---

Earl Russell: I support the amendment. Last night, rather later than I would have wished, and therefore without the time to complete the reading I would have wished, I started to read the pamphlet Deciding to Detain, a report by the University of Essex Human

15 Jul 2002 : Column 1069

Rights Centre by Leanne Weber and Todd Landman. It suggests to me that a great deal of the decisions taken that lead to detention—often mistaken detention—arise from mistakes in the initial interview. That is not a new thought on these Benches or in the House. But what is so good in the report is that it allows the immigration officers to speak for themselves in a vernacular speech that I can understand.

I hear in those immigration officers a sense of having lost control of the processes of their job, which as a professional is something I recognise far more closely than I would have wished. They often regard it as their job to prevent people coming into this country. I cannot complain at that. I am not a vegetarian: I cannot morally reprove people who work in abattoirs. I do not want Al'Qaeda and the Mafia walking all over this country with every weapon they possess. So I recognise that there must be people with that vocation.

But the point that the immigration officers make is that that vocation and the vocation of dealing with asylum sit uneasily together. Here is a quote from one:

"A colleague of mine at Dover said 'If I'd wanted to join an organisation that processed asylum claims I'd have joined the Immigration Advisory Line or something, I wouldn't have joined the Immigration Service'. Because we're not doing the immigration control—we're simply letting people through. That's what I said about asylum being a separate issue from immigration".

In those words is not only the frustration of someone who sees himself as having lost control of his job. There is also a clear expression of why immigration and asylum should be seen as two separate functions of the Home Office. They ought not to be done by the same people. If they were done by two lots of people with different vocations and different professional training, we would not get what the report suggests that we are getting—people recommending detention because it is the only way they can get back control of the process.

If anything like that is taking place—I say, "If"—the tape recording of interviews, as proposed in my noble friend's amendment, would go a long way to correct it. Beyond that, the material suggests that there is a long-term way in which our immigration and asylum system could be reformed. As I suggested at Second Reading of the 1999 Immigration and Asylum Bill, without the evidence that I now have, it would involve separating the immigration functions from the asylum functions and having them done by different people. That would be the beginning of wisdom. Until it is done, things will go wrong over and over again, and we will be back here for another Bill, almost before we have finished this one.

Lord Judd: I hope that the Minister will consider seriously the point covered by the amendment. I urge him to do so for two reasons. First, I do not think that I am speaking only for myself when I say that the Minister has convinced us of his decency, his integrity and his determination to see as much justice as possible in the administration of policy and theory. If there is any serious room for doubt—there seems to be a good deal in this area—the proposed amendment would, as

15 Jul 2002 : Column 1070

the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, go a long way towards removing that doubt. That is important for justice.

The second reason why I urge the Minister to take the proposal seriously is that, if we take seriously the threat of terrorism—I, for one, certainly do—we must remember at all times that the extremist plays on any sense of injustice or justice miscarried. It is counter-productive to do things in a way that is not beyond question or doubt. It plays into the hands of extremists and gives them moral grounds for recruiting and increasing their circle of ambivalent support, if not direct support. That is the kind of climate in which it is easier for them to operate. For those reasons, regardless of whether we accept this particular amendment, the point behind the amendment is crucially significant. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will reassure us that he takes it seriously.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I endorse what has just been said. I hope that the Minister will say that he will consider the point behind the amendment, if he cannot accept its precise terms. During that consideration, he should take into account the Home Office's experience of piloting and introducing the tape recording of interviews under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

At the beginning, there was a great deal of resistance from the police. Subsequently, the police realised that it was as much in their interest to have an objective and unassailable record of what had taken place as it was in the interest of the defendant. It is easy, with the best of intentions, to put a slant on an interview during which one has been able only to make running notes. Police officers, particularly those who conducted the trial—at Dartford in Kent, I think—became the most ardent protagonists on behalf of the innovation. Today, nobody would wish to go back to the days when there was no tape recording. I hope that the Minister will consider that example.

Lord Hylton: I wish to support the amendment because it bears not only on the quality of interviewing in the first place, but also on the quality of interpretation. Both are closely linked to the quality of first decision and therefore to the avoidance of further appeals and judicial reviews. We all understand that that is what the Government wish to see and we support them in that aim.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, raised important structural questions with regard to the Home Office. Perhaps I may follow his line by asking the Home Office seriously to consider changing the way it operates the system so that one caseworker stays with a case throughout the whole process until it is finally resolved. That would bring about a huge qualitative improvement.

Lord Kingsland: I wish to endorse what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Hylton, and my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden. Indeed, I have to say quite candidly to the

15 Jul 2002 : Column 1071

Minister that I had always assumed that such interviews were tape recorded. Indeed, I could not imagine the circumstances in which they would not be recorded. Surely it would be in the interests both of the person being interviewed and of the interviewer that the most accurate record of what has taken place is available, first, to both the parties participating in the interview and, secondly, for any subsequent proceedings.

I understand that the Government's objective behind the Bill is to secure expedition tempered by fairness. What better way of soundly establishing such a procedure than by making sure that, at the outset, the interviews are accurately recorded? The barriers of language and culture are huge. It is difficult to see how we shall have a reasonable chance of overcoming them unless we start off in the way proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in his amendment.

10 p.m.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: We have had an interesting short debate. It took my mind back to the passage of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Arguments were put forward from both the police and civil liberties perspectives to say that the tape recording of interviews would not be a good move. Ultimately I think that both sides of the arguments came to see that they were wrong and that the government of the day were absolutely right. The tape recording of interviews conducted in police stations has marked a tremendous advance in openness and transparency and has assisted both the defence and the prosecution in equal measure. Furthermore, it has added greatly to the fairness of the process.

I am going to give a commitment to reflect on the amendment moved by the noble Lord, but I give that commitment to reflect without a further commitment that there will be an amendment or a solution that necessarily accords with the spirit of the amendment before the Committee. I shall do that because there are certain immense logistical problems that would come into play if the Government were to follow this course. I wish to make that point plainly and ensure that it is put on the record.

Each year something in the order of 90 million passengers arrive in the United Kingdom. Of those, some 13 million are subject to some form of control by the UK Immigration Service at ports and at the Channel Tunnel. Plainly, aiming to tape record up to 13 million interviews a year would be a vast exercise. I do not know whether one would need to record all 13 million interviews; I doubt whether eventually it would be quite that number. However, some of those interviews would include those conducted with British and European citizens because some mistakes would be made. That could lead to long delays for people coming here quite legitimately in being received into the country.

We also need to consider the enormous cost of installing tape-recording machinery at every control desk at every port and point of entry. There are

15 Jul 2002 : Column 1072

questions of practicality. If one thinks of ports and the facilities available there for the conducting of interviews, the quality of the interview rooms that we now demand in police stations and the technology used, one begins to get a fair measure of the practical difficulties.

The current system works reasonably well and there are fairly good and accurate records of interviews. Safeguards are in place. While I accept that recorded interviews would add something more and that there is an initial attraction to their introduction, many problems would need to be overcome in terms of language, recording and so on.

Attractive though this amendment is, and though I am happy to give a commitment that we will reflect on the comments made by noble Lords in this short and interesting debate, I can go no further. I can give only an agreement to reflect, without a commitment or promise that we will bring back anything. I appreciate that the amendment is intended to be helpful.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to the Deciding to Detain report and was candid in extracting the comments of immigration officers. The research took place some years ago and involved a small number of immigration officers. We should like to place on record our debt of gratitude to our immigration officers. They have to work extremely hard and intervene in many challenging circumstances. I am sure that the noble Earl will accept that much has changed in their working practices and that perhaps Deciding to Detain no longer accurately reflects the current position in the context of their work and the changed role and nature of our Immigration Service, which has had to match and meet some very testing circumstances over the past few years. I am grateful to the noble Earl for raising points from the report, but his comments need to be set in context.

---