Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-10-26-Speech-3-414-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20111026.24.3-414-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would like to start by saying how satisfied I am with the cooperation between the Commission, the Council and Parliament. Parliament last year set out very clear criteria for the transfer of PNR data to third countries. The Commission then put forward a very good package in line with those criteria, and the Council very swiftly adopted a negotiating mandate. I think this example demonstrates that, if the three institutions work together, Europe is a force to be reckoned with.
I would also like to thank the shadow rapporteurs, Axel Voss, Birgit Sippel, Timothy Kirkhope, Jan Albrecht, Rui Tavares and, more recently, Cornelia Ernst. Even if we do not agree on every single detail I think the PNR team has worked in a very constructive spirit.
As rapporteur, I recommend in my draft report that this House gives its consent to the conclusion of an agreement with Australia on the transfer of PNR data. I think the recommendation will get wide support, and I am very happy with that.
However, that does not mean that all concerns and reservations have been met. There are still some doubts and hesitations. For this reason, some groups in this House will withhold their vote or vote against. I fully understand their objections, and I share most of their concerns. However, they know as well as I do that a ‘no’ vote will not stop the transfer of data. We are not voting on the actual transfer, we can only vote on the conditions governing the transfer of data. A ‘no’ vote, therefore, is purely symbolic. For that reason, I will also not endorse the GUE Group’s call for a consultation of the European Court of Justice, although I have great sympathy for that proposal.
We have assessed the draft agreement against the criteria that we set out last year and given a positive assessment on a number of points, in particular the limitation of the ‘purpose’ definition. It has been considerably tightened, and includes only the fight against terrorism and serious transnational crime. I think that is a very important achievement.
We have also ensured that the method of transfer will be ‘push’ exclusively. That is very important, also in view of future agreements. There are also some other positive points.
However there are also a couple of remaining concerns, as I said initially. The most fundamental point is that the necessity and proportionality of the mass collection and storage of data has been demonstrated only partially, and not sufficiently. Secondly, no justification has been given for the long-term storage of identifiable data of all travellers. The retention period of five and a half years appears to be fairly random, and was not based on any specific evidence.
Finally, the appropriate legal basis for the agreement should be – or in any case include – Article 16 of the Treaties, on data protection. If you retrace the history of these agreements back to 2003, the purpose of this agreement has been, from the very start, exclusively to ensure that the transfer of data to third countries is in line with EU data protection standards. Therefore, the only proper legal base can be Article 16 and nothing else. If the purpose were exclusively police and justice cooperation, the EU could theoretically decide against the collection of PNR data by Australia. But it cannot, because it is a sovereign and unilateral decision by Australia to collect these data.
Finally, we need a political assurance by the Commission that the agreement remains the joint responsibility of the three EU institutions, each with its own role. If, in future, the European Parliament notes serious deficiencies in the application of the agreement, we expect the Commission to respond and to take appropriate action including, if necessary, the submission of proposals for the suspension or termination of the agreement. I would like to ask the Presidency of this House to see to it that these assurances, as expressed today and noted in the minutes, are confirmed by an exchange of letters with the Commission."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples