E-Borders and Best Endeavours

[Gludy]

After campaigning through my MP I have had a response from Jonathan Sedgwick the Deputy Chief Executive of E-Borders.

It was a detailed response that confirmed that only passport information will be soughtbut more importantly that if you fail to declare anythingin advance due to circumstances such as weather ,breakdown etc etc it is accepted that you supply the information as soon as possible toy YOUR Best Endeavours basis

This makes a mockery of the whole advanced notice thing.

I have written back to him is some detail explaining how stupid the whole thing is with detailed questions. The basic flaw is that unlike an aiport there are no eborder staff checking everytime in and out on pleasure craft and so if a terrorist wanted to they could just avoid the entire system by simply sailing in unchecked.

Anyone can say their engine was showing a problem and so for safety they changed ports and as skipper they alone have to take that decision - who could argue even if the engines were OK on arrival? ... Nobody.

So there are already concessions but also a total lack of logic enforcing a system designed for mass public travel with passport control and applying to to pleasure craft.

I have also accused him of enforcing an unworkable system that claims to control but in practice does not control and therefore failing to put in place a much more effective system - hence misusing resources that should be concentrated on a better intelligence led system.

I will keep you posted but simply had to pass onto you the best endeavours bit as this puts a coach and horses through the entire system.

 

[NickiCrutchfield]

Good work and an interesting result. Thanks for the effort and I look forward to hearing more.
Cheers,
Nicki

 

[Gludy]

Here is my response to the first letter from Mr. Sedgewick.
It is written via my MP so that he keeps in the loop.

[ QUOTE ]
Dear Roger,
Response from E-Borders
Thank you for your letter and for the attached response from Jonathan Sedgewick, Deputy Chief Executive E Borders.

Mr Jonathan Sedgewick (JS) has provided a detailed response but a response that fails to appreciate my main points. Nevertheless, his response does allow me to respond in a more precise manner.

JS opens with the point on the basic reason for EB and clearly states that its aim is provide passenger and crew data for all international travel in advance of all journeys. Yet later in his letter SJ states that this need not be the case for leisure boaters because it is accepted that their submissions are based on best endeavours thus breaching the fundamental aim of the EB scheme.

Does JM accept that this breaches the fundamental aim of EB?

In my previous letter I stated that EB was unworkable and does not offer effective border control. I think my point above demonstrates that clearly because nobody can really argue with the reason a skipper changed his port of call because of his weather analysis making it unsafe or even not possible to make the designated port. If JM understood leisure boating better he may appreciate that it is almost impossible to prove that it was not under best endeavours.

JM answered with the point that the scheme to date has resulted in 3000 arrests. It has no bearing on leisure boating because no such scheme has been introduced yet the heart of my points all boil down to the manner in which legislation is being used with leisure boating and I hope that JM would agree that there are no results whatsoever for that. Nor will there be for reasons I will explain later in this letter.

I, as most responsible citizens support border control in and out of the country. I support all reasonable counter terrorism methods. My concerns boil down to the way these measures are being implemented because they will actually not only cause great nuisance to boaters and are totally unworkable but also they actually harm real border control by looking as if there is control when in practice there is none.

There is no effective means of monitoring the hundreds of thousands of pleasure boat plying in UK waters – that is a simple fact. Travel by commercial means can be monitored because at the point of exit and entry there are EB resources. There are so few around the coast as to make monitoring meaningless. The result is that the public think there is effective control when in practice there is not and that is not good for counter terrorism.

Here are just some real life examples of the meaningless manner in which there is effective control and why it should be intelligence led.

Example 1
Boat travels from Ireland to France but diverts to Falmouth due to change in wind direction/bad weather/mechanical problems ….. this is not a UK boat entering UK waters and in the past would have raised a yellow quarantine flag and passed through customs etc.
How does the EB cope with that?
How does EB monitor that and check those on board?

Example 2
This is very common.
I arrange a trip to France with 5 crew to help – I report the journey from home in the Internet. As I am leaving to catch the lock or tide a member of the crew does not turn up and I have to sail. I have no internet access on board or local – that is the norm by the way.
Now EB thinks this person has left the UK but he has not- how does EB cope with that?
If I changed the crew at the last minute and had access to the Internet, I would be sailing out of UK waters with possibly a criminal and EB would not have helped one jot because it had no advance warning – it has no meaning.
How does EB cope with that?

Example 3
I am in a bay in Portugal no marina, no access and start to head back to France where I intend to report in on EB but because of weather and the hundreds of factors that can happen to boats I divert to the UK.
Under the best endeavours approach I land in the UK and then report the change – what effective control is that? Its none. EB looks to be controlling but is not.

Example 4.
I plan a journey in a fast powerboat to France and want to sit in a bay for lunch and then return – under EB I have no need to submit anything because EB is based on having to land in a country.
So just because I go to French waters and back means that EB are not involved – a terrorist could swim out to the boat and I could bring him back…. There is no border check in … no control whatsoever just a lot of meaningless form filling so that EB looks as if it controlling when in real life it is not.
What does JS have to say about that?


Example 5
I am a terrorist who wishes to enter the UK.
I will not report to EB and I will just arrange to sail into the country and pull into Lulworth Cove where I spend a few days and then dinghy whoever I wish ashore. EB has no control.

Unlike commercial airports. Ferries etc there are no EB staff to do the checking nor are there the thousands of EB boats that would be needed in all weathers to even carry out a partial check.

Boats go all sorts of distances from the shore and return to some port, beach, anchorage, harbour, river or marina. There is no way of really controlling this other than an intelligence led system that has worked in the past and can be made much more effective.


The basic border control does not exist for boaters that exists for airports etc. Therefore to apply the same system is to only pay lip service to true control.


Commercial
If Heathrow allowed anyone in or out without passing through EB it would be chaos but that is not the case because we have an increasingly improved border control system – the problem is that they are trying to impose the same system on leisure boaters without any effective EB control and in so doing cause major problems for leisure boaters yet gain no control because the real terrorist need not bother with this EB scheme – they just ignore it

What does JS have to say about that?

I could go on with more examples but just listing the above shows how truly unworkable the entire scheme is when applied to leisure craft.

The vast majority of boaters have no Internet access and most places they are anchored in also have no internet access. A trans-Atlantic crossing is a sailing boat can be plus or minus 10 days easily and when that boat arrives it arrives amongst all the other boats – there is no way to know here it has come from.

The RYA (I am a member) want the EB scheme to be intelligence led but JS does not state that in his letter. I only hope that their advice is taken.

JS states something I agree with totally – “the opportunity to develop a proportionate, robust and secure solution for the boating community and the UK border”.

We all want that but the imposition of meaningless forms cannot work to do other than make the boating community hostile. If the same meaningless system was applied to airports then there would in effect be no system. Its like operating an airport without any physical control, no passport inspection – nothing but that is what is being imposed on the boating community and that takes focus away from the real issue – stopping terrorists. In applying this system in the way proposed EB are encouraging terrorists because they are not focussing on the only effective means which is an intelligence led system introduced with the full backing of the boating community.

I fully appreciate that there is already some intelligence led work within EB but because EV does not have the resources to even begin to monitor leisure boaters they should enrol that community to help provide a more robust EB control. Instead EB and their proposal have become the laughing stock of the boating community.

All a terrorist has to do is ignore the EB scheme – the EB scheme with leisure boats is unworkable and burdens the innocent whilst leaving the guilty alone.

It is the boating community, which in the past has provided the tip offs to the authorities that have left to many arrests and drug busts etc.

I will now deal with the other points raised by JS.


Commercial Travel
JS stated that an airline is responsible for submitting the information to them and that it is possible to book at the last minute.

I had to travel to France last month on Easy Jet and they now require the information not less than 24 hours in advance otherwise they state you cannot fly. I had to submit this online.

If it could be submitted at the last minute by a passenger rushing onto a plane as stated by JS – where is the effective control? There is none but if the computer could, by chance, come up with the need to remove a passenger before departure it would mean arresting the person in the departure lounge or on the plane. Otherwise, if too late the plane would have to turn back hence this maybe this is the reason why airlines are requiring the information 24 hours in advance.

Does JS agree?


Also what about last minute train tickets to Europe? Buy a ticket – give passport details and jump on a train. No advanced warning.

I am in support of effective control at commercial airports and I am reassured by the statement that all that is to be required is passport details.

So the return journey does not have to be submitted?
All you have to do is provide passport details to your carrier?
If that’s the case I am happy with that system for commercial traffic although I do see problems outlined above.

In summary, I have tried to outline the very reasons why the scheme is unworkable with leisure boating. I have tried to explain that it offers no extra border control and is disproportionate to the problem that exists.

There is nothing at all to stop a terrorist ignoring the system and landing on any beach in the UK. Smugglers have done this for a long time.

Attempts for illegal aliens to smuggle themselves in on other peoples boats have pretty well all failed because they have been reported to the authorities. In practice the boating community is a highly responsible community and much more could be done to use that community to aid border control.

A sledgehammer is being used to crack a nut and in so doing the EB scheme is doing a disservice to the community in not facing the true issues involved instead of devoting its resources to putting in a better border control system.

I look forward to the response to this letter.

Kind regards

Paul Burgess



[/ QUOTE ]

 

[DickB]

Excellent letter... It just proves what a complete waste of time effort and of course, money. I truly despair of this sort of stuff. More and more rules and regulations that are unworkable and keep etching away at our basic freedoms. (Rock on David Davis!!! He made the point well with his token resignation). I would vote for anyone who would genuinely get rid of this cr_p...

Oh ye gods it is all so depressing.

cheers,

 

[kingfisher]

I for one have not travelled to the US for 5 years, because I feel not welcomed there as a visitor. If this E-borders scheme goes through and is thorougly applied, if at the start of the season 4 boats of visiting Belgian/Dutch/Frernch yachtsmen are chained for breach of these regulations, I fear that the UK will lose quit a bit of tourisme revenues.

 

[Kurrawong_Kid]

Mmm! If I were Mr Sedgwick or his politician boss and read your letter I would probably panic and insist that all pleasure boats entering British Territorial Waters clear immigration and customs at Dover, Portsmouth, Poole, Plymouth etc. where immigration staff already are based. This is the normal requirement in many overseas countries, such as some of the Baltic States, and we are lucky to have escaped from this chore. I trust your letter does not lead to more regulation, not less!
Both the RYA and the CA are keeping a close watch on the situation and trying to obtain a workable outcome. I am happy to leave it to them, but will write to my MP suggesting that she supports the RYA and CA's attemts to obtain a workable solution to the problem.
Incidentally I suspect that all pleasure boats, except RIB's, crossing the North Sea/Channel are already plotted on radar and this intelligence will be used to check the veracity of passage plans submitted. I have not been stopped by a Customs cutter when I have sent a TR to the Coastguard from abroad, but twice when I haven't bothered to send one. Fair enough, if they are trying to keep illegals out and clamp down on drugs, IMHO. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

 

[Gludy]

I agree that it could lead to a bit of a panic but I do not think it is viable to have a UK boat return via a restricted port - simply not possible so the danger of exposing the truth is not as bad as you paint it IMHO.

I cannot accept your radar point = all the radar sees are blobs, there is no way to correlate any info with those blobs. On and individual basis with other info - yes but not all blobs moving around the channel or in UK waters.

One blob could cross to France and not even land in France hence have no need to report the trip. How would anyone know how they had landed or not? Not s possible.

The scheme has to be opposed at its foundations - moving a mass transport system with border control over to pleasure boats without border control does not make sense.

 

[Bilgediver]

So there are already concessions but also a total lack of logic enforcing a system designed for mass public travel with passport control and applying to to pleasure craft.

***************************************************
This is all part of Uncle Sams directives after 911 I am sure and OZ has had a similar system in place for at least 2 years. Of course there it affects less folk as not many go overseas.

One of our club members commutes between OZ and Scotland by yacht and last time home got a roasting by the clearing officer for not giving the required 48 hours notice of arrival arrival . The said officer was asked if it was required that he radiod in on VHF then went into holding pattern for 48 hours on a lee shore... He was told he could give the notice from CApetown. Our member then mentioned the dificulty of giving a good ETA for such a long passage and was told that at least he would be on record.

HE then got fined about 150 Oz dollars for having an apple and a spud left over .. /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Yep lots of fellas ineffectivly ticking boxes while the bad boys slip in below the radar and un noticed.

 

[cnh]

[ QUOTE ]
This is the normal requirement in many overseas countries, such as some of the Baltic States, and we are lucky to have escaped from this chore.

[/ QUOTE ]

... er, not quite. The Baltic States are now part of Schengen. Although the UK is not part of Schengen, I sail in and out of harbours [currently in Liepaja] in the Baltic without having to report to anyone. I haven't seen a Border Guard in Latvia. Met an Estonian Border Guard boat in passing, but that was all.

If you're a Schengen passport holder, you can drive from Tallinn to Calais without being stopped. Then you reach Dover ...

 

[Seven Spades]

The answer to the solution os obvious. Boats carrying wholly british Passport holders should be exempt from e-borders. The whole point of e-borders is to keep undesirables out, british Passport holders have a right of entry.

 

[Gludy]

That is only a part answer - it takes the hassle out of the problem for UK residents but does it mean that there is real control of others - no it does not.

Whilst there is no people to do the checking in and out there can be no true control.

Non Eu folks already have to report on arrival but that does not stop illegals entering or terrorists simply landing where they wish.

British passport holders have to clear passport control at airports already and I support that.

I just cannot support the pretence of a system without control, done on what is in reality a voluntary basis harming the illegals or terrorists.

 

[halcyon]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're a Schengen passport holder, you can drive from Tallinn to Calais without being stopped. Then you reach Dover ...

[/ QUOTE ]

When we had the original vote to join the EEC. it was based on open borders / free trade.

The only thing we have ended up with is no open borders, but we still try to think of reasons why we should except the situation, rather than fight for what we voted for.

Says a lot about us British now.

Brian

 

[wp1234]

The EU unambiguously condemned the UK e-borders scheme since it is incompatible with European law, on three independent grounds:

1)EU law on Advance Passenger Information only covers movements into the EU, not within it.

2)The data protection Directive does not allow carriers(boat owner) to transmit passport data for border control purposes.

3)Making travel to or from the UK conditional upon providing passport data in advance contravenes the right of free movement .

So if UKBA do this then even though they will produce a UK statute to suit it will be illegal according to EU law .

 

[sighmoon]

You make some good points, but you could very easily score an own goal.

At the moment, suspicious activity is likely to be reported,

Once eborders becomes reality, it may happen that people start believing the PR hype and think that eborders means the coast guard have the situation in hand, so nothing gets reported.

 

[Gludy]

That is my very point in my letter to them - they re fooling the public - giving a false impression and so making matters worse not better.

So its not an own goal - its a prediction if they go ahead with their plans.

 

[grumpy_o_g]

[ QUOTE ]
The EU unambiguously condemned the UK e-borders scheme since it is incompatible with European law, on three independent grounds

[/ QUOTE ]

Which was surprising because we seem to export far more terrorists than we import. /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif

 

[Gludy]

I disagree - based on experience to date, The EU does not act with any common sense so why should it do so now? /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[st599]

Here's the answers I got.

http://cy-thompson.co.uk/lifetype/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=142&blogId=5

I wonder i Bruce Schneier would be a good person to get to comment on the Illusion of Security this law is trying to impose. Much like the illusion of security that checks at airports create.

 

[Gludy]

I will scan in the response to me - the main difference is that they have stated best endeavours as the basis of submission - that opened the door to pont out the illusion of security they are trying to create when they have no phyiscal means of ensuring the control like they do at airports.


Ilook forward to their response to my latest letter.

 

[Fascadale]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree - based on experience to date, The EU does not act with any common sense so why should it do so now? /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

EU- Schengen-Open boarders within union-Sensible

UK-E-Borders-Unworkable system-Nonsense