Home Affairs Committee

Executive Summary

1. Detention plays an increasingly significant part of the asylum system in the UK, whether in the case of the Detained Fast Track or the treatment of those who have not been granted refugee status or other types of leave to remain and are facing removals. Detention affects not only asylum seekers but also other immigrants who are subject to immigration control. Almost half of those who entered detention in 2012 (13,161 people) were asylum detainees. Many refused asylum detainees face barriers to return, even when they have not been recognised as refugees according to the 1951 Refugee Convention366. They often suffer from mental health problems as a result of trauma they experienced in their country of origin. Both of these factors make them more vulnerable to long-term detention as well as secondary trauma as a result of detention in the UK.

2. Detention-related expenditure, administration and policy require systemic public scrutiny, and the UKBA should respond promptly, openly and constructively to such scrutiny exercise. For instance, UKBA’s failure to conduct an independent review of the application of Rule 35 in immigration detention, despite the Home Affairs Select Committee’s repeated requests to do so,367 has been well documented. The Detention Forum believes that a number of other detention-related matters remain insufficiently scrutinised, such as length of detention, detention of vulnerable people and shortcomings in immigration bail hearings.

3. The Detention Forum recommends that UKBA takes concrete steps to reduce the length of time people are detained and eliminate detention of vulnerable individuals. There is no maximum time limit on detention in the UK, despite the fact that there is no automatic judicial oversight of detention. This creates unbearable anxiety and stress for asylum detainees. It has also led a large number of asylum-seekers to be long-term detained, only to be released. Consistently, over a third of people who are detained are released back into the community; their detention served no purpose. This is contrary to the UKBA’s own policy which clearly states ‘Detention must be used sparingly, and for the shortest period necessary’368. The Detention Forum is also concerned about the continuing detention of vulnerable people. This demonstrates that UKBA’s safeguards, that should in theory protect these individuals from detention, are not working. We recommend that, in consultation with stakeholders, UKBA sets out what steps they are taking to increase their adherence to their own policy of using detention sparingly and for the shortest period necessary and how they will monitor their progress.

Introduction

4. The Detention Forum is a network of NGOs working together to challenge the legitimacy of immigration detention in the UK. The list of members who are jointly submitting this evidence is available on appendix 1.

5. This submission concerns the use of detention in the asylum system as it affects the process of claiming asylum, the treatment of applicants and post-decision outcome. The Detention Forum believes that the damaging impact of detention on asylum seekers can be mitigated only when the use of detention as a part of immigration control as a whole is reviewed and drastically changed.

6. Immigration detention is not criminal detention yet involves deprivation of individuals’ liberty for administrative purposes. The Detention Forum is deeply concerned that detention plays an increasingly significant part of the asylum system in the UK, whether in the case of the Detained Fast Track or the treatment of those who have not been granted refugee status or other types of leave to remain and are facing removal. According to the Refugee Council’s analysis, ‘roughly half of those who claim asylum will be detained at some point during, or at the end of, the asylum process’369.Growing scale of detention of asylum seekers and detention costs

7. The table below shows the number and breakdown of people entering detention since 2009. Consistently, about half of these people are asylum detainees. The number of asylum seekers who enter detention through the Detained Fast Track constituted just below a fifth of the total number of asylum detainees who entered detention in 2010 and 2011370.

THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE ENTERING DETENTION 371

	Total	Asylum-seekers	Children
2009	28,001	15,780 (56%)	1,119
2010	25,904	12,878 (50%)	436
2011	27,089	12,596 (46%)	127 (34 in Cedars)
2012	28,909	13,161 (46%)	222 (121 in Cedars)

8. In 2012, a total of 28,909 people entered detention in 2012, the highest since the Coalition Government came into power in May 2010. Although the number of children detained and the length of their detention have declined since 2010, this has had little impact on the overall scale of detention.

9. In fact, the scale of detention has more than doubled over the last ten years. At the end of 2002 (on 28 Dec 2002), there were 1,145 people detained of which 795 (69%) were asylum detainees372. Ten years later at the end of 2012, there were 2,685 people detained, of which 1,676 (62%) were asylum detainees373.

10. This extensive use of detention has huge financial implications, although this aspect of detention rarely receives public scrutiny. According to its annual report and accounts, UKBA spent £186m on detention and removal costs in 2011/12374. In the previous year 2010/11, UKBA spent approximately £206m on detention and removal costs, of which £159 million (77%) was spent on detention375. According to one calculation, ‘detaining one individual is £80.57 per day or £29,408.05 per year more expensive than supporting them in the community’376. An independent economic analysis of long-term detention found that £377 million could be saved over a 5-year period if those who have no prospect of being removed from the UK are not detained in the first place377. Global research both by International Detention Coalition378 and UNHCR379 conclude that community-based support is far cheaper than detention.

11. Another cost dimension of immigration detention is the legal costs and the compensation that the UKBA must pay for unlawful detention cases. The figure for 2008–09 was £3 million, increasing to £12 million in 2009–10380. In a written answer, the previous Immigration Minister stated on 26 June 2012 that UKBA is unable to provide centralised information on the number of compensation claims for wrongful detention made and granted for 2011–12381 and other periods. This makes it impossible to monitor the expenditure which arises out court cases relating to wrong detention decision-making. However, in its 2011–12 annual accounts and reports, UKBA were able to provide a contingent liability figure for unlawful detention costs to be £5.7 million382.

Routine use of detention in the asylum system

12. Statistical evidence does not appear to demonstrate that UKBA is adhering to its own policy regarding the use of detention, which states ‘detention must be used sparingly, and for the shortest period necessary’383. As the table below shows, between 2010 and 2012, 35%—39% of people who entered detention were released back into the community, their detention serving no purpose384. In fact, this proportion has been rising over the last three years, indicating more routine, not sparing, use of detention where removal is not possible.

THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE LEAVING DETENTION AND REASONS385

	Total detainees	Removed from the UK	Granted leave to enter/remain, temporary admission/release or bailed	Other
2010	25,959	16,577 (64%)	9,082 (35%)	300 (1%)
2011	27,181	16,836 (62%)	10,083 (37%)	262 (1%)
2012	28,538	17,243 (60%)	11,062 (39%)	233 (1%)

13. When outcomes of detention of asylum detainees and non-asylum detainees are compared, it shows that asylum detainees are more likely to experience detention which does not lead to removal. In 2012, more than half of asylum detainees (56%) were not removed from the UK but were released back into the community, while the figure was 24% for the non-asylum detainees.

THE NUMBER OF ASYLUM DETAINEES LEAVING DETENTION AND REASONS386

	Total detainees	Removed from the UK	Granted leave to enter/remain, temporary admission/release or bailed	Other
2010	13,064	6,849 (53%)	6,070 (46%)	145 (1%)
2011	12,803	6,309 (49%)	6,370 (50%)	124 (1%)
2012	13,361	5,797 (43%)	7,464 (56%)	100 (1%)

THE NUMBER OF NON-ASYLUM DETAINEES LEAVING DETENTION AND REASONS387

	Total detainees	Removed from the UK	Granted leave to enter/remain, temporary admission/release or bailed	Other
2010	12,895	9,728 (75%)	3,012 (23%)	155 (1%)
2011	14,378	10,527 (73%)	3,713 (26%)	138 (1%)
2012	15,177	11,466 (75%)	3,598 (24%)	133 (1%)

Lack of time lim it on detention

14. The Detention Forum is particularly concerned that there is no time limit to immigration detention in the UK. This contrasts with the UN Refugee Agency’s Detention Guideline 6 which states that ‘(i)ndefinite detention is arbitrary and maximum limits on detention should be established in law’388. The EU Returns Directive, which the UK has not opted into, sets a maximum time limit of 18 months. European examples show that the upper limit in France is 42 days while it is 60 days in Spain389. While detention of terrorist suspects is limited to 14 days in the UK, the topic which continues to prompt parliamentary debate, asylum seekers who are detained face the prospect of protracted, indefinite, detention. This includes those who are routed into the Detained Fast Track.

15. The Joint Committee of Human Rights recommended in 2007 ‘where detention is considered unavoidable to facilitate the removal of asylum seekers who are at the end of the process, subject to judicial oversight the maximum period of detention should be 28 days’390. The Committee was of the view that 28 days would provide sufficient time to make removal arrangements. However, a snapshot picture on 31 Dec 2012 shows that over 68% of people who were in detention were detained longer than 29 days. Of 2,685 people who were in detention on 31 December 2012391, 68% (1832) were in detention longer than 29 days, 31% (822) were in detention longer than 3 months, 14% (375) were in detention longer than 6 months and 5% (134) had been in detention longer than one year.

16. Although people detained under the 1971 Immigration Act have the right to seek bail, the length of detention is seldom considered when deciding whether to grant bail or not. Observation of 50 bail hearings where the applicant had been held in detention for three or more months, and for which the observers were able to record this item of information, the judge mentioned length of detention in only 10 of them392. In fact, while the 2011/12 Guidance states that three months detention is ‘substantial’ and six months ‘a long period’ this was seldom referred to by the judges393. Bail hearings are, therefore, not necessarily acting as an effective mechanism to keep the length of detention in check. Moreover, although access to legal representation improved chances of success of being granted bail from 13% to 37%394, many experience problems obtaining legal advice and representation.

17. The Detention Forum’s Judicial Oversight Working Group believes that there should be a transparent, accountable and accessible system of judicial oversight of detention. One area which seems to epitomise what is wrong with this entire system is immigration bail hearings. Bail decision making can be inappropriate, inconsistent and unclear. As a first step, the Detention Forum’s Judicial Oversight Working Group proposes that there should be a complete record kept of proceedings in all immigration bail hearings. The record should be available to appropriate parties including the applicant and his/her representatives. Immigration judges’ ‘reasons for refusal’ should be typewritten, so that the applicant and his/her representative are able to read them without difficulty, especially considering that the first language of most applicants is not English.

18. Dover Detainee Visitor Group has provided a case study which illustrates the difficulties of securing bail by asylum seekers. ‘The client was an Iranian man who had been detained on arrival in the UK for the use of a false document. He was prosecuted and convicted despite having used the document to enter the country for the purpose of claiming asylum—a statutory defence. Whilst in prison, the client’s claim for asylum was considered and refused. He had no access to a lawyer in respect of his immigration matters and never exercised his right of appeal through a lack of knowledge and his lack of English. Given the length of his sentence he was also subject to deportation. After his sentence was served he spent six months in immigration detention. He saw all three of the DDA surgery providers and none of them took on his case due to a perceived lack of merit. He made several bail applications where he represented himself—all of which were unsuccessful. UKBA maintained that his removal was imminent, however, removal was always extremely unlikely given the lack of diplomatic relations with Iran and the impossibility of documenting Iranian nationals. Our Legal Advice Project ascertained that the client was a victim of torture, suffered from PTSD and that his asylum claim did not take into account many highly relevant factors. A fresh claim was prepared and submitted which led to the the client eventually being released from detention. His fresh claim for asylum is currently under consideration.’

19. One study shows that if deportation does not happen after one year of detention, it is unlikely that it will happen as a result of continuing detention. 57% of the 167 long-term detention cases monitored after several years resulted in release395. This prolonged detention could lead to unlawful detention where people are detained even when there is no realistic prospect of removal within a reasonable period.

20. In absence of a time limit on detention, both national and international monitoring bodies have expressed concern about increasing number of long term detention cases and indefinite detention. However, the UKBA has made no concrete commitment to address this issue. For example, the issue was raised when the European Committee of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) visited Harmondsworth Immigration Removal Centre in 2008396. HM Inspectorate of Prisons, who regularly inspects Immigration Removal Centres, has expressed concern at long-term detention cases, most recently in the joint inspection report with the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration.

21. The recent joint inspection report by HMI Prisons and the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, published in December 2012, makes the radical recommendation that an independent panel should be set up to review long-term detention cases and make recommendations for release. This in effect implies that the Inspectors doubt the ability of UKBA to make decisions on long-term detention. The Inspectors also explicitly comment that ‘it is questionable whether the length of detention in some cases was necessary or proportionate to the legitimate aim of maintaining immigration control’397. They note that such an independent panel ‘would motivate change in the system, and ensure that some of the shortcomings that we have identified here are addressed.’398.

