| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the noble Lord.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: It may help to look, if the noble Lord finds time to do so, at the Prevention of Terrorism Act applying to Northern Ireland. I believe that those three areas which were attached to police stations, which were specially secure for the purpose of interrogating those suspected of terrorism, were reclassified as holding centres. It was felt that this might be an assistance to the delicate process which, even in my distant days, was in train. It is perhaps a precedent to be looked at.
Lord Hylton: I prefer the second of these two amendments. What the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, has just said rather reinforces my opinion.
The serious point is that one or other amendment—preferably the second—needs to be accepted until such time as no people are detained who have not yet received their first decision in an asylum case or who have not yet exhausted their rights of appeal.
10.30 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: I follow the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and support the amendment. I have information from the Churches' Bail Circle that might be of interest to the Committee. There is evidence from the bail circle and from detention centre visiting groups that many asylum seekers are detained well before the end of the process of determining their claims, as my noble friend said—either on arrival or before the determination of their appeal.
The bail circle worked with 257 asylum seekers last year and in the first quarter of this year. Full data concerning dates of arrival, asylum claim and detention were available for 102 of these, of whom 77 per cent were detained at or soon after arrival. The sample is small, but there is no reason to suppose that it is not representative. It surely bears out what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I shall speak to my Amendment No. 170. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that logically the Government ought to accept either his amendment or mine and that he is prepared to accept mine if need be. I also heard the noble Lord, Lord Judd, upbraid the noble Earl, Lord Russell, saying that he preferred the noble Earl's amendment to mine. As long as we get the right result, I shall not be pedantic about which wording is adopted. I would be equally happy to support the noble Earl's wording if we can achieve the right result.
I shall be fairly brief, as the arguments have been covered effectively. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the only people held in removal centres are those whom the Secretary of State is lawfully entitled to remove. That seems an obvious aim. As my honourable friend Mr Malins said on Report in another place:
- "Detaining asylum seekers is a sensitive issue and detention should be used with the greatest sensitivity. Detaining persons whom the Secretary of State is not entitled to remove is an unhappy concept for many Opposition Members".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/6/02; cols. 872-73.]
I was grateful for the intervention of my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew and my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, both of whom, in their succinct way, made it clear that the Government's position is untenable. As my noble friend Lord Brooke, said, the Government's words seem like something from Alice in Wonderland.
Noble Lords have not followed through the question of the current designation of detention centres. I am told that the IND has already changed the name of detention centres to removal centres on letterheads and public signposts—for example at Dungavel—and on memorandums, even though the clause has not even been debated, let alone the Bill
enacted. Can the Minister confirm whether the IND has made that change? If so, on whose authority was it done?Like other noble Lords, I should be very disappointed if the Minister felt unable to accept either the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, or mine. At this late hour I do not intend to pursue the matter, but I give notice that I shall pursue it later.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Our purpose in renaming detention centres as removal centres is to reinforce the key role that detention plays in the removal of those who have no lawful basis to stay here. It does not signal a change of function for such centres. They will remain designated places of detention for the purposes of the Immigration Act. Similarly, it does not signal a change to the powers to detain. Our priority for the use of detention space is to support the removal of failed asylum seekers and others who have no basis of stay here, such as illegal entrants and overstayers.
Although we plan to increase the number of detention spaces to some 4,000, they will obviously remain a finite resource that must be focused on the area of greatest need—that is, the removal of failed asylum seekers. That is a priority. But it will always be the case that removal centres will need to be used in other circumstances and at other points in the process where we have power to detain, particularly, for example, at Oakington. That is an integral part of effective immigration control which would be prevented by the amendment. I question whether noble Lords would wish that to happen.
Apart from detention to effect removal, including deportation, our current policy is that we may detain in both asylum and non-asylum cases while a person's identity or claim is established, or because a person is likely to abscond, or, in asylum cases only, as part of the fast-track case processing at Oakington reception centre. Again, that will continue to be the case despite the change of name to "removal centres". On that basis, it would be inappropriate to seek to restrict those who may be held at removal centres, as Amendment No. 170 seeks to do, to those,
- "whom the Secretary is lawfully entitled to remove".
There are also practical difficulties with the amendment. A person whose removal was not for the time being lawful—for example, a person with an outstanding asylum claim—would therefore not be able to be detained in a removal centre, although they could be detained in short-term facilities or prisons. It would also prevent the detention in a removal centre of those who are removable, but the power to do so is vested in an immigration officer rather than the Secretary of State. That would apply to the majority of those refused leave to enter.
I know that there has been some concern that the change of name may lead to confusion among detainees, especially asylum seekers, who have yet to receive a decision on their application but are held at a removal centre. We simply do not accept that. All detainees receive a notice at the time of their detention that sets out clearly the reasons for that detention.
Therefore, detainees should be under no illusion as to the reasons. In addition, detained asylum seekers will go through the induction process at the place of detention, and that will include information on the asylum process. Therefore, they will know that they will not be removed while their claim is outstanding. I have set out why we decided to adopt the name "removal centre", and I do not consider that "holding centre" is a better alternative.The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, made the point that, within the context of Northern Ireland, there were holding centres for those held pending the further determination of their situation. I am not sure that that necessarily helps the argument for the amendments offered by some Members of the Committee this evening. Surely that could create confusion in some minds as to the purpose of the centres. The comparison with centres used to hold suspected terrorists would be an unenviable parallel. I wonder whether that is as wise a move as some in the Committee might like to argue. I believe that, in the context of immigration and asylum cases, it is not a matter to which we should give serious consideration. Having heard those arguments and points, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Judd: Before my noble friend sits down, I hope that he will accept that in relation to this amendment some of us—I am fairly certain that I shall not be alone—feel that, while he has tried hard to argue the case, he has not convinced us. I ask him again to think himself into the position of people in the centres and, indeed, of many irresponsible people in the media and elsewhere in this country. Some are determined to suggest that we should remove everyone it is possible to remove. Inevitably, that view will become an acute anxiety on the part of people in the centres.
I understood my noble friends to say repeatedly in the deliberations on this Bill that they are committed to getting the right result in each case. Why throw away that flag of commitment to getting the right result by the injudicious and loose use of the word, "removal"?
Earl Russell: Before I reply, perhaps the Minister will reply to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. Is it true that the name of some centres has already been changed to "removal centre" before the approval of Parliament has been given? Can he answer that before I reply?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am happy to answer. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked a perfectly proper question. The answer is yes; the change was made on the direction of the Home Secretary.
To pick up the point made by my noble friend Lord Judd, we are committed to ensuring that people who come into this country, albeit illegally, claiming asylum and refuge are treated humanely, decently and properly, and in accordance with the principles of natural justice and law. In renaming detention centres we are seeking to reinforce the key role that detention
plays in the removal of those who have no lawful base on which to stay here. It does not, of itself, signal a change of function for the centres. It underlines the important role that they play in the range of facilities, the range of strategies, that we seek to employ to manage and handle the situation.
The problems that confront us are serious and we take them seriously. We believe in fair and proper treatment. We are a government that have demonstrated that not just in this field of legislation, but in many others. Our record and reputation are second to none in that regard. Therefore I insist that the amendment is unnecessary and should be withdrawn.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page