My Lords, if I did not speak to this Motion and support it, I think I would be haunted by the ghost of the late Lord Eric Avebury, for whom improvement of the conditions in which people are held at the border was something of a mission. I appreciate that I am speaking of a Member of this House who died some time ago, but his legacy lives on with some of us.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has been very thorough. I hope that the Minister managed to note all her questions. If I repeat any of them, I apologise to the House; I do not think my editing quite kept up with all she had to say. The noble Baroness said that the House did not need reminding of the concern there has been, and which remains, about conditions at Manston and the number of people held in those conditions. Perhaps we should not be surprised that, instead of changing “facilities”—a term which I find rather inappropriate in this context—to fit the rules, the rules are being changed to fit the facilities.
7.45 pm
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee said that there was
“insufficient information to gain a clear understanding about the instrument’s policy objective and intended implementation”.
I agree, at one level—the level of the law—but politically, frankly, it is clear enough. As the SLSC spells out, facilities for people
“detained for four days are materially lower than those … for people who may be detained for five days”.
It gives some examples that I do not think have been mentioned yet. The ability to meet a legal adviser in confidence is downgraded to only
“if it is practicable to do so”,
rather than being unconditional. Of course, there is also the issue of medical screening.
The Home Office is going to have to be very sure that it can process and move on the asylum seekers who find themselves in this situation within four days. I would like to check that the four-day limit is for all holding rooms and that you cannot be moved from Manston to another equivalent facility. I know that only Manston falls into the category now, but I would like to check that you cannot be moved on and find that your four days start again. What if you are sent to a “normal”—as it were—holding facility? Do your four days count towards the five-day limit there? I know that the Government regard Manston as unique, but it is entirely possible that that could change, considering the fast-moving situation over just the last year or so. Why not confine the instrument to Manston? Are there plans, proposals or notions waiting to be worked up for other sites to be designated as residential holding rooms? Can the Minister guarantee that asylum seekers will not be moved from one RHR to another without, for instance, proper access to legal advice or medical or vulnerability screening?
On the argument about, essentially, the balance between efficiency and treating people well, the SLSC politely said:
“We accept the need for … a balance, but the Home Office has not explained why it should be struck in a way that provides fewer protections for migrants detained for four days compared to those detained for five”.
I have to say that I find it an unpleasant concept to be seeking to balance those two situations. I appreciate that what noble Lords are saying does not play into the Government’s narrative about torture and trafficking.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, reminded me about the issue of security and those who are engaged to act as security operatives—or perhaps agents, I do
not know. Does the Minister know—if not, can he find out—whether people engaged in that work are DBS checked? It is an issue I have raised in connection with hotel accommodation, and I recall the Minister saying that he was quite sure that they would be DBS checked. I am less sure.
Exceptional circumstances, which allow for more than 96 hours, have been mentioned. Can the Minister confirm that these are only external circumstances, not related to an individual—in other words, that if one of the people working in one of the centres gets a bit worried about an individual, they cannot decide there is something exceptional about the individual and exceed the 96 hours? The House’s committee reports are always worded very carefully, so it will have known what it was doing when it used the term “disingenuous” about this—and I think it was right to do so.
The right reverend Prelate raised the issue of children and families, but I could not pick up what the provisions about sleeping accommodation would be for families—I accept that I may have missed that. The SLSC commented that it had
“the 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 noble Baroness, Lady Lister, quoted this. This was where I started. The SLSC suggests that:
“The House may wish to press the Minister”
on safeguarding, welfare and the future operation, and on
“why potentially contentious legislation was brought into effect over a recess”—
this was mentioned. Adding to that, I ask why we only get to debate it three months later—although, sadly, everything we are talking about remains entirely topical.
Quite rightly, the sector has raised further questions on matters that have occurred since January. We on these Benches very much support—I was going to say “are pleased about”, but in the context that is wrong—the Motion.