Examination of Witnesses (Questions 460
- 474)
WEDNESDAY 9 JULY 2008
Dr Nicholas Ridley
Q460 Lord Marlesford:
All this terminology is very confusing. When we went to Europol,
for me certainly and I think some of my colleagues, this concept
which is so crucial of the analysis work file, which is a most
awkward phrase in my opinion because it does not relate to anything
obvious, is clearly key. Would you like to give your view on the
strengths and weaknesses of Europol's analysis work files both
as to the way they are divided up and the way they are used?
Dr Ridley: As I said in answer to a previous
question, the work file is a superb piece of data storage electronically
and for the analysts, the investigators; it can establish international
links very quickly cross-matching data. I would suggest that part
of the problem is a misconception of AWFs. They are work files;
they are data storage vehicles, electronically created, electronically
maintained and afford cross-matching data. At the end of the day
they are data storage and used for data mining. They are not analysis
tools which can give you extra information. They are subject to
so many regulations, many of them necessary for data protection
purposes. If you have 27 Member States you must have possibly
up to 27 different regulations and of necessity there must be
data protection. There are also regulations about what is acceptable
within the work file and what is not. They are also extremely
cumbersome to service. Pieces of information going in are broken
down and are placed in several categories. A bank account, for
example, has a number, it can go into the account category; it
can also go into the individual category; it can also go into
the financial institution category. So there are three separate
sets. It can be done very quickly with skilled inputters but nonetheless
inputters or data processors are needed to speedily input that.
By the regulations, if urgent information comes in, it cannot
be worked on until it is actually in the work file. Most of the
time that is not a problem because it is urgently placed in the
work file, but it means real time is taken out of the working
day by other analysts.
Lord Marlesford: I am still very confused,
but I shall think about it when I can read what you have said.
Q461 Chairman:
Given what you have said, are there ways where practically matters
could be improved?
Dr Ridley: Yes. This was touched on by
the previous witness. In an emergency there are procedures where
urgent or life-threatening information can be transmitted or exchanged.
The context I am thinking of is where it is not life-threatening
or it is an emergency which is not yet recognised.
Q462 Chairman:
Then how would you tackle it? Could procedures be improved to
facilitate those two circumstances?
Dr Ridley: Everything would have to be
hastened, placed in the work file and done very quickly. It could
be done but it does cause a lot of extra time out of the working
day. How do you prioritise this? There are three work files on
illegal immigration; there are two on terrorism; there are five
in Europol on drugs; there are four on financial crime, all of
which have been opened because it is an urgent pan-European problem.
How would you make a case for prioritising this piece or this
set of information which needs urgent processing?
Q463 Lord Marlesford:
Thinking about this, your banking analogy is very helpful. I would
find it more helpful to think of the Europol arrangements as a
databank with work files within it. I think the word "analysis"
in this context is slightly confusing. If I were to think that
there is a massive databank at Europol and it has a number of
work files which cover, for example, illegal immigration, drugs,
money laundering and all the rest of it, that would be a simpler
concept for me, if it is the right concept.
Dr Ridley: Yes, I think you are very
near the truth. They are work files or files or databanks which
the analysts and investigators and empowered people draw from
to carry out their work. They are not in themselves intelligence
analysis in any way. I do not wish to detract from their value.
Lord Marlesford: No, I just wanted to
understand more clearly what they actually are and I am beginning
to.
Q464 Chairman:
Can data in those files be cross-checked?
Dr Ridley: Yes, with empowered people
in Member States in both work files, if the same Member State
has access to both work files. They cannot be switched over and
back willy-nilly as quickly as in the ideal intelligence world
they should be. It requires authority and a certain procedure.
Q465 Chairman:
So there is room for improvement there.
Dr Ridley: From the intelligence exchange
analysis yes, I agree with you.
Q466 Lord Mawson:
How would you describe the opportunity to work in a joint investigation
team as a Europol analyst?
Dr Ridley: As an analyst, very challenging.
It would depend what sort of joint investigation. I understand
from an outsider's point of view that there have been 21 joint
investigations of various sorts; some are confederated where it
is a joint investigation but each investigation team remains within
its own Member State and they pool the data electronically. I
would suggest that is not the way to work. If it were in situ,
where one Member State had everyone together, it would be extremely
challenging.
Q467 Lord Mawson:
You would not actually meet as people; you would not ever meet,
you would just work on-line.
Dr Ridley: I would suggest you would
not meet as often as you should, but that is just one JIT method
tried by Member States in the initial stages just to see whether
a compromise could be reached. I understand there is extreme caution
amongst Member States and some are saying that they are doing
nothing more than bilateral or trilateral investigations are doing
through Europol. It is a positive step, it is a way forward. A
possible plus point of the joint investigation's use would be
to include members of Eurojust as well in terms of looking at
the long-term legal outcome.
Q468 Lord Mawson:
One of the things I have been trying to encourage us to think
about, because this is about complex relationships between different
organisations, nothing to do with your world but to do with another
world, having been involved in establishing an IT system, is that
IT systems and data and all that stuff are only as good a tool
as the people and the relationships of the people who are functioning
in all that. One of the questions we have been asking a number
of times is what investment is being made in these sorts of relationships
between these key players. It seems to me that the quality of
the relationships is really fundamental to getting out of the
end of it what you need to get out of it. Is there enough investment
in that or are you saying this is weak?
Dr Ridley: I totally agree. There have
been differing levels of skills of analysis within Europol. Not
unnaturally, some Member States prefer to train their analysts
or intelligence people and keep them for more pressing matters
at home; others send their better quality people abroad for a
limited period of time; others are more fluid in terms of who
they second and who they do not.
Q469 Baroness Henig:
Do you consider that analytical work is hampered by data protection
considerations? If so, could you say how?
Dr Ridley: Inevitably it must be because
in intelligence exchange or analysis we all want the best information
and speediest exchange of information and the speediest flow completely
untrammelled. There are certain parameters which must be accepted.
I would suggest, in the case of Europol, that may be lessening,
but it is not being hampered by data protection but being hampered
by a preoccupation with data protection. There is a certain caution
about placing data within the work files in case of subsequent
adverse consequences. From what I understood from the very helpful
presentation of the two previous witnesses, the Joint Supervisory
Board is now more collaborative and more of a mentorial process
and therefore I should imagine that Member States are more willing
or Europol is more willing to put more data in, to be boldly inputting
more data knowing that any potential serious adverse consequences
can be averted at an early stage because of this closer collaboration.
It is more of a preoccupation with data protection issues than
the issues themselves.
Q470 Baroness Henig:
So your perception is that things are actually improving in this
area in any event.
Dr Ridley: Yes, I would suggest so.
Q471 Chairman:
I do not know whether you feel capable of answering this. Do you
think the information exchange on the Internet is a problem? Given
the availability of the Internet and generally information can
be exchanged there, do you think it is a problem or does that
not really concern an analyst?
Dr Ridley: In terms of the source of
information or actually sending information on the Internet?
Q472 Chairman:
Both.
Dr Ridley: As a source of information
it can be ideal. It has opened up completely new vistas of open
sources and informed opinion. It means there is a certain caution
in dissemination because, quite simply, there are more people
or more potential dangers of information being either mischannelled
or misinterpreted. Yes, I would suggest that it should be viewed
with caution but as a source of information it has opened up completely
new vistas.
Q473 Lord Hylton:
I was wondering whether there are criteria within Europol for
deciding when data become obsolete. If there are not, are you
just accumulating masses of useless information?
Dr Ridley: I understand every work file
is reviewed at a certain period of time to look to see whether
this information is obsolete, partly for data protection regulations
but also for intelligence efficiency; it is reviewed over certain
periods. Then there is always the danger that you are throwing
out long-term intelligence which at the moment appears completely
irrelevant but subsequently may prove to be absolutely spectacular,
possibly like the Somali example. In terms of terrorism and criminal
finances, money laundering, five years is not a long time for
long-term intelligence to come to fruition.
Q474 Chairman:
Is there anything you would like the Committee to know which you
think we have not extracted from you from the set of questions
we presented to you? Is there anything you would like to add?
Dr Ridley: Nothing substantial, just
my own sentiment that I had many happy years at Europol as an
analyst and anything I may have said that it is an implied criticism
is to assist in the general improvement, which I hope goes without
saying.
Chairman: Dr Ridley, we are extremely
grateful for you sitting through the earlier session so patiently
and contributing so well to this session as well at the end of
the morning. Once again I remind you that if there is anything
you have said or that you wish to elaborate on or offer us or
indeed in response to Lord Dear, who did ask for that clarification
on the five points, we should be most grateful if you could forward
that and anything else which comes into your mind after you leave.
On behalf of the Committee may I thank you once again for the
excellence of the information you have given us and for your testimony.
Many thanks indeed.
| 
