A cabinet minister has acknowledged that attempts to deport asylum seekers under the UK’s new migration deal with France could be delayed in the courts, even as she denied critics’ claims of a “human rights loophole” in the agreement.
Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy told Sky News on Wednesday that the “one in, one out” arrangement would allow migrants with human rights claims to be sent back to France, insisting this was “not the case at all” that legal challenges could frustrate deportations.
However, the minister then appeared to contradict herself by admitting: “Obviously there are people who will try to frustrate the process through the courts, but we’re speeding up the court process to make sure that those delays will be minimal.”
The confusion comes as the landmark treaty with France takes effect, allowing migrants who arrive by small boat and cannot prove family connections to the UK to be returned across the Channel for the first time since Brexit.
Under the pilot scheme, France will accept returned migrants in exchange for the UK taking an equal number of asylum seekers from France who have legitimate family ties to Britain and have not previously attempted illegal entry.
The treaty contains a specific clause stating that people can only be returned if the UK confirms they do not have an “outstanding human rights claim” – a provision that Conservative critics have seized upon as a potential weakness.
Chris Philp, the Conservative shadow home secretary, called it an obvious “loophole” that could be exploited by lawyers to prevent deportations through spurious claims.
Ms Nandy forcefully rejected this characterisation during her Sky News interview, stating: “The deal that we’ve struck will allow people with us to send people back to France who have human rights claims. Those claims will be heard in France.”
So I know that the Conservative Party has been saying that this is a loophole. It isn’t, and we’re really confident about that,” she insisted.
However, Home Office sources later clarified that migrants with ongoing human rights claims would not be removed from the UK until their cases are complete in British courts, directly contradicting the Culture Secretary’s assertion that claims would be heard in France.
The sources explained that only those who have not yet commenced a claim, or whose claims have been ruled “clearly unfounded,” can be removed whilst legal challenges continue in French courts.
It is understood that preparations have been made for judicial review challenges against deportation decisions to be heard by UK courts from France, though sources suggested that once France agrees to accept a return, the decision cannot be reversed.
The confusion over the mechanism highlights the complexity of the new arrangement, which represents the UK’s first significant post-Brexit returns scheme with an EU country.
Border Security Minister Dame Angela Eagle launched a fierce attack on Mr Philp after he shared footage from Calais showing migrants making the Channel crossing on Wednesday, the day the deal came into force.
That is the difference between having a serious and comprehensive plan to fix this crisis, and just standing in a boat pointing at it. I hope you’re getting a nice tan, though,” Dame Eagle said, accusing the former immigration minister of being a “hypocrite.
She defended the human rights clause, saying it was included “precisely to ensure no-one can use ‘clearly unfounded’ human rights claims to avoid being returned.
The charity Care4Calais has indicated it may mount legal challenges against the scheme, with a spokesperson stating: “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,” they added.
The deal aims to address record levels of Channel crossings, with more than 25,000 people arriving by small boat so far in 2025 – a 48 per cent increase compared to the same period in 2024.
Reports suggest the pilot scheme will initially see around 50 people per week returned to France, totalling approximately 2,600 per year – a small fraction of total arrivals, which averaged 800 per week this year.
Bruno Retailleau, France’s interior minister, described the agreement as establishing “an experimental mechanism whose goal is clear: to smash the gangs.
The scheme bears similarities to the 2016 EU-Turkey deal, under which irregular migrants were returned to Turkey in exchange for Syrian refugees being resettled in Europe. However, that arrangement saw only 2,140 migrants returned over six years, compared to 32,000 resettled.
Ministers have refused to specify exact numbers for returns, claiming this information would benefit smuggling gangs. The initial agreement will remain in place until June 2026.
The United Nations refugee agency has given cautious backing to the arrangement, stating: “If appropriately implemented, it could help achieve a more managed and shared approach, offering alternatives to dangerous journeys while upholding access to asylum.
The government faces intense pressure to demonstrate the scheme’s effectiveness as it struggles to fulfil Labour’s manifesto promise to “smash the gangs” driving illegal migration.
Ms Nandy acknowledged the challenges ahead, stating that efforts to return people to France “will take time and it will be hard” but insisted the deal would “make an important contribution to the all-out assault we are waging against the business model of the smuggling gangs.”
The treaty builds on existing UK-France cooperation, including the March 2023 agreement under which Britain committed £476 million to enhance French border security between 2023 and 2026.
As the first migrants arrived in Dover on Wednesday under the new arrangements, the effectiveness of the deal – and whether human rights claims will indeed create the “loophole” critics fear – will be closely watched in the coming weeks.
Follow for more updates on Britannia Daily
