said to have been held for up to 17 days, a mistake that seemed barely comprehensible given the importance of the issue15. It certainly reflected a lack of focus on the detention of children, who were supposed to be held only as a last resort for the purposes of removal, and for the shortest time possible. The impact of detention on children has been a major concern, recurring in a few studies16 and various inspection reports17. Despite gradually improving processes for the management of children in detention, better collaboration with local authorities, and more focus on the basic needs of children, the finding of successive inspectorate reports was that detention was having a harmful impact that was not being properly mitigated. For example, one inspection of Tinsley House noted a complacent and unfocused attitude to the needs of children, and living conditions that were oppressive and claustrophobic18. At Yarl’s Wood in 2008, the inspection concluded that children were not being detained as a last resort or for the shortest possible time; children themselves reported not being able to sleep, lack of activity, and fear and upset at their environment. One child commented: ‘I feel like I’m in prison, as if I’ve killed somebody’19. Lorek et al’s20 findings resonate with this, concluding that detained children’s mental health was likely to have been negatively affected, even when detention was short. Relevant factors included deterioration in parents’ mental health and parenting ability, fear at being in a facility resembling a prison, anxiety over possible return to their countries of origin, and loss of home, school and friends. Robjant et al21, looking at studies from the UK, USA and Australia, found similar evidence of an adverse effect of detention on children. BID’s later research22 suggested that families were not detained as a last resort: for half the time that the 82 families in their sample were detained, they could not legally be removed, and nearly two-thirds were subsequently released. The families in this study spent an average of 6.5 weeks in detention. The consistent and troubling finding of these reports and studies was that detained children seemed to be a lesser priority in terms of national safeguarding responsibilities. It was such evidence that in the summer of 2010 prompted the incoming deputy prime minister to describe it as a ‘moral outrage’ that the previous government had in the previous year ‘imprisoned, behind bars, 1,000 children who were innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever’23. Shortly afterwards a new approach was published. Despite gradually improving processes for the management of children in detention . . . the finding of successive inspectorate reports was that detention was having a harmful impact that was not being properly mitigated. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. Current arrangements In December 2010, the government announced that it would end the detention of children, and subsequently announced a new family returns process24. The final stage can include detention in ‘predeparture accommodation’, which is intended to be a last resort if families have not left voluntarily. A charity, Refugee Action, is commissioned to provide information and assistance to help encourage voluntary departures. The new secure facility, Cedars, was opened in August 2011 to be the pre departure accommodation for such families. The facility is used after advice has been sought from the ‘Independent family returns panel’, which is made up of people who have generally held senior positions in work with children (e.g. an ex-social services director and a child HM Inspectorate of Prisons (2008) Report on an announced inspection of Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre 4-8 February 2008. Lorek, A., Ehntholt, K., Nesbitt, A., Wey, E., Githinji, C., Rossor, E., and Wickramasinghe, R. (2009) ‘The mental and physical health difficulties of children held within a British immigration detention centre: A pilot study’, in Child Abuse and Neglect 33: 573-585; Robjant, K., Hassan, R. and Katona, C. (2009) Mental health implications of detaining asylum seekers: systematic review, in British Journal of Psychiatry 194, 306-312; BID (2009), see note 12. HMIP (2008) and (2010), see notes 13 and 15; HM Inspectorate of Prisons (2009) Report on an unannounced short follow-up inspection of Tinsley House Immigration Removal Centre 13-15 July 2009. HMIP (2009), see note 17. HMIP (2008), see note 15, p.86. See note 16. See note 16. See note 13. Announcement by Nick Clegg, Hansard 21 July 2010, col 349: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm100721/debtext/100721-0001.htm ‘New Family Returns Process Begins’ http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/newsarticles/2011/march/03new-family-returnsprocess Issue 205 Prison Service Journal 25