UK Borders Bill

moved Amendment No. 31: 31: After Clause 16, insert the following new Clause— ““Exemption from detention: torture survivors (1) The Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77) is amended as follows. (2) In paragraph 16 of Schedule 2, after sub-paragraph (4) insert— ““(4A) Nothing in this paragraph shall permit the detention of an immigration or asylum applicant who claims to have survived torture.”” (3) In paragraph 2 of Schedule 3, after sub-paragraph (6) insert— ““(6A) Nothing in this paragraph shall permit the detention of an immigration or asylum applicant who claims to have survived torture.””.”” The noble Lord said: For years now it has been settled government policy that immigration cases, usually asylum seekers, shall not be detained when there is evidence that they may be survivors of previous torture. The reason for that is that the loss of liberty is likely to be bad for their mental and physical health. The Detention Centre Rules 2001, Statutory Instrument 238, are clear on that. Paragraph (1) of Rule 35 states: "““The medical practitioner shall report to the manager on the case of any detained person whose health is likely to be injuriously affected by continued detention or any conditions of detention””." Paragraph (2) deals with suspicions of suicidal intention. Paragraph (3) says that the medical practitioner shall report to the manager any case of a person who he is concerned may have been a victim of torture. Paragraph (4) says: "““The manager shall send a copy of any report under paragraphs (1), (2) or (3) to the Secretary of State without delay””." The Home Office’s Operational Enforcement Manual asks, at chapter 38.3, entitled ““Factors influencing a decision to detain””, "““has the subject a history of torture? … has the subject a history of physical or mental ill health?””." The theory is therefore quite clear, and has been confirmed by government Ministers in both Houses on many occasions. As far back as 1999, a White Paper stated, at paragraph 12.4 on page 53: "““The Government also recognises the need to exercise particular care in the consideration of physical and mental health when deciding to detain. Evidence of a history of torture should weigh strongly in favour of temporary admission or””—" and this is most important— "““temporary release whilst an individual’s asylum claim is being considered””." I argue that temporary release is equally important in cases where torture survivors failed to establish their right to remain. The references for ministerial replies are as follows: the honourable Member Angela Eagle to Simon Hughes MP on 19 July 2001, Written Question 5116; the same Minister to the honourable Member Mr Lazarowicz on 3 April 2002 at col. 1062W; the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, replying to me on 15 July 2002 at col. 1060; the honourable Member Mr McNulty to John Bercow MP on 12 September 2005 at col. 2473W; the same Minister to Eddie McGrady MP on 21 November 2005 at col. 1732W; and the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, replying to me and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, on 7 February 2006 at col. 634. The noble Baroness thought that the problem had been solved by medical examinations and proper procedures at removal centres. The next assurance was on 26 February of this year at col. WA 293 when the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting, quoted me detention centre Rule 35, which has already been mentioned, and mentioned the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture. Most recently, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, on 17 May 2007 at col. 282, assured me that effective procedures are in place for detained people who allege torture or rape. The replies and assurances are absolutely consistent in upholding the theory of good practice and the intention to prevent the undesirable detention of survivors of torture and rape, as well as other vulnerable people. So why have Members of both Houses felt it necessary to go on asking Questions and complaining about continuing bad practice? I believe that it is because they and the NGOs in the field regularly come across cases where the good theory is seriously disregarded. I will now give recent examples of cases and detention removal centres where things appear to be going wrong. At Yarl’s Wood in May of this year, 70 per cent of the large sample of women alleged rape and 57 per cent stated that they had no legal representation. On 3 July, the Minister himself replied to a Question from me that the figures of those reporting rape could not be confirmed as this would involve disproportionate cost. That suggests that the figures were high and yet the women were detained. One hundred women wrote to the Prime Minister with a variety of complaints. The Observer reported that nearly one-half of its sample of women had been in detention for more than three months. That hardly squares with the Minister’s assertion to me that the average length of stay in May was seven to 10 days. Will the Government therefore investigate all cases of detention exceeding one month? I now turn to two recent relevant cases of torture survivors. In neither case was access provided to the medical foundation. I have seen a medical report on Mr Francis Kahiga. He is Ugandan and arrived here in 2006. Because he came on a false passport, he was imprisoned and then detained at Harmondsworth and later at Campsfield House for over nine months. He claimed to have suffered torture when he arrived, but nothing was done to verify his claim or to pass on information about him, until he was examined by an independent doctor on 12 May at the request of a voluntary organisation. My second example is Mr Peter Etame, who comes from the Cameroons. His immigration reference number is E 105-58-8886 and, again, I have seen the medical report of May this year. He arrived here in 2004 and was granted temporary admission after claiming that he had been tortured. Unfortunately, he worked to support himself and served a prison sentence for that. He was then detained at Campsfield from November of last year. Medical evidence confirms that he was tortured and raped while in prison in the Cameroons on account of his same-sex orientation, following attacks on him by his own parents and neighbours. Once again, the proper procedures were not followed in England and the length of detention has been excessive, particularly for a man in poor mental health with suicidal thoughts and very poor self-esteem. I am therefore right to assert, as I did on 17 May, that the Home Office has allowed its own rules and guidelines to be breached by both BIA employees and private contractors. It is essential that the Home Office complies with its responsibilities under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and implements the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The repeated assurances given by Ministers must, I suggest, cease to be purely verbal. My Amendment No. 31 goes to the root of the problems by providing exemptions to schedules to the 1971 Act which permit immigration and asylum detention. It is intended to cover detention before an asylum hearing or appeal and afterwards, prior to any removal. The Minister may say that it goes too wide by turning on the person’s claim to have survived torture. I believe that that is justified by reducing the risk of harm to mental and physical health and by making possible the necessary medical verification and appropriate support and therapy. If a claim is not verified, a new application to detain should be made. The Committee will notice that two distinguished medical Peers have added their names to this amendment. I am glad to see the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, in her place and also to have had the support in writing of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, also told me that he wanted to add his name but was prevented by early printing of the Marshalled List. There can thus be no doubt that I have strong medical support from all parts of the House. For too long, official theory and actual practice have been too far apart. I seek to remedy that situation and commend the amendment to the Committee and the Government. I beg to move.