The Home Office still hasn't cleared up its border issues
Matt Cavanagh 4:38pm
Remember Theresa May's border skirmish against Brodie Clark back in November? This
morning the Home Affairs Select Committee published their
report into the whole affair. Ideally it would have cleared up some of the confusions over who was responsible for waiving various security checks at our borders last summer, and whether they
were right to do so — but it doesn't really manage it.
This is not really the fault of the committee: some of the crucial questions they put to the Home Office remain unanswered, and key documents have not been released to them. For example, Mr Clark claims he raised the issue of the ‘health and safety’ waivers in a presentation to the Border Agency strategy board in December 2010, but other senior officials claim he mentioned it only briefly in passing. This is vital in assessing whether he was a ‘rogue official’ or a scapegoat, and the Home Office could have cleared it up by simply releasing the relevant slide from the presentation, or the minutes — but they have declined to do so. Similarly, ministers (including the PM) have cited a number of statistics to show that the pilot was a ‘success’, but the Home Office has been unwilling or unable to give any detail explaining these statistics, which are being questioned again today by Labour. If the Home Office were truly confident of their position, then surely they could have released some of the relevant information to the Committee.
There are two possible arguments for not releasing the information: the first is that it could endanger security (by exposing too much detail about how we run our border controls); the second is that it is a subject of another inquiry, by the Agency’s inspector, John Vine. But neither reason is satisfactory, particularly when you consider the options the Home Office had, including releasing the information in partly redacted form, or for the committee’s eyes only. In my experience (including periods in both the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence), the security argument is routinely over-used, by officials more than ministers, to avoid scrutiny — a self-defeating approach that undermines government’s ability to insist on secrecy on the smaller number of occasions when it really matters. As for Mr Vine’s inquiry, this is surely not an argument for refusing to give information to a select committee, particularly after months have elapsed. We can only hope that the inquiry is published rapidly and in full, with an opportunity for parliamentary debate on its findings.
Beyond the blame game — which will rumble on at least until Mr Vine’s report is published and Mr Clark’s claim for constructive dismissal is decided — the committee is surely right in its overall conclusion that, although the crisis revealed genuine management failings in the Agency which need to be urgently addressed, it would be a mistake to react by abandoning the ‘risk-based’ approach to border security. This approach — which holds that, rather than spreading finite resources equally across all ports and borders and travellers, we should (in the committee’s words) ‘allow the Border Force to use intelligence reports and officers’ own judgement to target the passengers and luggage on flights that are considered to be high-risk’ — has rightly been adopted by both main parties for decades. If anything, it is even more necessary now, given the fiscal context.
As I argued here at the time, ministers need to lead a mature public debate about the trade-offs involved in immigration policy, such as spending (including staff levels), passenger convenience (including queue times), and security (including the level of checks). Mr Green pleaded for just this kind of debate at the height of the affair, but that of course was the worst time to do so. In opposition, and in the early years of government, he and his colleagues had chosen the easier option of surfing the media narrative that immigration was simply ‘out of control,’ and that a bit of common sense would bring it back under control. They are hardly the first politicians to choose that easier option, and won’t be the last. But the result is they have a lot of ground to make up, and they should start now — before the next scandal hits.
Matt Cavanagh is an associate director at IPPR.
Previous
Halcyondaze
January 19th, 2012 5:16pm Report this commentThere are three aspects contributing to the disaster of uncontrolled immigration that has changed the face of our country irrevocably and rendered our cities unrecognisible within such a short period.
There isn't the political will to control it, depsite it being one of the top priorities of the British people.
We're totally tied up by the legislation foisted on us by the unelected, anti-British beureaucrats of Brussels who take great pleasure in rubbing our noses in it.
And the institutions that should be controlling this situation are, like so many others, in the grip of weak, self-hating, left-wing apologists and not fit for purpose.
Chris
January 19th, 2012 5:44pm Report this commentThe population of Britain are paying millions and having their time wasted endlessly by the jobsworths of the UKBA to suit a few nutters who fantasise about 'uncontrolled immigration' that exists only in their tiny minds. We don't need a 'Border Force'. This is a mess and the people who wanted it should pay for it.
richard mullens
January 19th, 2012 6:45pm Report this commentChris has it right. The whole immigration thing is a scam and the main beneficiaries are the lawyers, the UKBA and the police.
I remember watching "Border Force" on TV and I believe they said there were 400 members of the UKBA in Calais alone.
Britain is no paradise and, were we to open the borders, people would soon find out and leave again.
daniel maris
January 19th, 2012 7:08pm Report this commentWhatever our border control costs, we should increase the figure by ten times, because you can be guaranteed we will recover the costs through preventing freeloaders getting here to fleece our welfare system.
David Ossitt
January 19th, 2012 7:15pm Report this commentThere was an article last week that referred to crimes committed by civil servants.
I was unsurprised to read that a very large proportion were employed by the UK border agency, there was a list of names, guess what not one name was an English or Welsh or Scottish or Irish.
salieri
January 19th, 2012 7:25pm Report this commentIt's hard not to laugh out loud at the thought of national security being compromised by "too much detail about how we run our border controls." It is not apparent that they are run at all.
chinasyndrome
January 19th, 2012 9:05pm Report this commentOnly direct action will get results now; the tipping point has been passed. We don't even know what questions to ask anymore!
Great comments today, by the way.
Nicholas
January 19th, 2012 9:51pm Report this comment"Britain is no paradise and, were we to open the borders, people would soon find out and leave again."
New Labour already did that, during the Noughties, to "rub the right's nose in diversity" - and they haven't left yet.
Dumb idea then. Dumber idea now.
richard mullens
January 19th, 2012 10:06pm Report this commentPeople who remark about "freeloaders" coming to Britain usually like to have it both ways by claiming that they steal our jobs as well. The reality of course is that they just dislike foreigners.
Maddy1
January 19th, 2012 11:49pm Report this commentRichard you look at all of the world and all of the world's attitude to foreigners and you would be so proud of your British compatriots and their attitude towards foreign guests.
Herbert Thornton
January 20th, 2012 2:47am Report this comment"The Home Office still hasn't cleared up its border issues."?
No, and scientists still haven't succeeded in persuading pigs to grow wings.
Nicholas
January 20th, 2012 8:52am Report this comment"People who remark about "freeloaders" coming to Britain usually like to have it both ways by claiming that they steal our jobs as well. The reality of course is that they just dislike foreigners."
No, that is dog-whistling against those who object or are concerned just as bad as dog-whistling against "freeloaders" or "job-stealers". It is characterising grotesquely those who grotesquely characterise. You need to grow up a little and understand that immigration is not something polarised between Good Thing and Bad Thing. Some people might dislike foreigners (not unusual across the world) but disliking them for that is not much better in terms of rationality.
Better that you argue why you believe the benefits of immigration outweigh the disadvantages and dangers, especially in view of the scale and speed with which it has been imposed here, rather than trying to invalidate genuine and perfectly natural concerns about its consequences. And especially as you seem to be a promoter and supporter of it.
alexsandr
January 20th, 2012 9:05am Report this commentnot convinced by this intellegence led approach. If you dont have random checks how do you know if your intellegence is good or not. and random checks have a massive deterrent effect.
richard mullens
January 20th, 2012 9:57am Report this commentIt is not so hard to realise where Nicholas comes from when he uses the emotive assertion that immigration has been "imposed" here. For all their faults, the politicians involved were elected by the British people.
Rhoda Klapp
January 20th, 2012 10:42am Report this commentRichard Mullens, perhaps you would like to point out the politicians who got elected on a manifesto of increasing immigration to this country.
starfish
January 20th, 2012 10:53am Report this comment"For all their faults, the politicians involved were elected by the British people."
Yet strangely I don't recall the immigration policies they actually followed featuring in their manifestos or public policy pronouncements
Funny old thing
Nicholas
January 20th, 2012 11:01am Report this commentNo Richard, the emotive dog-whistling is yours, now combined with a sly attempt to smear me as a racist or xenophobe. It was indeed imposed. AFAIK Labour's policy of mass, uncontrolled immigration to "rub the right's nose in diversity" was not in their manifesto and in any case I didn't vote for Labour so they weren't elected by me.
Trying to smear me won't alter those facts. It was a reckless, secretive and possibly sinister policy imposed without proper mandate for reasons which have never been fully disclosed or properly investigated and it will probably have terrible consequences.
Slim Jim
January 20th, 2012 11:14am Report this commentRichard Mullins - you were invited by Nicholas to make the case for mass immigration, and you have failed to do so. Instead you seem to be blaming the British people and their elected politicians for the situation we're now in. Remind us - which political party stood for and made the case in their manifesto for mass immigration, whilst allowing the welfare state to grow? Eh?
Dean
January 20th, 2012 11:22am Report this comment' For all their faults, the politicians involved were elected by the British people.'
Simply not true. Labour didn't say in their manifesto that they would increase immigration. Therefore they had no mandate.
richard mullens
January 20th, 2012 1:43pm Report this commentTo all the racists in denial here, the plans for the enlargement of the EU were known for a long time in advance. The fact is that you were asleep.
Then of course the majority of both main parties voted for the Iraq war - resulting in a predictable influx of refugees.
As to the suggestion that there was an intent to "rub the right's nose in diversity" - well, that just goes to show how susceptible people are to paranoid delusions.
The fact is that the world is changing and you are just going to have to live with it - so I suggest that you stop moaning and figure out how you can take advantage of the situation.
Dean
January 20th, 2012 1:50pm Report this comment'As to the suggestion that there was an intent to "rub the right's nose in diversity" - well, that just goes to show how susceptible people are to paranoid delusions.'
Do we need an article on Neathergate to sort this out?
Rhoda Klapp
January 20th, 2012 1:52pm Report this commentYeah, answer the question. When did we vote for what happened?
richard mullens
January 20th, 2012 2:06pm Report this comment"Yeah, answer the question. When did we vote for what happened?"
Don't you remember the BBC programs where the news from European countries was broadcast in its original language with a commentary by a native speaker ? Perhaps you switched over.
The reality is that, for most people, immigration comes way down in their list of concerns. It is only a vociferous minority of malcontents aided by a press intent on selling newspapers and fomenting discord that is trying to turn this into a big thing. This is off the radar for most people.
toni
January 20th, 2012 2:08pm Report this comment"The fact is that the world is changing and you are just going to have to live with it - so I suggest that you stop moaning and figure out how you can take advantage of the situation"
Many employers do already take advantage by underpaying foreign workers.
Nicholas
January 20th, 2012 2:28pm Report this commentOh dear, Richard Mullens, finally out comes the tedious "racist" smear.
Actually "to rub the right's nose in diversity" was a phrase recorded by one of New Labour's own insiders, Andrew Neather a ministerial speechwriter, so it is hardly a "paranoid delusion" on the part of those it was revealed to:-
*ttp://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5473823/the-neather-clarification.thtml
Nicholas
January 20th, 2012 2:31pm Report this commentI fear the game is about up for people like you, Richard Mullens, who expect to shut up dissent on this issue by crying "racist". Yes, we might well have to get used to it but that does not diminish the scale of New Labour's crime or the probable consequences. And one day, people like you will have to eat their words.
In the absence of inquiries would you have advised those "moaning" about crimes like Bloody Sunday or the Lawrence murder to get used to it? I don't think so.
Nicholas
January 20th, 2012 2:34pm Report this commentHmm. And how exactly did the Iraq war drive all the African migrants here? The ones I saw arriving with suitcases by the dozens at my local bus depot within months of Tony Blair's victory in 1997?
I suggest you go and post on one of the lefty fanzine sites where your garbage will be swallowed.
Nicholas
January 20th, 2012 3:08pm Report this comment"The reality is that, for most people, immigration comes way down in their list of concerns. It is only a vociferous minority of malcontents aided by a press intent on selling newspapers and fomenting discord that is trying to turn this into a big thing. This is off the radar for most people."
I'm not sure on what basis you seek to speak for the whole country (you must be a politician or wonk) but perhaps you should try reading some of the left's own propaganda. Even the "Hopes and Fears" paper produced by the lefty think tank British Future lists immigration as fourth out of 14 polled concerns at 24%. Almost a quarter of people polled is hardly a "vociferous minority of malcontents".
Rhoda Klapp
January 20th, 2012 3:11pm Report this commentWhy not answer the question by providing an actual answer to th question? Which election campaign was carried out via foreign-language broadcasts? What manifesto had increased immigration in it? Indeed, did not all parties have a lip-service promise to control it?
richard mullens
January 20th, 2012 3:20pm Report this comment"In the absence of inquiries would you have advised those "moaning" about crimes like Bloody Sunday or the Lawrence murder to get used to it? I don't think so."
Strawman
richard mullens
January 20th, 2012 3:27pm Report this comment"Why not answer the question by providing an actual answer to th question? Which election campaign was carried out via foreign-language broadcasts? What manifesto had increased immigration in it?"
To answer that question I would have to read all the election manifestos for the last 20 years. Quite unreasonable. Sorry, do your own research - Anyway I mostly voted liberal.
Dean
January 20th, 2012 3:40pm Report this comment'Anyway I mostly voted liberal.'
You're not by any chance a Bishop in the CoE, are you?
Halcyondaze
January 20th, 2012 4:17pm Report this commentVoted Liberal?! No bloody wonder!
What planet are you on Mullens? Uncontrolled immigration is one of the issues most concerning ordinary people.
You won't work that out from the BBC or the Guardian - because people like you squawking "racist" every time someone raises their legitimate worries tends to suppress the issue.
It's well-documented how Labour deliberately set about a total transformation of the country behind the electorate's back.
Any demographer will show you that within another couple of generations we're looking at complete cultural displacement. The rich will flee. And the grunts will be left with the mess. It won't be pretty.
salieri
January 20th, 2012 4:24pm Report this comment@richard mullens:
It's unwise to ring people's doorbells and then run away like a little urchin. At least it is on this blog. Your first post was rather silly but your last post was dishonest. You know perfectly well that the answer is "None".
Undermybridge
January 20th, 2012 5:20pm Report this commentExcellent trolling Mr "Mullens".
It has inspired me to go and play at CIF for an hour or two.
All this talk is cheap. The facts will assert themselves in due course and as someone said, it won't be pretty.
Rocket|Dog
January 20th, 2012 5:27pm Report this commentTime young master Fraser sharpened his pencil and wrote us something on Neathergate ...
Barbara
January 20th, 2012 6:06pm Report this commentSo, according to richard mullens, we voted for mass immigration during BBC broadcasts from Europe which were voiced over by speakers of 'native' languages?
What the **** is he on about??
richard mullens
January 21st, 2012 12:42am Report this commentWell, I have attracted a rabble.
You'd be at home with Enoch Powell's rivers of blood speech now wouldn't you ?
Well, 43 years have elapsed and it hasn't come true.
From the Labour manifesto of 1997:
"High priority for enlargement of the European Union to include the countries of central and eastern Europe and Cyprus, and the institutional reforms necessary to make an enlarged Europe work more efficiently."
richard mullens
January 21st, 2012 12:58am Report this commentThe news broadcasts from Europe weren't "voiced over" they were in the native tongue of the originating country.
The European project has been a long time in the making. A single labour market has long been known about.
Nicholas
January 21st, 2012 10:58am Report this commentrichard mullens - describing dissent to your foolish pro-immigration and pro-EU ideas (yes, I've seen your comments elsewhere) as a "rabble" diminishes you. not the "rabble".
You are in a minority here as you were with your pro-EU propaganda. That should tell you something. It won't but it should. Your arrogance and dogma are beyond belief but perfectly reflect those who share your self-destructive views. People here disagree with you, en masse. Respect that instead of trying to demonise and invalidate it with emotive pejoratives, ok?
As for Enoch Powell, clearly you have missed a whole raft of ethnic riots and murders here in the 43 years - getting worse - so give it time.
richard mullens
January 21st, 2012 9:20pm Report this commentNicholas:
I may be in a minority here (though see also the second comment) - but my views are just as valid as any of yours and they are expressed to remind you that there are others who think differently.
Some people may dislike change, but I rather like the cosmopolitan society that has been built. Of course, not everything is perfect by any means, the actions of the Blair Government in waging war in Iraq had a negative effect on social cohesion and for sure there are difficulties in employment, and housing that need to be addressed.
I personally know many immigrants - Poles, Chinese, Russians, Spanish and I feel enriched by this. Some have Tier 1 visas. Very few are unskilled but even they are probably remarkable people who will contribute to our society. Yes even Abu Hanza - the challenge is to integrate these people and not demonise them.
M42
January 22nd, 2012 2:19pm Report this comment@ Richard Mullens:
There's none so blind as those who will not see.
It's like discussing Religion with a committed Christian ....or Muslim : a complete waste of time.
richard mullens
January 22nd, 2012 7:46pm Report this comment@M42
Thank you for your incisive and oh so reasoned comment
M42
January 23rd, 2012 8:23am Report this comment@Richard Mullens
Thank you, more reasoned & insisive than your deluded efforts.
I hope I've helped you to think a little, but I doubt it.
You're welcome.
richard mullens
January 23rd, 2012 10:09am Report this comment@M42
Your only contribution has been an insult. No facts or reasoning - valueless in fact.
Come back when you're prepared to contribute and have learnt how to spell.
M42
January 23rd, 2012 11:38am Report this comment@ Richard Mullens
Incisive, inisive, incisive, incisive
(a typo) but from someone who doesn't find it difficult to listen to others and learn, not everyone has this ability sadly.
Rattled are we? I await the insult............
richard mullens
January 23rd, 2012 1:03pm Report this commentI'm not in the least rattled. As far as I'm concerned, you are a dinosaur, your sort are heading for extinction and it's a good thing too.
We have formidable competition so Britain has to adapt. Isolationism is a dead end. If you had a gram of common sense you would realise that - but you are stuck in your ways. Remember Canute ? Well you can't stop the tide, borders are porous and policing them is both fruitless and costs us dear.
Let me guess, M42 is the US sub-machine gun, not the nebula in Orion.
Back to top