Brussels, 05/03/2010 (Agence Europe) - MEPs on the European Parliament's civil liberties committee suggested on 4 March that they postpone their vote on the transfer of air passenger details - PNR (Passenger Name Records) - to non-EU countries in order to enable a harmonised PNR file, with solid data protection guarantees, to be introduced.
The EP has been asked by the EU Council of Ministers to approve or reject the PNR agreements with the United States and Australia - agreements that have come under a round of criticism from the EP (see EUROPE 9767 and 9553). The EP rapporteur, Sophia In't Veld (ALDE, the Netherlands) recommended on Thursday that the EP should not immediately say yes or no, as in the Swift case. “The PNR case is more complicated”, she explained, because “the consequences will be much more serious”. If the EP were to assent to the deal, it would lose credibility and be stuck with the agreement. If it were to reject the agreement, the flow of data would stop, which would cause huge problems for airlines that would run the risk of having their flights cancelled if they stop transferring passenger information to non-EU countries demanding such information. She added that “the supply of PNR data is part of the conditions the United States has imposed in exchange for a derogation from the visa regime”. In't Veld therefore suggests taking a different tack. “Let's postpone the vote and use the time that would give us to devise a standard approach for the transfer of PNR data to third countries.” She hoped a package could be ready towards the end of the autumn for the MEPs to vote upon. She therefore asked the European Commission to speedily draw up a draft standard approach setting out minimum requirements to be included in a standard PNR model and respecting the requirements laid down by the European Parliament in a 2008 resolution, namely judicial restrictions, the agreement's legal status, data protection standards, conditions governing transfer of information to non-EU countries and storage times. In addition, she said “the Commission must keep Parliament informed and I hope the information we have been requesting since 2003 will be supplied to us”. She suggested that a resolution be voted upon at the April plenary setting out “minimum requirements to be included in a standard PNR model”. The idea is to decide at EU level what information from the PNR details collected upon check-in (travel itinerary, where the ticket was bought, seat number and payment details) can be supplied to countries outside the EU and on what conditions. The shadow rapporteurs of most of the EP's political parties back the rapporteur's approach. Only Simon Busuttil (EPP, Malta) issued a warning that deals with the United States and Australia are one thing, but other non-EU countries are quite another. He said he felt happy about providing his private details to the United States but the same could not be aid for other countries outside the EU. He therefore wanted to know which safeguard clauses could be introduced to ensure that citizens were not put in danger by attempts to ensure their safety.
A Council of Ministers representative said that it was up to the Commission to formulate a proposal. Speaking on behalf of the Commission, Joaquim Nunes de Almeida said that the Commission intended to work with the US to reassess the PNR agreement with the United States and the outcome of this was expected later this month. He said the Commission would prepare a report for the start of the second half of the year on what a standard PNR for the transfer of details to non-EU countries might look like and a negotiating mandate might follow soon afterwards. He said things could be “horizontalised” but doubted the viability of the rapporteur's timing because it was not certain that everything could be done this year. He said a connection should be made between PNR transfer to non-EU countries and the draft “European PNR” that the member states recently called for when they adopted the EU's homeland security strategy.
The EU Council members signed the deal between the EU and the United States in July 2007 (see EUROPE 9474) and the EU deal with Australia in June 2008 (see EUROPE 9694). Since then, the two agreements have been provisionally in force, but with the Lisbon Treaty they require the consent of the European Parliament before they can be formally signed and remain in force. A veto would defeat the agreements, as happened recently with Swift (rejected by the EP in February 2010, see EUROPE 10076). Jan Philipp Albrecht (Greens/EFA, Germany) warned the Council “if you act as if there had been no Swift, this would not be proper cooperation. But I am glad to see the Commission is negotiating a shift of position and I hope the Council will move in the same direction”. There has been an adjustment in the balance of power since the Swift affair between the EU institutions and the EP now seems able to call the tune. (B.C./transl.fl)