How will the UK-France migrants return deal work as it comes into force?
The UK-France deal, which will also bring approved asylum seekers under a safe route to Britain, was agreed last month on the last day of French President Emmanuel Macron's state visit to the UK.
Here is a closer look at the plan and what the issue is.
– What is the concern over the Channel crossings?
Some 25,436 migrants have arrived in the UK after crossing the English Channel this year – a record for this point in the year since data began being collected in 2018.
This is up 48% on this point last year (17,170) and 70% higher than at this stage in 2023 (14,994), according to PA news agency analysis of Home Office data.
At least 10 people have died while attempting the journey this year, according to reports by French and UK authorities, but there is no official record of fatalities in the Channel.
Ministers want to end the crossings because they 'threaten lives and undermine our border security'.
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has said smuggling gangs have been allowed to take hold along the UK's borders over the last six years, making millions out of the dangerous journeys.
On Tuesday, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch claimed the failure to stop migrants crossing the Channel is putting community cohesion at risk.
Data on the crossings of migrants in 'small boats' like inflatable dinghies has been collected since 2018.
In the first year of data, just 299 people were recorded to have arrived in the UK this way.
Since 2018, 94% of migrants who arrived by small boat crossing have claimed asylum in the UK, or 145,834 out of 154,354 people.
– What has the Labour Government's approach been to the issue?
Since Labour came to power last July, the party has vowed to 'smash the gangs'.
Ministers are seeking to ramp up enforcement action against smugglers with new legislation to hand counter terror-style powers to police, and new criminal offences aiming to crack down on the illegal trade.
This is my message to the people smuggling gangs: we will end your vile trade.
For the very first time, migrants arriving via small boat will be detained and returned to France.
My government has led the way in taking our countries' co-operation to a new level. pic.twitter.com/9AufY74T9J
— Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) July 10, 2025
The Government is also seeking to reset the UK's relationship with Europe over the crossings, and France has agreed to change its rules to allow police to intervene when boats are in shallow water, rather than requiring them to still be on land.
Meanwhile ministers are hoping to deter new arrivals promised jobs when they come to the UK by cracking down on illegal working and deportations of ineligible asylum seekers.
– What is the new deal and how will it work?
Last month, the Prime Minister and French president agreed a plan to send back small boats migrants, with an asylum seeker being sent to the UK in exchange in equal numbers.
Under the pilot scheme, adults arriving on a small boat can be detained and returned to France for the first time.
The trial is set to run until June 11 2026, pending a longer-term agreement or cancellation by either the UK or France with one months' notice.
Asylum seekers accepted to come to the UK under the deal would travel via a safe, legal route, 'subject to strict security checks'.
Those in France could express an interest to apply for asylum to the UK through an online platform developed by the Home Office, and would then carry out the standard visa application process and checks.
Priority will be given to people from countries where they are most likely to be granted asylum as genuine refugees, who are most likely to be exploited by smuggling gangs, and also asylum seekers who have connections to the UK.
Borders are being breached by criminal gangs worldwide.
Life-threatening Channel crossings have occurred for years – it is time to act.
Border Security Command is how we fight back. pic.twitter.com/WIWM3181Gu
— Home Office (@ukhomeoffice) March 4, 2025
If accepted, they would be given three months in the UK to claim asylum or apply for a visa, and would be subject to the same rules for all asylum seekers not allowed to work, study or have access to benefits.
Their claim could still be rejected during their time in the UK, and they could then be removed from the country.
It is not clear what the criteria will be for deciding which migrants who arrive in the UK by small boat will be sent back to France, other than being aged over 18.
New arrivals will be screened at Manston processing centre, in Kent, which is current procedure, before individuals determined to be suitable for the pilot and for detention, will be picked and held in an immigration removal centre.
Their removal is expected to be made on the grounds of inadmissibility, that they have arrived from the UK from a safe country where their case can be heard instead, because an agreement is in place with France.
The treaty confirms the migrants would be returned back to France by plane, and commits for a return to be completed within three months in all cases.
It also agrees for a joint committee to be set up to monitor the agreement and arrange logistics.
Migrants will be able to appeal against the decision based on exceptional circumstances.
The Home Office said it had 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.
– How many people will be part of the pilot and much will it cost?
No official number of migrants has been confirmed to take part in the pilot, but it is understood numbers will grow over the pilot period and depend on operational factors.
