Submission border consultations

Summary

A request was made for consultation submissions regarding proposed ID verification measures at harbours from the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company and the Information Commissioner. The Department of Home Affairs disclosed the Steam Packet Company's submission but confirmed that no response was received from the Information Commissioner.

Key Facts

• No consultation response was received from the Information Commissioner.
• The Isle of Man Steam Packet Company submitted a response expressing serious concerns about the proposed ID checks.
• The Steam Packet Company argued that ID checks on sea passengers alone would be ineffective without a central database and checks on all traffic.
• The company warned that the proposals could cost the Isle of Man economy between £10m and £15m annually.
• The consultation in principle was dated December 2015.

Data Disclosed

• 2017-04-13
• 2017-05-08
• December 2015
• 185 years
• 550,000 passengers annually
• £110m
• 3,000 residents
• £10m to £15m p.a.
• 450 motorbikes per sailing
• 800 passengers
• 2,500 fewer motorcycles
• £24.5m
• £5-6m p.a.
• 96%

Original Request

Please can you release the consultation submissions from; A) The Isle of Man Steam Packet Company. B) The Information Commissioner.

Data Tables (1)

Full Response Text

May 8th 2017 REFERENCE NUMBER: DHA 000002 REQUEST UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2015 (“the Act”) Thank you for your request dated April 13th
Your request regarding: The Department of Home Affairs public consultation. Consultation in principle on the introduction of greater identification verification measures at harbours dated December 2015 You asked for;
Please can you release the consultation submissions from; A) The Isle of Man Steam Packet Company. B) The Information Commissioner.
Response to your request
Having carried out a search I can confirm that no response was received from the Information Commissioner.

In respect of the Steam Packet Company a response was received and I insert a copy of the response below:

Dear Mr. Bateman,

Response to the Department of Home Affairs consultation on proposed ID verification measures at harbours The Steam Packet Company (SPC) has very serious concerns about the Department of Home Affairs (DoHA) proposals for ID checks as proposed in the above document. The reality is that any serious criminals will have ready access to false and believable ID, or will simply choose to travel by air using carriers where ID checks are not required. The proposals, if enacted, will not achieve the central stated purpose of the consultation:  If DoHA is serious about addressing the belief that we are ‘vulnerable to crime relating to the movement of drugs’ then ID checks on only sea passengers (even if they were able to identify undesirable individuals, Chief Executive’s Office DHA Headquarters Tromode Douglas, ISLE OF MAN IM2 5AP Telephone: (01624) 694313 Fax: (01624) 621298 Web address: www@gov.im/dha Email: GeneralEnquiries.DHA@dha.gov.im

Department of Home Affairs Rheynn Cooishyn Sthie which they clearly are not) are of little or no use. Checks would have to be mandatory on all traffic between the Island and the rest of the world, not just on sea passengers. Checks would have to use a more tightly defined list of machine readable ID documents linked to a UK national database as used by the UK Borders Agency. This should include ID checks carried out by every airline that serves the Isle of Man. It should also include checks made on every parcel and on every trailer of goods that are shipped to and from the Island, and on every fishing and pleasure boat that enters any Island harbour.

 If not referenced to a central database how can a simple ID document check, by a SPC employee (and indeed of any airline), of a passenger constitute an ‘effective measure’ to prevent a reduction in the ‘effectiveness of legislation that provides for criminals to be barred from the Island or banned from travelling abroad by the UK Government’? If the person checking a passengers ID has no reference against which to verify the ID, how can such a check serve the DoHA’s primary purpose in proposing such checks? The Isle of Man Steam Packet Company has served the Isle of Man for over 185 years. We carry around 550,000 passengers annually, the majority of whom are visitors from the UK. The Company carries around two-thirds of Period Visitors in Paid Accommodation (PVPA) visitors to the Island; the Visitor Economy (VE) is worth £110m each year to the Isle of Man and the industry employs over 3,000 residents. A high volume of visitors to the Island is essential to support high frequency sea services and both the VE and our own future investment plans depend on growing the VE market.

From both an economic and operational perspective we have no doubt that ID checks would be extremely damaging to the Isle of Man, from a variety of viewpoints:

1. Reduced destination appeal/consequential IoM economic loss
    The proposals represent a reduction in travel convenience and damage the visitor proposition of the IoM VE compared with our main competitor destinations. No ID is required for holidays in Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Channel Islands, or England.  The proposals would reduce the size of our VE. In doing so, they would also reduce the income of visitor dependent businesses such as hotels, self catering, campsites, restaurants, pubs, Manx National Heritage, IoM Railways, other VE attractions, and of course of SPC.  We know the VE is currently worth £110m annually to IoM, and we have no doubt that the proposals would significantly reduce visitor numbers and spend, and could cost the IoM between £10m to £15m p.a. This excludes any loss to SPC.

2. Significant and permanent reduction in TT/FoM visitor numbers  Additional check-in times and longer turnaround times (as a result of checking 450 motorbikes per sailing and 800 passengers) would significantly reduce the number of TT sailings. Additional check-in times and turnaround times would also restrict future Festival of Motorcycling (FoM) visitor growth and income.  TT sailing frequency and therefore visitor numbers would be reduced by around one-quarter from both Liverpool and Heysham. In practice we would carry 2,500 fewer motorcycles to the IoM TT.  Consequently the IoM TT spend of £24.5m would be reduced by an estimated £5-6m p.a. and SPC revenue would be significantly damaged jeopardising our ability to provide year round loss-making services.

3. Significant reduction in visitor numbers year round from those without suitable ID  96% of IoM Visitors by sea come from UK/Ireland, i.e. within the Common Travel Area (CTA).  Two thirds of IoM PVPA Visitors come by sea.  17% of the UK population do not possess a passport, i.e. 11 million people.  It is reasonable to assume Passport ownership is probably lower in the North of England than the wealthier south. This means proportionately more of our core North West market visitors would be affected.  It only needs one family or group member, e.g. a child, to not possess a passport/ID for it to be a barrier for the whole family or group. The 17% ‘at risk’ figure above could potentially be a reduction of 25% or more.  Only c. 30m UK residents have a driving licence.  Ownership of other ‘suitable documents’ is in reality extremely limited , e.g. only 1m residents have a ‘Travel Identity Card’, and many ‘Smart Cards’ do not have photo ID , e.g. Oyster Cards.

4. Revised timetables would reduce visitor numbers

 Longer turnaround times would also compromise timetable convenience for residents and visitors. A minimum half an hour extra turnaround time per sailing would have a knock on impact throughout the day and delay our last fast craft sailing by two to two and half hours. Later evening sailing times have been proven to be less attractive.  Post midnight arrival in Douglas for last Liverpool sailing (currently 10 pm) would inconvenience Manx residents, reduce visitor numbers, reduce visitor spend, and of course reduce SPC income.

1. Threat to IoM VE business viability and future investment  VE businesses tend to have largely fixed costs and financial viability is therefore highly vulnerable to even small volume reductions.  A reduction in TT and year round visitors could threaten viability of some IoM VE businesses.  A reduction in income would also lead to a decrease in inward capital investment and IoM’s competitive VE ‘offer’. The natural consequence of this would be a gradual, self-sustaining, long-term deterioration in VE infrastructure.

2. Inconvenience to travelling public, both resident and visitor  Longer check-in times (an inconvenience and compromising our competitive position).  Significant queuing at ports (we can book ten times the traffic of a busy Flybe flight).  Reduced sailing choice for visitors at TT/FoM.  Unattractive later arrivals in Douglas.  Inconvenience of longer minimum check-in periods and increased queuing would alter the perception of the IoM as an attractive destination.  SPC would require lost volume revenue to be recovered in the form of higher passenger fares at other times of the year.  Hotels/restaurants/attractions would also reasonably seek compensation for damage to their businesses.

3. Legal questions and other related issues  How can IoM legislate for ID checks on non-IoM passengers travelling from their own country?  SPC would not have any legal right to request passport/ID in UK?  DoHA proposals do not indicate whether SPC should prevent an individual from travelling if he has no suitable ID.  DoHA proposals do not indicate legality of restricting free movement of individual within CTA?  Who will compensate refused–travel passengers/hotels/SPC for lost revenues – DoHA?  Why do the proposals only cover harbours? Apart from undermining the stated purpose of DoHA this is an anti-competitive/free -trade issue for SPC as DoHA will not/cannot require airlines to check ID.  UK Chamber of Shipping has confirmed that they will support action if necessary to prevent the introduction of CTA ID checks.

4. Safety issues  Any requirement for TT visitors to remove motorbike helmets (450 plus per sailing) for ID purposes would be unsafe in an area with moving traffic. It would be a contravention of current safety regulations and policy.  Any requirement for passengers to exit vehicles/minibuses for ID purposes would be unsafe in an area with moving traffic. It would be a contravention of current safety regulations/policy.

5. Operational practicalities  80% of SPC passengers book on-line and often do not read all the Terms & Conditions. Many would be unaware of any unique IoM ID travel requirement. Would SPC really be expected to prohibit passengers from travelling? If so how would the DoHA pay compensation to the passenger/hotelier/visitor industry and SPC?  In practice insufficient physical port space is available (to provide additional check in lanes, segregation of checked-in passengers, additional catering and toilet facilities). English Channel ports typically have 20+ vehicle check-in booths and lanes with substantial land for marshalling. IoM ports typically have space for just two, and space for other necessary facilities simply does not exist.  Check-in times would potentially have to double  Each fifty-three passenger coach would take 9 minutes; assuming ID check takes (a very conservative) 10 seconds per passenger. Checking 4 to 6 coaches per sailing (common in the peak season) would take 36 to 54 minutes and equate to a very significant delay for vehicles behind the coaches  ID checks of 800 Manannan passengers at 10 seconds per ID check = 133 minutes!
    Liverpool check-in and vehicle marshalling area is not a ‘Restricted Zone’; it is not owned by SPC and is part of the City’s ‘Waterfront Promenade’ visitor attraction. SPC lease with Liverpool City Council/Peel Ports requires the area to have public access at all times. DoHA proposed vehicle passenger ID verification at check-in at would be effectively worthless as passengers could ‘exchange places’ afterwards.  Douglas and Heysham Port facilities also suffer from same practical issues  Does DoHA really expect car passengers to get out of their cars and stand (perhaps in the rain) while their ID is checked? What sort of message is this to our visitors?  Additional space and facilities would have to be provided and paid for by DoHA.

6. Union and staffing issues  Staff unions (RMT, Unite) involved in the revised ID compliant check-in and marshalling process will have to be consulted and agree to any proposals. Current employment contracts do not cover ID quasi ‘border check’ duties.  If unions agree, contracts will have to be revised and additional payment for ID check duties made to staff involved. SPC cannot be expected to pay these costs.  Staff performing ID checks would need appropriate training. DoHA would have to provide/pay for these costs.  If criminals do bypass ID checks (as we have no doubt career criminals will), will staff be held liable for any costs incurred? DoHA will have to insure/indemnify staff for such scenarios.

7. Proposals of questionable benefit to IoM , relative to issues raised  Thankfully the IoM has a much lower crime than any UK county; the 2015 crime rate was the 3rd lowest for 30 years. Burglaries were significantly lower than in the 1990’s. The cost of burglaries in 2015 was regrettable but not material compared to IoM Visitor industry £110m p.a. Can we afford to take this risk?  DoHA proposals do not involve any national database check, so in practice would not actually prevent travel by any ‘wanted’ individuals.  Professional criminals will simply travel with false ID; alternatively, as the proposals do not mention any requirement for ID checks by air the criminal could simply use airlines where no ID is required.  Drugs can still be shipped on freight trailers (with perhaps 2000+ parcels per trailer, and subject to EU ‘free trade’ protection legislation).

8. Limitations of DoHA survey methodology

 The on-line survey does not appear to measure, or in any way account for, visitor, resident or business responses and give an appropriate weighting for each.  UK Visitors represent the majority of passengers by sea but the survey will inevitably mostly be completed by Manx residents unaware of the VE losses that would occur.  The on-line survey is misleading to the general public. It incorrectly states that there will be a minimal effect on operations and visitor numbers.  The on-line survey is not balanced in terms of its questions i.e. it does not ask respondents if they think ID checks are beneficial even if this meant extra cost and delays.

Conclusions The proposals as drafted are ineffective and incapable of addressing DoHA stated aims. They would have a material adverse impact on the IoM VE, are operationally impractical and of very limited real-world benefit.
We consider that random port checks, at times of unusually high criminal activity such as during the recent spate of burglaries, would be a more acceptable, practical, balanced and effective solution. This would not involve the same degree of costs and risks to the VE and more importantly would not inconvenience the vast majority of law abiding passengers seeking to exercise their right to free travel within the CTA. Yours sincerely,

Your right to request a review If you are unhappy with this response to your Freedom of Information request, you may ask us to carry out an internal review of the response, by completing a complaint form and submitting it electronically or by delivery/post to Sally-Ann Cain .Sally-Ann.Cain@gov.im An electronic version and paper version of our complaint form can be found by going to our website. Your review request should explain why you are dissatisfied with this response, and should be made as soon as practicable. We will respond as soon as the review has been concluded.
If you are not satisfied w

[Response truncated — full text is 16,011 characters]