[ad_1]
Child asylum seekers will be restrained if they “resist” forcible deportations to Rwanda and other countries, the Home Office has said.
Official documents published on Thursday claimed that using force against children could be “necessary”.
The Home Office said its new Illegal Migration Bill would mean that “families and children who come to the UK illegally will not be exempt from detention and removal”.
“The law already allows immigration officers and detainee custody officers (including escorts) to use reasonable force to exercise their powers – this is not age restricted,” a factsheet added.
“Using force on children would be an absolute last resort and would only be used if completely necessary. Using force on children in family groups may unfortunately be necessary if a family is resisting removal.”
The Home Office said its policy on child restraint was under review and would be consulted on with the Children’s Commissioner and other groups.
The factsheet said the home secretary would be “required” to remove asylum seekers who arrived in the UK on small boats as unaccompanied children when they turn 18, and “has the power to do so” before that.
“Where a decision is made to remove an unaccompanied child under 18, detention will be for the shortest possible time in appropriate detention facilities with relevant support provisions in place,” it added.
The Home Office said children travelling irregularly to the UK to join loved ones would not be exempt from the unprecedented measures, adding: “This approach equally applies to those unaccompanied children who may have family or relatives already in the UK.”
Steve Valdez-Symonds, Amnesty International UK’s refugee and migrant rights director, called the plans “terrifying”.
“The bill displays a near total disregard of children’s rights and welfare,” he added. “The idea of force being used on children by this department – or private agency staff subcontracted by the Home Office – is terrifying.”
James Wilson, the director of Detention Action, told The Independent the bill would “inevitably leading to the increased use of physical restraint” if it achieves its aim of mass deportations.
“Given the disregard for the safety of children in hotels and at the Manston facility last year, we expect to see even more incidents of abuse and serious harm to children,” he added.
A young family are helped to shore as a group of people thought to be migrants arrive in Dungeness, Kent, after being rescued in the Channel by the RNLI following a small boat incident
(Gareth Fuller/PA)
Hoseem, of the Freedom from Torture charity, said restraint can exacerbate existing post-traumatic stress disorder and mental health issues.
He said that he was himself detained by the Home Office aged 17, adding: “I had a very bad experience, I wanted to end my life.”
“Child asylum seekers should be protected and supported like any other children in the UK,” Hoseem (not his real name) said.
“This action will have a negative impact on physical and emotional health.”
It comes after The Independent revealed scenes of desperation and violence on the first attempted flight to Rwanda, which was prevented from taking off by legal action last June.
Records made by officials showed that detainees self-harmed, threatened suicide and were put into “pain inducing” restraint after begging not to be deported from the UK.
One asylum seeker who told staff that he would “kill himself” if he was forced to get on the flight was then put in a waist restraint belt and physically attached to a plane seat.
Another asylum seeker was subjected to “pain-inducing techniques” to stop him self-harming, with Home Office guidance stating that the tactics are “justifiable if that is the only viable and practical way of dealing with a violent incident, which poses an immediate risk of serious physical harm.”
Suella Braverman has expanded the Rwanda agreement, which remains subject to legal challenge
(PA)
Other restraints used as part of the attempted Rwanda flight included handcuffs, physical pressure, officers holding people’s arms and legs, and “guiding” them towards the plane.
During a visit to Rwanda earlier this month, home secretary Suella Braverman rewrote the deportation agreement to expand it beyond asylum seekers to modern slavery victims and other groups of people who cross the Channel.
Legal action over the original deal is ongoing at the Court of Appeal and it is unclear whether the changes to the Migration and Economic Development Partnership will trigger a new case.
The government’s Illegal Migration Bill aims to mean that anyone arriving on small boats can be detained and deported without consideration of an asylum claim, but the only deals struck have been with Albania and Rwanda.
Documents published on Thursday claimed that detaining and deporting children who arrive on small boats, and banning them from returning to the UK in future, is necessary to stop “incentives for unaccompanied children or family groups to make dangerous crossings”.
In an online question-and-answer, the Home Office asked itself if the policy would be “detrimental to the wellbeing of vulnerable children”.
‘Shortage of safe and legal routes’ for migrants, Suella Braverman told by Tory MP
It replied: “We recognise the particular vulnerability of children making life-threatening journeys to the UK, which are being facilitated by criminal gangs who have little regard for their safety.
“Unaccompanied children who arrive in the UK illegally will be provided with the necessary accommodation and support but they will not be able to settle in the UK.
“Taking these measures will send a clear message that children cannot be exploited and cross the Channel in small boats for the purpose of starting a new life in the UK.”
The Home Office said the majority of unaccompanied children who claimed asylum in the UK in 2022 were aged 16 or 17, and in the small proportion where age was disputed, around half were found to be adults.
A Home Office spokesperson said: “Taking these measures will send a clear message that children cannot be exploited and cross the Channel in small boats for the purpose of starting a new life in the UK.
“Using reasonable force on children in family groups would be an absolute last resort and only be used if completely necessary.”
It maintained that “safe and legal routes” were open as an alternative, but Conservative MPs have backed calls for them to be widened beyond current schemes targeting Afghanistan, Ukraine and Hong Kong.
Family reunion processes, which allow refugees in the UK to bring close relatives to live with them, are limited and a recent watchdog report found that failings were leaving thousands of refugee women and children stuck in “unsafe situations” in countries including Afghanistan and Syria.
[ad_2]
Source link
