Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-39)
Detective Chief Inspector Tony McCarthy
10 OCTOBER 2007
Q20 Baroness Tonge: So they are one and
the same thing?
Detective Chief Inspector McCarthy: Yes, they
are one and the same thing in terms of that terminology, but they
are two separate elements obviously. In particular, the trafficking
element of that is of a particular concern because it obviously
involves the exploitation of people, and the smuggling would be
normally paid for to enter the UK in order to take advantage of
potential benefits within the UK.
Q21 Lord Harrison: Chief Inspector, you
may feel that you have answered these questions, especially in
your very helpful definition of the difference between border
security and border control, but to what extent does ports policing
work involve the gathering and/or exchange of intelligence over
the use of surveillance? The counter-terrorism concerns about
which you have already spoken, how are they integrated, if they
are, into your work and how deeply and what form does that take?
Detective Chief Inspector McCarthy: Our chief
objective at ports and at borders is the combating of terrorism.
Our obligation there is to gather intelligence, to monitor and
to prevent the entry or the exit of persons suspected of being
involved in terrorism, so our chief goal is to monitor terrorists
and gather as much intelligence as possible, and that will be
done in relation to security services and other agencies and interests
as well to do with terrorism and counter-terrorism in particular.
As far as surveillance of these people is concerned or any sort
of police surveillance that takes place, if it is to do with serious
organised crime, most of the time the surveillance would take
place by the Serious Organised Crime Agency and if it is to do
with a national security matter, it might be undertaken by the
security services or it can be undertaken by the police, one of
the counter-terrorism units or counter-terrorism intelligence
units that exists in the UK under the SB auspices. As well as
other potential agencies that could be involved in the surveillance
of people outside of the ones I have just mentioned, we would
help to facilitate their surveillance of people of interest to
them and obviously we would want to know why they were doing it
at a port and what the nature of the surveillance was in order
to comply with the law.
Q22 Earl of Listowel: Detective Chief Inspector,
please can you tell me what the legal framework is governing those
apprehended at the border and refused entry and what remedies
they have under UK law. Is there a different framework in England,
Scotland and Northern Ireland?
Detective Chief Inspector McCarthy: That is
certainly not my area of expertise. That would be a question that
would probably best be aimed at a Border and Immigration Agency
official to answer, but I do have some notes if you would like
me to refer to them that I have gained in liaison with the Border
and Immigration Agency. As I say, it is a Border and Immigration
Agency area of responsibility, chiefly governed by the legislation
under the Immigration Act 1971 which governs the entry into the
UK of foreign and Commonwealth citizens and provides for their
refusal of entry if they do not meet the standards or requirements
contained for admission under that legislation. Individuals who
hold a visa or prior entry clearance for the purpose of which
they are seeking to gain entry or who already hold a continuing
leave to enter in such a capacity are afforded a right of appeal
before removal from the UK, unless the purpose for which they
are seeking entry is different from that which was detailed in
their original visa or entry clearance application. Other individuals
either have no right of appeal against refusal of entry, for example,
visitors, or a right of appeal only after they have been removed
from the UK. Asylum claimants have a suspensive right of appeal
against refusal for asylum and may not be removed from the UK
while any such appeal is outstanding. Regardless of any statutory
appeal rights or the absence thereof, any individual may seek
to challenge their removal from the UK by means of judicial review.
I can go into some more detail, if it would interest you, but
again you might prefer to get this information from a Border and
Immigration Agency officer.
Q23 Earl of Listowel: What is the extent
of current bilateral or multilateral co-operation with equivalent
authorities of other Member States on border management issues,
what form does this co-operation take and what does it involve
in practice? For instance, how far are there placements from one
Member State to another of senior officials shadowing and so on?
Detective Chief Inspector McCarthy: As I have
previously said, they are not involved within Frontex on the police
side. It is wholly, I understand, the Border and Immigration Agency
that are involved in Frontex. We would like very much to become
involved with Frontex because we can see a clear potential to
gather intelligence that would be of real benefit to national
security and in our efforts to counter terrorism. Currently, there
are police officers who are engaged through the Home Office and
through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in various posts abroad.
I myself have been seconded to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office
and I served in Bosnia and Kosovo, giving assistance to the local
police. From an intelligence sense, it is very limited as to what
our involvement is abroad in gathering intelligence. Of course
we do have counter-terrorist liaison officers abroad in Europol
and in Interpol which cover a number of countries, 75 countries
worldwide, and the total number of officers at the moment is 17,
so it is fairly limited in that respect, soon to be 18, I am informed,
but they are not there primarily for an intelligence-gathering
role, they are there to liaise. If there was an incident, for
example, a serious or major crime abroad that involved potentially
witnesses or victims or suspects even from the UK, then these
officers would liaise with the host nation force in order to expedite
the investigation. As I say, from our side on the National Co-ordinator's
side and certainly ACPO, we would like more involvement in Frontex
at this time just to see how useful it would be to us rather than
jumping in fully. We would like to gauge the benefits that Frontex
could offer us in terms of intelligence and operations linked
to secure borders.
