Humane and dignified conditions in detention RO – – Bucharest (District 1) Yes Giurgiu Yes Galati Yes Radauti Yes Somcuta Mare Yes Timisoara Yes Åstorp No Åstorp No Kållered No Kållered No Flen No Flen No Märsta No Märsta No Gävle No Gävle No SI Aliens Centre in Postojna No Aliens Centre in Postojna No (but common practice) SK Sečovce Yes – – Tinsley House Yes Tinsley House Yes Cedars (closed down in October 2016) Yes Cedars (closed down in October 2016) Yes SE UK Source: FRA, 2017 At the end of 2016, there were some 40 facilities that the authorities considered adequate to host families with children. They were in 19 EU Member States. In contrast, nine EU Member States did not have specialised facilities for families with children according to the information collected by FRA. In the United Kingdom, a 2016 report noted that the Cedars facility was underused and, on the two occasions when the reporter had visited, no families were present. Accordingly he recommended that the Home Office, as a matter of urgency, should either close the facility or change its use.292 In October 2016, Cedars closed down.293 For unaccompanied children, only 14 EU Member States had centres considered suitable. Altogether there were 25 detention facilities that authorities considered to meet the EU legal requirements for hosting unaccompanied children. 292 United Kingdom, Home Office (2016) Shaw, Stephen, ‘Review into the Welfare in Detention of Vulnerable Persons: A report to the Home Office by Stephen Shaw’, January 2016, p. 67. 293 United Kingdom, Home Office (2017) ‘National Statistics on Detention’ 23 February 2017. Ø Conditions in these facilities vary significantly and change over time. One of the characteristics of detention facilities adapted to host children is the presence of child-friendly spaces. However, many facilities are like prisons: officers wear fatigues, there barbed wire and people use handcuffs for transport. This undermines any attempt to create an appropriate environment for children. Conditions in facilities may differ even within the same country. In France, internal rules and available childfriendly equipment differ among the administrative detention centres where families can be held. Whereas in Sète, for example, detained individuals can move freely in the communal areas and have access to a TV room and table football, in Coquelles people had to ask for permission from the detention authorities to access the telephone or the coffee machine, and often had to wait for several hours or even days.294 Childcare equipment, such as a game room, is reportedly available in some facilities, for example in Hendaye, but is reduced to a TV room in others, for example in Paris.295 294 France, Assfam, Forum Réfugiés, France terre d’asile, La Cimade et l’Ordre de Malte (2016), Centres and establishments of administrative detention 2015 Report (Centres et locaux de rétention administrative). 295 Ibid. 75