Zia Yusuf clashes with Richard Madeley over Reform's small boats plan

More than 2 ,000 people have crossed the English Channel illegally, and that's since Prime Minister Andy Burnham stepped into Number 10.Reform UK are calling for the biggest military operation in the Channel since the Second World War to tackle this.

Well, reform says that the Royal Navy should stop every unauthorised crossing, but the government says that its tougher enforcement measures are already making a difference.Reform's Home Affairs Spokesperson Zia Yousaf joins us now.Good morning, Mr Yousaf.Thank you for making time for us this morning.Now, you're quoted in this morning's Daily Mail as saying that you are prepared to authorise the Navy to use, I quote, lethal force to stop these boats.What does that mean?

Shelling them?Ramming them?Sinking them?

OK, so I'm not sure what quote you're referring to there.Firstly, let me lay out what our plan is, and then I'll direct that.I'll directly answer the question.

Suffolk has told the Daily Mail the Navy will be permitted to use lethal force if intelligence agencies confirm the presence of known terrorist or smuggling gang leaders.That's a direct quote.

Yeah, so specifically, we are aware not only of over 200 ,000 people arrived on our beaches illegally under Tory and Labour governments over the last eight years.We know some have gone on to murder British citizens, we know some have attempted mass casualty terror attacks in Britain, and there are well -cited reports in this country that IRGC fighters, terrorists, operating at the behest of the Iranian regime, which of course is currently at war and recently attacked our sovereign territory, are using the channel to enter Britain illegally.

So that's why it's a national security emergency.I want to know how it's going to work.Look, what we need to hear from you, Mr. Newsom, we need...I'm about to answer your question directly.Well, you're not answering the question.How would it actually practically work?

Would you ram these boats?Would you shell them?How would you actually confront them?

With respect, the only scenario, the only scenario in which our armed forces would be permitted, if they felt it was necessary to protect innocent life, would be to neutralise confirmedterrorists or people smuggling gang leaders.How would you know they were on board?

And how would they identify that?

They would be able to know that they were on board because we're going to, again, this is why it's important you let me explain the plan.Step one of the plan is turn the English Channel into the most surveilled maritime border in the world, something we're more than capable of doing.The problem is our space satellite footage, for example, and surveillance data is completely siloed from, for example, our infrared and radar data.It is not being used to surveil the channel.So number one, you ramp up surveillance, we will have the most surveilled maritime border in the world under a reformed government.That's step one.

Step two, any vessel, any illegal migrant attempting to cross the English Channel will not be met with a free taxi service and free hotels.They will be intercepted by Royal Marines who will conduct a humanitarian mission, take them on board and return them back to France as part of their rescue operation.

Okay, pause there, pause there, pause there.Just give us a second.No, no, because we've got to break down what you're saying.Otherwise, people don't understand it.OK, so more surveillance and then you're going to intercept and return them.How are you going to intercept?

How are you going to know who's on board and how are you going to return them and to whom?

Our Armed Forces, not just our Navy, but our Armed Forces generally, have incredible capabilities of surveillance.The problem is they're siloed.So we created the Integrated Surveillance Command.That is a new consolidated surveillance capability bringing together all of those assets.That's step one.In terms of which vessels will be used, we'd use things like the Bay -class ships.

We will use the offshore patrol vessels, which are our River -class ships.And on board those, you have rigid -hulled inflatable boats, RHIBs, which will be deployed with Royal Marines on them.These are highly manoeuvrable, very small boats that Marines can use.will use to go right up alongside these dinghies and take these people on board.And I just want to add, sorry, the reason why...So it's just ports, so they will go up in these rubberised dinghies.

Sorry, but it does come down to the detail.

So you're going up into a...

Yeah, I know, we know that.We've talked about this many times, even you and I, haven't we?Let's deal with the news stuff.

So you're going to go up alongside...You are advocating for a status quo that is resulting...

I'm not advocating for anything, I'm trying to understand what you're saying.So practically speaking, you're going to come up alongside, you're going to then what?Take the people off those boats onto the the reinforced ribs that you said exist on these ships.You're going to then take them back to the ships and then how get them up?on to deck because that's quite challenging, isn't it, with the Royal Navy?

So it's really important, again, that your viewers understand there is precedent for this.There's extensive precedent for this.Our Navy are exceptional at these very humanitarian missions and even choppier waters than the Channel.It happened frequently in the Horn of Africa, for example, as part of the Somali piracy missions.It happened extensively during the Troubles.And as you'll see in the document we're about to publish at our press conference at 11, a very significant document.

Not only was this plan devised by former senior members Armed Forces.It is endorsed publicly and by former senior members of our Armed Forces, including and especially our Navy.So you've got a plan for getting them on board.

Sorry, let's do it step by step.You've got a plan to getting them on board, you say, which we'll see more detail on at 11.Then you're going to take them back to France or Belgium, I think, are the two countries primarily.What if they say we're not taking them back?What are we going to do then?

So the first point is, Once anyone sees one of these vessels in the Channel, they are obliged under every possible international treaty which is relevant, including SOLAS, the UN ones, etc., to rescue them.Because it is such a hazardous journey, these boats are wholly unsuitable and are generally heavily overcrowded.That's the first point.This is a humanitarian rescue mission.We are fulfilling our legal obligation.Secondly, the French government's official position is that they do not want these boats to leave their shores.

