It’s quite simple, Keir Starmer assured us repeatedly throughout last year’s election campaign. We’ll “smash the gangs”. We’ll “break their business model”. Oh and, for good measure: “We’re coming for them”. So, how’s it going then? Absolutely abysmally. There are 50% more channel migrants this year than last, and we’re only now coming into peak-crossing season. Nearly 26,000 people have already made the journey this year. Under Labour, migrants rightly see the UK as a monumentally soft touch, and are only too happy to venture across the Channel on one of those silly flimsy boats knowing they’ll almost certainly get welcomed into our country and allowed to stay. Is there a disincentive? Of course not.
Ahh, says Labour. But look at our shiny new returns deal with President Macron, which comes into force today. That’ll get to grips with the issue. You wait and see. Oh really? So how does the scheme work? Well, some channel migrants (the government refuses to say how many) deemed to be inadmissible for asylum and undocumented will be sent back to France.
In return, the UK agrees to take from France the same number of migrants who have not tried to enter the UK illegally but who have passed “security and eligibility tests”, though it’s not clear how they’ll choose between the many hundreds of thousands who might seek to apply.
In theory, but only that, this scheme could indeed work. It could indeed act as a deterrent. But for that to happen, I suggest a channel migrant has to know that they will have a better than 50% chance of being returned to France as soon as they arrive on the south coast of England.
After all, who wants to give thousands of pounds to some nasty people smuggler if you’ve got a worse than evens chance of staying in the UK once you arrive? Especially as you have to risk your life in the process.
But will more than 50% of channel migrants be returned? Of course not. How about 25%? Still no. 10%? Not even that. In fact, initial estimates are that only 50 migrants will be returned to France out of the average of 800 who make the crossing each week. That’s a mere 6%.
There is absolutely no way that such a small number will disincentivise any migrant at all. If you’re prepared to risk drowning in the Channel to get to the promised land, you’ll hardly be put off by the fact that you have a 1-in-16 chance of being turned away.
Even Home Secretary Yvette Cooper doesn’t sound too confident, saying that she is “trialling the concept”.If that’s the best that the Home Secretary can offer us, I’m not holding my breath that it’ll make the slightest bit of difference.
In contrast, the Rwanda plan, which Labour abandoned as soon as it got into office, could and I believe would have genuinely disincentivised those would-be migrants. If you know that you’ll be shipped off to the middle of Africa to have your asylum application processed, it sure makes that Channel crossing a whole lot less attractive.
But Labour told us they knew better. Just kick out the evil Tories and we’ll sort it out, they told us. Yeah, right! It was another piece of false advertising from a government that specialises in over-promising and under-delivering.
This latest initiative, if you’ll pardon the pun, is a drop in the ocean. It won’t work, and Labour’s kidding itself and us if it thinks it will.