Migrants were on an ‘entirely unsuitable’ vessel when 27 died in channel crossing in 2021 – report
An official report into the deaths of at least 27 migrants using a “wholly unsuitable” boat in the English Channel has said the response team in Dover was “insufficient” to react, “foreseeable” problems were not recognised and French and British teams failed to share information properly.
The accident, in November 2021, was the deadliest accident involving a migrant boat trying to cross the Channel. The victims included a pregnant woman and three children.
The report, carried out by the Maritime Accident Investigation Branch, says that 33 passengers had been put on a boat that was “entirely unsuitable for the intended voyage and number of people on board”.
The report also claims that migrants phoning from boats had been told “to claim high levels of distress when in UK waters in the hope of expediting rescue” and that this “had the potential to mask genuine distress”. It also suggests that coastguard personnel may have developed a “mental threshold” of assuming that people were in “less severe peril” than they claimed.
However, relatives of those involved have criticised the report, saying it is vague, ambiguous, lacking in detail and does not hold anybody to account. The government has announced it will hold a separate inquiry into the events surrounding the sinking of the boat, describing it as a full and independent investigation. Transport Secretary Mark Harper said it would offer “families of the victims the clarity they deserve”.
Only two of those on the boat survived. The bodies of the other four have never been found, but they are presumed to be dead, meaning that it is almost certain that 31 people died in the accident on the night of 23-24 November, 2021.
The report is separate from France’s investigation into the disaster, which has now seen preliminary charges laid against five emergency service officials for allegedly failing to assist people in danger. This British report says that “despite extensive requests, the investigation was not granted access to any information held by French authorities”.
It claims that the British response to the accident was “hampered” by a combination of poor visibility, by a high number of boats that were crossing due to good weather, and by the fact that there was no aircraft available to carry out a surveillance mission across the English Channel.
This meant that the search and rescue response was based on phone calls from migrants on boats as well as information from French authorities. Reconciling the information was “extremely challenging”, the report says, due to the high number of calls, often coming from people on the same boat, and the difficulty in distinguishing one boat from another.
In the end, having established that a boat was sinking with more than 30 people on board, three migrant boats were located in UK waters during the ensuing search, leading to a wrong assumption that the people in peril had already been saved,
Migrants being rescued in November 2021
Read more:
The hunt for a people smuggling kingpin
Labour vows to ‘smash the gangs’ with Europe’s help
Sunak teams up with Italian PM to demand action on illegal migration
“The investigation found that there was an assumption that the first boat to be found was the stricken craft,” the report concludes. “Events moved on and the plight of the genuinely stricken craft became masked by the increasingly busy task of dealing with crossing events.”
The full report is more than a hundred pages long, and presents a stark account of the accident and the hectic conversations between British authorities, French counterparts and migrants.
During the night, the boat was codenamed “Charlie” by the British and Migrant8 by the French. The report details various calls for help from passengers who call in on their phone, one screaming down the line and saying “I am finished”. Another call is full of shouting and noise, saying that the boat has broken. It says call handlers seemed unsure as to whether they were dealing with another boat in peril – or simply new reports about a vessel they already know about.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Govt to exit 50 migrant hotels
It details how a helicopter pilot had to be woken up when it was agreed that a fixed-wing aircraft couldn’t fly.
It recounts a call received from a passenger saying that everyone is in the water and that they are “finished”. A message sent to one of the passengers at 3.33am was not delivered, leading the report to conclude that the passengers went into the water between 3.12am and 3.33am.
Other inflatable migrant boats in the area were contacted and rescued, leading to confusion as to whether these were “Charlie” or simply similar vessels.
The report says there have been significant changes in the way authorities respond to small boat crossings since the disaster, and notes a number of reviews. But it does call for greater co-ordination with the French to avoid “confusion and error” and also for UK authorities to improve surveillance.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
How people smuggling works
However, relatives of those involved in the sinking have criticised the report.
Zana Mamand’s brother Twana was on the boat. His body has never been recovered.
“This report is not thorough and it is very ambiguous,” he told Sky News. “The French report is much better – it gave verbatim accounts of what happened, and what was said, and it has led to action. This one is much more vague. There is very little detail of the conversations or the decisions.
“I am not satisfied at all. The British authorities seem to have spent two years on a report that achieves very little. The families want answers – I want to know what effort was put into finding my brother’s body. I have been asking this for two years and I have never received an answer.”
The UK’s Supreme Court is set to deliver a landmark ruling today that could have billion-pound consequences for banks and impact millions of motorists.
The essential question that the country’s top court has been asked to answer is this: should customers be fully informed about the commission dealers earn on their purchase?
However, the Supreme Court is only considering one of two cases running in parallel regarding the mis-selling of car finance.
Here is everything you need to know about both cases, and how the ruling this afternoon may (or may not) affect any future compensation scheme.
PA file pic
What is the Supreme Court considering?
The Supreme Court case concerns complaints related to the non-disclosure of commission. This applies to 99% of car finance cases.
When you buy a car on finance, you are effectively loaned the money, which you pay off in monthly instalments. These loans carry interest, organised by the brokers (the people who sell you the finance plan).
These brokers earn money in the form of a commission (which is a percentage of the interest payments).
Last year, the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of three motorists who were not informed that the car dealerships they agreed finance deals with were also being paid 25% commission, which was then added to their bills.
The ruling said it was unlawful for the car dealers to receive a commission from lenders without obtaining the customer’s informed consent to the payment.
However, British lender Close Brothers and South Africa’s FirstRand appealed the decision, landing it in the Supreme Court.
Pic: iStock
What does the second case involve?
The second case is being driven by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and involves discretionary commission arrangements (DCAs).
Under these arrangements, brokers and dealers increased the amount of interest they earned without telling buyers and received more commission for it. This is said to have incentivised sellers to maximise interest rates.
The FCA banned this practice in 2021. However, a high number of consumers have complained they were overcharged before the ban came into force. The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) said in May that they were dealing with 20,000 complaints.
In January 2024, the FCA announced a review into whether motor finance customers had been overcharged because of past use of DCAs. It is using its powers to review historical motor finance commission arrangements across multiple firms – all of whom deny acting inappropriately.
The FCA also said it is looking into a “consumer redress scheme” that means firms would need to offer appropriate compensation to customers affected by the issue.
An estimated 40% of car finance deals are likely to be eligible for compensation over motor finance deals taken out between 2007 and 2021, when the DCAs were banned.
To find out how you can tell if you’ve been mis-sold car finance, read the following explainer from our reporter Megan Harwood-Baynes.
Read more from the Sky News Money blog
Pic: iStock
How does the ruling affect potential compensation?
In short, the Supreme Court ruling could impact the scale and reach that a compensation scheme is likely to have.
The FCA said in March that it will consider the court’s decision and if it concludes motor finance customers have lost out from widespread failings by firms, it is “likely [to] consult on an industry-wide redress scheme”.
This would mean affected individuals wouldn’t need to complain, but they would be paid out an amount dictated by the FCA.
However, no matter what the court decides, the FCA could go ahead with a redress scheme.
The regulator said it will confirm if it is proposing a scheme within six weeks of the Supreme Court’s decision.
Read more:
The scale of cheap Chinese imports flown into UK
Water firm faces £63m penalty over ‘excessive’ sewage spills
What impact could this have on lenders?
Analysts at HSBC said last year the controversy could be estimated to cost up to £44bn.
Alongside Close Brothers, firms that could be affected include Barclays, Santander and the UK’s largest motor finance provider Lloyds Banking Group – which organises loans through its Black Horse finance arm.
Lloyds has already set aside £1.2bn to be used for potential compensation.
The potential impact on the lending market and the wider economy could be so great that Chancellor Rachel Reeves is considering intervening to overrule the Supreme Court, according to The Guardian.
