French action ‘has prevented nearly 500 small boat crossings this year'
Her statement came days after the Government secured a new agreement with France over returning migrants who had arrived on small boats.
She said: 'French actions have prevented 496 boat crossings this year, but 385 boats have crossed.
'And criminal gangs are operating new tactics, increasing the overcrowding of boats so that more people arrive, and loading them in shallow waters, exploiting the French rules that means their authorities have not been able to intervene in the water.'
It is unclear whether the figure refers to small boat crossings being stopped before or during attempts to leave the coastline, or by other means such as seizing boats from warehouses.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron during Mr Macron's state visit to the UK (Leon Neal/PA)
The Home Secretary referred to 'appalling scenes' of people clambering onto crowded boats in shallow waters, and said French police had faced 'disgraceful violence' from gang members behind the crossings.
She continued: 'We cannot stand for this. That is why the new action agreed with France includes establishing a new French Compagnie de Marche of specialist enforcement officers, with stronger public order powers to address increases in violence on French beaches and prevent boat launches before they reach the water.'
Some 22,492 people have arrived in the UK after crossing the English Channel, according to latest Home Office figures.
This is up 57% on this point last year (14,291) and 71% higher than at this stage in 2023 (13,144), according to PA news agency analysis.
Last week's agreement saw a deal struck for a one in, one out system that would see a small boat migrant exchange for a legal asylum seeker.
No details have been given about how many people will be covered by the scheme, but reports from France have indicated it could initially be limited to around 50 a week – a small fraction of the weekly average this year of 782.
Priority will be given to people from countries where they are most likely to be granted asylum as genuine refugees, who are most likely to be exploited by smuggling gangs and also asylum seekers who have connections to the UK.
The accord came at the end of a state visit by French President Emmanuel Macron to the UK.
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper during the UK-France Summit on day three of Emmanuel Macron's state visit to the UK (Yui Mok/PA)
Ms Cooper said: 'The new agreement reached at the summit last week means stronger partnership working with source and transit countries to prevent illegal migration.'
Conservative shadow home secretary Chris Philp rubbished the idea that progress had been made on the issue, and said statistics showed small boat crossings had risen under Labour.
Mr Philp said the 12 months since Labour's election last July had seen a 40% rise year-on-year in terms of crossings.
He said: 'The Home Secretary comes here today sounding rather pleased with herself. I'm afraid she has no reason to.
'A year ago, she promised to smash the gangs, she said again and again that was her plan, indeed it was her only plan. Yet today, there is no mention of what was once her favourite catchphrase.
'That's because her claim to smash the gangs has become a joke, an embarrassment to her and to the Government.'
He added that rather than closing asylum hotels, there were 3,000 more people in them than last year.
'She is setting records, just all the wrong ones,' he said.
People thought to be migrants are brought in to the Border Force compound in Dover, Kent (Gareth Fuller/PA)
Ms Cooper replied: 'This crisis, the small boats chaos, went on for 340 weeks under the Tories, a period in which when he was immigration minister, overall migration near trebled and small boat crossings increased tenfold when he was the immigration minister in charge.'
She later said the Government's plan would involve greater co-operation with other governments, rather than 'standing at the shoreline shouting at the sea'.
Ms Cooper said: 'We will best strengthen our border security by working with countries on the other side of those borders who face exactly the same challenges far better than just standing at the shoreline shouting at the sea.'
Conservative former minister Andrew Murrison asked the Home Secretary to respond to the idea that the UK was 'perceived as being attractive to illegal migrants'.
She replied: 'I do think frankly it has been too easy to work illegally in this country for too long, and we know that one of the things that the criminal gangs say to people is, 'it will be easy to get a job'.
