HC Deb 19 June 2000 vol 352 cc99-101W
Mr. Lidington

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from foreign Governments regarding the civil penalty for carrying clandestine illegal entrants under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.[126530]

Mrs. Roche

Since the civil penalty provisions of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, were introduced in Dover and Coquelles on 3 April, we have received four inquiries about them from foreign Embassies in London. These have taken the form of three fax messages, two from the Polish Embassy and one from the Czech Embassy, and a telephone call from the Spanish Embassy. All were asking about procedures, and all four were directed to the Civil Penalty Central Administration Unit (CPCAU) which was set up to administer the civil penalty provisions. No representations or other form of communication on this matter from any foreign government have been received.

Mr. Lidington

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) companies have gone into (i) receivership and (ii) liquidation and (b) individuals been declared bankrupt as a result of inability or failure to pay the civil penalty for carrying clandestine entrants under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.[126532]

Mrs. Roche

As far as I am aware, the answer to all these questions is none. But the road haulage industry has nothing to fear from the civil penalty provisions of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, provided that the driver of the vehicle checks his load before embarking for the United Kingdom to ensure that there are no clandestine illegal entrants on board.

Mr. Lidington

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons have been served with civil penalty notices under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 for carrying clandestine illegal entrants in their vehicles; what type of vehicle was involved in each case; what the level of the penalty was in each case; what the nationality of the person served with the penalty was in each case; how many companies have been served with the penalty(a) in addition to and (b) instead of persons directly responsible for driving the vehicles; how many appeals have been entered against the penalties; and how many of them have been successful; and if he will make a statement.[126531]

Mrs. Roche

Between 3 April, when the civil penalty provisions of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 were introduced, and 11 June, penalties were imposed in respect of 189 separate incidents where vehicles were found to contain clandestine illegal entrants. The vehicles comprised 177 heavy lorries, four vans and eight private motor cars.

In 56 cases, the driver of the vehicle was British. The 131 other cases involved four drivers who were Austrian, five Belgians, two Bosnians, four Bulgarians, five Czechs, four Dutch, 27 French, 15 Germans, four Hungarians, two Irish, 12 Italians, five Lithuanians, one Luxembourgeois, ten Poles, three Portuguese, one Romanian, five Slovaks, six Slovenians, ten Spaniards, one Tunisian and five Turkish. In two cases, the driver was a stateless person. In all but 26 cases, the nationality of the driver was the same as that of the company which owned the vehicle. Where there were differences they were as follows. Two British drivers were driving Irish-owned vehicles; and in one case each, British drivers were driving vehicles owned in France and Italy. Two Belgian drivers were driving vehicles owned in Italy. Two Lithuanian drivers were driving vehicles owned in Austria. In one case each, French drivers were driving vehicles owned in Belgium, Germany, Spain and Austria. In one case each, Turkish drivers were driving vehicles owned in Germany, Austria and the Netherlands. In one case, each Slovak drivers were driving vehicles owned in Germany and the Czech Republic. One driver from Luxembourg was driving a vehicle owned in Austria; one driver from Croatia was driving a vehicle owned in Italy; one driver from Hungary was driving a vehicle owned in Austria, one driver from Bulgaria was driving a vehicle owned in Germany; one driver from Tunisia was driving a vehicle owned in Italy; one driver from Spain was driving a vehicle owned in Italy; one driver from Slovenia was driving a vehicle owned in Italy; one Dutch driver was driving a vehicle owned in Germany; and, one German driver was driving a vehicle owned in Austria. The two drivers who were stateless were both driving their own vehicles.

In every case, the driver of the vehicle was served with a penalty notice. In addition, in all but 11 of the cases cited, penalty notices were also served on the owners or hirers of the vehicle. In 26 cases this involved the serving of penalty notices on more than two persons or companies in respect of a single incident.

In each case, the level of the penalty was £2,000 per clandestine illegal entrant detected. The penalties imposed ranged from £2,000 (one illegal entrant detected) to £100,000 (50 illegal entrants detected).

One hundred and one letters of objection have been received, in which the responsible person has sought to show why the penalty should not be levied, and thus far two have been successful.