Viviane Reding - Vice President, European Commission HARDtalk

That's it from me tonight. It is time enough from Height -- or

HARDtalk. Good night. If you put information about

yourself on websites such as Facebook or Google, who owns that

information? The European Union wants to put new rules in place to

make it clear that you do and you have the power to restrict the way

that information is used and if you want, to lead it brother. It would

mean a radical shake-up of existing laws. It is being proposed by my

guest today. European Commission vice-president Viviane Reding. She

has the job of a poll in European ideals of democracy and freedom.

But Bill the situations in Hungary and Greece make that an impossible

And Viviane Reding, welcome to HARDtalk. Thank you very much.

us start with this new legislation you are proposing on data

protection. How will it affect a company like Facebook? How will it

affect any company? Because we are going to open the European market.

We have this wonderful big internal market of 500 million citizens but

it is blocked by 27 different rules, regulations and red tape. Getting

rid of all this - not 27 rules but one Continent, one rule, one

regulator and that will save the company's 2.3 billion euros.

they will all be subject to one law and it is that law in particular.

The subject of a sport, but also any company which holds information.

-- the subject of a Facebook. What will they have to do different be?

We already have a law in Europe about protection of personal data.

It is the law of 1995, Paul for the internet. Unfortunately, it is not

applied as a child. We need reform. Reform with very clear principles.

Data belongs to the person, and they can do with that data what

they want. They can take it back from the company. They can keep it

for himself. They can give it to another company. Those are the

basic rules which we will establish. A law for the whole of the

Continent. With something like Facebook, does it mean the weight

that works has to change so that people, instead of opting out, will

have to express it be signed up before Facebook can use that

information? -- explicitly. Today, people are not informed about what

is happening with their personal data. The personal data is taken by

companies and then used, Miss Joost, sold, resoled and people have no

idea. -- misused. -- resold. This has to stop. The company which

utilises the data has to inform the person what it does with the data.

The person gives an agreement and it goes the normal way.

ce makes the point and questions

whether the rules you are coming up with, yes, it is good but they are

common rules but questions whether they are workable. It says that

data is increasingly used to allow business to deliver new and

improved services to their customers and what you must not do

is you must not undermine what is a key driver, a driver of competition

and innovation and growth. They question whether what you're doing

has the right balance. I could also quote you some companies who have

already gone public, big companies who said it is a wonderful thing

but now we have legal certainty, we know what we can and cannot do. If

you have transparency for the citizen, it is something nobody

should object to. If I was a company, I would do with in my

business model, to have the certainty and security for my

customers and I think customers would like that. Is it just a case

of signing up first, once and for all? Ace Porker, you sign up and

that's it. -- Facebook. Google, every time you make a search, you

say it is OK to use that information. No, you do it once.

You have been informed. What will be done, how your data will be

utilised. If you agree, fine, and if you don't, you choose another

provider. Agree to our terms and conditions and that's it, once and

for all. Yes, but these terms and conditions must not be small print,

50 pages. It must be a very simple terms and conditions that people

can understand so they know what they agree to. But when grew well

has tried to do this, you asked them to stop while you checked them

out. -- Google. Our national regulators have the power to see

that the new systems the company's offer are in accordance with the

law. -- companies. That is what they will do. In the future, there

will not be 27 laws, there will be one so what will be easy for

companies to comply. What about if somebody says they would like for a

company to delete everything they have about them? There is a

difficulty attached to this. The company might want to do it but

they have sold the information. How can they comply? This company has

to inform the search parties that the person wants the information

back. If a person has agreed that his data will be sold, it is quite

different than if a person does not know at all that his data is used

for terms and conditions. If you agree and you sign up to whatever

Facebook says, you cannot necessarily a race your history

with them. -- erase. The history is one been. You cannot change the

history. If a journalist has expressed his views, you cannot say,

I want to have this Deleted. It is the personal data which you have

given to a company which the company must treat him for trust

and which are also can take back because it is your data, it is your

possession. You can decide to take it back and give it to another

company or you can decide to take it back, the right to be forgotten

and keep it for yourself. There is an argument that whichever company,

and Facebook is one I am using or an example, it is remarkably

successful because people like what they're doing. Some people make a

fuss every now and then but people are still using it. Facebook are

adjusting their behaviour as complaints on made. Is it any of

your business? Surely it is down to the relationship between the

company and the customer. We do have laws in Europe and we do have

treaties and in the European treaty and in the charter of fundamental

rights, the right of the individual to give data and the protection of

this data is inscribed. It is not even a question of us if we want to

make a law. We have to make a law and this has to be in accordance

with European treaties. I want to turn to the question of Hungary.

The European Union has launched legal proceedings against Hungary

because it has changed its constitution in ways that the

commission says breaks EU law. Changes to the central bank, media

and judiciary are seen as undemocratic and authoritarian. As

a result of this stand-off, between Europe and Hungary, the EU is

saying, we are not going to give you the next bailout until you

change your constitution. I wonder whether you think it is right that

Europe will really let Hungary go over the edge, that it will let it

go bankrupt, with all the risks that that could cause, because of

this constitution. If what you said was right, then of course, it would

be problematic but fortunately, you were not right. The European

Commission cannot intervene on a constitution. A constitution is a

national prerogative. The only one who could intervene on the

constitution would be the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, but not

the European Commission. The European Commission can intervene

on laws which a country makes and which contradict European treaties

and European laws. There we have three very clear points, where the

Hungarians had been warned already last year that they decided not to

listen to our warnings and go ahead nevertheless with laws that were

contradicting the European rules. One is on the independence of the

national banks. The second is on the independence of the National

Data Protection Authority. The third is on the Access to Justice

and the non-discrimination and equilibrium of justice. We have

decided, on the basis of Borough analysis of the law, that this law

was convicting with European law and we have started a court

procedure. -- conflicting. We are waiting for the Hungarian

government to give us the answers very quickly because we have also

launched a quick procedure so that this can be sorted out and the law

is changed and business as usual can continue.

You know, those three laws which had the effect of changing hungry's

constitution on the start of the year, and do make a point about,

the European Union is saying, we will not give you the next tranche

of bailout unless you comply with European laws. -- Hungary's. The

effect of that could be to make Hungary bankrupt. I have not heard

the European Commission say anything of what you have quoted

and I do not know where your quotes are coming from. Certainly not from

the Commission. The European Commission has made it very clear

that you cannot make national laws which are in contradiction with the

European law and the independence of the central bank is in the

European law. So to be clear, is it the case that he will happily give

the next standby loan to Hungary of 20 million euros? I think that this

is another question which has to be analysed together with the IMF. If

the money can be given to the country. But it is very clear that

the legal certainty needs to be in that country in order to make it

possible also for investors to go into this country and to have the

confidence that the system is functioning well. So what is

dependent on whether they changed their laws, as you say? I have not

said any of this being. I have said that the 20 billion euros of -- or

whatever is a decision which has to be taken by the European Commission

together with the IMF and it is under consideration. Of course, the

way the justice functions, the way the central bank is functioning,

has to do with the legal certainty of investment. I have not put a

condition that I have linked it to the legal certainty. The end result

is we have a situation where a member of the European Union has

changed the way that it operates in a way that the European Union

considers authoritarian. It is in danger of going bankrupt. I wonder

whether this goes to the heart of one of the problems of Europe.

You're under pressure to be tougher on Hungary. Can you really be

tougher? You always come back to your first particular iterations,

which are a said -- which I have said I'm not the right ones. The

quote does not come from the European Commission. We're not

going to leave the country to become bankrupt because of

One writer has said that Hungary is playing with fire. EU countries

must play by the rules. He makes the points that he is worried the

government in Hungary has not got the message. It is not an unusual

thing that the European Commission brings a country in front of

support. For the independence of the regulator for data, we brought

Germany in front of the cause and it has changed its laws. It is not

something that is unusual -- the court. We have the obligation to do

this. I understand you want the laws changed. It is this question

of the financing. You do not want to tie it in but it still remains

the situation. Do you think that Hungary should get that extra

money? That is not for me to decide. That is there another case. The IMF

as well as my colleague who is responsible for the euro, they are

going to tackle this subject. Hungary has been under fire for the

way it treats its human rights centre. It is mistreating some of

the Roma people. Seven adults and two children have died in a 50

attacks on Roman communities. What do you feel you can do to put

pressure on the Hungarian government to improve the rights of

these people? I am not only putting pressure on the Hungarian

government but on all governments. We have a real problem in Europe

with our gypsy population. They are Europeans, 10 million people, who

often live under the level of poverty. 57% go to primary school.

We will have a lost generation. That is why I have asked from

member states to present to me their own national action plan in

order to solve the problem of d

of health for these people. We want all of the governments on board. We

will see what will be the actions that the different governments are

going to take. Hungary is one of those participating. To have the

security in the country, not people who are killing other people, that

is the basis of the national responsibility. Every member state

needs to look at the security on its own territory, that it is done

correctly. The EU hold the Hungarian government responsible

for these attacks? -- do you. hold them responsibility, as with

all governments, for having a system, a police, a judiciary

system, which protects the population whatever background this

population has. The year before last, you got in trouble when he

said that France had expelled 8,000 Roma migrants. The French Minister

said it was a gap. -- gaff using a language. Be you agree? It was not.

But it was a terrible thing that had happened in France. You cannot

expel a citizen because they have been put in contempt of court for

crimes. You cannot expel whole ethnic groups or families. That is

something that is against the human rights in the European Union. It is

something that is inscribed in a European laws. We have the freedom

movement director of 2000 than four. The French had not inscribed the

rise of the individuals in to French law -- 2004. France has

changed its laws so we do not need to bring France in front of the

European Court of Justice. Human Rights Watch says the European

Commission has not given France the all clear. The situation has only

grown worse. They say it is a vital that you renew the scrutiny, that

you tackle it. They suggest France is still breaching European law.

That may be the case. This is not for me to judge. After the new

French law, the citizens have the possibility to address themselves

to the French courts if there is this behaviour of the state or the

institution of that state. Things are clarified under French law. The

people can go through the French courts in order to get justice.

you wash your hands of it? I want to bring together all the

government with their action plans to help these people integrate, to

get them off the streets, to help their children into the schools.

Sure. So... This is what we have been asking from them. Do you think

France has got any better? You have seen the reports. Do you think that

France is doing on the ground what it should be doing? Many member

states are doing a big effort in order to get the integration of

this population. There are shortcomings in others. That is why

all the national reports and the National Action Plans will be

discussed in the European parliament in a public and that

will be a large pressure on many of those member states. That will be

information for the citizens that they can utilise the national

courts when they feel they have been discriminated against. When

you look at what has happened across Europe, do you think that

the very ideals on which Europe was founded, the idea that everybody

should be treated the same, they should be democracy and freedom, as

a result of what we are seeing and the way the different governments

have been reacting, the financial crisis is testing those ideals?

is easier to have rights and equal rights for everybody when there is

plenty Nurse and there is enough money. It is much more difficult

when people are fighting for a piece of cake plentiness. We are

not only speaking about financial difficulties and have the strength

of the euro. We have to speak about the rise of the citizens to a

decent life and non-discrimination. There is a problem with that. You

make the point that we should not just be talking about the financial

situation, but take Greece. You have politicians warning of a

social explosion. One argument is that what Europe is asking of

Greece is too much. It is a time bomb for the entire Western model.

Do you think there is a danger that what the European it Union and the

European Commission is asking to solve the problem could be making

it worse? I am aware of the situation in Greece is very

dangerous and difficult. There you have a country which has been

living above it means for so many years, which does not have the

institutions it needs to bring that country forward. We need to help

that country to be on its own feet. It needs to be capable to have

growth and jobs and a future for its people, and to do that in a

very short time span of that is difficult. That is not easy. We are

or where we need to help. We are beyond the questions of debt and

reductions, there are also the questions of reforms. Our people

are there to help, to reform the justice system so that legal

certainty can be there for the investors. Taxation and needs to

function normally. The land register needs to excess. We have

people helping the Greeks to take advantage of structural funds. We

have changed the legislation are some money can be given out more

easily. Forgive me for interrupting. Just a final brief thought. If

Greece is forced out, is your Commissioner rides when she says

the eurozone will not be in trouble? -- correct there is a lot

of debate about the Greek crisis. can say clearly, I am the

Commissioner for just out. I do not participate in argumentation. --