Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

I join the Home Secretary in condemning the criminal activity that occurred in the centre and thanking and paying tribute to the public servants, particularly the fire and police services, who came to do their work immediately, without thought for their own safety.

On the events of 14 February specifically, has the Home Secretary decided the terms of reference of the inquiry that he has announced? If so, will he publish them? May I urge on him what I accept is a halfway house between his proposals and those of Mr. Letwin—an inquiry chaired or led by somebody independent of the Prison Service that does not necessarily take as much time as a full-scale public inquiry, for reasons that I entirely understand, would take?

In that context, I follow the question of Ms Abbott: will the Home Secretary publish as soon as possible all the advice and correspondence on sprinklers? That clearly ought to be in the public domain. Will he ensure that the terms of reference include the reasons for and the allegations about the delayed entry of the fire and police services, and the allegations about handcuffing and detention before any fire broke out in the centre?

In relation to individuals, the Home Secretary has rightly said that he cannot yet give the House a final indication of whether there have been any fatalities. What is he being told as to when the police and fire services expect to be able to reach a final decision on whether anybody has lost their life?

Were the only records of who was in Yarl's Wood kept in Yarl's Wood? If so, will the Home Secretary give the House an undertaking that, although institutions may hold their own records, from today onwards there will be a centrally held record for every single reception, detention and removal centre and prison, so that people know from day to day who is in those places? If nobody outside knew who was there, that is scandalous.

The Home Secretary said that he wanted to review allocation between centres, and I agree that that seems to be necessary. Can it be made clear that those who are returned to prison will be only those with either a criminal conviction or something else that justifies their imprisonment? Will the Home Secretary also tell us how many people he has decided should go back to prison?

Does the Home Secretary accept that there is a clear psychological difference between those who are in the process of putting their case, and are therefore far less likely to prove troublesome and try to find ways of escaping, and those who have already had their last opportunity to appeal? If any categories are to be separated, it should be those. In that context, will the Home Secretary review his decision—it is the only decision that I ask him to go back on—to remove the right to an automatic bail application? People who know that their cases will be reviewed regularly are much less likely to cause trouble in the system.

I stand to be corrected, but I gather that Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons now has authority to inspect detention and removal centres. Will the Home Secretary ask the inspector, as a matter of priority, to authorise an inspection of the whole detention and removal estate, and also to give advice on the way in which such inspections will be planned and carried out in future?

See this speech in context