What is the plan to tackle migrant small boats and will it work?

Recent history is not on the side of ministers in tackling dangerous Channel crossings, says Sean O’Grady

Refugees are brought to Dover, Kent, from a Border Force vessel following a small boat incident in the Channel (PA)

Ministers are publishing much-trailed new legislation on asylum and immigration. It is the latest attempt to deal with an issue that seems intractable and has concerned governments of all parties on and off for the past three decades.

What is in the new legislation?

It effectively abolishes the traditional right to claim asylum, and in fact criminalises it. There will be some “bespoke” asylum schemes, created in conjunction with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), and may end up being based on a quota determined through consultation with local authorities. Suella Braverman will use her new law to try to stop lawyers from using the human right to family life, and legislation created to combat modern slavery, to stop clients from being deported. Her restrictions on judicial review are draconian.

Rishi Sunak stated his radical policy in a keynote speech last December: “The only way to come to the UK for asylum will be through safe and legal routes. And as we get a grip of illegal migration, we will create more of those routes. We will work with the UNHCR to identify those most in need so the UK remains a safe haven for the most vulnerable.

“And we will introduce an annual quota on numbers set by parliament in consultation with local authorities to determine our capacity ... in the face of humanitarian emergencies.”

Hasn’t the government already made such changes in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022?

The previous act eroded the right to claim asylum rather than drastically restricting it. So we already have a two-tier asylum system, meaning those who arrive in the UK via irregular means may receive less protection and support.

When will the new laws come into effect?

Theoretically, they could be passed and gain royal assent before the summer, with a view to the policy being implemented in time to hit the prime minister’s target of “stopping the boats” by the end of the year. Although not clearly defined, Sunak has asked to be judged on his record.

However, the House of Lords will undoubtedly slow the passage of the bill, especially as these measures weren’t mentioned in the 2019 manifesto and therefore lack a direct mandate. Indeed, the manifesto suggested a very different policy: “We will continue to grant asylum and support to refugees fleeing persecution, with the ultimate aim of helping them to return home if it is safe to do so.”

There will also be some judicial challenges, not least because the new law is in conflict with obligations under international treaty law, principally the 1951 European Convention on Human Rights. With appeals, it is quite possible the laws won’t be implemented before the next election in 2024.

A more practical problem is that there may be nowhere to deport migrants, whatever their status. Their countries of origin may not want them back or may accept them only to punish them. The Rwanda scheme has nowhere near the necessary capacity and, despite rumours about other states and territories – such as St Helena, Morocco, Moldova and Papua New Guinea – there are no other safe third-country options. Since Brexit, the Dublin III EU returns facility has ended.

Former prime minister Theresa May is likely to lead a rebellion against changes to her Modern Slavery Act 2015, from when she was home secretary, in which she takes great pride.

Will the new laws work?

Recent history suggests laws alone won’t solve the crisis, and other solutions lie much further back in the system.

A combination of wars, climate crisis (desertification and loss of water supplies), the rise of authoritarian regimes and terrorist groups such as Isis, as well as easier access to travel, have hugely increased global migration. In Europe, it stands at levels not seen since the end of the Second World War; in central America and the Sahel, it is unprecedented.

The great majority of refugees end up in countries next door: Jordan and Lebanon for Syrians and Iraqis, Bangladesh for the Rohingya, Poland for Ukrainians and so on. If more effort was expended in making life better for them in those countries, they might not feel impelled to move on.

By the time they reach Europe, refugees are confronted with much hostility and a disjointed approach. Britain is still an attractive country, even to those who have got as far as Belgium or France, because many have family links or they speak English and they perceive Britain to be a place where they can find work and make a life for themselves. Britain’s present acute labour shortages may be another incentive. There’s no evidence they are attracted by indefinite stays in roadhouse hotels, insanitary camps or the measly living allowance provided.

Delays in processing mean those who do merely wish to come to work and then return home can count on a window of opportunity lasting months if not years. Rules preventing them taking paid work drives them into the cash-in-hand informal economy and unregulated overcrowded private lodgings.

Successive governments have promised, tried and failed to limit migration both regular and irregular. The Conservatives’ 2010 election target to keep total numbers below 100,000 has never been met and has now been abandoned. Most recent official figures put regular net migration at half a million, including students and special resettlement scheme participants (Hong Kong, Afghanistan and Ukraine) – with illegal migration at a comparatively modest 40,000 to 50,000.

When one channel for irregular migration is closed off, another soon arises. The small boats phenomenon began when stronger security at Calais and a lower freight traffic during Covid forced a change in traffickers’ modus operandi.

It seems that if a refugee is willing to risk drowning, laws will be a limited deterrent.

What is Labour’s answer?

Yvette Cooper, shadow home secretary, wants more money spent on a dedicated police team tackling people-smugglers; more resources to clear the backlogs; and safe and secure routes to claim asylum, so there’s no necessity to try to cross the English channel or even leave a home country. She would also scrap the Rwanda scheme, not least on the grounds of cost.

Labour’s political problem is that it won’t place a limit on refugees coming or settling in the UK and the Tories will seek to exploit voters’ grievances about the use of converted hotels. But after years of broken promises and failures from the government, Labour has a small lead on the issue and many voters don’t know which party would be best on migration and asylum.

How have other countries dealt with the challenge?

Some European nations have targeted immigration from Albania by implementing a policy of immediate return, agreed with the Albanian authorities, and similar to Britain’s.

Germany and France also have a faster rate of asylum processing, even with a higher volume of claims than the UK. France rejects more applications than the UK. Other countries, such as Hungary, take a militantly anti-immigrant line, even towards Ukrainian refugees, while Italy’s new government has expressed its exasperation at the EU’s supposed inability to redistribute refugees arriving from north Africa. Italy has sought to stop the boats in the sea and send them back to Libya.

Germany, and to a lesser extent Sweden, made a policy decision to accept large numbers of Syrians – 1 million in the case of Germany – and make their settlement a focus of national policy. Like France, they have also expanded the staff devoted to asylum processing. The UK seems to have had problems retaining immigration officers in what can be emotionally draining work. There is no law that can change that.