Minister denies migrant returns deal leaves open human rights loophole
The 'one-in, one out' deal coming into effect on Wednesday will see migrants ineligible to stay in the UK sent back across the Channel, in exchange for taking those who have links to Britain.
The agreement contains a clause that says in order for people to be returned to France, the UK must confirm they do not have an 'outstanding human rights claim'.
Critics have argued this could risk bogus applications being made to frustrate the deportation process and cause delays.
Mr Philp said on Tuesday this section offered 'an easy loophole for lawyers', adding that 'France will not give us any data on the people they are sending our way… so we have no idea who they really are'.
Borders minister Dame Angela said he was wrong, and that the clause was included 'precisely to ensure no-one can use 'clearly unfounded' human rights claims to avoid being returned'.
She added: 'And we will do full security checks on any applicants, and reject anyone who poses a risk.'
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper conceded earlier that the accord is not a 'silver bullet' to stop small boat crossings, but marked a step change as migrants will be sent back across the Channel for the first time.
Speaking to the BBC, she declined to put a number on how many people would be returned under the agreement ahead of time, saying that she believed it could aid criminal gangs.
She added: 'We will provide regular updates, people will be able to see how many people are being detained, how many people are being returned, and it is right that we should be transparent around that.'
Speaking to reporters earlier, Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said the deal would likely result in only small numbers of migrants being swapped with France and is 'not going to make any difference whatsoever'.
Asked whether the Conservatives were partly to blame for the immigration and asylum situation, she told reporters: 'No I don't accept that at all, because what Labour are doing is just rubber-stamping all of the applications and saying they're processing.'
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 boats this year.
Bruno Retailleau, France's interior minister, said the agreement 'establishes an experimental mechanism whose goal is clear: to smash the gangs'.
The initial agreement will be in place until June 2026.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Powys County Times
27 minutes ago
- Powys County Times
YouTube ads should be monitored like traditional media, say Lib Dems
YouTube adverts should be vetted in the same way as traditional media to protect consumers against scams and harmful content, according to the Lib Dems. The party said adverts on the video streaming service should be screened for 'harmful and misleading content' and brought under the regulation of media watchdog Ofcom. Culture spokesman Max Wilkinson MP told the BBC the social media platform was operating under a 'lighter touch' advertising regime. 'Regulations need to catch up with the reality of how people are watching content and unscrupulous advertisers must not be allowed to use loopholes to exploit people,' he said. 'We cannot allow a two-tier system where traditional broadcasters face robust scrutiny, while a digital giant like YouTube is allowed to mark its own homework.' Industry bodies Radio Central and Clearcast currently pre-approve most ads before they go to air. YouTube advertising is not subject to the same type of pre-clearance checks. YouTube is now the second most-watched media service in the UK, behind the BBC and ahead of ITV, according to an annual Ofcom report. Overall, people spent an average of four hours and 30 minutes a day watching TV and video content at home in 2024, with broadcast TV still making up 56% of in-home viewing, the regulator said. 'It's time for the regulator to treat YouTube adverts much more like TV and radio adverts, to protect UK consumers from misleading or harmful content. The government needs to act now,' Mr Wilkinson said. A spokesman for the Advertising Standards Authority, which monitors adverts on TV, radio and online, todl the BBC the cases highlighted by the Lib Dems came under Ofcom's reach under the Online Safety Act, but it would support their work and 'continue to play a disruptor role by reporting them and working with platforms to have them removed'. According to Ofcom, people spent 39 minutes a day on YouTube in 2024, with 16 minutes of this on the household's TV set. Younger adults aged 16 to 34 are driving the trend, watching 18 minutes of YouTube a day on TV, while one in five children aged four to 15 (20%) head straight to the app as soon as they turn the set on. Even those aged over 55 have almost doubled the time they spend watching YouTube on their TVs compared with the previous year – up from six minutes a day in January 2023 to 11 minutes in December. YouTube's soaring popularity comes as the platform's content has evolved, with half of its top-trending videos now more closely resembling traditional TV, including long-form interviews and game shows, Ofcom said.
