The ‘degrading’ migrant centre that speaks volumes about our pitiless government

Editorial: The details revealed in the report into conditions at Brook House detention centre should appal even the most hard-hearted and unsympathetic of observers

It would be nice to think that our home secretary, herself a lawyer, would agree that both the law and human rights should be upheld (PA)

As is obvious, there are many passionately held views on irregular and so-called “illegal” migration, and the practical challenges of managing it are (also obviously) immense.

“Stop the Boats”, though a crude slogan, is actually something on which all sides agree, in the sense that migration managed by criminal gangs is something that all too often leads to tragedy.

That consensus about the broad aims of government policy should surely extend to the way in which we treat the people who arrive here in the most distressing and dangerous of circumstances, whether we choose to see them as refugees or economic migrants.

At a minimum, whatever their history and however they got here, they should be treated humanely – and, though it hardly needs adding, should not be subjected to conditions that amount to torture. Creating a “deterrent” effect to reduce the number of small-boat crossings should not, and need not, extend to depriving people of their basic human rights.

It appears that a humanitarian approach has certainly not been in operation at the Brook House detention centre. The independent inquiry chaired by Kate Eves has determined that vulnerable detainees were subjected to “unacceptable”, inhuman and degrading treatment at the facility. Although the inquiry relates to events some years ago, there is no compelling reason to suppose that things are much better in these centres now.

Indeed, given what we know about the conditions in our prisons, highlighted by the escape of Daniel Khalife, coupled with the increase in boat crossings in more recent times, it is possible that conditions at Brook House, and at similar facilities, might now be even worse.

The details revealed in Ms Eves’s report should appal even the most hard-hearted and unsympathetic of observers. The refugees and other migrants – whose only crime was to seek safety and try for a better life – subsisted in dirty, harmful, prison-like conditions. Predictably, they developed mental illnesses, which in some cases may have led to even greater maltreatment.

One incident is cited in which a man had pressure applied to his neck by a staff member when he was in distress. Common sense would suggest that this may not have been the only such incident in what was a busy and overcrowded environment.

The report details how one of the G4S officers at the centre, which is situated near to Gatwick airport, placed his hands around the neck of a detainee and said: “You f***ing piece of s***, because I’m going to put you to f***ing sleep.”

Although that is one of the more egregious instances of abuse, it seems that the people being held at the centre, effectively prisoners, were moved around the site naked or near-naked, insulted and demeaned. The culture of the staff at Brook House is said to have been “toxic”. Evidence points to the use of “abusive, racist and derogatory language” used against detainees, the loss of religious freedoms, and insanitary conditions.

Against this background, Ms Eves’s team identified numerous breaches of human rights law relating to torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. Quite simply, Brook House was a UK state-sponsored house of cruelty. It harboured torture – and that is something that should shame the nation.

Even the Home Office, which was nominally in charge of this dysfunctional quasi-prison, now accepts that the abuse revealed in the report was “unacceptable”, adding that the government has since made “significant improvements to uphold the welfare and dignity of those detained” and is “committed to ensuring safety and security in all immigration removal centres and to learn lessons from Brook House to ensure these events never happen again”.

Yet the scandal at Brook House – and no doubt at many other facilities, though that has yet to be documented – arose because of the “hostile environment” and the contemptuous, dehumanising language and attitudes so often displayed by ministers towards “invaders”, as Suella Braverman has called them. This is the political context that must surely have contributed to the way in which the staff at Brook House behaved.

When Ms Eves criticises the apparent breaches of human rights at the facility, it would be nice to think that our home secretary, herself a lawyer, would agree that both the law and human rights should be upheld. Yet even here, Ms Braverman cannot help herself.

Only last year, as a candidate for the Tory leadership, Ms Braverman freely advocated the abolition of human rights laws, and mentioned in particular Article 3 of the European Convention, and of the 1998 Human Rights Act, as being a particular nuisance.

Referring to the Rwanda deportation scheme, she declared: “The reality is that the policy is vulnerable to claims based on the Human Rights Act or the European Convention, namely Article 3 claims and Article 8 rights. We will simply not be able to remove, in significant numbers, those people coming across the Channel illegally in risky circumstances, unless we eliminate those kinds of claims against our actions.”

Ms Eves makes numerous wise recommendations in her report for changes to the system, and strikes an upbeat note: “It is my sincere hope that more than mere lip service will be paid to this report. The events that occurred at Brook House cannot be repeated.”

However, it is difficult to share such optimism, given that similar human rights abuses were identified at the Yarl’s Wood detention centre 20 years ago – a facility that was also the subject of a series of damning independent inquiries. The cultural rot that seems to pervade these institutions appears to be endemic, and it will take a much more proactive home secretary to eliminate it.

While Ms Braverman remains in charge of the Home Office, it is doubtful that the protection of human rights will be placed at the top of her personal agenda.