'They will even give people discounts if they can come and work for those same criminal gangs operating in the UK.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South Wales Guardian
6 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
Plan to strip citizenship from ‘extremists' during appeals clears Commons
The Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill was passed at third reading by MPs, and will now go to the House of Lords for further scrutiny. Under the legislation, alleged extremists who lose their British citizenship but win an appeal against the decision will not have it reinstated before the Home Office has exhausted all avenues for appeal. During the Bill's committee stage, Labour MP Bell Ribeiro-Addy said black, Asian and ethnic minority communities will be 'alarmed' by the proposals. Home Office minister Dan Jarvis said the legislation has 'nothing to do with somebody's place of birth, but everything to do with their behaviour'. Speaking in the Commons on Monday, Conservative former minister Kit Malthouse said: 'My trouble with this legislation is that it puts a question mark over certain citizens. 'When it's used with increasing frequency, it does put a question mark over people's status as a citizen of the United Kingdom, and that, I think, is something that ought to be of concern.' Intervening, Mr Jarvis said: 'He's making his points in a very considered way, but he is levelling quite serious charges against the Government. 'Can I say to him, in absolute good faith, that our intentions here have nothing to do with somebody's place of birth, but everything to do with their behaviour.' Mr Malthouse said: 'I'm not concerned about it necessarily falling into his hands as a power, but we just don't know who is going to be in his place in the future, and we're never quite sure how these powers might develop.' He continued: 'What I'm trying to do with my amendment is to explain to him that this is an area of law where I would urge him to tread carefully, where I would urge him to think about the compromises that he's creating against our basic freedoms that we need to maintain.' The MP for North West Hampshire had tabled an amendment which would allow a person to retain their citizenship during an appeals process if they face 'a real and substantial threat of serious harm' as a result of the order. It would also have required a judge to suspend the removal of citizenship if the person's ability to mount an effective defence at a subsequent appeal was impacted, or the duration of the appeal process was excessive because of an act or omission by a public authority. Ms Ribeiro-Addy spoke in support of the amendment, she said: 'Certain communities are often wary of legislation that touches on citizenship, because it almost always – whether it is the stated intention or not – disproportionately impacts them. 'And to put this clearly to the minister, I'm talking about people of black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, those who have parents who may have been born elsewhere, or grandparents, for that matter, they will be particularly alarmed by this legislation. 'Those of us who have entitlement to citizenship from other countries for no other reason than where our parents may have been born, or where our grandparents may have been born, or simply because of our ethnic origin, we know that we are at higher risk of having our British citizenship revoked. 'And when such legislation is passed, it creates two tiers of citizenship. It creates second-class citizens.' The MP for Clapham and Brixton Hill added: 'I would like to ask why the minister has not seen it fit to conduct an equality impact assessment on this Bill? I know it's an incredibly narrow scope, but these potential implications are vastly potentially impact-limited to specific communities.' At the conclusion of the committee stage, Mr Jarvis said: 'The power to deprive a person of British citizenship does not target ethnic minorities or people of particular faiths, it is used sparingly where a naturalised person has acquired citizenship fraudulently, or where it is conducive to the public good. 'Deprivation on conducive grounds is used against those who pose a serious threat to the UK, or whose conduct involves high harm. It is solely a person's behaviour which determines if they should be deprived of British citizenship, not their ethnicity or faith.' 'The impact on equalities has been assessed at all stages of this legislation,' he added. The Bill was passed on the nod.
