Immigration Detention
Debate between David Burrowes and Chris Stephens(8 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Burrowes
That is a good question, and the Minister will have time to find that answer—I hope it will miraculously come to him. My experience is that although there have been challenges on articles 3 grounds, I have not heard of that many findings in recent years. Progress has been made, not least in dealing with mentally ill prisoners, although the situation is not ideal and there is certainly room for improvement.
As the hon. Member for Sheffield Central said, many of these vulnerable people have faced a history of torture, trauma and persecution, only then to find themselves further abused in detention. As we found when we visited the IRCs, there has been improvement in recent years. There has been a change of management and they are doing their best, within the physical structures they are operating in, to improve both conditions and staffing. I note that, and recognise that there has been a response to these judgments and that improvements have been made. What we found on our visits to the IRCs—the Minister has a lot of experience in the justice field, so he will know this, too—is that they are, in essence, prisons with some soft furnishings and some plants. They have now put in more plants and a few more soft furnishings, but structurally and fundamentally that is what we are talking about. We recognise that we do not have a blank piece of paper, but it cannot be right that so many immigrants are detained for so long in prison-like conditions for administrative reasons.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Is one difficulty facing detainees that because detention centres are in isolated positions they find it hard to get legal representation, as solicitors find it difficult to visit places such as Dungavel regularly?
Mr Burrowes
There is a contrast to be drawn with the position of prisoners, certainly those on remand, who have good access to legal representation and always have privileges in relation to visits. Their situation is not wholly comparable with that faced by detainees, particularly in terms of proximity. There is legal access, particularly for those who are in longer-term detention, but the point is well made. It is important to compare the rights of detainees with those of others, not least convicted prisoners.
We must be there for those who do not always make the headlines, such as the constituent whom I mentioned—people who may well be convicted detainees. As we remember Magna Carta and seek to ensure that everyone is equal before the law, we need to demonstrate that we are thinking carefully about people’s individual circumstances and the need for all of them to be treated with dignity, whatever their backgrounds.
What is the point of all this? The public may assume that the length of time spent in detention is linked to removal from the United Kingdom, but the opposite is the case. According to the statistics, the longer someone is detained, the less likely it is that his or her detention will end in removal. The Home Office may argue—and, indeed, the argument has been advanced—that the length of detention is linked to the legal processes, such as appeals, that are undertaken on behalf of detainees, and to difficulties related to identification. It is suggested that there may be difficulties with other countries when efforts are made to obtain the appropriate travel documents and ID. However, as the report states, a team leader from the prisons inspectorate told the inquiry that
“a quarter of the cases of prolonged detention that they looked at were a result of inefficient case-working.”
We need to drill down into that case working, and aim to improve it. The recommendations recognise the complexity of the issue. It is easy to make the headlines, and it is easy to adopt a position, but we need to look carefully at this, and one of the report’s key recommendations is for the establishment of a working group with an independent chair.
The Home Office—indeed, the Minister—told the inquiry that a key purpose of detention was to maintain effective immigration control, but evidence for that is lacking, especially when we make comparisons with other countries, which is what we sought to do during our inquiry. Some of us had an opportunity to visit Sweden, for instance. We found that there were many differences between countries when it came to the way in which immigration was dealt with.
Australia is not particularly known for its liberal immigration policy, but after it introduced case management-based alternatives to detention, the programme had a 93% compliance rate, and 60% of those who were eligible for deportation returned voluntarily. It is important not just to look at the issue of limitation of time in detention, but to look, positively and proactively, at the issue of case management. In Sweden, there was a 76% rate of voluntary return, as opposed to 46% in the United Kingdom.
We need to consider affordability, about which the Government are very concerned. At a cost of £164 million, immigration detention is not sustainable or affordable. According to independent research by Matrix Evidence, £76 million a year is wasted on the long-term detention of migrants who are subsequently released, and, between 2011 and 2013, £10 million was spent on compensation for unlawful detention. That is why, like the rest of the European Union, we are calling for a time limit.
We need to firm up the Home Office guidance which states that detention should be used sparingly, and for the shortest possible time. We need to ensure that that really does bite. We are therefore calling for a 28-day limit, which should be a genuine last resort rather than an administrative default position, to ensure that those who have no right to remain here are quickly removed.
I believe that the country can do this. We have done it as a Government. The coalition Government managed to remove as many instances of child detention as possible, and we should take the next step. Yes, we may have a debate about controlling our borders, but we should do more. Whether people come here by fair means or foul, we should treat them with dignity to ensure that we genuinely reform the system of immigration detention.
Finally, let me return to Churchill. He famously said in relation to prisoners, but we can say it in relation to immigrants,
“The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of”
—here I would say “immigrants”—
“is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilisation of any country.”
I believe we can meet that test.
Welfare Reform and Work Bill
Debate between David Burrowes and Chris Stephens(8 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
As a member of the workers’ and one nation party, I am very proud to support the Welfare Reform and Work Bill.
Mr Burrowes
No, we have heard enough from the SNP for now.
Unlike the previous speaker, I am going to talk about the Bill. It shows the Conservative party and the Government full of head and heart. We care passionately about mobility and aspiration. We also care about security and solidarity, helping the vulnerable and the disabled. Our head says that we have to live within our means. Finally, we are grasping the nettle and recognising that we have to live within our means. The welfare budget has to be sustainable. What the Chancellor has said has to be said again: we have 1% of the world’s population, 4% of the world’s GDP and 7% of the world’s welfare spend. We have to deal with that to make sure we can help the most vulnerable and ensure they have a sustainable future.
This is the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, but as the Secretary of State said, it could also be described as the “Catch you when you fall” Bill or the “Lift you when you can rise” Bill. That is what it is all about. We are spending more than £33 billion on welfare for the sick and the disabled. That will continue. What does that mean? Compared with the previous Labour Government, we have spent £7 billion more on disability benefits. We will continue to spend just shy of £7 billion more than the previous Labour Government on disability and sickness benefits. That matters.
The hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) prayed in aid Margaret Thatcher. In 1979, Margaret Thatcher said:
“Our aim is to provide a coherent system of cash benefits to meet the costs of disability, so that more disabled people can support themselves and live normal lives.”
The hon. Lady was right when she said the Government are following in the tracks of Margaret Thatcher, because disability payments increased under her Government by 21%. This Government are continuing to increase disability benefits, despite the £12 billion in welfare cuts. The difficult cuts to the work-related activity group payments represent one twenty-fourth of the welfare cuts that are being made. We are protecting the disabled. We heard all the scaremongering, particularly from Labour during the election, about our plans to cut carers’ allowances savagely and to means-test and tax disability benefits, but the Bill shows that that is not happening.