CAT/OP/GBR/CSPRO/1 achieved in order to ensure its independence, including functional, as foreseen in the Protocol.” 9. The UK Government notes the concerns raised by the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and the NPM, that whilst the individual independent members of the NPM each have a statutory basis, the NPM itself is not set out in statute. As stated above, the UK undertook a consultation on this point and will provide a response in due course. While we do not agree that the lack of a legislative base precludes compliance with articles 17, 18 and 19 of the OPCAT, we will continue to discuss any specific issues with the NPM and its members. 10. Further, the UK Government is mindful of its obligations under Article 18(3) OPCAT to make available the necessary resources for the functioning of the NPM. The NPM receives an annual budget through Her Majesty’s Inspectorate for Prisons (HMIP), which they are free to use as they see fit. We continue to monitor and discuss resources with the NPM. “39. The SPT recommends the UK authorities to review the statutes of the Independent Monitoring Boards and the Lay Observers to ensure their full independence and prevent actual or potential conflicts of interest as NPM.” 11. The recent consultation on ‘Strengthening the independent scrutiny bodies through legislation’ also covered the issue of providing national statutory status for the Independent Monitoring Boards and the Lay Observers, and their respective Chairs. Placing these bodies in statute will strengthen their operational independence from the UK Government and we intend to bring forward this legislation when Parliamentary time allows. We have also put in place a protocol with the IMB’s Management Board to set out the roles and responsibilities of the parties and to clarify IMB independence from government and we hope to publish a similar protocol shortly with the Lay Observers. We will continue to explore with both bodies how their independence can be formalised further, as well as continuing to review the wider scrutiny landscape that the Independent Monitoring Boards and Lay Observers operate in. “41. The Subcommittee calls upon the UK authorities to ensure the functional independence of the HMIP as well as the independence of its personnel through a transparent process of selection and appointment of the HMIP’s Chief Inspector. The Subcommittee also recommends that, in compliance with the OPCAT, the State party ensure that NPM members are independent and do not hold a position which could raise questions of real or perceived conflict of interest.” 12. The UK is clear that HMIP is operationally independent from the UK Government. The Chief Inspector has a fully independent voice. HMIP publishes reports in its own name, with the content and timing solely at the discretion of the Chief Inspector. A protocol between the Ministry of Justice and HMIP sets out the roles and responsibilities of the two organisations and confirms the inspectorate’s independence from Government. The protocol also confirms that the Chief Inspector has the delegated authority to appoint staff within the inspectorate. In response to our consultation on ‘Strengthening the independent scrutiny bodies through legislation’ we intend to legislate to provide a stronger statutory basis for HMIP, when Parliamentary time allows. 13. The role of HM Chief Inspector of Prisons (HMCIP) appears in the Public Appointments Order in Council (Schedule, Article 2(2), pg.8) and the appointment is subject to regulation by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. This Order makes provision for an independent Commissioner to monitor the procedures adopted by appointing authorities when making appointments to public bodies. The recruitment process must also comply with the appointment principles set out in the Government’s Governance Code on Public Appointments. This Governance Code is publicly available on gov.uk. The role criteria, tenure, time-commitment and remuneration details are all published when posts are advertised on the Public Appointments website (as a minimum), where the campaign timetable and panel membership are clearly set out. As a significant appointment, the role of HMCIP is also subject to pre-appointment scrutiny by the Justice Select Committee (JSC), who are consulted throughout the process. The pre-appointment scrutiny hearing and transcript is publicly available and the JSC may also publish other relevant documentation. 5