22. UK’s practice of indefinite detention was also highlighted at the Universal Periodic Review of the UN Human Rights Council last year. In the Draft report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review399, the state representatives from Chile, Honduras, Ecuador and Mexico recommend that the UK Government takes actions against indefinite detention of migrants. Mexico for instance recommends that the UK should, ‘(i)n line with the British Government commitment to the universality of human rights, prohibit the indefinite detention of migrants, seek alternatives to their detention and ensure that such detention is for the shortest possible duration’. While the UK government responded by saying that the recommendation enjoys its partial support, it stops short of committing itself to taking specific actions400.

23. Stateless persons and unreturnable persons401 are disproportionately impacted by the failure of the UK to impose a maximum time limit on detention. The routine detention of such persons, despite the lack of a reasonable likelihood of removal is discriminatory and has a significant human impact. UNHCR/Asylum Aid’s study on statelessness found that one third of the stateless and “unreturnable” research participants had spent time in detention under immigration powers. The amount of time ranged from three days to five years.402 The Equal Rights Trust Guidelines to Protect Stateless Persons from arbitrary Detention which are a reflection of international legal standards and good practices, states that there should be a presumption against detention of stateless persons,403 that alternatives to detention should be first imposed,404 that in exceptional instances where immigration detention is resorted to, it should be for the shortest possible time and there should be a reasonable maximum time limit,405 and detention should be subject to automatic, regular and periodic review throughout the period of detention.406 The UK recently adopted a statelessness determination procedure,407 and it is premature to assess if this will have any positive impact in ensuring that stateless persons are not detained, and those already in detention are released after being recognised as stateless.

Routine detention of vulnerable asylum seekers

24. The Detention Forum is concerned that people who have a range of severe vulnerabilities, such as unaccompanied children under 18, the elderly, pregnant women, those suffering from serious medical conditions and mental illness, victims of torture, those with serious disabilities and victims of trafficking, are regularly detained, despite UKBA’s own policy408 which should act as a safeguard. We are aware that the said policy is qualified, and UKBA’s detention decision-making takes into consideration risk of absconding and offending as well as the detention estate’s ability to satisfactorily manage these vulnerabilities. Nevertheless, the Detention Forum is of the view that the current policy is unworkable because, on the ground, detention of vulnerable people is certainly not ‘exceptional’.

25. The scale of vulnerable people in detention remains unknown, as UKBA does not collect relevant information about the profile of the detained population. This makes it impossible to ascertain whether detention of vulnerable people is in fact exceptional, as UKBA says it should be. For instance, in his written answer to a parliamentary question on 14 February 2013, the Immigration Minister admits that UKBA does not know how many people detained suffer from a mental health illness409 and previously on 25 June 2012 it was also revealed that UKBA has no intention of collating such information centrally410. Likewise, there is no centralised information on the number of asylum seekers routed into the Detained Fast Track who were found to be victims of trafficking or torture411, nor the number of pregnant women in detention412.

26. In The Work of the UK Border Agency (April-June 2012)413, the Home Affairs Committee has already noted the treatment of people with mental health illnesses in Harmondsworth Immigration Removal Centre and the four High Court cases where UKBA’s detention of mentally ill individuals was found to have breached their human rights, as well as the controversy surrounding Rule 35. In addition, the Equality and Human Rights Commission identified immigration procedures and detention as one of its top ten human rights issues facing the UK today, particularly in the way that procedures assess vulnerable people who are survivors or torture and with serious mental health problems414. We merely wish to note that while these issues are not identified as asylum issues, they do have an impact on the treatment of asylum seekers pre- and post-decision. We urge the Committee to continue to pursue these issues.

27. The following section provides case studies of other vulnerable individuals who are detained despite UKBA’s policy. Many of these case studies feature individuals who had traumatic experiences in their countries of origin or en route to the UK.

28. Gatwick Detainee Welfare Group provided two case studies of young vulnerable men who were held in Brook House Immigration Removal Centre. It is of great concern that both of them were held in the segregation unit in what appears to be an attempt to manage their vulnerabilities. In the first case, the man, J, was an asylum seeker from a Middle Eastern country going through a serious civil unrest. J is of a minority tribe, and was imprisoned and tortured as a result of disobeying a military order to attack civilians. When the Group learned of his existence, he was in the segregation unit, was self-harming and later went on hunger strike. The visitor described what she saw when she met him: ‘This was a man of just 21 covered in the marks of torture and of self harm with dressings covering the slashes on his arms and wrists. He cried for much of the visit and repeated over and over that he would die before he returned to (his country of origin)’. J was eventually released from detention.

29. Gatwick Detainee Welfare Group supported a second young man, who was later assessed as having a developmental disability. K was an unaccompanied asylum seeking child who turned 18 and was detained in Brook House Immigration Removal Centre, and was referred to the group by the centre’s chaplain. By the time the group’s visitor met him, K had been detained in the segregation unit for six weeks and was unkempt. He was keen to talk but getting any concise information about his background in order to assist him was difficult. After he was referred to an immigration solicitor, a psychologist’s report was commissioned which showed that K had a mental age of a young child. He was released after several months in detention and was eventually allocated a social worker and given housing by the local authority. K was however detained again for three months after having spent six months in the community. His immigration case is ongoing.

30. Refugee Council has shared a case study of an asylum seeking child who was detained with adults for weeks. ‘Kabir has fled from Iran where he had lived with his mother after his father had been killed and his brother imprisoned for opposing the political regime. He arrived in the UK aged 15 having travelled here in a lorry. The police discovered him and asked the local authority to come into the police station and assess his age. The social worker who saw Kabir believed him to be over 18 and he was kept in a police cell for four days before being transferred to an Immigration Removal Centre. This experience was very difficult for Kabir; for two days he was unable to communicate with anyone as there was no-one from his country to help him and he had only been in the country a few days so could speak no English at all. He was there nearly four weeks before someone alerted the Refugee Council. As soon as he met Kabir, the Refugee Council Adviser was very concerned that the social worker had been mistaken and wrote to the local authority to ask them to reconsider their decision. They agreed to conduct a further assessment and Kabir was assessed to be only 16 years old, which led to his release into the care of the local authority. However, Kabir still suffers from mental health difficulties as a result of his detention in the police station and in the removal centre. The psychiatrist who assessed him stated that the six weeks he was locked up, when he felt abandoned and terrified about his future, were the cause of his current disorder, particularly because he was not able to mix with anyone of his own age.’

31. Another case study from Refugee Council illustrates again how vulnerable children were detained. ‘The Refugee Council received a referral regarding three Afghan boys in an Immigration Removal Centre, claiming to be 14. By the time an Adviser was able to visit, one of them had already been moved to another Immigration Removal Centre. The Adviser met the remaining two, Kaiyan and Mohamed, and was very worried that they appeared to be children. They talked to the Adviser about the traumatic experiences they fled from in their country, and what had happened since. They had to share a room with adults and were extremely worried and vulnerable. After the Refugee Council Adviser left the Immigration Removal Centre, the UKBA officers released the boys into the community, making no attempt to contact the local authority to protect and care for them. Mohamed called his brother in law who lived nearby, and who came to collect him. He has since visited the Refugee Council with his brother-in-law for advice on accessing legal support. Kaiyan approached a stranger on the street, who took him to stay with him at his home as he wanted to help him. They contacted a law centre, who were able to help him with his asylum claim. He was also referred to the local authority and assessed to be a child. He now lives in foster care and is being looked after as he should have been from the start. The experience of detention could have been avoided. The third boy has now been released and is being supported in the area close to the Immigration Removal Centre that he was moved to.’

32. Refugee Council recommends that immigration officials should not make a judgement on a young person’s age, and that this should be done by a local authority trained in age assessments. There should be stronger guidance on this for Home Office staff, and if there is any doubt about a young person’s age, the decision to detain should not be made415. Cases like the above are not isolated incidents: Refugee Council states that they worked with 24 children who were wrongly detained as adults in 2012, and with nine children in the first three months of 2013 who have subsequently been released from detention. It is regrettable that these children continue to find themselves in detention, despite the Coalition Government’s pledge to end detention of children.

33. Poppy Project’s Detention & Prisons Anti-Trafficking Advocate has provided the following case study of a young trafficked victim who was detained while pregnant. ‘Hanna was only 17 when I first met her and had been trafficked when she was 9 or 10 years old from Sudan. She was then trafficked again at 16 years of age—her entire life marked by violence. Hanna’s traffickers gave her a passport stating that she was much older than she was; which sadly meant that once she escaped from them, she was detained at Yarl’s Wood Detention Centre—as an adult. Hanna was brought to our attention by a solicitor and I went a couple of days later to assess her. It was immediately evident that not only was Hanna a very young and fragile looking 17 year old, she was also pregnant—as a result of being raped by her traffickers. Hanna was facing almost immediate removal from the UK and was so traumatised that she found it almost impossible to talk about her experience of trafficking. Through intense advocacy, the Poppy Project was able to stop Hanna’s removal directions, obtain her release to safe accommodation and get her recognised as a minor. The Poppy Project has continued to support Hanna and she has been referred through the National Referral Mechanism (the official process to identify and protect victims of trafficking in the UK) and has claimed asylum. Hanna gave birth a couple of months after her release from Yarl’s Wood and although she still has much to overcome, she is doing so in a supportive environment where she is safe and her needs are being met.’

34. Detention Action primarily supports people detained at Harmondsworth and Colnbrook Immigration Removal Centres near Heathrow Airport. Detention Action regularly supports individuals with very severe vulnerabilities, including diagnosed mental health conditions. They have provided a case study of the long-term detention of an individual with mental health problems: ‘Mr B. has been detained for almost two years, despite being diagnosed with severe depression and PTSD. He was sexually exploited and tortured as a child during the civil war in his country of origin, before being trafficked to the UK. He was detained after committing a minor documents offence. His wife and child visited him every week in detention until he was transferred to another centre that was too far away. In two years no progress has been made in obtaining an emergency travel document, as his country of origin rarely grants travel documents and Mr B. left when he was a child.’

35. Yarl’s Wood Befrienders states that they regularly encounter pregnant women detained in Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre in Bedford, including those in the late stages of pregnancy. This is despite the fact that UKBA’s policy states that pregnant women should not be detained except “where removal is imminent and medical advice does not suggest confinement before the due removal date, or, for pregnant women of less than 24 weeks gestation, at Yarl’s Wood as part of a fast track asylum process.”416.

36. Yarl’s Wood Befrienders’ case files show that the group supported a total of 17 pregnant women in 2011 and 2012. Out of these 17 women, five were detained longer than three months, including one who was detained for eight months. In most cases, their detention did not lead to removal from the UK: 12 were released back into the community while one still remains in the detention centre. Her Majesty’s Inspector of Prisons’ report of Yarl’s Wood in 2011 states that when the files of the five pregnant women (out of the seven who were in detention at the time of their inspection) were examined, only one of them noted the detainee’s pregnancy417. The group has observed how stress of detention affects the well-being of the mothers and their mental health, particularly when they have been separated from their partners.

37. One of the case studies of detained pregnant women provided by Yarl’s Wood Befrienders concerns a possible victim of trafficking. ‘N, who told the Befrienders how she had been brought into the UK aged 15 to work in domestic servitude, was eight weeks pregnant when she was detained. She was experiencing intermittent bleeding from an early stage in her pregnancy and had already suffered a miscarriage. She was prescribed inappropriate anti-malarial prophylaxis. Removal directions were cancelled by a judicial review yet her detention was maintained for another three months, despite there being no imminent prospect of removal. During this time she was very anxious and, due to her detention, had no choice as to when or what she would eat. As a result, she was forced to eat food she did not like and at times when she did not feel hungry. In the 20th week of her pregnancy, N lost her baby. She gave birth to her still-born son in a hospital without friends or supporters around her, with an escort present for much of the labour. N made a suicide attempt after the birth and was transferred to a mental health unit before being released from detention four days later.’

38. Another vulnerable group is LGBTI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex) asylum seekers, who often find themselves in the Detained Fast Track418. Proving their sexual or gender identity, which will form the core part of the claim, is complex, particularly when they are likely to have experienced sexual and other violence and persecution precisely because of their identity and feel shame. The asylum determination timeframe within the Detained Fast Track prevents LGBTI asylum seekers from having the necessary time and support to be able to prepare their cases. This is corroborated by Yarl’s Wood Befrienders, who regularly support a significant number of women on the Detained Fast Track whose asylum claims are based on persecution on grounds of gender identity and sexual orientation. Their experience shows that these women feel able to disclose their traumatic experiences, such as rape, only weeks after trust has been built with their visitors419.

