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 76 of 97.
“In producing detailed advice on this area, we shall be drawing on the summary of the ECHR implications of the Wood case in HMIC’s report, the advice sought by ACPO and the Metropolitan police service’s revised standard operating procedure on overt filming. We are holding “train the trainers” events to raise awareness and understanding of human rights issues for those who deliver command training across the police service. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon and the hon. Members for Bury St. Edmunds and for Cambridge mentioned our relations with journalists and the media. We are looking at media best practice with the Society of Editors and the National Union of Journalists; indeed, that best practice has now been finalised.”
“The courts have recently considered whether the taking and retention of photographs is compatible with the right to private life protected by article 8 of the European convention on human rights. The decision to retain images is a matter for individual police forces, informed by the legislative framework set out in the ECHR and the Data Protection Act 1998. The Home Office code of practice on the management of police information sets out the key principles to be followed in the retention of police data. In line with HMIC’s recommendation, we intend to clarify that legal framework for the use of overt photography by the police during public order operations.”
“I can confirm that and I will go into more detail on that when I address those issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) raised a concern about photography. I know that that is a sensitive area; as a constituency MP, I have had to deal with that issue in relation to a particular constituent. We know that photography can be a valuable intelligence-gathering tool. Of course, it works both ways—there are the photographs taken of protesters by the police and then there is the section 44 issue. However, photographs taken by the police can be a valuable intelligence-gathering tool, which allows officers to build up a clear picture of who is involved in planning and organising any criminal behaviour. It can also provide the police with valuable evidence. The use of photography raises human rights issues.”
“It is not that there is no urgency. If we are looking to change the law, whether through primary legislation or other routes, we have to be careful to ensure that we are not doing so on the basis of just one case. If the Joint Committee has evidence in relation to other cases, we will certainly look again at the issue of injunctions and I will certainly pass any such evidence on to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Crime and Counter-Terrorism. However, as I say, we cannot work on the basis of one case. Let us take what is perhaps a more challenging example. If there is someone who is a partner and, say, a member of Fathers 4 Justice, could that person not use the cloak of being a protester to circumvent civil procedure rules?”
“Well, I think that we need to be clear that there could be perverse outcomes if we rushed into change on the basis of one example. We need to look into that issue.”
“Perhaps I did not make my point clear, but it was about somebody who was, for example, in the situation that I described. If there is an issue about personal safety for an individual, sometimes the injunction needs to be put in place expediently and there is not time to give notice. There should always be as much notice as possible, but sometimes urgent situations arise and we need to ensure that we provide safety for people too. I am keen to move on, because essentially injunctions are a matter for the courts to decide and we need to be mindful of the separation of powers in this country.”
“Good communication is the key, in terms of face-to-face community-style policing, and that is how we in this country choose to police protests. We do not stand at a distance using water cannons, as police in other countries do, and we should not have communication as a specialist role; I believe that it needs to be embedded, as it already is, in the training of all police officers. My hon. Friend also raised the issue of independent mediators. We agree with HMIC that it is preferable for the police to remain the primary arbiter in relation to decisions about protests, on the basis that they will take impartial decisions and are accountable under the law for the exercise of their discretion.”
“The courts are obliged to take into account articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR in all cases before them, under the Human Rights Act 1998. In this instance, we are talking about procedure rules and there remains a role for without- notice injunctions. Ultimately the courts, which are used to all aspects of granting injunctions, will decide on injunctions. If the Joint Committee has further evidence in relation to this issue, we would welcome the chance to look at it. However, as things stand, we have no plans to change our position. My hon. Friend also raised the issue of the use of technology. There is a real benefit to using technology, but we must not forget the basics and in this country the basics of policing are human—our police officers on the streets.”
“Of course, the police should always be willing to talk to anyone. It distresses me sometimes when I hear of cases where a group of protesters, or any group, does not wish to co-operate with the police, because if we can engender dialogue we often break through these problems. The existing public order framework—”
“May I just finish my point? The existing public order framework operates effectively and it ensures the facilitation of protests in the vast majority of cases across England and Wales. Good communication and effective dialogue are key. However, we are not convinced of the need for mediators at this point, because we believe that the police are well trained in this area. Furthermore, I believe that the use of mediators can add complications and overly bureaucratic processes to what is essentially the current effective model of working, whereby the police enter into discussions with the people they are policing and they are not seen as unable to do that. There is a danger in bringing in mediation. I know that my hon. Friend disagrees, but I will give way to the hon. Member for Cambridge first.”
“Certainly the police’s job is to facilitate protest—as long as it is peaceful. The police must establish that balance, on human rights grounds, between the rights of the wider population and the rights of the protesters. So, a certain level of disruption may be acceptable, but there must be a decision made on the ground about, for example, when it is acceptable for protesters to block a road and for how long. A protest may be peaceful, but it can be very inconvenient for other people. There needs to be a balance. I am of the opinion that the problem must be solved by building trust rather than circumventing it. Bringing a third party into discussions would not build trust between the police and protesters. We are talking about one challenging case. We should not be thinking about changing procedure on the basis of one example.”
“I disagree. In the vast majority of cases, there is trust between police and protesters. If we went down the path of suggesting that we need a third party as a routine matter of course because there is no trust, it would undermine the police and their training. One could also say that it would let the police off the hook of having to deal with communications. The police officers whom I deal with in my constituency, who pride themselves on their contact with the community and how they deal with protests and demonstrations, would be insulted by the idea that another party needed to come in and do that for them.”
“We need to balance consent and maintaining the safety of officers and the public. It is important to emphasise that normally, of course, officers do not wear riot gear. It is rare that we escalate to protective clothing and gear, although it is important that it is available.”
“I do not want to give way again, because we are going around in circles. We may have to agree to disagree on this point. My hon. Friend’s general characterisation of riot police might inform his position; it comes from the perspective of the protester. I can give an example of my own. One nice sunny day, my children and I were heading to a park in north-east London. It happened to be the day of the London derby between Arsenal and Tottenham. As we entered the tube station on our way back, large groups of drunken fans were chanting at each other. Police in riot gear were keeping them apart, and I must say that I was grateful for their presence. It depends on one’s perspective. I do not see a problem with having police present to maintain peace. We do not want riot police on the streets all the time, but it is important that they are there.”
“I do not wish to trivialise what my hon. Friend says, because I know that he says it with some feeling, but although it is easy to talk about a halfway house, I am not clear how practical it would be to implement something between ordinary daily uniform and riot gear. Is he suggesting a third uniform? Perhaps he would like to elucidate, as I am not clear what he is proposing.”
“In that situation, the decision was made, but my point is that the decision must be made at operational level with due regard to the health and safety of the policemen and women who put themselves every day in the line of defence of the general population, and who sometimes put their lives at risk. It is important that we give that balance.”
“Stop-and-search powers should be used only in that case, but it is not right to say that stop-and-search powers should never be used against protesters. Stop and search can be deployed in a particular area if authorised on the basis of a reasonable belief that incidents involving serious violence might take place in the locality in a police area and that authorisation is expedient to prevent their occurrence, or that persons are carrying dangerous instruments or offensive weapons in the police area without good reason—”
“The hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I wish to move on. We had a lot of discussion of stop and search under section 44 at protests and, although I have quite a lot of time, if I do not make some progress, I risk missing some of the important points raised. It is important that stop-and-search powers are used for the purposes specified in relevant legislation. When police stop and search a protester, they must always specify on what legislative grounds they are conducting the search. All police powers to stop and search derive from various statutes including section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.”
“We discussed section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 and I will clarify the Government’s position. We agree with the Joint Committee that there is no right under English law not to be offended. Such a right would undermine the right to freedom of expression. We must get away from the idea that section 5 is about simply preventing people from causing offence—that misrepresents the law. Although protecting freedom of expression is key, it must be balanced with the need to ensure that people, especially vulnerable members of society, are protected from gratuitous insults. I am worried that amending the offence as the Joint Committee proposes would send the wrong message that it is acceptable to insult someone.”
“The Government’s intention has always been to come up with provisions that allow the police to maintain access to Parliament in a way that does not disproportionately restrict protest, that is clear to those wishing to protest in the area and that is commensurate with Parliament’s expectations. We welcome the continuing debate on the matter during the passage of the Bill and hope to bring Parliament clarity on the consequences of our proposals. We are confident that there will be plenty of time to debate the matter on Report. The hon. Member for Cambridge raised the issue of identity numbers. I will write to provide him with information on the frequency of discipline and the reaction of the police to the loss or covering up of identity numbers. Perhaps we can discuss the matter after the debate and come up with suitable wording.”
“The framework governing protests will be the same around Parliament as everywhere else in the UK, except that police will be given tightly defined powers to maintain access to Parliament. We believe that our provisions reflect the Joint Committee’s recommendations on the need to maintain access to Parliament, although we are aware of its concerns that the Government’s provisions on access lack clarity. We have provided Parliament with the draft text of an order showing what requirements must be met in relation to maintaining access to the Palace. We hope that it will address those concerns, and we look forward to hearing the Committee’s views.”
“The Government understand the complexities of modern policing and the judgments that police must make daily. In the arena of public order policing, the police must balance a number of competing rights, as I have said, and it is important that the legislative framework is clear to assist the police in carrying out their role. We will continue to work with ACPO to provide proper understanding and application of the law. As I have said, it is not good enough just to have law or guidance; it must be understood and implemented at a practical level by officers on the ground, at the sharp end of policing. Hon. Members have mentioned protest around Parliament. As they will be aware, we have introduced measures in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill to repeal sections 132 to 138 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.”
“We are tackling it in a revision to ACPO guidance and a Home Office code by July this year, as the White Paper outlines. My hon. Friend also mentioned the amount of legislation and the need for clarity. One substantive change has been made to the Public Order Act 1986 in the past 10 years: the number of people constituting an assembly changed from 20 to two. The change had the full support of the police service, and the Government will constantly review the law— [ Laughter. ] But that is only one change. My hon. Friend said that too many changes had been made to the law. The Government will constantly review the law and consult widely before introducing any new legislation. That includes consulting the police and making changes at their request.”
“I have welcomed clarification given to constituents and locally about how section 44 is used, but I have learned from talking to my local police in Hackney that it is a valuable way to ensure that we are all safe. In all matters of policing and human rights, we must balance the rights of the individual stopped or the protester against the rights of the wider community as well. It is about balance. It is important that we do not forget that when we discuss protests, we are not talking only about those who choose to protest but about the people whose lives their protests can disrupt. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon discussed the balance between public and private space. We are committed to working with ACPO and wider stakeholders on the issue.”
“The European Court of Human Rights judgment is not final, and the UK will not be required to implement it by amending the law, pending our appeal to the grand chamber. We hope to persuade the Court that our domestic court’s assessment is correct and that the powers are compatible with convention rights. It is important to emphasise that the effectiveness of section 44 powers cannot be measured simply in terms of the number of arrests resulting from stops and searches. The purpose of the policy is also to act as a deterrent to terrorists. Since mid-2009, however, stop and search in the capital dropped 40 per cent. after the Metropolitan police responded to concerns, including from the community, by changing how the tool is used.”
“We can always find examples—sadly, there are examples—of where the powers have not been used clearly. I welcome the support of Her Majesty’s Opposition on the issue. Let us be clear that there is a real threat of terrorism in this country, but such powers must be used properly. We have it on House of Lords authority that stop-and- search powers are lawful and continue to be good law domestically. Lord Carlile has consistently stated in his annual review of terrorism legislation—both last year and the year before—that he is not in favour of repealing section 44. In his judgment, sections 44 and 45 remain necessary and proportional, according to the key principles of policing protest, to deal with the continuing and serious risk of terrorism.”
“It is possible lawfully to express views in public that some consider offensive without being threatening, abusive or insulting and, therefore, without contravening section 5. The hon. Member for Cambridge mentioned Kingsnorth climate camp. Home Office Ministers have given undertakings to Parliament that the lessons that can be learned from Kingsnorth will be identified and shared. The former Home Office Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) apologised for unwittingly providing inaccurate information to the House about bee stings.”
“Friend the Member for Hendon will be aware that our response states that we are happy to share the draft guidance with the Joint Committee. The right to freedom of expression, as contained in article 10 of the European convention on human rights, is an essential foundation of a democratic society. Although it concerns the Government if police officers use powers inappropriately in a way that impacts on a person’s right to freedom of expression, we believe that the way to address that is to give officers targeted guidance, not to change the law. The courts have upheld that section 5 of the 1986 Act contains the necessary balance between the individual’s right to freedom of expression and the right of others not to be insulted and distressed. Section 5 is engaged only when the words or behaviour are “threatening, abusive or insulting”.”
“Although this is not my normal area of work in the Home Office, I have looked at the issue closely because it interests me. One challenge, which was backed up by our consultation, is that removing the word “insulting” from the scope of the offence would send a signal that insulting a person is acceptable. That would have a negative impact on vulnerable members of society. We believe that the best way to address the difficulties highlighted by the Joint Committee is to produce clear guidance and training for police on the use of section 5, which highlights the importance of human rights considerations in relation to freedom of expression. We intend to develop guidance in consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service. My hon.”
“It is important to have that mix and not just to make decisions from behind the Minister’s desk in Whitehall, as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds characterised it. The hon. Member for Cambridge raised the issue of the police’s role in relation to the media. The Joint Committee took evidence which showed that the police give the media measured briefings. I therefore disagree with his characterisation. I see that he disagrees with me.”
“It is an independent organisation made up of representatives of the 43 police forces. ACPO is instrumental in advising the Government on how to tackle serious and ongoing threats that put the public at risk. As such, on behalf of the whole service, it leads on the executing of major national projects aimed at developing the capacity of the service to meet the challenges of the rapidly changing world. Although policing is not my main area of work in the Home Office, I do work with ACPO leads. As a Minister, it is helpful to have access to experts in the area who have ready access to a network of other experts in the field. That enables Ministers to receive good advice from people who know what it is like to be a working police officer.”
“We welcome the fresh thinking from HMIC and the new president of ACPO and his team on ACPO’s role and on how ACPO can have the best possible partnerships with the Home Office and the Association of Police Authorities. We look forward to discussing any formal proposals that emerge from ACPO in due course. Parliament will have a role in any such proposals. The hon. Gentleman also raised concerns about whether ACPO is accountable enough. Constitutionally, ACPO is part of the tripartite leadership for policing. It works in partnership with Government and the Association of Police Authorities to co-ordinate the direction and development of the service. It is not anomalous, but fits into a well-worn structure that brings together the key leads of the 43 police forces in England and Wales so that there are common standards.”
“I will pass on the hon. Gentleman’s repeated acceptance of that apology and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling will be pleased. I am pleased that Kent police published the ACPO review into Kingsnorth and that the HMIC has picked up on the lessons in its report, “Adapting to Protest—Nurturing the British Model of Policing”. Indeed, Kent police are holding a symposium on public order next month to learn the lessons. I am sure the hon. Member for Cambridge will be interested in the outcome of that. The hon. Gentleman was critical of ACPO and asked whether it should continue to exist in its current form. We believe strongly that ACPO is an important part of the policing landscape.”
“We agree that guidance needs to be implemented, and that the Olympics will be a challenge in that respect, so we need to make sure we have got it right.”
“Gentleman also raised the question of there not being enough trained officers. We take that very seriously, as do ACPO, which is working on building regional capability. The Home Office will be producing a code of practice on public order to ensure that the police have appropriately trained officers. That is core policing and, as I mentioned, it is important to have that across 43 forces, because of the need to move officers, from time to time, into other force areas. The HMIC is clear that the issue is not more training, but better training. ACPO and the National Policing Improvement Agency have already piloted a new command-level training approach. I am happy to provide the hon. Gentleman with guidance on that as necessary.”
“That is rightly happening under the auspices of the IPCC and HMIC. Once again, I stress that most officers do not overuse force, but they are working in very challenging areas. At the sharp end of policing, officers need to know that they are scrutinised and will be trained to do the job properly. We need to be sure that we have safeguards in place for any officers who overstep the mark. We will continue to work with all police agencies and associations to ensure that the legal position on police use of force is embedded in every area of policing from the first day of training right the way through. We will also ensure there is consistency in different areas of guidance that impinge on the use of force; for example, armed policing and officer safety training. Those will be cemented in the code of practice. The hon.”
“Edmunds raised some useful points. I welcome his cross-party support for the valuable and important work of the police. It is important that we send a message out to the police that Parliament supports the work they do. I am glad that we can do that in this debate on a challenging area of policing. The legal test for the use of force, which is one of the concerns the hon. Gentleman raised, is set out in the Criminal Law Act 1967. That applies to any use of force. The law is clear that any use of force must be reasonable and appropriate to the threat or perceived threat that officers face. The disproportionate use of force is unacceptable and any officer found to be using excessive force will be disciplined accordingly. Where there is doubt or concern about the use of force, the police should be scrutinised.”
“I would be grateful to hear from him examples of where police have moved in and closed an area so that we can raise them with ACPO. If he provides information to the Minister for Policing, Crime and Counter-Terrorism, he will look into it. The hon. Gentleman also raised forward intelligence teams. The ACPO review of guidance on their work to date will be forthcoming. The hon. Gentleman also raised the Wood case. That did not go against the Government, as he said. The case was brought against the Metropolitan police, who welcome the clarity that the judgment brings. It is important to put that on the record. As I said, we agree that photography can be a valuable intelligence-gathering tool, but it raises human rights issues. It is important that those issues are tested in the courts. The hon. Member for Bury St.”
“We are asking the police to do a great deal if they are to be held responsible for the headlines in certain newspapers. Speaking as a Home Office Minister, I can say that Government policy is often crudely misrepresented. I can do my best to change that, but I cannot tell a journalist how to do their job. We have a free press in this country. Whether or not we agree with the press, we have to allow it to do its job. We are in danger of overstepping the mark with regard to what the police can actually achieve. I am sure that police press offices up and down the country work to calm things down, but we have a free press and we must allow it to work unfettered. The hon. Member for Cambridge mentioned containment.”
“In the White Paper on policing, we pledged to work with the police and the public to ensure that the recommendations of the HMIC report are properly acted upon and to act as an agent for change. I am encouraged by everyone’s commitment to drive forward support for our front-line police officers, and I look forward to continuing engagement with the Joint Committee on the programme of work as it progresses throughout the year.”
“I hope that I have provided reassurance this afternoon about the Government’s commitment to upholding the right to peaceful protest and to providing police officers with the support that they need. We in the Home Office and the police have undertaken to deliver a programme of work by summer this year that will directly address a number of the Committee’s recommendations. We might disagree on some small areas, but I hope I have reassured my hon. Friend that, where the Committee has evidence on certain issues, we are always happy to consider that. Once again, I pay due respect to how the Committee has gathered the evidence and to the considered way in which it produced its report.”
“The public purse is not an automated teller machine, even for policing, and we need to make sure that we balance money properly. We are working towards joint procurement strategies on police and public order equipment. There is greater collaboration between forces in line with the protective services agenda. I recommend that the hon. Gentleman look at the White Paper, “Protecting the Public: Supporting the Police to Succeed” for more detail on that. I think I have covered most of the issues raised—I am just checking to see if there is anything I have missed. We agree that the Northern Ireland model is good, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon said, and the climate camp at Blackheath shows that we can have proper, proportionate policing and dialogue between the police and those involved.”
“As I am not the lead Minister in that area, I cannot promise exactly what I can provide, but I will pass the matter directly on to the Minister for Policing, Crime and Counter-Terrorism. There might be some minor issues concerning the security of the Olympics that we cannot reveal widely to the public, but if we can reveal that information to hon. Members, we will do so as appropriate. The intention is certainly to be open about the matter. I was also grateful to the hon. Gentleman—harmony breaks out on this cold Thursday afternoon—for expressing his desire to have more bang for our buck, as he put it. That is very much core to the Home Office’s approach. We do not necessarily need to use more money to do these things but, in everything we are doing, we should weigh every public pound and use it as effectively as possible.”
“We are talking at cross purposes here. The difference is that the situation in Northern Ireland developed over a long time; there was no sudden single event for which that approach was necessary. Those involved were dealing with communities that were entrenched over many years—in fact, for my entire lifetime, until recently. We are talking here about individual protests that, as we say, are mostly peaceable. Sometimes those protests escalate, but who is able to communicate best on the ground? It should be our police. According to my hon. Friend’s model, at what point would it be right to bring in a mediator? The fact that a mediator might be available could even escalate the problems further. We have the right approach and, as we set out in the White Paper, we are all about communicating, not de-escalating.”
“I hope that my hon. Friend will acknowledge that in Blackheath the police are building bridges and trust with the climate protesters. There is a difference between building bridges on a soft basis and having hard mediators come in at the final point. Does he agree that it is important that the police understand the culture of the people they are dealing with and do not do that through an intermediary, which would put a distance between themselves and protesters, rather than having the contact policing that is central to our model?”
“of the total, or one in five. Any additional fees may be charged by the bodies that collect the forms and submit them to the CRB on behalf of the applicants. Some local authorities and others provide that service for a fee; others do it for free. It is up to the individual to shop around, should they want to do so. There is quite a lot of public support for the CRB. Nine in 10 people agree that those who do paid or voluntary work with children should be checked and would be willing to be checked themselves, and nearly three out of four members of the general public think that the CRB is making a difference. I contend that the fact that 98,000 people have been prevented from working with children and vulnerable adults is an argument for the success of the scheme and a challenge to some of the points raised by the hon.”
“In addition, 20 CRB staff are embedded with the Metropolitan police due to the difference in IT systems. We hope to see more of that, because it means that most checks will be done quickly by trained and dedicated staff. In some small forces, there are very few people to do them. All it takes is for one person to be sick, and the force’s ability to deal with the backlog can be affected. I have the latest performance figures of the Thames Valley police; if I do not have time to read them into the record, I can provide them to the hon. Gentleman. I want to correct a slight misapprehension about fees. Perhaps it is not a misapprehension; perhaps it is based on fact. The fees for a disclosure are £36 for an enhanced disclosure and £26 for a standard disclosure. They are, of course, free for all volunteers, who account for about 22 per cent.”
“Gentleman asked specifically whether the protection of vulnerable adults list will be taken on by the Independent Safeguarding Authority. It is at present undergoing transfer so that any cases on the POVA list from last autumn will be transferred to the ISA. Some will be case-worked again—there may be issues around the decisions. I wish to make it absolutely clear that a work permit does not require a CRB check. I am not quite sure whether that is what the hon. Gentleman was asking, but it is worth reading it into the record that a work permit itself does not require a check. The Thames Valley police force has a backlog, but it is one of six forces where the CRB has made a special arrangement to allow staff to access police records directly so that most cases can go through quickly. It is going well with the six forces.”
“The main subject of the debate is the enhanced disclosure. The CRB currently issues standard and enhanced disclosures. Standard ones include information about criminal records but also about cautions and other police. Enhanced disclosures include, critically, other local intelligence—the kind of local intelligence that was not released in the case of Ian Huntley. That is one of the reasons why it is particularly important. The hon. Gentleman discussed delays of five months. I shall go into performance statistics in a little more detail, as he indicated I might. Five months is an unusually long time, as most checks are done quickly, and must mean that there has been a need to acquire information from different police forces and perhaps elsewhere. The hon.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Evans, I believe for the first time. I shall not repeat the facts about the establishment of the Criminal Records Bureau as they have been outlined by the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey). Instead, I shall get straight on to some of the points that he raised, and in particular go into detail on why we have repeat disclosures, and on disputes about information. The hon. Gentleman has not tried to discuss an individual case; regardless, I point out that I cannot discuss individual cases, but I am happy to facilitate a meeting between him and the leading people at the CRB and to be present at it myself, if that would be helpful. I hope that we can catch each other after the debate to make arrangements to do that as quickly as possible.”