| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Hylton: Can the noble Lord give some indication as to how bad one's mental health must to be before one becomes "susceptible to transfer"? In prisons in this country there are thousands of people whose mental health is bad or poor and who need treatment but cannot get it because there are insufficient places in mental hospitals. Can the Minister throw some light on whether so far anyone has been transferred out of immigration or asylum detention?
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Before the Minister replies, perhaps I may try to support the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I tried to understand—as best I could—the Minister's explanation to the points raised by the noble Lord. It may be that on close scrutiny of Hansard it will make rather clearer sense. But why should we be put to this extraordinary intellectual exercise? Instead of being brought up with a round term by this curious construction, surely life could be made much easier for everyone who has to deal with this issue if the word "the material" was inserted between "under" and "paragraph". Therefore, Clause 52(1)(b) would read:
- "removal of the person from the United Kingdom in pursuance of directions given by the Secretary of State under the material paragraph".
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I always enter with some trepidation any debate with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden. I am sure that with his legal mastery he is a draftsman of extraordinary talent. I certainly shall take account of his suggestion, which the officials will have noted. I think that what I said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was right and attempted to establish a degree of consistency and understanding around the use of the terms. We are always open to new ideas and suggestions.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Is the Minster taking the suggestion of my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew so seriously that he will write to him with his conclusions on this matter before we reach the Report stage?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am happy to agree to that. I always listen with great interest to the wisdom of the noble and learned Lord. We shall afford him the courtesy of a written reply.
I shall offer the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, a similar facility. He has asked a question which requires a degree of research. With apologies to the noble Lord, I am happy to investigate and to see what information, such as it is, we can find out on numbers and types of cases. It is an important issue and deserves a proper response. I am grateful for those two important points.
Lord Avebury: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, for his comments. The existing wording is inconsistent with the Government's professed aim of making legislation more conformable with the English language. Whatever the Minister may say—I listened carefully to his convoluted explanation—I do not think that the present wording is readily comprehensible by those who need to understand it.
Therefore, although my wording may not have been ideal—I happily accept the alternative offered by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew—at least the Minister, together with his department, should consider whether some other form of words would make more sense to ordinary readers of the English language.
With regard to the amendment proposed by the Minister relating to the Mental Health Act 1983, I am happy to accept that those detained should be treated in the same way as those who have been detained under the 1971 Act, but the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked a serious question, bearing in mind that we know that there is a gross deficiency of places in secure psychiatric units. As the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, may know, when the Select Committee recently considered the problem of transferring people from prisons to hospitals, which he mentioned, it found a shortage of about 500 places.
More recently, Dr John Reed of Her Majesty's Prisons Inspectorate told me that the number of places is still deficient. There are still 500 fewer places than are needed to accommodate the people who should be transferred from prisons into secure psychiatric units, so we may assume that the same is true of people in detention. People who need to be transferred into psychiatric units from places of detention may be held continuously in the place of detention because there is no room for them in a psychiatric unit. It is important that that is clarified. I also look forward to receiving the information that the Minister promised during the summer.
Earl Russell: Does my noble friend remember an occasion on which Lord Taylor of Gosforth, who was Lord Chief Justice, when offered that excuse that no bed was available in a mental hospital, summoned the Secretary of State for Health to appear as a witness in person? Is it not about time for that example to be repeated?
Lord Avebury: Unfortunately, the Secretary of State would be appearing in court every day, if that were to be the rule. We know that prisons and their medical officers have serious difficulties. When Beverley Hughes was in charge of prisons, she told me that it
was not altogether a question of capacity, but also one of process. The Department of Health and the Prison Service recently signed a protocol that is supposed to speed up the transfer of such people, but so far it has not worked, because it kicks in only once the clinician in a secure psychiatric unit has accepted that the person is eligible for a place.All of the difficulties that we encounter in the prison system read across into detention. There is a shortage of information in that regard which the Minister has undertaken to remedy. We look forward to that, but in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 164A to 164B not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 165 and 166:
- Page 29, line 21, at end insert—
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 52, as amended, agreed to.
The Earl of Sandwich had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 167:
The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to the amendment. I should simply like to thank the Minister for giving us not just full written reasons but a full written and spoken explanation, and for the assurances he gave to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia.
[Amendment No. 167 not moved.]
Clause 53 [Control of entry to United Kingdom, &c.: use of force]:
Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 168:
The noble Lord said: If accepted, the amendment would bring into operation the practice of tape-recording interviews with immigration detainees. At the moment, many interviews are conducted without representatives. The quality of interpreters is variable; there is no recognised qualification they have to attain in order to become interpreters. Interview notes are not read back to the applicant; he only has to countersign in order to verify identity.
At Oakington, where proper advice is available to asylum seekers, lawyers frequently identify discrepancies and inaccuracies that can be corrected on the spot. In one recent case of a Zimbabwean rape victim who arrived in April 2001, she applied in August and was interviewed when still in acute distress. The Refugee Legal Centre picked up five pages of inaccuracies and misrepresentations in the interview record.
When interviews are conducted at an airport or at Croydon, frequently there may not be a representative present or the applicant is not given an adequate opportunity to contest the reliability or accuracy of the written record. With a tape recording the quality of the evidence would be enormously improved, to the advantage of both parties and in the interests of making the process faster and fairer, as we all wish to do.
The wording of the amendment is taken from Section 60 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. It has long been considered that the criminal justice system is best served by having an accurate record of what is said at interviews. Surely the tried and tested procedures adopted in such cases would read across into the determination of asylum claims. I beg to move.
"( ) In the Mental Health Act 1983 (c. 20)—
(a) at the end of section 48(2)(d) (detained persons susceptible to transfer for mental treatment: immigration) there shall be added "or under section 52 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (detention by Secretary of State)", and
(b) in the heading of section 53 (supplemental provision) the reference to the Immigration Act 1971 becomes a reference to the Immigration Acts."
Page 29, line 21, at end insert—
"( ) In the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 (c. 36)—
(a) at the end of section 71(2)(c) (detained persons who may be transferred to hospital for mental treatment) there shall be added "or under section 52 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (detention by the Secretary of State)", and
(b) at the end of section 74(1)(b) (further provision about such persons) there shall be added "or under section 52 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (detention by the Secretary of State)"."
After Clause 52, insert the following new clause—
"REASONS FOR DETENTION
(1) A person detained by the Secretary of State under Section 52 of this Act or by an immigration officer or the Secretary of State under the Immigration Act 1971 shall be provided with full written reasons for his detention in a language which he fully understands.
(2) Such reasons shall be provided within 24 hours of his initial detention and shall give a full justification for the need to detain him at that time.
(3) Further written reasons shall be given at the end of each period of 28 days or more during which he continues to be detained and shall give a full justification for the continuing need to detain him in particular.
(4) The completion of a pro-forma sheet listing general reasons for detention will not be sufficient to meet the requirements of this Section."
9.45 p.m.
Page 29, line 37, at end insert—
"( ) After paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971, there shall be inserted—
"It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State—
(a) to issue a code of practice in connection with the tape-recording of interviews of persons examined by an immigration officer under paragraphs 2, 2A or 3 above; and
(b) to make an order requiring the tape-recording of persons so examined."
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page