---

Asylum Seekers

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who is my constituency neighbour, on securing this debate on this very important issue. Also, I welcome her strong support for firm and fair immigration control. I can pay testament to her reputation as a robust and effective constituency MP in dealing with immigration and other matters. Furthermore, because our offices inevitably collaborate on certain issues, I know that she has an excellent team of staff supporting her in her work. My hon. Friend raises a number of issues and I will do my best to respond to them in as much detail as I can in the time available. She raised issues generally about the allegations of abuse, particularly about private security companies and their work; about targets; about allegations of racist abuse and other abuse; and concerns from the airlines. As I say, I will try to cover all those points in the time available. I slightly take issue with my hon. Friend's suggestion that the removals are target-driven. Each case to decide whether someone has a right to an asylum claim is dealt with completely on its individual merits. The point at which someone is removed is when they have refused all attempts to require them to leave voluntarily. So they will have gone through the full legal process to determine whether their claim is valid in the first place. At the point at which their claim is refused, they always have the option, at any point, to go voluntarily. I am sure that, like myself, my hon. Friend has people in her surgeries who present themselves and ask for support to return. We have a very good voluntary returns programme. It was criticised in the media over the weekend for being too generous, but it is important to recognise that that programme enables people to leave voluntarily and is cheaper, quicker and affords people more dignity than if they are removed forcibly. It is important that we continue with that voluntary removal programme. The Prime Minister set a target to remove 4,000 foreign national prisoners this year, but that was a target for foreign national prisoners and I think that we would all agree that we need to remove people who are a danger to the country. If some of those individuals should resist removal, we have a right and a responsibility to tackle their resistance proportionately. We certainly cannot have a situation whereby just because somebody resists removal, they are able to stay. We will always pursue removal of those with no right to be here, but we would encourage them at every step of the way to seek a voluntary removal. In our last debate in Westminster Hall, my hon. Friend and I debated the issue of children in detention. I invite her to come and visit the scheme that we have begun just this month whereby we enable children and their families to live in a type of hostel environment rather than going into detention, in an attempt to encourage voluntary removal. I am sure that she would be interested to visit that scheme, either alongside myself or on her own, or indeed with my hon. Friend the Minister for Borders and Immigration, who is due to visit shortly. She may wish to go along with him on that visit. It is important in this debate just to outline some of the challenges that are faced in dealing with removals. Clearly, there is going to be a core of people who are not keen to return to their home country and yet they have gone through every legal process and they no longer have a right to remain in the country. For the benefit of the House, I want to outline some of the measures that people resort to in order physically to resist removals. Such measures can start with passive resistance, but then move on to active fighting. They include refusing to leave the removal centre, refusing to board or leave escort vans, verbally or physically abusing escort staff, taking off clothing, defecating and spitting, and dirty protests in the holding room, on the vehicle to the airport or on the plane. Sadly—although it does not happen too often—parents have occasionally threatened to harm their children if placed on a plane. Such are the difficult challenges faced by those seeking to remove people. We all agree that they should not use inappropriate force, but they are dealing in many cases with quite difficult situations. My hon. Friend asked how many removals fail because airlines will not carry those being removed. Clearly, some of the protest methods that I listed, such as dirty protests and violence, would make it difficult for an airline to carry someone. Last year, 6 per cent. of removals ended in failure because of an airline's refusal to carry. There are issues, but we cannot allow someone to remain in the country just because they resist removal, as my hon. Friend will agree. We must ensure that proportionate measures are in place. She asked about training for people assisting removals. All are trained to prison service control and restraint standards as a condition of their employment. It is not a job that any of us, when elected to office, think—