Examination of Witnesses (Questions 340-359)
MR DAVID
BANKS, MR
HERB NAHAPIET,
MR TREVOR
WILLIAMS AND
MR MICHAEL
PAYNE
TUESDAY 28 JANUARY 2003
340. Restrictions are pretty minimal?
(Mr Payne) We encourage them to participate in the
activities we provide—English classes, craft classes, PE
and games and so on and so forth.
341. Violent, anti-social behaviour arises in
every group in the world, so presumably there will be one or two
incidents in detention centres?
(Mr Payne) I think you have hit the nail on the head—one
or two. In seven years I can only think of one which would have
been serious if it had been allowed to continue, but it was not,
it was nipped in the bud.
342. It is not an overriding problem?
(Mr Payne) Not at all.
343. I am glad to hear that. In written evidence,
Group 4 have said there is a case to be made for separation between
long- and short-stay detainees and that the situation as it is
at the moment creates problems. Would you like to elaborate a
little, Mr Banks?
(Mr Banks) Yes, I think this is really a development
of management and detainees by reference to their circumstances
in the process. If a detainee arrives at a centre and is actually
being removed then they are facing immediate removal and their
needs in terms of the process are quite different from those that
are coming to the centre faced with potentially an extensive period
of detention. Their needs are different; they may be more focused
on, for example, the need to tidy up affairs in terms of the situation
that they are leaving, and their behaviour may be different as
well. If they are just there for the short term they do not necessarily
have the investment in the centre and can actually be a disruptive
element to the running of the centre that is focused on those
that are there for a long period of time. So our suggestion is
that we recognise and begin to focus on that group and that that
is actually worked through in terms of the way the centres are
managed and run to reflect those two different groups of people.
344. You say it would be an important step to
create separate facilities for short-stay people?
(Mr Banks) Either separate facilities or separate
regimes within the same facility, to deal with that. The key is
on the different management of the different groups.
345. Are you pursuing that with the Home Office
and other authorities?
(Mr Banks) Yes, we are in constant dialogue with the
Immigration Department about how detainees can best be managed
reflecting their particular circumstances.
346. When you say, Mr Banks, that there is some
disruption by at least some of those who are short-stay detainees
it leads to the question that Mr Payne answered from me about
anti-social behaviour. When Mr Payne said it is very much a problem
which does not create any difficulties, you are saying, in effect,
that to some extent at least short-stay detainees do present that
problem?
(Mr Banks) I would endorse the comments of Mr Payne;
the vast majority of detainees do not exhibit disruptive behaviour.
That is a slightly different point. However, it does help, I think,
with the smooth running of the centre if those that may only be
there for a matter of hours are kept distinct from the group of
detainees that are there for the long-term and have a greater
investment in the centre—are more concerned with taking
advantage of, for example, the educational facilities and regime
that is offered within the centres.
347. On our visit two weeks ago we saw some
of the facilities available. While we are on this subject of the
long-term, can you tell us the longest period that any detainee
currently in a detention centre has been held there?
(Mr Williams) Thirty weeks, in our experience.
(Mr Payne) Certainly a small number of months.
(Mr Banks) I believe eight months is the longest,
currently in Campsfield House.
348. Have you no detainees now, or who have
been moved on, who have been held longer than eight months?
(Mr Williams) Not in our experience.
(Mr Payne) Certainly in the early days when we had
the detention role we did have two females that were there, one
in excess of three years and one almost three years.
349. Really? Could I ask what nationality?
(Mr Payne) Nigerian.
(Mr Banks) Historically we have the same experience,
that there are no longer people with us that have been in detention
for years.
350. That is a very, very long time, but we
will not go into that now. How often is notice of removal, in
your view, insufficient for detainees to prepare? You can imagine
when they know for certain they have to leave a country, with
their young children - basically, do you think there is sufficient
notice? Any of you?
(Mr Williams) Our experience has been that detainees
get adequate notice of their impending removal and that their
circumstances have already begun to be put in some sort of order.
As I described to the Committee earlier, Dungavel has a slightly
different stay profile for detainees.
351. Insofar as it is possible to give adequate
notice—this may have been touched on before and if it has
I apologise—what is the sort of drill for informing detainees
that they are due to leave?
(Mr Payne) I think it depends upon the individual,
sir. Certainly with a more compliant detainee there is no problem
with giving him as much notice as the immigration service have
available to him, but if you are expecting a refractory detainee
to be violent in the process of removal it is probably more appropriate
that he is not told until the last moment.
352. When you say the last moment, without giving
any notice at all? I am not criticising, it may well be justified,
I am just asking. With such individuals you have just mentioned,
would they just be told "Collect your belongings, you are
now leaving?"
(Mr Payne) More or less, but he would be given the
opportunity of making a phone call to some relative or other friend
to let them know the final destination or whatever the situation
was. Sometimes the circumstances which prevail upon the removal
process prevent even that telephone call taking place.
(Mr Williams) The decision rests with the immigration
services and at best we may be consulted as to what might be an
appropriate time, but the decision and responsibility lies with
the immigration services for personally serving the removal notice
and the period that that entails.
353. Self-harm and attempted suicide. Do you
find that occurring on frequent occasions amongst detainees?
(Mr Nahapiet) In December there were three cases of
self-harm and we had 2,200 people in and out.
Chairman
354. This is Harmondsworth?
(Mr Nahapiet) Yes. So that is very, very small. You
do not know why that could be; it could be that the circumstances
of their removal means they do not want to go back. It is difficult.
I suppose it would be more appropriate to compare that with the
numbers being removed. You are talking about one-third of 1%,
in that particular month.
David Winnick
355. Any other information?
(Mr Banks) Our experience is similar. Out of 11,497
detainees we have had 10 suicide and self-harm risks; nine threatened
self-harm and one actually had superficial cuts with a plastic
knife. Again, the experience is actually very low-levels of self-harm.
356. Are threats made by detainees that if they
are told they must leave the United Kingdom they will inflict
harm and worse on themselves? Is that a threat which is made from
time to time by detainees?
(Mr Williams) Often, in our experience, it is more
the threat than the gesture or the act that follows. So it is
not an infrequent experience that self-harm is threatened, but
a fairly irregular experience that it is then subsequently carried
through to any extent.
(Mr Payne) I am sure the other gentlemen would agree
that if you have the slightest notion of a threat we introduce
a procedure which is well-known in the Prison Service, known as
a 2052 procedure, where the individual is put under watch or constant
watch, depending on the circumstances. So the duty of care is
expanded to that individual.
Chairman
357. How many suicides have there been in the
centres that you run in the time you have run them? Any?
(Mr Williams) No.
(Mr Payne) In seven years none, but two attempts.
(Mr Banks) None.
(Mr Nahapiet) None.
Mr Clappison
358. Can I take you back to one aspect of your
evidence, Mr Banks, if I may? There is agreement that the vast
majority of detainees are well-behaved and co-operate, and it
is right that that should be made absolutely clear. In the case
of the small minority of those who are not well-behaved, you suggest
in your evidence to us that there is insufficient ability for
the immigration authorities and the Immigration Adjudicator to
take bad behaviour during detention into account. I wonder if
you could just enlarge upon that and tell us what the present
situation is as far as reports of bad behaviour are concerned
and to what extent you are able to report those on to the authorities
and for them to take them into account? You tell us, if I may
just briefly quote the evidence: "The current inability of
an Adjudicator to take such behaviour into account poses a significant
danger to the wider community, especially if leave to remain is
granted to individuals who pose a criminal threat".
(Mr Banks) I think the point we are making here and
the general thrust of the advice is that we operate a system where,
at one end, we are able to incentivise detainees in terms of good
behaviour and conforming with the regime that is actually on offer
at the centre but then there is an appropriate system of sanctions,
at the other end of the spectrum, for that very small number of
detainees that exhibit disruptive behaviour and potentially violent
behaviour to their fellow detainees and, indeed, members of our
staff. Those facilities are, if you like, developed and a sign
of disruptive behaviour is, in many cases, a sign of citizenship:
good behaviour is a sign of good citizenship, disruptive behaviour
is the contrary. Whilst we do have the ability to make these situations
known and, indeed, that is reported up the line, the comment we
made is probably more comment on the ability of that to be taken
into account in the overall determination of the immigration process.
We believe that if those ideas were developed then it would add
to the effective management of detention and removal centres.
Chairman
359. How well-publicised is the Voluntary Assisted
Returns scheme in your centres? Or are those there beyond that
stage, by the time they get there?
(Mr Williams) The latter.
(Mr Payne) I do not think it is the subject of a notice
in our centre either.
| 
