| Anne
Owers report on Dungavel Removal Centre
An Immigration Detention or Removal Centre is not a prison. Detainees
have not been charged with a criminal offence, nor are they detained through
normal judicial processes.
Below are some extracts from the introduction to the report, the full
report An Inspection of DungavelImmigration Removal Centre can be downloaded
here Dungavel.pdf plus the HM Inspectorate
of Education report DungaveEducation.pdf
which was made in conjunction with Ms Owers report.
page 5 para 3: There were three main sources of detainees’ distress
at Dungavel. The first was the fact of detention itself, in a prison-like
environment, and for an indefinite period with an uncertain future. Detainees’
comments in our questionnaire were poignant (see para 9.13) and revealed
the high levels of insecurity and fear that detention produced. This underlines
the need for counselling and psychological support within removal centres.
The complex mix of nationalities, and low staffing levels on the units
for single people, also meant that some detainees reported being intimidated
by others. Anti-bullying strategies specific to detainees should be developed
at Dungavel, as at other removal centres, to ensure that this is monitored
and prevented.
As in our reports on other centres, these anxieties also point to the
need for effective welfare provision – to deal with the lives that
detainees have left, or those they will return to. In Dungavel, as elsewhere,
we found that the preparation for what happened next - whether removal,
transfer to another centre, or release - was an area that was poorly managed
and needed much greater attention: both in relation to immigration staff
informing detainees in time about removal, and in relation to the practical
winding up of their affairs in the UK.
page 5 para 6: The second underlying factor was the length and the stress
of the journeys many had experienced to get to Dungavel, sometimes from
other centres or airports in southern England. Particularly for families,
a 400-mile trip in an escort van, with escort staff reluctant to stop
for comfort breaks, meant that they arrived at the centre distressed and
disoriented.
. . . . . . Dungavel was quite remote, and difficult for families and
visitors to get to: only a quarter of detainees had received visits from
family or friends.
Page 6 para 1:Thirdly, and importantly, as we have found at other removal
centres, detainees’ sense of insecurity was greatly increased by
weaknesses in communication and case management by the Immigration Service,
. . . . . . difficulty of accessing competent legal representation for
their cases.
. . . . . . Fewer than half of the detainees whose detention should have
been reviewed said that they were aware that it had been.
Page
6 para 2: Similarly, only a minority of detainees knew how to access legal
advice from the centre. Many were anxious about being poorly represented,
and some were paying for representation that should have been available
free. We also express concerns about representatives who did not contact
their clients, or who appeared to be seeing large numbers of detainees
in one visit, but for very short periods. The role of immigration officers,
and the monitoring of legal advice, are matters that need addressing across
the detention estate if detainees’ cases are to be properly and
effectively handled and their understandable anxieties about their future
addressed.
Page 6 para 3: Seventeen per cent of detainees at the time of the inspection
were children, and we came across families who had spent months in the
centre.
. . . . . . there were serious shortfalls in the educational provision.
In addition, because families and children were locked into the family
unit, they needed to ask staff if they wished to go out; at the time of
the inspection, children had insufficient play areas and access to the
outside.
Page 6 para 5: Nevertheless, in spite of these admirable efforts, the
Scottish education inspectorate (HMIE) considered that even the improved
educational facilities they found in July 2003 were acceptable only for
a short period - no more than two weeks – and could not meet the
educational needs of children detained for lengthier periods, certainly
not more than six weeks.
. . . . . . there is also the wider question, which we also address in
this report, of the development and welfare of children held for an indefinite
period in a secure facility, without the possibility of normal social
life, and exposed to the general feelings of insecurity evident in the
centre. We note HMIE’s view that in general terms ‘the positive
development of children was compromised by the secure nature of the facility
and the uncertainty surrounding the length of stay.’
Page 7 para 1: This confirms our view, expressed in other reports, that
the detention of children should be an exceptional measure, and should
not in any event exceed a very short period – no more than a matter
of days. The key principle here is not the precise number of days –
whether it is the seven days we proposed for short-term removal centres
in England, or the two weeks beyond which even their educational needs
cannot be guaranteed,
. . . . . . It is that the welfare and development of children is likely
to be compromised by detention, however humane the provisions, and that
this will increase the longer detention is maintained. We therefore believe
that there should be an independent assessment of the welfare, developmental
and educational needs of each detained child, guided by the principles
set out in international and UK domestic law in relation to children.
(International Convention on the Rights of the Child, Children Act 1989,
Children Scotland Act 1995).
|
