Skip to Content

Coffee House

The implications of today’s border security report

20 February 2012

7:09 PM

20 February 2012

7:09 PM

Today brought closure of a kind to last year’s border fiasco (which I covered for
Coffee House here and here), with the publication of the report by the Chief Inspector of the UK Border
Agency, John Vine.

On first reading, there is no ‘smoking gun’ which would trigger a ministerial resignation. The report does find that, in early 2011, the immigration minister Damian Green had authorised
the relaxation of one of the checks at the centre of the controversy: ‘Secure ID’, which verifies the fingerprints of foreign travellers with visas. But the report also finds that
Green’s authorisation should have been superseded by later instructions from the Home Secretary Theresa May. To the extent that this check continued to be relaxed during the summer, the
responsibility does lie with officials not ministers.

Nevertheless, May has responded by announcing that UKBA will be split into two, with the Border
Force becoming a separate law-enforcement body headed by a Chief Constable. Announcing a big structural reorganisation is a favoured tactic of ministers trying to get through a crisis. And, what’s
more, it may not be the right answer: May argues that a more narrowly focused border force will have a tougher and more determined ‘ethos’, but the main failings coming out of
Vine’s report are of co-ordination and communication around policy and operations — and splitting up UKBA could make this worse. It is also a risk to attempt yet another structural
change at a time when border staff will be preparing for the significant operational challenge of the Olympics.


Whoever is in charge will need to address a long list of failings identified by the report. There was no clarity, or shared understanding, about the conditions under which different kinds of checks
could be suspended, and with what authority. Instructions from senior officials and ministers’ offices were vague, management weak, reporting flawed and record-keeping poor. Ministers will argue
they inherited these failings from their predecessors, but in at least some cases — including Secure ID — this argument does not stand up. (The implementation programme for Secure ID
ran up to the general election, with the final report being completed in July 2010. It included some recommended policy changes, which were accepted, but the unit responsible was disbanded and the
recommendations were never followed up.)

More broadly, the report clearly shows that ministers were guilty of an ‘ask no questions’ approach to what was going on at the border. In opposition, the Conservatives had consistently
argued that the immigration system was out of control, and that they would bring it to heel. Given this, their evident lack of interest in operational matters until the crisis hit is remarkable.

Overall, the report is likely to increase calls for all checks at the border to be tightened — especially since it casts doubt on some of the claims ministers made at the height of the
scandal about the ‘risk-based’ pilot having been a success. This was not entirely their fault: the reporting they received was incomplete — indeed, appears to have been
deliberately selective. It did not include, for example, how many people were being refused entry or held for questioning (in both cases numbers were down). But ignorance is only a limited excuse:
these should have been obvious gaps.

It would however be unfortunate if a flawed pilot, and the scandal surrounding it, led to the abandonment of the broader approach to risk-based checks which, whatever the rhetoric, both Labour and
Conservative governments have accepted for decades. Border security is an emotive issue, but we need a mature and honest debate, accepting the inherent tradeoffs between security, passenger
convenience and cost.

Matt Cavanagh is associate director at IPPR.


Show comments
Close