We are rushing down the beach. In the gloom just before dawn, people are waiting by the seashore, a few hundred metres away.
We can see a dinghy out at sea. And then a voice rings out, in Kurdish.
“Whose passengers are you?”
In the half-light, the people smuggler thinks we are customers here to clamber onto the boat, and wants to know who we had paid.
We tell him we’re journalists.
“Keep out of the way,” he warns.
There are several dozen people gathered together, standing on the shoreline, moving anxiously from side to side.
Image: Migrants wait for a dinghy as they prepare to cross the Channel to reach the UK
I can see some women and children, but most of the passengers are men.
Some are clinging to a bag of possessions; others have nothing but the clothes they stand in. A man has his child held up on his shoulders.
Advertisement
Just about everyone is wearing a life jacket.
Just beyond, the boat is coming near the shore, already half full of people.
It seems impossible that all the people on the land can really fit into the space left in the boat, but that’s what happens.
On a signal, the movement starts – the younger men clamber in first, and then help the women, children and older people to get into the boat.
It all happens remarkably quickly. From a distance, migrant boats may look ramshackle and chaotic, but when you get up close, there is method and practice.
Some people jump off; the men who didn’t have life jackets on.
It becomes clear that these are the smugglers – or, more accurately, the smugglers’ assistants who have been sent to sort things out.
On one side, we see a moment of tension as two passengers square up – one accuses the other of not leaving a space for him to get aboard.
Image: A shoe left in the sand following the attempted crossing
It is a faintly ridiculous squabble, like something between two drunk men in a pub, and it blows over. They end up sitting next to each other, brooding.
And then the engine is started and the boat sets off. At first, it’s a failure – the boat, low in the water with around 70 people on board, gets stuck on a small bar of sand and spins around.
But, with a push here and there, it gets going and slowly chugs away into the mist of the morning.
‘Migrants are desperate’
We turn around. The smugglers are leaving. We shout a question – are all these people Kurds?
“All of them,” he says. “These are the last Kurdish customers I have. There are no more.”
“Why not?”
And his answer is one succinct word: “Rwanda.”
The smugglers, dressed in black, disappear into the gloom.
We can just about see them clambering into the dunes, and then they are gone. It is a good ten minutes before we see the police – four officers marching down the beach.
They ask only two questions – firstly, did we see women and children on the boat (yes) and secondly, had the boat been launched from the beach (no).
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
They’d only just started their patrol, one of the officers tells me. He looks at the calm waters and shrugs. It could be busy.
Over the course of that night, we had seen plenty of police officers. We’d been questioned on the beach, checked as we walked near the beach and then pulled over at a road block.
We’d chatted with a team of CRS riot officers on the beach, one of whom bemoaned the fact that so few people grasped the sheer complexity of what they took on.
“It is so, so complicated – the migrants are desperate, and they can get everywhere. We cannot have a team in every place, at every time.”
It turned out that the road block officers were exactly the same team who we’d met on a different beach the previous evening.
“Ah, Sky News you are back,” he said, with a smile and a handshake.
‘I cannot go to Rwanda’
We meet two young Sudanese men who tell us they are determined to get to Britain. When I ask if they’re worried about the Rwanda plan, they look blank. They’ve never heard of it.
And then we drop into a migrant camp that is growing in size and bump into another group of Kurds.
They are cooking food – this is the cafe for the migrants – and brewing tea that is strong, and scented with cinnamon.
They give me a cup. It’s delicious.
Omar is kneading dough, making crispy flatbread, and serving it with yoghurt. And he talks as he cooks, serving a remarkable story.
Image: At a migrant camp in France that is growing in size, people kneed bread
Two years ago, Omar left Kurdistan and paid a smuggler $15,000 (£12,000) to get him to Britain. He was there for 20 months, suffered a stroke, failed to gain asylum and ended up paying a smuggler £500 to get him out of Britain and back to this squalid camp in France.
Yes, you read that correctly. He paid to be smuggled out of Britain, and back to France.
“Here there is no washing or bath,” he says.
“You can’t clean yourself. Life is hard. But in Britain I had to give my fingerprints and signature regularly. Once every two weeks.
Image: Omar, who paid to be smuggled out of the UK after a failed asylum claim, speaks to Adam Parsons
“Then I was told they had turned me down for asylum. I couldn’t cope with Britain any more.
“They could arrest me and send me to Rwanda or Iraq. Rwanda – I cannot go there.
“So that’s why I came back here, to this place. But I have no money. I am 52 years old. It’s a terrible feeling to be back here, but what can I do?”
Listening to him is Barzan, who arrived in the camp five days ago after eight months on the road since leaving Kurdistan.
By striking contrast, he is not remotely bothered by the Rwanda plan.
“People won’t stop, whatever you tell them.
“Even if you tell them they will be taken to Africa, they would still go without hesitation. Rwanda is better than Kurdistan.
“But in Britain there is work. The currency is strong. I’m young and I want to make a life for myself.”
Another voice is raised – a man named Karwan.
Image: A man named Karwan, who wants to cross the Channel from France to the UK
He hears the word Rwanda, shrugs, smiles and shakes his head: “I think it’s a joke. Two years ago they started going on about Rwanda and nothing came of it.
“Now, it’s just for the sake of the election. Nothing else.”
Rachel Reeves has not offered her resignation and is “going nowhere”, Downing Street has said, following her tearful appearance in the House of Commons.
A Number 10 spokesperson said the chancellor had the “full backing” of Sir Keir Starmer, despite Ms Reeves looking visibly upset during Prime Minister’s Questions.
A spokesperson for the chancellor later clarified that Ms Reeves had been affected by a “personal matter” and would be working out of Downing Street this afternoon.
UK government bond prices fell by the most since October 2022, and the pound tumbled after Ms Reeves’s Commons appearance, while the yield on the 10-year government bond, or gilt, rose as much as 22 basis points at one point to around 4.68%.
Tory leader Kemi Badenoch branded the chancellor the “human shield” for the prime minister’s “incompetence” just hours after he was forced to perform a humiliating U-turn over his controversial welfare bill.
Emotional Reeves a painful watch – and reminder of tough decisions ahead
It is hard to think of a PMQs like it – it was a painful watch.
The prime minister battled on, his tone assured, even if his actual words were not always convincing.
But it was the chancellor next to him that attracted the most attention.
Rachel Reeves looked visibly upset.
It is hard to know for sure right now what was going on behind the scenes, the reasons – predictable or otherwise – why she appeared to be emotional, but it was noticeable and it was difficult to watch.
Speaking at Prime Minister’s Questions, Ms Badenoch said: “This man has forgotten that his welfare bill was there to plug a black hole created by the chancellor. Instead they’re creating new ones.”
Turning to the chancellor, the Tory leader added: “[She] is pointing at me – she looks absolutely miserable.
“Labour MPs are going on the record saying that the chancellor is toast, and the reality is that she is a human shield for his incompetence. In January, he said that she would be in post until the next election. Will she really?”
Not fully answering the question, the prime minister replied: “[Ms Badenoch] certainly won’t.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:58
Welfare vote ‘a blow to the prime minister’
“I have to say, I’m always cheered up when she asks me questions or responds to a statement because she always makes a complete mess of it and shows just how unserious and irrelevant they are.”
Mrs Badenoch interjected: “How awful for the chancellor that he couldn’t confirm that she would stay in place.”
A total of 49 Labour MPs voted against the bill – the largest rebellion in a prime minister’s first year in office since 47 MPs voted against Tony Blair’s Lone Parent benefit in 1997, according to Professor Phil Cowley from Queen Mary University.
After multiple concessions made due to threats of a Labour rebellion, many MPs questioned what they were voting for as the bill had been severely stripped down.
They ended up voting for only one part of the plan: a cut to Universal Credit (UC) sickness benefits for new claimants from £97 a week to £50 from 2026/7.
Ms Badenoch said the climbdown was proof that Sir Keir was “too weak to get anything done”.
