PV\713813EN.doc PEPE404.419v00

EN EN

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT2004

2009

Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs

LIBE_PV

DRAFT DELEGATION REPORT

European ParliamentCommittee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs

Delegation to UK21 - 23 November 2007

A delegation of four MEPs (see list of participants - annex 1) travelled to UK, where they were joined by three MEPs (see list of participants - annex 1) who were already there and who participated in part of the visit. The mission was chaired by Mrs Martine ROURE (PSE) and the rapporteur was Mr Panayiotis DEMETRIOU (EPP-ED). The visit took place on 21st, 22nd and 23rd of November 2007.

The object of the delegation was to analyse the current situation of the immigration detention centres and to ascertain directly the situation regarding the reception of asylum seekers and irregular migrants in UK and to make an evaluation as to how the relevant European directives and regulations are being implemented:

- Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers 1 (Reception Directive)

- Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status2 (Procedures Directive)

- Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum

1 Official Journal L 031 , 06/02/2003 P. 0018 – 00252 Official Journal L 326 , 13/12/2005 P. 0013 – 0034

PEPE404.419v00 2/30 PV\713813EN.doc

EN

application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national 1 (Dublin II Regulation)

To this end the delegation programmed exchanges of views with government authorities and representatives of civil society (annex 2) 2.

The visit was one of a series of visits by members of the LIBE Committee to see at first hand the conditions in which immigrants are held in various EU Member States This visit to UK followed similar delegations to Italy (Lampedusa), Spain (Ceuta and Melilla, Canary Islands), France (Paris), Malta, Greece (Samos and Athens) and Belgium.

The visit focused on three centres:

- the Immigration removal centre Yarl's Wood3 (Clapham)- the Oakington Immigration Reception Centre 4 (near Bedford)- the Immigration removal centre Harmondsworth5 (near Heathrow Airport)

Before visiting those centres, the delegation received substantial information from organisations and NGOs active in the field of immigration and asylum, such as AVID (Association of Visitors to Immigration Detainees), Refugee Council, Jesuit Refugee Service, Barbed Wire Britain, Northern Irelands Human Rights Commission, whom the delegation would like to thank.

A meeting was also held in London with several organisations6 involved in visiting detainees in detention centres.

Before the visit of the delegation, the participants were furnished with the reports that were drafted by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, following the inspections she carried out in the three centres. They were also provided with reports from the Independent Monitoring Boards.

The delegation was accompanied by the Audiovisual Service of the European Parliament working with a local TV crew. The idea was to present that European activity through Europe by Satellite7 (EbS). The visit received good press coverage. The journalists were not allowed to enter into the centres. The MEPs gave a press conference on the last day.

Background

In 2005, the British government set out a five years plan to implement a new asylum and immigration policy. This mainly involved the implementation of a New Asylum Model including a Fast Track procedure for processing some asylum seekers’ applications and an

1 Official Journal L 050 , 25/02/2003 P. 0001 - 00102 The programme of the visit annex 23 Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre, Twinwoods Road, Clapham, Bedfordshire, MK41 6HL4 Oakington Barracks, Longstanton, Cambridgeshire, CB4 5EJ5 Harmonsworth Immigration Removal CentreColnbrook by Pass, Harmondsworth, West Drayton, UB7 0HB6 The list of the organisations represented at the meeting is in annex 3.7 EbS is the TV channel of the European Institutions, providing free footage and short stories to the media interested in EU news.

PV\713813EN.doc 3/30 PEPE404.419v00

EN

increase in the number of removals and deportations for those in transit or whose asylum process was exhausted.

The Border and Immigration Agency (BIA), an executive agency of the Home Office, was, at the time of the visit by the members of the European Parliament, responsible for controlling borders, managing immigration in the UK and considering applications for permission to stay, for citizenship and for asylum.

On 14 November 2007, the Prime Minister announced the creation in 2008 of a new organisation that will replace the Border and Immigration Agency. The new UK Border Agency will incorporate all the work of the Border and Immigration Agency and UK visas and the work of HM Revenue and Customs staff at the border.

The United Kingdom adheres to the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, to the European Convention on Human Rights, which prevents sending someone to a country where there is a real risk they will be exposed to torture, or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

The UK has made a reservation to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child1 as concerns children to whom the UK refuses the right to enter and remain in the United Kingdom.

The European directives and regulations on asylum apply to the UK (Reception Directive, Procedures Directive and Dublin II Regulation, mentioned above). However, according to a European Commission’s report of November 20072, the UK is among the EU Member Statesmentioned by the Commission which do not apply the Reception Directive in detentioncentres. The Commission recalls that the Directive does not allow for exceptions concerning its applicability and that its provisions should apply to all types of premises, including detention centres.

Asylum procedure

When a person arrives to the UK without appropriate travel documents, the person is questioned about the reason of the lack of documents. If there is a good reason for not having documents, the person can be placed in a reception centre.

However, in case of false documents or unfounded explanations about the lack of relevant documents required, the persons can be prosecuted and can be sent to prison. After having been in prison, these persons (foreign national prisoners) are placed in detention centres waiting to be sent back to their country of origin.

1 The 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, UN Convention on the Rights of the Child -UK made a reservation: "(c) The United Kingdom reserves the right to apply such legislation, in so far as it relates to the entry into, stay in and departure from the United Kingdom of those who do not have the right under the law of the United Kingdom to enter and remain in the United Kingdom, and to the acquisition and possession of citizenship, as it may deem necessary from time to time.

2 Report from the Commission to the Council and to the European Parliamenton the application of Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers, COM(2007) 745 final

PEPE404.419v00 4/30 PV\713813EN.doc

EN

People who are considered immediately as having no right to asylum can be placed in detention in order to be quickly returned to their country.

A minority of asylum applicants (up to 30% according to the government target set out in the Five Year Strategy on Immigration and Asylum) may be detained in one of the 10 removal centres if the Immigration Officers believes that there is a risk of absconding, if they are from so-called safe countries1 to which the non-suspensive appeals provisions (NSA) apply, or if it is expected that their application can be quickly dealt with and, in case of rejection, they can subsequently be returned to their country of origin. Those who require higher levels of security and control may be detained in a number of prison establishments. In Northern Ireland, as there are no dedicated detention facilities, asylum seekers are detained in prisons.

Asylum applications can be made at a point of entry to the United Kingdom or, if the person is already in the country, to an asylum screening unit, run by BIA, either at Croydon or in Liverpool.

The person might be detained while the application is considered.

Since March 2007, all new asylum applications are being managed by a system which places them with a single person who will deal with every aspect of the application from beginning to end. This person is known as a case owner.2

The case owner is responsible for:o interviewing the asylum applicanto making the decision on the application; o managing any support the applicant is entitled to receive;o providing official documents; o representing the Border and Immigration Agency if the applicant makes a legal

appeal;o arranging the integration into life in the United Kingdom, or the return to the country

of origin, either voluntarily or by enforced removal.

There are several stages in the treatment of the asylum application:

1. Brief interview - 'screening'. The person is registered as an asylum applicant and begins the process of applying for asylum. The applicant is expected to produce the passport or travel document to establish his/her identity and nationality and to support the application. Fingerprints, photograph, and any other physical identification information is taken. Some basic questions about the application are asked. An interpreter can be provided if the applicant needs one.

Depending on the outcome of the screening, and assuming the UK is responsible forprocessing the claim, applicants may either find their own accommodation with family

1 See the list in the annex 4 2 The case owner aims to conclude the application within six months, including appeals. This means that within six months, the person will start integration into life in the United Kingdom, if the application is successful, orwill return home, either voluntarily or by enforced removal, if the application is unsuccessful.

PV\713813EN.doc 5/30 PEPE404.419v00

EN

or friends, enter an induction centre or be detained at one of the removal centres.

People can be detained at any stage of their application for asylum.

2. The full interview is the only chance to explain to the BIA a fear to return to the country of origin, to provide evidence and any papers that support the application.

After the interview, the immigration authorities may detain the applicant, or recommend continuation of detention if they feel the case can be decided quickly or if they feel the applicant will not stay in touch, or can grant temporary admission to the UK, usually with reporting requirements, whilst they wait for a decision to be made on their case.

3. The case owner aims to give the applicant a decision within about 30 days of the date on which the application was made. He/she makes the decision based on the asylum interview, any evidence provided, and the information the BIA has about the country of origin.

4. If the case owner decides there are no reasons for granting asylum, the applicant has the right to appeal to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal, which is independent of the Border and Immigration Agency. There is a time limit for making an appeal.

5. In cases where the application for asylum is refused, the applicant might have to report to BIA regularly. If the person does not report to BIA when required, he/she might be detained.

Non-suspensive appealsIn some cases – if there are no grounds for claiming asylum ('clearly unfounded claim') and if the applicant came from certain classified countries - the person will not have the right to make an appeal while he/she is still in the United Kingdom. The person will be removed from the country and will have to pursue any appeal from outside the United Kingdom.

This type of appeal is a 'non-suspensive appeal' and the countries concerned are known as 'designated countries for non-suspensive appeals'.

The Fast Track system is applied to part of the asylum seekers: people who come from a country that is considered “safe country” 1 (Pakistan, India, etc) receive the decision that they will be returned to their country. They can appeal against the decision, but their appeal is not a suspensive one. So, they are expelled and they can file an appeal from their country.

Detention centers

There are currently 10 removal centres in operation across the UK with a total capacity of 2,541 places.

1 See the list in the annex 4

PEPE404.419v00 6/30 PV\713813EN.doc

EN

The detention centres visited host persons waiting for their deportation:

- persons who were not granted asylum, who are at the end of their procedure and are waiting for their removal,

- persons whose asylum claims are being assessed,- immigrants who are not allowed to stay in the UK- Foreign National Prisoners.

The priority for the UK at the moment is the removal of Foreign National Prisoners – in other words, convicted criminals whom the Home Office is seeking to deport to their home countries. For this reason, approximately 1,200 places are given over to this type of detention – almost half of the places available.

Most of the detention facilities are run by private firms. Some concern have been made by a part of the delegation, that it would be necessary to define more clearly the responsibilities of the private companies and the public authorities in the removal procedures.

- Yarl’s Wood and Oakington: Contractor GSL UK Ltd- Harmondsworth: UKDS (UK Detention Service)

There are new centres planned: one new centre near Gatwick - Brook House - 450 spaces (2008) and another new centre - 2009 - 350 spaces.

The duration of the detention is unlimited.

In its report of November 2007 on the application of the Reception directive1, the Commission recalls that given that detention is an exception to the general rule of free movement, which might be used only when "it proves necessary", automatic detention without any evaluation of the situation of the person in question is contrary to the Directive. Furthermore, the length of detention, except in duly justified cases (e.g. public order), which prevents detained asylum seekers from enjoying the rights guaranteed under the Directive, is also contrary to its provisions.

Vulnerable persons

As special needs of vulnerable asylum seekers must be addressed, article 17 of the Reception Directive foresees that the Member States are obliged to identify these needs.In its report on implementation of the Reception Directive2, the Commission reminds that under Article 10 of the directive, detained children have the right of access to education. In

1 Report from the Commission to the Council and to the European Parliamenton the application of Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers, COM(2007) 745 final

2 Report from the Commission to the Council and to the European Parliamenton the application of Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers, COM(2007) 745 final

PV\713813EN.doc 7/30 PEPE404.419v00

EN

this report, the UK is among the Member States for which concerns are raised about the extentwhich these particular provisions are met.

Education in detention centres is ensured as a matter of practice but independent inspections have found that educational provisions are deficient in detention centres. While schoolrooms are provided within the detention facilities, at present, it does not appear that funds have been made available, and processes put in place, to make education in any real sense meaningful.1

A recent inspection of one immigration detention centre with dedicated family units has highlighted cases of children whose education had been severely damaged by their detention (HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, Report on an announced inspection of Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre, 28 February-4 March 2005).2

UNHCR and NGOs may have access to immigration detention centres.

Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons

Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons (Anne Owers CBE) is the head of HM Inspectorate of Prisons. The Chief Inspector provides independent scrutiny of detention in England and Wales through carrying out announced and unannounced inspections of detention facilities. Their remit includes prisons, young offender's institutions and immigration service detention centers.

There is also a separate post of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons for Scotland.

The Independent Monitoring Boards (IBM)

By law (Immigration and Asylum Act 1999), every immigration removal centre must have an Independent Monitoring Board.

Members of the IMBs are appointed from volunteers from the general public who can applyfor the role. The members of the IBM have the right to enter and check the conditions in the removal centres.

The Boards are specifically charged to satisfy themselves as to the humane and just treatment of those held in immigration removal centres and to report to the Secretary of State.

To enable the Board to carry out these duties effectively, its members have the right of access to every detainee and every part of the centre and also to the centre’s records.

Some statistics3

1 Report from the Commission to the Council and to the European Parliamenton the application of Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers, COM(2007) 745 final

2 National report done by the Odysseus network for the European Commission on the implementation of the Directive on reception conditions for asylum seekers in UK

3 Control of Immigration: Statistics, United Kingdom - HOME OFFICE, CONTROL OF IMMIGRATION: STATISTICS, UNITED KINGDOM, 2006 - Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for the Home Department by Command of Her Majesty, August 2007, Page 5

PEPE404.419v00 8/30 PV\713813EN.doc

EN

In a letter to the Home Affairs Committee, dated 20.11.2007, the Chief Executive of the Border and Immigration Agency, Lin Homer, confirmed that the agency was on track to deport 4,000 foreign national prisoners this year.

Lin Homer said: Our enforcement teams are removing more people than ever, and already this year we have removed around 1,000 more foreign national prisoners than in the whole of 2006.

Excluding dependants, the number of asylum applications received in 2006 was 23,610, 8 %less than in 2005.

The proportion of applications made in-country (that is, by persons who had already entered the United Kingdom (UK), rather than at a port of entry) was 85 % in 2006, compared with 84 % in 2005 and 78 % in 2004.

The highest numbers of applications were from nationals of Eritrea, Afghanistan, Iran, China and Somalia.

Overall, 6,225 (26 %) of applications in 2006 resulted in granting of asylum (10 %), Humanitarian Protection (HP)/Discretionary Leave (DL) (9 %), or in allowed appeals (8 %)

Asylum removals (including assisted returns, persons departing voluntarily after enforcement action had been initiated against them and those who it is established have left the UK without informing the immigration authorities) rose in 2006 to 16,330, excluding dependants, 19 %more than in 2005.

The nationalities with the largest number of principal applicants removed or departing voluntarily in 2006 were Iraqi (1,780), Turkish (1,665), Serbian & Montenegrin (1,420), Afghan (1,185) and Pakistani (875).Including dependants, 18,280 failed asylum seekers were removed in 2006, 17 % more than in 2005 (15,685). Data on dependants removed have only been collected since April 2001.

Removals of immigrants and asylum applicants

The number of persons who were removed or departed voluntarily from the United Kingdom (UK) in 2006 was 63,865, an increase of 10 % on 2005 (58,215). Of those removed ordeparting voluntarily in 2006:- 55 % were removed after having been initially refused entry at a port, - 36 % were removed as a result of enforcement action, and - 10 % left under AVR Programmes run by the International Organization for Migration

(IOM).

Within the total number of persons removed in 2006, 16,330 persons had sought asylum at some stage as principal applicants. Including dependants, 18,280 failed asylum seekers were removed in 2006, 17 % more than in 2005 (15,685).

PV\713813EN.doc 9/30 PEPE404.419v00

EN

Immigration detention

On 30 September 2006, there were 2,010 persons being detained solely under Immigration Act powers in the UK, excluding those detained in prison service establishments.

Of these, 1,455 persons (72 %) were recorded as having sought asylum at some stage. The majority (98 %) of immigration detainees were being held in Immigration Removal Centres, with the remaining 2 % being held in Immigration Short Term Holding Facilities.

The nationalities with the highest number of detainees were Jamaican (155), Nigerian (140), Indian (115) and Pakistani (110).

28 % of detainees had been in detention for less than 14 days, 14 % for between 15 and 29 days, 16 % for between one and two months and 22 % for between two and four months3 % had been detained for one year or more.

Meeting with organisations and NGOs

The meeting took place in London, on the 21 November 2007. Those invited were organisations1 that visit the detention centers regularly or are present there on a permanent basis.

The organisations were extremely well organised and efficient in delivering their presentation. The members of the delegation listened carefully to the NGOs with the reservation of course that the information given by the NGOs could not be verified by the delegation so that to exclude possible exaggeration and generalisation of certain reported incidents. They raised their concerns on 5 main issues: nature of detention /length of detention, the Fast Track process, access to legal advice, treatment of children and health conditions of detainees. They also presented some concrete cases related with the safety of detainees. There was alsopresentation on the situation in Northern Ireland and Scotland and the problem with the differences in legal regimes between Scotland and Northern Ireland was explained.

The main concerns of those organisations were as follows: o Dramatic increase in the use of detention over the past years: the role of detention has

changed.o Detention used seemingly as policy on numbers to be detained rather than individual

justification (with increasingly arbitrary detention)o Lack of tangible guidelines about who is detained, where are they detained and why?

In reality the availability of bed space often dictates when, and where someone is detained.

o The decision to detain is made by one officer. o No automatic judicial scrutinyo The person being detained should be given reasons. At present they are given a very

vague A4 checklist and no evidence is required to support the decision of the immigration officer.

1 The list of the organisations represented at the meeting is in annex 3.

PEPE404.419v00 10/30 PV\713813EN.doc

EN

o There are no upper limit on detention (an example was given of someone who has been held got 2 years and 8 months - sometimes people want to go home but have no travel documents)

Detention of Children

o Increasing use of detention of families.o Lack of coherent policy on detention of families and children in the UK.o The UK has derogated from the UN convention on the Rights of the Child1 and

as such some children who are not allowed to enter or remain in the UK are placed in detention centres along with their families. The members call the UK to reconsider its stand relating to its reservation on the right not to apply article 37 c) of the UN convention on the rights of children.

o Degressive impact on language and general behaviour - bed wetting, soiling day and night.

o Many parents showed symptoms of depression.

Problems of access to legal advice and Fast Track process

o Reductions in the legal aid and the speeding up of procedures have in the past few years made the asylum regime progressively more difficult to challenge, particularly by a person who is detained.

o The legal advisers receive now a fixed fee for assisting the detainees; many law firms had withdrawn because they could not afford to work in this field any more.

o It is particularly difficult to find legal advisers whilst in detention, as few centres have internet capacity yet and the few listed firms in Centre Libraries are often fully committed. Lack of internet and phone access. Another factor making it difficult to find lawyers was that authorities have fixed a minimum success rate at appeal level for lawyers, which sometimes leads them to refusing some more difficult cases in order to maintain a good success rate.

o Cases of people in the Fast Track systems in Harmondsworth (men) and Yarl’s Wood (women), who are assigned a legal representative, are often dropped because of lack of time to get to know a client. People in the non-suspensive appeals process (only challenge to refusal possible from their country of origin) have legal help on site initially.

o The Fast Track process is too fast for safe decisions to be granted; day 1 - claim asylum, day 3 - refusal decision, must appeal by day 9.

o Solicitors not having the time to travel to centres.o Problem of detainees being transferred from one centre to another which causes a lack

of continuity in legal representation.

1 The 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, UN Convention on the Rights of the Child -UK made a reservation: "(c) The United Kingdom reserves the right to apply such legislation, in so far as it relates to the entry into, stay in and departure from the United Kingdom of those who do not have the right under the law of the United Kingdom to enter and remain in the United Kingdom, and to the acquisition and possession of citizenship, as it may deem necessary from time to time.

PV\713813EN.doc 11/30 PEPE404.419v00

EN

o There is no proper judicial supervision of decisions to detain. ‘Immigration judges’ are not considered as proper judges in the UK, there is no proper record kept of immigration ‘court’ proceedings.

o Problems with new video link for bail hearings - in order to avoid having to travel from the court to the detained client, the possibility exists to appear at hearing through video link. However, 10 minutes of time on the videolink for conference with detainees before the hearing is totally inadequate for the purposes of effective representation.

Health

o Mental Health care and health care generally is a very specific concern for the NGOs.o Unlike the health regimes in criminal prisons, medical centres in Removal detention

centres are not in reality subject to supervision by the National Health Service. o The prospect of unlimited detention can have a devastating effect on people, whose

mental health can be affected over time. There are men in several centres who have been detained in excess of a year.

o The volume of incidents of self-harm in detention is a source of concern: from April 2006 to January 2007, over 1,600 detainees were put on formal “self-harm at risk”. Suicide - 10 deaths since 1989, 5 at Harmondsworth

o Medical services in centres are outsourced and run by private GP clinics. Consequently, lines of medical accountability are confused and weak. There is an inadequate record keeping. Problem of the cost cutting, low level of staff skills and competencies.

o Repeated hunger strikes and riots are the only means for detainees of expressing their distress and anger at their treatment; they are desperate to alert the outside world to their situation

o Allegations of torture and suspicion of mental health issues are not being adequately followed-up.

o Injuries during removal attempts are not being adequately documented or investigated by appropriate authorities.

o Appropriate malarial prophylaxis for vulnerable detainees being returned to high risk malarial infected countries, particularly for pregnant women with mental health issues is another health concern.

Concerns about vulnerable groups

o Detention of families, children and pregnant women, victims of torture and those suffering with mental health problems and severe physical illnesses is of major concern to all the visiting groups, members of the detention sub-group and AVID. The effect of detention on children can be extremely damaging. Provision of nappies and sanitary items is very basic and pregnant women complain of poor nutrition with no extra help for their particular needs. Education is not compulsory, leaving children with no inclination to do anything and their mental health suffering in consequence.

Other issues:

People are moved around the detention estate for a variety of reasons. As a result, this leaves some people unable to have access to their legal representative because of distance or medical appointments are missed. In some cases new legal representatives have to be found, which is

PEPE404.419v00 12/30 PV\713813EN.doc

EN

very disruptive. Access to families is also disrupted. Continuity of medical care is also threatened by transfer around detention estate. Frequent movement of detainees between detention centres around the country keeps detainees in a state of psychological insecurity.

A new complaints procedure was introduced in late 2006 to encourage people to complain in confidence. However, people are still worried about the adverse effect that complaints might have on their cases and they are therefore reluctant to raise issues.

Situation in Northern Ireland

There is no dedicated detention facility in Northern Ireland. Irregular immigrants/failed asylum seekers were previously held in prisons, now they are held in police stations until they can be transferred to the UK.

Lack of police training in this field. Problems on issue of legal representation. Need for proper supervision by the BIA. (Border and immigration Agency)

Visits to the centres

The delegation visited detention facilities and ascertained the conditions in which the immigrants and asylum seekers were kept and talked to the residents. However, not all the delegation could enter into the part of the building where detainees were kept for reasons of space.

As the MEPs, were accompanied by their assistants, the staff of the political groups and of the LIBE secretariat had to form two separate groups, one led by Mrs Roure and the other one by Mr Demetriou.

Immigration removal centre Yarl's Wood

Introduction

Yarl’s Wood is a purpose-built immigration removal centre. One of the blocks opened in November 2001 but was closed following a disturbance and a fire in February 2002. The damaged block was razed. After extensive rebuilding, the second block opened in September 2003 with an initial capacity of 60. Capacity was expanded to 120 by August 2004, and to operational capacity of 405 by 2006. Since its reopening it has become the main removal centre for women and families. 1

In 2006, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons made an unannounced inspection. According to the report issued: - some progress is reported : the appointment of a welfare officer to assist with detainees’

practical problems; catering 1 Report on an unannounced short follow-up inspection of Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre,13 – 16 February 2006 by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons

PV\713813EN.doc 13/30 PEPE404.419v00

EN

- the management of diversity had improved. - Staff–detainee relationships overall remained positive. - some improvements in healthcare and education, though in both areas much still

remained to be done.

The report notes - Significant concerns about aspects of safety in the centre. - Difficulties for detainees to obtain up-to-date and accurate information about their cases- Removals were still being carried out without proper warning or planning. - A lack of sufficient guidance on the management of suicide and self-harm to the staff,

and the absence of risk assessments for the sharing of rooms.

The most important concern: the detention of children. Yarl’s Wood held 32 children at the time of the inspection, seven of whom had been there for more than 28 days. There was still no evidence that children’s welfare was properly taken into account when making decisions about initial and continued detention.

Structured interviews with 13 detained children whose average length of stay in the centre was 23 days, (ranging from the day of arrival to 112 days) were done. The report notes that the interviews vividly illustrate the effect of sudden arrest and detention on the wellbeing of children, and the extent of their fears and anxieties for themselves and their parents.

Visit of the LIBE delegation

The visit of the delegates took place on the Wednesday 21 November.A presentation was given on the centre, by Brian Pollett, Director of the Detention Services, Sarah Edwards, BIA Manager of the centre, Victoria Jones, Contract Director SERCO. The following information was given:

o If at the entry point to UK a person arrives without having the right of entry to the UK, he/she is moved to the centre by Group 4 Securicor. Other persons are detained at their homes and they have to report to the authorities.

o In the centre, there were at the time of the visit 321 detainees - 64 family members including 33 children

o The population was composed of 75% females, 25% families.

o Adult female detainees kept separately from families due to child protection issues.Each family had its own room, or more than one if necessary for larger families. 2 detainees per room in single female rooms

o The average stay was 14 days. Longest stay at that time of the mother and child 89 days

o The management of the centre tried to educate children at Yarl’s Wood where the child shall attend at school. Children do not follow national curriculum in the centre's school – this is very difficult to do. Parental choice if the child attends school or not, most children do attend.

PEPE404.419v00 14/30 PV\713813EN.doc

EN

o There was access to education facilities and library.

o As concerns some specific problems in the centre – there were not too many problems with difficult behaviour. But one of the problems is the anxiety of detainees and another one was that it was very difficult to remove people and take them to aircraft.

o People were encouraged to leave voluntarily.

o As concerns removal: detainees given minimum 72 hours notice. The detainee is informed which country he/she is being sent back to (country of origin, of which he/she is a national) In the case of difficult removals, an escort travels on the plane with the detainee to country of origin. If people are very resistant, physical control methods are allowed - handcuffs, leg restraints, but they must seek the authority of a higher officer by phone. If the detainee is known to be trouble maker, the removal is videoed.

o Independent Monitoring Boards (IMBs) present at all centres to monitor situation. There is now an IMB at Heathrow to monitor removals.

o What training do custody officers receive? They are provided with 8 weeks training -including health and safety, control and restraint (PCC - Physical Control in Care for adults and children), security, interpersonal skills, child protection, diversity, cultural affairs, race and religion (2.5 days). Training includes shadowing and mentoring, suicide prevention and awareness.

o Detainee inductions? Detainees can arrive at any time of day. Seen by healthcare within 2 hours, asked if they have any particular problems. Induction conducted in English, but draw on staff/other detainee resources to help with translation. They are looking at new ways of carrying out inductions - ie.DVD's in a variety of languages.

o Why are detainees transferred between centres? Because of behaviour problems, bullying problems, to be closer to airports, there are not many transfers from Yarlswood (because is the only centre for women and families). In the case of other centres - men transferred due to bed space pressures, especially around London, so often moved outside of London if their case looks like it will take a long time.

o Internet access is not yet available but they hope that it will be available in the centre soon.

o They are considering the possibility of offering paid work in the centre - a lot of boredom issues.

o Mental health care provision in the centre – there are registered mental health nurses available at the centre. There is a visiting psychiatrist, and 2 full time counsellors. Staffs are trained to be sensitive to bullying issues and systems are in place to deal with bullying.

o Director of the centre meets quarterly with NGOs - they had some problems with Medical Justice and held a meeting to discuss the issues. They have now a more constructive relationship with the 'be-frienders' now.

PV\713813EN.doc 15/30 PEPE404.419v00

EN

o There was contact between the centre and the local authority's children's service and it's 'Children's Champion' a person within the local authority responsible for improving outcomes for children.

The delegates were split into two groups of 6 for a tour of the centre facilities, including a residential unit, family unit, centralised regimes and education.They inspected the facilities available to detainees: a library, an arts and crafts room, and dining rooms. Documents seem to be available in many languages.

Oakington Immigration Reception Centre

Introduction

The centre has been in operation since 2000. With an operational capacity of 300, the centre used to accommodate a mix of families, single males and single females.

Oakington Reception Centre was the first Fast Track detention centre in the UK. It was originally designed to accommodate people for maximum 10 days.

In May 2006 the target population ceased to be exclusively focused on the detained Fast Track cases and DEPMU1 migrants (Detention Escort Population Management Unit) became a substantial proportion of the daily migrant's intake. The length of stay for DEPMU migrants in detention varies; some have remained in detention for over 9 months.

Female detainees were no longer accommodated and Oakington has become a single male centre.

Since 2003, has been said that the centre will close and, NGOs have claimed, there has been a reluctance to invest in facilities/services. Since then, short term extensions have been done. The current site lease is until June 2010, but it could be closed at short notice. This uncertain situation has implications for staffing. Contracts are often short-term (up to 11 months) and it is difficult to recruit a diverse workforce due to the area in which the centre is located.

At present, only men are detained in the centre; appreciatively 40 % of them are Foreign National Prisoners (persons from other countries who have finished their time in prison and are about to be returned to their country) (situation on the 8th November 2007).

Current facts: o Capacity: 352, single meno Accommodation type: Dormitory (blocks 19, 20, 26 and 30 hold 12 in each room and

block 39 holds 8 in each room) o Average daily detainees occupation October 2007: 336o Number of Foreign National Prisoners on 8th November 2007: 129 (39.4% of centre

population) o Managed by: GSL UK Ltd (formerly Group 4) since 2000o Heath Care provided by: Primecare Forensic Medical Services (PFMS) since 2000

1 Includes clients at various stages of the asylum process; clients yet to make a claim for asylum, clients with claims pending, clients at the end of the asylum process or immigration detainees. This group includes Foreign National Prisoners and Third Country Unit cases.

PEPE404.419v00 16/30 PV\713813EN.doc

EN

o Voluntary Sector Agencies based on site: Refugee Council (RC) and Immigration Advisory Service (IAS) since 2000 (Refugee Legal Centre from 2000 – September 2006)

The last report of HM Chief Inspector of Prisons notes that: the situation seems to be better than in other centres; the perception of detainees was that Oakington was, overall, a safe environment. However, the report notes concerns, particularly about the use of the detainee departure unit (DDU) and the welfare of detained children. No children were held at the time of the visit. Most of HM Chief Inspector of Prisons recommendations on suicide and self-harm prevention had not been met, and anti-bullying procedures were weak in accordance with the report.

Visit of the LIBE delegation

The visit to this centre took place on Thursday 22 November 2007.The delegates met with Alan Kittle, Deputy Director, Detention Services, Susan Ward, Border and Immigration Agency Manager, David Dunford, Assistant Director, Detained Fast Track, Colin Hodgkins,GSL Centre Manager, Penny Lambert, Chair, Independent Monitoring Board.

Information given to the delegates:

o The centre was composed of former air force barracks and originally only held asylum applicants in the Fast Track process. The population by the time had changed. It also held at the time of the visit low risk level ex- foreign national prisoners (document fraud, burglary)

o The NGO Refugee Council had an office on site - Legal representatives are present all the time in the centre in order to explain to the detainees the Fast Track procedure and the way of appeal from abroad. (In other centres these legal advisers are not in the centre, they come from outside). However, funding for legal advice exists for Fast Track detainees but not for the others who do not have direct access to Refugee Council services. A lack of counselling facilities can exist for other persons who are not in Fast Track process.

o The Immigration Advisory Service is a national charity offering legal advice and representation - mainly for FT cases. They also have some funding for non Fast Track cases - to help with fresh applications and appeals.

o There is a very good relationship between staff and detainees, although concerns had been reported in previous inspections at the centre

There was an IMB representative present on site, appointed by the Secretary of State, independent from BIA and contractor, who does an annual report on the overall running of the centre. The IMB representative seemed to be very unhappy with the physical state of the centre.

Delegates visited the wings of the centre in which detainees were kept. Because of a limit in the number of persons allowed inside, part of the delegation had to remain in the conference room.

PV\713813EN.doc 17/30 PEPE404.419v00

EN

There was a visitors’ room, rather small, allowing little privacy. There was a big courtyardand a multi faith room. There was no access to the internet but there was the possibility of following IT training. Accommodation blocks: these are dormitory style facilities, which allow detainees little privacy and potentially increase tension when they have disturbed sleep. There is open access to these areas during the day. There were also isolation cells in the centre, the conditions of these cells were poorer that in the rest of the centre and put the persons in a very vulnerable situation.

The use of dogs to patrol the area outside the centre raises great concerns among detainees.But there had been many escapes and this is the reason why barriers and a security round with dogs at night had been added.

The representatives of the Refugee Council and the IMB talked to certain participants of the delegation whilst the BIA representative and the centre manager were otherwise engaged. They spoke much more openly than in the presence of other people and raised the following concerns: -

o Lack of independent scrutiny of complaints procedure. (complaints effectively looked into by BIA and private contractor - and very often not followed up)

o Lack of use of interpretation (telephone service very expensive - £12)o Lack of legal representation - especially for non Fast Track cases.o High incidence of transfers of detainees between centres with no consideration for

existing legal or medical appointments.o The decision making process as to who is detained and who is not seems arbitrary -

often based on available bed spaces.o In terms of figures/statistics - Length of stay statistics removed from statistics register!o Often lack of interpretation at interviews (for Non-Suspensive cases) and lack of

interpretation at medical appointments.o Lack of statistics on age disputes. NGOs kept statistics - In 2005 - 241 cases and 60%

found to be children - now more pre-screening. Still age disputes at this centre.

Immigration removal centre Harmondsworth

Introduction

Harmondsworth opened in September 2001. It used to be the largest immigration removal centre, holding around 500 people. Around 2,000 people each month used to pass through its reception area, at all hours of the day and night. Most spent only a short time there; though some could spend months or even years there. 1

Over recent years, the centre has experienced a major disturbance, and an apparently self-inflicted death. It closed in mid-2004 and reopened in October 2004.

Two wings have been permanently closed. They are due to be demolished, and replaced with riot proof wings, equivalent to Category B (high security) prisons. They are due to reopen in

1 Report on an unannounced inspection of Harmondsworth Immigration Removal Centre 17–21 July 2006 by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons

PEPE404.419v00 18/30 PV\713813EN.doc

EN

2009.

Originally holding families as well as single men and women, Harmondsworth holds single male adults only.Given the closure of part of the wings, the capacity is now of 250 people.

The centre is contracted to Kalyx (formerly UK Detention Services), a subsidiary of Sodexho. The contract began in approximately 2003.

Anne Owers, Chief Inspector of Prisons, issued a report on this centre end of 2006; she described the report on Harmondsworth, as the poorest ever issued on an immigration removal centre.

Inspectors found serious concerns at that time: the centre was not performing satisfactorily against any of the Inspectorate’s tests of a healthy custodial environment.

Inspectors found that: over 60 % of detainees said they had felt unsafe; that 44 % of detainees said they had been victimised by staff; detainees described some custody officers as ‘aggressive’, ‘intimidating’ and ‘unhelpful’.

According to NGOs, new management in summer 2006 have taken a dramatically different approach, and significant progress has been made, despite the disturbance. More need to be done for improving the organisational culture, but the excessive over-emphasis on security is reducing.

Medical facilities are more extensive than in most of the detention estate, and detainees with health problems are often moved to Harmondsworth. However, there is no onsite counsellor or psychiatrist.

A welfare team with six staff and significant resources has recently been set up. There is clearly a will to engage with detainees’ needs, the most pressing welfare problems (e.g. access to legal advice to complete Fast Track appeals, collecting property) are not within the remit of the welfare team.

259 beds over 2 wings – 154 FT process Very good healthcare centre – people on hunger strike often sent here. IMB – Problem of lack of contact between immigration teams and detainees. Most conversations relate to why they are there, why can’t they have bail, how long

they will be there for. IMB have recently carried out 1 week intensive monitoring – things have improved

since the last damning report (HM prison inspection) in 2006.

Visit by the LIBE delegation

The visit took place on Friday 23 November 2007.The delegation spent 45 minutes for the security control. It was the only visited centre where such a strict control was applied.The delegates first met Mrs Sandra Parnell, BIA Manager HarmondsworthAlan Hollett provided an overview of Harmondsworth and the detention estate.The delegation also met members of the IMB.

PV\713813EN.doc 19/30 PEPE404.419v00

EN

Part of the delegates was allowed to do a tour around the centre facilities, including a residential unit and education and sports centre.The remainder of the delegates who were not touring around the centre’s facilities remained in the conference room.

They talked a little bit with detainees.

Some of them are “Dublin II cases” – people who arrived to the UK through another EU member state and who are waiting to be sent to that country.

One of the persons was from Liberia and said that he had been in detention for 6 months. Another person who came from Vietnam was in prison before and had been in the centre for 3 months. Another resident was from Jamaica – he had been in the centre for 10 months, he was waiting for judicial review. Other persons came from Sri Lanka, Azerbaijan, Pakistan, and Iraq. The detainees complained about the duration of detention and about the fact that they were not properly informed about what will happen to them. The centre was clean and well resourced. Migrants who require specialized medical attention are taken to the local hospitals.

Meeting with the Minister in charge with asylum and migration issues, Meg HILLIER MP

The meeting with the Minister took place on the 23 of November 2007 and lasted about an hour.

The Minister patiently accepted questions and replied accordingly:

In reply to a question of a delegate concerning the issue of the lack of maximum duration of detention and about the extremely long detention, in some cases reported by NGO, the Minister said that the persons refuse to leave voluntarily and that by keeping those persons in detention, national authorities know who the illegal migrants are. Concerning the migrants without any identification document, passport or ID, the Minister stressed that the national authorities encourage the persons without identification papers to contact their embassy and cooperate in order to accelerate the process.

Furthermore, the discussion focused on the decisions taken by the administration concerning the request for asylum seekers and the appeals. The Minister replied that the Ministry of Justice is responsible and there is a full legal process and judges specialized in immigration issues who deal with those demands.

Members requested clarifications about the detention of children in the detention centres with specific reference to the Yarl's Wood. They also raised the issue of the former offenders who are mixed with the migrants and asylum seekers detainees in the centres, the situation of the healthcare, mental health and internet access. The Minister called attention to the fact that the children are safe; concerning the need to reduce the number of children in detention, she said that the government is working on this issue. Concerning the mental health and healthcare, the Minister explained that there is full care to those problems. And as regards internet access, she said that they try to improve the access in all centres.

A delegate asked why there are so many transfers of detainees between the different centres.

PEPE404.419v00 20/30 PV\713813EN.doc

EN

The Minister replied that the aim is not to move them from one centre to another, but that it is sometimes necessary.

The discussion continued with the question on the criteria used to determine the suitability of the Fast Track procedure. The members wanted to know if there is a relation with the list of the safe countries. They expressed their fears on this list, because contradictions between their list of safe countries and countries in danger might be possible and asked how those contradictions could be avoided.

The Minister expressed the difficulties to determine the nationality of the migrants and asylum seekers. The administration follows a specific circular of the ministry concerning the list of the safe countries. Besides, she explained the status of the people really in conflict, as Iranians and Afghans is currently discussed.

The members requested at the beginning of the meeting to obtain some examples of contracts between the public authorities, the private companies that run the detention centres and also statistics concerning the duration of detention. The Minister undertook to provide the Parliament delegation with all the information requested. Until now no such information or documents are received, despite several requests of the Secretariat of the Civil Liberties committee of the European Parliament.

Recommendations

1. Even though conditions in the centres seem to be generally good, detention should be an exception and not the general rule. For the individual detainee, what matters is the state of being detained itself, and the quality of the decisions that have led to it.

2. The duration of detention should be limited. It should not be forgotten that among the asylum seekers, some of them have been through traumatic experiences that have led them to seek asylum in the EU.

3. The legal advice and information from detention should be guaranteed.

4. The detention of children, even accompanied, should be avoided. All cases where the children have to be with their parents or parents should be dealt with differently. However, detention in unavoidable case should be as short as possible. Welfare and education of children is of a paramount consideration.

5. The detention of pregnant women should be prohibited.

6. Alternative solution instead of detention should be sought for families.

7. Ensure that rules for vulnerable persons are applied in practice.

8. Ensure medical, psychological and psychiatric care for detainees.

9. Many ex-foreign national prisoners are detained in the centres. Some of them are ordinary criminals. Some are simply persons who have been convicted for illegal entry or overstay

PV\713813EN.doc 21/30 PEPE404.419v00

EN

in UK. Most of the latter have no documents. Ex-foreign national prisoners should be separated from the illegal migrants.

10. UK should take all the measures in order to decrease transfers from one centre to another within the UK especially in the case of the removal to Scotland and from Northern Ireland where there is a different legislation. This affects follow up on legal and medical cases and increases the risk that possessions will go missing.

11. Improve the visit of the centres by NGO and also during the return procedure.

12. Improve the access to internet in all centres.

13. Concern regarding automated (remote) bail hearing practice and subsequent lack of ability to interact with legal advisor.

14. The example of Oakington centre where Independent Monitoring Boards (IMBs) andagencies (Refugee Council and Immigration Advisory Service) were present and where good provision of multi-lingual information, multi faith facilities provision were provided, should be followed in all detention centres.

15. As the Fast Track process seems to be very fast it might result to unjust decisions; the process should be reviewed so that speediness not to operate against fair and just handling of each individual case.

PEPE404.419v00 22/30 PV\713813EN.doc

EN

Annex 1

European ParliamentCommittee on civil liberties, justice and home affairs

Delegation to UK21-23 November 2007

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

Martine ROURE – Head of delegationPanayiotis DEMETRIOU – Rapporteur

Sarah LUDFORDJean LAMBERT

Philip BRADBOURN (hors quota)Mary HONEYBALL (hors quota)Geoffrey VAN ORDEN (hors quota)

ASSISTANTS TO MEMBERS

Edoardo BOGGIO (assistant to Giusto CATANIA)Pauline CHAIGNE (assistant to Martine ROURE)Eirini GEORGIOPOULOU (assistant to Panayiotis DEMETRIOU)Alastair LITTLE (assistant to Philip BRADBOURN) Rachel SHEPPARD (assistant to Jean LAMBERT)

STAFF OF THE POLITICAL GROUPS

Mercedes ALVARGONZALEZ (EPP-DE)Adam ISAACS (EPP-DE)Annie LEMARCHAL (PES)Joëlle FISS (ALDE)Cristine SIDENIUS (GREENS)Chiara TAMBURINI (GUE)

STAFF OF THE SECRETARIAT OF THE COMMITTEE ON CIVIL LIBERTIES,

PV\713813EN.doc 23/30 PEPE404.419v00

EN

JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS

Ana DUMITRACHECristina RODRIGUES

STAFF OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT UK OFFICE

Dermot SCOTT

INTERPRETERS – EN and FR languages

K. TAYLOR (head of team)S. BORDESJ. PEDUSSAUD

For further information on the delegation, please contact:

Ana DUMITRACHEEuropean ParliamentCommittee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Tel: 0032 (0)2/28 41416 Mobile phone: 0032 (0) 475 754.668Fax: 00 32 (0)2/28 44941 E-mail ana.dumitrache@europarl.europa.eu

PEPE404.419v00 24/30 PV\713813EN.doc

EN

Annex 2

European ParliamentCommittee on civil liberties, justice and home affairs

Delegation to UK21-23 November 2007

FINAL PROGRAMME

The purpose of the visit to UK is to ascertain directly the situation regarding the reception of asylum seekers and irregular migrants in UK, to check the implementation of Council Directive 2003/9/EC laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers, as well as to exchange views with government authorities and representatives of civil society.

This visit to UK follows similar delegations to Italy (Lampedusa), Spain (Ceuta and Melilla, Canary Islands), France (Paris), Malta, Greece (Samos and Athens) and Belgium.

Wednesday 21 November 2007

8:59 Eurostar train from Brussels to London

10:01 Arrival in London (Saint Pancras station)

10:01 – 11:00 Travel by bus to the hotel and registration at the hotel (NH Harrington Hall, Address: 5-25 Harrington Gardens, SW7 4JB London,Tel.: +44.20.73969696)

PV\713813EN.doc 25/30 PEPE404.419v00

EN

11:00 – 12:00 Meeting with organisations and NGOs active in the field of asylum and immigration (location: hotel NH Harrington Hall)

12:00 – 13:00 Lunch at the hotel

13:00 – 14:45 Travel by bus to the immigration removal centre Yarl's Wood1

(Clapham)

14:45 – 17:00 Visit of the centre, discussion with the authorities

Yarl’s Wood is a purpose-built immigration removal centre. Two blocks housed up to 900 detainees. One of the blocks opened in November 2001 but was closed following a disturbance and a fire in February 2002. The damaged block was razed. After extensive rebuilding, the second block opened in September 2003 with an initial capacity of 60. Capacity was expanded to 120 by August 2004, and to operational capacity of 405 by 2006. Since reopening it has become the main removal centre for women and families. 2

17:00 – 19:00 Return travel by bus to hotel (NH Harrington Hall)

Free Dinner (suggestions for restaurants distributed to the delegation)

Night in London

Thursday 22 November 2007

8:00 – 10:00 Travel by bus to the Oakington Immigration Reception Centre (near Bedford)3

10:00 – 11:45 Visit of the centre, discussion with the authorities

The centre has been in operation since 2000. With an operational capacity of 300, the centre used to accommodate a mix of families, single males and single females. It was originally designed to accommodate people for maximum 10 days.As the centre was due to close towards the end of 2006, it seems that there has been a reluctance to invest in facilities/services. However, it seems now that the functioning of the centre might be extended until

1 Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal CentreTwinwoods Road, Clapham, Bedfordshire, MK41 6HL

2 Report on an unannounced short follow-up inspection of Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre,13 – 16 February 2006 by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons3 Oakington Barracks, Longstanton, Cambridgeshire, CB4 5EJ

PEPE404.419v00 26/30 PV\713813EN.doc

EN

June 2010. NGOs seem very concerned about the situation in this centre.At present, it seems that only men are detained in the centre; appreciatively 40 % of them are Foreign National Prisoners (persons from other countries who have finished their time in prison and are about to be returned to their country) (situation on the 8th November 2007).

11:45 – 13:45 Bus to London

13:45 – 15:00 Lunch in London – proposed restaurant: Atrium, Four Millbank, London SW1P 3JA Tel 0044 20 72 33 00 32

15:15 – 16:15 Meeting with the Minister in charge with asylum and migration issues, Meg HILLIER MP

16:15 – 17:00 Return to the hotel (NH Harrington Hall)

Free evening

Night in London

Friday 23 November 2007

8:30 – 9:30 Travel by bus to the immigration removal centre Harmondsworth1

(near Heathrow Airport)

9:30 – 11:00 Visit of the centre, discussion with the authorities

Harmondsworth opened in September 2001. It used to be the largest immigration removal centre, holding around 500 people. Around 2,000 people each month used to pass through its reception area, at all hours of the day and night. Most spent only a short time there; though some could spend months or even years there.

Over recent years, the centre has experienced a major disturbance, and an apparently self-inflicted death. It closed in mid-2004 and reopened in October 2004. Given the closure of part of the wings, the capacity is now of 250 people.

Originally holding families as well as single men and women, it seems that at the time of the inspection carried out by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons in July 2006 Harmondsworth held single male adults only.

Number held on 17 July 2006: 481 1 Harmonsworth Immigration Removal CentreColnbrook by Pass, Harmondsworth, West Drayton, UB7 0HB

PV\713813EN.doc 27/30 PEPE404.419v00

EN

Operational capacity: 5011

11:00 – 12:00: Return travel by bus to London, to the EP Information Office

12:15 – 13:00 Press conference (location: the EP Information Office, 2 Queen Anne's Gate, London SW1H 9AA)

13:00 – 13:45 Bus to the hotel (NH Harrington Hall)

Free travel back

Possibilities for taking the Eurostar to Brussels: 14:32 (arrival in Brussels at 17:23), 16:05 pm, 16:55 pm, 18:32 pm, 19:35 pm

1 Report on an unannounced inspection of Harmondsworth Immigration Removal Centre 17–21 July 2006 by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons

PEPE404.419v00 28/30 PV\713813EN.doc

EN

Annex 3

Organisations and NGOsthat were invited to the meeting which took place on the 21 November 2007,

London

THE INDEPENDENT MONITORING BOARDSASSOCIATION OF VISITORS TO IMMIGRATION DETAINEES (AVID)REFUGEE COUNCILIRR - INSTITUTE OF RACE RELATIONSLIBERTY - ALSO KNOWN AS THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR CIVIL LIBERTIESJESUIT REFUGEE SERVICE UKNORTHERN IRELAND HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONNATIONAL COALITION OF ANTI-DEPORTATION CAMPAIGNSGROUP LONDON NO BORDERSLONDON DETAINEE SUPPORT GROUP (LDSG) BLACK WOMEN'S RACE ACTION PROJECT AND ALL AFRICA WOMEN'S GROUP

ORGANISATIONS SPECIALISED IN SPECIFIC CENTRES

YARL'S WOOD BEFRIENDERSASYLUM WELCOME (IRC Campfield House)OAKINGTON FRIENDS VISITING GROUPDOVER DETAINEE VISITING GROUPHASLAR VISITORS GROUP

NGOS DEALING WITH LEGAL REPRESENTATION OF DETAINEES

BAIL CIRCLEBAIL FOR IMMIGRATION DETAINEES (BID)DETENTION ADVISORY SERVICE (DAS)IMMIGRATION LAW PRACTITIONERS ASSOCIATION (ILPA)REFUGEE LEGAL CENTRE (RLC)

ORGANISATION SPECIALISED IN MEDICAL MATTERS

MEDICAL JUSTICE NETWORK

ORGANISATIONS IN BRUSSELS

EUROPEAN COUNCIL ON REFUGEES AND EXILES (ECRE)INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MIGRATION (IOM)AMNESTY INTERNATIONALHUMAN RIGHTS WATCH (HRW)FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE DES DROITS DE L'HOMME (FIDH)

PV\713813EN.doc 29/30 PEPE404.419v00

EN

Annex 3

Organisations and NGOsthat were invited to the meeting which took place on the 21 November 2007,

London

THE INDEPENDENT MONITORING BOARDSASSOCIATION OF VISITORS TO IMMIGRATION DETAINEES (AVID)REFUGEE COUNCILIRR - INSTITUTE OF RACE RELATIONSLIBERTY - ALSO KNOWN AS THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR CIVIL LIBERTIESJESUIT REFUGEE SERVICE UKNORTHERN IRELAND HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONNATIONAL COALITION OF ANTI-DEPORTATION CAMPAIGNSGROUP LONDON NO BORDERSLONDON DETAINEE SUPPORT GROUP (LDSG) BLACK WOMEN'S RACE ACTION PROJECT AND ALL AFRICA WOMEN'S GROUP

ORGANISATIONS SPECIALISED IN SPECIFIC CENTRES

YARL'S WOOD BEFRIENDERSASYLUM WELCOME (IRC Campfield House)OAKINGTON FRIENDS VISITING GROUPDOVER DETAINEE VISITING GROUPHASLAR VISITORS GROUP

NGOS DEALING WITH LEGAL REPRESENTATION OF DETAINEES

BAIL CIRCLEBAIL FOR IMMIGRATION DETAINEES (BID)DETENTION ADVISORY SERVICE (DAS)IMMIGRATION LAW PRACTITIONERS ASSOCIATION (ILPA)REFUGEE LEGAL CENTRE (RLC)

ORGANISATION SPECIALISED IN MEDICAL MATTERS

MEDICAL JUSTICE NETWORK

ORGANISATIONS IN BRUSSELS

EUROPEAN COUNCIL ON REFUGEES AND EXILES (ECRE)INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MIGRATION (IOM)AMNESTY INTERNATIONALHUMAN RIGHTS WATCH (HRW)FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE DES DROITS DE L'HOMME (FIDH)

PEPE404.419v00 30/30 PV\713813EN.doc

EN

Annex 4

The following countries are NSA designated states

Albania(ALB) India (IND) Bosnia Herzegovina (BIH)

Jamaica (JAM) Gambia (GMB)Males only

Macedonia (MKD) Kenya (KEN)

Moldova (MDA) Liberia (LBR)Males only

Serbia (SRB) including Kosovo (KOS) Mongolia (MNG) Malawi (MWI)

Males only

Bolivia (BOL) Ghana (GHA)Males only

Mali (MLI)Males only

Brazil (BRA) Nigeria (NGA)Males only Mauritius (MUS)

Ecuador (ECU) Montenegro (MNE)

Ukraine (UKR) Peru (PER)

Sierra Leone (SLE)Males only

NSA Countriesfrom 1 April 2003

NSA Countries from 28 July 2007

NSA Countries from2 December 2005

Sri Lanka (LKA) was removed from the designated list on 13 December 2006. Decisions

made may still be certified on a case by case basis but should not be certified with reference to art. 94(3). This also applies to Bangladesh (BGD) which was removed from the de-

signated list on 22 April 2005.

Bulgaria (BGR) and Romania (ROM) became part of the EU and were removed from the designated list with effect from 1 January 2007

You should also refer to the Fast TrackSuitability List for further clarification

Consideration of the asylum and/or human rights claim made by an individualentitled to reside in one of the above countries must only be made by

NSA trained Case Owners and accredited Senior Caseworkers.A claim from any nationality may be certified on a case by base basis.

Please refer to the Asylum Instruction on Certification under Section 94for further details

NSA Countriesfrom 1 April 2003