Border Force freight checks ‘hamstrung by lack of resources’ 12


The Vine Report highlights a number of areas where the BF is failing to deliver HMRC policy, borne out by anecdotal evidence from the forwarding community. One reason for this seems to be created or at best exacerbated by a critical lack of resource. This means that the BF is, in reality, unable to carry out the activities for which it is responsible. Even if we accept that 99.9% of trade is legitimate (although current wisdom is that it’s nearer 90%) there needs to be an appropriate resource put in place to deliver both the checks and services required by both HM Government and Trade. Customs work is a secondary


The recent report by independent chief inspector of borders and immigration John Vine on the Border Force (BF)’s freight activities found that it had failed to carry out Customs tasks at the frontier and that there had been a communication breakdown between HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) and the Border Force. Joint Customs Consultative Committee (JCCC) trade chairman and chairman of freight soſtware specialist ASM Peter MacSwiney gives his view on the situation. An organogram would be


priority for the BF and the trade remains unaware as to whether there are any service level agreements (SLAs) between the BF and HMRC. We do know that some SLAs between the port operators and BF’s sister body, the UK Border Agency (UKBA) were negotiated but remain unaware if they were finalised or have been adopted by the BF. There are no SLAs in place between the BF and the forwarder, such as completion of Route 2 (physical goods) inspections, equivalent to the two-hour clearance for Route 1 documentary inspections. At


London Heathrow for


instance, it is common practice for these inspections to be handled by a specific member of the BF staff, rather than the team in general. If that person goes off shiſt without actioning the clearance, usually nothing happens until they return. There is no consistency in the application of policy or the working practices between different frontier locations, and levels of service vary widely.


helpful. We have no real idea of who works for who and what their responsibilities are. The mechanism for disseminating information between HMRC and the BF is unclear, as is the mechanism for BF/HMRC policy being communicated to the frontier staff. We are unsure of the relationship between BF Policy and BF Operations. We are also unsure of the relationship between Anti-Smuggling and Profiling; however it is clear there are a number of teams working in the freight targeting area that seem to operate independently of each other. Lack of BF attendance at groups means missed to


JCCC working opportunities are


thrash out any potential lack of agreements over policy, as shown by the recent Temporary Storage review. On a number of occasions, staff at frontier locations seemed unwilling to accept HMRC policy which required some changes to or ratification of long-established working practices, particularly when an enhanced level of facilitation was required. Where these issues were identified there was no clear resolution mechanism available. This meant that even where specific potentially contentious areas were previously discussed between HMRC and the trade, and a solution agreed, these were regularly brought up again locally and not automatically referred back to the HMRC policy holder for a definitive ruling or clarification. The involvement of the BF in


replacement of HMRC’s CHIEF computer system is unknown. Is the BF actively engaged in this


program and discussions on the Union Customs Code (UCC), either independently or in partnership with HMRC? Both of these items are covered by the JCCC Change Sub Group, where there is no BF attendee. Both current CHIEF and CHIEF replacement will rely, to some extent, on the community system providers’ systems. The relationship between


the BF


and the Community System Providers Liaison Officer (CSPLOs) is unclear, leading to, potentially, four interpretations of what the rules mean (HMRC, CSPLO, BF and the forwarder). It would be beneficial to all concerned if CHIEF replacement evolved through the combined input of the trade, HMRC and BF rather than three


separate bi-laterals which may or may not ultimately come together. The UCC will create new business opportunities, which will benefit UK trade, and we will be devising pilot schemes to take advantage of these. Attendance by the BF would benefit all parties. Currently, BF receives advance


shipment information via the largely ineffective ICS system and paper manifests. Given the various pilot schemes currently being trialled, what mechanism is envisaged for future pre notification of arrivals? The trade would like to see one system in place rather than multiple systems varying by port and mode of transportation. Additionally BF intervention should be aligned


with HMRC processing times. When a shipment is ‘cleared’ on CHIEF it should have gone through all necessary checks and actually be cleared, not subject to some random additional hold later. Currently, the main trade/BF


policy engagement forum seems to be at the JCCC level and it is pleasing to see that there has been a BF representative at all 2013 main JCCC meetings, although more attendance at JCCC working groups would be welcome. Additionally, the BIFA regional committees all enjoy a positive relationship with BF frontier staff, albeit generally over operational matters. But there seems to be a large hole in the middle and no mechanism where the conflicting


pressures of compliance, facilitation and business process can be discussed and a mutually acceptable solution


found and


disseminated to all involved. The review of the current JCCC


working groups should give an ideal opportunity for the BF to engage with their partners. We would like to see a commitment from the BF to send senior staff to actively participate in these meetings. The government are committed to making the UK a better place to do business. A totally joined-up approach, by all the agencies operating at the frontier, is essential in allowing us to create a safe and speedy environment in which to handle goods.


COMMITTED PEOPLE BUT A BREAKDOWN IN COMMUNICATIONS


The report by independent chief inspector of borders and immigration John Vine, published in late 2013, highlighted a number of issues surrounding the Border Force (BF)’s freight operations. While it praised the commitment, knowledge and experience of individual staff and the number of local initiatives, it also found that there had been “a breakdown in communication between BF and HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) at an operational level.” BF was not referring cases to HMRC where fines could have been imposed – only four referrals were made in 2012/13 - and large seizures of contraband were not being investigated and there had been a loss of criminal investigation skills. Record keeping was poor and a rigorous management assurance process was needed so that managers could have confidence in front- line staff. Contact between BF and HMRC was usually informal, through telephone calls, and tended to be reactive rather than proactive. Front- line managers also tended to make a written record of their decisions in unofficial day-books, a practice which could undermine criminal prosecutions. A more robust case-handling system must be put in place. There was also a lack of consistency across the country’s ports and airports. Targeting of smuggled goods in freight consignments was inefficient; a lot of effort went into identifying and examining large amounts of low-risk freight but the success rate was only 1% - 505 out of 43,000 consignments selected for examination - which not only wasted


resources but held up legitimate freight. BF needs to improve its intelligence and targeting systems. A lot of IT equipment used is substandard or even completely lacking. Other problems identified were an ageing workforce, 70% of whom are aged 40 or over, caused by a recruitment freeze. Even the designation of the BF as a “secondary control point” as far as freight was concerned had led to a loss of morale, as well as confusion. In response, a Home Office spokesperson said that progress was being made, but it would take time to fix inherited problems:: “Border Force was split from the UK Border Agency to create a separate command with a clear security and law enforcement ethos. It is making significant improvements in its performance — excessive queues at airports are gone and security strengthened. This extends to both passengers and goods and is underpinned, for the first time, by a clear operating mandate set by Ministers. “It will take time to transform Border Force and fix all the problems we inherited but I am confident that we are making the right changes. None of the issues raised in this report come as a surprise and they are already being actively addressed. “We are working with HMRC and the new Border Policing Command of the National Crime Agency to enhance intelligence and develop a more closely co-ordinated approach to freight. We are using technology to carry out checks on freight before it arrives in the UK, as well as recruiting more staff and improving training, with security now at the heart of everything Border Force does.”


Issue 2 2014 Freight Business Journal


///NEWS


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44