Claude Moraes, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, speaking for the S&D Group, we will be having a free vote. In committee there was a small majority in favour of the PNR Agreement, but you will hear arguments against that agreement from our shadow and others.

I will be speaking in favour of this PNR Agreement and will vote for it, for the following reasons. Our group had three critical aims. We felt that this agreement, despite – as others, including the Commissioner, have said – no international agreement being perfect, was one whose scope was just too wide and went beyond terrorism; we said there was too long a retention period; and that it was taking in ‘pull’ methods as well as ‘push’ methods. In the end, two out of three of the critical key concessions were included.

Two out of three was enough, in my opinion, for us to say that this agreement was enough. That was a very difficult judgment to make, but the scope was substantially narrowed: minor crimes were excluded and the retention period for serious crimes reduced. Also, although the USA has not fully agreed to move fully on the pull / push issue, data will now only be pulled in exceptional cases where there is a serious and urgent threat. This is by no means perfect, as the Commissioner and Minister have said, particularly as regards the push / pull issue, but we had to reach a conclusion at some point, following difficult negotiations.

In committee, a small majority from my group felt that, while this agreement did not meet all our requests, it is undeniable that the text has been fundamentally improved. It constitutes the only legal and binding framework for the transfer of EU-US PNR data. A ‘no’ to this agreement, as many have said and will say, will leave a clear position of 27 bilateral agreements with no common rules, no EP monitoring and citizens being left in a legal void and being subject to contrasting regimes, which I believe is not in the interest of European Union citizens.

Finally, concerning difficulties about setting a precedent, the agreement clearly states that it will not constitute a precedent for other agreements in this field. That is, in my view, satisfying when we look at the agreement as a whole. This is not a perfect situation, and what we have to say to the Commissioner – and this is certainly true of those in my group who would want to support this agreement – is that the Commission should take Parliament seriously when it reviews this agreement.

Commissioner, we do not have the political power to terminate this agreement if it goes wrong and strays into other areas. If we support this agreement then you must support us and take us seriously, politically, should it go wrong or go beyond the remit that you have set.