Amendments 137A, 137B, 137C and 137D relate to removal notices. They seek an assurance, if that is possible—I do not think the Bill suggests otherwise—that the destination of a person liable to be removed is not changed during the process. Change can be benign if it is “from” somewhere to which a person has no connection or their experience there is one of persecution, but of course it could be “to” such a place. That is the first couple of amendments.
By proposing an amendment to the period of notice given, I hope to understand what considerations go into the period of notice. The Bill proposes five working days and I have suggested 15, but, as I say, this is a probing amendment. I raise this not just out of curiosity but because the person being removed will have to get his life in order and will need to know the date.
I do not want to tread—at least not very much—on the toes of my noble friend Lady Ludford regarding the opposition to Clause 47 standing part, which is in this group, but perhaps I may say a word about that now. Immigration bail is not a privilege that can be removed due to lack of co-operation, as is the term. That could include anything from the most trivial act. Immigration bail should be the default position and detention the last resort. I recall, a little hazily, that bail was not being operated as was intended, and the Government addressed this some years ago. Obviously, they did not like what had been happening because, as I understand it, the Government wrote to the president of the First-tier Tribunal expressing surprise at the level of grants of bail. The president felt it necessary to remind the Home Office that, as an independent judiciary, it is the courts that decide bail applications, in accordance with the law.
Why do the Government think that this change is necessary? Previous compliance—“co-operation” is the term used in the Bill—is already taken into account by the Secretary of State and tribunal judges when deciding whether to grant bail. Bail hearings are already unequal. One quite often hears the lawyers in this House talking about the need for an equality of arms; there is not one here, and the Government are introducing in the Bill more procedural requirements for applicants to meet at various points in the process—points at which they might be accused of being unco-operative.
The clause is likely to prolong the detention of people who will be released at the end of their detention —we know that; we have debated it on other occasions—and detention is harmful to the individuals and costly to the public purse. Compliance with immigration bail is actually very high—I will not tax the Committee by reading out the figures I have here. Expanding the use of detention to enable it to be used as a punishment for non-compliance, without procedures and protections arising from the rule of law, is notable. Detention is an administrative rather than a criminal process. It should not be used as punishment or deterrence; its use should be to effect removal from the UK, and a lack of co-operation should not be a reason to incarcerate or punish. I beg to move.
1.15 am