Strasbourg, 28 October 2015
Thank you for this further opportunity to reflect with you on Smart Borders.
As announced in both the Agenda on Security and the Agenda on Migration, and as already mentioned at our previous exchange on 9 June, it is our intention to present by the beginning of 2016 a modified proposal on Smart Borders.
In our upcoming 2016 proposal we aim to present a solution that is operational and cost-effective. We will propose a system that performs well and fast, that meets the EU’s security and migration policy objectives, improves travellers’ experience, does not increase the workload for border guards, and stands the test of our data protection legislation.
The Commission will modify the existing proposals of the Smart Border package to deliver one single legislative proposal, complemented by a targeted modification of the Schengen Borders Code.
It will be supported by a new impact assessment to incorporate and justify the changes to the original proposals.
These changes will be limited to the following issues assessed:
(a) the architecture of the system,
(b) the biometric identifier to be used,
(c) the facilitation of border crossing,
(d) the retention time for the storage of data
(e) the access for law enforcement purposes.
The current border control system is neither efficient nor effective in view of increased travel flows and Member States’ financial constraints.
The Smart borders proposals will, when implemented, lead to a reduction of the repetitive manual tasks of the Border Guards and release the resources where they are urgently needed.
They will also facilitate the crossing by third country nationals of EU external borders through a semi-automated or fully automated system.
The modified Smart Borders proposal will allow for a more effective EU policy against irregular migration and notably the phenomenon of ‘overstayers’.
It will help border guards detecting travellers that did not respect the terms of their stay in the Schengen zone and will allow them undertaking appropriate action.
This is also expected to have a preventive effect on overstaying.
Data generated in the Entry-Exit could also be of use to law enforcement authorities in the fight against terrorist offences and other serious criminal offences in specific cases.
Should access for law enforcement purposes be granted, the necessary specific substantive and procedural safeguards will obviously be introduced.
Subject to the results of the new Impact Assessment, some preliminary conclusions can be already presented.
As I said at previous occasions, it seems preferable to build one single system with functionalities for both Entry-Exit System and Registered Travellers Programme instead of two different systems.
This decreases the development and operation costs, avoids the duplication of travellers’ personal data, and reduces the impact on national systems.
As for the possible synergies with existing systems, the re-use of certain elements from VIS such as the Common Biometric Matching System seem to be the preferred option.
Such approach presents a lower risk level and would be cheaper than the option of a full and immediate integration to the VIS.
The possibility of a limited interoperability between the Entry Exit System and the Visa Information System is also under assessment as it would prevent the registration of the same data concerning the same persons in two different systems.
The 2013 proposals proposed the use of 10 fingerprints as biometric identifier.
However, the technical study showed that for verification of the identity of a traveller a facial image is sufficient while for the identification of a traveller a combination of fingerprints and facial image gives the best results.
The ongoing Testing Phase will need to confirm how these options work out in practice.
However, it is clear to me that the biometric identifier used for the Entry Exit System has to be as light and non-intrusive as possible.
A major challenge for us is to ensure that the introduction of a Smart Borders system will accelerate the border control process.
To complement the functionalities for Registered Travellers Programme a wider possibility for using process accelerators such as self-service kiosks or mobile devices apps could be promoted.
This would facilitate border crossing for a wider group of travellers.
The Impact Assessment will look into the details of this important question.
On the subject of data retention, it is clear that if records of previous stay are deleted too quickly, travellers would have to re-enrol more often.
It would also mean that border guards can only see a very short period of the travellers travel history.
Just remember that in today’s situation with stamped passports border guards can reconstruct up several years of travel history when looking at the passport of the person that stands in front of them.
In this context I want to underline once again that the Court of Justice ruling on the Data Retention Directive has no direct effect on other EU legal instruments.
However, it is very clear that a strict assessment of the proportionality and necessity of measures that constitute serious restrictions to fundamental rights is needed.
These key points raised in the ECJ judgement will be fully addressed in the Smart Borders proposal.
Thank you for your attention.
Concluding remarks
I thank you again for this fruitful exchange of views.
Today’s debate confirms the vital importance of the input of the Parliament into our joint efforts to create a Smart Borders system that meets its objectives and that offers genuine value for money.
Since we know that traveller flows will continue to grow; we need a better and smarter border management system.
If we do nothing, we will either have to face much longer queues at the borders or will have to employ more border guards in the near future – and neither of these options seems acceptable or feasible.
The Commission is looking forward to continue working closely with the Parliament in this important file and counts on your support and cooperation to find the right balance.