Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill

HL Deb 15 July 2002 vol 637 cc1048-84

House again in Committee.

Clause 50 [International projects]:

The Earl of Sandwich moved Amendment No. 163: Page 27. line 33, at end insert— () arrange or assist the settlement of refugees, including the disabled and vulnerable

The noble Earl said: This amendment follows the short debate that we had with the Minister on 18th June when I asked, among other things, whether the Government intended to encourage new gateways for asylum seekers and, in particular, attract recognised refugees to the UK under the managed migration policy. I asked again during the Second Reading debate and I received a sympathetic letter from the Minister, dated 27th June. I am aware that the clause refers to refugees, albeit cursorily, in subsection (3)(a). However, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees believes, and I agree, that there needs to be a much clearer statement in the Bill.

I do not have the impression that the Government are really committed to the resettlement of refugees as an alternative, even though half the work has already been done for them by the United Nations. Refugees often include among them a high level of skills, and in many instances there are doctors, lawyers and those who have been targeted by a regime precisely because of their professional and sometimes political skills.

I am reassured by the Minister that such people can apply to embassies via the entry clearance officers as long as they meet the United Kingdom criteria—and I would emphasise, as long as there is personal security for them. They may now wish to apply under the skilled migrants' scheme. As the Minister states in his letter, increasing the number of avenues for legal migration to the UK may help to reduce the number of asylum applications".

That would surely have some effect on the illegal trafficking of asylum seekers through places like Sangatte. That point was well understood during the Committee stage in another place. It may be of interest to the Committee that in 2001 Australia received more than 6,000 refugees under UNHCR resettlements, Canada received 10.000, Norway received 1,200 and Sweden received more than 1,000 from countries such as Kenya, Turkey and Pakistan. We are proposing to accept only a few hundred, and not for some time.

I shall try not to take up much more of the Committee's time, but I was disappointed to hear that the UN scheme may take another three to five years to get off the ground. What is the justification for such a delay? What lessons do we still need to learn? We remember from many years ago the resettlement of refugees under various programmes such as those in Indo-China.

I understand the Minister's arguments about the EU scheme and it is essential to encourage those larger countries that do not implement it already—notably France and Germany. At the same time, surely we could go ahead on our own.

As a second part to the amendment, I draw the Committee's attention to an under-used project of UNHCR known as the "10 or more plan". The aim of the scheme is to enable a minimum number of refugees who are physically disabled or who belong to a vulnerable group to be included in a special quota. The UNNCR's view is that 10 is a disappointingly low number, which should be expanded to offer a realistic prospect of protection for the large number of refugees who potentially could fall within that category.

Many of the refugees in that category may have been victims of torture or violence in addition to persecution, and again they will be among the most skilled professionals who have been targeted. They are excluded or made to suffer through no fault of their own even from those societies that claim to receive them as refugees.

Will the Minister consider the matter and give us some assurance that the scheme can be better utilised by the United Kingdom now or in the future? I beg to move.

Lord Hylton

I recall that during the hostilities and endless fighting that followed the break-up of the former Yugoslavia, a significant number of people were admitted to this country precisely because they were disabled and/or vulnerable, as referred to in the amendment. I believe that the scheme worked extremely well, and it could well be the precedent for future schemes. In that connection there may be scope both for temporary admission—for hospital treatment or specialist rehabilitation, for example—and for permanent admission for resettlement here. The Explanatory Notes to the clause state: Pilot projects have already been undertaken". That is nice to know, but will the Minister tell us about those pilot projects? What kind were they and what result was achieved? Can useful lessons be learnt from them?

My noble friend the Lord of Sandwich mentioned the vexed question of Sangatte in France. I have raised the matter in correspondence and in Questions in your Lordships' House. It is most unsatisfactory, if only because it has led to a considerable number of deaths of people in transit through the Tunnel. It has also severely disrupted freight services, causing loss of employment in this country. I hope that the recent conversations between the Home Secretary and his counterpart in France will lead to significant improvements in the situation in the short term—not next year, or in five years time.

The amendment would open the way for future collaboration between this country and the UNHCR, which might, for example, be asked to identify in France people who are genuine refugees in its opinion. Having carried out that exercise, the UNHCR could then find out who among them had close connections with the United Kingdom, whether those were personal connections through family and friends, or the community connection of belonging to a minority that is already well established in this country, and which is therefore capable of giving support and assistance. Genuine refugees with a good knowledge of English could be identified. Even among those who are not recognised by the UNHCR as genuine bona fide refugees, it might be possible to acknowledge those who are worthwhile migrants and whose work skills might find an outlet by meeting employment needs in this country. On all those grounds, I ask the Government to give serious consideration to the amendment.

Lord Dholakia

I should like the Minister to clarify the clause. Subsection (1) clearly sets out the range of projects in which the Government may participate. The Explanatory Notes state: Such projects may have as their aim, amongst others, the return of migrants both inside and outside of the United Kingdom to their country of origin by voluntary or compulsory means". However, Clause 50(4) states: Subsection (1) does not … confer a power to remove a person from the United Kingdom". What is the purpose of that subsection in relation to removing people to their country of origin?

Lord Filkin

I shall reply first to the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, about this clause, which in some ways went usefully over the ground of our short debate at Second Reading, which I thought was excellent.

We have set out our commitment to resettlement. In essence, it recognises that there is a certain happenstance at present as to who can make a case for asylum in Britain. It is driven more by geography—whether people can physically get here to make a claim; or—using words carefully—whether in some cases people have the financial means to pay a trafficker to help them to get here. Therefore, one is aware of the injustice for people, for example, in Central Africa whose need could arguably be significantly greater but there is presently no international process for recognising that need on any scale. All we did in the debate was to recognise that that is a serious issue. Jack Straw, when he was Home Secretary, also marked that in his speech at Lisbon. We reflected that we should be happier in a world, different from how it is now, which allowed more managed processes. All one is saying at this stage is that this is a small but important start to recognise that there ought to be alternative routes to recognise the need to resettle people who are in the greatest need. Whether that would reduce illegal migration, I am less certain. But even if it would not, that is not necessarily a reason for not doing it.

I was asked why such a provision is not on the face of the Bill. As I understand it, it is on the face of the Bill. Clause 50(1)(e) provides wide scope to participate in resettlement, including the provision of financial support to international organisations and financial or other assistance to individual beneficiaries of the resettlement scheme, which is why the provision is so placed.

I was asked why this particular time period was indicated. The UNHCR advised on a time-scale to ensure that the programme was properly set up of between three and five years. We do not have to keep to that time-scale if we feel that we can move more rapidly. Consultation is presently taking place on the setting up of the scheme. The aim would be for the scheme to be be in operation possibly towards the end of 2003—resources permitting, as ever.

We had tended to infer that the amendment focused more on the issue of disability and vulnerability, because the first part of the clause effectively already contains the power to do what the amendment seeks. Clause 50 contains the legal basis for the funding of participation in the quota scheme—the details of which we are developing. It is not designed to set out the details of eligibility, but its wording is deliberately broad, referring to "migrants" rather than to "refugees", to enable us to assist the dependent family of a refugee if the members of that family are not refugees themselves.

I can also assure the Committee that the resettlement gateway will be humanitarian in its nature and will offer asylum in the UK to selected refugees whose life, liberty, safety or other fundamental human rights cannot be protected in his or her country of asylum.

It is inevitable that some of the refugees may be disabled or may have been seriously traumatised by their experiences. I hope that most will be able to use the"10 or more plan" scheme which already provides resettlement for disabled refugees with medical needs. I note the question of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, about the extent to which this has been used. I do not have the answer at my fingertips but I shall write to the noble Lord on the matter and any lessons that we have had from its operation to date that might inform the future development of that or similar schemes.

In operating the new quota scheme, it is likely that the UNHCR will first carry out a selection exercise and then pass on to the UK applications that are thought likely to meet our criteria. We have not yet determined what those criteria will be, but we shall not be discriminating against those with disabilities.

I hope that my response at least gives some comfort to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. I shall reflect further on any other points that he or other Members of the Committee raised. In the meantime, I invite the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Hylton

Will the Minister say something about the existing pilot projects, and about the relevance of this amendment to the Sangatte situation?

8.45 p.m.

Lord Filkin

In regard to the Sangatte situation, I have been advised informally that the meeting on Friday with Mr Sarkozy went well. I have seen some press briefing on the matter, courtesy of the Opposition Benches, but I do not have any greater detail as to what happened—apart from saying that we are pretty optimistic that there is an agreement to close the centre and for there to be a timetable for doing so.

There will clearly need to be some process whereby the current inhabitants of Sangatte are appropriately dealt with. I do not intend to venture further into exactly what that process is until I have seen the nature of what was agreed on Friday. It would not help the noble Lord if I did so. No doubt we can give him further details when those details are clear. I shall write to him on the subject. As to the results of the pilot projects, I have no information at present, so I shall similarly send the noble Lord a note on that point.

The Earl of Sandwich

I thank my noble friend for his support, and I am encouraged by what the Minister has said about the timetable. I am less certain as to the nature of the scheme. I am sure that all Members of the Committee will look forward to hearing more about it in the future. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 50 agreed to.

Clause 51 agreed to.

Clause 52 [Detention by Secretary of State]:

Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 163A: Page 28, line 18, after "detained" insert "for a reasonable and limited period The noble Lord said: As we begin to debate Part 4 of the Bill, I cannot refrain from registering a protest at the way in which this Bill is being handled, and particularly at the necessity to begin this important debate on detention at 14 minutes before nine o'clock, knowing that we have another two hours in front of us to deal with some of the most important provisions in the Bill.

I resent the way in which the Government are bulldozing this legislation through this place. It would have been much better had adequate time been allowed in the fullness of the day, instead of making us sit night after night, as we have done so far at Committee stage.

Lord Filkin

I do not in the slightest want to indulge in an argument with the noble Lord. I thought that we had had some understanding that there would be six days in Committee. Clearly, there have been some tensions at times when we have had Statements. But to the best of my knowledge the liaison between the Front Benches has been most helpful and courteous and I have been appreciative of that.

Lord Avebury

When those agreements were made, we did not anticipate having Statements day after day, taking up a considerable amount of the afternoon; nor did we think that, as happened on the previous Committee day, discussion of orders in the dinner hour would take up far more than the hour allotted to them.

I wanted to make that protest because, while matters are agreed between the usual channels and I perfectly well appreciate that my noble friends have been involved in those discussions, there are other Members of this place who need the time to prepare amendments, to table them and to get their heads round what is an extremely complicated piece of legislation. I have made my point and I hope that the Minister will take it into consideration in looking at the timetable for the remainder of this Bill.

In moving Amendment No. 163A, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 164A and 164B. The first of these amendments is about ensuring that the tests imposed by Article 5.1.f of the European Convention on Human Rights is satisfied by the Secretary of State in exercising his powers under Clause 52(1) to detain a person pending that person's removal. Those words should also have been inserted after the word "detained" in line 27 because the same conditions apply. If the principle were accepted, they should also be inserted in paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act which gives immigration officers similar powers. I realise that the amendment does not completely satisfy the purpose we intended. We should have to tidy it up if the principle were accepted.

In the case of Saadi the Court of Appeal looked at the legitimacy of detention at Oakington where the court was told that in the absence of special circumstances the Secretary of State has determined that it is not reasonable to detain an asylum seeker for longer than about a week. The court found that the manner in which the power of detention was being exercised was within the provision of Article 5.1.f and we entirely agree with that. However, we want to be sure that existing practice is treated as the bench mark and should any future Secretary of State lengthen the period of detention he would come up against the legal barrier that the amendment seeks to impose.

I turn to Amendment No. 164A on written reasons for detention and challenge of the accuracy of those reasons. In the White Paper the Government said that initial reasons for detention would be given by way of a check list similar to that used for bail in a magistrates' court. However, that implies that further and more detailed reasons will be given at some other stage. We discussed this matter about two years ago in a debate on detention in general. The Government then gave an assurance that full reasons for detention would be given to everyone after a fixed interval. So far as I know, that has not happened. It is important that people who are being detained should know in greater detail than a check list the reasons why they are being detained. Similarly, we believe that they should have an opportunity to challenge those reasons so that when the case comes before an adjudicator they will have the full story of why the person was detained in the first place, and the reasons why that person believed that he should not have been detained.

Amendment No. 164B would satisfy a point raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. In paragraph 84 of its report, it stated that Clause 52(7) provides that the powers to detain will be exercisable where the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to suspect that he may make a decision to remove that person but does not expressly provide that it may be exercised only where the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds.

The department told the Joint Committee on Human Rights that the Secretary of State would have reasonable grounds and that if he did not that would be unlawful. We join the Joint Committee on Human Rights in hoping that the courts will take the same view. But we also share its view that in order to avoid any possible doubt we should insert the word "only" before the words "where the Secretary of State" in what was Clause 49(7). It drew the matter to the attention of the House. I now suggest that we follow its advice and put this small amendment in the Bill to ensure that there is no possible doubt. I beg to move.

The Earl of Sandwich: I hope that it will be in the interests of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, as well as the Committee if we debate Amendment No. 167 with Amendment No. 164A relating to the written reasons for detention. I have notified the Minister.

I have argued on previous Bills for written reasons. I believe that the proposed new clause would meet the many concerns of both detainees and of those who visit detainees. I declare an interest here as a patron of the Haslar visitors group. We shall hear more later today about the increase of the use of detention so I shall not detain the Committee on that. Suffice it to say that far too many detainees have been detained before an initial decision has been made. It is particularly important that all detainees understand the reason for their detention. Many will have had previous experiences of police cells, ill treatment or even torture. Therefore, any periods of detention will cause them anxiety. Any detention which does not appear to be justified or to have a time limit will be additionally traumatic.

As I pointed out previously, the Immigration and Nationality Directorate currently provides detainees only with a form now known as 1S91R on which it indicates in broad terms the reasons for detention. No attempt is made to link these general assertions to the detainee's individual circumstances. The information is of little practical use, therefore, to the detainee when coming to hearings. It is essential that a detainee is given reasons which are intelligible or he will not have sufficient information on which to challenge the lawfulness of his detention.

At the Report stage of the Immigration and Asylum Bill in October 1999, several noble Lords argued for full written reasons for detention. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, replied (at col. 897 of the Official Report of 18th October 1999) that the check list would be tailored to individual circumstances. Despite that assurance, the new form did not allow space for a specific reference to the special needs of the individual.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, who was then on the Front Bench, gave a further assurance in his reply that he accepted the points made, the instructions would be reviewed and he hoped that the form would be amended.

I again raised the issue on 27th March of last year during our debate on the asylum detention rules but received no satisfactory answer. I very much look forward, therefore, to the answer that we shall receive today.

Lord Dholakia

The amendment to which I speak is grouped with Amendments Nos. 163A, 164A and 164B. Amendment No. 164ZB is not numbered on the Marshalled List but is printed under Amendment No. 164A. It is tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Avebury and myself. At page 28, line 24, the amendment seeks to insert the words: Victims of torture, including rape, whose trauma is likely to be compounded by being detained for an indefinite period in conditions which may be reminiscent of those which they fled, will be exempt". It is similar to Amendment No. 177ZA. I shall speak to both amendments at this stage. I hope that that will be in order.

An interesting point in this clause about the detention by the Secretary of State is that a person may be detained under the authority of the Secretary of State pending. In other words, the Secretary of State has a discretion as to whether a person should be detained. I wish to refer to the evidence which has been given to us about an organisation called Women against Rape. It highlights the devastating effect and impact of being detained in an induction centre and/or a detention centre in particular for women who are already traumatised by their experiences. These often include rape in detention. They experience extreme distress on being incarcerated. In some cases that continues for many months in conditions which remind them of the conditions from which they have fled. Women suffering from rape trauma syndrome need a very sympathetic environment, independent legal advice, appropriate medical and healthcare, counselling and other support which is not available in such centres. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, pleaded with the Government to be sympathetic to women who suffer because of the situation in which they find themselves. Every immigration and asylum agency can detail such cases and the impact on victims.

We raised this issue during the passage of previous immigration and asylum legislation. We pleaded with government then and we do so again. I do not allege that the Government are heartless; that is the last thing that I should suggest. I am sure that the Government share our concern about such issues. I shall avoid detailing the harrowing examples that have been given to us by various agencies about women who suffer this trauma. This is not simply a question of people being raped in detention; it is also a question of people being tortured. Ample evidence is available from the report of the medical foundation. It highlights case after case of people who undergo that ordeal.

My plea to the Minister is that the Home Secretary should have discretion in this regard. The need for a more compassionate and humanitarian approach will resolve this difficulty. This issue deserves serious consideration. Our decision about the way in which we treat such victims will reflect on our civilised values. I hope that the Minister will not find it inappropriate to agree to the amendment.

9 p.m.

Lord Hylton

I suggest that this is one of the most important groups of amendments.

Amendment No. 163A refers to, a reasonable and limited period", of detention. That is important because it is intended to prevent people being detained and then forgotten. We know that there are currently cases in which people are in detention before they have received their first decision or they are in detention after a first decision and before an appeal has been heard. The amendment would considerably improve the legislation.

I turn to the unnumbered amendment which follows Amendment No. 164A in the Marshalled List. Earlier, the Minister mentioned humanitarian criteria as being likely to govern the selection of those people who go to accommodation centres rather than being dispersed, which was helpful. Can he therefore say that those who can bring themselves to mention that in the past they have suffered torture or rape will, if possible, be directed to an accommodation centre? I am aware that it is not always possible for those people to declare that to an unknown government official at an early stage. When it does not happen and no declaration is immediately made, it can still be made at a later stage. At that later stage, it is crucially important that the person should be seen by an expert independent doctor with relevant experience of such cases; for example, those who work with the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture.

Even if the Government criticise the text of the unnumbered amendment which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, I hope that they recognise that it contains an important principle.

I turn to Amendment No. 164A, which appears in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. It touches on the essential matter of written reasons. I prefer Amendment No. 167, which was spoken to by my noble friend Lord Sandwich, to which I have added my name. That is fuller, better and clearer. It is needed because the Government refuse to allow automatic bail reviews and because it has been shown that habeas corpus, which is an important part of the history of civil liberties, is an insufficient and inadequate procedure with regard to getting asylum seekers out of detention. I urge that amendment on the Government.

Lord Filkin

I shall speak initially to Amendment No. 163A. That amendment would require the detention of persons detained under the power in Clause 52 to be for only a "reasonable and limited period". Although it creates an explicit requirement to detain a person under this clause for no more than a reasonable and limited period, the amendment does not after the wording of the existing powers of detention in the 1971 Act. It is not entirely clear, as drafted, what the inclusion of the word "limited" in this amendment is intended to achieve. If it is intended to require the setting of a time limit for a person's detention under this clause at the point at which it is authorised, I fear that that is simply impracticable; nor do we regard it as necessary.

Setting such a limit at the outset of detention would require considerable predictive ability, which is unrealistic, or the setting of no more than an arbitrary time limit, which might bear no relation to the particular circumstances of the case concerned as it progressed. In either case, it would be odd for the detention of a person under this clause to be subject to a time limit while that was not the case for detentions authorised under the Immigration Act 1971. Moreover, a time limit on detention would be counter-productive in that it would simply encourage those in detention to prolong and frustrate the process so as to reach a point at which they had to be released.

Although there is no express requirement in legislation to detain persons for no more than a reasonable period necessary in the circumstances of each case, domestic and ECHR jurisprudence is clear and well established on this point.

First, the power to detain may only be exercised for the specific purpose authorised by the statute. Secondly, detention is only permitted for so long as is reasonably necessary in the circumstances for that authorised purpose. Thirdly, the detaining authority must act with reasonable diligence with a view to the purpose being pursued. That is well understood and it does not require a statement to that effect on the face of the Bill. For this reason, we feel that the amendment is unnecessary and invite the noble Lord to withdraw it.

Amendment No. 164A would require written reasons for detention to be given to any person detained under the power in Clause 52 with provision for those reasons to be challenged, albeit by unspecified means. These requirements would not apply to any person detained under the powers of detention in the Immigration Act 1971.

It is right that detained persons should be notified of the reasons for their detention. It is also right for such persons to be kept informed of the reasons for any continuing detention. It is for these reasons that Rule 9(1) of the Detention Centre Rules 2001 requires every detained person to be provided with written reasons for detention at the time of his initial detention and monthly thereafter.

In line with this rule, every detained person is served at the time of their detention with a written notice which sets out the Immigration Act power under which detention has been authorised, the reason or reasons for detention, and the factors taken into account in reaching that decision. This notice must be explained to the detainee, using an interpreter if necessary. The form itself and instructions to staff on its completion make this clear. The noble Lord's amendment does not therefore put in place something which is not, we believe, happening already. On that basis I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.

I am conscious that in tabling Amendment No. 164B noble Lords are acting on a suggestion made by the JCHR. I am conscious that the committee includes among its members some very eminent legal minds. It is therefore with some trepidation that I suggest that the amendment is, in the Government's view, both unnecessary and potentially confusing.

Unlike the committee, we do not consider that there is any ambiguity in the wording of subsection (7). If the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person is someone in respect of whom he is able to make one of the relevant decisions, that person may be detained under this clause. If the Secretary of State does not have reasonable grounds for suspecting that he may make such a decision, there is nothing in subsection (7) that would allow detention on any lesser grounds, however one might define them. For that reason, we say that it is unnecessary to add the word "only".

The amendment is also, at the very least, potentially confusing and may actually have an effect which I do not think the committee intended. Clause 52 allows the Secretary of State to authorise the detention of certain categories of persons, all of whom may be liable to removal under the powers contained in Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act. In addition, subsection (7) allows this power to be exercised where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the individual concerned is such a person. In other words, if it turns out that the person who was detained is not such a person, then, provided always that there were reasonable grounds for suspecting that the person could be detained, the detention was not unlawful.

If Amendment No. 164B were to be accepted, however, the circumstances under subsection (7) would not be in addition to the power to detain the persons described in subsections (1) and (2). Instead, on the face of it, subsection (7) would govern the rest of the clause.

On a plain reading of the subsection, as it would read if amended in the way suggested, the power to detain would be exercisable only where the Secretary of State had reasonable ground to suspect that he could make a decision of the relevant kind. But where he had something more than a reasonable ground—where, for example, he might have almost certainty—then perhaps it may not apply. As I say, I do not think that this is the intention of Amendment No. 164B and I hope that my explanation will persuade noble Lords not to press the matter.

The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, helpfully suggested the inclusion of Amendment No. 167 at this stage. It is of course right that the detained person should be notified of the reasons for their detention; it is also right for such a person to be kept informed of the reasons for any continuing detention. As I indicated, that is why Rule 9(1) of the Detention Centre Rules requires the written notification at the time of the detention and monthly thereafter.

In line with this rule, every detained person is served at the time with a written notice which sets out the Immigration Act power under which the detention has been authorised and the reason or reasons for doing so. This must be explained to the detainee, using an interpreter if necessary. The detention of individuals is reviewed monthly, assuming it lasts that long. If, following the review, a detainee is to remain in detention, he will be given a written update on the progress of his case, together with the reasons for maintaining detention.

The noble Earl's new subsection therefore does not put in place something which is not required already. It would, however, require rather more than the present position: to be frank, more than is necessary or practicable, namely that the written notice of reasons for detention should be translated into a language understood by the detainee concerned and that it should not he on a pro forma.

So far as the language is concerned, this option has been considered previously and has been rejected as impracticable and unnecessary. The existing notice has to be explained to the detained person and, if necessary, it must be done with the interpreter. This ensures that the detainee understands the reason for detention. In almost all cases the detainee's advocate is likely to be able to read English, and the documentation served in English makes it absolutely clear to the detainee's advocate the power and the reasons for detention. While interpreting is possible, it would be another thing for the notice to be translated and served on the detainee without delay.

There has been some criticism of the detention reasons notice being a pro forma. The clear intention behind Amendment No. 164A is that it should be an individually tailored letter in every case. I do not accept that the pro forma provides any less information on the reasons for detention than would realistically be given in a letter. It is certainly not the case that the current notice provides only generalised reasons for detention. It sets out the specific power of detention used and specifies the particular reasons and factors that apply to the decision to detain in the case concerned. A letter drawn up for each case would do no more and would be likely only to introduce further delay. For those reasons, we do not consider it necessary.

To amplify that, the checklist contains all current policy reasons for detention and the factors to be taken into account when detaining. Therefore, it addresses the individual circumstances of the person being detained. That meets the commitment made by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer. The form is kept under review, as my noble and learned friend Lord Williams undertook.

The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, also spoke to the important Amendments Nos. 164ZB and 177ZA. I strongly sympathise with the sentiments that lie behind the amendments and the serious issues that they address, even though I do not think that they are necessary. We made it clear in our 1998 White Paper, Fairer, Faster and Firmer, that evidence of a history of torture should weigh strongly in favour of temporary admission or temporary release when deciding whether to detain while an individual's asylum claim is being considered. That remains the case.

The instructions to staff authorising detention are clear on that. Independent evidence that a person has a history of torture is one of the factors that must be taken into account when deciding whether to detain and would normally render the person concerned unsuitable for detention other than in exceptional circumstances. Such evidence may emerge only after the detention has been authorised. That may be one of the circumstances referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. If that happens, the evidence will be considered to see whether it is appropriate for the detention to continue.

We reinforced that in the Detention Centre Rules 2001. Rule 35(3) specifically provides for the medical practitioner at the removal centre to report on the case of any detained person who he is concerned may have been the victim of torture. There are systems in place to ensure that such information is passed to those responsible for deciding whether to maintain detention and to those responsible for considering the individual's asylum application.

However, unfortunately, there cannot be a blanket and total exclusion for anyone who claims that they have been tortured. There may be cases in which it would be appropriate to detain somebody who has a history of torture. For example, the person concerned might be a persistent absconder who is being returned to a third country. It might be necessary to detain such a person to effect removal. There will be other cases in which the particular circumstance of the person justifies such an action. There will be yet other cases in which we do not accept that the person concerned has been the victim of torture. Despite that, I repeat my earlier comments about the importance of seeking to interpret these cases with the utmost care and not lightly using the exceptions to which I referred.

The amendment, which would not apply to any person detained under the detention powers in the 1971 Act, would reduce what can be a difficult area to a blanket exemption in a way that is, by definition, overly prescriptive and open to considerable debate and argument as to whether all its conditions have been met in a particular case.

Amendment No. 177ZA contains similar, although not identical, wording. It is out of place in Clause 59. People are not detained on induction programmes and nor, to use the wording of the amendment, could they be seen as "reminiscent" of detention from which a person has fled. A stay near an induction programme will be short-term. The places where people will reside will have no resemblance to detention and there is no reason to make a blanket exemption from the provision in Clause 59 for those who have been tortured. I repeat that I am entirely sympathetic with the sentiments underlying the amendments, but I hope that what I have explained goes some way to relieving the concerns that have been expressed.

I also noted the question of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, about whether those who have suffered torture and rape should be able to go to accommodation centres rather than being detained. I understand the spirit of what he is saying. However, accommodation centres do not have any detention process, so they would be unlikely to provide the necessary security if there is believed to be a need to detain. I hope that the noble Lord's concern is addressed by testing seriously whether detention is necessary when there is a potential case of' torture. I referred earlier to the noble Lord's point about whether the declaration could be made later. The responsible officials should attend to that and give it serious consideration.

Finally, with regard to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, concerning a reasonable and limited period, the implied requirement is already accepted that detention will be for no longer than necessary in the circumstances. Detention cases must also he kept under review with regular internal reviews. As I said previously, detention centre rules require reasons for detention to be given on a monthly basis.

I regret having spoken at such length but, of course, Members of the Committee grouped together a number of amendments and I needed to speak to five or six at the same time.

Lord Dholakia

Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask him some questions relating to Amendment No. 167 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, concerning detention centre rules. The Minister was good enough to tell us what the rules were all about and how they were being exercised. But Bail for Immigration Detainees, which has considerable experience in this matter, has drawn my attention to the fact that, although Rule 9 requires the Immigration Service to give reasons for detention on a monthly basis, in its experience detainees are rarely given such reasons in the monthly report which they receive from the service. That is a matter of very serious concern.

The issue has already been taken up with the Home Office, but I have been given to understand that the Immigration Service has not yet considered it appropriate to discipline immigration officers who fail, in their monthly reports, to give reasons for detention.

That is a serious matter which has a number of consequences. One is that it is very difficult for a detainee to prepare a bail application if he does not know the reasons for his detention. When previously unknown reasons for detention are advanced by the Immigration Service at a bail hearing, effectively that delays the decision and causes the whole procedure to be adjourned. On the basis of contributions made in the other place, I understand that that may be one reason for discussing the removal of the whole bail provision. It undermines Rule 9, and I should be very grateful if the Minister would give the matter serious consideration. The factors that I have set out breach the rule. I do not consider that to be right or proper, and I believe that appropriate action should be taken.

Lord Filkin

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for his further question. I also thank him for the information that he offered on Rule 9 and for setting out, following advice from specialist immigration organisations, his belief' that the rule is not adequately complied with. It is a serious issue, and perhaps the noble Lord would supply me with the best evidence that he has. Over the summer I shall undertake to look at that evidence and seek to make other inquiries. I shall also aim to have a further discussion with him before Report stage.

Lord Avebury

I am most grateful to Members of the Committee who have taken part in this debate on a series of amendments. I hope that the Minister will have noticed that other noble Lords whose amendments were not grouped with this set have voluntarily grouped their amendments, thus saving the Committee's time and speeding up the process of discussion. The fact that they did so was a useful exercise because these amendments, including that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and those in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, were directly relevant to the three amendments which were grouped initially.

First, the Minister said that the time limit would require predictability, which is not in the possession of Ministers or immigration officers. He also said that, although there is no express requirement to limit detention to a reasonable period, domestic and European legislation demand that detention should be imposed only for a period which is reasonably necessary.

I could accept that if the outcome was that people suffered detention only for periods that were reasonably necessary. Bail for Immigration Detainees has just given me four examples of cases where people were released from detention after periods of six months, nine months, four months and eight months. I do not think that those periods were reasonable, and so the outcomes have not been in accordance with the assurances given by the Minister. The matter needs to be considered further.

With regard to the written rules, the Minister gave a useful assurance to my noble friend that he would consider the examples supplied by the agencies. While he is doing that, perhaps he will look at the question of translation in the light of the fact that determinations from the asylum support adjudicators are all translated before being served because of the importance of the decision and the reasons given therein. I do not understand why the same should not apply to the decisions about the liberty of the individual which to us are no less important. If it can be done in one case, it should be done in another. I hope that the Minister, in looking at the information to be supplied to him by my noble friend, will also take that matter into account.

The question of the JCHR recommendation is a complicated matter. I do not profess to have fully taken on board the reasons given by the Minister in his reply. It is perhaps best if I leave that to be considered by the JCHR and perhaps it will offer further advice to the Minister. There was a dialogue between the JCHR and the Minister and it is surprising, if he put the arguments forward, that they did not prevail. It held to its view in spite of the fact that, as the Minister said, the committee is composed of people who are extremely well qualified in the law and particularly in human rights law.

Finally, on the question of torture, will the Minister think about the systems that are in place to ensure that information is passed to the appropriate officials? The detention centre rules provide only that a report should be made from the doctor, through the centre manager, to the Secretary of State; they are silent on what the Secretary of State should do with that information. A lacuna occurs in the rules which needs to be examined. If the Secretary of State is not under any obligation to take cognisance of the information submitted to him, people who have suffered torture or rape may be detained for a long time.

An example sent to me by BID concerned a female asylum seeker who had been severely traumatised by her experiences in her country of origin. She remained in detention awaiting appeal, during which time her mental health continued to deteriorate. She was held for over four months. It would be interesting to know how the system went wrong. Presumably when the information comes up from the doctor to the Secretary of State, some action is taken which feeds back to the detention decision-maker, and the person with growing mental health problems who is being detained will be promptly released. The fact that that does not happen is a matter of serious concern to us.

I shall leave those matters for the Minister to reflect on throughout the Summer Recess, as shall we. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.30 p.m.

Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 164: Page 28, line 24, leave out "that paragraph" and insert "any of those paragraphs The noble Lord said: This is a drafting point. It is intended to make the wording conform more closely to the rules of syntax of the English language. Perhaps the Minister will speak to his amendments in this group, but they concern an entirely different point.

A person may be detained under the authority of the Secretary of State pending a decision by the Secretary of State whether to give directions under one of three paragraphs of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act. Once the Secretary of State has given directions for a person's removal, he has the power to detain that person pending his removal. I understand the purpose of the clause, which is to enable the official who conducts the examination of the asylum seeker, to make the decision to detain on behalf of the Secretary of State. We have no quarrel with that.

As to the wording, in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 the words "that paragraph" always refer to a single paragraph. In Sections 116, 117 and 120 that phrase refers to paragraph 2 of Schedule 8 to the Act and in paragraphs 60 and 126 of Schedule 14 it refers to only a single paragraph and not to two or more paragraphs. On the other hand, in Section 140 of the 1999 Act the words "any of paragraphs", followed by some numbers, refers to several different paragraphs.

The precedents refer to one paragraph and I believe that it would be less confusing if this amendment were to be accepted. I hope that the Minister will agree. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

The noble Lord invites me to move the government amendments in this group, as I shall. As a matter of courtesy I shall deal with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, first. We are extremely grateful to the noble Lord for his suggested amendment, but we believe that it is unnecessary. I can, however, see what prompted the noble Lord to table it.

However much it may jar on the ear or the eye, the use of the singular in subsections (1)(b) and (2)(d) is, according to our best advice—no doubt parliamentary draftsmen—correct. The true position under subsection (1)(a) is that it allows the Secretary of State to authorise detention pending a decision whether or not to give removal directions under one or other of those paragraphs. But the eventual directions, if and when they are given, will be under only one of the three. It would be pointless to set removal directions under more than one, even if that were possible.

Thus, subsection (1)(a) allows a person to be detained on the authority of the Secretary of State pending a decision by the Secretary of State. Similarly, subsection (1)(a) allows a person to be detained on the authority of the Secretary of State pending a decision by the Secretary of State, and so on. Finally, subsection (1)(a) permits detention pending a decision under paragraph 14 and subsection (1)(b) allows the person to be detained where directions have been given under that paragraph.

In other words, subsection (1) contains a single new power which allows the Secretary of State to authorise detention, first, pending a decision whether or not to set removal directions under one of three possible paragraphs, and then when directions have been given under the applicable paragraph. We believe that in terms of drafting, the amendment, although intended to be helpful, is not necessary.

Amendments Nos. 165 and 166 are minor and technical amendments to the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 and are consequential upon the power of detention contained in Clause 52. They are necessary to ensure that those detained under the power in Clause 52 are on the same footing as persons detained under the detention powers in the Immigration Act 1971.

At present the 1983 and 1984 Mental Health Acts refer only to persons detained under the 1971 Act. The amendments to the provisions in those Acts relating to the transfer of detained persons requiring mental treatment will extend their scope to include persons detained under Clause 52. There are no substantive changes to the 1983 and 1984 Acts. Therefore, they are benign, helpful, minor and technical.

Lord Hylton

Can the noble Lord give some indication as to how bad one's mental health must be before one becomes "susceptible to transfer"? In prisons in this country there are thousands of people whose mental health is bad or poor and who need treatment but cannot get it because there are insufficient places in mental hospitals. Can the Minister throw some light on whether so far anyone has been transferred out of immigration or asylum detention?

Lord Mayhew of Twysden

Before the Minister replies, perhaps I may try to support the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I tried to understand—as best I could—the Minister's explanation to the points raised by the noble Lord. It may be that on close scrutiny of Hansard it will make rather clearer sense. But why should we be put to this extraordinary intellectual exercise? Instead of being brought up with a round term by this curious construction, surely life could be made much easier for everyone who has to deal with this issue if the word "the material" was inserted between "under" and "paragraph". Therefore, Clause 52(1)(b) would read: removal of the person from the United Kingdom in pursuance of directions given by the Secretary of State under the material paragraph". It would then be perfectly clear what we are talking about. Instead of having this extraordinary exercise, perhaps I may suggest that to the Minister.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

I always enter with some trepidation any debate with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden. I am sure that with his legal mastery he is a draftsman of extraordinary talent. I certainly shall take account of his suggestion, which the officials will have noted. I think that what I said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was right and attempted to establish a degree of consistency and understanding around the use of the terms. We are always open to new ideas and suggestions.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Is the Minster taking the suggestion of my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew so seriously that he will write to him with his conclusions on this matter before we reach the Report stage?

Lord Bassam of Brighton

I am happy to agree to that. I always listen with great interest to the wisdom of the noble and learned Lord. We shall afford him the courtesy of a written reply.

I shall offer the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, a similar facility. He has asked a question which requires a degree of research. With apologies to the noble Lord, I am happy to investigate and to see what information, such as it is, we can find out on numbers and types of cases. It is an important issue and deserves a proper response. I am grateful for those two important points.

Lord Avebury

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, for his comments. The existing wording is inconsistent with the Government's professed aim of making legislation more conformable with the English language. Whatever the Minister may say—I listened carefully to his convoluted explanation—I do not think that the present wording is readily comprehensible by those who need to understand it.

Therefore, although my wording may not have been ideal—I happily accept the alternative offered by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew—at least the Minister, together with his department, should consider whether some other form of words would make more sense to ordinary readers of the English language.

With regard to the amendment proposed by the Minister relating to the Mental Health Act 1983, I am happy to accept that those detained should be treated in the same way as those who have been detained under the 1971 Act, but the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked a serious question, bearing in mind that we know that there is a gross deficiency of places in secure psychiatric units. As the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, may know, when the Select Committee recently considered the problem of transferring people from prisons to hospitals, which he mentioned, it found a shortage of about 500 places.

More recently, Dr John Reed of Her Majesty's Prisons Inspectorate told me that the number of places is still deficient. There are still 500 fewer places than are needed to accommodate the people who should be transferred from prisons into secure psychiatric units, so we may assume that the same is true of people in detention. People who need to be transferred into psychiatric units from places of detention may be held continuously in the place of detention because there is no room for them in a psychiatric unit. It is important that that is clarified. I also look forward to receiving the information that the Minister promised during the summer.

Earl Russell

Does my noble friend remember an occasion on which Lord Taylor of Gosforth, who was Lord Chief Justice, when offered that excuse that no bed was available in a mental hospital, summoned the Secretary of State for Health to appear as a witness in person? Is it not about time for that example to be repeated?

Lord Avebury

Unfortunately, the Secretary of State would be appearing in court every day, if that were to be the rule. We know that prisons and their medical officers have serious difficulties. When Beverley Hughes was in charge of prisons, she told me that it was not altogether a question of capacity, but also one of process. The Department of Health and the Prison Service recently signed a protocol that is supposed to speed up the transfer of such people, but so far it has not worked, because it kicks in only once the clinician in a secure psychiatric unit has accepted that the person is eligible for a place.

All of the difficulties that we encounter in the prison system read across into detention. There is a shortage of information in that regard which the Minister has undertaken to remedy. We look forward to that, but in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 164A to 164B not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 165 and 166: Page 29, line 21, at end insert— () In the Mental Health Act 1983 (c. 20)—

1. (a) at the end of section 48(2)(d) (detained persons susceptible to transfer for mental treatment: immigration) there shall be added "or under section 52 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (detention by Secretary of State)", and
2. (b) in the heading of section 53 (supplemental provision) the reference to the Immigration Act 1971 becomes a reference to the Immigration Acts."

Page 29, line 21, at end insert—

() In the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 (c. 36)—

1. (a) at the end of section 71(2)(c) (detained persons who may be transferred to hospital for mental treatment) there shall he added "or under section 52 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (detention by the Secretary of State)", and
2. (b) at the end of section 74(1)(b) (further provision about such persons) there shall be added "or under section 52 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (detention by the Secretary of State)"."

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 52, as amended, agreed to.

The Earl of Sandwich

had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 167: After Clause 52, insert the following new clause—

"REASONS FOR DETENTION

1. (1) A person detained by the Secretary of State under Section 52 of this Act or by an immigration officer or the Secretary of State under the Immigration Act 1971 shall be provided with full written reasons for his detention in a language which he fully understands.
2. (2) Such reasons shall be provided within 24 hours of his initial detention and shall give a full justification for the need to detain him at that time.
3. (3) Further written reasons shall be given at the end of each period of 28 days or more during which he continues to be detained and shall give a full justification for the continuing need to detain him in particular.
4. (4) The completion of a pro-forma sheet listing general reasons for detention will not be sufficient to meet the requirements of this Section."

The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to the amendment. I should simply like to thank the Minister for giving us not just full written reasons but a full written and spoken explanation, and for the assurances he gave to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia.

[Amendment No. 167 not moved.]

9.45 p.m.

Clause 53 [Control of entry to United Kingdom, &c.: use of force]:

Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 168: Page 29, line 37, at end insert— () After paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971, there shall be inserted— It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State—

1. (a) to issue a code of practice in connection with the tape-recording of interviews of persons examined by an immigration officer under paragraphs 2, 2A or 3 above: and
2. (b) to make an order requiring the tape-recording of persons so examined."

The noble Lord said: If accepted, the amendment would bring into operation the practice of tape-recording interviews with immigration detainees. At the moment, many interviews are conducted without representatives. The quality of interpreters is variable; there is no recognised qualification they have to attain in order to become interpreters. Interview notes are not read back to the applicant; he only has to countersign in order to verify identity.

At Oakington, where proper advice is available to asylum seekers, lawyers frequently identify discrepancies and inaccuracies that can be corrected on the spot. In one recent case of a Zimbabwean rape victim who arrived in April 2001, she applied in August and was interviewed when still in acute distress. The Refugee Legal Centre picked up five pages of inaccuracies and misrepresentations in the interview record.

When interviews are conducted at an airport or at Croydon, frequently there may not be a representative present or the applicant is not given an adequate opportunity to contest the reliability or accuracy of the written record. With a tape recording the quality of the evidence would be enormously improved, to the advantage of both parties and in the interests of making the process faster and fairer, as we all wish to do.

The wording of the amendment is taken from Section 60 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. It has long been considered that the criminal justice system is best served by having an accurate record of what is said at interviews. Surely the tried and tested procedures adopted in such cases would read across into the determination of asylum claims. I beg to move.

Earl Russell

I support the amendment. Last night, rather later than I would have wished, and therefore without the time to complete the reading I would have wished, I started to read the pamphlet Deciding to Detain, a report by the University of Essex Human Rights Centre by Leanne Weber and Todd Landman. It suggests to me that a great deal of the decisions taken that lead to detention—often mistaken detention—arise from mistakes in the initial interview. That is not a new thought on these Benches or in the House. But what is so good in the report is that it allows the immigration officers to speak for themselves in a vernacular speech that I can understand.

I hear in those immigration officers a sense of having lost control of the processes of their job, which as a professional is something I recognise far more closely than I would have wished. They often regard it as their job to prevent people coming into this country. I cannot complain at that. I am not a vegetarian: I cannot morally reprove people who work in abattoirs. I do not want Al'Qaeda and the Mafia walking all over this country with every weapon they possess. So I recognise that there must be people with that vocation.

But the point that the immigration officers make is that that vocation and the vocation of dealing with asylum sit uneasily together. Here is a quote from one: A colleague of mine at Dover said 'If I'd wanted to join an organisation that processed asylum claims I'd have joined the Immigration Advisory Line or something, I wouldn't have joined the Immigration Service'. Because we're not doing the immigration control—we're simply letting people through. That's what I said about asylum being a separate issue from immigration". In those words is not only the frustration of someone who sees himself as having lost control of his job. There is also a clear expression of why immigration and asylum should be seen as two separate functions of the Home Office. They ought not to be done by the same people. If they were done by two lots of people with different vocations and different professional training, we would not get what the report suggests that we are getting—people recommending detention because it is the only way they can get back control of the process.

If anything like that is taking place—I say, "If"—the tape recording of interviews, as proposed in my noble friend's amendment, would go a long way to correct it. Beyond that, the material suggests that there is a long-term way in which our immigration and asylum system could be reformed. As I suggested at Second Reading of the 1999 Immigration and Asylum Bill, without the evidence that I now have, it would involve separating the immigration functions from the asylum functions and having them done by different people. That would be the beginning of wisdom. Until it is done, things will go wrong over and over again, and we will be back here for another Bill, almost before we have finished this one.

Lord Judd

I hope that the Minister will consider seriously the point covered by the amendment. I urge him to do so for two reasons. First, I do not think that I am speaking only for myself when I say that the Minister has convinced us of his decency, his integrity and his determination to see as much justice as possible in the administration of policy and theory. If there is any serious room for doubt—there seems to be a good deal in this area—the proposed amendment would, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, go a long way towards removing that doubt. That is important for justice.

The second reason why I urge the Minister to take the proposal seriously is that, if we take seriously the threat of terrorism—I. for one, certainly do—we must remember at all times that the extremist plays on any sense of injustice or justice miscarried. It is counter-productive to do things in a way that is not beyond question or doubt. It plays into the hands of extremists and gives them moral grounds for recruiting and increasing their circle of ambivalent support, if not direct support. That is the kind of climate in which it is easier for them to operate. For those reasons, regardless of whether we accept this particular amendment, the point behind the amendment is crucially significant. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will reassure us that he takes it seriously.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden

I endorse what has just been said. I hope that the Minister will say that he will consider the point behind the amendment, if he cannot accept its precise terms. During that consideration, he should take into account the Home Office's experience of piloting and introducing the tape recording of interviews under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

At the beginning, there was a great deal of resistance from the police. Subsequently, the police realised that it was as much in their interest to have an objective and unassailable record of what had taken place as it was in the interest of the defendant. It is easy, with the best of intentions, to put a slant on art interview during which one has been able only to make running notes. Police officers, particularly those who conducted the trial—at Dartford in Kent, I think—became the most ardent protagonists on behalf of the innovation. Today, nobody would wish to go back to the days when there was no tape recording. I hope that the Minister will consider that example.

Lord Hylton

I wish to support the amendment because it bears not only on the quality of interviewing in the first place, but also on the quality of interpretation. Both are closely linked to the quality of first decision and therefore to the avoidance of further appeals and judicial reviews. We all understand that that is what the Government wish to see and we support them in that aim.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, raised important structural questions with regard to the Home Office. Perhaps I may follow his line by asking the Home Office seriously to consider changing the way it operates the system so that one caseworker stays with a case throughout the whole process until it is finally resolved. That would bring about a huge qualitative improvement.

Lord Kingsland

I wish to endorse what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Hylton, and my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden. Indeed, I have to say quite candidly to the Minister that I had always assumed that such interviews were tape recorded. Indeed, I could not imagine the circumstances in which they would not be recorded. Surely it would be in the interests both of the person being interviewed and of the interviewer that the most accurate record of what has taken place is available, first, to both the parties participating in the interview and, secondly, for any subsequent proceedings.

I understand that the Government's objective behind the Bill is to secure expedition tempered by fairness. What better way of soundly establishing such a procedure than by making sure that, at the outset, the interviews are accurately recorded? The barriers of language and culture are huge. It is difficult to see how we shall have a reasonable chance of overcoming them unless we start off in the way proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in his amendment.

10 p.m.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

We have had an interesting short debate. It took my mind back to the passage of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Arguments were put forward from both the police and civil liberties perspectives to say that the tape recording of interviews would not be a good move. Ultimately I think that both sides of the arguments came to see that they were wrong and that the government of the day were absolutely right. The tape recording of interviews conducted in police stations has marked a tremendous advance in openness and transparency and has assisted both the defence and the prosecution in equal measure. Furthermore, it has added greatly to the fairness of the process.

I am going to give a commitment to reflect on the amendment moved by the noble Lord, but I give that commitment to reflect without a further commitment that there will be an amendment or a solution that necessarily accords with the spirit of the amendment before the Committee. I shall do that because there are certain immense logistical problems that would come into play if the Government were to follow this course. I wish to make that point plainly and ensure that it is put on the record.

Each year something in the order of 90 million passengers arrive in the United Kingdom. Of those, some 13 million are subject to some form of control by the UK Immigration Service at ports and at the Channel Tunnel. Plainly, aiming to tape record up to 13 million interviews a year would be a vast exercise. I do not know whether one would need to record all 13 million interviews; I doubt whether eventually it would be quite that number. However, some of those interviews would include those conducted with British and European citizens because some mistakes would be made. That could lead to long delays for people coming here quite legitimately in being received into the country.

We also need to consider the enormous cost of installing tape-recording machinery at every control desk at every port and point of entry. There are questions of practicality. If one thinks of ports and the facilities available there for the conducting of interviews, the quality of the interview rooms that we now demand in police stations and the technology used, one begins to get a fair measure of the practical difficulties.

The current system works reasonably well and there are fairly good and accurate records of interviews. Safeguards are in place. While I accept that recorded interviews would add something more and that there is an initial attraction to their introduction, many problems would need to be overcome in terms of language, recording and so on.

Attractive though this amendment is, and though I am happy to give a commitment that we will reflect on the comments made by noble Lords in this short and interesting debate, I can go no further. I can give only an agreement to reflect, without a commitment or promise that we will bring back anything. I appreciate that the amendment is intended to be helpful.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to the Deciding to Detain report and was candid in extracting the comments of immigration officers. The research took place some years ago and involved a small number of immigration officers. We should like to place on record our debt of gratitude to our immigration officers. They have to work extremely hard and intervene in many challenging circumstances. I am sure that the noble Earl will accept that much has changed in their working practices and that perhaps Deciding to Detain no longer accurately reflects the current position in the context of their work and the changed role and nature of our Immigration Service, which has had to match and meet some very testing circumstances over the past few years. I am grateful to the noble Earl for raising points from the report, but his comments need to be set in context.

Lord Hylton

I welcome the Government's willingness to reflect. It is perhaps the first time it has happened during the course of the Bill.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

No, it is not.

Lord Hylton

No? I accept that. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, rightly pointed to the logistical difficulties implicit in the text of the amendment. However, the Government's problems would be enormously reduced if the tape-recording experiment started only with first interviews in asylum cases.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

I take the noble Lord's point. If the focus of the amendment was narrower, it might have some greater potential benefit in those kinds of cases. The amendment is broadly constructed as it stands and its remit would be to place on the service considerable administrative burdens, delays, costs, and so on. Despite its initial attractiveness, there is a fundamental problem with the amendment.

Earl Russell

The report Deciding to Detain to which I referred was not volume one, which was issued a little while ago, but volume two, which is this year's report. Although I recognise that situations change, if the proportion between asylum and immigration has changed in favour of immigration and against asylum, why do we have the Bill?

Lord Bassam of Brighton

I thank the noble Lord for his clarification.

Lord Avebury

I am enormously grateful to my noble friend Lord Russell and to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, and the noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Kingsland.

Everyone who has spoken in the debate is in favour of the principle of tape recording. The only objection came from the Minister who said that it was administratively impracticable. He gave a sort of undertaking. I am not sure whether it was to review the position over the summer or to think about what has been said in the debate. He dropped a hint towards the end of this remarks that he might have looked more favourably on the amendment had it been confined to the interviews with asylum applicants because that would cut the numbers from a potential 12 million to something less than 76,000. We shall think about the matter during the summer and decide whether to table an amendment which is limited to asylum applicants, as the Minister suggested.

My noble friend Lord Russell referred to decisions to detain. The Committee may remember the case of the Afghans who arrived on Ariana Airlines and were segregated in the fire service college over a weekend when interviews were held. They were reported on by an interpreter and showed the enormous pressures that were brought to bear on those people not to make an application for asylum but to return to Afghanistan. That followed an undertaking by the then Home Secretary, Mr Jack Straw, now Foreign Secretary, that he would get rid of these people as rapidly as possible.

That is what happens when there are no proper recordings of interviews. It is possible for serious pressure to be brought to bear on applicants for asylum not to pursue that intention but to go back to their countries of origin. That could be avoided if interviews were tape-recorded.

I refer the Minister to a report by the Home Office Immigration and Nationality Directorate dated July 1999 on the asylum decision process consultancy. There are several paragraphs relating to taping all substantive interviews. Paragraph 6.34 states that, taping interviews reduces the opportunity to dispute what was said during an interview … may encourage greater professionalism by the interviewer and interpreter and … the trial"— which was undertaken by the Home Office, so we need not start again from scratch— has apparently indicated that applicants and their advisers have also behaved more professionally during the interview". The saving in time and costs compared with the conventional process was threefold. Therefore, it is not a matter of enormous cost to accept the spirit of the amendment. It would be a saving as well as an enormous benefit to practitioners and their clients. We shall return to the matter on Report with the modification that the Minister has suggested limiting it to asylum applicants. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Whether Clause 53 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Avebury

I oppose Clause 53 stand part in order to pave the way for Amendments Nos. 171 and 172, the purpose of which is to consolidate the amendments made to the all-important Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 in this Bill with the schedule as amended. Technically it is not a true consolidation because, in addition to the task of reordering and renumbering the schedule itself to incorporate all the changes made to it since 1971, we would have to amend all the references made to the schedule in other legislation, and the matter would have to be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills and the Law Commission to justify the term.

I am greatly indebted to the Public Bill Office for the assistance that it has given me in accomplishing part of the task and I hope that between us we shah have done enough to demonstrate the usefulness of the exercise and convince your Lordships that it should be completed.

We have taken Schedule 2, as amended, and inserted in it the words specified in Clauses 53 and 54. We should also have dealt with Clause 62(1) in the same way, but unfortunately through an error of mine, it was transformed into Amendment No. 179. But the wording of Clause 53 now appears as paragraph 18(2) of the revised schedule, and the wording of Clause 54 as new sub-paragraphs (3), (4) and (5) of that paragraph. The further tidying up still necessary would be to insert the words of Clause 62(1) after what becomes paragraph 11 in the renumbered schedule, and to renumber all the following paragraphs.

The effect of these amendments would be to enable practitioners, IND staff and clients to read the whole schedule as amended, instead of having to refer back to all the legislation that has been passed since 1971 to get the complete picture. I appreciate that it is possible to buy reference books that show how the 1971 Act appears with all the amendments, such as Margaret Phelan's excellent Immigration Law Handbook. But as fast as these tomes appear, Parliament comes along with fresh legislation and one has to spend another £40 on keeping up to date. This Government seem to have lost interest in consolidation, so let Parliament take a small step towards making the statutes easier to read, as an example that we should like all departments, but particularly the Home Office, to follow. I commend my amendments to the Committee.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

In keeping with earlier debates, I was expecting views to be expressed on all sides of the Committee, but plainly that has not happened. I have quite a long briefing note on this matter. However, I am mindful of the hour and am thinking that the several pages of justification for the current situation are not something that Members of the Committee will want to hear.

We are grateful for the thought that lies behind the amendments in this group. I cannot accept the noble Lord's point that the Government are not interested in consolidation. My recollection is that we recently had a mini-debate on the subject. I believe it was my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer who made the point that there had been some consolidation during this Government's period of office and that further consolidation was very much in our minds.

We recognise the case that has been made for consolidating the Acts relating to immigration and asylum. The noble Lord made a fair point. But we cannot practically do that before the whole reform package has been perfected and put together. However, we are committed to consulting the Law Commission about consolidation in due course.

I recognise that "in due course" can mean "as long as a piece of string". But we are committed to this. It makes good and apparent sense. So although we do not intend to include consolidation measures in the Bill—and for that reason I cannot accept the amendments—we recognise it as important and significant. We are grateful to the noble Lord for raising this matter. It is right that he does so.

I hope that the noble Lord will take some encouragement from my response. I ask him not to press the amendments that he has tabled.

Lord Avebury

As St Augustine said: Da mihi castitatem, sed noli modo"— "Give me chastity, but not yet". The noble Lord expects me to be satisfied with an assurance that consolidation of the immigration Acts will happen at some time in the future. I suppose that I have to be pleased that he has given me that assurance, because I cannot expect anything more this evening. I hope that at least this debate has shown that the task is not so enormous. If the Public Bill Office can manage to supply half the work of consolidating the most important schedule of the 1971 Act, I am sure that it is not beyond the resources of the department to carry on and do the rest of the work.

So I hope that the Government will take this matter seriously and that we shall not have to wait indefinitely for consolidation when so much depends on it for immigration practitioners, for clients and for the IND. In the meantime, I shall not oppose the Question and I shall not press my amendments.

Clause 53 agreed to.

10.15 p.m.

Clause 54 [Escorts]:

Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 169: Page 30, line 6, at end insert "(in accordance with rules made by the Secretary of State) The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 169 would require any searches carried out by detainee custody officers, under the powers to be conferred on them by the proposed new sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 17 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971, to be conducted in accordance with rules made by the Secretary of State. This amendment seeks to raise the question of how the conduct of detainee custody officers will be regulated when, as is envisaged under the provisions to be inserted under Clause 54 of the Bill, they enter premises to conduct searches and detain persons for whom they are responsible.

The Government propose to allow detainee custody officers to enter private premises without consent in order to conduct those searches—although they will be able to do so only where an immigration officer or a constable has entered the premises under a warrant. The existing power to search, the definition of which is referred to in the proposed new sub-paragraph (5) is contained in paragraph 2 of Schedule 13 to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.

The conduct of police officers is obviously regulated by a number of well-known provisions, not least those of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The amendment seeks to clarify the provisions that will apply to detainee custody officers in circumstances where they have entered private premises by force for the purpose of carrying out a search.

Can the Minister tell the Committee whether the rules on the searches by those custody officers, which are referred to in paragraph 2(1)(a) of Schedule 13 to the 1999 Act, have been made; and, if so, whether they contain an adequate framework for the conduct of custody officers in the circumstances that will pertain if they exercise the powers conferred on them by this clause?

We have received some representations on this point from the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association and others who were concerned that there may be a deficiency in this respect. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to reassure the Committee on this point.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

I start from the position that the amendment is unnecessary. I hope that I can give the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, the reassurance that he seeks.

The power for escorts to search a detained person is contained in paragraph 2(1)(a) of Schedule 13 to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. That power must already be exercised in accordance with rules made by the Secretary of State regardless of the context in which the search is taking place.

Those rules are contained in the Detention Centre Rules 2001 (Statutory Instrument 238/2001). Specifically, Rule 7—it applies equally to escorts as it does to staff in removal centres—requires that detained persons shall be searched in as seemly a manner as is consistent with discovering anything concealed. It also requires that no detained person shall be stripped and searched in the sight of another detained person or in the sight of or presence of an officer or other person not of the same sex.

The amendment is properly put forward by the noble Lord acting on information put to him by practitioners. However, our contention is that it is an unnecessary duplication of an existing provision. In those terms, I believe that the noble Lord should feel assured, and comfortable in withdrawing the amendment.

Lord Dholakia

I do not want to repeat the Minister's reply in debate on a later amendment but did I hear him aright? Can the custody officer enter premises at present without the necessity for a search warrant signed by a responsible person?

Lord Bassam of Brighton

I think not; I think that the power is limited and that it can be exercised only when escorts are accompanying immigration or police officers to premises for which a warrant has been issued. I believe that that is the answer to the noble Lord's point but I shall seek further clarification and if I am wrong I shall write to him.

Lord Avebury

I listened carefully to the Minister's answer but I did not hear him address the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, about the rules mentioned in paragraph 2 of Schedule 13 to the 1991 Act. That provision gives the detaining custody officer the power to conduct those searches. It also states that that has to be in accordance with rules made by the Secretary of State. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, therefore asked: where are the rules and have they yet been made? The understanding of the agencies was that they still had not been published; that was also my understanding. If the Minister can assure us that the rules exist, I hope that he will also give us a reference to them so that we can look them up.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

I see that those in the Box are nodding; I take it that the rules have been made and laid. If Members of the Committee want further clarification, I shall happily provide them with a note confirming the situation. Meanwhile, I believe that the answer is on its way over to me. The rules are in paragraph 13(2) of Schedule 2. They have been made. Rule 7 of the detention centre rules is the relevant provision. I referred to that earlier. Rule 7 applies equally to escorts as to staff in removal centres.

Lord Kingsland: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his response and clarification. I hope that he will allow me to go away and examine rule 7 in the light of what has been said in this short and extremely useful debate, and to come back, if necessary, on Report. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 54 agreed to.

Clause 55 agreed to.

Clause 56 [Detention centres: change of name]:

Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 169A: Page 30, line 39, leave out "removal" and insert "holding The noble Earl said: This amendment deals with the proposal in Clause 56 to change the name of detention centres to "removal centres". That sounds to me suspiciously like a pre-judgment of the case. My amendment would change the name to "holding centre", a much more neutral and balanced title.

Amendment No. 170, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, would provide that those centres were holding centres for people whom the Secretary of State was lawfully entitled to remove. That would achieve exactly the same effect as my amendment. If the Minister is prepared to accept either of those amendments, I am not going to be fussy about which it is; I should be content with either. However, if the Minister condemns both amendments, I will be reminded of the person who said, in the case of the impeachment of the Earl of Strafford, that it began to sound as if we would condemn him because we would condemn him. I hope that the Minister will agree to one of the amendments. I beg to move.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville

As I understand it, the Government want detention centres to be called "removal centres" to make the point that detention may involve removal and that it is therefore better to give those centres that name even if they are still detention centres and will still detain people for purposes other than removal. The amendments of the Official Opposition and of the Liberal Democrats neatly bracket the Government's position, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said. The Liberal Democrats approve of the Government's desire to change the name but they do so by involving both purposes, and the Official Opposition's amendment acknowledges the Government's desire to introduce the concept of removal by making it the single purpose. As the noble Earl said, that is a very simple choice for the Government to make between the two amendments.

There is, within a mile of this place, a good test of the Government's logic. The Tate Gallery stands where Jeremy Bentham's Millbank penitentiary once stood. As one might expect of Bentham, it was in some senses a model prison and, indeed, a modern prison. The domestic arrangements in the cells were ones of which Stephen Tumim would have approved when he was Chief Inspector of Prisons. The penitentiary, which was adjacent to where prisoners took the tender to the larger ships that would transport them to Australia, was where they were held but the prisoners were not yet committed to going. On the eve of their being transported to Australia they were taken to cells on five floors below the Morpeth Arms—a pub which still stands on Millbank—and were held there. That would seem perfectly logical. The penitentiary might reasonably have been called the detention centre; the cells underneath the Morpeth Arms—which I believe are still there—could reasonably have been called a removal centre.

The Government's position, if I may say so, is straight out of Alice. It is Humpty Dumpty saying that he wants words to mean what he wants them to mean. If the Government regret that they were ever called detention centres, my recollection is that there is another censorious character in Alice—perhaps the Caterpillar, perhaps the Red Queen, perhaps the Griffin, perhaps even Humpty Dumpty himself—who would have said, "If you wanted to call them removal centres, then that is what you should have called them in the first place", and I wholly concur with the noble Lord.

Lord Judd

I strongly support the amendment. It is not simply a matter of clarifying terminology and purpose. I believe that this amendment goes right to the heart of what this Bill is all about and how we want it to be perceived.

On Second Reading we spent a certain amount of time discussing the distinction between administering necessary policy justly in this area and playing to a negative public opinion by suggesting that the purpose of the legislation was to get rid of all of these people who should not really be here. Some of us argued that, while people who have no grounds for being here have no grounds for being here and will have to be removed, the primary purpose of the Bill is to ensure that all those with any entitlement to be here are able to stay. That is what the Bill is about.

As soon as we introduce the word "removal" into clauses such as this, whether or not the Government intend it, the message becomes confused. It panders to the irresponsible media and the rest, who want to talk in hysterical terms about the need to remove people rather than talk about our responsibility as a nation for ensuring that those who are entitled to be here are able to be here, while dealing sensitively but firmly with those who are not.

I believe that there is a great deal more to this amendment—if the noble Earl will forgive me on this occasion, because it is most unusual—than even he suggested. I believe that he was too modest. While there was something to commend the terminology of the Official Opposition, I think that his own term is a better one and I wish that he would stand more firmly by it.

Earl Russell

I am grateful to the noble Lord.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden

It may help to look, if the noble Lord finds time to do so, at the Prevention of Terrorism Act applying to Northern Ireland. I believe that those three areas which were attached to police stations, which were specially secure for the purpose of interrogating those suspected of terrorism, were reclassified as holding centres. It was felt that this might be an assistance to the delicate process which, even in my distant days, was in train. It is perhaps a precedent to be looked at.

Lord Hylton

I prefer the second of these two amendments. What the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, has just said rather reinforces my opinion.

The serious point is that one or other amendment—preferably the second—needs to be accepted until such time as no people are detained who have not yet received their first decision in an asylum case or who have not yet exhausted their rights of appeal.

10.30 p.m.

The Earl of Sandwich

I follow the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and support the amendment. I have information from the Churches' Bail Circle that might be of interest to the Committee. There is evidence from the bail circle and from detention centre visiting groups that many asylum seekers are detained well before the end of the process of determining their claims, as my noble friend said—either on arrival or before the determination of their appeal.

The bail circle worked with 257 asylum seekers last year and in the first quarter of this year. Full data concerning dates of arrival, asylum claim and detention were available for 102 of these, of whom 77 per cent were detained at or soon after arrival. The sample is small, but there is no reason to suppose that it is not representative. It surely bears out what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

I shall speak to my Amendment No. 170. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that logically the Government ought to accept either his amendment or mine and that he is prepared to accept mine if need be. I also heard the noble Lord, Lord Judd, upbraid the noble Earl, Lord Russell, saying that he preferred the noble Earl's amendment to mine. As long as we get the right result, I shall not be pedantic about which wording is adopted. I would be equally happy to support the noble Earl's wording if we can achieve the right result.

I shall be fairly brief, as the arguments have been covered effectively. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the only people held in removal centres are those whom the Secretary of State is lawfully entitled to remove. That seems an obvious aim. As my honourable friend Mr Malins said on Report in another place: Detaining asylum seekers is a sensitive issue and detention should be used with the greatest sensitivity. Detaining persons whom the Secretary of State is not entitled to remove is an unhappy concept for many Opposition Members".—[Official Report, Commons. 12/6/02; cols. 872–73] We feel the same in this House.

I was grateful for the intervention of my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew and my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, both of whom, in their succinct way, made it clear that the Government's position is untenable. As my noble friend Lord Brooke, said, the Government's words seem like something from Alice in Wonderland.

Noble Lords have not followed through the question of the current designation of detention centres. I am told that the IND has already changed the name of detention centres to removal centres on letterheads and public signposts—for example at Dungavel—and on memorandums, even though the clause has not even been debated, let alone the Bill enacted. Can the Minister confirm whether the IND has made that change? If so, on whose authority was it done?

Like other noble Lords, I should be very disappointed if the Minister felt unable to accept either the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, or mine. At this late hour I do not intend to pursue the matter, but I give notice that I shall pursue it later.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

Our purpose in renaming detention centres as removal centres is to reinforce the key role that detention plays in the removal of those who have no lawful basis to stay here. It does not signal a change of function for such centres. They will remain designated places of detention for the purposes of the Immigration Act. Similarly, it does not signal a change to the powers to detain. Our priority for the use of detention space is to support the removal of failed asylum seekers and others who have no basis of stay here, such as illegal entrants and overstayers.

Although we plan to increase the number of detention spaces to some 4,000, they will obviously remain a finite resource that must be focused on the area of greatest need—that is, the removal of failed asylum seekers. That is a priority. But it will always be the case that removal centres will need to be used in other circumstances and at other points in the process where we have power to detain, particularly, for example, at Oakington. That is an integral part of effective immigration control which would be prevented by the amendment. I question whether noble Lords would wish that to happen.

Apart from detention to effect removal, including deportation, our current policy is that we may detain in both asylum and non-asylum cases while a person's identity or claim is established, or because a person is likely to abscond, or, in asylum cases only, as part of the fast-track case processing at Oakington reception centre. Again, that will continue to be the case despite the change of name to "removal centres". On that basis, it would be inappropriate to seek to restrict those who may be held at removal centres, as Amendment No. 170 seeks to do, to those, whom the Secretary is lawfully entitled to remove". There are also practical difficulties with the amendment. A person whose removal was not for the time being lawful—for example, a person with an outstanding asylum claim—would therefore not be able to be detained in a removal centre, although they could be detained in short-term facilities or prisons. It would also prevent the detention in a removal centre of those who are removable, but the power to do so is vested in an immigration officer rather than the Secretary of State. That would apply to the majority of those refused leave to enter.

I know that there has been some concern that the change of name may lead to confusion among detainees, especially asylum seekers, who have yet to receive a decision on their application but are held at a removal centre. We simply do not accept that. All detainees receive a notice at the time of their detention that sets out clearly the reasons for that detention. Therefore, detainees should be under no illusion as to the reasons. In addition, detained asylum seekers will go through the induction process at the place of detention, and that will include in formation on the asylum process. Therefore, they will know that they will not be removed while their claim is outstanding. I have set out why we decided to adopt the name "removal centre", and I do not consider that "holding centre" is a better alternative.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, made the point that, within the context of Northern Ireland, there were holding centres for those held pending the further determination of their situation. I am not sure that that necessarily helps the argument for the amendments offered by some Members of the Committee this evening. Surely that could create confusion in some minds as to the purpose of the centres. The comparison with centres used to hold suspected terrorists would be an unenviable parallel. I wonder whether that is as wise a move as some in the Committee might like to argue. I believe that, in the context of immigration and asylum cases, it is not a matter to which we should give serious consideration. Having heard those arguments and points, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Judd

Before my noble friend sits down, I hope that he will accept that in relation to this amendment some of us—I am fairly certain that I shall not be alone—feel that, while he has tried hard to argue the case, he has not convinced us. I ask him again to think himself into the position of people in the centres and, indeed, of many irresponsible people in the media and elsewhere in this country. Some are determined to suggest that we should remove everyone it is possible to remove. Inevitably, that view will become an acute anxiety on the part of people in the centres.

I understood my noble friends to say repeatedly in the deliberations on this Bill that they are committed to getting the right result in each case. Why throw away that flag of commitment to getting the right result by the injudicious and loose use of the word, "removal"?

Earl Russell

Before I reply, perhaps the Minister will reply to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. Is it true that the name of some centres has already been changed to "removal centre" before the approval of Parliament has been given? Can he answer that before I reply?

Lord Bassam of Brighton

I am happy to answer. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked a perfectly proper question. The answer is yes; the change was made on the direction of the Home Secretary.

To pick up the point made by my noble friend Lord Judd, we are committed to ensuring that people who come into this country, albeit illegally, claiming asylum and refuge are treated humanely, decently and properly, and in accordance with the principles of natural justice and law. In renaming detention centres we are seeking to reinforce the key role that detention plays in the removal of those who have no lawful base on which to stay here. It does not, of itself, signal a change of function for the centres. It underlines the important role that they play in the range of facilities, the range of strategies, that we seek to employ to manage and handle the situation.

The problems that confront us are serious and we take them seriously. We believe in fair and proper treatment. We are a government that have demonstrated that not just in this field of legislation, but in many others. Our record and reputation are second to none in that regard. Therefore I insist that the amendment is unnecessary and should be withdrawn.

Lord Dholakia

Before the noble Lord sits down, can he say, if the Home Secretary has already agreed to rename the detention centres as removal centres, what is the purpose of this clause?

Lord Kingsland

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Can he say when the Home Secretary made that direction? Under what power? And what publicity did he give to his decision to do so?

Lord Bassam of Brighton

I do not have that information. The noble Lord is entitled to the details and I am happy to place on record that I do not have the details at the Dispatch Box this evening. However, I shall ensure that the noble Lord is furnished with them and also that other Members of the Committee are also provided with them.

Earl Russell

I am grateful for the support I received from the Committee for either my amendment or that in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. I particularly enjoyed listening to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville. But I could not help thinking what would happen if that process were repeated now, when the people shipped out from Millbank arrived in Australia. It would be a pretty kettle of fish. All the same I cannot help thinking that the noble Lord reached the wrong quotation from Alice. Begging his pardon, the one we wanted was, "Verdict first. Trial afterwards". The noble Lord, Lord Judd, was right about that.

The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, made the point that the name, "removal centres", cannot be justified while they hold people whose claims have not yet been determined or who have not yet exhausted their right of appeal. It completely prejudges the question. In my view it is a contempt of the courts. As for the change of name on the Home Secretary's authority, that is, in my view, a contempt of Parliament.

I was always brought up to believe that Parliament made the law. Of course, I have been here long enough to know that that principle is honoured as much in the breach as in the observance, but on this occasion it has not even been honoured in the breach. I take that deeply amiss. I agree with my noble friend Lord Avebury: in that case what is the purpose of the clause? Why not delete it altogether if we do not need it? If we do not make the law, what are we all doing sitting here at this time of night pretending that we are trying to change matters that are being altered without so much as a by your leave from any noble Lord?

It is absolutely vital that justice should not only be done, but should be seen to be done. That means that when people's claims for asylum come up for hearing they should believe that whether their claims are successful depends on the evidence that they offer and the legal justice of their case. If people are put straight into places that are labelled removal centres, that argument cannot be made. One cannot claim to be conducting impartial justice because one has announced to the world at large, in capital letters and printed on signs, that one is doing no such thing. Perhaps that announcement is not accurate, but in that case it was unwise to make it.

I believe that this is the most unsatisfactory reply that I have heard in Parliament for a good many years. I understand that the Minister offers us good intentions. I believe him, but he sounds remarkably like a servant brandishing an open testimonial that says, "During his period of service with me, Mr So-and-So has discharged his duties entirely to his own satisfaction". He has not discharged them to our satisfaction. I hope that before Report stage we shall see a government amendment so that we shall not have to put our own amendment to a Division. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 170 not moved.]

Lord Filkin

I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.

House adjourned at twelve minutes before eleven o'clock.