Wes Streeting, the former health secretary, has posted this on social media about John Healey’s resignation letter.

John was an excellent Defence Secretary.

Every word of warning here needs to be heeded.

Streeting is already running an informal campaign for the Labour leadership (he has said that a proper contest should wait until Andy Burnham is back in parliament) and this sounds like he would give the Ministry of Defence much or all of what Healey is asking for if he were to become leader.

Burnham has not said much about defence policy in recent weeks. But, as Daniel Green says in a good LabourList guide to Burnham’s policy agenda, Burnham has backed higher defence spending in the past.

Any future PM wanting to boost spending in the defence investment plan would soon find out why Rachel Reeves did not give Healey what he wanted; something would have to give elsewhere.

(Burnham has suggested that extra borrowing, outside the fiscal rules, might be a way round that. Some argue that this would spook the bond markets, but Gordon Brown has also argued for a version of this idea.)

Severin Carrell is the Guardian’s Scotland editor.

Police in Greenock, the coastal town on the Firth of Clyde, arrested and fined two people after anti-immigrant disturbances on Wednesday night.

Police Scotland said three officers suffered minor injuries after being hit by “items thrown at them” and two police vehicles damaged during disturbances on Main Street, Greenock.

The two arrested were given fixed penalty notices for anti-social behaviour. In similar violence in Glasgow on Tuesday night, police made three arrests, and members of the public and officers were also injured.

Chief Supt Rhona Fraser said:

Our priority is public safety and we had an appropriate policing plan in place for last night’s demonstration.

We understand the concerns people have about their communities and will always balance the right to freedom of expression with the need to tackle crime without fear or favour.

Officers were attacked and police vehicles were damaged. I strongly condemn that violence and there is no place for it in Scotland.

Al Carns, the former Royal Marine who only became an MP in 2024, who was immediately appointed a defence minister and who has even hinted that he would like to stand for the Labour leadership soon, has issued a statement on social media praising his former boss. Here is an extract.

John Healey has given this country serious service in a serious time.

He took on the Ministry of Defence at a moment when the world was getting more dangerous, not less, and he carried that weight with the discipline and decency that the job demands.

I worked alongside him closely. I saw the hours, the care, and the seriousness he brought to every brief, including the hardest ones. There are issues facing this Department that do not lend themselves to easy answers. The work on funding, on veterans, on Legacy, on the welfare of those who serve.

As Pippa says (see 2.14pm), Keir Starmer will need appoint a new defence secretary soon. (There are some cabinet jobs you can leave empty for a bit, but the defence post is not one of them.) Carns himself could be a candidate to replace him. (Luke Pollard, the well-regarded minister of state at the Ministry of Defence, is senior to Carns in the MoD pecking order, but Carns had a stellar career in the armed forces and his appointment would be well received.) But Carns has told Times Radio today that the defence investment plan is “not fit for purpose”, implying he would not take the job unless Rachel Reeves were to agree to a significant rethink.

Here is a snap analysis of John Healey’s resignation by Pippa Crerar, the Guardian’s political editor.

John Healey’s departure puts Keir Starmer in an even more difficult position than he was already.

The former defence sec’s charge that he is putting UK’s security at risk is a devastating one - which will worry Labour MPs & cut through with voters. The fact Tories underfunded defence for years won’t wash.

It further weakens Starmer in that this was supposed to be his strong point - and has repeatedly said that keeping nation safe is his number one priority.

Cabinet relations have been badly damaged by the protracted row over plan - with the standoff leading to some of worst infighting since Labour took power over cuts to other department’s capital budgets.

International allies will notice Healey’s resignation - and reasons why. PM is meeting G7 allies in France next week & is in Ankara for a Nato summit in early July. Awkward timing.

Starmer may also struggle to appoint a credible new defence secretary - for all the ambitious MPs out there - who will be prepared to make case for this plan now?

It also impacts Reeves, who blocked extra spending, and leaves her open to charge of leaving nation unsafe. She faces impossible choices over spending - but many will feel defence should have been priority.

It all makes Starmer’s departure - already looking likely - feel inevitable. While his allies say he’ll fight any challenge from Andy Burnham if he wins Makerfield - he’s just lost one of his most senior cabinet ministers. When the herd moves, and all that.

Higher defence spending is normally a cause championed by people on the right in politics. But one of the leading voices calling for the publication of an ambitious defence investment plan (DIP) has been Unite, the union led by the leftwing Sharon Graham. Unite has a lot of members working in the defence sector, and Unite has been campaigning for a settlement that will secure jobs.

Commenting on Healey’s resignation, Graham said:

What is going on in regard to yet another delay on the DIP is fast becoming a national disgrace. Make no mistake jobs and skills are at risk.

John Healey’s resignation letter has laid bare the utter chaos at the heart of government on this issue. Defending the UK and investing in our defence industry simply can’t be done on the cheap. British defence needs investment. Failure to protect UK defence jobs would be a national betrayal.

The SNP says John Healey’s resignation is “utterly damning” for Keir Stamer. In a statement, Dave Doogan, the SNP leader at Westminster, said:

Keir Starmer is putting Scotland’s safety at risk by failing to deliver the vital defence investment that is needed in the face of growing international threats.

The resignation of the UK defence secretary, at a time of global crisis, is utterly damning for the prime minister - and it will be the final nail in his sorry time in office.

Yet again, the Labour government is in chaos - and it is putting Scotland and the UK’s defence in jeopardy at the worst possible time.

Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, has said that the resignation of John Healey shows Keir Starmer’s premiership “is falling apart”.

Speaking to reporters, she said:

His health secretary resigned two weeks ago. His defence secretary has resigned at a critical time when we are facing global threats, and he is doing so because the prime minister is trying to please his backbenchers by putting money into welfare instead of defence.

We need to start funding defence. We need to get to 3% of GDP by the end of this parliament …

Keir Starmer has no plan whatsoever. I don’t see how he can stay in this job. He can’t run the country. He is paralysed because his backbenchers only want to spend money on welfare.

(All oppositions need a simple attack line to use against the government and at the moment Badencoch is running hard with the line that Labour won’t spend money on X, or cut taxes for Y, because its MPs just want to spend more money on benefits. This makes for compelling rhetoric, and because benefit spending is rising fast in some areas it has enough truth in it to make it arguable. But, as an overall explanation for what is happening with spending, it is almost wholly wrong. See here for more on this, or here.)

Here is a summary of all the points in John Healey’s resignation letter.

• Healey said the version of the long-awaited defence investment plan (DIP) that he saw on Monday this week would see defence spending rise to just 2.68% of GDP by 2030. (See 12.44pm.)

• He criticised Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, for being unwilling to give defence more, and Keir Starmer for being unwilling to over-rule her. (See 12.30pm.)

• He said he was resigning because he did not think defence was getting enough and, under these plans, he would have to take decisions that could make Britain “less safe”. He said:

You know what defence needs. You made the argument for this powerfully in your speech at the Munich Security Conference back in February. Without a DIP that meets the moment in this way, I am being forced to make decisions that would reduce the readiness of our forces and increase the risk to personnel on operations, and could make the country less safe.

After explaining to you that I would not be able to accept a DIP settlement that does not give our forces the resources they need, I am now left with no other option than to submit my resignation as your defence secretary.

• He reminded Starmer that, in a speech last week, Starmer said: “It is our intelligence assessment, and the assessment of other countries in Nato, that there could be an attack by Russia on Nato as soon as 2030.”

• Healey said he was resigning “with great regret and reluctance”.

• He said he was proud of some of his achievements as defence secretary.

I am proud of what we have done in less than two years as a Labour government. We’ve stepped up to lead internationally for Ukraine with the coalition of the willing and Ukraine Defence Contact Group, established Britain as a leading voice for Europe in NATO, raised defence investment to 2.5% of GDP three years earlier than anyone expected, launched the deepest defence reforms in 50 years, won the biggest UK defence export deals for decades, published a first-of-its-kind Strategic Defence Review, gave our Armed Forces the biggest pay rise in nearly 20 years, boosted military morale, fixed over 1,200 of the worst forces family homes, reset relations with European allies and signed major defence agreements with Germany, Norway and France.

You have led this as PM, earning wide respect at home and abroad. Like me, I know you are exceptionally proud of our Forces and all of those who work in UK defence.

• He said that Starmer is facing “exceptional challenges”. He ended his letter saying:

I wish you all continuing strength in the exceptional challenges you face as prime minister. As always, our Labour government will continue to have my fullest support.

This was the only reference in the letter to the leadership challenge that Starmer if facing after next week’s Makerfield byelection. Healey’s resignation is likely to be seen as evidence that Starmer’s authority as PM is weakening. But there is no evidence that Healey would get a better defence settlement under Andy Burnham, or any other of the potential replacement leaders, and Healey’s resignation does not particularly help any of Starmer’s rivals.

Here is the key passage in the letter. In it, John Healey says the version of the long-awaited defence investment plan that he saw on Monday this week would see defence spending rise to just 2.68% of GDP by 2030.

He says:

We came into government, recognising Britain faced a new era of threat which demanded a new era for defence. The SDR [strategic defence review] we jointly commissioned set the 10-year vision to transform our armed forces, strengthen alliances, invest in the technology that is changing warfare and back British industry to make defence an engine for growth.

This new era for defence required further investment through the defence investment plan. The excellent and extensive cross-government work that completed in January – overseen by you, me and the chancellor – confirmed the scale of the challenge and the rising demands on defence.

Since then, you have been unable, and the Treasury has been unwilling, to commit the resources that the nation needs to defend the country at this time of rising threats.

Since then, the demands on defence have increased still further, as have the UK commitments you have rightly made to allies. Conflict in the Middle East, with the UK now leading the multinational Strait of Hormuz military mission; High North security, with the UK now leading Nato’s Arctic Sentry mission; increased Russian activity towards the UK and Nato nations and increased attacks in Ukraine, with the Paris agreement confirming a British deployment to Ukraine after a ceasefire.

We have worked to secure a defence investment plan that does two things. First, deal with the increasing operational demands on defence now and step up the SDR actions to meet the increasing threat. Second, set a clear path to meet the new Nato commitment you agreed to spend 3.5% of GDP in 2035 through the next spending review.

As we have regularly discussed, I am certain that a headmark date for 3% of GDP on defence in 2030 is what Britain must set. This commitment would have strong cross-party support. Other European allies are stepping up in this way.

I know how hard you have worked to get to this point. And in funding the DIP, I fully recognise the strain this places on colleagues in other departments, both now as you have required spending switched into defence and in the future. I am very grateful to those colleagues who have supported this, and I appreciate how difficult their choices will have been.

As I’ve outlined to you, there are credible ways of meeting the mid-term funding challenges, working multi-nationally and as other European nations are doing, to allow us to protect our ability to deliver the missions of our Labour government.

However, your DIP financial settlement – which I was first given in full on Monday afternoon this week – falls well short of what is required for defence and the country at this dangerous time. The extra support is backloaded when the pressure of operations and imperative to speed up readiness to fight is in the first two years and it rises to just 2.68% of GDP in 2030, when we will reach 2.6% next year with the investment we are already making.

The government still has not published the final DIP. At the weekend there were reports it might come today, and then there were reports that it might come tomorrow. In the Commons yesterday Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, said that an announcement like that on a day when the Commons was not sitting would be “an utter disgrace and an utter kick in the face” to MPs. Ministers subsequently made it clear the DIP would not be published tomorrow.

Healey says the version of the defence investment plan (DIP) he was shown on Monday “falls well short” of what is required. He says:

However, your DIP financial settlement – which I was first given in full on Monday afternoon this week – falls well short of what is required for defence and the country at this dangerous time.

The extra support is backloaded when the pressure of operations and imperative to speed up readiness to fight is in the first two years and it rises to just 2.68% of GDP in 2030, when we will reach 2.6% next year with the investment we are already making.

Here is one of the key extracts from the letter.

This new era for defence required further investment through the defence investment plan. The excellent and extensive cross-government work that completed in January – overseen by you, me and the chancellor – confirmed the scale of the challenge and the rising demands on defence.

Since then, you have been unable, and the Treasury has been unwilling, to commit the resources that the nation needs to defend the country at this time of rising threats.

This is a double hatchet job. John Healey is criticising Rachel Reeves for being too stubborn to increase defence spending by the amount he wants, and Keir Starmer for being too weak to over-rule her.

Reuters has snapped this.

HEALEY TO STARMER: YOU HAVE BEEN UNABLE, AND THE TREASURY HAS BEEN UNWILLING, TO COMMIT THE RESOURCES THAT THE NATION NEEDS TO DEFEND THE COUNTRY AT THIS TIME OF RISING THREATS

The UK and Irish governments and the Northern Ireland executive have discussed protecting the common travel area and stronger enforcement to “prevent abuse”, the Irish government has confirmed.

Northern Ireland secretary Hilary Benn, Irish justice minister Jim O’Callaghan and Stormont’s justice minister Naomi Long spoke by phone on Wednesday.

Today in a statement the Irish government’s Department of Justice said:

The invisible border on the island of Ireland is among the most tangible gains of the peace process and is essential to the continuing normalisation of relationships.

Minister O’Callaghan discussed the importance of cross border cooperation in protecting the common travel area [CTA] for both Ireland and the UK yesterday by phone with the Northern Ireland minister for Justice, Naomi Long and the secretary of state for Northern Ireland, Hilary Benn.

They discussed stronger co-operation and enforcement to prevent abuse of the common travel area.

Minister O’Callaghan emphasised that significant Border Management Unit doorstop operations now take place at Dublin airport. The number of people landing without documentation has reduced significantly since 2023.

Northern Ireland minister for justice Naomi Long and secretary of state for Northern Ireland, Hilary Benn, agreed to work with Minister O’Callaghan to prevent abuse of the CTA.

The rioting in Belfast has been triggered by a brutal knife attack that happened on Monday night. The suspect is a Sudanese national who arrived in Belfast from Dublin, taking advantage of the CTA to cross the border without being stopped. He applied for asylum and was granted leave to remain three years ago. The stabbing has prompted claims that the CTA leaves a “loophole” in border controls that is being exploited by asylum seekers.

Andy Burnham is facing criticism after saying that he thinks the Waspi women should be entitled to “some” compensation.

The Waspi women are women born in the 1950s affected by the decision taken by the Conservative government in the 1990s to raise their state pension age from 60 to 65. The Labour government then put it up to 66, and the coalition government then brought forward the dates at which the rises were due to come into force.

Governments always announce increases in the state pension age years in advance, so that people have time to plan, but the 1990s changes were not advertised to the public as well as they could have been and for years Waspi (Women against state pension inequality) has been campaigning for compensation on behalf of women whose retirement planning was thrown into chaos because they did not get proper advance warning of the rise in their pension age.

The Waspi women achieved a huge victory in March 2024 when the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) recommended a compensation scheme that could cost up to £10.5bn.

But the Conservative government refused to immediately accept the recommendation and Labour, despite supporting the Waspi campaign in principle when it was in opposition, ruled out paying compensation on the grounds that it was unaffordable.

At a hustings event on Wednesday, Burnham said:

I’ll stick by the Waspi women because they deserve some recompense for the unfairness.

As Lucy Fisher and Ian Walker report in their story on this for the Financial Times, this pledge has been seen as evidence of Burnham not being financially responsible. They report:

One government figure decried Burnham’s intervention as “pathetic”, adding: “He can’t say no to anyone.”

An ally of Sir Keir Starmer likened Burnham’s economic agenda to that of hard-left former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, and argued that the mayor’s intervention would harm his chances of manoeuvring the prime minister out of Downing Street.

“Keir literally won by not being this version of the Labour party. This is the Andy Burnham that lost two leadership elections. For a reason. And will lose a third,” the person said.

At the time the ombudsman’s report came out, many at Westminster took the view that the recommendation was wholly unrealistic. Those parties most supportive of the Waspi campaign – the SNP and the Liberal Democrats – have tended to be those with little or no chance of running a government that might have to fund a £10bn compensation package.

The Waspi campaign has welcomed Burnham’s comment. Its chair, Angela Madden, said:

Andy Burnham’s continued support for Waspi women is both welcome and hugely refreshing. While some politicians have broken their promises, it takes real courage to speak out and say what millions of people across the country and hundreds of MPs from all parties already know - that 1950s-born women deserve justice.

But others have interpreted this as evidence that, if Burnham were to become PM, he would find it hard to say no to people. The Daily Mail has reported the story under the headline: “Labour’s magic money tree is back!” And Joshi Herrmann, editor of the Mill, a Manchester-based online news website, has posted a message on social media suggesting this announcement confirms his theory that Burnham is not ruthless enough to be a successful PM.

In an interview last week, Burnham rejected Herrmann’s critique. He would not accept that he was only cared about being popular. But he did say he cared about being seen to act with integrity, and that that included keeping promises. That seems to be the reason why he does not want to abandon the Waspi women.

UPDATE: A spokesperson for Burnham subsequently issued a statement clarifying his position. The spokesperson said:

Andy has always recognised the unfair way in which state pension equalisation was introduced.

As mayor of Greater Manchester, he supported Waspi women in the city-region with early access to concessionary travel, providing some recompense to them within affordability limits.

He accepts the final decision has been made in relation to financial compensation but has indicated an openness to considering similar schemes on the Greater Manchester model.

Severin Carrell is the Guardian’s Scotland editor.

Scotland’s local councils face a half billion pound shortfall in their operating costs this year thanks to rising costs, lower government funding and higher demand.

The Accounts Commission, the statutory body which patrols the finances of Scotland’s 32 local authorities, said the £529m gap was around 3% of their revenue funding but with much of their spending devoted to fixed costs like wages, the shortfall would hit services.

