Downing Street ‘confident' UK-France migrant returns deal complies with law
The UK is 'confident' the agreement complies with both domestic and international law and has discussed the plans with Brussels, Number 10 said on Friday.
The one in, one out migrant return scheme set out by the Prime Minister and Emmanuel Macron is due to begin within weeks, but still needs final legal verification and consultation with Brussels.
Asked whether the Government was concerned about the scheme potentially being held up in the courts, a Number 10 spokesman said: 'We've done a lot of work to make sure the system is robust to legal challenges, and of course, France is a safe country and a member of the ECHR.
'We're confident that this arrangement complies with both domestic and international law, and clearly… we've discussed these arrangements already with the (European) Commission.'
The Prime Minister is holding talks with his Cabinet at an 'away day' at Chequers, his grace-and-favour Chequers country estate, on Friday after securing the agreement on Thursday.
Ministers expect the commission to support the arrangement, Downing Street said, amid concerns among some European governments that migrants who have travelled to Britain could end up back on their territory.
Under the pilot scheme, for each small boat migrant sent back across the English Channel an asylum seeker will be allowed to enter the UK from France under a legal route.
By resetting our relationships across Europe, my government has made new levels of co-operation possible.
For the first time, migrants arriving via small boat will be detained and returned to France — smashing the business model of people smuggling gangs.
— Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) July 11, 2025
No details have been given about how many people will be covered by the pilot, but French officials had indicated it could initially be limited to about 50 a week – a small fraction of the weekly average this year of 782.
Speaking to broadcasters on Friday, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper declined to put a number on the scheme but she insisted it would 'fundamentally undermine' the people smugglers organising the crossings.
Meanwhile, crossings continued in the Channel on Friday, with HM Coastguard confirming UK Border Force and RNLI vessels had been sent to respond to 'multiple incidents' involving small boats.
At least 21,000 people have already made the journey since January, putting 2025 on course to be a record year for crossings.
To those considering dangerous Channel crossings – there is now no guarantee you will remain in the UK.
The UK-France pilot agreement undermines the business model of the criminal gangs who profit from endangering the lives of migrants.
— Home Office (@ukhomeoffice) July 11, 2025
The returns scheme will be accompanied by a crackdown on illegal working in the UK as the Government attempts to address the 'pull factors' encouraging people to attempt the crossing from France.
The Home Office said authorities would soon undertake 'a major nationwide blitz targeting illegal working hotspots, focusing on the gig economy and migrants working as delivery riders'.
Deliveroo, Uber Eats and Just Eat have already committed to ramp up facial verification and fraud checks over the coming months after being called in for talks with ministers.
Mr Macron has repeatedly stressed the need for the UK to avoid attracting migrants, saying 'you should not underestimate the impact the situation has' in parts of northern France around Calais and Dunkirk.
He said a third of illegal migrants entering Europe's Schengen border-free area sought to eventually reach the UK, and welcomed measures to tackle illegal work.
Prominent figures including former head of MI6 Sir Alex Younger and former Labour prime minister Sir Tony Blair have made the case for digital ID cards to deter Channel crossings.
Number 10 has publicly downplayed the prospect of introducing such a measure but said the Government was 'always looking for a range of solutions'.
Asked on Friday why the proposal was not part of Government plans, a spokesman said: 'It is not Government policy.
'Our focus is on a huge rollout of e-visas, with more than 10 million of them already issued, clearly.
'As we demonstrated over the last couple of days, we are always looking for a range of solutions to both illegal migration and illegal working. But mandatory ID cards are not parts of our plans.'
Sir Keir said the 'completely unprecedented' scale of the crackdown on illegal working would mean for cross-Channel migrants that 'the jobs they have been promised in the UK will no longer exist'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What happened the last time a Labour government opted to lower the voting age?
Grappling with economic difficulties including rising prices at a time of accelerated social change and growing concerns about immigration, Harold Wilson's Labour government introduced legislation to lower the voting age. The Representation of the People Act 1969 was a major milestone in the development of modern democracy, as the UK became the first country to lower the voting age from 21 to 18. The Act triggered change elsewhere as other democracies soon followed suit. The economic and social conditions in the late 60s have clear parallels with those facing the current Labour Government, while the announcement of its intention to lower the voting age to 16 has been described as the biggest reform to our electoral system since 1969. Sir Keir Starmer said it was 'important' to lower the voting age, as 16-year-olds were old enough to work and 'pay in' through tax, so should 'have the opportunity' to say how they wanted their money spent. Polling suggests Labour stand to gain the most from reform, with 33% of 16 and 17-year-olds polled by ITV news saying they would back the party, while 20% said they would choose Reform UK and 18% the Greens. Therefore, while ministers will not accept that electoral advantage is a motivating factor for the changes, some opponents may argue that this is the case. Some historians suggest an expectation of a boost in vote share was not a factor in decision making within Harold Wilson's administration at the time. This, it is claimed, was because the voting intentions of younger people were far from clear. But in his history of the Labour Party, Andrew Thorpe claimed the lowering of the voting age was 'less a principled commitment to young people than a piece of gerrymandering based on the assumption that young people were more likely to vote Labour than Conservative'. While today some argue that lowering the voting age will counter political apathy or disenchantment among the young, research by the University of Huddersfield found no evidence that this fuelled demands for reform in the 1960s. It highlighted that there was no significant difference in turnout between young and older voters prior to the 1969 Act, with large numbers of young people joining youth organisations linked with the main political parties. However, amid contemporary concerns about radicalisation, the push for voting at 18 in the 1960s has been linked in part to growing concern that social alienation among the young could lead to 'widespread antidemocratic embrace of either far-left or nationalist causes'. The path to reform was set when the government in 1965 announced that a committee chaired by Justice John Latey would examine at what age individuals are considered an adult. Published in 1967, the committee concluded that young people aged 18 should have adult rights, including owning property and being able to marry without the consent of their parents. The report said: 'This Committee is convinced that we must ensure that the young go out into the world as fully prepared for their adult responsibilities as possible, and that in giving them adult status at 18 we are doing no more than recognising the simple facts.' Some in Harold Wilson's cabinet were against reform, but the matter was resolved in favour of change and the government published a white paper. Some of the subsequent arguments against reform at the time were said to focus on what can be considered the appropriate age of 'maturity' and contained 'assertions over the extent to which young people were competent, sentient humans, capable of voting', according to the University of Huddersfield research. However, advocates at the time echoed arguments regularly heard today under the principle of 'no taxation without representation'. Conservatives repeatedly requested a free vote on the issue, but the Labour government – with an overall majority of 67 – whipped its MPs, suggesting a nervousness over the depth of commitment to reform. The Representation of the People Bill passed into law in July 1969, but by the following year the Labour Party had lost a total of 16 seats in by-elections. The economy was showing signs of improvement, boosting Labour's standing in the polls and prompting Mr Wilson to call a general election. But, in what many observers considered a surprise result, Labour was defeated by the Conservatives led by Edward Heath. In the context of arguments then and now about political engagement and lowering the voting age, it is notable that the 72% turnout at the election was the lowest since 1955. Census data suggested that although about 800,000 newly-enfranchised 18 to 20-year-olds were due to be added to the electoral register for the general election, only 464,000 were actually registered. Lowering the voting age was also considered under the last Labour government led by Tony Blair and later Gordon Brown. Neither leader formally declared a commitment to enfranchising 16-year-olds, but the issue was debated in Parliament and supported by some Labour MPs. However, there was not widespread cross-party backing for reform at the time, with many Conservatives either opposed or unenthusiastic about reform, raising the prospect of legislation facing a difficult passage through Parliament. Competing policy priorities have also been cited as a factor in electoral reform being sidelined, with issues such as constitutional reform, health and the economy taking up political bandwidth. Historians have also referenced concerns over potential controversy due to doubts over public support, while the lack of a prominent campaign for change is said to have prevented votes at 16 gaining momentum.
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Voices: As unemployment hits a four-year high, Rachel Reeves must now do whatever it takes
'We believe in the dignity of work and we believe in the dignity of every worker.' So said the prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer, in making the case for a since neutered welfare reform programme. Yet at the very same time, other government policies have compromised the ability of people to find that work, as the latest official figures make clear. At 4.7 per cent, unemployment is now at its highest level in four years, while vacancies have fallen for three. The estimated number of openings came in at 727,000 between April and June 2025, 56,000 less than the previous three month quarter. The number of employees on payrolls for June 2025 decreased by 178,000 (0.6 per cent) on the year, and by 41,000 when compared with May. Wage rises also continued to trend lower. Their average was recorded at 5 per cent over the three months to May, from 5.3 per cent over the previous three month period. That represents the lowest rate of increase for nearly three years. Looking ahead, it doesn't get any more cheerful. The UK's stats agency also found a sharp rise in the number of potential redundancies, which jumped by 17 per cent in June 2025 compared with May. The number of employers actually proposing redundancies rose by 2 per cent but that number was 42 per cent higher when compared with a year earlier. Over the same span, the number of potential layoffs leapt by 68 per cent. Yes, the ONS has recently had all sorts of problems with its numbers and the Labour Force Survey is the biggest of those. However, there have been plenty of other independent survey data supporting the underlying premise, which is that the labour market is on the sick list, with more people battling for fewer jobs. The KPMG/REC report on jobs, released at the beginning of the week, said the same thing. It probably won't surprise you to learn that the TUC described this unhappy situation as 'another toxic Tory legacy'. It that fair? Some of the problems Labour is now grappling with do have their origins in decisions taken before it assumed office (looking at you, Brexit). Some. But not all. Because, as I have repeatedly argued, it was Labour that opted to fill the fiscal hole it faced after it won the general election by taxing jobs; by making employers pay more for every person on the payroll through higher national insurance contributions (NICs). Chancellor Rachel Reeves really doesn't need another headache, but there's one on the way. The unemployment claimant count is rising (to 1.74 million) and that increases the strain on a threadbare public purse. Increasing those employer NICs is proving to be a costly way of raising cash. The phrase 'cutting off your nose to spite you face' comes to mind. The problem is that we're stuck with the policy. Having executed more U-turns than a stunt driver in a Hollywood car chase, the government can't very easily reverse course on this one. With the public finances in a hot mess, it can't afford to. A minister might very well now ask what I'd do to fix this. Sorry to say, there are no magic bullets to solve this knotty problem. Labour simply has to grow an economy that has lately looked stuck in the mud. To that end, it is planning to deregulate the City of London in a bid to boost the UK's chunky financial services industry, something that history tells us could easily blow up in all our faces. Anyone around during the financial crisis of 2007/08 can speak to that. A debt funded investment spending spree is also on the way, which is less dangerous if the government can find a few winners. Yes, there are dangers here, but I think we should give Reeves the benefit of the doubt. The economy has long been in need of greater investment. This will help. It's worth pointing out that part of the reason for UK plc's recent struggles is that it has been suffering from a hangover from the growth spurt it enjoyed in the first three months of the year that was driven by manufacturers going hell for leather to ship product to the US before the imposition of Donald Trump's tariffs. That hangover has been nastier than anyone expected but we should see its end reflected in future ONS releases. And one big consolation from the horrid figures in this latest missive is that it should lock in the expected interest rate cut from the Bank of England at beginning of next month, despite the unexpectedly steep rise in June inflation to 3.6 per cent. The trouble is, while most forecasters expect the economy to grow in the second half of 2025, it isn't expected grow quickly. There is also the impact of a tax raising budget to factor in, too. There's no sugar-coating it: Starmer and his team are caught in a nasty bind and the 'working people' they keep saying they want to help are trapped with them. Sign in to access your portfolio
New York Post
15 minutes ago
- New York Post
Volvo CEO urges EU to slash its tariffs on US vehicles: ‘Absolutely unnecessary'
Volvo CEO Hakan Samuelsson urged the European Union to slash its auto tariffs on the US — an apparent bid to sway President Trump to lower his own hefty duties on foreign vehicles. The automaker, which is majority-owned by China's Geely Holding, currently faces a steep 27.5% tariff on its imports. The EU, meanwhile, has a 10% tariff on American-made cars. Advertisement 3 Volvo CEO Hakan Samuelsson urged the EU to slash its auto tariffs on the US. via REUTERS 'If Europe is for free trade, we should be the ones showing the way and going down to very low tariffs first,' Samuelsson told Reuters during an interview Thursday. 'I think it's absolutely unnecessary, the European car industry definitely does not need to have any protection from American auto builders,' he told Reuters on Thursday. Trump has touted the auto tariffs as a success, arguing that they have incentivized manufacturers to return to the US. Advertisement He has threatened to raise the taxes on EU-made vehicles to 30% starting August 1. In April, he slapped a 25% tax on auto imports, which stacked on top of a 2.5% tariff that was already in place. The president has also hit auto parts with extra levies. Advertisement Prior to Trump's second term, the US had just the 2.5% tariff on EU-made cars while the 27-nation trade bloc had a 10% duty on American-made vehicles – which Samuelsson has called unfair. 3 New Volvo automobiles await transport at a terminal in Baltimore, Maryland. JIM LO SCALZO/EPA-EFE / Shutterstock Volvo is particularly exposed to the tariffs, as most of its cars sold in the US are imported from Europe. As a result, the automaker is planning to move some manufacturing plans to the US. Advertisement It announced Wednesday that it would start production of its best-selling hybrid XC60 in the US next year. The brand's South Carolina plant currently produces just the Polestar 3 and EX90, an electric vehicle that has struggled to gain sales traction in the US. But the automaker has also started to cut down on its offerings in the US, according to Reuters. 'These are the measures we have control over, rather than when it comes to tariffs we can only have an opinion like everybody else,' Samuelsson said. 3 President Trump unveiled hefty tariffs on many nations in April. AFP via Getty Images Shares in Volvo plummeted 2.6% Wednesday after the company reported a sharp drop in quarterly profit, even though it beat analyst expectations. The automaker reported second-quarter adjusted operating profit of 2.9 billion Swedish crowns, or $297.06 million, down massively from 8 billion crowns, or $819.48 million, the year before. Its gross margin fell to 13.5% from 18.2% the quarter before, though it stood at 17.7% when adjusted for one-off impacts. Advertisement Extra costs from tariffs, as well as increased Chinese competition and muted demand for electric vehicles, made for a difficult quarter. Volvo announced a $1.2 billion impairment charge related to delays in model launches and tariffs, leading to an operating loss of 10 billion crowns, or $1.02 billion. That's up from 8 billion crowns in the same period last year.
