THE BOATING CONUNDRUM Michael Lloyd

This is not a political article but intends to discuss the maritime problem caused by the illegal entry of refugees and migrants into the UK by sea.

In dealing with any ship or boat at sea, we are governed by the prime directives of UNCLOS (The United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea) clause 98, and SOLAS (The Safety of Life at Sea). These require that when possible, all those in danger at sea are to be rescued. They do not specify who, when or how. All seafarers know these requirements.?

Our existing border force was and is unable to cope with the problem. Initially, they had insufficient vessels and these were of poor design for the task. All they could do was to supplement the lifeboat service in rescue and taxi service to Dover. This failure was very quickly seen in France and the number of boats increased. As the public disquiet grew, it became apparent to Government that some sort of further action was required. From this came a number of solutions. one of which is to attempt to tow the boats back into French waters and now to supplement border force with Royal Naval support.??

The use of Royal Naval support was also attempted briefly in 2019 but failed.

This is an extract of a report by the House of Commons Defence Committee published in December 2021 on the use of the Royal Navy for this support, named “Operation Isotrope.”

‘We conclude that there are valid concerns about the objectives, the timeline, and the measures for success of the operation. The impact which the operation could have on the Royal Navy’s budget and the availability of its ships and personnel is worrying— particularly at a time when the tasks of the Royal Navy are increasing. There are also potential impacts both on the Navy’s reputation and its relationship with its French counterpart. In short, this policy announcement was premature and the decision- making behind the policy is flawed.’.?

Yet, regardless of this, the government went ahead with ‘Operation Isotrope’.

At the same time, the Defence Committee also held an inquiry that examined the future role and capabilities of the Royal Navy. published in December 2021and noted that;?

‘The Navy’s capabilities are stretched thin between its current missions: additional tasks or an unexpected crisis could break it. From now until at least 2027, it must take on increased responsibilities in a deteriorating international security environment, relying on a mix of elderly vessels that are often unavailable and new and untested assets and processes, with a tight budget for operations and maintenance.’

?Since that report, the Ukraine War broke out, and that surely must be regarded as the biggest crisis to occur in Europe since WW2. Apart from seeing such a dismal assessment of our Navy from our own government, a Navy that similar to our Merchant Navy was once the envy of the world, this was the second warning by the government committee responsible for devising government on defense and the second one to be ignored.

Finally, in?January 2022, Admiral Sir Charles Montgomery, who served as director of the Border Force from 2013 to 2017, told the House of Commons defense committee;

‘From my experience in the Med, as the person who was leading Border Force during the early to mid-2000s, the flow between mainland Turkey and the Greek Islands and from Libya to Italy via Lampedusa absolutely showed that, if vessels were positioned off the coastline from which people were coming, it served as a honeypot and the numbers increased.?

Not only that but, if they were Government-owned vessels, those vessels were the prime target for people trying to get across. They knew perfectly well that, once they were on those Government-owned vessels, they had ready access if not to Italy but to the home of those Government-owned vessels. It just was absolutely true. Any simple analysis will demonstrate that, which is why I come back to—I will come on to my next point in a moment—the strategic objective. If your strategic objective is to stop the migratory flow, do not do that. All it does is encourage it. You have to find some other way of doing it. That was the first point.?

You made the point about Border Force being seen as a taxi service, which I can absolutely see is a public perception. ‘

The third warning.

It surely is obvious to any seafarer, even a Cadet, that to consider towing these boats back to French waters with such unsuitable craft is nonsense. Even FRCs deployed from mother craft would find it impossible, even dangerous. People who have traveled thousands of miles enduring all the dangers that journey entailed are hardly likely to accept being towed back within sight of their destination without protest. One also wonders what the French authority's attitude would be, regardless of the fact that this is where the boats initially came from

My own reaction, if a refugee, would be to put a knife through the rubber of the boat and quickly change a tow into a rescue. Others may even jump into the sea in desperation and should some die in this act, then one can imagine the press apart from the possible tragedy of such actions being the cause of death.

Yet the Government has stated that this is to continue through to next year placing the Royal Navy in an impossible and offensive position.. This statement of intent has revealed another dangerous problem and that is who is advising the government that such an act of towing these boats back with such ships is feasible? The Maritime Coastguard Agency is headed by a CEO who has no knowledge of any maritime affairs and the service offers such low pay, no staff with sufficient professional experience exists to give him such advice.??The Marine professional organisations with professional experience within their organisations have not been consulted so who has the government been listening to?

Whistleblowers, please step forward.

Over a year ago a different solution was put to the Home Office. This was at a time when cruise ships were anchored around the coast waiting for covid to dissipate. The proposal was for two cruise ships to be chartered and anchored just outside the 12-mile limit. These ships with open registries would not be UK territory or within territorial waters, and all on board are subject to the laws of the country where the ship is registered. Those being rescued off their boats would be taken there rather than to the UK.

There would be temporary accommodation for several thousand as well as having all the facilities required. Immigration officials as well as additional staff such as police, medical, care workers, and even legal advisors could all be onboard. All could be processed to ascertain those who fit the category for genuine refugee status and they could then be quickly moved ashore where they could make their claim. Those deemed as inadmissible could then be removed by helicopter to the required airport.

While accepting that this simplifies what is a complex issue, surely this is better than what is occurring now and far better than trying to use hotels scattered around the coast and then disperse those unwanted to Africa.??Further, it ensures that all are treated properly in adequate conditions and under the same maritime laws that require their rescue.

Such a solution can only be temporary as the movement of people seeking refuge or a better life will continue and grow. We are trying to deal with what is an international problem in a national piecemeal fashion hastily put together in an urgent need to appease our people’s anxiety at national resources being reduced to cope with the influx while wanting to ensure that human rights are observed.?

Either way, our country will continue to be a desired destination for many. The concept of towing such fragile craft is not practically feasible using the existing RN and border force craft and could well endanger those in these boats more than the boats themselves.?