The "solution" to tackling the number of small boats crossing the Channel does not lie "at sea", a former patrol boat commander has warned.

Ex-Navy commander Tom Sharpe told MPs there is 'no spare capacity' of navy vessels to guard the stretch of water between France and the UK, after the Prime Minister signed off plans for the military to take over command of the operation from Border Force.

It comes as nearly 30,000 asylum seekers made the dangerous journey across the Channel last year to seek refuge in the UK.

Hundreds more have already made the trip across the sea in 2022, including small children.

Last week, Home Secretary Priti Patel told the Commons she had “commissioned the MoD (Ministry of Defence) as a crucial operational partner to protect our Channel against illegal migration”.

It was part of Operation Red Meat – a plan to boost Boris Johnson's popularity amid repeat scandals – but was criticised as unworkable by many.

Speaking to the Commons Defence Committee today, Mr Sharpe said: “We have to acknowledge right at the start, in terms of context, about where the solution to this lies, and it’s not at sea.”

Asked what resources the Royal Navy has that could tackle crossings, he said: “If you fill the Channel with ships you could make this problem worse because you’re now making the crossing safer, and therefore more attractive.

“In terms of what the navy’s got right now, as I say they could use anything, but there is no fat, there is no spare capacity.

“The person in the planning board … is going to be hoping desperately that naval vessels aren’t requisitioned for this task because they’re all in use on other things.”

Vice Admiral Sir Charles Montgomery, a former Second Sea Lord and director general of Border Force between 2013 to 2017, said the Navy had a “far greater range” of its own assets and “wider defence assets” to call on which will be “very useful”, but added that those resources “could have been available to Border Force if it was leading the operation”.

“Clearly a judgment has been made that this is … about the leadership of the operation. And the Government have reached a judgment that the navy will be in a better place to lead this operation, better than Border Force or indeed any of the other operational arms that the Home Office has to call on,” he said.

The plans were called into question by some critics after little information was provided on how it would work and questions for more detail went unanswered.

John Spellar, acting committee chairman for the session, said it was “unfortunate that the Ministry of Defence has declined to provide either a minister or an official or a senior navy officer” to answer questions on what has been named Operation Isotrope.

The plans have been "in train" for some time, Mr Sharpe said, but suggested the decision to put the Navy in charge was a bigger role than previously anticipated.

He told MPs he thought the navy could offer the operation four things "really, very well": command and control to co-ordinate the large number of organisations involved; intelligence to "better predict" when crossings are likely to happen; maritime surveillance which he described as "navy 101"; and "allocating resources efficiently".

He suggested there was technology available that could "saturate" the Channel with better surveillance, describing nodes that have radar, thermal imaging and optical cameras and intercept cell phone use which could cost about £3 million to buy 10 to cover the stretch of water.

With that in place “you’re not playing ‘whac-a-mole’ any more, to use that expression, which is what I think is happening now”, he said, suggesting using such technology could help with “efficiently allocating resources” if crossings were under way.

But when asked what navy vessels would actually be able to do when faced with intercepting a boat, and whether turning boats back towards France would be possible, he said: “I would be happy if the expression of pushback was never used again.

“I cannot conceive a situation where you’re physically turning these ships back that’s either legal, or perhaps more importantly, safe.”

But charities are calling for a more humanitarian approach.

Bridget Chapman, from Kent Refugee Action Network, said: "Tom Sharpe says the solution to this issue is "not at sea" and we couldn't agree with him more.

"The government persists in chucking endless and unworkable ideas out in order to look tough.

"So far they have suggested floating walls, wave machines, and processing centres in Ghana, Rwanda, Ascension Island and Albania. None of these have come to anything and this looks like yet another attempt to pretend that they are taking action.

"A fresh and humanitarian approach is needed that accepts that the UK has a duty to take it's fair share of forcibly displaced people, and looks at how to manage that so that those who are eligible can access safe routes.

"That would cost less money and be far less chaotic than the current approach, as well as being the right thing to do."

The Home Office has been approached for a comment.

It comes as a former MOD site in Thanet has been made ready to start processing asylum seekers.

Tug Haven - a processing site in Dover - will no longer be used from the end of January as the Home Office's tenancy is coming to an end.

Phil Kerton, co-director of Seeking Sanctuary said there is much sense in some of the comments of former patrol boat commander Tom Sharp.

He said: "The dysfunctional Home Office has stuck to an unproductive hostile environment policy far too long. The solution lies in recognising the exiles in northern France as human beings and treating them with a measure of dignity. Its own data show that the majority of them get recognised as genuine refugees when their claims are scrutinised. Safe routes to the UK should be devised, rather than forcing people into dangerous journeys clinging to lorries or taking to sea in flimsy vessels, often exploited by traffickers.

"It must only be a matter of time before France decides to renegotiate the Le Touquet treaty which places UK frontier controls in France, and demands that additional Border Force staff are based there to undertake pre-processing of asylum claims."

We have closed the ability to comment on this story due to the number of abusive and racist posts received on this topic.

We appreciate it is a very divisive issue but must ensure our comments adhere to house rules.