Sanctions to be introduced to target people-smuggling gangs
This ranges from those involved in supplying and financing small boats, fake passports, and 'middlemen' putting cash through the Hawala system, a legal money transfer system, which is also used in payments linked to Channel crossings.
The first wave of sanctions comes into force on Wednesday, and will publicly name anyone sanctioned, so it will be illegal for UK businesses and banks to deal with them.
The measure is expected to include more than 20 designations, and could include corrupt public officials and police officers in steps to tackle the multi-billion-dollar industry.
Foreign Secretary David Lammy said: 'For too long, criminal gangs have been lining their corrupt pockets and preying on the hopes of vulnerable people with impunity as they drive irregular migration to the UK. We will not accept this status quo.
'That's why the UK has created the world's first sanctions regime targeted at gangs involved in people smuggling and driving irregular migration, as well as their enablers.
'From tomorrow, those involved will face having their assets frozen, being shut off from the UK financial system and banned from travelling to the UK.'
It follows legislation being introduced under the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill to ramp up enforcement powers for police forces and partners to investigate and prosecute people smugglers.
Fresh sanctions aim to target organised crime gangs wherever they are in the world and disrupt their flow of cash, including freezing bank accounts, property and other assets, to hinder their activities.
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said: 'It will allow us to target the assets and operations of people smugglers wherever they operate, cutting off their funding and dismantling their networks piece by piece.
'Through the Border Security Command and key partners like the National Crime Agency, we are strengthening our ties with other nations to tackle this global problem.
'Together, we are sending a clear message that there is no hiding place for those who exploit vulnerable people and put lives at risk for profit.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
36 minutes ago
- Spectator
The best deer deterrent? Radio 4
Behind the latest push for recognition of a Palestinian state – even though there is no agreement of what it is that might be recognised – is a sort of impersonation of the story of Israel. Palestinian activists want their own Balfour Declaration. President Macron wants France and Britain to come up with their own Sykes-Picot agreement, but pro-Palestinian. You might think that the clamour would have been shamed into silence by the massacres and hostage-taking committed by Hamas on 7 October 2023. On the contrary, these have somehow empowered the mimicry in wilder and more horrible ways. The genocide, we are now told, is being committed not by Hamas, but by Israel's response. The 'concentration camps' are being set up by Israel in Gaza. And back here in Britain, where it might seem to the unprejudiced observer that anti-Semitism is now almost literally running riot, it is 'Islamophobia' which is being defined as an enemy so great that only one of our many religions must be protected by law, despite the cost to free speech. 'Zionists', by which is now meant Jews (note this change of nomenclature between the Hamas Charter of 1988 and that of 2017), are painted as the murderous classes, so Britain must be 'de-zionised'. Does David Lammy realise where his new rhetoric is leading him and his party? One reason why nothing gets done in this country is that bureaucratic power lies in delay. A business or a private individual needs to get on because his time is his money: the bureaucracy's time is our money, so it has all the time in the world. This is an acute problem in relation to payouts for infected blood, the Post Office scandal etc. A faithful reader, Keith Miles, has an idea. Reverse the process, he says. Force the civil service to pay out £1 million to each acknowledged victim within three months unless it can be proved in that time that the money is not owed. Then the boot will be on the other foot. On Monday, the House of Lords agreed that the bill to remove all hereditary peers from the House of Lords 'do now pass'. The thing will not be complete until the Commons has considered amendments in September, but the death sentence has now been pronounced on the practice of more than 700 years. One or two speeches noted the melancholy historical significance of the change. The House is becoming a rump, though admittedly a large one. But I was interested by a rather more basic point made by the departing Earl of Caithness. When he had first taken his seat 50 years ago, he said, the daily allowance for attending the Lords was £4.73, which is £105.14 in current values. After Labour got rid of most hereditaries and brought in more of its own appointments at the turn of this century, the allowances 'increased hugely', the maximum daily allowance going up by 50 per cent. Today, peers can claim an allowance of £371 a day. As many of us have complained, Labour is jettisoning the hereditaries without reforming the Lords on a new basis, but I think we can be perfectly confident that, as it becomes predominant there, the allowances will rise higher still. The Nationwide, by far the country's biggest building society, is trying to be like a bank, and its customers are unhappy. Its chief executive, Dame Debbie Crosbie, earns £7 million a year and board candidates proposed by its members never get chosen. I suspect the members' fears are well founded. In the market town near us, all the high-street banks have closed, but the Nationwide branch continues. I go there from time to time because my mother is now too frail to manage the journey and so I transact her Nationwide account for her. My visits have impressed me with the social utility of the place. Almost every customer is either old or, like me, acting on behalf of the old. There is a lot of fiddling with spectacles and hearing aids and struggling with forgotten passwords. Old ladies try to sort out their late husband's financial affairs or transfer money to their daughter in New Zealand. Everything moves slowly. The staff are completely patient and, unlike the computer, very rarely say no. I can see why Dame Debbie might feel she has bigger fish to fry. And I agree with the members who therefore suspect her. What is a building society building by paying £7 million to anyone? In the early 1970s, I used to stay with a schoolfriend whose parents lived in Old Church Street, Chelsea. In the same street was the rectory of Chelsea Old Church which was, believe it or not, occupied by the rector, and parish children could play in its two-acre garden. Not long afterwards, the Church Commissioners sold it off. Now it is offered for sale by its non-dom owner who is fleeing the Reeves-Starmer Terror. The reported price is £250 million. I sometimes wonder if anything has done more than house prices to damage our social fabric. Although for professional reasons I feel I must sometimes listen to the Today programme, I almost never listen to anything else on Radio 4. This is a wrench for me since it was the staple of my parents and my boyhood but, like so many, I cannot stand being preached at. However, I keep in touch with the station because my wife has erected a sort of alarm to keep deer out of our garden. As the fallow or roe jump in, they trigger a burst of whatever is playing on Radio 4. My sister's partner uses the same contraption in their garden, but he tunes the alarm to Radio 2 and has much less success in frightening off the marauders. I wonder why. When I go past the alarm myself, setting it off, I do notice that most snatches of dialogue are, even now, conducted in the tones of educated men and women. Perhaps the deer are more in awe of voices 'born to command' than of popular songs.
The Sun
5 hours ago
- The Sun
Warning to parents to stop kids accessing toxic content online amid surge in children being brainwashed for terror acts
SECURITY chiefs are calling on parents to stop children accessing toxic online material over the summer holidays. The unprecedented warning comes as it emerged a growing number of kids, some as young as 12, are being radicalised and brainwashed into committing acts of terrorism. 2 Around one in five people arrested for terrorist offences are aged under 18 and half of all referrals to the Government's Prevent anti-radicalisation programme are children. Appealing to parents yesterday, MI5 boss Sir Ken McCallum said: 'In a few clicks, young people can be speaking to terrorists online, consuming violent content. 'Terrorists are using slick propaganda to pull young people down a dangerous and potentially life-changing path.' He joined chiefs from the National Crime Agency and Counter Terrorism Policing to urge parents and carers to be vigilant about children's use of the internet. It was the first such warning ever issued and comes after heads of the 'Five Eyes' nations — the UK, US, Australia, New Zealand and Canada — last year called for action to combat the growing threat to kids posed by online extremism. Counter Terrorism Policing head Vicki Evans said: 'We encourage parents to activate parental controls on routers, devices and apps, and to start the conversation about online safety.' The NCA's Alexander Murray also warned of online toxic masculinity, as seen in Netflix hit Adolescence. He said: 'There is a fast-growing threat from sadistic and violent online gangs. . . including fraud, cyber, child sexual abuse, violence and extremism.' Stephen Graham and Ashley Walters' acclaimed drama Adolescence smashes huge Netflix record by DOUBLE after taking world by storm 2
The Guardian
5 hours ago
- The Guardian
‘This is not action': MPs respond to David Lammy's condemnation of Israel
When David Lammy stood at the dispatch box to deliver a statement condemning Israel's killing of starving civilians in Gaza on Monday, he was met with anger from MPs. 'We want action, and this is not action,' thundered one Labour MP. 'Is this it?' another questioned. 'At what point does our basic humanity require us to take stronger action? Many of us think the red line was passed a long time ago,' a third said. The fury across the Commons was evident. 'Are words enough?' asked one veteran Tory. A second accused Lammy of 'complicity by inaction' and warned it could land him at The Hague. A Lib Dem highlighted that repeated UK expressions of regret had not prevented further carnage. A clearly despairing Lammy attempted to reassure the politicians the government was playing its part. 'Me raising my voice will not bring this war to an end. I lament that and I regret that. But am I sure that the UK government are doing everything in our power? Yes, I am.' But as international condemnation of Israel over the horrors it is inflicting on starving Palestinian civilians grows, Keir Starmer's government is struggling to convince the British public that it is doing enough. The outrage in the Commons is reflected across the country more widely, with the public increasingly regarding Israel's response since the October 7 attacks as disproportionate, as the atrocities continued. The government have been on the defensive, pointing out that it has restored funding to the UN agency UNWRA, provided millions in humanitarian assistance, sanctioned far-right Israeli ministers and those who committed settler violence, and broken off trade negotiations with Israel. But it has struggled to explain its export licensing regime. Ministers insist they have stopped the sale of arms, despite there still being more than 300 licences in operation. These include, they say, body armour sent to protect NGO workers, chemicals for Israeli universities and components for goods which are then transported to Nato allies. In particular, there is anger at the UK decision to allow the export of F-35 fighter jet components to Israel, which ministers argue is unavoidable because they are part of a global programme over which the UK does not have unilateral control. It exposes serious weaknesses in the regime and some believe the government should go further – with a fuller export embargo and an end to all military co-operation with Israel. Lammy has only recently sought to explain that RAF flights that overfly Gaza do not share information to help Israel conduct the war. 'We are not doing that. I would never do that,' he said this week. Starmer is also under pressure to immediately recognise a Palestinian state, both from his own back benches, within his cabinet and from the wider diplomatic community. Ministers say the UK will 'play its part' in working towards formal recognition, with a UN conference led by the French and Saudis later this month a key moment. Privately, they warn the move would only be symbolic unless there is a ceasefire first. But for many, who think the UK should be matching France's more hardline stance, that is not a good enough reason not to. 'If not now, then when?' one cabinet minister said. The government has stated it could issue more sanctions – with calls to do so against senior Israeli military officers, government ministers and even Benjamin Netanyahu himself. But that has not happened yet. Nor have suggestions it might expel the Israeli ambassador been heeded. 'That's unserious,' said one insider. The UK has also backed away from declaring that Israel has broken international law, insisting that while the government believes it is 'at risk' of doing so, it is up to the international courts to reach that judgment. Aides cite the same reason for avoiding the term 'genocide' to describe the horrors unfolding in Gaza. Back in the Commons on Monday, the criticism kept coming. 'The will of the House is clear on this matter: it wants action, not words. Why are you not hearing that?' a Labour MP asked. 'How could I not?' the foreign secretary responded. But while Lammy may have got the message, he appears to remain restricted by both the caution of the UK prime minister, and the realpolitik that there is only one foreign power that could single-handedly force an end to the conflict: the US. 'I wish we could, but the truth is … we are unable to do that just as the United Kingdom,' he told MPs. 'We have to work in partnership with our allies.' But for many, that will not be enough.
