18
Examination of witnesses
Robert Jones, Deputy Chief Constable Peter Ayling and Joanne Jakymec.
Q77 The Chair: Welcome to another evidence session in our Lords European Affairs Committee inquiry into the UK-EU reset. Today we are concentrating very much on the law enforcement and judicial aspects of co-operation set out in the trade and co-operation agreement, how they are operating, where we are and what we think would make sense in terms of further changes in the reset process.
I am delighted to have three extremely expert witnesses to help us through that. I have Joanne Jakymec from the Crown Prosecution Service, Robert Jones from the National Crime Agency and Deputy Chief Constable Peter Ayling from the National Police Chiefs’ Council where he is the EU matters lead. Mr Jones and Deputy Chief Constable, you have both been to this committee before and I think the previous committee as well. Thank you so much for the time for that.
Let me ask each of you a broad question to kick off: what is your assessment of how the arrangements in Part III of the trade and co-operation agreement are operating in practice after a number of years of seeing how they operate on the ground? Who would like to kick off? Deputy Chief Constable, would you like to give us a first sense of how you think they are operating?
Deputy Chief Constable Peter Ayling: Yes, I am very happy to. It is fair to say, and I have said at this committee before, the agreement in the TCA was very welcome and enabled us to retain the use of tools that have continued to bring the fight to those who would cause harm on our shores. We said from the outset there are aspects of it that would be challenging and become more cumbersome. That is the case. I think the mitigation is working and you can see high levels of activity that have been maintained across policing and I will contain my answers to the police forces of territorial policing.
One of the ongoing challenges for me is just to recognise that, for the 43 forces in England and Wales, there is perhaps an additional challenge with an inexperienced workforce to achieve training and policy alignment, and anything short of automation and systemised use of tools that requires some level of manual inputting continues that ongoing training burden. My assessment would be it is working well. You would not be surprised for me to say that a look towards the future would see us re-establish alert sharing automation and being able to systemise the current arrangements that we have in place.
The Chair: Very good. Thank you. An excellent start. We will pick up on the detail of that as we go. Maybe Mr Jones.
Robert Jones: I will just add a little bit to what Mr Ayling has said. The system is working, but it is process heavy and I think last time I appeared I described it as clunky and it remains so. There is limited opportunity to automate and, as Pete describes, get a slick, automated system. What that will do in the future, if we do not manage to update those processes, is inhibit our ability to use technology to make things faster and more efficient for our workforce. I bank that point: while it works, we have to do a lot of manual process to make it work.
In terms of the level of co-operation in relation to law enforcement and alerts, we welcome anything that we can do to increase our ability to have real-time alerts. Since we last spoke, we have expanded our presence in Europol and we have been able to put more officers into the platform there. That allows more intelligence sharing and, in terms of some of the UK priorities, particularly organised immigration crime, it allows us to work very closely with participants in Europol and consider how we can assist with intelligence that would be relevant to the external frontier as well as the UK border. That shared endeavour to have a layered approach to preventing illegal migration to the UK is really important to us, as it is with drug trafficking and counterterrorism. The relationship is good; it is strong. Europol wants us there, and European parties want bilateral relationships. The mitigations under the TCA are working. We have not gone backwards at all since we have spoken; we have gone forwards, but we crave that automation and systemisation that Pete alludes to.
The Chair: Very good. Thank you very much. I am so sorry, I have not done my proper homework on how best to pronounce your surname.
Joanne Jakymec: It is Jakymec, pretty much as it is spelled. Not too complex.
The Chair: Thank you so much, Ms Jakymec. Please pick up on that and then we will go through them in detail.
Joanne Jakymec: From a CPS perspective, obviously our primary aim is to work with our international partners to secure evidence or assets or the return of individuals to support our domestic casework. Inevitably, crime is becoming far more global, as we know, and I would agree with my colleagues that the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement is an effective framework. It does provide us the ability to co-operate with EU member states, but more I think can be done to enhance our judicial co-operation abilities and to streamline and enhance that. Anything that we can do to strengthen our relationship with the EU and EU member states, to improve efficiency and give us that greater clarity, would be very much welcomed.
I think it is right as well to point out that we would welcome a holistic approach in relation to the reset so that we also look internally at our domestic approach to the legislation and our processes and policies to ensure that we are maximising the tools under our judicial co-operation frameworks. The more we can do to streamline our processes or minimise delays, the better. We have worked collectively across law enforcement and the Crown Prosecution Service to fully utilise those tools and get the maximum effect from them. That has required additional resource and workarounds. That said, we still have an excellent level of co-operation. For example, of our requests for judicial co-operation in the Crown Prosecution Service, 70% of our co-operation comes from EU member states, so we do have excellent co-operation.
We very much welcome the review to see where we can streamline further and maximise our co-operation from our investigation perspective and for the ultimate prosecutions.
Q78 Lord Stirrup: I would like to dig a bit deeper into this whole issue of what could be improved. I am not an expert, but I assume that criminals are not very process driven. I am particularly interested in what improvements could be made to improve agility and flexibility of both criminal investigation and law enforcement more generally. Clearly, from what you have said, automation is an important issue, and I assume that the overarching answer to the question would be to put everything back as it was. Since that is unlikely to happen, could you help us identify specific areas of improvement? Assuming that wholesale automation does not happen, what specific things could be done to make the system more flexible? Can you point to some specific actions the Government could pursue that would help you in that regard?
Robert Jones: I shall give some thoughts in relation to that initially and then others can please come in. The flexibility in terms of judicial co-operation for us to be able to move very quickly with CPS and European colleagues to get an investigation instigated with European colleagues is more complex than it was—so anything we can do to simplify that. To bring that to life, if we need evidence or coercive powers to obtain evidence in a member state, make that as simple for us as possible.
Lord Stirrup: How would you do that? Is it a matter of rewriting procedure, or is it some sort of specific sharing agreement that is required?
Robert Jones: There was a simplified version of what we do now. I am not suggesting that we just reinstigate what we had, but I think it is an area that we could focus on. Knowing what we know now, several years hence, we should take a look at that and make it as agile and as quick as possible. Our opposition has no rules, so our ability to act within a rules-based framework quickly we would welcome. That is around judicial co-operation and obtaining evidence.
In terms of exchanging intelligence and our ability to do that, we do that very well and effectively with Europol and bilaterally, but to be able to exchange bigger datasets, to be able to identify leads and organised criminal networks, for all the threats we deal with, would be again very useful. We must have bespoke bilateral arrangements for spontaneous dissemination of intelligence. That works bilaterally, and we also work with Interpol and Europol to exchange bigger data, but the more of that we can do, the better, because that will then allow us to identify the networks that make the biggest difference in terms of harm in the UK.
Then there are specific things around the way we work in Europe and our ability. We can still lead and be involved in joint investigation teams. That is very powerful, but we need a like-minded partner to instigate that with us to move that forward. Our ability to lead operational taskforces—so, without using acronyms, operational taskforces in Europol—is really important to us. We cannot lead them. We can participate in them and we do very actively, and joint days of action across Europe are important to us as well. We participate in all those areas right now, but we cannot lead, so if we have an interest that we want to pursue, we are looking to broker that support with like-minded individuals in whatever member state we can run with.
There are probably three areas there of focus that would help in terms of agility.
Deputy Chief Constable Peter Ayling: Perhaps I will focus my efforts on the alert sharing and, as you have said, the reality of whether we are likely to be able to re-establish those lost capabilities. I have spoken at this committee before about the development of the International Law Enforcement Alerts Platform, I-LEAP, which has had good progress in phase 1: 47 of 48 law enforcement organisations are now live on I-LEAP and 32 million searches have been carried out and that number increases. That has made a rather clunky system—where we had to rely on Interpol notices, the ability to recognise international threats, raise the notice here, rely on EU member states to do the same and then to check the system for the presence of such alerts—and shortened the distance for it to be made available to people who would carry out law enforcement on the ground.
In terms of strengthening that, there are a number of things in my view that can be done. The availability of that data across borders and across UK law enforcement, so that we can use borders as a pinch point so there is a shared understanding and response to those threats. The next phase, which will be an important phase, will be to connect I-LEAP or to incorporate it into a group of federated searches for the replacement of the Police National Computer, which will be LEDS. It is really important that we do not have a separate independent database that relies on it being searched and it can just provide information from the core policing system that will be used for intelligence and normal, everyday policing activity.
The real prize—and it will not be a surprise for me to say it—is the signing of a multilateral agreement with EU member states that would enable alert sharing via the I-LEAP platform. That would be distinct from SIS II. There would be differences. It would still not restore the capability in full, but it is part of a natural progression that would see us move much more from a slow, clunky system with the ability of things to fall through the cracks, to something that is systemised and moves towards automation. That I think would be transformational in the area of territorial policing for us to be able to spot and respond to risk as it pertains to either UK nationals going abroad or EU nationals or people who have offended in the EU coming to the UK.
Joanne Jakymec: I would say, for example, in relation to asset recovery provisions, which do continue to work very effectively under the trade and co-operation agreement, the process is more resource intensive because we have lost mutual recognition of judgments. That means we are now required to obtain a domestic order. As I say, there is no impact in terms of our ability; however, it adds to processing times. Lawyers must prepare a witness statement and include more information, and we have had to increase our resources to support that. Similarly, we have transmission now via the United Kingdom central authority rather than direct transmission and, inevitably, that adds in further delay.
With reference to the forms that we use for mutual legal assistance and extradition, again the forms broadly mirror the earlier forms and are extended versions—for example, in relation to mutual legal assistance for the European investigation order, which was in place before. However, they are quite lengthy and more time consuming to complete and we would potentially have an opportunity to streamline those. Again, there is no adverse impact upon our domestic co-operation with international partners, and we are very fortunate because we are supported by our network of liaison prosecutors in country who can assist and ensure that we get assistance in urgent cases at pace and, similarly, by our law enforcement officers based overseas. We have worked together.
The final point that I would reference as something practical is that we are aware—and, again, law enforcement colleagues will be able to assist in terms of detail—that the number of incoming extradition requests from EU member states has reduced, and they are waiting to do a trade and co-operation agreement warrant when they have intelligence that somebody is in the United Kingdom. If we were, for example, able to recognise the European arrest warrant as a valid request within our legislation, that request would be handled in exactly the same way, but it would streamline the process and overcome the issue in terms of delays in arrests and commencing proceedings.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We are going to come to a number of those questions. Since Deputy Chief Constable Ayling touches on alerts and so on, I might come slightly ahead of time to Baroness Ashton just to continue that discussion and then we will come back to our established order.
Q79 Baroness Ashton of Upholland: You started to answer my question, which is very helpful. I wanted to talk about the loss of access to SIS II, because I think it would be interesting to hear the broader answer of how you feel the impact has been, how far the arrangements we have in place are working, this whole question of double-keying data into the Interpol system and the importance, too, of making sure that law enforcement is able to make sure that government secures real-time data access. Lots of the wording that you have been using—delay, having to use more resources, things being time consuming and the need to streamline—all set up a picture that says this has not been a great success. But there is an opportunity to do something, I thought, in this area, and I would be really interested to see what we could do.
Deputy Chief Constable Peter Ayling: I am very happy to start off. I am sure Rob will want to add to it. I have covered off some of those points. In terms of how it is currently operating, there is not a deterioration since we moved into what has been described as more clunky mitigation for the loss of SIS II. I am sorry to keep using it.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: It is a great word.
Deputy Chief Constable Peter Ayling: I remember the heavy lifting that was required ahead of our exit to back-record and convert a lot of data to ensure that it existed on the system. If I contrast now and then, the volume of work is obviously considerably lower, but we no longer have the existential issue of Brexit on the horizon and all of the uncertainty and concerns around a cliff edge. So, from my perspective, it is harder to maintain the focus and the relevance of that work and to avoid a dropping off of energy and effectiveness in triaging for a potentially international element and then raising the appropriate notices, ensuring compliance with the process, use of the smart tool, all of which would enable quicker raising of alerts on to the system and making it visible. For me, that has become more onerous because I do it 43-plus times and reinforce to sovereign chief constables that this issue, the complexity and the risks, has not gone away. We must keep up the momentum as well as describing the ambition and how we work to try to make that more systemised and then return to automation.
The only way, in my mind, that that can become less onerous is to move with confidence into that arrangement. There is a simple reality for the more than 100,000 police officers and the tens of thousands of front-line officers that will encounter international threats. Overwhelmingly, they are an inexperienced workforce with myriad demands, changing policy and legislation to respond to. This is just, I suppose, another unhelpful thing that requires conscious thought and manual activity, and the sooner we can short-circuit that and systemise it, the better, and the much more effective that will be for routine policing. Hopefully, that addresses the points you raise.
Robert Jones: To add a couple of points, as Pete says, we have sustained arrests and extraditions, but there is a lot more work that sits behind it. What do you lose with the current system? You lose a safety net of certified EAWs being on the systems. As Jo points out, if that was available, I think everybody would welcome that because what you get now is a very targeted request, which is good, which will typically be intelligence-led around travel or there will be some seedcorn which leads somebody to think that there is a viable extradition, but of course what you miss there is the ability to have a protective net where, if there is a viable extradition, we may know because that has been tripped. That is the difference. Despite all of that, we are sustaining those arrests and extraditions.
Q80 Baroness Ludford: What seems to be emerging is two developments. One is the loss of the mutual recognition system, with access to SIS II. I worked on a lot of this, so it breaks my heart—but, anyway, that is a self-indulgent comment. On the other hand, I think there have been some references to Deputy Chief Constable Ayling talking about 43 police forces having to be trained and being inexperienced, and I think Ms Jakymec highlighted, as Mr Jones just said, the loss of automatic recognition of an EAW on the UK system. It sounds like we have quite a lot of domestic work to do. Last December, we had a report from the Hungarian Presidency to member states that fairly diplomatically reported that, in relation to Part III of the TCA, they “see possibilities for improvements in the application of the trade and co-operation agreement by the United Kingdom, including by providing timely and good quality information that can be used in judicial proceedings, and meeting the deadlines set for providing responses.” Do you recognise these member state concerns, and can you think of specific examples about which member states would be concerned, perhaps elaborating on remarks that have so far been made?
Robert Jones: Perhaps if I go first, then Jo may want to come in. I do not recognise any specific cases that are referred to in that report. I am familiar with the comments that have been made. In any process, there are going to be comments about efficiency because that is inevitable. We do our best to respond in a timely manner, and of course we get reciprocal co-operation so it is in our interest to. Getting through that as quickly as possible is a priority for us. I am not aware of specific cases that have led to those comments.
Joanne Jakymec: Again, from my perspective, within that report there was also reference from EU member states that co-operation has remained strong, which is positive. In terms of the specifics around delays, again that is not something that sits with the Crown Prosecution Service’s independent prosecution role, but it would be remiss not to reference that it is so incredibly important that we play our part because reciprocity in terms of international co-operation is absolutely essential. I am aware that the United Kingdom central authority has introduced a new online system and also has a new casework system, which went live last year. We very much hope that that is a really good and positive step forward to try to enhance the level of co-operation that the UK provides so that we can mitigate that criticism.
Deputy Chief Constable Peter Ayling: There is not too much I think that falls within the orbit of territorial policing that I can add. Most of what we would interface goes through different parts of the UK law enforcement system, so I am not in a position to add to that, I am afraid.
Baroness Ludford: Just a very quick follow up on the issue of the status of European arrest warrant requests on UK systems, what needs to happen for that to change, for that to be flagged as an EAW as opposed to some other intelligence request?
Joanne Jakymec: There is a requirement now from a member state to prepare a trade and co-operation agreement warrant for us to be able to recognise and execute at our end, whereas previously we recognised the European arrest warrant and were able to move more quickly.
Baroness Ludford: Could you still do that if there were some domestic changes?
Joanne Jakymec: I would have to double-check that, but we can come back to you on that.
Q81 Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town: I am quite interested about how member states respond. Obviously, it is reciprocal and they must feel they need to respond to requests as well. I wonder if there are any specific areas where the requests that we make could be handled more efficiently and whether there are particular types of issues—whether financial crime is harder than stolen goods or whatever. Are there particular instances where you think the requests that we are making could be handled more efficiently? You are getting perfect assistance, obviously.
Robert Jones: The day-to-day co-operation between law enforcement is really strong and it has got better as we have moved on. Now, as we have said, it is still bound by process. It is process heavy, and it needs to be process light within a framework that gives us the agility that organised crime exercises. Within that, the faster we operate, the faster our partners can operate and vice versa. I would not want anybody to think that we are not heard by European police forces; we are. Police to police, we can disseminate immediately and get a law enforcement to law enforcement response. We can go multilaterally through Interpol or Europol, and we can get a prosecutor with a formal international letter of request if we need to. Through those three routes, we make it work. Nothing is ever perfect, but it is not that we are not being heard; we are, and it is in everybody’s interests to turn those requests around quickly because tomorrow you could be asking for one.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town: You used the word “clunky”. When you speak to your officers across the EU, would they use that word “clunky” as well? Would they also like changes?
Robert Jones: I am sure practitioners at our level working day to day would welcome change that made things easier. I am sure they would.
Lord Whitty: Sorry, is the difficulty at the European level the multiplicity of countries?
Robert Jones: The collaboration works on two levels. We work bilaterally with police forces—
Lord Whitty: Where does the clunkiness come in?
Robert Jones: It is in what we have to do because, if we are working bilaterally, outside of the process that we had when we were in the EU, then that is now much more process heavy because there was a much lighter process that allowed us to move more quickly. It impacts on both Europol and bilateral relationships.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: Are there elements of the previous process where, if we had the guidelines or the funding, we could pick up a few of those and insert them now, or is everything too outcast for that? Could we not pull some of that stuff in?
Robert Jones: I probably should not comment on the negotiations and the legal framework. Certainly we do not want to lose anything we have now, and we do not want to go backwards. What we need to make sure is that we build on the foundations of what we have achieved. If we can do that legally and we can get agreement to that, we would welcome it.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: I was not commenting on negotiations. I was really thinking about the software. Are there some bits and pieces that we can pull in that will hasten it? If you need authority, who will you get it from?
Robert Jones: Apologies. We have updated our technology in the Joint International Crime Centre to make those processes better, but to get a link in terms of data exchange I think would take more than the technology.
Q82 Baroness Anelay of St Johns: So far, we have had expert descriptions of how the system operates now, but I am going to use the word “clunky” again—I think it is easier for everyone to understand. There is pressure on all of you to be able to deliver the high service that we all require against a background that is shifting. Clearly, from what Rob Jones has just said, hopefully those negotiations are shifting it in the direction that all three of you have described so far.
My question relates to the fact that there is the reset. The Government said, and I quote, that they “will seek a new security agreement with the EU to ensure access to real-time intelligence and enable our policing teams to lead joint investigations with their European counterparts”. I stress both those points because of course they have been raised particularly by Deputy Chief Constable Ayling. Are those reset ambitions right? Also, are they ambitious enough? Where is the “plus” that the Government are missing in that dual description of things they want to achieve, if any?
Deputy Chief Constable Peter Ayling: I think the high-level ambition is right. I probably will not be drawn on whether it is ambitious enough. I am very ambitious that we are at a point where we can use data and biometrics in a way that we have not been able to before. The convergence of those things enables us to spot and respond to people who would otherwise be dangerous and to act accordingly, whether that is to remove them, to arrest them or to manage them. The ambition needs to come together in the policy and legislation to enable us to do it and the funding to develop the systems and to be able to implement the tools. If I give you an example, notwithstanding the comments I have made on I-LEAP, if we are able to progress through Prüm then there is the opportunity to be able to re-establish some level of police-to-police automatic communication—so to be able to dynamically identify somebody’s offending history in a foreign country or to use facial recognition.
These things I think will add a level of dynamism to investigations. I think they will enable a greater impact through the criminal justice system and they will certainly result in greater opportunities to manage people afterwards. It is difficult for me to say it is one or the other. It is the combination of those activities that need to come together to deliver an effect. I talk from a policing perspective. There is an opportunity in the future to use our borders more defensively, to use them as a pinch point. There is an opportunity to be able to use data and biometrics more assertively, more confidently. None of those things will happen without ambition and the diplomatic efforts to agree those things.
My final comment would be, reflecting some of the concern about how things work currently, that most of my interaction is with peers in EU law enforcement institutions and I see an abundance of pragmatism and joint endeavour for mutual benefit. There is a role for territorial policing, but I think law enforcement could supplement the diplomatic efforts, because we can be part of a compelling offer that would be highly attractive to European partners.
Robert Jones: I would agree with the comments that have been made. Prüm has been very successful in terms of DNA hits so, as that develops in the future, we need to be part of it and we would welcome that. That is a good vehicle for collaboration because it has worked and has worked really well. We would be keen to build on that. On the degree of intent, Pete sums it up well: day to day, we are working very closely with our European colleagues. Being able to move forward with the trust that we have established since exit and to break down as many barriers as possible to allow this data to flow freely, for us to be able to operate across borders as quickly and agilely as possible, is what is wrapped up in that intent.
Joanne Jakymec: Obviously, this is a matter for my law enforcement colleagues, but what I would say is that those key capabilities are what help us identify those offenders really quickly. In the Crown Prosecution Service, we are dependent on those tools to play our role in delivering justice. Those tools have been incredibly instrumental in identifying offenders and supporting us to prosecute successfully very serious cases, including murder, rape and other serious sexual offences. We very much welcome the use of digital capabilities to maximise our ability to share vital law enforcement information at pace, so that we can do our job together. We agree.
Q83 Baroness Suttie: Do you welcome the Government’s aim to enhance EU-UK law enforcement co-operation through a formal agreement, or do you think it could be just as easily achieved through less formal means?
Robert Jones: I welcome a formal agreement. Take it as read: we will do as much informally as we can but, particularly in a system in Europe that is led by prosecutors with judicial secrecy and a range of different standards and procedures in relation to our own regime, you will run into process and you will need the cover of a framework.
Baroness Suttie: Do the other panellists agree?
Joanne Jakymec: I would support that, but what I would say is we also do need to retain some flexibility, and the strength of our relationships does take us quite a long way. As Rob has referred to, there has been a huge amount of work done by law enforcement and, similarly, by our Crown Prosecution Service liaison prosecutors in country to secure the confidence and to get that additional support to move things over the line and move things along, as Pete referred to.
Deputy Chief Constable Peter Ayling: I have not too much to add to that. I very much agree with both points my colleagues have made. I would offer the observation that I think the principal barriers that need to be overcome to get to a really ambitious vision of resetting those relationships necessarily would require a formal agreement; otherwise, it would just build in unhelpful ambiguity.
Q84 Lord Frost: Could I ask about the Prüm regulation? With a bit of effort, we reached agreement on that in 2020, but now the EU has evolved it. I think it is fair to say that the previous Government’s intentions on that slightly ran into the sand and the current Government have not quite dug it out yet. Would you like to see us get these arrangements up and running in the new form, and what difference would it make? How urgent is it that this gets a bit of energy behind it again?
Robert Jones: If I may, I will respond initially. We would welcome that because it has been successful. On the measures in relation to DNA, we did not have a baseline because we did not have a regime before exit, but it has been successful. There are a number of convictions as a direct result of that where offenders have been identified and we have managed to protect the public. Building on something that works, has had universal support and has a strong brand is a good way to develop the collaboration, and I would welcome the extra measures that are due to come through.
Joanne Jakymec: As I said previously it is more a matter for our law enforcement colleagues but we are incredibly supportive and welcome all digital capabilities to assist us in terms of the delivery of justice. I would say Prüm is one of those capabilities that supports us to do that.
Deputy Chief Constable Peter Ayling: I referenced earlier this has been a real success and we continue to build on that. I am very keen that we would move to the next step. Given the ability to bring forward information more quickly, particularly to be able to access intelligence and use facial recognition, these are capabilities that would be highly useful in policing and particularly as we look to reinvigorate and enhance our efforts to bear down on foreign national offending.
The Chair: Lord Frost deserves a lot of the credit for negotiating success that allowed us to have this access to Prüm, so that is very helpful indeed. Thank you.
Q85 The Duke of Wellington: I was surprised to read—I had not known it—that so many EU member states do not allow their nationals to be extradited to this country, including France, Germany, Finland and Sweden. These are some very important countries. How significant is this in terms of numbers? Is this frequent? Is this a real impediment to trying to arrest and prosecute people who have committed crimes? It is difficult to understand the scale of this. Can you explain that a bit?
Joanne Jakymec: Maybe I will start on this question. When I gave my evidence in 2023 to a linked committee, we discussed how one of the biggest challenges following our exit from the EU was the application of nationality bars by some EU states. It is a challenge; however, overall the provisions work well, enabling us to deliver justice with a small number of cases. Currently, around 60 cases are impacted. It has added an additional layer of complexity to our casework. There is now less certainty around surrender, and our prosecutors are working hard to work through relevant case strategies for individual cases to overcome the challenges in relation to extradition.
We regard 13 EU member states as if they had an absolute nationality bar due to some of the significant conditions other countries place around their surrender conditions. It has made our casework more complex but, like the European arrest warrant, a trade and co-operation warrant can be issued to multiple jurisdictions simultaneously. That somewhat mitigates nationality bars, to enable the surrender or arrest of a requested person if they travel into a third country across the border. We do not have any central databases in relation to the volumes but, as you can imagine, we have kept quite a lot of focus on these cases to work and support prosecutors with strategies, and I am aware of five cases currently that we have been able to be successful in, in that regard, with a speculative warrant.
There are other alternatives such as, for example, transfer of proceedings or the enforcement or transfer of a sentence. Again, we can deploy those. That does not remove the issue completely. Every case is case specific. On the enforcement of sentences, we have had some success, which is helpful. With the transfer of proceedings the position has not dramatically changed since 2023. Prosecutors do consider a transfer of proceedings given an appropriate strategy for that case and they work closely with their liaison prosecutor colleagues in country to work through and understand the domestic legislation. It is quite a complex and lengthy process and there can be difficulties because, once we have transferred a case, we effectively lose control of that case: it is within that other jurisdiction. We have excellent provisions in place to support victims of crime, and other jurisdictions within their legislation may not have the same provisions and there may be differences in relation to procedure and sentencing legislation. We will look to match the appropriate response to the individual case to secure justice for victims as best we can.
We have had development in relation to nationality bars. There has been some excellent engagement taken to persuade Poland, for example, to lift its nationality bar, which is an impressive piece of work led by the Government, supported by our prosecutors and law enforcement partners. They have amended their domestic legislation and removed the bar. To give you a bit of context in relation to that, 40% of our cases that we were monitoring out of that time were from Poland and they have been removed, so that has been a huge success.
Continuing to maximise our relationships with our partners to help us mitigate and come up with the best solution in individual cases is key. We warmly welcome any opportunity to continue to potentially persuade other jurisdictions to flex on their domestic legislation and also to give us a bit more clarity around approaches on EU member states for the transfer and enforcement of sentences, because they may release somebody for a trial but then require that person to go back and be sentenced and so on. It is not awful, but it could be better. We are heartened by the progress in Poland.
The Duke of Wellington: With Poland it was a bilateral negotiation, I realise, and this is not ever going to be through the EU, I assume. Would you hope that the Government might enter into other bilateral negotiations with some of these other significant countries, such as Germany and France? Is that what you would hope?
Joanne Jakymec: Again, it is not really a matter for me as an independent prosecutor. That is more for government colleagues, but I remain optimistic.
The Chair: To give us a sense of the context for numbers, when you mentioned that there were 60 cases that had fallen into the nationality bar, out of how many was that? Sixty out of what sort of number, EU-wide?
Joanne Jakymec: I should have anticipated that question. I apologise I do not have the answer, but I can provide that to you.
The Chair: It would just be interesting to know what kind of percentage that is of the total cases. Thank you very much indeed. Very interesting. Shall we move on? I am conscious of the time we need. We have four more questions to go. Baroness Winterton.
Q86 Baroness Winterton of Doncaster: In many ways, my question is a follow-on about law enforcement adapting to accommodate the more limited scope of the territorial arrangements for extradition. Do you think the Government should try to address those constraints in the reset policy? Have the countries that are more difficult to negotiate with always been problematic even under previous arrangements? Like the Duke of Wellington, I was really quite surprised at some of the resistance in those areas.
Deputy Chief Constable Peter Ayling: I do not mind starting. I am afraid I cannot comment whether there is a deterioration in will. It was part of an agreement and the barriers did not exist.
I have a slightly different view on this from a territorial policing perspective. We are hugely reliant on Jo’s experts where we have relevant cases that will fall into that category. It is a very small number of cases, but, invariably for policing, they will be high-profile, serious cases. Therefore, there is an importance to make sound investigative decisions early and there is a need for that early dialogue. Perhaps some of that jeopardy did not exist before, but I see that working pretty well.
From an extradition perspective, born of the additional complexity there was a need to pull together the National Extradition Unit. It previously sat within the International Crime Coordination Centre and is now within the Joint International Crime Centre. That, in my view, has been a success. It is more effective than it was before, it is more efficient, it is done more cheaply and I think, through the many challenges that have arisen from EU exit and then Covid, I think being able to maintain good activity within extradition has been a real success. We have changed the arrangements, but I think there are some benefits of having now a national unit and it continues to work very well under the leadership of the NCA.
Robert Jones: I echo that. There is a familiar tone to what we are saying here that we have adapted and overcome some of those challenges with those partners. By hosting the national unit and by bringing all that expertise together, we can work through some of these problems. I would not call out one particular country as being more problematic. The experience in relation to the bilateral agreement with Poland demonstrates the art of the possible. We should all be heartened by that.
The Chair: I am conscious that we are approaching a vote, I am afraid. Could we have quite rapid answers to our three remaining questions? I am going to ask Lord Jackson first.
Q87 Lord Jackson of Peterborough: I want to talk about Europol and Eurojust. Mr Jones, when you appeared before the committee in May 2024, you were relatively positive about how positive and productive the exchange of data was and multilateral and bilateral arrangements. Is it still the same? Is it better? In terms of your overall view—and I am tempting you to make a political comment, I guess—do you welcome the Government’s wish to enable policing teams to lead joint investigations? I suppose my question is: is that a completely insurmountable obstacle? I know that I checked and it is governed by Council decision 2002/465/JHA, which is 20-odd years ago. Is the EU in a position to be a little bit amenable, given our expertise in these areas, to lead joint investigations?
Robert Jones: The co-operation is better and we can lead joint investigation teams with a following wind and a participant within Europe that we can work with—so that is a like-minded country that will run with us in relation to a joint investigation. It is different because we are a third country, but we can still be part of joint investigation teams.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough: Right, so you have a derogation effectively from that regulation if you, say, go to the Lithuanians and say, “Can we lead a joint investigation on people trafficking?” and they say yes, but if you were to take a multilateral approach to all the EU countries they would say no? Is that what you are saying?
Robert Jones: You need a starting point with a partner and an intelligence case to develop that.
Joanne Jakymec: What I would say is that we have not noticed any negative impact in relation to our use of Eurojust and, in fact, our UK desk has noted that our engagement levels have increased. We have a CPS liaison prosecutor based there. We have greatly benefited. As Rob alluded to, the main difference is really connected to the funding for the joint investigation team, which is only available when another EU member state is involved. In practice, it has very little impact because it is about the joint initiatives for our EU partners to work with us towards a shared issue and we are able to engage directly with member states simultaneously as a result and discuss and identify opportunities. We have also continued to be invited to Eurojust networks—for example, the Eurojust network on migrant smuggling—so we are able to fully contribute.
Q88 Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: I am afraid I have a leading question, and it is going to be quite difficult for you to say no. Perhaps you can enhance it a little bit by adding something exciting. How important is it for you that we retain data adequacy under the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation and the law enforcement directive? I would be very surprised if you said it was totally unimportant, but I give you the chance.
Deputy Chief Constable Peter Ayling: I certainly shall not say it is unimportant. Everything that I have alluded to—the ambition to make greater use of the tools now and tools of the future, and lead towards automation, and more confident data sharing across UK law enforcement—would require the retention of data adequacy. In my view, to realise those ambitions it is very important.
The Chair: Does anybody disagree with that?
Robert Jones: Nothing to add.
Q89 Lord Whitty: We have talked a lot about relations between ourselves and various national or European institutions. I am going to ask you about your relations as law enforcement prosecution agencies with the British Government machine, particularly in light of recent changes at ministerial level. Do you find they are working on policy matters, and that you can talk to the British Government and Whitehall, or do you think some improvements could be made in that domestic arena?
Robert Jones: Briefly, it is working well. On the new measures with the BSC, I work really closely with Martin Hewitt, who is the border security commander that was appointed. It is working. There is nothing to call out in terms of a problem and it works well across Whitehall.
Joanne Jakymec: From a Crown Prosecution perspective, we are independent from government but we still work very well with Whitehall partners. We share our insights and our casework experience to help influence future tools, and our liaison prosecutors who are on the ground have a key role in relation to that, because they spot emerging co-operation challenges and we feed that through into policy teams with government.
Deputy Chief Constable Peter Ayling: I would say very much the same. I would put the additional element I raised earlier, that as discussions and diplomacy continues there is a role for law enforcement to participate. We can show a readiness and a keenness to respond and make a more compelling offer in terms of that shared endeavour for the future.
The Chair: Thank you very much everyone for being so concise. Can I just ask about one factual point, from my own ignorance? You mentioned, Deputy Chief Constable, at the beginning the I-LEAP mechanism or family expanding. I think you said 47 or 48 law enforcement organisations. Could you just say the geographical scope of that? Does that go beyond the EU and the UK? How broad a family is that?
Deputy Chief Constable Peter Ayling: I-LEAP currently brings access through domestic systems to Interpol data, so potentially there are no constraints on how that could be used in the future. Of course, the first and foremost priority is looking at how it might bridge the lost capabilities of SIS II, so necessarily there has been a focus towards EU member states, but that is not to say that it does not have a utility beyond European borders.
Q90 Baroness Ludford: Following up on and related to that, Deputy Chief Constable Ayling talked about the hopes for a multilateral agreement with EU member states on trying to move towards automation. Playing devil’s advocate somewhat, either on this I-LEAP or on this multilateral agreement—I am not quite sure what the connection would be—is it realistic to hope that EU member states would put resource into that when they are quite comfortable with their existing systems that we left? Why should they then set up alternative networks really just for us?
Robert Jones: Really briefly—and then others can please come in—you bridge into Interpol. That is a much bigger community, and it is in Europol and Europe’s interest to be involved in that as well. They may want to do that because you have a much wider group of countries involved in Interpol. It is not just about the UK.
Baroness Ludford: But the multilateral agreement with EU member states?
Deputy Chief Constable Peter Ayling: It would be very difficult for me to comment on the likelihood or not. What I can say is, having discussed I-LEAP with a number of counterparts across multiple European jurisdictions, I think their level of interest and enthusiasm for it was considerably heightened once you could talk through the readiness and the utility of it from a UK perspective. I think there is a readiness. That is not to downplay the challenges of moving towards a multilateral agreement, but it is only at that stage that I think we can have the automation of real-time alerts. Whether there is a technical fix that might allow some element of draw-through of other systems, I would be the wrong person to say but, in terms of it as a platform that would enable further development in the future based on the political will and the authority to share data, it is a sound programme.
The Chair: I have two members who want to ask one last extra time question. Briefly if possible, Lord Stirrup and Baroness Nicholson.
Q91 Lord Stirrup: Just for clarification, can you confirm that your EU colleagues, as well as you in this country, recognise that crime is not confined to the UK and the EU and, therefore, systems that allow the sharing of data beyond UK-EU boundaries are of mutual benefit and therefore have their support?
Deputy Chief Constable Peter Ayling: Without hesitation, yes.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: I have a quick question as to whether you feel you are on top as much as possible of the child trafficking that is rampant around the globe at the moment. I did a little bit of work with Interpol on this out of the US and they were very strong, working out of the centre in Oklahoma, with trafficking going from South America up, distributing and coming in from Europe and occasionally from the UK. Is anything hampering you on that at the moment with the newest regulations, and is there anything that we could recommend or suggest that would help that? It is such a huge and horrible problem.
Robert Jones: I have no specific request. It is a priority for everybody, so we get help from the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children in the US. We get help from HSI in the US and the Five Eyes community on that topic and across Europe. It is a priority for everyone. It shines a light on the organised immigration crime and modern slavery that is involved in that and the trafficking that sits behind that business model, which makes it so important that we are able to bear down on the gangs that are behind it. That is from my perspective. I have no specific ask. It is a priority. Everything that I have described makes it worse in terms of organised immigration crime.
The Chair: There we are. We got to the bell very nicely. Thank you very much indeed for a very efficient session covering a lot of ground in an hour. It is much appreciated. Any further thoughts or any further information you are welcome to write in. That is always helpful to us. I close the public session with our renewed thanks.
