Rishi Sunak has signed new deals with Serbia, Belgium and Bulgaria to help target the criminal gangs who smuggle people across the Channel in small boats.
The prime minister made the announcement at the European political community summit in Spain after a whirlwind week at the Conservative Party conference in Manchester.
Mr Sunak urged European leaders to “unite” over migration.
Speaking to reporters, he said it had been a “very successful summit here working with other European countries to stop the boats”.
“This is a shared European challenge that’s very clear,” he said.
“What I was able to do here for the British people is sign new deals with Serbia, Belgium and Bulgaria that will help combat the criminal gangs upstream.”
While details of the deals are light, Downing Street said the deal with Belgium involved a “commitment to increase our bilateral exchange of expertise” as well using advanced detection technology to “identify and disrupt people smuggling through Belgium and onwards to the UK”.
Meanwhile the deals with Serbia and Bulgaria will focus on prosecuting and disrupting the criminal gangs and sharing intelligence.
Advertisement
It comes following reports in The Daily Telegraph that the UK is set to sign a deal with the EU’s border agency to obtain access to the bloc’s intelligence on migration.
The Telegraph reported officials in London and Brussels have concluded the substance of the agreement, which sources said is in the “final stages” and could be announced this week.
Under the deal, domestic agencies would be able to monitor the entirety of the EU’s external borders rather than just shared frontiers.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:52
PM’s speech: Three key takeaways
Elsewhere in the interview with reporters, the prime minister addressed questions over his party conference speech, in which he touched on a range of issues including trans rights and HS2.
He replied: “There was a Cabinet meeting on Wednesday morning and the transport secretary legally is the person who makes that decision.
“But of course, this is something that we’ve been working on for a while. It’s right – because this is a very big decision involving tens of billions of pounds – it’s not something that you do very quickly.
“The decision formally was made right at the end.
“There was that cabinet meeting on Wednesday morning, but taking a step back from the process here, what’s important is the decision and I’ve decided that the right thing to do is to take that £36bn that would have been spent on the rest of this project and instead spend that on hundreds of projects across the entire country, which will deliver more benefit for people quicker.”
During his speech Mr Sunak also drew on the issue of trans rights.
He told the conference hall: “We shouldn’t get bullied into believing that people can be any sex they want to be. They can’t; a man is a man and a woman is a woman. That’s just common sense.”
His comments attracted some criticism, including from Green Party MP Caroline Lucas, who accused Mr Sunak of using “more nasty divisiveness from the hard right playbook”.
Twitter
This content is provided by Twitter, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Twitter cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Twitter cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Twitter cookies for this session only.
Home Office data published today shows that transgender identity hate crimes rose by 11% from 4,262 offences to 4,732 in the year ending March 2023.
Asked whether he regretted his remarks, Mr Sunak said: “I think most people watching this programme will think that that’s common sense and it’s just a simple fact of biology.
“Now, of course, this is always going to be a compassionate, tolerant country – but we can’t ignore fundamental facts of biology and saying those things shouldn’t be controversial.”
And tens of billions of pounds of borrowing depends on the answer – which still feels intriguingly opaque.
You might think you know what the fiscal rules are. And you might think you know they’re not negotiable.
For instance, the main fiscal rule says that from 2029-30, the government’s day-to-day spending needs to be in surplus – i.e. rely on taxation alone, not borrowing.
And Rachel Reeves has been clear – that’s not going to change, and there’s no disputing this.
But when the government announced its fiscal rules in October, it actually published a 19-page document – a “charter” – alongside this.
And this contains all sorts of notes and caveats. And it’s slightly unclear which are subject to the “iron clad” promise – and which aren’t.
There’s one part of that document coming into focus – with sources telling me that it could get changed.
And it’s this – a little-known buffer built into the rules.
This says that from spring 2027, if the OBR forecasts that she still actually has a deficit of up to 0.5% of GDP in three years, she will still be judged to be within the rules.
In other words, if in spring 2027 she’s judged to have missed her fiscal rules by perhaps as much as £15bn, that’s fine.
Image: A change could save the chancellor some headaches. Pic: PA
Now there’s a caveat – this exemption only applies, providing at the following budget the chancellor reduces that deficit back to zero.
But still, it’s potentially helpful wiggle room.
This help – this buffer – for Reeves doesn’t apply today, or for the next couple of years – it only kicks in from the spring of 2027.
But I’m being told by a source that some of this might change and the ability to use this wiggle room could be brought forward to this year. Could she give herself a get out of jail card?
The chancellor could gamble that few people would notice this technical change, and it might avoid politically catastrophic tax hikes – but only if the markets accept it will mean higher borrowing than planned.
But the question is – has Rachel Reeves ruled this out by saying her fiscal rules are iron clad or not?
Or to put it another way… is the whole of the 19-page Charter for Budget Responsibility “iron clad” and untouchable, or just the rules themselves?
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:17
Is Labour plotting a ‘wealth tax’?
And what counts as “rules” and are therefore untouchable, and what could fall outside and could still be changed?
I’ve been pressing the Treasury for a statement.
And this morning, they issued one.
A spokesman said: “The fiscal rules as set out in the Charter for Budget Responsibility are iron clad, and non-negotiable, as are the definition of the rules set out in the document itself.”
So that sounds clear – but what is a definition of the rule? Does it include this 0.5% of GDP buffer zone?
The Treasury does concede that not everything in the charter is untouchable – including the role and remit of the OBR, and the requirements for it to publish a specific list of fiscal metrics.
But does that include that key bit? Which bits can Reeves still tinker with?
The Justice Department says two LA Sheriff deputies admitted to helping extort victims, including for a local crypto mogul, while working their private security side hustles.