Church and Nation DUNGAVEL IMMIGRATION REMOVAL CENTRE Introduction There has been a groundswell of opinion in Scotland against the incarceration of children in the Immigration Removal Centre at Dungavel and this is beginning to be noticed by the Home Office. To indicate the strength of the concern a petition has been organised and has already received 21,000 signatures in the Catholic Church and is being circulated in the Episcopal Church and in Church of Scotland parishes. Background In the UK, asylum seekers can be detained in an immigration removal centre prior to removal from the UK, or at any other stage during the processing of their application for asylum. Dungavel Immigration Removal Centre Though there are nearly 2,000 spaces in removal centres in the UK, Dungavel is the only centre that routinely holds children and families for lengthy periods. The centre is run along similar lines to a prison - doors to the outside are locked as well as some doors from one part of the building to another and while it appears that the centre tries to be as open as possible, a number of detainees still feel as if their movements are severely restricted. Accomodation It has the capacity to accommodate 148 detainees, made up of 72 single males, 14 single females and 62 in the family unit. The family units consist of a room with up to five beds (a double, bunks and a single bed). Where a large family cannot be accommodated in one room they can be given an adjacent room with an interconnecting door. The family units have en suite shower rooms/toilets. These units are in a separate building from that housing the other detainees. They share a building with education facilities, but with the door into the family area being kept locked at all times. Single men are not allowed into the family unit at any time. There is a staffed on-site crèche attached to the family unit with a range of toys and activities for the children. Assessments HM Inspector of Prisons reported in October 2002 that although detainees said that the Centre was fair, decent and that they were well treated by staff, they were found to have profound feeling of insecurity and anxiety. This is in part caused by the fact that they are detained in a prison-like atmosphere for an indefinite period and with an uncertain future. The report went on to say that because the welfare and development of children is likely to be compromised by detention, children should only be detained as an exceptional measure and in any event for only a matter of days. A report by HM Inspectorate of Education in August 2003 noted that though the centre has made progress recently and the educational facilities were acceptable for short periods – up to two weeks, the centre did not offer satisfactory educational provision detained for longer periods. The children’s personal, social and learning experiences were impoverished by their lack of contact with the outside world and very restricted social interaction. In the period between 1 May 2002 and 15 July 2003 the average length of stay for children at Dungavel had been 28 days. Thirty-six children had been detained for longer than six weeks. The Scottish Parliament’s Cross-Party Group on Refugees and Asylum, including the Scottish Churches Parliamentary Officer, made a visit to Dungavel Removal Centre in April 2002. At the end of the visit the Group made the following recommendation: "We can see no justification for the detention of children. The risk of absconding does not outweigh the damage done to children being denied their freedom. Dungavel is not an appropriate place for families. Community reporting procedures should be explored as an alternative to the detention of families with children. While children remain at Dungavel, the welfare of children being detained should be the explicit responsibility of the local child welfare agencies and their involvement should be enhanced." The Presbytery of Hamilton, which tries to maintain links with Dungavel, arranged a visit to the centre in August 2003. The visit included representatives from the Church’s Committee on Education and Committee on Church and Nation. The visiting group recognized the work that was being done by the staff at Dungavel, but nothing that they saw or heard during their visit persuaded them from the view that the policy of detaining with families their children was wrong. They continued to believe that the centre should cease to operate under its current policies and purposes. The report of the Scottish Parliamentary visit to Dungavel Removal Centre on the 16 April 2002 is available below: Scottish Parliamentary visit to Dungavel Removal Centre – 16 April 2002 On the afternoon of Wednesday 16 April 2002, a delegation from the Scottish Parliament’s Cross Party Group on Refugees and Asylum seekers consisting of Dennis Canavan MSP, Shona Robison MSP, Tommy Sheridan MSP, Graham Blount, the Scottish Churches Parliamentary Officer, Rosemary Burnett of Amnesty International, Sophia Marriage of the Scottish Refugee Council and Cate Nicholl Parliamentary assistant, made a visit to Dungavel Removal Centre near Strathaven. This is the report of the findings from this visit. Background We asked to visit Dungavel Removal Centre due to concerns raised about the detention of families at Dungavel; the length of time people were being detained and highly publicised concerns about conditions at the centre and the way detainees were being treated. During the visit we were given open access to all parts of the centre and received the full co-operation of Premier prison staff. We were able to speak to any detainees we wished to apart from those who had been removed from the centre before our visit whom we would have wished to also speak to. The policy of Detention Centres In principle, the cross party group has stated its opposition to detention centres because we do not believe that it is right to detain people who have committed no crime. It is also goes against Scots law that people are detained indefinitely with no idea of how long they will be held for. Many detainees we spoke to were still in the process of having their application determined or waiting to have their appeal heard. Detention centres are supposed to be restricted for use by those who are right at the end of the appeal/ review process or for whom there was a risk of absconding. However, a number of detainees to whom we spoke to during our visit, told us they had resided in the community for months, sometimes even years, before suddenly being detained without explanation. Therefore, it is difficult to understand why some are now being detained when they do not appear to meet the criteria for detention. Conditions at Dungavel Dungavel centre has the capacity to accommodate 148 detainees, made up of 72 single males, 14 single females and 62 in the family unit. On 16 April 2002, it housed 52 single males and 34 in the family unit, including 16 children; there were no single females. The centre is run along similar lines to a prison - doors are locked to the outside as well as some doors from one part of the building to another. The centre is zoned between 11.30pm and 7am when access is even more restricted. With the exception of the gym, detainees can move reasonably freely from area to area providing they seek permission and staff are available to open doors for them. Access to the gym is restricted to specific times for specific activities – this is to ensure that conflicting activities and groups/ individuals do not clash. When there are family activities in the gym single men are banned from this area at this time. While it appears that the centre tries to be as open as possible, for a number of detainees we spoke to, it still feels as if their movement is severely restricted since they must always come back to the main building to seek permission to go on anywhere else. For example, a group of detainees cannot move from the education centre to the football field without first returning to the main building to seek permission. Meals are at set times and outside of these times the only access to food (except in the family unit where staff told us biscuits were available) is from the shop or from any personal supply the detainee may have. There is no access to tea and coffee making facilities. One detainee said that at times he was hungry as he had no money for extra food and did not always want the meals at the times they were offered. Accommodation Accommodation for single detainees is provided in dormitories with up to 8 beds. Each dormitory has toilets and showers attached or close by. Family units consist of a room with up to 5 beds (a double, bunks and a single bed). Where a large family cannot be accommodated in one room they can be given an adjacent room with an interconnecting door. The family units have en suite shower rooms/toilets. Each detainee is allocated a narrow locked wardrobe in which to keep his or her personal belongings secure. The building with the family units is a separate building from the building that houses the other detainees. It is in the same building shared as the education facilities, with the door into the family area being kept locked at all times. Single men are not allowed into the family unit at any time. There is a staffed on-site crèche attached to the family unit with a range of toys and activities for the children. We understand that detainees can be given up to £1 a week from the centre. However, this is a pitiful sum and does not allow the detainee to stay in contact with friends and relatives outside the centre. Education Premier provides approximately 35hours of education a week. The education facilities are open from 8.30am to 9.30pm seven days a week. Activities provided range from sewing, woodwork, jewellery, arts and crafts, general studies, dance and drama, information technology, English and music. A full time ESOL tutor is employed at the centre. There is a library and a number of computers with a range of computer programmes to enable independent learning. There is no Internet access and we were given to understand that this was for security reasons. There is limited provision of education for children but this is no substitute for a normal school environment. This was evidence by on young 8-year-old girl from Romania, who had been at school while living in London. She asked us when she would be allowed back to her school. Recreation Children must pass through locked doors to get outside and currently there is no play area even when they do get outside, although we were told that there are plans to develop one. There are a number of bikes that the children can ride when they are allowed outside. However, one young detainee told us that even if she could get outside all she could do is ‘bike bike, bike’ because there was nothing else outside for her to play with. She went on to say that she missed her school friends who she could run and play with. Apart from the educational and occupational facilities mentioned already, there is a well-equipped gymnasium, although access to this is restricted to specific sessions and groups. There is also a football field. There is a number of lounges, ones for single males, single females and shared lounges, which have televisions in them. There are televisions in each of the family rooms. There is also visitors’ room. There are a number of coin operated public telephones throughout the building with a list of calling