Last night, the House of Lords agreed to an amendment that would, for the first time, introduce a time limit on the use of immigration detention in some circumstances. BID's Policy and Research Manager John Cox speaks about what this move might mean for people in detention:
It is very welcome news that the groundswell of support has seen Parliament support the introduction of a time limit on immigration detention into law for the first time. It's also welcome the fact this amendment would mean that some immigration detention will be the subject of routine and automatic judicial oversight.
However, it is extremely disappointing that the amendment, as agreed to, will exclude from its protection all foreign nationals who have served a prison sentence of 12 months or more, and all people who the Secretary of State has determined shall be deported. The reality of this is that the time limit – and judicial oversight – will not apply to the very people who are subject to the Government’s current indefinite detention regime and whose detention is frequently for very considerable periods of time. With the Government now categorising many immigration offences involving documentation and overstaying as criminal offences, excluding the group most in need of the protective measure of a time limit seems to be particularly unjust.
According to the government’s latest figures, 38% of people leaving immigration detention have been locked up for more than 28 days. The overwhelming majority of these people have served prison sentences and have removal directions in place. But those facts in themselves do not justify indefinite periods of detention. The same government figures show that among those held in detention for more than 12 months, over 60% are allowed to remain in the UK upon their release.
For those people and their families – locked up for long periods of time, separated from their families and children and unable to support their loved ones – this time limit will have no impact, and the injustices they suffer will continue.
It is also important to remember that this new clause still allows the Secretary of State to apply to extend detention beyond 28 days – effectively permitting the time limit to be bypassed even for those limited cases in which it would otherwise apply.
At BID, we do hope that this amendment will lead to renewed scrutiny of the use of immigration detention. We firmly believe that indiscriminate, unchecked use of immigration detention must end.
A vital first step is a time limit – but to have real impact a true time limit, with judicial oversight, must be in place for every single person who has their liberty taken away from them.
