Three years into the small boats crisis, the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration has found the Home Office response is both ineffective and inefficient, exposing gaps in security procedures and leaving vulnerable migrants at risk.

In 2021, 28,526 people arrived on the south coast in small boats, according to Home Office statistics – a significant increase from 236 in 2018.

An inspection of the Tug Haven processing facilities, which have since closed, along with those at Western Jet Foil, both in Dover, found the Home Office’s response to the challenge of increasing numbers of migrants was poor, particularly in terms of systems, processes, resources, data collection and accurate record keeping. A new processing centre for migrants opened in January 2022 at a former Ministry of Defence site at Manston, also in Kent, and further facilities are also due to open later this year at Western Jet Foil.

David Neal, the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration (ICIBI), said:

These migrants crossed the Channel in dire circumstances. Many were vulnerable and at risk, including children and women on their own, and when they arrived in Dover the way they were dealt with was unacceptable. This is because the Home Office has failed over the past three years to move from a crisis response to having better systems and procedures in place and treating this as business as usual.

Data, the lifeblood of decision-making, is inexcusably awful. Equipment to carry out security checks is often first-generation and unreliable. Biometrics, such as taking fingerprints and photographs, are not always recorded.

The Home Office told our inspectors that 227 migrants had absconded from secure hotels between September 2021 and January 2022, and not all had been biometrically enrolled. Over a five-week period alone, 57 migrants had absconded – two-thirds of whom had not had their fingerprints and photographs taken.

Put simply, if we don’t have a record of people coming into the country, then we do not know who is threatened or who is threatening.

To move migrants quickly through Tug Haven, effective safeguarding was sacrificed because of the large numbers of migrants from small boats coming into the country. There was limited reflection by staff at all grades of the connection between vulnerability and security – that identifying a trafficking victim could feed the intelligence cycle and reveal intelligence about organised criminal gangs. The ability of staff to identify and safeguard vulnerable migrants was also hindered by the fact that no interpreters were used in the procedures carried out at Tug Haven.

Many of the issues identified were also picked up in a separate inspection undertaken last year by Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons, which found that migrants were being held in unsatisfactory conditions, with weak Home Office systems relating to governance, accountability and safeguarding.

Mr Neal added that the Home Office team charged with responding to the crisis, the Clandestine Channel Threat Command, is pulled between day-to-day operations and developing a deterrent, as well as responding to the constant requests for strategic briefings. The majority of its Campaign Plan objectives focus on strategic effects at the expense of delivering security and dealing humanely with the here and now. In simple terms, the focus on the ‘Prevent’ function has eclipsed the need to do simple things well on the quayside in Dover.

He added that although staff were doing their very best, they were tired, and high volumes of migrants led to poor record keeping and data collection and processes that do not work.

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. However, we found there was a lack of effective and visible leadership.

This is not about rank and file staff working hard on the quayside at Dover, this is about effective leadership, grip and the ability to bring in systems that work. Border Force and Immigration Enforcement officers at home and overseas are doing a great job on a daily basis.

He added:

A new model for Borders and Enforcement is desperately required if our border is to be secured and vulnerability effectively addressed. There needs to be a strategic approach by the Home Office to regularise their response to small boats, as this has become business as usual and moved beyond an emergency response.

The inspection was undertaken between December 2021 and January 2022 and the report made four recommendations, all of which the Home Office has accepted, with priority placed on ensuring that staff received training and updated guidance by March 2022 in security matters, including how the Biometric Recording Stations are operated.

By June 2022 further improvements needed to have been made, including identifying migrants who are vulnerable such as children, single women and families, and ensuring information is properly recorded and acted upon. Further detailed recommendations call for the improvement of overall data quality and resourcing needs.

Our recommendations are not intended to supersede those provided by Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons and the Home Office’s own Joint Review, but clearly point to a need for the Home Office to urgently implement all recommendations as a priority.

We will reinspect the processing facilities later this year.

Abbas Abo Kifayah (37), of Kingsbury, northwest London, was the sole director of Al-Amir Ltd. The company traded as a grocer and butchers from premises on Forty Avenue, Wembley, in northwest London.

The company, however, went into creditors’ voluntary liquidation in July 2021, which triggered an investigation by the Insolvency Service.

Investigators uncovered that Abbas Kifayah successfully secured a £50,000 bounce back loan for Al-Amir Ltd in August 2020. However, Abbas Kifayah exaggerated the company’s turnover to secure a higher value loan than Al-Amir Ltd was entitled to.

Further enquiries found that once the £50,000 loan was placed into the company’s bank account, £43,200 was transferred into Abbas Kifayah’s personal account, while just over £3,000 was transferred to a third party and £2,250 was withdrawn in cash.

When Abbas Kifayah was questioned about these transactions, he stated that £12,000 was used to pay his salary and the remainder for his backdated salary and personal use. However, investigators could not find any evidence that any of the money was used for the benefit of the company.

On 30 June 2022, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy accepted a 10-year disqualification undertaking from Abbas Kifayah after he did not dispute that he obtained a £50,000 Bounce Back Loan which the company was not entitled and failed to use the funds received for the economic benefit of Al-Amir Ltd.

Effective from 21 July 2022, Abbas Kifayah is banned from directly, or indirectly, becoming involved in the promotion, formation or management of a company, without the permission of the court.

Al-Amir Ltd’s Liquidator is considering the bounce back loans and recovery of funds.

Lawrence Zussman, Deputy Head of Insolvent Investigations, said:

Bounce back loans were available to support viable businesses through the pandemic. Abbas Kifayah, however, abused the government’s support when he inflated his company’s turnover in order to receive the maximum loan before squandering the money rather than use it to benefit his business.

10 years is a significant amount of time to be removed from the corporate arena and Abbas Kifayah’s disqualification should serve as a clear warning that we will take decisive action to protect the public and the taxpayer”.

Abbas Abo Kifayah is from Kingsbury, North-West London and his date of birth is November 1984.

Al-Amir Ltd (Company Reg no. 09398002).

Disqualification undertakings are the administrative equivalent of a disqualification order but do not involve court proceedings.Persons subject to a disqualification order are bound by a range of other restrictions.

Further information about the work of the Insolvency Service, and how to complain about financial misconduct.

You can also follow the Insolvency Service on:

Councils across England could soon receive grants to help transform underused and derelict sites.

Under plans announced by the Government today (21 July), the grants would refund the costs of Landfill Tax where it acts as a barrier to redeveloping brownfield and contaminated land.

A four-week Call for Evidence will seek views on the need for, and design of, a scheme to support councils overcome the Landfill Tax burden.

The move – which could happen as early as this Autumn – would help build more homes and businesses on brownfield sites, protecting the environment and public health.

Environment Minister Lord Benyon said:

This grant will help councils build new homes and businesses on derelict eyesore sites – delivering more homes, and regenerating towns and cities.

Landfill tax has done a fantastic job in preventing unnecessary waste – but it’s important it doesn’t act as a barrier to regeneration.

Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury Alan Mak said:

Ensuring that communities across England have the tools to transform their local areas is central to our levelling up mission.

I’m delighted that we’re exploring this bold new scheme which could remove unintended barriers for local authorities who want the best for their communities, whilst protecting our natural environment from contamination.

Landfill tax was introduced in 1996 to encourage a shift away from sending waste to landfill and towards recycling, reuse and recovery. It is currently valued at £98.60 per tonne with a lower rate of £3.15 for the least polluting material.

Landfill tax is widely regarded as being successful, with local authority waste sent to landfill in England falling by 90% since 2000. However, in some cases where remediating contaminated land is not possible without sending waste to landfill, the tax can act as a significant barrier to redevelopment.

By targeting grants in instances where Landfill Tax would otherwise have prevented remediation on commercial terms, any scheme would seek to be cost-neutral.

The Call for Evidence welcomes views on how to ensure a grant scheme would not undermine the waste hierarchy or incentivise illegal dumping. Under plans, applicants would need to demonstrate that use of landfill is reasonably necessary, and steps have been taken to minimise the quantity of waste that will be landfilled.