Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 13th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Berkeley]

208: After Clause 56, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to enforce maritime safety in United Kingdom waters or the UK search and rescue region(1) The Secretary of State must take all reasonable steps to enforce the provisions of Part IV of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (safety) against any migrant vessel operating in United Kingdom waters or the UK search and rescue region that is dangerously unsafe and being used to transport persons to the United Kingdom.(2) The Secretary of State must issue guidance to maritime enforcement authorities (including the Border Force, His Majesty’s Coastguard and Maritime & Coastguard Agency) about the exercise of powers under sections 95 and 98 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (detention of, and offences relating to, dangerously unsafe ships) in relation to migrant vessels in the English Channel.(3) It shall be the duty of any designated maritime enforcement authority to act in accordance with the guidance issued under subsection (2) and to cooperate in the detection, detention and prosecution of migrant vessels and persons who commit an offence under section 98 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (owner and master liable in respect of dangerously unsafe ship) in respect of a dangerously unsafe migrant vessel.(4) For the purposes of subsection (1)—“dangerously unsafe” has the meaning given in section 94 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995;“migrant vessel” means a ship being used for the unlawful or clandestine carriage of persons by water with the intention of facilitating their entry into the United Kingdom (whether or not those persons intend to claim asylum);“ship” has the meaning given in section 313 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 and includes any small boat or other vessel used in navigation for carrying persons by sea.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to impose a clear duty on the Government to leverage existing maritime safety law as a deterrent against dangerous small-boat crossings in UK waters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 208 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Dubs, I will also speak to my Amendment 208A. This is a rather odd end to this part of the Bill, but it relates to the issue of saving lives across the channel, regardless of whether the people whose lives may be saved are asylum seekers, illegal immigrants, people in fishing boats who have sunk, or whatever. It comes from a very interesting report that I received earlier this year from Captain Matthew Schanck, Integrated Maritime Policy for Managing Maritime Migration in the English Channel: A Comprehensive Approach. If my noble friend has not read it, he can have my copy when I have finished with it. The captain raises two issues, both of which need further study.

The first is that we have a duty in this country to save people’s lives if they are at risk in the sea. The Merchant Shipping Act 1995 already prohibits taking dangerously unsafe vessels to sea, with quite severe penalties—two years’ imprisonment and £50,000 fines, I believe. Of course, this would cover most if not all of the vessels that come across, which many people want to try to deter, shall we say. What amazes me—perhaps my noble friend can confirm this—is that there seem to have been no prosecutions since the 1995 Act, apart from one, of a gentleman called Ibrahim Abah, which led to an arrest but under different merchant shipping legislation. Those people who are coming across in whatever vessel in whatever direction for whatever purpose should have a safe captain or skipper on board, and if they do not, they are liable for prosecution. Perhaps my noble friend will be able to inform me why there have not been any prosecutions, as far as I can gather.

The second amendment relates to search and rescue—SAR—enabled boats, which I am afraid are not fit for purpose. At the moment, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution does a wonderful job, mostly from the Dover lifeboat station, picking people up out of the sea, as does the coastguard, the security ships and things like that, but it is very difficult picking large numbers of people out of the sea, as some noble Lords will know. We have nothing that makes that particularly easy. Captain Schanck produced some very interesting statistics. Greece has 250 SAR-enabled boats, 8,000 staff and 8,500 miles of coastline. Italy has a similar number. We have no SAR-enabled boats, 400 staff, who of course are all shore based, and a 7,700-mile coastline. I am not being critical of the coastguard, because it does a fantastic job, as does the RNLI, but it lacks the right equipment and control to do the job properly. One example is that the coastguard, which is responsible for co-ordinating rescue, has no ships of its own, so it has to call on other ones.

Reading Captain Schanck’s excellent paper, one suddenly realises that, yes, there is a lifeboat, but getting people to climb over the side of a lifeboat when they are in their 50s, or 100s, is actually very difficult. It is possible to procure or build specialist SAR equipment when it is necessary, which they have done in other countries, but we have not. My noble friend will probably say—if he is still awake and listening to me; I am sorry about this—“Well, who is going to fund this new equipment?” I think the coastguard should be put in charge of all the rescue arrangements, including having the equipment to deal with it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Berkeley for bringing forward his amendment and for taking the care to put on record in Committee the concern that he has on behalf of those people who are, sadly, dying or being put at risk at sea. I can give him the assurance that, if he wants to pass me Captain Schanck’s report at some point, I shall make sure that it is put into the system so that we can examine the detail and, if there are issues to which I can respond post that, I shall certainly do so.

The purpose of this Bill is several-fold, but there are two particular examples in the Bill that are of importance in relation to what he has put on the table before the Committee. The first is the role of the Border Security Commander, which I shall come on to in a moment—and will, I hope, answer the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has raised as well. But I draw his attention to Clause 18, which we considered earlier, which provides a specific new offence of endangering another during sea crossings to the United Kingdom.

Amendment 208 would introduce a duty to take all reasonable steps to enforce provisions of maritime law relating to the safety of vessels in relation to small-boat migrant vessels, and to introduce guidance on maritime powers. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, I do not think that it is responsible for us to regulate the use of small boats across the channel; our job is to smash the gangs and the business model that is driving people to use those small boats. But there is also—and I hope that it is helpful to my noble friend to say this—existing maritime law in force. We should use all tools available, legislative or otherwise, to address unsafe vessels and particularly to deal with the protection of crew, passengers and other water users for whom small boats can also provide some concern and danger for life at sea.

Turning to Amendment 208, the strengthening of the border command is important, and this goes to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The new border command established by the Bill is responsible for co-ordinating border forces, maritime command and His Majesty’s Coastguard for the purposes of border security. The Border Security Command established by the Bill provides strategic cross-system leadership across current and future threats, not just for Border Force, but for all agencies playing a vital role in protecting our borders and going after the people-smuggling gangs. That is, I think, the spirit of what the amendment is seeking, and that is what Border Security Command is trying to do.

In addition, my noble friend will be aware that the Joint Maritime Security Centre, established in 2019, is designed to co-ordinate and consolidate maritime security activity and information under the sponsorship of the Home Office Border Security Command, but also involving the Department for Transport and the Ministry of Defence. The JMSC is the UK’s centre of excellence for maritime security. I have myself had meetings at its headquarters in the past 12 months. It provides 24/7 monitoring and reporting of global waters, it plans the response to maritime events, and it looks at UK global maritime threats and sanctions-related understanding. To achieve this, the JMSC engages with a range of national and international maritime security partners, including military and law enforcement partners, and will also discuss with voluntary organisations such as the RNLI what is happening in the channel. So I understand why my noble friend has brought this amendment forward, but I argue that the new body would be essentially a duplication and is not required. The Border Security Command will be drawing together expertise across the border security system to ensure effective collaboration and a strong response to border security threats, building on the expertise and collaboration of relevant local agencies.

I say again to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that in relation to Clause 3, DfT is on the board of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, so there is that link and the assumption is that there will be close co-operation.

I am grateful to my noble friend for bringing this amendment forward. I will certainly make sure that the Home Office Minister responsible for this policy area gets sight of the report referred to, but I hope that, with those assurances, my noble friend is able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for his comprehensive responses, which I shall read with great interest. On first reflection, it all sounds like a positive way forward, although I will have to investigate whether the right equipment is being procured and used, because people cannot rescue large numbers of people floating in the sea if they do not have the right equipment. But on that basis, I am very grateful to him and to other colleagues who have responded, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 208 withdrawn.