Section Two The first year In the UK the visiting of most places of detention was well established prior to the ratification of OPCAT. Following designation therefore, the members of the NPM were able to continue their work, albeit under a new international framework. Section 4 of this report provides detailed information about the activities of each member in 2009–10. In addition to the regular visits carried out by each member, most activity in the first year following designation has been focused on raising awareness among NPM members of OPCAT and their newly enhanced role. While some members of the NPM already collaborate with one another, efforts have been made to promote awareness and understanding of the role of each organisation among all NPM members and to build positive working relationships. The appointment of the NPM coordinator in October 2009 has allowed more proactive work to take place. The impact of designation as a member of the NPM has varied according to individual members. For some, it has resulted in an expansion of their role or a greater focus on detention monitoring. For others, it has resulted in the adoption of a more human rights-based approach to their visits. The impact of designation is discussed further in the profiles of individual members below. Coming together In December 2009, the members met to discuss their role as the UK’s NPM. The NPM is indebted to the Human Rights Implementation Centre at the University of Bristol for funding and helping to organise the meeting. At the meeting, the members discussed the impact of NPM membership on their organisation and the challenges for the NPM as a whole and for individual members. They also considered HMIP’s coordination role and sought to identify ways in which the members could work together. The members examined a number of issues, including the need to raise awareness of OPCAT and their need for clarity around basic concepts such as the definition of detention. This issue was particularly relevant for those members whose remit is broad and goes beyond visits to places where people are detained by lawful order, such as care homes for the elderly. While such places may not strictly be deemed places of detention, the residents may be under certain restrictions which some may consider amount to de facto detention. It was agreed to further explore this issue. 13