Section one Introduction Context What all of these processes have in common is individuals locked up on their own for long periods with limited contact with other detainees or staff. In this report we have drawn on United Nations and international standards to define ‘solitary confinement’,1 and draw a qualitative distinction between this and ‘isolation’ (see page 24 for definitions). Our review shows that it would be possible to have two men with identical mental health needs, disruptive behaviour and selfharm risks held in very different conditions, depending where they ended up. A man in a prison segregation unit might be locked in a dirty cell for 23 hours a day, with no activity apart from a radio to listen to and very limited human contact. A man with identical characteristics might also be isolated in a secure hospital, where he would be kept in his own room, allowed as many of his own things as possible, and visited regularly by staff and health professionals who would help him reintegrate. A boy of 16 in a YOI might be disciplined by being confined in an adult segregation unit for some days; the same boy in a STC might be confined in his own room for a few hours for the same behaviour. Inconsistencies in the use of isolation and solitary confinement, however, are just one example that demonstrates the need for NPM members to work effectively together to develop common standards and methodologies to improve treatment and conditions across the whole range of detention settings. The summary of NPM members’ work during the year contained in this report provides further examples of the pressures on the establishments we monitor, and the opportunities to share both the concerns and best practice that have arisen in response to this. Last year, we reported on the major exercise we had undertaken five years after the NPM had been designed to assess how effective it was in fulfilling its responsibilities. This year we can report that real progress has been made. Awareness of their responsibilities arising from OPCAT has increased among NPM members, and this is increasingly reflected in their own monitoring and inspection processes and the development of human rights–based standards. NPM members have agreed to take action to reduce their reliance on seconded staff and avoid conflict of interest where this is necessary. Members are also working to develop and implement arrangements to ensure detainees and others do not face sanctions because of their contact with NPM members. An NPM website was developed during the year and went live shortly after the year end. NPM sub-groups on children, mental health and Scotland provide an opportunity to share best practice, and coordinate contact with government and detention authorities. Progress on measures to strengthen the NPM’s governance has been slower. Some NPM members in England were themselves subject to welcome calls from parliamentary committees and other bodies for their independence from their 1 Istanbul Statement on the Use and Effects of Solitary Confinement, 9 December 2007, at: http://www.solitaryconfinement. org/istanbul (accessed 14/10/15); United Nations Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (2015), ‘The Mandela Rules’ (E/CN.15/2015/L.6/Rev.1), Rule 44. 5