National Preventive Mechanism Third Annual Report 2011–12 (3) The arrangements may, in particular, authorise independent custody visitors to — (a) access, without prior notice, any place in which a detainee is held (b) examine records relating to the detention of persons there (c) meet any detainees there (in private) to discuss their treatment while detained and the conditions in which they are detained (d) inspect the conditions in which persons are detained there (including cell accommodation, washing and toilet facilities and facilities for the provision of food), and (e) meet such other persons that the visitors think may have information relevant to the treatment of detainees and the conditions in which they are detained. 95 SPT visits (1) The authority must make arrangements to ensure that members of the SPT [Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment established under Article 2 of OPCAT] may — (a) visit detainees (b) access information relevant to the treatment of detainees and the conditions in which they are detained, and (c) monitor the treatment of detainees and the conditions in which they are detained. 40 Prison visiting committees in Scotland In Scotland, each prison has a visiting committee that performs a role similar to that of an IMB in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. At the time the NPM was designated, visiting committees were not included as they were undergoing review and there were concerns about the extent to which they were OPCAT-compliant. For example, the committees received their funding directly from the Scottish Prison Service, which could compromise their independence. Pending the outcome of the review, it was anticipated that visiting committees may be designated as an NPM member in the future. However, in 2011, the Scottish government announced that it had concluded its review and would abolish prison visiting committees. While acknowledging that prisons in Scotland are also independently inspected by HMIPS, the NPM expressed concern about this proposal, particularly: • the loss of such frequent visits to prisons • the reduced protection available to prisoners in Scotland compared with those in the rest of the UK • the benefits of ‘layered’ prison monitoring by both a professional inspectorate, such as HMIPS, and lay monitors, such as visiting committees • the need to ensure that decisions on prison monitoring should take OPCAT into account. The Scottish government responded to concerns expressed by the NPM and others by proposing that HMIPS take on a prison monitoring role in addition to its inspection function. The NPM will continue to engage with the Scottish government and other relevant