CAT/OP/GBR/CSPRO/1 51. The SPT trusts that the present report will serve as a road-map towards the UK’s compliance with the OPCAT.” 19. The UK Government is clear that it is in full compliance with its obligations under OPCAT and does not consider there to be a legal requirement for an NPM to be established in statute. It should also be noted that all the individual members of the NPM each have a statutory basis with powers commensurate with OPCAT principles albeit the NPM itself is not set out in statue. Having said that, the Government recently undertook a public consultation to seek views on putting the NPM on a statutory footing. We are giving this proposal further consideration in light of the responses received. 20. We welcome the comments and recommendations of the SPT on the NPM and they provide useful input as we consider the issue further. III. Overarching issues A. Legal and Institutional Framework “54. The Subcommittee urges the State party to establish a reasonable time limit for administrative immigration detention and ensure that detention is a measure of last resort and is justified as reasonable, necessary and proportionate.” 21. Detention and removal are essential parts of effective immigration controls and are used to ensure that those with no right to remain in the UK are returned to their home country if they will not leave voluntarily. The immigration removal estate is currently almost 40% smaller than it was five years ago, and of significantly higher quality. At any one time, 95% of individuals with no leave to remain in the UK are managed within the community rather than detained. 22. The UK does not detain people under immigration powers indefinitely, the law does not allow it. For detention to be lawful there must be a realistic prospect of the individual’s removal within a reasonable timescale. There are well established safeguards in the immigration system to ensure that the decision to detain, and any ongoing detention considerations, are sufficiently scrutinised. 23. The UK Parliament has debated the introduction of a 28-day time limit and voted not to introduce one. The Government believes that such a time limit would severely constrain our ability to maintain the right balance and uphold the integrity of the immigration system. We have reviewed how time limits on detention operate in other countries and how they relate to any other protections within their systems. The review showed that very few countries had time limits. 24. Instead, our priority is to ensure immigration detention is used only where necessary, and for the shortest possible time, ensuring decisions to detain and subsequent decisions to maintain or release are well made with systematic safeguards and support for the vulnerable. In the year ending September 2020, data shows that the overwhelming majority of people (98%) who left detention, were detained for less than 6 months, and (76%) were detained for 28 days or less. Decisions to detain are made on a case-by-case basis and kept under constant review. “56. The Subcommittee urges the State party to raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility, in accordance with international standards.” England and Wales 25. Whilst the UK Government notes that the age of criminal responsibility goes beyond consideration of the conditions of those deprived of their liberty in order to prevent torture, relating instead to the wider legislative framework, the following response is provided to the SPT’s recommendation. 7