Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-10-11-Speech-3-116"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-10-11"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Use of passenger data (PNR) (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20061011.15.3-116"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-10-11-Speech-3-1172
lpv:speaker	lp:Sophia in 't Veld2
lpv:spoken text	". Mr President, I have the feeling that I have ended up in the wrong theatre play and I have the wrong script in front of me. The President-in-Office and the Commissioner were talking about the agreement and you completely ignored the side letter from the Department of Homeland Security, which gives an interpretation of the agreement that goes in a completely different direction from what you have just said. So I am afraid that I am unable to share the joy just expressed by the Presidency and the Commission. I sent a letter – to which the President-in-Office just referred – with a number of questions. I would very much like to get an answer to those questions, preferably during this sitting, or otherwise in writing. For example, you said that there is no change in the number and the nature of the data and there is no change in the level of protection, but how do you then explain the part in the side letter from the Americans that says that, in addition to the purpose of fighting terrorism and related crimes, we will also collect the data to fight infectious disease and other risks? I call that a considerable widening of the scope. The sharing of data has been widened to include agencies which have not all been specified. The Americans now say that they may not apply the agreed data-retention periods even to the data collected under the old agreement. You said that we have agreed to move to a ‘push system’: I am sorry, but that is not what I read. I read that the Americans will move to the ‘push system’ as soon as it is technically feasible. Well, congratulations! That was also part of the old agreement. It has been technically feasible for more than a year and the Americans have simply refused to do it. So how can you present it this way in a press conference? I would also like to get an answer on the impact on other categories – the precedent that this agreement sets – for example, the bank account details as in the case of SWIFT, and the telecoms records, to which the Americans also have access. Could somebody please reply to that? I think we should look to the future, because unfortunately we need this agreement. The only other option would have been no agreement, in which case the Member States would not have stood together in solidarity and would have moved ahead and concluded bilateral agreements with the Americans. I think that for the future we need a strong and clear mandate. Such a strong mandate requires the approval of the European Parliament for reasons of democratic legitimacy. That is the only basis on which a new agreement can be concluded. Therefore, I hope that the bridging clause will be adopted as soon as possible. I know that you are our ally at least on that one."@en1
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Democraten 66 (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; FEMM (2004-09-03--2007-01-14)3 substitute; LIBE (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3 member_of_the_bureau; ALDE (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; Temporary Committee on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transport and illegal detention of prisoners (2006-01-19--2007-02-14)3 member; ECON (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; Delegation for relations with the Mashreq countries (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the People's Republic of China (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(Applause)"1 "Sophia in 't Veld,"1 "on behalf of the ALDE Group"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph