heathrow airport terminal 2 - justice inspectorates · heathrow airport terminal 2 short-term...

Report on an unannounced inspection of the

short-term holding facility at

Heathrow Airport

Terminal 2

by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons

20 February 2019

2 Heathrow Airport Terminal 2 Short-Term Holding Facility

Glossary of terms We try to make our reports as clear as possible, but if you find terms that you do not know, please see the glossary in our ‘Guide for writing inspection reports’ on our website at: http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/about-our-inspections/

Crown copyright 2019 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected]. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at the address below or: [email protected] This publication is available for download at: http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/ Printed and published by: Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons Clive House 5th floor 70 Petty France London SW1H 9EX England

Contents

Heathrow Airport Terminal 2 Short-Term Holding Facility 3

Contents

Fact page 4

Introduction 5

About this inspection and report 6

Summary 7

Section 1. Safety 8

Respect 12

Preparation for removal and release 15

Section 2. Summary of recommendations and good practice 16

Section 3. Appendices 17

Appendix I: Inspection team 17

Appendix II: Progress on recommendations from the last report 18

Appendix III: Photographs 20

Fact page


Fact page

Task of the establishment To hold arriving passengers pending a UK Border Force decision on their entry, and those being removed from the United Kingdom. Location Heathrow Airport Terminal 2 (airside) Name of contractor Mitie Care and Custody Last inspection 30 September 2014 Escort provider Mitie Care and Custody

Introduction


Introduction

Terminal 2 is located at the centre of Heathrow Airport and handles over 15 million passengers a year. Short- and long-haul flights arrive from Europe and around the world. The short-term holding facility is located airside and next to the primary control point. Border Force uses the facility to hold two types of passenger: those who have been refused entry and those who are undergoing checks to assess whether they can enter the UK. Mitie Care and Custody runs the facility on behalf of Border Force. The facility had changed little since the previous inspection in September 2014. It comprised an area for staff which looked onto the two holding rooms: one for adult detainees and one for families with children. It provided a reasonable environment for detainees as long as they were held for short periods, and safeguarding arrangements were mostly adequate. During the inspection, 14 detainees were held: nine adults and five children. Two children were unaccompanied and three were with relatives. In the previous three months, 858 detainees had been held, for an average of six and a half hours. Mitie Care and Custody staff were unable to provide consolidated figures on detention length; we derived some figures from the raw data but could not produce a full analysis. An Independent Monitoring Board visited the facility regularly.

About this inspection and report


About this inspection and report

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons is an independent, statutory organisation which reports on the treatment and conditions of those detained in prisons, young offender institutions, immigration detention facilities and police custody. All inspections carried out by HM Inspectorate of Prisons contribute to the UK’s response to its international obligations under the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT). OPCAT requires that all places of detention are visited regularly by independent bodies – known as the National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) – which monitor the treatment of and conditions for detainees. HM Inspectorate of Prisons is one of several bodies making up the NPM in the UK. All Inspectorate of Prisons reports carry a summary of the conditions and treatment of detainees, based on the four tests of a healthy prison that were first introduced in this inspectorate’s thematic review Suicide is everyone’s concern, published in 1999. The tests have been modified to fit the inspection of short-term holding facilities, both residential and non-residential. The tests for short-term holding facilities are:

Safety – that detainees are held in safety and with due regard to the insecurity of their position Respect – that detainees are treated with respect for their human dignity and the circumstances of their detention1 Preparation for removal and release – that detainees are able to maintain contact with family, friends, support groups, legal representatives and advisers, access information about their country of origin and be prepared for their release, transfer or removal. Detainees are able to retain or recover their property.

Inspectors kept fully in mind that although these were custodial facilities, detainees were not held because they had been charged with a criminal offence and had not been detained through normal judicial processes.

1 Non-residential short-term holding facilities are unsuitable for long stays and detainees should not be held in them for

more than a few hours. This limits what activities can or need to be provided. We will therefore report any notable issues concerning activities in the accommodation and facilities section.

Summary


Summary

S1 At our inspection in September 2014, we made 19 recommendations, five of which we found at this inspection were achieved, 13 not achieved and one was no longer relevant.

S2 Reception processes were good. Detainee custody officers (DCOs) were reassuring and friendly towards detainees. Professional telephone interpreting services were used to communicate with detainees who did not speak English.

S3 Border Force’s safeguarding and modern slavery team was knowledgeable about, and alert to the risks of, modern slavery and the needs of at-risk adults. DCOs had insufficient knowledge of safeguarding mechanisms.

S4 DCOs carried anti-ligature knives. Incidents of self-harm were rare. Unrelated men and women could not be held separately as there was only one holding room for adults (and another for families). DCOs could easily see into the holding rooms. DCOs were trained in the Home Office manual for escorting safely but force was rarely used in the facility.

S5 In the previous three months, 200 children had been detained in the facility. Border Force officers were conscious of their duty to promote and safeguard the welfare of children. They attended quarterly meetings with Hillingdon social services and other agencies, to scrutinise safeguarding arrangements. Responsible adults (independent individuals who checked on the interests of a detained child being interviewed) were not managed independently of Border Force, and we were not confident that their backgrounds were checked by the Disclosure and Barring Service.

S6 Detainees had limited access to legal advice. In the previous three months, 858 detainees had been detained, for an average of six hours and 30 minutes.

S7 The facility was clean but lacked natural light. Efforts had been made to soften the environment with pictures and a mural. The shower was out of use because of a risk of Legionella bacteria, and this was a perennial problem. Catering arrangements were adequate. There were enough activities to occupy detainees held for short periods.

S8 DCOs were attentive to detainees’ needs and understood their anxieties and difficulties. Detainees could practise their own religion and submit written complaints.

S9 Detainees’ health needs were not screened on arrival by a health care professional, and DCOs now removed all medication from detainees on arrival. Detainees were not allowed to take their medication unless the port medical officer granted permission. DCOs could call airport paramedics or the port medical officer in an emergency but it was unclear how lower-level needs would be met.

S10 Detainees did not have access to fax, email, video-calls or social media, or to the internet. Furthermore, detainees access to mobile phones was restricted.

S11 Visitors could not attend the facility. Detainees transferring to immigration removal centres were given a small information card about the centre.

Section 1 – Safety


Section 1. Safety

Arrival and reception

Expected outcomes: Detainees travelling to and arriving at the facility are treated with respect and care. Risks are identified and acted on. Induction is comprehensive.

1.1 The facility was open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and staffed by two detainee custody officers (DCOs). A female officer was always rostered to be on duty.

1.2 Reception processes were good. DCOs checked the necessary authority to detain (form IS 91). We saw a DCO correctly refuse to take custody of a detainee because the paperwork had not been signed by a Border Force officer of sufficient authority. On arrival, detainees were greeted by staff in a friendly and reassuring way. DCOs used an induction checklist which covered key items, including asking basic welfare questions and explaining the right to make a complaint. When a detainee did not speak English, a professional telephone interpreting service was used.

1.3 DCOs gave adult detainees a rub-down search in a curtained side-room (see Appendix III). This was done respectfully. Children were searched only with a wand. All detainees were offered a telephone call, hot drink and hot food. Toiletry packs were not routinely offered on arrival. Detainees we spoke to said that they felt well treated and safe.

1.4 A basic information leaflet in 16 languages was available, although we did not see this being brought to the attention of detainees.

Safeguarding adults and personal safety

Expected outcomes: The facility promotes the welfare of all detainees and protects them from all kinds of harm and neglect. The facility provides a safe environment which reduces the risk of self-harm and suicide. Detainees are protected from bullying and victimisation, and force is only used as a last resort and for legitimate reasons.

1.5 Border Force’s safeguarding and modern slavery (SAMS) team promoted safeguarding awareness and advised colleagues on handling cases involving vulnerable adults. Team members had completed a four-day training course and an enhanced check by the Disclosure and Barring Service. SAMS officers were knowledgeable about, and alert to the risks of, modern slavery and the needs of vulnerable adults. They understood how to use the national referral mechanism. A member of the team was available on early and late shifts but not always at night.

1.6 Mitie Care and Custody had a national ‘safeguarding vulnerable adults at risk’ standard operating procedure but DCOs had insufficient knowledge of safeguarding mechanisms. They had not heard of the national referral mechanism. DCOs had access to vulnerable adult warning forms but had not used them. However, they would open care plans for detainees with disabilities. DCOs said that if they had any concerns about a vulnerable adult, they would tell their line manager and verbally inform Border Force. The holding rooms displayed helpline telephone numbers for detainees to report female genital mutilation and modern slavery.



1.7 There had been no incidents of self-harm since at least May 2018. DCOs on duty during the inspection could not recall any detainees ever harming themselves in the facility. They both carried anti-ligature knives and told us that they would open suicide and self-harm warning forms if a detainee threatened to harm themselves. No such forms had been opened in the facility since Mitie Care and Custody had taken over the contract in May 2018. Mitie Care and Custody’s national suicide and self-harm prevention standard operating procedure provided staff with a reasonably good overview of procedures to support detainees who were at risk of self-harm.

1.8 DCOs could easily supervise detainees from the DCO office. They had good sightlines into both holding rooms. Detainees could easily attract the attention of staff if necessary. Both holding rooms were covered by closed-circuit television cameras. DCOs on duty could not recall having to challenge detainees over poor behaviour towards other detainees. As there was only one holding room for adults, female detainees were sometimes held with unrelated male detainees.

1.9 Force had not been used since May 2018, when Mitie Care and Custody started staffing the facility. DCOs were trained in the Home Office manual for escorting safely, and received refresher training every nine months. They carried handcuffs, and waist and leg restraints were held in the staff area, although DCOs on duty had never used them in the facility. They said that they would not force a detainee onto an aircraft but, rather, the detainee would be taken to an immigration removal centre (IRC) and the removal would be rearranged with specialist overseas escort staff.

Recommendations

1.10 Border Force officers on night shifts should be able to receive advice from a member of the safeguarding and modern slavery team.

1.11 Mitie Care and Custody managers should ensure that detainee custody officers are aware of the potential vulnerabilities of detainees and of safeguarding mechanisms. Custody staff should open care plans for all vulnerable adults, and these should be kept updated and address any safeguarding concerns.

1.12 Women detainees should always be offered the opportunity to be held in a separate room from unrelated men. (Repeated recommendation 1.10)

Safeguarding children

Expected outcomes: The facility promotes the welfare of children and protects them from all kinds of harm and neglect.

1.13 In the previous three months, children had been detained on 200 occasions.

1.14 On the day of the inspection, five children were held in the facility: three with a parent and two unaccompanied. DCOs opened care plans for all five children. The two unaccompanied boys had claimed asylum, and were aged 16 and 17. They both had relatives in the UK who were airside, waiting to meet them. They were held while Border Force conducted relevant checks and arranged for them to be reunited with their relatives.

1.15 SAMS officers (see paragraph 1.5) managed cases involving children, or advised colleagues on how to handle such cases. They were alert to their statutory duty to promote and safeguard



the welfare of children. Border Force staff attended quarterly meetings of the Joint Strategic Safeguarding Children and Vulnerable Adults and Trafficking Sub-Committee – a multi-agency forum that scrutinises safeguarding arrangements for those arriving at Heathrow Airport. Staff from Hillingdon social services, the police, Harmondsworth IRC and other agencies attended these meetings.

1.16 During the inspection, a 13-year-old unaccompanied minor presented herself at the primary control point. After interviewing the child, a SAMS officer diligently contacted the child’s parents in the country of origin and the family friend who was meeting the child at the airport. Background checks were also conducted on the family friend. Only when the officer was satisfied that there were no safeguarding risks was the child granted entry to the UK. DCOs checked on the welfare of the unaccompanied children throughout their time in the holding room.

1.17 The local children’s social services team did not have a permanent presence at the airport. SAMS officers said that social workers responded reasonably quickly to collect unaccompanied asylum-seeking children during working hours, but were sometimes slow out of hours. Arrangements for responsible adults (independent individuals who checked on the interests of a detained child being interviewed) to attend Border Force interviews with unaccompanied children were not robust. Responsible adults were not recruited and managed independently of Border Force, and we were not confident that their backgrounds were checked by the Disclosure and Barring Service. Unlike at other terminals at Heathrow, Border Force officers did not use child-friendly rooms for interview when a young child was present.

1.18 Other than on their initial training course, DCOs did not receive refresher training in working with children. Mitie Care and Custody’s national standard operating procedure, ‘Safeguarding and Promoting the Welfare of Children and Family Movements’, explained in detail how children would be safeguarded when in the care of DCOs.

Recommendation

1.19 Only trained and informed responsible adults should be used to provide support to unaccompanied children, and they should be recruited, trained and coordinated independently of Border Force.

Legal rights

Expected outcomes: Detainees are fully aware of and understand their detention, following their arrival at the facility and on release. Detainees are supported by the facility staff to freely exercise their legal rights.

1.20 Detainees had limited access to legal advice. Those claiming asylum were able to seek advice from the Civil Legal Advice helpline, and telephone numbers for this service were displayed on notices in a variety of languages. Other detainees would most likely have to rely on friends and family to source legal advice. A notice promoted the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner, which may have helped some detainees to contact a registered immigration adviser. Detainees could not fax or email legal representatives and, because the facility was airside, could not meet legal representatives. However, they could communicate with them by telephone (see paragraph 1.44).



1.21 Border Force officers gave detainees the reasons for their detention in writing (form IS91R), and used professional telephone interpreting services to explain its contents to detainees who did not speak English.

1.22 In the previous three months, 858 detainees had been held, for an average of six hours and 30 minutes. Eight detentions had exceeded 24 hours and the longest had been for 34 hours and 10 minutes. Some detainees had been released and then re-detained, often for interview.

1.23 Detainees could be held in a controlled waiting area in front of the primary control point. A Border Force officer supervised the area, and attempts were made to hold detainees there for no more 30 minutes, although this was not always the case.

Section 1 – Respect


Respect

Accommodation and facilities

Expected outcomes: Detainees are held in a safe, clean and decent environment. Detainees are offered varied meals to meet their individual requirements. Food is prepared and served according to religious, cultural and prevailing food safety and hygiene regulations. The facility encourages activities to preserve and promote the mental and physical well-being of detainees.

1.24 The facility consisted of a staff area, a large holding room for adults, and a smaller holding room used to hold children and their parents (see Appendix III). Both holding rooms were clean but had no natural light. Pictures and a mural in the family holding room softened the environment. The family holding room was screened from the main holding room by a blind, which gave sufficient privacy. The holding rooms were air conditioned but DCOs could not control their temperature, and they often become too warm or too cold.

1.25 The main holding room contained separate toilets for male and female detainees, and adapted toilets. The family holding room contained an adapted toilet with baby change facilities. All the toilets were clean and well maintained but, apart from the adapted toilet in the main holding room (see Appendix III), none had seats or lids.

1.26 There was a shower room but it had not been working for at least the previous two months. We were told that this was because of a risk of Legionella bacteria, and that this was a recurring problem. In the meantime, detainees who needed a shower could be transferred to other short-term holding facilities in the airport.

1.27 The main holding room contained airport-style fixed seating arranged in rows, and some more comfortable seats arranged around three tables (see Appendix III). For detainees who needed to sleep, there was a reclining chair, which was worn and jaded, and a cushioned mat that could fold out horizontally (see Appendix III).

1.28 The seating in the family holding room was somewhat better. In addition to a small number of fixed seats, there was a soft bench, a table where families could eat, and a bean bag. There was no suitable place to sleep in the family holding room. A travel cot was available for babies.

1.29 Clean pillows and blankets were offered to detainees. A toiletry pack was available, containing a flannel, comb, shower gel, and toothbrush and toothpaste, as well as sanitary products for women and spare clothing for men and women.

1.30 Catering arrangements were adequate. Detainees could help themselves to fruit, crisps, biscuits and vacuum-packed croissants, as well as water from fountains. Hot drinks and microwaveable meals were offered on arrival. Halal and vegetarian options were stocked and kosher food could be brought in from another facility in the airport. Food for toddlers older than a year was available onsite, but baby food had to be bought using petty cash.

1.31 The holding rooms were located airside, and detainees had no access to outside space for exercise in the fresh air. A range of newspapers, magazines and books, including some in languages other than English, was available in the main holding room. There were televisions in both holding rooms. A handheld DVD player that should have been available was missing at the time of the inspection. There was a range of DVDs, but none suitable for children. In



the family holding room, there was a good stock of toys and we saw a young girl playing happily in the room. There was enough to do for adults and children staying short term, but not for those staying for a long time.

Recommendations

1.32 Detention should be kept to a minimum period and detainees should not be held for an unreasonable length of time without access to sleeping facilities, fresh air or natural light.

1.33 All toilets should be fitted with seats and lids.

Respectful treatment

Expected outcomes: Detainees are treated with respect by all staff. Effective complaints procedures are in place for detainees. There is understanding of detainees’ diverse cultural backgrounds. Detainees’ health care needs are met.

1.34 DCOs were polite, respectful and attentive towards detainees and understood their difficulties and anxieties.

1.35 We observed DCOs make appropriate use of professional telephone interpreting services. In the six months to the end of December 2018, these services had been used 166 times.

1.36 Staff did not receive training on equality, diversity or cultural awareness, other than a very short session during their induction training. One DCO told us that they lacked the knowledge and skills for dealing with detainees with mental health problems and those with physical disabilities. A wheelchair user was held in the facility before our inspection and needed to use the toilet. The DCOs on duty lacked the confidence and training to assist and an unrelated detainee lifted the detainee onto the toilet which was inappropriate.

1.37 Detainees could practise their religion, although there was no separate faith or quiet room. The holding rooms held copies of the Bible and the Qur’an, and prayer mats were available. The direction of Mecca was shown on the ceiling in the main holding room, and pointed out during the detainee induction.

1.38 The adapted toilet for detainees with disabilities included grab handles, a low sink and an alarm. A detainee who was transitioning from male to female had been held a few months before the inspection. Records showed that she had been allowed to stay in the family holding room, and a vulnerable adult warning form had been opened. A report (IS91 part C) had been completed and forwarded to the Home Office.

1.39 Complaint forms were available in a variety of languages, and there was a complaints box in both holding rooms. We were told that these were emptied each day by Border Force staff, and the test complaint we submitted was picked up a couple of hours later. Mitie Care and Custody had received one complaint since May 2018 about its services in the facility. The complaint had not been fully investigated as the investigator had not tried to contact the complainant.

1.40 Detainees’ health needs were not screened on arrival by a health care professional. DCOs now took all medications from detainees on arrival, even when these had been prescribed to the individual. Detainees were not allowed to take their medication unless the port medical



officer granted permission. DCOs could contact airport paramedics or the port medical officer in an emergency, and NHS 111 for lower-level needs. However, this latter service could not authorise the distribution of medication. This blanket policy of removing all medication without a health screening interfered with detainees’ continuity of care.

Recommendations

1.41 Detainee custody officers should receive training, which is regularly refreshed, in all aspects of diversity, including mental health, disability and the wide-ranging backgrounds of, and particular issues faced by, detainees in the immigration system.

1.42 There should be arrangements to ensure that detainees have adequate access to medical services, including medication to manage longstanding conditions.

Section 1 – Preparation for removal and release


Preparation for removal and release

Communications

Expected outcomes: Detainees are able to maintain contact with the outside world using a full range of communications media.

1.43 Detainees had limited access to the outside world and contact with family and friends. They were not permitted to keep their mobile phones. Replacement phones were available but were not routinely offered and there was no record of any being used. Detainees were offered a free UK and international call, and asked to encourage family and friends to call back on the public telephone available in the holding room. No small change was available to enable detainees to make external calls from the public payphone. There was no access to email, fax, video calling or social media, or to the internet. The two unaccompanied children called their relatives free of charge on two occasions.

Recommendation

1.44 Detainees should be able to contact people outside the facility easily by telephone, fax, video calling, email and social networks, and should be able to access the internet.

Leaving the facility

Expected outcomes: Detainees are prepared for their release, transfer or removal. They are able to retain or recover their property. Families with children and others with specific needs are not detained without items essential for their welfare.

1.45 On leaving the facility, detainees were either removed, bailed, transferred to another place of detention or granted leave to enter. Mitie Care and Custody was unable to provide consolidated figures on where detainees went after leaving the holding rooms.

1.46 Visitors could not visit the facility or deliver property or cash to detainees. Detainees transferring to IRCs were given a small information card about the centre, but no information about what to expect when they arrived there. There was a process for checking and returning detainees’ property.

1.47 ‘Clothing packsʼ were available, containing a tracksuit, T-shirt and flip flops. DCOs said that they would assist detainees to recover lost or misplaced luggage.

Section 2. Summary of recommendations and good practice


Section 2. Summary of recommendations and good practice

Recommendations To the Home Office

2.1 Border Force officers on night shifts should be able to receive advice from a member of the safeguarding and modern slavery team. (1.10)

2.2 Only trained and informed responsible adults should be used to provide support to unaccompanied children, and they should be recruited, trained and coordinated independently of Border Force. (1.19)

2.3 Detention should be kept to a minimum period and detainees should not be held for an unreasonable length of time without access to sleeping facilities, fresh air or natural light. (1.32)

Recommendations To the Home Office and the facility contractor

2.4 Women detainees should always be offered the opportunity to be held in a separate room from unrelated men. (1.12, repeated recommendation 1.10)

Recommendations To the facility contractor

Safeguarding adults and personal safety

2.5 Mitie Care and Custody managers should ensure that detainee custody officers are aware of the potential vulnerabilities of detainees and of safeguarding mechanisms. Custody staff should open care plans for all vulnerable adults, and these should be kept updated and address any safeguarding concerns. (1.11)

Accommodation and facilities

2.6 All toilets should be fitted with seats and lids. (1.33)

Respectful treatment

2.7 Detainee custody officers should receive training, which is regularly refreshed, in all aspects of diversity, including mental health, disability and the wide-ranging backgrounds of, and particular issues faced by, detainees in the immigration system. (1.41)

2.8 There should be arrangements to ensure that detainees have adequate access to medical services, including medication to manage longstanding conditions. (1.42)

2.9 Detainees should be able to contact people outside the facility easily by telephone, fax, video calling, email and social networks, and should be able to access the internet. (1.44)

Section 3 – Appendix I: Inspection team


Section 3. Appendices

Appendix I: Inspection team

Colin Carroll Inspector Michael Dunkley Inspector Frances Russell Inspector

Section 3 – Appendix II: Progress on recommendations from the last report


Appendix II: Progress on recommendations from the last report

The following is a list of all the recommendations made in the last report, organised under the four tests of a healthy establishment. The reference numbers at the end of each recommendation refer to the paragraph location in the previous report. If a recommendation has been repeated in the main report, its new paragraph number is also provided.

Safety

Detainees are held in safety and with due regard to the insecurity of their position.

Recommendations A female detainee custody officer should be present in the holding room whenever a woman is detained there, and for the duration of her detention. (1.5) Achieved DCOs should be able to view blind spots in the holding room through CCTV. (1.9) Achieved Women detainees should always be offered the opportunity to be held in a separate room from unrelated men. (1.10) Not achieved (recommendation repeated, 1.12) All DCOs should carry anti-ligature knives. (1.13) Achieved Tascor should develop a national safeguarding adults policy, and all relevant staff should be familiar with this. (1.15) Not achieved A member of Border Force’s safeguarding and trafficking team should always be on duty, including night shifts. (1.22) Not achieved All members of Border Force’s safeguarding and trafficking team should receive tiers two and three of the keeping children safe training. (1.23) No longer relevant Border Force should contact the head of children’s services at Hillingdon social services formally to request that a team of social workers be based at the airport. (1.24) Not achieved Children should be interviewed in a child-friendly environment. (1.25) Not achieved Written reasons for detention (IS91R) should be issued in a language the detainee can understand. (1.28) Not achieved

Section 3 – Appendix II: Progress on recommendations from the last report


Detainees should be able to send legal documentation to representatives confidentially and quickly. (1.29) Not achieved Border Force officers should confirm that detainees understand what will happen to them next. (1.35) Achieved Detention should be kept to a minimum period and detainees should not be held for unreasonable lengths of time without access to sleeping facilities, fresh air or natural light. (1.36) Not achieved

Respect

Detainees are treated with respect for their human dignity and the circumstances of their detention.

Recommendations DCOs should receive training which is regularly refreshed in all aspects of diversity, including the wide-ranging backgrounds of, and particular issues faced by, detainees in the immigration system. (1.46) Not achieved DCOs should use a professional telephone interpreting service to communicate with all detainees with little or no English. (1.47) Achieved Information should be provided in Braille for those requiring it, and a hearing loop facility should be available. (1.48) Not achieved

Preparation for removal and release

Detainees are able to maintain contact with the outside world and be prepared for their release, transfer or removal.

Recommendations Detainees should be given a mobile phone when in the holding room to contact friends, family and legal representatives. (1.6) Not achieved Detainees should have supervised access to the internet, including email, Skype and social networks. (1.56) Not achieved Arrangements should be made to allow visitors to see detainees. (1.57) Not achieved

Section 3 – Appendix III: Photographs


Appendix III: Photographs

Searching area Main holding room



Reclining chair in main holding room Cushioned mat



Family holding room Adapted toilet in main holding room

heathrow airport terminal 2 - justice inspectorates · heathrow airport terminal 2 short-term...

Documents