Andy Burnham hit back at the idea of using the Royal Navy in the Channel (Image: UK Parliament)
Andy Burnham has suggested that using the Royal Navy to stop migrants crossing the English Channel in small boats is not a “serious” idea. Reform UK MP for Newark, Robert Jenrick, told the Prime Minister in the House of Commons yesterday to “declare a national security emergency, because we have a gaping hole in our borders right now”. He also called for the Government to “send the Royal Navy in to the Channel and shut down the entire asylum farce once and for all”.
Mr Burnham replied: “I can remember a time when [Mr Jenrick] stood up in this House and made serious proposals. Sadly, not today. If he checked the facts recently, he will see that small boat crossings are coming down under this Government.
“When he was immigration minister, what did they do? They went up and up and up.” Mr Jenrick later posted on X: “Andy Burnham has his head in the sand.”
Recorded Channel crossings are at their lowest since 2021, with 20,935 arrivals so far this year. This is down 42% on this time last year (36,244), and 19% below the figure at this stage in 2023 (25,931), when Mr Jenrick was the Conservative immigration minister.
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
Mr Jenrick had earlier told Talk: “Deploy the Royal Marines in to the Channel. If they need to use lethal force, then they’ll be able to do so. That’s obviously not what we want to see happen.
“We want to see these individuals picked up off the boats in a sensible and reasonable way and taken straight back to France. And I think the problem would come to an end very, very quickly, you know, within a matter of days.”
The Labour Party’s Chairwoman, Bridget Phillipson, described the proposal as “disgusting and illegal”. She added: “Our armed forces are not going to start opening fire on unarmed civilians, and Reform are dragging their own reputations and credibility into the gutter by suggesting it.”
It comes after a Falklands War veteran caused fury by saying small boats carrying migrants to the UK should be shot. Major-General Julian Thompson, 92, a former commander of 3 Commando Brigade, commanding Operation Sutton, the attack at San Carlos Water in May 1982, on the ground.
“I would shoot them,” Maj. Gen. Thompson said in a YouTube documentary produced by Steven Edginton. “We could stop them tomorrow, if we really had the guts. I’d shoot them, sorry, but I would,” he added. “We’ve allowed it to happen. We’re wet […] We’ve allowed it to happen.”
Andy Burnham Dismisses Using Royal Navy to Block Migrant Boats: ‘Not a Serious Idea’
Andy Burnham has dismissed the idea of using the Royal Navy to block migrant boats crossing the English Channel, describing the proposal as “not a serious idea”. His remarks have brought renewed attention to one of Britain’s most contentious political debates: how the government should respond to irregular migration, people-smuggling networks and the continuing arrival of small boats on the country’s southern coastline.
The question of whether military resources should be used to prevent migrant boats from reaching British shores has become an important point of disagreement in discussions about border security. Supporters of a tougher approach argue that the government needs to demonstrate greater control over the Channel crossing route. Critics, however, question whether deploying the Royal Navy would be practical, lawful or effective in addressing the underlying causes of irregular migration.
Burnham’s comments highlight the differences between political approaches to the issue. They also raise wider questions about the responsibilities of the armed forces, the role of border enforcement agencies and the policies required to reduce dangerous journeys across the Channel.
A Controversial Proposal for the English Channel
The idea of using the Royal Navy to prevent migrant boats from reaching the United Kingdom has attracted attention because it would represent a significant change in the way Britain approaches Channel crossings.
Those advocating a stronger military role argue that the government should use every appropriate resource available to protect its borders. They point to the dangers associated with overcrowded inflatable boats, unpredictable weather and the activities of organised criminal networks that arrange crossings.
For these supporters, the issue is not simply about immigration numbers. It is also about preventing deaths at sea, disrupting people-smuggling operations and demonstrating that the authorities can enforce immigration law.
However, the practical details of such a policy would be crucial. Preventing a boat from reaching British waters is not the same as safely resolving the situation of the people on board. Any operation would have to consider the possibility of capsizing, the condition of passengers and the need for rescue when lives are in danger.
The Royal Navy is trained to operate in challenging maritime environments, but its responsibilities differ from those of the agencies primarily tasked with immigration enforcement. A proposal to deploy naval vessels would therefore require clear operational instructions, appropriate legal authority and coordination with existing border and rescue services.
These considerations help explain why the suggestion has become a subject of political disagreement.
Why Andy Burnham’s Position Matters
Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, has become a prominent voice in national political discussions, particularly on questions concerning public services, regional government and Labour’s future direction.
His dismissal of using the Royal Navy to block migrant boats places him within a broader debate about how the government should balance enforcement with practical constraints and humanitarian responsibilities.
The phrase “not a serious idea” suggests that Burnham considers the proposal inadequate as a workable response to the problem. However, the precise implications of his position depend on the wider context of his remarks and the alternative measures he supports.
Rejecting a particular enforcement method does not necessarily mean opposing border controls. Politicians can support action against illegal crossings while disagreeing over whether military deployment is the appropriate instrument.
The distinction is important because immigration debates often bring together several separate questions: whether borders should be controlled, how immigration laws should be enforced, how people-smuggling should be disrupted and what should happen to people who arrive without prior authorisation.
A meaningful assessment of Burnham’s position therefore requires examining the specific policy under discussion rather than assuming that disagreement over one proposal represents agreement or disagreement with every aspect of immigration policy.
The Royal Navy’s Role and Its Limitations
The Royal Navy is responsible for defending the United Kingdom and supporting a range of maritime security operations. Its personnel and vessels have capabilities that can be relevant to surveillance, monitoring and emergency assistance at sea.
Nevertheless, using naval assets to stop small migrant boats would present operational challenges.
Small inflatable craft can be difficult to manage safely, particularly when carrying large numbers of passengers. Attempts to intercept or redirect such boats could create additional risks if the vessels are unstable or the people aboard panic. Weather, sea conditions and limited visibility could further complicate operations.
There is also a difference between detecting a boat, rescuing people from danger and preventing a crossing from taking place. These activities may overlap, but they require different decisions and priorities.
The armed forces would also need to work alongside the Border Force, coastguard services and other relevant authorities. Clear responsibility for command, passenger safety, evidence collection and the handling of people brought ashore would be essential.
Deploying the Royal Navy could require substantial resources, including vessels, personnel, fuel and ongoing operational support. Those costs would need to be weighed against the expected results and the potential effect on other defence responsibilities.
The central question is therefore not simply whether the Navy has the technical ability to operate in the Channel. It is whether a military interception policy would be safe, lawful, sustainable and effective in reducing irregular crossings.
The Government’s Wider Migration Challenge
Small-boat crossings have become a recurring challenge for successive British governments. The issue combines border enforcement, asylum processing, international cooperation and the activities of criminal organisations that profit from arranging dangerous journeys.
People who make these crossings have different personal circumstances. Some seek international protection, while others may have different reasons for travelling to Britain. Their individual claims must be assessed through the relevant legal procedures rather than treated as identical.
At the same time, the government has a responsibility to maintain an effective immigration system, investigate criminal activity and make decisions on asylum claims without unnecessary delays.
When processing systems become congested, the consequences can extend beyond the initial arrival. Accommodation costs may increase, local authorities may face additional pressure and communities may become frustrated when they believe that the system is not operating effectively.
These concerns have contributed to demands for stronger enforcement and faster decision-making.
However, preventing crossings requires more than a visible presence at sea. It also involves investigating the networks that organise departures, cooperating with other countries, improving intelligence and establishing workable arrangements for the return of people who have no legal right to remain.
The effectiveness of any particular proposal should be judged against these wider objectives.
The Arguments for a Tougher Approach
Supporters of using military resources argue that a more forceful response could strengthen deterrence and make it harder for smugglers to operate.
They contend that the government needs to show that crossing the Channel in an unauthorised boat will not automatically lead to settlement in Britain. From this perspective, a credible enforcement policy must be supported by sufficient resources, consistent procedures and visible action against organised criminal groups.
Some advocates also argue that the dangers of small-boat journeys justify exploring additional operational options. Overcrowded vessels and poor safety equipment can put passengers at serious risk, while smugglers may prioritise profit over the wellbeing of those they transport.
These arguments deserve consideration when assessing how the government can reduce dangerous crossings.
However, the existence of a problem does not automatically establish that a particular solution will work. A military operation would need to demonstrate that it could reduce crossings without creating greater risks at sea or simply shifting departures to different locations and routes.
The financial implications would also matter. If naval deployment required substantial resources but produced limited reductions in arrivals, the government would need to consider whether alternative enforcement or prevention measures could achieve better results.
The Legal and Humanitarian Questions
Any policy involving the interception of migrant boats would have to comply with applicable domestic and international law.
Maritime operations must account for the duty to assist people in distress. Depending on the circumstances, authorities may also need to consider asylum procedures, protections against return to places where individuals face serious harm and the legal requirements governing detention or transfer.
These obligations do not prevent governments from enforcing immigration rules. They do mean that enforcement must be designed around established legal responsibilities.
A policy that fails to distinguish between border enforcement and rescue could expose passengers and personnel to unnecessary danger. It could also create legal disputes that undermine the intended purpose of the operation.
The government would consequently need to explain how any proposed naval role would function in practice. Questions would include who could authorise an interception, what would happen when a boat was unseaworthy, where rescued passengers would be taken and how individual protection claims would be handled.
Without clear answers, the proposal would remain incomplete as an operational policy.
What Alternatives Could Be Considered?
If using the Royal Navy to block boats is considered impractical, other measures could form part of a comprehensive strategy.
First, authorities could strengthen investigations into people-smuggling networks, focusing on organisers, financial flows, transport arrangements and the supply of equipment used for dangerous crossings.
Second, the government could seek greater cooperation with countries involved in departure routes and transit networks. Such arrangements would need to be legally sound and supported by effective safeguards.
Third, faster asylum processing could help reduce uncertainty and accommodation costs. Prompt decisions would allow people who qualify for protection to move forward with their lives while enabling lawful returns where claims are rejected and no other legal barrier applies.
Finally, improved maritime surveillance and coordination between the relevant agencies could help authorities identify boats in difficulty and respond more effectively to emergencies.
None of these measures offers an automatic solution. Their effectiveness would depend on implementation, funding, international cooperation and the capacity of the agencies involved.
Nevertheless, evaluating different approaches against measurable objectives would provide a clearer basis for policy decisions than relying on the symbolism of any single intervention.
A Debate That Is Far From Over
Burnham’s dismissal of the Royal Navy proposal is likely to remain part of the wider discussion about Britain’s approach to immigration and border security. The disagreement reflects a fundamental question facing policymakers: how can the government demonstrate effective control of its borders while ensuring that its chosen methods are practical, lawful and safe?
For supporters of a tougher approach, the priority is reducing unauthorised arrivals and disrupting the criminal networks behind dangerous crossings. For critics of military interception, the central concern is whether such a policy would deliver meaningful results without creating new operational and humanitarian problems.
Both the costs and the consequences of any proposal must be considered carefully.
The government will ultimately be judged not only by the measures it announces but also by whether those measures produce measurable improvements. Reducing dangerous crossings, protecting lives, processing asylum claims efficiently and enforcing immigration decisions are connected objectives, but they are not interchangeable.
Burnham’s reported comments have therefore brought attention to a broader policy challenge rather than resolving it. The question remains whether Britain can develop an approach that combines effective enforcement with clear legal safeguards and a realistic assessment of what its institutions can deliver.
As the debate continues, the most important test for any proposal will be whether it can achieve its stated aims in practice. A credible strategy must move beyond political slogans and demonstrate how resources, legal responsibilities and operational decisions will work together to address the problem of small-boat crossings in the English Channel.