Tag: Detention

Illegal Migration Bill: Bishop of Southwark speaks in support of amendments on detention facilities

During a committee debate on the Illegal Migration Bill, the Bishop of Southwark spoke in support of amendments to the bill tabled by Lord German and the Bishop of Durham. The amendments focused on use of facilities used to detain migrants and sought to limit places of detention in the bill to those that are presently authorised for detention:

The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I support Amendments 61 and 62 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord German, and welcome the opportunity to discuss what rules and regulations His Majesty’s Government will adhere to when selecting a site for the purposes of detention. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham had intended to speak but is unable to be here for this group of amendments; I am glad to be here in his place. I am grateful to Medical Justice for sharing how existing legislation governs both the nature and operation of detention centres. As it is a detailed policy area, I will focus my time on the context for these amendments while also posing questions to the Minister.

First, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham explained at Second Reading, the Bill before us changes the nature and scope of detention considerably. It moves detention away from an administrative process to facilitate someone’s removal to a punitive system of incarceration intended thereby to deter asylum seekers from travelling to the United Kingdom. Deterrence, as we have seen, is a key theme stressed by the Government, albeit no evidence or impact assessment has been adduced in its favour. This shift towards incarceration signals a major transition in policy, but in embarking on this shift in the purpose of detention, the Government leave us with a lack of detail on what rules and guidance will be adhered to when the Secretary of State is selecting a place of detention.

Continue reading “Illegal Migration Bill: Bishop of Southwark speaks in support of amendments on detention facilities”

Illegal Migration Bill: Bishop of Durham supports amendments aimed at providing housing and subsistence support to those deemed inadmissible to the UK

On 7th June 2023, the House of Lords debated the Illegal Migration Bill in committee. The Bishop of Durham spoke in support of amendments to the bill tabled by Baroness Lister of Burtersett which would set out regulations for financial and accommodation support available to people deemed “inadmissible” but still resident in the UK:

The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, I refer to the register of interests and my involvement with the RAMP project and Reset.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for tabling Amendments 57C to 57G to provide us with the opportunity to discuss issues relating to the level of support that will be provided for those declared inadmissible but who are unable to be removed from the country. I too am highly grateful to the Refugee Council for supporting us to probe this area of policy well, especially in the absence of an impact assessment.

Before I outline questions for the Minister, it is important to note that those deemed inadmissible will include not just those whose asylum cases would likely have been found valid but individuals who would not have qualified. In the absence of any return deals, this could leave the Government in the absurd position of needing to support at public expense those who could be appropriately returned to their own country.

Continue reading “Illegal Migration Bill: Bishop of Durham supports amendments aimed at providing housing and subsistence support to those deemed inadmissible to the UK”

Illegal Migration Bill: Bishop of Coventry supports amendments covering human rights claims

On 5th June 2023, the House of Lords debated the Illegal Migration Bill in the second day of committee. On behalf of the Bishop of Durham, the Bishop of Coventry spoke in support of an amendment to the bill tabled by Lord Dubs which would require the Home Secretary to consider a protection claim or a human rights claim if the applicant has not been removed from the UK within six months of the claim being deemed inadmissible:

The Lord Bishop of Coventry: My Lords, I apologise for not being able to speak previously on the Bill, but I support Amendment 23 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, who has added his name to this little band, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to them. I have been holding back in the hope that he would land, but his aircraft has been delayed.

Of course, it is right that every nation should have jurisdiction over its own borders and the ability to decide who may or may not have a credible claim to reside in the country, but Clause 4 ends any such due process which would consider the merits of an asylum application. By denying those who are deemed inadmissible from ever claiming asylum, as we have heard, thousands of men, women and children will simply not have their case heard, let alone assessed, regardless of how grave their protection needs might be—and regardless of the fact that there is no way to travel to the UK with prior authorisation in order to claim asylum in many cases. That point is made regularly in your Lordships’ House.

Continue reading “Illegal Migration Bill: Bishop of Coventry supports amendments covering human rights claims”

Bishop of Durham asks about immigration detention under the proposed Illegal Migration Bill

The Bishop of Durham received the following written answer on 5th June 2023:

The Lord Bishop of Durham asked His Majesty’s Government:

  • whether additional detention sites to detain those subject to the duty to remove under clause 2 of the Illegal Migration Bill will operate under the Detention Centre Rules 2001.
  • whether an individual subject to the duty to remove under clause 2 of the Illegal Migration Bill will be considered for release from detention if a rule 35 report is brought to the attention of the Home Office.
  • what guidance they follow in assessing whether a place of immigration detention is appropriate.

Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con): The Illegal Migration Bill creates new detention powers which will allow the Home Secretary to detain a person pending a decision as to whether they meet the four conditions and the new duty to remove applies, and thereafter to detain pending their removal.

All Immigration Removal Centres (IRCs) must operate in compliance with the Detention Centre Rules 2001, this includes any additional sites that are opened as IRCs to increase detention capacity.

Continue reading “Bishop of Durham asks about immigration detention under the proposed Illegal Migration Bill”

Bishop of Durham asks about the proposed Illegal Migration Bill

The Bishop of Durham received the following written answers on 23rd May 2023:

The Lord Bishop of Durham asked His Majesty’s Government whether there have been any changes to asylum screening interviews since 7 March.

Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con, Home Office): There have been no changes to the asylum screening interview template since 7 March.

Continue reading “Bishop of Durham asks about the proposed Illegal Migration Bill”

Bishop of Durham asks about status of migrants under the proposed Illegal Migration Bill

The Bishop of Durham received the following written answers on 16th May 2023:

The Lord Bishop of Durham asked His Majesty’s Government when a child is under the care and accommodation of the Home Office, due to the Home Secretary’s duty to detain and remove under clause 2 of the Illegal Migration Bill, what international or domestic legislation the Home Office is required to meet.

Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con, Home Office): The duty to make arrangements for the removal of an illegal migrant who meets the conditions in clause 2 of the Illegal Migration Bill does not apply to unaccompanied children, although clause 3(2) of the Bill confers a power to remove them in the circumstances set out in clause 3(3).

Continue reading “Bishop of Durham asks about status of migrants under the proposed Illegal Migration Bill”

Bishop of St Albans asks about detention of author Xing Hongwei in China

The Bishop of St Albans received the following written answer on 19th December 2022:

The Lord Bishop of St Albans asked His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the detention of Xing Hongwei in China.

Continue reading “Bishop of St Albans asks about detention of author Xing Hongwei in China”

Bishop of Durham asks about immigration detention centres

The Bishop of Durham received the following written answers on 6th December 2022:

The Lord Bishop of Durham asked His Majesty’s Government how many propositions for new Immigration Removal Centres have been announced to market in the last two years.

Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con): In the period 23 November 2020 to 23 November 2022 the Home Office has announced to the market three new Immigration Removals Centres: Derwentside IRC, Campsfield IRC, and Haslar IRC.

Continue reading “Bishop of Durham asks about immigration detention centres”

Bishop of Durham asks about Derwentside Immigration Removal Centre

The Bishop of Durham received the following written answers on 23rd June 2022:

The Lord Bishop of Durham asked Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Ministry of Justice on 29 November 2021 (79500), how many surgeries have been held at Derwentside Immigration Removal Centre since contingency arrangements were put in place to provide access to the Detention Duty Advice Scheme.

Continue reading “Bishop of Durham asks about Derwentside Immigration Removal Centre”

Bishop of Gloucester asks about alternative detention pilot scheme

The Bishop of Gloucester received the following written answer on 3rd December 2021:

The Lord Bishop of Gloucester asked Her Majesty’s Government when they will
publish the evaluation of the ‘Action Access’ alternative detention pilot.

Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con): The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) have appointed the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) to independently evaluate this pilot.

NatCen will be publishing the evaluation on their website the aim is for the evaluation to be published by the end of the year.

Hansard