UK Borders Bill

Clearly that is an issue which we need to look at and address. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments. He also asked questions in his commentary relating to the response to the chief inspector’s reports on Dungavel, Campsfield House and Harmondsworth removal centres. The action plan responding to the recommendations made in the report on Dungavel has been issued, and a copy of that has been placed in the Library. We have deferred responding to the Campsfield House and Harmondsworth reports pending the report of the investigation of the disturbances at the two centres, which is being carried out by Mr Robert Whalley, a retired civil servant who, I can attest, is very experienced at dealing with these issues. We have done that because we want to ensure that our response to the chief inspector’s report can take into account any issues arising from that more recent investigation. We expect to receive Mr Whalley’s report shortly, and it will be published as soon as possible. Copies of our action plans responding to the chief inspector’s report on Campsfield House and Harmondsworth will be placed in the Library. The question also arose as to whether we would publish the results and the report of the internal audit of torture allegations carried out by the agency. It would be fair to say that the audit was an informal checking exercise completed by officials and, as such, there is no report that could be published. However, the results of the exercise showed that instructions to staff and the appropriate procedures were being followed. In the sample of the 21 cases in which torture allegation reports had been sent to BIA caseworkers from removal centres, 17 concerned cases in which asylum applications had already been refused and where appeal rights had been exhausted. In each case, torture allegations had already been raised and considered in the initial asylum decision and at appeal. Three cases involved proposed removal to a third country and one was at a very early stage of the asylum process. In no case within the sample did the allegation of torture report raise new information. The allegations of torture would not therefore call into question the continued detention that would have been considered on receipt of the Rule 35 reports. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, raised the issue of mental health. I accept that that is a proper concern about detainees but, interestingly, an audit completed by doctors in 2006 found a very low level of incidence of mental ill health problems—lower, in fact, than one might expect to find in the community generally. In a way, one can understand why that might be, because these particular people have had great strength of character in getting themselves to the position that they have. All centres are required to have registered mental nurses on the healthcare staff and visiting consultant psychiatrists will ensure that there is proper access to secondary and tertiary care, including for mental ill health issues. The final point that I have to deal with was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who asked for some correspondence relating to the supervision of care managers and how it is intended that that will be introduced. I have scoured my notes and asked officials, but I do not have any material with which I can reply to the noble Earl this afternoon. However, I accept that it is an important issue and, clearly, we want to ensure that we have proper models of supervision in place; it is quite properly an issue that we need to be on top of. I think that we are on top of it, but I should be happy to write and describe that managerial process for the noble Earl. Of course, I shall share that with other Members of the Committee. That was a full response but I have tried to answer all the various points. I accept that this is a very difficult and sensitive issue.