MS NICOLA ROGERS AND MRS SALLY TARSHISH

TUESDAY 4 FEBRUARY 2003

  460. Very briefly, please.
  (Ms Rogers) When the word "abuse" is used, I think we have to recall in this context that these people do not grant themselves exceptional leave to remain; it is the Home Office that grant them, in recognition of the fact that they cannot be returned for whatever reason, personal or civil war or whatever reason. If you look at the statistics and you look at who has been granted exceptional leave to remain in the last few years, they are Iraqi Kurds, they are people from Sierra Leone; further back they were people from the Democratic Republic of Congo—some of which are countries where the UK had in fact intervened on a military basis because the situation was so bad there. It is not surprising that the Home Office granted ELR to those people. I think it would be very wrong to say, "You do not qualify as a refugee. We cannot return you but we are not going to give you a status" and that was my point earlier.

  Bridget Prentice: Thank you very much.

  Chairman: Thank you. Mr Prosser.

  461. On the issue of providing people with adequate time to settle their affairs before being returned to their home country, everyone would support that in principle and all of us would want to be treated in that way, but is it not also the case that it provides them with adequate time to abscond and to go to ground and avoid being removed at all?
  (Ms Rogers) It would be interesting to ask the Minister what the abscontion rates are. Certainly the research that was done by the organisation Bail for Immigration Detainees last year suggested that abscontion rates for people who are granted bail, for instance, are very low. I think there is a perception that people will behave in a certain way whereas there is no evidence necessarily to support that. It is a case of it would be better actually to research into this area before drawing conclusions about the way in which people would behave. I have suggested that a better system is one where you seek the compliance and cooperation of the individuals concerned.

  462. In my experience in Dover, meeting asylum seekers who have failed their appeals and are ready to be removed, I can think of only one instance in all the last five years where the individual, as an individual or as a family, has been ready and has cooperated and been happy or has even accepted the idea of being removed at any time.
  (Ms Rogers) I am not suggesting for one minute that it is easy. Preparing someone for removal is not going to be an easy task, but it is possible. I have seen myself very careful work by some individuals in order to prepare someone for removal and people will respond. I am not saying everyone, but I think you will find that the response rate is good, but it requires hard work on the part of everyone in the system to understand that and to seek the compliance of people.

  463. We will ask the Home Office about those details, but, bearing in mind that the whole rationale of the enforcement unit within IND and the rationale behind secure detention centres is all to do with stemming this perception that people will abscond—I mean, it is an enormously expensive programme—is it not odd that all that resource and funding goes into an area which you are suggesting is just not needed?
  (Ms Rogers) If you look at failed removals, for instance, where a removal has not been able to take place—and I believe you heard evidence last week of instances where people had become abusive or badly behaved on the plane and the removal had to be ceased, and probably recommenced the next week, maybe with an escort—I have spoken to a number of detainees who have come back from that situation and I have tried to understand why it is they have behaved like that. One of them, for instance, told me that he had behaved like that because he still had an outstanding appeal and he had not had the opportunity of exercising it. In fact his representatives had to intervene and, indeed, the removal was stopped. Another detainee told me that he had behaved like that because he had not received all his possessions and he was not getting on a plane until he had them. That is actually quite a simple process. Whilst we here all seem to appreciate that as being the humane and proper way to proceed, in fact it is not happening. It causes a lot of expense, quite apart from the distress to the individual involved and to everyone around involved—expense for failed removals and aborted removals because the process was not properly thought through first and everything was done in a little bit of a hurry, so that the individual did not feel they had had a proper opportunity to conclude or tie up their affairs here. That is a great sadness and also an injustice to the people who are working within the system, because it cannot be easy for them either to see failed removals and to work with people who are extremely upset and extremely distressed.

  464. We have evidence, though, that people actually put on board a particular plane will make massive violent demonstrations purely to avoid that plane carrying them and to allow them to go back to the detention centre or wherever. Are you suggesting that all of those demonstrations are to do with very sensible, practical arrangements rather than just a desperation to stay in the country?
  (Ms Rogers) Some of them might be. I am suggesting that a proportion will be for reasons that they do not feel they have tied up their affairs or they have not had adequate opportunity to discuss their case finally with their representatives; and we do have examples where people are being put on planes or it is suggested they are about to be put on a plane when they still have outstanding appeals, etc, to go through. It is not always the case that people are simply resisting removal for the sake of resisting removal; they may have very genuine reasons. I am suggesting a system that takes that into account and tries to deal with that.

  465. Finally, for the moment, how would you reconcile a person's utter desperation to come into this country—not purely in terms of asylum but to be in this country, for instance, rather than in France—and we know that they literally risk life and limb to do that—with your description of them waiting to be removed and cooperating and not taking every action to abscond when they are told they are about to be removed anyway? How do you reconcile those two?
  (Ms Rogers) I would hope that the people who risk life coming in the manner that they do, under trains or whatever, to the UK are recognised for whatever protection they need. But if they do not have protection needs, I am suggesting that there are ways of seeking their cooperation.

  Mr Prosser: Thank you.

  466. If I could just pick up on two of the answers. For one of them I have some sympathy, and I think a lot of us do, which is that you have noticed recently an increase and an emphasis on soft targets—though I must say from your later evidence it sounded as if you thought every target was soft because nobody actually did resist. But let me put this to you: none of these people are processed/refused, appealed/refused in five minutes; they have known fora long time that they were at the last stage of their application. Presumably, if they have been given correct legal advice by your members, they also know that if that stage fails there is no further stage and, therefore, if they have lives which need packing up, so to speak, they have ample warning that they may need to do that at short notice. There are all sorts of things which can happen at short notice. If you are terminally ill, you do not know the exact moment of departure but you do have to prepare and to have contingency plans in hand. If you are facing a charge which can result in deprivation of liberty, you know that you have to prepare and have contingency plans in hand. If your members have given the correct advice, not after the event but before the event—which is: This is the end of the road. If that is refused you may have to leave in a matter of hours—then plans can be put in hand. Do your members give that sort of advice? Because one thing you said was, "Well, they may need time to discuss with their advisors if this really is the end and if there really is nothing else open to them." Should they not know that before the event?
  (Ms Rogers) I would hope that our members do inform people when it is the end of the road. However, events change and things do happen at the last minute. In fact, as I said, there is evidence of removals being attempted against people for whom it is not the end of the road, and it is quite right that they should be able to consult their representatives as they are being put on the plane unlawfully. However, I am suggesting that the system—and that includes the Immigration Service and the people at the Home Office—help people to prepare for their removal as well as their representatives, and help people to reconcile themselves to that. We are all aware that in the past removals have taken months, years sometimes, to be effected. It is very difficult for a representative to say, "I think you should pack your bags because the Immigration Service could be here any minute" and one year later the Immigration Service still are not there. In that circumstance, what are representatives supposed to do? That is a lack of clarity by the Immigration Service.

  467. If they are people of substance, they can pack their bags and remove themselves, can they not?
  (Ms Rogers) They may wish the assistance of the authorities to be removed. But, in any event, it requires everyone to have transparent systems, to have systems that are easy to understand and attempt to reconcile people to their situation. I am not suggesting there are easy answers.

  Miss Widdecombe: I think we have probably done that one to death. Shall I move on?

  Chairman: Detention. Yes, please.

  468. Mrs Tarshish, if we could turn to your area. You painted a portrait just now of people who were destitute, sitting around with begging bowls. Do you accept that nobody in detention needs a begging bowl?
  (Mrs Tarshish) Excuse me? Nobody . . .?

  469. Nobody in detention needs a begging bowl; his needs are met.
  (Mrs Tarshish) You mean he is fed, watered . . . Yes, he is fed and watered there.

  470. So his needs are met.
  (Mrs Tarshish) Well, I would say that he is provided with a bed, yes.

  471. So his needs are met.
  (Mrs Tarshish) Well, that is your limited response—

  472. Yes. The point I put to you was that he was not sitting round with a begging bowl, which is the picture that you presented—I did not present, you presented earlier—of what is happening.

  Chairman: I think Mrs Tarshish was referring—
  (Mrs Tarshish) I was talking about something slightly different.

  Chairman: Yes, people who were still at liberty in the community but whose claim had run out.

  473. But if they were not at liberty in the community, they were in detention, and my point is their needs are met. I am putting it as an alternative.
  (Mrs Tarshish) I think that is rather twisting things and I cannot really agree with what you are saying, but, anyway . . .

  474. If we go to your experience of visiting removal centres, do you discern any difference and, if so, what, between the removal centres run by the private sector and those run by the Prison Service?
  (Mrs Tarshish) Yes, we do. We actually submitted to the Home Office, to the Detention Users Group, a table of comparisons between each of the removal centres: those that are purpose-built and those that have been acquired into the establishment from the previous prison sector. There are differences and we have a very good table of how they vary. The level and standard of delivery of service is different from one place to another, particularly between the purpose-built ones that are run by Wackenhut, Group 4, etc. One of the great differences is that the regimes in the purpose-built ones, Tinsley House, Harmondsworth, etc, have, for example, longer visiting hours. They have seven hours but the previous prison establishments, like Lindholme Dover and Haslar have between two and three and a half hour visiting daily, and all these places tend to be way out of an accessible public transport system, so it is really difficult for family and friends to visit people, particularly because of the limited hours in the prisons. But this table goes across the border, looking at any number of issues.

  475. You have just touched on visiting and you may be about to find other things, but could you tell me a bit, perhaps, about provision for activity during the day and, particularly where there are children concerned, about education. Could you talk a bit about that between the two.
  (Mrs Tarshish) Yes. Basically in the purpose-built establishments like Harmondsworth, Campsfield, Tinsley House, there are activity programmes, there are gyms, educational classes. They do vary enormously between one establishment and the other. Even places like Haslar have a very good educational service there for the detainees, but it does vary enormously and that is somewhat disturbing. For example, children's activities: there are three establishments that have family units where children are detained with their families. Dungavel, Tinsley House and Harmondsworth have family units but they are really quite small, and you have to remember that in some of these detention centres/removal centres, like Dungavel, families are staying in detention for over 100 days—one family for 190 days. What are you going to do with small children in an enclosed area? I have seen some of them for myself. They are very small.

  Chairman: So have we.
  (Mrs Tarshish) They are very small.

  476. Could you move to medical advice, language facilities.
  (Mrs Tarshish) Again, these all vary enormously. Some places try to put in place a reasonable service; others do not. For example, one of the big problems in detention centres is depression, mental health. If you imagine you are being closed in and locked up for many hours every day, if you are in the prison regime but if you are in a detention centre, you are free to move around—

  477. May I interrupt you there, because I think this is important. You used the phrase "locked up for many hours a day". If you were using that for prisoners, we would all know what that meant, because you are confined to a cell. When you use that phrase about people in immigration removal centres and detention centres—and I want the answer, I am not challenging you—what do you mean by the phrase "locked up for many hours a day"?
  (Mrs Tarshish) They are in fairly small areas. For example, Campsfield House is not a large place. You have a facility for about 184 or 185 men, mostly between the ages of 25/30/35, something like that, which is a lot of men in a small geographical area to be all together. If you have been to Campsfield House, it is an incredibly oppressive place. The ceilings are very low and you really feel it, you feel locked up, and you are locked up—not in the sense of a prison where you are locked up in your cell, you are free to move from one area to another, but you are behind a fence, it is a secure fence, and you are not free or permitted to come and go as you please—that you are not allowed to do. You are locked up in that sense, not in the sense of a prison. If you go to somewhere like Haslar, the circumstances there are appalling: men in dormitories, sleeping head to toe. It is despicable. The other one is Dover, where you have six-bedded rooms and are locked up from 8.00 pm onwards. It is unacceptable.

  478. The question I asked you originally was that you discern a difference between those that are run by the private sector and those that are run by the prison service.
  (Mrs Tarshish) Yes, we do.

  479. An overall difference.
  (Mrs Tarshish) Yes, we have a table here that has monitored that in detail.