§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government how far detention without trial, whether in prison or detention centres (otherwise than in Northern Ireland, and in remand and contempt of court cases), is practised in the United Kingdom, to whom it is applied, and what is the number of persons involved.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSMy Lords, there are powers to detain without trial aliens and Commonwealth immigrants pending further examination by an immigration officer and pending removal after being refused admission to the United Kingdom; and aliens, Commonwealth immigrants and citizens of the Republic of Ireland in respect of whom a deportation order is in force. The number of persons currently detained under these provisions is not readily available.
§ LORD BROCKWAYBut, my Lords, is the Minister aware that the Home Office supplied a list of those who are detained in this way and it numbered then 95—
§ LORD AVEBURYNinety-nine.
§ LORD BROCKWAYNinety-five, and I am referring particularly to those who are Commonwealth citizens. Is he aware that at this moment there are 71 Commonwealth citizens under detention without trial who are British citizens or British protected persons and that many of them have now been under detention, without trial, for ten weeks? Is this not an instance of how impossible the present situation has become regarding British citizens who are non-whites and are coming from the Commonwealth?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE or CULROSSMy Lords, the terms of the noble Lord's Question go much wider than that specific point. If the noble Lord had asked me how many people had been detained who had come into this country from certain countries in East Africa and India without the necessary entry certificates, then I might have been able 945 to give him some figures. Whether the figures he gives me to-day are accurate at this moment, I do not know. What the noble Lord asked covers a much wider field, including those persons subject to deportation; therefore I cannot give him the figures for which he asked in his Question. As to the wider issue, I agree that it is very worrying. At the moment, it is under consideration by my Department and by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. We are urgently trying to solve this problem and I would respectfully suggest that this is a somewhat delicate moment at which to go into the details of this matter, in view of the events of the last few days.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, while thanking the noble Viscount for that answer, may I say that he has really evaded the Question that I put. I asked "to whom it is applied", and that question relates particularly to Commonwealth citizens who hold British passports and who have been detained for long periods. May I particularly ask him to look into the case of a young Indian woman, Usha Shah, who, since May 29, has been held in Harmondsworth Detention Centre and cannot be deported because she has British protectorate status. When is this intolerable position to be ended, that British citizens with British passports can be detained for long weeks in our prisons and detention centres, without trial?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSMy Lords, as to the individual case he has mentioned I cannot, without notice, give the noble Lord any sort of answer at all. All these cases are individual and have to be looked at carefully. I am surprised that anybody is still detained for so long but I will look into the case for the noble Lord. The noble Lord's Question did not relate only to those people: it related to all those to whom my initial Answer referred, including those under deportation orders. That is a correct statement of the law, in correct answer to the Question asked by the noble Lord.
I understand the noble Lord's concern about one bloc of these people and I may say that, serious though the situation is, the more serious position still relates to those in countries overseas who have complied with the certificate and voucher 946 system, who are hardship cases, who are awaiting entry under the proper, recognised machinery, and over whom these people have sought to jump the queue.
§ LORD AVEBURYMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that included in the list to which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, referred there were seven citizens of the United Kingdom who had arrived in this country from India without the proper vouchers and who had been on the waiting list, having been accepted by our High Commissioner there, for as long as four years? Bearing in mind the relationship between the 500 vouchers a year decided on by the Government earlier this year and the 2,360 people waiting in the queue in India, does he not think it is hardly surprising that some of these people who have been unable to obtain employment in India have lost patience and have failed to go through the usual channels?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSMy Lords, if I thought that all of those who have sought to jump the queue were unable to take employment in India—well, the noble Lord nods his head, but the information I had is that the plight of many (I will not say all, but many) of the people who have sought to get to the front of the queue in this way is considerably less acute than that of some of those whom they would replace and who have been for some time on the proper list.
§ LORD HALEMy Lords, could the noble Viscount say under what section of what Act the lady referred to by my noble friend, namely, the lady who has been detained since May, is detained in a penal institution; under what conditions she is detained; whether she has been advised of her rights under the Habeas Corpus Act and to what extent she has a right to ask advice and a right of appeal to a court?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSMy Lords, she is probably detained—and I say this without knowing the circumstances of the individual case—under the Commonwealth Immigrants (Places of Detention) Direction 1970, made under Sections 13(1) and 15(1) of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962. As to the rest of the noble Lord's questions, I cannot without further notice answer them 947 in the detail which I think they deserve. I should prefer to deal with them on a subsequent occasion if he will put down a Question.
§ LORD GARDINERMy Lords, may I ask the Minister the reason for his surprising statement that the numbers in each category are not readily available?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSMy Lords, had the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, asked about people who had come here without the necessary vouchers and who were therefore detained under that particular part of the Act I could probably have given him the figure for to-day. What his Question covered was those who were subject to deportation orders at one stage or the other—their cases may be under appeal—and also people who are subject to other appeal proceedings. The numbers fluctuate to such an extent and cover such a large area of the country that I should not feel justified in giving the figure for to-day of all the people concerned.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, did I not ask to whom detention without trial applied, and does that not include the Commonwealth citizens to whom I referred? And did I not ask in my Question the number involved? In view of that, have not my supplementary questions been entirely relevant?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE or CULROSSMy Lords, in fact the noble Lord did not. He asked a portmanteau question which includes Commonwealth immigrants, both those pending examination and those awaiting removal. It also includes aliens, immigrants from the Commonwealth and citizens from the Republic of Ireland awaiting deportation. The noble Lord shakes his head, but that is factually and legally correct; and I cannot give the answer in terms of numbers for all of them.