Immigration detainees in Metropolitan Police Service custody: update paper

Report: 8a
Date: 29 July 2004
By: Clerk

Summary

Reports on the response from the Home Office to the concerns raised by members in respect of the detention of immigration detainees in MPS custody.

A. Recommendation

1. That members note this report and the related report at Item 8 (b)

2. That the Deputy Chair of the Authority, Cindy Butts, raise the continuing concerns with Home Office Ministers.

B. Supporting information

Introduction

1. The Authority at its meeting of 27 May 2004 received a report on immigration detainees in Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) custody. The report originated in a presentation on immigration detainees in MPS custody in the borough of Camden and the issues arising from that presentation to the Consultation Committee.

2. The Authority considered a report by the Clerk on a presentation to the Consultation Committee meeting on immigration detainees in MPS custody in the borough of Camden. Mick Farrant, the Chair of the Camden Independent Custody Visiting Panel was thanked for bringing his research to the Authority. It was

RESOLVED – That a comprehensive report on the position across London be presented to the next meeting of the Authority. The views of the Home Office and the Immigration Service should be sought to include in the report.

3. This report brings Members up to date with the latest developments since the last Full Authority meeting

Background

4. The Consultation Committee received a presentation on 13 May from Mick Farrant, Chair of the Camden Independent Custody Visiting Panel, on the issue of immigration detainees held in police cells.

5. The presentation highlighted three main issues: impact on custody space; impact on police time; and inadequate facilities for the length of stay involved. It also suggested that the role of the Independent Custody Visitors under the Police Reform Act 2002 needed clarifying in relation to their responsibility for checking that the rights of detainees in police cells are being respected. Officers are still pursuing this issue.

6. The number of immigration detainees, and more importantly, their length of stay, is a contributory factor in the increasing cell shortage across London. Moreover, there is considerable variation in demand from day to day. In effect, immigration detainees may be acting as ‘cell blockers’ with each person, as estimated by Camden ICVP, occupying a cell for several times longer than ordinary detainees.

7. Police custody suite facilities are inappropriate for the purpose of holding immigration detainees, given the length of time they are spending in police cells, many being held for longer than the 36 hours allowed under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (1984) Section C.

8. A number of proposals for action were canvassed during the course of the presentation. These included:

• Need for regular collection of custody data in relation to immigration detainees
• A protocol for those detained for longer than 36 hours, including access to showers, changes of clothes, reading material.
• A maximum number of immigration detainees per custody suite to be determined
• Clarification of responsibility e.g. authorisation of continuing detention in cases of illness
• Clarification of the role of Independent Custody Visitors to the Immigration Service.

9. The MPS Internal Consultancy Group has recently carried out a six month long review of custody capacity throughout the MPS on behalf of the MPA. Its report was made to the Planning, Performance and Review Committee on 12 July 2004. Though Camden may be one of the boroughs most affected, the Best Value Review generally supports the views expressed in the presentation made to the Consultation Committee.

Home Office Response

10. The Home Office response to the MPA was via a letter dated 8 July from the Immigration and Nationality Directorate which is attached as Appendix 1

11. The Home Office confirms that it does its best to ensure that immigration detainees remain in police cells “for as little time as possible”

12. Under the Immigration (Places of Detention) Direction, immigration detainees can be detained in police cells for five days or, in the case of detainees being removed from the UK, seven days. The Home Office has an informal two day target for getting detainees out police and – apparently – in the majority of cases they are moved out after 24 hours.

13. These statements seem to contradict the experience of the Camden Independent Custody Visitors Panel as expressed to the Consultation Committee and as subsequently reported to the full Authority. The Home Office response does not deal directly with the experience of the Camden ICVP or the statistics that it has put forward.

14. The Home Office are optimistic that the situation has recently improved as the IS arrest teams have gained direct access to the Harmondsworth Removal Centre and, from September, the new centre at Colnbrook.

15. A meeting to discuss and explore the Home Office position further between the Immigration Minister, Des Browne and the Deputy Chair, Cindy Butts, is scheduled for September.
Service Improvement Review of Custody Capacity

16. On 9 October 2003 the Planning, Performance and Review Committee (PPRC) agreed a review of cell provision during 2003/4. The decision paper noted that ‘the difficulty of providing adequate cell provision is an issue that has faced the MPS for many years. There is a need to identify future requirements for cells and to examine how the current facilities could be used to best effect. In addition, the current standards for cells would benefit from being reviewed.’

17. The scope of the review included:

• day to day management of cell availability
• the constraints on cell availability imposed by staffing of custody suites, custody suite facilities (workstations, interview rooms, CCTV, etc.) and functions supporting custody
• the quality and suitability of cells for accommodating different types of prisoner (including female, juvenile, disabled and at-risk prisoners)
• the financial requirements for upgrading cells or providing new cells
• alternatives to MPS owned provision of cells
• location of cells
• use of cells outside the London
• MPS policy on the use of arrest and alternatives
• use of MPS cells by other agencies (courts, immigration, etc.)
• trends in numbers of prisoners and cell occupancy times
• the custody requirements of different types of prisoner
• contingency arrangements for e.g. public order arrests.

18. This review is now within the MPA’s formal Best Value monitoring process. This allows members to comment on and question progress on a six monthly basis. At this point it is not proposed that the MPA/MPS carry out any more work in this area until the next progress report by the MPS.

19. Representatives of the Independent Custody Visitor Panels will be invited to participate in the MPS Custody Independent Advisory Groups. The Community Engagement Unit will take responsibility for facilitating the appointment of ICVP representatives on the IAG and provide the necessary support.

C. Race and equality impact

The need to provide an appropriate and sensitive treatment service to individual detainees is central to the concerns which prompted the examination of current practice.

D. Financial implications

Recommendation 6.4 of the service implementation review, requires that all costs recovered from the Immigration Service be ringfenced, and be put towards the opening and refurbishment of custody suites.

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report author: Christopher Calnan

For more information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback