HC Deb 21 November 2000 vol 357 cc148-9W
Miss Widdecombe

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 24 October 2000,Official Report, column 115W, what account he took of (a) the types of criminal offence mentioned by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and the Weald, of 24 May 2000, Official Report, columns 977–78, and (b) the criminal offence of possessing child pornography under section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 in making his decision on amendments to the immigration rules concerned with refusing entry to those convicted of certain criminal offences; what plans he has to refuse entry to persons convicted of the offences mentioned in (a) and (b) above; and if he will make a statement. [136152]

Mrs. Roche

Passengers with convictions for paedophilia, dealing in child pornography and Class C drugs are naturally of concern. Under United Kingdom law, the maximum sentence for these offences is less than 10 years, which may lead to concern that such offences do not appear to be covered by the proposed amendments to Immigration Rule 320(18). But if there is reason to consider that any passenger who has such a conviction is a risk to public safety, they can be refused under Rule 320(19) on the grounds that, in the light of their character, conduct or associations, their exclusion from the United Kingdom is conducive to the public good. All cases are considered on individual merit, in the light of all relevant factors prevalent at the time.

The purpose of the Government's proposed changes to Rule 320(18) is to strengthen the provision by ensuring that it is more consistently and effectively applied. At present, travellers to the United Kingdom are not routinely questioned about criminal convictions, so refusal under Rule 320(18) is currently unlikely, despite the apparently low threshold for offences to which it applies.

Our proposals will require all travellers to declare any convictions for which they have been imprisoned. No threshold will be specified for offences which should be declared.

In order to provide clear, workable guidelines for officers working in the pressurised environment of the immigration control, and to focus the power on those offences of most concern to the public, we will apply the mandatory requirement to refuse entry under Rule 320(18) to those offences of most concern to the public. That is why we propose a threshold of offences punishable by a maximum of 10 years imprisonment, or more, or any offences involving violence, violent sexual behaviour or firearms. The current threshold of 12 months covers a very wide range of offences for which a first-time offender may not even receive a custodial sentence. Mandatory refusal could not be justified in all such cases. We believe that it is essential to strike a careful balance between public safety and the need to avoid delays at ports and airports.