Tony McNulty (Minister of State (Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality), Home Office; Harrow East, Labour)

I beg to move amendment No. 108, in clause 28, page 14, line 4, leave out ‘and aircraft’ and insert ‘, aircraft and vehicles’.

Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 109 to 111.

Tony McNulty (Minister of State (Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality), Home Office; Harrow East, Labour)

As I suggested in my previous contribution, the amendment was tabled because of the interruption that the general election caused. We were unable to conduct external consultation on the provisions, as the hon. Member for Woking said in debate on clause 27.

We have since held detailed discussions with the industry. It raised concerns that owners or agents or ships or aircrafts were, in the main, unlikely to be able to comply fully with the clause as drafted, because they either do not hold or do not have access to detailed information on the consignments that they carry.

I remind hon. Members that this refers to freight. Although carriers may hold relevant information on how goods are being transported, other parties involved in the freight supply chain, such as the importer or exporter or their agents, would be best placed to provide information on the consignments. Amendments Nos. 108, 109, 110 and 111 simply reflect those concerns on the face of the Bill.

Henry Bellingham (Whip, Whips; North West Norfolk, Conservative)

Can the Minister help me on that point?

Tony McNulty (Minister of State (Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality), Home Office; Harrow East, Labour)

I shall try my very best.

Henry Bellingham (Whip, Whips; North West Norfolk, Conservative)

The Minister said that the interruption caused by the general election led to the Government having continued discussions with the different stakeholders. The Bill was published on 22 June. While I am all for the Government making every effort to get a Bill correct in detail, I am concerned at the number of Government amendments that have been tabled, given that the Bill was published well after the general election.

Tony McNulty (Minister of State (Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality), Home Office; Harrow East, Labour)

It is a fair point. Either that, or I am in a generous mood. We felt that an early June publication date some six weeks after the election was more appropriate, with the caveat that more work needed doing, so that prior to the summer and a substantive parliamentary stage people had a chance to see what was in it. It should be remembered that in the first instance we published the five-year strategy in February and that informs much of what is in the Bill.

It is a matter of choice. The hon. Gentleman is entirely fair on that point. We could have waited until September or October before getting the Bill into the public domain. We choose otherwise, with the caveat that the Government do not know everything and get everything right all the time. The Whip looks shocked and so I shall pay for that later. The second caveat is that, having published something, we are still open to dialogue especially when it impacts on people so much.

We think that clause 28, as we propose to amend it, is all the better for that substantive scrutiny. I suspect that we would have been more than open to those concerns from the industry, whether we had published the Bill in June or September. It is merely a matter of timing, but it is a fair point. People have to take a view on that, as we have done. As amended by these amendments and informed by the freight industry, the clause will be much more robust.

John Leech (Manchester, Withington, Liberal Democrat)

I should like to ask the Minister why the clause is part of the Bill. The Bill is supposed to be about immigration, asylum and nationality but the clause appears to be solely about freight. I cite the example of the 58 Chinese immigrants who died in a sealed container. That information would not have been readily available if details were requested on what that ship was carrying. The clause does not relate to the Bill and I seek clarification of why it has been included.

Tony McNulty (Minister of State (Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality), Home Office; Harrow East, Labour)

If it did not relate to the Bill, parliamentary counsel and the House authorities would have ruled the thing out of order. The hon. Gentleman answers his own question. Freight is utilised and exploited for people trafficking. I pass no comment, for obvious reasons, on the example cited by the hon. Gentleman, but information on freight is absolutely essential in fighting serious crime such as smuggling, immigration offences and people trafficking. If the hon. Gentleman cannot see that, he is being obtuse.