A toxic combination of inhumane policy and public indifference tragically drives vulnerable refugees beyond despair

Last weekend, three members of a family jumped together to their deaths from a Glasgow tower block. It's said that they were Russians whose asylum claims had been rejected. However, most deaths among asylum seekers don't make national news, as is made clear by a report compiled by Harmit Athwal for the Institute for Race Relations in 2006.

Driven to Desperate Measures catalogued the deaths of 213 asylum seekers, refugees and migrant workers who had been murdered in racist attacks or died in accidents since 1989; 57 had killed themselves, and – a little-known, appalling fact – nine of these had set themselves on fire, mostly in public places; and 11 died at their own hands in immigration detention centres or holding centres. But most of the suicides took place in the community, which can be a cold place for fugitives from horrors most of us will never have to face.

I rang Athwal to ask if there had been more suicides since her grim dossier came out. She opened a file and counted up to 39, although this, she said, wasn't a comprehensive figure. She is the only person keeping count, getting details from asylum seeker and refugee networks, NGOs, charities, campaigners, social workers and local papers.

These three are not the first to commit suicide in Glasgow, but most don't make headlines. The story of Zekria Mohammed, like the nine immolations, won't be familiar. The letter telling him to leave his flat prior to deportation was perhaps what tipped this young Afghan dentist over the edge in May 2004. A friend of his, who told me that Mohammed got the letter refusing his asylum appeal shortly before he died, says:

"I hold the Home Office responsible for deaths of so many asylum seekers. People kill themselves in detention and in the community. They make life so difficult for asylum seekers, not allowed to work, to marry, to move house, anything."

Mohammed lived on the 28th floor of a Glasgow high rise having fled through Uzbekistan and Hungary, where he was arrested and detained for two months. He spent four months in Sangatte, outside Calais in northern France, before making it to Glasgow. His friend picks up the story:

"He was lonely and desperate. He wanted to work – not allowed to work. He left a diary with poetry in it and I could see how fed up he was here, but he couldn't go back, he had campaigned against the Taliban and the warlords. If you join the warlords, they protect you; but you do that only if you believe in dirty stuff. Campaign against them, you get tortured and killed."

Mohammed hanged himself in his flat.

We operate a harsh asylum system that allows for little hope, that crushes people. Mostly, we tell ourselves, and are told, that most people seeking asylum are "bogus" and "just" economic migrants. These are largely myths, but we allow these notions to ease our consciences. What is really bogus is the raft of excuses we depend on to eliminate compassion or concern. The quiet voice inside our heads says if these Untermenschen want to set fire to themselves or jump out of high-rise blocks, then that's up to them: we didn't invite them to come here, they took their chances – why should we care?

Reading Athwal's report shows why. The three dead in Glasgow had had financial support withdrawn and faced eviction from their flat. Others have died by their own hand when they thought immigration officers and escorts from privately run agencies had arrived to deport them.

Legislation on asylum is designed to relay the message that the UK is not a comfortable place to be. It caters to the fears of an electorate that sees itself living on a tiny island threatened by alien hordes. This toxic combination of inhumane policy and public ignorance and hostility breeds despair. We should rethink policy and reconstitute it – with compassion, not contempt and fear, as the basis.

Gangsta rapper Snoop Dogg has been unable to get into Britain for the last three years, but his troubles may soon be over

Age: 38.

Appearance: Anywhere he likes now.

Eh? An immigration tribunal has just overturned a three-year ban against the gangsta rapper entering the UK.

But he looks like exactly the kind of lovable eccentric Britain is crying out for. And his jewellery could cut the national debt by half. Why is he banned? Is it because he is, you know, ah . . . "urban"? No, It's because last time he came here, in 2006, he and five of his entourage were arrested at Heathrow for violent disorder.

Well, who hasn't got a little rambunctious when faced with the horrors of air travel? They smashed up the duty free area and injured eight police officers when they were told those with economy tickets could not go into the first-class lounge. Snoop was cautioned, although he was also seen on film taken at the time entertaining children at the airport.

Fo' shizzle my nizzle! Don't. Just don't.

Sorry. Still – a total ban seems harsh. If we stopped every celebrity who threw a strop during an international flight we would have no Gillian Anderson, no Amy Winehouse, Peter Buck, Diana Ross or Naomi Campbell. We'd be a cultural desert! Well, thanks to Snoop's legal team, who successfully argued that the ban affected their client's right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act, we look set to remain a lushly green and fertile land.

Hurrah! And what will he be freely expressing, d'you think? His further thoughts on Hoes, Money and Clout or Payin' for Pussy, perhaps, if tracks from his 1998 album are anything to go by. Or on Break[ing] a Bitch Til I Die (2001's Duces'n Trayz)?

Hmm. This human rights thing is a little tricky sometimes, isn't it? It is. But Snoop still needs a visa. And his previous multiple convictions for drug and gun offences may mean he is refused.

I didn't know about those. And although he was cleared, the murder trial in 1993 probably won't help either.

Gulp. Can I shizzle my nizzle now, please? Yes. Yes, you may.

Do say: "Snoop, how lovely to see you – it's been too long!"

Don't say: "Snoop! You haven't come here to kill me, have you?"

Veterans, ill-served by middle men, arrive in debt to find their life here is far from good

A culture that prefers fast food to home-cooked meals and Twenty20 cricket to five-day Tests cannot endure the long haul of political struggle. Boredom sets in. Fickle eyes flick away. "Been there, done that," we say, a crass cliche at the best of times that turns delusional when we apply it to a political world in which very few causes are done within a decade, let alone a news cycle.

For those who like their gratification instant, no story appeared more satisfying than the campaign to give Gurkha soldiers the right to settle in Britain. The plot was so pat Richard Curtis could have directed it. A legal action, initiated by London solicitors Howe & Co, to compel the government to grant residency rights to some of the 36,000 soldiers who had retired before 1997 provided the backstory. The audience joined the action in April last year, when Nick Clegg demanded that Parliament do what the judges could not. He thundered at Gordon Brown: "If someone is prepared to die for this country, surely they deserve to live in this country?" David Cameron said the same, but Brown failed to listen or understand the public mood.

Even voters who denounced immigration were on the Gurkhas' side, reasoning that if Britain let in people who hated it, the government should not bar those who had fought for it. In Joanna Lumley, the Gurkhas had a formidable champion. The daughter of Major James Lumley of the 6th Gurkha Rifles served her family's regiment well by confronting Phil Woolas, Labour's immigration minister, at the BBC. She was glamorous and filled with righteous anger. She looked down on Woolas, a careworn and equivocating politician in an ill-fitting suit, and wiped the floor with him.

Her commanding performance was too much. Labour, whose back-benchers had already mutinied, gave in. It decided to do the decent thing and open a Gurkha settlement office in Nepal. Its staff provide advice to often elderly men on managing the move to Britain, give them National Insurance numbers so that they can find work or claim benefits and help them fill visa application forms . All free of charge.

In the final scene, the victorious Lumley flew to Kathmandu where members of the Gurkha Army Ex-Servicemen's Organisation (Gaeso) cheered her until they were hoarse.

As far as the media and the public were concerned, the movie ended there. For Dr Hugh Milroy from the London-based charity Veterans' Aid, the drama is just beginning. He is a battle-hardened officer, but nothing he has seen has prepared him for the homeless men who are arriving at his door. One Gurkha, just off the plane, was mentally ill and could not speak English. His possessions consisted of two flea-ridden blankets and an equally lousy jacket with pockets stuffed with dog ends. He didn't know where he was or what to do; in the end, Milroy and his colleagues had to find the money to send him home.

Milroy fears he will soon be overwhelmed by old soldiers. They have not gone to the resettlement centre for free advice. Instead, they have listened to middlemen, who are anxious to fill their pockets with a currency more valuable than dog ends. "I am deeply concerned," he told me. "It is clear to us that if people who have never opened a bank account or dealt with our welfare bureaucracy do not go through the MoD resettlement service they will not be prepared for life in a strange land. It is utterly immoral. I've nothing against Joanna, but we're seeing unintended consequences and exploitation."

In Nepal, rival veterans' groups are accusing Gaeso of doing the exploiting. No one disputes that it asks each veteran to give £500 for help the British government is offering for nothing, before sending him to see advisers from the UK law firms who have come to Nepal, including advisers from Howe & Co. Its lawyers told me they did not take money from Gurkhas, but claimed the fees for the 1,500 people they have advised to date from the British taxpayer. Gaeso insists that the payments it asks for before the men talk to Howe & Co are "voluntary, not compulsory".

£500 may not seem an inflated sum to readers from a rich country. But Nepal is poverty-stricken and still recovering from a civil war between monarchists and Maoists. When Gurkhas add the cost of the "voluntary contribution" to the £500 they must pay for a British settlement visa and £400 for the airfare, many find they must sell their homes and land.

On Tuesday, the Commons home affairs committee will hear from Tim Heaver, a solicitor, who married the widow of a Gurkha soldier and has seen middlemen take the money of his wife's family. "Guys are putting themselves in debt who are little old men," he said. "They give up everything to get here because they are told they will have the good life and find no work and long delays for benefits."

A media and public that claimed to care so much about Gurkhas in 2009 ought to be asking how they are managing in 2010. Relevant questions should include whether the Foreign Office should investigate if smart operators are relieving Gurkhas of their money, whether charities such as Veterans' Aid deserve public support and whether we should insist that only ex-servicemen who have received free and frank advice from British officials should come here. (The answer to all of them is "yes", by the way.)

But the circus has moved on. With the exception of Sue Reid of the Mail, no journalist has shown the smallest interest in what happened to the Gurkhas next, while Clegg and Cameron have found new distractions to stop the fickle viewers reaching for the remote control. The task of preventing a small outbreak of suffering on British streets has been left to Labour MPs. Backbenchers such as Martin Salter, who led the revolt against the government and is organising the home affairs committee hearings, are co-operating with Woolas and Kevan Jones, the defence minister, who wanted to maintain the status quo. Although they were once on different sides, they can sense trouble coming and believe they have a duty to alleviate it.

We will miss these unfashionable men in ill-fitting suits when we throw them out in May. Assuming we do throw them out, that is.

Unicef report has stories of children left alone in police cells and being subjected to aggressive questioning

Migrant children who arrive in England without parents or relatives are met with racism and a culture of disbelief that is exacerbating their mental trauma, a report by Unicef says.

Some of the most vulnerable children are "disappearing" once they get here, the report also claims, with many ending up in the hands of traffickers or abusers. Three councils that took part in the survey, Kent, Solihull and Harrow, reported losing contact with children in their care and had concerns that there could be thousands more "out there" in their areas, at risk of exploitation but invisible to professionals. Other children reported being racially attacked or abused and socially isolated.

Perhaps the most damning finding was the "inherent culture of disbelief on the part of a significant number of adults" charged with looking after these children. The children arrive alone for a variety of reasons – having been orphaned or abandoned, having become lost through conflict in their home country, or having escaped from traffickers. Because they have no documents, vulnerable young people are not being treated as children in need, said Anita Tiessen, deputy executive director of Unicef UK.

"Unaccompanied and separated migrant children are children first and their rights should be given the same priority as those of any other child in the UK," she said.

The report, Levelling the Playing Field, has stories of children left alone and frightened in police cells and being subjected to long, aggressive questioning.

In 2008, 4,285 unaccompanied or separated migrant children arrived and claimed asylum; another 1,400 had their ages disputed. Figures are not available for lone children who do not claim asylum. Many under-18s find themselves in the adult detention system.

Migrant children are thought to represent around 10% of all children in care. Those who do not seek asylum are harder to locate: some arrive with adults who are not their parents, some will have been separated from their parents in the confusion, and others are being fostered under private arrangements that can themselves create concern.

Jamal, 15, is the son of an Afghan policeman who was murdered. He fled the country and, after arduous weeks stuffed into overcrowded trucks and long periods without food or water, arrived from France on the back of a container lorry. He was questioned for several days without sleep. He could not understand the interpreter. "He was from a different region, possibly Pakistan. I told him I didn't understand everything he was saying, but he said to just answer the questions and he would tell the officers later on. I spent the whole night there and was interviewed by different people. It lasted until midnight. I wasn't given a bed and I only managed sleep for a few moments on a chair. I hadn't slept at all the previous night.

"The next day I was driven to Dover and another interview. I kept saying I was sleepy, but the officers kept asking me questions. They'd only told me that the questions were for my asylum case. I was asked the same questions, and there were more questions.

"They told me that another day I would meet a lawyer. I didn't know about lawyers and I didn't think I could even have one. I hadn't eaten since France and I was not given any food by the authorities. I was starving, but even more than that I wanted to sleep.

"When I went to my asylum interview in Folkestone I was told I'd said this in Dover and that I'd said that, I remember just trying to end it because I was so exhausted. I had no idea that my answers would be held against me. On that day I lost all sense of what I was talking about."

Another Afghan, Amir, arrived two years ago on the underside of a lorry and was interrogated while still in wet clothes. "I just wanted it to be over so I gave short answers," he says. "It still felt like such a long interview though, because I was so unwell."

He also lost touch with his older brother. "The Home Office believed my brother was an adult so the authorities took him away. I didn't understand what was happening. I was 13 and my brother 15 … I have not seen my brother since that day. It hurts I never got to say goodbye."

Caroline Slocock is chief executive of Refugee and Migrant Justice. "The natural response to any child who has been travelling in great danger, often for months, and who arrives cold, hungry or ill, is to give basic care and emotional support and ask questions later.

"It's time to recognise that children arriving here in any circumstances are just that – children."

Eleven years ago you published a letter from me alongside a letter from Derry Irvine, the then lord chancellor, about the proposals for legal aid in the Access to Justice Act 1999. I said the Labour party was bringing in a false internal market. Lord Irvine said his act would result in more legal aid spending and increased access to justice.

As a result of the act, the Legal Services Commission was set up to replace the Legal Aid Board. Ten years of massively decreasing access to justice for poor and vulnerable people followed, with many legal-aid firms closing. This was not simple cost-cutting, since it was accompanied by irritating rebranding ("public funding" instead of "legal aid"), constant changes, pilot projects, failed proposals about "best value competitive tendering" and endless bureaucracy. My firm stopped doing areas of work such as immigration and welfare law because we could not afford to go on doing them. Now you report (3 March) that the current lord chancellor, Jack Straw, has decided to abolish the Legal Services Commission and hand it over to an executive agency of the government.

One of the positive aspects of the commission has been its willingness to stand up to government. For example, it has funded the cases against the government brought by ex-Guantánamo detainees alleging complicity in torture (I am acting for one of them, Martin Mubanga). The government would desperately like to see an end to this. If Jack Straw rushes through parliament proposals to put legal aid decisions in the hands of government, the Labour party will finally be destroying what is left of the best legal aid system in the world.

Louise Christian

Christian Khan

Tribunal rules US rapper should not have been denied entry to Britain following his arrest during an airport fracas

The controversial US rapper Snoop Dogg has won the latest round in a long-running battle with the UK Border Agency to be allowed into the country.

The 38-year-old, whose real name is Calvin Broadus, was originally denied entry in 2007, forcing him and fellow rapper P Diddy to cancel the British dates of their European tour.

The ban relates to his arrest at Heathrow airport in 2006 following a fracas involving members of his entourage.

In 2008 the ban was lifted when an immigration judge found no evidence the rapper had been responsible for any public disorder. But the UK Border Agency challenged the decision and it went to an asylum and immigration tribunal. Earlier this week the tribunal announced its decision that to deny him entry had been wrong.

"We are disappointed by the tribunal's decision in this case," a UK Border Agency spokesperson said today. "We are studying the determination carefully and will take a decision whether to appeal."

The performer has had a series of brushes with the law in recent years. In 2007 he pleaded no contest to gun and drugs charges in the US. The same year he was barred from entering Australia after failing a character test. Last year he was cleared of assaulting a fan at a 2005 gig in Seattle.

In 1993, the year his hugely successful debut album Doggystyle was released, he was charged as an accomplice to the murder of Phillip Woldermarian in 1993 but cleared of involvement after a highly-publicised trial.

The rapper, who joined the Nation of Islam last year, has released 10 albums and recently appeared on the re-recorded version of We Are The World for victims of the Haiti earthquake.

The UK has failed to cultivate essential skills among its own population – it's rather rich to blame migration for filling the gap

In times of scarcity, people can become nervous and suspicious. One example is the fear that migrant workers are taking British jobs. This angst fuels racism and support of the BNP, particularly when unemployment figures show little signs of recovery.

The Office for National Statistics reported that the number of people collecting jobseeker's allowance increased to 1.64 million in January, and that total unemployment stood at 2.46m for the three months to December. There is also the prospect of a further increase in unemployment numbers as redundancies loom. But despite these figures, employers are finding it necessary to fill vacancies with migrant workers, because of a skills shortage in the UK.

The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) recently undertook a survey based on data from 700 public and private sector employers. The survey makes clear that despite the claim that the UK economy is out of recession, growth figures are still disappointing and there is no sign that this is leading to better job prospects. Of the 700 organisations that took part in the survey, 41% stated that they had vacancies that were hard to fill, of which engineering posts were the most difficult to recruit for. Lack of relevant experience accounted for 48% of these vacancies, while 52% were due to a shortage of skills.

The argument that foreign workers are "taking the jobs of British workers" is very short-sighted. If Britain has a shortage of skilled workers, migrants are needed to fill these positions. It is not acceptable to require migrants to undertake the jobs that British people do not want to do, and not allow them to do any other jobs. But the survey shows that employers recruited more low-skilled workers than expected, which may indicate that migrant workers are more likely to accept the lower-skilled work that British people are shunning.

In February 2009, the then home secretary Jacqui Smith introduced measures to give British workers a chance of applying first for UK jobs and to be more selective about migrants coming to the UK from outside the European Economic Area. But nursing and teaching professions do not appear to be appealing to British workers. That has to say something about us as a country: we shore up the bankers with taxpayers' money and yet teachers, social workers and nurses are continually undervalued, with their chosen professions seen as underfunded, bureaucratic and unattractive. To address this problem, Ed Balls recently unveiled a scheme aimed at lawyers, teachers and other professionals who want to change career. They will be offered £15,000 to retrain as social workers. There is already a similar scheme designed to attract professionals into teaching.

In a similar vein, Engineering UK (formerly the Engineering and Technology Board) has highlighted the shortfall in UK engineers. In the highly skilled nuclear sector, more than 1,000 experienced apprentices and graduates will be required every year until 2025 to replace those who are retiring. Last month Gordon Brown announced "the introduction of a wider choice of foreign internship schemes, making it easier for businesses in the UK to bring over the brightest and best graduates from around the globe, from spring 2010."

So what about the brightest and best graduates from the UK? Let's not forget that population movement is not a one-way street leading to the UK. The Institute for Public Policy Research indicates that at least 5.5 million British-born people live abroad, and almost one in 10 British citizens is living overseas. It could be that young graduates are trying their luck elsewhere.

Meanwhile, 10% of private sector businesses are planning to outsource some of their operations to cheaper locations abroad. Almost half of them are IT companies and nearly one in five manufacturing ones, with preferred locations such as India and eastern Europe. To counter this, CIPD suggests rejecting the planned increase in national insurance contributions and freezing the national minimum wage to decrease further outsourcing and control rising wage costs – in other words, they recommend an attempt to make UK workers cheaper. This will be difficult when the cost of living is so high.

Britain has failed miserably to cultivate essential skills among its own population. But if we need to offer these jobs to migrants, then the least we can do is to be welcoming and offer them long-term career prospects. There is evidence that China is attracting bright, gifted individuals from across the world, and Britain will eventually just fall by the wayside. It's time to address the issue.

• This article was commissioned after Cif was contacted by a commenter in a You tell us thread. Christina Meredith posts on Cif under the name CordeliaM

Supermarket giant will require its suppliers to stop practice of paying migrants less than native workers

The supermarket group Asda announced today that it has reached agreement with the union Unite to tackle discrimination against migrant workers in its UK meat and poultry factories.

Under the deal Asda will require its suppliers to stop the practice of paying migrants less than indigenous employees for the same work and to eradicate the culture of bullying and harassment that has characterised much of the industry.

The move comes as the leading supermarkets brace themselves for the results of an inquiry by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) into conditions in the UK meat sector.

The EHRC's report, due this month, is expected to be highly damaging to the reputation of both the supermarkets and their suppliers.

It is thought it will confirm that discrimination, which has fuelled racial tensions, is rife in chicken and red meat factories around the country.

Ahead of the report, Marks & Spencer has also been piloting an "ethical model factory" with one of its chicken suppliers.

The deal with Asda however marks a breakthrough for the union, as it covers the whole of Asda's meat supply chain of 29 companies.

Asda says it will require its suppliers to create permanent jobs for agency workers after a fixed period and to pay them equally for the same work.

It has also brought all its meat suppliers together to address unacceptable practices raised by the unions: these include migrants having to clock off for unpaid toilet breaks, and being required to "hot boot" with other shift workers rather than being supplied with their own safety boots.

Unite estimates that around 6,000 workers, most of them migrants, could win better rates of pay as the agreement is implemented.

The UK will eventually be bound by the new EU Working Time Directive that aims to end inequalities between permanent and temporary labour, but British companies have been allowed by the government until the end of 2011, the longest permitted time, to implement it.

Asda has chosen to move ahead of the legal requirement.

Unite has conducted an unprecedented campaign since 2005 to organise all workers in the sector, both migrant and indigenous.

It says that when it began the recruitment drive,an estimated 40% of workers in the UK meat sector were agency workers, most of them migrants, even in off-peak periods, and union membership was low.

Over 26,000 out of a UK total of 45,000 meat workers are now members of Unite. In five years the union has won recognition for collective bargaining in 89% of poultry factories and 61% of red meat factories.

Unite's deputy general secretary, Jack Dromey, welcomed Asda's initiative. "For years, supermarkets have driven down costs with tens of thousands of workers paying the price with discriminatory and unfair practices that divide workforces. Asda has not waited for the EHRC report but has acted. It is a matter of regret that for most of Asda's competitors the word "ethical" is but a logo on the letterhead which is not put seriously into practice."

With the Celtic Tiger transformed into a pig, Ireland is watching its best and brightest graduates migrate to Britain

In the 1980s, a generation of young, bright and educated Irish immigrants arrived in Britain seeking work. Back then, Ireland was the sick dog of Europe. It subsequently transformed into a Celtic Tiger. Now, it has apparently turned into a pig – as part of the Piigs group of the most economically troubled countries in the EU: Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain. Ireland's leading economic thinktank, the ESRI, estimates that unemployment will approach 15% during the next 12 months. This year will see the biggest migration from Ireland in 20 years. Are we returning to the "brain drain'' of the 1980s?

Recent graduates are leaving to pursue the dream that was sold to them by the government during the boom years. Bertie Ahern, a former prime minister of Ireland, famously assured us in 2006 that "the boom times are getting even more boomer". Suffice to say that they didn't.

There are few, if any, job opportunities for Irish graduates today. Unlike their counterparts 20 years ago, however, they are not laden with doom and gloom. Although jobseeker's allowance in Ireland is approximately three times higher than it is in the UK, this is scant compensation for the skilled and educated Irish graduate. It is less about financial hardship and more about escaping the drought of opportunity that has afflicted the island. Young Irish people are departing with optimism, drive and ambition to claim the careers they feel they deserve: they were promised the world during the Celtic Tiger years and now they are determined to take it.

Julian Tung graduated from Trinity College Dublin in 2008 as a civil engineer. With the full force of recession yet to hit, he walked straight into a graduate scheme with an established engineering company. Within nine months he was made redundant along with the entire Dublin office. "I quickly realised that there was no chance of finding another engineering job in Ireland so I packed up and headed to London," he says. For the first weeks he took various jobs, including a short stint at waitering, assisting in a vintage clothes shop and working a handful of temporary office positions. He has since secured a permanent engineering role and has no plans to return to Ireland. The recruitment freeze in health, education and numerous other public services means the number of nurses, doctors, teachers and many other skilled workers arriving in the UK is likely to increase.

A recent survey of just over 1,000 British university graduates and final year students found that one in three were considering moving abroad, citing a lack of job prospects in the UK. The ONS's 2008 migration statistics show more than half of British emigrants leaving for "work-related reasons". Australia is the most popular destination, where employment prospects for skilled workers are still strong, despite the global recession. With a number of British graduates leaving for Canada and Australia, why are some young people still choosing to come to the capital city of a country that is itself only just emerging from recession? "If you work hard enough in this city you will always find something to pay the bills," says Tung. "The move to London has been a great success for me and my friends. Ireland is not a good place to be right now."

While some of his fellow graduates have chosen to retreat into postgraduate study, he has no doubt that many more will follow him over here this year. London is about to turn a deeper shade of green.

The 1 March protests saw immigrant workers in Europe down tools to raise awareness of the discrimination they face

A peaceful and colourful spectre seems to be haunting Europe. It's a grassroots movement of migrants and activists claiming for participation and protesting against discriminatory immigration laws in France and in Italy. Monday 1 March, the first "day without immigrants, 24 hours without us" cannot but be considered a milestone in foreign workers' fight for social and political rights. The idea comes from the economic boycott in the United States in 2006, when hundred of thousands of Latino workers took to the streets asking for better conditions and against the criminalisation of "irregulars". They abstained from consumer spending and working in companies and family care, but also attending colleges, hospitals, buying and selling, while boasting slogans such as: "Today we march, tomorrow we vote."

In Europe, the movement was born in the ideal cradle of France. More than 200 years after the French revolution and the declaration of the rights of men and the citizen, a new social actor is demanding visibility: "We, immigrants, immigrants' descendants, citizens, are aware of the contribution of immigration to our country, we all generate economic growth," reads the movement's manifesto. The date of the strike was chosen after the French "code of foreigners' entry and stay and right to asylum", which came into effect on 1 March 2005. This law, according to protesters, symbolises a mere utilitarian idea of immigration.

Organisers are ordinary workers such as African carpenters and Asian nurses, but also unionists, journalists and intellectuals, both natives and migrants who used Facebook to create the network in France and then spread it to Italy and, with less intensity, to Spain and Greece. Yellow is the colour of the movement, signifying the political neutrality and independence of the initiative, which was coordinated by local committees already active in fights against a rampant xenophobic propaganda.

It's hard to assess the day's concrete economic impact as many immigrants had to pass the strike for fear of losing their jobs or because they could not afford to lose even a single day's wage. But the attention raised on the issue already meets organisers' expectations. There were mass marches, concerts and meetings from Paris to Rome, despite the media blackout and lack of concrete help by the main leftist parties and trade unions, which just gave their moral support.

And yet European progressive forces and trade unions should listen carefully to this demand of representation. In Italy, where prime minister Silvio Berlusconi makes irresponsible statements such as "the left wants a multiethnic society, we don't", there are 4.5m regular migrants who contribute 9% of the country's gross national product. But recent immigration laws make it harder and harder to live and work legally in the country. The Italian government's policy has been repeatedly criticised by UN agencies, NGOs and also the Vatican. From push-backs to Libya that sends potential refugees to violence and torture, to discrimination of migrants at work and criminalisation of illegal immigrants, among which there are many who have just lost their jobs after decades of work, due to the current economic crisis.

Such discriminatory and racist systems are raising the potential for social conflict in Europe. While the 1 March initiative is aimed at stimulating solidarity among the working class in Italy, in France and everywhere else, migrants are seen as a threat to natives' jobs and wages, where there's a claim for protection instead of rights.

Meg Hillier may deny the extent of the poor conditions at the asylum detention centre, but I have seen them for myself

Junior Home Office minister Meg Hillier MP is my parliamentary neighbour and a friend. But she has never visited Yarl's Wood detention centre. If she had done, then I believe that she would never have signed off the letter, sent last week to every member of parliament, rubbishing the Guardian's report about desperate women detainees currently on hunger strike there.

Her letter condemned "current misreporting, based on inaccurate and fabricated statements". She went on that it "is irresponsible as it causes unnecessary distress to the women at Yarl's Wood, their family and friends".

But in truth, it is the conditions at Yarl's Wood that have caused "unnecessary distress" and driven women to go on hunger strike. I know this because I have visited Yarl's Wood. And I raised the issue of conditions there as far back as 2007 in an adjournment debate. This (as it happens) was responded to by Hillier in her capacity as a Home Office minister.

Poor conditions at Yarl's Wood are not fictions dreamt up by journalists. Nor have they invented the hunger strike. Journalists have spoken to at least 10 women there. And, although the ministers might query the details of some of their cases, the overall picture is very different from the one painted by the minister in her letter to colleagues.

The letter describes the healthcare at Yarl's Wood in glowing terms. But, in fact, it has long given cause for concern. This is partly because it is not directly provided by the NHS, as some of us have argued for. The children's commissioner for England said in his report on Yarl's Wood: "The delivery of healthcare must be reviewed, given the concerns we have raised from our visit. The concerns range from not keeping growth charts to not recognising or responding in a timely way to serious injury. Despite the appointment of a paediatric nurse there remains a lack of paediatric medical expertise. This should be considered high risk." And medical notes currently being collated by the Medical Justice Network also give a very different picture to the official version of conditions in Yarl's Wood.

The indefinite and administrative detention of children at Yarl's Wood is also a long-standing and underlying cause of unrest. In 2006 the inspector of prisons observed of Yarl's Wood: "Our most important concern … remained the detention of children." The all-party group on refugees in a report in July 2006 said that the detention of children "makes a mockery of children's rights legislation". And the joint committee on human rights, in a report on the treatment of asylum seekers in March 2007, found that the UK was in breach of its human rights obligations by detaining children.

The Children's Commissioner for England has been so alarmed about conditions at Yarl's Wood that he has returned three times in four years. In his latest report last month he noted some improvements but said, "arrest and detention are inherently damaging to children and Yarl's Wood is no place for a child". Ministers should not dismiss the hunger strike. The vulnerable women and children at Yarl's Wood deserve better.

• Centre breaching human rights, say lawyers
• Treatment of inmates is 'cruel and degrading'

Lawyers are due to launch a legal challenge today on behalf of four women held at Yarl's Wood detention centre, claiming their incarceration amounts to "cruel, inhumane and degrading" treatment that breaches their human rights.

The lawyers, who say they will submit the application at the high court in London, are applying for a judicial review of the government's detention policy, claiming it breaches articles 3, 5 and 8 of the European convention on human rights.

"This disgraceful policy will now be the subject of legal challenge," said Phil Shiner, of Public Interest Lawyers, which is bringing the action. "It is unlawful and we are calling, on behalf of our clients, for the policy to be struck down and for there to be an independent investigation."

Serco, the private company that runs Yarl's Wood, has described allegations of inhumane and degrading treatment as "unfounded and untrue".

The move comes amid an increasingly bitter row over the treatment of the women and children held at the Bedfordshire detention centre. Home Office minister Meg Hillier sent a letter to MPs last week denying claims by women at Yarl's Wood that they have been on hunger strike for three weeks. Hillier said that, although there are "a small number of detainees … refusing formal meals from the canteen, they are buying food from the centre's shop and vending machines and having food delivered by visitors".

In her letter, Hillier said the women's health had been checked and there was no cause for concern. She also denied claims by detainees that they had been racially abused and assaulted during a protest last month. She said: "All the detainees are treated with dignity and respect ... I can assure you that there was no such behaviour by our staff."

However, detainees, campaigners and some MPs have reacted angrily to her letter. On Friday, 34 women at Yarl's Wood issued a statement through the Black Women's Rape Action Project insisting they were still on hunger strike. The strike enters its fourth week today.

"At no particular point in time have we gone to eat in the dining room, got food from the vending machines or at the shop," the women's statement said.

They also stand by their claims that some of them were assaulted during the protest on 8 February and that others were called "black monkeys".

Cristel Amiss, speaking on behalf of the women's project, said: "The government is falling on its face with its vain attempts to smear hunger strikers. We are in daily contact with hunger strikers and know that vacuous claims that women are treated with dignity and respect mean nothing in the face of overwhelming evidence of appalling conditions and abuse."

Evan Harris, a Liberal Democrat MP, criticised the government's reaction to the protest and said he had written to the chief inspector of prisons asking her to conduct an "urgent unannounced visit" to investigate the situation.

John McDonnell, a Labour MP, has tabled an early day motion calling for an independent inquiry into the recent allegations of "violence, mistreatment and racist abuse" at the centre.

"There are real concerns," he said, "and all we are asking the government to do is to look at these seriously and hold an independent inquiry. Instead, by turning a blind eye they are simply exacerbating the problems and this can lead to more serious problems like riots and the burning down of detention centres."

Yesterday, the Observer reported that Lin Homer, chief executive of the UK Border Agency, and John Vine, the agency's chief inspector, are to be questioned by the home affairs select committee about the situation at Yarl's Wood.

However, last night Hillier stood by her statement.

"We have proof that 'food refusers' are regularly purchasing food from the shop and vending machines, and that they have all been seen by doctors who have no concerns about their health," she said.

Today's legal challenge follows a report by the children's commissioner last month that said children held at the centre faced "extremely distressing" arrest and transportation procedures and were subjected to prolonged and sometimes repeated periods of detention.

Shiner said the application for a judicial review was based on the cases of four women and three children. He said he would be asking for a judge to look at the case within 24 hours and hoped a hearing would start within a month.

The asylum system described in the independent chief inspector's report (Huge rise in unresolved asylum cases, 26 February) is one in which human rights take second place to the pursuit of arbitrary and unachievable targets. The trouble with promoting speed over fairness is that the system will always be inefficient and costly. The only way to improve efficiency and cost-effectiveness is to get more decisions right first time.

The Border Agency knows this because its Solihull Pilot demonstrated in 2008 how giving asylum seekers good legal representation at the very start of their claim improves the quality of decisions, achieves higher case conclusion rates, reduces the number of successful appeals and enhances the credibility of the system to claimants and staff. To its credit, the UKBA is extending the "frontloading" approach more widely from October 2010, but even this positive step will be stymied should the imposition of unachievable targets continue.

Maurice Wren

Director, Asylum Aid

• Detaining children is finally being condemned (Letters, 18 February). But what about the detention of mothers? Either children suffer alongside their mother in detention or they suffer the pain of separation. Ending the detention of children has to mean ending the detention of families. This issue has been thrust into the headlines by mothers on hunger strike in Yarl's Wood removal centre (Report, 27 February). We were attacked by guards, "kettled" for hours, denied access to toilets and water and locked outside in freezing conditions. A couple of us got out and some of us face removal in the next few days. We call on anyone who cares to press for an independent investigation into reports of violence and racist abuse from guards and a moratorium on all removals and deportations pending the results.

Adeola Omotosho Yarl's Wood hunger striker

Stella Mpaka All African Women's Group

• At my last councillor's surgery I was approached on behalf of a refugee from Congo, married, with a child holding a UK passport, who receives no benefits for herself and is not allowed to work. She is one of those who has been told that her case, already five years old, will not be determined until June 2011. If people are to be kept in limbo, it's surely incumbent upon us to ensure they have the means of subsistence.

Cllr Jeremy Beecham

Newcastle

MPs to investigate claims that women in Yarl's Wood detention centre were physically abused by officers during hunger strike

Senior Home Office officials will be questioned this week over allegations that women inside Yarl's Wood immigration detention centre were assaulted by staff using riot shields.

The Observer has gathered a series of testimonies from detainees inside the Bedfordshire centre who claimed they had witnessed women being beaten and injured during a disturbance this month.

One image, taken inside Yarl's Wood on a mobile phone, reveals extensive bruising to a woman's shoulder and legs allegedly caused by staff during the incident on 8 February, days after dozens of asylum seekers instigated a hunger strike over the length of their detention. Another image shows injuries to a detainee's finger after a guard had allegedly slammed a window on her hand.

On Tuesday, Lin Homer, chief executive of the UK Border Agency, and John Vine, the agency's chief inspector, are expected to be questioned by the home affairs select committee over the claims, which are denied by staff.

Keith Vaz, chairman of the committee, said: "This evidence is extremely concerning. If the allegations are correct, then it may be appropriate for a police investigation. We are eager to establish what exactly is going on in Yarl's Wood."

The hunger strike will enter its fourth week tomorrow. The allegations of abuse are being examined by London law firms Birnberg Peirce and Fisher Meredith.

Jacqui McKenzie of Birnberg Peirce said: "I have spoken to a client of mine in Yarl's Wood and she has seen the bruising herself from the incident on 8 February. There is an atmosphere of real tension there."

The images of the bruising show the injuries allegedly sustained during the incident by Denise McNeil, a 35-year-old Jamaican, who claims she was hit by staff and, since the disturbance, has been moved to London's Holloway prison.

A Home Office spokesman said that observers from the centre's Independent Monitoring Board had been present during the incident and had seen no evidence to support the claims. He added that CCTV footage had revealed nothing. It is also understood that Bedfordshire police were called to the incident and monitored the situation without taking any action.

A spokesman for Serco, the private firm that runs Yarl's Wood, last night dismissed the allegations as "unfounded and untrue". He added: "The incident on 8 February occurred because our staff intervened to prevent four women from continuing to bully other residents into missing meals."

Participants in the hunger strike claim to have been held in a corridor for more than six hours. Several women claim to have fainted and one to have suffered an asthma attack before several detainees forced open an window and tried to escape before being confronted by guards. Meme Jallow, 26, from Gambia, who has been inside Yarl's Wood for seven months, said: "A girl called Denise was by the windows. One officer took her and hit her by the face."

Another hunger striker, a 37-year-old from Nigeria who asked to remain anonymous for fear of her asylum case being unfairly reviewed, said: "The security went outside and used shields like they do when there is a war. That is what they used to smash one of the women who was outside."

Adeola Omotosho, 44, from Nigeria, who was released from Yarl's Wood three days after the incident, yesterday described how she had been injured during the protest. "The officers closed the window against my finger. It was very painful and I was really bleeding heavily, but they still refused to open the window. So I called an ambulance, but it was not allowed to come in."

Serco sources said that ambulance staff had been allowed on site during the protest but paramedics were not required because the most significant injury was Omotosho's fingernail injury.

A spokesman denied shields had been used to hit or move women and said they had only been placed against the open window in order to "secure the area".

Many detainees also complained they have suffered racist abuse, which the centre denies. Omotosho added: "Black monkeys is what they call us. They don't like us at all. They tell us to go back to our countries."

Cristal Amiss from Black Women's Rape Action Project, which is supporting the detainees, said: "We have spoken to over 50 women and have heard entirely consistent reports of racist abuse, threats and other violence."

Frances Swaine, head of the human rights department at London law firm Leigh Day, said: "The situation at Yarl's Wood has been getting progressively worse over the past few months, and shows no signs of improvement – and the hunger strike has brought to the fore the real issues."

A number of the detainees said they had been traumatised by the incident, with a letter from one stating that three other women detainees had been caught trying to kill themselves.

Quoting from the report "Migrants in the UK sex industry", compiled by Dr Nick Mai of London Metropolitan University, we said that government proposals to criminalise prostitutes' clients would "discourage migrants and UK citizens working in the sex industry". Regrettably, this misrepresented some of his research. The sentence quoted goes on to make it clear that these measures would discourage sex workers and their clients "from cooperating with the police and sex work support projects in the fight against cases of trafficking and exploitation". ("No trafficking? Well, there's a hell of a lot of women suffering", Comment, 25 October 2009).

Our profile of Vanessa Redgrave last week referred to her portrayal of Rosalind "in Peter Hall's 1961 production of As You Like It" but it was directed by Michael Elliott.

Football corner: A report on the West Ham v Hull match (Sport, last week) said that Hull had been "13 league games now without a win" but they beat Manchester City on 6 February. And it was Darren Fletcher who "provided the inch-perfect pass for Wayne Rooney's second goal against Milan ", not Darren Ferguson (The Knowledge quiz, Sport, last week).

Write to Stephen Pritchard, Readers' Editor, the Observer, Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9GU, tel 020 3353 4656 or email reader@observer.co.uk