Health officials warned that military barracks were ‘not suitable’ for asylum seekers

Health officials warned the Home Office that a disused military camp was unacceptable accommodation, weeks before the department placed hundreds of asylum seekers on the site, court documents show.

Public Health England (PHE) told the department on 7 September 2020 that the dormitories in Napier barracks, a Ministry of Defence site in Folkestone, “were not suitable” for use – but the advice was rejected and two weeks later ministers pushed through plans to repurpose the facility as asylum accommodation.

The warning was revealed as six asylum seekers were granted permission in the High Court to challenge the legality of the Home Office’s decision to place them and others at the barracks, on the grounds that the accommodation conditions are so poor they breach their human rights.

Submissions to the court from the claimants’ lawyers outline the PHE warnings as cited in a statement from a Home Office official. PHE and the Home Office declined to send The Independent a full copy of the advice that was issued.

The submissions also reveal that no Home Office official has visited Napier barracks since 13 November 2020, despite mounting concerns from NGOs, doctors and lawyers about poor conditions and a lack of access at the site to healthcare and legal advice.

Ministers have repeatedly claimed that Napier barracks offers a good standard of housing – describing it as an “insult to say it is not good enough for asylum seekers” – because it previously housed “our brave soldiers”.

However, it emerged earlier this week that a report by planning experts in 2014 found that the site – which has not been used as permanent accommodation for military personnel in more than a decade – did not meet “acceptable standards for accommodation”.

It also emerged that ministers acknowledged back in 2013 that the barracks were in “poor condition” and pledged to invest in “better” facilities for military personnel.

A Covid outbreak at Napier barracks last month led to a ban on residents leaving the facility, with more than 120 people subsequently testing positive.

The number of residents at the camp has been dramatically reduced in the past week, with about 63 people now on the site, compared with nearly 400 at the beginning of the year.

However, the Home Office has confirmed to The Independent that it intends to continue using the site and will seek to extend its planning permission to do so, which is currently due to end in March, if necessary.

The legal challenge, which is likely to be heard in April, seeks to challenge the use of Napier barracks to house asylum seekers on the basis that the conditions create a real risk of a breach of the residents’ human rights and fail to meet essential living needs as required under the law.

It will argue that using the site as asylum accommodation is unlawful on a number of grounds, including a lack of hygiene and privacy, heightened risk of Covid-19 infection, and unlawful detention.

Documents submitted to the court by the claimants’ lawyers state that asylum seekers had been “put in the barracks in these circumstances on a no-choice basis” and were “unable to self-isolate” or “avoid close contact with someone who has tested positive”.

They also warn of “a mental health crisis” among those housed at the barracks, with conditions having “triggered or exacerbated” residents’ underlying mental illnesses, and “no effective or adequate procedures” for identifying whether they were vulnerable and should not be accommodated there.

Minutes before a day-long hearing was due to start on Tuesday, Home Office lawyers contacted the lawyers representing the claimants – from Deighton Pierce Glynn and Matthew Gold solicitors – to say that they had decided to concede that all the arguments were arguable and so permission for a full trial should be granted.

Mr Justice Chamberlain proceeded to grant permission for five of six grounds put forward by the claimants and directed that a final hearing will take place in the week commencing 12 April 2021.

Sue Willman, solicitor at Deighton Pierce Glynn, the firm representing four of the claimants – who have now been transferred out of the barracks – welcomed the decision, but said many asylum seekers had already suffered a deterioration in their mental health as a result of being housed there.

“Our clients were subjected to demeaning conditions in Napier barracks for over four months before the Home Office was ordered by the court to move them to alternative adequate accommodation,” she said.

“Refugees arriving in the UK, often after experiencing torture and trafficking, have the right to be provided with basic humane accommodation. Disused military barracks are far from that and now need to be closed.”

During the hearing, Lisa Giovannetti QC, acting on behalf of the Home Office, told Mr Justice Chamberlain the department was working with PHE and local NHS bodies to discuss how to manage coronavirus safety at Napier barracks in the future.

She said a senior Home Office official was intending to visit Napier barracks on Friday with a view to investigating the key recent complaints made by the claimants, and that such visits would now take place weekly.

Clare Jennings, director and solicitor at Matthew Gold, who is representing two of the claimants, criticised the length of time it has taken the Home Office to take this action.

“The home secretary has been on notice of the issues at Napier barracks for months and has publicly defended the use of the barracks,” she said.

“It appears that it is only now, that [she] has finally began to grapple with the issues, with the eleventh-hour concession that it was arguable that the conditions within the barracks breached human rights.”

It comes as the UK’s immigration and prison watchdogs carry out an inspection of the site this week, along with Penally barracks, another military camp housing asylum seekers in Pembrokeshire.

A Home Office spokesperson said: "The government provides safe, warm and secure accommodation with three nutritious meals served a day, all paid for by the taxpayer. Napier has previously accommodated army personnel and it is wrong to say it is not adequate for asylum seekers.

"The Home Office has worked extremely closely with PHE to minimise risks of coronavirus and this track record will be robustly defended in court. Today’s initial hearing is one step in the legal process - the Home Office has not lost or conceded the case.”