Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

I do not think that we need detain the House for too long on Government new clause 2, but I am surprised that it should be introduced at this late stage. No explanation, other than the one that the Minister has just delivered at the Dispatch Box, has previously been given for the change, although it is true that an anomaly does exist in respect of people detained in the prison estate and those detained in other establishments. That is the anomaly that the new clause addresses. The report into the Yarl’s Wood detention centre made it clear that we need to look at what happens to people who are detained. That is all the more important, given that the Government’s five-year strategy for asylum and immigration states that increasing use of detention is planned, especially in the context of the removal of failed asylum seekers. However, the Minister must answer a few questions relating to the new clause. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) asked a valid question in his intervention. At present, the UK has nine immigration removal centres. Most are run by private companies, but three are run by the prison service. It is important to understand how the private companies will be instructed to manage a work regime in the centres, as the Minister has made it clear that that regime will be intrinsically different from the practice in prisons and on the prison estate as a whole. What instructions will the private companies be given about running the work regime in their centres? Detainees are not prisoners. The Minister knows that people may be detained for a variety of reasons. Most are detained because they are about to be removed from the UK, or because their asylum claims are being dealt with through the fast-track process, so I am not entirely sure how useful the provision will be, especially given that the average stay in a detention centre is between seven and 10 days. That said, earlier this year, persons were recorded as being in detention in the UK for a year or more, solely under Immigration Act powers: 70 had been detained for a year or more, 45 of whom were asylum seekers. That statistic is staggering enough, but 125 people had been detained for more than six months but less than a year, of whom 95 were asylum seekers, and 150 people were detained from four to six months and 150 from three to four months. Purposeful activity or a work regime may be envisaged for those individuals, but the idea needs to be fleshed out and cannot simply be presented to the House in the form of the new clause. The proposals smack to me of the Minister envisaging that those individuals could be held in detention centres for a long time. When we were considering other aspects of the proposals, I noticed that a detention centre manager considered—especially in relation to reports about the Yarl’s Wood centre—that the sort of work that could be done should be connected to the resettlement of the individual, particularly if resettlement could reasonably be supposed to be in the UK. But the Minister conveniently missed out that point by referring to light cleaning and a little cooking and domestic work at the prison. My last point relates to the structuring of the regime as regards payment. The average rate of pay for employed prisoners is £8 a week, but the Prison Service sets its own minimum rate, which is currently £4 a week. Each prison is allowed to set its own pay rate. Does the Minister envisage that each detention centre will be allowed to set its own rates and, if so, at what level does he expect them to be? That is all I want to ask at this stage, but I reiterate to the Minister that, given the spirit of our conduct of the proceedings, I would have expected a new clause of this nature to be accompanied by an explanatory document, at least for members of the Committee, rather than relying on the Minister’s slightly cursory introduction—[Interruption.] The Minister is holding up a letter, but I am afraid that it has not reached me. I do not know what the date of the letter is, but we had similar arguments in Committee when letters were sent out the day before a sitting. I explained then that, like many Members, I have an arrangement whereby my post is sent to my constituency to be dealt with initially, so although the Minister may hide behind the letter that he has the privilege of holding up, it has not reached my desk and it has obviously not reached the desk of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins).