Supplementary written evidence by the
Home Office
HOUSE OF LORDS INQUIRY INTO THE SECOND GENERATION
SCHENGEN INFORMATION SYSTEM (SIS II): FURTHER EVIDENCE
Further to the Committee hearing at which I
gave evidence on the 29 November, you invited me to submit a note
addressing a number of points which were raised. This letter covers
the points raised during the hearing that I undertook to provide
a note on and updates the Committee on SIS one4all.
At question 574 the Committee asked about the
timing of the impact assessment on the management of the Central
SIS II and whether the UK will have any input into this assessment.
A draft joint declaration of the Commission, Council and European
Parliament provides that, within two years of their entry into
force, the Commission must present further legislative proposals
which will allow operational management of the central SIS and
parts of the communications infrastructure to be entrusted to
an agency. The impact assessment must be carried out before the
legislative proposals are brought forward. This will be produced
by the Commission, so the UK will not have direct input. Once
legislative proposals are brought forward the UK will participate
in negotiations in the normal manner.
At question 581 the Committee requested a note
on the reason for the delay to introduction of "one-to-many"
searches. The European Parliament raised concerns about certain
aspects of the use of fingerprints for identification in the SIS
II. The Commission therefore agreed to produce a report on the
availability and readiness of the required technology, and to
consult the European. Parliament on this report, in order that
its concerns should be addressed. The Committee is correct that
the technology to permit "one-to-many" searching is
already in use, and the Government is content that this functionality
should be introduced following the Commission's report. The draft
Regulation and Decision establishing SIS II provide that the European
Parliament should be consulted. It would be unable to block the
introduction of the technology, but the Council will seek to ensure
that its concerns are addressed as far as possible before the
technology is introduced. The same would apply to any concerns
raised by national governments or parliaments.
At question 591, the Committee requested more
information on the future resource implications of SIS II for
our operational partners. The SIS II business case includes operational
costs for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), the Metropolitan
Police Service (MPS) extradition team and Court Services. This
is a work in progress and the process of agreeing changes in budgets
will not be done until a full and robust assessment of the impact
of SIS II upon the various operations involved has been carried
out. The Home Office will work closely with SOCA, CPS, ACPO and
ACPO(S), the MPS Extradition Unit, the Department for Constitutional
Affairs and the Office for Criminal Justice Reform to determine
the likely impacts on workload. Conclusions will be reached in
the coming year.
In relation to question 593, the Committee asked
for further details of costs to the taxpayer of SIS I. The Government
estimates that the final cost of the SIS I programme before transition
to SIS II was approximately £35 million. The main benefit
derived so far is a staffed SIRENE bureau based in SOCA with an
operational information management system currently used to deal
with European Arrest Warrants although not connected to the SIS.
This information management system has been extended to deal with
SOCA's Interpol and Europol business.
Finally, I would also like to take this opportunity
to update the Committee on the proposal for SISone4all. On 5th
December, the JHA Council gave the go- ahead for SISone4all to
proceed. Currently the UK has no intention to join SISone4all
and we negotiated the terms of the Council Conclusions relating
to financing the project so as to exempt the UK from future additional
costs associated with implementing SISone4all.
I hope that this addresses the outstanding questions
raised by the Committee.
14 December 2006
| 
