Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Centre-left): I beg to move Amendment 125 on behalf of m noble friend Lord Rosser. Again, it is unfortunate that we debate this incredibly important group of amendments and incredibly controversial clauses. Essentially, this group of amendments deals with and looks at the Government’s proposals to criminalise those who assist asylum seekers for no gain of their own, including potentially saving lives at sea and what colloquially we now call pushbacks Clause 40 would remove the words "and for gain" from Section 25A of the Immigration Act 1971. Presently, under Section 25A(1) it is an offence if a person "knowingly and for gain facilitates the arrival or attempted arrival in, or the entry or attempted entry" of an asylum seeker into the UK. Amendment 125, in the name of my noble friend Lord Rosser, opposes the removal of "for gain". I am grateful to Peers who have also put their names to the amendment This amendment—the so-called Nicholas Winton provision—has become famous as part of the Bill which would have criminalised Sir Nicholas for saving the lives of hundreds of children had it been law at that time. The Government, showing some of the confusion that reigns around this part of the Bill, accepted that their original proposals could have criminalised the saving of lives at sea and introduced amendments on Report in the Commons to clarify that an offence is not committed if the act is done "by or on behalf of, or co-ordinated by … Her Majesty’s Coastguard" or an overseas equivalent. It is quite astonishing to realise that, in the first place, it was going to penalise the people they wanted to operate the law on their behalf. That clarification is welcome, but it is worrying that the issue needed to be clarified in the first place. But it does not address all the issues. Facilitating entry for your personal gain—including, for example, monetary gain—targets this power on those who smuggle and traffic people as part of a business model. The Government’s change breaks that model and extends the offence to people who provide aid to those in distress The amendments in the group demonstrate the remaining issues. Amendment 126, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, to which I am pleased to have added my name, addresses the duty on a master of a ship to assist those in distress at sea. International Maritime Organization guidance provides that the master of a ship "has an obligation to render assistance to those in distress at sea without regard to their nationality, status or the circumstances in which they are found. This is a longstanding maritime tradition as well as an obligation enshrined in international law." What does the master of a ship do if they are acting on their own initiative? Are we certain that the clause, as it stands, means that anyone in any circumstances, who is not operating under the co-ordination of the coastguard or under any authority of the state but is simply sailing their boat, yacht or ship, can stop and help someone, even if that means facilitating a group of people in a dinghy who are on their way to the UK? Are the Government saying that this is fine Amendment 128, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, raises the question of what happens when the coastguard does not co-ordinate or ask for intervention but a boat assists people in distress at sea. She has asked me to mention this amendment, which I support, as she is unable to be here. This is the situation that the Government have put us in: that we have to clarify issues concerning rescue at sea. The Government are in a mess about this. We need to understand exactly what the Government are saying, and what they are saying to those who are in command of boats or ships and save lives at sea. The Minister might like to tell us what it means with respect to both our own territorial waters and outside of those. What happens if we were 13 miles off the coast, which is outside our territorial waters, picked up somebody and then came back with them? Is that illegal? What happens in those circumstances? There is complete confusion from start to finish about what all of this means If that was not enough, we then come to the powers astonishingly included in the Bill: the powers to "stop, board,"—and the one that cause a huge amount of disquiet —"divert and detain", included in primary legislation in Schedule 6 to the Bill. Amendment 132, in the name of my noble friend Lord Rosser, would provide that the powers set out in Schedule 6 "must not be used in a manner or in circumstances that could endanger life at sea." My noble friend Lord Dubs and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, have added their names to the vital Amendment 131, which would prevent these powers being used against unseaworthy vessels including dinghies. Do the Government agree, or does the structure of the ship matter? It would be interesting to have clarification from the Minister We have already discussed the Dublin III regulations today. We used to have civilised, reciprocal arrangements for the safe return of asylum seekers to neighbouring states, where appropriate. We should be talking about bilateral negotiations, not about turning dinghies around in the middle of the channel by unsafe methods.