How much children were affected by such events, and for how long, is unknown, since there is currently very little follow up of detainees to find out what has happened to them after removal or release. But, unlike the consistent finding at Yarl’s Wood in particular, the conditions and length of detention at Cedars did not in themselves appear to cause trauma to children and parents. In fact, parents said that if they had to be removed, they would rather be held in Cedars for a short time, both to provide time for applications for judicial review, and to help them settle and prepare their children. Punishment and equity in immigration control Immigration detention is not meant to be a punishment. There is no provision in the Detention Centre rules for punitive sanctions. In particular, segregation can only be used for reasons of safety and security, and then for the shortest possible time. However, the theory of non-punitive containment, where detainees are given the maximum possible freedom beyond the obvious fact of detention, is not reflected in practice. The three newest centres are all built to category B prison specifications and look like normal prisons. Other IRCs may be less austere in design and feel, but, with few exceptions, detainees consistently experience them as prisons32. And then there is Cedars, a centre designed explicitly not to feel like a prison, with — notwithstanding the concerns reported above — unobtrusive security, a strong emphasis on welfare and preparation for either release or removal. It is the first place of detention which actually feels like something new, neither a prison nor an IRC, but a secure facility that reflects the spirit of how immigration detention is supposed to feel for children, in accordance with Detention Centre rules and legislation — that is, essentially non punitive. If it is accepted that detention is justifiable, an important question emerges: if it can be done this way for families with children, why not for adults? There may be financial and pragmatic obstacles to work through, but in principle the treatment of adults who are not guilty of any crime, or no longer serving a sentence for a previous crime, should be no more punitive than that of children. One of the lasting impacts of the Cedars model could and should be its influence on adult detention. For example, more detention centres could be based on the open and non-institutional design of Cedars. The model of having a strongly welfare orientated non-governmental organisation working alongside UKBA and the detention contractor is certainly worth closer examination. There is no doubt that much of the innovation and common sense seen at Cedars arose from this balance of control and power in the establishment. A welfare-orientated, open and supportive environment is clearly supported by the Detention Centre Rules33. These state that detainees should be held in a ‘relaxed regime with as much freedom of movement and association as possible’ (Rule 3), and this encourages the Cedars approach rather than the prisonlike environment of most detention centres. However, the most obvious difference between the new children’s approach and adult detention is that the latter can still be detained indefinitely, giving rise to frustrations for both detainees and staff attempting to manage them. Perhaps the biggest lesson of Cedars then is that it is possible to put a strict time limit on detention and still have a credible and effective system of immigration control. In fact, even at Cedars, many families were subsequently released, suggesting that there is scope for further reducing the use of detention, with its accompanying human and financial costs34. This point needs serious examination and raises a challenge that the government and UKBA could now usefully address. Equity and legitimacy in the system should be openly discussed. Legitimacy of detention is an issue that is always near the surface of immigration detention practice35 and there is little point in trying to avoid the It is the first place of detention which actually feels like something new, neither a prison nor an IRC, but a secure facility that reflects the spirit of how immigration detention is supposed to feel for children . . . 32. 33. 34. 35. HM Inspectorate of Prisons and Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration (HMIP and ICIBI) (2012) The Effectiveness and Impact of Immigration Detainee Casework. A Joint Thematic Review. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2001/238/contents/made The average annual financial cost of detention in an immigration detention centre is over £37,000 per person. Hansard, House of Lords: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/110629w0002.htm Bosworth, M. (2013 forthcoming) ‘Can Immigration Detention Centres be Legitimate? Understanding Confinement in a Global World’, in M. Bosworth and K. Aas (Eds) Borders of Punishment. Oxford University Press. Issue 205 Prison Service Journal 27