Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-10-18-Speech-1-147"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20101018.15.1-147"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, first of all, I would like to say that I find this discussion very interesting and that I am here to give explanations to you, but I cannot accept the claims that the Commission is not sensitive about protecting the data of EU citizens, nor can I accept the claim that I am here just to replace my colleague, without knowledge of the issue or of what is happening. We all know very well in the Commission – very well indeed – what is happening and I can tell you that we really are sensitive about protecting the data of our citizens.
Let us come to facts now: do we have to respect the Lisbon Treaty or not? What is your proposal? To ignore the Council? I have heard you say, in a very easy way, that you would like the European voice to be unique on this issue. I agree with you: I would also like that.
So what do you prefer? To tell the Commission to ignore the Council completely? I would like to inform you – and I am talking about facts here, not dreams – that we have already asked the Council, as you are well aware, for this is not something new. We proposed to the Council last May that if the future EU-US framework has any reference to personal data, this should also apply to the data of Member States. We proposed what you have all talked about here.
If it is agreed, then we will go for it. This is the case. But if it is not agreed with the Council, what do you propose we do? Do we go to the Member States and say that we cannot go any further? I understood that such is your proposal and my reply is very simple: we have to respect the Lisbon Treaty.
So, moving on to some other very interesting issues: I have heard a lot about the European database and about the Prüm database. My answer is that if the Member States have Memoranda of Understanding and bilateral agreements, they may be able to give data on their own nationals. They cannot give data from the EU database or the Prüm database and I was very clear on that point. I was also very clear that we have asked the United States – and we have sent letters and are still negotiating on this – to agree that the bilateral agreements cannot refer to PNR data. This is not to say that Member States may not have tried to negotiate with the United States, but this is the position of the Commission.
I understand your concerns very well, but we have to move forward to negotiate in a better way – the best way – with the United States and try to have some binding rules for the Member States within this agreement, because that is the only way to achieve exactly what you want to achieve. That is the way we can do things, so the Commission is going in that direction: we are now negotiating with the United States and we are trying to have an agreement that is binding on the Member States.
That is why we have gone to the Council and said: please be sure that, if this is agreed and if we can protect the data in our track – the track between the EU and the United States – then you have to do the same. Do you have any other proposal based on the legal framework that we have to respect? If so, I am very willing to hear of it. If there is no such proposal, however, please understand that we, too, are very sensitive about citizens’ data and are trying to protect them, but we also try to respect the Member States and to respect the Council.
This issue is ongoing. I hear all your concerns and I will try to take them all on board. What the Commission can do is go to the Council and say stop talking with any other country. What we can say is that we are going to negotiate and afterwards try to bind them to our track. This is the way we can do things."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples