Section five Appendices 7. The lack of a separate budget for the NPM, and in particular its coordination functions, compromises the NPM’s financial and operational autonomy and inhibits the conduct of its affairs. NPM members are unable to guarantee the stability of their NPM work from year to year because of the discretionary way their budgets are set. The current informal arrangement between the Ministry of Justice and HM Inspectorate of Prisons, through which a nominal amount for NPM coordination is included in the overall HMIP budget, is unsuitable for a multi-body NPM requiring complex coordination. These concerns have been put clearly into relief by the SPT’s recent report on the similar, multi-body NPM in the Netherlands.4 This report, published after the SPT’s visit to the Netherlands in July 2015, raises a number of concerns which are directly applicable to the UK NPM. I have enclosed a complete copy of the report. In particular, the SPT clearly sets out the need for the mandate of a multi-body NPM to be set out in legislation: “While acknowledging the existence of legal provisions providing the foundational basis for each individual institution within the NPM, a striking weakness in the current functioning of the NPM is the absence of a separate legislative text regulating NPMspecific functions, an NPM mandate, the relationship between NPM members and other bodies […], and other issues that ought to be regulated, in line with part IV of the OPCAT.” (paragraph 24) And, “While the institutional format of the NPM is left to the State Party’s discretion, it is imperative that the State party enact NPM legislation which guarantees an NPM in full compliance with OPCAT and the NPM Guidelines. Indeed, the SPT deems the adoption of a separate NPM law as a crucial step to guaranteeing this compliance […].” (paragraph 26) In addition, the SPT identifies difficulties for an NPM made up of inspectorates that perform NPM functions as part of their broader remit and recommends that their NPM functions be segregated and performed autonomously (paragraph 38). Finally, the SPT reiterates its recommendation that the NPM should have a separate budget line in the State budget, to ensure its continuous financial and operational autonomy (paragraph 27). It seems to me that this report by the SPT could have easily been written about the UK’s NPM: I believe that our system has many of the very same flaws. The NPM enjoys good cooperation between most NPM members, but where this works it is because of goodwill rather than any formal requirement or accountable structure. As far as I am aware, the Dutch and the UK NPMs are the only NPMs anywhere in the world that do not have the necessary 4. UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Visit to the Netherlands for the purpose of providing advisory assistance to the national preventive mechanism: recommendations and observations addressed to the State party. Report of the Subcommittee. (CAT/OP/NLD/1). 79