DOCSLIB.ORG

IMB National Annual Report for the Immigration Detention Estate

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
IMB National Annual Report for the Immigration Detention Estate IMB National Annual Report for the Immigration Detention Estate 2018 October 2019 Contents Page Foreword 3 Membership and reach 4 Political background and scrutiny 4 Common themes – Immigration Removal Centres 6 Detention without a time limit 6 Length of time in detention 7 Number of detainees released from detention 8 Vulnerable adults in immigration detention 8 Accommodation 10 Drugs/NPS use and violence 11 Healthcare and mental health provision 12 Use of handcuffs on external visits 12 Communications with detainees 13 Detainees’ communication with family and friends 13 Family pre-departure accommodation at Tinsley House, Gatwick 13 Short-term holding facilities – common themes 14 Conditions at short-term holding facilities 14 Length of stay in holding rooms 15 Charter flight monitoring team (CFMT) 16 Appendix – locations monitored 19 2 INDEPENDENT MONITORING BOARDS IN THE IMMIGRATION DETENTION ESTATE ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2018 Foreword The Immigration Detention Estate, or IDE, encompasses a range of different establishments where people are detained by the Home Office for the purposes of immigration enforcement. Whether in a large Immigration Removal Centre, where detainees may be held for many months, or a small holding room at a port or airport, where people stay for a matter of hours, Independent Monitoring Boards or IMBs fulfil a vital role in providing independent oversight of those places of detention. IMB members at airports also monitor the treatment of detainees being removed from the UK, and a small group of monitors even travel on some chartered removal flights. During 2018, the IDE was subject to intense political and parliamentary scrutiny, with two parliamentary committees – the Home Affairs Select Committee, and the Joint Committee on Human Rights – launching inquiries into immigration detention. The IMB gave evidence to both inquiries. The Panorama exposé of ill-treatment of detainees at Brook House in late 2017, and the developing Windrush scandal in 2018, added further intensity to the scrutiny. Against this background, IMB members continued their regular visits to places of immigration detention. As unpaid volunteers, with statutory powers to go anywhere in the establishments, to talk to detainees and staff, and to view the establishment’s records, they have a unique insight into the treatment of detainees and the effect of detention policies. Like their colleagues monitoring in the prison estate, IMBs in the IDE are required to produce an annual report for the Minister, recording their findings and making recommendations for improvements. This report brings together the principal themes from their annual reports for the calendar year 2018, which have been published during 2019. IMBs reported a shift in the IDE during 2018: the numbers detained reduced, and one centre closed permanently; there were improvements in decency and standards of cleanliness and accommodation; and fewer detainees were held for the excessively long periods that have been a matter of huge concern. Despite this, IMBs drew attention in their annual reports to a number of policies and practices that cause concern: including the overarching inhumanity caused by the absence of a legal time limit; the high proportion who were released from IRCs rather than being removed; the detention of vulnerable adults, some with mental health concerns; violence and drug use in some of the male centres; and the inappropriate use of restraint by escorts. Dame Anne Owers Jane Leech National Chair IMB Management Board Independent Monitoring Boards IDE lead October 2019 3 INDEPENDENT MONITORING BOARDS IN THE IMMIGRATION DETENTION ESTATE ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2018 Membership and reach 1. Independent Monitoring Board (IMB) members are unpaid public appointees whose role is to monitor fairness and respect for people in custody. They are members of the National Preventive Mechanism under the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT). As at 31 December 2018, there were 99 IMB members working in the immigration detention estate (IDE), which includes immigration removal centres (IRCs), short-term holding facilities (STHFs) and pre-departure accommodation. In 2018 these monitors made approximately 2,000 unannounced visits to places of immigration detention. The locations covered are listed in the Appendix to this report. In addition, the charter flight monitoring team (CFMT), drawn from IDE and prison IMB members, observed the escorting of detainees from IRCs to the departure airport and on their removal flights. The CFMT monitored eight flights in 2018, to the destinations listed in the Appendix. A Board is also in place to monitor the Gatwick pre-departure accommodation. 2. Each IMB is required to report annually to the Minister on how far the establishment in question is meeting required standards on conditions and treatment. Those individual reports are published on www.imb.org.uk. This report brings together the common themes and issues highlighted in IMB reports across the IDE. Political background and scrutiny 3. Immigration detention was the subject of an unprecedented level of parliamentary and political scrutiny during 2018. This was made more urgent by two factors: the Panorama exposé of the ill-treatment of detainees at Brook House IRC in September 2017, and the Windrush scandal. 4. Two parliamentary committees – the Home Affairs Select Committee, and the Joint Committee on Human Rights – held inquiries into immigration detention during 2018 and the IMB provided evidence to both. We drew the attention of the Home Affairs Select Committee to evidence in our 2017 Annual Reports about the following areas of concern: • The damaging effect of indeterminate and in some cases lengthy, periods of detention on the well-being and mental health of detainees. • The fact that 14 women detained at Yarl’s Wood, and 12 men detained at Brook House, were sectioned under the Mental Health Act during the course of 2017. 4 • The use of separation units to house vulnerable detainees suffering from mental illness. • The fact that the majority of detainees were released from detention, usually on immigration bail, rather than being removed from the country, raising questions about the necessity of detention. • In some IRCs, concerning levels of drug use and violence. • In some IRCs, overcrowding and unacceptable living conditions, caused largely by inadequate and delayed maintenance. • From IMB members monitoring charter flights, serious concerns about the use of restraint on those being removed from the United Kingdom. 5. The Joint Committee on Human Rights sought evidence on specific questions about the current system of immigration detention and whether it was protective of human rights. In our written submission we drew the Committee’s attention to a lack of judicial oversight of decisions to detain; to lengthy periods of detention and the absence of a time limit; to the number of detainees who are released from detention, rather than being removed from the UK; and to shortcomings in the operation of the Adults at Risk policy, designed to reduce the numbers of vulnerable people held in immigration detention. In our oral evidence, in October 2018, we were pleased to give more colour to our evidence by describing the effect of detention policy on the people we meet in detention. 6. The reports of each of these two Committees were published early in 2019. Both reports echoed concerns raised in our submissions. The Home Affairs Committee was particularly critical, describing the Home Office as displaying “a shockingly cavalier attitude to the deprivation of human liberty and the protection of people’s basic rights”. Both committees recommended independent or judicial oversight of decisions to detain; both were critical of the operation of the Adults at Risk policy – the Home Affairs Select Committee recommending its abolition – and both committees recommended the introduction of a 28-day limit for immigration detention. 7. In July 2018, Stephen Shaw’s second review into the treatment of vulnerable people in immigration detention was published. This was a follow-up report, assessing the government’s progress in implementing the recommendations contained in his highly critical first review, published in January 2016. Amongst the 44 recommendations in this second review were: - that the Home Office should strengthen the promotion of voluntary returns; - that the Home Office should develop a strategic plan for its detention estate, bearing in mind the priority now attached to voluntary returns; - recommendations for the reform of the Adults at Risk policy; 5 - recommendations relating to decency, and the prevention of overcrowding. 8. The then Home Secretary responded with the following commitments: - to conduct an internal review into the operation of time-limits for immigration detention. - to pilot a scheme to manage vulnerable women in the community who would otherwise be detained at Yarl’s Wood. - to continue work to improve the Adults at Risk policy and the rule 35 process. - to pilot an additional bail referral after two months in detention. - to stop the practice of having three detainees in rooms designed for two, and to modernise toilet facilities. - to pilot the use of Skype so that detainees could contact their families overseas. 9. It was against this background of intense scrutiny and shifting policy that IMB members continued with their regular visits, monitoring the effect of policies
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Prison Education in England and Wales. (2Nd Revised Edition)
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 388 842 CE 070 238 AUTHOR Ripley, Paul TITLE Prison Education in England and Wales. (2nd Revised Edition). Mendip Papers MP 022. INSTITUTION Staff Coll., Bristol (England). PUB DATE 93 NOTE 30p. AVAILABLE FROMStaff College, Coombe Lodge, Blagdon, Bristol BS18 6RG, England, United Kingdom (2.50 British pounds). PUB TYPE Information Analyses (070) EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Adult Basic Education; *Correctional Education; *Correctional Institutions; Correctional Rehabilitation; Criminals; *Educational History; Foreign Countries; Postsecondary Education; Prisoners; Prison Libraries; Rehabilitation Programs; Secondary Education; Vocational Rehabilitation IDENTIFIERS *England; *Wales ABSTRACT In response to prison disturbances in England and Wales in the late 1980s, the education program for prisoners was improved and more prisoners were given access to educational services. Although education is a relatively new phenomenon in the English and Welsh penal system, by the 20th century, education had become an integral part of prison life. It served partly as a control mechanism and partly for more altruistic needs. Until 1993 the management and delivery of education and training in prisons was carried out by local education authority staff. Since that time, the education responsibility has been contracted out to organizations such as the Staff College, other universities, and private training organizations. Various policy implications were resolved in order to allow these organizations to provide prison education. Today, prison education programs are probably the most comprehensive of any found in the country. They may range from literacy education to postgraduate study, with students ranging in age from 15 to over 65. The curriculum focuses on social and life skills.
    [Show full text]
  • Planning Committee
    Council Offices, Almada Street Hamilton, ML3 0AA Dear Councillor Planning Committee The Members listed below are requested to attend a meeting of the above Committee to be held as follows:- Date: Tuesday, 29 January 2019 Time: 10:00 Venue: Committee Room 1, Council Offices, Almada Street, Hamilton, ML3 0AA The business to be considered at the meeting is listed overleaf. Members are reminded to bring their fully charged tablets to the meeting Yours sincerely Lindsay Freeland Chief Executive Members Alistair Fulton (Chair), Isobel Dorman (Depute Chair), John Ross (ex officio), Alex Allison, John Bradley, Walter Brogan, Archie Buchanan, Jackie Burns, Stephanie Callaghan, Margaret Cowie, Maureen Devlin, Mary Donnelly, Fiona Dryburgh, Mark Horsham, Ann Le Blond, Martin Lennon, Richard Lockhart, Kenny McCreary, Richard Nelson, Carol Nugent, Graham Scott, David Shearer, Collette Stevenson, Bert Thomson, Jim Wardhaugh, Sheena Wardhaugh Substitutes John Anderson, Janine Calikes, Gerry Convery, Margaret Cooper, Peter Craig, Allan Falconer, Lynsey Hamilton, Catherine McClymont, Colin McGavigan, Mark McGeever, Lynne Nailon, Jared Wark, Josh Wilson 1 BUSINESS 1 Declaration of Interests 2 Minutes of Previous Meeting 5 - 12 Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 4 December 2018 submitted for approval as a correct record. (Copy attached) Item(s) for Decision 3 Application P/18/0479 for a Residential Development of 70 Houses, 13 - 30 Including Access Road, Open Space, Landscaping and Engineering Works (Approval of Matters Specified in Conditions Application for the Discharge of Condition 1 of Planning Consent in Principle EK/15/0078) at Land to North of Eaglesham Road, Jackton, East Kilbride Report dated 17 January 2019 by the Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources).
    [Show full text]
  • Report on an Unannounced Inspection of Dungavel House Immigration Removal Centre by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons 2-5, 9-11, 16
    Report on an unannounced inspection of Dungavel House Immigration Removal Centre by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons 2–5, 9–11, 16–19 July 2018 This inspection was carried out with assistance from colleagues at Health Improvement Scotland and in partnership with the following body: Crown copyright 2018 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected]. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at the address below or: [email protected] This publication is available for download at: http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/ Printed and published by: Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons 3rd floor 10 South Colonnade Canary Wharf London E14 4PU England 2 Dungavel House Immigration Removal Centre Contents Contents Introduction 5 Fact page 7 About this inspection and report 9 Summary 13 Section 1. Safety 21 Section 2. Respect 31 Section 3. Activities 43 Section 4. Preparation for removal and release 47 Section 5. Summary of recommendations and good practice 51 Section 6. Appendices 57 Appendix I: Inspection team 57 Appendix II: Progress on recommendations from the last report 59 Appendix
    [Show full text]
  • United Kingdom Immigration Detention Profile October 2016
    United Kingdom Immigration Detention Profile October 2016 • Introduction • Laws, Policies, Practices • Detention Infrastructure INTRODUCTION The United Kingdom has one of the largest immigration detention systems in Europe, confining up to 4,000 people—including children—in detention every day under Immigration Act powers.1 As of October 2016, the country’s immigration detention estate included nine “immigration removal centres” (IRCs) and a small number of residential immigration detention holding facilities.2 In addition, several hundred people are kept in prisons under Immigration Act powers awaiting deportation after having finished their criminal sentences.3 According to Home Office statistics, during the year ending in March 2016, 32,163 persons entered immigration detention, of whom 32,610 left detention and 2,925 remained in detention (these numbers do not include the 363 people held in the prison system under Immigration Act powers).4 There has been a marked increase in detention 1 The GDP would like to acknowledge the helpful comments it received from several external reviewers of early drafts of this profile. 2 In mid-2016, the government announced that it intended to close one of the nine IRCs (Dungavel) as well as the “pre-departure” family facility at Cedars. 3 For an overview of the UK detention estate, see Mary Bosworth, “Border Criminologies: Assessing the Changing Architecture of Crime and Punishment,” Global Detention Project Working Paper, February 2016, http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/publications/border-criminologies-assessing-changing- architecture-crime-and-punishment. 4 The Home Office explains on its detention statistics page that the figures “relate to the number of people entering, leaving or in detention, solely under Immigration Act powers, at immigration removal centres (IRCs), short-term holding facilities (STHFs) and pre-departure accommodation (PDA).” See Home Office, National Statistics – Detention, updated 3 March 2016, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/immigration-statistics-january-to-march-2016/detention.
    [Show full text]
  • 14/01778/F Campsfield House: Immigration Removal Centre
    Campsfield House: Immigration 14/01778/F Removal Centre, Langford Lane, Kidlington Ward: Kidlington North District Councillor: Cllr Rose Cllr Williamson Case Officer: Paul Ihringer Recommendation: Approval Applicant: The Home Office and Ministry of Justice Application Description: Expansion of existing immigration removal centre to provide additional detainee accommodation, ancillary detainee and staff facilities, car parking, landscaping and internal fencing Committee Referral: Major and Departure from Policy Committee Date: 19th February 2015 1. Site Description and Proposed Development 1.1 Campsfield House is an Immigration Removal Centre (IRC) located on Kidlington’s northern boundary and just to the south of London Oxford Airport. It has functioned as such since 1993 having formerly been used as a youth detention centre. It has been operated by a private sector company, Mitie, since 2011 on behalf of the Home Office (HO) - the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) own the facility. 1.2 The site is accessed via a service road off Langford Lane. The service road is shared with South Central Ambulance Service which runs a resource centre and a HM Prison Service facility (Control and Restraint) which largely screen the IRC from Langford Lane. Another former access to the site is via Evenlode Crescent, a road parallel and to the west of the other access. Evenlode Crescent serves twenty-two residential properties, mainly semi-detached and most of which formerly housed workers at the youth detention centre. These properties are now in private ownership. The Crescent also serves the Cygnet Nursery. 1.3 The application site is located just inside the Oxford Green Belt. This is at odds with most of the rest of Kidlington which, although encircled by it, was excluded when the boundary lines of the Oxford Green Belt were ratified in the mid 1970s.
    [Show full text]
  • May 2013 IMMIGRATION DETENTION and the RULE of LAW
    May 2013 IMMIGRATION DETENTION AND THE RULE OF LAW NATIONAL REPORT: UNITED KINGDOM Alexis Cooke Contents List of Abbreviations ......................................................................................................................... 4 Immigration Detention Statistics ....................................................................................................... 6 The number of people in detention:.............................................................................................. 6 The type of people in detention: ................................................................................................... 6 The average duration of detention: ............................................................................................... 8 The average daily cost of detention per person: ............................................................................ 9 Arbitrariness ..................................................................................................................................... 9 Reasons for Detention .................................................................................................................... 10 Legislation ................................................................................................................................... 10 UKBA policy................................................................................................................................. 11 Commentary ..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Matter of Routine: the Use of Immigration Detention in the UK
    ADVANCE COPY ADVANCE A MATTER OF ROUTINE The use of immigration detention in the UK Amnesty International is a global movement of more than 7 million people who campaign for a world where human rights are enjoyed by all. Our vision is for every person to enjoy all the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards. We are independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion and are funded mainly by our membership and public donations. Contents Executive summary 1 Introduction 4 Chapter 1: From reluctance to routine 9 Chapter 2: The consequences of routine detention 20 Chapter 3: Putting people in detention 28 Chapter 4: Keeping people in detention 35 Conclusion and recommendations 43 Appendix:: The process of detention and release 46 Glossary of terms 48 A matter of routine: the use of immigration detention in the UK Published by Amnesty International United Kingdom Section December 2017 www.amnesty.org.uk/detention EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A matter of routine: the use of immigration detention in the UK In the 12 months from June 2016 to June 2017, the UK put 27,819 people into immigration detention. Few of them would have had any idea when they would leave: there is no statutory time limit on detention. For most, detention ultimately lasts up to a few weeks, but some are held for many months and some for years. Most detainees are ultimately released back into the community. In 2015, a joint inquiry by two All Party Parliamentary Groups (APPG on Refugees and APPG on Migration) found that ‘the UK detains too many people, for too long a time, and that in far too many cases people are detained completely unnecessarily’.
    [Show full text]
  • Independent Monitoring Board Annual Report for Dungavel House Immigration Removal Centre
    Dungavel House Immigration Removal Centre Strathaven, South Lanarkshire. ML10 6RF Tel: 01698 395000 Fax: 01698 395074 Independent Monitoring Board ANNUAL REPORT 2011 CONTENTS 1. Introduction 2. Executive Summary 3. Location and Background 4. Accommodation and Hygiene (Rules 15 and 16) 5. Clothing and Food (Rules 12, 13 and 14) 6. Regime (Rules 17,18 and 19) 7. Religion and Religious Affairs (Rules 20‐25) 8. Communications (Rules 26‐32) 9. Health Care (Rules 33‐37) 10. Requests and Complaints (Rule 38) 11. Safety and Security (Rules 39‐43) 12. Independent Monitoring Board (Part V1, DC Rules) 13. Comments and Recommendations 14. Formal Confirmation 1. Introduction The Annual Report is furnished to the Minister for Immigration by The Independent Monitoring Board of Dungavel House Immigration removal centre in accordance with Rule 64(1) of the Detention Centre Rules 2001, and relates to the state of the Centre and its administration including suggestions and recommendation which members consider appropriate. It covers the period from 01 January 2011 – 31 December 2011. Diagrams and statistics are not included, in the view that they are best supplied by UKBA, should that be necessary. The report is, however, submitted in good faith and without prejudice as the findings of Independent Monitors visiting the Centre on a daily basis, in a voluntary capacity. 2. Executive Summary 1. The most noteworthy matter of interest occurring during the year was the change of appointed contractor on 24 September, when GEO Group UK Ltd, took over the operation and administration of the Centre from G4S Security services, for a contract period of 5 years.
    [Show full text]
  • Immigration Removal Centres in England
    REPORT Immigration Removal Centres in England A mental health needs analysis Dr Graham Durcan, Jessica Stubbs and Dr Jed Boardman Centre for Mental Health Contents Executive summary 3 1 Introduction 6 2 Mental health and detention 8 REPORT 3 Methods 9 4 Description of the IRCs 12 Immigration Removal Centres in England 5 The review findings 14 6 Impact of detention on mental wellbeing 17 7 Services in place across the IRCs 19 8 Good, promising and well received practice 24 9 Challenges 27 10 The Commissioning Specification Template 34 11 Discussion and conclusion 35 12 Recommendations 38 References Appendices Acknowledgements Kate Davies OBE (NHS England), Clare Checksfield (Home Office), Chris Kelly (NHS England), Claire Gipson (Home Office), Nicholas Watkin (NHS England), Angela Hawley (Department of Health), Terry Gibbs (Home Office), Alan Gibson (Home Office), Patricia Cadden (NHS England), Claire Weston (NHS England), Erica Vanklaveren (Home Office), Hong Tan (NHS England), Natalie Pemberton (Department of Health), Anthony Nichols (NHS England), Chris Petch (NHS England), Professor Rosie Meek (Royal Holloway University of London), Gwen Lewis (Royal Holloway University of London), Helen Adam (Dungavel IRC), Elaine Grieve (Campsfield House IRC), Sandra Galver (Gatwick IRCs), Stella Simpson & Victor Igodifo (Heathrow IRCs), Helen Daykin (Morton Hall IRC), Deborah Heaphy (Yarl’s Wood IRC), Dr Hilary Pickles (public health consultant), Dr Cornelius Katona (Helen Bamber Foundation), and Theresa Schleicher (Medical Justice). 2 Centre for Mental Health Executive Summary Between March 2015 and March 2016, over severe reported problems were hallucinations or 30,000 people were held in UK immigration delusions. Most of the detainees we interviewed detention.
    [Show full text]
  • VOICES from DETENTION Because of a Belief That They Will ‘Disappear’ Otherwise
    Barbed Wire Britain: Network to End Refugee and Migrant Introduction Detention Immigration detainees can be asylum seekers who have arrived legally and whose claims are being investigated. They may be detained VOICES FROM DETENTION because of a belief that they will ‘disappear’ otherwise. They can be people who have not arrived legally or who have overstayed their visas. Some are rejected asylum seekers awaiting removal. There are a few people who have criminal convictions and are being deported and there A collection of testimonies are some overlaps between the categories. All are detained on the orders of an immigration officer. from UK immigration detainees Britain currently has around 2000 immigration detainees in a range of in their own words specialist centres now called Reception Centres and Removal Centres. This number is due to double by next year - the government has promised 4000 places in these centres. Despite a promise that no more detainees would be held in prisons after 2001, up to 100 are still there. This is a collection of accounts by detainees in Tinsley House, Most detainees are men, but women and children are also detained on Campsfield House, Rochester (HMP), Liverpool (HMP), Belmarsh some occasions. There is provision for up to 1000 women and children (HMP), Lindholme, Harmondsworth, Yarlswood, Dungavel, Dover and to be detained in Yarlswood, Harmondsworth, Oakington and Dungavel. Haslar. These are people for whom the unthinkable has happened. They have been imprisoned in the UK without charge, without Immigration detainees have the right to apply for bail but this can be conviction, without time limit.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloading Material Is Agreeing to Abide by the Terms of the Repository Licence
    Cronfa - Swansea University Open Access Repository _____________________________________________________________ This is an author produced version of a paper published in : Race & Class Cronfa URL for this paper: http://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa33870 _____________________________________________________________ Paper: Burnett, J. & Chebe, F. (2010). Captive labour: asylum seekers, migrants and employment in UK immigration removal centres. Race & Class, 51(4), 95-103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0306396810363051 _____________________________________________________________ This article is brought to you by Swansea University. Any person downloading material is agreeing to abide by the terms of the repository licence. Authors are personally responsible for adhering to publisher restrictions or conditions. When uploading content they are required to comply with their publisher agreement and the SHERPA RoMEO database to judge whether or not it is copyright safe to add this version of the paper to this repository. http://www.swansea.ac.uk/iss/researchsupport/cronfa-support/ Captive labour: asylum seekers, migrants and employment in UK Immigration Removal Centres Jon Burnett and Fidelis Chebe Throughout New Labour’s period of government there has been a well documented steady rise in the number of people within the immigration and asylum processes being detained. In November 1997, the year that the government came to power, there were 787 people detained, who had claimed asylum, through the use of immigration powers. Ten years later, in December 2007, this number had increased by roughly eighty five per cent to 1455. These figures, however, represent only a snapshot at a given moment in time. They do not include, for example, people held in prison cells or by the prison service.
    [Show full text]
  • Dungavel House Immigration Removal Centre 2012
    Report on an unannounced short follow- up inspection of Dungavel House Immigration Removal Centre 31 July – 2 August 2012 by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons Crown copyright 2012 Printed and published by: Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons 1st Floor, Ashley House Monck Street London SW1P 2BQ England Dungavel IRC 2 Contents Introduction 5 Fact page 7 1 Summary 9 2 Progress since the last report 13 3 Summary of recommendations 23 Appendices I Inspection team 25 II Detainee population profile 26 Dungavel IRC 3 Dungavel IRC 4 Introduction Dungavel House is an immigration removal centre (IRC) for male and female foreign nationals being removed from the UK. Since our last inspection, the government has confirmed that children will no longer be held at the centre. It is the only IRC in Scotland. In our previous report we described it as ‘the best IRC we have inspected’. At this inspection, we were pleased to find that the centre had built on its strengths and made sufficient progress against our recommendations in three of the four healthy establishment areas. Improvements had been made to an already very safe environment. The care of detainees during their first days at the centre had improved. Despite many exhausting overnight journeys and the absence of prison files arriving with detainees from Scottish prisons, detainees were safe. Reception had been relocated to a bigger and more suitable unit. Male detainees were housed on a new dedicated first night unit and received regular checks on their well-being. We were pleased to find that non-English speakers received help to deal with the frustrations of detention, and that female detainees could receive counselling.
    [Show full text]