Tuesday 31 January 2012

John Vine, Brodie Clark, Keith Vaz, Theresa May, Damian Green and Helen Ghosh

Today's the day. The deadline for John Vine, Independent Chief Inspector of the UK Border Agency, to submit his report on the Brodie Clark affair to the Home Office.

Will the public be allowed to see it? This matter concerns our border security and it concerns the safety of the 2012 Olympics. It's a matter of public interest.

But don't get your hopes up. Look what happened to the Home Affairs Committee.

Along with the three investigations into the Brodie Clark affair launched by the Home Office, the Home Affairs Committee looked into it and published their report a couple of weeks ago, Inquiry into the provision of UK Border Controls:
2. The precise facts of the case are disputed and the Home Office has denied us access to original documents that would have helped us to clarify the sequence of events ...

9. The Home Office has refused to provide us with a copy of the HOWI Guidance, a document we believe to be of importance as it has been discussed extensively in oral evidence to this Committee, as well as in the House itself ...

18. ... We have requested a copy of the slide presentation from the Home Office, which again has been refused. Without access to the slide, we are unable to comment on ...

27. Despite agreeing to make both the Home Office Warnings Index Guidelines and the periodic updates available to us when she came before us on 8 November, the Home Secretary has since refused to provide us with these documents ... notwithstanding any internal departmental investigations, these documents would have assisted our inquiry in confirming witness accounts and we would normally expect a Government of any party to acquiesce to such a request from a Select Committee. We recommend that the Home Secretary deposit copies of all the documents that have been made available to the three internal investigations in the Library of this House. This will allow this Committee to reach an informed conclusion of our own and would be consistent with the Government's commitment to transparency and accountability ...
The House of Commons, in the form of the Home Affairs Committee, can go hang. Parliament may call itself "supreme", but the Executive is unmoved. They will spend our money on useless technology – £491,304,533.51 and counting – and (constructively) dismiss anyone who dares to tell us that it is useless and there is nothing that Parliament can do about it.

John Vine, Brodie Clark, Keith Vaz, Theresa May, Damian Green and Helen Ghosh

Today's the day. The deadline for John Vine, Independent Chief Inspector of the UK Border Agency, to submit his report on the Brodie Clark affair to the Home Office.

Will the public be allowed to see it? This matter concerns our border security and it concerns the safety of the 2012 Olympics. It's a matter of public interest.

But don't get your hopes up. Look what happened to the Home Affairs Committee.

Sunday 29 January 2012

The Economist magazine sticks its nose into Indian politics, comes away with egg on its face

After 30 years of reading The Economist, you know what to expect.

The correct answers to most questions are found by letting markets operate freely, as far as The Economist is concerned and politically, that rules out any system that pretends to be able to manage control the economy. The magazine is socially liberal. There's not a hint of racism in it, or sexism – "meritocracy" is the name of the game. Arguments are conducted logically, preferably they're quantitative, the emphasis is on rational management techniques and evidence-based public administration. The magazine is the opposite of insular, open to new ideas wherever they come from, and always up to speed with new technology.

Given which, what on earth happened in the 14 January 2012 edition? It was out of character. Its Scottish Enlightenment body was snatched by aliens. Did The Economist suffer some sort of editorial stroke?

Take a look at The magic number, a leader on Aadhaar, one of India's many identity management schemes, this one operated by the Unique Identification Authority of India, chaired by Nandan Nilekani:
Armed with the system [Aadhaar], India will be able to rethink the nature of its welfare state, cutting back on benefits in kind and market-distorting subsidies, and turning to cash transfers paid directly into the bank accounts of the neediest. Hundreds of millions of the poor must open bank accounts, which is all to the good, because it will bind them into the modern economy. Care must be taken so mothers rather than feckless fathers control funds for their children ...

Mr Nilekani harnessed the genius of Indians abroad, including a man who helped the New York Stock Exchange crunch its numbers and one of the brains behind WebMD, an American health IT firm ...

India plainly needs better data-protection laws, but even if the existing rules remained unchanged, the threat to liberty would be dwarfed by the gains to welfare: to people who live ten to a room, concerns about privacy sound outlandish.

Some of the resistance is principled, but much comes from the people who do well out of today’s filthy system. Indian politics hinge on patronage—the doling out of opportunities to rob one’s countrymen. [Aadhaar] would make this harder. That is why it faces such fierce opposition, and why it could transform India.
According to The Economist then, Indian fathers are feckless but Indian mothers aren't, the Indians who have left the country are brighter than the ones who have stayed at home, poor people don't need privacy the way western journalists do and UIDAI are clean whereas the other gangs dispensing opportunities to rob their own countrymen are "filthy", a most unEconomist word.

And this, too, is most unEconomist – normally the magazine would instantly spot the problem with the following claims:
The state spends a fortune on subsidised grain for the hungry, but an estimated two-thirds of it is stolen or adulterated by middlemen. The government pays for an $8 billion-a-year make-work scheme for the rural poor, but much of the cash ends up in the capacious pockets of officials who invent imaginary “ghost workers”.

Suppose those thieving middlemen were obliged to deliver grain, not to poor people in general but to named individuals who could confirm receipt by scanning their fingerprints? And suppose those ghost workers had to undergo an iris scan before being paid?
UIDAI computerisation may make it harder to steal public money from PDS, the food security programme, and from NREGA, the temporary employment scheme, as The Economist suggest. But equally, it may make it much easier.

Aadhaar could make corruption a much more modern, clean, white collar, highly automated pursuit. It's a lot quicker to use a computer to claim wages for thousands of ghost employees than it is to complete manual requests. If Aadhaar wants biometrics, then a computer will provide them. And if Aadhaar has helped to provide everyone with bank accounts and electronic transfer facilities then, thank you very much UIDAI, the "thieving middlemen" may say, now there's no need to handle any cash and it's easier to launder our ill-gotten gains.

This leader of The Economist's barely rises above the level of sales literature. It is obvious why UIDAI would want it published. But why did The Economist allow it? That is a question for Adam Roberts, the South Asia bureau chief based in Delhi, and for Dominic Ziegler, the London-based Asia editor, and for Patrick Foulis, the India business and finance editor in Mumbai, and maybe for Alpesh Kandoi, to whom all media enquiries should be addressed.

(See also)

The Economist magazine sticks its nose into Indian politics, comes away with egg on its face

After 30 years of reading The Economist, you know what to expect.

The correct answers to most questions are found by letting markets operate freely, as far as The Economist is concerned and politically, that rules out any system that pretends to be able to manage control the economy. The magazine is socially liberal. There's not a hint of racism in it, or sexism – "meritocracy" is the name of the game. Arguments are conducted logically, preferably they're quantitative, the emphasis is on rational management techniques and evidence-based public administration. The magazine is the opposite of insular, open to new ideas wherever they come from, and always up to speed with new technology.

Given which, what on earth happened in the 14 January 2012 edition? It was out of character. Its Scottish Enlightenment body was snatched by aliens. Did The Economist suffer some sort of editorial stroke?

Friday 27 January 2012

While acknowledging that the web is a dangerous place to be, that's where Whitehall want to put all public services

There is a constant stream of scare stories in the media about hackers committing crimes on the web. National infrastructure can be disabled (Russian hackers), companies have their intellectual property stolen (the Chinese), and your bank account can be raided (Ukrainians). The stories have one message – the web is not a safe place. The government agree, and have set aside £650 million for the UK's cyber defences. At the same time, the government are planning to put all public services on the web. Are they coming or going? Do they know?

Last month Sir Gus O'Donnell retired as Cabinet Secretary, Permanent Secretary at the Cabinet Office and head of the home civil service, all three rolled into one.

Public Servant magazine devoted a valedictory article to him, Sir Gus on Whitehall's big challenge:
"It's a very challenging time for public services," he acknowledges. "I think what we were delivering over the past few years was, as it were, more with more – better results with more resources. You saw practical results with reduced waiting times, more doctors and nurses and so on.

"The challenge we are undergoing now is to achieve better with less – trying to preserve services for the public, particularly for the most disadvantaged groups, while having to think of new, innovative ways of doing that."

That means "making the most of every single pound" through maximising the potential of the internet and using the range of new ideas being developed on influencing behaviour change.

"The scale of budget reductions means I am putting down the challenge to everyone to innovate; to think about completely new ways of providing services," he says.
It takes a while to adapt, no doubt, but Sir Gus must understand that he's not putting down a challenge to anyone. He's retired.

There is nothing innovative about making every pound count. At least there shouldn't be. There never was a time when Whitehall was licensed to waste money.

But never mind that. Note, instead, the way the assumption is introduced that Whitehall will get the best value for our money by maximising the use of the web. That is supposed to be the key to delivering high quality, trusted public services. Three questions spring to mind:
  1. Tony Blair asked Sir Gus, when he took up the reins as  Permanent Secretary at the Cabinet Office, to concentrate on "transforming government". He was meant to deliver "joined up government". That was in 2005. Six years later, he's left, and the job still isn't started. The same people are still there, in the Cabinet Office, particularly Ian Watmore, who is the new Permanent Secretary. Is there any reason to believe that the Cabinet Office, which has already failed, can now rise to the challenge?
  2. Suppose that all public services are delivered over the web, and only over the web. Then what? Something like ten million people in the UK have never used the web. How are they going to get access to public services? What's to stop them from being excluded?
  3. Once the hackers want to disrupt a service on the web, whoever is running it, even the Pentagon, the defences seem to collapse and the hackers break in. Why should the UK's public services be any different? What's to stop hundreds of billions of pounds of fraud being perpetrated by the Ukrainians, or whoever, once tax is all received over the web and benefits are all paid over the web? And what's to stop the whole system being brought to a halt by the Russians, or whoever?
Sir Gus is now yesterday's man. And perhaps putting all government services on the web is yesterday's big idea. We have a Whitehall department in charge who have already proved that they can't deliver the services. We have a public who, many of them, can't receive the services. And meanwhile, there is an international corps of hackers, some state-backed, standing by waiting to cripple the system and/or steal all the money. It's not the obvious strategy.

The assumption that putting public services on the web is the solution to anything needs to be questioned. Watch out for people like Sir Gus slipping that assumption into their sales talk.

While acknowledging that the web is a dangerous place to be, that's where Whitehall want to put all public services

There is a constant stream of scare stories in the media about hackers committing crimes on the web. National infrastructure can be disabled (Russian hackers), companies have their intellectual property stolen (the Chinese), and your bank account can be raided (Ukrainians). The stories have one message – the web is not a safe place. The government agree, and have set aside £650 million for the UK's cyber defences. At the same time, the government are planning to put all public services on the web. Are they coming or going? Do they know?

Wednesday 11 January 2012

GreenInk 4 published – Private Eye blinks, misses a scoop

Private Eye
13 January – 26 January 2012
Eye 1305
p.17

Prints fingered:
Sir

While the Eye joins in with the establishment rubbishing of Brodie Clark ("Border line personality", In the Back, Eye 1302) – in your case by quoting the ineffably smug Michael Mansfield – you ignore the improvised explosive device Mr Clark detonated when he gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee.

The fingerprinting technology wished on UKBA is the least reliable identity/security check made at the border, Mr Clark said, it is the ninth and bottom priority and, if any check has to be suspended, it is "very sensible" to suspend the fingerprint check. It is presumably of no interest to you that the Home Office want to replace hundreds or even thousands of Border Force staff with a technology that might work in Hollywood films but certainly doesn't at Heathrow.


Yours
David Moss

GreenInk 4 published – Private Eye blinks, misses a scoop

Private Eye
13 January – 26 January 2012
Eye 1305
p.17

Prints fingered:
Sir

While the Eye joins in with the establishment rubbishing of Brodie Clark ("Border line personality", In the Back, Eye 1302) – in your case by quoting the ineffably smug Michael Mansfield – you ignore the improvised explosive device Mr Clark detonated when he gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee.

The fingerprinting technology wished on UKBA is the least reliable identity/security check made at the border, Mr Clark said, it is the ninth and bottom priority and, if any check has to be suspended, it is "very sensible" to suspend the fingerprint check. It is presumably of no interest to you that the Home Office want to replace hundreds or even thousands of Border Force staff with a technology that might work in Hollywood films but certainly doesn't at Heathrow.


Yours
David Moss

Tuesday 10 January 2012

Theresa May, Damian Green, Keith Vaz, Roger Gale, Yvette Cooper, Alan Johnson, Jacqui Smith, John Reid, Charles Clarke, David Blunkett, Helen Ghosh, John Vine, Brodie Clark, Gus O'Donnell, David Normington, James Hall, Jackie Keane and IBM

John Vine's job becomes more interesting by the day.

In the Sunday Times* of 8 January 2012, Isabel Oakeshott and Mark Hookham wrote:
Border staff give up fingerprinting of Eurotunnel stowaways
Border staff have stopped fingerprinting illegal immigrants caught trying to enter Britain through the Channel Tunnel.

Documents seen by The Sunday Times reveal how stowaways discovered in cars, lorries and coaches inside the Eurotunnel compound at Coquelles, north of Calais, no longer have their fingerprints routinely taken.

The revelation will renew pressure on Theresa May, the home secretary, who was last year embroiled in controversy over the secret relaxation of British border controls.

That scandal led to the resignation of the UK Border Agency (UKBA) chief, Brodie Clark.

Damian Green, the immigration minister, has defended the abandonment of the “lengthy” process of taking fingerprints, saying UKBA staff were better served searching vehicles instead ...

Roger Gale, the Conservative MP for North Thanet who wrote to the Home Office to demand an explanation ...

In a letter to Gale, Green confirmed that ...

Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, described Green’s letter as “astonishing” and said: “By not even bothering to fingerprint anyone, the government is sending a signal that this is not a serious offence and people should feel free to keep trying.”
"No, Ms Cooper", Mr Vine may say, "by not even bothering to fingerprint anyone, the government is sending a signal that this technology doesn't work, it's a waste of time and the Border Force has better things to do than play charades.

"You say you're astonished. But why?

"Do you realise, Ms Cooper, that the fingerprint technology used at the border isn't the traditional police technology in which the world has grown confident over the past century and more? It's flat print fingerprinting. It's quick, it's clean, there's no expert required and it doesn't work. Why do you insist on defending a technology you know nothing about?

"Please don't give me that look, Ms Cooper. It's not just you. Alan Johnson fell for it. So did Jacqui Smith. And John Reid and Charles Clarke and David Blunkett. Not to mention Theresa May. Why did she go in to bat for a technology that doesn't work?

"How many degrees of freedom, would you say, does a biometric need, to be able to identify every member of a population of 60 million? What's the minimum false positive identification rate we need, in your experience, to keep the border safe, what's the correspondingly high false negative identification rate and how many extra Border Force staff do you need every day, to conduct the hundreds of thousands of redundant secondary inspections? In your opinion, would you say that biometrics is currently under statistical control? What precisely is your take on the admissibility of flat print fingerprint evidence in a court of law?

"You don't know, do you, and neither does Ms May, but the thing is, Ms Cooper, no-one actually expects you politicians to understand the technicalities.

"That's what officials are for.

"The real question is, why have all those officials at the Home Office stood by for years and watched as you politicians have committed yourselves more and more irrevocably to biometrics?

"Well not Brodie Clark, he hasn't, he's told Keith Vaz that flat print fingerprinting is a waste of time.

"But the rest of them. O'Donnell's getting a peerage. Normington's become First Civil Service Commissioner. James Hall's retired. They've all got away, and meanwhile some of the more vindictive types want to strip Brodie Clark of his pension.

"It's a monumental mess of a legacy for Helen Ghosh to sort out. Telling Jackie Keane she's been wasting her time won't be easy. Neither will telling IBM their services are no longer required. Still. Icy calm under fire. That's what they're bred for, these permanent secretaries.

"Think of me this afternoon with the cold towel round my head, Ms Cooper, I've got to write a report about Brodie Clark being suspended for doing what UKBA are now doing as a matter of policy. Piece of cake for you politicians, I imagine, but for an ex-copper ...".

----------
* If you don't have a subscription to the Times, you can read the same article in the Telegraph, where it's attributed to someone called "Daily Telegraph Reporter".

Theresa May, Damian Green, Keith Vaz, Roger Gale, Yvette Cooper, Alan Johnson, Jacqui Smith, John Reid, Charles Clarke, David Blunkett, Helen Ghosh, John Vine, Brodie Clark, Gus O'Donnell, David Normington, James Hall, Jackie Keane and IBM

John Vine's job becomes more interesting by the day.

In the Sunday Times* of 8 January 2012, Isabel Oakeshott and Mark Hookham wrote:
Border staff give up fingerprinting of Eurotunnel stowaways
Border staff have stopped fingerprinting illegal immigrants caught trying to enter Britain through the Channel Tunnel.

