His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons for England and Wales (HMI Prisons) today published a new inspection report on an escorted 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 14-page report here.
The inspection covered a charter operation conducted on 20–21 January 2026 and followed closely after a similar removal the previous week, which had been disrupted by a detainee protest requiring the deployment of specialist national resources to ensure the flight could proceed.
Under the July 2025 bilateral arrangement between the UK and France, individuals who arrive in the UK by small boat and are detained may be removed to France, in return for the UK accepting an equivalent number of asylum seekers from France.
In its latest report, HMI Prisons examined the transfer of 32 male detainees collected from Brook House Immigration Removal Centre (IRC), Harmondsworth IRC and Tinsley House IRC, who were escorted by 73 staff and two paramedics to Stansted Airport before being flown to Paris.
HMI Prisons found that escort staff acted professionally and respectfully throughout the operation. No force was used during the removal, and inspectors noted that staff maintained calm and orderly conduct even in the context of heightened tensions following the earlier disrupted flight.
However, inspectors identified a key concern relating to access to interpretation services. The report concludes that communication support remained inconsistent, with interpreters not always available in person, by telephone, or via electronic tools, limiting detainees’ ability to understand key stages of the process.
Inspectors reported that while detainees were generally aware of their removal and its timing, many were not informed in detail about what would happen upon arrival in France, contributing to anxiety among some individuals. Detainees spoke a wide range of languages and only a few were able to understand English.
The report states: “Interpreter provision was insufficient; for example, no interpreter was initially available at Brook House or on one of the coaches. As a result, detainees sometimes interpreted for each other, which was not always appropriate. Four interpreters attended the operation, but their languages did not match all detainee needs. Staff used various interpreting aids with mixed success, and there was no consistent approach to ensure understanding.”
A similar concern was raised by HMI Prisons in an earlier February report that inspected a November 2025 removal flight to France. HMI Prisons noted: “At this inspection we found that this concern had not been addressed.”
Despite the continuing communication issues, inspectors observed respectful treatment throughout the January operation. Staff briefings reinforced professional standards, and interactions between escort teams and detainees were described as consistently professional and respectful.
The report also highlighted that detainees had access to mobile phones before departure and during the journey, allowing contact with legal representatives and family members. While six removals were halted following legal intervention, many detainees reported difficulties in obtaining legal representation.
No Home Office officials were present at the removal centres to respond directly to questions about individual decisions. A chief immigration officer was present on the flight and spoke with some detainees, although time constraints meant not all requests for engagement could be met. No incidents occurred during the clam arrival and disembarkation in Paris.
The report also highlighted the use of force during earlier removal operations to France under the scheme. Records showed that force had been deployed on five occasions across the previous three flights, including four incidents during the disrupted operation the week before. Restraint techniques included the use of waist restraint belts and, in some cases, leg restraints and arm holds where detainees continued to resist. HM Chief Inspector of Prisons Charlie Taylor said that the use of restraints and control techniques in these cases had been justified based on assessed risks.