The Home Secretary has said the Government does not want to put a number on the amount as she believes it could aid criminal gangs.
It has been reported that about 50 a week could be sent to France. This would be a stark contrast to the more than 800 people every week who on average have arrived in the UK via small boat this year.
There is no funding to France associated with this agreement, and operations around the returns and arrivals will be paid for from the existing Home Office budget.
– What has the reaction been to the deal?
Opposition politicians were scathing about the Prime Minister's deal with Mr Macron, with shadow home secretary Chris Philp claiming the small percentage of arrivals to be removed would 'make no difference whatsoever'.
On Tuesday, he added: 'This deal is unworkable and wide open to abuse.'
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage also branded it a 'humiliation'.
Meanwhile refugee charities have also criticised the plan and have urged the Government to provide more safe, legal routes for asylum seekers instead.
Reacting to the plan coming into force, Amnesty International UK's refugee rights director, Steve Valdez-Symonds, said: 'Once again, refugees are treated like parcels, not people, while the public is left to pay the price for, yet another cruel, costly failure dressed up as policy.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
27 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Killers must reveal where victims are before they are released, say devastated families
Killers must be locked up for life if they refuse to disclose the location of the body, the families of two high-profile murder victims have said. Relatives of Arlene Fraser, whose husband Nat Fraser has twice been convicted of her murder following her 1998 disappearance in Elgin, spoke of the 'mental torture' they are having to endure because no trace of her has ever been found. The family of Suzanne Pilley, who was murdered in 2010 by her work colleague David Gilroy, who was given a life sentence for murder, also condemned his lack of remorse or rehabilitation as he continues to refuse to disclose the location of her remains. They both welcomed a commitment secured from Justice Secretary Angela Constance that this 'must' be taken into account by the Parole Board when making decisions about release and that this will be delivered before next year's election. But they are now pushing her to go further still and introduce a 'no body no parole' rule which means killers who don't disclose the remains can never be released on parole. Ministers will consider whether to go further on 'Suzanne's Law' as part of a consultation on parole which will be published imminently. Gail Fairgrieve, Suzanne Pilley's sister, said: 'I think that people need to understand, the Parole Board need to understand, that this crime was still continuing. It is perpetrating the crime against us. We are still dealing with this every day. 'Everyday events - you go into a card shop and you can't buy anything for your sister. It's there constantly and he has information that could just put us at ease and bring Suzanne home. 'I feel that this ruling had to consider now that he can't possibly be rehabilitated or show remorse if he is continuing to withhold this information. This information is a full part of his crime and he needs to give us that information, otherwise life imprisonment means life imprisonment.' She added: 'They have to consider it and when they look at all the considerations that the Parole Board look at to release a prisoner, (by) withholding that information from us he is not rehabilitating, there is no remorse, there is nothing.' Carol Gillies, the sister of Arlene Fraser, said: 'I feel that he (Nat Fraser) controlled Arlene when she was alive, and he is controlling her when she's dead as well. 'If the Parole Board can almost give them a choice - tell us more information or stay in jail - so he needs to make a choice, it's his choice what he does.' On the emotional impact of Arlene's body never being discovered, she said: 'It is a form of mental torture for us, it really is. I don't like using dramatic words but it is. He has that information, there is no doubt about it.' The families of the two victims yesterday spoke to journalists at an event organised by Victim Support Scotland following a meeting with Ms Constance. During the talks, Ms Constance gave a firm commitment that an amendment to the Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform Bill, which was added at stage two and ensures the Parole Board 'must' take into account when killers don't disclose the location of their victim's remains when making decisions, will be delivered. Choking back tears yesterday, Ms Fairgrieve described the difficulty of family events like birthdays, Christmases and weddings, and went on: 'It's the same with my kids, she had a niece and a nephew... and she wasn't there for it. He denied her that. 'I think I sometimes feel guilty that I have a life. She was only 33 when she was taken. She wouldn't want me to feel guilty, she would want me to live my life. But she has missed out on so much.' Sylvia Pilley, mother of Suzanne: 'I know Suzanne had justice when he was put in prison but her life has been cut short. She really wanted a family and she has never been given that, and we miss her. That's really why we are doing this.' Under current legislation, Gilroy will be eligible to be considered for parole in March 2030, while Nat Fraser - who was found guilty of killing his wife Arlene - will be eligible in October 2028. Describing why the families are fighting to deliver 'Suzanne's Law, Ms Fairgrieve said: 'We may never find where she is, and he may get out of prison and that is something we will have to learn to live with. But we can challenge the rules and the regulations now and we've got people that are committed to changing those. We will just hopefully improve the life for people if it happens to them.' Now the families are pushing alongside Victim Support Scotland for a 'no body no parole' rule to be introduced as part of an upcoming consultation on parole. Ms Fairgrieve said: 'Parole regulations are something that will effect the perpetrators in these cases but we would like to see the law changed initially so that when they come to trial they are well aware that if they never disclose where their remains or a body is there is no chance of parole. That is where the law needs to stand, we need to move towards that.' During yesterday's talks, Ms Constance is said to have pledged to consider the idea, similar to a system currently in place in Australia. Ms Gillies said: 'I think it should happen because when Nat was sentenced Lord Bracadale said 'you instigated this, you instructed this' and he obviously knows what happened: he disposed of Arlene in a very ruthless, efficient way. To just have Nat Fraser in front of the Parole Board and all they are considering is the risk or how he behaved in jail is just not enough. 'If he was to get out then it would be gone forever.' Ms Constance said: 'I am grateful to the families of Suzanne Pilley and Arlene Fraser for meeting with me today. They have suffered heartbreaking losses, compounded by not knowing the final resting place of their loved ones. My deepest sympathies remain with them. 'In March, I supported an amendment to the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform Bill that will mean the Parole Board, when making decisions about release, must take account of whether a prisoner has information about the disposal of a victim's remains, but has not disclosed it. 'At today's meeting, I reiterated my firm commitment to this change, which will become law if the Bill is passed in Parliament.'
Daily Mirror
an hour ago
- Daily Mirror
Keir Starmer urged to drop 'toxic' NIMBY term by Labour MPs
In recent months Keir Startmer has vowed to take on 'the NIMBYs' to get spades in the ground of major infastructure projects and deliver on promise to build 1.5million new homes Keir Starmer should drop the "toxic" term NIMBY for those who rally against developments in their own area, a group of Labour MPs have suggested. In recent months the PM has vowed to take on "the NIMBYs" - an acronym which stands for 'not in my back yard' - to get spades in the ground of major infrastructure projects. But Jenny Riddell-Carpenter, the Labour MP who chairs the Labour Rural Research Group, told The Mirror"many people rightly despise the term". "The term NIMBY isn't just toxic, it's politically pointless. We win nothing by labelling people 'anti development' or 'anti growth'," she added. It comes after The Mirror's Kevin Maguire wrote: 'Labour must find engaging story for the UK - or face election wipeout'. The group of 26 Labour backbenchers Labour Rural Research Group - set up to champion rural issues - have published their first report today on the attitudes of their countryside constituents. Their survey of 1,412 people found 56% "firmly do not see themselves as NIMBYs". Over 60% also agreed developments in their areas should go ahead "as long as it is delivered thoughtfully, and with consideration for local needs and identity". The report says: "The rhetoric in today's political world and media, which tends to focus on dividing lines, often pits rural against urban, and NIMBYs (Not In My Back Yard) against YIMBYs (Yes In My Back Yard). YIMBYs are often presented (in the media at least) as proud urban voters, whilst NIMBYs are seen as people living in rural or semi-rural communities." It also found almost three quarters believe rural communities have been overlooked over the past 15 years. And three in five feel their communities are in decline. The MPs' report said: "We must ensure that rural communities, left behind by successive Conservative governments, are front and centre of the Labour government's mission for inclusive growth and opportunity." Ms Riddell-Carpenter, who overturned ex-Tory Deputy PM Therese Coffey's massive majority in the Suffolk Coastal constituency last year, added: "Our report shows – in black and white – rural voters do not see themselves as NIMBYs, in fact many people rightly despise the term." She added: "They are rightly proud of, and ambitious for, their local area - they want to see new jobs, more affordable homes, and better opportunities for young people. We need to make sure that growth and development in rural areas matches this strong local identity, and that we put forward proposals that local people can be proud of in their back yard." A Labour source told The Mirror: 'Labour was elected to deliver change. We are proud of our ambition to create a fairer Britain. Working families don't feel that sense of fairness yet. People work hard and deserve a secure place to call home for them and their loved ones. 'Through our Plan for Change, Labour will unashamedly deliver on that promise. We'll build 1.5 million new homes during this Parliament, and create the infrastructure that gets them to work more quickly and seen by a doctor more swiftly.'
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Middle-income workers shoulder biggest tax burden increase
Middle-class workers are shouldering the biggest increase in the tax burden thanks to a stealth raid on thresholds, analysis suggests. The share of income tax paid by those who earn between £43,000 and £61,900 rose from 15.1pc to 17pc between 2021-22 and 2025-26, according to the TaxPayers' Alliance. During the same five-year period, the share of income tax paid by the top 1pc, those earning more than £201,000 a year, fell from 30.7pc to 26.6pc, the pressure group found. It comes as Chancellor Rachel Reeves faces a £50bn black hole in the public finances and declining tax revenue as high-net-worth individuals look to move abroad. Analysis by the Financial Times this month revealed there had been a 40pc rise in directors moving abroad since Labour's autumn Budget. The Taxpayers' Alliance report found the proportion of total income tax receipts increased for every group except for the top 1pc of earners, thanks to a series of stealth taxes first introduced by the Conservatives. Income tax thresholds, including the £12,570 tax-free 'personal allowance', were frozen at the 2021 budget by then chancellor Rishi Sunak until 2025-26. A year later, his successor, Jeremy Hunt, extended the freeze until 2027-28. Despite promising not to raise taxes on working people, Sir Keir Starmer has not ruled out extending the freeze further to 2029-30. Keeping thresholds frozen means earners lose a larger share of their incomes to tax, as inflation pushes up wages in a process known as fiscal drag. The stealth raid means almost 2.9 million more people will pay the basic rate of income tax in 2025-26 than in 2021-22, while over 2.6 million more will pay the higher rate. Including other rates, almost 6 million more people are forecast to be paying income tax than in 2021-22. John O'Connell, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: 'This is the sad but inevitable result of successive governments' assortment of anti-affluence tax policies, which penalise aspiration and success. 'The UK is now trapped in a doom loop with the Chancellor desperately scrabbling around for more cash to fill the fiscal black hole and increasingly finding her only option is to come after the middle classes. 'Rachel Reeves needs to now show some humility and reverse the policies that have done so much to drive away high earners.' The respected National Institute of Economic and Social Research on Tuesday warned slowing economic growth, a weak jobs market and Labour's failure to commit to welfare reform meant Ms Reeves was on course to miss her borrowing targets by £41.2bn. When combined with the £9.9bn of headroom the Chancellor has committed to keeping, it means she is facing a £51.1bn deficit in the autumn that will either have to be solved by raising taxes or cutting spending. The study also underlined the importance for the Treasury's balance sheet to keep the highest earners in Britain. Despite the proportion of tax paid by the top 1pc of earners falling, the group still accounts for more than a quarter of all income tax receipts. Analysis of Companies House by the Financial Times found that 3,790 company directors had left Britain between October and July compared with 2,712 in the same period a year earlier. Significant names have included Richard Gnodde, Goldman Sachs ' most senior banker outside the US, Nassef Sawiris, the Aston Villa co-owner, and British property tycoon brothers Ian and Richard Livingstone. It comes after Labour launched a wide-ranging tax raid after coming to power last year. This included abolishing the non-dom status and tightening inheritance tax rules. Laura Suter, of AJ Bell, said: 'Government tax policy in the past few years has had the dual outcome of pushing some of the wealthiest to leave the UK and also landing more taxpayers with higher tax bills at the same time. 'Together, this means that an increasing proportion of the total tax bill of the country is paid by middle earners, rather than the super-rich. 'Looking ahead, any potential tax-raising measures that Rachel Reeves makes in her next Budget could exacerbate this dynamic further.' Trevor Williams, a former chief economist at Lloyds Bank, previously warned Britain was facing a millionaires' exodus. Mr Williams said: 'Since 2014, the number of resident millionaires in the UK dropped by 9pc compared with the world's 10 wealthiest countries' global average growth of more than 40pc. 'Over the same period, the US saw a 78pc increase in millionaires – the fastest wealth growth [among these countries].' The Treasury insisted that under its Plan for Change it would keep more money in people's pockets. A spokesman said: 'This government inherited the previous government's policy of frozen tax thresholds. At the Budget and the Spring Statement, the Chancellor announced that we would not extend that freeze. 'We are also protecting payslips for working people by keeping our promise to not raise the basic, higher or additional rates of income tax, employee National Insurance or VAT. That's the Plan for Change – protecting people's incomes and putting money into people's pockets.'
