Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-39)
Mr Mike Fitzpatrick, Mr Jonathan Sweet, Mr Kevan
Norris and Mr Marek Rejman-Greene
11 OCTOBER 2006
Q20 Lord Marlesford: Why?
Mr Norris: The feeling is that, as we do not
have an SIS II terminal on UK territory providing access to this
data for immigration purposes, we should not be afforded on-line
access for ancillary purposes like asylum. I am trying to state
a case obviously that I do not support, at least to try and explain
why we have had the negotiating difficulties we have had.
Q21 Earl of Listowel: We have been discussing
the access by agencies in this country to SIS II. Is Her Majesty's
Government confident that the appropriate agencies will be accessing
this information within the European Union when it is put in place?
Have you information on that, please?
Mr Fitzpatrick: There is obviously the established
process for checking the use of Schengen information through the
Schengen evaluation working group, which is composed of representatives
from each Member State, which goes from country to country essentially
checking on how the information is used in each Member State.
That is essentially the assurance that each Member State relies
on to ensure that this data is being used in accordance with global
interests.
Mr Sweet: It is also the case, as I understand
it, that the bodies in the other Member States that will have
access are in fact recognised bodies which are listed in the Schengen
handbook. In other words, it is not open to anybody simply to
try to obtain access to it. These must be recognised bodies which
are already listed in the relevant Schengen handbook.
Q22 Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: Mr Fitzpatrick,
can you give us some idea of the estimated costs of participation
in SIS and SIS II?
Mr Fitzpatrick: Our current estimate of the
cost of implementing SIS II is £39 million. That includes
subscription to the Commission's costs for SIS II which run at
half a million pounds a year and that £39 million cost includes
the Home Office costs and the subscription costs for delivering
the system in 2009.
Q23 Chairman: Does that take into account
the latest delays or not?
Mr Fitzpatrick: The delays to the SIS II system
in Strasbourg, yes.
Q24 Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: 39 million
is, if you like, the entry cost and there is an annual cost?
Mr Fitzpatrick: Yes.
Q25 Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: What
is the annual cost?
Mr Fitzpatrick: The annual cost is half a million
pounds for SIS II subscription to the Commission for its costs
in running the system. There will obviously be operational costs
for running the system in the UK and supporting the technology
and people to manage it.
Q26 Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: Have
you a figure for that?
Mr Fitzpatrick: It is in the order of about
£3 million to £4 million a year. I will correct that
if I am wildly inaccurate.
Q27 Lord Marlesford: Half a million pounds
to the EU Commission for running SIS II, I think you said.
Mr Fitzpatrick: Yes.
Q28 Lord Marlesford: What is that based
on in terms of other countries' contributions?
Mr Fitzpatrick: That is the total costs divided
up pro rata, of which we pay 18 per cent.
Q29 Lord Marlesford: Pro rata to what?
Mr Fitzpatrick: Pro rata across each Member
State. I cannot remember the formula. I do not know whether it
is GDP or population but there is an established formula by which
central costs are attributed amongst Member States and half a
million is our 18 per cent proportion.
Q30 Lord Marlesford: We are paying a
full subscription but we are not getting the full information?
Is that correct?
Mr Fitzpatrick: Yes, that is correct.
Q31 Lord Marlesford: How do they justify
denying us the information when we are paying for it?
Mr Fitzpatrick: I do not have anything to add
to the answer Kevan gave earlier.
Lord Marlesford: This is an important
point.
Chairman: If you have anything to add
on that in writing, please let us have it.
Q32 Lord Marlesford: Have you considered
reducing your half million to take account of the fact that you
are not getting information?
Mr Fitzpatrick: I think it is something which
we will take away and consider.
Chairman: We look forward to hearing
more from you on that.
Q33 Earl of Caithness: This is following
up Lord Avebury's point. He was concerned about the secrecy and
lack of transparency. Can you tell us, please, why there has been
no prior impact assessment, no public consultation and no explanatory
memorandum by the Commission on its proposals?
Mr Sweet: I can try to answer that question,
I suppose, by giving a little bit of the context and the history
of it. Consultation did take place before the implementation of
SIS I. The Commission themselves provided an explanatory memorandum
on the development and legal base for SIS II as part of their
proposals when they tabled their proposals, those proposals outlining
the need for SIS II. It is also the case that since in some respects
one can regard SIS II as essentially a development of SIS I, the
fundamental rationale for the system is the same now as it was
when the original SIS proposal was produced. On that basis, the
Commission felt that it was unnecessary to do a further impact
assessment in relation to SIS II. It is true of course that during
the development of their new legal base for SIS II the Commission
did consult a range of interested parties and stakeholders, notably
the Joint Supervisory Authority, the European Data Protection
Supervisor and the Article 29 Committee on Data Protection whose
views were all sought. In essence, the view is that the evolution
of SIS into SIS I plus brings it closer to what will be the shape
of SIS II, sufficiently enough to mean that the original impact
assessment and explanatory memorandum essentially set out the
rationale which still exists.
Q34 Earl of Caithness: You have already
confirmed that there has been no independent audit on the cost
effectiveness, efficiency and added value of SIS I; yet you would
be perfectly happy to roll this forward into SIS II without any
of the supporting evidence to justify it. Are you really content
that that is how the Commission should proceed and that Her Majesty's
Government should be a part of that decision?
Mr Sweet: We are naturally keen that the Commission
should be as transparent as possible and we are amongst those
who, in the relevant Council working groups, have pressed the
Commission to be as open as they can be about the development
of the programme and indeed about the potential problems which
may have arisen in relation to the programme. We certainly subscribe
to the views that were essentially set out in the Hague Programme
itself about the need across the whole range of justice and home
affairs issues for there to be proper evaluation and impact assessment
on any proposals. It was the Hague Programme of course which did
set down essentially the recognition that we needed to move increasingly
to a system where there were those impact assessments and evaluations.
We certainly subscribe to the view that the Commission should
be as open and transparent as possible and that the Council itself
should be informed of developments and changes to the programme.
Q35 Earl of Caithness: Do you think they
have been?
Mr Sweet: My personal view is that they could
have been more open about those arrangements.
Lord Avebury: In the memorandum by the
Home Office you say that most Member States support the creation
of a new cross-pillar agency to manage SIS II subject to a suitable
impact assessment. Before you answer my question about the impact
assessment, what stage that has reached, could you say first why
the Home Office thinks that the management of SIS II by the Commission
proved unpopular with Member States and particularly bearing in
mind that they agreed to the Commission management of Eurodac?
What specific concerns did Member States have about management
by the Commission?
Q36 Chairman: Why is a workforce satisfactory
when the Commission is not?
Mr Sweet: To answer one of your specific points,
I think you mentioned Eurodac. There is a distinction between
Eurodac and the SIS proposals in the sense that Eurodac is a static
system which is not updated on a real time basis and does not
have in that sense the same direct operational impact at points
of entry that SIS II would have. There is a distinction between
the nature of the systems and how they operate. SIS II, when it
goes live in the Member States, is a real time system that will
be used as a basis on which to take immediate decisions in relation
to persons at points of entry. I think there is that distinction
which needs to be drawn between the two types of instrument. That
said, you raise why management of SIS II by the Commission proved
unpopular with Member States. If I am honest, that is in part
as a result of a sense of a lack of trust between some Member
States and the Commission, that lack of trust in part arising
from the problems with the programme delivery at Commission level—in
other words, with the technical difficulties, the programme management
difficulties, that had arisen within the Commission's element
of the programme and the extent to which those delays undermined
Member States' confidence more generally in the Commission's ability
to manage the system as a whole. From the UK's own perspective,
I do not think we saw a particular difficulty in principle with
the idea of the Commission managing the system but it is clear
that a significant number of Member States, particularly some
of the newer Member States, did find that they were unsure whether
they could in that sense trust the Commission to deliver. That
is why the notion of delegation of the management to a management
authority with representation from all Member States is an idea
that has been proposed.
Q37 Lord Avebury: Not merely proposed;
we seem to be moving towards a decision that the cross-pillar
agency will be responsible for the management. Could you say anything
about the impact assessment that was mentioned as being a condition
for the creation of the cross-pillar agency? Has that been initiated
or are there steps to programme it in?
Mr Sweet: My understanding is that it is factored
into the process. There is a commitment and there will be an impact
assessment produced in advance of the establishment of the management
authority.
Q38 Lord Avebury: But you cannot say
anything about the timescale?
Mr Sweet: Offhand, I am afraid I do not know
the timetable but we can check on that for you. I am told it will
be initiated once the instruments are formally adopted.
Q39 Lord Avebury: What is the timing
on that?
Mr Sweet: I think it is expected that those
might be adopted by the end of this year.
| 
