Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) Inspecting Immigration Detention 31st March 2015 Introductions. Roles at HMIP. Bev Alden - Inspector 1

Role of HMIP To ensure independent inspection of detention to report on conditions and treatment, and promote positive outcomes for those detained and the public Established by Prison Act 1952 – powers are in law which means they cannot be challenged. The most important thing about HMIP is that we are independent - independent of the prison authorities and of the government Funding provided by Ministry of Justice, but there should be no interference by Ministry in how that budget is spent. There is no interference in how prisons are inspected or in the content of reports. Chief Inspector is appointed from outside the Prison Service, recruited through open and fair competition, nomination is approved by a cross-party committee in Parliament. He is appointed by the Queen Role is to report on the treatment of prisoners and the conditions in prisons 2 2

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

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

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

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

Inspection Standards HMIP inspects against its own set of published standards called ‘Expectations’ Outcomes referenced against international human rights standards and penal norms Separate Expectations for: Male prisoners Female Prisoners Children and young people Immigration detention Police custody Court custody Armed forces HMIP sets own standards for inspection – independent of those of the prison service. - These are known as Expectations - They are in the public domain, so accessible to the Prison service, other detention authorities and the public This ensures transparency and demonstrates our independence. For each type of detention inspected we have a different set of expectations Expectations focus specifically on outcomes for prisoners. - They referenced against international human rights standards - and they have less focus on management or processes except insofar as they deliver those outcomes The underlying principle of our inspection criteria is the concept of a healthy prison. - idea originated from some work the World Heath Organisation did in the late 1990s. We have Four tests to assess the health of a prison and outcomes for prisoners : The first is safety where all prisoners, even the most vulnerable, are held safely. Secondly, respect - prisoners are treated with respect for their human dignity Purposeful activity, meaning that prisoners are able, and expected, to engage in activity that is likely to benefit them both in prison and on release. Finally, resettlement - Prisoners are prepared for their release back into the community and effectively helped to reduce the likelihood of reoffending. [NEXT SLIDE] 7

Inspection methods Independent and impartial Unannounced inspections Unfettered access, with ability to arrive unannounced, go anywhere and talk to anyone. Inspectors draw keys. Listen to detainees, focus on detainees voice Unfettered right to publish Outcome focused Report published 16 weeks later Independence is the most important thing Very much a human rights based organisation Talk to detainees in private Legal status – helps with independent and ensures right to access prisons cannot be challenged Media status – the Inspectorate is a well regarded and trusted source of information on what is happening inside prisons. Its findings are accurate, trusted and well-regarded. The public and media know HMIP is independent so this increases trust 8

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

Evidence Random but representative sample Triangulation Observation Group discussion with detainees Individual interviews Interviews with staff Examination of documentation Casework analysis Detainee Survey: Outcome focussed Confidential Random but representative sample Results can be compared with other similar prisons, results from last inspection Just before I get in to the prisoner survey, I’ll give you a quick overview of inspection methodology and how judgements are made about establishments. We use both qualitative and quantitative methodologies to gather evidence, drawing on a range of sources: - prisoner survey is just one source - inspectors also make observations, review documentation, and talk to people, both formally and informally Inspections usually take place during a one-two week period. - evidence is reviewed and discussed informally on a daily basis by the team, - emerging findings checked and further explored towards the end of the inspection a more formal meeting takes place to assess against the 4 healthy prison tests Data from different sources triangulated, so we never use one evidence source alone, evidence is always obtained from three different sources. For example, inspectors may use our detainee survey and documentary analysis and then combine these with information gleaned from interviews with staff or detainees. This method provides a robust and rigorous inspection methodology and allows inspectors to test the validity of their findings and its impact on the wider prison population. A judgement is made about outcomes in each of the four Healthy Prison areas (i.e. safety, respect, purposeful activity, resettlement). The scores can range from 1 (poor outcomes) to 4 (good outcomes) for each.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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