Dungavel Removal Centre

Reply of the Home Secretary 28/03/2003

28 March 2003

The Right Reverend John Mone

Bishop of Paisley

Diocesan Centre

Incle Street

Paisley

PA11HR

Dear Bishop Mone,

 Thank you for your letter of 14 March about the detention of children at Dungavel Immigration Removal Centre.

 I am conscious of the strong feeling held by many people against the detaining of children with their parents. The longstanding policy of detention is of course is regrettable but is a necessary part of effective immigration control, including our tackling of abuses of the asylum system. This of course has to apply to families where it is the decision of the adult to prolong the process which results in the detaining of the child. It is impossible to respond to the demands for the removal of those who have failed their asylum claims without the facility to detain those extending legal appeal, after appeal, if they were simply allowed to melt away and abscond when their appeals failed. No one, including families, is detained for longer than is necessary and we aim to keep this to a minimum. I am deeply sympathetic to the concerns about the detaining of children. However, the lengthy and continued detention of the family of children to whom you refer in your letter is as a consequence of the parents' immigration history and continuing deliberate attempts to frustrate removal as outlined above.

Instructions to immigration staff state that any decision to detain an entire family must have due regard to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to respect for private and family life. I believe that our detention policy and practices, if applied correctly, comply with this article and with the Human Rights Act.

 I recognise that there are from time to time concerns expressed in the media and elsewhere about the education of children at Dungavel. These concerns are raised in part because of a lack of knowledge about the provision that has been made for these children. Perhaps I can reassure you that the school aged children who stay at Dungavel are all given the opportunity to take part in classes no matter how brief their stay may be. The classes at Dungavel are tailored to deal with an unpredictable number of children of various ages and abilities who may be present in the centre from one day to the next. Whilst it may not be practicable to replicate and continue the education that some of these children may have received in local schools prior to their detention, every attempt is made by the fully qualified teaching staff at the centre to provide a challenging and interesting learning experience. Nevertheless I am not complacent about this issue. I have given commitments to Parliament on the separate issue of accommodation centres and I am prepared to look at what more can be done where in removal centres the decision of the parents prolonged the residence of children.  

I know too that there are concerns about the basic issue of families in detention. Although there are already differences between the centres that accommodate families as compared to those removal centres that only accommodate single adult men, we do not detain families in distinct " family removal centres". I have considered carefully the case of separate centres to accommodate families prior to removal. I have agreed now that we should develop this programme starting with Yarlwood.

 I wish to make a further point on the widely publicised case which many within faith communities in Scotland have felt enormous sympathy. Our position has been that having made five asylum claims in Germany, it is an absolute breach of our law and European Conventions to grant asylum here. We have to add here to national and European policy if we are to stand any chance of having sensitive but managed migration policy which allows us to robustly see-off those who would exploit the issue. To do otherwise would lead to Britain simply being open-house to everyone making a sympathetic public appeal no matter how flimsy their case.

 Thank you finally for your kind comments about Premier Detention Services' caring approach towards the detainees at Dungavel which I know you have visited as has of course Beverley Hughes the Minister responsible for Immigration, Nationality and Asylum in the Home Office, It is always gratifying to hear praise for the efforts of the company contracted to carry out the difficult and sensitive task of handling people who are detained prior to removal.

 I know that you have discussed these issues with Anne McGuire and that she would be very happy to discuss them further. I am copying this letter to Anne and also to Paul Goggins.

 Best wishes.

DAVID BLUNKETT