May 2004

Response to the report made by Ian Eaglestone, Chairman of the Yarl’s Wood Visiting Committee (VC) dated 10th June 2002

Visiting Committees have since been renamed Independent Monitoring Boards (IMBs)

The reason why this SADY response has only been made in May 2004 is because we have not previously been able to get hold of the Yarl’s Wood Visiting Committee 2002 report - it is not available on the Home Office website, contact by SADY has been rejected by the Yarl’s Wood Visiting Committee, and we have only recently been given a copy of their report via a journalist.

Contents

1. Forward (below)
2. Response in detail: Download here (Word)
3. Yarl’s Wood Visiting Committee 2002 Report: Download here (Word)

1. Forward

Visiting Committees (VCs) are the “’eyes and ears’ of the Ministers and the public”, providing “scrutiny” and “independent oversight” of immigration removal centres. Their duties include monitoring treatment of detainees, hearing detainees’ complaints, visiting detainees put in Segregation, and producing an annual report.

They have a “vital ‘watchdog’ role” at Yarl’s Wood Removal Centre, built to detain 900 men, women and children who are not accused of any crime, indefinitely. The Home Office informed us on local radio these detainees were “failed asylum seekers” being held “24 hours or so” prior to their removal from the UK.

In fact, many detainees are later released (e. g. Ms M who was released after 7 months, never having had a removal notice) and some are subsequently granted refugee status.

Yarl’s Wood opened on 19th November 2001. On 14th February 2002 half of it burned to the ground and it was closed shortly thereafter. The Prison Ombudsman was chartered to conduct an Inquiry into the fire, which has not been published yet.

Few detainees knew of the Yarl’s Wood VC - they formed their own commitee Only one of detainees we knew at Yarl’s Wood understood the role of Yarl’s Wood VC. Detainees organised their own committee to try and deal with their complaints before the fire.

It seems they may have not been alone in being unfamiliar with the Yarl’s Wood VC’s role - the Bedfordshire County Council invited 110 people to give evidence in its 2002 Inquiry into the Yarl’s Wood fire - none of the Yarl’s Wood VC members were amongst the 110. Perhaps the Yarl’s Wood VC were invited to give evidence but declined. They did not decline to appear on TV in support of Group4 after the fire, nor after the Daily Mirror’s under-cover article with allegations of racism and abuse at Yarl’s Wood.

We’ve looked for the “scrutiny” that the Yarl’s Wood VC provides to the public, but we can’t find it. There is no annual report on the Home Office website.

Eventually we got hold of Yarl’s Wood VC’s 2002 report via a journalist - we found it painfully thin. We were alarmed at what was in it, but more so by what wasn’t.

Was “confidential” information removed from the Yarl’s Wood VC’s 2002 report? Des Browne, the new Immigration Minister responded to a Parliamentary Quest : “Independent Monitoring Board [Visiting Committee] annual reports are not published documents. They are made to the Secretary of State who permits the Board to publish their report if they wish, subject to allowing a period of notice to elapse before publication and the removal of any information which is confidential. Boards are, however, encouraged to publish their reports and the Chairs have indicated that most of the Boards intend to do so this year.”... we don’t understand why the annual reports are not published as a matter of course, and straight away. Also, what “confidential” information is, and why it would be removed from an annual report. We are left wondering if “confidential” information was removed from the Yarl’s Wood report.

Our reaction to the Yarl’s Wood VC’s 2002 report We feel the IMB report shows an uncritical acceptance of the viewpoints of Group 4 and the Immigration Service, and contains criticisms of detainees for which no supporting evidence is offered. This reveals in our opinion a bias which affects the ability of the VC to fulfil its function.

About the fire, the Yarl’s Wood VC made no mention of the absence of sprinklers in the centre, that the fire-fighters were delayed access for an hour, that Group4 management told staff to “play it by ear”, that Group4 ordered detainees be locked in the burning building, that Group4 failed to assist their own staff trapped in side, or details about detainees put in Segregation afterwards.

It turns out the Yarl’s Wood VC was denied access to detainees immediately after the fire. This left a very serious gap in ability to independently monitor what was going on at the very time scrutiny was vital, a point that the Yarl’s Wood VC itself didn’t mention if it had raised.

They did however note that “The interaction by Group4 with detainees seemed to us to be well meant”... seemingly to miss that the canteen culture among Group4 staff included such self-admitted ‘sick jokes’ as calling the central corridor the Green Mile (as in the Death Row of an American Prison) and detainees depersonalised by terms like ‘child females’ and ‘child males’ for children. That a detainee being summoned to an office by staff and only to be then told to “piss off”, or a Nurse telling a detainee to “shut up and get out of my office”.

An under-cover Mirror journalist later picked up a catalogue of comments which initiated another Inquiry by the Prison Ombudsman, which was published on 30th April 2004. The comments included Group4 staff describing detainees as “scum of the scum” and “useless scrubbers”, saying “Fuck off and get your passport and leave the country”, and an officer listing the external escorts that are carried out during training session with new recruits: “We do hospitals, dentists, funerals... we should be so lucky. Did I say that? [to laughter]”

No doubt, Group4 are unlikely to say such things in front of the Yarl’s Wood VC. Indeed, the under-cover journalist reports - “I was warned repeatedly to watch what I said in front of the visiting committee” - this was during his Group4 training period. Obviously the Yarl’s Wood VC cannot have eyes in the back of its head. This is why contact with detainees is so important. We have had a lot of intelligence from detainees but they have better and unfettered access to detainees than we do.

The Yarl’s Wood VC regarded that some detainees “did not want to respond to a friendly approach” and said “understanding why this may be, does not help when trying to diffuse tension”, whereas a psychologist bought in to train Group4 officers said empathy is needed (full quote: “You should have empathy for them, understand where they are coming from, but not sympathy. Sympathy comes between shit and syphilis in the dictionary.”)

Despite what ever they may have suffered in their own country, detainees have been told virtually throughout the asylum determination process, in the most explicit terms, that their story is not believed and that they are not wanted in the UK. This is repeated to them over and over - often for the many months on end they are detained, and we know people who have been detained for nearly 3 years.

The Yarl’s Wood VC said it “did not see any use of undue force by Group4” We have no reason to doubt the Yarl’s Wood VC. However, the Mirror journalist reported a number of incidents during the period covered by the YW IMB’s 2002 report, including...

· An officer admitting he assaulted a detainee “After a tussle in the corridor, the officer followed his colleagues to a segregation cell where there were no CCTV cameras. I was told the inmate “got a pasting” and was “splattered against the wall with a riot shield.” The 19 stone officer confessed to using all his body weight when restraining the naked asylum seeker in a figure of eight lock on the floor. The stricken man was unable to move for 10 minutes.” The detainee wrote a complaint consistent with this account on 04/02/02 which the Prison Ombudsman said was “Shockingly” never properly investigated and that if the allegation were true, it constituted a criminal assault.

· A Group4 officer saying “He was always on about his human rights. Always hated me, totally hated me. It was because I once told him, ‘I will f*** you up tomorrow.’ I was involved in the control and restraint team that wrapped him up the next day. It was brilliant.” - again, the Prison Ombudsman said the assault allegation should be investigated.

· A Group4 officer saying “We do that especially with someone we don’t like and give him a good crank. The tape ran out, Your Honour. The battery ran out, Your Honour” and it turned out that ex-member staff claims - in a separate incident - to have been told to stand in front of a camera while C&R was being used.

Again, we feel the Yarl’s Wood VC needs to be more in touch with detainees. One of the Yarl’s Wood VC members did point out to the Prison Ombudsman that they were “unsure detainees knew the purpose” of the Yarl’s Wood VC, that the only visible sign of Yarl’s Wood VC is the VC box, and that no messages from detainees were received in the IMB box since re-opening, i. e. 28th September 2003 to when the Prison Ombudsman’s report was compiled (we believe it was around 20th February 2004).

Yarl’s Wood VC Chairman said that the VC “did not routinely monitor use of force in the centre” to the Prison Ombudsman during an interview, but later back-tracked and said they monitored all use of force reports. We are very glad they say they monitor the use-of-force because according to the Prison Ombudsman’s 30th April 2004 report, Group4 has been doing it more at Yarl’s Wood than any other removal centre in the country, and it was only a few weeks ago that a 15 year old boy lost consciousness while being restrained by three prison officers at a Secure Training Centres run by a subsidiary of Group4 - the boy died an hour later in hospital. A Group4 Control & Restraint Supervisor told the Mirror journalist about the eventuality whereby a detainee stops breathing - “It happens more often than you might think.”

The Yarl’s Wood VC said in its 2002 report “Two found semi conscious” - nothing more : just those four words.

The report said “suicide threats” - nothing more : just those two words. “Suicide threats” (or in the words the Mirror journalist claims it was described to him by a Group4 officer - “threatening to swing”) and “Food refusal” (hunger-strikes in plain English) were simply bullet points in a list of mostly disruptive detainee behaviour incidents.

The report does not mention the word “child” once. Children at Yarl’s Wood included a 5 week old premature baby.

In its 2002 report the Yarl’s Wood VC “have considered whether they missed anything, should have done more etc. etc. but although an experienced team may have picked up something, we doubt it”.

Certainly the Yarl’s Wood VC could not be expected to know everything that went down at Yarl’s Wood, but had they really been in touch with detainees, and had their confidence, they would have come to know about most things.

Whilst many detainees tell us that the Yarl’s Wood VC failed in their responsibility to make themselves known (and thus to hear their complaints) or visit them in Segregation (e. g. one claiming he was in Segregation for 19 days - 5 days over what is allowed - was not visited)... the Yarl’s Wood VC Chairman, who says he sat on race tribunals for 20 years, seems to perhaps be over-stepping his remit by advocating “Ethnic groupings are given careful scrutiny before dispersal to Centres. Some are known to be more of a problem than others”

The Yarl’s Wood VC seems keen to appear on TV to back Group4’s position...

· After fire they spoke about Group4’s many “checks and balances”

· After the end of the Yarl’s Wood trial they said a detainee’s allegation of not being fed in Segregation for three days was not true

· After publication of the Daily Mirror report, the YW IMB Chair dismissed it out of hand, saying the under-cover journalist “should be ashamed of himself”. Even Group4 managed a more professional response and ended up sacking some staff. The Prison Ombudsman concluded that most of the things the journalist said happened, did happen.

Curious that Yarl’s Wood VC was prepared to appear on TV in support of Group4 and not on the other hand agree to consider concerns our campaign tried to raise with them about detainees being held in segregation - they told us to put such concerns via Group4, that “there would be no useful outcome” to a meeting with them and why “pass the time of day”. They say in their report that contact was “avoided” due to our “publicly stated aims” - we are not sure exactly what this refers to, but note they couldn’t get the name of our campaign right.

The Prison Ombudsman didn’t seem to get much joy either and it is really surprising that in his Inquiry into allegations of racism and physical abuse he should end up having to make five recommendations about the Yarl’s Wood VC.

Explanations for what we feel was a lack of monitoring by the Yarl’s Wood VC’s - is it simply that, in their own words, they were not able to “appear purposeful and professional” because of “ill co-ordinated and insufficient” training? The first time around the Yarl’s Wood VC was not formally confirmed until a week before Yarl’s Wood fire and this time round, by the Prison Ombudsman’s April 2004 report, the Yarl’s Wood VC Chair had still not yet formally organised members’ duties.

Or is it that they didn’t want to bother the Home Secretary that appointed them with details about the government’s private profit making sub-contractor? Perhaps they felt the duty to “satisfy themselves as to the state of the detention centre premises” didn’t run as far as pointing out the lack of a sprinkler system and took no issue with the Home Office’s decision not to fit sprinklers. Perhaps they followed the view of the Home Secretary when he said the day after the fire that Group4 had “acquitted themselves with dedication and courage”.

The Yarl’s Wood VC’s lack of detail, analysis and criticisms leaves us feeling like either the Yarl’s Wood VC didn’t carry out its role effectively, or it didn’t take the role seriously enough, or it feels it is not accountable to the public by means of a detailed report.

We, and others, are naturally very suspicious of how independent an organisation can be that is appointed by the Home Office. We wanted to have contact with The Yarl’s Wood VC to overcome any unwarranted fears. Their refusal to have contact with us, the brevity of their annual report, and its omissions, have only served to increase our fears.

Meanwhile, the government has effectively dismissed the Prison Ombudsman’s Inquiry into the fire by virtue of re-opening Yarl’s Wood with Group4 prior to publication of that Inquiry, subjecting women (and shortly children), to what could be more of the same - for example, a Group4 supervisor’s account to the Mirror journalist “[detainee Ms C] decided to give us some trouble so we showed her Mr Bendy. C&R over she was an angel. A magnificent transformation”.

We know that between Oct 2003 and Jan 2004, the incidence of use of force at Yarl’s Wood on women was by far the highest of all Removal Centres - five times that of Dover which has male detainees only (source: Prison Ombudsman 30th April 2004 report).

Campaign To Stop Arbitrary Detentions at Yarl’s Wood suggested way forward We believe the Home Secretary should close down Yarl’s Wood as there seems little effective independent monitoring has been going on. If he is not minded to do so, we suggest the Yarl’s Wood VC draws up the Mission Statement recommended by the Prison Ombudsman (dismissed by Yarl’s Wood VC Chair saying it would “do nothing for our sense of purpose”), identifies its accountabilities and deliverables and a proper training programme. Buy-in could be sought from stake-holders, including detainees and campaigners. The Yarl’s Wood VC could then stand down, and re-enter the recruitment & appointments process.

We welcome that one Yarl’s Wood VC member identified a number of failings to the Prison Ombudsman and we hope that kind of action will continue. The Yarl’s Wood VC’s role is vital and we want a VC we can have a healthy relationship with.

Note

Independent Monitoring Boards (IMBs) used to be known as Visiting Committees (VCs)

Campaign To Stop Arbitrary Detentions At Yarl’s Wood
sady_campaign@yahoo.co.uk