Rosalind Evans
A UK investigation revealed on Tuesday that migrants set for deportation experienced both physical and verbal mistreatment in a state-operated detention facility. The report suggests that nobody should be held in such harsh environments for more than a month.
Kate Eves, the head of the investigation, highlighted the disturbing treatment migrants received at the Brook House Immigration Removal Center located near Gatwick Airport, just south of London.
According to Eves, there was a deeply problematic attitude among the staff at the facility. Migrants were often confronted with racist remarks, degrading comments, and unjustified physical force.
“One of the gravest incidents reported was an individual being pressed on the neck while he was clearly in distress,” the report pointed out.
“Detaining individuals in immigration centers should be done with humanity,” stated Eves.
Eves expressed concern that prior pleas for change had gone unnoticed by the government. She strongly emphasized the need to respect the recommended 28-day maximum detention period.
This inquiry was initiated in 2019, following a BBC exposé in 2017 that showed alleged mistreatment of detainees at Brook House.
Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary responsible for immigration matters, admitted that there had been “significant shortcomings in supervising and ensuring the welfare of the detained.”
She assured that the government would give the report’s conclusions thorough attention.
The current Conservative administration in the UK has taken a more stringent stance towards those entering the country without proper authorization, including those travelling on small boats via the English Channel. New legislation proposes detaining such migrants and then permanently deporting them either to their homeland or to third-party countries. Currently, only Rwanda has agreed to this arrangement, a decision facing legal scrutiny in the UK.
Enver Solomon, the head of the Refugee Council, commented that the investigation “clearly indicates the Home Office’s failure to provide even the basic care and compassion for those detained.”
The revelations from this inquiry underscore the broader debate on how nations handle immigration and asylum policies. The balance between national security and humanitarian consideration is delicate, with both sides presenting compelling arguments. As the UK grapples with its own approach to this issue, the events at the Brook House serve as a poignant reminder that each policy decision has very human consequences.
