| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have participated in the debate and shown their usual level of expertise and a keen interest in an important policy relating to my department. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, indicated, we have agreed the principles of what should underlie the treatment of asylum seekers in this country. I welcome his comments and the way in which the noble
Baroness, Lady Williams, reinforced his contribution. She emphasised that from those principles certain consequences flow in terms of the desirable way in which we may succeed in pursuing our policy.Many questions were raised but I want first to indicate our view that we have carried out a full consultation. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said that additional time would have been advantageous. He also pointed out that he could see more useful ways in which the past few weeks might have been used. However, decisions had to be reached on the development of the new rules and he will recognise that substantial progress was made on the original draft, which was based on a set of principles more related to prison detention. There has been movement towards greeting asylum seekers within a framework of detention centres with special categorisation. That is entirely right.
I cannot provide reassurance about the speed at which we move towards a situation in which no one is held in prisons, for the simple reason that it is related to the adequacy of the accommodation as it comes on stream. But I believe that noble Lords will give the Government full credit for the fact that what is being developed is a range of new facilities which will ensure that an increasing number of places are available. It means that, regrettably, for a number of months people will still be held in prisons. The noble Baroness mentioned two specific prisons. I understand that that particular accommodation will continue to be used while the new facilities come on stream.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. I shall not interrupt again. Since the Minister has told us very honestly that Cardiff, Winchester and other prisons are likely to continue to be used for this purpose, will the Home Office reconsider its own pledge in the White Paper to the effect that if a substantial number of detainees who have not committed any offence are kept in prison it is possible to apply detention rules, not prisons rules, to that group of individuals?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, where we have the ability to use specific wings of prisons to create separate facilities that is a principle to which we shall adhere and seek to develop in practice. That does not obtain across the whole range of provision at the present time, desirable though that would be. I believe the noble Baroness recognises that in circumstances where it is not possible entirely to separate the two categories, inevitably prison rules will obtain. I re-emphasise a point which I made, perhaps in a slightly inarticulate fashion, when we discussed these issues in the first debate. There is a difficulty with regard to prison rules which we all recognise are not appropriate for people who are not detained for breaking any law in this country. Unfortunately, where such detainees are obliged to be located in a prison, we cannot, because entirely separate facilities are not available, see a way to dilute prison rules which operate for the majority of people in that establishment. But the noble Baroness will recognise
that we seek to move as effectively as we can to reduce the number, against the background that we are not entirely masters in our own house, given the fact that the numbers of people who apply for asylum, as the noble Viscount indicated, put pressure on the system with all the strains that that imposes in terms of availability of accommodation.However, we believe that we have made considerable progress in the development of the rules. Although I understand the disappointment of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, at certain aspects of the outcome, perhaps others have responded more warmly to the changes and recognise that advances have been made. The noble Lord referred to UNHCR, which noted that many changes had been incorporated in the latest version of the rules as a result of the consultation process, and that those changes were on the whole commendable. In particular, the express inclusion of the purpose which underlies the whole document and specific rules will help to foster a more humane and balanced approach to implementation.
The UNHCR also commented favourably on the notable modifications to the language and phrasing of the rules. Their effect is to emphasise that the humanity, security and safety of detainees should be the primary consideration for the implementation of the rules. That is, therefore, a recognition of progress made, although I take on board the reservations which the noble Lord identified.
The noble Lord addressed a number of other specific points. I shall do my best to answer them. I hasten to reassure the House that, given the volume of direct questions which have been enumerated, where I am lax and fail to answer any directly, either through just missing the point or not having sufficient knowledge, I shall of course write to noble Lords. The noble Baroness very kindly indicated that in one or two areas she did not expect me at this stage to give a direct answer. I shall make sure that the information is available.
However, I do have some answers to some of the questions. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, mentioned the name of David Wilson. He is the deputy director. The new director is to be appointed shortly. I do not have a date for that appointment, but it is imminent. The new director will take up his responsibilities. Haslar will not come under his jurisdiction but Oakington will. He will be responsible for specific detention centres.
The noble Lord also asked a series of questions with regard to religious provision. We entirely accept the burden of his representation. It is entirely right that we seek to provide pastoral support appropriate to the needs of the detainees. It is recognised that the past rather more uniform provision is not appropriate with the present diversity of people. We are seeking to get as much flexibility and appropriateness as we can in that facility. That is entirely consistent with the principles that the noble Lord was adumbrating.
On the question of medical care, the issues which came out most strongly--the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, emphasised this matter--were: first, the
question of early examination so far as concerns torture. If the effects of torture are clearly proven, that is a very important factor to be weighed in favour of early release, because the individual concerned has clearly identified an important aspect of potential refugee status. So early medical examination is important.Secondly, there is the issue of language and the accuracy with which such a medical examination can be carried out. I have to make the obvious point that language is a problem. We have a vast diversity of people seeking asylum who present themselves to us. The diversity is such that the language issue is very acute. We can ensure that we have interpreters to carry out the first appropriate interviews which identify potential status. We have few reservations about our ability to meet that obvious essential requirement. The issues raised today are certain stages beyond that, particularly healthcare and the choice of the individual with regard to access to other medical care and so on. That is much more difficult to arrange in two respects. We have lost a vast number of general practitioners with a competence in certain languages. How we improve the general quality of linguistic training in the UK so that more people are able to display these skills is a genuine problem. But they are not called down overnight. We are recognising problems that have not perhaps received the attention that they might have required in the past. It takes time.
Provided that the officer is assured that there are good grounds for additional medical examination and if no exorbitant cost is involved, asylum seekers can avail themselves of additional medical facilities. They can make arrangements or someone may be prepared to pay on their behalf. But it is a different matter if one says that it is automatically available against the obvious pressure on limited resources. I make the obvious point that the initial tests and examination are a firm obligation and are met as fully as we are able. I hope that I have been able to give reassurance on that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, asked about the new forms that will come into use. We recognise--the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, made this point--that IS91 and IS91R have their limitations. There are advantages in a clear, almost "tick box" approach towards identifying certain aspects of the asylum seeker. Therefore, there will always be aspects of these forms that have that distinctly bureaucratic nature to them. However, we are committed to introducing a more refined version in the light of the discussion and the representations that have been made. We expect to have those in place in the very near future. It is an entirely legitimate point, to which the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, returned again today.
The noble Lord was kind enough to mention from the press releases he looked at today some aspects of the policy that represent some degree of progress. All noble Lords would share our general objective of seeking to clamp down as strongly as we can on trafficking in human beings, which everyone finds reprehensible. We do not need to quote the most extreme case of recent times, which horrified us all, but
we know that it goes on to a degree. It is enormously important that we get a grip on it. I am grateful for the noble Lord's welcome to that aspect of our policy.I tread on thin ice again this evening--I have no doubt that I have fallen through it at some stage--but the noble Lord indicated that he did not hold me in too much disregard because I had made a mistake during the Haslar debate about what had happened to the member of the board of visitors. In fact, he had not taken up a place on another board but on a probation committee. I take this opportunity to express my feeling of being remiss in making that mistake on that occasion. I hope that I avoid such horrors today. However, given the length and the detail of the questions that have been asked, I cannot guarantee to be wholly accurate.
Perhaps I may respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, who raised a number of issues regarding facilities in prisons. Detainees held in prisons have access to lawyers and to telephones, although those telephones are used in the main for incoming calls. The amount of association varies according to the regimes operating in individual prisons. For that reason, I take on board her point that there are constraints as a result of prison rules which we would wish to see lifted as more appropriate accommodation comes on stream and where the rules that we are discussing this evening properly can be applied.
I wish to respond to the debate this evening by recognising the salience of all the points that have been made. I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, for putting into context the issues here. It is a fact that we are not dealing with a steady or declining rate of applicants, but rather with increasing pressure in this area. The rate of increase has moderated significantly, but that does not alter the fact that the demands imposed on us in the effort to meet those needs are extensive. Over recent years, there has been a rapid increase in applications, a situation which has been common to the whole of Europe. Britain stands in mid-stream in terms of the burden which it shoulders.
However, that does not alter the fact that we need to address ourselves properly to allocating resources to match the needs presented to us. Because those needs are so extensive, no one can pretend that all the problems can be solved overnight. Nevertheless, we are engaged in a continuous process of consultation. I should add that we recognise that much work still needs to be done. If we needed any further confirmation, it is reflected in the value of debates such as that which we have held tonight. We value greatly the contribution of expertise from bodies outside the Home Office as represented in the speeches made by noble Lords this evening. Their insight into these issues is extremely important.
As I have said, there is no doubt that a great deal of work still needs to be done. But I hope that the noble Lord will feel that we have made sufficient progress
with regard to the rules that he will not feel that he needs to press his rather negative perspective on their value.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |