Examination of Witnesses (Questions 180-199)
Mr Tom Dodd and Mr Tom Dowdall
17 OCTOBER 2007
Q180 Baroness Tonge: Could one of you put
in a nutshell what you think Frontex's role should be in controlling
borders, and should it, for instance, include things like rescue
at sea?
Mr Dodd: The explicit role of Frontex at the
moment is to coordinate activity at the external border to improve
border management and border security and to work with third countries.
It does not have an explicit operational role in terms of actually
protecting the border itself. It would be our view the fact that
that is correct, it is the duty of individual Member States to
protect their own border.
Q181 Baroness Tonge: After all that has
been said—and you have said a lot already, both of you—you
think that it is a useful role, and do you think Britain ought
to be part of it?
Mr Dodd: Of Frontex?
Q182 Baroness Tonge: Yes.
Mr Dodd: Clearly we are at the moment challenging
our exclusion from Frontex before the European Court of Justice
and so we feel we have a right to be part of Frontex. We do see
it playing a valuable role. It is worth saying that Frontex is
a new organisation, it has a small number of staff, and I think
that often a lot of commentators and certainly some Member States
load a lot of expectation on what Frontex can actually do. Frontex
is doing things, it can do more in the future, but it is in a
sense a bit of a toddler and we should not have too many expectations
of what it can do.
Q183 Baroness Tonge: Extending to things
like rescue at sea?
Mr Dodd: As I said, because Frontex does not
have an operational responsibility it does not have a specific
SAR remit at the moment. It is quite clear that Frontex operations
inevitably do get involved in search and rescue because there
is a humanitarian duty at least to deal with people who are found
at sea. This is an area which is being studied; there is a Commission-
led working group which is working at guidelines around Frontex
operations, to which we are a party, and I am sure as we go into
the Commission review of Frontex this will also feature as an
important issue which will be discussed.
Baroness Tonge: My Lord Chairman, can we raise the
problem of Malta that we heard about yesterday, or is it covered
in the other questions?
Chairman: By all means ask it.
Q184 Baroness Tonge: It would be good to
know our country's view on this. The Maltese MEP that we met yesterday
said that they had a great problem because they are just in the
right place for having a lot of people coming into Malta and if
they are rescued at sea they tend to dump them in Malta, or that
was the impression he gave. We were told that there was a great
deal of trouble in Member States of Frontex not supplying the
facilities that they had pledged to Frontex because there was
this issue of who took the people once they had been apprehended
or rescued. I wondered if we have a view on that? It is clearly
a big problem for Frontex because they are not getting the resources
because nobody can deal with this basic problem of how they deal
with the people.
Mr Dodd: If I may say, I am not sure that is
our view. Certainly from what we have seen we have not seen Frontex
facing difficulties in getting the equipment that it actually
wants to use for its operations.
Q185 Baroness Tonge: That is what we were
told.
Mr Dodd: I think there were one or two occasions
when the timings changed and the participants had to withdraw
their equipment earlier because they had to use it for domestic
purposes. As you say, certainly there may be some reluctance on
behalf of States to volunteer equipment because of concerns over
search and rescue, but I do not think that Frontex, in our view,
has had problems in obtaining equipment or the necessary equipment
for those operations.
Baroness Tonge: Is it possible to follow that
up because we were told quite clearly that this was a very big
problem?
Q186 Chairman: You will of course in due
course be able to see the evidence that we were given yesterday.
Baroness Tonge is quite right. It was the Maltese MEP in particular
who certainly gave us the impression that pledges had not been
fulfilled and that there were serious delays in providing the
equipment and assistance requested.
Mr Dowdall: Could I say here that it is not
something certainly I have been aware that has been raised at
the management board.
Chairman: Thank you very much. Lord Listowel.
Q187 Earl of Listowel: Following that with
a brief supplementary, which is does this case not perhaps illustrate
the danger of raising expectations, of which you have just spoken,
that already there is disappointment about one nation in the Mediterranean
and the performance of Frontex, and we need to see what the background
behind that is. Is enough being done to actively downplay expectations?
One further reflection is, if the UK was a full member of Frontex
it might be playing a part now and it might be able to play a
more effective part in downplaying expectations in what Frontex
can achieve, and indeed being more effective in highlighting the
quality of input rather than the quantity of input. Perhaps the
question to answer is, could more be done now to downplay expectations?
Mr Dodd: We are not in the business of downplaying
expectations and we use our position in Frontex to argue for an
organic and sustainable development of Frontex. As I have said,
it is the toddler analogy—we move to the next stage, we
want it to do more but have to do it in a gradual way. I think
that is our view and I think a view shared by a number of Frontex
Member States and we work collectively with others of like mind
to put forward that view within the organisation.
Baroness Tonge: Just on that because Lord Jopling
has just reminded me that we were given the specific example that
on one operation the Italians had pledged 32 ships, I think it
was, and they did not turn up for that particular operation and
the Maltese had to take over and subsequently had to take the
people into Malta. I am surprised if that has not actually been
raised at the board; it seems extraordinary.
Q188 Chairman: I have already pointed out
that you will have a chance to see the evidence given yesterday.
It would be very helpful if you could make a note of this point
and write to us when you have seen what the MEPs said to us. Would
you be happy to do that?
Mr Dowdall: Yes, I shall do that.
Chairman: That would be very helpful. Lord Listowel.
Q189 Earl of Listowel: May I ask you about
the RABITs, please? What is the added value of the RABITs Regulation
to the work of Frontex? What is the UK's position in relation
to participation in RABITs' operations?
Mr Dodd: We welcome the RABITs Regulation and
the creation of RABITs; I think we see this as strengthening the
capacity of Frontex. As you know, hitherto border guards working
within Frontex have had to only work as observers whereas now
they are allowed to exercise executive powers. In terms of our
role, obviously the Regulation does not bind or apply to us and
we are currently in discussion with Frontex to see how we might
participate in an observer role in RABITs as they develop.
Q190 Baroness Tonge: We understand that
Frontex is planning to carry out the first RABITs operation in
Portugal probably going on at the moment, and I wondered if the
UK knew about this exercise and whether there has been enough
time really to train people for a RABITs operation in such a short
time since the setting up of Frontex? Can I add, as an addition
to that, my particular obsession is that there is a regulation
that RABITs can be armed RABITs if required on particular operations,
and I wondered if we had a view on that, as to whether they should
be armed?
Mr Dowdall: We are aware of the planned RABITs
operation, which is due to take place in early November. Principally
this particular operation is part of that learning and development
of the creation of RABITs and so in scale it is relatively modest.
It is seeking to identify what the administrative barriers and
hurdles are that have to be crossed in terms of bringing together
a pool of officers in another country, and so therefore the key
benefits are around identifying what those hurdles are and seeking
ways to overcome from, and very much the operational benefits
on this occasion will be taking second place. The UK is involved
with others in delivering quite a comprehensive training programme
not only to the RABITs officers but also much more widely to all
of those involved in Frontex operations, and that is everything
from the development of forgery skills, the development of leadership
skills that need to be deployed in this particular kind of activity
and also in ensuring that those officers operating are completely
familiar with the Schengen codes also. So that has to be an important
element of this. So if we were to say is this going to be an operation
that is up and running and delivering immediate operational benefits,
I would say that that is setting the standard too high at this
stage. It has to be part of, if you like, taking the practices
and the theory into properly identifying and learning and making
mistakes, I guess in order to be able to put in place a much more
effective operation for the future. So I think the timescales,
therefore, with those aims in mind, are realistic.
Q191 Baroness Tonge: And arms?
Mr Dodd: On the issue of arms the RABITs Regulation
does set down some very strict rules on the use of arms. Arms
can only be borne if that is consistent with the law of the host
State. The host State has to give explicit permission for the
use of arms. There are rules about how those weapons can be used;
they can only be used if the guards from the host State are actually
present. The rules are very strict of course. For our organisation,
our officers do not carry arms so they would not be in the position
of using them in that context.
Chairman: Lord Jopling.
Q192 Lord Jopling: Continuing this theme
of future activities, the National Coordinator Ports Policing
has suggested to us that Frontex might think in the future of
covering coordination of counter-terrorism and serious crime.
What do you think of that? Do you think that is a serious possibility
or not?
Mr Dodd: As I said before, Frontex is quite
a new organisation; its focus is on immigration and border management.
It is a developing organisation and its remit could expand in
the future. I am sure that this issue will be raised as part of
the Commission Review. I think an explicit CT role will be a considerable
extension of its current capacity and ability. In terms of serious
crime there are already increasing operational links with Europol,
for example, in terms of analysis and I think there was a joint
operation at one point. So in terms of going forward I think we
would probably advocate strengthening links with Europol as a
first step and clearly a CT remit might be considered in the future,
but it would be something that would be taking Frontex much further
than its current capacity to deliver the mandate.
