Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [Lords]

The net inflow, I am sorry, but that is according to Office for National Statistics definitions with which the hon. Gentleman knows that I have some issues. In the main, our short-term holding facilities are used for outflows—if I can use that word in this context. We think that our estate has been significantly improved, and that it is still improving, in both capacity and fitness for purpose. To continue the analogy with a tapestry, which I think that one embroiders rather than weaves, although I shall not dance on the head of a pin about that—[Interruption.] I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that will be the last reference to a tapestry from this Dispatch Box. The hon. Gentleman's serious question is whether we anticipate the numbers of migrants remaining roughly as they are or as increasing, and whether the policy is based on that. In this regard, we are talking mainly about the facilities that we have to enforce removals from the country. There are some facilities, of course, for holding people at the borders, especially at the airports. We have increased capacity, but that does not imply that we are expecting the inflow to increase. Indeed, I think that the points-based system and the proposals in the Bill will reduce the inflow, and of course the hon. Gentleman was referring to a net figure. In each case, there will be no change to the existing time limits or, where relevant, the application of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. These technical Government amendments have been tabled at a late stage, and that is regrettable, but it has been pointed out—and we are grateful for that—that clause 25 could have had the unintended effect of making any place at which immigration detainees might be held for a period of seven days or less—including removal centres, prisons or police stations—a short-term holding facility. So leaving clause 25 in the Bill would have meant that such places were subject to the short-term holding facility rules rather than their appropriate statutory frameworks such as detention centre rules, prison rules and PACE. Indeed, removal centres could lose their status entirely and become short-term holding facilities instead. Therefore, I ask the House to remove clause 25 by accepting amendment 15 and to replace it with new clause 2. We intend to replace clause 25 with a clause that not only achieves the objective of flexibility but does so without the adverse effects for other places of detention. The revised definition of a short-term holding facility in new clause 2 would allow such facilities to be used either solely for immigration detainees or for a mix of detainees and persons detained under other powers.