Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

Perhaps I may repeat what Jack Straw said during the debate on Part III of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. He stated:"““Part III fulfils the commitment in the White Paper to introduce a more extensive judicial element in the detention process. That will be achieved by introducing routine bail hearings for those detained under immigration legislation””.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/2/99; col. 39.]" Part III was then repealed by the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Angela Eagle MP said in Committee that the repeal was an administrative decision based on the view that automatic bail hearings,"““would be a logistical nightmare that would divert scarce resources from processing asylum applications””.—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee E, 14/5/02; col.256.]" What I cannot understand is that a Labour government, which was concerned enough about detainees to pass legislation to protect their rights in 1999, decided three years later that bail mechanisms were unnecessary and bureaucratic. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, by 2005, many more people were being detained and there is a lot more public concern. At Second Reading I mentioned the situation at Oakington. The official involvement of Her Majesty’s Inspector of Prisons under Clause 45 is of course welcome since it should demonstrate greater official interest in the detention estate, and there is room for that. It may also be helpful for this Committee to have one or two other facts about detention. There are no official statistics of the numbers detained, which obviously fluctuate wildly. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has said, there has been a significant increase in the use of detention. The Government’s own figures to the end of June 2005 show that more than 20 per cent of detainees had been detained for over three months, and in 55 cases for over a year. It will get worse under the five-year strategy which anticipates greater use of detention. The real sufferers are the detainees, including genuine but unrecognised asylum seekers who have had no automatic independent review. Many have poor, if any, legal representation. HMIP said last year that,"““access to competent and independent legal advice is becoming more, not less, difficult as fewer private practitioners offer legally aided advice and representation””." As a patron of Haslar Visitors Group which works very closely with BID South, I know that BID South is so overloaded that nobody gets a bail hearing through that organisation until they have been in detention for at least three months. But once taken on they have a 50 per cent success rate. The promised legal advice scheme for detainees has still not started at Haslar, and is not likely to impact on bail as there is to be only 30 minutes of free advice. The scheme will in any case be a second rate service, as it is to be provided over the telephone. Telephone advice is particularly unsatisfactory for people for whom English is a foreign language. There are also human rights issues, and I expect others who are more qualified will know the arguments already rehearsed in the European Court in the case of GB v Switzerland where the court ruled that it is for the state to organise its judicial system in such a way as to enable its courts to comply with Article 5 safeguards. In conclusion, I hope that the Minister recognises the need at least to reconsider the Government’s decision in 2001. Practical problems are no excuse for the denial of a fundamental right of independent judicial oversight. Now is the time for Parliament to act to put in place legal safeguards against prolonged and unnecessary detention.