Darren Jones refuses to apologise for suggesting most Channel migrants are women and children... after 'clarifying' that he was only talking about passengers on TWO boats

A Cabinet minister today refused to apologise for suggesting most Channel migrants are women and children.
Treasury Chief Secretary Darren Jones insisted there is no need for him to say sorry despite anger at his comments on the BBC 's Question Time last week.
In interviews this morning, Mr Jones acknowledged that he could have been 'more specific'. He said he had only been referring to passengers on two boats he had seen during a visit to Border Security Command.
Pressed on Times Radio whether he needed to apologise, Mr Jones said: 'No, because I'd started the sentence by saying, on a visit to the border security command, this is what I was being told.
'Now, look, could I have been more specific and said the two specific boats I was being shown on that day on the visit?
'Evidently, probably, yes, I should have been a little bit more specific in my language there, but I was very clear that that's what I was talking about.'
He suggested his words had been 'misrepresented' as a claim that small boats arrivals were predominantly women, children and babies, 'which isn't the case'.
Analysis of Home Office data indicates that adult males made up 73 per cent of small boat arrivals from January 2018 to March 2025, where details of age and sex were recorded.
During a debate on the BBC programme on Thursday, Mr Jones said: 'When you're there on the site seeing these dinghies put together by these organised criminal gangs which are clearly not safe.
'And when you see that the majority of people in these boats are children, babies and women…' he said.
When Reform's Zia Yusuf intervened to say that was wrong and 'more than 90 per cent' were adult males, Mr Jones said: 'I'm saying that's not true.'
He later added: 'When there are babies and children put into that position by human trafficking gangs who are coming across on the Channel with skin burns from the oil from those boats mixing with the salt seawater.
'I would ask any of you to look at those babies and children and say 'go back where you came from'.'
Mr Jones moved to 'clarify' his remarks on Friday evening as a backlash grew
He also said that the immigration system was 'left out of control' by the Conservatives.
Amid a backlash on Friday, Mr Jones took to the X social media to 'clarify' his remarks.
'Of course the overall majority of people arriving illegally on small boats are men – but not 'north of 90 per cent' as Reform claimed.
'On BBC Question Time, I shared a story from my visit to the Border Security Command about a dinghy that arrived mostly carrying women, children and babies who had suffered horrific burns.
'I'm happy to clarify this given how this is now being misrepresented.'
Asked about Mr Jones's comments, a Downing Street spokesman said on Friday: 'The Government is absolutely focused on tackling these vile smuggling gangs that risk lives in the Channel.'
Asked if the Prime Minister had confidence in Mr Jones, the spokesman said: 'Yes.'

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

BBC News

24 minutes ago

• BBC News

32 nations but only one man matters - Nato's summit is all about Trump

Nato summits tend to be "pre-cooked", not least to present a united General Mark Rutte has already settled on the menu for their meeting at The Hague: one that will avoid a row with Nato's most powerful member, the US.A commitment to increase defence spending by European allies is the dish that President Donald Trump wants served – and that's exactly what he'll be getting. Though there will inevitably be the added ingredients of compromise and will the summit be able to paper over the cracks between Trump and many of his European allies on trade, Russia and the escalating conflict in the Middle US president, whose mantra is America First, is not a huge fan of multinational has been highly critical of Nato too – even questioning its very foundation of collective defence. In Trump's first term, at his first Nato summit, he berated European allies for not spending enough and owing the US "massive amounts of money".On that message he has at least been consistent. Mark Rutte, who has a good relationship with the US president, has worked hard to give him a summit takes place at the World Forum in The Hague over two days, on Tuesday and Wednesday next the main discussions will last just three hours and the summit statement is being reduced to five paragraphs, reportedly because of the US president's is one of 32 leaders from the Western defensive alliance who are coming, along with the heads of more than a dozen partner police have mounted their biggest ever security operation for the most expensive Nato summit so far, at a cost of €183.4m (£155m; $210m).Some have suggested the brevity of the summit is in part to cater to the US president's attention span and dislike of long meetings. But a shorter summit with fewer subjects discussed will, more importantly, help hide Arnold, of the defence think tank Rusi, says Trump likes to be the star of the show and predicts he'll be able to claim that he's forced European nations to truth he's not the first US president to criticise allies' defence spending. But he's had more success than most. Kurt Volker, a former US ambassador to Nato, admits that some European governments do not like the way Trump's gone about it – demanding that allies spend 5% of their GDP on defence. Europe still only accounts for 30% of Nato's total military spending. Volker says many Europeans now admit they that "we needed to do this, even if it's unfortunate that it took such a kick in the pants".Some European nations are already boosting their defence spending to 5% of their GDP. Most are the countries living in close proximity to Russia – such as Poland, Estonia and not just Trump who's been piling on the pressure. Russian President Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine is forcing a in reality many Nato members will struggle to meet the new target. A few haven't met the goal of 2%, set more than a decade compromise formula is for allies to increase their core defence spending to 3.5% of GDP, with an additional 1.5% towards defence-related the definition of defence-related expenditure appears to be so vague that it might be rendered meaningless. Rutte says it could include the cost of industry of infrastructure – building bridges, roads and railways. Ed Arnold, of Rusi, says it'll inevitably lead to more "creative accounting".Even if, as expected, the new spending target is approved, some nations may have little intent of reaching it – by 2032 or 2035. The timescale's still unclear. Spain's prime minister has already called it unreasonable and counterproductive. Sir Keir Starmer hasn't even been able to say when the UK will spend 3% of its GDP of defence. The UK prime minister only said that it was an ambition some time in the next parliament. However, given the UK government's stated policy of putting Nato at the heart of the UK's defence policy, Sir Keir will have to back the new real danger is to interpret the demand for an increase in defence spending as arbitrary, a symbolic gesture – or just bowing to US pressure. It's also driven by Nato's own defence plans on how it would respond to an attack by Russia. Rutte himself has said that Russia could attack a Nato country within five years. Those defence plans remain secret. But Rutte's already set out what the Alliance is lacking. In a speech earlier this month he said Nato needed a 400% increase in its air and missile defences: thousands more armoured vehicles and tanks, and millions more artillery shells. Most member states, including the UK, do not yet meet their Nato capability commitments. It's why Sweden plans to double the size of its army and Germany is looking to boost its troop numbers by 60, plans go into granular detail as to how the Alliance will defend its Eastern flank should Russia invade. In a recent speech, the head of the US Army in Europe, General Christopher Donahue, highlighted the need to defend Polish and Lithuanian territory near the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad. He said the Alliance had looked at its existing capabilities and "realised very quickly they are not sufficient".Yet, strangely, specific discussions about Russia and the war in Ukraine will be muted. It's the one big issue that now divides Europe and America. Kurt Volker says, under Trump, the US "does not see Ukrainian security as essential to European security but our European allies do".Trump has already shattered Nato's united front by talking to Putin and withholding military support to Arnold says contentious issues have been stripped from the summit. Not least to avoid a schism with Trump. Leaders were supposed to discuss a new Russia strategy, but it's not on the President Volodymyr Zelensky has been invited to the summit dinner, but he won't be taking part in the main discussions of the North Atlantic will be hoping that his first summit as secretary general will be short and sweet. But with Trump at odds with most of his allies on Russia, the greatest threat facing the Alliance, there's no guarantee it'll go according to plan.

Reuters

26 minutes ago

• Reuters

France's Macron says Greenland is not to be sold, nor taken

French President Emmanuel Macron on Sunday (June 15) pledged his support for Greenland, saying the Arctic island was not for sale, and not to be taken over amid threats from U.S. President Donald Trump to do just that.

Times

an hour ago

• Times

What war in the Middle East means for your money

The conflict between Israel and Iran is the latest geopolitical shock set to hamper the outlook for the UK economy — and, ultimately, your bank balance. Since the attacks began on June 12, the price of oil has risen to a six-month high. Hopes for interest rate cuts have been dashed, fears of rising inflation have been amplified, and any respite from stock market turmoil appears to have been short-lived. • Read more money advice and tips on investing from our experts This week the prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer, said: 'I'm always concerned about the effect of international issues on people back at home. You saw with Ukraine the direct impact it had on energy bills. Equally, with this conflict, you can see the effect it's having on the economy, particularly on the price of energy.' From petrol prices to pension pots, here's what you need to know: Iran is the third-largest oil producer among the 12 members of the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (Opec), and there are worries about how a wider regional war could affect the transport of oil through the Strait of Hormuz, which accounts for about 25 per cent of seaborne crude oil transportation, according to the consultancy Capital Economics. The price of a barrel of Brent crude hit a six-month high of about $78 after Israeli attacks on Iran began, up from about $65 at the start of this month. That is bound to have a knock-on effect on motorists, said David Oxley from Capital Economics: 'A rough rule of thumb is that a $10 rise in the oil price will add about 7p to the price at the pump.' It normally takes about two weeks for oil prices to feed into pump prices, Oxley said. Motorists have, however, had some recent respite from the cost of living crisis as petrol and diesel prices hit their lowest in almost four years. Petrol cost an average of 132p a litre last month, the lowest since July 2021, while diesel was at 138p, the lowest since September 2021, according to the motoring organisation the RAC. While prices are likely to rise, they are not expected to reach the high of March 2022, when Russia's invasion of Ukraine caused the oil price to reach $127 per barrel. The price in sterling peaked in July of that year at more than £100 with pump prices hitting 192p per litre for petrol and 199p per litre for diesel. More than a million homeowners whose fixed deals come to an end this year may have their hopes of further interest rate cuts dashed. The lowest two-year fix was 3.72 per cent last month, but rates are starting to tick up again, according to the property portal Rightmove. The lowest two-year deal is now 3.82 per cent from Lloyds Bank for those with a Club Lloyds account. The lowest five-year fixed rate has gone from 3.78 per cent to 3.88 per cent, also from Lloyds. Lenders had been cutting mortgage rates to compete for business, but changed tack after inflation went from 2.6 per cent for the year to March to 3.5 per cent in April. This makes cuts to the Bank of England base rate less likely — the Bank generally keeps the rate high when inflation is above its target of 2 per cent. The Consumer Prices Index inflation figure for the year to May, released this week, was 3.4 per cent. Uncertainty around President Trump's trade tariffs and conflict in the Middle East has also dampened hopes of further base rate cuts. The Bank held rates at 4.25 per cent this week, which, although a lot higher than the sub 2 per cent rates many mortgage holders will have fixed at three or five years ago, is down from the peak of 5.25 per cent in August last year. Fixed mortgage rates are based on swap rates (the rates at which banks lend to each other, which are in turn based on forecasts of where Bank rate is expected to be in the future), which have edged up over the past week or so, suggesting that mortgage rates could follow. Homeowners who want certainty can lock in a new deal up to six months before theirs ends yet still swap if a cheaper deal comes along. Rising oil prices could also cause other expenses to creep up, particularly if the Iran conflict continues or escalates. Lotanna Emediegwu, an economics lecturer at Manchester Metropolitan University, said that prolonged conflict could drive up energy bills. The price cap that limits how much suppliers can charge customers on standard variable tariffs will work out at an average bill of £1,720 a year for gas and electricity from July 1 (down 7 per cent from today's cap). At the moment analysts expect the cap to go up 2 to 3 per cent in October, but this could change dramatically. He said: 'Until recently, fuel prices had been rising less than other things, so actually mitigating some inflationary pressures. The recent conflict is expected to reverse this trend. 'The financial repercussions extend beyond immediate energy costs into transportation and logistics. Transport expenses are particularly vulnerable to fluctuations in fuel prices. This affects everything from airline fares to shipping costs for products, ultimately hitting consumer prices.' Before June 12, when Israel launched strikes on Iran, inflation had been expected to rise to 3.5 per cent by the autumn — now it could go further. A sustained $10 per barrel rise in the oil price typically pushes up annual inflation by 0.1 to 0.2 percentage points, according to The Economist, meaning that it could be closer to 3.7 per cent by September. Emediegwu said a prolonged blockade of the Strait of Hormuz shipping route could add a further 0.5 to 1 percentage points, which could take it close to 5 per cent. So far the stock market has been fairly resilient to the conflict in the Middle East. The UK's FTSE 100 is down about 0.77 per cent since the turmoil started, while the US's S&P 500 is down about 1.06 per cent. If a sustained conflict leads to an increase in the price of oil, stock valuations may fall — this is because higher oil prices lead to higher inflation, which means interest rates are likely to stay higher for longer, which makes it more expensive for companies to borrow money to grow and often curbs investors' risk appetite. Losers are likely to include airline and travel stocks, as well as so-called growth stocks, which include technology and healthcare companies. Many investors will have exposure to the US 'Magnificent Seven' tech stocks of Microsoft, Apple, Alphabet, Tesla, Amazon, Meta and Nvidia. These companies are often valued on their future earnings potential, which means their stock price can be volatile if company results or wider economic conditions point towards a slowdown of earnings. The good news is that Iran and Israel are a very limited part of the global stock market, so direct exposure for most UK investors will be immaterial. However, Michael Field from the research firm Morningstar said that the risk is that wider markets get jittery about the potential for the conflict to escalate further. Investors should avoid making any kneejerk changes to their portfolio. Ultimately, while geopolitical tensions may create short-term turmoil, historically markets have been resilient in the long term. Jacob Falkencrone from the investment bank Saxo said: 'As an investor, your greatest tool is a disciplined approach — staying informed, remaining calm and focusing on your long-term investment goals rather than reacting impulsively to temporary shocks.'