France’s interior minister has declared his country’s police should not enter shallow waters to prevent dinghies carrying migrants from leaving. Addressing a parliamentary commission into UK-French migration treaties, Laurent Nunez said police and gendarmerie officers are only allowed to intervene to stop migrants from crossing the Channel within “two frameworks”.

The first allows officers to stop people before they reach the waters, while the second enables a new and specially-trained elite police unit to intercept boats at sea led by people smugglers. He said: “On the boundary between what is at sea and what is on land, I would say that there is no intervention by the police or the gendarmerie once people are in the water.”

Stating police should not endanger lives, he conceded officers can intervene in shallow waters if they see a small boat capsizing.

Fury as Macron’s Minister Tells Police Not to Stop Migrants in Shallow Waters

A fresh dispute has erupted between Britain and France over Channel migration after France’s interior minister said police and gendarmes should not intervene in shallow water to prevent migrant boats from setting off for Britain.

Laurent Nuñez, France’s interior minister under President Emmanuel Macron, told a parliamentary commission examining UK-French migration cooperation that French officers operate under two specific intervention frameworks.

The first allows police to prevent migrants from reaching the water in the first place. The second involves a specially trained unit authorised to intercept boats at sea under tightly defined conditions.

But once migrants have entered the water, ordinary police and gendarmerie officers are not generally authorised to intervene simply to stop the crossing.

The comments have intensified an already sensitive debate about whether French authorities are doing enough to prevent small boats from reaching Britain.

What Laurent Nuñez actually said

Nuñez was questioned about the circumstances in which French forces can intervene when migrants attempt to launch dinghies from beaches in northern France.

His explanation was that police intervention ends at the boundary between land and sea, except in situations where immediate action is necessary to save lives.

He said the priority was to prevent people from entering the water in the first place.

According to reports of his evidence, Nuñez said there were no ordinary police interventions at sea outside the two established frameworks: land-based prevention and the new maritime intervention system operating under the authority of the maritime prefect.

He also said officers could intervene when a small boat was in danger of capsizing or where action was necessary to rescue people.

The French government’s stated reasoning is therefore centred on the safety of migrants and the legal distinction between policing on land and maritime operations.

That distinction is at the heart of the dispute.

Why the comments have caused anger in Britain

The latest comments have attracted criticism from British politicians who argue that French officers should be able to stop boats before they leave the coast.

Chris Philp, the Conservative shadow home secretary, has argued that French forces should intervene when migrants are still in shallow water.

His criticism follows an incident earlier in the summer when he visited a French beach and spoke to officers while migrants were preparing to board a dinghy.

French officers were reported as saying they had instructions to allow people to leave, while warning them about the dangers of crossing the Channel. LBC reported that migrants were seen boarding a boat in waist-high water during the incident.

The episode subsequently became part of the wider political argument over the effectiveness of British funding for French border operations.

Philp has argued that boats can sometimes be stopped before reaching deeper water, while French officials have maintained that the priority is to avoid actions that could place passengers at greater risk.

The UK-France agreement

The disagreement comes against the background of increasingly close cooperation between London and Paris over Channel crossings.

Britain has committed substantial funding to support French efforts to prevent small boats from departing northern France.

Earlier agreements have provided money for additional policing, surveillance, technology and measures designed to disrupt people-smuggling operations.

The wider cooperation has also included discussions about expanding the circumstances in which French authorities can intervene.

The British government has wanted France to act more forcefully when dinghies are still close to the shoreline.

French authorities, meanwhile, have emphasised that intervention at sea is legally and operationally different from preventing a launch on land.

This difference has become increasingly visible as more migrants have attempted to board boats directly from beaches.

A new maritime intervention unit

Nuñez’s evidence also highlighted a relatively new element of French enforcement.

France has established a specially trained unit capable of intervening against boats at sea under the authority of the maritime prefect.

According to Nuñez, the unit had carried out around ten interventions since its introduction several months earlier.

The rules governing these operations are described as strict, with the stated objective of protecting life as well as combating people-smuggling.

That means the French approach is not simply to stand aside once a boat enters the water.

Rather, it separates ordinary land policing from maritime intervention carried out under a different command structure.

The distinction may appear technical, but it has major practical consequences.

A boat carrying dozens of people can move from shallow water into deeper water within minutes. Once that happens, the options available to police officers on the beach become much more limited.

The safety argument

One of France’s central arguments is that physically stopping an overloaded dinghy could itself create a dangerous situation.

Small inflatable boats used for Channel crossings can be unstable, particularly when large numbers of people are climbing aboard.

Police attempting to pull passengers from a boat, puncture an inflatable vessel or physically block its departure could potentially cause the boat to collapse or capsize.

French authorities therefore argue that prevention on land is preferable wherever possible.

Nuñez specifically said officers could intervene when a vessel was in danger of capsizing because saving lives takes priority.

This approach is also consistent with the principle that maritime rescue operations should be conducted by authorities equipped and authorised to operate at sea.

However, critics argue that there is a narrow window in which intervention might prevent a dangerous journey without creating the risks associated with a high-speed maritime interception.

That disagreement remains unresolved.

The human cost of Channel crossings

The debate is taking place against a backdrop of continuing deaths in the Channel.

In July, three women were found dead aboard a small boat near Dunkirk, while a separate incident resulted in the death of a man after a dinghy got into difficulty. Several other people were injured. The Guardian reported allegations from the charity Utopia 56 that French riot police had used tear gas during an attempt to prevent people from boarding boats.

The French authorities have faced difficult questions about how police should respond when large groups of migrants gather near departure points.

Intervention can carry risks.

Non-intervention also carries risks if people subsequently attempt to cross in an unsafe vessel.

That creates a difficult operational calculation for officers working on the beaches.

Crossings remain substantial

The latest dispute comes as the number of Channel crossings remains high.

According to Home Office figures reported in September, more than 18,500 people had crossed the Channel in small boats during 2026 by the time of Nuñez’s comments.

The figure was reportedly around 42 per cent lower than during the comparable period of 2025, although crossings had increased sharply during parts of September.

On September 23, 781 people arrived in Britain in ten boats, according to Home Office figures cited by contemporary reporting. That was the highest single-day total recorded in 2026 at that point.

The figures demonstrate why the issue remains politically significant despite the year-on-year reduction.

For British authorities, every successful crossing represents another case requiring processing and potentially asylum accommodation.

For France, preventing departures requires sustained policing along a long coastline where smugglers can rapidly move launch locations.

People smugglers adapt

Another complication is the ability of smuggling organisations to change their tactics.

If police concentrate resources at one beach, smugglers can move elsewhere.

If land-based patrols become more intensive, organisers can attempt to launch at night or use different stretches of coastline.

The boats themselves have also changed, with larger dinghies capable of carrying significantly more passengers.

This means that the UK-France strategy cannot depend entirely on stopping individual launches.

Both countries have increasingly focused on intelligence gathering and targeting the criminal networks organising crossings.

Britain has also sought greater cooperation with other European countries to disrupt smuggling networks before boats reach the French coast.

The political disagreement

The dispute nevertheless illustrates a fundamental difference in emphasis.

British politicians concerned about the number of arrivals want greater intervention before boats leave France.

French authorities emphasise preventing people from reaching the water and maintaining strict rules around maritime intervention.

Both sides say they want to reduce dangerous crossings.

The disagreement is over the methods used to achieve that objective.

The French government argues that stopping people once they are already in the water can endanger lives and therefore requires specialised maritime operations.

British critics argue that allowing boats to enter shallow water makes successful departures more likely.

Neither position removes the underlying challenge created by organised smuggling networks and the willingness of migrants to undertake dangerous journeys.

What happens next?

The UK and France are expected to continue discussions over the practical implementation of their migration cooperation.

Britain has already pressed for stronger French action at launch points, while France has developed its own maritime intervention capability.

Nuñez’s parliamentary evidence makes clear that Paris does not currently support a general policy under which ordinary police officers would wade into shallow water to stop every migrant boat.

Instead, French policy distinguishes between stopping departures on land, specialised maritime intervention and emergency rescue.

That framework is likely to remain an important issue in future British-French negotiations.

For the people attempting the crossings, however, the consequences are immediate.

The Channel remains one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes, and an overloaded inflatable boat travelling in unpredictable weather can quickly become a life-threatening situation.

The argument over shallow-water intervention is therefore not simply a dispute over policing tactics. It is part of a much larger debate about how Britain and France can reduce irregular migration while protecting lives, disrupting criminal smuggling networks and maintaining lawful border controls.

For now, the two governments agree that preventing dangerous crossings is a priority. Their disagreement lies in precisely how far French police should go once migrants have reached the water.