National Preventive Mechanism Fifth Annual Report 2013–14 conclusions and suggestions to the UK NPM. The SPT acknowledged the clear advantages of the UK model but noted the risk of mixed messages in the multi-member model, the need to deepen understanding of OPCAT within the NPM, and the potential for individual NPM members to follow up and share recommendations made by others. The SPT suggested the NPM should undertake a comprehensive stock-take of its effectiveness and efficiency, using the selfassessment tool they had developed (see Appendix Eight). The NPM welcomed the suggestion and committed to providing a full response to the SPT after it had taken stock and reflected on progress at its five-year anniversary event. Further informal meetings and exchange between the SPT’s focal point for the UK and the NPM continued throughout the year. ii. UN Committee against Torture recommendations and the NPM response In May 2013, the UN Committee against Torture carried out its periodic review of the UK’s progress in implementing the UN Convention against Torture and the Optional Protocol. The Committee against Torture is the body responsible for overseeing States Parties’ implementation of the Convention against Torture, and is made up of 10 independent, authoritative experts. As part of its review, the UK government submitted a report setting out its own account of efforts to implement the treaty. It then answered the Committee’s questions on its report during the May 2013 session. Among its many lines of questioning, the Committee asked if the NPM’s independence might be at issue given that State officials working in places of deprivation of liberty were seconded to the NPM. The Committee also asked for assurances that the resources allocated to the NPM were sufficient to allow it to fulfil its role effectively. As a result of the review of documentation from a range of non-governmental sources and its formal interaction with the government during the session, the Committee reached a set of ‘concluding observations’ and recommendations to the UK, including the following recommendation relating to the NPM: 14. The Committee, fully cognizant of the State party’s willingness to promote experience sharing, notes that the practice of seconding State officials working in places of deprivation of liberty to National Preventive Mechanism bodies raises concerns as to the guarantee of full independence to be expected from such bodies (art. 2). The Committee recommends that the State party end the practice of seconding individuals working in places of deprivation of liberty to National Preventive Mechanism bodies. It recommends that the State party continue to provide the bodies constituting the National Preventive Mechanism with sufficient human, material and financial resources to discharge their prevention mandate independently and effectively.38 During its dialogue with the Committee against Torture, the government noted that each NPM member was separately funded and that ‘there were no plans to cut funding for the NPM work undertaken by those bodies’. It also expressed its view that ‘the practice of interchange between State 38 CAT/C/GBR/CO/5 at: http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CAT/Shared%20Documents/GBR/CAT_C_GBR_CO_5_16598_E.doc 32