“The standards by which we treat people in our society should be constant; whoever they are, human rights are human rights…. Where we are removing someone’s liberty, protections have to be significant. On current evidence, that balance has not been struck, and the treatment and safeguards for everyone in detention, particularly those with additional vulnerabilities, are just not sufficient.”

 Quote from speech by Lord German (Liberal Democrat)  

 

 

On 14 October 2024, members of the House of Lords, supported by Medical Justice, debated highly concerning changes to the Adults at Risk in Immigration Detention Statutory Guidance (AAR SG) that water down the protections provided to vulnerable detained people. 

 The changes, brought in by the last Conservative government, came into effect in May 2024. They include removing a previous statutory commitment to reducing the number of vulnerable people in detention, and granting the government the power to seek a second opinion – from a Home Office contracted doctor – on independent external medical evidence documenting a detained person’s vulnerability, delaying consideration of the available evidence for several weeks or more (known as the “Second Opinion Policy”). 

Despite having the option to withdraw the changes, the new Labour government has chosen to keep them in place. In light of this, and following previous parliamentary work led by Medical Justice to highlight concerns, Labour peer Baroness Lister of Burtersett tabled a debate in the House of Lords on the issue. 

Fourteen peers attended the debate, including Home Office Minister Lord Hanson of Flint, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Lord Hunt of Wirral, Chair of the Lords’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (SLSC), The committee issued a critical report on the AAR SG changes earlier this year, following evidence submitted by Medical Justice. 

You can read key extracts from the debate below, including key points from peers and the government’s response.

The full video of the debate is available here, or you can read a written transcript here.

Written debate briefing for peers 

Medical Justice, in collaboration with eleven other NGOs, published a briefing for parliamentarians in advance of the debate, which explains AAR SG changes in more detail and highlights key concerns. 

You can download the debate written briefing here. 

The briefing is jointly badged with Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID), Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS) UK, Refugee Council, Women for Refugee Women, the Helen Bamber Foundation, Detention Action, Association of Visitors to Immigration Detention (AVID), Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association (ILPA), Freedom from Torture, Gatwick Detainees Welfare Group (GDWG), and Rainbow Migration.  

What did peers say?  

Peers raised a variety of serious concerns during the debate, both in relation to the AAR SG changes and wider issues in detention. You can read extracts below.  

 

“In effect, the regulations reduce the protection provided by statutory guidance to adults at risk in detention, which could increase the risk of the kinds of human rights violations uncovered in the Brook House inquiry.”

 Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour) 

 

“I have always thought that anyone seeking asylum or who is detained, is likely to be vulnerable…The whole of this population is vulnerable, but not all of them are protected under the legislation and the guidance…”

 Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)  

 

“I am deeply concerned that these regulations expressly remove the intention to reduce the numbers of people in detention who are vulnerable in specifically acute ways. As the Minister will know, the previous Government appear to have accepted just one of the Brook House inquiry’s 33 recommendations. I would welcome confirmation from the Minister that [the government] will revisit that inquiry report to ensure that all the recommendations are given due consideration for implementation.”

The Lord Bishop of Sheffield 

  

“There should be—indeed, there must be—a clear presumption that people at risk because of existing or potential mental health problems should not be detained. ‘Detained’ is a euphemism; they are, in effect, imprisoned. We imprison people as a punishment, so the need to avoid providing these people with punishment is clear.”

 Lord Davies of Brixton (Labour) 

 

“Fifty children were detained on the year to June 2024, 29 of them in Yarl’s Wood short-term holding facility and 10 in Gatwick pre-departure accommodation. A recent report from the independent monitoring board that looked into detention conditions in family pre-departure accommodation at Gatwick called for this detention centre to be closed… Detaining families for removal must be re-examined, with the utmost concern given to the welfare of children at all times.”

 Baroness Mobarik (Conservative) 

 

“In Manchester, we have Pennine House, an immigration detention centre close to Manchester Airport. A few years ago, there was an absolutely damning inspection report into that facility. When the then Government made their response, it was ‘We’re going to ignore all the recommendations in this report’. What is the point of having a debate about regulations about how we are going to care for people in these places if, when it is not being done properly and when independent inspectors go in and say, “This is wrong. This is not what is supposed to be happening”, the Government just turn around and ignore them?” 

 The Lord Bishop of Manchester 

Other points raised by peers 

 In relation to the AAR SG changes:  

  • The Home Office has failed to provide compelling evidence to support the introduction of the Second Opinion Policy, as highlighted by the Lords’ SLSC 
  • The Home Office’s external consultation on the changes was inadequate 
  • The government must urgently provide more details, including terms of reference and a timeframe, about its planned review of detention, which it has stated will include the AAR SG changes 

 

More generally on detention:  

  • There are ongoing safeguarding failures in detention  
  • There are particular risks faced in detention by pregnant women, as well as LGBTQI+ people, and people with severe mental health conditions 
  • There is an urgent need for the new government to implement all of the recommendations of the recent Brook House Inquiry, including introducing a time limit on detention 
  • The government’s decision to continue the re-opening of Campsfield and Haslar IRCs, started under the previous government, is worrying. It will expand the detention estate by up to 1,000 new detention spaces 

How has the government responded?

Home Office Minister Lord Hanson of Flint’s response during the debate left many questions unanswered.  

He confirmed that government is carrying out a review of the Adults at Risk policy and Detention Centre Rules 34 and 35 which will look at “improving the effectiveness of the regulations and safeguards”. The review will include consultation with NGOs and is anticipated to conclude by spring 2025.  

You can read Lord Hanson’s speech in full here.