Select Committee on Home Affairs Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 320-339)

MR DAVID BANKS, MR HERB NAHAPIET, MR TREVOR WILLIAMS AND MR MICHAEL PAYNE

TUESDAY 28 JANUARY 2003

  320. Is it your impression, Mr Williams, that the system is getting more efficient?
  (Mr Williams) I think undoubtedly it is getting more efficient, but, inevitably, as the immigration services attempt to go to scale on the targets, more and more logistical problems are cropping up in a bigger organisation, and it may seem, from time to time, that actually we are going backwards rather than forwards. I do think there is plenty of anecdotal evidence around that the overall position is improving, not to say that there are not, as you have heard from other colleagues, a number of logistical setbacks on occasions. I guess that is the point of the Committee's interest.

  321. We tend to hear a lot about logistical setbacks; what I was looking for was the big picture.
  (Mr Banks) Certainly we are experiencing greater activity in terms of the throughput of detainees through our centres.

  322. So the answer is yes? Do not be afraid to say yes.
  (Mr Banks) Yes, I guess so, is the inference there, if people are actually moving through the centres quicker.
  (Mr Nahapiet) We are only a small part of the mosaic so it is difficult to see the big picture, but certainly from our perspective there are more people being removed, there is no question about that, and that has increased over the last twelve months.

  323. So the system is working better?
  (Mr Nahapiet) There are more people being removed.

  324. I do not want you to say it is wonderful, I just want—
  (Mr Nahapiet) There are certainly more people being removed, there is no question about that.

Mr Singh

  325. To move on to vulnerable people, vulnerable people really should not be detained according to the criteria but we have evidence that has been submitted to us that more vulnerable people are being detained. Is that correct, in your experience? By "vulnerable people" I mean people who might have special needs, women, children and people with mental health problems. Is that correct, in your experience?
  (Mr Payne) I think, by reason of definition, you are alluding to the question of families. Families previously were not detained as such. We were the first centre that had family accommodation provided. Initially we had one family suite and we now have five, and certainly Trevor will allude to the fact that at Dungavel they have a number more than that in terms of family accommodation. So what you say in relation to families is an accurate statement, there are more families being detained. We previously were, essentially, a centre for single people, both male and female.

  326. Any other comments?
  (Mr Banks) I think we recognise that certainly, from time to time, we do have vulnerable detainees within the centre, including detainees who may be deemed to be at risk of suicide or self-harm, and what-have-you. What we do is try to ensure that our staff and our training is designed to cope with and provide for those detainees; a comprehensive training undertaken by all detention custody officers, supported by trained professionals from our medical providers and supported by our vetting procedures and our procedures for childcare, developed in conjunction with the NSPCC. So we certainly recognise that we do, from time to time, have to deal with vulnerable detainees and certainly we have extensive procedures to actually deal with that eventuality, to ensure that they are dealt with appropriately.

  327. What are the effects of detention on, especially, children and, maybe, vulnerable adults? Is there a difference between them in your centres and, perhaps, Dungavel which is in a very isolated spot in the country? Are there noticeable effects, and is there any difference between your centres and Dungavel?
  (Mr Williams) Can I just respond to your earlier question? Within the time-frame of our operation, which is only about 18 months, I do not think there has been any discernible change in the pattern of vulnerability. Sometimes it is quite difficult to detect whether that vulnerability stems from some predetermined circumstance or whether it was the act of detention that has caused the special need and the distress in the individual. It is by no means clear to us, in all cases, whether that is the case or not. In terms of the specific question about the opportunities for minors who are detained in family units, our experience is that it is quite often a very positive experience, albeit in a very unfortunate circumstance. So our commitment, for instance, to providing primary school education which pretty well matches the national Scottish curriculum is an example of where we are trying to normalise that regime for children and young people who have, perhaps, been living a life of quite indeterminate nature. So it provides, rather ironically, a period of stability for some of the children and young people in our care.
  (Mr Banks) Clearly we try and look after vulnerable detainees in accordance with best practice and to the best of our ability. If one is to actually answer the question "What is the effect of detention on vulnerable detainees", I think we are only dealing with a part of the process. There is a sense in which one needs to understand what was the situation before and what is the situation during and after? We can only really deal with the situation whilst they are in detention rather than having a complete view as to the actual impact of detention on the detainees, be that a short-term impact or, indeed, a long-term impact.

  328. Do you see any visible signs of deterioration in either physical health or mental health when you receive people?
  (Mr Banks) No.
  (Mr Payne) I think it ought to be pointed out that every detainee that comes into a centre is the subject of an induction process and that process does include a medical examination—a short one—by a doctor or nurse, followed by a further one from a doctor if necessary, depending upon the analysis of the first examination.

  329. There is not a medical check when they leave?
  (Mr Payne) Indeed, yes.

  330. There is?
  (Mr Payne) Yes. Not always. The contractual requirements are changing at the moment to make that due process. Certainly everybody who comes into the centre is the subject of a medical check.

  331. In future people who leave the centre will be subject to a medical check?
  (Mr Payne) I am led to believe so, yes.

  332. So we may have more information in future about the effects of detention on health?
  (Mr Payne) Yes, but the detainee does not have to—it is not compulsory. So your results may be spasmodic.

  333. You may all want to answer this and you may have different procedures, but if a detainee has a complaint how do they exercise that complaint? What do they do?
  (Mr Williams) The detention centre rules allow for three main avenues of complaint within the system: one to the centre manager internally (to the contractor, effectively); one to the on-site Home Officer monitor and one to the Visiting Committee. As we have described earlier, they have pretty well unlimited access to legal advisers and community support groups. Those are the main avenues of complaint. Our own experience at Dungavel is, I think, that in 15 to 18 months of operations we have had 12 complaints about the operation of the centre to the centre manager. So that is, I think, some indication of the general tone of satisfaction, if I can use that word, from the point of view of detainees. It is also true that they have a very continuous process of complaint against the immigration services who are dealing with their case. So the main focus of detainees' activity is towards the immigration services rather than us as an operation.
  (Mr Banks) I would endorse those comments in terms of complaints procedure. Each centre has a comprehensive grievance procedure. It really starts as soon as the detainee arrives with informing them of what the system is, so they are very, very well aware that they have the right to complain and they are actually given information as to how to do that; information is displayed throughout the centre and the information is available in appropriate languages. So that is where the procedure starts. Our experience is that the majority of complaints or grievances are dealt with by the staff themselves. So in the day-to-day interaction between detainees and staff, if there are minor issues they are very much resolved in just the day-to-day operation of that management. Then there are complaints procedures that follow up through our own management structures within the centre, and the independent structures through Visiting Committees and the Immigration Department.

  334. They are not dealt with, I presume, by a clip round the ear?
  (Mr Banks) They certainly are not dealt with by a clip round the ear. In fact, it is an important source of management information as much as anything to have a healthy environment of complaints and grievances.

  335. How do you deal with the dietary needs of detainees? Coming from a very wide range of countries, maybe with different cultural backgrounds, how well are your staff trained, for example, to deal with Muslims who are fasting or other disciplines?
  (Mr Nahapiet) We are very fortunate, actually, at Harmondsworth where over 40% of our staff come from ethnic backgrounds, which is quite a high proportion. That includes those in the kitchen. In fact, I was in the kitchen last week and there was a wonderful spice cupboard. I was quite envious. So I think it is about understanding what the cultural needs are, and of course our staff hopefully understand that. There are surveys to find out what people want, there is a choice on the menu and whenever I go I always try and eat there because the food is very good and it is varied. There is a choice. We have very, very few complaints about the food, and we have a special diet for children as well. I think a lot is done to make people feel at home, because food is a very important element in many cultures—much more important than in the UK probably. The meal is actually a central issue and the food is quite important, so one has to focus on that. We find that if you do get that right you are getting a lot of things right, because if people have something which they eat and are satisfied with it helps the whole process. So it is an important element in that.

  336. So is it easily dealt with?
  (Mr Williams) I do not think it is easy and I do not think Herb was indicating it is easy; I think it is an extremely complex area, but it is a good example of where we are trying to establish a very distinct regime from that of prisons. My professional background is in prisons where the concept is generally about providing the right rations in an orderly fashion, introducing an element of choice and getting to the point where prisoners are banged up quickly and efficiently. In removal centres the emphasis, as Herb says, is much more about being a community activity; we look for a lot of buy-in from our detainees, positive contributions through the food committees and through voluntary assistants in the kitchen; we run cookery classes and we run regular events to demonstrate cultural diversity through diet; it is a real opportunity for us to actually be a focal point for the regime. We have a cafeteria-style, we do not limit supplies or indeed diets; generally speaking our detainees can have what they want when they like, and it acts as a community focal point. It is a very powerful medium if it is managed properly.
  (Mr Payne) I would like to corroborate that, if I may. Certainly we use meal times as a point of social interaction between the officers, the staff generally, the immigration service and, indeed, the detainees. We all take our meals at the same time—obviously, the logistics of any operation mean that some continue to work—with members of staff eating at the same time and, frequently, at the same tables to increase dynamic security amongst the population at the centre. That has worked very well for seven years. We act as though it were their home and, indeed, do not ration portions; if somebody wants an extra spoonful of rice or an extra piece of meat, we give it to them.

  337. An extra spoonful of rice is not going to go very far.
  (Mr Payne) A comfortable tummy solves a lot of problems.
  (Mr Banks) I would endorse what has been said. I would add that normally there is a wide choice, normally six choices, of breakfast, lunch and dinner, and meals approved by the local Imam. We also have a detainee catering committee, which enables good feedback from the detainees, and regular menu changes—menu changes every month, for example. It is an area that we pay particular attention to in the management of the centre.

  338. I am pleased to hear that, gentlemen. Having heard that I do not know why anybody wants to leave the community!
  (Mr Nahapiet) I think that comes back to the point that you made earlier about the effect of detention. I do not get the impression that the actual detention is negative, because when you go and see the children there they are having something which is predictable, that is very comfortable, where the food is good and they are getting good schooling. That is not what causes the problems; what causes the problems is knowing, or not knowing, what is going to happen to them. That is the real issue.

David Winnick

  339. I have one or two questions. One or two points have already been touched on. As far as detainees are concerned, what is the position? Can they move around the centre? Is there any difficulty about that?
  (Mr Payne) No, there is total free association, except during the small hours of the morning when they are restricted to the bedroom corridors. There is no locking up of people in their dormitories, they are entitled to roam the bedroom corridors, and if they want to sit and play cards with colleagues from the next room they sit and play cards. During the day time there is total free association.


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2003
Prepared 7 May 2003