France could take back Channel migrants under new deal
Sir Keir Starmer is in talks with France to return Channel migrants in a 'one in, one out' deal.
Ministers are understood to hope that they can announce an agreement in principle when Emmanuel Macron, the French president, makes his state visit to the UK next month for the Anglo-French summit.
Under the scheme, Britain would send back Channel migrants to France within weeks of their arrival in return for the UK taking asylum seekers from France.
Home Office sources indicated that a returns scheme was a 'work in progress'.
France has resisted such moves since the Dublin returns agreement was scrapped under Brexit and argued that any new agreement would have to be EU-wide.
However, France opened the door to taking back Channel migrants for the first time after Bruno Retailleau, the French interior minister, said that it would 'send a clear message' to others planning to make the journey.
France has also agreed to start intercepting migrant 'taxi boats' at sea for the first time after previously refusing to do so for fear of breaching maritime safety laws.
The policy change driven through by Mr Retailleau is expected to be confirmed at the summit, which is taking place from July 8-10.
The moves come after small boat crossings hit record levels with more than 18,000 migrants having reached the UK so far this year, up 43 per cent on the same point last year and the highest number since the first arrivals in 2018.
The French have been open to a pilot, one-for-one scheme, which, if successful, could be extended EU-wide.
The EU has previously rejected returns agreements that are only bilateral between two countries.
A deal would be limited to the UK taking asylum seekers in France with family connections in Britain in exchange for a corresponding number of Channel migrants being returned to France.
No 10 has, however, also been studying more ambitious returns schemes.
Senior figures from the European Stability Initiative (ESI) have been invited to Downing Street twice in the past eight months to present their ideas.
In their presentations, ESI proposed almost every Channel migrant would be returned to France within three to four weeks with very occasional exceptions for people with the strongest family connections to the UK.
In return, the UK would agree to take in a capped number of asylum seekers from the EU of, for example, 20,000 a year under a time-limited scheme.
They argued that without a near-100 per cent return rate, there would be no deterrent to crossings, predicting that as soon as it became clear there was no prospect of success, the incentive for migrants to make the dangerous, expensive journeys would evaporate.
The ESI team argued that their scheme could be extended to a wider group of countries than just France.
It also offered them a model for striking their own 'returns' deals with countries that were the source of illegal migrants.
The EU has already backed the creation of return 'hubs' - temporary detention centres in non-EU countries where deported migrants would wait before being sent back.
Sir Keir confirmed last month that the UK was also in talks with a 'number of countries' about return hubs for failed asylum seekers, which he described as a 'really important innovation'.
Home Office sources said it was uncertain whether a deal would be formally announced at the Anglo-French summit.
However, they will face pressure not to limit the number of migrants they can send back to France.
Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, warned that the scheme would fail unless all illegal migrants were denied asylum in the UK and removed from Britain.
'We pay the French half a billion pounds to wave the boats off from Calais, and in return we get a merry-go-round where the same number still come here,' he said.
'The French are failing to stop the boats at sea, failing to return them like the Belgians do, and now instead of demanding real enforcement, Labour are trying a 'one in, one out' gimmick.
'If Labour were serious, they would not have scrapped the returns deterrent the National Crime Agency said we needed – instead, they've surrendered our immigration system. Pathetic.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
31 minutes ago
- The Independent
Government expected to unveil welfare concessions after talks with Labour rebels
Labour rebels are understood to have been offered concessions by the Government on its controversial welfare reforms, with an announcement expected shortly. Number 10 had been locked in crisis talks with backbenchers after some 126 MPs within the party signed an amendment that would halt the legislation in its tracks. On Thursday night, sources said a deal was being thrashed out between leading rebels and the Government as it seeks to head off the prospect of Sir Keir Starmer's first Commons defeat in a crunch vote next week. The Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill has its second reading on Tuesday, the first opportunity for MPs to support or reject it. If the legislation clears its first hurdle, it will then face a few hours' examination by all MPs the following week – rather than days or weeks in front of a committee tasked with looking at the Bill. The Government's original package restricted eligibility for the personal independence payment (Pip), the main disability payment in England, and limited the sickness-related element of universal credit. Existing claimants were to be given a 13-week phase-out period of financial support in an earlier move that was seen as a bid to head off opposition by aiming to soften the impact of the changes. However, concessions offered by the Government to save the Bill from defeat are understood to include a commitment that those currently receiving Pip will continue to get the allowance. This would protect some 370,000 existing claimants who were expected to lose out following reassessment. Ministers had hoped the reforms would get more people back into work and save up to £5 billion a year, but fresh changes such as these would leave Chancellor Rachel Reeves needing to find more money elsewhere. Rebels had also been calling for the Government to row back on a freeze in the health element of universal credit, which was expected to lead to a £450 real decline in support for some 2.2 million existing claimants. The Government had earlier said it was listening to suggestions to improve the legislation amid concerns about the swift timetable of the Bill. The so-called 'reasoned amendment' led by Treasury select committee chairwoman Dame Meg Hillier had argued that disabled people have not been properly consulted and further scrutiny of the changes is needed. Speaking in the Commons earlier, Sir Keir told MPs he wanted the reforms to demonstrate 'Labour values of fairness' and that discussions about the changes would continue over the coming days. He said there was 'consensus across the House on the urgent need for reform' of the 'broken' welfare system. 'I know colleagues across the House are eager to start fixing that, and so am I, and that all colleagues want to get this right, and so do I,' he said. 'We want to see reform implemented with Labour values of fairness. 'That conversation will continue in the coming days, so we can begin making change together on Tuesday.' There was mixed reaction among charities to the prospect of concessions. Learning disability charity Mencap said the news would be a 'huge relief to thousands of people living in fear of what the future holds'. 'It is the right thing to do and sends a clear message – cutting disability benefits is not a fair way to mend the black hole in the public purse,' director of strategy Jackie O'Sullivan said. But the MS Society urged rebels to hold firm and block the Bill, insisting any Government offer to water down the reforms would amount to 'kicking the can down the road and delaying an inevitable disaster'. Head of campaigns at the charity, Charlotte Gill, said: 'We urge MPs not to be swayed by these last ditch attempts to force through a harmful Bill with supposed concessions. 'The only way to avoid a catastrophe today and in the future is to stop the cuts altogether by halting the Bill in its tracks.' The Tories described concessions as 'the latest in a growing list of screeching U-turns' from the Government. Shadow chancellor Mel Stride said: 'Under pressure from his own MPs Starmer has made another completely unfunded spending commitment. 'Labour's welfare chaos will cost hardworking taxpayers. 'We can't afford Labour.'
Daily Mail
36 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Knives out for 'the real deputy PM' as Sue Gray seeks revenge on the man who helped oust her, reveals ANDREW PIERCE
At a glitzy fundraising gala for one of Labour 's rising stars on Monday night, the mood was buoyant. The party faithful cheered speakers including Lord Mandelson, now ambassador to Washington, Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds and Chief Secretary to the Treasury Darren Jones. Unusually, another figure who prefers to lurk in the shadows was spotted at the event, where tickets cost up to £200. Standing quietly to the side in the Ev Turkish restaurant in Southwark was Morgan McSweeney, 48, the No 10 chief of staff. Labour insiders tell me that McSweeney is the real Deputy Prime Minister, wielding far more clout than the hapless Angela Rayner, who carries that title 'in name only'. Perhaps McSweeney's attendance was unsurprising. After all, the purpose of the event was to raise money for his wife: Imogen Walker, the Labour member for Hamilton and Clyde Valley. She became an MP only at last year's election, but is already rising fast. She is parliamentary private secretary to Chancellor Rachel Reeves, so McSweeney has eyes and ears in the heart of the Treasury as well as at No 10. Today, as Labour's civil war escalates over the Government's plan to cut billions from the ballooning disability benefits bill, McSweeney's unshakeable grip on the party machine – and his reputation as one of the canniest operators in Westminster – appears to be collapsing. Yesterday, reports emerged that unnamed Labour MPs have been demanding 'regime change' in No 10 – and the ousting of Starmer's team of 'over-excitable boys'. One authoritative source tells me: 'What they mean by 'regime change' is 'sack McSweeney'. We haven't even got to the Government's first anniversary next week but the No 10 kitchen cabinet already has bunker mentality. Morgan has been semi-detached from the benefits row, which is hugely damaging.' This very point was underlined by Starmer on Wednesday at the Nato summit in Holland. The PM waved away the benefits row – which could yet see a sensational defeat for his government despite its vast majority of 165 – as 'noises off'. This airy dismissal saw the number of rebels swell to almost 130, among them, crucially, 14 select committee chairmen: senior MPs immune to the usual threats and blandishments from party whips. The opponents need only 83 MPs to scupper the Bill and inflict a humiliating defeat on Starmer next week. A second source tells me: 'Keir seems more exercised by managing relations with Donald Trump than he is with his own backbenchers.' Once again, insiders point to the hand of McSweeney. In February, he was photographed sitting near Starmer in the White House when the PM met Trump. My source adds: 'McSweeney thinks 'Starmer the international statesman' plays well with voters. But what voters actually see is: Keir's never here.' Yesterday, research from the BBC showed that Starmer has voted in the Commons on fewer occasions in his first year as PM than all his recent predecessors (excluding Liz Truss's brief tenure): just seven times, barely half the record managed by runner-up Tony Blair. Boris Johnson came top with 57. As the welfare blame-game swirls, I can reveal that two sides are forming in the Downing Street bunker. In one corner is McSweeney, who I'm told is 'obsessed' with the threat posed by Reform after Nigel Farage's stunning recent successes in the local elections and the Runcorn by-election. In the other corner is Liz Lloyd, a Downing Street veteran and Starmer's 'director of policy delivery'. While Morgan worries about Reform, Lloyd wants more emphasis on economic growth and schools policy. Morgan sees cutting sickness benefits as playing well with Reform voters – but Labour MPs are unconvinced the policy is worth it. 'Team Morgan is in denial and in chaos,' says one furious party figure. 'They're making things worse, not better. It's one thing to shake up welfare to try to get millions of economically inactive people back into work – but this is targeting the sick and disabled. Keir has a tin ear because he's been listening to Morgan for too long.' Only yesterday, a YouGov poll, the most extensive since the general election, showed Labour on course to plunge from 411 MPs to 178 at the next election – with Reform roaring ahead to become the largest party on 271 seats. Starmer's personal rating is at a record low of minus 46 per cent. McSweeney cites such polls as vindication for his emphasis on fighting Reform – but his enemies say that Starmer, as a self-professed socialist, is never going to convince voters he's 'Farage-lite', and that Labour's best approach is instead to tack to the Left to see off the threat of the Greens and Lib Dems. Friends of McSweeney have told me there are rumours that the briefing against him is coming from Louise Haigh – sacked as Transport Secretary by Starmer last year and still smarting. McSweeney fired her in November after it emerged she had pleaded guilty to a fraud offence a decade earlier. Haigh is close to Baroness (Sue) Gray, who was ousted by McSweeney as chief of staff in October after just three months in the job. Gray, the former 'neutral' civil servant who helped defenestrate Boris Johnson during the 'Partygate' farrago – and who went on to sign up as a paid senior Labour official – was blamed for the ugly PR debacle over free suits and spectacles greedily accepted by Starmer and other senior Labour figures from donor Lord Alli. Many Labour MPs have convinced themselves that purple-haired Haigh was hard done by – and that 'macho' McSweeney went too far. Gray is said to be bitter on a personal level, too – and loathes McSweeney for orchestrating her early political demise. 'This is Lou and Sue's revenge on Morgan,' one senior female Labour adviser tells me. 'Sue will be wryly observing the unfolding chaos in the Downing Street machine, which she used to run, from her new perch in the Lords.' Labour ultra-grandee Tony Blair, too, is said to be privately critical of McSweeney's approach. The buck, however, ultimately stops not with McSweeney, but with Starmer. The PM's critics say he lacks any serious political convictions or instincts, having entered Parliament in 2015 after decades as a human rights lawyer, and having run for the party leadership on a far-Left Corbynista ticket before tacking to the centre ground to woo Middle England at the election, before finally governing on an unoriginal Old Labour tax-and-spend playbook. Starmer likes to think of McSweeney as his political barometer – yet the equipment seems increasingly faulty. According to party lore, Irishman McSweeney – who came to Britain aged 17 – was on a placement to Labour's Millbank HQ a few days before the 2001 general election when a receptionist dropped a vase on her foot and had to be signed off work. McSweeney, the story goes, was asked to step in and man the desk – and has never looked back. (Interestingly, Lord Mandelson, who was a fixture at Labour HQ during the campaign, has no recollection of the 24-year-old manning the reception desk – and to this day, several members of Blair's Cabinet are bewildered by McSweeney's rise.) Regardless, he eventually made his name running Labour Together: a think-tank set up to engineer the end of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership during the 2010s. After Corbyn led his party to its worst election defeat since 1935 in 2019, McSweeney moved effortlessly to Starmer's side, with the new leader appointing him as his chief of staff. At Monday night's fundraiser, thousands of pounds were raised for Imogen Walker's constituency work. Yet it may all be for little: yesterday's doom-laden poll predicts she will lose her Commons seat at the next election. If the rumbles of discontent over the No 10 operation grow louder still, it may be that McSweeney is out of a job even sooner than his wife – and you can be sure that Blair's former adviser Liz Lloyd will happily take his place.
Daily Mail
38 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE The 'useful idiots' in the Prime Minister's ranks who blew up the law to prevent the hounding of veterans
A former Conservative minister has described military veterans in the Labour Party as 'useful idiots' after they tore up his law to protect soldiers. Johnny Mercer, the architect of the Legacy Act, took aim at the former troops who have left Northern Ireland veterans exposed. The former Veterans Minister brought in the first legislation to shield service personnel from historical witch hunts. Mr Mercer, who served in Afghanistan, blamed veterans who joined the Labour Party for undoing his work. The current Veterans Minister is Al Carns, a former Royal Marines officer. Action to remove protections for troops has happened on his watch. Yesterday, the Mail launched a campaign to stop the betrayal of British troops hounded by the threat of legal action decades after their service. The newspaper is demanding ministers U-turn on their bid to repeal the Legacy Act or produce a proper alternative. Last night, a petition calling for the protections of Northern Ireland veterans had reached just under 150,000 signatures. There will be a full parliamentary debate on the issue on July 14. It comes as former SAS soldiers face possible murder charges after a judge in Northern Ireland ruled the shooting of four IRA terrorists in 1992 was unlawful. Yesterday, the Mail's campaign received fulsome backing from MPs, including Sir David Davis and Tory defence spokesman Mark Francois. Last night Mr Mercer, who is no longer an MP, said: 'Veterans in the Labour Party should hang their heads in shame. 'They have become modern day useful idiots in a party determined to shout about veteran credentials then roll back all the important advances made by the previous government. 'None more so than legislation to protect our people from vexatious prosecutions in Northern Ireland. I made promises to veterans and I kept them. It took almost ten years. To repeal what we fought so hard for is frankly unconscionable. The hounding of these veterans is fundamentally unjust. So we kept going to produce the Legacy Act. 'I am proud of that and I fully support what the Mail is doing to ensure soldiers are protected.' The Labour manifesto at last year's general election included a pledge to repeal the 'unlawful' act. This followed a ruling by a court in Northern Ireland on clauses in the act providing conditional immunity from prosecutions for Troubles-era crimes. The act also introduced a ban on inquests and future civil actions related to the same period. In February 2024, the High Court in Belfast found these were in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 2 of the ECHR places an investigative duty on the state where its agents may have been involved in causing death or serious injury. In such circumstances, countries that are signatories to the convention are obliged to conduct an effective and independent investigation. In parliament yesterday Mr Francois said: 'The present Labour government intends to use a Remedial Act to remove key provisions within the Act. 'This will open the endless cycle of investigation and re-investigation, often by coronial inquests. This policy is a disaster for recruitment and retention and we vigorously oppose it. In that context, we warmly welcome the Daily Mail's campaign, launched this morning, to defend our veterans.' Mr Francois, who served as a defence minister in a previous Conservative government also quoted the Mail's editorial which said it was 'profoundly unfair that frail ex-servicemen will continue to live in dread of a knock on the door by the authorities, while IRA murderers sleep easily, with letters of immunity handed to them by Tony Blair'. In the same debate, Sir David said: 'This is not just about Special Forces, it is about all of the armed forces. There are about 20 inquests into actions by government agencies that could be restarted after the end of the legacy legislation. 'If we continue down this path we will betray our past and jeopardise our future. The Mail's campaign has received fulsome backing from MPs, including Sir David Davis and Tory defence spokesman Mark Francois 'This campaign of persecution sends a chilling message to the next generation: serve your country, risk your life and face prosecution in your old age. Why would any young man or woman sign up for that.' The case at the centre of the campaign involved 12 SAS soldiers facing possible murder charges over the 1992 shooting of four IRA terrorists. Police concluded at the time there should be no prosecutions. But earlier this year a coroner ruled their use of force was excessive, despite the terrorists being armed with a heavy machine gun and other weapons. Files have been passed to the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland. A move which could trigger a criminal investigation. Last night, the Northern Ireland Secretary, Hilary Benn, said: 'The Legacy Act has been found by our domestic courts to be unlawful. 'Any incoming government would have to repeal unlawful legislation and it is wrong for anyone to suggest otherwise. 'The Defence Secretary and I are engaging with our veterans community and with all interested parties over future legislation and we will ensure there are far better protections in place. 'We owe it to all who were affected by the Troubles across the United Kingdom to be honest about the unworkability of the Legacy Act and to get this new legislation right.'
