psychiatrist). Families can be held for 72 hours, extendable with ministerial authority to a maximum of one week. It is run by the private security firm G4S and has on site UKBA staff and a team working for the children’s charity Barnardo’s. The latter has received much criticism for accepting the detention of children rather than campaigning against it25, but there is no doubt that it has helped to ensure a much improved experience for children once they are in detention26. While families with children continue to be detained, fewer children are held for shorter periods, and in better conditions. The number of children entering detention was 53 in the first quarter of 201227, which is a substantial reduction on the many hundreds of children routinely held each quarter under the old system. Of these 53, 35 were held at Cedars, 12 were detained at a newly refurbished children’s unit at Tinsley House as ‘border cases’ — that is children in families detained at airports and usually held for one night before a return flight. In the remaining six cases, detainees said they were children, and UKBA did not agree. These ‘age dispute’ cases were held at the adult detention centres, Campsfield House, Colnbrook and Morton Hall. All 53 children left detention within the same quarter, often within a few days. About half (25) were granted temporary admission to the UK or released. As with the BID28 research, the fact that so many were released into the UK after a period of detention suggests that UKBA’s objective of detaining only if absolutely necessary, when removal is imminent, was not being effectively achieved29. Cedars itself has nine self-contained family apartments, with a library and gym, a family lounge, children’s activity areas and grounds that are all of a very high standard30. It is possible to walk around the facility without feeling that it is a place of confinement, something that cannot be said for any other place of detention. Social workers are based on site and Barnardo’s workers holding a wide range of child care experience and qualifications are involved in most aspects of the centre with the stated aim of minimising the damaging effects of detention on children. The first inspection of Cedars in the spring of 201231 found that it had been designed around the needs of children and families. Children were well occupied and, in contrast to Yarl’s Wood, all said they enjoyed the care and stimulation they received while at the centre. Parents praised the enthusiastic staff group, especially Barnardo’s staff and G4S family care officers, said they felt safe, and had confidence in the staff. The children, particularly the younger ones, were generally lively and happy in the centre. However, detention and removal were still clearly traumatic for parents and their children; the early morning collection from home by UKBA arrest teams, the obvious distress of parents trying to put in last minute legal challenges, and concerns for the future, all affected children’s emotional wellbeing. Some of the older children, with more understanding of what was happening, were more withdrawn and worried and were in some cases absorbing the stress of poor coping parents. Some elements of life during their short time in detention were also more menacing than their day-to-day experience might have led them to expect. Force could in some circumstances be used against children to achieve removal, and while this had in practice been ‘light touch’, that is guiding resistant children by their elbows to the departures area, once initiated there was always a risk of escalation. One issue that was particularly concerning was the use of force to effect the removal of a pregnant woman, using non approved techniques, while her other child was taken into another room by Barnardo’s staff. The woman was tipped up in a wheelchair with someone restraining her legs, and wheeled precariously to the departures area, at one point slipping on to the floor. There is no safe way to do this without posing an unacceptable risk to the health of the unborn child and to the woman in question, and to initiate force in such circumstances is not defensible. The requirement to use force to effect removal of children also placed a considerable burden on staff, who were in some cases clearly disturbed and upset by this aspect of their role. While families with children continue to be detained, fewer children are held for shorter periods, and in better conditions. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 26 e.g. see http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/10/barnardos-child-detention-play-services HM Inspectorate of Prisons (2012) Report on an unannounced full inspection of Cedars pre-departure accommodation, 30 April-25 May 2012. Home Office detention statistics, first quarter of 2012: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/researchstatistics/immigration-asylum-research/immigration-q1-2012/detention-q1-2012 See note 13. This does not necessarily mean that UKBA staff were wrong to detain under the current guidelines, but it does show that the current system is not succeeding in keeping detention to the absolute minimum. HMIP (2012), see note 26. Ibid. Prison Service Journal Issue 205