Examination of Witness (Questions 1-65)
MR ALAN
CAMPBELL MP
26 JANUARY 2010
Q1 Chairman: Good afternoon everybody
and welcome to this evidence session of the Joint Select Committee
on Human Rights, with Alan Campbell, Parliamentary Under-Secretary
of State at the Home Office, looking at the issue of human trafficking.
We have published two reports on the subject of human trafficking
during the course of this Parliament, in October 2006 and again
in October 2007. It has been an issue that we have focused on
since then and it is an opportunity for us to follow up on some
of the parts of that report with the Minister as the Parliament
comes to an end. One of the key issues we identified in our first
report, and we keep coming back to, is the lack of data on the
numbers of victims. I think you told the Home Affairs Committee
last year that you hoped to have some data by 2009. We are now
in 2010. I think in Anthony Steen's debate last week you said
that you would be publishing it very soon. Perhaps you would tell
us how soon is "soon" and what is the reason for the
delay and where you have got to?
Mr Campbell: Thank you, Chairman,
and thank you for inviting me. 2009 was certainly our aspiration
but it has taken slightly longer and I do apologise for that.
The Home Office has worked on some research from 2003 which gave
a figure then of 4,000 women it was believed had been trafficked
for sexual exploitation. That figure has been questioned and is
certainly in need of update, and so we commissioned some work
which we hoped would have reported by the end of last year but
will report shortly, to get a more accurate and up-to-date figure
on women who we believe have been trafficked for sexual exploitation.
You ask why the delay: I think two reasons. The first is that
we live in an age where we need to be very careful when we bring
statistics into the public realm, and we want to be absolutely
sure that we have drilled right down and bottomed out the issue
when we do bring forward those figures. I think it is also worth
saying that having looked at the methodology behind the work that
we are doing we are learning a lot more about trafficking as we
are doing that work, and therefore I hope that the delay is certainly
worth it. You ask when: I hope in about two months' time.
Q2 Chairman: In two months' time?
Mr Campbell: In April we are aiming
to publish.
Q3 Chairman: We may well be engaged
on other things by then.
Mr Campbell: We will get it sooner
if possible.
Q4 Chairman: Have you done any work
on other aspects? You have talked about women who are trafficked
for sex purposes. What about children and what about people who
are trafficked for labour purposes?
Mr Campbell: Yes, we have been
doing some scoping work on labour trafficking. It is a relatively
new concept compared to other forms of trafficking that perhaps
we know more about. We are conscious of the need, again, to get
reliable and accurate figures, which is why we are doing some
scoping work on that, but it is not as advanced as the work that
we are doing on women trafficked for sexual exploitation.
Q5 Chairman: Looking at the statistics
that are available, as you say, the 4,000 figure was always a
bit speculative and is now considered to be out-of-date. There
have been suggestions that the figure is much higher and suggestions
that the figure is much lower and the same goes for the estimates
regarding the other forms of trafficking too. The Guardian
published quite a long article in October analysing some of the
arguments about the numbers. I think their conclusion was that
the problem had been somewhat overestimated. Do you think it has
been overemphasised and overestimated the amount of time and effort
that has gone into the question of trafficking?
Mr Campbell: I think there is
a problem of human trafficking which comes in many forms, and
therefore I think it is right that a response of the Government,
along with our colleagues around the world, should be focusing
on this issue. I do hope that when we bring forward figures that
we can, to some extent, lay the argument to rest, which is why
we need to have statistics which are, as far as they can be, verifiable
but also the research has been peer-reviewed as well. It is a
very difficult issue, partly of course because trafficking is
an illegal activity. It is very difficult to judge the quantity
of that. If you are talking about women coming to this country
for sexual exploitation, it is difficult enough to get a firm
hold on how many women and girls are involved in the sex industry,
how many of them are involved in it of their own free will, how
many of them are coerced and how many of them are trafficked.
I think this debate will go on because in the absence of a clear
definition of what trafficking is, with a clear agreement amongst
governments and agencies, then people will draw a line in different
places. Having helped to take through the Policing and Crime Act,
as it is now, in the last session, I appreciate that there is
a diverse opinion about the motives and the condition of women
that get involved in the sex industry, whether they do so of their
own free will or whether they are coerced. There is always going
to be a difference of opinion and therefore I would suggest a
debate about the real figures.
Q6 Mr Sharma: During our visit to
Sheffield we found out that there is a possibility of changing
the location of the Human Trafficking Centre. Can you tell us
why it was necessary to change the arrangements for the Centre
to be located within the Serious Organised Crime Agency?
Mr Campbell: Yes, when the Human
Trafficking Centre was set up, it was set up without clear legal
status. It was based in South Yorkshire, and I am very grateful
for the work and support of South Yorkshire Police in helping
us to establish that and, in a sense, to look after the Centre
and help it locate there since, but of course the Human Trafficking
Centre has to some extent expanded its role. Thankfully, it has
a higher profile and of course now that it is involved as part
of the National Referral Mechanism it is much more important to
get its legal status clearly established, and perhaps a more permanent
home for that. We were approached by South Yorkshire Police, and
indeed the Human Trafficking Centre, to say this was an issue
and we looked at a whole range of alternatives, including UKBA
and the Serious Organised Crime Agency, and decided that the Serious
Organised Crime Agency is the place for it, but I have to say
certainly without a plan to soon relocate nor one which will change
in any major way the operational activities of the Centre because
I think the Centre does good work. I think we should do everything
that we can to maintain its status and we should do everything
that we can to support it in the work that it is doing. I have
made very clear to SOCA that when the Human Trafficking Centre
becomes part of SOCA that as far as possible it is a stand-alone
organisation to be able to have that remit which is so important
to the work that it does.
Q7 Mr Sharma: And what steps are
you taking to ensure that its remit and operations—particularly
its focus on victims—is unaffected?
Mr Campbell: The whole approach
that we take to human trafficking is a victim-centred approach.
It is the basis for our Action Plan which we have introduced in
2007 and we have refreshed annually since. When we look at human
trafficking it is crucial that we begin with the focus clearly
on victims and the rights of victims. I have to say, however,
that is sometimes quite a difficult thing to do, where people
will claim to be the victims of traffickers when they were actually
part of the problem in the first place, and sometimes victims
are reluctant to come forward and acknowledge that they are victims.
Sometimes they get what I understand is called "Stockholm
Syndrome" where they have an affinity with the perpetrators
who brought them to this country, so whilst we always seek to
emphasise the importance of a victim-centred approach, it sometimes
throws up cases that are very difficult to resolve where it is
not always clear who is the victim and who is the perpetrator.
Q8 Dr Harris: I just want to follow
that up. Is the practical result of that that when someone is
picked up in circumstances where they might be a victim, the presumption
is that they are a victim and they are treated in that way, even
if they say they are not because they may be scared, and they
are not put on a plane before they have had time to reflect in
every case where this applies? Or can the presumption sometimes
be that they are not a victim?
Mr Campbell: I think you would
expect me to answer that by saying it is a case-by-case basis.
Of course we want to protect the victims of trafficking. The point
I am making is it is not always clear that trafficking has taken
place and indeed that they are the victims. What is absolutely
crucial in this is that we make sure that our actions against
trafficking are rolled out to the very front-line of all of the
agencies, including the police, that have a key role to play and
that training for officers is a very important part of that so
that they know what to look for. I am not saying in every instance
that they would be looking for the signs and conclude that trafficking
has taken place, but certainly we would want front-line police
officers, as a matter of course, to consider whether or not in
this case trafficking had happened and therefore they should be
looking for victims.
Q9 Mr Sharma: Locating the Centre
in a crime agency sometimes could give the impression that trafficking
victims are criminals or associated with crime. How will you make
sure that this does not happen?
Mr Campbell: There is a shared
aspiration of course between the Human Trafficking Agency and
SOCA anyway because SOCA's second priority is tackling organised
immigration crime, which includes human trafficking and its first
priority is drugs, so there is a shared ambition, but I do take
your point. We thought about this long and hard as to whether
or not SOCA was the right place for it. By giving the Human Trafficking
Centre an opportunity to continue with the work that it does,
yes, it has police officers as part of its work and, of course,
it works very closely with the police and other agencies, but
it has other both official and non-governmental organisation contact
too. I think having that multi-agency approach is important, which
is why we will do everything that we can to maintain it.
Q10 Mr Sharma: Anthony Steen last
week expressed his concerns that sometimes the victims are dealt
with in an overly bureaucratic way. He suggested that referrals
should be dealt with by welfare or social workers. Is this a fair
criticism and how are you monitoring the cases generally?
Mr Campbell: When we ratified
the Convention and implemented the Convention and set up the National
Referral Mechanism, there were clear difference of opinion about
who should have responsibility for that and who should, if you
like, take the lead on that, and I think that debate will continue.
Again, it is difficult to answer the question because it rather
depends upon the circumstances of the individuals and the traffickers,
but remember that someone might be trafficked but nevertheless
be caught up in other kinds of criminality too, and therefore
it is a case of dealing with them on a case-by-case basis. I do
not think there is a general rule to this actually.
Q11 Fiona Mactaggart: But is it not
true that it is very frequently the case that trafficked people
are caught up in other kinds of criminality because the only people
they know are criminals, that is the life that they have been
trafficked into, and therefore there is a real responsibility
on the state to recognise their vulnerability? Maybe they are
actually responsible for, let us say, pickpocketing, because that
is the other thing that the guy who runs them runs, but they are
extremely vulnerable and require our protection. I was in the
debate where Anthony raised the case of Chloe, or whatever she
was called. Is it not the case that it is quite common for women
who have been trafficked for sexual exploitation to apparently
voluntarily have gone back into the sex trade because it is the
only way they know to get money because of their vulnerable situation?
Is it not really important, is not the point of the National Referral
Mechanism that they actually have something which identifies their
vulnerability and protects them? It does not give them a free
pass from prosecution for criminality but it protects them in
relation to their vulnerability. Is it not the case that that
is not always happening when it should be?
Mr Campbell: I would accept that
there is a case for saying that it does not always happen when
it should and I would accept the argument that we need to do more.
I would accept that perhaps we should start with the presumption
that individuals need support, but also time to reflect. There
were a number of cases which were quoted in the debate. Let me
generalise rather than concentrate on one of them. It has been
the case, for example, that someone has been picked up at a raid
and has put their hands up and said that they were involved in
the criminality and the question arises are they actually the
victims of trafficking, are they somehow not aware of their rights
in this situation, or because they are part of that criminal family
if you like, they do not see the way forward, and in some cases
they have actually said, "We are willing to go through the
judicial process and to take the punishment which is coming."
In some cases the National Referral Mechanism has stepped in and
given them space, and indeed the people who are dealing with them
space, to look carefully at all of the circumstances to try to
identify, I think in the way that you are, to say they are victims
of trafficking and that is the central issue; in some cases they
have rejected that approach and took the punishment which was
coming. I am not trying to be evasive. All I am saying is that
on a case-by-case basis some of these are extremely difficult
cases and difficult to call, but on a general premise we should
start with the assumption that there are victims of trafficking
here and make sure that we go as far as we can to establish that
and if they are not then other procedures and rules kick in.
Q12 Earl of Onslow: Minister, I think
what you are saying makes an enormous amount of sense. It is a
graded thing the whole way through. Some people have obviously
been involved in criminality and then there is an element of blackmail
to make sure they have been trafficked. I seem to remember watching
a television programme. It was about prostitution in Moldova and
there was a woman who was kidnapped and sold into prostitution
in Turkey, in Istanbul I think. She is rescued but then she voluntarily
goes back because she has got no money whatsoever and the conditions
in Moldova are really absolutely appalling. I do not really know
what the answer to this is. I can understand that it is an extremely
complex social problem, and that is my question and it is left
hanging in the air because, frankly, I do not know the answer.
Mr Campbell: Yes, there are some
extremely distressing cases where I think to some extent individuals
almost try to work out where their best interest lies.
Q13 Earl of Onslow: We all do that.
Mr Campbell: But in a perverse
way. By remaining in the condition that they are in, even if they
are being coerced into prostitution in the United Kingdom, I suppose
they could argue that they may have some kind of income and some
kind of shelter and it might not compare too badly with conditions
that they would be facing going back. That is why I think we need
a longer period, and of course under the National Referral Mechanism
there is a longer period than the Convention demands, a space
for them to face up to some of those decisions. There needs to
be discretion as to whether there can be a prolonged period before
they are sent back, but we also have to consider the welfare of
the individuals. Not everyone of course actually goes back, but
in many cases it is in their interests to go back to be amongst
their families and their communities.
Q14 Earl of Onslow: Minister, I absolutely
understand that but in this Chloe case which we have in front
of us, and you obviously heard about in the debate, it looks as
if the authorities here did not react as we would hope they had
reacted. What can we do about that?
Mr Campbell: I accept that there
will there be disagreements about how particular cases are handled
and I am sure on reflection that there will be cases where things
could have been done differently and done better, but I think
part of the important work that we are doing is trying to get
a better understanding by front-line officials and officers about
trafficking and about the needs and requirements of victims. Whether
or not it is for example in the interests of the individual concerned
to be sent back to their source country is sometimes a hard call.
I think there is an education which is still going on. It is a
learning exercise which is still going on. The difficulty is while
that is happening we are talking about the lives of individuals.
Q15 Dr Harris: Could I just make
a suggestion because I think your responses show that you understand
the concern in the human rights community. What about guidance
that tells front-line police officers a simple proposition: that
when they find women in these circumstances they must have a rebuttable
presumption that they are a victim, so that they act on that basis
initially and then when that is rebutted, they set out—and
it can be one sentence on the paperwork—why whoever it is
has changed that view changes their view. That would make sure
that mistakes do not happen at the outset and would give a clear,
reasoned paper trail as to why that presumption has been replaced
by another presumption.
Mr Campbell: May I take that away
and look at it?
Dr Harris: By all means.
Q16 Chairman: There is no doubt that
compared to when we started working on this several years ago,
we have come an awful long way towards a victim-centred approach.
When we started presumption number one was that they were immigration
offenders and presumption number two was that they were criminalised
within the sex trade. We have come a long way from that, but my
understanding of the Convention is that we do have these obligations,
such as the things that Evan has just talked about, in terms of
making sure that we have that victim-centred approach and anything
that militates against that, for example the bureaucracy that
Anthony Steen talked about last week, undermines that victim-centred
approach, so if you do go away and look at this I think that would
be very helpful.
Mr Campbell: Yes, but on the clear
understanding though—and I am trying to recall the case
that Anthony raised—that of course we want to look at it
in the context of has this person been trafficked and therefore
is a victim, but do not forget that there is then criminality
which have can have happened before they came into contact with
the police and sometimes criminality which happens after they
come into contact with the police. We have to have a balance here
that understands that they can, to some extent, be both victims
and potentially criminal at the same time.
Q17 Chairman: The essential point
about the case that came up last week was the timelag between
the alleged trafficking and trafficking exploitation and her coming
into contact with the police. She actually approached the police.
She was not arrested. She went to the police to report the fact
that she had been violently raped. The problem was that there
was a bureaucratic timetable that said it is so long since you
were allegedly involved in the trafficking side you are on the
wrong side of the limitation period, as it were. If you are going
to have a fixed limitation period for trafficking victims, it
is hardly victim-centred, is it?
Mr Campbell: Le me have a look
at it.
Q18 Chairman: I think that is the
point, I think that is the essence of this.
Mr Campbell: I understand.
Q19 Lord Dubs: I was going to ask
a question which probably fits in here although I could ask it
later on about asylum. What sort of co-operation is there and
what sort of links are there with the countries from which the
trafficked women are believed to come? Lord Onslow mentioned Moldova.
I know for a fact there is a lot of concern in Moldova among NGOs.
What is the level of co-operation to help policemen when these
things happen here?
Mr Campbell: There is a growing
level of co-operation. We raised the issue of trafficking when
we held the Presidency and it has been picked up regularly since
then. As individual countries, and indeed collectively in Europe,
they are grappling with the same sort of issues as we are about
where is the research on which to base good policy and how can
we have a more joined-up approach. Part of that is to do with
enforcement of course but there are also issues around what happens
if you are a victim of trafficking and you are going back to your
source country. We do a lot of work through DFID with source countries
to make sure that the conditions there are not acting as a push
factor for people to get caught up in trafficking. Of course,
very importantly, information campaigns warn people that if they
are responding to a newspaper ad or a leaflet saying "there
are good jobs in London: ring this number" that they should
be particularly careful about that and be aware that these may
well be traffickers. We have also got the Serious Organised Crime
Agency which has a lot of people based abroad who are working
on this very issue. I saw for example some work that we were doing
with the Nigerians at the end of last year. Nigeria is a source
country particularly for trafficking into southern Europe, Spain
and Italy in particular, and we have Serious Organised Crime officers
in parts of the world where we are seeking to work with the authorities
there in a better way.
Q20 Lord Dubs: You may not want to
mention particular countries and there may be a good level of
co-operation, hopefully, with most of the countries from which
the trafficked people come, but are there some countries where
they are in a state of denial about this and where the co-operation
is difficult?
Mr Campbell: We do everything
that we can to make them aware of the problems that are, if you
like, landing on our doorstep as a result of trafficking from
their countries, and colleagues who travel to other parts of the
world regularly raise with their counterparts our concerns. Vietnam
would be a good example. David Hanson was in Vietnam at the end
of last year. We have concerns which he raised directly with the
Vietnamese Government.
Q21 Earl of Onslow: To go back to
Moldova, on the television programme it showed—and I am
arguing, I quite accept, from the particular to the general here—that
the authorities were completely corrupt where this was happening
and the man who was caught got a sentence that was laughably light
compared to what the sentence should have been. Do we have evidence
in some of the countries from which these poor people are coming
that there is heavy corruption and maladministration and incompetence
and all the things that one can see involved in the countries
with whom we are trying to have the liaison to which you refer?
Mr Campbell: Of course that would
make life more difficult. I have heard the same criticism made
of some West African countries. I think sometimes that is an excuse
to say that there is corruption, it is not worthwhile, why are
you working with some people both within and without government
when you know that there are problems and you will be frustrated?
I think we can over-exaggerate that. I also think we need to work
with countries at a bilateral level but, crucially, we need to
work across Europe and we need to make sure that we are working
at an international level and indeed a multi-national level, which
is why we continue to raise trafficking as a serious issue both
at EU level, where I think we are making progress, but also at
the UN level too. At every opportunity the UK Government raises
this issue and we seek to grow the level of co-operation which
is necessary to tackle what is a global problem.
Q22 Chairman: I will phrase a question
on repatriation. One of the concerns we have, and I think you
have, is the risk of people being victimised or indeed retrafficked.
When we did our original inquiry we heard of one poor woman who
was retrafficked by her family within 48 hours of returning allegedly
safely. One of the key issues is making sure that if people are
going to be returned, whether it be voluntarily or not, that proper
steps are taken to make sure that the environment to which they
are going back is one in which they can have a proper life, because
of course they can either be ostracised by their family or subject
to repeat victimisation. Some of the evidence that came out of
the academic research that we heard last year on our mini-conference,
and certainly information that was presented to the UN conference
on this, was the extremely high proportion of women who are found
to be victims of trafficking who had already been victimised before
being trafficked, either physically or sexually or both, within
the family, so there is a real risk if people are returned to
that environment that they are going to go back to what they hoped,
I suppose, they were escaping when they came to the UK?
Mr Campbell: Yes, which is why
it is important that we have that period of reflection, both to
resolve the issue in our country and make sure that those people
who need to be held to account are. Also we consider, as best
we can, what is in the best interests of the individuals themselves.
To be honest, there is probably a limited amount that we can do
to change all of the material circumstances that might have led
to the problem in the first instance, but that is why it is important
that we do everything we can at a multi-national level, but we
also take some time to reflect on what is not just in the interests
of that individual but to make sure that they are not being put
at risk of their lives or indeed of being retrafficked. I would
say, perhaps going back to our original point, that I am not sure
there is a great deal of evidence yet and we need to do some more
work on that retrafficking element of it. There is plenty of anecdotal
evidence.
Q23 Chairman: It is not just the
trafficking; it is also the victimisation in the environment that
they go back to. The best way is to stop it happening in the first
place and the education is all very good and we cannot do enough
of that. Also trying to spot victims at the point of entry is
extremely important and a lot of work has gone into the training
of Border Agency staff on that as well. If people are going to
be returned, I am still not satisfied that enough work is going
into the source country to check on the environment that individuals
are going back to. That is one of the key issues. To what extent
is the reflection period and its use conditional upon co-operation
with the prosecution authorities, because this is one of the key
issues that we identified in our original report, and also from
the work that we did when we looked at this overseas; the message
that we got very clearly was that you should not link co-operation
with the prosecution authorities with the reflection period because
you are dealing with vulnerable, victimised people who are terrified.
Mr Campbell: The issue of course
is the engagement of individuals, who may or may not be victims
in this, with the authorities, who are seeking to do everything
that they can to help them, which is why the initial reflection
period of 45 days is the standard that we have set.
Q24 Chairman: It is half what we
thought was necessary.
Mr Campbell: Yes, but it is more
than the Convention said that we need to have. Of course, it can
be extended, but I take your point, there would have to be grounds
to extend that. Often it is because the individual either needs
more time to be able to not just come to terms with what has happened
to her but also to reflect upon what has happened to her to the
extent that it will help the prosecuting authorities, but we have
to have, it seems to me, clearly defined periods of time, guidelines
and limits on this which do not leave it open-ended, because of
course there are instances where people do claim to be the victims
of trafficking and they are nothing of the sort.
Earl of Onslow: Minister, I see that
the Metropolitan Police Service's Human Trafficking Unit is being
closed done and has been closed down. The Home Affairs Select
Committee said: " ... as our witnesses acknowledged, the
UK is just starting to tackle the problems of trafficking for
forced labour and for street crime. We are therefore particularly
disturbed by the police officers' assessment that closing down
the unit will make it more difficult to identify trafficking victims."
You replied: "I believe, along with the MPS, that the change
in the overall responsibility for investigations into all forms
of human trafficking to the Clubs and Vice Unit whilst moving
the Unit into the Specialist Crime Directorate will ensure the
Met can continue to build on progress ... " There is no more
extra money being provided for this. Has your optimistic and rosy
forecast come about or has Boris Johnson's despair been proved
right? "Despair" may be a bit of a strong word.
Q25 Fiona Mactaggart: A big attempt
to get out of responsibility.
Mr Campbell: Let me park the Mayor
for a moment and set out what the facts were. When we invested
quite a lot of money into the Metropolitan Police Anti-Trafficking
Unit it was on the clear understanding that we believed—and
we still believe—that tackling trafficking needs to be part
of core police business. Therefore they were aware that the money
would run down over time and that the best place for their unit
was embedding it where it was part of core police business. The
end date, if you like, was going to be March 2009. In December
2008, they came to us and said effectively, "We need more
time to do this," and Vernon Coaker (who was Police Minister
at the time) and I agreed that we would give them more time even
at the additional cost it would bring, and therefore we invested
an additional £435,000 for the financial year 2009-10, but
we said to them quite clearly you have to look at the unit and
where it is going to be in the future because, and of course the
financial circumstances have changed even more so, there is no
more funding. They took the decision at the end of last year to
move the unit into Clubs and Vice and to move Clubs and Vice into
Specialist Crime. That is a matter for the Metropolitan Police.
I think they have done the responsible thing. I think it allows
officers to continue to work in trafficking. I know that some
of them are involved in high-profile operations in the metropolis
as we speak and I think that it has that right blend of having
the specialist officers that are necessary whilst making sure
that the knowledge and operational activity goes out to the front-line.
This was not about us telling the Metropolitan Police that we
were summarily cutting their money. It cost us a great deal more
than we thought it would. The letter which I know the Mayor sent
to many Members of Parliament was based on the debate which was
raging at the time at the end of last year 2009 as to whether
or not the unit should continue. The Metropolitan Police Service
took a decision that it would be changed and, as I understand
it, the Mayor has not really commented on it since.
Q26 Earl of Onslow: Arising out of
that, my next printed question says how can you be confident that
the closure of the unit will not have a detrimental effect on
the Met's human trafficking work? What I think I am really asking
is have the results been better under the new system, worse, or
just the same?
Mr Campbell: It would be too early
to tell because they have only just made the decision, but obviously
we would take an interest in that. I am confident that the Metropolitan
Police have made the right decision and will be doing everything
that they can to retain a focus on their important work on trafficking.
It is not exclusively a London issue but it is perhaps a bigger
issue in London than it is elsewhere. I am confident that they
have made the right decision but of course we will be watching
to see.
Q27 Chairman: Part of the problem
is that the Met unit was also the national lead responsibility
and the risk is if the Met is not investing funding for it then
it will not take the national lead responsibilities, it will just
do its work in the Met.
Mr Campbell: I suppose the answer
to that is that the work has to be a priority for all 43 forces.
There are other ways of making sure, through ACPO and through
NPIA but also through the Human Trafficking Centre of course,
that the pressure is constantly on police forces and chief constables
to make sure that they are at least aware of the issue of trafficking
and if it is an issue in their area they are doing everything
that they can. I am not sure that they need the Met in order to
take the lead in the way that perhaps you are suggesting it did
in the past.
Q28 Chairman: I think it is a question
of having people who specialise in what they do as opposed to
the generality of the detective services in the various forces
around the country, who may not have come across it or may not
recognise it or identify it, and then we are back to where we
were where people were treated as immigration offenders and all
the rest.
Mr Campbell: Which is why we are
going back to the issue around education, guidance, and everything
else. It is very important that work continues through ACPO and
the NPIA. Of course we have SOCA and we have the Human Trafficking
Centre too, so there are plenty of sources of information, help
and guidance, as well as the very good work which the Met has
done in this regard.
Q29 Fiona Mactaggart: Last week I
had a rather useful meeting with Assistant Commissioner, Cressida
Dick, precisely about the Specialist Crime Unit and the role of
this unit. I have been one of those, as the Minister knows, who
has been most critical about some of the plans to run it down.
I found that meeting very reassuring, but one of the things that
I think is very important and where I am not sure that I can see
a plan in either the Metropolitan Police or in other police forces,
and I would like to know if the NPIA are actually doing something
about, is work to make sure that the police officers who are likely
to be the first encounter—and I think the new unit will
be able to deal with big operations and big raids, and things
like that—but what I am interested in is the beat police
officer who is perhaps in a red light district, or something like
that, who picks up a woman who he says is soliciting; what training
does he have to seek to ensure that he is sensitive to the issues
of sexual exploitation and of trafficking when he is doing that
basic job? I am not convinced that it is adequate at the moment.
Can the Minister tell us what he thinks is being done or should
be being done?
Mr Campbell: May I find out the
details of what actually is being done, but it is my understanding
that it is part of the work of police training, and NPIA and others
have issued guidance, because it goes back to the debate about
the future of the Met unit, which is should this be core police
business and should it be front-line police business. It is the
police constable in the red light area (but perhaps not in a red
light area) that needs to be asking the question so there is an
awareness exercise. I suppose it is a fact of life that there
is something of a lag effectively. There is a learning experience
for all police officers and front-line officials of the state
in this, but I am confident that the work which is being undertaken
will get the police into a better place.
Q30 Chairman: Before we leave the
issue of London, there is one important thing coming up in a couple
of years' time which is the Olympics. What thought has gone into
the likely impact of the Olympics on the levels of human trafficking?
We know for example that when Germany hosted the World Cup there
was a huge increase in prostitution associated with that sporting
event. The Olympics is as big if not bigger than the World Cup.
What assessment have you made of the likely risks of trafficking
and what steps will you take, particularly with the winding up
of the Met unit?
Mr Campbell: We are very much
aware of the issue and focus on the Olympics is part of the refresh
of the Trafficking Action Plan which took place at the end of
last year, so we are very much aware. I have to say from the intelligence
which is available to date, there is no clear evidence of any
increased activity. To be honest, there is evidence from other
countries which can suggest a whole range of possible outcomes
and indeed what the nature of the challenge might be. The Met
are of course, with or without their unit, focusing very much
on this and doing some activity in the four or five boroughs most
affected, not just around trafficking but actually around the
sex industry in general. Not surprisingly, taking the German example,
there is evidence of more prostitutes coming into the main cities
that were hosting the sporting activities, but of course whether
they came from surrounding regions and whether they were trafficked
is almost an entirely different matter. We are looking closely
at the Winter Olympics in Vancouver to see if there is any evidence
there, but I suppose we are making preparation by being very vigilant
and making sure that the assessment of what could happen at the
Olympics does focus on trafficking.
Q31 Chairman: What resources have
been made available to the Met?
Mr Campbell: Not additional resources
because of course there is this huge amount of money that goes
into policing in the first instance and therefore, as far as I
know but I will go away and check, there is no money which says
this is for a possible trafficking threat in the Olympics, because
it has not as yet shown itself in that way. If it did come up
as a bigger issue, then of course we would want to have a look
at it. It is a watching brief. I have spoken very recently with
some women from various countries that want us to go further and
want us not only to have a watching brief but to be proactive
and to send out a very strong message about what we are going
to tolerate and what we are not going to tolerate, and I am sympathetic
to that.
Q32 Chairman: You mentioned what
happened in Germany at the World Cup. The Olympics is still two
years away. At what stage did the Germans realise that they had
a problem?
Mr Campbell: Part of the answer
to that is I am not sure whether there is agreement about the
size of the problem. There is an assumption among some people
that big sporting events will attract more women in the sex industry
both at the construction phase but also during the event, and
that almost inevitably means that there will be an opportunity
for organised criminality of which trafficking is usually organised
criminality. There are others who will say that to some extent
it can be nothing to do with trafficking; it can simply be a regional
or even a local issue. I am not sure there is agreement about
whether there was such a threat in Germany actually.
Q33 Lord Dubs: Could I turn to asylum
and immigration in relation to victims of trafficking. Do you
know in the last five years how many victims of trafficking have
been charged with immigration-related offences? In particular,
have any victims of trafficking been charged under section 2 of
the Asylum and Immigration Act 2004 for entering the UK without
a valid passport and visa?
Mr Campbell: First of all, if
they are victims of trafficking then they should not be charged
with an offence. We want to be clear about that. As we discussed
earlier, sometimes, to some extent, there is an element of trafficking
and therefore victimisation, but there are also the other elements
around criminality too. I cannot answer your question directly
because if they were guilty of an offence it would not be the
case that they were recorded as a victim of trafficking. We would
start with the assumption that if they were victims of trafficking
that they would not actually be charged with an immigration offence
and therefore face those consequences.
Q34 Lord Dubs: If I have understood
that, it might be easier for the police to say here is an immigration-related
offence than to say conclusively this woman is a victim of trafficking.
It may happen willy-nilly, whatever way you describe it.
Mr Campbell: I think that was
part of the concern that people had about the role of UKBA perhaps
having two different hats to wear on this issue. What we are doing,
both with the prosecutors, the CPS, the police and others, is
this awareness campaign to say to them that there is detailed
guidance on circumstances in which a prosecutor might conclude
whether or not an individual should be prosecuted. The presumption
of course is that if they are victims in the first place then
they should not be.
Q35 Lord Dubs: You have already partly
answered the question I want to ask now but let me state it in
these terms: when a victim is repatriated to their country of
origin—and you have mentioned the concerns you have and
so on—is a risk assessment carried out on each individual
who may be returned in these circumstances?
Mr Campbell: My understanding
is that the answer to that is yes. It is part of the consideration
of what is in the best interests of the victim.
Q36 Lord Dubs: But it would be individual
to the victim not just to the country?
Mr Campbell: My understanding
is yes.
Q37 Lord Dubs: My next question is
this: sometimes of course it is children that are trafficked.
What is being done to ensure that the welfare of such children
is more important than immigration control considerations?
Mr Campbell: Of course if they
are children who are victims of trafficking then they would be
regarded as vulnerable children, and the local authority would
take the lead and have the responsibility for doing everything
that they could to safeguard them and to make sure that throughout
the length of period that they are looking after the children
they recognise that they are victims and everything is done in
their best interests. I think we pay particular note to the dangers
of sending children back to their country of origin. My understanding
is that it is a mixed picture. Some children do go back because
it is in their best interests to do so. Some of them of course,
if they are 16 or 17, if it is protracted, can become of adult
age during the procedure and then they might decide whether or
not they are going to apply for a right to remain here.
Q38 Earl of Onslow: Arising out of
that, presumably, on the other side it is quite possible for somebody
who has been arrested to claim that they are a victim of trafficking
when in fact they are not, and to claim to be a victim so they
then do not get sent back, and their aim of getting here to continue
their trade has been achieved? Presumably, we are aware of that?
Mr Campbell: Not only that but
we are aware of the fact that some traffickers will seek to manipulate
children and young people in a way when it suits them to claim
that they are victims or not victims, so it is not just the individual
children themselves, it is those who are in charge of the trafficking.
Q39 Earl of Onslow: I was not referring
directly to children. I was referring specifically to women trafficked
for sex purposes.
Mr Campbell: Yes.
Earl of Onslow: Section 14 of the Policing
and Crime Act 2009 makes it an absolute offence for a man, as
you know—
Fiona Mactaggart: Or a female. The gender
of the perpetrator is irrelevant in the legislation.
Q40 Earl of Onslow: This has not
been brought in. Do you intend to bring it in or do you intend
not to bring it in or what are your plans?
Mr Campbell: Yes, we do intend
to bring it in and we intend to bring it in as soon as we can.
Again I would hope that would be within a matter now of weeks
if not months. It is an important part of the Policing and Crime
Act and I think we should be extremely proud of what we are trying
to achieve there. It will not solve all of our problems but I
think it is a step along the way. We need to send out a very strong
message that it would be illegal for men to have sex with women
who have been coerced and trafficked in that way and they will
face consequences, because previously they did not face consequences.
and therefore the argument was made, which was accepted, that
they fuel demand. We will introduce the offence and that will
bring with it two things. The first is we are working very closely
with the police and the CPS to make sure that when it does become
law and it is enacted, that it is useable, and that there are
no problems and that we will get some convictions. The other thing
of course, which I think is very fair, is that we need to send
out the message to men and women that there is a new offence and
it is a different offence in that it is strict liability. It will
not be a defence to say, "I didn't know that this person
(usually a woman) was trafficked", and therefore we owe it
to them through a high-profile campaign to spell out what the
consequences would be if they break that law and why it is not
only in the interests of the victims but in their own interests
not to do it.
Q41 Earl of Onslow: This Committee
in its report on the Policing and Crime Bill stated: "In
our view, the proposed offence has the potential to put women
into a more exploitative or unsafe situation, may not address
the problem which the offence aims to target (namely exploitative
prostitution) and may discourage reporting of such prostitution."
Was the Government aware?
Mr Campbell: The Government was
aware of that and this was a prolonged debate, I think a very
responsible and reasonable debate, but the Government persevered
and Parliament agreed and I think that that was the right thing
to do. My general response to the point that you are making is
I can think of fewer circumstances which are more dangerous and
dark than women being trafficked into a foreign country and forced
to take part in the sex industry. We owe it to them and to us
to do everything that we can. We know what we would do if a brothel
was raided and women were found to have been trafficked. We know
what we would do with them. We know what we would do with the
people who kept the brothel and forced them into that. The law
is clear. What was not clear is what responsibility lay with the
men that were fuelling that demand. Now we have a piece of legislation
which sends out a clear message but more than that I hope it has
a practical effect on reducing demand.
Q42 Chairman: One important point
that I put to Vernon Coaker when he was sat there when he had
this brief when we were doing this work at the beginning was this
point about trying to persuade men to report people they suspected
were victims. The risk is whether now they are criminalised under
section 14 will they be willing to do that and, more seriously,
which is the point I put to Vernon, they are actually admitting
to rape because by definition if the woman was forced into prostitution
through trafficking she could not give proper consent to the sexual
act even if she was being paid for it because if the man was then
to suspect this was a trafficked woman, she is not giving proper
consent, so potentially it is rape.
Mr Campbell: Let me be clear that
as part of our deliberations we looked at what would happen if
those circumstances prevailed. I am talking about the fact that
the man had sex with a woman and she was trafficked and she therefore
could not have consented, and of course if the evidence is there
for a rape prosecution I see no reason why the authorities would
not press ahead with that. What we were concerned about was what
happens when the evidence is not there, when the victim is not
willing to testify, when it is not clear there would be a conviction
for rape. Almost as a second best, if you like, this new strict
liability law would come into effect and would at least, in perhaps
a smaller way, hold the men accountable for what they were doing.
I take your point, because again there were members of this Committee
that were on the Bill Committee—
Q43 Dr Harris: Indeed!
Mr Campbell: —and who are
well aware of the arguments. There was concern about whether or
not this would put off men from reporting. There are ways in which
that can be achieved. They can do it with a degree of anonymity.
The one thing that I recall from the evidence session of the Policing
and Crime Bill which really convinced me of this, and it came
from Poppy, way that they said, in their experience, 22 men had
contacted them to say that they had been to a brothel and they
believed that the woman had been trafficked and in every single
case, knowing that, they went on and had sex with the woman. I
thought here is a good case where we need to really waken up men
to the horrors that they are part of and send out a clear message
that we do not want them to do that. If this law is not used because
men change their minds and are deterred by it, then so be it,
but if it has to be used I welcome it.
Q44 Chairman: I am not opposing it;
I am just making a point about the importance of trying to get
the evidence or information to free these women from the scenario
that they are in. If men report to the Poppy project, that is
not reporting to the authorities, that is indirect reporting I
suppose, but this is a potential downside because of the criminalisation.
Mr Campbell: Yes, I think we have
concentrated more on the actual problems of collecting the evidence,
but I do not see why the prosecuting authorities would not make
a presumption to see whether or not in fact there was a higher
offence. I would hope that is exactly what they would do. In the
absence of that there was a clear gap and that is where this new
section 14 comes in.
Q45 Dr Harris: As was read out by
Michael, our report said there was a risk, and indeed we had had
some evidence, as indeed the Public Bill Committee had evidence,
that the proposed offence has the potential to put women into
more exploitative or unsafe situations, and may not address the
problem which the offence aims to target (namely exploitative
prostitution)"—coercion and trafficking included—"and
may discourage reporting of such prostitution." Presumably
it is capable that there might be research into those questions
where the balance lies. In your view, was this offence an evidence-based
policy?
Mr Campbell: Yes, but it was one
in which there was evidence presented for not only both sides
but every variation. I do not know want to give the impression
that this was a clear-cut discussion. This was probably one of
the most contentious parts of a very contentious Bill. At the
end of the day we had to decide and Parliament had to decide on
the evidence which was presented to them as parliamentarians as
well as the evidence that we used in the demand review to base
that particular clause on.
Q46 Dr Harris: That is what I want
to probe. What evidence was available to parliamentarians? In
your demand review on page 10 you say: "The aim of the review
was to establish a firm evidence base", which implies you
wanted this to be an evidence-based policy. In the key actions
of the review on page 11, and this was published in November 2008,
the first one would be "a rapid evidence assessment of research
available on sex buyers conducted by the University of Huddersfield
to be published shortly", and that "shortly" was
dated November 2008, yet can you confirm that when parliamentarians
voted on this measure there had been no publication of that part
of the evidence base? There are no other references in your review
so that is the only one.
Mr Campbell: I would need to check.
I certainly could not say that it had been published.
Q47 Dr Harris: I can tell you that
it was not published even by the time it went through the Lords
let alone when I was debating this with you in the Commons on
19 January. I asked whether you were going to publish this evidence
and Vernon Coaker said: "We are looking at publishing the
evidence. In the end you pick the evidence which backs your argument",
which is not my idea of proper evidence-based policy making. You
said: "Do not read anything into the fact—you will
remember this—"that we have not published this."
Has this review now been published?
Mr Campbell: I would need to go
away and check. To a certain extent we have moved on from that.
I do not even want to say yes or no because I am not sure. What
I would say is to some extent there is a caveat to basing everything
that we do on the evidence in the way that you are arguing for.
There was a lot of evidence brought to the attention of parliamentarians.
There was evidence presented during the early stages of the Bill's
deliberations. I do not think there was a shortage of strong anecdotal
evidence. The problem was it pointed in a number of different
directions. On this issue—and sometimes I think you have
to do it even though you commit yourself to an evidence-based
approach—you have to make a decision on it.
Q48 Dr Harris: I agree but you should
do so openly. You are the one who raised the firm evidence base.
Those were your words of November 2008. I can tell you, Minister,
your research was published last month, several months after the
Bill received Royal Assent, and this is what your own commissioned
evidence that you did not publish before Parliament when we were
debating the issue said: "Efforts to reduce demand seem to
have mixed results, although the evidence is weak. It appears
that the consequences of policy changes are often hidden or practically
immeasurable. Also the risk of displacement threatens to negate
any gains of enforcement activity making prostitution an even
more hidden and secretive enterprise." In Sweden—and
I respect Fiona Mactaggart's difference of opinion from me—this
is what the university academics said: "In Sweden, criminalisation
of demand appeared to coincide with a reduction in street prostitution
although some findings suggest a decline in the working conditions
of street prostitutes and an increase in the size of the indoor
market." Finally, "This review highlights the major
gaps in the evidence base and that the evidence provided is largely
weak and inconclusive." On the research you eventually published
after Parliament voted on this (when you had it months ago) suggests
that this is not an evidence-based policy. You are entitled to
make policy on the basis of morality or ideology or manifesto
commitment but you should not call it an evidence-based policy
when it is not. Do you agree?
Mr Campbell: I do not agree with
your analysis there.
Q49 Dr Harris: I just read it.
Mr Campbell: For a start if you
are talking about trafficked women then you are not talking about
on-street prostitution as much as hidden prostitution, for a start,
so I would not necessarily follow that point. I do not think that
ultimately parliamentarians made a decision because they either
read that or did not read it.
Q50 Dr Harris: But they could not
read it because you suppressed it.
Mr Campbell: A piece of evidence
like that. I am not sure that is where parliamentarians arrive
at their decisions. They have a great deal of evidence. As Ministers,
we had a great deal of evidence. The problem was that sometimes
it looked to be contradictory, it pointed in lots of different
direction and there are people from other countries that have
a different approach to prostitution that were welcoming the fact
that we had the courage to introduce such an Act. Of course the
evidence is important but it is not just the academic report upon
which people will ultimately make their minds up. Could I just
say it is not just a case of plucking from the air some sense
of morality or going back to some manifesto commitment. It was
never a manifesto commitment. It was based on what the former
Home Secretary and then Ministers learned from looking in detail
at this but accepting there would never be a 100 per cent sign-up
to what we wanted to do.
Q51 Dr Harris: My last question is
to ask whether you would at least agree with me that there is
a difference between evidence and assertion or opinion and that
when a policy, for whatever reason, is promulgated it is wrong
to say that it is evidence-based without producing the independent
evidence to support that.
Mr Campbell: In this case there
was other evidence that was available throughout the debate. This
was a piece of work which was commissioned but there was other
evidence that was presented to parliamentarians. There was a widespread
debate based on lots and lots of evidence, often from front-line
practitioners in the sex industry. The problem was there was a
huge dichotomy of views on this.
Fiona Mactaggart: Can I help on the issue
of the evidence base.
Dr Harris: You rightly commissioned a
systematic review in order to get some order. That is what it
is. It is a systematic review of 220 studies reviewed of which
181 met the inclusion criteria. The summaries I read selectively
from are from a review of 181. Surely that is better than selected
random opinions?
Chairman: I think that is a debating
point.
Q52 Fiona Mactaggart: That is the
point, because this is not question of the Home Office concealing
evidence. The Huddersfield research was not original research.
It was merely a review of pre-existing research, the vast majority
of which was published and which was itself randomly created by
the interests of researchers, frankly, so I do not think it bears
the great weight which Dr Harris is putting on it. I wanted to
intervene to reassure the Committee that at the point at which
you produced the unanimous report which the Earl of Onslow mentioned,
I was not a member of the Committee, and I think it is quite important
for my integrity to make that clear. Had I been it would not have
been unanimous because, in my view, that conclusion of the Committee's
was wrong. One of the things that I wanted to ask you about in
relation to section 14 of the Policing and Crime Act is whether
you thought there was a prospect of the publicity campaign that
you have referred to actually preceding the implementation of
the Act or happening soon because my anxiety is that, if it does
not, it is clearly a controversial piece of legislation and it
is going to bump in pre-election periods and so on and, as a result,
I know how the Home Office works, I have worked inside it, it
will not happen at all. Is there a risk of that?
Mr Campbell: There is certainly
a risk of the electoral timetable impeding what we would want
to do. I think it is important that we get section 14 on to the
stocks and useable. Of course I would like to think, and we are
working as hard as we can, that there was a precedent for some
campaign, but I cannot say to you this afternoon that I am enormously
confident of that. If there was not, it would have to come as
soon as it could, but the problem is we are heading towards purdah
and all sorts of things. We are trying our best but I cannot give
you that assurance this afternoon.
Dr Harris: The Committee is not keen
for it to be implemented so you have our support on that.
Chairman: I had understood that we do
want that.
Dr Harris: It is in the report.
Q53 Fiona Mactaggart: It is the law
and I think it brings the law into disrepute if laws which are
passed are not implemented.
Mr Campbell: Not only will we
have a campaign but I am very keen to learn from the comments
that were made during the adjournment debate about who is the
target and where you target it. There is some precedence again
for that kind of campaign, gents' urinals on service stations.
Q54 Fiona Mactaggart: On the point
that the Chairman raised about the anxiety about whether men would
inform in cases where they had suspicions that women were trafficked,
have you or your colleagues had any discussions with the police
and the CPS about charging policy in relation to these kinds of
cases, where the man's offence is clearly less significant, both
in terms of potential sentence and in terms of the degrees of
harm caused, than for example either the brothel keeper or the
trafficker, and whether it would be possible to develop a charging
policy which could say that where people who had themselves committed
lesser offences were prepared to give evidence which helped to
secure a prosecution for a serious major crime, that it would
be looked at generously in terms of whether they were to be prosecuted?
Mr Campbell: We are working through
issues around implementation both with ACPO and with the CPS and
I am confident that that will be part of the discussion, because,
as you said a moment ago, it is the law and therefore we need
to get this right. We need to make sure that we do not send out
a message that there will be a blanket immunity should one use
that as a defence in court. It is a tricky bit of legislation
and that is one of the issues that we are working through with
the CPS. Certainly in terms of severity of sentence and outcome
I would have thought there was logic in looking at that.
Q55 Fiona Mactaggart: The other thing
I wanted to raise with you, I mentioned it in the adjournment
debate which has been referred to earlier, is the case of Rancheva.
It is a decision by the European Court of Human Rights which seems,
following the death of an exotic dancer who had gone to Cyprus
on a performing visa, to say very clearly that there is a duty
on countries which are signatories to the Convention to interdict
in some way areas of business which provide shelter for people-trafficking.
I wondered if you had had discussion with colleagues in other
departments such as the Culture, Media and Sport Department and
BIS about what the impact of that ought to be in the UK in order
to make sure that we do not have enterprises which, in effect,
by having an apparently legitimate outer face, protect the operations
of traffickers, as I think probably happens in parts of the lap-dancing
industry in the UK, for example, and certainly happens in industries
which advertise sex services in our local newspapers.
Mr Campbell: I have not had direct
talks with colleagues about that. I am reflecting on what you
said in the adjournment debate. There are a number of things we
need to follow on from there, but it seems to me that that is
the sort of issue that we would want to have on the agenda of
the inter-departmental ministerial group that overseas trafficking
matters. All 18 departments are represented including the devolved
administrations, so it is certainly something we would want to
see on the agenda. Also if I can follow up what you were saying,
the Solicitor-General has already raised with me the issue around
adverts and the failure, in her view, of self-regulation in newspapers
in particular, and, again, we would want to have further conversation
and discussions about that. If there is a case for action then
we need to act.
Q56 Fiona Mactaggart: When is the
next meeting of the inter-departmental group and will this be
on the agenda?
Mr Campbell: It will be on the
agenda and the meeting will be very early in April.
Earl of Onslow: Can I go back to a question
at a slightly nitty-grittier level. Will the Government introduce
an anonymous hotline for those who use prostitutes and others
to refer women who they think may have been trafficked and that
would enable them possibly to counteract some of the concerns
that we had in our original report? I would like to say on the
plus side it is perfectly reasonable to say that we dislike the
behaviour of men going to prostitutes and we think it is wrong
per se, but I think it is a grave mistake to introduce legislation
saying that it is based on evidence but in fact it is based on
a perfectly respectable and strongly held view. I think it is
easier to take what I suspect is Fiona Mactaggart's view than
possibly my view, because I think it is a totally respectable
view to take, but to defend it on an evidence base when it is
obviously not evidence-based, I think that is a mistake.
Q57 Chairman: We have explored all
the issues so do not go down that road or we will be here all
night!
Mr Campbell: On the substantive
point about the hotline, this was an issue which was debated at
the time. Of course there are a number of existing hotlines and
we would want to look at whether it was a case of better advertising
them rather than perhaps set up something which replicates that;
Crimestoppers being a good example.
Q58 Chairman: Can I ask you a couple
of other questions about enforcement action. The 2009 Action Plan
said that there has been an improvement in prosecution rates.
Can you give us the details of that?
Mr Campbell: Yes. The number of
prosecutions has increased steadily since 2005. In 2005 there
were 49 prosecutions brought to court. In 2006, there were 98,
in 2007, 117 and in 2008, 165. The number of convictions has fluctuated
to some extent. The main reason for that is that people who are
prosecuted do not end up being convicted for trafficking offences;
they are convicted of something else, like for example rape, brothel
management, assisting unlawful immigration.
Q59 Chairman: They next question
I was going to ask you is: are those prosecution figures solely
for trafficking offences or trafficking-related offences like
the ones you are talking about?
Mr Campbell: Let me get this absolutely
clear. The figures are for trafficking alone. The convictions
for trafficking alone number 118 in total for trafficking, three
for conspiracy to traffic and seven convictions for labour trafficking.
Just in case I have made a noose for my own neck, I have just
been reminded that that figure is not for all of them; it is just
for trafficking.
Q60 Chairman: The prosecutions were
for trafficking alone?
Mr Campbell: Yes.
Q61 Chairman: And the conviction
rate will include those who end up with convictions for trafficking
plus brothel-keeping, rape, kidnapping or whatever?
Mr Campbell: Yes.
Q62 Chairman: What discussions have
you had with the Crown Prosecution Service, the Police and other
law enforcement agencies such as SOCA about improving the prosecution
and conviction rates?
Mr Campbell: Yes, it is one of
the key parts of discussions with them. It is a crucial part—that
prosecutors, judges, the CPS, everybody involved in the process
is aware of the need, if the evidence points that way, for prosecution
for trafficking offences.
Q63 Chairman: What further changes
in the procedure or law do we need to help secure it?
Mr Campbell: I am not sure that
we do necessarily need more legislation. I think we need a better
understanding of the legislation. We need to make sure that the
people are hoping to make use of the legislation if the opportunity
arises, but, of course, also, particularly because this is an
element of serious organised crime, the CPS, the Police, SOCA
and others are looking to use whatever measures they have to bring
people to justice but also to disrupt their activities. Traffickers
may not end up actually being prosecuted and convicted for trafficking
but that does not mean nothing happens to them.
Q64 Dr Harris: In the answer to earlier
questions you said you would get back to us. I think one of the
questions was on rebuttable presumption. Could that be quite soon?
Mr Campbell: Yes.
Q65 Chairman: Is there anything you
want to add?
Mr Campbell: No, thank you.
Chairman: Thank you for coming. It has
been a very useful session to us. The Committee stands adjourned.
| 
