Memorandum submitted by LOSS Prevention
International (LPI) Ltd (AIR 15)
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Loss Prevention International Ltd (LPI)
has the sole contract with the Immigration and Nationality Directorate
for the escort from the United Kingdom of people being removed,
at public expense. These may be deportees, illegal migrants or
inadmissible passengers. All are people who have demonstrated
or declared an intention to resist removal, or for whom an escort
is deemed necessary for other reasons, for example because of
health (including mental health) considerations.
1.2 LPI has been providing this service
under contact since April 2000. Prior to this the company had
been supplying the service on an "ad hoc" basis
since 1995.
1.3 Most removals are by air, but escorts
are provided for removals by sea, as necessary.
1.4 The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999
contains detailed provisions about "detainee custody officers
(DCOs)". These include:
— the definition of a "DCO";
— the requirement for a "certificate
of authorisation" to be granted by the Secretary of State
in respect of anyone who is to be employed as a "DCO";
and
— the powers and duties of "DCOs".
1.5 All staff employed by LPI on escort
duties hold "certificates of authorisation" issued by
the Secretary of State. All hold permanent, full-time posts, as
escorts for detainees being removed from the United Kingdom under
immigration powers.
1.6 Escorted removals are undertaken both
on scheduled flights and chartered aircraft.
1.7 Within the United Kingdom detainees
are transported to the place of removal in our own fleet of unmarked
estate cars and mini-buses. This is a deliberate strategy designed
to reduce tension.
1.8 The overall approach is deliberately
low key and non-confrontational. The need for sensitive handling
of detainees is viewed as of paramount importance. However, firm
action, including the use of restraints, is sometimes necessary
when removal is resisted.
2. PROCEDURES
2.1 The Immigration Service (Detainee Escorting
and Population Management Unit) is responsible for co-ordinating
requests for escorts from the individual Immigration Offices,
and for "tasking" LPI. This is done by issue of a written
notice—on Immigration Service Forms 108 and 108a. These
forms give a risk assessment and details of special needs of the
person to be removed, including any medical features of the case.
The forms also set out the required dates for removal.
2.2 LPI staff allocate an escort team based
on:
— the gender of the individual(s);
— special needs and risk assessment;
— constitution of the party, if a family
group is being removed;
— availability of escorts.
2.3 On commencement of the task the DCOs
travel to the place of detention to collect the detainee(s) and
transport them to the point of departure. The team that collects
the individual will normally be that which accompanies him/her
to the final destination. This allows the escorting officers to
build, as soon as possible, a constructive relationship with the
detainee. Good communication, and sympathetic handling can contribute
towards a successful removal, even of individuals with a history
of violence and disruption.
2.4 At airports, the escorting team moves
the detainee(s) immediately "airside", to the aircraft
departure stand. The team leader will liaise with the Captain
of the aircraft, and the detainee will be taken on board, before
the arrival of other passengers.
2.5 During the flight the DCOs accompanying
detainees are responsible for their welfare and other needs, and
for ensuring that they pose no risk to the aircraft or those on
board.
2.6 On arrival at the receiving country
the individuals are handed over to the appropriate authorities.
2.7 As a matter of routine, on scheduled
flights the escort team comprises of two DCOs to one detainee.
This ratio is reviewed and altered depending on the numbers of
detainees being removed (eg a family group) and the risk assessment.
On charter flights we fly with teams of DCOs ranging from between
20 to 40, depending on the number of detainees being removed on
the aircraft. Every charter flight also has a fully equipped medical
team aboard.
3. RECRUITMENT,
TRAINING, DEVELOPMENT
AND QUALIFICATIONS
3.1 Many of LPI's staff have military or
police experience. Some have nursing (including psychiatric nursing)
qualifications, and experience; some have worked in the Prison
Service; and others have airline experience.
3.2 The Induction Training for DCOs includes:
— welfare, race relations and cultural
awareness;
— conflict resolution and stress management;
— control and Restraint techniques;
— interpersonal skills; including relations
with overseas control authorities;
— First Aid, including para-medic training;
and
3.3 All medical escorts attend the full
Induction Course, and have to be certificated as "detainee
custody officers" before they commence escort functions.
They receive additional training, including:
— aero-medical nursing techniques;
— advanced life support and trauma
care; and
3.4 The recruitment and training process,
and the certification of staff as DCOs is designed to ensure that
they can deal with all aspects of an escorted removal, including:
— safeguarding aircraft, passengers
and crew;
— security and safety of the individual
being removed;
— avoidance of inconvenience to other
passengers;
— custody whilst in transit; and
— handover to the appropriate authorities
at destination.
3.5 There is also a well-developed programme
of continuation training.
3.6 All DCOs are actively encouraged to
study towards the NVQ 3 qualification in Custodial Care.
4. QUALITY STANDARDS
4.1 Since 1995 LPI has been BSI registered
to the International Quality Assurance standard, BS EN ISO 9002:1994,
for the provision of Overseas Escorting services. Currently the
company is engaged in revising its registration to meet the requirements
of the new BS EN ISO 900:2000 standard.
4.2 In mid 2001, LPI was awarded Investors
in People Recognition.
4.3 LPI firmly believes that a key factor
in its success is a "Works Council" chaired by the Managing
Director and comprising key personnel and representatives from
each of the operational grades of DCO. This group examines all
aspects of the company's operations and make recommendations for
improvements, as necessary.
October 2002
Memorandum submitted by Group 4 Falck
Global Solutions Ltd (AIR 19)
1. THE COMPANY
1.1. Group 4 Falck employs over 215,000
staff and operates in more than 80 countries, including the United
Kingdom, and in both Western and Eastern Europe. The company has
operated immigration centres for the UK Government for 14 years.
They are operated under Public Private Partnership type contracts
and involve the provision of catering, medical, religious, educational
and leisure services.
1.2. The company will confine its comments
to those points of the inquiry that are pertinent to this role.
2. THE CURRENT
ROLE OF
IMMIGRATION CENTRES
IN THE
REMOVALS PROCESS
2.1 Immigration centres are currently used
for people whose cases remain under consideration or who are awaiting
removal, following the definitive refusal of their application
for leave to remain in the United Kingdom. The fact that there
is no physical separation between these categories of detainees
has a direct bearing upon "the most effective and humane
methods of removal" and "what compassionate factors
should be taken into account".
2.2 Those whose removal is imminent often
arrive at the immigration centre late at night, or in the early
hours. They may have only a few hours rest before being taken
to board their flights. This process, which involves detainees
being woken and removed, often in a state of distress, can serve
to disrupt the daily lives of long-term detainees who are awaiting
decisions on their applications. The combination of these circumstances
is neither helpful for the day-to-day running of detention centres
or for the maintenance of a humane removals process. This is particularly
relevant in cases where families or disruptive individuals are
awaiting removal. Their short-term presence has every potential
to cause incidents that result in physical danger for other detainees
and significant damage to detention facilities. It would be an
important step to create separate facilities to cater for these
vulnerable people.
3. A NEW APPROACH
FOR IMMIGRATION
CENTRES
3.1 The company recognises that the growing
number of appeal determinations and removal of failed applicants
will place greater demands on all detention facilities. A focus
on the needs of this group of people requires the development
of a "short term" caring and supportive regime. This
should involve a flexible approach to detention that balances
the welfare, safety and security of the detainees with those of
immigration centre staff.
3.2 For Group 4 Falck to best serve the
continuing needs of the Government and to deliver an effective
and humane service for all detainees, we believe that changes
should be considered for the current configuration of immigration
detention facilities. Such measures will accord with the Home
Secretary's determination to "build trust and confidence
in the system, and ensure that it works effectively to support
those who have genuine protection needs".
4. MEETING THE
DIFFERENT NEEDS
OF IMMIGRATION
DETAINEES
4.1 Our suggested approach provides for
physical separation between those facing immediate removal and
long-term detainees, who are awaiting the determination of their
applications or appeals. We envisage the development of a separate
regime for both categories of detainee, within existing centres
and without placing a substantial additional burden on the public
purse.
4.2 Immigration centres could be divided
into two distinct areas, providing appropriately designed accommodation
for short-term detainees facing immediate removal and the necessary
educational and recreational facilities for those remaining on
a long-term basis. The safety and security of both staff and vulnerable
detainees would be guaranteed by there being no opportunity for
association between long and short-term detainees.
4.3 The physical changes to the layout and
design of immigration centres would work to support a "positive"
regime founded on the active participation of detainees. Ideally
they should sign up to a detention "compact" that provides
earned privileges in return for good conduct or, in the event
of disruptive behaviour, a report to the Immigration Service that
would have a direct effect on the ultimate determination of their
case.
4.4 In our experience the majority of detainees
demonstrate a willingness to co-operate with the relaxed environment
of immigration centres. However, the actions of a small minority
can, through a combination of threatening and disruptive behaviour,
seriously affect the daily lives of their fellow detainees. For
this group, the "compact" agreement would make individuals
accountable for their own actions and provide an incentive for
them to avoid anti-social behaviour.
4.5 Consideration should also be given to
the scheduling of removals for vulnerable deportees, such as family
groups or those who have resided illegally in the United Kingdom
for a substantial time. The detention period prior to removal,
can often involve no more than a number of hours and involve a
significant degree of stress for both detainees and staff.
4.6 In addition to these changes we would
advocate a redefinition of the powers available to Detention Custody
Officers (DCO). The safety of staff and detainees could be enhanced
by giving the DCO unilateral authority to confine disruptive detainees
and where necessary request that they be imprisoned.
4.7 In our view, detainees who act in a
violent or disruptive manner should have their behaviour taken
into account by the Immigration authorities and Immigration Adjudicator.
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.
4.8 Our position entirely accords with the
Home Secretary's desire for "British citizenship to embrace
positively the diversity of background, culture and faiths that
living in modern Britain involves" and his expressed view
that "those who become British citizens should play an active
role, both economic and political, in our society, and have a
sense of belonging to a wider community".
5. CONCLUSION
5.1 Group 4 Falck and its employees are
committed to the delivery of a service that respects the fundamental
rights of all immigration detainees, whether they are awaiting
removal or in the course of having their case determined.
5.2 The recommendations set out in this
memorandum are intended to improve existing procedures and assist
the Immigration Service in providing a humane and effective system
for the removal of failed asylum seekers.
October 2002
Memorandum submitted by Premier Detention
Services Ltd (AIR 32)
Dungavel House Immigration Removal Centre
1. INTRODUCTION
Dungavel House Immigration Removal Centre is
situated near the town of Strathaven in South Lanarkshire, Scotland.
Formerly the Duke of Hamilton's Hunting Lodge,
and then a Category D Scottish Prison Service Establishment, it
was refurbished in 2001 by the Home Office to accommodate Immigration
detainees.
Premier Detention Services has the Contract
to operate the Centre which opened on 3 September 2001. The Company
is required to apply the Detention Centre Rules 2001.
The accommodation consists of dormitory accommodation
for 72 males and 14 females in the Main House. In addition there
are dedicated family rooms with a capacity for 62 individuals
in a separate building making 148 available spaces.
One hundred and sixteen staff are employed at
the Centre and all staff undergo a full Training Programme before
they commence their duties.
Premier employs a Cultural Advisor whose task
is to advise the Centre Manager on cultural and religious matters,
including dietary requirements.
Premier recognises the individuality and dignity
of all detainees. Dungavel operates an inclusive regime and involves
detainees in various aspects of the management of the Centre such
as Race Relations and Activities.
The Leisure Centre caters for both sexes, all
ages and all abilities. For example favourite activities such
as football are provided as well as cricket, discos, cinema, bingo
nights and scaletrix.
The catchment area of Dungavel is all of Scotland
and some of Northern England. Currently there are no detainees
in Scottish Prisons. Many of Dungavel's detainees are picked up
in the community, some at various ports and the remainder transferred
from Immigration Establishments elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
Based at the Centre is a Home Office Contract
Monitor and Deputy Monitor. The Immigration staff consist of one
Chief and four Immigration Officers, providing cover seven days
per week.
There is a Visiting Committee in place who maintain
a high profile amongst both detainees and staff. The purpose of
the Visiting Committee is as an independent watchdog.
The visits facility is open seven afternoons
and evenings a week. A Bus Service is provided from the local
station to the Centre for families and visitors.
For those detainees who do not have visitors
an active "Befrienders' Scheme is in place.
We encourage access for interested organisations
such as the Scottish Refugee Council and Immigration Advisory
Service.
2. REMOVALS
Since opening in September 2001 Dungavel has
seen 1,492 detainees pass through its doors. Of that number 68%
were adult males, 18% adult female and 14% children.
Length of stay varies. There is normally a 120%
turnover each month with up to half all detainees having been
at the Centre under three weeks. The longest staying resident
has been with us 30 weeks.
Of these 1,492 approximately one third have
been released into the community, either bailed or temporary admission
into the community, one third have been directly deported from
local airports, Glasgow and Edinburgh, and one third have been
transferred to other Centres. Detainees have been deported from
Dungavel to 67 countries. The main countries people have returned
to are Poland, Pakistan, Ukraine, Czech Republic, Lithuania and
Hungary.
Of these transferring to other Centres most
were to Harmondsworth pending removal from Heathrow Airport. All
transportation is conducted by Wackenhut UK or Loss Prevention
International.
The majority of detainees are given removal
directions a number of days in advance. All detainees have 24
hour access to telephone so they have opportunity to consult with
family, friends and legal counsel. Removal Directions are given
personally to detainees by an Immigration Officer.
In many cases the detainees want to go back
to their country of origin.
The majority of detainees leave the Centre quietly
with no problems. Those who resist present particular management
challenges within the dormitory accommodation and open regime.
Often prior intelligence is received, from other detainees or
via staff observation and interaction, concerning refusals. These
are then managed by staff according to the individual circumstances.
Since Dungavel opened in September 2001, use
of Authorised Force, (Control and Restraint), has been used on
10 occasions to ensure detainees boarded the escort vehicle pending
deportation. There have been no occasions when force has had to
be used on children.
Over the same period 16 detainees have either
self harmed or threatened to self harm to avoid deportation. One
of these self harm incidents was serious requiring hospitalisation
for one week.
These few difficult removals should not detract
from the fact that most removals present no problems.
3. COMPASSIONATE
FACTORS
Provided at Dungavel is 24 hour medical cover
plus National Health Service standard provision, including dentistry.
A number of detainees present medical problems
which are either undergoing treatment in the United Kingdom or
would commence once diagnosed. Many more believe, or would have
staff believe, that they have pressing medical concerns.
Whereas medical records would normally be forwarded
to the appropriate medical authorities this is not always practical
in cases where the medical infrastructure in the country of origin
is not of a comparable standard.
Some of the children have had a very disrupted
and sometimes rudimentary education. Dungavel operates a "primary
school" conforming, where possible, to the Scottish curriculum.
It is difficult to provide a fulfilling education provision to
children who are only at Dungavel for a short period of time.
Since opening three detainees have been admitted
to psychiatric care under the Mental Health Act. Like many areas
there is a paucity of mental health places available.
January 2003
Memorandum submitted by Wackenhut UK Ltd
(AIR 33)
1. 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%-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 08.10 hours. A blockage
on the motorway, which delayed the traffic for several hours resulted
in a flight being missed at 12.45 hours. The mother and son were
re-located for detention at Dungavel (near to Glasgow), where
they eventually arrived at 22.30 hours the same day and further
arrangements had to be made for a return to Heathrow for a subsequent
flight.
January 2003
Memorandum submitted by UK Detention Services
(AIR 41)
This memorandum has been prepared specifically
to provide the committee with information about the work of UKDS
in relation to its management of Harmondsworth Immigration Removal
Centre.
1. BACKGROUND
UKDS is a wholly owned subsidiary of Sodexho
Alliance of France. The company was formed in 1987 to provide
custodial services to the Prison Service and managed HMP Blakenhurst
from 1993 to 2001. In 1999 we were awarded the Design Construction
Management and Finance (DCMF) contract for HMP and YOI Forest
Bank, which opened in January 2000. The Harmondsworth IDC contract
was awarded in 2000 and the centre opened at the end of September
2001. Subsequent to that we have been awarded a DCMF contract
for a prison at Ashford (Middlesex), a contract to manage two
post release drug hostels in Bristol and are preferred bidder
for a DCMF prison at Peterborough.
2. HARMONDSWORTH
IMMIGRATION REMOVAL
CENTRE
UKDS operates Harmondsworth Immigration Removal
Centre under contract to the Immigration Service. The Centre opened
at the end of September 2001 and the contract is due to run for
eight years. The Centre was designed by architects on behalf of
the Immigration Service with the original design having some minor
modifications by UKDS to improve operational effectiveness.
The Centre is situated close to Heathrow Airport,
which makes it ideally placed to play a strategic role in assisting
the Immigration Service to achieve challenging removal targets.
Originally conceived as detention centre for
male, female and families who would spend up to three months in
detention Harmondsworth makes excellent provision for the care
and welfare of detainees. Our staff are all highly trained to
care for detainees in accordance with our company ethos of respect
for the individual and providing custody with care.
Our staff's ability to manage detainees is based
on interpersonal skills and our responsibility to treat others
humanely, decently, respectfully and fairly.
On becoming operational the role of Harmondsworth
was changed from a detention centre to that of an Immigration
Removal Centre. The immediate consequence was a significantly
increased throughput of detainees; from an expected six per week
to upwards of a 100 movements per day; a reduction in average
time in detention from months to a matter of days prior to removal,
all resulting in a change to a more unstable environment and population.
This change in role and expected population
produced a number of operational problems and our staff have been
fully tested by the detainee population for whom they are responsible.
Whilst most detainees are cooperative with the relaxed environment
a significant minority of detainees are not.
3. CHANGES TO
THE CENTRE
This has led to a planned programme of changes
to the infrastructure of the Centre to enhance its suitability
for its role as a removal centre.
Discussions between UKIS and ourselves led to
a decision to increase levels of staffing and physically upgrade
the centre to meet new requirements for safety, including fire
safety, internal control and perimeter security. The improvements
to be achieved as follows:
— Fire Safety—through installation
of sprinkler systems and additional fire escapes.
— Internal Control—through increased
staffing levels and the ability to separate areas through zoning
to prevent the congregation of large groups of detainees.
— Perimeter Security—through
perimeter fence detection systems, increased use of CCTV, and
improved and secure windows.
The upgrade requires significant construction
work and the capacity of the centre has been reduced to create
safe and secure conditions in which to complete the work. The
roll will increase in phases to reach about 500 at the end of
the construction and fit out period.
4. THROUGHPUT
During 2002 a total of 13,084 detainees were
admitted to the Centre, and 13,459 discharged. Of the Receptions,
74% were single Males, 13% single Females, and 13% family members,
including children. The average number of monthly movements into
and out of the Centre was 2212.
Of those discharged, 635 (5%) were Bailed, 1,024
(7%) were Temporarily Admitted, 10,020 (75%) were removed from
the country, and 1,780 (13%) were fell into other categories such
as transfer to another center or given leave to remain.
Of those admitted to the Centre, approximately
25% stayed for up to seven days, 34% between seven days and a
month, 20% from one to two months, 19% from two to six months,
and 2% stayed in excess of six months.
5. FACILITIES
The accommodation and facilities provided for
detainees are of a high standard. Most of the bedrooms are shared
twin rooms with 24-hour access to toilet and bathroom facilities.
All rooms are equipped with televisions with video playback function
and telephones for receiving incoming telephone calls.
Other facilities include association rooms,
a library, which reflects the diversity of the detainee population,
a shop and separate dining facilities for men women and families.
Detainees are encouraged to maintain family
ties through the provision of 35 pay phones located around the
Centre and visits facilities providing daily visits.
The PE department provide a comprehensive programme
of activities utilising a sports pitch, gymnasium and multi-gym
facilities.
6. REGIME
Our operating proposals and regime were based
on the anticipated relatively stable population and have been
adapted to suit the requirements of a removal centre whilst retaining
the original purpose of providing a full programme of constructive
activity. The high turn over of detainees through the Centre means
the regime provision needs to be flexible in what it delivers
and responsive to the changing needs of the detainee population.
7. EDUCATION
Flexibility and delivery has been achieved in
education through a free flowing drop-in provision, which suits
the nature of the establishment. Classes are provided seven days
per week and offer a wide variety of learning and activity.
— Classes in internationally transferable
"world skills".
— ESOL (English as a second language)
and literacy lessons.
— Art and craft—educational and
recreational.
— Further recreational opportunities—games,
dance and music.
— Occupational training—Basic
Food Hygiene and Cleaning certificated courses.
— Education provision continues to
be developed as our experience grows.
Achievements to date include,
— The introduction of opportunities
for accreditation in occupational subjects such as certificated
cleaning courses and ICT.
— In-house certificates—for those
detainees who are unable to gain accredited qualifications due
to their level or duration of stay.
— A programme of special events including
cultural, music and dance events and a variety of games tournaments.
8. FAMILY LEARNING
We provide an all day programme for the over
fours and five and a quarter hours each day for the fours and
under. This reduces the stress placed on parents, as they know
they can leave their children in a caring environment where along
with the educational activities we also ensure they have plenty
of fun. This allows parents to access adult facilities in the
centre and attend visits or make telephone calls.
We are currently in the process of registering
with OFSTED for the care of the under eights and to OFSTED's knowledge
we are the only centre to be doing this. This allows us to supervise
the children without the parents being in the room. It also creates
a more "normal" routine of "going to school".
We will also be seeking to register with OFSTED for the care of
the over eights.
9. WORLD FAITH
CENTRE
A world faith team provide for the spiritual
needs of detainees and facilities include a number of prayer rooms
including a chapel and a mosque.
CONCLUSION
The excellent regime and facilities provided
at Harmondsworth together with the increasing skill and experience
of our staff have led to a significant improvement in the management
of the operational challenges presented by the high turn over
of the detainee population.
The Centre is now much more orderly and cleaner.
The reduced population in anticipation of the physical modifications
to the buildings have clearly contributed but Harmondsworth has
developed into an efficient and impressive facility that is able
to manage some of the most difficult and challenging detainees.
This has been achieved through adherence to our company values
and ethos, delivering custody with care.
Following completion of the physical and staffing
upgrades currently underway I am confident that Harmondsworth
will be able to participate fully in assisting the Immigration
Service to meet challenging removal targets.
| 
