Section one OPCAT and
Introduction
the NPM
Unfortunately, there is still much more to
do and those that visit and inspect are
often swimming against the tide – a large
and growing prison population, no limit
on the period that people can be kept in
immigration detention, and too many people
in segregation or isolation (in prisons within
prisons). However, by working together
across the detention institutions and across
the nations of the UK, NPM members
can and do make a difference each year.
The NPM continues to look for ways to
strengthen our joint working processes.
This year saw the creation of an NPM police
custody sub-group to share and improve
custody visiting and inspection practices.
We also welcomed the development of
new standards and methodology for joint
inspections of custody suites designated to
hold those detained under counter-terrorism
legislation (TACT suites). This work was
carried out by HM Inspectorate of Prisons
and HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and
Fire & Rescue Services.
At the national level, the NPM Secretariat
has been working closely with the Ministry
of Justice to ensure greater coordination
between the governments and executives
of the four countries, and has started on
the drafting of a Protocol that should help
to better structure these relationships
and recognise the importance of an
independent NPM.
However, we started the new year in April
2018 without the additional resources the
NPM Secretariat so badly needed to ensure
the full potential of joined-up work across
member organisations, nations and the
different detention settings is realised. In
addition, some individual NPM members had
their budgets cut. We also have to continue
to spend time arguing for the need for the
NPM to be placed on a legislative basis. This
is time that the NPM Secretariat would rather
spend supporting members to improve
conditions in detention. Legislation would
clarify the role of the NPM and its members
and embed the mandate required by the
United Nations. We should not go another
year without the necessary guarantees of our
independence. I am therefore very grateful
that the United Nations Subcommittee
on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment (SPT) has supported these
claims in such robust terms:
‘The lack of a clear legislative basis for the
NPM has long been a matter of concern
to the SPT. We are aware that some take
the view that this is not legally necessary
under the OPCAT. The SPT disagrees with
this position and should the SPT visit the
UK on an official basis it is incontrovertible
that this failing would feature in its report
and recommendations – as it has in all
other countries where there are similar
shortcomings.
'The experience of the SPT is that the
situation of an NPM remains precarious
without its being underpinned by a
clear legislative basis. We have seen,
unfortunately, too many examples of cases
in which states have put pressure on NPMs,
directly or indirectly, which they have not
been able to challenge for the want of
a clear basis on which to do so. Practical
effectiveness is dependent on functional
independence, and the independence is
threatened when the NPM is vulnerable to
political pressure or political exigencies. The
role of the SPT in relation to NPMs includes
ensuring that they are protected from such
5