The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Hamwee on 2016-10-10.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government why, in the guidance for Home Office staff published on 9 September, for the purposes of assessing the mental health of an immigration detainee and of Rule 35 reports regarding particularly vulnerable detainees, a distinction is made between torture by state actors and torture by non-state actors.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
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.
