Home Affairs Committee say eBorders is illegal in the EU

H

haydude

Well-Known Member
Joined
7 Apr 2009
Messages
1,756
Visit site
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/home_affairs_committee/091218.cfm

Just in case you have missed it. I quote hereby the article from the Home Affairs Committee published on the 18th December 2009 should you not want to click and see the original.

""E-BORDERS" PROJECT TO DIGITISE IMMIGRATION CONTROL "WILL BE ILLEGAL IN EU" SAYS COMMITTEE""

In a report released today, Friday 18 December 2009 the Commons Home Affairs Committee comments on the UK's 'e-Borders programme', the project to gather information electronically on all travellers entering or leaving the UK. The Committee highlights a number of practical difficulties with the programme — despite progress in certain areas — but says the main problem is that the compulsory gathering of such information may be illegal on intra-EU routes under the EU treaty.

An EU Member State cannot impose any requirement other than simple production of a valid identity document on an EU citizen other than in exceptional circumstances. The Committee says UKBA is imposing expensive requirements on the private transport sector for the e-borders programme, in the name of urgent public good, without apparently having ascertained that the programme requirements are lawful. There are also problems with complying with national data protection laws, for example in Germany. The Committee says it has "seen no proof that UKBA's predecessors held serious talks with the European Commission about this" and UKBA must now urgently seek an authoritative opinion from the European Commission on this issue. It must also make it a priority to discuss all the national-level data protection problems with the relevant bodies. UKBA must report the results of these discussions to the Committee by the end of February at the latest, and in the meantime, any proposals to extend 'go live' to further intra-EU routes must be put on hold.

Chairman of the Committee Rt Hon Keith Vaz said:

"The ins and outs of the technical problems are one thing - UKBA has made some progress in some areas, particularly with the airlines after our intervention, but seems to be having greater problems co-ordinating with the way some of the other modes of transport in and out of the UK work."

"But the major stumbling block, and a very disappointing oversight, is that we are sure that what the programme requires will be illegal under the EU Treaty. The programme is intended to cost the taxpayer £1.2 billion and may be illegal. It is shocking that money has already been spent on a programme which could never be implemented."

"This programme is supposed to cover tens of millions of passengers intra-EU account for a very significant chunk of travel in and out of the UK. Until this legality is resolved UKBA must just halt any further work to "go live" on intra-EU routes. We cannot have another massive IT project which flounders or is even abandoned at huge cost to the taxpayer, it is simply unacceptable."


Here is also a link to a comment and article from "The Guardian":
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...ec/18/illegal-eborders-disaster-it-profession
 
Last edited:
Now are you still anti European Union?

This is one more case when the EU, by interfering with UK internal policies, has helped to protect our civil liberties.

Do not forget that the UK is a Monarchy, it does not have a constitution or an elected second parliament chamber and the UK citizens need the EU more than any other European country's citizens.
 
It would be a lot easier if the gutless, spineless, yellow bellied career politicians that parade around Parliament would just sign the f'ing Schengen Agreement.

No need for the UKBA or any new agency to mess up our lives then. Oh and we'd get access to all the relevant Schengen countries security/travel/policing/ data as well.
 
All very interesting - except that it is yesterday's news. Since then the government has given assurances that all the concerns of the EU, mainly in relation to the way data is used have been met.

Furthermore, in this month's YM there is a news item suggesting the implementation for yachtsmen has been brought forward to 2011 instead of 2014.
 
Tranona said:
All very interesting - except that it is yesterday's news. Since then the government has given assurances that all the concerns of the EU, mainly in relation to the way data is used have been met.
Click to expand...

Of course they did otherwise they would loose their face.

Furthermore, in this month's YM there is a news item suggesting the implementation for yachtsmen has been brought forward to 2011 instead of 2014.
Click to expand...

That remains to be seen.
 
Dont cheer just yet

haydude said:
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/home_affairs_committee/091218.cfm

Just in case you have missed it. I quote hereby the article from the Home Affairs Committee published on the 18th December 2009 should you not want to click and see the original.

""E-BORDERS" PROJECT TO DIGITISE IMMIGRATION CONTROL "WILL BE ILLEGAL IN EU" SAYS COMMITTEE""

In a report released today, Friday 18 December 2009 the Commons Home Affairs Committee comments on the UK's 'e-Borders programme', the project to gather information electronically on all travellers entering or leaving the UK. The Committee highlights a number of practical difficulties with the programme — despite progress in certain areas — but says the main problem is that the compulsory gathering of such information may be illegal on intra-EU routes under the EU treaty.

An EU Member State cannot impose any requirement other than simple production of a valid identity document on an EU citizen other than in exceptional circumstances. The Committee says UKBA is imposing expensive requirements on the private transport sector for the e-borders programme, in the name of urgent public good, without apparently having ascertained that the programme requirements are lawful. There are also problems with complying with national data protection laws, for example in Germany. The Committee says it has "seen no proof that UKBA's predecessors held serious talks with the European Commission about this" and UKBA must now urgently seek an authoritative opinion from the European Commission on this issue. It must also make it a priority to discuss all the national-level data protection problems with the relevant bodies. UKBA must report the results of these discussions to the Committee by the end of February at the latest, and in the meantime, any proposals to extend 'go live' to further intra-EU routes must be put on hold.

Chairman of the Committee Rt Hon Keith Vaz said:

"The ins and outs of the technical problems are one thing - UKBA has made some progress in some areas, particularly with the airlines after our intervention, but seems to be having greater problems co-ordinating with the way some of the other modes of transport in and out of the UK work."

"But the major stumbling block, and a very disappointing oversight, is that we are sure that what the programme requires will be illegal under the EU Treaty. The programme is intended to cost the taxpayer £1.2 billion and may be illegal. It is shocking that money has already been spent on a programme which could never be implemented."

"This programme is supposed to cover tens of millions of passengers intra-EU account for a very significant chunk of travel in and out of the UK. Until this legality is resolved UKBA must just halt any further work to "go live" on intra-EU routes. We cannot have another massive IT project which flounders or is even abandoned at huge cost to the taxpayer, it is simply unacceptable."


Here is also a link to a comment and article from "The Guardian":
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...ec/18/illegal-eborders-disaster-it-profession
Click to expand...

FROM RYA WEBSITE

The Government has provided a series of assurances to the European Union in an effort to ensure that its £1.2 billion e-Borders programme will be consistent with EU law.

The European Commission has indicated that, in light of the clarifications, commitments and assurances given by the UK Government, it appears that the e-Borders programme would not be in breach of EU Directives relating to data protection and the freedom of movement of EU citizens.
Edit/Delete Message
 
NDH said:
FROM RYA WEBSITE

The Government has provided a series of assurances to the European Union in an effort to ensure that its £1.2 billion e-Borders programme will be consistent with EU law.

The European Commission has indicated that, in light of the clarifications, commitments and assurances given by the UK Government, it appears that the e-Borders programme would not be in breach of EU Directives relating to data protection and the freedom of movement of EU citizens.
Edit/Delete Message
Click to expand...

Would you care to post a link to wherever you found this information to confirm its genuinity and context? I searched on Google and RYA sites without success.
 
Ariadne said:
It would be a lot easier if the gutless, spineless, yellow bellied career politicians that parade around Parliament would just sign the f'ing Schengen Agreement.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that mean that any and every person hanging around Calais, looking to get to the 'promised land', would just be able to swan in, followed by fellow travellers from all over the world, once they learn that there is no restriction. Not to mention the importation of drugs, movement of criminals.........

haydude said:
Now I found it ...

As I thought your quote was out of context. I suggest to read and digest the whole article here that is talking about "concessions" wich means a "non compulsory" implementation (to comply with EU freedom of movement), hence a face saving backtracking:

http://www.rya.org.uk/newsevents/news/Pages/Continueduncertaintyoverbordersscheme.aspx
Click to expand...

So, reading the RYA story, any attempt for the UKBA to make a leisure boater post personal details on a website, will be against EU law.

"Importantly, the UK Government has assured the EU that travellers who have not provided the UK authorities with relevant personal information will not be denied the right to travel, thereby ensuring that the whole scheme does not fall foul of EU rules on the free movement of people within the EU."

Any chance MoodySabre can nip back to LIBS and ask his contact to have another go at explaining eBorders?
 
Last edited:
Major Catastrophe said:
Wouldn't that mean that any and every person hanging around Calais, looking to get to the 'promised land', would just be able to swan it, followed by fellow travellers from all over the world, once they learn that there is no restriction. Not to mention the importation of drugs, movement of criminals.........
Click to expand...

Given the state of the economy and the pound we are already seeing the opposite.

The latest arrived Polish and Eastern EU likes have already started to flee the UK in large batches, but those were lucky not to have invested too much in properties in the UK so they were free to go at any time. Others who have a lot to loose with the low exchange rate are hanging on, hoping for a recovery, but I guess sooner or later they will have to let go.

I can see a future when the EU will send food and used clothes to the poors leaving on the island across the channel. Not joining the Euro was the last biggest mistake the UK could have done, with the most serious ripercussions yet to come.
 
Last edited:
haydude said:
Given the state of the economy and the pound we are already seeing the opposite.

The latest arrived Polish and Eastern EU likes have already started to flee the UK in large batches, but those were lucky not to have invested too much in properties in the UK so they were free to go at any time. Others who have a lot to loose with the low exchange rate are hanging on, hoping for a recovery, but I guess sooner or later they will have to let go.

I can see a future when the EU will send food and used clothes to the poors leaving on the island across the channel. Not joining the Euro was the last biggest mistake the UK could have done, with the most serious ripercussions yet to come.
Click to expand...

Not sure why you think this is relevant. EU citizens have right of freedom of movement, so you don't find many Poles or other "East Europeans" waiting in camps just outside Calais or Cherbourg waiting to be driven over in vans driven by sons of French politicians or hanging on the axles of lorries, or hidden in cases containing fruit etc etc. Do however find lots from Afghanistan, Kurdistan, Somalia, Vietnam etc!

The only relevance to EBorders and yachtsmen is that so far there is no evidence that yachts are used by illegal immigrants to enter the UK.
 
haydude said:
The latest arrived Polish and Eastern EU likes
Click to expand...

They already enjoy, and quite rightly, free unfettered movement, as long as they identify themselves on entry.

I was referring to the economic migrants from without the EU, who would be able to cross the Channel without restriction if we signed Schengen.

EDIT: Ah! Tranona has already raised that.
 
Tranona said:
Not sure why you think this is relevant. EU citizens have right of freedom of movement, so you don't find many Poles or other "East Europeans" waiting in camps just outside Calais or Cherbourg waiting to be driven over in vans driven by sons of French politicians or hanging on the axles of lorries, or hidden in cases containing fruit etc etc. Do however find lots from Afghanistan, Kurdistan, Somalia, Vietnam etc!

The only relevance to EBorders and yachtsmen is that so far there is no evidence that yachts are used by illegal immigrants to enter the UK.
Click to expand...

That is the point! What are the chances that a non-EU illegal immigrant would cross the channel on a sailing yacht, unless it is a stolen one. But in that case what are the chances that they would register?

And again what are the chances that a yacht owner would risk the impounding of his yacht if caugth willingfully ferrying illigal immigrants across?

Hence the complete uselessness of the scheme if not to harrass the law abiding citizens.

The only case I would see the scheme to be of any use is to identify those regularly going back and forth through an offshore route, because potentially they could carry illegal stuff. But again those shipments that they found in yachts coming from offshore are just one-offs and in any case they had been following them from their departure. So in this case, once again what are the benefits of the scheme if someone with something to hide would just take the chance and fail to register or make a bogus registration showing their port of origin is just across the channel?

The whole scheme will create only lots of data to analyse and waste money and time because those willing to get through the system will get through anyway, eBorders or not.
 
Last edited:
But if they had something to hide they simply fail to register as you state and when stopped say that they need not have registered because they did not land in France etc and therefore have no papers - they would be amongst many like that - in fact most yachts in the channel would be like that - no need for papers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

Baggywrinkle
Test run of the Lithium system that has been sitting in my cellar for most of this year.
Replies
16
Views
675
Baggywrinkle
Baggywrinkle
stu9000
HHow long is too long (solo sailing)?
3 4 5
Replies
84
Views
2K
seeSimon
S

Share this page

Top