Moment former Tory justice minister Chris Philp finds huge boat of illegal migrants crossing the Channel
Mr Philp, who now serves as shadow Home Secretary, today posted a series of videos taken aboard a chartered ship in the English Channel.
After seeing one migrant boat being 'shadowed' by a French warship and then another just ten minutes later, the incandescent politician said it showed the Anglo-French deal was a failure, adding that occupants of the boats were 'coming to a hotel near you soon'.
He said: 'On the very day Labour's flagship Channel deal was meant to kick in, I watched French ships escort illegal migrants straight into British waters.
'Labour's migrant surrender deal with France is in shambles and today has proven that it will have no deterrent effect whatsoever.'
Last month Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer pledged migrants would be 'detained and returned to France in short order' under the agreement.
But a determined Mr Philp explained he would spend the day trying to discover 'if the Government really has sorted out' the issue of illegal migrants arriving in the UK from across the English Channel.
Within minutes, he is informed that French patrol vessel Minck had turned directly towards the shore of Calais in anticipation of a migrant boat getting ready to leave.
He said: 'So you can see the migrant boat in the water absolutely rammed full of illegal immigrants crossing the Channel and we see right next to it a French warship shadowing it across, making no attempts to stop it at all.
'That French warship has been with it about three hours now. They could have stopped that illegal migrant boat near the French shore if they had chosen to, like the Belgians do, the Australians do.
'They could have stopped it, but instead they are shadowing it across, escorting it into British waters.'
He added that within the next two hours the migrants would reach British waters.
Within minutes, Mr Philp then spotted a second migrant boat, with around 80 people aboard.
'The Government's new deal they announced is obviously having no effect whatsoever.
'[The migrants] are clearly not deterred by the government's deal. I can see the evidence in front of my eyes,' the politician added, before witnessing UK Border Force vessel Typhoon approaching the French warship to pick up the migrants.
Mr Philp added: 'They should return all the people - if you return all the people then they won't attempt the crossing in the first place.'
He witnessed the scenes on the first day of Labour's new migrant returns deal, which had already suffered a bumpy introduction after one minister appeared to contradict the terms of the treaty.
Cabinet minister Lisa Nandy said on Wednesday that small boat migrants sent back under the deal would see their human rights claims heard after being sent back to France.
However, it later emerged that some types of human rights cases would, in fact, block the Home Office from being able to remove migrants in the first place.
Asked whether human rights challenges amounted to a loophole in the plan, Culture Secretary Ms Nandy said: 'That's not the case at all.
'The deal that we've struck will allow… us to send people back to France who have human rights claims.
'Those claims will be heard in France.'
She told Sky News: 'I know that the Conservative Party has been saying that this is a loophole. It isn't and we're really confident about that.'
However, the treaty clearly sets out how small boat migrants cannot be sent back to France if they have 'an outstanding human rights claim'.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron confirmed the new deal last month after a Downing Street summit
The Home Office confirmed some human rights claims will block migrants' removal until they have been concluded in full.
It will include cases which cannot be formally 'certified' by officials as 'clearly unfounded'.
A Home Office spokesman said: 'Not everyone will fall within the scope of certification.
'No doubt there will be examples where people who file a human rights claim will fall outside the scope of certification and that would have to be heard.'
It was a narrower interpretation of the circumstances than those set out by Ms Nandy, and legal proceedings could take months or even years to wrap up.
The Mail has learned pro-migrant groups have begun informal discussions about launching a joint legal action against Labour's plan – just as they did against the Tories' Rwanda scheme.
Sources said there had already been 'a certain amount of co-ordination' between charities and other groups, with details of the treaty still being analysed.
The Free Movement website, which offers advice to immigration lawyers, has published an analysis of the new measures which says: 'Legal challenges will be more difficult than for Rwanda, however there are still likely to be grounds on which some people can resist removal to France.
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper repeatedly refused to say how many migrants will be returned under the deal because it 'could help the smuggling gangs'
'For example, if the inadmissibility decision was wrong, if people have family in the UK, or had experiences in France which make it inappropriate to send them back.'
Meanwhile, the French interior ministry led by Bruno Retailleau - who signed the treaty alongside Home Secretary Yvette Cooper - declined to answer questions about the deal.
It is unclear whether the Home Office had detained any of the new arrivals for possible removal to France.
Officials had previously described how migrants would be taken to the Home Office's processing centre at Manston, near Ramsgate in Kent, for initial screening.
Those selected would be sent to short-term detention facilities for further screening, and then on to an immigration removal centre.
Under the terms of the treaty the UK must hand France the names of those to be removed within 14 days of their arrival.
The French government then has up to 28 days to respond.
Labour's deal with France came a year after Sir Keir scrapped the Tories' Rwanda asylum scheme as one of his first acts in office.
The Rwanda deal, designed to deter Channel crossings and save lives, was ready to finally get off the ground after more than two years in legal limbo.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
21 minutes ago
- The Independent
Tory leader Kemi Badenoch says Josef Fritzl case made her ‘reject God'
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has revealed the case of Austrian sex offender Josef Fritzl caused her to lose faith in God. Mrs Badenoch said she was 'never that religious' while growing up but 'believed there was a God' and 'would have defined myself as a Christian apologist'. But this changed in 2008 when she read reports that Fritzl had imprisoned and repeatedly raped his daughter, Elisabeth, in his basement over 24 years. Mrs Badenoch, whose maternal grandfather was a Methodist minister, told the BBC: 'I couldn't stop reading this story. And I read her account, how she prayed every day to be rescued. 'And I thought, I was praying for all sorts of stupid things and I was getting my prayers answered. I was praying to have good grades, my hair should grow longer, and I would pray for the bus to come on time so I wouldn't miss something. 'It's like, why were those prayers answered and not this woman's prayers? And it just, it was like someone blew out a candle.' But she insisted that while she had 'rejected God', she had not rejected Christianity and remained a 'cultural Christian', saying she wanted to 'protect certain things because I think the world that we have in the UK is very much built on many Christian values'. During her interview, which is due to be broadcast on Thursday evening, Mrs Badenoch also said her tenure as Conservative leader was going 'well', adding her job was to 'make sure that people can see that we are the only party on the centre-right'. In an apparent dig at Nigel Farage's Reform UK, she said: 'There are pretenders. We're the only party on the centre-right, and we're the only ones who still believe in values like living within our means, personal responsibility, making sure that the government is not getting involved in everything so it can focus on the things it needs to look at, like securing our borders.' She went on to defend previous comments saying the fact she had worked at McDonald's made her working class, saying: 'I had to work to live. 'That, for me, is what being working class is. It's the lifestyle that you have. You have to work, to survive.' And she argued that parents who were 'worried about their children getting stolen or snatched' had created a younger generation that lacked the 'resilience' to deal with problems in life. Responding to figures suggesting a quarter of people aged 16-24 said they had a mental disorder, Mrs Badenoch said: 'I think they think they have a mental disorder, I don't think they all have a mental disorder.' She added: 'I'm not a medical expert so it is not my expertise on exactly what we need to do to get them into work, but we should be trying to get them into work.'
The Independent
21 minutes ago
- The Independent
‘One in four councils could lose money' under Government's funding proposals
Around a quarter of councils in England could lose money under the Government's proposed reforms to how local authorities are funded, analysis has found. A report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) said the changes would create big 'winners and losers' as ministers attempt to address perceived unfairness in levels of core funding across the country. Sir Keir Starmer's own council, Camden in north London, will be hit by the reforms when taking inflation into account, the IFS added. The think tank said Camden, along with other inner London boroughs including Westminster, will have less money to spend on services even if they increase council tax by the maximum amount allowed. Whitehall will provide a minimum level of funding, a so-called funding floor, for council leaders during the changes, but the IFS said overall cash for inner London town halls would be 11-12% lower in 2028-29 in real terms. The paper said: 'Around one in four councils would see real-terms falls in overall funding under the Government's proposals, with around 30 on the lowest funding floors seeing real-terms cuts of 11–12%. Conversely, another one in four councils would see real-terms increases of 12% or more.' The changes, which will come into effect from next year, are being consulted on by ministers. The Government plans to create a new methodology to assess local authority needs relatively and factor in population and deprivation. It will also assess need for adult and children's services. Overall spending will fall for 186 councils and rise by the same total sum for 161. One in 10 will see a fall in overall funding, while one in 10 will see an increase of 10% or more. The overall Government spend on local authorities will not change. The changes will be phased in across three years, from 2026/27 to 2028/29. Kate Ogden, co-author of the IFS report and a senior research economist with the think tank, said: 'England has lacked a rational system of local government funding for at least 12 years – and arguably more like 20. It is therefore welcome that the nettle of funding reform is being grasped, and some councils will benefit substantially under the new system. 'But the changes will sting for those councils that are assessed to currently receive too high a share of the overall funding pot, and so which lose out from moves to align funding with assessed spending needs.' The proposals are criticised in the report as 'not particularly redistributive to poor, urban areas of England'. It cites South Tyneside and Sunderland councils being among those to lose out from the reforms as slow population growth is accounted for. The report added: 'It is somewhat surprising that, on average, councils in the most deprived 30% of areas would see very similar changes in overall funding over the next three years to those for councils in the middle 40% of areas.' It noted that rural areas, which feared being badly hit by changes, will benefit from a 'remoteness adjustment' which will compensate areas with higher needs due to being far from large towns. London will gain the least, with a cash-terms increase in funding of 8% in the next three years. Analysis by the London Councils collective has highlighted the risk of the funding 'dramatically underestimating' needs for local services in parts of the capital. It noted the city has the highest rate of poverty in the country when housing costs are factored in. Outside the capital, the East Midlands (22%) and Yorkshire & the Humber (19%) are set to see the biggest increases in funding, with the South East set to see the smallest at 13%. However, the proposals have been criticised by youth charity the National Children's Bureau, which said it was 'significantly concerned' about the way the Government plans to work out needs for children's services. Ms Ogden added: 'The Government should consider giving highly affected councils which currently have low council tax rates greater flexibility to bring their council tax bills up to more typical levels to offset funding losses. 'More generally, reform of council funding allocations is just one part of the financial sustainability puzzle. Efforts to reduce demands on, and the cost of providing, local services through reform and the use of new technology will also be vital.' A spokesperson for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said: 'The current, outdated way in which local authorities are funded means the link between funding and need for services has broken down, leaving communities left behind. 'That's why we are taking decisive action to reform the funding system so we can get councils back on their feet and improve public services, with the IFS recognising that our changes will better align funding with councils' needs.'
The Sun
22 minutes ago
- The Sun
Police officer under criminal investigation over alleged leak of CCTV footage from Manchester Airport brawl
A COP is under criminal investigation for allegedly leaking footage of the Manchester Airport fracas. The Manchester Evening News published a video last July of a police officer kicking and stamping on a young man as he lay on the ground. 3 3 3 It sparked protests in the city. But later footage revealed the wider context that Mohammed Fahir Amaaz — the man on the ground — had earlier left PC Lydia Ward with a broken, bloodied nose. Amaaz, 20, was convicted last week of assault. The convicted thug and his brother, Muhammad Ahmed, 26, face a retrial next year over an allegation they assaulted PC Zachary Marsden - the officer seen to kick and stamp. Police watchdog the IOPC has now begun a criminal probe into the CCTV video's source. The unnamed cop has been told they may be held liable for how they obtained data, for misconduct and for perverting the course of justice. In an opinion piece on Wednesday, MEN editor Sarah Lester said the footage it published " provided critical context" and pointed out that the protests "stopped overnight". She wrote: "After a careful process of verification and intense internal debate, we published it. "We did so because we believed, and still believe, that in a democracy, the public deserves the full picture. "Many senior figures in Manchester, including within the police, told us they were relieved, even grateful, that we had published it. "But we do ask: what public interest is being served by pursuing this individual? "How much taxpayer money is being spent on this - while the justice system groans under the weight of backlogs and delays? "What message does this send to others who might be considering speaking up? This is a bad decision."
