“We are trying to find alternatives”
The immigration minister defends detention for children
By Liam Byrne Published 11 September 2008Caring for children within our detention estate is a hugely emotive issue, and this is a crucial debate that I am glad the New Statesman has prompted. It's a debate that has been well led for some years by children's charities.
They convinced me that the UK Border Agency's (UKBA) treatment of children needed to become much more sensitive. That's why we've transformed our children's policy over the past two years, even legislating to impose a duty on UKBA to keep children safe from harm.
Nobody wants to detain children. So, why does it happen? As a parent myself of three small children, I have a simple motive. I insist that we keep families together and not split them up.
The sad fact is that children end up within our detention estate because their parents refuse to go home - even when an independent judge reviewing the case at first hand, or on appeal, says they have no right to stay.
Since I became immigration minister, we have tried new ways of solving this problem. For example, asking families to report to airports without detention involved. The result? Disappointing. Virtually none turned up.
Worse, some parents physically disrupt their trip to the airport by behaving violently or even harming UKBA and airport staff in front of their children. We could never reward this behaviour by simply letting people stay. It would ma ke a mockery of the courts and, indeed, of justice. Eighty per cent of families that do obey the law are out of the detention system and on their way home in less than seven days.
I would much prefer it if families returned home voluntarily and saved the taxpayer the £11,000 it costs for an enforced removal. So we bend over backwards to help families go home of their own volition. But sometimes families refuse to take this option and it's then that they find themselves within our detention estate.
I know our contract staff in removal centres provide care with the utmost sensitivity and compassion in really difficult circumstances, because I have studied the situation at first hand. When I've spent time with immigration officers involved in removing families - often young public servants with families of their own - I have seen how physically draining the job can be. That is why it is a task conducted with such sensitivity and thought.
It's why medical care at a removal centre is as good as it is on the NHS. At Yarl's Wood - where most families are housed - there is 24-hour nursing care with 14 nurses, two doctors on call day and night, as well as social workers and dentists.
It's why families have rooms that afford privacy. It's why Yarl's Wood has a nursery recently awarded three good and one outstanding rating by Ofsted inspectors, why children have access to multilingual carers, registered teachers, youth workers, internet facilities, a library and sports equipment.
I don't think we can ever stop reform to ensure UKBA does a better job. It's why I have asked for a host of pilots to test alternatives to detention (inspired, I might say, by children's charities). If they work, I hope it will become the norm.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists


14 comments
I have recently re-read George Orwell 1984, and it describes the way in which when the news is not what you want to hear (e.g. Anne Owers, the Child Commissioner or any other number of reports) just deny it. Replace it with better news. The future is bright, the future is rubbish. Liam Byrne beats asylum seekers up (in print) in front of his children. I propose that he should be deported for this shocking show of disrespect towards himself and those more vulnerable.
I have visited Yarl's Wood about 30 times, also Oakington, Colnbrook and Dungavel. I have had my photograph and fingerprints taken every time, I have been body searched every time - at Colnbrook I even had to take my shoes and socks off during every search. Was this necessary in order for me to visit a person who had committed no crime other than to flee to England for protection?
Mr Byrne MUST be repeating what his minions tell him, ther is no way that he can know the real facts. I just wish that I could introduce him, face to face, to some of the desperate people I have met. I know of ladies in Yarl's Wood who have been provided with Paracetamol for everything from stress to physical injury - is this because it is relatively inexpensive and improves the bottom line for the contract holders. I have also know ladies who have had to beg for their prescription medication. On one occasion, when a lady complained, she was told that immigration always take the word of the staff, and they could say and do anything they wanted. Any objection to this would go on the detainees record and held against them.
The total arrogance of Mr Byrne and his colleagues is mind blowing - how can they sleep at night.
Please look up an article by Chris Cleave - "The canary in the cage is dying" It sums up the problem very well
In the cased described by the newstatement, some of the parents who were making a fuss when removed, and making the life of immigration officers difficult DID in fact later get refugee status. So they were all along telling the truth, and had they not been difficult at removal, they would have ended up in a country where they were at risk.
This is not an efficient system, it is making people beg for their freedom, for their safety. It is removing any dignity they have left. This is not protection, it is an insult.
The total arrogance of Mr Byrne and his colleagues is mind blowing - how can they sleep at night. Any other country in the world this would bring populace out, rioting and burning! This story of the twenty two year Ugandan with children in a London Flat which social services want back illustrates my point. There are women lining up in Uganda to sleep with men for a price of coke. A women will always have the price of a mealie meal in Africa!
Total arrogance is an interesting term. It could refer to huge groups of people that assume that because they are so important that the British taxpayer wants to give away hours of their lives working to support them. People that assume they should be an exception to the law because their case is 'special'. That they are so busy that after living in the UK for eight years sometimes, there wasn't a moment to apply for asylum legally. Thats after taking full advantage of the 'free' NHS services.
I do agree that it is disgusting that there is not a doctor on call 24hrs a day or that a detainee may have to wait until the next day to see a medical professional if they are ill.
It is almost as disgusting as a single mum I know being told she had to wait 3 days to see a doctor, who when she sees the doctor cannot afford all the medication she is prescribed, so has to pick the most important drugs to take.
Everyone has to suffer hardships - get real!
Enoch, Mugabe also was regarded by this country as a good leader and friend
I have visited Yarl's Wood about 30 times, also Oakington, Colnbrook and Dungavel. I have had my photograph and fingerprints taken every time, I have been body searched every time - at Colnbrook I even had to take my shoes and socks off during every search. Was this necessary in order for me to visit a person who had committed no crime other than to flee to England for protection?
We need a complete review of these self important, activist, single issue groups and their role in our society.
If Mr Byrne is so concerned about the children, but doesn't want to release the parents, why not consider alternative detention (in motels/apartments as Australia does)? Or why not take the risk (which is small,since mothers with children tend to stay in one place if they can) and release families for humanity's sake (Australia also does this). It has not resulted in any significant 'failure' of the 'removal' system in Australia, but ensures that children are not imprisoned.
It would be interesting to hear how Liam Byrne explains the large numbers of families who are released from detention with ongoing cases and those who go on to be given status, even after UKBA has tried to remove them.
Mr Byrne have you ever stopped to wonder why parents are disruptive in front of their children? Or considered why they are resisting 'voluntary 'return? Or thought how draining it is for the deportees? And remember that it is not us, the tax-payers. who choose to have you spend that money to enforce brutal and callous removal to oppressive regimes