20,604

15,864

14,227

27,331

23,970

26,172

29,299

31,908

32,526

32,466

30,365

30,418

29,000

26,000

28,001

2,024

0.38%

0.39%

0.34%

Albania
India
Brazil
Romania
Poland

7,332

8,593

14,227

20,166

9,806

14,465

13,168

12,921

13,636

13,161

232

515

87

98

63

42

110

144

228

242

127

400

1,000

1,119

2

1

1

Not Available

1

1

7

2,335

4,270

3,275 (4500)

250

10,728

2,286

3,915

3,500

2,665

250

10

10

7

10

12

99%

6,393

6,778

8,637

19,253

34,930

40,896

49,920

54,960

54,180

76.4%

95.7%

18,275

16,540

14,280

14,480

14,950

15,905

22,275

27,830

65,365

57,415

49,365

85,356

94,865

94,136

11.9%

11.6%

145

69,138,192

67,700,000

67,900,000

64,716,000

62,800,000

11,845,479

9,359,587

9,552,110

8,543,000

7,824,100

7,605,000

17.13%

13.79%

13.2%

12.4%

417,000 (863000)

524,000 (947000)

515,677

365,262

328,989

137,078

132,304

133,083

126,720

121,837

118,913

117,234

126,055

149,765

1.83

1.82

2.41

3.1

124,783

175,438

167,289

48,540

41,034

54,072

50,961

38,878

32,344

37,066

70

30

33

28

28

4,672

5,596

5,351

125

97

64

205

205

$ 46,510.3,000

$ 40,318.6,000

$ 46,332,000

$ 39,351,000

$ 38,514,000

$ 1,839,000,000,000

$ 8,267,000,000

$ 3,439,000,000

16,759.6

13,892

13,832

14 (Very high)

26 (Very high)

12

Approximately ¾ of people in Britain favour reducing immigration. Large majorities in Britain have been opposed to immigration since at least the 1960s. Immigration is currently highly salient: over the past 15 years it has become one of the most commonly chosen 'most important issues'.

75

Self-harming

Self-harming

Self-harming

Self-harming

Self-harming

Self-harming

Anxiety/panic disorders

Post-traumatic stress disorder

Depression

A short-term holding facility for newly arrived migrants and asylum seekers has been denounced for “catastrophic overcrowding” and “grotesque treatment,” with the country’s Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration reporting that he was left “speechless” by the conditions he observed inside. Thousands are currently detained in Manston Processing Centre where rights groups argue a “humanitarian catastrophe” is unfolding. The highly securitised centre - on a former military base in Kent and made up of large marquees - was opened in February this year as a non-residential short-term holding facility (STHF) to process the growing numbers of migrants and asylum seekers reaching the UK by boat. Unlike residential STHFs, which can detain non-nationals for up to 7 days, non-residential STHFs such as Manston may legally only detain individuals for 24 hours. Despite a capacity of 1,600, today 4,000 are reported to be crammed inside Manston–more than any UK prison population—and the majority for well beyond the 24 hour time limit. SOAS Detainee Support, which used a megaphone to communicate with detainees inside, heard of individuals being detained in the centre for 40 days. Conditions inside the marquees are reported to be squalid and dangerous. Even in September, the country’s Chief Inspector of Prisons found “exhausted detainees sleeping on the floor” due to a lack of beds, and detainees prevented from using toilets in private or using their mobile phones. During a visit last week, the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration reported speaking to an Afghan family with young children who had been forced to sleep on mats on the floor for 32 days. (The fact that children are being detained here goes against key international norms, which hold that children, including families, should never be detained for reasons related to their migration status.) The Home Office has also confirmed that cases of diphtheria have been found amongst detainees, while cases of scabies have similarly been reported. Pictures taken by SOAS Detainee Support on 31 October, meanwhile, show huge piles of confiscated belongings; a small, caged area where they witnessed a father walking with his daughter; and excessive levels of security. Although the centre is already grossly overcrowded, UK authorities continue to transport newly arrived migrants and refugees to the facility—as well as to transfer them in from other sites. Following a recent hate crime against another procesing centre (a firebomb attack on the Western Jet Foil centre in Dover, which injured two people), 700 people were bussed to Manston. At the same time as these arrivals continued, authorities have failed to transfer detainees out into appropriate asylum accommodation, creating a huge backlog at the centre. As the Chief Inspector of Borders and Prisons said, “The Home Office and contractors need to get a grip, they need to speed up the processing of migrants, they need to make suitable provisions so people can be moved off site as quickly as possible and housed in humane and decent conditions.” Some—including Manston’s local Conservative MP—have claimed that the overcrowding is a deliberate “policy decision” by Home Secretary Suella Braverman. According to sources, Braverman refused to sign off on measures that would have relieved the situation at Manston, such as approving hotel accommodation. However, speaking to MPs in the Commons on Monday, Braverman denied that she had vetoed advice to procure additional accommodation. Instead, she used the controversy to ramp up anti-migrant discourse, claiming that “the system is broken, illegal migration is out of control” and that the country is facing an “invasion on our Southern coast.” Coming just one day after the firebombing of the Western Jet Foil centre, Braverman’s inflammatory rhetoric was immediately condemned, including by her Immigration Minister who said: “In a job like mine, you have to choose your words very carefully. I would never demonise people coming to this country in pursuit of a better life.” Home Office statistics reveal that 38,000 people have arrived in the UK via the Channel route so far this year. 12,000 of these arrivals are Albanians–a huge increase on the 50 Albanians reported to arrive in 2020–prompting the government to consider a fast-track process to ensure their cases are heard quickly and removals are immediate if applications are unsuccessful. On top of this, of all the asylum applications made in 2021, only four percent of claims have been processed—creating a huge backlog within the processing system. According to the UK Parliament Home Affairs Committee, this backlog has also been worsened due to “antiquated IT systems, high staff turnover, and too few staff.”

The number of victims of trafficking detained in the UK has likely tripled in the past five years, says a new report published by the Helen Bamber Foundation in early October. Despite broad recognition of the vulnerabilities faced by trafficking and slavery victims, the report says, the UK government is treating survivors as criminals rather than victims by failing to take necessary steps to ensure identification and by enacting legislation that makes it harder to secure their release. According to the report’s joint authors -- the Helen Bamber Foundation, the Anti-Trafficking and Labour Exploitation Unit, Focus on Labour Exploitation, and Medical Justice -- UK government data shows that the number of people referred to the National Referral Mechanism (NRM), which is intended to identify victims of trafficking and modern slavery, has risen from 501 referrals in 2017 to 1,611 in 2021. Although the UK government has frequently touted rhetoric that individuals are “abusing the system” by falsely claiming to be victims of trafficking, over 90 percent of individuals referred to the NRM are found to be genuine. Identification, however, is not leading to release from detention. While UK policy previously stated that victims of trafficking were only eligible for detention in “exceptional circumstances,” a 2021 policy change brought victims under the controversial “Adults at Risk” (AAR) framework, which holds that being a potential or confirmed victim of trafficking or slavery is only one “indicator” that someone is vulnerable to suffering harm in detention. As such, victims are required to produce “scientific levels of evidence” that they are likely to suffer harm in detention before they are released. According to the authors: “Such evidence is difficult for victims of trafficking to obtain, particularly for the many who lack access to good quality legal representation. In practice, the policy encourages a ‘wait and see’ approach whereby vulnerable detainees are left to deteriorate in detention until avoidable harm has occurred and can then be documented.” The idea that non-nationals are “abusing the system” by falsely claiming to be victims of trafficking has steadily gained prominence among officials to justify hardening migration policies. New Home Secretary Suella Braverman, for instance, used a major speech to the Conservative Party conference on 4 October to accuse migrants -- particularly those from Albania -- of “abusing our asylum system” by falsely claiming to be modern slaves, and announced plans to overhaul the UK’s immigration legislation to ensure that “our laws are resilient against abuse.” Braverman -- who has said that it is her “dream” and “obsession” to see a deportation flight take off to Rwanda -- also took aim at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), which intervened in June to ground the UK’s first flight taking asylum seekers to Rwanda. She stated: “We need to find a way to make the Rwanda scheme work. … We cannot allow a foreign court to undermine the sovereignty of our borders. … We need to take back control.” The Home Secretary also pledged to ban anyone who enters the UK illegally from applying for asylum. “If you deliberately enter the United Kingdom illegally, from a safe country, you should be swiftly returned to your home country or relocated to Rwanda. That is where your asylum claim will be considered.”

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced on 14 April that “from today, anyone entering the UK illegally as well as those who have arrived illegally since January 1 may now be relocated to Rwanda. Rwanda will have the capacity to resettle tens of thousands of people in the years ahead.” The UK claims that the plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda will not only deter people from embarking on dangerous sea journeys but will also help break the “business model of people smuggling gangs.” Additional measures include putting the country’s navy in charge of operations in the Channel from 15 April 2022 onwards and setting up a new reception centre to hold people attempting to enter the UK to avoid having to house asylum seekers in hotels. The reception centre is to be built on a former RAF base at Linton-on-Ouse in North Yorkshire. However, unlike existing detention centres, people held there will be free to come and go. The highly controversial deal--which has been harshly criticised by church leaders, opposition politicians, and national and international refugee rights advocates--was sealed by UK Home Secretary Priti Patel during a trip to Rwanda on 14 April, when she and the Rwandan minister for foreign affairs and international cooperation, Vincent Biruta, signed an “economic development partnership” between the two countries. The deal will be funded by the UK at a cost of some £120 million. Unsuccessful asylum seekers would be integrated into communities in Rwanda and can opt to remain in the country or return to their home countries. According to the UK Secretary of State for Wales, the scheme is mostly focused on single young men coming to the UK in search of economic opportunities. It is nonetheless unclear whether only men will be sent to Rwanda, whether they will have a right of appeal, whether cases will initially be processed in the UK, and whether only those deemed “economic migrants” will be removed. According to the Guardian, it is expected that people removed will initially be taken to a hostel in Kigali for processing. Home Office minister, Tom Pursglove, insisted that the scheme would save money in the “longer term,” despite a reported cost of up to £30,000 per person and that the UK is “spending £5 million per day accommodating individuals who are crossing in hotels. That is not sustainable and is not acceptable and we have to get that under control.” Yet, the Guardian reported that government insiders said that they expect many legal battles which could leave the scheme costing much more, with some predicting it could take two years before anyone is flown to Rwanda. While the Prime Minister insisted that Rwanda was one of the safest countries in the world, the UK criticised the country last year for its human rights record. The NGO Detention Action, criticised the scheme and said that people sent there could face “indefinite detention under a government notorious for violent persecution of dissent.” The organisation also highlighted that “the UK currently gives asylum to Rwandan refugees fleeing political persecution.” Human Rights Watch recalled that in 2018, Rwandan security forces shot dead at least 12 refugees from the Democratic Republic of Congo when they protested a cut to food rations. Authorities subsequently arrested and prosecuted more than 60 refugees on charges including rebellion and spreading false information with intent to create a hostile international opinion against the Rwandan state. Moreover, the UNHCR expressed concern over the scheme. A spokesperson for the organisation said that the “UNHCR does not support the externalisation of asylum states’ obligations. This includes measures taken by states to transfer asylum seekers and refugees to other countries, with insufficient safeguards to protect their rights, or where this leads to the shifting rather than the sharing of responsibilities to protect refugees.” The Refugee Council also denounced the government’s plans and said that the government was choosing “control and punishment above compassion despite the fact its own data shows that two thirds of men, women and children arriving in small boats come from countries where war and persecution has forced them from their homes.” The deal also comes as COVID-19 continues to wreak havoc on UK detention and deportation efforts, which could also complicate efforts to implement the Rwanda scheme. In one case from late 2021, several people were taken off a deportation flight to Jamaica due to a large number of COVID-19 cases at the Colnbrook Immigration Removal Centre. One detainee at the centre told Metro that his roommate had tested positive for COVID-19 and that he had not been tested nor changed rooms. The Jamaican government raised concerns about whether the people due to fly were COVID-free and had had PCR tests before being taken to the plane. Several people deported to Jamaica in December 2020 were found to have COVID-19. In terms of COVID-19 vaccinations within the country, a study published by the Lanlungan Filipino Consortium found that undocumented migrants were afraid of trying to obtain the vaccine because of their immigration status. The UK government said that diagnosis and treatment for COVID-19 is free and available to all regardless of immigration status. However, treatment for secondary or subsequent illnesses, including complications arising from COVID-19, are not included. Home Office data shows that in 2021, the number of people deported from the UK was at a record low, while asylum applications soared. 28,526 people arrived on small boats last year, up from 8,404 in 2020. From September 2020 to September 2021, 2,380 people were forcibly returned to another country, representing a yearly drop of 35 percent and the lowest number on record. On the other hand, there were 48,540 asylum applications in the UK in 2021, 63 percent more than in 2020. Also, at the end of December 2021, there were 1,179 persons in immigration detention (including those detained under immigration legislation in prison), 69 percent more than at the end of June 2020 (698), but 28 percent fewer than pre-pandemic levels at the end of December 2019 (1,637). Home Office figures show that 76 percent of those who left detention in 2021, were detained for seven days or less.

In late October, reports emerged of far right groups targeting hotels where Afghan refugees were being accommodated. Britain First and other far right organisations say they are concerned at the cost of resettlement of Afghan refugees. According to the Guardian, Britain First has made several unsolicited visits to hotels housing refugees, trying to approach refugees to ask them if they were waiting for a house. The group has also published videos showing luxurious rooms and communal areas, which according to the Guardian may be from promotional material from the hotels’ websites and incorrectly describe the Afghan refugees as illegal migrants. Britain First had previously held a protest in front of the Britannia Hotel in Wigan, which accommodates refugees, alleging that male refugees had been sexually harassing schoolgirls. The police dismissed these claims and stated that no offence had been committed. A spokesperson for the organisation Hope Not Hate said: “It’s grimly predictable to see the far right harassing Afghan refugees where they are living. Immigration has long been a focus of the far right, but they have capitalised on the Afghan resettlement scheme to bring together Islamophobic tropes with anti-migrant hate.” The Home Office has reportedly also been housing asylum seekers in a former courthouse, which has since become a tourist hostel. Before being used to house asylum seekers, the hostel offered guests “an authentic prison cell” to stay at. According to the Guardian, hundreds of migrants have been held in the facility, including people who were imprisoned in their home countries, such as Libya. The hostel has preserved many of the site’s former penal trappings, including cell windows and heavy old-fashioned cell doors, and it is made up of a mix of dormitories and smaller rooms and “cells.” The Home Office claims that the asylum seekers are staying in “regular hotel accommodation” and that the section of the building with cell-like hotel rooms is not accessible. Internal Home Office email discussions on how to respond to the Guardian’s question were inadvertently sent to the Independent, which passed on the communications to the Guardian. One official told a colleague: “I’ve called them experience rooms to avoid saying prison. Can we say that no-one has stayed in court rooms or were they inappropriately placed there?” The emails also revealed that Home Office officials had visited the hostel on 25 October 2021 and discovered overcrowding and a courtroom “fully set.” One asylum seeker staying there said: “Everything is so bad here. Some of us have been through Libya where we have been imprisoned or have been tortured in other places. It makes us feel very bad to be living in a prison building even though we are not locked in.” He also added: “We are all sleeping close together and we are worried that we will catch COVID.” Civil society groups have strongly criticised the government’s practices and the founder of Humans for Rights Network called for the closure of the centre and that residents be “provided with safe, secure accommodation that does not resemble a prison.”

A surge in COVID-19 cases notwithstanding, UK authorities are continuing to arrange deportation flights. On 21 July, a flight to Zimbabwe departed with an estimated 14 persons on board. The first mass-deportation to Zimbabwe in years, media reports state that the flight marked the start of a planned “summer season” of deportations organised by the Home Office. Originally, the flight to Zimbabwe was scheduled to remove 50 people, but due to a combination of dozens of escorts having to self-isolate having come into contact with COVID-positive individuals; a new COVID outbreak at Brook House Immigration Removal Centre; and legal challenges, an estimated 36 deportations were paused. The UK’s treatment of asylum seekers has come under renewed scrutiny after a controversial new “Nationality and Borders Bill”--dubbed the “Anti-Refugee Bill” by many campaigners--received backing in Parliament. According to the country’s Home Secretary Priti Patel, the bill will adopt “a fair but firm approach” and is “the change we need to fix the UK’s broken asylum system.” Among its various reforms is the criminalisation of entry into the UK without permission, an accelerated appeals procedure, and plans for Australian-style offshore detention. According to the bill, asylum seekers who travel to the UK from a safe third country will risk prosecution for unlawful entry and their asylum claims will be treated as “inadmissible”, and amendments to both the UK’s 2002 Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act and 2004 Asylum and Immigration Act will allow removal to a “safe country” while an asylum claim is pending. NGOs, rights campaigners, and opposition MPs slammed the new bill. More than 200 organisations joined the “Together with Refugees” campaign, which is calling for a “fair, effective, and humane asylum system.” The UK’s Shadow Home Secretary lambasted it as “a missed opportunity that represents the worst of all worlds,” while another Labour MP stated: “The Bill is not about improving legislation, but about hate. It is little more than political gesturing of the worst kind.” The NGO Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID) expressed dismay at the bill’s “dire implications for human rights,” and the Refugee Council described it as “the latest stage in the ongoing attack on refugee rights in the UK.” Many also argue that the bill breaches the 1951 Refugee Convention, which provides that the status of an asylum claim should not be dependent upon mode of entry to a country. Others have also highlighted the UK’s relatively low arrival rate within Europe - “It’s important to remember that compared to other European countries, the UK was only fifth in absolute terms in the number of asylum applications it received in 2020, and 17th if we adjust this number by population size.” As previously reported on this platform (see 22 April update), non-nationals living in the UK are eligible to receive COVID-19 vaccines, “regardless of whether they have the legal right to live and work in the country and that getting the shot would not trigger immigration checks.” However, according to special report published by The Independent and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, “hundreds of thousands of undocumented migrants face being blocked from booking Covid vaccinations, because GP surgeries are refusing to register them.” According to the report, fewer than a quarter of GPs across the country would register someone without ID documents or proof of address--thus leaving them incapable of accessing the vaccine. On 21 July, campaigners welcomed the announcement that plans for an immigration detention facility in County Durham (Hassockfield) have been opposed by Durham County Council. “The County council has now clearly challenged that view, and opponents of the scheme are eager to work with the Council in any way possible to prevent the site from being used as an immigration detention centre in the future.”

Cross-party parliamentarians have urged UK Home Secretary Priti Patel to cease the use of former military barracks for confining asylum seekers. In a letter to the Home Secretary, members of the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Immigration Detention wrote: “We do not believe such sites provide the safe, stable accommodation that people seeking asylum – many of whom have histories of torture, trafficking and other serious trauma – need in order to recover and rebuild their lives.” (Although authorities have now closed Penally Camp in Wales, they are continuing to employ Napier Barracks--a facility that was the site of a large COVID-19 outbreak earlier this year. See 4 February 2021 update on this platform.) In early March, the Independent Inspector of Borders and Immigration and the Inspection Team Leader at HM Inspectorate of Prisons published their initial findings following site visits to both Napier and Penally. In their report, the inspectors highlighted serious concerns, including the lack of COVID security in accommodation (given large communal sleeping areas); poor fire safety; the presence of inexperienced managers lacking the necessary skills to run such facilities; and isolation blocks deemed unfit for habitation. In a survey conducted by the inspectors, a third of respondents among detainees as Napier reported having felt suicidal, and at Penally the vast majority reported that they did not feel they were being kept safe from the risk of infection. Meanwhile, as UK authorities race to vaccinate the country’s population, some have warned that migrants’ fear of deportation may be stopping many from accessing the vaccine. Although government guidelines state that non-nationals--including undocumented migrants--can access the vaccine free of charge, numerous reports have suggested that undocumented migrants are afraid to register with a GP to access the vaccination out of fear that their data will be shared with the Home Office. In a letter to the UK’s Vaccine Minister, Labour MP Sarah Owen and Conservative Peer Lord Sheikh asked how the government planned on reaching those who might be reluctant to access the vaccine. They added: “We are deeply concerned that the large numbers of people who are undocumented will be highly vulnerable and disproportionately impacted by Covid-19, while also being some of the most hesitant to reach out to receive their vaccine.” In February, over 140 NGOs, faith groups, local authorities, and medical organisations urged authorities to establish a firewall between medical bodies and immigration authorities.

Since opening as asylum accommodation in October 2020, the UK’s Napier Barracks--formerly military barracks operated by the Ministry of Defence--have been the subject of intense criticism. Run by a private contractor (Clearsprings, which stands to make £1 billion in ten years from its government contracts to run asylum centres in Wales and South East England), Napier is not officially a detention centre. However, newly arrived asylum seekers are transferred to the facility before any determination of their status has been made, and they are “effectively forced to remain while their refugee claims are considered.” The facility has been regularly criticised for overcrowding, limited access to healthcare and legal advice, and unsuitable accommodation conditions, with several images showing bedsheets hung up to create privacy, and overflowing toilet blocks. One Iranian asylum seeker told the Guardian, “The first impression I had was it looked like a prison. There were fences, security guards walking around, I was really depressed. … There is no support for mental wellbeing. We have one nurse on site, in case you get a cold or flu. People are getting more and more frustrated.” In mid-January the facility witnessed a large COVID-19 outbreak during which more than 120 asylum seekers contracted the virus. Accounts from those inside the facility paint a bleak picture: the centre’s management allegedly failed to adopt health measures to protect against infection and instead treated the entire facility as “one big house”--allowing the virus to spread rapidly and seemingly uncontrollably. Activists and rights advocates, calling for the immediate closure of the facility, have held frequent protests outside the barracks. A freelance photographer who photographed one such protest on 28 January was arrested on suspicion of criminal damage--and had his camera and memory card confiscated. The photographer, 46 year old Andy Aitchison, commented, “It feels like a light has been shone on them and they’ve got the sledgehammer out. It’s censorship: if you don’t toe the line, we shut you down.” The day after Aitchison’s arrest, a fire started in one of the barracks’ blocks, leaving the rest of the facility without electricity, heating, and drinking water. Charities who offered to provide blankets were reportedly turned away. Responding to the fire, the UK’s Home Secretary Priti Patel immediately condemned the event and warned that the Home Office would take action against those “vandalising property” while also justifying the continued use of the military space for accommodating asylum seekers. She tweeted, “The site has previously accommodated our brave soldiers and army personnel - it is an insult to say that it is not good enough for these individuals.” However, as one lawyer representing an asylum seeker in the facility responded, “My client, a victim of torture, having fled the civil war in Darfur is not being ‘accommodated’ - he is being detained in a military camp, in ear shot of regular gun fire from MoD [Ministry of Defence] firing range, trapped with 400 other ppl, at least 120 of whom have covid, and no proper healthcare.”

Following the news of a COVID outbreak in Brook House Immigration Removal Centre (see 16 December update on this platform), on 8 January the Home Office announced the centre’s temporary closure (for ten days) due to a number of positive cases amongst staff. A Home Office spokesman confirmed that several detainees had been transferred to an alternative detention centre (Colnbrook, near Heathrow airport)--a move that detainee rights groups immediately condemned. A representative for Bail for Immigration Detention said that “the decision to transfer people to Colnbrook is incredibly dangerous and places the lives of everybody held there in grave danger.” The facility’s closure comes amidst soaring COVID-19 cases in the UK. As authorities attempt to tackle the new, more transmissible mutation of the virus, a country-wide lockdown is in effect. All persons have been ordered to stay at home and non-essential travel is banned. Despite these measures, however, the Home Office is reported to be continuing to organise deportations. On 6 January, the Independent reported that two deportation flights are due to depart this week: one to Romania on 13 January; and one to Poland on 14 January. When challenged about the safety of these flights, the Home Office said that it would “continue to progress operations with appropriate measures in place.” Lawyers, politicians, rights advocates, and activists have lambasted the decision to continue deportations amidst the new wave of infections. “The Home Office's ramping up of deportation flights during a pandemic is irresponsible & inhumane,” wrote one Labour MP on Twitter. “Rather than putting populism before public health, it should suspend these flights and urgently review its detention & deportation policies.”

A coronavirus outbreak was confirmed at the UK’s Brook House Immigration Removal Centre (close to Gatwick Airport) in early December. While the Home Office declined to clarify how many positive cases had been recorded or how many people were in isolation at that time, the Guardian reported that at least 17 detainees had tested positive and that three wings of the centre had been locked down as of 10 December. According to the newspaper, Serco--the private security company that took over from G4S in early 2020 in managing the facility--pushed a notice under detainees’ doors on 10 December, confirming the outbreak. Due to the lockdown, the deportation of several asylum seekers who recently arrived in the UK via small boats and who are confined in the facility was postponed. The outbreak has led to renewed calls for all detainees to be immediately released. “The outbreak of COVID-19 at #BrookHouse detention centre was completely predictable - and utterly preventable. Nobody should be detained for immigration purposes during a global pandemic,” tweeted Freedom From Torture. Celia Clark, the director of Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID), similarly argued: “The government should now recognise that the use of detention and deportation in the current climate helps to spread coronavirus and puts lives at risk.” Since September, the Home Office has been using two former military barracks (Napier Barracks in Kent, and Penally Barracks in Pembrokeshire) to detain newly arrived asylum seekers. Although it has reported that these facilities are intended for temporary accommodation only--with asylum seekers due to be moved into housing while their applications are assessed--the Guardian reports that many people are instead being transferred directly from these facilities into immigration removal centres, from where they will be deported. Lawyers seeking to assist asylum seekers in the Kent barracks have been denied access. “It’s unusual because even in a detention centre they arrange legal advice, and this is not meant to be a detention centre,” said one solicitor. Some volunteers who have managed to enter the site have accused the Home Office of attempting to cover-up what they call “disturbing” conditions for their entry, including requiring them to sign confidentiality agreements. According to lawyers, up to 15 asylum seekers are forced to share rooms, with sheets hanging between them to create a sense of separation. The government appears to have stepped up efforts to deport non-nationals--although several successful legal appeals have ensured that some deportation orders were postponed. Particularly controversial was a 2 December deportation flight to Jamaica, which rights advocates claim had close Windrush undertones. In a letter signed by several NGOs, as well as solicitors and barristers (including 11 QCs), the flight was branded as racist, unjust, and unlawful. Nevertheless, the flight went ahead with 13 of the 50 original intended deportees. On 1 December, changes to the country’s immigration rules came into effect. These include a controversial amendment that allows authorities to deport non-nationals if they are found to be rough-sleeping--even if they have permission to stay, or have lodged an application to stay. (“9.21.1. Permission to stay may be refused where the decision maker is satisfied that a person has been rough sleeping in the UK.”) As migrant rights groups point out, the number of homeless persons has significantly increased during the pandemic, particularly amongst those with NRPF status (No Recourse to Public Funds, a condition that is frequently applied to persons with limited leave to enter or remain and which leaves them unable to obtain various forms of assistance, such as housing support). “It is shockingly cruel and inhumane to threaten someone with deportation simply because they have been driven into rough sleeping,” said Kate Allen, the Director of Amnesty UK. “It is especially appalling that this heartless policy is being introduced during a pandemic when life for those without a proper place to live is already incredibly difficult.”

So far in 2020, more than 7,400 people have arrived in the UK via small boats, nearly four times as many as in 2019. Seven migrants have died trying to cross the Channel this year, three more than last year. Part of this increase may be due to COVID-19 restrictions and the suspension of resettlement schemes such as in the UK, which is supposed to resettle about 5,000 refugees a year. UNHCR’s UK representative said: “UNHCR hopes that resettlement to the UK will restart very soon, once reception capacity is concerned and any remaining logistical issues related to COVID-19 are overcome by the authorities. The pandemic has presented new, acute hardships and uncertainties for refugees.” The statement comes after two young children and their parents died while trying to cross the Channel during the week of 26 October 2020. Following the unsuccessful legal challenge presented by Detention Action in March (see 5 April and 11 May UK updates on this platform), which aimed to force the Home Office to release all immigration detainees, a number of claims for judicial review have been instigated on behalf of individuals detained at immigration removal centres. In one case, R (on the application of Zalys) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] 4 WLUK 86, the claimant argued that in addition to waiting for the outcome of his appeal against a deportation order requiring his removal, travel restrictions resulting from the pandemic rendered it impossible for the Home Office to remove him to Lithuania within a reasonable timeframe. The claimant also argued that his continued detention in a “congregate setting” was directly contrary to government guidance, particularly so in light of his serious underlying medical conditions. In consequence, the claimant was granted permission to apply for judicial review, with the judge stating that the claimant had established a strong prima facie case for his release. The claimant was then placed on immigration bail by the Home Office. On 30 October, the Guardian reported that the government had increased cash support payments for asylum seekers by 3 pence (£0.03) per week, increasing the current weekly rate of £39.60 to £39.63 following a review by the Home Office. This now equates to around £5.66 a day. Several charities, who have been pushing the UK government to increase support rates, have criticised the measure. The group Asylum Matters said that “this review was an opportunity for the Home Office to put this right, and ensure people seeking refugee status in the UK are safe and supported, during the pandemic and beyond. Instead, they’ve blown it -- 3p a week is an insult, not an increase.” In the UK, people seeking asylum are barred from working while they wait for a decision on their claims. Yet, immigration figures released in August revealed that more than 70 percent of people seeking asylum in the UK wait more than six months for a decision on their claim. COVID-19 has put the country’s prison system and prisoners under considerable pressure and psychological stress. On 4 October 2020, campaigners at the Prison Reform Trust (PRT) found that coronavirus measures in English and Welsh prisons have delayed the release of potentially thousands of prisoners by blocking chances for inmates to take part in rehabilitation activities, required to progress in their sentences. In addition, PRT said that the uncertainty caused by the virus is leading to increasing despair and hopelessness as well as putting a significant strain on prisoners’ mental health and wellbeing.

So far this year, more than 7,400 asylum seekers and migrants have arrived in the UK by small boat--nearly four times as many as in 2019. A new report has revealed that new arrivals are processed at a makeshift facility in Tug Haven, where hundreds are “forced to spend hours in cramped containers on a “rubble-strewn building site,” without appropriate provision of dry clothes and other basic supplies. As part of the “processing,” arrivals are screened for urgent medical conditions and symptoms of COVID-19--those who display symptoms are placed in a designated van. Peter Clarke, Chief Inspector for Prisons, said: “While the number of arrivals had been far higher in 2020 than in previous years, the reception arrangements at Tug Haven were not fit for even small numbers.” In Scotland, a COVID-19 outbreak has been reported in Dungavel House Immigration Removal Centre. Although the UK’s Home Office confirmed the detection of cases amongst immigration detainees in the facility, it withheld revealing the number of persons currently in the facility, and the number of confirmed cases. In May, however, the BBC reported that the IRC was “thought to be nearly empty” (see 11 May update on this platform). In a letter to the Home Secretary, the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Immigration Detention requested that the Home Office reveal figures clarifying the number of detainees that have tested positive in the facility in the past 30 days. The centre--which currently has capacity for 125 persons (after being reduced from 249 at the end of 2019)--is run by the for-profit GEO Group. Campaigners, who have long called for the facility’s closure, have urged authorities to release the remaining detainees, citing their concerns that persons in the facility “already suffer from mental health and medical conditions.” (In 2019, figures obtained by BBC Scotland revealed that 40 percent of detainees in the facility were classed as “vulnerable.” The BBC also reported that children continued to be detained in the facility, despite the UK government claiming in 2010 that it would end the detention of children.) As well as calling for their release, lawyers and campaigners have demanded that all persons released be tested for the virus and placed in private accommodation. According to the APPG, one case has also been detected in Brook House IRC. Despite COVID-19 cases rising rapidly across the UK, the APPG reports that the number of persons in detention has risen in recent months (having been reduced during the first wave of the pandemic), and transfers of detainees around the detention estate have continued, despite the fact that such movements may spread the virus across facilities. Although transfers have reportedly continued, UK government guidance (last updated in July) specifies that visits to immigration detention centres across the country remain barred--although some visits may be accommodated in exceptional circumstances. This also applies to visits by legal representatives: “Visits by legal representatives can continue but only in exceptional circumstances and if no other means of contact (Skype, phone, email) can be used instead.” However, as the Law Society noted in its latest report--”Law Under Lockdown”--solicitors have reported that the availability of technology within IRCs can be limited: “it is vital that adequate communication with lawyers is maintained from IRCs to ensure that individuals are represented effectively in these.” According to the UK’s Inspectorate of Prisons for England and Wales, which released its 2019-2020 annual report this week, 23,075 people entered detention across the UK in the 12 months to 31 March 2020--5 percent fewer than the previous year. In surveys assessing detainees’ sense of safety, the Inspector found that a third of detainees at Brook House and Morton Hall IRCs, and almost half at Colnbrook IRC, said that they felt “unsafe.” Several factors accounted for this feeling, such as fear of removal, concern about the progress of their immigration cases, the behaviour of other detainees “frustrated at their confinement,” and lengthy indefinite detention.

The Covid-19 pandemic appears to be fundamentally altering how migrants and asylum seekers arrive in the UK ... and how the UK responds to these arrivals. So far this year, some 7,000 people have arrived irregularly on small boats that have made the perilous crossing of the Channel--more than three times the number during all of 2019--which appears to be driven at least in part by the decreasing volume of lorry traffic in and out of the country (see the 27 August 2020 update). Last month, UK authorities announced plans to repurpose Yarl’s Wood Detention Centre to boost its capacity to accommodate people intercepted while attempting this crossing (see 27 August United Kingdom update on this platform). While these developments have drawn widespread attention, the Home Office has also been seeking to redesign the functioning of the country’s asylum system. On 1 October 2020, the Guardian reported on leaked documents revealing that trials have taken place to test a blockade in the Channel, similar to Australia’s controversial “turn back the boats” tactic. The document states that “trails are currently underway to test a ‘blockade’ tactic in the Channel on the median line between French and UK waters, akin to the Australian ‘turn back’ tactic, whereby migrant boats would be physically prevented (most likely by one or more UK RHIBs, rigid hull inflatable boats, from entering UK waters.” The UK government said it would not comment on the leaked measures but said that they would soon bring forward ‘a package of measures’ to address illegal migration once the UK has left the EU.” On 30 September, the Guardian reported that the UK government was considering the option of sending asylum seekers to Moldova, Morocco, or Papua New Guinea. Documents seen by the Guardian detailed proposals to hold refugees in offshore detention centres. However, the documents suggest that officials in the Foreign Office have been resisting the government's proposals to process asylum applications in detention facilities overseas. The documents also reportedly contained suggestions on the construction of detention centres on the islands of Ascension and St. Helena. The documents, marked “official” and “sensitive” summarise advice from Foreign Office officials, which had been asked to “offer advice on possible options for negotiating an offshore asylum processing facility similar to the Australian model in Papua New Guinea and Nauru.” The Australian system has attracted criticism from human rights groups, the United Nations, and even the UK government. According to the documents seen by the Guardian, British ministers have privately raised concerns with Australia over the abuse of detainees in its offshore detention facilities.” On 30 September, Home Secretary Priti Patel asked officials to consider processing asylum seekers at Ascension and St. Helena. Home Office sources were quick to distance themselves from the proposals and the UK government has also played down both islands as destinations for asylum processing centres. However, the documents seen by the Guardian seem to suggest that the government had been working on “detailed plans” that include cost estimates of building camps, as well as other proposals to build facilities in Moldova, Morocco, and Papua New Guinea. The UK’s proposal seems to go further than Australia’s system, which is based on migrants being intercepted while outside national waters. The UK documents state that its proposal would involve relocating asylum seekers who “have arrived in the UK and are firmly within the jurisdiction of the UK for the purposes of the ECHR and Human Rights Act 1998.” In addition, the documents suggest that the idea of third country destinations for UK asylum processing centres came directly from Downing Street and the request for advice reportedly came from “the PM.” The Times also reported that the government was giving serious consideration to the idea of creating floating asylum centres in disused ferries moored off the UK coast. Nonetheless, the Foreign Office advice contained in the documents appears to be highly dismissive of the ideas emanating from Downing Street, citing legal, practical, and diplomatic obstacles to processing asylum seekers overseas. The documents highlight that: Plans to process asylum seekers in Ascension or St Helena would be “extremely expensive and logistically complicated.” The estimated cost is £220m per 1,000 beds and running costs of £200m. One document adds that: “in relation to St Helena, we will need to consider if we are willing to impose the plan if the local government object.” Legal, diplomatic, and practical obstacles to the plan include the existence of “sensitive military installations” on the island of Ascension. Military issues mean that the “US government would need to be persuaded at the highest levels, and even then success cannot be guaranteed.” It is “highly unlikely” that any north African state would agree to hosting asylum seekers relocated to the UK. Seeming to dismiss the idea of sending asylum seekers to Moldova, Foreign Office officials pointed out that there is a conflict over Transnistria as well as endemic corruption. In consequence, “if an asylum centre depended on reliable, transparent, credible cooperation from the host country justice system, we would not be able to rely on this.” Foreign Office officials also warned of “significant political and logistical obstacles” to sending asylum seekers to Papua New Guinea including that the country is more than 8,500 miles away, has a fragile public health system and is “one of the bottom few countries in the world in terms of medical personnel per head of population.” A Whitehall source familiar with the government plans stated that the plans were part of a push by the government to “radically beef-up the hostile environment” in 2021 following the end of the Brexit transition. The source said that the government is seeking to adopt policies that would “discourage” and “deter” migrants from entering the UK irregularly, similarly to Theresa May’s “hostile environment”, which is no longer being used in government. The documents seen by the Guardian contain legal advice from the Home Office to Downing Street. The advice states that the policy would require legislative changes, including “disapplying sections 77 and 78 of the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 so that asylum seekers can be removed from the UK while their claim or appeal is pending.” On 30 September, when asked about the UK’s plans to ship asylum seekers to the south Atlantic for processing, Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s spokesperson confirmed that the UK was considering Australian-style offshore processing centres. He stated that the UK had a “long and proud history” of accepting asylum seekers but needed to act, particularly due to many migrants making unofficial crossings from France in small boats. The UK government plans have been strongly criticised by experts familiar with Australia’s immigration policies stating that the plan risks creating a fresh “human rights disaster.” Elaine Pearson, Australia director of Human Rights Watch (HRW), said that the Australian experience of offshore processing has been “a human rights disaster” that was still causing suffering. Despite the criticism, the top civil servant at the Home Office said that “all options are on the table” for the migration system, responding to reports that officials were asked to consider proposals to hold refugees in offshore detention centres. Matthew Rycroft, the department’s permanent secretary, said that the Cabinet Office would lead an inquiry into the leak of documents. Rycroft stated that the aim of the exercise was to improve “our system of asylum so we can continue to provide the protection to those who need it in accordance with our international obligations and to make sure the system is not being abused.”

During the first two weeks of August, more than 650 migrants and asylum seekers crossed the Channel from France. With fewer lorries able to cross during the pandemic, migrants and asylum seekers have increasingly sought to attempt the journey in dinghies, often with the aid of smugglers. The country’s Home Office has been advancing alarmist narratives surrounding the arrivals—even after the drowning of a Sudanese refugee during an attempt to cross the waterway—presenting it as a “crisis” which will only be solved by the UK’s exit from the EU. As well as tasking the Royal Air Force to patrol the route using a surveillance plane in order to “make the crossing unviable for small boats” (AP 13 August), authorities have also announced plans to repurpose Yarl’s Wood Detention Centre (formely restricted to detaining women) to hold people interdicted while attempting to cross. Some observers, however, have argued that the government’s recent focus on migration is an attempt to divert attention away from its handling of the pandemic. On 29 July, the Home Office announced that individuals whose departure orders were set to expire before 31 August would be allowed to temporarily remain, work, and study in the country. However, as of this update, it was unclear what would happen once the new deadline passed. The Home Office indicated that “exceptional indemnity” would apply to individuals who could not leave the country in time but intended to do so. On 7 July 2020, the Home Office released the second version of the “Guidance for Immigration Removal Centres (IRCs), Residential Short-Term Holding Facilities (RSTHFs) and escorts during the Covid-19 pandemic.” The guidance is intended to inform Home Office staff operating in IRCs and RSTHFs about Covid-19 measures in places of detention and covers the strategy for shielding those particularly vulnerable to the virus. Among the measures: detainees, staff, and visitors should frequently wash their hands using soap for at least 20 seconds; IRC suppliers should produce specific guidance for individuals to explain how to reduce the risks of a Covid-19 outbreak; detainees should be provided on request with appropriate disinfectant cleaning materials to clean their bedrooms; and detainees should be accommodated in single occupancy rooms with en-suite toilets. According to a blog post by Gherson, a UK-based law firm specialising in immigration law, reported that ongoing pleas to the Home Office to release all immigration detainees have been unsuccessful. A legal challenge by Detention Action, which aimed to force the Home Office to do that, was rejected by the High Court in late March (see 11 May United Kingdom update on this platform). Nevertheless, the number of people detained for immigration-related reasons more than halved between January and April, from over 1,500 to around 700 (see 5 April United Kingdom update on this platform). Gherson indicated that the most common reason behind the reduction in the number of people in immigration detention appears to be the significant increase in grants of immigration bail applications since lockdown. The legal charity, Bail for Immigration Detainees, reported a 95 percent success rate in their applications for bail since 23 March. Gherson adds that the arguments made by the Home Office to justify detention are less applicable in the wake of Covid-19 as long-term detention is severely restricted where there is no realistic prospect of removal. Unlike other European countries, the UK has not suspended removals in response to the pandemic and Home Office has even utilised indirect flights to countries of origin in an attempt to continue removals. Also, arguing that an individual is unlikely to comply with immigration bail conditions has also become more difficult to justify, according to Gherson. In related developments, prison restrictions in place in the UK since March have allowed youth detention facilities to keep children in their cells for up to 22 hours a day (see 15 July United Kingdom update on this platform). On 21 July, the Ministry of Justice announced that this measure could remain in place for two years. The Howard League for Penal Reform, a UK based charity, has been receiving reports from children in prisons about the severe impact of solitary confinement on their mental health. In mid-June, UK’s Labour MP released data showing that amongst the prisoners released since the beginning of the pandemic, approximately a 1,000 were homeless or without housing. After a drop of 5.4 percent in the prisoner population between March and June, numbers started rising again following the reopening of courts. On 31 July, Prison Insider reported that UK’s authorities were working on a plan to implement telemedicine in all the country’s prison system. This would allow prisoners to use a 4G tablet for medical consultations.

Although the UK did not issue a moratorium on new detention orders at the height of the pandemic, the Home Office ceased issuing new detention orders for people who, under normal circumstances, would face removal to one of 49 specified countries. This was confirmed in a GDP Covid-19 survey completed by a UK government official who asked to remain anonymous but whose identity was verified by the GDP. According to the source, the 49 countries are: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Austria, Bulgaria,Cameroon, China, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, India, Iraq, Ireland, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Latvia, Lichenstein, Lebanon, Libya, Luxembourg, Mauritania, Morocco, Netherlands,Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, Zimbabwe. While large numbers of immigration detainees were released from UK detention facilities at the height of the pandemic (see 11 May update), according to Home Office statistics some 295 people were placed in detention (Immigration removal centres (IRCs), Short-term holding facilities (STHF), or Pre-departure accommodation (PDAs)) between 23 March and the end of April. This figure does not include people brought into detention centres from UK prisons, so the exact number of new arrivals is likely higher. In spite of this, the total number of people in detention at the start of May was far lower than in previous months: 313 compared to 555 at the end of March 2020, and 1,278 at the end of December 2019. However, numbers are higher when one considers non-nationals detained in prisons: according to Avid Detention, approximately 700 persons remained in detention at the end of May. Like in many European countries, including notably Spain, there is an emerging debate in the UK over future measures for those who were released from detention during the crisis. Some of those released have been staying in Home Office accommodation or private housing, and have been required to stay in regular contact with government authorities. The UK is the only country in Europe where immigration detainees can be held indefinitely, a fact that has been the subject of considerable scrutiny and criticism in recent years. In June, as Parliament prepared to debate the new Immigration and Social Security Co-Ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill -- the purpose of which is to end free movement for people from the EU due to Brexit -- the Conservative MP David Davis tabled an amendment that would cap the detention time limit at 28 days. The proposal coincided with the release of a highly critical report from the Jesuit Refugee Service investigating the impact of indefinite detention on migrants and asylum seekers prior to the pandemic. The report found that of those interviewed, many had found the prison-like conditions and lack of a release date deeply traumatic, with many reporting suicidal feelings and psychological damage. One former detainee said, “The most awful thing was an uncertainty: Not knowing whether I will be released and what they’re going to do to me.” Despite the amendment receiving cross-party support, the proposal was rejected. Although the Ministry of Justice has published daily briefings on the number of persons teste and the number of confirmed cases across the entire prison system, the Home Office has not published information on testing in immigration detention settings. As such, exact figures detailing those with symptoms and confirmed cases have remained unavailable. Avid Detention stated on 28 May, “It is not clear why this same level of transparency is not being applied to detention, given the heightened risk both prisons and detention environments pose.” In the United Kingdom, due to Covid-19, vulnerable children in prisons are left waiting for months for their postponed trials. In some cases, trials are postponed indefinitely. In addition, according to CNN, Covid-19 prison restrictions mean that children are put in solitary confinement for up to 23.5 hours a day and provided with little education, exercise, and cannot receive any visits. The latest figures, from May 2020, show that 614 children are in custody in England and Wales. These children have been detained in what UN guidelines define as “solitary confinement”: 22 hours a day without any meaningful human contact. These guidelines stipulate that this level of confinement should never be used on children. The prison service of England and Wales claim to want to relax solitary confinement measures in the coming weeks stating it knows the restrictions are difficult for children, but they claim these measures are based on expert advice and that they help save lives. Labour MP David Lammy argued that while Covid-19 is a challenge to the system, it is not a call for democratic countries to abandon norms that have been fought hard for. Lammy’s review of English and Welsh prisons found that black and other minority children are overly represented in the prison system, making up over half (52 percent) of children in prison, while minorities are only 14 percent of the UK’s population.

Despite an unsuccessful legal challenge from Detention Action seeking the release of all immigration detainees at the High Court in March (see 5 April update), more than 700 detainees were released between 16 March and 21 April as the government responded to concerns about the spread of Covid-19 within immigration detention facilities. The organisation has begun a petition requesting the release of all remaining immigration detainees. Official figures recorded 1,225 people in detention centres on 1 January and 368 at the latest count, which amounts to a reduction of almost three-quarters. According to detainees, there are 13 women left at the Yarl’s Wood immigration removal in Bedfordshire and the Tinsley House and Dungavel centres are thought to be nearly empty. Also, about 50 people are believed to have been deported during the crisis. Detention Action told the BBC (7 May) that the litigation had “forced major, rapid concessions from the government, including the release of 350 detainees in one week and a halt on new detentions of people facing removal to 49 countries.” Another NGO, Movement for Justice, commented: "Now we also know the centres can be easily emptied and people can manage their cases in the community." However, the Home Office has pushed back on this idea, arguing that “the vast majority of those in detention, at this time, are foreign national offenders. It is only right that we continue to protect the public from dangerous criminals.” Immigration detainees have reportedly been unable to access coronavirus tests despite living in shared accommodation centres where there have been confirmed cases of the virus. The managing Director of Mitie, a private firm contracted by the Home Office to run Harmondsworth and Colnbrook removal centres, told the Home Affairs Select Committee on 7 May 2020 that while all staff in the centre were able to access tests, there was at present “no particular policy” around testing for detainees. He added that Mitie had “recently written to the Home Office asking that testing becomes available as a matter of routine for detainees.” In English and Welsh prisons, it is estimated that around 1,800 prisoners could be infected with Covid-19, in addition to the 304 already confirmed cases, according to Public Health England (PHE). PHE also added that to avoid a further spread of the disease, protective measures within penitentiaries would have to be maintained until the end of the financial year (April 2021). With these measures in place, PHE has estimated that there will be around 2,800 infections and 100 deaths.

The UK’s Home Affairs Select Committee has called on the government to investigate concerns that cramped conditions in asylum accommodation are putting people at risk of the virus. In particular, the Committee noted its concerns regarding reports of poor conditions in an asylum centre in West Yorkshire that reportedly breached measures to control the spread of Covid-19. The Committee has also called for information on what steps the Home Office is taking to ensure that private contractors manage accommodation to ensure its safety. On 21 April, the Select Committee heard evidence from refugee NGOs and immigration lawyers as part of its inquiry into Home Office preparedness for the crisis. During the session, the committee sought to learn more about the issues facing migrants and asylum seekers and to assess whether changes are required to the provision of support to those in the asylum system, and to examine the government’s policy relating to immigration detention and the adequacy of protective measures recently implemented in detention centres.

As news emerged of a second confirmed case of Covid-19 within a UK Removal Centre, Alison Thewliss - chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Immigration Detention - urged the UK government to release immigration detainees. In a letter to Home Secretary Priti Patel, Thewliss wrote, “The confirmation of a new coronavirus case at Brook House demonstrates the danger detainees are continuing to be put in. Now more than ever, protection must be prioritised over immigration targets. IRCs are high risk for clusters of Covid-19 with staff providing a conduit for infection to and from the community. The continued spread of the virus clearly highlights the very real risk of uncontrolled outbreaks at IRCs.”

Human rights organisations and legal bodies have repeatedly called on the UK Home office to release immigration detainees. While some 300 individuals were released from removal centres by the end of March, a legal filing seeking the release of all immigration detainees was blocked by the High Court. When the crisis first began to escalate in the UK, ten human rights and legal organisations wrote a letter to Home Secretary Priti Patel demanding the release of all people from immigration detention, stating that “there is a very real risk of an uncontrolled outbreak of Covid-19 in immigration detention.” The Shadow Immigration Minister, Bell Ribeiro-Addy MP, stated that she “fully supports calls from migration campaigners and lawyers to release immigration detainees on public health grounds amid the Coronavirus outbreak.” On 19 March, Detention Action issued a legal challenge, which sought to ensure that the government reviewed and released persons held under immigration powers, and to immediately halt all future deportations. On 21 March, some 300 detainees were released from several immigration detention centres, raising hopes that more of the detainee population would soon be freed. These hopes, however, were quickly dashed when Detention Action’s legal challenge was rejected by the High Court. During the case, the Home Office highlighted that numbers in immigration detention had fallen substantially from 1,200 in January to 736 in March. At the same time, the BBC reported that women continued to be placed in detention at Yarl’s Wood, despite one confirmed case of Covid-19 in the facility, and in a leaked letter from G4S, plans to isolate individual vulnerable detainees for up to three months were revealed. Thus, on 27 March, the call to release detainees was again repeated in an open-letter to Prime Minister Boris Johnson. More than 100 charities, grassroots organisations, academics, and legal professionals called on the government to reduce the number of persons in prisons, young offender institutions, secure training centres, and immigration detention facilities. The Ministry of Justice announced on 4 April 2020 that low-risk prisoners who are within two months of their release date are to be temporarily permitted to leave on licence. This announcement coincided with news that 88 prisoners and 15 staff had tested positive (2 staff died at Pentonville Prison). No mention of immigration detainees, however, was made - prompting rights groups to once again urge the government to release immigration detainees. As Medical Justice UK stated, “Now release immigration detainees. None are serving a criminal sentence and few can be deported during the global lockdown, making their indefinite detention in such harmful conditions incomprehensible, indefensible and just plain cruel.”

Yes

Unknown

No

Yes (Unknown) Yes Yes Yes

Yes but have reopened

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Unknown (Unknown) Included Unknown Unknown