Digital Majority

For the hearing of De Gucht, read the transcript of his hearing here:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/hearings/static/commissioners/cre/de_gucht.pdf

Bernd Lange (S&D). – Herr Vorsitzender, Herr De Gucht! Ich glaube, wir sind uns einig, dass Handelspolitik den gemeinsamen Besitzstand der EU nicht in Frage stellen kann, also weder unser Sozialmodell, noch den Grad der Freiheit. Wir haben z. B. im Telekom-Paket vor einigen Monaten den Schutz der Internetnutzer beschlossen, um Internetnutzer vor Ausschluss und Restriktionen zu bewahren. Das war eine heftige Auseinandersetzung. Ich höre nun, dass im Rahmen der ACTA-Verhandlungen mit den Vereinigten Staaten genau dieser gemeinschaftliche Besitzstand wieder in Frage gestellt wird. Meine Frage ist also: Können Sie garantieren, dass die ACTA-Verhandlungen nicht den gemeinsamen Besitzstand des Telekom-Pakets in Frage stellen und den Internetzugang schützen? Gibt es angesichts des Lissabon-Vertrags mehr Transparenz in den Verhandlungen?

Karel De Gucht, Commissioner-designate. - With respect to transparency, I think I have already answered in one of the first questions what I am prepared to do, and I will obviously also do that with respect to ACTA. I will abide by the Telecoms Package in relation to ACTA; ACTA should not be designed to be something of a key to close the internet. That will not be our approach. I believe that what we should address in ACTA is the trade in counterfeit goods; and not to target somebody, for example, who brings a T-shirt which is counterfeit home with him ­ that is not what it is about either. What we are addressing here is organised counterfeiting, in most cases by organised criminals. That is what we are addressing in ACTA and the idea is certainly not to limit the freedom of expression through the internet.

[…]

Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) – Apologies for the second question from me, it is just that a colleague was unable to be present. I wanted to go back to the question of Bernd Lange on ACTA, the anti-counterfeiting trade agreement, and in particular to focus on the issue of transparency again because Parliament has largely been kept away from these discussions. We have never seen any of the drafts of the ACTA chapters for example, and DG Trade argues that the participants agreed beforehand on confidentiality. However, we understand that that is on the basis of a request put forward by the US because they are working under the premise of the fast-track rules under which the US Administration has to act on this matter. In the EU of course we have very different procedural legal frameworks, and under the Lisbon Treaty Parliament must be consulted and will have to agree on ACTA. As Commissioner for Trade, what will you do to inform Parliament on the same terms as the Council about the ACTA negotiations so that there is a timely opportunity for us to express our views and to take our recommendations into account? At what stage of the negotiations do you plan to transmit the draft texts of the chapters to Parliament and are you willing to challenge the understanding on confidentiality and inform the ACTA participants on the basis of the requirements set by the Lisbon Treaty?

Karel De Gucht, Commissioner-designate. − If there is a confidentiality agreement between the participating parties I will respect it – and I think I have to respect it – but it does not mean that we cannot have a thorough discussion on what ACTA is about, what the guidelines for the European Union should be. You may start from the assumption that in my answers I will fully take into account what is on paper, but if you engage in a negotiation on certain terms you cannot change those terms in the course of the negotiation. I will be obliged to respect them, and I will do so. But I will also make sure that you are duly informed and can express your views, and I will take those views duly into account.

Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE). – I wonder then whether it was right to have accepted those terms of confidentiality? I appreciate it was not you, but should the Commission have accepted conditions of confidentiality given that, under our own legal framework, it is clear that for Parliament to be able to have a full role in the debate and the discussion about this, we need to have access to full information? So my first question is: should that confidentiality have been agreed to and secondly, how do you propose to involve us, for example, with the FTA on Canada, which is coming up very soon? It has got IP chapters as well. Maybe you have got an opportunity with Canada to try to agree different terms, so that it is not held on a basis of confidentiality?

Karel De Gucht, Commissioner-designate. - You probably know that your new competences with respect to trade are brand new. It is only on the basis of the Lisbon Treaty that you have the right of codecision and that you have the right of consent on treaties. It means, I think, that this confidentiality clause was conceived under the previous regime which was of course completely different. Now we will have to judge whether we can engage in confidentiality agreements or not. I imagine that you will put questions on that as well, but you should also realise that sometimes negotiations are only possible provided that you respect certain confidentiality agreements. That is a balancing exercise that we will have to make together with respect to Canada. We are in the new regime and I will make sure that you are duly involved, bearing in mind that we are nevertheless still talking about a bilateral agreement, which means that this is different from a multilateral agreement.