My Lords, on Clause 45 there are concerns about priority removal notices, but I am aware that at least part of the clause, to standardise the five days’ notice before removal, was welcomed by the JCHR. I welcome the questions put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and I look forward to the Minister’s response to them.
One reason the Government have given for standardisation is to ensure that there is time built in for the person to seek legal advice. However, the clause does not include any practical guarantee of access to legal advice. Can the Minister explain how the Government will ensure that legal advice will be provided? As has been discussed in previous debates, the legal aid sector is under pressure, so it will be interesting to know how the Government expect that to work.
There are also concerns over Clause 47, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, just outlined. Detention is a tool that should be used where it is purposeful,
needed and proportionate. The deprivation of liberty is significant, and it is also a tool which, as we know, is exceptionally expensive to the taxpayer. Where a person’s previous conduct is relevant, such as where it makes them likely to abscond, that is already taken into account. We have also already taken into account where the person may have a detrimental effect on the community, such as by being a threat to public health or public order, or where we need to protect another person. So what does this provision add, other than to use detention, and charge it to the taxpayer, where it may not be strictly necessary?
Currently, we are not getting the use of detention right, as the Minister will know. Can she confirm how many cases there have been of unlawful detention in the past few years, and at what cost that has been to the public purse? In the other place, it was said that more than 500 people were wrongly detained, causing the Home Office to pay out more than £15 million over the past two years. Also, is it not the case that the majority of people in detention are released rather than removed, with their costly detention having served no purpose? At this stage, we are not convinced that this suggested change will improve things rather than making them a bit worse.