Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-29-Speech-1-059"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040329.7.1-059"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, today we have to decide on our opinion of the adequacy of the so-called light agreement which the Commission and the Council intend to conclude with the American authorities. I should like to remind you that in March of last year, Parliament indicated that in its view, the present situation, with unlimited provision of information to the United States, should end. Parliament repeated this request in October last year and asked the Commission to indicate what information can be passed on legitimately and without any risks. Parliament has also asked for the immediate replacement of the present ‘pull’ system by a ‘push’ system, and for negotiations on an international agreement to provide European citizens with real guarantees and the same legal protection as American citizens. That is crucial and lies at the heart of this discussion. What is now before us is a so-called light agreement, an agreement in which, to all intents and purposes, this House is off-side. After all, our approval is not required; all we can do is to make a recommendation.
In my opinion, a deliberate decision was made in favour of a light agreement, while we had specifically asked for a heavy agreement. Indeed, a heavy agreement would have involved Parliament, whereas now, we are to some extent off-side. The Article 29 Committee, the group of experts, has stated that this agreement is inadequate, I, as the rapporteur, would suggest to Parliament that we act upon their opinion.
After all, what is happening? As early on as in Article 1 of the agreement, it is stated that the existing situation, in which unlimited information is provided to the United States, can be sustained until such time as a ‘push’ system is developed, which, as it happens, it has not been, and neither is it in the pipeline. We have taken advice on how long it can take before a ‘push’ system is in place, and I have included that in my resolution. A ‘push’ system can be in place within three months, and in actual fact, has been in place already, because we were told in December that such a system was underway. What we are therefore doing now is to legitimise what we have considered to be illegitimate on two occasions. Meanwhile, we are put under extreme pressure, both by the United States and the Commission, to rubberstamp the agreement, while we are uncertain as to its exact purpose. On the one hand, it is stated that it aims to fight terrorism, while, on the other hand, it is also used to fight serious crimes. These are not defined, though, which I find extremely objectionable.
Parliament has asked for an agreement in which the role of the airline companies is clearly indicated, how they are protected and what the guarantees are for passengers, enabling the latter to correct their details. We have also asked for an agreement in which the liability of airline companies and governments is regulated in the event of errors in code transcription. Meanwhile, we have gained some practical knowledge involving the United States. My colleague, Mr Sörensen, has asked, after having travelled to the United States, to peruse his details with a view to changing them if need be. After two months, he received a reply, stating that he is not allowed to peruse his details, because that would expose the US strategy.
If we look at legislation in the United States, we have to conclude that the Privacy Act should provide some level of protection. I have asked the United States to inform me specifically what this protection would consist of, and have not had a reply to date. The Patriot Act also plays a part in this. As a matter of fact, pursuant to this Act, any citizen who is suspected of terrorism can be indicted, without having any access to the courts. In short, the judicial process in the United States is not sufficiently regulated. The protection of our citizens in the United States is not sufficiently regulated. There is no level playing field where European and American citizens are concerned.
We are therefore discussing a matter in which we, should we approve it, would miss the mark altogether. It has been suggested that we would not be prepared to fight terrorists, but it is not about that at all. On the contrary, we have asked the Commission three times to table our own proposal which could also apply in Europe. Neither is this about bad relations with the United States. That is completely unrelated and should, in my view, not come into the discussion in any way. It is about us having to protect our citizens and them being able to expect this from us, in the same way as US citizens can expect this of their government."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples