Section five Lay monitoring not always implemented. They can make the same recommendation year after year without seeing evidence of change or an explanation about why the recommendation is not being delivered. This runs counter to Article 22 of OPCAT, which requires authorities to examine the recommendations of an NPM and enter into a dialogue with it on possible implementation measures. In England and Wales, action plans are prepared on behalf of the government in response to recommendations in each IMB’s annual report. This is good practice and helps board members follow up their recommendations. In Northern Ireland, the IMBs direct their recommendations to the Justice Minister in order to have them taken seriously and to ensure they are effectively implemented. The Northern Ireland Prison Service then has to publish its response to each recommendation. Independence The lay members of the NPM value their independence from the government and the authorities they monitor. Designation as members of the NPM has reinforced the independent nature of their work and encouraged them to assess whether they are sufficiently independent. This has had implications for their practice. For example, in the past, custody visitors in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland were introduced to detainees by the custody officer. To foster independence, custody visitors have begun a policy of self-introduction. This encourages detainees to see visitors as independent from custodial staff and is proving successful. In Northern Ireland, the proportion of detainees who refused to speak to custody visitors dropped from 18% to 7% following the implementation of self-introduction. Lay monitors also fear that their recommendations are accorded a lower status than those of the professional inspectorates. In particular, they may lack the capacity to follow up strategic recommendations that are a matter of national law or policy, rather than an issue that can be resolved locally or by an individual establishment. However, by individual organisations coming together under the NPM framework, there is an opportunity for improved communication between the lay bodies and the professional inspectorates and the possibility of working together more closely to monitor the implementation of each others’ recommendations. Indeed, designation as members of the NPM has already facilitated contact between the lay monitoring bodies themselves, as well as between the lay bodies and professional inspectorates, allowing them to discuss common concerns and identify areas for joint action. The SPT has noted that the independent functioning of NPMs can be fostered by specifying the periods of office for which members serve. This has been a contentious issue for some lay members of the NPM. While some already have term-limited appointments, others do not. IMBs in England and Wales are currently introducing a fixed term policy. This has prompted some fears that boards will struggle to recruit volunteers to replace termlimited members and that a significant amount of experience and expertise will be lost. Others believe that recruitment difficulties will be offset by the benefits of new board members providing a fresh perspective. In contrast, the independent custody visitors in Northern Ireland, for example, have term-limited appointments for a maximum of six years. They feel this approach has not inhibited recruitment but has, in fact, encouraged diversity among volunteers while maintaining a good level of experience and expertise. 37