Detention Forum Archive

Saint Albans Church Community: 28 days and no more, Theresa May!

21 July 2015

Refugee week was action-packed with events on immigration detention. Between Dover and Crawley, travellers reflected on the dangerous journeys that many migrants make while fleeing war and persecution. In the North-East of the country, people  discussed how to improve our fight for detention reform. In Scotland, visitors of the Refugee Festival discussed the best way to challenge immigration detention in the post-election landscape. The week ended loud and clear as the Migrants Rights Bloc let their voice be heard at the national anti-austerity demo in London.

Reinvigorated by the buzz of activity on immigration detention, we pushed on. Until we discovered that we had missed one of Refugee Week’s inspiring events. In the peace and quiet of Saint Albans, a church community used Refugee Week to add further weight to the Detention Inquiry’s call for a 28 day time limit on immigration detention.

The ecumenical church community in St Albans, strongly supported by the Diocese of St Albans, has long been involved in the fight for the rights of migrants. Over the years it organised various actions, exhibitions and provided case work support to lawyers defending women detained in Yarls Wood. Since the disestablishment of the Yarls Wood Asylum Case Work Support Group in 2011, the community had been less active, unsure of what to do next. It was the Detention Inquiry’s call for a time limit on detention that provided a clear avenue for the group to re-engage. The Detention Inquiry was helpful because “only facts will convince Theresa May,” explained Adelheid (76), the lead organiser of the action.

During Refugee Week, the Justice & Peace group of St Bartholomew’s Roman Catholic Church in Saint Albans and the Catholic Women’s League asked church goers to sign pre-written letters stressing that “the money saved if the detention system were reformed would go a long way to finance a better and more humane immigration process.” Some took their letters home to study them in further detail. By the next service, the group had collected 90 letters, one for every 3 people in their church. “We organised other actions before that were not always as well received. But this time people were positive,” said Adelheid.

The letters were sent to Theresa May and to the constituency’s Conservative MP, Anne Main last week. The church community in St Albans is now awaiting a response.

Did you also organise an action on immigration detention that we could cover here? We would love to hear about it. Email us at detentionforum@gmail.com

The Detention Forum Team

9 July 2015

The Vulnerable People Working Group of the Detention Forum is publishing its report Rethinking ‘Vulnerability’ in Detention: a Crisis of Harm today.

The executive summary is here.   The full report is here.   Our press release is below.

Government’s approach to ‘vulnerability’ in detention needs urgent overhaul to prevent further harm

The Home Office’s policy and procedures to safeguard vulnerable people from immigration detention are inadequate, outdated and leave many people at risk of serious harm, according to new research published by the Detention Forum today.

The research analysed cases of 31 immigration detainees in contact with visitors groups and detention NGOs who were detained despite by definition constituting a ‘vulnerable group’. This included an overwhelming majority (77%, 24 people) who had experienced mental ill health in detention, 9 people (30%) who had experienced torture, four people with serious disabilities, a woman who had been trafficked to the UK and a boy detained aged just 15.

The research highlights a series of substantive failings in the system which led to the continued detention of these individuals despite policy guidance which is supposed to prevent the detention of vulnerable people – people like Jacques:

Jacques was detained for the purposes of removal to Denmark where he had previously claimed asylum. He had a traumatic history as a child soldier and was severely impacted by Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Despite being visibly unwell, and despite anecdotal evidence of staff feeling unable to manage the situation, he was detained for over two months before being removed to Denmark.

During detention, Jacques suffered periodic blackouts and dizziness, which at least once led to injury. He was unable to communicate with staff or other detainees and exhibited erratic behaviour, at times running naked out of his room or speaking in what was understood by staff as gibberish. In response, Jacques was regularly placed in isolation, which appeared to exacerbate his confusion and paranoia.

The local visitors’ group made efforts to raise concerns with the detention centre staff, but got no response from the healthcare centre. Attempts to support Jacques were made by a fellow detainee who spoke the same language as well as a solicitor who was willing to represent him for a temporary admission application and for unlawful detention. Jacques’ paranoia made him unwilling to enter the room with the solicitor, and so it was impossible to represent him. Communication was so difficult that his fellow detainee was unable to do much to support him either.

