Section two The third year – an overview In 2011–12, the members of the UK’s NPM continued to make regular visits to places of detention, monitoring the treatment of and conditions for detainees and making recommendations to the relevant authorities. The activities of the members and their findings are described in their individual annual reports. In this NPM-wide annual report, we note the joint activities of the members, how coordination is developing and the extent to which OPCAT is being implemented in the UK. This report also addresses key issues considered by the NPM members in 2011–12: • the use of force and restraint in detention • the escorting of detainees • the role of lay monitors within the NPM. Joint activities As in previous years, members have continued to strengthen relationships with one another and develop their identity as an NPM. As they have learned about each other’s role, there has been a noticeable increase in bilateral and multilateral working among members, with information shared and duplication of work avoided. In 2011–12, several NPM events took place, some of which are described in more detail later in this report: • biannual NPM business meetings, attended by all members • a workshop solely for the lay bodies in the NPM, exploring the implementation of OPCAT in the context of monitoring by unpaid members of the local community • a thematic workshop on the use of force and restraint, a key concern of members regardless of the type of detention monitored. Our NPM business meetings provide members with the opportunity to discuss key findings or best practice, apply learning from monitoring one type of detention to another and learn from work in other jurisdictions. At meetings in 2011–12, the members explored the definition of detention. They discussed the difference between a restriction and a deprivation of liberty, the extent to which some people who reside in, for example, hospitals and care homes, may be considered detained if they are prevented from leaving should they choose to do so, and whether there are sufficient safeguards to protect people in these situations. Given the complexity of these issues, the NPM members decided to explore these in more detail in 2012–13 and share information across jurisdictions within the UK about de facto detention. Members also identified common concerns that could be the subject of future joint work. These included solitary confinement, the searching of detainees and visitors and the taking of samples, and drug and alcohol misuse. The members discussed best practice in monitoring detention and the attributes an NPM should have to carry out its role effectively. In particular, members discussed the concept of independence, examining whether they are sufficiently independent to meet the requirements of OPCAT. While OPCAT itself sets out some basic requirements, the SPT has provided further guidelines on the form and operation of NPMs.4 Taking these into account, the UK NPM decided to formulate ‘expectations’ – a set of powers and practices expected of any member of our NPM and which are essential to effective monitoring. 4 SPT, Guidelines on national preventive mechanisms CAT/OP/12/5 (09/12/10) (‘SPT Guidelines’); SPT, The approach of the SPT to the concept of prevention of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under OPCAT CAT/OP/12/6 (30/12/10) (‘SPT on Prevention’). 11