HL Deb 25 February 2002 vol 631 cc1243-54

4.8 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker)

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wish to repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in another place. The Statement is as follows:

"With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a Statement on the fire at Yarl's Wood Removal Centre.

"Before setting out what happened on the night of Thursday 14th February, I want to make my position absolutely clear. I am not prepared to let government policy be determined by those intent on creating disorder and destruction. Having removed asylum seekers from prison, we now find that our reward is the burning down of a substantial part of the facility. This is deplorable.

"The new nationality, immigration and asylum policy which I set out on 7th February remains unchanged. In particular, I intend to press ahead with expanding the number of places in secure removal centres to 4,000. There will be no uncertainty and no misunderstanding; we will implement our comprehensive policy as set out to the House.

"Let me set out the facts as we know them. The unrest, involving a number of detainees, started on the evening of 14th February. At that stage, the sequence of events is not entirely clear. However, it has been established that during the disturbance control of the centre was wrested from staff, allowing detainees to gain access to keys providing access to restricted areas, including a property store. At the same time, damage was being caused inside the centre, including to the operation of the closed circuit television. The detention contractors, Group 4, faced with substantial disorder, called for assistance from public services.

"A number of detainees moved outside the accommodation blocks, and a smaller number of these breached the perimeter security.

"The earliest police units to arrive worked to restore perimeter security around the site, and a number of detainees were apprehended at that stage. Further detainees were taken into custody later in the night in the Bedford area. Our latest estimate is that 22 remain at large.

"An initial fire in the reception area was extinguished, but fires were started in a separate block and in more than one location. The fire service was unable to tackle these blazes because detainees prevented them from gaining access to the building. By the time order had been restored on the compound, the fire had taken significant hold in one part of the centre, and it proved impossible to save those buildings.

"I am pleased to tell the House that, despite speculation to the contrary, we do not believe that there were any fatalities. I have authorised continuing investigation until we are certain of this. I can tell the House that dogs have been sent into the site this afternoon.

"Mr Speaker, in the appalling circumstances of that evening, the men and women of the Bedfordshire police and fire services acquitted themselves with dedication and courage. So too did members of the Prison Service and the Yarl's Wood operators. I know that the whole House will want to express its gratitude to them.

"Since the events of 14th February, I have taken a number of immediate steps to strengthen security and protection within the service. First, I have sought advice from the Chief Inspector of Fire Services on safety at Yarl's Wood and other removal centres. Subject to immediate remedial action, the undamaged sections at Yarl's Wood have been declared safe. I therefore intend to continue use of them. Similar advice has also been given in respect of Harmondsworth. Other removal centres are also being assessed.

"Secondly, as a further precaution, detainees with a history of violent or criminal behaviour and those considered a danger to safety have been transferred to prison. Detailed contingency plans have been put in place should further disorder arise, and I have given direct instructions to improve both staffing and security.

"Mr Speaker, Bedfordshire police, fire and rescue services have begun investigations into the events of that night. These will take some weeks to complete. Group 4 has also instituted an internal investigation. I have also initiated a Home Office overarching investigation to inquire into the causes of the events and to draw together the other reports, which will include recommendations on design and future fire and security measures. This will, of course, be conducted in a manner that does not impede any criminal investigation. The investigation will be headed by Stephen Moore, a senior and experienced Prison Service official, and I would encourage honourable Members to make any observations directly to the inquiry.

"I know that the House would want me to deal with the issue of the absence of sprinklers at Yarl's Wood. The decision not to fit sprinklers was informed by advice from a number of different expert sources. Sprinklers have not been used in other similar establishments, due to operational and practical issues associated with managing sprinkler systems in such an environment. Nevertheless, a review was already ongoing into their use.

"Mr Speaker, the review and recent events have led me to believe that increased precautionary measures are necessary. I have therefore taken a preliminary decision to install sprinklers in all new removal centres and will take the necessary steps to install sprinklers at Yarl's Wood, as well as Harmondsworth and other facilities.

"It is now clear that there is a small number of people who will take any step to prevent their removal from this country. We therefore have no option but to toughen the regime, as well as instructing the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to further speed up removal of those in the centres to their country of origin. It would be unthinkable to allow violent and disruptive behaviour to put the safety of staff and other detainees or the public at risk. In addition, I will also be giving consideration to the criteria for allocating particular individuals to specific removal centres. That will entail looking at different levels of security appropriate to the individuals being held.

"While I take my obligations under the 1951 convention very seriously, many claimants fail to meet the standards required. Those with no right to remain must be removed, if our overall policy is to stand any chance of success. I therefore conclude by reiterating my determination to provide a coherent and seamless process in which rapid removal—and therefore the prevention of absconding—must play an essential part.

"The lessons of 14th February will be learned, but the message must also be clear. No one will be permitted to engage in the kind of behaviour that put lives at risk and destroyed first class facilities, built at public expense and created as an alternative to prison regimes. That is the message I intend to give this afternoon, and I know that the House: will back me in this stance".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement of the Home Secretary.

4.15 p.m.

Lord Dixon-Smith

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place about the fire at Yarl's Wood. It is a tragic matter. Yarl's Wood is a key part of the Government's new process for handling asylum seekers or, more precisely, for handling asylum seekers who have failed to make it into the country as genuine asylum-seeking refugees.

My questions fall into two categories. The first relates to the structure of the building. It was a new building. One must ask whether sufficient consideration was given to the problems that might arise in its use. Its form of construction—a timber construction—was not likely to be adequate to contain people who had nothing to lose. Was serious consideration given to security on the site from that point of view?

The Minister touched on the question of fire precautions. Any timber building is easy to set on fire. The Minister said that the decision not to fit sprinklers was informed by advice from several different expert sources. Bearing in mind the nature of the potential inmates, we must ask what expert sources gave such advice. In the Statement, the Secretary of State says: I have therefore taken a preliminary decision to install sprinklers in all new removal centres and will take the necessary steps to install sprinklers at Yarl's Wood". On what advice was that decision taken? I can see that it was taken in the light of experience, but I wonder whether the advice was the same in both cases and whether, in the first place, the decision was, so to speak, a ministerial decision, without expert advice.

My understanding of the construction of such buildings is that sprinklers would be required. One would normally be advised by the fire service to install them; in fact, one would probably be required to do so by building regulations. It would be interesting to know the grounds on which Yarl's Wood escaped the normal constraints.

I understand from the Statement that, Subject to … remedial action, the undamaged sections at Yarl's Wood have been declared safe". What remedial action is that? The House is entitled to know exactly what must be done to the remainder of the establishment.

The real question is that of liability for the damage. If there was any neglect of normal procedures. it could create a potential liability for the Government. We are entitled to ask whether that it is the case.

The next question that comes to mind is whether the facilities in Yarl's Wood were adequate to meet the needs of the people who were to be detained there. Was there enough to occupy them? Or did they finally set fire to the place out of boredom? Yarl's Wood was only partially in use, at nothing like its proposed capacity. Yet it apparently had an immense security problem. What will happen once the place is in full use?

If security is a problem, one might have thought that events at Yarl's Wood provided sufficient warning to tighten security at all equivalent centres. If that did not happen—and apparently it did not, because a week later it was possible for nine people to escape from Harmondsworth, a centre fulfilling a similar function—one has to ask why not.

Various questions must be asked about those being held in Yarl's Wood. Are they asylum seekers who have completed the asylum process and are waiting to be deported? They would have nothing to lose in raising Cain. If those people had completed the asylum process, then for how long had they been waiting? It seems to me that for those who have completed the process, a prolonged stay in what is in effect indefinite detention without trial—which I recall we have complained about in a different context—is not appropriate. What is to happen when the detainees are caught? Are they to be charged with criminal damage and possibly sent to prison, thus prolonging their stay in this country? Would it not be more appropriate to ship them out forthwith?

I turn now to the question of whether any of those people's asylum applications are still being processed? What is to happen with regard to those applications? That is a serious question because, clearly, if those people have indulged in this kind of behaviour, then I do not believe that it would be appropriate to continue with the process of asylum application. I think that the House is entitled to answers to those questions.

The Home Secretary has sought to meet a target of 30,000 deportations per annum, although at the moment the pledge to achieve that on a brief timescale has disappeared. We want the Home Secretary's procedures in this area to be successful, but the events at Yarl's Wood would suggest that it will be much more difficult to achieve the results the Home Secretary seeks than initially it appeared.

Having said that, I am not sure whether the Minister will be able to respond to all the questions that I and, most probably, other Members put to him today. However, I think that not only this House but the public and especially the people of Bedford—who have not been given any information by any source of authority since the tragic events—are entitled to some answers. One wonders whether, ultimately, a proper public inquiry will be necessary in order to set the public mind at rest.

4.23 p.m.

Lord Avebury

My Lords, we, too, should like to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and to echo the thanks which the noble Lord has already expressed to the fire service, the police and the Prison Service who have all done their best to cope with this tragedy.

With regard to the expert sources that have been mentioned, did the noble Lord consult the Chief Inspector of Fire Services or the chief of the Bedfordshire police? Can he tell the House which authorities disagreed with the expert sources that he mentioned, given that the majority endorsed the decision not to install sprinklers at Yarl's Wood? It is obvious that there was a difference of opinion among the experts and we are entitled to know what was the weight of opinion on these various matters so that we can judge the behaviour of the Home Office in deciding to opt for the cheapest solution, which in the end proved to be extremely costly.

Will Mr Stephen Moore's terms of reference be wide enough to allow him to look into the causes of the discontent among the inmates, such as we have drawn to the attention of the Minister from time to time? I refer to the inadequate telephone facilities, delays in passing on faxed messages from lawyers to asylum applicants and the practice of waking inmates in the middle of the night to take up with them disciplinary matters that could have waited until the morning. Admittedly, those matters should not have led any inmate to commit the criminal damage that we have seen at Yarl's Wood and we join in deploring the extent of the destruction that has been committed.

Can the Minister say whether the visiting committee at Yarl's Wood had formally directed the attention of the manager to any matters which called for his attention under Rule 61 of the detention centre rules? If so, was the manager alerted to the trouble that was in the offing?

Can the noble Lord tell the House what is the estimated cost of the damage that has been caused to Yarl's Wood? Can he say anything about the risks incurred by the taxpayer in these circumstances? Does this not throw a different light on PFI contracts if at the end of the day the sum of £35 million—or whatever is the final cost of the damage caused—falls on the shoulders of the taxpayer because the contract entered into with Group 4 allows for proceedings to be taken by its insurers against the Bedfordshire police force, the results of which are uncertain? Surely that is a matter which both the House and the country as a whole are entitled to take into consideration when judging the validity of the Government's whole policy on PFI contracts. Has the possibility of the destruction of large quantities of physical assets been taken into consideration when entering into PFI contracts for other detention centres, prisons and so forth?

On the PFI contract, is it not significant that trouble often occurs during the early stages of the management undertaken by one of the private enterprise companies? The noble Lord will recall that problems were also encountered with Campsfield House. which was managed by the same company. In the circumstances, does the noble Lord not think that it would be wise for the Home Office to appoint officials to superintend the operation of such establishments in the early stages of their management by private companies? That would ensure that the companies concerned observed the conditions of their contracts.

With regard to the speeding up of removals and toughening the regime, can the noble Lord assure the House that he does not intend to take away any of the legal rights 'which detainees at present enjoy? Can he further explain how it will be possible to speed up removals any more without impairing the rights that detainees have in law? Furthermore, what exactly does the noble Lord mean when he refers to "transforming" the regime? How can it be fair to worsen conditions for the whole of the detention estate in order to cope with the malicious damage caused by a few people?

Finally, taking up a remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, does the Minister think it wise to hold 900 people in a single centre? Yarl's Wood is by far the largest of the centres either planned or in operation in the detention estate. However, with fewer than 300 inmates, we have already seen these problems. We can only speculate on the magnitude of the difficulties that would be caused to the management by such a large establishment if it were filled to capacity. Does the noble Lord not think that the Home Office should review the policy of making provision for such large establishments, given the disciplinary problems that they entail? Perhaps the Home Office should think again and consider constructing a number of smaller centres rather than large individual establishments such as Yarl's Wood.

4.29 p.m.

Lord Rooker

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their support of the actions of the public services. I shall do my best to respond to the various points that have been made.

The centre is of a basic timber construction with brick cladding. In that sense, there is nothing state-of-the-art about the building. As I said on the day of the fire, the design and construction of Yarl's Wood and Harmondsworth are similar. After my visit, I had the opportunity to examine Home Office background papers from 2000 and 2001. It is abundantly clear that Ministers were given different advice about the installation of sprinklers at Yarl's Wood as opposed to Harmondsworth. Two fire services gave different advice in respect of effectively the same kind of operation. I can well understand the conflict within the department as to which way to jump. It is clear—there is no argument about it—that Bedford fire service gave one set of advice and London Fire Brigade gave different advice in respect of similar buildings of a slightly different size but of the same order, compared with the rest of the estate.

We are not certain that sprinklers would have put the fire out. The fire service has not completed its investigations. The building was only accessible this afternoon, by dogs. The roof of the building, which is a large structure in terms of its area, has caved in and is extremely dangerous. advice, with hindsight we take the view that sprinklers make sense—certainly in respect of future removal centres and of Harmondsworth and Yarl's Wood, which are different from the other centres. I accept that it costs more to install sprinklers after a building has been constructed.

As to the facilities available to detainees, it was fortuitous that there was a press open day at Yarl's Wood before the fire, in January—put back from November. I visited the centre unannounced on the morning of 30th November, when about 130 detainees were present. The press were therefore very informed about the facilities. I do not think that anyone could argue but that the facilities are good—bearing in mind that Yarl's Wood is a removal centre and people cannot come and go as they like—in terms of their range, healthcare and purposeful activities.

Before the fire there were 385 persons at the centre, representing 65 nationalities. The facilities aimed at keeping people occupied in stressful circumstances were excellent compared with those available in the past. Those facilities were slowly being built up over a planned five to six-month period. The centre was not intended to be at full stretch, with 100 per cent of the beds being used, until April or May.

As noble Lords may have seen from aerial photographs, Yarl's Wood basically comprised two units built to an almost identical plan but different inside. One unit has been destroyed. The other was not being used but was about to come on stream. The unit destroyed was for single males, single females and families. The other unit was meant exclusively for males. Many facilities were duplicated, in terms of healthcare and kitchens.

Of the 385 individuals being held before the fire, 294 were due for removal—although a date had not been set in every case. Some 248 cases were removable but the date had not been set. Forty-six cases were awaiting removal directions that had been set. Of the other 91, the largest sub-group were 72 detainees who had arrived ex-Oakington with asylum appeals outstanding.

The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, asked about the numbers. Since Yarl's Wood opened 674 have left. It is difficult to give a true picture because one is not dealing with a stable situation. Yarl's Wood was brand new and being built up. It was not full to capacity immediately. There were no detainees there in mid-November. By the time of the fire, there were 385—and 764 people had been into Yarl's Wood and left. Some 400-plus of those individuals had been removed from the country. Others got bail or went to other centres. There was a fairly rapid turnover. It is true that a couple of people were at Yarl's Wood for a while since just after it opened. I do not think that anyone was there from the day that it opened but, exceptionally, someone was present from two days later.

There is a target to remove 2,500 failed asylum seekers a month—30,000 a year. Our expectation is to achieve that removal rate in the next financial year. I do not have official figures before me but the past three months was the first time that we have ever removed more than 1,000 failed asylum seekers monthly, on the trot. Last month, the figure was close to 1,200—including dependants.

It is not true to say that local people were kept completely devoid of information. I fully accept that local people have gone through a lot. When I visited Yarl's Wood at 9 o'clock in the morning, the fire was still burning. The smoke envelope was about 15 miles long. From the MI, I could not tell whether it was a cloud or smoke.

We will look again at the access road. The local council refused planning permission for a different access road but we are taking that aspect in hand ourselves. There are good grounds, because of a bypass being built nearby, for a better access road—not just for the removal centre but because there are industrial plants on the site. The alternative would take the access road away from the immediate residents. The Home Secretary will make a personal visit to Yarl's Wood.

I make it absolutely clear that sprinklers were not required by law. I am not defending hindsight or acting on a hunch but the two buildings fully conformed with all building regulations. There was no cost-cutting and no corners were cut simply because it was a Crown estate. That was not relevant. Neither Harmondsworth nor Yarl's Wood had fire certificates because they are not normally granted until a building has been up and running for about six months. They would not be operating now unless the fire service had checked on the present situation.

Both noble Lords asked about liability. The idea of transferring risk goes straight down the plughole if those who allegedly carry the risk—at some profit— shift the risk back onto the public at the first opportunity. We shall have to look at that issue seriously. The centres are part of the private sector prison estate. It will not be long before people start looking at other PFI contracts, quite legitimately. We have the benefit of some hindsight now, which will beg lots of questions on other contracts. I do not wish to slag off the insurance industry but it is a common occurrence that insurers like to take the premiums but like having to pay out less.

The terms of reference of the Moore inquiry will be published and I hope that they will be wide enough to cover the matters that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised—although he made the point that whatever difficulties may have arisen at Yarl's Wood, they were no excuse for burning the place down. I do not know whether the visiting committee made any reports but I will look into that matter. If I cannot answer noble Lords now, I will write to them.

I do not know the cost of the damage. The one-off building is completely gutted. It did not just provide accommodation but contained the control centre and ancillary facilities such as the visiting centre.

There is a much more relaxed regime at removal centres. They are not prisons. There are visitors in and out at 9 o'clock at night. There are no limits. There is much more internal movement. We will have to look at the regime that operates inside the centre. As I made clear, we have removed some people and returned them to prison because they have a record of violence. We have reviewed all the existing detainees. I understand that 25 individuals from the removal estate are back in prison.