costs attached in English. Health Within Dungavel there is a Health Centre, which operates along similar lines to a GP practice. There is a doctor and a number of registered nurses who, while employed by Premier, are answerable to their professional bodies for their practice. The doctor is employed for 20 hours a week (flexi time). Nurses, both general and mental health, provide 24 hours coverage. A doctor must see detainees within 24 hours of arriving. Initially they tend to be seen by the nurse soon after arriving and she/he takes a detailed medical history and completes a mental health assessment. This assessment also includes a ‘risk assessment’ and can, if considered appropriate, lead to the detainee being placed on an ‘at risk observation’. The degree of risk the detainee is assessed to have will determine the frequency of the observations. If the detainee requires specialist health care unavailable at the Health Centre referrals are made to the appropriate services within the South Lanarkshire health area. Detainees are escorted when attending appointments outside of the centre, although not handcuffed. They are not told of external appointments in advance for ‘security reasons’. However, this clearly causes anxiety for the detainees. One man told us that he had already missed two cardiologist appointments because he was being detained and he did not know when (or even if) he would be able to see his specialist again. This was creating anxieties for him as he felt he could die of his condition if he was not treated. When we spoke to the Doctor about this we were told that there was another appointment scheduled and plans were underway to ensure he got to it. This perceived lack of medical action led to one family pleading with us to allow their child to access the necessary treatment they required. Appointments were already made for them but the family were unaware of this and could not read the hospital letter given to them, as they understood very little English. The doctor can access information about a detainee’s immigration status and whether they are likely to be moved in the near future. This information, she said, was essential if making outside appointments (there would be no point in making an appointment if the detainee was no longer at the centre). The doctor will notify the Home Office if detainees have chronic conditions or a condition that may impact on the decision process, for example, if a woman is pregnant. This information is passed on to the Port dealing with the asylum application or review. Apart from the doctor and nurses, Premier also employs a counsellor and an art therapist. There is no social worker at the centre and the health centre staff felt that at times they were called on to provide social work assistance. We understand that South Lanarkshire social work department is responsible for the welfare of children at the centre. This role requires to be enhanced. Religious Issues The Group also inquired about issues relating to the faith of detainees - availability of worship, access to clergy or similar pastoral support, links to faith communities, dietary requirements. We were impressed with the commitment of staff to ensuring that the wide diversity of faiths represented among detainees - sometimes a highly sensitive issue relating to their reasons for fleeing their country - were appropriately catered for. There appeared to be good provision and we were not made aware on the day of any concerns from detainees on this, although we are aware that members of faith communities have sometimes experienced factors which discourage their involvement in support (including the need for fingerprinting and photographing visitors). Fire Safety Issues Throughout the centre there are smoke and heat detectors, which is a new system installed for the centre opening. However, there are no sprinklers. When asked about this we were told that there were no sprinklers for ‘nuisance reasons’. There is a comprehensive fire action plan and regular evacuation practices are held. Secure Unit There is a secure unit within the centre that can accommodate up to 4 detainees in 2 single rooms and 2 cells. When the Home Office and Premier staff were asked whether the unit was used to deter detainees from expressing contentious views; this was categorically denied. Premier said that the secure unit was used when a detainee posed a threat to others, for example if they had been fighting or if they had committed a serious assault on another detainee or member of staff. We were informed that the secure unit is governed by ‘Detention Centre Rules 40 – 42 and that while Premier had initial authority to place a detainee in the unit they then had to seek authority from the Home Office. If a detainee was placed in the secure unit, the Chair of the Visiting Committee also had to be informed. In 90% of incidents the detainee was in the secure unit for less than 24 hours. When placed in the secure unit for committing a serious assault they were only held for as long as it took before police intervention had occurred. Legal Representation Most detainees appear to have legal representation although not all representatives are based in Scotland. A detainee told us that she thought she would have to pay her solicitor more money to cover traveling costs to and from Scotland. This appeared to be the case for a number of detainees. If a detainee expresses dissatisfaction with their legal representative Premier staff will refer them to IAS who hold a monthly surgery at the Centre. IAS has posters displayed at the centre but it is unclear if they are in languages other than English. A list of recognised legal representatives is displayed in the visitor room. One detainee