On the 10th anniversary of the Shoreham air disaster, the families of some of those killed have criticised the regulator for what they describe as a “shocking” ongoing attitude towards safety.

On 22 August 2015, a vintage fighter jet plummeted out of the sky and crashed into one of the busiest roads in Sussex, killing 11 men.

Most of them weren’t even watching the aerobatic display overhead when they were engulfed in a fireball that swept down the dual carriageway.

Jacob Schilt, 23, and his friend Matthew Grimstone, also 23, were driving to play in a match for their football team, Worthing United FC.

Both sets of parents are deeply angry that their beloved sons have lost their lives in this way.

“It obviously changed our lives forever, and it’s a huge reminder every 22nd of August, because it’s such a public anniversary. It’s destroyed our lives really,” his mum, Caroline Shilt, said.

“It was catastrophic for all of us,” Jacob’s father, Bob, added.

‘They had no protection’

Sue and Phil Grimstone argue that the regulator, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), has not been held accountable for allowing the airshow to take place where it did.

“At Shoreham, the permission given by the CAA did not allow displaying aircraft to perform over paying spectators or their parked cars,” they said.

“But aircraft were permitted to fly aerobatics directly over the A27, which was in the display area, a known busy road.

“This was about ignoring the safety of people travelling on a major road in favour of having an air show. They had no protection.”

A series of catastrophic errors

The crash happened while the experienced pilot, Andy Hill, a former RAF instructor, was attempting to fly a loop in a 1950s Hawker Hunter jet.

But he made a series of catastrophic errors. His speed as the plane pitched up into the manoeuvre was far too slow, and therefore, he failed to get enough height to be able to pull out of the dive safely. The jet needed to be at least 1,500ft higher.

Mr Hill survived the crash but says he does not remember what happened, and a jury at the Old Bailey found him not guilty of gross negligence manslaughter in 2019.

When the inquest finally concluded in 2022, the coroner ruled the men had been unlawfully killed because of a series of “gross errors” committed by the pilot.

The rules around air shows have been tightened up since the crash, with stricter risk assessments, minimum height requirements, crowd protection distances, and checks on pilots.

But Jacob and Matt’s families believe the CAA still isn’t doing enough to protect people using roads near airshows, or other bystanders not attending the events themselves.

The families recently raised concerns about the Duxford airshow in a meeting with the CAA.

While aircraft are no longer allowed to fly aerobatics over the M11, they do so nearby – and can fly over the road at 200ft to reconfigure and return. If the M11 has queuing traffic in the area, the display must be stopped or curtailed.

The Grimstones believe this demonstrates accepting “an element of risk” and are frustrated that the CAA only commissioned an independent review looking at congested roads and third-party protection earlier this year.

“We feel the CAA are still dragging their feet when it comes to the safety of third parties on major roads directly near an air show,” they said.

The family have complained about the CAA to the parliamentary ombudsman.

‘There are still question marks’

Some experts also believe the CAA has questions to answer about a previous incident involving Mr Hill, after organisers of the 2014 Southport Airshow brought his display to an emergency stop because he had flown too close to the crowd, and beneath the minimum height for his display.

In its investigation into the Shoreham disaster, the Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB) later found that while the CAA inspector present had an informal discussion with the pilot, no further action was taken, and the incident was not reported to the AAIB.

Retired pilot Steve Colman has spent many years looking into what happened at Shoreham, and he believes the CAA failed to fulfil their statutory obligation to fully investigate and report the incident at Southport.

“You have to ask the question – if the Southport incident had been investigated, then was Shoreham more likely or less likely to have occurred?” he said. “I think there can only be one answer – it’s less likely to have occurred.”

Tim Loughton, who was the MP for Shoreham at the time, believes a balance must be struck.

“We don’t want to regulate these events out of existence completely. A lot of the smaller air shows no longer happened because they couldn’t comply with the new regulations […], but certainly there are still question marks over the way the CAA conducted and continues to conduct itself. I would welcome more parliamentary scrutiny.”

Read more from Sky News:
London Underground workers to strike
Man charged with killing ice cream seller

Rob Bishton, chief executive at the CAA, said: “Our thoughts remain with the families and friends of those affected by the Shoreham Airshow crash.

“Following the crash, several investigations and safety reviews were carried out to help prevent similar incidents in the future. This included an immediate review of airshow safety and a full investigation by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch. All recommendations and safety improvements from these reviews were fully implemented.

“Airshows continue to be subject to rigorous oversight to ensure the highest possible safety standards are maintained.

“At a previous airshow in 2014 the pilot involved in the Shoreham accident was instructed to abort a display by the show’s flying director. This incident was investigated by the UK Civil Aviation Authority and regulatory action was taken.”

Mr Bishton added: “As part of the work to review the safety oversight of airshows following the tragic Shoreham crash, the actions taken by the regulator following such a stop call were enhanced.”

But the families of those killed still believe much more could be done.

One of the UK’s last remaining steel companies has been pushed into compulsory liquidation – and will fall into government control.

Speciality Steels UK (SSUK), part of the Liberty Steel empire owned by metals tycoon Sanjeev Gupta, employs nearly 1,500 people at sites in Rotherham and several other locations across South Yorkshire.

Behind Tata Steel and British Steel, it is the third-largest steel producer in the country.

Politics live: New migrant stats released

Sky News reported that negotiations had been underway for a deal to rescue the firm, however, they seem to have been rendered unsuccessful.

The government-run Insolvency Service confirmed it will be acting as the liquidator. It added that Teneo Financial Advisory Limited would be assisting in running the company from now on.

While the GFG Alliance, the holding company, says it is disappointed by the decision, local politicians and unions are highly critical of the group.

The government is taking over – but it doesn’t want to own SSUK

Gurpreet Narwan

Business and economics correspondent

@gurpreetnarwan

The collapse of Speciality Steel UK (SSUK), the UK’s third-largest steel producer, did not come as a surprise to government officials, who have in recent days been planning for this outcome.

After all, the business has been limping on for some time, weighed down by financial mismanagement and a mounting debt pile. Problems began in 2021 for GFG Alliance – the holding company, which is a conglomerate run by the metals magnate Sanjeev Gupta. Its main lender, Greensill Capital, collapsed with £3.7bn of loans to GFG still outstanding. Administrators for Greensill are still trying to recover the money.

There have been legal claims and probes since then, although GFG denies any wrongdoing. The true scale of SSUK’s financial woes are not even known because the company has not filed audited accounts for more than five years. Sanjeev Gupta is being prosecuted for failing to file accounts for many of his other businesses too.

SSUK’s creditors pushed for the company’s liquidation, but the government was braced to step in. However, the development does little to provide certainty for the business’s 1,500 workers in South Yorkshire.

The government will cover wages and costs for now but, as a letter sent by the Department for Business and Trade made clear earlier this month, the government has no intention to “own SSUK”. As with British Steel, which collapsed back in April (albeit for different reasons), the government is stepping up, but is hoping a new buyer will be found soon.

The government says wages will continue to be paid by the liquidator. A spokesperson adds that the government is still “committed to a bright and sustainable future for steelmaking and steel-making jobs in the UK”.

Financial assistance was not able to be given to SSUK by the government due to its existing financial and corporate challenges, including ownership and management.

Read more
Whitehall on alert for collapse of steel empire
BlackRock backs Gupta’s bid to keep control
Why did British Steel need saving

In a statement today, GFG’s chief transformational officer, Jeffrey Kabel said: “The decision to push Speciality Steel UK into compulsory liquidation, especially when we have support from the world’s largest asset manager to resume operations and facilitate creditor recovery, is irrational.

“The plan that GFG presented to the court would have secured new investment in the UK steel industry, protecting jobs and establishing a sustainable operational platform under a new governance structure with independent oversight.

“Instead, liquidation will now impose prolonged uncertainty and significant costs on UK taxpayers for settlements and related expenses, despite the availability of a commercial solution.

“Liberty has pursued all options to make its SSUK viable, including efficiency improvements, reorganisations, customer support, several attempts to find a buyer for the business and intensive negotiations with creditors to restructure debt liabilities. Liberty’s shareholder has invested nearly £200m, recognising the vital role steel plays in supplying the UK’s strategic defence, aerospace and energy industries.

“GFG will now continue to advance its bid for the business in collaboration with prospective debt and equity partners and will present its plan to the official receiver. GFG continues to believe it has the ideas, management expertise and commitment to lead SSUK into the future and attract major investment. GFG’s other significant business interests in the UK remain unaffected.

“Despite many challenges facing the group and the difficult market conditions, GFG has invested over £2bn into the UK economy since 2013, ensuring the survival of many GFG businesses despite operating losses and safeguarding thousands of jobs that would otherwise have been lost.”

Sarah Champion, the Labour MP for Rotherham, said GFG’s statement was “full of hollow promises”.

She added: “We know Liberty is a golden goose, but one they have starved for years.

“The speciality steel we make is unique and in high demand, it makes no financial sense that GFG furloughed the plant for nearly two years.

“Strategically, the government cannot allow Liberty Steel to fail. I am confident they will do all in their power to let it flourish.”

👉Listen to Politics at Sam and Anne’s on your podcast app👈 

Charlotte Brumpton-Childs, the national officer for the GMB union, also attacked GFG.

She said: “This is another tragedy for UK steel – and the people of South Yorkshire – this time brought on by years of chronic mismanagement by the owners.

“But this represents an opportunity for the UK government to take decisive action – as it did with British Steel – to protect this vital UK industry.”

A government spokesperson said: “We know this will be a deeply worrying time for staff and their families, but we remain committed to a bright and sustainable future for steelmaking and steel-making jobs in the UK.

“It is now for the independent Official Receiver to carry out their duties as liquidator, including ensuring employees are paid, while we also make sure staff and local communities are supported.”

Government efforts to reduce the use of expensive hotel accommodation for asylum seekers have stalled in the face of local opposition and court bottlenecks.

During last year’s election, Labour promised to end the use of hotels by 2029.

But data released on Thursday by the Home Office shows there are more asylum seekers in hotels than when Sir Keir Starmer took office.

As of 30 June this year, there were 32,059 asylum seekers staying in hotels compared with 29,585 in June 2024.

The government has been trying to get more asylum seekers into residential housing, which is much cheaper than hotels, by dispersing them to more locations across the country.

But the arrival of asylum seekers in new areas, and the use of residential housing to accommodate them, has provoked a backlash from residents and local politicians.

This has made it crucial for the government to cut the overall number in need of housing – either by reducing the number of applicants or by processing their claims more quickly.

The data, however, shows that the government is struggling on both fronts.

Effort to reduce hotel use

Both Conservative and Labour governments have sought to decrease reliance on hotel accommodation for asylum seekers due to soaring costs.

The Home Office spent £4.76bn on asylum last year, almost four times as much as it spent in 2020-21 (£1.34bn). Of every £1 spent, 76p went on hotel accommodation alone.

Housing an asylum seeker in a hotel costs around £170 per night, compared with £27 for other types of accommodation, according to estimates by Oxford University’s Migration Observatory.

A policy introduced in 2023, under the Conservatives, sought to reduce reliance on hotels by dispersing asylum seekers more evenly across the country.

Data shows that the policy started having an impact even before it was formally implemented.

In September 2022, 31% of asylum seekers were housed in just ten councils. Three months later, that figure had fallen to 24%.

But Sky News analysis shows that areas which have seen more asylum seekers arriving since then are actually more likely to use hotels – undercutting the purpose of the policy.

And the arrival of asylum seekers in locations across the country has sparked protests by residents and legal action by councils.

You can see how the policy has affected your area using the table below.

Residents and politicians have also raised concerns about the main alternative to hotels – the use of residential housing, including houses in multiple occupation (HMOs).

In her maiden speech to Parliament in May, Reform MP for Runcorn and Helsby Sarah Pochin described HMOs housing asylum seekers as “breeding grounds for organised crime gangs”.

A huge backlog of claims

The fact that the government is being criticised wherever it places asylum seekers suggests that their real problem is the overall number of asylum seekers requiring accommodation.

As of June, that number stood at 102,866, more than twice as high as March 2020 (48,042) and only 14% below the record levels reached in September 2023 (119,010).

The government is required under international law to provide asylum seekers with housing while their claims are being assessed if they would otherwise be “destitute”.

And because the government also forbids asylum seekers from working until their claims are approved, that means they have to provide accommodation for almost all of them.

Since 2020, the number of asylum seekers awaiting a final decision on their claim has more than doubled.

That is partly due to a slowdown in processing asylum claims.

In May 2019, the Conservative government abandoned a target of processing most claims within six months. By March 2020, the share processed within six months fell from 52% to 39%.

“By delaying or not taking decisions, they produced this huge backlog that also put a lot of pressure on the provision of accommodation,” says Professor Nando Sigona of the University of Birmingham.

A rise in asylum applications

The issue was exacerbated by a surge in asylum claims after pandemic restrictions were eased in 2021.

Home Office data shows that the number of decisions made on asylum applications fell during this period and only began to increase significantly in 2023.

That increase in decisions has helped to cut the number of cases awaiting an initial decision over the past year from 85,839 to 70,532.

On Thursday, as the statistics were released, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said the government was making progress on the backlog and had reduced it by 18%.

But appeals to these initial decisions are common, and the government is required to house asylum seekers until their appeals are over.

Data from the Ministry of Justice shows that, as of March this year, 50,976 claims were awaiting appeal decisions.

That puts the total backlog at 129,721 cases, up from 119,066 in June last year.

Professor Sigona says that the number of people applying for asylum has risen across Europe in recent years, but that other countries have avoided being obliged to house so many of them by relaxing work requirements.

“In Europe asylum seekers are allowed to work much more rapidly,” says Eleonore Kofman, professor of gender, migration and citizenship at Middlesex University.

Without the right to work, she says, “you kind of lock them into destitution and you have to provide housing for them”.

The government has struggled to reduce small boat arrivals

As well as increasing the processing of asylum claims, the government has sought to reduce the number of claims by reducing small boat crossings.

However, a total of 43,309 people arrived in the UK by small boat during Labour’s first year in office, a 38% increase on the year before. Almost all of them (99%) claimed asylum.

In the year to June, people crossing on small boats accounted for 38% of asylum claims.

The UK requires people to apply for asylum from within the country but does not offer a visa for those wishing to make an application.

This means that most people who want to flee to the UK must come illegally – either by using another type of visa, or by entering irregularly.

On 6 August, a deal between the UK and France took effect, opening up a new route for asylum seekers and a possible way for the government to deter small boat crossings.

Under the agreement, France will accept the return of migrants who arrive in the UK by small boat in exchange for the UK accepting an equivalent number of asylum seekers currently in France.

Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said that the new policy “sends a message to every migrant currently thinking of paying organised crime gangs to go to the UK that they will be risking their lives and throwing away their money if they get into a small boat.”

Speaking to Sky News on Thursday, director of the Migration Observatory think tank Madeleine Sumption said it remains unclear how many people France will agree to take back.

“If it’s a relatively small, symbolic number… then asylum seekers may just see that there’s one more risk… at the end of an already risky journey and [it’s] something that they’re willing to accept.”

As of Wednesday, 2,561 migrants had arrived in the UK by small boat since the policy took effect.

Additional reporting by Sophia Massam.

The Data and Forensics team is a multi-skilled unit dedicated to providing transparent journalism from Sky News. We gather, analyse and visualise data to tell data-driven stories. We combine traditional reporting skills with advanced analysis of satellite images, social media and other open source information. Through multimedia storytelling we aim to better explain the world while also showing how our journalism is done.