Migrants cross English Channel ahead of spending review announcement
Pictures show new arrivals wearing life jackets being brought to shore in a Border Force boat in Dover, Kent, on Wednesday.
They are the first to make the journey to the UK so far this month after a record first five months of the year bringing the provisional total so far to 14,812 arrivals.
This has also surpassed the highest total recorded for the first six months of the year, which was previously 13,489 on June 30 last year.
In 2024, the number of arrivals did not reach more than 14,000 until July 9 (14,058).
The arrivals come as the Chancellor will set out spending plans for the coming years, with big rises expected for the NHS, defence and schools.
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper was the last minister to reach a deal with the Treasury, with reports suggesting greater police spending would mean a squeeze on other areas of her department's budget.
But the Home Office will also receive a £680 million cash boost for border security, according to the Sun newspaper.
The paper reported Ms Cooper has gained £100 million to spend on tackling illegal migration this year and a further £580 million over the next three years for border police and surveillance, including more drones.
The Government has vowed to crack down on people-smuggling and Channel crossings since coming to power in July last year.
This includes by funding elite officers to increase patrols along the northern French coastline and launching a specialist intelligence unit in Dunkirk to track down people smugglers.
It has also established a Border Security Command to lead strategy and its Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, currently going through Parliament, seeks to introduce new criminal offences and hand counter terror-style powers to law enforcement agencies to target smuggling gangs.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Western Telegraph
15 minutes ago
- Western Telegraph
Israel to deport six more activists detained on Gaza aid boat, rights group says
The six include Rima Hassan, a French member of the European parliament who Israel had previously barred from entering Israel and the Palestinian territories, citing her support for boycotts of the country. 🚨 Messages from Rima and other members of the Freedom Flotilla crew.#FreedomFlotilla #FreeMadleen — Rima Hassan (@RimaHas) June 11, 2025 Israel's Foreign Ministry, which has dismissed the aid boat as a publicity stunt, posted a photo of Ms Hassan on what appeared to be an aeroplane. 'Six more passengers from the 'selfie yacht,' including Rima Hassan, are on their way out of Israel,' the ministry wrote on X. 'Bye-bye — and don't forget to take a selfie before you leave.' They were among 12 passengers, including climate campaigner Greta Thunberg, aboard the Madleen, a boat that sought to break Israel's blockade of Gaza and deliver a symbolic amount of aid. Israel seized the vessel early on Monday and deported Miss Thunberg and three others the following day. The last two activists are expected to be deported on Friday, according to Adalah, a local human rights group representing them. It said the activists were subjected to 'mistreatment, punitive measures, and aggressive treatment, and two volunteers were held for some period of time in solitary confinement'. Israeli authorities declined to comment on their treatment. Activists, including Greta Thunberg, sailed on the Madleen, a boat that sought to break Israel's blockage of Gaza (Salvatore Cavalli/AP) Israel says it treats detainees in a lawful manner and investigates any allegations of abuse. Israel portrayed the voyage as a media spectacle, dubbing it the 'selfie yacht'. It says the blockade, which it has imposed in various forms along with Egypt since Hamas seized power in 2007, is needed to prevent the militant group from importing arms. Critics view it as a collective punishment of Gaza's roughly 2 million Palestinians. The Israeli Foreign Ministry said those activists who signed deportation documents would be deported immediately, while those who refused would be brought before a judicial authority to authorise their deportation in keeping with Israeli law. The activists have protested that they had no intention of entering Israel and were brought there against their will. The Freedom Flotilla Coalition, which organised the journey, said it was aimed at protesting Israel's blockade of Gaza and ongoing military campaign there, which experts say has pushed the territory to the brink of famine more than 20 months into the Israel-Hamas war.
Daily Mirror
23 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
'Rachel Reeves promises so much - but we're worried how it will be paid for'
Rachel Reeves' Spending Review promised big boosts for the NHS, defence, and housing - but many of you are worried about how it will all be funded If you're wondering where all the money's going to come from to pay for the Chancellor's Spending Review then you're not alone. Rachel Reeves finally delivered her long-anticipated plan to renew Britain – and while there were some big promises, it left many of you asking how it's going to be funded. Standing at the despatch box in the House of Commons, the Chancellor pitched her plan as a blueprint for 'Britain's renewal' and took a swipe at years of 'destructive' Tory austerity. She announced that departmental budgets will rise by 2.3% each year in real terms, with hefty sums heading to the NHS, defence, and housing. In parliament, Ms Reeves batted away claims she would raise taxes and said her spending plans were paid for by decisions made at the Autumn Budget. She repeated her pledge not to raise taxes on working people. But a think tank says tax rises are likely in the autumn. The Resolution Foundation reported the big rise in public spending has been largely paid for by £39.7 billion in tax increases (set for 2028-29) announced in last Autumn's Budget, along with £3.6 billion in benefit cuts (also in 2028-29) revealed in the Spring Statement – which works out to about £1,550 for every family in Britain. "But the combination of a weaker economic outlook, an unfunded spending commitment on winter fuel payments, and just £9.9 billion of headroom against the chancellor's fiscal rules, mean further tax rises are likely to be needed this autumn," it says. We asked Did Rachel Reeves get her Spending Review right? Just 908 of you felt she did, while a whopping 1,982 said she didn't. Many of you responded to our original story, here's just a slice of what some of you had to say: Martinsopinion posted: "I don't know about you, but I don't want to pay more council tax for less services. I wonder what other ways they will find to tax us? Maybe spending money on poorly connected urban sprawl to maybe help a few, when the country needs a new city full of six-storey buildings. The policies are so misguided." Hfchbffch said: "What happened to the 22 billion black hole? Looks like it's gone bigger. Where is all the cash coming from? I don't see any country given money to the UK for all the problems it has got. It looks like the UK working people will foot another bill." 72Momma added: "Where is all the money coming from? Have they actually got rid of the 'black hole' or are they just remortgaging the country? To be able to spend over £102bn ... who is she borrowing from?" Joeyd: "Margaret Thatcher's Reagonomics caused the global economic crash. She sold off Britain to foreign countries for a pittance, wrecked mining, shipbuilding and steel towns across Britain, sold off council housing and put all our money into banking. When the banks collapsed, the country collapsed with them. The Conservative Government introduced 14 years of failed austerity making the rich even richer, and the poorest even poorer. Someone has to reverse decades of neglect, we'll have to wait and see if they carry through with the infrastructure plans she's promising." Seccmjfl01: "It might not be perfect but at least she's trying and making an effort. Things take time and she needed some stability. Good luck to her." Wolveslegends: "The Chancellor promises so much with no money to pay for it. Come the Autumn she will gain the funds from guess where from? All of us will donate to her cause if we like it or not including the disabled and those too old to work. Welcome to New Labour." Reeves is pledging an extra £29 billion a year for the NHS – a real-terms boost of around 3% annually. And on housing, she laid out a massive £39 billion package to build hundreds of thousands of affordable homes over the next decade. It's being called the 'biggest cash injection' in 50 years and is part of the drive to get 1.5 million new homes built by 2029. Following details of the winter fuel U-turn earlier this week, Reeves confirmed plans to restore the payments to millions of pensioners. OAPs with an income of £35,000 or below in England and Wales will receive the benefit this winter. It is a major uplift from the current £11,500 cut-off point announced last summer. In an "age of insecurity" the Chancellor said defence spending will rise to 2.6% of GDP by 2027. She said the figure includes spending on intelligence agencies. 'We will make Britain a defence industrial superpower," Ms Reeves vowed. The Mirror understands schools will also get a major boost to per pupil funding, with £4.5billion extra for the core schools budget. This includes a major expansion of free school meals to 500,000 more pupils. Some £15.6billion will also be handed to mayors for major transport projects across the country. This will go towards plans to improve trams, trains and buses in the North and the Midlands. Other announcements include ending the "costly" use of hotels to house asylum seekers, £3 cap on single bus tickets, and over £14billion worth of investment will go towards building the Sizewell C nuclear power plant on the Suffolk coast. Keir Starmer told the Cabinet that the Spending Review: "Marks the end of the first phase of this Government, as we move to a new phase that delivers on the promise of change for working people all around the country and invests in Britain's renewal." However, Tory Shadow Chancellor Mel Stride slammed the announcement, as he fumed: "This spending review is not worth the paper it is written on.' He goes on to claim Ms Reeves has "completely lost control" and warns of tax rises to come in the autumn."
