More than 100 migrants in one vessel thought to have bumped crossings to 27,799
A Government spokesperson said it was 'pure chance' that the 'grossly overcrowded' soft-bottomed taxi boat survived for more than 15 hours at sea.
Home Office figures show 325 migrants crossed between mainland Europe and Britain by small boat on Wednesday, in the same week that the number of arrivals since Labour won the election hit 50,000.
'We intercepted a 10m soft-bottomed vessel transporting 106 people across the Channel illegally,' the spokesperson said.
'It is a matter of pure chance that this grossly overcrowded taxi boat survived more than 15 hours at sea, and it again shows the complete disregard people smugglers have for whether people live or die.
'We will stop at nothing to dismantle the business models of those smuggling gangs and bring them to justice.'
According to the Government, migrants have attempted the journey on similar sized vessels, including during three crossings since last October where between 96 and 98 people were detected on board.
But a small boat carrying 112 migrants capsized in the sea in April 2024, resulting in the deaths of five people, including a seven-year-old girl.
'This latest incident also shows the importance of the agreement we have reached with the French authorities to review their maritime enforcement tactics, so that they are able for the first time to intercept boats in shallow waters and prevent taxi boats from parking offshore to collect large numbers of migrants unhindered,' the spokesperson added.
(PA Graphics)
Authorities have begun detaining migrants under the UK's 'one in, one out' deal with France this month.
As part of the agreement, migrants who risk a small boat crossing face being taken to France, and the UK will take in an approved asylum seeker from the continent via a safe route.
The Home Office spokesperson said: 'Through international intelligence sharing under our Border Security Command, enhanced enforcement operations in northern France, and tougher legislation in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, we are strengthening our ability to identify, disrupt and dismantle the gangs.'
A total of 51,041 migrants have been detected crossing the Channel since Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer entered No 10 on July 5 last year.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
7 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Keir Starmer praises Trump and says today's meeting could be 'historic'
Keir Starmer thanked Trump at the top of a multilateral meeting of European leaders and Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky Keir Starmer praised Donald Trump and said European leaders could today take a "historic step" towards ending the Ukraine War. At the top of a multilateral meeting at the White House, the Prime Minister told Trump: "I really feel that we can, I think, with the right approach this afternoon, make real progress, particularly on the security guarantees." Details of what the US is willing to provide or support by way of security guarantees have not yet emerged. But there have been indications from Trump and his team that US boots on the ground as well as a 'NATO-style' protection guarantee were on the table. Mr Starmer added: "Your indication of security guarantees, of some sort of article five-style guarantees, fits with what we've been doing with the coalition of the willing which we started some months ago, bringing countries together and showing that we were prepared to step up to the plate when it came to security. "With you coming alongside, the US alongside, what we've already developed, I think we could take a really important step forward today - a historic step, actually, could come out of this meeting in terms of security for Ukraine and security in Europe." Earlier, Donald Trump was apparently caught on a 'hot mic' discussing his real thoughts about Putin's intentions. As people were still milling around, he appeared to be speaking to French President Emmanuel Macron. He was heard on an open microphone saying: "I think he wants to make a deal for me. "Do you understand? As crazy as it sounds." Asked earlier in the Oval Office if he would rule out such deployment of US forces as peacekeepers, the president said, "We'll let you know that, maybe, later today. "We're meeting with seven great leaders of great countries, also, and we'll be talking about that." "They'll all be involved," he added. "When it comes to security, there's going to be a lot of help." Asked about "Nato-like protection" for Ukraine - an idea that had been floated by his envoy Steve Witkoff - Trump said the US would "help them out with that", referring to European leaders. Trump said: "I don't know if you define it that way, but Nato-like? I mean, we're going to give, we have people waiting in another room right now, they're all here, from Europe. "Biggest people in Europe. "And they want to give protection, they feel very strongly about it, and we'll help them out with that." Hopes for the meetings had been gloomy after Trump posted on Truth Social this morning a string of demands for Ukraine - which lined up with many of Russia's demands. They included "forgetting" about Nato membership, and ruling out returning Crimea from Russia to Ukraine. But the Oval Office appearance went smoothly - and vastly less eventfully than their disastrous last White House meeting. Trump indicated that US troops being involved in peacekeeping efforts was on the table for discussion - as was a "NATO style" security guarantee. Both Trump and Zelensky said they were ready for a trilateral meeting with Russia's ruthless dictator, Vladimir Putin. Asked by a reporter if it is the "end of the road" for U.S. support for Ukraine if no deal is struck, Trump said its "never the end of the road." Get Donald Trump updates straight to your WhatsApp! As the world attempts to keep up with Trump's antics, the Mirror has launched its very own US Politics WhatsApp community where you'll get all the latest news from across the pond. We'll send you the latest breaking updates and exclusives all directly to your phone. Users must download or already have WhatsApp on their phones to join in. All you have to do to join is click on this link, select 'Join Chat' and you're in! We may also send you stories from other titles across the Reach group. We will also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. To leave our community click on the name at the top of your screen and choose Exit group. If you're curious, you can read our Privacy Notice. "People are being killed and we want to stop that. So I would not say it's the end of the road," Trump said as Zelenskyy sat next to him shaking his head at the question. He added that there is a "good chance" of the ending the war through these meetings. "I know the president, I know myself, and I believe Vladimir Putin wants to see it end," Trump said. Trump said he was going to speak to Putin as soon as this afternoon's meetings are over.
Times
7 minutes ago
- Times
The culture's all been countered — so how can teens rebel?
G iven that 58 per cent of teachers are said to vote Labour, and only 5 per cent Tory, I imagine Sir Keir Starmer has high hopes of the 16-year-olds allowed to vote for the first time in 2029, so long as they have been attentive in class. But is it a foregone conclusion how they will vote? I've been enjoying Stewart Lee's Radio 4 series on the counterculture of the Fifties, Sixties and Seventies and it's got me thinking. What constitutes countering the culture these days? The term counterculture is most associated with the late Sixties — civil rights protests, sticking it to the man, tuning in, turning on, dropping out — but above all it was about a clash of cultures between the younger generation and the older; the one rejecting the norms and dominant values of the other. Nowhere is this better symbolised than in the footage of the Beatles' rooftop concert. On the streets below, looking up in bemusement, are middle-aged men who work in offices. They have short back and sides, regimental ties and trilbies. Above them are the still-in-their-twenties Beatles with their Afghan coats and long hair. Ringo is wearing a bright red coat made of plastic.
Telegraph
16 minutes ago
- Telegraph
If Reform wins, they will need Tory support to defeat the institutional intifada
Nigel Farage is right. Every political party in Great Britain willing to nominate peers is represented in the House of Lords. The Green Party and Plaid Cymru have four MPs and two peers each. Reform too has four MPs. So it would be reasonable for Farage's party, given the representation of Plaid Cymru and the Green Party in the Commons, to be granted a couple of peerages when the next tranche of appointments are made. This is the case, more or less, that Farage recently made. It goes without saying that Sir Keir Starmer shows no sign of recognising Reform's claim: why would he help to build up the party he currently sees as Labour's foremost rival? He could argue correctly that there is no formal relationship, under the terms of our constitution, between the number of MPs and the number of peers that a party has in Parliament. And point out that there is a smattering of peers, of whom the most active is Baroness Fox, that were members either of the Brexit Party or of Ukip. But there is an injustice about Sir Keir's stonewalling – one might call it two-tier appointments – that many voters will intuitively grasp. And if it's unfair to exclude Reform altogether from the Lords now, how much more will it be if they win, say, 50 seats in the Commons after the next election? What would the position be – thinking on – were the party to win outright? Or to form a government with the support of other parties? I don't believe that such a result is likely. In a hung Parliament, Sir Keir has more potential partners to approach than Farage: the Liberal Democrats, the SNP, the Welsh nationalists, the Irish ones, the Left-wing independents. It may also be that the public mood changes, Kemi Badenoch seizes voters' imagination and that, in this age of fissile politics, my own party, the Conservatives, recover. But the prospect of a Reform government – either with a majority or perhaps supported by the Tories – is no longer so absurd as to be laughed off. How would such a government approach the Lords? At the last general election, Reform proposed to replace the Upper House with an elected chamber. But that was then, before the party's opinion poll and local election take-off, and tomorrow is another day. Farage will presumably want a Reform government to, for example, leave the ECHR, scrap the Climate Change Act, abolish the Equality Act, reform the civil service and sack activist judges. He may well conclude that a protracted constitutional struggle with the Upper House would be one confrontation too many, since it would hold up all his other plans. Furthermore, Farage, if hunkered down in No 10, would hold the power of patronage. And prime ministers, once they have it, are reluctant to give it up. So were Reform to form a government, either solely or with others, Farage would gain the peers he is demanding today – and more. How many could reasonably be appointed? A hundred? More? How swiftly could they be approved, given the role of the House of Lords Appointments Commission? Or might such a government simply abolish the commission outright? Even so, there would be a trade-off between the speedy introduction of new peers and efficient passage of the new government's business. Would scores of new Reform peers – conceivably hundreds – have the skills, know-how, and determination to legislate and govern competently? What would happen to the present balance of the chamber, in which no party has a majority? These are deep waters in which not just the Upper House but our constitution itself could flounder. Conservative peers would have a responsibility to help to navigate them. I have no confidence in Reform. The party is a one-man band. There is no sign of it making serious preparations for government – for the institutional intifada of resistance it would meet from elements of the state. Coalition with such a force would be in no-one's interest, neither the parties nor the voters'. Nonetheless, Tory peers, in such circumstances, can learn lessons from the past. (And what's conservatism all about, if not learning lessons from the past?) In 1924, the first Labour government had no peers in the Lords at all. So Liberal ones, for a mix of political reasons, helped the new government to pass its legislation. The Upper House has changed radically since the introduction of life peers – of which I'm one. In the event of Reform leading a government, Conservative peers would have a responsibility – whatever our own party's relationship with it in the Commons might be – to help the new government get legislation through the Lords in good order. All this may never happen. And these are early days. But not too early to think ahead.