BBC News
9 minutes ago
- BBC News
Carmarthenshire family urge new law on destroying remains
A family of a murdered man who were only given a small amount of his remains to bury are calling for desecrating a body to become its own crime. Michael O'Leary, known as Mike, was murdered in 2020 by his friend Andrew Jones in Carmarthenshire, who then burnt his body. Mr O'Leary's sister, Lesley Rees said the family will have to accept that they will never know what Jones did with the remains. The family are one of several meeting the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) later in an attempt to make desecrating a body its own criminal offence. Jones shot Mr O'Leary, a 55-year-old father-of-three, in January 2020, after discovering he was having an affair with his wife. He lured Mr O'Leary to his remote farm in Concoed, near the village of Cwmffrwd, and shot him with a .22 Colt rifle. He then took the body back to his home where he burned Mr O'Leary's body on a pile of wooden pallets. All forensic experts found of Mr O'Leary was a 6cm (2.4in) piece of intestine in an old oil barrel. Jones was convicted of murder and is currently serving a life sentence with a minimum of 30 years. Ms Rees said: "When you lose someone to a murder it's difficult enough as it is, but to not have their body to kiss goodbye to or say farewell to, is a totally different experience."Certain countries like Germany and America have these laws already. I think it's about time we had it in this country."It's devastating. We had 6cm of Mike's lower intestine to bury and that's all we have at the grave, which is horrific."We will never know what he's done with the rest of the remains. As a family, we've to accept we'll never know what else he did." Along with the families of other victims whose bodies were destroyed, Mr O'Leary's relatives are backing Helen's Law Part Two: Stop the Desecration. It calls for the reform of ancient burial laws and making desecrating a body its own offence. Helen's Law, introduced in January 2021, was named after Helen McCourt, 22, who was murdered in Merseyside in 1998 by pub landlord Ian Simms. He never revealed the location of her body. As a result of the law, parole judges must take a failure to disclose information from killers into account. The families of Sarah Everard, 33, who was murdered by Metropolitan Police officer Wayne Couzens, and April Jones, five, from Machynlleth, Powys, also support the expansion of Helen's Law. Ann Davies, Plaid Cymru MP for Caerfyrddin, said Helen's Law Part Two would be an "essential step" in showing such cruelty will never be tolerated. "Some families will never know what happened to their loved ones and will be haunted by unanswered questions and the absence of closure for the rest of their lives," she said. She added: "At the end of the day, today's meeting is about the families. They are the ones who continue to suffer the unimaginable trauma of not knowing what happened to their loved ones."
ITV News
14 minutes ago
- ITV News
Will Trump's threats be enough to pull Putin to the table for peace talks?
So President Trump is sick of all Vladimir Putin's talk, in fact so much so it's even a topic for him and the First Lady. After a day in the office he tells her he had a nice chat with Vladimir but then when she puts the TV on, she says 'Oh really, he's bombed a nursing home', which upsets the President. How's that for a glimpse of geo-politics Chez Trump? As a result of too many chats followed by too many strikes President Trump, who just a few weeks ago suspended military aid to the Ukrainians, not for the first time, has decided he's going to arm them. Quite how many Patriots is, in true Trump style not entirely clear, but they will get some. In further Trump style, with America First, Nato members will pay for them. If that's not enough to get Russia to the table, and in reality it's probably not, he's proposing further tariffs and other financial penalties in 50 days. The target of extra tariffs would be on countries doing business with Russia, but it's doubtful it will be all those countries, some of which are allies of the US - and also doubtful how firmly they will be enforced if they even come into play at all. On a balmy Saturday in May, in Kyiv, I listened to the British, French and German leaders demand Russia sign up to an unconditional ceasefire with huge financial penalties if said ceasefire didn't materialise by Monday. It was a proposal apparently backed by Donald Trump. A few hours later President Putin offered unconditional talks -but ignored the ceasefire demand and the talks have been pretty pointless. Ukraine is now under aerial bombardment as never before and the number of civilian deaths and injures in June is at a record high. There's nothing to say there won't be a similar move this time. It is going to take more than the threat of more financial sanctions to really shift this war. There is of course, relief in Kyiv that President Trump seems to have mellowed in his position towards Ukraine, however there is no sense of security in that. After he humiliated President Zelenskyy's in the Oval Office, nothing is for certain anymore, and there's no belief that even when he's playing nice, the US leader can be relied on. Within a few hours of the President's threats, the missiles were hitting civilians again. In one of their last calls Putin warned he would escalate over the next 60 days. That's one presidential promise the Ukrainians can be sure of.
