Abuse Against Asylum-Seekers

18 Dec 2007
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney, North and Stoke Newington) (Lab): This will be the last debate in Westminster Hall before Parliament rises for the Christmas recess. All over the Palace of Westminster, hon. Members, staff and Officers of the House are getting ready to depart to spend Christmas with their communities and families. It is probably appropriate, as we are in the Christmas season, for the House of Commons to spend just a few minutes debating a group of people for whom there is absolutely no room at the inn—failed asylum seekers.

Let me begin by saying that I bow to no one in my support for the Government’s policy of firm but fair immigration control. I do not approach the issue from a theoretical point of view. As my hon. Friend the Minister will know, I am probably in the top 10 of Members of Parliament for dealing with immigration cases. I am supported by an excellent senior caseworker and his devoted team of volunteers. Because I have done so much immigration casework in my 20 years in Parliament, I take very seriously the issues that the Government are trying to deal with. None the less, precisely because failed asylum seekers are so marginal and because there can be no group of people for whom there is less public sympathy, I think that it is important, as a test of the Government’s commitment to human rights, to spend a little time examining some of the allegations of abuse of failed asylum seekers during deportation.

I want to draw a number of issues to the attention of Ministers and other hon. Members. The first is the use of private security companies to carry out the work. I do not think that that is appropriate and I believe that there is some relationship between under-trained, underpaid private security personnel and some of the alleged abuses. Another of my concerns relates to the Government targets for forced repatriations. I understand the point of those targets. None the less, a target-driven culture is a culture in which perhaps some of the personnel carrying out the work are inclined to cut corners.

The substantive issues are the allegations of physical abuse, which I will detail later, and the allegations of racist abuse. Ministers will be aware that airlines are very reluctant to be involved in these deportations. One airline, XL Airways, has bowed out of the Home Office contract altogether because it has been so horrified by some of the incidents on its planes. Let me say at the beginning that it is difficult to be specific about the scale of the problems, because it is in the nature of things that many of the people abused will have returned home and are unable to bring complaints against the Home Office. It is also difficult for them to take legal action after assaults, partly because they may have returned home, but also because of the lack of police investigations, an ineffective complaints procedure, the way in which they are treated when they lodge a complaint, and the problems that asylum rights groups have when compiling information. I regret that the recommendations of the Government’s own complaints audit committee on this matter have not been implemented.

Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) (Lab): I acknowledge what my hon. Friend has just said. Will she concede that it might be helpful if we at least knew the number of times that airlines have refused to carry deportees because of concerns on the part of pilots for the safety of the aircraft and all its other passengers? That seems to happen on quite a few occasions.

Ms Abbott: That is an important point, to which I will return at the conclusion of my remarks.

As Ministers will be aware, in 2004 the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture prepared a report on allegations of harm by removals staff. In all 14 cases on which it reported, it carried out medical examinations, but it also found that, beyond the 14 cases that it investigated, there were other allegations of harm occurring in detention. As a result of the examination of the 14 cases, the foundation found a pattern of abuse and it highlighted four main issues: the use of inappropriate and unsafe methods of force that carry a higher-than-acceptable injury risk; the use of force even after the removal attempt had been terminated, often out of sight inside escort vehicles; the continued use of force even after the detainee had been restrained, through the use of handcuffs, for instance; and the misuse of handcuffing. The foundation’s analysis suggested that gratuitous force was being used. In four of the 14 cases that it considered, the people disclosed that they had been tortured in their country of origin, suggesting that their psychological state would have been affected by that further abuse.

The Medical Foundation’s report stated:

    “The methods of restraint or assault described by the detainees include: being dragged along the ground, being kicked or kneed, being punched—including to the head and face, being elbowed, having the thumb forcibly bent back, pressure being applied to the angle of the jaw, pressure exerted on the neck, being sat on...and assault to the genitals.”

It raised specific concerns about the misuse of handcuffs, which can lead to nerve damage. There was evidence that physical force was used after handcuffs had been applied, which is considered unnecessary and dangerous. There were also reports of verbal and racial abuse during deportation.

The Medical Foundation recommended that an automatic medical examination should take place of any individual who is the subject of a failed removal attempt. That has not happened. It recommended that, for allegations to be investigated properly, the victim should be allowed to stay in this country to pursue any legal course of action. That has not happened. Most important, it recommended that those involved in the physical removal of failed asylum seekers must receive comprehensive training in the proper use of restraint techniques. That is one of the issues on which I shall press the Minister today.

In 2005, a report by the Campaign Against Racism and Fascism and the National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns documented 35 cases of abuse during removals that had been referred to solicitors firms. Most of the 35 allegations were against Group 4 and Loss Prevention International—two private companies involved in those removals. The majority of the incidents took place on the way to or at the airport. The injuries included cuts, swellings and bruises, nerve damage from handcuffs, sexual assault, groin damage, cracked shoulders, fractured fingers, psychological problems and serious head injuries. Most recently, campaigners on this issue believe that there may be 200 allegations of abuse.

Let me talk about a particular case, which received some publicity. Beatrice is an asylum seeker from Cameroon who has a history of psychological problems and suicide attempts following the murder of her husband in Cameroon. She was taken from Yarl’s Wood detention centre and put on a plane in handcuffs and leg bindings. She alleges that when she complained of feeling unwell, one officer said to her, “If you do not go quietly, we will beat you.” Another said, “I’m very sorry, but I have to do it. If we don’t bring you to Cameroon, they won’t pay us.” Her head was forced between her knees and covered with a jacket. An escort clamped his hand over her mouth and kicked her legs. When they arrived in Paris for a stopover, she saw two French policemen and tried to escape, but was tripped over. Two policemen held her down on the floor. As she struggled, she was kneed in the groin so hard that blood poured from between her legs.

During the consequent flight to Cameroon, Beatrice suffered five panic attacks. When the plane arrived, a British policeman who happened to be on the flight, together with two other passengers, reported her to the Cameroonian officials because she seemed so unwell. When asked to walk unaided, she collapsed. She alleges that the escort team attempted to bribe the Cameroonian immigration officials to take her but they refused. She was eventually returned to Heathrow in a wheelchair and immediately taken to Hillingdon hospital, where she was treated for severe genital bleeding and multiple bruising. A psychiatrist said that she was “traumatised by events”. In October, an immigration judge ruled against the Home Office and released her on bail.

I would like to think that that was an unusual case and that the officials involved have been disciplined or reprimanded in some way. I would like to hear from Ministers what has happened. Nobody, not even a failed asylum seeker, should be treated in that way. No woman should be treated in that way by people acting for a British Government. It is not necessary and it makes a mockery of our claims to be a country that subscribes to human rights and the various human rights conventions.

The National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns, along with the organisation Medical Justice, is compiling a dossier of such cases. As I said earlier, they estimate that about 200 cases are known to various asylum rights groups, solicitors groups and visitors groups, and that number is by no means exhaustive. They passed 10 cases to The Independent newspaper, which reported on some of them. Three cases have been passed to the Home Office. The Home Office asked to see all 200 cases. However, I would say to Ministers that there are serious problems about passing cases on and the campaign groups involved are unwilling to do so without assurances that the victim’s name will not be made public without their consent and that the victims will not come to any harm by the Home Office or its contractors.

Jeremy Corbyn: I thank my hon. Friend for giving us that harrowing account of what happened to one poor lady who was being removed. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of it, but is she concerned that, as I understand it, the Home Office and British missions abroad do not follow up what happens to returned asylum seekers who must remain in the country that they have been returned to? Many of them are obviously in enormous danger, particularly if their return is made known to officials at the point of entry.

Ms Abbott: My hon. Friend makes a very important point, which I will return to in my closing remarks.

I was making the point that, although the Home Office has asked for this dossier of 200 cases, there are difficulties in passing these cases on, because the victims are worried that they will come to harm if they report what has happened to them. However, the campaigning groups are trying to get permission from the victims to pass on the cases.

The other issues that the campaigning groups have identified in reporting all these assaults, apart from the victims’ fears, are difficulty with investigation, because the relevant CCTV footage would have been wiped; potential witnesses being dispersed; and difficulties in contacting those witnesses. There have been cases where witnesses of these types of assault on planes have been intimidated by removals officers.

Anne Owers, Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons, has examined detention centres and one of the points that she made in a report last year was that we are dealing with failed asylum seekers

    “as though they were parcels, not people, and as parcels whose contents and destination were sometimes incorrect.”

In fact, there are more controls and checks on the removal of livestock from this country than there are on the removal of failed asylum seekers. Earlier, I spoke about the culture of targets and the contracting out of this removal service. Of course, among the problems of contracting out are the lack of accountability and the level of training.

I am afraid that the annual report of the Border and Immigration Agency’s complaints audit committee sheds light on the fact that the Home Office is still not dealing with complaints in a systematic or fair way. This afternoon, I would like the Minister to respond to a number of points. First, when will it implement the recommendations of that committee? Secondly, what training do removals officers receive, particularly in safe methods of restraint? Thirdly, what specific targets are given to private companies? For instance, in one of the cases that I spoke about earlier, the officer involved said that staff would not get paid unless they removed the woman to Cameroon. So, what specific targets are private companies given and how do these affect their work? Fourthly, what is the follow-up of failed asylum seekers who are removed to find out what happens to them and whether they are subject to violence? Finally, do Ministers have the figures on how many occasions airlines have refused to take failed asylum seekers because they are concerned about some of the scenes taking place on their planes?