Although local authorities increased council tax charges by an average of 7.7% this year, and expect to raise £1.2bn from fees and service charges, they would need to cut or reorganise services and head count to find savings.

Their real terms funding for day to day spending from the Scottish government had risen by only 2% this year, the commission added, while funding for capital projects had fallen by 15% in real terms.

Its bulletin on spending found:

Despite a small real terms increase in Scottish government funding for 2026/27, councils still face major risks to their financial sustainability as funding fails to keep pace with rising demand and increasing costs.

Cllr Ricky Bell, resources spokesperson for the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (Cosla), said the bulletin had correctly identified the “perilous position” they were in. He said:

Of notable concern, the ‘critical financial pressures’ facing our health and social care partnerships, and real terms reductions in the capital settlement justify and strengthen support for the resourcing Cosla called for through our budget lobbying this year.

The report quite rightly expresses grave concern for local government finance over the medium term, spanning from the Scottish spending review. [We] will continue to advocate for fair and flexible funding for our councils moving forward.

Good morning. I’m Andrew Sparrrow, picking up from Aneesa Ahmed.

In his interviews this morning, Hilary Benn, the Northern Ireland secretary, said that 1,000 people had been removed from Northern Ireland over the past year as a result of immigration enforcement and he said that even more checks were planned.

This is what he told GB News:

For over a century, people from the United Kingdom and Ireland have been able to live and work and travel freely across the British Isles [under the common travel area], and every single day here in Northern Ireland, people cross that border to go to work, to shop, to visit friends, to worship, and vice versa.

It’s brought huge benefit to the people of the British Isles, the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands, and Ireland.

So, what that means is you need to target your enforcement operation, and we already work very closely with the Irish authorities to prevent abuse of the common travel area.

You’re going to see an increase in that activity, enforcement and raids.

In the last year alone, 1,000 people have been removed from Northern Ireland because they do not have the right to be here, and it is that intelligence-led operation, including on major travel routes, airports, bus routes, train routes, and ports, that is the most effective thing that we can do, because the common travel area underpins, of course, the Good Friday agreement.

Conservative party leader Kemi Badenoch has apologised for the alleged Belfast knife attacker, Sudanese 30-year-old Hadi Alodid, being granted asylum under the 2023 government run by her party. She said she believes it was done under a fast-track scheme.

Speaking to Sky News, she said: “I cannot apologise for things that I did not know were even happening – we’re only discovering this now.

“I am sorry that these things happened under a Conservative government, but I need to talk about solutions.

“Apologies aren’t going to fix what is happening in our borders right now, and we spent far too much time trying to point fingers, rather than deal with the problem.”

Badenoch placed the blame of this decision around Alodid’s asylum status on Robert Jenrick and Suella Braverman – who are now in Reform.

She said: “I was in the government, and the home secretary and the immigration minister who enacted this policy are in Reform. So as far as I am concerned, every party is culpable.

“I am saying that we’re sorry, we tried a lot of things, people took advantage of our kindness. They exploited our kindness.”

“The civil service clearly, and probably Suella Braverman and Robert Jenrick as well, also believed that these people were genuine refugees.”

The Conservative party’s line is that leaving the European convention on human rights will solve the problems they believe are associated with illegal immigration.

Gavin Robinson MP, DUP leader, has said borders into the UK need “protecting” more. Speaking on BBC’s Good Morning Ulster, he also said that he believed that there was “less” violence last night than on Monday.

Of the violence, he said: “You cannot raise your concerns about damage to British values and then behave in such an unBritish way,

“Where your neighbours, where your colleagues, where your classmates are sitting intimidated and in fear, are having their homes attacked and their livelihoods destroyed.

“That is totally unacceptable and it is not British.”

Yesterday, he brought up the knife attack during prime minister’s questions. He later added in a statement: “I welcome the prime minister’s agreement to meet and discuss these issues further. That meeting must focus on protecting community cohesion, strengthening border security, restoring public confidence in the immigration and asylum system, and ensuring that the concerns of law-abiding citizens are listened to and acted upon.

“People are tired of warm words and promises. They want to see action. The Government must now demonstrate that it is prepared to defend our borders, uphold the rule of law and take the necessary steps to keep people safe.”

As Belfast News Letter reports, TUV MP Jim Allister also argued the current system between the Republic of Ireland and the UK is having a “deadly impact”.

However, Claire Hanna, leader of the SDLP, accused those calling for a hard border of leaning into “people’s worst fears and anxieties”.