The bottom line to this idea is that governments shouldn't be trading humans. Why are we having that discussion? What are the answers here, people? And you know, let's face it, predominantly young men will still take whatever risk if they think it's worth taking. Well, as Keir Starmer said, there is no silver bullet and and actually the smash the gangs approach does encounter a number of quite substantial operational
challenges. Last week, of course, we saw the video that perhaps the far right wanted to see, which was police going into the water and slashing a boat. We heard the child screaming. We heard heard everyone on their distraught. And maybe that's what they want. Hello and welcome to the Forecast. I'm Paul McNamara. The UK and France have just signed a deal that they hope will cut down on the number of migrants crossing the Channel in small boats.
The deterrent? Come to the UK illegally and you can be shipped straight back or as quick as the courts will allow. France will accept these returnees in exchange for Britain taking in refugees with family connections or legitimate claims. But will this one in one out scheme really put off desperate people fleeing war or famine? Small boat crossings are up almost 56% this year, with more than 21,000 people making the
journey so far. Will those numbers come down and fast enough to ease the political pressure from illegal migration? To discuss this, I'm joined by Doctor Peter Walsh from Oxford University's Migration Observatory and from the refugee charity Care for Kelly Charlotte Kahn. The numbers that we're talking about here are, we understand, about 50 returned per week. Well, at the moment, since Labour first came into power, about 850 people have been coming to the UK every single
week. So will this be enough to deter those people crossing the Channel in small boats, Peter? It's unlikely to have much of an impact. The working assumption has always been that the size of the deterrent effect of any returns deal like this will depend on a substantial share of people who reach the UK by small boat being returned to France. After all, these are individuals who have travelled thousands of miles to get to Calais.
They've spent thousands of EUR. They're willing to risk their lives by getting in a small boat to reach the UK. If there's not a substantial probability of being returned swiftly to France, then there's a likelihood that they'll just view this as one additional risk that they're willing to take. Charlotte is that what you're hearing from people actually in France? I think the bottom line to this idea is that governments shouldn't be trading humans.
It's quite obvious that that shouldn't be happening, and I'm a little confused to be honest. I mean, family reunification should already exist. So with this new plan, what exactly is the government suggesting that so far they've been denying people this right? Or are they saying that they will in the future deny family reunification unless some poor person who's come across on on a small boat is forcibly removed
from the from the nation? I mean, this is, this is crazy and it works on a horrible assumption that the people who are coming over on small boats have no connection to the UK, which many do. And an even worse assumption that people on small boats don't have the right to claim asylum in the UK, which they all do. So it's a nonsense and it it won't work because it's a deterrent based policy.
And we know from years and years of working in this sector now deterrent based policies do not stop people crossing the Channel. But Charlotte, if they know that there is a legal route and if they apply by the rules that Keir Starmer has just laid out, they would have a way of coming to the UK legally and have some sort of future here. Would that not be an attractive prospect? Am I in favour of safe routes? Absolutely 100%. I think safe routes is the only answer.
It's the serious solution to this. I I think all this pomp and ceremony and political circus is it would be laughable if it wasn't costing lives. Safe routes is the answer. Things will only work if they affect the majority of people who at the moment are coming onto small boats. So there would need to be a real political will behind safe routes for it to work and it would need to affect a lot more people. And we saw this success of a political will being in place
with the Ukrainian scheme. And then that is the same sort of thing that we would need to see for a wider safe route across the Channel so people can just join our asylum system like they do elsewhere. OK, before we start picking apart this policy even more, let's just do a bit of new reader starts here. So why are people willing to risk death in the Channel, get in these small boats and come to the UK when they could stay in France? Peter. Several reasons.
I mean, chief among them would actually speak with the individuals. They'll speak of the presence of family members in the UK, existing family connections or friends, members of the community.
That's a strong jaw. A second is the English language, that these are individuals who already have some facility with English. They prefer to develop their English language skills rather than learn French, Spanish or German. And 3rd, there is now emerging evidence of a Brexit effect, which is that when we were a part of the EU, we had access to the EU's asylum seeker
fingerprint database. We had access to the Dublin system under which asylum seekers who had claimed in the EU could be returned to the block. We no longer have access to those as a result of Brexit and people understand that if they've claimed in the EU and been refused, they can have another bite of the cherry by coming to the UK because we wouldn't know about that.
Look Charlotte, a lot of people watching this are going to turn around and say what is wrong with claiming asylum in France? So this is a big misconception. I think people who speak like that think that every refugee wants to come to the UK. This simply isn't the truth and we and we have all the statistics to back it up. Most people seeking safety will do so in a country neighboring their own.
The most the majority of people coming to Europe don't want to come to the UK. So this is, this is a nonsense. The people who are wanting to come to the UK do so for really strong reasons and that is to be with their family or that is language. It is to have a chance to rebuild their life in safety. And they haven't found this
elsewhere. You know, we hear really distressing stories and accounts from people that have worked their way through Europe. Yes, they have been to countries, but they certainly haven't found their safe place. They have been met with state violence and to such an extent that they have to move on. But there are some individuals who, yes, they, they are trying to get to family here, which I would do, I think most of us would do. If I had an uncle in a country, I'd be heading to him.
What's the appeal of this deal, what we've had announced, What's the appeal here for France, Peter? It's a good question. I think a part of it is that France wishes to show the willingness to cooperate on really what is a shared issue. France already has quite a lot of cooperation on this issue with the UK. We have patrols over there. We share intelligence and by the end of financial year 27 will have sent about a billion euros
in the 10 years prior to that. But I think it really is this appreciation that this is an international issue. France is not satisfied with the formation of informal migrant settlements in and around Calais and really it's a recognition of that fundamentally. So you spend quite a lot of time in Calais, lots of pictures that have been raised. Voters over the last couple of years have been no sights of French policemen standing around, not doing very much.
When people hop into boats and then launch into the Channel, why aren't the French intervening more? Is it simply because they're more than happy for people to leave the country? Come over here, let the UK deal with it. Well, if people are wanting the French police to make refugees lives a misery in Calais, they can rest assured that that's definitely happening. For years now we've seen an escalation in police violence paid for by us, by the UK government.
Of course, on the sites in Calais, we've seen tear gas, we've seen pepper spray, you know, the very few belongings that people have in the world being destroyed in front of them, violence against people. I mean, I did think I had seen it all. But then last week, of course, we saw the video that perhaps the far right wanted to see, which was police going into the water and slashing a boat when people were still on board. We heard the child screaming.
We heard everyone on their distraught and maybe that's what they want and I think this is this is what the governments are working towards. They are pandering towards the FAR. Charlotte isn't there? Isn't there an argument here that actually, yeah, they're distressing images, but actually it's a kind of thing to make sure that they're not further out and to see they're not getting into more danger. You're stopping people before you, before they take that really, really dangerous journey
the full way across the channel. Oh my God, yeah. I wish that people wouldn't take that risk. I, I wish that they didn't have to, of course, 100%, but we are talking nonsense if we think that that one event is going to stop people trying again. There was nothing to suggest that they won't stop trying. We speak to people all the time. We, we spoke to people specifically when the Rwanda plan was there. It was meant to be the biggest
deterrent ever. Look, the biggest deterrent ever is that you might lose your life in this journey and people are still willing to do it. Peter is that is that the the mood music that you hear that it doesn't really matter what deterrents are put in place people and you know, let's face it, predominantly young men will still take whatever risk if they
think it's worth taking. They are desperate to reach the UK. And when you look at the countries that they've come from, in some sense it's no great surprise why they tend to come from some of the most chaotic parts of the world, countries that suffer political persecution, environmental catastrophe, war, civil or ethnic conflict of various kinds. And that's why it's no surprise, of course, that large majorities
claim asylum. And at the moment, of those that have received a decision on their asylum claim, a pretty large majority, 2/3, have been successful. Charlotte, I get the impression from the from the top there that you're not overly pleased with the announcement that's just been made by Sir Keir Starmer. Is there any form of returns agreement that you would have looked at and gone? Yeah, OK, I can get behind that. I, I, my, my purpose isn't here
to talk about returns agreement. I, I'm, I'm really disturbed by that idea that we have to trade humans in any way. Why are we doing that? Why are we having that discussion? Why aren't we talking about our obligations as a country to, you know, help people who have come to us asking for help? Why are we trying to shirk our responsibility just because of this fluke of geography that we have this deadly channel in between us? Why are we doing that? My mind boggles.
I don't understand why we're not just talking about a safe route and why we're talking about returns in this way. There are returns policies in place, but can I go back to something you mentioned about them, mostly young men. And this is something that the that the far right really like to, you know, get stuck in in on.
You know, when we look at the nations that the people are are fleeing from the very targets of those governments that they are fleeing and the persecution they flee, the very targets are young men forced conscription into what is basically, you know, death gangs. So they are the targets. Why we would stop those young men seeking asylum in our nation is disgraceful. I really do. I really dislike this sort of gender based discussion that
happens on this topic. And maybe it's because I'm a mum of two strapping teenage boys and God forbid that my very tall, you know, 13 and 15 year old sons ever had to flee their home like my friends, mothers have had to tell them, you know, run. God forbid that they were met with this, that people were wishing them to die on their way to meeting a relative in a safe country. Peter, can you talk us through the scale of the problem across
the whole of Europe? Because a lot of people watching the news, watching the UK news will only see the people that are crossing the Channel to get here. But looking across Europe, how? What's the scale of the problem in every other European nation? Yes, it's very much a European challenge and the UK is most certainly not alone here. If we talk about unauthorised maritime arrivals, Italy has frequently 2 to three times, Greece often has more, Spain as
well. So there are many countries that experience this. And certainly the extent to which the UK experiences unauthorised maritime migration is considerably of less magnitude than the numbers that are reaching Italy, for example. So this is a pan European problem, but what we've got now is an agreement between the UK and France. Is there a risk that the Europeans can step in here and say we're blocking this?
We've already seen some opposition from a number of frontline states, Italy, Cyprus, Malta, Spain and Greece. Their concern is that individuals that are returned to France may end up back in those countries which already view themselves as as overburdened and taking responsibility for
large numbers of individuals. But of course, at the same time, an individual that could be returned to those countries is also coming to the Uki think one of the big questions about this fairly limited deal for the time being is whether it might be a stepping stone to a broader agreement between the UK and the EU as a whole. And the big win, I think for UK policy makers would be regaining access to the E US fingerprint asylum seeker database. Charlotte, immigration is a huge
issue in British politics. Labour feel that they've got to get on top of this. Just talking to Labour MPs before we started this podcast, one, one of them was saying to me, look, this is a good start but we're going to have to go further because we are facing real problems here from Reform who are looking at taking a far harder line stance.
Are you concerned that if Labour don't tackle this problem now, it's not going to be whatever Keir Starmer comes up with, but it might be what Nigel Farage comes up with which you would find far less palatable? So I, I do think it's extraordinary that a Labour government is in place and we're
having these discussions. I've worked in this sector for years now and even in our, in our darkest day under the Tory government, you, you at least have that hope that, you know, one day they're going to get voted out and this change is coming. But here we are with the Labour government having the same discussions. I think it's extraordinary that Labour are choosing this strategy of trying to out reform, reform. I mean, that's not a a vote winner.
Who's going to do that? If you if you want to vote for the for the very worst, in my opinion, you know policies, then you just the. Polls show that it that it is a vote winner Charlotte. Well, I mean, I, I really do think that the majority of Labour, traditional Labour voters don't want what the Labour government are bringing in place. They honestly don't. And it's certainly not our experience as a charity who are, you know, out in the UK, across the UK all the time, we have
thousands of volunteers. We come across loads of different communities who are not interested in what reforms are selling now. Do we all share the same sort of frustrations that perhaps reform voters have? Yes, I think we do. I think that's a wider political discussion. Peter, this isn't just a European problem, it's not just Auk problem. This is migration. Global migration is a problem across the world. I've just come back from the
Mexico, Arizona border. Donald Trump by taking a really hard line approach, has pretty much shut down that border. The border crossings are down by huge numbers. He's only with aggressive tactics of forced immigration, immigration now we've got people who are volunteering to return to their home nations because it's such a toxic environment. Could a similar system work over here if the government went really, really hard line, really appeal to those voters who might
be flirting with reform? Law enforcement has its limitations. That the case of the US is actually quite instructive in that it showed that a combination of enforcement, sometimes harsh and rigorously applied, along with the safe and legal routes, proved to be the most effective kind of solution. The big question, of course, is whether the Labour government would find that politically
palatable. But that has been one of the big lessons coming out of the UK case study, the US case study Look. Long term, what are the answers here? How can so, how can the government stop these small boats crossing? You know, we've heard so much about smash the gangs. Well, how many gangs have actually been smashed so far? How are we going to get these crossings down, Peter?
Well, as Keir Starmer said, there is no silver bullet and actually the smash the gangs approach does encounter a number of quite substantial operational challenges. The smuggling networks are increasingly professionalised, well resourced. They've always been adaptable. It takes a lot of resource to hand smugglers.
They can be quickly replaced and senior figures operate in countries not just beyond the UK's jurisdiction but beyond that of the EU, and often in countries with which the UK has very little to no law enforcement cooperation. So the magnitude of the challenge very substantial indeed. Charlotte, what about you? Is there any solution you can see? Yes, well, I mean, he says there's no silver bullet. You know, we heard there was no magic money tree either and all
of that. We've we've heard phrases like this before. There is it's safe routes. It's a safe route to cross the channel. That is what will destroy the smugglers business model overnight. I I'm incredibly frustrated that the government refused to even research or look into a safe route in order for people to cross the channel.
We've produced policies with with PCs union who represent Border Force, who represent people who work in the Home Office. We're not some sort of lefty crazy utopian thinking agency here. We have put forward a serious solution here which they are refusing to consider. Is that essentially an open door though, Charlotte? No, no, it's not. I mean. So would you put numbers on? Would you put? Would you put limits on? Please, let's start that conversation.
You know, I, I'm not here to go into the minutiae of exactly what the Home Office would do, but let's have a look at that. You know, we have a blueprint. It's not just talk. We have a blueprint based quite heavily on the Ukrainian scheme where people would be able to access the right to cross the Channel to enter our asylum process. So our asylum process, we are told by Labour is robust. Therefore let people enter it without having to risk their lives because that is what the crisis is.
The crisis is people are dying in the Channel. It's not that people are seeking asylum in the UK, surely. Peter, if you're a betting man, how much money would you put on what's been announced today having any real impact on getting the numbers down? I can see Charlotte shaking her head already, by the way. The numbers would have to be substantial such that there would be a large chance of being returned to France under this initial pilot stage.
Those numbers are not particularly up large. That's really the the low number scenario where it's difficult to imagine much material the Tarrant effect. And if it doesn't have an effect, what's the ramifications? Very difficult to predict. The UK may very well seek a broader deal with the EU, but the big question is there, well, will the EU be keen to do that? It certainly prefers deals with the block as a whole rather than these kinds of bilateral agreements.
But the question for the EU will be, well, why would we give the UK these additional powers that have been typically reserved for member states? And Charlotte, do you think this is ultimately going to have any impact on the people that you deal with in Calais? I don't think it's going to stop people crossing the channel, no, I think it's going to risk people's lives. That's that's the truth of it is that people will die. Last year at least 78 people
died in our channel. This is just this just can't continue. So the result will be this is yet another cruel deterrent based policy, which won't work. It won't stop people and people will just continue to die. What will will what happen is that the far right will continue to use it in the way that they do to stir up hatred. We'll, we'll be distracted from the issues that are really important to people who live here.
And rather than looking elsewhere, we will be, we will be guided towards people who are running from war and persecution, who have nothing and are just asking for safety. That's who we are supposed to blame. And that will continue. And that's the rhetoric that will continue and nothing will change. I don't think that's the write up Keir Starmer was hoping for straight after his press conference. Sure it's not. Yeah, I'm sure it's not, but there we go. Sometimes we have to speak truth
to power, don't we? But play Doctor Peter Walsh from the Oxford University's migration to Observatory. Charlotte Kahn from Care for K Thank you very much for joining us. Thank you. Thank you. That's it for this episode of The Forecast. Until next time, goodbye.