On 14th June 2023, the House of Lords debated amendments to the Illegal Migration Bill in Committee. The Bishop of Durham spoke in support of an amendment tabled by Lord Alton of Liverpool and in the name of the Bishop of London and other peers. The amendment “would prevent immigration data being shared for the purposes of section 2(1) about a victim or witness of crime who reports an offence. This is to ensure victims are able to approach the authorities for assistance without fear of removal under section 2(1) as a result of that contact or resultant data sharing with immigration enforcement.”
The Bishop of Durham also spoke to his amendment 139B during the same speech, an amendment which “would give the Secretary of State a statutory duty to implement all ‘recommendations of the Chief Inspector of Prisons in relation to immigration detention’ centres within six months, strengthening the independent external monitoring role of the chief inspector.”
The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, I will speak first to Amendment 139A, to which my right reverend friend the Bishop of London has added her name, and then I will turn to Amendment 139B in my name. I remind the Committee of my interests as laid out regarding RAMP and Reset.
As we have heard, Amendment 139A would prevent data about a victim of or a witness to a crime being automatically shared for the purpose of immigration enforcement. My right reverend friend the Bishop of London sponsored a similar amendment during the passage of the Domestic Abuse Act, and this issue remains hugely important.
Imkaan reports that more than 90% of abused women with insecure immigration status had their abusers use the threat of their removal from the UK to dissuade them from reporting their abuse. It is deeply disturbing that any person would be deterred from reporting a crime that they have been subjected to or have witnessed because they believe that their data will be passed on to immigration officials for the purposes of immigration control. This is especially pertinent for a domestic abuse victim, a modern slavery victim, someone who has been trafficked or someone who has been subject to violence.
In the context of this Bill, a lack of safe reporting pathways would be a major hindrance to the Government’s intent to “go after” the people smugglers who blight communities and destroy lives. Without the assurance of secure reporting to allow victims to come forward and report crimes committed against them, how will the Government ensure that they go after the perpetrators?
As well as a need for prosecution, we have a responsibility to victims. The Istanbul convention, to which the UK is a signatory, states in Articles 5 and 59 that victims of violence must be protected irrespective of their immigration status. It is crucial that we take all possible steps to comply with this and ensure that the right of every person, especially women and girls, to live free from violence is protected.
Since the passage of the Domestic Abuse Act, there has been a call for the overhaul of laws and policies on police data sharing with the Home Office. The Government committed to reviewing this, but stopped short of committing to a firewall. Many dedicated groups have been campaigning on this issue for many years. The House of Commons Justice Committee, in its pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft victims Bill, agreed with them:
“We call for an immediate end to the sharing of victims’ and witnesses’ data between the police and the Home Office for immigration enforcement purposes and the introduction of a complete firewall for those groups”.
What is set out in Amendment 139A would not prevent data sharing between services where it is required—for example, in healthcare—but would prevent data sharing for the purposes of Section 2(1) of this Bill, namely removal. At a time when trust in the police force is low, especially for minority groups, we must consider the impact of the Bill on the wider community and ensure that, when someone is subject to or a witness of a crime, they can report it without fear.
I turn to Amendment 139B in my name. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for their support. I argue that this amendment is a common-sense proposal that offers the Government a procedure to ensure that statutory oversight of detention facilities and standards is maintained, without altering the Secretary of State’s power to detain on, undeniably, an extensive scale. The Bill establishes a comprehensive detention regime that many of us expected to have been consigned to history. It moves the system away from an administrative process to facilitate someone’s removal to a wider system of incarceration intended to deter asylum seekers from travelling to the UK. Although this signals a major transition in government policy, there is very little detail on the standards, safeguards or protective obligations on the Home Office that there will be when providing detention accommodation. In fact, Clause 10 grants the Secretary of State the power to detain people “in any place” that she “considers appropriate”.
I am grateful to the Minister for explaining that the Detention Centre Rules 2001 will be updated in light of this Bill and that all immigration removal centres must operate in compliance with the rules, including any additional sites that are opened. But the Government will appreciate that these standards are not in the Bill and, given that there is very little oversight for the potential mass detention of people, it would be unfathomable to proceed with these provisions without a detention inspection regime on a statutory footing.
This is all the more important given the fact that this legislation overturns the long-held common-law principle that it is for the courts to decide whether the detention of a person is for a period that is reasonable or even justified in principle. The Secretary of State’s duty to detain does not discriminate and, in the absence of any return agreements, thousands of people—including children of all ages, pregnant women, victims of trafficking and those who are disabled—may be detained at the discretion of the Home Secretary for an unrestricted duration. I am afraid that I am not reassured by Ministers saying that habeas corpus provides enough legal protection to challenge detention, as it concerns only whether there is a power to detain, not whether the power to detain was exercised lawfully or is reasonable. Am I not correct in this observation?
Under Section 5A of the Prison Act 1952, His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons has a statutory duty to inspect immigration detention facilities. The chief inspector regularly conducts unannounced visits to detention facilities, reporting candidly on the conditions, and makes clear recommendations to the Secretary of State. They are an important safeguard for people in immigration detention and should play a vital role in the external and independent scrutiny of any expansion of the detention estate.
The Government know too well that it is not simple conjecture that detention facilities may fail to meet safeguarding rules and accommodation standards, given the events at Manston in 2022. With a maximum capacity of 1,600, Manston became overcrowded, with the number of people detained there nearing 4,000 towards the end of 2022. There are concerns that the conditions there are likely to have amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment.
In November 2021, the chief inspector carried out an inspection of Tug Haven—I must not lapse into pronouncing it as if it were in Holland—which was predominantly used to accommodate migrants who had undertaken crossings from France. He described the conditions there as “unacceptably poor” and said:
“At Tug Haven, we saw several people who arrived with significant injuries and illnesses, but the site was ill-equipped to meet their needs. Migrants had little private space and were sometimes held overnight, sleeping on the ground, often in wet clothes”.
He found that only one of his 10 recommendations from the previous inspection in 2020 had been partially achieved, with the others not achieved at all. This report alone demonstrates why the chief inspector’s role in drawing attention to serious safeguarding problems in immigration detention facilities is necessary.
My Amendment 139B would give the Secretary of State a statutory duty to implement all
“recommendations of the Chief Inspector of Prisons in relation to immigration detention”
centres within six months, strengthening the independent external monitoring role of the chief inspector. This is not a needless prosaic suggestion but an essential safeguard in ensuring that humanitarian crises such as those described are not repeated, especially because, after the Bill comes into force, the Home Office will be responsible for some of the most vulnerable people, for whom we know detention poses a greater risk of harm and who will therefore require an expert level of trauma-informed care.
I take this opportunity also to ask the Minister this: will the standing commission, for the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration to carry out annual reviews of the Home Office’s practices and policies towards adults at risk in immigration detention, be reintroduced after being discontinued by the Home Secretary in January? These inspections regularly found a gap between Home Office policy intentions and what happens on the ground. We simply cannot afford for this to be the case going forward as the consequences could be catastrophic, including—unjustifiably and regrettably—for children.
I quite appreciate that the Minister may not be able to provide a full response to this proposal now but I ask that he kindly write to me in advance of Report if this amendment is believed to be unworkable. It is of the utmost importance that we understand the inspection framework for detention sites and its legal underpinning. The expansive duties and powers provided to the Home Office by the Bill demand they be matched by statutory and mandatory accountability.
Extracts from the speeches that followed:
Lord Scriven (LD): My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 139B, to which I have put my name. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham for outlining the common-sense reason why this amendment is needed, particularly as the Bill will extend detention, meaning that far more people will be in detention, and restrict people’s ability to appeal their reason for detention, particularly in the first 28 days.
I put my name to the amendment because I have a long history since I came into this place of asking questions about and taking a keen interest in vulnerable people who have been put in detention, particularly LGBT individuals. That goes back to 2014, when the then Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, John Vine, investigated the Home Office’s handling of asylum claims with people on the grounds of sexual orientation. Since then, every time an independent inspection has been carried out, issues concerning LGBT individuals being held in detention and experiencing homophobia or physical violence, affecting their mental health, have been documented, including in two reports in 2016. The latest analysis, done in February this year in a study for Rainbow Migration carried out by Dr Laura Harvey of the University of Brighton, shows that this continues to happen.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (LD): Amendment 139A, which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, spoke to, is about encouraging victims or witnesses to report offences. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham also spoke to this. I absolutely understand and support the sentiments behind that amendment. I thought I would reflect a little on my experience as a magistrate in Westminster Magistrates’ Court, where I remember that, about 10 years ago, we had officials from the Home Office sitting in our courts. They were basically there to try to pick up business to do with illegal migrants and asylum seekers, whether they be offenders, witnesses or people who just appeared in court.
It just so happened that one of my magistrate colleagues was a Home Office official—particularly, part of the Border Force organisation but within the Home Office. She explained to me that it was a pilot that had worked for three months, I think from memory, but which was stopped after that period because they just did not pick up enough business. It was not worth the officials sitting in court for that period. I thought that was an interesting reflection on the points which the noble Baroness made. I absolutely understand the point which she and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham made about people being reluctant to come forward, because of their distrust of the criminal justice system as a whole, However, my practical experience of that, as just described—and Westminster Magistrates’ Court deals with perhaps the most diverse group of people to pass through the doors of any magistrates’ court in the country—was that not a lot of business was picked up. That is my first reflection.
Lord Steward of Dirleton (Con, Advocate General for Scotland):Amendment 139B, tabled, again, by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, would place on the Home Secretary a duty to give effect to the recommendations of the Chief Inspector of Prisons in so far as they relate to immigration detention accommodation. I start by making the general observation that recommendations by an independent inspectorate are just that: recommendations and not directions. It is properly a matter for the Home Secretary to consider whether in all the circumstances it is appropriate for her to accept and give effect to relevant recommendations by the Chief Inspector of Prisons. We naturally take very seriously all reports and recommendations by the chief inspector and have accepted many practical recommendations to improve our immigration detention accommodation. The Home Office regularly publishes service improvement plans alongside His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons’ report on its website. However, on occasion, there may be good policy, operational or other reasons why it would not be appropriate to accept a particular recommendation, and it would be wrong to bind the Home Secretary’s hands in the way that Amendment 139B seeks to do. However, I assure the right reverend Prelate and others in the Committee that the duties to report will remain and that the existing inspection framework will apply to any new detention accommodation, as my noble friend Lord Murray said from the Dispatch Box at an earlier juncture of this Committee’s deliberations.
Baroness Hamwee (LD): My Lords, I moved Amendment 139A. The right reverend Prelate and I have often had our names paired on amendments on these issues. The story from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, about Home Office officials sitting in court to see what they can pick up was truly shocking, whatever other conclusions one might draw about it.
I am unclear why it is necessary to apply the restrictions about sharing data, automatically or otherwise, when the subject is already detained, but I come back to my principal point—sadly, it is not the first time we have made it from these Benches—that we thought that the effective immigration control exemption in the Data Protection Act, and so much now comes within that, was far too wide and had dangers inherent in it. The examples given by the right reverend Prelate in the field of domestic abuse bear this out.
We have heard a lot about the Government wanting co-operation from victims with regard to the investigation and prosecution of traffickers and smugglers. It does not seem to me that not agreeing to a firewall is the best way to go about getting that co-operation.
Points of Clarification:
Lord Stewart of Dirleton: My Lords, I will not detain the Committee by going through Clauses 61 to 67 in turn. They contain entirely standard provisions, relating, for example, to the making of regulations under the Bill, commencement, extent and the short title. Instead, I will focus on the various amendments in the group and on the contributions that noble Lords helpfully made from a variety of perspectives.
I will first deal briefly with government Amendment 139D. This relates to the standard power in Clause 66(5) which enables the Secretary of State, by regulations, to make transitional or saving provision in connection with the commencement of any provision of the Bill. Amendment 139D simply enables such regulations to make consequential, supplementary and incidental provision and different provision for different purposes. Again, this is an entirely standard provision to facilitate the smooth implementation of an Act.
The Lord Bishop of Durham: I am sorry to interrupt, but I twice heard the Minister say Amendment 139D, and I think he meant Amendment 139G.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con): I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lord Murray. I did indeed mean that, and I apologise. However, if I may, I will stay with the right reverend Prelate, because he opened the debate on Amendment 139A, which deals with data sharing in relation to victims of crime.
I understand fully the sentiment behind the amendment. The whole Committee, and indeed the whole House, can agree on the need to protect all victims of crime, regardless of their immigration status. As the right reverend Prelate will be aware, guidance issued by the National Police Chiefs’ Council, updated in 2020, makes it clear that victims of crime should be treated as victims first and foremost.
The NPCC guidance provides that police officers will not routinely search police databases for the purpose of establishing the immigration status of a victim or witness or routinely seek proof of their entitlement to reside in the United Kingdom. In addition, police officers must give careful consideration, on a case-by-case basis, to what information they share with the Home Office and when to do so. The reasons for sharing information must be recorded and the victim advised as to what has been shared and why. Noble Lords will appreciate that I am setting up a paper trail of responsibility. I should stress that any data sharing is on a case-by-case basis, so, to that extent, I respectfully submit to the Committee that subsection (1) of the proposed new clause is misconceived in referring to the “automatic” sharing of personal data.
We should not lose sight of the fact that benefits may flow from sharing information, as it can help to prevent perpetrators of crime coercing and controlling their victims on account of their insecure immigration status. Moreover, providing a victim with accurate information about their immigration status and bringing them into the immigration system can only benefit them.
Lord Scriven (LD): Just before the Minister finishes his conclusions, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham asked a specific question about the standing commission of the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, which has carried out annual reviews of the effectiveness of Home Office policies and procedures with regard to adults in the immigration detention estate. The right reverend Prelate asked whether they would be resumed, and I wonder whether the Minister can inform the Committee whether that will be the case.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton: First, I present my apologies to the right reverend Prelate for not specifically answering that question; I am grateful to the noble Lord for reminding me of it. I had noted that I do not have the information directly to hand in any event.
The Lord Bishop of Durham: I did actually close by saying, “If you don’t have it, would you please write?”
Lord Stewart of Dirleton: Indeed, the right reverend Prelate did, and I confirm that I will happily correspond with him and copy in the noble Lord.
The Church of England in Parliament 
You must be logged in to post a comment.