told us he had a lawyer but that he didn’t know where he was or what was happening to his asylum application. This was a recurring problem as we spoke to other detainees. The IAS clinic had been held the previous week and it would be another three weeks before he could seek assistance. This is an unacceptable delay and would not have occurred if he were not being detained. Phone calls and faxes to solicitors are available free, although the detainee must ask a member of staff. However, phone calls may not necessarily be private as a staff member would be present to escort the detainee to and from the phone/fax. Communication The majority of notices throughout the centre appeared to be in English. We were told that Premier staff do give out information packs during the induction and that these should be in the detainee’s first language. The packs explain how the centre is run and what the detainee can and cannot do. A Language line is available throughout the centre and staff indicated that it is often used. The language line provides telephone access to an interpreter and when the telephone is put onto speaker mode the interpreter can act for both the detainee and the staff. However, the health centre staff recognise the limitations of such a system and have at times chosen to bring in an interpreter when dealing with a complicated case. It was acknowledged that at times communication with different parts of the Home Office can be problematic, exacerbated by the confusion relating to the differing roles members of the Home Office have. For example, the Home Office staff at Dungavel do not have any role in determining or reviewing asylum applications, yet they are Home Office staff. Moreover, it is they who would normally pass on information relating to the asylum application to the detainee when it arrived and who are able to ascertain at which stage an application is at if asked to do so by the detainee, therefore, it is difficult for the detainee to distinguish between the various roles Home Office staff have. It was concerning that detainees are not told when they have medical appointments outside of the centre. The doctor told us that this information was withheld for security reasons. It was evident from talking to detainees that they feel a considerable degree of anxiety caused by not knowing if and when they will be seen by a relevant outside agency. The most common complaint that we heard as we went around the centre speaking to detainees related to the lack of information; not knowing what was happening to them; not knowing what length of time they would be in the centre; and not knowing what they should be doing to assist their case. Role of the Home Office The length of time a detainee is held at Dungavel is not determined by the detention centre, but by the Home Office. Home Office representatives said there was no automatic access to this information on how long detainees had been held and at what stage in the application process they were at. They said that this information could be obtained if necessary. They noted that the Immigration Officers at Dungavel visit every new detainee in the first 24 - 48 hours to find out what they want to know and what their understanding is. Before doing this they ascertain the detainee’s current situation from the Home Office so that they can clarify to the detainee. We asked why detainees were moved between different detention centres. The main reason given for moving people from Dungavel is to remove them from the UK and because there are very few direct flights leaving from Scotland, detainees were moved to a London based centre pending removal. When asked about detainees being shifted in the middle of the night we were told that Dungavel’s location meant that long journeys were necessary to reach airports providing direct flights to final destinations. However, staff said that when detainees were to be shifted during the night they were told beforehand. Nevertheless, staff were unable to specify how much notification was given prior to removal. A number of detainees expressed concern over the method of transporting them to and from detention centres. One woman told us how when she was moved she was not told where she was going to or whether or not her husband would be joining her. When she was shifted, together with her husband, while traveling in the same vehicle, they were kept in separate cages. This seems an unnecessary and cruel way to treat asylum seekers. The issue of access to the Home Office Immigration Service is problematic for asylum seekers and this was also the experience of the MSPs and the organisations working with asylum seekers. We suggested that clearer lines of communications needed to be developed and that it might be appropriate to have a Home Office Immigration Service Office in Scotland. Role of the Visiting Committee There is a visiting committee, which has regular contact with the centre. The chair of this committee is notified by 9am every day of any new arrivals and of any detainees that have been placed in the secure unit in the past 24 hours. A member of the visiting committee visits each new detainee and informs him or her of how to make complaints or a request to the official visitor. This information is also given to the detainee in his or her own language. Greater efforts are being made to ensure detainees know who members of the visiting committee are and a photo board is currently being produced. The chair said that he has received only two complaints since the centre opened. Throughout our discussions, we were encouraged by the commitment and care displayed by members of the visiting committee. It was clear that the visiting committee had a good relationship with Premier and Home Office staff. However, we were concerned that this closeness and identification with the Home Office and Premier Prisons may call into question their ability to be independent. We would hope that more could be done to demonstrate their independent authority to detainees and the public. Key Areas of Concern 1. We can see no justification for the detention of children. The risk of absconding does not outweigh the damage done to children being denied their freedom. Dungavel is not an appropriate place for families. Community reporting procedures should be explored as an alternative to the detention of families with children. While children remain at Dungavel, the welfare of children being detained should be the explicit responsibility of the local child welfare agencies and their involvement should be enhanced. (Action: Scottish Executive/Home Office) 2. The lack of accountability for service provision by Premier must be addressed. Information is very difficult for the pubic to access, as a direct result, it is very difficult to determine if Premier is performing well or not or to investigate any claims about conditions at Dungavel. For these reasons, we believe it is now imperative that Dungavel becomes subject to inspection by the Chief Inspector of Prisons in Scotland. This would provide the necessary monitoring of conditions at Dungavel to allay any public concerns. (Action : Scottish Executive/ Home Office) 3. The length of time asylum seekers are detained for is of concern. Dungavel is supposed to be a removal centre, designed for a short-term period of detention. We are concerned that some people have been detained for long periods, in one case for 18 months, in detention centres throughout the UK. This can only have a detrimental impact on the mental health of detainees, whom we should always remember, have committed no crime. (Action: Home Office) 4. We are concerned that there may be detainees, who are being held in Dungavel without good grounds, given so many we spoke to were not at the end of the asylum appeal process, and many told us they had been living in the community, some for years, without absconding. We need a comprehensive breakdown of the reasons for detention in each of the cases at Dungavel. We need to be reassured that robust criteria are being applied before people are being denied their liberty. (Action: Home Office) 5. The lack of information available about detainees is cause for concern. For example, we asked about the incident of self-harm and were told that these figures were not currently available but that they could be collated. We believe that this information should have been available at a minimum. Also more generally, information regarding the number of asylum seekers being detained and at what point in their application they are at should be made available to wider public on request. The Home Office should consider establishing an office of Immigration Service in Scotland to aide communication. (Action : Home Office/ Premier Prisons) 6. The lack of accessible information regarding legal representation and support must be addressed. If neither Premier nor the Home Office is able to provide direction to detainees on what entitlements the detainee has, then they must take steps to ensure this service is provided on a regular (7 days a week) basis. There is a lack of accessible general information on facilities and services within Dungavel and again a more proactive stance must be taken to ensure detainees are made aware of the available facilities and services. (Action : Home Office/ Premier Prisons) 7. Detainees have difficulty in accessing information relating to their asylum application, yet this is information that both the Home Office staff at Dungavel and the Doctor clearly, by their own admission, have. A more proactive position must be taken to ensure detainees have access to all relevant information as soon as possible. The establishment of an office of the Immigration Service in Scotland would assist this. (Action: Home Office/Premier Prisons) 8. Detainees are being transported to and from Dungavel without sufficient information telling them where and when they are going. This can be a terrifying ordeal for detainees. It is essential that not only is this information given to them but that appropriate notification of the transfer/ removal is given. (Action : Home Office) 9. There is a need to develop proper risk assessment of security issues and the real need to lock external and internal doors at Dungavel, especially given the high perimeter fence surrounding the facility. ( Action: Premier prisons/ Home Office) 10. The Visiting Committee must take steps to distance themselves from both the Home Office and Premier in order that they are seen to be an independent authority by both detainees and the wider public and not simply another arm of the detention centre. ( Action : Visiting committee/ Home Office) Conclusion We have stated our principled opposition to detention centres and remain of that view. We are now even more strongly of the view that families with children should not be detained and that community reporting procedures provide a viable alternative. While detention centres remain, we believe there are a number of improvements that could be made to conditions and keeping detainees informed about what is happening to them. The action points listed above and the findings within this report provide the appropriate authority with the opportunity to make such improvements. We seek a positive response from each of those authorities to the findings within this report. Shona Robison MSP Convener of the Scottish Parliament’s cross party group on asylum seekers and refugees 22 April 2002