Dame Meg Hillier
MP for Hackney South and Shoreditch · Labour (Co-op) · United Kingdom
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have huge respect for the Minister, but she has said that she will not take any interventions. She is a very good Minister, and I trust that she will answer in detail the points that have been raised in the House today; having discussions with her and the Government after the debate is too late…”
“My hon. Friend talks about who makes our laws, and she has talked in articles that she has written about the primacy of this place. If the Bill goes forward, is she willing to accept amendments?”
“I welcome my right hon. Friend to her place and thank her for that response, which demonstrates the complications of these schemes. I asked the National Audit Office to look into this, and yesterday the Public Accounts Committee published its report on compensation schemes, suggesting that a central body be established.”
“I am pleased by my right hon. Friend’s answer, but she is in a unique position across Government to ensure that we are protecting not only women, but those who are blind or have visual impairments, who really value this technology.”
“I welcome the Chancellor’s clampdown on speculation and leaks ahead of the Budget; it is certainly an important step he has taken. On the issue of certainty, the National Wealth Fund is a critical investor in crowding in private investment around the UK. I noted that he has changed the remit.”
“Further to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), it is important that we talk here and that we have diplomacy, but what practical actions are the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence taking to ensure that there is a review of physical defence and security, so that we send a clear message to t…”
The complete record
Every one of 4,811 lines we hold for Dame Meg Hillier, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 75 of 97.
“I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. His final comment is the main point: the system has somehow to deal with this dilemma, but many people will choose anything rather than willingly return to a situation. That can be for all sorts of reasons, and not just because they feel in physical danger. In the end, the parents make the choices that face them, however difficult they are, so some responsibility needs to lie there.”
“I will not go further into why we detain people, because I have spoken enough about that. We have touched on the issue of documentation, and sometimes establishing nationality and identity or determining whether an individual qualifies for leave to enter the UK can take time. That is particularly true of establishing nationality, because some individuals destroy their papers and their suspected home country will not accept them.”
“The vast majority of those applications are spurious and fall at the first hurdle. That fact is acknowledged not just by the UK Border Agency and the Home Office but by the National Audit Office and the Home Affairs Committee. That said, when removal is deferred, the decision to maintain the detention of a family is subject to a regular and rigorous control process, including ministerial review in the case of all children held for more than 28 days, a matter that I take very seriously. My two predecessor Ministers with responsibility for the matter took it very seriously as well. I call in officials to talk to them about individual cases when I have concerns. That is a serious responsibility that lies on my desk, and I recognise the human lives involved.”
“The welfare of any child is paramount in that process, and full consideration is given to all the welfare issues given that they are going to be in a different, and more difficult, situation from that of children not in the detention centre. As we heard, there is concern about children being taken out just prior to their exams. The timing of educational examinations, where known, will be taken into account before the removal process starts. Although our intention is that detention will be short, lasting just a few days, unfortunately some families and their legal representatives, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington said, wait until they have been detained and given their flight details before submitting applications for judicial review.”
“If we seek to deport them and they do not willingly wish to go, we find ourselves with no alternative but to use detention in order to enforce their departure—a fact acknowledged by the Home Affairs Committee in its recent report. We are considering alternatives, and I will touch on those towards the end of my remarks. That is partly why I want to make some progress. I would hate to run out of time and be unable to go into how we could consider proceeding in a way that might help to satisfy some of the concerns expressed by hon. Friends and hon. Members. The decision to detain a family is not lightly taken—it is a last resort, and it is intended to be only for the shortest possible period once appeal rights have been exhausted, there are no outstanding legal barriers, and a flight has been booked for a few days’ time.”
“I am keen to make progress, because although I have quite a lot of time, I also have to respond to quite a lot of points raised in the debate. As I said, we would rather not have to do this: we would much prefer that families left the UK voluntarily when the courts have upheld the decision that they must leave. Nearly as many families left the UK under the assisted voluntary returns scheme last year as were removed, so the incentive of having some money and support to resettle has had some impact. Families do not always take up our offers of financial and reintegration assistance, and in those circumstances we are left with a dilemma. Do we leave people where they are, as some of my hon. Friends would suggest, or do we seek to deport them?”
“They are important indicators for me and I need to make decisions on the basis of as much information as I can get. When the Home Affairs Committee visited Yarl’s Wood, it was lunch time, which is why there were no children in the school, but the school is a good facility, as the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire acknowledged. The improvements have been acknowledged by others, including Sir Al Aynsley Green, the Children’s Commissioner for England, and the independent monitoring board. However, we are not complacent and, as the Minister responsible, I certainly would not want to be complacent on this important issue. We continue to look to identify further enhancements.”
“I shall not go through the long programme of steady improvements that have taken place at Yarl’s Wood since Serco took over the operating contract in 2007, because, in all fairness, the hon. Gentleman has more than adequately explained them. Again, I thank him for his balanced tone in this debate. I should like to correct a slight misapprehension from my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz): all children are offered an education at Yarl’s Wood. The school is available for children from nursery to A-level age, but, of course, it is not compulsory. Every time I review a child in detention and whether to extend that, I get information on whether they are engaging with school or nursery or whatever is appropriate, and why they do not attend if that is the case.”
“Child welfare, which the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire touched on, is taken extremely seriously at Yarl’s Wood. Robust arrangements are in place to identify any concerns. A multi-disciplinary team, including a social worker from Bedford borough children’s services, reviews each child on a weekly basis. When a child’s welfare is affected by their continued detention, a detention review is triggered, and we look to release that child and his or her parents. A regular children’s forum, complemented by a new children-specific complaints process, provides children with the opportunity to give feedback on their overall experience of their detention, their transport and their stay at the centre. Their comments are important and are very much taken on board.”
“Friend the Member for Bedford asked whether he could meet me. I am happy to extend an invitation both to him and to the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire to talk them through where we are now, and keep them apprised of developments, particularly on alternatives. Hon. Members have touched on a number aspects of child welfare. Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, which was introduced last November, placed a statutory safeguarding duty on the UK Border Agency. That has given us, and me particularly as the Minister responsible, an opportunity to examine and improve even further the safeguarding of children in our care. That measure was introduced at around the same time that I became the Minister responsible, so I am fortunate, because it gives me an extra opportunity to look at what we do.”
“I shall touch on alternatives in a moment, but when there is a request to extend a child’s detention by one or two days, for example, I must take into account what would happen to them if they went back into the community, where they would go, their welfare, and what would happen if they were to yo-yo—go out into the community and return to detention within a day or two, with all the travel and upset that that involves, and the hopes that it would raise. I take that very seriously as the Minister responsible. I have sometimes decided that it is more acceptable to leave a child where they are, knowing that they are facing imminent removal, even if they go over a bureaucratic deadline. I re-emphasise that I take such decisions seriously. I must take into account all the advice and information I can gather on each case. My hon.”
“Since 30 April 2001, it has been a criminal offence for an adviser to provide immigration advice or services unless their organisation is registered with the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner—an independent non-departmental public body set up under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999—has been granted a certificate of exemption by that body, or is otherwise covered by the 1999 Act, which includes solicitors and others who are professionally qualified in the field. It is important that we maintain vigilance on that. I talk to many hon. Members who, like me, have large case loads, and we share their concerns. There is always more to be done. I have answered a number of the questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington asked, but she also mentioned delays and blockages in the system.”
“They have been an enormous problem, but I know from my constituency case load as well as from my work in the Home Office that most of the backlog will be cleared by this March and the vast majority by 2011. We inherited a very big backlog, but there has been work to make progress on it and people are already coming to my surgery either facing deportation or having been granted their status. The matter will always be a challenge, and I would never say that it is resolving itself, but the backlog has been massively reduced. I do not have time now to go into the regulation of legal advisers, but the Government share the frustration at legal advisers who do not do their job properly and sometimes misadvise their clients. Let us be frank: they are playing games with people’s lives.”
“I should put it on record that those statistics are based on management information and are not subject to the detailed checks that apply to the publication of national statistics. They may include some double counting, as some children may have been detained, released and detained again. The average length of detention was 16 days in 2008-09, and for this year, 2009-10, it is slightly less so far. Of the children detained on 30 September 2009, 25 had been detained for seven days or fewer, five for eight to 14 days, five for 15 to 28 days and 10 for 29 or more days but less than two months. None was detained for longer than that. Delays and backlogs were mentioned.”
“Under the rules that now govern the release of Government statistics, we are unable to release figures unless they have been agreed by the Office for National Statistics, and we need to be careful about how we present them. I will therefore be careful with the information that I am about to present in response to my hon. Friend’s question about the number of children in detention. In the last quarter of 2009, 315 children entered detention. In the financial year 2008-09, 1,116 children entered detention and slightly more departed it—clearly some cases would have been in both financial years. Some 539 of those children, slightly fewer than half, were removed, and 629 were released.”
“I will provide figures in a little while about the number of children detained for different periods, but there are many areas in which children suffer because of the choices of their parents, such as when a parent is in a domestic prison. I have spoken to head teachers in my constituency who have known children who have come home from school to find that Dad or Mum has been in prison, which affects them massively. There are other matters on which children are affected by the decisions of their parents, and we do need to detain people on certain grounds. Statistics were mentioned in the debate, and I wish to make it clear that what we provided in the IMB report was management information.”
“The project is providing intensive support to families who have exhausted all rights to remain in the UK, helping them to confront the issues delaying their departure. The 12-month pilot of the migrant helpline was in Ashford, Kent, and that was aimed at providing accommodation, health care, education and legal services to the families with no basis of stay. It has been acknowledged that that was not a success, with only one family departing under the assisted voluntary return scheme. We are learning the lessons of that scheme to take on board in Glasgow.”
“However, while we do not currently envisage a position in which we would never detain—I would not want to go that far at this point—we are committed to exploring alternatives that at the very least reduce the number of families being detained while ensuring that they depart the UK promptly when required. Following the Kent pilot, a three-year pilot has been running in Glasgow since June 2009. I know where it is because I passed the properties when I was last visiting the area—before I had my baby—although they were not up and running at the time. However, I will visit Glasgow next week to see it for myself and, if possible, to talk to some of the families, although that can be difficult, given that they are all in flats.”
“We are ensuring that we have proper screening for mental health issues, so that anyone with a mental illness is identified on arrival, together with the best pathway for their treatment. That is important because, as hon. Members have pointed out, that can be one of the key hidden health factors for someone facing the difficulties of detention. As I have said, we really do not want to detain children at all and would much prefer that families accept the decision of deportation on their case and leave the UK promptly—although if they accepted the decision they would of course leave voluntarily.”
“We also vaccinate children and provide support to expectant and nursing mothers—an issue close to my heart as I am one myself, and I have always been alert to the extra pressure that pregnancy can put on women in detention, especially if they have other children. I should also point out that health care in all our centres is subject to the standards, audit and inspection programme by the Care Quality Commission as national health service facilities. Indeed only a few weeks ago, the commission was at Yarl’s Wood inspecting the services there, and we look forward to receiving its report in due course. I shall make a particular point of alerting both the hon. Members with a constituency interest in that report when it is published.”
“The health care department at Yarl’s Wood provides a good standard of care, which is comparable to primary care found in the community. Of course, referrals to secondary health care would be within the NHS. All the health care staff at the centre are caring, qualified professionals, and no less able to care for detainees than the national health service does in the community. Residents are all seen by a nurse within two hours of arrival, and given an appointment to see a GP within 24 hours unless the nurse believes an earlier appointment is necessary. Thereafter they have access to the service on demand.”
“That is indeed the case, but we are looking to improve facilities for 16 to 18-year-olds in particular, and we are creating a new kitchen and dining area to enable families to cook meals together, which we hope will help to maintain family bonds and a sense of normality—not to mention assist reintegration, whether in the country of origin or in the UK, even if only on a temporary basis. The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire also mentioned health care. My primary concern is that detainees receive the right standard of care and support while they are in our care. I looked into this issue closely before today’s debate. Good-quality care can be provided by the private sector as much as by the national health service.”
“We have been fortunate to have a good length of time. The welfare of those in our care is at the heart of what the UK Border Agency and Serco do at Yarl’s Wood. It is a challenging area of work, the staff do a good job in difficult circumstances, and I know that he recognises the progress that has been made. We are not complacent, however. A continuous programme is needed to look at how we can improve areas of service at Yarl’s Wood and to look at alternatives to immigration detention. Question put and agreed to.”
“I am also responsible, with another hat, for those whom we take from UN refugee camps around the world, many of whom are vulnerable and have been in camps for 20 years. If we allow only people on our shores to stay—because they have made it here—we can lose sight of our wider humanitarian responsibilities as a responsible nation. It is important that we recognise their needs as well. I hope that the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford will join me in calling for those who are critical to work with me. That is a genuine offer. I want to see how we can work together to ensure that these alternatives work and result in a reduction in the number of children with their parents in detention. I thank the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire for raising this debate.”
“I look for support from the voluntary sector, especially those with an interest in this area, to prevent families from entering detention in the first place. I have only relatively recently been given responsibility for this area, but I am sometimes a little dismayed by the outside criticisms, which do not always suggest alternatives. It is the Government’s responsibility to find alternatives, but I am keen to bring on board those who have concerns, and to discuss with them the practical alternatives and the role that they could play in helping those who are liable for detention to avoid it and to leave the country voluntarily. The Government are committed to maintaining a firm but fair asylum and immigration system, and the departure of those who do not have a basis to stay here is the most important element of that. It is only fair.”
“We will accommodate four or five families at any one time for a process that lasts about 12 weeks, and the pilot will be evaluated by Barnardo’s and the consultancy firm Organisational Development and Support. So far, eight families have been through the project. One family absconded and a second has been removed forcibly. Thus far, there have been no voluntary returns, although two are currently pursuing the voluntary route. It is early days—we are barely more than six months in—but after my visit, I will happily let hon. Members know what is happening. That is just one initiative, and more can be done, including in communities, because people do not necessarily have to go to special facilities.”
“We looked at a number of issues when we formulated the new programme. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned those organisations and others involved in this area, because I am keen to arrange a round-table meeting with some of those most passionately interested in the issue. Some outside organisations say, “Never detain a child”, but we need to maintain an immigration system—that is the Government’s responsibility and it is mine on behalf of the Government. I am keen to work with people who favour alternatives to see how we can shape those alternatives and ensure that they work and deliver outcomes that are better for the families and children concerned, while still achieving the ends of an immigration system.”
“The Government are working with a number of agencies to tackle identify fraud and advise the public. This is coupled with our continuing roll-out of identity cards and, in future, modern passports, to provide people with a highly secure means of protecting and proving their identity.”
“We have no intention of introducing any further legislation because we believe we have the tools in law to deal with this issue, and we already have the identity fraud communications awareness group, a multi-agency group that works to highlight the challenges of identity fraud. I should also reiterate my point that we are rolling out a programme of more secure identity cards and passports, which will enable citizens to protect themselves against this form of crime.”
“I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on leading some of the work on this matter as chair of the all-party group on identity fraud, and I agree with him that online fraud is a big problem. However, I disagree with him on other things, because ID cards can be a major way of tackling such fraud. In Germany and Belgium, ID cards are often used as a way of proving age online, and that in itself can help to prevent certain fraudulent transactions. Proving identity online can be a way of helping to tackle identity fraud in that area.”
“The MPs’ visa inquiry line was merged on 4 January with the UK Border Agency’s main MPs’ inquiry line to provide a single point of contact for hon. Members to inquire about constituency cases.”
“I am aware that a number of hon. Members used to contact posts direct, but that caused some difficulties because not all overseas posts had a dedicated visa inquiry line. That meant that a visa officer might often not have been available to take calls; it diverted visa officers from dealing with the cases in time; and it meant that they might have had to take certain things out of the queue. It is important that we have a fair access system, so I am happy to talk to my hon. Friend about his experiences, as a very assiduous constituency MP, in this matter. I am happy to arrange a meeting with him to discuss any particularly problematic cases.”
“We are having a lot of discussions with the bodies that represent small yachtsmen, and with yachtsmen themselves. I am dealing with a lot of correspondence on the matter— [ Interruption. ] I mean people sailing small yachts; I do not mind about the size of the yachtsmen or, indeed, yachtswomen. We continue to look at the matter, because the idea is that e-Borders should not be over-burdensome but do its job and ensure that people meaning harm to this country do not reach our shores.”
“I shall be very keen to look up that case, because we have had the occasional instance of an ID card not being recognised. In every case so far, however, the relevant national body has said that it recognises the card as a matter of policy but an individual member of staff has, unfortunately, not been aware of that fact. We are working to get publicity out there, and we will continue to do so.”
“It upholds our democratic principles, supporting the founding tenets of British policing and, crucially, providing a practical framework for the police to resolve any areas of conflict.”
“As the Government made clear in the White Paper, we welcome the HMIC report as a major contribution to the future direction of the policing of protests. We are committed to working with the police and others to ensure that the recommendations are properly acted on. The White Paper endorses the values championed by the HMIC review and reaffirms the key principles of the British policing model. As I have said, community policing and policing by consent underpin the policing of protests as well as our general approach to policing. We agree with the Joint Committee that human rights awareness must be a core part of policing protest. A human rights-based approach, however, is not a soft option; it does not mean anything-goes policing.”
“The report was published last November, and the Government’s position on the policing of protests was set out in the White Paper “Protecting the Public: Supporting the Police to Succeed”, which was published in December. As we said in the White Paper, the public have the right to expect the highest standards of policing, and we have to support every officer in delivering those high standards. None the less, it is important to put the policing of protests into a proper context. The overwhelming majority of officers do a professional job in what can be testing circumstances. Examples of good practice include the sensitive policing of the Tamil protests around Parliament. Difficult challenges were presented by the English Defence League demonstrations, which saw thousands of people gathering in some of our cities.”
“We have a close communicative approach to policing protests rather than the distance approach that is seen in some other countries. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary would back me very firmly in my view that we have the best police service in the world. We must nurture it. As the Committee will be aware from the letter of 13 January, my right hon. Friend the Minister welcomed the Joint Committee’s report on behalf of the Government, as well as the other reviews that have been published on this issue in the past year. Our response to the Committee’s recommendations is based on the HMIC report, “Adapting to Protest: Nurturing the British Model of Policing”. That title sums up the sentiment at the core of the Home Office’s attitude to policing.”
“How officers police protests is hugely important, and the issue has attracted considerable interest in recent months. As the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) said, in the vast majority of cases the police get it right. None the less, all it takes is one wrong move for the public, understandably, to lose confidence. When the public lose confidence in the police, it can undermine the British policing model, which is built on the principles of policing by consent and community policing. We have seen such principles amplified in our approach to neighbourhood policing, in which police officers are very much embedded in the community, rather than appearing only when a crime is committed. Such an approach should not be different when it comes to policing protests.”
“If the police service and the Government are to learn lessons, particularly when things go wrong, we should not be afraid of scrutiny. Personally, I welcome it, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Crime and Counter-Terrorism does too. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell), the Under-Secretary of State, give their apologies for not being here today. They are busy in Committee. The management of House of Commons business, which was raised by some Members, is a matter for the usual channels; the Home Office has less power in that regard than we do as individual Members. None the less, I am confident that there will be time to debate in that Bill some of the other matters that were raised today.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Streeter. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on the work carried out by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in respect of policing and protest and particularly on the Committee’s deft ability to produce a report and still take account of an event that took place a day or two after it was published. We heard that the Committee took written and oral evidence from a wide range of witnesses and examined the way in which protests are policed in a number of other countries. That detailed evidence gathering is reflected in the tenor of the report. Some Ministers may find scrutiny uncomfortable, but it is an essential process, especially in the area of policing.”
“ACPO, the NPIA and the Home Office all have a role to play in ensuring that our police on the ground have the guidance and practical support that they need to act in that way.”
“Unusually, I have time to do so; I do not think that I have ever been in Westminster Hall when I have had time properly to answer the points raised. I hope to cover everything that has been raised today. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon raised a number of issues, particularly about stop-and-search, section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and photography. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds talked very supportively about the hard work that our police do, and the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) raised other concerns that I will address later. I hope that in my first comments I addressed the concern of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds about the core principles. Proportionality, legality and necessity are the principles behind the policing of protests.”
“If they work under different guidelines or have a different approach, that could cause great difficulty and mean that they were not doing their job so well. It is important that we have some consistency across the 43 forces in England and Wales. We agree with the HMIC recommendation that a Home Office code of practice is the way to achieve that consistency, and we are working with the police service to develop a code that supports common standards and gets the right balance in minimising bureaucracy and respecting key elements of the British policing model—operational independence, officer discretion, local innovation and political neutrality. I have listened very carefully to the points that have been raised, and I am delighted to be able to answer them.”
“I will touch on the points raised by hon. Members in a moment. ACPO and the National Policing Improvement Agency are already well on the way to updating guidance and training. As the HMIC makes clear, it is all very well providing guidance and training, but the guidance and training need to be targeted, practical and informed by front-line officers who are facing the public. Transparency is key to building confidence and to working towards a no-surprises policing policy. Given the national public order and interoperability challenges, forces across the country need to use and comply with guidance and training. We often have situations in which police are moved from one force area to another to police a protest.”
“It is very clear that we need to ensure that such a decision is made at an operational level—by that, I mean at the time and on the judgment of a professional police officer. The 1986 Act needs to be read against the Human Rights Act 1998 whenever the police consider using their powers in such a way. Clearly, the police must have guidance and training. The principles also provide clarity on issues that continue to raise legitimate concerns, such as the proportionate and appropriate use of police stop-and-search powers; the use of force; the application of containment; how police and protesters can improve their communication with one another; how chief constables can ensure that officers in uniform are clearly identifiable at all times to the public whom they serve; and what images and data on protesters the police can gather and retain.”
“We agree with the Joint Committee that the policing of protest must be founded on good communication and dialogue between the police and protest groups, drawing on community-style policing, which is the foundation of what we do. It is key to a no-surprises policing policy. The Government are not saying that protests will be unfettered. If, for example, there is a threat of serious public disorder, the Public Order Act 1986 specifically allows the police to intervene and impose conditions on protests to prevent serious public disorder, serious disruption to the life of the community and serious damage. That is based on a senior officer’s reasonable belief, taking into account the particular circumstances.”
“I take this opportunity to echo the comments of my hon. Friend and to praise the progress that has been made on policing in very challenging circumstances in Northern Ireland. We recognise that in the Home Office, and it was certainly reflected in the Committee’s report. The Government believe that we must start from the position of supporting those who want to exercise their right to peaceful protest. None the less, those seeking to exercise it must act responsibly and look to work constructively with the police. The public can expect some disruption and inconvenience as a consequence of the state’s upholding the rights of protest. That is the hallmark of an open and democratic society.”
“Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon is no longer in his seat, but he can read my comments in Hansard tomorrow. As we said in our response to the Joint Committee, we consider that the civil procedure rules provide sufficient safeguards to ensure that those who are the subject of injunctions have the opportunity to make representations. We are not convinced of the need to amend the civil procedure rules and we believe that the Civil Procedure Rules Committee, which considers changes, would be unlikely to be convinced about the need for change on the basis of what appears to be an isolated case.”
“Furthermore, the profile of the UK press card will be raised throughout police forces, and forces are now building the role of journalists into their training scenarios to increase awareness among front-line officers. As a former journalist myself, I am certainly very pleased that we are making it clear to police officers that journalists have a legitimate and proper role to play in covering protests and related issues, and that that role is separate from that of protesters. Crucially, as HMIC recognises, awareness-raising is already being translated into action. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon and the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) both raised issues about injunctions against protesters; I think that the hon. Member for Cambridge touched on those issues too. Unfortunately, the hon.”