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?