Treasury officials have been looking at the potential of passing new legislation alongside the Department for Business and Trade that could slash the potential compensation bill.
The Treasury said in response to the claim that it does not “comment on speculation” but hopes to see a “balanced judgment”.
Heathrow Airport has said it can build a third runway for £21bn within the next decade.
Europe’s busiest travel hub has submitted its plans to the government – with opponents raising concerns about carbon emissions, noise pollution and environmental impacts.
The west London airport wants permission to create a 3,500m (11,400ft) runway, but insists it is open to considering a shorter one instead.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
January: Third runway ‘badly needed’
In January, Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced that the government supports a “badly needed” expansion to connect the UK to the world and open up new growth opportunities.
But London mayor Sir Sadiq Khan is still against a new runway because of “the severe impact” it will have on the capital’s residents.
Under Heathrow’s proposal, the runway would be constructed to the northwest of its existing location – allowing for an additional 276,000 flights per year.
The airport also wants to create new terminal capacity for 150 million annual passengers – up from 84 million – with plans involving a new terminal complex named T5XW and T5XN.
Terminal 2 would be extended, while Terminal 3 and the old Terminal 1 would be demolished.
The runway would be privately funded, with the total plan costing about £49bn, but some airlines have expressed concern that the airport will hike its passenger charges to pay for the project.
EasyJet chief executive Kenton Jarvis said an expansion would “represent a unique opportunity for easyJet to operate from the airport at scale for the first time and bring with it lower fares for consumers”.
Read more:
Who’s behind these Heathrow leaflets?
A long history of Heathrow’s third runway plans
Thomas Woldbye, the airport’s chief executive, said in a statement that “it has never been more important or urgent to expand Heathrow”.
“We are effectively operating at capacity to the detriment of trade and connectivity,” he added.
“With a green light from government and the correct policy support underpinned by a fit-for-purpose, regulatory model, we are ready to mobilise and start investing this year in our supply chain across the country.
“We are uniquely placed to do this for the country. It is time to clear the way for take-off.”
The M25 motorway would need to be moved into a tunnel under the new runway under the airport’s proposal.
Pic: Reuters
London mayor still opposed
Sir Sadiq says City Hall will “carefully scrutinise” the proposals, adding: “I’ll be keeping all options on the table in how we respond.”
Tony Bosworth, climate campaigner at Friends of the Earth, also said that if Sir Keir Starmer wants to be “seen as a climate leader”, then backing Heathrow expansion is “the wrong move”.
Earlier this year, Longford resident Christian Hughes told Sky News that his village and others nearby would be “decimated” if an expansion were to go ahead.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
January: Village to be levelled for new runway
It comes after hotel tycoon Surinder Arora published a rival Heathrow expansion plan, which involves a shorter runway to avoid the need to divert the M25 motorway.
The billionaire’s Arora Group said a 2,800m (9,200ft) runway would result in “reduced risk” and avoid “spiralling cost”.
Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander will consider all plans over the summer so that a review of the Airports National Policy Statement can begin later this year.
Read more from Sky News:
US doctor in Gaza dares Trump’s envoy to witness hunger crisis
Conor McGregor loses appeal in civil sexual assault case
Scotland approves wind project days after Trump called them ‘con-job’
It also comes after Sky News reported on a Heathrow Airport-funded group sending leaflets supporting a third runway to thousands of homes across west London.
The group, called Back Heathrow, sent leaflets to people living near the airport, claiming expansion could be the route to a “greener” airport and suggesting it would mean only the “cleanest and quietest aircraft” fly there.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Who’s behind these Heathrow leaflets?
Opponents of the airport’s expansion said the information provided by the group is “incredibly misleading”.
Back Heathrow told Sky News it had “always been open” about the support it receives from the airport. The funding is not disclosed on Back Heathrow’s newsletter or website.
UK
Man, 76, arrested on suspicion of administering poison at summer camp after eight children taken to hospital
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike