Migrant charity says new UK and France deal will be ‘drop in the ocean'
Last week, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron announced their new migrant return agreement which is due to begin within weeks.
However, the deal still faces final legal verification and consultation with the EU bloc before it can come into effect.
Kent-based migrant charities have offered criticism of the Prime Minister's plans, with one leader suggesting the plan is a 'drop in the ocean' and does not address the full scale of the issue.
Dr Razia Shariff, the chief executive of Kent Refugee Action Network (Kran) told PA News Agency it is 'unlikely' that the deal is a step in the right direction.
Dr Shariff said: 'I don't actually understand how it's going to help. I think it's welcome that we've got some form of a safe or legal route being introduced for the first time – above and beyond a resettlement scheme.'
However, she went on to point out that the UK and French leaders 'don't know if the EU is even going to verify it' and that they haven't worked out the details yet.
She continued: 'There's a little bit of light if you like, given the fact that they are going to be offering some safer legal routes on this new scheme, but it's definitely not enough. It's a drop in the ocean, right?'
French officials have suggested the pilot scheme is expected to return an estimated 50 migrants a week.
A spokesperson for Dover based migrant charity Samphire said: 'This is a small proportion of the total number crossing.
'Desperate people in need of sanctuary are taking a huge risk to cross the Channel to safety – a small chance of being returned will just be another risk to take and does not, on the face of it, seem like a strong deterrent.'
Last week, some 1,375 migrants arrived in the UK after crossing the Channel, according to provisional figures from the Home Office.
At least 22,000 people have already made the journey since January, putting 2025 on course to be a record year for crossings.
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.
Dr Shariff, who has worked with Kran for almost 10 years, argued that the deal did not address the bigger picture.
'If they just offered humanitarian visas or safe and legal routes in the first place, then they wouldn't have to be in the hands of criminals and smugglers and be brought over here in the first place,' she said.
According to Samphire, 61% of people crossing the Channel on small boats in the year to March 2025 were Afghans, Syrians, Iranians, Vietnamese and Eritreans, who have a 66.6% asylum seeker acceptance rate in the UK between them.
The charity's spokesperson said: 'There is a high likelihood that the UK will attempt to return some seeking asylum with legitimate claims, which will no doubt be subject to legal challenge.
'The Government should not be playing with human lives or catering to anti-migration narratives. Saying that any deal is better than no deal is not the right way to treat people.'
The UK Government has said it expects Brussels to approve the pact, while a spokesman for the European Commission indicated it wanted to know more about the 'substance and form' of the arrangement before offering support.
Both charities welcome safe and legal passage which could offset the power of the smuggling gangs, but neither seems to think this deal provides a comprehensive answer.
'It's side-stepping the issue, trying to appease everyone a little bit in some shape or form, but you know we will see if it's going to actually address the issue – I really don't think it will,' added Dr Shariff.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
France Adds Support for Using Most-Potent Trade Tool on US
(Bloomberg) — A growing number of European Union member states want the bloc to activate its most powerful trade tool against the US should the two sides fail to reach an acceptable agreement by Aug. 1 and Donald Trump carries out his threat of 30% tariffs on the US's largest trading partner. The Dutch Intersection Is Coming to Save Your Life Advocates Fear US Agents Are Using 'Wellness Checks' on Children as a Prelude to Arrests LA Homelessness Drops for Second Year Manhattan, Chicago Murder Rates Drop in 2025, Officials Say A French-led charge to deploy the EU's so-called anti-coercion instrument is backed by more than half a dozen European capitals, according to people familiar with the matter. Several member states are more cautious, while others have yet to express a position, said the people, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations. The issue was discussed at a meeting of trade ministers on Monday, the people said. Benjamin Haddad, France's minister for European affairs, said earlier this week that the response from Brussels should include the option of using the tool which gives officials broad powers to take retaliatory action against EU trading partners. Those measures could include new taxes on US tech giants, for instance, or targeted curbs on US investments in the EU. They could also involve limiting access to certain parts of the EU market or restricting US firms from bidding for public contracts in Europe. The first-ever use of the ACI would likely provoke an even wider transatlantic trade war, given Trump's warnings that retaliation against American interests will only invite tougher tactics from his administration. 'In this negotiation, you need to show strength, you need to show force, unity and resolve,' Haddad told Bloomberg Television on Monday. 'We can go further' than the countermeasures announced by the European Commission targeting almost €100 billion ($116 billion) worth of US trade, he said, referring to the ACI. The commission, which leads on trade matters on behalf of the bloc, has so far said use of the tool is premature as negotiations continue. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told reporters on Sunday that 'the ACI is created for extraordinary situations' and 'we are not there yet.' The overwhelming preference among capitals and EU officials is to keep negotiations on track and find a negotiated outcome to the impasse, while maintaining the threat of retaliation with countermeasures that are proportional to the damage from US tariffs. EU trade chief Maros Sefcovic will travel to Washington for further talks with his US counterparts this week, according to commission spokesman Olof Gill. Talks between the US and EU have continued despite Trump threatening in a letter sent over the weekend to impose a 30% tariff on most of the bloc's exports starting next month, alongside existing 25% duties on cars and car parts, and 50% levies on steel and aluminum. EU Commissioner Michael McGrath told Bloomberg Radio on Wednesday that he expects a deal to be reached by Aug. 1, though Brussels was 'surprised and disappointed' to receive Trump's letter. 'These are challenging complex negotiations,' McGrath said. 'We remain focused as an EU on the substantive discussions.' On Tuesday, Trump — who is known for escalating his rhetoric when negotiations bog down — said that he was likely to impose tariffs on some pharmaceuticals as soon as next month. That could hit European drug companies particularly hard. Ongoing Talks Before the latest threats from Washington, EU officials were hopeful they were edging toward a preliminary framework agreement that would allow negotiations to continue beyond the deadline. Under the envisioned accord, the bloc would face a 10% levy on most exports, with limited exemptions for some industries such as aviation and medical devices. The anti-coercion tool was designed primarily as a deterrent, and if needed respond to deliberate coercive actions from third countries that use trade measures as a means to pressure the sovereign policy choices of the 27-nation bloc or individual member states. The instrument was enacted as part of the EU's effort to boost its trade defenses after the US imposed tariffs on the bloc's exports during the first Trump administration. Another factor was China's decision to place restrictions on Lithuanian goods after Taiwan opened a trade office in the Baltic nation. The commission can propose use of the tool but it is then for member states to determine whether there is a coercion case and if it should be deployed. Throughout the process the EU would seek to consult with the coercing party to find a resolution and may also collaborate with like-minded partners facing similar pressure. (Updates with trade chief's trip to Washington in ninth paragraph) Forget DOGE. Musk Is Suddenly All In on AI How Starbucks Is Engineering a Turnaround With Warm Vibes and Cold Foams How Hims Became the King of Knockoff Weight-Loss Drugs Thailand's Changing Cannabis Rules Leave Farmers in a Tough Spot The New Third Rail in Silicon Valley: Investing in Chinese AI ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Errore nel recupero dei dati Effettua l'accesso per consultare il tuo portafoglio Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
PM: Tories have questions to answer over Afghan data breach and superinjunction
Tory ex-ministers have 'serious questions to answer' about the Afghan data leak which resulted in an £850 million secret relocation scheme and an unprecedented legal gagging order, Sir Keir Starmer said. The Prime Minister hit out at the Tories over the 'major data breach' which saw a defence official release details of almost 19,000 people seeking to flee Afghanistan after the return of the Taliban. Thousands of people are being relocated to the UK as part of a scheme set up after the breach which was kept secret as the result of a superinjunction imposed in 2023 which was only lifted on Tuesday. At Prime Minister's Questions, Sir Keir said: 'We warned in opposition about Conservative management of this policy and yesterday, the Defence Secretary set out the full extent of the failings that we inherited: a major data breach, a superinjunction, a secret route that has already cost hundreds of millions of pounds. 'Ministers who served under the party opposite have serious questions to answer about how this was ever allowed to happen.' He suggested the Conservatives should 'welcome' scrutiny from the Commons Defence Committee. Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle said: ''This episode raises significant constitutional issues.' Tory former defence secretary Sir Ben Wallace said he makes 'no apology' for applying for the initial injunction and insisted it was 'not a cover-up' but was motivated by the need to protect people in Afghanistan whose safety was at risk.
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Lammy hints at sanctions for Israeli minister over Gaza camp plans
Israel's defence minister could face UK sanctions over a proposal to force Palestinians into a closed section of the Gaza Strip, the Foreign Secretary has hinted. David Lammy has condemned defence minister Israel Katz, who has reportedly put forward plans to move 600,000 Palestinians to a so-called 'humanitarian city' in Rafah, Gaza's now largely destroyed southern-most city. They would then be prevented from leaving, with the aim being to eventually move the entire population to the city. He told the Commons International Development Committee on Wednesday that 'no defence minister should be talking about effectively holding people, unable to leave, presumably, in the manner in which he described'. Asked whether Mr Katz would be sanctioned, as other Israeli ministers had been over comments inciting violence against Palestinians, Mr Lammy told the committee he could not comment on future sanctions. But he added: 'You will have heard my statement about Minister Katz and you will have heard my statements previously about ministers Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, and then the decision that I took.' The UK sanctioned Israeli national security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and finance minister Bezalel Smotrich 'in their personal capacity' in June, citing their 'repeated incitement of violence against Palestinian civilians'. Prior to those sanctions, Mr Lammy had described comments by Mr Ben-Gvir and Mr Smotrich on Palestinian 'emigration' from Gaza as 'dangerous, extreme and totally wrong'. Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Norway also sanctioned the two men at the same time, but the decision brought criticism from US secretary of state Marco Rubio, who said it did not 'advance' efforts to secure a ceasefire. Last week, Mr Lammy told the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee that the Government could take further action against Israel if a ceasefire in Gaza was not achieved. On Wednesday, Mr Lammy also stressed the Government's opposition to the US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), which has replaced UN aid distribution centres with just four sites in militarised zones run by private security contractors. Hundreds of Palestinians are reported to have been killed or wounded while seeking aid at GHF sites. Mr Lammy told the International Development Committee the GHF system 'must not set a precedent' and was 'outwith of global norms and rules that we all signed up to after the Second World War' as he called for more aid trucks to be allowed into Gaza.