 |
 |
Sarah speaking in the European Parliament about the European-USA air transport agreement
October 11, 2007 11:01 AM
By Sarah Ludford in European Parliament
By Sarah Ludford in European Parliament
Madam President, I am substituting for my colleague, Ms in 't Veld.
I bow to the knowledge of other people on the technicalities of this agreement. As an MEP representing London, which includes the major airport of Heathrow, I am certainly encouraged by the fact that this agreement will grant more benefits of competition to passengers and, to that extent, it is good that it has been concluded.
I want to address the security aspects of the agreement, understanding from the report that this is largely left to regulation by the Joint Committee. I agree with the report's welcoming of cooperation between the EU and US authorities responsible for aviation security. However, as the report says, security measures should be based on a proper risk assessment and should not be excessive or uncoordinated, and the privacy of European and US citizens should be respected when personal passenger data are exchanged between the EU and the US.
Members will be aware of the considerable controversy surrounding the Passenger Name Records (PNR) Agreement. The European Parliament has expressed itself very forcefully on the fact that it has not played the major role that it would have wanted in that agreement. Certainly, the opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisors is that safeguards under the new agreement have been considerably weakened in comparison to previous agreements and that the new agreement leaves open serious questions and shortcomings.
While Commissioner Barrot welcomed the major role Parliament has played in modernising the regulatory framework for other aspects of the aviation business, I am afraid we have to express disappointment that we have not succeeded in having the input we wanted on privacy and the enforcement of personal data safeguards. The data under the PNR Agreement will be retained for 15 years, which, I put to you, is excessive and which this report says we do not want. The US will be able to have access to sensitive data and even to use it in cases of petty crime, which is not fighting terrorism.
All in all, while welcoming this agreement overall, I am afraid to say that the aspirations of this report that security measures should be properly assessed for their contribution to combating risk, should not be excessive and
What would you like to do next?
-
Subscribe for updates
Follow the party's activity on...
- Twitter:
- Liberal Democrats
- Facebook:
- Liberal Democrats
- YouTube:
- Liberal Democrats