Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-12-Speech-3-164"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030312.5.3-164"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, if you agree, as indicated on the board, this Commissioner – who is less knowledgeable than his colleague – could begin the debate and then my colleague Commissioner Bolkestein will continue, as this issue touches on both our competences. I repeat what I said at the outset of the previous debate, and offer my apologies to Parliament that I will have to leave early, though my distinguished colleague will be here until the end of the debate. I explained in the last debate that I am due to fly to Croatia and Belgrade later this afternoon and, not least because of the tragic events today, I know that Parliament will understand that.
I am also aware that questions have been raised as to the legal basis for the action undertaken so far by the Commission. This, as my colleague Commissioner Bolkestein will explain in more detail, seems to be founded on a misunderstanding. There has been no 'agreement' and no 'decision' so far. Instead, we have engaged with the United States authorities in an intensive dialogue aimed at obtaining the necessary guarantees regarding the proper handling and use of the data concerned by the US side.
Both sides are now committed to continuing their discussions in order to find a more legally secure solution. The possibility of such discussions is provided for in the Data Protection Directive, as the initial and necessary steps towards the adequacy finding provided for in its Article 25(6). Following comitology procedures, the draft Commission decision will then have to be discussed by this House before being finalised.
In the interim, we have obtained from the United States a provisional set of undertakings on how they will protect the personal data they access and a specific commitment not to make use of any sensitive data for profiling purposes.
Before passing the debate to my distinguished colleague to provide honourable Members with further details on this issue, I would like to ask this House to recognise the considerable efforts made by the Commission and the positive results we have achieved so far – even if these still have to be finalised – and I hope Parliament will join forces with us in obtaining from the United States the necessary data protection guarantees for European citizens so that a permanent solution to the problem can be achieved.
I should like to make one final personal remark. The whole House recognises how the events of 11 September produced a real feeling of vulnerability and shock in the United States. The House will recognise the concern in the United States to put in place measures to ensure that further terrorist attacks are less, rather than more, likely in the future. Like a number of honourable Members, I come from a country which has also had to take steps to deal with terrorist threats. That said, I hope that we can engage the United States at a much earlier stage in the policy-making process in discussing these security issues. If we can have a dialogue earlier in the process, it will be easier to avoid the sort of political difficulties that we have had from time to time over the last year. There should be no difference between us at all on the importance of putting in place security measures which are recognised as being reasonable by both sides. It would be easier to do that if we could talk more openly and earlier about these sorts of measures.
Let me now turn to the business in hand. The Aviation and Security Act, passed by the US Congress on 19 November 2001, is one of a series of laws introduced in the United States after 11 September 2001, with one overriding aim: to enhance national security, in particular through transport security measures. The basic aim is to prevent terrorist acts by detecting potential perpetrators before they enter the country.
In this context, the United States Congress has required that carriers make passenger name record information available to US Customs upon request.
The Commission shares the security concerns of the United States. Nevertheless, the United States measures have raised concern with regard to the respect of Community and Member States’ laws on data protection. Airlines operating flights across the Atlantic risked being caught between two sets of incompatible measures and suffering severe losses as a result of penalties the United States threatened to impose, including fines and even the withdrawal of landing rights. Passengers - between 10 and 11 million a year - would have also suffered from the disrupted air traffic and from the time-consuming 'secondary' checks that the United States planned to introduce at point of entry. Moreover, airlines not in compliance risked being seen as higher security risks, with potential consequences for significant falls in passenger numbers.
The stakes, therefore, were very high and the consequences of not acting would have been extremely serious. We had to ensure, as far as we could, that the important interests of European Union citizens in preserving their right to privacy was balanced against the need to protect many thousands of jobs in our airlines and associated industries like travel agencies. I want to assure this House that, right from the outset, the European Commission has done its utmost to try to engage the United States in a discussion on how to find a solution compatible with both sets of legislation and one that would ensure legal certainty for all concerned.
The European Commission has assumed its responsibilities and in recent weeks undertook difficult discussions to overcome a stalemate created by the United States initially taking our concerns lightly and not responding to our questions.
In fact, the European Commission had raised this issue with the United States on numerous occasions, with particular emphasis since the US Customs Service issued its interim rule of 19 June 2002, containing the concrete implementation methods. As a result of these efforts by the Commission, the United States first postponed the entry into force of the new requirements until 5 February and then agreed to waive the imposition of penalties on non-complying airlines until 5 March.
Following a high-level meeting on 17 and 18 February on access to personal data contained in passenger name records, both sides issued a joint statement which sets out the steps that need to be taken to reach a mutually satisfactory and legally certain solution to this issue.
Further talks took place on 4 March, as a result of which the United States has given additional undertakings with respect to the handling and protection of sensitive data."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples