My Lords, the wording of this regret Motion is taken in large part from the highly critical report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which draws the rules to the special attention of the House. Its report reflects the grave concerns expressed in a joint submission from Medical Justice, Freedom from Torture, Bail for Immigration Detainees, Rainbow Migration, JRS UK, the Helen Bamber Foundation, and Detention Action. I am grateful to Medical Justice and Freedom from Torture for their help with this Motion, and refer to the register for support from RAMP.
By way of background, a short-term holding facility is a type of immigration detention centre governed by legal rules that regulate the amenities and services that different types of facility must provide. There are two types: residential STHFs, and non-residential “holding rooms”. Normal maximum detention times are five days in the former and 24 hours in the latter. These rules create a new category called “residential holding room” which is now being applied to the Manston facility, a non-residential holding room, which attracted considerable criticism recently for its dreadful conditions and unlawful operation. Residents of RHRs will be detained for a normal maximum of four days, extendable in “exceptional circumstances”. Exceptional circumstances are not defined, but in its written response to the SLSC’s questions, the Home Office gave us an example: “unexpected and very large numbers of small boat arrivals”. Could the Minister tell us what would constitute an unexpected and very large number, given that the Government give the impression that large numbers are far from exceptional or unexpected at certain times of the year? Can he explain why there are no absolute time limits, as with residential STHFs?
Criticisms of the rules in the SLSC report and the joint submission concern both their substance and the process of their introduction. The joint submission draws attention to how the safeguards applied in existing residential short-term facilities are being “dramatically downgraded”, and standards regarding healthcare, communications, sleeping accommodation and access to legal advice are being reduced.
Modifications to Rules 32 and 30 mean that detainees with particular vulnerabilities and at risk of harm, who are especially likely to suffer damage from detention, are less likely to be identified. This includes torture or trafficking victims, and those experiencing suicidal ideation and other serious mental health conditions. Yet the existing statutory guidance on adults at risk recognises the need to ensure that vulnerable people are not detained inappropriately. The amended Rule 32 does not, for example, include a reporting mechanism for those with evidence of torture, so there will be no process for identifying and safeguarding this highly vulnerable group. The amended Rule 30 changes the deadline for medical screening from within two to 24 hours of admission, and even that can be lengthened in “exceptional circumstances”—again, that is not defined, but the same example of unexpected and large numbers of boat arrivals has been provided.
Examples of reductions in the standards applied in residential STHFs include the absence of a firm requirement for separate sleeping accommodation for
people of the opposite sex, and for minors or families to be in sleeping accommodation that is inaccessible to unrelated detained persons. Others reduced rights to communication: can the Minister clarify whether those held in an RHR will be permitted face-to-face visits, such as from external organisations? If so, will any restrictions be placed on who may visit? Of particular importance is the ability to meet a legal adviser; can the Minister confirm that RHRs will make provision for legal advice and representation, including the right to face-to-face meetings?
The SLSC underlines that:
“The overall effect … is that the facilities and amenities available to people who may be detained for four days are materially lower than those deemed necessary for people who may be detained for five days”.
The committee was not impressed by the Home Office’s response to its question as to why this was appropriate. Unlike the Home Office, it does not consider the appropriate comparison to be with the rules applying to non-residential holding rooms. Given that this is a new category of residential holding facility, the committee is surely right to make the comparison with other short-term residential facilities.
7.30 pm
While the committee did accept the need for what the Home Office described as
“a balance to be achieved between ensuring”
that Manston
“operates as efficiently as possible whilst addressing immediate healthcare and vulnerability concerns for any individuals”,
it points out that the Home Office has not explained why the balance
“should be struck in a way that provides fewer protections for migrants detained for four days compared to those detained for five”.
Can the Minister explain now, please?
In its written response to the committee, the Home Office did emphasise that the rules represent
“a minimum standard and we may go above and beyond these in practice”.
Given the failure to meet previous minimum standards at Manston, forgive me if I am sceptical. Can the Minister tell us in what circumstances he envisages the minimum standards being exceeded?
Overall, the committee concluded that the
“Home Office has not provided an adequate policy justification for creating the new category”,
and observed that:
“The House may wish to press the Minister for a better explanation of how the welfare of these migrants is to be safeguarded”,
and
“how Manston will operate in the future”.
I hope that the Minister will provide such an explanation in his response, and that he will be able to dispel the committee’s
“strong impression that the new category is designed for the operational convenience of the Home Office, rather than for good reasons of public policy”.
The committee suspected
“that the main consideration is facilitating the continued operation of Manston even though its conditions have raised public concern”,
and it expressed scepticism that the new regime will
“guarantee that the site is always able to operate within the law”.
What is the policy justification for creating the new residential category, rather than upgrading Manston to residential STHF standards?
The committee also criticised the Home Office on a couple of process grounds. The first was the lack of either consultation or an equalities statement. It suggested that:
“This may be because the arrangements fall below acceptable standards”.
The Minister might like to comment. The absence of any equalities statement is particularly worrying, given that the joint submission warns that the changes are likely to have a particularly negative impact on disabled people, survivors of torture, women and children. Has one now been completed for the new rules?
Secondly, why was
“potentially contentious legislation … brought into effect over a recess”?
Why indeed. Can the Minister explain, please, and can he update us on the timetable for implementation and tell us what steps will be taken to monitor the impact?
In response to the committee’s question as to whether it intended to apply the new RHR category to any other sites, the Home Office responded that, while it could do so, it did not have any such plans at that point. That was in January, so may I check whether that is still the case? Also, what criteria would be used to apply RHRs to other sites? Can we have an assurance that Parliament will be informed by way of a Written Statement if it is intended to apply RHRs to other sites in the future?
The joint submission to the committee sums up why these rules are potentially so harmful. It is worth quoting as a reminder of what is at stake in rules that were rushed in without consultation, during a recess:
“Taken in combination, the extension of the maximum period of detention with the modification and disapplication of key Rules, constitute a dangerous withdrawal of the safeguards that apply to detained people, and a deeply concerning downgrading of the conditions in which they are held. The changes risk children and vulnerable adults not being identified in RHRs, being harmed by continued detention and having little access to legal advice in order to understand and challenge their circumstances. This carries the further risk that such people will be routed inappropriately through the system”.
These concerns are all the more worrying, given the likely increase in detentions and the removal of existing safeguards relating to children and pregnant women as a result of new legislation before Parliament.
In the light of the predicted damage to highly vulnerable groups, I believe that the Minister should withdraw these rules. At the very least, I hope that he will answer our questions and do so more satisfactorily than the Home Office has done hitherto. I beg to move.