So here we are, on the verge of the Christmas holiday. This is not the most cheerful of subjects and, as I said, it is not a subject that most of the public are too concerned about. However, it seems to me that, in trying to construct an immigration system that is firm and fair, the way that that system treats some of the most vulnerable people in it is important.

Earlier in this Session, I used the opportunity of a debate in Westminster Hall to draw attention to the plight of children in detention. This afternoon, I want to ask the Minister to give the House some assurances that, just because somebody is a failed asylum seeker and they have to be forcibly removed, they will not be subject to abuse, violence and treatment that is unbefitting of a country that is meant to be a beacon of human rights in western Europe.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Meg Hillier): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who is my constituency neighbour, on securing this debate on this very important issue. Also, I welcome her strong support for firm and fair immigration control. I can pay testament to her reputation as a robust and effective constituency MP in dealing with immigration and other matters. Furthermore, because our offices inevitably collaborate on certain issues, I know that she has an excellent team of staff supporting her in her work.

My hon. Friend raises a number of issues and I will do my best to respond to them in as much detail as I can in the time available. She raised issues generally about the allegations of abuse, particularly about private security companies and their work; about targets; about allegations of racist abuse and other abuse; and concerns from the airlines.

I slightly take issue with my hon. Friend’s suggestion that the removals are target-driven. Each case to decide whether someone has a right to an asylum claim is dealt with completely on its individual merits. The point at which someone is removed is when they have refused all attempts to require them to leave voluntarily, so they will have gone through the full legal process to determine whether their claim is valid in the first place. At the point at which their claim is refused, they always have the option, at any point, to go voluntarily.

I am sure that, like me, my hon. Friend has people in her surgeries who present themselves and ask for support to return. We have a very good voluntary returns programme. It was criticised in the media over the weekend for being too generous, but it is important to recognise that that programme enables people to leave voluntarily and is cheaper, quicker and affords people more dignity than if they are removed forcibly. It is important that we continue with that voluntary removal programme.

The Prime Minister set a target to remove 4,000 foreign national prisoners this year, but that was a target for foreign national prisoners and I think that we would all agree that we need to remove people who are a danger to the country. If some of those individuals should resist removal, we have a right and a responsibility to tackle their resistance proportionately. We certainly cannot have a situation whereby just because somebody resists removal, they are able to stay. We will always pursue removal of those with no right to be here, but we would encourage them at every step of the way to seek a voluntary removal.

In our last debate in Westminster Hall, my hon. Friend and I discussed the issue of children in detention. I invite her to come and visit the scheme that we have begun just this month whereby we enable children and their families to live in a type of hostel environment rather than going into detention, in an attempt to encourage voluntary removal. I am sure that she would be interested to visit that scheme, either alongside me or on her own, or indeed with my hon. Friend the Minister for Borders and Immigration, who is due to visit shortly. She may wish to go along with him on that visit.

It is important in this debate just to outline some of the challenges that are faced in dealing with removals. Clearly, there is going to be a core of people who are not keen to return to their home country and yet they have gone through every legal process and they no longer have a right to remain in the country. For the benefit of the House, I want to outline some of the measures that people resort to physically to resist removals. Such measures can start with passive resistance, but then move on to active fighting. They include refusing to leave the removal centre, refusing to board or leave escort vans, verbally or physically abusing escort staff, taking off clothing, defecating and spitting, and dirty protests in the holding room, on the vehicle to the airport or on the plane. Sadly—although it does not happen too often—parents have occasionally threatened to harm their children if placed on a plane.

Such are the difficult challenges faced by those seeking to remove people. We all agree that they should not use inappropriate force, but they are dealing in many cases with quite difficult situations. My hon. Friend asked how many removals fail because airlines will not carry those being removed. Clearly, some of the protest methods that I listed, such as dirty protests and violence, would make it difficult for an airline to carry someone. Last year, 6 per cent. of removals ended in failure because of an airline’s refusal to carry.

There are issues, but we cannot allow someone to remain in the country just because they resist removal, as my hon. Friend will agree. We must ensure that proportionate measures are in place. She asked about training for people assisting removals. All are trained to prison service control and restraint standards as a condition of their employment. It is not a job that any of us, when elected to office, think—

Ms Abbott: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for answering my question about training, but she explain to the House how long that training takes and what it consists of?

Meg Hillier: I shall have to write to my hon. Friend on the precise details, but I am happy to do so. If she ever wants to go along and see how that training works, we could certainly facilitate that. Detention custody officers have a difficult job. It is right to train them properly in that role, and it is right that they should be accountable. Whether or not they work for a private company, they are working for the public and the British Government, and it is important that they should be accountable. As my hon. Friend said, the complaints audit committee recently published a report. We need to deal with complaints systematically and fairly.

To give some background, the complaints audit committee audits the process of removal as well as the Border and Immigration Agency in general. Individuals dissatisfied with service can go to the parliamentary ombudsman. Last year, more than 14,000 complaints were made about service, of which 112 were investigated by the ombudsman. Some 76 per cent. of those, or 85 complaints, were upheld. We have introduced changes to how we handle complaints—particularly in detention, which covers some of the people that my hon. Friend talked about—and improvements to how serious misconduct investigations into enforcement cases are handled. The CAC acknowledges them. We are also working to design a radical new complaints system, which will come online in February next year. Her comments are particularly welcome in that respect, and I promise to keep her updated on how it works once we unveil it in more detail.

Ms Abbott: My hon. Friend will be aware that the complaints audit committee said in the foreword to its report in November that

 

    “we have become increasingly concerned at the weaknesses of systems and procedures for recording, tracking and managing formal complaints and for quality assuring management information.”

That is quite a strong statement, and it was made a month ago. Is she assuring me that the measures that she is describing will address that weakness of systems and procedures for recording, tracking and managing complaints?

Meg Hillier: I am sure that we will see some improvements. I know that my hon. Friend will keep a close eye on the changes coming online from February next year and will, quite rightly, hold the Home Office and Government to account on the issue. I welcome that, because it is important that, as well as being improved, the system is seen to be accountable.

Any individual can register a complaint with the police if they feel that serious misconduct has taken place. I appreciate that the group of people that we are talking about might have difficulty reaching the authorities, especially if they are returned to their country of origin. That is why it is important that we improve the complaints procedure and log any incidents that arise.

Jeremy Corbyn: In a previous debate on the subject, I mentioned the Swedish model in which a caseworker is allocated to each individual asylum case throughout its life. Is that not something that we could think about here? Constant personnel changes often lead to confusion and misunderstandings, and sometimes to the wrong decisions.

Meg Hillier: I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend that only 10 days ago, I met the new case owners of all current asylum cases in the Border and Immigration Agency. Each case owner is assigned a few thousand cases to handle with their team, and will own each case from beginning to end. Each case in his constituency and my own, for example, will have somebody to take it through the whole assessment process. If the claim fails, that person will deal with deportation or voluntary return; if it is successful, they will take the applicant through to support for remaining in the community, ensure that they are established and so on. That will make a marked change.

Like my hon. Friend, I have been frustrated as a constituency MP by the feeling that cases are often passed to completely different individuals, without any continuity. The change, which has been driven through by my hon. Friend the Minister for Borders and Immigration, arose from that frustration. I think that we will begin to see a change. I am happy to say that the cases were allocated last week, a week ahead of time, so the changes should come through our case loads and those of other hon. Members in the new year. I hope that that will make a difference to the individuals concerned, and we will get the continuity that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) mentioned.

In the time available, it is best that I concentrate on the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington raised about the so-called dossier of 200 allegations of abuse printed in The Independent on 5 October. The chief executive of the Border and Immigration Agency has requested the dossier from The Independent. We do not have it yet, but I am pleased to say that we have made some progress—we were told in early November that it would take about two months to prepare the dossier before it could be provided to the BIA. That is helpful. It is impossible without the full facts to investigate complaints and take the disciplinary action necessary in cases of abuse of position.

I should also point out in relation to police complaints that although 58 allegations were made during the last 14 months that illegal or disproportionate force had been used during removal, the police found that none of those instances had a case to answer, on the basis that the use of force was both legal and proportionate. The BIA and private sector investigations have identified only one case of non-criminal lapses in escort behaviour resulting in minor disciplinary action in the past 14 months. We must get the issue in proportion. It is a challenging task, but we need evidence to take action against people who might be abusing the system. With the dossier of information, we will look into the matter in more detail. It is a shame that it has taken so long. As my hon. Friend rightly said, if we do not have the information to act quickly, things are much more difficult. Witnesses may be dispersed, or other individuals concerned may not consent to make information available.

We must ensure that we have a robust system while recognising the challenges facing us. We are a little disappointed by the failure to produce the dossier at the point of publication. Having been a journalist, I would think that if something might lead to action, it is preferable to print it when it is possible for that information to get results, rather than having to delay for three months from publication, or a quarter of a year, before we can investigate the matter. That is rather a long time.

We cannot discipline people without evidence. We look forward to the evidence, and we will act robustly and swiftly when we have cause to do so. I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. As ever, she has highlighted passionately and robustly the concerns shared by many Members. Importantly, she calls the Government to account for actions taken by us or agencies on our behalf. She is right to do so. I look forward to continuing to work with her. I hope that I can continue to provide her with reassurance in the information that I have promised. She is welcome at any point to visit a detention and removal centre, or indeed the Kent project, if she wishes.



back ⇢