Section Four National Preventive Mechanism member profiles Summary of activities In 2009–10, Independent Monitoring Boards made approximately 50,000 visits to prisons and immigration detention facilities and the annual reports of 137 boards were published. Two thematic reports were also published. One report concerned the availability and range of learning and skills training in prisons18 while the other reviewed conditions in 25 segregation units within prisons.19 This latter report noted that boards are not always informed when a prisoner is segregated, despite a mandatory requirement to do so within 24 hours. It also expressed concern at the number of prisoners with mental health issues held in segregation units, often for prolonged periods. The National Council for Independent Monitoring Boards also published an annual report providing a national picture of treatment and conditions in prisons and immigration detention facilities.20 It highlighted recurring issues, some of which are outlined below. Key issues In relation to the prison estate, Independent Monitoring Boards have identified several recurring issues that are of concern. Like HMIP, boards are concerned about the rising prison population and the adverse impact overcrowding has on safety and the prison regime. There are insufficient prison places in certain parts of the country, resulting in prisoners being held far from home and inhibiting family and legal visits. Boards are also concerned about the number of prisoners with mental illness. Despite the best efforts of staff, these prisoners do not receive the support and treatment they require and more should be done to divert them to more appropriate environments and services. Around a fifth of all applications received by boards relate to the loss of or damage to prisoner property. The loss of personal possessions, such as family correspondence 18 19 20 21 and photographs, can have a dramatic effect on a prisoner’s morale. However, there seems to be little acknowledgement of this longstanding problem given the failure of the authorities to effectively tackle it. The use of indeterminate sentences for public protection (IPP) has been a key issue for boards.21 They are concerned at the number of those with IPP sentences who are serving terms well in excess of their tariffs (sometimes years). Often prisoners are unable to take courses which would improve their suitability for release because the courses are not offered at their prison. In recent years, boards have repeatedly expressed concern about foreign national prisoners whose sentences have expired but whose detention in prison nonetheless continues pending deportation. In relation to the immigration estate, boards have expressed concern about the detention of children and the length of time some detainees spend in immigration removal centres. Some are detained for years and boards are concerned at the impact of such long-term, indefinite detention on their mental health. Boards are also concerned about the building or refurbishment of the immigration detention estate using criteria that would normally apply to prisons. Looking forward During their visits to prisons in the coming year, Independent Monitoring Boards will pay close attention to the use and management of segregation and the provision of health care. They will also monitor the impact of prison budget cuts amid fears that reduced funding will result in a general decline in standards for prisoners. In relation to immigration detention, boards will closely monitor the resolution of age-disputed cases and the length of time detainees spend travelling between places of detention and waiting at airports prior to their removal from the UK. Independent Monitoring Boards, Opportunity or not (2009). Independent Monitoring Boards, A prison within a prison (2009). National Council for Independent Monitoring Boards, Behind closed doors (2010). Indeterminate sentences for public protection may be imposed on those who have committed specified offences and who are deemed to pose a significant risk of serious harm in the future. Offenders are given a ‘tariff’ (the minimum period of imprisonment) but may only be released following expiration of the tariff if they can show the Parole Board that they have reduced their risk to the public. 27