There was very little entertainment or distraction for any of the detainees. There was one TV room playing a few Turkish channels only. The TV was very small and generally tuned to children’s channels, with little interest to adults. The psychologist told us that priority was given to children’s well-being and providing them with activities, but that for the previous 20-25 days there had been no activities because of overcrowding. Next of kin could visit detainees on Tuesdays and Thursdays. There were 10 visits rooms. There was no routine access to the internet or mobile phones. In some circumstances, detainees trying to obtain identity information were allowed limited access to email. Most detainees were allowed to use centre phones four days a week, but those suspected of terrorism were only allowed to use the phones twice a week. Several detainees said they were allowed little time for phone calls. Legal calls were available during all weekdays. NPM Practice The NPM coordinator requested detainee files to check what some of the detainees had told his team and raised various issues that had emerged from the day. For example, one woman said she was to be released one week before her husband and had no idea what to do if this happened. The director said that while he could not extend her detention, he would contact women’s shelters to see if she could be accommodated during the week before her husband was released. One woman with a child told the NPM she had been in the centre for four months and did not know where her husband was. She said he was Syrian and she was from Egypt and had not had a reply from her embassy. The director said he would contact the Egyptian embassy for her. In another case, a parent had told the NPM that a child with a congenital heart disease had not seen a doctor. The file reviewed by the NPM confirmed that there had been no contact with a doctor about this issue and the director said he would follow the case up. The coordinator also gave the director information on three cases of alleged poor treatment that the assistant experts had documented, and which detainees and/or NPM had signed. They were: ·The incident where a member of staff had apparently hit detainees in the dinner queue. ·The woman detainee who said, along with her witnesses, that a guard had assaulted her. ·An incident where a guard had allegedly hit a child and then locked the child and mother in a room for three hours. The director said he would investigate these incidents and inform the NPM of the outcomes. The NPM also gave the director the names of the two guards who had allegedly shouted at the families. The director said that he would investigate and move the guards to a different wing in the meantime. One detainee was brought to the office to provide more information about his case. He was led in by staff and stood up in front all of us while being questioned. On the lack of board games such as chess or cards, the director’s answer was that if they allowed such things it would lead to gambling and other problems. On the lack of pens/pencils, he said they could be weapons and were a security risk. The concerns about activity for children was raised. The director confirmed that there had not been any children’s experts to assess the adequacy of the centre for children. The director agreed to look at providing more activities for children of all ages. 16