Policing and Crime Bill

Public Bill Committee, 27 January 2009.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I would like to deal with some domestic matters and make a few preliminary announcements. Members may remove their jackets during Committee sittings to ensure that they are attentive and comfortable at all times. Members should ensure that mobile phones, pagers, BlackBerrys and other electronic gadgets are turned off or switched to silent during Committee sittings—I feel that strongly and say it forcefully. There are money resolutions and Ways and Means resolutions related to the Bill, and copies are available in the Room.

I remind Members that adequate notice of amendments should be given: to be eligible for selection at a Tuesday sitting, amendments must be tabled by the rise of the House the previous Thursday; and for a Thursday sitting, they must be tabled by the previous Monday. As a general rule, my fellow Chairman, Mr. Hugh Bayley, who is sitting to my right, and I do not intend to call starred amendments. I hope that that is carefully noted by all Members, particularly by the political parties.

Not everyone is familiar with the process of taking oral evidence in Public Bill Committees, so it might be helpful if I briefly explained how we will proceed. This morning, the Committee will first be asked to consider the programme motion, which is on the amendment paper and for which debate is limited to half an hour. We will then proceed to a motion to report written evidence, then a motion to permit the Committee to deliberate in private in advance of the oral evidence sessions, which I hope we will be able to take formally. I will then ask members of the public to leave us briefly. Assuming that the second motion is agreed to, the Committee will then move into private session. After we have deliberated, witnesses and members of the public will be invited back and the oral evidence session will commence at approximately 11 o’clock.

I give the spokesman for Her Majesty’s Opposition due notice that, with regard to oral evidence, I will call him first to question our witnesses. If the Committee agrees to the programme motion, it will hear oral evidence today and on Thursday then revert next week to the more traditional—I was going to say “familiar”, but I prefer “traditional”—proceedings of clause-by-clause scrutiny.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

On a point of order, Sir Nicholas. How should we address you in this sitting?

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

You can call me Chairman or Sir Nicholas, or anything else that describes me accurately and is polite.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

Thank you, Sir Nicholas. I hope that notwithstanding the serious matters that we are discussing, the atmosphere in which we have begun will continue throughout our sittings.

I beg to move,

That—

(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 10.30 am on Tuesday 27 January meet—

(a) at 4.00 pm on Tuesday 27 January;

(b) at 9.00 am and 1.00 pm on Thursday 29 January;

(c) at 10.30 am and 4.00 pm on Tuesday 3 February;

(d) at 9.00 am and 1.00 pm on Thursday 5 February;

(e) at 10.30 am and 4.00 pm on Tuesday 10 February;

(f) at 9.00 am and 1.00 pm on Thursday 12 February;

(g) at 10.30 am and 4.00 pm on Tuesday 24 February;

(h) at 9.00 am on Thursday 26 February;

(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Nicholas, and to debate with the Minister. We have previously debated measures in Standing Committee and in Statutory Instrument Committee, and we have always had a fruitful and businesslike way of dispatching business. I hope that that continues, but I have some comments to make.

The Bill is important, and Her Majesty’s Opposition are supportive of some of its principles. However, there are also some thorny questions about how the clauses will operate in practice, so it is incumbent on us to test carefully and scrutinise in detail the way in which many of those well-meant clauses would operate. In my judgment police reform is not thoroughly covered in part 1, and there are some omissions. I understand, and the Minister will no doubt remind us, that the announcements in the Green Paper have been carried through, particularly in relation to targets and the policing pledge. Changes in primary legislation are not needed to effect those—we understand that.

The same might also be said of reforms to Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary. However, it is disappointing not to see in the legislative programme—and certainly not in the Bill—important changes to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 which would, if brought in quickly, ensure that more police time would be spent on the street. I shall not detain the Committee, but an important consultation was launched by the Minister’s predecessor in March 2007—it went to two consultations—on reforming the Act.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Order. I hesitate to stop the Opposition spokesman, but this is a programme motion. We should not be going into the substance of the Bill. I should like to establish with all members of the Committee, right at the outset, that my fellow Chairman, Hugh Bayley, and I are very much on the ball. We are following what is going on, not just sitting here. If hon. Members go off the subject and are not speaking either to the Bill or to the relevant amendment, we shall quickly remind them.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

Your strictures are taken into account, Sir Nicholas. I shall move on to say that part 1 contains police reform provisions, which need adequate time for debate; where the Bill deals with police reform, in a way that does not involve reform of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the provisions partly contentious. The clauses on the senior appointments panel and on collaboration—a hugely important issue—will require the Committee’s time, although not to oppose the principle of the reform of arrangements to facilitate collaboration. With your permission, Sir Nicholas, I stress that while some of the issues in part 1 and other provisions are, in principle, not inimical to the Conservative position—some of the principles are sound—the manner in which the clauses have been drafted prompt many questions. I am sure, Sir Nicholas, that you would not want us just to rubber-stamp things that look okay on the face of it. That is not the case in relation to collaboration or the senior appointments panel in part 1, nor is it the case in relation to part 2, which deals with sex offences and has some important aims. However, as we shall hear from witnesses, and as we shall tease out in future sittings, the drafting of part 2 is incredibly contentious both for support groups that want to help vulnerable sex workers and victims in the sex industry, and for the bodies responsible for clamping down on trafficking. Those important issues are not contentious in principle, but their implementation under the Bill is contentious.

The same can be said of alcohol misuse and the proceeds of crime in part 4. The Opposition are tough on serious organised crime, and tough on terrorism, so the reform of the proceeds or assets from crime regime has our general support. The way in which those provisions will be implemented, however, is quite another question, and it must be teased out in full, not truncated, debate. Finally, aviation security, about which we shall hear more in our evidence-taking session, raises all kinds of questions for industry at a time at which the recession is biting. We certainly want to see what the balance is between better security arrangements, if that is what the clauses deliver, and the cost of implementing them. On the face of it, the programme motion appears to provide adequate time for hon. Members to debate important clauses in an important Bill, but I, for one, am not keen to truncate or cut short any of our sittings, and I expect that they will all be needed adequately to scrutinise the Bill.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Before I call Paul Holmes to speak on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, may I make the same observation that I made during the Programming Sub-Committee discussions? In its Tuesday and Thursday afternoon sittings, the Committee has the opportunity to sit rather longer than has become the custom. If there is a problem—if we are behind and there are issues that the Opposition parties want to debate at greater length—I remind Members that those sittings provide the opportunity for longer-than-normal debates. I urge Members to take advantage of that provision.

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

May I welcome the way in which the Committee has begun proceedings under your chairmanship, Sir Nicholas, both this and last week, and the good signals sent out by the way in which the Government and the Opposition parties consulted last week, both informally and in the Programming Sub-Committee, to try to expedite business? Hopefully, that is a good sign of things to come in the forthcoming sittings. Following our debates and conversations last week, I am happy with the programme motion. The only thing that I would like to ask of the Minister is whether we managed to arrive at a resolution of the issue raised last Thursday in the Programming Sub-Committee about the clash between business in the Chamber and business in our Committee next Tuesday, and whether a rearrangement has been possible. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon wishes to raise the issue of proceedings on Report, after we have finished our consideration in Committee, but that is all that I wish to say.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I am happy to call the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, so long as the matter is entirely relevant to the programme motion.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

When going through clauses in Committee, an important issue is the commitment to return to something on Report. It would help us if we knew that there was a commitment from all parties to come back to those matters on Report, and we always look to your guidance, Sir Nicholas, on whether we are debating the matter exhaustively or prematurely before other Members of the House have a chance to give their views. That matter was raised in business questions last Thursday. Generally speaking, there is sufficient time on Report to deal with anything that emerges from a Committee’s deliberations, but there are eight substantive parts to this Bill that we have to get through according to the timetable. That suggests that eight groups of amendments might emerge on Report, and I have never known eight groups to be addressed on Report in one day. To aid us in our deliberations according to this timetable, will the Minister indicate whether we are likely to get that and whether he will hold open the opportunity for us to have sufficient time on Report to debate, in particular, Government amendments in response to points we raise that are restricted by the timetabling motion? That would aid the Committee’s debates and considerations.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I thank the hon. Gentleman and ask the Minister to respond to that point in particular. Sadly, matters relating to Report are not in the hands of Committee Chairmen, but rest with the Speaker, the Deputy Speakers and the Leader of the House.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

I again thank members of the Committee for the way in which they have begun deliberations, and I thank Mr. Ruffley for his comments. He and I have worked together on several Committees, as he said, and I have also worked with Mr. Brokenshire. We have at times had fervent and passionate disagreements, but only when fervent and passionate disagreement was needed and because we believed in the arguments—that is unlike the grandstanding that sometimes takes place. Hopefully, that will help proceedings in this Committee.

I say to Mr. Ruffley, and partly in answer to Dr. Harris’s question, that we will always consider ideas that emerge as we go through the Bill and that appear to be sensible. I know that Mr. Campbell and Mr. Fitzpatrick are of the same view. I cannot always guarantee that we will accept an amendment, but as Members know, I have at times changed certain things in Bills in that way, not only in Committee, but on Report.

In order that the Committee’s proceedings are meaningful, I intend to address any good ideas that Members come up with, as it has always seemed to me ridiculous not to include a good idea at some stage. The point of the Committee is to improve and adapt the Bill, notwithstanding the fact that there are sometimes disagreements. I hope that that is helpful to Dr. Harris, Mr. Ruffley and other members of the Committee.

I cannot say how much time will be available on Report, but I, like everyone else, want an appropriate amount, because, as Dr. Harris will know, if matters need to be brought back on Report, I bring them back. If necessary, we will try to ensure that sufficient time is available.

My understanding is that the debates on the police grant and the local government grant will be held on the afternoon of Tuesday 3 February, but that is not yet 100 per cent. certain. The usual channels will keep it under review and, if necessary, bring forward an agreed amendment so that we do not lose any time if it is necessary to change the timings on the programme motion in the sub-committee. To be fair both to Mr. Ruffley, given the amount of time he would spend on his feet, and to me, given the amount of time I would spend on my feet, I hope that the usual channels will consider us in their deliberations. The commitment to the Committee is that, if we do need to change the business that afternoon, we will obviously do it with the agreement of the Committee, but in such a way that no time is lost.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I am sure the Committee is grateful to the Minister for that helpful response.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Copies of memorandums that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room. I can tell hon. Members that eight have been submitted so far and have been circulated.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I now request those witnesses seated in the Public Gallery, and members of the public, to leave for a short while.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I welcome our witnesses to this first session of the Policing and Crime Bill Committee. They are representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Association of Police Authorities and the Airport Operators Association. Just as a formality, will each of you state your name, position and the body that you represent?

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I am not biased in any way, but Mr Whatton is the chief constable of my authority. You are welcome, and we will start the evidence session with Mr. Ruffley.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

Good morning. I would like to ask Sir Norman about the principle of collaboration in this Bill, making it easier for forces to collaborate, which you should be aware has cross-party support. However, the history of voluntary collaboration is not particularly a success story, which is why we have these clauses. Do you believe that the provisions in this Bill would allow a Home Secretary, whether Labour, Liberal Democrat or Conservative, to divide up the country on a regional or sub-regional basis and say to a cluster of forces, “You have not been collaborating well and have been dragging your feet. There have been personality clashes between police authorities, and we Ministers are determined to make collaboration work.”? Could a Home Secretary in effect mandate the five forces and give them a lead force to collaborate on whatever five things they think should be imposed, whether IT procurement, non-IT procurement or fixed-wing helicopters, and then impose that on the five forces that they think are dragging their feet? Speaking for ACPO, do you think that that can be delivered by the clause and, more importantly, that it is desirable for Ministers to mandate in that way?

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

Do you see a problem with police authorities buying into more collaboration, because for collaboration to take place there needs to by a buy-in from the chief constables of the forces that might be part of a regional or sub-regional collaboration and from police authorities? Why has the record been so dismal, taking the whole of England and Wales, when it comes to collaboration for the right end, which is squeezing efficiencies that mean more money for the front line? Is it to do with clashes between police authorities or disagreements between police authorities and chief constables? Is that a fair characterisation?

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

Can I take it from that that ACPO would not object to mandation by Ministers—whoever they may be—at the extreme end of the scale and that some forces would have to take it on the chin? Is it fair to say that ACPO would say that mandation by Ministers will deliver the benefits that the amalgamation and merger process would have delivered?

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Although we want to make progress, Mr. Ruffley, do you want to put a similar question to Dave Whatton for a brief answer, because he represents a rather different police authority to Sir Norman?

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

I know that Mr. Whatton has had experience of this matter as deputy chief constable of Greater Manchester police. I do not wish to hog the Committee’s time and will allow other hon. Members to ask questions. However, I have a final question for Sir Norman.

It is fairly well known that quite a few chief constable posts do not attract many applicants. I can think of two examples having met the new chief constables of Thames Valley police and Lincolnshire police. This is no reflection on the incumbents because I regard them both highly, but they were the sole applicants for those incredibly important jobs. Will the clauses on reforming the senior appointments panel really effect the step change that is required to get more high-potential officers into chief constable jobs?

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

That is a very elegant exposition of the advice and lobbying that I have had. Finally, from what you have said, the clause on reform of the senior appointments panel clearly does not tackle the root cause of the problem that I outlined in my question.

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

We have just heard an exchange on the new power in the Bill for Ministers to compel and direct collaboration. How does that tie in with another new power in the Bill, which is the requirement that police authorities have regard for the views of local people? Can there not be a tension there? From my discussions with him, I know that Mick Creedon, the chief constable of Derbyshire, who is giving evidence to the Committee later, says that, in the east midlands area, collaboration is going ahead very well, but there are tensions in that you have to put resources and manpower into matters such as terrorism, serious and organised crime, internet paedophilia or whatever the issues are. However, locally, as I know from police authority meetings and residents’ meetings, people say, “We want more police on the beat.” In the event of such competing directions, the Bill says that we must have regard to what local people say, for example about police on the beat, and to what Ministers might be directing in relation to collaboration. How do you square that circle?

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Mr. Holmes, are you addressing this to Sir Norman or will you broaden it to Bob Jones of the Association of Police Authorities and Dave Whatton from Cheshire?

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

Initially, I address it to Sir Norman, while he is on a roll, because it ties in with the previous answer. Then, obviously, it would be interesting to hear from the APA on that one.

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

How much difference does the new provision that police authorities must have regard to what local communities are saying have? How might that clash with a central direction to direct resources to collaboration?

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

One more question on a slightly different issue. Sir Norman in one of his answers introduced as a sideline the issue of raising funding for police authorities through the levy of the precept on the council tax. Is the Bill a missed opportunity to tackle that? Most police authorities are capped by the Government by central directive, and, certainly in Derbyshire, are subject to what the majority group on the county council says that it will allow in terms of an increase? Last year, in my area, it would not allow a big enough increase in council tax to offset what was perceived to be underfunding from the Government. Do police authorities need more say in how they raise their funds?

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Sir Norman, Mr Whatton, any comment on Mr. Holmes’s remarks?

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

Good morning, and thank you for your evidence so far. May I ask a couple of questions on collaboration, and then on accountability? Sir Norman is absolutely right to say that mandating forces in the Bill is seen very much as a last resort, which the Government would consider only when everything else had failed. I am glad Sir Norman has put that on the record; I think that is an important point to make. To reiterate here, it is very much the last port of call, not the first port of call.

Could I ask whether Mr. Jones, Sir Norman and Mr. Whatton think that the measures in the Bill will encourage police forces to share services and collaborate? There has been a lot of progress, but what people want now is to try to encourage greater momentum and sometimes a bit more speed. Will the measures in the Bill encourage that?

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Minister, you had a second question before we move on.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

Mr. Jones, what do you think of the changes that have been made to clause 1 on the accountability arrangements for police authorities? Would Sir Norman and Mr. Whatton like to comment on whether they see the accountability arrangements as an improvement on what was previously in the Bill?

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Have we exhausted the new duty on police authorities, the appointment of chief officers and collaboration? If there are no further questions, perhaps Mr. Ruffley or Mr. Brokenshire will bring in the other two witnesses on airport security.

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

May I say that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir Nicholas? First, I would like to ask the relevant witnesses if they agree with the premise that the current situation, in relation to policing at airports, does not work, is not effective and requires reform?

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

What would you say are the principal impediments, or what would you say is most in need of—

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Order. Would the hon. Gentleman and the witness speak up so that we can ensure that everything is taken down accurately?

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

Thank you, Sir Nicholas. I was simply asking the witness what is the primary area of concern not addressed by the Bill’s proposals, given the issues he has highlighted?

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

Would it be fair to say, in characterising what you have said, that the arrangements rely on the personal relationships between each of the relevant partners and that the proposals risk upsetting those relationships and making them more difficult?

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

Mr. Whatton, perhaps I can ask you about the impact that the changes will have, as they are in essence mainstreaming airport policing much more than has ever been the case. What sort of impact will that have on the individual forces affected?

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Before we continue with the questioning I remind witnesses and Members that we have just under a quarter of an hour until I must bring this set of questions to an end.

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

May I put one further question to Mr. Whatton as a supplementary on the risk of additional pressure being brought to bear, and on the limitations of front-line officers? Do you have any concerns that by changing a situation by establishing formal airport security plans, perhaps for airports that do not have such arrangements, a temptation or feeling will be created that there is a requirement to place additional police resource in such airports? That is not necessarily because there is any flaw in the judgment on risk assessment, but simply by virtue of there being a plan in place the subconscious impact may be greater focus, exposure and perhaps public scrutiny.

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

I have just one question on funding for security. The Airport Operators Association believes, as would any business, that policing should all be done through central funding and that you should not be picking up the tab. Can you justify that approach with airports?

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

What would you change in the Bill to deal with the difficulties as you see them?

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

But why would using British Transport police not give rise to exactly the same problems? The police would want to over-egg the security, which is their job and you would not want to pay for that, which is your job.

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

Could I ask Bob Jones to come in? You reacted to one of the comments earlier.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Two people have caught my eye: first, Mr. Whatton, who is involved with Manchester airport—he was more involved, and is now peripherally involved—and, secondly, the Opposition spokesman, David Ruffley. Would Mr. Whatton speak for literally 30 seconds, because we have got about 90 seconds left?

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

I have a simple question for Bob Jones about accountability. Are there any amendments that you would like to see made to these clauses on accountability that would enhance the accountability of the police to police authorities? Do those amendments exist? Will you send them in?

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I thank our witnesses for their co-operation. It is about to strike 12 o’clock. I know that I speak on behalf of the Committee when I say that we are grateful for the full and frank answers that have been given to all questions. You may now leaves us and allow our next group of witnesses to join us. We are grateful to Sir Norman, Dave Whatton, Bob Jones, Robert Siddall and Ian Hutcheson. The evidence has been valuable.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I welcome the second group of witnesses to come before us this morning. I welcome Denise Marshall, the chief executive of the Eaves POPPY project, Frances Brodrick, assistant chief executive of the Eaves POPPY project, Niki Adams, the spokeswoman for the English Collective of Prostitutes, Hilary Kinnell, co-vice chair of the safety, violence and policing group from the UK Network of Sex Work Projects, Kathy Evans, the project policy director of the Children’s Society and Sandrine Levêque, the campaigns manager of Object. To assist everybody, perhaps each person will give their name and explain who they are.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Thank you. I will go to Her Majesty’s official Opposition to put the first question.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

Ms Adams, to give a scale of the problem, could you estimate how many prostitutes in the country are controlled for gain—that is a term used in the Bill?

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I am afraid only those who have been asked to come as formal witnesses can address the Committee. I have no doubt that you will be able to speak on behalf of those for whom you have just replied. I am sorry; those who are not registered with us as official witnesses cannot give evidence.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

You are confirming that the definition is very wide, and can catch a large number of people.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I can help Niki Adams. I have just given advice on what is permitted at this Committee sitting, but there is nothing to prevent your colleagues from submitting written evidence to the Committee. Such evidence, as long as it is acceptable, not in offensive language and is appropriate to the Bill, will be circulated. If your colleagues would like to give evidence they can, but, sadly, it has to be in writing.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

On how the clauses might operate in practice, it has been suggested to some members of the Committee that it would not be easy to enforce them, because quite a lot of women who were being forced into this industry would not give evidence, to put it bluntly, against a pimp or someone who was controlling them. They would be scared of being brutalised or attacked if they gave evidence to the police or the Crown Prosecution Service. From what you are saying, that does not seem to be so much of an issue. Enforcement is happening, from what you just said.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

But paying for sexual services from a person who is controlled for gain will be an offence. May I just give you this scenario? If a man understands that seeking and using the services of a woman who has been trafficked is a strict liability offence and he will be committing an offence, in practice, if he knows the law, he might say to the woman, “Have you been trafficked or are you controlled for gain?” Let us just imagine that scenario. It seems that there is no incentive whatsoever for the woman concerned to answer that question truthfully because if the man asks the question, she will understand that he knows the law. If she says, “Yes, I have been trafficked,” the first thing the man will do in all likelihood is say, “Okay, I’m not going to commit an offence; I’m going out the door.” The woman will then lose the money.

It seems almost impossible to conceive of a sex worker—a female—answering that question truthfully because the minute she does so she loses business and, if she has already been brutalised, she will face heaven knows what consequences for losing trade and money. What are the chances of women answering that question truthfully?

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Mr. Ruffley, I think that Niki Adams mentioned the POPPY project in one of her answers relating to statistics. Do Frances Brodrick or Denise Marshall want to come in on the question?

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

Sir Nicholas, you have asked my question for me. If I could ask for a response to those points?

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

This is my final question. May I ask the representatives of the POPPY project whether they think that the clauses as drafted—predominantly those relating to the strict liability on men—are going to choke off demand and help to solve the problem through the straightforward criminalisation of the punter, so to speak? Do you think that that is going to work?

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

Do you think that the proposal will drive down the number of men seeking sexual services and paying for them?

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Before I call Mrs. Nadine Dorries to put a question, I know that Hilary Kinnell would like to add something to the evidence that has been given.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Thank you.

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

My question is to Niki Adams and relates to clause 20, which is the closure orders clause. Taking Ipswich into account, and given that although many sex workers work indoors, there are also those who are out on the street, what impact do you think the closure orders will have on the safety and vulnerability of sex workers? Will they make the position of neighbourhoods and residents any better or worse? Will they make the lot of the sex workers any better or worse?

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

We know that there are two groups: those who take the intelligent and informed decision that they want to sex workers; and those who end up there as a result of need, trafficking or whatever. On the drug issue—representatives of the POPPY project might want to answer this—a huge number, although I do not know the percentage, of sex workers are also involved in the drug industry. That is why raids have been made on the various indoor premises that you have spoken about. Is there an effective way in which the law could be decoupled so that drug offences could be prosecuted without closing down the premises?

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

The provision will ask a sex worker to attend three meetings. Do you think that the compulsory aspect will deter sex workers? If so, how should help be given to a sex worker who wants to move out of the industry?

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Denise Marshall would like to come in. May I say to Kathy Evans and Sandrine Levêque that if you have any comments on what is being said, please catch my eye and I will be delighted to invite you to address the Committee?

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

May I confirm first that none of the witnesses supports the provisions in law and in this Bill that criminalise women in prostitution? Is there anyone who supports that? No. Turning to Ms Marshall first, do you think that men who knowingly have sex with women who are trafficked and forced into prostitution are committing rape? Did you report the 22 men who had sex with trafficked women who you believed, rightly or wrongly, knew that they were trafficked and forced into sex when they came to you with the referral? Did you report them to the police for rape?

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

So to encourage referrals you allow anonymous referrals. I can understand why. Is that because you think that if people who refer feel that they will be prosecuted they are less likely or not likely to refer?

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

So those men, if I understand this correctly and unless there is overlap, are responsible for helping you to save 22 women from mass rape on a daily basis?

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

So on the basis of 10 times a day and then for another month, hundreds of rapes are prevented by each of those men coming forward. Do you think we should do more to encourage more men to come forward, whether or not they have had sex with these women, in order to help you and the authorities to prevent rape on this scale?

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

Is there any evidence from abroad that anyone is aware of as to how they manage to increase the number of referrals from men? Do they use the Bill’s approach of trying to deter men through criminalisation, or do they use another technique?

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

Ms Evans, you are from the Children’s Society. I think in the briefing that you and your coalition sent on Second Reading that you wanted to see decriminalisation of under-18-year-olds. You said—and I would be grateful if you could confirm it for the record—that you thought that the Government had planned to do that at some point earlier. Do you know why that has not happened in this Bill?

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

My question was, why has it not been repealed?

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

One of the issues for me is whether the intentions of this legislation will be effective in making women safe. I think we all share that objective. I understand that it has been subject, as far as possible, to academic inquiry. I shall start with the POPPY project witnesses. What academic evidence in the Home Office review led them to believe that they would be safe in welcoming the review’s proposals for the new offence of controlling for gain, and the closure orders in respect of the safety and health of women—usually women; vulnerable women—in the sex industry?

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

I understand that, but there may be alternatives that do it better. My question is, what is the academic evidence—either from the Home Office review or elsewhere, if it is not there—that underpins your view that the legislation will be the best way to improve the situation generally, and particularly for your clients?

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

I accept that, but the separate question about what improves the safety and emotional and physical health of women is more amenable to comparative study than the more political question about whether it is generally exploitative or empowering. I absolutely understand that different academics have different views.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

I accept that that is your view, but I am interested in the academic evidence, so I shall ask Hilary: are some of your projects NHS funded?

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

Do you have a view on the evidence base for this policy? That is my last question.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Dr. Harris, may I move on? Three other members of the Committee want to put questions.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

Yes.

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

Niki and Hilary, if the provisions go through as the Government intend, in the Bill, whatever their desire to improve the lot of women, what do you think the impact will be in reality?

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Sandrine Levêque, would you like to comment? I gather that you hold a slightly different view from the one that has just been expressed.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Do so very quickly. I know that Mr. Brokenshire wishes to put a question. Should he put the question, and then you make a comment?

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

May we finish that point? The impact of the legislation is possibly the most worrying thing.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

We have seven minutes. I am concerned.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I will call James Brokenshire to speak next, and then Sandrine Levêque will probably want to comment.

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

I want to move on to clause 25 and the Bill’s proposed changes to the regulation of lap-dancing and sex-encounter venues. I understand that you, Ms Levêque, do not believe that the provisions go far enough; perhaps you would explain why.

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

I have one very quick question for Ms Evans on the issue of the foreign orders for sex offenders, particularly the foreign travel orders. What impact will changing the age from 16 to 18 have, why is that important in your view, and do you believe that that increase to five years is appropriate?

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

A brief answer, please.

Phil Wilson (Labour, Sedgefield)

I would like to ask the panel two direct questions. What responsibility do men have when buying sex, and how would you ensure that they accept that responsibility?

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I have to bring the sitting to an end as the time allotted for the questions has now ended. I thank our witnesses for the frank, open and full way in which they answered the questions put to them. It has been very valuable evidence for the Committee.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

I—[Interruption.] I am prompted by that ringing tone to ask everyone in the room to turn off all mobile phones and electronic devices.

If the witnesses are settled in their places, I would like formally to commence the afternoon sitting. I remind hon. Members and witnesses that we are bound by the internal knives agreed this morning. The first evidence session this afternoon must end by 5.30 pm and the second by 7 pm. I hope that I will not have to interrupt hon. Members or witnesses in the middle of their sentences, but I will do so if I must. Parliamentary procedure is extremely precise on the knives. The moment it is 5.30 pm, I must halt proceedings and move on to the second set of witnesses.

Members will find on their desks copies of a substantial amount of material submitted by the Home Office to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in support of the Bill. It will not be circulated again, so I ask hon. Members who wish to keep it for the duration of Committee proceedings to take it with them at the end of the sitting.

I welcome this afternoon’s first set of witnesses. For the record, may I ask you to introduce yourselves to the Committee and state your name and the organisation that you represent?

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

Thank you all for submitting evidence and for coming to be questioned this afternoon. We will start with a question from James Brokenshire.

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

The Bill deals with certain offences and the creation of mandatory requirements. The Secretary of State may set out national mandatory requirements, and local authorities will be permitted to impose additional requirements on licensees within specific areas. Will witnesses state what information they have been provided with to date on the conditions that will be expected? One difficulty for the Committee is understanding what conditions are likely to be required. It would be useful to hear from industry representatives and the police the types of conditions they expect to see imposed through the mandatory code requirements, given that the code is yet to be drawn up and finalised.

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

The Department of Health published a code at one stage that set out certain requirements that got into the public domain. Is your understanding that that is the model, or will the Government be moving away from that?

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

Mr. Shenker, perhaps you could indicate your thoughts on the conditions issue and the effectiveness and appropriateness of the mandatory conditions route.

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

The category B conditions are local measures that could be applied in areas where there is concern about anti-social behaviour or nuisance—the kind of issues that are one of the licensing principles, if I may put it like that. The issue here is that if a particular venue is said to be causing disruption, you can effectively seek a licensing review under the existing powers of Licensing Act 2003. In other words, the local authority can review the licence and additional conditions can be imposed. The category B requirements seem to have the potential to fetter local authorities, saying they are only able to impose the conditions prescribed by the Home Secretary. What is the Local Government Association’s view of the interrelationship between the existing Licensing Act review provisions and the proposals of this second limb of the mandatory code, with these additional conditions that local authorities could apply?

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

Do you have any concerns about the local condition procedure? We want some certainty and, if local authorities are to have discretion, it must be clear how they will exercise that. From my perspective, the provisions have some echoes of the procedures adopted with the alcohol disorder zones and that whole regime. Do you see some parallels and equally some of the issues raised in relation to the effectiveness and appropriateness of ADZs?

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

Mr. Brennan, perhaps I can ask you about the potential business impact of the changes. In particular, page 23, paragraph 19 of the regulatory impact assessment—this relates the impact assessment of the code of practice for the alcohol industry—which states:

“However, we recognise that in the short run, there is the potential for significant transitional costs including job losses and the closure of small businesses.”

How seriously should we take that paragraph?

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

There is a balance to be struck between harm reduction and the importance of ensuring that we deal effectively with binge drinking, but we need to do that in a proportionate way. In terms of the impact of the measure, do you have any feel of the numbers we are talking about? Are we talking about hundreds of businesses that might close? Can you give any feeling to the Committee based on what you know thus far?

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

Mr. Craik, I just want to come back to you, and then I will wrap up my line of questioning. I know that others want to come in.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

I do not want to cramp your style in any sense, Mr. Brokenshire. I want you to have the opportunity to question witnesses as you feel fit, but I must protect the right of all parties, including Back Benchers, to ask questions. If you and Mr. Ruffley have not brought your questions to a close at, say, 4.30 pm, I will probably move on. If we have spare time left at the end, I will obviously come back to Members who have already asked questions.

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

Thank you, Mr. Bayley. I come back to Mr. Craik. The Bill gives some new powers to the police, although there is some suggestion that the police have wide-ranging powers anyway to deal with young people in possession of alcohol. What do you think these provisions add to what you already have?

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

The Bill makes it an offence for a person under 18 to possess alcohol in a public place without “reasonable excuse”. What do you understand by the term “reasonable excuse” in this context?

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

But do you not already have the power to take children back to their parents if they are in an unsafe situation?

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

I will call Mr. Holmes soon, but Mr. Ruffley may come in briefly.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

Thank you, Mr. Bayley. I will observe your strictures and keep it short.

Chief constable, a question for you on the alcohol provisions, in particular clauses 26, 27 and 28. As you will understand, we cannot make sense of them in this Bill unless we understand the precursor provision, since those three clauses do not create new offences, but merely toughen up existing law. In clause 26, for the offence of consuming alcohol in a “designated public place” where a direction from an officer is ignored, the fine available is bumped up. Clause 27 toughens up laws against persistently selling alcohol to under- age individuals. Clause 28, in relation to under-age drinking, says that officers will be able to confiscate alcohol from under-age drinkers, whether or not there is an intention to consume that alcohol. So, we are merely talking not about new law, but about hardening existing law.

