Government Response
Introduction
Normally, we would have published the Government's
response on e-Borders, the transcript of the oral evidence from
UKBA and the written evidence without comment, not least as we
have no time to launch any further inquiries owing to the imminence
of the general election. However, we were struck by the fact that,
despite the assurances given by the Government in their responses
to our original reports, the subsequent evidence we have received
reinforces and, in some areas, increases the concerns we felt
at the end of last year. None of these issues will be resolved
within the next few months, and all will have a serious impact
on thousands of people. We believe it appropriate that we should
briefly draw them to the attention of our successor Committee
in the next Parliament, and we urge our successors to seek an
update on them as early as possible. (Paragraph 3)
A Written Ministerial Statement was made on 22 July
2010 in which the Immigration Minster, Damian Green, announced
the termination of the e-Borders contract with the prime supplier,
Raytheon Systems Limited. The Minister has made it clear that
the e-Borders programme remains a priority and the Government
is committed to enhancing e-Borders capabilities in a timely and
cost-effective way. We will now seek alternative providers to
secure the key benefits that the contract has so far been unable
to deliver and this work will be undertaken as a matter of urgency.
Parts of the Programme were running at least 12 months
late and Raytheon has been in material breach of the contract
since July 2009 for failing to meet contracted milestones. However
those parts of the e-Borders programme that have already been
delivered—the software for the collection of data in advance
of travel, the technology to enable carriers to feed information
into a central hub, and the National Border Targeting Centre—should
continue to run as normal.
The e-Borders programme is a key element of the Government's
strategy to deliver robust border controls. E-Borders protect
the UK against the threats of international terrorism, serious
cross-border crime and illegal immigration. It is a key part of
a much improved and necessary ability to screen people before
they arrive at the UK border, speed up processes for legitimate
travellers and to target those who pose harm.
Specifically, e-Borders mean we can:
- Reduce the threat to the UK from international
terrorist attack by identifying known terrorist suspects or their
associates before they travel
- Disrupt organised cross-border crime and identify
fugitives from justice. So far, e-Borders, and its pilot system,
has led to the arrest of over 6,300 people, including murderers
and rapists
- Identify those who have abused the immigration
system—watchlist checks will also identify people who have
overstayed their visas, been deported or excluded from the UK
- Create automatic exit checks
- Manage our resources in a more effective and
co-ordinated way, reducing the time spent on those who are not
a threat
The use of technology to collect passenger data is
progressing rapidly across the world and is well advanced in the
border management programmes of our closest international partners.
Over 40 other countries have legislation in force for the collection
of Travel Document Information (TDI), including USA, Spain, Bahrain,
UAE, Cuba, Australia, Canada, China, India, and France. In response
to the terrorist attacks of 2001, the USA accelerated its collection
of TDI and established both the National Targeting Centre and
the Terrorist Screening Center.
E-Borders has already delivered significant benefits
to the border and security agencies, providing the ability to
collect data on all routes in and out of the UK; and the establishment
of a multi-agency 24/7 operation at the National Border Targeting
Centre. It is currently tracking approximately 50% (over 114m
per annum) of all passenger movements using their TDI. This currently
is provided by 122 air carriers (out of 140) on over 2,500 routes.
The Chief Inspector of UKBA has confirmed our
fears that the historic caseload of asylum applications will not
be cleared by the deadline and that a new backlog of cases is
growing up. We look forward to the UKBA presenting our successors
with clear, realistic proposals for dealing with both these problems,
even if that means an acknowledgement that current targets cannot
be met. (Paragraph 6)
By the end of May 2010 the UK Border Agency had concluded
277,000 legacy cases. This represents an increase of 68% on our
performance over the previous period and we are continuing to
improve.
The Agency has a strategy and internal action planning
to support its target of concluding the rest of the backlog of
legacy cases by summer 2011. The transparency of our reporting
to Parliament on our progress has been acknowledged by the Independent
Chief Inspector and we plan to continue with this. We have also
agreed to issue a report to the Public Accounts Committee when
the legacy caseload is concluded in summer 2011.
In respect of backlogs, increased flexibility for
regions on how they deploy staff and the creation of a Supervisory
Framework within which Regions must prioritise work are designed
to address this very issue. The Supervisory Framework works on
the premise that each Region will still need actively to manage
all asylum claims that are over six months old. It sets out some
parameters according to which Regional Directors must prioritise
work on these cases and stipulates a regular reporting mechanism
for Regional Directors to account for the management of the entirety
of their unresolved caseload. Within these parameters and the
reporting mechanism Regional Directors are afforded a significant
degree of autonomy as to the prioritisation of this caseload.
Each of our six regions knows the number, and name, of the un-concluded
cases they have. Each region can say whether those cases are awaiting
a decision, are in the Appeal System, or are awaiting removal.
The Supervisory Framework has allowed regional asylum leads to
ensure active management of caseloads that have exceeded six months.
Increased flexibility for the regions has also allowed the establishment
of Out of Service Standard Teams who are a dedicated resource
for this caseload.
We have been, and remain, focused on building a sustainable
level of case conclusions performance and ensuring that there
is a clear plan for dealing with all Asylum claims whether they
fall inside or outside the service standard. The published statistics
for the first quarter 2010 show that the number of cases (excluding
dependants) recorded as awaiting an initial decision was 5,100
at the end of March 2010 compared to 12,900 at the end of March
2009.
We know, too, that there is more that can be done
and that is why we have committed to undertaking a review of the
Protection system. This will include a comparison of international
systems to consider whether particular countries operate individual
elements of the process more efficiently than the UK. We are in
the process of drafting terms of reference for this review which
will then be submitted for Ministerial agreement. It is planned
that the review will report in March 2011.
Given the slow progress so far in discussions
with the maritime and rail sectors on the e-borders project, and
the number of practical problems (some technical, others to do
with a physical inability to send data) experienced by the aviation
industry even during and after roll-out, we remain sceptical about
whether UKBA will be able to solve the remaining problems swiftly.
We note that there is still, in Mr Clark's words, the need for
"a conversation with the Commission" to clarify what
is required in order to make the programme compatible with freedom
of movement; and, despite the continuing negotiations, UKBA was
unable to inform us of any specific progress on the national data
protection issues with individual Member States. We remain of
the view that the current timetable will be impossible to achieve,
and it is still not clear whether all or some intra-EU travel
will have to be omitted from the programme, either on freedom
of movement or on national data protection grounds. (Paragraph
14)
We note the Committee's concerns about the delivery
timescales. As already stated, the prime supplier, Raytheon, has
been in breach of contract since July 2009, with critical parts
of the programme already running at least 12 months late. This,
and the ongoing discussions with the European Commission on free
movement, has meant that the programme has not progressed as planned.
The Committee is aware that a challenge was made
to the European Commission regarding the compatibility of e-Borders
with EU law, specifically on free movement of people and data
protection, and that this has inhibited our ability to agree the
solution design with the maritime and Eurotunnel sectors. On progress
with the maritime sector, we continue to work with ferry and port
operators to explore practical options for collecting data.
We are also taking forward plans to improve the effectiveness
and efficiency of the coach clearance operation at Calais through
advanced screening of passenger data. Using passenger data gained
in advance on a voluntary basis from selected low risk coach operators
through maritime carriers, we plan to pilot full screening checks
through the National Border Targeting Centre in advance and minimise
Calais checks to areas of identified risk.
We are also pleased to report that a maritime carrier
has gone live on their e-Borders trial routes. E-Borders receive
data from them relating to their passengers in line with that
received from air carriers. We have worked closely with the carrier
to ensure that the requirement to collect and submit data does
not impact on their business process or their time in port.
EU freedom of movement
We are continuing to engage strongly and closely
with the Commission on the full implications of the Free Movement
Directive for e-Borders. Officials are working with the Commission
in order to arrive at a common understanding of what precisely
carriers are allowed to collect and share with e-Borders under
Community law. UK and Commission officials met on 18 June and
we hope to reach a mutual understanding shortly.
We are confident that e-Borders can operate in a
way which does not impact on free movement, whilst not placing
unacceptable limits on the UK's ability to protect its border
and that of the wider EU.
The free movement Directive applies where EEA nationals
and their family members are travelling within the EEA. All other
passengers, including EEA nationals entering the UK from outside
the EU will be required to give data in advance.
EU Data Protection
The European Commission has stated that there can
be a basis under the Data Protection Directive for the transmission
of TDI data by air carriers to our e-Borders system, subject to
the approval of the Member State Data Protection Authority.
We continue to work closely with individual member
states Data Protection Authorities to secure acknowledgement that
law enforcement and the fight against terrorism, smuggling and
other offences constitute a public and legitimate interest for
the purposes of the Data Protection Directive, so that TDI data
can be transmitted.
In addition we are actively working with colleagues
across Government to achieve a European Union Passenger Name Record
(EU PNR) Directive which will provide a EU wide legislative framework
for the collection of Passenger Name Record/Other Passenger Information
data. To this end we are actively coordinating a cross-Whitehall
group and lobbying strategy which ensures that we use every opportunity
to put across the case for an early EU PNR Directive that includes
provision for the collection and processing of data relating to
intra-EU flights.
We note that UKBA has recently provided the Chamber
of Shipping with the information we had previously asked it to
supply about the UK's discussions with the European Commission.
This is helpful, but we consider it would be still more helpful
to involve the carriers in the imminent meeting between UKBA and
the European Commission so that they have a much clearer idea
of what the Commission believes EU law actually requires in practical
terms. (Paragraph 15)
It was the intention of the UK Border Agency to have
a meeting with the EU which included a sub-group of carriers.
The EU declined this joint meeting, and advised that
it would only meet with the UK Border Agency team. The sub group
was advised of this in advance of the meeting in March. The UK
Border Agency team therefore met carriers in the sub group prior
to the meeting with the Commission in order that carriers' views
could be understood and relayed to the Commission. A carrier impact
paper was produced informed by views from the aviation industry,
including the sub group that covered implications for the systems
air carriers currently have in place. The paper was used at the
meeting with the Commission in lieu of having carrier representatives
present.
We note the Government's strongly-held view that
the e-Borders project is vital to the security of the UK's borders,
in terms of combating illegal immigration, serious crime and terrorism.
This being so, the fact that so many major difficulties with the
programme remain to be resolved causes us serious concern. We
recommend our successors to keep a close watching brief on this
programme. (Paragraph 16)
The Coalition Government supports e-Borders and is
committed to delivering a system that will provide security to
the UK border from the threats of illegal immigration, serious
crime, and international terrorism by checking passenger movements
against UK Border Agency and police watchlists.
Following termination of the contract with Raytheon,
the Government will seek alternative providers to secure the key
benefits that the contract has so far been unable to deliver,
and this work will be undertaken as a matter of urgency. In the
meantime, security and immigration checks carried out by the UK
Border Agency will continue as normal. We will ensure that the
Committee is kept up-to-date on progress against the matters covered
in this response.
| 
