This
report highlights the controversy of detaining refugees in the UK, and
specifically issues around Dungavel Removal Centre, in particular, who is placed
in detention and what it means to ‘detain’ refugees who have committed no
crime indefinitely in a prison regime.
There
are no common standards laid down for the imprisonment of asylum seekers inside
the EU. There is also no restriction on the duration of imprisonment in
countries like Denmark, Finland, Greece, Great-Britain, the Netherlands and
Sweden, whereas in France the maximum is twelve days.
In
May 2001, the Home office confirmed that it was going to house asylum seekers in
a former category c prison, Dungavel Prison (renamed Dungavel Detention Centre
and then renamed again Dungavel Removal Centre).
Despite
protest by churches and human rights campaigners, the Home Office said that
detention was better than prison and the only people who would be put in
Dungavel would be “failed asylum
seekers who are waiting removal from the country or immigration offenders who
would normally be detained pending their removal”[1].
In
February 2002, I attended a meeting of Glasgow Asylum Rights Campaign where Jim
Henry, from friends of refugees Ayrshire spoke about his group and the work they
were doing to visit detainees at Dungavel.
Jim
highlighted several human rights concerns.
Jim
also stated that Home Office ministers refused applications to visit detainees by
the Catholic Church’s Justice and Peace Commission and the Christian Iona
Community.
The
Detainees at Dungavel
Following
visits to Dungavel to meet detainees, it soon became clear that Dungavel was not
“better than a prison”. None of the detainees we met had a history of
absconding, nor were they “failed asylum seekers” as the Home Office claims.
One
man, James Awesole, arrived from Nigeria and claimed asylum immediately on
arrival in the UK after his father was murdered. He was immediately taken to
prison and then Yarlswood before being transferred to Dungavel (after the
Yarlswood fire in February). His asylum application was live and he had never
absconded. He had been in detention for nine months. He has since won bail and
is living in the community, without any funds or the right to work. This man is
awaiting a judicial review; he was not a failed asylum seeker and he had never
absconded.
A
Russian man was in detention for several months and slashed his wrists after
being refused a pot of paint. He was removed without warning prior to the MSPs
visit to Dungavel in April.
Another
man, Dotun Adeosun, a 31 year old economics graduate from Nigeria, had been in
detention or prison for a total of 17 months. He had attempted suicide twice; on
the last occasion, he drove an iron rod into his stomach. He had claimed asylum
from the moment he arrived in the UK and was put into jail, then detention.
Prior to a visit by MSPs in April, he was removed without warning to him or his
solicitor.
The
Garza family, from Slovakia, was taken to Dungavel from the community. Baby
Vanessa, who is severely developmentally delayed, was receiving specialist
medical attention in Gateshead when the family lived in the community. However,
her treatment stopped once the family were put into detention. 13-year-old Nikki
and her 12-year-old brother Adrian are on the gifted children’s register but
their education all but stopped when they were put into detention. They are
currently in Harmondsworth Detention Centre and have won the right to a judicial
review on their asylum claim. This family are not failed asylum seekers and they
had never absconded.
Meena Sharma and her son were living in England for seven years and were put into detention. Meena’s son was studying for A’ levels at the time they were picked up. Shortly after, they won the right to bail and are living back in the community in England. This family are not failed asylum seekers and they had never absconded.
Hunger
Strike
On
11th April, around 60 detainees carried out a hunger strike to protest
over the length of time it is taking to resolve their cases and also conditions
where:
a)
Two men have attempted suicide,
b)
Detainees and their families are treated as prisoners.
c)
Children as young as six months are imprisoned behind razor wire;
d)
Children are denied schooling; and
e)
Sick children are denied proper medical attention as in the case of
Vanessa Garza.
Visit
by Scotland Office Minister
On
Wednesday 16 April 2002, a delegation from the Scottish Parliament’s Cross
Party Group on Refugees and Asylum seekers made a visit to Dungavel Removal
Centre due to concerns raised about the detention of families at Dungavel; the
length of time people were being detained and concerns about conditions at the
centre and the way detainees were being treated.
During
the visit, they spoke to any detainees they wished apart from those who had been
removed from the centre before the visit whom they would have also wished to
speak to. Many detainees they spoke to
were still in the process of having their application determined or waiting to
have their appeal heard. In fact, a number of detainees had lived in the
community for months, sometimes even years, before suddenly being detained
without explanation.