On Second Reading, there were quite a few comments from hon. Members to the effect that those existing laws that I have referred to were not being properly enforced. Could you give us a better understanding of that and anecdotal evidence? How many prosecutions or sanction detections are there under those three precursor pieces of legislation that relate to clauses 26, 27 and 28? Do you have that information?

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

That is quite interesting.

I think that all of us like to be seen to be firm on law and order and, therefore, in and of themselves, these clauses are not problematic for me at all, since they are toughening existing legislation. However, a repeated theme crops up in our deliberations in Parliament: if only the existing law tackling alcohol misuse and its associated disorder could be enforced. The police do not have the resources they need. Perhaps you can furnish the Committee with a written submission on the profile of sanction detections. We are not going to pick on Northumbria, chief constable, do not worry. I would like data from the Association of Chief Police Officers on the enforcement levels of existing legislation, specifically, of the precursor legislation that relates to clauses 26, 27 and 28—not 29, because that is a new offence—so that the Committee can understand whether the existing law is working, because it may not be being enforced enough, which is what I mean by not working. It may be perfectly reasonable legislation with the right sentiments and previous Ministers may have been right to propose it, but do you, the police, have the resources to utilise the existing powers, never mind new ones? We would value your ACPO data.

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

To pick up where we have just left off, I can see the argument about giving more clarity to officers and I can see the benefits of the change in the law that allowed officers to seize opened alcohol. I have been out on patrol in Chesterfield with officers and seen them doing that—it is effective. However, I am still puzzled by some of the suggested changes and by how much they are, in effect, window dressing. You used the phrase “deterrent effect”, but you can already fine people £500 for consuming alcohol in a prohibited area, for example, and the point was made on Second Reading that nobody has ever been fined more than £250, so what is the point of increasing it to £2,500?

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

The sound system is not terribly good in this room. Although you are having a conversation between the two of you at that end, some of us down this end also want to hear.

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

If magistrates, for example, are not fining people more then £250, when it could be £500, would they go to £1,250 to split the difference again? Is it purely a psychological deterrent?

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

You say that ACPO and the police force have supported these moves. Did you consult magistrates, for example, about whether they thought tougher sentences were needed?

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

In practical terms, it is not going to work unless magistrates use the power.

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

A similar example raised on Second Reading was that people can already be prosecuted for serving alcohol to somebody under age on three consecutive occasions, but that measure is not very much used.

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

One of the things that pub landlords in my area are indignant about is that all the pressure in the past seems to have been on them, as licensed premises are the easiest to get at through regulation. Yet they will say that most of the binge drinkers who are drunk in their pubs are drunk when they arrive at 9 pm, having bought cheap alcohol and then drunk it at home before they go out. I assume you would agree with that, Rob?

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

Shane, one of the problems with off-licence sales is that they are more accessible to people who are under age than are licensed premises—and that would apply to convenience stores. Another is using alcohol as a loss leader, which presumably you would argue is more a supermarket issue.

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

Chris, from a local government point of view, which is the biggest issue that you want to see tackled by this legislation—the issue of licensed premises or that of off-sales?

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

Paul, may I say, as I did to your Conservative colleagues, that I will move on to questions from Government Members at about a quarter to 5?

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

I have one final question for Rob on voluntary agreements versus mandatory agreements. Pub landlords and club owners in Chesterfield had a voluntary agreement not to have happy hours, women drinking free promotions and so on. As the recession started to bite in the run-up to Christmas some of them broke ranks and were followed by others. Can such agreements be voluntary or must they be mandatory?

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

I want to ask about the practicality of some of the measures around policing in public places. There are obviously a number of areas that have total bans on alcohol in public places, such as several town centres, including Northampton. Can you say from your experience of policing such measures what lessons you would take from that about actually practically implementing the measures that are set out in this Bill, in terms of officers’ interpretation and management?

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

On policing total bans in public areas, has that actually been manageable and possible?

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

So this is really positive.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

There are particular issues, obviously, about young people drinking in public places, particularly parks, about which people have a big grievance. How are you going to manage this, and how would police officers practically police these kinds of measures, assuming that the park is a public place, and draw the line between young people who may be drinking and those who might be causing a nuisance, given that we must consider picnics, pop concerts and so on.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

You are quite confident that all that is manageable?

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

I want to ask about the code. Obviously, its content is for the future, and everyone seems to have their wish list of nine items that they would like in it—I know that I have mine—but the key issue for this part is the process. What is your view on the extent of the consultation? The industry will have input, but this is a massive community issue, and it is very important that young people have the opportunity to have some input. How would you like that to be managed?

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

I call Mike Craik. Forgive me for shouting your names if it is not immediately obvious to whom a question is addressed. That is for the benefit of the Hansard writers. If I really want to stop you from talking, I shall shout your name very loudly and repeatedly.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

Is it right that some 14 per cent. of your members’ income is from alcohol-related sales?

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

Finally, what do you say to those who say that this is stigmatising young people still further?

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I have a question on the same issue, which I shall address to Mike in the first instance. You are saying really that clause 29 will make operational and practical the powers that you already have. That suggests that more young people are going to be brought into the criminal justice system. You have talked twice about mechanisms that exist to divert young people from the sort of behaviour that might result from their drinking in public places, but how confident are you that those sort of multi-agency programmes exist in our communities? I have seen little evidence of such programmes, particularly ones directed at 16 and 17-year-olds.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

Nevertheless, would not we conclude that, even if it is a small group—I am not sure that it is always a small group in some of our cities, but let us assume that it is—without resources being directed at preventive strategies, we are going to bring more young people into the criminal justice system, and everything should be done to avoid that?

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

May I move on briefly to consultation about the code? The view of my local community is that it is very hard for communities to make their voice heard in the operation of the Licensing Act 2003. When there are consultations about reviews of licensing, for example, they seem to get drowned out by the voice of the industry or police or some other institution. I wonder, Don, whether you have any advice about what we can do to make sure that community voices are better heard?

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

I do not want to squeeze the Minister out of the questioning, so I will call him to speak.

Alan Campbell (Labour, Tynemouth)

My first question is to Chief Constable Craik and follows on from the previous question. If it comes to a choice between a mix of mandatory powers and local conditions or local permissive or voluntary conditions available to existing licensing committees, what do you think ACPO’s choice would be?

Alan Campbell (Labour, Tynemouth)

Mr. Hayward, we need to take seriously your concerns about pub closures, not only at this time, but at any time. Are not many pubs closing because there are simply too many of them, given the changing lifestyle of the British public? Is that a fair comment?

Alan Campbell (Labour, Tynemouth)

Mr. Brennan, campaigns have suggested that around 40 per cent. of premises sell alcohol to children on at least one occasion and that two thirds of children claim that they have been able to purchase alcohol illegally. Does that not suggest that the Government and retailers need to do more and that clause 27, which deals with the two-strikes approach, is proportionate and necessary?

Alan Campbell (Labour, Tynemouth)

You said that there are different reasons why retailers might sell and get to the three strikes, and I think that we have discussed that before. Are you referring to the intimidation that might take place, for example, in a shop away from everywhere else, where the retailer feels under pressure to sell?

Alan Campbell (Labour, Tynemouth)

So what would be a reason for breaking the law?

Alan Campbell (Labour, Tynemouth)

But we are not talking about making a mistake. We are talking about making repeated mistakes.

Alan Campbell (Labour, Tynemouth)

So you are telling me that it is a small, diminishing problem.

Alan Campbell (Labour, Tynemouth)

Okay, but it is a small, diminishing problem that we ought not to be too concerned about.

Alan Campbell (Labour, Tynemouth)

But even if it is targeted in those areas, it is still a major problem when retailers in on-sales or off-sales have been resistant to all the pressure that has been brought to bear on them to live within the law.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

Are there any other colleagues trying to catch my eye?

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

I want to come back on a couple of specific points and then discuss a slightly broader point.

Mr. Craik, as we discussed, to commit the offence of persistently possessing alcohol in a public place it must take place on three or more occasions within 12 months. What guidance has ACPO given to police forces on the recording of this information? Obviously police would need to know that someone had been caught on two previous occasions to determine whether the offence has been triggered. How will that be recorded? Will it go on the new PentiP system or the police national computer? What will happen?

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

As we discussed earlier, my concern with the extension of the power of directions to leave to 10-year-olds is that there are existing powers to take children back to their homes if they are at risk or if police have concerns about their safety. In what circumstances would you use this power for a 10 or 11-year-old rather than take them back to a place of safety?

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

But what does that say in terms of child protection issues? You are suggesting that there is a problem with the parents and, therefore, we are just simply moving it on; surely, a place of safety or child protection issues are involved. That is what I am seeing in respect of this clause and it leaves me uncomfortable. Are we saying, “If there is a young child, we simply move them on”?

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

But principally it is the teenagers rather than the very young children whom you would expect to be using this power against.

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

On the broader point, obviously there are some partnership initiatives—or less statutory measures, if I can describe them in those terms—being undertaken in various parts of the country to try to reduce the harm associated with alcohol consumption and to provide education as well. In that context, I am thinking of the community alcohol project, based out of St. Neots and also some ways in which businesses use business improvement districts in consultation with local authorities. The Broadstream BID in Birmingham, which I visited, is one example of how the night time economy is being managed in that manner.

Would the witnesses be prepared to comment on the impact of the code arrangements? Do you see those helping the situation and helping promote such partnerships or are there some risks that they will undermine some of the good work that is starting to be done in a number of communities?

Mr. White, from a local authority perspective, are local authorities engaging with partners in such ways to try to have a different approach, rather than simply looking at law enforcement, and are they considering longer-term interventions to try to change behaviour and patterns of behaviour?

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

Mr. Shenker, in terms of harm reduction and addressing some of these deep-seated issues, what are your thoughts on partnership working and the interrelationship between mandatory, statutory, regulatory and partnership approaches?

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

I wish it was my own company. I represent it.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

We have had a “women get in free” offer.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

I think it is really dangerous to minimise the risks. I have certainly seen “women get in free” offers, and we have one coming up that is 89p for any drink. We have had “18 quid and drink as much as you want for an entire evening” offers. They have been spectacularly appalling.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

This will have to be the last question. I remind all colleagues that I have no leeway at 5.30 pm, when I will have to end proceedings. I know that Mr. Craik wants to come in as well, but first, Mr. Hayward.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

The sensible thing would probably be to draw the line at this stage. On behalf of all members of the Committee, I thank you, witnesses, for your written statements and for coming along to present your views to us today. This has been extremely helpful, and will no doubt be referred to during the Committee’s proceedings in the days and weeks ahead. Thank you all very much indeed.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

If you are sitting comfortably, we will begin. This second part of the evidence session will look at proceeds of crime and related questions in the Bill. May I ask the witnesses to introduce themselves and their organisations?

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

I start with a question to Mr. Evans. SOCA last year assumed the responsibilities of the Assets Recovery Agency which had a slightly difficult history. Can you give us an update on how the merger has followed through, as that is essential to one of the key agencies using the powers in this Bill?

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

In that context, before we start to look at what is in the Bill, could you and your colleagues flesh out what you see as the principal impediment or limitation that is inhibiting you being able to enforce effectively the powers you already have, as well as the shortcomings that have been identified to necessitate the legislative change that we have before us in the Bill?

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

Obviously the reason for asking the question was not necessarily to be critical. It was to understand the background or the triggers here so that we, as the people scrutinising this, can better understand why, for example, some of the powers have been taken. As you recognise, there has been some criticism from the Bar Council about the human rights impact of some of the provisions. Therefore, as a starting point I am seeking to understand the background and the basis on which these new powers are being sought. From what you are saying, your experience of the application of the legislation before the courts or otherwise suggests that there is some justification for seeking to push certain elements, if I can use that terminology.

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

On a couple of specifics, there are certain changes to confiscation orders, but how often have magistrates refused confiscation orders in practice? Do you have any experience of that? There is some suggestion that there have been problems, but it would be useful to get a feel for the nature of them.

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

To broaden the point slightly, there was some debate and consideration at the time of the Assets Recovery Agency of the interrelationship between some of the powers granted to it and the application of human rights. That was used as mitigation for some of the problems in advancing and enforcing claims. Is that still a relevant consideration or has the case law sorted itself out? Is this what you were seeking to remedy in these provisions?

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

Has that been your experience as well, Mr. Hicks, in the context of the Metropolitan police’s use and application? What have been the challenges before the courts? Are those legislative or have they been to do with intelligence and the evidence?

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

A question on civil recovery for you, Mr. Evans. I understand that a cash forfeiture order has to be granted by a magistrate, whether it is contested or not, and that SOCA believes that to be quite bureaucratic and time consuming. In what proportion of cases in which there is a cash forfeiture order in play will the alleged offender get lawyered up and waste time? Is it a high proportion? Is if half of them?

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

In rough terms.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

So you would not expect the clause that we are talking about to be particularly contentious and believe that it is just common sense because the orders are not contested in many cases.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

So it is just tidying up and should not be particularly controversial from our point of view as scrutineers of legislation.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

Chief Constable, in your view, what is the single most important change that the clauses will bring about in relation to the proceeds of crime, and what will make the biggest difference for your officers?

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

It is very useful if the practitioners tell us what is most important to them, so I will pay extra attention to those two clauses. Do you anticipate more litigation from suspects as a result of those new powers?

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

Let us move on to the topic of extradition, because obviously there are additional provisions on extradition in the Bill, in many ways relating to the new Schengen information system and the European arrest warrant. Just as background, what has been the effect of the application of the European arrest warrant on requests made to this country and citizens who are extradited? What sort of numbers are we talking about, and what sort of cases have they generally been applied to?

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

In terms of the information that you hold on this request and the statements that you have made about exponential growth, to what extent do these requests relate, first, to other European nationals in this country whose home country is seeking extradition to get them back to face charges and, secondly, to British citizens sought in other jurisdictions? Thirdly, of that number, how many are subject to claims or potential prosecution for offences that would not be prosecutable here? Obviously, there is concern that the European arrest warrant is used in certain cases to charge and arrest someone in this country when there is not an offence here, thus breaking the normal rules on extradition that something has to be chargeable in both countries.

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

I shall go back to the initial line of questioning because most of the controversy from outside groups that have written to us about the proposals is centred on the confiscation of property and cash in the gap between arrest and charge, and in gaps between making arrests. How big a problem is it that large amounts of goods that you think are the result of criminal activity disappear, or are significantly reduced, before you can seize that property?

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

Are you talking primarily about cash, about high-value items such as jewellery, or about property?

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

I think, Mick, that in an earlier answer on this topic you said that you have to recognise property and assets that are essential to what might be a legitimate business. How do you draw the distinction?

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

To renew an order after the first 48 hours, you need to go only to a magistrate rather than to a Crown court, is that adequate judicial oversight?

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

On the question of extradition, what do extradition requests to you or requests that you make elsewhere typically cover? There was a big joke on Second Reading that requests could involve pig rustling in Poland. Is that serious? At what level do you arrest someone or request extradition? Are people extradited for going back to another European country having not paid £50-worth of parking fines in London and or vice versa?

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

Because we did not sign up completely to the Schengen agreement and still have our own border controls, we do not get access to the full exchange of information.

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

In all cases with the European arrest warrant, a prima facie case must be presented. Famously, with the American agreement, they do not have to present one to us, but we must present one to them. Do you have any observations on that?

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

Is that completely untypical among extradition agreements with other countries?

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

How many extradition cases have there been involving British citizens and the USA?

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

For what kinds of offences?

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

Does that include gambling offences?

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

No gambling offences.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

Good afternoon. Thank you for your time. May I summarise what has been said? There appears to be a consensus that this Bill is building on the success of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The real problem has been with retaining property pre-charge. Has that been a core difficulty with the operation of the Act with property dissipating before we can restrain it, Mr. Creedon and Mr. Evans?

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

One of the points that is often put to me when I have raised this is that this is completely unnecessary; restraint orders do the job.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

That is a point that is often put to me. It is said that we have no need for this and it is an unnecessary step; that we are unnecessarily infringing the rights of individuals because restraint orders will do all that needs to be done.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

It is extremely important for me to ask you to comment on this. As we have seen from some of the comments about the proposals in the Bill, people are necessarily worried about the human rights and civil liberties implications of what we are doing to the individuals concerned—but we can see the benefits to the broader community, if we concentrate on that. It would be helpful if you said, between you, something about the importance that you attach to the judicial safeguards that are in the Bill and about the use of these powers—whether you consider them appropriate, for example. It would also be helpful if you stated on the record whether you believe that the codes of practice that will go alongside the provisions need to ensure that this power should be used only where it is necessary and proportionate to do so.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

Commander Gibson, I understand that you are saying that, generally, you welcome the provisions in the Bill, but that you are raising some of the practical problems arising from the increasing numbers of people subject to European arrest warrants.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

What is your view of the provision to extend to a judge the power to grant an additional 48 hours to a requesting country, should that be necessary for the relevant EAW papers to be provided?

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

We have talked a lot in this discussion about extradition requests being made to us and some of the issues around that for us. Could either Commander Gibson, Mr. Evans or any of the other officers comment on us doing the requesting? How useful do you think some of the provisions in the Bill will be to help in that process? Are there issues that you would like to highlight there?

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

Yes.

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

I have some quick questions to round off with. When I was questioning earlier, there was the implication that the costs of compliance with the enhanced Schengen arrangements, the requests being received and the officer-time required to follow through on requests from other European jurisdictions were growing and growing. Can you indicate the cost in manpower of complying with the system as it is now, when we have this exponential growth?

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

Obviously, that is a cost that will have to be shared by police forces around the country in respect of requests for people located in their jurisdiction—in officer time to track them down and make arrests and so on.

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

Do you want to add anything, Mr. Creedon, on the impact of this on policing more generally?

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

There has been quite a lot of debate about the impact of new communities in certain police force areas—language and associated issues. Presumably, on the basis of what we have heard of the proportion of these European arrest warrants that are of foreign nationals sought overseas, you can see that if you have new communities in certain parts of the country this could have a disproportionate affect in those police force areas compared with others.

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

You have emphasised Poland on a number of occasions, can you give an impression of the proportion?

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

43 per cent. Clearly etched on your mind. One final point on extradition generally. A point has been made about the undertakings given to a third-party state that you seek extradition from one country to be prosecuted in this country then to be returned to that original country to serve the sentence. In what proportion of cases are these specific requests attached, in terms of driving the point that has been made in this Bill? Are there situations where those requests are made of UK nationals, because an issue has been flagged that a request could be made of a UK national in a non-EU jurisdiction—they come and serve their sentence here and are then returned to that non-EU country. Could you help the Committee by giving a flavour of some of the examples that have perhaps driven this amendment to be sought in the Bill, if it has been sought from law enforcement at all?

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

France is an example.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

If there are no further questions for these witnesses, it brings us to the end of our business for the day. The Committee will sit again at 9am on Thursday. I would like to thank all the witnesses for both their written statements and their presentations to us today. I have learned a lot, as I am sure my colleagues have. I thank you for your attendance.