More than 100 migrants in one vessel thought to have bumped crossings to 27,799
Home Office figures show 325 migrants crossed the English Channel by small boat on Wednesday, in the same week that the number of arrivals since Labour won the election hit 50,000.
The PA news agency understands that 106 people attempted the crossing between France and the Kent coast on a single boat.
A total of 51,041 migrants have been detected crossing the Channel since Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer entered No 10 on July 5 last year.
A former home secretary has said that the figure 'demonstrates the way over the last six or seven years that the criminal gangs have got an absolute foothold in the tragic trafficking of people across the Channel'.
Baroness Jacqui Smith of Malvern, who is now an education and women and equalities minister, told BBC Breakfast on Monday: 'It is an unacceptable number of people.'
Speaking on the Isle of Wight this week, Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch said: 'My team are now looking at what we can do in terms of detention centres, but stopping people from coming here in the first place – if they think they're going to be sent to Rwanda and not get here, get a free hotel, get benefits, then they won't come here.'
Asked if her party could reduce the five-figure numbers to zero if it was in power, Mrs Badenoch said she thought 'it wouldn't happen straight away, but it would happen quickly'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
a minute ago
- Telegraph
Governments spent £2.5m ‘covering up' Afghan data leak
The Labour Government and its Tory predecessor spent almost £2.5m on the Afghan data leak super-injunction, figures have shown. Nearly 24,000 Afghan soldiers and their families were secretly offered asylum after being caught up in the most serious data breach in history. It led the Government to earmark a total of £7bn to relocate Afghan refugees to Britain over the course of five years. Despite the heavy cost of the scheme, the breach was kept secret from the public for 683 days by two successive governments after the first use of a super-injunction by ministers. The super-injunction cost the taxpayer a total of £2.41m, according to figures obtained under freedom of information laws. The Government Legal Department spent almost £1.82m on time and charges for lawyers in relation to the gagging order. A further £598,624.68 was spent on disbursements, the Guido Fawkes political blog reported on Friday. The use of the super-injunction was the first such measure issued 'contra mundum' – against the world – and led to what one judge described as a 'scrutiny vacuum'. The data breach was kept secret to the point that Sir Keir Starmer was only told about it on entering Downing Street after winning the general election last summer. A two-year legal battle was fought to keep the leak a secret, including securing the super-injunction. This meant journalists from The Telegraph and other media organisations faced jail if they reported on the data breach or mentioned the existence of the legal battle. A Royal Marine had sent an email to a group of Afghans in February 2022 which accidentally included a spreadsheet containing the details and identities of 25,000 Afghans applying for asylum. It emerged a year later when an anonymous Facebook user posted extracts of the data, prompting the biggest ever covert evacuation operation in peacetime – Operation Rubific. The previous Tory government argued that the secrecy was necessary to stop data falling into the hands of the Taliban, who swept back to power in Kabul in August 2021. But a Taliban official went on to tell The Telegraph that the group had obtained the 'kill list' shortly after the original leak and already started to hunt down those who were named. John Healey, the Defence Secretary, issued a 'sincere apology' for the incident when the injunction was lifted on July 15, shortly before Parliament rose for its summer recess. Mr Healey insisted that he had felt 'deeply concerned about the lack of transparency' around the data breach. He told the Commons: 'No government wishes to withhold information from the British public, from parliamentarians or the press in this manner.' Officials have said that almost 7,000 Afghans would be brought to Britain as a direct result of the breach, with a scheme set up specifically to deal with the fallout. The Ministry of Defence has said that 4,500 of these are already in the country or are in transit, with a further 2,400 yet to travel. A further 17,000 Afghans who were affected by the breach have also been deemed eligible to come to Britain. Of this group, 14,000 are already in Britain or in transit. Sir Ben Wallace, the defence secretary at the time of the data breach, said last month that he made 'no apology' for applying for the injunction. 'It was not, as some are childishly trying to claim, a cover-up,' Sir Ben said. 'I took the view that if this leak was reported at the time, the existence of the list would put in peril those we needed to help out.'
Daily Mail
29 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Millions more Britons now worried about cost of living than when Labour came to power
Millions more Britons are now worried about the cost of living than when Labour came to power, new Office for National Statistics polling suggests. Almost six in ten adults said their cost of living has increased in the last month - higher than the 45 per cent of people who said this when Labour won the General Election in July 2024. The most commonly reported reason for a rise in the cost of living was increases in the price of food shopping, with 95 per cent of people saying this had driven their outgoings up. Some 57 per cent said the price of energy bills had increased their cost of living and 45 per cent said the price of fuel had done so, with this proportion increasing from 38 per cent the month before. Younger adults - aged under 50 - were more likely to give the cost of living as an important issue for them while older adults - aged over 50 - were more likely say that the NHS is important to them. The cost of living was the most reported issue among those aged 16 to 29 years - with 86 per cent saying this - and 30 to 49 years with 92 per cent of people in this age group raising living costs. The NHS was most commonly reported by those aged 50 to 69 years - with 87 per cent saying the health service is an important issue - and 70 years and over with 85 per cent of people in this age group raising the NHS. The ONS carries out monthly polling on public opinions and social trends to get insights into the daily life of the British public and track how this changes over time. The latest research was carried out between July 2 and 27 and sampled 9,564 households, with results representative of the population. When asked about the important issues facing the UK in July, the most commonly reported issue was the cost of living, with 85 per cent of people citing this. Some 81 per cent said the NHS was an important issue and 67 per cent said the economy. Over the past three years, the proportion citing the cost of living and the economy have declined from 93 per cent and 79 per cent respectively in October 2022, while the proportion citing the NHS has remained largely stable. The proportion reporting that their cost of living has increased has been declining since April this year, when 72 per cent said their outgoings were going up. In July 2024 45 per cent said their cost of living had increased but this had risen to 59 per cent in July this year. The proportion of people saying immigration and crime are important issues has increased over the years, the ONS said. In October 2022, 43 per cent of adults cited immigration and 49 per cent cited crime as important issues facing the UK, but these have now risen to 63 per cent and 58 per cent respectively.
The Independent
31 minutes ago
- The Independent
Council faces wait for ruling on asylum seekers hotel injunction bid
A council will discover on Tuesday whether it has been successful in a bid to temporarily block asylum seekers from being housed at an Essex hotel. Epping Forest District Council is seeking an interim injunction stopping migrants from being accommodated at the Bell Hotel in Epping, which is owned by Somani Hotels Limited. It comes following a series of protests in recent weeks outside the hotel after an asylum seeker who was housed at the hotel was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl. At a hearing on Friday, barristers for the council claimed Somani Hotels breached planning rules as the site is not being used for its intended purpose as a hotel, and that the situation 'could not be much worse'. The injunction sought by the authority, if granted, would require the company to stop housing asylum seekers at the hotel within 14 days. Barristers for the company said the 'draconian' move would cause 'hardship' for those inside the hotel, and that 'political views' were not grounds for an injunction to be granted. They also said that contracts to house asylum seekers were a 'financial lifeline' for the hotel, which was only 1% full in August 2022, when it was open to paying customers. At the end of the hearing, Mr Justice Eyre said: 'I am not going to close my notebook and give a decision now. 'I am going to reflect on this, but we need a decision sooner rather than later.' The judge later said that he would give a ruling at 2pm on Tuesday. He also ordered that Somani Hotels could not 'accept any new applications' from asylum seekers to stay at the site until he had ruled on whether to grant the temporary injunction. The hotel has become the focal point of a series of protests after Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, 38, was charged with trying to kiss a teenage girl. Kebatu, who was housed at the hotel at the time of the incident, denies the allegations and is due to stand trial later this month. Opening the hearing in London, Philip Coppel KC, for the council, said the authority had a 'very serious problem' which was 'getting out of hand' and causing 'great anxiety' to residents. He said this had been caused by a 'breach of planning control' by the company, with the site 'no more a hotel than a borstal to a young offender' for asylum seekers. In written submissions, Mr Coppel said there was a 'preponderance of factors overwhelmingly in favour of granting an injunction', which included removing 'the catalyst for violent protests in public places'. Concluding his submissions, Mr Coppel told Mr Justice Eyre that if an injunction was not granted, 'Your Lordship will be telling the residents in Epping: 'You have just got to lump it'.' Piers Riley-Smith, representing Somani Hotels, told the court in written submissions that the alleged planning breach was 'not flagrant' and that it was 'entirely wrong' for the council to 'suggest the use has been hidden from them'. The barrister told the court the hotel previously housed asylum seekers from May 2020 to March 2021, and from October 2022 to April 2024. He also said that while the company did apply for planning permission for a 'temporary change of use' in February 2023, this was a 'pragmatic attempt to address the claimant's concerns, rather than an acceptance that such a use required planning permission'. This application was later withdrawn as it had not been determined by April 2024, the barrister said. Asylum seekers then began being placed in the Bell Hotel again in April 2025, with Mr Riley-Smith stating a planning application was not made 'having taken advice from the Home Office'. In court, he said that while there were genuine concerns among local residents, these had 'expanded' to include 'concerns about wider ideological and political issues from those outside the community'. He continued that these 'particular ideological, non-community concerns are not relevant to planning', and that the concerns of local residents did not 'justify' a temporary injunction.
