Immigrants at Campsfield "guilty until proven innocent"?

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%11162%%[/mm-hide-text] 

We’ve gathered outside the Cherwell District Council offices in Bodicote, just south of Banbury. Local councillors are about to decide on whether a proposal to more than double the capacity of Campsfield House Immigration Removal centre will go ahead.

Although the rain has been coming down all day, and the small parish takes over an hour to reach by bus from Oxford, the turnout is impressive: campaigners from across the country have gathered to express their animosity towards plans to expand a centre frequently accused of human rights violations by organisations such as Amnesty International.

Campsfield House Immigration Removal Centre, or ‘Campsfield House’, as it is innocuously signposted on the Woodstock Road, has a maximum detention capacity of 216. Converted from a youth detention centre in 1993, the private outsourcing company Mitie won a £27m contract to run the centre through its ‘Care and Custody’ subsidiary in 2011.

Since then, the Campsfield centre has incurred a fire, a suicide, and at least three major hunger strikes. A recent Corporate Watch feature reports, “There were no sprinklers installed, despite repeated advice from the fire brigade, and despite the fact that Mitie claims to specialise in fire safety.”

Under the current proposal, the centre would have its maximum capacity increased to 560, a plan which has received widespread condemnation from, amongst others, the Deputy Prime Minister.

But opposition to the expansion of Campsfield, and detention centres more generally, goes further than merely disdain for the mistreatment of immigrants within them.

There is also a problem with numbers. Of those detained in the UK, an increasing proportion are being granted leave to remain here. The exact figure is 45 per cent of those detained in the year 2014, compared to 35 per cent in 2010.

This is in spite of a trend of increased hostility towards immigrants by the coalition government within the same period. Given the fact that these centres exist for the express purpose of immigrant removal, this should mean a reduced demand on them – yet, incongrously, they are being expanded.

Moreover, this is costing the taxpayer £37,000 per detainee per year.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%11167%%[/mm-hide-text] 

The story of detention within the UK is rife with such inconsistencies. For instance, the Home Office claims to follow what it calls the ‘Hardial Singh’ principles. These principles state that detention can only be used when the Secretary of State “intends to deport the person”. The length of the period of detention must be “reasonable in all the circumstances”, and “if it becomes apparent that the Secretary of State will not be able to effect deportation within a reasonable period, they should not seek to exercise the power of detention.”

However, on 30th June 2012, the United Kingdom Border Agency reported at least 174 cases where migrants were kept at immigration removal centres for over a year. There are even reports of detainees being kept for up to six or seven years. Clearly, there is a discrepancy between policy and practice.

There are further discrepancies regarding the Home Office’s policy on the detention of vulnerable people. Rule 35 of the ‘Detention Centre Rules 2001’ was designed to prevent torture victims being locked up in all but exceptional circumstances, but the general consensus among campaigners and detainees is that it doesn’t work.

An audit of its effectiveness by the Home Office found that only 9 per cent of Rule 35 reports led to release. More damning evidence against the efficacy of Rule 35 is revealed in a report by Medical Justice, who assessed the cases of 50 torture victims (verified as such by independent doctors). Of the 50 victims, only one person was released through the Rule 35 process.

Furthermore, six people within the sample were hospitalised from going on hunger strike, and eight attempted suicide; the report concludes, “Whilst Rule 35 is presented as a safeguard, its successful implementation is trumped by wider political and economic goals, thus making it little more than a fig leaf.”

We spoke to Ameena, who was detained in Yarl’s Wood IRC for five months. She told us how, on arriving in the UK, she immediately sought asylum in London, and after giving her story to immigration officers, was detained the very same day.

“I was without a lawyer or interpreter, and my English at the time was poor,” she explained. “I had to do the whole thing alone. My case involved FGM, which I had to discuss with a man. I had never discussed it with a man before, and for me it was terrifying.”

Although the UN recognises FGM as torture (meaning that by the Home Office’s very own guidelines, Ameena should not have been detained), the process went ahead anyway. She told us, “My five months in the detention centre was the worst experience of my life. I was treated like a criminal – even though cutting girls is illegal here, and I was a victim.”

Talking about the psychological damage her detention incurred, Ameena explained how “every day I thought about the sick people, the mentally ill, the people who had been there for years, and I thought to myself: is this going to happen to me?”

One day, Ameena was told she was allowed to remain in the country. “Since I left I’ve been receiving counselling and taking medication. I think about that place every single day.”

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%11168%%[/mm-hide-text] 

Ameena’s case isn’t rare. Research by Women for Refugee Women has investigated the impact detention has on women in particular. Their report found that 85 per cent of detained women they spoke to had previously been raped or tortured.

Shockingly, there is evidence that such abuse extends into the detention centres themselves. In 2013, a detainee from Yarl’s Wood called Tanja came forward with claims that she had been sexually abused at the detention centre. In one case, she was made to perform sex acts on guards who were “well aware that I did not want to”.

Shortly after these allegations were made, three more women came forward with cases corroborating Tanja’s. Serco, the private-sector company that runs Yarl’s Wood, denies the allegations. However, they did admit to dismissing a male member of staff for “inappropriate behaviour with a resident”, after an incident was captured on CCTV.

Interested in finding out more about life inside Campsfield, we visited a detainee at the centre to get a first-hand account from this near-mythologised institution. Upon entering, we were thoroughly searched, and after passing through six metre high gates, had our fingerprints and photos taken. Usman, who was nearing the end of his third month at Campsfield, had agreed to talk to us.

Describing life inside, he tells us, “I’m lucky in that I’m not sharing a room with anyone. Earlier, I was sharing with several others. A lot of the rooms contain three or four people, all crammed inside a tiny living space. Some rooms squeeze in as many as six people.”

Usman earns £1 an hour working in the centre’s shop for visitors, and is allowed to earn a maximum of £21 a week. The money is needed to pay for extra food throughout the day, as the meals provided “are not enough for one person”.

Describing a typical day of food, he lists, “bread and milk in the morning, chips or white rice with soup, or a chicken burger for lunch. Dinner is often curry; I’d like some more fruit or vegetables.”