ISO0008

Written evidence submitted by Channel Rescue

 

STATEMENT on the use of the military in countering migrant crossings in the Channel

CHANNEL RESCUE

 

Steven Martin, from Channel Rescue, is responding to a Defence Committee invitation for evidence on the use of the military in countering migrant crossings in the Channel.

I, Steven Martin, Channel Rescue, say as follows:

  1. I am a co-founder and director of Channel Rescue. I am also a Research Fellow at De Montfort University, an Associate Fellow at the Center for Disaster & Humanitarian Ethics at the GE2P2 Global Foundation and a member of the Centre for the Study of Global Human Movement at the University of Cambridge.
  2. I have been involved with a number of refugee charities and since 2012 I have volunteered in refugee camps in the West Bank, France, Belgium and Greece. During my time in Greece I volunteered with Campfire, as a first aider in their on-shore spotting team. I have been a volunteer with Channel Rescue since it was founded in 2020.
  3. Channel Rescue is a grassroots, human rights monitoring organisation set up in response to government calls for increased securitisation and militarisation of the English Channel. 
  4. This evidence relates to: (1) the role of Channel Rescue; (2) why Channel Rescue is submitting evidence; and (3) Channel Rescue’s concerns about role of the Navy in countering migrant crossings of the Channel, known as “Operation Isotrope”.

(1) Channel Rescue

  1. Channel Rescue was officially launched in October 2020. Its objectives are to hold authorities to account in their duty to uphold the human rights of those crossing the Channel, and to advocate for safe passage and progressive legislation around refugees and migrants making journeys across it. Channel Rescue aims to fact find, document landings, act as legal observers, and provide immediate support to those making the crossing and recently arrived people.
  2. Channel Rescue does not currently rescue people from the sea. 
  3. Channel Rescue monitors the Channel from the English coastline, in order to: (a) identify refugees or migrants who might be in distress and, if necessary, notify the appropriate authorities/agencies; and (b) record the activities of Border Force and document any search and rescue operations, to discourage violations of maritime, human rights or refugee law.
  4. Channel Rescue organises on-shore teams to conduct this monitoring and we cover an approximately 33-mile stretch of coastline from Deal to Dungeness. Everything that Channel Rescue observes during this monitoring is recorded by video, as a form of witnessing.  The intention of the video record is to protect the refugees and migrants, and also the Channel Rescue volunteers.
  5. We also carry out training of volunteers in the basics of spotting small vessels at sea and what to do if they notice a vessel in distress. The training is carried out by those who have worked in crisis situations before.

(2) Why Channel Rescue is submitting evidence

  1. Channel Rescue gives evidence to share our expertise and the insights we gain while monitoring the English Channel. Specifically, we are concerned about the rationale, the purpose and the risks associated with the involvement of the Navy in “Operation Isotrope”.
  2. Channel Rescue is concerned about plans to implement a “Pushbacks Policy” because we believe it will endanger life, violate the rights of those making the crossing and breach international law. We therefore believe the proposed Pushbacks Policy is life-threatening, inhumane and unlawful.
  3. On 13 September 2021, Channel Rescue volunteers witnessed the UK Border Force training its staff to use jet skis to employ ‘pushback’ tactics at sea. The Secretary of State and government officials have confirmed there is a policy designed to govern these tactics and that they were ready to deploy these tactics last month. We believe these tactics are not only morally wrong, but also unlawful. This policy directly threatens the safety of refugees and migrants crossing the Channel by boat.
  4. Channel Rescue has issued judicial review proceedings against the Secretary of State to ensure that this policy is never put into action. Reed Smith LLP, solicitors, are representing Channel Rescue in this claim pro bono.
  5. The Channel Rescue claim challenges the Pushbacks Policy on three main grounds: (1) The policy is internally inconsistent and therefore irrational, and incompatible with international maritime law. (2) The policy is contrary to the Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collisions) Regulations 1996 (SB/420). (3) The policy is contrary to the ordinary practice of seamen and so is contrary to the implied limitations to the Immigration Act 1971 and/or the common law.
  6. Recent reports suggest that the SSHD and Border Force are now prepared to implement the Pushbacks Policy, should the right conditions arise.  If that is correct, we have requested a suspension of the use of the pushback tactic pending a trial.
  7. The Secretary of State is due to acknowledge service of and provide an initial response to our claim on 25 January 2022.  We have asked the court to give directions to allow us to file a reply within a few days of that initial response and then for the question of permission to proceed with the claim to be determined within a further 7 days. Assuming permission is given, we hope the case will reach court within a couple of months.

(3) Channel Rescue’s concerns about role of the Navy in “Operation Isotrope”

  1. Channel Rescue is concerned about the rationale for Operation Isotrope. James Heappey MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence stated as follows: “The Government’s objective is that no one should arrive illegally in the United Kingdom on their own terms”.
  2. Channel Rescue is concerned about the implication that people generally arrive “illegally” in the United Kingdom. According to the 1951 Refugee Convention, people are permitted to cross national borders in order to seek asylum without suffering penalties. Article 31 states “The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1”. An analysis of the Home Offices’ immigration statistics conducted by The Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford shows that the “large majority” of people who cross the Channel in small boats claim asylum once they reach the UK. The Refugee Council found that between January 2020 and May 2021, 91% of people arriving after crossing the Channel came from just ten countries where human rights abuses and persecution are common. These include Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, Eritrea and Yemen. The likelihood of being granted status for Syrians is 88%, for Eritreans 84%, for Sudanese and those from Yemen 70%, and for Iranians 67%. The actual number of inadmissible cases is miniscule in comparison to genuine asylum seekers for whom the legal right to cross borders, including into the United Kingdom, applies.
  3. Channel Rescue is also concerned about James Heappey MP’s statement that people are arriving “on their own terms”. Channel Rescue believe this is a wholly inaccurate description of the context. It implies that people choose this method of transportation, rather than being forced to travel this way, or having no other means of making the journey. Our findings document the danger in crossing the Channel on insecure and unfit vessels. In the course of 2021, at least 44 people, including three children, either died or went missing and are presumed dead. According to the UN migration agency IOM's Missing Migrants Project, the vast majority of those drowned. With such a high risk, people would not choose this method of transportation if they had any other options.
  4. The Minister’s rationale does not take into account that: 

 

a)      The Migration Observatory’s analysis of Home Office statistics found that the number of people who arrive in the UK to claim asylum has been in decline, and at the moment is significantly lower than it was 20 years ago. The same research also found the UK receives significantly lower numbers of asylum applications than other European countries. For example, The Guardian reports the UK is ranked 17th against EU countries in terms of the number of asylum applications it gets, adjusted for population.

b)      While the overall number of arrivals has declined, the number of people who attempt more dangerous journeys has risen. Migration researchers have provided ample evidence that deterrence is based on flawed assumptions about motivations to seek refuge. Displaced people escape war, persecution, and famine – they are ‘pushed’ out of their homes, rather than ‘pulled’ to move. The closure of safe routes does not act as a deterrent, it only forces people to attempt more dangerous journeys. Following the closure of safer routes from France, we have therefore indeed seen rising numbers of people attempting more dangerous journeys to the UK over the past two years - for instance by crossing the English Channel.

c)       Following the UK’s departure from the European Union, the Dublin Regulation ceased to apply from January 2021. There is no successor agreement with the EU, nor with individual member states. Refugees report that this has an impact on their decision-making.

d)      Under the Nationality and Borders Bill, only refugees arriving through extraordinarily restricted “official” routes, such as refugee resettlement, will be allowed to claim protection. All others will be deemed “inadmissible” to claim asylum and the Government will seek to deport them.

e)      Undetected arrivals are an exception, so there is little ground for higher levels of scrutiny. In over 12 months of operating, Channel Rescue has only assisted one landing when there was no presence of either Border Force or the police. We have observed four landings where those making the crossing were met by the RNLI, Border Force and the police.

  1. Channel Rescue is concerned about the purpose and of the operation. While details on Operation Isotrope are scant, we were alarmed by recent reports in several media outlets.
  2. According to the BBC, (Monday 17 Jan 2022):

“the armed forces are set to take charge of operations looking to limit migrant crossings in the English Channel. Home Secretary Priti Patel said the MoD had been commissioned as a "crucial operational partner to protect our Channel against illegal migration"”.

“They said no decisions had been made over how the Royal Navy or other services would be involved, and there was no indication it would involve pushing migrant boats back to France”.

“A source added the details of how the military could co-ordinate operations were still to be worked out, while another said there was "trepidation" within the MoD about getting involved in such a complex issue”.

  1. The Guardian later reported that (Monday 17 Jan 2022):

“the navy would soon be given the lead responsibility for dealing with refugees crossing the Channel by boat, stripping the responsibility away from Patel and the Home Office”.

“a government source confirmed that the plans had been discussed and brought forward, and said it would be up to the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to determine operational deployments”.

  1. On Tuesday 18 January 2022, James Heappey MP said in the House of Commons:

“there may be a requirement for more naval assets—warships—to be in the channel, but they sit too high off the water to be a credible platform from which to cross-deck people from a dinghy, so the presence of naval assets is probably from a command-and-control perspective rather than from an interdiction or interception perspective. There are better platforms within the Government’s inventory, and things that we can lease from the open market, that will be much more effective for mid-channel cross-decking under RN command and control”.

“Neither the Royal Navy nor the Royal Marines will be engaged in pushback, but that tactic has been developed by Border Force, and if it is applicable it will be used. The Royal Navy will not use sonic weapons. The Royal Navy or the wider military may be involved in transportation of people when they reach the shore as they enter the processing system. There may be a use for military accommodation. As I said, this is a UQ responding to a partial revelation of the plan, and I make no apology for the wider plan being still in development”.

…

“I have been clear that the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines will not use the tactic, principally because they simply do not have the platforms that are appropriate for doing so. Arguably, the Border Force does; it has been doing trials with it, so it remains an option. But let us be clear: there are parts of the channel in which it definitely cannot be done, and there is a small part of the channel in which it might possibly be done. That is for the Navy commander to consider in due course”.

…

“It is absolutely the case that there are more appropriate vessels for cross-decking people in the middle of the channel than Navy vessels”.

https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/bedf5521-3dfe-471b-9e3c-ba77488214db?in=12:34:58  

  1. On Thursday 20th January 2022, Baroness Goldie said to the House of Lords:

“In so far as the MoD’s operational role is concerned, it will retain primacy of operational control until public confidence is restored and the number of individuals attempting to enter the UK through this route is brought under manageable levels”.

…

“The involvement of the Navy is primarily to ensure that the dangers that have confronted migrants setting out on this hazardous course can be assuaged or even prevented from arising altogether. That is why the modus operandi will be one of interception and escort; the Navy will be responsible for bringing migrants to UK shores in a safe and controlled manner. That will prevent uncontrolled or undocumented arrivals”.

https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/24e1d8e1-42bd-49a5-87c5-f848068475bf?in=11:47:38

  1. There appears to be an inconsistency between some of the statements provided by James Heappey MP and Baroness Goldie. James Heappey MP said “the Royal Navy will not be directly involved in the interception of ships…that is to do with the suitability of the vessel”, while Baroness Goldie said “the modus operandi will be one of interception and escort; the Navy will be responsible for bringing migrants to UK shores in a safe and controlled manner”.
  2. Channel Rescue would also like to highlight another comment on this issue made by James Heappey MP: "I have been clear that the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines will not use the tactic, principally because they simply do not have the platforms that are appropriate for doing so. Arguably, the Border Force does; it has been doing trials with it, so it remains an option. But let us be clear: there are parts of the channel in which it definitely cannot be done, and there is a small part of the channel in which it might possibly be done. That is for the Navy commander to consider in due course." (emphasis added). This quote highlights that even within the Government, there are doubts around the efficacy and safety of the “pushback” tactic.
  3. While the Navy could co-ordinate operations, what is required is a humanitarian response not a military response. Channel Rescue do not believe that the continued militarisation and securitisation of border is a long-term or sustainable policy solution.  The principal role of the Royal Navy must be the defence of the United Kingdom from attack from hostile forces.  To deploy it against refugees, particularly in a manner that threatens the lives of those adults and children, would tend to besmirch the Royal Navy’s fine reputation.  
  4. While the purpose is currently unclear, an intent to ‘protect the channel’ insufficiently accounts for the primacy of the need to protect human lives:

a)      The increase of numbers of vessels in the channel is unlikely to heighten the safety of small boats.

b)      A higher number of non-Search-and-Rescue (“SAR”) assets can in fact reduce the efficiency of SAR-operations.

c)       Maritime law, however, includes a duty to rescue and requires the UK Government to protect the lives of those in distress at sea.

  1. Channel Rescue are concerned about the risks of the operation.
  2. Channel Rescue believe that military assets should not be used on civilians; it is unlawful to use military means to repel refugees. We are concerned about recent reports that the use of sonic weapons may be permitted against civilians - especially when are no clear the rules of engagement.
  3. Channel Rescue believe that pushbacks are unlawful and pose serious danger and risk to human lives. 
  4. While it has been reported that the Royal Navy’s role will not be to carry out “pushbacks”, this has not been confirmed and may be subject to change. Channel Rescue are not aware that Navy personnel have appropriate training for an involvement in pushback operations, and this significantly heightens the risk to personal safety. Even if specific training was provided, the risk to life remains extremely high.
  5. Channel Rescue also noted with concern the following comments made by former First Sea Lord West of Spithead and the Chair of your Committee, Tobias Ellwood MP, which featured in the Independent, (Tue 18 Jan 2022).

“Boris Johnson’s plan to put the military in charge of tackling migrant boat crossings will help people smugglers, the former head of the royal navy has warned”.

“Lord West of Spithead said giving the navy command over the operation in the English Channel would backfire by providing a more “efficient conduit” for the work of traffickers”.

“Senior Conservative Tobias Ellwood, the Commons Defence Committee chairman, also said the plans were “rushed” and warned they could be a “massive distraction” for the navy. “This isn’t what our navy should be doing,” he said”.

  1. It is the position of Channel Rescue that the coastguard should retain command and control over operations in the Channel. Navy deployment would not a good use of the nation’s defence force, which should be deployed for more appropriate duties. There is also need for investment in safe routes for those who seek refuge in the UK.

 

 

24 January 2022

9