UK Borders Bill

I understand the motivation for this amendment but it is not one that we consider necessary. I shall set out why that view is taken. It is important that individuals who have been detained under Immigration Act powers should be able to access competent, independent advice and representation at an early point. So there is no difference between us on that first principle. All detainees are given details of how to contact the Immigration Advisory Service and the Refugee Legal Centre at the point of initial detention. This is reinforced by the requirements in the removal centre operating standards for detainees to be informed of their right to legal representation and how they can obtain such representation within 24 hours of their arrival at an immigration removal centre. In practice, this information is normally provided on arrival at the centre. Information about the Immigration Advisory Service, the Refugee Legal Centre, a list of legal representatives and a list of approved immigration advisers must be held in the centre library and be made available to detainees. I am aware of concerns that where immigration detainees are held initially at police stations—usually before they are transferred to a removal centre—it may not always have been easy for them to gain ready access to immigration advice. I also know that this issue has been highlighted by Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons and the JCWI. The Legal Services Commission were concerned that crime duty solicitors, who would normally be contacted on behalf of detainees, are not best placed to provide advice to individuals held at police stations for non-criminal immigration matters, and wanted to explore how this gap might best be filled. The LSC have therefore been running a pilot scheme since June 2006 to provide independent immigration advice by telephone on non-criminal immigration matters to people detained at police stations. It believes that telephone advice is the most effective and responsive method of providing advice to these people, who will usually be held for very short periods in police stations before being transferred to an immigration removal centre or released. The pilot exercise has provided detainees at police stations with easy access to legal advice. It complements the advice surgeries that the LSC has put in place at removal centres. The LSC is evaluating the pilot before considering whether to make it permanent, although initial indications are that it works well. Therefore, we are alert to the concerns that lie behind the amendment and are tackling them in a practical way. I hope that noble Lords opposite will agree that this is a sensible and effective way of addressing the issue, and most likely to achieve real practical benefits for those concerned. I suppose that what lies behind this is the question: why are immigration detainees held in police stations? Initially, they may be held in relation to criminal matters, including immigration offences, before being either transferred or, where that is not appropriate, released. There are limits to the period of time that detainees can be held in police stations. They can be held only for a maximum of five days, perhaps with the addition of a further two days if removal directions are set within that period. We believe that we are providing detainees with sufficient support and legal advice. We are not aware of extensive complaints, although I am very interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will say on that matter. I should be most grateful to hear from the noble Lord if there are cases where there is a problem so that they can be properly investigated. The noble Lord has previously raised the issue of the Crawley case. I am sure that is being properly looked at. I was very grateful to the noble Lord for raising the issue of bogus immigration advisers the other day. I think that that underlines the importance of having suitably accredited immigration advisers and solicitors in place. Some years ago, we put in place legislation to ensure that the issue was, if you like, put back on the straight and narrow and that there were offences for misrepresenting people’s ability to give proper, accurate and timely advice on immigration matters. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, made a plea for alternatives to prison. That seemed like a general plea and not one specifically related to what is in front of us this afternoon. I do not intend to go into great details about penal policy and why we have the range of measures that we do. That would not assist us greatly in considering this particular issue this afternoon, but of course the noble Lord is welcome to raise that issue more generally in your Lordships’ House. I know that he has in the past.