National Preventive Mechanism Third Annual Report 2011–12 • to promote compliance with OPCAT in the UK. • to raise awareness of the NPM in the UK and internationally. It is important to note that the business plan addresses the coordination of the NPM, not the day-to-day monitoring activities of all members, which will be addressed in the individual plans of each organisation. Compliance with OPCAT While independent monitoring arrangements are firmly embedded for many places of detention in the UK, the process of implementing OPCAT is ongoing. In previous annual reports, we identified some places of detention that were not regularly and independently monitored by the NPM. These included court custody in England and Wales, some places of military detention, and customs custody suites operated by UK Border Force. Such gaps in coverage meant that the UK was not yet fully compliant with OPCAT, Article 4 of which requires that all places of detention be subject to regular and independent monitoring. In each of our previous annual reports, we have recommended that the UK government addresses any gaps in coverage. We are pleased to report significant progress in these areas. Court custody The government invited HMIP to carry out regular inspections of court custody. In 2011– 12, HMIP developed and piloted inspection criteria and an inspection methodology for court custody in England and Wales, and an inspection programme commenced in 2012– 13. Initially, access to courts was granted under a memorandum of understanding between HMIP and the government, but this moved to a statutory footing in late 2012.6 While HMIP was given the statutory power to inspect the vast majority of court custody facilities, including those at Crown, county and magistrates’ courts, some facilities remain outside its remit, including, for example, those at the Royal Courts of Justice. Some gaps, therefore, remain. Court custody facilities, including the escorting of detainees to and from courts, are monitored by lay observers – volunteers from the local community. Lay observers were not included in the NPM when the members were designated in 2009, despite performing a similar role to other lay monitoring bodies that were designated (including independent police custody visitors and independent monitoring boards for prisons). The NPM has supported the lay observers’ request to be added to the NPM, and we hope that this will be agreed by the government soon. If agreed, this will result in layers of monitoring for court custody in England and Wales – by a professional inspectorate and a lay body – as is already the case for prisons and police custody. Customs custody Customs custody facilities are operated by the UK Border Force. They are located at ports of entry to the UK and are used to hold people for short periods when, for example, they are believed to have entered the UK after ingesting drugs for the purpose of smuggling. Such people are held under the same regulatory framework that applies to police detainees. Border Force has been keen to ensure these custodial facilities are subject to monitoring in accordance with OPCAT. HM Inspectorate of Constabulary, an NPM member, was granted the statutory power to inspect the facilities and carried out its first inspection in late 2012, in association with HMIP. 6 The Public Bodies (Abolition of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Courts Administration and the Public Guardian Board) Order 2012. 14