Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-37)
Ms Joan Ryan MP, Mr Tom Dodd, Mr Nick Fussell and
Mr Peter Storr
7 MARCH 2007
Q20 Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: I was
very worried about the way the questioning was going because the
implication was that we were wishing you to agree to watering
down the Prüm provisions in the Convention. I was going to
say why can we not accept Article 18? If we are serious about
fighting cross-border crime and terrorism surely we will not want
to water down the provisions of Prüm, we want to accept as
many as we can. We should not be working towards the lowest common
denominator as part of that, should we?
Joan Ryan: What we want from Prüm is the
data sharing measures that have such an impact on being able more
effectively to fight cross-border crime and counter terrorism.
We do have some evidence, for instance, from the way that the
Convention is working between Germany and Austria. In terms of
exchanging data they have had 14 hits in homicide or murder cases,
885 hits in theft cases and 85 hits in robbery or extortion cases.
That is as of 4 January and just between Germany and Austria in
a short space of time. I think we can see how useful those data
sharing measures would be. In relation to the notions of hot pursuit
we have had that debate under Schengen and we have some difficulties
there in the sense that you would have police officers from other
countries who perhaps have different powers than our police officers
coming onto our soil and being able to use their powers. That
is a problem for us.
Q21 Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: That
happens with France already, does it not, between us and France?
Joan Ryan: No, I do not think it does. Article
18 which is about measures in the event of immediate danger are
not exactly the same as hot pursuit but there is a possibility
of a read-across so it is a problem for us. Also I suppose if
you think of examples like a train crash on a cross-border train
you could see then why measures in terms of immediate or urgent
danger would be very important. We do not have those kinds of
extensive land borders with another country other than Northern
Ireland and the Republic of Ireland so the measures are not applicable
to us in the same way that they are to other countries who have
these land borders in the European Union. They would not as useful
for us to be able to implement and as there is a possibility of
a read-across to a measure that we have a lot of issues with,
ie hot pursuit, then it seems to us that a better protection for
our position is that Article 18 is not transposed into European
Union law. That is not to water down by any means the data exchange
measures which we see as a huge benefit which will bring real
gain in cross-border law enforcement.
Q22 Baroness D'Souza: There are a
number of provisions on immigration and other matters which are
not included in the draft decision and I wonder is the Government
happy that the Contracting States will be bound by these provisions
while other Member States will not be?
Joan Ryan: We would expect that an existing
treaty and the provisions in it will continue to be binding on
the original signatories. I do not see that it has any particular
effect on us that we are not part of that. Those provisions are
binding now on those states and they will continue to be binding.
Q23 Baroness D'Souza: Do you not
think the discrepancies will actually cause confusion and difficulties?
Joan Ryan: I am not sure what those discrepancies
will be. I am not entirely clear what the issue will be.
Q24 Baroness D'Souza: If there is
one set of immigration measures and rules for the Contracting
States and these do not apply to other Member States.
Joan Ryan: We already have the right to opt
in to measures if we choose to or not on a whole variety of areas
which touch on this. I do not think it changes any of those possibilities.
Of course there are the measures around illegal immigration in
Pillar One which would apply to everybody and if we did not want
to participate on certain measures we would have the right therefore
not to do so. It does not affect legal migration policy where
we retain the right to make that policy.
Mr Dodd: As you know there are a number of bilateral
arrangements between Member States which do not operate at the
EU level. In our case we have special immigration relationships
with Ireland in the Common Travel Area. These are not seen as
a particular problem by the Commission or by other Member States
so I do not think we would have a problem with these elements
which are in the original Prüm Treaty.
Q25 Lord Harrison: Minister, you
have very helpfully given us the figures for the Austria/Germany
data exchange and have told us how beneficial that has been. It
would seem to me a fortiori that is all the more reason why we
should be interested in making progress there. Do I take it therefore
that you believe the decision will help promote the discovery
of cross-border crime and solving it? Do you have anything more
to say about the UK being persuaded to go down that path because
of that very good evidence?
Joan Ryan: It is because of the support that
this will give us in tackling law enforcement and cross-border
crime that we are so keen on these measures. The world changes
very quickly; globalisation is much talked about and unfortunately
that is the future of crime as well as trade and being able to
tackle cross-border crime is increasingly important in all kinds
of ways. For those who, for instance, are involved in facilitating
illegal entry and trafficking a very significant majority of those
whom we find working illegally or entering the country illegally
are facilitated and that is cross-border crime. Being able to
share data is crucial now and will become even more important
as time goes on to tackle this type of crime, drugs trafficking,
all kinds of cross-border crime from the most serious to petty
crime, all of which we need to be able to tackle. If policing
is not intelligence led then it is not going to be effective across
27 Member States and dealing with crime that is coming to our
borders from third countries. I think we would be turning our
faces against the most effective means to lead law enforcement
across the European Union if we do not make sure we have effective
means to share data of this nature.
Q26 Lord Harrison: I could not agree
with you more but that seems to me to be a plea for doing more
ourselves. Can I just ask you what consultations on these issues
have taken place with the police, with the CPS and also with the
Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA)?
Joan Ryan: There have been discussions at all
levels and of course SOCA are very involved in our European Union
activities and in leading on intelligence led policing and ensuring
that approach is taken across the European Union.
Q27 Lord Harrison: What, if anything,
arose from those consultations that the Committee might benefit
from hearing?
Joan Ryan: We have had a number of examples
of how effective cross-border cooperation and sharing of data
is. When I was in Romania recently I visited Project Reflex which
is an operation that is a joint operation originally led by SOCA
with Romanian police. A version of it also operates in Bulgaria.
It has been hugely effective in identifying routes both of drug
smuggling and human trafficking which crosses many borders from
outside the European Union into it and then working its way through
Member States and up to the northern Member States, ourselves
included. It is this ability to share data and work together across
those borders that has proved very effective in tackling some
of this crime. The people doing the smuggling do not particular
care what their cargo is, whether it is humans, drugs, electrical
items or whatever because for them it is about profit. They are
I suppose what we might call high performers quite often in terms
of crime in that they are very keen to stay one step ahead of
the police and the law enforcement agencies and the challenge
for our law enforcement agencies is to try and be at least level
with them if not one step ahead.
Q28 Lord Harrison: That is SOCA,
what about the others?
Joan Ryan: We are working with the law enforcement
agencies within the other Member States. That kind of cooperation,
working together, clearly benefits us if these routes are being
used to move whatever the cargo is up through the European Union
or from outside the European Union up to and into the northern
Member States. That clearly has an impact on us so working together,
our law enforcement agencies with other Member States, is crucial.
Being able to exchange data is also crucial. We already exchange
this data through other means—including mutual legal assistance
requests—it is just very slow; this is about making it a
speedy process and making it an electronic process. Clearly if
the police law enforcement agencies are going to be able to operate
effectively, getting information weeks and weeks and weeks after
the point of need or use is not going to facilitate the police
and law enforcement agencies being able to really be one step
ahead of those who are perpetrating cross-border crime.
Q29 Lord Teverson: Minister, I have
to confess that I have some difficulty in some areas in Europe,
understanding things like exchange of information and all the
complexities under different agreements, but could you clarify
the relationship between the Prüm Convention and the proposed
framework decision on the exchange of information under the principle
of availability?
Joan Ryan: The principle of availability which,
as a government, we support and are in favour of is at the moment,
as I understand it, in abeyance whilst we move forward with this.
Obviously the principle of availability is that if the information
is available and would assist law enforcement agencies then that
information should be able to be exchanged. Clearly what we are
trying to do here would very much be a practical demonstration
of the principle of availability actually happening.
Q30 Lord Teverson: Generally in terms
of these framework conventions and regulations in terms of information
sharing or availability, is it not important for all of us as
citizens to have these sorted before we have the delivery of the
practical policies so that there is the framework within which
they operate which give us all as citizens some faith in our rights
or limitations of what can be done or how these things operate?
Joan Ryan: It sounds in theory like a sensible
thing to do.
Q31 Lord Teverson: Is that a yes?
Joan Ryan: It is not really a yes, no. The reason
being that many of the things that come forward that can turn
out to be the most effective policies can start as a small bilateral
agreement between two countries. One of the things we are often
asked is where is the evidence that this is needed or that it
will work or what the outcomes are. I think the advantage here
with Prüm is that we have some evidence, we can see that
it is effective and that it works and that there is good reason
for doing it. It seems to me that if we wait for the framework
decision which inevitably takes longer because it will not just
apply to these particular measures it will apply to a much bigger
range of measures right across the European Union, then knowing
that this works and knowing that it is possible, knowing that
it fits the principle of the framework decision that we are trying
to take forward across the European Union, I think we would be
in the wrong place; it would almost be irresponsible of us, knowing
that we can tackle law enforcement so much more effectively than
we are doing if we have this data exchange, not to go ahead with
this when it becomes possible to do so, and we know now is the
time that we are able to move forward with this. Although it sounds
in theory to be a sensible thing—let us get the framework
decisions in place and the other bits will come—actually
getting framework decisions in place (such as the principle of
availability) is quite a tortuous process it seems to me across
the whole 27 Member States of the European Union, whereas these
practical measures that we see can work and are working, and we
are on the verge of 27 Member States being able to sign up, I
think we have to go ahead with that.
Q32 Lord Teverson: I have some sympathy
with that view but what worries me is that it takes the pressure
off the Government and other governments in actually making sure
those are ever nailed down. I supposed it is some reassurance
that the Government is pursuing those frameworks urgently as well
while not, as you say, getting in the way of key practical policies.
Joan Ryan: We want that framework decision to
go ahead and there are other framework decisions which I know
your Lordships are interested in that would relate to that and
we are also very committed to those going ahead, around data protection
et cetera.
Q33 Lord Marlesford: I would like
to ask whether the framework decision of 18 December 2006—simplifying
the exchange of information—is as wide as Prüm or is
Prüm wider than it?
Joan Ryan: Both of the measures are compatible
for instance with the principle of availability. The framework
decision itself to simplify the exchange of information is not
a matter of whether it goes further than Prüm, it is about
the way in which we exchange the data. It obviously is related
to Prüm; it is being able to exchange data around DNA, around
DVLA information and around fingerprints, but it is about simplifying
it so we are able to exchange it with each other. It is about
how we exchange information as opposed to exactly which information.
Q34 Lord Marlesford: So you are saying
the framework decision is a means of implementing Prüm, are
you?
Joan Ryan: The decision of 18 December actually
sets out that information and intelligence that is already available
to law enforcement authorities in one Member State should be made
available spontaneously or on request to law enforcement agencies
in another Member State with a minimum of formality. That is what
the simplification indicates. It is based on the understanding
that it will not be used as evidence or as evidence without consent,
so that if the information is available it should be made available
to another Member State. To that degree it could go further than
Prüm.
Q35 Earl of Listowel: Taking forward
the theme of the last two questions on protection for the information
about the public, can you provide any information about the level
of qualifications across Europe in the people who would be the
law enforcement officers managing this? Is there some sort of
qualifications framework for these people or is there work towards
such a framework?
Joan Ryan: Within each Member State—as
there is here, although I cannot comment on legislation in other
Member States—there is legislation about who has access
to what data and what they can do with that data as well as things
like the European Convention on Human Rights—that obviously
comes into play as well in terms of individuals—and the
Data Protection Act. We have a lot of legislation that indicates
what data can be made available and what you can do with it. Within
different organisations there will be individuals identified who
can access that data. For dealing across police forces, for instances,
or across the European Union, for each country there will be a
national contact point and only specially authorised officers
will be able to access data. The guidelines for legislation, the
identification of the national point of contact, does give a great
deal of security about exchanging information and about what happens
to it when it is received.
Q36 Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: I can
understand confusion between framework decisions, conventions,
draft agreements, draft Council decisions and so on, so could
you help me? This draft Council decision covers murder, rape and
other serious crime. Will this also cover serious crimes associated
with football or is that dealt with separately?
Joan Ryan: There are separate means of communication
around that, but in actual fact these databases will have all
serious crimes on them so it would indeed cover that. For instance
at the World Cup in Germany police forces worked very closely
together and had a special operation around the issue of football.
If they commit a crime, even if it is related to a football match—an
assault or something or other related to a football match -data
in relation to that crime would then be held in precisely these
databases. Yes, it would relate to any serious crime.
Q37 Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: I think
you are saying it is implicit in this. I wonder if you would consider
at the meeting in April or on some other occasion making it explicit.
I think that would send a good message to people who might be
considering using the opportunity of these gatherings around football
matches to commit serious crime.
Joan Ryan: What I will undertake to do is to
ensure that I raise the issue with my European Union colleagues
in the margins of the Council. There might not be a benefit in
making any particular issue explicit because each of the 27 Member
States might well have an issue they would like to see made explicit
depending on what is an issue at any point in time for them, but
I think it is an issue that would be useful to raise in the margins.
In answering Lord Marlesford's question, the issues around DVLA,
DNA and fingerprints I think I might have transposed them myself
in conversation into the framework decision that you had asked
about in December. They are, of course, part of Prüm and
not part of the December framework as I said about information
and intelligence.
Chairman: I have had my attention drawn
to Article 13 which does specifically refer to sporting events.
Minister, thank you very much indeed for your extremely helpful
and comprehensive replies to our questions.
| 
