"Furthermore, the inspector found no overall plan to evaluate facial recognition gates at Manchester airport and has urged UKBA to do so soon as possible."
So they introduced new tech and just /assumed it to work/. If that isn't a security hole, I don't know what is. Now there's complaints the things don't work at all, but still no question at all that when they work they will indeed work as advertised.
"The document says that when the gates were working, they delivered benefits to passengers, reducing the time taken to go through passport control, increasing border security and allowing the UKBA to make better use of its staff."
Pray tell, dear inspector, you've just admitted there was and is no plan to evaluate the things. How do you know just how much these things increased border security? This is technology, people. Supposedly built on science. If you can't _measure_ just how effective your security measures are, if you can't quantify false positives nor false negatives, then how do you know your technology works as advertised?
That's right, you don't know. All we know is how many of the people "elegible" to pass through, did so, ie you measured its popularity. You didn't measure just what it did for actual security. This is perfectly justified, though:
"If the latest technology regularly fails, staff and passengers will lose faith in its effectiveness,"
Apparently blind faith is all that's important to UKBA+inspector.