---

Lord Thomas of Gresford: If I may respectfully interrupt the Minister's reply, the point is that this certificate is conclusive. What the government of a foreign country says cannot be challenged in the British courts. It is possible that they may make a complete mistake, or that their supreme court has already declared the law to be not what the government believe it to be and that they have not succeeded in their arguments before the court. If the government say that that is the law, the courts of this country have to accept it.

Lord Filkin: I hear the noble Lord's argument. He may be right. I should like to double check that point to ensure whether, as he says, in no circumstances would it be open to a defence to argue that the government had misdirected themselves in the circumstances that we are discussing.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for his support on this amendment and to the Minister for his response.

I have some remaining concerns with regard to the difficulties that will be faced in this country if a court has to make a decision based on information given by the government of another country. First, as I understand it, the British courts will be required to understand the laws of evidence of other countries. It is not just a matter of certifying whether a particular activity might of itself constitute an offence. The Minister may wish to consider that point during the Summer Recess.

Secondly, when the Minister referred to the question of whether as a matter of evidence X had happened, it occurred to me that not only would a court need to understand the laws of evidence that may pertain in another country, but also, surely, whether a body of case law was involved in a similar case in another country so as to be able to understand why the certificate had been given in a particular way by the foreign country. The matter is not quite as cut and dried as the Minister has sought to persuade us. I shall read carefully his remarks in Hansard. However, I believe that we may have to return to the point at another stage, unless the Minister wishes to respond further today.

Lord Filkin: I shall not at this time of night or at this stage in the proceedings chance my arm on those further good questions. But before the noble Baroness sits down, in order to avoid delay or correspondence, I acknowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, is correct. The certificate is, indeed, conclusive. If there were a complete mistake, effectively the defence would need to say that the certificate was not truly a certificate at all. However, whether or not that is meaningful I know not and shall reflect on the matter.

23 Jul 2002 : Column 294

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 238ZGM not moved.]

9.15 p.m.

Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 238ZGN:

Page 66, leave out lines 14 to 33.

The noble Lord said: The effect of Amendment No. 238ZGN would be to remove completely the offence of helping an asylum seeker to enter the United Kingdom under proposed new Section 25A. This is a probing amendment. We on these Benches do not see what new Section 25A adds to Section 25. The offence is described as "facilitating arrival" in the United Kingdom.

There is no legal way into Britain for a person seeking asylum. How is it not facilitating the commission of a breach of immigration law under Section 25 if a person facilitates the asylum seeker in arriving, or remaining, in Britain? Therefore, we do not believe that new Section 25A adds anything, and we seek the Minister's explanation. I beg to move.

Earl Russell: I was very grateful to the Minister for the reply that he gave me before dinner concerning the lawful right to seek asylum. But I wonder exactly how the Minister squares that reply with proposed new Section 25A. I agree with my noble friend that it reduplicates what is in new Section 25, but why need it be an extra offence to assist someone to seek asylum?

So far as I know, seeking asylum is not an unlawful act. I am reminded of a case which I read about, I believe, in this morning's paper. The article discussed whether there could be a conspiracy to steal an object which, in fact, turned out not to exist. The issue that we are debating here is a little on that level. If it is not an offence to seek asylum, why should it be an offence to assist someone to seek asylum? It might just as well be made an offence to assist someone to learn to play cricket. Indeed, since my youngest son, at the age of nine, once broke my rib learning to bowl fast, I believe that there might be a bigger case for making it an offence to assist someone to learn to play cricket, although I assure your Lordships that I have absolutely no intention of doing that.

The proposed new section gives a very unfortunate impression. It gives the impression that the Government believe that something which they have recognised as a right is nevertheless an offensive act which needs to be discouraged by law. There is at least the potential for divergence between those two views. I do not see what the new section is doing in the Bill and I shall be very interested to hear the Minister's justification for it.

Lord Avebury: Perhaps I may mention another case to add to that of Donald Woods, to which I referred before dinner. This case concerns a friend of mine who was an asylum seeker from Sri Lanka. He went to the High Commission in Sri Lanka and our High

23 Jul 2002 : Column 295

Commissioner—an extremely good man called Shakespeare—facilitated his journey to Britain. He escorted him to Bandaranaike airport and put him on the plane.

As I understand it, under this proposed new clause, Mr Shakespeare would have committed a criminal offence. Are we really trying to suggest to our representatives in foreign countries that, where they have the opportunity to assist genuine asylum seekers to come here, they should refrain from doing so? Are we trying to suggest that our High Commissioner was not acting in a way that would be applauded by everyone in the United Kingdom? I should add that he had a difficult time afterwards because, naturally, he was not particularly popular with the Sri Lankan Government for having done what he did. However, I believe that everyone in this country considered that he had performed an enormous service to the cause of freedom.

My friend, who obtained asylum in the United Kingdom, is an ornament for the legal profession and practises in the courts here. Therefore, I believe that it was to the public good that the High Commissioner acted in the way that he did. I hope that, in future, representatives of Her Majesty's Government abroad will not be prevented from following his shining example.

Lord Hylton: Following the noble Lord's remarks, there has been, and probably still is, a widespread practice of individuals claiming political asylum in embassies of other countries. It has certainly occurred in South America; and there was the famous case in Moscow of the Siberian seven. Have the Government really thought this matter through?

The Countess of Mar: As I understand it, the amendment is right. The provision specifies that an offence is committed if the action is "for gain". Was Mr Shakespeare expecting the Sri Lankan gentleman to pay him in order that he facilitate the Sri Lankan gentleman's passage through the airport in Sri Lanka?

I have experience of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. Asylum seekers are often asked whether they have applied to consulates, embassies or high commissions in the countries from which they seek asylum.

Lord Avebury: I am grateful to the noble Countess for giving way. Would not Mr Shakespeare have been caught by the preceding clause? It does not use the words "for gain". We sought to insert those words without success.

Earl Russell: It does not solve the problem to point out the words "for gain". Many people do things for gain in the course of any lawful working economy. I cannot think of other cases—I shall be grateful to know whether the Minister can do so—where it is an offence to allow people for gain to take part in a perfectly lawful activity. It is not an offence to allow people for gain to go on a Ferris wheel. It is not an

23 Jul 2002 : Column 296

offence to allow people for gain to go on a railway train—although when one hears some inquiry reports one wonders whether perhaps it should be.

If the activity is lawful, surely it is also lawful to undertake it for gain. Can the noble Countess offer me any examples to the contrary?

The Countess of Mar: No. I admit that the noble Earl has floored me. However, there are problems with regard to people who are facilitating, for gain, people coming into the country. Noble Lords will have heard me talk many times during Question Time of the wicked trade in human trafficking. I am concerned that it should be stopped. The only way we can do so is by having laws like this measure.

Lord Judd: The noble Earl raises an interesting point. However, perhaps he is not concentrating on the right point regarding the words "for gain". In a whole realm of human activity, people perform useful services for gain. However, doing something for gain may lead people into a despondent situation in which they will suffer acutely as a result of the encouragement given. Therefore, to suggest that the words "for gain" are acceptable in this context is unfortunate.

A whole realm of responsible organisations work with tremendous commitment in the voluntary sector in this country. They do not advise asylum seekers primarily for gain. No one suggests that their work should be curbed. There is an issue about the words "for gain". I suggest that the noble Earl really knows that there is.

---