The European Commission and Council are currently in the advanced stages of negotiations with the US on a new agreement on the transfer of passenger data (PNR), after the European Court of Justice annulled a previous agreement. With an interim agreement on PNR set to expire in July this year, the small team of EU negotiators are apparently coming under pressure to reach an agreement no matter what the cost: the US is threatening to take away the landing rights of air companies in the absence of an agreement.
Countries naturally have a right to information as regards who enters their territory but there are a number of sensitive issues to be resolved. Is there a limit to the level of personal data US authorities should be allowed to access? The previous agreement included 34 information fields, including credit card data. The US is also interested in our meal preferences. How should this data be accessed? Should the US authorities be allowed to take the data they want from an EU database (a 'pull' system) or should the EU retain control and provide information on demand (a 'push' system)? And how long should it be stored? Apparently the retention period is to be seriously extended - up to 15 years. Another important issue is ensuring the right of legal redress for citizens that have been barred entry to the United States or questioned. The new US 'Travellers Redress Inquiry Programme' is little more than a complaints procedure and offers no real recourse to judicial redress.
Given the importance of these issues with regards to the civil liberties of EU citizens, it is unacceptable that the negotiations are highly secretive. This lack of transparency is not good for democracy. National parliaments should therefore insist on the conclusion of any agreement negotiated being subject to their approval and carefully scrutinise the result. Only by ensuring such transparency can EU citizens be reassured that their rights have not been compromised and can the agreement be given the democratic legitimacy it requires.