Clause 48 - Bail
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
5:45 pm
Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)
Amendment No. 256 would prevent the repeal of part III of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, and deals with the important topic of bail. I am sure that many members of the Committee are disappointed and concerned about the proposed repeal of those provisions, which provide for automatic bail hearings for detained asylum seekers. The Government accepted the need for such hearings in 1999, but the legislation was never implemented.
When introducing the then Immigration and Asylum Bill, the then Home Secretary said that:
''detention . . . is necessary in a small number of cases, but there must be proper safeguards. Part III fulfils the commitment in the White Paper to introduce a more extensive judicial element in the
detention process. That will be achieved by introducing routine bail hearings for those detained under immigration legislation.''—[Official Report, 22 February 1999; Vol. 326, c. 39.]
It is a major disappointment to many NGOs in the field that part III has never been implemented. Indeed, the implementation of those provisions may well be necessary to ensure compliance with article 5 of the ECHR, which guarantees
''liberty and security of person''.
The Bill contains no alternative safeguards to those in part III, so it is obvious that repealing those provisions will mean that there is no proper judicial oversight of the original decision to detain. That could lead to non-compliance with UN guidelines on arbitrary detention. The Minister may say that it is open to the person concerned to make an application for bail, but in reality that is not satisfactory. The automatic triggering of bail applications that we envisage is a good thing, and should be introduced without delay.
I express my regrets—which I think are shared widely—about the provision. I argue for the removal of subsection (6), as that would enable the bail provisions in part III of the 1999 Act to be implemented.