GSL Response to Report by Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, Referencing Oakington Immigration Detention and In-Country Escorting

“Our investigation into the allegations made in the BBC programme ‘Detention Undercover’ found no evidence of a widespread culture of racism. It also concluded that some of the allegations appeared to be unfounded ‘either because of a lack of knowledge on the part of the reporters or because they have been misled, intentionally or otherwise by the party concerned’. However, it is clear that some of our officers felt able to use racist and abusive language and behaviour that is unacceptable. It is little consolation that most of these exchanges took place between officers with no detainee present, as the officers demonstrated attitudes that are incompatible with working with detainees and abhorrent to decent people.

“We do not tolerate racism, discrimination or any form of abuse in the workplace and we are determined to eliminate any trace of it.

• We co-operated fully and actively with the Ombudsman’s inquiry. We have implemented all of his recommendations that apply to us, or they are in the course of being implemented.
• We instigated a full investigation by former police detectives and made the findings available to the Ombudsman. He has praised both the quality of the investigation and its sensible conclusions.
• Our response to the investigators’ report was described by Mr. Shaw as swift and robust. Five employees have been dismissed; four resigned prior to or during the investigation and eight faced disciplinary measures.
• We are continuing a review of management and supervisory personnel and systems at Oakington, together with recruitment, vetting and training. It is taking account of the outcome of our investigation, the Ombudsman’s report and confidential research we have conducted with front line staff and representatives of NGO’s, together with feedback from detainees. The review is being overseen by the Chief Operating Officer and board members, together with Sir Keith Povey, former HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary, who is an advisor to the board.
• We have revised the complaints procedure to give easier confidential access for detainees and it is promoted to all new arrivals. We have also introduced a customer satisfaction survey form for those departing the centre.  We have promoted a confidential “whistle-blower” line for staff.

Mr Bates concluded:  “A new ‘welcome pack’ for detainees has been introduced at Oakington, available in 26 languages, so far.  It includes a customer satisfaction survey form that is entirely optional and may be completed anonymously. The results recorded in June, the first full month following its introduction, were overwhelmingly positive.  Amongst those who completed the survey 98.6% rated their treatment by GSL staff as good, very good or excellent, with only one respondent rating it as poor. Accommodation was rated good, very good or excellent by over 94%, with 4% rating it average and just over 1% who considered it poor. Food was rated good, very good or excellent by 85%, average by 11% and poor by 4%. Activities were rated good, very good or excellent by 89%, average by 8% and poor by 3%”.

…Ends…

21^st July 2005

Notes

Reports of Independent Monitoring and Inspection

• “I am certain that most staff – both at Oakington and on escorts – want to do their job properly and well. I am also certain that most staff have moral integrity” – Stephen Shaw, Prison and Probation Ombudsman for England and Wales.
  
  
• The Independent Monitoring Board (IMB), in its most recent report, commends staff and detainee relationships. The board also commended staff in the Detainee Departure Unit (DDU) for the “excellent job” they carry out and showing “great regard for detainees’ welfare”.

o        Sir Peter Lloyd, who is President of the National Council of Independent Monitoring Boards, confirmed to the Ombudsman that despite their regular visits and engagements with detainees and staff, the IMB had found no evidence of abuse.

• HM Chief Inspector of Prisons team last year said that the overwhelming majority of “detainees felt safe and respected, both at Oakington and during escort”.

o        They reported “excellent staff-detainee relationships” and “staff demonstrated a caring and professional attitude”

o        The inspection team carried out the most comprehensive confidential research into the views of detainees themselves. Given this opportunity to voice concerns or complaints and despite the insecurity of their situation, the overwhelming majority (87%) of detainees said they felt safe; 94% said most staff treated them with respect and 80% said they would turn to a member of staff if they had a problem. This is the best survey figure for any removal centre, which they said is “a testimony to the professional and caring work of centre staff”

o        The over-riding message from detainees themselves and staff was “an establishment with good race relations and respect for diversity”. Detainees interviewed in the survey revealed “almost no race relations concerns”.

• The Ombudsman visited the centre with his team and he reports that “when detainees were given an opportunity to raise concerns about their treatment, with very few exceptions, they did not mention any”.
  
  
• HMCIP reported that detainees had told her team they felt safe and respected during escorted trips – 86% of detainees said they were treated well or very well by escort staff.
  
  
• The BBC reporters acknowledged that our policies and training made it very clear to staff that the job of a detention custody officer is to treat detainees with dignity and respect and they confirmed that “many went out of their way to ensure detainee welfare.”

Outcome of the investigation into “Detention Undercover” allegations

• An investigation into the allegations made in the BBC programme “Detention Undercover” has concluded that some appeared to be unfounded “either because of a lack of knowledge on the part of the reporters or because they have been misled, intentionally or otherwise by the party concerned”.
  
  However, it is clear that some of our officers felt able to use language and behaviour that is unacceptable. The programme showed only one incident of abuse directly to a detainee. Most of the racist and offensive comments were made between officers with no detainee present, in settings such as rest rooms or social gatherings. That is little consolation, as these exchanges demonstrated attitudes that are incompatible with working with detainees and abhorrent to decent people.
  
  
• The investigation found no evidence of a widespread culture of racism towards detainees. It found that a small minority, mainly confined to one shift behaved in a racist manner.
  
  
• The programme included lengthy sequences devoted to dramatic and vivid reconstructions based on separate allegations by two ex- detainees that they had been assaulted by escort staff at the airport. The former police detectives carrying out the investigation into the allegations concluded in one instance that it was unlikely to have happened and in the other that all appropriate action had been taken.

In the first instance the investigators said it was difficult to believe the officers would decide to assault a detainee, in the way alleged, en route to an aircraft and in a public area. According to accounts entered in the incident log at the time and interviews with officers, the detainee had dropped to the floor and had attempted to self-harm, to avoid being placed on the aircraft. He was lifted to his feet and returned to the van. He had not made any allegations of assault at the time.

Despite the BBC declining to name the second detainee, who had alleged he was assaulted and stripped, the investigators believe they have identified him. The incident reports showed that in resisting being placed on an aircraft he injured three officers. He was taken under control and restraint to a segregation area in Heathrow, where his handcuffs were released. Shortly afterwards he tried to hang himself with his jumper. He was asked to remove other items of clothing to prevent a recurrence and did so. The police were involved from the outset. The Prison and Probation Ombudsman’s report noted that the detainee’s solicitors had complained that the detainee had been assaulted. This is subject to a civil claim. The investigators spoke to the police officer in charge of the case who said the solicitors had refused to allow him to interview their client and had now made a complaint about him. He intended to make a counter-claim against the solicitors. The CPS had decided not to take the detainee’s complaint further.

The investigators noted that it is not uncommon for detainees to act in a way that would prompt an airline to refuse to take them, or for some solicitors to make complaints in order to prolong their client’s stay in the country. There were over 26,000 removals carried out by our company over the 12 months to April 2005 and the majority were without incident and with good personal relationships between officers and detainees (See views of detainees given in research to HM Chief Inspector of Prison, in “Reports of Independent Monitoring and Inspection” above). However, nearly 10 percent of all attempted first time removals fail because of resistance by detainees. Resisting boarding the aircraft takes a number of forms ranging from extreme violence, detainees throwing themselves on the tarmac or clinging to handrails etc to detainees stripping themselves. Similarly disruptive behaviour also happens once some detainees are on the aircraft, in order to bring about a refusal to fly them. All such incidents are subject to a comprehensive report to the Home Office and a “use of force” report is submitted to the Home Office. If either the staff or detainee sustains injuries, there is a medical examination and a report submitted to the Home Office. In the event of a complaint of assault, police are routinely involved.

• The investigators found no evidence to support the allegation of regular non-compliance with control and restraint procedures.
  
  
• The BBC also alleged that staff did not complete the required forms reference C&R or did not complete them comprehensively. The Ombudsman’s team reviewed a large number of forms and in the majority of cases a significant amount of detail about the particular circumstances was provided.
  
  
• The investigation did not find evidence of deliberate misuse or careless use of handcuffs.  Out of 63,000 detainee movements, there were just three instances of treatment needed for handcuff injury.
  
  
• In response to the allegation that Oakington operates a system of profiling that discriminates against Eastern Europeans, the investigators said that an officer who claimed Eastern Europeans were profiled (as an escape risk) had misunderstood the fundamentals of the process and had in turn misled the BBC reporter. It was apparent that there was uncertainty and some confusion about risk assessment amongst Oakington staff. The security manager commented that the profile helped to raise awareness but was only a part of the picture. Nationality would not in itself warrant any security measures being taken. The system operated on a need to know basis and DCOs were not informed of every aspect of it lest they attempt to manipulate it. On the recommendation of the investigators the centre manager has produced a policy document.
  
  
• Linked to the allegation that risk assessment is discriminatory, the BBC alleged that security intelligence reports about detainees were trumped up.  The Immigration Service Contract Monitoring team received a copy of every SIR raised. They had at one time scrutinised them over an extended period but had not been able to find any patterns or evidence of misuse. There was no imbalance between shifts or certain blocks. The Ombudsman’s team examined the paperwork for themselves. He notes, “Generally speaking we were satisfied that the process was properly managed with adequate information to suggest detainees might be contemplating escaping”. The Security Intelligence Reports are one element of the risk assessment process but it does not depend on a single report or even a number of SIRs.
  
  
• In the 12 months prior to introduction of risk assessment there were 86 escapes from the centre. In the subsequent 12 months there were 14. This suggests the application of the process of risk assessment and SIRs was effective in targeting potential escapers, which would not have been the case if the main consideration in assigning people to DDU was their country of origin. 
  
  In the three months before introduction of risk assessment there were 37 escapes, all by males from Eastern Europe. This is a matter of fact and recognising it is not racism. However, only a very small percentage of detainees of Eastern European origin who passed through the centre spent any time in DDU.
  
  Of more than 6,700 detainees who were accommodated at Oakington for periods during 2004, only 299 spent any time at all at the more secure environment of the DDU on the basis of escape risk assessment.
  Of the total of 299 people who spent some time in DDU, a high proportion, some 80%, were of Eastern European origin. It is also the case that of those who spent some time in DDU over 80% came from a secure environment, be it prison, police custody or another detention centre. The majority of these were arrested in the community by police or immigration officers, either on suspicion of crime or having been living illegally in the country. This suggests they had established a “network” of contacts.  However, only a small percentage of those who arrived at the centre from a secure environment spent any time in the DDU.  These considerations alone do not result in a detainee being placed in the DDU.
  
  Considerations in assessing the risk usually include a permutation from a number of factors such as: age and fitness, detainee arrested within the community, a network of contacts within the country, previous convictions for crime or arrest on suspicion of crime, use of aliases, wanted in other countries on suspicion of crime, violence, behaviour within the centre that suggests the detainee is planning escape. Within this context, the term “fence-watching” is perhaps inappropriately used as it does not mean simply casually looking in the direction of the fence or the landscape beyond, as has been suggested.

Complaints procedure

• Detainees may raise concerns or complain through a number of channels as well as to a detention custody officer. These include via their legal representative, members of the Independent Monitoring Board, the Immigration Service Contract Monitor, who has complaints post boxes around the centre (for which DCOs do not have access to keys).  Detainees do not have to use a complaints form, they may also complain in writing. The Immigration Service monitor confirmed to the Ombudsman that not many complaints were received. There were two types of complaint. Some were about matters such as food, that could be dealt with straight away by the monitor. Others were about GSL staff. These were classed as serious and in addition to investigating them herself, she would involve the Immigration Service complaints unit. There were perhaps three of these a year.
  
  
• A concern has been raised that detainees might be unwilling to complain because they think that to do so might affect their treatment or their case to remain in the country. In the light of this concern and the BBC programme, a further inspection of Oakington was conducted this year, in which the HMCIP team was rigorous in testing the validity of their approach and the favourable conclusions of their previous inspection. Although the report of this latest inspection is yet to be published, team members indicated, in a verbal debrief, that their observations and interviews substantially re-affirm their previous finding that staff treated detainees well and relationships between them were good.
  
  
• A new “welcome pack” for detainees has been introduced at Oakington, available in 26 languages, so far. It includes a letter from the Independent Monitoring Board and guidance on making requests and complaints, a racial incident report form, writing paper and an envelope to give confidential access to the complaints process. It also includes a “customer satisfaction” exit survey form which detainees are invited to complete prior to their departure from Oakington. Since the introduction of the pack and the easier access to the complaints process, the number of complaints submitted has not increased and there have been no complaints of racism. The customer satisfaction survey form is entirely optional and may be completed anonymously. The results recorded in June, the first full month, were overwhelmingly positive.  Amongst those who completed the survey 98.6% rated their treatment by GSL staff as good, very good or excellent, with only one respondent rating it as poor. Accommodation was rated good, very good or excellent by over 94%, with 4% rating it average and just over 1% who considered it poor. Food was rated good, very good or excellent by 85%, average by 11% and poor by 4%. Activities were rated good, very good or excellent by 89%, average by 8% and poor by 3%.

Whistle-blower line

• The company has a long-established “whistle-blower” telephone line for staff, with freephone access to a confidential line that is externally manned, enabling people to report anonymously. Our Chief Executive has written an open letter to all employees encouraging them to report any concerns and we are supporting the whistle-blower facility with a series of posters that are prominently displayed. There has not been any noticeable increase in complaints to this line.

Race Relations Training

• Earlier this year the Equality Advisor of ACAS reviewed the company’s equal opportunities and diversity policies to ensure they comply with legal requirements and embrace best practice. He confirmed it was his view that they do both.  He also commented that the company has a good training plan for all new staff that should ensure they are aware of their obligation not to discriminate against their colleagues and customers. He noted that officers have to put up with a lot of abuse from their customers and can be pushed to breaking point. We are following up his recommendation for additional tolerance/ conflict resolution training.

The contracts    

·         Oakington is due to close in September 2006. The in-country escorting contract expired and the new contract was awarded to Group4Securicor in November 2004, with a start date of May this year. The Ombudsman noted that when GSL took over the contract in 2003, it took on the custody officers and line managers of the previous operator, who transferred under TUPE arrangements. They have since transferred to the new operator.