Section Two The first year The criteria for designation employed by the government, while justified, have led to some apparent anomalies. For example, there are prison visiting committees in Scotland whose role is equivalent to Independent Monitoring Boards in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. While the monitoring boards have all been designated, the Scottish visiting committees have not. At first glance this may seem illogical, but visiting committees in Scotland were under review when the NPM was designated and the government decided not to include them at that time.10 To add to the confusion, there are some members of the NPM who appear to have a corresponding member in another jurisdiction – but this is not always the case. For example, it may seem that HMIP in England and Wales and HMIP in Scotland (HMIPS) have the same mandate. However, while HMIP inspects prisons, immigration and military detention and police custody, HMIPS inspects prisons, legalised police cells and prisoner escort arrangements, which includes the conditions in which prisoners are held in court cells. In short, there is much work to be done in explaining the composition of the UK NPM to stakeholders. It is plain therefore that the NPM in the UK faces numerous challenges, many of which are common to all newly designated NPMs and some of which are particular to the circumstances in the UK. Nonetheless, the members are confident that none of these challenges are insurmountable and the experience of the first year suggests that they are more than able to overcome them. Moreover, while the NPM structure poses particular difficulties, the members feel that the long history of visiting and inspecting places of detention in the UK means they are well placed to fulfil the functions of an NPM as set out in OPCAT. Emerging issues Given the number of organisations involved in visiting places of detention and the range of places visited, it is a challenge to easily identify common or recurring issues. Nonetheless, it is clear from discussions between members and from the profiles of each member included in this report that there are key issues affecting those deprived of their liberty. These issues are discussed in more detail in their profiles but a few are highlighted below. Mental health Perhaps the most significant and recurring concern across all types of detention relates to detainees with mental health problems. In 2009–10, many members noted the need to divert these detainees from the criminal justice system but cited the ineffective use of diversionary schemes. Members visiting prisons and police custody noted that, despite the best efforts of staff, detainees did not receive the support and treatment required. In prisons, those with mental health problems were sometimes held for long periods in segregation units, often awaiting transfers to a more appropriate environment. 10 The current arrangements for prison visiting committees in Scotland remain under review. It is possible that they will be designated as an additional member of the UK’s NPM in the future. 17