Ms Reeves has also borne a lot of the criticism over the handling of the vote, with some MPs believing that her strict approach to fiscal rules has meant she has approached the ballooning welfare bill from the standpoint of trying to make savings, rather than getting people into work.
Experts have now warned that the welfare U-turn, on top of reversing the cut to winter fuel, means that tax rises in the autumn are more likely – with Ms Reeves now needing to find £5bn to make up for the policy U-turns.
Asked by Ms Badenoch whether he could rule out further tax rises – something Labour promised it would not do on working people in its manifesto – Sir Keir said: “She knows that no prime minister or chancellor ever stands at the despatch box and writes budgets in the future.
“But she talks about growth, for 14 years we had stagnation, and that is what caused the problem.”
Prosecutors are considering whether to bring further criminal charges against Lucy Letby over the deaths of babies at two hospitals where she worked
The Crown Prosecution Service said it had received “a full file of evidence from Cheshire Constabulary asking us to consider further allegations in relation to deaths and non-fatal collapses of babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital and Liverpool Women’s Hospital”.
“We will now carefully consider the evidence to determine whether any further criminal charges should be brought,” it added.
“As always, we will make that decision independently, based on the evidence and in line with our legal test.”
Letby, 35, was found guilty of murdering seven children and attempting to murder seven more between June 2015 and June 2016 while working in the neonatal unit of the Countess of Chester Hospital and is currently serving 15 whole-life orders.
Image: Letby worked at the Countess of Chester Hospital and Liverpool Women’s Hospital
She is understood to have carried out two work placements at Liverpool Women’s Hospital, where she trained as a student, between October and December 2012, and January and February 2015.
Police said in December that Letby was interviewed in prison as part of an investigation into more baby deaths and non-fatal collapses.
A Cheshire Constabulary spokesperson said: “We can confirm that Cheshire Constabulary has submitted a full file of evidence to the CPS for charging advice regarding the ongoing investigation into deaths and non-fatal collapses of babies at the neo-natal units of both the Countess of Chester Hospital and the Liverpool Women’s Hospital as part of Operation Hummingbird.”
Detectives previously said the investigation was looking into the full period of time that Letby worked as a nurse, covering the period from 2012 to 2016 and including a review of 4,000 admissions of babies.
Letby’s lawyer Mark McDonald said: “The evidence of the innocence of Lucy Letby is overwhelming,” adding: “We will cross every bridge when we get to it but if Lucy is charged I know we have a whole army of internationally renowned medical experts who will totally undermine the prosecution’s unfounded allegations.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:09
Three managers at the hospital where Lucy Letby worked have been arrested on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter.
Earlier this year, Letby’s lawyers called for the suspension of the inquiry, claiming there was “overwhelming and compelling evidence” that her convictions were unsafe.
Their evidence has been passed to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which investigates potential miscarriages of justice, and Letby’s legal team hopes her case will be referred back to the Court of Appeal.
The Crown Prosecution Service has said it is considering whether to bring further criminal charges over the deaths of babies at hospitals where Lucy Letby worked.
The CPS said it had received “a full file of evidence from Cheshire Constabulary asking us to consider further allegations in relation to deaths and non-fatal collapses of babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital and Liverpool Women’s Hospital”.
“We will now carefully consider the evidence to determine whether any further criminal charges should be brought,” it added.
“As always, we will make that decision independently, based on the evidence and in line with our legal test.”
Letby, 35, was found guilty of murdering seven children and attempting to murder seven more between June 2015 and June 2016 while working in the neonatal unit of the Countess of Chester Hospital and is currently serving 15 whole-life orders.
She is understood to have carried out two work placements at Liverpool Women’s Hospital, where she trained as a student, between October and December 2012, and January and February 2015.
Earlier this year, Letby’s lawyers called for the suspension of the inquiry, claiming there was “overwhelming and compelling evidence” that her convictions were unsafe.
Their evidence has been passed to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which investigates potential miscarriages of justice, and Letby’s legal team hopes her case will be referred back to the Court of Appeal.