Supplementary written evidence by International
Directorate, Home Office
Further to the House of Lords Select Committee
hearing on Home Office evidence on the development of the Second
Generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) the Home Office
undertook to provide further information relating to a number
of questions. The information is provided below, although we are
awaiting information from the Spanish SIS programme team in response
to question 56, which relates to the payment of compensation to
the family in Commission v Spain. This information will
be forwarded to the Committee as soon as it is available.
At Q6 the Committee enquired about the rescheduling
document 12379/06, and the apparent secrecy surrounding this document.
This document has been published and we have attached a copy at
annex A to this letter.
Committee members asked for a list of the 80
authorities with access to SIS data. A list setting out the authorities
that we intend to have access to SIS II is attached at annex B
to this letter for your information, but we would request that
you do not publish this as it is restricted information. It is
possible that the precise list will change between now and the
connection of the UK to SIS II.
At Q17 the Committee asked about the added value
of SIS I, to which Mr Fitzpatrick replied that there was some
very useful information from other member States about the number
of alerts and the number of arrests that they are able to make
through SIS I. This data was published in Council document 5913/06
and is attached at annex C to this letter. This document is restricted
and we therefore ask that you do not publish it.
At Q31 the chairman requested any further information
the Home Office holds on the formula by which the UK pays a full
subscription to the costs of the SIS II but does not have full
access to the information. We do not participate in the Schengen
immigration and border control rules, and we will not therefore
have access to the data entered for border control purposes. We
pay a full subscription, however, as set-up and running costs
are determined by the infrastructure needed for the system itself,
rather than the data held in it.
In addition, we maintain that we should have
access for law enforcement and asylum purposes to entry refusal
alerts on third country nationals, if other Member States are
using the data for such purposes, and will continue to seek such
access to alerts on persons refused entry on the grounds they
represent a serious threat to public security or national security.
The fact that we pay a full subscription supports this argument.
At Q38 the Committee asked about the timescale
for the setting up of the management authority and the impact
assessment which would need to be produced in advance of the establishment
of this authority. A proposed joint declaration of the Commission,
the Council and the European Parliament on Article 12, relating
to operational management, sets out these timescales. This draft
declaration is appended to documents 5709/10/06 and 5710/7/06,
which were deposited for scrutiny on 25 October. In this the Commission
commits itself to presenting the necessary legislative proposals
needed to set up the management authority within two years of
the entry into force of the Regulation. The European Parliament
and the Council also commit themselves to dealing with these proposals
as quickly as possible, and to have them adopted in time to allow
the agency to take up fully its activities before the end of a
five year period following the entry into force of the Regulation.
The Committee also enquired about the nature
and funding of the management authority at Q44. As set out in
Article 12, the agency will be funded by the budget of the European
Union. It shall be responsible for the operational management
of the Central SIS II, as well as the following tasks related
to the Communication Infrastructure: supervision; security; and
the coordination of relations between the Member States and the
provider. It will be funded from the Community budget.
The Committee was particularly interested in
the inclusion of biometric data in the information held in the
SIS II, and asked a number of questions relating to this subject.
Further to this exchange we are providing the Committee with some
additional explanatory information on the use of biometrics in
the SIS II.
Photographs will only be used for verification
purposes, ie to confirm the identity of a person after an alphanumeric
check has identified them. Fingerprints will likewise only be
used for verification purposes initially, and their use for any
purpose beyond simple verification of an individual's identity
will not be introduced until the Commission has presented a report
on the availability and readiness of the technology, ie when the
Commission is satisfied that the real capabilities of biometrics
for identification purposes are sufficiently advanced. Member
States will then have to be satisfied with this report and the
opinion of the European Parliament will be sought.
Once the technology is sufficiently advanced,
fingerprints will be used for verification in certain circumstances.
There is a distinction between verifying someone's identity, which
is proposed, and trawling the fingerprints database in order to
identify a fingerprint from a crime scene, which we do not anticipate
doing at this stage, or in any routine manner in future.
Furthermore it is important to note that biometric
searches can be used in order to minimise the misidentification
of persons, by providing an additional means to facilitate correct
identification. The use of fingerprints and photographs should
reduce the incidences of misidentification: people with the same
name are fairly common but use of fingerprints will easily confirm
whether or not a person whose name is in the SIS II is indeed
the subject of the alert.
At Q68 the committee enquired about the financial
contributions made by Norway and Iceland. The total costs for
the maintenance and running of the SIS infrastructure is published
but there is not a country-by-country breakdown provided. The
EU Member States pay a share of the cost according to the percentage
GDP/capita of the EU they constitute. The UK contribution is typically
between 18 per cent and 20 per cent. As Norway and Iceland are
members of the European Economic Area but not members of the EU
this formula does not apply to them, although they do contribute
to the costs.
The Committee also asked whether SIS II was
due to be discussed at the G6 meeting held in Stratford-upon-Avon
in October 2006. Although not a formal agenda item in its own
right, and not discussed in any depth, Ministers did reaffirm
their commitment to the rapid conclusion of negotiations on the
SIS II, during discussions on tackling organised crime.
The Committee may also wish to note that, since
this evidence session, the European Parliament voted to adopt
the legal instruments at First Reading on 25 October, without
the late amendment to Article 37 of the Council Decision. We expect
the Council to accept the texts as adopted by the EP.
1 November 2006
| 
