Examination of Witnesses (Questions 120-139)
CHIEF CONSTABLE
PAUL KERNAGHAN
CBE QPM, SUPERINTENDENT MIKE
FLYNN, MR
MICHEL QUILLE,
MR BILL
HUGHES AND
MR ROB
WAINWRIGHT
9 JANUARY 2007
Q120 Chairman: Outbound is where
we request another agency in Europe to do work because we have
identified people?
Mr Hughes: It also means that
our officers can go abroad and work with them as well.
Q121 Mr Streeter: A question to ACPO
and SOCA particularly. In your written evidence you have talked
about the practical cooperation you have with other Member States
and organisations within Member States, and again you mentioned
that this morning. Do you consider these informal practical cooperation
arrangements give you sufficient powers to go about your duties,
or are more required?
Mr Hughes: The issue that concerns
us is that we are quite successful when we work in intergovernmental
cooperation, bilateral arrangements with other countries. Bilateral,
sometimes multilateral, working in small groups and small working
arrangements we can get on and achieve a considerable amount.
It seems to work quite well but there is a danger all the time
of creating structures to deal with all the known or unknown circumstances
that could arise and we are generally not in favour of that type
of approach. The issue of harmonisation across the laws in the
EU, of course, often comes into play here. This is why we need
agencies like Europol and Eurojust, which enables us to work very
effectively to try and work around other countries in terms of
dealing with their legal and legislative background. In that regard
I do not see that is necessarily a major problem. The point that
Paul is making, and I am sure he will come back to, about having
some form of proper interaction for police forces in the UK is
probably something you will want to touch on.
Q122 Mr Streeter: Do your computer
systems talk to each other?
Mr Hughes: Within the SOCAP Act
that set us up, we have the ability to share data through gateways
with other people who can assist us in our remit but what we seek
to do at the moment is to do that through Europol and the analytical
working files that Michel has referred to, so there is a common
understanding and a common area for dealing with data protection
issues at the present time through the Europol offices.
Chief Constable Kernaghan: My
view is, yes, there is very good formal cooperation between "police
forces" but, as Bill quite rightly says, it also encompasses
law enforcement agencies. Police force to police force both on
an individual and corporate level there is good cooperation. I
think it is very important we should not be allowed to run riot
and do our own thing. We need the law to tell us what the limits
are and, equally, to ensure the cooperation can be translated
into evidence we can place before the courts both in the United
Kingdom and elsewhere in the EU. There is good professional cooperation
but I think on certain occasions it is very important that there
are treaties and protocols signed up between member States to
ensure that police work can be translated into evidence before
a court to secure a conviction, because that is ultimately why
the police exist—to secure convictions and to protect the
public. A good example would be the protocol that has set up joint
investigation teams which enables police forces very openly and
publicly to send an officer to another jurisdiction, and for that
individual to participate in the investigation. I conjure up the
scenario ten years ago when you might have had an interview and
there might have been an individual in the room whom everybody
would not have named frankly through hesitancy etc. Now we are
quite happy to say, "The third officer in the interview room
is a senior Spanish officer, senior French officer, senior German
officer", because that reciprocates with our European colleagues
and that is important. We do need a framework. In terms of computer
systems, the one which I think will have the biggest impact as
and when it actually goes live in the UK is the Schengen Information
System, whereby someone who is wanted in Germany will be circulated
throughout the whole of the EU, including the UK, and vice-versa.
That means when someone is stopped and checked in a street, say,
in Winchester and they are wanted for a serious offence in Berlin
they can be arrested and subsequently extradited to Germany. That
is about public safety and that, I think, is a huge step forward
as and when Schengen goes live in the UK.
Q123 Mr Streeter: A quick question
on the European Arrest Warrant. It has been said that that could
not have been achieved just by cooperation but did require legislation.
Are there other areas you can think of where measures could only
really be effectively brought in by legislation?
Chief Constable Kernaghan: I think
legislation or agreement between governments; but, yes, I think
the European Arrest Warrant is a potentially huge step forward.
Equally we would like to see agreement, and it could be agreement
perhaps as opposed to an Act of Parliament in the UK, that information
supplied to the UK it is always accompanied by fingerprints etc.
We need to identify people. If there was a uniformity, a consistency
of approach throughout the EU in terms of identification et cetera,
that is a practical step forward.
Mr Hughes: Could I just come back
on that because there are a couple of issues. Some of the problems
we have around the sharing of intelligence are that in some jurisdictions
in Europe the sharing of intelligence about a case can only be
done at the end of the investigation with the approval of the
examining magistrate or lead prosecutor. That can sometimes reduce
our ability to get ongoing practical intelligence together. I
know that is a problem for Europol as well. Just touching on the
European Arrest Warrant—I think we have to be very mindful
of the changes that will come when we are part of the Schengen
Information System; because at the present time we receive probably
around 5,000 requests a year from Member States; that is going
to increase significantly, and we are not resourced properly to
deal with that. At the moment there are 17,000 alerts on the SIS
which require UK validation. All of this will mean an increased
workload, and we need to pick that up. There are issues around
making what is working now work better, rather than necessarily
looking for better legislation or new legislation.
Q124 Mr Streeter: Are you expecting
a huge jump in workload following 1 January this year with two
new countries coming in?
Mr Hughes: Not so far.
Mr Wainwright: No, a modest increase,
I think.
Chief Constable Kernaghan: I would
expect a huge increase as and when people are checked coming into
the UK, or even leaving the UK, against the Schengen database
agreement in our own border controls. Actually it is linked to
the Schengen EAW database and that is when we will have a huge
increase. Building on Bill's point, at the moment extraditions
are relatively rare events. It is done in a somewhat historic
fashion et cetera. We will require extra resources, as will the
Crown Prosecution Service to effectively process a huge increase
in European Arrest Warrants.
Q125 Chairman: You used a phrase
that "there are 17,000 alerts which require UK validation",
or something like that. Could you explain what that is in layman's
terms? Where are these alerts, and what does "validation"
mean?
Mr Wainwright: These alerts are
stored on the Schengen Information System by those countries which
are already members of that information system, which at the moment
of course does not include the UK. When the UK becomes a member
of SIS it will have the obligation therefore to effect those alerts
and to bring them onto the UK database, and that will require
a substantial amount of processing in terms of backdating the
work involved and getting those alerts on. Also on a day-to-day
basis it will greatly increase the amount of work we are handling
and turning over as more and more alerts come on.
Q126 Chairman: "An alert"
means what?
Mr Wainwright: An alert is simply
a flag on a system that an individual, a motor vehicle or another
item is wanted by a police force in certain jurisdictions.
Q127 Chairman: It is actually wanted?
Mr Wainwright: Yes.
Q128 Chairman: It is not a suspicion
but actually wanted?
Mr Wainwright: It can be both,
I think.
Superintendent Flynn: The types
of alerts that are there, which Rob has described, are for: extraditions;
missing persons; a locate/trace for judicial purposes for the
courts, and that is for witnesses and for people to appear before
the courts, but that is just a locate/trace; discreet information
reports on travelling serious criminals and threats to state security;
and then the property alerts, which are things like stolen vehicles
and stolen passports.
Q129 Mr Streeter: A final question
from me, which we have slightly touched upon, but to each of the
organisations present. What gaps have you identified in the current
systems of effective police cooperation throughout the EU, and
what would you like us or other organisations to do about it?
Chief Constable Kernaghan: I go
back to my previous answer—identification. I think we need
to have standard identification; and, equally, the next step would
be that criminal records should be shared. I am very conscious
that the Treaty is moving in the right direction, but I would
like, firstly, the standard identification of individuals and,
secondly, automatic sharing of criminal records throughout the
EU.
Mr Hughes: I would echo that.
I think the principle of availability that is writ large in the
EU is large. This is the principle that police officers, law enforcement
officers, should have the data available to them wherever they
are—available to them in order to be able to improve the
way they do their business. We should be finding every way in
which we can make that work more effectively.
Mr Wainwright: Perhaps I would
just go back to the Chairman's opening comments that this already
is a crowded playing field. We do not necessarily need more agencies,
more institutions, or even more legislation actually. If anything,
we need to streamline the current arrangements and make better
use of what, in many respects, are significant capabilities that
are already out there. Europol already represents the single mechanism
within the EU to coordinate Member States' response against serious
and organised crime across the Union. We would encourage all Member
States to make the best use of that organisation, and use that
as the single method of coordinating our work. It does work effectively
in many cases. I am not sure that its potential has yet been fully
realised.
Q130 Chairman: Do you agree with
Mr Kernaghan's priority list? Are there other things you would
prioritise from Europol?
Mr Quille: No, for Europol, as
was mentioned by Rob Wainwright previously, we have to use the
full potential of Europol. We have some Member States (and it
is not my task to deliver bad or good scores) who do not use the
full potential of Europol. Our fight in Europol is to try to convince
all Member States to use Europol. I referred to the use of the
Information System—we have very efficient tools that are
the beginning of the usefulness. We have to convince Member States
to send information, but to send living information. We are talking
about operational police cooperation and that is based on living
information. The information coming from the past is not very
useful. So there is work to do. If I can resume, we have to increase
the awareness of Europol. As mentioned previously by Rob Wainwright,
we have to deliver permanent awareness. I think it is the first
step to having real operational cooperation in the field of the
police.
Q131 Bob Russell: Chairman, I wonder
if I could continue the question you have just put to Europol.
Do all 27 EU Member States contribute the same degree of information
to Europol, and who are the bad guys?
Mr Quille: I can't deliver good
or bad scores; but you are right all the Member States do not
have the same level of application in Europol. Some Member States
do not have the structure to send information. The first step
for the Member State is to gather the information; for example,
to gather the information coming from Customs. In some Member
States Customs are not linked with the fight against organised
crime. The first step is to have a good structure; and, here I
come back with my previous intervention, to give the information
to the police officers in the field, and to know Europol. If they
do not know Europol they will not send the information. There
is a very different situation between Member States. The role
of Europol, as mentioned previously, is to give that role. It
is hard work but we begin with that kind of work.
Q132 Bob Russell: You have clearly
made the point that there are difficulties with some countries.
Does that mean that your work from those countries is then made
impossible; or can it be resolved?
Mr Quille: No, I do not think
it is impossible. We have ten new countries in Europol (12 now)
and we have different degrees. Some of them are very advanced,
and they have very structured organisations; and some others do
not. It is up to Europol to give the information. We have two
steps: there is the political level with the justice and home
affairs ministers, and the technical impetus given by Europol.
Q133 Bob Russell: Trying to get the
27 Member States to sing from the same song sheet is clearly difficult;
but what happens when organised crime involves people in Switzerland
and Norway? How do you deal with it then?
Mr Quille: We are very conscious
if there are trends or cases of organised crime in Switzerland
or Norway they can impact on the European Union, so we have operational
cooperation agreements with Switzerland and Norway. In our cooperation
agreements it is possible to exchange data, but personal data.
We can exchange and we can be very effective.
Q134 Bob Russell: How close is Europol's
relations pan-European with Interpol and indeed worldwide with
Interpol?
Mr Quille: As I mentioned previously,
with Interpol we began in a very bad situation, because there
was permanent duplication of efforts. I am a police officer so
I try to tell the truth! We checked that Interpol was beginning
crime analysis in a certain month and Europol tried to do the
same thing. We set in place an operational cooperation agreement.
In our agreement we tried to avoid duplication. We have daily
work because we have liaison officers from Europol to Interpol
and from Interpol to Europol. Every day we look to avoid duplication.
Q135 Bob Russell: If I could just
put a simple question to both ACPO and SOCA. We have obviously
established it is a crowded playing field there. Is cooperation
from the European partners always forthcoming to the degree you
would wish?
Chief Constable Kernaghan: Speaking
from my perspective, most requests are going to go via SOCA so
Bill can obviously respect that: but I have to say commanding
a large force in Hampshire, we have no problems with any European
colleagues on an operational basis and we seek to provide a reciprocal
service to them when there is an inquiry which brings to them
to Hampshire. I am not aware of any difficulty cooperating with
colleagues on the Continent.
Mr Hughes: From our position that
is exactly the case. If I could just add to some of the points
made about Europol: one of the advantages now that we have is
during the UK Presidency Europol brought in what they now call
their Organised Crimes Threat Assessment, which gives a very,
very accurate picture in real-time of what is happening within
the European Union and the threats to the European Union—the
countries and Member States—from organised crime, and that
includes the point you are making about from outside the European
Union, so how can we work together to deal with those issues.
That also uses the European Crime Intelligence model, which is
based on the National Intelligence model we use in the UK, which
enables us to find ways of dealing with those particular threats.
The analytical working files which Michel referred to, there are
18 of those which cover a wide spectrum of organised crime. The
UK participates in 15 of those, and we are just about to participate
in the sixteenth. I am not going to get into who are the bad guys
and who are the good guys, but you would expect me to say that
we are one of the good guys because we work with Europol and with
Interpol and we support what they are doing. We have a very large
contingent at Europol and we see Europol as the right way. What
we see is not necessarily the need to tinker when Europol increases
its mandate; but to make better what it already does pretty well,
and make it better for the future.
Q136 Bob Russell: Do you think that
Europol should take on further powers or responsibilities? I note
the earlier answer that you do not want any more legislation,
but do you think Europol should take on further powers and responsibilities?
Mr Hughes: I do not think so.
I think they have sufficient at the present time. You need to
make them work better.
Chief Constable Kernaghan: I would
echo that. It should be very much about, what are the police forces
concerned with; and they should cooperate. Europol provides support,
but I do not see them taking the lead.
Q137 Bob Russell: My very last question
is to Europol. I understand that the changes to the Europol protocol
give you an expanded role, but you do not have any power, do you,
to compel action. Are you a toothless tiger?
Mr Quille: No. Europol does not
need coercive power. As mentioned previously we have to stabilise
our work, and not to expand too much. The question is not the
crucial question. We are in charge of the support of the living
investigation of the Member State, so we need to do our best but
without coercing. It is not useful; it is not the question; and,
for the moment, we have to develop our support for the Member
State only.
Q138 Chairman: Can I pursue a point
to make sure I have understood something. Mr Kernaghan, if I understood
it right earlier you were saying there may be a case for a better
European Union Centre of Cooperation, or a clearing house or something
for things like murder investigations, paedophile investigations
that are not covered by SOCA, are not properly covered by Europol?
That is if I understood your earlier answer.
Chief Constable Kernaghan: No.
Q139 Chairman: In which case, if
it is not an expanded Europol taking on that role, what is it
you are actually seeking that is missing? We understand what you
are saying about identification powers and so on, but I understood
you to be talking about other types of cross-border investigation?
Chief Constable Kernaghan: No,
what I was saying was purely at the domestic level. Those agencies
provide a superb interface with Europe and Europol in terms of
serious organised crime. I am simply saying on more mainstream
policing we lack a single point of contact. The Information Systems
play a large part in filling that void. Once we have got the Schengen
Information System we will have information flowing freely between
all the forces of the European Union. I am also just making the
point that, if we leave it to wider agenda, it would be helpful
if we had a single body or agency dealing with generic police
cooperation, as opposed to the specialist area that Bill leads.
| 
