Examination of Witnesses (Questions 301-319)
MR DAVID
BANKS, MR
HERB NAHAPIET,
MR TREVOR
WILLIAMS AND
MR MICHAEL
PAYNE
TUESDAY 28 JANUARY 2003
Chairman
301. Welcome to the new arrivals. Mr Payne from
Wackenhut we know about. Would the other gentlemen like to say
one by one who they represent and what the scale of their involvement
is.
(Mr Williams) I am Trevor Williams; I
am Operations Director of the Premier Custodial Group, Premier
Detention Services in these circumstances, and we operate a removal
centre at Dungavel in Scotland.
(Mr Banks) I am David Banks; I am Chief Operating
Officer of Group 4 Falck Global Solutions Ltd, GSL. GSL is a wholly
owned subsidiary of Group 4 Falck which is the world's second
largest provider of security and related services with operations
in 80 countries. It is listed on the Copenhagen stock exchange.
Within Group 4 Falck GSL is a standalone business specialising
in out-source government services through PPP and PFI with businesses
in the UK, Australia and South Africa. We manage and operate facilities
on behalf of the Immigration Service at Campsfield House Immigration
Centre in Oxfordshire accommodating a maximum of 184 detainees,
Oakington Reception Centre in Cambridgeshire accommodating a maximum
of 400 and Yarl's Wood Detention Centre in Bedfordshire which
originally accommodated a maximum of 900 but reduced following
an incident last year.
302. Does your company now own Wackenhut?
(Mr Banks) Earlier this year, Group 4 Falck acquired
the Wackenhut Corporation of America.
303. It is complicated, is it not?
(Mr Banks) It is and I can explain the structure involved
in that, but it is actually set out in quite a lot of detail in
the Competition Commission inquiry report and the Committee may
like to refer to that. Alternatively, I can explain it now if
you prefer.
304. No, I do not think we will go into the
competition aspects.
(Mr Nahapiet) My company is UK Detention Services
and I am the Managing Director of it. We currently manage Harmondsworth
Removal Centre which I believe you have been to. That has a capacity
of about 500. We also manage Forest Bank Prison and we have a
signed contract for Ashford Prison and shortly for Peterborough
as well. We are 100% owned by a company called Sodexho Alliance
which is a French company. It operates in 70 countries throughout
the world. I also have responsibilities for the custodial operations
in other countries in terms of winning business. This includes
Australia, Chile and France where we have a number of prisons
and where we carry out most of the operations but not all of them.
So, we do have quite a wide remit.
Chairman: Thank you very much. We want
to avoid, if we can, four answers to every question, so do not
feel obliged to chip in unless you have something to add. On the
other hand, do not feel constrained if you do have something to
add. Shall we begin with some questions on targets from Mr Clappison.
Mr Clappison
305. Could I ask the gentleman of the company
which currently operates Harmondsworth first about the pressure
you are under to increase the volume of removals. Would you be
able to respond to a marked increase in the number of candidates
for removal and could you give any indication of any changes in
your regimes or practices and, in particular, changes of patterns
of removals in the past?
(Mr Nahapiet) I think there are two parts to that
answer. The first is that we already have, in discussions with
the Immigration Service, increased the throughput and there are
two parts to it: one is the capacity issue which is very much
one of the physical constraints involved and secondly the number
of staff we have. The main constraint is the capacity. We already
have made some improvements to the design of the reception in
particular and that has improved. For example, last month we removed
985 people from the Centre.
306. Do you feel that you have the capacity
to remove more in the future or do you feel you are running at
capacity?
(Mr Nahapiet) More could be done, yes, but again this
is a slightly wider issue because it would mean greater clarity
in the definition of what people are going to do. Namely, there
are probably three areas/three distinctions. First of all, there
are people who come in who are going to be removed almost immediately
and therefore we could have almost a transit area for them and
therefore they do not have to go through the whole reception process,
which actually is quite time consuming and tends to clog up the
reception area. The second are those who are going to be removed
within a few days and they would have to be admitted. Then there
are those who will be there for a longer period of time depending
if they are under appeal or there is some sort of legal process
that they are gong through. I feel that we can actually improve
the throughput by perhaps having a transit area or something like
that. I think also it will improve once the changes which are
currently being made at Harmondsworth come into effect.
307. Could you give us any breakdown on the
status of the people in Harmondsworth at the moment. How many
people are subject to the appeal process and how many are awaiting
initial decisions?
(Mr Nahapiet) That I cannot tell you because we do
not know that information. What I can tell you is the breakdown
of how many stay up to seven days and then from seven days to
31 days and that will give some idea of what is a reflection of
your question. In the last month, 40% were removed within seven
days and about another 40% went within 31 days. We can give you
the consequences of what happened; I cannot tell you what the
inputs were.
308. Could I ask your colleagues if they have
anything to add in the case of their establishments.
(Mr Banks) In terms of throughput through the establishments,
we have certainly noticed an average reduction in the length of
time that detainees stay with us. For example, at Campsfield House,
the average is reduced from about 11 weeks to about five weeks.
That is clearly an average within that figure. Some detainees
stay with us longer and some shorter, but there is a shortening
or we have noticed a shortening in the average period of time
detainees actually spend within our care.
309. How well are you able to cope with that?
(Mr Banks) We are able to cope. We are geared up to
the maximum capacity within the centre and the throughput within
the centre is a matter of process. Certainly we are actually geared
up to cope with a greater throughput through the reception and
discharge within the centre.
(Mr Payne) I can corroborate that, sir. When the detention
centre in name was appropriate the average length of stay was
about four months and is now down, as I have said earlier on,
to about seven days. We coped with it by increasing the availability
of reception facilities and discharge facilities. We have made
the change to our establishment to cope with that.
(Mr Williams) From our existing operation at Dungavel
the average stay length, I think we identified in our submission,
is slightly longer, and that has probably got something to do
with geographical location of Dungavel in Scotland. So the stay
length is, perhaps, a touch longer than colleagues have indicated
so far. Perhaps it is worth saying also that Premier Detention
Services are currently identified as preferred bidder for a new
facility at Logford House which is adjacent to Harmondsworth,
and there are a couple of design features about Logford which
are specifically geared to improving the processing procedures
for removals. We have built in an airline type reception and discharge
procedure which is expandable according to peak flows and there
is also a facility for a short-term holding facility within Logford,
both of which I think will address, to some extent, the particular
issues that you are interested in.
310. Can I ask Mr Banks (and any of you are
free to come in if you want to): given what you have told us about
the status of people in your facility, are you satisfied that
detainees have sufficient access to legal advice? Are you required
to make provision for this?
(Mr Banks) I can explain the current arrangements
at centres for providing legal advice. Current arrangements at
centres provide for legal visits between, as a minimum, nine o'clock
in the morning to nine o'clock in the evening each and every day
of the year. Outside of that, special visits can be arranged in
cases of urgency. The overriding principle here is that detainees
have a right of access to their legal adviser in person, by telephone
or any other means at any reasonable time. Incoming telephone
lines are provided throughout each of the centres so that legal
representatives can contact detainees—again, at any time
of the day. Each of the detainee information centres are equipped
with fax machines and out-going communications to solicitors are
forwarded from that office. There are no restrictions or interference
with correspondence between detainees and their legal advisers
and all out-going mail is at our expense. So there is no restriction
in that regard. Free phone numbers for the services of the Immigration
Advisory Service and the Refugee Legal Centre are advertised throughout
the Centre and all detainees are very much advised on this during
their induction process to the Centre. I hope you will understand
from that brief explanation that we place great emphasis on ensuring
that detainees do have access to their legal advisers to help
them with the proper conduct of their process.
Mr Clappison: Thank you.
Mr Prosser
311. When I visited my own detention removal
centre in Dover recently, more than one long-term detainee approached
me and asked if I could help them be transferred to a mainline
prison. The reason for asking that was because, they said, then
they would be able to work in the kitchens and be part of the
cleaning regime and do something useful rather than just hanging
around kicking their heels—although I know there are recreational
facilities and learning facilities in place. Of course, there
is no facility to work at the moment because of the legal situation.
Would you welcome making changes to allow certain long-term detainees
the chance to work? Would it be better for the culture and atmosphere
inside the detention centres?
(Mr Williams) Very much so, in our opinion. It is
one of the areas where we think the whole procedure could be improved.
