International Escorting of Removals to Rwanda

Guidance and Advice to ICE staff

PCS advise to staff who have undertaken Training in Escorting International Removals, and those considering undertaking that Training in the Future

Background

In MB13/21 (entitled ‘IE Escorting of International Removals’) PCS detailed Departmental proposals to train substantive ICE staff in how to Escort International Removals, as a resource to be utilised if Mitie staff fell ill with Covid and were unable to undertake removals. That briefing also detailed advice to members to consider very carefully before volunteering, as the Department had refused to provide their legal advice, which they claimed stated that staff undertaking International Removals would be covered by existing terms and conditions and legislation, should something go wrong during a removal.

PCS has real concerns that in the event of an injury to a member of staff or a detainee, an allegation of assault, or even simply in the applying of restraint on foreign territory, they would not be covered; and therefore, the advice to members was to consider very carefully before they volunteered.

Rwanda

Members will have seen headlines detailing the Government’s proposals for the removal of asylum applicants from the UK to Rwanda, so their claims can be dealt with there instead of in the UK. Following those announcements PCS met with IE senior managers on 26th April, where we were informed that whilst the majority of removals to Rwanda would be undertaken by Mitie they intended to use the 130-140 ICE officers trained in International Escorted Removals to effect removal when necessary.

PCS Position

As a union PCS are campaigning for a more humane asylum and immigration approach from the government, and also to make the working environment of our members much more pleasant than it is currently. PCS consider the proposed policy of removing asylum applicants to Rwanda to be inhumane, and one likely to cause a great deal of problems for Home Office staff. Previously, our members’ encounters with those crossing the Channel on small boats have been broadly peaceful but they may not remain so if there is a serious threat of removal to Rwanda. Furthermore, existing data suggests that this policy has been attempted by other countries, with little or no success.

Concerns For Staff Welfare Whilst Escorting International Removals

Further to MB13/21 PCS has the following concerns regarding staff protection whilst undertaking International Escorted Removals:

1. Staff may be legally vulnerable if they carry out restraint outside their core business role on an individual being removed

2. Staff may be liable to prosecution by a foreign government if somebody is injured during an assault either on board a non-UK aircraft or whilst in foreign territory

3. Staff will not be able to make a claim against the Home Office if they are injured during a removal if the injury occurs outside of UK

4. We do not, at this stage, know what the alleged legal basis is for use of force by Home Office staff outside the UK; we do not want staff put in a position where they are acting illegally

5. We do not, at this stage, know what medical and welfare support mechanism will be available to staff in relation to injury sustained or any ongoing health condition or disability should they be delayed overseas

Advice To ICE Staff Considering Training in Internationally Escorted Removals Or Volunteering To Remove Asylum Applicants To Rwanda

The training for this task is entirely voluntary, so substantive Home Office members of staff cannot be compelled to undertake these removals. Given the potential risks that individuals will be facing, and the potential illegality of what is being proposed, our advice would therefore be that members need to consider very carefully before they volunteer for this role. PCS consider the absence of clear legal advice to be very worrying, and members need to be aware of those concerns.

Furthermore, in the context of a Removals to Rwanda policy that is likely to result in international condemnation, more work and more problems for staff, legal challenges, and potentially inhumane treatment for asylum applicants, PCS recommends that members give serious consideration to not volunteering for this role.

Stephen Taylor (Assistant Group Secretary)