Government strikes returns deal with Iraq in latest bid to deter small boats
It comes after an £800,000 deal last year with Baghdad to help the country crack down on smuggling networks and organised crime.
Earlier this year Sir Keir Starmer and Iraq's prime minister Mohammed Shia Al-Sudani agreed to strengthen co-operation on migration.
Mr Jarvis signed the agreement during a visit to the UK by Iraq's deputy foreign minister Faud Hussein. The Home Office said the accord would allow the 'swift' return of illegal migrants.
Home Office statistics said since previous deals, the number of Iraqis arriving in the UK by small boat has fallen to 1,900 in the year to March 2025, down from 2,600 in the previous year.
Mr Jarvis said: 'By working together on security, development and migration challenges, we are building stronger relationships that benefit both our countries whilst tackling shared challenges like organised crime and irregular migration.'
The returns deal is the latest as part of the Home Office's policies to stop small boats crossing the channel.
Similar agreements have already been made with Albania and Vietnam since Labour came into power.
Another deal with France recently came into force, where small boat migrants who have arrived over the English Channel from the French coast can be returned to the country.
The small boats migrant will then be exchanged for a legitimate asylum seeker in France who can demonstrate a genuine family link to the UK. The number has been capped, but it is hoped it will act as a deterrent to those crossing the Channel.
The latest figures from the Home Office showed 116 migrants arrived aboard two small boats on August 15.
Mr Jarvis said: 'This visit reinforces the strength of the UK-Iraq partnership and demonstrates our government's commitment to serious diplomacy that delivers real results.
'As someone who served in Iraq, I understand first-hand the importance of building enduring relationships in the region, and the new agreement we have signed is a testament to the trust and co-operation we've built with our Iraqi counterparts.'
However, the announcement was criticised by Conservative shadow home secretary Chris Philp.
He said: 'Over 50,000 illegal immigrants have crossed the Channel in Labour's short time in power, the worst illegal immigration crisis in our history.
'Labour has surrendered our borders, and the consequences are being felt in our communities, from rising crime to shocking cases of rape and sexual assault by recent arrivals.
'Now they boast about a measly returns deal with Iraq, but barely any small boat arrivals are Iraqi, and most would qualify for asylum anyway. It's a sham designed to look tough while crossings keep soaring.
'Labour has scrapped Conservative deterrents and created the conditions for chaos, leaving the British people to foot the bill. Only the Conservatives will stop the crossings and restore control of Britain's borders.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
a few seconds ago
- The Independent
How many asylum seekers are in UK hotels and why are they being housed there?
The subject of asylum seekers being housed in hotels has come into sharp focus after a High Court ruling. On Tuesday, Epping Forest District Council was granted a temporary injunction blocking asylum seekers from being housed at the Bell Hotel in the Essex town. Here, the PA news agency takes a look at the latest overall data. – How many asylum seekers are in hotels across the UK? The most recent Home Office data showed there were 32,345 asylum seekers being housed temporarily in UK hotels at the end of March. This was down 15% from the end of December, when the total was 38,079. New figures – published among the usual quarterly immigration data release – are expected on Thursday, showing numbers in hotels at the end of June. Figures for hotels published by the Home Office date back to December 2022 and showed numbers hit a peak at the end of September 2023 when there were 56,042 asylum seekers in hotels. – How many hotels are in use for asylum seekers? It is thought there were more than 400 asylum hotels open in summer 2023. Labour said this has since been reduced to fewer than 210. – Why are asylum seekers being housed in hotels? Asylum seekers and their families can be housed in temporary accommodation, known as contingency accommodation, if they are awaiting assessment of their claim or have had a claim approved and there is not enough longer-term accommodation available. The Home Office provides accommodation to asylum seekers who have no other way of supporting themselves on a 'no choice' basis, so they cannot choose where they live. When there is not enough housing, the Home Office can move people to accommodation such as hotels and large sites, like former military bases. In May, the National Audit Office said those temporarily living in hotels accounted for 35% of all people in asylum accommodation. – Is this likely to be a permanent arrangement? Labour has pledged to end the 'costly use of hotels to house asylum seekers in this Parliament' – which would be 2029, if not earlier. Campaigners and charities have long argued that hotels are not suitable environments to house asylum seekers. The Refugee Council said they 'cost the taxpayer billions, trap people in limbo and are flashpoints in communities' and urged the Government to 'partner with local councils to provide safe, cost-effective accommodation within communities'. – What is the Government saying since the legal ruling? Ministers are 'looking at a range of different contingency options' following Tuesday's ruling, according to security minister Dan Jarvis In the immediate aftermath of the judgment, border security minister Dame Angela Eagle repeated criticism of the previous Conservative government, saying Labour had 'inherited a broken asylum system'. She said the Government would 'continue working with local authorities and communities to address legitimate concerns' around asylum hotels. – What options does the Home Office have now? Last month, amid protests outside the Bell Hotel and more migrants crossing the Channel, an extra 400 spaces were being prepared to house male asylum seekers at RAF Wethersfield in Essex. The former military site, which has a usual capacity of 800 beds, is expected to house more adult men on a short-term basis. The Labour Government scrapped the large site of the Bibby Stockholm barge in Portland, Dorset, earlier this year, while Napier Barracks in Folkestone, Kent, is also due to end housing asylum seekers and be returned to the Ministry of Defence in September. – Why were there protests outside the Bell Hotel? The hotel in Epping has been at the centre of a series of protests in recent weeks after an asylum seeker who was staying there was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl – something he has denied and he is due to stand trial later in August. After the High Court's ruling, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage wrote in the Telegraph calling for Epping protests to inspire further action wherever there are concerns about the 'threat posed by young undocumented males' living in hotels. But on Tuesday more than 100 women's organisations wrote to ministers warning that vital conversations about violence against women and girls are being 'hijacked by an anti-migrant agenda' that fuels divisions and harms survivors. The joint statement, including from Rape Crisis England & Wales and Refuge, said: 'We have been alarmed in recent weeks by an increase in unfounded claims made by people in power, and repeated in the media, that hold particular groups as primarily responsible for sexual violence. 'This not only undermines genuine concerns about women's safety, but also reinforces the damaging myth that the greatest risk of gender-based violence comes from strangers.'
New Statesman
29 minutes ago
- New Statesman
Exclusive poll: Labour voters are rallying to Jeremy Corbyn
Photo by. The new left-wing party in the process of being launched by Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana might lack a name, a leader, and a policy platform beyond tackling 'the crises in our society with a mass redistribution of wealth and power' and 'campaigning for the only path to peace: a free and independent Palestine'. What it doesn't lack is potential supporters. New polling by Ipsos, seen exclusively by the New Statesman, finds that one in three people who voted Labour in 2024 would consider voting for the new Corbyn-Sultana initiative. That figure rises to nearly half (46 per cent) among 2024 Labour voters who would consider voting for an alliance between this new party and the Greens. The new outfit says that over 700,000 people have already signed up on the 'Your Party' website to register their support. For context, Reform UK made national headlines by claiming to have surpassed the Conservatives' membership numbers by hitting 130,000 members last December. Of course, registering for Your Party is free, while there are fees for becoming actual members of political parties (£35 a year for Reform, £39 for the Conservatives, and £70.50 for Labour at the standard rate). But the scale of interest in the new venture is striking, even when virtually nothing is known about it six weeks after Sultana dramatically announced she was quitting Labour for good to set up some kind of alternative. The potential for a left-wing option for those dismayed by the direction Keir Starmer's government has taken in its first year has long been discussed. In June, before Sultana's announcement, George Eaton reported new polling from More In Common which suggested a 'new Corbyn-led party' would win 10 per cent of the vote. Nearly two months later, Ipsos finds that has doubled: 20 per cent of voters consider themselves very or fairly likely to back the Corbyn-Sultana offering, rising to 33 per cent among voters aged 16-34. (A reminder: under government plans the voting age will be lowered to 16 at the next general election.) The big question mark – other than the party's yet-to-be-determined name – is how it interacts with the Green Party. The Greens are spending the summer engaged in a furious leadership contest, with MP duo Ellie Chowns and Adrian Ramsay facing off against 'eco-populist' London Assembly Member Zack Polanski. (If you missed the debate between Polanski and Ramsay on the New Statesman podcast, check it out and watch the sparks fly.) As Megan Kenyon pointed out, Polanski has argued that 'the Greens should occupy a more progressive, populist space on the left in order to confront the infectious populism of Nigel Farage's Reform. He has called for a wealth tax, a better approach to net zero and a more robust left-wing position on immigration.' In vibe terms, that's very similar to the on offer from Corbyn and Sultana. Is there space on the left of British politics for two rival populist parties? Most pollsters and strategists are sceptical, which is why there has been so much talk of some kind of pact or alliance – informal or otherwise – between the two to avoid splitting the vote. The Ipsos polling finds that, while the public on the whole are unsure on the merits of a pact, there is widespread support among people planning to vote for either option: 70 per cent of people who say they would vote for the new left-wing party (it really needs to decide on a name, if only for the sake of word counts) would back an alliance, as would 60 per cent of Green Party supporters. This isn't surprising: an alliance is the best way of avoiding the left-wing vote being split and wasting a whole load of votes. But given how antagonistic the Green leadership contest has already become, plus how much debate and confusion there is over who will lead the new left-wing party, negotiations for how such a pact might work are unlikely to be smooth. Insurgent populism works best when there is a one big-name charismatic leader (just ask Nigel Farage). Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Nonetheless, almost a third of Brits – 31 per cent – would consider voting for a united ticket. That rises to 51 per cent for voters aged 16-34. 'These figures show that a new left-wing party led by Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana has the potential to shake up British politics,' says Keiran Pedley, director of politics at Ipsos. 'A significant number of younger people are at least prepared to consider voting for it and a majority of those aged under 35 say they would consider voting for some kind of alliance between the new party and the Greens. Clear policies around change, the NHS, poverty and wealth taxes could be popular.' That should sharpen minds in Downing Street: however chaotic the launch may have been, and whatever the fate of the last group of high-profile MPs who decided to start their own initiative (farewell, The Independent Group), the appetite for a challenger to the left of Labour is real. Related
New Statesman
29 minutes ago
- New Statesman
Morgan McSweeney unleashes his Farage strategy
Photo by Henry Nicholls/AFP By the way, Britain has the most expensive energy costs in the developed world. We need to build houses, laboratories, data centres and transport – and we have the most expensive energy costs in the developed world. So, clearly, there is a lot of work to be done on the government's objective of 'abundant clean energy'. There is also a lot of work outstanding on all the other four of Keir Starmer's well-chosen 'missions' and all three of his 'foundations'. Those were, to repeat, economic stability, secure borders, national security, kickstarting growth, future-proofing the NHS, smashing the class ceiling, and making the streets safe. Instead, we are still talking about the Online Safety Act. The Labour party is digging its heels in, and is apparently now shaping its entire cyber-strategy around the legislation. The party has released a new advert accusing Nigel Farage, who has criticised the act, of supporting Andrew Tate. The ad shows a picture of the two men together, originally posted by Tate in 2019, and reads 'Nigel Farage says Andrew Tate is an 'important voice' for men. Andrew Tate said women should 'bear responsibility' for being sexually assaulted.' The party is claiming, in effect, that Farage's approach to online safety will leave young boys open to radicalisation. Not long before, champions of the Act had said Farage's opposition put him on the side of Jimmy Savile. Defending the legislation on Sky News, Peter Kyle, Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, said 'Make no mistake about it, if people like Jimmy Savile were alive today, he'd be perpetrating his crimes online. And Nigel Farage is saying that he's on their side.' Kyle later doubled down on X, posting 'If you want to overturn the Online Safety Act you are on the side of predators.' The Tate line may not seem much of a change from the Savile one – it's hard to choose between two such squalid figures. But Labour appears to be pleased with it. The Sunday Times's front page had the details of the ad before it went out. Credit was given to the in-house team at Labour HQ, and an allusion made to a new, macho-sounding 'attack team', designed to undermine Farage and headed by chief of staff Morgan McSweeney. Speaking to the Sunday Times, a senior Labour source proudly said: 'We'll be looking to continue taking the fight to Farage in this area. He's not thought through his approach when it comes to online safety and we'll continue to expose it.' It is hard to know if Labour insiders really believe this about Nigel Farage – if a cack-handed analysis of Tate's popularity really amounts to support for his public statements. It is hard to know if Labour therefore also believe the 525,000 of their citizens who have signed a 'Repeal the Online Safety Act' petition are clamouring to hear more from Andrew Tate – or are 'on the side of predators'. It was similarly hard to know if the party really believed Rishi Sunak did not think adults convicted of sexually assaulting children should go to prison, as an ad claimed in 2023. But the Online Safety Act seems a very strange law to make this stand around. For one thing, it was a Sunak policy, receiving Royal Assent on 26 October 2023. For another, it is unenforceable, since anyone can dodge the restrictions by downloading a VPN. (It has been reported that children's exposure to pornography has gone up since the law was passed.) And lastly, and again, it serves none of the government's main aims. Perhaps sharper eyes would discern wisdom in the move. After all, Morgan McSweeney is praised for his close sense of popular opinion, and for delivering the huge majority that the government still retains. (Though, if his celebrated ruthlessness forced Corbyn's expulsion, he may be remembered for undoing Labour, not saving it.) There is not such a libertarian streak in Britain as there is in, say, America. And, if it needs pointing out, everyone cares about preventing sexual abuse. If half a million people have declared their opposition to the Act, there may be many more quietly in favour. Labour's resolution may turn out to be prudent. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe There are also seedier explanations to be heard. It is a fairly developed rumour in Westminster, and even more so in the technology sector, that Peter Kyle wants Bridget Phillipson's education brief. If closing off dark parts of the internet is popular with anyone, it is popular with nervous parents. Kyle has more background in education than technology, and was briefly shadow minister for schools in 2021. However well advised, Labour is set on raising the stakes. They are telling voters that opposing the bill amounts to supporting predators. And they are taking measures to escalate awareness of the legislation, associating it directly with the Labour party. The gauntlet seems to be 'if you don't like it, don't vote for us'. And, for better or worse, they are shouting it from the rafters. [See also: Sally Rooney is the conscience of a generation] Related
