Review Into Ending the Detention of Children for Immigration Purposes Responses from Organisations
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
REVIEW INTO ENDING THE DETENTION OF CHILDREN FOR IMMIGRATION PURPOSES RESPONSES FROM ORGANISATIONS RESPONDENTS 1. All African Women’s Group 4 2. Alliance Party of Northern Ireland 6 3. The Association of Visitors to Immigration Detainees (AVID) 7 4. Bail for Immigration Detainees 11 5. Baobab Centre for Young Survivors in Exile 22 6. The Baptist Union (Faith & Unity Department) 25 7. Barnardo’s 28 8. Bedford Borough Council 31 9. British Afghan Women’s Society 32 10. British Red Cross 33 11. Cambridgeshire County Council 16+ Team 36 12. Parish of Cathay’s, Cardiff 36 13. Centre for Applied Childhood Studies University of Huddersfield 37 14. Children’s Commissioners for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (joint response) 40 15. Children’s Rights Alliance for England (CRAE) 46 16. children’s society 50 17. Disability Action, Islington 50 18. Displaced People in Action, Wales 51 19. Edinburgh City Council 53 20. End Child Detention Now 55 21. The “Foundation” organisation 59 22. Glasgow City Council, Social Work Services 60 23. The Greater London Authority 63 24. Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit 65 25. Guildford Borough Council, Westborough Ward 65 26. Immigration Law Practitioners Association (ILPA) 66 27. Immigration Advisory Service (IAS) 80 28. Independent Monitoring Board for Glasgow & Edinburgh 81 29. Independent Monitoring Board, Heathrow 82 30. Independent Monitoring Board, Tinsley House 85 31. Integrate – Leeds Organisation 85 32. International Organisation for Migration (IOM) 86 33. Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI) 88 34. Joint Justice and Peace Group, Glasgow parishes of St Alban’s and St Leo’s 90 35. Jesuit Refugee Service UK 91 36. Justicecare Solutions Limited 99 37. Kent County Council 102 38. Law Centre for Northern Ireland 105 39. Liberty 109 2 40. Local Government Association, Association of Directors of Social Services, Association of Directors of Children’s Services, Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Welsh Local Government Association (Joint response) 117 41. London Detainee Support Group 121 42. Manchester City Council 123 43. Medical Foundation for the care of victims of torture 126 44. Medical Justice 131 45. National Board of Catholic Women 146 46. North Glasgow Framework for Dialogue Group 147 47. North West Regional Strategic Migration Partnership 149 48. Praxis organisation, London 151 49. Prisons and Probation Ombudsman 154 50. Refugee Children’s Consortium 155 51. The Refugee Council 163 52. The Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) 167 53. Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, Royal College of General Practitioners, Royal College of Psychiatrists, Faculty of Public Health (joint response) 168 54. St David’s Church, Pontypridd 171 55. The Salvation Army 172 56. Scottish Catholic Justice and Peace Commission 177 57. The Scottish Government 178 58. Scottish Refugee Policy Forum 179 59. Scottish Refugee Council 183 60. Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP), Belfast 192 61. Southampton & Winchester Detainee Visitors Group 193 62. South East Strategic Migration Partnership 195 63. South Liverpool Vineyard Church 197 64. South Yorkshire Migration & Asylum Action Group 197 65. Strategic Migration Partnership, East of England 198 66. Suffolk County Council Forum for Refugees 200 67. UNHCR 201 68. United Reformed Church, Thames North Synod 204 69. Wales Strategic Migration Partnership 205 70. Welsh Refugee Council 216 71. West Central & Ealing Liberal Synagogues 218 72. West Midlands Strategic Migration Partnership 219 73. Women for Refugee Women 221 74. Yarl’s Wood Befrienders 224 75. Yorkshire & Humberside Regional Migration Partnership 226 3 1. ALL AFRICAN WOMEN’S GROUP Dear Madam/Sir, This is a joint submission from four women’s organisations based at the Crossroads Women’s Centre which do daily work defending the legal, civil and human rights of women seeking asylum. The All African Women’s Group is a self-help group of asylum seekers. In 2009, it founded the Mothers Campaign for Family Reunion. Black Women’s Rape Action Project and Women Against Rape provide specialist services to rape survivors. Legal Action for Women provides free legal services to low income women and their families. We ask that the review consider: 1. The overwhelming evidence of the harm caused to children, not only of detention[1], but crucially of being separated from their mother or primary carer[2]. We refer you to a recent letter in the press on this, submitted and signed by us along with others, including Oliver James, clinical child psychologist and Professor Sheila Kitzinger. Over 60 individuals and organisations further endorsed it at a recent meeting in Parliament (attached). 2. Mothers who have been separated from their children are acutely aware of the trauma their children suffer as a result – crying, depression, bed wetting, mutism, agression… They speak constantly of their anguish at being prevented from taking care of their children and keeping them out of harm’s way. Mothers detained with their children as well as mothers whose children have been put in foster care or placed with relatives, must be allowed to give evidence to the review in person. Who best to represent children’s interests than their mothers who love them? 3. The review must not be used to speed up removals. If it really intends to tackle the harm being done to children, it must redress grave injustices in the asylum process starting with the lack of legal representation. Without legal representation it is almost impossible to get the expert psychiatric and other evidence to corroborate a claim. As a result children and their carers who have a legitimate right to asylum are removed back to rape and murder. There are mothers in our network who were tortured after being removed and have since returned and won full refugee status as well as compensation. The Home Office is directly responsible for the torture they suffered. Women who have corroborative evidence are six times more like to win at appeal[3] which is definitive proof of how many women dismissed as bogus are in fact victims of the fast track. 60% are women in Yarl’s Wood Removal Centre are unrepresented at their appeal[4]. 4. We also ask that the review consider the impact on children and mothers of: violence during removals, the government policy of destitution and denial of NHS care after initial refusal of an asylum claim even after an appeal has been lodged; imprisonment of mothers convicted of minor offences committed while destitute or because of threats against their own life or the lives of their children. Yours sincerely, Stella Mpaka All African Women’s Group Cristel Amiss Black Women’s Rape Action Group Niki Adams Legal Action for Women Kristina Brandemo Women Against Rape Some of the women who would like to give evidence: [1] In December 2009, the Royal Colleges of General Practitioners, Paediatrics and Child Health and Psychiatrists and the UK Faculty of Public Health published a joint statement that the detention of children caused significant physical and mental harm to children. They recommended that the detention of children should end without delay. [2] “Between 1940 and 1945, 80 children between 10 days and 10 years old, made homeless by reasons of war, were placed in three residential nurseries . After 56 months of continuous observation, the first and foremost conclusion reached was that, for a child, the horror of war pales besides the horror of separation from mother.” Trauma of Separation, by Michael J. Burlingham, New York Times, December 12, 1994. DW Winnicott in 1965 said there is no such thing as an infant, only the mother-infant system. “The theory of Parent-Infant Relationship.” [3] “Misjudging Rape: Breaching Gender Guidelines and International Law in Asylum Appeals”.[date] Black Women’s Rape Action Project and Women Against Rape. [4] A "Bleak House" for Our Times: An investigation into Yarl's Wood Removal Centre by Legal Action for Women, 2006 4 __was left destitute with a new born baby and a one year old daughter when her asylum claim was refused. Despite the fact that she was breastfeeding, both children were taken into foster care by social services and she was sent to Yarl’s Wood. A campaign co-ordinated by Black Women’s Rape Action Project got her reunited with her children in detention and eventually released. She has now won her right to stay in the UK. But the impact on her children of the sudden separation at such an early age is still evident. The abrupt termination of breastfeeding has had a dramatic impact on her son. He continues to get extremely distressed within seconds when not being held by his mother. Ms __ was denied the use of a sling so her son was forced out of his mother’s arms and into a buggy, wailing his head off. He continues to suffer from “severe developmental delays, including refusal to swallow solid food in any form, and no speech development”. When they were reunited Ms __ said her daughter was like a stick, she had eczema, and her nails were too long. Following their release it was almost a year before her daughter would allow herself to be in a room with a closed door. Her situation was reported in the media: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/nov/24/immigrationandpublicservices.family “Deportee separated from breastfeeding” Guardian, Tuesday 22 May 2007 Ms M was detained in Yarl’s Wood twice, firstly for several months while pregnant and then after the birth of her daughter, On the second occasion in 2009, she was taken back into Yarl’s Wood even though she was diagnosed as having post-natal depression. Lack of good food and the trauma of being locked up caused her breast milk to almost dry up.