Section one Introduction Context better learn from each other, coordinate their work and improve the consistency with which they approached human rights issues in detention. However, realising that potential without an explicit statutory footing or structure for so doing, among so many organisations with different powers and priorities operating across four nations with different levels of devolution, has undoubtedly been challenging. Five years after the UK NPM was designated, much of this report focuses on the extent to which that potential has been realised and those challenges met. We have had a number of processes for making that assessment. In June 2013 we met with the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture (SPT) in Geneva, the UN body that oversees OPCAT implementation, to discuss the work of the UK NPM and the strengths and weaknesses of its structure. All NPM members completed a self-assessment of the degree to which they comply with OPCAT requirements, based on the guidance the SPT had issued to NPMs. We will repeat this process every year and NPM members are committed to bringing a greater external perspective to that assessment. In April 2014 the UK NPM, in conjunction with the University of Bristol Human Rights Implementation Centre, hosted a conference for NPM members, inspected bodies, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), academics and other stakeholders to consider the progress the NPM had made in the five years since its designation and priorities for the future. We were grateful that the Rt. Hon. Simon Hughes MP, the Minister of State for Justice and Civil Liberties, took the opportunity to attend the conference and were encouraged by his statements of support for OPCAT and the future work of the NPM. The key strength of the NPM is the hundreds of independent monitoring visits conducted every year, with its preventive approach further supported by the capacity of its individual members to undertake other activity such as training or commenting on legislative proposals. As a direct consequence of OPCAT, the scope of NPM members’ monitoring has been extended to include new areas of custody such as police cells and military detention in the UK, although it is frustrating that we cannot inspect UK military detention overseas. The criteria used in our monitoring increasingly draw directly on human rights standards. OPCAT has supported members in their efforts to ensure that their independence and need to be adequately resourced are properly understood by government. Work and best practice on issues such as the detention of children is shared between members and NPM members work together to comment on draft UK and European legislation. The UK NPM is a constant source of experience and expertise for other states wishing to establish NPMs or develop their work in detention settings. However, as this report also shows, 2013–14 was undoubtedly a challenging year for many of the bodies we monitor. Increased demand and reduced resources created pressures that sometimes contributed to the 5