The migrant deal with France doesn’t fix our issues with human rights laws; it just makes them slightly less worse

Britain is on the cusp of a new immigration deal with France aimed at stopping the small boat crossings. So far, over 18,000 small boat migrants have crossed the English Channel this year, putting us on course for record numbers. The Government’s plans to “smash the gangs”, and novelties like a new Border Security Commander, have clearly failed. 

What’s more, the top countries for asylum seekers to Britain are Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran. These are all countries where human rights law means they will likely never be sent home. Plans to stop the use of asylum hotels have been put off until 2029, and on current trends, there is no reason to think it wouldn’t be put off again. That means they will keep costing billions every year.

What the Government needs is a deterrent. Having dumped the Rwanda Plan in their first week in office, they lost the best effort at one so far. As they were so vociferous in attacking it, it seems unlikely they will try to resurrect it. Instead, they are supposedly planning a new deal with France.

Early reports suggested a “one in, one out” rule. That would mean that almost every small boat migrant would be sent back to France within weeks of arrival. In return, Britain would agree to take one asylum seeker from France with family links to Britain for every migrant sent back. 

The hope is that this would put potential small boat migrants off trying to come. Why bother spending thousands of pounds if you are guaranteed to be returned to France? Many of those coming on small boats do have family here already, though, so it is unclear how effective it would be.

The Government seems to be aware that there are problems with the idea. They have had presentations from senior figures at the European Stability Initiative to discuss an alternative plan. This would involve a coalition of European countries, but not the European Union, who would agree to take back all small boat migrants from Britain. In return, Britain would agree to take a certain number of asylum seekers from them, suggested at a level of 20,000 for four years.

The plan is that this would demonstrate that illegal crossings won’t work but that there are safe and legal routes for refugees, with Britain setting up a visa application process in EU countries. Britain would still be taking asylum seekers but in significantly lower numbers. The European states, meanwhile, could test a plan they could then apply with other countries, to end the illegal immigration issues they face in the Mediterranean.

This is very similar to the 2016 EU-Turkey deal which the European Stability Initiative helped to broker. That did reduce the numbers of asylum seekers coming through Turkey. However, the flows of illegal immigrants simply shifted to other routes, with overall levels still higher than they were before the 2015 refugee crisis.

Many will also point out that this doesn’t actually fix our issues with human rights laws; it just makes them slightly less worse. Taking in 80,000 asylum seekers would still be a large and costly policy, costing us all billions and directly contrary to what voters want. No wonder that Home Office sources have stressed that this is still a “work in progress”.