Proposals for a centralised database of fingerprints from across the Continent were revealed yesterday, fuelling fears on all sides of a Big Brother Europe.

The scheme for a computerised collection of personal details drawn from all 27 countries in the EU is the latest in a raft of anticrime measures in the wake of the 9/11 attacks in the United States.

Britain would be expected to contribute all the details held by police. These include fingerprints of suspects and people released without charge, as well as those convicted of crimes. The plan coincides with the Home Office preparing to expand the range of people fingerprinted to include those caught speeding or dropping litter.

The aim is for the database to be up and running by the end of next year. The sensitive information it contains could be shared with third parties, such as US law enforcement authorities.

A detailed assessment is being carried out to determine the scope and cost of the single EU fingerprint database, The Times has learnt.

The proposal, which was buried in a lengthy European Commission document setting out policy goals for next year, managed the rare feat of uniting all sides in opposition. Euro-sceptics criticised them as the trappings of a super-state, while some of Europe’s most ardent supporters complained of a threat to civil liberties.

“This rings alarm bells in terms of civil liberties and in Brussels overreaching itself,” said Baroness Ludford, a Liberal Democrat MEP, who called the project “Euro Big Brother run riot”.

She added: “Of course MEPs want to fight crime and terrorism, but individual privacy must be safeguarded. We need to know who can access this database and what the information can be used for.

“It is irresponsible of the European Commission to act like this. It is doing the euro-sceptics’ job for them.”

Officials in Brussels confirmed that an assessment was under way on “implementing a centralised database of fingerprints”. The one-line announcement of the plan as a “key action” for “security and freedom” appeared in the European Commision’s annual policy strategy for 2008.

There is no decision yet on where the database would be housed. Such EU projects are traditionally the subject of haggling among member governments.

The officials were reluctant to say if the fingerprints, from all 27 countries, would be made available to allies such as the United States in the fight against crime and terrorism, in the same way as airline passenger information.

A spokesman for Franco Frattini, the EU Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security, said: “This is something we are doing more work on, as a very important, if not indispensable, tool in combating cross-border organised crime and terrorism. So we will certainly pursue this.”

He confirmed that it was an additional project to the voluntary sharing of fingerprint information agreed by home affairs ministers in January under the extension of the Prum Treaty — an agreement between several continental countries.

Neil O’Brien, of Open Europe, said: “The European Union is gaining criminal justice powers very rapidly. The problem is that one thing leads to another and that setting up centralised institutions is then used as an excuse for further harmonisation of powers which will take decisions about criminals and victims further away from ordinary voters.

“If you are collecting a centralised database, there will then be rules about how you collect fingerprints, which have implications for how you handle different kinds of crimes. Who decides who controls access to this information? A lot of people will feel this is the start of Big Brother Europe.”

Gareth Crossman, director of policy at human rights group Liberty, said: “The attitude of the British Government is one where mass retention of biometric information is at the heart of anticrime and security policy.

“We hope the need for proportionality would be at the heart of his project and it would be for those people for whom data retention and sharing would be of use, while the experience in the UK shows that information is retained and shared because it might be of use.”

Times Recommends

• Times Charity Appeal: SolarAid
• Is it Black Monday all over again for Dubai?
• Behind the scenes at the biggest deal