|
Beverley Hughes: I have heard the debate and, having taken up with the hon. Member for Woking his extended discussion on matters extraneous to the Bill, I do not intend to repeat my comments.
I welcome all hon. Members to the Committee, and I take the view that every member of the Committee wants to make an important contribution to improve the Bill, if possible. I want the Bill to work. I want the Government's policy to be implemented effectively, so I am more than happy to consider any sensible suggestions of merit, and I am sure that others will attend our deliberations in the same spirit.
As hon. Members have pointed out, this is the third phase of reform and transformation of the asylum system. I would like simply to remind colleagues that that is an important strand of Government policy, which, in the interests of our constituents and asylum seekers, I strongly feel that we cannot duck in any way. It is important to put that strand of policy in the context of wider Government policy. In a way, that is what divides us from the Conservative party: we want to increase migration. We are in favour of legal migration, but we must have a rational system that supports that and does not allow abuse of the asylum system. We also want to encourage resettlement of refugees, but we cannot defend that policy unless our asylum system is above abuse.
Substantial progress has been made. I make that point because it is important to base our discussions on fact. The hon. Member for Woking said that he did not think that anything in the Bill was relevant to some of the necessary continued improvements in the system. That is wrong, and we will see what his position is on
Column Number: 11
those clauses that, for example, have direct relevance to our ability to remove people. Shortly, we will get to clause 2, which requires that people do not destroy documents, without which we cannot return them very easily.
Mr. Malins: It does not say that.
Beverley Hughes: When we get to that clause, I will explain to the hon. Gentleman, if he does not understand, why asylum seekers providing documentation when they present themselves is crucial to the end of the asylum process and returning them if their claims fail. When—
It being half an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, The Chairman put the Question, pursuant to Sessional Order C(9) of 6 November 2003 relating to Programming Sub-Committees.
The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 3.
Division No. 1]
AYES
Blizzard, Mr. Bob
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs. Claire
Gardiner, Mr. Barry
Gerrard, Mr. Neil
Harris, Mr. Tom
Heppell, Mr. John
Hughes, Beverley
Jones, Mr. Jon Owen
Lammy, Mr. David
Prosser, Mr. Gwyn
Williams, Mrs. Betty
NOES
Garnier, Mr. Edward
Malins, Mr. Humfrey
Watkinson, Angela
Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chairman: I remind the Committee that there is a money resolution and a Ways and Means resolution in connection with the Bill. Copies of them are available in the Room. I also remind Members that adequate notice of amendments should generally be given. My fellow Chairman and I do not intend to call starred amendments, including any that may be reached during an afternoon sitting of the Committee. Clause 1
Assisting unlawful immigration
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Beverley Hughes: The clause is a technical amendment designed to include Norway and Iceland as Schengen signatories, and any new Schengen signatories in the future, under the provision in section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971. Section 25 creates an offence of facilitating the commission of a breach of immigration law. Immigration law means a law that has effect in a member state and that controls entitlement to enter, transit or be in the state.
Column Number: 12
Mr. Heath: Will the Minister confirm that the clause is needed solely because of an omission or oversight in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002?
Beverley Hughes: Yes, it corrects an omission so that countries can be included that cannot formally be designated as member states but that none the less are Schengen signatories.
The clause allows the Secretary of State to make an order prescribing additional states that are to be regarded as member states for the purposes of the section, if he considers it necessary for the purpose of complying with the United Kingdom's European Union obligations. The nationals of these states are also to be deemed to be citizens of the EU for the purposes of section 25 of the 1971 Act. This is necessary to comply with the EU Council directive and the EU Council framework decision relating to these matters. The directive and associated framework decision require member states to create the offence of assisting a person who is not a national of a member state to enter or reside in a member state contrary to the laws of that state. The offence must apply in relation to Norway and Iceland as well as to the member states of the Union.
Subsection (2) makes a minor amendment to section 25C of the 1971 Act to make it clear that the references to ''member State'' and ''immigration law'' in subsection (9)(a) have the same meaning as in section 25.
Mr. Heath: I am grateful for the Minister's explanation and her confirmation that this should have been in the 2002 Act and that its omission was an oversight. I am not absolutely clear about the necessity for subsection (2), given that section 25(2) and (7) are there. Why has that wording any significance? Can she enlighten me? It seems entirely otiose, as the wording already says
''within the meaning of section 25''.
Both definitions are contained within section 25, so why is the legislation changed in that respect?
9.45 am
Beverley Hughes: I can only say to the hon. Gentleman that our legal advice is that, to ensure that we get it right on this occasion, we need to make it clear that those two definitional phrases, ''member state'' and ''immigration law'', have the same meaning as in section 25. If it is helpful, I shall write to him with a detailed explanation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Entering United Kingdom without passport
Mr. Heath: I beg to move amendment No. 49, in
clause 2, page 2, line 2, leave out 'A person' and insert 'An adult'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 63A, in
clause 2, page 3, line 15, at end add—
Column Number: 13
Mr. Heath: I hope that this is a simple starter for 10 for the Committee. I believe that my amendment is entirely in tune with what I hope is the Minister's intention with the Bill; I cannot believe that she anticipates that the offences created under clause 2 would be applicable to a child entering the country unaccompanied. There is, of course, provision for a child who is dependent on another person entering the country but it would be entirely inappropriate for a child entering the country unaccompanied, who had been told by a carrier to destroy their passport, to be subject to the criminal law.
Amendment No. 49 would establish that, in this instance, the term ''person'' refers to an adult. The terms ''adult'' and ''child'' are well construed in immigration law, so I do no think that there is a need for subsequent definitions of those terms. I seek from the Minister reassurance that it would not be appropriate to use the clause against a child, who may have been pressured or may have misunderstood what to do. A child could certainly not be held responsible for maintaining the accuracy of their immigration documents. An adult could, quite properly, be held responsible for destroying their passport or other travel documents. We accept that principle.
Can the Minister reassure me of her intention? I hope that she will accept my amendment. If not, could she explain why there is an understanding that ''person'' in this instance means an adult, rather than an adult or child, which would be that phrase's normal construction?
Mr. Garnier: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has looked at subsection (4). Can he construe that subsection in the context of his arguments? It says:
''It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (2) in respect of a child to prove''
and so on. I accept that the language is somewhat difficult and complicated, but might not that provide some sort of let-out for an unaccompanied child? Perhaps the language should be sorted out. I fully accept the difficulties for unaccompanied children that the hon. Gentleman is describing. They are proper concerns. However, I wonder whether I have been obtuse in failing to understand the clause, or doubly obtuse in failing to understand whether he has taken into account subsection (4). Perhaps he could help us before he finishes speaking.
Mr. Heath: The hon. and learned Gentleman is never obtuse, but I think that he is wrong in interpreting subsection (4) in that way. It refers to subsection (2), which relates to the instance of a person who arrives and is travelling with a dependent child. Therefore, that would not apply to an unaccompanied child without another dependent child in tow. There is a problem, but I am hopeful that the Minister can solve the riddle without our having to take a great deal of time over it. I feel strongly that a child should not be put in peril of the offence. From the hon. and learned Gentleman's intervention, I suspect that he agrees with that point.
Column Number: 14
Beverley Hughes: I hope that I can satisfy the hon. Gentleman with regard to what I think is the spirit of his intentions but, for reasons that I shall outline, I cannot accept the amendment. First, it would mean that, unlike in the rest of criminal law, this offence could be committed only by an adult—a term, in addition, that is not defined. There is a different approach in the rest of the law, under which we do not make that distinction. There is an age of criminal liability, and a judgment is made on the basis of the circumstances of the case as to whether a prosecution should be brought. The amendment would mean an entirely different approach from that which we adopt in relation to children in other parts of the law.
|
