Examination of Witness (Questions 1-34)
JIM GAMBLE
12 OCTOBER 2010
Q1 Chair: Can I call
to the dais Jim Gamble? Mr Gamble, thank you for coming to give
evidence to this Committee. This evidence session looks at the
work of CEOP and, in particular, the recent developments, including
your resignation as the Chief Executive.
Could you just clarify this issue: you are still
the Chief Executive, though you have announced that you are resigning
and you are still working at the organisation for a period of
four months? Is that correct?
Jim Gamble: That
is correct.
Q2 Chair:
That is a situation that the Government have accepted?
Jim Gamble: I'm
unsure as to whether or not that's the situation as accepted,
and I plan to cover some of this in an opening statement, if that
would be permissible?
Chair: Well, is it a long
opening statement?
Jim Gamble: No,
several minutes at most, maybe two or three.
Q3 Chair:
Well, I think what might be better, Mr Gamble, is if we ask you
questions. I'm sure they will be covered. We're not great fans
of opening statements, I'm afraid. Let us move to your resignation
and the reason for your resignation, which you have not discussed
with any other agency, or the press, but you have come to the
Select Committee to tell us, in particular, about. You have obviously
written to the Home Secretary, and she was very glowing in her
response to you about the work that you have done for CEOP, which
must be greatly pleasing to you. Why have you resigned?
Jim Gamble: I have
resigned because I'm concerned about the direction of travel that
CEOP is moving in. I am deeply concerned that it is not going
to be best for children, because I believe you either begin from
a position of what is best for policing or a position of what
is best for children themselves. I am concerned that the advice
that we have given from our mixed-economy multi-agency staff,
through the response to the consultation, the responses from the
Children's Commissioners, the NSPCC, the Association of Directors
of Children's Services, ACPO and APA, that all of that is not
being taken into account, as the NCA business case is being developed
at speed and in a direction that I think is fundamentally wrong.
I resigned to remove myself from the equation so that there could
be no misperception that I have a vested self-interest in this,
and I resigned in order that the issue that we focus upon would
be what is best for child protection, not what is best for Jim
Gamble or those within CEOP, but what is best for children.
Q4 Chair:
What kind of consultation did you have? Obviously, we have a new
Government, so new Governments are entitled to put forward new
proposals and the Home Secretary was very clear that she wanted
a National Crime Agency. Although we do not have details of thisthe
Bill is not coming out until next yearhave you had any
consultations and discussions with Ministers about where CEOP
is going to be, because it could be that your views are misplaced,
that CEOP is going to survive, albeit within a different structure?
Jim Gamble: I think
there are two issues. The first is: I applaud any Government,
of whatever hue, which builds policy on an evidence basis. That
is why I was deeply concerned when the announcement was made as
it was before Parliament with no pre-consultation with myselfas
the Association of Chief Police Officers' lead on child protection
or as the Chief Executive of CEOPwho has overseen the build
and development, nor with any of the child protection experts
that I am aware of in the field. There was an arbitrary announcement
that we were to move into the NCA, as you have highlighted, with
no understanding of what that would be, but a 50 or 51 page document
where we are mentioned once and child protection is mentioned
once, and where the focus and objectives are about organised criminal
enterprise. We are no more related to organised crime than organised
crime is related to domestic violence. We are about public protection
at a local level.
So there was no evidence basis, and I have asked
officials and others to present to me the rationale that says
we will be improving the lot for children by moving CEOP into
this environment. It is not about where CEOP sits in the hierarchy
of issues around this. It is about where CEOP sits and the appropriate
governance that makes sure that we continually focus on what is
best for children, that we're not fighting for airtime among drugs,
counter-terrorism, organised crime, guns and gangs because, having
been the Head of Counter-Terrorism in Belfast and the Deputy Director-General
of the National Crime Squad here in London, I can tell you that
you do not sit as easy bedfellows. When you are categorising and
prioritising what goes where and who does what, children do not
come up the list in that company.
Q5 Chair:
But the reason why the Committee is concerned generally is that
there doesn't appear to be a plan. That is why the Committee is
inquiring into the National Crime Agency and, indeed, our report
will be published in due course before the Government's Bill comes
to fruition. You have not seen a master plan as to where CEOP
would fit into the new NCA, or have you?
Jim Gamble: Well,
what I would like to say is there was no consultation question.
Chair: Yes, we get that
point.
Jim Gamble: Even
within the Government's document, "Policing in the 21st Century",
there was no consultation question on CEOP. So, if we are seeking
the opinion of others outside, it would be useful to have asked
a question on that. That is concerning. Since that time we have
been engagedand I had a very constructive engagement with
the Home Secretary and a very constructive engagement with James
Brokenshire. As the process has gone on, I was invited to sit
on the National Crime Agency design group. I was concerned at
that because I was invited to sit on that group on 10 September
and of course the consultation was still ongoing. I was concerned
that if we were going to sit on those groups, that driving ahead
without considering the expert submissions from professionals
might not be the best thing to do. I was more concerned when I
received the first copy of the draft business case on 16 September,
four days prior to the end of the public consultation, and even
more concerned when I saw that the view was that in whatever form
the National Crime Agency takesand I have been reminded
recently that these documents are confidential, so I am not talking
about detailed content; I am talking about direction of travelthat
CEOP was apparently a good fit in any one of the three scenarios.
So I had the first iteration of the business case
and we wrote in saying, "This cannot be right. We are not
serious organised crime. We don't fit the HMI definition, the
UN trans-national crime definition or any other." The second
iteration came out. We were still green. In the third iteration,
they have redefined the fact that organised crime will now include
the work of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre.
Redefining it in that way does not mean we fit, and that drove
me to a point, when I took into account the lack of pre-consultation,
the lack of consultation question and the emphasis in the developing
business case towards making us fit, that something had to happen.
Q6 Chair:
Yes. Why are the internet companies quite pleased that you are
going?
Jim Gamble: I think
it depends on which internet company you speak to. At the end
of the day, I have had one of those jobs that is about balancing
a lot of interests, some of it vested. I don't think Microsoft
will be happy that I'm going. In fact, I have a quote here from
Microsoft. They feel it will be extremely unlikely that they will
be able to continue their philanthropic support for CEOP. Our
relationship with Facebook was difficult at the beginningit
was challengingbut there's an ethical mutual interest in
making children safe, in a respect. There are some entities within
the industry who are not happy, for example, that I ask that we
don't be charged to resolve IP addresses for children who are
at risk. Ironically, by moving us into the NCAand I have
this from the Chief Executive of the company concernedthey
will begin charging us for that which we previously got for free,
because we'll be part of a multi-millionif not billion
poundNational Crime Agency.
Chair: Yes, thank you.
David Winnick has a supplementary question.
Q7 Mr Winnick:
Mr Gamble, to be the devil's advocate for the moment, I can understand
your very strong feelings, but wouldn't it have been wiser, if
I can put it that way, to have accepted the Minister's decisionwhich
is going to happen, it appearsthat the organisation will
be within the National Crime Agency, and use your dedication and
expertise to make sure that it is not lost within the wider organisation?
Jim Gamble: I think
the difficulty is I would be adding a veneer, or pretence, that
CEOP in fact remained the same because the sign was still on a
door somewhere. This isn't my opinion. The HMI carried out an
inspection of CEOP for 2007-2008. They identified that the governance
relationship between CEOP and SOCA was tortured, that there was
an inappropriate disconnect between governance that was about
organised crime, and operational delivery, which was about child
protection. They called for an independent review carried out
by Stephen Boys Smith and then a further review, which was carried
out by the Cabinet Office, OGC Gateway 5. Both of those reviews
said that we should be independent. There is an inherent risk
in the relationship with SOCA because it adds levels of bureaucracy.
It doesn't mitigate them. It doesn't allow us to be flexible.
It will cost more in the long run.
Q8 Mr Winnick:
Did you meet the Minister and put this to her in person?
Jim Gamble: Yes,
I did on 30 July.
Mr Winnick: And
her reaction?
Jim Gamble: Well,
the Home Secretary very kindly said that she would consider what
we had said. Her view was that we would move into the NCA but
she would be willing to listen. I am not sure of the advice that's
being put forward at the minute, but I've seen the developing
business case and it fills me with woe and concern. I have a staff,
who go in every day to do an extremely difficult job with potentially
corrosive material, who we are struggling to retain because of
the uncertainty. These are child protection professionals and
when people say, "Well, you work where you are with SOCA"
that is simply not true. We haven't exposed the inherent flaws,
yet that means the bureaucracy that is appliedbecause SOCA
will want us to take SOCA officers instead of child protection
officers at a time when we are understaffedcreates a difficulty.
Chair: Yes. We will explore
these in further questions and Bridget Phillipson will move on
to the issue of funding.
Q9 Bridget
Phillipson: Obviously, police forces across the country
are facing funding cuts. That may lead to a reduction or the scrapping
of certain specialist units within those forces. What is it about
the work that you do that you feel you should be regarded as a
different case, or a separate case?
Jim Gamble: I think
my colleagues in ACPO agree with me on this, and certainly the
statement that they have published and the submission that they
have made to the Home Secretary reinforces it: we are not simply
about policing. If we were this would be an issue about de-cluttering
the police landscape. That is not what we are about. It is about
what is best for children. What we know from the Laming Review,
the update from serious case reviews across the country, is if
you are going to deliver child protection it must be child-focused
and child-first. We listen to children. We've developed a bespoke
and holistic service, which means in local communities we engage
local teachers, local NGOs and local police forces. We have empowered
6.6 million children to today, using a network of over 50,000
local volunteers going out to schools to make them safer. So we
don't deliver policing in isolation; we deliver protective services
in collaboration. That is what is the key here and that is what
we are likely to lose. My concern is we do all of that and 30%
of it costs the Government nothing because we represent big society.
Q10 Chair:
Could you do your budget for us so we know what is the cost to
the taxpayer of CEOP?
Jim Gamble: At
the moment, CEOP costs about £12.5 million a year. Just over
£6 million will come from grant-in-aid funding. There will
be support provided by the shared service provision, which we
piggyback from the Serious Organised Crime Agency. That makes
sense.
Q11 Chair:
So you get £12.5 million from the taxpayer?
Jim Gamble: Not
from the taxpayer30% of the £12.5 million year on
year will come from our entrepreneurial partnerships, so Microsoft,
AOL and Visa Europe and many others. We used to have vehicles
that we were able to drive up to schools.
Q12 Chair:
I realise you have lots of points to make. You have a budget of
£12.5 million. Of that, how much comes from your partners
and, therefore, not the taxpayer?
Jim Gamble: Year
on year, an average of £3 million from our partners.
Q13 Chair:
So basically the taxpayer gives you £9 million a year?
Jim Gamble: Yes,
and we generate about £1 million through the programmes of
work that we charge for, so the courses that we run.
Q14 Chair:
How many people do you employ?
Jim Gamble: At
present today 122.
Q15 Chair:
Obviously, that is a much smaller budget than the SOCA budget,
which is £0.5 billion.
Jim Gamble: It
is, but we are able to leverage it because our principal aim is
delivering more competent local services, so that local people
are confident in the child protection community that serve them.
Chair: Bridget Phillipson,
do you have any more questions?
Bridget Phillipson:
No, thank you.
Chair: Thank you. Mark
Reckless is going to explore the relationship with SOCA, which
you have raised.
Q16 Mark Reckless:
In terms of the relationship with SOCA, you have touched on some
of these issues, and I wonder if I could explore them. You said
you raise £1 million from charging and then about another
£3 million from philanthropistsfrom Microsoft and
Facebook, for instance. I wondered with any of these financial
relationships whether there are ever any issues of conflict or
difficulty that arise for you, operationally, in terms of that
financing?
Jim Gamble: There
are. The fact that we are affiliated to SOCA will create a conflict
of interest when companiesfor example, like Deticawho
will deliver pro bono work for us, at the same time will want
to bid for paid-for business within SOCA. It is the same for the
likes of Serco. That creates a conflict for them, which does not
encourage them.
Q17 Chair:
Do you mean there will be a conflict if you are merged, rather
than there is a conflict now?
Jim Gamble: There
is a conflict at present. It's a conflict that we manage with
a degree of sensitivity, because it's very difficult, through
an independent partnership committee who also have made their
views known through the consultation process, and they support
the position I am espousing today. The issue for us with SOCAand
let me say this, SOCA have been very benevolent and they have
been great supporters to allow the concept to developfrom
the beginning it was a temporary arrangement. They face one direction
doing a particular type of work, focused on a particular type
of criminal target, and we face a fundamentally different one
with a holistic view around child protection.
I am not criticising SOCA but when we have a recruitment
issue, the issue with SOCA is the bureaucracy that is applied,
that applies pressure to us at an additional layer so that we
go through the SOCA accounting officer. That does not allow child
protection to flex in the way that it needs to and must, and take
the risk that we have and share it with SOCA. So if, during one
of the periods when we were unable to recruit, a child had been
on the shelf because we hadn't managed to get to that report yet,
and that child had been exposed in public, that we had failed
to act in an appropriate fashion, I wouldn't be resigning; I would
have been given the sack. I would have been called, quite rightly,
before you and none of the excuses about the bureaucracy that
lies behind it would have been acceptable. So what I am doing
is highlighting now that it doesn't work where it is.
Chair: Mark Reckless.
Q18 Mark Reckless:
We have CEOP as a relatively independent organisation. There are
conflicts but you have an independent partnership committee that
run this. I am still a bit concerned with some of these relationships
and how those conflicts are managed, and also your role compared
to other organisations. One that I am familiar with in this context
is the Internet Watch Foundation, and I wonder if you could tell
us a bit more about how your role juxtaposes with them, and how
that might be influenced by the change that is proposed and what
impact that has on the conflicts and their management?
Jim Gamble: I think
the Internet Watch Foundation, in essence, operates as an NGO
or charity but it operates with the support of direct funding
from industry as an industry representative to help them manage
content, not behaviour, on the internet. So that is how they maintain
a list from reports that are made about URLs, pages on the internet,
which may contain child abuse images or other areas in their remit.
The actual investigation of that, the engagement around anything
to do with behaviour falls to us. So it is a very useful tactic,
blocking. We support the IWF. They are strong partners of ours.
But what they do is different, in that we engage through education;
we engage through local children's services; and we engage through
local policing to target the root cause of the issue, which isn't
actually the image itself; it's the predator who will capture
the image, who will lure a child, who will groom a child, capture
the image then share it with like-minded paedophiles, perhaps
using the internet or not. So, we are very different. We have
a fundamentally broader platform, a fundamentally broader range
of relationships, and they complement the work that we do and
vice versa.
Q19 Chair:
How many children have you dealt with since the creation of this
organisation, or on average how many do you deal with every year?
Jim Gamble: To
date we have safeguarded 762 children, have been responsible for
the arrest of 1,338 offenders. We have over 50,000 volunteers
cascading our information out to schools and, up to today, they
have engaged with 6.671 million children, and that is in local
villages, local towns and local cities. That is big societyit
is social returnand we use the support that we get from
Microsoft and others to deliver this. Missing children is supposed
to be coming to us, and the Home Secretary has reaffirmed that.
When it does, building it on a platform that is child protection
focused is how we're going to better engage those children.
Chair: Yes. Nicola Blackwood
is going to explore this further.
Q20 Nicola
Blackwood: I understand that one of your specialist units
is child trafficking, something which concerns all of us on the
Committee here. As I understand it, we were led to believe that
there wasn't going to be any loss of focus by the merger of the
UK Human Trafficking Centre and the Met Police's specialist Human
Trafficking Unit. It didn't lose focus doing that. So why are
you concerned that you are going to lose focus by going into a
larger unit, specifically in child trafficking?
Jim Gamble: First
of all, I think trafficking is a good issue. The UK Human Trafficking
Centre has been merged into the Serious Organised Crime Agency,
not the Metropolitan Police. The UKHTC is now fundamentally a
part of the Serious Organised Crime Agency. That merger is appropriate
because what they are doing is targeting the criminal enterprise
that engages with the crime of trafficking. We look at this from
a child's perspective and, from a child's perspective, it's better
understanding the journey of the victim, the experience of the
victim, and how we ensure the criminal justice system does not
re-victimise them. So having the independent platform to advocate
on behalf of children is critically important. One of the problems
with child trafficking is it's seen as invisible because it's
lost within the criminal justice infrastructure. If we speak to
any commentators in the field they will say that.
The move of missing children to CEOP means that we
will treat trafficked children for what they are, missing children.
If you go on the Missing website today you will find that out
of the children that have been missing in the last 12 months,
90%-odd of them will be Vietnamese or Chinese. Do you know what
that tells us? That tells us these children are lost out there;
they've been trafficked. What we will do through social media,
through our partnerships with a broader NGO community, to reach
them, to support them and to reintegrate them into a safeguarded
environment, will be fundamentally different. Those children will
not engage the National Crime Agency. Putting the CEOP badge within
that, when the three reviews have said it's not appropriate, when
we carry the risk that we do, when we're struggling to maintain
partners in this austere environment anyway, is not going to help
trafficked children. We must retain our focus and, from 2007,
we have been telling people about how many children are trafficked,
what their experience has been, what their journey has been, independently
advising the CPS, SOCA, the Metropolitan Police and others.
Q21 Nicola
Blackwood: Don't you think that women who are trafficked
are equally victims and should be treated in those kinds of lines
as well? So don't you think there would be some kind of value
to the way in which the UK Human Trafficking Centre deals with
women victims could be informed by your expertise with children,
and dealing with the organised crime side could be informed by
their expertise on that side? Aren't you both coming at the same
problem from slightly different angles?
Jim Gamble: I think
it's important that we do come at the same problem from different
angles. I agree with you, there will be lessons to be learned
about how we deal with vulnerable children and how we deal with
women who have been oppressed, enslaved and trafficked, but we
do not need to be subsumed. We have an operating platform at the
minute of 122. It's a mixed economy. We've got social workers
working alongside people from NGOs, working alongside police officers,
working alongside other specialists from industry and elsewhere.
In that mixed economy, the thing I'm most proud of in my tenure
is it has a single culture: children first. That is what we care
about.
Pushing us into a National Crime Agency, where the
culture will invariably be different, is not going to be best
for children nor other vulnerable victims who find themselves
part of these crimes. Last year, only 7% of the crimes that we
dealt with had any financial benefit accrued to it, whatsoever,
and very little of that, you would say, is organised crime. Making
us fit is going to cost the taxpayer more. We are going to lose
valuable specialist staff; we're going to add bureaucracy; and
children will not be as well served. If I didn't believe that
I would not be leaving a job that I love, working with people
that I admire, doing something I think is of value.
Q22 Nicola
Blackwood: Thank you. I think that we all share a concern
that someone of your expertise, and obvious passion, is leaving
this job. Can I ask if you intend to go on and continue working
in this area in some other post at the moment?
Jim Gamble: I have
no other post on offer at the moment. I have no other job to go
to. I will always have an interest in child protection and I will
always try and advocate. If someone had said to me 10 years ago,
when I was head of Special Branch in Belfast, that I would be
resigning over a child protection issue I would have laughed at
them. If they'd said it to me when I was Deputy Director General
of the National Crime Squad, dealing with serious and organised
crime, I would have laughed. This is different; it's fundamentally
different. What I would ask the Government to do, and implorethe
same as Ernie Allen, the President of NCMEC, the National Center
for Missing and Exploited Children in the United Sates, has asked
themreflect on this, think about it. It's not the right
direction of travel. If you don't want to make CEOP independent,
move it on to the Department for Education. The policing will
still stick, the local policing, but make sure that the child
remains at the centre, because otherwise we will lose the model
that we have built.
Nicola Blackwood:
Thank you.
Chair: Aidan Burley had
a supplementary on this.
Q23 Mr Burley:
My question is the same as Nicola's last one. You may be aware
that there is a rumour going round that you have another big job
lined up. Is there any truth in that rumour? Have you got anything
planned, anything on the table, any offers, and that is the real
reason why you're going?
Chair: The rest of the
Committee don't know about this offer, so it would be nice to
know what it is.
Jim Gamble: I haven't
yet. What is it?
Q24 Mr Burley:
I'm saying that you say you're resigning because of Government
policy. There is a rumour going round that you have another big
job offer on the table and that may be having an influence as
well. Is there any truth in that or is that completely malicious?
Jim Gamble: There
is no truth in that, whatsoever, and anyone who believed that
I would resign from this job to go to anotherthere is not
a year that has gone by when I haven't had an offer of work from
some of my friends, or perhaps not so friendly participants in
industry. There is not a year has gone by in this job that I haven't
had the opportunity to do something else.
Q25 Chair:
Of course this is not about you, is it? It is about the organisation.
Jim Gamble: Exactly.
Chair: Lorraine Fullbrook.
Q26 Lorraine Fullbrook:
Thank you, Chair. Mr Gamble, given your obvious passion for this
subject and what you have already said to the Committee, what
do you think would need to be done in order to preserve CEOP's
unique characteristics within a National Crime Agency?
Jim Gamble: Drop
the word "crime" from the title. If you want to subsume
CEOP within something else then you need to make sure that it's
about protective services. If you subsume it within a criminal
justice infrastructure then our focus will become offender-focused.
We'll begin to deal with offenders only and not with the broader
issues that make children safer. My difficulty with the work streams
beginning before the end of the public consultation ismy
question isif the NSPCC, the Children's Commissioners,
myself representing ACPO Child Protection and a range of other
experts in the child protection field are saying to the Government,
"Don't do this", why would you? If it's bureaucracy,
we can undermine that, because you're simply adding bureaucracy.
If it's money, you're going to cost the taxpayer more, so why
go down that road?
Quango was the term that I've heard bandied about
with this, and that's unfortunate because that's all about public
waste. I would invite the Committee to visit CEOP, identify any
public waste that you can, because with 122 people we have delivered
the results that I have earlier outlined to you and I challenge
anyone to replicate them. This is a very finely balanced environment
where children come first. We're working with the educators, with
children's services and local policing about local issues. You
will not be able to sustain that in the National Crime Agency,
no matter what you do or no matter who you bring in.
Q27 Lorraine
Fullbrook: That was going to be my next question. Why can't
you do that and retain your unique characteristics within a National
Crime Agency, or another agency if you want to drop the word "crime"?
Why can't you continue to do that?
Jim Gamble: If
the other agency was under the Children's Minister, and what this
was about was reducingand I don't know what level of bureaucracy
we'd be reducing, or whatever elsethen of course you would
have a greater potential to retain most of what CEOP does, but
you won't retain it all. What I cannot understand is why colleagues
in Government don't see you have a national centre that is recognised
worldwide. It delivers a cost-neutral move to a non-departmental
public body. The Prime Minister in July, when making his statement
about non-departmental public bodies, made it clear that there
are three circumstances whereby they are appropriate: about independence,
about transparency, about needing to be arm's length from Government,
to advocate on perhaps a technical issue. You know what: we meet
all of those, not just one of them.
So I have not offered my resignation lightly. Because
that's what I did, I offered my resignation to the Home Secretary
to separate the two issues. Is this about saving children or saving
face? The National Crime Agency is not right for CEOP. It's not
right for CEOP because it will not work for children, but it won't
work for the National Crime Agency either. I have already alluded
to the fact that I've had a senior role in counter-terrorism and
organised crime. If you want the new National Crime Agency to
have the focus that it needs to deliver an improved service against
organised crime assets, then you cannot use it like a Christmas
tree and hang different baubles on to apparently de-clutter the
police landscape.
Q28 Chair:
To be fair to the Home Secretaryand I know you have been
and you said you had a constructive discussionthere is
no plan A at the moment. Although there is a wish that, for example,
SOCA, the NPIA, CEOP and the Human Trafficking Centre goes into
this organisation, surely it's still up for grabs. An argument
could be putwhich is what you are doing by presumably your
resignation, and by continuing to work in the organisation for
four months in a constructive waythat some of these organisations
maybe should not fit into the NCA. At the moment, we have not
seen a master plan, and that is why we are going to inquire into
it. Do you think there is a possibility of further discussions
and engagement with the Government, maybe robust discussions or
whatever, which will meet your concerns that it will not be lost
within the new NCA but will also meet the Government's concerns
to ensure that if there is a cost-saving device in all this then
it can be adopted? Surely it's not all finished; we can still
carry on with this dialogue?
Jim Gamble: Of
course it's not all finished, and the reason I have resigned,
at the time that I have, is because I have seen the speed and
direction of travel going ahead, regardless of the advice that
has been given. I think if there is only one destination, and
that is the National Crime Agency, then the discussion and debate
is a moot pointit is about saving face not about saving
childrenif we're going to deliver this. I have not spoken
to the press. I did not publicise my resignation. I do not intend
to speak to the press. I intend to behave as a responsible public
servant for the four months that I have of my notice, so that
I can stabilise the CEOP platform.
Q29 Chair:
We're grateful for that, and also grateful for the fact that you
have come to this Committee to tell the public, for the first
time, your views. But the game isn't over yet. This Committee
has not started its inquiry into the National Crime Agency. The
Bill is not to be published till next summer, so there is an opportunity
to influence the debate. I agree with you, in my dealings with
the Home Secretary, I have always found her to be extremely helpful
in listening to good suggestions and good advice. The Committee
will take up your offer to come and visit CEOP because, clearly,
in our previous reports we talk about the good work you have done.
We will do that but all I hopeI think I am saying this
on behalf of all Membersis that this dialogue continues,
in the four months you have, to see if we can preserve what you
are saying.
Two quick points: is it right that other countries
are trying to copy the template of CEOP and develop CEOPs of their
ownfor example, the United States and Canada? Is that correct?
Jim Gamble: There
are organisations that largely mirror what we do. I think we tend
to learn from one another. I wouldn't want to say that they are
simply copying what we do, but we do learn from one another in
this very specialist environment.
Q30 Chair:
Secondly, the use of the word "quango", you are not
a quango. Do you have commissioners and people of that kind? Explain
to us the operation and management, not the work of yourself,
which we understand fully, but how you are managed. Would you
be described as a "quango" or an agency or what?
Jim Gamble: We're
affiliated to the Serious Organised Crime Agency and therefore
fall under their umbrella. They are a non-departmental public
body and therein lies the problem: if we simply move one problematic
and high-risk relationship to another in the National Crime Agency,
we exacerbate issues. But no, I don't believe we are a quango
in the sense that you describe.
Q31 Chair:
I will bring in Mr Michael in one second. Just going back to Nicola
Blackwood's line of questioning on child trafficking. You gave
us some very interesting figures on children in general. On child
trafficking, how many children, who have been trafficked, have
you tracked down?
Jim Gamble: We
don't track down the children who are trafficked. We are providing
a better understanding of the nature of their journey. So, for
example, in 2007 we identified that we could say with some probable
certaintyif that's not a conflict in itselfthat
about 325 children have been trafficked.
Q32 Chair:
So the 760 children are children who have been sexually exploited?
Jim Gamble: Sexually
exploited.
Q33 Chair:
And the 1,300 criminals who have been prosecuted have been prosecuted
for crimes against children?
Jim Gamble: For
grooming; crimes against children.
Chair: Right. Mr Michael.
Q34 Alun Michael:
I just want to come down to the absolute essence of what you are
saying. Is it, as I understand, twofold: first, that the focus
is on children and protection of children and not on crime; and
secondly, in effect, this is a partnership that is owned, not
just by yourself and police organisations but the other partners
who work with you in trying to protect those children? Are those
the two essential elements that you are seeking to protect?
Jim Gamble: There
are a few essential elements but the way we seek to protect them
is about the over-arching governance. If we listen to Lord Laming,
if we listen to the lessons of serious case review, there needs
to be child protection focus from the top to the bottom. In our
current configuration, with SOCA, that does not exist and that
has been highlighted. What I have said is, absolutely, CEOPin
whatever shape or formshould take the shared services,
which save the public purse, from whatever this new agency is.
We should engage in the support and co-ordination platform when
local policing needs to flex on this particular issue, but not
to the exclusion of others. The governance must be separate and
independent so, thereby, the focus remains critically child-focused.
Chair: Mr Gamble, it is
the wish of the Committee to visit at some stage. We are going
to visit SOCA, and all these other organisations, when we begin
our inquiry into the NCA. I think it is also our hope that you
will continuein the period that you haveto work
in the organisation, and bring to it the expertise that you clearly
have, in ensuring that the exploitation of children is properly
policed and those who are responsible for the exploitation of
our children are brought to justice. So we hope you will continue
to do that in the four months you have left, but we will take
up your invitation to come and visit you. We are very grateful
to you. I haven't read anything in the press about the matters
that you have mentioned today. Thank you for coming to this Committee
to share with us your views. Thank you.
|