HL Deb 08 July 2002 vol 637 cc64-5WA
Lord Hylton

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Why they have not yet implemented Part 3 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999; and why they intend to abolish routine bail hearings by means of Clause 57(6) of Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill. [HL4903]

Lord Filkin

Our proposals for the future system of bail for immigration detainees was set out in the recent White PaperSecure Borders, Safe Haven: Integration with Diversity in Modern Britain.

Part III of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 created a complex system of automatic bail hearings at specified points in a person's detention. These provisions have never been implemented, nor do we believe they will be. As the White Paper made clear, we intend to implement Sections 53 and 54 of the 1999 Act but repeal the remainder of Part III, which is no longer consistent with the need to ensure streamlined immigration and asylum processes.

Most immigration detainees will still have the right to apply for bail. These rights to seek bail will be extended by the implementation of Section 54 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 to include persons detained pending deportation who do not have an outstanding appeal.

Petitions for leave to intervene Granted Granted to the extent that they may present written submissions only Refused Petitions for leave to Present written submissions only Granted Refused
1997 4 4 0 0 1 1 0
1998 7 6 0 0
1999 7 6 1 0 1 1 0
2000 5 1 3 1 2 1 1
2001 9 3 6 0 1 0 1

Lord Lester of Herne Hill

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they have conducted an appraisal of whether the resources available for the operation of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council are appropriate and sufficient to meet the needs of supreme judicial authorities of the United Kingdom; if so, whether they will publish the results of their appraisal; and, if not, whether they will conduct such an appraisal and publish its results. [HL4873]

The Lord Chancellor

The Government agree that the resources available to the judicial committees of the House of Lords are a matter of importance. Obviously sufficient accommodation must be provided, but while the Appellate Committee is part of the House, this is a matter for the House authorities and not for the Government.