Clause 14 - Establishment of centres
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
12:15 pm
Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)
The amendments raise various issues, and I shall try to answer specific questions on the clause stand part debate as well.
I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey wants to legislate for all accommodation centres or just the four trial centres, but his amendment would mean that all accommodation centres, now and for ever more, would have to be in the public sector. I assume that that is his intention, but the Bill carries an important flexibility that allows us to run the centres by contracting them out—to which he objects—in the public or voluntary sectors, or even using a mix of the different types. The Bill uses a menu, which we can mix and match for the provision of accommodation centres, and I want to keep it that way while we trial various centres.
The hon. Gentleman was right about the virtues that he attributed to the public sector, and I share his commitment to them, particularly accountability. However, I am not as pessimistic about using contracted-out services appropriately to deliver a particular service. I do not want to accept amendment No. 167, which would completely rule out the possibility of anyone other than the Home Office or a relevant local authority running the accommodation centres.
The status quo in the Bill will allow the Home Office or a local authority to run an accommodation centre. It will also allow for some or all of the services to be
contracted out, and I would prefer to keep it that way so that we can be flexible across the piece. In the light of the Yarl's Wood incident, questions have surfaced about public and private ownership and management of such organisations, and it would be wrong to pre-empt what may emerge from the report into what happened at Yarl's Wood. It is important to remember that we are trying a new concept of accommodation centres, which will be different from removal centres. Some hon. Members said that they will not be that different, but we will have failed if we create an accommodation centre that is indistinguishable from a removal centre. It is not our intention to conflate the two concepts. There may be lessons to learn from the Yarl's Wood inquiries, which is why the Bill has the flexibilities that I mentioned.
On amendment No. 170 and the running of the centres, it is of course essential to prevent inappropriate people from attaining positions of influence or authority. That is vital for the welfare for all residents and staff, as well as for the integrity of what we are trying to achieve. We have the same aim. Any contract with the private sector will be able to specify relevant legislation that must be adhered to—the Race Relations Act 1976, for example—to ensure that we prevent unsuitable people from working with children or gaining positions as members of staff. That is implicit for public sector institutions, and there is cover if private, contracted-out services are used.
The Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 outlawed race discrimination by both private and public sector bodies. It also extended anti-discrimination methods so that race discrimination and victimisation is now outlawed in all public functions, with limited exceptions for this building, immigration laws and national security. None of those will be applicable in the instances we are debating. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey may know from that Bill's Standing Committee, that also covers public-private contracting.
The 2000 Act covers all employers, who must not discriminate on racial grounds against people seeking work. The Act covers all aspects of employment including recruitment, selection, promotion, training and pay. Legislation covering sexual offences against children applies regardless of where the child is located, so it applies in an accommodation centre. In addition, the offence of abuse of trust, introduced in the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000, made it an offence for a person over the age of 18, involved in a position of trust or authority over a child, to engage in any sexual activity with them.
Any employer whose work involves training, caring for or sole charge of children may request an enhanced disclosure from the Criminal Records Bureau for any person requesting employment in their area. The disclosure will include all previous convictions, including spent convictions, and any local intelligence on the individual. That will be one of several factors influencing the decision to offer employment. Furthermore, the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 enables a judge to impose a disqualification
order as part of a sentence for a person convicted of an offence against a child and sentenced to more than 12 months imprisonment. That makes it an offence for a relevant offender to apply for work with children in the future or for an employer knowingly to employ them whilst they are subject to the order.
The safeguards apply across the board, and equally to accommodation centres. It is not necessary for the Bill to state that other legislative requirements need to be met. They are implicit whether the provision is public, private, mixed or voluntary.
Amendments Nos. 141 and 182 refer to the detailed contractual arrangements between an accommodation centre provider and the Secretary of State. They are commercially confidential and cannot be disclosed as a document of public record. It is envisaged that the manager of a centre may in some circumstances be a member of staff of a private sector or non-governmental organisation contracted to operate an accommodation centre. Alternatively, the centre manager may be a civil servant. The Bill is drafted to give us that flexibility because we want day-to-day decisions and regulation of the regime to be undertaken locally.