Interparliamentary Committee Meeting on Smart Borders
Session 1: The need for Smart Borders: European challenges, national experiences & the way ahead.
Dimitris Avramopoulos, Commissioner for Migration, Home Affairs and Citizenship
23 February 2015
Honourable Members, thank you for giving me the opportunity today to reflect with you on Smart Borders and the need to modernize EU border management.
It is the first time that we have the chance to speak in some detail about this challenge.
I want to thank the chair and secretariat of the LIBE Committee for taking this important initiative, and the rapporteurs Mrs Fajon and Mr Diaz de Mera for their commitment to work on such a challenging file.
Today’s presentations show once again that the inputs of the European Parliament are of crucial importance for our joint efforts to create a Smart Borders system that meets its objectives and that offers genuine value for money.
As was already recalled by previous speakers, we are in an institutionally rather peculiar phase, ‘in-between proposals’ but I believe we can put this period to good use to deepen our debate and talk frankly.
The original Smart Borders legislative proposals raised a number of technical, political and cost-related issues both by the European Parliament and the Council.
As I have already announced to you, the “proof of concept” (both the Technical Study and the outcome of the testing phase) together with the results of discussions with you, the Council and other stakeholders on other relevant, non-technical, issues will inform the new legislative proposal that I hope to be able to present very early in 2016. At that same date the Commission will then withdraw its 2013 proposals.
When reviewing our proposals we have to look again at the bigger questions (which are also raised in today’s meeting):
– why do we need Smart Borders?
– what do we want to achieve with it?
– and is it worth the money?
Today’s reality is that Member States are confronted with difficulties to manage traveller flows at borders and to fulfil the obligations set by the Schengen Border Code.
This in particular is the case when dealing with third countries’ nationals. Border guards need to check:
– the authenticity and validity of travel documents,
– the possession of a valid visa (where appropriate),
– the purpose and conditions of their intended stay, and
– the possible existence of an alert in the Schengen Information System.
We have estimated that in 2014 there were close to 200 million border crossings by third country nationals entering or leaving Schengen. We expect that in the next decade this number will grow by at least another 100 million.
These numbers put an enormous strain on infrastructure and human resources at our external borders. It is not only a matter of coping with the numbers. It is also about the quality of our border checks.
In the current system 200 million border crossings means that 200 million times a border guard somewhere in Europe puts a stamp in a passport. Today, border guards and immigration authorities perform manual checks of stamps in travel documents (where they verify the dates of entry and exit, and calculate the duration of the stay of a third country national). Stamps are often difficult to read. And in any case this information is not recorded.
Twelve Schengen states (+ the UK) have national Entry-Exist Systems, in particular at the eastern border of the Schengen area, but also in Portugal and Cyprus. Yet these national EES are not interconnected.
If a traveller is entering the Schengen area through one of those Member States and leaving the area through another one, there is no matching of the information between the two systems. Between the national systems there are also variations for instance in the set of collected data or in the retention period.
The current system is neither efficient nor as effective as it could be. Therefore, doing nothing is not an option. Borders must get better, and – with the help of technology – smarter.
The alternatives are much longer queues at the borders or employing many more border guards – and neither of these options seem acceptable or feasible.
The Smart Borders System will systematically record all incoming and leaving third country nationals, through an automated system. It will do so, it has to do so –and this is why the testing phase is so important- in the fastest possible way, to minimise border crossing time.
Through the establishment of a Schengen Smart Borders system, the EU gets far more value for the large amounts of money that the EU and its Member States are already spending on border management. Instead of having to employ more border guards, Member States instead could reinforce the staffing of other migration functions such as asylum.
The overriding objective of the Smart Borders system is to promote mobility between the EU and third countries in a safe environment, by:
• facilitating and speeding up border crossings for regular travellers;
• whilst, at the same time, being more effective in identifying people that do not respect the conditions of their rights of stay.
Smart Borders could contribute to a ‘safe yet open’ Europe, a welcoming Europe as an attractive destination for tourists, businesspeople and other visitors alike. Smart Borders would also allow for a more effective EU policy against irregular migration and trafficking in human beings.
Consolidated data on over-stayers will also inform, and possibly change, our future migration policies. For instance, if the Entry-Exit data will show that there is an issue with over-stayers of a certain nationality, this could impact on EU decisions to impose or lift, as the case may be, the visa obligation for the third country in question. The information will also inform our return policies, and the priority setting for readmission agreements.
Finally – because I want to touch upon all major questions around the issue – Member States believe that Smart Borders could be a tool for law enforcement purposes. Let me be very clear: the Commission has not yet taken such a decision. We are still weighing all the arguments, and the question of possible Law Enforcement Access will be one of the main issues to address in the Impact Assessment for the new proposals.
Today, I am listening carefully to all arguments presented and I do look forward to continue the reflections in the coming weeks and months.
In the Impact Assessment for the 2013 proposals the Commission recognised that the data generated in the Entry-Exit could be used by law enforcement authorities in the fight against terrorist offences and other serious criminal offences in specific cases both as an identity verification tool and as a criminal intelligence tool. At the same time the Commission has always argued that there is not yet sufficient evidence of the necessity and proportionality of granting law enforcement access to the Entry-Exit system.
This thorough evaluation is all the more necessary in light of the Ruling on the Data Retention Directive. Should access for law enforcement purposes be ever granted, the necessary specific substantive and procedural safeguards would need to be introduced, in line with the Court’s reasoning.
In this presentation I focused on the larger questions that are covered by this first session of the Hearing. As you know, there is also very important technical work going on, that will be discussed in detail in the next session.
Discussion and reflection are ongoing on issues such as the consequences of the abolition of stamping (notably in relation to residence permit holders) and the fall back procedures in the case of unavailability of the system.
Further technical meetings are being planned between Commission and civil society, with operators and carriers, with the European Data Protection Supervisor, with Member-States who have experience with national systems, with relevant third countries, and more.
The outcomes of all these initiatives and exchanges will feed into the drafting of the new Impact Assessment and the new Legislative Proposals which I hope – as said – to present to you in the first month of 2016.
Today’s meeting is a very important step in this collaborative process. I am planning further discussions with you and possibly a joint fact finding mission with the rapporteurs. The work has started and therefore I wish you a good continuation of your work –or more correctly, our work, today and tomorrow.
Thank you.