THE damning results of an investigation into the Home Office’s handling of the surge in Channel crossings by vulnerable refugees has been described in parts as “awful”, with the overall system branded “poor”.
Chief inspector of borders and immigration David Neal found problems arose mainly due to the department’s “refusal” to move from an “emergency response” to the crisis.
He said what began as their emergency response to increased crossings, which have reached record numbers in the last year, had become the standard “business as usual approach” – something he said was “not good enough”.
The findings are the latest in a wave of critical reports published this week on the Government’s response to the migrant crisis.
The Home Office insisted it has already “transformed” how it deals with migrants arriving on the Kent coast since Neal’s inspection, and work carried out to address his recommendations for improvement has almost been completed.
READ MORE: Supreme Court sets date in October for indyref2 case evidence hearing
In the foreword to his report, published on Thursday, Neal said: “The number of small boat crossings in the Channel has reached such a level that it has been described as a crisis and the number one priority for the Home Office.
“The volume is unprecedented, and on some days the system is clearly overwhelmed.
“The Home Office’s performance in delivering an effective and efficient response to the challenge posed by the increasing volume of migrant arrivals via small boats is poor.
“In my judgment, this arises principally from a refusal to transition from an emergency response to what has rapidly become steady state, or business as usual. This refusal permeates every aspect of the Home Office’s response.
“Systems, processes and resourcing pathways, which months into the crisis should be routine, codified, auditable and familiar, have been delivered at ‘best effort’. This is not good enough.
“Data, the lifeblood of decision-making, is inexcusably awful. Equipment to carry out security checks is often first-generation and unreliable.
“Extreme operational conditions, where resources are stretched, will inevitably lead to some degradation in data. Staff on the ground are doing their very best, but they are tired.”
Neal previously said he was “frustrated” that the much-delayed report had not been published after it was handed to Home Secretary Priti Patel (below) on February 24.
He expanded on those frustrations in an interview with BBC Radio 4’s The World at One programme, where he said that reporting schedules have been “routinely” broken by the Home Office.
“There is an arrangement with the Home Office that the reports will be published within eight weeks.
“That arrangement has routinely been broken over the last few years. I was rather hopeful it would have been published.
“The fact that it’s not been published is a real shame because it doesn’t actually expose these really serious issues to public scrutiny and I wouldn’t be doing my job as an independent chief inspector if I wasn’t making that point.”
READ MORE: UK crackdown on drug use slammed as Scotland reaches major milestone in crisis battle
The report made four recommendations which the watchdog urged be delivered within up to three months, meaning the deadline would have been May 24.
Neal added: “Sadly, nothing in this report will come as a surprise to ministers, officials, or the workforce. It is in the gift of ministers and senior officials to deliver an effective response. The workforce can do no more.
“They have responded with enormous fortitude and exceptional personal commitment, which is humbling, and they are quite rightly proud of how they have stepped up.
“This report makes four recommendations and offers the Home Office a timescale to deliver those recommendations.
“More important is the delivery of a strategic approach by the Home Office to regularise their response to small boats, in preparation for increased numbers throughout this year.
“A new model for borders and enforcement is desperately required if our border is to be secured and vulnerability effectively addressed.”
Yvette Cooper, Labour's shadow home secretary, accused the Home Office of trying to dodge Parliament and of attempting to “hide” the critical report.
“They published it only on the final day of Parliament so that they can’t be asked questions on it in Parliament.
“So we can’t actually ask them the questions about what progress they’ve made and whether or not anything has changed.”
She rejected Home Office assurances that things have changed for the better since the inspection was carried out.
“It’s clear that Conservative ministers have absolutely no grip about what’s going on and are instead, every time, they go for headlines and not the hard work to do the basics and sort things out.”
The Home Office thanked Neal for the report, adding: “Since the inspection took place, we have transformed how we manage the arrival of migrants making dangerous and unnecessary Channel crossings in small boats. This includes the previously planned closure of Tug Haven and the movement to a two-site operation at Western Jet Foil and Manston.
“We have accepted all the report’s recommendations, the majority of which were already being addressed at the time of the inspection, and almost all this work has already been completed.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here