitlist

• Children being forced to urinate in plastic bags as a result of infrequent comfort breaks.
• Children being subjected to long and uncomfortable journeys.
• Children being escorted alongside adult prisoners.
• Children being escorted by staff who are inadequately trained in child protection and unaware of their duties under the Children Act.
• Children being carried in vehicles with no seatbelts.