Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-04-21-Speech-3-135"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100421.6.3-135"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, there are a few basic things I would like to say about this agreement. There are, by all means, similarities with SWIFT, but also differences. If the European Parliament had to vote today on the Passenger Name Record (PNR) agreement, we would have no other option but to vote no. That is quite clear. There are still significant objections to this agreement. I will go into the details once more shortly. That is why I was not happy when we spoke about postponing the vote. However, unlike SWIFT, there were definitely good reasons for this postponement. Nevertheless, I will say quite clearly that, for us, it does not mean that the vote can be postponed indefinitely, so that we now have a provisional agreement for years on end. It is very important to us that we quickly reach a new negotiating mandate and, if possible, before the summer break, so that we can quickly gain clarity in detailed questions on how we should handle this data and what data should be included.
Data protection plays an important role and here, I would like to use the opportunity to address once again the question as to what data should be transmitted. PNR covers 19 individual pieces of data. I know from conversations I have had that it is of course possible – if you want to – to create personality profiles from these pieces of data. Now, of course, those with whom we have such an agreement are saying they have no interest in this, they will not do it and that relevant data is erased. However, if certain data that could be used to create a personality profile is not used at all, then we must consider whether it should indeed be collected, or – if we reach an agreement – whether all of the data needs to be transmitted. That is a crucial question. We also have to check what level of protection is afforded to data that is transmitted. We know that the regulations in both agreements with the USA and Australia are very different. With a view to further requests by other countries that want to have similar agreements, we should ensure that every time we reach an agreement, special standards apply.
We also have to consider in detail the question of how this data is to be used. Originally, it was always said that it was about combating terrorism. Now however, it is also about serious crime. This can be discussed. However, we must go into great detail here. We know that even within the European Union itself, legal systems and legal culture vary greatly. This may mean that the definition of what constitutes a serious crime is completely different in terms of the type of crime. That means we need to look again in detail at what we are discussing when we say that serious crime should also naturally be included.
I hope that in future, with the implementation of the agreement, we ensure that there is a regular exchange of information between the institutions. The President-in-Office of the Council has indicated that there has been a first review as far as the agreement with the USA is concerned. Officially, we still do not have these results yet. That was in February. In future, I would not only like to see reports being drawn up regularly, I would also like to see these reports actually being made available to the European Parliament immediately.
It is very important to create a uniform agreement. The issue of data must be reviewed again. However, I believe that, on the basis of the previous discussion, we will probably reach a good agreement, and I therefore view further negotiations as something entirely positive."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples