APPENDIX 42
Memorandum submitted by Wackenhut UK Ltd
Wackenhut is the provider of a removal centre,
short-term holding facilities and responsible for escorting detainees
in-country as part of the national escorting contract. Wackenhut
also has the responsibility for transporting asylum seekers from
London and the South-East to various parts of the United Kingdom
under the Government's dispersal programme for the National Asylum
Support Service (NASS).
2. WHETHER THE
GOVERNMENT'S
TARGETS FOR
REMOVALS ARE
REALISTIC AND
CAPABLE OF
BEING CARRIED
OUT
2.1 The general comment which we would make
in respect of this question is that current targets of 30,000
reduced to 12,000 are challenging to say the least, when one takes
into account the bureaucracies and time-consuming processes involved
in the present arrangements. Our Removal Centre, however, whilst
seeing its movements in/out quadruple does not now achieve bed
capacity as in former times. We sight a few examples, by way of
constructive approach rather than any criticism.
The present arrangement of individual immigration
enforcement offices and ports booking their own removals indicates
several reasons which can lead to a failed removal:
2.1.1 No central body oversees the bookings,
resulting in airlines refusing to carry deportees because the
number of Immigration related seats on any particular flight exceeds
agreed levels or similarly, the person arranging the flight has
wrongly classified the passenger (deportee or inadmissible).
2.1.2 Where an outbound carrier is different
from the inbound carrier, and the inbound carrier has not indemnified
the outbound flight, leads to the outbound carrier refusing the
carry the passenger.
2.1.3 All public expense tickets are subject
to approval from a unit in Croydon; this unit is not available
outside office hours and where payment has not been authorised
for the booking on the airline's computer system, tickets cannot
be released.
2.1.4 When an Immigration Officer fails to
explain baggage allowances and detainees have excess baggage;
the prospective deportee refuses to pay for his baggage, leading
to the airline refusing the carry the said passenger.
2.1.5 Detainees are collected from locations
such as prisons, which do not accept detainees' bags and baggage.
Thus, the deportee will refuse to travel until his bags and baggage
are delivered to the plane. Such delay frustrates the deportation
for a day or two, which the person will spend in a removal centre
until his bags are delivered and removal directions are re-set.
2.1.6 Detainees seeking to frustrate their
removal directions will delay their departure by causing a scene
or other disturbance when they are in front of the airline staff
or air crew at the gate of the aircraft. This does not always
involve explosive conversation or violence, but other such forms
of upset, such as removing all their clothes and refusing to re-dress.
The captain then refuses to take the relevant deportee, who is
returned to detention to await further removal directions. This
may happen several times until sent with escorts on an accompanied
flight. If the escorts are supplied by the airline, they are frequently
not trained in first aid or using restraints and, again, the captain
refuses to carry the deportee.
2.2 In these cases of failed refusals, the
prospective deportee is returned to detention after his failed
removal, where he "passes on the message" to other detainees,
thus a spate of like incidents occurs.
3. WHAT ARE
THE MOST
EFFECTIVE AND
HUMANE METHODS
OF REMOVAL?
3.1 The most effective and humane method
of removal is to prevent asylum seekers travelling in the first
instance.
3.1.1 A recent initiative trialled in Prague
successfully prevented Czech gypsies travelling to the UK by use
of pre-clearance arrangements in Prague.
3.1.2 We believe the pre-clearance arrangements
in Coquelles are similarly successful.
3.2 Perhaps the next most effective method
of removal is by detention and the use of charter flights.
3.2.1 For such occasions, Immigration Service
make far more robust arrangements, where the deportees are detained
prior to removal and moved en masse to a lower key airport and
escorts are provided on the plane to ensure the flight arrangements
are not frustrated.
3.2.2 This method is arguably more humane
as well there is little or no opportunity for public embarrassment
particularly where families are involved.
3.3 Another eminently effective method of
removal is by immediate detention or other structured accommodation
provision on entry to the UK or on application for asylum whilst
the relevant applicant's case is investigated, followed by repatriation
forthwith if the application is not successful.
3.3.1 Our Removal Centre at Gatwick now operates
on about 65% to 70% overnight capacity thus allowing for more
removals should the Authority so wish to use.
3.4 The most humane method of removal is
by scheduled flights where there is a low-key handover.
3.4.1 On these occasions, the Immigration
Service have the responsibility of informing detainees what their
travel arrangements are likely to be and Immigration Service Officers
should make arrangements for the relevant documentation to be
handed to the detainee. There are a number of cases where communication
breaks down.
3.4.2 The converse of these arrangements
is that it provides an opportunity for the detainee to be alert
to the slightest chance of preventing his removal by, for example,
self-harming; causing damage; resisting his movement; etc.
3.4.3 It is a significant feature of the
arrangements at Dover, where over 90% of detainees removed are
by "turn-around" arrangements.
4. WHAT ARE
THE CONSTRAINTS
ON REMOVAL
TO SPECIFIC
COUNTRIES?
4.1 There are not always direct flights
to the intended destination.
4.1.1 Where there is no direct flight and
a deportee has to be flown to a third party country for onward
flight, they have the opportunity, which has been exercised, in
causing disturbance at the third party port, which results in
their return to the UK.
4.2 Where large numbers of deportees are
booked to the same destination, the captain uses his prerogative
and refuses to fly, which thus leads to a number of deportees
being removed from the plane and returned to detention.
4.3 British Airways insist on a nominated
contractor (LPI) being used as sky marshals for their Jamaican
flights.
4.4 Those detainees who destroy or "lose"
their passports and other documentation are taken to embassies
to prove their nationality, so that they can be sent to the country
from which they travelled or their country of birth.
5. WHAT COMPASSIONATE
FACTORS SHOULD
BE TAKEN
INTO ACCOUNT,
(EG YOUNG
CHILDREN WHO
HAVE LIVED
IN THE
UK FOR MOST
OF THEIR
LIVES)?
5.1 Medical reasons.
5.2 Immigration Service not allowing detainees
enough time to get their affairs in order: for example, closing
bank accounts, having property delivered to them for their flight.
Should a family be detained at the weekend with a removal time
early on Monday, the relevant detainees have no opportunity of
communicating with their bank to make arrangements for the transfer
of funds, etc.
6. WHAT INCENTIVES
THERE ARE
TO ENCOURAGE
THOSE REFUSED
ASYLUM TO
LEAVE VOLUNTARILY
AND TO
ASSIST WITH
RE -SETTLEMENT
IN THEIR COUNTRY
OF ORIGIN?
6.1 If a deportee leaves voluntarily, he/she
can apply to come back again through the correct channels, whereas
if they do not leave voluntarily and have to be deported, no such
application can be made. As a company we would be willing to assist
the Authority to circulate and publicise and incentives offered.
Similarly we would, as far as our remit allowed, assist individuals
with requests and queries.
6.2 They can be offered assistance to re-settle
with sufficient funds to allow return to their own home town or
village in their own country.
6.3 Perhaps a need to disincentivise people
attempting to enter to UK in the first instance.
6.4 There is a need to prevent illegal entrants
obtaining false national insurance numbers to prevent employment
of such persons.
6.4.1 We have only rumoured anecdotal evidence
of cases where illegal entrants have been working for employers
eg farmers, on a monthly salary basis, but after say three weeks,
the circumstances are reported to the Authorities and thus the
employer obtains cheap/free labour. This is sharp practice by
individuals and not really an incentive that should be portrayed
as a procedure in the UK.
6.4 In our NASS contract, there are sometimes
breakdowns in communications between NASS and accommodation facilities,
where we initially pick up in, say, Dover, deliver to Birmingham,
Coventry, etc., then in a month's time, we have to re-collect
the same individuals from Birmingham, Coventry, etc and return
them back to Dover for the process to start all over again.
6.5 It would be of great benefit if co-ordination
in logistical arrangements could be made for the contractors.
For example, a mother and son were taken from detention at Gatwick
for a flight at Heathrow, leaving Gatwick at 0810 hours. A blockage
on the motorway, which delayed the traffic for several hours resulted
in a flight being missed at 1245 hours. The mother and son were
re-located for detention at Dungavel (near to Glasgow), where
they eventually arrived at 2230 hours the same day and further
arrangements had to be made for a return to Heathrow for a subsequent
flight.
January 2003
|
