Dungavel Removal Centre

Letter from Beverley Hughes MP, Minister of State 28/04/2003

The Right Reverend John Mone

Bishop of Paisley

Diocesan Centre

Incle Street

Paisley PA1 1 HR

 28 April 2003

 Dear Revd Mone

 Thank you for you letter of 4 April to the Home Secretary. David has asked me to respond more fully to the additional points you have raised.

 Provision was made in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 to redesignate detention centers as “removal centres”. We consider that the latter better describes the primary focus of detention that is to support our removals strategy. People held at removal centres continue to be detained and this will not always be pending their removal.

 Removal centres are secure places of detention and, as such, perimeter fencing and internal security measures are, I am afraid, unavoidable. Nevertheless, the regime and environment in such centres is as relaxed as it can be consistent with the need to maintain security. This is particularly true of those centres, including Dungavel, that have family units. Children have freedom of movement within the family unit and indeed they are able to go outside whenever they wish, supervised by their parents or by the center staff. Whilst detention is regrettable, and is avoided wherever possible, there will always be cases where it will be necessary. The proposed new accommodation centres will fulfil a very different purpose to removal centres, which will continue to be an essential element in the effective enforcement of immigration control.

 Detention is not time-limited and this will continue to be the case. However, a person or a family can only be detained under certain criteria -prior to removal, initially to establish their identity or the basis of their claim, or because there is a risk of absconding. Each case is, of course, considered on its merits and the presumption will always be in favour of granting temporary admission or release. It remains the case that the majority of people and families who are held at removal centres are detained for very short periods of time usually prior to their removal from the United Kingdom. There will always be exceptions to this and where, as in the case you cite, a family has been detained for over eight months they would be an extremely exceptional case. However, behind the headline of lengthy detention there will be a good reason why detention has continued for so long, and that is particularly true of the family at Dungavel.

 I have asked that officials report to me on a regular basis the number of children in detention and the length of time they have been detained for. I am satisfied that the family you refer to was an extremely exceptional case and that the majority of children in Dungavel are held on average for 15 days or less.

 I am sorry that you are not reassured that the education provision at Dungavel meets the needs of the children in detention there. David's reply to you outlined the reasons why, in the light of the very short periods of time most children spend in detention, the educational provision is organized as it is. When I visited Dungavel and saw myself the education provision I was satisfied that these children are cared for with dignity and sympathy. The teachers and other staff do a very good job at ensuring that the children continue to learn and are, within the confines of detention, able to feel valued and safe.

 Yours sincerely,

 Beverley Hughes