The
Cross Party Group wrote a damning
report of its visit and confirmed that Dungavel is run "along similar
lines to a prison", with movement about the building "severely
restricted". In terms of fire safety, there are smoke and heat detectors,
but no sprinklers at Dungavel for “nuisance reasons”. The report voiced
concerns over the length of time that people were being held and the way that
some detainees had been brought to Dungavel. The report called for the abolition
of the practice of detaining children and recommended that families with
children should be housed within the community while their asylum applications
are dealt with, reporting to the police or immigration regularly if there were
fears of absconding.
George Foulkes Responds to Cross
Party Group Report
On
22 April, George Foulkes was interviewed on Newsnight Scotland and said:
“These
detention centres are not just for people at the end of their appeals process
although most of them are and are awaiting return to their home countries. But
there are some who are frequent absconders, there are others who have broken
other parts of the immigration rules who need detention and those are held in
detention as well …”
When questioned as to why many of the detainees in Dungavel did not know at which stage their applications were, whether they were about to be deported or whether they had lost their appeals, George Foulkes replied that the refugees were “pretty desperate” and “don’t tell the truth”.
None of the people who we met were “at the end of the appeals process” or “awaiting return to their home countries”. They were not “frequent absconders”. Neither had they “broken other parts of the immigration rules”.
For example, in the case of the Garza family, they had never absconded or broken the immigration rules for the 10 months they lived in the community. Yet in April 2002, they were taken out of the community and put into detention with a view to removing them from the UK. Their baby Vanessa is very sick after a savage attack by neo nazis on the mother when she was 7 months pregnant. Despite speaking no English, her two children Adrian and Nikola made it to the top stream of school within a matter of months and placed on the Gifted children’s Register. On May 7th, they were granted a judicial review which is due to take place at the beginning of June, but they are still in detention. Their claim for asylum was not fully exhausted by their legal representatives, yet the Home Office appears to have prejudged their claim by placing them in detention. It is only due to the tenacity of those in the community they befriended and the sharp wittedness of their solicitor that they are still in the UK - albeit minus their liberty.
Why is the Garza family still in detention despite awaiting a judicial review on their claim to asylum? Why did the Home Office prejudge their claim by putting them into detention in the first place? Is it to cut refugees off from support in the community?
In the case of James Awesole, he was put first into prison then detention as soon as he got off the plane from Nigeria. James broke no immigration rules and never tried to escape but had his liberty taken away by the UK for nine months. After nine months, he won bail and is now living in the community, reporting regularly to immigration while awaiting the outcome of his judicial review.
Why was James Awesole put into detention when clearly his legal claim to asylum had not been exhausted? Why did the home Office prejudge his claim as soon as he stepped off the plane from Nigeria and put him into detention?
Following
the publicity around detention of refugees, the Immigration Advisory Service
began weekly surgeries at Dungavel. Members Friends of Refugees Ayrshire have
also played a key role in identifying and helping refugees without legal
representation. Because of these measures, an increasing number of refugees have
won bail.
Finally…
What
is happening to refugees is far worse and more sinister than the racism and
segregation experienced by immigrants in the 50s, 60s and 70s who were housed in
poor rundown areas and denied council housing. Today, institutionalised racism
is resulting in refugees:
a)
Being dispersed into the poorest communities without suitable amenities
in housing no one else wants to live in;
b)
Being segregated and isolated from the rest of society in accommodation
centres
c)
Facing the risk of becoming institutionalised to the point where they
find it difficult to ‘integrate’ into society after several months or years
without a sense of community and having their lives governed by a system that
decides what they eat, when they eat, when they sleep and ultimately who they
and their children can interact with.
d)
The children of refugees also face internalising the stigmatisation of
being an asylum seeker and feeling criminalised for the rest of their lives in
this society – not a very good start.
e)
Being imprisoned in detention or removal centres;
The
issue of asylum has been much politicised and on 28th April 2002, the
Scotland on Sunday published a Scottish
Opinion poll showing that 46% of Scots favoured a repatriation programme for immigrants,
with 28% disagreeing and 26% unsure.
The
problem of racism facing minorities and refugees is set to continue. Massive
publicity has been generated as a result of Positive Action in Housing’s input
and print articles can be found on the website at www.paih.org.
R
Qureshi
10 May 2002