Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-10-25-Speech-1-065"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991025.4.1-065"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Firstly I should like to thank the European Parliament for the very encouraging and supportive approach taken on this matter. I must say for the first time in this Parliament that I have agreed with all the speakers. It has been very constructive and different viewpoints have been presented here. In particular, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Lechner, on his constructive report.
Thank you for your cooperation. I hope that this kind of rapid consensual cooperation can be taken by us with many new initiatives in the same field which are already now in Parliament or expected later this year and next.
The progress in Parliament has also been of symbolic importance for future issues in the same area. The rapidity of the technological change is such that we need to strike a balance between rapid procedures and flexible legislation. Otherwise, we shall not be able to meet the requirements of the huge changes we see every day in the information society in its different sectors.
The directive which is on the agenda today deals with the use and legal recognition of electronic signatures. This is very important, as has been said so many times today. Doing business electronically is increasing rapidly both for companies and for consumers. The Internet will be pervasive in Europe in a matter of five years or so. We can expect half of the European population to be connected to the Internet by 2005 and not only via PC, but increasingly via mobile communication devices. That was the message everyone received from Geneva Telecom two weeks ago.
The use of electronic signatures is an important means of ensuring authenticity in the future electronic world. Without it there will be no safe electronic communications for European citizens. In fact, even further growth in Internet usage may even be slowed down due to the growing concerns of security and privacy. The bottom line is that without security and trust there will not be a notable shift towards commercial and financial transactions on the Internet.
This directive is not designed to regulate everything, neither is it meant to replace the market. It offers legal recognition of electronic signatures where currently only the paper form is recognised, thus providing for more security in the market place. Furthermore, it secures the internal market for electronic signature products and services. But there is also a considerable international dimension to this initiative. The Internet and e-commerce are global by nature. Therefore, other international organisations like the United Nations and the OECD are increasingly active in the field of electronic signatures. Almost all US states either have an electronic signature law in place or are preparing one. Japan is also drafting a law in this area. Hence, having a harmonised European legal framework in place would strengthen Europe’s position in the international context.
We also need this directive to avoid divergent approaches in Member States’ law, as has been mentioned. Today, all EU Member States agree on the importance of electronic signatures to ensure security and trust in electronic communication. This is good news. We can build on this by avoiding obstacles to the free circulation of electronic signature products and services within the internal market.
As to the amendments proposed, the Commission can accept them with the exception of one. We have a problem with Amendment No 6 because, according to our interpretation, it goes against the Treaty because the Treaty provides that these kinds of proposals must be submitted to the Council. In that context the European Parliament is not mentioned.
All in all, I want to repeat that I am very pleased about the high degree of consensus between the positions of the Commission and the European Parliament.
It is in the interests of all of us to support the fast progress of this matter. With this aim in mind, I should like to suggest that Parliament reconsider Amendment No 6 in order to avoid an unnecessary conciliation procedure. In this context, the Treaty does not leave room for interpretation."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples