[Sir Nicholas Wintertonin the Chair]

The Committee deliberated in private.

On resuming—

Q 162

Mr. Coaker: Good afternoon, Sir Nicholas, and members of Committee. In answer to that question I wish to make the point, as Mr. Ruffley did, that we have constructive engagement. I say that at the beginning of every meeting, but it is important to put it on the record. Given that this is an evidence session rather than a regular Committee sitting in which it sometimes becomes a bit more them versus us, I will try to engage in the constructive way that he suggests.

The first thing to say is that the mergers debate was about closing a gap that everybody accepted existed. If that was not the correct route and the Government withdrew from proposing the mergers because of the resistance, the problem of what to do about protective services and serious and organised crime was not necessarily resolved. That fundamentally goes to the heart of the question, because if you are not going to sort this by mergers, how will you? How will you deal with serious and organised crime, cross-border issues and all those types of things?

The approach over the past few years, and our approach, has always been that we need to encourage collaboration. I am sure that if members of the Committee thought about it they could point to really good examples in their own areas of when their police forces have collaborated with other police forces to tackle problems. Certainly our view, in line with what Sir Norman said, is that the best way forward is to bring about that collaboration by voluntary means—by agreement. Alongside that, work is going on to look at what decisions are best made to help inform the choice that local police forces will make. For example Denis O’Connor, the acting chief inspector, has under a letter from me been asked to consider at what level decisions are best taken, so that we get the subsidiarity debate out into the open and looked at. So work is going on, in the first instance to inform the debate about whether a decision should be taken at the local, regional or national level. We are not looking at a master plan, but we are looking at the best way to ensure collaboration.

In the Bill we have given some certainty to the legislative framework because police authorities and police forces tell us that it is not clear. That is the reason for many of the clauses. We have tried to be clear in the Bill that mandation is not a first resort. It is something that we need to consider when it is clearly in the public interest and when there just seems to be obstruction to something that everyone agrees would be of benefit to not only those police forces but the local areas. It is a last resort, based on an informed choice at a local level, rather than being some sort of great master plan that is sent down.

Q 163

Mr. Coaker: No. To tease this issue out, we talk about protective services and serious and organised crime as if they are the same thing. When you are looking at collaboration, you are talking about serious and organised crime—whatever that means—but you are also talking  about IT systems, transport systems, horses and dogs, things that are related to murder investigations and protecting people from the most serious offenders. Some of those issues require different approaches from others. Serious and organised crime might need a more regional focus, whereas two or three forces might be involved in the issue of how many police forces have a mounted section. It is important to think about what is appropriate at a local level alongside the national parameters.

Q 164

Mr. Coaker: You can clearly use them for the purposes that you think appropriate.

Q 165

Mr. Coaker: If you wanted to use the powers to introduce that, you could. However, we do not think that we will need to. There will be announcements from Jan Berry in the next few weeks that will deal with some of the issues with bureaucracy. Sir David Normington’s report into reducing the annual data requirement will also be released soon. There will be a number of measures that do not require the compilation of templates for a national suite of forms that could be mandated. The purpose of clause 11 is to inject a sense of momentum, urgency and pace into the procedures and processes. It is correct that there has been progress. We want to enhance that progress and push it further. We will mandate where necessary, but that will be a last resort.

Q 166

Mr. Coaker: You could mandate the IT systems and software that are used by some forces.

Q 167

Mr. Coaker: If anybody looked at police forces across the country, they would have to be persuaded that having 43 IT solutions to a problem was for the best.

Mr. Coaker: I know.

Q 168

Mr. Coaker: IT could certainly be looked at and there are other operational things that we can do. If you look, as I know you have done, at some of the clauses dealing with collaboration, you will see that they try to address some of the practical problems of, for example, police moving across borders and issues of direction and control. It is about trying to come to an agreement voluntarily and looking to see what needs to be mandated where necessary.

Q 169

Mr. Coaker: Clearly, as you say, they are not in the Bill; we took them out for the reasons that you and I have rehearsed. We worried about the politicisation that could result from direct elections of that type and, frankly, about the lack of consensus. I am not trying to make a party political point, but you know from different authorities across the country how controversial they are. In a sense, all three Front Benches of the major political parties were completely at odds with their local parties and their local authorities. We have moved to what we think is a more sensible approach to police authorities.

You asked about David Blunkett’s review and the issue of direct elections. The proposal will not be brought back in the near future and, clearly, there will be a general election before they could be brought back, so we will see what happens after that. The Home Secretary has asked David Blunkett to look at direct elections and see whether we, within the Labour party, can move from complete hostility towards a model that will meet the concerns people have raised about politicisation and the election of minority or extremist groups to police authorities. You are aware of many of the arguments.

Q 170

Mr. Coaker: There may be the odd bit or a particular element in a clause that ACPO and the Association of Police Authorities do not agree with, but, generally, they welcomed the clauses about collaboration because they have been asking for them. They have been concerned about the lack of legislative clarity about what they can and cannot do in terms of sharing services and resources, and moving officers between forces.

I also gave the example of direction and control. If an officer from my constituency in Nottinghamshire on mutual aid duties goes to Derbyshire, they fall under the direction and control of the Derbyshire force. However, if they are doing a drugs raid, for example, there is a lack of clarity over who directs and controls the operation. Where there is agreement, the Bill seeks to resolve that.

With respect to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, cross-authorisation is another matter that police officers have come to us with and said is a complete nonsense, because in different circumstances they are required to get many different authorisations because they are moving between areas. The clauses try to deal with some of those problems practically. They have generally been welcomed, and we have responded to what people have to say.

You asked about crime and disorder reduction partnerships at local level. Again, our focus is to say that we have got the police authority and police force levels, at which we seek to collaborate, and that within those levels we have local basic command units and local structures, which will continue to be as important as they have been in all our constituencies.

Q 171

Mr. Coaker: It strengthens the current duty, under the Police Act 1996. Instead of saying that police authorities have to take into account the views of the public, or whatever the phraseology is, saying that they must “have regard to” views means that they will have to go out and proactively seek the opinions and views of people across the whole community. I expect that to include not only the people who normally turn up at meetings. I expect police authorities to demonstrate that they have gone out to seek the views of residents associations, community members, businesses and voluntary organisations—all those different people who make up the community. We will make that clear when we negotiate the inspection arrangements with Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary.

Mr. Ruffley made a valid point, and sometimes it is important to read these things into the record. I do not want misunderstanding of what “have regard to” means. It will not be acceptable for a police authority to try to demonstrate that it has had regard to the public by saying, “We gave a leaflet out.” It needs to be a proactive attempt to engage with local communities, businesses, voluntary organisations, schools and so on. The key is that police authorities will have to be able to prove to HMIC, on inspection, that they have done that.

To answer Mr. Ruffley, I think that that gives us a way of addressing the fact that police authorities can be anonymous to people. That is not always the case,  but, sometimes—I am trying to be fair—if people were asked who the members of their police authority were, they would not know. This will give police authorities a much better opportunity to be known, to be held to account for what they do, and to demonstrate not only to HMIC, but, more important, to the public, that the views that the public have expressed to them have influenced policing in their area. That can be demonstrated.

Q 172

Mr. Coaker: “Have regard to” is much stronger than the previous wording, which I cannot remember exactly, in the Police Act. The new wording will make a significant difference to the way in which police authorities are inspected. I know that yours is the Derbyshire police authority, and there are examples of good police authorities across the country that do that, but we are saying that it is not good enough for some to be good, some to be okay, and some to be not good. We need to have a way of driving forward to ensure that we bring all police authorities up to the standard of the best. Different people here will have different views on their police authorities and whether they are good, bad or patchy. The provision is a significant strengthening on the requirement on police authorities to consult the public and seek out their views.

Q 173

Mr. Coaker: In the end, if you look at police authorities in the broadest sense, it will be a matter for HMIC to check whether there is any substance to people’s complaints, in any area, about their views not being taken into account. That brings us back to Mr. Ruffley’s point, and we start arguing about the measure and mechanism that we have put in the Bill to try to ensure that people have more say on how their areas are policed. There are other ways of doing that—for example, the Liberal Democrats have proposed forms of direct election, and the Conservatives have proposed the abolition of police authorities. There are different approaches. We are saying that we are moving away from direct election for the time being to give us more time to actually look at what that is. However, this measure is a significant strengthening of those powers and the ability to hold police authorities to account.

Q 174

Mr. Coaker: No, I do not agree with that. The APA does not agree with any of the mandation parts of the Bill, but I think that mandation is a necessary part of  the powers that the Bill contains. It should be available where it is clearly and patently in the public interest and the general interest of the area to move on that collaboration, not as the first resort but as the last resort.

Q 175

Mr. Coaker: That is why we have an inspectorate. Part of it is to say to HMIC that we will be responsible for what happens in a local area and will take its advice. That happens now, without mandation—we get asked about all sorts of things that are going on in forces. Sometimes there is a disagreement between a force and the authority, and we take the advice of HMIC and make a judgment. I cannot categorically say, without actual examples, who would be right in a specific circumstance—the chief constable or the police authority. It would depend on what was actually happening in the area.

Q 176

Mr. Coaker: I cannot imagine a situation where the chief constable, the police authority and other police forces agree that something is in the public interest and the Minister mandates that they do something completely opposite—opposite to something that everyone locally has agreed is in the best interest of the local community and to which HMIC has also agreed.

Q 177

Mr. Coaker: The difference will come when the police authorities—as we know, they will be inspected from this April—are specifically inspected according to the new duty that we are placing upon them. If it was only the first clause, or the first part of the clause, Bob Jones might be able to say, “It will not make a difference—show us what difference it will make.” But HMIC will inspect the authorities and we will hold them to account on the basis of HMIC’s findings. Let us be frank—I will hurry up, Sir Nicholas—the police authorities did not like direct elections because they felt that they had good partnerships, worked well in their local areas, represented their views and influenced policing. They should not be afraid of inspection now that we have taken away direct elections and placed a specific duty upon them. They should be welcoming inspection so that they can demonstrate to HMIC how well they are doing.

Q 178

Mr. Coaker: It is a combination of all of that. As I was saying to Mr. Holmes earlier, the aim is to raise the standards of some up to the standards of the best. In some areas—we can point to examples across the country—the police authority is visible and people have some knowledge of who the chair of the authority is, and perhaps one or two other members, in their area. Members of the authority go out, they organise meetings, they have regular public-facing events and they demonstrate how they work with the police; in other areas, that is not the case. It is about having greater visibility for the police authority, so that people are more aware of who is on it, but it is also about ensuring that the public have more influence, through the authority, on how their area is policed.

Q 179

Mr. Coaker: In a sense, police authorities are starting to do that themselves. If you look at the situation five or 10 years ago, when we had the mergers debate, everyone fought for their own area. I think that the debate has become much more mature and that police authorities themselves are now saying, “We need to work better with each other if we’re going to solve some of the problems that we have.” Many of these measures—notwithstanding the mandating part—are at the request of the police authorities and police forces. They do not like the mandating part, because they say, “We want to do this, and we can do it because things have changed.” I think things have moved on.

I also think, again in the spirit of the Committee, that whatever the public spending round, we are not going to have bonuses of billions of pounds of additional money. People can also see that not only is it sensible to collaborate, but money can be saved—not to go back to the Treasury, but to be reinvested in front-line services, such as murder squads, drugs squads or wherever is appropriate. Not only is an operational imperative pushing this on, but people are also saying that we can make significant savings, which will allow us to reinvest in other areas and to reprioritise. Squaring the circle is  about not just what we are doing centrally, but about a change in the way in which police authorities look at the way they work.

Q 180

Mr. Coaker: I think the authorities will and police forces themselves are doing that.

Mr. Coaker: That is right. The authorities will do that as well.

Q 181

Jim Fitzpatrick: We recognise that there are airports which at the moment are not contributing to the policing of their establishments, but which are going to be required to do so in due course. However, it has been clearly demonstrated, by those airports that are paying for it, that it can be done. We have created a structure where each airport can devise a security plan that fits its needs, which will mean that there will not be a one-size-fits-all system; it will be a flexible arrangement that is adequate for those airports.

There will be a 15-month introductory period between the Bill being passed and the requirement to pay, so there will be some time for the airport to make arrangements with its customers, passengers, operators and retailers regarding how that money is gathered. Although there will be a financial payment to be made, we do not think that it will be beyond airports to make it, and we think that there is enough flexibility in the system to ensure that the required security arrangements will be commensurate with the needs of the airport.

Q 182

Jim Fitzpatrick: Indeed, and we will produce guidance for airports to be able to apply. By creating a mandatory framework—at the moment, this is voluntary and does  not happen in some instances—we will ensure an application across the country that is acknowledged and identified as appropriate. We are introducing an appeals procedure to the Secretary of State in the event of disputes, but we do not anticipate many disputes arising. As the guidance is digested by airports and as the application for each airport is identified, we believe that agreements will be reached between the police in that area and the airports, so we think that it is a very positive way forward.

Q 183

Mr. Coaker: The measures in the Bill have been drawn up in collaboration with the police, so those capacity issues and the very real concerns that you raise—they are genuine points—were part of the discussions that took place. As I said, the police believe that, in the context of the new arrangements for airport policing, and with the resources to be made available and so on, they can police the airports appropriately.

Q 184

Mr. Coaker: All that is part of what will need to be sorted out for the plan to be put together and made effective, when the Bill becomes law.

Jim Fitzpatrick: In terms of bringing airports into mainstream policing, we do not anticipate that the numbers or pressures will be that great. Our dispute on Tuesday about Prestwick was about whether there should be four and a half or nine officers at a relatively big airport. We are not talking about massive numbers that will impinge on any chief constable’s ability to perform his statutory duties.

Mr. Coaker: The point has been made that, with additional and more effective airport policing, we could reduce, or put off, some harmful criminality coming in through airports.

Jim Fitzpatrick: In many instances, the police are there already undertaking such duties, but they are not being paid for by the airport operators. They are already in situ, and they have already been recruited and trained to do the job.

Q 185

Jim Fitzpatrick: It has been considered and dismissed as inappropriate, for a number of reasons. Some simple ones are: in the event of a demonstration at an airport, the British Transport police would police the airport and the local constabulary would have to be outside. Furthermore, the British Transport police have no armed capability, so if you need armed officers within the airport you would need to train BTP officers, which would mean bringing in a whole new capacity. Where there was a requirement for the local force to come in to supplement security because of a particular threat you might have a command and control conflict, because you would have two different forces serving the airport. The idea has been looked at, but it was felt that what we needed was mainstream policing and the chief constable to be involved with the local risk assessment and the local airport. It was not considered appropriate but it has been considered.

Q 186

Jim Fitzpatrick: We do not think that is an obligatory or mandatory requirement. We do think that having the risk assessment group review the needs of each airport will determine what is required at each airport. We do not think it obligatory for every airport to have an armed detachment. It will be for the senior managers of the airport and the local constabulary to make an assessment and then work out what is appropriate for them.

Q 187

Jim Fitzpatrick: We informally gave sight of it to all stakeholders in November 2008 so it is informally in the domain. We will be listening to comments and will produce it later this year. Clearly, Royal Assent being given to the legislation will give us the impetus to move forward but it will be later this year.

Q 188

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am not sighted on that one but my understanding is that it has not been considered.

Q 189

Jim Fitzpatrick: I understand that it has not been considered, but I can feed back to Dr. Harris and the Committee, once I have had a chance to do some more research.

Q 190

Jim Fitzpatrick: As I said, I will do that.

Q 191

Mr. Coaker: My colleague, Alan Campbell, will say some things on prostitution but Mr. Ruffley asks me directly so I will respond to this question.

Without taking too much of the Committee’s time, it is necessary to say that the legislation we are proposing marks a fundamental shift in the way we try to tackle this problem. That is what I said to Ms Chakrabarti this morning. It is not about banning prostitution. It is about trying to turn it around and say, let us stop for ever talking about the women—as much as we need to in terms of improving services, trying to prevent them entering prostitution in the first place, and so on. Let us for a complete change focus on men and the responsibility they have in this area. I am not ignoring the question that was directly asked; I shall come to it.

Interestingly, we have started to debate the issue in that way without being laughed out of court. I make that point everywhere I go. You can argue that if two, four, six, eight, 10 or whatever number of years ago, we had started to say that we need to look at the male side of the problem, people would have trashed it and said, “This is ridiculous. Prostitution has existed for centuries, you are not going to change anything,” and so on. I think that there has been a shift in the debate, and to be fair to the shadow Policing Minister, he and his Front-Bench colleagues have said that they are considering their response. That is a change, too—all of us are now wrestling with the problem.

The next question is, what sort of offence do you create if you are talking about the men? In a sense, you are trying to change the current dynamic whereby a man purchasing sex in most instances—most, not all; I do not want to decry everybody—thinks, “I’ll purchase the sex.” They do not think, “Is this somebody who is exploited?” We have talked about trafficking, but we are also talking about women who are exploited, used, controlled and forced by violent partners. In no sense can that be regarded as a free choice.

We then started to explore the matter and thought about how to create a situation in which men, instead of acting with impunity, are put in a position where, at the very least, they are concerned about the consequences of their action. I am often told that there is no problem and we should just prosecute them for rape, but how  many times has anybody been prosecuted for rape? Who really believes that the alternative to what has been suggested—I am not saying that Mr. Ruffley said this—is to prosecute them for rape? So, we thought in our discussions that the strict liability offence was necessary.

Mr. Ruffley asked whether you need intent—whether it is recklessness.

Q 192

Mr. Coaker: All the various issues were considered—whether you just had an offence of having sex with a trafficked woman, or with someone who was forced to work as a prostitute. We thought that if we were really going to make a difference, rather than introduce something cosmetic that made everyone feel good but did not drive down to that particular interaction, we would need something far stronger. That is why we have gone for the strict liability offence. The point that Julie Kirkbride made this morning is the one that we in the Home Office have had a considerable debate about. Clearly, the difference between lawyers is on how you define “controlled for gain”. We will need to consider that point in Committee, but that is how we arrived at the strict liability offence.

Q 193

Mr. Coaker: We considered it. At the JCHR Committee we had a number of exchanges, but we certainly had a constructive exchange. I have been to Sweden and the Netherlands, we have done a literature review, and we looked at research and evidence—I know you were raising that point the other day, and had considered different studies—and all those different things. At the end of the day, if you are ever in government, you will make judgments about what you consider to be the most appropriate. That is what it comes down to in the end. You have all of those options, you consider them, and you make a judgment about what you think will have an effect.

I know that there is the argument that, if you have a strict liability offence, it will affect the fact that there are all these men queuing up to phone in and let the police know that they think that there is somebody being trafficked or exploited. It is not just trafficking; it is people who are forced into it through violence and a dependence on drugs. All of those sorts of things are also examples of somebody being exploited and who  cannot, in any sense of the word, be expected or considered to have made a free choice. So, we have considered all of these things, and, in the end, it comes back to what I said to Mr. Ruffley: if you really want to make a difference, rather than have something which is cosmetic and makes everyone feel good, you have to get down there and drive into that.

Mr. Coaker: We have.

Q 194

Mr. Coaker: No, it has not been published yet.

Q 195

Mr. Coaker: We are looking at publishing the evidence. As I say, and I will let Alan come in now as this is his policy area, you pick the evidence which, in the end, backs your argument. If you listen to what the Poppy Project said, it was the complete opposite. That is what I am saying about judgments. You consider what you think is the best way to tackle the problem, and that is what we have done.

Mr. Campbell: There is wide discussion about the effect that this offence would have on men who might come across women whom they believe have been, or have evidence that they have been, trafficked. It might deter them from coming forward.

I asked officials to look into that and they could not find any concrete example of where that is the case. However, in answer to the very first point that you made, I am genuinely interested in how this could be facilitated, perhaps through an anonymous hotline. It would be difficult to say that someone, who came forward after having been to a prostitute that had been trafficked, would be treated and dealt with differently within the law because they then furnished the evidence or the suggestion that the woman—predominantly, it is a woman—had been trafficked. So, I am open to the suggestion of some anonymous line.

What struck me out of all the evidence that we have taken or listened to over the last few days, Sir Nicholas, was the point from the Poppy Project. They said that they had evidence of men who brought forward, or, at least, pushed in their direction, women whom they believed had been trafficked. There were 22 such cases, but in each of the cases the men, either believing or knowing that the women had been trafficked, still had sex with them.

That will probably be the thing which I will take away from these sessions more than anything else. It goes back to what my colleague has said. There is an unfairness in the situation where raids have taken place around  trafficking, which is not just an international issue but a domestic issue, too—it happens within countries as well as between countries. We know where the law stands on traffickers and what will happen to women in those circumstances. But there is a gap in the law. What happens to the man who has been there? We have decided—after, I can assure you, a very long and thorough consideration—that we are in the right place on strict liability. Difficult though it is, we are in the right place.

Q 196

Mr. Campbell: As I say, we keep our options open on a hotline and funding. We would certainly look at examples from elsewhere to see how it would help. Of course, we test each of the propositions against as much evidence as we can collect. The evidence from some countries is that where, for example, there is a similar measure to the one we are proposing, it has a deterrent effect. It has a deterrent effect in the first place. Of course, we have to consider whether, in the case of men who are closely involved with prostitutes and have been to prostitutes, that will colour their decision about bringing forward evidence. What we are after is something that is also important, which is to deter them in the first place by putting it into their minds that unless they are absolutely sure, then they should not do it.

Q 197

Mr. Campbell: We have had the demand review, which was a long and lengthy process. There was a collection of evidence, which has now been collated. It was not a formal consultation. We never said that the evidence we collected would be published. We are collating it now. If we decide to publish it then we will do so in due course, but we should not read too much into the fact that the evidence has not been published. It does not mean that it contradicts the propositions that the Government are bringing forward.

Q 198

Mr. Coaker: There will be a debate as we go through Committee about the definition of “controlled for gain”. If we can get that right, which I think will be possible,  then some of the concerns that some people have—not everyone has them—will disappear to a certain extent. As I pointed out to Ms Chakrabarti this morning, this is not a back-door way of trying to ban prostitution; it is trying to get at exploitation. We all agree with that. I do not suggest that anyone here is in favour of exploitation. This is about trying to have public policy that addresses that. In answer to Julie Kirkbride’s question, Peter Lodder from the Bar Council said that he would look at making a helpful suggestion here. We can consider that. The problem with “controlled for gain” is that, as I am told by other lawyers, the control aspect is the ordinary, common-sense, dictionary understanding of the word. In the case of R v. Steven Massey in 2007, just to be lawyer-like Sir Nicholas—

Mr. Coaker: Yes, 4 December. I am told that control within the meaning of the Sexual Offences Act should be given its ordinary dictionary meaning of directing a relevant activity that included, but was not limited to, individuals who forced another to carry out a relevant activity. That case law meets people’s concerns that control would mean something other than the ordinary definition which we all understand. I am not a lawyer so, at the end of the day, we will no doubt get Mr. Lodder’s suggestions and there will be other lawyers who say something different. But the objective we all share is certainly along the lines that we have been discussing and which Julie Kirkbride raised this morning.

Q 199

Mr. Campbell: There is no darker place to drive them if they have been brought into—trafficked—this country for sexual exploitation, so let us not in any way suggest that this is an easy decision that does not require action.

Q 200

Mr. Campbell: Yes, but we need to remain focused as far as we can on the intent of what we are doing, which is to have something in place to tackle the kind of exploitation—whether trafficked women, internally trafficked women or not—that we all agree is wrong. Our view is that our definition, “controlled for gain”, does not apply outside the group we are trying to address in the legislation. Therefore, many of the concerns raised by the International Union of Sex Workers and others will prove to be unfounded. It is not about whether someone can employ a maid, or employ someone to give them greater protection and safety in what they do. Our strong advice is that our proposal will not affect that situation, unless there is clear and demonstrable evidence of control.

Q 201

Mr. Campbell: We could get into every single different example here. I know that we try to put them into different classes, and it would rather depend on what she was. If she was keeping the diary and providing cups of tea, it would be hard to suggest that she was somehow controlling the prostitute. That is not what the case law says that it ought to be about—it ought to be about the prostitutes being forced into it. It is the absence of free will.

Q 202

Mr. Campbell: It is of course the Government’s policy to have a comprehensive approach, which is not just about the enforcement of the law but about supporting women who want to get out of prostitution. We have heard many different assessments of a woman’s motivation—the reason why she might be involved in prostitution—from those who claim clearly that it is entirely a matter of free will and has nothing to do with us, to those who say that there are women out there who have no free will or choice in this because they have been trafficked, while somewhere in the middle there are women who feel that they have no alternative because of their socio-economic, personal or family circumstances, and they choose to go into prostitution on that basis. Our approach would not be defensible unless we were prepared to say that there has to be that other pillar.

One of the reasons for this, if we are reducing demand, is the expectation that there would be fewer women involved in prostitution. So, what will be in place for them? Briefly, three things, the first being that we already fund a lot of work, not least through the POPPY project—some £5.8 million—but that is just part of it. Also—and this is perhaps where we might want to get to with rehabilitation orders—we have to access the other resources out there. We heard—I cannot remember from which witness—a list of housing, family income, education, all of those things. I thought that we had things in place for every citizen on housing, support for families, education and health care, so how can they better access those services? However, I am not discounting the fact that there may well be additional things that we would need to do for women who had been involved in prostitution because they have a particular set of circumstances and often very chaotic lives.

Q 203

Q 204

Q 205

Mr. Campbell: We have looked at a lot of different examples. As Lynda Waltho said, Mr. Coaker knows more than I about examples abroad. Even in this Committee, we have touched on the very wide debate between those who say that we should decriminalise and those who say we should criminalise prostitution. Like Lynda Waltho, I have received a very mixed picture from New Zealand, and I have heard that the law has had unintended and horrific consequences. This part of the legislation is quite specific. I repeat: we must remain focused on the intention, which is to tackle the problems for trafficked women and, indeed, others of sexual exploitation. We are not starting with the proposition  that the Government say that prostitution should be illegal or legal. We are focusing on a particular issue and in so doing we have to be careful that we do not send out the wrong message about how we believe society sees prostitution.

The raids on brothels could not have taken place under these provisions because, of course, the provisions are not yet law. I suspect that when we tease out some of those examples, there are other reasons why those raids took place and, indeed, why some of the closures took place. We want this measure and existing legislation to be used proportionately. I do not share the belief that the police set out to act other than in a proportionate fashion, and I do not share the view that somehow the police chose to do something that was outside the guidance that they already had. They would certainly not choose to do something that is outside the spirit of the law.

Mr. Coaker: Nadine Dorries’s point about men not considering the law when they pay for sex is probably true because nothing happens. That is the point I was trying to make at the beginning. If we actually—and this has been the whole focus of the work that others and I have been doing over the past year or so—tackle the demand side of the issue, we have to look at how you deal with that. As I said, you are quite right to say that the men do not think about it, because nothing happens. Put a strict a liability offence in there.

Q 206

Mr. Coaker: They will certainly know with a strict liability offence, because they will know that they cannot excuse themselves by saying, “Hey, I’d have phoned the police if I’d only known.” We have put that element of doubt in there so that people cannot act with impunity. I am not being rude about people, but we have seen the pictures and we know what happens. If people think they are going somewhere where there clearly is at least a doubt about what is going on and they just carry on regardless, a serious change to the law will make people stop and think twice. That is an important public policy reform, which will mean that we can start to try to tackle the exploitation that exists.

Julie Kirkbride raised the question of why we did not go the whole hog and make it completely illegal to pay for sex full stop. We thought that that was impractical and was not based in the real world. When we went to Sweden, it seemed—again, there are doubts about this because you get different evidence from people who are equally well meaning—that the issue had been driven away and gone underground. Some people in Sweden disagree fundamentally with what I have just said, but that is the conclusion that I reached.

Q 207

Mr. Campbell: Let me make two points: first, there is an information point about people being aware of the law. It is incumbent on us, if there is a strict liability, to make people aware of that, even though it is no defence for them to say that they did not know. The pensioner who visits Mrs. Bloggs should be aware of that, and we should make every effort to make them aware of it. However, the issue of who Mrs. Bloggs has in her back bedroom, where they have come from, and the reasons why they are being forced to do what they are doing, is still there.

Mr. Coaker: Also, there is the fact that brothels up and down the country in the cities that some of us represent are raided by the police, but afterwards nothing happens. They go and rescue women, some of whom are trafficked and some of whom, but not all, are forced into prostitution in other ways. What responsibilities do the men have who go there? That is the question that we are forcing on to the public policy agenda to get people to confront. The answer up until now has been a shrug of the shoulders. It has been, “You can’t do anything about it.” Prosecute them for rape if you are saying there was no consent. Sometimes, that is totally unrealistic, as you will know. Where a woman has been forced into that situation there is a sort of consent because she does not say, “No, you can’t,” but she does not do so because she is terrified. As lawyers have said to me: “Prove it in court, then—that it’s rape” There was not really resistance, because someone was terrified. There is an information issue, but it will really change the dynamic in terms of how people react to, and think about, that, and it will start to get at the exploitation.

On Lynda’s point about decriminalisation, it is absolutely right that the evidence is coming back from New Zealand, and, again, different people say different things. However, the sort of evidence that Lynda Waltho referred talks about increases in young people involved in prostitution, increases in exploitation and increases in the numbers involved. All those sorts of things are going on.

There is another argument, while we are discussing different models. I went to Amsterdam: what are the Dutch Government doing? They are considering reducing the numbers of controlled areas, because they are concerned about the increase in the exploitation of young women, and about serious and organised crime. There has been a fundamental reduction in the number of the famous red light windows, because of the concern about serious and organised crime and so on. That is in Holland, which is always held up as an example—“Why don’t we do what Holland does?”—but it is having the same public policy debate that we are having.

You can tell the seriousness of the situation, because in country after country across the world, people are looking at what we should do about it. I will finish with this, because it is such a fundamental point. You have to change the dynamic of how the man thinks when he purchases the sex. You can have a cosmetic offence,  which will make no difference, or you can say, “I’m going to make a real difference and try to change that dynamic.” That is the choice that people have got.

Q 208

Mr. Campbell: There are discussions taking place between the relevant Departments. I understand that they have come to broad agreements on which parts will be included and which not. We will bring those forward, and will also deal with the question of whether or not they will be part of the mandatory or the voluntary code.

Q 209

Mr. Campbell: I have not seen the final form yet, because it is under discussion. We are starting, probably as we speak, with some preliminary discussions across the industry to make sure that before we go to formal consultation we have the broad headings that people can sign up to. I am not sure whether you are alluding to a particular aspect, and asking me whether it is in or out.

Q 210

Mr. Campbell: I can give some general guidance. We would want to see some of the things that were discussed during the earlier evidence sessions, including for example, provisions on vertical drinking establishments; on “buy as much as you want for however much” promotions; and on things that encourage people to drink faster than a social activity would suggest—in other words things that go out of their way to encourage drunkenness and the behaviour that goes with it. Those are the broad headings that we are looking at.

Q 211

Mr. Campbell: Think 21 and Challenge 25 are very good examples of how we are working in partnership with the industry, which is bringing forward these ideas. Challenge 21 or Think 21 would perhaps be more applicable in these circumstances. My understanding is, however, that it would be difficult to put them in a quasi-legal situation, as it is not something you could hold people to account for. You can hold them to account for being under-age or for selling to people under 18. It is much more difficult to frame provisions dealing with issues such as whether someone looks as if they are under 18, or between 18 and 21. As you know, Challenge 25 came out because of the difficulty of distinguishing 19, 20 and 21-year-olds from people who are under 18.

Q 212

Mr. Campbell: It has been put to me by the industry that Challenge 25 is a kind of gold standard. It is easier to do for some of the big retailers than it is for some of the smaller and independent retailers. We are encouraging people to adopt that. My advice is that it would be extremely difficult to try to encompass that in some kind of legal framework; in fact it would not be possible.

Q 213

Mr. Campbell: Not only have we had communication with Ministers from those Departments but I have met and discussed the matter with industry representatives as well. We are very conscious of our obligations, particularly from an enforcement point of view for the Home Office, and from a health point of view for the Department of Health, with DBERR and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport bringing their own view to bear. It is part of the wider discussions. The Government are very aware of the issues, some of which were raised in an earlier session, particularly in the economic circumstances, but not exclusively for those reasons. We certainly would not want to impose a burden either on on-sales or off-sales. However, there has to be, as I think there is, a growing recognition of a problem that is not going away. Along with the right to be consulted and our influence—the burden that might be applied—there is a responsibility for everyone involved to make sure they are doing everything they can.

Q 214

Mr. Campbell: I was struck by the evidence from the chief constable in a previous session. He gave the impression, quite rightly, that it is a case of building on what has gone before and making sure that it works. You will be as aware as I am that when we draft and pass legislation it does not always have the full effect that we intended. Some of it is about balancing offences and penalties with what already exists in other areas, for example what should happen if a person does not leave and follow the direction of a police officer, and, therefore, what is appropriate both as a deterrent but also as a penalty.

One of the real difficulties relates to age difference and the fact that when people buy alcohol under age, or have it bought for them, they are often in mixed-age gangs—it is possible for older people to buy the drink and share it among the gang. If police are called to an incident, it is not always possible to treat all of the people in that gang, or group of people, similarly. For example, it might not be possible to confiscate the alcohol from everybody or send them all home, or whatever the punishment happens to be. It is a case of trying to acknowledge the practical difficulties that the police are telling us about—which have been reiterated by the chief constable—that I think lies behind these measures.

Q 215

Mr. Campbell: No, what we are saying is that we need some kind of measurement as to when the proposal should be brought in. It is persistence that we are identifying here—it is not acknowledging that the first time nothing should be done. It is this idea of persistence. I did not agree with a witness today who seemed to give the impression that these things happen anyway and we should not be too worried about a someone under age, with alcohol, for a third offence.

Q 216

Mr. Campbell: Unless you are telling me that somehow we are going to move on from the advice of the chief medical officer today and incorporate that in what we are saying, all I would say here is that advisers advise and Government decide. The example that I prefer is of a child helping a parent who has bought some wine or beer in a supermarket to carry it to the car, although the child was not old enough to have bought it. They will not be held accountable by a police officer in a car park saying, “This is the third time I have seen you doing  that.” This is precisely not where we want to be, but I do not think this is what we are discussing and it is not the area that this offence is meant to address.

Q 217

Mr. Campbell: It is a very contentious area, and all I can say is that we do not have any plans to bring forward minimum pricing at this stage, although whether that will be appropriate is still being discussed. That is partly because of the evidence we have commissioned, which suggests that it does not have the effect on people’s behaviour that one might think. It is not the kind of lever which it is assumed to be. Of course, what we have to do is make sure that this is proportionate and balanced. What we do not want—what I certainly do not want to do—is to penalise a hard-working person who goes to the supermarket to buy one or two bottles of wine, which may be on offer, to enjoy socially with their family over the weekend. That is precisely where we do not want to be.

Mr. Campbell: I think it is Sheffield university’s evidence. I will check if it is published or not—

Mr. Coaker: It is.

Q 218

Mr. Campbell: We have had on-going discussions—

Mr. Campbell: I cannot list them, but I can assure you that it has not simply been with the industry. We have had discussions with a number of groups. Alcohol Concern comes to mind.

Q 219

Mr. Campbell: The point is that we have had extensive discussions, but I assure you that we will continue to have such discussions, because we are in the process of drawing up the kind of areas we want to see in those codes. We will continue to have the widest possible consultation, but the evidence suggests that the public are absolutely convinced that we need a mandatory code. They may have a different view of what they want in it, but there was overwhelming evidence from the work we did to suggest that they want a mandatory code.

Q 220

Mr. Campbell: My point about consulting the industry was in direct response to a question about the burden that might be imposed on the industry, so to say that we were listening to them seemed to be the obvious reassurance that I could give. We have consulted and continue to consult with people, and there will be further consultation on these matters. But we are, within Government, looking at the kind of areas that we can get sign-up to between Departments, in the context not only of discussions taking place within and between Departments, but also of discussions that Departments have with others all the time. We hope that it is a dynamic process.

Q 221

Mr. Campbell: Yes, my recollection of this is that there would have to be a very dramatic increase in price to affect consumption in the way that we were talking about and, therefore, the evidence supports the view that it is a fairly blunt lever. It is not the only way forward by any means, and may not be the best way forward to get the result we want. However, I am under no illusion at all that, were we to bring forward a code that does not have minimum pricing in it, there will not be those who will say, “That is a terrible thing. You ought to have done this.” It does not matter how much consultation we have done.

Q 222

Mr. Campbell: I understand that, but there are other things that need to be taken into consideration too. For example, the problem is not just about price; it is about volume. It is about offers that create the circumstances in which people might purchase and consume more than they otherwise would. There is also the much wider issue of access for under-age drinkers in the first place. Whatever the price, what can we do to prevent sales to under-age people—full stop?

Q 223

Mr. Campbell: I shall certainly consider it carefully.

Q 224

Q 225

Q 226

Mr. Campbell: Briefly, in answer to Mr. Burns’s point, I was saying that that was the general conclusion that the university of Sheffield had come to, which is why we keep the matter under consideration, but we have not made a decision on that. Of course pricing is part of the success that we have had on smoking, but it is only part of it. I accept that. I am not sure you can draw a direct comparison between the pricing of cigarettes and the pricing of alcohol, but I am sure that there are some related areas.

ACPO’s view was set out clearly by Mr. Craik in the earlier sitting, when he said that it supports the broad approach that includes both mandatory and voluntary elements. I am sure we will continue to have discussions  with them on the detail. I have never heard the point—although I am sure I will as the Bill progresses—about the possible impact on music. All I know from previous legislation is that those concerned are extraordinarily good at campaigning on this issue, so I am sure we will hear from them.

I am very interested in the central register of licensees, with the proviso that we do not over-regulate and overburden the industry.

Q 227

Mr. Coaker: The whole approach has been driven by a desire to balance judicial oversight, practical policing and the policy objective of ensuring that we prevent individuals dissipating assets—trying to get rid of their criminal gain. I know that Mr. Brokenshire will agree. Essentially, it is about responding to what the police have said, whereby people in a number of cases get around the law because they get rid of the assets before a restraining order can be applied.

Q 228

Mr. Coaker: I do not think so. The public policy objective is that we believe we can get more criminally gained assets off somebody if we make the retention of those assets possible. To obtain the order, most of the time you will seek prior judicial approval; you will have to get approval beyond 48 hours; conditions are attached and in the Bill; and alongside it, there is a code of practice. All those things exist. When we talked about human rights and the new powers in the Bill, interestingly, the Bar Council said that, generally, it did not think that the provisions were contrary to article 1 of the 1998 Act.

Q 229

Mr. Coaker: It did not think that the provisions were contrary to article 1—except when there was undue delay. In other words, you could say that article 1 would be interfered with if, as a consequence of the new provisions, it took too long to get the case to court, where the person could prove their innocence, or otherwise. I looked that up, because I thought it a reasonable point  to make. I looked, too, at the provisions in the Bill, and pages 33 and 34 outline a person’s ability to go back to court to argue for the discharge, variation or lapse of a detention order, so, if they think that there is undue delay, they can go back and argue their case. That helps with respect to human rights legislation, and the Bill also states:

“If an application is made...in relation to an order the following persons may appeal to the Crown Court”

for its discharge. So, there are protections in respect of the new order and a person’s ability to ensure that their human rights are not adversely impacted on to the extent that we would breach our obligations.

Q 230

Mr. Coaker: In the sense of the practical problems that may arise?

Q 231

Mr. Coaker: I do not know about exponentially, but there would be an increase once we became part of the Schengen information system. Part of that membership, however, is to ensure that we have better access to the system’s alerts and information. As you know, currently, all the warrants that SOCA certifies are the responsibility of the Metropolitan police, and Commander Gibson said that that creates issues for him. From April, however, it will be the responsibility not only of the Met, but of the regions. There will be issues about that, too, but do I agree that there are issues about how we practically manage, first, the situation from April? Yes, I do. Do I believe that when we join SIS II and receive an increase in the number of European arrest warrants, there will be practical implications in respect of managing and dealing with that? Yes, there will be, and we will have to deal with it.

Q 232

Mr. Coaker: No, it could apply to UK nationals. Again, it is clearly laid out in the Bill. The judicial process obviously has to be consistent with human rights obligations. It says on page 70 that, should the Secretary of State be involved through the other route of people being returned, she can only act in a way compatible with convention rights. As you know, if the Home Secretary does not do that, it is open to judicial review. I think that there are safeguards. I would like to put an important point on the record that Shami Chakrabarti made, which is that she does not see this as a titanic battle or as a really fundamental clash of principles. It is actually trying to ensure that the changes being made are consistent with our human rights obligations, and, of course, we want to do that.

Q 233

Mr. Coaker: May I respectfully suggest that, if Dr. Harris was right in that assertion, why would Liberty say that this is not a titanic battle? Why would it say that there are not huge issues of principle at stake? I hope that I am not misrepresenting what was said this morning, but I am sure that I am right in saying that Shami Chakrabarti said that this is not a titanic battle of principle.

Q 234

Mr. Coaker: I understand the point that Dr. Harris is trying to make. However, it is actually written into the Bill on page 17, proposed new section 153D, where is says that everything that the Secretary of State does must be compatible with convention rights. Rather than simply being assumed, it is laid out. That was the point. We laid it out and tried to take account of that very sort of objection. I will say again—nobody is above the law, so if the Secretary of State did not act in that way, there could be a judicial review.

Q 235

Mr. Coaker: I do not know whether it is titanic or substantive. My point was that we can argue and debate this, but if there was a fundamental problem in terms of an attack on the individual liberties and human rights of people of this country, we would have heard it this morning and we did not.

Q 236

Mr. Coaker: They did mention those concerns; we all have them. We do not want people who are completely innocent to have their property detained. I do not have the transcript in front of me, but interestingly the Bar Council did not say that it was opposed to the provision. As you know, Mr. Holmes, you have a restraint order and the items that you are concerned about stay in the possession of the person you have concerns about. That is a big loophole, particularly with low-value goods. It means that law enforcement officers come to us and say that that gives people the opportunity to squirrel the items away, to dissipate them. In the end, you do not have the amount of criminally-gotten gain that you should be able to attack when it comes to a confiscation order on conviction. So what we try to do in the Bill is simply close that loophole in a proportionate way, consistent with the principles that we have just talked about. The Bar Council said that it understands what we are doing, but is concerned about some of the safeguards.

Q 237

Mr. Coaker: It is a serious tidying-up.

Q 238

Mr. Coaker: In 2007-08, £136 million was recovered, and a further £33 million or £34 million was recovered in the first few months of 2008-09. That is progress—the restraining, the courts and so on—but is it enough? No, it is not. Do we want to do more? Yes, we do. This is a developing area of policy. We have moved considerably on the proceeds of crime, taking ill-gotten gains off people, but I do not think—I will be blunt—that we would have been able to get through Parliament legislation such as we are now proposing, had that been what we started with. But by acting bit by bit, step by step, we have enabled the public to see working the changes to legislation that enable us to take from people the ill-gotten gains that we do not want them to benefit from.

Regarding low-value goods, the public themselves on my estates and yours, too, I am sure, turn around and say, “Why is it that somebody has been arrested but is still driving around in their vehicle, still flaunting their wealth, still being a terrible role model for young people? We don’t want that to happen. Why isn’t the state doing something about it?” That is what we are trying to do in this clause. There is a proper debate to be had about safeguards—how the measure should work and what should be done—but the public policy objective surely has to be that if somebody is trying to make money from crime, we ought to do everything we can to stop  them and to stop them benefiting from it. That is what I would expect as a citizen, that is what my constituents expect, and I am sure that it is what all Members’ constituents expect.

Q 239

Mr. Coaker: Shall I be honest? The answer is that I do not know. Compensation arrangements are available in the Bill because a consistent, proper, proportionate way is to ensure that the law works effectively but, if the law does get it wrong, people should be compensated.

Ordered, That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned.—(Mr. Ian Austin.)

Adjourned till Tuesday 3 February at half- past Ten o’clock.