Acknowledges that ships are deployed all over the world with capacity to support border security. Argues deploying armed forces for robust border protection is appropriate. Emphasises the role of deterrence against sub-threshold weapons of competition. Success criteria include preventing anyone from landing in the UK on their own terms until the deterrent effect collapses the cross-channel route. Funding will continue through existing multi-agency efforts under Royal Navy command.

The plan is not a MACA request; it involves Navy taking primacy, using all Government maritime assets under command and control to create a more robust response at sea. No power for pushback into another country's sovereign waters exists. Costs lie where they fall but Treasury will be consulted for novel capabilities.

No power exists for entering another country’s waters to return people. The aim is a more robust response at sea, ensuring people enter a process in the UK that may result in removal if they should not be here.

People coming from France are not seeking sanctuary; they want to be in UK. MOD has a role in robustly protecting borders against non-military threats.

Operational name is Operation Isotrope; units include batch 1 offshore patrol vessels. Role involves command and control to provide robust response at sea.

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. If Border Force vessels are fitted with a capability that the Royal Navy commander feels is inappropriate for use, he will not direct that it is used. That is his judgment. The hon. Gentleman, as the proud MP of the Royal Navy in Devonport, probably appreciates that in the MOD we deal with operational mission command and the Royal Navy uses its judgment to bring to bear what it thinks is best. I trust Rear Admiral Utley entirely to make the right decisions in that regard. I will be honest with the hon. Gentleman: I am not entirely clear about the custom for publishing rules of engagement.

I can. Commander UK Strike Force is a UK-based two-star commander—I suspect that my hon. Friend, as a former Navy man, knows that—and the ships mentioned as possibly having utility in this context are already committed to home waters.

First, the OPV fleet is well deployed around the world. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, Trent is in Gibraltar having just got back from autumn in the gulf of Guinea; Medway is in the Caribbean; Forth is in the Falklands; and Tamar and Spey are in the south Pacific and far east. Further, three batch 1 OPVs continue and are routinely deployed in home waters. I am disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman felt it necessary to ask whether the men and women of the Royal Navy would still feel bound by their compulsion under the safety of life at sea convention. Of course they would. The Chief of the Defence Staff is a sailor, and Rear Admiral Utley is obviously a sailor, and they have been clear throughout that military involvement is about delivering a robust plan, but they will not endanger life at sea. The right hon. Gentleman asked about how this is all reflected in Government policy and ownership of policy. I reflect back to him that Rear Admiral Utley is a sailor working within the MOD for a part of our border protection that has been placed into the hands of the Royal Navy. He clearly reports through his chain of command to the Secretary of State for Defence, but that is not the totality of the Government’s migration policy nor the totality of the role of protecting our borders.

No, I do not think that is the case. There was a key difference with Op Sophia, and that is what happened when people landed on the European continent and what EU nations did with them thereafter.

It is unclear whether the right hon. Lady is reading from Hansard because that is exactly the question asked by the Front-Bench spokesman, which I have answered already.

We speak to our French counterparts regularly, and the Sahel is a frequent topic of conversation. The French would argue that they are going through a transition from one operation to another—from Barkhane to Takuba—but that is clearly a decision for France.

In answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that there may be some disagreement between Departments, I can only reflect that my great friends the Under-Secretaries of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friends the Members for Corby (Tom Pursglove) and for Torbay (Kevin Foster), work with me all the time.

I believe that it could, as part of a wider system that is under development.

First, there are a lot of questions coming from the Opposition about the incompleteness of a plan. I would just reflect that Labour is routinely and continually silent on what it would do to ensure that our borders are protected and illegal migration is stopped.

The MOD’s plan involves bringing all maritime inventory under Commander UK Strike Force by the end of the month. A wider strategy is being developed but cannot be fully disclosed at this stage.

Acknowledged the issue but did not address specific points about France’s safety or Human Rights Act reforms.

Acknowledged the need for comprehensive policy reforms but did not provide specific details on future steps.

The use of sonic weapons is under review but the Royal Navy will not employ them. The operation remains under their command.

Reassured the MP that a wider policy exposition will be provided soon addressing all concerns raised.

The Royal Navy will not threaten innocent lives or engage in pushback operations as it contradicts their ethics.

Discussions are ongoing but details remain under Home Secretary's purview.

Emphasised the national security aspect of securing borders and the military’s pride in supporting government priorities.

Reiterated that French permission for returns is not available and denied incentive claims.

The Minister states that the Royal Navy will not directly intercept ships, preferring to use better-suited vessels for interception. He justifies the military's involvement due to national security threats posed by illegal immigration and the potential exploitation by adversaries.

The Minister indicates that plans are very imminent and likely within the next few weeks.

The Minister rejects accusations of a lack of compassion but argues that criminal gangs exploit desperate individuals, justifying a robust deterrent approach.

The Minister states that the French Minister of Interior has rejected such proposals.

The Minister argues that their policy addresses root causes through international aid and military efforts for stability.

The Minister clarifies that while the Navy will not use pushback tactics, the Royal Marines or Border Force might under certain conditions.

The Minister responds that life sentences for people smugglers are being introduced, emphasising the need to address organised crime networks.

The Minister assures that leased platforms will be used, not involving large conglomerates like Serco or Capita.

The Minister stated that the Government's willingness to utilise military resources demonstrates their professionalism and commitment, especially during crises like the pandemic. He also mentioned the role of the Navy’s command and control capabilities in coordinating maritime assets effectively.

The Minister acknowledged the existence of multiple safe routes for migration and hinted at more comprehensive plans to be unveiled within a few weeks.

The Minister agreed that there are more suitable vessels for transferring people from boats than Navy or Border Force cutters and mentioned plans to contract additional such vessels under naval command.