The government likes to talk tough over Channel crossings – but all we have seen are ridiculous proposals

As the latest leak reveals ministers explored potentially using sonic weapons to deter asylum seekers, May Bulman asks why such proposals to tackle the issue keep appearing

A group of people thought to be migrants are brought in to Dungeness, Kent, by the RNLI (PA Wire)

When reports came out at the end of September 2020 that Priti Patel was considering building an asylum processing centre on the remote overseas territory of Ascension Island, it came as a surprise to many and dominated the headlines.

When, days later, more leaks revealed plans to build immigration centres on disused ferries, processing asylum seekers in Papua New Guinea and using wave machines to push dinghies back to the French coast, as well as “floating walls” in the Channel, they were again high on the news agenda.

Was this Priti Patel’s big – albeit arguably inhumane – plan to curb the surge in small boat crossings starting to come together?

The answer was no. All of the proposals quickly fell flat on their face. They were branded “illegal, expensive and illogical” by immigration experts, former civil servants and politicians – and ministers soon had to admit that they had no basis of actually coming to fruition.

You would assume this would have been embarrassing for the government - floating major proposals to tackle a huge issue only for them to be proven totally unrealistic. Yet in the 15 months that have followed, this episode has repeated itself – multiple times.

Home Office sources told journalists in March 2021 that the department was considering setting up asylum processing centres in Gibraltar and islands off the Scottish coast – the idea being that people reaching UK shores in small boats would be sent straight to these centres while their claims are considered. On the same day, both Gibraltar and Scotland denied the reports, branding them “groundless speculation”.

In another instance, The Times reported in November 2021 that UK ministers were in talks with Albania about flying asylum seekers there to be processed. The suggestion was shot down within hours by the Albanian ambassador in London, who told The Independent it “would never happen”, because it would be “against international law”.

This week has seen more of the same. On Monday, it was reported that talks were ongoing with Ghana and Rwanda to offshore asylum seekers there – only for Ghana to deny that any such proposal is being considered.

Later that day, in perhaps the most bizarre example yet, it emerged that No 10 had explored using sonic weapons – Long Range Acoustic Devices (LRADs) that fire a beam of pain-inducing tones and are used in the US to deter crowds – to turn round small boats in the Channel. The Home Office confirmed that two Border Force vessels were fitted with LRADs for loud hailer communications at sea but said they were not used for “deterrence”. Tellingly, a Home Office source has reportedly already branded the suggestion “f***ing bonkers”.

That all of these ridiculous proposals get airtime despite being unworkable is symbolic of how ministers have dealt with the rising number of Channel crossings in recent years. There’s a lot of loud talk about tough proposals, yet very few of them actually being implemented – and it’s unlikely the government will be able to appease voters like this for much longer.