Home Office Immigration detainees at MPS detention facilities

Report: 8b
Date: 29 July 2004
By: Commissioner

Summary

The report responds to Members concerns following a presentation to MPA Consultation Committee on 13 May 2004 by Nick Farrant of the Camden Borough Independent Custody Scheme outlining concerns at the length of detention and conditions experienced by Home Office immigration detainees in police detention facilities

A. Recommendation

That Authority Members note the current position in relation to the MPS’s operational relationship with the Immigration Service (IS), its impact on MPS resources and the detention times and conditions experienced by Home Office Immigration detainees.

B. Supporting information

Background

1. The memorandum of agreement ‘MPS support to Immigration Service operations for the removal of immigration offenders’ was signed off by the two agencies on 20 November 2002. The MPS agreed to support the IS meet Governmental targets for the removal of asylum seekers from the UK. The memorandum outlined the protocols for intelligence sharing and cost recovery and set out guidelines to risk assess operations and manage community impact.

2. The document also set out the new detention powers given to IS officers by Part VII Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. This fundamentally changed the operating relationship between the two agencies. Authorised IS officers no longer needed accompanying police officers to detain suspected illegal immigrants when the risk to safety was assessed as low. That said, only a minority of IS officers are currently authorised with the majority still calling upon police to accompany them to make arrests.

3. The aim of the IS remains to increase the level of ‘in-house’ arrest capability resulting, in line with an ACPO agreement of 2001, in a commensurate phased reduction in MPS support.

4. Without a change in legislation, authorised IS arrest officers must take a person suspected of being illegally in the UK to a Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) authorised detention facility when there is doubt as to their identity or conditions of stay. This is to provide them, during investigation, with the protection given by the Act such as access to a solicitor, regular reviews and access to friends. Conversely, where the IS officer is satisfied with the identity and circumstances of a suspect (i.e. that they have the right person) they should take them directly to a Home Office approved detention centre.

5. Police officers who detain suspects believed to be illegally in the UK continue to take them to police stations. Where there is a separate criminal allegation that is subsequently dealt with, the detainee will not become an ‘immigration detainee’ until papers are served after the conclusion of the criminal investigation.

6. The impact of this last fact is that Schedule 2 of the 1971 Immigration Act determining maximum detention time for cases will not begin until the criminal investigation ceases. The Act allows, once papers have been served, detention for a five-day period and up to seven where deportation arrangements have been made.

The current situation

7. The IS in London has been set challenging Home Office targets from 2004/5 to remove 6,300 failed asylum seekers and 6,000 other illegal immigrants. To provide an indication of the current scale of their operation, they are removing approximately 750 detainees a month and between 45,000 and 50,000 people are reporting regularly to one of the four London Immigration houses each month.

8. The following is the guideline provided to IS officers regarding detention at a police facility: '' Detainees should preferably only spend one night in police cells, with a normal maximum of two nights. In exceptional cases, a detainee may spend up to 5 nights continuously in police cells (7 nights if removal directions have been set) if, for instance he is awaiting transfer to more suitable IS or Prison Service accommodation and the police are content to maintain detention. Such detention must be authorised by an Inspector, who must take into account the IS duty of care for detainees and the likelihood that police cells do not provide adequate facilities for this purpose in the long term.''

9. Appendix A provides a meaningful indication of the number of immigration detainees and the length of their detention at MPS premises (by borough and pan-MPS) for the months of January and February 2004. Of the total of 1107 immigration detainees, 39.5% (437) were removed within 24 hours, 73% (806) within 48 hours and 92% (1016) within 72 hours. The evidence gathering stage of the ‘Service Improvement Review of Custody Capacity’ (discussed at paragraph 18) established that during the first week in October 2003 the average time spent by immigration detainees was 26 hours with the majority spending less than 15.5 hours. There were some, however, who were detained for up to 5 days.

10. Appendix B provides an indication of the cost recovery profile for financial year 2003/4. The total recovered from the Home Office was £4,375,000.

11. Whilst the majority of MPS boroughs are accommodating Home Office Immigration detainees as ‘normal business’, there are number of ongoing initiatives introduced to address the resource challenges and better care for the specific needs of detainees awaiting removal. Appendix C outlines a new custody arrangement at Southwark Police Station dedicated only to Immigration detainees. It is a pilot and is being entirely funded from cost recovery for Home Office detainees. Hounslow Borough are currently redecorating Brentwood Police Station from costs recovered with a view to providing a dedicated facility (5 detention rooms) in September. A number of London boroughs have put aside detention space for Immigration detainees but do not provide the ‘facilities’ offered by the Southwark initiative.

12. Undoubtedly, there remain a number of issues that frustrate the freeing-up of police detention space. The original contract signed with the private contractor ‘Wackenhut’ to transfer immigration detainees is no longer fit for purpose due to the significant increase in IS activity. This regularly leads to delays in transfer. Equally, a shortage of trained custody sergeants across the MPS coming at the same time as an increase in IS activity has brought its challenges.

13. Every London borough now has an officer of inspecting rank responsible for maintaining effective dialogue with the IS.

14. A number of London Boroughs, including Southwark, have introduced immigration officers on to their Prisoner Handling Teams. A positive knock-on, often in the interest of detainees, is that detention time can be significantly reduced due to them being available on site. A further consequence, however, is that participating boroughs are now more likely to identify potential immigration detainees. The IS is reviewing their participation in this type of initiative as there is concern that the increased number of removals is insufficient to justify the employment of IS resources on MPS custody handling teams.

15. The MPS has a detective superintendent and a further 13 officers working in partnership with the IS professionalising cross agency intelligence. This has made a significant difference to the effectiveness of both organisations and has led to the identification and deportation of a number of significant subjects believed involved in organised criminality. Additionally, the IS participates in cross-agency crime reduction initiatives.

16. The empowering of IS officers to arrest suspects believed illegally in the UK is currently only operating in the London region. Whilst there appears to be a robust system to monitor community tension before and after ‘IS only’ (i.e. no police officers accompanying IS officers) arrest operations, the MPS remains conscious and concerned around the possible impact on vulnerable communities. Whilst ‘IS only’ arrest operations are only employed at low risk/ low volume targets, the MPS will continue to monitor the practice particularly as the next six months will see a significant increase in the number of IS officers trained to arrest.

17. The past 5 years has seen a dramatic reduction in the number of IS subjects ‘signing-on’ at MPS police stations. Whilst there are a small number still attending MPS stations, this accounts for less than 2% of the total 45,000 to 50,000 per month.

Service Improvement Review of Custody Capacity

18. The ‘Service Improvement Review of Custody Capacity’ of May 2004 was reported to PPRC on 12 July 2004. The recommendations, which have been agreed in principle by MPS Management Board, are listed at Appendix D.

19. The review, and its recommendations if implemented, would undoubtedly have a significant and positive impact on many of the issues of concern mentioned in the Camden Independent Custody Visitor’s report to the MPA Consultative Committee. Specifically, the identification of a dedicated ACPO lead and the setting up of an MPS Custody Command focussing on, among other areas, ‘partnership co-ordination’ will clearly introduce direction and energy to the benefit of detainees, the MPS and stakeholders such as the IS and HM Customs and Excise.

20. The following recommendations relate specifically to immigration detainees:

• Recommendation 5.2 suggests that the MPS consider approaching the IS to renegotiate current agreement and practice for removal of Home Office prisoners with a view to the significant majority of immigration detainees being held in Home Office IS accommodation after September 2005.
• Recommendation 6 suggests the introduction of a Strategic Custody Planning Unit to plan for the introduction of additional detention places to accommodate, among other increases, ‘no reduction in Immigration Service demand’.
• Recommendation 7.2 suggests that the MPS become more robust and direct that IS detainees be taken and detained at our least utilised detention facilities rather than at those closest to the place of arrest

The report to the MPA from the Camden Independent Custody Visitors (ICVs)

21. The report from Nick Farrant of Camden Borough Independent Custody Visitors Scheme is attached at Appendix E. Whilst this positional report cannot address each of the points of concern raised, the majority of the issues will undoubtedly be addressed by the adoption of the ‘Service Improvement review on Custody Capacity’ recommendations.

22. The concerns articulated by Nick Farrant are probably the concerns of ICVs across London. Recommendation 5.4 of the Custody Capacity Review suggests the formation of an Independent Custody Advisory Group by November 2004. Clearly, the MPS must work to improve its communication with and between stakeholders if we are to receive and respond to criticism and robustly challenge practices or agencies having a negative impact on our core business of reducing crime and reassuring communities.

23. The pan MPS detainee data at Appendix A for the months of January and February 2004 provides a significantly more positive picture of detention times for immigration detainees than the part data in the Camden report. Whilst, unquestionably, the use of MPS custody facilities for the detention of persons awaiting removal from the UK is less than satisfactory (due to the limited access to facilities), we are not in a position to refuse to accommodate Home Office detainees. We must therefore continue to work with the IS to keep detention times to a minimum. The adoption of the relevant recommendations from the Custody Capacity Review, coupled with the changes and improvements discussed in the next paragraphs, should support that process.

The Future

24. The future holds both challenges and opportunities. A new IS initiative ‘Development of Enforcement Capability’ is being launched on 23 July 2004. The overarching aims of the initiative are to develop a stronger operational arm and greater independence from the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. Within two years it is hoped that, in addition to increasing their operational activity, IS will develop improved support mechanisms with a view to reducing the workload on police. However, as stated earlier in the report, there will need to be a change in legislation to allow ‘enquiry’ detainees to be held anywhere other than a PACE authorised police facility.

25. Within 6 months there will be an increase of IS authorised arrest officers from 70 to 200. Whilst this will reduce the number of occasions police are called upon to accompany IS officers, it may result in an increase in IS detainees brought to police stations.

26. There are currently only 30 beds available to the IS in London for immigration detainees. This has a negative impact on MPS custody facilities. Within 6 months this total will increase significantly to 300 beds. 40 new beds will be released at a new facility in Harmondsworth with the remaining beds being found from improved management across the London region.

27. The Wackenhut (IS transport) contract is due for renegotiation in September 2004. Significant extra capacity will be built in to it to ensure that the current transport problems, often leading to unsatisfactory detention periods in police custody, are addressed.

28. There are a number of ‘quick-time’ initiatives, identified by the Service Improvement Review of Custody Capacity as likely to have an immediate and positive impact on immigration detainees and MPS custody facilities, currently being considered for imminent introduction e.g. utilising the larger PFI custody sites to house pan London immigration detainees.

29. Whilst the IS may have some sympathy for the MPS’s position, and accept that they could help relieve some of the pressure by renegotiating the Wackenhut contract and providing more beds within London, as a ‘paying customer’ they look to the MPS to identify satisfactory operational solutions to our ongoing custody accommodation issues.

‘Income generation’ versus ‘cell space for crime reduction’

30. The current agreed practice is that TP give back to boroughs 50% of income generated from Home Office IS prisoners for the initial two million pounds received by the MPS; after that, boroughs receive full cost recovery. There is therefore a significant advantage to TP and MPS boroughs to continue supporting the IS by receiving and holding their detainees.

31. Undeniably, TP need new income to continue to fund forthcoming initiatives (i.e. witness and victim focus desks). However, at the same time custody facilities have never been under more pressure as the MPS strives to deliver on a series of challenging crime reduction and other Home Office targets. This is a dilemma that continues to exercise the minds and ingenuity of the TP Command Team.

32. The total income shown at Appendix B for 2003/4 (£4,375,006) is likely to be improved upon by at least 30% for the year 2004/5 giving an anticipated income generation of six million pounds. This figure is achieved through extrapolating the claims for the first quarter of 2004. The significant rise in income is likely due to an increase in immigration detainee throughput coupled with more robust systems employed on boroughs to reclaim.

33. Recommendation 6.4 of the Service Improvement Review of Custody Capacity identifies the cost recovered from IS detainees as a possible source to fund the recommended new MPS Custody Command structure. Clearly, were this to be adopted and all monies recovered diverted to funding the new command, it would limit the flexibility of TP to finance further new initiatives and put at risk borough initiatives such as at Southwark introduced to relieve busy custody suites and provide appropriate facilities for detainees awaiting removal.

Conclusion

34. As a ‘positional’ report, no attempt has been made to provide solutions to the number of challenges currently facing the MPS and MPA in balancing the needs of the MPS and London against supporting the IS and the Home Office achieve its targets to remove people from the UK.

35. TP Command Team is currently considering the matters discussed in this paper with a view to making a series of decisions that will undoubtedly have a positive impact on the rights and interests of detainees, the effectiveness of MPS custody facilities and on our operational relationships with external stakeholders.

C. Race and equality impact

Improving the conditions and length of detention of detainees in police facilities awaiting removal from the UK will undoubtedly have a positive impact upon them, their families and the MPS’s relationship with diverse communities across London.

D. Financial implications

As attached at Appendix B (Breakdown of detention costs for financial year 2003/4) and as discussed at paragraph 29-31

E. Background papers

Appendices

A Number of immigration detainees in custody January/February 2004

B Breakdown of detention costs recovered for financial year 2003/4

C Briefing paper – ‘Southwark Borough Immigration Detainee Initiative’

D Service Improvement Review of Custody Capacity recommendations

E Report by the Camden Borough Independent Custody Visitors Scheme

F. Contact details

Report author: Ed Bateman, Chief Superintendent - Government Affairs Unit

For more information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback