UK Borders Bill

I do not know whether I have congratulated the noble Baroness publicly on her elevation to the post of opposition Chief Whip in the next Session. If I have not, I certainly ought to. It is a congratulation that is most heartfelt because the noble Baroness has been a tremendous advocate for her party over these past few years, on this and on many other Bills, and I have enjoyed our time in the Chamber and in Committee. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, will work equally as hard to put forward the best possible case in all circumstances. She should be inspired by the earlier work of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. This is a difficult area of debate and that is clear from the discussion that has taken place in the past three-quarters of an hour. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has drawn out one of those tricky issues—certainly one that is hard to resolve. It is obviously a difficult area for the Government. Most of us can probably recount a story or two of people we either know or have had some contact with who have been subjected to torture. I have friends who fall into that category, going back to the time of Pinochet’s Chile. I was grateful that this country provided Chileans with a place of fresh refuge, and quite rightly so. Some things that were done under that regime do not bear repeating; they were fairly unpleasant and appalling. We should do all that we can to tackle torture internationally and we do exactly that. We as a country should treat people decently when they properly come here to seek refuge and claim torture as the reason for that. However, that does not mean that we must in any way demur from the rigours that need to be properly applied in terms of immigration procedures and that we should not properly question those claims because we should if we are to retain the integrity of our immigration system. The proposed new clause seeks to create a blanket exemption from immigration detention for any person who claims to have been a victim of torture—and I fully understand why. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is a keen and passionate advocate of the issue and he has set out his argument very clearly in his presentation today. I know that he has had many exchanges in the past, not only with me, but with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland. I entirely understand the noble Lord’s motivation: it is one that I appreciate and I appreciate his sincere concern for victims of torture. But the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, will not be surprised to hear that we cannot accept this new clause. The current position is that our stated policy and the published guidance issued to border and immigration staff make it clear that the history of torture is one of those factors that must be taken into account in determining whether to detain a person and would normally render the person concerned unsuitable for detention other than in exceptional circumstances. Independent evidence of torture will, of course, weigh heavily against detaining an individual. That is not to say that there will be no circumstances in which a person who may have been, or at least claims to have been, a victim of torture might be detained. For one thing, an allegation or independent evidence of torture may come to light only after a person has been detained, for very good reasons. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, said earlier that victims were often reluctant to explain why they had come here and why they were seeking asylum and refuge. We understand that. In those cases, the information would have to be considered in deciding whether detention should continue. There will be other circumstances where a person who may have been the victim of torture may be detained, perhaps in the sort of case mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. For example, detention might be appropriate for reasons of public protection in the case of convicted criminals. A person might be a persistent absconder. It might be appropriate in the case of a person who is to be returned to a third country for consideration of their asylum claim or, most commonly, it is likely to be appropriate in the case of persons who have no lawful basis to remain in the United Kingdom and whose removal is to be enforced. Cases have to be considered on their individual merits and all factors arguing either for or against detention must be taken into account in deciding whether to authorise detention. Systems are in place to ensure that allegations of torture made by detainees are reported. Reference was made to Rule 35 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001. Under that rule, the doctor at a removal centre is required to report any concerns that a detainee may have been the victim of torture. Procedures are in place to ensure that such reports are passed to those in the Border and Immigration Agency responsible for managing a person's detention and properly considering their case. The report must be taken into account in deciding whether continued detention is justifiable and appropriate. The noble Lord will know that we have recently made improvements to those systems. A standardised reporting form has been introduced and agency staff have been instructed on the need to acknowledge receipt of reports. A random sample of cases was checked to ensure that reports had been received by the relevant case workers and acted on appropriately. It was confirmed that they had been. The agency is also exploring the possibility of providing training to removal centre healthcare teams on identifying victims of torture. Not all claims of torture will be accepted and not all claims of ill treatment, even if accepted as having occurred, will amount to torture. Even where a claim of torture is not disputed, there will be circumstances where detention may still be appropriate, as I set out earlier. This new clause would prevent the proper detention of any person who claimed to have been the victim of torture. It would not be necessary for the person to substantiate his claim—acceptance of the claim would be irrelevant and it would not matter if the claim were manifestly false. The mere fact of having made a claim would suffice to trigger blanket exemption. From a government perspective, that is unacceptable. The new clause would also create a potentially significant gap in our ability to ensure and enforce compliance with immigration rules and would almost certainly be exploited by those intent on circumventing those laws. Detention has a key part to play in maintaining effective immigration control and a robust but fair asylum system. That has to be the case. The new clause would seriously undermine that aim and, in our view, would serve only to encourage widespread abuse of the system. We cannot tolerate that. For those reasons, we cannot accept the amendment. Understandably, a whole range of questions was asked during noble Lords’ presentations in the debate. I want to deal, first, with an issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, which relates to the correspondence, outstanding letters and e-mails that he conducted with my noble and learned friend Lady Scotland. As the noble Lord knows, my noble and learned friend has moved on and is now the Attorney-General. My noble friend Lord West will write shortly to the noble Lord to respond to the various outstanding items. I may have already responded to some of them in the correspondence that I have been conducting with noble Lords as part of our Committee proceedings. There were also questions relating to training. Training is obviously provided to those who have to conduct interviews. They receive instruction on dealing sensitively with asylum applicants who claim to have been tortured or raped.