A safe route linked to a returns agreement could stop the small boats, save lives and reduce the number of new arrivals
The proposed deal would see arrivals by small boats returned to France - each returnee would be matched by a safe route arrival in the UK, processed at a UK-staffed centre in France
In 2024, 43,630 asylum-seekers and others arrived illegally in the UK, and 36,649 of these came via small boats across the Channel. As of 19 May this year more than 12,500 people had arrived in small boats and arrivals between January and April exceeded those in the same period in any year since records began in 2018.
In a recent poll of readers of the Labour-leaning Daily Mirror 56% said that the government’s priority this summer should be “tackling the small boats crisis”.
A UK-wide poll by Focaldata showed 49% of adults and 45% of Labour voters naming as their priority for immigration policy the reduction of irregular migration such as that on small boats crossing the Channel.
Labour’s success or failure at the next general election could depend on how well it rises to this challenge.
The scheme in outline
This blog examines a combination of measures that could deter small-boat crossings and reduce the number of new illegal entrants, while ensuring the safe and legal transit of a capped number of refugees processed by the UK in France. The core of the scheme would be a UK/France returns agreement whereby France allowed the UK to return one illegal arrival for each refugee granted a safe route across the Channel. The safe route would be accessed via a UK-staffed centre in France which would process claims of asylum-seekers.
France and the UK are already discussing a one-to-one returns agreement
France and the UK are currently discussing a returns agreement under which the UK would return one illegal cross-Channel arrival to France in exchange for receiving from France one asylum-seeker having family links with the UK. This deal could be expanded to cover a one-to-one link between returns and visas issued under a safe-route scheme such as the one outlined below.
To prevent people-smugglers side-stepping the scheme by launching boats from Belgium, the returns agreement could cover arrivals from Belgium - perhaps with the ratio being two safe passages for one return instead of one for one.
Why would France agree to the scheme?
There would be no guarantee that France would agree to such a returns agreement, but the reason it might agree would be the same reason that is driving current negotiations on returns between the UK and France – the desire on both sides to deter asylum-seekers from seeking to enter the UK illegally from France.
A spokesperson for France’s interior ministry has said this in so many words: “France’s interest is to discourage migrants (and smuggling networks) from attempting to reach the UK from France.”
France might also be sympathetic to a UK asylum office in France. In the wake of a tragedy in which 12 people lost their lives in a cross-Channel crossing last year, France’s interior Minister, Gérald Darmanin, called for migrants to be able to claim UK asylum from within the EU.
The returns agreement would unlock a new and legal safe route across the Channel
The UK Government could offer combined asylum/work visas, alongside priority asylum visas. Most visas would be work visas because most of the asylum seekers aiming to cross the Channel are adults – male adults - of working age. Applications for visas would be made at a UK-staffed centre in France, which would provide advice and assistance, and a venue for interviews. Appeals would be online and the French centre could provide a venue for remote attendance at UK-based hearings.
Asylum seekers with work visas would contribute to the UK economy
Working refugees would contribute to the UK economy. They would also save the taxpayer the cost of accommodation and support payments during periods they might otherwise have spent workless while waiting for decisions on their asylum applications.
Some of the normal requirements for a work visa could be relaxed
The work visa element of the combined visa could be loosely modelled on the current worker (“skilled worker”) visa, with the key condition being an offer of employment from a licensed sponsor. But some requirements could be relaxed to facilitate the employment of refugees and their integration into UK society - unskilled work would qualify, and there would be no minimum salary requirement.
The language requirement could be relaxed
A normal requirement for a work visa is that the applicant speak and understand English to a standard that is – broadly - above basic but less than proficient. But there are some jobs which do not require English language skills to that level. Under the asylum/work visa the language requirement could be relaxed if the sponsoring employer confirmed that this would be practical for the employment in question, or if the language of the asylum seeker was spoken in the workplace in question.
The UK Government could promote the new asylum/work visa scheme to employers, who could apply to be placed on the existing Register of sponsors as sponsors of asylum seekers. Employers with languages spoken in the workplace which were likely to be spoken by applicants for visas could be particularly encouraged by the Government.
Sponsoring employers might contribute to resettlement costs
They could do this by a “welcome package” or an advance in wages. There are normally charges for work visas, but there would be no charges in respect of asylum/work visas. Like conventional work visas, the combined visa would cover a partner and children.
A priority asylum visa for those unable to qualify for an asylum/work visa
Those unable to qualify for an asylum/work visa with a good claim for priority – such as unaccompanied children – could apply for a priority asylum visa. Adult holders of these visas would be entitled to work when they reached the UK. They would be given a full briefing in France on the support they could hope to receive in the UK by way of benefits, local government assistance, and assistance from charities. Unaccompanied children would be escorted to the UK as soon as their applications were granted.
The new visas could lure asylum-seekers away from the people-traffickers
Safe routes are not in themselves a solution to the refugee crisis which challenges the whole of Europe as well as the UK, because potential host countries want to limit numbers. But a safe route across the Channel for some asylum-seekers could make many more think twice about signing up with the people-traffickers for a costly and dangerous passage to the UK. A safe route across the Channel linked to a one-for-one returns agreement could be a game changer which would save lives and stop the small boats.
The new returns agreement could put a stop to the small boat crossing
The UK and French authorities could cooperate in promoting an information campaign online and in France to warn those contemplating small-boat crossings that those who succeeded in reaching British shores or British waters would be promptly returned to France.
There would initially be no need for a cap on numbers of refugees given safe passage by the UK. It is true that the UK would be exchanging genuine refugees, who would have a right to settle in the UK, for the same number of asylum-seekers, of whom a substantial minority would have ultimately failed in their claims to refugee status. But the UK would be doing so with a view to reducing the overall number of arrivals of small-boat asylum-seekers in the near future. The UK would also benefit from the fact that France was in effect providing both an offshoring processing and an offshore returns hub, relieving the UK of both some accommodation pressures and the financial and organisation challenge of returning failed asylum applicants to their countries of origin.
The attraction to both sides of tying a returns agreement to a new safe and lawful route would be the likely reduction of small boat arrivals to close to zero in a matter of months.
Burden-sharing
That is not to say that the UK would expect to close down its safe route in a matter of months. If it did, the returns agreement would collapse, and the small boats would be back in business.
The UK and France could agree to the UK continuing to offer a safe and lawful route across the Channel to some thousands of refugees each year, and to France continuing to accept returns of any cross-Channel unlawful arrivals, even if the need for such returns had diminished, perhaps to vanishing point.
France and the UK might both see this as fair and reasonable form of burden-sharing between the partners.
It would be for the UK and France to agree the appropriate level of burden-sharing. If the UK ended up processing its asylum-seekers in France rather than the UK, and the number admitted to the UK via a French asylum centre amounted to 25% or less of those which formerly reached the UK in small boats, this might seem like a policy win for both countries.
The politics of such a policy
A policy combining a safe route with a one-to-one returns policy could stop the small boats and would certainly save lives. Such a policy would appeal to many Labour MPs and Labour voters as a means of deterring illegal entrants that did not throw humanity out of the window. It could also have a much wider appeal – many Brits are alarmed at the apparent lack of control over small boat crossings, but that does not mean they would be deaf to a solution that would be both humane and effective.
A poll in July 2024 by by Focaldata found that 50% of people, and almost two-thirds of Labour voters, would back a scheme in which humanitarian visas could be granted to up to 40,000 people a year with strong asylum claims or links to the UK. Only 16% were opposed to such a scheme.
The present writer would argue that far fewer visas per year than 40,000 could still amount to a humanitarian breakthrough, stop the small boats, and win over general public support.
The policy advocated in this blog would be vulnerable to the criticism that it aimed to reduce illegal immigration by legalising it. As with any policy touching immigration or the small boats, winning the messaging war would be crucial. But it would be a lot easier to win the messaging war over a policy that opened a safe route across the Channel, if that policy stopped the small boats, and significantly reduced the number of asylum-seekers from France being processed and settled in the UK.
Derrick Wyatt, KC is Emeritus Professor of Law at the University of Oxford and a former barrister. He argued cases before the EU Courts and advised businesses and governments.