Section three The NPM in 2016–17 Strengthening the NPM In January 2017, the NPM Chair wrote to the Director of Judicial, Rights and International Policy at the Ministry of Justice setting out a range of issues relating to the NPM’s independence and governance that are of concern to the NPM (see Annex I). In particular, the letter expressed concern about the lack of legislation setting out the mandate of the NPM itself and its constituent bodies, the lack of statutory guarantees of independence for the NPM or its members, and the lack of a separate budget. These limitations have significant consequences for the NPM both in terms of its formal compliance with the United Nations’ Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture (OPCAT) and with guidance from the United Nations Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (SPT), and for its credibility, reputation, effectiveness and accountability. The letter also set out the Chair’s view that the nominal amount set aside for NPM coordination in the overall HMI Prisons budget is unsuitable for a multi-body NPM requiring complex coordination. At the end of the reporting year the NPM had not received a reply. The NPM also raised the need for legislation in the Justice Committee’s inquiry on prison reform132 and the Joint Committee on Human Rights inquiry on mental health and deaths in prisons.133 The NPM’s concern that these issues hinder its OPCAT compliance was underscored by the report published by the SPT following its advisory visit to the Netherlands, where there is a multi-body NPM with some similar characteristics. In its report, the SPT sets out the clear requirement to have a ‘separate legislative text regulating NPMspecific functions, and NPM mandate, the relationship between NPM members and other bodies […]’. In addition, the SPT stated that it ‘deems the adoption of a separate NPM law as a crucial step to guaranteeing [OPCAT] compliance’.134 On the basis of these concerns and the clear position elaborated by the SPT, the NPM recommended that a statutory basis for the NPM be introduced into the Prisons and Courts Bill that was before Parliament.135 It was disappointing that the government did not accept this recommendation.136 To date the NPM has yet to receive a clear response from the government as to its position on the desirability of NPM legislation, though its actions suggest reluctance. The Prisons and Courts Bill introduced by the government included a welcome reference to HMI Prisons’ OPCAT role, though attempts to 132. Written evidence from the UK National Preventive Mechanism, January 2017, http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/ committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/justice-committee/prison-reform/written/45906.html [accessed 13/11/17]. 133. Written evidence from the UK National Preventive Mechanism, March 2017, http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/ committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/human-rights-committee/mental-health-and-deaths-in-prison/ written/48220.html [accessed 13/11/17]. 134. UN SPT, 2016, Visit to the Netherlands for the purpose of providing advisory assistance to the national preventive mechanism: recommendations and observations addressed to the State party, CAT/OP/NLD/1, http://docstore.ohchr.org/ SelfServices/FilesHandler.ashx?enc=6QkG1d%2fPPRiCAqhKb7yhsgiAnytcXxlWnYdDFRlJcNPek7dfRjpqX4Nu%2bcche4lj1AO %2bAYSGegH%2bwcNwX0kkQF9XABYH1bqUTI0BfBYVBT29yOnvK4QlFYsb8st6Lni6 [accessed 27/08/17]. 135. Public Bill Committee, Written evidence submitted by John Wadham, Chair of the UK National Preventive Mechanism (PCB 08). 136. The need for the NPM to be placed on statutory footing was supported by the Chair of the Justice Committee, Bob Neill MP (Topical Questions, 25 April 2017, Volume 624) and in the Justice Committee’s 14th Report – Prison Reform: Part 1 of the Prisons and Courts Bill, HC 1150, 28 April 2017. 57