Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100
- 107)
WEDNESDAY 4 JUNE 2008
Mr William Hughes and Mr Rob Wainwright
Q100 Lord Young of Norwood Green:
You have anticipated my thinking: that it must be a bit to do
with personalities and it is a question of establishing trust.
If you do not get that, then you tend to get what I feel is micro-management
by the board rather than focusing on strategy.
Mr Wainwright: That is right because
it leads to issues of confidence as well, and ... . I had best
not go any further perhaps.
Mr Hughes: That was certainly the case
before, unfortunately. There was too much micro-management by
the Management Board. Rather than sticking to the business they
should be dealing with (the strategy and the budgetary issues),
they were getting into day-to-day operational work and that is
not the right place for that.
Q101 Lord Teverson:
In your summary you mentioned a system called SIENA. I was not
sure whether that was European or yours and I would like to understand
a little bit about that. What is the value, if any, of the Europol
Information System, particularly in relation to the tie up with
other European cities as well? Where do you see all that going
and how do we make that work without moving into the area of ever
larger IT budgets that deliver later and later?
Mr Wainwright: The opposite principle
is a point: we need to bring more coherence to the information
architecture in the EU policing. We have had a constant proliferation
of databases over the past few years and it is time to draw breath
and co-ordinate that. I think Europol has a unique opportunity
here. Its mandate is to be an information manager on behalf of
EU policing and it has responsibility, by holding a pan-European
database—an index, if you like, of all serious organised
crime investigations around Europe—to deliver that coherence
as part of the internal security architecture of the future of
the EU. I think we could strengthen that, in particular, by giving
Europol the technical means by which to cross-refer its own databases
with those of those other EU databases: the Schengen Information
System, the Visa Information System, and so on, those that we
have listed. It is a great opportunity to bring coherence in the
management of information. As we have found here in SOCA, the
future of policing really is about making best use of datasets
and information. It is very much the order of the day now in our
counterterrorist work and in our counter organised crime work
as well. To answer your specific question about SIENA: that is
code for the new generation system for the transfer of our operations
across the Liaison Bureau. We mentioned in our paper the 568 cases
that we did last year. SIENA is the all-singing and all-dancing
new network for that.
Q102 Lord Teverson:
The figure of 568 that you gave, could you give us an idea of
how that breaks down. Is it money laundering or the other areas?
Mr Wainwright: I am afraid I do not have
that information to hand. We have that information and we can
provide it to the Committee and we can also provide a breakdown
of which countries we have mostly dealt with as well across those
cases.
Chairman: That is very helpful.
Q103 Baroness Henig:
You said in your evidence that the two greatest operational assets
of Europol are its Liaison Bureau platform and its collection
of analysis files. You have referred to those this morning and
how important they were. How much of Europol's budget do these
two assets take up?
Mr Wainwright: This is a difficult one.
I am afraid I cannot give you the information. We know the Europol
budget is €64 million. How much of that is given to supporting
the AWF? It would include all the very high costs associated in
the IT development of the systems and the refresher of that and
the maintenance and support. It would include the employment of
all the analysts—and I forget the number, but it is a considerable
amount: 100 plus, I think—at Europol, and the linguistic
support as well. The budget is not broken down within Europol,
as far as I can see, for me to answer that. You might ask that
question of the Director of Europol. Behind the question I detect
an issue about relative added value, between how much we pay for
the bureau and how much we contribute to Europol. Our contributions
are in the order of £6 million a year subscription to Europol
and our own internal running costs for our own Liaison Bureau
team at Europol are something approaching £1 million a year,
and that includes the salary costs that are borne by those other
agencies. The Metropolitan Police, for example, attach staff to
us. There is a difference, therefore, quite a sizeable difference,
between the two. I have already talked about how the main Europol
body provides us with significant analytical capability, and I
would not make a case, therefore, that there is a significant
disconnect, even though it appears so at first glance.
Q104 Lord Teverson:
I was just seeking assurance that you were satisfied that the
focus of activities there reflected your assessment of the added
value.
Mr Hughes: You picked up, as well, on
Rob's answer, that we would want to see far more budgetary probity.
That is not just about people making sure it is handled properly,
but about how it is split up and used around Europol. There have
been some changes that have been brought already, one of which
the UK brought in, which is to make sure that only 85 per cent
of the budget of Europol is used initially, at the beginning of
the year, to see how thing are progressing as we go towards the
end of the year. Rather than saying, "Here is the wodge of
cash. Get on with it," there is trying to be some control
exercised over that.
Q105 Baroness Henig:
To what extent is the annual endorsement of Europol's report by
the Management Board an indication of overall satisfaction with
its performance?
Mr Wainwright: The Management Board is
broadly content with the progress. I think the current Director
has taken the organisation in the kind of direction that we have
supported, but in successive annual reports, if you read them
carefully—and that is certainly between the lines, and on
specific issues that were brought before the board at specific
meetings—we have identified areas of weakness as well. As
in the administration of any public sector organisation one can
never find a 100 per cent clean bill of health, of course, and
it is the responsibility of the Management Board to make sure
that where weaknesses are identified they are dealt with in the
right way. The picture is one of general contentment but with
some concern in one or two areas.
Q106 Baroness Henig:
Suitably discreet, as one who perhaps has some ambitions in this
area.
Mr Wainwright: Quite.
Q107 Chairman:
I think you have pre-empted the last question we were going to
put to you and there is no need to go any further. The two of
you have been hugely helpful. It has been very clear and you have
been admirably succinct in your answers, which is always a great
job to committees of this sort. We very much appreciate it. It
will certainly give us a very helpful base indeed when we go to
The Hague and to Brussels towards the end of the month. Thank
you for coming.
Mr Hughes: Thank you, My Lord Chairman.
If you require any more information we are more than happy to
provide it to the clerk.
Chairman: Thank you.
| 
