In a submission to the UK Parliamentary Inquiry into the use of immigration detention, the IDC suggests that there are new approaches that the UK could explore, which have been successful in other countries to prevent unnecessary immigration detention and effectively manage cases in the community in a humane, timely and effective manner.

The submission points out that many governments that utilize alternatives to detention have focused on often unnecessarily restrictive or intrusive options, such as onerous reporting and monitoring, or on different forms of deprivation or restriction on liberty, such as electronic tagging and curfews. However, the IDC has found that overly onerous conditions actually have an adverse effect on compliance and successful case resolution outcomes.

The submission highlights that most successful alternative to detention programmes identified by the IDC were those that used constructive engagement rather than enforcement to ensure individuals comply and cooperate with migration authorities, thus reducing and eliminating the need for detention at all.

These commonly use early intervention to support individuals throughout the bureaucratic administrative process via the provision of interpreters, legal assistance, and case managers. Rather than focusing exclusively on return, they assist the individual to explore all the legal options available to them, including both options to remain in the country legally and, if needed, avenues to depart the country safely.

The submission outlines the key elements identified by IDC’s research for ATD to be successful in terms of compliance (including with negative immigration decisions) and well-being outcomes. These include:

  • Individuals are informed and feel they have been through a fair process
  • There is a focus on engagement and early intervention
  • The ATD aims at holistic case resolution, not simply a focus on removal
  • Individuals are able to meet their basic needs (housing, food, etc.)
  • Any conditions applied are not overly onerous / don’t set people up to fail

It considers examples of ATD from Sweden, Australia, Belgium and Canada which have incorporated some or all of these elements and maintain high levels of compliance and have been shown to have positive health and well-being outcomes for migrants.

The IDC’s global research into alternatives to detention found over 50 types of ATD being used internationally that prevent unnecessary detention and can effectively manage populations in the community. Many of these mechanisms may not be considered “alternatives to detention” in a traditional, narrow, or legalistic understanding of the term. In line with these findings, the IDC has sought to expand current policy debates beyond a narrow interpretation of ATD by looking more broadly at a variety of mechanisms that successfully allow asylum seekers and irregular migrants to reside in the community, while ensuring safety, compliance and cost-effectiveness.

For more information, see:

Official website of the UK’s Parliamentary inquiry into immigration detention.

Detention Forum, UK Detention Inquiry: a step in the right direction (Open Democracy).

IDC member Detention Action’s written evidence to the inquiry (July 2014)

IDC member BID’s written evidence to the inquiry on Access to immigration legal advice in IRCsImmigration bail as a safeguard against arbitrary and long-term detention; and Families separated by detention (7 October 2014)

IDC member Refugee Council’s submission to the inquiry (October 2014)

IDC member Samphire’s submission to the inquiry: Ex-detainee Project and Detention Support Project (September 2014)

IDC member Kent Refugee Help’s submission to the inquiry.

IDC, Immigration detention under the spotlight in the UK (August 2014).

Updated 7 November 2014