Clause 2 - Entering United Kingdom without passport
Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill
9:10 am
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Taylor, and to face the two Ministers in the Committee. I should first apologise for my absence from the first two sittings, when I was inspecting one of the craft that is less likely to be impounded even if new clause 3 becomes law.
The group of probing amendments is designed to find out how serious the Government are in dealing with the problems of people trafficking, and whether they recognise voters' concerns, both about the different ways in which people reach the country and about the lack of coverage, in particular by Customs and immigration authorities. Those concerns are general, but are particularly strong in my constituency.
I do not intend to make a Second Reading speech. I want to give the Minister the opportunity to assure me, the public and the Committee, on each question that I raise, either that our collective concerns are ill founded, or that they are dealt with elsewhere. In response to any of the amendments, the Minister could say: A, it is not a problem; B, it would be a problem but the law already deals with it; C, it is a problem but this is the wrong way to deal with it; or D, it is a problem and she accepts my thoughtful and constructive intervention. If the answer is A, B or C, it would be helpful if she would explain why that applies.
I shall briefly describe the content of each amendment. Amendment No. 79 would make it an offence to aid or abet a crime committed under subsections (1) or (2). I read the assurances that the Minister gave on Thursday about the intention to prosecute under those subsections, and I ask her: A, B, C or D—which is the answer to the problem of people aiding or abetting such offences? The amendment would also make it a crime to provide ''a craft'' used to commit the offence. I am aware that there was a debate on Thursday about airports, but a number of different craft other than aeroplanes are used to reach the country, and I address that in a later amendment. However, on the question of the use of any craft in committing such crimes, I again ask the Minister whether the answer is A, B, C or D.
I give a defence in proposed new subsection (6B) that the person charged with the offence
''could not reasonably have known that an offence was being committed.''
The question is whether people are providing craft for the commission of immigration offences and
whether they are doing so knowingly or recklessly. If they are doing so knowingly, they are clearly assisting in an offence, and if they are doing so recklessly, they are assisting in the defeating of immigration laws. That is why I want the high standard of proof that they
''could not reasonably have known''.
Amendment No. 82 would provide for penalties on conviction under proposed new subsection (6A). The first essential element is that there should be a recognition of the extent of the offence and the fact that it is one thing to import one person illicitly to this county, but another to import a large number of people, or aid or abet such an offence. That point is dealt with in proposed new paragraph (c). The second element is that it is important to recognise the value of the craft that is used. An offence of using a lorry to import illegal immigrants already exists, and vehicles may be seized for other kinds of smuggling, so I wonder whether there should be a fine, not exceeding the value of the craft used, for the use of a craft in the commission of an offence under subsection (1) or (2).
Amendment No. 80 would define the craft. I have been a little generous and used my imagination, because we need an all-embracing definition. The last few words of the amendment might amount to such a definition, but my question is whether the Minister is confident that any craft used for people trafficking will be recognised in the definition of the offences. Is she confident that the definition is broad enough and that any craft, however unlikely, used in the commission of an offence may be seized? My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) has made some play of the use of the word ''rocket'', but people can be fired from rockets without any long-term danger to themselves. They can also use windsurfing boards, hang-gliders and other apparatus.