My brain has also gone to mush—let us all just reveal here—but I thought that she originally asked about the purpose of the provision, and I thought I was answering that. Hopefully, I will also get on to answering her points later.
The bodies or individuals who provide assistance in search-and-rescue missions and who are acting on behalf of, or co-ordinated by, Her Majesty’s Coastguard, are protected from prosecution for the offence of facilitation. A defence is also provided for seafarers acting in good faith, where their assistance is not co-ordinated by the coastguard. This puts it beyond doubt that organisations and individuals who rescue those in distress will not be convicted of people-smuggling offences. A separate defence is also available for masters of ships who discover stowaways on board after leaving port and who then dock in the UK, as long as they appropriately notify the authorities.
It should also be noted that we are retaining the defence available to persons acting on behalf of organisations whose aim is to assist asylum seekers and who do not charge for their services.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked me about people acting outside UK territorial seas. If the act is co-ordinated by HMCG or equivalent, they are protected from the offence. If they are intercepted and brought into territorial waters, we would not prosecute unless there were egregious factors such as the ones we talked about earlier. However, it is right that, in investigating a serious offence, all available evidence be considered and all relevant behaviours taken into account. We are at present limited by an unrealistic requirement to show financial gain that does not take account of the reality of international organised crime. Under the amendment, by retaining for gain we would place an unrealistic burden on our law enforcement officers and prosecutors in seeking to bring to justice those engaged in these activities.
I turn to Amendments 126 to 128. I understand the concern expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, that in such circumstances the masters of vessels should not be charged with a facilitation offence. I assure her that those international obligations were taken into account, including the one she mentioned, in drafting new Section 25BA of the 1971 Act. If the masters of vessels act independently of Her Majesty’s Coastguard, we have provided a defence for persons who show that they had to assist an individual in danger or distress at sea at the time between their first being in danger and their being delivered to a place of safety on land.
To the noble Baroness’s point, that defence means that we will assume that, in such circumstances, masters of vessels are telling the truth and acting in good faith unless we can disprove it beyond all reasonable doubt, but it is right that we should be able to investigate in any event. That is designed to stop people smugglers from pretending to rescue migrants with the intent of escaping prosecution.