WHAT IS DUNGAVEL?

It is a former residential school, located near Strathaven, South Lanarkshire, which was converted to a prison, and which has since been converted to a Removal Centre. Its purpose is to detain certain people under British and EU immigration laws. It was opened for its present role in September 2001.

Britain currently has only around 2000 immigration detainees in a small number of specialist centres, called Reception Centres and Removal Centres. Most detainees, like most asylum seekers, are men, but women and children are also detained on some occasions. There is provision for up to 1000 women and children to be detained in Yarlswood, Harmondsworth, Oakington and Dungavel. These Removal Centres have provision for "Family Units".

According to the Minister of State for Citizenship, Immigration and Community Cohesion, Beverley Hughes MP:
"Provision was made in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 to redesignate detention centers as 'removal centres'. We consider that the latter better describes the primary focus of detention that is to support our removals strategy. People held at removal centres continue to be detained and this will not always be pending their removal."

WHY ARE PEOPLE DETAINED AT DUNGAVEL?
Immigration detainees can be asylum seekers whose claims are being investigated, and who are being detained because of a belief that they will disappear otherwise. They can be illegal immigrants or people who have overstayed their visas. Some are rejected asylum seekers awaiting removal. Some of them have criminal convictions and are being deported, and there are some overlaps between the categories. All are detained on the orders of an immigration officer.

WHAT IS WRONG ABOUT DETENTION?
On principle, nothing! That is, if you believe that Britain needs border control, and that border control needs immigration and asylum law, and that these laws should be upheld and enforced. Detention will always be a necessary element of such an immigration and asylum law enforcement programme. Detention is always going to be a necessary element of any law enforcement programme.

What is wrong, however, is that the asylum appeals process is too slow, and people can consequently be detained for long periods -- especially if they have lawyers who are prepared to exploit them, and the appeals process, for political ends.

As for those asylum seekers who are detained pending an investigation of their case:
Surely, if you were genuinely "fleeing persecution", then the safest place for you to be would be safely in Dungavel, protected by the British government. A few days, weeks or even months in Dungavel would be a very small price to pay for having your life saved -- if indeed you were "fleeing persecution", from which, of course, the majority of so-called asylum seekers are not!

For example, only 10% of applications in 2002 were recognised as genuine refugees and granted asylum status, with an additional 23% not recognised as refugees but granted "exceptional leave to remain". See Table on page 12 of the Home Office's Asylum Statistics 2002 pdf file at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb803.pdf

You can obtain a copy of the above bulletin, or previous bulletins, free of charge, by writing to:
Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, Room 264, 50 Queen Anne's Gate, London, SW1H 9AT, or requesting by Tel: 020 7273 2084, or Fax: 020 7222 0211 or email publications.rds@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

WHO IS RUNNING THE CAMPAIGN AGAINST DUNGAVEL?

Trotskyites
The Trotskyite element in Scottish politics -- composed of people who are lawyers, politicians, and union officials -- are leading the campaign against Dungavel. These people are not only against the whole idea of "detention", but they are also against the whole idea of immigration and asylum law, per se, because they are against the whole idea of borders and nations in the first place.

Of course, they don't put it like that openly. Instead they talk about "abolishing detention for children", or the "abolition of detention", and justify this with talk about "the abuse of human rights" and "the need for compassion".

These people want to see the "abolition of detention" because they see it as a step to making immigration and asylum law unenforceable and unworkable, as a step to the abolition of all immigration and asylum laws, as a step to the abolition of all borders, as a step to the abolition of all nations, as a step to their "glorious international workers republic".

Their call for the abolition of "detention" is simply a veiled call to make immigration and asylum law unworkable, as a step towards abolishing such laws entirely.

Herald Newspapers
For some reason the above people have managed to convince the US-owned Glasgow Herald and Sunday Herald newspapers, to publicise their issue. This is probably because the activists behind this campaign have forged links and friendships with journalists in the Herald stable.

For example, a protest meeting held on the 5 September 2003 in Glasgow was chaired by Sunday Herald journalist Neil Mackay. For a report of the meeting see here.

The Herald is owned by the US media giant, Gannett, which also owns USA Today, the US's largest-selling daily newspaper, with a circulation of approximately 2.3 million. Gannett, also owns 15 British regional dailies and 300 other titles through its Newsquest subsidiary.

Religious Groups
Some religious people -- and we emphasise, some -- have also jumped onto this bandwagon and are promoting the idea that Dungavel represents "an abuse of human rights" and we must have "compassion".

Such religiously-minded people like to dwell on the "shame" and the "guilt" which Dungavel apparently brings to them personally. They also seem to enjoy trying to flagellate the rest of us with this "shame" and "guilt", always with the underlying implication that we are somehow "falling short" if we don't actually experience the agony -- and the ecstasy -- of this passion ourselves.

Of course, the Trotskyites -- who are certainly not religious, and can often, like their esteemed leader, be Christ-haters -- nevertheless tolerate "Men of the Cloth" for the time being, because such people can help to provide a sense of authority, and an air of apparent normality to their campaigns, as well as bums on seats and marchers.

This is not to suggest that everyone who is religiously-minded is similarly inclined to support the abolition of borders, or that those religious people -- Christian and Muslim -- who allow themselves to be associated with such Trotskyite campaigns are conscious that they are being used to promote a Trotskyite agenda, or would necessarily approve of such an aim.

Bishop Mone of Paisley Diocese argues that the "incarceration of children" www.paisleydiocese.org.uk/dungavel_removal_centre9.htm at Dungavel breaches Article 37b of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. www.paisleydiocese.org.uk/dungavel_removal_centre3.htm

For the record, Article 37b of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states: "No child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily. The arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child shall be in conformity with the law and shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time."

Detention of children at Dungavel is, of course, in full compliance with this Article -- as it is in compliance with all the other conventions which the campaigners attempt to invoke -- and it is quite absurd to imagine that children are being detained in contravention of it, or any other.

However, it appears that the Bishop is also opposed to detention, per se, on principle. He has written, "Nor is the central issue about giving children more teachers, better education, more technology. This is purely and simply a human rights issue." www.paisleydiocese.org.uk/dungavel_removal_centre9.htm

How the abolition of detention can be squared with an effective immigration and asylum law enforcement programme, he does not say. Perhaps his congregants should ask him.

The Bishop also believes that detention "contravenes the European Convention of the Rights of Children". [sic] www.paisleydiocese.org.uk/dungavel_removal_centre9.htm

Presumably he means the European Convention on the Exercise of Children's Rights

Campaigners also invoke the European Convention on Human Rights

MSPs
There are also several MSPs, particularly from the SNP, who see it as a way to get at the Labour Executive. These MSPs talk as if they are speaking for everyone in Scotland, when in reality they are speaking only for their own party's perceived short-term interests.

Ethnic Minority Interest Groups
There is also a varied collection of ethnic minority interest groups who all have their own particular axes to grind -- even though supporting campaigns which are heavily dominated by Trotskyites whose real agenda is to make immigration law unworkable, is no more in the interests of ethnic minority people than it is in the interests of the white majority.

Several ethnic minority individuals and groups are particularly vocal in such campaigns, but we believe it is wrong to imagine that they are speaking for ethnic minority people in general.

For example, at the protest meeting in Glasgow on 5 September 2003, which we reported here, the only ethnic minority people in the audience were those who were directly associated with the organisations promoting the event -- similarly, with the white people present.

At the protest demo held the next day, and in addition to the above, the only ethnic minority people present were asylum seekers who had simply responded to the call of organising groups such as the "Glasgow Campaign to Welcome Refugees" and the "Glasgow Refugees Action Group" and who were bussed in with the rest of the protestors. These asylum seekers went along without really knowing whether this was in their best interests or not, but simply because they trusted the organisers who asked them to go -- and who are, essentially, just using them for their own political ends.

SO, WHAT IS THE REAL ISSUE AT STAKE?

The real issue is not "detention" -- which is obviously a necessary element of any law-enforcement programme -- nor is it "the detention of children" which is just a convenient and emotive lever which can be pulled, but rather the real issue is border control.

Do we believe that borders -- whether economic, ideological or physical -- should be controlled, or do we not?

If we believe in border control then detention -- which ideally should be for the shortest time possible -- is going to be a necessary element in any border control law enforcement programme.

The answer, therefore, is not to "abolish detention", but to speed up the asylum claims process so that people are detained for the shortest time possible, and to deny lawyers, and asylum imposters the opportunity to exploit the situation for their own ends.

WHAT ARE THE PROTESTORS DEMANDING?
On the 6 September 2003, the Scottish Trade Union Council organised a demonstration demanding the closure of Dungavel Detention Centre "in favour of a more humane system for accommodating Asylum Seekers and their families in Scotland."

They wanted an end to the "enforced detention of Asylum seekers and their families, which breaches their human rights." Note that they are calling for the abolition of detention, per se. How immigration law can be enforced without the use of detention centres, they do not actually say. Perhaps they do not actually care. And they wanted "all children residing in Scotland to be able to access mainstream education."

WHY ARE CHILDREN BEING DETAINED AT DUNGAVEL?
The Home Secretary David Blunkett MP has said that detention of children is regrettable but necessary: "Detention, while regrettable, is an essential part of effective immigration control - to affect removal, establish identity or prevent absconding. Where it is necessary to detain individuals with children, we believe it is better that the children remain with their parents rather than split up the family. Where families are detained, they are accommodated in specially-designed family accommodation. It is essential that we have properly managed immigration and asylum systems which lets into the country only those who are entitled to be here and protects only those who are genuinely fleeing persecution." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3072979.stm

This is, of course, a very sensible and humane position.

In a response to campaigner Bishop Mone of Paisley Diocese, Mr Blunkett has stated:
"I am conscious of the strong feeling held by many people against the detaining of children with their parents. The longstanding policy of detention is of course regrettable but is a necessary part of effective immigration control, including our tackling of abuses of the asylum system. This of course has to apply to families where it is the decision of the adult to prolong the process which results in the detaining of the child. It is impossible to respond to the demands for the removal of those who have failed their asylum claims without the facility to detain those extending legal appeal, after appeal, if they were simply allowed to melt away and abscond when their appeals failed. No one, including families, is detained for longer than is necessary and we aim to keep this to a minimum. I am deeply sympathetic to the concerns about the detaining of children. However, the lengthy and continued detention of the family of children to whom you refer in your letter [the Ay family, see below] is as a consequence of the parents' immigration history and continuing deliberate attempts to frustrate removal as outlined above. www.paisleydiocese.org.uk/dungavel_removal_centre2.htm

In correspondence with Sovereignty, the Press Officer of the Scottish Refugee Council claimed "detaining children for long periods of time is not appropriate. This practise is also contrary to UNHCR guidelines on detention" (email 3-9-03).

It is very common for such campaigning groups to make bold statements -- giving the impression that they are factual -- about Britain being "in contravention" of obscure UN documents, safe in the knowledge that most people will not be able, or bother, to access such documents for themselves. Closer examination of the documents, however, always reveals that the "contravention" is simply just their own matter of opinion and has no basis in law.

In this case, the UNHCR guidelines can be found here.

An examination of these guidelines shows no basis for the SRC's claim. Indeed, there is even a clause which specifically "grants children the right not to be separated from their parents against their will".

Obviously, in those circumstances where it is necessary to detain the adult, then it is also necessary to detain the children, in order to keep the family together. Detention of children at Dungavel is only happening in order to keep families together in those cases where it is necessary to detain the adult.

WHAT IS THE AVERAGE LENGTH OF STAY FOR CHILDREN AT DUNGAVEL?
According to Minister of State, Beverley Hughes MP, the majority of children in Dungavel are held on average for 15 days or less.

DO THE CHILDREN HAVE ACCESS TO EDUCATION?
All efforts are made to educate these children within the difficult circumstances, which will often be less than satisfactory. However, as the Home Secretary has pointed out, there is no alternative to this situation unless you are prepared to split up the families -- or abolish detention altogether.

The Home Secretary has stated: "... the school aged children who stay at Dungavel are all given the opportunity to take part in classes no matter how brief their stay may be [on average, 15 days or less, see above]. The classes at Dungavel are tailored to deal with an unpredictable number of children of various ages and abilities who may be present in the centre from one day to the next. Whilst it may not be practicable to replicate and continue the education that some of these children may have received in local schools prior to their detention, every attempt is made by the fully qualified teaching staff at the centre to provide a challenging and interesting learning experience. Nevertheless I am not complacent about this issue. I have given commitments to Parliament on the separate issue of accommodation centres and I am prepared to look at what more can be done where in removal centres the decision of the parents prolonged the residence of children." www.paisleydiocese.org.uk/dungavel_removal_centre2.htm

WHO ARE THE AY FAMILY?
Most children are at Dungavel for an average of 15 days as Minister of State, Beverley Hughes has pointed out, above. One exception, however, is the Ay family -- Kurdish mother Yurdugal Ay and her four children, all aged between eight and 14 -- who were held at Dungavel for over a year before being sent back to Germany on 5 August 2003.

The family had previously made a series of applications for refugee status in Germany after arriving there in 1988. When the applications failed, they travelled to Britain in June 1999. Their final appeal to remain in Britain was rejected by the House of Lords on Thursday 31 July 2003.

This article on the Migration Watch site, details the asylum appeals process in Britain.

Campaigners for the family argued that they faced "persecution" as a Kurdish family, if they returned to Turkey. These campaigners choose to ignore the fact that there is a large Kurdish community in Turkey into which any Kurd can merge, Turkey has applicant status for the EU, and the constant claim that Turkey is persecuting the Kurds is an on-going insult to Turkish people in general.

WHY COULD THE AY FAMILY MAKE A CLAIM FOR ASYLUM IN BRITAIN when they were turned down in Germany, a fellow member of the EU?
Jurisdiction in asylum, although it is based on a United Nations Convention, is purely national, even within the EU, so the fact that a person may have had his application rejected in another EU Member State does not prevent him from applying in the UK. However, the fact of his having been rejected in another Member State is evidence which would certainly go against his case.

WHO IS TO BLAME IF ASYLUM SEEKERS ARE BEING DETAINED for long periods?
Primarily, the government must take the blame for failing to remove such asylum imposters at point of entry. For example, there should be no reason why a family coming from Germany -- a fellow member of the EU -- should ever have been allowed to make a claim for asylum in Britain in the first place, and especially not if they had already applied for asylum in Germany and been refused! However, British law continues to allow such legal absurdities.

So long as Britain remains in the EU, then British law should be changed to ensure that anyone coming from another EU country and claiming asylum should be immediately refused and returned whence they came, with no right of appeal, and especially anyone who has already applied in another EU country, or applied and had their application turned down, should likewise be immediately removed and returned, with no right of appeal.

The government is also to blame for failing to set clear and mandatory time-deadlines by which appeals must be heard, decisions made, and removals expedited. As Phil Gallie MSP states correctly on page 31 of The Big Issue (28-8-03), "The present government whilst talking tough on the issue has failed to put in place reception, screening and rejection systems which meet the need. Their failure augments the problems that are faced by the genuine victims of oppression ... the majority are young men who have put personal interest before that of their families and communities."

The asylum imposters themselves, who know they do not have a case yet persist with it, must also shoulder responsibility for their often self-inflicted plight.

And those lawyers, who prolong the stay of their clients when they know their clients do not have a case, are also hugely complicit -- especially when they exploit the situation to further their own political careers.

IN CONCLUSION:  

Britain's asylum process is notoriously cumbersome and needs to be streamlined to ensure that false asylum seekers are fast-tracked out of the country, ideally at point of entry.

The best way to ensure that families do not spend too long at the removal centres is to speed up the appeals process, by setting short deadlines by which appeals must be heard, decisions made, and removals expedited.

That is the sensible policy for which we should be arguing, instead of allowing ourselves to be misled by Trotskyites who campaign against the "detention of children" as an emotive way to campaign against "detention" per se, as a step to making immigration and asylum law unworkable, as a step to the abolition of all immigration and asylum laws, as a step to the abolition of all borders, as a step to the abolition of all nations, as a step to their "glorious international workers republic".

See columnist Muriel Gray's article on Dungavel in the Sunday Herald, 7 September 2003.
Also George Foulkes MP on why the campaign to close Dungavel is cynical and mad