8 npm annual report 2016 / the ombudsman's task As any separate unit within the Office of the Ombudsman would in any case be very small, it would be impossible to assemble all the necessary expertise in such a unit and the number of visits conducted would remain considerably smaller. Participation in the visits and the other tasks of the Ombudsman, especially the handling of complaints, are mutually supportive activities. The information obtained and experience gained during visits can be utilised in the handling of complaints, and vice versa. For this reason, too, it is important that those members of the Office personnel whose area of responsibility cover facilities that fall within the scope of the OPCAT also participate in the tasks of the NPM. In practice, this means the majority of the Office’s legal advisers, i.e. some 25 people. The OPCAT requires the States Parties to make available the necessary resources for the functioning of the NPM. The Government proposal concerning the adoption of the OPCAT (HE 182/2012 vp) notes that in the interest of effective performance of obligations under the OPCAT, the personnel resources at the Office of the Parliamentary Ombudsman should be increased. Regardless of this, no additional personnel resources have been granted for the Ombudsman to perform the duties of the NPM. In the report on its visit to Finland in 2014, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) recommended that steps be taken to increase significantly the financial and human resources made available to the Finnish Parliamentary Ombudsman in his role as the NPM. The Committee also suggested that consideration be given to setting up a separate unit or department within the Office of the Parliamentary Ombudsman to be responsible for the NPM functions. In budget proposal for 2014, the Ombudsman requested that funding for one new post focusing on supervisory tasks be added to the Office’s operating appropriation. No such addition was made. To save costs, the Ombudsman did not propose a new post of a legal adviser in his budget proposal for 2015. In the budget proposal for 2016, the Ombudsman has again requested funding for establishing one post of a legal adviser to discharge the duties of the NPM. No additional funding was allocated for this purpose. In its recommendations issued in December 2016 on the basis of Finland’s seventh periodic report, the UN Committee against Torture (CAT) expressed its concern for the Ombudsman’s insufficient financial or human resources to carry out the mandate of the NPM. The CAT recommended that the State should strengthen the NPM by providing it with sufficient resources to enable it to carry out its mandate independently and efficiently. The CAT also recommended that Finland should give consideration to the possibility of establishing the NPM as a separate entity under the Parliamentary Ombudsman. The State has been requested to provide a response to the recommendations by 7 December 2017.