Teh One Who Knocks
03-16-2016, 12:21 PM
By Rebecca Flood - The Express
http://i.imgur.com/s4sR73d.jpg
The decision from the unelected upper house, which is being seen as a humiliating slap in the face for the Government, was immediately attacked as a “threat to public safety.”
The Immigration Bill debate hinged on how long would-be immigrants should be detained at immigration centres.
Currently immigrants can be held indefinitely but peers voted for a cap of 28 days.
Critic Lord Keen of Elie, who is also the Advocate General for Scotland, claimed the move would jeopardise safety and security in the UK, and said: "Such an amendment would significantly impact on our abilities to enforce immigration controls and maintain public safety."
The Lords voted 187 to 170 for the limit, which can only be extended by a court.
Crossbench peer Lord Green of Deddington said the 28-day time limit could lead to up to 10,000 people a year appealing for release from detention and said: “The power of detention is essential to effective removal.
"It is fundamental to the whole immigration system. Broadly speaking, I would say that the system is working.
"It would encourage people to spin things out to get to 28 days, and then who knows, they may disappear," Lord Green said.
But the Lords argued that holding people indefinitely was detrimental to their health, with Labour's Baroness Lister of Burtersett going one step further to call indefinite detention a "stain on this country's human rights record."
A group of cross-party peers recommended the cap last year, with the The All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Refugees and the APPG on Migration putting forward a report.
Recent figures show some detainees have been held for more than a year Verne IRC, Dorset, and in Harmondsworth IRC, West London.
But Lord Keen added: "The Government takes the issue of deprivation of liberty very seriously.
"There is a well established principle that for an individual to be detained pending removal there must be a realistic prospect of removal within a reasonable time, and that is carried out by virtue of judicial oversight."
This is the second time the Government has been defeated over the bill, with the upper house previously voting to allow asylum seekers the right to work if their claims have not been processed within six months.
http://i.imgur.com/s4sR73d.jpg
The decision from the unelected upper house, which is being seen as a humiliating slap in the face for the Government, was immediately attacked as a “threat to public safety.”
The Immigration Bill debate hinged on how long would-be immigrants should be detained at immigration centres.
Currently immigrants can be held indefinitely but peers voted for a cap of 28 days.
Critic Lord Keen of Elie, who is also the Advocate General for Scotland, claimed the move would jeopardise safety and security in the UK, and said: "Such an amendment would significantly impact on our abilities to enforce immigration controls and maintain public safety."
The Lords voted 187 to 170 for the limit, which can only be extended by a court.
Crossbench peer Lord Green of Deddington said the 28-day time limit could lead to up to 10,000 people a year appealing for release from detention and said: “The power of detention is essential to effective removal.
"It is fundamental to the whole immigration system. Broadly speaking, I would say that the system is working.
"It would encourage people to spin things out to get to 28 days, and then who knows, they may disappear," Lord Green said.
But the Lords argued that holding people indefinitely was detrimental to their health, with Labour's Baroness Lister of Burtersett going one step further to call indefinite detention a "stain on this country's human rights record."
A group of cross-party peers recommended the cap last year, with the The All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Refugees and the APPG on Migration putting forward a report.
Recent figures show some detainees have been held for more than a year Verne IRC, Dorset, and in Harmondsworth IRC, West London.
But Lord Keen added: "The Government takes the issue of deprivation of liberty very seriously.
"There is a well established principle that for an individual to be detained pending removal there must be a realistic prospect of removal within a reasonable time, and that is carried out by virtue of judicial oversight."
This is the second time the Government has been defeated over the bill, with the upper house previously voting to allow asylum seekers the right to work if their claims have not been processed within six months.