2. Memorandum submitted by the Association
of Visitors to Immigration Detainees (AVID)
AVID is the umbrella organisation for independent
visiting groups who visit at immigration removal centres and some
prisons in the UK. Our member groups have over 400 visitors who
visit centres on a daily basis and observe the differences between
policy set by the Detention Policy Unit and practice within the
centres.
Many of their observations reach AVID in the
form of complaints against enforcement, the contractors running
the centres, poor decision making initially by the caseworkers
and escorts being used to effect removal or movement between centres.
It had not been our intention to respond to
this inquiry due to the wide range of the subject, but certain
cases have recently come to our attention and despite the deadline
passing, we hope the Committee will be able to take the evidence
in this submission into account.
1. HEALTH SERVICES
Health provision is "bought in" by
the contractor running the centre, where it is privately run.
We continue to maintain that there is a conflict of interest between
keeping the contract and providing a good service to detainees.
The three case histories below demonstrate that:
— The system for ensuring medical care
is continued during removal is ineffective, as demonstrated by
the cases below.
— There is still a lack of credence
given to those claiming to have been tortured even when evidence
of trauma is obvious and progressive.
— Attempts are still made to remove
people who are medically unfit.
— Mistakes, whether deliberate or not,
are made and people removed without their case being completed.
(a) "M was picked up by an enforcement
team between 7.30 and 8 am, the officers taking her diabetes medicine
without allowing her to take her morning dose. She was taken to
a holding centre, then to a removal centre, without having any
food, arriving at 3.30 pm. On arrival she was seen by a nurse
who took her blood pressure, told her it was high and that she
would see a doctor in the morning. At 12 pm she was taken to Heathrow
for removal. She felt very ill, was extremely stressed and tired.
She had severe head pains. Repeated requests to see a doctor were
ignored. At 6 am she was told she would not be removed. She became
agitated and shouted for a doctor at which point the immigration
officials started to restrain her, resulting in a head injury.
An ambulance was called and she was taken to hospital.
When a further attempt was made to move her
to another centre, she was not told where she was being taken,
she was handcuffed and her son was used as an inducement to get
her into the van. Her son is now extremely disturbed by all the
moves, waking at night, withdrawn and having nightmares."
The above also highlights the indifference to
individuals of the escorts.
(b) "S had reported being tortured
as part of her case and was distressed, suffering panic attacks
and reliving events from her torture. She asked her visitor to
help her end her life. Over a period of one month, she deteriorated
mentally and ceased taking food and water. The visitor was assured
by the medical staff that there were no medical concerns in spite
of her breathing difficulties, forgetfulness, pitting oedema of
her ankles, feeling cold all the time.
During this period there were other hunger strikers
in the centre, who did not receive visits from either the nurse
or doctor in the centre on a regular basis.
An independent expert visited S and expressed
great concern over her condition. A second independent expert
on torture survivors visited in mid August and subsequently she
was admitted to hospital. By mid-September, S had been returned
to detention and was hallucinating, seeing Ugandan soldiers in
the centre, breathless again and having panic attacks. She was
also experiencing stomach pain when trying to eat, having stopped
the hunger strike. The re-feeding drinks were stopped by the medical
centre and they said they would not be getting any more.
Due to the publicity locally about the hunger
strike, at least two detainees, including S received threatening
phone calls. A "bogus" attempt was made to remove S.
The visitor supported her in trying to complain but so far, no
officer has attempted to follow up the complaint.
S was taken back to Bedford Hospital in early
October where she was hallucinating and unable to sleep for fear.
Returned to the centre on mid-October where she became catatonic.
After three days she was moved to a secure psychiatric unit. Improved
mentally and physically while in the unit. Was returned to centre
where she deteriorated immediately, being unable to sleep, severe
breathing difficulties, confusion and double vision."
(c) Detainee who was injured near her
eye before being detained, but not treated before two attempted
removals, both of which were refused by airline staff as she was
bleeding. Was still awaiting specialist appointment, as she is
already blind in one eye, two months after being detained.
(d) Detainee (torture victim) alleged
that he asked Healthcare about his solicitor's request for medical
file, which was urgently required to stop a removal. Healthcare
told him that they had not received the fax, but he saw the fax
on a table. Detainee was removed without being able to appeal
on medical grounds.
The concerns raised by the above cases include:
1. What checks are made to ensure that torture
victims are not detained?
2. The failure of her legal representative
to obtain a medical report from the Medical Foundation for the
Care of Victims of Torture.
3. The poor decision making of the Home Office
Caseworker concerned and supervision of decision.
4. Action had to be taken by a visitor to
bring in a second opinion when deteriorating mental health was
obvious and treatment had not been instigated by the centre.
5. While in the re-feeding programme, high
nutrition drinks were withdrawn.
6. S was still in detention on 21 December
and had still not been found a place of safety where she could
be treated for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, from which she
is suffering. [8]
7. The quibbling over who pays for S in a
specialist unit which has held up her move to a hospital since
12 December.
8. The length of time it has taken to take
action in urgent cases.
9. The indifference shown to resolving problems
by the Healthcare team.
Recommendation
That the National Health Service becomes the
healthcare providers to immigration removal centres. That after
transfer to the NHS, oversight of healthcare provision in Centres
should be given to an independent authority.
2. POOR FIRST
DECISION MAKING
We would continue to press for improvements
in selecting, training and supervision of first decisions which
continue to be flawed. We understand that access to the internet
and better country information is in process but the following
case highlights how a poor decision can cost a life.
(a) "D claimed that he was persecuted
by gangsters on political grounds in Jamaica. His brother, also
in the UK, had been attacked with a hatchet; another brother has
fled to the USA; his family had been burned out of their home;
two of his daughters had been killed and D himself had a scar
from a gunshot wound. (His first wife had died of cancer and his
14 year old surviving daughter is in Jamaica with an aunt.) His
case was refused and he was returned to Jamaica, leaving a partner
(UK citizen) and two year old daughter here. Nine days after he
was returned he was killed. No one in his family can safely return
to bury him"".
Recommendation
That the Home Office is required to find out
what happens to those returned to their countries to ensure that
the country continues to be considered safe for returns. (Recommendation
(cc), Home Affairs Select Committee inquiry into Returns, to commission
research into reception of failed asylum seekers.)
3. ENFORCEMENT
OF DETENTION
AND WELFARE
Enforcement teams continue to pick up families
and individuals using teams of uniformed, heavy squads. Women
are not allowed privacy to dress and children are terrified by
the forceful methods used to invade their home and take them to
a removal centre. Because of the shock and trauma of the event,
documents and valuables are left behind, often disappearing before
they can be retrieved by family and friends.
The Home Affairs Select Committee inquiry into
Removals recommended the appointment of a Welfare Officer to each
centre to help resolve some of the problems resulting from the
way people are picked up for detention in April 2003. A pilot
scheme, which took two years to set up, has now been running for
approximately six months at Haslar Removal Centre. Families and
children are not held in Haslar, so the pilot scheme does not
address all the issues resulting from how people are detained.
Problems outside the remit of the pilot scheme include:
(a) Attempted removal to Sierra Leone
where woman was not accepted and her luggage was lost. She was
returned to the UK without any belongings and detained.
(b) Man refused in Paris, in transit,
and returned to UK. Luggage was sent to destination and lost.
Returned to detention.
(c) Man who had been here for eight
years in NASS accommodation was detained for three days and removed
without possessions. Had car, computer, work documents etc and
had been working legitimately.
(d) Two detainees complained of lack
of access to cash points to retrieve money in their accounts before
removal.
Recommendations
1. The inquiry looks at the way people are
detained at their residence, in the street, at police and reporting
stations, and considers whether there is a better way of ensuring
that they have time to collect together their essentials before
being moved to a removal centre.
2. No child to be detained prior to removal
for more than one week. If a child is detained and the case goes
to the Minister for agreement for continued detention, the entire
file should be seen by the Minister, not just the synopsis, as
is current practice.
3. Alternatives to detention are used to
encourage people to return through voluntary returns programmes,
leaving with dignity and the means to start their life again in
their own country.
4. Implement recommendation (dd) of the
Home Affairs Select Committee inquiry into Removals[9],
to provide a modest payment to those likely to be destitute on
return.
4. RECORDING
OF INTERVIEWS
Two recent cases have shown that recording of
all interviews should be best practice to safeguard Immigration
Officers, embassy staff and the detainees.
(a) An interpreter complained that the
detainee being interviewed had stated that they were not fit to
be interviewed, but this was ignored. As a result of complaining
about unfair treatment of the detainee, they are no longer employed
by Immigration.
(b) A detainee reported that he was
threatened and then offered a bribe by an embassy official during
an interview in a removal centre. A complaint was submitted but
is unlikely to be proven without evidence.
Recommendation
The automatic recording of interviews should
be extended to all interviews held in removal centres.
We have been encouraged to think that oversight
of difficult removals will be carried out at airports by an Independent
Monitoring Body, but are still receiving a steady stream of complaints
about assaults on airport property, poor care of people awaiting
flight who have been denied food and water for long periods and
threats and abuse by escort and immigration staff.
We look forward to the extension of the remit
of the Prisons Ombudsman to immigration in the next Immigration
Bill in the hope that he will be able to oversee a fair and credible
system of complaints which is still lacking in removal centres.
Helen Ireland
Coordinator
29 December 2005
8 Detention Services Order 7/2004, Detention Services
Policy Unit, Food and Fluid refusals in immigration removal centres. Back
9
Home Affairs Select Committee Inquiry into Removals, Published
May 2003. Back
| 
