I am perfectly happy to write to noble Lords to give the figures for the number of pregnant women at present in detention and perhaps over a period of six months to cover both before and after Stephen Shaw’s report, so that there are some meaningful figures they can work from. I cannot give exact figures. That may not surprise your Lordships. I am advised that there are very few pregnant women in the estate. However, more precise figures will be given.
The adults at risk policy will take a more holistic and dynamic approach to the assessment of vulnerability, based on the best available evidence. That is what Stephen Shaw has identified as the most ambitious approach to ensuring that adults at risk are safeguarded. However, the approach in the proposed new clause
would not be workable in practice. It does not take into account the realities of how individuals are discovered. For example, how would we handle cases at the border who can be returned on the next flight? Following this amendment, an individual could not be lawfully detained without an order of the tribunal. That would be an administrative challenge to obtain and would require significant extra resources. The same would be true of an individual encountered jumping off the back of a lorry. And what would happen if someone was already detained and raised these issues? Would they be unlawfully detained until an order of the tribunal was given? It is simply not workable in practice.
10 pm
Amendment 216 would require the Government to undertake a review of the quality of immigration detention. In the light of Stephen Shaw’s recommendations, the Government are taking a close look at the quality and fitness of the accommodation on the detention estate and at the regimes within the detention centres. This is not, however, a matter for legislation. The Government already have a raft of guidance and standards in place for ensuring that the regimes in detention centres operate at appropriate levels and in the interests of the welfare of detainees.
Amendment 218 would introduce a statutory time limit on detention, with a requirement that a detained individual be released on bail after 28 days. Amendments 218A and 218B require release after 28 days if, in relation to amendment 218A, the tribunal has not already refused bail as being “not in the public interest” or, in relation to Amendment 218B, unless the individual has been convicted of an offence listed in the Modern Slavery Act 2015. We consider Amendment 218 to be a blunt tool. It would be a statutory requirement to release from detention, no matter what risk was posed and no matter how imminent the removal of an individual might be.
While there is no fixed statutory time limit on the duration of detention under immigration powers, it is not the case that there is no limit on the length of detention. It is limited by statutory measures, by the European Convention on Human Rights, by the common law and what is sometimes referred to as the Hardial Singh principles, and by legal obligations arising from Home Office policy. Home Office policy is clear: detention must be used as a last resort and only for the shortest period necessary.
Published statistics show that the majority of individuals leave detention after 28 days or fewer, with over 90% having left detention within four months. The facts do not bear out the accusation that immigration detention is indefinite. Yes, there are exceptional cases, and one can often cite those without regard to the exceptional facts that lie behind them. Again, without full knowledge of the facts of those individual cases, it is very difficult just to take them out of context and say that there are people who have been there for X period of time.