I hope that that is not the experience—and if it is, I hope that the noble Baroness will send me details of the specifics of the experience that she relates. The Home Office does not make a profit from applications; where the fee is higher than the estimated unit cost, there is no profit element. The Home Office keeps all fees under review, and it is its principle to ensure that those who have a potential legal right to apply to stay in the United Kingdom have the facility to do so in a simple and effective way. I hope that the noble Baroness will supply me with the information if there is a specific case to which she wishes to refer.

As I said in my initial Answer, one of our paramount concerns is the health and welfare of migrants and our staff. I can reassure the House that no one has contracted legionnaires’ disease as a result of the finding of this presence in the water supply.

Commercial contracts are commercially sensitive, and the usual policy will be adopted in relation to them. Clearly, certain standards will be promulgated, and the noble Baroness will be able to look at those. I would be delighted to facilitate any visits that the noble Baroness may wish to make to the facilities.

The immigration removal estate is kept under ongoing review to ensure that the Home Office has sufficient capacity, in the right places and that it provides value for money. We will maintain sufficient capacity to support the removal of those who abuse our hospitality by committing serious, violent and persistent crimes as well as those who do not comply with our immigration laws.

The Home Office publishes statistics on people in detention on the last day of each quarter in the Immigration statistics quarterly release - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)Data on people in detention under immigration powers are published in Table Det_03a of the ‘Detention summary tables - List of tables - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

The ‘contents’ sheet contains an overview of all available data on detention.

The total operational capacity for the immigration removal centres (if all rooms and beds are in use) is 2462 and the current occupancy rate is 367 as of 3 March 2021.

This Government is committed to tackling domestic abuse against all women, regardless of their background or nationality. On 16 July this Government introduced the Domestic Abuse Bill which aims to improve protection and support for all victims irrespective of their immigration status.

Non-British victims residing in the UK are able to apply for support from authorities, many of whom will have statutory obligations to support victims. For individuals in the UK who are married, or partners of, British or settled sponsors and who claim to be victims of abuse, there is the option of applying for immediate crisis support under the Destitute Domestic Violence Concession (DDVC).

In addition, funding has been made available to support a range of support networks. In March £1,090,000 was made available specifically to be used to provide safe accommodation, and other support functions.

We are not complacent about our responses to domestic abuse. We strive to see what more can be done and we have committed to reviewing the support available to migrant victims of domestic abuse. The review will be launched over the summer and we aim to report progress of the review during the passage of the Bill.

Information on the number of people in the detention estate, by nationality detained on the last day of each quarter is available in table dt_13_q of the detention tables https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/803188/detention-mar-2019-tables.ods in the latest release of ‘Immigration Statistics, year ending March 2019’.

The latest data relate to the number in detention as at the end of March, data for the end of June is due to be published on 22 August 2019.

While I cannot give out the figures, I can say that 54 local authorities can access a database developed by local government with funding from the Home Office. It is called NRPF Connect and allows for online checks and information sharing, enabling the Home Office to identify local authority-supported cases and prioritise them for conclusion. There is communication between the Home Office and local authorities.

Training is provided to staff, including healthcare staff, in immigration removal centres (IRCs) following changes made to the adults at risk in immigration detention policy (AAR) in July 2018. Trafficking is one of the indicators of risk set out in the AAR. This training included training on Rule 35 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001.

The Home Office record the number of all individuals referred to the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) and this information is published Quarterly by the National Crime Agency. This information does not distinguish between those detained under immigration powers and those living in the community.

The reason for this is two-fold, firstly because the NRM referral is not an immigration route by which individuals should regularise their stay in the United Kingdom and secondly, because a person’s status in immigration detention is not permanent and can change. The use of immigration detention in all cases is subject to regular reviews and consequently, a change in circumstance may result in a different consideration. It is quite possible that an immigration detainee is referred to the National Referral Mechanism during a detention period and is released into the community at any point during that process.

As in the response to HL11381, the Home Office do not hold centralised records of immigration detainees referred to the National Referral Mechanism. As such, this information could only be obtained at disproportionate costs.

The Home Office record the number of all individuals referred to the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) and this information is published Quarterly by the National Crime Agency. This information does not distinguish between those detained under immigration powers and those living in the community.

The reason for this is two-fold, firstly because the NRM referral is not an immigration route by which individuals should regularise their stay in the United Kingdom and secondly, because a person’s status in immigration detention is not permanent and can change. The use of immigration detention in all cases is subject to regular reviews and consequently, a change in circumstance may result in a different consideration. It is quite possible that an immigration detainee is referred to the National Referral Mechanism during a detention period and is released into the community at any point during that process.

Providing the information requested would require a manual check of individual records which could only be done at disproportionate cost.

There were 44 children held in immigration detention between January and December 2017. 11 children were removed from the UK, with five being returned from Gatwick Pre-Departure Accommodation and six from the Family Unit within Tinsley House Immigration Removal Centre. All 11 children who were returned were held with their families prior to return for less than 72 hours.

Any death in immigration detention is subject to investigation by the police, the coroner (or Procurator Fiscal in Scotland) and the independent Prisons and Probation Ombudsman.

In the period 1 October 2016 to 30 September 2017 there have been no deaths in immigration removal centres, or shortly after release, where a coroner has yet determined the cause of death to be self inflicted.

Staff at all immigration removal centres are trained to identify those at risk of self harm so that action can be taken to minimise the risk. All incidents of self harm are treated very seriously and every step is taken to prevent incidents of this nature. Formal risk assessments on initial detention and systems for raising concerns at any subsequent point feed into established self harm procedures in every IRC, which are in turn underpinned by the Home Office Operating Standard on the prevention of self-harm and Detention Services Order 06/2008 Assessment Care in Detention Teamwork (ACDT).

Information on incidents of self harm where the intent of the self harm attempt is suicide is not readily available from central statistical records and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

Any death in immigration detention is subject to investigation by the police, the coroner (or Procurator Fiscal in Scotland) and the independent Prisons and Probation Ombudsman.

In the period 1 October 2016 to 30 September 2017 there have been no deaths in immigration removal centres, or shortly after release, where a coroner has yet determined the cause of death to be self inflicted.

Staff at all immigration removal centres are trained to identify those at risk of self harm so that action can be taken to minimise the risk. All incidents of self harm are treated very seriously and every step is taken to prevent incidents of this nature. Formal risk assessments on initial detention and systems for raising concerns at any subsequent point feed into established self harm procedures in every IRC, which are in turn underpinned by the Home Office Operating Standard on the prevention of self-harm and Detention Services Order 06/2008 Assessment Care in Detention Teamwork (ACDT).

Information on incidents of self harm where the intent of the self harm attempt is suicide is not readily available from central statistical records and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

It is not permitted contractually for private service providers to use the detainee paid work scheme to replace staffing obligations in immigration removal centres.

None of the work undertaken by detainees on a voluntary basis in this scheme is duplicated by staff or employees of either the Home Office or the private service provider and there are no savings or efficiencies realised by the Home Office or private service providers.

Rule 17 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001 permits detainees to engage in paid activities while in detention and is provided as a means to occupy detainees and alleviate boredom.

It is not permitted contractually for private service providers to use the detainee paid work scheme to replace staffing obligations and there are no savings or efficiencies realised by the private service providers or the Home Office from the option for detainees to work in this voluntary scheme.

Management information shows that for the period 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017 detainees in immigration removal centres undertook a total of 887,073 hours of paid work, with payments made to detainees totalling £887,565. This is provisional management information that is subject to change. It has not been assured to the standard of Official Statistics.

My Lords, paid work is provided in immigration removal centres as a means to meet the

recreational and intellectual needs of detainees and to relieve boredom. The work is not compulsory. All policies and processes are kept under review, and an internal review of the rate of pay of detainees is under way.

My Lords, it is important to recognise that immigration detainees have lawfully had their right to work in the UK, if indeed they ever had one, curtailed by virtue of an immigration decision or by the decision to detain them. Therefore, their position regarding pay rights is not the same as for people who are not subject to immigration detention.

The definition of torture adopted for the “adults at risk in immigration detention” policy is in line with that set out in the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT) although, for the purposes of the policy, it has been extended to cover serious harm inflicted by terrorist groups exploiting instability or civil war to hold territory.

The Government adopted this definition as it most accurately reflects the need to protect those who are most likely to be adversely affected by detention – that is, those who have been harmed by the state, or by an organisation exercising similar control, and for whom detention is most likely to be redolent of the harm they have suffered.

In order to be consistent, the same definition was applied to the reporting system in rule 35 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001 under which doctors working in immigration removal centres are required to report concerns that a detainee may have been the victim of torture. This has no effect on the requirement also in rule 35 for such doctors to report where a detainee’s health is likely to be injuriously affected by continued detention or the conditions of detention.

The definition of torture adopted for the “adults at risk in immigration detention” policy is in line with that set out in the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT) although, for the purposes of the policy, it has been extended to cover serious harm inflicted by terrorist groups exploiting instability or civil war to hold territory.

The Government adopted this definition as it most accurately reflects the need to protect those who are most likely to be adversely affected by detention – that is, those who have been harmed by the state, or by an organisation exercising similar control, and for whom detention is most likely to be redolent of the harm they have suffered.

In order to be consistent, the same definition was applied to the reporting system in rule 35 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001 under which doctors working in immigration removal centres are required to report concerns that a detainee may have been the victim of torture. This has no effect on the requirement also in rule 35 for such doctors to report where a detainee’s health is likely to be injuriously affected by continued detention or the conditions of detention.