CAT/OP/GBR/RONPM/1 60. The Subcommittee recommends that the national preventive mechanism continue to engage in a proactive discussion with relevant authorities, in particular Parliament and the Ministry of Justice, requesting an increase in financial and personnel resources, in particular for the mechanism’s secretariat. 61. Bearing in mind that the Optional Protocol is unequivocal on the need for the State party to allocate specific resources to the national preventive mechanism (art. 18 (1) and (3)), so as to guarantee the operational independence of the mechanism,18 and that the Subcommittee guidelines on national preventive mechanisms indicate explicitly that the mechanism should enjoy complete financial and operational autonomy,19 the Subcommittee recommends that the national preventive mechanism as a whole, as well as the 21 bodies composing the mechanism, advocate for a specific earmarked allocation of funds to the functioning of the mechanism. D. Visibility 1. Collective identity of the national preventive mechanism 62. The national preventive mechanism of the United Kingdom is a unique model, comprising 21 diverse entities that seek to collectively implement the Optional Protocolmandated role of prevention of torture. While the designation of pre-existing institutions as the national preventive mechanism is a valid option and, ultimately, the prerogative of the State party, the Optional Protocol’s pioneering nature is such that it requires profound changes in the work of the pre-existing entities to ensure that national preventive mechanism work becomes an integral part of their activities, uplifted from their “business as usual” pattern. 63. The execution of national preventive mechanism work by 21 different bodies has its strengths and challenges. For example, it minimizes gaps in protection from torture by ensuring that places of detention are regularly visited by more than one monitoring mechanism. However, this “layered” structure of monitoring may present a risk of duplication and a risk of discrepancy in findings. Therefore, a multi-body national preventive mechanism requires strong coordination and a well-articulated strategic direction for the mechanism as a whole, in order to achieve results in terms of prevention of torture. 64. The Subcommittee appreciates the information provided by the national preventive mechanism about collaboration between different mechanism bodies and examples of how this collaboration works in practice. For instance, in Northern Ireland, Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons prepared in 2009 a specific protocol for collaboration in joint prison inspections. 20 Similarly, the Independent Custody Visiting Association and the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation have built stronger linkages between their respective tasks related to those detained under the Terrorism Act. The Subcommittee also notes with appreciation the mechanism’s webpage and Twitter account. 65. However, a number of stakeholders mentioned to the Subcommittee in the course of its visit that preventive focus is not always prioritized in the work of the individual bodies of the national preventive mechanism. Moreover, the Subcommittee observed that the authorities in charge of places of deprivation of liberty, as well as persons deprived of liberty and civil society, often perceive the work of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons, Independent Monitoring Boards, the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and other national preventive mechanism components as unrelated and not as parts of the same collegial body. 18 19 20 12 Guidelines on national preventive mechanisms, para. 8. Ibid., para. 12. The role of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons in inspecting prisons with Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland ensures parity between the way prisons are inspected in Northern Ireland and how they are inspected in England and Wales, as Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland uses the same expectations and methodology as Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons.