Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-29-Speech-1-060"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040329.7.1-060"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, this is not the first time that this House has been asked to give its attention to this important and complex issue. From the very beginning, all those involved have recognised the difficulty of finding the answer to the question in front of us: what is the right balance between security demands and civil liberty? We tackle this against a rather sombre backdrop. Just before the weekend, the European Council agreed on a strong package of measures to reinforce the anti-terrorism efforts of the European Union.
Please ask yourselves whether it is likely that the United States will suddenly double the amount of change it is prepared to make and do so by June, as the resolution demands? Members of this House have had their own contacts with American representatives over the last few months, and I am sure you have formed your own views about their openness to our arguments.
The resolution and its defenders also point to obtaining passengers' consent to the transfer as the 'magic' solution while we skilfully negotiate a new and better deal. Let me repeat the Commission's full and active support for measures that ensure that passengers are fully and accurately informed and, where possible, give their agreement. But that should be in addition to – not instead of – the actions we have taken to improve protection in the United States.
Over the last year, Parliament has been an extremely active and outspoken participant in this debate. In doing so, it has undoubtedly strengthened the Commission's position in its negotiations with the United States. Clearly, Parliament should not be silent at this stage. I was indeed expecting some further expressions of concern and constructive criticism. Of course nobody is asking Parliament to say that it approves of and espouses the American system and approach. Indeed, the Commission itself does not espouse the American approach part and parcel, nor will we stop trying to achieve improvements in it. Indeed, I am currently still in touch with the American authorities with a view to firming up and clarifying their commitments regarding the conditions under which they will be able to forward passenger data to third-country authorities. So, we are still working to improve the situation even further – and will continue to do so – before the Commission takes its final decision on an adequacy finding. It is one thing to say that what is on offer is not perfect, and quite another to seek its complete derailment – as the resolution as it stands does. That is why I would ask you to reject this motion for a resolution.
To conclude, I shall summarise the choice before Parliament. Rejection of the motion will allow the Commission's proposed package
the improvements in data protection that we negotiated with the United States – to go ahead. Among these major improvements there are annual joint reviews to enable us to keep a close eye on things, and a clear cut-off date after three and a half years. It would also end legal insecurity and remove threats of sanctions for the airlines. I have no doubt there would be positive spin-offs for EU-US cooperation. That is the first choice.
The second choice is adoption of the motion for a resolution, which would mean foregoing those advantages in return for a declaration of principle and a wish list that – I am sorry to say – cannot realistically be delivered.
I know that Parliament will not want to send any equivocal messages about terrorism. At the same time, we all agree that the fight against terrorism cannot and must not be carried out at the expense of the protection of fundamental rights such as privacy. Against this background, I would like to invite Members to reflect carefully on what this resolution – if adopted – could possibly achieve and to check whether this corresponds to our objectives.
I dare to say 'our objectives' because the Commission and the Parliament can surely agree on what our goals are. Firstly, to cooperate to fight the scourge of terrorism without sacrificing fundamental civil rights and liberties. Secondly, to free airlines from the threat of being caught between contradictory legal requirements with which they have to comply. Thirdly, to make sure that such transfers are made in a clear and secure legal framework. Fourthly, to foster a cooperative and balanced relationship with the United States. Fifthly, and most importantly, to improve the protection given to air passengers and to their data that are transferred to the United States.
For over a year, the Commission has been negotiating with the United States with a view to meeting these objectives. I ask you frankly: does the motion for a resolution in front of us pay sufficient attention to the significant progress that has been achieved? The Commission certainly wanted more and pressed hard for more over long months of tough negotiations. But, as Members of this House know from their day-to-day dealings, the result of negotiations is rarely, if ever, perfect.
We must also be honest with ourselves: our own delivery of our high data protection standards is far from being ideal. Recent Eurobarometer results show worryingly low levels of knowledge by European citizens about their rights and obligations. So let us be cautious before preaching to the rest of the world. The key question today on this file is: can we realistically achieve more?
The resolution asks the Commission to tell the United States that its concessions are not enough. Furthermore, it seeks to open new negotiations with a view to reaching a better solution. The list of demands in the resolution is no doubt a very fine one, but will it take us closer to our objectives? In the light of my experience over the last 12 months I am afraid I have to inform the House that this is pie in the sky.
The results of rejecting this package will not be a better package, but no package at all. Having no package does not get us one inch closer to our objectives, which I thought we shared. It certainly does not lead to better data protection in the United States. We would be simply throwing away all those hard-won improvements.
It certainly does nothing either for future EU-US cooperation. We can only influence the United States if we are credible interlocutors. Credible interlocutors deliver results. Delivering nothing after a year of negotiations does not meet the credibility test, and believe me, there are voices in Washington only too ready to say to Secretary Ridge 'We told you that negotiating with these people is a waste of time'. There is therefore a real risk that the United States will leave the negotiating table and not return.
Defenders of the resolution by the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs may say that this is an unlikely disaster scenario and that the Commission is just running scare stories to justify its own poor achievements. Of course, the proof of the pudding will only be in the eating, but if I were a Member of this Parliament, I would not bank on it that the aims of the resolution are achievable."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples