My Lords, I am very grateful to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. I introduced Amendment 126 and 127 to bring the Bill into line with international and domestic law regarding the duty of the master of a vessel to respond to a
distress signal at sea if he, or she, is able to do so. By removing the words “for gain” from the facilitation offence, a dilemma is created. Those who help asylum seekers are likely to be prosecuted, yet there is also a duty on the master of a vessel to respond to a signal of distress at sea. This dilemma was recognised, in part, by the Government, and an amendment was introduced on Report in the other place—but it does not go far enough. It does not fully recognise the unique duty placed on the master of a vessel to respond to a distress signal without delay.
New Section 25BA of the Immigration Act 1971, as introduced by this Bill, provides protection from prosecution only if the rescue is co-ordinated by HM Coastguard or another search and rescue organisation. This may not always be the case, even in genuine situations of distress, especially for small vessels that are not equipped with modern communications equipment and methods of raising electronic distress alerts.
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is clear. Article 98 states:
“Every State shall require the master of a ship flying its flag ... to render assistance to any person found at sea in danger of being lost”.
The Safety of Life at Sea Convention’s Regulation 33 states:
“The master of a ship at sea which is in a position to be able to provide assistance on receiving a signal, from any source, that persons are in distress at sea, is bound to proceed with all speed to their assistance”.
The Assistance and Salvage at Sea Convention of 1910, which is still current, states:
“Every master is bound, so far as he can do so without serious danger to his vessel, her crew and her passengers, to render assistance to everybody, even though an enemy, found at sea in danger of being lost.”
This long-standing duty of a master to render assistance to those in peril at sea in customary and in conventional international law is brought into effect through the distress messages regulations, which say:
“It shall be the duty of the master of a ship, on receiving at sea a distress alert, to proceed with all speed to the assistance of the persons in distress”.
Noble Lords will detect that these quotations have a common theme: that it is a specific duty on the master of a vessel to respond to a distress message without delay. It does not matter whether a search and rescue organisation is involved or not. Of course, it would be preferable that it was, but the duty on the master of a vessel to act immediately remains in all circumstances. In my view, it would be wrong to prosecute the master of a vessel for doing what the law requires him to do.
Similarly, there are specific duties on the masters of vessels when requisitioned, in distress situations and following a collision at sea. Although the Government amendment provides a defence for rescuers, it cannot be right that in obeying the very clear duties from the distress signals regulations, the master of a vessel may then face prosecution from another area of domestic law.
In times of conflict, the first Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions specifically prohibits the prosecution, conviction or punishment of a person for rescuing anyone in peril at sea. I believe that this protocol sets a minimum baseline for how one human
being should treat another, whatever their status or circumstances. It cannot be right that we should adopt a lower standard in times of peace than we do in times of war. I beg to move.