Section Two The second year – an overview No progress has yet been made regarding military detention, although, as reported in our first annual report, HMIP is in discussion with the government about extending its inspection programme to service custody facilities (that is, facilities run by the British armed forces and more often known as ‘guardhouses’). It has also come to our attention that there are several customs custody suites operated by the UK Border Agency (UKBA) which are not currently the subject of independent monitoring. These suites are used to hold people for short periods of time when they are believed to have entered the UK after ingesting large quantities of drugs for the purpose of smuggling. They are held under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the same regulatory framework that applies to police detainees. The UKBA is aware of the government’s obligations under OPCAT and has been considering options to ensure that customs custody suites are inspected independently. The custody suites fall within the remit of HM Inspectorate of Constabulary, already an NPM member, and it is anticipated that inspections will be carried out jointly with HMIP. Recommendation Although some progress is being made in relation to our first annual report, we reiterate that recommendation and ask the government to ensure that all those deprived of their liberty benefit from the protection offered by independent, regular visits by the NPM. Challenges The NPM in the UK is distinctive because of its large size and complex structure. This presents many challenges which other singlebody NPMs may not face. However, it also has benefits: the individual bodies of the UK NPM have developed considerable expertise in monitoring the places of detention in which they specialise. Another distinctive feature of the UK’s NPM is the inclusion of lay visiting bodies in addition to professional inspectorates. Their inclusion also offers benefits, as they are able to visit places of detention with impressive frequency. Our first annual report outlined some of the challenges faced by the NPM. For example, the members may have a different understanding of OPCAT and how it can be best implemented; there may be different views about the coordination role and how extensive it should be; and there is considerable divergence in the nature and roles of the members and the contexts in which they operate. For many members, detention monitoring is just one part of a broader role, while for others it represents their core business. Nonetheless, as relationships between the members grow stronger and they settle into their roles under OPCAT both individually and collectively, we are sure that none of the challenges faced are insurmountable. We recognise that designation as NPM members provides us with the opportunity to come together to identify systemic issues across all types of detention and to share information and good practice. To address some of the challenges faced, consideration is being given to establishing a steering group for the NPM, made up of five member organisations. This group would facilitate decision-making relating to the NPM and set the strategic direction for joint activities. 15