15. Memorandum submitted by the Gatwick
Detainees Welfare Group
1. SUMMARY
This submission consists of case studies from
our files which may be of use to the Committee examining immigration
control. The case studies presented relate to the time period
from January 2005 to November 2005.
2. INTRODUCTION
The Gatwick Detainees Welfare Group is a small
registered charity providing emotional and practical support to
asylum seekers and migrants being held at Tinsley House Removal
Centre at Gatwick Airport. Each year we are in contact with approximately
800 detainees, roughly 10% of the total number of detainees who
pass through the centre each year. We have three paid staff and
70 volunteers who do this work.
3. SOME ISSUES
RELATING TO
DETENTION POLICY
AND CONDITIONS
3.1 Transportation
There are problems with transportation to bail
hearings. A number of cases have come to our attention whereby
detainees have missed bail hearings due to the failure of escort
staff to be allocated to transport them. One detainee missed two
consecutive bail hearings due to this reason—potentially
prolonging his detention unnecessarily by over a month. Another
case in point:
Case 1
"L" was initially detained together
with her two children (one and four years old). She suffered from
depression and severe sleeping problems since being detained and
had been prescribed medication. Due to her declining mental state
her children were taken to stay with A's mother after their third
week in detention. She had a bail hearing at which her solicitor,
mother and one of her children attended. On the day, "L"
was told that there was a shortage of transport vans. She was
left for most of the day without a definite answer as to whether
they would be able to take her to her hearing or not. It eventually
became apparent that they would not. This was despite another
van arriving to carry two male detainees to go to the same court.
"L" consequently missed her hearing and chance to be
released, whilst her family were left waiting for five hours at
the court without being told for sure whether or not "L"
would be presented. The day after the missed court hearing, a
member of the medical centre at Tinsley House referred "L"
to us as being extremely depressed—she was also at this
point referred to the psychologist at Tinsley House.
3.2 Detention conditions
We've noted a rise in detainees reporting poor
treatment at holding centres in airports and whilst in transit
between centres:
Case 2
A young female detainee was held at the airport
following failed removal. She was allegedly told she could only
go to the toilet in her bare feet. The toilets were apparently
disgustingly dirty and the detainee felt she couldn't go barefoot.
The officer told her that she would therefore have to urinate
in her holding cell. Detainee consequently didn't go to the toilet
until the morning. She also reported that she was not given food
for many hours.
Case 3
S spoke of treatment at airport —was given
no water from 11 am until 9 pm.
Case 4
One detainee taken for removal to Gatwick claims
he arrived with escorts at 11.25 am for an 11.10 am flight, thus
missing the flight. He was then apparently told it would go on
record that he had refused to board the flight. He claims that
during his four-hour stay at the airport, awaiting transfer back
to detention, he was denied any water.
Case 5
One couple denied entry clearance were held
at the airport from 10 am until midnight when they were transferred
to Tinsley House. They claim that they were denied food for the
duration and also not permitted to change their clothing.
Case 6
"R" told us escorts had come to take
him to the hospital for an x-ray whilst he was being detained
at Tinsley House. They tried to handcuff him and he was refused
permission to change his clothing before being taken for his appointment.
"R" so upset at his treatment that he refused to go
to hospital. He told us he felt as though he was being treated
like a prisoner.
Case 7
"L" told us that on the way down in
the escort van from Dungavel to Tinsley House at Gatwick she had
not been given water throughout the duration of the journey.
3.3 Interviews with home country officials
We're concerned about detainees being sent against
their will for interviews with officials from their country of
origin. There were recently a large number of Vietnamese nationals
being held in the centre and we heard allegations that officials
from that country were asking detainees for sums of money during
interviews. These interviews are a great stress to failed asylum
seekers, who fear that there is a real risk that by being interviewed
they will be identified as subversives and risk suffering persecution
if returned home. The Home Office seem to ignore the fact that
in many countries immigration officials are part of the security
apparatus. Our umbrella group AVID has stated that at the very
least, if such interviews must occur, they should be recorded
and monitored.
3.4 Lack of information relating to those
refused entry at port
We come across a significant number of cases
whereby people are refused entry at port and the family member
or friend who has come to the airport to collect them is refused
information as to their whereabouts, or the likely schedule of
events. This is an extremely frightening experience for all concerned.
