Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

I rise to speak to Amendment No. 68, and I am sure that the noble Baroness can be in no doubt about the strength of feeling in your Lordships’ House on this subject. My new clause is designed to offer an alternative form of review of the reasonableness of the detention of individuals, not by an official of the executive branch but by a person holding judicial office who is accustomed to imposing custodial sentences in appropriate cases. The UNHCR has long been concerned about how reviews of detained asylum seekers are conducted. The London office of the commission has stated that the detention of asylum seekers is inherently undesirable and that there should be a presumption against its use. Its Executive Conclusion No. 85 of 1998 stated:"““The Executive Committee deplores that many countries continue routinely to detain asylum seekers (including minors)," that is, children,"““on an arbitrary basis, and for unduly long periods””." That was still the case here in December 2001, when the UN Human Rights Committee reported on the United Kingdom. It found that some people were being detained for reasons only of administrative convenience. The UNHCR has expressed special concern about the detention of vulnerable people. Those obviously include children and pregnant women, but also victims of torture, people with a disability and unaccompanied elderly people. The UNHCR believes that such people should be detained only when a qualified medical practitioner has certified that detention will not further harm their health or wellbeing. It seems clear that vulnerable people are still being detained. In June 2004, 60 children were being held; in June 2005, of those detained under the Immigration Acts, 70 were under 18 years old. Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons concluded in her latest report:"““The detention of children should be an exceptional measure . . . lasting only a few days””." The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and my noble friend Lord Sandwich have mentioned that Part 3 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 made provision for an automatic judicial review. Alas, it was never brought into force and was repealed by the 2002 Act. It is also clear that the theoretical safeguards of bail are often ineffective, on account of ignorance, as explained by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, who has full knowledge of what happened in the past at Campsfield, and because of sheer lack of means. If a large sum of money is set as the bail condition, it is often not possible to find it. I have therefore provided for a regular weekly review of cases by a magistrate. As we all know, magistrates are evenly distributed across England and Wales and many have very relevant experience in the juvenile courts. I suggest that my amendment is preferable to that of my noble friend on the grounds that asylum and immigration tribunals are already very busy hearing appeals and may not have the capacity to review detention. I accept that weekly reviews may be a little too frequent, but I believe that nothing less than an initial review followed by monthly re-examinations is the minimum acceptable. I would be largely satisfied, however, if the Government would say that there will be a system for judicial review of all detainees falling within the categories considered vulnerable by the UNHCR.