Labour minister who claimed majority of Channel migrants were women and children now says he was only talking about ONE boat - as nearly 1,000 more cross to UK
A Labour Minister has had to issue a clarification after claiming on Question Time that 90 percent of people arriving in the UK on small boats are women and children, as another 919 made the dangerous journey across the Channel on Friday.
Darren Jones, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, made the claim during Thursday's programme before hastily 'clarifying' he was referring to one specific boat after the figure was widely debunked online.
The row came as Reform's Zia Yusuf, who revealed an inner chaos to the party when he abruptly quit as chairman last week before returning two days later in a new role, also made false claims when he said 'more than 90 percent' are men.
Mr Jones provoked fury when he said that 'the majority of the people in these boats are children, babies and women'.
Following cries of disbelief from members of the public, Mr Yusuf - who prevoiously said getting Reform elected was 'not a good use of my time' - interjected to say that 'more than 90 per cent of them are adult men', which is also incorrect.
Home Office figures show 73 percent percent of small boat arrivals in 2024 - or 26,999 out of all 36,816 arrivals - were adult males.
More than 14,800 people have arrived in Britain after making the crossing so far in 2025 - making it the highest start to the year on record, which experts have blamed on an usually high number of calm weather days.
On Friday, another 919 people arrived in 14 small boats after making the dangerous crossing from France.
The figure makes yesterday's arrivals the second highest number so far this year.
On Question Time last night following Mr Yusuf's intervention, host Fiona Bruce turned to Mr Jones and asked: 'You're saying that's not true?'
He replied: 'I'm saying it's not true. I'm saying this is controversial for a reason and you're told you're not supposed to challenge the audience on Question Time, but I'm going to.
'When there are babies and children put into that position by human trafficking gangs, who are coming across the Channel with skin burns from the oil from those boats mixing with the salt sea water, I would ask any of you to look at those babies and children and say 'go back'.
Mr Yusuf hit back: 'In my previous answer, I made the case that this Government prioritises foreign citizens over citizens of the United Kingdom. After that testimony, I can rest my case.
'The vast, vast majority of people making the journey from France by small boat are fighting age, military age, males, not women and children.
'We're talking about asylum hotels, and Rachel Reeves saying we're going to shut down asylum hotels.
'I spent many weeks in the constituency of Runcorn and Helsby. Runcorn is a very deprived area. And do you know the issue that exercised people so much? The reason is primarily because of HMOs – houses of multiple occupancies.
'In an unholy alliance of Serco and Yvette Cooper, illegal migrants are being deposited into communities and there's no say for the local people.'
Taking to X (formerly Twitter) this evening, Mr Jones clarified his position but maintained the percentage of migrants that are adult males is 'not north of 90 percent'.
A group of people thought to be migrants are brought in to Dover, Kent, onboard the RNLI Ramsgate Lifeboat on Friday
An overloaded dinghy is pictured as it attempts to make the perilous journey cross the Channel from France
He wrote: 'Of course the overall majority of people arriving illegally on small boats are men - but not 'north of 90 percent' as Reform claimed.
'On @bbcquestiontime I shared a story from my visit to the Border Security Command about a dinghy that arrived mostly carrying women, children and babies who had suffered horrific burns.
'I'm happy to clarify this given how this is now being misrepresented.
'Labour committed new funding this week to secure our borders while Reform have voted against giving our police the powers needed to smash the gangs fuelling this vile trade.'
At her spending review on Wednesday, Rachel Reeves pledged that migrants would be moved out of hotel accommodation by the time of the next general election, due in 2029.
Ms Reeves also promised £1 billion of savings by speeding up the asylum system, along with £280 million investment in future years for the new Border Security Command.
Latest figures show £3.1 billion was spent on housing asylum seekers in hotels in 2023-24, out of a total asylum support bill of £4.7 billion.
More than 30,000 asylum seekers are housed in about 200 hotels across Britain, many of whom arrived illegally in dinghies, and ministers are looking at moving them into derelict tower blocks and student digs.
But despite Ms Reeves' pledge to end the use of hotels, the Tories pointed out that the small print of her Spending Review documents revealed that £2.5 billion will still be spent each year on asylum support by the end of the decade.
It comes as dramatic pictures emerged of French police using tear gas and pepper spray to disperse hundreds of migrants trying to board boats headed for Britain.
Some officers were seen entering the water and dragging them back to shore.
A major point of contention between Britain and France has been the French authorities' refusal to turn back migrants who are already in the water.
Despite officers' efforts, a significant number of migrants were able to successfully cross this morning - with pictures showing them at Dover.
A major point of contention between Britain and France has been the French authorities' refusal to turn back migrants who are already in the water
A record five months of the year has brought the provisional arrivals today 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 Government has vowed to crack down on people-smuggling and Channel crossings since coming to power in July last year.
This includes 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.
However, critics have repeatedly warned the 'smash the gangs' strategy will not work unless there is a deterrent strong enough to prevent migrants from wanting to make the crossing in the first place.
Yesterday, a spokesman for the PM repeatedly refused to engaged with questions about whether Mr Jones was right.
'The Government is absolutely focused on tackling these vile smuggling gangs… ' they said.
Asked again about Home Office figures suggesting he is wrong, the spokesman said: 'The focus of the government is tackling these vile gangs that deal in misery.'
Pressed if the PM had confidence in Mr Jones, the spokesman said: 'Yes.'
Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said: 'Darren Jones is completely out of touch with reality.
'Since 2018, 73 percent of small boat arrivals have been single adult men. Yet Labour MPs like Jones still push the fairytale that these boats are full of women and babies. It's a dangerous distortion of the truth.
'No wonder this is shaping up to be the worst year on record for small boat crossings. If this is what passes for reality inside the Labour Government, Britain is in serious trouble.'
A Home Office spokesperson said: 'We all want to end dangerous small boat crossings, which threaten lives and undermine our border security.
'The people-smuggling gangs do not care if the vulnerable people they exploit live or die as long as they pay, and we will stop at nothing to dismantle their business models and bring them to justice.
'That is why this Government has put together a serious plan to take down these networks at every stage, and why we are investing up to an additional £280 million per year by 2028-29 in the Border Security Command.
'Through international intelligence-sharing under our Border Security Command, enhanced enforcement operations in northern France and tougher legislation in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, we are strengthening international partnerships and boosting our ability to identify, disrupt and dismantle criminal gangs whilst strengthening the security of our borders.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
17 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Report: Trump's U-turn on mass deportations
By Published: Updated: The Trump administration has for the first time pumped the brakes on its mass deportation agenda, telling ICE officials to pause raids on farms, hotels and restaurants, according to an internal email and three US officials familiar with the situation. The decision, as reported by The New York Times , comes after Trump made a rare acknowledgement that some of the deportations he's ordered has hurt industries in agricultural, hospitality and food sectors. 'Our great Farmers and people in the Hotel and Leisure business have been stating that our very aggressive policy on immigration is taking very good, long time workers away from them, with those jobs being almost impossible to replace,' he said in a Truth Social post on Thursday morning. 'We must protect our Farmers, but get the CRIMINALS OUT OF THE USA. Changes are coming!' he added. He further elaborated on these sentiments in a press conference later that same day. 'Our farmers are being hurt badly by, you know, they have very good workers, they have worked for them for 20 years,' he said. 'They're not citizens, but they've turned out to be, you know, great. And we're going to have to do something about that. We can't take farmers and take all their people and send them back because they don't have maybe what they're supposed to have, maybe not,' he continued, adding that there would be an 'order' soon. The official order from Trump came on Thursday via an email sent by a senior ICE official, Tatum King, to regional leaders of the ICE department that generally carries out criminal investigations. These investigations often lead to worksite raids, which have been happening in increasing frequency all over the country. These raids have led to nationwide anti-ICE protests, most notably in Los Angeles, where demonstrations have been going on for a week straight. 'Effective today, please hold on all work site enforcement investigations/operations on agriculture (including aquaculture and meat packing plants), restaurants and operating hotels,' King wrote in his message. King clarified that investigations 'human trafficking, money laundering, drug smuggling into these industries are OK.' The order instructed agents not to arrest 'noncriminal collaterals,' a seeming reference to illegal immigrants who have not committed any additional crimes. The Department of Homeland Security confirmed the new guidance and said it would follow it. 'We will follow the president's direction and continue to work to get the worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens off of America's streets,' Tricia McLaughlin, a DHS spokeswoman, said in a statement. This marks a huge departure in Trump's rhetoric, since over the last few months, he's advocated for deporting all illegal immigrants, regardless of their criminal record. Trump posted about his change of mind after Brooke Rollins, the secretary of agriculture, told him that farmers were concerned that ICE enforcement would negatively impact their businesses, a White House official and a person familiar told The Times. There are still officials within the administration who are more aligned with the idea of deporting as many migrants as possible. Chief among them is White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, who has been advocating for a minimum of 3,000 arrests a day by ICE. ICE confirmed that Miller held a meeting with dozens of top directors and officials on May 20, where he reportedly 'came in there and eviscerated everyone.' According to the Washington Examiner, Miller allegedly told them: 'You guys aren't doing a good job. You're horrible leaders.' He then reportedly gave them an open challenge and asked: 'Why aren't you at Home Depot? Why aren't you at 7-Eleven?' ICE agents were reportedly surprised by the new guidance to limit raids on certain industries after weeks and months of being told to step it up. King said in his memo that the new rules would hamstring the administration's goals for higher numbers of arrests. 'We acknowledge that by taking this off the table, that we are eliminating a significant [number] of potential targets,' he wrote.
The Guardian
27 minutes ago
- The Guardian
As a trans Australian, I was kicked out of a UK toilet. This is not the open-hearted Britain I remember
I was visiting family in London when the British supreme court handed down its unexpected ruling: under the Equality Act, sex was now considered 'binary' in law, which meant transgender people could be banned from single-sex spaces of their gender identity. The Labour government, which had come into office promising us 'dignity', capitulated. But, not to worry, soothed a minister, Pat McFadden, 'There isn't going to be toilet police.' A few days later the toilet police got me. It was my last night in London before returning to Australia. I was in full makeup and a dress when my female friends took me out dancing at an alternative hub that has always prided itself on being an accepting space. And for an hour everything was great. We danced and drank and shouted incoherent enthusiasms to each other. But as the gin and tonics settled in my bladder, I felt my anxiety building. In 15 years of visiting Britain I have been presenting feminine in public without any problem, including using women's bathrooms. But now I needed to piss, and I was afraid. Sensing my discomfort my friends loyally announced their own need to pee. So we filed through a maze of corridors until we got to the pair of doors that have bifurcated so much of my life. And there she was. The literal toilet police. She was a stocky woman marking each visitor as they approached the door and, as we passed, she raised a finger of doom and pointed it at me. 'NO,' she commanded, then rotated the finger towards the masculine pictogram. 'You go there.' We froze. I didn't want to speak, ashamed of further betraying myself by my voice. Drunk and anxious as I was, the idea of going to that male bathroom, alone, was just impossible. My friends came to the rescue, telling the guard to back off and escorting me into the women's, which was crowded with people. Gaze fixed downwards to hide my humiliation, I pushed into a cubicle and peed. My head was ringing, there were raised voices outside, then the rap at the door. 'OUT!' There was commotion, complete strangers were clamouring, I think, in my defence. The toilet policewoman ignored it all. I was obviously leaving anyway; there was nothing to be gained now but my humiliation. I can't remember if I was given a chance to wash my hands. For a minute afterwards I stood crying against the wall. Then the toilet policewoman returned and took up position in front of me. She looked a little ashamed, and she touched a now-gentler hand to my arm. 'It's not me,' she said. 'It's just the way things are now.' 'Just the way things are' means Britain has become a country where trans people can be yanked from their sports teams; where cash-strapped businesses can be forced to ghettoise their customers or potentially face legal action; and where cisgender women deemed insufficiently feminine fear abuse by self-appointed bathroom vigilantes. Because that's the thing about oppression: it widens. It affects us all. I was born in the United Kingdom and consider it my second home. For years I have recognised its cultural pessimism and economic stagnation but I still loved it for its humour, its history and particularly for its cosmopolitan tolerance. It was as a young adult in London that I first felt fully able to embrace my gender. And while on this trip my Australian partner and I had been discussing immigrating to Britain, trying to picture what it would be like to make a life there. Well, my experience made one thing clear. It would feel like stepping back 20 years in time, to a world that prickles against your skin in a hundred ways and where every outing is consumed by the need to 'pass' as a survival strategy. Where it's easier to be silent than to speak. It's not just Britain. In Trump's America, transgender soldiers are being purged from the military and trans visitors are cancelling travel to the US out of fear of discrimination. In April the Hungarian government passed a constitutional amendment banning any assembling of queer people. Across the world it's not just bathroom doors that are slamming shut for transgender people. In this moment of global reaction, Australia has never felt so much like an island refuge. And I am deeply grateful for that. But I mourn the open-hearted country that I remember Britain being. When a traveller lands at Heathrow airport, they are met by posters of beaming Britons, arms outstretched, above the words WELCOME! In the wake of this court ruling, the sentiment rings hollow. I may not have been allowed to wash my hands. But the British state has made it clear that it has washed its hands of me. Jack Nicholls is a British-Australian essayist and speculative-fiction writer based in Melbourne
The Guardian
28 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Aukus will cost Australia $368bn. What if there was a better, cheaper defence strategy?
As Australia's nuclear submarine-led defence strategy threatens to fray, strategists say it's time to evaluate whether the military and economic case of the tripartite deal still stacks up. The defence tie-up with the US and UK, called Aukus, is estimated to cost up to $368bn over 30 years, although the deal could become even more costly should Donald Trump renegotiate terms to meet his 'America first' agenda. The current deal, struck in 2021, includes the purchase of three American-made nuclear-powered submarines, the construction of five Australian-made ones, as well as sustaining the vessels and associated infrastructure. Such a price tag naturally comes with an opportunity cost paid by other parts of the defence force and leaves less money to address societal priorities, such as investing in regional diplomacy and accelerating the renewable energy transition. This choice is often described as one between 'guns and butter', referring to the trade-off between spending on defence and social programs. Luke Gosling, Labor's special envoy for defence and veterans' affairs, last year described Aukus as 'Australia's very own moonshot' – neatly capturing both the risks and the potential benefits. Sam Roggeveen, director of the Lowy Institute's international security program, says there are cheaper ways to replicate submarine capabilities, which are ultimately designed to sink ships and destroy other submarines. These include investing in airborne capabilities, more missiles, maritime patrol aircraft and naval mines, he says. 'If you imagine a world without Aukus, it does suddenly free up a massive portion of the defence budget,' says Roggeveen. 'That would relieve a lot of pressure, and would actually be a good thing for Australia.' Roggeveen coined the term 'echidna strategy' to argue for an alternative, and cheaper, defence policy for Australia that does not include nuclear-powered submarines. Like the quill-covered mammal, the strategy is designed to build defensive capabilities that make an attack unpalatable for an adversary. The strategy is meant to radiate strength but not aggression. 'The uncertainty that Aukus introduces is that we are buying submarines that actually have the capabilities to fire Tomahawk cruise missiles on to an enemy land mass,' says Roggeveen. 'That is an offensive capability that's ultimately destabilising. We should be focusing on defensive capabilities only.' Those advocating for a more defensive approach, including Albert Palazzo from the University of New South Wales, point out that it is more costly to capture ground than it is to hold it. The argument has been bolstered by Ukraine's ability to stall the advance of a larger adversary, aided by its use of relatively cheap underwater and airborne drones. On the question of alternative uses for the submarine money, the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments recently asked teams in Washington and Canberra to consider how Australia might rebalance its defence force structure over the next decade. In the experiment, four out of the six teams – including all three Australian teams – opted to cancel the nuclear submarine deal, citing concerns about British industrial capacity, complexities of the program and the delivery timetable. Total defence funding is forecast to nearly double in dollar terms over the next decade, from $56bn in this financial year to $100.4bn in 2033-34. The increase in defence spending as a share of the economy is less pronounced, but still marked: from 2% now to 2.4% over the same period. Saul Eslake, an independent economist, says higher defence spending is coming at a time of substantially higher demands on the public purse across a range of areas, from aged care, to disability services and childcare. Eslake says government spending is now 1.5 to 2 percentage points higher than the average through the decades leading up to the pandemic, the equivalent of $55-70bn a year in today's dollars. At some point, Australians will need to grapple with how to pay for this extra spending, or to find areas where programs can be cut. 'The consensus across the political divide, and whether the public wants it or not, is that there will be more spending on defence,' Eslake says. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email While expert opinion divides over whether nuclear-powered submarines are the best strategic option for Australia's long-term defence strategy, there's a separate question over whether the submarines will be delivered. There is a substantial risk associated with a project that spans three countries over three decades and involves huge sums of money. The Aukus costing recognises some of this: of the $368bn estimated cost over 30 years, $123bn is classed as 'contingency'. In other words, an extra 50% has been added to the cost estimate to try to account for the risk of cost blowouts, which is more than 10 times the usual contingency on big projects. Australia may find it needs to draw on that contingency sooner than expected should terms be renegotiated with Trump in the US's favour. As part of the agreement, Australia has already committed billions of dollars to help build up the manufacturing capacity of the US and UK. The financial cost of the nuclear-powered submarine program is so high that Marcus Hellyer, from Strategic Analysis Australia, has described it as the country's 'fourth service', sitting alongside the navy, army and air force. Hellyer says many of the risks linked to the deal, including questions over US submarine production capability and whether Australia will have enough nuclear-qualified submariners, still remain almost four years after the agreement was struck. 'There are serious risks around this and the risk picture is not a particularly comfortable one at the moment,' he says. Hellyer says the heavy investment in traditional assets, including submarines, leaves Australia with a limited ability to invest in emerging defence technologies. 'We don't have a lot of flexibility because so much of our investment budget is tied up,' he says. 'Unfortunately, it's tied up in things that won't be delivered for a decade or more.'
