I take both noble Baronesses’ point but I hope I have tried to signal what the intent is through my explanation.
On Amendments 121 and 122 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, I thank her for drawing attention to the problem under UK law caused by the difference between entering the UK and arriving in the UK. I should explain that “entry” is defined by Section 11 of the Immigration Act 1971 and involves disembarking in a non-approved area or disembarking and subsequently leaving the immigration control area. Where a person is detained and taken from the area or granted immigration bail, they are not deemed to have entered the UK. The Court of Appeal has held that an asylum seeker who merely attempts to arrive at the frontiers of the UK to make a claim is not entering or attempting to enter the country unlawfully in accordance with the definition of entry in Section 11. This means that individuals who are subject to immigration control and who step foot in the UK because their small boat was rescued by Border Force in the English Channel do not enter the UK in a technical sense—they simply arrive. To provide the CPS with the ability to prosecute appropriate cases when proportionate and in the public interest, Clause 39 must refer both to those who enter the UK and to those who arrive in the UK.
I appreciate the concerns raised today but I am convinced that the amendment, if accepted, would simply encourage others to make those journeys across the channel and encourage those who facilitate that journey.