Migrant policies ‘creating more barriers to child safety', says charity
Advocacy coordinator Kate O'Neill, based in northern France, told the PA news agency there has been a rise in police violence which is disproportionately harming children.
She said: '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.'
A group of people thought to be migrants are brought in to Dover, Kent, on Wednesday (Gareth Fuller/PA)
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.'
It comes as the grassroots organisation published a report that said at least 15 children died trying to cross the English Channel last year, more than the total of the past four years combined.
The charity that offers play services, parental support and safeguarding casework to children aged 0-18 living in sites around Calais and Dunkirk, documented rising violence, trauma and child deaths linked with UK border policies and funding to the French to ramp up enforcement in 2024.
In February this year, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper agreed to re-purpose £7 million of cash to French counterparts to bolster enforcement action on the nation's coastline to tackle Channel crossings.
'What we really need to see is some cross-border accountability for the incidents and the fatalities in the Channel,' Ms O'Neill said.
The campaigner said one of the main calls as a result of the group's research is for an official source of the number of deaths and information on these deaths to be recorded.
Figures for the report came from International Organisation for Migration, Calais Migrant Solidarity and other networks in northern France.
'We don't have the identities of all of them.
'In fact, these deaths are going unrecorded and unreported,' she said.
People thought to be migrants wade through the sea to board a small boat leaving the beach at Gravelines, France (Gareth Fuller/PA)
One in five crossing the English Channel between 2018 and 2024 were children, according to Project Play.
Meanwhile, Ms O'Neill said tactics for French police to intervene in crossing attempts in shallow waters is already happening despite the changes needed 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.'
But on Friday, Ms Cooper said intervention in French waters was 'critical'.
'That's one of the big things that has changed, the way in which the boats operate in shallow waters,' she said.
'We have to have the action on those because that's that is where the prevention needs to take place.'
Ms Cooper also pressed the case for introducing the new criminal offence of endangering life at sea under the Government's Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, after seeing 'awful cases' of children being crushed to death in the middle of overcrowded boats.
Project Play worked with more than 1,000 children in 2024, and believes in the last few weeks there have been a 'very large amount' of children they worked with who were born and went to school in a European country, such as Germany, Denmark and Sweden.
Ms O'Neill said families' visas granted five or 10 years ago in other European countries for refuge have since expired and they have not been allowed to stay, which she said is behind the increase in crossings to the UK.
She said since Brexit meant the UK left the Dublin regulation, the country is a 'viable option'.
The European Union law set out that the first EU country an asylum seeker entered was responsible for processing their claim, and the UK can no longer send asylum seekers back to other member states since leaving the bloc.
Ms O'Neill said: 'Most people we're speaking to, that is why they're going.
'They're not going to claim benefits from the UK or to do anything for free, but it's the next nearest safe place they can be.
'This needs to be addressed… as a European-wide issue instead of just a UK-France thing.'
A Home Office spokesperson said: 'We all want to end dangerous small boat crossings, which threaten lives and undermine our border security.
'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 international partnerships and boosting our ability to identify, disrupt, and dismantle criminal gangs.'
The Pas-de-Calais Prefecture was contacted for comment.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
36 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Why we will all share in the Chancellor's tears
Rather, I feel drawn to the aftermath. The forced smile, the reassurance aimed at markets. That plus the concession that there is a cost associated with the Commons retreat – 'and that will be reflected in the budget'. Read More: A throwaway phrase – but one rich with intent. In the autumn we will all witness spending curbs – or tax increases. Or both. As a consequence of this week's events. But first those tears. We should all extend sympathy to a fellow being in evident distress. Mostly, the House would assuredly do that, within limits. In the Commons, there is a commonality of feeling which straddles partisan division. There are more connections and friendships across the aisles than would be thought from the bogus sound and fury of what passes for Parliamentary discourse. The role of MP can be a relatively lonely one. A tribune of the people, yet subject to the whims and discontent of the electorate. The only ones who truly understand the stresses and strains of the job are other MPs. Hence the fellow feeling. And those limits? On the subject of the Chancellor's discomfiture, I chanced to be on the wireless broadcasting to an astonished nation alongside Christine Jardine, the Liberal Democrat MP. Christine Jardine (Image: PA) She said that she had witnessed the tears – and had felt like crossing the chamber to offer a comforting hug to Rachel Reeves. However, she stayed in her place. Aware, she said, that protocol in the Commons would frown upon such a fracture of party lines. I am sure that is right. There are no rules, as such, governing such matters. However, being the Commons, there is accumulated custom and practice. Which solemnly suggests that opposing parties should stay two sword lengths apart. But what of the Chancellor's own side? Should they not have offered more assistance? How about the Prime Minister? He explained later that he had not noticed his chum's distress. Prime Minister's Questions, he averred, is 'pretty wired' – and he was focused on coping with that. Even accepting that, his response was limp. He was explicitly challenged by the Leader of the Opposition to defend the Chancellor. His answer was to list the collective successes of the government, noting that Ms Reeves had led on each and concluding: 'We are grateful to her for it.' Read More: Was that it? The best he could do? 'Grateful to her' sounds like the sort of phrase accompanied by a carriage clock and a gentle shove out the door. But no. Sir Keir plainly realised he had fallen short, albeit inadvertently. In subsequent comments, including at a shared appearance, he went out of his way to stress that she was a star who would light up 11 Downing Street for many years to come. Which was apparently designed to placate the markets. Sensible folk, dealing with the trials of everyday life, might well advise flaky traders to get real and avoid being spooked so readily. But, still, I understand. These are deeply troubled times, the age of anxiety. The markets required reassurance not so much about an individual as about the firm fiscal rules that the incumbent Chancellor has promised to observe. To avoid the problem, should the Chancellor have stayed away from the Commons, aware that she was upset? But that would only have prompted questions about her absence. As she said herself, her place is by the PM's side. Especially when the government's entire fiscal strategy is under strain. The cuts to disability benefits were designed to save £5bn by the end of the current term. That £5bn had been factored into Treasury sums – and must now be found elsewhere. This cannot be resolved by a day-late smile from the Chancellor and a comforting hug from the PM. This is deeply, deeply challenging. Plus there is another factor. The Commons may assist a member in evident distress. But the House also develops a collective, Darwinian momentum of its own when it detects weakness. On the government benches, the Prime Minister and Chancellor are now palpably weakened. Not by a few stifled tears or the PM's innocent neglect. But by the complete, chaotic collapse of a core policy, that of curbing disability benefits. Yes, it will be said that reform has survived to some degree. That the objective of encouraging disabled people into work remains. But the Labour back benches have risen and rejected the cuts to welfare benefits. They have said no, firmly, to the PM and the Chancellor. It is all too easy for such rebellion to become habitual. For the discontent to extend to any proposed spending cuts. Or to tax hikes, if they strain credulity. As I also noted on the wireless, the problem for the PM is that the entire approach to cutting disability benefits ran contrary to Labour instincts – which he appeared either to lack or to disregard. Further, the Chancellor had already made herself unpopular with the troops by the assertive stand she took on the winter fuel payment. Yes, I understand, she was, once more, playing to those powerful markets. For a Labour Minister, it was a deliberately counter-intuitive attempt to stress her determination to curb the spending package, to stand firm. But it left Labour backbenchers unhappy and sullen. The welfare reforms, on top of that, proved to be a step too far. Way too far. It will now be decidedly difficult for the PM and Chancellor to retrench. To regain the solid support of their MPs while clutching the grail of market confidence. Difficult but not impossible. Political tears are generally reserved for moments of high emotion – or departure. Moments of turmoil. Nicola Sturgeon giving evidence to the Covid inquiry. Vaughan Gething fearing an upcoming confidence motion as Welsh FM – which he duly lost. Weep no more. Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves now need to project certainty and smiling reassurance. If they can. Brian Taylor is a former political editor for BBC Scotland and a columnist for The Herald. He cherishes his family, the theatre – and Dundee United FC
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Leading KC raises concerns over accused rights in rape trials
However, Mr Ross believes that he should draw attention to the situation for fear of the impact of silence upon the delivery of justice. "We have reached the stage where the victim has lied about things and the court has not allowed the defence to put that before the jury. "How can it be said that someone has had a fair trial when it's been proved that the complainer lied about something important in the course of the inquiry and that was not allowed to be introduced as evidence?" he told The Herald. "There are serious concerns that people are not getting a fair trial when they are not being given the opportunity to provide evidence which might support their innocence". He added: "The lawyers who are taking on these rape and sexual assault cases tend to be less experienced, more junior members of the bar. It's difficult for them to come out and make a claim of this type. "They have their whole career in front of them. At some point they might want to go for a role as a sheriff or a judge, and they will understandably be concerned that if they speak out or are seen to be publicly critical of the criminal justice system that will damage their chances. "But many many lawyers are raising the matter with me. When you hear a lawyer complaining in court about some decision that has gone against them, 90% of the time it's this issue. It is a massive concern." READ MORE: The situation revolves around what evidence is allowed to be heard in open court before a jury. Sometimes known as "rape shield" laws, specific provisions to regulate the use of sexual history evidence were first introduced in Scotland by the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1985. These provisions were later repeated in sections 274 and 275 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. In response to concerns about their operation, the provisions in the 1995 Act were replaced by new sections 274 and 275 in 2002. The High Court in Glasgow (Image: PA) The provisions are designed to protect complainers giving evidence from irrelevant, intrusive and often distressing questioning. Sections 274 and 275 of the 1995 Act were intended to protect complainers in sexual offence trials from inappropriate questioning about their sexual history and wider character and lifestyle when giving evidence in court. In particular, they were designed to discourage the use of evidence seen as of limited relevance, where the primary purpose of the evidence is to undermine the credibility of the complainer or divert attention from the issues that require to be determined at trial. There are strict rules over what evidence can be heard in rape trials (Image: Getty Images/iStockphoto) However, Mr Ross said the manner in which the rules have been interpreted by the court has