APPG on Immigration Detention releases its full, and highly critical, inquiry report into the use of sites such as Napier Barracks and Penally Camp for asylum accommodation

The All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Immigration Detention last week published the full report of its inquiry into the Home Office's controversial use of 'quasi-detention' to house destitute asylum seekers at large-scale, institutional sites such as Napier Barracks in Kent and Penally Camp in Wales.

You can download the 81-page report here.

Napier and Penally have been used for contingency accommodation since last year due to the pressures caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. The APPG on Immigration Detention is highly critical of the sites, with the inquiry finding them to be prison-like and "fundamentally unsuitable" for use as asylum accommodation. Alison Thewliss MP, the Chair of the APPG, added that the use of such sites is not only inappropriate, but also downright harmful.

Thewliss says the report makes for sobering reading.

The report states: "The APPG Inquiry has heard how residents have been forced to live in appalling conditions, and how their mental health in particular has deteriorated, in some cases to the point of suicidality, during their stays. The government has overseen numerous operational failings at the sites, despite repeated warnings from inspectors, the High Court and others about how badly things have gone wrong. It accepts that the sites are not suitable environments for vulnerable people, yet has allowed such individuals to be sent to and remain at them, including unaccompanied age-disputed children, people who are self-harming and attempting suicide, and victims of torture, trafficking and other serious abuses."

Alison Thewliss said the accounts heard from witnesses during the APPG's inquiry were heart breaking and painted a picture of misery and a disregard for medical and legal rights.

One resident at Penally told the inquiry: "Living at that camp had a very negative impact on me. Before living at the camp, my mental health was fine. However, I quickly become depressed as a result of the conditions within the camp. I began to lose my hope that the situation would change. I felt abandoned and did not understand why I had been chosen to live in those dire conditions… It would be difficult to design a system that more perfectly delivers despair and deteriorating human health and mental capacity than these asylum camps."

Levels of cleanliness and repair at the sites were poor, with some areas of Napier and Penally described as filthy. Food and nutrition was inadequate, as was the provision of healthcare, especially mental healthcare. There was a lack of privacy at the sites and many residents experienced significant sleep disruption.

With regard to legal support, the APPG noted in its report: "Residents' access to legal advice at Napier and Penally was inadequate. … The sites' locations meant there were few firms in the local area able to offer asylum advice. … [F]ew, if any, face-to-face visits by legal representatives were possible at the sites, and the remote locations of the sites and very small amount of money residents received each week meant travelling to law firm offices was difficult."

In addition, access to the internet and mobile phones at the sites were insufficient, which further hampered communication with legal representatives.

Overall, the report finds that no person fleeing persecution and danger should be treated the way in which the residents at the sites were.

In concluding, the APPG on Immigration Detention says the use of large-scale, institutional sites is not, and can never be, an effective or appropriate solution to the problem of a lack of asylum accommodation in the UK.

"The profound harm inflicted on people at Napier, Penally and other similar sites is clear from the evidence collected. It cannot be allowed to continue, let alone expanded," the report states.

Despite the widespread controversy and criticism over the use of such sites, the Government has extended its use of Napier until at least 2025.

The APPG notes that this suggests the Government's intention is to make large-scale, institutional, quasi-detention facilities into a more permanent and widespread feature of the asylum accommodation system.

Home Secretary Priti Patel confirmed as much in August when she told the Home Affairs Committee: "Continued use of Napier, and the development of new accommodation models, are vital to our ability to continue to meet the ongoing demand to accommodate destitute asylum seekers. The use of the Napier site may also form part of the Home Office's longer-term plans to reform the asylum system, as set out in the New Plan for Immigration published on 24 March 2021. The plan includes the provision, through the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, for the greater use of accommodation centres to provide housing and other services to asylum seekers and failed asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute. Continued use of the Napier site may enable the new processes to be tested and piloted, and so inform the final design of how accommodation centres will operate."

In response to the APPG's report, a spokesperson for the Home Office told the Guardian: "Military barracks sites were previously used to house military personnel. To suggest they are not good enough for asylum seekers is an insult. Residents are not detained at Napier, they are provided with three meals a day and have their basic needs catered for."