Children in detention in the UK are extremely vulnerable – by virtue of their age and capacity; their detained status; and in many cases, individual characteristics such as mental illness, neurodisability,18 prior estrangement from parents/carers (for example, as a result of care proceedings or unaccompanied/separated migration to the UK) or experiencing abuse or neglect. They are detained in a variety of settings including youth justice custody, police detention, secure forensic mental health facilities, secure care, and, in the immigration context, at port, in short-term holding facilities and in immigration removal. Even within some of the individual categories there is much variation in the type of setting – with some being designed specifically for children (or, in immigration removal, families) and others adapted from an adult model. It is a complex picture and the NPM must meet the challenge of ensuring that cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment is prevented in all these settings. International law recognises the particular status, needs and vulnerabilities of detained children by specific guarantees that operate in addition to the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT) and its Optional Protocol, and other general human rights treaties. NPM oversight for these settings is led by a number of different NPM members responsible for their inspection: in England alone, this includes HMIP and IMBs for young offender institutions, immigration detention and court custody; Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) and HMIP jointly for police custody; Ofsted and HMIP jointly for secure training centres; Ofsted for secure children’s homes; the CQC for secure forensic mental health facilities and other child and adolescent mental health services19. The different lay visiting organisations again have responsibility for different institutions. Other NPM members, including the OCC, have a function that includes visits to different settings – but may not replicate the inspectorates’ functions. 18 Office of the Children’s Commissioner (2012) Nobody made the connection: The prevalence of neurodisability in young people who offend. London: Office of the Children’s Commissioner. At: http://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/content/ publications/content_633 19 Ofsted and CQC have a role in inspecting education and health provision, respectively, in settings where another NPM member is the primary inspectorate. 25