Will the migrant boat disaster force the government to change its approach to Channel crossings?

Priti Patel uses sinking to push controversial news laws, but Home Office assessment finds they could result in people using ‘riskier means of entering the UK’, Lizzie Dearden reports

Anyone seeking to claim asylum in the UK must be physically present in the country, creating an imperative to reach it but no safe means to do so (AFP via Getty)

The deaths of dozens of migrants who drowned in the English Channel while trying to reach the UK must force the government to change its “cruel and ineffective” approach, campaigners say.

Wednesday’s tragedy comes amid record crossings, which have already neared 26,000 so far this year despite repeated vows by the home secretary to make the route “unviable”, with threats to arrest and jail those arriving.

Priti Patel has said she wants to save lives with plans to push migrant dinghies back to France and make it a crime for asylum seekers to reach the UK on small boats.

But a Home Office impact assessment warned that the moves could encourage “riskier means of entering the UK” and said that “evidence supporting the effectiveness of this approach is limited”.

The overall number of asylum applications to Britain has fallen since 2019, according to Home Office statistics, but the use of small boats has rocketed because of efforts to stop lorry crossings and a reduction in air, ferry and freight traffic during the coronavirus pandemic.

The view of the National Crime Agency (NCA), which leads investigations into the smuggling networks that organise the crossings from France, is that they will continue to operate for as long as there is demand for them.

The government is doing little to address that demand, after cutting safe and legal routes to claiming asylum in the UK, such as the Dubs scheme, which saw asylum-seeking children directly transferred to Britain from mainland Europe.

Following the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan in August, ministers welcomed a programme to resettle 20,000 refugees directly from the region, but it has not yet begun.

A minister told parliament this week that it was still in the “design” stage, causing MPs to raise fears that eligible people had already been murdered and more would die before resettlement began.

Such schemes are frequently championed by the government, but do nothing for asylum seekers who have already reached Europe under their own steam.

The Home Office is engaging in unspecified “communications efforts”, trying to persuade migrants not to attempt onward journeys to the UK.

The impact of such campaigns is unclear. Between December 2020 and April, the government paid £23,200 for targeted adverts to be placed on Facebook and Instagram in English, Kurdish, Arabic, Persian and Pashto.

They linked to a fake website claiming to “provide migrants in transit with free, reliable and important information” and carrying slogans including “Don’t put your or your child’s life in danger”, and “We will return you”.

Government ministers repeatedly state that refugees should seek asylum in the “first safe country” they reach, but few do.

The United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) has been clear that there is no obligation in international law for them to do so, and the principle would cause countries on the front line of refugee routes, such as Greece and Italy, to be grossly overburdened.

British law means that anyone seeking to claim asylum in the UK must be physically present in the country, creating an imperative to reach it but no safe means to do so.

As Oxford University’s Migration Observatory explains: “To claim asylum in the UK, a person must be in the UK. It is not possible to apply from outside the country, and there is no asylum visa.

“Therefore, to claim asylum in the UK, a person must enter either irregularly, such as by small boat, lorry, or by using false documents, or for another purpose, such as tourism or study.”

With thousands of migrants believed to have arrived at the French coast already in the hope of reaching the UK, an MP asked on Monday why the government could not use its border control points in France to process their applications – then safely transport them to Britain.

Ms Patel replied: “The proposal of using juxtaposed controls to effectively process asylum seekers is not something that the British government or the French government would entertain.”

The home secretary has repeated claims, without evidence, that 70 per cent of people crossing the Channel are “economic migrants”. However, Home Office officials say that Iranians, Syrians and Iraqi Kurds make up the majority of those who have arrived in recent weeks.

Enver Solomon, chief executive of the Refugee Council, said: “Surely a tragedy of this magnitude is the wake-up call our government needs to change its approach and finally commit to an expansion of safe routes for those men, women and children in desperate need of protection.

“How many more lives must be lost before we finally end the cruel and dangerous tactic of seeking to punish or push away those who try and find safety in our country?”

British Red Cross chief executive Mike Adamson said: “There are no simple answers, but we urge the government to rethink its plans for making the UK’s asylum system harder to access.

“This should start with ambitious plans for new safe routes.”

The government showed no sign of changing its approach on Wednesday night.

In a series of tweets, the home secretary said the disaster “serves as the starkest possible reminder of the dangers of these Channel crossings organised by ruthless criminal gangs”.

She added: “It is why this government’s New Plan for Immigration will overhaul our broken asylum system and address many of the long-standing pull factors encouraging migrants to make the perilous journey from France to the United Kingdom.”