Category: Uncategorized

12 May 2016

The last Immigration Bill debate took place on 10 May 2016, during which Lord Ramsbotham, Baroness Hamwee and Baroness Lister made impassioned speeches in their attempts to safeguard rights and dignity of people trapped in immigration detention.

We created a small Storify that captures this debate and the previous night’s debate at the House of Commons, which you can see here.

Below, we reproduce Lord Ramsbotham’s speech.  You can read the transcript of the debate here.  After this speech, Lord Ramsbotham withdrew his Amendment 84, by saying ‘With a heavy heart, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.’.  

==========================================================

‘My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for the care with which he has set out the Government’s case. I have often thought that the worst experience in life is to be associated with something that you know to be fundamentally wrong, but feel unable to prevent. I am experiencing that today, because, to our collective shame, this House could be about to sanction something that, as a nation, we have roundly condemned, and indeed fought against, when practiced by others over the years—namely, the arbitrary detention of innocent people by administrative diktat, rather than the due process of the rule of law.

During the passage of this dreadful Bill, with more than 400 government amendments suggesting that it had not been thought through before it was introduced, the House has twice voted to uphold the recommendation of a committee of the All-Party Group on Refugees and Migration, of which I and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Lister of Burtersett, were privileged to be members. The committee recommended that administrative detention, ordered by Home Office civil servants, should be limited to 28 days, after which the Home Secretary should be required, by law, to seek the approval of the First-tier Tribunal for any extension. Last night the Minister in the other place spectacularly missed that point when alleging that to specify a maximum time for immigration detention would be arbitrary, would not take account of individual circumstances, and would have a negative effect on the Government’s ability to enforce immigration controls and maintain public safety by encouraging individuals to seek to frustrate the removals process until this time limit was reached.

During the past 19 years I have had frequent cause to express my concern about the appallingly low standard of casework and procedural oversight in our immigration system. This began when, as Chief Inspector of Prisons, I found over 20 people from Bradford, who had been in this country for over 20 years—many of them married and with businesses of their own—who had been arrested and transported to Birmingham prison where, not surprisingly because they had not been charged with any offence, they went on hunger strike against the wholly inappropriate prison regime. Their right to remain in this country had not been processed by the Home Office—which is true today of more than 631,000 others—whose officials saw them as easy pickings for meeting performance indicators. I immediately complained to the Minister responsible, and was asked to take on the inspection of all immigration detention centres for my pains. This included inspecting Campsfield House after a riot, where I found that immigration centre rules were also wholly inappropriate, being based on prison rather than detention rules. My inspectorate and I set about revising them, inviting Home Office officials to work with us, the outcome being the immigration detention rules often quoted in debate on this Bill.

Since retiring as chief inspector, I have been a member of the Independent Asylum Commission, chaired an inquiry into the unlawful killing of an Angolan by G4S guards during an enforced removal, delivered a dossier on deaths and injuries inflicted on others being returned, forwarded reports on the inefficiency of the complaints system to the Home Secretary and lost count of the number of critical reports by inspectors of immigration and prisons that I have read. In other words, my 19-year experience of the immigration system entirely endorses the view of its then titular head, the noble Lord, Lord Reid, who, when Home Secretary, described it as not fit for purpose. Indeed, these experiences have encouraged me to believe that only root-and-branch surgery will enable the system to have any hope of coping with today’s requirements, let alone tomorrow’s, which will be exacerbated not just by civil wars in the Middle East but by other population movements and the effects of climate change.

I must admit that I was somewhat surprised last week when my noble and learned friend Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood and my noble friend Lord Pannick focused on the periphery of theoretical access to the bail system rather than the fundamental obscenity of administrative detention. Their intervention reminded me that, over the years, successive Ministers have preferred to listen to fudge presented to them by their officials rather than facts immediately apparent to anyone who, like me, has had cause to examine them in detail. As has been reported time and again, conditions in our immigration removal centres are not good for a whole variety of reasons, not least lack of Home Office oversight. Four months is far too long for anyone to be condemned to remain in such conditions, certainly when it seems to be primarily for the convenience of incompetent officials and is not sanctioned by a court of law.

I do not pretend that casework is easy—indeed, one former head of the UK Border Agency decreed that only graduates were to do it—but its present standard, judging by the number of successful appeals against it, is appalling. I am not surprised that first the noble Lord, Lord Bates, and then the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, should have announced new arrangements, although I must admit that, having heard similar promises many times in the past 19 years, I will only believe them when I see them.

I now feel squeezed. Not only is time running out before Parliament is prorogued but I fear that, on the evidence of the amendment not being pressed to a vote in the other place last night, should noble Lords support my appeal to put pride in the reputation of our great nation before party political considerations and vote for what in their hearts they know to be right—namely, that administrative detention of anyone, anywhere, is fundamentally wrong—it may not succeed. I am conscious that it is easy for an independent Cross-Bencher to speak like that, but I am conscious, too, of the constitutional position of this House, which I do not want to put at risk.

The immigration system in this country is so dysfunctional that even the Home Office’s favourite reporter, Stephen Shaw, has criticised it in detail. As an optimist, I hope that the Home Secretary will read what he said, and has been said during our debates in this House, before she wilfully damages our global reputation for being a civilised nation by going ahead with her alternative to limiting detention to 28 days. It is with a heavy heart that I beg to move.’

 

12 May 2016

The Immigration Act, scheduled to receive Royal Assent in the coming days, will introduce automatic judicial oversight on the UK’s use of immigration detention for the first time and a 72-hour time limit on the detention of pregnant women.  

During the passage of the Immigration Bill which began in October last year, the Government listened to growing disquiet over immigration detention, raised by Parliamentarians and the general public. 

Two detention-related amendments (judicial oversight and the detention of pregnant women) became the focus of the ping-pong in the very final stage of the Bill, which concluded on 10th May 2016 at the House of Lords.  In the end, the Government’s amendments were passed.  You can read the transcript here. 

These two detention policy changes are designed to offer increased safeguards against the impact of indefinite detention, although their mechanisms and effectiveness are unknown at the moment.

The judicial oversight amendment (Motion 84C of this document) creates a new legal obligation for the Home Office to initiate bail hearings for individuals who have been detained longer than four months and who have not applied for bail during that period.

In tabling this amendment, the Government made it clear that they recognise the need for increased judicial oversight.  In the face of strong support for Lord Ramsbotham’s Amendment 84, the Government also offered a limited concession by reducing the length of period before automatic bail hearings take place from six months of detention to four months of detention.

While the Act will introduce automatic judicial oversight of immigration detention for the first time in the UK, it does not sufficiently address the growing cross-party concern at the overuse of detention. The Parliamentary Inquiry of the APPGs on Refugees and Migration and the Shaw Review both called for a strengthening of legal safeguards against excessive lengths of detention.  Yet the safeguards offered are limited: migrants will still be detained for up to four months without any judicial oversight, and some groups are excluded altogether from automatic judicial oversight.  Particularly disturbing is an exclusion of ex-offenders who, after having finished their criminal sentences, find themselves incarcerated, with no time limit, under immigration detention powers.

The detention of pregnant women amendment will set a time limit of 72 hours over the length of the time pregnant women can be detained, extendable up to a week.  The Government recognises the detrimental impact detention has on pregnant women and appears to send a signal that indefinite detention is not a necessary part of immigration control.

On the surface, this new policy for pregnant women is an extension of a safeguarding time limit currently available for families with children who are facing return to their country of origin.  However, it is unclear how this is going to be achieved without a mechanism equivalent to the Independent Family Returns Panel which has been playing a vital part in restricting the number of families with children who are detained at Cedar Pre Departure Accommodation.

Eiri Ohtani of the Detention Forum cautiously welcomed these policy shifts;

“We appreciate the Government’s willingness to engage with the detention reform agenda we and others have been advocating for many years.  They have given careful considerations to our proposals, agreed to take small steps towards change and promised to have their progress reviewed by Stephen Shaw at the end of 2017.  We are particularly humbled by the commitment and passion shown by sympathetic MPs and peers, who fought tooth and nail to secure as much protection as possible for people in detention in this otherwise devastatingly hostile Bill. We now need to examine the possible impact of these changes and offer our analysis to the Government. Without a clear time limit on detention, however, a radical reform of immigration detention remains elusive. These changes are just the beginning and certainly not the end.”

Ali McGinley of the Association of Visitors to Immigration Detainees (AVID) said;

“That detention became so central to the immigration bill, and that we now have these two detention amendments, is no small feat. We are grateful to the MPs and Peers who supported our calls for detention reform, and in particular acknowledge the importance of the first automatic judicial oversight mechanism in providing scrutiny that did not exist before. However there is still a long way to go if we are to see the substantive overhaul that is so desperately needed, and which was recommended by the parliamentary inquiry last year. While these policy changes give us a glimmer of hope, there is still much to do. What has become clear during the debates on this bill, however, is that the energy and commitment towards further reform is not waning.”

Abdal, Freed Voices said; 

“It’s great that the Government has recognised that the indefinite detention of pregnant women is both damaging and unecessary. But this same logic applies to everyone in detention. I was detained for over five years. Was it damaging? I lost my career, my kids, my mental health, everything. Was it necessary? I’m here, in the community, giving this quote, so no, I can’t see how you could argue that it was. It doesn’t matter who you are – man, woman; mother, father; black, white; young, old – indefinite detention is always damaging and always unecessary.” 

John, Freed Voices said; 

“Automatic bail hearings after four months are like admitting you have a serious problem but saying you’re not really going to tackle it. We need judicial oversight from Day One, not Day 120.” 

4th May 2016

UPDATE 10 May 2016

The parliamentary “ping-pong” process is in full swing and the Immigration Bill returns to the Lords today at 3pm, after it was debated in the Commons last night.  You can read the transcript from the 9th May Immigration Bill debate at the Commons here.  (Strangely) There was no vote on the Ramsbotham amendment, and the result of the vote on the pregnancy amendment was 296 – 258.  Both detention amendments, as explained below, are back at the Lords.  Please keep the pressure up for the Ramsbotham amendment.  

Please also see the list of motions here.  

UPDATE 6 May 2016 

A big thank you to everyone who has been lobbying MPs to support the Lord Ramsbotham amendment – we are now seeing its impact.  The Government is feeling the pressure of the enormous disquiet from MPs, the House of Lords and the campaigners and has now published a ‘compromise’ amendment to the controversial judicial oversight clause that can leaves people in administrative incarceration for six months with not judicial oversight at all. 

The new amendment, published late last night, reduces the length of time before automatic bail hearings of people in detention take place from six months of detention to four months of detention. 

However, this ‘compromise’ amendment does nothing to address the serious misgivings highlighted in our briefing paper, in particular, the key thrust of both the Parliamentary Inquiry into the Use of Immigration Detention and the Shaw Review that the UK detains far too many people far too long and that the UK must immediately stop the practice of using detention as a norm rather than as an exception.

So please continue to lobby your MPs not to accept this ‘compromise’ amendment and instead to support the Ramsbotham amendment, as explained below.  This is not the same as a time limit on detention we would like to see as a first step in meaningful detention reform project, but we need to get all we can get from this Immigration Bill.  Thank you.  

==================================

This is a quick summary of where things stand with the Immigration Bill in relation to immigration detention, as it returns to the Commons on Monday 9 May 2016.  Here’s a document which shows which amendments the Lords are sending back to the Commons and why.  

With David Cameron’s announcement today that the Government will not oppose what has come to be known as the Dubs amendment (Lords amendment 87: Unaccompanied refugee children: relocation and support), only two issues of contention remain to be resolved next week, which will require the votes of MPs.  They are the detention of pregnant women and judicial oversight.   

The fact that so much of the Immigration Bill has been about immigration detention shows how far we have come, in terms of communicating, campaigning, advocacy and lobbying.  Our work is far from over, and when this “ping-pong” stage comes to an end, we will need to take stock of what we have achieved but also how we will continue to work towards our goal.  

For the 9th May, the Detention Forum is focussing on judicial oversight amendment.  It is important that MPs are informed and encouraged to support Lord Ramsbotham’s amendment (Amendment 84), which provides far greater scrutiny over the Home Office’s power to detain than the Government has been willing to agree to so far. 

After the Government has had to back down on the Dubs amendment, they are unlikely to want to face another defeat.   Therefore, it is crucial that we apply as much pressure as possible on the Government to hammer in the message that we need a radical reform of detention, not a meaningless gesture just to appease us.  

The Government has already tried to water down the Ramsbotham amendment, by offering their own amendment, which would implement automatic bail hearings for those who have not applied for bail for six months.  The Lords voted down the Government amendment and sent back the Ramsbotham amendment to the Commons, reasoning that this is unsatisfactory. 

The Detention Forum’s briefing here explains why we support the Ramsbotham amendment.  Even thought this falls short of a time limit of 28 days that we are advocating for, we welcome an attempt to instil a new practice within the Home Office where any detention beyond 28 days must be authorised by the First-Tier Tribunal. This creates a new norm that detention beyond 28 days must be exceptional and requires a judicial oversight; and this introduction of judicial oversight is, in itself, quite significant in the UK context.  

The Ramsbotham amendment reflects a cross-party concern at the over-use of detention expressed both by the Parliamentary Inquiry into the Use of Immigration Detention and the Shaw Review.  Given that the vast majority of individuals held in immigration detention do make bail applications within six months of being detained, the Government amendment would only benefit a small number of individuals.  Those who might benefit are likely to be the ones who are extremely vulnerable.  While the Government might insist that their new ‘adults at risk’ policy would prevent detention of such individuals, given the Government’s poor record of preventing detention of vulnerable pepole, we believe it is highly inappropriate for the Government to suggest that such people can be left in detention for six months without judicial oversight.  Therefore, we urge MPs to support the Ramsbotham amendment.  The Government amendment will do very little to change the UK culture of detention.  

You might like to consider emailing or tweeting your MPs to let your view known.  When the Commons defeated the Ramsbotham amendment, it was defeated by 36 votes.  The Government might offer some sort of compromise before 9th May, in order to avoid another vote.  We expect the Government’s new amendment to be made public late tomorrow (Thursday 5 May).  

There might a feeling among supporters that, after the Dubs amendment concession, there is nothing left to do with the Immigration Bill.  That is far from the truth and we would be grateful if you can continue to encourage your supporters and others to lobby their MPs.  

You can read other organisations’ blogs as well, which provide more background information.  

Right to Remain – Let the light in: ask your MP to back judicial oversight of immigration detention

Detention Action – Lords defeat the Government again over detention

(Note on the detention of pregnant women.  In response to the Lords’ demand that there be an absolute ban on the detention of pregnant women, the Government offered a compromise through its amendment, introducing a time limit of 72 hours for this category of individuals, extendable up to seven days.  A similar 72 hour detention time limit rule is currently applicable to families with children who are facing return from the UK to their country of origin, via the mechanism of the Independent Family Returns Panel.  When the Bill returns to the Commons, the discussion is likely to focus on to what extent and how it is ensured that pregnant women will be detained only under very exceptional circumstances. )

Last night (15 March), the House of Lords voted in favour of an amendment to the Immigration Bill proposed by Lord Ramsbotham, Lord Rosser, Baroness Hamwee and Lord Roberts of Llandudno, that addressed the lack of judicial oversight on immigration detention in the UK.

The amendment (which can be read at paragraph 84 here) proposes that a person may not be detained for a period longer than 28 days; or for periods of longer than 28 days in aggregate. This period of detention may be extended by the First-tier Tribunal if the Home Office apply for an extension on the basis that “exceptional circumstances of the case require extended detention”.

Peers voted by 187 to 170 in favour of the amendment in the Immigration Bill debate, and during the debate, peers advocated both for increased judicial oversight of detention, as well as a time-limit on how long someone can be detained. Currently, the UK has no time-limit on detention: people can be detained indefinitely, for months and even years.

During the debate, Lord Brown (cross-bench) recognised the importance of:

the basic principle that administrative detention ought ordinarily to be subject to close scrutiny and control and not left as presently it is merely to bail applications and the courts’ general supervisory jurisdiction, with all the increasing problems that we know about of obtaining legal aid, and so forth, for such challenges.

The Detention Forum has long called for increased judicial oversight of detention, and the introduction of a maximum 28-day time-limit on how long someone can be detained.

Fred, speaking on behalf of the Freed Voices group, says:

“It’s a big step forward for the #Time4aTimeLimit campaign. But it is only a step and we should recognise it as that. Between us, the Freed Voices group have lost over 20 years to immigration detention but most of our group would not have benefited from this amendment if it were law. Indefinite detention was an abuse of our universal human rights. The time-limit needed to address this abuse has to be universal too – for everyone, and not just some.”

Mia Hasenson-Gross, the director of René Cassin: says:

“The vote in the Lords is the clearest indication yet that the policy of indefinite detention is becoming more and more indefensible. The successful amendment goes some way to achieving a fairer system and shows progress, but there is still work to be done to ensure that vulnerable people are not left out of the progress being made.

Eiri Ohtani, coordinator of the Detention Forum, says:

“Last night’s debate and vote in favour of the amendment indicates that there is now a strong political recognition that detention requires greater oversight and that such oversight requires a concrete legislative change.  The Detention Forum is campaigning for increased judicial oversight, and a maximum 28 day time-limit for all those detained, which is not reflected in this particular amendment.  We welcome this important step forward and thank the peers who have listened to our concerns and have spoken in favour of these crucial reforms. At the same time, we must recognise that there is still much work to be done on achieving the fundamental detention reform and protection of human rights that the parliamentary inquiry into detention, and the recent Shaw Review, have called for.  We urge all the campaigners and supporters to continue to work towards a time-limit that leaves no one behind.”

Stephen Shaw’s Equanimity – Evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee on the Shaw Review and Government Response.

Stephen Shaw gave evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee on 9^th February 2016 regarding his ‘Review into the Welfare in Detention of Vulnerable Persons’.   Maybe surprisingly, he told the Committee “I am conscious that in the House of Lords last week there was some criticism of the written ministerial statement in response to the Report – perhaps curiously I don’t share that criticism”.  

The House of Lords had certainly been highly critical of the Government’s response so far.  Interestingly, however, Stephen Shaw stated he was pleased by the reaction of the Govt. 

He felt two things were working in the Review’s favour, “leaving aside the moral and ethical arguments”.  First, “the things that the Prime Minister has been talking about in respect of the Prison Service”, and second, “you’ve got significant sums of public money involved and in my view quite a lot of that public money could be better expended in ways which would – keep people out of detention”.  Reiterating how “one of the underlying themes in the Report has been the absence of a strategic approach” to immigration detention, he said he believed that the Government seems to “intend to take such an approach”.

In evidence, Stephen Shaw shared the Government’s view of what the three priorities should be in its response to the Review.  Firstly, “those people who are most vulnerable – where the Government talks about developing an adults at risk approach to a whole group of people”.  Secondly, “the incidence of mental health problems within the detention estate and the degree to which detention itself and the length of detention can exacerbate those problems – [where] I strongly welcome the Government’s further needs assessment with the NHS”.  Thirdly, “a new approach to casework management – [where] I think we need to see the detail of that”.  Stephen Shaw concluded these remarks by saying: “those three things would meet many of the first level requirements of the Report – other things either require agreement with other bodies – or they require contractual changes – or they may have resource implications which need to be fitted in with the rest”. 

The contribution that Stephen Shaw has made in ensuring ‘casework management’ is one of the three priorities is potentially very significant.  The terms of reference of the Review, in many people’s eyes, were arguably not as wide as Stephen Shaw gives credit to the Government for.  But, as most experts have long argued and as the Review accepts, welfare in detention, the fact of detention and length of detention cannot be meaningfully separated. 

As Stephen Shaw explained in evidence to the Home Affairs Committee: “A section of the Report is concerned with trying to strengthen and improve the effectiveness of case-working decisions – both the decision to detain and subsequently in immigration reviews”.  Stephen Shaw was emphatic in his evidence that “voluntary removal or voluntary return, must be the objective in every case” and that detention should only be used to effect removal.  Keith Vaz MP and other members of the Select Committee with a dose of theatricality, and Shaw more soberly, underlined the statistics that 60% of those currently detained are released back into the community raising the question of why these people were ever detained in the first place.

Deserving further praise, in our view, is Stephen Shaw’s willingness to remain firmly mindful of the woefully neglected plight of people in prolonged immigration detention having served out a criminal sentence.  Stephen Shaw acknowledged in evidence to the Home Affairs Committee:  “Those who are longest in detention are almost exclusively in the rather ugly phrase time-served foreign national offenders”.  He went on to say, “I encountered two men in Wormwood Scrubs who had been in detention for far far longer than the prison sentence that they had served – and in those cases neither of them had made a Bail application, which then fed into some of my concerns about the effectiveness of the review process”. 

Asked by the SNP’s Stuart C. McDonald MP how many people might benefit from the more robust safeguards to prevent detention and ensure release of the most vulnerable, Stephen Shaw estimated “in the high tens or low hundreds of people”.  Although hugely concerned about these people, Stephen Shaw went on to say: “The thing that would make the biggest impact on the population as a whole are the detention decisions and the average length of detention”.

On the issue of a time-limit Stephen Shaw said in evidence: “I’m very aware that one must act within one’s jurisdiction and one’s terms of reference – so I did not think it was right and proper to solicit formal evidence on the time-limit itself – whether it should be 28 days – or as Parliament had previously debated 60 days – what the implications would be for the existing safeguards, whether there would be exceptions, how they would be policed – I hope that Government in taking forward the broad thrust – I hope that Government will look at strengthening the process of casework management, considering an independent element, looking at the timing of bail reviews and whether there should be some automaticity at some point – and how all of that might marry with a time limit – I don’t take the view that a time-limit is a panacea particularly in respect of criminal casework – nor do I think there is something somehow un-British about a time-limit – we are very used to time-limits in police custody – we’re used to statutory time-limits in the courts”.

Stephen Shaw further used a question from David Burrowes MP on strengthening legal safeguards to set out his expectations in terms of the Government delivering on his recommendations generally.  “There is a limit to my equanimity about these things – I think that sort of time period [12 months] is a fair one – both to see the detail of what has already been announced and to see the response to the remaining recommendations – possibly even the autumn would be early enough for that”.

In respect of women who are pregnant Nusrat Ghani MP spoke of women who are denied access to maternity services and gave the example of “one woman who had to wait three and a half hours for an ambulance while she was bleeding from a miscarriage”.  Asked for his view Stephen Shaw said: “At the moment we are waiting to see the details of the Government’s ‘Adults at Risk’ approach – It seems to me utterly unacceptable that pregnant women should be detained” and elsewhere he said “that argument has I think been strengthened – by the Prime Minister’s remarks this week on the unacceptability of pregnant women and young mums with children being in prison. If that applies to those who have committed offences it seems to me it must apply all the more so to those who are detained having not committed any offence”.

David Winnick MP raised the case of Alois Dvorzac, an 84 year old with Alzheimer’s who died in handcuffs while in detention at Harmondsworth.  Stephen Shaw’s response was: “I’m very familiar with the details of that appalling case – my recommendations couldn’t guarantee that there could be no repetition of such events – but I do talk – about the need for some sort of age limit as well”. 

Of course, a crucial key to ensuring the release of vulnerable people from detention, is the Rule 35 process, so roundly criticised for so long.  In relation to Rule 35, and the concerns recently expressed by Freedom from Torture, Stephen Shaw had this to say to the Home Affairs Select Committee: “I said that Rule 35 wasn’t working in the way in which the Home Office thought it would work because – it actually didn’t have confidence in the processes that it had itself established itself.  It didn’t regard the reports provided by doctors working within IRCs as providing sufficiently independent evidence of torture – I took the view that if you have set up this system yet you are rejecting the vast bulk of Rule 35 reports then something has gone badly wrong.  Now the Government in the past has said what we really need to do is we need to train the case workers better, we need to train the GPs better in completing the reports – I’ve no objection to any of that – but I thought, it seemed to me, we need to think a little bit more boldly about this – are there other people who the Government or the Home Office would have more confidence if they were completing reports showing evidence of torture.  So in this, as elsewhere in the report, I am less concerned about the means than the end here.  The end is that it is absolutely outrageous that somebody who has suffered torture at the hands of somebody abroad then is placed by us in detention with all the echoes of that previous incarceration and abuse which detention brings with it – so I’m relaxed as to the means – whether or not it’s replacing Rule 35 or having a wider body of doctors who could provide Rule 35 reports, which is one of the ways I suggested”.

Turning to other issues more focused on welfare in detention, but which emphasise the underlying need to keep detention to an absolute minimum as a genuine last resort, with strict safeguards, Stephen Shaw also gave the following evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee.

In response to questions from Tim Lawton MP on mental health and the incidence of mental illness, Stephen Shaw stated: “depressive illness and anxiety is extraordinarily common – is it more common than in the population at large, yes it is much much higher – is it higher than in prisons? – I can’t give you an authoritative answer – my gut feeling is yes”.  Referring to the literature review on the mental health impact of detention commissioned specifically for the Review, he talked of it “demonstrating I think beyond any doubt that the fact of detention is itself an element in exacerbating mental ill health – and that the longer people are in detention, perhaps unsurprisingly, the greater the effect”.

In consequence, Stephen Shaw said he hoped that the Government’s proposed plan with the NHS would see “additional resources across the board in terms of caring for people’s mental health problems – and a wider range of treatments, therapies – whether talking therapies, whether care suites whatever – that those will also be available”.  “Having said all that” he acknowledged “neither in prison nor in immigration detention do I think you can establish the very best mental health care equivalent to that which we might anticipate in the community”.

