Las medidas fiscales que afectan a la vivienda en el IVA

The consideration, and implicitly the development and use, of alternatives to immi- gration detention of refugee and migrant children is a requirement derived from the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. At the same time, there is no universally accepted definition of “alternatives to immigration detention”. There is broad consensus that alternatives to immigration detention are “non-custodial measures that respect fundamental human rights and allow individual options other than detention”.182 _{Concerns about the use of detention for children have led to an}

expectation that non-custodial options will be preferred for refugee and migrant children, especially given that detention has a particularly negative impact on their mental health.183

The Council of Europe Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH) has identified a number of possible alternatives to immigration detention, which include children living in the community with their parents or guardians in designated open shel- ters or housing, the obligation to report to the police or immigration authorities at regular intervals or the use of a bail system. Moreover, an adolescent child or group of adolescent children that reside freely in the community can be entrusted to the care of an NGO, municipality or other organisation (“inclusion”). However, this should only be used if family-based or kinship care is not possible or not in the best interests of the child.184

The choice of the alternative should be influenced by an assessment of the child and his/her needs and must rely upon the least restrictive measure or combination of measures possible.

180. PACE, Resolution 2020 (2014), The alternatives to immigration detention of children, 3 October 2014, paragraph 9.

181. PACE, The Parliamentary Campaign to End Immigration Detention of Children, www.assembly. coe.int/stop-child-detention.

182. Council of Europe, Legal and practical aspects of effective alternatives to detention in the context of migration, Analysis of the Steering Committee for Human Rights, adopted on 7 December 2017, (“CDDH Analysis on effective alternatives to immigration detention”), p. 17, https://tinyurl.com/ y68uxeuy.

183. Council of Europe, Immigration detention of children. Coming to a close? Conference report, 25-26 September 2017, p. 10.

Essential elements to secure effective implementation alternatives:

f using screening and assessment to address individual circumstances, including vulnerabilities and risks;

f providing clear and precise information about rights, duties and consequences of non-compliance;

f ensuring access to legal assistance from the beginning and throughout the process;

f building trust in asylum and migration procedures; f upholding individualised case management services;

f safeguarding the dignity and fundamental rights of the persons concerned;185

f for children, providing an overall and comprehensive support and the involvement of the child protection system, trusted social workers and/ or case managers.

Ending the detention of children for immigration purposes Institution: Home Office (the United Kingdom, public authority)

Funding: State

Context: In 2010, the United Kingdom Government announced it was to end the detention of children for immigration purposes. It set up a new process for the removal of families who had exhausted all rights to remain in the United Kingdom. This involved a three-stage process including the offer of assisted return, a required return stage and as a last resort, an ensured return stage.

Summary of the practice: As part of the new process, the Independent Family Returns Panel (IFRP) was set up. The Panel is multidisciplinary with expertise in education, children’s services and safeguarding, trafficking, medicine and law enforcement. Its role is primarily to offer advice and challenge to the UK Home Office when it has been determined that a family must return home and the family refuses to go voluntarily. In these cases, a Family Engagement Manager (FEM) attempts to develop a good working relationship with a family (within the community) and draws up a plan for ensuring that the family leave. This plan is referred to the IFRP where it is assessed with the welfare of the children in that family at the forefront of that scrutiny. As part of each IFRP family case meeting, Panel members scrutinise the Family Welfare Form and directly question the FEM and arrest teams. Plans are often amended with recommendations made, and on occasion the Panel will advise deferral of removal pending clarification and/or resolution of any safeguarding or welfare concerns or recommendations made by the IFRP. The Panel also has a wider role where advice and challenge have extended to matters of policy and practice, performance and contract

management and engagement with partner agencies including statutory Children’s Services, Health, and Education (schools).

Child-friendly elements: The ending of detention of children, the placement of welfare, safeguarding and best interests of children at the centre of the return plan, with the expert input of a multidisciplinary team via the Independent Family Returns Panel and the establishment and embedding of child safeguarding and welfare considerations at all levels of the operational procedures.

Lessons learned: Review of implementation has revealed the following limitations: f the slow pace of implementation of IFRP recommendations from Annual

Reports;

f the nature of the enforced stage (giving 28 days’ notice of arrest) may encourage families to abscond. Families absconding from their home and removing children from school and access to health services present multiple potential risks to children;

f a lack of flexibility in the mode of return.

Contact details: Philip Ishola, Safeguarding Advisor, Independent Family Returns Panel [email protected]; Dr Stephanie Green, Medical Member, Independent Family Returns Panel, [email protected]

Link:www.gov.uk/government/organisations/independent-family-returns-panel, Home Office Guidance on Family returns process (published on 7 January 2019):

Theme 4