By Martin Banks - 16th June 2010
The US has shown goodwill and patience in this process and is dealing with the EU and with MEPs. It was rather unfortunate that such an important agreement was the first to test parliament's new powers under the Lisbon treaty but I hope that we can now
ECR MEP Timothy Kirkhope
We regret that the commission seems to have already closed the negotiations on a draft agreement
S&D group leader Martin Schulz
Malmström should have known from the start that the central points of critique of the parliament and a number of member states have not been cleared with this proposal
Greens/EFA MEP Jan Albrecht
MEPs have given a mixed reaction to news that the European commission has agreed a deal with Washington on bank data access.
Speaking in the European parliament on Tuesday, commission president José Manuel Barroso said the new draft "has strict safeguards on privacy."
This was an attempt to reassure those MEPs who rejected an earlier EU-US agreement on the Swift money transfer system which handles a large amount of personal data.
Addressing a news conference, EU home affairs commissioner Cecilia Malmström, a former MEP herself, said that the new deal would ensure Europol scrutiny of US data requests.
MEPs have the right to vote on the agreement before it can become operational. The vote and parliamentary debate is expected to take place in September.
But yesterday's unexpected announcement was greeted with dismay by some leading MEPs, including Martin Schulz, leader of the parliament's Socialists and Democrats group, who said he had "serious misgivings" about it.
"We regret that the commission seems to have already closed the negotiations on a draft agreement which is far from being approvable. Only a few days ago Malmström publically said it was not yet finalised.
"Over the last weeks we have constantly expressed our position to Malmström. She bears the responsibility for not having taken into adequate consideration parliament's serious concerns on the need of ensuring EU citizens' privacy and safeguards by strengthening EU oversight on the extraction and processing of data.
"This draft agreement would grant the EU authorities with less control powers than those so far enjoyed by a private company, that is, Swift.
"Our group has serious concerns on the role of Europol in authorising the extraction and transfer of data.
"Besides, we would have expected the draft text to clearly include a revision clause of the agreement as soon as the ongoing negotiations of the US-EU framework agreement are over and it enters into force.
"We will now work in close cooperation with the council of the EU to improve this draft agreement".
Further comment came from Jan Albrecht, Greens/EFA expert on home affairs, who warned that the commission "risks another rejection" by parliament with its latest proposal.
He said, "Malmström should have known from the start that the central points of critique of the parliament and a number of member states have not been cleared with this proposal.
"Bulk data about completely unsuspicious persons will still be transferred to US authorities and stored there for five years. This is in breach not only of the binding EU charter of fundamental rights, but also of recent rulings by the German Constitutional Court.
"There are also no further conditions for the open-ended agreement, such as an obligation to negotiate a binding data protection framework with the US within a defined period.
"Whoever now accepts this proposal will endanger the recently earned trust of European citizens in the European institutions as defenders of their freedoms and civil liberties."
However, Timothy Kirkhope, European Conservatives and Reformists group home affairs spokesman, was more positive, saying the new deal "meets almost all of parliament's concerns."
He called on MEPs to "use their powers responsibly to put the agreement in place as soon as possible, in order to end the current data gap in the fight against terrorism."
Kirkhope, a leading proponent of an agreement, said that following parliament's rejection of the temporary Swift agreement in February, the US has "worked tirelessly" to ensure that MEPs' concerns are tackled in the permanent text.
"As a result, there are now clear rules on data protection, the potential for blocking of data, rules for administrative and legal redress, and provisions for EU checking and evaluation, as well as stronger wording surrounding the transfer of data and an agreement to consult over a twin track agreement which would enable the EU to have its own system.
"The EU and the US must stand square in the fight against terrorism and the Swift agreement is a crucial tool in this fight.
"The US has shown goodwill and patience in this process and is dealing with the EU and with MEPs. It was rather unfortunate that such an important agreement was the first to test parliament's new powers under the Lisbon treaty but I hope that we can now move on.
"The US administration is to be congratulated for persisting with the EU route rather than obtaining data bilaterally from European governments.
"This agreement is of course not perfect but ultimately it gets a necessary and vital job done whilst rightly addressing civil liberties concerns. In these negotiations the EU has come away with a good deal."
Kirkhope warned that another 'no' vote from parliament could put other counter-terrorism schemes currently under negotiation - such as Passenger Name Records - into "serious doubt."
Have your say...
Please enter your comments below.