CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH FAMILIES ARE TAKEN
INTO DETENTION
313. The evidence presented to us has raised issues about the
circumstances in which families are taken into detention and the
fact that families are shocked and distressed by the arrival of
uniformed staff in the early hours of the morning. It has been
suggested that IND does not follow its own guidance when taking
families into detention and that families are often not given
an opportunity to gather important possessions, documents, medication
and basic childcare equipment. We have also received evidence
about the fact that children are carried in vans for long distances
and if a child needs the toilet or is sick, the van can only stop
at authorised secure stops. For example the authorised stopover
between Gatwick and Dungavel is Manchester Airport.[367]
314. The practice of arresting people in the early hours of the
morning when they cannot contact legal representatives and are
unprepared for arrest has been condemned by High Court judges
but there is evidence that it still continues.[368]
We have heard evidence that asylum seeking families are often
removed from their homes and detained in the early hours of the
morning with little or no advance warning and their children are
unable to say goodbye to friends and may be removed from school
shortly before sitting their exams.
315. The Children's Commissioner told us that 'typically families
are given no warning of their imminent arrest and removal to detention
prior to removal from the UK' and provided an extract from a letter
from a Head Teacher about the effect of removals on the other
children at school:
In school, everything we do, every policy we write, every preparation
we make for inspection is guided by the five outcomes of Every
Child Matters. How can it be so apparent to everyone in school,
including children in S's class old enough to understand what
has happened that 'every child matters' unless he is the son of
an asylum seeker? If every service dealing with children is guided
by these tenets, how can officers of the immigration service act
so patently outside these guidelines? In short, how can a so-called
Western democracy allow a situation in which children simply disappear
from their familiar surroundings only to find themselves within
hours in a detention centre in another part of the country?
[369]
316. The Scottish Refugee Council also expressed
its concern at the way that early morning removals are conducted
(especially those involving children) and 'the disproportionate
use of force by immigration enforcement officers and the impact
that such removals has on the mental and physical well-being of
children'.[370] It
added that 'whilst the guidance to enforcement staff stipulates
that pastoral visits should be undertaken prior to removals taking
place, we are deeply concerned that when they do take place, in
many cases these are perfunctorily carried out as intelligence
gathering exercises to ascertain the best time for immigration
officers to effect removal, rather than to ensure that children's
needs are met.'[371]
317. BID provided us with the example of a woman
and her child who were detained very early on a Sunday morning
and a fax sent to the woman's former solicitor at 8am that day.
This fax contained a refusal letter of a fresh asylum claim lodged
several months previously. This decision had never before been
communicated to either the solicitor or the client. Moreover it
was known to the immigration authorities that the woman was the
sole carer of her partner who suffered from lymphoma, brain seizures
and hemi paresis. In BID's view this amounted to a breach of the
right to be free from inhuman and degrading treatment and the
right to judicial oversight of the detention decision because
legal representatives could not be contacted.
[372]
318. We heard of cases where people who had been
complying fully with IND reporting requirements, were taken into
detention, without warning, after attending for interview and
without the opportunity first to collect any belongings from home.[373]
One woman at Yarl's Wood told us she had been particularly asked
to bring her child with her to the interview. She and the child
were detained there, and taken to Yarl's Wood with no opportunity
to collect from home either her own or her child's clothes and
belongings. During our visit to Yarl's Wood, we spoke to a woman
from Jamaica who had twice been detained at Oakington after attending
interviews at the police station. This policy gives the impression
of requiring people to attend interviews under false pretences
and can create a perverse incentive not to comply with reporting
requirements for fear of immediate detention.
319. The Scottish Refugee Policy Forum listed a number
of concerns about removal methods, stating that 'the system needs
to be made more humane'. It asks that 'immigration staff should
never force children to go with them separately from parents',
adding that 'this happens in Glasgow and we believe is in breach
of right to family life ECHR Article 8 and ICCPR Article 24.'
[374]
320. AVID told us that they had on file three examples
of mothers who were separated from their children during removal
attempts. Their treatment in front of the children by escorts
who were trying to put them on the aircraft caused extreme distress
to the children, who were unable to be comforted due to the separation.
In another two cases, children were not detained but deprived
of breastfeeding mothers, as there would appear to be no policy
on detention of breastfeeding mothers:
A woman, who was married to a British citizen, was
detained without her baby. The Home Office was unaware of the
baby. It was suggested by the Home Office that this was an isolated
incident. However a month later, a second breastfeeding mother
was detained without her child, who she was breastfeeding for
medical reasons…She was detained for two days before being
released. [375]
321. The Home Office has disputed allegations that
families and other vulnerable groups are being targeted for removal
and that unnecessarily heavy handed methods are used:
One of our main priorities is to ensure the safety
and welfare of those we are attempting to remove, particularly
families and other vulnerable groups. Immigration officers will
research the circumstances of each individual family prior to
planning a visit in order to ascertain at what time of day everyone
would usually be present, and whether, for example, members of
the family have any particular health needs. The number of officers
conducting a visit will be risk assessed, taking into account
factors including the size and layout of the property, the number
of persons present and the ages of the family members.
[376]
322. The Immigration Minister and officials assured
us that there were no time limits on how long the process of taking
a family into detention should take but also made it clear that
they were keen to avoid a situation in which neighbours and the
wider community became aware that the family was being taken into
detention and potentially disrupted the process. This, rather
than any official time limit, appears to be the driving force
behind the apparent speed at which raids are conducted.
[377]
323. The Immigration Minister told us that whilst
his own preference was for families to comply with voluntary check-in
arrangements so that there would be no need for them to be forcibly
removed from their homes, efforts to implement such procedures
had been unsuccessful because families had failed to comply with
arrangements:
"My own preference would be that when we organise
voluntary check-in of families and children, people turn up. We
recently organised - in Scotland in fact - voluntary arrangements
for 141 individuals. One of them turned up. Where we have a situation
where individuals like that are so determined to evade the instructions
that they have been given by the immigration service, in accordance
with laws passed by this House, these Houses, that sometimes we
will have to detain people in order to remove them. It costs a
great deal of money to the British taxpayer: it would be nice
if we did not have to do it, it would be nice if people did indeed
check in."[378]
324. The Minister also told us that he considered
that the responsibility for anxiety caused to children lay with
the parents, who had chosen not to comply with removal directions
or to take up the option of voluntary return:
They have pushed away every type of voluntary support
we have offered, support which the IOM says is world leading,
so the parents have left us with no choice. When parents put their
families in that position, then, I am sorry, these immigration
officers are paid by Parliament to do a job and they do it well.
[379]
325. We subsequently received evidence from the Scottish
Refugee Council expressing concerns about the way in which the
arrangements for voluntary self check-in in the Scottish case
to which the Immigration Minister had referred:
"The self check-in initiative he [the Minister]
discusses in no way sought a dignified or sustainable return,
nor did it allay fears of those who were involved about returning
to their country of origin. Nor in actual fact did it target fully-refused
claims, but also included those who had outstanding fresh representations."[380]
326. According to the Scottish Refugee Council, there
was great confusion within the community about the implications
of the self check-in notices issued by the Home Office, particularly
as many of the families concerned had lodged fresh representations
with IND and so believed that their claims were still being given
consideration. In terms of client profile, the "141 individuals"
mentioned by the Minister included families with young children
and a significantly high proportion of single mothers, all of
whom were extremely distressed and fearful. The Scottish Refugee
Council argued that this initiative had been a disaster, not because
"individuals… are so determined to evade the instructions
that they have been given by the immigration service",[381]
but because of a failure of IND to engage effectively and constructively
with key stakeholders to whom asylum seekers turn for advice,
and a failure to engage meaningfully with individuals who remain
fearful of return to their country of origin:
"Making frightened people even more frightened
is simply not an effective (or humane) policy to ensure that individuals
and families who have exhausted their claim for asylum return
to their country of origin."[382]
327. The Minister and his officials did however accept
that there were problems in ensuring that those being removed
were able to be reunited with their possessions and to put their
affairs in order. When we met the welfare officer based at Yarl's
Wood, he told us that around half of his time was spent trying
to retrieve detainees' property, either from another detention
centre, the airport or a home address. He estimated that he was
successful in around 60% of cases, and that it was most difficult
retrieving property from home addresses. The rest of his time
was spent on resolving outstanding practical and financial matters.
Mr Hyde, Director of Enforcement and Removal, told us that he
recognised the problems of ensuring that asylum seekers were able
to be reunited with their property prior to removal:
In relation to the property … I am more than
aware that that is an issue and we have put a lot of things in
place to try to ensure that property goes with the individuals
and certainly I am aware that people have said that property within
our estate needs to be moving with the people as quickly as possible.
My detention managers are more than aware of the need to ensure
safekeeping of property and ensure that the individual detainees
know exactly where that property is. It is an important issue
and it is important to those detainees and it is something that
I hold very strongly with my detention managers.[383]
328. We welcome the Home Office's announcement
that IND is intending to review the way in which family removals
are conducted[384]
but are disappointed that over a year later the review is still
in progress and no changes have yet been proposed or made. We
find the attitude of the Home Office towards families facing removal
troubling. The Government seems at a loss to understand why families
at the end of the asylum process do not simply take the money
made available to them to return 'voluntarily' to their country
of origin. And yet it seems clear that for the families concerned
- many of whom have been effectively made destitute and face losing
their children into the care system - the fears of return are
very real. There is also evidence that many families are not aware
that their case has come to an end until they are arrested early
in the morning at their home address, and that in some cases families
are detained before their case has come to an end, for example,
if a fresh claim has been submitted or there is an outstanding
appeal hearing.
329. We are concerned about the failure of the
Home Office to develop alternatives to detention beyond the relatively
limited use of voluntary check-in arrangements which are unlikely
to be successful without a properly functioning casework model
which can support asylum seekers throughout the process and make
them aware of the different options available to them at different
stages.
330. The detention of asylum seekers - particularly
asylum seeking families - should be undertaken with dignity and
humanity. A pastoral visit should be undertaken in all cases to
ensure that the family's circumstances are fully known to the
officers who will be undertaking the removal itself. People should
have time to collect their belongings, and to sit exams, and journeys
should be as comfortable as possible.
EXCESSIVE USE OF FORCE
331. We have been provided with a large number of
examples where it is believed by those submitting evidence that
asylum seekers have been subjected to excessive use of force whilst
being taken into detention or during an attempt to remove them
from the UK.
332. The Scottish Refugee Policy Forum stated that
'we cannot accept that there is any justification for the restraint
and handcuffing of anyone within the process and that this happens
too often at the moment. We do not believe that it should ever
happen with children and yet sometimes it does with older male
children. It is difficult to believe that proper "risk assessments"
are carried out by IND.' [385]
HMIP stated that during visits to holding facilities at Heathrow,
'we noted that there were many instances of force being used on
reluctant returnees who caused disruption …yet it was rarely
possible to effect removal in such circumstances, as airlines
refused to carry those who were disruptive'. HMIP urged that the
removal process be managed with greater dignity and safety, by
ensuring that detainees were fully informed about what was happening
to them and were able to seek advice.
[386]
333. Amnesty International UK referred to its own
research into detention and stated that some of those interviewed
'made allegations that excessive force was used by the authorities
in attempting to enforce their return. They complained of being
assaulted while being escorted to the airport to be forcibly removed
from the UK' and described one particular case:
One of those interviewed was taken to the airport
to be forcibly returned to his country of origin without any of
his belongings. The flight was cancelled while he was waiting
at the airport. He was booked onto another flight several days
later and this time he resisted being returned without his possessions.
He alleged that he was badly beaten by eight escorts from the
private company employed to carry out the forcible removal. He
complained that he was badly bruised as a result of this assault,
his face was bleeding and he could not stand unaided.[387]
334. BID provided us with a number of specific examples
where it is claimed that violence occurred.[388]
Both BID and Amnesty International expressed concern about the
use of private companies in general and to enforce removal and
have questioned whether these companies are held accountable for
their actions.[389]
The recent disturbance at Campsfield House[390]
was triggered by an early morning removal, illustrating the point
that removals need to be carried out with sensitivity in order
to maintain the welfare of both detainees and staff. During our
visit to Yarl's Wood, we talked to a woman with a child aged seven
months, who had been taken to the airport with no notice and who,
despite her requests, had been given no opportunity to collect
a jumper for the child, change its nappy, or collect baby milk
before being put in the van with the baby. Whilst waiting at the
airport she had no access to washing facilities or facilities
to sterilise the baby's bottles. After waiting all night at the
airport, she had then been returned to Yarl's Wood.
335. During our inquiry one member of the Committee
accompanied an escorted removal of a female detainee from Yarl's
Wood to Heathrow Airport on her way to Uganda. During the removal
the detainee received a telephone call from her solicitor informing
her that a Court Order had been granted to prevent her removal.
The escorts waited for confirmation and the woman, who was calm
and composed throughout, was then returned to detention to await
developments.
336. We understand that removal is a difficult,
sometimes very difficult, process, particularly where asylum seekers
do not, for a wide variety of reasons, wish to return to their
country of origin. We remain concerned by the many reports of
excessive use of force and, in many cases, the lack access to
possessions.
337. HMIP has recommended that proper procedures
should be established to prepare detainees, particularly asylum
seekers, for removal. Such procedures are necessary to ensure
that removals can be conducted properly and with dignity. [391]
338. We are concerned that the drive to meet
performance targets may be leading to unnecessary or poorly planned
removals.
281 Asylum Statistics UK 2005, Home Office,
2006. Back
282 The
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Section 94 (4))
made provision for a list of countries from which asylum or human
rights claims are to be certified as clearly unfounded unless
the claimant is able to satisfy the Secretary of State that their
asylum claim is not clearly unfounded. 17 countries are currently
on the list: Albania, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Ecuador, Ghana
(males only), India, Jamaica, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Nigeria
(males only), Romania, Serbia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Ukraine. Back
283 www.homeoffice.gov.uk,
Asylum figures lowest since 1993. Back
284
Appendix 69. Back
285
Article 5(1)(f) ECHR. Back
286
Saadi v SSHD [2002] UKHL 41 Saadi v United Kingdom,
Grand Chamber Judgment, 11 July 2006, Application No 13229/03. Back
287
ibid. Back
288
ibid. para 45. Back
289
Appendix 30. Back
290
A full list of Inspectorate Reports is available at http://inspectorates.homeoffice.gov.uk/hmiprisons. Back
291
www.homeofffice.gov.uk Asylum factsheet. Back
292
Five Year Strategy for Asylum and Immigration, February
2005, www.homeoffice.gov.uk. Back
293
Appendix 47. Back
294 Appendix
30. Back
295
Appendix 30. Back
296
Appendix 75. Back
297
Appendix 19. Back
298
Appendix 47. Back
299
Appendix 17. Back
300
Appendix 30. Back
301 Appendix
70. Back
302
Q2. Back
303
Appendix 68. Back
304
Appendix 60. Back
305 OEM
section 38.10. Back
306
OEM section 38.9.4. Back
307 Appendix
69. Back
308
ibid. Back
309
Appendix 30. Back
310 www.biduk.org. Back
311
Appendix 70. Back
312
Q533. Back
313
Q534. Back
314
Appendix 56. Back
315
ibid. Back
316
Appendix 56. Back
317
Appendix 30. Back
318
Appendix 57. Back
319
Q151. Back
320
Appendix 57. Back
321
Q450. Back
322
Q552. Back
323
Q528. Back
324
Article 5 ECHR, Article 37 CRC "No child should be arbitrarily
deprived of their liberty. Detention should be a measure of last
resort and detained children should be treated with humanity". Back
325
This policy change has come in the form of revised 'fast track
suitability criteria'. In February 2006, the Home Office added
age disputed applicants to the list of 'claimants unsuitable for
detention fast track' unless their physical appearance or demeanour
very strongly indicates that they are 18 years of age or they
have been formally age assessed by a local authority as being
an adult. The guidance goes on to stress that if there is any
room for doubt, age disputed asylum seekers should not be detained
in fast track. Back
326 Appendix
60. Back
327
Appendix 30. Back
328
Appendix 47. Back
329
Q475. Back
330
Q474. Back
331
Appendix 70. Back
332 Appendix
57. Back
333
Appendix 60. Back
334
Q539. Back
335
Appendix 69. Back
336
Appendix 86. Back
337
Q440. Back
338
Q447. Back
339
Q556. Back
340
Appendix 93. Back
341
Appendix 57. Back
342
Q2. Back
343
Appendix 70. Back
344
Q459, Q460. Back
345
Appendix 69. Back
346
www.biduk.org.uk. Back
347
Appendix 57. Back
348
ibid. Back
349
ibid. Back
350
Appendix 30. Back
351
Appendix 13. Back
352
Appendix 50. Back
353
Appendix 37. Back
354
Appendix 58. Back
355
Appendix 36. Back
356
Appendix 87. Back
357
Appendix 93. Back
358
Appendix 92. Back
359
ibid. Back
360
Article 3 ECHR, Article 12 ICESCR. Back
361
Appendix 57. Back
362
Appendix 60. Back
363
HC Deb 5 July 2005 Cols 225-230. Back
364
Appendix 88. Back
365
Appendix 1. Back
366
Appendix 30. Back
367
Appendix 47. Back
368
Appendix 27, Appendix 60, Appendix 75. Back
369
Appendix 56. Back
370
Appendix 59. Back
371
Appendix 59. Back
372
Appendix 30. Back
373
Appendices 20, 25, 71, 72 and 85. Back
374
Appendix 71. Back
375
Appendix 47. Back
376
Appendix 69. Back
377
Q517-519. Back
378
Q526 Back
379
Q518 Back
380
Appendix 91. Back
381
Q526. Back
382
Appendix 91. Back
383
Q520. Back
384
ibid. Back
385
Appendix 71. Back
386
Appendix 57. Back
387
Appendix 60. Back
388
Appendix 30. Back
389
Appendix 30, Appendix 60. Back
390
On 14 March 2007. Back
391
Appendix 57. Back