39. LGBTI asylum seekers are commonly survivors of sexual assault, rape or genital mutilation. Detention can trigger secondary trauma, particularly where previous persecution included some form of incarceration. Their identity also exposes them to risks of physical and verbal harassment in detention. UK Lesbian and Gay Immigration Group notes that ‘trans and intersex asylum seekers have additional vulnerabilities that make them totally unsuitable for detention. There is the issue of where trans and intersex asylum seekers can be detained if they identify as female but are perceived as male, or the reverse. Currently trans people held in detention are kept separately from other detainees for their own safety and therefore have very limited access, if any, to the facilities available to other detainees.’

Detained Fast Track

40. The Detained Fast Track (DFT) asylum process has expanded greatly in scope and in size since its introduction in 2000. Many more asylum-seekers are now detained, in worse conditions, with tighter timescales, than was ever initially intended.

41. Due to inadequate screening, vulnerable people and those with complex cases, including victims of torture, trafficking, gender-based violence and persecution because of their sexuality, are regularly detained on the DFT. It is simply not possible to accurately determine if someone is vulnerable or if their case is complex within the limitations of the screening process. The screening process is designed only to gather basic information about an asylum-seeker, not the details of their case. It is not appropriate to ask more in-depth questions before an asylum-seeker has had access to legal advice. It is very difficult for people to disclose torture or other trauma, and sufficient time to build trust is vital. Even when people do disclose torture or ill-treatment at screening or afterwards, their cases are often still routed onto the DFT.

42. Detention Action has provided a case study of a torture survivor with serious mental health problems, who experienced long-term detention having been routed into the DFT. ‘P. was detained for six months after he was inappropriately routed onto the Detained Fast Track asylum process. He is a torture survivor who has been diagnosed with severe depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. A Rule 35 report was issued after he had been detained for four months, which noted that he has PTSD. After five months of detention he began to self-harm. He was only released after a series of psychiatric reports had been obtained. His claim for unlawful detention is pending.’

43. The fast pace of the DFT prevents asylum-seekers from accessing the advice and evidence needed to properly present their case, calling into question their access to justice. With little information accessible, asylum-seekers struggle to understand why they have been detained or how the process operates, adding significantly to the stress and disorientation caused by their detention.

44. In contrast to the former Oakington Fast Track process, asylum-seekers on DFT in Harmondsworth are frequently held in conditions equivalent to a Category B prison. Many face unnecessary detention of two to three weeks, without access to legal advice and with little understanding of the reasons for their detention, while they wait for the UKBA to initiate the DFT process.

Final remarks

45. The Detention Forum believes that UKBA must take steps to reduce the use of detention significantly, as it is expensive and harmful. Instead, a more humane and accountable system needs to be developed that allows asylum seekers to live and be provided with necessary support and advice in the community from the day they claim asylum to the day they are granted refugee status or other types of leave, or they depart the UK because they have been found not to have protection needs. While detention continues to play such a significant role, the UK’s asylum system cannot be said to be fair or effective because of its human and financial costs. Globally, there have been various initiatives to develop alternative ways to manage asylum seekers in the community while avoiding reliance on the use of detention. As mentioned earlier, global research by both UNHCR and International Detention Coalition call for the development of alternatives to detention.

46. The Detention Forum recommends that detention-related expenditure, administration and policy be reviewed systematically. Such a review should enable UKBA to introduce changes which ensure that detention is indeed only used sparingly and for the shortest possible time, in line with their own policy. A call for ‘an independent root and branch review of the detention of asylum seekers’ was made by the Independent Asylum Commission in 2008420. To date, there has been no such review of detention in the UK.

APPENDIX 1

The Detention Forum submission—the list of signatories who are Detention Forum members

African Health Policy Network

Association of Visitors to Immigration Detainees (AVID)

Asylum Welcome

Bail Observation Project

Barbed Wire Britain

Campaign to Close Campsfield

Coalition Against Bullington Immigration Removal Centre

Detention Action

Equal Rights Trust

Gatwick Detainee Welfare Group

Jesuits Refugee Service UK

Migrants Rights Network

Migrant Voice

Poppy Project

Quaker Asylum Refugee Network

Refugee Council

René Cassin

Student Action for Refugees (STAR)

Scottish Detainee Visitors

UK Lesbian and Gay Immigration Group (UKLGIG)

Yarls Wood Befrienders

The Detention Forum

April 2013

©Parliamentary copyright

Prepared 11th October 2013