Officialdom is frustrating Ukraine’s quest for boats

In my column on January 20, I talked about how the “small boats” that the British public don’t want could become the “little ships” which the Ukrainians want very much indeed. An unwelcome import could be turned into a life-saving export.

Such light craft are the only means by which the Ukrainian armed forces (UAF) can ferry troops, kit and food across the Dnipro river to reinforce the bridgeheads from which they fight the Russians on the eastern side. The boats also bring back the wounded. Outside of Ukraine itself, by far the biggest contribution to this perilous riverine effort is British. All over this country, volunteers are donating and restoring suitable vessels. Other – or sometimes the same – volunteers then transport the boats to the theatre of war. Three such will be delivered this week.

However, as I also wrote, such a voluntary operation cannot achieve the scale the Ukrainian army needs without the active cooperation of the British authorities. Last year, volunteers at missionukraine.uk noticed that a great pound of the small boats that bring illegal migrants is held by the Border Force at Dover. More than 1,000 such boats have arrived since February 2022. Using these boats and their engines for the Dnipro crossings seemed a logical idea. After the UAF had decided that its Dnipro boat operations were no longer a secret, freeing this paper to run the story and my column, readers responded extremely generously.

After some vaguely supportive words by politicians but discouraging official noises, missionukraine.uk decided to make a formal request to the Home Office that these boats be donated to the Ukrainian MOD. The Home Office reply recently arrived. “Border Force disposes of items seized in line with legislation,” it began ominously. Once the boats are no longer needed to help in investigations or legal proceedings, “vessels will be subject to the Border Force disposal process and options on sale will be considered. Any such sales would be via our auction contractors.”

This is stonewalling. It merely states the existing position and tells missionukraine.uk and other groups nothing they did not know already. The reply does not even acknowledge the nature of the organisation’s request.

Obviously, dealing with it properly would need to bend the normal rules. It would dispense with any thought of sales and become a simple, direct means of providing government help. This is therefore not a matter for a pro-forma bureaucratic response but for a minister – the Home Secretary, James Cleverly? – to take the initiative. If departmental amour-propre is involved, it could be a joint operation between the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence.

Given Britain’s frequently repeated commitment to do “whatever it takes” to help Ukrainian victory, it should not take much to get this venture going. At a time when we are short of kit to send to Ukraine, here is some that we never wanted, never bought and do not need for ourselves. The UAF would happily make all the arrangements to receive whatever Britain can give and volunteers would pay for the transportation. Reportedly, the annual cost of current maintenance and recycling in Dover is £500,000 to the public purse. That could be saved.

Another Border Force objection, first issued months ago and often repeated since, is that the small boats are not seaworthy. As one official put it, “These boats also deteriorate and perish over the period, and are therefore often destined for recycling.” “Yes,” comes missionukraine.uk’s answer, “and recycling is exactly what we propose to do with them.” If they prove irretrievably unseaworthy – or, more relevantly, unriverworthy – the boats will still be useful to the UAF as decoys. Their engines are also of great value and can easily be fixed.

The tempo should be increased. I wish missionukraine.uk every success with its Freedom of Information requests to find out exactly what is happening to all those Dover boats and engines. Instead of fobbing it off with officials, a senior minister should step in and “own” this issue.

It is a great joy for a Christian church when someone wishes to join their number. Normally, such a person will be given the benefit of the doubt. He or she should be instructed in the necessary beliefs and practices, but his motives will rightly not be treated with suspicion.

But in some countries – Afghanistan, for example, or North Korea – Christians are persecuted. Someone seeking asylum here from such a place will be advised that he will, in the official phrase, have “a well-founded fear of persecution” in that country if he can show that he is a Christian. He will therefore have a motive to declare himself one.

It stretches credulity, for example, that the sudden conversion of 40 Muslims to Christianity on the Bibby Stockholm is unrelated.

Abdul Ezedi, wanted in connection with allegedly throwing a corrosive substance over a woman and her daughters in Clapham, was seemingly granted asylum at the third time of asking, having been certified as a Christian by a priest. If he was, on what grounds and after what examination did the priest so certify? What rules do churches have to decide who is genuine? I read reports in which friends describe Mr Ezedi as “a good Muslim”. We live in an ecumenical age, but neither faith permits its adherents to belong to the other at the same time.

At a time when we are short of kit to send to Ukraine, here is something we never wanted or need