G-Cloud, GDS, HMRC and Skyscape, the company with just one director, who owns all the shares – Whitehall SNAFU

The story so far ...

The Government Digital Service (GDS) have contracted with Skyscape Cloud Services Ltd to host the new unified central government website, GOV.UK, in the cloud.

Episode 1, Insanity – are they mad? Skyscape is a £1,000 company. Isn't that a bit small for this monumental responsibility?

Whitehall's G-Cloud team say this is an example of good practice, using small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) instead of the ponderous and expensive big boys.

Episode 2, Mendacity – are they lying? Skyscape claims to be in alliance with five other companies whose combined turnover is £43.3 billion and who have over 100,000 staff. Isn't that a bit big for an SME?

Now read on ...

[Skyscape has subsequently changed its name to UKCloud: "London – August 1, 2016 – Skyscape Cloud Services Limited, the easy to adopt, easy to use and easy to leave assured cloud services company, has today renamed and relaunched as UKCloud Ltd (www.ukcloud.com), to reinforce the company’s exclusive focus on supporting the UK public sector in the digital transformation of services".]

Episode 3, Confusion – what's going on?

HMRC
Now HMRC have signed up with Skyscape as well as GDS. Phil Pavitt, HMRC's CIO (Chief Information Officer) says that the shift to cloud ...

... will save over £1 million a year in running costs and will increase reliability and security of HMRC's internal IT services. The Skyscape contract is a major step for HMRC in moving away from traditional ways of working with large service providers. And it's a great example of how we're exploring smarter, more innovative solutions that make life simpler for us and help us provide a better deal for our customers ...

• Will Mr Pavitt's head roll if the Skyscape contract doesn't "save over £1 million a year in running costs"?
• Suppose Skyscape put their prices up?
• Suppose Skyscape go bust – it's only a £1,000 company after all?
• Suppose Skyscape's servers fall over for a fortnight like the Royal Bank of Scotland's did earlier this summer?
• Does HMRC have good enough book-keeping systems to know if £1 million has been saved and where and why?
• HMRC is no SME – its ASPIRE contract with Capgemini and Fujitsu is worth £8 billion over ten years. Is it worth taking the risk of using Skyscape to save one eight-thousandth eight-hundredth of the value of just one contract among many?
• ...

We know the answer to one of those questions. The National Audit Office have told us that when HMRC asked their suppliers to be a bit more explicit what they were charging for on their invoices, the suppliers refused. HMRC pay anyway, whatever it is they're paying for.

God, but Lin Homer's got a lot of work to do.

Skyscape
Never mind all those questions for the moment, the point at issue is that Mr Pavitt thinks that Skyscape is a small company.

How small?

We already know that it has only £1,000 of paid up share capital. And that the company is too young to have filed any accounts yet, so we have no idea about its P&L and balance sheet. The G-Cloud team have approved Skyscape to sell its wares on HMG's Cloudstore, GDS have bought from them and so have HMRC – how did they satisfy themselves as to Skyscape's commercial health?

They may not have filed any accounts but Skyscape have filed an annual return, as at 3 May 2012, according to which:

• The registered address is Hartham Park, Hartham, Corsham, Wilts SN13 0RP
• The company has one director – Mr Jeremy Robin Sanders
• And one shareholder – Mr Jeremy Robin Sanders

GDS and HMRC haven't signed up with one company so much as with one man. One man owns all the shares and is the only director of the company which hosts the central government website and hosts some of HMRC's data. One man. What's going on?

GOV.UK depends on one man. Mr Sanders. Bits of HMRC depend on one man. Mr Sanders. The G-Cloud team have approved one man to sell his wares on the Cloudstore. Mr Sanders. The UK is a big, complicated, modern state with 1,000 years of democracy behind it and government contracts affecting the entire population are signed with just one man. Mr Sanders.

While that's sinking in, en passant, note that Mr Sanders didn't always own all the shares in Skyscape. Mr Jeffery (sic) Paul Thomas used to own one share. Then on 19 April 2012 he transferred it to Mr Sanders. You won't forget that name, will you – Jeffery (sic) Paul Thomas.

The Skyscape Cloud Alliance
The following note appears on the Skyscape website ...

SKYSCAPE CLOUD ALLIANCE The Skyscape Cloud Alliance partners; QinetiQ ,VMware, Cisco, EMC, and Ark Continuity bring together an end to end cloud solution which is Skyscape. This Alliance also provides a collaborative resource which drives innovation and our technical product development programme.

What does it mean?

If it means that Skyscape is a joint venture company set up by the allies, then Skyscape has the backing of £43.3 billion of annual revenue and 100,000 staff worldwide. Which means that it's not really an SME at all.

But it doesn't say that. The five companies are called "partners". But Skyscape isn't a partnership, it's a limited company.

Presumably Skyscape haven't just put these names on their website because it looks good. Because it's handy for marketing. If they used these names without the allies' permission, they'd be sued. There must be some sort of a commercial arrangement between Skyscape, QinetiQ and the others. But what sort of arrangement?

Skyscape are not mentioned in the accounts of QinetiQ or VMware or any of the allies. The nature of this commercial arrangement is a mystery. A gentlemen's agreement of some sort, perhaps? Surely that's not enough for G-Cloud, GDS and HMRC to rely on.

ARK Continuity
ARK Continuity is the odd one out among the Skyscape allies. It's relatively tiny. According to its annual return as at 16 December 2011:

• The registered address is Hartham Park, Hartham, Corsham, Wilts SN13 0RP, the same as Skyscape's.
• It has a company secretary and three directors – two bankers plus Mr Jeffrey (sic) Paul Thomas, possibly the ex-shareholder of Skyscape.
• It has two classes of 1p ordinary shares, A and B, 800 of each issued, so it has £16 of share capital, not all paid up at the date of the return.
• Revcap Properties 25 Ltd owns all 800 A ordinaries and Mr Jeffrey (sic) Paul Thomas owns 320 of the B ordinaries.

According to the 30 April 2011 Ark Continuity annual report and accounts, the two bankers are appointed as directors to represent the interests of Revcap Properties 25 Ltd, the 75% majority shareholder, the ultimate parent company of Revcap Properties 25 Ltd is Real Estate Venture Capital Partners LLP and:

The principal activity of the company and the group is the design, construction and operation of data centres

Nearly finally, on 9 August 2012, ARK Continuity appointed Baroness Elizabeth Lydia Manningham-Buller a director. The Rt Hon The Baroness Manningham-Buller was of course, formerly, the Director General of MI5.

On their website, ARK Continuity are naturally proud of their Spring Park data centre. They're a property company. Of course they're proud.

That's Spring Park at Hartham Park, Corsham, Wilts SN13 0RP, they provide a map of how to get there and they say that:

Spring Park affords occupiers the opportunity to embrace best practice and sustainable principles in the design, construction, engineering and operation of their data centres Spring Park is one of Europe's premier data centre locations. Strategically positioned and built on a legacy of over 50 years investment in critical national infrastructure, Spring Park comprises 14.79ha of surface land, 9.29ha of underground, access to 114MVA diverse power supply and c93,000m² of consented data centre and office development Located one mile from the A4 and 8 miles from J17 of the M4 between Swindon and Bristol, the site is adjacent to secure MoD facilities and benefits from significant connectivity infrastructure To see the location map click here To watch the History of Spring Park click here

The early footage of the Romans quarrying stone at Corsham to build the new town of Bath in the green belt is fascinating but someone should tell ARK about security. The Rt Hon The Baroness Manningham-Buller, perhaps?

The MoD might prefer it if ARK Continuity didn't tell people where their secure facilities are. GDS and HMRC, too.

And let's hope to God that that's not where GOV.UK is being hosted and where HMRC have stored their records. Because otherwise, now, thanks to ARK Continuity's website, everyone will know.

G-Cloud, GDS, HMRC and Skyscape, the company with just one director, who owns all the shares – Whitehall SNAFU

The story so far ...

The Government Digital Service (GDS) have contracted with Skyscape Cloud Services Ltd to host the new unified central government website, GOV.UK, in the cloud.

Episode 1, Insanity – are they mad? Skyscape is a £1,000 company. Isn't that a bit small for this monumental responsibility?

Whitehall's G-Cloud team say this is an example of good practice, using small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) instead of the ponderous and expensive big boys.

Episode 2, Mendacity – are they lying? Skyscape claims to be in alliance with five other companies whose combined turnover is £43.3 billion and who have over 100,000 staff. Isn't that a bit big for an SME?

Now read on ...

[Skyscape has subsequently changed its name to UKCloud: "London – August 1, 2016 – Skyscape Cloud Services Limited, the easy to adopt, easy to use and easy to leave assured cloud services company, has today renamed and relaunched as UKCloud Ltd (www.ukcloud.com), to reinforce the company’s exclusive focus on supporting the UK public sector in the digital transformation of services".]

Home Office soon to be Ghoshless

Home Office press release, 13 August 2012:

Dame Helen Ghosh to leave civil service Dame Helen Ghosh DCB is to step down as Permanent Secretary of the Home Office to take up the role of Director General of the National Trust, she announced today. Dame Helen will leave the department in September after a 33 year career in the civil service ... Head of the Civil Service Sir Bob Kerslake said: 'As Permanent Secretary at Defra and the Home Office, Helen has delivered extraordinary change including departmental reform, the independent UK Border Force and support for the successful London Olympics. 'She has been an inspiring leader, who has made a very strong corporate contribution, both via the Civil Service Board, leading the capability strand of our Civil Service Reform Programme and as a vibrant role model and champion of talent and diversity. I wish her every success in her new leadership role at the National Trust.' Helen Kilpatrick, Director General of the Financial and Commercial Group, will stand in as interim Permanent Secretary until a replacement for Helen Ghosh is appointed.

National Trust press release, 13 August 2012:

Dame Helen Ghosh DCB will be the next Director-General of the National Trust ... She will take over from Fiona Reynolds who has been at the helm for nearly 12 years ... Fiona Reynolds ... moves on to become Master of Emmanuel College, Cambridge in 2013 ...

Emmanuel College past events, 6 March 2012:

London Drinks Café Koha in London’s Leicester Square once again played host to informal drinks on the evening of Tuesday 6th March ... The timing of the event meant that members were able to mark the sad passing of Lord St. John of Fawsley (which meant a wealth of affectionate anecdotes about his time as Master) and also celebrate the news from earlier in the day of the appointment of Dame Fiona Reynolds as our next Master.

Emmanuel can give six months notice of the Master's successor. The National Trust can give six weeks notice of the Director-General's successor. That is orderly and proper. The Home Office can't tell us who Dame Helen's successor will be, six weeks or so before she leaves. That looks messy – lessons there for Sir Bob from Emma and the NT.

Dame Helen's move could hardly be announced before the Olympics were over. They didn't exactly wait for long after the closing ceremony, though, did they.

The Sunday Times told us on 15 July 2012:

Originally, it was decided that 10,000 guards, including any military contingent, would be required on peak days. By December, that figure was revised up to 23,700 with G4S providing 13,700 trained guards, including 3,300 students. Dame Helen Ghosh, the Home Office permanent secretary, admitted last December that the initial estimate had been a “finger in the air” estimate, based on information from the 2002 Commonwealth Games in Manchester and the 2006 Winter Olympic Games in Turin.

That finger in the air was Sir David Normington's, Dame Helen's slippery predecessor. He left her a mess. She didn't sort it out and the army had to be called in at undignified short notice.

The independent UK Border Force, for the creation of which Sir Bob praises Dame Helen, was the clumsy response to an absolute fiasco – the Brodie Clark affair.

Dame Helen will find it very different working with the great Simon Jenkins at the National Trust after decades of more or less biddable ministers.

Who called the shots in what looks like Dame Helen's ejection? Ministers? Maybe. Sir Bob Kerslake? Sir Jeremy Heywood? Maybe. Considerable power lies with the suppliers these days, IBM, CapGemini, HP, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, Fujitsu, CSC, Atos and suchlike. Did they want her out? Was she standing up to them? Will we miss her as a result? None of us on the outside has a clue what's going on. We are left making convoluted surmises like this because so much of Whitehall is cloaked in secrecy. That is not, in the end, did they but know it, to the advantage of senior civil servants.

And for us, the public? Dame Helen's successor? We'll see. Let's hope for one who is more open with the Home Affairs Committee and, indeed, the public.

----------

BBC Radio 4, Profile: Dame Helen Ghosh

Home Office soon to be Ghoshless

Home Office press release, 13 August 2012:

Dame Helen Ghosh to leave civil service Dame Helen Ghosh DCB is to step down as Permanent Secretary of the Home Office to take up the role of Director General of the National Trust, she announced today. Dame Helen will leave the department in September after a 33 year career in the civil service ... Head of the Civil Service Sir Bob Kerslake said: 'As Permanent Secretary at Defra and the Home Office, Helen has delivered extraordinary change including departmental reform, the independent UK Border Force and support for the successful London Olympics. 'She has been an inspiring leader, who has made a very strong corporate contribution, both via the Civil Service Board, leading the capability strand of our Civil Service Reform Programme and as a vibrant role model and champion of talent and diversity. I wish her every success in her new leadership role at the National Trust.' Helen Kilpatrick, Director General of the Financial and Commercial Group, will stand in as interim Permanent Secretary until a replacement for Helen Ghosh is appointed.

National Trust press release, 13 August 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:

1. Lin Homer, Brodie Clark and Ron Noble

2. Brodie Clark and Jackie Keane

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

4. Theresa May, Keith Vaz, John Vine and Brodie Clark

---

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:

1. Lin Homer, Brodie Clark and Ron Noble

2. Brodie Clark and Jackie Keane

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

4. Theresa May, Keith Vaz, John Vine and Brodie Clark

---

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.

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

Whitehall – misfeasance in public office

Dame Helen Ghosh has been Permanent Secretary at the Home Office since 1 January 2011. Before her, it was Sir David Normington. And before him, it was Sir John Gieve who signed the accounts.

On 21 July 2006, the Times published Accounts for Home Office adrift by trillions:

A National Audit Office review of transactions carried out on the Home’s Office’s financial IT system found problems with the data. “When the gross transaction value of debits and credits within this data was totalled, they each amounted to £26,527,108,436,994: almost 2,000 times higher than the Home Office’s gross expenditure for 2004-05 and approximately one and a half times higher than the estimated gross domestic product of the entire planet,” a note from the National Audit Office said. “This suggests something has gone seriously awry. We have yet to receive an explanation for what has happened,” the note added. Last night Richard Bacon, a Conservative member of the [Public Accounts Committee], said: “In any parish council or cricket club the person responsible would have been out on his ear. What actually happened was that Sir John was promoted to become Deputy Governor of the Bank of England in charge of financial stability in the banking system. “You might reasonably expect to see this in a Gilbert and Sullivan opera, but not in real life.”

Make the most of any smile that brought to your lips.

On 11 November 2011, the National Audit Office published HM Revenue & Customs – The expansion of online filing of tax returns.

Unpromising material, granted. It repays attention nonetheless.

All of HMRC's IT to handle tax returns is supplied under contract. The contract is called ASPIRE and the contractors are Capgemini and Fujitsu. ASPIRE is worth £8 billion over 10 years. The NAO are talking about how HMRC spends 8,000 million of our pounds. Under the heading Operational performance, they say (pp.8-9):

HMRC uses a range of indicators to measure the performance of its ICT services, which include online services, and it measures availability that relates specifically to online filing. HMRC has a high-level view of the overall costs of ICT provision through the ASPIRE contract. It has been taking steps to improve that information and achieve cost savings. It does not yet have a detailed breakdown of the costs of online filing services, so it cannot benchmark those costs to assess their value for money. HMRC is currently negotiating with the ASPIRE contractors to obtain a clearer breakdown of the costs of ICT services provided.

What are the NAO telling us?

For anyone who missed it, the NAO provide a second chance (p.11) when they say that HMRC ...

... should proceed with its plans to identify ICT costs specific to online filing services and ensure that current negotiations with the ASPIRE contractors provide sufficient breakdown of cost information for regular benchmarking of costs.

HMRC has "a high-level view of the overall costs" of IT but not "a detailed breakdown". The contractors won't give them a detailed breakdown. HMRC are having to negotiate with the contractors to get a detailed breakdown. HMRC don't know what they're getting for our money. They just keep paying. The contractors don't tell HMRC what they're invoicing for. They just keep demanding money. Lots of money. £8,000,000,000 of our money.

This isn't Gilbert and Sullivan. This is Mario Puzo.

----------

The exegesis above is due to Tony Collins, investigative journalist and hero.

He reminisces about an earlier incidence of this irresponsible, unbusinesslike, spineless, craven, beholden behaviour of Whitehall's:

Several years ago the Conservative MP Richard Bacon asked criminal justice officials for a breakdown of costs on the “Libra” contract for magistrates’ courts IT. The Department didn’t know. So it referred Bacon to Fujitsu, Libra’s main supplier. Fujitsu eventually provided a breakdown so vague – with high-level categories such as “network services” – that Bacon had little choice but to ask the same questions repeatedly to find out how public funds were being spent with Fujitsu. In the end Bacon failed – and he had little support from departmental officials.

It's an ugly and horrifying subject that no-one wants to dwell on. Which may be why Mr Collins forgets another case he himself reported, the case of the NHS's £11 billion+ NPfIT contract:

I understand that when auditors carried out a check at NHS Connecting for Health they found box-loads of invoices that had not been analysed. Auditors found that the invoices were being paid as they came in, without a reconciliation of what was being charged against what was being delivered, and without a check on the extent to which payments related to sign-off of systems by local trusts.

Richard Bacon MP, hero, has been active on all three projects – Libra, NPfIT and ASPIRE – together with Tony Collins, trying to get value for money for the public and, so far, failing.

Amyas Morse, Comptroller and Auditor General at the NAO, is unearthing tons of evidence of negligence.

Whitehall says it's doing nothing illegal, which may be true, but it's not the responsible behaviour we have a right to expect and, for the moment, the money keeps pouring out of the bucket and into the pockets of the contractors and the management consultants and the PFI financiers.

Nothing illegal? Is there a lawyer in the house? Is there a case here to bring charges of misfeasance in public office?

----------

Updated 8 November 2013:

DWP untouched by MPs’ criticisms over Universal Credit IT project
Did DWP mislead MPs and media over Universal Credit?
DWP cover-up over Universal Credit IT project?
More IT-based megaprojects derail amid claims all is well

Updated 9 November 2015

Police funding sums are totally wrong, Home Office admits Police and crime commissioners accused the Home Office of being unable to add up after a senior civil servant admitted that the wrong data was applied in its planned overhaul of the way in which cash grants are distributed to the 43 forces in England and Wales ... In the case of Scotland Yard, the Home Office grant estimate was said to be wrong by more than £100 million ... Andrew White, the chief executive of Devon and Cornwall’s PCC office, uncovered the discrepancies after his own analysts were unable to make the Home Office figures add up. He said that he received a letter admitting the mistake yesterday from Mary Callum, the director-general for crime and policing ...

After signing the £26½ trillion Home Office accounts (please see above) Sir John Gieve went on to become a Deputy Governor of the Bank of England. Can Mary Callum follow this tradition?


Updated 13.4.16

UK borders safe?

A dutiful Whitehall under the political control of Westminster?

High standards of misfeasance maintained, particularly at the Home Office:

Top civil servant kicked out of Parliament committee for 'unsatisfactory' answers to MPs A senior Whitehall mandarin refused to say whether the UK Border Force budget has been cut – before being kicked out of a hearing with MPs for giving "unsatisfactory" answers. Oliver Robbins was threatened with being held in contempt and repeatedly criticised when he side-stepped a string of questions put to him by the home affairs select committee. Mr Robbins, the Home office second permanent secretary, was asked nine times by Keith Vaz, the committee chairman, whether the borders budget had been finalised, without receiving an answer. Twenty minutes later Mr Robbins was told to leave the session ...

Updated 29.6.16

Permanent Secretary appointed to lead the new EU unit in Cabinet Office 29 June 2016 Oliver Robbins has been appointed as the head of the new EU Unit in the Cabinet Office. Oliver will have responsibility for supporting Cabinet in the examination of options for our future relationship outside the EU, with Europe, and the rest of the world as well as responsibility for the wider European and Global Issues Secretariat ... Mark Sedwill, Permanent Secretary at the Home Office, said: "... I can think of no better person to lead this work than Oliver Robbins, who, in the past year as Second Permanent Secretary for borders, immigration and citizenship, has made such a positive impact in the department, and developed considerable expertise in many of the issues central to negotiating British withdrawal and establishing a new position in the world".

Let's hope that Mr Robbins will be a little more forthcoming than he was with the Home Affairs Committee.

Whitehall – misfeasance in public office

Dame Helen Ghosh has been Permanent Secretary at the Home Office since 1 January 2011. Before her, it was Sir David Normington. And before him, it was Sir John Gieve who signed the accounts.

On 21 July 2006, the Times published Accounts for Home Office adrift by trillions:

A National Audit Office review of transactions carried out on the Home’s Office’s financial IT system found problems with the data. “When the gross transaction value of debits and credits within this data was totalled, they each amounted to £26,527,108,436,994: almost 2,000 times higher than the Home Office’s gross expenditure for 2004-05 and approximately one and a half times higher than the estimated gross domestic product of the entire planet,” a note from the National Audit Office said. “This suggests something has gone seriously awry. We have yet to receive an explanation for what has happened,” the note added. Last night Richard Bacon, a Conservative member of the [Public Accounts Committee], said: “In any parish council or cricket club the person responsible would have been out on his ear. What actually happened was that Sir John was promoted to become Deputy Governor of the Bank of England in charge of financial stability in the banking system. “You might reasonably expect to see this in a Gilbert and Sullivan opera, but not in real life.”

Make the most of any smile that brought to your lips.