debate. During the Cedars inspection differing family detention practices were found in the north and south of the country — that is far more families based in the north of the country went through the family returns process and were detained. This was considered by some local immigration staff to be a result simply of different practices by immigration teams responsible for deciding who would be detained. It is not clear if this is the whole explanation as no particular research into this had been done. But on the face of it, there was a level of arbitrariness that would not be acceptable in the criminal justice context. There would be justifiable outrage if it was found that for similar offences courts in the south of the UK were imprisoning people at a far higher rate than those in the north. In fact, the perception of inconsistency in the imprisonment of people from different ethnic backgrounds has been enough to trigger institutional self examination, debate and ongoing research36. Progress may have been slow, but it is taken seriously because it is accepted without question that discrimination in the conviction, imprisonment or treatment of those involved in the criminal justice system is wrong in principle, and undermines justice. Such discrimination also reflects on the nature of our society. I have argued elsewhere that the way that the criminal justice system is perceived reflects considerably on perceptions of the fairness of our society37. Similarly, if immigration control is seen as arbitrary, then it reflects poorly on a society that is ostensibly committed to justice and equality. It is disturbing therefore that a common view from detainees is that their treatment within the immigration system is not moral or just. While some prisoners dispute their guilt, most can at least understand and in many cases accept the punishment given to those who are guilty. In the immigration context, even if detainees accept they have transgressed immigration laws, the penalties are rarely seen as proportionate. These can include indefinite detention while having limited access to legal advice or judicial oversight. As one detainee has put it: What sort of law is this? You get three month sentence and end up in prison for 3 years. [I] ran from a war situation and now in a prison. [I] feel confused and disappointed.38 Concluding thoughts Concerns about the vulnerability of children in the immigration system have, with the caveats discussed above, led to important and positive changes in the way that they and their parents are treated. This does not mean that the overall impact of immigration control on children is not damaging. The conditions of detention may have improved, but other parts of the ‘family returns’ process are less well documented or understood. Both supporters and critics of family detention could now usefully focus efforts on the other elements of immigration control, to ensure a process that minimises the negative impact on children. Too little is currently known about the lead up to detention and, importantly, what happens after removal. There may be political and legal arguments for taking little interest in what happens to children once they are removed from the country. But there is no convincing moral reason why safeguarding duties should be seen as dispatched once a child is out of sight. More communication and work with receiving countries to help prepare detainees for their return, perhaps through encouraging reception centres based on the Cedars model, could be a way of ensuring a more humane and caring international approach. It is also important that other parts of the detention estate learn from Cedars. In particular, its open design and welfare orientation, and the ability to have effective immigration controls based on short periods of detention. It has been recognised that the open ended approach to child detention is not acceptable. It is difficult to see why this conclusion cannot also apply to adults. The way that different agencies collaborate and ameliorate the detention experience is also impressive. It is possible only because a non-governmental organisation has a powerful and influential role in the centre, and is given due deference by the other agencies. The new approach to immigration control for children reveals fundamental issues of equity in the overall approach to detention, and can help to sharpen thinking about what the different approach means for immigration detention in general. This should drive forward both practical improvements and conceptual thinking about what detention is for and how it should be used. This will become more important as time goes on. The wider challenge — for governments as well as for the agencies implementing policy — is to work out how exclusionary national policies are reconciled with the realities of a world that is likely to see more people moving across international boundaries, whether by choice or necessity. 36. 37. 38. Bowling, B. and Phillips, C. (2002) Race, Crime and Justice. Longman; Bhui, H.S. (2009) Race and Criminal Justice. Sage Publishers. Bhui (2009), p.2, see note 36. Unpublished quotation collected during research for HMIP and ICIBI (2012) report; see note 32. 28 Prison Service Journal Issue 205