UK's military and spy services set for £330m AI tech boost to help track enemies
Hundreds of millions of pounds will be invested in cutting-edge drones and artificial intelligence for the military as part of Rachel Reeves ' attempt to revive the flagging economy.
The Chancellor's new industrial strategy will include a £330 million investment in technology used by the Armed Forces, such as 'next-generation drones' to be developed for joint use on the battlefield and by the emergency services.
Money will also be ploughed into ultra-powerful computers for MI5, MI6 and GCHQ as well as artificial intelligence (AI) applications to track enemy targets.
The investment, part of the strategy being launched tomorrow, comes as Ms Reeves is struggling to boost the UK's flagging growth prospects, which the Confederation of British Industry last week slashed to 1.2 per cent for this year and 1 per cent for 2026.
In addition, government borrowing hit a non-pandemic record for May and retail sales last week were down.
Without proper growth, the Chancellor will likely have to make the unenviable choice between hiking taxes further in autumn's Budget or breaking her fiscal rules.
Ms Reeves has promised that the ten-year infrastructure strategy will lead to a 'decade of national renewal'.
The Government is putting £15.6 billion into transport upgrades, £39 billion into social and affordable housing and £14.2 billion for the Sizewell C nuclear power station.
Money will also be ploughed into ultra-powerful computers for MI5, MI6 and GCHQ as well as artificial intelligence (AI) applications to track enemy targets. pictured: MI6 headquarters
Ms Reeves told The Mail on Sunday she intended to 'pull together a plan to exploit new opportunities, whether it's AI, energy technology, a whole range of parts of the economy'.
She added: 'I'm really optimistic about Britain's future. We've got great businesses, we've got great trade deals... I don't see any reason for Britain not to be leaders in these jobs and industries of the future.'
But Shadow Chancellor Sir Mel Stride said: 'We have to put the public finances back on a sustainable footing. A future Conservative government will have to contend with a bloated national debt after Labour's reckless borrowing splurge.
'We will never make promises we cannot afford, and our plans will always be fully costed. Labour's "spend now, tax later" approach is utterly short-sighted.
'It mortgages Britain's future for short-term political convenience and leaves ordinary families to foot the bill.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
an hour ago
- Times
The wait of the law: justice delayed is an injustice in itself
Eight hundred and ten years ago, the writers of Magna Carta slipped a crucial word into the document they forced King John to sign. The monarch had to promise not to 'deny or delay' justice to his subjects. The law must decide — and, crucially, it must do so promptly. Today we report that the average wait for a case to come to trial at magistrates' courts has reached 346 days. For some people it extends to three years. The price of this indefensible delay is paid by the innocent. First, the victims, who after being traumatised by crime are left in limbo, with that trauma unresolved; second, those who are wrongly accused, living with an unjustified stain on their reputation and a shadow over their future. After eight centuries Magna Carta has no legal force, but its moral authority remains. The government should recognise that, and act accordingly. Justice delayed is not only justice denied: it is an injustice in itself.
Times
2 hours ago
- Times
The small boats crisis is out of control. This plan could solve it
In December 2018, Sajid Javid, then home secretary, cut short his holiday and declared a 'major incident' after 78 migrants crossed the Channel in small boats in four days. Since then six more home secretaries, and four prime ministers, have struggled with the same problem: how to stop the boats. All have failed. A record 17,000 have crossed so far this year. More than 900 crossed in a single day this month. There are some who argue that this proves, once again, that irregular migration can't be stopped and there is no point trying. This is wrong: the premise is false and the counsel unwise. Irregular migration can be controlled. There are plenty of examples of countries stopping or significantly reducing it. Australia has reduced it to almost zero: not once, but twice. It did so in 2001, and again in 2013, by shipping 'boat people' off to Nauru, a tiny Pacific island. Israel did the same in 2012 by building a fence and pushing migrants from Africa back across its border with Egypt. And, in the United States, President Trump is making a pretty good fist of it now: by strengthening border patrols and denying asylum applications at America's southern border, he has reduced encounters with irregular migrants to 12,000 in April this year, compared with 240,000 in April 2023. All these policies have three things in common: they are cruel and they violate people's rights. But they are also popular; or voters are at least prepared to put up with them if nothing else appears to work. In Australia, the 'Pacific solution' is now backed by both main parties. Trump is polling steadily on migration, even if the expansion of his deportation policy has dented support in recent weeks. None of this is lost on Nigel Farage, or his equivalents on the Continent. Seeing all else fail, voters are warming to Reform's promise to leave the European Convention on Human Rights and turn boats back at sea, using the navy if necessary. It is doubtful whether this very dangerous policy could work: you still need a place to push boats back to, and France is unlikely to be obliging. But it sounds simple and radical enough to tempt both voters and, it seems, the Conservative Party. This is a big problem for a Labour government that has promised to reduce migration but is reluctant to follow that path. Sir Keir Starmer's government desperately needs a humane, lawful, effective alternative. Is there one? More law enforcement is definitely not the answer. Close to £1 billion has been spent on boosting patrols in France; even more won't make much difference. A 'safe third-country agreement', with another faraway country that will admit and process asylum seekers, is perhaps an option. There is a version of this policy that could work, and could be lawful. The Supreme Court was clear on this, even as it scotched the previous government's half-baked Rwanda plan. But Labour criticised this policy so vehemently in opposition it would struggle to revive it now. • 1,378 migrants tried to cross the Channel in one day. France stopped 184 There is still one thing worth trying, however. It's also a safe third-country agreement, but not with Rwanda or some far-flung country. The deal the UK needs is with countries much closer to home: countries in the EU. From an agreed day onwards, the UK would agree with a group of EU countries, ideally including both France and Germany, to swiftly return almost all migrants who arrive irregularly across the Channel. This would reduce crossings to zero within a few weeks. As soon as it became clear that there was no prospect of success, the incentive to undertake a dangerous, costly journey would evaporate. After a few weeks, therefore, the number of transfers back to participating states would also fall to zero. The agreement would not be with the EU itself and would not replicate the unwieldy and unworkable system for intra-EU transfers known as the Dublin system, under which hardly anyone ever got sent anywhere. Anything that resembled this would fail — it is essential that asylum seekers do not suspect that there is a good chance of remaining in Britain anyway. Instead, it would be an ad hoc, one-off agreement with a coalition of interested EU countries, designed to ensure fast, efficient transfer for almost everyone within three or four weeks, with very occasional exceptions for people with the strongest family ties. The idea is not to turn boats around at sea. Intercepted migrants would be brought to British shores. They would be held securely and processed fairly. They would get a hearing, but unless they could present a credible other ground to remain here their claims would be declared inadmissible because there was a safe country to which they could be sent. There is no question that Germany and France — or Denmark, or Austria or the Netherlands for that matter — are safe. Their asylum systems are no worse, arguably better, than ours. Transfers would, therefore, be perfectly legal. There is an obvious question about such a deal. Why would European countries go for it? France and Germany have both had significantly higher numbers of asylum seekers per capita than the UK in recent years. They could not possibly agree to any arrangement in which the traffic was all one way. For this reason the UK would have to offer something in return: to take in, through organised legal channels, a fixed number of asylum seekers from the EU a year for the next few years: say 20,000 a year for four years, after which the scheme could be reviewed. A capped scheme similar to the Homes for Ukraine visa scheme would be set up to achieve this. This would be a good deal for Britain. Admitting 20,000 asylum seekers a year would be 30,000 less than are likely to arrive this year if nothing changes. Some would see this as an admission of failure, but a sharp reduction in numbers and, crucially, the restoration of control would quickly bring political dividends. A scheme such as this would almost entirely eliminate illegal migration. In comparison, the Darwinian lottery of the UK's current protection system, where over half of those securing it must have the strength and resources to undertake deeply hazardous journeys, is surely unsatisfactory. But what's in it for a Macron, or a Merz? Ultimately, something similar. Mainstream parties in Europe are leaching support to populists promising much more radical solutions to irregular migration. Right now, they have no policies of their own that credibly offer control. Nor are uglier ones that they are already endorsing (pushbacks at external borders from Greece to Poland, and deals with Tunisia and Libya to intercept boats and take them back before they even get there) working particularly well. This deal offers the outline of such a policy. Western European countries have every interest in showing their voters that migration can be controlled lawfully and humanely through safe third-country agreements. If they agreed this policy with Britain, EU countries would then need to invest in similar arrangements of its own, with partners it can find. For EU countries, finding (genuinely) safe third countries to transfer migrants to will be harder and will take time. But it is not impossible. Short of legalising the abuses occurring at their own borders, this is the only policy option they have. Developing this plan with the UK could quickly show that the model, control through co-operation, works. They would have a narrative and plan: two things sorely lacking right now. Like all good agreements, this one appeals to interests on both sides. It won't appeal to everyone. Participating states would be criticised from all sides: too generous for some, not generous enough for others. But if even closely allied, rights-respecting countries such as Britain and Germany cannot reach civilised migration control agreements, there is little hope for such agreements being reached anywhere. And little hope, therefore, for humane border control — meaning cruel ones will prevail. John Dalhuisen is a senior fellow at the European Stability Initiative. The ESI helped to broker the EU-Turkey deal in 2016, to address the migrant crisis caused by the Syrian civil war
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Ukraine war briefing: Russia repatriated at least 20 of its own dead soldiers in recent exchanges, Zelenskyy says
Volodymyr Zelenskyy said that Russia sent Ukraine at least 20 of its own dead soldiers in recent exchanges with Kyiv, describing it as a result of Moscow's disorganisation in carrying out large swaps of wounded PoW's and remains of troops. Zelenskyy said that an 'Israeli mercenary' fighting for Moscow was among the dead Ukraine had received. Officials did not disclose the identities of the bodies: 'They threw the corpses of their citizens at us. This is their attitude toward war, toward their soldiers. And this is already documented. Sometimes these bodies even have Russian passports,' he said. He said the Russian side insisted the dead were all Ukrainians. Zelenskyy has also accused western firms of supplying Russia with 'machine tools' used to make weapons, in remarks made public Saturday. He said companies from Germany, the Czech Republic, South Korea and Japan were among them, as well as one business 'supplying a small number of components from the United States.' He said most of the companies supplying tools to Russia were from China, but that dozens of western firms were also culpable: 'We have passed on all this information to all countries, our partners, everyone … We strongly urge everyone to impose sanctions on these companies,' the Ukrainian leader added. The Ukrainian president also called on Ukraine's western partners to allocate 0.25% of their GDP to helping Kyiv ramp up weapons production and said the country plans to sign agreements this summer to start exporting weapon production technologies. In remarks released for publication Saturday, Zelenskyy said Ukraine was in talks with Denmark, Norway, Germany, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Lithuania to launch joint weapon production. He also said on Saturday he was planning staff changes in Ukraine's diplomatic corps and also in government institutions to boost the country's resilience. He gave no time frame for the decisions. Siarhei Tsikhanouski, a leading Belarus opposition figure, was freed on Saturday after more than five years in prison, in the most significant move so far by Belarusian president Alexander Lukashenko to try to ease his isolation from the West. Lukashenko has been shunned by the West for years and faced sanctions after brutally crushing pro-democracy demonstrations in 2020 and then allowing Vladimir Putin, his close ally, to launch part of his 2022 invasion of Ukraine from Belarusian territory. The release came just hours after Belarusian authorities announced that Lukashenko met with US president Donald Trump's envoy for Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, in Minsk. In the Donetsk region, Russian strikes on Saturday on key towns on the eastern front of the war in Ukraine killed at least one person. The Russian military said its forces had captured another small village in its slow advance westward through Donetsk region. Russian forces struck Sloviansk and Kramatorsk – two cities that Moscow will target as its forces press on. Donetsk region Governor Vadym Filashkin said one person died and three were injured in Sloviansk. In Kramatorsk, officials said at least one person was trapped under rubble and a number of other residents were injured. In the north, another person died in a drone attack in the north near the Russian border, Ukrainian officials said. A mass drone attack on the town of Nizhyn near the Russian border killed one person and damaged local infrastructure. Reports from Kharkiv region in the north-east suggested Russian troops were closing in on the city of Kupiansk. On Friday, the Russian Defence Ministry said it had captured the village of Moskovka, just outside the city of Kupiansk. Deportation of Ukrainians is part of a continuing 'cleansing' operation of the occupied territories, reports the Guardian's Shaun Walker in Zaporizhzhia, which may accelerate if US-led attempts to push Russia and Ukraine into a peace deal result in the freezing of the current frontlines, solidifying Russian control over the territory Moscow has seized over the past three years.
