CAT/OP/GBR/ROSP/1 E. Visibility 48. While noting that the bodies composing the national preventive mechanism were well known and respected by key national actors, the Subcommittee observed that the mechanism was not always perceived as such when exercising its role. During its visits, the Subcommittee observed that persons deprived of their liberty often perceived the national preventive mechanism as an oversight body and not as a preventive body, which was detrimental to the visibility of the preventive nature of the work of the mechanism under the Optional Protocol. 49. The Subcommittee recommends that the State party ensure that its national preventive mechanism is recognized as a key component in the country’s system for the prevention of torture and ill-treatment and adopt an effective strategy to raise the mechanism’s visibility and profile. In this regard, the Subcommittee recommends that the State party take all necessary measures, when establishing the formal legislative basis of the national preventive mechanism, to ensure that each of the mechanism’s oversight bodies exercise their preventive mandate when acting in that capacity, in order to avoid any confusion with their other functions. Annual report 50. The Subcommittee notes with appreciation the annual reports prepared by the national preventive mechanism bodies and the mechanism as a collective body. However, the Subcommittee notes that the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice presents the mechanism’s collective annual reports to Parliament. In this connection, the presentation of the mechanism’s findings to Parliament by representatives of the executive branch is contrary to the mechanism’s mandate, which is to assess independently and impartially how the Government complies with its domestic and international human rights obligation to prevent torture. 51. The Subcommittee recommends that the State party adopt legislation enabling the national preventive mechanism to present its annual report to Parliament directly and to be accountable to Parliament for the implementation of its mandate. F. Conclusion 52. The Subcommittee observes that the national preventive mechanism of the United Kingdom is composed of multiple pre-existing bodies, which represents an additional challenge for the State party in adhering to the principles enshrined in the Optional Protocol, in particular articles 17, 18 and 19. In this connection, the Subcommittee believes that a clear policy from the Government of the United Kingdom is required to ensure that the national preventive mechanism and its component bodies are compatible with the provisions of the Optional Protocol. Such a policy is needed to address the current deficiencies in the mechanism’s statutory basis, ensuring the independence of each of its bodies when acting in their capacity as the mechanism. Sufficient resourcing of the mechanism is also needed. Moreover, given the scale and complexity of the mechanism’s multibody structure, a robust independent coordination function is essential for the effective practical implementation of the objectives of the Protocol. In addition, in order to ensure the guarantees of independence and effectiveness in terms of prevention of torture, the independence of the mechanism’s Chair and secretariat need to be recognized in law and supported in practice through the sufficient provision of resources. 53. The Subcommittee trusts that the present report will serve as a road map towards the State party’s compliance with the Optional Protocol. 10