Part II: Tools for an effective follow-up and implementation as requested, the Ombudsman may address the Parliament stating the reasons behind his actions’.193 This gives the NPM very useful leverage towards the authorities and increases the possibility of parliamentary involvement in the follow-up process. œœ Cooperation with special committees and parliamentary groups Many NPMs attend parliamentary sessions relevant to their work, mostly specialised committees, (e.g. Croatia, Cyprus, France, Malta, Slovenia, the UK), on invitation or on their own initiative. parliamentary committees were seen by these NPMs to be a useful means to engage in a meaningful way with members of Parliament and advocate for implementation of their recommendations. They have moreover said to be a very useful entry point for communication and cooperation with Parliament, leading to parliamentary debates and the ordering of studies on NPM relevant subjects. For example, the Croatian NPM has recently presented a consolidated report on general problems in psychiatric care institutions to the parliamentary Human Rights Committee, to which it also invited directors of psychiatric institutions and relevant ministries. The presentation generated great interest among Parliamentarians and was widely reported in the media, with a tangible impact for the concerned institutions. The Croatian NPM has therefore stated that equivalent interactions with the Parliament will play a prominent role in the NPM’s future follow-up strategy. In Austria, there is a special Ombudsman Committee that deals with the issues the Ombudsman addresses to Parliament, including those relevant to the work of the NPM. NPM issues can however also be discussed in other committees (e.g. Social Affairs Committee). In Germany, parliamentary groups have often shown great interest in the NPM’s work and followed up subjects and individual visits in order to learn what happened after the visit. Moreover, for the German NPM the observation of parliamentary activities has proven useful. For example parliamentary inquiries relating to the NPM’s area of work have provided it with relevant information that is consequently documented to assess the status of implementation. Such activities may moreover provide a good entry point for the follow-up to recommendations of the NPM, e.g. by advocating for necessary reforms. We were also informed of some examples where NPMs took members of Parliament on visits with them which contributed to a greater understanding of their work.194 œœ Informal contacts with members of Parliament It was suggested that informal contacts with individual members of Parliament (MPs) could also be beneficial for the follow-up process. There are a number of ways in which NPMs have developed informal relationships with parliamentarians in general, although these have not necessarily been for the purpose of follow-up specifically. For this purpose, it has been suggested that NPMs could establish a list of influential Parliamentarians or those well-disposed to the work of the NPM.195 For example, as a result of its good contact with the Parliament, the German NPM is sometimes approached by Parliamentarians before they make a parliamentary inquiry or to receive input into background papers. Similarly, in Estonia, the NPM advisers are often approached to provide their expertise to parliamentary processes. In France, members of Parliament have the right to conduct visits to places of detention and could be invited to participate in an NPM visit to enhance the dialogue. This possibility has however only be used once. For the Hungarian NPM individual and informal contacts to Parliamentarians have proven useful to raise issues of concern and place them on the agenda of specialised committees or the plenary In some countries cooperation with the Parliament may be particularly challenging due to a federal system distributing competences among federal and state authorities (such as in Germany where the main competences for police and justice lie with the states (Länder) requiring interaction with all 16 state Ibid art 38(6). Comments provided by Mari Amos, April 2015. 195 See Summary of the Workshop report Vienna/Bristol 2014. 193 194 - 67 -