detention centre | ukwatch.net

Migrants exploited for cheap labour

Ellie Keen — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Detainees at the Campsfield House immigration prison in Oxfordshire are being “exploited for cheap labour” due to staff cuts, the Oxford and District Trades Union Council has revealed. The rejected asylum seekers, who are locked up for lengthy periods pending their deportation, are being paid £5 for six-hour shifts of cleaning and kitchen work.

A statement by the Oxford and District TUC said: “We maintain our position that Campsfield is a shameful operation and should be closed. As long as it is open, jobs should be properly paid and be done by trained staff. For detainees there should be adequate recreational, educational and other provision… Detainees should receive an adequate financial allowance and not be obliged to act as slave labour for a multinational that makes big profits out of an operation that causes detainees enormous stress, uncertainty, general misery and often mental illness.”

Tracy Ellicott from the Campaign to Close Campsfield told Corporate Watch that detainees are not forced by GEO, the company that runs the prison, to work as such. They are, however, “forced in the sense that they are locked up for 24 hours a day, uncertain of their future and with no money to purchase any essentials they may need.” She added detainees can apply to do certain ‘jobs’ in the centre, such as cleaning, kitchen work and in the library. But none of those she has been visiting was prepared to speak out about this as they are “too scared of retaliation.”

The shifts are 6 hours long and detainees are paid £5 per shift, or 83p an hour. A GEO guard has reportedly said that, according to Home Office rules, they could only pay detainees a maximum of £24 a week. Radio Oxford quoted a statement from the Home Office two weeks ago to the effect that this was all above board and had been agreed with the Home Secretary. A Border and Immigration Agency (BIA) spokesperson said: “All detained persons are provided with an opportunity and encouraged to participate in activities to meet their recreational and intellectual needs. Individuals are entitled to undertake paid activities at rates approved by the Secretary of State.” As usual, GEO declined to comment.

Since taking over the running of Campsfield in June 2006, Global Expertise in Outsourcing (GEO) has cut back on both staffing levels and educational, recreational and other provisions at the centre. Over the past year, GEO has sacked education workers, nursing staff have departed, staff turnover has increased, the welfare officer has left and in September, the chaplain was suspended. GEO’s main business is immigration detention centres and mental health centres throughout the world, especially in USA, UK, South Africa and Australia. It also runs a part of Guantánamo Bay base in Cuba.

Private companies like GEO that run immigration detention centres make huge profits. Seven of the UK’s ten detention centres are run by private companies. The average cost for detaining someone in 2007/08 was £119 per day.

“It is unbelievable that people who have done nothing wrong are not only locked up in prison like criminals, but are also being treated like slaves,” Ms Ellicott said. “GEO is obviously saving money by using their ‘captives’ to perform menial tasks for slave wages.” She added, “of course, they could save a lot more if these centres were closed altogether!”.

The Home Office admitted migrants imprisoned in detention centres are “exempt from the minimum wage” but claimed they are “not forced to work.” A BIA spokesperson insisted: “This is voluntary and we are constantly looking for new opportunities to meet demand for this work.”

However, according to the immigration law, all asylum seekers are prohibited from work and live on state support, which is fixed at 70% of what is deemed to be the bare minimum to live on. The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 states that “it is contrary to this section to employ an adult subject to immigration control if… he has not been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom.” The majority of those held in immigration detention centres are rejected asylum seekers (have not been granted leave to enter or remain in the UK) who are waiting to be deported back home.

Outsourcing Abuse

Ellie Keen — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 23:46:36 +0000

Executive Summary

Background

Last autumn, 2007, stories hit the headlines about alleged assaults and beatings of asylum seekers by security guards employed by private companies contracted to run immigration detention centres or to escort detainees being moved between centres or when being removed from the UK.

In October 2007, an article in the Independent made reference to campaigners having a “dossier” of 200 alleged assault cases. The Home Office said the assault allegations were “unsupported assertions” and that if there was evidence of mistreatment they would expect it to be provided to them for investigation. In many cases, those alleging assaults had already lodged complaints, providing information to the Home Office and asking them to investigate, but where followed up by the Home Office, the complaints had largely been dismissed. The Complaints Audit Committee, set up to monitor the Home Office’s procedures for investigating complaints about the conduct of staff, informed us that there were about 190 complaints about alleged assaults in the previous 12 months.

In October 2007, we did not have permission from all those alleging the assaults to provide the Home Office with further information. We have since sought their permission where possible and now present findings from our dossier that has reached nearly 300 cases of alleged assault. Many additional allegations of assault have been reported to us that we simply have not had the resources to consider and therefore have not been included in the dossier. Because of this, coupled with the fact that other victims are fearful of coming forward, we feel our dossier is just the tip of the iceberg.

We have found an alarming and unacceptable number of injuries have been sustained by those subject to forced removals. This dossier provides evidence of widespread and seemingly systemic abuse of one of the most vulnerable communities of people in our society, who have fled their own countries seeking safety and refuge. The alleged assaults took place between January 2004 and June 2008. In addition to our findings, 48 detailed case studies are included in Part 2.

Key findings

In all cases in our dossier, what may have started off as ‘reasonable’ force1 turned into what we consider to be excessive force.
One asylum seeker ended up with his leg in a plaster cast and a woman was pushed through airports in a wheelchair after having allegedly been assaulted. The most common form of injury recorded resulted from inappropriate use of handcuffing, including swelling and cuts to the wrist, sometimes leading to longlasting nerve damage. Other injuries included bruising and swelling to the face and fractures to the wrists, ribs or ankles. Often psychological consequences resulted, such as the onset or exacerbation of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), panic attacks, suicidal feelings and depression.
66 % of alleged assaults were against men and 34 % against women.
48% of the assaults occurred at the airport before the detainee was placed on the plane and 12 % took place in the transport van on the way to the airport. 24% of alleged assaults took place on the aeroplane before take-off and 3% after take-off. 7% took place in the van back to the detention centre after the removal had already failed and 6 % took place within detention centres.
Allegations of assault were made by people from over 41 counties. Almost three quarters of these were from Africa. The most common nationalities of those being removed were Ugandan, Nigerian, Cameroonian, Congolese (Democratic Republic of Congo) and Jamaican.
There were 27 alleged incidents involving families, comprising a total of 42 children, 5 of whom are alleged to have been assaulted themselves.
Many of those assaulted made allegations of racism against the escort; there are repeated accounts of abusive language used such as “black bitch” and “black monkey, go back to your own country.”
Alleged assaults took place on scheduled airline flights, charter flights and military planes. Private jets have also been arranged to remove people from the UK. It is not known exactly how many airlines are contracted to carry out this task, or how much they are paid, but the costs run into millions of pounds each year.
Few asylum seekers are able to make a complaint or seek redress. The relevant procedures and legal process are complex and not perceived to be independent. There is evidence that asylum seekers lodging complaints are subject to harassment and further abuse. Many victims are already traumatised and see no option but to try to simply forget what has happened.
The authorities appear reluctant to investigate reported assaults which often happen behind closed doors, with no witnesses. Cell mates who witness assaults may be quickly moved to another centre or deported. CCTV evidence miraculously disappears or is conveniently obsured at the crucial moment. In most cases allegations of assault were not upheld following investigation, although in some cases, there were concerns about the inadequacy of the investigation.
There is evidence that the police do not take allegations seriously. In some cases where the detainee reported the matter to the police, counter allegations of assault were made against the detainee. In a number of cases, detainees who have complained have been charged and prosecuted, although none we are aware of have been convicted. A number of people alleging assault have been able to bring a civil action cases, some of which have settled out of court. We are not aware, however, of any security guards or their employers being prosecuted for any assault related offence under the criminal law. Our evidence suggests that immigration detainees do not have equal access to the law.

Summary

Asylum applications are a 14-year low, yet the proportional use of detention has increased 7-fold. The government is driven by seemingly arbitrary targets on deportation and has just announced a near doubling of detention centre capacity. “Mass deportations” may follow if the government puts into effect its announcement made in August 2007 to deal with 450,000 unresolved asylum cases within 5 years or less. The increased use of detention and target-driven deportations may lead to further injuries and assault allegations.

There have been numerous inquiries into alleged abuse of immigration detainees over the years but we see no improvement.

While the practice of using private companies for running detention centres and escorting of forced removals may contribute to a certain level of “see no evil, hear no evil”, our understanding is that the Home Office is aware of an unacceptable level of alleged abuse through its own complaints procedure.

We consider the evidence in this report reveals what may amount to state sanctioned violence, for which ultimate responsibility lies with the Home Office.

Link to complete report

Harriet Wistrich, Birnberg Peirce & Partners.
Dr. Frank Arnold, Medical Justice.
Emma Ginn, National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns.
Contact: info@medicaljustice.org.uk
Tel: 07786 517379

Treatment of Harmondsworth Detainees

Ellie Keen — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0000

PRESS RELEASE

On Monday 23 June, the High Court will determine whether an independent investigation must be held after vulnerable detainees were locked in flooded cells without food or water while fires burned during a disturbance in Harmondsworth detention centre.

Liberty is bringing the legal challenge on behalf of three individual detainees who claim that during the November 2006 Harmondsworth disturbance they were denied food and water for up to 40 hours; locked in overcrowded, pitch-black rooms flooded with water for more than 24 hours; forced to urinate and defecate in front of each other; and strip searched in front of several officers. Permission to judicially review the Home Office and Kalyx Ltd (the contractor running the centre) was granted by the High Court in March.

Liberty’s Legal Officer Alex Gask, who brought the legal challenge, said:

“This appalling mistreatment of immigration detainees will only be stopped if exposed through a root and branch independent inquiry. It is shameful that these men were abandoned to pain, fear and hunger while in UK detention.”

One detainee told how he was taken to the centre’s medical clinic suffering from a bad back. ‘They just abandoned me,’ the man said. ‘There was no doctor and, when I asked where the doctor was, the detention officers laughed at me … One of them stepped on the hem of my trousers to make me fall over. He then started laughing and called me a “fucking negro”.’

In January 2008, the Border and Immigration Agency’s race relations audit found that repeated patterns of alleged racist incidents at Harmondsworth detention centre were missed by the in-house investigation process and that regular taunting of detainees by some officers went unchallenged.

The disturbance in November 2006 allegedly began shortly after the publication of a damning report on conditions in the centre by the HM Chief Inspector of Prisons (HMIP). Four detainees were acquitted of conspiracy to commit violent disorder in February 2008.

Liberty will argue that the inquiry should cover the appalling conditions of detention under the Home Office and Kalyx Ltd which led to the disturbance taking place. Evidence from the claimants and other witnesses about the conditions in Harmondsworth substantiate the HMIP report, including:

an individual with HIV/AIDs being “outed” by prison officials and subsequently abused by other detainees
an individual with diabetes being denied insulin treatment • an individual with a visible skin disease bullied by prison officials
arbitrary solitary confinement • no effective complaints procedure
guards using racist taunts and beating detainees without provocation
detainees beaten by guards for such behaviour as requesting the faxes sent them by their lawyers.

The Home Office’s investigation into the disturbance led by Robert Whalley and published in July 2007 found that, “the underlying causes are still there and, without any changes, the same thing could happen again at either establishment.” Not a single detainee was spoken to throughout the Home Office investigation.

Contact: Jen Corlew on 0207 378 3656 or 0797 3 831 128

Notes to Editors

1. The High Court of Justice will hold a judicial review on Monday and Tuesday 23-24 June 2008 on behalf of three claimants who were detained at Harmondsworth detention centre in November 2006 against the Secretary of State for the Home Office and Kalyx Limited (formerly “UK Detention Services Ltd.”) Liberty argues that the Home Office is in violation of Article 3 of the Human Rights Act which prohibits inhuman and degrading treatment by failing to conduct an independent inquiry into the disturbance. For a copy of the application contact jenc@liberty-human-rights.org.uk

2. Liberty has compiled Harmondsworth detainees’ witness statements about the conditions in Harmondsworth both during and before the disturbance. The statements reveal that solitary confinement as a punishment for speaking out at Harmondsworth is common, according to Liberty’s witnesses. ‘If we made a complaint we would be given a warning,’ one man known as ‘K’ told Liberty. ‘If we were given three warnings, we would be put in an isolated cell. We were scared of making complaints against officers because we expected to be treated badly if we did. We were treated like pigs and very unfairly, as if we were serious criminals.’

3. Anne Owers, Chief Inspector Prisons, visited Harmondsworth for an unannounced inspection on 17-21 July 2006. Her report on this inspection, published on 28 November 2006 was “undoubtedly the poorest report we have issued on an IRC”. This report is available here