Case 8
The British boyfriend of one American woman
detained at the airport contacted us extremely distraught. She
had been refused entry at port but he was denied any information
as to her whereabouts. He was apparently told by immigration to
try calling round all the detention centres to try and locate
her.
Case 9
One of our volunteers encountered a distraught
elderly woman in the visits room at Tinsley House. She had come
down from Newcastle to pick up her daughter and young grandson
from the airport but they had been refused entry and detained.
By the time the woman eventually tracked down her family members
at Tinsley (she said that immigration initially refused to tell
her the whereabouts of her daughter) she was too upset to travel
alone back up north, so our volunteer had to accommodate her for
the night.
3.5 Detention of families
We're concerned of the impact on children of
enforcement action and detention. In the cases below children
of the families concerned were all in school and thus immigration
will have had information of their whereabouts. Given the fact
that both these families were eventually granted temporary admission
one can reasonably ask why their cases were not considered from
outside of detention. The Operational Enforcement Manual (39.3-3)
states that "All reasonable alternatives to detention must
be considered before detention is authorised"—our impression
is that this instruction is frequently overlooked when it comes
to the detention of families.
Case 10
We were contacted by a family (with children
13, 10 and eight) who had been picked up in just the clothes they
were wearing after 14 years in the UK. The father told us he was
trying hard to hide his distress from the children but that the
whole experience was having an extremely negative effect on the
family. The children had apparently wet their beds and one of
them had woken up screaming in the night, something which had
not happened before. They ended up being granted temporary admission.
Case 11
A single mother with two small children spent
10 days in detention and endured two removal attempts, both of
which were cancelled right at the last minute by her solicitor.
Her little boy had had diarrhoea since arriving in Tinsley House
and she was extremely concerned about the welfare of her daughter,
who was of school age and missing out on her education. She was
eventually given temporary admission.
3.6 Alternatives to detention
We frequently come across cases whereby family
members are separated due to detention. In some cases this leaves
non-detained family members in an extremely vulnerable position.
For example, one detainee had been picked up suddenly after nine
years in the country. His wife and small baby, who were reliant
on him for an income, were left in a precarious position. We've
also been asked for assistance from people who have been detained
despite being the primary carers of a non-detained family member.
Our impressions are that alternatives to detention are not always
considered in these cases.
Case 12
One woman was with her two eldest children in
detention whilst her husband and two-year-old child were kept
outside. The husband was in fact a British Citizen. In the end
the family had to make a formal request to the authorities to
allow the youngest child to be detained with its mother because
the father was working 12-hour days and could not cope with the
care of a small child.
3.7 Welfare issues
We have been working with our umbrella group
AVID and other visitors groups in trying to convince the Home
Office of the need to provide independent welfare advice for detainees.
So many detainees are held without access to their belongings
and in possession of just the clothes they are wearing. One detainee
who contacted us recently had been given removal directions after
12 years of living in this country but not given any chance to
collect his belongings or sort out his affairs prior to removal.
Another person whom we've helped recently was detained upon reporting
after living 19 years in the UK, again in just the clothes they
were wearing. Some detainees tell us they would be much more inclined
to comply with removal directions if they were able to sort out
their affairs first.
We're also concerned that when being picked
up by immigration, people are not being correctly informed of
the likely schedule of events that will befall them. One man was
picked up at home by enforcement officers but not permitted to
bring any of his belongings—being told he would be able
to access them in "three weeks time". In actual fact
he was taken to a police station and given removal directions
for the next day. He had been living in the West Midlands and
was unfortunately unable to find anyone to bring his stuff down
to him at Gatwick before he was removed.
There are also issues surrounding failed removals
and luggage being lost in transit. In the last month (October
2005) we have had two cases of people being removed but being
bounced back to the UK because their documents weren't in order.
One person claims to have been beaten by officials in his country
on arrival and his luggage lost in transit back to the UK. Another
woman being removed was also sent back to the UK and her luggage
lost during the course of this.
4. STATISTICS
We're often asked by funders of our charity
how many people are held at Tinsley House and, more generally,
in immigration detention each year. This is a surprisingly difficult
figure for us to elicit given the current format of the published
immigration statistics.
The current quarterly "snapshot" of
those held in detention fails to capture some important information.
For example, regarding length of detention of children. On 24
September 2005, 75 children were detained but figures are a snapshot
picture for that day only and produced at quarterly intervals.
On that basis it is possible for them to have been detained for
89 days and not appear in the figures.
8 December 2005
| 
