G4S lied to Government so it could make big profit on scandal-hit immigration detention centre, MPs told

Asked whether firm may have deliberately been giving false information to the Home Office, former employee replies: 'Categorically, yes'

Riot officers preparing to enter a room in G4S-run Brook House immigration detention centre (BBC)

G4S has been accused of falsifying records to make profits of more than 20 per cent running an immigration detention centre marred by abuse and drugs.

Managers said they were “ashamed” of violations exposed at Brook House, near Gatwick, where detainees have included an asylum seeker threatened with beheading by the Taliban.

They were questioned by MPs at an occasionally heated Home Affairs Select Committee hearing in the wake of undercover footage broadcast by the BBC’s Panorama programme.

Nathan Ward, who worked as G4S’s duty director at Brook House before becoming a vicar, told the committee the contractor had given inaccurate information to the Home Office on costs.

He alleged that while working at the now-closed Cedars immigration detention centre, a G4S accountant gave him a spreadsheet of items the Home Office was being charged for.

“They asked me to highlight the ones I knew we’d never be buying, on the premise that Home Office only asked for invoices over the sum total of £5,000 so anything under that wouldn’t be scrutinised,” he added.

“I’m also aware of inaccurate staffing reported to the Home Office and that’s part of the concern I raised on my resignation [in 2014].”

Rev Ward claimed that G4S had made cost savings but not passed them on to the Government as required, using them instead to drive up profits.

He accused the firm of delaying filling vacated posts to save on wages, while demanding money for more staff than were hired.

Asked by Yvette Cooper, chair of the committee, whether G4S may have been “deliberately been giving false information to the Home Office”, the former employee replied: “Categorically, yes.”

Rev Ward said he had given a copy of his work hard drive to police and the Ministry of Justice but not been informed of any further action.

He said he has had his car tyres slashed four times and received menacing anonymous letters and phone calls in recent weeks, adding: “This is a humanitarian crisis in what is supposed to be a civilised country and it demands a response from Government.”

G4S managers said they “did not recognise” the allegations later in the hearing, and also said its profits had been inaccurately reported by the press.

The Guardian reported it had seen documents suggesting that in 2016, the company's margin on its trading profit at Brook House was 20.7 per cent, while at another immigration centre Tinsley House, the margin was 41.5 per cent.

The newspaper said that while the permitted profit margin is not published, it had obtained a copy of the original contract that put the agreed limit on profits at 6.8 per cent.

Whistleblower Nathan Ward, a former senior custody manager at G4S (BBC Panorama)

Peter Neden, the regional president of G4S UK and Ireland, confirmed the contract for Brook House was worth £11.2m a year but would not confirm the exact profit margin because it would put the company at a competitive disadvantage.

“We are making a profit on these contracts, but we are not making the profits reported,” said Mr Neden. “We don't make a profit of 20 per cent. That is overstated.”

He also denied that G4S charged the Home Office for staff or activities which were not provided, adding: “If the Home Office have concerns, the Home Office should raise them.”

Ms Cooper said it was “unacceptable” for the firm not to reveal its profits to the committee and urged the decision to be reconsidered.

Mr Neaden added that he did “not recognise” specific claims made by Rev Ward, including that G4S had failed to hire a hairdresser for detainees and gave them clippers to cut their own hair instead.

“The Cabinet Office commissioned an independent audit and found our charging to be correct,” he added.

He and Jerry Petherick, the managing director of G4S’ custodial and detention centres, were forced to repeatedly defend the company’s actions and record during the hearing.

It was sparked by a Panorama documentary that showed detainees being abused and humiliated by G4S staff, including one man who was “choked” while trying to self-harm.

G4S guards responding to a detainee who had taken Spice at Brook House (BBC Panorama)

The committee heard that vulnerable asylum seekers and people with mental health difficulties are mixed with foreign nationals who have served prison sentences at Brook House.

The immigration detention centre – one of two run by G4S in the UK - was designed to hold up to 508 men for 72 hours ahead of deportation but some people have been detained there for almost two years.

Undercover footage also revealed that drugs, particularly the powerful former legal high “spice”, are rife inside the centre, amid high levels of mental illness, self-harm and suicide attempts.

Naz Shah, a Labour member of the committee, said the distressing footage showed that G4S’ systems had “failed drastically”.

”I'm surprised we have not seen a death on your watch, whether that be by spice, whether that is by abuse of staff, whether that be by strangulation, whether that be by cold-blooded murder by your staff,“ she told Mr Petherick.

He and Mr Neaden claimed that G4S had adequate training, monitoring and enforcement systems in place to regulate staff behaviour, including a whistleblowing hotline run by an external company.

Three members of staff have so far been dismissed as a result of the footage and seven more are suspended pending further investigation, amid a separate police inquiry.

"I was ashamed of what I saw,“ Mr Neden said. ”I am very sorry for what we saw. If we were in any way aware of any of that behaviour we would have taken action.

“We are undertaking an immediate action plan to make sure that this can't happen again. We take these events very seriously indeed. There is no place for behaviour of that kind in our business.”

Ms Cooper said the response was “remarkably similar” to that during a similar scandal at G4S’ Medway young offenders unit last year, when the firm also vowed to take action.

“I'm afraid the answers that you have given do not suggest you have any grip on this at all,” she told Mr Neaden and Mr Petherick.

“The answers that you have given to these very serious allegations, this very serious evidence of abuse and mismanagement taking place, could simply be the answers you might have given several years ago to the footage coming out of Medway.

”None of this suggests you have any idea why this has gone wrong so substantially on your watch - detainees who you had a responsibility towards and yet have been abused while in your custody.”

Ms Cooper said she heard nothing to give “any confidence” that G4S has a strategy in place to stop abuse or understand how it occurred.

"I don't accept we haven't done anything,” Mr Petherick said. “We have worked very hard at addressing these kinds of behaviours, making very clear it is unacceptable.

"There may be the occasional lapse, which shouldn't happen, but we are all human beings.”

G4S managers denied “systematic” failings but said an investigation into events at Brook House would be conducted by an independent organisation, which would agree its own terms of reference with the Home Office.