Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-04-20-Speech-2-440"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040420.19.2-440"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Thank you very much Mr President, thank you very much Commissioner for your detailed explanation. We are all agreed that we have to combat terrorists, but that must not be allowed to become a licence for things that we ultimately cannot justify. I have to say to you, Commissioner, you have not convinced me this evening. First of all, you said that the transfer by the customs bureau is a matter of concern to you. At the moment the Commission, in recital 20 of the decision, refers to passing on to other government bodies, including foreign government bodies. A few days ago we heard for the first time that it is a matter of concern to you how this is organised. A few months ago you asked Parliament for an adequacy finding.
Meanwhile, both Mr Bolkestein and yourself have informed us that there is no adequacy finding as yet in fact.
Then the question of the agreement itself. Parliament has asked for a real international agreement. Parliament has asked for non-discrimination in the use of the data for EU citizens. Parliament has asked for equivalence in the United States and efficient, independent opportunities to correct incorrect data and a clear judicial process for EU citizens who get into difficulties. You said that there will be reciprocity. Well, Commissioner, Article 6 of the agreement states that where feasible and on the basis of strict reciprocity, the cooperation of airlines falling under its jurisdiction will be actively promoted. That is not reciprocity. Article 1 states what we have to do. The CBP gets electronic access to the PNR data in the reservation and departure systems of airlines based on the territory of the Member States of the European Community. Such as is strictly in accordance with the decision and as long as the decision remains in force. This means that we are legalising something that we wanted to avoid all this time and that is the reason for asking Parliament now for a real agreement, that has the consent of Parliament. You say this is not necessary, because the legal basis that the Council has chosen is Directive 95/46/EC and this agreement would not change the content of the Directive. How can you say that now when Article 2 of the agreement provides that everything will be handled in accordance with the laws of the United States? In my view, this means we are introducing the laws of the United States here. This is not a genuine agreement. This is an agreement about which Mr Bolkestein says that many matters have still not been resolved. I have not mentioned the connection between this agreement and CAPS II, but the undertakings to that also state that this agreement will shortly also be linked to the new, advanced CAPS II system in the United States. The US Congress has said that this is no good and has sent it back to the competent bodies.
To cut a long story short, the way this deal has come about is not right. Mr Bolkestein promised in September that Parliament would be treated as a full partner. Unfortunately, he has not kept this promise. Indeed it is much worse than that, the European Commission and the Council have deliberately tried to sidetrack Parliament. Under the Treaty, Parliament was required to give its consent, but you have chosen not to do that. That was also the reason why I argued the case in Parliament and got President Cox to recommend through the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market that an appeal be made on the grounds of Article 300, paragraph 6, of the Treaty to have this agreement tested by the European Court of Justice. That is the only way left to us to do something about this agreement and to adequately protect our citizens. At the moment they are not adequately protected. I think that is extremely regrettable. I would have liked to see you withdraw the agreement.
I agree with you that terrorism is appalling, but just to use all that as a licence to ride roughshod over our laws and give the Americans access to our data without legal protection, because the American Constitution and the Privacy Act
do not apply to European citizens, is going too far. I beg you therefore once again to withdraw this agreement and to come to Parliament with a real agreement."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples