An Early Day Motion was tabled in the House of Commons on 15 July 1997, one month before the disturbance at Campsfield. Many of the points raised in the EDM (signed by 196 MPs from all parties) have been upheld in Sir David Ramsbotham's report on Campsfield and also in the debate on his report in the House of Lords, on the 29 May this year.

EDM 253 DETENTION OF ASYLUM SEEKERS

That this House welcomes the Government's decision to review the procedures under which asylum seekers are detained; notes the view of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees that 'as a general rule, asylum seekers should not be detained' and that, in so far as such detention occurs, 'it should be proportional to the ends to be achieved and for a minimal period', is gravely concerned that decisions to detain asylum seekers are not subject to automatic and independent review, with a presumption in favour of liberty as provided for in criminal cases under the Bail Act 1976; believes that asylum seekers who are detained should be informed in writing of the reasons for their detention; further believes that, in so far as detention occurs, asylum seekers should not be held in prisons unless charged with criminal offences; and calls on the Government to ensure that future practice meets these concerns and conforms with the fundamental principles of refugee protection and relevant international standards.

Extracts from the House of Lords debate on Sir David Ramsbotham's report on Campsfield Detention Centre.

Lord Dholakia: Why is it that this country detains more people for longer periods and with less judicial supervision than any other civilised country? . . . . We need to examine our legislation, which provides for the indefinite detention--not on the authority of a court of law but on that of an immigration officer. . . . . A country which prides itself on its democracy and legal institutions does not allow presumption in favour of bail, as there is in criminal cases. There is no judicial supervision or review of detention . . . Immigration and asylum practitioners would confirm that detention is used as a deterrent and applied on a very broad basis . . . .

In my previous job at the Commission for Racial Equality, I met a number of detainees, some of whom had gone on hunger strike. Some had contemplated suicide, others simply waited for the day when a decision would be taken in their case. Life was meaningless to all those people. It was clear that they were not protesting not only about the conditions under which they were kept but about the fact that they were detained without the authority of a court. In other words, they were subjected to criminal sanctions without a criminal law being applied to them

Earl Russell: Sir David made three key recommendations in that area: that there should be: written reasons for detention; that there should be clear criteria for detention; and that there should be judicial oversight of detention. . . .it is not obvious to me that there is any relationship between the need for detention and the actual selection of people who are detained. . .

Sir David reports that in some cases, people may be detained because the officer has an instinct--a curious phrase. . . . . There are cases of children being detained. Sir David says that he was informed that only three children have been received in Campsfield. But, during 1997, 27 children were released from Campsfield into the care of Bicester social services. Those statements cannot both be correct . . . .

A great many people are detained at the port of entry. The Law Society, among others, has commented on that. The suspicion has been formed that this may be being used as a deterrent to discourage people from seeking asylum in this country . . . . Sir David points out that detention is not a particularly effective deterrent . . . . that in the view of the immigration service and contractor staff, there is little or no consistency or logic in current arrangements for deciding upon detention . . . .

If that is the view of those who actually do the job, who am I to argue? The Minister may wish to argue that that is unfair but in the absence of written reasons and judicial oversight, the Minister is stopped from pursuing that argument. He has shot himself not so much in the foot as in the tongue. I wish him good medical treatment . . . .

Lord Avebury: the power of immigration officers to detain anyone without judicial process, on entry, pending removal or subject to notice of deportation, is virtually unrestricted . . . .

We have no idea at all whether the people who are locked up in Campsfield House and elsewhere really need to be held in that secure accommodation . . . . To make Immigration Act detention subject to judicial oversight. That might well lead to a reduction in the numbers overall as we know that some 20 per cent of detainees, according to the Amnesty International study, are later given refugee status or ELR,

Lord Goodhart: There are a number of international human rights instruments which deal with detention. The most important from the point of view of this country is Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. That provides in paragraph 1 that, "No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following case and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law". . . .Article 5(4) then provides,

"Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful". . . .

It is not right that detainees seeking asylum should have fewer rights than prisoners on remand. I believe that the following principles should apply.

First, asylum seekers detained by an immigration officer should be brought before an adjudicator or magistrate within 48 hours of first detention for hearing.

Secondly, at that hearing the burden should be on the Home Office to justify the continuation of the detention ordered in the first place by the immigration officer.

Thirdly,where continued detention is authorised by the adjudicator or magistrate, the detention should be reviewed at regular intervals of not more than 28 days, with the burden being once again on the Home Office to justify a further extension of the period of detention

Bishop of Oxford: Detainees arrive in detention with a fair degree of stress . . . . often deeply frustrated by the delays, and subject to highs and lows of moods as their hopes are successively raised or dashed--all this within a context in which they are deprived of their liberty. For some it is a process which goes on for many months. In such circumstances it is easy to become restless or listless, depressed or aggressive and unmotivated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . end

Sir David Ramsbothams Report on Campsfield