Despite coalition government pledges that the new ‘pre-departure accommodation’ in the Sussex village of Pease Pottage would be used as a ‘last resort’ and that children would normally be held for less than 72 hours, a Freedom of Information request from the campaign group ‘No-Deportations’ discovered that of the 11 children who entered Cedars pre-departure accommodation in September 2011: 3 children spent 1 day in detention, 2 spent 2 days, 2 spent 4 days, 3 spent 7 days, and the remaining child, having spent 4 days in detention was still detained as at 30 September 2011.
All six children kept imprisoned for more than 72 hours would need to have had their detention personally approved by Immigration Minister, Damian Green, a man who rashly promised that he would dress up as Father Christmas if a single child was kept in detention last Christmas (one child actually was but Green did not don his Santa suit)
Of the 10 children being detained in ‘Cedars’ who left in September 2011, 7 were removed and 3 were granted temporary admission or release. This means that even by the Home Office’s own admission 30% of the children detained should never have been arrested in the first place—despite the fact that every family admitted to Pease Pottage was meant to have been vetted and approved as 100% deserving of removal by the Home Office’s so-called ‘Independent Family Returns Panel’.
The 11 children were in 8 families; including 7 single mothers and 1 mother and father. According to the Home Office, none of the children leaving Cedars in September 2011 were returned to detention again in September 2011 (the latest date for which figures have been published on occurrences of people entering detention), but we do not know if any families held in September were subsequently re-detained in October. Home Office figures for October reveal that 3 of the 7 children held under immigration powers were detained in the high security immigration removal centre Tinsley House. Unless forced to disclose data by the Freedom of Information Act – tellingly the Home Office does not release figures on the length of detention or the number of re-detentions, or those held at ports of entry for less than 24 hours.
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg told the Liberal Democrat conference in September that the coalition government had ended child detention. Anne Marie Carrie, Chief Executive of the children’s charity Barnardo’s, justified her charity’s involvement in the new family detention centre at Pease Pottage on the grounds that ‘children and families may need to be kept in secure pre-departure accommodation for a very short period of time’.
Given that medical evidence has demonstrated that even short periods of detention can cause significant harm to children—the fact that a leading children’s charity is complicit in detaining nine out of the eleven children held at Pease Pottage for more than 4 days is an absolute disgrace, and vindicates all the warnings that End Child Detention Now and fellow campaign groups have made about the collaboration of charities with the UK Border Agency
Syd Bolton, Solicitor, Children’s Legal Centre*
*This is the text of the speech that Syd Bolton gave to the End Child Detention Now/Shpresa
Keep Your Promise campaign launch, Oxford House, Bethnal Green, London, 26th March 2011.
Thank you all for being part of this campaign and for inviting me to take part in
this important event. On a day of united action across the UK against public sector
cuts; against the loss of essential services and tens of thousands of jobs in the
public and voluntary sectors especially; we must not lose sight of the very close
relationship between unemployment and hostility to migrants; between ever
stricter border controls and the politics of insecurity. The free movement and
privileges enjoyed by global corporations are in stark contrast to the restrictions,
conditions and barriers placed in the way of families, their children and relatives,
to enjoy their lives together in safety, dignity and with respect.
The use of immigration detention is an important cornerstone of the border
policing mentality of not just the UK, but the bigger joint enterprise that is the
European Union. It is a bitter irony that only a few weeks before Libya was
bombed, Gaddafi’s government was one of Europe’s official frontier gatekeepers.
Turning people back from Sub-Saharan Africa trying to reach safety in Europe.
I say all of this to place in context the continuing use of immigration detention for
families with children.
Last year, the new coalition government announced it would end child detention.
But it quickly became evident during the summer-long UK Border Agency (UKBA)
detention review process that this was a measure that UKBA would not give up
lightly, whatever the political intentions.
Call me naive but I had always understood that when a Minister made a public statement
it was meant to be enacted by the civil servants, not undermined. But all summer, the
UKBA made it plain that they were not willing to give up the power to detain children,
as part of the policy of ending the detention of children. In the many discussions about
how to end detention held with the UKBA over that review period, it was clear that the UKBA
simply would not entertain the possibility of a major plank of its border control
powers being removed.
Despite the political rhetoric and constantly asking the NGO sector to come up with
alternative solutions – which we did, repeatedly – at the end of the process, the
ultimate sanction of detention could not be taken away. The forceful views of the
UKBA were made to such an extent that the bold and brave political statements made
at the beginning of this new government’s tenure could not hold, and the Minister had
to reframe his language and speak in a more equivocal voice, compromising with the
UKBA on how far the ending of detention would be allowed to go.
The euphemisms abound, but the reality remains. Let us not buy into the spin
that detention of children has been ended. As the UKBA said in their glossy
presentations when this was announced just before Christmas, ultimately, as a
last resort, pending “ensured return” a few families would continue to be
detained but in much reduced numbers, for much shorter periods, in more
suitable “pre-departure (secure) accommodation” (whatever this might turn out
In other words, after all the hype, the UKBA has only agreed, after huge pressure
from campaigners, international observers, the courts and child health experts, to
move back to the position it had always claimed to be the case under its family
detention policies and operation instructions; that immigration detention of
families should only be used in exceptional circumstances and for the shortest
Statistics and a recent succession of high court cases have shown that
those policies have not being followed and there remains a major
tension between child safeguarding and enforcement policies within the UKBA.
From a situation of the commonplace use of detention of families to one where it
may be used sparingly, indeed exceptionally and with a potentially more
transparent and accountable decision making and review process along the way is
a hard won and significant victory, make no mistake. Only time will tell whether
this actually happens in practice.
But it does not end child detention. The move simple re-brands detention. Other
respected voices who during the review had rather pragmatically, rather than it
seems on any principled basis, endorsed 72 hours detention at the end of the
process, have now changed their minds publicly and described it simply as a
repackaging exercise and called for an overhaul of the whole system.
This is not just our opinion. It is a fact that this new accommodation is detention,
whether it is called pre-removal accommodation or not; whether it has a play
area and no bars on the windows, whether after a risk assessment, families might
be permitted to go out on day release or let their children go out with detention
It is detention because the UKBA says so.
At a recent event to launch the new process, a senior Border Agency official said:
“legally it is detention, but it will look and seem totally different.”
And a UKBA fact sheet on pre-departure accommodation answers the question:
‘What rules will apply and under what legal power will you prevent
families leaving?’ with the answer:-
‘Powers to require the family to remain at the accommodation are derived
from Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971. It will ultimately be
operated in accordance with new Short Term Holding Facility Rules.’
So we are left with a new, potentially better decision-making process. Only as a
last resort will detention be used, and the welfare of children is now supposedly
central to the considerations of whether or not to detain. Where this is
authorised, these conditions will satisfy statutory safeguarding and welfare
These processes now need to be tested and scrutinised. Already they seem to be
found wanting. The new family removals panel is not as transparent as it looks on
paper and it seems like it will operate more like the Special Immigration Appeals
Court panel, (the anti-terrorism court) where the subject in question does not get
to take full part or to see all the evidence, deliberations and reasons. The family
removals review panel itself does not seem to have relevant child welfare and
health expertise and will not publish its detailed findings. It is predicated on how
to remove, not whether to remove. It does not seem to have the best interests of
the child at the heart of its considerations.
There has been a lot of criticism in the media recently of community and
voluntary organisations choosing to work with the UKBA as part of these new
processes, including the provision of welfare services in detention. I leave it to
others to judge whether or not it is better for non-governmental organisations
(NGOs) to contract to work inside this system to ensure that child welfare
standards are met, or best left to the usual private sector security companies and
to local authorities.
Authorities who, like in Yarl’s Wood, always had difficulties
retaining social work staff and balancing their own resources and interests with
the challenges of meeting the welfare needs of children in detention.
Whether in doing so, the institutionalising culture of a detention environment,
even with nice wallpaper and a garden compound, behind a secure perimeter
fence, will over time affect the responses and attitudes of those responsible for
the safeguarding and welfare of children in that environment, remains to be seen.
The institutionalisation of the prison warder and all those working in jails for long
periods is well researched and documented.
A separate and, in my view, earnest discussion needs to be had about this kind of
contracting, particularly in this climate of austerity. Shrinking funds make it
increasingly tempting or, in some cases, necessary for charities to find funding
wherever the opportunity arises. But there are always high risks in working within
the machinery of state rather than holding it to account from the outside. Should
NGOs remain interested independent parties or become formal partners? What I
do know is that our aims and objectives as charities should not become distorted
by the opportunity that is presented, even where the intentions are good.
That is a choice that faces many not for profit organisations at the moment. Some
may think that they can do it better than the private sector and will be motivated
by the improvements they feel they can bring to bear on difficult and
controversial policies and practices. Others may not be so cautious and careful.
On this version of child detention, time and external scrutiny, including
independent inspection and judicial oversight, will be the judge.
But whether detention is used against parents and their children held together, or
whether a parent is detained and children and other family members are left
isolated on the outside, whether children are supposedly free to come and go
under escort, the facts and the legal position are undeniable. Children continue to
be subject to detention and will suffer from its consequences, directly and
Children will continue to suffer from the developmental and psychological
damage inflicted on them, by being uprooted from the communities they have
grown up in, made friends in, went to school in, were born in and want to live in.
It is not all bad news.
In late 2008 the UK ended its immigration reservation to the UN Convention on
the Rights of the Child, making every child equal in law not just in the rhetorical
assertion that “Every Child Matters”.
In 2009 the UKBA was required to follow statutory safeguarding duties to
safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of all its functions.
These are major shifts in domestic law and the UK’s acceptance of its
international legal obligations is to its credit. Nonetheless it is taking a long time
to work through into practice, and the courts have found the UKBA slow and
wanting in this regard.
Since the detention review started last year and the new scheme was proposed,
the Supreme Court issued a truly landmark judgment on the best interests of
children whose parents are subject to immigration controls. This ruling includes
British Citizen children who cannot be removed or deported but whose parents
might still be subject to removal, including detention and where this would result
in the constructive deportation of their children.
The case of ZH (Tanzania) v SSHD recognises from the highest court in the UK, that
the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, is an integral part of UK
immigration and asylum law and policy.
In particular the best interests of children must be “considered first in decisions
affecting the child”, “must rank higher than any other”.
The judgement adds:
“It is not merely one consideration that weighs in the balance alongside other
competing factors and where the best interests of the child clearly favour a certain
course, that course should be followed unless countervailing factors of
considerable force displace them.”
The principle extends not just to decisions to remove a child or their family but
decisions to detain children under Immigration Act powers or to the separation of
a child from a detained parent.
The Secretary of State has conceded in court, that any decision which is taken
without having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of any
children involved will not be in accordance with the law.
In other words, where the UKBA detains a child or separates a child from his or
her parent(s) then a failure to show how the child’s best interests and welfare
have been assessed and then taken into account will render the detention
The “quality” of the detention centre and the length of detention may be relevant
factors, but it will be insufficient just to say that it is more child-friendly, or that
there is a now a child welfare provider in the accommodation centre. The needs
and best interests of each and every child have to be properly assessed and
considered when arriving at that decision.
The Supreme Court has said that the wishes and feelings of the child must also be
taken into account. If the UKBA cannot show how they have done this in every
single case, the decision is going to be flawed.
The Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg has gone further still.
In March this year a Grand Chamber judgment in a case called ‘Zambrano’ – a
Belgian welfare rights case – held that a child who is born or registered as a citizen
of a member state of the European Union has all the rights of a European Citizen
under the Treaty of Lisbon.
These include the right of children to have their parents care for them and to
remain with them in the country of the child’s citizenship, so that as children
they are able to enjoy their full European Citizenship rights. This means a
parent who is from a non EU country, irrespective of the parent’s immigration
status, or lack of it, whether a failed asylum seeker or not, must ordinarily
be allowed to stay with their citizen child.
In effect these families, including ones with British Citizen children, are no longer
detainable. If there is no prospect of removal then to detain in these
circumstances will, in my view, also breach the child’s European citizenship rights,
as well as their human rights. Whilst the UKBA clings to its patched-up detention
policies, the highest courts in the UK and in Europe are at long last recognising
the fundamental rights of every child.
Whatever the particular conduct of a child’s parents in their own asylum or
immigration history, the Supreme Court said profoundly in the case of ZH that:
“It would be wrong in principle to devalue what was in their best interests by
something for which they could in no way be held to be responsible.”
In my view, the detention of children is one of the ultimate ways of devaluing
their best interests.
Even if detention is not officially ended, justice and the rights of children demand
that it should be and the courts may finally render it to be an obsolete practice to
be consigned to an unenlightened and unacceptable part of our recent history.
The most recent update on the Coalition Government’s promises to end child immigration detention is provided by a letter from David Wood of the UK Border Agency. It gives more specific details regarding the pre-departure accommodation, with which the UKBA plans to replace the current child detention facilities of Tinsley House. The title ‘pre-departure accommodation’ does little to deflect from the fact that the proposed site, near the West Sussex village of Pease Pottage, and currently in use as a semi-residential school for children with learning difficulties and behavioural issues, will be used to detain children and families.
It is planned that the new facility will be managed by Arora Hotels, owners of the subsidiary company that runs the existing school. Interestingly, it has been reported that no open procurement tendering process has taken place, which would seem to run contrary to both UK and EU legislation. A planning application has already been submitted by the UKBA and, despite assurances in the statement that consultation would be held with the local community, residents in the immediate area were informed of the plans little more than a week before the application was submitted.
In addition, the UKBA has sought to restrict access to the details of the application, sending a letter to the planning authorities which states – “It would be helpful if it could be kept separately from the main Planning Register which the Department of Communities and Local Government has suggested you might establish by means of paragraphs 24 and 25 of the Memorandum to DCLG Circular 02/2006 Crown Application of the Planning acts. Any arrangements adopted should be designed to give the maximum protection possible to this information consistent with authorities’ statutory obligations.” This memorandum refers to ‘sensitive planning applications’ where secrecy is in the ‘national interest’, although this seems inappropriate for the proposals and contrary to the Coalition’s stated aim to encourage a shift towards openness and transparency in the immigration system.
Quite apart from the planning application process, the proposals raise serious concerns. The unit is intended to be secure, which in this case means a 2.5m palisade fence with electronic gates surrounding the site, and 24-hour staffing designed to provide “an appropriate level of security to protect the occupants of the site and deter them leaving the site.” There will apparently be provision for children to be allowed to leave the facility, but this would be under supervision, for short periods, and subject to a ‘risk-assessment’. In other words, there are no guarantees that any detainee will be allowed to leave the facility, except to catch the plane that will be used for their enforced removal. If the maximum stay of 72 hours is actually respected, then it is unsure whether applications for leave (for a trip to the cinema, as suggested by the UKBA) will have time for a risk-assessment to be conducted before the credits are rolling. If the only opportunity that occupants of this new ‘pre-departure accommodation’ will have to leave the site requires application to a system which carries so many caveats, is this really an alternative to detention, or just alternative terminology?
Of course, a maximum stay of 72 hours (which is the disingenuous claim made by the ‘consultation letter’ sent to residents near Pease Pottage) could easily turn into a week, or 28 days in ‘exceptional circumstances’, as noted by the UKBA document “Open Accommodation: Accommodating Families Outside of Detention”. Given past examples of families and children being detained for up to 190 days, it is doubtful whether detainees will not end up being held for extended periods of time, although they will no longer have access to schooling since the already inadequate provisions that were available at Yarl’s Wood and Tinsley House will not be provided within this short-stay accommodation.
It may seem that the Coalition Government is trying hard to strike a balance between ending child detention and remaining ‘tough on immigration’, but these ‘alternatives’ to detention are themselves unnecessary and inhumane. Families with children are amongst the very least likely of asylum seekers to abscond, as Mr. Wood himself told the Home Affairs Select Committee in November last year. Other countries have found more humane arrangements to accommodate families together in the community while they await decisions on their applications or arrangements for their removal. In reality, the Coalition is not striking a balance, but reneging on their pledge to end the practice of child detention.
 Available here http://188.8.131.52/pap_msdclive/framepage.asp?dc2=&appnumber=11/00330/COU under ‘Planning Statement’
 Available here http://184.108.40.206/pap_msdclive/framepage.asp?dc2=&appnumber=11/00330/COU under ‘UKBA letter’
 Available here http://220.127.116.11/pap_msdclive/framepage.asp?dc2=&appnumber=11/00330/COU under ‘Planning Statement’
Supporters of York-based End Child Detention Now launched their ‘Keep Your Promise’ postcard writing campaign on Saturday 5 February with help from local children who are urging David Cameron and Nick Clegg to honour their pledge to end the detention of children without delay.
The group’s spokesperson Esme Madill explained that
Children have continued to be detained as recently as Christmas Day despite Nick Clegg’s promise that no child would spend Christmas in an immigration detention centre. We are worried that plans for a ‘pre detention facilility’ near Gatwick will merely be a re-branding exercise and that children who are to be forcibly removed from their schools and communities will continue to suffer as a result.
The hotel group Arora International is thought to have acquired a residential school previously used for children with behavioural and learning difficulties, which they intend to convert into a secure detention facility complete with a perimeter fence.
Dr Simon Parker, a coordinator of End Child Detention Now commented,
We have real concerns about the lack of staff with appropriate child care and safeguarding qualifications both at Tinsley House and this new proposed facility at Pease Pottage near Crawley. Security companies and hotel groups cannot be considered fit and proper bodies for the safeguarding of vulnerable children. The UK Border Agency, which failed to tell the Deputy Prime Minister it had broken his pledge by detaining a child over Christmas cannot be trusted with the well-being of children, and the task must now be urgently passed to an independent professional body that has the confidence of child care professionals.
From London NoBorders 31 January 2011
London NoBorders has received information that THE hotel Company Arora
International  has started a second attempt to make money from the
Home Office’s deportation business. The company plans to use the site
of a residential school for children with behavioural and learning
difficulties in Pease Pottage, Crawley, Sussex owned by the Arora Group
subsidiary “The Crossroads Childrens (sic) Education Services Ltd.”,
into an immigration detention facility. It is the second attempt by
Arora Hotels to extend their business into detention following the
company’s failure to gain planning permission to turn one of their
hotels in Crawley into a holding facility for immigrants in 2010. 
Crawley Forest School has been told to vacate the property by 1 April
The facility is located in Pease Pottage just outside Crawley.
According to the letter from consultant firm CGMS Consulting  the
location would be excellent due to its close proximity to Gatwick
airport. Locals will be surprised to learn that Arora plans to push the
whole planning process through within the next few weeks, filing the
application this week and expecting the facility to be open by 11 May.
The letter makes no secret that the facility is planned to replace the
use of Yarl’s Wood and nearby Tinsley House detention facilities for
holding families and children, and explicitly refers to this fact as an
explanation of the need for urgency. The letter also explicitly refers
to children inside the holding centre. Not only is the UKBA extending
their detention capacity, but the government is also breaking their
pledge to end the detention of children.
Rosie Young of London NoBorders stated: “Arora seems to be attempting
to move into the immigration detention business at any price. this time
they want to do it quickly and silently.”
Thomas Harburg of London NoBorders added: “”It is obvious what trick the
Home Office is playing here.It does not matter what they call
this facility, if you are forced to be held in a building with a fence
around it, waiting to be deported, it is another immigration detention
facility. All that talk about the ending of the detention of children
and families was just a media stunt”
London NoBorders, who have campaigned against Arora in 2009/10,
announced today that they will immediately start a campaign against the
new facility. “If Arora thought they get this through without anybody
noticing it,” says Rosie Young, “they have failed”.
For any further enquiries, please contact:
 a copy of the letter can be found at:
No Borders Brighton is urging Crawley Borough Council to reject plans to turn the Mercure Hotel on Povey Cross Road into a removal centre, writes Miranda Wilson in IRR News. The group claims the design of the 254-bed hotel means it could only be converted to house families. It strongly opposes the detention of children who it says: ‘are especially vulnerable to the physical and psychological effects of imprisonment and many end up suffering from illnesses such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, effects suffered even after a brief period of detention.’
This news confirms the view of End Child Detention Now and fellow anti-detention campaigners that the UKBA continues to use detention of children and families not as ‘a last resort’ but as an instrument of policy with a view to removing as many asylum claimants who are initially refused leave to remain as possible, while ‘deterring’ any would be refugee or asylum seeker with the threat of destitution, detention and deportation. A policy that a recent Refugee Council research report has shown to have no significant impact on the destinations of would be asylum seekers.
Despite the overwhelming medical evidence that detention does long term harm to children who are already vulnerable and traumatised, it is clear that the planned expansion of the vastly expensive UKBA detention estate will require thousands more children to suffer what the Royal Colleges of Medicine have described as ‘signficant harm‘. An assessment which is backed up by the Chief Inspector of Prisons recently published report of an unannounced inspection of the Short Term Holding Facilty, Electric House in Croydon in June last year which discovered from the logs
that the four-yearold, who had been brought in out of hours, had not been accompanied by an adult. In addition, these out-of-hours logs did not record how long the person was detained or where they were sent afterwards.
The report also noted that ‘[i]nformation about the detention of children was not properly monitored, and although there was a child protection policy…it had not been agreed by the local safeguarding children board. While ‘i]mmigration staff had received child protection training’ – ‘Group 4 Securicor staff were not sufficiently trained in child protection issues and there was no child protection coordinator for the facility’. Suicide attempts are so common that the HM Chief Inspector of Prisons recommends that detention staff carry ‘anti-ligature’ knives at all times.
If these findings were published in relation to the running of a local authority children’s home the chances are it would be immediately shut down, but because these children are ‘in the care’ of the UKBA and their private contractors, the local authority child protection system either turns a blind eye, or in the case of Yarl’s Wood, actively cooperates with a child detention regime which the Children’s Commissioner has declared to be harmful to children. Not only should local authorities be denying planning permission for new immigration prisons, under national and international child protection law they should be demanding that the existing facilities are immediately closed.