Immigration (Guidance on Detention of Vulnerable Persons) Regulations and the Detention Centre (Amendment) Rules 2018 — House of Lords, 2018-06-27
Topic: Immigration
Sally Rachel Hamwee (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for bringing this Motion forward. I start from the position that immigration detention does not do anybody any good. I find it hard to think that one would be liable to be harmed, whether one is vulnerable—a term I do not find easy—or not. Which of us would be robust enough In a previous debate, I quoted from Never Truly Free, a recent British Red Cross report on the humanitarian impact of the UK’s immigration detention system, including the mental health of detainees after release. It concluded: "Immigration detention has a known negative impact on mental health. Most detainees will have experienced some form of trauma in their life before detention, the effects of which can be exacerbated in detention" It also stated: "The damage done by detention does not simply go away once someone is released and the negative impact on mental health persists long after detention" I say this because I do not want to belittle, by implication, the experience of detainees who are not vulnerable—or at any rate, not "particularly vulnerable", as per the phrase in Section 59—and to make the point that the definition of torture might be a little less difficult if we detained fewer people and for no longer than a maximum fixed period I have some sympathy with those who struggle with that definition, but this will always be a problem when you start from the wrong place and grapple with something that is not necessary. As has been asked, why is it necessary to distinguish torture from ill treatment for this purpose? The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, referred to Shaw—like Leveson, he must have got used to becoming a noun. It prompts me to ask whether he had any input in the content of these statutory instruments. Indeed, has he approved the definition As we have heard, we have been briefed by organisations with considerable experience of both working with victims of extreme cruelty and advancing the understanding of torture. They are very critical of the Government’s approach, both the detail and the principle. As we have also heard, the court did not require the Home Secretary to define the term What are we to make of the paragraph on "Consultation outcome" in the Explanatory Memorandum to the two instruments? It states that, "the Home Office has discussed the proposal"— that is, the definition— "with interested non-governmental organisations (NGOs). The Home Office has considered comments made by NGOs and has committed to engaging with them as the detailed guidance and training for decision makers are developed" I was not aware that NGOs had the limited opportunity described to give their views to the Home Office, but those views are not reported in the memorandum. I take it that they were not accepted. As a matter of good practice, it seems to me that the memorandum should be much clearer on this My confidence in the process was not helped by the Explanatory Note to both instruments. It states: "A full regulatory impact assessment has not been produced for this instrument as no impact on the private or voluntary sectors is foreseen" I do not know about a financial impact, but by definition there will be an impact on those undertaking Rule 35 assessments and on the numbers held in detention. There must be an impact. Medical practitioners have a difficult enough task in making assessments with time and other constraints and in a place and in circumstances which are far from the safe and supportive environment needed to work with such patients—I use the term deliberately—and which are likely to contribute to ongoing trauma, to exacerbate symptoms and to impede the healing process I am also interested in the concepts of control and powerlessness in the definition. At any rate, they certainly allow for the argument that a victim with a particular history of being controlled and powerless will experience detention as torture. With regard to that history, what is meant by powerlessness? The noble Lord has raised this point. Will the Minister confirm that the definition is not confined to a physical situation and that control and powerlessness may be different for different people? Under the draft guidance, an individual is regarded as at risk—we discussed this at Questions the other day—if they are, "particularly vulnerable to harm if placed or remaining in detention" Why is this in addition to the history? Why has it been added? In fact, as a matter of the construction of paragraph 7, is that something that the individual needs to declare, or is it an objective matter for the third party? I have read the paragraph several times and I am not sure I understand that the guidance introduces a wider range of immigration factors than before, placing far greater emphasis on non-compliance. My final question is: does this not of itself affect the balance, which we are told is sought, between, "protecting the vulnerable and ensuring the maintenance of legitimate immigration control" That comes from paragraph 1, on the purpose of the guidance In summary, these Benches support the Motion. We share the noble Lord’s regret and our regret goes much wider, too.