Brussels, 08/11/2011 (Agence Europe) - On Monday 7 November, the civil liberties committee at the European Parliament was divided over the proposed PNR programme for the European Union, during a debate on the draft report by Timothy Kirkhope (ECR, UK). Presented last February, the European Commission's proposal aims to give the EU a system for collection of data on air passengers travelling to or from third countries, with a view to preventing terrorist offences and serious transnational crime. EU member states hope to be able to extend provisions appearing in the proposals to intra-European flights, in particular those considered to be at high risk.
In committee on Monday evening, several MEPs raised questions regarding the utility of such a system, which is defended by the rapporteur, its cost for states and also its risks with regards to the fundamental rights of citizens.
Jan Phillip Albrecht (Greens/EFA, Germany) was ironical about the Commission's “courage” at having tabled a proposal that was so highly criticised, not only in relation to data retention periods (5 years) but also concerning respect for the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Slamming what he called the disproportionate nature of the proposal, he wondered whether such a proposal and its financial implications for states would really prove relevant in this time of crisis. Jan Phillip Albrecht stated that he would not support such a proposal, saying it would be better to focus on other tools, other forms of police cooperation.
Sarah Ludford (ALDE, UK) was less critical but nonetheless expressed concern about the risk of profiling people, a notion that, in her view, the Commission does not dismiss firmly enough. Carmen Romero-Lopez (S&D, Spain) highlighted the fact that “not everything is allowed” when it comes to security. She even said this tool resembles “treachery towards citizens”, who would henceforth be considered as “suspects”. Romero-Lopez took the view that the guarantees of personal data protection are not sufficiently present in the proposal. Also, the definition of crimes covered, the most serious crimes, remains, she believes, far too evasive.
Such criticism is obviously refuted not only by the Commission but also by the rapporteur and the Council presidency. The Commission representative believes it would be appropriate to point out that the provisions for the protection of personal data regarding Europeans are stricter than those in the agreement between the EU and Australia, albeit recently approved by MEPs. The question of costs is also unfounded, he said, as although this may seem to be an impressive start, it only amounts to 10 cents per airline ticket. The Commission considered that the targeting of the programme on sensitive European flights will not work. Under EU rules, people are entitled to know what the routes targeted are which means that those guilty of offences could avoid those flights, the Commission representative said.
The Council presidency took the view that there are first and foremost a great deal of misunderstandings to be cleared up over the proposal, as well as over its consequences for private life. The British system was cited as an example in the Commission text as presenting very low possibilities for abuse. The British rapporteur, backed by the EP transport committee, also wants to clear up the misunderstandings or generally accepted ideas, and invited his colleagues on Monday to reread the Commission text. In his view, if the EU wants to be reasonable and guarantee citizens' security, then PNRs are needed. Kirkhope concluded by saying that the individual price to be paid is, moreover, infinitely small compared to the number of lives that would be saved. (SP/transl.jl)