HL Deb 27 March 2001 vol 624 cc240-58

11.55 p.m.

Lord Avebury

rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the rules, laid before the House on 6th February, be annulled (S.I. 2001/238).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to begin by expressing my warm gratitude to those who have stayed until this late hour to discuss a vitally important subject; namely, the new detention centre rules that were laid before the House at the end of February. I take it that it is common ground between us that asylum seekers who are not accused of any criminal offence ought not to be held in prison; and that they should only be detained where removal is imminent, to clarify the applicant's identity or the basis of his claim, or, indeed, where there is a reasonable belief that the person will abscond; and that, where a person needs to be detained, that period of detention should be for the shortest possible time.

On the basis of those principles, the Government rightly decided to provide a network of purpose-built detention centres for asylum seekers, and others, who need to be held under the immigration Acts, and to design a set of rules for those establishments that would take into account the very different circumstances of asylum seekers from those of ordinary criminals.

It is extremely unfortunate that we should he considering these rules at a time when the number of people in detention has reached an all-time record. There were 920 in prison at the end of January, as well as another 414 in detention centres. The Government say that that is a necessary short-term measure to achieve an increase in the number of people deported from 12,000 in the current year to 30,000 in the year 2001–02. In order to achieve that aim, they calculate that they need a total of 2,700 places in the detention estate.

In the early summer of this year, Yarl's Wood near Bedford, the new Harmondsworth and Dungavel in Scotland will be completed, thus providing an extra 1,490 places. The Minister, Barbara Roche, has said that the need to allow these centres to build up to their full complement means that, the Prison Service has had to provide a further 500 places for immigration detainees until October 2001". I hope that the Minister will be able to give an undertaking that, as soon as the three new centres are in full operation—by 1st October at the latest, the date mentioned by the Government—the maximum number of detainees in prison will revert to its former level of 500.

Another 300 places were to be provided at Aldington, which is on hold because of cases in the Judicial Committee on the compatibility of the planning inquiry process with the Human Rights Act. I suggest that it might be wise to use the A ldington land for another purpose, such as housing, and to look for an alternative site for this centre elsewhere; for example, on surplus Ministry of Defence land to which there might be no objection. Indeed, there are many places along the south coast where such land might be found. With another 300 places, can the Minister say whether the Government still consider that they will be able to eliminate the use of prisons, except for occasional short-term detention and those being deported at the end of a prison sentence? Further, can the Minister say on what total number of applications a year the calculation is based?

I turn now to the rules. It is a pity that we did not have the discussion promised by the Minister on the Floor of the House on 30th November last. We were to have a discussion with the agencies and officials to consider the latest draft, which was to be the final version. Although I acknowledge that changes have been made in response to the representations made by the agencies, there were still many points that ought to have been ironed out before presenting the rules to the House. If that had been done, we might not have needed the debate this evening. I reject the Minister's excuse that such a meeting would have caused further delay because in the 15 days that it took him to reply to my letter we could have had that meeting. The rules were in fact not laid before Parliament until nine weeks after I had responded to the Minister's invitation to call his office to arrange that meeting.

The points which the agencies would have liked to raise, if a meeting had been possible, were numerous and important. I have made available to the Minister copies of the papers we had in preparation for this debate from the Refugee Council, the Medical Foundation and AVID. I shall only be able to mention a few of the points that they raised. I hope that the Minister will be good enough to let me have a response to all of the matters that are not covered in this debate in due course.

I gather that Mr David Wilson, the former governor of Highdown, is to be the new director of detention centres. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm his appointment. When will he assume responsibility for Haslar, which at present is a prison, and the immigration wing of Lindholme? Will Oakington come under his jurisdiction and will it be subject to the new rules? How do the Government intend to fulfil the undertaking given in paragraph 12.13 of the White Paper to ensure that where prisons hold significant numbers of immigration detainees in specialist units, the facilities mirror the more relaxed regimes in detention centres?

The most unsatisfactory feature of the consultation on the rules is that many important matters are left to be dealt with by the operating standards, a form of tertiary legislation over which Parliament has no control, any more than we do in the case of the prisons. But in the prisons there are existing mechanisms whereas the standards for detention centres are all to be determined from first principles. I am glad that the Minister has promised the Asylum Rights Campaign that he will consult on the standards and I should be grateful if he would also agree to put copies of the drafts in the Library so that, where appropriate, your Lordships can also make observations on them.

There are several key areas where it would have been desirable to spell out what is intended in the rules: the rights of detainees to information in a language they understand; the need for access to medical care including external medical services; the conduct of proceedings which may lead to loss of privileges or removal from association; the facilitation of religious practices and the regulation of members of visiting committees to take a few examples.

The visiting committees are the equivalent of boards of visitors in prisons and many of the provisions of the prison rules have just been read across verbatim. For instance, the members in each case are required to undergo training laid down by the Secretary of State, but the scope and length of the training are unspecified. In the case of the prisons there is only minimal training in the Human Rights and Race Relations Acts which are particularly important in the case of detention centres where, by definition, the vast majority of the detainees will belong to ethnic minorities.

As in the prisons, the visiting committee has the duty of hearing any complaint or request a detained person wishes to make, and presumably its members would take up with the manager any complaint or request they think justified. It is not clear whether the committee has any role in regard to forfeiture of privileges which may be imposed by the manager in his absolute discretion where an inmate has not met specified standards of behaviour which are to be defined in a "compact" written by the Secretary of State. In the prison rules, forfeiture of privileges and cellular confinement are described as "governor's punishments" and they are only meted out after the prisoner has had a chance to contest any allegations made against him. Whether Article 6 of the Human Rights convention would come into play on these penalties for minor disciplinary offences has yet to be tested by the courts, but a more serious question mark arises over the practice of shipping a detainee from a detention centre to a prison without any due process whatever. I suggest that the visiting committees should be given oversight of these decisions because the power is capable of being abused. We know of cases where it has been abused.

Under Rule 19(2) it would be possible for the manager to add arbitrarily to the rules of behaviour and then to withdraw privileges from any inmate who failed to observe these additional standards, apparently with no procedural safeguards whatsoever. The manager also has power to order a detainee's removal from association in the interests of security or safety and his confinement in special accommodation where he is violent or refractory. The visiting committee is given a power equivalent to Rule 48(2) of the Prison Rules to give directions in writing ordering the confinement to extend beyond 24 hours. This is one of the few departures from the prison model. In the prisons, a person who is not satisfied with the response to a complaint that he makes to a board of visitors can take up the matter with the Prisons Ombudsman. Has the immigration detainee that right? If not, is there any other authority to whom he can apply outside the detention system?

The other day we agreed that the triennial review system for the boards of visitors was severely flawed. We were looking forward to the report by Sir Peter Lloyd on the regulation of boards of visitors. In these rules, we have exactly the same provisions regarding the termination of appointments of members of the visiting committee either at the triennial review or at other times. But whether the procedural safeguards about which we spoke in relation to Haslar, PSO 1300 or DC4/99, operate as regards visiting committees is not clear. I shall be grateful if the Minister will say what procedural standards will apply with regard to termination of appointments of visiting committee members either during their term of office or at the triennial review.

I was glad to note that the rules acknowledge the need to ensure that, the practice of religion in detention centres shall take account of the diverse cultural and religious background of detained persons". They place the onus on the detainee, however, to come forward and declare that he belongs to a particular religion whereas under Section 10(5) of the Prison Act the governor has to ascertain every inmate's religion and keep a record of it. Many asylum seekers would not be aware that by not making a declaration under Rule 21 they could be deprived of the spiritual and pastoral care which is everyone's right.

The Secretary of State has the power to appoint a visiting minister of a particular religion to a detention centre where the number of detainees justifies it. That is a copy of Section 10(1) of the Prison Act and is an example of the problems which can arise when those provisions are adopted without thinking about the differences between the two types of institution. The population of detention centres will vary more widely from time to time than the equivalent in the prisons. Therefore, visiting ministers should he appointed to cover all the religions of the main countries of origin at each centre whether or not there happen to be any detainees of a particular religion there at any one time.

The method of appointing visiting ministers is not defined. The "manager of religious affairs" presumably acts on behalf of the Secretary of State, but he obviously should take advice from the authorities of each religion. If this is to be in the operating standards, the wording should be agreed with those authorities, and a consultative mechanism similar to the prisons' Advisory Group on Religions should be established. Unfortunately. even this does not solve the problem of irritating and arbitrary differences between one establishment and another about what religious objects prisoners are allowed to have in their possession. It would be useful to ensure that the practice is uniform through the detention estate.

This, like so many other important questions about how the centres will be run, is left to operating standards which are not subject to parliamentary approval. In an ideal world, there should be scrutiny by a Select Committee of all operating standards in closed institutions—prisons, YOIs, special hospitals, detention centres and secure units. As it is, we can look at the standards only after something has gone wrong. In the hope that some of the problems that may otherwise occur in detention centres may be avoided, I urge the Minister to pay greater attention to the concerns expressed by the agencies and by your Lordships in this debate, and to see that the consultations on the standards are as wide and as open as possible. I beg to move.

Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the rules, laid before the House on 6th February, be annulled (S.I. 2001/238).—(Lord Avebury.)

The Earl of Sandwich

My Lords, we last debated the immigration detention centre rules, and in particular the check-list, in November 1999, during the final stages of the Immigration and Asylum Bill. On Report, several of us argued for full written reasons for detention. In his response, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said: that detailed check-list will be tailored to individual circumstances and to relevant exceptions".—[Official Report, 20/10/99; col. 897.] I registered concern on Third Reading that, despite that assurance, the new form, now known as IS91R, supplied in the Immigration Service publication, New Detention: New Forms and New Procedures, did not even allow space for a specific reference to the special needs of the individual.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, gave a further assurance in his reply that he accepted the points made. He said that the instructions would be reviewed and he hoped that the form would be amended. I acknowledge that, as a result of our amendments, the Home Office has attempted to improve the rules, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has said, but the advice of those officially consulted on the form has thus far been ignored. It is hard to believe that nothing has happened since the passing of the Act and the consultation, which closed on 21st January last year.

The form is the only document that is made available to the detainee at the moment of his or her detention. It is crucial to that person's future that the form contains the correct information, yet, as it is only a check-list, it does not even give the real reasons, let alone the circumstances of the individual. Research shows that even immigration officers find it difficult to take the form seriously and have tried to adapt it by including relevant information themselves. Combined with the initial fears and language problems usually encountered in first interviews, that often means that the true circumstances of a person's asylum and even their physical condition may be concealed. If asylum seekers are denied that critical opportunity on arrival, no wonder so many of them and their representatives have struggled to demonstrate their case in the months that follow. They may also be conditioned by officials in the country of their persecution to accept forms at face value without questioning what they contain.

In many, perhaps most, cases, asylum seekers do not understand the reasons for their detention. Evidence suggests that, perhaps because of the form, those reasons are not explained to them. In other words, form IS91R is not just inadequate, it prevents understanding and circumvents any meaningful exchange about the genuine needs of the detainee. I shall discount any argument that the Home Office is deliberately creating a Kafkaesque regime to deter asylum seekers, or even that it is pleading, as it has, stretched resources leading to difficulties in producing a form. There is no doubt that even at this late stage it can be improved within the operating standards if the Home Office takes proper account of the evidence from the relevant organisations. I fully support what others have said about the need for proper communications, especially on health issues. Those arguments have been clearly expressed by specialist agencies such as the Medical Foundation.

The rules still do not set out the rights of detainees to have oral interpretation in their dealings with detention centre staff. Nor do they allow for medical consultations where clear communication is essential for the doctor to understand the problem and for the patient or detainee to understand and accept the treatment prescribed. Will the Minister confirm that there will be specific provision in the operating standards for the appropriate training of medical personnel and other staff who can address the relevant health issues in every individual case?

I understand from a new survey of asylum seekers by the Medical Foundation that evidence of torture is not always picked up by medical examinations and that, even when such evidence is found, asylum seekers continue to be held in detention after several months. As we have heard, many are detained in prison and are therefore not subject to the rules, which means that they suffer more deprivation than their rather less unfortunate colleagues.

I remind the Minister that the detention of asylum seekers for long periods, whether in prison or detention centres, is unacceptable to a large number of people in this country. It is regularly and specifically denounced by Ministers, including in the Government's White Paper. In his Written Answer to me on 8th March (WA 35) the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, gave no assurance that detention would not last longer than 12 months. In fact, he implied that it could continue for much longer. When, a few days ago, I looked at col. 216W of Commons Hansard of 21st March, I learned that the longest period in detention is now more than 600 days. As to the average length of detention, the Minister could provide no information.

For a Labour Government who espouse ethical standards, that reply is astonishing and appears to contravene all international conventions, let alone the advice of successive inspectors of prisons. Therefore, I hope that today the Minister can give us assurances on those points.

12.15 a.m.

Lord Dholakia

My Lords, I shall be brief. I rise in support of the Prayer moved by my noble friend Lord Avebury which seeks to annul the Detention Centre Rules laid before the House on 6th February. My reason for speaking in this debate is that I have serious concerns regarding the interpretation of some of the rules and the difficulties that a number of organisations have had in their consultation with the Home Office.

First, I want to say clearly that, although we remain fundamentally opposed to the detention of asylum seekers, we accept that detention may be necessary in exceptional circumstances if the legal process of claiming asylum has been fully exhausted, including appeals as well as judicial review, and if there is prima facie evidence that an asylum seeker may abscond. In such cases, obviously detention should be used only for short periods of time when removal is fairly imminent.

The UNHCR has consistently condemned what it calls the UK's "routine use of detention". It believes that the detention of asylum seekers is inherently undesirable. Detention for reasons other than those outlined in the detention guidelines, such as part of a policy to deter future asylum seekers, is, according to the UNHCR, contrary to the norms of refugee law". Detention is obviously very expensive. The Government estimate that a policy of detaining all asylum seekers on arrival, ignoring the legal and moral arguments as to whether that is possible, could amount to £2 billion in start-up costs, with annual running costs of more than £1 billion.

However, the detention of people who have fled persecution and have committed no crime also carries a high mental welfare cost for detainees. A number of studies have been carried out, particularly projects in relation to the mental health implications of the detention of asylum seekers. It has been found that the most stressful aspect of detention is the information vacuum. I believe that that is where some of the rules that have been set out could be more helpful.

We should bear in mind that the longest period of detention—that of an asylum seeker who is currently detained under Immigration Act powers and has been detained since his arrival in the United Kingdom on 30th July 1999—is more than 600 days.

A matter of concern to me was a press release which I picked up this morning, issued by the Home Office. For a moment, I believed that it answered the prayers of my noble friend Lord Avebury. Unfortunately that was not so. First, the press release talked about effect returns of 30,000 failed asylum seekers. Then it talked about voluntary returns at the end of the asylum process. Then it talked of creating 1,800 new detention spaces to facilitate removals.

There are some good aspects of the press release and we welcome them, especially the mention of an anti-trafficking unit to crack down on criminals involved in the illegal smuggling and trafficking of people. We certainly welcome the process of faster decisions, provided they do not breach the rules of natural justice. More importantly, we welcome the development of strategies to help successful applicants to integrate into our society. But where, I ask, are the reforms of the detention rules?

The impression that we get is that asylum will be a hot issue in the coming general election. The emphasis on detaining and deporting asylum seekers, rather than on examining some of our practices, could damage our civilised values. I draw the Minister's attention to some anomalies and the lack of consultation that there has been on some of the changes. I draw attention in particular to the Government's White Paper, which states: The Government has welcomed the views of Her Majesty's Chief inspector of Prisons and others and, as resources become available, is committed to pursuing a strategy of detaining in dedicated detention and holding centres, not prisons". We should examine the situation in Haslar Prison, which we debated recently. Although Haslar holds only immigration detainees, it continues to be designated as a prison and still runs under prison rules. A similar situation applies elsewhere. Such institutions are being used as prisons and operate under prison rules. In November, the Government announced their intention of increasing by 500 the number of those detained in prison under the Immigration Act; now we know that the relevant figure is more than 1,800.

When will the Government redesignate Haslar Prison as a detention centre? When will they designate the detention facility at Lindholme as a detention centre? How will they ensure that all those who are detained under the Immigration Act will be treated in accordance with the standards that are set out in the rules?

I do not wish to cause the Minister embarrassment, but I was grateful to him for being good enough to admit to a couple of errors when we last debated the situation in Haslar. First, I welcome his assurance that immigration detainees in prisons will no longer be subject to drug testing. I hope that that it so; the practice would break all rules governing the treatment of immigration detainees were it to continue. A second point on which the Minister was at fault, but through no fault of his own—perhaps he had misread his information or the brief with which he was supplied—involved the position of the members of the hoards of visitors. He said that one of those members had been appointed to another board, but in fact he was appointed to a probation committee. That does not matter very much, and I thank the Minister for giving us the information and for correcting it at the first available opportunity.

I want to raise another matter with the Minister. It involves the forms and guidance notes, which have already been discussed by noble Lords. We are concerned about the contents of the special needs section of form IS91 and about the guidance that is given. Statement 1.3 says: Careful consideration should be given before using this categorisation as the resources used in monitoring such detainees are expensive". That appears to be irresponsible in respect of some of the categories that are listed as special needs, notably suicide risk, those with medical problems, the disabled, minors, pregnant women and those refusing food and fluids. There has been an inordinate delay following the consultation period and we should like to know when the Home Office intends to amend the forms and guidance notes. At the very least, it should write to those organisations that raised objections and explain why the documentation has not been changed.

Noble Lords have already discussed other rules, so I shall not delay the House further. I hope that the Minister will take into account representations that have been made by various bodies and that the Government will deal with them. I hope that he will place a copy of his reply in the Library so that we can refer to the action that has been taken.

Baroness Williams of Crosby

My Lords, I rise to support the Motion that was moved by my noble friend Lord Avebury on the issue of detention rules. I want to underline some of the questions to which we should be grateful to have replies from the Minister.

My noble friends Lord Dholakia and Lord Ave bury drew attention to the disturbing tendency of increasing the number of detainees held in prisons. My first question is about whether it is correct that substantial numbers of detainees will be sent to Winchester Prison and to Cardiff Prison, both of which are relatively overcrowded local prisons. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government expect to continue to use such prisons during the next six months or so as the new detention centres are built?

Secondly, in that respect, in relation to the commitment in the White Paper as regards substantial numbers of immigration detainees being held in prison, will the Minister confirm that they will be subject to the detention centre rules rather than to the much tougher prison rules?

In a letter from the Minister dated 14th March, Paul Boateng specifically says that asylum seekers are detained, only as a last resort and for the shortest possible period". The Medical Foundation for the Victims of Torture, in a special survey of a group of people about whom it was concerned as possible victims of torture, showed that the average length of stay of members of that group was of the order of seven-and-a-half months. My noble friend and others quoted periods of over a year-and-a-half that at least one or two detainees had spent in prison. That clearly contradicts the recommendation of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees and the indication laid down in the draft directive proposed by the European Union for a common asylum policy. In our view it would be extremely embarrassing if the United Kingdom was not able to meet even the minimum rules that are to be applied to other EU countries under the draft directive. Those clearly indicate that detention should be a last resort for asylum seekers in any EU country. Yet in this country it seems clear that the proportion of detainees being held in prisons or detention centres for long periods of time is steadily growing and not declining.

One of the great worries about detainees who have committed no offence of any kind recognised in English law is that they are subject to prison rules which, for example, severely limit the amount of their association with others; indicate that the amount of time they can spend outside their cells is much less than the average 11.5 per day quoted by Mr Boateng for detention centres; and, most disturbingly, in some cases means that they do not have access to lawyers, or to telephones or other means of obtaining legal representation. That puts them at a huge disadvantage when it comes to being represented at appeal or for other purposes. It means that in many cases appeals are dismissed because the appellant is not present and there is no legal representative. Perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to say—if he cannot tell us now, perhaps he will write—what proportion of people who appeal have their appeals dismissed simply on the grounds that they or their legal representative are not present.

I want to underline the question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. When will the new forms, about which consultation continued until 21st January this year, be issued and how far will they reflect the representations made by the non-governmental organisations? In particular, the noble Earl raised the issue of the information to be made available to detainees in their own languages and asked whether, where no assurance had been given, that lacuna will be dealt with in the operating standards which are not subject to accountability to Parliament in the way the rules are. I mention in particular the issues of information; the presence of interpreters, not only when the original basis for questioning detainees arises, but also to explain such issues as the need for an initial examination; and the specific medical requirements that may exist among detainees.

In that respect perhaps I can ask the Minister two direct questions about the rules as they currently stand. Can he explain, under rule 33(4) how far the medical confidentiality of conversations and treatment between doctor and patient is protected? The Minister will know that the new phraseology is somewhat less tight than the original phraseology. Can he assure us that where a detainee wants to see a doctor other than the one at the centre, whatever the reason, that it is not possible for that request to be vetoed? Again, it is not clear from the discussions whether or not that is the case. Time after time we on these Benches, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, have repeatedly asked for and received reassurances from Ministers that wherever possible where there is clear evidence that people are victims of torture they will not be detained. Can he assure us that that will continue to be respected?

Rule 35(3) indicates that cases of victims of torture, or those who allege that they have been tortured, should lead to a report to the manager of the detention centre or the prison, as the case may be. However, Ministers who were subjected to the endless debates on this issue during the passing of the original Act of Parliament in 1999 will know that we were given many assurances that evidence of torture would be treated as a prima facie reason why detainees should not be detained for longer than the minimum necessary to establish their cause.

Finally, I draw the attention of the Minister to the deployment of refugees around the country. It is troubling that in many cases detainees are moved from one place to the other—sometimes from a detention centre to a prison, as has happened with a number of cases we know about where people have been sent to Belmarsh or Rochester from a detention centre—and quite often their legal advisers (which in some cases are organisations such as the Refugee Legal Centre, or the Immigration Advisory Service) are not informed of their movement. Consequently the link with them is broken and quite often they are not in a position to make representations at the appeal of the detainee against the refusal of the right to stay. Therefore, the appellant does not show up; the case is dismissed and the issue is regarded as concluded. Yet in some cases, indeed, in many cases, the detainee has no knowledge of all that because he has been moved and the change of address has not been made known to him, his lawyer or the immigration organisations.

I do not wish to detain the House but I should like to ask two final questions. First, when are the automatic bail provisions of the 1998 Act likely to be implemented? That would relieve the strain on prisons and detention centres. Secondly, I refer to a point raised by several noble Lords; that is, what is the length of detention of people in the first stage when they are originally being considered for leave to remain or asylum; what is the position with regard to those waiting for appeal and what is the position after appeal? Our understanding has always been that people will be detained after appeal for fear that they might depart when deportation is the only alternative before them. We are disturbed by the fact that increasingly people are being detained on arrival and in some cases not being released for some months afterwards and before their case has been determined.

12.30 a.m.

Viscount Astor

My Lords, we welcome the publication. of the rules. The Government are committed to this matter and it is helpful that the rules are published. I do not have any particular comments on them. The Minister has been asked a number of questions, which no doubt he will answer.

At present, a fundamental problem in this country is the fact that we are beset by a wave of economic migrants who all seem to wish to come to this country. Indeed, we also have a large number of refugees, many of whom are genuine.

The situation is made difficult because previously refugees were considered as such on reaching their first safe country. However, it appears that once they enter Europe they are not happy to stay in the first safe country. Instead, they show a determination to come to this country. Anyone who has seen what happens at ports and airports will accept that. We can all speculate on the reasons but we appear to have a problem in this country because of that determination. As we are beset by a wave of economic migrants, it is all the more difficult to see who are the genuine refugees and who are not.

I must give the Government some credit for recently increasing the speed of processing applications. There was a muddle not too long ago and the situation is improving. I believe that there is an argument for holding asylum seekers on arrival for a short time in order that their applications can be dealt with more quickly. I do not believe that they should be held for a long time but there should be a way of increasing the speed of processing applications. That is important because once they are dispersed in the country it is more difficult to deal with their cases. The important criterion is the speed of processing applications.

I have only one question to ask the Minister at this extremely late hour. It relates to those who have had their applications for asylum turned down and the rate of deportation. Previous figures have been depressing. Can the Minister say what progress is being made to improve the rate of deportations? Many people are still here who should have been deported and they are a strain on the welfare system and on resources.

I said that I should be brief and I have been. I look forward to the Minister's reply.

Lord Davies of Oldham

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have participated in the debate and shown their usual level of expertise and a keen interest in an important policy relating to my department. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, indicated, we have agreed the principles of what should underlie the treatment of asylum seekers in this country. I welcome his comments and the way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, reinforced his contribution. She emphasised that from those principles certain consequences flow in terms of the desirable way in which we may succeed in pursuing our policy.

Many questions were raised but I want first to indicate our view that we have carried out a full consultation. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said that additional time would have been advantageous. He also pointed out that he could see more useful ways in which the past few weeks might have been used. However, decisions had to be reached on the development of the new rules and he will recognise that substantial progress was made on the original draft, which was based on a set of principles more related to prison detention. There has been movement towards greeting asylum seekers within a framework of detention centres with special categorisation. That is entirely right.

I cannot provide reassurance about the speed at which we move towards a situation in which no one is held in prisons, for the simple reason that it is related to the adequacy of the accommodation as it comes on stream. But I believe that noble Lords will give the Government full credit for the fact that what is being developed is a range of new facilities which will ensure that an increasing number of places are available. It means that, regrettably, for a number of months people will still be held in prisons. The noble Baroness mentioned two specific prisons. I understand that that particular accommodation will continue to be used while the new facilities come on stream.

Baroness Williams of Crosby

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. I shall not interrupt again. Since the Minister has told us very honestly that Cardiff, Winchester and other prisons are likely to continue to be used for this purpose, will the Home Office reconsider its own pledge in the White Paper to the effect that if a substantial number of detainees who have not committed any offence are kept in prison it is possible to apply detention rules, not prisons rules, to that group of individuals?

Lord Davies of Oldham

My Lords, where we have the ability to use specific wings of prisons to create separate facilities that is a principle to which we shall adhere and seek to develop in practice. That does not obtain across the whole range of provision at the present time, desirable though that would be. I believe the noble Baroness recognises that in circumstances where it is not possible entirely to separate the two categories, inevitably prison rules will obtain. I re-emphasise a point which I made, perhaps in a slightly inarticulate fashion, when we discussed these issues in the first debate. There is a difficulty with regard to prison rules which we all recognise are not appropriate for people who are not detained for breaking any law in this country. Unfortunately, where such detainees are obliged to be located in a prison, we cannot, because entirely separate facilities are not available, see a way to dilute prison rules which operate for the majority of people in that establishment. But the noble Baroness will recognise that we seek to move as effectively as we can to reduce the number, against the background that we are not entirely masters in our own house, given the fact that the numbers of people who apply for asylum, as the noble Viscount indicated, put pressure on the system with all the strains that that imposes in terms of availability of accommodation.

However, we believe that we have made considerable progress in the development of the rules. Although I understand the disappointment of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, at certain aspects of the outcome, perhaps others have responded more warmly to the changes and recognise that advances have been made. The noble Lord referred to UNHCR, which noted that many changes had been incorporated in the latest version of the rules as a result of the consultation process, and that those changes were on the whole commendable. In particular, the express inclusion of the purpose which underlies the whole document and specific rules will help to foster a more humane and balanced approach to implementation.

The UNHCR also commented favourably on the notable modifications to the language and phrasing of the rules. Their effect is to emphasise that the humanity, security and safety of detainees should be the primary consideration for the implementation of the rules. That is, therefore, a recognition of progress made, although I take on board the reservations which the noble Lord identified.

The noble Lord addressed a number of other specific points. I shall do my best to answer them. I hasten to reassure the House that, given the volume of direct questions which have been enumerated, where I am lax and fail to answer any directly, either through just missing the point or not having sufficient knowledge, I shall of course write to noble Lords. The noble Baroness very kindly indicated that in one or two areas she did not expect me at this stage to give a direct answer. I shall make sure that the information is available.

However, I do have some answers to some of the questions. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, mentioned the name of David Wilson. He is the deputy director. The new director is to be appointed shortly. I do not have a date for that appointment, but it is imminent. The new director will take up his responsibilities. Haslar will not come under his jurisdiction but Oakington will. He will be responsible for specific detention centres.

The noble Lord also asked a series of questions with regard to religious provision. We entirely accept the burden of his representation. It is entirely right that we seek to provide pastoral support appropriate to the needs of the detainees. It is recognised that the past rather more uniform provision is not appropriate with the present diversity of people. We are seeking to get as much flexibility and appropriateness as we can in that facility. That is entirely consistent with the principles that the noble Lord was adumbrating.

On the question of medical care, the issues which came out most strongly—the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, emphasised this matter—were: first, the question of early examination so far as concerns torture. If the effects of torture are clearly proven, that is a very important factor to be weighed in favour of early release, because the individual concerned has clearly identified an important aspect of potential refugee status. So early medical examination is important.

Secondly, there is the issue of language and the accuracy with which such a medical examination can be carried out. I have to make the obvious point that language is a problem. We have a vast diversity of people seeking asylum who present themselves to us. The diversity is such that the language issue is very acute. We can ensure that we have interpreters to carry out the first appropriate interviews which identify potential status. We have few reservations about our ability to meet that obvious essential requirement. The issues raised today are certain stages beyond that, particularly healthcare and the choice of the individual with regard to access to other medical care and so on. That is much more difficult to arrange in two respects. We have lost a vast number of general practitioners with a competence in certain languages. How we improve the general quality of linguistic training in the UK so that more people are able to display these skills is a genuine problem. But they are not called down overnight. We are recognising problems that have not perhaps received the attention that they might have required in the past. It takes time.

Provided that the officer is assured that there are good grounds for additional medical examination and if no exorbitant cost is involved, asylum seekers can avail themselves of additional medical facilities. They can make arrangements or someone may be prepared to pay on their behalf. But it is a different matter if one says that it is automatically available against the obvious pressure on limited resources. I make the obvious point that the initial tests and examination are a firm obligation and are met as fully as we are able. I hope that I have been able to give reassurance on that point.

The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, asked about the new forms that will come into use. We recognise—the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, made this point—that IS91 and IS91R have their limitations. There are advantages in a clear, almost "tick box" approach towards identifying certain aspects of the asylum seeker. Therefore, there will always be aspects of these forms that have that distinctly bureaucratic nature to them. However, we are committed to introducing a more refined version in the light of the discussion and the representations that have been made. We expect to have those in place in the very near future. It is an entirely legitimate point, to which the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, returned again today.

The noble Lord was kind enough to mention from the press releases he looked at today some aspects of the policy that represent some degree of progress. All noble Lords would share our general objective of seeking to clamp down as strongly as we can on trafficking in human beings, which everyone finds reprehensible. We do not need to quote the most extreme case of recent times, which horrified us all, but we know that it goes on to a degree. It is enormously important that we get a grip on it. I am grateful for the noble Lord's welcome to that aspect of our policy.

I tread on thin ice again this evening—I have no doubt that I have fallen through it at some stage—but the noble Lord indicated that he did not hold me in too much disregard because I had made a mistake during the Haslar debate about what had happened to the member of the board of visitors. In fact, he had not taken up a place on another board but on a probation committee. I take this opportunity to express my feeling of being remiss in making that mistake on that occasion. I hope that I avoid such horrors today. However, given the length and the detail of the questions that have been asked, I cannot guarantee to be wholly accurate.

Perhaps I may respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, who raised a number of issues regarding facilities in prisons. Detainees held in prisons have access to lawyers and to telephones, although those telephones are used in the main for incoming calls. The amount of association varies according to the regimes operating in individual prisons. For that reason, I take on board her point that there are constraints as a result of prison rules which we would wish to see lifted as more appropriate accommodation comes on stream and where the rules that we are discussing this evening properly can be applied.

I wish to respond to the debate this evening by recognising the salience of all the points that have been made. I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, for putting into context the issues here. It is a fact that we are not dealing with a steady or declining rate of applicants, but rather with increasing pressure in this area. The rate of increase has moderated significantly, but that does not alter the fact that the demands imposed on us in the effort to meet those needs are extensive. Over recent years, there has been a rapid increase in applications, a situation which has been common to the whole of Europe. Britain stands in mid-stream in terms of the burden which it shoulders.

However, that does not alter the fact that we need to address ourselves properly to allocating resources to match the needs presented to us. Because those needs are so extensive, no one can pretend that all the problems can be solved overnight. Nevertheless, we are engaged in a continuous process of consultation. I should add that we recognise that much work still needs to be done. If we needed any further confirmation, it is reflected in the value of debates such as that which we have held tonight. We value greatly the contribution of expertise from bodies outside the Home Office as represented in the speeches made by noble Lords this evening. Their insight into these issues is extremely important.

As I have said, there is no doubt that a great deal of work still needs to be done. But I hope that the noble Lord will feel that we have made sufficient progress with regard to the rules that he will not feel that he needs to press his rather negative perspective on their value.

Lord Avebury

My Lords, I believe that a great deal of progress has been made and I am immensely grateful to the Minister for the trouble that he has taken to answer the whole range of questions which have been put to him by noble Lords in the course of the debate. I am also grateful for his assurance that any points that have not been picked up will be answered in writing. If he is able to include in that his responses to the specific questions raised in the briefs we received from the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture and the Asylum Rights Campaign, I shall be even more grateful.

At the risk of trespassing on the patience of noble Lords, perhaps I may raise one or two points. I was disappointed that the Minister could not comment on the length of detentions and the shocking information given by both the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and my noble friend Lord Dholakia, that people have been kept in detention for as long as 600 days. I think that that is a blot on our record and something which is far outside the norms laid down by the UN HCR Perhaps I may suggest to the Minister that he should think carefully about how limits could be placed on the maximum length of time that anyone should be held in detention. I cannot believe that, even in the most extreme cases, it is necessary to hold someone in a detention centre or in prison for as long as that.

Secondly, the Minister was not able to offer any reassurances on the speed of movement towards a position where detainees are no longer held in prisons, but rather that all should be held in detention centres. That was one of the objectives set out in the White Paper three years ago, and yet we are further away from that position than we were at the time. We are cramming more and more people into the prisons. My noble friend Lady Williams mentioned two—one of which was Winchester—which are entirely unsuitable, and there are others which are even more so. Belmarsh—where there were 67 immigration detainees at the last summary in January—is grossly inadequate for meeting the needs of the detainees, who are held in the same wing as remand and convicted prisoners.

I was also slightly worried about the two conflicting statements made by the Minister. He said that where separate wings are used, detention centre rules would be applied; he then went on to say that Haslar would not come under the new director's jurisdiction although Oakington would. There are no criminal prisoners in Haslar and I do not understand why it is not possible to redesignate that institution as a detention centre. If it can be done with Oakington, why is it impossible with Haslar?

The Minister also did not respond to the question about Lindholme. Perhaps he can deal with that in his written reply because, after all, in Lindholme, Immigration Act detainees are kept in a separate wing and there is no reason why the detention centre rules should not apply there.

I was grateful to the Minister for the reassurance that he gave that torture was an important factor in favour of early release. It is good to have that on the record and I am sure that the medical foundation will be glad to read the words used by the noble Lord today.

Finally, I was grateful for the Minister's assurance that the process of consultation would continue. I am sure that the agencies and your Lordships would like to be involved in the process of looking at the standards, because, as I mentioned, that is even more important than what is in the rules themselves. There is also the question of the compact which is to be written by the Secretary of State which will govern the behaviour of detainees in the centres.

Having said that, I should like to express my warmest gratitude to all those who have spoken this evening and to the Minister for staying until this very late hour. With the assurance that we can continue with the consultations, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

House adjourned at two minutes past one o'clock.