Examination of Witnesses (Questions 680-699)
BEVERLEY HUGHES
MP, MR BILL
JEFFREY AND
MS ANGELA
RAMLAGAN-SINGH
TUESDAY 4 MARCH 2003
680. Clearly if someone is absolutely at the
last appeal and you are worried they are going to abscond if that
appeal goes the wrong way, is that the only reason for holding
somebody when the legal avenues have not been fully explored?
(Mr Jeffrey) No, it is not. As the Minister was saying
earlier, we are smarter than we used to be in using detention.
We used to really make an assessment as to whether the people
were a good or bad bet, whether they were likely to abscond or
not. We are focusing it much more on the end of the process, people
who are within sight of being removed, so I think it is unlikely
that we would be detaining in many cases other than quite close
to the point when we think removal is actually within sight.
681. But it is not ruled out?
(Beverley Hughes) To supplement that, we have mentioned
Oakington and the fast-track process and that is another attempt
to use detention sparingly but to keep people in detention not
just at the end of the process but right throughout the process
where you know you can execute that process in a very short period
of time, in a matter of two or three weeks.
682. In the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999
there was provision for automatic bail hearings. That was never
implemented and it has now been repealed. Could you explain why?
(Beverley Hughes) You will recall that we had this
debate during the passage of the most recent piece of legislation
in which that provision was repealed. We felt looking at the number
of people who had used that facility—and, as you say, it
had not actually been enacted—there had not been any great
call for that. People can apply for bail at any time and therefore
the resources involved in implementing what would be a six-monthly
routine consideration of whether somebody should be given bail
and all the apparatus that would have entailed in the light of
the fact that people can through their representatives apply for
bail at any time at all it seemed an unnecessary bureaucracy.
Mr Clappison
683. Were those factors known when the decision
was taken to include that provision in the Bill originally? The
picture which you have just described now, was that known when
the provision for automatic bail was first included in the Bill?
(Beverley Hughes) Was it known that people could apply
for bail at any time?
684. Yes, was the picture the same as to whether
people availed themselves of that opportunity then?
(Beverley Hughes) I would imagine that it was but
I would also imagine that this was included as a potential extra
safeguard. Having looked at the picture again, and for the reasons
I have just outlined, and in terms of what we are trying to achieve
now, it seems to be an unnecessarily stringent safeguard and one
that is actually unnecessary.
685. I understand, I am exploring the reasons
why it was done in the first place because it seems a little strange.
(Beverley Hughes) It may well have been an amendment.
Bridget Prentice
686. A quick question on detention; is it in
theory possible, Minister, for somebody to be detained indefinitely?
(Beverley Hughes) No, it is not legal for somebody
to be detained indefinitely with no clear purpose. There either
has to be the prospect of removal or working towards removal for
that to be lawful. We cannot simply keep people detained for no
reason.
687. Even when all the reasons you have given
as to why removal might be delayed, some people have been detained
for quite a long time. Is that not in contravention of some of
our international obligations? Should there not be a maximum period?
(Beverley Hughes) I would not support the idea there
should be a maximum period and I would also point out that people
through their representatives have the opportunity to challenge
continued detention through the courts if it is felt to be excessive.
There is only really that one case where for very particular reasons
that person has been detained for a considerable period of time.
If you look at the figures even for people detained more than
a few days we are actually taking a few weeks largely as being
the extended periods of detention as we regard them, so I would
not support a maximum period and I think the legal redresses people
have to challenge if they do think detention is excessive are
adequate.
Chairman
688. But people do remain in detention for long
periods, do they not, because of the difficulties of removing
them?
(Beverley Hughes) There is a very small number who
have been in for a period of time.
689. We were waylaid by somebody at Harmondsworth
who had been detained for six months or so.
(Beverley Hughes) As I say, the legal position—and
I will get the Director to check this—is that we cannot
detain indefinitely unless there is the prospect of removal in
circumstances where, as was mentioned before with certain groups
of people, even if we had the detention space, we could not detain
them if there was no prospect of removal.
(Mr Jeffrey) The test is the one that the Minister
mentioned, namely there has to be a prospect of removal and, as
I said earlier, we are detaining people for lengthy periods much
less frequently than we used to in the past. The one exception,
just to be clear about it, is in relation to terrorist suspects
(and you will be very familiar with the legislation that was passed
after 11 September) which does allow for detention, although we
have no desire for it to be indefinite, where there is not an
immediate prospect of removal.
Mr Prosser
690. I want to ask a few questions about conditions
in detention centres. We have been told—and it has certainly
been my experience—that the living conditions in those parts
of the estate run by the private sector are far above that run
by the Immigration Service and certainly far above those run in
wings of prisons or former parts of the prison estate; what is
your view?
(Beverley Hughes) I cannot give you a view from personal
experience because I have visited two of the removal centres so
far working my way round them. I have visited Harmondsworth and
Dungavel in Scotland and both of those of course are contracted
out. I have not visited Haslar, Lindholme or Dover Harbour yet
which would be in the other category you outline. I think it was
recognised when some of the former Prison Service establishments
were re-roled, as it was called, to become removal centres that
there would be a period in which the conditions would have to
catch up to what was already available in the contracted-out centres,
but they do operate in the same way and they all operate to the
same standards. They are all operated under the detention centre
rules and in the three former Prison Service facilities we are
continuing to work on those areas that do need improvement.
691. You are working towards harmonising the
conditions, but has the Operating Standards document been published
yet?
(Beverley Hughes) I think so.
(Mr Jeffrey) I am not sure.
(Beverley Hughes) When you say Operating Standards
document, what do you mean?
692. It is a document which you proposed to
publish in order to raise all the standards to a common level.
(Beverley Hughes) Certainly there is such a document
internally within IMD. I will make enquiries about any commitment
to making a public document available and write to you after the
meeting.
693. Thank you. Can you tell us how many instances
you are aware of of self-harm or suicide in our detention centres,
be they run by the Immigration Service or by the private sector?
(Beverley Hughes) I cannot give you a figure today
but we will certainly provide you with one. Although obviously
any incident is of concern, they are very small in number. There
are instances of self-harm. There is only one case that I know
of during my period of office in which there has been a successful
suicide attempt and actually that was quite recently. So that
is one of those and the numbers of self-harm incidents are relatively
small.
694. Finally, are you confident that you have
measures in place at all centres which protect against these sad
occasions?
(Beverley Hughes) Yes. You will know that all of the
centres, whether they are contracted out or in house so to speak,
are managed by IMD. All of the contracted-out centres have a contract
manager who is an ideal person and there are mechanisms in place
whereby those people meet together and make sure that the standards
operating are harmonised as far as possible. Are you asking specifically
about self-harm and suicide?
695. Yes.
(Beverley Hughes) Although having come from a Prison
Service background, I think we probably need to strengthen the
extent to which we collate information and have a really robust
picture of those incidents and that is something that we are going
to put in place.
Chairman
696. Finally Minister, voluntary returns. About
1,200 people I think returned voluntarily during 2001. How can
the programme be extended?
(Beverley Hughes) As I said earlier, I think there
is more potential within voluntary returns, notwithstanding the
fact that some people do not want it. I think there is more potential
and we have not yet capitalised on the voluntary returns programme
generally. In terms of immediate extensions, you know about the
Afghan returns programme.
697. Is the Afghan programme separate from the
one we have been given this 1,200 figure for?
(Beverley Hughes) The figures are all included I think.
698. That includes the Afghan programme?
(Beverley Hughes) Yes. In terms of voluntary returns,
I think we can do much more in the removal centres themselves.
The way it operates at the moment, as you probably know, is that
in a way people almost have to be self-selecting. They have to
first of all know about the voluntary returns programme. They
tend, as I understand it, to have to make an approach themselves
to the International Organisation for Migration which then deals
with the practicalities on behalf of the Home Office. There is
certainly a lot more potential for us to make sure the information
is available, that people are talked through it and if they want
to make an approach to the IOM they are helped to do that, as
opposed to simply left to get on with it. As I say, we are looking
at all of those ways in which we can strengthen that. There is
a slight issue in the removals centres, I do not know what feedback
you got from people there, both staff and detainees, but we need
to make sure that does not look terribly coercive if we are trying
to help people to remove voluntarily. Having said that, it does
seem clear to me that there is a gap at the moment at the point
at which people reach the end of the road in terms of the vigour
and the thoroughness with which they are really informed that
this is an option for them.
699. Perhaps that refusal ought to be accompanied
by a leaflet on how you can organise a voluntary return?
(Beverley Hughes) Yes, I think in all our communications,
including either a leaflet or quite explicitly in the refusal
letter, that is one of the options we are considering that we
ought to be doing that.
| 
