Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-01-31-Speech-3-119"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070131.20.3-119"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Enriched by the lessons of the case of passenger name records (PNR), we should be able to make quicker progress when it comes to SWIFT. I should like, if I may, Mr Gloser, to correct you on one point. I believe that this is the first time we have held a specific debate on SWIFT here in the Chamber, and this is no doubt in the normal course of things, but I do hope this debate will enable us to make progress.
SWIFT is not an undertaking that operates solely in Europe or solely between Europe and the United States. It operates everywhere. To put it simply, after September 11 the nature of relations between SWIFT and the US authorities changed beyond all recognition, and we are now seeing the consequences not only in terms of data protection for the EU but also in terms of the balance that should be struck between data protection, the fight against terrorism, the security of payment systems and protection against economic espionage.
The Commission has acknowledged that there is a problem and has begun to put forward proposals. In a recent letter addressed to Mr Cavada and me, the Central Bank also recognised that the time had come to enter new phases, without going too far in the proposals. This confirmed what it had said to us at the hearing, which, unfortunately, neither the Council nor the Commission saw fit to attend. The Central Bank had told us at the hearing that it bore very little responsibility for what had happened in the case, and the letter partly confirms that view.
Reading the memorandum concluded between SWIFT and the US Treasury in April 2004, it is very clear that there was awareness of the data protection issues involved in the manner in which SWIFT transferred information to the US Treasury. Just as a train driver bears some responsibility for his train and the post office bears some responsibility for what it carries, SWIFT must bear some responsibility for the data it passes on.
The key point here, following the hearing held jointly by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs last October, is the briefing of the ‘Article 29’ working group which, on 22 November 2006, clearly confirmed our concerns, namely that, in the SWIFT case, data that should manifestly not have been concealed from the US authorities had in fact been concealed and that, accordingly, the 1995 Directive had not been complied with.
We should like to thank the Commissioner for taking the initiative of calling on the Member States to rectify, without delay, the issue of non-compliance with the 1995 Directive, but, as he himself also said, the results up to now have been quite poor. The European Central Bank, for its part, has heeded the lesson that it should demand customer consent. That remains a very prudent thing do.
As regards this last question, there are two points we must raise. The first is the nature of transatlantic relations and the manner in which data are used in something of a spirit of free, unbridled competition on the US side, and, on the European side – we have experience of this in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs – sometimes with a degree of naivety.
One would like to think that these data are used solely for the purposes of combating terrorism. We dare to hope so, but we have no proof. Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, if there is a message that, I believe, Parliament would like to convey to you when you hold talks with the Americans on the issue, it is that the purpose of the talks must not be to validate the current state of affairs as regards the transfer of data via SWIFT. It should be to ensure that the level of data protection and the concept of data protection itself that we have here in the EU are respected and accepted. Everything leads me to think that the task facing us in this area is a tough one, but you can count on Parliament’s unwavering support.
Just one more minute, Mr President, to address the last aspect, which is the issue of the status of SWIFT. As SWIFT is a Belgian company, we are always being referred back to the Belgian State. That being said, the fact that SWIFT is a Belgian company is because we are in a legal vacuum. It is clear that SWIFT is doing a job that should really be done by a European-level body, overseen by a European supervisory body. I believe that in this area too, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you need to proceed on the basis of new information. Parliament is once again ready to discuss this matter, but we cannot accept the current state of the debate."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples