Clause 47 - Detention centres: change of name
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
5:00 pm
Mr Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)
I beg to move amendment No. 263, in page 25, line 22, leave out paragraph (a).
It is this amendment that confused me in the last group. Amendment No. 263 following No. 236 is too much for my brain to grasp at this time of day.
The amendment is important because we are concerned about the Government's redesignation of detention centres as removal centres. We do not perceive the logic, unless it is Government window-dressing. All the evidence suggests that if the current pattern of detention continues, the individuals detained in the centres will not necessarily be those who are about to be removed. The redefinition as removal centres will allow the Government to talk up their removals policy by classifying anyone in the centres as someone with whom they are dealing from a removals point of view.
Significant numbers of people are involved. At the end of December 2001, there were 1,410 asylum seekers in detention, and the Home Office estimated in March 2000 that some 15,000 people were detained under 1999 Act powers. Of people in the system the end of March 1999, 60 per cent. of asylum detainees were awaiting an initial decision, 25 per cent. were awaiting the result of an appeal and 15 per cent. were awaiting the result of a further challenge to documentation for removal. In other words, a large number of people are being held in detention centres—lawfully so, under to the Government's regime, although we could debate whether any individual should be detained—pending initial hearings rather than pending removal.
It seems perverse to reclassify as a removal centre a detention centre that mainly holds people who have been detained for perfectly good reasons under the 1999 Act but who are not awaiting removal. The reclassification can only point to some other agenda, one that allows the Government to talk about dealing
with removals, which we accept are a difficult issue, despite the fact that the removal centres will not hold people who are at the point of removal.
We are worried about how being in what is deemed to be a removal centre will affect those held. What message is sent to an asylum seeker in a removal centre who is awaiting an initial hearing if, even before his case has been heard, he is effectively—by the name of the centre if not in law—classified as someone who is awaiting removal? That could cause the Government additional problems if they have to detain people who are waiting for a hearing to take place. It might be more straightforward for all parties if such people were detained in a detention centre, rather than forced into a removal centre where they may feel less co-operative because of the message sent out and the tone of the system.
Taking someone to hearings from a removal centre might send a message to those who will make decisions about that person—a message that classifies those held in accommodation centres as ''the good guys'', unlike those held in removal centres. That sends a strong message, even though no logic is involved. Many of the reasons for detention involve uncertainty and do not necessarily imply that the detainee has a less valid asylum claim than a person held in an accommodation centre. Having two routes into hearings—one from a removal centre and the other from an accommodation centre—will create an additional negative message about the person held in the removal centre. We do not believe that that is merited if that person is, as we believe many people will continue to be, awaiting initial decisions.
I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments on the logic behind the redesignation and whether the Government intend the pattern of detentions to change. Perhaps the fact that he is awaiting initial approval could be a valid reason to hold a person in an accommodation centre rather than a detention centre. Will the proportion of people awaiting removals increase, or is the new name a simple reclassification that does not change the composition of the population held in the removal centres?
Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)
Our purpose in renaming detention centres removal centres is to reinforce the key role that detention plays in the removal of those who have no lawful basis to stay in this country. It does not signal a change of function for such centres, which will remain designated places of detention for the purposes of immigration legislation; nor does it signal a change in the powers to detain.
The amendment would restrict the use of detention in a removal centre to certain classes of people, such as those who at the time of their detention could not lawfully be removed from the United Kingdom, those who are removed within two months of their detention, or those who are over 18. It would mean that we would have to release people in spite of the
evidence used to put them in detention—people whom we fear would abscond or are close to being removed. For example, we would be unable to detain an asylum seeker whose claim or appeal was outstanding. That would cause chaos in the system.
I assume that the hon. Gentleman, like the rest of the Committee, wants a system wherein the failure of an asylum claim—the person is not granted any other form of leave to remain—ultimately results in an outcome different from that of a claim that ends in someone being granted refugee status. Otherwise, the hon. Gentleman should tell me the point of the system.
Mr Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)
I was going to elaborate on subsequent amendments that relate to the question of who should be held in detention centres. At this stage, I merely wanted to probe the issue of the naming of the centres, rather than raise other issues that relate to a subsequent group of amendments.
Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)
I have explained why the Bill will rename detention centres removal centres: it is to reinforce the role that detention plays in the removal of those who have no lawful basis to stay here. That includes not only asylum seekers but overstayers and people who have fallen foul of the immigration rules and are due to be removed. If that is the answer that the hon. Gentleman wanted, that is the one that I give. I will answer the rest of his questions when we debate his next group of amendments.
Mr Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)
I am grateful to the Minister for that response, which was not entirely unanticipated. There is still a major point of difference. It is not in the interests of good, open and transparent government to call something a removal centre when, as the Minister said, the policy on who is to be detained is not being changed and most of the people in the centres are not awaiting removal. We might return to that issue. In order to have a proper debate on the next interesting group of amendments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 235, in page 25, line 26, after 'persons', insert—
'whom the Home Office is lawfully entitled to remove'.
Mr Alan Hurst (Braintree, Labour)
With this we will take the following amendments: No. 264, in page 25, line 26, after 'persons', insert—
'who are removable within the next two months'.
Amendment No. 265, in page 25, line 26, after 'persons', insert—
'over the age of eighteen'.
Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)
What is in a name? A removal centre is not a removal centre under the Bill. It should be what it says it is. On 14 February, there was a ghastly fire in Yarl's Wood caused by arson. At that time, Yarl's Wood held 380 persons of whom only 294 were due to be removed; the other 86 were current asylum seekers. There is a great deal of potential for confusion about who is in what establishment.
Will the Minister give the Committee her best up-to-date figures on the total number of removals from the United Kingdom from January to December 2001?
Will she also tell us whether the Government are sticking to their target of 35,000 removals per year? If so, when will they be on line to achieve that target? The Immigration Advisory Service tells me that Ministers have confirmed that the function of removal centres is no different from that of detention centres, as they used to be called: such centres will continue to house persons who have claimed asylum but not received an initial decision, whom the Home Office cannot lawfully remove.
The effect on an asylum seeker who has not yet been given an initial decision but is sent to a removal centre could be severe. It is likely to engender fear and cynicism about how seriously the claim is being considered. The change in name is ill judged. The Home Office may simply be trying to send a clear message to the public that the Government are serious about removal, in which case, let us hear the figures.
Other objections to the clause come from the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, which objects to the redesignation of detention centres as removal centres for the same reason that I outlined—it is inaccurate. Many people held in detention centres are not liable for removal in the near future. Many have not had their initial application determined, and some are not returnable at all in the foreseeable future because of upheaval in their country of origin.
The redesignation will not encourage detainees to regard the process of seeking immigration status as fair and will tend to undermine trust in the independent Immigration Appellate Authority. If a detainee is placed in a removal centre when the application is made, the implicit message is that the application is doomed to failure. The name is badly chosen. The redesignation may be designed to give the impression that the Government are increasing their ability to remove those who do not qualify for asylum or for leave to enter or remain, in which case, let us see what progress has been made.
My amendments would do justice by ensuring that such removal centres could be used only to house people who are to be removed. It is important to flag up the issue and to find out from the Minister why the change has been made.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham, Conservative)
The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants have expressed the same objections as those that were expressed by the organisations mentioned by my hon. Friend. Does he agree that the renaming will cause much anxiety for people whose first language might not be English and who therefore might not understand the relevant nuances, so that they will think that they are being put in a place that only houses people who are to be removed? That will double the anxiety of a group of vulnerable people.
Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)
My hon. Friend is right. Not only will the measure cause anxiety, but it will cause it to be felt by a group of vulnerable people. They will make their applications and find themselves being sent to a removal centre, which will make them scratch their heads.
I do not understand why the Minister is doing this, which is why I have proposed the amendment.
Mr Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow, Labour)
Every time I hear the hon. Member for Woking speak from the Conservative Front Bench, I am astounded at how far his party appears to have moved in such a short time. It seems like only five minutes ago that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) was speaking from the Home Office brief and suggesting that every single asylum seeker should be locked up the minute they stepped off a boat or a plane.
Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)
The hon. Gentleman has a serious reputation in the field of asylum and immigration, and he knows that Conservative Committee members are trying their best to be thoughtful and constructive, and to contribute in a decent and workmanlike manner. I therefore feel a bit sad that he is teasing me. I hope that he will recognise our sincerity and not tease us too much.
Mr Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow, Labour)
I always welcome sinners who repent. I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman has approached the Committee—and the entire Bill—in a constructive manner, and I do not wish to be churlish about what he has been saying about this issue for quite some time.
Like many other hon. Members, I have been concerned for a while about the way that detention is used in connection with immigration and asylum cases. I do not argue for one moment that detention should never be used. That is the case not only in asylum matters. I recall an immigration case in which a woman was claiming to be someone when it was blatantly obvious that she was not that person because that person was dead, yet the woman refused to admit who she really was. I acknowledge that sometimes one has to deal with difficult people. However, in the area of asylum, there has always been a concern that far too many people have been detained before an initial decision is made about their claim. Several hon. Members have already mentioned that.
It is difficult to know precisely what happens in many such cases because, unfortunately, the Home Office no longer keeps the relevant statistics. Three or four years ago it was possible to get statistics that showed what had happened to people who had been detained—whether they had been granted asylum, or exceptional leave, or had their claim refused, or won appeals, or whatever. It appears that those statistics are no longer available. I do not know why.
If a decision to detain someone were taken, one would assume that there were good reasons for it. One would expect a pretty high failure rate of asylum claims among people who were detained. However, when those statistics were available, they clearly showed that quite a lot of people were ultimately successful—they were granted either full refugee status or exceptional leave to remain. I have no reason to believe that that position has changed.
For several years, successive Home Secretaries have told hon. Members that detention should be used only
at the end of the process and only for people who are going to be removed. I recall precisely that being said in the Committee that considered the 1999 legislation, which included provisions on detention and bail. Ministers said then that they wanted to ensure as far as possible that detention was used only at the end of the process. We all accept that earlier detention can sometimes be justified—for people who commit criminal offences or who have absconded, for example—but in the main, it is most appropriate at the end of the process.
The renaming of detention centres as removal centres indicates far more than just a change of name. It suggests a clear change of policy from using detention at the end of the process when removal is imminent. I am disappointed that exchanges in the debate so far have not revealed the fact that a change of policy is intended in favour of detaining people at the beginning of the process before their claims have even been looked at.
Mr Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)
I was interested to hear the contribution of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), who speaks with considerable experience. I, too, remember during debates on the 1999 legislation hearing many Government commitments to refocus detention on removal. However, the action of refocusing it on removal is currently absent: we have merely a change in name rather than in practice, which is worrying.
The two Liberal Democrat amendments are designed to assist the Government by refocusing their removal centres on removal. We lost the argument about the name a few minutes ago, so we move on to what the removal centres should do. We simply say that removal centres should be used for removal.
We also want to help the Government to meet their commitment to the United Nations convention on the rights of the child by excluding those under the age of 18. The Government gained an exemption from article 22 some time ago, but we continue to challenge that. It is right to criticise and press hard on the issue of holding children in detention.
The fact that we want to redefine removal centres should not lead the Minister to argue that we want to let loose many people who should be detained. Our suggestion is that three classes of centre are needed. We need accommodation centres for those normally held in the community, and it is appropriate to use removal centres for removals, but another category of people—not necessarily only asylum seekers—will have to be detained from time to time for various reasons. I await the Minister's clarification of precisely whom the categories will include.
People arrive at a port of entry for various reasons, some perfectly legitimate, but the immigration service may not be able to let individuals leave that port. Can individuals who have to be held for a variety of immigration reasons, not just because of asylum claims, only be held in removal centres? Some issues might need to be clarified before an individual can be
allowed to go about his business in the UK, and detention might unfortunately be necessary in the short term.
I agree with the hon. Member for Walthamstow that detention should be kept to a minimum, but that it is necessary in certain circumstances. I do not want someone suspected of criminality to be set loose in the country. Such a person should be detained while the circumstances are investigated. However, I question whether it is right to place that individual in a removal centre, given that at a later date he may turn out to be entirely innocent at a later date. Perhaps there should be the three categories that I suggested, which include accommodation centres for those going into normal community accommodation and removal centres for those who are to be removed, which is what the Government want to establish.
Let us be honest: detention may be required for various reasons. We must make a clear distinction between removal and detention and not make a clumsy attempt to wrap up the two together, thereby creating a large category of people in removal centres who are not about to be removed. The figures show that such people are likely to be at the beginning of the system, not at the end.
Mr Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith, Labour/Co-operative)
I endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow about the current use of detention. I have seen far too many cases in which there was no basis in the first instance for someone not to be granted bail or to be detained. I hope that the emphasis placed on the change of name signifies a change of policy. Above all, our discussion shows the need for improvements in the quality of the decision-making process, because bail has been allowed in due course in too many cases. I accept that we are not discussing bail conditions, but in too many cases detention was not justified given the objective analysis of the facts before the decision maker.
I hope that the Minister can say how we can ensure that the process is changed so that people are not detained unnecessarily. I am worried that one of the downsides of an otherwise good Bill might be an increase in the number of people who are detained when they should not be. I hope that we can ensure that that does not happen as a result of our discussions and the administrative decisions that will follow thereafter.
Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)
We have had a useful discussion. Concerns have been expressed by those on both sides of the Committee who are genuinely concerned about the clause. Given that, I do not see a need to press amendment No. 235 to a Division, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.
Mr Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)
I am puzzled. I did not know whether the hon. Gentleman was expecting a ministerial response. I had been looking forward to it.
Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)
I was about to respond. I was expecting the hon. Gentleman to add something that he had forgotten to say in his initial speech, but clearly his expectations of me are fairly low.
Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)
I apologise. I sought to withdraw the amendment too early. The hon. Lady is always courteous in her responses. I intended no offence.
Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)
None taken.
I confirm that our priority for the use of detention space is to support the removal of failed asylum seekers and others with no basis to stay here—generally, illegal entrants and overstayers. That is the main purpose of the detention, now to be called the removal estate. However, members of the Committee are right to point out that apart from detention to effect removal, which includes deportation for immigration offenders rather than asylum seekers, we may detain both asylum and non-asylum cases while the person's identity or claim is established. Clearly, that must be at a beginning of a claim, not at the end.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow was right to point out that the immigration and nationality directorate is often faced with people who claim a certain identity that we cannot verify. He mentioned circumstances in which someone claimed an identity of a verifiably dead person and, despite being presented with the facts, still maintained that she was that person. The IND has to deal with such matters all the time.
There are sometimes multiple claims using many different identities, which we are beginning to pick up more regularly through our electronic fingerprinting systems. We have fingerprinted asylum seekers for many years, but the new systems allow us to compare the prints with large banks of records much more effectively. The equipment that allows us to do that can be portable in some circumstances. We are picking up more and more evidence of multiple false claims and different identities.
It is proper that we detain while we investigate those false claims, and clearly that has to take place at the beginning rather than at the end of a case. There are certainly people in detention whose identities we cannot establish or whose stories we doubt. If we can confirm their identity, they are usually released from detention quite quickly, and they go on into the system in the normal way. Hon. Members will know that there is quite a throughput, which means that giving figures and particular statistics provides only a snapshot of one day. We can also detain because a person is likely to abscond. That can take place at different stages of the claim.
Ms Karen Buck (Regent's Park and Kensington North, Labour)
I have a great deal of empathy with that point, but I am not confident that the people being held in detention fall precisely into those sensible categories. If the Department has statistical information to demonstrate that, it would help to allay fears. My hon. Friend has certainly outlined categories of people that few members of the Committee would challenge, but we would like to see the evidence on which those categories are based.
Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)
I regret to say—this is as much a frustration for me as it is for anyone else—that the paper-based nature of the casework means that it is difficult to collate the statistics in the way that my hon.
Friend wants. I can assure her that we are proceeding as quickly as possible with—I dread to use the phrase—information technology that will give us more effective and up-to-date statistics, but at the moment the system is overwhelmingly based on paper files, and without a disproportionate use of resources it is difficult to keep a constant track on the way that the files are circulating around the system. I would prefer to be able to give hon. Members the information that they require, and I hope that help will be at hand in due course.
The final category of people whom we are likely to detain will be part of a fast-track case processing facility. Oakington is the example of that, subject to whatever the House of Lords decides.
Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)
I remind the Minister that I asked about removals in 2001 and the target for 2002. Can she give us those up-to-date statistics?
Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)
I can give the hon. Gentleman provisional statistics that come with all the usual health warnings. I was about to get on to that, so perhaps he should have had slightly more faith that I would remember his questions. The provisional figure for 2001 is 9,285, which is a 3 per cent. increase on the 2000 figure, a 93 per cent. increase on the 1996 figure and the highest annual figure on record. It clearly falls short of our target of 30,000. That was always an ambitious target, but we are striving to achieve it.
Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)
We are seeking a step change in the way in which we carry out removals. We are making many administrative changes as well as some of the changes in the Bill to increase the integrity of the asylum process. As I have said before, I firmly believe that there has to be a difference between someone who claims asylum and fails to get either refugee status or other lesser forms of protection, and someone who succeeds. The difference between someone who fails and someone who succeeds should be that the person who fails is returned to his country of origin. That is a vital part of our work to step up our ability to remove people.
As hon. Members know, removing people according to law, in good order, in safety, and so on, is difficult. To return people to their country of origin requires the consent of the country to which we are returning the people, the issue of travel papers, spaces on airline flights, or in some cases the chartering of our own flight. It is a huge logistical task.
We have administered a range of provisions to help reach the target: creating arrest teams—an aspect of which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary discussed on previous clauses; serving determination in person in some cases; the Association of Chief Police Officers protocol which enables us to use the police to arrest people; the expansion of the removal estate despite the setback at Yarl's Wood; the biometric smartcard which enables us to keep closer contact with asylum seekers; the chartering of flights for removals in certain circumstances; and an increased number of
departures through voluntary assisted returns. The figure that I gave earlier includes all enforced and voluntary returns. Other means include fingerprinting and closer co-operation with local authorities to see how we can remove failed asylum seekers living in local authority accommodation.
There is a range of work across the piece to try to increase integrity in the system once the asylum appeal has been determined.
Mr Gregory Barker (Bexhill and Battle, Conservative)
I appreciate the Minister's comments. Is she still confident that the Government will hit the 30,000 figure?
Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)
We need to remove 2,500 people per month to hit 30,000. One does not need to be much of a mathematician—I am not—to realise that. It is an ambitious figure. However, we are committed to gearing up the system to achieve 30,000. Hon. Members have the figures in front of them.
The amendments would make it harder for us to achieve the figure, partly because they create a distinction between what we have called removal centres and the decision to rename all detention centres removal centres. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam even suggested that we should have detention centres and removal centres and, I presume, shuttle individuals from one to the other depending on the status of their cases.
It is our intention to ensure integrity in the system and effect removals in good order. We will continue to keep immigration offenders as well as asylum cases in detention when there is a reasonable justification for doing so, in the circumstances I outlined. Hon. Members should remember that only a small minority of people are detained. I dispute the suggestion of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) that people are detained almost arbitrarily. I will not say that mistakes have never been made—he may have come across some—but there are opportunities to put them right and we do not take lightly a decision to detain someone.
I hope that, with that explanation of how removal centres will be used, the amendment will be withdrawn. If accepted, it would make it harder for us to run an effective removal system and to put more integrity into the system.
Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)
For the second time, I rise to say that, for the reasons that I gave, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Question agreed to.
Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.