Examination of Witnesses (Questions 140-159)
Mr Tom Dodd and Mr Tom Dowdall
17 OCTOBER 2007
Q140 Lord Jopling: We understand from your
Department's border strategy that you tell us the UK Government
is an enthusiastic supporter of Frontex, but evidence we have
had from the National Co-ordinator Ports Policing tells us that
your view is: "The UK is not getting enough out of Frontex".
Is that a true reflection of the Department's attitude and, whether
it is or not, what changes would you like to see in Frontex so
that it was more useful to the European Union as a whole, but
the UK in particular, so that we all get maximum benefit from
it?
Mr Dodd: If I may answer that. Obviously I think
it is worth re-stating our legal connection with Frontex. We are
formally excluded from Frontex and we participate on an ad
hoc, case-by-case basis with the agreement of the Frontex
Management Board so, in a sense, we already start off two steps
back in our relationship with Frontex. In terms of what we get
out of Frontex, I think we do get a great deal out of Frontex
in terms of the opportunity to exchange experience and intelligence
and to develop new technologies. We think that Frontex has a valuable
role in co-ordinating and strengthening activity at the EU external
border and also has done valuable work in improving the capacity
of European border guards. Frontex has only been going for about
two years or so, it is quite a small and very young organisation.
We think it could do more to improve its performance. In areas,
for example, like improving the planning of operations, which
would be valuable, in terms of more work it could do with third
countries beyond the EU external border and more work it might
do to co-ordinate returns of flights, this sort of thing. We had
some of these ideas which we will be feeding into the Commission
review that is taking place next year.
Q141 Lord Jopling: I wonder if you could
enlarge on what you said, and I wrote it down, that there was
a role in the exchange of intelligence. I ask this question because
when we were in Brussels yesterday talking to the Director General
of the Commission I particularly asked him what the role of Frontex
was in terms of gathering intelligence. I was more or less told
there was not one, so what did you mean?
Mr Dowdall: Effectively Frontex has to collect
intelligence in order to be able to inform the operations that
it commits to and it commits the Members States to, so it does
gather information and intelligence into its Risk Analysis Unit.
It does that in a number of ways from the Member States in terms
of questionnaires and information that are provided by the Member
States. It is fair to say that relationship, and certainly what
we have seen, between the intelligence we gather and provide to
Frontex and then what is done next is a process which is evolving
and needs to improve. When Frontex gather that information, they
then conduct some analysis of that, which they will discuss at
various levels. They have a Risk Analysis Network meeting which
brings together representatives of the Member States on a quarterly
basis and that information is then disseminated back to the Member
States also. Within my own operations and border control we will
also consider that information to determine our own priorities
and how we understand the risks facing the UK. What I would say,
my Lord, is that, whilst that process I have outlined is what
we have in principle, we have certainly seen over the course of
the lifetime of Frontex so far that has improved but needs to
continue improving and there is a number of areas that we can
see that needs to happen in.
Q142 Chairman: Could I ask you to put that
into the context of planning operations? I am grateful for the
quite detailed description of which operations we have been involved
in. Does Country A say to Frontex, "Look, we happen to know
that there are boats coming towards us with a lot of illegal immigrants,
would you please plan an operation to try to deter them?"
Does it work like that?
Mr Dowdall: It can happen in a number of ways
and that is certainly one of the ways that it can happen. Certainly
I think there is evidence, particularly in the Mediterranean,
of those countries identifying the particular pressures that they
have experienced because of illegal migration across the Mediterranean.
Of course, you then have to enhance what could simply be a request
for help into something more tangible that we can very effectively
say, "This is the problem and this is how we would need to
counter that particular problem". It is partly countries
identifying a problem and it needs to be more sophisticated than
that, certainly in the longer term, whereby we can understand
what the risks overall are to the external border and that we
can quantify those risks. Of course, just simply saying, "We
have got a problem", may well be a problem for a Member State,
but we have to understand and weight that across the risk to the
whole of the EU. That is the purpose of the Risk Analysis Unit,
that it needs to make some sense of that information, to analyse
it, to weight it and consequently then to identify a course of
action which should be the kind of operations that we have provided
you with, so those operations should be very much geared towards
countering those very specific risks.
Q143 Chairman: That analysis takes place
in Warsaw, does it?
Mr Dowdall: Indeed, yes.
Chairman: Where incidentally we are visiting
next week.
Q144 Lord Jopling: Because we are not members
of Frontex, would you like to talk to us about what influence
we have over executive decisions and operational matters because
we are a rather semi-detached member of the whole outfit?
Mr Dowdall: We have associate membership of
Frontex and I sit on the board. Whilst we do not have a vote on
the board, what I can do is to provide input into the discussion
and debate that takes place at the Management Board. In reality,
although decisions are subject to a vote so far, the only decisions
that have been subject to a vote were the appointment of the executive
director and the chair. Therefore, we do have an ability to influence
the decisions that are taken by the board. The UK operations are
well respected and, therefore, our view is sought and we are listened
to. Some decisions are taken by written procedure and we are informed
of that, but we do not have a say in that particular procedure.
Q145 Lord Jopling: You mentioned the executive
director and the chairman, would you have voted in favour of those
two individuals if you had had a vote? Secondly, would you speculate
as to what is coming up over the next year or so which could either
come to a vote or find the UK in conflict with potential decisions
which might be proposed to Frontex for agreement?
Mr Dowdall: In terms of the appointment of the
two people currently, I cannot say what the view of the UK was
at that time because I was not involved there. What I can say
is that they have both been, and are, very effective in their
roles and are people who, certainly, we have a tremendous amount
of respect for from the UK. In terms of the look ahead, the areas
where there will be a vote will be in the appointment of a new
chair, because a new chair will be appointed next spring, and
the vote for that will be at the next Management Board that takes
place in Lisbon in November. There is also some selection of people
to be involved in both the review and audit of accounts and also
in terms of the Frontex involvement in the review that the Commission
will be embarking on next year, so there will be votes for members
of the Board to be involved in those particular groups. The UK
will be excluded from those votes. Those are the main areas that
I see coming up over the next year.
Q146 Lord Jopling: Those only refer to individuals,
do they not?
Mr Dowdall: Yes.
Q147 Lord Jopling: What I also want to know
is with regard to management and policy decisions which must be
under discussion now, over which, as a member of the board, you
have been expressing, perhaps, a minority view or a sole view.
Could you just help us with what is in the offing which you have
been expressing a view about that could find us either in the
minority of one or a perfectly normal minority?
Mr Dowdall: The key issues for next year will
be the plan to increase the funding to Frontex, a significant
increase in funding, and the decisions then on how that funding
will be best spent. The UK view is that it should not fund simply
a major increase in operations but should be focused on increasing
the quality of the operations that are undertaken, also the quality
of the intelligence-gathering machinery and the intelligence itself
that is produced and shared with Member States. Those are key
areas next year in relation to how that money is spent.
Chairman: Lord Listowel has a supplementary
question on this.
Q148 Earl of Listowel: I think that Lord
Jopling, if I may say so, has helpfully teased out the difficulties
that are presented by the semi-detached status of the UK. Looking
at it from a pragmatic point of view, would membership of Schengen
enable the UK to make a very significantly greater contribution
to the success of Frontex; if you can speak about that?
Mr Dodd: I think it is probably for me to answer.
As you know we have actually challenged our exclusion from Frontex
before the ECJ—there is a case at the moment, which is current,
and clearly we feel that we should have the right to be full members
of Frontex. Whether membership of Schengen would improve our position
or not—and that is the moot point really—clearly we
have good operational relationships with European Member States,
we have a world influencing development of European border management
policy, and it comes back to the bigger question about Schengen,
whether the disadvantages of being members of the Schengen border
zone outweigh the advantages, and I think from our view governments
have been pretty consistent that Schengen border zone membership
would actually reduce our border security. We have the fortune,
or misfortune, to be an island and that generates very strong
advantages from the border control perspective which would be
lost were we to be a party of the Schengen border zones. I think
that would remain the case.
Q149 Lord Jopling: We were told yesterday
by the European Parliament that they are proposing an increase
in the budget, I think from 21 or 22 million euros from memory.
Do you welcome that and do you think it could be usefully embraced
in improving the work of Frontex?
Mr Dowdall: We welcome the increase. As I indicated
earlier, we would certainly welcome the increase as long as that
money is wisely spent, obviously. We understand that some of that
increase is dependent upon various measures being taken to improve
issues of accountability within Frontex and therefore there will
be reports that have to be presented by the Executive Director
to the Commission, and we clearly welcome anything that brings
with it additional accountability. The important thing is how
that money is spent and that it is spent on improving the quality
rather than the quantity within what takes place within Frontex.
The work has evolved effectively since 2005. We have engaged this
year in a number of operations and it is important now that we
properly analyse the benefits of those operations. Not only analyse
the immediate benefits of the operations but understand whether
or not those operations have had some form of displacement effect,
for example to other parts of Europe. Therefore, we would support
anything that would focus attention on improving that analytical
capability and also focus attention on developing the right relations
between Frontex and other institutions both within Europe but
also with third countries and neighbouring countries of Europe
as well. The answer is not simply having operation after operation
which certainly has an immediate impact, but the most effective
operations that we have had in place have involved some very good
cooperation with third countries.
Chairman: I think that in effect really answers
question five, does it not?
Lord Jopling: Yes, I think it probably does;
I do not think we need bother with that.
Chairman: Lord Marlesford.
Q150 Lord Marlesford: I would like, if I
may, to go on to discuss with you the linkage between e-borders
and Frontex, but first of all perhaps I could get from you some
understanding of how far you have got with e-borders?
Mr Dodd: How far have we got with e-borders?
We have an e-borders programme; we have in place a pilot, which
is called Operation Semaphore, which from memory is covering about
10% of the routes to and from the UK in terms of taking passenger
information on those routes, analysing and assessing it and then
authorising or commissioning actions from the border agency against
passengers who are suspect or are otherwise of concern. We aim
to cover 65% of movements by 2009 and 90% of movements by 2011.
At the moment we are in the final stages of negotiating a contract
with a supplier to transform Semaphore into a properly functioning
programme. So I think that is where we are with e-borders at the
moment.
Q151 Lord Marlesford: At the present time
you do have electronic scanning and reading of passports already
operational—
Mr Dodd: At the borders.
Q152 Lord Marlesford: At the borders. And
these are used fairly universally on entry?
Mr Dodd: Every control now has a scanner.
Q153 Lord Marlesford: What about on exit
from the UK?
Mr Dodd: We have not had for some time full
embarkation controls from the UK. We can introduce embarkation
controls in an emergency and we do so on an intelligence-led basis;
so where we suspect that there is illegal activity taking place
then we will put in place embarkation controls.
Q154 Lord Marlesford: But you do not plan,
even now, to introduce embarkation controls on the basis of swiping
passports electronically? You do not even plan it at the moment?
Mr Dowdall: The intention under e-borders is
that that is a key component whereby we will have that audit trail
of electronically being able to count all of those entering the
UK and all of those leaving the UK and being able to reconcile
that. So that will be done electronically. The physical kind of
control that we have had traditionally in terms of embarkation
control will be a supplementary control and will be something
that is targeted as opposed to universally in place. So passengers
leaving the UK would not ordinarily expect to have their passports
to be subject to a physical control by an immigration officer
when leaving the country, unless it was targeted, and it would
be done in a different electronic way through the e-borders work.
Q155 Chairman: Can I break in on this and
remind you that the Prime Minister's statement on 25 July appeared
to be significantly moving forward the e-borders programme; is
that right? Has the programme been accelerated as a result?
Mr Dodd: The programme is being progressed as
quickly as it can be. I am afraid I do not have the Prime Minister's
statement in front of me so it is difficult for me to comment
on what was said at the time. We are looking to take forward the
e-borders programme as quickly we can and as part of the work
on the unified border force to make it as relevant to the needs
of all the border agencies as possible.
Q156 Lord Marlesford: Can I take it a little
further? In the 12 months to April 2007 you cancelled 288,000
UK passports which had been reported lost or stolen. When you
cancel a passport it presumably means the passport can no longer
be used?
Mr Dowdall: That is correct.
Q157 Lord Marlesford: So somebody attempting
to enter the country with one of those passports and the passport
being swiped it would reveal the fact that it had been cancelled;
would it or would it not?
Mr Dowdall: It would reveal a concern to the
immigration officer—
Q158 Lord Marlesford: Immediately?
Mr Dowdall: Yes, who would conduct a further
inquiry, and would make inquiries with the passport service.
Q159 Lord Marlesford: So in other words,
somebody coming into the country at the present time and their
passport being swiped, had that passport been stolen and reported
as stolen and cancelled by you that would instantly be revealed
on the screen?
Mr Dowdall: It would not be instantly revealed
on the screen, it would register as a concern to the immigration
officer and then to get the detail behind that he or she would
then conduct a further check. But that is what officers must routinely
do at any time that they would get any kind of concern registered
on our watch list.
Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt you, but can
we bring this back to Frontex?
Lord Marlesford: Can I just follow this up?
Chairman: Quickly, please.
| 
