Examination of Witnesses (Questions 200-217)
Mr Tom Dodd and Mr Tom Dowdall
17 OCTOBER 2007
Q200 Baroness Henig: I will move on to my
next question, which is also about cooperation and in this case
to what extent does Frontex cooperate with other EU agencies,
such as Europol? What are the terms of such cooperation and whether
cooperation is envisaged with other organisations, such as NATO?
Mr Dowdall: There is not currently a formal
memorandum of understanding with Europol but Frontex and Europol
do work closely together; they share their agenda and there is
interchange of staff between Frontex and Europol also. That has
manifested itself in, for example, Operation Hydra which took
place at European airports focusing attention on illegal Chinese
migration, and Europol contributed to that work with the provision
of information and intelligence. It is fair to say that since
Frontex has started it has been working to establish cooperation
in connection with institutions within Europe and beyond. Europol
is a good example of that. My understanding is that Frontex has
held meetings with a range of other European organisations including
Eurojust, European Police Academy and European Maritime Safety
Agency, so it has worked with a range of those European agencies.
Also with European missions dealing with border assistance, for
example EU BAM, which is the work going on between the Ukraine
and Moldova. Also more widely on the international organisations,
as I referred to you in an earlier question, with UNHCR and IOM
and others. As I understand it, you are visiting Warsaw later
this week and they will be able to provide some further information
on that. I think it is important from our perspective that we
see and encourage Frontex to be engaged very actively at senior
levels with these various agencies, particularly where there is
common interest, but also in making sure that we do not have agendas
that are going in opposite directions. It is important for me
as a member of the management board that I get assurance that
the Frontex Executive Director is making those connections, and
so far they have been very active in that area.
Q201 Baroness Henig: NATO has not been mentioned.
Mr Dowdall: I am not aware of any direct discussions
that have taken place with NATO at this stage.
Chairman: Thank you very much. Lord Teverson.
Q202 Lord Teverson: First of all, can I
apologise for not having been here for the earlier part of your
submission. You have said that Frontex has working arrangements
with three countries and you have mentioned Switzerland, which
actually is going to be a member of Schengen, I think, next year,
or certainly agreed to, and Russia and Ukraine, and we heard a
little bit about the Ukraine in agreement yesterday when we were
in Brussels; and with a mandate to negotiate with a further ten
countries. I would be interested to know what those are and what
the framework for such cooperation is, particularly whether it
includes the obligations under the International and Human Rights
law, so it is that broader international area and where it moves
forward.
Mr Dowdall: The Frontex Executive Director has
been mandated by the board to develop the working agreements that
are in place, so the three that you have referred to already,
which also includes Russia and the Ukraine as well as Switzerland.
The mandates have also been agreed with ten others, and if I may
refer to my notes on the ten? Those mandates have been agreed
with Croatia, Turkey, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,
Morocco, Libya and Egypt, Mauritania, Senegal, Cape Verde and
also the CIS coordination centre, so not a country as such but
the coordination for what was the former Soviet Union. The legal
framework for those arrangements is provided through the Frontex
and the RABITs regulation, and the working agreements set out
a number of elements which we expect to include financial arrangements.
Q203 Lord Teverson: What sort of financial
arrangements for these agreements? Does money change hands?
Mr Dowdall: In terms of setting up the operations
would be any reimbursement procedures that involved any payments
that had been made. I think Frontex would be able to provide you
with some further detail on that later this week; unfortunately
I do not have that detailed knowledge for that. You mentioned
humanitarian legislation. Tom?
Mr Dodd: Again, I am not actually clear whether
that is included in the agreements or not; I think that is for
the Frontex management board to respond to.
Q204 Chairman: Can I just say at this point
that in our discussions today, when you consider the transcript
if you think that there is anything that would be helpful for
you to let us have in writing, please feel free to do so.
Mr Dodd: I think we might come back and elucidate
on the agreements.
Q205 Earl of Listowel: Just before we move
on, just a tentative question. Given its consideration and contribution
to migration flows in the Mediterranean has any thought been given
to approaching Libya in the context of this sort of agreement?
If so, might the UK have a particular role in those arrangements?
Mr Dodd: I do not cover Libya any more but I
used to cover it, and obviously there have been a number of efforts
to improve migration cooperation with Libya both bilaterally and
also through the European Union. We are working particularly with
Italy on something called the East African Migration Routes Initiative,
which is an effort to enhance migration and the capacity on that
eastern route, which does include Libya.
Q206 Chairman: Libya was one of the countries
that you mentioned.
Mr Dowdall: Yes, it was.
Earl of Listowel: I apologise, I missed that.
Q207 Lord Teverson: One final follow up
on the question. When we were talking to some of the MEPs yesterday
they were almost unaware—or one of them was—that Frontex
had its own remit for negotiation and I am interested in understanding
whether Frontex feels that its negotiating mandate is satisfactory
or strong enough or is it that it can do what it needs to do with
the mandate it has? Is it satisfied with that?
Mr Dodd: I think we will have to come back to
you on that point. I think it is worth stressing that these are
very much technical operational agreements about the common working
of border guards and those sorts of issues; they are not intended
to be high-level political agreements.
Chairman: Lord Marlesford.
Q208 Lord Marlesford: The United Kingdom
is challenging its exclusion from full participation in Frontex
before the European Court. What are your views on the Advocate
General's recently published opinion, and when do you expect the
decision of the court? Will the Reform Treaty, currently being
negotiated in Lisbon, change the interpretation of what is a Schengen-building
measure?
Mr Dodd: As you know, we are challenging our
exclusion from the Frontex regulation as a matter of principle
and as a matter of law and the Advocate General has given an opinion.
We are very glad that he has said that the UK can participate
in Schengen building measures where they are autonomous of the
underlying Schengen measure, and we are a bit disappointed that
he has found that Frontex is not such a case. Obviously we look
forward to seeing the full written report, which we expect in
the first quarter of next year. If we win the case then we will
have an opportunity to opt in both to the Frontex and the RABITs
regulations and become full members of Frontex. If we lose then
our position will remain as it is currently and involvement on
a case-by-case basis. In terms of the new Treaty, that does not
make any difference, I think, to our Schengen position and to
our relationship with Frontex.
Q209 Lord Marlesford: Have you attempted
to see that it does make a difference?
Mr Dodd: The draft Treaty makes some significant
changes to consideration of JHA matters. It does preserve our
opt in; we have the capacity to opt in to immigration and asylum
issues. We believe that we have the legal basis to be full parties
to Frontex, so I am not sure that there are any changes that can
be made in the Treaty that would make that any different.
Q210 Chairman: The last question I have
is the rather difficult question about Gibraltar. I should tell
you that we asked the Director General yesterday if he had any
comments to make on Gibraltar's exclusion or inclusion, to which
he said no. But I hope that perhaps you can be a little fuller.
Mr Dodd: My Lord, I am very happy to say that
the lead on Gibraltar belongs to the Foreign Office, as you know,
rather than the Home Office. Obviously we were not a full party
to the negotiation of the original Frontex regulation so we could
not affect the wording that is in it. Should we win our case in
the ECJ then we would seek to ensure that Gibraltar is able to
play a full part in Frontex. I understand that the Gibraltarian
government made a number of representations to you, including
on a number of matters of law, and I think we would have to look
at what they have said in more detail and then come back to you
with a rather fuller response as to how we would see handling
the issue of Gibraltar in the future.
Q211 Chairman: I understand that the government
of Gibraltar is worried that increased participation by the United
Kingdom would be at their expense and they would be excluded and
I wondered whether—and I accept that this is a Foreign Office
question rather than a Home Office question—you think those
fears are justified?
Mr Dodd: Obviously I cannot speak on behalf
of the government of Gibraltar but clearly we are trying to improve
European border security and that includes improving the security
of Gibraltar, and that is our objective.
Q212 Lord Marlesford: Is the government
of Gibraltar wholly responsible for the control of its borders
both for Spain and land borders and sea borders?
Mr Dodd: Again I am not an expert on Gibraltar
and border control. I understand that they are responsible for
their land borders but whether they are responsible for their
air borders, I am not quite sure but I am sure we could find out.
Chairman: Thank you very much.
Q213 Lord Jopling: I did not quite follow
your earlier answer. I thought you implied that if the UK won
at the European Court of Justice then that would put right the
situation of Gibraltar. I may have misheard you but if I have
you right why does it follow that Gibraltar's problems would be
removed when I think you said that the original rules of Frontex
eliminated Gibraltar.
Mr Dodd: I did not actually say that; what I
said was if we win the case we would seek to put beyond doubt
the ability of Gibraltar to participate in Frontex operations
and it would therefore participate, through us, in Frontex. There
is a lot of legal ambiguity around this issue and, as I said,
the Gibraltarian government has made some representations to you
on matters of law which we need to look at and consider, and we
can come back with a fuller view having seen what they have said.
[2]
Q214 Lord Jopling: In those circumstances
how would a decision be taken—by a straight majority or
does it need unanimity? What would be the basis of changing the
rules at this late stage?
Mr Dodd: Should we win our case then the regulation
would need to be amended to change the wording on our position
and that of Ireland as well. Therefore there will be an opportunity
to re-discuss the regulation. I assume it would then be subject
to QMV as to whether changes could be made at that point.
Q215 Chairman: If you have further points
on that, after consultation with the Foreign Office, please let
us know.
Mr Dodd: Yes.
Q216 Chairman: Can I thank you both very
much indeed for extremely helpful answers to our questions. The
two Toms have really been extremely effective in helping us find
our way towards this inquiry in this context and I thank you both
very much indeed for the time you have given us.
Mr Dodd: We of course cause confusion in our
own organisation as well by being the two Toms. I understand that
this is your last session of Chairman of this Committee.
Q217 Chairman: It is indeed.
Mr Dodd: I really wanted to thank you on my
behalf and on behalf of my colleagues for your chairmanship over
the last few years and what a great pleasure it has been to appear
before you as Chairman of this Committee.
Chairman: That is very kind of you; thank you very
much indeed.
2 (See supplementary evidence, 10 December 2007) Back
| 
