| Fire
at Lindholme Removal Centre - Boxing Day
Lindholme Removal centre which Anne Owers Chief Inspector of Prisons and
the Detention Estate described as "not a healthy establishment for
detainees" was hit by three fires on Boxing Day.
All three fires were started around 8.30pm in the evening and had been
put out by the fire brigade by 11.30pm. No detainees were endangered or
harmed, one member of staff was treated for smoke inhalation.
A report in the local Doncastor newspaper said; "According to a Prison
Officers Association spokesman four detainees were identified as the culprits
by staff after the incident and removed from the centre the following
morning."
A local visitor to the prison was told that the four detainee were in
the segregation block of the main prison, which is adjacent to the detention
prison.
This has not been confirmed by the Home Office Press Office who as usual
have a severe lack of knowledge on what happens anywhere at anytime within
the Prison/Detention estate.
The local newspaper also quotes chairman of the Board of Visitors, Ros
Baddiley-Turner, as saying there had been some unrest at the centre but
not when.
Anne Owers in her report of 2002 said: "The outcome of our inspection
and the application of our four tests lead us to conclude that Lindholme
Removal Centre was not a healthy establishment for detainees and that
fundamental and far-reaching changes were needed to bring it up to the
standard expected."
There is no way of knowing if what happened on Boxing Day is because conditions
at Lindholme Removal Centre are still as they were at the time of Anne
Owers inspection in March 2002.
As far as NCADC knows there has not been a follow up inspection. (and
the usual dearth of information from the Home Office press office does
not give us the information which would clarify the matter).
Inspections of Removal Centres and Detention Prisons should take place
at least every three months and if conditions which are considered not
acceptable by the Prison/Detention Inspectorate are not improved there
and then the establishments should be closed immediately.
Footnote: 10 of the detainees who escaped From Lindholme Removal/prison
in September remain free.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Extract from Anne Owers report - Circa 2002
The inspection of Lindholme was carried out between the 25th and 27th
March 2002.
Detainees are held in safety
11.2 In making judgements about the safety of detainees we have been mindful
that the population held in Lindholme was by definition insecure. They
were faced with being removed from this country, some after several years
of residence in the UK, and they were fearful of being in an establishment
run by the Prison Service. They had experienced a severe reversal in their
fortunes and they were not likely to report feelings of wellbeing, and
nor did they. However the low proportion of 15% claiming to feel safe
contrasted poorly with the norm for the other centres of 37%, and feelings
of safety decreased with length of time in the centre. There were low
levels of staff supervision, particularly at night, and detainees did
not feel safe from one another or from fire. Our survey indicated that
intimidation and hostility was present though not widespread, and some
individuals were made to hand over property. Detainees also became depressed
the longer they spent in detention. Staff were vigilant with regard to
depression and the risk of suicide or self harm, and conscientious with
regard to monitoring those at risk, but there was little use of other
detainees or volunteer visitors who spoke the same language to provide
support.
11.3 Detainees did not receive ongoing information about the progress
of their cases in their own languages, nor did immigration staff on site
have access to this information. They were therefore unable to anticipate
when life-changing decisions were imminent, and when decisions were made
they were not informed promptly or helped to discuss its implications
and prepare for their future. Access to legal representation and advice
was not facilitated and detainees were not informed of their legal rights.
Nor were they told how to get a solicitor, the quality of service they
should expect or how to complain if they did not receive it. Faxes and
letters were allowed, but legal visits only took place in the afternoons
and phones were not only vandalised and inoperable, but phone cards were
prohibitively expensive in relation to detainees' means.
11.4 We could not conclude therefore that Lindholme was a place of safety
or that it acted to provide as secure an environment as possible for those
struggling to cope with the consequences of indeterminate detention and
an uncertain future.
Detainees are treated with respect as individuals
11.5 Staff attitudes to detainees were mainly respectful, but they were
used to dealing with offenders and did not fully appreciate the fundamental
difference in detainees' and prisoners' perceptions of the legitimacy
of their situation (though we accept that it was only immediately before
the inspection that they had had to operate under Detention Centre, rather
than Prison, Rules). Detainees were very sensitive to being in an establishment
run by prison staff, and any sense of being treated as prisoners was taken
badly. Leaving newly arrived detainees waiting in vans for long periods
was not respectful, and both strip searching without reasonable suspicion,
the wearing of prison clothes as standard practice and subjecting them
to a prison based incentive scheme were all inappropriate. The provision
of translated information about the centre and a dedicated Immigration
Liaison Officer were both strengths, but the lack of concern for urgent
welfare needs outside was an omission.
11.7 We could not therefore conclude that Lindholme afforded detainees
appropriate respect. Overall there was as yet insufficient appreciation
of the dissimilarity between immigration detainees and prisoners and of
the important ways in which the centre should operate differently to meet
the needs of detainees.
Detainees are engaged in constructive activity
11.8 There was no longer any paid work available in the centre and activities
were confined to education, PE and leisure. A basic payment of £2.50
was made to each detainee regardless of whether he engaged actively with
any aspect of the regime. Those with skills which could be deployed within
the centre were not encouraged to use them, except for those who could
interpret, but this service was not rewarded in any way. The gym programme
was subject to disruption caused by staff shortages, and there was no
access to the popular common room after 7.45 pm in the evening.
11.9 We could not therefore conclude that detainees at Lindholme were
engaged in constructive activity that would give them a sense of worth
and support their mental and physical health.
Conclusion
11.12 The outcome of our inspection and the application of our four tests
lead us to conclude that Lindholme Removal Centre was not a healthy establishment
for detainees and that fundamental and far-reaching changes were needed
to bring it up to the standard expected.
|
