National Preventive Mechanism in the United Kingdom

1. National Preventive Mechanism in the United Kingdom Laura Paton UK NPM Coordinator Kyiv, 18 October 2011

2. OPCAT and the UK • OPCAT ratified by the UK in 2003 • NPM designated in 2009 • Criteria used by UK Government: • Statutory basis • Unrestricted access to places of detention and detainees • Power to make unannounced visits • Unrestricted access to information about detainees and conditions of detention • Independent • Professional knowledge

3. The UK NPM • 18 bodies • Covering England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland • Covering almost all places of detention • More bodies may be added in future • Coordinated by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons

4. Coordination by HMIP • Promote cohesion among NPM members • Facilitate a collective understanding of OPCAT • Encourage collaboration and shared learning • Independence of individual members respected • Coordinated activities include: business meetings, thematic workshops

5. The UK’s NPM– By Jurisdiction England and Wales Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons Independent Monitoring Boards Independent Custody Visiting Association Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary Care Quality Commission Healthcare Inspectorate of Wales Children’s Commissioner for England Care & Social Services Inspectorate Wales Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) Scotland Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary for Scotland Scottish Human Rights Commission Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland Care Commission Northern Ireland Independent Monitoring Boards Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority Northern Ireland Policing Board Independent Custody Visiting Scheme

6. The UK’s NPM – By Type of Detention Detention under mental health law Care Quality Commission Healthcare Inspectorate of Wales Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority Immigration detention HM Inspectorate of Prisons Independent Monitoring Boards Military detention Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons General access Children’s Commissioner for England – to all places where children are detained in England Scottish Human Rights Commission – to all places of detention in Scotland Prisons HM Inspectorate of Prisons Independent Monitoring Boards HM Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland Independent Monitoring Boards Northern Ireland Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland Police custody HM Inspectorate of Prisons Independent Custody Visiting Association HM Inspectorate of Constabulary HM Inspectorate of Constabulary for Scotland Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland Northern Ireland Policing Board Independent Custody Visiting Scheme Court custody HM Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland Children in secure accommodation Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) Care & Social Services Inspectorate Wales Care Commission Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority

7. Benefits of UK model • Expertise • Members working in partnership • Layers of monitoring ensure high frequency of visits and in-depth inspections • Diversity • Strength in numbers • Focus on all types of detention

8. Disadvantages of UK model • Size and complexity • Need for coordination • Difficult to gain overview of detention across UK • Potential for disagreement among members • NPM ‘identity’ – public/detainee awareness • Engagement • Gaps in coverage

9. Thoughts on NPM models • Consider multi-member NPM • Smaller number than UK • Statutory basis • Appoint a coordinator • Agreement among members about coordination e.g. a Memorandum of Understanding

10. Further information • First Annual Report available at www.justice.gov.uk/about/hmi-prisons/preventive-mechanism.htm • UK NPM Database www.bristol.ac.uk/law/research/centres-themes/hric/hricnpmukdatabase/index.html • NPM Coordinator Laura.Paton@hmiprisons.gsi.gov.uk