Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

I am not hiding behind the letter, and I apologise profusely to members of the Committee if they have not received it. I ensured that on 10 November anything remotely new in terms of amendments tabled was circulated as a courtesy to the Committee, with explanations—albeit brief ones. I apologise if the letter was not received in Amersham or in central London, but that was certainly my intention. Notwithstanding, with respect, the rather picky points made by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) about the detail for each detention centre, I hope that the substance of the new clause is supported. There is substantive evidence— in the broad academic sense and from the ombudsman and the prisons inspector, who has investigated detention and removal centres—that people occupied on a voluntary basis are far better served individually. That deals in part with the hon. Lady’s point about resettlement either in the UK, if that is how things pan out, or in the person’s country of origin. That option must be good. I am happy to share with the House and members of the Committee how that will unfold in substance, removal centre by removal centre—