Section three Five years of the UK NPM - reflecting and looking ahead 4. Preventing torture and ill-treatment: investing in rights-based inspections. Stephen Bowen (British Institute of Human Rights) chaired this discussion, and Theresa Nixon (RQIA) delivered a presentation. The discussion focused on how to ensure that human rights standards underpin NPM work, and what this means for members’ methodology and approach. Those present discussed the need to develop a clearer idea of what form ‘human rights inspection’ should take, and that the overall objective of an OPCAT-compliant inspection is to observe ‘to what extent human rights are respected’. Recommendations included: ➢ Human rights should be made explicit in, and central to, the mandates of all members; ➢ Providing human rights training to inspectors, service providers and their staff would play an important role in preventing torture and ill‑treatment; ➢ NPM members should be open with inspected bodies regarding the specific standards which will be used for assessing them, which should be derived from law. 5. ‘Who guards the guards?’ Accountability of the NPM and its members – what does this mean in practice? Hugh Chetwynd (CPT) and Barbara Bernath (Association for the Prevention of Torture) chaired and presented this discussion, which focused on accountability challenges for the NPM and its members. All those present agreed that formal and perceived independence and accountability of the NPM are essential. Among the recommendations arising from this session were: ➢ The NPM should be accountable to Parliament rather than the government, and Parliament should debate its annual report; ➢ More work is needed to safeguard the independence of NPM members and their staff. 6. De facto detention: what are the risks associated with individuals who are not formally detained by law, but still may be deprived of their liberty? Jill Stavert (Napier University) and Donald Lyons (MWCS) led a discussion around the NPM’s ongoing work on de facto detention. In the light of recent legal developments that take a broader approach to defining what constitutes a deprivation of liberty, the NPM can bring added value to this area by focusing further on the issues. Recommendations included: ➢ Ensuring the focus in mental health settings moves away from merely questioning the legality of detention, to questions of proportionality and necessity, and ethics. ➢ NPM members should continue to discuss how they will ensure monitoring of those who receive treatment at home/in the community. 43