It has been clear for some time that dealing with illegal migration is a political imperative. As has often been pointed out, the numbers of people seeking asylum by irregular routes, principally by crossing the English Channel in small boats, are high by historical standards, even if modest in relation to overall, lawful flows in and out of the UK.
The rise of Reform UK and recent sizeable demonstrations against migration may be largely attributed to a sense of public unease about the issue. It is corrosive. Democratic politicians have to face up to the political and practical challenge this represents, not only by countering extremist propaganda, myths and misinformation, but also by showing the public that some progress is being made to stabilise the situation.
“Delivery” is essential – and non-negotiable. When so many ministers across both mainstream parties have promised and failed to “stop the boats”, that is no mere routine public policy failure; it is eroding the confidence of some in the democratic political process itself. That is obviously a dangerous trend. It is certainly not an exaggeration to say that the future of the Labour government depends on its response.
The recent appointment of a new home secretary, Shabana Mahmood, with a completely new ministerial team, is a clear sign that Sir Keir Starmer appreciates the jeopardy his government and his premiership are in, let alone the need to protect public order from periodic threats of unrest.
Ms Mahmood has said that she “will robustly defend the British public’s priorities in any court – and I will do whatever it takes to secure our border”. Plain-spoken, in the Commons, she has condemned her Conservative predecessors for doing “sod all” to get a grip on the situation. She certainly brings energy, determination and a seldom-seen sense of urgency to her task. She will need it.
Some further salience, predictably, has been provided by Donald Trump, who has told the prime minister, privately and now publicly, that he should use the military to end the small boats crisis, warning that irregular migration can “destroy” countries.
As ever with Mr Trump, the lurid language and simplistic approach need to be heavily discounted, but the suggestion he has made has triggered renewed talk about what the armed forces can do to help alleviate the situation – and their contribution could be substantially useful.
In principle, members of the armed forces have always had an obligation to “assist the civilian authorities” in times of crisis, whether that is the long period of the Troubles in Northern Ireland, their periodic emergency work driving fire tenders and petrol tankers, or when they administered jabs and built Nightingale hospitals during the Covid pandemic. So it is not such an outlandish idea that they should be deployed to help Border Force and the coastguard service in the English Channel.
In fact, the Royal Navy already has what ministers call a “working relationship” with Border Force, such that the military force can be called upon if needed. Some years ago, indeed, during the Johnson administration, the navy was placed in operational command of all UK forces in the English Channel. The army and the Royal Air Force also put resources into surveillance at sea and, with the cooperation of the French authorities, along the coast.
Labour’s new Border Security Command also involves the security services in its efforts to gather intelligence and “smash the gangs”. It is principally a police operation, but it could also benefit from assistance from the navy and RAF to help Border Force detect and detain criminals operating here and abroad.
The “smash the gangs” campaign has enjoyed some success, but clearly not enough to placate an impatient public. There is also the sad inevitability that, as with the war on drugs, such criminal groups adapt their tactics and business models to whatever the authorities do. It is a hugely lucrative business, after all, with big demand and incentives for the gangs loaded towards taking terrible risks with other people’s lives. In recent times, the navy has stepped back from its command role – but that may have been a mistake.
Deploying the Royal Navy to directly intercept small boats is fraught with problems, and it would be foolish to dismiss them. International law and the commonly accepted obligation to save lives at sea prevent much use of brute force. Because the English Channel is so narrow, there are no easily accessible international waters to take the boats and their passengers to without somehow towing or taking them out to the hostile North Sea or the Atlantic. Taking the dinghies back to France, or even pushing them back into French waters without the consent of the French government, would constitute a diplomatic incident.
Perhaps some arrangements could be negotiated with Paris, but in reality, this would amount to yet another attempt to reach a “returns agreement”, entirely absent since Brexit and one much more ambitious than the present “one in, one out” deal. That is little more than a pilot project at the moment, with a total score of one Eritrean and one Indian immigrant, and it has not yet captured the imagination of the public.
Past attempts to press-gang the navy have met with resistance from its commanders. They don’t feel it is their job, they lack the resources, and they’re more concerned about shadowing the Russian Navy and its auxiliaries that are menacing European waters and communications networks. Yet that is no reason why the option should not be revisited, and also with the RAF and the army.
The key may be not to tell the admirals, generals and air vice-marshals what to do, but to invite them to think about how they could best help the country secure its borders from what is, admittedly, not a military attack. If extra resources are needed, they should be provided. Logistics, command, intelligence, surveillance and deterrence can all play a part. The chiefs of staff understand that.
It is difficult to believe that the armed forces couldn’t play a more constructive role in what must always remain a primarily civil concern. The small boats crisis has proved so intractable and so frustrating to the electorate that every means has to be mobilised to end it. That includes Ms Mahmood revisiting the law so that shameful, flagrant abuse of human rights is ended, making sure the criteria for granting asylum are properly drawn and transparent, and pressing on with clearing the backlog of cases and emptying the asylum hotels.
She will need to establish secure, humane accommodation for asylum seekers in the interim, where the Ministry of Defence is already working with the Home Office. Border Security Command must continue its efforts to catch the criminal smugglers and intensify international cooperation, including with source countries and those bordering them, such as Iraq and Turkey. She will need more returns agreements and, if suitable, third-country processing and relocation.
If the UK is to honour its international humanitarian obligations, secure its borders and satisfy public opinion, it will require a huge mobilisation across government. Sir Keir should ensure that Ms Mahmood has all the authority and resources she needs to get the job done. There is no alternative.
