Examination of Witnesses (Questions 600-608)
Joan Ryan MP, Mr Jonathan Sweet, Mr Mike Fitzpatrick
and Mr Kevan Norris
29 NOVEMBER 2006
Q600 Earl of Caithness: Minister,
we had some quite interesting answers to this question over the
last couple of days and I am looking to you for great clarity
and precision on this. What is the Government's view on the process
of the negotiation and management of the SIS II project? Let us
go back. We knew in the late 1990s there were going to be new
Member States. We knew that SIS I, the Schengen Information System,
needed to be updated. We are now trundling along eight years later,
the project is late, some of the contracts were awarded before
the legislation had even been proposed, there had been no impact
assessment, there is no explanation of the text of the legislation
and there are no statistics of any worth from SIS I to base SIS
II on, what is your view of all of this?
Joan Ryan: I understand that consultation did
take place in relation to SIS I and, because SIS II has developed
from that, the view was there was no need for an impact assessment,
and all these matters were dealt with as SIS I was being agreed
to. However, you may be aware that we have called for greater
transparency from the Commission during the development of SIS
II, so I think that indicates we have had concerns and we want
greater transparency. More generally, in terms of the handling
of future legislative proposals, the Commission has recently published
a communication on the evaluation of justice and home affairs
policies and we broadly welcome the Commission's proposals. We
have long called for proper evaluation of the impact of EU measures
to identify policy areas where action at the EU-level is workable
and cost-effective. I think there are issues around transparency
and evaluation. The Commission and the Justice and Home Affairs
Council are starting to address those issues.
Q601 Earl of Caithness: Minister,
is it not a bit late to call for transparency when it has been
in the hands of the Council since 1999 and stopped being the responsibility
of the French who were running the Schengen office? It came within
the EU ambit and became the responsibility of the Council to provide
information. Is that not something you ought to have been attending
to? Let us go back on another point. In the written evidence from
the Commission they say: "The current SIS has proved its
efficiency and added-value" but there does not seem to be
any evidence to justify that. Have you got evidence to justify
that which has not been given to us?
Joan Ryan: I am trying to think of what I would
refer to as to the various documents we have seen.
Mr Fitzgerald: We have statistics about the
number of arrests that result from European Arrest Warrants which
are carried by SIS I in other countries. We could certainly present
that evidence but that is current information. I am not sure that
any analysis has been taken comparing that with the number of
cross-border arrests which occurred prior to the implementation
of SIS I. Obviously that was not a concern for us, we were clearly
interested in how SIS I might improve things for us when we had
to implement SIS II.
Joan Ryan: That is why the evaluation issue
is important to us because we will plug into SIS II. Clearly there
are valid points about the need for sound evaluation. I think
that has generally been the theme at the Councils I have attended,
and it is certainly part of The Hague Review programme that evaluation
is an important issue which we need to pay some more attention
to. You made a valid point but we do not participate in SIS I.
Q602 Lord Teverson: Let us move on
to the last section, the Treaty of Prüm, which, as you know,
Minister, has been concluded but, as we understand, the German
Presidency wishes to put on the agenda to extend as an EU-wide
initiative. We are interested as a government that supports this.
If the Treaty is integrated into the broader European framework
would we become a part of it? What implications would that have
for SIS II and the related data protection regime?
Joan Ryan: Our understanding of what you say
about the position of the Germans in relation to the Prüm
convention in their Presidency is correct. We believe there are
potential benefits for signatories to the Prüm convention,
so we are looking at that very actively at the moment. I am sure
we will come back to that in future sessions. It would seem sensible
to allow all of the Member States to share those benefits. There
are also aspects of Prüm which are still under careful consideration,
and there are some details on which we have concerns and would
certainly want those addressed before the UK would be able to
adopt the Treaty. As I understand it in relation to data protection,
the provisions of Prüm generally defer to national legislation,
so the data protection measures in Prüm would not in any
case lower the national provisions which we have already got in
place. Prüm and SIS II both facilitate the sharing of data
for law enforcement purposes, but they can also work independently
of each other. I hope that answers the question.
Q603 Lord Teverson: I am interested
that you used the adverb "actively" for looking at joining
Prüm, but presumably the Government made a decision not to
be one of the initial states in the Treaty of Prüm. Has anything
changed, or is it a "wait and see" how it works issue?
Joan Ryan: I think we did "wait and see"
a little bit and, also, the world has changed as well. On things
like the need for greater co-operation on law enforcement across
borders and between countries, I think the need is great. We have
done a lot of work with the European Union on these issues, particularly
during our Presidency. I do not want to over-claim for any particular
measure of the Prüm Treaty or anything else, but we led on
the counter-terrorism strategy. I think all these measures, the
way we worked with our European partners during the summer, during
the alleged airline plot, show us the need to work together on
these matters of law enforcement and that is the focus of the
Prüm Treaty. Yes, we did "wait and see", and, yes
situations have changed, so we are actively looking at signing
it eventually.
Q604 Chairman: Minister, are we right
in thinking that we were not invited to take part in Prüm,
were we?
Mr Sweet: I am not sure I can answer that question
as I was not involved in the process at the time. Essentially,
as I understand it, it was a process which evolved out of bilateral
discussions between a number of Member States which came together
to discuss these issues and produce what is now the Prüm
text. They have certainly made it clear since then, if not at
the time, that they would very much hope that other EU Member
States see the benefits of participating in that. That is precisely
why we are now looking very actively at doing so.
Lord Teverson: Chairman, the reason I
make that point is, although that might be the case, I cannot
imagine that we did not realise those bilaterals were taking place
and I cannot imagine if we had shown an interest we could not
have been involved.
Q605 Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: Chairman,
as you know, and I will confess to the Minister, I have been plunged
into this Committee at rather a late stage, so if my question
is not too relevant I hope, Minister, you will forgive me. Listening
to the answers to Lord Caithness's question, I wonder if the Minister
thinks that progress is being made sufficiently quickly to deal
with the potential dangers and threats. Is she happy that this
is being dealt with with sufficient urgency?
Joan Ryan: One of the things I have personally
spoken on to the Justice and Home Affairs Council and one of the
directions we are very keen to push on is that we want to see
more practical co-operation on the ground, Member States working
together, and good evaluation. That has been one of the reasons
why we are saying we do not want to be focusing and spending a
lot of time on these issues between the first and third pillar.
We want to go from where we are now and work on some of these
very crucial issues. Yes, I think we have seen some very good
progress on the ground but, equally, there are areas where that
is not the case. I think focusing on practical co-operation and
working together on matters which affect all Member States, matters
around illegal immigration, organised crime, the need for effective
counter-terrorism strategies, are issues which matter to all European
citizens. The more work we do on those issues and the more we
can demonstrate the real benefit of that work then I think the
more confidence European citizens will have that the European
Union and our partnership and the work we do there is relevant
to them. I think we have made some very good progress but there
is an awful lot more to do and it needs to be focused on.
Q606 Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: What
do you think is delaying progress—and I do not want to follow
Lord Marlesford's line and ask you to identify particular countries—but
is it because of opposition from particular countries or is it
some of the questions that we have been raising earlier in the
debate about particular issues which cause concern about individual
liberties and freedoms and the kinds of things that Lord Avebury
was going on about?
Joan Ryan: I think different countries and different
groups of countries often have different pressures on them, different
national priorities and different comparatives. For example the
new Member States from the 2004 intake and the importance of them
being able to plug into SIS I and the commitments they gave to
their populations about the dropping of the internal borders and
concerns that they are not on a level playing field with other
Member States, they are very important issues for them. Equally,
what is very much the focus for us is counter-terrorism law enforcement
and dealing with illegal immigration. I think all Member States
are concerned about these issues but for some they are much more
the immediate focus than perhaps for others. Sometimes it is determined
by how long you have been there or what is happening to you. Spain,
Italy and Malta are desperately concerned about illegal immigration
and the problems they are experiencing there. There are a number
of reasons why but I am not sure it always has got to do with
how the balance in your own country manifests itself between individual
liberty and issues of security. I think we talk a lot about them.
Interestingly, although they are issues for countries, when you
get to the Justice and Home Affairs Council one of the most interesting
things is talking about the practical measures we take on the
ground and how much scope there is for us to work together, and
I think it is right. One of the good things about The Hague Programme
Review is this focus on moving to working together even more strongly
on this approach. I think we will see a real benefit. Perhaps
then when we come to discuss some of the other issues, like who
is involved in what and the balance between various issues of
security or liberty, I think we will have a much more grounded
and sensible discussion on all of those issues if that practical
co-operation is strengthened and is underpinning the relationship.
Q607 Lord Avebury: At the end of
our discussion with Baroness Ashton we had an exchange about the
secrecies surrounding the work of the Multi-Disciplinary Group
on the Data Protection Framework Directive, which, of course,
applies to the whole of the third pillar. Do you not think that
if the public is to have confidence in the arrangements that are
being developed we need to know more about what goes on in the
MDG? Are you not personally anxious that the general data protection
regimes which will apply to third pillar data are being developed
without the knowledge of the public or any of the parliaments
in the European Union?
Joan Ryan: Obviously that is an issue for DCA,
so I cannot step into that. Across the board, and as I have said
here, the UK Government is always pressing to ensure there is
greater transparency.
Q608 Earl of Listowel: Given what
you have been saying about the importance of us working together
effectively, have you been watching the development of the Schengen
evaluation teams carefully? It has been planned that they should
be allowed to make visits without warning and there should be
increasing co-operation using their data with the national authorities'.
This was part of The Hague Programme but has not been acted upon
yet. Will you be watching to see that is moved forward given the
priority it seems to deserve from what you have been saying?
Joan Ryan: I certainly will be watching carefully,
yes. Given appropriate examination of all measures and good scrutiny,
we very much want SIS II to be a big success; it is very important
that it is.
Chairman: Minister, thank you very much
indeed for your helpful answers to our questions and again to
your colleagues. As I think you know, you are the last witness
on our list and it has been very nice to have seen you here again.
I think it will be clear to you some of the concerns that are
worrying this Committee and it will no doubt be reflected in our
report. When you and your colleagues look at the transcript, if
you think there is anything further that we ought to know, perhaps
to allay those concerns, we would be very happy to receive further
evidence from you. I should politely thank you for your written
evidence in July but, as I say, if there is anything supplementary
that seems to you that we need to allay our concerns then please
feel free to let us have them. May I thank you very much indeed
for coming today. I am sorry, we have kept you for quite a long
time. It has been very helpful of you, and I wish you good luck.
| 