been problematic with debate centring on what evidence is judged to be relevant or not. An application to lead evidence of the type struck at by Section 274 must be made at a preliminary hearing – almost always before full preparation for the trial had has been completed - putting the defence at a huge disadvantage. "In the 1985 act the thinking was - why should you be allowed to ask the woman about sex with another man or sex with the accused on a different occasion but in 2002 the scope was extended to include non sexual behaviour," he said. He continued: "At the preliminary hearing you might not have all the case papers, won't know for sure what the complainer is likely to say in evidence, as it might be a year before the trial. "The need for an application within a strict time limit made it very difficult for defence lawyers." He said further restrictions to rules over the admissibility of evidence had since been made in case law. "In short it became extremely difficult to know what you were allowed to ask," said Mr Ross. "Every day you were hearing examples of people saying they thought a piece of evidence was relevant but the judge has ruled that it would not be allowed. "Defendants would be going around with messages, photographs, things they thought would prove them to be innocent and the judges would not allow them to tell the jury about those pieces of exculpatory evidence." Mr Ross went on to say a number of Scottish rape cases relating to the admissibility of evidence were currently before the Supreme Court having had appeals against conviction dismissed. A number of Scottish cases are before the Supreme Court for consideration. (Image: Dan Kitwood) In one of the cases the victim alleged that the accused had raped her when she was 13, claiming she became pregnant and given birth to a child. However, there was no evidence that she had become pregnant or given birth - a matter that the accused wanted to present to the jury. His lawyer had taken the view that it was extremely unlikely that the trial court would allow such evidence to be presented – and the Scottish appeal court agreed with that assessment and refused his appeal. Mr Ross said a second case at the Supreme Court revolved around a man convicted of rape following a work night out. The man was with the woman, whom he supervised, in a pub where both were drinking. "There was apparently CCTV evidence showing the complainer beckoning the accused into a disabled toilet where they had sex," said Mr Ross. "They both later left the bar, got a taxi to his house and woke up next morning in bed together." The woman alleged she was raped. "He was interviewed by police and explained that events at the pub exactly as they had been captured by the CCTV. "He was then charged with rape in the disabled pub toilet and rape in the house." "But the prosecutor became aware that the judge may allow CCTV evidence from the pub, so dropped the pub charge, with the result that the defence was not allowed to lead evidence about what had happened in the pub. His account of what happened in the pub was entirely supported by the CCTV evidence. "It supported his credibility but he wasn't allowed to put the CCTV evidence before the jury as the court ruled that it wasn't relevant to the charges at his house." Mr Ross went on to say that he didn't "accept there is a low conviction rate for rape or sexual assault" as there is a lack of relevant data. He addition he suggested that it was misleading to compare conviction in rape cases rapes to those in other types of crime such as murder. "In a murder case there might be 15 sources of evidence, from eyewitnesses, DNA, finger prints in murder cases, while in a rape case just there is very often only one source of evidence - namely the person making the complaint. "So it's entirely unsurprising that there are lower conviction rates for rape than murder." A spokesperson for Rape Crisis Scotland said: 'We wish Thomas Ross KC would express equal concern about ensuring justice for survivors of sexual violence. 'The conviction for rape cases involving a single complainer is only 24%. The overall conviction rate for all crime is 86%. Too many women are being completely let down by the Scottish criminal justice system. "We continue to hear from women about how distressing their treatment is at the hands of some defence lawyers.' Mr Ross responded: "I've met many women who feel completely let by the Scottish criminal justice system. I've met many men who feel completely let down by the criminal justice system too - including men who believe that the court's interpretation of section 275 deprived them of a fair trial. "With so many people feeling completely let down by the system - maybe its time to have another look at the way it operates." A spokeswoman for the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service said it would be inappropriate for the Judicial Office to comment on Mr Ross's personal views. A Scottish Government spokesperson said: 'Everyone has the right to a fair trial and to appeal against a conviction or sentence. There are well-established rules on what evidence can be led in sexual offences trials, and clear routes to challenge how these are applied.'
Wales Online
2 hours ago
- Wales Online
Tell us what you think of Starmer's Labour party after one year in UK government
Tell us what you think of Starmer's Labour party after one year in UK government One year has passed since Keir Starmer was elected to power on July 5, 2024 Today marks a year since Sir Keir Starmer became UK prime minister (Image: PA ) Labour may have ruled Wales for 26 years in the Senedd, but when the UK party won the 2024 General Election, it marked their return to power in Westminster for the first time since 2010. It was a landslide victory, Keir Starmer's party securing one of its biggest ever majorities in the House of Commons. In Wales, they won the majority of seats but saw its vote share fall in many areas and the party lost key target seats to Plaid Cymru. A year on there are many causes for concern in the party, dividing party members and politicians both in the UK and Welsh branch. You can read our political editor Ruth Mosalski's report of the Welsh Labour conference this week here: Fear and loathing in Labour: A party on the edge, angry at Drakeford, Morgan and Starmer. For our free daily briefing on the biggest issues facing the nation, sign up to the Wales Matters newsletter here . Add to the debate in our comments secton below. Article continues below Tell us how you feel in our poll below or you can open it here:
