2 NORWEGIAN PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMAN National Preventive Mechanism ANNUAL REPORT 2020 Foreword 2020 was an unusual year for the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s National Preventive Mechanism (NPM). The COVID-19 pandemic changed the risk picture and highlighted the vulnerability of new groups of people. Development of new methods and visits to new sectors therefore became important. In the spring of 2020, the NPM conducted several visits to child welfare institutions and institutions within mental healthcare for children and adolescents. The autumn was spent conducting visits to care homes for elderly and to shared accommodation for persons with intellectual disabilities. The year began with a public hearing in the Storting’s Standing Committee on Scrutiny and Constitutional Affairs, concerning the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s Special Report to the Storting on solitary confinement and lack of human contact in Norwegian prisons. Participants were the Minister of Justice and Public Security Jøran Kallmyr, Minister of Health and Care Services Bent Høie, and the leaders of the Norwegian Correctional Service and Directorate of Health. A Special Report is the most powerful instrument held by the Parliamentary Ombudsman, and the report is based on findings from the National Preventive Mechanism’s (NPM’s) visits to nineteen Norwegian prisons over five years. The fact that the Committee decided to hold a public hearing represented an important milestone for the work on restricting the use of solitary confinement in Norwegian prisons. The year started as planned with regard to the NPM's visit activities; with visits to private child welfare institutions and mental healthcare insti­ tutions for children and adolescent. Children and adolescents deprived of their liberty are particularly vulnerable to violations of their integrity, and there­ fore have a right to special protection. One finding described in a separate article in Chapter 3 of the annual report, is that children who are admitted to mental health institutions can be subjected to extremely intrusive forms of coercion. Despite the fact that several human rights bodies recommend prohibition of coercive means and segregation in relation to children, the Mental Health Care Act permits administration of strong medication without the consent of the child in acute situations, and the use of restraints beds and segregation of children over 16 years of age. Another finding is that the local control commissions lack a common approach to children admitted to institutions, and that the practices of some commissions are problematic in relation to children’s legal protection. We also look more closely at the risk of violations of children and adolescents’ rights in situations where children under the care of child welfare agencies ­involuntarily live alone with adult staff. Isolation is not permitted at child welfare institutions. Accord­ ing to child welfare legislation isolation occurs when a child is being kept apart from his/her peers at the institution, with contact with staff only. Our findings indicate that many of the so-called “enetiltak”, where children are placed separately from other childern, conflict with the prohibition against the use of segregation. The investigations carried out by the NPM of this issue are presented in more detail in the second article in Chapter 3. The year has also been characterised by the pandemic. When society went into lockdown in March, the Parliamentary Ombudsman decided to temporarily suspend planned visits. The infection situation and the “do no harm” principle were the main reasons behind this decision.