We are very keen to work with the detainees on a voluntary basis,
but an opportunity to engage in paid work may go some way to improving
their financial position towards the end of the process and certainly
help to have a bit more cohesiveness in terms of the communities
that we are trying to run and, generally, making our facilities
better places. So it is one of those smaller changes that we would
hope will be considered as a consequence of this Committee's deliberations.
Chairman
312. Can I just check that other witnesses agree
with that?
(Mr Payne) Yes, certainly. With the detention centre
role then I would agree with that concept but now, with the average
stay only seven days, detainees are more concerned about their
immediate circumstances than getting to work. So it does not apply
with the seven-day removal centre regime. However, with the longer-term,
yes we would agree.
(Mr Banks) I think, as you quite correctly point out,
this is a legal position. Our understanding is that it is, in
fact, a ministerial decision not to seek dispensation from the
minimum wage provisions, as for example exists in prison, which
I think illustrates the case. From a management and a regime point
of view we believe the regime would be enriched if we were able
to provide work opportunities for detainees, particularly detainees
that were going to remain with us for a long period of time.
(Mr Nahapiet) I think we would point out that the
other issue related to that is that it actually gives detainees
more of a sense of ownership, which is quite important because
it then permeates the whole environment and I think there is less
likelihood of vandalism; people feel that they have become part
of it. I think there is quite an important benefit from that—apart
from them actually getting qualifications which we can give them
in terms of food preparation or cleaning and things like that.
Mr Prosser
313. Linked to that, I was told by the Governor
and others that because there is not much compulsion, for obvious
reasons, and within the detention centre there was a culture of
people staying in their beds until one or two o'clock in the afternoon.
As a routine that made life difficult for bringing in a structured
system to run the detention centre. What are your comments on
that?
(Mr Payne) I would like to counter that, if I may.
Certainly at Tinsley House it is our practice to actually remove
detainees from their room prior to nine o'clock. We provide a
bed-making service to detainees. In actual fact it is very positive
because it helps to keep the place clean, tidy and in good order.
So they are out of their rooms between nine o'clock in the morning
and eleven o'clock in the morning whilst the beds are made.
(Mr Williams) I think, from an operator's perspective,
it is very, very important to keep a very clear distinction between
the regime that is operated in detention centres and removal centres
and those that are operated in prisons. We are very clear that
there are a number of distinctions—very key distinctions—to
that, and we are very anxious to avoid a creep of philosophy in
terms of turning removal centres into prisons. That is not what
we entered into the arrangement to deliver. There are certain
common attributes of both types of institution but we have to
be very clear that they are not prisons.
(Mr Banks) I think purposeful activity is important
and is a positive step, both in terms of the richness of the lives
of the detainees whilst they are in our care and in terms of promoting
good and effective management.
Mr Singh
314. I will be going on to ask about vulnerable
people, but before I do that I was very interested in your comments
on the shortening of the average length of stay in your centres.
I wondered why that was. What is behind that? What has that happened?
(Mr Banks) I think the reality of the situation is
that we accept detainees that are presented to us and we have
no real influence over who comes to us, when they come and, indeed,
when they are either released into the community or removed. It
is simply our experience that there has been a reduction, although
we have noticed that possibly we are detaining them a little later
in their due process through the immigration process.
315. That is an answer for everybody?
(Mr Williams) It is tempting to speculate that as
the challenging targets that we have heard about are attempted
to be reached by the immigration services they are using custody
at a later point in the process, and you get that inevitable shrinkage
of length of stay.
316. Is that across all categories of detainees,
including asylum seekers?
(Mr Williams) I certainly do not have a feel for the
figures in that detail.
Chairman
317. Is it your impression, gentlemen, that
the system is getting more efficient, dare we say it?
(Mr Payne) I think there is a different approach.
Whereas before there were categories of people that were detained
because of their status in the system, now the people that are
going to be removed are being the subject of a focus on removal
rather than detention. I can only allude to one very notable instance,
which was that when we were a detention centre we had somebody
there for over three years.
318. Was this sometime in the past?
(Mr Payne) Well, yes, we have had the centre for seven
years so, yes, sometime in the past. Whereas now that would not
be dreamt of.
319. So the system is getting more efficient?
(Mr Payne) In the removal process, yes.
|