Q193 Lord Jopling: Do you think that Frontex
will be likely to be more secure in being able to hold within
it very sensitive information than some of the other bodies we
have around? Interpol is not the most secure organisation in the
world. The government has been telling me recently that they are
passionately opposed to the European Union's proposal to put together
a list of critical infrastructure in each of the countries of
the Union because this will be a gift for terrorism, to have a
list of the key points to strike. Going to NATO, for instance,
it is common knowledge that both Britain and the United States
are very wary of putting sensitive intelligence into NATO and
are very selective what they feed into NATO because it too leaks
like a sieve. Have you any optimism that Frontex would not also
leak like a sieve if they were given the sort of information about
counter-terrorism and serious crime?
Mr Dodd: It depends on the nature of that information.
Clearly highly classified material requires very strenuous handling
arrangements and I can say that those are not in place in Frontex.
Obviously there are ways of making CT information usable by the
frontline; we ourselves have a system for transmitting information
to our frontline to deal with suspects of concern and so on and
so forth. So there are ways of making it work and reducing things
for classification where they can be distributed. Going back to
my earlier remarks, I think that imagining Frontex to be some
sort of security service for Europe for the future at the border
would be taking it a bit too far for the time being.
Chairman: I think the next question on the hymn
sheet has been adequately dealt with, so Baroness Henig.
Q194 Baroness Henig: In September the council
adopted conclusions on the EU's Southern Maritime Borders which
encourage Member States, the Commission and Frontex to further
develop in cooperation with international organisations such as
IOM and UNHCR, the integrated approach to border control and surveillance
operations, and I wondered what that involved in practice and
what role was envisaged for the IOM and UNHCR.
Mr Dowdall: The UK welcomed the conclusions
that were reached and there are four tiers involved in the integrated
border management and it is a reflection really not just simply
of what control authorities can do but the fact that it has to
work with others in order to be able to effect an effective border
control. So the integrated border focus is on measures in third
countries and cooperation with those countries as well as ensuring
within the area of free movement that there are controls that
are in place, and that there is effective cooperation between
Member States and between the institutions in Europe as well,
and that there is also seen to be coordination and coherence in
the decisions that Member States take with the institutions. That
is all to be welcomed. We recognise that in order to effect returns,
for example that capacity has to be built in those host countries
and the way often to be able to build those is through organisations
such as the IOM, who have the confidence of the host countries
and are trusted by those third countries. Therefore, in practice
that means that certainly we are keen to work with institutions
such as the IOM in that kind of activity. We also have an UNHCR
representative in Warsaw, who is the UNHCR Frontex representative
and they are involved and are aware of operations and able to
add a dimension in terms of international protection of human
rights as well. So it is important that there is that recognition
there; it is important that there is recognition in terms of that
capacity building, and certainly our own evidence, for example
last year in Operation Hera I and indeed this year in Operation
Hera II—that was in relation to illegal migration to the
Canary Islands—that was a successful operation. It reduced
illegal migration into the Canaries, comparing 2006-07 by about
55%. But it worked principally because of the measures and the
relationships that were built with those countries on the coast
of Africa.
Q195 Chairman: Does the British Embassy
in Warsaw have a watching brief over Frontex? When you are not
there, for instance, do they have a reporting responsibility or
a liaison responsibility?
Mr Dowdall: In terms of the management board
it can only be me or my deputy who can sit on the management board;
we are the only people that are designated. The Foreign Office
will naturally have an interest in terms of the fact that Frontex
is based in Warsaw. But most of the direct relations take place
between Frontex and our point of contact that we have within the
board of immigration agency headquarters in the UK.
Q196 Baroness Henig: I have a supplementary.
I just want some comment from you, is everybody working to the
same interpretation of international maritime law or are there
different perceptions of the international legal obligations?
Mr Dodd: We certainly have our view of our international
legal obligations but I am not sure that I can speak for other
Member States.
Q197 Baroness Henig: In Frontex as against
the United Nations, for instance.
Mr Dodd: In terms of what, I am sorry?
Q198 Baroness Henig: Everybody is interpreting
international maritime law in the same way, are they? So there
is no obvious problem there. This whole issue of international
maritime law I understand is something that the European Commission
is looking at.
Mr Dodd: There has been a European Commission
report, I think, on the law of the sea and how it applies. I could
give you more information on that[1].
Q199 Baroness Henig: I just wanted assurance
that there was consistency in the way that that would be interpreted.
Mr Dodd: I have never come across a law which
has been interpreted consistently, I have to say.
1 (See further supplementary evidence, page 51) Back
| 