This new report calls for a complete rethinking of ‘vulnerability’ in order to end the detention of people who are at risk of harm. It advocates for a new approach which moves away from static ‘category based’ definitions to a more dynamic approach recognising that vulnerability is the result of a variety of factors and changes over time. The report argues that vulnerable people should never be detained, pushing for the use of community based alternatives to detention. For those who are detained, a new assessment tool should be developed with experts and clinicians, to enable a more in depth screening prior to detention as well as monitoring changes over time while detained.

Ali McGinley, Director of AVID and Co-author of the report, said “we are deeply concerned about the ongoing detention of extremely vulnerable people despite various high profile cases of serious harm. Detention centres are inadequate to meet the basic needs of these individuals – people who, by the Home Office’s own guidance, shouldn’t be detained in the first place. It is time to overhaul the approach to vulnerability so that those who are vulnerable or potentially vulnerable can go through the immigration system without the use of detention”

Nic Eadie, Director of GDWG and Co-author of the report, said “The recently-released report of the Parliamentary Inquiry into the use of immigration detention in the UK highlighted the many failings in identifying victims of trafficking and torture in detention, as well as the inadequacy of the safeguarding mechanism the Home Office rely on to identify and review the detention of all vulnerable detainees. Our report echoes this and provides more detailed information on the widespread failure of the Home Office in their duty of care to those they detain. A 28 day time-limit, as recommended by the Inquiry would be a good start, but as our report states, a root and branch reform is required to ensure those most at risk of harm are never detained.”

For further information please contact:

Ali McGinley, Director, AVID on 07900 196 131/ali.mcginley@aviddetention.org.uk or

Nic Eadie, Director, GDWG on 01293 657 070 /nic@gdwg.org.uk

Notes:

1. The Detention Forum is a network of NGOs working together to challenge immigration detention. Their Vulnerable People Working Group which produced this report is co-convened by AVID (Association of Visitors to Immigration Detainees) and GDWG (Gatwick Detainees Welfare Group).
2. The executive summary of the report is available here and the full report here.
3. On no less than six occasions in three years, the UK government has breached the rights of mentally ill detainees under Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights.
4. In March 2015, the Home Secretary commissioned a review of the welfare of vulnerable detainees, to be conducted by Stephen Shaw, former Prisons and Probation Ombudsman. The terms of this review explicitly exclude the consideration of the decision to detain. As such, this review is likely to have limited impact on the most vulnerable, as it is based on the premise that initial screening and decisions to detain are appropriate, and that their welfare needs can be met in detention. Yet according to the Home Office’s own statistics, around 40% of those detained are released back into the UK community, calling into question the rationale for their detention in the first place.
5. The recent Parliamentary Inquiry into the use of immigration detention in the UK conducted by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Refugees and All Parliamentary Group on Migration concluded that detention is used ‘disproportionately frequently, resulting in too many instances of detention’. Their report recommends a substantive overhaul of the immigration detention system including the introduction of a time limit and the consideration of community alternatives.

Social media volunteers needed!

8 July 2015

We are looking for several volunteers who can help us

• make sure our Twitter account is always active
• publish regularly small pieces of detention-related news that we can share with others
• collate immigration detention related news
• attend detention-related events and file reports about such events

We are also going to start our #unlocked tour 2015, starting from September – and we need enthusiastic and committed volunteers who will make it into a success. You can find more about last year’s #unlocked at www.unlocked.org.uk

You need to have;

• Solid experience of working or volunteering in a NGO or in a team
• General understanding of immigration detention in the UK (you don’t need to be an expert!)
• Experience of Internet-based research to find information
• Solid experience of using Twitter
• Demonstrable ability to communicate clearly in English
• Ability to work on your own initiative and complete tasks on time
• Access to a computer and Internet connection
• Any design / art / creative skills are a big plus – let us know what skills you have.

The Detention Forum currently has one part-time freelance worker who works one to two days a week and four part-time volunteers. They all work from home and communicate each other via Skype and emails. You can see why you need to be a self-starter and reliable if you want to join our team!

Due to our limited resources (and time), the only tools of communication we have with the outside world are emails, our website and Twitter – so for us, social media work is very important.

We would like the volunteers to be available at least one day a week (which can be split into two half days) for at least four months. Those who want to be part of #unlocked need to be available for five months, until the end of December.

If you are interested, please send the following to detentionforum@gmail.com by 24^th July 2015.

• your CV
• a covering letter addressing the above points
• details of your Twitter account
• a short written piece, up to 300 words, on immigration detention (you can write about any topic and theme relating to immigration detention)

We will contact those who are shortlisted.

We have to admit everyone here at the Detention Forum works very hard – it is a lot of work.  However, you will get to learn more about immigration detention and you also have a chance to learn how groups like the Detention Forum, its members and other groups around the UK are trying to challenge, reduce and end immigration detention.

We look forward to hearing from you.

The Detention Forum team

“No ifs, no buts”, Theresa May! Detention Reform in Sight? Debate on the Queens Speech 2015

7 July 2015

(Belatedly…) Here’s a short piece summarising some of the key comments on immigration detention made during the Queens Speech.

=======================================================================

On 27^th May Members of Parliament crammed into the House of Lords to listen to the Queens Speech – including the greatest number of BAME MPs and Women MPs ever. The days since the Queens Speech have seen the large number of new MPs (around 180) give their “maiden speeches”. Many passionate contributions – with differing perspectives on immigration, migration generally, Britain’s role in the world, on human rights abroad and in the UK. They will all provide context for the big push in this Parliament to radically reform immigration detention.

Theresa May perhaps gave the most encouraging signs yet that the Government may be yielding on the current use of immigration detention. Responding to Richard Fuller, a Conservative member of the APPG Inquiry, raising the issue on the second day of debate on the Queens Speech (On Home Affairs and Justice), Theresa May said:

“The Home Office is looking at what estate is required and at the whole question of periods of detention. I and, I suspect, my hon. Friend would prefer to see people detained for a very short period—in fact, many people are detained for only a matter of days, and the majority of detentions are for less than two months. It is important that we have a system for identifying and quickly deporting people who should not be here. That is why we took some measures in the Immigration Act 2014, and I will come on to the further measures that we intend to take to enable that to happen.”

The fact that the APPG Inquiry saw Conservative, Labour and LibDem members all conclude that immigration detention is Costly, Ineffective and Unjust gives huge impetus to the cause. With the Home Office having to make massive cost savings over the next 5 years, community-based alternatives to detention must look more and more attractive with immigration detention used genuinely as a last resort.

Richard Fuller MP spoke eloquently of MPs back at Westminster bringing a renewed sense of energy from their engagement with the electorate over the past few weeks – people united on wanting to ensure a better future for their children and grandchildren.

He continued:

“This idea of a better future arises not only in the sense of a better economic future for our constituents, but in the sense that we have a Government that will stand up for and defend the freedoms of our country, and reflect the best aspects and values of our great nation”

“The Yarl’s Wood detention centre is next to my constituency, and it is part of a detention estate in this country that has grown under Governments of all colours and all stripes…At the moment, immigration detention is ineffective and costly, and for too frequently it leads to instances of injustice that are a stain on our country’s values. So I look to her [The Home Secretary] and her ministerial team to engage positively with people from all parts of the House to reform immigration detention.”

In the same debate Labour MP for Hammersmith, Andy Slaughter, robustly defended the Human Rights Act, lamented the passing of LASPO 2012 and praised Margaret Hodge’s , “extremely mature view of what was wrong with the Government’s immigration policy”. Nevertheless he was happy to praise Richard Fuller MP:

“I disagree with the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) on many issues, but he made the point, as he has done many times, about the dangers of extended detention for immigration and has earned our respect for championing that cause.”

In the Lords, it was Liberal Democrat Baroness Hamwee, on the 4th Day of Debate of the Queens Speech, who drew attention to reforming immigration detention. In her speech she ripped into the Government’s approach to immigration, confiding to her audience she had found herself shouting at her radio “a lot” during the election campaign in April. She castigated the use of phrases such as ‘spurious human rights’ and ‘bogus asylum seekers’ – and the validation it gives to xenophobia.

But she is happy to find common cause with Conservatives proponents of radical immigration detention reform. As she memorably says:

“Humane treatment is intrinsically right and important.”

SNP MPs too, have lost no time in pushing for reform, tabling an Early Day Motion calling for the closure of Dungavel IRC in the following terms:

“That this House commends the protestors who gathered at Dungavel Immigration Removal Centre on 30 May 2015 to call for the closure of the centre; and agrees that the Government must pursue alternatives to detention with a view to achieving the closure of Dungavel House and other immigration removal centres.”

(Early Day Motion 72, http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2015-16/72)

Now, is surely a golden opportunity to engage with new and existing MPs of all political parties, while their minds are perhaps most open to reform, to petition them to implement the recommendations of the APPG Inquiry into immigration detention.

The Detention Forum team

Message from the Detention Forum – 1 June 2015

Firstly, a huge thank you to everyone who took part in our “#Time4aTimeLimit – contact your future MP!” on-line campaign before the General Election.

Over 500 people took time to contact their Prospective Parliamentary Candidates, and a total of 1,036 candidates were contacted. Some of you also forwarded us responses you have received from your candidates – we are now analysing the data so that we can follow-up on those candidates who agreed to work towards introducing a time limit on detention and who now sits in Parliament.

This campaign action would not have been possible without groups and individuals giving up their time to make it happen. We have never done anything like this before, yet it was remarkable how quickly everything came together as a result of great team-work. A special mention goes to Right to Remain, Detention Action and some of our Communications Working Group members. Our volunteers also did a fantastic job of spreading the word over Twitter – thank you.

Our next step is to reengage parliamentarians so that the momentum for change continues to grow. We are very pleased to know that many of the panel members who served on the parliamentary detention inquiry wish to keep up the pressure for change. The Detention Forum is also in the process of changing its structure so that we can work with more groups and individuals to challenge immigration detention.

In the meantime, here’s a top-tip from Right to Remain on what you can do now, taken from their great blog piece here.

What you can do now

If you have a new MP, you can arrange to meet with them and talk to them about detention in the UK, and how it has to change.  The first-step is the introduction of a time-limit.  The most useful tool to do this is the excellent report produced by the first-ever parliamentary inquiry into detention.  (Note: Page 2 of the Detention Forum’s briefing paper here summarises what the detention inquiry was and its key recommendations.)

The recommendations in that report are well-evidenced, reasonable and convincing – just the kind of thing MPs want to know about!

If your former MP was re-elected, make sure they also know about the report and its recommendations:

The Implications for Immigration Detention? The Government Agenda on Immigration and Quarterly Immigration statistics, January to March 2015. (26 May 2015)

On 21st May, David Cameron set out his intentions for immediate legislation on Immigration, unshackled from the restraining influence of Coalition with the Lib Dems. The same day, we also saw the release of the latest official immigration statistics from National Statistics, covering the period January to March 2015 which you can find here. .  You can also find the data tables here.

Both the statistics and David Cameron’s speech demonstrate that all those who care about civil liberties must hold Home Office ministers to account. We must also continue to urge all politicians to make good on their pre-election pledges to limit the use of immigration detention and use more humane, effective and cheaper alternatives as set out in the final report of the first-ever cross-party parliamentary inquiry into immigration detention by the All Party Parliamentary Groups on Refugees and Migration.

The new Immigration Bill – and immigration detention?

The Prime Minister promised a “Far-reaching Immigration Bill will be in the first Queen’s Speech”, comprising “A ‘whole of government’ approach to clamp down on illegal immigration”, including a “new offence of illegal working”. He continued “Our one nation approach will be tougher, fairer and faster. With this Immigration Bill, and our wider action, we will put an end to houses packed full of illegal workers; stop illegal migrants stalling deportation; give British people the skills to do the jobs Britain needs. We are for working people. For them, we will control and reduce immigration.” “That means…dealing with those who shouldn’t be here by rooting out illegal immigrants and bolstering deportations.”

The Prime Minister says his Government’s new legislation will contain the following:

• new powers for councils to crackdown on unscrupulous landlords and evict illegal workers/migrants more quickly
• making all banks check bank accounts against databases of people here illegally
• extending the successful deport, first appeal later measures to all immigration appeals and judicial reviews to stop people frustrating the system
• satellite tracking tags for foreign criminals awaiting deportation so we always know exactly where they are
• creating a new offence of illegal working to close the loophole which means people who are here illegally can’t benefit from working and police can seize wages as proceeds of crime
• making it an offence for businesses and recruitment agencies to recruit abroad without advertising in the UK
• creating a new labour market enforcement agency to crack down on the worst cases of labour market exploitation

The implications for immigration detention, the Government’s response to the parliamentary inquiry report or their intention behind the ongoing Shaw Review, are not spelt out in the Prime Minister’s speech but the message is clear – there will be an even more “hostile environment” for non-citizens in the UK. The Government will be, however, insistently reminded of Lord Bates’ statement in Parliament on 26^th March 2015: “As a statement of intent…we do not, as a direction of travel, want to see growth in the numbers of people in the immigration detention centres”. It is down to us advocates to find space for manoeuvre in the Immigration Bill debate and other opportunities for influencing so that Lord Bates’ statement does not become obsolete.

Latest quarterly immigration statistics, January to March 2015 – another bleak picture for immigration detention

The latest official quarterly immigration statistics (National Statistics) continue to show a disturbing trend in the increasing use of detention, in both volume and length.

More people in immigration detention than ever

A total of 3,483 people found themselves in immigration detention as of 31 March 2015, an increase of 16% (492 people) since 31 March 2014 and the highest number of the last five years.

A total number of people entering detention last year (30,902) was also the highest of the last five year.

Year                                                Entering detention        Leaving detention       In detention (1)

Year ending March 2011                26,033                                   26,172                                   2,654

Year ending March 2012                27,594                                   27,197                                   3,034

Year ending March 2013                28,732                                   28,773                                   2,853

Year ending March 2014                30,109                                   29,786                                   2,991

Year ending March 2015                30,902                                   30,313                                   3,483

Change: latest year                         +793                                      +527                                      +492

Percentage change                         +3%                                       +2%                                       +16%

(1) The “in detention” figures are as at the end of March in each year

Worryingly, the official statistics comment on the increased numbers in detention due to the opening of The Verne, and then say: “The increase could possibly have been greater; however, an outbreak of an infectious illness at Morton Hall IRC, meant this facility was not used to its full capacity.”

The statistical release also shows the growing ineffectiveness of increased detention facilitating the Government agenda of increasing removal. It states: “There was a continuing decline in the proportion of detainees being removed on leaving detention from the peak in the year ending March 2011 of 64% to 51% in the year ending March 2015. Conversely, there was an increase in the proportion of detainees granted temporary admission or release, from 28% to 39% over the same period.”

During 2015 Q1, of the total of 7,516 people leaving detention, only in 3,376 cases the reason for leaving detention was to be removed from the UK. The rest (3,756 people, 50% of those leaving detention) returned to their community after detention, raising the question of why they were detained in the first place.

Increasing numbers of children detained

The last four quarters have shown an increase in the numbers of children held in immigration detention – particularly at the family unit within Tinsley House Immigration Removal Centre – as the following National Statistics graph makes clear:

The latest quarterly statistics release comments as follows: “In the first quarter of 2015, 41 children entered detention, compared with 19 in the first quarter of 2014 and 44 in the first quarter of 2013. Of the 43 children leaving detention in the first quarter of 2015, 23 were removed from the UK and 20 were granted temporary admission or release. Of those leaving detention, 29 had been detained for less than four days, 11 for between four and seven days and 3 for between 15 and 28 days.”

Nevertheless, the number of children detained dropped dramatically after the Coalition Government ended detention of children at Yarls Wood Immigration Removal Centre in 2010.

Continuing increase in numbers of people in long periods of detention

Another troubling trend in the latest figures is the increasing number of people in detention for long periods of time – somewhat disguised in the presentation of statistics by foregrounding the increase in numbers of people staying for a short period. Putting together our own chart from the official statistics we see the following trends over the last five quarters. As you will see, there has been a sustained and startling increase in those staying longer than four months. At the end of Q1 in 2015, a total of 153 people were detained longer than a year.

People in immigration detention in prisons

The official statistics have only recently, in the last three quarters, started providing data on the number of people held in immigration detention in prisons. The statistics show a marginal decrease since last year.

As at 30 March 2015 there were 374 detainees held in prison establishments in England and Wales solely under immigration powers. This compares with 394 detainees at 15 December 2014 and 394 detainees at 29 September 2014.

Enforced removals and voluntary departures

Despite an increasing use of immigration detention, the number of enforced removals has not increased accordingly. Also of relevance is the recent sharp decline, against the previous long-term trend, in the number of voluntary departures – although the number of enforced removals does not seem to have increased commensurately. Some of this may be due to the retrospective nature of data-matching exercises, the figures on voluntary departures are usually subject to upward revision – but there is nothing in the official figures to suggest this would fully account for the trend.

By the Detention Forum team

15 April 2015

On a hot sunny evening yesterday, the Detention Forum met with over 35 people representing different groups and organisations in Bristol who gathered to plan the Bristol Immigration Detention Campaign. We were also joined by Dr Melanie Griffiths, a long-term activist and an academic at Bristol University.

We shared our experience and learning from our collaborative detention advocacy work over the last six years (both good and bad!), so that they can consider how they plan to work together.

There was clearly an enormous interest in building on the findings on the Parliamentary Inquiry into Immigration Detention. Everyone present was keen to make sure that the inquiry panel’s recommendations, particularly that there must be a 28 day maximum time limit on immigration detention, are implemented by the new incoming Government.

.#enddetention #time4atimelimit
groups inworkshop discussed&write down a lot ideas to change detentions in UK pic.twitter.com/zYauszYnKe

— bristol dawn (@bristol_dawn) April 14, 2015

The participants discussed concrete steps they wish to take before the General Election and beyond. We wish them best of luck and look forward to hearing more about their plan!

The Detention Forum team

Days before the General Election campaign started, the House of Lords debated the detention inquiry report.  Here’s our short summary of the debate.

14 April 2015

============================================================

The most substantial Parliamentary Debate yet on the Detention Inquiry Report took place in the House of Lords on 26^th March 2015. The occasion, the ‘valedictory’ speech of Lord Lloyd of Berwick, a member of the APPG Detention Inquiry and former Law Lord. The debate was a fitting culmination and tribute to Lord Lloyd’s career, conveying a sense of real momentum towards achieving recommendations in the Inquiry Report.

The debate was notable for the tribute paid to the many NGOs and individuals who have campaigned on the issue of immigration detention, and for the quality and depth of discussion of many of the complex issues arising out of current use of immigration detention.

Disconnect Between Policy and Practice

Baroness Lister of Burtersett, paid tribute to the skilful and committed work of Sarah Teather MP in chairing the Detention Inquiry and again reminded those present of the disastrous effects of indefinite detention, particularly on mental health. She offered an important reminder that a time-limit is an “absolute minimum” but is not enough, what is necessary is “a commitment to making deprivation of liberty for the purposes of immigration control a genuinely last resort, with a presumption in favour of the community-based alternatives practised in countries as diverse as Canada and Sweden”. Baroness Lister reminded the House of the staggering disconnect currently between official policy and what actually happens – guidance that detention should be used sparingly and for the shortest possible period rendered ineffective by work practices and culture.

Further examining this disconnect, Baroness Lister pointed out that in 2013 the UN Committee against Torture urged the UK Government to lower the “evidential threshold” to enable people to legally establish that they are victims of torture and therefore should not be detained.  Baroness Lister remonstrated that far from lowering the threshold, the UK stipulates, not only must a woman who is a victim of rape or sexual violence (or other serious physical or psychological violence) show that it was also used as an “instrument of torture”, to avoid immigration detention, she must also have “independent evidence of such torture” – which very often will not exist.

Likewise, Baroness Lister pointed out that the detention of pregnant women routinely occurs in practice and reminded the House that, “The Inquiry heard evidence of pregnant women being treated in a way that caused emotional, psychological and physical distress”.

Baroness Lister’s challenge to the Government was this: “If the Shaw review is to carry credibility, it is crucial that its terms of reference are widened so that it can consider Part 1 of the Inquiry Report”.  Part 1 concerns minimising the use of detention.

Community Based Alternatives

Baroness Hamwee reiterated the consensus among speakers in the Lords debate that “The Stephen Shaw review is simply not wide enough”.  She powerfully laid out the case for the alternative community-based approaches outlined in the Inquiry report. As Baroness Hamwee cogently pointed out these approaches have excellent compliance rates, are much less expensive and, “Individuals feel that they are given a fair hearing—and if they have to leave, they can make their own arrangements with dignity.”

LGBTI People in Detention

Lord Scriven helpfully focussed on the particular plight of LGBTI asylum detainees, noting the recent Court of Appeal decision in JB Jamaica –v- SSHD and the need for LGBTI asylum detainees to have proper time to gather external evidence necessary to their claim, making such claims particularly unsuited to Detained Fast Track procedures. LGBTI asylum seekers, Lord Scriven points out, continue to suffer particularly horrible abuses in detention centres, despite a review last year by John Vine into LGBTI asylum which the Home Office has taken no action over. In the words of Lord Scriven, “So people go from vulnerability, fear and prejudice to being locked up with vulnerability, fear and prejudice”.

The Weight of Distinguished Opinion – “To None Will We…Deny or Delay…Justice”

It was striking to see so many distinguished speakers in the Lords debate line up to condemn the current system and call for wholesale reform – many whose careers have given them an all too intimate understanding of the issues of immigration detention.

Former Law Lord, Lord Lloyd felt “the judges have let us down”, that detention should be for a maximum of 28 days. Another distinguished former Judge, Lord Woolf, firmly stated “it is clear that some restriction needs to be put on the period of detention”. The former Conservative Home Secretary, Lord Hurd of Westwell, also called for a maximum limit to put an end to “a deeply unsatisfactory state of affairs”. The Lord Bishop of Peterborough put matters eloquently saying, “It is a truism that justice delayed is justice denied”.

Lord Cormack was also one of several speakers to invoke the language of Magna Carta, making the clarion call: “To none will we…deny or delay…justice”, calling on Lord Bates to try and ensure a working party at the beginning of a new Parliament.

Another former Law Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead was “very much in sympathy with the main thrust of the [the Inquiry Report]”, and recalled his experiences as Lord Justice General in Scotland when he was appalled by the large number of asylum seekers being held in detention, in wholly inappropriate conditions, totally abandoned, with nothing to do, nowhere to sit down except their own cells, often unable to speak English, with no idea why they were there and certainly no idea how long they were going to be there. For Lord Hope, “The challenge the report has set for the Minister and the Government means that the way to deal with it has to be a radical rethinking of the whole idea of the use of detention from the very beginning.”

Lord Ramsbotham, previous Chief Inspector or Prisons and IRCs, made no bones about the need for wholesale reform of the immigration system calling on the Home Secretary “to think again about her rejection of the stepping stone of a full review”.

The Earl of Sandwich paid tribute to the excellent Inquiry Report, calling for a 28 day time-limit and community based approaches. Though he too cautioned about the fate which can befall even the best reports, without concerted and sustained action, mindful of the similar recommendations of the Independent Asylum Commission which have largely gone unheeded.

The Earl of Sandwich summed up the opinion of many in saying, “most detained asylum seekers have already endured persecution followed by long, hazardous journeys and, perhaps, torture. Yet these people are victims, not criminals; they are asylum seekers who have already been through an ordeal”.   Enumerating some of the recommendations in the Inquiry Report, he called for other checks on detention – such as automatic bail hearings, proper notice of the reasons for detention and effective application of Rule 35.

Labour’s Change of Position

So what of the Government and Official Opposition’s response to the cry for fundamental reform?

Baroness Smith of Basildon reaffirmed Yvette Cooper’s recent announcement.

“Our policy has changed…We have looked at indefinite detention in further detail. We now believe that indefinite detention for people who have committed no crime and have had no review of their case is wrong.”

“We have already said that a Labour Government would end the detention of pregnant women and women who have suffered torture and sexual abuse and have been trafficked.”

“We are not setting a timescale today, but in government we will consult on the appropriate time limits to detention, and look at appropriate safeguards for detention decisions, at best international practice and at existing alternatives that are being used and, in many cases, working well.”

And Lord Bates?

We have still yet to find a reliable way of understanding whether Lord Bates’ remarks are likely to translate into clearly intelligible signs of action. But perhaps encouragingly he did say “as a statement of intent…we do not, as a direction of travel, want to see growth in the numbers of people in the immigration detention centres.”

On Yarl’s Wood, Lord Bates agreed to publish the “improvement plans”.

Lord Bates also said he would find out when the Home Office action plan dealing with issues to do with sexuality would be forthcoming.

Lord Bates committed to writing to Stephen Shaw to ask him to extend the remit of his review to cover, in particular, the detention of pregnant women and people with disabilities.  However he carefully limited his remarks on any review of the detention of women who have been subjected to rape and sexual abuse, saying it was “a matter he would include in his letter to Stephen Shaw”.

Unfortunately Lord Bates seemed to make clear that the Detained Fast Track was an aspect of detention policy that the Government is comfortable with, despite widespread concerns and challenges to its legality.

And the Government, like the Labour Opposition, is giving no comfort to foreign nationals where they have completed a sentence for a criminal offence (even a relatively minor one). Both parties want to see these people held in indefinite immigration detention and deported, largely regardless of the nature of the crime or the person’s length of time in and ties to the UK – even though such people often have no ties to the country from which at some remote time in the past they came.

In Conclusion

So all in all, a hugely encouraging debate, with great substance, but also making clear that much has to be delivered in terms of reform, and that there is much we must continue to fight for.

By the Detention Forum Team

Here’s a short report on the action that Gatwick Detainee Welfare Group organised on 9th April 2015 with Sussex STAR.

===========================================

‘Immigration Detention: A Call to Action’

On Thursday 9^th April Gatwick Detainees Welfare Group joined a panel hosted by Sussex Student Action for Refugees at Sussex University and chaired by Dr Michael Collyer from the Sussex Centre for Migration Research. The focus of the discussion was the recent parliamentary inquiry into immigration detention and taking action on immigration detention in the run-up to the elections.

Lauren Cape-Davenhill from the Gatwick Detainees Welfare Group gave a short introduction to detention in the UK and an overview of the recent cross-party parliamentary inquiry into immigration detention, which recognised that the current system is ‘expensive, ineffective and unjust’ and called for ‘radical reform’ of the system, starting with the introduction of a 28 day time limit.

Mohammed D then gave a powerful insight into his own experience of being detained in Brook House IRC. Mohammed came to the UK on a work visa with the BBC World Service and subsequently worked as a gas engineer, and had been living in the UK for 28 years before being detained in Brook House. He described the shock of being woken at 6am in an immigration raid on his home, and the difficulties adjusting to life in immigration detention. He outlined the difficulties faced by many in detention accessing legal advice, and the impacts on mental health. Mohammed said that even after his release the ‘tentacles of detention’ followed him, and he still experiences poor sleep and bad dreams over a year after his release.

Professor JoAnn McGregor, Sussex Centre for Migration Research/Director of the Sussex Africa Centre, presented her own research into the long-term impacts of immigration detention. She highlighted that the Home Office focuses on the people who are going to be removed, whilst in fact many people in detention are ultimately released back into the community, and some go on to become British citizens. What does it mean for integration, ‘belonging’ and community cohesion for so many people living in the UK to go through the unjust and traumatic experience of indefinite detention?

The panel and students then discussed action on immigration detention that might be taken at the University of Sussex, looking at examples from the University of Oxford and SOAS for ideas on what other universities have done on this issue. Lauren encouraged people to contact prospective parliamentary candidates to ask them to pledge support for a 28 day time limit on immigration detention if elected, and the use of the #Time4ATimeLimit hashtag on Twitter – happily the University of Sussex Amnesty Group were tweeting throughout the event. The Gatwick Detainees Welfare Group looks forward to continuing working closely with Sussex STAR and the Sussex Centre for Migration Research to push for change on the issue of immigration detention, and is grateful to the University for hosting this talk.

(By Lauren Cape-Davenhill)

You can see the photos of the event by @locosmo here.

You can hear the recording of the event here.