Explanations of vote
Oral explanations of vote
(ES) Mr President, I voted in favour of the reports on The Bahamas, Barbados, Saint Kitts and Nevis and Seychelles. In these reports, I like the elements of overcoming the bureaucratic processes of agreements, freedom of movement of citizens and the reciprocal nature that all of these actions must have.
However, with the utmost respect for all of these sovereign countries that are our friends, I would like to take advantage of the good relationships that are demonstrated by these agreements to help all of these countries which, I repeat, are sovereign and our friends, to immunise themselves against a pandemic that is even more deadly than the flu: tax havens. This has already been debated in the G20 and many other forums.
Tax havens have contributed very significantly and unfortunately to the economic crisis that we are experiencing. Something is being done, perhaps not much yet, to eradicate the most active tax havens, but let us not be naïve. Others could start up.
In Spain, the Gürtel case is in the news: not only a huge network of corruption but also one of flight of capital. Therefore, representatives of the Commission and the Council, let us take advantage of these agreements to insist on this immunisation which we have to demand sooner or later in order to have a broader and more radical policy against tax havens.
(PL) Mr President, the Schengen Treaty resulted in a qualitative change across the territory of the majority of countries in the European Union. Even though such a short time has passed since it came into force, we often forget what Europe was like when it had borders and the difficulties associated with moving from one Member State to another. The Schengen agreement is another success of our integration but it also bears a great responsibility. Responsibility for a significant part of our land borders has been assumed by the new Member States.
As well as the positive aspects, there are also negative ones, because excessive restrictions have been introduced on the movement of the residents of countries which share a border with the EU, and this means mainly the new countries, such as Poland and Latvia. As a result of these difficulties, there are, among others, serious restrictions on movement across our eastern borders. A new division has arisen, a kind of barrier between countries which had and have close relations resulting from a shared history, family connections and, above all, because they are neighbours.
In accordance with the provisions of Schengen, a common system of internal control has been introduced, and is being applied by the appropriate services in the countries of the European Union which are signatories to the agreement. It would appear, however, that this system of control is being applied with undue severity, which does not help to build a positive image of the unity of the European Union.
Written explanations of vote
I voted in favour of this report. I fully support the conclusion of the Statute of the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) by the European Community. This body's main objective is to promote good practices in the renewable energy sector, both within the European Union and globally. The agency's Statute stipulates that it will promote and support the use of renewable resources throughout the world.
The Community's conclusion of the Statute of this agency will enable it to enjoy better, direct access to information about the activities going on in the renewable energy sector, both at European and global level. At the same time, its status as a member of the agency will allow it to reinforce the monitoring of the progress being made by Member States towards fulfilling the mandatory renewable energy objective by 2020.
in writing. - I have voted for this report. Currently, there is no coordinated renewable energy strategy on both a European and world scale. For this reason, there is a big gap between the countries which have achieved major progress and success in renewable energy and countries which are still lagging behind in this area.
If we want to accelerate the process of increasing the share of renewable energy sources, different countries should act in a coordinated way and leading countries should share their best practice. This agency, I think, would embark upon those goals and would give a new impetus and direction to renewable energy in general.
I welcome the fact that the European Community is now represented in the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). The International Renewable Energy Agency aims to promote the adoption and the sustainable use of all forms of renewable energy, taking into account their contribution to the conservation of the environment, climate protection, economic growth and social cohesion (especially poverty reduction and sustainable development), the accessibility and security of energy supply, regional development and intergenerational responsibility.
The agency also aims to provide technical, financial and political advice to the governments of developing countries, thus contributing to their process of transition to a low-carbon society.
The use of renewable energy is one of the key objectives of the EU's climate and energy package. This agency will contribute to implementing the package's objectives, especially the aim of increasing the proportion of renewable energy used to 20% of total energy consumption by 2020.
in writing. - IRENA was officially established on 26 January 2009. The purpose of this organisation is to become the headquarters for promoting a rapid transition towards the use of sustainable energy. The Statute of this organisation has been concluded. It is vital that this organisation starts to function as quickly as possible. I am in favour of the adoption of the Statute that has been presented and, hence, voted in favour of the report.
in writing. - I support the conclusion of the Statute of the International Renewable Energy Agency by the European Community. The International Renewable Energy Agency aims to become a centre of excellence for renewable energy, which will enable it to help governments harness renewable energy sources, to disseminate know-how and best practice, and to provide training in this field. It is thus desirable for the Community to be represented in an institution whose goals coincide with an area of its competence, and whose Statute has already been signed by 20 Member States.
Portugal is the sixth most energy-dependent country in the EU 27, so investment in 'clean tech' is of prime importance.
I advocate a national renewable energy plan, with particular emphasis on wind power, wave energy (given the exceptional conditions offered by the Portuguese coast), solar-thermal and photovoltaic energy and microgeneration.
I am also in favour of researching and developing methods, technologies and strategies for the storage of surplus renewable energy.
I advocate an energy policy that takes account of economic challenges and social needs, while promoting sustainable development, without generating an environmental cost to be borne by future generations.
My abiding concern has always been to limit our energy dependence, and I am sure that the way forward is to support and develop renewable energy, so I welcome the fact that Portugal is a founding member of the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA).
That is also why I support the European Community's endorsement of the Statute of the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA).
In voting for this report, I want to emphasise the importance of creating this international organisation which will promote and support the use of renewable resources throughout the world, bearing in mind the benefits which can be derived from their contribution to protecting the environment and climate, economic growth and social cohesion, including reducing poverty, as well as to guaranteeing energy supply security and regional development.
At the Bonn Conference in January 2009, Romania, which was the first country to sign up, was appointed vice-chair of this first session. It was also invited to join IRENA's administrative committee, the core element which is acting temporarily as the Agency's secretariat until it begins to operate properly. At the moment, 137 states have signed the Statute, including 24 EU Member States.
I voted in favour of the report on the proposal for a Council regulation repealing certain obsolete Council acts in the field of the common agricultural policy, as it is necessary to eliminate acts that are no longer relevant from the acquis communautaire in order to improve the transparency and legal certainty of the Community's legislation, in view of the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making by the European Parliament, Council and Commission. This was recently reaffirmed in the Commission's communication entitled 'A simplified CAP for Europe - a success for all'; I am responsible for the European Parliament report on this communication, on behalf of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament. Within the scope of this strategy, therefore, it is worth removing acts that no longer have any real effect from the legislation in force.
in writing. - Due to the vast quantity of European legislation, it becomes essential that any defunct material is efficiently repealed. In view of this, I have voted in favour of this report.
I believe it is essential that all stakeholders in the common agricultural policy (CAP) should be aware of the legal framework in place and the rules that apply at any particular time.
I accept that legal certainty requires that obsolete acts do not remain in force indefinitely in the Community's legal system.
Given the fundamental importance of the CAP for the governments and citizens of the Union, I argue that it should be as simple and clear as possible in terms of its implementation and the rules in force.
The CAP is central to the life of the Union, is of enormous practical importance, and cannot be a tangle of rules, regulations, acts and decisions that no longer apply, or it will not be effective.
In view of all the above, I support the Commission's proposal to repeal obsolete acts in the field of the common agricultural policy.
in writing. - The issue voted on refers to the need of the European Institutions to repeal Council Acts which have, through the passage of time and the development of technology, become obsolete and irrelevant to the correct functioning of the Union. This vote refers to certain Council Acts in the field of the Common Agricultural Policy. I believe that certain aspects of the CAP have long been in need of review. If the policy is to be correctly implemented and used for the benefit of European citizens, the Acts which it has created must be relevant to the world of agriculture as it is today. It is also my firm belief that something must be done to rid the Union of its red-tape image amongst the people of Europe. Acts such as these serve simply to confuse, without serving any real purpose. Aspects of EU policy such as this tarnish the image of the Union amongst its citizens and discourage people from interacting with it. In conclusion, it is my firm belief that if the Union wishes to remain relevant, then modernisation of its laws and policies must always be voted in favour of.
It was with great pleasure that I voted in favour of adoption of the resolution on a regulation repealing certain obsolete acts in the field of the CAP, because we keep hearing that we have too much regulation in the EU, with negative consequences for the correct functioning of the market economy. This is particularly true of the CAP, in which, despite the introduction of many simplifications and the elimination of a host of regulations, many unnecessary acts remain in force.
Many of these acts no longer produce any legal effects, while the content of others has been embodied in subsequent documents. This creates a huge burden of time and cost for our farmers, and requires extensive administration. Therefore, I think that further updating, consolidation and simplification of EU law is essential, as is the repeal of a great many unnecessary legal acts, so that the provisions which are in force are simple, clear and understandable. This will bring the European Union closer to its citizens.
I would like to explain my vote on the draft Council Regulation repealing a number of obsolete Council Acts relating to the Common Agricultural Policy. During the process of European integration, many acts were passed in the European Parliament and the Council. At the time of our accession to the EU, the acquis communautaire numbered almost 80 000 pages of text, half of which related to agriculture. It is therefore a good thing that EU bodies have agreed on an interinstitutional basis that Community law must be updated and condensed.
Laws that have no lasting significance should be eliminated from the acquis communautaire in order to improve the transparency and certainty of Community law. The Commission lately declared 250 agricultural laws obsolete. We are now talking about 28 acts that have no use from a practical perspective but which still formally exist, and six acts that are obsolete. Although I supported this draft, I strongly believe that there are still further opportunities for slimming down European law and cutting back the Brussels bureaucracy and I am therefore asking the Commission to continue its work on the simplification of European law.
in writing. - Laboratory tests must be carried out in order to identify harmful organisms that are not present within the EU. The regulations currently in place do not allow for certain laboratories to which such work can be delegated to take on this work due to the fact that they fall short of Article 2(1)(g)(ii) of Directive 2000/29/EC. I am in favour of allowing such laboratories to conduct this kind of work so long as certain conditions are complied with. Therefore, I have voted in favour of this report.
I voted in favour of the report which authorises Portugal to apply reduced rates of excise duty in the Azores and Madeira on locally produced and consumed liqueurs, eaux-de-vie and rum, because I see this as an important way of supporting the subsistence of the small industries in the sector involved in producing such goods, which are in a very unfavourable competitive position, faced with the liberalisation of markets and the growing sales of spirits in these regions.
The reduction of this tax will also contribute to a greater economic and social balance in these regions, thus ensuring the sustainability and even the creation of jobs, which are crucial for safeguarding the local economies.
in writing. - The Government of Malta should follow similar initiatives for the island of Gozo. All EU Member States which have island regions have applied for similar measures and have been given the opportunity by the EU to take such special measures. The measures themselves differ from island region to island region. They have, however, one thing in common: that is, to provide economic comfort to balance the negative aspects of island regions. The island of Gozo suffers from severe handicaps including double insularity, remoteness, small size and difficult topography. Countries much larger than Malta, such as Portugal, Italy and Greece, have been able to obtain special measures so as to provide attractive incentives to island regions. The smaller islands of the Maltese archipelago are particularly vulnerable.
The island of Gozo needs the assistance through the introduction of similar special measures. It is the duty of the Maltese Government to identify which special measures would be best suited and, subsequently, to apply to the EU to adopt such measures. It is up to the Government of Malta to reduce the hardships especially prevalent on the island of Gozo.
in writing. - This is an extension of the 2002 tax derogation given to Portugal in respect of certain autonomous regions. I am in favour of such extension and have therefore voted in favour of this report.
I voted in favour of the Hübner report on the proposal for a Council decision authorising Portugal to apply reduced rates of excise duty in the autonomous region of Madeira on locally produced and consumed rum and liqueurs and in the autonomous region of the Azores on locally produced and consumed liqueurs and eaux-de-vie. Bearing in mind the specific features of these outermost regions, I believe that this extension is vital for the survival of the local industry in these products and for the protection of employment in this sector.
In view of the importance to agriculture and, consequently, the economy and employment in the Portuguese Autonomous Regions of Madeira and the Azores, of the production of rum and eaux-de-vie respectively, as well as liqueurs in both regions, it is essential that the reduced rates of excise duty on these goods should continue to apply, as this will not lead to a situation of unfair competition within the internal market.
The increase in retail price brought about by elimination of these rates of excise duty would make these products even less competitive compared with similar products imported from the rest of the EU and would therefore threaten the subsistence of the traditional products. It would have a disastrous effect on local industry and the regional economy at a socio-economic level, due to the impact that it would have on the family-run farms in those regions.
The proposal approved in today's plenary sitting by an overwhelming majority allows for an extension to the concession granted in 2002 authorising Portugal to apply reduced rates of excise duty in Madeira on locally produced and consumed rum and liqueurs and in the Azores on locally produced and consumed liqueurs and eaux-de-vie. Since the beginning of this process, I have done everything possible to ensure that this measure, which had expired at the end of 2008, would be renewed as a matter of urgency. Having secured the unanimous support of the Committee on Regional Development, this result was confirmed by today's vote, which maintains the tax reduction with effect from January 2009 until 2013.
Madeira's rum and liqueur producers face permanent obstacles related to their outermost geographical position, insularity, difficult terrain and climate, and the smallness of their farms. If they ceased to benefit from this concession, they would be forced to raise their prices, which would impact on their activity and the employment that it generates, with dire consequences for the region.
in writing. - This consists of a simple codification of texts without any change to their substance. I am in favour of such codification and have therefore voted in favour of this report.
in writing. - This is once again a codification without any alteration of substance, of which I am in favour, and I have therefore voted in favour of this report.
in writing. - This consists of a simple codification of already existing texts and I have therefore voted in favour.
The coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the broadcasting of television programmes is vital for the creation of a media space where the main theme is unity in diversity. It is just as important for us to be able to make European legislation as accessible as possible to all citizens. The report on the proposal for the Audiovisual Media Services Directive in its codified form, tabled before the plenary session, is purely a technical and legal measure whose benefits are, however, unquestionable. Codifying legislation which is constantly changing is a measure that gives Community law greater clarity and transparency, making it easier for EU citizens to understand. In this case, the codification proposal involves replacing the old 1989 directive with a new directive (without modifying the content) to which the acts that have supplemented it over the years have been added. I supported this initiative because, apart from its technical nature, we cannot overlook its value in supporting the proper operation of audiovisual media services, not to mention in terms of transparency as well.
I concur with the text of this report since pluralism of information ought to be a fundamental principle of the European Union. Diversification of mass media leads to a proliferation of points of view, which is an essential feature in a democratic society.
This argument also has an economic element. Conventional audiovisual media services (such as television) and those which have recently emerged (for example, video on demand) offer major employment opportunities in Europe, particularly through small- and medium-sized enterprises which will, in turn, boost economic growth and investment.
in writing. - This concerns the codification of legislation concerning the protection of workers from exposure to asbestos. I am in favour of such codification and have hence voted in favour.
Like the majority of my fellow Members, I voted in favour of making Community legislation clearer and more transparent. Indeed, by adopting this resolution, the European Parliament has supported the European Commission's desire to 'clean up' the texts by codifying the legislation on the protection of workers against asbestos. This resolution will mean that these rules, which are necessary for workers, can be applied better.
in writing. - This concerns the codification of legislation concerning veterinary checks on animals entering the EU, and I have therefore voted in favour.
Ladies and gentlemen, I welcome the approval of the report by Mrs Geringer de Oedenberg concerning the draft Council Directive establishing principles for the organisation of veterinary checks on animals entering the EU from third countries. The new directive will clearly contribute towards the clarification and better understanding of the extensive current legal arrangements in this area. The directive concentrates on codifying laws without amending their actual content.
From the perspective of Europe's citizens, a simplification and clarification of Community law contributes to greater legal certainty and, in my opinion, the codification carried out in the directive is therefore a step in the right direction, leading to the effective application of positive law. At the same time, I agree that a harmonisation of principles at the Community level will contribute not only towards guaranteeing security of supply, but also towards the stabilisation of an internal market where internal border controls have been removed and towards protecting animals entering the Community.
Under the current regulations, where a shipment that violates animal protection laws is discovered, the authorities must, following a 'seizure' for animal protection reasons, hand back to the owner any unvaccinated animal young that have been separated from their mothers much too early once the problem has been rectified. In practice, of course, this situation is shamelessly exploited.
This codification would be a good opportunity to amend the EU Transport Regulation so that pups could be seized on a permanent basis in the case of shipments that are not in accordance with the rules, thereby closing this back door. Unfortunately, we have allowed this opportunity to be missed. All the same, the codification overall does seem to effect an improvement of the regulations on animal protection, for which reason I voted in favour of the report.
Given that nutrition is a significant factor in the health of the population and that animals are among the essential food products, it is particularly important that comprehensive protection is provided in this regard, and this should be effected, amongst other things, by means of veterinary checks. These veterinary checks are particularly important at the external borders of the Community, especially given that the standards in this regard in these third countries are often not as high as the European level.
This requires more purposeful, more uniform and clearer regulations in order to ensure that comparable import checks are carried out at all the external borders. The current Commission proposal for a codified version of the Council Directive laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on animals entering the Community from third countries is a step in this direction and therefore has my backing.
in writing. - This is a codification without any substantial changes and therefore I have voted in favour.
Like the majority of my fellow Members, I voted in favour of making the legislation on a network for the collection of accountancy data on the incomes and business operations of agricultural holdings clearer and more transparent in order to improve this legislation and, above all, to make the text more readable.
in writing. - This report consists of a simple codification of legislation on animal health conditions in the sphere of intra-Community trade. I am in favour of such codification and have voted in favour of this report.
in writing. - (DE) Rearing poultry, for one thing, forms a significant part of economic activities in the agricultural sector, where it represents a source of income for some of the agricultural workforce. For another, eggs and poultry are amongst the commonest foodstuffs. For these reasons, trade involving these goods should also be clearly and uniformly regulated, amongst other things, in order to protect the health of the citizens.
The current Commission proposal for a codified version of the Council Directive on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in, and imports from third countries of, poultry and eggs for hatching is in the interests of those working in agriculture and those trading in this field, as well as of the citizens of the EU as consumers, for which reason I support it.
in writing. - This is a codification without any substantial change and therefore I have voted in favour.
in writing. - This provides for visa-free travel between Mauritius and Member States of the EU. I am in favour of such an agreement and have therefore voted in favour of the report.
I support this agreement negotiated between the European Community and the Republic of Mauritius, establishing a visa exemption for entry and short stays in order to facilitate the movement of their citizens. EU citizens and Mauritian nationals who travel to the territory of the other contracting party for a maximum period of three months within a six-month period will be exempt from visa requirements. The exceptions are the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, which are not bound by this agreement, and a territorial restriction with respect to France and the Netherlands, for which this agreement only relates to those countries' European territories.
I would point out that anyone who travels with the aim of carrying out a paid activity during a short stay cannot benefit from this agreement, and continues to be subject to the applicable rules of the Community and of each Member State in relation to the visa requirement or waiver and also access to employment. The agreement may be suspended or repealed, but that decision can only be made in relation to all the Member States. I also support the provisional implementation of the agreement pending its entry into force.
This agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Mauritius envisages visa-free travel where citizens of the Contracting Parties travel to the territory of the other Contracting Party for a maximum period of three months during a six-month period.
I am voting against the conclusion of this agreement as the retention of the requirement for a visa represents a certain check on unwanted immigration, whereas a lifting of the visa requirement for stays of up to three months would provide sufficient time for those who, in reality, plan to stay for a prolonged period to build up social networks.
in writing. - This provides for visa-free travel between the Seychelles and Member States of the EU. I am in favour of such an agreement and have therefore voted in favour of the report.
I support this agreement negotiated between the European Community and the Republic of the Seychelles, establishing a visa exemption for entry and short stays in order to facilitate the movement of their citizens. EU citizens and Seychelles nationals who travel to the territory of the other contracting party for a maximum period of three months within a six-month period will be exempt from visa requirements. The exceptions are the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, which are not bound by this agreement, and a territorial restriction with respect to France and the Netherlands, for which this agreement only relates to those countries' European territories.
I would point out that anyone who travels with the aim of carrying out a paid activity during a short stay cannot benefit from this agreement, and continues to be subject to the applicable rules of the Community and of each Member State in relation to the visa requirement or waiver and also access to employment. The agreement may be suspended or repealed, but that decision can only be made in relation to all the Member States. I also support the provisional implementation of the agreement pending its entry into force.
in writing. - This provides for visa-free travel between Barbados and Member States of the EU. I am in favour of such an agreement and have therefore voted in favour of the report.
I support this agreement negotiated between the European Community and Barbados, establishing a visa exemption for entry and short stays in order to facilitate the movement of their citizens. EU citizens and nationals of Barbados who travel to the territory of the other contracting party for a maximum period of three months within a six-month period will be exempt from visa requirements. The exceptions are the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, which are not bound by this agreement, and a territorial restriction with respect to France and the Netherlands, for which this agreement only relates to those countries' European territories.
I would point out that anyone who travels with the aim of carrying out a paid activity during a short stay cannot benefit from this agreement, and continues to be subject to the applicable rules of the Community and of each Member State in relation to the visa requirement or waiver and also access to employment. The agreement may be suspended or repealed, but that decision can only be made in relation to all the Member States. I also support the provisional implementation of the agreement pending its entry into force.
The reports before us in connection with the agreements between the European Community and numerous small island nations such as Mauritius and Barbados envisage a visa waiver where citizens of the Contracting Parties travel to the territory of the other Contracting Party for a maximum period of three months during a six-month period. I reject these relaxations of entry requirements and therefore voted against the conclusion of these agreements as the retention of the requirement for a visa certainly represents an obstacle to criminality and thus severely restricts unwanted immigration.
It is, furthermore, to be assumed that those who stay in the EU for three months on the basis of such visa waivers would make numerous contacts which they could then potentially use to descend into illegality. A rise in illegal criminal activity must be avoided at all costs.
I support this agreement negotiated between the European Community and the Federation of St Kitts and Nevis, establishing a visa exemption for entry and short stays in order to facilitate the movement of their citizens. EU citizens and the nationals of the Federation who travel to the territory of the other contracting party for a maximum period of three months within a six-month period will be exempt from visa requirements. The exceptions are the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, which are not bound by this agreement, and a territorial restriction with respect to France and the Netherlands, for which this agreement only relates to those countries' European territories.
I would point out that anyone who travels with the aim of carrying out a paid activity during a short stay cannot benefit from this agreement, and continues to be subject to the applicable rules of the Community and of each Member State in relation to the visa requirement or waiver and also access to employment. The agreement may be suspended or repealed, but that decision can only be made in relation to all the Member States. I also support the provisional implementation of the agreement pending its entry into force.
I support this agreement negotiated between the European Community and Antigua and Barbuda, establishing a visa exemption for entry and short stays in order to facilitate the movement of their citizens. EU citizens and nationals of Antigua and Barbuda who travel to the territory of the other contracting party for a maximum period of three months within a six- month period will be exempt from visa requirements. The exceptions are the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, which are not bound by this agreement, and a territorial restriction with respect to France and the Netherlands, for which this agreement only relates to those countries' European territories.
I would point out that anyone who travels with the aim of carrying out a paid activity during a short stay cannot benefit from this agreement, and continues to be subject to the applicable rules of the Community and of each Member State in relation to the visa requirement or waiver and also access to employment. The agreement may be suspended or repealed, but that decision can only be made in relation to all the Member States. I also support the provisional implementation of the agreement pending its entry into force.
in writing. - This provides for visa-free travel between the Bahamas and Member States of the EU. I am in favour of such an agreement and have therefore voted in favour of the report.
I support this agreement negotiated between the European Community and the Commonwealth of the Bahamas, establishing a visa exemption for entry and short stays in order to facilitate the movement of their citizens. EU citizens and nationals of the Bahamas who travel to the territory of the other contracting party for a maximum period of three months within a six-month period will be exempt from visa requirements. The exceptions are the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, which are not bound by this agreement, and a territorial restriction with respect to France and the Netherlands, for which this agreement only relates to those countries' European territories.
I would point out that anyone who travels with the aim of carrying out a paid activity during a short stay cannot benefit from this agreement, and continues to be subject to the applicable rules of the Community and of each Member State in relation to the visa requirement or waiver and also access to employment. The agreement may be suspended or repealed, but that decision can only be made in relation to all Member States. I also support the provisional implementation of the agreement pending its entry into force.
in writing. - UKIP MEPs abstained because we do not believe that the European Union should be responsible for sending taxpayers' money to the victims of the Italian earthquake. We have every sympathy with those victims and believe that such donations should come from national governments or charities.
As I pointed out earlier with regard to Reimer Böge's report about the earthquake in the Abruzzi, I believe that solidarity between Member States of the European Union and European support for States that are the victims of disasters provide a clear signal that the European Union, in adopting instruments of special aid like the European Union Solidarity Fund, shows itself capable of remaining united in adversity, and this is something of which we can indeed feel proud.
Thus, in view of the possibility that the Commission may submit amending budgets in the case of 'unavoidable, exceptional or unforeseen circumstances', which include the earthquake in Italy, I voted in favour of this report on the amendment to the European Union budget, so that the residents of the affected region will see the damage caused by the earthquake repaired more quickly, and a swift return to normal living conditions effected through the mobilisation of EUR 493.78 million from the EU Solidarity Fund.
Since the mobilisation of EUR 493 771 159 from the European Union Solidarity Fund has been approved in favour of Italy, and since this fund does not have its own budget, it is necessary to amend the Community budget to ensure that the amount agreed is made available. Although we agree upon the need to provide the funds as quickly as possible, we regret that the proposal presented by the European Commission implies, among other budget headings, a reduction in funding for important community programmes compared with the previous and current multiannual financial framework.
