Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-09-07-Speech-4-010"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060907.4.4-010"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, today we are discussing the PNR Agreement with the United States. However, we are all fully aware of the fact that this issue can only be debated in a wider context, particularly in the light of the information received last night to the effect that President Bush has finally admitted that secret CIA detention camps actually exist. We should look at this issue in the wider context of the methods used to combat terrorism – the methods that we in Europe want to use in the fight against terrorism and the methods that are used by our friend and ally, the United States.
Finally, I should like to make a very urgent appeal to the Council to adopt proper arrangements for data protection under the Third Pillar, along the lines set out by our rapporteur, Mrs Roure.
The case of the CIA detention camps and rendition flights and the case of the PNR Agreement demonstrate very clearly the urgent need for Europe to speak with a single voice. We urgently need a single European policy in this area. I welcome what Commissioner Frattini has said, because in my view a common EU policy is not one designed by a handful of ministers that meet behind closed doors, in informal meetings. An EU policy is one made following a proper democratic procedure that involves Parliamentary scrutiny, i.e. in codecision with Parliament. You therefore have my wholehearted support for the proposal on the bridging clause. I hope that the governments too will now realise how urgent that is.
With regard to the PNR issue itself, we should distinguish three phases. One is the short-term renegotiation of the current agreement, which is very urgent and needs to be concluded by the end of the month. I have heard rumours which seem to indicate that the US is in no great hurry to conclude the Agreement and might actually ultimately prefer bilateral agreements. It is therefore very important that all European countries and the EU institutions close ranks and adopt a united stance.
I very much welcome the much more forthcoming attitude adopted by the Council and Commission this week. That is the best way forward. Were there to be no agreement it would be absolutely catastrophic for the European Union and for the protection of our citizens’ personal data.
With regard to this agreement, we all seem to agree that the substance of the agreement should preferably be left untouched. We would have preferred to improve the agreement, but the US would like to move in another direction. I therefore feel that the best we can achieve at the moment is to have the same agreement but on a new legal basis.
During the negotiations, however, you should insist that the undertakings made in the current agreement be implemented without delay, because assessments have shown that even if there is an agreement it is not being fully and correctly implemented. I would notably point to: the switch from the ‘pull’ to the ‘push’ system, which is long overdue; information to passengers, which is key but which is apparently still not happening; and purpose limitation – which is a more difficult issue, but an absolutely crucial one. I hope you can see to it that the undertakings are integrated into the agreement rather than being a sort of appendix that is not legally binding.
With regard to the medium and long term – i.e. the post-2007 review – we very much hope that by then the
clause will have been adopted, that Parliament will have secured codecision and that everything will be dealt with as part of a proper democratic procedure. At that point, Parliament will insist on proportionality, which is to say that there should be data-sharing, because we all want a safer world and to fight the scourge of terrorism, but that this should be proportional. We should not share more data than is strictly needed to achieve our purpose. It goes without saying that there should be adequate protection of personal data and procedural safeguards. That is quite clear.
One of the proposals in the report, which fortunately received the support of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, is that we start a parliamentary transatlantic dialogue. I feel that this rift with the US needs to be healed. We must fight terrorism together. It cannot be that while we call the Americans ‘cowboys’ they call us ‘cowards’, and we are deeply divided.
At the same time, there are proposals circulating on a European PNR policy. I am rather unhappy that we only learned about this through the media. We have heard that this idea was presented at an informal meeting in London a couple of weeks ago. That is not the way forward. If there is to be such a policy then we would prefer that it were presented here in Parliament."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples