Prisons watchdog publishes inspection report of removal flight to Paris, while refugee groups call on Government to end the scheme
His Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons for England and Wales (HMI Prisons) has published an inspection report of a removal flight to France carried out under the UK's "one in, one out" agreement with the French government.
Image credit: WikipediaYou can download the 15-page inspection report here.
Under the July 2025 bilateral arrangement, the UK can detain individuals who arrive by small boat across the Channel and seek to remove them to France, in return for accepting an equivalent number of people from France to claim asylum in the UK.
In its inspection report, HMI Prisons identifies significant shortcomings in the provision of interpretation to detainees removed to France, warning that communication failures left many unable to understand or meaningfully engage with key stages of the removal process.
The inspection, conducted between 10 and 12 November 2025, examined the escort and transfer of 20 male detainees from Brook House and Harmondsworth immigration removal centres (IRCs) to Paris via a flight from Stansted Airport. Almost all those removed had arrived relatively recently at the Kent coast. They were escorted by 58 escort staff and two paramedics. One individual was returning voluntarily, while force was used on one detainee who said he would not comply with the removal.
HMI Prisons found that many aspects of the operation mirrored other charter flight removals and "showed some of the improvements which have taken place over recent years". However, it identified two "significant differences" in this operation.
First, whereas previous charter removals had "generally involved detainees of a single nationality, so that interpretation can be provided for most of those needing it", this removal "included men of many different nationalities, few of them able to understand English". The report concluded that there was "inadequate provision of interpretation … meaning that many of those being removed could not ask questions or understand the process".
Second, while brief descriptions of options and services in the destination country are commonly given ahead of charter flight removals, in this case "almost no information was available to detainees on this occasion about what would happen upon and after arrival in France". Charlie Taylor, the Chief Inspector of Prisons, said that "the impact of this uncertainty on their morale was clear".
The failure to ensure adequate interpretation was identified as the sole key concern arising from the inspection. The report states: "Detainees did not have access to sufficient interpretation throughout key points of the removal process. There was not enough use of interpreters, whether in person or on the telephone, or of electronic devices, according to what would have been appropriate in each situation."
Inspectors observed that while most detainees were aware they were being removed to France and knew the date of removal, they were not informed of the time of removal or what would happen on arrival, increasing anxiety for some. At pre-departure briefings, staff were reminded of professional standards and welfare obligations. However, although staff were told that one interpreter would be available, "there were no further details about the languages that she spoke".
The report later notes: "The detainees had arrived relatively recently in the UK from France. They spoke many different languages, and very few understood more than a little English. An interpreter was present at one of the IRCs, on one coach and on the flight. The interpreter spoke Arabic and French, but almost none of the detainees spoke one of those languages. Staff attempted to use some methods of interpretation, but there was not a sufficiently coherent plan for ensuring that as far as possible, all detainees could understand what was happening."
The inspection also reviewed use of force. One detainee, held in a care and separation unit after indicating he would not comply with removal, refused to walk to the search area. Staff applied guiding holds, and inspectors noted "some good de-escalation from an officer, who addressed detainees calmly and steadily, and only one staff member spoke at a time". A waist restraint belt (WRB) was used when the detainee refused to stay still during a search, and was removed shortly after take-off following compliance.
However, records from three previous removals to France showed force had been used on eight occasions, five on one of the earliest flights under the scheme. The report states that records indicated the WRB had "sometimes been used as a precautionary measure if detainees had previously indicated that they would refuse removal, even if their current behaviour was compliant", and that it had not always been removed at the earliest opportunity.
On legal rights, detainees had access to legal firms while in IRCs and could use mobile phones to make contact. Many, however, told inspectors that solicitors did not want to take their case and that they were unable to secure representation. While detainees were provided with mobile phones on the coaches, they were not always prompted to write down key contact numbers before surrendering IRC-issued phones. The chief immigration officer spoke to some detainees on the aircraft but did not have time to see all who had requested a meeting. Information letters were provided in English, with some detainees expected to read them on a computer screen, limiting comprehension and retention.
With regard to preparation for 'reintegration', HMI Prisons notes that the Home Office provided information explaining detainees' right to judicial review and that they would be accommodated by the French authorities for their "first days". Nonetheless, "most" detainees told inspectors they were anxious about what would happen to them in France, often stating that they had no network or connections there. French authorities were present on arrival in Paris and received a handover from the chief immigration officer. Disembarkation proceeded without incident.
Meanwhile, a group of migration and refugee charities and detention visitor groups published a joint statement yesterday condemning the operation of the "one in, one out" scheme and calling for it to be halted. The statement, which you can read online here, was signed by 22 organisations including the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association (ILPA), the Association of Visitors to Immigration Detainees, Medical Justice, Bail for Immigration Detainees, and Detention Action.
While the groups said they "strongly support the establishment of safe routes", they rejected the Government's characterisation of the arrangement with France as such. "For one person to reach the UK safely from France under this scheme, another must endure a dangerous sea journey, be denied access to asylum, and then subjected to detention and forced removal," the statement said. "A safe route must not treat people as commodities or require one person to be placed at great risk of harm so that another can reach safety, and it must not make one person's access to asylum dependent on denying this access to another."
The signatories say that, in the six months since implementation, they and independent clinicians had witnessed "profound harm" caused by the scheme. They cited "harsh detention conditions, excessive use of force, safeguarding failures, inadequate access to legal advice and healthcare, and severe mental harm". Particular concern was raised about the detention of age-disputed children, survivors of torture and trafficking, and the operation of safeguarding mechanisms such as Rules 34 and 35.
Access to legal advice is criticised as inadequate, with the statement noting that the primary route for people in detention, the Detained Duty Advice Scheme (DDAS), "was already highly unreliable and fraught with delays" before the scheme's introduction. Under the accelerated removal process, detainees are given only seven days to respond to a Notice of Intent from the Home Office, yet many report significant delays in obtaining a DDAS appointment, with some waiting several days to speak to a solicitor. Even where legal representation is secured, solicitors may take on bail applications but fail to respond to Notices of Intent or withdraw cases, and individuals who are released are often quickly re-detained and scheduled for removal to France. The signatories said that these barriers leave many detainees without representation, compounding anxiety and despair, and forcing some to give up entirely despite evidence that removal could expose them to serious harm.
The statement concludes with a call for the Government to "halt this dangerous scheme" and to establish "reliable and accessible safe routes that do not depend on the suffering of others".