Policing and Crime Bill

Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2009.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I welcome our witnesses from Liberty and the Bar Council to the sitting. I remind hon. Members and witnesses that we have until 10.25 am. We then have to adjourn, because the House begins to sit for Question Time. For the record, I ask our witnesses to introduce themselves to the Committee, please.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Thank you. We shall now begin the questioning and I go straight to the lead spokesman for Her Majesty’s Opposition, David Ruffley.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

I will stay in order, Sir Nicholas, because part 1 of the Bill is entitled “Police Reform”. Therefore, Liberty’s observations, which I think are noteworthy, go to the heart of the tripartite structure, but I notice, Ms Chakrabarti, that you have not taken the opportunity to lay down any amendments. Is that because you do not want to start unpicking the tripartite structure as such? You are saying that there are certain functions that you do not think ACPO, as currently constituted, should be involved in, such as senior appointments. Would that be a fair summation?

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

ACPO has an interesting governing structure. When you look at its website and speak to its members, it does lots of things that many people would not think that it does. I shall move on from that. Clause 11 gives new powers to Ministers to make directions, and I note that you fear that that centralisation could lead to unwelcome politicisation. Let me put the counter to that, the case for the clause and something that Liberty might like. It would give Ministers the power, for instance, to direct that there could be, as suggested in Ronnie Flanagan’s interim report, a national suite of forms for the police, with minimum reporting requirements, so there would be a standardised set of forms across the country; saving police time and creating clarity for defence counsel, and lawyers generally, to rationalise the system. The only way in which that can be done is through centralised control. That would not be politicisation. What objection would you have if the power were used to have a national suite of forms?

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

May I turn to part 2 and the issues relating to sex offences and prostitution? Mr. Lodder, on the new offence of paying for sexual services of a prostitute controlled for gain, we have already heard quite a bit of concern about the drafting and whether as drafted it would be enforceable in an effective way. Could you give us your views, as an esteemed lawyer, on what the profession thinks about how those words will be interpreted in practice, and how the police will interpret them?

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

Forgive my editorialising.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

Evidentially, would not that intent be very difficult to show?

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

May I ask Ms Chakrabarti for her thoughts on that same question?

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

We all know about the problems with strict liability, but if we do not use strict liability because it is difficult to work, how would Liberty draft an alternative clause that imported some notion of intent on the part of the man? In other words, let us talk about this Bill and trying to make it better. Could you with all your skills—and the Bar Council as well—draft an alternative clause that would import some notion of intent to get away from strict liability?

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

Let us assume that.

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

We have spoken to a number of sex workers—I certainly have—over the past two weeks who have chosen to be sex workers as their way of life. That is what they want to do. You went on to talk about the closure orders and what you felt they would do. Will not some of the measures laid down in the Bill further impinge on the rights of those women to carry out their trade? I was trying to think of a way of putting it, but that is how they describe it, as carrying out their trade. Should we not be moving the emphasis of the Bill? Could it not be drafted to move the emphasis away entirely from the women? I am thinking of the closure orders and the issue of the three meetings. We have heard from sex workers that many will not and do not want to attend—they regard it as coercion. They would like more in the way of voluntary help and assistance, if they could have it, but they do not want to attend the meetings or to have closure orders. Do they not have rights as well?

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

I have concerns about the phrase “controlled for gain” because, from what we have heard in previous evidence, there will be circumstances in which women in a brothel would be happy with that arrangement, because it is a safer way of operating their trade. Technically, they are in control of the gain, because there is someone there answering the telephone and sorting it all out. So, while the Government’s intention to tackle trafficking is entirely laudable and desirable, the catch-all “controlled for gain” will be more likely to attack or cause a problem for the better forms or organisation of prostitution. Is there another phrase that could be used, Mr. Lodder, other than “controlled for gain”, which could get the traffickers rather than the blanket?

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

The majority do not, but there are some who do.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Does Shami Chakrabarti want to come back, particularly on Julie Kirkbride’s question? May I say to Martin Evans that if he feels he has anything to add, he only has to smile at me and I will be happy for him to come in.

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

May I start with some questions for Liberty? You object to the clauses in the Bill that give the Home Secretary power to direct different police forces to do certain things, so you seem to be saying that the relationship between police authorities is okay as it is now. You also object to clauses in the Bill that require police authorities to take into account the views of local people because you say in the briefing that you provided on Second Reading that the mechanisms already exist for that. You seem to be arguing that the system is perfect as it is and the police are perfectly accountable in a balance between the Government and the people.

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

On a different issue, you have expressed some concerns about provisions in the Bill on tackling alcohol misuse by young people. Will you elaborate on that?

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

On Tuesday when we took evidence, particularly from the police, a defence that emerged was that they would not be criminalising young people at random for possessing alcohol three times in a year in a public space, because they would be getting the hardened characters, rather than anyone at random. By definition those random cases would not crop up three times in the same area.

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

I want to turn to the Bar Council and the issue of the proceeds of crime. On Tuesday, we took evidence, in particular, from the police, who put forward a very convincing argument for why they need more powers to seize assets from major criminals whom they are investigating, because many assets disappear over the one, two or three-year period that an investigation takes to reach its conclusion. You expressed some doubts about those provisions?

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

So in essence it is not the principle to which you object, but the drop from the Crown court to the magistrates?

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Lynda Waltho and Roberta Blackman-Woods have caught my eye, and I think that the Government party should have a short session on questions, so will people make their questions—and answers, for that matter—as succinct as possible?

Lynda Waltho (Labour, Stourbridge)

Thank you, Sir Nicholas. I am sorry that I did not catch your eye before. I was waving and smiling sweetly, but you did not quite get it.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I got it in the end.

Lynda Waltho (Labour, Stourbridge)

This is going to hang in the air a bit, because we have moved on, but following Julie’s point about “controlled for gain”, and your offer, Mr. Lodder, to find another phrase, I have to ask whether we actually need one phrase. All we need do is define “controlled” and separate it from “assist” or “organise”. The English Collective of Prostitutes talked about this on Tuesday. Even now, apparently, women who are buddies in a flat are being caught up in the “controlled” aspect. Do we need to go so far as to find a different phrase, or do we need simply to define what “controlled” means, and separate it from assistance and organising? I believe that there has even been an issue with people organising a rota. Do we need to go so far as to change the wording and have an additional phrase?

Lynda Waltho (Labour, Stourbridge)

But we want the pimps do we not? They are the people we want.

Lynda Waltho (Labour, Stourbridge)

So, can we not separate them as the controllers?

Lynda Waltho (Labour, Stourbridge)

But my point is that we could define “controlled”. Would not that help us to solve this problem? We do not need another phrase that will confuse people.

Lynda Waltho (Labour, Stourbridge)

On alcohol concerns, and the point you have made, Anita, I took evidence yesterday as chair of the all-party group on alcohol misuse, and I think that if anyone found a young person aged between 10 and 15 drunk three times in a year, it would be quite significant. When you think about the release of figures today in the new Government document, it is quite significant. If young people are arrested or moved on, or if there is some form of police intervention, for want of a better phrase, that will allow early intervention from alcohol groups across the country. There is an Aquarius-run system in my constituency, and across Dudley, where young people who have been arrested are referred straight to an alcohol-concern intervention group that will work with them. They welcome that intervention, because it is their best way of connecting with young people with those problems. There is an alcohol-referral arrest system, and I know that my hon. Friend the Minister, Vernon Coaker, has had people come and talk to him about it, and that it has been tremendously successful. I do not think that we can dismiss how useful it could be to identify young people—even if it is three times—and refer them to such services.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I wanted to take up the point about taking the local community’s views into account on policing, because some of what you have written sounds almost counterintuitive. My question is similar to Ms Waltho’s. Can we, perhaps in a statutory instrument, define what we mean by taking views into account, or at least give examples?

I want to press that point because of my experience of setting police policies in a local area, particularly on licensing, for example. Police might have a particular view of what should happen in the area, but the local community might know more about the local fear of crime and what should happen to protect public safety. They might know more about the movements of people in the area and how to protect children from harm, and can give the police a lot of information that leads them to make a different decision. That is not to say that police authorities are not effective or representative, but a lot of the time, there is something to be gained from taking local community’s views on board. Rather than throwing out the measure, should we try to define what is meant by taking views into account, perhaps by listing examples?

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

While it is fresh in our minds, the point made by Lynda Waltho was that if “controlled for gain” was better or perhaps more narrowly defined, the provision would be improved. At the moment, the definition comes from section 53 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which simply states, “Controlling...for gain”, then defines gain. Recently, the case of R v. Massey in the Court of Appeal ruled that control for gain did not require intimidation, force, coercion, threat or a fear of any of those things—it went wider than that. Do you think there is an argument for narrowing the definition—at least in respect of section 53, but certainly in the Bill? That would leave a separate, wider definition of child prostitution, in relation to which organising a diary and all of that ought to have a wider definition, as opposed to adult prostitution, which might be quasi-consensual.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

It is peculiar—and I would like your view on this—that there is an offence of running child prostitutes, which has an intentional element and does not further define “controlled for gain”. There is arguably the less serious issue of something that is not trafficking but is intimidation—pimping, essentially—and is covered by “controlled for gain”. Then there is arguably—certainly the system of penalties in the Bill suggests this—a less serious offence still of having sex with someone controlled for gain. It is the latter offence that is strict liability, and does not require intention. The definition of “controlled for gain” is, nevertheless, the same as something more serious, including trafficking and child prostitution. Is the imposition of strict liability in the least serious offence usual, or unusual, as far as strict liability is concerned?

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

The corollary is that if someone is guilty of this offence—they particularly want to have sex with someone who is trafficked, so they know and have the intention of doing so—many of the elements of rape are formed in that case. The penalty, however, is a £1,000 fine. It seems this offence is not particularly discerning, and does not differentiate between those people who have an intention and those who are subjectively reckless as to whether the person is controlled “in a trafficked way”, as distinct from “mere pimping”. Do you have a view on that?

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

But if neither the prosecutors nor the police explore intention—if it is not necessary to get a conviction—potential rapists would not be gone for.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

I do not know if Liberty have a view on that but, in any event, I would like to ask for its view on strict liability offences in the area of personal conduct, particularly the dangers of creating a scenario for other offences such as blackmail. If there is no defence, it seems to me that entrapment and blackmail would thrive, just as they did to a certain extent when homosexuality was criminal and there was very little in the way of defence. In certain parts of the country there was no defence as to, for example, mistaken age.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

The Bar Council, in one of its briefings, pointed out that a woman, by offering sexual services, might be assisting in the commission of the offence and therefore be guilty under the Serious Crime Act 2007; I think that you cited section 44. However, intentionality would have to be proved and there are extra defences, I think, with regard to action that was felt to be reasonable. You commented, in relation to that, on a double standard and the danger of extending criminalisation of prostitutes themselves.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

Before I hand over to the next questioner—if there is time, I might come back to closure orders—I want to ask a non-Bill-specific question about extradition. There will be other questions, I am sure, on this subject. Are our extradition laws too wide in respect of the potential at least—thankfully, this was not shown in the recent Toben case—for people to be extradited from this country to another country for a speech offence that is not an offence in this country but is an offence in the other country, even when that person is a resident of a third country and the dissemination is mainly not in the country where it is an offence? Does Liberty have a view on that and whether the Bill would be a vehicle to seek to narrow the way we implement our extradition laws?

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I would suggest that the Bar Council and Liberty have a comment to make on that question. Peter Lodder first.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I think perhaps the Minister wants to come in, briefly, not least to clarify—

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

In the interests of justice, and his body language, which has been referred to.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

I just want briefly to clarify something. I am sorry if my body language was so obvious.

In response to one of the points made in answer to Nadine Dorries, the Government’s intention is not to ban prostitution. It is important to put that on the record. We have never said that a ban was a policy intention. We looked in Sweden at the idea of a full offence of paying for sex, and making any payment for sex illegal, and we thought that was not appropriate; we also looked at other models. It is not our intention to bring about a ban in a back-door way.

Our intention, which I know everyone on the Committee shares, as has been demonstrated by this morning’s evidence-taking session, which has explored where we are rather than being confrontational, has been about how to end exploitation and the exploitative elements, where there is no free choice. Julie and others raised the question of “controlled for gain”, and we have lawyers who say—I am not trying to be funny about it, because Mr. Lodder has said something on that point—that “controlled for gain” as defined in case law means what one would regard as the common-sense definition. It would not be where somebody is helping somebody else: organising, protecting, looking after them and so on. I am not a lawyer; that is the legal advice that I have had. Certainly, it is something that we are looking at. “Controlled for gain” is a key part of ensuring that we have absolute clarity of meaning. As the Bill goes through Committee and beyond, we will take up the points that Julie and others have made and look at them to give certainty, which will help if the Bill should be passed by Parliament.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Perhaps both Peter Lodder and Shami would like to come back briefly on that. As the Chair, I do not take part in these discussions, but we have heard what Mr. Lodder said about seeking to help the Committee. If he and his colleagues have any suggestions for draft amendments or on how the Bill might be improved, that is the purpose of these sessions and this Committee, and I know that the Committee would be most grateful. I say the same thing to Shami Chakrabarti. She is an experienced lawyer, and I am merely a humble politician in the Chair of this Committee. Mr. Lodder, do you want to reply to Mr. Coaker, the Minister?

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

I would like to come back to asset seizure and what might be described as pre-emptive seizure. One of the arguments put forward is that there is some broad equivalence between the seizure of assets after arrest and how evidence might be seized. Do you agree that that concept of broad equivalence is appropriate?

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

One of the explanations given to us, certainly in evidence this week from the police, is that the proposal is a tidying-up exercise and that case law has exposed certain areas where criminals have managed to get round the legislation and frustrate the intent. One of the areas of focus, certainly of previous recovery and seizure legislation, was in connection with convention rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 and the way in which they needed to be looked at and interpreted in the context of that legislation. Can you give any insight on the case law in this area? Equally, how would you view the human rights connotations impacting on some of the provisions that you have talked about and that, of course, are in this Bill?

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

The view being put forward is that these convention rights do not apply. Are you suggesting that it may not be as straightforward as that?

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

Ms Chakrabarti or Ms Coles, do you have anything to add in this area, in terms of the human rights issues, the impact of these provisions and safeguards that you may wish to see?

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

It has been explained as a tidying up exercise. Do you share that view?

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Thank you very much. This is the appropriate time at which to bring our proceedings to an end. I thank our witnesses, Mr. Martin Evans, Mr. Peter Lodder, Shami Chakrabarti and Anita Coles very much for the assistance that they have given to the Committee this morning. They have given full, frank and most helpful answers to the many questions that have been asked and I speak on behalf of all the Committee from the Chair in saying that we are grateful for the help that you have given to the Committee.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I welcome our witnesses who are changing places: having been part of the Committee questioning witnesses in the earlier sessions, they are now to be subject to questions from other members of the Committee. I welcome particularly Vernon Coaker, the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing, Alan Campbell, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, and Jim Fitzpatrick, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport.

We are going to take the various sections separately. The first will be policing, the second airport security, the third prostitution, the fourth alcohol, the fifth proceeds of crime, and the final one extradition. We have agreed to spend a certain amount of time on each one, and we will start with questions on policing from the spokesman for Her Majesty’s Opposition.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

Thank you, Sir Nicholas. My questions are addressed to the Minister of State in the spirit of honest inquiry that we have had on so many occasions—not always, but most of the time. On the issue of collaboration, I think there is one thing we can agree on. We all heard the evidence from Sir Norman Bettison on how mandation would be looked at by any Home Secretary or Minister from whichever political party. He suggested—I put the idea into his head—that Ministers in the Home Office should draw up a map dividing up England and Wales and say that those regions or sub-regions will collaborate on five issues that will be mandated across those forces. He suggested that that was at the hard end of the collaboration procedure that is provided for in the Bill. My question is a straight, practical one and it is not in any sense party political, as I am sure you will concede. Is it in the mind of the Home Office to do what I have suggested, to divide up England and Wales and have a structured programme of mandation, with specific forces for specific activities?

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

In using the words “master plan” I was not luring you into a trap, Minister. I did not mean to be pejorative. I wanted to ask whether there was something more structured than just the voluntary ad hoc collaboration arrangements that we have had up to now. Behind these clauses is the recognition by the Home Office and the observation of outsiders that voluntary collaboration does not work. It does not get enough collaboration quickly enough. You are speeding that up and facilitating it. It therefore follows logically that if the voluntary arrangements are not satisfactory after the strategic merger debate—and they have not been—the Home Office might want to force the pace. In my view, it would be right to do that. I think that you have answered the question, but I want to know whether you are aware of any work that seeks to mandate a master plan or a structured plan for England and Wales.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

May I ask again how these clauses will help the police service in practice? I have in mind clause 11 and related clauses, which firm up the powers of direction for Ministers. To make this real for people who are following the debate, the clauses give more centralised powers to Ministers. That need not of itself be a bad thing. I am not saying that all centralisation is bad because it clearly is not.

Would it be fair to say that you could use these powers to mandate what Sir Ronnie Flanagan correctly said in his interim report—not so much in the final report—that there should be a national suite of forms for the most frequently committed offences that officers can use with minimum reporting requirements? As you will recall, in the interim report, Sir Ronnie said that he expected the national suite of forms that would save police time to be drafted by the Association of Chief Police Officers and the National Police Improvement Network by July 2008. That has not happened. Would the powers in clause 11 and related clauses tempt you to mandate a national suite of forms and similar time-saving measures, which need an element of centralisation?

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

Would the national suite of reforms be such an example?

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

I gave the example of the national suite of forms, which you have discounted. Just so that these clauses are brought to life, will you give the Committee a couple of examples of how this power might be used? In what areas of policy would you seek to use these powers to direct and mandate in ways that the Home Office does not already? I would like real-life practical examples.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

Have you contemplated mandating IT solutions?

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

I happen to agree with you.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

So, IT is a real-life example.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

So, not forms but maybe IT. That is very interesting.

I am not seeking to make a party political point, but my final question is about the very detailed proposals that were in the Green Paper that do not appear in the Bill about direct elections of crime and policing representatives. I am sure that others will want to pick up on that. Instead, in clause 1 there is a

“requirement to have regard to the views”

of the public on policing. Can you give an indication of where the Green Paper proposals stand? Should we expect them to be enacted after David Blunkett’s report? Although they are not in the Bill, I understand that they are still alive in some netherworld. What is the status of those Green Paper proposals?

Lynda Waltho (Labour, Stourbridge)

My question concerns collaboration. What has the reaction of the police been to the proposed measures? What reaction have local authorities and the crime partnerships had over how their role will change and how important they will still be?

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

Clause 1 talks about the new duty on police authorities

“to have regard to the views”

of the local community or the public. What exactly does that mean? How will it take effect or be enforced?

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

Two points arise out of that. First, you seem to be saying that the clause does not so much create a new duty “to have regard to” as beef up the existing requirement on police authorities to consult. I had assumed that they did that anyway—or perhaps we in Derbyshire are just very lucky and ours does that more than others.

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

Liberty suggested that an unforeseen consequence of the stronger wording might be that community groups will bring judicial review cases, saying, “Our local authority has not had regard to what we said.”

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

In terms of the clauses giving the Minister power to direct certain forces to do certain things, Bob Jones, representing the Association of Police Authorities, told the Committee on Tuesday that that is an unnecessary level of mandation—ignoring the police authority and giving a direct instruction to a chief constable. I presume that you do not agree with that?

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

In that new situation—if the Bill is passed, there will be a new situation—which takes precedence if the police authority and the chief constable say, “We are having regard to our local community consultation and they want us to do this, but the Minister has mandated that we do the opposite.”? Which one has precedence?

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

What if both the chief constable and the police authority said, “We want to do this, having regard to what people have told us in our consultation, but the Minister has mandated that we do the opposite.”?

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

Bob Jones said on Tuesday that he could not see that there was a need for a new requirement to have regard to the views of the local community. He said:

“I do not think that it will make much difference”.——[Official Report, Policing and Crime Public Bill Committee, 27 January 2009; c. 11, Q7.]

What is the point of it if it will not make much difference?

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

A Back Bencher on the Committee has caught my eye: Ian Cawsey. Be brief. I remind colleagues, we are allocated specific time for the various duties of the Committee and we are already exceeding it.

Ian Cawsey (Labour, Brigg and Goole)

I would like to ask a couple of quick questions about police authorities and collaboration. First, is the intention of the Bill that police authorities should be more visible within their communities, play a stronger role in what the police do, or be more accountable for what they do now, which perhaps people do not understand? Or is it a combination of all of those?

Ian Cawsey (Labour, Brigg and Goole)

Can I move on to collaboration? You obviously want to push collaboration as part of all of this. I chaired a police authority for four years; then, collaboration mainly took place on a number of informal, operation-based issues, or, more formally, through regional crime squads. Regional crime squads would in turn have a regional crime squad committee, which would usually comprise the chairmen of the police authorities that served that area, but it would be stretching the truth to say that there was very much input from the regional crime squad. We would go to Durham once a quarter and hear about all the operations, and there was no accountability through that. If police authorities are to be pushed more to the front on accountability and deciding what happens on the one hand, and on the other hand there is going to be more inter-force collaboration, how will you square that circle?

Ian Cawsey (Labour, Brigg and Goole)

So you think that authorities will be collaborating more formally?

Ian Cawsey (Labour, Brigg and Goole)

The forces will do it. The question is whether they report back to anyone that they are doing it.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

We now pass to a new subject: airport security.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

I will keep my remarks short, so that we get back on track.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I think we shall have another Minister with us, Mr. Fitzpatrick.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

Yes, Mr. Fitzpatrick—always a pleasure.

We heard evidence to the effect that the proposed legislation is a one-size-fits-all affair. What practical measures have you worked up with your Home Office colleagues, to prevent onerous financial burdens being put on the smaller airports and aerodromes?

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

So your response to the critique that a one-size-fits-all approach will be to the disadvantage of the smaller airports and aerodromes is basically to say that the arrangements will be proportionate and that that will be a matter of common sense in the negotiations, so we do not need to worry that the clause will be applied to the smaller airports heavy-handedly?

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

I have a final question, to which the Minister of State might want to contribute, about police time and resources. Let us take the example of aerodromes and airports at which, to be frank, little policing is done. Under the arrangements before us, a local force will have to provide—admittedly for cash—resources and assets to police the airport. What assessment has been made of the capacity of local forces to deliver that? It is a bit too simplistic to say, “The private sector will cough up the money, so that the chief constable of force X can employ more officers and kit to deliver policing at that airport.” Logically, that is easy, but in practice it is not like that, is it Minister? What discussions have been had with local forces about how they will provide those extra assets and police time, even though they are getting paid for it?

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

They are quite satisfied with it and have done their planning and are thinking ahead of the game. Training and further recruitment will be necessary—all that has been sorted, has it?

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

The two witnesses from the Airport Operators Association suggested that an alternative offering financial economies of scale was to let the British Transport police take on the job. Does that idea have any merit? Has that been considered?

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

The AOA witnesses also expressed concern about every airport having to have armed police. To me the terrorist potential of a crowded airport lobby would suggest that you need armed police. What are your thoughts?

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

Finally, do we know when the draft code of practice on how all this will operate and how decisions will be taken is going to be published?

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I will call Dr. Evan Harris, but we are running ten minutes behind our schedule.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

I just have a quick question on the aspect of the Bill dealing with airport security. I was wondering, given what has happened in respect of the airbase at Diego Garcia, whether the Government were having new thoughts about amending the Aviation Security Act 1982 to allow searches of planes where the Secretary of State has a reason to suspect extraordinary rendition? We have had a briefing to that effect from Liberty, which I suspect you or your officials have seen. It has come up previously in Bills such as this but it has not found favour.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

The right to search an aircraft?

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

If you communicate with Dr. Evan Harris, will you please communicate with every Member of the Committee?

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Thank you. We now move on to an area to which we are allocating perhaps the largest amount of time and that is prostitution.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

In that spirit, I will take proportionately the shortest amount of time because I have only two questions for the Minister of State.

The first picks up on what Shami Chakrabarti said in this morning’s session, which was that strict liability is a blunt tool. She said that an alternative way of clamping down on this abhorrent trade of trafficking females was to have an offence with intent imported into it—she suggested recklessness or negligence. On the strict liability drafting, did you, with your officials and legal advisers, give consideration to what Ms Chakrabarti said was possible, that is, an element of intent? If not, why not?

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

Was that considered in policy terms?

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

We can agree on the aim, but, at the Joint Committee on Human Rights, we had an exchange about how you deal with men, when I asked whether the Government were considering something similar to the scheme in Italy, where there is a hotline for punters to report abuses. They are encouraged to do so, and, to make it work, they do not criminalise; they think that you will get better harm reduction and more convictions by that method. You may recall that we had an exchange when the Committee showed evidence from our visit that there are 100 times more prosecutions for trafficking and 100 times more women are saved—on the raw figures. People have considered the demand side and how men can be approached, but to what extent did you consider that option when formulating your policy? There is not much reference to it in the “Tackling Demand for Prostitution” review document.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

That is my point exactly. If you have to make a judgment—

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

Yes, you have to make a judgment. Would the judgment not be based on evidence? You said that you looked at the evidence in your review, but, actually, the review of the evidence has not, as I understand it, even been published yet.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

So, here we are considering making laws, and you are asserting that you are making what I assume is an evidence-based decision. We cannot see that evidence. On the contrary, we have had suggestions, from the Royal College of Nursing and, in particular, NHS workers, that the evidence suggests that what you are doing, though well intentioned, would be counter-productive in terms of reporting and harm reduction. Does that not give you pause, at least?

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

Did you do any research asking men, through, for example, punters’ websites or indeed outreach work? It is possible to reach men; the NHS does it all of the time because they are reaching prostitutes. Did you do any research, published or otherwise, that suggested whether men were more likely either to desist or to report under each of the regimes: the status quo, the proposed regime, or a different regime whereby you would fund a hotline, outreach work and exit strategies for women whom the men knew they could then help?

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

I do not want to labour this point and this is my last question on this issue. Is it not appropriate and good practice to publish the evidence upon which you base a policy which you then claim has evidence behind it? Otherwise, it is mere assertion and your assertion is as good as my assertion. Yours is probably better than mine on this.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

May I probe a little further what Mr. Coaker said in respect of what was raised this morning by Julie Kirkbride and myself? Would a definition of “controlled for gain” be better if it was different according to the nature of the crime that is involved? So child pornography controlling for gain could be wider than pimping might be, and wider than the strict liability offence of having sex with someone who is controlled for gain. At the moment, as I understand it, that definition is only that provided by the case law, most recently the Court of Appeal in Massey.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

4 December.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

Were you concerned at all by what the support workers association said? Many support workers are Government or NHS-funded to publish their academic work on prostitutes. The association, the Royal College of Nursing and the International Union of Sex Workers talked about the possibility, arising from the series of proposals in the Bill, that we will drive women further away from the police and therefore integrate a risk. That is their view. I wondered if that gave you any cause for concern?

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

I am sorry, I did not mean that group—I meant the group beyond that group. I absolutely share your view that that position cannot be any worse.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

What about a madam?

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

That is helpful, because that goes beyond the case law, but we can come back to it.

Finally, as we heard in some of the oral and from the written evidence, the law-enforcement approach is an incomplete one without funding and mechanisms to provide outreach for exit work. It is one-handed, and it might not work, according to that view, whereas many feel people strongly—although we recognise that some of them would benefit from such funding—that there would be enormous merit in providing more of a funding stream for exit out of drugs and exit into employment or different accommodation, such as shelters, refuges and so forth.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

We are already over time on this area of our discussion, but there are three lady members of the Committee who wish to put questions. Can I ask them to do so and perhaps specify who they would like to reply? Would they also put the questions together so that, if there is any overlap, they can all be dealt with in one response by the relevant Minister? I am calling Lynda Waltho first, then Julie Kirkbride and then Nadine Dorries.

Lynda Waltho (Labour, Stourbridge)

Thank you, Sir Nicholas. Strictly speaking, I think it should be Alan Campbell who responds, although I think that Vernon Coaker has been around the world to view different systems, so it is up to them to decide. The lady who gave evidence for the English Collective of Prostitutes suggested that we ought to look at complete decriminalisation, which is the experience in New Zealand.

I have information from Debbie Baker, the manager of Streetreach, a support service for street workers, in New Zealand. She says that

“although there has been decriminalisation it hasn’t really made a difference to the average girl out on the street, except there is more competition and the prices have gone down...We...have seen an increase in underage children working in prostitution; there are girls under the age of 18.”

It is obvious to me that it has not worked in New Zealand, but what stopped you from going for complete decriminalisation?

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

I would like to ask two quick questions, if I may. The POPPY project wants the abolition of prostitution. It thinks that prostitution should not be allowed, period, and that you should not be allowed to sell your body for sex, end of story. Why not just go for that? One of the other things that the collective was saying was that, under the previous legislation, the phrase “controlling...for gain” encouraged the police to raid a variety of premises on the basis that there was a madam there, because it fell within the definition of “controlling...for gain” even if it did not fall within the intent of the legislation. Given that that is its experience, and that your catch-all provision would potentially criminalise many people who are doing something which most of us think is their right to do, if that is what they want, are you not worried that previous experience of the legislation is that it is a big catch-all under which the police have been carrying out raids which were not necessarily the intention of the original legislation?

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

I am not sure why this part of the Bill is here at all. I do not believe that most men who go to procure the services of a prostitute have a great understanding of the law. They probably do not have a clue—they just decide to procure those services, and they go and do it because it is so easily and readily available. I also think that society’s attitudes have changed towards that particular industry anyway. Given that the evidence we have heard says that this Bill will categorically make life considerably worse for some of the most vulnerable people—those prostitutes who are in the business as a result of a need, whether drug use, poor circumstances, poor background, being coerced into it, o whatever—why are we doing it?

Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

Do you think they will know?

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

This is the real world in which the people to whom we are rightly trying to reach are women who have been trafficked and who are terrified of their pimp and everything else. Goodness knows, but I suspect that the kind of people who go and visit those women are not particularly cognisant of the law and possibly do not even care about it. Who is going to shop them? The police should be raiding these establishments anyway. How are we going to find such people? Two days later, the DNA evidence of what they might have been doing has gone. I do not understand how they are going to be shopped.

