House of Commons
Monday 14 February 2000
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
HOME DEPARTMENT
The Secretary of State was asked--
Clandestine Immigrants
1. Mr. Gwyn Prosser (Dover): How many lorries which contained clandestine immigrants have been stopped by the police in the last six months. [108235]
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): The police do not keep records of that information. However, I can tell the House that the records of the immigration and nationality directorate show that 11,500 clandestine illegal entrants to the United Kingdom were identified between July and December 1999.
Mr. Prosser: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Does she recall visiting the port of Dover last September with me, and the discussions that we had with immigration officers? Is it not right that those dedicated, hard-working, experienced professionals in the port of Dover were all convinced that the single most effective measure that Government could take to deter the racketeers and those who would smuggle clandestines in the back of their lorries was the introduction of civil penalties? Against that background, does she find it extraordinary that the Conservative party is still opposed to that measure?
Mrs. Roche: First, I was very grateful to my hon. Friend for accompanying me when I visited Dover, and immigration officers are very grateful for, and pleased about, the very strong support and commitment that he has shown them as a local Member of Parliament. That makes it all the more astonishing that Conservative Members should have spent their time in the Committee on the Bill that became the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 filibustering to deny the introduction of that civil penalty. Even now, they continue to oppose it. I would ask the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), if she and her colleagues returned to office--if the country were unfortunate enough for that to happen--would she reverse that legislation? What would she do?
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed (Mid-Bedfordshire): What would the Minister's advice be to a haulier who suspects that he has illegal immigrants in the back of his truck?
Should he drive to a police station and say, "They are in the back of the truck," or should he try to tackle those people, some of whom might be armed?
Mrs. Roche: This is the refrain that we constantly hear from the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald and her colleagues. [Hon. Members: "Answer."] If they care to be a little patient, I will tell them what the answer is. First, hauliers should check that they have the systems in place to ensure that such a situation does not arise; but then they should check before they drive on to the ferry.
The aim of the civil penalty is to encourage road hauliers to carry out effective checks on their vehicles to prevent the carriage of clandestine entrants to the United Kingdom. Defences are built into the system to protect the honest and careful driver, but may I say to the right hon. Lady, the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) and their Opposition colleagues that their mealy mouthed opposition to this important penalty does nothing at all for the hard-pressed people of Kent or the immigration service and just goes to show why it would be so inappropriate for the Conservative party ever to hold office again.
Mr. Robin Corbett (Birmingham, Erdington):
Does the Minister share my view that those who pay money to be illegally smuggled into this country should forfeit their right to claim asylum, given that those with a real fear of persecution or who are subject to a real threat to themselves and their families simply have to come to a port of entry and make clear their wish to apply for asylum at that point?
Mrs. Roche:
I know of my hon. Friend's great interest in this subject, and of course he is Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. The Government are determined to do two things; first, to say that of course Britain will always uphold our international obligations; but, secondly, not to put ourselves in a position where those who engage in the absolutely illegal trade of human smuggling receive any encouragement. That is why I say to my hon. Friend that we have increased the penalty for criminal acts in this area from seven to 10 years, why we shall continue, with the immigration service, to take very firm action indeed, and why we say to all those people who are thinking of making unfounded applications, "Do not do it."
2. Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York):
What representations he has received on the proposed standard spending assessment for North Yorkshire police for the next financial year. [108236]
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke)
: I have received representations on the funding of North Yorkshire police from the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) and from other Members who represent that area. I replied to the hon. Lady on 25 January. Under proposals approved by the House on 3 February, North Yorkshire police's funding will increase by 2.7 per cent. next year.
Miss McIntosh:
Does the Minister agree that he is failing to deliver on the Home Secretary's pledge of more
Mr. Clarke:
I do not accept what the hon. Lady says. The facts are as follows. First, in the 12 months to October 1999, crime in North Yorkshire decreased by 0.1 per cent. at a time when crime nationally was increasing. Secondly, the spending capacity of North Yorkshire police in the current year--1999-2000--is an increase of 3.2 per cent. over 1998-99, and that is above the national average of 3.1 per cent. Thirdly, North Yorkshire will receive funding from the crime-fighting fund for 25 police recruits over the next three years, which is a significant improvement for that force.
Mr. John Grogan (Selby):
Does my hon. Friend recognise that the standard spending assessment for North Yorkshire police and for other police forces in rural areas would be significantly affected if a sparsity factor were introduced? What are the prospects of such a factor being introduced in future years?
Mr. Clarke:
I have received representations on the sparsity factor from a variety of different forces and from my hon. Friend and colleagues on both sides of the House. We are taking that factor fully into consideration. We have published the report. The details and that factor will be part of the considerations in future spending reviews.
3. Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North):
If he will make a statement on his policy in respect of General Pinochet. [108237]
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw):
My policy in deciding the case of Senator Pinochet is to carry out my responsibilities under the Extradition Act 1989 in accordance with the law.
Mr. Winnick:
Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us are pleased that the processes regarding Pinochet are continuing in this country and that he has not been sent back? On the more recent speculation that his health may be worsening, is my right hon. Friend also aware that human rights groups would like to see hard medical evidence about this former criminal dictator, who in my view should certainly face justice?
Mr. Straw:
I am certainly aware of the concern that my hon. Friend expresses. On the question of whether the medical report should be published, the House will be aware that the matter has been before a three-judge court
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood):
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has said that, because the matter is clearly sub judice before the High Court. The case would have been eligible for judicial review had it not initially been a criminal matter. However, could Her Majesty's Government stop playing cat and mouse with the sitting senator who was admitted into this country as a VIP by the Foreign Office and whom the Government of Chile request be returned to the proper legal jurisdiction, which is in that very country?
Mr. Straw:
As I have said throughout the many months in which there have been extradition proceedings in respect of Senator Pinochet, in making decisions on the case I have sought to follow the duties that are imposed on me by the Extradition Act 1989. I shall continue to do that.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North):
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be well aware of the article published in El Pais some time ago and of the release of correspondence between his office and that of Senator Pinochet. He will also be aware that he has since placed that correspondence in the Library of the House. Could he explain why an official in his Department wrote to a lawyer acting on behalf of General Pinochet to offer him medical confidentiality, which, in effect, has given him a power of veto over subsequent proceedings?
Mr. Straw:
The House will understand that the issue that my hon. Friend raises is precisely one of the issues currently before the divisional court. For that reason, I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to comment further until we have a final judgment from the courts.
Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham):
Is it not odd that we should have contemplated the extradition of General Pinochet at the same time as we were creating the circumstances in Northern Ireland for Sinn Fein-IRA Ministers to serve in the Government there? Is not the truth something like this? When a democratic state makes a positive decision to overlook past misdeeds to create a new democratic settlement, other states should respect that decision.
Mr. Straw:
I am afraid that I do not accept the parallel that the right hon. and learned Gentleman draws. We are signatories to the European convention on extradition and we are subject to the Extradition Act 1989, which was passed by an Administration of whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a member. It is my duty, as the Secretary of State, to follow the responsibilities laid down by that Act.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |