32. Memorandum submitted by Save the
Children
SUMMARY
1. The evidence in this memorandum relates
to the policy and practice of the Immigration and Nationality
Directorate (IND) with regard to the detention of children in
the UK for the purpose of immigration control. Comments are largely
based on Save the Children's recent research report "No
Place for a Child—Children in UK immigration detention:
Impacts, alternatives and safeguards" (February 2005).
The submission highlights the discrepancy between IND's stated
policy of detaining children as a last resort and the reality
of current practices which see children detained inappropriately.
It additionally makes a number of recommendations to the Committee
on how the IND might ensure that both its policy and practice
on the detention of children take account of domestic child welfare
legislation and international human rights standards.
INTRODUCTION
2. Save the Children fights for vulnerable
children in the UK and around the world who suffer from poverty,
disease, injustice and violence. We work with them to find lifelong
answers to the problems they face.
3. Today, we support work in England, Northern
Ireland, Scotland and Wales to address the needs of local communities
and to bring about long-term change for some of the most vulnerable
children across the country: those growing up in poverty; those
missing out on quality education; those who have come to seek
refuge and asylum. All of our work is founded on the principles
of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is a comprehensive
and internationally recognised set of rights for children.
4. Save the Children believe that no child
should be detained for immigration purposes. Accordingly, we are
concerned that as the Government seeks to reach its targets for
controlling immigration as set out in its five-year plan, [156]the
detention of children is set to increase. We therefore welcome
this inquiry as a timely opportunity to address the Committee
on measures that need to be taken by the IND to prioritise the
rights and welfare of children in UK detention policy and practice.
DETENTION POLICY
Thousands of children in immigration detention
each year
5. It is the Government's stated policy
that, in enforcing immigration controls, families with children
will only be held in detention as a matter of last resort and
further, that unaccompanied children will not be detained, save
in exceptional circumstances. [157]Recent
research published by Save the Children in February 2005 suggests
that this policy is not reflected in IND practice on either count.
[158]The
research estimated, on the basis of the limited statistical data
available, that around 2,000 children are detained with their
families every year for the purpose of immigration control. Many
of these children are detained for long periods of time, in some
cases well over six months. It further estimated, based on data
collected by Cambridgeshire Social Services and the Refugee Council
Children's Panel respectively, that hundreds of separated/unaccompanied
children are being detained as adults as a result of dispute over
their age. [159]
6. Such divergence from policy is extremely
concerning not only because in many cases these practices violate
basic internationally protected child rights, [160]but
also because we know from research and investigations, the severely
damaging impacts of detention on children's welfare. By way of
illustration, we refer the Committee to some of the impacts that
have been documented in Save the Children's research and in various
reports of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons. [161]
IMPACT OF
DETENTION ON
THE PHYSICAL
AND MENTAL
HEALTH OF
CHILDREN
7. Research by Save the Children and others[162]
shows that detention has serious negative impacts on children's
physical and mental health. This can often be exacerbated by the
suffering that children endure on behalf of their parents who
are detained with them and by the consequent inability of their
parents to meet their care needs.
8. Physical symptoms of distress are particularly
likely in young children; the most commonly reported outcome being
the failure to thrive, often linked to unwillingness to eat and
associated weight loss. This is also evidenced in the reports
of HM Chief Inspector of Prisons. For example, an announced inspection
of Oakington Immigration Removal Centre in 2004, found that of
the 24 child protection "cause for concern" forms opened
in the previous nine months, the majority had been initiated because
of concerns about the child's failure to thrive, rather than suspected
abuse. The report further documented problems of sleep-deprivation
and depression brought on by the trauma of removal from habitual
surroundings, particularly school, or from the fact of detention
itself.
9. The consequences of detention for children's
mental health are particularly marked for children who have suffered
previous experiences involving violence and extreme hardship and
are thus susceptible to re-traumatisation. Case studies gathered
by Save the Children also highlight the terrible impacts on mental
health for children who have been detained as adults prior to
the resolution of their age. It has also been documented that
children aged 13 to 17 who have been detained in the UK are often
unable to comprehend the reasons for their detention, feel criminalised
and lack information about the process or its possible outcomes.
One child who featured in Save the Children's research, reported
that his three-month detention "was just like a year".
INADEQUACY OF
CURRENT SAFEGUARDS
TO PROTECT
CHILD RIGHTS
AND WELFARE
10. The UK has one of the most open-ended
and unsupervised detention systems in Europe due to a lack of
statutory criteria for detention and the absence of a statutory
limit on the length of time children can be detained. [163]Despite
repeated recommendations from HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, that
children should only be detained with their families as a matter
of last resort and for no more than a few days, this is not reflected
in practice.
11. Existing safeguards, which include the
provision of written reasons for detention by the IND's Management
of Detained Cases Unit (MODCU), the requirement of ministerial
authorisation in order to detain children for more than 28 days
and the policy of paying pastoral visits to families who are due
to be removed, are all variously inadequate from a child welfare
perspective. In all three instances, the safeguards lack the necessary
independence to ensure that decisions to detain children are comprehensively
and systematically reviewed. Many of the families interviewed
for Save the Children's research complained of not having received
written reasons for their detention nor of having received a pastoral
visit prior to being detained to effect removal.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Alternatives to detention
12. Given what we know of the impacts of
detention on children, Save the Children believes that no child
should be detained for immigration purposes but that instead the
Government should explore and introduce alternatives to detention
such as have been developed internationally. [164]These
alternatives should comprise a combination of freedom from detention,
a graduated scale of supervision, individualised needs and risk
assessment and support, primarily through provision of information
and legal advice and representation from the beginning of the
asylum determination process. Despite IND's policy to consider
all reasonable alternatives before detention is authorised, [165]Save
the Children's research indicates that this is not the case in
practice.
Independent welfare assessments
13. While the detention of children continues
to be viewed by the Government as an option, it is crucial that
more effective and independent safeguards are introduced to ensure
that all decisions to detain children with their families take
full account of the consequences of detention on the rights and
welfare of each individual child. Such assessments should be made
both prior to any decision to detain and for the purposes of reviewing
all decisions to detain at seven days and every seven days thereafter.
These recommendations are echoed in the reports of HM Chief Inspector
of Prisons and the report on the UK of the European Commissioner
for Human Rights.
Age disputes
14. Save the Children is clear that in cases
where the age of a young person is disputed by the immigration
authorities, detention should not be authorised until that person
has had his or her age properly assessed by social services or
an independent, expert panel. Although it is IND policy to grant
age-disputed young people the benefit of doubt, the estimated
numbers of children who have been detained as adults suggest that
this is not the case in practice.
Fast track procedures
15. There is no justification for the use
of fast track procedures for cases of children in families. While
the IND has suggested that children will only be detained for
short periods under the fast-tracking procedures, the case study
sample in Save the Children's research suggests a different picture
with families detained for up to 162 days.
Data needs to be made publicly available
The publication of statistics relating to the
detention of children in the immigration process is currently
grossly inadequate. Save the Children urges the Government as
a matter of high importance to publish detailed statistics on
the numbers of children in detention across the UK, the length
of time that children are detained and both the numbers and outcomes
of age-disputed cases.
Child protection
All staff working in removal centres should
undergo enhanced Criminal Records Bureau checks, and families
with children about whom there are child protection concerns should
not be removed from the UK unless and until these issues are resolved.
Stefan Stoyanov
Policy Officer
6 December 2005
156 156 Controlling our borders: Making migration
work for Britain, February 2005. Back
157
157 See The Immigration Service Operational Manual, Internal
Home Office Publication, London, UK and also "Comments by
the Government of the United Kingdom" (Council of Europe,
CommDH(2005)6) in response to the Report by Mr Alvaro Gil-Robles,
Commissioner for Human Rights, on his visit to the United Kindgom,
4-12 November 2004. Back
158
158 Crawley and Lester, No Place for a Child-Children in UK
immigration detention: Impacts, alternatives and safeguards,
Save the Children, February 2005. Back
159
159 Ibid, See section 1, pg 8. Between November 2003 and
September 2004, 48% of individuals who were age-assessed by Cambridgeshire
Social Services were found to be under 18 years of age and were
released from detention. Between February 2003 and January 2004,
the Children's Panel reported an increase of 292% of detained
age-disputed cases referred to the Panel, compared to the previous
year. Back
160
160 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1999,
specifically article 37; see also the UN Rules on Juveniles
Deprived of their Liberty (adopted by General Assembly Resolution
45/113 of 14 December 1990, and UNHCR's Guidelines on the Detention
of Asylum Seekers (Revised, 26 February 1999). Back
161
161 See Report on an announced inspection of Yarl's Wood Immigration
Removal Centre, 28 February-4 March 2005, London: HM Inspectorate
of Prisons, 2005; Report of an announced inspection of Tinsley
House Immigration Removal Centre, 1-5 November 2004, London:
HM Inspectorate of Prisons, 2004; Report of an announced inspection
of Oakington Immigration Removal Centre, 2004; and An inspection
of Dungavel Immigration Removal Centre, 2002. Back
162
162 Fit to be detained: Challenging the detention of asylum-seekers
and migrants with health needs, Bail for Immigration Detainees
and Me«dicins Sans Frontie"res, May 2005. Back
163
163 Baldaccini, A (2004) Providing Protection in the 21st
Century: Refugee Rights at the Heart of UK Asylum Policy,
London: Asylum Rights Campaign (ARC). Back
164
164 Crawley and Lester (2005), see section 4 which looks
at the assistance appearance programme, electronic monitoring,
supervised accommodation, community supervision and incentivised
compliance. Back
165
165 See above at n 2, Immigration Service Operational
Manual. Back
| 
