Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60-79)
Mr Mike Fitzpatrick, Mr Jonathan Sweet, Mr Kevan
Norris and Mr Marek Rejman-Greene
11 OCTOBER 2006
Q60 Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury:
So there was a specific reason.
Mr Norris: In this case, because the people
concerned were not just third-country nationals but were family
members of EU citizens with free movement rights, those additional
free movement rights had to be respected.
Q61 Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury:
They overrode the alert?
Mr Norris: Exactly.
Q62 Earl of Caithness: I would like to
follow up my Lord Chairman's last question and your answer on
that. Are you content for Her Majesty's Government to agree the
proposals—I think you said on 16 October—when all
the information that you have just alerted us to is missing?
Mr Fitzpatrick: No. The approval to start on
16 October would have been required at the JHA Council on 5 October
and it was not given at that meeting. Several Member States, including
ourselves, made representations that we were not yet ready and
a decision was remitted until December to await further investigation
and analysis, and we wait with interest to see what will be presented.
However, of course, that is already a two-month delay to a purported
delivery deadline of September 2007.
Q63 Lord Dubs: May I ask a question about
the people going to Spain? If they had been coming from (this
is a bit hypothetical) a non-EU country and heading for Britain
in transit for a Schengen country would we have received an alert
or does the alert system not work if people are in transit?
Mr Norris: We do not have access to the alerts
issued which are entered into the Schengen Information System
for immigration purposes, so we would not have had access to this
alert.
Q64 Lord Dubs: I understand that the
issue was not immigration as much as security matters.
Mr Norris: It was an immigration issue insofar
as the Spanish Government were refusing them entry into Spain
and therefore into the Schengen area. So it was the Spanish Government
operating the immigration parts of the Schengen system and using
these alerts which are entered into the system for the purpose
of administering Schengen external border control provisions.
Q65 Lord Dubs: We do not get any of those?
Mr Norris: We do not have access to that data
because we are not part of Schengen so far as the immigration
side is concerned.
Lord Dubs: I thought it had security
implications rather than immigration implications. Thank you.
Q66 Viscount Ullswater: So would Norway
and Iceland, who are not members of the EU but de facto
sort of members of Schengen, have had the alerts?
Mr Norris: They would because they are full
members of Schengen even though they are not members of the EU.
Viscount Ullswater: It does seem to put
us at a great disadvantage somehow. Ourselves and Ireland are
the only two countries which are denied, for some reason which
is quite difficult for me to understand, this information. I understand
the reasons for it but I find it still difficult to agree with
them, where other non-EU countries can share information which
is certainly denied to us.
Q67 Chairman: Going back to earlier questions
about financial contribution, I take it that Norway and Iceland
make a financial contribution, do they?
Mr Norris: Yes.
Q68 Chairman: They do. Pro-rata?
Mr Norris: I am afraid I do not know what it
is.
Q69 Lord Avebury: Is SIS II going to
be discussed at the G6 Interior Ministers' meeting at Stratford
on October 25, and the delays?
Mr Fitzpatrick: I am afraid I do not know the
answer to that.
Q70 Lord Avebury: Is it on the agenda?
Mr Sweet: My understanding is that it is not
on the agenda for that meeting, no.
Q71 Chairman: I think my last question
follows on to Mr Norris. Given the evidence from the texts that
we are going to be excluded from quite a lot in SIS II as we are
from SIS I, is the Government considering legal proceedings against
this?
Mr Norris: I think we are in a different position
in relation to this regulation than we are in relation to European
Border Agency regulation—passport regulation. As I explained
earlier, in those cases we did purport to opt in and that opt
in was not accepted and, therefore, we are challenging both of
those regulations. I hope that the European Court of Justice judgment
that comes out of those proceedings will sort out the principles
on how far the UK can participate in these kinds of Schengen building
measures. In this case, although we were not content with the
position that UK asylum authorities are not to be allowed access
to this Schengen information data on immigration data, I think
the principles are different. It is not that we have been excluded
from the regulation because it has been accepted that this was
not a regulation that it would be appropriate for the UK to participate
in; we did not send an opt-in letter. No arrangements have been
made outside of the regulation specifically allowing UK asylum
authorities access to this data for asylum purposes, and our approach
is not to seek the annulment of the regulation but to pursue other
means of getting access to this data, albeit in an indirect way.
As we discussed previously, it does seem a bit odd if we are to
be allowed access to the data why should we not be allowed direct
access. Nevertheless, it looks as if that will be the position.
Q72 Chairman: Unless any of us has anything
you want to add at this point, can I thank you very much indeed,
all four of you, for appearing before us. I should, actually,
have welcomed you back, Mr Sweet—and perhaps others—but
certainly I apologise for not welcoming you back at the beginning.
Mr Sweet: Not at all.
Chairman: Thank you very much. That concludes
the public session.
| 
