Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-24-Speech-2-266"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-10-24"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Protection of personal data2
dcterms:Language	"sv"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20001024.8.2-266"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-10-24-Speech-2-2672
lpv:speaker	lp:Astrid Thors2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Temporary committee on the Echelon interception system (2000-07-06--2001-09-05)3 member; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 chair; Delegation to the EU-Romania Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-13--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Svenska folkpartiet (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Lithuania Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3 member; PETI (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Conference of Delegation Chairs (1999-09-13--2002-01-14)3 member_of_the_bureau; ELDR (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, our group considers that this is on the whole a good result and especially welcomes the fact that the area of application is extended to include the whole of Community law. These rules are to apply, in particular, within the second and third pillars. We welcome the wealth of initiative and invention which has characterised this work. We should like to thank the rapporteur. We think that the institutional solutions are very good. We are not talking about some form of collegiate body but about a supervisor and assistant supervisor. It is important to ensure that, important as data protection is, this must not mean limited access to documents within the EU’s institutions. The European ombudsman has unfortunately been compelled to point out that the Commission has used data secrecy as a reason for limiting access to information about who had taken part in a meeting intended to sway the Commission. This is an example of the misuse of data protection, which must not occur. I really do hope it is ensured that the regulations will not be applied in that way. We must also be aware of the fact that the European ombudsman and the data protection supervisor will be on opposite sides of the fence. We must not be surprised if they sometimes end up in public discussion with each other. The fact that their tasks have not been combined is extremely positive. To some extent, this is an automatic transfer from the old Directive 95/46/EC. In this connection, I want to take the opportunity to ask the Commissioner when revision of the general directive on data protection is to begin. There is, of course, an obvious need to revise this directive with a view to modernising it, so that it meets those needs mentioned by Mrs Cederschiöld. Data protection on the telecommunications network ought also to be reviewed. Finally, I want to point out that, as a Finnish citizen, I have realised that the European Parliament is the only institution – the only elected body – to supervise the Commission’s decisions when it comes to the level of data secrecy in third countries. We are aware of the famous case in which such supervision was applied. The European Parliament is the only body which can democratically supervise decisions by means of the committee procedure which exists. I now see that my own country is to alter the law relating to personal data which deprives elected representatives of any influence at all over the Commission’s decisions. I therefore welcome the constructive dialogue we have established with the Commission, together with the appropriate committee procedure which will guarantee citizens’ security."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph