Conclusions and recommendations
1. Those
who have no right to remain in the UK must leave the country and,
if they refuse to do so voluntarily, they may have to be detained
for a short time, if necessary escorted throughout the flight
and, in extreme situations, may have to be restrained physically
in order to prevent greater harm. However, whenever the state
uses force to coerce a person, there need to be checks on that
force. These checks take the form of carefully constructed procedures
to limit harm, of adequate training and proper supervision of
staff, and adequate means of complaint and redress if anything
goes wrong. Where the state has contracted out responsibility
for coercion, it retains ultimate responsibility for ensuring
that all the checks are in place and working well. It is important
that this is understood within the culture of both the Agency
and that of its contractors, and not just acknowledged in formal
documents. This is one of a number of areas of activity where
there appears to be a reluctance by officials to accept constructive
criticism, and as the UK Border Agency is not an independent body,
but is in fact an integral part of the Home Office, this is a
matter that we call on the Home Secretary to require the Permanent
Secretary to address as part of the central management responsibilities
of the Department. (Paragraph 11)
2. We are not persuaded
that head-down restraint positions are never used, even though
they are not authorised. We recommend that the Home Office issue
urgent guidance to all staff involved in enforced removals about
the danger of seated restraint techniques in which the subject
is bent forwards. We also recommend that the Home Office commission
research into control and restraint techniques which are suitable
for use on an aircraft. The use by contractors of unauthorised
restraint techniques, sanctioning their use, or failing to challenge
their use, should be grounds for dismissal. (Paragraph 18)
3. The use of excessive
numbers of escorts, to the extent that HM Chief Inspector of Prisons
believes that escort numbers are in some cases detrimental to
the removals process, 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 and the contractor should be able to depart
from these only for clearly-defined, operational reasons. (Paragraph
21)
4. We agree with HM
Chief Inspector of Prisons, that the use of reserves on enforced
removal flights should be discontinued. (Paragraph 23)
5. It seems to us
that the form concentrates mainly on any risk to those escorting
the detainee rather than to the detainee him/herself. Moreover,
the section on health is cramped, and it is not at all clear that
it would necessarily be completed in a way to make it immediately
comprehensible to a non-medical expert, like an escort officer:
the lack of space would tend to force the experts to make terse
notes rather than giving helpful detail. This is of special importance
if the use of some—or any—restraint techniques might
exacerbate an underlying medical condition, such as heart disease
or asthma. (Paragraph 25)
6. While we do not
want to add to the paperwork which detention centres and escort
officers have to deal with, we consider that there is a strong
argument for providing a simple indication on the front page of
the form flagging up the fact that the detainee has a medical
condition which might lead to problems in the stressful conditions
of enforced deportation. If a possible problem is flagged up,
then the escort officers should be briefed on the practical consequences
before the removal begins. (Paragraph 26)
7. It is a matter
for serious 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.
We recommend that the senior management of the UK Border Agency
send a clear and strong message to staff who are involved in removals,
that they have the full support of senior management in challenging
the use of racist language by contractors, and that they are expected
to do so. The contract should be amended to include a provision
which requires the contractor to pay a financial penalty to the
Home Office where there is a proven incident of the use of racist
language by its staff. (Paragraph 32)
8. We recommend that
members of the Independent Monitoring Boards for immigration removal
centres—or a similar independent monitoring network—be
given access to chartered removal flights. However, the main issue
is the need for better management and more confident behaviour
by staff of the Agency and this is a matter that must be addressed
by the Permanent Secretary in relation to removals as well as
to the generality of the work of this Agency which is—as
we have pointed out repeatedly—an integral part of the Home
Office and not an independent or arm's-length agency. (Paragraph
40)
| 
