
Channel crossing migrants should face prosecution if child dies
Yvette Cooper told BBC Radio 4's Today programme it was 'totally appalling' that children were being 'crushed to death on these overcrowded boats, and yet the boat still continues to the UK'.
She added: 'Everybody who is arriving on a boat where a child's life has been lost, frankly, should be facing prosecution, either in the UK or in France.'
The Government has already included a new offence of 'endangering life at sea' in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill currently making its way through Parliament.
Ms Cooper has previously said this would allow the authorities to act against people 'involved in behaviour that puts others at risk of serious injury or death, such as physical aggression, intimidation, or rejecting rescue attempts'.
But on Friday, she appeared to go further by suggesting even getting on an overcrowded boat could result in prosecution.
She said: 'If you've got a boat where we've seen all of those people all climb on board that boat, they are putting everybody else's lives at risk.'
Crossings have increased in the past year, reaching 20,600 by July 2, a rise of 52% compared with the same period in 2024.
Some 15 children died trying to cross the Channel last year, prompting charity Project Play to warn that conditions were becoming 'more dangerous' for young people.
Advocacy co-ordinator Kate O'Neill, based in northern France, blamed policies aimed at preventing crossings for the increasing risk.
She told the PA news agency: 'Ultimately the children we're meeting every day are not safe.
'They're exposed to a level of violence, whether it's they are directly victims of it or the witness.
'We're ultimately at all times putting out fires… the underlying issue is these policies of border securitisation… that are creating more and more barriers to child safety and child protection.'
She said there was hope when the Labour Government took office a year ago that there would be some improvement, adding: 'This is not at all what we've seen.
'They continued to make conditions more difficult and more dangerous.'
She said: 'The smash-the-gangs narrative is not effective and it's harmful because ultimately the only way to put the gangs out of business is to cut the need for them.'
Meanwhile, Ms O'Neill said French police were already intervening in crossing attempts in shallow waters despite the changes to the rules to allow this having not yet come into force.
She said: 'This is not a new tactic… it's something that has been happening for a long time in Calais and surrounding areas.
'My feeling is that this is increasing based on the number of testimonies we're receiving from children and their families recently.
'It's really dangerous because the children often are in the middle of the boats.'
On Friday, the Home Secretary welcomed reports that French police were intervening in French waters to prevent crossings, and said she had been 'working very closely with the French interior minister' to ensure the rules were changed 'as swiftly a possible'.
Ms Cooper also declined to confirm reports the UK was looking at a 'one in, one out' policy that would see people who had crossed the Channel returned to Europe in exchange for asylum seekers with connections to Britain.
Asked about the policy, she would only tell Sky News that ministers were 'looking at a range of different issues' and 'different ways of doing returns'.
A boat carrying migrants could be seen off the coast of Gravelines in northern France on Friday morning as a family and dog walkers enjoyed the sunny weather on the beach.
A French authority boat followed the dinghy closely as it travelled along the coast passing big ships such as a DFDS ferry, and a French border control helicopter flew overhead.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

The National
an hour ago
- The National
What would posing MPs say of the suffragettes?
They then marched off to officially designate another movement as a terrorist organisation on the same legal footing as ISIS. Why? Because its activists had thrown paint at military planes in protest at complicity in genocide. The first movement, of course, was the suffragettes, and our MPs dressed themselves in the totemic purple, white and green sashes of this venerated struggle, smiling at the camera. Everyone today, of course, would like to think they were on the side of the suffragettes. It is easy to be on the right side of history when that no longer entails sacrifices and the threat of persecution. READ MORE: New direct action group 'Yvette Cooper' emerges following Palestine Action ban In their day, the suffragettes were despised and treated as terrorists. 111 years ago, on that same Westminster estate where those MPs posed for a picture, Parliament debated the right of women to vote. Lord Robert Cecil – later awarded a Nobel Peace Prize as one of the founding architects of the League of Nations – denounced 'suffragist outrages' as a 'very serious evil' with the aim of 'anarchy'. In order to 'prevent them committing crimes', he demanded their mass deportation. Meanwhile, the Liberal home secretary Reginald McKenna announced that of the options available, letting suffragettes die 'is, I should say, at the present moment the most popular, judging by the number of letters I have received'. More than 1000 suffragettes were imprisoned in Holloway Prison alone. Suffragettes were not just beaten by police officers, they were sexually assaulted. When suffragettes went on hunger strike, they were force fed – 'an extremely unpleasant and humiliating ordeal', as Parliament's own website today declares. Imagine being an MP who celebrates a historic movement which deployed far more extreme methods to achieve their political goals than a contemporary movement they then vote to classify as dangerous terrorists? What goes through their heads, exactly? What extraordinary logical hoops must these politicians brazenly jump through to justify this cognitive dissonance? Let me be direct. I doubt most of these slavishly loyal drones – scooped off a conveyor belt after being made to order by Labour HQ – know much about the suffragettes other than what they gleaned from Mary Poppins. If asked about the suffragettes' tactics, I would imagine they would say: we don't condone what they did, but women being deprived of the right to vote was a far greater evil. How, then, does this not apply to Palestine Action, which deploys much less extreme tactics in protest at the complicity of their own government in genocide? When the legislation is approved, anyone who expresses support for them faces a prison sentence of up to 14 years. Are these MPs aware that Israel's right-wing former prime minister, Ehud Olmert, declared that his state is committing war crimes in Gaza, describing it as a 'a war of devastation: indiscriminate, limitless, cruel and criminal killing of civilians'? Are they are aware that a consensus of genocide scholars have concluded this is genocide, including Israel scholars such as Omer Bartov, Raz Segal, Amos Goldberg, Daniel Blatman and Dr Shmuel Lederman? They are certainly aware that the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants against the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and his former defence minister, Yoav Gallant, for war crimes and crimes against humanity. (Image: Archive) What worse crime can these MPs think of than genocide? Do they believe that citizens of a country helping to facilitate war crimes – let alone genocide – have a responsibility to stop that from happening? If they state that the case for genocide hasn't been proven, they must surely concede that given so many genocide scholars have arrived at this conclusion, it must be accepted as a legitimate perspective, and at the very least means the most extreme imaginable war crimes are being perpetrated. So given how history judges the suffragettes, how do they imagine Palestine Action will be remembered? More to the point, how do they expect the politicians who persecuted opponents of genocide will be remembered? That this column could land me a prison sentence of up to 14 years if it was published at the wrong time, while our government continues to facilitate genocide, is beyond perverse. Our ally has cooked babies alive, deliberately massacred unarmed Palestinians after starving them, systematically destroyed the health care system, reduced Gaza to apocalyptic rubble – we could go on. It has done this as our government lauds an ally it continues to supply with crucial components for F-35 jets as they rain death and destruction on the traumatised survivors. Yet it is those who oppose genocide who have been systematically demonised, silenced, sacked, deplatformed, arrested – and who face lengthy prison sentences. (Image: Carl Plaister) In the here and now, the world has been turned on its head. But as the suffragettes underline, you can only do that for so long. Unless the future of our species is one of ever-escalating violent barbarism, history will praise those who did what they could to fight one of the great crimes of our age. As for those who facilitated the crime – and monstered those who tried to stop it: well, deep down, we all know how this ends.

Rhyl Journal
an hour ago
- Rhyl Journal
Palestine Action to make Court of Appeal bid at evening hearing over terror ban
Huda Ammori, the co-founder of Palestine Action, asked the High Court to temporarily block the Government from banning the group as a terrorist organisation before a potential legal challenge against the decision to proscribe it under the Terrorism Act 2000. The move was to come into force at midnight after High Court judge Mr Justice Chamberlain refused Ms Ammori's bid for a temporary block. However, the PA news agency understands that lawyers on behalf of the group will ask appeal judges for the go-ahead to challenge the decision in a hearing due to begin at about 7pm on Friday. In his decision refusing the temporary block, Mr Justice Chamberlain said: 'I have concluded that the harm which would ensue if interim relief is refused but the claim later succeeds is insufficient to outweigh the strong public interest in maintaining the order in force.' Shortly after the decision was handed down, Ms Ammori said that she would be 'seeking an urgent appeal to try to prevent a dystopian nightmare of the Government's making'. She added: 'The Home Secretary is rushing through the implementation of the proscription at midnight tonight despite the fact that our legal challenge is ongoing and that she has been completely unclear about how it will be enforced, leaving the public in the dark about their rights to free speech and expression after midnight tonight when this proscription comes into effect. 'Hundreds of thousands of people across the country have expressed support for Palestine Action by joining our mailing list, following and sharing our social media content and signing petitions, and many, including iconic figures like Sally Rooney, say they will continue to declare 'we are all Palestine Action' and speak out against this preposterous proscription, demonstrating how utterly unworkable it will be.'


South Wales Guardian
an hour ago
- South Wales Guardian
Keir Starmer says he understands what ‘anchors' Donald Trump
The Prime Minister told the BBC Radio 4 podcast Political Thinking With Nick Robinson it was 'in the national interest' for the two men to connect. He said: 'We are different people and we've got different political backgrounds and leanings, but we do have a good relationship and that comes from a numbers of places. 'I think I do understand what anchors the president, what he really cares about. 'For both of us, we really care about family and there's a point of connection there.' Sir Keir said in the interview to mark a year in office he has a 'good personal relationship' with Mr Trump, and revealed the first time they spoke was after the then-presidential candidate was shot at a campaign rally in July last year. He said Mr Trump had returned the phone call a few days after the Prime Minister's brother Nick had died on Boxing Day. Sir Keir said he secretly visited his 60-year-old brother before and after the general election during his cancer treatment. He said: 'It's really hard to lose your brother to cancer. I wanted fiercely to protect him. 'And that's why both before the election and after the election, I went secretly to see him at home, secretly to see him in hospital. 'He was in intensive care for a long time.' Addressing recent political turmoil, Sir Keir said he will always 'carry the can' as leader after coming under fire over a climbdown on welfare reforms and that he would 'always take responsibility' when asked questions. 'When things go well… the leader gets the plaudits, but when things don't go well, it is really important that the leader carries the can – and that's what I will always do.' Sir Keir also backed Rachel Reeves and said she would be Chancellor 'for a very long time to come', after the politician was visibly tearful in the House of Commons on Wednesday following a U-turn to welfare reform plans that put an almost £5 billion black hole in her plans. "It was a personal matter." Sir Keir Starmer has told @bbcnickrobinson that Rachel Reeves' tears at PMQs had "nothing to do with politics". The prime minister has backed Rachel Reeves to remain as chancellor in an interview on BBC Radio 4's Political Thinking.#R4Today — BBC Radio 4 Today (@BBCr4today) July 3, 2025 Ms Reeves said it was a 'personal matter' which had upset her ahead of Prime Minister's Questions. The Government had seen off the threat of a major Commons defeat over the legislation on Tuesday after shelving plans to restrict eligibility for the personal independence payment, the main disability benefit in England. Sir Keir said he cannot 'pretend… that wasn't a tough day', and stressed the welfare system 'isn't working for the people that matter to me'. 'In the world that isn't politics, it is commonplace for people to look again at a situation and judge it by the circumstances as they now are and make a decision accordingly,' he said of the changes. 'And that is common sense, it's pragmatic, and it's a reflection of who I am. 'It was important that we took our party with us, that we got it right. 'And Labour politicians come into public life because they care deeply about these issues.