we were instantly surrounded by anxious men who were keen to ask questions and to see if the NPM could help them- and the lack of a structured system for their visit, meant they were able to speak only to those detainees who were closest and loudest. They have also developed and implemented a short detainee survey with eleven questions, inspired by HMIP’s longer and more established survey methodology (Bhui, 2018). Even though it was in its pilot phase, and had not yet been introduced in detention centres for unidentified reasons, it was hoped that the survey would generate important evidence regarding detainees’ experiences in custody, including information about ill-treatment. The survey had been translated into 3 languages and had received an average 40 per cent response rate. Yet, the results from all the centres had not yet been analysed due to lack of research officers.96 Furthermore, while, this survey was used in prison monitoring visits during 2019, the findings were not included in that year’s report. Its application in practice is questionable too. At the monitoring visit to the prison in Kos, two members of the NPM went to the prison early in the morning to distribute the survey to the prisoners. However, the guards did not allow them to do so, so instead they left the surveys to the staff, who agreed to give them to the men. When we went back to the prison that day as a delegation, the police said that only a few men were interested in responding, which NPM members accepted at face value and quickly put away the surveys in their bags. A few days later, they had still not gone through the responses, even though, some of the prisoners might have included sensitive information which might have to have been acted upon immediately. Their presence In prisons is much more established than their efforts in immigration detention, where independent monitoring remains unfamiliar to detention staff and immigration officials. They do not understand its rationale or purpose, and inspectors often face issues of trust. Although the police who manage immigration detention are not explicitly obstructive, they rarely provide the fullest cooperation to monitors. For example, while most detention officers did not interfere with the inspection while it was underway, their focus on security concerns meant that inspectors were rarely left unattended or able to have confidential discussions with detainees as highlighted in the airport inspection at the opening of this section. The NPM was exploring the possibility to cooperate with the National Centre of Social Research (EKKE), which could offer in house researchers but this had not materialised yet at the time of research. 96 145