Clause 16 - Slavery and trafficking prevention orders on application

Part of Modern Slavery Bill – in a Public Bill Committee am 2:45 pm ar 9 Medi 2014.

Danfonwch hysbysiad imi am ddadleuon fel hyn

Photo of David Hanson David Hanson Shadow Minister (Home Affairs) 2:45, 9 Medi 2014

I beg to move amendment 68, in clause 16, page 12, line 26, at end add


(c) who the chief officer believes has been to it previously or had connections with the area.”

Clause 16(4) gives a chief officer the power to make an application for a prevention order in two cases, and states:

“A chief officer of police may make an application under this section only in respect of a person—

(a) who lives in the chief officer’s police area, or

(b) who the chief officer believes is in that area or is intending to come to it.”

In amendment 68, I have suggested a third category for the Minister to consider, which is someone

“who the chief officer believes has been to it previously or had connections with the area.”

I hope that the amendment will help to provide additional certainty. I can envisage a chief officer wanting to impose a slavery and trafficking prevention order to reduce the level of people trafficking or slavery in his or her police area. Under the clause, they may do that only  if the person lives in their police area or if they believe that that person is in their area or intending to come to it. However, that does not cover, which I propose in my amendment, those who have been to the area previously or those who have connections to that area.

I will give an example. At present, it is possible for the chief constable of North Wales police to apply for a trafficking prevention order for someone who lives in my area. He could also do that if he thinks that they are in, or will come to, the area. There might be individuals who were previously involved in trafficking in my area who are not currently resident in the area or intending to return there, but they might have connections with it through their family or business or in other ways. I tabled the amendment because subsection (4)(a) and (b) does not cover every base. The amendment—the Minister may want to take it away, reflect on it and come back with words to similar effect—could mean that the police have full powers.

To use my area of north Wales again, it is quite possible that an individual could conduct activity that should be covered under a slavery and trafficking prevention order, but the chief of police would not be able to make an application for an order, because that individual does not live in the area, is not in the area and does not intend to come to the area, but they have been to it previously or have connections to it. I want to test whether the Minister feels that all the bases are covered in applications for orders under the clause.