New research from a team of leading UK universities has revealed that over £3.77 billion in government contracts has been awarded to private companies since 2015 for managing border security and small boat crossings in the English Channel.
Small boat crossings started in 2018, largely due to increased security around other entry routes in Northern France making it difficult to enter the UK via lorry. People therefore began to cross the Channel in small boats, often using the services of smugglers. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has vowed to "smash the gangs" profiting from small boat crossings.
However, while focus is often placed on illegal profits made from the people smuggling trade, this research found that many companies are profiting completely legally. Analysis has revealed that the UK government has funneled over £5 billion across 213 contracts to private companies for border management including small boat interceptions, asylum processing, and high-tech surveillance. The industry is still expanding, with an additional £1 billion in open tenders as of December 2024.
Researchers found that some of the most significant contracts were tied to immigration detention and deportation infrastructure, linked to the now defunct Rwanda plan. For example, Mitie Care and Custody was awarded over £500 million for managing short-term holding facilities, and construction firm Galliford Try received more than £170 million for redeveloping detention facilities linked to the Rwanda deportation policy.
The largest contract identified was a £1.96 billion agreement with Bristow Group for search and rescue operations. Other contracts include £276 million for detention centre operations, £23 million for the use of sniffer dogs, and £7.7 million for temporary accommodation facilities.
While most contracts relate directly to border control in the Channel, researchers found that others are tied to the wider asylum and immigration infrastructure, including facilities required to support deportation initiatives. In some contracts key financial details are either redacted or undisclosed, highlighting significant gaps in transparency.
Dr. Arshad Isakjee from the Department of Geography at the University of Liverpool, who led the research said: "There are currently no safe and legal routes for refugees to come into the UK and claim asylum legally, meaning that people continue to risk their lives by crossing the Channel in small boats to reach the UK.
"Instead of tackling this issue and creating safe and legal routes for people to apply for asylum, the government is subsidising private companies profiting from policies designed to repel them. At a time when the government are making severe cuts to other public services in the UK, this research raises pressing questions: Who truly benefits from these policies? And at what cost to human lives and public resources?"
The study places the UK's border security economy within a global context, noting that the border industry is projected to grow from $377 billion in 2023 to $679 billion by 2032.
Co-author Dr. Lucy Mayblin from the University of Sheffield said: "The public is often told that stopping small boat crossings is about tackling smuggling gangs. But what is rarely mentioned is the legal flip side of the smuggling economy: the business of bordering. These figures are very high, and we know that they have not stopped, and will not be likely to stop stop either the operations of smugglers or small boat Channel crossings. There seems to be little public discussion or scrutiny of these contracts, while in other areas of policy (such as disability benefits) there is extensive discussion about high costs and value to the public purse."
Dr Thom Davies, co-author from the University of Nottingham said: "At this time of austerity, a gang of companies are profiting from government policies that simply don't work."
Dr Joe Turner, co-author from the University of York said: "The corporate profits we have identified come at the expense of investment in all UK communities and at the expense of the people forced to make dangerous journeys across the Channel. Rather than growing the border industry, government could focus on creating a sustainable system where people could reach the UK safely and apply for asylum on British soil."
The research was carried out by the University of Liverpool together with the Universities of York, Sheffield and Nottingham as part of an Economic and Social Research Council-funded project into Channel Crossings.
