Government pledges extra £100m funding to tackle people smuggling
Last month, the government agreed a "one in, one out" pilot scheme with France which aims to deter migrants from crossing the Channel. Under the scheme, some arrivals would be returned to France and in exchange the UK would accept an equivalent number of asylum seekers, subject to security checks.According to the Home Office, the new £100m will boost border security and strengthen investigations targeting smuggling kingpins who have operations across Europe, the Middle East, Africa and elsewhere.Ms Cooper said gangs had shown a "a ruthless ability to adapt their tactics and maximise their profits, no matter how many lives they put at risk".The NCA has 91 ongoing investigations into people-smuggling networks affecting the UK, the agency's director general of operations Rob Jones said.
Shadow home secretary Chris Philp accused Labour of having "no serious plan" to tackle the issue."The British public deserves real action, not empty slogans and tinkering at the edges," he said.Writing in the Daily Express, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage said it was an effort to "throw taxpayer money at the illegal immigration crisis and hope it will go away"."Another £100 million here or there won't move the needle. It won't stop the boats or the gangs," he added.Labour and previous Conservative governments have both struggled to reduce the number of people coming to the UK illegally in small boats.The Conservatives had proposed sending arrivals to Rwanda, but the scheme was delayed by legal challenges. The general election was called before it could be implemented.One of Sir Keir Starmer's first acts as prime minister was to scrap the plan, calling it a gimmick.In another measure, which was revealed on Sunday, people advertising illegal Channel crossings online could face up to five years in prison under a new offence the government plans to introduce.Assisting illegal immigration to the UK is already a crime, but officials believe the new offence would give police and other agencies more power to disrupt criminal gangs.It would criminalise the creation of material for publication online which promotes or offers services that facilitate a breach of UK immigration law.This would include people using social media to advertise fake passports or visas, or the promise of illegal work opportunities in the UK, and as well as jail time could carry a large fine.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
7 minutes ago
- The Independent
Yvette Cooper's Palestine Action warning ahead of planned protest
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has warned the public against supporting Palestine Action, stating it is "not a non-violent organisation" and citing "disturbing information" about its future plans. The group was proscribed after claiming responsibility for causing £7 million in damage to two Voyager aircraft at RAF Brize Norton. Supporting Palestine Action is now a criminal offence under the Terrorism Act 2000, carrying a penalty of up to 14 years in prison. A High Court ruling refused to temporarily pause the ban, though a challenge by co-founder Huda Ammori will proceed to a three-day hearing in November. Over 200 people were arrested last month in protests across the UK following the proscription, with a mass demonstration against the ban planned for Saturday.
The Independent
7 minutes ago
- The Independent
‘I was the most radical ordained vicar there was': Church of England ‘cult' leader defends ‘sensual' contact with followers
A former priest accused of leading an evangelical cult in the Church of England has defended having 'sensual' contact with followers, telling the jury: 'I was the most radical ordained vicar there was.' Christopher Brain, who led the rave-style Nine O-Clock Service (NOS) in Sheffield in the 80s and 90s, allegedly surrounded himself with women who wore lingerie or revealing clothes as part of his 'homebase team' who kept his house 'spotlessly clean'. Jurors at Inner London Crown Court previously heard the women – sometimes referred to as 'the Lycra Lovelies' or 'the Lycra Nuns' – were on a rota to help maintain the home of then-Reverend Brain. The 68-year-old denies one count of rape and 36 counts of indecent assault relating to 13 women in the church movement between 1981 and 1995. He accepts that he engaged in sexual activity with some of the complainants, but insists that it was consensual. Giving evidence for a second day, he defended the liaisons with members of his congregation when he was married with a young child. He claimed he and his former wife 'were in a pretty much open relationship' and considering splitting up, adding: 'I wasn't a traditional vicar, I was someone on a journey of radical research and experimentation.' The former clergyman, who was fast-tracked for ordination in 1991 after the movement attracted hundreds of younger congregants to the Church of England, previously told the court said he received 'sensual' back massages from women to relieve tension headaches. He claims he resigned from NOS to carry on his work in San Francisco in 1993, two years before the Sheffield church collapsed surrounded by controversy in 1995. Challenged over his contact with congregants on Tuesday, he replied: 'In a traditional setting I don't know. But if you are in a polyamorous community at the front edge of culture in San Francisco and at the heart of the rave movement, then obviously I thought it was OK.' He told the jury he and one complainant – who alleges he raped her at his home in Sheffield in 1983 or 1984 – engaged in 'petting' on a regular basis. He said he and his then-wife were 'pretty open', but if liaisons progressed to full sex it would be cheating. He admitted to having sex with the woman after it 'went too far', but said it was 'absolutely' consensual. 'We were in the bedroom and it just went too far,' he said. 'We started having sex and shortly after that started we stopped.' He said another woman, who accuses him of multiple counts of sexual assault, was 'totally happy with it'. 'It was a club environment' he added. 'It wasn't like a church house it was like a group of musicians living together.' He insisted sexual aggression is 'not my style' and contested his portrayal as some kind of 'lairy' guy. He alleged the liaisons came after trust had been built up over a long period of time. He added: 'I am not the type of guy to try it on, I never have been. It's not part of my character or my belief system.' He said an accusation he simulated a rape scene with one woman 'absolutely didn't happen' and denied a number of other charges, including an allegation he placed a woman's hand on his genitals. Questioned by his lawyer Iain Simkins KC over his appearance in a 1995 BBC documentary on NOS called Everyman, in which he admitted he was 'involved in improper sexual conduct with a number of women', he told the jury he 'over accepted responsibility' in the programme. 'I think it shows I pretty much over accepted responsibility,' he said. 'I massively accepted the responsibility for the bulk of it. Almost single handedly being blamed for everything that seemed to have gone wrong.' He insisted NOS was never a cult and denied he never engaged in a 'sexual healing practise' with female followers, adding: 'The sexual healing trope that is laid all over this case didn't exist.' He described the criminal charges as a 'witch hunt' and said the breakdown of NOS 'basically destroyed my life' in the 90s. The prosecution allege NOS became a 'closed and controlled' group which he used to 'sexually assault a staggering number of women from his congregation'. The eight-week trial continues.
The Independent
7 minutes ago
- The Independent
‘One in, one out' is a realistic plan to deal with migration – let's give it a chance
The biggest problem with home secretary Yvette Cooper's plan to stop the boats is that it sounds unconvincing. One in, one out… how does that help? Especially when it is more like 17 in, one out? What kind of deterrent is that? But it is the start of a plan to tackle Britain's migration crisis – Home Office figures indicate that last Wednesday, almost 900 people arrived in boats in one day, bringing the total for 2025 to more than 25,000 – and one that could possibly work. It is, genuinely, the only policy that any government, Labour or Conservative, has devised so far that has a chance of doing so. The key to it is that the French government has accepted that Britain can send back some of the people crossing the Channel. The deal that has been published today is only a pilot scheme. It does not even say how many people will be returned, although the target is understood to be 50 a week, which is a small fraction of the average 850 arriving each week. But the point of a pilot scheme is that it allows the mechanics of a return scheme to be tested. It has already passed one test that the naysayers said it would fail: it has been approved by the European Commission. Now comes the hard part: showing that it is possible to detain and process arrivals, defeat the legal challenges and then put them on a plane and deliver them to France. Of those, the legal challenges are likely to be the bottleneck: hence Cooper's announcement of a fast-track asylum appeals procedure to try to ensure that migrants can be turned round within a few weeks. If that works, then the aim is to 'build', as Cooper put it on the Today programme this morning. If Britain can send back 50 a week, then there is no reason why we couldn't return all or nearly all arrivals. The Home Office estimates, and this seems about right, that if it can send back 80 per cent of arrivals, that will have a big deterrent effect, and few crossings will be attempted. Of course, there are reasons for doubting that this can be achieved. Will the French allow us to increase the numbers? Will the French even extend the scheme beyond the initial 11 months to which they have signed up? It is bound to take longer than that to start to get the numbers up. Maybe it will not work, but the point about a pilot scheme is that it allows Cooper the chance to try out, at a small scale, the elements of a scheme that plainly could work. No one else has even proposed a plausible and humane alternative. That said, the voters' frustration at the slow pace at which the government is moving is understandable. Labour has been in power for more than a year; the number of crossings is higher than last year; Cooper is only now announcing the plan; and the plan itself looks underwhelming. No wonder Nigel Farage carries all before him. But let us avoid the trap set by social-media bores of assuming that there are easy or quick solutions that two governments, desperate to escape the fury of the electorate, have wilfully refused to adopt. It took time for Keir Starmer to persuade Emmanuel Macron to accept the key that could unlock the solution: that France will take some migrants back. I didn't think it was possible, because the losses are more obvious than the gains for the French president. Yes, there is the distant prospect of clearing the tent cities in the Pas de Calais, but in the meantime what is France to do with the migrants who are sent back? I don't know what Macron got in return, but that was a negotiating triumph on the part of our prime minister. And it will take more time still to crank the British bureaucracy into action so that it is capable of taking the next, decisive step towards an effective deterrent. Meanwhile, Farage will score points by pretending the problem is simple and the solution is easy. His 'solution' is to destroy our relationship with France by trying to return migrants without French permission; to tear up not just the European Convention on Human Rights but the Refugee Convention and the Convention on the Law of the Sea; and to detain all arrivals indefinitely in huge prison camps at undisclosed locations. And still he wouldn't be able to deport migrants if other countries will not take them. If there is a better way, would it not be worth trying that first, even if it might take some time?