Examples of this include the projected reductions in the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance - Community programmes from the previous Community framework, 2002-2006 - or LIFE+, the Financial Instrument for the Environment. In our view, beyond the necessary adjustments to the Solidarity Fund to give it a budget heading with its own resources, it should not receive funding at the cost of the aforementioned Community programmes while, at the same time, there is an insistence on increasing expenditure for military and propaganda purposes. The funds now being allocated to the Solidarity Fund could preferably have been taken from those headings instead.
The Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV) is in favour of emergency assistance, but it is up to the individual Member States, not the European Union, to provide such assistance.
I agree that there should be additional support for workers who suffer from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market. It is essential that financial assistance to workers made redundant is made available as quickly as possible, and that European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) money, vital for the reintegration of redundant workers into the labour market, is used more effectively. I would like to underline that Member States should provide more detailed information on the implementation of important gender equality and non-discrimination objectives by means of EGF-financed measures.
in writing. - This report is in favour of the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. I agree that the mobilisation of this fund is necessary in this case and have therefore voted in favour of this report.
We are well aware of the negative effects of the economic crisis on the labour market and on society as a whole. We strongly sympathise with all those affected by the crisis and are pleased to see measures such as training that will help individuals overcome this. However, we are convinced that free trade is basically a force for good that benefits the development of Europe as a whole. We would therefore like to see the financial crisis being dealt with primarily by market-based means that promote free and fair trade.
Unemployment is one of the main problems affecting the European Economic Area. Even before the emergence of the current financial crisis, which has increased and aggravated some of the earlier symptoms, the serious impact of globalisation and the resulting relocation of businesses on many people's lives were clear to see. The particular difficulties of the times in which we are living are obvious when we add to these problems the present lack of confidence in the markets and the shrinking of investment. In that respect, although I am in favour of internal market regulation, I believe that the exceptional nature of the crisis justifies exceptional countermeasures.
The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund is one of the tools that the European Union has at its disposal for helping unemployed workers under these circumstances. I believe that the case of the workers from Nokia GmbH, in the German region of Bochum, justifies European aid, as was previously given in Portugal. Aside from this aid, which is undeniably useful, the European Union must also take steps to promote a more robust and creative European market that will generate investment and jobs. That is the only way to tackle this problem effectively, seriously and sustainably.
This case was about responding to a request for assistance from Germany for redundancies in the telecommunications sector, especially among Nokia GmbH workers, which fulfilled the eligibility criteria set out in the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund regulation.
In reality, however, the mobilisation of this fund only alleviates some of the serious consequences of the economic and financial crisis. There needs to be a break with the neoliberal policies that are causing a real economic and social disaster in many countries of the European Union, particularly Portugal.
Although we voted for this report, we cannot fail to notice the insufficiency of its measures, which are mere palliatives, and the real injustice of the regulation, which is more favourable towards countries with higher incomes, particularly those with higher wages und unemployment benefits.
Therefore, we insist on policy change and the need for a real plan to support production and the creation of jobs with rights.
in writing. - Mr President, I voted in favour of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund's (EGF) investment of nearly EUR 5.6 million in Germany's North Rhine-Westphalia region, which has suffered from mass redundancies since the 1990's. As a result of the Finnish telecommunications company Nokia closing its production plant in Bochum in 2008 and relocating to more cost effective market areas, 2 300 more people in the region were made redundant. Being a Finn, I take a special interest in the plight of the workers who have lost their jobs due to the cessation of Nokia production in Bochum. The closure of the Nokia plant in Bochum was indeed the latest in a string of events compounding unemployment in the region. For this reason, I wholeheartedly welcome the investment from EGF in the region as a way of improving employment opportunities for the people of North Rhine-Westphalia.
It was with the Nokia employees and their unfair redundancies in mind that we voted for this text. We are anxious to stress, however, that we are not satisfied with having to vote for the best of a bad lot: help with job searches in the context of absurd mass redundancies on the part of the world's leading mobile telephone manufacturer, Nokia, redundancies described here as one of the hazards of a form of globalisation that we should just put up with.
We denounce this idea of globalisation 'adjustment', since this is how the European Union refers to social and human tragedies such as this, which see companies that post record profits relocate in order to make more profit, thus ruining the lives of hundreds of workers and an entire region. This charitable remedy (the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund) that is being proposed will not make people forget that the European Union is, in fact, directly responsible for the tragedy being suffered by the redundant employees, because of its choice of free and fair competition. Rather than supporting these 'adjustments' to all the huge uncertainties of the globalised capitalist economy, the European Union should prohibit such practices and protect European citizens.
This report is in favour of mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) following redundancies in Germany. I fully approve of mobilising this fund - we need it in this instance - and so, like the majority of my fellow Members, I voted in favour of this report. The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund is one of the mechanisms that the European Union has available to it to help unemployed workers who have been made redundant as a result of the negative effects of globalisation. I believe that the case of the Nokia GmbH employees and of the German region of Bochum warrants mobilisation of European aid, just as it has already been mobilised previously for Portugal.
in writing. - Siwiec was accused of insulting the religious beliefs of others during an event that took place a number of years ago. After reviewing the facts of the case, I believe that immunity should certainly not be waived. This is also the view of the rapporteur and therefore, I have voted in favour of the report.
In today's vote, we voted to waive Mr Siwiec's immunity. That would mean that it would be possible for him to stand trial in Poland just like any other citizen. We have a great deal of sympathy for Mr Siwiec and we agree, for what it is worth, that the case that has been launched against him is unfounded and politically motivated.
If, however, we believe that it should be possible for him to be tried in a court of law like everyone else, this is because we must have confidence that Poland respects the basic principles of democracy and the rule of law that are a precondition of being a Member State of the European Union. For the same reason, we always vote, as a matter of principle, to waive the immunity of Members of this House - irrespective of the actual case in question.
The creation of the Schengen area by waiving internal border controls and the introduction of free movement within the territory of the EU are among the most important achievements of the European Union. Taking into account border permeability, we need high standards when actually putting the Schengen acquis into practice in order to be able to maintain an increased level of mutual trust between Member States, which also includes in their ability to implement the measures accompanying the abolition of controls at internal borders.
We need to improve the evaluation mechanism for monitoring the application of the Schengen acquis. The need to maintain a high level of security and trust requires effective cooperation between the governments of Member States and the Commission.
Bearing in mind the importance of this legislative initiative and its relevance in terms of fundamental rights and freedoms, it is regrettable that the European Parliament is playing the role of consultant rather than colegislator, as ought to have been the case. Consequently, I voted to reject the Commission's legislative proposal.
I voted for this report, as the rapporteur's position is in line with the principles of citizens' freedoms, justice and home affairs. The establishment of an evaluation mechanism is important for all Member States. Since the codecision procedure is not being considered, the European Commission's proposal limits opportunities for cooperation between the Member States. The proposal drafted recently by the European Commission will have to be amended once the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force.
The creation of a European area without border controls, through the Schengen Agreement, was an important step in constructing an open internal market with free movement of people and goods. However, if this area is to fulfil its potential, which I recognise, there needs to be a way of effectively evaluating its implementation by the various Member States.
I therefore agree with strengthening the powers for monitoring Schengen, particularly through assessments (questionnaires and local visits, both arranged beforehand and unannounced) and post-assessment measures, so as to ensure adequate supervision of the way in which the various Member States operate, work together and control their external borders under the Schengen Agreement.
I am aware that any deficiency or malfunction in the system carries serious risks for the internal security of the Union and jeopardises the Schengen area itself as an area of freedom, yet also security.
I do not, however, agree with strengthening the Community-based nature of this assessment by bolstering the powers of the European Commission to the detriment of the intergovernmental system which has thus far prevailed in the Schengen Evaluation Group.
For this reason, I vote for rejection of the Commission's proposal.
We dare to speak of a Schengen acquis, but as someone who lives in Calais, I can confirm first-hand that, while the Schengen agreements have benefited the free movement of capital and goods, they still present a number of problems.
Beyond the pleasant utopia of a Europe without borders, we are faced every day with the tragic reality of Schengen: inhumane living conditions for migrants.
The Union and the Member States are doing little or nothing to deal with this tragedy. France, for its part, is disgracing itself by conducting media and police manhunts, such as the one in the 'jungle' of Calais.
Therefore, even in terms of strict humanitarian action, the European Union is totally lacking, leaving the local authorities alone to deal with the problems.
Let us stop crying crocodile tears and finally behave like responsible human beings. The situation unfolding in Calais is a major political problem for the Union. It will be resolved by neither the fortress Europe of Schengen nor by targeted humanitarian measures. We must stop free-trade policies, we must stop the free movement of capital, we must encourage food sovereignty, we must declare water and energy global public goods, and we must combat socio-economic inequalities.


Texts of agreements forwarded by the Council: see Minutes


Subtitling of all public-service television programmes in the EU (written declaration): see Minutes


Debates on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law (announcement of motions for resolutions tabled): see Minutes


1. Venezuela (vote)


Negotiations on the PNR agreements with the US, Australia and Canada (debate)
The next item is the debate on
the oral question to the Commission on state of play regarding the negotiations with Australia, the US and Canada on the use and transfer of passenger name record (PNR) data by Cornelia Ernst, Helmut Scholz and Søren Bo Søndergaard, on behalf of the Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left - B7-0412/2011),
the oral question to the Commission on state of play regarding the negotiations with Australia, the US and Canada on the use and transfer of passenger name record (PNR) data by Jan Philipp Albrecht, on behalf of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance - B7-0413/2011),
the oral question to the Commission on state of play regarding the negotiations with Australia, the US and Canada on the use and transfer of passenger name record (PNR) data by Birgit Sippel, on behalf of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament - B7-0414/2011),
the oral question to the Commission on state of play regarding the negotiations with Australia, the US and Canada on the use and transfer of passenger name record (PNR) data by Timothy Kirkhope, on behalf of the European Conservatives and Reformists - B7-0415/2011),
the oral question to the Commission on state of play regarding the negotiations with Australia, the US and Canada on the use and transfer of passenger name record (PNR) data by Sophia in 't Veld, on behalf of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe - B7-0416/2011),
the oral question to the Commission on state of play regarding the negotiations with Australia, the US and Canada on the use and transfer of passenger name record (PNR) data by Axel Voss, Simon Busuttil and Manfred Weber, on behalf of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) - B7-0417/2011).
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we have already adopted a number of resolutions on the subject of passenger name records (PNR), which include specific requirements. In all cases these have been concerned with necessity, appropriateness, proportionality and the prohibition of profiling. We consider the legal basis of the agreement with Australia to be inappropriate. The agreement with Australia is aimed at harmonising the transfer of data prescribed under Australian law with European law, and particularly the law on data protection. An absolute requirement, therefore, is that reference must be made to Article 16 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
Moreover, we would question once again its proportionality. If you bear in mind that, according to the Australian Government, in 2009 just five people were traced and accused of terrorist offences - and it was not even clear whether this was achieved as a result of PNR data - then it does not seem particularly proportionate for millions of records nonetheless to be retained for years on end. As we all know, when it comes down to it they are being used for profiling purposes - and we do not even have a uniform agreed definition of profiling yet. I do not know how often the Commission has already been asked for such reasons to prove that the transfer of PNR data is necessary, or to present and look into alternatives. A really substantive report is necessary if this is to be investigated.
One more comment on purpose limitation: how can we ensure that the data is used only for the intended purpose if various third countries conclude agreements with each other under which PNR data is systematically exchanged? This makes it difficult, if not impossible, to ensure this.
Moreover, we are awaiting a very clear answer from the Commission on the relationship between PNR and the US Secure Flight programme. As everyone is aware, the purpose of the Secure Flight programme is to exclude so-called potentially dangerous passengers from flights. There have been frequent cases of mistakes being made and passengers being misidentified, as a result of which the persons concerned have been prevented from travelling and have practically no legal means by which to defend themselves.
One final word: please do not forget that we are talking not just about self-determination - about self-determination in the sphere of information - but also, and above all, about freedom of movement as a basic right, as laid down in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights.
author. - (DE) Madam President, Commissioner Malmström, ladies and gentlemen, this esteemed House has repeatedly made clear what it expects before it is prepared to even consider accepting agreements on passenger name records (PNR).
Firstly, we decided over a year ago that in no circumstances was PNR data to be used for so-called data mining or profiling. That means putting a stop to wholesale searches being carried out on an arbitrary basis and a return to investigation based on genuine cause. Yet what has the Commission delivered? A licence to link up and analyse all kinds of data for personality profiles and risk indicators. Ladies and gentlemen, that is not acceptable.
Secondly, we expressly asked the Commission to obtain an expert opinion from the Fundamental Rights Agency. What has been done? Nothing whatsoever. It was only at our instigation that the Agency has now submitted a report on the planned EU PNR system, in which it has flagged up clear breaches of basic rights.
Thirdly, we expressly asked the Commission to obtain a data protection impact assessment. What has been done? Once again, nothing.
Fourthly, we have repeatedly demanded proof that such a measure is proportionate and necessary; in other words, that there is not a less intensive measure that could perform the same purpose. This proof has not been provided either.
I am pleased that the Polish Presidency wants to proactively address this issue. Commissioner Malmström, I find it embarrassing that you are evidently not in a position to resolve these issues. Instead you pull the blanket over your head like a frightened child. Please would you finally take note of the fact that there are huge legal problems with the PNR agreement and the planned EU system. Your own Legal Service says so. The Legal Service of the Council says so. The Fundamental Rights Agency says so. The European Data Protection Supervisor says so. Various highly regarded think-tanks say so. It is high time to put an end to this business of storing data 'just in case', on no basis whatsoever, in every area of life. Were you actually to present these PNR agreements to Parliament, then the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance would insist on having them examined by the European Court of Justice.
Representatives of the Commission, right from the start you have hushed things up, distorted the facts and concealed the truth. You have put on a brave face and in so doing pulled the wool over people's eyes. It will not enable you to succeed, however.
author. - (DE) Madam President, I must admit to the House that I am a little confused where the debate on passenger name records (PNR) is concerned, because the facts and the issues that need to be clarified are not new. Nonetheless, one gets the impression that we are not making any progress - worse still, that we are moving back to worse conditions than those previously agreed.
The signing of the agreement with Australia is currently also stalled because the Member States have asked for more time to review it. I fear that the reality is somewhat different, but I would like to hope that this has something to do with the fact that the Member States, too, have realised that not every means is justified in the fight against terror. As most of us here will remember, negotiations on the SWIFT Agreement were very difficult, but were eventually brought to a successful conclusion. I am astonished that we are now moving at a different level as regards data protection and data security, and I get the impression that we are back to standards below those that we have agreed previously. A retention period of 15 years is far too long. In the case of the 11 September 2001 attack that was so incisive for the US, for example, 15-year-old data would have been no help whatsoever because the perpetrators were much too young for data that was so old to have had any relevance.
In my view, there is a very close link between proportionality and the use of data for a particular purpose. You cannot collect millions of data records from innocent citizens for 15 years and then say: 'Actually, we are going to use this data for everything', as is currently stated in the text of the US agreement. That is not acceptable. I would like to make it quite clear that this requirement applies not just to the US, but also to the Commission and to our Member States. If you adopt a measure to fight terrorism and serious international crime, then this measure must be limited to precisely that and cannot be expanded to allow other areas to be included by the back door.
author. - Madam President, I want to particularly thank the Commissioner for coming here this evening and of course Sophia in 't Veld, our rapporteur, and all the other shadow rapporteurs who are still working hard on what has been a very long journey on these three PNR agreements.
I had hoped that in this plenary session we would be voting through the agreements between the EU, Canada, the US and Australia. However, for reasons which you have already heard and explained yourself, Commissioner, there are still outstanding issues.
I believe that the swift adoption of these agreements is essential and that such agreements are an essential tool in the fight against terrorism. I think it is right that we use this time to ask the right questions and gather as much information as we can from the Commission as to the compatibility of such agreements with European law, and on their practical implementation. These questions will no doubt be raised once again in my own report on the EU PNR agreement.
But, for me personally, the necessity and the proportionality of these agreements have been long apparent from the number of crimes they have helped prevent, and the number of criminals that they have contributed to catching. These are serious crimes and serious criminals: murderers, rapists, drug-traffickers, child-traffickers and terrorists. The questions which we are asking here this evening are incredibly important. Answers to them would make the process of decision-making for this House a lot easier and a lot more informed.
There will always be ideological differences within this House, for example as to how long data should be stored, and there are even those who would argue it should not be collected at all. But I believe we have reached a workable and reasonable conclusion on these questions which should satisfy all, with good safeguards and checks and rights for EU citizens.
We are at a crucial juncture, at which every negotiation and every process finds itself. A time when we have to move forward and do our jobs; when we have to look at what we have on the table and then make some positive decisions, and I hope that is the way that we will now go forward.
author. - Madam President, I am very much looking forward to the answers to these very detailed questions.
I would like to start by adding yet another one. We know that South Korea and Qatar have repeatedly asked to begin negotiations with the European Commission for an agreement because they too are requesting the transfer of PNR. So far the Commission has turned their request down. That means that there is no legal basis for the transfer of data to those countries. We know that other countries will soon follow suit. I would like to know what the Commission's course of action will be.
Secondly, I would like to highlight one point from the oral question, and that is the issue of necessity and proportionality. The demonstration that we had two weeks ago in Manchester of the use of PNR underlined what we have been saying here for a long time. PNR data can, in particular circumstances, be useful, maybe even necessary, when people cross borders, but the long-term storage of data concerning all passengers remains very problematic.
Essentially, what is being done is that data is stored because it may come in handy one day in order to solve crimes that have not yet been committed and that we are not aware of. That is not proportional and your own legal advisers and those of the Council agree. I look forward to your answer.
author. - (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, the challenge that we constantly face when it comes to data and data transfer is the endless search for balance between security and freedom. Freedom without security is fragile. Security without freedom is repressive. In other words, we need as much security as is necessary in order to allow freedoms, but not so much security that these freedoms are jeopardised. In my view, that is exactly what the debate on passenger name records (PNR) is about.
Such a system can indeed generate greater security and make travel easier, but in this area - where we must constantly find the right balance - there is one question that continually arises, and that is: where is the line that we do not want to cross? These questions are our attempt to communicate this to you. There are legal problems. There are practical problems. There may be problems relating to its application generally under European law.
Where the agreement with Australia is concerned, it seems to me that we have a good starting point that we can build on. The same cannot be said of the agreement with the US. This naturally leads us to ask - as Mrs in 't Veld has just mentioned - just how so many different agreements can be reconciled with each other. What do the others want? To start with, we need to clarify exactly what profiling means. It may sound highly dangerous at first, but profiling can also be highly objective - as in the case of the UK authorities. That seems to me to be entirely acceptable. I have a feeling that this is our last opportunity where the US agreement is concerned, so we should continue negotiating in any event.
I have a last brief question regarding Canada. I have heard that the negotiations have been broken off. I would be grateful if you could give me some feedback on this.
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, let me try to answer all these questions, which are indeed very detailed. But this is a good moment to take stock of where we are.
The negotiations with the US, Australia and Canada have now reached an advanced stage. The negotiations with Australia have been concluded and the Commission has recommended that the Council sign and conclude the agreement and put it to Parliament. The procedure for signing is pending in the Council due to parliamentary scrutiny in some Member States.
The negotiations with the US are well advanced but still ongoing. The draft text has been made available to the Council and to some members of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. The negotiations with Canada are also ongoing. There have been delays due to the parliamentary elections in Canada. We hope to be able to present you with a draft text very soon but I cannot undertake to do so before the summer break.
So important decisions will shortly be made on these three agreements. Ms in 't Veld and certain others mentioned agreements concerning numerous countries, but the aim is to make a single joint multilateral agreement out of these three bilateral agreements. But that is for later, there are no negotiations whatsoever ongoing with any other country.
Let me start with a few remarks on necessity and proportionality and on profiling. The question of necessity and proportionality is something you face in many issues, including EU PNR. It is a very important question.
This issue was analysed in depth in both our communication on PNR from last year and the impact assessment that accompanied the proposal for an EU PNR. The analysis essentially revealed three things: firstly, PNR is used by a growing number of countries globally to prevent and to bring to justice those guilty of serious crimes and terrorism. Serious crimes and terrorism continue to cause very serious harm to victims, as well as to the economy and citizens' sense of security.
Secondly, PNR can make a unique contribution because it helps identify people who are not known to be involved in criminal activities but whose travel patterns fit with those of drug smugglers or human traffickers. In other words, while simple passport data may not be enough to catch criminals already on the wanted list, PNR data makes it possible to identify a wider range of persons who are likely to pose a security risk.
Thirdly, there is evidence that PNR data has already been successful in preventing and fighting serious crimes and terrorism, both in Member States and in third countries. Data has been particularly important in identifying and dismantling criminal networks involving crimes such as drug-smuggling and human trafficking. My services have already met with you once to present evidence on the necessity of PNR and there will be a follow-up meeting tomorrow.
The Commission is therefore convinced that PNR is an important tool in fighting serious crime and terrorism, when it is complemented by strong data-protection guarantees and when the necessity and proportionality principles are respected.
The issue of profiling was also raised. That has been discussed already and there is no exact definition of it in EU law. Profiling is generally understood to be an automatic data processing technique where a profile is applied to an individual in order to take a decision that affects him or her.
There are, therefore, three different uses of PNR: firstly, reactive use in specific investigations after the flight. Secondly, real-time use prior to the flight, by checking PNR against pre-determined risk assessment criteria and against databases on wanted persons. Thirdly, there is pro-active use - also known as trend analysis - to create or update risk assessment criteria.
Of these three uses of PNR data, only one - real-time use - might potentially be considered to be a form of profiling, in this case the checking of the PNR against pre-determined risk assessment criteria. To ensure that this use will not adversely affect individuals, the new EU-Australia PNR agreement explicitly prohibits automated processing and always requires human involvement before adverse decisions are taken on the basis of PNR data.
This prohibition was not present in the PNR agreement from 2007, so it is an important step forward. The Commission is seeking to have the same provisions included in the US and Canadian agreements. A similar provision is also included in the Commission's proposal for the directive on the European PNR.
The Commission's approach to both the European PNR and PNR agreements with third countries is therefore in line with EU data protection legislation, which grants every individual the right not to be subject to a decision which produces legal effects concerning him or her, and which is based exclusively, or to a decisive extent, on automated processing of data on him or her. Against this background, the Commission is not convinced of the need to develop any new legal definition of profiling.
On the EU-Australia agreement, the Commission's view is that the new agreement respects the Council's negotiating mandate and the resolution of this House. We consider that it respects the principles of necessity and proportionality. We should bear in mind that the agreement has a well-defined and specific purpose limitation - a limited period of detention of all PNR. PNR will be masked-out a short time after the flight and stored anonymously. Strict conditions apply on transfers of data to third countries and PNR must be transmitted by air carriers exclusively by the 'push' method. The question of proportionality should be viewed in the general context of the laws of the third country, in this case Australia, and the security threat faced by that country.
Members have raised important questions on dispute resolution, suspension and termination. The procedures for terminating the agreement would be the same as those for concluding the agreement and therefore Parliament's role is fully assured.
Suspension of the agreement is regulated by Article 218(9) of the Treaty. There is no formal role for Parliament. However, a parliamentary resolution calling for a suspension would certainly be a very important political consideration for whether the Commission would desire to launch such a procedure.
Finally, the Commission agrees with the European Court of Justice that the main purpose of PNR agreements is police and judicial cooperation, and not data protection. That was confirmed in 2005 by the European Court of Justice in the US PNR case. It was clearly stated that PNR agreements should be drawn up using the legal bases for police and judicial cooperation.
On the US agreement, you asked whether there were any bilateral agreements between the US and Member States on PNR. This issue was discussed in detail in this House in October 2010. The US signed a memorandum of understanding with several Member States as part of the Visa Waiver Programme. The memorandum of understanding was intended to commit the parties - the US and the specific Member States - to enter into negotiations on passenger information, information on the screening of known or suspected terrorists, information to combat terrorism and serious crime and information on migration and border security matters.
The memorandum of understanding was not intended to be in itself the legal basis for the exchange of data between that Member State and the US. It merely expressed the intention of the two parties to have specific agreements to govern the exchange of data. Only such an agreement would then be the legal basis for exchanging data.
In order to implement the memorandum of understanding, the US and the relevant Member States signed only two types of agreement, namely agreements on enhancing cooperation in preventing and combating serious crime and agreements on the exchange of screening information concerning known or suspected terrorists.
Following that debate, and in the context of the negotiations, we again examined the issue, and asked both the Member States and the US whether there were any bilateral agreements between them on PNR. Both sides replied categorically negatively. Both the Member States and the US assure us that the only agreement regulating PNR is the one that the US signed with the EU in 2007. No further agreement exists.
Secure flight data are not to be confused with PNR data. They differ both in nature and in function. They are much more limited in scope since secure flight data include only the name, date of birth and gender of passengers. Such data are used by the US authorities exclusively to prevent individuals already known to pose a security risk - i.e. those on the US no-fly list - from boarding an aircraft. Secure flight data is collected by air carriers on behalf of the US authorities and PNR data is collected by air carriers for their own commercial purposes. To reduce their economic burden, carriers generally choose to provide the required secure data with the PNR data to the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS). On receipt, the secure flight data is retrieved from the PNR and stored separately for seven days and then deleted.
Another very important issue is ad hoc 'pulls' by the US authorities. Last year's joint review acknowledged that there was a problem with regard to both the number of ad hoc requests for PNR data and the fact that the DHS executed such requests by 'pulling' the data. It strongly called for improvements to this state of affairs and for the US authorities to step up their efforts to encourage air carriers to use the 'push' method of transmission only.
The US has acknowledged that the high frequency of 'pulls' is problematic. The issue is being re-discussed in the context of negotiations with the US on the new PNR agreement. The Commission's aim is to ensure that data are transferred using the 'push' method, with recourse to 'pulls' only in strictly limited circumstances.
Finally, you asked about the opinion of our Legal Service. I can say that the Commission is seeking improvements to the text on a small number of key issues. We have emphasised to the US that the support of both the Council and the Parliament is needed for the final outcome of the negotiations.
On the issue of the transfer of data between the US and Canada, this was, and continues to be, governed by the memorandum of understanding signed between those two countries. Its purpose is the sharing of 'look-out' and advance passenger information data between Canadian border service agencies and the United States Customs and Border Protection to identify high-risk travellers and facilitate the flow of legitimate persons across the border.
We have carefully assessed these agreements on a strictly confidential basis and we are convinced that they do not violate the PNR agreements with either country.
I am sorry this was long but there were very many questions that I had to answer. I hope I have adequately answered the questions asked in this plenary.
Madam President, Commissioner, our resolutions on issues of internal security will reflect our basic European values faithfully only if they express a continuous balance between safety and freedom. It is worth drawing attention to the fact that security, similarly to data protection, is a fundamental right of citizens. It is true that many look at profiling with hysterical rage as if it were the devil's instrument, but do we know what profiling and data mining really mean? Do we know what we are really talking about?
It is indispensable for the Commission to create the necessary definitions - with almost scientific thoroughness - because we cannot combat the present forms of terrorism and organised crime successfully with conventional means of criminal investigation. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that profiling is a well-established and very efficient method in the broadest sense of the word in the criminal investigation procedures of Member States, and is applied without major problems.
Furthermore, when talking about PNR agreements to be concluded with third countries, we cannot avoid addressing the PNR issue of the EU itself. It would be very advantageous for the EU, for its Member States and for the aviation industry if our PNR system was centralised. If we really think that mutual data transfer is important, that is, not only to provide, but also receive information from third countries, then we have to establish a unified European institutional framework here, in the EU, which will really be able to collect and process data, providing equal access to information to all Member States. Although we have heard several proposed solutions to this issue, the final solution has not been found yet. We should consider the possibility that the most efficient solution could be to give Europol competences which would allow it to play a leading role in the operation of the PNR mechanism of the EU. I suggest that we consider these possibilities when negotiating the future mandate of Europol.
Mr President, in May and November last year, Parliament spelt out quite clearly in its resolutions what it was expecting from the negotiations on access to passenger name record data. The Commission was to ensure that agreements with Australia, Canada and the United States would respect European Union law on personal data protection.
The United States has been mentioned here. Looking back over the 10-year history of our mutual negotiations, the US has unilaterally imposed conditions on the European Union, but on the rare occasions when a request has been made by the Union, the United States has refused even to think about modifying its data protection system.
The opinion delivered in May by the Commission Legal Services on the agreement between the EU and the US left no room for doubt: in its current form, the agreement violates fundamental rights. The Commission's response was to send us the text of this agreement untouched, two days after the opinion was published. If the agreement remains in this form, I hope Parliament will exercise its authority and refuse to approve the agreement.
Commissioner, we do want to see the agreement approved, and we will gladly approve it, but not until it respects European data protection standards such as proportionality, purpose limitation, legal redress and the guarantee of independent review.
Mr President, I will be very brief.
Firstly, I am intrigued to hear about the plans for a multilateral agreement for all the other countries. I am wondering why they get different treatment and when this will start, because some countries are already asking for PNR.
Secondly, on the legal opinions of the Commission and Council Legal Services, they were actually not on minor issues. They went right to the core. They challenged the core: the proportionality and the necessity of long-term storage. I would like to hear a little more about that.
Thirdly, regarding the legal basis, the European Court of Justice did not confirm police and justice cooperation as a legal basis; it simply rejected Article 95 - internal markets - as a legal basis.
Finally, Commissioner, on 'push' and 'pull', the Parliament's resolution is crystal clear: 'push' only. No 'pull': not even a little bit of 'pull'. It is like being pregnant: you cannot be 'a little bit' pregnant. There is no such thing as 'a little bit' of 'pull'. 'Pull' is giving a log-in to a third country. 'Push' only!
Mr President, I think that there is no excuse here for the lack of clarity. We are facing a paradigm change in investigation. Citizens know that, previously, they were investigated if they were suspected of a crime or if they had committed a crime. What happens with the processing of passenger name record (PNR) data is that everyone is investigated, including innocent people, and therefore, whether or not this is justified, proportional or necessary, it is essential that citizens are told clearly that they are being investigated, even when they are innocent. This cannot happen without a very clear debate with the citizens, particularly when their data are in the hands of third countries, as is the case. This is why we are discussing the agreement with the United States here today.
Most people would agree to their data being used to stop a terrorist blowing up the plane in which they are flying. That is not the issue. However, what would people say if a large part of their data, including credit card details and addresses, were in the hands of a third country for 15 years, a long time after the aeroplane had reached its destination? This is what is happening now with the agreement that we have with the United States. Let us be clear: over 15 years many administrations come and go, so an administration that says that it will not carry out data mining might do so at a later date. It is therefore necessary for the agreement to be perfectly clear, as I believe that the agreement that we have today contains large gaps and loopholes that can be exploited for different purposes. I would like to know what the Commission is going to do to close these big gaps in the agreement that we have at the moment.
Mr President, how can the fight against terrorism and crime be reconciled with the protection of personal data? Since 11 September 2011, security-related legislation and the recording of personal data have been amplified, namely on the grounds that current techniques should allow us to progress towards 'zero insecurity' while carrying out ever increasing checks on our fellow citizens.
Numerous studies now show, however, the adverse effects of this legislation; Commissioner, even the Commission's own Legal Service and the European Data Protection Supervisor acknowledge these effects, but nothing is being done about them. Personal data continues to be recorded and increasingly so. You state that results can be seen: I remain perplexed and I would in this respect like to refer to a comment made by a US senator in encouraging the US Government to stand its ground. He said: 'Since the agreement with the EU was signed, at least two terrorists have been arrested.' How many thousands of people's personal data have been recorded for two terrorists? Could their arrests not have been achieved by other means? Of course they could, especially as the two persons in question were arrested after having made very numerous plane trips between their country and the United States. Moreover, one of them was not even arrested in the US. Therefore why is the number of people for whom we record data increasing? Why is the period for which data are held being increased to 15 years? Why do we hand over such great quantities of data, including bank details, without the least guarantee as to how they are used as far as profiling and passing on to third countries are concerned, and without our fellow citizens having the least guarantee as to whether legal action is possible?
I have to say, Commissioner, that I found your answers unconvincing.
(The President interrupted the speaker)
I remain unsatisfied and I maintain that it is not through wide-scale recording of personal data that the problem will be solved, but rather by allocating resources, and in particular human resources, to the departments concerned.
(DE) Mr President, I have just three very simple and brief questions for the Commissioner. The Commission has already received various legal opinions on the subject of passenger name records (PNR). We asked the Commission to provide us with the three most recent. In response we have received just the cover pages of two, and nothing at all of the third.
My question to you is as follows: is that what you mean by transparent policy, and when are you going to publish the most recent opinions by the Legal Service? This is very important, because above all there is a suspicion that the applicable law is being breached.
My second question concerns proportionality. The retention periods in the drafts vary from five to 15 years. My specific question to you is: what retention period would you consider to be no longer proportionate - 15, 20, 30, 100 years? Perhaps you could provide us with specific figures.
My third question concerns necessity. The Commission has yet to provide adequate figures on the costs. When will the Commission finally commission an independent study that guarantees cost transparency?
Mr President, as one minute is not long, could I just check whether the Commissioner answered the question about the scope of the US agreement. I am not sure if we heard your answer to that.
You have said what the status of the various negotiations is. For the Socialist and Democrat Group there are currently too many differences between the PNR negotiations. It is important that, regardless of what third state we are negotiating with, we build on common principles.
Secondly, we cannot have vastly different standards of protection for European citizens depending on which third state they are flying to. By doing this we risk creating an incentive for Member States to begin to develop bilateral agreements which will then undermine our work at EU level. We should ensure full respect for the Charter. The scope - as everyone has said - should not be unnecessarily wide. Data retention periods should respect the tests of proportionality and necessity and we should have proper redress.
All of these principles are still up for grabs in some of the negotiations. If the EU institutions' own legal services are providing opinions against the current status of negotiations, then we should listen and ensure the agreements we put in place respect the fundamental rights of EU citizens.
(DE) Mr President, the high-flown statements from the EU that it would ensure adequate data protection have now been exposed even by the Commission's own Legal Service as mere window-dressing, as has been our criticism all along. Fundamental rights, human rights and data protection are clearly foreign concepts to the Americans in the so-called fight against terror. Millions of data records are being stored there, airlines are being forced to pass on data and passengers are being refused entry to the US without even being told on what suspicions the decision is based. Part of the Commission's negotiating mandate was to bring to an end the illegal blackmail that is forcing the airlines to hand over data. While the retention periods in the Australian agreement have been set at five and a half years, without sensitive data being released, the US Department of Homeland Security is to continue to be given 15 years more or less unrestricted access to all personal data. It is all too Orwellian.
It is one thing to retain data on suspects, but hoarding data on innocent citizens is quite unacceptable.
(ES) Mr President, Commissioner, as we have seen throughout this afternoon's debate, we are still far from reaching a conclusion on this issue, because in my opinion - and Parliament has taken the same view - there is not much transparency in the talks held by the Commission with the various countries, and there are many outstanding and confusing issues that we do not fully understand. It is a very important agreement, because the common standards to be used in the agreement with the United States will later serve as a benchmark for other agreements, and above all for the European Passenger Name Records (PNR), for which I am going to be a shadow rapporteur.
I believe it is important to have the maximum possible level of transparency, and for us to know exactly, for example, when the 'pull' system mentioned here will be used. What will the profiles consist of, exactly? It is not acceptable for a person to be prevented from travelling and to be monitored because he or she has the same surname as a citizen of the same country who is being sought for drug trafficking.
There have been many mistakes. The more guarantees and the more safeguards we create on such an important issue, the better things will be, because Parliament, following the Treaty of Lisbon, will be responsible for voting on it. This is why we must reach a conclusion on this issue, and we have not done so yet.
(SL) Mr President, Commissioner, you have replied to some of the concerns but, unfortunately, it seems to me that, once again, we have before us an offer which the citizens of Europe simply cannot and should not accept. This proposal does not improve the standards of protection of personal data, as even our Legal Service has recognised.
I get the impression that someone is persistently turning a blind eye. Will practically any reason, even the slightest crime, really justify our personal data being stored in this way? We need to know for exactly what purposes the US authorities will be using the data. We cannot allow them to use the data of many millions of passengers, including their credit card numbers, at US borders for security purposes unrelated to the prevention of terrorism and serious crime. This is a major retrograde step for the protection of personal data.
I do not know how we are going to explain to people that the US authorities may store our records for up to 15 years. The draft agreement is highly inconsistent with fundamental human rights. We have every reason to reject it. It is high time therefore that the Union showed some resolve and that the European Commission returned to the negotiating table, improved the proposal and ensured that any encroachment on our privacy has a genuine legal basis.
(RO) Mr President, in a letter sent on 16 May 2011 to the Directorate General for Home Affairs, the European Commission's Legal Service warns that the draft EU-US agreement on the exchange of passenger name record (PNR) data is contrary to fundamental human rights.
The Commission's legal experts mentioned grounds for concern about the draft EU-US agreement, such as the proportionality of its enforcement in the event of minor crimes which do not come under the scope of the prevention of terrorism or serious crime. The draft document proposes keeping the collected data for up to 15 years and does not provide for any course of legal action.
The Commission's Legal Service points out that its previous comments were not taken into consideration when drafting the current version.
I would like to ask the Commission whether negotiations are ongoing with the United States at the moment and separately with Australia, and how the Commission views this legal report because, if the Commission ignores it, it is disregarding the legal advice of its own Legal Service.
(RO) Mr President, I have understood how important passenger name record (PNR) agreements are to the European Union. However, at the same time, it is important that a proper balance is also struck between protecting European citizens' privacy and the need to combat terrorism.
Commissioner, we must have firm guarantees from these states to the effect that the level of protection afforded European citizens' personal data will be just as high as it is in the European Union. In addition, rules must apply which correspond to those in the European Union concerning how long data can be kept and the provision of access to administrative and legal appeals. It was not appropriate for me to raise the issue now, this evening, about the lack of visa waiver reciprocity for five Member States - Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Poland and Romania - with regard to the United States and Canada. However, as you have mentioned this subject, I would like to ask you when this rather uncomfortable problem for the European Union will also be resolved.
(SK) Mr President, a civilised society plainly needs to defend itself effectively against the criminal actions of various terrorist groups. In connection with the draft agreement on the use and transfer of passenger name record data, however, we would like to express concern as to the adequacy and proportionality of the agreement, particularly in relation to the European Union's responsibility for protecting the personal data of its citizens.
The Legal Service's latest expert opinions indicate that the text of the draft agreement provides inadequate protection for the personal data of our citizens, and even falls short of personal data handling requirements under European law. I would therefore like to ask you, Commissioner, to consider the scope and proportionality of the European Union's proposed commitments, so that we are not obliged to reject the draft text of this important interstate agreement in the final stages of the approval process in Parliament.
(DE) Mr President, there has been much debate already on the subject of passenger name records (PNR). Data protection is regulated in the EU by Article 16 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 8 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. The joint bilateral efforts to counter terrorism are not what is in dispute here. Nonetheless, I wish to make it clear that protecting the privacy of our citizens is of the utmost importance and is highly valued by them.
I note that in the new US-EU agreement the retention period is even longer than it was in the old agreement. This is one of the aspects that cannot be allowed to remain. In the words of Ambassador Eacho, 'freedom without security is fragile; security without freedom is repressive'. In other words, it is a matter of finding the right balance.
(PT) Mr President, many thanks to Commissioner Malmström for her answers. I especially liked it when she stated that this system is useful when (and this was the word she used, 'when') data are strongly protected. Now, the question that is raised is this: are we or are we not faced with a system, particularly with regard to the United States, in which European legislation on data protection is being respected? The Commissioner has legal opinion at her disposal. It seems to us that there is an attempt to force us to adapt to their data protection standard. As this concerns our data, however, it is they who have to adapt to our legal framework, and we have to be assured of this. However, it is not obvious whether this is actually happening in terms of proportionality and the use and retention of data.
Finally, the Commissioner gave the idea that 'pull' was possible in certain circumstances. I would remind you of what Mrs in 't Veld said: that is, according to the European Parliament, no 'pull' is possible; only the 'push' system should be allowed.
(HU) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, here in the issue of passenger name record (PNR) data transfer we are not talking about cooperation in the field of data protection, but about data protection error. It is simply an offence that the United States reckons that Europe is not able to filter criminals. It is extremely dangerous to give out data of European Union citizens especially in these circumstances, when the United States can store even the most private and most confidential information for 15 years. Let me ask you, who will decide who is a terrorist or a suspected terrorist in Europe? My other question to you is what will we receive in return, if this agreement - God forbid - were to be concluded? The other important point is that the EU must at last realise that it has grown up, and must change its attitude to the effect that it should enter only into agreements concluded on the basis of parity, be it with the United States, Canada or Australia.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I will comment on a few specific questions.
The multilateral agreement that was announced in the communication on external PNR - where we also outlined a few guiding principles - will be based on the Australian system. On the legal basis, the Parliament's Legal Service said in 2007 that the correct legal basis was police cooperation. With regard to the costs of the EU PNR, an impact assessment and an independent study have been conducted on costs. They are on our website and Members are welcome to look at them.
Let us be very clear about what we discussed today. Today we have three agreements with Australia, Canada and the US. We have decided jointly to renegotiate them. What we have achieved so far is a huge improvement, but there are no texts before you today to vote upon because negotiations are still ongoing.
I am here today to answer a few questions and I hope I can provide some clarifications. I am willing to hold further discussions, but we already have agreements and we are trying to make improvements to them. So far we have improved them immensely in terms of definition, clarity, data protection and legal clarity.
There will be developments and processes will be defined, but let me remind you that a country has the sovereign right to decide who can land on its territory and to impose certain conditions. We cannot change that.
I cannot discuss ongoing negotiations; I cannot go into details. I cannot comment on leaked documents. I have tried to provide as much information as possible to the coordinators, the rapporteur and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. I am willing to continue to do so and to discuss all texts we draw up as the process continues.
I am quite positive that we will reach an agreement that considers both the necessity to protect our citizens against terrorism and organised crime and that also includes robust provisions on data protection. But today we were here to answer questions on certain issues. I have done my best to do that. I am sorry if you do not like the answers but there is nothing to vote on today. Hopefully there will be before too long and then we will most likely have the chance to discuss it.
In the meantime the Commission is available to provide information. Mr Priebe will come to the committee tomorrow to give further information on the necessity and proportionality of PNR and provide some statistics. We are willing to come and see Members at any time to inform them and discuss specific details.
The debate is closed.


8. Moratorium on the death penalty (vote)
- Before the vote on paragraph 2:
(FR) Mr President, we would ask you to add to paragraph 2, after 'the universal moratorium on executions', the phrase 'with a view to the universal abolition of the death penalty'.
(The oral amendment was accepted)
Before the vote on recital H:
Mr President, I should like to move the following small addition to recital H, which deals with the execution of Saddam Hussein: 'and deploring the way it was carried out'.
(The oral amendment was accepted)