Section Four National Preventive Mechanism member profiles related to the lack of governance and monitoring of the use of force on detainees in custody. This precluded any analysis of trends in the extent, type or circumstances of the use of force. also found examples of poor protocols with mental health support services and secure facilities, and ineffective use of schemes to divert appropriate cases from unnecessarily entering the criminal justice system. In relation to treatment and conditions, in most police custody suites, custody staff were found to be respectful in their daily interactions with detainees. However, the standard of accommodation for detainees was highly variable. While some variation was due to age and the design standards at the time of construction, there were also examples of more modern buildings where a lack of ongoing investment and maintenance had allowed avoidable deterioration. A key concern was the widespread presence of ligature points in cells. Looking forward Inspections found that the provision of rights under PACE, such as access to legal advice, was virtually universal and was embedded in the culture and practice of custody staff. Nevertheless, it was found that detainees were often not told how they could make a complaint about their care and treatment and were not enabled to do so. In some cases, detainees were actively discouraged from making complaints. In 2010–11, HMIC and HMIP will continue their programme of joint inspections and will further develop the methodology for the inspection of police custody. In addition to publishing individual inspection reports, they plan to produce a report highlighting recurring themes and issues from all inspections undertaken between 2008 and 2010. Even though joint inspections by HMIC and HMIP have only fairly recently been introduced, it is already clear that inspections are focusing attention on the safe and humane treatment of those in police custody, not just in those suites already inspected, but across England and Wales. Inspections also revealed concerns about the consistency and governance of health care services in police custody. There was significant variation in arrangements for the provision of forensic medical and health care services and concerns were raised about response times, the administration of medication, the suitability of examination facilities and the handling of drug dependencies. Mental health provision was of particular concern. While there were some examples of good practice, inspections 31