28 March 2012
Support our work: become a Friend of Statewatch from as little as £1/€1 per month.
committee criticises EU plan for collection of PNR data
The Select Committee on the European Union in the House of Lords has issued a highly critical report on an EU proposal for airline and shipping companies to be required to collect and pass over details on all passengers entering a member state - the EU's equivalent to the USA PNR scheme. The Committee's report says that the proposal, initiated by the Spanish government in March 2003 is "seriously flawed". It will, say the Committee, lead to "serious delays and disruption", largely ineffective and place a "disproportionate" burden on carriers.
The Committee Chair, Baroness Harris said the plan "would certainly cause massive disruption to millions of passengers travelling into and around the EU and create substantial extra costs for air and sea carriers. This half-baked idea is unlikely to reduce immigration significantly... the EU should think again," she said. The report questions how the plans would help combat organised crime or national security threats, saying that this has not been substantiated. It says the proposal has no provision for passengers to seek redress if they are wrongly prevented from boarding.
The committee recommends: "In view of the wide-ranging implications, it would be better for the government to participate fully in the negotiations in order to seek to remove some of the more objectionable features, if it is not possible to secure its withdrawal altogether."
The Committee's Conclusions and Recommendations
36. The effectiveness of the proposal as a tool to combat organised crime or threats to national security has not been substantiated (paragraph 9).
37. An adequate case for the need for the proposal has not been made (paragraph 10).
38. We do not see how the proposal would help to counter
identity theft or document forgery and conclude that in its present
form the requirement that would be imposed on carriers is disproportionate
to its objective (paragraph 12).
39. The application of the Directive to the borderless Schengen area would be disproportionate to its objective. It would in effect re-introduce border checks through the back door. It would also run counter to the main thrust of EU border control policy in recent years, which has concentrated effort on strengthening the external borders of the Union (paragraph 13).
40. The imposition on carriers of a duty to transmit information on the use of return tickets by third country nationals is disproportionate and impractical. Leaving Member States discretion on whether to implement this aspect of the proposal would be likely to lead to substantial differences between Member States and considerable confusion for both carriers as to their duties and passengers as to their rights. The provision should be deleted (paragraph 15).
41. A proper assessment of the implications for carriers, passengers and airport authorities of the increase in check-in times that would result from the implementation of the Directive is essential (paragraph 17).
42. The financial implications of the proposal should be fully assessed. There should be no question of adopting the Directive in advance of submission of a detailed Regulatory Impact Assessment (paragraph 18).
43. We do not favour a minimum penalty because of its inflexibility. It would also be more appropriate to relate the sanction to the journey rather than to the passenger (paragraph 23).
44. We recommend that Article 4(2), which provides for additional sanctions for very serious infringements, be deleted (paragraph 24).
45. The Directive contains no provision for remedies for aggrieved passengers. This is unacceptable (paragraph 25).
46. The safeguards on the transmission of passenger data are largely compatible with the data protection principles in domestic and international legislation, including on length of retention, but may fail the proportionality test (data must not be excessive in relation to the purpose for which they are processed) (paragraph 27).
47. The Committee expects to be provided with ample time to scrutinise fully any EC/EU Decision or international agreement in the field of advance passenger information (paragraph 34).
48. In view of the wide-ranging implications of the proposal, it would be better for the Government to participate fully in the negotiations in order to seek to remove some of the more objectionable features, if it is not possible to secure its withdrawal altogether (paragraph 35).
49. Overall the proposal has not been thought through properly and should not be approved in its present form.
Recommendation to the House
50. The proposal on advance passenger information has important implications for carriers, passengers and border control authorities, and we therefore recommend this report for debate.
European Union Committee, 5th Report of Session 2003-04, HL
29, 12.2.04: Fighting
illegal immigration: should carriers carry the burden?
2. Statewatch: Further evidence on proposed Directive on aircraft passenger data: October 2003
3. Statewatch: Evidence on proposed Directive on aircraft passenger data: Evidence to the Select Committee on the European Union, sub-committee "F": Proposed Directive on aircraft passenger data: September 2003
3. Irish Presidency "compromise" dated 9 January 2004: 5183/04 (pdf)
4. Draft dated 17 December 2003: 16119/03 (pdf)
5. Draft dated 24 November 2003: 15165/03 (pdf)
6. Statewatch analysis of previous drafts, December 2003, EU plan for wholesale security checking for every traveller
7. Commission's Communication on Transfer of Air Passenger Name Record (PNR) Data: A Global EU Approach (16.12.03, pdf) it views the EU-USA deal as a basis for an international agreement. The Commission has sent to the Council a proposal for an international initiative on PNR data transfers through the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO).
8. Statewatch's coverage in December, EU plan for wholesale security checking for every traveller
10. Replies by governments to questionnaire on Spanish proposal:
11. UK letter agreeing to wider scope: 10952/03
12. Draft 27 October 2003: 11406/1/03
13. Draft 12 November 2003: 14652/03
Spotted an error? If you've spotted a problem with this page, just click once to let us know.
Statewatch does not have a corporate view, nor does it seek to create one, the views expressed are those of the author. Statewatch is not responsible for the content of external websites and inclusion of a link does not constitute an endorsement. Registered UK charity number: 1154784. Registered UK company number: 08480724. Registered company name: The Libertarian Research & Education Trust. Registered office: MayDay Rooms, 88 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1DH. © Statewatch ISSN 1756-851X. Personal usage as private individuals "fair dealing" is allowed. We also welcome links to material on our site. Usage by those working for organisations is allowed only if the organisation holds an appropriate licence from the relevant reprographic rights organisation (eg: Copyright Licensing Agency in the UK) with such usage being subject to the terms and conditions of that licence and to local copyright law.