Sanctuary in a cell update

The detention of asylum seekers in Northern Ireland

A progress report by Emily Threlfall

Introduction

This report has been written as an update to the research report Sanctuary in a cell: the detention of asylum seekers in Northern Ireland written by Victoria Tennant and published by Law Centre (NI) in October 2000. The report is divided into three sections. Part I provides an overview of developments since 2000, part II presents and compares the available statistics relating to detention and part III gives a progress report on the recommendations contained within the original report.

Sanctuary in a cell examined the use of detention for asylum seekers in Northern Ireland and analysed this in the light of human rights compliance and the enforcement of immigration control. The research was funded by the Northern Ireland Community Foundation in response to growing concerns about the numbers being held in prisons in Northern Ireland. The report made a constructive contribution to the debate on the detention of asylum seekers in Northern Ireland and has provided an invaluable information resource for everyone involved in and concerned with this issue.

The report identified a number of concerns around the inappropriate use of detention and cast serious doubts on the effectiveness of the use of detention as an immigration enforcement tool. The primary recommendation of the report was that asylum seekers should only be detained in cases of necessity, in accordance with the guidelines issued by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. The report also stressed the need for alternatives to detention to be developed. In line with international standards applicable to conditions of detention, it was urged that the practice of holding asylum seekers alongside sentenced prisoners in Northern Ireland be brought to an end as a matter of urgency.

The report recommends the development of a non-custodial open accommodation centre. If a small number of asylum seekers, in exceptional circumstances, continue to be detained in Northern Ireland, the report recommended that consideration be given to developing a small immigration detention facility located in or close to Belfast and that structured arrangements for support and facilities be put in place. In recognition of the fact that this might take some time, a number of recommendations were set out which it was felt should be implemented immediately at Magilligan and Maghaberry.

Part I

Overview of recent developments

Nearly three years on, there has been little progress in relation to the key recommendations of the report, with only one recommendation (relating to the availability of legal aid for representation at appeal and bail hearings) out of a total of 33, having been met in full. During that time, there have been significant developments in detention policy across the UK as a whole, including the publication of the White Paper Secure Border, Safe Haven: Integration with Diversity in Modern Britain in 2002 and the subsequent introduction of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. However, the picture in Northern Ireland remains remarkably similar to that presented by Victoria Tennant in 2000. Many of the developments across the rest of the UK have not impacted on the use and conditions of detention in Northern Ireland. For example, the government has withdrawn from the use of prison service accommodation in the rest of the UK and detention in prison is reserved for detainees ‘with a history of violent or criminal behaviour and those considered a danger to safety’.1 In Northern Ireland, however, asylum seekers are still being detained in significant numbers in a prison establishment. The issues and recommendations presented within Sanctuary in a cell remain equally relevant and important today.

Two central developments contained within the 2002 White Paper and the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 were the introduction of the Application Registration Card (ARC) and stricter reporting requirements and the repeal of provision for automatic bail applications. Northern Ireland, along with the rest of the UK, has recently seen the introduction of ARCs. The card is designed to replace the Standard Acknowledgement Letters that were used for identification of asylum seekers. According to the White Paper, the ARCs are biometric smart cards containing personal details including a photograph, fingerprints and employment status. The 2002 White Paper envisaged that the card would be used as a routine part of the reporting procedure as it contains details specifying the next date on which the holder must report. Those claiming NASS support will be expected to present an ARC as identification. They are also intended to assist immigration officers to establish identity during enforcement operations.2 This development should be viewed in conjunction with other mechanisms introduced to tighten the management and control of the asylum system. For example, conditions of temporary admission are now also conditions on which asylum support is granted. This means that asylum support may be terminated if conditions of temporary admission are breached. At the time of the original report, the authorities had the powers to impose reporting requirements on asylum seekers in Northern Ireland. However, these control mechanisms were not often used in Northern Ireland. A major development since 2000 is that reporting requirements are now imposed as a matter of course and asylum seekers are required to report regularly at the Belfast International Airport. All of these changes strengthen arguments that detention is unnecessary and alternatives can offer an effective means of immigration control.

Part III of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 significantly restructured the bail system and provided every immigration detainee with an automatic bail hearing before a magistrate within ten days of being detained, and again between 33 and 38 days of initial detention. Section 46 of the Act also created a presumption in favour of bail. However, these safeguards were never implemented and have now been repealed by the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. The 2002 White Paper stated that Part III was:

‘inconsistent with the need to ensure that we can streamline the removals process in particular and immigration and asylum processes more generally. The significant and continuing expansion of the detention estate since the proposals were first put forward would make the system unworkable in practice.’3

Sanctuary in a cell highlighted the fact that the power to detain under the immigration acts is very wide.4 Criteria for detention are not exhaustive and not contained in statute.5 Furthermore, there is no maximum limit on the length of time that an individual can be detained under Immigration Act powers. Safeguards in this context are absolutely essential. The current bail system is, however, inadequate. For example, the requirement for sureties can act as a deterrent for applicants and can operate to reduce an individual’s chance of being granted bail.6 The repeal of the provisions providing for an automatic right to make a bail application further contributes to the inadequate nature of arrangements for judicial oversight of detention. The 2002 Act presents no alternative safeguards to those provided in Part III of the 1999 Act. Judicial Review and habeas corpus rights have been pointed to as alternatives to bail hearings. However, these remedies are complex, expensive and rarely used.

The last three years have seen further developments affecting detention policy. The effect of these on the practice of detaining asylum seekers in Northern Ireland has been limited. However, it is worth outlining the central developments, as they have altered the UK wide framework and may have an impact in the future.

Oakington Reception Centre

Oakington Reception Centre, in Cambridgeshire, was opened in March 2000. It is a detention centre solely for asylum applicants and operates on a completely different set of criteria to all other immigration detention. It imposes a fast track appeals process whereby an initial decision on asylum applications will be made within seven days of arrival.7 The Oakington Reception Centre, therefore, represents a very significant change in policy towards detention in terms of the reasons for detention. Detention is justified on the basis that it is administratively convenient in order to determine the claims quickly and not on the basis that the individuals are likely to abscond or for the purposes of removal.8 In fact, the Operational Enforcement Manual sets out certain categories of person considered unsuitable for Oakington and this includes anyone who is an ‘absconding risk’.9 Although the centre makes use of statutory detention powers and is run as a detention centre, the regime is considered as too relaxed for those likely to abscond. The most important factor in deciding whether to detain is the nationality of the applicant.10

These procedures were recently held by the House of Lords, in R (on the application of Saadi and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002], to be consistent with the government’s obligations under Article 5 of the European Convention of Human Rights, now contained within the Human Rights Act 1998.11 The judgement lays down that the procedures fall within the exception contained in Article 5 permitting detention to prevent unauthorised entry. Entry, it was argued, remains unauthorised until the state authorises it. Furthermore, there was nothing within the paragraph requiring detention to be necessary for that purpose. Detention under the procedures was deemed proportionate and reasonable.

The Detention Centre Rules

The Detention Centre Rules were introduced in 2001 and provide a statutory basis for the way in which detention centres must be run. They cover matters including conditions in the centres and the provision of reasons for detention. The Operating Standards, which flesh out these rules, have yet to be completed and there has therefore been a failure to implement the rules effectively. Moreover, the rules do not apply to prison facilities and therefore do not affect the conditions for immigration detainees in Northern Ireland. The rules themselves contrast with the nature of a prison regime and serve to highlight further the disparity of approach between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.

The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001

The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 provides for additional powers to detain those suspected of being connected to international terrorism and certified by the Secretary of State as being a risk to national security. Individuals who are suspected of terrorism and who have been certified a threat to national security may now be detained under any of the Immigration Act powers regardless of whether they can actually be removed from the UK.12 In essence, therefore, the powers allow detention where the individual is not being charged with any offences and regardless of whether s/he can be deported or removed.13 This would be in conflict with case law on the limits of the power to detain and would be in contravention of Article 5 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which justifies detention for the purposes of immigration control only in order to prevent unlawful entry or to enforce removal. The government, therefore, had to announce that it was derogating from Article 5 while the legislation is in force.14 This has been justified as a response to the ‘threat to the national security of the United Kingdom’.15

The criteria and use of detention

In relation to the criteria and use of detention, there have been no real changes in policy since the publication of the original report, excluding the changes discussed above in relation to detention at Oakington Reception Centre. The criteria for detention are not contained in legislation but are to be found in the policy set out in immigration service instructions to staff on detention, extracts of which were published, dated 1991 and 1994. These documents are to be read in conjunction with the White Papers and the updated IND Operational Enforcement Manual. Examination of all these documents shows that the criteria for detention have remained essentially the same since 1991.

Detention in Northern Ireland

Concerns about the detention of asylum seekers in prison in Northern Ireland have not abated. There has been little progress in relation to the recommendations and in a number of ways the situation for asylum seekers has deteriorated. The situation needs to be addressed urgently. The imprisonment of immigration detainees in the same wing as paramilitary prisoners has highlighted the dangers that accompany current detention practices. In June 2002, as a result of the death of segregated LVF prisoner Mark Fulton in D wing, all immigration detainees were moved to the prison’s Punishment and Segregation Unit (PSU) where they were subjected to harsh conditions and treatment. They were locked up 24 hours a day in a small cell for the entire duration of their time spent in the Unit. There were reports of verbal abuse including racial abuse and acts of intimidation. The detainees were searched every day and strip-searched on their way back to D wing four days later.16 The immigration detainees are currently housed in the same wing as Johnny Adair, a high-profile loyalist prisoner isolated from the main prison due to fears about security.

Part II

Detention statistics July 2001 to end of 2002

The Northern Ireland Prison Service provided statistics for the number of immigration detainees committed to HMP Maghaberry in each month since May 2001 broken down by gender but not by racial group. Statistics for the period between June 2000 and May 2001 were unavailable. The detention sub-group of the Refugee Action Group began regular visits to HMP Maghaberry in July 2001 and has kept records of all detainees with whom it had contact. These sources show the trend in detention is as follows.
A significant increase in people being detained in Northern Ireland has occurred since publication of the original report.
Since 1999/2000, a higher proportion of people have been detained for both very short periods of under seven days and long periods of over three months. There is no apparent change in policy or practice to explain these changes.
Excluding Nigeria and Lithuania, representing 26% of the total number of detainees, no single country accounted for more than 6% over the period between July 2001 and the end of 2002. This contrasts with the figures for the period between 1999 and 2000, which indicated that 66% of the total number of detainees were from Romania, Nigeria or China.

Part III

Recommendations update

 

1. KEY RECOMMENDATION: An ad-visory body on immigration detention in Northern Ireland should be established, consisting of representatives of the Immigration Service and Home Office, the Northern Ireland Prison Service, ethnic minority groups, legal representatives, the Probation Board, the Equality and Human Rights Commissions and others, which would have an ongoing role in co-ordinating the development of appropriate policies and support services.

ACTION: Home Office

There are no plans to establish an advisory body to inform policy and help co-ordinate the development of support services.17 There has been liaison, however, between some of the above named bodies. The Refugee Action Group was established in 2001 and consists of a wide range of individuals and organisations with an interest in issues concerning refugees and asylum seekers. A number of sub-groups meet regularly in order to deal with more specific areas of concern including the issue of immigration detention in Northern Ireland. The detention sub-group started regular visits to Maghaberry in order to meet with the detainees. The Visitors Group was established in July 2001 and has continued its visits on a weekly basis ever since. Law Centre (NI) facilitates the Immigration Practitioners Group, which meets on a quarterly basis in order to deal with issues relating to asylum and immigration law and practice in Northern Ireland.

2. RECOMMENDATION: A joint Home Office/Prison Service database should be maintained recording outline details of all immigration detainees held in Northern Ireland and accurate statistics published on a quarterly basis.

ACTION: Home Office/NI Prison Service

Neither the Home Office nor the UK Immigration Service keep any statistics on the number of detainees held in prison in Northern Ireland. In fact, there are no statistics specific to Northern Ireland on any immigration and asylum issues. These issues have been raised with the Home Office. No direct response has yet been received on this question. Any suggestion that it is unnecessary for the Home Office to record statistical information for Northern Ireland because of the relatively small numbers of individuals involved should be strongly refuted.

At the time of the original report, a database had been set up recording the number of immigration detainees committed to Magilligan prison. No statistics were at that time recorded for the female detainees in Maghaberry prison. In March 2001, the Northern Ireland Prison Service took the decision to move the male immigration detainees from Magilligan to Maghaberry. There are now therefore no immigration detainees in Magilligan. The Northern Ireland Prison Service has kept monthly statistics for the number of immigration detainees committed to Maghaberry since May 2001. The number of immigration detainees held in Maghaberry at any one time is also published on the Northern Ireland Prison Service website and is updated each week.18

3. RECOMMENDATION: The Home Office should be designated as a public authority for the purposes of Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

ACTION: UK Immigration Service

The Home Office has not been designated as a public authority. Representations have been made to the Northern Ireland Office and Home Office by NICEM, Law Centre (NI), Equality Commission and others and the question has been recently reviewed. However, the Home Office continues to object to designation. Assurances have been provided that the Home Office will comply with the obligations on a voluntary basis.19 It should be noted that the Minister of State is obliged under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination and to promote good relations between different racial groups. However, the duties created by this amendment to the Race Relations Act 1976 do not apply in Northern Ireland. Again, assurances have been provided that the Immigration and Nationality Directorate makes no practical distinction between different parts of the UK. However, practical distinctions are apparent in how issues such as detention are managed in Northern Ireland in comparison to the rest of the UK. There is no justification for the disparity between the duties of the Home Office in relation to England, Scotland and Wales and its duties in relation to Northern Ireland. Finally, it is worth remembering that statutory requirements on public authorities like those imposed under Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act are introduced in recognition of the fact that voluntary compliance is inadequate.

4. RECOMMENDATION: Legal Aid should be made immediately available for representation at immigration appeal and bail hearings in Northern Ireland.

ACTION: Lord Chancellor’s Department

Legal Aid was finally introduced for appeal and bail hearings on 1 April 2003.20 This now brings the situation in Northern Ireland in line with the rest of the UK. This is a positive dev-elopment that radically improves the situation for asylum seekers in Northern Ireland.

5. RECOMMENDATION: The practice of requiring some ferry passengers travelling from Scotland to Ireland to produce evidence of immigration status should be immediately discontinued.

ACTION: Scottish Police, UK Immigration Service

Sanctuary in a cell pointed to the operation of what appeared to be an internal form of immigration control between Scotland and Northern Ireland. Detainees reported that they were stopped by police officers before boarding at Stranraer, and asked for identification. They were prevented from boarding for a short period and then permitted to board but on arrival at Belfast or Larne some were detained by immigration officers. Out of the core group of 52 cases examined in Sanctuary in a cell in which the Law Centre provided legal representation or advice, 35 were initially detained after disembarking from the ferry from Stranraer. Current reports from a number of representatives in Scotland suggest that the authorities continue to stop and detain individuals at Stranraer who are making their way to Northern Ireland. However, representatives from the Law Centre are not aware of any recent cases of people being detained in Northern Ireland after disembarking from the ferry from Stranraer. This represents a major change, considering the large numbers previously detained in such circumstances. It is unclear whether those individuals stopped and detained at Stranraer are now being transferred to detention facilities in Scotland.

In a letter dated 1 April 2003, the UK Immigration Service responded in detail to questions regarding this recommendation. The Immigration Service set out that it is tasked with taking enforcement action in any situation where intelligence suggests that ‘immigration offenders’ may be located. According to the Immigration Service, in the course of examinations under anti-terrorism legislation, Dumfries & Galloway police officers routinely encounter foreign nationals who are in the United Kingdom unlawfully. As a result, the view was taken that it would be cost effective to have staff in attendance, rather than waiting for immigration officers to travel down on each occasion from Glasgow. The letter suggests that over 600 ‘immigration offenders’ have been detected at Stranraer in the past three years. In the view of the Immigration Service ‘we would be derelict in our duty if we did not react to this level of abuse.’21

6. RECOMMENDATION: At the time of detention, detainees should be provided in writing, in a language they understand, with full written reasons for their detention. Any additional reasons for maintaining detention that subsequently come to light should also be notified to the detainee.

ACTION: UK Immigration Service

The reasons given to detainees are still provided by way of a checklist in English of thirteen possible reasons for detention, with a tick being placed next to any of the reasons that are applicable. These reasons are framed in vague terms, which could potentially apply to almost all asylum seekers and, in many cases, are insufficient to inform the detainee of the case s/he has to meet. There has been no attempt to provide written translations of the checklist into a language the detainee can understand.

In a recent letter from the UK Immigration Service, it was clarified that Immigration Service staff have instructions to ensure that the reasons are explained and that interpreters are used when a detainee does not speak English. According to this letter, the experience of the Immigration Service suggests that ‘most detainees do understand why they have been detained, but it is more the case that (understandably) they disagree with the decision and wish to be released’.22 In the experience of the Law Centre, responsible for representing the majority of detainees in Northern Ireland, these instructions are not being carried out and many detainees are genuinely unaware of the reasons for their detention.

The practice of providing full reasons, in the bail summary, only on the morning of the bail hearing has also continued. However, the Immigration and Asylum Appeals (Procedure) Rules 2003, dealing with the procedures to be followed in proceedings before the Immigration Appellate Authorities (IAA), introduced the requirement that the Secretary of State, if the application for bail is to be contested, must file and serve a written statement of his reasons for doing so:

(a) not later than 2.00pm the day before the hearing; or

(b) where he received notification of the hearing less than 24 hours before that time, as soon as reasonably practicable.23

This is a positive development improving the ability of the detainees and their representatives to prepare the case and to ensure that any necessary evidence is available.

7. RECOMMENDATION: Asylum seekers travelling to Northern Ireland should not be detained on the basis that they are in breach of the residency requirements of their temporary admission unless there is clear evidence of a previous serious breach.

ACTION: UK Immigration Service

8. RECOMMENDATION: Individuals whose asylum claims have been refused should not be detained unless there is a significant history of non-compliance with temporary admission or bail and a real prospect of removal within a short period.

ACTION: UK Immigration Service

9. RECOMMENDATION: Individuals presenting themselves voluntarily to apply for asylum should not be detained unless there has been a clear and significant attempt to deceive the immigration authorities.

ACTION: UK Immigration Service

10. RECOMMENDATION: Detection as an illegal entrant should not in itself result in detention where asylum is claimed. Detention should only be resorted to in exceptional circumstances and for the shortest period possible.

ACTION: UK Immigration Service

Identifying the reasons why asylum seekers were detained is difficult largely because of the absence of detailed reasons for detention in the majority of cases. Sanctuary in a Cell analysed the general approach in respect of the specified categories:

n where the asylum claim was already lodged in the UK but was still under consideration;
n where the asylum procedures were completed;
n where the individual presented her/himself voluntarily to apply for asylum;
n where the individual applied for asylum on or after detection as an illegal entrant;
n where the asylum claim was already lodged in the Republic of Ireland; and
n where the individual was trying to reach the Republic of Ireland to make an asylum claim.

The analysis, which focused on the ‘core cases’ where Law Centre (NI) had given representation or advice, concluded with the above recommendations. A detailed examination of cases in which the Law Centre has been involved since the publication of the original report was not possible in the context of this research. However, it is clear that the guidance available to staff in the Immigration Service has not significantly changed over this period.

11. KEY RECOMMENDATION: Special arrangements should be made as a matter of urgency to facilitate the immediate return of asylum seekers who have crossed the border from the Republic to Northern Ireland (where their consent is given), if necessary without engaging Dublin Convention procedures. In particular, the Belfast Immigration Office should be given immediate authority to negotiate direct with the Department of Justice in Dublin on these cases.

ACTION: UK Immigration Service, Home Office, Irish Department of Justice

There has been no movement in relation to this recommendation and the Home Office maintains the position that special North-South arrangements for asylum seekers who cross the border are unnecessary. Their assurances that Home Office officials are committed to expediting action on detained cases falling under the Dublin Convention do not seem to have made any real difference in practice. Delays are still in the region of three months. Changes have been made to how the Immigration Service operates its file system with the introduction of the ‘single file’ system. The nature of the changes is unclear. However, they have led to a number of problems and have compounded difficulties for detainees. Responsibility for an individual’s file is now passed between the various offices within the Home Office and Immigration Services, leading to difficulties in tracing who is responsible for the file at any one time and to further delays.

The lease on the immigration office in Belfast City Centre expired at the end of 2002 and an operational decision was taken by the Home Office to relocate certain functions to the International Airport where the Immigration Service already had offices and staff. The casework functions of the Belfast office were, however, transferred to Liverpool. This does not detract from arguments in favour of permitting the Belfast Immigration Office, now located at the airport, to deal with the Department of Justice in Dublin directly rather than having to forward the case to the Third Country Unit in Croydon.24 Alternatively, the offices in Liverpool could be given the power to process Dublin Convention cases for Northern Ireland, thereby decreasing the amount of time a person will remain in detention waiting removal to Dublin.

12. RECOMMENDATION: Asylum seekers with families should only be detained in very exceptional circumstances. Where the family of a detained asylum seeker is located elsewhere in the UK, the asylum seeker should have the right to be transferred upon request to a location which facilitates family visits.

ACTION: UK Immigration Service

All immigration detainees in Northern Ireland now have the option to be transferred to an immigration detention facility elsewhere in the UK. Correspondence from the Home Office originally suggested that detainees would be able to express a preference as to location and that they would be accommodated in the centre of their choice as soon as operational limits allowed for this.25 However, in later correspondence, the Home Office has stated that the management of the detention estate and the allocation of detention places are complex processes that will not allow personal choice over location to be taken into account.26

13. KEY RECOMMENDATION: As a general rule, asylum seekers should not be detained. Detention should only be resorted to in cases of necessity and in accordance with the guidelines issued by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. Detention should always be for the shortest possible period.

ACTION: UK Immigration Service

14. KEY RECOMMENDATION: Non-custodial alternatives to detention should be developed which permit close supervision of asylum seekers where necessary, for example through the use of residence conditions and reporting requirements. In particular, an open accommodation centre should be developed in Belfast, linked to a full range of community support and welfare services, at which asylum seekers thought to be at particular risk of failing to maintain contact may be required to reside.27

ACTION: Home Office, UK Immigration Service

The use of detention continues to be defended largely on the grounds that it prevents asylum seekers from absconding28. However, there is still no strong evidence that such detention is necessary to ensure compliance with asylum procedures. Moreover, no research has been carried out by the Immigration Service into alternatives to detention or by the UK government into the success or failure of detention in terms of the ability of the UK Immigration Service to identify accurately those who are likely to abscond.29 Sanctuary in a cell cast serious doubts on the effectiveness of the use of detention as an immigration enforcement tool. Since the publication of the report, a research report Maintaining Contact: What happens after detained asylum-seekers get bail? has been published by South Bank University, seeking to address whether detention is really necessary. Using case-files provided by the charity Bail for Immigration Detainees, the researchers examined the extent to which asylum seekers who received bail – despite opposition by the Home Office – actually complied with the bail conditions. Over 90% were found to have met their bail conditions; of these 7% had been granted leave to remain or refugee status by the time they were traced in the study. The research therefore found detention to be poorly targeted and highly inefficient.30 There are clearly increasingly strong arguments in favour of developing alternatives to detention in Northern Ireland. According to the UK Immigration Service, alternatives are already used extensively in terms of the reporting and residence requirements. However, in relation to open accommodation centres, they saw ‘no reason why someone placed in an accommodation centre would be any less likely to abscond than if at a private address’. It was confirmed that there are no plans to open such a centre in Northern Ireland.31

The 2002 Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act increased the powers available to the Home Office and Immigration Service to maintain control of and contact with individuals during the asylum process. There are increasingly stricter reporting requirements and the authorities have introduced Asylum Registration Cards, biometric smart cards recording extensive information including personal details and the date on which the holder must next report.32 Conditions of temporary admission have now also become conditions on which asylum support is granted so that support can be terminated if conditions of temporary admission are breached. Powers restricting freedom of movement should not be imposed as a matter of course and must be based on the requirements of the particular case. Moreover, the power to terminate support, which may result in homelessness and destitution, for failure to meet an imposed condition, cannot be supported.

15. KEY RECOMMENDATION: Asylum seekers should not be detained in prison, and in particular should never be detained with sentenced prisoners. If, in exceptional circumstances, some asylum seekers are to continue to be detained, a small immigration detention unit should be developed outside the prison system in a location which will facilitate access to community and welfare support services, and visits from friends and family.

ACTION: Home Office

In Northern Ireland, all asylum seekers are now detained in Mourne House, Maghaberry. This continued use of a prison facility is in contrast to the position across the rest of the UK, where it was stated policy that the detention of asylum seekers in prisons would cease as from 25 December 2001. The use of prisons was re-introduced, however, after the fire at Yarl’s Wood Detention Centre in February 2002 for detainees ‘with a history of violent or criminal behaviour and those considered a danger to safety’.33 There has been an expansion of the detention regime with the development of dedicated ‘removal centres’ but there has been a recognition on the part of the government that the detention of asylum seekers in prison alongside convicted criminals is unacceptable.

The provision of a more appropriate detention facility in Northern Ireland has been dismissed repeatedly as not viable on grounds of both cost and efficiency because of the relatively small number of individuals concerned. In a letter to Law Centre (NI), dated December 2001, the then Minister of State stated that as a result he could see no better alternative than to continue keeping immigration detainees in Maghaberry.

A joint review of the Home Office and Northern Ireland Prison Service, carried out in 2000, regarding future provision of detention facilities in Northern Ireland, was never made public.

Sanctuary in a cell suggested that whilst an alternative facility was being developed the following interim recommendations should be im-plemented:

16. KEY RECOMMENDATION: The Prison Service should carry out a full impact assessment of all its functions in the light of its duty under Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to promote equality of opportunity between (inter alia) persons of different racial groups.

ACTION: NI Prison Service

At the time of the original report, the draft results of the initial screening by the Northern Ireland Office establishing which functional areas were likely to have a particular impact on equality of opportunity and therefore required full assessment had been published. However, the published draft results of the screening exercise made no mention of the duty of the prison service to assess its functions in relation to the promotion of racial equality. As suggested in Sanctuary in a cell, this represents a serious dereliction of duty. The Equality Scheme has since been approved. Although it is clear in the final draft scheme that racial or ethnic groups are recognised as relevant to the duties of all relevant bodies under section 75, racial equality is not specifically identified as an issue of concern in relation to any of the prison service functions or policies. In relation to areas such as health care, visits arrangements, recreation, education and work, the final draft scheme still states that there is no evidence of any differential impact on any of the groups covered by Section 75 and that a full impact assessment is therefore not required. In relation to management of the prison estate, the final scheme still only refers to women, young offenders and the disabled in concluding that a full impact assessment is required. Under Schedule 9 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which provides for enforcement of Section 75 duties, the Equality Commission should consider undertaking an investigation into this matter.

17. KEY RECOMMENDATION: The Northern Ireland Prison Service should adopt a comprehensive policy on race relations, asserting its commitment to racial equality incorporating effective education and monitoring frameworks, and setting out mandatory standards to be respected by staff, prisoners and visitors.

ACTION: NI Prison Service

The Northern Ireland Prison Service has no specific race relations policy. A recent inspection report on Maghaberry dealt with the issue of relations between racial groups within the main prison. At the time of the inspection, there were only two individuals in the main prison (bearing in mind that immigration detainees are held in a separate part of the prison) who defined their ethnicity as other than white. The inspection report stated that ‘Discrimination or inequality of opportunity on the grounds of an individual’s race, therefore, was not a main concern for this establishment’.36 However, this is no justification for failing to introduce and actively implement a policy to promote good racial relations.

Maghaberry prison relies on an equal opportunities policy statement. This is drafted only in relation to employees of the Prison Service. The inspection report recommended that ‘the definitions of discrimination and intimidation’, contained within the equal opportunities statement, ‘and the systems put in place to address these issues for staff, should also be applied to all prisoners at Maghaberry’. The report deals with the main prison and Mourne House separately. It is interesting, however, that the issue of relations between racial groups and the lack of a prison service policy on this issue are not discussed again in relation to Mourne House where the immigration detainees are held.

18. RECOMMENDATION: The Northern Ireland Prison Rules should be amended to prohibit racially aggravated assault or damage to property, the use of threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, and displaying threatening, abusive or insulting racist behaviour, following the model of the Prison (Amendment) Rules 2000, in force in England and Wales.

ACTION: NI Prison Service

The Northern Ireland Prison Service has said that the need for such an amendment will be considered in the course of reviewing Prison Rules.37

19. KEY RECOMMENDATION: A co-ordinated set of standards of treatment in respect of immigration detainees should be developed by the Immigration Service, Home Office and Prison Service. Prison facilities in respect of immigration detainees should as far as possible mirror those in specialist immigration detention centres.

ACTION: NI Prison Service, UK Immigration Service, Home Office

Immigration detainees are imprisoned in a prison establishment and remain subject to a prison regime. No proposals to introduce a separate regime have been entertained by the Northern Ireland Prison Service.

20. RECOMMENDATION: The terms ‘immigration detainee’ or (if appropriate) ‘asylum seeker’ should be used in respect of individuals held under the 1971 Act.

ACTION: NI Prison Service
There seems to have been an improvement in this area and in the course of researching this update I have not come across inappropriate language being used by or on behalf of the Prison Service.

21. RECOMMENDATION: Partnerships should be developed with ethnic minority community groups and other voluntary organisations to develop a detention regime which is culturally appropriate and to facilitate ongoing welfare support. Funding should be made available for this purpose.

ACTION: NI Prison Service

The prison service has developed or explored no such initiatives.

22. RECOMMENDATION: All prison staff should receive training on asylum law and procedure, cultural issues, methods of recognising and responding to symptoms of stress, the use of interpreters, recognising and addressing racist conduct, and sources of welfare support and advice for immigration detainees. A training needs analysis should be conducted and an appropriate training package designed, with assistance from other agencies.

ACTION: NI Prison Service

The Northern Ireland Prison Service does not have current plans to introduce specialised training for prison staff. The Prison Service feels it is too costly and impractical due to the fact that staff are rotated at regular intervals and the number of detainees held at any particular time can be minimal.38

23. RECOMMENDATION: A com-prehensive induction programme (using interpreters) should be developed, in which the detention regime and detainees’ rights are explained in full. A personal needs package should be drawn up in respect of each detainee and a member of prison staff designated as responsible for ensuring delivery of appropriate services.

ACTION: NI Prison Service

24. RECOMMENDATION: A senior member of Prison Service staff should be allocated responsibility for ensuring that use of interpreters is integrated as a core element of the detention regime. This should include:

n the production of written inform- ation materials in appropriate languages;
n Language Line to be introduced at Maghaberry;
n a comprehensive list of professional interpreters to be compiled;
ninterpreters to visit for induction interviews, medical appointments and routine assessments;
n foreign language notice boards.

ACTION: NI Prison Service

25. RECOMMENDATION: Detainees should enjoy the same time out of cell as those held in dedicated detention centres.

ACTION: NI Prison Service

26. RECOMMENDATION: The dev-elopment of culturally appropriate diet options should be continued. Written translations or photographs of menu options should be provided.

ACTION: NI Prison Service

27. RECOMMENDATION: An analysis of the overall health care needs of detained asylum seekers should be conducted, and each asylum seeker’s particular health care needs (including psychological state) should be assessed on committal and at regular intervals.

ACTION: NI Prison Service

28. RECOMMENDATION: Professional interpreters should be used (in person or by telephone) for all medical appointments where the detainee’s first language is not English.

ACTION: NI Prison Service

29. RECOMMENDATION: Detainees should be able to receive incoming telephone calls, and should be permitted to make a fixed number of outgoing telephone calls (both national and international) at public expense. They should be advised of this right as part of the induction programme.

ACTION: NI Prison Service

30. RECOMMENDATION: Immigration detainees should be permitted to receive visits throughout the day, seven days a week. It should not be necessary to pre-book, and there should be no limit on the number of visitors allowed. The establishment of a visitors group should be facilitated.

ACTION: NI Prison Service

31. RECOMMENDATION: An educational needs analysis for immigration detainees should be carried out and a specially designed education package developed.

ACTION: NI Prison Service

32. RECOMMENDATION: A literary needs analysis should be conducted periodically and books in appropriate languages purchased accordingly. Newspapers and magazines in the main languages should be made available, and material in other languages should be obtained upon request.

ACTION: NI Prison Service

33. RECOMMENDATION: The possibility of installing satellite TV with access to foreign language channels should be investigated and foreign language videos should be made available.

ACTION: NI Prison Service

The story of conditions for immigration detainees now held in Maghaberry is a somewhat mixed one. There have been improvements in certain areas. For example, Language Line is now available to all detainees in Maghaberry . However, it is also clear that conditions in some respects have in fact deteriorated for the detainees. For example, the Refugee Action Group visitors group is now far more restricted in the items that it is permitted to bring to the prison each week. The approach of the prison is inconsistent in relation to a number of areas of concern. The Refugee Action Group and other interested parties campaign hard in this area, but progress is frustratingly slow. The main areas of concern remain untackled.
Issues around the use of interpreters continue. It is noted that there has been an improvement in the use of professional interpreters for medical appointments, however, this progress needs to be translated in to other contexts.

The detainees are locked up from 8pm to 8am during the week and from 4pm to 8am on Sundays. In addition, extra lock-ins occur during the day over staff meal breaks and are often extended to cover staff shortages, bank holidays and any other unforeseen cir-cumstances. The additional lock-ins often occur without apparent warning or explanation.39 According to reports kept by the visitors group, there have been extra lock-up hours most days since the beginning of July 2002. Locking up detainees in their cells for reasons of administrative convenience is unacceptable.

All reports indicate that food provision for immigration detainees in Maghaberry remains unsatisfactory. With the exception of Halal meat for Muslim detainees, the prison kitchen does not provide culturally appropriate food. The provision of rice, rather than potatoes, in response to lengthy negotiations, has not been consistent. Food parcels from voluntary groups and visitors have also been stopped since April 2002. The recent inspection report on Maghaberry stated that this decision was unreasonable and recommended that this be reviewed. The recommendations of the inspection report also included the suggestion that the detainees be allowed to cook all their own food.40 Requests have also been made that a more diverse range of products be made available on the tuck shop list.

Access to health services in the prison has been far from satisfactory. Access to dentists seems to have been particularly problematic.41 A Russian detainee threatened to go on hunger strike in May 2002 after reportedly waiting six months to see a dentist. An Albanian detainee went on hunger strike in July 2002 because he needed to see the doctor and the dentist and had not been given access.

The transfer of all immigration detainees to Maghaberry was an improvement in terms of facilitating visits to detainees, as Magilligan was prohibitively difficult to reach for many. The Refugee Action Group visitors group has also been a vital resource for the detainees since July 2001.

The immigration detainees take part in English classes every week for two hours. More opportunities of this nature need to be provided. The recent inspection report of Maghaberry recommended in relation to the immigration detainees that there should be ‘consideration of more purposeful activity and access to educational materials.’42 Access to sport and recreational facilities is more restricted for immigration detainees than for other prisoners, with access to a gym only twice a week for male detainees. Employment within the prison is also currently unavailable as an option.

The Refugee Action Group has expressed concern that the prison has not provided sufficient mother tongue materials and that access to books and videos is generally more limited for detainees because of staff shortages and the logistical difficulties that accompany their detention in a separate wing. The visitors group is no longer permitted to take in music tapes and videos. However, visitors are able to take in magazines, books and foreign language materials. There is no access to Sky TV or the Internet for immigration detainees.

A new phone system was introduced in April 2003. Phone cards have been removed to ‘reduce risks of bullying’, according to the Prison Service. Detainees have been issued with an individual PIN number. Each detainee is required to fill in a form with the list of numbers s/he will be calling. If a detainee wishes to call a new number, s/he first has to go through the proper channels to amend the list. This has been an added difficulty for detainees in general (who might not already have an established list of contacts when they arrive) and in particular for detainees with limited or no English. The cost of telephone calls to mobiles and international numbers remains unchanged and directly affects detainees whose family contacts are mostly outside the UK.

Progress in conditions within Maghaberry to meet the needs of detainees has been slow. There does not appear to be a will amongst senior management in the prison to address the outstanding issues positively.

© Law Centre (NI) 2003