There can be no justification for keeping asylum seekers in prison-like conditions

No country likes to have what it sees as its own internal affairs subject to outside scrutiny, even when it has signed up to the international standards that are the subject of the inspection and has done so in the hope and expectation that the same high standards will apply to all. Giving such undertakings is part of being, and being seen as, a civilised state.

So it is disappointing, and in some particular aspects, shocking, that the report, just published by inspectors from the Council of Europe committee on the prevention of torture, found so many concerns to raise from their visits to UK immigration detention sites and two prisons almost one year ago.

Three points might be singled out for particular condemnation.

The first is the open-ended nature of the detention and the delays and uncertainties this entails. It is not uncommon for detention to last as much as a year, extending in a few cases to much longer. The second, related, point is the damage that such lengthy and open-ended detention can do to the mental state of those who are held – people who may, by virtue of their past experiences, already be vulnerable in the extreme.

Self-harm and even suicide could be among the consequences. The inspectors also noted the difficulties and delays encountered by detainees in receiving specialist help in the event of a mental health emergency.

And the third point is what the inspectors saw as the prison-like conditions endured by many detainees. Those detained have not been convicted of any crime. Technically, and under the law, they are not in prison. Yet the circumstances of their detention leave little distinction.

The resemblance can indeed be particularly stark when a detainee is admitted to hospital. The inspectors described some female migrant detainees handcuffed to their hospital bed. Where two officers accompany the detainee, as is apparently usual practice, it would seem completely unnecessary for the detainee to be additionally tied – or rather, locked – down.

The authorities’ defence, it appears, is that handcuffing is not standard practice. Each case is rather handled according to judgements made for that one individual. Which, of course, leaves much – probably too much – to discretion.

This is clearly a highly “demeaning and excessive” practice, as described by the inspectors, that needs to be at very least reviewed, if not abandoned. Nor should it be any consolation to anyone, least of all to the UK authorities, that so many of the unsatisfactory, even cruel, practices reported by the inspectors are not unique to the detention system.

It was reported earlier this week that some individuals who needed mental health treatment were instead kept in prison for indefinite periods, for lack of hospital places. The acute shortage of mental health provision, especially in emergencies, applies outside the migrant detention system, too.

It should be said that the inspectors also found many good practices. The picture is not completely bleak. And it must be hoped that between the inspections last spring and now, some of the worst defects observed may have been eliminated. And if they have not been, then publication of the report should instil a sense of urgency to eliminate bad practices. The evidence that change is needed is there, and cannot be denied.

Regrettably, there are reasons why change may not happen as quickly as it should. The greater use of detention for undocumented migrants is one. Another is the clamour for tighter security – which will surely be a consequence of the Clapham alkali attack, where the accused has been named as a former asylum seeker.

Another is the pressure to cut costs, already seen in the efforts to use prefabs on military sites or the Bibby Stockholm barge, rather than hotels, to accommodate those awaiting decisions on their asylum applications. For many, this will mean a move to more prison-like conditions, even for those not formally detained. It thus risks being a move in the opposite direction to the one called for in the Council of Europe inspectors’ report.