UK Borders Bill

moved Amendment No. 13: 13: After Clause 16, insert the following new Clause— ““Exemption from detention: vulnerable adults (1) The Secretary of State shall have a duty to prevent the detention of vulnerable adults. (2) The Secretary of State shall have a duty to ensure the release of vulnerable adults held in detention. (3) In this section, ““vulnerable adults”” shall include those groups that the Secretary of State shall decide, and must include— (a) victims of torture, (b) pregnant women, and (c) those with serious physical or mental health conditions.”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, I start by paying tribute to the careful and painstaking work of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It examined and took evidence on the whole subject of the treatment of asylum seekers and drew the attention of Parliament to particular aspects of the Bill. I regret that the Government have accepted few, if any, of its recommendations, just as they rejected virtually all the amendments over which we laboured in Grand Committee. Amendment No. 13 is designed to implement the recommendation in paragraph 236 from the Joint Committee. This is referred to in section 39 of the Government’s response to the JCHR, to be found in House of Lords Paper 134 of 5 July this year. Sections 36 to 38 and 40 are also relevant to this vexed and complex issue which, as the Minister admitted in Grand Committee on 12 July at col. 273, is a difficult area for government. He went on to say that we as a country should treat decently people who are seeking refuge and who claim to have suffered torture. The noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, confirmed that in a recent Written Answer that stated: "““We do not condone treatment of asylum seekers that is either humiliating or degrading””.—[Official Report, 10/10/07; col. WA16.]." Every parliamentarian in both Houses will agree with those remarks. The problem is, as the Joint Committee pointed out, that a wide gap exists between policy and practice over the detention of vulnerable adults, which was revealed by the evidence taken. That is confirmed by the knowledge that many of your Lordships already have concerning individual cases and by the particular cases that I quoted in Grand Committee on 12 July at col. GC263. I therefore agree with the Joint Committee that the detention of innocent but vulnerable adults continues despite the repeated assurances to the contrary given by Ministers in successive Governments, which I have previously detailed. On 12 July, the Minister said, at column GC277, that the appropriate procedures were being followed. That may be so, but, I suspect, only in the sense that allegations and suspicions of previous torture and rape are recorded and passed on up the line with appropriate receipts being given. What happened about the 57 torture reports in the first half of 2006 from the Harmondsworth centre alone, as detailed by Her Majesty’s Inspector of Prisons? Despite the procedures, verification is seldom done. This should happen through references to the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture or to other experienced doctors. It appears to happen too seldom or only after excessive delays. A different sample of 56 cases analysed by Medical Justice, which was quoted by my noble friend Lady D’Souza at col. GC266, was convincing in highlighting the gap between theory and practice. This amendment is both narrower and wider than the one I moved in Grand Committee. It is narrower because it does not focus on allegations of torture, which may be false or imaginary, and it is wider because it embraces all groups who should objectively be considered as vulnerable. They should include torture survivors, and the Government might like to add words in the Bill or in later guidance concerning prompt verification of torture claims leading to release from detention. The amendment also specifies pregnant women and cases of serious physical or mental ill-health. I have provided for the Secretary of State to add additional categories; for example, women who have suffered gender persecution. The first duty imposed by the amendment is to prevent the detention of the vulnerable. In the nature of things, some mistakes will be made and some vulnerable adults will probably still be detained. There is, therefore, a second duty to ensure their release. I submit that this is a better and more practical amendment, one that is fully in line with the recommendations of the bipartisan Joint Committee on Human Rights. I urge the Government not to reject it out of hand but to honour the many assurances they have given in the past, so that theory and practice will from now on go hand in hand. The responsibility for closing the existing gap surely rests with the Secretary of State. She can do this either by legislation or by administrative means, provided that the latter actually work and produce the results we all want. The Secretary of State therefore has a choice. Will the Minister take away my amendment and come back at Third Reading with something that is satisfactory to all? As a refinement perhaps I may suggest that subsection (2) of my amendment reads ““to ensure the prompt release of vulnerable adults held in detention””. Before sitting down, I will just mention Amendment No. 26, which I welcome. It is constructive and could lead to progress but Amendment No. 13 is stronger. I beg to move