In a report published on January 26 the Home Affairs Committee criticised the UK Border Agency’s management of the processes for the enforced removal of those who are being deported from the UK.
The inquiry launched following the death of Jimmy Mubenga on a deportation flight from the UK found that although there were some positive aspects of the process, which is carried out on the UK Border Agency’s behalf by a private security contractor, (initially G4S and, since 1 May 2011, Reliance Security) the committee found evidence of:
* Inappropriate use of physical restraint, and the possible use of unauthorised and potentially dangerous restraint techniques
* Weaknesses in passing on information about detainees’ medical conditions to all the relevant staff
* Use of racist language by contractors
* Use of excessive numbers of contractor staff.
The committee recommended that the UK Border Agency should strengthen its procedures so that its own staff feel that they are entitled and expected to challenge any poor conduct on the part of contractors. The committee also rejected the practice of taking detainees to the airport as "reserves" in case another detainee is taken off a removal flight at the last minute.
To strengthen safeguards against the ill treatment of prisoners, the committee recommended that members of the Independent Monitoring Boards for immigration removal centres—or a similar independent monitoring network—be given access to chartered removal flights.
Comment
Rt. Hon Keith Vaz MP, chair of the committee said: "The committee began this inquiry following the tragic death of Jimmy Mubenga on a deportation flight in October 2010. I am disappointed that there has not been any progress on this investigation. Serious questions also remain over the use of contractors in the removal of detainees since Reliance took over from G4S following the death of Mr Mubenga. The UK Border Agency must not wash its hands of responsibility for detainees just because the service is contracted out. The Agency must introduce tougher management processes to ensure that contractors are delivering the service that the public expect, and that senior management challenge unacceptable behaviour.
“The use of “reserves” on removal flights must cease. It is simply inhumane to uproot somebody on the expectation that they will be returned to their home country only to then return them at the end of the day to a detention centre in the UK—sometimes a different one from the one they left that morning. People who are not entitled to remain in the country must be removed and there may be occasions when it is necessary to use physical force, but this must always be done only when absolutely necessary, and with proper respect for the dignity of the detainee."
On the excessive number of contract officers used, the committee’s 56 page report reported that HM Chief Inspector of Prisons believes that escort numbers are in some cases detrimental to the removals process, and ‘is hard to justify against a background of reduced staffing levels across the public sector. It is a symptom of a weakness in the contracting process that the contractor is able to supply more staff than are required to do the job, with costs passed on to the Home Office. When the contract for enforced removals is next revised, it should specify precise ratios of escorts to detainees …’ The committee in its report spoke of concern concern that contractors should use racist language among themselves. ‘That they were content to do so in front of not only UK Border Agency staff but also inspectors from HM Inspectorate of Prisons is shocking. It is possibly the result of a relationship between the Agency and its contractors which had become too cosy.’
Giving evidence to the committee in 2010, G4S argued that serious injuries to detainees were extremely rare, even when detainees became disruptive, violent or attempted to escape, although minor injuries were almost inevitable where physical restraint had to be used.
In written evidence G4S said that it expected staff to act with the highest level of respect and responsibility for the people placed in their care. The firm began by saying: “We are incredibly saddened by the news of Mr Mubenga’s death whilst being escorted by our staff and our sympathy is with Mr Mubenga’s family. We also share the concerns of everyone that such a rare and unprecedented incident has occurred.” The company said: “Since April/May 2005 G4S has provided services relating to detainees on nearly one million occasions. We take the responsibility for detainees in our care extremely serious. Our work is reviewed and checked both internally and externally. We do not just take action when an official complaint is made, but take a pro-active approach to ensure high standards are observed at all times. Indeed the majority of disciplinary actions are taken due to our own internal reporting process. Our colleagues often operate in difficult circumstances and sometimes detainees understandably try to resist deportation. That is why during training and in our guidance we place great emphasis on de-escalation techniques and the application of well developed interpersonal skills. Control and restraint techniques are only used as a last resort and should always be kept to a minimum. All use of force is recorded and needs to be reasonable,”
CCTV is widely used to supervise Detention and Escorting activity. All holding rooms have CCTV and almost all of these have recording and review capability. UKBA are the custodians of this data. The G4S escorting vehicle fleet is fitted with CCTV plus audio recording and this is reviewed after an incident or if there is any other reason.