The Guardian
27 minutes ago
- The Guardian
It is politicians – not regulators – who must make sense of the supreme court's gender ruling
It's almost two months now since the UK supreme court ruling on what makes a woman in the eyes of the law, which was hailed as a turning point in the battle over transgender rights. Not long enough for wounds to heal, in other words, but long enough surely to hope for a bit more clarity about what this means for everyday life: which toilets trans people can use, what this means for your local women's running club or gym, how employers can handle sensitive situations at work without outing or humiliating trans staff in front of colleagues and customers. But instead, the waters are getting muddier with every passing week. On Wednesday, Kishwer Falkner, now in the final five months of her term as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) watchdog, was grilled by the women and equalities select committee about the detailed code of practice she is due to submit to ministers next month, translating the ruling into everyday life. Since years of turning this issue into a political football haven't helped anyone, in an ideal world MPs could now leave it all in the hands of a trusted neutral arbiter, and resist the urge to meddle. Unfortunately, by the end of the hearing it was clear meddling may be urgently required. Within hours of the original supreme court ruling in April that 'woman' means 'biological woman' for the purpose of the Equality Act, and to the surprise of some lawyers, Lady Falkner had effectively pronounced inclusiveness dead. The EHRC issued interim guidance saying that trans people should stop using the toilets, changing rooms or NHS wards of their preferred gender – though for trans men who look male enough to be potentially frightening to women in female spaces, that's not straightforward – and only play on the grassroots sports teams of their birth sex. But is that really what the court intended? The former supreme court judge Jonathan Sumption has already warned of the risks of overinterpreting the ruling, arguing that he took it to confirm that single-sex services are entitled to exclude trans people, but not obliged to if they don't want to. Falkner, however, is sticking to her guns. Suppose you wanted to start a women's walking group, the Labour MP Rachel Taylor asked her, but you actively wanted to include trans women. Is that allowed? No, was the eventual answer: of course you can let your trans friend join, but then you'd be a mixed not single-sex group, and would have to also accept any man asking to join or risk getting sued. What the biological women in this group actually want – where they'd draw their own boundaries, or what feels right to them – is irrelevant on this reading, a position that may yet end up being tested in the courts. How any of this might be enforced in real life, meanwhile, seems vague at best. Asked how this imaginary walking group should check that every new member was definitely biologically female, Falkner suggested they might make a judgment on sight, but that nobody was going to be walking around with badges on policing it. Similarly on toilets, EHRC chief executive John Kirkpatrick told the committee that employers would need to provide facilities securing women's privacy and dignity, but that what that meant would vary locally and could be worked out 'on the basis of trust and openness and honesty'. With a large dollop of goodwill and forbearance on all sides, you can see how that might wash – except on this issue, there's vanishingly little of either to be found. The most awkward question, meanwhile, is whether a battle-scarred veteran of the culture wars such as Falkner is now sufficiently trusted to write the peace settlement. Originally appointed by Liz Truss to shake up an organisation seen by the Tories as too close to Stonewall, Falkner survived both attempted mutiny inside her organisation and vicious personal abuse from outside, as she dragged it into line with what would later end up being the supreme court's settled position: that trans women are not, in law, quite the same as biological women. She wouldn't be human if she didn't feel vindicated, and she was visibly emotional when the gender-critical MP Rosie Duffield (who has been through something similar) reminded her about the placards reading 'the only good Terf [trans-exclusionary radical feminist] is a dead Terf' or when protesters in 2022 dumped 60 bottles of urine on her office doorstep. But the legacy of those brutal years is that, fairly or unfairly, many trans people no longer trust the EHRC to defend their rights (as it's mandated to do for all protected groups). Falkner brushed off the committee's questions about that, saying she didn't see why people 'should become so fearful' when they haven't lost any rights (technically speaking, the court merely defined what the limits of those rights were). Yet where people do and don't feel welcome in society is determined by social norms as well as rights, and the former have swung from one extreme to the other in recent years; you don't have to disagree with the supreme court's ruling to see how that could be wildly disorienting. Though Falkner suggested it would be 'wise for space to be given to the regulator' to handle this – in other words, that parliament should back off – some Labour MPs are rapidly reaching the opposite view. A law that doesn't work in real-life scenarios is a law that doesn't work, full stop. On this evidence, parliament should prepare to roll up its sleeves. Gaby Hinsliff is a Guardian columnist Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
