Submission to the Cranston Inquiry

The Cranston Inquiry was set up to look into the events of 24 November 2021, when at least 27 people lost their lives crossing the Channel.

In summer 2024 the Channel Crossings team submitted the below evidence to the Inquiry, drawing on our knowledge of the relationship between bordering, smuggling, and irregular journeys, the causes of small boat Channel crossings, and the likely outcome of the current policy approach. Read the full submission at the bottom of this post.

The evidence from our own research on the Channel borderzone, and wider research internationally on borders, irregular migration, and smuggling, our recommendations to minimise the risk of people losing their lives crossing the English Channel were underpinned by three key principles:

1. In light of the fact that wars, genocide, persecution, and climate displacement will continue in to the future, people will continue to need to move. That movement cannot realistically be stopped once and for all. What we need to reduce the risk of deaths, then, are not solutions, but sustainable responses, which can extend into the future.
2. Borders necessitate irregular migration and produce a market for smuggling. In other words, bordering produces the problem, and more bordering cannot therefore solve the problem. This is politically unpalatable but borne out by the evidence. Under current plans, small boat crossings will continue, and deaths will become increasingly common. 
3. Any sustainable response that aims to minimise the risk of further deaths occurring must centre human rights, and human dignity. Current responses centre criminalisation and punishment, and are fundamentally dehumanising. The lack of focus (beyond rhetorical gestures) on human rights and dignity is leading to extensive harm at the border and in the sea.

Our recommendations were as follows:

Many refugee charities have proposed that the solution to minimise the risk of deaths from small boat Channel crossings is to increase the number of safe routes to reach the UK, including through mechanisms for family reunion and humanitarian visas^[1]. 

We are supportive of the expansion of family reunion visas, they would be highly beneficial for those who are entitled to them. However, we need to recognise that the numbers who can benefit will be small, and they would therefore not likely to impact the number of people making dangerous small boat Channel crossings. 

The ‘safe routes’ proposed tend to relate to particular nationalities and/or to be available from regions of origin. We have not seen an example of an organisation calling for safe routes (excluding family reunion) from within Europe. Again, while the opening up of safe routes from regions of origin would be welcome, these would not have any impact on the numbers of people who attempt to cross the English Channel in small boats.

The only way to stop small boat crossings and minimise the risk of further deaths occurring is to allow regular crossings. In light of the evidence outlined here, we recommend that the only clear way to stop dangerous crossings is to move the UK border back on to UK soil and to abolish carrier sanctions. In other words, allow people to use the plentiful and cheap safe routes that currently exist via ferries and the tunnel. Upon arrival they can then apply for asylum in the UK. We recognise the political challenges in realising this proposal, but if the aim is to break the business model of smugglers and to stop dangerous small boat crossings, the only effective approach is to allow people to travel by safe routes.

In order to build a sustainable response and minimise the risk of people losing their lives crossing the English Channel, we also recommend the provision at scale of meaningful legal advice and support for people who find themselves in Northern France. This should include effective mechanisms for family reunion. We know from our research into Home Office contracts for border security in the Channel that very large sums are currently being spent by the UK government on the delivery of securitisation of the Channel. Diverting a portion of these funds, which ultimately produce small boat crossings, to activities which centre human rights and dignity (including through the provision of legal advice) would be much more beneficial.

---