Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill

Public Bill Committee, 13 January 2004.

Standing Committee B

Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill

Clause 2 - Entering United Kingdom without passport

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I beg to move amendment No. 79, in

clause 2, page 2, line 39, at end insert—

'(6A) A person commits an offence if he aids or abets or provides a craft used in the commission of an offence under subsections (1) and (2).

(6B) It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (6A) to prove that he could not reasonably have known that an offence was being committed.'.

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 82, in

clause 2, page 2, line 44, at end insert

', or

(c) on conviction on indictment for an offence under subsection (6A) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years for each offence under subsection (1) or (2) aided or abetted, to a fine or to both; or

(d) on conviction on indictment for an offence under subsection (6A) involving a craft, a fine not exceeding the value of the craft.'.

Amendment No. 80, in

clause 2, page 3, line 7, at end insert—

' ''craft'' means any boat, ship, aeroplane, hovercraft, balloon, airship, rocket, train, tractor, motor-car, carriage or any other movable structure used in the commission of an offence under subsections (1) and (2);'.

Amendment No. 81, in

clause 2, page 3, line 15, at end insert

' ''provides'' means owns, lets, captains, pilots or drives.'.

New clause 3—Impounding of craft—

'(1) An immigration officer may impound a craft used to transport a person to the United Kingdom if it appears to him that that

craft may be used or may have been used for an offence under section 2.

(2) The craft shall be released to its provider if—

(a) it appears to the immigration officer that no offence has been committed, or

(b) the provider of the craft notifies the officer of the craft's next destination, being outside the United Kingdom, and agrees to remove the person whom the immigration officer suspects of committing the offence with the craft to that destination.

(3) In this section—

''craft'' means any boat, ship, aeroplane, hovercraft, balloon, airship, rocket, train, tractor, motor-car, carriage or any other movable structure used in the commission of an offence under subsections (1) and (2) of section 2;

''provider'' means the person having charge of the craft.'.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

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.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

I am intrigued. Has the hon. Gentleman requested from the Home Office statistics on the number of people who have illegally entered the country using an airship or rocket?

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I have not requested such statistics, because what matters is not what is happening today or happened yesterday but what might happen in the future. I contacted the Library to ask what information was available on the number of people committing offences under immigration laws, but I confess that I did not ask about the means used to reach this country. I thought that it would be appropriate to draft a broad definition to embrace every possible craft.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a subtle difference between the number of people who enter the country illegally by a craft and the number of people who are caught entering the country illegally by a craft? The former may never be known, while the latter are a statistic.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

That point is likely to be at the heart of many of our debates. If it is an offence for a craft to be used, perhaps the Minister is confident that the offence

embraces all possible craft, and she could assure me that the amendment is not necessary. If it is not an offence, I hope that I have been constructive in tabling the amendment.

Gwyn Prosser (Labour, Dover)

I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman's arguments with interest, but does he recall that the party that he supports vehemently opposed the imposition of £2,000 fines even for people found smuggling illegal immigrants into the country, let alone people using space rockets?

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Indeed. That was at least partly because the defence contained in proposed new subsection (6B) of amendment No. 79 was not specified. As I understand it, smuggling was a strict liability offence; this is an offence that is committed only if a person

''could not reasonably have known that an offence was being committed.''

It is extremely unlikely that people in a small vessel could not know that someone on that vessel did not have immigration papers. The 57 miles of coastline in my constituency are covered by immigration officials for a maximum of half a day a week. The officials are assiduous in covering the island, but they have a considerable length of additional coastline to cover. That is why it is important to recognise that if people use craft of any kind—surfboards, small yachts or a rocket—

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

That is not covered.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

It is covered, as it is

''a moveable structure used in the commission of an offence''.

The clause should cover craft of any kind. Under amendment No. 81, ''provides'' covers anyone who rents, captains, pilots or drives a craft.

There are two issues concerning new clause 3. First, it would enable an immigration officer to impound a craft—that would be a significant threat to those who allow their craft to be used illegally for trafficking people. Secondly, if someone has used a craft to come to this country, and it is found that they should not be here, it is incumbent on the provider of that transport to take them back to the country from which they have come. I hope that the Minister will comment on that. The new clause would give an immigration officer the power to impound a craft, again with a broad definition.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

May I add my words of welcome and say what a great pleasure it is to see you in the Chair, Mr. Taylor? As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) has made clear, these amendments would ensure that those involved in helping people to reach the United Kingdom without documents face criminal sanction, as well as those who arrive undocumented without reasonable explanation. In so far as that is his intention, I obviously share it. The amendments and new clause 3 also cover, as he described it, some imaginative—wildly imaginative—ways of getting to the UK in a variety of craft, and proposals for what to do with the craft and their owners.

It is absolutely right to focus on both the people who destroy their documents and their facilitators. The offence in clause 2 is aimed primarily at those who destroy their documents, for reasons that I outlined at earlier sittings. I have also returned a number of times to the need to break the power of facilitators. That must be done in whatever ways we can.

Anyone who aids, abets or incites another or conspires with another to commit the offence could also be found guilty of it and be subject to the same penalties as they would for the substantive offence. That is because, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, that principle operates on most criminal offences under common law and will do so on these offences when they are enacted. In any event, a charge of aiding and abetting may not necessarily be the most appropriate charge to bring against a facilitator. We already have a comprehensive set of offences to deal with people who help others to enter the UK illegally and people who help asylum seekers enter the UK where they act for gain. I shall outline those in a moment.

If a person helps someone to enter the UK illegally, for example by bringing them in in a small boat and avoiding immigration control, or stowing them away in the back of a lorry, they can be charged under section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971. Under that section, it is an offence if a person facilitates the commission of a breach of immigration law by an individual who is not a European Union citizen. A person could be charged with an offence under section 25 if they assisted someone to enter the UK illegally. Furthermore, where a person knowingly and for gain facilitates the arrival in the UK of an asylum seeker they can be prosecuted under section 25A of the same Act. That behaviour might be facilitating an asylum seeker to get into the UK in exchange for payment.

One of the important points is that the penalties for offences under sections 25 and 25A are a maximum of 14 years' imprisonment and an unlimited fine, reflecting the seriousness with which we view this behaviour. Those are much higher sentences than would be available by applying the offence in clause 2 to someone who is aiding, abetting or conspiring. In addition, there is already provision allowing for the forfeiture of vehicles, ships or aircraft belonging to a person convicted of an offence under either section 25 or section 25A of the 1971 Act. Section 25C allows a court to order the forfeiture of a vehicle used, or intended to be used, in connection with the offence in certain circumstances. I am advised that the section is drawn sufficiently broadly that it would cover any form of craft used for the purposes of facilitation or facilitation for gain—in other words, the offences in sections 25 and 25A.

Finally, we already have carriers' liability and civil penalty provisions in relation to the carrying of clandestine and inadequately documented arrivals. Under the carriers' liability provisions, carriers can be charged £2,000 if a person who needs leave to enter the UK does not produce an immigration document, unless the carrier can show that the person had that document at embarkation. I hope that what I have outlined reassures the hon. Gentleman. First, aiding

and abetting are already covered under common law. Secondly, helping someone to arrive illegally is subject under existing law to a severe penalty of up to 14 years' imprisonment. Thirdly, other provisions can be used for behaviour linked to, but not going to the heart of, the offence in clause 2 aimed at those destroying their documents deliberately.

That deals with the points on legislation. As the hon. Gentleman will know, however, legislation is only part of the equation. Equally important is how effectively the Government try to operationalise the law and ensure that people are apprehended and prosecuted for this type of activity. He can tell his constituents that under this Government the multi-agency taskforce, Reflex, was established under the National Crime Squad, to involve the immigration service, the police, Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue, as well as to work internationally with our partners overseas, to ensure that we have a real impact on the organised criminals who are facilitating people smuggling and people trafficking. We have trebled the funding for Reflex, and by November last year 24 major facilitators had been successfully prosecuted as a result of its operations, and 20 large networks of criminal gangs had been disrupted.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the Government are determined to use the law to break the power of traffickers, and that the record of the operations that we have put in place is bearing fruit by bringing facilitators to book and disrupting the organised gangs that are behind so much of the people smuggling. I hope that he will accept those reassurances and will not feel the need to press his amendments to a vote.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight for the thoughtful way in which he introduced his amendments. He has done the Committee a great service by enabling us to have a useful debate and to obtain useful information from the Minister.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Although the Minister did not cover new clause 3 in detail—I may speak to her afterwards about it—on the basis of the assurances that she gave, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I beg to move amendment No. 14, in

clause 2, page 2, line 41, leave out paragraph (a).

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 15, in

clause 2, page 2, line 43, leave out 'six' and insert 'four'.

No. 17, in

clause 2, page 2, line 44, at end insert

', or

(c) where the person has with him a dependent child, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum'.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Taylor, and also welcome the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) to the Committee.

The Committee had a good debate on clause 2 when we last met. The Opposition were reassured to hear from the Minister that the proposal was to prosecute only those who tear up their documents. That is a great mischief, and we are at one with the Government in wanting to see it punished properly. Nevertheless, the clause in its present form does not say that, and we hope that she will return on Report with some amendments. The clause says that the offence is committed if the person concerned does not have an immigration document with him or her.

The amendments relate solely to the punishment that will follow if someone is guilty of an offence under the clause as currently drafted. They are probing—there is no question of our putting them to the vote—but through them I hope to draw information from the Minister about how she envisages the clause working in practice. Amendment No. 14 would make the offence summary only, rather than triable on indictment; amendment No. 15 would change the term of imprisonment from six months to four; and amendment No. 17 would mean that the offence would not be punishable by imprisonment if the offender had responsibility for a child—a minor—at the time.

As I said, these are probing amendments. The principal question is how many people the Minister thinks will be subject to the clause. How many offenders will there be per year? That is a hard question to answer, but one can speculate that because of the way in which the clause is drafted, the number of offenders might be very heavy. It could run into many thousands, given that a huge percentage of both port and in-country applicants for asylum do not present travel or other documentation, for the obvious reasons that we discussed earlier. Many are fleeing from persecution and never had identity documents or passports and were unlikely to approach the authorities seeking such documents—I mentioned Zimbabwe recently in that context—or they destroyed them, which is the actual mischief, on the advice or instruction of criminal gangs.

It would be helpful to have a further assurance today that the Government would in no circumstances seek to prosecute anyone other than when they arrive having destroyed documents, which really means those who arrive by aeroplane or boat. Otherwise, if there are prosecutions of the many other thousands who simply arrive undocumented having, for example, crossed Europe with one of the criminal gangs, there is the prospect of a huge number of people being open to prosecution.

We have to consider the effect on our already overcrowded prison system, bearing it in mind—this is critical—that when the courts punish people who are charged with the offence, they will be in a difficulty, because almost by definition, the persons concerned will have no money on them. Thus they will be unsuitable for a penalty such as community punishment or rehabilitation—the old probation and community service orders. A conditional discharge would not be an appropriate sentence, so we must

consider what the courts will have to do and ask how many people are likely to be affected.

If, as is generally understood, about three quarters of asylum seekers in country and at port are undocumented, and if there are about 80,000 applicants per year for asylum, the number of those who are undocumented will be very heavy—perhaps in the order of 50,000 or 60,000. If that so, is there any way of assessing the proportion of those who are undocumented because they have destroyed their documents on an aeroplane or a boat? At our last sitting, I think the Minister said that many thousands—she may have said tens of thousands—destroy their documents, so we are faced with many thousands of prosecutions.

We must therefore consider will happen in practice. An important aspect of a Committee is to probe the effect of the clause, in real terms, on courts and prisons. For example, let us imagine a scenario in which an asylum applicant destroys the documents on the plane or—unless the Minister can give us an absolute undertaking—arrives without documents, presents having arrived illegally in the back of a van, and is then arrested. I am now working towards the probing question of what will be the cost of all this.

On arrest, the asylum seeker will be held in custody and will appear within 24 hours before a lay magistrate, district judge or deputy district judge. On the first appearance, the Crown will inevitably apply for remand. The defence will then inevitably apply for bail, but is bail, under the Bail Act 1976, likely to be granted? The answer is almost certainly no. Almost by definition, the asylum applicant cannot provide a surety or a security, which is a payment of money into the court—in effect, a bond.

What can the district judge or magistrate do when facing an application for bail? He or she will turn straight away to section 5 of the Bail Act. One reason for remanding the asylum seeker in custody is that one cannot get sufficient relevant information about him or her. We should remember that, at the first hearing, it is almost inevitable not only that the asylum seeker will have to be represented but that an interpreter will need to be provided. I point, in passing, to the immense pressure on the interpreters service in London at present. The magistrate has to say whether there are strong community ties or a fixed abode, but there are none of these, so almost inevitably the individual, one of possibly tens of thousands a year—we need to know the anticipated number from the Minister—will be remanded in custody.

Legal aid will be granted. I say that because this offence carries a custodial sentence, so the courts are, quite properly, obliged to grant legal representation. There will be a remand in custody, certainly for a week. During that time, what is called advance information—a skeleton of what the case is all about—will be served by the Crown on the defence lawyer.

On return to the court, the asylum seeker will be asked to enter his or her plea. That takes one of two forms: either there is a plea of guilty or not guilty in

the magistrates court or the asylum seeker will opt for trial on indictment. Here is the rub: we immediately run into six more weeks of custody. That is because, as a matter of rote, the Crown Prosecution Service always asks for and requires a gap of six weeks before it has the committal papers ready for the Crown court committal, so the court remands the case back to itself in the magistrates court for six weeks. Then the defendant comes back and is committed to the Crown court.

Another two weeks probably pass before the defendant appears at the plea and directions hearing at the Crown court. If there is to be a trial, another four to eight weeks may pass before it takes place. We must all remember that, according to a parliamentary answer that I received a year or two ago, the cost to the Exchequer of one day in the Crown court amounts to approximately £8,000. We should also remember that the defendant has so far been in custody for possibly two and a half to three months, at a cost of approximately £30,000 a year.

When the jury returns a guilty verdict, what is the judge to do? I have already shown that the judge has a real problem with the sentence. It is ludicrous to impose a community service order, probation order or conditional discharge. I suspect that it is equally ludicrous to impose a fine of, say, £1,000 on a person who arrived penniless and has no money with which to pay.

It seems therefore that by some judicial mental manoeuvring the judge has to conclude that the offence before him is so serious that only a custodial sentence can be justified. It involves a little mental gymnastics on the part of the judiciary to reach that conclusion, but it is in the Bill—two years on indictment. The defendant is sentenced and serves out his time.

One wonders, incidentally, what is happening meanwhile to the asylum application. Is it on hold? Has it been started? There are limits on the number of visits a prisoner may receive. Can he have two sets of lawyers, one carrying out the asylum application parallel to the criminal proceedings?

The Minister should also tell us why she thinks—she may be right—that the criminal proceedings should be disposed of before the asylum application is disposed of. In any event, here is one defendant who will cost this country a fortune in terms of public expenditure. I have calculated that in an average case scenario the cost to the taxpayer of each such person could be in the region of £8,000 to £10,000, which, when multiplied by the, say, 12,000 who are prosecuted—that is, one quarter of those who actually commit the offence under the Bill as drafted—could cost us £100 million a year.

What happens in the event of the matter being tried in a magistrates court through a guilty plea? A fine may be imposed, then the asylum seeker has to come back before the court on a series of means inquiries, clogging up the already hugely heavy outstanding fine list, particularly in the London courts. It is a potential financial burden of extreme proportions on the

taxpayer. I wonder whether the Government have done any calculations. Will the Minister tell us, first, the likely number of those who will commit the offence under the clause as drafted; secondly, the number of those who would commit the offence under the clause as the Minister would wish it drafted—namely, the document tearer-uppers—and thirdly, how many of those she thinks will come before the courts annually? I think that she is storing up great trouble for the overcrowded prisons and the workings of the courts in terms of public cost.

That brings me on to my probing amendment, which simply asks the Minister why she wants a maximum of two years on indictment. Does she think that such a sentence is likely to be imposed—a sentence higher than that normally available to a magistrates court? Amendment No. 15 is drafted to ask the Minister specifically what the difference is between a six-month and a four-month sentence in the magistrates court. The answer is that there is no difference whatever. The maximum time that anyone serves, having been sentenced in a magistrates court, is six weeks—that is the beginning and the end of it. People are always released automatically by executive decision on licence after six weeks. Certain offences in a magistrates court carry only three or four months, and some carry six. In practice it boils down to little, if any, difference.

Amendment No. 17 is designed to ask the Minister to deal with children. Unless I have this wholly wrong, the asylum seeker whom I am discussing, who has arrived with children, having committed this document offence, will be placed in custody from the word go. If I am wrong, the Minister will tell me in the course of her arguments but it seems that, if the person concerned has dependent children, we will have—I put it at its lowest—the slightly odd situation where that person will go into custody and, I presume, the children will be taken into care pro tem. Is that right? Some people would find that a difficult concept.

Finally, if the Government prosecute people who come here directly without documents, could they find themselves in breach of article 31 of the 1951 convention? I have mentioned the enormous cost to the public purse that would arise from 12,000 prosecutions a year. Legal aid would of course be a major factor. What about the other possible cost to the Government of compensation if someone who should have had the protection of article 31 is wrongfully imprisoned? In understanding the true nature of refugee flight, article 31 provided specifically that refugees should not be penalised for lack of valid documentation.

Article 31 says:

''The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.''

In the case of Adimi in 2000, it was held that a policy of prosecuting refugees travelling on false documents was contrary to article 31. Can the Government distinguish, in respect of article 31, between those

who travel undocumented—people who are smuggled in by large gangs—and those who commit what we all think is a heinous offence, in tearing up their documents at the airport?

In the Adimi case, the court held that the prosecutions of those illegal immigrants using false documentation contravened international law. There have subsequently been a number of successful claims for compensation for those who were wrongly convicted and imprisoned. You will be amazed to hear this, Mr. Taylor, but there have been cases of compensation of £42,000 for three months served and three weeks' imprisonment; £40,000 for three months served; £32,000 for two months served; £40,000 for six weeks served by a single mother with two children; £35,000 for six weeks served and so on. Lord Justice Simon Brown, referring in his judgment to these issues, said:

''What, then, was the broad purpose sought to be achieved by Article 31? Self-evidently it was to provide immunity for genuine refugees''—

Do not forget, Mr. Taylor, that many of these people could be refugees—

''whose quest for asylum reasonably involved them in breaching the law . . . That Article 31 extends not merely to those ultimately accorded refugee status but also to those claiming asylum in good faith . . . is not in doubt. Nor is it disputed that Article 31's protection can apply equally to those using false documents as to those (characteristically the refugees of earlier times) who enter a country clandestinely.''

We need to focus on that issue. People might be caught by this clause who might have protection under Adimi. Lord Justice Simon Brown continued:

''There are, however, within the text of the Article certain expressed limitations upon its scope and these clearly require consideration. To enjoy protection the refugee must (a) have come directly from the country of his persecution (b) present himself to the authorities without delay, and (c) show good cause for his illegal entry or presence.''

Having considered each of those propositions, he stated that

''some element of choice is indeed open to refugees as to where they may properly claim asylum'',

and ''directly'' does not mean in the first country through which the refugee passes. Justice Newman agreed with that opinion and described the convention as

''a living instrument, changing and developing with the times so as to be relevant and to afford meaningful protection to refugees''.

It is important that the Minister, in response to the amendments, deals at length with the case of ex parte Adimi, and provides a positive, copper-bottomed assurance that she has no fears that any prosecutions under clause 2 could fall foul of the protection offered by article 31. Unless she is entirely satisfied about that, not only will it be a principle of great importance to us all, but it could impose a heavy cost on the taxpayer.

My probing amendments seek to draw from the Government a positive indication of the numbers to be prosecuted and the likely cost to the Exchequer. If the Minister has any criticisms of the scenario that I have described involving an asylum applicant who is immediately taken into custody, retained in custody

for the duration and then sentenced, I want to hear her solutions. There may be problems; we simply do not know.

I conclude with the observation that, whatever the Minister may wish, the clause states that:

''A person commits an offence if when he is first interviewed . . . he does not have with him an immigration document which is in force, and satisfactorily establishes his identity''.

I hope that the Minister will respond to my points and that other members of the Committee have opinions on them. I strongly hold the view that tearing up and destroying documents is a serious matter that must be seriously dealt with.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I, too, welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester to the Committee. The hon. Member for Woking has done an admirable job in setting out the reasons behind his amendments, and in probing the Minister on her intentions and her anticipation of the consequences of the measures. She made great play of her view that the measure is intended to be a deterrent—that the intention is not to secure a large number of successful prosecutions and imprisonments, but to prevent people from destroying their documents. We are happy to support a measure that would successfully stop people deliberately destroying their documents. However, as the hon. Member for Woking said, the difficulty is that the Bill does not differentiate between those who destroy their documents and those who do not have documents—lack of documentation is made an absolute offence. We will have to revisit that over the course of the Bill until there is a satisfactory codification. Whatever the Minister's good intentions, once we make law and create offences that can lead to prosecution, such prosecutions will take place. We must ensure that they take place on the right basis. The hon. Gentleman made that point strongly, and I do not wish to repeat anything.

I wish to emphasise three areas. First, there is the position of those who lack documentation. Secondly, there is the point to which the hon. Gentleman referred: the interrelationship, about which there is significant concern, between the offence and article 31 of the convention. As the Minister will recall, section 72 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 provides that a person convicted of a serious offence can be excluded from refugee convention protection. Is it her intention that, if someone is convicted and sentenced to two years, that person will fall within the remit of section 72 of that Act? If it is, that will be entirely inappropriate. It becomes a circular trap into which an individual falls. I believe that that would be outwith the intent of, and our responsibilities under, the refugee convention. We should be open to challenge on that basis. Can the Minister make it clear whether she believes that it would be acceptable, in such circumstances, to remove the protections offered by the convention?

Thirdly, the hon. Member for Woking mentioned the Adimi case. We have been here before many times. He will recall that, as a result of the High Court's

finding, an amendment was introduced in another place to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Rather confusingly, section 31 of that Act dealt with article 31(1) protection. The principle behind that amendment was to provide appropriate convention protection under those circumstances. Many assurances were given at that time that there would be a change in prosecution policy and that guidelines would be introduced—exactly the sort of assurances that the Minister gave last week. There was, for a time, a reduction in prosecutions, but there is ample anecdotal evidence that a rapidly increasing number of documentation cases are being tried with summary conviction. Very often, such prosecutions are brought contrary to the Crown Prosecution Service's guidelines and contrary to the Home Office asylum policy instructions. If that is the case, it means that any assurances that the Minister may give this Committee have little value.

What are the current statistics relating to documentation cases, and what are the consequences of the assurances given by the Minister? At what stage does the CPS conduct an audit of its prosecution policy in that area, and does it believe that convictions are being secured—often when a proper, appropriate section 31 defence exists—in magistrates courts, simply for ease of administration? If that is the case, should not we be even more careful about whether the Bill contains scope for a massive expansion for prosecutions for lack of documentation? Should not we concentrate on those who deliberately destroy their passports and not on the wider net currently available to prosecution authorities? The Minister denies that that is the intention, but we know that that will be the consequence if the Bill is passed unamended.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

The hon. Member for Woking encouraged hon. Members on both sides of the Committee to express our thoughts, so I shall do so. I was grateful for his illuminating comments and found the scenarios that he painted very helpful in examining the clause. He made the point, not for the first time during our discussions, that we must prosecute only those who have deliberately destroyed the travel documents that can identify them.

We come up against that issue time and again: how do we identify those who have not been issued with identity papers, and those who have been issued with such papers but who have subsequently destroyed them in transit? Is it enough for us simply to ask people who have arrived in the UK, ''Did you have identity papers when you started your journey? Where are they now and did you voluntarily destroy them?'' We can be confident that 100 per cent. of those who arrive in the country without documents will claim either that they were never issued them in the first place, or that they were forced to destroy them by the people traffickers. I cannot imagine an asylum seeker arriving in the UK and voluntarily admitting that they destroyed the papers of their own volition.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The hon. Gentleman's argument is correct, but does that not undermine the assurances given by the Minister on Thursday? If it is impossible to determine that any person has started off with travel documents, it is ipso facto impossible to determine

that they destroyed them. The Minister's assurances therefore render the clause useless.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

I understand what the hon. Gentleman says. My argument was not that it was impossible to decide whether documents had been destroyed, but that we cannot reasonably expect that information to come directly from the asylum seekers. We will have to use investigative techniques and intelligence to decide whether the balance of probability is that someone has destroyed their papers voluntarily or was never issued them. I was not making the point that we can never tell, in any circumstances. If that were the case, presumably the hon. Gentleman's position would be that anyone who arrives in the UK without identification should not be subject to criminal prosecution, which would undermine the point of clause 2.

The hon. Member for Woking, in making his points effectively, undermined his party's position. Whenever the Government release the quarterly figures on the number of asylum seekers entering the country, the Conservative party attacks the Government, saying that the figures are too high. That is the nub of the problem. The Conservative party attacks the Government not on the basis of processes, although that may form part of its attack, but on the basis that the total number of asylum seekers being allowed to enter the country and being given support through the social security system is too high. I presume, therefore, that the Conservative party would welcome any reduction in those figures. I accept what the hon. Gentleman said about not pressing his amendments to a vote, but they are probing amendments, so let us probe. How would the amendments reduce the total number of asylum seekers coming to Britain?

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

That is not the purpose of the amendments. From time to time, we do criticise the Government, if we believe that we should do so, and we hope that that criticism is constructive. We believe that those who are genuine asylum seekers should be granted refugee status. The hon. Gentleman understands, because he pointed it out in his first remarks, that these are probing amendments to allow a debate on the practical effects in terms of prison, costs and ancillary matters.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

I am grateful for that clarification. I agree that the amendments are not intended to reduce numbers. Were they to be accepted, they would have no effect on numbers. That would not go down particularly well with the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis). On the hon. Gentleman's substantive point about the justice system, justice does indeed cost a lot of money. Whether or not we accept the deterrent value of what is already in the Bill, it is not particularly plausible to say that, because the justice process costs money and involves long delays, people who have broken the law should not be pursued.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

Nor do I.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

Well, the hon. Gentleman made a powerful argument against the clause based on delay and cost. He mentioned a number of figures. He talked of the possibility of 12,000 prosecutions a year, each

costing £8,000 to £10,000. He came up with the figure of £100 million a year. He presumably suggested those figures in order to argue that the provisions as they stand will cost too much.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. If a crime is committed, a prosecution must take place. Justice must take its normal course. I am not saying that because the cost might be £100 million it is not worth proceeding—quite the reverse. I am asking for a debate on the costs, so that the public are aware of what the consequences might be. Principles are principles. The hon. Gentleman is right that they must be followed irrespective of cost.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

I accept that. I simply come back to the point that I made earlier. The provisions in the Bill are intended as a deterrent. The Government cannot possibly know how much of a deterrent they will be and neither can the Opposition. All we can do is enact the provisions of the Bill as they stand in the expectation that they will have some deterrent value. There is some concern in my constituency that people who are arriving in the country without documentation are being allowed to remain in the country for an unjustified length of time. My local authority in Scotland is the only one that has accepted asylum seekers as part of the Home Office dispersal programme. I broadly welcome the measure.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

My hon. Friend the Member for Woking has shone a bright and searching light into some of the delays that affect the prosecution of all sorts of crime. Delays would certainly have the impact that he describes on the prosecution of crimes committed under clause 2 of what the Government hope will soon be an Act. The first issue that I should like to raise is whether the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) or my hon. Friend is right. I have my preferences. Should we look at how the criminal justice system operates in respect of these crimes, and is it too expensive and beset with delays? Should the Minister look at additional ways of expediting the prosecution of crimes committed under clause 2 and other crimes committed under the Bill?

It is no good having a clause that is simply a paper tiger. I am talking about a clause under which it is too expensive to prosecute, or which leads to people being in prison only for the time during which they are awaiting trial because at the end of that period the courts decide that it would be inappropriate to impose the maximum sentence. Let us say that they impose a reasonable sentence. The person who is found guilty is released in the usual way, after serving between a third and a half of their sentence, which is found to equal, or possibly to exceed, the time that they spent awaiting trial. That is a useless process.

If the Minister is serious about the legislation, she should be considering an expedited process for crimes of the type that we are discussing. It may be appropriate for her to consider the immigration

tribunal system dealing with all immigration-related crimes.

The second issue in my view—I am sure that I am not alone in this—is that there is a stage between document tearer-uppers and non-documented genuine asylum seekers. There are those who are not really asylum seekers and know it, but they get to this country by some means or other, with or without documents, and choose, for as long as possible, to remain in the background.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

I do not wish to be pedantic, but the hon. Gentleman suggested that those who have never been documented are automatically genuine asylum seekers. I am not sure whether that is always the case.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I certainly did not intend to suggest that. Let me give as an example those who perhaps are not smuggled by people traffickers across Europe, who do not get into the back of a lorry in Romania and end up somewhere in the Kent, Sussex or Hampshire countryside, but who simply hitch a lift on a sailing boat out of a harbour on the north coast of France and end up in a harbour or perhaps even on a beach on the south coast of England. Those people fall between the two extremes about which the debate has so far ranged. They may arrive with or without documents, but they certainly arrive with the intention of circumventing the immigration process.

I am just a little concerned that the assurances so generously given by the Minister on Thursday will exclude the prosecution of those people as well, if they started without documents, because people do not need documents to get on a sailing boat. They do not need documents to get on a small sailing vessel at a port in northern France. I hope that the Minister, in repeating those assurances, will add the qualification that, if someone starts without documents but is not, in all probability, a genuine asylum seeker, they can still be prosecuted.

The third issue arising from the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking is that it is essential that we have holding places for those who are charged with immigration-related offences as well as for those seeking asylum. They should be places in which the judicial process can take place expeditiously and in which legal advice is available in respect of any crimes that they may have been charged with and of their asylum or immigration applications. Although I recognise that it is not appropriate for huge numbers of them to be miles from anywhere in the countryside, I appreciate that it is essential that holding places should be provided.

We need to be more robust in respect of my hon. Friend's fourth point: the courts' intervention in the interpretation of article 31 of the refugee convention. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said that we were in this place to make law; we are also here to influence the interpretation of the law. My hon. Friend did not go into the full argument—I do not blame him for that; perhaps the Minister will do so when she responds to the debate—but I find it impossible to understand how an intelligent person, even a judge, reading the words of the convention, could conclude that the words ''directly from a

territory'' mean anything other than directly from a territory. In other words, if someone has come via France, Belgium or the Netherlands, they have come not directly but indirectly; they have not made their claim in the first safe country. They are therefore bogus asylum seekers. That is the inevitable interpretation of the words in the convention. The only way in which someone can arrive in this country directly is by air or ship—

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

Or rocket.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

A particularly long-distance rocket. They would arrive either by air or ship, which will have made no other landing between the country they are fleeing and this country. If that is not the courts' interpretation, we need to know why it is not and, if they are serious about the measure, Ministers need to legislate to correct their interpretation, because that is the function of this House. Hon. Members are sent to Parliament to ensure, as far as is possible, that the courts and all those outside understand what the law means, and understand that it does not change at the whim of a lord justice of appeal.

Those four points are of great importance and I hope that the Minister will deal with them in her reply. There is a fifth point: assurances given by Ministers are assurances as to policy, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said. The question is how long those assurances and that policy remain current. Is it the Minister's policy, the policy of the Home Office, or the policy of Her Majesty's Government? Is it immutable? If it is not unchangeable, in what forum will it be announced that the policy has changed? If it is possible that the policy will change, it is possible for the Minister, or a future Minister of this Government, to change the policy, and certainly it is possible for a Minister of another Government to change the policy.

The assurances as to the policy for prosecution are bankable only as long as there is no change of Government. That means that we will have put in the law legislation that a future Government may wish, as a matter of policy, to be operated differently, and I am not sure whether that is what the Minister or Liberal Democrat Members desire. I suspect that it is the desire of some of my hon. Friends, although perhaps not all of them.

I repeat something that I said when I was working for Ministers of a different colour in the 1980s and 1990s: it is unwise to legislate and give powers to a future Government that may be used in a way with which one would not be happy.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

We have had a wide-ranging debate that has gone further than the terms of the amendment. However, I appreciate the spirit in which the hon. Members for Woking and for Somerton and Frome made their points. Although we have been over this ground before, let me restate both our intention and the reason why the clause is constructed as it is.

It is our intention to use this measure where it is appropriate. That is subject to all the usual caveats that the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the authorities consider when they judge whether any particular incident has a reasonable chance of successful prosecution and is in the public interest.

They will take both those factors into account in every case in deciding which incidents should go to prosecution. Our intention is to be able to prosecute in certain circumstances people who deliberately destroy or dispose of their document.

In our previous discussions, citing advice from parliamentary counsel in particular, I explained why the clause needs to be constructed in this way, but I shall repeat my argument briefly here. If the clause were constructed with a direct offence of criminalising people who destroy or dispose of documents, clearly the burden of proof on the prosecution would be to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the person had destroyed or disposed of their document. That is difficult to do, for two particular reasons—there may be more.

One reason is that the circumstances leading up to the person saying when they get off a plane and present at immigration control in the UK that they do not have a document, are difficult for the prosecution to elucidate and satisfy to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. First, they are all in the person's head. Secondly, the only other witness will be the facilitator and, thirdly, most of the events will have taken place either in another country or on a journey outside the confines of the UK. Technically, obtaining the evidence to support such prosecutions is extremely difficult and would render the clause inoperable—it would not be possible to prosecute someone.

The second reason is that, even if we were able to extend the measures that we have already instituted, such as CCTV cameras at Heathrow and training our immigration officers in the observation techniques used by the security services, so that they can try, in as many instances as possible, to link people who turn up without documents with a particular flight—we are doing all those things—in many instances, people are able to hide in an airport; they are able to hide air-side. They do not necessarily present themselves at immigration control immediately on getting off the plane.

Even with all those investigative and intelligence-led techniques, it is extremely difficult to be able to ascertain a certain link. Being able to do that for all flights across all airports raises exactly the kind of resource issues raised by the hon. Member for Woking in relation to prosecutions. Formulating the clause in a more direct way would make it impotent.

Therefore, the clause has been constructed in this way. For it to be an offence, the prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that someone has turned up without documents. The clause has to be read in its entirety. As Members will know, it provides for a reasonable excuse. That reasonable excuse will be mobilised at the various stages in the process: first, in terms of whether to arrest someone; and secondly, in terms of whether to prosecute them. Only in cases where the prosecution feels that there is a reasonable chance of success and that it is in the public interest will prosecutions ensue.

I hope that that explanation satisfies Members about why the clause is constructed as it is. To do

otherwise would mean that we had no useable offence for people destroying or disposing of their documents.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight asked what would happen if I were replaced as a Minister or if the Government changed. I hope that he understands that it is commonly accepted that, by strongly emphasising the Government's intentions on the record as part of our consideration of the Bill, the authorities will know how they must administer the process provided for in the clause when it becomes law. I have agreed to write to the Committee—I intend to do so, if not today, tomorrow—to address issues that were raised in our previous sitting about how the authorities will make judgments at the various stages of the process of apprehension, arrest and prosecution. I hope that that will fully convince the Committee that we will prosecute only in the circumstances that I outlined.

The hon. Member for Woking raised the issue of numbers. His basic argument was that the number of people who could be prosecuted is so enormous and the process of prosecution, often involving detention, would be so lengthy that enormous costs would be incurred, the criminal justice system would be trammelled and many people would be put in prison when we already have a difficulty in accommodating the people whom the courts send there.

I shall deal in a moment with the crux of the hon. Gentleman's argument, which I believe is slightly curious, but, on the numbers, he will know that, as a result of measures that we have taken, the number of people claiming asylum has halved. It should be noted that we are talking about a total not of 80,000 a year claims but in the region of 40,000 claims a year. On current figures, between 25 and 30 per cent. of those claims are made at ports, so on average between 10,000 and 12,000 people are claiming at ports.

Mark Oaten (Liberal Democrat, Winchester)

Given that the number has halved in the last period, does the Minister envisage that trend continuing in the next two or three years?

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I envisage the numbers decreasing, but I am not talking about how quickly they will do so, or about any other target. However, it is because of our need to take further action to deal with unfounded claims that we are introducing the measures in the Bill.

We are discussing 40,000 people claiming asylum, of whom 25 to 30 per cent. make their claim at ports. We need to be careful when we talk about claims and total numbers of people because some claimants have dependants, but between 60 and 70 per cent. of claimants at ports who have arrived on a plane, ship or the Eurostar say that they have no documents. The calculation is clear: on current figures, between 10,000 and 12,000 people could be prosecuted unless they had a reasonable excuse for not having their documents, which is provided for in the clause. However, it is clear that there will not be that many prosecutions. As I have said, the Crown Prosecution Service will apply its usual tests of the chance of success and whether a

prosecution is in the public interest when deciding whether to prosecute. As with any other offence or behaviour on which authorities have to decide whether to proceed to charge and prosecution, the authorities will make their decisions based on the cases that come before them.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Does the Minister believe that the prosecuting authorities should interpret the fact that someone has arrived on the service of a secure carrier, such as an airline, Eurostar or ferry company, as evidence that they started out with documents? If so, the number of potential victims of prosecution will be larger.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

There will be roughly the number that I outlined. One starts from the presumption that, by and large, people who arrive at a port—and certainly those who arrive at an airport—will have had a document in order to get there. There is the possibility that we entertained at the last sitting, that somebody could claim that they had bribed an official and got into the hold or the lavatory or somewhere like that, but the number of such cases will be minuscule. Although there will be a general assumption in respect of airports, the situation is less clear in respect sea carriers, particularly vessels that carry cargo. Somebody could claim that they were in a freight vehicle and got out on the ferry.

All of that will be examined when people are interviewed. Although a large number of people could be prosecuted, the authorities will apply the same analysis, reasoning and investigation of the facts of the case as presented by the individual as it would otherwise in order to judge on whether it is in the public interest and the interests of justice that a prosecution is brought.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

Can the Minister tell us her best estimate of the number of people who might be prosecuted for destroying their documents—the very mischief that she is concerned about?

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I am not going to give the hon. Gentleman a number. I am attempting to explain carefully that that is a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service. On the basis of the information given by the applicant about how they have arrived, their journey and the reasons why they have not got a document, the CPS will make decisions in the normal way.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

The Minister is sending conflicting signals. We are asking her this question today because, at the last sitting, she referred to her thoughts about whether the measure was necessary

''for every one of the many tens of thousands of people who could be prosecuted for destroying their documents''.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 8 January 2004; c. 64.]

Is that the pool affected, or has her position changed since 8 January?

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

As I have just said, on current figures the number of claims in question—which is different from the number of people—would be between 25 and 30 per cent. of the approximately 40,000 people who claim at port. However, the majority would be people who claimed to have had no documents. We are therefore talking about a

potential pool of between 10,000 and 12,000. The hon. Gentleman needs to choose his words carefully because he did not ask me about the potential pool but about the number of people who I thought would be prosecuted, which is a different question. His question is a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service when it considers the cases before it.

I accept that the amendment is probing, but it is designed to reduce the maximum penalty for the offence to four months imprisonment. There are two reasons why I do not want to go down that route. First, in those cases that are prosecuted, even if the prosecution is successful, not every offence will result in the maximum penalty. It is necessary to have the potential for a serious penalty for those cases in which it is patently obvious that somebody is trying to abuse the immigration system, or in which it is suspected or accepted that somebody has tried to do that on more than one occasion. There are too many incidents of people coming into the country illegally, successively being removed and entering again. A serious penalty for such incidents ought to be available to the courts.

Secondly, there is a more general reason, which is the most important one. The clause is about trying to change people's behaviour. I would be happy if we did not have to bring a single prosecution and most people started to realise that they might be criminalised and stopped if they destroy their documents. I want people to turn up at a port and present their documents, enabling us in most cases to identify who they are and where they have come from. That is important for the assessment of the claim and, as we noted last time, if their claim fails it is important in returning people home. That is what I am seeking to achieve—not thousands of prosecutions. People turning up should keep hold of their documents.

It is important that the offence as we are crafting it constitutes a strong deterrent against the behaviour that we are trying to change and deters people from destroying their documents. That is an important reason for having a range of penalties, including the prospect of a serious period of imprisonment. We intend to publicise widely—on carriers, in host communities, and so on—the possibility of being charged and prosecuted for destroying and disposing of documents.

The hon. Member for Woking raised another argument about the cost of a large number of prosecutions. There are already substantial costs to the system from people destroying their documents, which, as I have said, means that we cannot identify people and often have to detain them at the end of the process to try to re-document them. We have just brought a delegation of Chinese officials from China to work through 150 Chinese people whom we have detained because we cannot document them. There are significant costs in the system relating to the consequences of people not having documents. If we can change behaviour to some degree, perhaps significantly, and not have those costs at the back end of the process, the offence will have served a useful purpose—not only by making the system fairer, but by reducing the overall cost to the taxpayer.

Mark Oaten (Liberal Democrat, Winchester)

I want to ask the Minister about her comment on the publicity in countries. Although I understand the deterrent argument clearly, is there a concern about such publicity? If it says that somebody could go to jail for not having their documentation, how will the Minister balance the message that that may send to genuine asylum seekers who might fear that they could go to jail if—for the good reasons that the Minister is setting out—they do not have that documentation?

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

We would not seek to say on carriers something about not arriving without a document. However, we would say that if we believe that a person has destroyed or disposed of their documents, they will be liable for prosecution, and we would say what the penalties are. We will make it clear—as I have done throughout the course of the Bill—that people run the risk of being prosecuted where we believe that to be the case.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Perhaps the Minister was going to deal with this point later. Is she saying that there is no mischief in people who could have documents arriving without them in the ''sailing boat across the channel'' scenario?

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

No. I will deal with the hon. Gentleman's point now rather than later. Of course, there is a mischief in relation to some people who deliberately intend to evade immigration control. There are already provisions on illegal entry and similar offences in the Immigration Act 1971 that would cover that type of behaviour and cases in which we thought that the intention of someone who never had papers and was entering illegally was to use that fact to evade immigration control. We already have legal provisions with which we can prosecute in those circumstances.

Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk)

I am interested in what the Minister said about giving information on carriers. Could she say a little more about precisely what steps the Government will take to ensure that information is distributed to passengers at the point of embarkation and on the flight? In relation to imports of illegal meat, in the two and a half years that I have been in this place, I have listened to Ministers giving assurances on what will be done, but the experience of most travellers on aeroplanes is that nothing happens.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

Clearly, we would want to be selective and targeted about the flights involved. It would be a waste of resources to put the information that I am talking about on flights from which people rarely arrive undocumented and claiming asylum.

That said, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I intend to ensure that we get out the message about the situation and the possible consequences at the point of embarkation and on carriers before people land. It is in our interests to do that, because our intention is to prevent people from destroying their documents—to make them think twice about it. To that end, they need to know that we have passed this legislation, and that they are liable to prosecution if they destroy their documents. We do not need legislation to do that, but

an important part of our implementation of the provision will be to ensure that we communicate as thoroughly as we can to everyone on the flights that we identify as problematic—in that they produce numbers of people who arrive undocumented and claim asylum—well before they land the fact that they must not destroy their documents.

I was grateful for the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart. I think that the hon. Member for Woking was arguing that because of the potential number of prosecutions we should not have a maximum sentence of two years. That is a line of argument that he would not employ with any other crime. On the basis of that argument, are we to reduce maximum sentences for theft, burglary, street crime or violence because the courts might send some criminals to prison? I know that he would not argue that; he will accept that it is a spurious argument in those circumstances, as well as in relation to this offence.

The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome raised two points. First, he argued that if a person received a maximum penalty of two years under section 72, I think, of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, it would have to be taken into consideration in assessing an asylum claim. Theoretically, that is true: if someone got the maximum sentence, they would be liable under the provisions of that section. However, even then, if a person can show that, despite that, they are not a danger to the community, they will not be excluded from the provisions of the refugee convention.

The hon. Gentleman also made a point about the Adimi judgment and section 31. Indeed, a number of hon. Members mentioned that. Rather than prolong the debate, I should say that we have tabled an important amendment on the subject of section 31, and it would be appropriate to reserve our debate on the matter until we discuss that amendment.

The hon. Gentleman claimed that there had been a significant number of prosecutions since 1999 in which a section 31 defence had been successful. I have no information about that—that has not been said to me, and I have no evidence of that. If he produces that information, I shall certainly investigate it, but as things stand, I have to say that I do not think that that is the case.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I am on weak ground because I have only anecdotal evidence from practitioners. I was not saying that there have been successful section 31 defences, but that in circumstances when such a defence might have been expected, the individual opted to plead guilty and accept a punishment such as four months' imprisonment. I was attempting to make that point on behalf of practitioners who know more about it than I do.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

They may purport to know more about the subject than any of us, but we must proceed according to the evidence. I repeat that I have no evidence from the Crown Prosecution Service or elsewhere that that is the case.

I hope that the hon. Member for Woking feels that he has received some assurances and answers to his main questions. The amendments would unnecessarily constrain the courts as to the question of a maximum sentence, and would dilute the deterrent effect of the clause. The clause and the maximum sentence enshrined in it are necessary to provide a fairer system that does not include the delays and problems that he outlined. I invite him to withdraw the amendment.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I am disappointed by the Minister's reply. She has totally misunderstood the purpose of my amendments—I hope that that was not deliberate—and utterly failed to answer some of my questions. She must have not understood, although I made it clear, that these are probing amendments seeking to obtain justification for the Government's actions. More importantly, they seek to ascertain the practical effects of the Bill. It is absurd of her to level at me the accusation that amendment No. 15 seeks to reduce the sentence from six to four months. It does not. It is a probing amendment designed to find out, as I have already asked, how long someone would serve in prison on six, four and three-month sentences. She did not answer that.

Then the Minister said that I am arguing that, because of the cost of prosecutions, we do not need a maximum sentence of two years. I said no such thing. It is ludicrous to say that I am against a maximum sentence of two years' imprisonment. I have sought simply to illustrate the heavy costs involved, and have asked her to provide her best estimate of those costs and comment on the procedure that I think will take place. She has done neither. She talked about the need for the court to be able to impose a serious penalty, and that is right. She talked about a range of penalties, and I covered the penalties that a court can impose and gave reasons why practical difficulties might occur. She did not respond to my observations on those possible, but unlikely, penalties.

Unless I missed it, there was no response from the Minister as to whether the asylum case will proceed in parallel with the criminal case, or whether it will precede or follow it. Will two sets of lawyers be involved? There has been no response to my query about what happens if an asylum seeker who is arrested and placed in custody has children present. What happens to the children? Can she confirm that, in such a situation, those children would go into care?

I outlined a set of practical consequences of the clause. I hope that the Minister will not resort to the mischief of arguing that the Conservative party Front Bench does not want to punish people who tear up their documents—it would be very uncharacteristic if she did. Quite the reverse: we take a strong view about law breaking. Let me make it plain for the final time that the mischief of tearing up documents is very serious. We are at one with the Government in wanting to send a message to people that if they tear up their documents they will, rightly, suffer serious consequences.

I give credit to the Minister, who has perhaps not been briefed adequately to respond to most of the points that I raised. Perhaps, over the next day or two,

her officials will brief her more accurately on whether the practical consequences of what I think will happen are likely. She may write to the Committee. I am disappointed by her response: my purpose was solely to create a peg for the Committee to discuss in detail what would happen in practice.

Jon Owen Jones (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff Central)

May I return to the point that the hon. Gentleman made about the Conservative party's serious attitude towards the destruction of documents and wanting to ensure that it is reduced and effective action is taken against it? Since we are nearing the end of the debate on clause 2, can I take it that the Conservative party is holding back all the strengthening amendments that it has in mind for another place? We have not yet seen one here.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

The hon. Gentleman tweaks me slightly and probably thinks that he has made a clever point that has raised a few smiles from the Committee, including a small one from me. Frankly, I could have tabled an amendment saying, ''for a maximum of two years on indictment, substitute four years''. To be blunt, that would not have mattered, because my amendments really are probing. He must understand that the Committee stage of any Bill is a time when we discuss what might happen in certain scenarios, and we flesh out from the general principle—with which we all agree—the arguments to cover the nuts and bolts. Far too often, Committees fail to discuss the practical effects of policies on the world outside and those who operate them. That is my best response to him.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I am obviously very sorry that the hon. Gentleman feels that I have not answered his probing questions adequately. In all respects but one, I feel that I have done. Perhaps it would help if, when he is speaking to his own amendments, he did not roam around other amendments that will be considered later. That would help us to manage the response more clearly for him.

On the point about children, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my apologies: I had intended to reply. Does not he agree that, when a defendant appears with a child, that matter should be left to the court to decide? That is what occurs in every other case in which an adult defendant has a child with them: the court makes the decision whether that is an issue material to the determination of a sentence.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

The Minister has completely missed the point. I am terribly sorry to say that. I am not talking about the issue of sentence: I am talking about the position of a child on remand or in custody, which takes place during the eight weeks leading up to the trial. No doubt she will deal with that in due course. It is an entirely different point. The court does not decide what happens to an accompanying child when a person is remanded on bail or in custody. That has nothing to do with the court. The court has no jurisdiction over the child. I do not know where she has got the idea that it has. Moreover, the child does not have to be present.

I hoped that the Minister would comment on the interesting suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight about an expedited court procedure in relation to such matters, which could mean that asylum offences under clause 2 would pass through the courts rapidly. However, I do not think that she commented on that. I have expressed my disappointment, and repeat, for the avoidance of doubt, that the amendments were probing. The debate has been useful, and there is no question of my wanting to put any of the amendments to the vote. They were merely a peg for discussion.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

Just for complete clarity, does the hon. Gentleman accept that his amendment No. 17 reads:

''Clause 2, page 2, line 44, at end insert

', or

(c) where the person has with him a dependent child, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum'.''

On page 2, line 44, the clause reads:

''(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both.''

That refers to sentence and imprisonment, and not to bail. It would be helpful if he understood his own amendments.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I repeat: the Minister is missing the point entirely. This discussion will become extremely tedious for the Committee, if it has not become so already, so I shall write to her about it. One of the matters that I raised was the practical consequences of a remand in custody prior to sentence, invoking section 5 of the Bail Act 1976, on the children of the person who is in the dock. I simply asked the Minister's officials to do some serious research on that matter and to write to me about it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I beg to move amendment No. 59, in

clause 2, page 2, line 45, leave out 'or immigration officer'.

We have had an interesting debate this morning, but have been making rather stately progress. I hope to speed up matters a little in discussing the next few groups of amendments.

I have tabled the amendment to explore the role of the immigration officer, and to seek assurances about that matter from the Minister. The clause expands immigration officers' powers of to make arrests into the area of arrests for criminal offences. Some have argued that arrest either by a constable or by an immigration officer should be made with the support of a warrant. I have considered that view, and rejected it, as I understand that there are circumstances in which it would not be appropriate or possible to obtain a warrant in order to achieve the objective that the Government have in mind.

However, there are serious concerns about the role of immigration officers in arresting a suspect, and I shall comment on those. There is a strong argument, which I have made elsewhere, for immigration officers

to be reclassified to produce an effective border control force. Such a force would have appropriate powers of arrest for crimes that relate to the ports of entry, and everyone would then be clear that immigration officers were not only an administrative body but were capable of investigation and arrest in appropriate circumstances. I do not reject the view that there is a role for immigration officers in that respect.

First, I am worried that, at present, when making an arrest, an immigration officer does not operate within the terms of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The Act was drafted for good purposes—to protect the interests of those who are arrested for criminal offences—and, on occasions, we have extended and reformed it as it applies to police constables. We have made analogous arrangements for Her Majesty's Customs and Excise when it is performing a similar role. Some guidance is given to immigration officers in certain aspects of their work, but if it is envisaged that immigration officers should have the powers of arrest that go beyond the immigration formalities into the area of criminal offences, it is imperative that PACE be reformed to take into account the new class of arresting officers. Will the Minister assure me that she intends to publish a code and hold immigration officers to it, and that it will have within it the same provisions as would apply to a constable arresting a suspect under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act?

My second point relates to training. Immigration officers are trained to a high level in many respects, but they are not trained to make arrests, because it is not something that falls within their usual pattern of work. Police constables are so trained. It seems entirely appropriate that, if we are to give a power of arrest to a new class of officers, they must have the training that goes with that power. In a previous sitting, the hon. Member for Woking and I both said that the discretion open to an arresting officer is limited because he must make an arrest if he has a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed an offence, which is the absolute offence of not having documents. Immigration officers must have the training appropriate to the powers that we are now to confer on them.

Thirdly, a substantial process is available for those who wish to make complaints against the police. It is operated by the Police Complaints Authority, which carries out an independent examination of complaints. However, that is not present in respect of immigration officers. There is a small complaints department within the immigration service, but there is nothing like the process of independent investigation of complaints against an officer that would be available to someone arrested by a police constable. If we are to give such a power to immigration officers—I do not reject that proposal per se—we must have available for immigration officers the apparatus that would be available for a police constable making an arrest. I do not offer my view in order to reduce the scope of the Minister's proposal; I do so because if we are to provide powers, we must provide the appropriate

remedies and safeguards, as well. What is good enough for the police service should be good enough for the immigration service or Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in the same circumstances.

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

I have allowed a broad discussion on earlier amendments, but the amendment now under discussion covers a narrow and specific point and I shall bring to order hon. Members who seek to widen the debate.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Perth)

I rise simply to make a specific point about the reasoning behind the amendment, as explained by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome. The operations of immigration officers would be brought within the criminal legal system of Scotland, so I hope that the Minister will not limit her reply to references to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which has no application in Scotland.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

Let me begin by agreeing with the spirit of most of what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said about his amendment. I hope I can reassure him that the existing position is not as deficient as he seems to suppose.

First, immigration officers already have the power to arrest for most immigration offences. The offence in question will, by and large, be detected by immigration officers, so it makes sense and is consistent with the treatment of other offences that immigration officers should be able to arrest for such an offence. The hon. Gentleman is not arguing against that point; he is concerned about safeguards and reassurances in implementing that power of arrest more generally.

Secondly, we are generally trying to ensure that in executing these powers the immigration service is increasingly self-sufficient and independent of the police, which is what the police would prefer. Given our general direction, I therefore agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must ensure that the safeguards and the apparatus in place are adequate.

The hon. Gentleman made three points. First, immigration officers do operate in relation to PACE—I shall elaborate on the matter in the debate on his next amendment. The immigration PACE codes of practice 2000 specify clearly the relevant powers and provisions of the PACE codes that must be adhered to. The letter as well as the spirit of PACE is already incorporated securely in the codes of practice that apply when immigration officers execute those powers.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Perth)

We have had references to PACE, but what is the position of immigration officers in Scotland?

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

As the hon. Lady knows, PACE ensures that when implementing the powers, immigration officers and police operate in accordance with the safeguards in the codes of practice when they are arresting people. The fact that the hon. Lady claims that PACE does not apply in Scotland does not mean that PACE is irrelevant in ensuring standards of practice and behaviour by officers when they are arresting someone. I understand her irritation, but asylum and immigration are reserved matters; that does not

mean that how we require immigration officers to behave when they are executing important powers is not safeguarded in relation to how they operate in Scotland. It clearly is, and the codes of practice that I outlined to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome make that perfectly clear.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Perth)

I imagine that immigration officers in Scotland are subject to rules equivalent to those of PACE, but they are not subject to PACE because it does not apply in Scotland. The Minister will be aware that the criminal law of Scotland is separate from that of England and Wales and, moreover, is devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Therefore, although immigration is a reserved matter, as far as the criminal law of Scotland is concerned the Minister is incorrect to say that immigration officers in Scotland are subject to an English criminal evidence Act.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I did not refer to the Act itself, I was talking about the equivalent codes of practice, which will apply when people are being arrested. My point is that the same standards will apply to immigration officers in Scotland as in England. Surely the point on which hon. Members should want reassurance is that there will be no dilution or lower standard in how immigration officers apply the powers, wherever they may be operating them.

The second point made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome was that immigration officers do not have to be arrest-trained. In fact, they do have to be arrest-trained—as a matter of policy, they cannot arrest people unless they are trained. I know that he will welcome that information. Everyone has to undertake a training course, which is currently delivered by the police. It is a pass/fail course, and people cannot use arrest powers unless they pass. It covers all the relevant codes of practice from PACE and elsewhere. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts the reassurance that people must be properly trained before they can implement the powers.

Properly trained immigration officers are capable of carrying out arrests to the same standard as police officers, so there is no reason why they should not be able to arrest offenders when that is necessary. The hon. Gentleman will know that immigration officers have been exercising their powers of arrest for some time—successfully, I think. They can bring particular expertise and knowledge to the offences that we are discussing, particularly because they deal exclusively with immigration crime.

The hon. Gentleman's third point related to the complaints apparatus. He said that, unlike the arrangements relating to Police Complaints Authority, there is no independent complaints procedure in relation to immigration officers. I take the point that there is not an independent complaints procedure nor, in the same vein, an independent body. I also take the point that the procedure needs to be able to command the confidence of people who make complaints, particularly in relation to arrests. However, in the past 12 months we have taken further measures to strengthen the procedure. I will

happily write to the hon. Gentleman with details of what we are doing. Clearly, he is free to revisit the issue on Report if he is not satisfied, but independent people are considering the complaints procedure and advising me, and I am happy to inform him of the detail of that. With those reassurances, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I thank the Minister for both the content and the tenor of her reply. I do not think that she properly addressed the point made by the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing), but it came slightly from the blind side, as Scottish law so often does. The way in which, in the circumstances, someone might be prosecuted in a Scottish court and what might apply would repay closer examination, but that is homework for another day.

I am at least partially reassured by what the Minister told me about the procedures that are in place. I still hold to the view that if we are to expand the role of immigration officers as proposed, it will eventually be more sensible for them to be sworn officers, with clear safeguards in respect of their conduct, than to continue to take what has become an incremental approach to providing them with the wherewithal to take on such a role. That said, I am grateful for her reply and I look forward to her writing to me with further and better particulars of the complaints procedure. We must all do our homework on the application of the proposals in Scotland. With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I beg to move amendment No. 60, in

clause 2, page 3, line 10, after 'time)', insert—

' ''first interview'' means a substantive interview conducted under caution and in accordance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Codes of Practice, in the presence of an accredited legal representative, and'.

The amendment follows on almost directly from the previous one. One respect in which the Bill is opaque is in what is meant by the ''first interview''. That is not satisfactorily defined in clause 2, yet the offence is committed specifically at the first interview, so what comprises the first interview will be a matter of potential contention in the courts. Secondly, it is important to the administration of justice that the first interview has the appropriate legal safeguards to ensure that everyone is aware not only of their responsibilities, but of their rights in those circumstances.

I hope that the form of words in the amendment differentiates appropriately a casual encounter with an immigration officer, which may be the first opportunity that the immigration officer has to ask to see papers, and a proper interview conducted under caution that allows the person to give a reasonable excuse. As we said earlier, we have doubts about whether the reasonable excuse forms part of the decision-making process of the interviewing officer. Nevertheless, the amendment would allow that to happen and would give a legal representative the opportunity to advise the person that they should produce the documents if they have them in order to

avoid potential arrest and indictment. That seems a sensible precaution as part of the understanding of what the Bill means.

If the definition is not included, the Minister must persuade us that she has a clear concept, sustainable in law, of what constitutes a first interview and that it is defined elsewhere. I noted that the suggestion had the support of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) when, perhaps a little out of order, we debated the matter earlier. Without a definition, there is the potential not only of injustice, but of trials being conducted on an incorrect basis and of legal argument, which we all know is very expensive and often counterproductive, about what is the first interview and at what point an offence occurs. We need a watertight definition. As it stands, the Bill is deficient.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

My observation is simple: a definition is needed, but the amendment sets out the wrong definition. A formal interview may be expected to take place some time after someone reaches the UK. In that case, the period between their arrival and their formal interview offers ample opportunity for them to disappear. The first interview with an immigration officer may take place at any time—it is much more unpredictable—and that is the time when the powers

provided in the immigration Acts need to be exercised. We want to ensure that people are assessed, if that is the right word, as quickly as possible after they come into the country and not that there should be a guaranteed delay before they are assessed.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

The amendment would change the time at which the criminal offence was committed. It would make it an offence to be undocumented or improperly documented only when an individual was being interviewed under caution and in accordance with PACE. I can understand the concerns of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome that no one should be prosecuted for the offence without the normal safeguards applicable to the handling of criminal proceedings, but I hope that I can convince him that that concern is already met and that his amendment has consequences for the application of the criminal offence in clause 2 that would effectively neuter it. I acknowledge the point made by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight: the definition of first interview in the amendment would be the wrong definition.

It might help if I set out the sequence of events that would arise if someone turned up at Heathrow.

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.

Standing Committee B

Clause 2 - Entering United Kingdom without passport

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I was replying to the amendment when we adjourned. I remind hon. Members that, under the amendment, the criminal offence of a person being undocumented can be committed only at an interview conducted under caution and in accordance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, or the Scottish equivalent. I told the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) that I could understand the concern of members of the Committee to ensure that no one is prosecuted for that offence without the normal safeguards applicable to the handling of criminal proceedings, but for reasons that I shall outline, I am not happy with the amendment. I think that it would have consequences that he might not intend.

Let me set out the likely sequence of events should a case arise in which a person arrives at, say, Heathrow. They will be seen by an immigration officer at the control desk. Obviously, among other things, they will be asked to produce a passport. If, during that interview, the immigration officer comes to the view that the person cannot produce the document and therefore that an offence under clause 2 may have been committed, the officer, if he is not trained to undertake an arrest, will either call the interview to a halt, or caution the person before calling either the police or an arrest-trained immigration officer. A police officer or arrest-trained immigration officer will make the arrest. Once that has happened, the various procedures for which PACE provides will kick in.

As we noted in the debate on the previous amendment, by virtue of section 145 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, immigration officers exercising their powers to question or arrest, among other activities, must have regard to the relevant specified provisions in PACE codes. I referred to the immigration (PACE codes of practice) direction of 2000, which sets out the relevant powers and the provisions of the codes that must be adhered to—for example, an immigration officer wanting to arrest a person without a warrant must have regard to

every provision in codes C, D and E. In addition, interviews at that point have to be carried out under caution, and the individual in question must be able to have a legal representative present if they so wish. That is how the system works in respect of existing immigration offences, and obviously it is right to treat the criminal offence in clause 2 the same way.

The safeguards in PACE or its equivalent apply, but that does not mean that the amendment is reasonable and we can accept it. The offence is committed not at the point that has been suggested, but at the point at which the person may be expected to have a passport on them, but does not produce it. That point is when the person is being interviewed by an immigration officer on the control desk—when every other passenger is required to produce their document—not at a subsequent interview under caution. If the person is subsequently cautioned and produces a passport at an interview of that kind, that does not necessarily justify the failure to produce it at immigration control, but of course that would be taken fully into consideration along with any explanation offered for the original failure.

Similarly, we cannot accept a provision whereby a person cannot commit an offence unless a legal representative is present. That would be unprecedented in terms of the way in which we take decisions on whether all sorts of offence have been committed. No one needs a representative to comply with the simple, normal request of all travelling passengers that they produce their passport. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is convinced by the arguments that what he proposes would not be the right point at which to determine that an offence had been committed. The right point is when every other member of the travelling public is asked to produce a document and certain individuals cannot, or refuse to, do so.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation, and to some extent I understand it. However, there is still a problem with the definition of what constitutes a first interview. That problem of definition exists not for the potentially accused person in terms of their offence, but for the prosecution in terms of establishing whether the interview in question was the first interview with an immigration officer. As the Bill is currently drafted, it might be a defence to say, ''No, the occasion on which I was found not to have my documents was not my first interview with an immigration officer. I had already spoken to an immigration officer in another respect.'' That is a potential difficulty, although not a serious one.

The second difficulty is that the offence is different from most criminal offences, because it deals with what transpires in the course of an interview. Normally when a person is held at a police station and is interviewed, the interview takes place under clear rules of conduct, with clear guidance about self-incrimination. In the present circumstances, that would not be the case. I therefore question the evidential value of what may be said or done in the context of that first interview if those precautions are not taken.

I understand what the Minister says about the difficulty in the way in which the provision is framed because the point of arrest is the point of non-production, and it is nonsense then to say, ''But actually, it is not; it is at some point in the future when you hold the first interview.'' That is a conundrum that we have yet to solve.

If we are to prosecute the offence successfully, following the first suspicion that a person does not have their documents on them for the reasons outlined in the Bill, it would be appropriate to move rapidly towards holding a formal interview under caution and with legal representation, which would form the evidence on which a future prosecution was based. The Minister came quite a long way towards that position when she described what she expected the process to be, but I shall give way to her so that she can say more about it.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I hoped that my outline of a hypothetical but typical or common sequence of events at Heathrow would reassure the hon. Gentleman. Once an immigration officer at control is satisfied that a person understands the question and is genuinely saying that they cannot produce a document, from that point onwards, the train of events that the hon. Gentleman wants to happen would begin. An immigration officer would then be called, who would be able, under the appropriate safeguards and codes of practice, to take the matter forward with an arrest, a caution and a full interview, which would form the basis of the evidence.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

As I said, the Minister has reassured me up to a point, but I still envisage difficulties with such an approach. For instance, what inference would be drawn from silence in those circumstances? Could a court draw any inference on that basis? I think not, because the person is not legally represented and cannot be required to say anything that might incriminate them in a court. There are still difficulties in respect of the evidential basis on which a prosecution might be brought.

It seems to me that a clearly delineated two-stage process would be preferable—one in which, first, there is the suspicion that someone is travelling without documents due to the fact that they have destroyed them; and, secondly, a formal interview that establishes the facts behind the case is held with the appropriate precautions, at which point the offence is considered to be committed. There would therefore be an offence committed in a circumstance which is defined and which is capable of being adduced in evidence. That would put the prosecution in a stronger position.

I will consider that and I ask the Minister to consider it too. I am not trying to undermine her position; I am simply trying to get it right. She has gone sufficiently far towards my position for me to be partly reassured, but her response has raised new questions in my mind about exactly what is proposed. Between now and Report, I will consider how a first interview might be construed by a court without further definition and whether that might be an

obstacle to prosecution rather than a tool. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I beg to move amendment No. 63, in

clause 2, page 3, line 15, at end add—

'(11) Where a decision is made to prosecute a person for offences contained in this section, no prosecution shall be commenced until after the final determination of all proceedings in relation to—

(a) an asylum claim made under the Refugee Convention, or

(b) a claim made under the European Convention on Human Rights, or

(c) an application for leave to remain under the provisions of the Immigration Acts.'.

The amendment would allow for a period between the time at which the intention to prosecute is determined and the hearing of that prosecution in order to allow for the possible resolution of an asylum claim under the refugee convention or the European convention on human rights, or an application for leave to remain. It ties in with our wish to avoid complications in the operation of the Bill with article 31 of the convention. There is a serious mismatch, even with all the assurances that the right hon. Lady has given, between what is proposed in the Bill as a process and the rights of the individual accepted under article 31. We will come back to this issue under the next amendment.

Once the intention to prosecute has been established and the Crown Prosecution Service has decided that there is sufficient ground to prosecute, there is no problem in terms of process in not entering into a hasty prosecution at that point. Such a prosecution might be construed by a higher court as a curtailment of the rights of the individual under article 31 if it stands in the way of a proper determination of that person's status under that convention and their claims. I envisage huge benefits in doing things that way round. If the status of the individual is determined before the prosecution, we will know whether they will stay in this country or be asked to leave. We will know that at the point of release from detention, if detention is the result of the prosecution, they will either be put straight on to a plane back to their point of departure, or be admitted to this country on the basis of their claim. Not to do that is potentially dangerous in legal terms because it invites a counter-claim and further actions in the courts to establish the right of claim.

I hope that the Minister will regard the amendment in the spirit in which it is intended. It would not deny her the prosecution that she seeks, but would establish an order of process that makes sense in relation both to the apparatus of the state and to the rights of the individual, and therefore allows for matters to be carried forward in equal order.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

The hon. Gentleman said that the amendment would allow for the possible resolution of the asylum claim, and I agree in so far that there will be cases in which it is preferable to have the asylum claim resolved before the case goes to prosecution or a decision on whether to prosecute is made. However, it is not correct to frame an amendment that would

constrain the system by providing for the order of process that he outlined to be followed in every case. It would be enshrined in legislation that an asylum claim must always be determined before any prosecution could proceed. It would not be right to make such a categorical provision about the order in which prosecutions are mounted and immigration applications are determined.

As I said, there may be some cases in which a decision on the asylum claim—that is largely what we are talking about—has a bearing on whether it is in the public interest to bring a prosecution. I accept the logic of that argument, because there will be such cases. However, on some occasions we would want to know the outcome of criminal proceedings before deciding an immigration claim. Prosecution might provide for the refusal of the claim on the grounds of character or conduct. If someone were given the maximum sentence, it might bring them within the province of section 72 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.

We do not prescribe in statute an order of process in respect of other immigration offences—illegal entry, for example. We give the prosecuting and immigration authorities the flexibility to determine in each case whether the best interests are served by the asylum claim being determined or the prosecution proceeding, and it is right that we retain the same flexibility in respect of the offences that we are discussing. There is also the argument of the deterrent effect, which, we have all agreed, the clause enshrines and is necessary if we are to alter people's behaviour. Having in law an order of process that always defers prosecution until it has been decided whether a person qualifies for leave to remain would dilute that deterrent effect.

The order in which prosecutions and immigration applications are handled will depend on circumstances of the case. To reflect the various possible circumstances, we must use the same flexible vehicle and process that we use in respect of other immigration offences and ensure that the prosecution guidelines set out the issues relevant to the timing of prosecutions. I have already said that I will write to the Committee about various aspects of the application of the measures. Primary legislation that prescribes an order of process would be too blunt an instrument. It has not been used for other immigration offences, and it should not be used in this case.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Perth)

In the event of a dispute between the Crown and the immigration service on whether to continue with proceedings on offences under clause 2 or process the immigration claim, which body would have primacy?

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

The decision on whether to prosecute and when is within the province of the Crown Prosecution Service. In practice, the decisions are taken collaboratively, but the hon. Lady is hypothesising about a case in which there is an absolute difference of opinion. In such a case, the prosecution service would decide whether to proceed forthwith.

I hope that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome will see the sense in retaining a flexible

approach to constructing the clause and will withdraw his amendment.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I am grateful to the Minister. I look forward with increasing eagerness to seeing the guidance on prosecution, because it will cover much of what we are discussing. If we can see the guidance before Report, it might allow an easier passage for the Bill. I understand some of the Minister's points about the flexibility available to prosecuting authorities, but I believe that nothing, including consideration of whether to prosecute for the offence, should reduce the burden on the immigration service to process the asylum claim as quickly as possible. I hope that that would always be the case.

I was worried when the Minister, in support of her argument, adduced the view that if a maximum sentence were applied, section 72 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 would be invoked. That is a self-contained, circular argument that prevents people from having access to their proper rights under the refugee convention on the basis of a court's determination of their level of culpability in destroying their documents, or perhaps their attitude before the court. Those matters are not relevant to consideration of whether they have a claim under the refugee convention. I am surprised and worried that that argument has been advanced, because it undermines much of what the Minister said about the safeguards that she wishes to build into the Bill.

I invite the Minister to reflect on that point, because I am not sure that she will wish to sustain that argument in another place. Having said that, I do not intend to press the amendment to a Division. I want to consider the Minister's comments and receive the communication about prosecution policy that I eagerly await. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I beg to move amendment No. 64, in

clause 2, page 3, line 15, at end add—

'(13) Section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c.33) (defences based on the Refugee Convention) shall be amended as follows.

(14) After subsection (3)(c) (falsification of documents), insert—

''; or

(d) section 2 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.)Act 2004 (entering United Kingdom without passport).''.

(15) After subsection (4)(d) (falsification of documents), insert—

'', or

(e) under section 2 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.)Act 2004 (entering United Kingdom without passport),''.'.

The amendment goes to the heart of article 31 of the refugee convention and the defence that the Government have accepted as being necessary in section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. It is designed to provide the same defence that the Government inserted into previous legislation to avoid the mischief of being in contravention of article 31. It is self-evident that, if that statutory defence was not only necessary but desirable in previous legislation, it should be necessary and desirable in this Bill. We have

already covered the provisions of the convention too many times for comfort, so I hope that that will be sufficient to introduce the amendment.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

As the hon. Gentleman has outlined, the amendment would create a further defence to the offence under clause 2 if a person can show that they met the requirements of section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. As we heard this morning, those requirements—of section 31 rather than article 31—are that a person is a refugee if he applied for asylum

''as soon as was reasonably practicable after his arrival in the United Kingdom''

and that he can show

''good cause for his illegal entry or presence''.

Section 31 was introduced to reflect the United Kingdom's obligations under article 31 of the refugee convention, following some of the cases—in particular the Adimi case, to which reference was made morning. It was an attempt to define for the purposes of UK domestic law our interpretation of article 31.

Because of the way in which the offence would be operationalised, I do not believe that the exclusion of a section 31 defence would impact negatively on people who may liable to prosecution because they have disposed of or destroyed documents. Similarly, a person forced to flee their country with forged papers and who presents those papers to an immigration officer will not be liable to prosecution and would not be dependent on a section 31 defence. The behaviour that we intend clause 2 to catch is the destruction or disposal of a document by someone who had it when they began their journey. In such cases, the person would have had a passport when they left the country in which they feared prosecution, and a good reason could rarely be provided for dispensing with their passport after they left that country. If they have a good reason, the reasonable explanation defence that is already in clause 2 will protect them. We believe that the reasonable explanation defence in clause 2 is equivalent to the ''good cause'' demanded in section 31 of the 1999 Act.

I agree with comments made earlier when we strayed on to the issue that section 31 of the 1999 Act and article 31 of the convention are very important. I am fully aware of our obligations under those provisions. I am clear in my mind that the clause is satisfactory in that respect and that the linkage between ''reasonable explanation'' and ''good cause'' is a firm one.

None the less, I feel that I should ask my officials, in conjunction with my legal advisers, to examine the Bill to ensure that we do not inadvertently disadvantage refugees or any subset of the refugee population that come here. The hon. Gentleman is concerned about that, and he will know that section 31 confines that defence to refugees, not to presumptive refugees or asylum seekers. I am prepared to re-examine provision to ensure that, on Report, either we can give the hon. Gentleman a categorical legal assurance, or—if we feel that there we can strengthen the provisions along the

lines that he suggested—we table an appropriate amendment.

I accept the hon. Gentleman's fundamental point that an important area of the law is involved. I certainly do not want to disadvantage small groups of refugees. It is better that I make a little time to carry out further analysis and seek legal advice, and let the House know the results on Report.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I thank the Minister for her helpful response. I think that she has undertaken to ensure that there is no ambiguity in the Bill in that respect, and that it will not be open to the courts to interpret, perhaps incorrectly, the application of the section 31 defence in this instance. I claim no particular merit in my amendment over something proposed by her that achieves the same result. If we can achieve that result I shall be satisfied, and people outside will be relieved that their proper concerns have been considered. I am grateful for the Minister's undertaking and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New Clause 1—Duty of carrier in relation to travel documents—

'(1) A carrier of a person from outside the United Kingdom to a United Kingdom airport commits an offence if it fails to present the person's travel documents, or a copy of those documents, to an immigration officer in the United Kingdom on request.

(2) A carrier guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum for any one offence.

(3) A carrier shall be entitled to be reimbursed by the Secretary of State all reasonable costs incurred by it in relation to this section.'.

New clause 4—Failure to report to immigration officer upon arrival in United Kingdom—

'(1) A person commits an offence if he fails to report to an immigration officer upon arrival in the United Kingdom.

(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to prove that he arrived at a non-canalized port but contacted an immigration officer and—

(a) left an address at which the person could be contacted during the ensuing seven days; and

(b) left the name of a person with the right of abode in the United Kingdom who would take responsibility for any cost falling to be met by public funds of his stay in the United Kingdom.

(3) In this section ''non-canalized port'' means an airport, harbour or other landfall (whether reached by land, sea or air) at a time when no immigration officer is on duty.'.

New clause 5—Provision of passenger information—

'In paragraph 27(2) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971, after sub-sub-paragraph (a), insert—

''(aa) a photocopy or electronic copy of each passenger's passport or travel document;''.'.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

We have had a good and full debate on clause 2. I begin by reaffirming what I have said on a number of occasions. The Government's purpose is to address a fundamental mischief and an activity that we all absolutely deplore: the tearing up of documents by those travelling to this country. We are at one with the

Government in saying that the practice must be discouraged and stopped, and the message sent to those who tear up the documents, and those who persuade others to do it, that it is criminal behaviour, which must be treated seriously.

The debate has been useful, as we have obtained from the Minister a number of assurances, the most important of which is that she intends that the clause shall apply only to those who tear up their documents rather than, as some of us feared, to the many possibly genuine refugees who never had documents in the first place and who therefore could not possibly comply with the requirement to produce them. I was glad to hear her say that. I still believe that the clause will need some tightening and amending before Report; we have put those points on the record at least once before, and I shall say no more about it. I am grateful to the Minister for her response.

My comments on stand part will be limited to a matter that I did not raise earlier. I have a query for the Minister. It has been put to me that a variety immigration-related criminal offences have been applied over the years to persons seeking entry to the UK or transiting the UK from elsewhere. I believe that the Home Office counting rules for recorded crime, Immigration Acts classification code 78, reveal something in the order of 16 specific immigration offences, many of which concern illegal entry to the UK. I also know that an unspecified number of general criminal offences have been used against illegal entrants.

At a time of the Minister's choosing—they are specific questions and she may want to write to me further on the subject—I hope that she can answer my points. Are there 16 or more specific immigration offences? Do many of them concern illegal entry to the UK? Are there ways of dealing with that mischief under the general criminal law? Can she confirm that she has been advised that the best way to proceed is to create extra offences under clause 2—in other words, that a genuine gap needs to be filled? Given that there are other offences, it would help to know just a little about them.

I move swiftly on to new clause 1. It was drafted as a peg on which to hang a much-needed discussion about the copying of documents. There is much to be said for having spare copies of travellers' documents, perhaps taken by the travellers themselves, and for ensuring that the carriers—that is to say, the airlines—are not expected to carry out the duty. Indeed, whatever duties they carry out, they should be properly reimbursed.

A few months ago, my former colleague in this House, Timothy Kirkhope, now a Member of the European Parliament, produced a report on asylum for our party to consider. He considered the issue of travellers and their documents. Clause 2—that is why the new clause is linked with clause 2—sets out to deal with the issue of who the traveller is. We need to know who the traveller is and where he or she has come from in order to deal with the him or her properly.

One way to deal with such an issue would be through clause 2, but another way is to ensure that

those who travel have extra copies of their documents that can be produced. For example, if I were to travel from somewhere to London Heathrow, and to tear up my passport on the journey and destroy any other travel documents that I had, that would be a completely useless activity had I handed in a copy of those documents to the authorities before I left the airport of departure. If I were then to present myself at the airport here without a document, it would be the simplest of matters for the copy documents to be produced from the airport in question. That is the general theme, as in that case there would be no point in carrying out such an activity.

The Kirkhope commission reported that technology had advanced to such an extent that there could be a statutory obligation to photograph or scan the documents of all persons embarking on entry to the UK. The commission suggested that British companies should be granted special tax relief to cover any expenditure on that. As the commission pointed out, recording documents would minimise the chances of passengers destroying them during or immediately after the journey before reaching passport control. However, that is a proposal that clearly requires the widest and longest possible consultation.

May I mention the concerns of some of those who have approached me from the airline industry? One cannot proceed towards any plan to copy documents without the wholehearted co-operation, support and involvement of the airlines concerned at every stage.

Mark Oaten (Liberal Democrat, Winchester)

The suggestion is certainly worthy of consideration. Does the hon. Gentleman envisage having such a system in place on all flights, or just on flights from certain countries?

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

The practical issues involved are terribly difficult, to be blunt, as are the handling issues. Ideally, such arrangements could or should be made for flights from all countries into the UK. I suspect that it would initially have to start out as some form of pilot—[Laughter.] I do apologise for that entirely unintentional pun; even if I had meant it as a joke, which I did not, it would have been a typically poor one.

We would have to start with a pilot for the countries that we might worry about, and then see how it went. Ideally, we are talking about all countries. One of the problems has been that, towards the end of last year, airlines were summoned to a consultation meeting with the Government at only about five days' notice, which is very short. They were then given only about six working days to produce data on the cost of providing photocopies of passports. If that is right, it is a pity, because again it smacks of things being done in a rush and not at the gentle pace that such measures require. UK carriers operate at about 200 airports, and if what I said is right, it was too much for the Home Office to expect reliable impact assessments to be provided in such a short period. The airlines were given a very short consultation period. I refer again to the Cabinet Office guidelines of 12 weeks, which were not observed.

I know that the Government have such a plan in mind, and it would help the Committee to be fully appraised very shortly, if not today, of the Government's thinking and plans. Perhaps it could also be given the full briefing of their consultation period so far, and sight of some of the relevant correspondence and representations. I also know that the Minister may be having difficulty with other Departments that have conflicting interests and attitudes about the idea of having extra copies of travellers' documents.

I understand that the Department for Transport is concerned about any plans that the Home Office may have and has made representations to it, partly because of the huge delays to passengers that might result. I also understand that there are differences of opinion in the Cabinet about whether a voluntary, carefully targeted scheme should be introduced, rather than trying to do too much too quickly.

When the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) intervened a moment ago, I was about to mention the Greek airline, Olympic Airlines, which appears routinely to confiscate the passports of some passengers on its flights. That story came out in a BBC newsflash on about 10 December. It was concerned about the fines that it faced for bringing asylum seekers into the UK. It is often forgotten that airlines are subject to fines, and I hope that the Minister might tell us the amount that airlines are being fined. I, for one, do not know the total amount of fines imposed in the past x years, or how many fines are outstanding. I would be glad of some news.

Apparently, Olympic Airlines retains the passports of selected passengers—again, we are in difficult territory—during selected flights.

Jon Owen Jones (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff Central)

I am not sure whether the Tory spokesperson is in the habit of shopping at supermarkets. It strikes me that he might not be. These days, when shopping in supermarkets, one is often encouraged to take up loyalty cards. In a split second, computers can work out what one has bought and compare it with what one has bought in the past. If it is possible for supermarkets to do that without any delay, to aid their commercial function, why cannot airlines to do the same thing?

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I do not have the slightest idea; it is not for me to say. I do a lot of shopping in supermarkets, and I have a considerable number of cards from various supermarkets in my pocket. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point; it is a reflection of modern technology. We all want the same end: a method by which we can ensure that people who destroy their documents on an aeroplane cannot get away with it, because their documents have been scanned or copied earlier. That is our aim—I do not know about the technology involved.

The Greek airline retains passports during the flight and then produces them for immigration officials. The airline argues that it is the only way to stop asylum

seekers boarding a flight with fake documents, destroying them during the flight and then claiming asylum when they arrive in the UK, having no documentation. That is a real live issue. The Minister has probably heard of Olympic Airways' plan and I should be glad if she would comment on its efficacy.

Will the Government make proposals to force airlines on some routes to copy passengers' documents before they depart? I hope not, because despite the way in which my proposal is drafted—it is merely a peg on which to hang a discussion—it might not be sensible to force the airlines to do so. There is a better argument for saying that passengers should arrive at airports with duplicate copies of their documents. The hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) shakes his head.

Jon Owen Jones (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff Central)

I shake my head because we can assume that airlines would be able to set up photocopying facilities, but we cannot make that assumption in respect of every passenger at every airport. If the passengers had a duty to provide duplicates, someone would have to check that the duplicate was the same as the passport. That would destroy the hon. Gentleman's point; if someone had to check that the duplicate was the same as the passport, that person might as well make the copy in the first place.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

The hon. Gentleman may be right or wrong, but he is advancing the discussion. It would take less time to check one document against another, especially if a photocopier is made available to passengers in the airport. I am concerned on behalf of the airline; in the short time available to it, British Airways raised several problems relating to cost with the Government's proposals to force airlines to take copies. British Airways' team in Brussels quoted about £213,000 in extra staff costs per annum and more than £11,500 for the purchase and maintenance of a copier.

Other problems that the airlines would face relate to infrastructure—airport check-in areas do not generally have space for a photocopier—and transaction times. As Labour Members know, checking in at airports can be frustrating, as it sometimes takes hours. Whatever proposal is made, we must consider what will it do to transaction and check-in times. British Airways calculates that with 180 people on a short-haul flight and 350 on a long-haul flight, if it takes 45 seconds to copy two pages of a passport it will add two hours, and more than four hours, respectively, to check-in transaction times. The Government will have to take those worries into account. They must consider, too, the impact on aircraft turnaround times. As some airports charge for the extra minutes that aircraft sit on the ground, British Airways could be heavily affected.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is over-egging the pudding. He is assuming that the photocopying would start only after all 300 passengers had checked in. As has been proved with the new security measures on international flights, accommodation can be made to minimise any kind of delay. Although expressing the genuine fears and concerns of the airline industry,

he is perhaps overstating the delays that would ensue from the proposal.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I hope that I am not overstating them. However, I am led to believe by many airline companies that they are concerned about the extra cash and time involved if the burden is put on them at airports. There are also problems with self-service check-in. I flag up those issues for the Government to consider.

There is also the question of extraterritoriality. Other countries may have legislation that does not allow documents to be copied. In those circumstances, airlines would have to contravene one country's legislation in order to comply with another's. Those are some of the issues that have been raised by British Airways, in particular, and by other airlines.

Although it is right that we should be trying to reduce the number of undocumented arrivals in the UK, there may be problems with imposing any duty on the airlines to take copies of passengers' documents, for the reasons that I have outlined, of which the Government are well aware.

Apart from the burdens that I have already mentioned, there are other issues to be raised in connection with the copying of documents. Is the Home Office aware that the Foreign Secretary has recently written to the US Secretary of State highlighting that the systems to support a similar passenger information collection scheme planned by the US authorities are not capable of coping without severe disruption? Having raised concerns about a proposed US scheme, it is ironic that the Home Office is apparently proposing a procedure that would have a similar impact on airline operations.

Does the Minister accept the strength of the argument that a lower-cost, less disruptive alternative would be to place a requirement directly on the passenger to carry a photocopy of his or her passport when travelling to the UK, which could be collected at check-in? That could be publicised in brochures, in the UK Passport Service literature and in ticket wallets, giving the passenger the ability to comply before travelling to the airport.

I understand that the Council of Ministers is currently debating a proposal initiated by Spain, which would require carriers to provide to immigration authorities a range of API—advance passenger information—data that is not currently collected. The cost of establishing systems to read and collect such data and the impact on logistics would be considerable. No EU impact assessment or UK regulatory impact assessment of the proposal has been produced. Will the Home Office try to insist that no further work is carried out on the API proposal until a full impact assessment has been produced by the Council, and a detailed regulatory impact assessment by the Home Office?

Charter airlines are another big group, including Air 2000, Monarch Airlines, Britannia Airways, Thomas Cook and MyTravel. They carry about 30 million passengers a year. All those airlines have a history of working in close co-operation with the Government and border controls authorities, and all

want to continue to do so. I believe that all those airlines regretted that the six-working-day consultation process on the Government's proposals before Christmas was so short.

The intention behind new clause 1 is to begin a debate on what we can do about the copying of passengers' documents. It has been put to me that a simple solution would be for somebody at the door of the aeroplane to collect every passenger's original documents, which could be handed to the immigration authorities at the other end. What do the Government think of that approach, and of putting the obligation on passengers rather than on the airlines? It could be well publicised, and it would be no hardship for most of us to copy our own documents, particularly if a copying machine were available at the airport prior to check-in. There is a lot to be said for the Government's seeking to achieve their goal, in co-operation with carriers, by piloting voluntary schemes before considering legislative steps.

I specified in the new clause that the cost should be borne by Her Majesty's Government. The pre-Christmas decision by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to fund the installation of tracking equipment on UK fishing vessels in order to comply with EU regulation has set a precedent, and the Government should bear the cost of photocopies or passport readers if data collection requirements are imposed that have no value to the airlines, which would be acting as agents for the Government if they were to collect information on their behalf.

Does the Minister propose, in the course of our deliberations, to table her own amendments or new clauses to deal with the issue? If so, I urge her to use caution, to take her time and to consult widely. We are dealing with asylum legislation rather than national security issues. Will she say how she intends to enforce a UK requirement on overseas agents who are bound by national requirements that might prohibit the copying of passport data by a third party?

Finally, is the Minister minded for there to be some form of pilot scheme? I hear that such a thing is possible. If there is to be one, will the Home Office give an undertaking that any requirement on the airlines, if workable, will not be introduced globally or at all before very wide consultation with carriers to find out what is feasible? That is important, because I understand that the airlines, saddened though they were at the short period of consultation that they were allowed before Christmas, are keen to carry on doing what they have always done—co-operating with the Government. I hope that the Government, if they move to legislate in this Bill or shortly, will be well aware of the sensitivities involved and the potential burdens on the airlines, and will consider a method whereby the passenger rather than the airline might be responsible for making copies.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

The hon. Gentleman mentioned Olympic Airlines, the Greek carrier. If he expanded on the point while I was absent, I apologise for having missed it. Presumably, he was referring to a voluntary scheme of the kind that he proposes. Is he aware of the effectiveness of that voluntary scheme in terms of any

reduction in the number of illegal immigrants or asylum seekers making their way here on Olympic?

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

No, I am not, but it would be very interesting to know. It is a fair question. The Minister might have some figures on Olympic Airlines and the result of what it has done. Some have criticised it because it is selective about the individuals from whom it takes the passports and the flights with which it deals. However, I mentioned the issue of fines on airlines and what amounts were outstanding or paid with different airlines. It would be helpful to know that.

I sense that the Government will come forward with proposals. This is a good opportunity to listen to members of the Committee, who might raise their own concerns or concerns on behalf of others, about a difficult measure, practically speaking, and about matters that are difficult in principle as well. Nevertheless, one approach to the problem of people tearing up their documents that we are all agreed on is a system in which copies of such documents are in existence. That would make tearing them an utter waste of time and tend to drive abuse out of the system, which is what we all want.

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

I will try to be brief, because by 5.15 we are supposed to finish clause 6 and I hope to have a chance to say a word on an amendment to clause 4. I suspect that we may also be interrupted at 4 o'clock by votes in the Chamber.

I can see the attractions of copying the documents but, for reasons that were mentioned earlier today, such as people disappearing airside, tying the photocopy to an individual is not as simple as the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) suggests. It is not even that easy to know which flight someone has come off if they are determined. The other certain thing about such a measure is that it would be selective, owing to the numbers involved. I cannot remember the exact figure, but between 80 million and 90 million passengers arrive through UK airports every year, some 13 million to 14 million of whom are subject to immigration controls. It would not be possible to pick out that group but, if we tried to do the whole lot, we would have to do 200,000 plus people a day. How would one try to store the volume of paper that was generated? It would not be a matter of keeping the paper for that day if one had to tie it to passengers about whose identity there might be a doubt later.

Jon Owen Jones (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff Central)

Clearly, there are a number of practical problems but, to return to my previous example, supermarkets can deal quickly with the scale of information that my hon. Friend described. However, they do not do so on paper. There would not necessarily be a requirement to hold the relevant information on paper—it could be held on computer.

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

I understand that but that would still require a very large database. As has been pointed out, the copies would initially not be taken in the UK, which would cause an additional problem of linking

the technology. I suspect that application would inevitably be selective, just as some of the measures that have already been taken are selective. For example, people receiving visas in Sri Lanka to come to this country used to be fingerprinted there before travelling—I do not know whether they still are. The fingerprints were then compared with those of people who had made asylum claims in this country, because of suspicions of dual claims and so on. Such things have been done selectively.

Once one starts being selective about which countries or airlines one applies the measure to, several questions arise. Would we then be discriminating? Would not we be doing something that made it more difficult for someone with a perfectly genuine claim to board an airplane to come here? If that additional step were taken and those people's documents were photocopied at the airport, would not that be a concern for them?

The security of the information is also relevant. We deal with carriers from a huge variety of countries and I would not necessarily regard them as the safest people to store lots of personal identities. There is even the danger that we might enable corrupt officials to sell identities to people who were prepared to pay for them. There are not only practical issues but issues about the principle of applying the provision selectively, which I think would be almost inevitable.

I am interested to hear what my right hon. Friend the Minister has to say, because clearly the Government have been considering and discussing the issue with carriers. Obviously, if there are Government proposals or we get firm proposals on Report, we will be able to consider them, but we need to approach the issue with caution.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I, too, will be brief because there is every benefit in hearing the Minister reply before we possibly have to suspend the sitting for a Division at 4 o'clock.

I do not intend to cover the clause in this debate, because we have covered practically all the arguments at exhaustive length already. However, I want to address the narrow issue of how, rather than deterring people from destroying their documents en route, we can make it useless for them to do so, because of a back-up form of identification coming into play.

New clause 5, which Opposition Members tabled to trigger the debate, has one merit and one merit only. It relates to schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971, which would be a suitable vehicle for the sort of proposals that we are considering, given that it already imposes duties on carriers. Setting aside those who arrive by other forms of transport, which I accept make the situation much more difficult, airlines are the crux of what we are talking about. Large numbers of people use that means of entry to the country, and it is the most regulated mode of carriage. There are already duties to inspect passports on embarkation and to keep records of the manifest for various reasons. That seems to be the most appropriate point at which to make a back-up record of those who travel on a flight, so that destroying travel documents becomes pointless.

I accept that photocopying is a cumbersome process. It is relatively low-tech, so it has the advantage that it can be done relatively easily in airports throughout the world—unlike the loyalty card approach espoused by the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central—but it poses problems in that it involves large piles of paper, is relatively slow and may not produce the desired result.

I do not see that as the only route that the Government might explore; there are real arguments on the other side. Indeed, at one stage, the hon. Member for Woking seemed to argue against his own new clause, in the teeth of spirited opposition from Government Members, who appeared to be rather better disposed towards the it than he did. Nevertheless, even taking all those matters into account, it is clearly desirable, if possible, to find a way to achieve that back-up.

I am not wedded to the particular suggestion that we have made; there may be other ways to achieve the objective. There is a requirement currently for people to fill in landing cards if they do not hold an EU passport. I wonder whether there is scope for having those landing cards filled in not in the middle of the flight, after the fish course, but at the point of embarkation and then held in the possession of the carrier for the duration of the flight. That might be a way of dealing with the logistics of achieving some record of people entering the country.

Something could be done about the geography of airports, particularly the major airports of entry to the country. I am often amazed that we almost invite the sort of abuse that the Minister described, by giving people an opportunity to mix between flights before passport control, and by having many places where they can hide airside. That seems unnecessary and could be addressed, with a little thought about where passport controls are situated, and how passengers are channelled from a flight to the point at which their passports are first inspected.

Turning to the publicity that the Minister talked about, if the landing card is provided earlier, that will provide an opportunity to spell out in the language of the person who is entering the plane what their legal requirements are. They would then, at an early stage, be in no doubt what they were required to do. All those suggestions must be worked through—there is no easy answer and I do not propose that there is.

I hear what the hon. Member for Woking said about the Olympic Airlines scheme. I do not know much about it and would like to know more. My last experience of Olympic Airlines was that the pilot emerged from the cockpit to engage in fisticuffs with the passenger in seat 2D. I am sure that that is not typical of Olympic Airlines but it rather put me off the flight.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

And future ones.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Indeed. As the hon. Gentleman said, it put me off future flights with that airline, although the flight was otherwise uneventful. We must use imagination in order to provide a common system that does not penalise genuine refugees. There are

concerns that, if the apparatus at the port of embarkation is too cumbersome, the system will be open to abuse from officials within that country if they are fleeing or have good reason to flee that country. We must be sensitive to that. However, we should consider finding a way—not only for immigration purposes but for national security reasons—to identify those on inbound flights to the UK, and to substantiate their identities after they have got off a flight. I look forward to hearing the Minister's proposals for further consultation, and whether she intends to table amendments at a later stage in our proceedings or on Report for consideration of this area.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Mrs. Roe, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship; I was not here on Thursday to say that. I came to this afternoon's sitting, prepared enthusiastically to support new clause 1, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Woking will forgive me if I do so. It is an altogether sensible proposition that ought to be consulted on by the Government and others. Those who bring people to this country should have some responsibility for them until those people are fully within the country. It is no good having a sort of no man's land between the steps from an aeroplane to the tarmac and the point at which documents are shown, if they have been retained, to immigration staff at an airport. I am an enthusiastic supporter of new clause 1 and shall set out, since my hon. Friend so generously argued against his new clause, some arguments in favour of it.

First, I am sure that the best way to introduce the scheme described in new clause 1 would be on a voluntary and targeted basis. Secondly, given the huge savings made by travelling by aeroplane nowadays, I see no reason why a few minutes could not be added at the beginning in order to copy documents.

Thirdly, I should have thought that it was legislatively far easier to place an obligation on a carrier, be that an airline, a ferry company or Eurostar, which will bring its craft, if I can revert to my earlier definition, into the United Kingdom, than it is to place an obligation on someone arriving in the UK to take copies of their documents in another country and to pass those copies on to the carrier in the hope that they would then, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central suggested, be checked and miraculously arrive in the UK at the same time as the passenger concerned.

I argue with the assertion that a lot of space would be taken up by photocopiers or photocopied documents. It is now possible to copy these things electronically, where, as far as I can tell with my limited technical knowledge, they take up no space at all. Most airports give adequate space to branches of McDonald's and Tie Rack and could certainly provide space for a photocopier. Those are arguments in favour of the new clause. I hope that the Government will enthusiastically take forward consultation on the new clause, if that is not already their intention.

I am concerned that we seem to be taking the view that the airline or the carrier is merely a neutral

intermediary in the process of getting people to the UK. I firmly believe that anyone who is responsible for bringing people to the UK should have some responsibility for checking that they are entitled to be here when they arrive. Of course, I recognise the point made by the hon. Member for Walthamstow. It may make it more difficult for some legitimate asylum seekers to get on to an aeroplane at Skopje, if Skopje is a country from which one may seek asylum—

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

It is a city.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Yes, it is a capital city. Of which country is it the capital city?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that information. I was once a geography teacher but that was when capital cities were well off the agenda.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

May I say gently to my hon. Friend that, as he will know, there are already heavy obligations on the airlines? It is not a question of airlines seeking to parcel their obligations anywhere else. Indeed, they have often been heavily penalised because a passenger comes in with a forged passport, which, despite their best endeavours to train their staff, has not been spotted. It has taken the most brilliant person at this end to stop something that a well-trained airline person could not spot. There are burdens and they discharge them by and large as well as they can.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I recognise the slight tap on the knuckles. I accept that there are such problems.

Jon Owen Jones (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff Central)

I rise to dissuade the hon. Gentleman from accepting the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Woking, although I understand why he would wish to do so. The burden that is being placed upon airlines is being placed on all of them. No one carrier would be competitively disadvantaged compared to another. It seems a perfectly reasonable new clause and I suggest that it should be pushed to its conclusion.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I would certainly far rather that no competitive disadvantage were placed on individual airlines. To that extent, it is better that it be a legislative requirement, or a genuinely voluntary operation, than one that depends on Government arm-twisting or Opposition—I cannot think of the appropriate word.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Perth)

I have listened to the debate with interest and I remain open-minded. The debate is focused on people coming to the UK, which is right because we are discussing UK legislation, but do those who have spoken in favour of the measure anticipate it being applied on an EU-wide basis?

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I do not, but I tend not to pay much attention to what happens in the rest of Europe. Opposition ''hectoring'' was the word that I was searching for and I thank the hon. Lady for giving me time to think of it.

I was dealing with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Walthamstow. Of course, the proposed system will make it more difficult for legitimate asylum seekers to board an aeroplane without documentation. It will not be much more difficult, but it will be marginally more so, because they will be required to provide two copies of documentation rather than one. However, I do not agree with him that most overseas airlines are so corrupt that we cannot trust them.

Mr. Gerrard indicated dissent.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The hon. Gentleman may not have said it in so many words, but I do not agree that we cannot trust them not to sell the identities of those whose documentation they have copied. If they wanted to sell the identities of people boarding their aircraft, they could copy the documentation anyway. That would not be a consequence of the new clause.

In general, I support the proposition that carriers should be required to keep copies of the documents that are presented to them on embarkation, and should make them available to the right authorities on disembarkation. If necessary, we should ensure that people pass rapidly through immigration control. It is not satisfactory—I was unaware that it was possible—for people to be able to hide airside until the carrier that brought them had conveniently taken its aeroplane away. That was one of the reasons why I tabled new clause 3. The carrier must accept responsibility and if necessary the craft should be impounded until the people that have been brought into the country have been properly dealt with. I accept that new clause 3 has now passed—we have been discussing new clause 1, and I shall now move on to new clause 4.

New clause 4 includes an additional concept and responsibility, to which I ask the Minister to apply tests A, B, C and D, which I mentioned at the beginning of the morning sitting. Is it an offence to enter the United Kingdom from a country outside the EU—let us be generous to the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing)—and fail to report to an immigration officer on arrival? If we are to control effectively flows of people into the country, we must consider that.

Many ports and points of disembarkation are non-canalised, with no immigration officers on duty, and I doubt that the Government have any idea how many people enter the country through such ports. There should be a standard, simple, internationally understood provision for those who enter through a non-canalised port to report to an immigration officer on arrival, and I suggest that it should be done by telephone. There should be a single telephone number, which should be widely advertised, in the leisure aircraft, leisure marine and other press. People arriving in Cowes, for example, would be able to report to the immigration service without first going to Southampton, which they are required to do, but I doubt that many do. That would be sensible. That person should be required to leave contact details, so that the immigration service can inspect the documents, which they do not always do, and ensure that they are entitled to enter the country.

I put forward the further suggestion, which I think we should consider more widely: those who enter could be sponsored by people in this country. The Government may look more favourably on those who are sponsored to come to this country than those who are not, as it would ensure that they did not place a burden on public funds. The new clause contains a number of suggestions. I put them forward merely as points for discussion. I hope that the Minister will respond to them.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) will not think me rude if I do not follow his line of debate on new clause 4. I want to concentrate on new clause 1, which my hon. Friend the Member for Woking spoke to in his typically sensible fashion.

I do not know of a Member of Parliament who combines common sense and justice so frequently as my hon. Friend, and I am hugely obliged to him for the tone and manner in which he has advanced the official Opposition's arguments. I take my hat off to him for the manner in which he has conducted our sensible and probing opposition to aspects of the Bill in Committee. A duty is placed on all Opposition Members, be they official or of the minor parties, to join justice and common sense—and, when they do not combine, to admit it. We have moved some probing amendments, made some debating points and engaged in other discussions. I hope that I do not embarrass my hon. Friend by saying that he has commanded the Floor with a true sense of justice and a thorough understanding of what is right, and what is common sense.

I commend the theory behind new clause 1. I do not have a problem about making carriers responsible for the people whom they bring into the country. Carriers make a profit from it. As with the example of insurance cases, whenever an advantage is to be gained, a responsibility must be held. If an airline or a sea carrier makes money from the transport of people, they should accept the responsibility that goes with it. If they are required as a matter of public policy to discharge certain burdens in exchange for making money, they should bear it with equanimity. It is not unjust, it seems to me, to make carriers responsible for the discharge of public policy in relation to asylum matters. The benefit and the responsibility have to be married together.

The only quibble that I have with my hon. Friend the Member for Woking is that I would remove the adjective ''air'' from ''airport''. All ports of entry must be bitten.

Mr. Harris indicated assent.

Mr. Malins indicated assent.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I see that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart and my hon. Friend the Member for Woking agree with me. I hope that my hon. Friend is nodding in agreement, rather than nodding off as I witter on. It seems to me that any carrier who brings members of what I grandly call the world public into our country has a responsibility to ensure that they are proper immigrants, either as fare-paying passengers,

or as immigrants or asylum seekers. They must take responsibility for bringing into the country those from whom they have made a profit.

I accept—it may be said by others—that we must make a distinction between EU citizens and non-EU citizens. We have a treaty obligation to accept the free movement of EU citizens, EU goods and EU services within the internal market. We must therefore be especially careful to screen properly those travelling from outside the EU into the EU, who then bounce from, say, Amsterdam or Frankfurt. Equally, we must properly distinguish from other travellers those who come from Spain, Italy, Germany or the aspirant countries to the EU, who therefore travel within the EU economic area or the EU. I see a distinction between being discriminatory, against which the hon. Member for Walthamstow cautioned us, and being prejudiced. I am prepared to be discriminatory, but I do not want to be accused of being prejudiced against particular travellers.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

Before we suspended for the Division, I was discussing new clause 1, which, thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Woking, provides us with a programme for discussion about the production of documents and the burden and responsibility of carriers. I suggested that ''airports'' be changed to ''ports'' and thus expanded to include all ports of entry into the UK. I do not believe that that an especially controversial suggestion.

I conclude by noting that new clause 1 contains a discussion about the requirement to produce

''travel documents, or a copy of those documents''.

It seems to me that the potential for disputes over whether a copy is genuine can be overcome if, as my hon. Friend said in another debate, the carrier is required to take all original documents, including passports, from travellers as they move from landside to airside. It is not beyond the wit of man to arrange a system whereby all travellers who wish to board a flight to the UK have to surrender their travel documents as they move to airside. That might temporarily inconvenience travellers, who might be concerned that their documents are being taken from them, or worried that when they land at, say, Gatwick, Heathrow or Manchester they might not get back the document that they handed in at, say, Entebbe or Istanbul, but the Government are jolly clever and have managed to survive for seven years by doing all sorts of clever things, so it cannot be beyond their wit, or that of the Minister, to work out a system whereby those who hand in travel documents to carriers taking them to the UK are given them back as they leave the plane or—

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Perth)

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I flatter myself that I am speaking in sentences, and should like reach the end of this one.

It must be possible for a ship or airline carrier to restore to travellers the passport or other travel document that they handed in. I may be being unusually naive. No doubt the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) has huge experience of dealing with lost travel documents in Dover, and may have something else to say.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Perth)

Surely such a suggestion would involve extraterritoriality—a point that the hon. and learned Gentleman made in his opening remarks. I do not see how one could seek through UK legislation to interfere to such an extent with arrangements made at other airports throughout the world. I return to the point that I made when I intervened on the hon. Member for Isle of Wight. If we are going to go down that route, surely, given the nature of international air transport and given the arrangements already in place at EU level that touch at least tangentially on these issues, the UK Government should initially pursue matters further at EU level so that we have a simplified and more efficient system?

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

Several points arise, two of which I shall touch on. I accept that the proposed arrangement may create administrative difficulties for the carrier, but as I said at the outset of my remarks, if a carrier is making a profit from moving people from A to B, that is simply one of the burdens of making a profit. As a Conservative who agrees that it is not wrong to make a profit, I accept that it is not wrong to bear the responsibilities that come with the advantage of making a profit. If one is making money out of moving people from outside the EU to within it, particularly to the United Kingdom, one should accept certain responsibilities for ensuring that the asylum and immigration systems are not suborned.

I accept that there may be a problem in a scenario such as that covered by the amendment devised by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight concerning arrival in the UK by rocket. I am not sure whether that amendment has been, or will be, debated. If Olympic Airways, to pluck a name out of the air, were to run a rocket service from Athens or other parts of the world to Gatwick, or indeed to the Isle of Wight international airport—Ventnor international airport—I can see that we would have difficulties.

In the realms of reality—I know that my hon. Friend does reside there from time to time—it would not be impossible to work out a system in which legitimate international carriers could be persuaded to gather people's travel documents as they get on a vehicle, and return them when they get off. I hope that I made it clear before the suspension that there are differences between people who travel into the EU from outside it and then go on to the UK, and those who start their journey inside the EU.

I am not thinking on my feet of some clever scheme that would safely administer the system that I am discussing, but it would not be impossible to work out a scheme whereby we could mitigate the worst effects of dishonest travellers by requiring that travellers give up their travel documents and that carriers enforce that system. That would obviate the need to get into all

sorts of difficulties over whether document copies are true copies and whether the airport authority in the country of embarkation or the carrier must have copying facilities, which may cause additional expense and delay.

Gwyn Prosser (Labour, Dover)

Before I came into this place, I sailed around the world seven times, sailed the seven seas and crossed the English channel some 1,000 times on cross-channel ferries. The first bit of advice that I ever had before going away to sea was, ''Never surrender your passport, and never surrender your seaman's identity card.'' Even putting that aside, if the hon. and learned Gentleman ever came to Dover and watched the discharge of a superferry, with two decks, four streams of traffic and foot passengers using three different debarkation launches, he would soon change his views about passports being surrendered, collected and then put back into the right hands.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I did not suggest that it would be easy. The problem appears more starkly when one considers the Queen Mary 2, which will bring a huge number of passengers—perhaps 2,000, although I do not know—some of whom may be non-British citizens or non-EU citizens, to Southampton, or wherever.

I accept that there would be practical difficulties, which must be understood and taken account of. I am simply trying gently to suggest a system. I am not writing legislation in the air. I merely want to persuade the Government and members of the majority party on the Committee that we can gently and sensibly arrive at practical solutions to the problem: the potential for cheating. With good will, common sense and an appreciation of what is just, we can devise an administrative system that allows people to travel reasonably freely around the world, especially into this country, but the ability of people who are intent on cheating the system to destroy their documents would be hugely inhibited by the requirement placed upon the carriers, and the burden placed on the carriers of collecting the documents would be mitigated by their profit from carrying those people. The carriers may have to put up their ticket prices to pay for or to cover the cost of administering the system, but that is a matter of detail.

I may have lost the Committee's sympathy simply by making the point, but what I am trying to get across is that even in Wales there may be people who want a just but manageable system that goes beyond what the Government propose. I do not claim to be the Albert Einstein of asylum law, but by using the new clause proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking as a hanger for the debate, I seek to push forward common-sense suggestions that would appeal to all members of the Committee, irrespective of their party political allegiances or loyalty or otherwise to the Government, whose demise we all deeply hope for.

Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk)

It is a pleasure to have the chance to speak to the Committee, especially as, like my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight, I was not able to congratulate you on your chairmanship the other day, Mrs. Roe.

As a Queen's Counsel, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) chooses his words carefully. The word ''all'' in his last sentence may arouse some disagreement from some members of the Committee, but I share his feelings.

I rise to speak in support of new clause 1, but first I shall refer to something that the hon. Member for Dover said. The last time I sat on a Committee with the hon. Gentleman, we clashed on the subject of enriched cages for laying hens. It is therefore a pleasure to support what he has just said. I went down to Dover last year when it became evident that Customs and Excise was failing in its duty to uphold High Court judgments. I wrote a short letter to The Daily Telegraph—it was probably a foolish thing to do—in which I suggested that perhaps the chairman of Customs and Excise should be placed in stocks in Parliament square and taxpayers should be allowed to throw tomatoes at him until he recognised that he and his officers should obey the law just like the rest of us. I had an intemperate letter from Customs and Excise in response inviting me to go to Dover to see what was going on—I think I informed the hon. Gentleman's office that I would be there. It was an interesting operation.

The hon. Gentleman is quite right: when large numbers of people are travelling and disembarking quickly, they do not want to have to recover their passport from someone. Like him, I have circumnavigated the world, and I have always made sure that my passport, money and tickets are about my person, even when I am in the shower. [Hon. Members: ''In the shower?''] I made sure that they did not get wet, but they were within reach; I was in some fairly dodgy places. However, I will not digress. I was tempted to say something about Scotland, but I will resist it.

I support new clause 1. My argument focuses on the duty of carriers, to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough and my hon. Friend the Member for Woking alluded. My hon. and learned Friend made the point that carriers are making a profit out of the business of transporting people from A to B, and that there is therefore a concomitant obligation or responsibility on them. I think that the point is simpler than that and it is not dependent on their making a profit. It is said that during British Airways' financial troubles, the wheel on the other side of the river was making more money for British Airways than the whole of its combined airline operations. The point rests not on whether a carrier is making a profit or not, but on the fact that they are carrying people from A to B.

I am not one for business regulation and for burdens. One of the reasons that I entered Parliament was to do what I could to stem the tide of business regulation and burdens. None the less, I agree completely with the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight made: there is a basic duty on a carrier to know who it is carrying to this country, and that obligation does not end until the handover to the authorities here has been successfully completed. There cannot be any kind of neutral zone or no man's land.

One of the jobs that I had in the rather chequered 20 years of what passes for my career before I became a Member of Parliament was dispatching aircraft. It never crossed my mind that it was not one of my responsibilities to ensure that the people who got on to the aircraft at one end were people that I knew about. It was part of my job to make sure that the people I expected to be on that aircraft were, and that people I did not expect to be on that aircraft were not. I think that that is as close to an absolute responsibility as one could expect a business engaged in transporting people from A to B—certainly internationally and across borders—to have. No one expects staff on the No. 24 bus from Pimlico to Hampstead to have full knowledge of the names and addresses of their passengers at any point along the journey, because everybody knows that that is not necessary. However, it is necessary when carriers transport people across international boundaries. The obligation rests, in my view, with the carrier. New clause 1, which would make that clear, is welcome. I shall listen with interest to the Minister's response.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I shall deal as succinctly as I can with the many points made by hon. Members. That is not out of any disrespect for Members, or because I do not want to engage in detailed responses at this point, but simply because of the time constraints that we face. I think that it is worthwhile putting on record the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell), with his characteristic flexibility and generosity, was happy to allow an additional two and three-quarter hours to get through this group of amendments by the end of today. It is largely for the Opposition to decide how they use that time, but it is unfortunate—I see the frustration of some Members who want to crack on—that we spent an hour and a half on amendment No. 14 and half an hour on the hon. Member for Woking's introduction to a new clause that we were not altogether sure that he supported. That is a matter for the Opposition, but it is the reason that I will try to be succinct.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

There will always be a tension between the Government and their Back Benchers' desire to get on with getting the Government's business through and the Opposition's desire to make sure that the legislation that we allegedly ''scrutinise'' is properly considered. That is an age-old problem, not a party political point. I am not sure that the Minister either advances her Government's case, or successfully denigrates the Oppositions' case—[Interruption.] If the Liberal Democrats do not wish to scrutinise the Bill, that is a matter for them. Judging by what they did the other day, I am not sure that they are anything other than wholly concerned that the Bill is properly scrutinised.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

Order. I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that he is making an intervention, not a speech. He has made his point. We should get back to the clause.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

We have an obligation to make sure that every clause in the Bill is debated adequately before it leaves Committee. I think that the onus is on us all to manage the timetable that we have agreed and amended once to make sure that every clause can be

scrutinised. That is our intention, and I am sure that it is shared by Opposition Members. There is an obligation on us all to manage ourselves and our contributions to that end.

The Committee is aware of the purpose of clause 2, but I do not argue that it is the only way in which to tackle the problem of people destroying documents. One option is for copies of documents to be taken from passengers when they embark for the United Kingdom and provided to immigration officers when they arrive. I am pleased to note the support in principle for the idea evidenced by new clauses 1 and 5. We announced our intention to consider the proposal in the consultation. We did not include it in the Bill because we wanted to consult further with carriers.

I shall not reply to all of the points made about the difficulties associated with such a scheme, or about the need to ensure that such a scheme should not impact adversely on the legitimate travelling public or on the businesses of carriers—it is important that both keep going. We have to have a scheme that is both feasible and logistically possible. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover is pertinent. I accept the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough, the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) and others that it must be possible to devise a scheme that fulfils our intentions and provides another element in our armoury.

Since we announced that we were considering such a scheme in the consultation, we have been working with the carriers on a voluntary trial. We hope that it will enable us find solutions to some of the problems that hon. Members have mentioned and to identify ways in which to deliver the scheme in the most cost-effective way. It is right to wait for the results of that trial before deciding whether a statutory requirement is needed. However, we shall have only one opportunity to legislate in the foreseeable future, so I want to present to the Committee a provision—possibly a reserve power—that, if the voluntary scheme does not work, we can switch on a statutory power through secondary legislation. There will be an opportunity on the back of that amendment, albeit for a reserve power, for hon. Members on either side of the argument to make their points. With the assurance that I shall introduce the provision that I have outlined, we can anticipate having a debate later. In those circumstances, I hope that the hon. Members who tabled new clauses 1 and 5—which were designed to probe our intentions—will not press them.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

Is the Minister able to give us any information about the amendment that she has hovering in the background, about which we have not heard before? It would be useful to know a little more.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

No, I shall not pre-empt the debate. I have outlined what I intend. The trial will not be complete until after Committee stage—possibly not until the Bill has completed its passage. So that we can evaluate fully its implications and decide whether a voluntary basis is a satisfactorily robust basis on which to proceed, I intend to include a power in the Bill that

will enable us to revert to a statutory basis if necessary. The hon. and learned Gentleman will have to wait to see the terms.

New clause 4 is designed to penalise those who do not report to an immigration officer on arrival in the UK unless they can prove that after arrival at a port without immigration control they reported to an immigration officer within seven days and left the details of somebody willing to cover any public costs incurred as a result of their stay. I have already rehearsed the arguments to similar points made by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight. It is clearly an issue of concern for him, and I understand why, but in a debate on earlier amendments I pointed out that we already have in the 1971 Act offences that relate to illegal entry to the UK. Section 24, I think, makes it an offence knowingly to enter the UK without leave. The penalty for that is a maximum of six months imprisonment and a fine.

The hon. Gentleman made two other proposals, mentioning non-canalised ports and suggesting that people should have to report by phone. At such ports we operate through an intelligence-led approach. In some ways the hon. and learned Member for Harborough is right to raise the issue in the context of the potential impact of detection equipment that we have introduced as places such as Calais. We took pre-emptive action to ensure that we would be aware of any displacement into other ports and step up our intelligence-led approach, with immigration officers randomly descending on those ports as a deterrent against people trying to use them illegally. Although there has been a small amount of displacement, the action that we have taken to counter it has been effective.

We have sponsorship for categories such as marriage. Also, students must establish that they a place on a course. However, requiring every person wanting to come to the country to have a sponsor would impose an undue burden.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I am grateful to the Minister, particularly for her answer on new clause 4(2)(a). Could she say whether the intelligence-led approach is designed to prevent what the Daily Mail might understand as unlawful immigration, or all unlawful immigration? People who visit places such as Cowes by sailing boat in the first week of August are not regarded as illegal immigrants by the Daily Mail, merely people who happen to be visiting. It is in the interests of such people, as well as our leisure marine industry, that it should be easy for them to obtain leave. We should not have to depend on an intelligence-led approach to discover them, nor should they have to go to Southampton to register before they come to a place such as Cowes.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I take the hon. Gentleman's point about concerns on the Isle of Wight. The intelligence-led approach is focused on detecting illegal entry and ensuring that we provide a presence that appears randomly, so that there is a deterrent against people using small ports for illegal entry. We do not want that to affect people who want to come legitimately but who must get their leave in the normal, appropriate way.

The hon. Member for Woking raised further points that, since he is not here and in the interests of the Committee's use of time, I shall deal with succinctly and mostly by letter, as he invited me to do. His main question was whether the purpose of the clause could be dealt with under criminal law. Is there a genuine gap and are the proposals the best way of filling it? We have gone into those questions and I believe that clause 2 is essential to focus on the behaviour and the mischief that we have talked about, namely, people deliberately destroying or disposing of their documents. He asked a number of questions about immigration offences and carriers' liability. I shall write to him with details on all those matters and share that correspondence with the Committee.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Perth)

Will the Minister give way?

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

No. I shall conclude if I may. On that basis I invite hon. Members not to press new clauses 1, 4 and 5.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 - Immigration documents: forgery

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I beg to move amendment No. 71, in

clause 3, page 3, line 21, leave out '(6)' and insert '(8)'.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 72 to 74.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

The amendments are largely technical and result from insertions into the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 made by the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003. Proposed new section 5(11) of the 1981 Act is necessary in order to include in the definition of immigration documents cards that are issued on request to persons such as European Community nationals to confirm their rights in respect of entry to or residence in the United Kingdom under the Community treaties. The current definition of immigration documents does not include the cards, as they are not issued to people who require leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom. It is essential that we ensure the security of all the documents issued by the immigration and nationality directorate, because of the rights that they confer and their potential value to forgers.

I shall leave my comments at that. The amendments are self-explanatory, but I am happy to answer any questions.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 72, in

clause 3, page 3, line 22, leave out '(7)' and insert '(9)'.

No. 73, in

clause 3, page 3, line 23, at end insert

'satisfies subsection (10) or (11).

(10) A card, adhesive label or other instrument satisfies this subsection if it—'.

No. 74, in

clause 3, page 3, line 30, at end insert—

'(11) A card, adhesive label or other instrument satisfies this subsection if it is given to a person to confirm a right of his under the Community Treaties in respect of entry to or residence in the United Kingdom.''.'.—[Beverley Hughes.]

Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 - Trafficking people for exploitation

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

I beg to move amendment No. 1, in

clause 4, page 4, line 13, after 'is', insert

'the victim of an abuse of power or in a position of vulnerability or he is'.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 20, in

clause 4, page 4, line 16, at end insert

'or

(d) the purpose of the travel to the United Kingdom is either to facilitate any form of assault on him or to oblige him to enter any form of illegal adoption.'.

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

The amendment is designed to deal with a possible loophole in clause 4. The clause, which deals with trafficking, has been widely welcomed. Some members of the Standing Committee on what is now the Sexual Offences Act 2003 may remember debating its clauses on trafficking related to prostitution. Clause 4 of this Bill plugs a gap by dealing with the other part of the problem, which is trafficking for labour.

Subsection (4) defines exploitation, but in a way that I believe leaves a possible loophole. Subsection (4)(c) refers to someone being exploited if they are

''subjected to force, threats or deception . . . to provide services . . . to provide another person with benefits . . . or to enable another person to acquire benefits''.

However, there is a possible problem, because children who have been trafficked to the UK, perhaps for benefits fraud or domestic work, might not have been subjected to ''force, threats or deception''. The same might apply to adults who are vulnerable and emotionally dependent on the person who traffics them, as they might co-operate with the trafficker.

In the previous Standing Committee, we discussed the possibility of a child who was subject to abuse not being aware that they were being abused but instead regarding the behaviour as normal. One could imagine a child not realising that they were being exploited. They might not be subjected to force or deception, but instead happily go along with what is asked of them so that someone else can obtain benefits.

I suspect that the wording of the amendment is not perfect, but the phrases ''an abuse of power'' and ''a position of vulnerability'' are in the UN protocol's definition of trafficking, so they have been used in international definitions of trafficking to cover the

type of possibility that I am discussing. I hope, therefore, that the Government will give the amendment some consideration. Perhaps it could be argued that some aspect of the clause already deals with it, but the first line of subsection (4) contains the phrase

''a person is exploited if (and only if)''.

That is an unusual phrase to appear in a clause of this nature, so it seems that subsection (4) may be a little too tightly written and may leave some odd loopholes. We want to avoid the possibility of someone involved in trafficking escaping prosecution. That is the purpose of the amendment.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

I rise to speak to amendment No. 20, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking, whose return to the Committee has, most unfortunately, been delayed. I say unfortunately, because he is not only a lawyer but has long-standing and acknowledged experience of this subject.

The amendment is designed to widen the protection for children in a similar way to amendment No. 1. It would widen the protection by including the purposes of prostitution—that is encompassed in the word ''assault'' in the second line—enslavement and forced labour. One hears from time to time of cases in which young people are brought to this country for the purposes of being household servants and are virtually imprisoned—they have no control over their own lives. The amendment refers in particular to ''illegal adoption''. We all recognise what a sensitive and important subject adoption is. It is treated with extreme care in this country and needs to be encompassed in the meaning of the clause.

There have also been accounts—happily only rarely—of the ritual killing of young children in this country, so it is important that we try to include in the Bill every possible eventuality, so that young children are afforded the widest possible protection.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I merely want to comment on amendment No. 1 and to ask whether the hon. Member for Walthamstow is trying to prevent both direct and indirect pressure on a child. Instead of his wording, we could use the words ''either indirectly or directly''. The evils that he wants to prevent should be prevented, but the wording that he has used may not be the best way of going about that. I wonder whether, in the admittedly short time that he has to consider this, he could ask himself whether the words ''indirect or direct pressure'' would meet his case and deal with the evil that he quite properly wants to prevent.

Mark Oaten (Liberal Democrat, Winchester)

I have a couple of questions that relate to the amendments, and I hope that when the Minister sums up, she can clarify them. First, I just want to be clear in my own mind, on the issue of the trafficking of individuals and people and some of the cases that we have heard about involving the adoption or the purchasing of children from other countries, that in fact the provisions of the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999 would take account of adoption. To

ensure that there is no confusion, will she say how that Act relates to some of the provisions in the Bill?

Secondly, all hon. Members desire the proper prosecution of those involved in the trafficking of children. I want to be sure that other provisions in the Bill that deal with the return of individuals to their country of origin—people who could be key witnesses in trafficking offences—would not get in the way of the proper prosecution of those involved. It would be a pity if a prosecution were to fall because of the Home Office's intention to remove someone back to a country who could be a key witness. I hope that the Minister has the chance to comment on those two points.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I am grateful to the hon. Members for tabling their amendments. The way in which the law deals with the trafficking of children, for whatever purpose, obviously is of great importance to us all.

Amendment No. 20 would make trafficking for the purposes of assault or illegal adoption specific offences. We intended that prosecution under clause 4 should be appropriate for a wide range of cases of trafficking for the purposes of exploitation, but without necessarily defining all the circumstances. We wanted to draw the clause widely so as to catch a range of behaviour during which exploitation might take place.

Assault is already an offence, and as most hon. Members will know, in the most serious cases, when the assault is classed as wounding with intent, it can attract a life sentence. It is therefore likely that prosecution for assault rather than prosecution under clause 4 would be more appropriate in certain cases, because it would attract a higher sentence. The higher maximum sentence would be available to the courts, so there would be no specific value in specifying assault in the offence.

It is possible, in relation to amendment No. 20, that the clause is already sufficient to cover trafficking for the purposes of unofficial adoption. The phrase used in subsection (4)(c)(ii),

''to provide another person with benefits of any kind'',

may be wide enough to cover the benefit provided to someone who adopts a trafficked child. However, I want to be absolutely sure on the point, so I am asking my officials, with those in the Department for Education and Skills, to consider whether any benefit is to be gained from including a specific reference to unauthorised adoption—and ensuring that the intercountry adoption legislation that the hon. Member for Winchester helpfully highlighted also fits in with what we propose in the Bill.

Amendment No. 1 is about the abuse of power and the victim's vulnerability. The clause already applies to cases involving the abuse of power. The circumstances of such cases would constitute an aggravating factor, and could be considered by the courts. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow will know, because of my involvement in the Sexual Offences Act process, I am also concerned to ensure that the wording of the clause includes those circumstances in which the sort of coercion identified today may not have been used, but children, because

of their vulnerability, may none the less have been exploited as outlined in the trafficking offences.

It would certainly be possible to keep key witnesses here. Indeed, it is already possible; I am regularly asked by the police or the Crown Prosecution Service not only to retain people in this country but sometimes to return people who are key witnesses in trials for serious offences such as trafficking or murder. It is entirely possible—it is happening now. I would like to consider both amendments further. If any alterations to the wording are necessary, I shall table the appropriate amendments on Report. I hope that the Committee finds that acceptable.

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

I thank the Minister for that helpful reply, and I understand the point that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough made. The reason for the choice of words is simple. They are the words in the United Nations protocol and an internationally accepted definition of trafficking. If there is an internationally accepted definition, it is simpler to stick to it than to invent a new one. I am grateful that the Minister is going to reconsider the matter. None of us would want to leave a loophole that makes the prosecution of a particular case more difficult. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I beg to move amendment No. 21, in

clause 4, page 4, line 19, leave out '14' and insert 'ten'.

In the unavoidable absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking, I have been asked to move the amendment. It is a probing amendment, and need not test the patience of the Committee for too long. However, it is important for us to find out why the Government have chosen a maximum sentence of 14 years as opposed to any other penalty for the clearly heinous crime of trafficking people for exploitation.

In the canon of criminal law, the maximum sentences on indictment range from life for murder down to far lesser penalties for lesser offences. I am brought in mind of offences such as kidnapping or false, unlawful or malicious imprisonment, manslaughter, grievous bodily harm, burglary, robbery, theft and sexual offences committed against not just adults but children and young persons. Can the Minister enlighten us about the thinking of the Government in relation to the maximum penalty of 14 years in subsection (5)(a)? I do not attach any magic to the figure of 10 years. The amendment is designed to establish why the Government think that 14 years is the sensible maximum.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

The answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman's question is twofold. First, we have taken a clear view that tough penalties are required throughout the law relating to trafficking, because it is a particularly heinous offence involving, in many cases, the most degrading exploitation of people. Secondly, it is to do with consistency. Let me give the hon. Gentleman some brief background. An EU framework decision on trafficking has recently been adopted and the UK, in line with other EU member states, has to implement it. It commits

countries that are signatories to it to introducing a minimum maximum sentence of either eight years or 10—I shall obtain clarification. Therefore, we have to have at least that sentence.

Building on the 1971 legislation, which introduces a maximum penalty of 14 years for facilitation, we have taken a consistent view in introducing new trafficking offences, first in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and now in this legislation covering exploitation for non-sexual purposes. A sentence similar to that is required here, because trafficking is facilitation with the objective of exploiting for sexual or non-sexual purposes the person who has been brought in. The legislation covers domestic labour, which, in most cases that have come to light, is tantamount to modern-day slavery.

For those reasons, we need the same maximum sentence of 14 years for those offences. When courts consider the detail of individual cases, they will decide which sentence in that range up to the maximum sentence they want to give someone who is convicted. Courts should have at their disposal the same full range of sentences up to the maximum sentence below life imprisonment for these offences as they have for similar offences. I should add that officials have informed me that the EU framework decision requires a minimum maximum sentence of eight years.

I hope that my explanation satisfies the hon. and learned Gentleman and that he will withdraw the amendment.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

That was a helpful little canter around the Home Office's thinking. Although this is not strictly germane to the amendment or to subsection (5)(a), I am slightly puzzled by the Minister's remarks. She may or may not think it appropriate to respond to my concern that it is thought appropriate that it should be possible to deal summarily with the offences. I assume that there may be very minor cases of trafficking, which it is thought sensible for magistrates to deal with, for which the maximum sentence is six months or a fine. It is difficult to imagine what those might be, and I do not expect the Minister to produce an answer right now because she might want to take advice. Clearly, we are talking about serious and nasty offences, but—

Beverley Hughes rose—

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

She has already thought about it.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way, because we may be able to deal with his question here. These are all serious offences, but he will understand that the range of people involved in the chain—there usually is a chain—to traffick and to exploit people is very varied. Some people in the chain may be apprehended as a result of an operation to disrupt the gang, but their involvement in what is a very serious offence may be peripheral. They may have provided shelter for a night, not necessarily fully understanding the purpose for which the movement of that person was intended. The measure will allow the prosecution to deal with those more peripheral people in a way that is commensurate with their involvement, but still gives them the ability to prosecute through the Crown court the people who are heavily involved in

orchestrating the trafficking and to give them the maximum sentence available.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

Right now is probably not the time to have a discussion about the mental element and the state of knowledge of those who are to be charged, whether they are right at the heart of the crime or peripheral to it. However, I am grateful to the Minister for explaining her Department's thinking to some extent. I trust that the Crown Prosecution Service will study with great care what she has said, so that it will know what she means when it is framing charges against individuals. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 - Section 4: supplemental

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

I beg to move amendment No. 22, in

clause 5, page 4, line 35, leave out 'and'.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 23, in

clause 5, page 4, line 36, at end insert

', and

(g) any other person entitled to reside in the United Kingdom.'.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

These appear to be technical amendments. Amendment No. 22 seeks to delete ''and'' from the end of subsection (2)(e). Subsection (2)(e) and (f) say that

''a person who is a British subject under the British Nationality Act 1981 . . . and . . . a British protected person within the meaning of that Act.''

I am not a lawyer, and I assume that there is a technical distinction between those two descriptions. I assume that the reason for deleting the word ''and'' is that one person need not necessarily comply with both descriptions. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough will be able to elucidate that point.

Amendment No. 23 would insert the phrase,

''any other person entitled to reside in the United Kingdom.''

I assume that it is necessary to add that to the list of definitions, once subsection (2)(f) and (e) have been separated. I apologise for the fact that I cannot provide further legal interpretation, but those are my assumptions of what the proposals would do.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

My hon. Friend need not be embarrassed. For once, common sense and statutory interpretation coincide. Amendment No. 22 is dependent on amendment No. 23. If amendment No. 23 is made, the word ''and'' at the end of subsection (2)(e) will become redundant and move to the end of the next subsection. Therefore, the meat of the amendments is to be found in amendment No. 23, which is designed to cover all people who are British citizens, or their equivalents, or those entitled to live in the United Kingdom. There is nothing magic about

the amendments; it is a belt and braces exercise, and my hon. Friend explained it properly and clearly.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

Perhaps I can help both the hon. Lady and the hon. and learned Gentleman. Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 would give the UK jurisdiction to prosecute anyone entitled to reside in the UK for offences committed inside or outside the UK. If such a person, who would by definition be a foreign national with permission to reside in the UK, committed an offence inside the UK, they would already be covered. If such a person committed an offence outside the UK, the amendments would set a precedent for how we define our jurisdiction for all criminal offences. They seek to give us power to prosecute a foreign national who commits offences abroad.

Although I understand some of the thinking behind the amendments, I respectfully suggest that it would be more appropriate to act as we already do in cases of foreign nationals with permission to stay in the UK committing offences abroad. The prosecution would more appropriately take place in the country in which the offence took place. That is a more appropriate and feasible course of action for offences involving immigration. We work closely with other countries, particularly in Europe, on the identification and investigation of such offences, and the feasibility of prosecution in a foreign country can be readily understood.

Similarly, if a person entitled to reside in the UK, who is not covered by the categories listed in clause 5(2), committed an offence in the UK and left the country, normal extradition laws would apply and it would be appropriate to bring them back. The amendments are therefore unnecessary.

In summary, the amendment would introduce a completely new precedent, for this offence only, in the way in which we treat foreign nationals who commit offences abroad.

It being fifteen minutes past Five o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Sessional Order D [28 June 2001 and 6 November 2003] and the Order of the Committee [6 and 13 January 2004], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Amendment negatived.

The Chairman then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 - Claimant's credibility

Clause 7 - Failed asylum seekers: withdrawal of support

Mark Oaten (Liberal Democrat, Winchester)

I beg to move amendment No. 86, in

clause 7, page 7, line 10, leave out 'and'.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 87, in

clause 7, page 7, line 12, after 'elapsed', insert ', and

(e) the Secretary of State has informed the relevant local authority that the family has been rendered ineligible for support'.

Mark Oaten (Liberal Democrat, Winchester)

It is not my intention to speak at great length on these matters; I prefer to use this process to raise a number of points and to hear what the Minister has to say. These areas are controversial; there has been a lot of publicity about them, and she will know that the Liberal Democrats are opposed to the proposals related to the removal of benefits. However, this is not the time or place to rehearse the general arguments about that matter. If we are to make progress on those areas, I shall seek, through the amendments, to gain a greater understanding of how the removal of benefits would work.

The first point that I wish the Minister to clarify is who would be informed in the local authority, and who would have a duty to inform the local authority, when a decision was taken that benefit was to be removed. That is a critical point, on which I want reassurance. No one in the Committee would want a situation to arise in which the decision was taken to remove benefit, but none of the statutory authorities that should come in and give support was aware that the decision had been taken, and therefore the back-up systems to deal with the consequences of that hardship, including provision for any children, were delayed for several weeks.

The amendments make the point that we believe that the Bill should include a requirement on the Home Office to make contact with the local authorities to inform them that a decision has been taken on removal of benefit. We also believe that the Home Office has the responsibility for the consequences of its decision and should take a leading role in ensuring that back-up support is put in place. Although the Home Secretary gave me some assurances during the debate on the Queen's Speech, we believe that it is important to set out such requirements clearly in the Bill, with particular reference to the timing of the process. It is not acceptable to leave the onus for contacting the authority and getting the support on the individuals who have had their benefit removed. If the Home Office will not make that initial contact with social services, at the very least those who have had their benefits removed should, at the point at which they are informed of that decision, be told how to obtain support in clear and simple ways, and be given clear information about where they should go and the kind of support that they will receive.

Could the Minister also let me know what kind of discussions her Department has already had with local authorities to see how they plan to proceed on that issue? What kind of advice is the Department giving, and what feedback has she had from local authorities about some of the difficulties that they perceive in implementing the requirements that will be imposed by the Bill?

Could the Minister also explain to me under which section of the Children Act 1989 she envisages local authorities undertaking their responsibility for the children concerned? Will it be section 20 or section 31? I understand that there are different requirements, depending on which section is used. It would therefore be useful to hear from her which section of the 1989 Act she believes local authorities will have to use.

Finally, I hope that the Minister can give me some assurances about parents' access to children who have been taken into care as a consequence of hardship. We would all want some form of access for parents, so that there was not a very harsh regime. We understand that the Government are doing this as a deterrent, but there surely needs to be some ability for parents to have contact with children who have been taken into care.

I hope that the Minister will take me through the process from the point at which a decision is taken to remove benefits, explain how that will work with local authorities and what powers they will put in place, so that I can be reassured that something that I do not think should happen will be done in a way that avoids any further hardship.

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

I add a few comments to the points that the hon. Gentleman made about information to local authorities. I accept quite a lot of what he said about the need to ensure that, if we reach a point where benefits are withdrawn, when clearly some consideration has to be given to what happens to the children, the authorities who are responsible for taking that child into care or for making some other arrangement for the support of that child know what is happening.

Support from NASS, the National Asylum Support Service, could be withdrawn. There could also be cases where families are supported by a local authority social services department and the point is reached when it is told to withdraw that support. Clearly, in that second case, one would expect that to be relatively easy—the local authority would be told not to continue support. When someone else has been providing the support, it might not be so easy.

The situation could also arise where a local authority has to make a decision and the child is moved to somewhere else. As we know, that can cause problems. NASS is much better at informing local authorities of children who are newly arrived in their area as a result of dispersal. The problem has not been entirely overcome but the situation is much better than it was. At the other end of the process, the information is not necessarily passed on.

What happens at present when children are put into the dispersal system or families are removed from the country? Often, a school does not know about it. All it knows is that a child who has been attending the school is no longer attending. That creates a problem. That child can be regarded as missing. After the recent unpleasant incidents that have led people to think much more carefully about the protection of children, the precautionary approach would generally be taken.

A school or a welfare officer might report a child to the police as missing because they have no other information about what happened to that child. I know of cases where a child has been reported as missing to the police because the school does not know what has happened to them. The welfare officer does not know what has happened to them and has to assume the worst because he cannot take the risk of not doing so. In fact, the family has been removed

from the country or has been moved somewhere else in the NASS system. The information might have gone to the receiving authority, but not necessarily to the authority from which they had been moved.

Such communication issues are important. Although the Minister has said that we would want to reach that point only rarely and that the Government do not intend the operation of the clause to remove support from lots of children and their families, the point will be reached sometimes if the provisions enter into law. If the point is reached, it is vital that the information be passed, whether or not that is in the form suggested in the amendment. We must not have children slipping through the system or teachers and welfare officers getting unnecessarily concerned about children simply because they have moved somewhere else.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The amendment is built on a series of false assumptions, which, as I said on Second Reading, are to some extent the responsibility of a spin doctor from No. 10 putting it about wildly that children would be taken into care as a means of getting their parents out of the country when they had no further entitlement to be here. I do not blame the hon. Member for Winchester for being taken in by that spin, but we have the Minister's assurances that that is not the Home Office's intention, although that may be the intention of other parts of the Government.

Mark Oaten (Liberal Democrat, Winchester)

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he does not believe that benefits will be withdrawn from individuals and, as a natural consequence, that if benefits are withdrawn, there will not be some hardship on children?

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I am saying that if the Government have their way, benefits will be withdrawn from individuals and that a small number of children may suffer hardship. However, it is not only the state that can redress that hardship. Again as I said on Second Reading, a range of organisations, funded by both the state and other people, are happy to weigh in and say how dreadful the legislation is. It would be better if they lent some of their time to supporting the families who are in this country and not supported by other means. The charities should take responsibility for supporting people in that position rather than pushing the responsibility from the hard-pressed national tax payer to the hard-pressed local tax payer, which appears to be one intention of the hon. Gentleman.

Mark Oaten (Liberal Democrat, Winchester)

I find the hon. Gentleman's remarks extraordinary given the emphasis that the leader of the Conservative party put on the issue. Is he now saying that his leader was wrong to do that?

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I am not saying that at all. I do not believe that children should be put in the position of being taken into care. If charities and others who have complained about the Bill are as concerned as they claim about the impact on the children of people who are found not to have a just cause for remaining in this country, they should do more to support them rather than push the responsibility on to our hard-pressed local tax payers, as the hon. Gentleman seems to want. It should not be necessary for children to be taken into care, and I do not believe that the Minister thinks that

it should be necessary. Indeed, she made it clear that that idea was not spin for which the Home Office was responsible.

The assumption that benefits being withdrawn means that people are destitute is also false. Many organisations throughout the country support people claiming asylum, while there are also those people's communities.

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

I suspect that the hon. Gentleman does not see many asylum cases in his advice surgeries on the Isle of Wight. Those of us who do are now familiar with seeing people—usually single people, as families are currently supported—whose benefits have been withdrawn. Frequently, they can survive only on the charity of a friend or someone else in the community, usually someone who cannot afford to support them. They end up sleeping on one floor for a couple of nights, and then another and another, and living on next to nothing.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because it has confirmed exactly what I set out to confirm: people do have charitable intent and are willing to provide support to the destitute. I do not say that there is no merit whatever in the amendment, but I am trying to set it in context. It would, of course, be helpful if schools did not go chasing around the country looking for children who have been removed from the country. That is a waste of schools' and of social services departments' time. I quarrel not with the amendment but with some of the assumptions on which the hon. Gentleman bases it.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Perth)

I preface my brief remarks by saying that I believe that the clause is demeaning. It will punish innocent children for their parents' actions. It is particularly draconian because of the double whammy effect of clause 10 on the restriction of the right to a proper and effective appeal. I do not think that it reflects well on what is supposed to be a civilised society. I shall not repeat the remarks made by hon. Members on Second Reading, and—taking into account the recommendations of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which suggested that we scrutinise carefully what the Government intend and how they plan to implement clause 7—I welcome the probing amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Winchester.

I should like to focus on the position in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Children Act 1989 south of the border. We have, north of the border, a separate Children (Scotland) Act 1995, which imposes statutory duties on the children's panel system in Scotland. I am not sure whether the Minister is aware of that system. The children's panel makes decisions on children going into care. Such decisions are made solely on what is deemed to be best for children, not on Government policy on asylum. The system's guidelines are clear in that respect. I wonder what thought, if any, has been given to the effects that the clause may have in Scotland, and elsewhere in the UK. I wonder what thought, if any, has been given to the interaction of reserved powers on asylum and devolved powers under the Children (Scotland) Act 1995.

I should like to ask the Minister a specific question. I hope that she is able to respond to it, and if she cannot, I hope to catch her eye when she makes her winding-up speech. Recently, I raised an issue at Advocate-General's questions. In response, the Advocate-General said:

''Whether or not matters arise under the Social Work (Scotland) Act is still to be resolved.''—[Official Report, 2 December 2003; Vol. 415, c. 360.]

That legislation has a direct bearing here. It is a devolved matter. Has it been resolved?

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight said—I paraphrase him—that he was reassured by what the Minister said on Second Reading about the Bill's treatment of children. In this Committee, there are two Ministers from separate Departments on whom we must rely to speak for the Government. All I require of both of them is that they should stand up today and say that they will not mistreat children by using them as a weapon for an asylum policy. It does not seem to me that that is a difficult thing to do, if they are humane and civilised individuals—I am sure that they are—and are members of a humane and civilised Government. Whether I agree or disagree with the detail of the amendments is neither here nor there. I want to hear from the human beings representing the Government today in this Room that they wholly, sincerely and utterly disassociate themselves from any activity that may be carried out as a result of the Bill's being enacted without being amended, that would prejudice the well-being of children, in order to advance their asylum policy. It is as simple as that. That is all the Government need do, and they can do it today through these two Ministers.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

In order to answer some of the points made in the debate, and before I get to the substance of the amendment, I will set out our intentions with the clause and, more specifically, how I intend that it should operate, because that is directly relevant to the issues of concern.

First, I repeat to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough our view that there is nothing intrinsic in this measure that is to do with taking children into care, and that nothing in the Bill will give effect to that. Beyond that, there is no intention to mistreat children. It is about other issues. The measure is designed to encourage people to take voluntary, assisted returns home when their claims fail, and to use the period to enforce returns if they do not do so.

Members have heard me speak about enforced returns, but have they been out with an arrest team and seen what that means? With families, it is always done with mixed teams of men and women who are specially trained, and it is done very well, but if one imagines someone turning up at people's front door at 4 or 5 in the morning and getting them and their children out of bed and taking them to a place of detention, ready to go on a plane, they will see why that is an experience that one would want to avoid, however well and professionally it is done by immigration officers, however kindly people are spoken to, and however long they are given to get their possessions together. I would want to avoid such

an experience, and I want the majority of families with children who must leave the UK to avoid it.

When a family co-operates with arrangements for their return, they will receive full support until their departure from the UK, while all that must be done to enable them to return is being done. That usually involves obtaining documents that they have destroyed at some point, or that they never had.

If people do not co-operate, they will receive up to four letters, an appointment for a personal interview early in the process to explain what will happen if they do not co-operate, continued offers of voluntary removal, and an enforced removal if we can do that in the period and it is the only option. I envisage that the number of families for whom we will have to certify removal of support will be minimal, but I understand hon. Members' concerns that there may be some—this measure will become law, so there may be some. I understand that hon. Members want to ensure that, if it comes to that in one or two cases, the arrangements at that point will be appropriate.

Betty Williams (Labour, Conwy)

The Minister referred to four letters. Will they be available in languages other than English?

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

That point has been raised informally with me. The first letter will set out the detail of the procedure, and will be sent at the end of the appeal process when we are certain that appeal rights are exhausted. I certainly envisage that we will try to put that in some of the main languages, as it can be a standard letter. I will consider that.

People will then get a second letter inviting them for a personal interview. If they fail to appear for that interview, they will get a third letter warning them that support could end. Only if they then fail either to turn up or to co-operate will they receive a fourth letter, which will contain a notice that the Secretary of State is certifying their family for the purposes of support and that support will be terminated 14 days after that letter.

I hope that hon. Members will accept that as a measure of our intention to ensure that we get the full effect that we seek, which is not to turn off support for large numbers of families, but to ensure that as many families as possible return home either voluntarily, as we would prefer, or if not, before we get to the stage in the process when we can enforce a removal. However, I understand hon. Members' concerns that families that get to that point will want to know what the procedure will be from then on.

The amendment would require the Secretary of State to inform the relevant local authority that a family had been rendered ineligible for support before withdrawal of support could take effect. I have no difficulties with the intention behind the amendment. It is important that we develop a good mechanism for liaising with local authorities when a decision to withdraw support has been made. In fact, we have already discussed the matter with the Local Government Association and will continue to do so. We need to establish both the best way to inform the

local authority and, crucially for the amendment, the most relevant and appropriate time to do so. Clearly we need to tell the authority once a decision has been taken to withdraw support, but we should also assess whether we need to alert it earlier in the process that we are drawing up now. I do not want to entertain the possibility of local authorities being involved in unnecessary work, but it is essential that we not only determine the best way for local authorities to discharge their duties, but establish the necessary procedures to assist them.

I met the LGA to discuss the issue before Christmas and officials have done so since then. Based on our preliminary discussions, I have agreed to assemble a working group of practitioners to work with my officials, which will help us to go through the options open to local authorities and address such questions as how and when we should inform local authorities that support is being withdrawn. I agree that it is essential that robust and workable procedures are in place before we implement the provisions. I am committed to ensuring that we do that.

For that reason, I do not think that there is any added value in a statutory requirement for the local authority to be informed. We would have to define what the relevant local authority is. However, the family move may move, so in practice the relevant authority might not always be the one in whose area they had resided. As a matter of both practice and agreement through the LGA, we would seek to inform the appropriate local authority if the family indicated an intention to move or stay with relatives. I am committed to the principle that local authorities should be informed and we should develop appropriate procedures to ensure that that happens. On that basis I hope that the hon. Member for Winchester will feel it unnecessary to press the amendment.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether section 17 or 20 of the Children Act would apply if the local authority decided that a child or children were in need. The authority would have to make that decision, but even if support was withdrawn, the children might not be in need, and the family might receive support from other relatives or member of the community. However, if it came to that, it would be for the authority to decide how most appropriately to discharge its statutory responsibilities under the Act, based on its assessment of the children's need. The same would apply to local authorities in Scotland under section 25 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. Similarly, local authorities would have to assure themselves as to how they could best cater for children who they deemed to be in need.

The hon. Member for Perth mentioned the subject of the children's hearing. She will know that the children's panel deals with matters that would otherwise come before a court. If a child was accommodated by a local authority with the agreement of the parents, the panel would not be involved at all. If the parents agreed, the child would be supported under the provisions of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. The children's hearing would

come into play only if the parents disagreed and the local authority thought that the child was at risk, and was considering compulsory action.

The hon. Lady also asked about the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. To my knowledge, those matters have not yet been resolved. However, I will make further inquiries and reply to her.

I think that that deals with hon. Members' points. I hope that the substance of my response has assured the hon. Member for Winchester that I take seriously the need to agree with local authorities how and when to inform them, to our satisfaction and theirs, that we have started the process of identification.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Perth)

Will the Minister give way?

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

No, I want to finish.

I hope that, on that basis, the hon. Member for Winchester will not feel that it is necessary to press his amendment.

Mark Oaten (Liberal Democrat, Winchester)

I am extremely grateful to the Minister. This is the first time in the process that I have begun to understand the Government's intentions in putting those measures in place.

I am reassured to some extent by what the Minister has said. I could debate her point about whether in essence it is better to have someone knocking at one's door at 4 o'clock and a forced removal or, at its extremity, to have one's child taken into care. Which is the most humane way forward? There is a debate to be had about which is the right approach, and I am not entirely convinced that it is wrong to say that a forced removal is inhumane. It may actually be a fairer and more upfront way to proceed. However, I take on the Minister's points about the complexities.

When it comes to co-ordination with local authorities, I am extremely encouraged that discussions have taken place with the Local Government Association. That is important, and I hope that, as those discussions continue and perhaps as the Bill proceeds through its stages, we will hear a little bit about what the local authorities are saying in return. I am sure that they have some genuine concerns. I hope that those concerns will be taken on board and that, if required, some changes will be made to the Bill.

Is the Minister able to clarify a couple of points about the interview process, and the four interviews that will take place? My understanding is that the four interviews—[Hon. Members: ''Four letters.'']—the four letters will be spread over a period of time, that while those four letters are going out support will still be in place, and that support will not be taken away after letter two. The support continues during the four letter period. The Minister is nodding so I assume that I am right.

Will the Minister clarify who will be present at the interview? Will there be interpreters available during the interview process? Is there any suggestion that it may make sense to bring in the local authority or someone at that point to explain the options that are being made available? If a lot of weight is put on the interview—a good idea—it is important that the right information is given to the individuals involved and

that they clearly understand it. Will they be able to have somebody there as an advocate—somebody they can take to the interview to explain the process so that they understand what is going on?

I also hope that the Minister will clarify what attempts will be made to check that the letters have actually gone to the right addresses. Often, people fail to reply to letters not because they are ignoring them or not co-operating but simply because they have not received them. I hope that there is to be a checking system, so that if nothing is heard after the second letter, and the person does not turn up to the interview, it is not automatically assumed that the person is not co-operating, but some attempt is made to confirm whether they have received the letter and the invitation to the interview.

Jon Owen Jones (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff Central)

I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. However, he said earlier that it was arguable that a system whereby a forced removal took place fairly quickly was more humane than this system. Why, therefore, argue that we have to double and treble check that the four letters have been received? If we went for the immediate forced removal, there would not be any letters.

Mark Oaten (Liberal Democrat, Winchester)

If the Minister is making the assumption that support will be removed on the basis of non-co-operation, it is important to establish whether it is genuine non-co-operation or whether the people have not received the letters and have therefore not turned up for the interview. That is the important clarification that is needed. Some individuals will move around quite a bit, so letter one might appear, but they move on and do not receive letter two. It is important to clarify that we will not assume that non-co-operation is the only reason why somebody has not responded to the letters or to the request for an interview.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

If the hon. Gentleman looks at subsection (1)—I hope that I am dealing with the point that he is concentrating on—he will see the new paragraph 7A(3) of schedule 3 to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002:

''For the purpose of sub-paragraph (1)(d) if the Secretary of Sate sends a copy of a certificate by first class post to a person's last known address, the person shall be treated as receiving the copy on the second day after the day on which it was posted.''

There is not, in that regard, a rebuttable presumption. It is simply a presumption that is irrefutable. I hope that I have latched on a point that is germane to the hon. Gentleman's argument.

Mark Oaten (Liberal Democrat, Winchester)

The hon. and learned Gentleman has indeed. He will note that his colleagues and I have tabled amendments Nos. 35 and 89, which address that point. Perhaps it would make more sense to look at the matter in detail when we reach them.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I acknowledge that answer, but would it not also be evidence of willingness to co-operate if the people concerned furnished the Home Office with their new addresses?

Mark Oaten (Liberal Democrat, Winchester)

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. On the assumption that they have understood at that stage the situation that they are in, and that there are requirements on them to do that,

that would be a fair assumption. One of the problems with the process set out by the Minister is that the individuals' realisation of the situation that they are in might take place at the point of the interview. The most important process is going to be the interview, with an advocate present. I wonder again whether the Minister might think that there is an advantage in bringing the interview forward in the process rather than moving it back, as I believe that that will be the critical point.

On whether the social services would have to use section 20 or section 31 of the Children Act, I understand that that will apply only on rare occasions. However, I should like to revisit the matter at some point, because as I understand it—I do not understand the technicalities of all these things—there are different requirements under various sections. I think that it is section 20, and the Minister seems to be saying 17. Whichever section applies, there is a requirement on the parent to give

some kind of approval at that point. We might need, later on, to consider the practicality of a parent in such circumstances giving approval, or not, to the intervention of the local authority.

In conclusion, the Minister has, at last, made me understand how the process can happen. I am more reassured about it, but remain doubtful that, for the numbers involved, this is the right route. Taking benefits away is not the right approach. However, on the practical approach that the Government are taking to doing something that I think is wrong, I have had reassurances. I want to revisit the matter, but at this stage I shall not press my amendment, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Heppell.]

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Six o'clock till Thursday 15 January at ten minutes past Nine o'clock.