I do not know whether it was right to build a large centre for 900 people. I believe that Harmondsworth has a capacity of about 550, while others are smaller. The centre was built in two quite distinct units. The police fought the fire defensively in order to ensure that the generators, and the fuel, were not attacked. They also sought to stop the fire spreading to the adjacent similar building.

As regards staff, I can tell the House that we have considered the position. I understand that there were 51 staff on duty that night. In terms of a category C prison with the same number of inmates, we asked the Prison Service to tell us what the staff position would be on such a night. We understand that there would be some 36 prison officers on duty. Therefore, any idea that there were fewer staff on duty compared with the position in a category C prison is not the case.

Clearly the situation got out of hand because people gained access to equipment with which they could smash up the security cameras. Those cameras were taken out of use by the detainees using equipment that they had obtained from lockers. As I recall from the time of my visit to the centre, I believe that there were something like 300 cameras around the site under the supervision of the control room. That was part of the difficulty when control of operations was lost.

I apologise to noble Lords. I seem to have over-run my time limit. However, in conclusion, I should point out that there are Home Office contract managers on site at these locations whose task is to monitor the contract. As I understand it, they are permanently resident. Each time that I have visited a removal centre—some of which visits have been unannounced—there has always been a Home Office contract manager available.

4.41 p.m.

Lord Tebbit

My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that there are moments when a Minister committed to sensible policies—the Minister being the Home Secretary—deserves support, and that this is such a moment? Indeed, the same applies to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. Does he agree that the prime cause of this affair was plain old-fashioned human wickedness, and that the long delays and lengthy periods spent in detention by these detainees have been lawyer driven? Indeed, such lawyers have a financial interest in prolonging the process. Will the noble Lord further agree that putting sprinklers in buildings which will house people who may want to make mischief provides a very easy way of doing so?

Lord Rooker

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, hits the nail on the head with his final point. That is one of the problems with sprinklers: they can be totally abused in the circumstances. Indeed, that is one of the reasons why there are no sprinklers in the prison estate. Further, as I have said before in this House, the legal industry in this country has a vested interest in these matters. Those concerned are plying their trade and have over the years looked for loopholes in the law to initiate delay after delay for which we, as taxpayers, end up paying—funded by the Home Office. One of the reasons behind the constant, if you like, conveyor-belt of legislation is that each time loopholes are presented we are busy trying to close them.

In the forthcoming legislation based on the recently-published White Paper, I can assure noble Lords that we shall certainly be closing further loopholes that the legal industry has been exploiting. I should like to make it absolutely clear that we shall do so without removing the fundamental rights of asylum seekers to have their case heard and fully appealed. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his initial remarks. It was the detainees who set fire to the centre; no one else. That is a real problem and one that we shall have to cope with and consider in terms of the future.

Lord Campbell-Savours

My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, in congratulating my noble friend on the way that this matter has been addressed. I have in mind, in particular, his decision to visit the site the day after the disaster and to reassure the local people—a move that I understand was very well received.

Perhaps I may draw my noble friend's attention to the position of the 22 people who absconded and who have not, as yet, been found. Can he tell the House what is the current legal position of those former detainees? For example, do we hold data on those people; that is, the kind of data that my noble friend proposed to the House some weeks ago when we dealt with the White Paper? Do we have data on their DNA, on identification, on fingerprinting, or on any other forms of identification?

Lord Rooker

My Lords, I should remind the House that there are 22 people for whom we cannot account at present. We have literally just sent dogs into the building this afternoon. We are talking about a major fire that covered a very large floor area of building. We have no evidence to suggest that there were any fatalities, but we cannot be absolutely certain in that respect; nor, indeed, can anyone be at this time. We know the identity of those who have absconded. The idea that all the records were burnt is absolute nonsense. Indeed, I tried to correct that assumption with the media the following afternoon. The records kept at the centre were destroyed, but the individual court files—the Immigration and Nationality Directorate files—were held in different parts of the country. Therefore, we have not lost the files.

All those in the centre who became asylum seekers post-1993 would have been fingerprinted because that is when the fingerprinting process started, so we have identification to that extent. We do not have the use of the new identity card procedure because the cards began to be issued during the latter part of January. Those people who absconded from the centre removed themselves from a unit where they had been lawfully placed. However, as I do not know the stage of each case in terms of whether the process was completed and whether those concerned were either awaiting removal or the lodging of an appeal, I am unable to give my noble friend any detailed information.