34. Memorandum submitted by the Scottish
Refugee Council
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Committee will inquire into the
policy and practice of immigration control, examining the entry
clearance (visa) system, the granting or refusing of further leave
in the UK and the enforcement of immigration control. The inquiry
will range over topics including:
— institutional structures and coordination;
— quality of initial decisions (both
entry clearance and after-entry);
— particular areas of policy, including
the proposed points-based scheme;
— appeals and judicial review;
— e-Borders, including biometrics;
— reporting, investigating and punishing
immigration offenders;
— detention policy and conditions;
— immigration statistics; and
— co-ordination with European immigration
policies.
The inquiry will consider the degree to which
the stated aims of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate
and UKvisas are being met; the extent of implementation of recommendations
of recent reports and inquiries; and lessons to be learnt from
the operation of the current system that might inform the implementation
of the new Government policy.
1.2 Scottish Refugee Council welcomes the
Committee's inquiry and appreciates this opportunity to provide
initial evidence. We have concerns in all of the above-stated
areas of immigration control, however due to space and time restrictions,
we have decided to focus our attention on one particular aspect,
namely: detention policy and conditions. We have spoken
to colleagues in other agencies and we hope that our concerns
in each of the areas will be voiced. We have aimed to keep this
initial response brief, but we would be more than happy, at any
time, to provide additional information to further the aims of
the inquiry.
1.3 Scottish Refugee Council provides help
and advice to those who have fled human rights abuses or other
persecution in their homeland and now seek refuge in Scotland.
We are a membership organisation that works independently and
in partnership with others to provide support to refugees from
arrival to settlement and integration into Scottish society. We
campaign to ensure that the British government meets its international,
legal and humanitarian obligations and to raise awareness of refugee
issues.
2. DETENTION
POLICY AND
CONDITIONS
2.1 Scottish Refugee Council has grave concerns
about the policy and practice of the detention of people claiming
asylum as a whole. These include issues such as the lack of statutory
time limits to detention; the lack of automatic bail hearings[177]177;
reduction in the quality and quantity of legal representation;
the increased detention of children and the absence of any comprehensive
statistics of people being detained[178]178.
However, we wish to raise particular cross-border issues with
regard to detention which we believe merit investigation by the
inquiry.
2.2 Independent oversight of Dungavel Removal
Centre
We have worries about some of the practices
at Dungavel such as the alleged use of handcuffs as a matter of
course to transfer detainees. We believe such practices are not
subject to proper independent scrutiny due to a lack of defined
responsibility. It would appear that detention centres based in
England have more independent monitoring. In July 2005, as part
of a report into safeguarding children's rights[179]179,
8 Chief Inspectors from various statutory bodies[180]180
looked into the issue of asylum-seeking children in detention.
However, the report did not look into arrangements for children
at Dungavel as this was "outside the scope of the review".[181]181
The only independent report so far into conditions at Dungavel
was published by Anne Owers, HM Inspector of Prisons, in 2003.
We are therefore concerned that in detention centres based in
England various inspectors have the authority and power to inspect
facilities, conditions and practices yet will not cross the border
into Scotland. Meanwhile, their power does not appear to fall
to their Scottish counterparts.
2.3 Facilitating removals
We are also concerned about who has independent
scrutiny of the practices of immigration enforcement officers
carrying out forced removals to and from Dungavel and other removal
centres. There has been much debate recently around the way in
which these removals have been conducted in Scotland. We accept
that the government has a legitimate right to remove people who
have been refused asylum and who have not responded to notices
of removal. Nevertheless, we have heard numerous examples of the
inappropriate use of force and practices which would appear to
contravene IND guidelines for family removal, such as using children
as "bait" to force their parents to comply. Again, we
seem to come up against grey areas of responsibility for oversight.
Kathleen Marshall, the Children's Commissioner for Scotland, has
been criticised for speaking out on behalf of asylum-seeking children
involved in these removals. The general rebuttal seems to be that
immigration and asylum are reserved matters. Yet who, if not her,
would speak on their behalf? Would this come under the remit of
the Children's Commissioner for England? There are other related
questions, for example, are enforcement officers subject to disclosure
checks since they are working with vulnerable children? We believe
they should be. However, who would carry this out? Would it be
Disclosure Scotland or disclosure in England and Wales? In general,
we feel much greater clarity is needed to ensure that proper independent
scrutiny is afforded to these matters.
2.4 Cross-border movement between detention
centres
We are seriously concerned with asylum seekers
being frequently transferred around the UK detention estate from
one centre to another and the lack of any comprehensive data of
these movements. For example, we have heard of several cases of
asylum seekers being detained at Dungavel, and then moved to another
centre only for them to appear again back in Dungavel. This has
not only caused extreme distress and disorientation, but also
difficulties in accessing current or new legal representation.
These problems are compounded by cross-border movements from England
to Scotland and vice-versa as not only is there the impact of
geographical distance between client and lawyer, but also the
major problem with transference from one legal system to another.
With regard to children, we believe that as
a result of the high-profile public debate in Scotland around
the detention of children, there has been an increase in the practice
of moving children away from Dungavel and around the detention
estate. We know of some cases of this, but due to the lack of
transparency in published statistics we are unable to gauge the
full extent of this practice. In any case, we believe this practice
to be highly unacceptable.
Many of these issues concerning the numbers
in detention and access to legal advice have been raised in several
key recommendations by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons.
These have not been implemented. We would strongly urge the Committee
to consider the failure to implement them.
3. Finally, we would contend that the issues
of transparency and oversight that we have discussed with regard
to detention are, in fact, key to all areas of the Committee's
inquiry into immigration control.
Gary Christie
Policy Officer
2 December 2005
177 177<hi1p0>We recommend that the Committee
examine the comments of Mr Alvaro Gil-Robles, Commissioner for
Human Rights, Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights, Council
of Europe: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2005/jun/coe-uk-report.pdf Back
178
178<hi1p0>See Scottish Refugee Council's response
to Home Office statistics consultation. Back
179
179<hi1p0>Safeguarding Children July 2005 The second
joint Chief Inspectors' Report on Arrangements to Safeguard Children. Back
180
180<hi1p0>Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI),
HM Inspectorate of Court Administration (HMICA), The Healthcare
Commission, HM Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC), HM Inspectorate
of Probation (HMIP), HM Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP), HM Crown
Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI), The Office for Standards
in Education (OFSTED). Back
181
181<hi1p0>Safeguarding Children July 2005 The second
joint Chief Inspectors' Report on Arrangements to Safeguard Children,
p 86: "7.2 This chapter also examines arrangements for children
held with their families using evidence from HMI Prisons inspections
of two immigration removal centres in England: Oakington (Cambridgeshire)
and Tinsley House (West Sussex). The centre at Dungavel (South
Lanarkshire) is outside the scope of this review, although asylum-seeking
families based in England might be placed there pending deportation." Back
| 