In response to other questions on Yarl’s Wood and the detention of women Stephen Shaw described a grim situation crying out for particular attention: “I have spent 35 years going into institutions of one kind or another – I had never encountered anything like what I encountered when I visited Yarl’s Wood last year in terms of both the vehemence of what the detainees told me about healthcare provision – whether fairly or unfairly – but secondly just the very level of demand which itself created huge pressures on healthcare provision – so I think there is a particular issue about women in detention and their healthcare needs – I think the detention of women presents some very specific acute healthcare needs”. 

What of James Brokenshire’s reply to Stephen Shaw’s expression of faith in the Government to implement his Report “speedily and in full”? 

Asking about the “kind of numbers and duration reduction” the Government anticipated, Select Committee member David Burrowes MP elicited the following reply from the Minister: “I’m afraid I can’t share those details with you at this Committee because that is still very much work that is being carried out.  What I can say on timing on a number of the deliverable that I have referenced, on the Adults at Risk Policy we intend to publish that by May, in relation to case-working by the summer we want to have the gatekeeper mechanisms in place to improve decisions about who enters immigration detention and scrutinising the prospects and speed of removal.  We then intend by the autumn to have a new team building greater expertise on making detention decisions in respect of those covered by the new adults at risk policy and by the end of the year we want the current system of detention reviews to be replaced by the removal assessments and reviews that I’ve set out and so in addition to that we are clearly then looking at the immigration estate in its totality and therefore the balance of all of those issues together and that is clearly something that is part of Immigration Enforcement’s Business Planning Process”.

Asked about strengthening legal safeguards, James Brokenshire’s reply was: “This is a complete shift and change in the way we are handling cases and review process looking at whether a person should be in an IRC and an independent team from immigration enforcement that would look at that”.

One may be inclined to take James Brokenshire’s response as further evidence of a Government position long on process, short on commitments and rather evasive.  Yet, standing back a little from Stephen Shaw’s initially surprising enthusiasm for the Government’s response to his Review, one sees Stephen Shaw’s deft framing of the issues and recommendations, perhaps leaving Mr Brokenshire’s position looking a little exposed.

By the Detention Forum team

 

The latest report by the Prison Watchdog published today (1 March 2016) reveals that the UK had let its largest immigration detention centre, Harmondsworth, deteriorate to an “unacceptable” level, with some parts “among the worst in the detention estate”, while continuing to incarcerate migrants without a time limit for an administrative purpose. 

The Chief Inspector of Prisons found that 18 men had been held at Harmondsworth Immigration Removal Centre, over a year, including one man detained for a total of five years, amidst the increase level of vulnerability among the detained population with 50% of them stating that they were depressed or suicidal.  

In his first inspection report on a detention centre, the new Chief Inspector, Peter Clarke also repeated a call for a time limit on the length of the length of detention, first made by his predecessor, Nick Hardwick, in August 2015 in his inspection report of Yarls Wood Immigration Removal Centre.  

Under the contract with the Home Office, Harmondsworth is run by a private security company, MITIE, which also manages the adjacent Colnbrook Immigration Removal Centre where Amir Siman-Tov, a Moroccan Jew in his 30s, was found dead a few weeks ago.  Harmondsworth detains up to 661 men, making it the largest detention centre in the UK. 

The inspection report comes at a time when the Government is under increased pressure to commence its detention reform programme, demanded by the parliamentary inquiry into the use of immigration detention and the government-commissioned Shaw Review into the detention of vulnerable persons.  The UK’s practice of detaining mentally ill migrants indefinitely was described by the Shaw Review as “an affront to civilised values”. 

While the Immigration Minister, James Brokenshire, accepted the broad thrust of the Shaw Review recommendations, that the harmful practice of immigration detention is reduced “without delay”, politicians have been frustrated by the fact that no detailed plan for detention reform has materialised to date. 

UK is also facing another inspection visit by Council of Europe’s anti-torture committee this year, which monitors places of detention.  After their last visit in 2012, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment also recommended that UK ends its practice of indefinite immigration detention.  

Jerome Phelps of Detention Action, one of the Detention Forum members, said, “The detention system as a whole should not have been allowed to reach this state.  Once again, detention has been shown to be failing to meet the minimum standards that society demands.  The Home Office detains far too many people, with inadequate care, for far too long.  The Government has accepted the need for reform; this report shows that that reform must be urgent and fundamental.”

Another member, Ali McGinley, AVID said, ‘Yet again the prisons inspectorate have provided overwhelming evidence of the systemic problems within the immigration detention system, and the impact this has on the individuals held. The continued detention of very vulnerable people leaves them exposed to risk of further harm. Today’s report clearly demonstrates the link between immigration detention and high levels of depression and suicidal ideation. This cannot be allowed to continue. The government, having broadly accepted the call for reform, must now take action promptly’ 

Eiri Ohtani of the Detention Forum added, “The responsibility for this deplorable neglect of the detention estate and those who are held inside lies squarely with the government who has made little progress with detention reform.  It is highly significant that both the previous and the incumbent Chief Inspectors have now recommended a time limit on the length of immigration detention, despite repeated refusals by the government to accept such a change is necessary.  It is high time that the government seriously engaged with this growing demand for a time limit and brought UK in line with other civilised countries in the world.“

Mia Hasenson-Gross of Rene Cassin said, “This report once again highlights the lethal policy of indefinite detention – as evidenced by the tragic death of Jewish Moroccan Amir Siman-Tov at Colnbrook removals center last month. That detention is harmful is beyond dispute – locking innocent and vulnerable people indefinitely is inhumane. Last year, the government led celebrations marking the 800 anniversary of Magna Carta. Its  most famous clause – ‘to no-one will we deny or delay right or justice’ – seems insincere to the people in places like Harmondsworth.“

Sarah Teather of JRS UK said, “Peter Clarke is the second Chief Inspector of Prisons to draw attention to the unacceptably long periods in which people are warehoused in detention and to call for a time limit. The conditions he describes bring shame on the Government, but cleaning up is not enough. The problem is that Britain detains far too many people for far too long. They should invest in alternatives to detention, not new shower blocks.  JRS has long had a ministry to visit those held in detention at Harmondsworth and Colnbrook and our teams meet many whose mental and physical health is wrecked by the experience of indefinite detention.  It is heartening to read in the report that visitors like ours bring some relief to people in this situation, but we long for the day when our ministry will no longer be needed and when all are treated with more dignity and respect.”

Last updated on 6 March 2016

 

Social media volunteers needed!

19 February 2016

We are looking for two to three volunteers who can help us increase our social media presence by;

• making sure our Twitter account is always active
• publishing regularly small pieces of detention-related news that we can share with others
• collating immigration detention related news
• attending detention-related events and file reports about such events

The Detention Forum also runs an exciting project, Unlocking Detention, every year.  This year’s “tour” will start from October. You can find more about last year’s #unlocked at www.unlocked.org.uk

You need to have;

• Solid experience of working or volunteering in a NGO or in a team
• General understanding of immigration detention in the UK (you don’t need to be an expert!)
• Experience of Internet-based research to find information
• Solid experience of using Twitter (you need to have actively used Twitter at least for three months)
• Demonstrable ability to communicate clearly in English
• Ability to work on your own initiative and complete tasks on time
• Access to a computer and Internet connection
• Any design / art / creative skills are a big plus – let us know what skills you have.

In addition, you need to be based in London and must be available to attend a training session from 6pm to 8:30pm in central London on Wednesday 16 March. 

Please do not apply if you do not meet these criteria. 

The Detention Forum currently has one part-time freelance worker who works one to two days a week and five part-time volunteers. They work from home and communicate each other via Skype and emails. You can see why you need to be a self-starter and reliable if you want to join our team!

Due to our limited resources and time, the only tools of communication we have with the outside world are emails, our website and Twitter – so for us, social media work is very important.

We would like the volunteers to be available at least one day a week for at least five months.

The Detention Forum also runs an exciting project, Unlocking Detention, every year.  This year’s “tour” will start from October and end in December You can find more about last year’s #unlocked at www.unlocked.org.uk

If you are interested, please send the following to detentionforum@gmail.com by 3^rd March 2016.

• your CV
• a short covering letter addressing the above points, confirming that you are available for the training and interview, if recruited/shortlisted
• details of your Twitter account
• a short written piece, up to 300 words, on immigration detention (you can write about any topic and theme relating to immigration detention)

We will contact those who are shortlisted.

Interviews over Skype will take place during the day on 7^th March 2016 only. 

Volunteering at the Detention Forum is a lot of work.  However, you will get to learn more about immigration detention and you also have a chance to learn how groups like the Detention Forum, its members and other groups around the UK are challenging the government to reduce and end immigration detention.

We look forward to hearing from you.

The Detention Forum team

17 February 2016

The Detention Forum is saddened to hear about a death in Colnbrook Detention Centre, near Heathrow Airport.  We understand that the exact circumstances of the death remain unconfirmed.  

Our thoughts are with his friends and families, and also others currently detained in Colnbrook who have received this shocking news this morning. 

Over 400 migrants, mainly men, are held indefinitely, without a time limit, at Colnbrook Detention Centre next to the runway of Heathrow Airport.  Many inside suffer from mental health problems and yet, are forced to spend an agonising and uncertain time in administrative incarceration separated from their loved ones, without knowing what might happen to them tomorrow.  Every year, over 30,000 migrants face the same fate in the UK.  

Following the Parliamentary Inquiry into the Use of Immigration Detention last year,  the swell of support for the radical reform of the immigration detention system has been growing day by day – not just in the detention centres, in the communities who are supporting them and among civil society organisations, but also in Parliament.  

The debates during the passage of Immigration Bill in both Houses has been dominated by a call for detention reform, including a call for a time limit on immigration detention.  

Just recently, the government-commissioned review into the welfare of vulnerable individuals held in immigration detention by Stephen Shaw also found that the reform is urgently needed.  

While we welcome the government’s acceptance of the thrust of the Shaw Review, that the size of the detention estate must be reduced, today’s death at Colnbrook is a reminder that changes are not coming fast enough.  In fact, despite having sat on the Shaw Review since September 2015, the government is yet to articulate how it intends to change its detention practice.  

Eiri Ohtani (@EiriOhtani), of the Detention Forum said, “The UK government has no more excuses left to delay its detention reform work.  Investigation after investigation reveals the truth of detention, that it seriously harms people.  When other countries around the world are able to manage their migration with a clear time limit on immigration detention, UK, alone in Europe, claims it cannot do it.  People in detention and communities who are supporting them simply cannot wait any longer for this barbaric practice to end.”

Michael Collins, of Right to Remain said, “Locking people up, with no time limit, cannot be justified in any circumstances. It is not just a serious breach of civil liberties, it can and does destroy people. People who are detained, their families, and the communities they are taken from, are all damaged by this malignant practice.” 

John, of Freed Voices, who was detained in Colnbrook himself wrote in his letter to Colnbrook last year; 

“I met lots of people who had lost hope because they didn’t know when they were getting out. Is this why you don’t have a time-limit? So that people give up?  Even though I’ve been out now for two months, do you know I still have panic attack every time I think about the horror I went through in your detention centre? Three weeks ago I almost fainted at the police station where I usually sign, just because I saw two immigration officers walking towards me. In that moment, I thought I was going to be arrested. I thought I was going to see you again.  Goodbye Colnbrook. I hope I can clear your horror from my memory. I hope we never meet again.”

 

An Opportunity in the Immigration Bill to Restore Hope to People: House of Lords Committee Stage, Immigration Bill 2015/16 – Immigration Detention

Committee Stage in the House of Lords on Monday 1^st February 2016 was the first opportunity Parliament had to consider the Immigration Bill and immigration detention since publication of the landmark Shaw Review.  Lord Roberts of Llandudno eloquently explained what was at stake regarding UK immigration detention: “We have responsibility not only to our own people but to the whole world community. As we deny that responsibility and act in ways that make people very much inferior and in fear, they will grow up to be people without that hope. Our opportunity in this Bill is to restore hope to people”.  Baroness Lister further drew attention to the fact that the UN Human Rights Committee has recommended that the UK introduce a time limit.

Lamentably the Government during Committee proceedings resisted saying which of the Shaw Review’s 64 Recommendations it may implement and provided little information on any internal review processes which may be occurring, resisting calls by Lord Ramsbotham to withdraw and rethink the Immigration Bill as not fit for purpose.  Lord Keen for the Government stated:

“Much of what [Stephen Shaw] says, so far as it is to be implemented, will be implemented by guidance, not by primary legislation… We have set out our ambition to see a reduction in the number of those detained, and the duration of detention before removal, which in turn would improve the welfare of those detained…. The Government have broadly accepted the recommendations that Stephen Shaw made, and in particular will introduce a strengthened presumption that adults at risk should not be detained unless there is clear evidence of immigration risk factors…we will be … introducing a new “adult at risk” concept … adopting a wider definition than at present … with a clear presumption that people who are at risk, including pregnant women, should not be detained….The adults at risk policy will take a more holistic and dynamic approach to the assessment of vulnerability, based on the best available evidence. “

Lord Rosser summed up reaction to the Government’s position well in saying: “I am naturally disappointed by the Government’s reply that things will be done through guidelines when … it is precisely because Home Office guidelines are not adhered to that we have ended up in this situation of concern over immigration detention”.

Lord Stunell showed equal facility in putting the case against the Government’s position: “Does the Minister have a ready list of other policies that cost £160 million a year and produce no measurable benefits whatsoever to anybody? Bearing in mind that two-thirds of these people will be let out into the community eventually, the mental health costs and the costs for the children will fall on the National Health Service. What assessment have the Government made of the additional National Health Service costs?”

The weight of opposition to the Government is looking unprecedented – Lords Committee following on the back of the APPG Detention Inquiry, House of Commons debate on 10^th September, and scrutiny of detention during the Immigration Bill’s passage in the House of Commons.  Parliamentarians in both Houses are joining Civil Society in demanding #Time4aTimeLimit and fundamental reform.  Even Lord Green of Deddington had to admit: “My Lords, I find myself once again in a minority of one in the Committee”.

The Lords Committee saw rafts of amendments seeking to implement key Shaw Review recommendations, including an absolute prohibition on the detention of pregnant women, as well as seeking to implement a strict 28 day time-limit, judicial oversight with automatic bail hearings and reform of the ineffective complaints system for Immigration Removal Centres.  No amendments were pushed to a vote, as is Parliamentary convention at this stage in the House of Lords.  But all non-Government amendments, at a minimum, echoed the conclusions of the Shaw Review:

“Ideally, voluntary returns options should be exhausted, and a community-based approach attempted, before detention is considered” … “there is too much detention…whether by better screening, more effective reviews, or formal time limit — it ought to be reduced”.

Baroness Lister of Burtersett reminded the Committee of the evidence on alternatives to detention: “The coalition found that alternatives to detention, ’maintain high rates of compliance and appearance, on average 90% compliance. A study collating evidence from 13 programs found compliance rates ranged between 80% and 99.9%’”.

Lord Hylton’s reference to the Detention Forum case-study concerning ‘Jacques’ provided ample reminder of the human toll of immigration detention in case anyone needed reminding: “Detained for the purposes of removal to Denmark where he had previously claimed asylum…He had a traumatic history as a child soldier and was severely affected by post-traumatic stress disorder… suffered periodic blackouts and dizziness, …exhibited erratic behaviour, at times running naked out of his room … Jacques was regularly placed in isolation, which appeared to exacerbate his confusion and paranoia”.

Lord Rosser referred to the research evidence that the sense of being in limbo in immigration detention, and the hopelessness and despair it generates, leads to deteriorating mental health.  He argued: “Having a time limit would not only bring an end to the prospect of indefinite detention but would change the culture within the system, which arises when there is no limit to the length of time someone can be detained, without any independent outside check”.

Baroness Hamwee was particularly struck by the paradox well expressed by Dr Melanie Griffiths quoted in the APPG Detention Inquiry report:

“By being detained indefinitely, without knowing how long for and with the continual possibility of both imminent release and removal, detainees worry that detention will continue forever and also that it will end in unexpected deportation the next morning. They have the simultaneous concern both that there will be sudden change and never-ending stasis.”

Baroness Lister applauded Stephen Shaw for his recommendation that there should be an absolute exclusion of pregnant women, given the evidence of the damaging impact of detention on the health of pregnant women and their unborn children.  She was alarmed, though, that the Government’s position is only that the recommendation would be “taken into account”.

As an ex Chief Inspector of Prisons and Immigration Removal Centres, Lord Ramsbotham’s remarks carry particular weight and he lent trenchant support to the recommendations of the APPG Detention Inquiry and Detention Forum key ‘asks’.  He stated: “All my amendments reflect my agreement with the Detention Forum that the Shaw review is a damning demonstration of the need for fundamental reform”.  Recommending the Immigration Bill be withdrawn, he expressed grave concerns that the proposed Home Office and Department of Health joint mental health action plan would not be fully comprehensive if to be published by April.

Equally, given the Government’s inaction on Short-term Holding Facility rules, Lord Ramsbotham had no faith in the Government’s commitment to a new approach to detention case management and new gate-keeping function.  He referred to the interview with retiring Chief Inspector of Prisons, Nick Hardwick, published in the Guardian on Saturday 29 January, in which Nick Hardwick spoke about his anger that comparatively junior officials in the Home Office were able to lock up someone who had not been convicted of anything.

In conclusion, the remarks of Lord Alton addressed at the Government seem apt: “It seems that the cart and the horse have been confused here. Why did we bother asking Stephen Shaw to carry out his review and examine these procedures while we were steamrollering through legislation”.  Surely the Government, as encouraged by the Shaw review, now has to respond “boldly and without delay”, using the Immigration Bill to implement a 28 day time limit and other key Detention Forum demands.

By the Detention Forum team

The Immigration Bill 2015 and Immigration Detention

Experts Give Evidence to MPs in Public Bill Committee on 22 October 2015 [1]

Peter Grady, legal officer at UNHCR, commenced the Public Bill Committee’s discussion of immigration detention provisions of the Immigration Bill on the 22^nd October, by saying, “If I had my one wish…it would be for the introduction of a time limit on detention… to [help] ensure compliance with what UNHCR views as being international standards relating to detention”.  It is a measure of international concern at the UK’s immigration detention system that Peter Grady should choose this of all Immigration Bill issues to wish for change. However, as subsequent expert evidence to the Committee demonstrated, far from improving the UK system of Immigration Detention, the Immigration Bill threatens to make a deplorable situation more grievous still.

Peter Grady’s opening statement provided a platform for Jerome Phelps of Detention Action to give detailed evidence to the Public Bill Committee.  Asked by Labour Shadow Home Office Minister, Sarah Champion, if provisions of the Immigration Bill would fuel more unlawful detention litigation, Jerome Phelps was unequivocal: “Absolutely”.  Many of his concerns centre around the Immigration Bill’s proposals to make, “exceptional”, the current Home Office practice of provisionally offering accommodation to people in detention so they can apply for Bail before the independent First Tier Tribunal.  As Jerome Phelps explained to the Committee:

“The ability of the courts to scrutinise decisions by the Home Office to deprive someone of their liberty is entirely dependent on that person’s ability to apply for bail. That ability is dependent on having an address. It is important to note that that is not out of any concern by the tribunal to reduce homelessness; the primary reason why people in detention have to provide an address to apply for bail are solid immigration control priorities of the Home Office, in that if somebody cannot provide an address, it is very difficult for them to reassure the courts or the Home Office that they will keep in touch and be detainable and removable if it becomes possible.”

Home Office Ministers, including Theresa May, have said they want less detention rather than more detention, and closure of Dover IRC has been presented in that light.  On another day of Committee hearings, Home Office Minister, James Brokenshire maintained: “Depriving someone of their liberty is a serious thing…there should be the presumption of liberty…Our approach to immigration enforcement seeks to promote and encourage more facilitated or encouraged removals, rather than simply to use detention as a means of achieving the outcome”.

And yet as Jerome Phelps cogently argued to the Committee on the 22^nd October, not offering accommodation to facilitate bail applications will increase frustration, alienation and probably non-compliance within the detention estate; it will result in more detention at greater cost to the tax-payer, as well as more cases in the High Court for unlawful detention, at a time when the High Court is reeling under pressure and the Home Office is paying out around £3m a year already in unlawful detention claims.  In addition, if people are released without an address, the Home Office faces extra spending on trying to find people who can no longer be traced.

In evidence to the Committee Jerome Phelps highlighted that in the case of detention policy – the Government’s stated aim of effective immigration control goes hand in hand with respect for the rights of people in detention and trust in the system – where detention is time-limited and genuinely used as a last resort with proper safeguards, people are more likely to engage with the system of return.

Other expert witnesses before the Committee on the 22^nd October addressed the provisions in the Immigration Bill which would allow the Home Office to re-detain someone after they have been granted bail by a Judge of the independent First Tier Tribunal, or to vary or impose conditions on Bail after the Judge has considered the need for conditions.

Adrian Berry, Chair of ILPA (Immigration Law Practitioners’’ Association), characterised these provisions to the Committee as, “a power grab, if you like, on the part of the Home Office against independent judicial scrutiny”.  He continued: “Without independent regular judicial oversight, you are going to have more unlawful detention cases and more compensation being paid out. As people have said, nobody wants that. It is not a good situation.”  He also wondered how upending independent judicial decisions will affect confidence in the system.

Colin Yeo, a highly respected barrister at top-ranked chambers Garden Court and a frequent blog contributor to Freemovement website, was equally critical in front of the Committee: “The Bill will have the effect of reducing scrutiny rather than increasing it. It turns independent hearings into, virtually, a charade.”

As was pointed out on another day in Committee, Lord Justice Neuberger has stated, “A statutory provision which entitles a member of the executive to overrule a decision of the judiciary merely because he does not agree with it would not merely be unique in the laws of the United Kingdom, it would cut across two constitutional principles which are also fundamental components of the rule of law.”

Jerome Phelps, stressed to the Committee on the 22^nd October, that having a system of safeguards – bail being a primary safeguard – is essential in trying to reduce the potential for abuse within the UK detention system, which is already confronted with a series of findings by UK courts of breaches of Article 3 ECHR (an absolute right prohibiting torture, and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and a very high threshold in practice).  Article 3 breaches have been found in six cases in the last four years in relation to desperately vulnerable mentally ill people who had complete psychiatric collapse as a result of immigration detention here in the UK.

Set against a back-drop of wider evidence to the Public Bill Committee on the Immigration Bill, from experts concerned with poor decision making by the Home Office (around 40% of immigration cases are won on appeal, and around 60% of asylum support decisions), one is left wondering what further suffering will result from the proposals in the Immigration Bill to subvert independent scrutiny of the decision to detain and undermine a detained person’s capacity to apply for Bail.

Colin Yeo expressed matters well: “what I do see, as a lawyer dealing with the migrants and their families who are affected by the laws passed by Parliament, is that those laws have human consequences. We meet broken families: children who have lost their parents, parents who have lost their children, spouses who have been separated. They are people whose lives have been ruined or significantly impaired by bad Home Office decisions”.  He also pointed out that many of those family members are themselves British Citizens, something often overlooked.

Examples of poor decision making by Home Office officials were abundant in evidence to the Committee, for instance where couples are interviewed for hours at a time, sometimes 300 questions each, and not knowing the answer to questions such as the colour of the wife’s toenails or the skin cream she uses leads to a decision that it is a sham marriage and there is no genuine relationship and detention and removal follows.  Evidence of the way in which innocent people can inadvertently fall foul of immigration enforcement was also plentiful – plenty of examples of Home Office evidential requirements not obvious on the face of an application and so complicated as to be almost impossible to fulfil at times.  Manjit Gill QC giving evidence to the Committee said the “quality of initial decision-making is unspeakable” and drew particular attention to decisions involving children, saying: “You may have come across decisions of the upper tribunal, and particularly of the president, Mr Justice McCloskey. In a case called “J.O.” – I can send you copies if need be – he severely criticised how the interests of children are dealt with in decision letters. They seem simply to pay lip service to the best interest duty. He basically tore the decision-making process to pieces in his decision”.

Every such instance of poor Home Office decision making or inadvertent error will very possibly lead on to detention and untold misery for the person concerned, family and friends.  All the more need for a time limit of 28 days, automatic independent judicial oversight of detention and proper protection for vulnerable people.

If Mr Brokenshire and the Government are sincere about their stated direction of travel, of wanting to use immigration detention less, with better effect and greater cost-efficiency. Let’s hope they will be open to amendments aimed at furthering the Detention Inquiry recommendations.  Let’s hope they will steer away from the darker scenario contemplated by many in evidence and epitomised in the change of terminology effected by the Immigration Bill, summarised by Gavin Newlands (SNP), MP for Paisley and Renfrewshire North:

“The Bill removes the concept of temporary admission and creates a situation whereby anyone without leave who is waiting for a decision on their application will be on immigration bail. The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association and others make the important point that the terminology of ‘immigration bail’ suggests that detention is the norm and liberty an aberration and also suggest that persons seeking asylum are a form of criminal. Liberty also makes the point that a large number of asylum seekers, previously granted temporary admission will now be seen exclusively through a prism of detention and bail, casting aspersions of illegitimacy and criminality”.

We will bring you news of developments as the Immigration Bill enters Report Stage and Third Reading in the House of Commons and then passes to the House of Lords.  Please keep up the pressure for our key asks.

[1] October 22nd was a chance for an impressive array of experts in migration and asylum law to give evidence to MPs on the implications of the Immigration Bill for immigration detention.  The occasion was a public evidence session of the Immigration Bill Public Bill Committee in the House of Commons which has been scrutinising the Immigration Bill following second reading in the Commons.  Public Bill Committee stage allows more detailed line by line consideration of a Bill.  In providing testimony on October 22nd the experts made an invaluable contribution to the attempt to change the course of the Immigration Bill as it moves on to Report Stage and Third Reading in the Commons before passing on to the House of Lords.

By the Detention Forum team