In our recent article about the new UK Electronic Travel Authorisation scheme, we mentioned that the EU were planning on introducing a similar system. Now, the details about that scheme, the ETIAS, have been revealed.

By acquiring an ETIAS travel authorisation, you will be able to enter these European countries as often as you wish for short term stays. This is usually up to 90 days within any 180 day period.

While there has been no specific date announced, the European Travel Information and Authorisation System will be introduced “from 2024”, meaning that there isn’t long until travellers will be required to apply. In total, the number of people from visa exempt countries who will need to apply to travel to an EU country numbers 1.4 billion.

The ETIAS is linked to your passport and will remain valid for up to years. However, if your passport expires then you will also need to get a new ETIAS.

Which countries require an ETIAS?

The scheme will only affect certain travellers planning to travel to one of the thirty European countries (with the exception of Ireland) involved in the scheme.

These include the other 26 EU states, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein.

Do UK nationals need to apply?

As visa exempt nationals, UK citizens will also be required to apply for an ETIAS to visit any of the thirty European countries on the list. If they wish to remain in the EU country, then they must meet the entry requirements following the UK’s exit from the EU.

Nevertheless, those UK nationals and their family members who are beneficiaries of the Withdrawal Agreement are exempt from ETIAS. This includes most UK nationals who were living in an EU country before 1^st January 2021.

These UK nationals should hold documents which prove their status if they wish to live in an EU country and travel to other European countries which require ETIAS.

How to apply?

The best way to apply for the travel authorisation is via the ETIAS mobile app or the official website. The cost of the ETA will be 7 euros, however those who are over the age of 70 or below the age of 18 will be exempt from paying. Despite this, parents or guardians will still need to complete applications on behalf of minors.

While most applications will be processed within minutes, it’s possible that some applications will take as long as four days to be approved. Further, it is possible that the period will be extended by up to 14 days if you are required to provide further information or documents, as well as up to 30 days if you are invited in for an interview. It is therefore imperative that you apply for your ETIAS long before you are due to travel.

It’s important to have the following details when you are filling out the application form for an ETIAS.

• Personal information
• Travel documents such as your passport number
• Education and occupation
• Intended travel itinerary
• Any criminal convictions
• Past travels to war or conflict zones
• Whether the applicant has been the subject of a decision requiring them to leave the territory of any country

What happens after I apply?

Following your application you will receive an email which confirms the application submission as well as your unique ETIAS application number. You should keep hold of this number for future reference.

Following the processing of your application, you will receive another email which notifies you of the outcome. As advised above, this usually only takes a few minutes but can take up to 30 days.

It is vital that you carry the same passport that you use to apply for an ETIAS with. If you fail to do so, then you will not be allowed to board your mode of transport or enter any of the European countries which require an ETIAS.

Can I appeal if refused?

If your application is refused, or if your ETIAS travel authorisation is revoked or annulled, you will be notified of the reason for the refusal, as well as the authority that made the decision.

Nevertheless, you will be given the right to appeal this decision. The email you receive about the decision will contain the information necessary to appeal, including the European country you should appeal to and the process involved.

Have questions about immigration? Contact us today! We will be glad to help.

Have questions about this article? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, our phone lines are open and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

James Cook

See Full Bio

Many people will be familiar with the ‘spouse visa’, a type of visa which allows a foreign national to live with their partner in the UK as long as the partner is either British or settled in the UK. However, there is another similar type of visa – the fiance visa. Both visas are separate categories under the broader ‘UK family visa’.

The fiance visa is ideal for couples who wish to start a new life together in the UK, but are not yet married or in a civil partnership. However, the fiance visa is just 6 months, and you must prove that you will wed within that period.

Although a fiance visa does not directly lead to indefinite leave to remain, the ability to switch to a spouse visa from the fiance visa can put you on the path to citizenship.

Keep reading to learn more about the fiance visa.

What is the eligibility criteria?

The requirements of the fiance visa are very similar to the spouse/partner visa, with two key differences:

1. You must prove that any previous marriages or civil partnerships have ended

2. You must also prove that you plan to marry or become civil partners in the next 6 months

The remaining requirements are as follows:

• You and your partner must be aged 18 or over when the application is submitted.
• You and your partner must intend to live together permanently in the UK.
• The applicant and UK partner must have met in person.
• Our relationship with your partner must be ‘genuine’ and ‘subsisting’
• You and your partner are legally married in a marriage that is recognised in the UK;
• Any previous relationship has broken down permanently
• You satisfy a financial requirement.
• You speak and understand English to a required level.
• There is adequate accommodation for you and any dependents.

What are the financial requirements?

When you make a fiance visa application, you must be able to provide evidence that you will be able to support yourself financially. Firstly, you and your partner must have a combined income of at least £18,600 a year if:

• you’re applying as a partner
• you want to settle in the UK (get ‘indefinite leave to remain’) within 5 years

This increases by £3,800 for your first child, and £2,400 for each subsequent child.

There are a number of ways that you can satisfy the financial requirements which include:

• Employment income
• Self-employment income
• Savings
• Investments in stocks and shares
• Rental income

If you are in receipt of certain public funds, you may be able to relay on the adequate maintenance and accommodation alternative to satisfy the financial requirements. Please contact us for more information.

What are the costs and the processing times?

The cost for a fiance visa is exactly the same as a spouse visa – £1,846. For in-country applications this is £1,048. However, one advantage is that you won’t need to pay the immigration health surcharge while on the fiance visa. However, as it is likely that you will switch to a spouse visa, this will cost £1,560 for an in-country application if you are staying for 2 years and 6 months as of 4^th October 2023.

While there is no specific timetable for the fiance visa, the processing time for the fiance visa is usually around 2-3 months on average after the application has been received.

However, it’s worth bearing in time that should you need your application to be processed faster than usual then you can apply for fiance visa entry clearance through the Home Office priority service. This costs around £500 to £800 but will mean that you will receive a decision within 1 week. Nevertheless, this is not always available depending on the country you live in.

What documents are required for a Fiancé Visa?

In order to apply for your fiance visa, you will need to provide the following information and evidence for you and any dependents:

• all your names
• your date of birth
• your current passport or other valid travel ID
• copies of the photo page and any visa or entry stamps in your previous passports
• a copy of your biometric residence permit, if you have one
• details of any previous immigration applications you’ve made
• details of any criminal convictions
• your national insurance number, if you have one
• your parents’ date of birth and nationality if you’re applying from outside the UK
• your tuberculosis test results if you’re from a country where you have to take the test
• a certified translation of any document that is not in English or Welsh

You will also need to provide to the Home Office that your relationship is genuine and that you intend to marry within six months.

Finally, you will need to show that you speak and understand English to the required level to meet this requirement.  You can prove this by passing an approved English language test.

You must pass at least level A1 on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) scale for your first visa application. Level A2 if you wish to stay in the UK after your first visa and are intending to apply for a renewal. Level B1 if you are applying for settlement here in the UK.

How to switch to the spouse visa?

Once you have a fiance visa and are married, you can switch to a UK spouse visa. A spouse visa allows holders to stay in the UK for up to 33 months initially as well as to extend their stay for 30 months further.

It is important to make your spouse visa application before your fiance visa expires. If it does expire, you will need to leave the UK and apply for a Spouse visa anew.

When applying, you may need to attend both a visa application centre and/or an interview with the Home Office.

Contact us today to apply for your fiance visa and begin your new life in the UK!

Have questions about this article? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, our phone lines are open and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here. 

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

The Migration Advisory Committee has published its 2023 review of the shortage occupation list. Commissioned in August 2022, the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) is an independent non-department public body that advises the government on migration issues.

Compared with previous reviews, this review was conducted on the basis of the MAC’s recommendation that employers should not be able to pay below the going rate regardless of whether there is a shortage.

Some of the headline recommendations by the MAC are that the shortage occupation list should be abolished and asylum seekers with permission to work should be allowed to work in any role, not just those on the shortage occupation list.

Keep reading to learn more.

What is the shortage occupation list?

The shortage occupation list comprises a list of job roles which are deemed to be in short supply within the UK labour market. The MAC must also deem it sensible for the job roles to be filled by migration. It is a component of the Skilled Worker route, which is the primary immigration route for those who are working in the UK.

The roles on the list have a more relaxed criteria for applicants in order to attract talent from abroad, however they are not dealt with any faster than standard Skilled Worker applications.

Visa fees for roles on the shortage occupation list are also lower, estimated to be roughly £50 per year by the MAC. The visa fee is reduced by £292 for a 3–5-year visa or £146 for visas lasting up to 3 years. Employers are also allowed to pay the applicant 80% of the going rate, down to a minimum of £20,960.

What changes did the Migration Advisory Committee recommend?

The Migration Advisory Committee made eight recommendations in total. These were divided into two: recommendations for the role of the shortage occupation list (SOL) in the current immigration system, and recommendations for future SOL reviews.  These recommendations include the following:

Recommendations for the role of the SOL in the immigration system

1. The SOL going rate discount should be removed and that all occupations on a national pay scale, alongside those where the going rate exceeds the general threshold, be made ineligible for the SOL.

2. If granted the right to work, asylum seekers should be able to work in any job – not just in occupations which are on the SOL.

3. Sponsorship rules for the Creative Worker (CW) visa route be updated, with the reference to the SOL being removed and to allow employers to sponsor any occupation that is currently eligible for the SW route without having to perform a labour market test. They also recommend that the Home Office attach a minimum salary threshold to the CW visa.

Recommendations for future SOL reviews

1. If the Government opposes allowing low-wage employers to pay below the general threshold for the SW route, the MAC recommend it should either abolish the SOL or heavily reform it to address this issue. They have recommended an alternative approach to the current SOL review process.

2. Should the Government wish to retain a SOL in its current form, they intend to conduct a minor review of the SOL in Spring 2024 – unless otherwise directed by the Government.

3. If the SOL is retained, the MAC suggest that the Government changes the name of the SOL to the Immigration Salary Discount List (ISDL) to correctly reflect its function in the immigration system.

4. The MAC intend not to consider RQF 1-2 occupations as part of minor SOL reviews. They feel that Government should notify them if they would like us to take an alternative approach.

5. The MAC ask the Home Office to provide confirmation by the end of January 2024 that they will move to SOC2020 and update the salary thresholds in line with SOC2020 in the Spring 2024 Immigration Rule changes. If they do not so, the MAC recommend suspending SOL reviews until the switch is made.

Following this report by the Migration Advisory Committee, the government will review these recommendations and follow up with a response.

Our thoughts

Despite the recommendations made by the Migration Advisory Committee, it seems unlikely that most of them will be implemented. The government has taken a firm approach in its approach towards asylum seekers, and it would be surprising if they accepted the recommendation that asylum seekers be allowed to work in any job they wish. While the government has also talked tough on bringing down immigration and prioritising British people, the ability of employers to pay workers 80% of the going rate may potentially undercut British workers while also putting Shortage Occupation List workers in a vulnerable position, a point made by the MAC. Read the full report here for more information.

Have questions about this article? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, our phone lines are open and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here. 

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

By Yang Peng

Relationships in real life are not always stable; there are always ups and downs. Likewise, when applying for a visa, applicants often face challenges in proving the genuineness and enduring nature of their relationships. Consequently, accidental omissions and minor errors may occur in the complex visa application procedure.

During the visa application, the Home Office will carefully review the truthfulness of the documents. If any concealed or false information about the application is found, it may have a negative impact on the application and even lead to visa revocation or deprivation of citizenship. It is therefore imperative that you prioritise honesty and accuracy throughout the process.

A recent case highlighted the importance of this. On 28th September 2023, The Court of Appeal made a significant decision in an immigration appeal concerning the deprivation of citizenship in which a concealment of a material face was obtained.

The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appellant’s appeal from a decision of the Upper Tribunal. It held that the decision of the respondent, the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the appellant’s deprivation of citizenship was correct. It announced that the Home Office could withdraw a person’s citizenship if an applicant conceals essential information regarding their relationship when applying for settlement with their partner.

Background of the case

Mr A is a Pakistani national and married a Pakistani national, Ms S, before he came to the UK. He arrived in the UK in 2006 and then started a relationship with a Polish national Ms L.

Mr A received a divorce deed sent to him by his Pakistani wife, Ms S, in 2008. He then applied for further leave to remain in the UK in 2009 as the extended family member of an EEA national, Ms L. This was based on their durable relationship of two years’ cohabitation. Due to his divorce from his previous marriage and his new relationship with Ms L, Mr A was subsequently granted his further leave to remain and settled in the UK. After completing the five-year qualifying period with the EEA national in 2015, Mr A separated from Ms L in 2016 and applied for British citizenship in 2018.

Once Mr A was granted British Citizenship in 2018, he applied for entry clearance for Ms S and their four children to join him in the UK. In this application, he signed the statutory declaration to the effect that the information that he had given was complete and true to the best of his knowledge but made no reference to his relationship with the Polish partner Ms L, or to the Pakistani divorce deed.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (hereafter ‘SSHD’) informed Mr A that there was information confirming that he had obtained his status in the UK as a result of a bigamous marriage. The SSHD ultimately took a decision to deprive Mr A of his citizenship on the basis that Mr A had continued a relationship with Ms S during his relationship with Ms L despite the fact that he was still married to Ms S and that the Pakistani divorce certificate was false.

The First-Tier Tribunal (hereafter ‘FTT’) heard Mr Ahmed’s appeal from the SSHD’s decision, and the appeal was dismissed in 2020. Mr A then appealed to Upper Tribunal against the decision of the FTT. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (UT) found that the decision of the FTT had been wrong in law. The judge concluded that the SSHD had prima facie evidence of fraud. Mr A appealed further.

Ahmed v Secretary of State for the Home Department

This case mainly discussed that whether the Upper Tribunal made errors in fact and law in finding the SSHD was entitled to deprive Mr A of his British citizenship. There were three main issues that had a significant impact on confirming the key facts in this case. The third issue is particularly valuable as it as it can be referred to for dishonest concealment in immigration application cases:

1. Whether the judge misapplied the country guidance to interfere with the finding of facts

2. If the judge was wrong to find that Mr A’s EEA applications would have been refused if continuing relationship with Ms S disclosed

3. Whether the judge was wrong to find dishonest concealment.

The court found that there were important inconsistencies in the evidence of Mr A’s witness statements and his relationship with Ms L. The court discerned that there was no basis for interfering with the finding of facts because of the use of the country guidance case law. As a result of these facts, there was also no basis on which to conclude that the judge had made any error.

Furthermore, Mr A’s continuing relationship with Ms S, their marriage and their children, were highly relevant to the case, and undermined the prospect of Mr A’s relationship with Ms L being “durable”. If this information about Mr A’s continuing relationship with Ms S had been disclosed, the SSHD would have refused the EEA application.

For the third issue about the dishonest concealment, the court held that:

• Although FTT did not expressly say that the concealment was dishonest, FTT had directed that the Secretary of State had to establish that Mr A had obtained citizenship by means of fraud, false representation or concealment of a material fact.
• Since the Mr A’s credibility had been damaged because of inconsistencies in his evidence, and there had been a plan “all along” to conceal his true relationship with his wife. The divorce deed should be brought into existence in furtherance of a lie. As a result, this was a concealment of a material fact for the purposes of section 40(3) of the 1981 Act.
• In these circumstances, it is plain that the judge’s findings of fact amounted to a finding of dishonesty on the part of Mr A, so that there was a dishonest concealment of a material fact. The judge was entitled to reach these conclusions and made no significant legal mistakes.

The above is a summation of the court’s verdict concerning presented grounds.

Why did the appeal against deprivation of citizenship fail?

In spouse visa applications which are based on a relationship, it is crucial to establish that the previous relationship has permanently broken down. In Mr A’s initial application, there was an overlap between his two-year cohabitation with Ms L and his previous marriage with Mrs S. Additionally, the birth of his child revealed that he was in a continuous relationship with Mrs S during the five-year relationship with Mrs L.

Upon the comprehensive review of Mr. A’s relationship history and the evidence he provided, the court raised substantial doubts about the credibility of Mr. A’s evidence. The court also determined the existence of dishonest concealment and recognized that the divorce agreement should be considered as existence in furtherance of lie. Consequently, the court substantiated the presence of fraud, false representation, and concealment of a material fact within Mr. A’s immigration application. Mr. A’s appeal against deprivation of citizenship was therefore dismissed.

Our comments

The findings in Ahmed v SSHD highlight the importance of ensuring applications are true. The judgment provides guidance on the grounds of the identification for dishonest concealment as well as the deprivation of British citizenship.

This case underscores that any kind of fraud, false representation, or concealment of a material fact in the application could lead to the failure of the application or deprivation of granted immigration status. This could be the case even if you’ve already been granted citizenship. For applicants wishing to apply for a spouse visa or other visas based on a relationship, it’s important to make sure that there is no overlap between the two relationships. Mr A’s situation is a clear reminder that it is important to be honest when submitting an application to avoid legal issues and preserve one’s immigration status.

Have questions about this article? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, our phone lines are open and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here. 

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

This article is part two of our in depth look at the findings of the Brook House Inquiry, following our previous article last week. In this piece, we will highlight the remaining recommendations made by the Chair of the Inquiry, Kate Eves.

We will also examine what steps the Home Office has taken to address the issues identified in the report, with a particular focus on safeguarding and oversight. Finally, we will also give our opinion on the recommendations made in the report.

For an overview of the Brook House Inquiry, and the first half of Kate Eve’s recommendations, see part 1 of our article here.

For now, keep reading for the second half of Eve’s recommendations below.

Brook House Inquiry recommendations

Recommendation 17: Urgent improvement of use of force reviews

The Home Office must ensure, as a matter of urgency, that training is delivered on how to conduct an effective use of force incident debrief, ensuring that issues of detained person and staff welfare, as well as training needs, are covered. The training must be mandatory for all immigration removal centre contractor employees who conduct such reviews and those who manage them.

The Home Office must also require that use of force incidents be reviewed, at a minimum, at the following levels:

• Within 36 hours of each use of force incident, the Use of Force Coordinator must conduct a thorough incident review, ensuring that all documentation and footage are collated and preserved, and with a view to taking emergency action in instances of unlawful or inappropriate force. On a weekly basis, all use of force incidents must be reviewed (including all necessary paperwork and available video footage) at a formal meeting by the Use of Force Coordinator and a suitable manager in order to review each incident and to identify any issues or further action required.
• On a monthly basis, immigration removal centre contractor senior management must arrange meetings with other stakeholders (including detained people and representatives of non-governmental organisations) to review use of force trends.
• Periodically, the Home Office (or its Professional Standards Unit if the Home Office considers it more appropriate) must review use of force at Brook House and across the immigration detention estate, to identify trends and to direct the implementation of any changes and improvements that are required.

This review process must be reflected in the new detention services order regarding the use of force – see Recommendation 15 – in respect of which additional, regular (at least annual) training must then be provided.

Recommendation 18: Urgent guidance in relation to food and fluid refusal

The Home Office must, as a matter of urgency, update Detention Services Order 03/2017: Care and Management of Detained Individuals Refusing Food and/or Fluid, to ensure that it deals with:

• food and fluid refusal being clearly and directly linked to consideration of the Rule 35 process and whether a detained person is defined as an ‘adult at risk’;
• the consideration by the healthcare provider at each immigration removal centre, upon an incidence of food and fluid refusal occurring, of assessments of mental capacity, of mental state, and under Rule 35, and the conduct of these where indicated, as well as ensuring compliance with Adults at Risk in Immigration Detention policy and making sure that decisions made in relation to these are recorded;
• the notification to the Home Office of the numbers of detained people refusing food and fluid, and the reasons for such refusal, on a monthly basis (in the same way that incidents of self-harm are notified); and
• the monitoring by the Home Office of the compliance by healthcare providers with Detention Services Order 03/2017 and the numbers of detained people refusing food and fluid, and the reasons for such refusal, in order to identify any patterns of concern and take appropriate action.

The Home Office must ensure that mandatory training about the application of the updated detention services order takes place on a regular (at least annual) basis for all detention staff and healthcare staff, as well as those responsible for managing them. Attendance must be mandatory for all staff working in immigration removal centres and those responsible for managing them. The training must be subject to an assessment.

In anticipation of the update to Detention Services Order 03/2017, the Home Office must issue an immediate instruction to communicate this clarification to those operating immigration detention centres.

Recommendation 19: Guidance and training for healthcare staff on the use of force

The Home Office must ensure that guidance is issued to healthcare staff in immigration removal centres clarifying their role in use of force incidents. It must liaise as necessary with NHS England and any relevant medical regulators.

The Home Office must ensure that mandatory training is introduced for healthcare staff, and those responsible for managing them, on their roles and responsibilities in relation to planned and unplanned use of force (liaising with NHS England and any other relevant parties). The training must be subject to an assessment.

Recommendation 20: Updating guidance regarding ‘fit to fly and fit for detention’ letters

The Home Office must review and update Detention Services Order 01/2016: The Protection, Use and Sharing of Medical Information Relating to People Detained Under Immigration Powers, to ensure that guidance given to GPs working in the immigration detention estate in relation to their duties and responsibilities in writing ‘fit to fly and fit for detention’ letters is clear. It must liaise with NHS England and any relevant medical regulators as necessary.

The Home Office must ensure that training about the updated guidance takes place on a regular (at least annual) basis for GPs working in the immigration detention estate and those responsible for managing them. The training must be subject to an assessment. The Home Office must monitor compliance with this updated guidance at least annually.

Recommendation 21: Ensuring effective communication of medical information

The Home Office must review and update Detention Services Order 04/2020: Mental Vulnerability and Immigration Detention: Non-Clinical Guidance to set out comprehensive guidance for detention and healthcare staff where there are concerns that a detained person is suffering mental ill health or lacks mental capacity. This must include an appropriate system for:

• the routine handover or sharing of relevant information between detention custody staff and healthcare staff (for example, in Security Information Reports and Anti-Bullying Support Plans); ● the identification and follow-up of missed medical appointments; ● the assessment of mental capacity where indicated; and
• mental health assessment where indicated. The Home Office must ensure that training about the updated guidance takes place on a regular (at least annual) basis for detention and healthcare staff, as well as those responsible for managing them. The training must be subject to an assessment.

Recommendation 22: Improving the handling and audit of healthcare complaints

The Home Office must review and update Detention Services Order 03/2015: Handling of Complaints to ensure that appropriate guidance is given to healthcare providers on the investigation and handling of complaints specific to the provision of healthcare in an immigration detention setting.

The Home Office must ensure that training about the updated guidance takes place on a regular (at least annual) basis for staff dealing with healthcare complaints, as well as those responsible for managing them. The training must be subject to an assessment.

Healthcare providers in immigration removal centres must ensure that all healthcare complaints are robustly investigated in accordance with the updated guidance. The methodology and outcomes must be clearly communicated, including to the detained person. They must also ensure that appropriate, regular (at least annual) training and guidance is provided to those holding responsibility for the investigation of healthcare complaints.

Recommendation 23: Ongoing assessment of staffing levels

The Home Office and contractors operating immigration removal centres must ensure that there is ongoing assessment of staffing levels (at least on a quarterly basis), so that the level of staff present within each centre is appropriate for the size and needs of the detained population.

The Home Office must also ensure that the detained population does not increase at any immigration centre unless staffing is at an adequate level.

Recommendation 24: Mandatory training for immigration removal centre staff

The Home Office, in conjunction with contractors, must ensure that all relevant immigration removal centre staff receive mandatory introductory and annual training on:

• mental health;
• race and diversity;
• a trauma-informed approach;
• their own resilience;
• drug awareness; and
• the purpose of immigration removal centres.

This training must include the perspectives of, or be conducted in consultation with, detained people.

The Home Office must also ensure, in conjunction with contractors, that new joiners must start on probation on completion of introductory training and be adequately supervised for a period of time as necessary to establish their competence to work independently.

Recommendation 25: Improving the visibility of senior managers within centres

Contractors operating immigration removal centres must ensure that senior managers are regularly present and visible within the immigration removal centre and are accessible to more junior detention staff.

Recommendation 26: Improving the visibility of Home Office staff

The Home Office must ensure that its staff are regularly present and visible within each immigration removal centre.

Recommendation 27: Developing a healthy culture among staff

Contractors operating immigration removal centres must develop and implement an action plan to ensure a safe and healthy staff culture in immigration removal centres. The action plan must address:

• the identification of and response to any sign of desensitisation among staff;
• training staff on coping mechanisms and secondary trauma awareness; and
• maintaining an appropriate balance between care and safety or security. The Home Office must regularly monitor each contractor’s compliance with their action plans.

Recommendation 28: Action to address barriers to making complaints

The Home Office and its contractors operating immigration removal centres must take steps to identify and address the barriers to making complaints that are faced by detained people, including a fear of repercussions. This must include training for staff on their role in enabling detained people to overcome these barriers.

Recommendation 29: Improving investigations by the Home Office Professional Standards Unit

The Home Office must update Detention Services Order 03/2015: Handling of Complaints to clarify that, in investigations carried out by the Professional Standards Unit into allegations of serious misconduct against contractor staff:

• Professional Standards Unit investigators must carry out interviews themselves and not rely on contractors to do so.
• All staff against whom allegations are made must be invited to interview.
• Where there are inconsistencies between any accounts given of events, any evidence relating to those accounts (including footage and documentation) obtained by an investigating officer must be shown to the complainant and to the subject of the complaint, prior to reaching a conclusion.
• The Professional Standards Unit must be given information about previous complaints made against alleged perpetrators, including unsubstantiated complaints.
• Previous disciplinary action against alleged perpetrators must be taken into account.
• Investigators must look for evidence that is both supportive and undermining of the complaint.
• Full reports must be sent to complainants (and their solicitors if applicable).
• Investigation reports and/or outcome letters must be sent directly from the PSU to complainants (and their solicitors if applicable).

The Home Office Professional Standards Unit must ensure that training about the updated guidance takes place on a regular (at least annual) basis for staff dealing with investigations, as well as those responsible for managing them. The training must be subject to an assessment. The Professional Standards Unit must also review the training provided to investigators and ensure that investigators receive regular and adequate training, from a variety of perspectives, on issues including:

• the nature of immigration removal centres and issues that may arise;
• obstacles that detained people may face in making complaints;
• interviewing vulnerable witnesses; and
• use of force and assessing reasonableness of force.

Recommendation 30: Improving the independence of the Home Office Professional Standards Unit

The Home Office must:

• take steps to enhance the independence of the Professional Standards Unit from the Home Office and the perception of this independence; and
• increase the seniority of the Head of the Professional Standards Unit so that they are closer in status to the Heads of the relevant Home Office Immigration Enforcement teams.

Recommendation 31: Improving the process for and response to whistleblowing

The Home Office must update Detention Services Order 03/2020: Whistleblowing – The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 to require contractors that run immigration removal centres to:

• have a whistleblowing policy and procedure that is specific to the immigration detention environment;
• ensure that the whistleblowing mechanism is not limited to a hotline and allows for anonymous reporting of concerns;
• ensure that those who receive whistleblowing concerns have an understanding of immigration removal centres;
• take active steps to encourage staff to use whistleblowing processes, for reasons including those set out at paragraph 10 of Detention Services Order 03/2020; and
• ensure that whistleblowing concerns are investigated thoroughly by someone external to the immigration removal centre, and that the Home Office is informed of the nature of the concern and the investigation carried out.

The Home Office must ensure that training about the updated guidance takes place on a regular (at least annual) basis for staff dealing with whistleblowing, as well as those responsible for managing them. The training must be subject to an assessment.

Recommendation 32: Enhancing the role of the Independent Monitoring Boards

The government must:

• respond to and publish responses to all concerns raised by any Independent Monitoring Board regarding immigration removal centres;
• take steps without further delay to amend the Detention Centre Rules 2001, in so far as they govern Independent Monitoring Boards, in order to accurately reflect their current role; and
• consider whether to put the National Chair and Management Board of the Independent Monitoring Boards on a statutory footing.

Recommendation 33: Improving the investigation and reporting of HM Inspectorate of Prisons and Independent Monitoring Boards

HM Inspectorate of Prisons and Independent Monitoring Boards working within immigration removal centres must ensure that they have robust processes for:

• obtaining and reporting on an enhanced range of evidence and intelligence from detained people and those who represent or support them, staff and contractors, including that which is received outside of inspections or visits; and
• reporting on any concerns about the Home Office and contractors.

The reforms since Brook House abuse in 2017

The Home Office have stated that they have introduced reforms in IRC in the UK since 2017, including:

• Improved and rigorous training for all IRC staff on the use of force, with regular monitoring and reviews on staff and providers’ training.
• Introducing the Home Office Detention Gatekeeper to independently assess the suitability of those referred for detention.
• Case Progression Panels to consider whether continuing detention is appropriate, including independent panel members.
• More Home Office staff in IRCs, and a higher ratio of provider staff to detained individuals.
• Putting an immediate stop to three people occupying rooms designed for two.
• Reinforcing the use of whistleblowing mechanisms.
• Rigorous oversight of our contractors ensuring any complaints, incidents or use of force are properly investigated by senior managers.
• Improved training and support for staff working with vulnerable people.

The Home Office have expressed that they have implemented steps across IRC to improve oversight of providers. They also stated that they closely monitor performance of their providers across IRCs and accept nothing but the highest standards. From Brook House’s Independent Monitoring Board (IMB) in 2022, it was expressed that residents at Brook House were generally within a safe environment, suggesting that standards have improved since the report was commissioned.

The IMB went on to say that there had been a general improvement in governance and monitoring of safeguarding, with more attention to detail in management of the use of force.

What safeguarding and oversight measures are in place at the Home Office?

The Home Office have stated that there are robust safeguarding measures in place to ensure anyone in IRC is treated with dignity and has access to the support they need.

The Home Office went on to express that all IRCs have dedicated health facilities run by doctors and nurses commissioned by NHS England and delivered to the equivalent standards as community health services.

The Home Office have stated that they have dedicated welfare teams in all sites who can promptly deal with any instances of mental health or illness.

The Home Office have expressed that staff at all IRC are trained to identify and prevent the risk of suicide and self-harm. Notices in various languages are displayed in all IRC, to encourage any concerns about a fellow detained person to be brought to the attention of a member of staff. The staff are rigorously trained to ensure the safety of residents, including on the appropriate use of force.

The Home Office have stated that force must only be used as a last resort, and for the shortest possible time. Physical force will be used only after a thorough risk assessment and in consideration of an individual’s personal circumstances.

Our Solicitor’s thoughts

I do think recommendations by Kate Eves are good enough to tackle issues outlined in the Brook House Inquiry. Hopefully we will see positive changes to how all IRCs are run.

However, I have always felt, and still believe following the Brook House Inquiry, that detention is not appropriate to maintaining immigration controls by removing those who have no right to remain in the UK. I have always felt that there are other alternatives to detention such as the enforcement of reasonable and regular reporting to an immigration officer.

Have questions about this article? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, our phone lines are open and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

Or, download our free app! You can launch an enquiry, scan over documents, check progress on your case and much more!

iPhone version.

Android version.

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

By Victor Falcon Mmegwa

This article is a more detailed follow up to our instant report on 19^th September about the Home Office response to the Brook House Inquiry. In this article, we will go into more detail about the Inquiry, as well as take a look at some of the recommendations made by Kate Eves, the Chair of the Brook House Inquiry. Stay tuned for part 2, which will look at the remainder of the recommendations made by Eves.

In their response to the inquiry, the Home Office confirmed that the abuse that took place at Brook House in 2017 was unacceptable.

The Home Office went on to say that they have made significant improvements since 2017 to uphold the welfare and dignity of those detained. This includes strengthening safeguards, promoting a culture of transparency and improving the oversight of contractors’ performance.

The Home Office stated that they remain committed to ensuring safety and security in all Immigration Removal Centres and to learn the lessons from Brook House to ensure these events never happen again.

A report published on 19 September 2023 by Kate Eves presented the results of a full investigation into the mistreatment of detainees at Brook House immigration removal centre (IRC). This was initiated by a BBC Panorama programme which was broadcasted in 2017 and saw an investigation take place between 1 April 2017 and 31 August 2017 at the IRC Brook House. At the time, the IRC was operated by the private contractor G4S.

The report disclosed a “toxic” culture at the IRC, with evidence that detainees suffered mistreatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It was described that IRC Brook House was prison-like and unsuitable for detaining people. Staff used force inappropriately, as well as dehumanising, abusive, racist and derogatory language. The report also disclosed that the management was dysfunctional.

The Brook House Inquiry has exposed the inexcusable and immoral abuse of vulnerable people held in IRC by the Home Office. The Inquiry found the safeguarding system in IRC to be dysfunctional resulting in a failure to protect detained people as intended. The Inquiry disclosed that vulnerable people were exposed to the risk of mistreatment and were subjected to actual harm. There were 19 incidents of credible breaches of Article 3 of the ECHR, which prohibits torture, inhuman and degrading treatment within a 5-month period.

Detained people were found to have been allowed to deteriorate in their mental and physical health. Such failures were found to be connected with the inappropriate use of segregation and a quick resort to the use of force to manage incidents of self-harm and mental health crises. The Inquiry expressed that healthcare failures put vulnerable people at risk of deteriorating in their health, and example of mistreatment.

Kate Eves made a number of important recommendations on the IRC in general, including the introduction of a 28-day time limit.

Kate Eves recommendations

Recommendation 1: Robust monitoring of contract performance

The Home Office must actively and robustly monitor the performance of the Brook House contract, including satisfying itself that any self-reported information is accurate. This may include engagement with monitoring bodies and appropriate stakeholders. Penalties must be attached to inadequate self-reporting.

Recommendation 2: Contractual term requiring compliance with the overriding purpose of Rule 3 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001

The Home Office must ensure that each contract for the management of an immigration removal centre must expressly require compliance with the overriding purpose of Rule 3, which is to provide “the secure but humane accommodation of detained persons in a relaxed regime with as much freedom of movement and association as possible, consistent with maintaining a safe and secure environment, and to encourage and assist detained persons to make the most productive use of their time, whilst respecting in particular their dignity and the right to individual expression”. The provisions and operation of each contract must be consistent with and uphold the requirements of the Detention Centre Rules 2001, the Adults at Risk in Immigration Detention policy and the safeguards contained in detention services orders (including those concerning the use of force).

Recommendation 3: Limit on cell sharing

The Home Office must ensure that a maximum of two detained people are accommodated in each cell at Brook House

Recommendation 4: Ensuring computer and internet access

The Home Office and its contractors must ensure reasonable access to computers and the internet. Contractors must comply in full with Detention Services Order 04/2016: Detainee Access to the Internet, in particular:

• Computers and the internet provided for detained people’s use must be maintained and fixed, if broken, within a reasonable time period, in order to allow detained people to access the internet for a minimum of seven hours per day, seven days per week.
• Websites containing personal internet-based email accounts must not be blocked, since this is not a prohibited category of website.
• Websites facilitating the provision of legal advice and representation must not be blocked, as this is not a prohibited category of website.

Recommendation 5: Undertaking and complying with cell‑sharing risk assessment

The Home Office must ensure that adequate risk assessment for cell sharing is carried out by contractors in relation to every detained person. This must be done at the outset of detention and then repeated at reasonable intervals (at least every 14 days) or following any relevant change in circumstances. In the event that an immigration removal centre is unable to detain someone in accordance with the outcome of a risk assessment (due to capacity or for other reasons), the Home Office must ensure that the individual does not remain at that centre.

Recommendation 6: Review of the lock-in regime

The Home Office, in consultation with the contractor responsible for operating each immigration removal centre, must review the current lockin regime and determine whether the period of time during which detained people are locked in their cells could be reduced. The Inquiry does not consider cost alone to be a sufficient justification for extensive lock-in periods.

Recommendation 7: A time limit on detention

The government must introduce in legislation a maximum 28-day time limit on any individual’s detention within an immigration removal centre.

Recommendation 8: Mandatory training on Rule 34 and Rule 35 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001

The Home Office (in collaboration with NHS England as required) must ensure that comprehensive training on Rule 34 and Rule 35 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001 is rolled out urgently across the immigration detention estate. Staff must be subject to refresher training, at least annually. Attendance must be mandatory for all staff working in immigration removal centres and those responsible for managing them, as well as GPs and relevant Home Office staff. Consideration must be given as to whether such training should be subject to an assessment.

Recommendation 9: Review of the operation of Rule 35 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001

The Home Office must, across the immigration detention estate, assure itself that all three limbs of Rule 35 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001 (reports by a medical practitioner where: (i) it is likely that a detained person’s health would be injuriously affected by continued detention (Rule 35(1)); (ii) it is suspected that a detained person has suicidal intentions (Rule 35(2)); or (iii) there is a concern that a detained person may have been a victim of torture (Rule 35(3))) are being followed, are operating effectively and are adequately resourced, in recognition of the key safeguarding role that the Rule plays. The Home Office must also regularly audit the use of Rule 35 in order to identify trends, any training needs and required improvements.

Recommendation 10: Clarification on the use of Rule 40 and Rule 42 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001

The Home Office must amend, as a matter of urgency, Detention Services Order 02/2017: Removal from Association (Detention Centre Rule 40) and Temporary Confinement (Detention Centre Rule 42) and, if necessary, the Detention Services Operating Standards Manual for Immigration Service Removal Centres, to clarify who can authorise use of Rule 40 and Rule 42 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001, in both urgent and non-urgent circumstances, including providing a definition of the term ‘manager’ in Rule 40(2) and Rule 42(2). In anticipation of the update to Detention Services Order 02/2017, the Home Office must issue an immediate instruction to communicate this clarification to staff and contractors operating immigration detention centres.

Recommendation 12: Training in relation to Rule 40 and Rule 42 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001

The Home Office and contractors operating immigration removal centres must provide regular training, at least annually, on the operation of Rule 40 and Rule 42 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001, which must include:

• that Rules 40 and 42 are the only powers under which detained people in immigration removal centres can be removed from association and/or located in temporary confinement;
• who is permitted to authorise use of those Rules and in what circumstances they may be authorised;
• that Rules 40 and 42 cannot be used as a punishment or solely for administrative convenience before a planned removal or transfer; and
• the need to assess any adverse effect that use of Rule 40 or Rule 42 could have on a detained person’s physical or mental health, and to consider any steps that could be taken to mitigate those effects. Attendance must be mandatory for all staff working in immigration removal centres and those responsible for managing them. The training must be subject to an assessment.

Recommendation 13: Audit of use of Rule 40 and Rule 42 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001

The Home Office must regularly (and at least quarterly) audit the use of Rule 40 and Rule 42 across the immigration detention estate, in order to identify trends, any training needs and required improvements. In addition, HM Inspectorate of Prisons and the National Chair and Management Board of Independent Monitoring Boards must review processes to consider how they fulfil their oversight role in respect of Rule 40 and Rule 42, and report on the monitoring of the use of Rules 40 and 42 going forward.

Recommendation 14: Handcuffing behind backs while seated

The Home Office and contractors operating immigration removal centres must ensure that all staff are aware that the technique of handcuffing detained people with their hands behind their back while seated is not permitted, given its association with positional asphyxia.

Recommendation 15: A new detention services order about the use of force

The Home Office must introduce, as a matter of urgency, a new and comprehensive detention services order to address use of force in immigration removal centres. The detention services order must include the following issues:

• the permissible justifications for the use of force within immigration removal centres, based on the key principle that force must not be used unnecessarily and must be used only as a last resort;
• the use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), including that it must be subject to a dynamic risk assessment before and during any use of force incident;
• the protection of dignity when force is used on a naked or near-naked detained person;
• the circumstances in which force can be used against a detained person with mental ill health; and
• monitoring, oversight and reporting of use of force by contractors and by the Home Office. The Home Office must ensure that training about the application of the new detention services order and use of force techniques takes place on a regular (at least annual) basis for all detention staff as well as healthcare staff. Attendance must be mandatory for all staff working in immigration removal centres and those responsible for managing them. The training must be subject to an assessment.

In anticipation of a new detention services order on the use of force in immigration detention, the Home Office must issue an immediate instruction to its contractors managing immigration removal centres that force must be used only as a last resort, using approved techniques.

Recommendation 16: Urgent review of use of force on detained people with mental ill health

The Home Office must urgently commission an independent review (with the power to make recommendations) of use of force on detained people with mental ill health within immigration removal centres. The review must consider:

• how, when and whether to use force on detained people with mental ill health (including the application of pain-inducing techniques);
• the likely effect of the use of force on a detained person’s mental health;
• the use of individual risk assessments for detained people, which could be conducted by personal officers and healthcare professionals; and
• the increased use and prioritisation of de-escalation techniques for those who have mental ill health. The review must take place in consultation with relevant stakeholders, including detained people’s representative groups and mental ill health experts.

The recommendations of the review must be incorporated in the new detention services order regarding the use of force (see Recommendation 15), in respect of which additional, regular (at least annual) training must then be provided.

A statement by the Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, in response to the Inquiry’s report states: “The Government takes the welfare and safety of those we detain very seriously and has made significant improvements to immigration detention since the dates covered by the Inquiry. … We will carefully consider the findings of this Inquiry in its detailed report, including the recommendations in relation to the management of the immigration detention estate and the welfare of detained individuals.”

This concludes part 1 of our look at the Brook House IRC Inquiry. The next article in the series will focus on the second half of the recommendations made by Kate Eves in the report.

iPhone version.

Android version.

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio