HC Deb 16 June 1999 vol 333 cc401-6

'.—(1) Section 25 of the 1971 Act (assisting illegal entry) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), for "seven" substitute "ten".

(3) For subsection (IA) substitute—

"(1A) Nothing in subsection (1)(b) applies to anything done in relation to a person who—

  1. (a) has been detained under paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 to this Act;
  2. (b) has been granted temporary admission under paragraph 21 of that Schedule.

(1B) Nothing in subsection (1)(b) applies to anything done by a person otherwise than for gain.

(1C) Nothing in subsection (1)(b) applies to anything done to assist an asylum claimant by a person in the course of his employment by a bona fide organisation, if the purposes of that organisation include assistance to persons in the position of the asylum claimant.

(1D) "Asylum claimant" means a person who intends to make a claim that it would be contrary to the United Kingdom's obligations under the Refugee Convention or the Human Rights Convention for him to be removed from, or required to leave, the United Kingdom.

(1E) "Refugee Convention" and "Human Rights Convention" have the meanings respectively given to them in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999."

(4) In subsection (5), for "Subsection (1)(a)" substitute "Paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1)".'.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause amends section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971 and sends a clear and tough message to the racketeers engaged in encouraging illegal entry—they will go to prison for longer on conviction. It increases from seven years to 10 the maximum custodial sentence that can be imposed following conviction on indictment for certain offences. The offences are: knowingly facilitating the entry of illegal entrants; knowingly facilitating for profit the entry of asylum seekers; and knowingly facilitating the obtaining of leave by deception.

The decision to increase the maximum sentence follows comments from the Court of Appeal earlier this year. It was suggested that an increase was needed to allow an appropriate sentence in the growing number of cases in which someone is convicted in a single act of facilitation relating to the entry of a large number of people. We believe that 10 years' imprisonment is the appropriate maximum penalty.

The offence of facilitating the entry of asylum seekers was created by the previous Government. It is not an offence to facilitate the entry of someone who intends to claim asylum when that is not done for gain or is done by someone employed by a bona fide refugee organisation acting in the course of employment. It is an offence to facilitate the entry of an asylum applicant when it is done for gain. The offence is aimed at racketeers, not refugee groups.

Mr. Peter Bottomley (Worthing, West)

How is intent to be established? A commercial airline may bring people in for money—they paid for their tickets—who are discovered to be coming here unlawfully. Where is the distinction to be drawn?

4 pm

Mr. O'Brien

Clearly, an airline that is lawfully bringing someone in is acting lawfully. A racketeer who is bringing in large numbers of people without consent, without information being given to the immigration authorities and without permission to be here is clearly acting unlawfully. I am not quite sure why that should be a problem, but I hope that that clarifies the matter.

Secondly, the new clause amends the definition of an asylum seeker to include someone who intends to claim asylum under the European convention on human rights as well as someone who intends to claim asylum under the 1951 refugee convention. That is to reflect the fact that, once the Human Rights Act 1998 comes into force, people will be able to claim under the ECHR as well as under the refugee convention. The offence of facilitating the entry of an asylum seeker would be rendered meaningless without the amendment, as someone who was prosecuted for the offence would always be able to argue that he believed that the asylum seeker in question had been going to claim under the ECHR, not the refugee convention.

The new clause, therefore, closes that loophole and ensures that the position of those claiming asylum under the ECHR and refugee status is put on a broadly equal footing in respect of these offences. The offence does not currently apply to things done in the course of employment by a bona fide refugee organisation.

Finally, the new clause amends section 25(5) of the 1971 Act. Section 25(5) makes it an offence for a British citizen, or a British dependent territories citizen, British overseas citizen, British subject or British protected person, who is acting outside the UK, to facilitate the entry of an illegal entrant. Subsection (4) of the new clause extends that extra-territorial jurisdiction to acts committed outside the UK by British citizens in order to facilitate the entry of asylum applicants where that is done for profit.

It is in the nature of the offence that, in some cases, the offending actions take place outside the UK. Successive Administrations have taken the view that, where the offence is committed by a British citizen, we should have jurisdiction to prosecute the offender.

Where the offence is one of facilitating the entry of someone who intends to claim asylum or protection under the ECHR, there will be more occasions where the offending behaviour occurs outside the UK. That is because, in most cases, the claim will be made as soon as the person concerned arrives in Britain. If we are to have the offence—I stress that it is aimed squarely at racketeers who are prepared to make a profit from trading in human misery—it makes little sense to exclude things that are done outside the UK. To do otherwise would allow, for example, a British citizen to escape prosecution for loading people into a lorry in France or Belgium as long as he did not help to unload them in Dover.

Taken together, the measures, particularly the first that I described—increasing the prison sentence—are a small but significant reinforcement of the present penalties available to deal with the offence of facilitation. I therefore commend the new clause to the House.

Mr. Clappison

We support the new clause which, as the Minister acknowledges, builds on legislation passed by the previous Government. The important point is that it deals with those involved in the criminal offence of facilitating illegal entry. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) is germane. We are talking about criminal racketeers who knowingly bring people into Britain for gain. That is a serious matter. If the courts feel that it needs to be visited by a higher sentence than is currently available, it is right that we should legislate for a higher sentence of 10 years. It is worth bearing in mind that, in many cases, such criminal racketeering is on a highly organised basis.

There is a suspicion that the scale of this activity is much greater than the number of convictions recorded for this type of activity would suggest. It can be no more than a suspicion because there are no statistics, but there is certainly suspicion that the number of convictions is relatively low in relation to the scale of activity which is probably going on. It is good to have a higher maximum sentence, but that should be accompanied by vigorous enforcement of the law by all agencies concerned, including the police.

In Committee, the Minister said that he was engaged in co-operation with the European authorities and Europol in an effort to counter such matters. We urge the Government to take the matter seriously. We shall be looking for results from that co-operation in the form of more convictions for this type of serious offence which is very much against the public interest.

Mr. Allan

I support the new clause. Human trafficking is disgusting, but it often gets lost because drug trafficking or illegal smuggling attract more attention. Human trafficking inflicts misery and even death on the people who suffer it. For example, people brought in on lorries have been found to he in a dangerous condition and some have perished in transit, so it is legitimate for the Government to target the problem.

There is a difference, however, between offences under section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971 and those under some of the other forms of prevention of entry. Those forms include the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 and section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, which offers a strict liability way to deal with people working illegally after they arrive in the United Kingdom. Both those measures share similar aims, such as to prevent gang masters bringing in gangs of illegal labourers. Strict liability offences do not require the demonstration of intent, whereas offences under section 25 of the 1971 Act do. We believe that that is often a better route to follow.

I hope that the Government will remember that we strongly support action under section 25 of the 1971 Act to deal with people proven to be traffickers with intent and that, when we criticise some of the other strict liability offences, they are not tempted to claim that we are soft on illegal entrants and illegal working. We want the provisions to be strengthened and used more thoroughly in the context of an intelligence-led approach to dealing with gang masters who bring people into the country illegally to work in sweatshops.

We are worried that some of the other strict liability offences may lead to a diminution in the penalties levied against such people. The prosecuting authorities may go for strict liability offences, such as are available under section 8 of the 1996 Act or the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987—which this Bill broadens to include lorry drivers—because they are easier to prove, rather than opting for prosecution of acts of intent as defined in section 25 of the 1971 Act and which we hope the new clause will make even more effective.

I hope that the Minister will respect the distinction that we draw between offences committed with intent and those committed under strict liability. We support the greater use of an intelligence-led approach to hitting the real target—the human traffickers who breach not only immigration controls but risk the lives of people in desperate circumstance who are drawn into a web of pain to secure illegal entry.

Dr. Stephen Ladyman (South Thanet)

Human trafficking is evil, and the new clause expresses the Government's attempt to deal with the exploitation of refugees. That is to be welcomed, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will clarify an element of the proposals that has been much discussed in the media. It has been suggested that a humanitarian who brings into this country a person escaping from oppression or torture might be found guilty of a criminal offence under the Bill. Will my hon. Friend confirm that, if refugees declare themselves to be such at a port of entry and apply for asylum there, they will not be considered clandestine and that no humanitarian in such circumstances will be committing an offence?

Mr. Wardle

I am sure that the House supports the new clause and I do not intend to detain hon. Members for more than a moment. However, will the Minister say whether the seven-year sentence has applied since the 1971 Act was introduced, or has it been amended subsequently? If my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) is correct in suspecting that there has been a great increase in racketeering—that is my impression, and I believe that it may be the Minister's also—is an uplift in the sentence from seven to 10 years a sufficient deterrent to the professional racketeers that we are trying to warn off?

Also, can the Minister give the House an idea of the number of convictions for this offence which have been secured in the past couple of years? If he cannot do so now, I hope that he will be able to in due course.

Mr. Bottomley

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle), I seek information on the pattern of sentencing and the number of convictions. That would allow us to see whether raising the sentence from seven years to 10 is a demonstration change made in Parliament or a real change on the ground.

Secondly, is there any kind of bounty system? If some people undertake illegal commerce for gain, it is likely that others might wish to gain small amounts of money for information that would lead to detection. It seems odd to pay large amounts for trials and to keep people in jail but not to use some imagination and some small sums of money to make people suspicious of those around them who may be involved in illegal activity.

Mr. O'Brien

I am grateful to the various Members who have welcomed the increase in sentence. Racketeering and trade in human misery is increasing, as the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) said, and we need to ensure that the law against racketeering is vigorously enforced. We need an intelligence-led approach, and, since entering government, we have encouraged the security services to co-operate with their contacts in other European and eastern European countries so that we can increase our information from those countries. Our co-operation with various countries is improving and we continue to work hard on it. Members of the immigration service and the Immigration and Nationality Directorate have made various visits to build on contacts as well as maintaining contacts with Europol and other Governments.

I have met Ministers from various countries and have visited countries in central Europe and I have encouraged them to take the initiative and to build on the gathering of intelligence about facilitation that takes place through their countries. In particular, much of the trade is directed through central Europe. Much co-operation is occurring, and convictions are being achieved in other European countries as a result of the exchange of information that we have generated.

We are also trying to disrupt and discredit traffickers. It is sometimes difficult to achieve a conviction because of lack of evidence. However, we may be able to disrupt the trade, and trade is falling off in several places, although I cannot go into detail on that.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) for his welcome for the new clause. Traffickers and gang masters are a serious problem, and we need an array of laws in order to deal with them. My hon. Friend the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) asked about those who bring in refugees for humanitarian reasons, perhaps those who are fleeing for their lives. The only offence is to facilitate the entry of an asylum seeker or someone seeking refuge under the European convention on human rights if it is done for gain. It is not an offence to do so for humanitarian purposes. Provided that the asylum seeker makes a proper and honest claim as soon as he or she arrives, the person would not be prosecuted.

The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) asked whether seven to 10 years was enough. We are advised that it is. The courts have asked for an increase because of the increasing sophistication of racketeers coming before the courts. We will monitor the sentence and, if it proves to be insufficient, we will consider increasing it further.

4.15 pm

There is clear evidence that because people trafficking can be very profitable, criminal gangs are moving away from dealing in drugs to dealing in people. The people concerned want to be part of the exercise, so it is easy to get money out of them. The organisation of those trips across Europe to Britain and other European countries is very sophisticated, and large operations often involve contacts between different gangs in different countries who all take a share of the profits. We are monitoring closely the extent to which contacts are developing between those criminal gangs. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the figures for last year's convictions, but I shall obtain that information and write to him.

The hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) asked whether bounties were offered in return for information. I suspect that that happens on a small scale. He is right to say that there may be grounds for developing that practice, and I shall further consider that idea.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Forward to