| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Simon Hughes: With respect, the Minister is saying nothing new. I have two questions for her. Why have the Government taken some of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation, but not the others? Above all, why is she arguing for flexibility in the law--in the Act of Parliament that this Bill will become--when the purpose of legislation is to be clear so that people know where they stand? Never before has it been argued that we should have flexible legislation as opposed to flexible policy.
Mrs. Roche: I understand the point, but the Government will examine the recommendations from another place carefully to determine what we agree with. Given that this is such a sensitive area, we think that approach is the right one.
Mr. Paul Keetch (Hereford): Is that the Minister's response?
Mrs. Roche: It is the only response that I shall give.
Mr. Keetch: It is not a very good one.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome): Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Roche: No. I apologise for having detained the House at some length, but I hope that I have dealt--
Mrs. Roche: Okay, I will take one more intervention.
Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who has been patient given the number of interventions. Her
argument for the amendment is that it will in some way prevent public disorder. Is she saying that the state of expectation of such disorder will extend beyond a 10-day period? In which case, I am sorry but I do not follow her argument.
Mrs. Roche: I do not want to be critical, but I think that the hon. Gentleman is muddled. We are talking about two different things. I appreciate that these are sensitive areas and that it is a difficult subject.
In conclusion, I must reinforce the fact that Oakington will be very different. There will be minimal physical security and a very relaxed regime. Case workers will be on the site to deal with applications. Clearly, that does not happen at detention centres at the moment.
To end as I began, it is in all our interests--the public, the House and claimants alike--to speed up the process, which is what the amendments are about.
Mr. Lidington:
I share the Minister's concern about the need to reduce the backlogs as rapidly as possible and speed up decision taking. Given the number of applicants coming into the country at present, I sympathise with Ministers' desire to have additional powers to help them cope with the practical problems. Will the hon. Lady spell out in a little more detail the Government's approach to two matters that have not been adequately covered? If she is unable to explain that in her reply, perhaps she could do so later in correspondence. The first matter is the level of safeguards that the law would provide for people sent to particular places under the terms of the schedule. Secondly, will she throw a little more light on how the Government intend people to be selected to become subject to the new powers?
On safeguards, the Minister rightly drew a distinction between powers of detention under the Immigration Act 1971 and the new powers that would be introduced by the amendments. The powers in the 1971 Act are subject to various safeguards--inspections, a monitoring system, committees of visitors and statutory arrangements for disciplinary rules. The Bill provides that someone who is detained would have the right to bail hearings at appropriate times during detention.
While the Government have said consistently that the powers that they propose to introduce by regulation under Lords amendment No. 329 envisage a limited period of residence by an asylum seeker in a place designated by the Secretary of State, as I read the text of the schedule, it sets out no limit to the period of time that the right hon. Gentleman could require someone to live at a particular place. No minimum time seems to be provided for, other than that which the Minister chooses to include in regulations.
Also, it seems that someone could be detained for quite a long time without any sort of judicial oversight. On the face of things, that puts an asylum seeker held subject to those conditions, which the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) described as a curfew, in an inferior position to that of someone held in formal detention.
Mr. Allan:
The hon. Gentleman mentioned curfew, but one of our major concerns is that Lords amendment
Mr. Lidington:
One problem is that the powers that Lords amendment No. 329 gives the Secretary of State are wide. We have had to rely on informal assurances from Ministers in both Houses for safeguards that are written into the law for people held in detention.
The Minister said that the Government would apply their obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998 carefully in drafting the regulations to be introduced. I took her to mean that in place of safeguards being provided in the legislation, we are being invited tonight to trust to the Government's interpretation of their obligations under the European convention on human rights, that the Government will not introduce restrictions on personal liberty that would bring them into conflict with the convention and that that is what will give legal weight to the assurances of Ministers in another place. There are still questions that the Government need to answer on appropriate safeguards for people held in such circumstances.
I shall deal briefly with how people are to be selected for this procedure. In reply to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), I thought that the Minister implied that the decision would greatly depend on the assessment made at the port of entry by members of the immigration service of the ease with which a case could be determined. Can she confirm whether the Government intend that people should be selected on a case-by-case basis or whether they plan to put applicants from particular countries through the procedure?
Mrs. Roche:
To elaborate on what I said, it will depend on the initial assessment of the immigration officer. If it appears that the case requires more detailed examination, we will ensure that that happens. Clearly, the ability to make such an initial assessment is incredibly helpful at the beginning of the process.
Mr. Lidington:
I am grateful for that advice.
I refer the Minister to a comment made by the Attorney-General in another place that would again benefit from elucidation here. In discussing the powers, he said:
Mr. McDonnell:
There has been confusion in the debate in the House of Lords and even in this Chamber, to a certain extent, about the relationship of Oakington to the legislation. The Government need to take responsibility for that confusion. Lord Falconer said on 18 October:
However, by 2 November Lord Williams of Mostyn said:
"In the short term, some asylum seekers who may congregate in specific areas may still be on social security benefit. We want to have this power available. We do not envisage using the power on a routine basis, but only to relieve extreme pressures on specific areas in extreme circumstances."--[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 November 1999; Vol. 606, c. 736.]
As those who will be on social security benefit will be people who will have been admitted at a port at any time up to 31 March 2000, is it right to interpret the Attorney-General's remarks as meaning that the Government intend that the powers should be used to require people currently in receipt of social security living in one part of this country to move to a particular location in another area, and that this power should therefore be seen as an adjunct to the dispersal scheme that will come into force after 31 March next year?
11.30 pm
"We are examining the possibility of establishing a reception facility at which asylum seekers would reside while their claim was examined and a rapid decision taken. . . . As such residences have a wider purpose, we believe that we need the wider power that amendment No. 289 and now amendment No. 329 provides."--[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 October 1999; Vol. 605, c. 752.]
He confirmed that that was a power separate from the one to award bail on conditions.
"I stress that the facility at Oakington is based on existing detention powers. . . . it is designed to deal with claims where it appears that a rapid decision can be made. . . . I repeat . . . that applicants will be required to stay at Oakington under existing immigration powers to detain."--[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 November 1999; Vol. 606, c. 733.]
We accept that Oakington is based on existing powers, but we should have had a statement to the House about its development. That would have avoided the confusion around the Bill and enabled us to have a thorough debate about Oakington. I am sure that, timing permitting, it would have given us the opportunity to air some of our concerns.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |