Starmer's migrant plan set to be sunk before it's launched: Campaigners threaten to scupper return deal with France - as Brussels assesses whether scheme complies with EU law
Only a day after unveiling the scheme alongside Emmanuel Macron, the Prime Minister was facing objections from Europe and charities that helped ground the Tories ' Rwanda plan.
The new scheme was condemned by campaigners, who said they would support court cases brought by small-boat arrivals chosen to be sent back to France. A border union boss said the legal challenges could take a year.
Brussels ominously warned that it was assessing whether the scheme complied with the 'spirit and the letter of the law', while governments including Italy were said to be harbouring 'huge doubts' about its legality.
It came as Home Secretary Yvette Cooper refused to say how many of the thousands arriving by dinghy will be removed under the pilot scheme, amid fears it could be even fewer than the 50 a week suggested by French officials this week.
Migrants waiting in Calais camps yesterday laughed off any suggestions the deal was a deterrent, and were already seemingly aware of how to defy attempts to send them back.
Another 573 people made it across the Channel in ten boats on Thursday, the day the Anglo-French deal was announced, taking the record tally for the year so far to 21,690.
Last night, Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp told the Mail: 'This pathetic arrangement may be sunk by legal challenges from activist lawyers and irresponsible charities who want to facilitate illegal immigration into the UK.
The new scheme was condemned by campaigners, who said they would support court cases brought by small-boat arrivals chosen to be sent back to France
'With illegal immigration across the Channel so far this year hitting record levels, Keir Starmer must now be bitterly regretting his foolish decision to cancel the Rwanda deterrent scheme before it even started.
'After two years of legal challenges and legislation, the scheme was ready to go, but Starmer cancelled it just days before the first plane was due to take off last July.
'This would have enabled 100 per cent of the illegal immigrants to be immediately removed without judicial interference.
'The boats would soon have stopped. But Starmer is too weak and too mentally enslaved by his human rights lawyer friends to do what is needed to protect our country's borders.'
Downing Street insisted the controversial 'one in, one out' agreement was legally sound and that Brussels supported it.
But fearing that returned migrants could head to Italy, the country's interior minister told Sky News: 'We know the EU Commission is still evaluating the agreement, and EU countries, including us, have huge doubts about security and legal aspects of the deal.'
A spokesman for the commission said: 'On the specific envisaged co-operation between France and the United Kingdom, the commission will assess the concrete modalities of this co-operation.
'And, of course, we continue to work with France and the UK, as well as other EU member states, to support solutions that are compatible with the spirit and the letter of EU law.'
Ms Cooper said the new arrangement would 'fundamentally undermine' the people-smuggling gangs fuelling the crisis, adding that the Government had done 'a lot of work to make sure that the system is robust to legal challenges'.
A No 10 spokesman said: 'France is a safe country – that's an important point.
'A lot of work has been carried out already to make sure this new scheme is robust to legal challenge and we are confident this scheme complies with both domestic and international law.'
But Steve Peers, professor of law at Royal Holloway University, said the deal could be opposed by the European Commission – which could mean a case being brought against France in the EU's top court.
He said it could also be challenged by individuals in the UK. One possible avenue would be for a returnee to question why they have been singled out given that only a fraction of those arriving will be returned.
'I can imagine someone is going to try it,' Professor Peers told the Mail.
A charity which helped block the Tories' Rwanda scheme warned Labour it would do the same with the new French deal.
A Care4Calais spokesman said: 'Care4Calais initiated legal challenges against the last Government's Rwanda policy and their attempts to introduce 'pushbacks' in the Channel – and we won.
'We will consider all options open to us to oppose any plans that will put more lives at risk and involve governments trading humans.'
Fizza Qureshi, chief executive of the Migrants' Rights Network, said the group 'stands against this deal in its entirety' and 'looks forward to supporting those at risk of deportation in challenging removal in the courts'.
Lucy Moreton, of the Immigration Services Union that represents Border Force officers, said delays were likely when selecting those to be returned.
'The issue is going to be around how you identify that individual and any legal challenge that flows from that. The legal challenge that arises from it could take a year,' she told the BBC.
One Home Office insider told the Mail: 'One of the things that is most likely to scupper this is the modern slavery laws here. These are really likely to screw them up.
'The threshold for making a modern slavery claim is absurdly low – thanks to Theresa May, who brought in these laws – and someone only has to have a story that sounds plausible to get their entire case put on hold. That means they can't be deported while it's being considered.'
The Home Office received a record 19,122 modern slavery claims last year – up 13 per cent on 2023 – and cases are taking an average of more than two years to reach a conclusion.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
28 minutes ago
- The Independent
MPs urge ministers to introduce long-awaited rules on supply chain deforestation
MPs have called on ministers to introduce long-awaited rules aimed at removing products from UK shelves that have been farmed on land where trees were cut down. The Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) wrote to Environment Secretary Steve Reed calling for urgent action to tackle the issue in supply chains. Under the previous Government's proposals, businesses will be prohibited from using or selling goods containing palm oil, cocoa, beef, leather and soy linked to deforestation. This due diligence system was part of the 2021 Environment Act but ministers are yet to bring forward the necessary secondary legislation or set a timetable for when they will do so. EAC chairman Toby Perkins asked Mr Reed to set out a specific date for introducing the legislation 'ideally before the New Year' so that the rules can be in place for the new financial year in April. The letter said: 'Delays in bringing forward this legislation makes the Cop15 agreement to halt and reverse biodiversity loss, and the UK's commitment to ending deforestation and forest degradation by 2030, harder to achieve. 'However, it also leaves businesses with uncertainty and will leave them with less time to prepare and comply with the regime. 'On 2 June, in your response to the Committee, you recognised the urgency of taking action to ensure forest risk commodities are not driving deforestation and stated you would set out the Government approach in due course.' Several British supermarkets recently warned that they are in 'limbo' waiting for the Government to introduce the new rules. In an open letter earlier this month, retailers such as Tesco, Sainsbury's and Lidl said deforestation presents an increasing risk to supply chain stability as well as food security. But they also said the UK could suffer millions in export losses to the European Union if Government inaction leaves businesses unprepared to comply with the bloc's own deforestation rules, which are due to come into force at the end of this year. Asked recently whether the Government has a timetable for introducing the legislation, the Environment Secretary told the PA news agency: 'Currently no, but we are working at pace so we can do this as quickly as possible.' On the supermarkets' letter and whether the Government is looking to speed up progress on introducing the rules, Mr Reed said: 'Absolutely.' 'I agree with the supermarkets,' he said. 'The previous Government was just dragging their heels without ever coming to a conclusion about what we do about protecting forests in other countries as well as in our own country. 'And of course forests, trees, woodlands were very important for capturing carbon and cleaning the atmosphere so we don't want to be importing food that has been grown where the forests have been destroyed. 'The Government is working with supermarkets, with food producers and internationally to make sure we get the outcome and we can do that as soon as possible to give everybody certainty about how we move forward on this.'
The Independent
28 minutes ago
- The Independent
What does the overturning of a City trader's fraud conviction mean for deregulation?
Tom Hayes, the former City trader who was jailed in 2015 for his part in rigging inter-bank interest rates, the so-called Libor scandal – was a patsy. The former UBS and Citigroup trader was convicted and sentenced to 14 years in prison, later reduced to 11. This week, that conviction was quashed by the Supreme Court. I'm all for white collar criminals getting their just desserts, but Hayes' penalty always seemed more than a little excessive. It is more than twice what the rogue trader Nick Leeson got for bringing down Barings Bank. However, proportionality never came into this. Hayes' trial was designed to deliver a head on a plate to a public that was justifiably angry about what the City was getting up to after the bankers nearly crashed the economy. There was a widespread feeling that overpaid boys – and they were mostly boys – with massively inflated egos and little sense of morality were thumbing their noses at the rest of Britain, which was just starting to feel the impact of the then-government's austerity policies. But Hayes, who ended up serving five-and-a-half years, had nothing to do with that crisis, and contributed not a whit to austerity. Libor – the interest rate at which key banks were willing to lend unsecured loans to each other – was unregulated at the time, which also wasn't Hayes' fault, but rather an issue for the politicians and regulators who were asleep at the wheel. It did ultimately set the rate for a number of loans, including some mortgages, but the day-to-day activities of Hayes and his peers didn't have much effect on what ordinary borrowers paid. No one was able to convincingly show any, otherwise we would have seen a string of compensation claims. The chief losers were likely other trading desks, which were often playing the same game anyway. That's not to justify what went on. Cheating is still cheating, and the whole business knocked confidence in the City and its markets. But, then, the whole system was a joke. 'Tom Hayes' penalty always seemed more than a little excessive. It is more than twice what the rogue trader Nick Leeson got for bringing down Barings Bank' (PA Wire) Libor was set based on what some rube at Bank A estimated would be their cost of borrowing from other banks. These were put together, and a daily rate declared. If a hotshot trader got in touch, suggesting that the Libor guy tweak their Tuesday submission to help their trading position, they tended to comply. This is how the scandal got going. Needless to say, all this was unregulated. Yes, you read that right. Stupid is as stupid does, and this was really stupid. The Financial Services Authority, which was then the City's chief watchdog, ended up using failings in systems and controls and violations of its principles of business to justify the chunky fines it ultimately levied on the banks involved. Back to Hayes: the Supreme Court didn't completely exonerate him. It said there was 'ample evidence' during the trial that could have led to a conviction. But the judges raised issues with the trial judge's summing up, the directions given to the jury, and the impact it had on Hayes' defence. This was deemed to be unfair and the conviction unsafe as a result. It wouldn't be a surprise to see the other seven convicted traders up next. Similar cases have also been quashed in the US. The whole deck of cards is collapsing. The Serious Fraud Office said it would not seek to re-try Hayes or Carlo Palombo, another former trader, at Barclays, who received a four-year sentence for manipulating another benchmarked interest rate, Euribor, but has also won his appeal. They've done their time, and it's unlikely that the taxpayer will be coughing up any compo. Best sweep this one under the carpet because who wants all that stupid aired in public again, right? Here's the problem. The government had promised to deregulate financial services in the hope that reducing its oversight of the financial sector would light a fire under the City of London, boost the UK's stalling economy and bring in the tax revenues that the Treasury is in dire need of. This will likely involve loosening the rules governing the conduct of senior bankers that were ushered in following the 2008 credit crunch and the wave of scandals that followed in its wake, including interest-rate fixing. Can you see the problem with that? I think Andrew Bailey, governor of the Bank of England, can. Earlier this week, he advised the Treasury select committee that any big reforms to dramatically loosen City regulation – what the chancellor Rachel Reeves described in her Mansion House speech as a "boot on the neck" of business – and encourage more risk-taking might actually do more harm than good. He hinted that it might even trigger another financial meltdown. If traders can find an edge, an opening, they will jump on it. It was ever thus. They had good reason to think they had with Libor and that they were okay because there weren't any proper rules in place at the time. Their bosses will either turn a blind eye, just as they did then, or quietly encourage it, especially if the numbers come up good. And when this results in another scandal, there will be fines, which banks see as the cost of doing business, and an attempt to find another Tom Hayes to carry the can. The supervising bosses, who do the hiring and set the culture and who are supposed to be on top of what their banks are up to, will ride out the storm and pocket their bonuses as they always have. Justice, of a sort, has been served this time. But as for all that talk we heard about lessons being learned? They never are.
The Guardian
28 minutes ago
- The Guardian
UK police hold pro-Palestine protester, 80, for almost 27 hours and search house
An 80-year-old woman arrested for holding a placard at a pro-Palestine rally has said she is deeply traumatised after she was held by police for almost 27 hours, during which officers forced their way into her house and searched it. Marianne Sorrell from Wells, Somerset was detained at a rally in Cardiff on suspicion of supporting Palestine Action, which earlier this month became the first direct action group to be banned under UK anti-terrorism laws. She said officers removed 19 items from her house, including iPads, a Palestine flag, books on Palestine, material related to Extinction Rebellion and the climate crisis, as well as drumsticks for – and a belt that holds – her samba drum. A friend who went to feed the cats and walked in on the police searching the house said there appeared to be a geiger counter –which measures radiation – on the table. Sorrell, a retired teacher, said: 'At 80, to be treated like a dangerous terrorist is deeply shocking. I've been very traumatised by this. Every morning I wake up feeling sick, nauseous. [I have] had to take anti-sickness pills. 'They've actually not taken anything that could be classed as illegal but it's very confusing that they're beginning to think anything connected to Palestine or support for Palestine is illegal in some way.' She said the arrests at the 12 July Defend Our Juries rally took place five minutes from the scheduled end of the one-hour demonstration, the timetable of which had been communicated to the police in advance. Sorrell was arrested with her friend Trisha Fine, 75, also from Wells and a retired teacher, who was held for the same period of time. The pair said they gave 'no comment' interviews in which they were asked whether they knew that Palestine Action supported violence and whether they were individually prepared to use violence. Eleven other people were arrested at the Cardiff rally. Sorrell said officers broke into her house through the back door before replacing the lock. Neighbours told her that about 10 officers were present for approximately three hours and her friend who went to feed the cats said she saw them poking long cotton buds into Sorrell's jars of dried goods. 'Whenever I open a drawer or cupboard, I can see that they've been searched,' said Sorrell. 'I'm not sure what they were looking for.' The women have been bailed until October. Their bail conditions prohibit contact with each other and spending any nights away from their homes. Fine said: 'This restriction about staying at home is an issue because my husband is recovering from cancer treatment and we planned a couple of treats which we've already booked and paid for: a trip to Madrid in late August, and a trip driving around Europe for September. I can't do those so that is pretty onerous. He's had a tough time and he deserves a break. 'And, well, am I a 75-year-old terrorist? I don't think so. It's completely out of order. You just wonder what the hell is happening with this country and this government.' She said that during her detention officers refused to let her have antibiotics she was taking for a serious gum infection and failed to call her husband to tell him about her arrest, despite having agreed to do so. Under the Terrorism Act the friends face a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison. Sorrell said: 'I just feel if I'm put in prison for this, and even if I die in prison for this, I can't think of a better thing to die for really than for the justice of the people who've been persecuted now for almost my lifetime.' South Wales police did not directly address any of the matters raised. A spokesperson said the investigation led by Welsh counter-terrorism police was continuing.
