Role of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons and UK's NPM

Her Majestys Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) Inspecting Immigration Detention 31stMarch 2015 Bev Alden - Inspector 1

Role of HMIP To ensure independent inspection of detention to report on conditions and treatment, and promote positive outcomes for those detained and the public 2

History HMIP established in 1982 by an amendment to the 1952 Prison Act 1999 Immigration Act gave HMIP the power to inspect IRCs and those under escort. The UK ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture in 2003 and in March 2009 the UK s national preventative mechanism was designated. HMIP can visit anywhere people are deprived of their liberty We now make recommendations to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

The UK National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) The NPM is made up of 20 existing bodies with powers to inspect and monitor places of detention. Members cover all four nations in the UK. Includes lay bodies and professional bodies In order to monitor detention and prevent torture, the NPM must be able to: Access all places of detention Speak to detainees and others in private Choose which places to visit and which people to talk to Access information on places of detention, and on detainees and their treatment and conditions

UK NPM members and their jurisdictions England and Wales HM Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) Independent Monitoring Boards (IMB) Independent Custody Visiting Association (ICVA) Her Majesty s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) Lay Observers (LO) England Wales Healthcare Inspectorate Wales (HIW) Care and Social Services Inspectorate Wales (CSSIW) Northern Ireland Independent Monitoring Boards (Northern Ireland) (IMBNI) Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJINI) Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA) Northern Ireland Policing Board Independent Custody Visiting Scheme (NIPBICVS) Office of the Children s Commissioner for England (OCC) Office for Standards in Education, Children s Services and Skills (Ofsted) Care Quality Commission (CQC) Scotland HM Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland (HMIPS) Her Majesty s Inspectorate of Constabulary for Scotland (HMICS) Scottish Human Rights Commission (SHRC) Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland (MWCS) Care Inspectorate (CI) Independent Custody Visitors Scotland (ICVS)

What institutions do HMIP inspect? Prisons (adult, young adult, juvenile) Police custody Immigration detention Military detention Court custody Customs custody facilities Secure training centres for children

Inspection Standards HMIP inspects against its own set of published standards called Expectations Outcomes referenced against international human rights standards and penal norms Separate Expectations for: Male prisoners Female Prisoners Children and young people Immigration detention Police custody Court custody Armed forces

Inspection methods Independent and impartial Unannounced inspections Unfettered access, with ability to arrive unannounced, go anywhere and talk to anyone. Inspectors draw keys. Listen to detainees, focus on detainees voice Unfettered right to publish Outcome focused Report published 16 weeks later 8

Healthy establishment tests Safety Detainees are held in safety and with due regard to the insecurity of their position Detainees are treated with respect for their human dignity and the circumstances of their detention. Respect The centre encourages activities and provides facilities to preserve and promote the mental and physical wellbeing of detainees. Purposeful activity Detainees are able to make contact with family, friends, support groups, legal representatives and advisers, access information about their country of origin and be prepared for their release, transfer or removal. Detainees are able to retain or recover their property. Preparation for removal and release

Evidence Triangulation Observation Group discussion with detainees Individual interviews Interviews with staff Examination of documentation Casework analysis Detainee Survey: Outcome focussed Confidential Random but representative sample Results can be compared with other similar prisons, results from last inspection

Immigration removal centres in UK 11 immigration removal centres Four public sector Seven private Eight centres exclusively male Three mixture of male and female 1 pre-departure accommodation Families with children 34 Short-term holding facilities (STHFs) Three residential, 29 non-residential Three facilities in France About 3000 immigration detainees Further 400 held in prisons

Overseas escorts HMIP has inspected overseas enforced removals, including flights, since 2010 following the death of an Angolan detainee during deportation Observe detainees being collected from the IRC through to handover in the destination country Analysis of incident reports and use of force information for the previous three flights to that same country. Published standards/criteria for these inspections, freely available on the HMIP website. Service improvement plans from the Home Office within two months of reports being published.

Key findings 2014-15 Detainees were transported and arriving at centres too late at night, and some were subject to excessive moves around the estate IRCs were safe with few fights and assaults, and use of force was low. Some IRCs looked and felt like a prison Some security procedures were disproportionate. Welfare services were provided at IRCs but some required development, and not all detainees were adequately prepared for removal or release. Detainees were not permitted access to Skype or social networks to maintain contact with family and friends.

Many detainees had no access to a lawyer to help their case. The quality of Rule 35 reports was variable and did not all lead to release There were some cases of prolonged detention with no clear justification. The quality of STHFs varied, and some people were detained there too long, but detainees generally felt safe. Overseas escorts were generally efficient, but we had concerns about some staff conduct and disproportionate security measures.

Positive outcomes General improvement in treatment and conditions, especially in STHFs. Examples of policy influence: Force on children or pregnant women to effect removal Internet access Mobile phones HMIP consulted on all new detention service orders. Chief inspector meets with ministers and operational head of Immigration Enforcement

Rule 35 Detention Centre Rules Healthcare staff should make a report to the Home Office where they consider a detainee s health will likely be affected by detention, or if they might have suicidal intentions, or may have been a victim of torture. Some improvement in the rule 35 safeguard, but in many cases it is still ineffective. Healthcare professionals require training Quality of rule 35 reports varies significantly Not all responses by immigration caseworkers to reports are sufficiently timely Many reports do not lead to release from detention, although some do e.g. Dover IRC,five of the last 16 reports had led to the release of the detainee, a much higher proportion than we usually see.

Victims of Trafficking The National Referral Mechanism Council of Europe Convention on Action against Human Trafficking 2008 A process for identifying and supporting victims of trafficking Multi agency First responders make referrals into the mechanism Competent authorities - UK Human Trafficking Centre and Home Office Two stage decision making process, no detention within this period. Victims may be granted leave to remain, dependent on circumstances Awareness of the mechanism is variable.

Children and Families The Cedars pre departure accommodation for families: Time limited detention 42 families were held at the centre during 2013 for an average of just over three days, some on more than one occasion. Families were held at the centre safely. Barnardo s staff play an important role in the centre A well managed establishment, but the distress of families passing through the centre and its potential impact on the children involved is disturbing. Force no longer used against pregnant women and children unless it is to prevent harm. The Cedars centre remains an example of best practice in caring for families who are to be removed.

The National Independent Commission on Enforced Removals 2012 report made four main recommendations: The need for a multi-disciplinary panel for complex returns The need for a more robust system for regular and appropriate licensing of contracted detainee custody officers (DCOs) and escort staff The need for independent oversight of the enforced removal process The need for pain-free restraint techniques appropriate for use during enforced removals.

Alternatives to detention Currently in the UK The requirement to report Electronic monitoring Immigration bail but this is a mechanism for release The APPG Inquiry into the Use of Immigration Detention in the United Kingdom (2014): There needs to be a shift away from a reliance on end-stage enforcement and towards engagement and compliance Time limited detention Community based resolutions Detention to be used sparingly Introduce a wider range of alternatives to detention

Email: beverley.alden@hmiprisons.gsi.gov.uk Website: http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/