Passenger Name Record, known as PNR data, is defined as ‘the information provided by passengers when reserving or booking travel tickets and when checking in on flights, as well as the information collected by air carriers for their own commercial purposes’. The system contains a variety of information, such as travel dates, travel itinerary, ticket information, contact details, travel agent through which the flight was booked, method of payment, seat number and baggage information.
All these different types of data are stored in the airlines’ reservation and departure control databases.
The use of PNR data is not currently being regulated at EU level, the PNR proposal aims at harmonizing the member states’ provision on the collection and processing of these data.
The proposed EU PNR directive would oblige airlines to hand EU countries their passengers’ data in order to help national authorities to fight terrorism and serious crime. It would require more systematic collection, use and retention of PNR data on air passengers, and would therefore have an impact on the rights to privacy and data protection.
The provisional deal reached by Parliament and Council negotiators on 2 December 2015 on an EU directive regulating the use of the Passenger Name Record (PNR) data for prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime was endorsed by the Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee on 10 December 2015. Approved with 38 votes against 19, with 2 abstentions, the draft directive was supposed to be put to a vote by Parliament as a whole in early 2016, in particular this week at the Strasbourg plenary.
The emotional response to the Paris terror attacks last November seemed to have settled the sensitive issue of the vote on the PNR, but at the end, on 7 March the proposal on placing PNR in the agenda of the plenary session was rejected.
A number of left-wing groups, including the Socialists, Liberals and Greens, have now blocked formal discussion of the proposed legislation, delaying the final vote, stated the group of the conservative law makers.
That package foresees that data, including passengers’ identities and flight details, contact information, travel agents and means of payment, are made available to other EU countries’ security agencies for six months, then stored and kept available under stricter rules for further 4-1/2 years.
The ideological battle over the proposed system is the main reason of this delay.
Many MEP’s are concerned by the privacy implication the agreement would have, so have questioned the proportionality of the proposed EU scheme for the collection use and retention of airline passengers’ data.
Nevertheless, those in favor of the new scheme highlighted its potential added value for EU counter-terrorism policy, underlining that an EU framework would be more functional than a patchwork of different national system.
The give-and-take nature of the agreement between the Council and the Parliament is also particularly clear on the matter: the majority of MEP’s would prefer to see the data protection package adopted at the same time as the PNR directive, but the Council has been temporizing on the point.
However the PNR text remains the cause of deep division both among parties and within each party.
After the draft directive will be voted by the Parliament as a whole, it will have to be approved by the Council of Ministers. Member states will have then to transpose the EU PNR directive into their national laws at latest two years after his entry into force.
Elena Dal Monte
For further information:
I must confess to something of a bias when it comes to the Johnsons, because I rather like them. All of the Johnson family behave as if they feel obliged to be bright, and are often exuberant but with the typical nonchalance of the British upper class. I am a friend and former colleague of Stanley Johnson, Boris’s father and a convinced European. And I later had the opportunity to know Boris while he worked in Brussels as a reporter for the Telegraph. He was popular, exceedingly amusing and a uniquely colourful character in what is often a very grey setting.
“The problem with the Brexit supporters is not their vision of Europe, but their vision of Britain”
Many commentators have condemned his support for Brexit as mere opportunism, but I don’t agree. In taking this stand, he must of course have had his political future in mind. But I do think his decision is sincere, as his scathing view of Europe has old roots. Brussels often leaves a strong impression on those who become involved in European affairs. Some, like the late Lord Cockfield, arrive sceptical and leave passionate Europeans. Others are favourably disposed but leave disappointed. Nothing of that sort seems to have happened to Boris. As the person who led the work of the European Commission on the single market, I strongly resented some of his pieces, such as those on euro-standard condoms or the threat to Britain’s prawn cocktail-favoured crisps. I soon realised it was useless trying to explain to him that these stories were all rubbish; he knew it, but he was merely expressing his contempt for a construction he didn’t care to understand.
Boris says that he loves Europe and Brussels, but his ‘love’ reminds me of the condescending British aristocrats who in the 18th Century took a grand tour of the continent, daydreamt in front of old ruins, enjoyed the music, acquired a few paintings by the great masters and went home ever convinced that they should keep their island politically disengaged with the continent. So his position is hardly surprising. The Boris ‘manifesto’ in the Telegraph is long and convoluted, strangely so for such a sharp mind. Perhaps this was because he wanted to introduce an element of intellectual sophistication to a side of the debate that is frequently accused of offering nought but an expression of guts feelings. He must know, though, that a referendum is to a large extent a matter of guts, and his bet may sadly be the winning one.
“Self-delusion is not the stuff with which greatness is made”
Maybe the problem with the Brexit supporters is not their vision of Europe, but their vision of Britain. Many that I have met are little Englanders with the imperial dream of the country ready to defy Napoleon, Hitler and the entire world, for they dislike the Americans as much as they dislike us. For them, forty years of involvement with the continent has only been a source of endless compromises, and they hate compromises when the foreigners happen to be in a stronger position. One could respect, even admire, them if it wasn’t for their blind complacency about the state of a country that no longer rules the waves, or indeed anything else. Self-delusion is not the stuff with which greatness is made.
If the British vote to leave the EU, we on the continent shall feel regret not only for the turmoil that follows, but also because we shall lose the contribution of the best diplomatic service in Europe and possibly the world. All we can do is tell Boris Johnson that if he loves Europe, as he claims, we in turn love Britain: the country with a splendid past and an uncertain future at best. The continent does not only love Britain for its historic democracy and all that, but also for the legacy of the Beatles, the Stones and others among the best musicians of recent times. Incidentally, they were not upper class at all.
IMAGE CREDIT: CC / FLICKR – BackBoris2012 Campaign Team
The post Boris Johnson’s ‘love’ for Brussels appeared first on Europe’s World.