Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-04-21-Speech-3-136"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100421.6.3-136"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, as rapporteur I would first of all like to thank the shadows for their excellent, pleasant and fruitful cooperation resulting in a joint resolution. Of course, this is not the final stage, as our talks on the topic and the text will continue. Today we consider the request for consent by the Council on the two agreements with the US and Australia.
This House has always been highly critical of the use and transfer of PNR data. As a matter of fact, in 2004, Parliament sought the annulment of the agreement with the US before the European Court of Justice. It would therefore be inconsistent with our earlier positions to give consent without further ado.
However, Parliament being responsible and cooperative as always, we agree that by rejecting the two agreements, we will create legal uncertainty and practical difficulties for citizens and carriers. So we propose instead to suspend the vote and request the Commission to develop a coherent approach to the use of PNR that is based on a single set of principles. I am very pleased to note that the Commission and the Council have embraced this strategy and that they are committed to working fast and flexibly. We urge the Commission in particular to submit the PNR package, as it is now dubbed, before the summer break.
Such a coherent single approach seems the pragmatic option when more and more countries are requiring the transfer of passenger data. Then there is the lapsed PNR agreement with Canada – or whatever the legal status is, as this is not entirely clear – as well as the shelved proposal for an EU PNR. This draft resolution sets out a number of basic principles and minimum requirements for the PNR package, and they are, as it were, our conditions for consent. A key element or key word here is proportionality, because it must be demonstrated convincingly that the same end cannot be achieved with less intrusive means. This is really the key to everything.
We specifically need to look at API data and ESTA in this context. We need, for example, to distinguish very clearly between the massive collection and use of data on all passengers for the purpose of automated searches such as profiling and data mining on the one hand, and targeted searches for known suspects on the other hand, identifying people who are, for example, on a no-fly or watch list. That is something completely different and we need to distinguish very carefully.
Secondly, there must be a clear and strict purpose limitation in line with earlier resolutions, and we insist that data be used only for law-enforcement and security purposes and on the basis of very precise definitions of what that is: organised international crime and international terrorism. We need to make very clear what it is that we are talking about. Any use of PNR must be in line with EU data protection standards. It is our prime responsibility to represent the interests of our own European citizens. They have a right to know that we uphold European law in international relations and in our internal policies.
Finally, we recognise the need to provide law-enforcement and security authorities with the necessary means to do their job in an era of unprecedented mobility, but Europe also has a duty to protect our rights and freedoms. I believe with the forthcoming PNR package we have a unique opportunity to get it right."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples