A good reason to vote tomorrow

I did one of my regular stints on the Simon Mayo show earlier, and mentioned the unpleasant billboard campaign being run by UKIP, with huge posters saying "No to unlimited immigration" in the heart of Bristol's most ethnically diverse wards. If you go to one of the higher floors in some of the tower blocks in Barton Hill, that's what you see from the walkway. I also mentioned this in Parliament yesterday. We don't have unlimited immigration, we have pretty tough laws, included the new points-based migration system. I deal every week with people who have been refused asylum or visas. I also receive quite a few emails from people who think the current system is too tough, particularly when it comes to removals from the UK of failed asylum seekers or over-stayers. Anyway, I've already had some feedback from my radio appearance. Not quite a ringing endorsement of my views...

"what a lying slimey new labour moron you are kerry mccarthy telling simon mayo that there has not been unlimited immigration since you got in power.how strange that is when hazel blears in her words said are biggest mistake is opening the floodgates to the whole world when we got in power in 1997,at least blears is honest whatever ever people think about her.lets remind you mrs liar 6 million immigrants have came to the uk since 1997 under your free for all open door policy and now the ordinary people of the uk are paying for this in the mass crime wave and islamic extremism that is speading around the uk like a wildfire,you really made me get my sick bag out with lies after after lies that come from you greedy corrupt gob when you was on simon mayos show , and you wonder why people vote for ukip and the bnp well the reason for that is 2 words=new labour, your hated now by everybody i know and i will make a prediction now i will bet you £100 that you lose your seat at the next election,lets see if you take me up on that bet you smug arrogant new labour loser,get the message quick white working class people like me who voted you lot into power in 1997 hate and despise you now.....peter"

From safety to where...?

OK, serious stuff now - which will probably take me the best part of an hour and not please anyone (although if pleasing people was the point of this blog, I've been getting it rather wrong lately).

Today I went to Yarl's Wood detention centre, in the farthest flung reaches of north Bedfordshire. (Not somewhere I'd normally venture as a Lutonian - the north-south divide is alive and kicking in Beds.) The purpose of my mission was to find out for myself what conditions were like there.

So - facts first. Yarl's Wood is a removal centre for failed asylum seekers, illegal immigrants and overstayers (i.e. people who arrive here legally on, say, a six month tourist visa but then don't go home). It may also include foreign national criminals, although increasingly they're being deported straight from prison at the end of their sentences. The average stay is only a couple of weeks. Some residents are removed from the UK at this point; others are successful in opposing removal instructions and return to the community pending judicial review of their cases.

Most people, of course, remember Yarl's Wood from the riot and fire six years ago. It's been substantially rebuilt since, and is very different now. It only houses single women and families for a start (and is the only centre of this type in the UK; all children go to Yarl's Wood). Men are only allowed there as part of a family unit, which could mean a single father and a child. This is one reason why Yarl's Wood tends to be higher profile than other places, as anti-deportation campaigners tend to focus on cases involving children. Many of course take the view that children should never be detained in such places, although their families will only be taken there if they've not taken up opportunities to return voluntarily. There are no unaccompanied children there; they're allowed to remain in the UK until they're adults. I think at the moment there's something like 314 residents there, which includes 89 families and 44 children. It's about 80% full, which is typical.

I have to admit, my first impression of Yarl's Wood was that it was pretty grim. It's on a small industrial estate, which is home to ugly grey warehouses and, surprisingly, Red Bull Racing. (No sign of Mark Webber or David Coulthard though). It looks from the outside like a prison camp.

But then I was shown inside, and taken along corridors lined with children's paintings to meet the Director, Victoria (friendly, young - well, definitely younger than me. Not at all what you'd expect - but then again, I've met the female Governor of HMP Bristol and the Director of Ashfield YOI, and they're nothing like Officer Ferguson either). Also present were reps from the UK Border Agency, who are responsible for overseeing the contract with Serco, who run the centre.

After a very useful chat, we started our tour of the facilities in the reception area, which consists of a welcome desk and a series of rooms, brightly furnished with Ikea sofas and with Disney cartoons painted on the walls. Although there are quite a few locked doors along the corridors, the aim is for the place to look as little like a prison as possible, which is largely successful. For example, many internal gates have been removed or curtains hung to hide them. Residents - which is the term used by staff to describe people detained there - have the keys to their own rooms, which generally have twin beds and their own showers and toilets. They are never locked in, and can generally wander from one place to another. (The family unit is separate because of child protection issues). The rooms are basic, but certainly not cell-like. Residents have televisions and video recorders in their rooms, as well as CD players. There are two libraries, with stacks of videos, internet access, newspapers and books. Residents can find out there about what's going on in their countries of origin, and staff will find out more for them if they're concerned by current events.

There are also three cinemas on site: one showing foreign language films, one showing blockbusters, and the other for children - which was showing Shrek today. There are two hair salons; a gym; a sports hall; arts and crafts rooms; and of course classrooms. I went to the nursery unit: very cute kids, all playing happily, lots of toys and an outside play area. In its Ofsted inspection it had come out overall as 'good' but 'outstanding' in terms of equipping children with social and communication skills, which is pretty impressive considering the circumstances. There is another class for primary school age children, and one for older kids. They all seemed like typical kids; cheerful, a bit rowdy. I asked the teacher and Director what impact detention had on the kids, and was told they generally coped with it well. The youngest ones were either too young to know what was going on, or thought they were on holiday. (And I don't mean that in a dismissive, 'they're all fine' way - it's obviously sad that they're in such a situation, but I couldn't see any evidence that they were traumatised by their experience; in fact, Yarl's Wood was probably for many of them a far better environment than where they'd previously lived.) There's also a youth club for the kid, from the age of 7 upwards, which is done out with Ikea furniture and is a colourful, cheerful place.

Some of the women there seemed a bit bored, but were mostly socialising together: doing each other's hair in the salons, having manicures, or just sitting around talking. The Director wants to provide more adult education, but it's obviously difficult when people are there for such short periods of time. It was visiting time, but only a few families were in the open-plan visiting centre.

I was also shown the health centre, which is the cause of most concern from those who lobby me on such issues. I was told that all new residents are subject to a triage check, and their health/ medication discussed with them. Yes, their medication is usually confiscated, because staff have no way of knowing whether it's the genuine article or not, but they're then given a replacement. GPs come into the centre; there's a dentist; there's a counsellor. (Although I was told that mental health problems are not anywhere near as common as they are in prisons, where it's around the 80% mark.)

I'm sure there's lots more that I could say, but I'll end with this because it's getting on for midnight and I've promised my researcher I'll look at some emails tonight. My lasting impression was that, given the circumstances, Yarl's Wood is about as decent a place as it can be. The Director and her staff make a huge effort to minimise the impact on children in particular, and are a million miles removed from what most people's impressions of prison officers would be. (Not that they regard themselves as prison staff; they're not.)

I've had conversations in the past with organisations who oppose children being held in detention, and I'll be talking to them again. I was at Yarl's Wood for two and a half hours, so I think I saw pretty much everything there was to be seen, and I don't think the wool was pulled over my eyes. Wasn't what I was expecting at all. Will be tracking down some of those organisations at Labour conference, and will see what they have to say about it.

Goin' back

High point in the office today for me was cleaning out the kitchen cupboards and throwing out lots of old crockery. I also went into town and bought some mugs. That is what recess is for.

On Monday, however, I've arranged to visit Yarls Wood Detention Centre in Bedfordshire, where failed asylum seekers are taken before deportation. In the past year I've made a few last minute interventions in cases where families had been taken to Yarls Wood, and managed to get them released so that they can submit further representations in support of their applications to stay in the UK. I've also spoken to organisations like the Children's Society and Barnado's about the detention of children in such places. So I thought it was about time I saw it for myself, to see what conditions are like and how the centre is managed.

I'm also going to be sending out an immigration survey to several thousand constituents soon. In the next parliamentary session there'll be a huge Immigration Bill, consolidating all previous immigration legislation and introducing further changes. I think it's important to know what constituents think before I get stuck into that.

In particular, I've tried to flag up in the survey some of the dilemmas facing those who have the responsibility for making decisions on immigration issues. Should we deport anyone and everyone who is here in breach of the immigration rules? What if someone has found themselves a partner, or had a child since they arrived here? Do we break up a family, or tell them that if they want to be together they will all have to leave the country? And if we allow them to stay, won't that just encourage people to enter into sham marriages or have a child just so they can stay here?

And what about foreign nationals who have committed criminal offences? To give an example; someone marries a British citizen, so has the right to be here by virtue of marriage, but then receives a conviction for dealing Class A drugs. I've got a few such cases at the moment, not necessarily involving drug dealers, but all involving people serving custodial sentences. Most of them have young children. Under current law, they'll be deported at the end of their sentences - which either means depriving a child of contact with its father, or sending a child that has been born and brought up in Britain away to another country.

This is suddenly starting to ring bells, and I'm remembering that I've blogged about this before. So all I will add is that I'm going to see if it's possible to post the survey on my website too, so that constituents (and only constituents) will be able to print it out and return it to me. Will no doubt attract some racist comments, but I hope it's nuanced enough to make people think a little bit before automatically entering into knee-jerk 'send them all back' or 'keep them all here' modes.

