Examination of Witnesses (Questions 260-279)
General Ilkka Laitinen, Mr Jozsef Bali, Ms Mari Kalliala,
Mr Richard Ares, Mr Sakari Vuorensola and Mr Graham Leese
23 OCTOBER 2007
Q260 Chairman: General Laitinen,
you are being extremely generous with your time. Our programme
says that we finish at 4.15, are you happy to go on to 4.15?
General Laitinen: I think we had planned to
have this session finish at 4.00 so we still have some time.
Chairman: Good. On that plan could we please
frame our questions accordingly?
Lord Teverson: I have another 13 questions which
are not on this list actually but we obviously will not get on
to those! In terms of planning, perhaps you could just take us
through the practicalities of the moment that a Member State suggests,
or you suggest to a Member State, that an operation gets underway.
What happens in terms of the planning of that in a practical sense?
Q261 Chairman: Including the risk
analysis aspects.
General Laitinen: The starting point is with
the risk analysis and all the Member States, our stakeholders
or clients, receive all these risk analyses so they are aware
what ideas we have in mind for these eventual joint operations.
Also, when they look at the Work Programme they say, "There
could be this number of joint operations in the maritime area
depending on the risk analysis and so on", so they have this
idea in their mind, as we have here, as to what could be the state
of play. Then when it comes to the stage of further elaborating
these recommendations in the Joint Operation Initiative, as we
call it, we put it into formal consultations with the Member States
via designated points of contact. Each Member State in a Schengen
country has designated a point of contact for Frontex and that
is the channel through which we go. Normally it is in the form
of a fixed letter where we give a deadline, a proposal on what
would be desired from that particular country, and then respecting
this deadline we receive their response to our request. Hopefully
it is a positive response but in some cases it is a negative which
gives us the possibility to consider the appropriateness of the
operation and whether we have reasons to go to the next stage
which is finalising it in the operational plan and giving a decision
on financing that, which requires a planning meeting and briefing
with all participating countries together. This is how it goes.
We are going to launch a more systematic planning round for the
Member States which relates to the Work Programme. Acknowledging
that there are a lot of conditional and dependent issues in the
Work Programme, we would like to have annual consultations with
all the Member States to look at the fact that it could be the
case that next year we will have these kinds of operations, some
of them of a more permanent nature, and according to the Centralised
Record of Available Technical Equipment it could be our desire
that they deploy these vessels at the beginning of the year for
these operations and aircraft and helicopters this year, so we
could have more certainty and promote the readiness of the Member
States to be prepared for forthcoming requests for particular
operations.
Q262 Lord Teverson: For an operation
that is not necessarily one that you have planned in the Work
Programme a year ahead, say, but one that is more reactive, what
sort of timescale does it take, and I know it depends on the size
of the operation or whatever? Can you do this quickly or is anything
going to take three months?
General Laitinen: As a rule, and if it is the
first time ever we learn there is a reason for launching a joint
operation, if we do it very quickly then an operation can be in
place in two weeks.
Lord Teverson: Two weeks, that is very good.
Thank you.
Chairman: I do not know whether you think high
seas has been adequately dealt with?
Lord Teverson: No, we have not really got on
to that. Did you want me to do that one, my Lord Chairman?
Chairman: Please do.
Q263 Lord Teverson: In terms of the
high seas our question is one about what happens when there is
this issue of migrants in distress. I know you have talked about
it to some degree but how is that actually handled and on something
like a drug trafficking operation how does that work? I think
one of the things we have come across is that there is some tension,
particularly in the Mediterranean, between different Member States
on how you deal with that sort of difficulty.
General Laitinen: Our focus is fighting illegal
immigration, that is the main objective for this instrument that
we are using, but it does not exclude the other objectives on
drug trafficking or other types of organised crime. It is for
the Member States and the participating countries to think about
what their action would be if they came across a boat or a ship
loaded with drugs instead of human beings. I imagine they know
how to act but we have not strongly taken into account that co-ordinating
role because in that case we come across certain difficulties
that give room for different interpretations of the Regulation.
It is a fact that we acknowledge and trust that the participating
countries and the host country will give instructions on how to
handle these kinds of cases and convey that to the competent authority.
In some cases it could be the same authority. It is a kind of
dual role which is quite often the case. This brings us to the
question of the need to further promote integrated border management
when in the future we should not be in a situation where there
are some legal hindrances to a rational performance of their duties
but to a certain extent, unfortunately, this is not the case at
the moment.
Q264 Lord Jopling: This morning one
of your final presentations drew our attention to your partners,
in particular international organisations and NGOs, including
organisations like UNHCR and OSCE, and at the bottom it said,
"et cetera". Could you mention any other organisations
with which you have an active participation? I am thinking particularly
as to whether you have had, or can conceive of the possibility
of having, an involvement with NATO? I ask that because you mentioned
your participation in the Winter Olympics and a football tournament
somewhere and I recall that NATO had a major role at the Athens
Olympics. As I understand it, on the 2012 Olympics in London they
have had no discussions whatsoever with NATO. Have the London
Olympics had any discussions with you? Are you in any way involved
in that and do you envisage having any association with NATO in
the future?
General Laitinen: That is an interesting issue,
once again. We all know that in the areas where Frontex are concentrating
our operational activities there are NATO activities going on
in the same regions. When we speak about the overall concept of
security where there is not a clear dividing line between the
internal and eternal security we are more or less dealing in the
same areas. On some general occasions we have been in touch with
NATO officers in relation to informing each other as to the appropriate
level of what kinds of activities we have in an area and what
kinds of activities they have in an area, so in very general terms
we are aware of what each other is doing in this sense. I consider
the determination of having formal co-operation between NATO units
or bodies at the external borders of the EU and Frontex to be
of a political nature and I leave it for others. For the time
being, having awareness of each other's activities at a general
level is sufficient for us.
Q265 Lord Jopling: The London Olympics
2012, has there been any discussion with you on that?
General Laitinen: Not directly. I think the
common denominator would be the host country of this event, as
was the case with the Turin Olympic Games and the Football Championships.
The Member State normally establishes a task for the overall security
features where the different actors come across instead of having
horizontal connections. It could be the case that both bodies
will meet each other in this framework.
Q266 Baroness Henig: This is for
clarification, please. You gave us a slide this morning that was
entitled "Overview of Co-operation with Third Countries"
and I think as part of that you were talking about working arrangements
that were being put in place with third countries. I think I understood
you to say, and correct me if I am wrong, that you had not yet
established working arrangements with Senegal or Mauritania, is
that correct?
General Laitinen: Yes.
Q267 Baroness Henig: Yet when you
were talking about the Hera operation that did involve those countries.
If you have not got working arrangements with them, how did this
operation work?
General Laitinen: That is a very good question.
Our first priority is to have a bilateral agreement with the particular
third country and Frontex, which is the more desirable solution,
but this is not the only option for arranging a joint operation
where third countries can be involved. The other option is to
have a bilateral agreement with a third country and an EU Member
State as the basis for running these operations, which has been
the case with Senegal and Mauritania. Our activities in that area
are based on the bilateral agreements between Spain and Mauritania
and Spain and Senegal. That is the legal basis for us to have
the possibility to have operational activities co-ordinated by
Frontex in the territorial waters of these two aforementioned
countries.
Q268 Baroness Henig: It is an ad
hoc more complex relationship until you can establish that?
General Laitinen: That is right. Our priority
is to seek a more consistent and permanent solution, which means
that we would like to have a bilateral agreement. I have to stress
that we do not establish a partnership with a country or a government
but the border control authority of that third country and Frontex.
That is the priority for us, but not the only way out.
Q269 Lord Young of Norwood Green:
Is that what you meant by the "local authorities"?
General Laitinen: Excuse me?
Q270 Lord Young of Norwood Green:
In your report you said: "For the first time such an operation
was carried out in the territorial waters of Senegal and Mauritania
in close co-operation with the local authorities".
General Laitinen: Those authorities of those
third countries, that is right.
Chairman: Lord Harrison, I think you have a
sort of trinity of questions about RABITs.
Q271 Lord Harrison: I do. General
Laitinen, we move on to another delightful acronym, the RABITs—Regulation
on Rabid Border Intervention Teams. Could you say how it will
change the nature of Frontex operations? Could you tell us whether
it extends the powers of the border guard teams allowing them
to carry weapons, will they be armed, and perhaps you can give
us a scenario which would illustrate that to the Committee? We
understand that next month, in November, the first of the RABIT
operations is going to take place in Portugal. How are you getting
on preparing for that with your staff and so on? Just to make
a quadruple question: when Lord Teverson mentioned assets, would
this be an appropriate area where it might be useful to have assets
to help the work of Frontex ready, there and waiting?
General Laitinen: Thank you for this excellent
question, once again. RABITs, or the Rapid Border Intervention
Teams, are in addition to the Centralised Record of Available
Technical Equipment. It is another means related to Frontex. What
I have to say is that it is not a permanent asset of Frontex which
can be deployed on any occasion in any situation to the joint
operation but the Rapid Border Intervention Teams, the so-called
RABITs, is an emergency instrument which can only be deployed
if certain conditions are met. The basic requirement for having
the possibility to deploy these units is that the situation should
be urgent and exceptional, so this is the starting point, which
means the level of commitment of the Member State has been raised
to a higher level. If there is an emergency situation, an exceptional
situation, the Member States are more committed to providing their
experts being a part of the RABIT teams.
Q272 Lord Teverson: I am sorry to
intervene but could I just ask for a real example of what that
circumstance might be so we can practically get it in our minds
as to what might cause a RABIT intervention.
General Laitinen: Our interpretation is somehow
turning it around. If such an event has been mentioned in our
risk analysis that this kind of thing is going on, our interpretation
is we do not have the basis for considering that event to be urgent
and exceptional. That makes sense because the normal operations
that are systematically running are based on the risk analysis
which gives us reason to believe that those needs are covered
by so-called "normal" operations.
Q273 Lord Teverson: I am sorry, I
probably did not make myself clear, my apologies. I was trying
to understand what might physically happen that would cause one
of these things. Is it football hooligans invading France?
General Laitinen: I was about to come to the
point.
Q274 Lord Teverson: I am sorry, I
apologise.
General Laitinen: It is very difficult to present
a scenario. We have had a scenario for determining the numbers
but that is not a tangible example. Let us imagine the situation
in 2006 in Lebanon when a lot of people left their homes. In that
case finally it was in a somewhat controlled manner but this could
have been an event where these Rapid Border Intervention Teams
were deployed. If we think about another event a little bit further
back in history, some continuous assaults in Ceuta and Melilla,
this kind of very hard and urgent phenomenon could be a reason
to deploy this unit which just comes out of the blue. It was an
exceptional situation that we did not have any pre-warning of.
My interpretation is that the Rapid Border Intervention Teams
could have been deployed in that case.
Q275 Lord Harrison: Could you just
say about Portugal, for instance, in November?
General Laitinen: Yes, certainly. Frontex's
role is of course to maintain this emergency instrument called
Rapid Border Intervention Teams. We have compiled experts from
the Member States based on certain criteria, certain profiles
and what kind of expertise is needed. There is an organogram with
organisations for that purpose. Now we are at the stage where
we have to test that the procedure that is written both in the
so-called Rapid Border Intervention Teams Regulation and also
Frontex's Regulation, that we have understood it in the same way
and test that the system goes as planned. Another element is the
practical exercise. It has been prepared for a couple of events
before but the first time when the experts meet teach other will
take place in early November in Portugal when we will see how
these practical things, identification issues and the different
kinds of practical things which relate to the deployment on that
will be tested. Perhaps Sakari Vuorensola, our Legal Adviser,
could say an additional word because this is really his favourite
topic.
Mr Vuorensola: Thank you very much. Since you
asked how RABIT activities would change the nature of Frontex
operations, there is one very important aspect which has now changed
because of the new Regulation and that is the use of executive
powers. Until the RABIT Regulation came into force all the powers
that our guest officers in joint operations had were based on
the national law of the host Member State and the possibility
of that national law to delegate executive powers to foreigners
doing the job, which is usually reserved only to their own national
border guards: checking persons, asking for identification and
doing other border controlling tasks.
Q276 Chairman: And carrying arms.
Mr Vuorensola: And carrying arms, for example,
and using force. The RABIT Regulation makes a considerable change
here because, as you know, the Community Regulation has direct
effect; it is directly binding and supersedes national law. This
Regulation now says that RABIT team members as well as guest officers
in our normal joint operations on the basis of this Community
piece of legislation now have executive powers, all executive
powers that are necessary to fulfil the so-called Schengen borders
code, which is the codification of the actions done by the border
control activities. It also gives the right to carry a service
weapon and to use it in the case of self-defence or certain limited
other cases in the use of force, but in this last case the national
law is also involved. This is a very important development in
Community law that for the first time we have Community Regulation
saying that foreign officers have certain powers in another country.
Q277 Lord Harrison: This is such
an important point, my Lord Chairman, perhaps I could just come
back on it briefly. This is something that would excite the eurosceptic
press enormously back in the United Kingdom, the idea of foreigners
toting guns and so on and so forth. Has it been an anxiety expressed
by other countries? Is it something that you are dealing with?
General Laitinen: Bear in mind it was only in
July when this particular Regulation and amendment came into force
and there have not been too many operations so far where we have
applied these European executive power rules. So far we have received
no negative feedback on these issues. From the co-ordinator's
point of view it is a very good thing that we can train and practise
with our staff and experts in a very similar way instead of learning
27 different national rules of what is possible in one country
and what is strictly forbidden, what you must do and must not
do and things like that. This amendment was very warmly welcomed
by us as co-ordinator.
Q278 Lord Jopling: How many people
are going to be involved in the Portuguese exercise? How long
will it last? Will it just be a desk operation or will you deploy
them on a scenario which you have manufactured in order to have
the exercise?
General Laitinen: I would prefer to give a written
contribution.
Lord Jopling: I would be very grateful if you
would.
Q279 Chairman: General Laitinen,
we are fast approaching four o'clock. Can I ask you the last question
which is of considerable importance to us, and that is the British
position, the rather anomalous British position if I can put it
that way? What disadvantages for you come from this rather special
position of Britain's relationship with Frontex, leaving aside
the fact that we do not have voting rights? Does it create problems
for you and, if so, what sort of problems? As a supplementary
to that, could I just mention the word Gibraltar.
General Laitinen: I am not going to start with
Gibraltar. I would prefer to start with the issues. To be honest,
there are two types of challenges with the specific role of the
United Kingdom vis-a"-vis Frontex. They are both operational
and financial. We do not have certainty on the UK contribution
for the forthcoming years as to what will be their financial contribution.
There are no clear rules upon which these financial contributions
can be based. There is agreement on that but no clear rules, so
there is a question mark. There are a lot of legal issues in different
stages of planning and implementing joint operations where we
have to use a tailor made instrument for having a way out. Involvement
of the Management Board for the particular operations is certainly
somewhat different with the overall level of decisions of the
Management Board. It has to take a decision on a case-by-case
basis on a particular country's participation in a particular
operation. This requires not only an additional administrative
burden for the agency but also for the Member States who have
to respond to these issues. We have to apply a lot of these exceptions
and keep them in mind. We come across these kinds of issues with
the particular and specific role of the United Kingdom vis-a"-vis
Schengen and Frontex too. I do not have any particular points
to say about Gibraltar.
Chairman: I quite understand.
Lord Young of Norwood Green: Very wise.
Lord Teverson: My Lord Chairman, if I can just
make a request. I think there is a number of other issues that
have come up from this morning and I just wondered whether it
might be possible that if there were other questions of a sensible
length we could write to Frontex and ask for written replies.
Chairman: Certainly, through the Chairman.
Lord Teverson: Indeed, absolutely.
Chairman: Related to that, there are one or
two points which you very kindly said you would follow up in writing.
We will send you a full record of this session and, when looking
at that, you are free to suggest amendments or corrections, but
most particularly could you have a look at it and consider whether
there is anything supplementary which would be useful for us to
have in writing. May I thank you very warmly for your reception
today. You have been extremely helpful, and it was also a very
nice lunch. I thank you and your colleagues very much for the
time you have spared for us and for the very helpful evidence
you have given us which will, I hope, in due course, sadly not
under my chairmanship—sadly for me—but under my successor
chairman, be extremely valuable for the report which I hope will
emerge sometime in the spring when the sun is shining. Thank you
very much indeed.
| 
