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 77 of 97.
“Complaints about disclosures amount to 0.18 per cent.—just less than 0.2 per cent.—of the total number of disclosures issued. We take any complaint seriously, but most in the public service would think that a pretty good standard. As I said, customer satisfaction is very high. The role undertaken by police forces goes to the heart of safeguarding.”
“When the CRB has information, it can be turned round quickly, but so far only six forces and the Metropolitan police are involved. There is an issue concerning the operational effectiveness of police disclosure units, and that may be because they are small in number. Work is being done, and I shall not go into it in more detail, but I would welcome hon. Members visiting a disclosure unit. The Metropolitan police are only down the road from Parliament and would be happy to host hon. Members, and I am sure their local police forces would do so. The Metropolitan police are particularly useful because the unit is large and it can be seen how minutely they look at non-conviction data. Such a visit would be helpful, and I would be happy to arrange it for the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of complaints.”
“Sometimes the form is not as accurate as it could be, which is why we have reduced the number of bodies that are able to process them. We had evidence to show that those who did not deal with them regularly were less accurate. Having fewer, better trained registered bodies dealing with higher volumes means that they are better at the job, and that has helped. Clarity of information provided may be an issue that we must go back to and check, so getting it right first time is important. The key issue is whether there is conviction or non-conviction information. The deal is that police forces where someone has been living for the past five years must make a check. For many people the return is nil and the check is done quickly.”
“The CRB check plays a role, but the Government do not provide a gold-plated guarantee. That is not the role of the CRB. We can do more cross-party—the Government need to do more, as do all of us—to ensure that we recognise and challenge CRB checks if they are made inappropriately. I have little time left, and I want to canter around the issue of delays. There have been perceived problems, but the service standards are good. Most cases of enhanced checks—87.7 per cent.—will be issued in 28 days. The time they take varies, because sometimes an employer or registered body that processes applications may hold on to the application form. I sometimes receive letters complaining about a delay and it turns out that the employer has held on to the form for perhaps six weeks or more, which has caused a delay in getting it to the CRB.”
“If an 18-year-old boy and a 15 year-old-girl were in a consensual long-term relationship, a different light would be cast on that, and there have been examples of employers taking on someone with a conviction or allegation of rape. In one example involving the mental health of an applicant, an individual had been sectioned under the Mental Health Act 1983, and the police had been called to an incident. The information states that the individual was later diagnosed with bipolar disorder, and that individual was employed. There may be information about drug treatment programmes and so on that an applicant attended as part of a disposal of sentence. That has not prevented people from entering employment. The key point is that the final and most important decision is made by the recruiting body.”
“Gentleman about his constituent. A very small number of people are in the same situation as his constituent. That does not mean that we do not take the matter seriously, but it is important to safeguard children, and we must recognise that there are consequences from an arrangement such as this. I can give examples of disclosure information that has been revealed to employers, but not led to withdrawal of a job offer. Information released to provide clarity involving a rape conviction—rape is a serious crime, and none of us would treat that lightly—may show the ages and relationship of the victim and offender, and may inform a decision.”
“The number of job offers withdrawn as a result of disclosure is only 0.5 per cent. of the 4.4 million per annum. An Ipsos MORI report from 2008 showed clearly that the primary reason for withdrawal of job offers is that details of the individual’s previous convictions are on the form, which applied in 71 per cent. of cases. That could be an unspent conviction, or one that was relevant to the job in hand. Only 20 per cent. of those job offers were withdrawn due to the police force information released as part of the CRB check. That included cautions and non-conviction information, and involved only about one in five of that small number. Only 4 per cent. of that small number—about 0.5 per cent. of the total—were withdrawn due to police information released in a separate letter. That pertains to the example given by the hon.”
“I have gone to make paper flowers with my daughter’s Brownie group. The Brown Owl was present at all times, so I did not require a CRB check, although I have had one for the Scouts, as I attended a residential event in my spare time. There are different circumstances. I am a mother, and I see the practical reality of why this works. I am not a vulnerable adult, but I want to know that when my children are out of my care and in the hands of professional strangers, those strangers are vetted and cleared to be safe with my children. Arrangements for care that I make with my neighbours, family and friends are a matter for me personally, and it is right that the state draws a line in the sand at that point. The hon. Gentleman raised many issues, and in the seven minutes remaining I will canter through them.”
“Many organisations, such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, have gone on the record publicly to explain that there is no reduction in volunteering. About one fifth of all CRB checks are done on volunteers. There is no evidence of a massive reduction in volunteering. We are a nation of volunteers, and it is not having a negative impact. I will talk about portability and its effect in a moment. On the Independent Safeguarding Authority, the regulations do not apply to private and family arrangements or ad hoc arrangements. Anything more frequent than once a week would be seen as a regular arrangement. For example, someone who goes to a school to read to pupils under supervision would not be required to register with the ISA or undergo a CRB check.”
“Gentleman’s later points, I should clarify that there is no need for a CRB check when the person is not alone with children. That is commonly misapprehended by many organisations. One leading light in a large voluntary organisation said to me, “There’s a problem. Everyone thinks that if you do gardening in a hospital, you have to have a CRB check.” It is important that we get the message out that the risk of decision making lies with the employer, agency or voluntary group that employs people. They must still go through the normal checks and procedures to ensure that someone is safe. The CRB check is simply a tool. It provides information. In a moment, I will give some examples of people with information who have gone on to work. The hon. Gentleman alleged that the system reduces the number of people who volunteer.”
“That is one case. I will talk a bit more about the total number. Some 6.7 per cent. of checks reveal information of interest to the employer, but only 0.5 per cent., or 21,000 cases—I acknowledge that that is a significant number—contain information from a police force. The accuracy level is very high, at more than 99.96 per cent. The factual information in records provided by the police and attached to the right individual is accurate. In a moment I will discuss in detail the number of people who lose their jobs as a result. It is very small. To touch on the individual case, although I will not discuss it in detail, there is a dispute process. I am happy to talk privately with the hon. Gentleman about what might be happening in that individual case. To pick up on some of the hon.”
“They should be prepared to take that risk-balance judgment in a sensible way. Broadly, for a similar job in a similar time frame, the check is portable. We are looking to make it a continuous, updating process. That is under way at the moment with the CRB. The CRB cannot endorse the use of portability due to the risks involved. It must let the employer make the judgment. The CRB used to make the decision, but it is not appropriate for that to be done centrally. It must be done at the local level, where the employer has a relationship with the employee or potential employee, access to their referees and all the other information involved in a normal recruitment process. An organisation will have to consider the additional information that was released.”
“I will move on to multiple checks. I just wanted to say that the police take this seriously and that I would welcome the hon. Gentleman’s visit to the disclosure unit. On portability, there appears to be a common misconception that CRB checks cannot be taken elsewhere. CRB checks that have been done elsewhere can be accepted, but if the job it was done for was very different, the information released might be different. It is for the employer to decide. If a check is very old, it might be out of date. If a check is a few weeks old, another one might not be required. It might be that people are over-asking for checks. I have met organisations that say it is their standard policy to ask for checks. They do not need to do so, but should look at each case individually.”
“They remove some 2 million people from the need for registration and ensure that the definitions of frequent and intensive activities are clear and understood. It is essential to ensure that children and vulnerable adults are properly safeguarded and that we do all that we reasonably can to protect them from those who seek to do them harm. However, to be effective, the system must be balanced and proportionate. It is no good making it so tight and difficult that is hard for people to understand. I am grateful to Sir Roger for the clear way in which he communicated his thoughts on how things should be done, and as I said, the Government have accepted them in full.”
“The scheme has received much publicity over the summer. I remember being on maternity leave and sometimes wanting to throw things at the radio when hearing the myths that abounded about who might be included. I was therefore delighted that my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families agreed to ask Sir Roger to check whether what was being done was proportionate. I am glad that we are having this debate today, as it will lay to rest some of those myths. As a result of public concern, Sir Roger was asked to check whether the scheme had drawn the line in the right place for definitions of frequency and intensity of contact with children and vulnerable adults. His recommendations have been accepted; I believe that they improve the overall balance.”
“It will become a legal requirement for employers and voluntary organisations to check the ISA status of new and current employees. As I explained earlier, it is not over-bureaucratic; it should be a swift and straightforward process. By July 2015, all employees and volunteers who work regularly with vulnerable people, including current employees, must be ISA-registered. It may seem a long time, but it is important that we get it right and that we do things proportionately. I recognise, however, that the checks and normal precautions that employers and voluntary groups should be taking have indeed been taking place. Many points have been raised this morning, so I may skip through certain matters that I think less important; I shall make a judgment on that. The hon. Member for Yeovil asked about Sir Roger Singleton’s check.”
“For the individual, it will involve much the same process. The crucial aspect of the new scheme compared with existing and previous regimes is that people will be continuously monitored and their status reassessed whenever new information is received. There will be automatic triggers to ensure that such information is provided to the ISA. The employer will be able to register an interest in an individual with that person’s consent. For example, were I to apply to for a job in a care home, I would be able to give my registration details to the employer, who would then be able to check that I was free and able to work. From November 2010, all new employees and volunteers who regularly come into contact with children or vulnerable people must be ISA-registered before starting work.”
“The reasons for inclusion in the lists include physical abuse, sexual abuse, financial abuse, drug offences, neglect and emotional abuse. Paedophilia is only one reason why the scheme is essential. It is important to see things in the round. It is important to note that the majority of those on the current lists were moved from the previous barred lists, which is why so many have been added in such a short time. From July 2010, all new employees and volunteers who regularly come into contact with children or vulnerable people can be ISA-registered before starting work. Individuals will be able to apply for ISA registration and an enhanced Criminal Records Bureau check on one application form. I shall talk about fees in a moment, but the bureaucratic procedure is similar to going through a CRB check.”
“From now on, if there is even a question mark or if an investigation has been started, that individual has to leave that employer and has a legal duty to provide that information. We will see some significant step changes in tackling the few—I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley—bad apples who may pose a risk to vulnerable adults. That will be an important step. There are also new criminal penalties for barred individuals who work or apply to work with vulnerable groups. Applying to work will itself be a criminal offence if one has been barred. Criminal penalties were introduced to deal with employers who knowingly take on people with a poor record. About 15,000 people are on the ISA list of barred adults and 19,200 people are on the children’s list, but as I said, some appear on both lists.”
“Employers have had a legal duty imposed on them to refer to the ISA information about an individual who may pose a risk to children or vulnerable adults. That is critical. As a carer of a particularly vulnerable adult, I have seen over the years what can happen in some care settings—both professionally and personally. For example, an agency worker or a member of staff who is under investigation may choose to leave that employment. The employer does not need to take further action, because he no longer employs that person. Indeed, his investigation may not have progressed that far. On the same day, the individual can register with another employer or agency, sometimes working in the same care setting.”
“Members’ points about, some of the matters that we are considering, because I am ever aware of the need to ensure that what we establish is proportionate and not over-bureaucratic and that it does what it is supposed to do. I shall set that out clearly. The scheme was launched on 12 October last year. It was the first stage of the process, under which the three existing barring lists—the protection of vulnerable aduits and Protection of Children Act lists and list 99—were replaced by the two ISA barred lists, the lists of those barred from working with children or vulnerable adults. Some people would appear on both lists, and some on one or the other. A crucial point is worth stressing, as we have not talked enough about vulnerable adults in our four years of debate.”
“Friend the Member for Luton, North—free for volunteers and allows an organisation placing volunteers to verify the information quickly and free of charge, without requiring the disclosure of sensitive criminal records data. As hon. Members know, the scheme comes out of the terrible events in Soham. We have made quite a lot of progress. The hon. Member for Basingstoke called for fundamental reviews, but given the fact that the scheme was launched in October and will, as I shall outline, progress rapidly this year, a fundamental review at this stage would mean that we would have no scheme. Four years on, that would be a foolish step. I shall explain, and respond to hon.”
“It is worth reiterating a fact on which I am glad that we have the support of hon. Members from all parties: we want a scheme that will ensure that we do our best to prevent the risk of harm involving those working with children and, just as importantly, vulnerable adults. I agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Basingstoke about where risk lies. Whatever the Government do, they can never eliminate all risk, and it is important that the system that we are debating should be seen as part of the armoury of information that an employer can have in making a decision about whether it is safe for someone to work in a particular environment. The scheme provides a simple, one-off registration that is—to reassure my hon.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Olner. I share the sadness that has been expressed about the death of my friend and colleague David Taylor, who was a fellow Co-operative MP and, as you said, a very active Member in Westminster Hall. It is fitting that we should remember him today. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) for obtaining the debate. The issue is of great importance, and I am glad of the opportunity to clarify some of the matters that he raised and those raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) and for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) and the hon. Members for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) and for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller). It is worth my giving an overview of the scheme, but I want to move quickly on to deal with the many points that have been raised.”
“I shall now pick up on some general points, but I may come back to the point that he raised a moment ago. The question was asked whether police officers should register under the scheme. I and ministerial colleagues from the Departments of Health and for Children, Schools and Families have been alert to the need to ensure that the scheme is proportionate. The cost of police going through their own check, which is essentially the same, seemed over-bureaucratic. It has therefore been decided that police officers, for whom rigorous vetting arrangements are already in place, and who are uniquely placed to access all the relevant criminality and intelligence information on the police national computer, do not need to be ISA-registered. Some officers have regular contact with children, but that is a slightly different issue.”
“I shall touch on a number of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. It will depend on frequency, but I shall not pick up on one point. It would depend also on what the school felt was appropriate if that person had regular contact outside school. For example, schools in small towns may have more contact with that individual than with someone who comes from another geographical area. In essence, as the hon. Gentleman outlined, frequency may be defined as three times a month. However, recommendations 3 and 4 essentially need to work together. It will be a matter of judgment for the school on how it should work and what the timings should be. It is therefore difficult to comment on an example thrown at me in the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman usefully laid out the flaws of the previous system and reminded us all of the need for change.”
“It is not for the Home Office to direct employers what to do, but other Departments—the Departments of Health and for Children, Schools and Families—may choose to have discussions with some of those who require people to have checks.”
“At the same time, the scheme requires an enhanced CRB disclosure, which costs £36. Therefore, in total, the cost is £64, but the ISA registration is only £28, which is a reasonable amount. Good and responsible employers may well choose to take on such a scheme, and it would be right for them to consider it and, arguably, it would make them competitive in attracting employees. We must recognise from where the funding comes. If we provide the checks for free, the money will come from tax funds. If we charge a fee, the scheme will be paid for from that. Therefore, we have two payment options because the money has to come from somewhere.”
“Schools can still choose to ask anyone for an up-to-date CRB check even if they are not barred from working with children. There may be information in the CRB check that is not relevant to the ISA. The impact assessment that was mentioned is being produced, but I cannot give a definite time scale on its production at the moment. Let me pick up on some of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North, because he initiated the debate. He and other hon. Members touched on the issue of cost. The cost of the first registration is £64. It is worth stressing that the cost was never £20. I am not clear where that figure comes from. In the consultation carried out by Government, only 5 per cent. of respondents considered that £20 was an appropriate cost. The cost for the ISA part of the check is £28.”
“If they were providing children with counselling and the financial issue was a concern, the employer might use that as a reason not to employ them. That is the normal process for a CRB check. I am slightly digressing here. As I am anxious about time, I will have to rattle on a bit. As for children’s authors, the Government accepts Sir Roger’s analysis that in cases in which someone is working frequently with children but only in different schools and returns to the same school only infrequently, if at all, there is no opportunity to develop and abuse trust. If I understood the hon. Member for Yeovil correctly, he was talking about someone having fairly regular contact with the same group of children, in which case there would be a requirement for registration. The key issue is about the ability to develop a relationship.”
“Of more concern is the overnight stay on residential trips with children. I welcome the opportunity to make clear that difference. The CRB check gives information about a person, but it is left to the employer’s discretion to decide whether it is relevant to the person having contact with a child. For example, someone who is not barred may have additional information on their CRB check, and it would be up to the employer to judge whether it was relevant to the job. If someone was to apply to be a minibus driver for a youth club, the fact that they had a criminal record may not be an issue, but if they had a record around children it may be. If they were to apply for a job in which they were handling money, a criminal record on a financial matter might be an issue.”
“For example, I would sometimes turn up at a Cub Scouts camp. In those days, I needed a CRB check as there were other children. I recently turned up to make paper flowers with the Brownies, but I did not need a CRB check because, at all times, Brown Owl was present. We have to recognise that the balance is right for volunteers. As a number of hon. Members stressed, we also need to communicate clearly to those who are asked to undergo CRB checks or ISA registration which people need to be checked. It is important to get right the frequent contact test that was raised by Sir Roger Singleton. The hon. Member for Yeovil asked whether the test takes into account the nature of the contact. I hope that my story about the Brownies and the paper flowers has reassured him on that.”
“I shall take the rare step of being candid. I have been up three times in the night with a young baby and I have a cold. I was worried that I might have misheard what the hon. Gentleman said and did not want to commit myself, in Hansard , to something that I may have had to correct. However, I shall address the point that he raised in more general terms. Forgive me, Mr. Olner, for being personal, but that is the reality. We believe that removing the police is a proportionate decision that will reduce bureaucracy. Voluntary sector support is high. Bodies such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and Volunteering England support the inclusion of volunteers in the scheme. It is right. I have volunteered for groups in which my children have been involved. I am a mother of three.”
“A lot of work has been done by the ISA to help to guide people through the process. Youngsters of 16, 17 and 18 do not need to be vetted. As for the issues around overseas visitors, I will write to the hon. Lady about them and send a copy to other hon. Members. In summary, the scheme is important and I welcome the debate on it. It is a shame that we have not had more time to discuss it.”
“However, when carers—those of us who are parents or caring for anyone who is an adult—hand someone over to others who are not in their direct control, they need the reassurance that they are safe. That is what this scheme is intended to do and what I believe, with the adjustments that we are making, it will do. Let me reassure the hon. Lady that we are making good progress on the police national database. Moreover, I have to say that we have not been inept on the communications front. We have done a lot to communicate with different bodies, but sometimes, alas—as a journalist myself I find this distressing—newspapers do not always check their facts properly and headlines can alarm people. We will continue to provide information. The helpline has dealt with many queries and e-mailed responses.”
“If the scheme does not work, I pledge to review it after the fact and to continue to have discussions about how we ensure that it works properly. Let me reassure all concerned that the factual information provided will be properly considered. I have very little time left, but I want to stress that I went to Darlington and met the caseworkers, and I will write to the hon. Member for Basingstoke about the training aspects. I had a very positive experience meeting them and I was impressed with how seriously they take their jobs and their decisions, knowing the impact that they have on people’s lives. Let me clarify that the ISA scheme does not apply to private and family arrangements or infrequent arrangements.”
“Therefore, we will sometimes see different decisions, but we must be clear about why. I am very positive about our work with the trade unions and the registers of information on the matter. On appeals, individuals can appeal to a tribunal only on points of law or fact. It was recognised that the expertise of the ISA board and its professional judgment should not be overturned by a court that does not have the same expert knowledge. The option of continuing to a judicial review of decisions remains and discussions are ongoing with those involved in representing employees about how the scheme will work, and I am still open to discussion. We have to start as we mean to go on, and we start with what we have already outlined and laid out in law.”
“As the Minister responsible, I am anxious that we do not have a system that sets up a chain of events and that, when different bits of the chain slip, we do not end up with a tragedy for which no one takes responsibility. We must have clear lines of responsibility at every point. As for conflicting decisions between regulators and the ISA, different conclusions might be reached, but that may be for the reasons that I outlined at the beginning. The ISA might not bar someone who has been dismissed for professional misconduct because they might not be a risk to children or vulnerable adults, but it might bar someone not because they have been dismissed from the professional body but because it holds other relevant information, and it must take all that information in the round.”
“Friend the Member for Luton, North in respect of harm is a sound one and goes to the heart of what we are discussing with stakeholders. The ISA has no interest in creating an unnecessary and unwieldy bureaucracy that might hinder rather than improve safeguarding. The suggestion that any person who is on a professional register would have their case heard and concluded by the professional regulator prior to referral to the ISA is, in all likelihood, how the process will work. We must ensure that we are aware of any potential loophole or flaw in the process, that we have a proper notification and that we know exactly where responsibility lies at each stage of the process.”
“It is important that we recognise the difference. Nevertheless, the ISA works with Unison and keepers of registers to develop clear and consistent guidelines on what information should be referred to the ISA and when. The ISA chief executive has held discussions with some bodies, including the General Social Care Council, the General Medical Council and Unison, and will be meeting Unison again later this month to take matters further forward. An operational workshop involving a number of stakeholders will take place later this month to work through the practical issues involved in the referral process. That came about as a result of a meeting that I had with trade unionists and keepers of registers last autumn. The point raised by my hon.”
“I have already mentioned that volunteers do not have to pay anything at all, which addresses some points of concern. The concern about duplication of regulatory provisions is important, and I have had constructive discussions with Unison and other TUC members, and their arguments convinced me to consider the matter again. The work is ongoing, so I cannot reveal anything to hon. Members now, but I am grateful to the trade unions and professional bodies for their constructive and detailed input to the discussions. Intense work is still going on behind the scenes. I want to stress that the roles for regulators are different from those of the ISA, which must ensure that unsuitable persons are barred from work with children or vulnerable adults. It considers risk and not professional competence, which is the role of the regulators.”
“There is no time for legislation on such a basis even if it were in the Government’s mind. However, I hope that most employers will take up the scheme. Once employees register, the scheme is portable. There is a one-off registration. The scheme is similar to the security checks at airports in which employees can be required to contribute. I do not have the time to go into the issues around CRB performance, but let me reassure hon. Members that it is not as bad as it has been painted. We are regularly on target to achieve a turnaround within 28 days. For the ISA registration, there will be a seven-working-day turnaround to get the information back, and only if there is the trigger of information being sent to the ISA will the ISA have to go through its process, so that is much faster.”
“I have recently assumed responsibility for this area of policy and I most recently met officials on 8 December. However, clearly I meet regularly with officials on this issue.”
“Clearly, we do not wish to detain families with children where that is avoidable. However, detention is considered when a family has reached the end of the line—when appeals have been made and refused—and they are only detained for a matter of usually a few days immediately prior to a flight being taken. Let me point out that the report in question considered only 24 cases out of those of the 382 children who were in detention during the period of the report—fewer than 10 per cent. It did not take into account the views of the clinicians who worked with those children and who know them. There are many pressures on children, and it is not clear that those pressures and problems arise merely from detention.”
“I can reassure my hon. Friend on two counts. First, children who are detained have a full package of support, including education and access to health care. Crucially, they are with their parents, from whom I would not want to see them separated. Secondly, my hon. Friend raises a wider point about how we deal with such children. We have a pilot running in Glasgow, with Glasgow city council and the Scottish Government, to try to find alternatives. That pilot follows on from one in Kent, and we believe that it is much better and might achieve better results.”
“They are offered many packages, but some choose not to take them and are then detained. I would not want to see young children separated from their parents.”
“I am not sure where to begin! Seriously, though, I must first correct the hon. Gentleman’s figures. Up to 30 September this year, 25 children were detained for seven days or less—in time for a flight—five were detained for eight to 14 days, and five were detained for 15 to 28 days. A further 10 were detained for 29 days but for less than two months, and none were detained for longer than that. That is an average of just under 16 days. This is always a difficult issue, but we are a Government who are not afraid to duck the tough challenges. [ Interruption. ] Indeed, we are not. It is important that children are not separated from their parents, and I am not sure what the alternative is. If a parent repeatedly refuses to go when their case reaches the end of the line, they have some responsibility.”
“We go to great lengths to make sure that we do not detain children. It is only in extreme cases in which parents repeatedly refuse to leave of their own accord that we do so. It is important that the family are a united group at the point at which they are destined for removal. I repeat the simple but important point that I, as the Minister responsible, would not want to see young children separated from their parents.”
“We have a policy of reduction and ensuring that we do not license unnecessary animal procedures. We do not have an upper cap on such procedures, however, and it is important that each application is considered in the proper way on the science available.”
“Mr. Speaker, may I say what a pleasure it is to be back and to serve under your chairmanship for the first time? It is interesting how much has occurred. I have given birth to a baby, and an awful lot has occurred in Parliament in that same period. My hon. Friend raises an important point, but we have no plans to review section 24 before we know the outcome of directive 86/609 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes, which is currently being debated in the European Union.”