At home he's a tourist

This story in the Mail on Sunday is interesting, because I actually had a meeting with the Immigration Minister, Liam Byrne, on the same topic last Tuesday. Also because it reflects the media's typically inconsistent approach towards immigration.

It's about a man who has lived in this country for 50 years, since he was three years old; has served in Northern Ireland as a Marine; has British parents; was a councillor, a policeman, a fireman and is now a nurse - but he's Canadian. Technically he's been here illegally and has been working illegally, although there's a rule that says if you've been here for 14 years illegally (and behaved yourself) you can apply for leave to remain and, eventually, citizenship. So he's not being kicked out, he can regularise his situation - but he has to pay £750 to do so and take the "Way of Life" citizenship test.

I've got a few cases like this at the moment. Typically they involve people from Jamaica, who came here on tourist visas decades ago and overstayed, or the children of such people (unlike in the USA, just being born in the UK doesn't automatically make you a British citizen). I've got one young woman who was born here, and is about to go to university to do an English language degree. It was only then that she discovered she wasn't a British citizen. She's got to pay two sets of fees, (levied on the basis that the process should be self-funding), adding up to over £1300, and take the test. So I raised this with Liam and he's going to see what can be done about it. Would be pretty stupid to put someone through an English language test when they're about to go off and get a degree in the subject!

More and more of these cases are coming to light as we're tightening up our border controls and immigration checks. (At which point I have to say to the PM - please don't promote Liam in the reshuffle, he's doing a phenomenal job at Immigration and we need him to stay there! But don't tell Liam I said that).

I'm seeing changes on a week by week basis - much quicker processing of applications, and definitely more deportations. For example, I'm noticing a number of cases where women are coming to see me with their young children; their partners are in jail, usually for drugs or violent offences, and are going to be deported at the end of their sentence because they're foreign nationals. This is difficult. It means the father will be separated from his child and partner. But on the other hand.... I hate the over-used phrase 'abused our hospitality', but I think most people would be of the view that we shouldn't be giving sympathetic treatment to drug-dealers, rapists and gangsters. And yet... shouldn't the child's need for a father be our priority? But then the mother and child could move abroad too (although they usually don't want to). And would he make much of a father anyway? Tricky decisions but the starting point is that if they've done the crime, they're out of here.

Anyway, the point I was making is that I'm seeing more of these cases because we've got our act together on foreign national prisoners. I'm also seeing more deportations of failed asylum seekers, some of which involve families with young kids, which again can be really difficult.

My last point though is about the way the media treat such cases. On the one hand the Mail on Sunday would be up in arms at any softening of immigration laws, and probably wouldn't have much sympathy for my Jamaican overstayers, even though some of them have been here 50 years too and have worked all their lives; they tend to be caretakers, porters, cleaners, not former Marines. But shouldn't the law apply equally to everyone? (Apart from those who really have 'abused our hospitality').

Buying babies

I don't usually like drawing attention to Daily Mail stories like this - about a Nigerian woman who has been convicted of buying a baby to qualify for a council house in Britain. Usually such stories are grossly exaggerated or taken out of context to promote a certain political agenda and stoke up certain prejudices (immigrants taking our housing, defrauding our welfare system, etc). But this caught my eye for a couple of reasons.

One is that the woman was actually convicted, so it's not one of those urban myths (like Somalis in Bristol being given free cars by the Council, and Poles being given free mobiles so they don't get homesick) and not a mountain being made out of a molehill. The other is that when I was in Uganda I was told that there was a real concern about child-trafficking in northern Uganda, where many people live in camps for internally-displaced people, and that one of the main motives for trafficking was 'to get a council house in Britain'; (the others were sex-trafficking and child slave labour). It's horrendous if this is happening, and very difficult to prove.

It is common within certain African communities or informal adoptions of children to take place, for example, where a child has been left orphaned. There is often no documentation - particularly if they come from a country like Somalia, where there is virtually no bureaucracy in place - and DNA tests are irrelevant. So there is no way of telling if the adoption is genuine, or whether the children are being used.

The article quotes someone from the Ecpat UK pressure group, which campaigns for tougher laws against child traffickers, saying: "We are seeing increasing evidence that children are being trafficked into Britain for benefit fraud. They arrive from all over the world and our concern is what happens when they have served their purpose." The article doesn't say what happened to the child; presumable he's been taken into care, as his original parents are untraceable. I hope they manage to find him a good home in Britain.