Examination of Witnesses (Questions 400-401)
Major Andrew Mallia
28 NOVEMBER 2007
Q400 Lord Teverson: Indeed. Thank
you, my Lord Chairman. What is the experience of Malta in receiving
the resources it needs to mount operations through pledges from
Frontex? I know we have dealt with this to a degree and you sounded
a little bit more satisfied with the way things are going. Forgive
me for having left the room briefly but I was trying to postpone
my next meeting so that I could hear your full evidence, which
I am very keen to do. It is clear that you believe this is a young
organisation that is developing—and you have gone through
some of the areas that you think it should develop to—but
do you believe that, despite those issues, it has added value
generally to what you are trying to do so far, given its youth?
Particularly, this is coming back this area of the resources it
needs to mount operations through pledges.
Major Mallia: When it comes to resources, obviously
Frontex has to balance the demands of various Member States. The
joint operation which is happening around Malta is not the sole
joint operation that is happening at sea. We are well aware that
operations are happening around the Canaries; the West Mediterranean;
the East Mediterranean, where we have participated. Last week
I was in Lisbon and it was stated very clearly by the Director
of Frontex, Ilkka Laitinen, that they are trying to rationalise
the number of joint operations which are happening. They are seeing
that there are many proposals for joint operations but now they
are going to have to accept the fact that the resources will always
be limited and that they are going to have to prioritise operations
in regard to the limited funding available. They are going to
do that by risk analysis. That is one step forward. It is clear
to us that we cannot expect to be the sole joint operation, or
the most important possibly; however, we feel comfortable that
with an assessment done on risk analysis we will be receiving
adequate funding. Obviously some operations will lose funding,
some will possibly lose funding completely and will not occur,
and others will gain funding. The manner in which that funding
is given, as I have said, is reasonably simple when you compare
it to other EU financial instruments. It is a very simple system
of funding: it is directly to the operators rather than going
through some chain of administrators and it is reasonably prompt.
As far as can be expected when you are talking about the sums
involved and the bureaucracy which goes with it, we are happy
about the promptness. When it comes to the value added by Frontex,
if we were to assume for a moment that Frontex did not exist we
would still be conducting operations. That is clear. This is not
something which is happening because Frontex is in existence.
However, where Frontex has helped, at least in the Maltese experience—and
I cannot speak for any other Member State—is that, because
of our limited size, because of our limited financial resources,
Frontex is doing things for us to which previously we could not
have dedicated all the resources we would have liked. An example
would be risk assessment. We are a military organisation. We do
have an intelligence organisation within the military organisation,
but they are not solely involved in migration. We cannot dedicate
that amount of resources, both human and financial, and time to
assessing that particular problem. Frontex is doing that for us
as a third party—as a subcontractor, if you would like to
put it that way. If I might turn to joint operations: joint operations
happened before Frontex, mostly on a bilateral basis, but happening
on a multinational basis did not exist before Frontex. I think
Frontex has been the vehicle for that. We have yet to see the
real rewards of conducting business in this manner. I cannot tell
you now whether we have found joint operations to be a very, very
good thing or a very, very bad thing. They have definitely had
some positive effect but to give you a real assessment would have
to be a couple of years down the road—they are still too
new—but they would not have happened without Frontex, I
firmly believe. The final area is that Frontex has got more people
talking to each other and, strangely enough, both within Member
States and between Member States. To give you the example of Italy,
the organisations in Italy did not have particularly good co-operation
before Frontex. Their co-operation has improved. I have heard
it said by Italians themselves, because they are sitting at the
same meetings and having to co-operate. This has happened in Malta:
our co-operation with the police has improved because of Frontex,
because now we are involved in joint conferences, we are involved
in joint projects, we are involved in working groups together.
This has improved both inter-force liaison within the Member States
and, most definitely, the liaison between the Member States. We
are talking on a much more regular basis. Sometimes it is just
talking shop, just talking general trends, but sometimes it is
talking very, very important issues which normally would not have
been handled. As a clearing house, in a way, Frontex is adding
value. It now remains to be seen in which direction Frontex decides
to go. I personally—and this is something which we have
also submitted in our written evidence—do not think Frontex
should go down the operational path. Frontex should not be an
operational organisation, it should be an organisation which co-ordinates,
which brings people together, which looks after relations with
third countries. That, I think, is where its strengths should
lie.
Q401 Lord Teverson: That is very
interesting. Thank you very much. Finally, could we turn to "RABITs"—the
terrible term for the Rapid Border Intervention Teams. Have Maltese
border guards participated in RABIT operations? What is the future
for that? Do you see RABITs as a positive, added value? Perhaps
I can ask you at the same time the other question which you will
have seen which is about the carrying of weapons. In which scenarios
would you envisage weapons would be needed to be used in the exercise
of border operations? You have said you carry weapons but how
they are used or the context is very different between civilian
and military. Do you think the safeguards are adequate?
Major Mallia: Let me start by speaking about
RABITs in general. Regarding RABIT deployments: as far as I am
aware, none have as yet happened—and I received an update
on RABITs again last week in Portugal. What has occurred is a
test deployment to Portugal of a RABIT team, which, as far as
I am aware, was approximately 20 people and was an air borders
team. That was just a test exercise, a test deployment. RABITs
would probably have their major applications on land and air borders,
but I say that because, when you look at the pledges of Member
States to RABITs, how many experts they will be giving, you do
not see the ships which come with them. They are not equipped
to operate in the maritime environment. Operating on the maritime/land
interface, yes—possibly interviewing people who have been
brought in, et cetera—but I see their main role on land
and air borders. They will be useful as a rapid reaction force
in cases of real emergencies. The example which was given at the
conference last weekend is an actual example: when you have a
sudden influx, for instance, of South American citizens towards
Spain, trying to pass through the airports, but that is a very
particular scenario and the RABITs are a very particular tool.
They can only be deployed for very short periods—28 to 30
days, if I am correct—and, again, they are literally the
warm bodies. They are not the equipment, really. They are the
people. It cannot be an equipment-intensive task which they are
going to do, unless they are operating the equipment of the host
nation. It remains to be seen how often Member States will ask
for a RABIT deployment—because I am sure you are aware it
is something which has to be asked for by a particular Member
State. Also, on effectiveness when they deploy: there were a number
of minor issues in this test deployment, one of which was associated
with weapons—and I will speak about that in the answer to
the second part of your question. I do think, however, that they
are a useful concept, in that you may need to get a number of
experts to a place in a hurry to advise on a particular issue
or a particular situation. As an operational force patrolling
the borders I see less of a value for it, but it remains to be
seen. They are a very, very new institution and I think the proof
of the pudding will be in the eating. Regarding weapons: one of
the contentious issues in the RABIT regulation was this issue
of carrying of weapons in a third country by border guards from
another Member State. There were a number of restrictions placed
upon this. The first of those was that only if the Member State
border guards are carrying weapons should the RABIT team carry
weapons and they should be of a similar level as those for the
host nation. So it is not to be expected that the host nation
will be carrying side arms while RABITs roll up in a tank, obviously.
The other issue which, unfortunately, was not so clear in the
RABIT regulation, if I am correct, was the issue of what we would
term a status of forces agreement. There has to be a very clear
legal chain and a clear jurisdiction to which these deployed forces
are subject, because, if something happens, as it inevitably one
day will, we will have to see the liability of that deployed border
guard. Is he liable to the host state? Is he liable in his Member
State? He definitely cannot be liable in both. That would lead
to a number of problems. There does need to be a certain clarity
in the status of the individuals deployed. Weapons do have a role
in border control, unfortunately. It is an unfortunate fact but
it is a fact. Speaking from personal experience, we regularly
conduct rescues of in excess of 100 migrants, by a boat which
has a crew of 20 people. So you immediately have a law and order
issue: you have 100 people on one side and 20 on the other and
you have to keep a very strict control of matters. It is a fact
that we have often found these people carry weapons: knives, shanks
(a sharp object with a wooden handle) and various other bits and
pieces. So far, there have been no firearms, I am glad to say.
The weapons have two roles in such a scenario. The first is, literally,
the visual impact of the fact that the people are carrying weapons.
It immediately acts as a deterrent: if somebody is going to do
something silly, he will certainly think about it twice. The second
reason we carry weapons—and it comes from our rules of engagement—is
for self-protection, protection of third parties (that is, when
there is an act happening), or, if it is the last resort, to prevent
that act even happening, so as a deterrent. These are issues which
are rarely talked about but unfortunately do exist. There is a
security threat on board a small boat when you have rescued 100
people. You have to keep the situation well under control. There
are enough hazards on board as it is. There are the medical hazards
involved in picking up these people, who carry a number of diseases
which are no longer present here in Europe—and this has
also been another issue which we have had to address. So weapons
are unfortunately a necessity when conducting such operations.
There is one area where I think this could be improved upon. I
am sure you are all aware of the common core curriculum, which
is another Frontex project to try to give a basic level of training
for border guards. I think it would be very reassuring for all
Member States if the common core curriculum contained weapon safety
training and rules of engagement, because then I am assured that
the RABIT being sent to my country has a basic knowledge of which
I know exactly what the points are: I know how he is using his
weapon; how he will be handling his weapon; what his safety procedures
are. That would be much more reassuring. It is a simple tool of
training but it would be a common training for all EU border guards.
Chairman: Are there any other questions.
Baroness Henig: I would just like to say that
was excellent clarification of all the issues.
Chairman: Major Mallia, I would like to thank
you for what I think has been an outstanding presentation. You
have been clear, you have been helpful and you have been most
interesting. I would like to say that I think many ministers I
have known over many years in this House, at both ends of it,
could well have taken advantage of sitting and listening to the
way you have answered our questions. I can only think you will
not be a Major for much longer and I congratulate you very warmly
on the way you have answered our questions. Thank you very much.
|
