DOCSLIB.ORG

Immigration Detention Reform in the UK: 2009-2019

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Immigration Detention Reform in the UK: 2009-2019 Immigration Detention Reform in the UK: 2009-2019 Jerome Phelps, July 2020 Acknowledgements This paper was written by Jerome Phelps. Grateful thanks to the following stakeholders for their generosity in giving interviews and written input to the draft: Ali McGinley of Association of Visitors to Immigration Detainees, Ayesha Saran of Barrow Cadbury Trust, Eiri Ohtani of the Detention Forum, Gemma Lousley of Women for Refugee Women, Jonathan Ellis of the Detention Forum, Julian Prior of Action Foundation, Lisa Matthews of Right to Remain, Maurice Wren of the Refugee Council, Mishka of Freed Voices, Nina Spataru of Oak Foundation, Ophelia Field, Sam Grant of Liberty, and Tamsin Alger. We are also grateful for the support of the Council of Europe and EPIM, whose support enabled the writing this briefing note. The sole responsibility for the content lies with the International Detention Coalition and the content may not necessarily reflect the positions of the Council of Europe and/or EPIM. Contact International Detention Coalition Website: www.idcoalition.org Follow us on Twitter @idcmonitor Table of contents 1. Executive Summary 1 7. Providing solutions 32 2. Key learning points 3 7.1 Planning for success 32 3. Timeline 6 7.2 Scoping the UK context 33 4. Methodology and limitations 8 7.3 Mainstreaming alternatives 33 5. Background: Indefinite detention in 2009 8 7.4 Piloting alternatives 34 6. The campaign against indefinite detention 10 7.5 Advocacy through doing 35 7.6 Strategic proposals 35 6.1 Launching and framing the campaign 10 7.7 Building support of NGOs 36 6.2 Collective coordination 11 7.8 The Home Office pilots 36 6.3 Clear asks 13 6.4 Addressing government priorities 15 6.5 Collective strategising 16 6.6 Mobilising and organising 17 6.7 Casework-and evidence-based advocacy 19 6.8 Parliamentary strategy 21 6.9 Communications 24 6.10 Strategic litigation 24 6.11 Leadership of experts-by-experience 26 6.12 Public and media scandals 29 6.13 High profile voices 29 Immigration Detention Reform in the UK: 2009-2019 1. Executive Summary Until recently, the UK held more migrants in detention at any one time, parliamentary and media attention. Detention moved from being a for longer periods, than almost any other European State. At the end technical policy issue and a minority concern of the political Left, to of June 2013, over 4,000 migrants were detained in detention centres become a mainstream political issue across the political spectrum. or held in prisons under immigration powers. 4,386 asylum-seekers were detained in 2013 for the asylum process on the Detained Fast This political pressure for reform was initiated and framed by civil Track. Five new detention centres had opened since 2001. The Home society. The narrative of detention in Parliament and the media Office had announced plans to expand the detention estate to hold largely reflects the framing developed by NGOs and disseminated around 5,000 migrants at any one time. through partners and supporters around the UK. Civil society has been largely successful in both putting detention on the agenda and Six years on, the situation has drastically altered. Despite intense setting the narrative for all other actors. For the first time, there is political concern around migration, culminating in the vote to leave now almost universal recognition that detention is problematic, with the European Union, the UK has dramatically reduced its detention the Government ‘committed to going further and faster in reforming estate. At the end of December 2019, a total of 1,637 migrants were immigration detention.’3 It is largely accepted that detention is harmful detained in detention centres and prisons,1 a drop of around 60%. The to mental health, and the Home Office has taken steps to address Detained Fast Track has been suspended since 2015, and there seems the detention of vulnerable people, although without resolving the no prospect of the routine large-scale detention of asylum-seekers issues. There has been sustained cross-party parliamentary and restarting. In July 2019, the Immigration Minister Caroline Nokes media focus on detention, on terms largely set by civil society. The announced that the reduction in detention places ‘is a key aspect of Detention Forum’s asks of a time limit of 28 days and the development the series of reforms the government is making across the detention of alternatives are promoted by a wide range of key stakeholders, from system’, including working with civil society on a series of pilot Parliamentary selected committees to the HM Inspector of Prisons and alternatives to detention.2 Conservative MPs. These changes appear to be the result of sustained political pressure These developments follow sustained and coordinated work of civil for change. Despite the domination of UK politics by Brexit, and society to engage and harmonise a wide range of voices against the associated political demand that the UK ‘take back control’ of detention around clear shared asks. This coordinated strategic its borders, immigration detention increasingly became politically advocacy was based on the strengths of UK civil society and context, problematic in the period, as a result of frequent and highly critical including a strong evidence base derived from NGO casework, a 1 Home Office, ‘National Statistics: How many people are detained or returned?’, 27 February 2020 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/immigration-statistics-year-ending-december-2019/how-many-people-are-detained-or- returned 2 Caroline Nokes, Immigration Minister, ‘Immigration detention reform’, 23 July 2019 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/immigration-detention-reform 3 Ibid 1 Immigration Detention Reform in the UK: 2009-2019 strong and transparent statutory monitoring regime and extensive a large number of voices and stakeholders around detention reform, data provision by the Home Office. In this context, the collaborative and channel a wide range of campaign issues to towards a plausible strategizing of NGOs and community groups in the Detention Forum set of demands at the parliamentary level. The Government’s refusal network was effective in catalysing change. The development of to implement a time limit enabled that pressure to continue and grow. campaign and advocacy strategy with clear demands, widely shared The dramatic reduction of numbers in detention is both a major step across large numbers of organisations, groups and individuals, in itself, and indicates a sustained shift in Home Office culture and instigated growing momentum for change. This meant that a wide decision-making. The long-term potential of these changes could range of activities, including parliamentary lobbying, grassroots potentially be greater than if the Home Office had been forced to mobilising, communications, strategic litigation and constructive accept a time limit. engagement with officials, were mutually reinforcing and further increased pressure for reform. As more authoritative and mainstream This paper aims to capture some of the key learning from the voices began to call for detention reform, including faith leaders, successes of UK anti-detention advocacy. This learning from success doctors, Conservative backbenchers and Government-commissioned is particularly vital at a time when there has been pressure to expand inspectors, the issue became increasingly safe for others to speak out. detention across Europe, and a hugely challenging environment for campaigning against increased detention and enforcement. The The role of people with direct experience of detention was also COVID-19 pandemic has led several European governments to move crucial. Indefinite detention could be normalised when the people and towards emptying their detention estates based on the impossibility communities affected were invisible and unheard. Pressure for change of returns, as well as the health risks of detention. The coming months grew as ‘experts-by-experience’ began to organise and speak out, both and years will be critical in deciding whether the post-pandemic world in detention and after release, using the authority of their personal returns to ever-expanding detention, or whether community-based experience to call for policy change. NGOs were able to create space alternatives can finally become the norm. for experts-by-experience to be heard, while experts-by-experience could personalise the issue to engage audiences who were resistant to The UK detention reform process is a work in progress: far too many professional NGO lobbyists. migrants continue to be detained indefinitely, for too long and at huge cost. Alternatives to detention pilots are still being tested and have Paradoxically, this progress has been achieved without the campaign not yet been mainstreamed in a formal system to support a genuine achieving any of its key asks. The Government continues to refuse minimisation of the use of detention. Yet considerable progress has to implement a time limit, and reforms to the legal and policy been made, in extremely difficult political conditions, with potential framework have been limited. The Home Office has recognised the for a much greater long-term transformation. The learning from this need to address the impact of detention on vulnerable people, yet process could be valuable to inform strategizing for change in other new policies and processes have been problematic. The call to end States and on comparable issues. indefinite detention through a time limit was not unproblematic as a policy proposal, but was effective as a wedge issue that could mobilise 2 Immigration Detention Reform in the UK: 2009-2019 2. Key learning points For advocacy NGOs Understand the different roles and spaces. Have a clear ask. Different spheres of action, including parliamentary, policy, communications and campaigning, influence each other and can Campaigning benefits from a clear and memorable public-facing build momentum. Different actors will have strengths in different slogan (‘end indefinite detention’) and ask (the 28-day time limit) that spheres; coordination can be more effective than each actor trying is easy for audiences to remember, understand and make their own.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Report on Immigration Detention
    House of Commons Home Affairs Committee Immigration detention Fourteenth Report of Session 2017–19 Report, together with formal minutes relating to the report Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 12 March 2019 HC 913 Published on 21 March 2019 by authority of the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee The Home Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Home Office and its associated public bodies. Current membership Rt Hon Yvette Cooper MP (Labour, Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) Chair Rehman Chishti MP (Conservative, Gillingham and Rainham) Sir Christopher Chope MP (Conservative, Christchurch) Stephen Doughty MP (Labour (Co-op), Cardiff South and Penarth) Chris Green MP (Conservative, Bolton West) Kate Green MP (Labour, Stretford and Urmston) Tim Loughton MP (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham) Stuart C. McDonald MP (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) Alex Norris MP (Labour (Co-op), Nottingham North) Douglas Ross MP (Conservative, Moray) John Woodcock MP (Independent, Barrow and Furness) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk. Publications © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2019. This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament Licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/copyright. Committee reports are published on the Committee’s website at www.parliament.uk/homeaffairscom and in print by Order of the House. Evidence relating to this report is published on the inquiry publications page of the Committee’s website.
    [Show full text]
  • Preventive Detention Draft 1
    Volume 14, No. 1 2010 TOURO INTERNATIONAL LAW REVIEW 128 EXTREME MEASURES: DOES THE UNITED STATES NEED PREVENTIVE DETENTION TO COMBAT DOMESTIC TERRORISM? By Diane Webber Preventive detention: “an extreme measure which places the individual wholly under the control of the state, not as a punishment for a proven transgression of the law but rather as a precautionary measure based on a presumption of actual or future criminal conduct…” 1 ABSTRACT This paper deals with preventive detention in the United States, i.e. the detaining of a suspect to prevent a future domestic terrorist offense. Two recent events are examined: the Fort Hood shootings; and a preventive arrest in France, to consider problems in combating terrorist crimes on U.S. soil. The paper demonstrates that U.S. law as it now stands, with some limited exceptions, does not permit detention to forestall an anticipated domestic terrorist crime. After reviewing and evaluating the way in which France, Israel and the United Kingdom use forms of preventive detention to thwart possible terrorist acts, the paper proposes three possible ways to fill this gap in U.S. law, and give the United States the same tools to fight terrorism as the other countries discussed in the paper, within the boundaries of the Constitution. Diane Webber, Solicitor of the Senior Courts of England and Wales, LL.B. University College London, LL.M. Georgetown University, Candidate for SJD Georgetown University expected completion in 2014. I would like to thank Professor David P. Stewart for all his help and guidance, and my family John Webber, Daniel Webber and Katie Hyman for their unwavering support and encouragement.
    [Show full text]
  • Punishment Before Justice: Indefinite Detention in the US
    Physicians for Human Rights Punishment Before Justice: Indefinite Detention in the US June 2011 physiciansforhumanrights.org ABOUT PHYSICIANS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS inside frontPhysicians for Human Rights (PHR) is an independent, non-profit orga- cover nization that uses medical and scientific expertise to investigate human rights violations and advocate for justice, accountability, and the health and dignity of all people. We are supported by the expertise and passion of health professionals and concerned citizens alike. Since 1986, PHR has conducted investigations in more than 40 countries around the world, including Afghanistan, Congo, Rwanda, Sudan, the United States, the former Yugoslavia, and Zimbabwe: 1988 — First to document Iraq’s use of chemical weapons against Kurds 1996 — Exhumed mass graves in the Balkans 1996 — Produced critical forensic evidence of genocide in Rwanda 1997 — Shared the Nobel Peace Prize for the International Campaign to Ban Landmines 2003 — Warned of health and human rights catastrophe prior to the invasion of Iraq 2004 — Documented and analyzed the genocide in Darfur 2005 — Detailed the story of tortured detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay 2010 — Presented the first evidence showing that CIA medical personnel engaged in human experimentation on prisoners in violation of the Nuremberg Code and other provisions ... 2 Arrow Street | Suite 301 Cambridge, MA 02138 USA 1 617 301 4200 1156 15th Street, NW | Suite 1001 Washington, DC 20005 USA 1 202 728 5335 physiciansforhumanrights.org ©2011, Physicians for Human Rights. All rights reserved. Front cover photo: JOSEPH EID/AFP/Getty Images ISBN:1-879707-62-4 Library of Congress Control Number: 2011927978 Bahrain: Medical Neutrality Acknowledgments The lead author for this report is Cara M.
    [Show full text]
  • The Mass Internment of Uyghurs: “We Want to Be Respected As Humans
    The Mass Internment of Uyghurs: “We want to be respected as humans. Is it too much to ask?” TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY.....................................................................................................................................3 BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................................5 The Re-education Campaign Emerges from “De-extremification”……………………………….6 The Scale and Nature of the Current Internment Camp System…………………………………10 Reactions to the Internment Camps…………………………………………………...................17 VOICES OF THE CAMPS ...........................................................................................................19 “Every night I heard crying” .........................................................................................................19 “I am here to break the silence”.....................................................................................................20 “He bashed his head against a wall to try to kill himself”.............................................................23 LEGAL INSTRUMENTS .............................................................................................................38 RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................................................................................41 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................43 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...........................................................................................................43
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED NATIONS WORKING GROUP on ARBITRARY DETENTION In
    PETITION TO: UNITED NATIONS WORKING GROUP ON ARBITRARY DETENTION In the matter of Zayn Al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) Palestinian v. Government of the United States of America Government of the Kingdom of Thailand Government of the Republic of Poland Government of the Kingdom of Morocco Government of the Republic of Lithuania Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan Government of the United Kingdom Submitted by [signature] Helen Duffy international representative of the applicant Human Rights in Practice [address] [phone], [email protected] Submitted: 30.04.2021 Abu Zubaydah v. the United States and 6 others Individual Complaint and Request for Urgent Action under the procedures of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and Name: Zayn Al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) Sex: Male Age: (31 at the time of detention; 50 today) Nationality/Nationalities: Palestinian Address of usual residence: Internment Facility at the US Guantánamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba States against which this complaint is lodged: United States, Afghanistan, Lithuania, Morocco, Poland, Thailand and the United Kingdom. 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 OVERVIEW OF CLAIM ............................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 RELIEF SOUGHT AND URGENT ACTION .....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Uyghur Experiences of Detention in Post-2015 Xinjiang 1
    TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................................2 INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................9 METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................10 MAIN FINDINGS Surveillance and arrests in the XUAR ................................................................................13 Surveillance .......................................................................................................................13 Arrests ...............................................................................................................................15 Detention in the XUAR ........................................................................................................18 The detention environment in the XUAR ............................................................................18 Pre-trial detention facilities versus re-education camps ......................................................20 Treatment in detention facilities ..........................................................................................22 Detention as a site of political indoctrination and cultural cleansing....................................25 Violence in detention facilities ............................................................................................26 Possibilities for information
    [Show full text]
  • Code of Practice, Directions, Regulations, Code of Local Procedures Practice, Local Procedures
    Approved Medical Practitioners Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act, 2003 Training Manual Approved Medical Practitioners Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act, 2003 Training Manual Scottish Executive, Edinburgh 2005 © Crown copyright 2005 ISBN: 0-7559-4485-2 Scottish Executive St Andrew’s House Edinburgh EH1 3DG Produced for the Scottish Executive by Astron B39301 4/05 Published by the Scottish Executive, April, 2005 Further copies are available from Blackwell’s Bookshop 53 South Bridge Edinburgh EH1 1YS The text pages of this document are printed on recycled paper and are 100% recyclable Contents Page 1. Introduction 1 2. Overview & principles 3 Principles 3 Mental disorder 4 Medical treatment 5 3. Short-term detention certificate (STDC) – (section 44) 7 Criteria for issuing an STDC 7 Granting an STDC 7 Revoking and extending an STDC 7 Right of appeal about an STDC 8 4. Compulsory treatment order (CTO) 11 Criteria for issuing a CTO 11 ‘Measures’ authorised through CTOs 11 Mental health reports to support a CTO application 12 CTOs in operation – (section 64) 12 Interim CTO 13 Reviewing the CTO 13 Rights of Appeal 15 Non-compliance with a CTO 15 5. Emergency detention certificate – (section 36) 21 Criteria for granting an EDC 21 Terms of the EDC 21 What is a medical examination? 21 6. Suspension of compulsory measures 25 Suspension of an EDC 25 Suspension of an STDC (Section 53) 25 Revoking suspension of a detention certificate (Section 54) 25 Suspension of CTOs and interim CTOs (Sections 127 and 128) 25 Revoking suspension of a CTO and interim CTO (Section 129) 26 7.
    [Show full text]
  • Silencing Xinjiang: the Chinese Government's Campaign Against
    SILENCING XINJIANG: THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT’S CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE UYGHURS Connor W. Dooley* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 235 II. CHINA’S CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE UYGHURS IN CONTEXT ............ 236 A. History of Xinjiang: Before, Under, and After Mao ............ 236 i. Xinjiang from the Early to Mid-Twentieth Century ........ 237 ii. Xinjiang Under Mao ...................................................... 238 iii. Xinjiang from Deng to Xi ............................................. 239 B. Tensions: Cultural and Political Interests at Play in Xinjiang ........................................................................................... 240 i. Uyghur Interests in Xinjiang .......................................... 240 ii. Beijing’s Agenda for Xinjiang ....................................... 241 iii. Justifying the Campaign ............................................... 243 C. The Campaign Against the Uyghurs ................................... 244 i. A Dragnet Like No Other: The Xinjiang Surveillance State ..................................................................................... 245 ii. Da Fa Meaning “Strike Hard” ..................................... 247 iii. Xinjiang’s Internment Camps ....................................... 248 III. COVENANTS AND COMMUNISM: INTERNATIONAL AND DOMESTIC LAW IN XINJIANG ............................................................................. 250 A. The 1965 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms
    [Show full text]
  • Briefing Scottish Government Debate
    Briefing Scottish Government Debate: Reaffirming Scotland’s Support for Human Rights Defenders 9 December 2019 Introduction The Law Society of Scotland is the professional body for over 12,000 Scottish solicitors. With our overarching objective of leading legal excellence, we strive to excel and to be a world-class professional body, understanding and serving the needs of our members and the public. We set and uphold standards to ensure the provision of excellent legal services and ensure the public can have confidence in Scotland’s solicitor profession. We have a statutory duty to work in the public interest, a duty which we are strongly committed to achieving through our work to promote a strong, varied and effective solicitor profession working in the interests of the public and protecting and promoting the rule of law. We seek to influence the creation of a fairer and more just society through our active engagement with the Scottish and United Kingdom Governments, Parliaments, wider stakeholders and our membership. We warmly welcome the Government-led debate to be held in the Scottish Parliament on International Human Rights Day on 10 December reaffirming Scotland’s support for human rights defenders; and we take the opportunity to draw attention to the important contribution the international legal community makes to this work. Defending human rights at home As the regulatory and representative body of the solicitor profession in Scotland we are proud to have as our members many such defenders who work tirelessly to uphold the rights of the people of Scotland, as well as people who come to Scotland to escape human rights violations in their own country.
    [Show full text]
  • Good Things Come to Those Who Wait? Reconsidering Indeterminate and Indefinite Detention As Tools in U.S
    GOOD THINGS COME TO THOSE WHO WAIT? RECONSIDERING INDETERMINATE AND INDEFINITE DETENTION AS TOOLS IN U.S. IMMIGRATION POLICY MICHAEL S. VASTINE* Introduction Detention of deportable immigrants is a major component of the United States' immigration enforcement policy. Our cultural consciousness is rife with examples of detention practice throughout our history and detention is a part of our immigrant tradition. European immigrants passed through Ellis Island quickly unless a reason, usually health-based, was presented to justify detention. This is so pervasive in our national mythology that even the fictional Vito Corleone of The Godfather movies was quarantined at Ellis Island for three months for smallpox infection. As a parallel model, in the early twentieth century the majority of Asian immigrants were processed and potentially detained at Angel Island in San Francisco Bay.1 In the early 1990s, political instability in Haiti led to a mass exodus of refugees who eventually were housed on the U.S. naval * Michael S. Vastine is Assistant Professor and Director of the Immigration Clinic at St. Thomas University School of Law. 1 See generally Angel Island, State Park, San Francisco, www.angelisland.com/immigration-station/index.php. Angel Island is now a California State Park. The website stated: In 1905, construction of the [Angel Island] U.S. Immigration Station began. It became a detention facility, where Asian (primarily Chinese) immigrants were detained until they could prove they were joining relatives already in the country. The average detention lasted two to three weeks, but many lasted several months. Some people were forced to stay for nearly two years.
    [Show full text]
  • Working Towards Building a Legal Framework for Stateless Individuals in the United States
    Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law Volume 53 Issue 1 Article 13 2021 Ghosts in America: Working Towards Building a Legal Framework for Stateless Individuals in the United States Asako Ejima Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/jil Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Asako Ejima, Ghosts in America: Working Towards Building a Legal Framework for Stateless Individuals in the United States, 53 Case W. Res. J. Int'l L. 357 (2021) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/jil/vol53/iss1/13 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 53 (2021) Ghosts in America: Working Towards Building a Legal Framework for Stateless Individuals in the United States Asako Ejima* Abstract There are “ghosts” living in the United States. These “ghosts” are stateless individuals who have no nationality and live without the protections of any State. These individuals pose an intractable problem for the countries where they live and the international community. While these individuals are not entitled to live in a country under that country’s immigration laws, they cannot be removed from that country because other countries are unwilling to take them. This presents both a political problem for the country where they live and a human problem for the stateless individual.
    [Show full text]
  • Written Evidence Submitted by Scottish Detainee Visitors
    Inquiry into the use of Immigration Detention: written evidence submitted by Scottish Detainee Visitors 1. Executive summary 1.1. SDV recognises and supports the inquiry’s wish to hear the experience of detainees. However, the very fact of detention makes it difficult for their voices to be heard. 1.2. We are concerned about the moving of detainees around the detention estate. This is has a particular impact on detainees in Scotland, due to the differences between the legal systems in Scotland and England. 1.3. Detention has a negative impact on detainees’ mental and physical health. 1.4. Dungavel is a mixed centre but the vast majority of detainees are male. This means female detainees can feel particularly isolated and vulnerable 1.5. Detainees are often detained without their personal belongings. SDV makes efforts to reunite them with their property but this is not always possible and detainees are removed without important personal items. 1.6. Detainees report a range of problems in accessing appropriate health care in detention. 1.7. The geographical isolation of Dungavel makes it even more difficult for detainees held there to maintain their social and legal support networks. 1.8. The lack of a time limit on detention is the cruellest aspect of a cruel system and amplifies all of its negative impacts on detainees. It also encourages and enables inefficiency and poor decision making on the part of the Home Office. 2. About Scottish Detainee Visitors 2.1. Scottish Detainee Visitors is an independent charity providing a visiting service to detainees in Dungavel.
    [Show full text]