Brook House inquiry chair calls for ‘reset’ on ‘inadequate’ government response

An inquiry chair has called for a “reset” on an “inadequate” government response to her recommendations on preventing a repeat of the Brook House immigration centre scandal.

Kate Eves, who was appointed by the then-Conservative government to lead the probe which concluded migrants had been subjected to abuse, said the inquiry had cost “about £20 million of public money” over four years.

The inquiry found there had been 19 incidents of mistreatment against detainees at the detention centre near Gatwick Airport in West Sussex over a five-month period in 2017.

According to Channel 4 News, a judicial review was launched against the Home Office in March over the treatment of a man detained at Brook House which cited Ms Eves’ report.

Home Office lawyers acting for then-home secretary James Cleverly wrote in response that the “recommendations are not binding” and Ms Eves “had no legal qualifications” despite being appointed by the government at the time to lead the inquiry.

The report, which aired on Wednesday, added that a Nigerian care worker – who wishes to remain anonymous – was awarded £200,000 for inhuman and degrading treatment at the immigration removal centre which left him with PTSD.

Responding to the report by Channel 4 News, Ms Eves told the broadcaster: “I am disappointed with what I see as an inadequate response by the former government to an important report.”

She added: “I think the current Home Secretary’s previous position and statements do give me hope that she will meet with me – set out what I hope will be a kind of reset of a really inadequate response by the previous government.”

Discussing the cost of the inquiry, Ms Eves said: “As a taxpayer myself, I find that really concerning.

“I think we should all be worried if public inquiries, which are established to look into facts when something has gone wrong, simply use public resources and then there’s no outcome.”

In documents seen by Channel 4 News, Home Office lawyers said: “A report of a public inquiry is not a legal authority.

“The recommendations are not binding and do not purport to be based on legal standards or requirements (indeed, the chair of that particular inquiry had no legal qualifications and was not purporting to set legal standards).”

Speaking a year on from publishing the inquiry’s findings, Ms Eves told the PA news agency that the Conservative government’s response, published in March, lacked “clarity and ambition”.

She added: “In 28 of the 33 recommendations, it is not clear whether they are accepting or rejecting them.

“The seriousness of what the inquiry revealed merited a more detailed, robust and accountable response.”

Recommendations to improve Brook House made in September last year included issues such as use of force and staff training.

The introduction of a 28-day detention time limit was rejected by the then-government, alongside another proposal.

The Government has agreed the Home Office and private contractors will make sure staff are aware of the ban on handcuffing people behind their backs while sitting down – which can result in asphyxiation, Ms Eves told the BBC.

A Home Office spokesman said: “The abuse that took place at Brook House in 2017 was unacceptable and we are committed to ensuring it will never happen again.”

The Conservative government published its response to the public inquiry on March 19 this year, summarising progress since 2017 and addressing all the 10 areas of concern raised in the report.

It is understood the current Government will set out its approach in due course.

But Ms Eves said there was a “dark thread” of evidence that the Home Office was failing to listen to the inquiry it had set up.

On the risk of abuse at Brook House happening again, she told the BBC: “It becomes a question of when, not if, such abuses will come to light again.

“I remain extremely concerned that the wholescale failures and misapplications of the rules identified in my report continue.

“This in turn leaves vulnerable people at significant risk.”