Documents seen by The Sunday Times reveal how stowaways discovered in cars, lorries and coaches inside the Eurotunnel compound at Coquelles, north of Calais, no longer have their fingerprints routinely taken.

The revelation will renew pressure on Theresa May, the home secretary, who was last year embroiled in controversy over the secret relaxation of British border controls.

That scandal led to the resignation of the UK Border Agency (UKBA) chief, Brodie Clark.

Damian Green, the immigration minister, has defended the abandonment of the “lengthy” process of taking fingerprints, saying UKBA staff were better served searching vehicles instead ...

Roger Gale, the Conservative MP for North Thanet who wrote to the Home Office to demand an explanation ...

In a letter to Gale, Green confirmed that ...

Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, described Green’s letter as “astonishing” and said: “By not even bothering to fingerprint anyone, the government is sending a signal that this is not a serious offence and people should feel free to keep trying.”
"No, Ms Cooper", Mr Vine may say, "by not even bothering to fingerprint anyone, the government is sending a signal that this technology doesn't work, it's a waste of time and the Border Force has better things to do than play charades.

"You say you're astonished. But why?

"Do you realise, Ms Cooper, that the fingerprint technology used at the border isn't the traditional police technology in which the world has grown confident over the past century and more? It's flat print fingerprinting. It's quick, it's clean, there's no expert required and it doesn't work. Why do you insist on defending a technology you know nothing about?

"Please don't give me that look, Ms Cooper. It's not just you. Alan Johnson fell for it. So did Jacqui Smith. And John Reid and Charles Clarke and David Blunkett. Not to mention Theresa May. Why did she go in to bat for a technology that doesn't work?

"How many degrees of freedom, would you say, does a biometric need, to be able to identify every member of a population of 60 million? What's the minimum false positive identification rate we need, in your experience, to keep the border safe, what's the correspondingly high false negative identification rate and how many extra Border Force staff do you need every day, to conduct the hundreds of thousands of redundant secondary inspections? In your opinion, would you say that biometrics is currently under statistical control? What precisely is your take on the admissibility of flat print fingerprint evidence in a court of law?

"You don't know, do you, and neither does Ms May, but the thing is, Ms Cooper, no-one actually expects you politicians to understand the technicalities.

"That's what officials are for.

"The real question is, why have all those officials at the Home Office stood by for years and watched as you politicians have committed yourselves more and more irrevocably to biometrics?

"Well not Brodie Clark, he hasn't, he's told Keith Vaz that flat print fingerprinting is a waste of time.

"But the rest of them. O'Donnell's getting a peerage. Normington's become First Civil Service Commissioner. James Hall's retired. They've all got away, and meanwhile some of the more vindictive types want to strip Brodie Clark of his pension.

"It's a monumental mess of a legacy for Helen Ghosh to sort out. Telling Jackie Keane she's been wasting her time won't be easy. Neither will telling IBM their services are no longer required. Still. Icy calm under fire. That's what they're bred for, these permanent secretaries.

"Think of me this afternoon with the cold towel round my head, Ms Cooper, I've got to write a report about Brodie Clark being suspended for doing what UKBA are now doing as a matter of policy. Piece of cake for you politicians, I imagine, but for an ex-copper ...".

----------
* If you don't have a subscription to the Times, you can read the same article in the Telegraph, where it's attributed to someone called "Daily Telegraph Reporter".

Monday 9 January 2012

PressRelease: Brodie Clark and the scoop the media missed

PRESS RELEASE

To:
Home Office
OIG (re US-VISIT)
IDABC (re OSCIE)
China (re Golden Shield)
Pakistan (re NADRA)
FBI (re NGI)
UIDAI (re Aadhaar)
Agencies
Brodie Clark and the scoop the media missed
9 January 2012
It was such an easy story to write when the pack was let loose last November. Brodie Clark had endangered us all by suspending biometric checks at the border.
It was so easy that, when Brodie Clark gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, no-one noticed the bombshell he smuggled in.
Border security in the UK, the control of migration and the safety of the 2012 Olympics all depend, we are told by the UK Border Agency, on biometric checks. Hundreds of millions of pounds of public money – your money and mine – have been spent since the coalition government came to power on security systems which depend for their success on the biometrics used being reliable.
And what did Brodie Clark say? In a six-minute passage of his testimony, between 12:18 and 12:24 on 15 November 2011, he said that the fingerprint check is the least reliable security/identity check available at the border, it is the ninth and bottom priority for officers of the Border Force and when push comes to shove (literally) in the marshalling areas for airport arrivals, it is “very sensible” to suspend fingerprint checks, that is a practice of his former staff, he was at pains to emphasise, that he approved at the time and still approves of.
To paraphrase, Theresa May is quite right to be furious, but not with Brodie Clark. Her fury should properly be directed at the credulous adoption of expensive technology that doesn’t work. That is what threatens the security of the border and the control of migration and the safety of the Olympics.
It’s a major story. And the media missed it.
Luckily, the opportunity will soon be with us for the media to make good. Some time in the next few weeks John Vine, the Independent Chief Inspector of the UK Border Agency, will present his report on the Brodie Clark affair to the Home Office.
All eyes on John Vine and that report of his. Let’s get it right this time.
For background briefing, please see:


About Business Consultancy Services Ltd (BCSL):
BCSL has operated as an IT consultancy since 1984. The past 9 years have been spent campaigning against the Home Office's plans to introduce government ID cards into the UK. It must now be admitted that the Labour government 1997-2010 were much better at convincing people that these plans are a bad idea than anyone else, including BCSL.
Press contacts: David Moss, BCSL@blueyonder.co.uk

PressRelease: Brodie Clark and the scoop the media missed

PRESS RELEASE

To:
Home Office
OIG (re US-VISIT)
IDABC (re OSCIE)
China (re Golden Shield)
Pakistan (re NADRA)
FBI (re NGI)
UIDAI (re Aadhaar)
Agencies
Brodie Clark and the scoop the media missed
9 January 2012
It was such an easy story to write when the pack was let loose last November. Brodie Clark had endangered us all by suspending biometric checks at the border.
It was so easy that, when Brodie Clark gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, no-one noticed the bombshell he smuggled in.
Border security in the UK, the control of migration and the safety of the 2012 Olympics all depend, we are told by the UK Border Agency, on biometric checks. Hundreds of millions of pounds of public money – your money and mine – have been spent since the coalition government came to power on security systems which depend for their success on the biometrics used being reliable.
And what did Brodie Clark say? In a six-minute passage of his testimony, between 12:18 and 12:24 on 15 November 2011, he said that the fingerprint check is the least reliable security/identity check available at the border, it is the ninth and bottom priority for officers of the Border Force and when push comes to shove (literally) in the marshalling areas for airport arrivals, it is “very sensible” to suspend fingerprint checks, that is a practice of his former staff, he was at pains to emphasise, that he approved at the time and still approves of.
To paraphrase, Theresa May is quite right to be furious, but not with Brodie Clark. Her fury should properly be directed at the credulous adoption of expensive technology that doesn’t work. That is what threatens the security of the border and the control of migration and the safety of the Olympics.
It’s a major story. And the media missed it.
Luckily, the opportunity will soon be with us for the media to make good. Some time in the next few weeks John Vine, the Independent Chief Inspector of the UK Border Agency, will present his report on the Brodie Clark affair to the Home Office.
All eyes on John Vine and that report of his. Let’s get it right this time.
For background briefing, please see:


About Business Consultancy Services Ltd (BCSL):
BCSL has operated as an IT consultancy since 1984. The past 9 years have been spent campaigning against the Home Office's plans to introduce government ID cards into the UK. It must now be admitted that the Labour government 1997-2010 were much better at convincing people that these plans are a bad idea than anyone else, including BCSL.
Press contacts: David Moss, BCSL@blueyonder.co.uk

Theresa May, Keith Vaz, John Vine and Brodie Clark

The allegations against Brodie Clark are listed in Rt Hon Theresa May MP's statement to the House on 7 November 2011:
First, biometric checks on EEA nationals and Warnings Index checks on EEA national children were abandoned on a regular basis, without ministerial approval.

Biometric checks on non-EEA nationals were also thought to have been abandoned on occasions, without ministerial approval.

Second, adults were not checked against the Warnings Index at Calais, without ministerial approval.

Third, the verification of the fingerprints of non-EEA nationals from countries that require a visa was stopped, without ministerial approval.
The suggestion is that Brodie Clark has deliberately endangered us all. No wonder the Home Secretary was furious. If the allegations are proven, then Mr Clark's behaviour was monstrous.

The Home Office have launched three investigations into the matter:
Mr Speaker, there is nothing more important than the security of our border, and because of the seriousness of these allegations, I have ordered a number of investigations.

Dave Wood, head of the UKBA Enforcement and Crime Group and a former Metropolitan Police Officer, will carry out an investigation into exactly how, when and where the suspension of checks might have taken place.

Mike Anderson, Director General of Immigration, is looking at the actions of the wider team working for Brodie Clark.

And John Vine will conduct a thorough review to find out exactly what happened across UKBA in terms of the checks, how the chain of command in Border Force operates and whether the system needs to be changed in future.  And, for the sake of clarity, I am very happy for Mr Vine to look at what decisions were made and when by ministers.

That investigation will begin immediately and will report by the end of January.

I will place the terms of reference for these inquiries in the House of Commons Library.

Mr Speaker, border security is fundamental to our national security and to our policy of reducing and controlling immigration.
John Vine CBE QPM is the Independent Chief Inspector of UKBA. It was in the course of his duties that he inspected Heathrow Terminal 3 in October 2011 and questioned Brodie Clark about the number of times biometric security/identity checks had been halted. It was when he reported his findings to Rob Whiteman, the Chief Executive of UKBA, that Brodie Clark was suspended. And now he is in charge of one of the investigations.

There are obvious questions here about just how independent Mr Vine can be. Very properly, Rt Hon Keith Vaz MP, chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, has allowed that matter to be raised. Mr Vine will be under considerable pressure to demonstrate his independence when he reports some time in the next few weeks.

Brodie Clark argues that he did not endanger border security. Agreeing to drop biometric checks, he says, was sensible in the circumstances, they are the ninth and bottom priority in the pecking order of identity/security checks, they are the least reliable check (testimony given between 12:18 and 12:24, 15 November 2011):



That defence cannot be ignored. Not in an independent report.

Given that Brodie Clark's testimony can't be swept under the carpet, Mr Vine has a choice:
  1. He can declare himself to be no expert in mass consumer biometrics and leave it up to someone else to decide whether they are reliable enough to make a cost-effective and material contribution to border security.
  2. Or he can use his report to say categorically, one way or the other, whether Brodie Clark is right.
If he says that Brodie Clark is wrong, he will have to be able to prove it. He will have to be able to prove that the biometrics chosen by UKBA are reliable. UKBA themselves have never offered any evidence to support that claim*. The suppliers of the biometric technology have never offered any warranties. There is a large body of respectable, published evidence suggesting that the technology is unreliable and the considered opinion is that the discipline of biometrics is out of statistical control. It is unlikely that Mr Vine will be able, in the time available to him, to prove that Brodie Clark is wrong.

Which leaves just one option – Mr Vine could report that Brodie Clark is right. In other words, paraphrasing Mr Clark loosely, UKBA have been wasting their time and the public's money on biometrics, biometrics do not help to secure the border and control immigration, and they will do nothing to make the Olympics safe.

Whichever option Mr Vine chooses, it is to be hoped that the media will be paying attention. They missed the scoop that Brodie Clark gave them on 15 November 2011. They mustn't miss it again.


* UKBA vigorously resist attempts under the freedom of Information Act to get them to disclose the evidence they claim to have. Freedom of Information Request No.13728 celebrated its second birthday last week, on Friday 6 January 2011, Twelfth Night, Epiphany and the scene is set for many happy returns.

Theresa May, Keith Vaz, John Vine and Brodie Clark

The allegations against Brodie Clark are listed in Rt Hon Theresa May MP's statement to the House on 7 November 2011:
First, biometric checks on EEA nationals and Warnings Index checks on EEA national children were abandoned on a regular basis, without ministerial approval.

Biometric checks on non-EEA nationals were also thought to have been abandoned on occasions, without ministerial approval.

Second, adults were not checked against the Warnings Index at Calais, without ministerial approval.

Third, the verification of the fingerprints of non-EEA nationals from countries that require a visa was stopped, without ministerial approval.
The suggestion is that Brodie Clark has deliberately endangered us all. No wonder the Home Secretary was furious. If the allegations are proven, then Mr Clark's behaviour was monstrous.

Saturday 7 January 2012

Theresa May, Damian Green, Helen Ghosh, John Vine, Jonathan Sedgwick, Brodie Clark and Jackie Keane

In their Annual Report and Accounts for the year ending 31 March 2011, signed by Jonathan Sedgwick, Acting Chief Executive at the time, UKBA say (p.12):
The average number of full-time equivalent (FTE) active staff we paid for either directly or indirectly during 2010-11 was 23,426 (compared with 24,474 in 2009-10) The size of the agency’s workforce reduced by around 1,900 (8 per cent) during 2010-11. We plan to achieve further efficiencies, resulting in further workforce reductions, in the period between April 2011 and March 2015.
UKBA plan to reduce the headcount by a further 4,500 by 31 March 2015 (p.13).

How?

Answer, by replacing people with technology. 900 of those 4,500 were dealt with by Dame Helen Ghosh DCB, Permanent Secretary at the Home Office, who told the Home Affairs Committee when she gave evidence on 22 November 2011 (Q358) that:
... there are plans, over the SR10 period*, to reduce the staff of the Border Force by around 900 people, from almost 8,000 people at the start of the period. But that is driven as much by technological introductions like e-gates, as well as a risk-based approach. Border Force will be getting smaller ...
"e-gates"? Electronic gates, or smart gates, use biometrics based on facial geometry to verify a traveller's identity. That's the theory. Do they work in practice? They never have in the past. Do UKBA have any reason to believe that they work now? According to John Vine CBE QPM, the Independent Chief Inspector of UKBA, no. In his May 2010 inspection report on Manchester Airport, he said:
5.29 We could find no overall plan to evaluate the success or otherwise of the facial recognition gates at Manchester Airport and would urge the Agency to do so [as] soon as possible.
"risk-based approach"? "risk-based" seems to be used interchangeably with "intelligence-led", "eBorders" and "Warnings Index". Rt Hon Theresa May MP, Home Secretary, dealt with the matter when she gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee on 8 November 2011:
Q33 Michael Ellis: ... can you elaborate on what is meant by intelligence-led security measures? ...

Theresa May: Indeed. The basis on which the pilot was to operate was that it was to enable a greater focus on those who were at higher risk. Intelligence-led, led also at the discretion of the officers at the border so that they would be assessing within the two categories of EEA nationals and the biometric chips, and EEA national children ...
Damian Green MP, Immigration Minister, returned to the question when he gave evidence on 22 November 2011:
Q423 Dr Huppert: I would certainly provide a steer towards risk-based, intelligence-led controls. What options are there for taking this further? How can we become sharper at using that?

Damian Green: The root of it is early intelligence and information. That is why this Government, even through the difficulties of getting rid of the previous e-Borders main contractor, because it was running behind so badly, are determined to carry on with e-Borders. We already have 90% of flights from outside Europe covered by that. It is that kind of early intelligence-intelligence before people get on a plane-that will help us make our borders secure. The old idea that the border starts at Dover or Heathrow will become increasingly old-fashioned. I want to export our borders, so that they start at airports around the world, and so that, as is the case now, if people come through France, the borders start at Calais or Gare du Nord, or at Brussels rather than Dover. We have already stopped 68,000 people who would otherwise have got on planes flying in the past year, because of intelligence that we have collected. It seems to me that that is the route that we need to go down.
The "main contractor" Mr Green refers to, the organisation in charge of delivering eBorders – the seat of intelligence-led, risk-based border control – is Raytheon Systems Ltd, manufacturers of the Cruise missile. One of the coalition government's first acts was to fire Raytheon. Raytheon are now suing us for £500 million.

In the meantime, IBM have taken over the eBorders contract. Sheikh Raed Salah flew into the UK despite being on the eBorders Warnings Index, the problem being, according to the BBC, that IBM's system relies on little slips of paper being distributed to Immigration Officers and the slips don't always get to the right IO and another problem being, also according to the BBC, that a lot of the information on the Warnings Index is false, put there by malicious people denouncing someone they don't like.

Along with Dame Helen's "e-gates" and the "risk-based approach", of course, we also have Jackie Keane's IABS to secure the border and to control immigration and to make the Olympics safe. Except that Brodie Clark considers the technology of IABS to provide the least reliable of any identity/security check at the border.

Is this an optimal allocation of resources?
  • 900 officers of the Border Force will be lost to all this dubious technology.
  • Since the coalition government came to office, between 12 May 2010 and 31 October 2011, the Home Office has spent £491,304,533.51 with the contractors involved in the smart gates, ePassports, eBorders and IABS initiatives. Using the figures in Jonathan Sedgwick's accounts, that is enough money to pay all 900 officers for 12 years.
Is all that public money – your money and mine – being wisely invested?

----------
* SR10 is the four-year period 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2015 covered by the 2010 Spending Review
It should be made clear that the Wikipedia article linked to here is two-thirds written by DMossEsq

Theresa May, Damian Green, Helen Ghosh, John Vine, Jonathan Sedgwick, Brodie Clark and Jackie Keane

In their Annual Report and Accounts for the year ending 31 March 2011, signed by Jonathan Sedgwick, Acting Chief Executive at the time, UKBA say (p.12):
The average number of full-time equivalent (FTE) active staff we paid for either directly or indirectly during 2010-11 was 23,426 (compared with 24,474 in 2009-10) The size of the agency’s workforce reduced by around 1,900 (8 per cent) during 2010-11. We plan to achieve further efficiencies, resulting in further workforce reductions, in the period between April 2011 and March 2015.
UKBA plan to reduce the headcount by a further 4,500 by 31 March 2015 (p.13).

How?

Brodie Clark and Jackie Keane

UK Border Agency News is published bi-monthly. Issue 6, the March 2011 edition, includes this article (p.5):
The Immigration & Asylum Biometric System (IABS)
The latest in biometric matching technology will be introduced to the agency in 2011. The Immigration & Asylum Biometric System (IABS) will replace our current fingerprint system (IAFS) at the end of 2011 with the latest in biometric matching technology.

Biometrics are used overseas, at the border and in country to establish a unique identity for each applicant. This is principally in the form of digital fingerprints and a facial photograph. Fingerprints are recorded and checked when individuals are applying for visas or biometric residence permits, and when asylum seekers require registration cards. The biometric information helps to ensure that decisions are made quickly and fairly and that the UK is protected.

IABS will replace the current system while also incorporating additional features. It will allow biometrics to be taken, stored and matched with improved accuracy to ensure that identity is reliably established, whether at the border or within country. It will also improve the service currently offered by providing the flexibility to extend the system in the future should additional functionality be required.

An exciting development has been the recent approval for the IABS technology to capture biometrics of visa national Games Family Members (GFM) during the Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2012. GFM include athletes, coaches, sporting officials, sponsors and the media who are travelling on the Olympic or Paralympic Identity and Accreditation Card.

By replacing the existing fingerprint system with improved and advanced technology we are ensuring that the agency can continue to secure the border and control migration now and in the future. The IABS Programme Team, led by Programme Director Jackie Keane, is working closely with its suppliers IBM, Fujitsu and ATOS and the testing phase of the programme has started.

For further information please contact Janis MacLennan IABS Partnership and Communication Manager on 0203 014 4297.
Jackie Keane is a senior civil servant. You'll find her on the UK Border Agency Senior Management Team organisation chart, November 2011. She wants you to believe that, thanks to the ability of biometrics based on facial geometry and flat print fingerprints to "establish a unique identity" quickly, accurately and reliably for everyone*, the border will be secured, migration will be controlled and the Olympics will be safe.

Brodie Clark was an even more senior civil servant. And when he gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee on 15 November 2011 (12:18-12:24), he said that the fingerprint check at the border was the least reliable security/identity check, it is the ninth and bottom priority and, when the crowds in the Arrivals area threaten to become chaotic, it is "very sensible" to stop doing fingerprint checks.

They can't both be right.

That is the "confusion ... in this vital area of national security" that the Independent failed to identify. That is the scoop that Brodie Clark provided at his evidence session in front of the Home Affairs Committee and that the Independent and every other media organisation missed.


* Biometrics do not have this ability. The UK Border Agency News article is misleading

Brodie Clark and Jackie Keane

UK Border Agency News is published bi-monthly. Issue 6, the March 2011 edition, includes this article (p.5):
The Immigration & Asylum Biometric System (IABS)
The latest in biometric matching technology will be introduced to the agency in 2011. The Immigration & Asylum Biometric System (IABS) will replace our current fingerprint system (IAFS) at the end of 2011 with the latest in biometric matching technology.

Biometrics are used overseas, at the border and in country to establish a unique identity for each applicant. This is principally in the form of digital fingerprints and a facial photograph. Fingerprints are recorded and checked when individuals are applying for visas or biometric residence permits, and when asylum seekers require registration cards. The biometric information helps to ensure that decisions are made quickly and fairly and that the UK is protected.

IABS will replace the current system while also incorporating additional features. It will allow biometrics to be taken, stored and matched with improved accuracy to ensure that identity is reliably established, whether at the border or within country. It will also improve the service currently offered by providing the flexibility to extend the system in the future should additional functionality be required.

An exciting development has been the recent approval for the IABS technology to capture biometrics of visa national Games Family Members (GFM) during the Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2012. GFM include athletes, coaches, sporting officials, sponsors and the media who are travelling on the Olympic or Paralympic Identity and Accreditation Card.

By replacing the existing fingerprint system with improved and advanced technology we are ensuring that the agency can continue to secure the border and control migration now and in the future. The IABS Programme Team, led by Programme Director Jackie Keane, is working closely with its suppliers IBM, Fujitsu and ATOS and the testing phase of the programme has started.

For further information please contact Janis MacLennan IABS Partnership and Communication Manager on 0203 014 4297.
Jackie Keane is a senior civil servant. You'll find her on the UK Border Agency Senior Management Team organisation chart, November 2011. She wants you to believe that, thanks to the ability of biometrics based on facial geometry and flat print fingerprints to "establish a unique identity" quickly, accurately and reliably for everyone*, the border will be secured, migration will be controlled and the Olympics will be safe.

Brodie Clark was an even more senior civil servant. And when he gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee on 15 November 2011 (12:18-12:24), he said that the fingerprint check at the border was the least reliable security/identity check, it is the ninth and bottom priority and, when the crowds in the Arrivals area threaten to become chaotic, it is "very sensible" to stop doing fingerprint checks.

They can't both be right.

That is the "confusion ... in this vital area of national security" that the Independent failed to identify. That is the scoop that Brodie Clark provided at his evidence session in front of the Home Affairs Committee and that the Independent and every other media organisation missed.


* Biometrics do not have this ability. The UK Border Agency News article is misleading

Thursday 5 January 2012

Lin Homer, Brodie Clark and Ron Noble

Ron Noble, Secretary General of Interpol, is in London to discuss security arrangements for the Olympics.

He gave an interview to the Independent. Interpol maintains a database of lost and stolen passports, and:
Britain is the only EU country to systematically check passports against those registered as missing worldwide. Last year more than 11,000 people were caught trying to enter the UK using lost or stolen passports. Britain carries out more checks against the database than the rest of Europe combined – 140 million last year. France carried out the second highest number, at 10 million.

The UK Border Agency acknowledged the importance of the Interpol system, saying its high usage of the database was "indicative of the seriousness and priority we place on border security".
This is quite a turnaround.

In December 2004, Ron Noble lambasted the UK when he flew in and wasn't even asked for his passport number:
Interpol concern over UK borders
The head of Interpol has told of his "surprise" at shortcomings in the passport controls at UK borders.

Ron Noble, an American, said he was not asked for his passport serial number when he entered the UK.
The situation didn't improve and in July 2007 Ron Noble returned to the fray:
Interpol said last night that the UK makes just 50 checks a month of the database; France by comparison makes 700,000 checks and Switzerland makes 300,000 ...

Mr Noble said that Gordon Brown's promise last week to share a list of potential terrorists with other countries had yet to materialize. "British citizens might be surprised to find that this watch list announced by your prime minister last week has not been sent to Interpol," he said. "Why is it that some countries make sure passengers do not carry a bottle of spring water on to a plane, yet aren't careful to ensure convicted felons aren't entering their borders with stolen passports?"
Someone took up the matter with Lin Homer, Chief Executive of the UK Border Agency at the time. Ms Homer kindly wrote back and said that UKBA had started to use the Interpol database more frequently in 2007 and, by 2010:
Around 70 million checks are made against the database per year and to date there have been 13346 hits and 5108 documents seized.
The UK has gone from 600 checks p.a. against the Interpol database to 70 million and, now, to 140 million. You don't get a turnaround like that unless someone makes a determined effort. Who? Lin Homer. Well done, Lin Homer, and thank you. And thank you, Brodie Clark, sometime head of the UK Border Force.

After their Ron Noble interview, the Independent published a leading article on 30 December 2011. Does Lin Homer get a mention? No.

Brodie Clark does. Happy New Year to you, too:
Equally, although Mr Noble may have praised UK immigration controls compared with those of our neighbours, the British system is far from perfect. Only last month, the head of the border force quit in a row over a relaxation of security which the Home Secretary claimed had been done without her knowledge. That Brodie Clark is now suing for constructive dismissal only adds to the alarming sense of confusion and buck-passing in this vital area of national security.
The Independent regards the actions of UKBA and Interpol together as praiseworthy but Brodie Clark gets no recognition from the newspaper for his part in protecting the border by making use of the Interpol database.

Certain allegations have been made against Brodie Clark and he disputes them all. The matter is being investigated by the Home Affairs Committee, the Home Office has launched three internal investigations and, at some point, an employment tribunal will be convened. What are the results of all those quasi-judicial investigations? No-one knows but the Independent feels itself already justified in pointing the finger at Brodie Clark.

There is "confusion and buck-passing" there. But in their unbalanced coverage, the Independent have not identified the seat of that confusion.



Update 8 January 2011
Mazher Mahmood, 8 January 2011, Sunday TimesIllegals enter the UK on ‘passports for hire’:
  • Mr Mahmood identifies two people who got into the UK using other people's lost or stolen ID – a Sunday Times reporter and a lady who was sent to jail by Wood Green Crown Court in 2010. All the other illegal immigrants referred to in his article are in Greece, and not the UK. It looks as though UKBA are doing rather well, checking travel documents against the Interpol database.
  • Mr Mahmood's article includes a quotation from an unnamed senior police source asserting that biometric checks would be more effective – no evidence for that assertion is given. Has Mr Mahmood perhaps been deceived by an impostor, a biometrics technology salesman posing as a policeman?

Lin Homer, Brodie Clark and Ron Noble

Ron Noble, Secretary General of Interpol, is in London to discuss security arrangements for the Olympics.

He gave an interview to the Independent. Interpol maintains a database of lost and stolen passports, and:
Britain is the only EU country to systematically check passports against those registered as missing worldwide. Last year more than 11,000 people were caught trying to enter the UK using lost or stolen passports. Britain carries out more checks against the database than the rest of Europe combined – 140 million last year. France carried out the second highest number, at 10 million.

The UK Border Agency acknowledged the importance of the Interpol system, saying its high usage of the database was "indicative of the seriousness and priority we place on border security".
This is quite a turnaround.