British travellers to face fingerprint scans on every trip to EU
Every UK passenger entering the Schengen area will need to exit their car to be photographed and fingerprinted individually. A spokesperson for the Port of Dover, which facilitates transit and trade with countries like France and the Netherlands, told The Independent the plans will be rolled out in the autumn.
This is because a new biometric entry-check system for non-EU citizens was expected to be implemented last year, but this has been postponed.
The Independent initially reported on the delay to the new system at the end of 2024, with suggestions that the demand for fingerprints may quietly be dropped.
Doug Bannister, the port's chief executive, told The Guardian it will be 'business as usual' this summer but said 'a big change' in travel will be phased in from November.
An individual's fingerprint or a picture of their face will be checked alongside their passport number on every trip. The technology is being utilised to eliminate "wet stamping" of passports and enable an automated recording of the duration of visitors' stays in mainland Europe.
In time, an app installed on UK Border Force tablets is intended to be passed into the car to verify each person's fingerprints.
However, Mr Bannister said the app, which has been developed by the EU's border agency Frontex, 'won't be ready any time before November, but hopefully it could come swiftly after that'. Frontex said it was up to each member state to implement its use.
Mr Bannister admitted 'second, third, fourth time travellers still need to have a biometric captured at the border'. This means that passengers will still be required to step out of their vehicles every time until the app is ready.
There will be significant infrastructure improvements in Kent in an effort to reduce disruptions to cross-border transport.
To accommodate passengers getting off cars and buses, the Port of Dover is reclaiming 13 hectares of land.
In a solution supported by the UK and French governments, the port said it will create a virtual system around 1.5 miles across the port's surrounding area for checks.
Mr Bannister is certain that the upcoming inspections at the port, which handles up to 10,000 trucks and 15,000 passenger cars every day during the summer, will require only an extra six minutes to each trip.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
34 minutes ago
- BBC News
Greece wildfires: What to do if holiday affected, according to experts
It's been a scorching summer so far in parts of Europe, and with it has come an outbreak of wildfires - and warnings of Greece, some Greek islands, Turkey, France and the Balkans have all been affected in recent weeks. This has come alongside a heatwave - with 50.5C recorded in Silopi, Turkey in late July, and 44C in both Athens and what should you do if you have a holiday booked for one of these destinations? Crucially, the Foreign Office says it's safe to travel to all of them - for now. But if you're worried your holiday might still be subject to delays or cancellations - or you're thinking of cancelling it yourself - BBC News has spoken to a range of experts to look at where you stand. If it's safe to travel but you'd prefer not to, what can you do? If you're concerned your planned getaway may be prone to wildfires and you no longer want to go - say because a wildfire has happened near your resort, even if it hasn't directly damaged it - you may have travel insurance providers do allow you to buy additional coverage in the event of natural catastrophes like wildfires, should they occur near your holiday destination - such as within a 20km if you have not paid for this additional cover and decided that you no longer want to travel, or wish to come home early, and the Foreign Office says it is safe to travel, then you likely won't be able to claim for the costs of cancellation via insurance. "There needs to be reasonable evidence as to why you can't go [or need to leave]," explains Rhys Jones. "I think uneasiness or unhappiness about the country [isn't enough]."During the Rhodes wildfires in 2023, Jet2 and Tui cancelled a raft of flights but Ryanair, easyJet and British Airways largely continued running. Some airlines cancelled their package holidays, but not their this case - and with any similar situations this summer - the usual advice is to chat to your airline and hotel, as applicable, because bespoke solutions may be offered for your circumstances. Claiming on travel insurance According to European Commission data, there has been a 13% increase since last week in the total area burnt by wildfires, with more than 290,000 hectacres burnt so far this year in Europe - more than double the figure at the same time last you have travel insurance then most disruption to your trip caused by wildfires should be covered under your standard policy, says Rhys Jones, a travel insurance specialist at GoCompare."Any sort of curtailment or cancellation of your trip as as a result of wildfires - whether that be you can't travel to your destination or you have to come home early - should be covered."Costs imposed due to other emergency measures such as evacuation, relocation or medical expenses should also be included, he adds. In Crete early last month, 5,000 people, many tourists, were temporarily evacuated during a standard policy, Mr Jones says there usually needs to be official advice not to travel from the Foreign Office or another authority, to make a successful insurance claim for a some travel insurance providers will cover you if you decide against embarking on your trip before the Foreign Office issues such advice, explains Jo Rhodes, a travel specialist at Which?"For example, if travel has been disrupted or the specific area you're staying in is being affected, the best thing to do is to contact the insurer to check where you stand - and make sure you do this before cancelling any bookings." What if you don't have travel insurance? Around one in four Britons who went on an overseas holiday in the last 12 months did so without travel insurance, according to research published by The Travel Association (ABTA), in May."If you have no insurance but your holiday provider or airline has cancelled bookings, you may still be eligible for a refund from these companies," Jo Rhodes often look out for package holidays which are Air Travel Organisers' Licensing (Atol) protected - but this is not a form of travel insurance.The Atol scheme only protects you if the company providing your holiday goes bust. They will help you get home if you're already aboard a flight, or make a claim for a refund if you are yet to travel.The scheme does not allow you to claim compensation for a cancelled trip or flight, or delays, caused by wildfires. Where you stand with your airline You're covered by UK law if you're departing from a UK airport on any airline, or arriving in the EU on a UK airline, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) means airlines must provide you with care and assistance if your flight is delayed by two or three hours depending on the distance - including supplying food and drink vouchers and a refund on phone call costs, if the CAA explains, if your flight is cancelled and rescheduled to another day, your airline must provide accommodation and transport to you're unlikely to get compensation for wildfire or extreme heat-related disruption, because that would probably be considered an "extraordinary circumstance" so would not be classed as the airline's fault. If you're delayed by more than five hours and you no longer wish to travel, you may be able to get a refund from your airline though, according to the CAA. The body makes clear that if your flight is cancelled, you might have to wait a while but your airline is required to get you to your destination.
The Guardian
34 minutes ago
- The Guardian
‘It wasn't an error': Ofqual boss defends regulator after withdrawn data row
England's chief regulator of exams has put up a staunch defence of Ofqual after it was forced to withdraw a decade of statistics detailing the number of students granted extra time and other assistance for A-levels and GCSEs. In his first interview with a national media organisation since his permanent appointment as head of Ofqual, and just weeks after the data was dramatically pulled, Sir Ian Bauckham said there had been no error in the figures, blaming instead the way they had been interpreted. He also denied that the data 'misunderstanding', which comes five years after Ofqual's disastrous attempt during Covid to award GCSE and A-level grades by algorithm, had further undermined confidence in the organisation, saying: 'We've got a qualification system in this country to be proud of.' In an interview with the Guardian, the chief regulator also addressed the debate surrounding the government's curriculum and assessment review, warning against any wholesale move from exams to coursework because of concerns about students' growing use of AI. He also urged caution over the introduction of digital exams, saying that any assessment innovation must be secure and deliverable, and should not disadvantage poorer students who may not have had the same access to digital devices and software as their wealthier peers. Ofqual, which was set up in 2010 to regulate qualifications in England, shocked the education sector when it announced on 17 July that it was withdrawing official statistics for special access arrangements for exams going back to 2014, because they 'significantly overstated' the number of students. Access arrangements are adjustments to exams for students with special needs, disabilities or injuries, with 25% extra time being the most common. In 2012-13, 107,000 students in England were granted extra time, but in 2024 Ofqual said it was nearly 420,000 students, an increase of nearly 300%. The data appeared to show that 30% of students had been granted 25% extra time last year, with particularly high rates in private schools where nearly 42% of students received adjustments. Ofqual now thinks the actual rate is far lower. Bauckham said the confusion had arisen because, rather than showing access arrangements solely for students entered for GCSEs and A-levels in one particular year, the data includes a much broader list of access arrangements. Each access arrangement lasts two years. There can be duplicate applications for the same student, and the list may include pupils with special arrangements in place who did not sit exams that year at all. 'It wasn't an error, because the published data only ever claimed to be the long list of approved access arrangements,' Bauckham said. 'It never claimed to be that data mapped against actual exam entries, but it was interpreted as that. 'I've been clear that moving forward … we need to publish actual granted access arrangements that relate to actual entries in the year in question.' He said the final figure is likely to be much more in line with the proportion of pupils in England with special education needs and disabilities (Send), which according to the most recent official statistics stands at 19.5%, including those with education, health and care plans 'Just because this figure is significantly lower, doesn't mean that there may not have been a rising trend,' Bauckham added. 'I would be very surprised indeed if the final data, when we're able to pinpoint it, doesn't indicate a rising trend. So I don't think it takes away the problem, but it alters the scale of what we're thinking about.' On what appeared to be a growing gap between the use of access arrangements between private and state schools, he said: 'Of course in independent schools there is a slightly higher proportion of Send than there is in state-funded schools. 'I don't think it's unreasonable to hypothesise that there will still be a difference between state-funded schools and independent schools, not least because of that higher Send figure, but I'm absolutely clear that we must have data that informs the public debate on this issue.' Bauckham, who after a year as interim chief regulator was permanently appointed in February, said Ofqual had moved on a long way from the chaos of Covid when exams were cancelled and grades calculated using an algorithm had to be scrapped. 'Five years later, we've moved back to examinations which are widely trusted as the fairest way to accredit and assess what students know, understand and can do,' he added. On the government's curriculum and assessment review, due to report later this year, the Ofqual chief acknowledged concerns about the volume of exams pupils currently face, but he warned against reducing assessment to a single paper per subject. Students 'really value the opportunity to have at least two bites at the cherry, by which I mean two opportunities in two separate exam papers in the same subject',' he said. He is in favour of AI being used to support teaching and students' learning. 'But I would be very concerned about moving wholesale to a system where exams were replaced by extended writing coursework, because that would, in current circumstances, be open to malpractice.' 'I'm not worried about the future of qualifications,' Bauckham said. 'I think qualifications are going to be needed more than ever in the future, but I think in education, we've got to be clear that students still need rigorous intellectual training. They still need mastery of key knowledge. 'We still need to set our sights high for them and we mustn't succumb to the confused thinking that says, because AI will enable future workplaces, we don't need students to know, understand and be able to do skills and demonstrate knowledge at a high level, because I think the opposite is true.'
The Guardian
34 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Europe's trade deal with the US was dead on arrival – it needs to be buried. Here's how to do it
Ursula von der Leyen's Turnberry golf course deal has been rightly called a capitulation and a humiliation for Europe. Assuming such an accord would put an end to Donald Trump's coercion and bullying was either naive or the result of a miserable delusion. The EU should now steel itself and reject the terms imposed by Trump. Is this deal really as bad as it sounds? Unfortunately, it is, for at least three reasons. The blow to Europe's international credibility is incalculable in a world that expects the EU to stand up for reciprocity and rules-based trade, to resist Washington's coercion as Canada, China and Brazil have, rather than condoning it. Economically, it's a damaging one-way street: EU exporters lose market access in the US while the EU market is hit by more favoured US competition. Core European industrial sectors such as pharma and steel and aluminium are left by the wayside. The balance also tilts in the US's favour in important sectors such as consumer goods, food and drink, and agriculture. Tariffs tend to stick, so this is long-term damage. The EU even gives up its right to respond to future US pressures through duties on digital services or network fees. To top it off, von der Leyen's defence and investment pledges (for which she had no mandate) go against Europe's interest. The EU's competitiveness predicament is precisely one of net investment outflows. As international capital now reallocates under the pressures of Trumponomics and a weakening dollar, the case for Europe to become a strategic investment power was strengthening. Von der Leyen's promise of $600bn in EU investment in the US is therefore disastrous messaging. How could this happen? All EU member states wanted to avoid Trump's 30% tariff threat and a trade war, but none perhaps as much as Germany and Ireland, supported by German carmakers and US big tech firms. Yet Irish sweetheart digital tax deals, as well as BMW and Mercedes's plans to move production hubs to the US (also to serve the EU market), cannot be Europe's future. EU governments were distinctly unhelpful in building the EU's negotiating position. But in the end, it was von der Leyen who blinked and she has to take responsibility. Her close team took control in the closing weeks and went into the final meeting manifestly prepared only to say yes, which made Trump's steamrolling inevitable. Let's think of the counterfactual: if von der Leyen had stepped into the room and rejected these terms, Trump's wrath and some market turmoil may have ensued. But ultimately it would very likely have come to a postponement, a new negotiation and, at some point, a different deal that would not be so lopsided or unilaterally trade away deep and long-term European interests and principles. Instead, von der Leyen became a supplicant to a triumphant Trump. The situation is reminiscent of the final rounds of the Brexit negotiations five years ago when von der Leyen similarly was giving in to unacceptable demands from Boris Johnson, only to U-turn under pressure from a steelier EU chief negotiator and a quartet of member states. Today, von der Leyen runs Brussels with a strong presidential hand and has largely done away with internal checks and balances inside the commission. That is her prerogative and her style, but the upshot should not be weak, ineffective and unprincipled dealings on Europe's major geopolitical challenges, from Trump to Gaza. The 'deal' in Scotland is in reality an unstable interim accord. Nothing is yet inked or signed; Washington and Brussels are already locking horns on its interpretation and negotiations on the finer (and broader) points are ongoing. The 27 EU governments will inevitably get involved as the final deal needs to be translated into an international agreement and EU law. Some big powers – Germany and Italy seemingly – are on board, reluctant or not. However, internal political dynamics may change their calculations. Opposition parties and rightwing contenders who are a real political threat to leaders in Germany and France are already lambasting the deal. Unless von der Leyen strikes a dirty bargain with the member states, the European parliament will also have a say. The longtime chair of its trade committee, Bernd Lange, has set the tone for how the deal would be viewed there, calling it 'asymmetry set in stone' and even 'a misery'. As details seep out on what von der Leyen has really agreed toand what the US expects from the EU, and all the consequences become clear, an already unpalatable deal may become even more so. Weakening US economic data and returning stock market jitters show that Trump's negotiation footing is fragile. His new tariff threats come with new extensions, up to 90 days in the case of Mexico, as his position is overstretched. For Europe, the lesson from the Brexit negotiations – one that von der Leyen ought to have grasped before now – is that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. There is now an opportunity for EU governments and the European parliament to course correct and salvage something from this train wreck. Georg Riekeles is the associate director of the European Policy Centre, and Varg Folkman is policy analyst at the European Policy Centre
