HC Deb 29 March 1973 vol 853 cc1515-7
12. Mr. Clinton Davis

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the conditions in the deportation wing of Her Majesty's Prison, Pentonville.

Mr. Carlisle

I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to a Question by the hon. Member on 22nd March.— [Vol. 853, c. 159.]

Mr. Davis

Is not the Home Office behaving in a thoroughly complacent manner about the conditions which people who face no criminal charges and who therefore have no convictions are obliged to endure in Pentonville Prison? Did not the Minister of State in another place say that conditions at Pentonville are far from satisfactory? Should not the Home Office be determined to find other accom- modation for these people, bearing in mind that they are innocent?

Mr. Carlisle

I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman's Question. Those who are sent to Pentonville in the first place have either been ordered to be deported or are awaiting a decision on their deportation following a conviction by the courts for a criminal offence in this country. It is true that at Pentonville, because of pressure, there are those who have either been caught illegally attempting to enter this country by various methods or, prima facie, appear to be evading the control on entry. The latter class have to be detained for a few days while inquiries are made. The other accommodation being full, it is regrettably a fact that those who are among the last category have also to be put in Pentonville.

Mr. John Fraser

Persons who are detained under Schedule 2 of the Immigration Act 1971 are being detained under a removal section. Can the Minister of State give any recent peacetime example whereby, under retroactive legislation, a person who has previously been immune from prosecution has been arrested and deprived of his liberty, ordered to be deported, deprived of any judicial review, and sent out of the country by executive action? If he can think of no precedent, in any event will he consider granting an amnesty to those people who were immune from prosecution before 1st January of this year?

Mr. Carlisle

The hon. Gentleman's question does not relate in any way to the original Question. However, since he has raised the matter I must tell him that the powers under the recent Immigration Act were given by Parliament after normal debate. The point to which I understand the hon. Gentleman is taking such grave objection is that, under the previous law, if anyone managed to evade being discovered for six months he was, irrespective of the fact that he had come here illegally, entitled to stay here for ever. I think that the vast majority of people in this country would think it right that if someone had chosen to come here illegally, even if he had done so six months earlier, consideration should still be given to the question whether he should be returned.

Mr. Fraser

If the Minister wants to make a deportation order, there is a judicial review by the Immigration Tribunal. He is using his powers of removal, which offer no review or any appeal of a judicial nature.

Mr. Carlisle

Such powers of removal were granted by this House after normal debate, and I believe that they are acceptable to the vast majority of British people. The hon. Gentleman says that these cases are not reviewed. As has been said on other occasions, each case is reviewed individually before any decision is taken.