the ombudsman's task ed 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’s personnel whose area of responsibility covers facilities 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, 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 allocated for the Ombudsman to perform its duties as 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 significantly increase 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 its recommendations issued in December 2016 on the basis of Finland’s seventh periodic report, the UN Committee against Torture (CAT) expressed its concern about the Ombudsman having insufficient financial or human resources to fulfil the mandate of the NPM. The CAT recommended that the State strengthen the NPM by providing it with sufficient resources to fulfil its mandate independently and efficiently. The CAT also recommended that Finland should consider the possibility of establishing the NPM as a separate entity under the Parliamentary Ombudsman. The State has been requested to respond to the recommendations by 7 December 2017. The Ombudsman submitted his statement on the matter to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs on 13 October 2017. In giving his opinion, the Ombudsman states that the Office has so far received no additional human resources to fulfil its remit as the NPM, although such increases were included in the 2014 and 2016 budget proposals. In line with the parliamentary guidance restricting the creation of new government posts, the Ombudsman did not include additional human resources in the 2017 budget proposal. Instead, the Ombudsman proposed an increase in financial resourcing to allow, for example, the consultation of external experts. The Ombudsman also states that its duties included visits to closed institutions and monitoring of the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty long before its designation as the NPM. The Ombudsman therefore had the resources required for these operations before it assumed the duties of the NPM. However, more resources are required for the development of the operations. With internal organisational changes and the reallocation of resources from other oversight activities, the Office of the Parliamentary Ombudsman has been able to appoint one full-time legal adviser to coordinate the NPM’s operations. A further two new posts, a coordinator and an assistant, are still needed. 9