The Guardian today carries a story, Government climbdown on detention of children in immigration centres, which — if it were accurate — would have Lib Dems hopping mad. Thankfully, it’s not accurate.
It was six weeks ago, at his first acting stint at Prime Minister’s Questions, that Nick Clegg formally announced that (as per the Lib Dem manifesto and Coalition agreement) the practise of child detention would end:
It was simply a moral outrage that last year the Labour government imprisoned, behind bars, 1,000 children who were innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever. This coalition government will once again restore a sense of decency and liberty to the way in which we conduct ourselves. That is why I can confirm that the government will make an announcement shortly about how we will deliver on our pledge to end child detention and to close the Yarl’s Wood detention centre for good.”
Ironically the Guardian more or less ignored the story at the time, preferring instead to play up the media’s silly gaffes obsession.
However, today they are suggesting there has been a government climbdown and that the Lib Dem pledge has been watered down or forgotten about. Only in the middle of the story does it become clear there has been no policy shift:
In a brief statement released by the Home Office he said: “Significant progress has been made in working towards the commitment to end child detention for immigration purposes and we are currently piloting some proposed changes to our approach developed with partners. We have already announced that the family unit at Yarl’s Wood immigration removal centre will close.
The coalition agreement released in May said: “We will end the detention of children for immigration purposes,” [Immigration Minister Damien] Green noted, adding: “That remains.”
When I checked this morning with the Deputy Prime Minister’s office, they too confirmed the pledge to end child detention remains absolute.
Lib Dem blogger Carion Lindsay has also written about the story here: Child Detention is a red line issue – end of story.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
How Chancellor Reeves torpedoed the economy
The Disneyfication of Haley Mills
Survation now put Andy Burnham 10 points ahead in Makerfield
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Chris Cory
Ruth Bright
BigTallTim
Daniel Walker
Richard Good
10 Comments
Noted the complete and utter lack of a story when I read that. Typical bloody Grauniad.
You would have thought they might have preferred to give centre stage to the Medical Justice report being launched today, instead of which it got tucked away at the bottom of this piece. If they’re really concerned about holding Damian Green to account they should have been emphasising the moral case for abandoning child detention regardless of whether there is a fully developed alternative; the report puts that case very strongly.
I want this situation dealt with properly not quickly. The well-being and safety of those vulnerable children involved is all that matters. It would defeat that purpose if this matter was rushed through without ensuring the neccesary safeguards and support measures are fully in place.
Why is it that when Cleggs claim of ending child detention is trumpeted, those blowing the horns, never manage to explain the reckoning behind the coalitions new policy of forcibly deporting Afghan child asylum seekers to ‘reintegration’ centres? http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/07/child-asylum-seekers-uk-afghanistan http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/jun/08/deporting-unaccompanied-child-migrants-immoral
Or the fact that increased use of fast-track deportation. Where by children and their families are given two weeks to leave voluntarily, or face deportation at any time thereafter? http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/18/asylum-seekers-child-detention-deportation
Jayu – agreed. I support ending child detention but are the alternatives being implemented by the UK Border Agency really much better?
“I want this situation dealt with properly not quickly. The well-being and safety of those vulnerable children involved is all that matters.”
Well, yes – except that detention of these vulnerable children is nothing to do with ensuring their well-being and safety: it’s about Home Office paranoia about scores of immigrant children running free in the country. As Julian Huppert said, “The main alternative that I can think of to detaining 1,000 children a year is not to detain them.” It really is that simple. Having released all the families affected, the Home Office can then take however much time it thinks is right to come up with alternative, humane ways of dealing with what it perceives as the problem of children who won’t go home.
Interestingly, that report I link to above suggests that even back in June, Damian Green was not entirely unequivocal about ending child detention tout court. He needs watching. One of my gripes with Nick Clegg is his habit of claiming that things like ending this odious practice have already happened, just because there’s an agreement in principle in a document he’s signed up to that it should happen. This just makes it easier for the likes of Green to wriggle out of a commitment he’s obviously not particularly wedded to himself.
What exactly did you think we were going to do with them? Grant automatic citizenship to anybody under the age of 16 who shows up in the UK? They’re ex-asylum-seekers, whose applications have been rejected (and no, neither discrimination nor being a victim of crime is legitimate grounds for asylum), so obviously they have to leave.
The issue with the old system was that “asylum seekers” were kept hanging around in the UK for years, while their claims were processed agonizingly slowly, and their children were imprisoned for a substantial amount of that time. To send them home after a few weeks is fair; to keep them in jail for years is intolerable.
@Andrew Suffield-
My understanding (mind you, it’s from direct.gov which is confusing at the best of times), is that asylum seekers in detention centres were entitled to leave the country on a voluntary basis. These people weren’t simply locked up, they were given the option of staying on the chance that they may be accepted into the country.
There’s three groups held in detention centres.
1. People who will be deported. That’s failed asylum seekers, people who overstayed their visa or voluntary departure period, and regular old illegals who snuck into the country.
2. Flight risks. Asylum seekers who have “reasonable grounds for suspicion” that they’re going to drop out of sight and work illegally.
3. Fast track claims. This is the dodgy one, which Labour introduced about a decade ago – anybody whose claim is expected to be resolved in 7 days or less can be locked up while it is being processed.
Yet the LibDems have signed up to even greater use of this policy.