Brussels, 10/02/2010 (Agence Europe) - The MEP revolt over the interim agreement on the transfer of banking information to the US by means of the Swift network forced the Spanish Presidency on call for the postponement of the vote initially scheduled for the plenary session on Thursday 11 February. The Conference of the Presidents of the political groups which met on Wednesday evening pointed out, however, that there was no majority in favour of such a delay. The plenary session will decide on Thursday whether or not to hold the vote.
“Necessary” agreement to counter terrorism. “Terrorism can only be tackled through an extraordinary effort in sharing information,” stated Spanish Home Affairs Minister Alfredo Pérez Rubalcaba, highlighting the merits of the US Terrorist Finance Tracking Program (TFTP), which uses banking information sent by the Swift company. “The TFTP is an instrument of great value which has successfully prevented terrorist attacks,” he said, citing several examples of arrests of alleged terrorists in Europe. Reiterating the commitments of the Council in its statement published on Tuesday, the minister said that sufficient guarantees on data protection had been provided for MEPs and he hoped that the Parliament and Council could work on an inter-institutional agreement allowing MEPs easier access to classified papers (see EUROPE 10074). New European Home Affairs Commissioner Cecilia Malmström said that the Swift agreement “is not just of use to the United States; it helps everyone” and she stated that the report published by former anti-terrorist judge Jean-Louis Bruguière “confirms that the TFTP is important in providing useful information in tackling terrorism” If the Parliament were to reject the agreement this would represent “a serious threat to the security” of European citizens, she warned.
Swift agreement under fire. MEPs severely questioned the content of the interim agreement. “We want to be sure about both the protection of civil liberties and data protection,” said Ernst Strasser (EPP, Austria). “He enjoy an excellent partnership with the United States,” but “the way this agreement came about is unacceptable,” he added, indicating that, though the Council was sending encouraging signs, it had not yet provided enough by way of guarantees. Martin Schulz (D&D, Germany) said that the signing of the agreement had been an error on the part of European governments. “How will the data be stored, who will have access, when will they be destroyed?” he asked, expressing his fear that European data might be stored for “for more than 90 years” by the US. “It is quite simply a bad agreement which we cannot sign,” he said. Sophia In't Veld (ALDXE, Netherlands) urged Parliament to “keep a cool head” and not give in to external pressure. “We can only accept an agreement if it is legitimate in content and procedure. This is not a battle between the Parliament and member states,” she pointed out.
In any case, she assured, “the Council's answers are inadequate”. “Rather than make promises, the Council should give us the opinion of its legal experts and the proof that this data will be well used, given that the Bruguière report is not sufficient. If you want our agreement, you will have to be more precise”, she retorted to the Council. “We shall reject the interim agreement and not postpone the vote”, said Rebecca Harms (Greens/EFA, Germany). “We must absolutely have more security and respect of citizens' rights and negotiate with the United States on an equal footing”, she said. Timothy Kirkhope (ECR, UK) expressed his “frustration and anger” at the way the Council treated the Parliament. Although he was delighted to receive the assurances of the Council and Commission, he believes “time is needed before going further in order to appreciate these measures”. Finally, Lothar Bisky (GUE/NGL, Germany) said he could not accept such an agreement that will allow data to be retained for years without coming under any control.
In response to criticism on procedure, Pérez Rubalcaba said the Council could probably have done better and that, in future, things will be different, especially due to the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. “Even if you do not believe me, the treaty places us under an obligation to act differently”, he said. On substance, the minister said that some criticism was not founded, such as the systematic transfer of huge amounts of data. In his view, this must only be authorised under exceptional circumstances. “One must recognise that this agreement, although it does deserve criticism, is far better than the protocol hitherto applied and it can be greatly improved”, said Pérez Rubalcaba. Finally, the minister suggested postponing the vote: “I shall need time to reflect with member states and to verify the will of the United States to integrate criticism and restraints expressed by Parliament in a new agreement. I shall also need time to go before the Parliament prior to the vote”, he said. He finally said he considered it was realistic to be able to present, within 3 months, elements that the EU and the United States will have established as part of the negotiations for a long term agreement. (B.C./transl.tfl)