Section Two The first year detained in psychiatric institutions. The UK NPM was represented by the Care Quality Commission and the workshop was also attended by members of the SPT, as well as other international organisations with expertise in this area. In 2010–11, the UK NPM will participate in additional workshops, including one on monitoring police custody. the members’ individual profiles. However, the government envisaged that the functions of the UK’s NPM would be fulfilled by the collective action of the members, and it may therefore be possible that where two members visit the same places of detention, any perceived deficiencies in the mandate of one member may be corrected by the other. Compliance with OPCAT Perhaps the most significant compliance issue is whether all places of detention are covered by the NPM in the UK, as required by OPCAT. Gaps in coverage have so far been identified in relation to military detention facilities and court custody in England and Wales. While HMIP is invited to inspect some places of military detention (most notably the Military Corrective Training Centre, the main detention facility for military personnel), the right of access is not statutory. Moreover, there are other places of military detention which are not currently inspected, such as service custody facilities (sometimes known as guardhouses). HMIP is currently in discussion with the government about extending its inspection programme of military detention facilities, as well as an extension of its mandate so that it may inspect court custody. In the UK, the ratification of OPCAT and the designation of the NPM did not result in visiting bodies being given the necessary powers to fulfil the functions of an NPM. Instead the members had pre-existing mandates that were deemed by the government to be sufficiently compliant with OPCAT to merit designation. As a result, the manner in which the members meet the OPCAT criteria is not always consistent. For example, the members have varying degrees of independence, their nature and composition differs, and the frequency of visits varies according to the type of detention visited and the member carrying out the visit. Nonetheless, for the most part the members meet the OPCAT criteria, although there are some outstanding issues, some of which are described below under Recommendation: The UK government should explore gaps in the coverage of the NPM, identifying places of detention that are not currently monitored for the purpose of preventing ill-treatment. Any identified gaps, such as military detention and court custody, should be addressed as soon as possible to ensure that the UK complies with its international obligations. 15