National Preventive Mechanism Fifth Annual Report 2013–14 poor treatment of detainees in a number of different settings. There was a growing, if overdue, awareness of the increased vulnerability of many of those held in different forms of custody, because of their age, mental health, physical disability, previous history of exploitation or other characteristics. Individual members focus on these issues in the day-to-day work that is described in their own annual reports. In addition, the NPM seeks to bring its collective effort to examining cross-cutting themes that affect most, if not all, forms of detention. Restraint is one of these issues. Too many lives have been lost because the same mistakes have been made again and again. The NPM took up this issue in 2013–14 and members agreed to take the work of the Ministerial Board on Deaths in Custody in England and Wales, progressing common principles of safer restraint, as a basis for their own work. Individuals and organisations that cooperate with an NPM in the course of its work must be free from sanctions or prejudice for doing so. Over the last year some NPM members have begun work together to ensure there are reporting and investigation mechanisms in place to deal with any allegation of sanctions and, perhaps even more importantly, to ensure detainees feel they can speak freely to inspectors or monitors. 6 In 2014–15 the NPM has agreed to work on the issue of solitary confinement and isolation – which may come under many different names and guises in different forms of detention, but is always a severe measure that should only be used for the shortest possible time, when strictly necessary and be subject to close supervision. We will report more fully on this issue in the NPM’s next annual report. Despite making progress in many areas, we are clear that the NPM is not yet fully able to realise its potential. It is a challenge to coordinate the activities of so many different bodies, all of which have different powers and many of which have much wider remits than the monitoring of places of detention. In my view, the responsibilities and powers that members derive from being part of the NPM need to be clearly set out in legislation. Experience has also shown the benefits of establishing a legal duty for inspecting bodies to cooperate with each other. Strengthening the basis with which the NPM performs its functions would strengthen the protection of those detained. It would require inspected establishments and relevant authorities to engage with NPM members’ recommendations, provide a clear basis for taking forward joint work and safeguard NPM members’ independence.