New Statesman
28 minutes ago
- New Statesman
Inside the factions of the new left
Photo byBritain's new left-wing political party is coming into view. It has already attracted 650,000 supporters, eclipsing the membership of every other outfit in Westminster. Its initial platform, drafted by Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana, is both popular and transformative: wealth taxes, public ownership, climate justice, anti-racism and an end to the UK's complicity in Israeli war crimes. Polling suggests that the organisation is already level with Labour, and that it could take voters from Reform. Aware of the project's vast potential, the often fissiparous British left has united behind it, although the details of how it will work – politically, strategically, organisationally – are to be decided. Private conversations among socialist leaders and operators have yielded various questions about the party's internal structure and external orientation. It now falls to its activist base, who will gather at its inaugural conference this autumn, to confront them. First, there is debate about whether a party organised along traditional lines is even what's needed. Jamie Driscoll, the former North of Tyne mayor, has cautioned that building a new party straight away 'is not realistic… It will have to start as an alliance, so independents can come in.' Andrew Feinstein, the former ANC politician who ran an insurgent campaign against Keir Starmer in Holborn and St Pancras last year, has made similar remarks: 'If we just create another party,' there's a risk of alienating the increasing numbers of people 'fed up with politics as we know it'. His answer is to 'build from the local, from the grassroots up'. In one sense, this kind of coalitional structure would fit with the fragmented state of progressive civil society. How else could a single organisation tie together a wide range of leadership figures, labour struggles and social movements? Yet a loose federation also threatens to institutionalise such fractures. A group called Collective, directed by Corbyn's former chief of staff Karie Murphy and the politician Pamela Fitzpatrick, believes that only a cohesive, unified party would be capable of channelling public opposition to the status quo. Its goal, a spokesperson said, is to establish 'a party with an inclusive and democratic leadership structure' and a firm 'class-based politics', in which 'unions would play a fundamental part'. They insist that bureaucracy should be kept to a minimum at national level, and decision-making should be decentralised, but that this basic structure needs to be in place to harness grassroots energies effectively. Two other figures who have been participating in the discussions are James Schneider and Andrew Murray. Both previously worked for Corbyn's Labour, and both are agnostic on the alliance-vs-party question. The first, says Schneider, risks a 'loosey-goosey umbrella of independents that offers no governmental perspective for real change', the second a 'reheated Labourism with better politics but a similar party form'. What's needed instead is a highly coordinated vehicle, 'based mostly outside Westminster', whose aim is to diffuse power through society. By supporting extant popular institutions (organised labour, cooperatives, anti-war groups) and building new ones (bill-payers' unions, boycott campaigns), it could lay the foundations for an effective socialist electoral challenge. Murray likewise warns that an 'umbrella alliance' could fail to articulate a coherent oppositional politics, while a 'centralised party' could struggle to incorporate independent forces. A party with an 'affiliation model' might be one way of squaring this circle. But whereas Schneider envisions a largely extra-parliamentary organisation, Murray hopes to establish a credible parliamentary bloc that could use its national profile to mount a genuine 'systemic challenge'. It should maintain a close relationship with social movements and popular institutions, but its main goal should not be to create such forms of associational life. 'Rather than using the party to reconstitute the working class, the party could create the space for the working class to reconstitute itself.' Where do the party figureheads stand? While Corbyn has been accused of dithering over the launch, a more charitable reading is that he is moving cautiously in his attempt to harmonise these competing visions. Sources close to him say he is sympathetic to the idea of a more federated structure – although for both him and Sultana the main point is that the model should be participatory, whatever that looks like in practice. She argues that an immediate aim should be to convert its supporters into organisers, who can fight on a range of different fronts yet remain part of a single national project. Divisions between the two have been overstated by destructive anonymous briefings against Sultana from those who oppose the idea of her co-leadership. In reality, the pair have almost identical political priorities, and agree that the leadership system should be determined democratically at the upcoming conference. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe There are further problems to resolve: alliances with other parties, relations with the unions, developing a programme that can hold together the left's disparate coalition, potential rows over who should lead, and so on. But we can be confident that these discussions will not check the party's momentum. Under different circumstances, the plurality of views outlined above could have prevented such an organisation from forming. But in Britain today, the need for it is so apparent, and the popular pressure so overwhelming, that it's charging forwards. [See more: It's time for angry left populism] Related
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
MP sets up A47 group after dualling near Peterborough is axed
An MP has set up a safety improvement group after plans to upgrade a dangerous section of the A47 to a dual carriageway were West Cambridgeshire Labour MP Sam Carling said the group, which includes parish councils, will push for average speed cameras and better infrastructure for cyclists in a bid to reduce accidents between Wansford and Sutton, near Secretary Heidi Alexander axed the £100m scheme in July, accusing the previous Conservative government of promising infrastructure projects with "no plan to pay for them".Mr Carling said, the group hoped to bring a "more deliverable set of safety interventions that could be implemented quickly". As part of the safety scheme, the group is reviewing a range of possible measures, including safer junction layouts, overtaking restrictions and speed reductions, and lay-by closures and redesigns. Mr Carling said: "I have made it clear that something needs to be done to make this stretch of the A47 safer, and I'm glad to be bringing partners together to get a better plan in place."People have waited long enough. We now have a chance to deliver real, practical safety improvements – and I'm determined we make the most of it." The dualling scheme had been paused for several years due to planning complications, heritage concerns and rising costs, and the absence of upgrades at the A1 latest decision to axe the 1.6-mile (2.5km) project was met with Beuttell, a Conservative member of Huntingdonshire District Council, said she was "devastated" by the news.A public consultation is expected later this year to gather views from residents on the new safety group's recommendations before a proposal is put to the government. Follow Peterborough news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
