§ Lord Hyltonasked Her Majesty's Government:
How many cases involving children held in immigration detention centres for more than 28 days have been reviewed by the Minister responsible since 16 December 2003; and with what results. [HL3227]
§ Baroness Scotland of AsthalManagement information indicates that on 27 March 2004, 30 children were in detention who were detained solely under Immigration Act powers. Twenty-five (83 per cent) of those had been in detention for 14 days or less and the remainder had been detained for less than six months. These individuals were all detained as part of families whose detention as a group was considered necessary.
Records show that all children held in detention under immigration law for a period greater than 28 days since 16 December 2003 have been subject to ministerial authorisation. Outcomes of the cases detained for a period greater than 28 days vary according to the circumstances of individual cases.
Detention of families with children is used sparingly, usually to effect removal, and only where this is judged to be necessary on the basis of the individual circumstances of the case. Close scrutiny of cases involving families with children ensures that removal is effected as early as possible or, where this is not feasible, that the family is released from the removal centre.
146WA
§ Lord Hyltonasked Her Majesty's Government:
Since 16 December 2003 how many families with children held at Dungavel Immigration Centre have received a welfare assessment on being held for 21 days; what were the results; and who conducted the reviews; and [HL3228]
Why welfare assessments of the needs of families with children held in immigration detention centres other than Dungavel are not carried out after 21 days. [HL3229]
§ Baroness Scotland of AsthalA system of welfare assessment at day 21 of a child's detention has not yet been introduced. We are continuing to explore the possibility of establishing protocols with local social services to facilitate these assessments. This work is being carried forward initially at Dungavel and, if successful, we would plan to extend it to other removal centres that may hold families with children.
§ Lord Hyltonasked Her Majesty's Government:
Why three families with children were held in immigration detention centres for respectively 143, 165 and 129 days prior to removal or release between November 2003 and May 2004. [HL3230]
§ Baroness Scotland of AsthalInformation on individual cases is confidential and cannot be divulged without the expressed consent of the individuals concerned. This is due to the Home Office's legal obligation under common law, human rights and data protection legislation, and the treatment of private and personal information under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (paragraph 2 of Part II).
Government policy on the use of detention is that it may normally be appropriate:
- to effect removal;
- initially to establish a person's identity or basis of claim; or
- where there is reason to believe that the person will fail to comply with any conditions attached to the grant of temporary admission or release.
In addition, asylum applicants may be detained as part of the fast-track asylum process if it appears that their applications are straightforward and capable of being decided quickly.
As with any case, there is a presumption in favour of granting temporary admission or temporary release to families with children wherever possible. There will be occasions when temporary release is not considered appropriate. In these cases detention is necessary in the interests of maintained effective immigration control.
Cases involving families with children in detention are dealt with as expeditiously as possible to ensure that the period of detention is kept to a minimum. Cases of families with children detained for more than 28 days are subject to ministerial authorisation. Such cases are small in number and by their nature tend to be exceptional.
147WAUnfortunately in some cases, the detention of families with children is prolonged as removal is deliberately disrupted by resistive behaviour by some family members or through deliberately belated legal challenges.