National Preventive Mechanism Third Annual Report 2011–12 children were not effective and hampered the ability of staff to supervise all prisoners. These concerns about the transport of children, women and men together in the same vehicle echo concerns by CJINI about the escorting of prisoners in Northern Ireland. The NPM members believe that children under the age of 18, women and men should be transported separately. This is in line with international human rights standards and is also based on our own monitoring experience that the separation of women and children from adult males is essential to ensure the safety and well-being of all prisoners.19 Person escort records When a prisoner is escorted between police stations, courts, prisons and hospitals, it is essential that those responsible for the prisoner are aware of any risks or vulnerabilities. Risks and vulnerabilities are assessed before any escort and should be recorded on a person escort record (PER). The PER travels with the prisoner throughout movements and can contain key information about them, including the risk of self-harm and suicide. It is, therefore, one element in a range of processes by which the state fulfils its duty of care to those at risk of self-harm and suicide. In August 2011, HMIP was asked by the Ministerial Board on Deaths in Custody20 to inspect the use of PERs following concerns that the forms were not used effectively. HMIP carried out this work in three stages by: 1 Exploring the extent to which information about the risk of self-harm obtained during detention in police custody was accurately recorded and likely to be useful in subsequent care planning. A total of 181 PERs in five police forces were inspected. HMIP found that many PERs were only partially complete or illegible. In some police forces, the forms were discarded while in others they were stored untidily with pages from one detainee’s form mixed with pages from another detainee’s PER. Staff using PERs did not fully understand the importance of the information they contained. They saw the forms as bureaucratic rather than an important tool in planning and delivering detainee care. Where self-harm was identified, this information was often too vague to be useful. This could mask the potential seriousness of a detainee’s recent behaviour in custody. However, HMIP did note good practice in one police force. In South Wales, staff were trained how to complete PERs and quality assurance checks were carried out. As a result, the quality of PER information in South Wales was considerably better than in other police forces. 2 Reviewing the extent to which information in PERs was helpful in managing the care of prisoners and young people vulnerable to self-harm in prisons and young offender institutions. Fieldwork was conducted at five prisons and included observation at reception, interviews with staff and prisoners, and records analysis. Prison staff said PERs were a useful means of flagging self-harm as an issue, but were not always sufficiently detailed and often did not include an indication of the level and immediacy of risk. This made care planning difficult. 19 See, for example, Article 37(c) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 10 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and Rule 8 of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. 20 The Ministerial Board on Deaths in Custody is part of a three-tier structure aiming to bring about a continuing and shared reduction in the number and rate of deaths in all forms of state custody in England and Wales. 30