Beverly Hughes denies 'public enquiry' into Yarl's Wood fire in spite of requests from Bedfordshire MPs.

"I do not feel that a full public inquiry is the best way of getting the information that we need into the public domain at the earliest opportunity" Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes)

     During a debate on the Yarl's Wood fire in the House of Commons   (Westminster Hall Tuesday 16th September 2003 ), Alistair Burt raised serious concerns, including the competence of Group 4, and about the re-opening of Yarl's Wood under their management. 

House of Commons Westminster Hall Tuesday 16th September 2003 :

Yarl's Wood Fire

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Nicholas Winterton): Order. The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who has initated this debate, is an experienced and long-serving Member and an ex-Minister. He will be aware that certain matters are covered by the sub judice resolution of the House. In particular, that resolution applies to any reference to matters relevant to outstanding criminal charges, which in the present case may include the performance of Group 4, which operates the centre. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear that advice in mind.

Alistair Burt (North-East Bedfordshire): Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I appreciate that advice and will do my utmost to stick to it and ensure that any references fall entirely within the rule.

I am thankful that this debate on such an important subject has been allowed, and I appreciate the attendance of the Minister and the attention of her office in the past few days to ensure that she would be briefed about what I would be asking. This is no attempt at an ambush. I appreciate her interest, because I know that she intends to try to provide the best possible answers to my questions. I also acknowledge the presence of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall), who has had a considerable interest in the matter for a long time. We share a number of concerns over the issue.

Briefly, this is the story so far. Yarl's Wood was designed as the largest asylum, detention and removal centre in Europe, and was opened in my constituency in November 2001. It was several months late and built at an unknown cost-questions about the cost are deferred, owing to commercial confidentiality, to which I shall return. The centre was run on behalf of the Home Office by Group 4, which had also been part of the private consortium that had designed, built and insured it under the authority and, presumably, the supervision of the Home Office and the immigration service.

On 14 February 2002, barely weeks after opening, one half of Yarl's Wood was burned down and completely destroyed, following an incident of disorder. There were 385 detainees on site at the time, which was less than half of the 900 that the centre could have held when fully operational. Injuries were mercifully slight all round-one security officer was hospitalised with a broken pelvis after leaping from an upstairs window in fear for his life. A number of security officers remain affected by the incident and there were minor injuries elsewhere. A number of detainees escaped in the confusion. Although there were fears that some had died, an exhaustive police search of debris concluded that, mercifully, this was not the case.

The fire was a disaster and the Home Secretary came within a hair's breadth of seeing major loss of life. That was through sheer good fortune, as the chain of events that led to the incident was a series of errors and incompetence. As a result and due to the potentially serious consequences, in terms of loss of life, and the real financial consequences, I am bringing the issue back to the Chamber today.

Following the incident, there were further significant developments. Most bizarrely, the private insurers of Yarl's Wood, having presumably collected fat premiums for their trouble, decided to sue the blameless Bedfordshire police under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 for upwards of £100 million. That may be business, but it is shameful. The police are vigorously contesting the claim and the Government, belatedly, are examining whether the Act has outlived its usefulness. Although the outcome remains in doubt, my constituents are acutely aware that they will technically be liable to the bill if the private insurers win. In passing, will the Minister say whether the Crown is joined in any way in that action? If so, I should like to know which side it is on, as it has an interest in Yarl's Wood that is insured, I understand, by the same insurance syndicate.

An internal Home Office inquiry commenced after the fire. That, however, was doomed to failure, as the Home Secretary was advised. It took some limited evidence in secret and reported in secret to the Home Secretary in September 2002. The report could not be published because of the next significant event-the criminal trial of those accused of violent disorder and arson at the centre. The trial concluded this August after about four months. Of the 10 accused people in the dock, only two were convicted-neither of them for arson. The trial concluded with a series of startling allegations of incompetence made against Group 4 not by the defence but by the prosecution, the Crown. I shall refer to that obliquely later.

In summary, 18 months after the fire we do not know what led up to it, who started it, precisely what happened on the night or who is liable to pay for the damage. To its great credit, Bedfordshire county council held its select committee inquiry in public. The report was published in the summer of last year and raised important questions. It could not compel witnesses, however, and as the criminal trial had yet to take place, critical evidence was sub judice and could not be given. Accordingly, now that the major criminal trial is out of the way, it is time to take the next steps and bring the matter to the Floor of the House again.

I shall ask the Minister about a series of major issues, on all of which her staff have been briefed. First, there should be a full public inquiry. The appointment of Stephen Shaw as prisons ombudsman, to pick up where Mr. Stephen Moore of the Home Office left off, is a good appointment. However, to justify what he is going to do, he must hold meetings in public and he must cross-examine. That is because we are now aware of a series of contradictions over potentially serious incidents, which must be dealt with. I shall mention two.

The first is the decision whether to fit sprinklers in the building. The former acting chief fire officer of Bedfordshire, Jeff Goddard, gave written evidence to the Bedfordshire county council inquiry. He said that he was at a meeting about sprinklers with Home Office officials at which the issue was absolutely one of cost. The decision not to fit sprinklers was in his opinion made purely on the grounds of cost. That is not what the Home Office says. Which is right? It is only for the independent inspector examining witnesses in public to determine the answer.

Secondly, there is confusion about the chain of events on the night, particularly whether the police had access to the Yarl's Wood site at a time of their choosing as opposed to a time of Group 4's choosing. Having spoken to Group 4 and the police, I am now in possession of two completely contradictory accounts of that vital time. Again, which is right? That is of major importance. If the police had been allowed on site at the time when they say that they asked for access, the incident might have been dealt with before the fires were started and before the tremendous cost that resulted and the danger to people. Is that the case or not? We do not know. I maintain that that should be brought out in public, so that the public can see people examined to determine the answer.

Will the inquiries be held in public? Will the inspector be able to cross-examine? Will he be able to compel witnesses to come? Does the Minister agree, and will she back him in his efforts to hold meetings in public? While she is about it, will she now publish the Stephen Moore report that came to the Home Secretary last year?

Mr. Patrick Hall (Bedford): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the issue is not just whether the inquiry is held in public but whether it is a judicial inquiry? If it is not, we may be in exactly the same situation, with a revamped Home Office overarching internal inquiry, as we have been during the past year or so, for the very reason that the criminal investigations have not yet been completed. The reasons for the delay and the eventual demise of the first part of the inquiry could remain relevant today, whereas a judicial inquiry might be able to open up matters a little.

Alistair Burt: I am entirely with the hon. Gentleman. It is vital that the inquiry has the opportunity to delve into all the facts. Although I welcome the appointment of Stephen Shaw, who will be more independent than the previous official appointed, I have no doubt that the powers sought by the hon. Gentleman are the correct ones. I, too, want a judicial inquiry. I hope that the Minister can respond to that.

On my second issue, will the Minister say that commercial confidentiality will not be a defence for anyone who is required to give information to the inquiry? I referred earlier to the fire and the fact that the buildings were destroyed very quickly. The construction of the Yarl's Wood buildings and the way they caught fire and were destroyed so quickly are major issues. The point is simple: the loss of the buildings, and the allegations about the competence of those who were running the centre, mean, in my view, that the right to stand on commercial confidentiality should be forfeited. My constituents, and everyone who has already paid for Yarl's Wood and will do so again, are entitled to know how much it costs us and who is pocketing all the money.
An incident that illustrates my argument has been reported in the Bedfordshire on Sunday newspaper. It published an allegation that the cost of the sprinklers, which was originally considered to be about £750,000, jumped to about £14 million at the time when the Home Office rejected efforts to have them installed. Why did the amount rise so rapidly? What were the costings for the sprinklers? We do not know. Why not? I think that the public are entitled to know the cost of construction, operation, maintenance and insurance at Yarl's Wood. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that it will not be possible for any of the companies involved to rely on commercial confidentiality to continue to hide the true cost of Yarl's Wood from the British public and my constituents.

Thirdly, I should like the Minister to ask the inquiry-judicial or otherwise-to extend its remit to include the allegations made about Group 4 at the end of the criminal trial. For the reasons that you suggested, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall not go into the allegations in detail. However, it was curious that the allegations were made not only by the defence but by the Crown. They are serious and go to the heart of the integrity of the company. The company was not represented at the trial and had no opportunity to defend itself. If the allegations are true, Group 4 should not be running anything. If they are not, an apology is required. I do not think that the matter can be satisfactorily settled until the allegations have been properly examined and that is why the remit of the inquiry should be extended.

Fourthly, and consequent on what I have said, Yarl's Wood should not be reopened until the matter relating to the competence with which it has been run has been dealt with. Yarl's Wood is shortly to reopen. A series of consultations has been held and I appreciate the efforts of the Home Office, on this occasion, to tell local residents what is intended, who will be housed at Yarl's Wood and how it will be run. My constituents appreciate that too. However, the overriding issue is whether, in view of the allegations made about Group 4, it should be running the establishment at all. The county council, local councillors and the local liaison committee, which has worked hard on the issue from the outset, often in co-operation with the Home Office, agree with me that the centre should not be reopened. I should therefore appreciate it if the Minister, even at this late stage, would tell us that until allegations about the competence with which the Yarl's Wood centre was run have been cleared up, it would be unsafe to reopen it.

Finally, I ask the Minister for a commitment to complete openness by the Home Office and the immigration service, on questions that will be raised during the inquiry. There are serious charges to be made against the Home Office and the immigration service, and I shall run through some of them-in no particular order, and without expecting an answer to every one.
The Home Office changed its policy in autumn 2001 so that asylum detainees would no longer be held in prison. Did that lead to the placing of inappropriate detainees at Yarl's Wood? When the Home Secretary visited Yarl's Wood in March 2002, he certainly referred to inappropriate detainees being placed there. When Yarl's Wood was first opened, local residents were told that the low level of security and the light regime were entirely appropriate because the detainees to be placed there required low security and were a low risk. If the policy changed during the autumn, without that being made known to the local residents or me, and inappropriate detainees were placed at Yarl's Wood, did that contribute to what happened subsequently?

Will the Minister publish the names of everyone who was at Yarl's Wood during the short period from November 2001 to February 2002? Had some of those people been in prison? Had they been involved in previous disturbances, and if so, were they involved in the disturbances at Yarl's Wood? Had Bedfordshire police offered to run background checks on everyone who was being brought to Yarl's Wood, particularly if
they had been in the UK for a period of time and something was known about them? If that offer was made, was it refused by the immigration service? Is it true that Group 4 was required to take everyone that the immigration service brought to Yarl's Wood regardless of whether it had any information on their background or not?

What responsibility does the Home Office take for the matters relating to Group 4 complained about at the trial concerning the design and build of the centre, training and the running of operations there? Was the Home Office involved in the allegations made by the Crown at the trial that appeared to some to deflect attention away from the Home Office and on to Group 4? What happened to all those who escaped from Yarl's Wood? What happened to those detainees who were deported?

Is there any truth in the suggestion that some of the detainees who were deported could subsequently have been charged with offences, including arson, that might have led to the conviction of someone for the fire started at Yarl's Wood? Will the Minister tell us of the latest situation in relation to the outstanding legal matters concerning Yarl's Wood, further criminal trials, and the conduct of further civil litigation?

I am sorry to put such a number of questions to the Minister, who I know will endeavour to do her best to deal with them, but she will appreciate that for me, and the hon. Member for Bedford, Yarl's Wood remains a serious matter. The Minister knows that I have every sympathy for her in dealing with issues affecting asylum and immigration in the UK at the moment. That is exceptionally difficult. She also knows that I support the policy that those who have had their claims denied will have to be returned, and some of those people may have to be held before they are returned. Because of that, and the rolling out of centres intended to hold people in such circumstances, it is vital that we get it right. What happened at Yarl's Wood was a disaster; things went badly wrong. To give full confidence in the system in future, we might as well be as open as we can now about what happened. I put it to the Minister that the series of suggestions that the hon. Gentleman and I have made give her the best opportunity to do just that. I would appreciate her response.

The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes): I know that it is customary to do so, but I genuinely congratulate the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) on securing another debate on this important issue. I thank him for the energetic way that he has represented the legitimate concerns of his constituents and the constructive way he has taken up some very difficult issues, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall). I also note your important guidance at the start of the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for which I am grateful. Finally, I thank the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire for his assistance in preparing for the debate. I shall need further advice on some of those questions, particularly the ones that he raised latterly. I shall write to him about those, but I shall try to cover most of the important points in my reply today.

I appreciate that the events at Yarl's Wood on 14 February 2002 are still of great interest and concern, not only to local people, but to myself, officials in the Home Office and the Home Secretary. He is right to say that we need to ensure that we move on and do not repeat whatever mistakes were made that led to those events. I am determined to do that. I understand and share the disappointment that there were not convictions for arson despite the seriousness of those events. Clearly, those are matters for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to consider because it is for them to bring charges.

Hon. Members will be aware that the events of February are the subject of an inquiry by Stephen Shaw, the independent prisons and probation ombudsman. I do not want to pre-empt the outcome of his inquiry in any detail, although I want to touch on some of the points that the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire raised. We are some considerable time on, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says. It is not the case that nothing has been done in that time. Lessons have been learned about the design of the building, and management, and that has all been taken into account in reaching today's position.

The hon. Gentleman raised several general but very important issues. The first of those is that Stephen Shaw's inquiry should be conducted in public and that it should be a judicial inquiry. I remind the House that, in the light of the interest that has been shown in this important matter, we decided at the outset that it was preferable for the outcome of the investigation that the proceedings should be fully independent. Stephen Shaw was therefore asked to take overall responsibility from Stephen Moore, with the same terms of reference, and to bring the matter to a conclusion. The decision followed careful consideration of the work that Stephen Moore had done, and it was in line with the original commitment to have an independent element. Stephen Shaw will draw on Stephen Moore's work and the material that he gathered, and build on that. I conveyed that information to the House in a written statement in June.

I think that that was a sensible approach and it follows that I do not feel that a full public inquiry is the best way of getting the information that we need into the public domain at the earliest opportunity. The question of whether the evidence should be given in public should turn on whether that method is most likely to get at some of the core issues and contradictions that the hon. Gentleman identified. I have absolute confidence, and I know that he shares this, that Stephen Shaw will do that. He is most likely to be able to do so under the terms of reference that he has accepted. If he comes back to the Home Secretary and me and tells us that he feels constrained, we will have to consider a response to that.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether it should be possible for someone to hide behind commercial confidentiality as a reason for not giving information. I accept the general premise that it should not. If that were to happen, I have no doubt that Stephen Shaw would come back to me. For the hon. Gentleman's information, Stephen Shaw has already been given all the Yarl's Wood contracts and all the documents relating to contracts and costings. He will use those as a basis for the line of questioning that the inquiry will take.
Alistair Burt: Does Mr. Shaw need formal permission from the Minister, or the Home Secretary, to dispense with commercial confidentiality, or can he make that sort of decision and a decision about public hearings on his own? What is the chain of accountability and authority?
Beverley Hughes : We have agreed the terms of reference with Stephen Shaw, and having been given the relevant information he can pursue issues in line with those terms of reference as he wishes. We have decided that the hearings will not be public at the moment. That is the situation unless Stephen Shaw comes back to me and says that he feels constrained, and that we need to rethink any aspect of the conduct and parameters of the inquiry.

Mr. Patrick Hall: On the matter of timing, surely my hon. Friend will agree that the time things will take is a possible constraint. The fact that the matter has gone on for so long without the investigation being completed, never mind anything being published about it, and that further criminal investigations are likely to take place, could lead to months of delays that would not help to restore public confidence. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a constraint?

Beverley Hughes: With the greatest respect, my hon. Friend cannot have it both ways. I know that Stephen Shaw wants to conclude the inquiry in the most comprehensive way that he can in the shortest possible time. A balance is needed. The material gathered by Stephen Moore was very much work in progress, but Stephen Shaw will draw on that and will take the inquiry as far as he needs to to get to the bottom of the important questions being asked. I can assure the Chamber that his report will be published. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that there is a balance there. It is more important for us to get to the bottom of those questions than it is for me to ask Stephen Shaw to rush the inquiry through. When I met him just after he had started his work, we talked about timing and discussed that very point. He will do it in the shortest time he can while feeling that he has done the best work that he can.

On whether the centre should reopen before Stephen Shaw's work is done, I say to my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire that I do not want to delay the reopening of Yarl's Wood any longer than is necessary, but we will obviously take great interest in the results of the inquiry, when it is published.

We have already put in place revised arrangements, which include mandatory fire training and drills. They are witnessed by Home Office officials under a permit-to-use process, and they have to be successfully and satisfactorily completed before the Home Office will allow the building to open. Members already know that sprinklers are being installed throughout the centre together with additional fire-breaks, fire alarms and other associated safety modifications. That work has been undertaken following extensive consultation with other bodies, including Bedfordshire fire and rescue services. Operational procedures have also been scrutinised and enhanced, and improvements have been made to the building's internal security features. Contingency planning is being developed with the police, fire and ambulance services.
We plan to open the undamaged part of Yarl's Wood incrementally. On 28 September, the first phase will open for 60 single women. Following the successful establishment of that group, there will be a progressive reopening of the undamaged part of the centre to accommodate up to 400 people-single women and families-by spring 2005. We are not rushing that. We are introducing it in a planned, progressive and managed way to ensure that it is a success. There will be an incentive scheme to encourage responsible behaviour. Participation in constructive activity has been planned to encourage a safe and controlled environment for detainees and staff.

The hon. Gentleman wants details of detainees who were in Yarl's Wood on 14 February. Whether or not it is right to divulge that information, it would be very difficult to provide it. We would have to go through the files of every detainee to find out who they were and where they came from. That is the information that the hon. Gentleman wants. He wants not only their names, but where they came from. He is concerned that a disproportionate number of people with difficult backgrounds, such as those from prison, ended up in Yarl's Wood after the closure of remand places. I will check, but the policy that he outlined has not changed.
There were 385 people in Yarl's Wood at the time and they came from various sources. Some would have been detained for the first time at a port and brought there, and some would have been brought from other parts of the removal estate. There would have been others from the prison estate, and those dispersed from the prison estate were dispersed around the detention estate. They were not disproportionately placed at Yarl's Wood or any other detention centre.
The spirit of that policy was retained. I will check and write to the hon. Gentleman, but there was no deliberate attempt disproportionately to place difficult people at Yarl's Wood

Alistair Burt: I know that it is late in the debate, but my point was not that a disproportionate number of people may have been sent to Yarl's Wood, but that any were sent there. There was such a low-level and light security regime, that no one from a difficult background should have been sent there.

Beverley Hughes: I need to check the policy commitment at that time. The hon. Gentleman implies that it meant that nobody from the prison estate would be placed in Yarl's Wood. I need to check if that was a policy commitment, and if so, what happened. The hon. Gentleman has asked several questions about checks and about Group 4's requirement to take everyone, and I will write to him about those matters.

I guarantee that Stephen Shaw will have access to all the information that he needs. He will do an excellent job. It will include the behaviour of all concerned, and he is aware of the comments made in court about Group 4. He has asked for a transcript of them and he will deal with them in his investigation. I have assured him that, to assist him in his inquiry, he will receive the full co-operation of the Home Office.