20. First supplementary memorandum
submitted by the Immigration Advisory Service
ISSUES OF
DETENTION
In their report on asylum removals the Home
Affairs Committee made the following recommendations to which
we give our responses:
"We recommend that the Immigration and
Nationality Directorate should provide quarterly figures on total
numbers detained during the period with lengths of detention.
83. We believe that detention can be justified
especially prior to removal in cases where the individual has
a history of evading the Immigration Service, or where there are
reasonable grounds to suspect that the individual will abscond
or pose a security threat or engage in criminal activities if
allowed to remain at liberty.
84. We reject the suggestion that provision
should be made for automatic bail hearings at the point of detention
on the grounds that this would only present yet another opportunity
to string out a process that already takes too long. There may
be a case, however, for giving anyone detained longer than, say,
three months an automatic bail hearing at that point."
As the Committee will know from earlier evidence
submitted by IAS we are concerned that Part III of the 1999 legislation
was never implemented and was, effectively, repealed by the 2002
Act. We consider that the legal advice given to the Government
which prompted the drafting and passing into legislation of the
safeguards for those detained in Part III is as valid now as it
was then. We are disappointed, therefore, that the Committee did
not see fit to recommend its reinstatement as a means of ensuring
that only those who should be detained are detained. We welcome
the Committee's suggestions in paragraph 83 of their report as
to when detention can be justified but in the absence of automatic
bail hearings fail to see how the Committee expects these recommendations
to be enforceable. A bail hearing is short and does not cause
undue delay as alleged by the Committee. IAS was shown a pilot
project in the criminal jurisdiction in Manchester whereby a bail
hearing was conducted by video link between the magistrates' court
and Strangeways prison which meant that the detainee did not have
to be brought to court. IAS notes that the IAT now conducts hearings
in Scotland via video link. Although this would not be suitable
in all cases there is no reason why in the majority of cases bail
hearings could be conducted in this expeditious and convenient
manner. IAS would support any proposal for a disinterested party
to consider the appropriateness of detention and submits that
guidelines as to this can be observed only where the system admits
of such scrutiny. Consequently, without derogating from our position
as set out above, we would support an automatic bail hearing after
three months' detention.
"86. We believe that, under current
practice, children should only be detained prior to removal when
the planned period of detention is very short or where there are
reasonable grounds to suppose that the family is likely to abscond."
IAS does not accept that there are any circumstances
in which children should be detained. Again, we feel that the
Committee should give consideration as to how its recommendation
might be enforced in the absence of automatic bail hearings.
"We further recommend that after 12 months
detention, another bail hearing should be automatically held,
with the presumption that the individual should be released unless
there are compelling reasons why his continued detention is in
the public interest or the detainee is considered to have prolonged
his own detention by failure to co-operate with inquiries or to
provide accurate information. Similar reviews should be held,
if applicable, every 6 months thereafter. The Home Secretary should
also be obliged to lay before the House, on a quarterly basis,
a publication listing the names of all detainees who have been
in detention for 12 months or longer and the reasons, in each
case, for their continued detention."
Subject to our position as set out above IAS
agrees with this recommendation. We respectfully remind the Committee
that the presumption of liberty has been in existence in the criminal
jurisdiction since the Bail Act 1976 and anyone charged with a
criminal offence and detained has to be brought before a magistrate
within a short space of time. Those in immigration detention mostly
have committed no criminal offence nor are alleged to have done
so.
"We believe that strip-searches of detainees
should only be carried out where justified by reasonable suspicion
and not as a matter of routine. We recommend that the practice
of conducting random strip-searches after visits should be abandoned
forthwith."
IAS agrees.
"96. We regret the delay in publishing
a full set of detailed Operating Standards for Removal Centres.
As the Centres have now been operating for some time, the inevitable
consequence of this delay has been the emergence of undesirable
disparities in standards and conditions between different Centres.
We urge that remaining Operating Standards should be published
as soon as possible. Standards governing visiting hours and legal
access are particularly needed. We further recommend that standards
should be raised in those Removal Centres run in former Prison
Service accommodation, to match the best practice of privately
contracted Centres, and that a target date should be set by which
consistency of standards across private and public Removal Centres
is to be achieved. If, after a reasonable time, the public sector
is unable to achieve an acceptable standard, the contract should
be put out to tender."
IAS agrees. We ask the Committee to recommend
also that immigration detainees in removal centres should be allowed
to work if this is available, both as a diminution to the cost
of otherwise providing such services such as cleaning and kitchen
work and also to enable detainees to earn money to help pay for
telephone cards etc. The additional cost to the taxpayer of having
to provide contract workers in substitution for the work done
by detainees is £1.09 million[34].
The advice given to IAS by those in charge of removal centres
is that allowing detainees to work reduces tension and idleness[35].
"99. We accept that current arrangements
for access to legal advice are inadequate. It may be that the
matter can be resolved by appointment of a welfare officer, as
we have recommended at paragraph 75 above, who can either put
detainees in touch with their own legal representatives or who
can provide access to emergency legal advice. Failing that, however,
consideration should be given to providing detainees with access
to a duty solicitor."
IAS fully supports this recommendation. Although
a welfare officer could be of assistance for welfare issues (such
as retrieving a detainee's property, contact with family etc),
we consider the better course for access to legal advice is to
ensure funding by the Legal Services Commission of a duty solicitor
scheme with a specific requirement from the Legal Services Commission
that legal services should be provided at the removal centre.
A scheme similar to this has been instituted already by the Legal
Services Commission in respect of the pilot project running at
Harmondsworth Removal Centre whereby 90 places have been reserved
for persons to remain in detention throughout the process of initial
decision and appeal against refusal of their claims. Moreover,
the Legal Services Commission have expressed a view to IAS that
such schemes will be considered for Yarl's Wood and other centres
for asylum seekers in preference to lawyers being permanently
on site.
June 2003
Beverley Hughes [holding answer 31 October
2002]: We do not have figures on the additional costs, if
any, of providing support to asylum seekers who can no longer
seek permission to work. Internal management Information indicates
that during the financial year 2001-02 we made initial decisions
on the vast majority of new substantive applications within the
initial six months. The number who might have been able to benefit
from the concession is therefore much reduced.
The percentage of new substantive cases in 2001-02
which were decided within six months will be available from 29
November 2002 on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics
Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1
.html
The work concession for asylum seekers did not
extend to asylum seekers in detention.
Immigration detainees held in Immigration Service
removal centres have never been required to work nor are they
expected to assist in the running of the centres.
Following their redesignation earlier this year
as removal centres, the Prison Service detention facilities at
Dover, Haslar and Lindholme ceased to operate under Prison Rules.
As a consequence, detainees no longer had the opportunity to undertake
paid employment in the centres and the practice of relying on
such work for the provision of certain ancillary services came
to an end. Work formerly undertaken by detainees at these centres
has been contracted out or transferred to agency staff. For this
year this has resulted in a net additional cost of £1.09
million. This will be met from the Immigration and Nationality
Directorate's budget.
34 Question: 78484 Commons Written Answers (4 Nov
2002) Mr. Malins: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department
what estimate he has made for a full year of the cost of the withdrawal
of the work concession to asylum seekers in (a) added benefit
and (b) payments to detainees; and what he estimates to be the
net difference in the costs to each removal centre of employing
contract and agency labour in place of detainees working in cleaning
and kitchens. [78484] Back
35
Hansard 30 Apr 2003 : Column 389W Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary
of State for the Home Department If he will review the ban on
paid employment for immigration detainees held in removal centres.
[109510] Beverley Hughes: We have no plans to provide paid employment
to persons detained in immigration removal centres. Immigration
detainees are able to participate in a wide range of constructive
activities during their detention based on education, sport, recreation,
physical education and religion. Back
|
