UK and France to agree migrant return deal to tackle Channel crossings
The UK and France are expected to announce a one in, one out migrant returns deal to crack down on English Channel crossings, it has been reported.
Plans for a pilot could be revealed next week, which marks one year since Sir Keir Starmer's Government came to power, or later in the summer, according to the Times.
The deal could see migrants who arrive in the UK by crossing the English Channel in small boats returned to France, while the UK would accept those with legitimate claims to join family already in the country.
It comes as the Government has vowed to crack down on people smuggling gangs across the Channel, while crossings are at a record high for this point in the year, totalling 18,518.
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has been leading the talks, the paper added, who is credited with strengthening relationships with French counterparts.
French officials have also agreed to changes that would allow police patrolling the coast to take action in the sea when migrants climb into boats from the water.
Under the new returns deal, a joint processing system between the UK and France would be set up to identify migrants who have a valid claim for family reunification in the UK, the Times reported.
For each person accepted to come to the UK, a migrant would be returned to France and relocated across the country away from its northern coastline where crossings take place.
But reacting to the reports, shadow home secretary Chris Philp said: 'We pay the French half a billion pounds to wave the boats off from Calais, and in return we get a migrant merry-go-round where the same number still come here.
'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.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
BBC Finally Sets Out Plans For Kneecap Coverage At Glastonbury
The BBC has revealed how it plans to show Kneecap's Glastonbury performance later today. The corporation has confirmed that the performance will not be streamed live but will be shown on-demand. More from Deadline BBC Confirms Neil Young Glastonbury Set Will Be Televized Live After All BBC Storyville Seeking New Head Following Role Closures & 20% Reduction In Films BBC News Presenters Back Demand For Strike Vote As Colleagues Face Compulsory Layoffs 'As the broadcast partner, the BBC is bringing audiences extensive music coverage from Glastonbury, with artists booked by the festival organisers,' a spokeswoman said. 'Whilst the BBC doesn't ban artists, our plans ensure that our programming meets our editorial guidelines. We don't always live stream every act from the main stages and look to make an on-demand version of Kneecap's performance available on our digital platforms, alongside more than 90 other sets.' The controversial Irish hip-hop trio will take to what will likely be a packed West Holts Stage in less than two hours. We wrote earlier this week about how the BBC was facing a dilemma over its Kneecap coverage, with Prime Minister Keir Starmer saying the performance is not 'appropriate.' Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy said the following day: 'Personally I don't want to see [Kneecap] on TV screens.' One of the group's members, Mo Chara, is currently bailed on a terror charge after displaying a flag at a London gig in support of Hezbollah – a proscribed terrorist group in the UK. This came a few months after counter-terrorism police said they were assessing videos of a bandmember allegedly telling fans at a gig: 'The only good Tory is a dead Tory. Kill your local MP.' In a Guardian interview yesterday, the band said they were 'in character' when displaying the flag. 'S**t is thrown on stage all the time. If I'm supposed to know every f***ing thing that's thrown on stage… I'd be in Mensa, Jesus Christ,' said Mo Chara, AKA Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh. Earlier today, the BBC confirmed that Neil Young's set will also be shown on TV. Young had the previous day said he did not want his set to be streamed. Best of Deadline 2025 TV Series Renewals: Photo Gallery 2025 TV Cancellations: Photo Gallery 2025-26 Awards Season Calendar: Dates For Tonys, Emmys, Oscars & More
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
How Trump's ‘revenge tax' brought the world to its knees
When Donald Trump unveiled his 'One Big Beautiful Bill' last month, all the focus was on how the president's trillions of tax cuts might blow out America's budget bottom line. But hidden within the bill's 1,000-plus pages was a clause that set alarm bells ringing in boardrooms at many of Britain's biggest companies. In section 899 of the bill, Trump proposed what has become known as a 'revenge tax', which gave him a new power to punish countries that had tax regimes he didn't like. If Britain's taxes displeased him – and they do – he could ratchet up US taxes on British companies' American operations to blood-curdling levels. Every year, British companies would face an extra 5pc tax hit on earnings from their US operations, with the rate maxing out at 50pc. The threat was a devastating one. British companies with big US exposure include the food giant Compass, the big pharma pair GSK and AstraZeneca, Barclays, British American Tobacco, drinks conglomerate Diageo, goods manufacturer Reckitt Benckiser and Intercontinental Hotels Group. All are listed on the London Stock Exchange, meaning Trump's threat could have been devastating for the already beleaguered index. The response was immediate. Business leaders and lobby groups quickly began knocking on Rachel Reeves's door, sounding the alarm and urging the Chancellor to get on the case with Scott Bessent, the US treasury secretary. Reeves got the message. She raised the S899 tax threat with Bessent when he came to London for trade talks with the Chinese in early June. By then, though, the bill was breezing through the House of Representatives and into the Senate, with the only change being a tweak to ensure investors in US Treasury bonds weren't affected by the 'revenge tax'. Businesses began weighing up Plan B. All the options for coping with the revenge tax were expensive and disruptive, ranging from pulling money out of the US to beat the higher rate to scaling back US investments, or dual-listing their stock in New York. Some even considered the nuclear option of spinning off their American businesses altogether. The public debate on S899 hasn't matched the anxiety behind closed doors. Companies were reluctant to speak out, fearing Trump's wrath. But the clock was ticking. Trump wants his Big Beautiful Bill to become law by July 4. With less than a week to go, there was still no public sign that his team, or the Republicans in Congress, were ready to compromise. On Thursday night, though, the tax bloodbath was averted. Bessent announced that he'd extracted surrender terms from the finance ministers of the G7 – Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Canada – and told Congress to drop section 899. 'It's a big relief,' says Emanuel Adam, a Washington-based executive director at the lobby group British American Business. CS Venkatakrishnan, the Barclays chief, called it 'welcome progress, and a significant outcome for a great many UK companies like Barclays that invest in the US'. But a deal with Trump always comes at a price. The main target of s899 was efforts to impose a global minimum corporation tax, part of a OECD-led initiative, and in particular the Under-Taxed Profits Rule (UTPR). This aims to ensure that multinational companies always pay a tax rate of at least 15pc on their earnings, rather than being able to shelter profits in lower-tax countries. Bessent says the G7 will now not impose that levy on US businesses. The risk now, observers say, is that an American exemption to the UTPR could start to unravel that whole process, sending the world back into the rabbit warren of widespread tax avoidance. 'The biggest success has been to get a load of low-tax or no-tax countries, like the Gulf states and most of the island tax havens, to up their company tax rate to 15pc,' says Tim Sarson, the head of tax policy at KPMG UK. 'If they think they can reduce that rate and attract US companies to their jurisdiction, that might start to unpick the new system more widely.' Digital services taxes, which were one of Trump's explicit targets of s899, are still on the table. The president sees these as unfair imposts on American tech giants, but The Telegraph understands these will be fought over as part of his trade negotiations with individual countries, rather than as part of this deal. Closer to home, there's the question of whether the s899 deal will deliver yet another blow to Reeves's already shattered Budget. The Office for Budget Responsibility has estimated that the OECD 'Pillar Two' deal, which includes the global minimum tax rate and the UTPR, would deliver £1.3bn of extra revenue this financial year and next, climbing to £1.5bn by 2029-30. Most of this, though, would come from a different part of Pillar Two, which targets UK companies with subsidiaries in offshore tax havens, rather than US businesses. Tax experts say revenue from the UTPR, which the UK would collect from foreign companies, would be difficult to model and likely have only a small impact on the OBR's forecast. Even if there is a hit to Britain's tax take, it may have been a price worth paying to shield Britain's corporate A-list from Trump's brutal tax. With many blue chip companies reporting their annual or half-yearly results next month, boards were preparing and planning for the inevitable questions from alarmed shareholders. Many were evaluating what could be done to minimise the impact in the short term, in the hope that the political weather in the US might change after the Congressional midterm elections next year and the presidential election in 2028. 'I don't think companies would have retracted their investments or stalled major plans, but it would create additional friction. Projects might have taken longer,' British American Business's Adam says. 'Companies are agile, and companies know how to adjust. But this would have consumed resources and money that could be spent on other things.' Although the immediate crisis seems to have passed, the Trump administration may have inflicted some lingering damage on the confidence that UK companies and investors have in the US as a place to do business. It just doesn't look quite like the safe, secure and stable proposition it used to be. Joe Dabrowski, of the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association, says that when you add the s899 scare to the tariff threats, Trump's fight with Jerome Powell, the Federal Reserve chairman, and his radical surgery on corporate governance, the sum total is much greater uncertainty. 'It all creates an environment where investors just have to tread more carefully. There is a lot more thinking and due diligence and risk you have to factor in,' he says. 'Some of it might just be white noise and political posturing, but at times it's very difficult to tell the difference between that and reality.' And although Reeves probably had little choice but to yield to Trump, the G7's readiness to give way has probably only increased that risk. 'There's the fear, which I'm sure UK Treasury has as well, that if you give the Americans this, then the next time they're unhappy about something, they'll try the same trick,' says KPMG's Sarson. With the mercurial Trump barely started on his four-year term, British businesses should probably just put those contingency plans in a drawer, rather than feed them to the shredder. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Starmer defends benefits U-turn and says fixing broken welfare system a ‘moral imperative'
Sir Keir Starmer has warned Britain's benefits system is broken and fixing it is a 'moral imperative', days after a revolt by his own backbenchers forced him into a U-turn on welfare cuts. The Labour leader announced the climbdown late this week, in the face of potential defeat by Labour MPs over his plans. On Saturday he pledged Labour would not "take away the safety net" on which vulnerable people rely. But he added that he could not let welfare "become a snare for those who can and want to work" as he said that "everyone agrees" on the need for change. Earlier he faced calls for a 'reset' of his government, in the wake of the welfare debacle, by the Labour peer and party grandee Lord Falconer. The veteran Labour MP Diane Abbott also hit out at some of Sir Keir's advisers, calling them 'angry and factional' in an interview with the BBC's Today programme. Despite the climbdown the prime minister is also continuing to battle with some of his own MPs over the planned cuts, with reports some rebel MPs will attempt to put down a new amendment on Monday to delay the bill. On Friday Ms Abbott said that reports of the rebellion's death 'are greatly exaggerated'. Downing Street now expects its plans to pass their second reading in the House of Commons on Tuesday, however. In a speech to the Welsh Labour conference, Sir Keir said repairing the system had to be done in a "Labour way". "We cannot take away the safety net that vulnerable people rely on, and we won't, but we also can't let it become a snare for those who can and want to work," he said. "Everyone agrees that our welfare system is broken: failing people every day, a generation of young people written off for good and the cost spiralling out of control. "Fixing it is a moral imperative, but we need to do it in a Labour way." Sir Keir had been facing a humiliating defeat, with more than 120 Labour MPs having signed a rebel amendment seeking to kill the welfare bill. But leading economists have warned that, taken together, the U-turns on benefit cuts and winter fuel payments have blown a £4.5bn hole in the public finances that will 'very likely' be filled by tax rises in the autumn Budget. The Resolution Foundation said the prime minister's decision to protect existing claimants of disability benefits and health benefits would be far more expensive than expected. The Resolution Foundation said the change to Sir Keir's welfare bill, which will protect all those currently claiming Personal Independence Payments (PIP), will stop 370,000 people from losing the support. That will cost £2.1bn per year by 2030, while a separate move to protect the income of all those receiving the health element of Universal Credit, which will affect 2.2 million people, will cost up to a further £1.1bn each year. It will wipe out up to £3.2bn of the £5bn the government had hoped to save through the changes. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research said taxes will 'almost certainly' go up in the autumn. There is speculation the chancellor could raise the money through so-called 'fiscal drag' by freezing income tax thresholds, with Ruth Curtice, the chief executive of the Resolution Foundation, saying the 'most obvious thing' would be to extend the freeze for another two years. Ministers have refused to speculate on how the government will pay for the changes. Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said Sir Keir had left the country with 'the worst of all worlds' after the U-turn.
