I thank all noble Lords for their contributions, and particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for bringing this debate before the House. Clearly, these are important rules, and it is important that they get an airing and that the views of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee are considered in this forum. The debate obviously follows concerns about the new rules expressed
in that report by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and I will endeavour to answer them in the course of my speech and to address the questions of the previous contributors.
I will first put these new rules into context. Since 2018 we have, sadly, seen an enormous increase in the numbers of people choosing to put their lives into the hands of people smugglers and enter the UK unlawfully, after crossing the channel in small boats. We will all be aware that last year some 45,755 people crossed the channel, seeking to enter the country illegally. That figure was 60% higher than in 2021. We know that the estimates for this year range between 65,000 and 85,000. We also know that 51% of those 45,755 who arrived last year arrived in August, September and October, with 8,631 in August alone. The Manston facility in Kent was opened specifically to provide secure processing and security checks for those small-boat arrivals.
8 pm
To date, Manston has been operating as a holding room under the Short-term Holding Facility Rules 2018, the same rules prescribed in relation to holding rooms at ports and airports, where people are detained on arrival in the UK should that be necessary. This means that detention there has been subject to a 24-hour limit under the Short-term Holding Facility Rules, but that limit was always subject to an extension in exceptional circumstances—that is clear in the rules. The other rule exceptions and modifications to which holding rooms are subject under the 2018 rules also apply to Manston. The Short-term Holding Facility Rules are made under Section 157(3) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, a flagship part of the Administration led by Mr Blair, and those rules were made to deal with an immigration situation very different to that faced in the present climate.
As I am sure noble Lords will appreciate, it is of fundamental importance that the Home Office is able to undertake initial processing of all new arrivals and has sufficient time to do this. Unfortunately, on those occasions when there has been a significant number of arrivals in a very short period, it has proved very challenging to do that within a 24-hour period. I stress that Manston is unique in that it acts as a reception facility for all small boat arrivals, and it is only right that bespoke rules are developed to recognise that unique status. The rules create a new type of short-term holding facility, known as a residential holding room, where individuals may be detained for up to 96 hours. Again, that is extendable in exceptional circumstances, if authorised by the Secretary of State. I am clear that the rules are an appropriate, safe and decent response to the unprecedented pressure on our border caused by the illegal and dangerous journeys across the channel.
Perhaps it would help if I set out again where we are now in relation to short-term holding facilities. In essence, under the original scheme—the 2018 rules—there were two categories: holding rooms and residential short-term holding facilities. As you would expect, the conditions relating to holding rooms were less detailed than those in relation to residential short-term holding facilities. The upper limit for holding rooms in the 2018 rules was, and remains, 24 hours; the residential
short-term holding facilities had an upper limit of seven days, as prescribed in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 in the definitions sections. Direction from the Secretary of State has been made that the detention should be a period of five days, unless exceptional circumstances are met, as set out in the 2021 direction. The effect of the 2022 rules is to insert in the middle of those two categories a further category of a residential holding room, which, as I have already said, allows for detention of up to a maximum of 96 hours and is extendable in exceptional circumstances. As is appropriate, the conditions for that period of detention are commensurate to the length of the potential detention, so the House will see that there is therefore a scale of short-term holding facilities.
It is right to suggest that to reflect that a residential holding room may be used for a longer period it builds on and provides more extensive facilities to those using them, and which are more extensive than those which have previously been available at Manston. I can reassure the House that an ongoing programme of work is under way at the site to upgrade the existing facilities, which is of course reflected in the legal framework that will apply to it under the 2022 rules. Examples of that refurbishment work include installation of fire doors, replacement of boilers, general building and fabric repairs, lighting and electrical works, and redecoration of all internal rooms and communal areas.
A regime will be operated in the residential holding room to allow free association of residents for the majority of the day. There will be a canteen area for the provision of food and drink. There will be recreational rooms, which will be furnished and equipped for immediate use. There will be access to the open air. A multifaith room will be designated as part of the refurbishment. Legal visits can be conducted on-site, using interview rooms within the asylum screening suites—I hope that reassures the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, in relation to her questions concerning legal visits. Phones will be available, and a secure room can be provided for confidential legal calls.
Rule 48, in relation to visitors, does not apply to residential holding rooms. I entirely accept the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that there is a difference under Rule 27, in that individuals will be permitted to meet their legal adviser in confidence if it is practicable to do so. But it will clearly weigh heavily on members of the staff if they determine that it is not practicable, and I would expect efforts to be made to ensure that sufficient facilities are available.
It is clear from the report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that noble Lords have interpreted the new rules as seeking to downgrade the facilities and amenities that residential holding rooms are required to provide, when compared to residential short-term holding facilities. Residential short-term holding facilities are also governed by the 2018 rules, which apply to them in full. Although individuals can be detained in residential short-term holding facilities for up to five days, as I have already said, in certain circumstances individuals can, in fact, be detained for a maximum of seven days. It is therefore right that residential short-term holding facilities, where someone may stay for up to one week, should be required to provide more in terms
of facilities and amenities than a residential holding room. I repeat again that Manston is a unique detention facility compared to a residential short-term holding facility or an immigration removal centre, where individuals are detained predominately for removal. In answer to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, it is correct that we cannot circumvent the time limits for short-term holding facilities by moving an individual to another site and, in effect, restarting the clock—that will not occur.
Turning to the question of welfare raised by the committee, we will, as ever, strive to prioritise the welfare and processing of vulnerable adults and families from the initial point of their arrival. No unaccompanied children are detained at Manston; they are instead processed at the Kent intake unit. The proposed facility at Manston that will form a residential holding room—which I should add is only a part of the Manston site—will not contain unaccompanied children, because they are processed at the Kent intake unit. Single adult women and single adult men will continue to be held in their own discrete accommodation—I hope that goes some way to reassure the right reverend Prelate on his concerns in this regard. That is of course already the case in residential short-term holding facilities. The only time that residents mix is in family accommodation, which is carefully supervised and relatively lightly occupied. Families should be prioritised for processing; however, where it is necessary to use a residential holding room for families, guidance sets out that they should be provided with sleeping accommodation that must not be accessed by unrelated detained adults, where practicable.
I am conscious that noble Lords are concerned about what is seen as a downgrading of some protections that apply to vulnerable people detained in short-term holding facilities under Rule 32 of the 2018 rules, particularly in respect of those who claim they have been victims of torture. As I outlined earlier, a residential holding room builds on and provides more extensive facilities than what is currently available in a holding room at Manston.
Noble Lords should be aware that rule 32 does not apply at all to those held in holding rooms—the first tier of the three categories. There is a balance to be achieved between ensuring that Manston operates as efficiently as possible while addressing immediate healthcare and vulnerability concerns for any individuals. If immediate risks to the detained person’s health are identified, the modified rule 32 for residential holding rooms sets out that the individual’s detention must be reviewed as expeditiously as possible. I hope that addresses the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. It is important to note that, prior to entering a residential holding room, the individual will already have had an initial health screening and access to medical staff if required. The provision of medical screening and reporting immediate medical risks in residential holding rooms will be an additional safeguard.
Processing new arrivals as quickly as possible continues to be our primary objective. The majority of the Manston facility will continue to operate as a holding room, to which the 24-hour time limit will still apply. This new type of short-term holding facility was created
to provide additional and essential operational flexibility within our detention estate to undertake processing and security checks and to provide staff with additional time to process people effectively and safely at times of significant pressures.
Turning to the procedural points raised by the committee in its report, it is clear that noble Lords are concerned that there was no external consultation on these rules before they were laid before Parliament and that they entered into force on 5 January before the end of the Christmas Recess. I would like to be clear that there is no statutory requirement to undertake a stakeholder consultation before amending the Short-term Holding Facility Rules 2018. Furthermore, as I have explained, we are seeking to improve the facilities at the Manston site, not downgrade them. It is important that this work is completed as soon as possible, thereby improving the experience of people detained at Manston at the very earliest opportunity. I would hope noble Lords would welcome this. Undertaking what would be a very prolonged consultation on these amendment rules would have been likely to detract from that goal.
The enduring solution to this challenge is to stop the illegal, dangerous and unnecessary small boat crossings that are beginning to overwhelm our asylum infrastructure. That new legislative regime—as the House is well aware—is the Government’s ultimate objective. The recently introduced Illegal Migration Bill, which will shortly arrive in your Lordships’ House, will change the law so that those arriving in the United Kingdom illegally may be detained and then promptly removed to a safe third country or their home country. In the meantime, the creation of residential holding rooms will give our hard-working Border Force officers the time they need to undertake their vital work and keep our country safe. In light of all that, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her Motion.