CAT/OP/GBR/RONPM/1 66. The Subcommittee is conscious that the visibility of the national preventive mechanism of the United Kingdom is a complex matter that also requires action from the State party, as the lack of specific incorporation of the national preventive mechanism’s role into members’ statutory requirements affects the delivery of the mechanism’s overall mandate in practice. At the same time, the Subcommittee believes that more needs to be done by the mechanism itself to strengthen its collective identity. 67. The Subcommittee recommends that the national preventive mechanism reflect on manners in which it could build the identity of a collegial body, made up of individual entities with different backgrounds and expertise. For example, during monitoring visits, the mechanism could use a standard presentation to persons deprived of liberty and authorities in charge of custodial settings, emphasizing the collective implementation of the Optional Protocol mandate. In addition, the mechanism could consider developing its “brand”, through an emblem or distinctive dress code or by designing a strategic communication campaign. 68. In light of the above, the Subcommittee recommends that the national preventive mechanism increase its institutional visibility as a collegial body, design a strategy for raising public awareness of its Optional Protocol-mandated tasks and continue striving for stronger coordination and more cohesive work through strategic measures. These measures should reinforce the mechanism’s common values, in order to build the collective identity as one national preventive mechanism of the United Kingdom, through a proper legal framework. 2. Annual report 69. The Subcommittee notes with appreciation that the national preventive mechanism contributes input on crucial detention-related issues, and submits proposals and observations on existing or draft legislation.21 It also welcomes the annual reports prepared by national preventive mechanism bodies and the mechanism as a collective body. 70. 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 Subcommittee shares the mechanism’s view that mechanism itself should be accountable to Parliament. In that sense, presentation of the mechanism’s findings to Parliament by representatives of the executive branch is contrary to the mechanism’s line of public accountability, which is to assess independently and impartially how the Government complies with its domestic and international human rights obligation to prevent torture. This would also help to strengthen the mechanism’s visibility, as mentioned in the paragraphs above. 71. The Subcommittee recommends that the national preventive mechanism continue to advocate for the adoption of legislation that will enable it to present its annual report in Parliament directly and to be accountable to Parliament for the implementation of its mandate. E. Cooperation 72. The Subcommittee notes over 10 years of exchanges between the Subcommittee and the national preventive mechanism of the United Kingdom, in the form of correspondence, annual reports and meetings. The Subcommittee hopes that the visit to the United Kingdom and the present report will further contribute to the cooperation between the Subcommittee and the mechanism in the spirit of constructive dialogue. The Subcommittee also notes with appreciation that the mechanism’s business plan includes the objective of increasing the number of references to the Optional Protocol and the national preventive mechanism role in core documents of the mechanism’s bodies. 21 In accordance with article 19 (c) of the Optional Protocol and paragraph 35 of the guidelines on national preventive mechanisms. 13