MS NICOLA ROGERS AND MRS SALLY TARSHISH

TUESDAY 4 FEBRUARY 2003

  480. I am sure we will be able to have a copy of that?

  Chairman: You will let us have a copy of that, will you not?
  (Mrs Tarshish) Yes, we certainly will.

  481. Could I come back to Ms Rogers, unless there is some other observation that you would like to make to me specifically on conditions in detention centres.
  (Mrs Tarshish) They are all here and I can submit each of them in writing. They will be fully detailed.

  482. On which criteria do you believe that detention should be justified? Are those criteria being adhered to by the Immigration Service?
  (Ms Rogers) I think the only criteria are those which are in compliance with Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights which states that detention in these circumstances, immigration circumstances, should only be where necessary in order to prevent someone from illegally entering or in order to effect their removal. In my submission, a detention is therefore only justified where it is strictly necessary, and that is where other alternatives have been considered and dispelled as not suitable or not appropriate and where the length of detention remains within the law. A detention can become unlawful simply by its length. For example, if someone is subject to removal or it is said they are going to be removed, but that is widely delayed, then the detention becomes unlawful.

  483. Could you describe it a bit more specifically. You have given me a lawyer's reply, which is criteria under article such and such. Could you give me in layman's language, please, so that everybody can understand it, what those criteria should be.
  (Ms Rogers) I cannot give you a list, if that is what you are looking for.

  484. Okay, could you give me some examples from the list.
  (Ms Rogers) Where, for instance, it is deemed to be necessary because the person is about to be removed and, if they are not detained, they will abscond, and where alternatives have been considered and discounted. So the Immigration Service have looked at, for instance, reporting conditions—and they could be on daily reporting conditions—and have dispelled that and discounted that as a viable alternative because the person has a history, for instance, of abscontion. It is in those kind of very, very limited circumstances that I would suggest it is lawful to detain.

  485. If he has a history of abscontion, should he have been detained earlier and not wait for removal? If he has a history.
  (Ms Rogers) No, I think a person can only be detained in these circumstances: if it is pending removal or to stop them from making an illegal entry. If neither of those criteria are met, then detention becomes unlawful.

  486. Therefore, no matter what his history of absconding is, in your view that is not a criterion for his detention.
  (Ms Rogers) No.

  487. My second question was do the Immigration Service actually adhere to these criteria which you have identified?
  (Ms Rogers) In my submission, they do not. There are cases where people are being detained for very long periods of time. Indeed, Sally gave the example of children, families being detained for long periods of time and, in my submission, those detentions become unlawful just by their sheer length of time.

  488. That is the one that you identify, which is length of time. Are there any other criteria that you think are being breached?
  (Ms Rogers) Yes, I think there are people who are being detained where again it is unlawful because they are not suitable for detention. They are unfit for detention, for instance.

  489. How are they unfit?
  (Ms Rogers) Mentally unfit, physically unfit.

  490. Are they fit for removal?
  (Mrs Tarshish) Probably not.
  (Ms Rogers) Probably not. They may or may not be, but the question was about detention.

  491. The question was about detention but if they are being detained prior to removal and they are adjudged fit for removal, why should they not be fit for detention?
  (Ms Rogers) It may be more appropriate that they are given medical treatment rather than being detained in a detention facility.

  492. And the profile of those detained in terms of the stage reached in the legal process, what is the profile of detention at the moment?
  (Ms Rogers) At the end of the process.

  493. So it is those at the end of the process who are being detained? My question is—I am sorry, maybe I did not put it clearly—those in detention at the moment will be at different stages in the legal process. What is the profile from your perception?
  (Ms Rogers) From my perception of the people currently in detention, they are in there at all stages. They are in there from the beginning of the process—and I believe Sally gave some statistic on the number who are detained from entry in the UK—and there are some in the middle of the process and some at the end.

  494. And the wait is where?
  (Ms Rogers) I do not have that statistics.
  (Mrs Tarshish) We do have some statistics that we have collected, so we could supply that.

  495. Could you just give us a flavour?
  (Mrs Tarshish) Yes, but I would like to qualify this: these are figures collected from two detention centres and the population was those whom we visited. You have: "When were they detained" ( that is, at what process along the line): on arrival, 17%; on reporting, 9%; from a Home Office interview, 2%; from police and prison custody, 7%; picked up by immigration either at place of work or home, 31%; and a staggering 35% were awaiting travel documents.

  496. If you have only done that from two detention centres—
  (Mrs Tarshish) And only from the population we visit.

  497.—and only from the population, if you were interviewing people in Oakington you would get a rather different effect, would you not?
  (Mrs Tarshish) Yes.

  498. So that information, which you have yourself qualified—you yourself have qualified it—does not actually answer the question, which is really: Is most of the wait at the far end of the procedures?
  (Ms Rogers) The change in name to removal centres was supposed to reflect that people were being detained at the end of the process. If you look at Oakington, they are there at the beginning and the end of the process, but Oakington is a different category because they are detained on different criteria.

  499. Let me just put a final question to you, to which I do not expect you to be remotely sympathetic: If people were held in secure reception centres along the lines of those run by the private sector rather than the rather cramped and difficult conditions that we have heard about, if they were held in secure reception cases until their cases had been determined, that we could deal with them much more quickly; that we could remove more efficiently; that we could give much more focused health education, legal and social services advice; that we could identify fairly quickly those who actually needed mental health services and all the rest of it; that there would be no begging bowls; and that it would be a much more comprehensive and in many ways more humane system.
  (Ms Rogers) My answer is: Why do we need to lock the doors?