9 December 2021 – The APPG on Immigration Detention has today published the full report of its inquiry into the UK government’s use of large-scale institutional sites, such as Napier Barracks in Kent, Penally Camp in Wales and Tinsley House Immigration Removal Centre (IRC) to house destitute people seeking asylum.
The sites replicate many of the features found in detained settings – including visible security measures, surveillance, shared living quarters, lack of privacy, poor access to healthcare, legal advice and means of communication, and isolation from the wider community. They are most accurately described as ‘quasi-detention’ and therefore fall within the remit of the group.
The government has repeatedly stated that such sites are “safe”, “secure”, “coronavirus (Covid-19)-compliant” and “fit for purpose”.[1] The evidence gathered during the APPG Inquiry and detailed in its report reveals an entirely different and extremely alarming situation.
The report explains how features of the sites – including their prison-like conditions – make them “fundamentally unsuitable” as asylum accommodation. For survivors of torture, trafficking or other serious forms of violence, as many asylum-seekers are, such conditions can cause them to relive past abuses and be highly re-traumatising.
The report also documents serious operational failings by the Home Office and its contractors in their running of the sites. It details how people accommodated at the sites have been subjected to “appalling treatment and conditions”, leaving them feeling dehumanised, exhausted and suffering a profound deterioration in their mental health, in some cases to the point of attempting suicide.
In August this year, the government extended its use of Napier until at least 2025, and the Home Secretary confirmed that the site may “inform the final design” of the new asylum accommodation centres proposed in the Nationality and Borders Bill currently making its way through Parliament. A tender was also issued for the new accommodation centres which stated that they will house “up to c.8,000 service users”.
These developments suggest it is the government’s intention to make large-scale, institutional, quasi-detention facilities into a more permanent and widespread feature of the asylum accommodation system.
The inquiry was led by a cross-party panel of 10 MPs and peers. In the report they state:
“It is well-known that there is an urgent need for more asylum accommodation in the UK. But as this report shows, the use of quasi-detention facilities is not, and can never be, an effective or appropriate solution to this problem. The profound harm inflicted on people at Napier, Penally, Tinsley House IRC and other similar sites is clear from the evidence collected. It cannot be allowed to continue, let alone to be expanded.“
The inquiry received evidence from over 30 participants, including people accommodated at the sites and charities working directly with them, medical and legal experts, and on-site contractors.
Based on the evidence received, the APPG Inquiry Panel issues a number of key recommendations to the government in the report.
Recommendations:
1. In relation to current or former quasi-detention sites, the government must ensure:
-
- Napier Barracks is closed as asylum accommodation with immediate and permanent effect, and that people seeking asylum accommodated at Napier are moved directly to decent, safe housing in the community that allows them to live with dignity
- Penally Camp remains closed as asylum accommodation and is not used for that purpose at any point in the future
- Tinsley House IRC remains closed as asylum accommodation and neither it nor any other IRC is used for that purpose at any point in the future
- No other sites of a military nature or adjacent to IRCs, including those at Barton Stacey and Yarl’s Wood, are opened as asylum accommodation
2. In relation to asylum system more widely, the government must ensure:
-
- People seeking asylum are housed in decent, safe accommodation in the community that supports their well-being and recovery from trauma, facilitates their engagement with the asylum process, and allows them to build links with their community
- Key elements of the asylum process, including the substantive interview, are conducted promptly and in an environment that allows disclosure of sensitive information and access to legal and other necessary support
3. The APPG Inquiry Panel is strongly opposed to the introduction of ‘accommodation centres’ to house people seeking asylum, as proposed in the Nationality and Borders Bill. In the event that accommodation centres are introduced, however, the government must ensure:
-
- None of the shortcomings identified in this report are replicated at the new centre(s)
- No centre is opened without the consent of the local authority and meaningful consultation with all relevant stakeholders
- Effective safeguards are in place such that no vulnerable people are accommodated at the centre(s)
- Residents are assured a safe environment that meets a minimum standard of decency, including protection from harassment and abuse
- Residents are assured unimpeded access to healthcare, including mental healthcare
- Residents are assured unimpeded access to legal advice and support, and access to an effective appeals process to challenge their placement in the centre
- Residents are accommodated at the centre(s) for the minimum possible time
- Robust and effective mechanisms are in place to monitor the performance of any private contractors
- An independent statutory inspection regime is in place.
[1] See for example: https://www.folkestone-hythe.gov.uk/media/3000/Contingency-Asylum-Accommodation-Ministry-of-Defence-Sites-Factsheet/pdf/Contingency_Asylum_Accommodation_Ministry_of_Defence_Sites_Factsheet.pdf?m=637381172008830000; https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2020-11-27/HL10837; https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2021-03-16/debates/09EA88F1-6B46-4639-9C81-800466A4B908/IndependentChiefInspectorOfBordersAndImmigrationSiteVisits; https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2021-06-11/14183