Appendix Six NPM response to the UN Committee against Torture HM Chief Inspector of Prisons NICK HARDWICK CBE Date: 5 March 2014 Claudio Grossman Chairperson of the UN Committee against Torture Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Palais des Nations 1211 Geneva 10 Switzerland Dear Mr Grossman Response of the UK National Preventive Mechanism to the CAT Committee Concluding Observations on the fifth periodic report of the United Kingdom The UK National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) has discussed the concluding observation issued by the CAT Committee relating to concerns about the practice of seconding State officials working in places of deprivation of liberty to NPM bodies and the recommendation to end this practice (paragraph 14). The UK National Preventive Mechanism agrees with the Committee against Torture about the need to safeguard its independence, and welcomes the focus on this issue during the review of the UK’s implementation of the Convention against Torture. Members of the UK’s NPM are committed to working to strengthen the actual and perceived independence of the mechanism in line with standards set by the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture. Unlike most NPMs, the UK NPM is a multi-body mechanism, made up of 20 existing bodies with mandates and powers that are compatible with the functions of an NPM as established by OPCAT. The decision to designate these bodies as the UK’s NPM acknowledged the UK’s existing practice of independent monitoring of places of detention. While the scope of work of some of the UK NPM members falls entirely, or almost entirely within that of OPCAT (such as Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons, the Independent Monitoring Boards, the Independent Custody Visiting Association, Northern Ireland Policing Board Independent Custody Visiting Scheme), other NPM members (for example the Care Quality Commission, Ofsted, the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority, and the 60