Migrant Crossings: Role of the Military

Question

Praises the armed forces but raises concerns about mission creep, questioning why the Navy is being drawn into this issue when it's not an acute emergency. Asks who will pay for this mission, what success looks like, and how long it will last. Criticises the strategy as insufficient to solve migration issues.

Question

The Government is desperate to distract attention from accusations about the Prime Minister lying and partying in Downing Street. The Home Secretary has been failing for two years as the number of cross-channel migrants has tripled. Will naval vessels be deployed? Will sonic weapons or drones be used? Who will pay the military’s bills?

Question

Welcomes the military taking control of coordinating assets to manage migrant crossings. Will ships have the power to take people back to France or do they enter UK processing system?

Question

Concerned about operational and moral implications of militarizing the situation. Asks for admiralty’s analysis on significant maritime operations and whether it represents a military operation inappropriate for civilian crisis.

Question

Welcomes announcement of military taking over from Border Force, requests operational name, units involved, and clarifies that pushback or sonic weapons will not be used.

Question

The Minister said that the Royal Navy will not use sonic weapons, but long-range acoustic weapons are already fitted to Border Force vessels. As the Royal Navy has assumed operational control of Border Force, will he state that no Border Force sonic weapons will be used for migrant crossings? Will he also publish a rule of engagement for using sonic weapons against civilians?

Question

Can my hon. Friend guarantee that no resource—be that manpower or asset—will be removed from another theatre to which an already overstretched Royal Navy is currently deployed, carrying out its primary role of protecting the UK and its interests, and those of our allies around the world?

Question

Well, there we have it. Yesterday, No. 10 was briefing that this is the new tough approach to migrants, and today the Minister comes to the Dispatch Box and says that he has not got a clue what the plan is or what is proposed. He mentioned deployment of assets. We had nine offshore patrol vessels until 2019, when HMS Clyde was decommissioned; others are committed overseas, including in the Pacific, and in home waters for tasks such as fisher protection. So what assets are there? There are not any. May I check two things? First, will the Navy abide by the UN conventions on people in distress at sea? Secondly, the Minister said that Rear Admiral Utley will answer to the Defence Secretary, so has the MOD taken over control of Border Force and its operation, with the Home Secretary having no role? If so, that is a huge kick in the teeth for the Home Secretary.

Question

Did Operation Sophia in the Mediterranean not teach us that increased efficiency of interception leads to an increased number of attempted crossings? This policy will have the reverse effect of that intended, won’t it?

Question

The Minister will be aware that in 2019 two Navy patrol vessels were deployed in the channel to deal with channel crossings. Yet they intercepted no boats and it cost the taxpayer £780,000. What will be different this time?

Question

Behind the criminal gangs often lie the root causes of disease, famine, poverty, poor governance, conflict and war. We have heard reference today to Syria, Iraq and Libya. My hon. Friend mentioned the Sahel. What discussions has he had with his defence counterpart in the French Government about President Macron’s decision to withdraw the 5,000 troops based in the Sahel, which of course will stretch UK armed forces further in that important region?

Question

I welcome what the Minister says about not using sonic weapons—an idea that was described by a Home Office source in the press today as “f***ng bonkers”. When the Home Office is saying that your idea can be classified as that, you have to think you have taken a wrong turn in your planning somewhere. May I press the Minister on the relationship between the Royal Navy and the Marines, on the one hand, and UK Border Force? He tells the House—I welcome the assurance—that the Royal Navy will not be engaged in pushing back boats with refugees in them, but that leaves open the door that the UK Border Force might still do that. In that case, how can he possibly say that operational primacy sits with the Royal Navy?

Question

Does the Minister consider that use of the Royal Navy will reduce the number of migrants who land in the United Kingdom?

Question

The Minister calls it Operation Isotrope—not Isotope—which means having properties that apply in all directions. That pretty much sums it up. The honest truth is that it is Operation Red Meat, and it has no beef in it whatever. Nothing has changed. There is no plan—he admits that himself. The Government have completely failed to tackle the real issue, which many of our constituents worry about, and the people who bear the brunt of all this danger are those who are being illegally trafficked, many of them in miserable situations.

Question

Asked about the timeline for the MOD's plan and when command will transfer from Home Office to Ministry of Defence.

Question

Critiqued the Minister's approach to addressing desperation among migrants and Human Rights Watch's condemnation of treatment in Calais.

Question

Questioned the effectiveness of using Royal Navy to intercept migrants without addressing root causes, such as pushback policies and legislation changes.

Question

Asked about consideration of sonic weapons against migrants crossing illegally and clarification on Operation Red Meat.

Question

Called for assurances on offshore processing, deportation policies, and Human Rights Act reforms.

Question

Questioned the ethical implications of involving Royal Navy in pushbacks, citing their ethos and previous statements by Minister.

Question

Inquired about discussions with French military on intercepting boats before they leave France.

Question

Suggested the announcement is politically motivated and questioned armed forces' stance on being used for political purposes.

Question

Critiqued the effectiveness of the operation without returning migrants to France, suggesting it could incentivise traffickers.

Question

The MP welcomes the announcement but criticises the lack of planning and expresses concern about terrorist risks associated with small boats crossing the channel. He asks for an assessment of these risks.

Question

The MP asks for a timeline regarding when robust policy will be in place and the Navy involved, noting constituents' support for ending cross-channel illegal immigration.

Question

Critics the plan's inhumanity, calling for European-wide agreements on asylum support and addressing root causes of migration.

Question

Considers claims to the UK asylum system from France as a long-term solution and asks about discussions with the Home Office.

Question

Critiques the plan as embarrassing and nationalistic, citing Pope Francis's criticism.

Question

Asks about the Border Force's policy regarding small boat capsizes during pushback operations.

Question

Criticises the effectiveness of past funding to France and calls for more focus on combating criminal gangs.

Question

Concerned about private sector involvement in Operation Isotrope and its potential impact on contracted services.

Question

The MP questioned the overreliance on military intervention and inquired about whether costs will be shifted to other budgets such as overseas development assistance or NATO contributions.

Question

The MP pointed out a threefold increase in migrants entering the UK by dangerous means last year, highlighting that safe routes diminish illegal activities. She questioned why the Government was exacerbating the situation without clear objectives.

Question

The MP thanked the Minister for his responses, noted an increase in channel crossings by migrants and expressed concern about the message sent by deploying military vessels. He suggested coordinating with civilian companies as a potential alternative.