logo
Cross-Channel migrants to be detained as France treaty comes into force

Cross-Channel migrants to be detained as France treaty comes into force

Leader Live2 days ago
The deal, which has now been approved by the European Commission, means the UK will be able to send people crossing the Channel in small boats back to France in exchange for asylum seekers with ties to Britain.
It also means that anyone arriving in a small boat can be detained immediately, and space has been set aside at immigration removal centres in the expectation that detentions will begin within days.
The Prime Minister said the ratification of the treaty will 'send a clear message – if you come here illegally on a small boat you will face being sent back to France'.
But opposition parties have criticised the deal amid reports that the pilot scheme will see only 50 people a week returned to France while this year has seen a weekly average of more than 800 people make the crossing.
The deal has also been criticised by refugee charities, which have urged the Government to provide more safe, legal routes for asylum seekers instead.
Ministers have so far declined to say how many people could be returned under the deal, and insist that if the pilot is successful the figure will increase.
Under the terms of the agreement, announced during French President Emmanuel Macron's state visit last month, adults arriving on small boats will face being returned to France if their asylum claim is inadmissible.
In exchange, the same number of people will be able to come to the UK on a new legal route, provided they have not attempted a crossing before and subject to documentation and security checks.
The Home Office said it had also learned from the 'lengthy legal challenges' over the previous government's Rwanda scheme and would 'robustly defend' any attempts to block removal through the courts.
It is the first such deal with France, with the pilot scheme set to run until June 2026, pending a longer-term agreement.
Sir Keir said the deal was 'The product of months of grown-up diplomacy delivering real results for British people'.
He added: 'The days of gimmicks and broken promises are over – we will restore order to our borders with the seriousness and competence the British people deserve.'
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said it was 'an important step towards undermining the business model of the organised crime gangs that are behind these crossings – undermining their claims that those who travel to the UK illegally can't be returned to France'.
Ratification of the deal comes as both Britain and France battle to bring the small boats problem under control, with 2025 on course to be a record year for crossings.
Some 25,436 people have already made the journey this year, according to PA news agency analysis of Home Office figures – 49% higher than at the same point in 2024.
The issue has also sparked concern that a series of protests outside hotels housing asylum seekers could lead to public disorder similar to last year's riots.
On Monday, the Home Office announced it was providing another £100 million to tackle people smuggling and would introduce new powers to seize devices from people suspected of facilitating crossings.
Ministers have also launched a crackdown on illegal working in an effort to reduce the 'pull factors' said to be encouraging people to make the journey, while French authorities have changed their guidance to allow police officers to intercept boats while they are in shallow waters.
Shadow home secretary Chris Philp attacked the plans, saying they would return 'just 6% of illegal arrivals' and 'make no difference whatsoever'.
He added: 'The Rwanda removals deterrent, under which 100% of illegal arrivals would be removed, was ready to go last summer but Labour cancelled it just days before it was due to start with no proper replacement plan. As a result, this year so far has been the worst ever for illegal immigrants crossing the Channel.
'Only removing all illegal immigrants upon arrival will provide the necessary deterrent to stop the crossings. This is the Conservative plan, but Labour is too weak to implement it and as a result they have lost control of our borders.'
While the Conservatives' Rwanda plan was in theory uncapped, it was expected to take only around 1,000 asylum seekers in its first five years of operation thanks to limited capacity in the East African nation.
The plan, which Sir Keir had previously dismissed as a 'gimmick', was scrapped as one of the first acts of the incoming Labour Government last year.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

A long-term plan is needed to get the country out of its financial hole
A long-term plan is needed to get the country out of its financial hole

Telegraph

time10 minutes ago

  • Telegraph

A long-term plan is needed to get the country out of its financial hole

SIR – Whether by raising income tax rates, a wealth tax or through less overt measures, the Government will try to extract more money from the people that it serves ('Reeves facing £50bn black hole as tax pressure mounts ', report, August 6). However, such measures risk being self-defeating. Those who are unable or unwilling to leave the country will bear the brunt of the tax rises. That includes standard and higher-rate taxpayers. Every pound the Government extracts from their bank accounts is a pound that cannot be spent on businesses that provide goods and services. Thus, businesses will take another hit which, in turn, will reduce their tax payments. Since the failure of the Truss administration, there has been no long-term plan to get the country out of its financial hole. Eventually, there will have to be one and it will likely involve curbing the insatiable appetite of government to control and spend. When such a plan sees the light of day we may be surprised at the boost it gives to confidence and investment. David Porter Plymouth, Devon SIR – Labour dug itself a financial hole when it pledged not to increase National Insurance (NI), VAT or income tax rates. Instead of imposing VAT on private schools and possibly even on private health, a simple 1 or 2 per cent rise on NI and/or the basic rate of income tax would have solved the Chancellor's problems. Now she is having to cast her net wider – and creating more problems as a result. John Tilsiter Radlett, Hertfordshire SIR – Taxing jobs and taxing capital is not going to result in economic growth. Is it too much to expect a former Bank of England economist to grasp this? Patrick Loxdale Aberystwyth, Ceredigion SIR – There is a limit to which any economy can be taxed. The UK is at that limit. The British public understands this. It is plain that public sector expenditure must be cut to balance the books. Given the Government throws billions around like confetti – on the Chagos Islands, the immigration fiasco, welfare, public sector pay rises, excessive numbers of civil servants – there is much low-hanging fruit. The economy is being badly managed as never before. Enough is enough. Please can we have some economic sanity. Stuart Moore Bramham, West Yorkshire SIR – Having continually criticised the Conservatives for the last 12 months for creating a £22bn black hole in the public finances, I trust Labour will now be constantly criticising itself for doubling the deficit. Paul Webster Dyserth, Denbighshire

Millions of households will be hit with council tax hikes to pay for Angela Rayner's Government funding reforms
Millions of households will be hit with council tax hikes to pay for Angela Rayner's Government funding reforms

Daily Mail​

time40 minutes ago

  • Daily Mail​

Millions of households will be hit with council tax hikes to pay for Angela Rayner's Government funding reforms

Households in wealthy areas could be hit with huge council tax rises under Angela Rayner 's plans to divert more funding to deprived regions, experts warned last night. Reforms being brought in by the Deputy Prime Minister will mean many councils in the South – including London and the Home Counties – face swingeing cuts to their core budgets. Those in the Midlands and North can expect to see large increases. A report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies suggests the funding changes will see around a quarter of councils in England lose money in real terms – creating big 'winners and losers' as ministers try to address perceived unfairness in levels of funding across the country. However, the strength of cuts in wealthy areas that have historically kept council tax bills low means they will have less money to spend on vital services such as bin collections and elderly care – even if they increase bills by the maximum amount currently allowed. The report suggests that local authorities with low council tax that will lose funding should be able to make it up by hiking their rates on households even further. Kate Ogden, a senior research economist at the think-tank and the report's author, said: 'The Government should consider giving highly affected councils which currently have low council tax rates greater flexibility to bring their council tax bills up to more typical levels to offset funding losses.' Sir Keir Starmer's own council, Camden in north London, will be hit by the reforms when taking inflation into account, the IFS predicted. Overall spending will fall for 186 councils and rise by the same total sum for 161. One in ten will see a fall in overall funding, while one in ten will see an increase of 10 per cent or more. The overall Government spend on local authorities will not change, as the reforms are phased in across three years, from 2026/27 to 2028/29. London will gain the least under the changes with an increase in funding of 8 per cent in the next three years. Outside the capital, the East Midlands (22 per cent) and Yorkshire & the Humber (19 per cent) will see the biggest increases in funding, with the South East the smallest at 13 per cent. A spokesman for Ms Rayner's Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said it was 'taking decisive action to reform the funding system so we can get councils back on their feet and improve public services'.

The case for an independent Kent
The case for an independent Kent

Spectator

time43 minutes ago

  • Spectator

The case for an independent Kent

I'm just back from Vancouver, where I was speaking at a fundraiser for the Free Speech Union of Canada. At the dinner afterwards I sat next to an Alberta separatist, a movement I was unaware of until now. Dating to the 19th century, it advocates for the secession of the province of Alberta and has been given a renewed impetus by the federal government's hostility to fossil fuels under Justin Trudeau and now Mark Carney. Petroleum is Alberta's biggest industry by far, and the revenue generated by energy exports means the province is a big contributor to Canada's national budget, with its net contributions dwarfing those of other provinces. Shouldn't Canada's liberal prime ministers just say 'thank you' instead of wagging their fingers at Albertans for not doing more to save the planet? Not surprisingly, the separatist party has done well in recent elections, and 65 per cent of United Conservative party voters say they would vote for independence in a referendum. I was told this could take place within a year. This gave me an idea about how to fix Britain's immigration problem. Why doesn't Kent county council, which changed hands from the Conservatives to Reform in May, demand that Kent secede from the United Kingdom? If it became independent it would not be bound by the European Convention on Human Rights and would have much more latitude when it comes to turning back the boats, processing asylum seekers offshore and deporting those illegal immigrants currently accommodated in hotels. I suppose it's possible the people-smugglers might steer their dinghies towards East Sussex instead, but that county could then follow suit. Indeed, the entire south coast could become an independent sovereign state. I know, I know. Wouldn't it be simpler to withdraw from the ECHR than to break up the UK? That's the policy of Reform UK, but there are political difficulties. For one, it might jeopardise the Good Friday Agreement, which refers to the ECHR in several of its provisions. That's because the only way to persuade Sinn Fein to sign up was to assure them the human rights of former terrorists would be protected by Strasbourg rather than the hated British judiciary. Would they regard the agreement as void if Britain withdrew from the Convention? Another problem with withdrawing is that it might derail the Trade and Cooperation Agreement with the EU. The EU has the right to terminate the part relating to 'Law Enforcement and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters' if the UK is no longer bound by the Convention. Not everyone thinks these are insurmountable obstacles. Lord Lilley, one of my Tory colleagues on the red benches, wrote an excellent paper last month for the Centre for Policy Studies in which he argued that the Belfast Agreement could survive Britain's departure from the Convention provided ECHR rights remain incorporated into Northern Ireland law, and while it's true that the EU could stop co-operating with the UK when it comes to tackling crime, why would it? 'To forgo that co-operation would be a self-inflicted loss,' he says. But I'm not confident that Nigel Farage, newly installed in No. 10, would hold his nerve when Sir Humphrey pointed out these problems. 'I think you'll find there are some more nuanced positions you could take that would confound your critics, Prime Minister.' A wily cabinet secretary would also point out that even if the UK did withdraw, it would still be party to the Geneva Refugee Convention and obliged to offer asylum to anyone with a 'well-founded fear of persecution'. The beauty of my proposal is that the newly independent country of Kentland wouldn't be bound by the Refugee Convention either. According to Article 16 of the Vienna Convention on Succession of States: 'A newly independent State is not bound to maintain in force, or to become a party to, any treaty by reason only of the fact that at the date of the succession of States the treaty was in force in respect of the territory to which the succession of States relates.' Admittedly, that Convention has not yet been widely ratified, but m'learned friends tell me this 'clean slate' principle is broadly accepted. So there's the solution. Make Kent – or the entire south coast if necessary – an independent sovereign state and dispatch a bunch of Reform councillors armed with harpoons to intercept the small boats. Any undocumented migrants that got through could be sent to the Isle of Sheppey for 'processing'. I imagine the prospect of being held in a pen on Sheep Island for several years would be enough to put off even the most determined.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store