Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I, too, very much welcome today’s debate where Parliament will set out its expectations with regard to the negotiations directives. The fact that Parliament will not vote on its resolution this week is clearly very unfortunate but it should not, and I repeat, it should not inhibit Council from going ahead with the adoption as scheduled. Parliament’s views are being put forward as we speak, and it is no secret that Council and the Commission are already fully aware of the resolution and its content. In this respect, I can only say that I do appreciate the new spirit of cooperation demonstrated by both the Council and the Commission to engage with this House.

Now, following the negotiations directive, the envisaged EU-US agreement is to ensure rights on an equal basis, regardless of the nationality of any person whose data are processed in accordance with the agreement. Now, my question is, what does that mean? What are these specific rights in that case in relation to, for example, access, rectification, deletion, compensation and redress? Please enlighten me here. Furthermore, I would like to underline, like my colleagues did, that the principles of proportionalities and necessity are key to the envisaged agreement. The fact, and I repeat it once more, the fact that financial measuring data profiles are unable, for whatever reason, to search the content of the messages leading to the transfer of data in bulk cannot be subsequently rectified by mechanisms of oversight and control, as basic principles of data protection law have already been comprised.

To be honest, I do have some doubts whether this issue is going to be solved on the basis of the current negotiations directives. Furthermore, it is important to know that the agreement on mutual legal assistance is not an adequate basis for requests to obtain data for the purposes of the TFTP. After all, the agreement on mutual legal assistance does not apply to bank transfers between third countries and it would demand prior identification of a specific bank whereas the TFCP is based on searches for fund transfers. It is therefore crucial, and I would like to stress that, it is therefore crucial that negotiations focus on finding a solution to make one compatible with the other. We can, of course, insist on a redesign of the TFTP but honestly, in the end, this is not in our hands really and I can therefore only urge the Council and the Commission, like Mr Busuttil did, to address the fundamental policy decisions straight away.

I do expect a clear and binding commitment on the part of both the Council and the Commission to undertake all that is necessary to effectively introduce a durable, legally sound, European solution to the extraction of data on European soil. Let me stress once more that the transfer and storage of data in bulk to a foreign power, even if it concerns our best friends, is and remains by definition, disproportionate. It marks a huge departure from EU legislation and practice. The rule of law is crucially important and in this context, Parliament must be extremely mindful in assessing envisaged agreements such as the one we are discussing today.

I do support, like others, a strong outwards-looking EU that is capable of acting shoulder to shoulder, as an equal partner, with the US. In that framework, I can only underline once more that it is the EU that needs to lay down the principles on how Europe will cooperate with the US for counterterrorism purposes, including law enforcement and the use of data collected for commercial ends. Getting it right should be the objective, and the European legal demands for the fair, proportionate and lawful processing of personal information are of paramount importance and must always be upheld. Now it is for the Council and the Commission to put this into concrete action as soon as possible and to negotiate an agreement that meets all of the EU and US expectations.