10 Smart borders
| (33295)
16049/11
COM(11) 680
| Commission Communication: Smart borders — options and the way ahead
|
| Legal base | —
|
| Document originated | 25 October 2011
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 3 November 2011
|
| Department | Home Office
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 17 November 2011
|
| Previous Committee Report | None
|
| Discussion in Council | No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Do not clear; further information requested
|
The Commission Communication
10.1 The Communication sets out the Commission's ideas for developing
a system of "smart" border controls which would seek
to strengthen the management and control of travel flows at the
EU's external borders while also speeding up border crossings
for trusted frequent travellers. It responds to the request made
by the European Council in June "to ensure that new technologies
are harnessed to meet the challenges of border control" and
to introduce an EU entry/exit system and a registered traveller
programme.[62]
10.2 The Communication recognises that the introduction
of technology-based smart borders will require long-term political
commitment and significant investment. The Commission therefore
sets out the objectives of an EU system of smart borders, the
means for achieving them, the practical implications, and a crude
estimate of costs. It says that, once the European Parliament
and Council have decided how to proceed, it will produce a full
impact assessment.
10.3 The Commission estimates that some 700 million
border crossings are made each year at the EU's external land,
sea and air borders, of which roughly a third involve third country
(non-EU) nationals. It suggests that these flows, which are set
to increase, present two challenges for Member States participating
in the Schengen free movement area. The first concerns the efficient
monitoring of travel flows into and out of the Schengen area,
especially with a view to assessing the risk of abuse. The Commission
notes that most illegal immigrants enter the EU lawfully but then
"overstay" (exceed the period for which they are authorised
to remain within the EU). The second challenge is to make border
crossings faster and simpler for trusted regular travellers who
meet all the entry criteria and present little risk of abuse.
10.4 To meet these challenges, the Commission advocates
the introduction of an EU Entry/Exit System ("EES")
and an EU Registered Travellers Programme ("RTP"). The
first would replace the existing system of manual stamps at the
point of entry and exit with "an electronic registry"
showing when and where a third country national entered and left
the Schengen free movement area. This would make it easier to
calculate the period of authorised stay and to detect overstayers,
while also providing valuable data for a broader assessment of
the risks associated with particular categories of third country
nationals, for example, those who require visas and those who
are exempt. An EU system would ensure that entry and exit records
could be matched where, for example, a third country national
enters the Schengen area through one Member States and leaves
it through another.
10.5 The RTP would enable "frequent, pre-vetted
and pre-screened" third country nationals to cross the Schengen
external border more quickly by making use, where possible, of
new technologies such as Automated Border Control systems. Both
systems, the Commission suggests, would help to enhance evidence-based
policy making and provide a more accurate basis for risk assessment,
particularly in connection with EU visa liberalisation measures
or EU visa facilitation agreements with third countries.
10.6 The Commission notes that the EES and RTP would
both be based on Article 77 of the Treaty on the Functioning of
the European Union (TFEU) which provides for a common EU policy
on visas and border controls, including "the efficient monitoring
of the crossing of external borders", and would require changes
to the Schengen Borders Code. The Commission says that the EES
and RTP should be established simultaneously in order to minimise
the overall development costs. It advocates the creation of a
central database with national interfaces connecting to it and
suggests that this could be combined with a token system for registered
travellers. Each token issued to a registered traveller would
contain a unique identifier which would provide access to centrally
stored alphanumeric[63]
and biometric data.
10.7 The Commission suggests that, during the first
phase of development of smart borders, the central database would
only record alphanumeric data, with biometric identifiers included
later on, following an evaluation of the impact of the new systems
on border management. The biometric identifiers would be the same
as those used for existing or planned EU IT systems (Eurodac,
VIS and SIS II) — in most cases fingerprints or, if not
available, a digital facial image.
10.8 The Commission estimates initial development
costs for the EES over a three year period as €200 million,
of which 75% would relate to infrastructure costs in participating
Member States. Yearly operating costs thereafter are likely to
be in the region of €100 million, of which the bulk would
be incurred at national level. It says that the costs would be
similar for the RTP, but overall costs would be reduced by 30%
if both systems were built on a common technical platform. Moreover,
the administrative costs of handling RTP applications would be
offset by payment of an application fee.
