My Lords, the noble Baroness has, in her normal manner, made a very good attempt to justify Clause 39, but I think she is on a very sticky wicket. All noble Lords who have questioned, critiqued or criticised this clause have made a very good case. I am not persuaded that the breadth of this, which could criminalise everybody who arrives seeking asylum, is necessary. The Minister has talked about egregious cases of people who were already deported as failed asylum seekers as well as smugglers and traffickers. I still did not understand her reply to my noble friend, because the read-out of Section 25A of the Immigration Act as it stands refers to arriving as well as entering—perhaps I will need to read Hansard to understand that.
As of now, I must admit that I am not persuaded of the need for this extremely broad power. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said, it is the last resort of—I will not say “scoundrel”—a Government who want to cover all the bases, however unjustified. To then leave it up to the CPS whether it prosecutes within such a wide range of possibilities seems unwise. The bottom line is that it is against the refugee convention, which I have read out, to penalise someone who seeks asylum. As others have said, Clause 39 in effect makes it impossible for someone to arrive to claim asylum without attracting the possibility of criminal penalty. That is, frankly, outrageous under refugee law and practice. I am afraid I remain as horrified by this clause now as I was when I moved the amendment, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw it.