Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60-69)
Ms Meg Hillier, Mr Tom Dodd and Mr Kevan Norris
19 MARCH 2008
Q60 Lord Marlesford: And next year?
Mr Dodd: Next year, we want to have the majority, over 50%, by next April.
Meg Hillier: We will happily send you a schedule of our targets.
Q61 Lord Dear: Back to data protection, although I think you might have touched on this before. Under Article 11, the processing of PNR data is governed by the Data Protection Framework Decision. As I understand it, the Decision itself is quite limited in scope and I wondered if you consider that the regime that will be in place, or is in place, is adequate.
Meg Hillier: This is the subject of some discussion at the moment, but the provisions of the Data Protection Framework Decision only apply to the processing of PNR data, where it is being or has been exchanged between Member States. It would not apply to data that we are currently collecting from British Airways to our systems and then processed solely within the UK. That domestic processing is subject to our own data protection laws, not to the Framework. That is something we have drawn to the attention of the Commission and we expect that the next revised version of the proposal to clarify the scope of the Data Protection Framework Decision to reflect this. It is, in a sense, a technical point because all Member States have undertaken to ensure that the standard of data protection regarding domestic data processing is higher than, or at least matches, the Data Protection Framework Decision.
Q62 Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: Still on the issue of data protection, there appear to be arguments that the Framework Decision applies only to data processed by public authorities which are responsible for law enforcement. There are, of course, the data protection provisions for private sector bodies—the airlines and their intermediaries who supply them with services. Where are we on that?
Meg Hillier: We have got some substantive discussions still to have with the Presidency and other Member States on this issue. In the UK, the Data Protection Act applies to private entities, including airlines and specialist IT providers, and the Act would apply to all the data processing by private UK bodies and those engaged in the process. We also expect that data security standards imposed on Passenger Information Units by the draft instrument to extend to a large extent to the carriers transmitting PNR data.
Q63 Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: To a large extent?
Meg Hillier: Yes, they would have to adhere to the Data Protection Act.
Q64 Baroness Garden of Frognal: You say that the proposal respects fundamental rights. It appears that the European Data Protection Supervisor categorically disagrees with this. I wonder if you have considered his detailed reasons.
Meg Hillier: We have and we do not disagree with many of the fundamental premises of his report, for example, we want measures to be proportionate and balanced in terms of privacy rights. We were encouraged by his view that the fight against terrorism could be a legitimate ground to include exceptions, but we disagree with his analysis because we think that in terms of necessity PNR data has helped to identify high-risk criminals—I have given one example of that, and I could give others—and we think that is very helpful. It has contributed to a number of arrests, 1,700 alerts[6] so far and then arrests arising from that, on our pilot alone. The intelligence agencies are very clear that PNR is a very valuable tool. My Lord Chairman, I think we have already provided some hard copies of case studies to the Committee.
Q65Chairman: No, I do not recall seeing them.
Meg Hillier: Apologies; I will make sure that happens. We think that what we are doing is proportional to the risks involved and causes least disruption to individuals. In terms of their privacy, we think that it is a reasonable balance to have struck, but we do have some disagreements.
Q66 Baroness Garden of Frognal: Could you tell us what the views are of the Information Commissioner?
Meg Hillier: We have been working very closely with the Information Commissioner on this issue. One of the reasons why I am sharing information with European colleagues about our work on data protection is because we have had some very good dialogue with the Information Commissioner on this issue. We also have a six-month review, My Lord Chairman, and it maybe that the report you are doing will contribute to that. The Committee is obviously very welcome to come back and look at this issue. We do not ever feel that we are at a completely fixed position; we have the legislation in place; we are using this; we are discussing and negotiating in Europe, but we are open to constant improvement and renewal, and the data protection issues are pertinent. It is very important that we have the protection of the Act but, even within that, we want to make sure that we are doing what is proper and appropriate in order to make sure that we can maintain this and maintain the balance of privacy for individuals concerned.
Q67 Lord Harrison: Out of those 1,700 alerts, do you know how many arrests there were?
Meg Hillier: There were 20,000 alerts and 1,700 arrests.
Lord Harrison: That is most helpful.
Q68 Baroness Henig: We touched earlier on the fact that if the Treaty of Lisbon was in force the measures would need co-decision and we had a discussion about that. You very helpfully mentioned discussions that you have had in Europe, which I assume have been within the framework of the Council of Ministers. I wondered what steps the Council was taking to involve the Parliament more closely, in view of what might happen in the future.
Meg Hillier: I met a number of MEPs, as I mentioned, and they made it very clear to me that they felt the need to discuss the issue with ministers, so the very next day I spoke to French colleagues urging them to arrange better contact between ministers and MEPs. They were very keen to do that, so we are hoping that will happen at the beginning of the French Presidency. I was also talking to a number of ministers individually, encouraging them to talk, not only to their own national MEPs, but to some the key members of the LIBE Committee in particular, because of their interest, to talk to them about this and make sure that there is proper engagement. I was very struck by the intelligent and informed knowledge of the members that I met and their willingness to make it work and make sure that their concerns were properly addressed. I have absolute sympathy with that desire for engagement; I think that is what politics is about and we are hoping that the LIBE Committee will come to the UK fairly soon to see for themselves what is going on and that discussion will continue.
Q69 Chairman: Minister, you should never have been struck by the intelligence and the information that is held by members of the European Parliament.
Meg Hillier: Yes, you are right. I expected it, but it nevertheless impressed me. I have been talking to the Danes—I am not sure it is going to happen—but we are looking to do a joint presentation to the LIBE Committee so that the Committee gets the opportunity to question, particularly the UK, because we have been doing this, so they get that opportunity to get in-depth with the practical side of it as well as the more theoretical discussions.
Chairman: Minister, we have had the pleasure, also, of having Lady Ludford, who is a Member of the European Parliament, sitting quietly and politely at the back of the room, who I am sure has taken a great interest in what you have told us. Thank you for coming and for being so clear and helpful. Thank you particularly for offering private briefings on these matters. That is very helpful and we will be in touch with regard to that. I said that we would do our utmost to release you in time for Prime Minister's Questions; there are five minutes to go and if you run, you would just get there in time, although I suspect, having some experience of the House of Commons, that Questions will be more involved today on Treasury affairs than Home Office affairs, although I may be wrong. Thank you for coming and thank you to your colleagues. Mr Norris, you have been sitting quietly there and we have not heard from you; but thank you all very much, we much appreciate this.
6 See correction in Q 67. Back
| 
