Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Brian Paddick (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I have been disciplined in my responses to previous groups. This group of amendments is so diverse and of such importance that I am left with no choice but to cover the ground comprehensively Amendment 125 seeks to prevent the change proposed in the Bill from targeting people smugglers who seek to exploit victims of war and persecution for profit to making it a criminal offence knowingly to facilitate the arrival, attempted arrival, entry or attempted entry into the United Kingdom of an asylum seeker, whether the person profits from the exercise or not. The only exemptions from the offence are where Her Majesty’s Coastguard—or a similar overseas organisation—or those acting on behalf of or co-ordinated by such an organisation are involved Can the Minister confirm that those on a vessel which by chance, unprompted, comes across a sinking boat filled with asylum seekers would have to seek permission from the coastguard before attempting to rescue and save the lives of those in danger of drowning—otherwise they would commit an offence I understand that new Section 25BA of the Immigration Act 1971 would provide a defence for the person charged with a facilitation offence. That is not an exemption from committing the offence, or even being charged with it. Surely, at the very least, a person who assists someone in danger or distress at sea should be exempt from this offence Amendments 126 and 127, in the name of my noble friend Lady Jolly, restrict such an exemption to the master of a ship. As my noble friend explained, under both domestic and international law, it is the master who is under a legal obligation to respond to a distress signal. It could be anyone who comes across such a situation and acts out of a moral duty to save lives. I am not sure what the legal definition of a master of a ship is. As my noble friend has said, the coastguard may not be aware or involved at the critical initial phases of an emergency at sea. Lives could be lost if emergency action is delayed Amendment 128 makes a similar point to include cases where the coastguard would have become involved if it had known about the incident. My noble friend Lady Hamwee asked for an explanation of what is meant by "first in danger or distress at sea" Although that may seem obvious, it may be a subjective judgment. When does an overloaded boat change from placing the occupants at risk to placing them in danger? Does the boat have to start sinking before they can legally be rescued? Are the Government really saying in new Section 25BA(3) that a ship on its way to a UK port that picks up asylum seekers who are in danger of drowning and are 49% of the way across the Channel from France to England must divert to a French port because "the United Kingdom was not the nearest place of safety on land to which the assisted individual could have been delivered" This needs a serious rethink before we get to Report As my noble friend Lady Hamwee explained, Amendment 129A is about the penalty to be imposed for failure to secure goods vehicles and for carrying clandestine entrants, and seeks to probe whether there will be consultation on that penalty Clause 42 is about those working in UK waters, who are to be regarded as having arrived in or entered the United Kingdom by being in UK waters. Can the Minister explain why this clause is necessary and whether there will be consultation on these regulations? This is in reference to Amendment 129B Schedule 6 is about maritime enforcement. Can the Minister explain how a UK enforcement officer can exercise powers in foreign waters or international waters, even against a foreign ship or a ship registered under the law of a relevant territory? Amendment 130 adds the safeguard—which is in existing Section 28M in Part 3A of the Immigration Act 1971—that authority for the exercise of powers must be given only if enforcement action complies with international maritime law. Similarly, Amendment 132A would ensure that nothing is done that is inconsistent with the United Kingdom’s international legal obligations Amendment 131 tries to ensure that enforcement action, such as pushbacks, could not be taken against unseaworthy vessels. Amendment 132 aims to ensure, more broadly, that enforcement action cannot be used in a manner that would endanger lives at sea. As my noble friend Lady Ludford said, this would appear to be a no-brainer We then come to legal immunity, both criminal and civil. Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 states that: "A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large." Whether the use of such force is reasonable is a matter for a court to decide, and it is the sole responsibility of the person using that force. An armed police officer, for example, whatever they are ordered to do, retains legal responsibility for firing his or her gun. Are the Government saying that an armed police officer who believes that he has been ordered—as in the case of Jean Charles de Menezes—to shoot a suspected suicide bomber, still retains legal responsibility for his actions, but the Border Force officers who push back and sink a boat containing asylum seekers who then drown are not legally responsible? Why should Border Force officers receive immunity in the exercise of potential lethal force, but police officers do not? Is there a difference between those against whom the potential lethal force is likely to be used? Can the Minister explain why there is a difference? My Amendment 134 would remove such immunity. Amendment 136 removes immunity from criminal proceedings only, as the JCHR proposes a different way of dealing with civil claims in Amendment 135, making the Home Office responsible for any civil claim, rather than individual officers. Can the Minister say whether such an amendment is necessary, if civil liability were to remain? Chief constables have vicarious liability for the actions taken by their police officers and staff in the execution of their duty in the event of a civil claim; that is, the chief police officer is sued rather than the individual police officer.