| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Hylton: Will the Minister say something about the existing pilot projects, and about the relevance of this amendment to the Sangatte situation?
8.45 p.m.
Lord Filkin: In regard to the Sangatte situation, I have been advised informally that the meeting on Friday with Mr Sarkozy went well. I have seen some press briefing on the matter, courtesy of the Opposition Benches, but I do not have any greater detail as to what happened—apart from saying that we are pretty optimistic that there is an agreement to close the centre and for there to be a timetable for doing so.
There will clearly need to be some process whereby the current inhabitants of Sangatte are appropriately dealt with. I do not intend to venture further into exactly what that process is until I have seen the nature of what was agreed on Friday. It would not help the noble Lord if I did so. No doubt we can give him further details when those details are clear. I shall write to him on the subject. As to the results of the pilot projects, I have no information at present, so I shall similarly send the noble Lord a note on that point.
The Earl of Sandwich: I thank my noble friend for his support, and I am encouraged by what the Minister has said about the timetable. I am less certain as to the nature of the scheme. I am sure that all Members of the Committee will look forward to hearing more about it in the future. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 52 [Detention by Secretary of State]:
Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 163A:
- Page 28, line 18, after "detained" insert "for a reasonable and limited period"
I resent the way in which the Government are bulldozing this legislation through this place. It would have been much better had adequate time been allowed in the fullness of the day, instead of making us sit night after night, as we have done so far at Committee stage.
Lord Filkin: I do not in the slightest want to indulge in an argument with the noble Lord. I thought that we had had some understanding that there would be six days in Committee. Clearly, there have been some tensions at times when we have had Statements. But to the best of my knowledge the liaison between the Front Benches has been most helpful and courteous and I have been appreciative of that.
Lord Avebury: When those agreements were made, we did not anticipate having Statements day after day, taking up a considerable amount of the afternoon; nor
did we think that, as happened on the previous Committee day, discussion of orders in the dinner hour would take up far more than the hour allotted to them.I wanted to make that protest because, while matters are agreed between the usual channels and I perfectly well appreciate that my noble friends have been involved in those discussions, there are other Members of this place who need the time to prepare amendments, to table them and to get their heads round what is an extremely complicated piece of legislation. I have made my point and I hope that the Minister will take it into consideration in looking at the timetable for the remainder of this Bill.
In moving Amendment No. 163A, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 164A and 164B. The first of these amendments is about ensuring that the tests imposed by Article 5.1.f of the European Convention on Human Rights is satisfied by the Secretary of State in exercising his powers under Clause 52(1) to detain a person pending that person's removal. Those words should also have been inserted after the word "detained" in line 27 because the same conditions apply. If the principle were accepted, they should also be inserted in paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act which gives immigration officers similar powers. I realise that the amendment does not completely satisfy the purpose we intended. We should have to tidy it up if the principle were accepted.
In the case of Saadi the Court of Appeal looked at the legitimacy of detention at Oakington where the court was told that in the absence of special circumstances the Secretary of State has determined that it is not reasonable to detain an asylum seeker for longer than about a week. The court found that the manner in which the power of detention was being exercised was within the provision of Article 5.1.f and we entirely agree with that. However, we want to be sure that existing practice is treated as the bench mark and should any future Secretary of State lengthen the period of detention he would come up against the legal barrier that the amendment seeks to impose.
I turn to Amendment No. 164A on written reasons for detention and challenge of the accuracy of those reasons. In the White Paper the Government said that initial reasons for detention would be given by way of a check list similar to that used for bail in a magistrates' court. However, that implies that further and more detailed reasons will be given at some other stage. We discussed this matter about two years ago in a debate on detention in general. The Government then gave an assurance that full reasons for detention would be given to everyone after a fixed interval. So far as I know, that has not happened. It is important that people who are being detained should know in greater detail than a check list the reasons why they are being detained. Similarly, we believe that they should have an opportunity to challenge those reasons so that when the case comes before an adjudicator they will have the full story of why the person was detained in the first place, and the reasons why that person believed that he should not have been detained.
Amendment No. 164B would satisfy a point raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. In paragraph 84 of its report, it stated that Clause 52(7) provides that the powers to detain will be exercisable where the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to suspect that he may make a decision to remove that person but does not expressly provide that it may be exercised only where the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds.
The department told the Joint Committee on Human Rights that the Secretary of State would have reasonable grounds and that if he did not that would be unlawful. We join the Joint Committee on Human Rights in hoping that the courts will take the same view. But we also share its view that in order to avoid any possible doubt we should insert the word "only" before the words "where the Secretary of State" in what was Clause 49(7). It drew the matter to the attention of the House. I now suggest that we follow its advice and put this small amendment in the Bill to ensure that there is no possible doubt. I beg to move.
The Earl of Sandwich: I hope that it will be in the interests of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, as well as the Committee if we debate Amendment No. 167 with Amendment No. 164A relating to the written reasons for detention. I have notified the Minister.
I have argued on previous Bills for written reasons. I believe that the proposed new clause would meet the many concerns of both detainees and of those who visit detainees. I declare an interest here as a patron of the Haslar visitors group. We shall hear more later today about the increase of the use of detention so I shall not detain the Committee on that. Suffice it to say that far too many detainees have been detained before an initial decision has been made. It is particularly important that all detainees understand the reason for their detention. Many will have had previous experiences of police cells, ill treatment or even torture. Therefore, any periods of detention will cause them anxiety. Any detention which does not appear to be justified or to have a time limit will be additionally traumatic.
As I pointed out previously, the Immigration and Nationality Directorate currently provides detainees only with a form now known as 1S91R on which it indicates in broad terms the reasons for detention. No attempt is made to link these general assertions to the detainee's individual circumstances. The information is of little practical use, therefore, to the detainee when coming to hearings. It is essential that a detainee is given reasons which are intelligible or he will not have sufficient information on which to challenge the lawfulness of his detention.
At the Report stage of the Immigration and Asylum Bill in October 1999, several noble Lords argued for full written reasons for detention. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, replied (at col. 897 of the Official Report of 18th October 1999) that the check list would be tailored to individual circumstances. Despite that assurance, the new form did not allow space for a specific reference to the special needs of the individual.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, who was then on the Front Bench, gave a further assurance in his reply that he accepted the points made, the instructions would be reviewed and he hoped that the form would be amended.
I again raised the issue on 27th March of last year during our debate on the asylum detention rules but received no satisfactory answer. I very much look forward, therefore, to the answer that we shall receive today.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page