Proposition 54K0731

Projet de loi relatif aux traitements automatisés de données à caractère personnel nécessaires aux passeports et titres de voyage belges.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

Dec. 19, 2014

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

biometrics protection of privacy electronic component electronic government fraud local authority passport personal data national

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR PP VB

Abstained from voting

PVDA | PTB

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Jan. 29, 2015 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues in the Foreign Affairs Committee for appointing me as rapporteur for this first bill adopted in our committee. I refer to the written report and specify that this draft was unanimously adopted.

My speech on behalf of the President will be brief.

Dear colleagues, my political group supports this bill that strengthens the reliability of passports, travel cards issued to European citizens and, ultimately, our fellow citizens.

Enhancing the security of these documents through biometric elements prevents their forgery and thus makes it more difficult for suspicious individuals to move. This bill aims to combat those who would like to obtain a document under a false identity. Secure data can be used reliably and effectively in border controls by the federal police, for example.

We therefore advocate the progressive continuation of the expansion of automated checks via passport readers.

Through this project, our political formation defends a balance between the imperatives of security and protection of privacy.

My speech will be very brief.

During the discussion in the committee, I spoke, asking many questions both about the form and the substance of this project. This project is ⁇ technical, but it raises many questions both in terms of the fight against fake identity documents and on data protection and, more broadly, privacy.

To all the questions I addressed to the Minister in commission having found an answer, my group of course supported this project. However, one question remained unanswered because it was outside the field of competence of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In the context of the fight against fraud, the data can be consulted by the police, magistrates or intelligence services. In a committee, the minister replied to me that he did not exclude the possibility of expanding the possibilities of consulting these data in the context of certain criminal investigations, especially in the event of an attack. However, this question was more within the competence of the Minister of Justice. I regret that he is not present today. Does the government actually plan to submit a bill in this direction?

Finally, in the review of the report, a second question arose to me. The Minister spoke of the implementation of a pilot project at the Brussels-National Airport which provides for the installation of six or seven e-gates, automated controls.

While my group is fiercely defending the principle of freedom of movement and the legislation that encourages it, all human control should not be removed and replaced by automatic porches. When it is known that minors without parental permission get to fly by passing the automatic porches already present for European destinations, I wonder! Wouldn’t it therefore be better to maintain certain human controls, without recourse to machines that have already shown their flaws and thus avoid the departure abroad of minors without the permission of their parents? Can an airport take such automatic control measures without consulting the authorities?

I would like to answer the question of my colleague. and crusher. I would like to remind you first that the Privacy Protection Commission gave a totally favorable opinion on this bill, without any ambiguity or restriction. She ⁇ made comments, but was answered in the context of the discussion and drafting of the bill.

As for the investigations you are talking about, it is clear that this is not a restriction of the place of justice in the context of these investigations. Whatever the subject matter of the investigation, it remains under the control of a magistrate. It seems to me to be a necessary guarantee for the protection of privacy and simply for the rights of citizens.