Inspection report published: An inspection of General Maritime (October 2024 – February 2025)
The Independent Chief Inspector comments on the inspection report on General Maritime following its publication.
The extent of the UK coastline and remoteness of some of the locations where small vessels can arrive creates myriad opportunities for would-be smugglers of goods and people and this poses a major logistical challenge for Border Force, which will only increase as its resources are squeezed as a result of government spending decisions.
When the inspection of general maritime (GM) began, the outcome of the 2025 Spending Review was not yet known. However, Border Force had accepted that its funding would be cut. Against this backdrop, rather than repeat recommendations that relied on substantial investment and long-term programmes, it was agreed with the Director General Border Force to focus on what could be achieved in the short-term (18-24 months) within existing resources, including through efficiencies, reorganisation, and reprioritisation.
Nonetheless, it is important to record that the Border Force Maritime Command (BFMC) has the only UK law enforcement maritime assets capable of operating beyond the UK’s territorial waters and the age of the fleet means that a programme of significant maintenance and life extension work is required to keep it sea-worthy. This impacts vessels’ availability for operational activity. A Maritime Capability Replacement Programme (MCRP) began in 2021, but as at 2024-25 the fleet was not due to be replaced until 2029 at the earliest. At the time of writing, it remained unclear what effect, if any, the outcome of the Spending Review would have on the MCRP timetable.
Equally, an effective response to GM threats relies not just on improvements and enhanced capabilities within Border Force but on substantial inputs from others, in particular the Ministry of Defence and UK policing. A wider review of maritime security, intended to develop a whole system response to threats across all government departments and agencies, was completed in August 2024. This did not form part of the inspection, however inspectors understood that officials were awaiting clarity on future funding before deciding how to take forward its recommendations.
The inspectorate first reported on GM in 2015. At that time, Border Force’s coverage of GM was poor by comparison with its coverage of general aviation (GA), which Border Force acknowledged. Ten years on, it was therefore disappointing that GM continued to feel like a ‘poor relation’.
The appointment of a Maritime Director in early 2025 is a step in the right direction, provided he is empowered and supported.
As a priority, Border Force needs to improve its knowledge base. It is hard to see how Border Force and partner agencies can create an effective strategy and operational response to GM threats without having a comprehensive picture of the locations around the UK where GM vessels can arrive, yet efforts to document this have been half-hearted to date. Similarly, there needs to be an overhaul of record-keeping in relation to GM-related activity by Border Force staff and Field Intelligence Officers, and of the evaluation of operational deployments by BFMC, in order to create and maintain an informed picture of GM threats, trends, actions, and outcomes that is capable of supporting operational and strategic decision-making regarding priorities, deployments, resourcing, and investments.
There is also a pressing need for Border Force to take stock of its human capital in relation to its maritime responsibilities. The maritime environment can be harsh and hazardous, especially at sea, and Border Force staff operating in this environment need to have the skills and experience to do so safely. This inspection again found that provision of training was not aligned with either individual or business needs, and that there was little if any evidence of succession planning. This was a particular problem for BFMC, where some roles are highly skilled and require professional qualifications that take years to acquire.
Along with nine recommendations requiring positive action, the report also recommends that the Home Office should resist taking action in two areas – the mandating of GM activity and of the ‘submit a Pleasure Craft Report’ (sPCR) system – without further detailed consideration and resource planning. To do so now would not improve Border Force’s overall efficiency and effectiveness and would be unlikely to impact the more serious threats posed by GM.
This report was sent to the Home Secretary on 11 June 2025.
The above represents the views of my predecessor as ICIBI, David Bolt, under whose leadership and direction this inspection was conducted.
John Tuckett, Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration
23 October 2025