I can see, however, that the pensioner who goes along to see Mrs. Bloggs occasionally and suddenly finds himself criminalised because Mrs. Bloggs was running an establishment that was not approved under the law will suddenly get a criminal offence and be shamed in his community. On practical grounds, I worry whether the Bill will really get the person who you are looking for.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Thank you. We must now move on to another part of the Bill. The time allocated is going to have to be dramatically reduced if we are going to get through all the subjects, as there are three more. We begin with alcohol.

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

Thank you, Sir Nicholas. I will be as brief and succinct as possible.

There are two lines of questioning that I would like to pursue. The first relates to the code of practice, and the two parts of the mandatory code. Will Mr. Campbell, as the Minister responsible, tell us which parts of the mandatory code that have already been published by the Department of Health are likely to be included in the final version?

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

Will you give some clarification, because at this stage none of us has seen the code provisions or their final form? Are they likely to be materially different from the code that was released? Whether it was for consultation or otherwise is a matter for wider debate.

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

I suppose the point that I am trying to make is that at this stage we can only, as a Committee, look at what has been released to date. The Department of Health released the document. You can argue as to whether that has been helpful or unhelpful in this context, because all we can say is, “Well, we can look at that.” Are there any specific issues that you would like to mention to the Committee at the outset to help us consider the provisions in the Bill, or are there any conditions that you believe should be included in the code, albeit that they might need to be drafted, finalised or finessed?

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

Would they include, for example, introducing Think 21 or Challenge 25 policies as a mandatory requirement under these provisions?

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

Time is short and we can explore these issues further in Committee, but some views have been expressed that some licensing conditions are seeking to promote Think 21 or Challenge 25, and people are concerned that you are creating two age-test requirements. Do you recognise that as a problem?

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

That is helpful. You mentioned small businesses and I come back to the statement in the regulatory impact assessment that

“there is the potential for significant transitional costs, including job losses and the closure of small businesses.”

We heard evidence during the week that that might be quite significant, particularly for smaller businesses. What discussions have you undertaken with Ministers or officials in the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform about the extent and nature of that, and any mitigation?

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

Let us come on to offences, namely the creation of new offences and the strengthening of certain offences. In principle, I have no objection to giving the police powers that they need. Which things were not working as well as you had expected in order to require these sorts of changes to take place?

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

One final question as we are pressed for time. You will be aware of the advice given this morning by the Government’s chief medical officer who said that, in essence, children under the age of 16 should not consume any alcohol. I refer to the clause headed “Offence of persistently possessing alcohol in public place”, under which alcohol possession “without reasonable excuse” is in essence being prohibited. Are you therefore saying that any consumption of alcohol in a public place by a child under 16 is captured by the clause?

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

Obviously, the persistence requires you to be able to prove reasonable excuse in the first place. All I am suggesting is that the language at the moment is so broad that it could almost capture a child with their parent consuming alcohol.

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

As for the mandatory alcohol licensing controls—are you planning that these measures will, first, deal with happy hours and all sorts of offers on licensed premises, and secondly, with the price of loss-leading alcohol in supermarkets, as well as cheap strong lagers and white ciders and so on, in off-sales?

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

Is the evidence that you refer to published or internal?

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

This question is for Alan Campbell. You mentioned a few times that you had discussions with the industry over the formulation of the mandatory code. This is an issue of massive public concern. Which public consumer groups and interest groups have you had discussions with on the drawing up of the proposals for the mandatory code?

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

With whom?

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

Alcohol Concern, yes indeed. But the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education, the British Medical Association and the Police Federation, among others, also have real concerns about this issue. Have you had discussions with them about what might be in the mandatory code?

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

This is an issue about consultation. The pre-consultation consultation, as it were—the consultation about what you are going to put forward—is absolutely critical. A large number of groups support minimum pricing, on which I had a private Member’s Bill, and action on in-store promotions, as well as restrictions on clubs and on labelling. If the views on what should be consulted on are taken predominantly from the industry—you have mentioned one and only one voluntary group—how will you ensure that the proposals that are consulted on, which ultimately will shape the mandatory code, will actually reflect the public anxiety over this?

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

I come now to the impact of pricing on drinking levels. I thought that it was the Department of Health that commissioned the Sheffield review, which showed that price and availability did have an impact on consumption. I just wonder why that then has to be revisited. Were there some shortcomings within the research, which I thought was very thorough in terms of the impact of price and availability on consumption and responsible consumption?

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

There are a couple of further points.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

There is not much time left.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

I will be quick. First, will you accept an invitation to launch an online consultation? You need not answer now; I am just putting down a marker. Secondly, do you accept that a number of the other recommendations in the legislation are about dealing with problem drinking by young people in public places, some of which is driven by the cheapest and most disgusting drinks going, like the white cider stuff, and that minimum pricing would do something about managing those incredibly problematic products? It might not deal with quite a lot of drinking, but the point is to tackle the worst offenders and deal with the public disorder consequences.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

Okay; and the invitation?

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Three people have indicated that they want to ask questions on this subject; I shall take all three together and if they are for Mr. Campbell he can, I hope, deal with them quite quickly. The members are Simon Burns, Lynda Waltho, who indicated earlier that she wanted to come in on this subject, and Ian Cawsey.

Simon Burns (Conservative, West Chelmsford)

Does Mr. Campbell agree that using the pricing mechanism is not the simple panacea that some people think, because of course successive Chancellors under a series of Governments have used that policy on cigarette pricing, and there has been not a dramatic reduction in the number of people smoking but a significant increase in a smuggling problem that did not exist before?

Ian Cawsey (Labour, Brigg and Goole)

I have two very quick questions. First, I would be interested to know what the view of the Association of Chief Police Officers has been on the proposals. Secondly—I do not know whether the Minister wants to come back to me on this later—schedule 4 introduces general licence conditions relating to alcohol, and it is very specific about the use of the word “alcohol”. However, in the schedule a number of general conditions are introduced for licensing authorities to bring into effect. The Minister said earlier that sometimes laws bring unintended effects. I have had contact with a few colleagues in the music business and live entertainment, and they want to be assured that the provisions in a part of the Bill that is supposed to relate to alcohol do not inadvertently make it possible to clamp down on live entertainment and music in our local neighbourhoods.

Lynda Waltho (Labour, Stourbridge)

Most of the matters that I am concerned about have been covered, except for one, which is the need for a central register of licensees, which I brought up in my speech originally. It is entirely possible and highly likely that licensees who lose their licence in one authority will just pop up in another, and that there will be no co-ordination.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I congratulate the Minister on his succinctness in replying. We are very grateful. I think that I shall take the next two areas together, as I know that Her Majesty’s Opposition spokesman wishes to deal with proceeds of crime and extradition together. I shall then call Paul, and any other member of the Committee who wants to ask a question, but we must finish at 3 o’clock. People now know exactly what time we have left.

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

Some of the controversial elements of the proceeds of crime provisions relate to changes in judicial oversight or, for example, with respect to the forfeiture without court order elements, the complete removal of judicial oversight. What has driven that approach?

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

But I am sure you will appreciate that in many circumstances, obtaining a warrant or an order requires judicial involvement. Therefore, why was the decision taken in this case not to proceed down that route? In doing so, are you not setting yourself up for potential problems under the Human Rights Act 1998?

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

But it said that there was some complexity.

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

The situation is somewhat more complex than that, as the evidence suggested this morning, but we will come to that later in Committee.

On extradition, do you agree with the potential problem or challenge that was identified by the Serious and Organised Crime Agency and the police in evidence on the increasing number of European arrest warrants and what that might mean?

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

Yes. They suggested that numbers were escalating almost exponentially.

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

On Liberty’s key point about returning people to the jurisdiction from which they have been extradited to, in essence, serve their sentence, is the intention for it to apply to UK nationals or simply to overseas nationals?

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

Sir Nicholas, we can obviously return to this in Committee.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

To follow on from that question, I think that Liberty’s point is that simply saying that everyone must act within the convention is not the same as specific safeguards being written into the legislation—I suspect that the Joint Committee on Human Rights will say something similar. You described it as a backstop that applies to anything that could possibly be imagined: you cannot say, “Well, no one’s going to break the Human Rights Act because there will be a judicial review”. I think that Liberty is saying that you should write safeguards in, such as a need for the Secretary of State to have a reasonableness test or some evidence that removing someone to serve their sentence elsewhere might lead to problems.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

I think that she thinks it is an obvious point. You should not have a subjective requirement that

“the Secretary of State is not satisfied that the return is compatible”

with the European convention on human rights. You should replace it with an objective requirement.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

The specific provision that Liberty is suggesting is that instead of the wording that you have pointed to—

“in a case in which the Secretary of State is not satisfied that the return is compatible”—

the Bill should say, “if the return is not compatible”, so that the discretion and the subjective view of the Secretary of State is taken out, which enables the case to be made more easily. I think that that is Liberty’s point, and I think that it is right to say that that is not a titanic difference, but it is a substantive one.

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

This morning the Bar Council and Liberty expressed concern about extending the principle that you can seize goods, property, cash, family heirlooms and so on, from people who may in the long run be found to be not guilty, but who are deprived of that property. They were worried about abandoning the principle of having to have some proof that the property constitutes ill-gotten gains.

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

I forget the exact wording, but the Bar Council specifically said that there is a shift away from being able to put up cash instead of the possession. It said that that is a significant shift, not just a tidying-up amendment.

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

Or a substantive one even.

I think that I know the answer to my other question, given what the police said on Tuesday about how relatively new a lot of this work is. You legislated on the asset recovery regime in 2005 and again in 2007, and now, a year and a couple of months later, you are legislating on it again. Why have there been so many changes in such a short time?

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

Finally, based on the proportion of cases that have failed, what sort of compensation bill do you expect?

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

It is appropriate that the Minister should have the last word. It is now 3 o’clock, so that brings us to the end of this sitting. I thank Alan Campbell, Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office; Jim Fitzpatrick, Under-Secretary of State for Transport; and Minister of State Vernon Coaker for the helpful evidence they have given and the way they have dealt with all the questions.

The Committee will in a moment be adjourned by me until next Tuesday at 10.30am when we will begin the clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill in Committee Room 11.

I now call the Whip to move the motion, and I will give him the words so that he can repeat them: That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned.