My Lords, to follow up on that point, my understanding is that anybody is entitled to ask a question of clarification on something that the Minister has said but not to engage in debate, which is allowed in Committee but not on Report.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for his support and the Minister for her comprehensive response on these amendments. As I anticipated, the Government want to hide behind tipping off people smugglers as to what the Government are doing to tackle the problem. But how do we hold the Government to account if we do not know what is happening, as far as Amendment 59 is concerned, on the issue of “for gain”?
I understand the example the Minister gave of the chap who had money in his wallet, and so forth. One understands that prosecutions are not always possible, and at least the money was recovered. But there is a defence once charged in the Bill; there is not immunity from prosecution. So, somebody who comes across a sinking dinghy in the channel and rescues the asylum seekers could be subject to a prolonged investigation. The Minister talked about a full examination of the circumstances. It does not prevent the person being arrested, potentially, and being held either on police bail or under investigation for a long period to examine the circumstances. The defence in the Bill is only once charged.
10.15 pm
So our real concern here is that these rescuers will hesitate to rescue these people unless and until they get coastguard involvement, for example. During that period of hesitation, lives could be lost. It will be for the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, to decide whether to divide the House on his amendment if, when we get to that point, he finds, as I do, the Minister’s explanation unsatisfactory.
On Amendment 62, I am very concerned. The noble Baroness says, “Don’t worry, all these Border Force people have been trained in the European Convention on Human Rights and they wouldn’t do anything to endanger life”. Yet the Bill provides Border Force officers with immunity from both criminal and civil litigation. Why would that be necessary if they are not going to do anything to endanger life? On the other hand, if the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is right and it is obvious that they will not do that, why object to the inclusion of that amendment?
However, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.