Q24 Lord Harrison: Those 17, soon to be
18, are they all linguists?
Detective Chief Inspector McCarthy: I cannot
answer that, I do not know.
Q25 Earl of Listowel: How difficult is it
to free an officer to go and work elsewhere? How much capacity
is there, and obviously it is a question of resources to a degree,
but is it your sense that there is a recognition of necessity
for this and that there is a clear commitment to doing so or is
it something which you find, as an organisation, quite difficult
to do, but strive to achieve?
Detective Chief Inspector McCarthy: I think
there is a general willingness to have officers based overseas,
but it is for the national good rather than for a single constabulary's
benefit. For example, you have 52 police officers within the UK
and if they send an officer abroad to undertake a national role,
the benefit to the individual constabulary might be seen by that
constabulary to be limited, although the officer will gain additional
skills from the placement, but generally the benefit is to the
UK Police Service as a whole and not to that constabulary. Certainly
from a counter-terrorism perspective, there are obviously fundamental
benefits in sending officers abroad to gain contacts with officers
abroad in the same positions, particularly on border control,
which would allow us to gain a better picture of the movements
of people across Europe in particular, which is our first line
of defence.
Q26 Lord Teverson: Perhaps I could ask a
very simple question in a way in terms of multilateral or bilateral
co-operation. At ports, when one of your officers is at one of
these ports, clearly a vessel that is coming in or a plane or
a train, I suppose, in terms of Eurostar, which started somewhere
else, do they ever speak on the phone to the police officer of
the other EU State or the other EEA State at the other end? Does
it work on an informal human level as well as a bureaucratic level,
which I do not mean in the pejorative sense, but going around
via national headquarters or whatever?
Detective Chief Inspector McCarthy: There perhaps
has not been enough previously informing formal structures for
making enquiries. As I say, the main hubs for those are Europol
and Interpol which have been set up on a multinational basis,
but there is certainly innovation and initiative shown at local
ports whereby they build up a relationship by visiting opposing
ports in order to gain a relationship and a line of communication
so that if there is a query, they know who to contact immediately
and enquiries can be made on a very efficacious basis in order
to produce information which would be of use, so yes, it is done
more on an informal basis outside of those organisations I have
named, yes. Perhaps there could be some more work done on a local
basis that is prescribed centrally in order for local forces in
particular or local ports to maintain and to initiate even a good
line of communication with their opposite numbers in ports that
frequently use the same lines.
Q27 Lord Marlesford: It is helpful to have
your expression of desire at least to get involved in Frontex
and indeed the Home Office have said the same thing. Have you
had the opportunity of forming any impression about how Frontex
is going about its business which you could enlighten us with
or maybe you could say if you have not?
Detective Chief Inspector McCarthy: I do, yes,
have an opinion of Frontex. It is quite clear that there is a
unique potential within Frontex in our collective fight against
terrorism and for purposes of national security, to assist us
with that. On the other hand, the feedback that we get, which
is mainly by the Border and Immigration Agency, is that Frontex
is not really performing to a standard that is currently beneficial.
Certainly from our perspective, we view Frontex as an agency that
deals primarily with what they refer to as "irregular immigration"
or migration which we would probably term as "illegal immigration",
and there is no focus on crime, serious organised crime, and no
potential really for gathering intelligence that might assist
in combating terrorism. If we were to become involved in Frontex,
we would certainly hope that by that time or certainly without
influence we could promote an increased awareness of the possibilities
concerning counter-terrorism for the whole of Europe, not just
for the UK, and also serious organised crime. I do not think we
are getting out of Frontex at the moment what we could and if
we were involved in it, through my own experience of working abroad,
our participation, I am very sure, would be much appreciated by
the other Member States.
Q28 Chairman: The very obvious interest
which you have shown in more police involvement in Frontex, have
you actually made your case in Whitehall? Is this a particular
question which Sir Gus O'Donnell's review is going to take on
board, namely the extent to which the police should be involved
in Frontex?
Detective Chief Inspector McCarthy: I personally
have brought the subject of Frontex into the review debate and
discussion, so I am sure that it will get a mention.
Q29 Chairman: Do you attend this group?
Detective Chief Inspector McCarthy: I am a member
of the Cabinet Office review team, yes, on behalf of the police.
Q30 Lord Marlesford: I can see your point
obviously, but, on the other hand, as I understand it, and you
have just started this study really, Frontex is purely intended
as a means of handling the very difficult problem of migration
and the potential problem, so per se it is not actually concerned
with terrorism or serious crime or anything else and, therefore,
I suppose it could be argued that it has a clear remit to set
itself up as a means of handling, almost physically handling,
migration problems which might be a diversion or a digression
or whatever if you start bringing in all the police stuff.
Detective Chief Inspector McCarthy: I am sure
it would and again the same argument could be used, that to bring
more activity into Frontex would dilute it and distract it from
its original goal and, yes, that is a very good argument. I think
though, to balance that out, that perhaps another argument could
be that we are not doing enough in terms of policing serious organised
crime outside of Interpol and Europol when looking specifically
at borders. Frontex deals specifically with the borders and the
integrated border management for the Eastern European States,
et cetera, and we have got a vested interest in that as our first
line potentially of defence in the future and if we are in the
future going to fully sign up to Schengen perhaps and become full
members of Frontex, then I think we need to set out our stall
as to what we expect from Frontex in terms of national security
measures as well, as I say, although it would possibly distract
away from the current goal of dealing with these very complex
migration matters. I think there is a need to prioritise within
Frontex and I think the addition of CT or counter-terrorism as
an element of Frontex would be beneficial and specifically beneficial
to us.
Q31 Lord Young of Norwood Green: I am not
sure how relevant my question is in the light of your previous
answer. According to us, the UK has participated in a number of
Frontex operations, including Operation Torino at Heathrow. Has
the NCPP been involved in any of these and could you give us more
details about how they were conducted, their goals and outcomes?
Detective Chief Inspector McCarthy: Operation
Torino was back in February 2006. I had to make some enquiries
about this because I had no knowledge of it myself and indeed
when we made communications with other police partners, they had
no knowledge either, and that is because we were not involved.
We made enquiries with the Border and Immigration Agency to find
out that Operation Torino was a joint air operation co-ordinated
by Frontex which ran from 3 to 26 February to counter illegal
migration under the premise of attending the Winter Olympics in
Turin. The UK had an Italian liaison officer present at London
Heathrow for part of the operation and that officer's task was
to target onward flights to Italy and advise on Italian documentation.
There was no police involvement as it was an immigration-based
operation and, as I have said to other questions, the Border and
Immigration Agency would probably be best to provide you with
more details of those operations.
Q32 Baroness Henig: I am very interested
in the whole area of intelligence, obviously our own intelligence
and also using, or having access to, other European countries'
intelligence. You mention in paragraph 13 that there is currently
no collective intelligence produced by Frontex for dissemination
to Member States, and I wondered whether you knew what informed
Frontex risk analysis which forms the basis of their operational
working.
Detective Chief Inspector McCarthy: Again this
is information that has been received via our contacts within
the Border and Immigration Agency because we have got no one in
place at Frontex, so our enquiries so far have been, "What
could Frontex possibly offer us in the Police Service?",
so we specifically ask questions around what they produce in terms
of intelligence reports for dissemination to the Member States.
I was basically informed that every State goes in and takes out
what they feel is relevant, but there is no joint or collective
intelligence product. Frontex is risk-led, so I am informed, and
operations are planned and initiated on the basis of either internal
risk analysis, a Member State proposing a joint operation or a
Member State requesting assistance with a particular problem.
I have already gone over the fact that we would potentially have
some serious use of Frontex for intelligence-gathering purposes
and if we were to be members of Frontex in a voting capacity and
being singularly represented as the UK Police Service, then our
aim would be primarily to gain intelligence on national security
matters.
Q33 Baroness Henig: So I suppose my follow-up
on this then is: what more needs to be done to capture and disseminate
effectively Frontex intelligence or intelligence relating to their
operations? Presumably you operate within the national intelligence
model.
Detective Chief Inspector McCarthy: Yes, we
do.
Q34 Baroness Henig: So how could that model
incorporate some sort of European intelligence which it does not
at the moment? Is there any way of capturing European intelligence?
Detective Chief Inspector McCarthy: Certainly
within Europol and Interpol there would be links with SO-15, which
is part of the Metropolitan Police Force Counter-Terrorism Command,
in terms of pumping intelligence into the UK system as a single
point of contact. If there was any police representation within
Frontex, ideally, from a ports and border perspective, we would
look for that information and intelligence to be fed into the
National Ports Analysis Centre which is based in Merseyside. That
is how we would view the intelligence flow coming out of Frontex
specifically.
Q35 Baroness Henig: But at the moment it
does not?
Detective Chief Inspector McCarthy: At the moment,
to my knowledge, we receive very little in the way of any intelligence
from Frontex and if we do, it is via the Border and Immigration
Agency who, as you can appreciate, focus on migration-related
matters and not CT-related matters and certainly not to the extent
that we are.
Q36 Lord Teverson: You have made it very
clear in terms of UK police that have been involved in Frontex
and, I must admit, certainly when I first looked at this brief,
it seemed to me that it was almost entirely really a migration
issue, but clearly these demarcations are not always useful because
while you are doing one thing, you might as well do something
else that is equally useful. Do you feel that the legal framework
really leads to a demarcation that is very difficult in that area
at the minute or how would you like to see things move forward?
Detective Chief Inspector McCarthy: Obviously
there would have to be agreement amongst Member States as to what
the objectives or the goals of Frontex were in the future and
whether they were to draw any delineation between crime, terrorism
and counter-terrorism and migration matters. If there were, I
would see that Frontex would need to be invested in significantly
in order to achieve this and have a clear governance structure
and make-up in order for it to concentrate efforts on a list of
priorities other than just the single priority. It would be very
difficult and need to be obviously marked out and discussed at
length, but I think it could be achieved and it is certainly in
our interests to become involved in that.
Q37 Lord Teverson: Do you like particularly
the Frontex side because it actually has an operational element
to it as opposed to Europol which is sort of information-swapping
because one of the things we have discussed ourselves in a slightly
different context is that Europol, a great idea, but actually
the amount of data that there is there is not particularly great
or particularly useful, so do you see it that way?
Detective Chief Inspector McCarthy: There is
potential certainly and I suppose the thing which is exciting
and different about Frontex is, one, that it concentrates on borders
and obviously there is a great deal of discussion around borders
at the moment, especially with the Prime Minister's announcement
on 25 July towards a unified border force and there is a great
deal of public anxiety regarding immigration matters in particular,
but also, second to that, national security in terms of terrorism
and terrorists entering and leaving the country, whether they
be home-grown or not. If we could engage in operations beyond
our physical borders, that must be of benefit to us in order to
prevent the problem from coming into the UK in the first instance,
so there are clear benefits to be had, but obviously in the scale
of the operations and how much information was fed into the operations
in order to inform the operations in the first place.
Q38 Lord Teverson: If you could choose,
say, around our own borders an area where co-operation with another
European Member State, say, France, the Netherlands or perhaps
Spain, could be a lot better within a Frontex context operationally,
what sort of instance would it be where you would say, "Yes,
that would be a good solution for us in our border area"?
Detective Chief Inspector McCarthy: Well, currently
we do have juxtaposed controls with France and Belgium where you
have officers from Revenue and Customs, from the Border and Immigration
Agency and the police working in France and in Belgium and vice
versa with their officers working in the UK. That works well.
Really, any operations would be an extension of that, but in order
to do operations in another country using officers in a liaison
or executive capacity would need the consent of that government
for obvious jurisdictional reasons, but I would see it as an extension
of that current co-operation which takes place in order to be
more proactive rather than reactive, so yes, it would be beneficial
in that respect. Again, it would potentially be a marked effort
in preventing the problem from reaching the shores of the UK and
having dealt with it in a more combined and unified way amongst
European partners.
Q39 Lord Teverson: What are your own views
on the UK's position on Schengen? We only very slightly participate
in Schengen. Do you think that border security would actually
be easier if we were full members of Schengen and had all the
things that go with it or would it actually create a border-free
European Union with us as part of that and would that cause insurmountable
problems? How do you see that?
Detective Chief Inspector McCarthy: There are
obviously big concerns regarding free passage through Europe,
especially if you consider the possibilities of a future where
you have former communist Eastern European States being the first
line of defence into Europe and where potentially once a malefactor,
a wrongdoer passed that line of defence, they had free movement
in Europe, and obviously that would cause us some serious concerns.
However, there are benefits to be gained out of being full members
of Schengen at the same time. In the interests of national security,
it would be to the UK's advantage to be in a position to join
EU colleagues in collectively combating illegal activity across
the spectrum and, in that respect, we view Frontex as having great
potential. We are aware that the UK has sought to become full
members of Frontex, but was precluded from doing so because the
UK is not a full member of Schengen. By not being a full participating
element of Frontex, we believe that the UK is missing an opportunity
to engage with EU partners and specifically, even on the police
side, the police partners and border agencies and border controls
in consolidating our efforts to more effectively tackle terrorism
and immigration-based crime.
|
