National Preventive Mechanism Third Annual Report 2011–12 of the NPM in 2009 because, at that time, they were undergoing review. This was despite the fact that the committees were performing a similar role to independent monitoring boards in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, all of which are part of the NPM. In 2011–12, the Scottish government announced its intention to abolish prison visiting committees and proposed that their monitoring role be taken up by HM Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland. A final decision has not yet been reached, but the NPM has asked that the Scottish government take account of OPCAT in its decision making, and that any new monitoring arrangements are OPCAT-compliant. External relations Interest from abroad in the work of the UK NPM members remains high and this year we have hosted visiting delegations from a range of nations, including China, Japan, South Korea and Uganda. These delegations often comprise government officials looking to ratify or implement OPCAT, non-governmental organisations campaigning for ratification in their home nation, or newly designated NPMs seeking information about how we monitor detention in the UK. In July 2011, we hosted a visit from the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA), one of five organisations making up the New Zealand NPM. Given that multi-body NPMs such as those in the UK and New Zealand are rare, this was a useful opportunity to discuss the challenges of coordination and the benefits of having member organisations with expertise in monitoring particular types of detention. IPCA was also able to shadow an inspection of police custody in London by HMIC and HMIP, as well as observe the work of custody visitors in Northern Ireland. 16 We also continued to participate in the European NPM project. Sponsored by the Council of Europe, this project has created an active network of NPMs allowing information and best practice on detention monitoring to be shared. Representatives of the NPM have attended thematic workshops on how best to gather evidence during visits, and monitoring the treatment of vulnerable detainees. This year, the project has had a particular focus on monitoring detainees during deportations, with European NPMs sharing information about how best to monitor deportations given that this is an emerging area of work for many of us. Discussions on this issue began at an event hosted by HMIP in London in July 2011 and attended by representatives of the NPMs of France, Germany, Spain and Switzerland, as well as by members of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) and nongovernmental organisations. Discussions continued at two further workshops in 2012 (for further information, see section 4). Also under the auspices of the European NPM project, representatives of the UK NPM were asked to participate in a workshop in Ukraine designed to support the implementation of OPCAT and the designation of a Ukrainian NPM. There was considerable interest in the multi-body model adopted in the UK, and our representatives described the benefits and challenges of such a model. NPM members have also undertaken ad hoc projects to promote ratification of OPCAT and share information about best practice in detention monitoring. For example, at the request of the Ministry of Justice and Foreign and Commonwealth Office, HMIP agreed to promote the concept of independent prison inspection to officials in Russia, sharing information about inspection methodology and human rights-based criteria.