One of the points is that the British taxpayer is sending them a billion pounds thanks to the Tory and Labour governments to ostensibly stop the boat.So what we are doing here is assisting the French to adhere to the contractual obligations as part of those agreements.

And what if they say no?

Sorry, can I just ask you a couple of questions here?You get these people on board.You take them back towards the French coast.And as Kate says, what if the French Navy says, you're not coming into our territorial waters?Do we go in anywhere and just drop them off on the beach?What do we do?

Okay, so the instructions given to, the orders given to our Navy, to our Marines will be to escort, remember this is a humanitarian mission, they're on a small boat, a small Royal Navy, highly maneuverable boat, their instructions will be to drop them off in France.If the French take a posture that they're unhappy with this, nevertheless they will drop them off on their beaches.With regards to your question about France deploying its Navy in response, I put it to you, the notion that President Macron would order order its Navy to threaten, let alone attack, a boat full of innocent civilians.I didn't say anything about the Navy coming out.I didn't say that, Mr Youssef, you're not listening to me.

What we're asking is what happens when you, nobody's mentioned the Royal, nobody's mentioned the French Navy, we're talking about your proposal of the British Navy.

Respectfully, your colleague literally just mentioned the French Navy.

We didn't.

He said when they're allowed to go into the port.What I was saying, Mr Youssef, was that you have a situation here where you're escalating confrontation possibilities between the British and the French, aren't you?You're clearly not consulting.the French about this.You're simply assuming that the French would be content for British ships, British vessels, to come into French territorial waters and return these people to the shores.What I'm asking you is, if the French were to say no, we're not putting up with that, what happens then?

Okay, so our document, which we published at 11am, explicitly lays out two scenarios, one in which the French completely are happy and consent, the other one in which they are unhappy and do not consent.So we have envisaged both scenarios.In either scenario, the first point to make is our Royal Navy Marines will take these civilians, these people who have attempted that journey, back to the French shores.A really important legal point too here is that France was obliged to process their asylum applications under the UN Refugee Convention because they are a safe country.And Article 2 of the ECHR expressly, expressly requires our Navy, and in fact anyone conducting such operations in the sea, to protect lives.That is what we're doing.

I'm sorry, what are your instructions?What would your instructions to be?Were you to be in government and enacting this policy?You haven't answered the question.What would your instructions to the Navy be, to the Marines be, to deal with a French attempt to repulse them coming on to French shores?What would they do?

Would they fight?

So what would a French attempt to repulse it look like?

So would you say that again, Mr. Rees, if somebody was talking about this subject?

So just to use your phrase, what do you envisage?What would a French attempt to repulse or repel the boat coming onto their shores look like?

I have absolutely no idea, because these are quite literally uncharted waters.

So the only thing that they can do...

It's not for me to consider that.It's for you to consider those possibilities.

Yeah, we have.I was just asking just so I could answer your question as accurately as possible.In the document, we lay out a specific scenario in which the Frenchthat they do not consent.Now, in order for them to repel a boat, which I reiterate, for them to do that, they are effectively endangering the lives of innocent civilians at sea in distress, let alone our fine Royal Marines.That is a huge breach of international law.

It is a crime against humanity.And I do not believe, I do not believe, I'm not President Macron's biggest fan, I do not believe he would ever do such a thing.

Well, we've consulted an international lawyer and we have a quote for you on this.Entering French territorial waters or landing personnel or migrants on French territory without explicit authorisation from the French breaches international law and infringes on French law.sovereignty.That's a legal opinion that we've just consulted.

Sure.I'm sure that is a legal opinion.There are manifold legal opinions out there.That has never been tested.Hold on.That has never been tested in court.

We have our own lawyers on this.It has never been tested in court.Look, there are plenty of lawyers who make a lot of money by claiming Britain can't have a border.We have got multiple lawyers who have given us legal opinions.And I'm telling you, this is a fact.If your fact -checkers are listening, they can intervene if they feel see fit.

That opinion you just laid out has never been tested in court.And what I'm going to reiterate to you is France is currently receiving a billion pounds of British taxpayers' money in order to stop the boat.Our Royal Marines will deliver those innocent civilians who came from France, remember, in violation of their own obligations under international treaties.And the final point I'll make is this.If you are asking at any point, and that is not the case in this particular operation we're talking about, because we have consulted extensively, if there are onunvetted countries like Iran, Iraq and Syria, some of whom are coming here to try and commit terror attacks, compared to obligations to the letter of every single international law, I will give you a blunt answer.

Prime Minister Farage will choose the security and sovereignty of our great country.Of course.

And that's always your headline, isn't it?However, 43 % down on this time last year in the situation that we're dealing with now of crossings.So is any of this necessary?Because it's going in the right direction anyway.

But I want to reiterate, I'm not sure which direction you're talking about.North of 200 ,000 have arrived.This is a pretty small country in terms of geographical landmass.Our public services are already collapsing.And it only takes one of them to actually perpetrate a mass casualty terror attack.And that's not just speculation.

This has already happened.Our security services have foiled mass casualty events.And I hesitate to even say this, but God forbid there ever was a mass casualty terror attack perpetrated in this country by someone who came across the channel illegally.There would be an enormous amount of outrage and people would be demanding that Operation Fortress, our plan, was void.We don't want to wait.We don't want to wait for such a thing, God forbid, to ever happen.

We're going to have to pull the curtain down on this.Thank you for coming on the programme and explaining this interesting policy.