10.9 Implementation of the RTP would require participating
Member States to invest in automated gates. Whilst the costs of
automation are likely to be substantial, the Commission notes
that Member States may be able to seek EU co-funding. It says
that its proposals for the Multiannual Financial Framework from
2014-20 include provision, in the budget allocation for the proposed
new EU Internal Security Fund, for the setting up, development
and initial operation of the EES and RTP. The Commission also
suggests that automation could generate significant longer term
cost savings, potentially reducing by around 40% the human resources
needed for border control.
10.10 The Commission emphasises the need for the
development of the EES and RTP to adhere to the principles set
out in its earlier Communication on information management in
the area of freedom, security and justice.[64]
These include, in particular, adequate safeguards for the protection
of personal data. It says that the newly established IT Agency
responsible for Eurodac, VIS and SIS II would also oversee the
development and operation of the EES and RTP. The Commission expects
to publish legislative proposals to establish an EES and RTP in
the first half of 2012, following discussions with the European
Parliament, Council and European Data Protection Supervisor.
The Government's view
10.11 The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)
notes that any legislative proposals to establish the EES and
RTP will be based on Article 77 TFEU and build on the border control
elements of the Schengen acquis. As the UK does not participate
in these elements of the acquis, it will not take part
in the adoption of the proposed EU measures and will not be bound
by them.
10.12 The Minister says that the EES is "intended
to generate reliable data on overstayers in particular, and travel
flows in general." Although data generated by the EES would
mainly be used by the Commission to evaluate visa liberalisation
measures and EU visa facilitation agreements with third countries,
he notes that "the system is also intended to automatically
calculate the authorised stay and issue an alert to the competent
national authorities when there is no exit record on the expiry
of the authorised stay."[65]
"
10.13 The Minister observes that the proposed budget
allocation for the EU's new Internal Security Fund in the Commission's
Multiannual Financial Framework for 2014-20 includes provision
for start-up, development and initial operation costs, and adds:
"These funds relate to external borders initiatives
from which the UK is excluded and to which we are not expected
to contribute."[66]
10.14 The Minister highlights "shared principles"
common to the systems proposed by the Commission and those currently
in operation or planning within the UK. He continues:
"We support the use of technology to facilitate
a quicker and more convenient way for legitimate travellers to
pass through passport control. We also welcome proposals which
are aimed at reducing illegal migration to the EU. There are some
similarities with the UK's e-Borders project which enables detailed
information about individual travellers to be electronically collected
before, during and after passing through ports of entry/exit,
and in an increased ability to identify overstayers and count
migrants in and out. The Commission indicates that the EES will
not use Advanced Passenger Information (API), as used the in UK
and other API systems, as it does not meet the need of the EES
to indicate that a person has crossed a border, may rely on inaccurate
information and would be problematic to operate on the large numbers
of Schengen external land borders."[67]
10.15 The Minister notes that the proposed RTP is
similar in concept to the UK's Iris Recognition Immigration System
(IRIS) where registered travellers are able to enter the UK more
quickly through automated gates at certain airports. IRIS users
are not, however, required to pay a fee.
Conclusion
10.16 The Commission's proposals for developing
a system of "smart" border controls bear some similarity
to the UK's e-Borders project. Whilst the UK will not participate
in any new EU Entry-Exit System or Registered Traveller Programme,
it is particularly well-placed to advise on the difficulties and
delays which may be encountered when implementing new technology-based
border control systems on such a broad scale. If new EU systems
are to be introduced, we believe that it is in the UK's interests
to engage actively with their development and efficient operation,
not only, as the Minister indicates, because of their potential
to reduce illegal immigration to the EU, but also because of their
impact on UK citizens travelling to and from the Schengen free
movement area.
10.17 In light of the substantial investment that
will be required to implement the EU Entry-Exit System and Registered
Traveller Programme, and the uncertainty as to the extent of any
contribution from the EU budget, we ask the Minister to tell us
whether he considers the budget allocation proposed by the Commission
for the border control elements of the new Internal Security Fund
for 2014-20 to be justified. Meanwhile, the Communication remains
under scrutiny.
62 See European Council Conclusions 23/24 June 2011:
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/11/st00/st00023.en11.pdf.
Back
63
Alphanumeric data might include name, nationality and passport
number. Back
64
See HC 428-ii (2010-11), chapter 12 (15 September 2010); HC 428-v
(2010-11), chapter 7 (27 October 2010); and HC 428-xiv (2010-11),
chapter 12 (26 January 2011). Back
65
See para 14 of the Minister's Explanatory Memorandum. Back
66
See para 18 of the Minister's Explanatory Memorandum. Back
67
See para 19 of the Minister's Explanatory Memorandum. Back
| 
