My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken. I start with Amendment 52, from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, on the issue of people smuggling. I am glad to be able to talk about this topic, because it is at the heart of the many problems in this area.
The UK takes smuggling and irregular migration seriously and is absolutely committed to tackling organised immigration crime in all its forms. We work closely with near-neighbour countries such as France, Belgium and the Netherlands, and key international partners beyond Europe, to address this exploitative crime and tackle smuggling networks. To tackle the threat, we have in place a multi-agency organised immigration crime task force that brings together law enforcement, border guards, immigration officials and prosecutors, to tackle organised crime groups involved in people smuggling. The task force is currently working with partners in some 17 source and transit countries.
Additionally, there are already agreements in place in order to tackle smuggling and irregular migration. For example, in November last year the Prime Minister signed an agreement with Belgium reaffirming the two countries’ close partnership and commitment to tackling shared threats such as serious and organised crime, including human smuggling. The two countries are committed to strengthening the legal framework for co-operation on our law enforcement agenda with a co-operation agreement and a focus on information exchange.
We are committed to working with France to maintain the security of our shared border, and to tackle illegal migration, and this relationship is long-standing, supported by the Sandhurst Treaty. Most recently, last year a bilateral agreement was reached between the UK and France. The UK pledged to make a further financial investment of approximately £54 million in 2021-22 to tackle illegal migration in small boats, and last year’s investment saw the French doubling the number of officers patrolling the beaches.
In and beyond Europe, we are working to exchange existing capability and co-operation internationally to disrupt organised criminal gangs and dangerous people smuggling routes. The joint political declaration between the EU and the UK, agreed in December 2020, noted the importance of good management of migratory flows, and the UK’s intention to engage in bilateral discussions with the most concerned member states to discuss suitable practical arrangements, including on asylum and illegal migration.
We maintain frequent contact with law enforcement partners both in the UK and abroad as part of our investigations into people smugglers, and these are often highly sensitive and complex. It would not be appropriate to provide commentary on cases, or place information in the public domain that might compromise operations or alert the would-be perpetrators to initiatives designed to thwart their criminal enterprises. I am sure that noble Lords understand that.
Addressing the organised crime groups that facilitate illegal migration remains a UK priority. In July 2020, the Home Secretary and the French Minister of the Interior signed an agreement to create a joint intelligence cell with the aim of cracking down on people-smuggling gangs. Last year, over 23,000 crossing attempts were prevented by French law enforcement and, since the UK-France JIC has been established, we have with France dismantled 19 small-boat organised criminal groups and secured over 400 arrests—quite often the things that people do not hear about.
I would like to stress again that the UK already has a number of safe and legal routes in place, and those in need of protection should claim asylum in the first safe country that they reach, rather than paying those smugglers for dangerous journeys with risk to life. All countries have a moral responsibility to tackle the issue of illegal migration and it is fundamental that our international partners engage with us to enhance our current co-operation. We continue to highlight the importance of having effective returns agreements to deter people from making unsafe crossings.
The agreements currently in place with near neighbours reflect this, and the amendment will not help the Government’s continued efforts to tackle these crimes. In fact, it might hinder or stall the fruitful and open dialogue on these issues between the UK and its international partners, many of whom would not agree to their discussions and domestic activity aimed at reducing people smuggling being published to a domestic audience.
In summary, I cannot support the amendment, because it is not appropriate to provide a running commentary on the actions that are being taken to tackle people smugglers, and I am sure that the noble
Lord knows that. Much of it is sensitive activity, operational and based on intelligence sharing, with the aim of protecting vulnerable people.
Turning now to Amendment 59, our purpose in removing mandatory proof of gain from this offence is to more readily target people smugglers, where organised crime gangs will conceal their tracks and make it as difficult as possible to prove that they are getting financial gain to the standard required for a successful prosecution.
Let me provide an example. A suspected facilitator was detected at Heathrow Airport with passports concealed on his person and in his baggage. A short time later, an undocumented female of the same nationality and coming off the same flight claimed asylum. Her appearance matched that of the image on one of the concealed passports. The suspected facilitator had £1,400 on his person, which was seized under PoCA 2002. A search of his home address resulted in many additional travel documents being found, along with approximately £3,500. The facilitator refused to answer questions. Despite the strong circumstantial evidence, it could not be established that the money was directly linked to the female asylum seeker’s facilitation and so, without being able to prove “for gain”, the prosecution could not proceed.
10 pm
I understand fully the noble Lord’s fear that the wrong people may be drawn into the judicial process. To avoid this, there is a protection for a person working for organisations whose aim is to assist asylum seekers and which do not charge for their services, as well as for persons providing assistance to individuals in danger or distress at sea whose actions are on behalf of or co-ordinated by HM Coastguard. Defences are provided for seafarers where their assistance is not co-ordinated by the coastguard and for masters of vessels who bring stowaways to the UK. Organisations and individuals who rescue those in danger or distress in good faith will not be convicted for people-smuggling offences.
The way the defence works is that the seafarers simply need to state the facts of the rescue. Unless investigators have specific reasons to doubt a particular case, it will be assumed in such circumstances that they are telling the truth. Unless this is the case, they will not even be referred to the Crown Prosecution Service for it to consider charging the person with the offence. It will not be sufficient for the investigators to be sceptical; they will need to be able to disprove the facts put forward with specific evidence that is admissible and meets the “beyond reasonable doubt” test, ensuring a high degree of protection for the seafarer. I know that we went through this last time in Committee; I hope that tonight’s explanation clarifies what we discussed then.
Consideration of whether it is right to seek prosecution in such cases requires a comprehensive and objective assessment of all relevant circumstances, including evidence that the individual acted for gain. However, it is right that other circumstances be also considered. It is vital that prosecution be used as a deterrent where circumstances strongly suggest that the stated reasons for an individual’s actions are incredible and/or perverse, to the extent that no reasonable person could believe
that they were acting in good faith. In common with any proposal to pursue prosecution, the weight of that evidence will be carefully considered by both the investigating officers and then, if referred, by the relevant prosecution authorities.
I turn to Amendment 60 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I fully understand the desire to protect seafarers who may need to act independently of Her Majesty’s Coastguard. The problem we have is that the amendment proposed by my noble friend would play into the hands of ruthless people-smuggling gangs, who can be expected to adapt their methods to allow them to use a purported rescue as a way to escape prosecution. I am sure that that is not what my noble friend wants. They could supply unseaworthy boats or boats with insufficient fuel that would allow migrants to make their way only a couple of miles off the French coast before running into difficulties—probably for an extra fee. As I have said repeatedly in this House, our intention is to stop people smugglers and not to target for prosecution honest people acting to rescue migrants in distress. However, we need to allow our investigators the opportunity to pursue these gangs, who will exploit any loophole in the law they can find.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for saying that Amendment 61 is a probing amendment. We wholeheartedly agree with the intention behind it. We do not condone the behaviour that it seeks to address—that is, the advertisement of assistance for unlawful immigration to the UK on social media platforms. I do not think that this provision is necessary. There are laws in place which may already criminalise the behaviour that the offence of advertising assistance for unlawful immigration to the UK seeks to capture. Section 25 of the 1971 Act deals with facilitation of a breach of immigration law, which may include conduct such as advertising. Section 25(4) already provides that the offence applies to things done, whether inside or outside the United Kingdom.
In addition to this provision, we also have the benefit of Section 44 of the Serious Crime Act 2007. It is already an offence to intentionally encourage or assist another person to commit an offence, including pursuant to Section 25 of the 1971 Act. To determine whether an individual has committed an offence under any of these provisions, one must thoroughly review and consider the facts of each case, including the exact wording and content of the advert in question. The overlap with existing statutory provisions would need to be carefully considered to see what value, if any, an offence would add. Obviously, to bring a prosecution in this area is particularly complex, compounded perhaps by the extra-jurisdictional nature of the problem, coupled with the associated practical and legal challenges.
Turning our focus away from legislative measures and towards other measures to combat illegal migration, I have already set out the activities we are undertaking to tackle organised immigration crime with our European partners. As I have said before, it would not be appropriate to provide commentary on cases or to place information in the public domain. It is also worth noting that the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is leading on the Online Safety Bill. This aims to tackle
harm facilitated through user-generated content and via search results. DCMS is also seeking to introduce the online advertising programme, which aims to reduce harms for consumers, businesses and society as a whole. Crucially, it will review illegal and legal but harmful content, as well as the placement of advertising online across all actors involved.
We do not disagree with the intention behind the amendment at all. The resistance is based on its effectiveness in bringing a solution to what is a quite complex problem. I hope that, for the reasons I have given, the noble Lord can withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 62 seeks to ensure that the maritime enforcement powers cannot be used in a manner that would endanger lives at sea. Safety of life at sea will of course always remain a priority for any interceptions of small boats crossing the channel to facilitate illegal migration, and their use will always comply with international obligations, including in the context of maritime safety. This extends to all potential encounters in respect of using the maritime powers when dealing with vessels carrying irregular migrants towards the UK. Officers exercising these powers are trained in the safe deployment of the tactics and their obligations in respect of human rights within the European Convention on Human Rights. In order to be appointed as an immigration officer, officials must successfully complete and pass a foundation course, which includes understanding the European Convention on Human Rights as it relates to the Human Rights Act and, as a result, their obligations in the context of exercising these powers.
Amendment 63 seeks to ensure that the maritime enforcement powers cannot be used in a manner inconsistent with the UK’s international legal obligations. As has been reiterated regularly, we remain committed to our international obligations and in our view, it is not necessary for us to restate those obligations with domestic law. Safety of life at sea will always remain the priority for any interceptions of small boats crossing the channel to facilitate illegal migration, and their use will always comply with international obligations.
This extends to all potential encounters in respect of using the maritime powers when dealing with vessels carrying irregular migrants towards the UK. Officers exercising these powers are trained in the safe deployment of the tactics and their obligations in respect of human rights within the European Convention on Human Rights when exercising their powers. Indeed, as I have said, to be appointed as an immigration officer, individuals have to pass certain obligations through a foundation course.
It should be further noted that the measures introduced by the Bill are designed to prevent unsafe routes to asylum and deter irregular migrants and people smugglers from using the dangerous cross-channel maritime routes, which are some of the busiest shipping routes in the world.
On the final question that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked me about the MoD and the Home Office, my understanding is that they are working together.