Clause 12 - Detention of land vehicle, ship or aircraft

Modern Slavery Bill – in a Public Bill Committee am 10:30 am ar 9 Medi 2014.

Danfonwch hysbysiad imi am ddadleuon fel hyn

Photo of David Hanson David Hanson Shadow Minister (Home Affairs) 10:30, 9 Medi 2014

I beg to move amendment 66, in clause 12, page 8, line 34, leave out “senior”

Photo of Mark Pritchard Mark Pritchard Ceidwadwyr, The Wrekin

With this it will be convenient to discuss Amendment 67, in clause 12, page 9, line 17, leave out subsection (7).

Photo of David Hanson David Hanson Shadow Minister (Home Affairs)

This is another short probing amendment that I hope the Committee can deal with quickly. The detention of a land vehicle, ship or aircraft is a reasonable power, but the clause allows that

“a constable or senior immigration officer may detain a relevant land vehicle, ship or aircraft.”

A constable is defined in law as anything from a chief constable to a constable on the ground—they all hold the warrant of constable—yet subsection (7) defines a “senior immigration officer” as

“an immigration officer not below the rank of chief immigration officer.”

Simply for the record and to test the Government’s intention, I want to the Minister to explain the logic behind why a constable, who could in effect be anyone from a police constable to a chief constable, may detain a vehicle, ship or aircraft under the powers in the clause, while immigration officers may not, unless they are of the rank of chief immigration officer.

I tabled the amendment because, if we look at later clauses—which, given the context of this discussion, I hope you will allow me to do, Mr Pritchard—we see that clause 23, on “Slavery and trafficking risk orders”, defines, for a magistrates court making a risk order, that an application should be made by

“a chief officer of police…an immigration officer, or…the Director General of the National Crime Agency”.

Different types of individuals undertake different things under the Bill. Clause 12 gives powers to a police constable, but the chief officer of police must be involved in slavery and trafficking risk orders. Furthermore, an immigration officer at the lowest level has clause 23 powers, while the chief immigration officer must be involved under clause 12. Therefore, what judgment have the Minister, her officials and the Department made as to why different levels of authority are given in clause 12?

Photo of Karen Bradley Karen Bradley The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for tabling and explaining the amendments, which relate to what rank of immigration officer should be able to use the power to detain a land vehicle, ship or aircraft. This gives me a helpful opportunity to set out the Government’s view about how best to ensure the power is used appropriately and proportionately.

The power applies where an individual is arrested for a human trafficking offence. If the constable or senior immigration officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a land vehicle, ship or aircraft has been used, or was intended to be used, in the commission of the human trafficking offence, the officer can detain that vehicle at the point of arrest. Detention is made prior to a court finding an individual guilty of an offence and without prior reference to a court. That reflects the need to disrupt traffickers’ activities.

The individual can apply for the release of their property. Given that detention of a potentially valuable asset will often cause significant disruption and that detention can take place even when the asset’s owner is not the person arrested, we consider it appropriate to have the safeguard of reserving the power for senior immigration officers. That reflects the existing legislation on which the power is based. Immigration enforcement is already using the power with the safeguard, and I am not aware of any difficulties with it.

Photo of David Hanson David Hanson Shadow Minister (Home Affairs)

I am not disputing that, and I am quite content with the Minister’s explanation, but I am interested in why the power in the clause can be exercised by a constable or a senior immigration officer. Why not a chief superintendant or senior police officer? That is the point I am interested in.

Photo of Karen Bradley Karen Bradley The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department

As I said, the measure is based on powers used elsewhere.

Photo of David Hanson David Hanson Shadow Minister (Home Affairs)

That does not mean there is any logic in it.

Photo of Karen Bradley Karen Bradley The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department

The right hon. Gentleman tempts me to say something I will not say on the record.

The powers in the clause are powers of detention, which could involve the long-term detention of property, with a significant impact on an individual—for example, if the vehicle is used as part of their daily activities. In addition, the owner of the vehicle may not be the trafficker.

Clause 13, by contrast, provides for short-term powers for the purpose of preventing, detecting, investigating or prosecuting a slavery or trafficking offence. The potential impact of clause 12 on an individual is considered to be greater than that of clause 13, so the different levels of seniority in the two clauses are appropriate.

Photo of Michael Connarty Michael Connarty Llafur, Linlithgow and East Falkirk

I can see the point, having been in the police game, that a constable is not a citizen and has the warrant. An ordinary immigration officer—not a senior immigration officer—might think that detaining a vehicle would allow someone to investigate so that a warrant could be found to keep the vehicle much longer, but if they do not have the power, a trafficker might escape. Are we not, in fact, making an error if we do not make sure that there is at least some power for an immigration officer to hold a vehicle so that a senior officer can decide whether a warrant is required?

Photo of Karen Bradley Karen Bradley The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department

Constables have relevant training and expertise. Police staff, for example, cannot use the power, but constables would have the appropriate training. Given the differences between the two orders, it is appropriate to have the different levels of experience, and we stand by the clauses.

Photo of David Hanson David Hanson Shadow Minister (Home Affairs)

I am grateful to the Minister for attempting to explain that. Whether or not a similar measure is in previous legislation, it seems illogical that a PC on the ground could detain a vehicle, ship or aircraft, but an immigration officer would have to go via a chief immigration officer, because the definition in the clause refers to a “senior immigration officer”.

I am not party to this information, so will the Minister tell me how many chief immigration officers are on duty at any particular time at any particular port? A constable will not necessarily be present at the time of the potential offence. I am simply seeking the logic, and there may be a logic in this for the Minister. If there is a logic in a PC being able to seize a vehicle, why is there no logic in an immigration officer being able to do the same? If it is an issue of training, perhaps that should be examined.

I do not wish to make difficulties. I am genuinely interested in why there are two levels of authority in regard to this valuable power, which should be exercised to help to prevent trafficking. I will give the Minister one more opportunity to explain, and then I will withdraw the amendment.

Photo of Karen Bradley Karen Bradley The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department 10:45, 9 Medi 2014

The position of chief immigration officer is an operational grade on the front line. We would expect to see chief immigration officers operating where such a power is needed. Of course, a constable is a warranted officer and has the power of arrest, so we consider that to be the appropriate grade for the power.

Photo of David Hanson David Hanson Shadow Minister (Home Affairs)

We have had an explanation, although there is still an element of illogicality in it. Nevertheless, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.