Lorry migrants surge by 30pc in a year as Border Force told to toughen checks

Lorry migrants have surged by 30 per cent in a year as Border Force has been told to toughen border checks.

Home Office data, obtained by think tank Migration Watch, showed that 9,000 migrants reached the UK hidden in lorries last year, a 30 per cent increase since 2020.

It meant the total number of people crossing the Channel by small boats or lorry was 37,401, more than double the previous year and eight times the rate in 2014.

According to the analysis, there were an estimated 70,000-plus detected clandestine lorry entries since 2014, nearly equivalent to the capacity of Old Trafford football stadium.

It follows warnings by the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration that the Government’s processes for dealing with migrants sneaking into Britain in the back of lorries were “misfiring at each point”.

In one year, it found that more than 7,500 migrants were encountered in the UK having entered concealed in a vehicle and in two thirds of cases, the vehicle involved was never identified. The inspectorate said the Government needed to get a grip on an “unsustainable” situation.

Alp Mehmet, chair of Migration Watch UK, said: “Even with boat arrivals hitting record levels, thousands of migrants continue to enter in clandestine ways, including in the backs of lorries and containers.

“The serious risks to safety that this poses are obvious. Having destroyed their documents, as many do, it becomes nigh-on impossible properly to identify those entering this way. It’s an open door to criminals and terrorists.”

'Reform human rights to keep out migrants'

It comes as Policy Exchange, a think tank close to Government, called for all Channel migrants to be refused entry to the UK and transported offshore under a reformed Human Rights Act (HRA).

A Policy Exchange panel including a top Government lawyer and former Border Force chief says the only way to stop the Channel migrants would be a new approach where no one including even genuine refugees who used the route would ever be granted a right to settle in the UK.

It proposed a Plan A, which would be a deal with the EU whereby any migrant picked up in the Channel, or who arrives in the UK on a small boat, would be returned to the country from which they came by joint UK-EU patrols.

If, as is likely, such a plan was rejected by the EU, it proposed Plan B where all small-boat Channel-crossers would be immediately deported to a British overseas territory for their claims to be processed.

Those found to be legitimate refugees under the European Convention on Human Rights would be sent to a safe third country for settlement, while those judged to be economic migrants would be deported to their home country or voluntarily go to any country willing to take them.

To prevent the frustration of either plan by litigation, it would be imperative that all the remedies provided by the Human Rights Act be disapplied to all elements of the operation of these plans. This is a practical necessity to avoid years of delay.

The panel said: “So there is no inconsistency between disapplying the HRA and declaring the plans to be in fact and in law fully compliant with the Convention rights as defined by the HRA. The Ministerial statement that (per HRA s19) must accompany the Bill can rightly – and should – declare this full compliance.”

The panel included Stephen Laws a former Government lawyer and member of the Independent Human Rights Act Review, Tony Smith, former head of UK Border Force, and Richard Ekins, professor of law and constitutional government at the University of Oxford.

Professor Elkins said: “The crisis in the channel warrants a game-changing and humane solution. The crisis may well worsen as events in the Ukraine continue to unfold. It is possible to stop the small boats consistently with the UK's international obligations and moral responsibilities.”