:00:04. > :00:12.That's it from me tonight. It is time enough from Height -- or
:00:12. > :00:16.HARDtalk. Good night. If you put information about
:00:16. > :00:20.yourself on websites such as Facebook or Google, who owns that
:00:20. > :00:25.information? The European Union wants to put new rules in place to
:00:25. > :00:30.make it clear that you do and you have the power to restrict the way
:00:30. > :00:36.that information is used and if you want, to lead it brother. It would
:00:36. > :00:44.mean a radical shake-up of existing laws. It is being proposed by my
:00:44. > :00:50.guest today. European Commission vice-president Viviane Reding. She
:00:50. > :00:54.has the job of a poll in European ideals of democracy and freedom.
:00:54. > :01:04.But Bill the situations in Hungary and Greece make that an impossible
:01:04. > :01:22.
:01:22. > :01:27.And Viviane Reding, welcome to HARDtalk. Thank you very much.
:01:27. > :01:34.us start with this new legislation you are proposing on data
:01:34. > :01:39.protection. How will it affect a company like Facebook? How will it
:01:39. > :01:46.affect any company? Because we are going to open the European market.
:01:46. > :01:53.We have this wonderful big internal market of 500 million citizens but
:01:53. > :01:59.it is blocked by 27 different rules, regulations and red tape. Getting
:01:59. > :02:05.rid of all this - not 27 rules but one Continent, one rule, one
:02:05. > :02:11.regulator and that will save the company's 2.3 billion euros.
:02:11. > :02:15.they will all be subject to one law and it is that law in particular.
:02:15. > :02:21.The subject of a sport, but also any company which holds information.
:02:21. > :02:28.-- the subject of a Facebook. What will they have to do different be?
:02:28. > :02:35.We already have a law in Europe about protection of personal data.
:02:35. > :02:44.It is the law of 1995, Paul for the internet. Unfortunately, it is not
:02:44. > :02:48.applied as a child. We need reform. Reform with very clear principles.
:02:48. > :02:54.Data belongs to the person, and they can do with that data what
:02:54. > :02:59.they want. They can take it back from the company. They can keep it
:02:59. > :03:03.for himself. They can give it to another company. Those are the
:03:03. > :03:07.basic rules which we will establish. A law for the whole of the
:03:07. > :03:12.Continent. With something like Facebook, does it mean the weight
:03:12. > :03:16.that works has to change so that people, instead of opting out, will
:03:16. > :03:26.have to express it be signed up before Facebook can use that
:03:26. > :03:27.
:03:27. > :03:33.information? -- explicitly. Today, people are not informed about what
:03:33. > :03:38.is happening with their personal data. The personal data is taken by
:03:38. > :03:48.companies and then used, Miss Joost, sold, resoled and people have no
:03:48. > :03:53.
:03:53. > :03:57.idea. -- misused. -- resold. This has to stop. The company which
:03:57. > :04:03.utilises the data has to inform the person what it does with the data.
:04:03. > :04:06.The person gives an agreement and it goes the normal way.
:04:06. > :04:10.ce makes the point and questions
:04:10. > :04:14.whether the rules you are coming up with, yes, it is good but they are
:04:14. > :04:18.common rules but questions whether they are workable. It says that
:04:18. > :04:21.data is increasingly used to allow business to deliver new and
:04:22. > :04:26.improved services to their customers and what you must not do
:04:26. > :04:30.is you must not undermine what is a key driver, a driver of competition
:04:30. > :04:35.and innovation and growth. They question whether what you're doing
:04:35. > :04:39.has the right balance. I could also quote you some companies who have
:04:40. > :04:46.already gone public, big companies who said it is a wonderful thing
:04:46. > :04:50.but now we have legal certainty, we know what we can and cannot do. If
:04:50. > :04:55.you have transparency for the citizen, it is something nobody
:04:55. > :04:58.should object to. If I was a company, I would do with in my
:04:58. > :05:02.business model, to have the certainty and security for my
:05:02. > :05:07.customers and I think customers would like that. Is it just a case
:05:07. > :05:14.of signing up first, once and for all? Ace Porker, you sign up and
:05:14. > :05:20.that's it. -- Facebook. Google, every time you make a search, you
:05:20. > :05:25.say it is OK to use that information. No, you do it once.
:05:25. > :05:31.You have been informed. What will be done, how your data will be
:05:31. > :05:36.utilised. If you agree, fine, and if you don't, you choose another
:05:36. > :05:42.provider. Agree to our terms and conditions and that's it, once and
:05:42. > :05:47.for all. Yes, but these terms and conditions must not be small print,
:05:47. > :05:51.50 pages. It must be a very simple terms and conditions that people
:05:51. > :05:56.can understand so they know what they agree to. But when grew well
:05:56. > :06:03.has tried to do this, you asked them to stop while you checked them
:06:03. > :06:07.out. -- Google. Our national regulators have the power to see
:06:07. > :06:17.that the new systems the company's offer are in accordance with the
:06:17. > :06:21.law. -- companies. That is what they will do. In the future, there
:06:21. > :06:26.will not be 27 laws, there will be one so what will be easy for
:06:27. > :06:30.companies to comply. What about if somebody says they would like for a
:06:30. > :06:35.company to delete everything they have about them? There is a
:06:35. > :06:40.difficulty attached to this. The company might want to do it but
:06:40. > :06:44.they have sold the information. How can they comply? This company has
:06:44. > :06:49.to inform the search parties that the person wants the information
:06:50. > :06:54.back. If a person has agreed that his data will be sold, it is quite
:06:54. > :07:02.different than if a person does not know at all that his data is used
:07:02. > :07:06.for terms and conditions. If you agree and you sign up to whatever
:07:06. > :07:16.Facebook says, you cannot necessarily a race your history
:07:16. > :07:16.
:07:16. > :07:23.with them. -- erase. The history is one been. You cannot change the
:07:23. > :07:28.history. If a journalist has expressed his views, you cannot say,
:07:28. > :07:32.I want to have this Deleted. It is the personal data which you have
:07:32. > :07:37.given to a company which the company must treat him for trust
:07:37. > :07:42.and which are also can take back because it is your data, it is your
:07:42. > :07:48.possession. You can decide to take it back and give it to another
:07:48. > :07:55.company or you can decide to take it back, the right to be forgotten
:07:55. > :08:00.and keep it for yourself. There is an argument that whichever company,
:08:00. > :08:04.and Facebook is one I am using or an example, it is remarkably
:08:04. > :08:09.successful because people like what they're doing. Some people make a
:08:09. > :08:13.fuss every now and then but people are still using it. Facebook are
:08:13. > :08:16.adjusting their behaviour as complaints on made. Is it any of
:08:16. > :08:23.your business? Surely it is down to the relationship between the
:08:23. > :08:26.company and the customer. We do have laws in Europe and we do have
:08:26. > :08:33.treaties and in the European treaty and in the charter of fundamental
:08:33. > :08:38.rights, the right of the individual to give data and the protection of
:08:38. > :08:42.this data is inscribed. It is not even a question of us if we want to
:08:42. > :08:48.make a law. We have to make a law and this has to be in accordance
:08:48. > :08:52.with European treaties. I want to turn to the question of Hungary.
:08:52. > :08:56.The European Union has launched legal proceedings against Hungary
:08:56. > :09:00.because it has changed its constitution in ways that the
:09:00. > :09:05.commission says breaks EU law. Changes to the central bank, media
:09:05. > :09:11.and judiciary are seen as undemocratic and authoritarian. As
:09:11. > :09:15.a result of this stand-off, between Europe and Hungary, the EU is
:09:15. > :09:21.saying, we are not going to give you the next bailout until you
:09:21. > :09:25.change your constitution. I wonder whether you think it is right that
:09:25. > :09:29.Europe will really let Hungary go over the edge, that it will let it
:09:29. > :09:35.go bankrupt, with all the risks that that could cause, because of
:09:35. > :09:41.this constitution. If what you said was right, then of course, it would
:09:41. > :09:45.be problematic but fortunately, you were not right. The European
:09:46. > :09:50.Commission cannot intervene on a constitution. A constitution is a
:09:50. > :09:55.national prerogative. The only one who could intervene on the
:09:55. > :09:58.constitution would be the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, but not
:09:58. > :10:04.the European Commission. The European Commission can intervene
:10:04. > :10:10.on laws which a country makes and which contradict European treaties
:10:10. > :10:14.and European laws. There we have three very clear points, where the
:10:14. > :10:20.Hungarians had been warned already last year that they decided not to
:10:20. > :10:25.listen to our warnings and go ahead nevertheless with laws that were
:10:25. > :10:31.contradicting the European rules. One is on the independence of the
:10:31. > :10:35.national banks. The second is on the independence of the National
:10:35. > :10:40.Data Protection Authority. The third is on the Access to Justice
:10:40. > :10:45.and the non-discrimination and equilibrium of justice. We have
:10:45. > :10:50.decided, on the basis of Borough analysis of the law, that this law
:10:50. > :10:53.was convicting with European law and we have started a court
:10:53. > :10:58.procedure. -- conflicting. We are waiting for the Hungarian
:10:58. > :11:01.government to give us the answers very quickly because we have also
:11:01. > :11:06.launched a quick procedure so that this can be sorted out and the law
:11:06. > :11:11.is changed and business as usual can continue.
:11:11. > :11:16.You know, those three laws which had the effect of changing hungry's
:11:16. > :11:21.constitution on the start of the year, and do make a point about,
:11:21. > :11:26.the European Union is saying, we will not give you the next tranche
:11:26. > :11:31.of bailout unless you comply with European laws. -- Hungary's. The
:11:31. > :11:35.effect of that could be to make Hungary bankrupt. I have not heard
:11:35. > :11:39.the European Commission say anything of what you have quoted
:11:39. > :11:43.and I do not know where your quotes are coming from. Certainly not from
:11:43. > :11:49.the Commission. The European Commission has made it very clear
:11:49. > :11:53.that you cannot make national laws which are in contradiction with the
:11:53. > :11:59.European law and the independence of the central bank is in the
:11:59. > :12:06.European law. So to be clear, is it the case that he will happily give
:12:06. > :12:11.the next standby loan to Hungary of 20 million euros? I think that this
:12:11. > :12:17.is another question which has to be analysed together with the IMF. If
:12:17. > :12:21.the money can be given to the country. But it is very clear that
:12:21. > :12:26.the legal certainty needs to be in that country in order to make it
:12:26. > :12:30.possible also for investors to go into this country and to have the
:12:30. > :12:36.confidence that the system is functioning well. So what is
:12:36. > :12:43.dependent on whether they changed their laws, as you say? I have not
:12:43. > :12:47.said any of this being. I have said that the 20 billion euros of -- or
:12:47. > :12:52.whatever is a decision which has to be taken by the European Commission
:12:52. > :12:56.together with the IMF and it is under consideration. Of course, the
:12:56. > :13:02.way the justice functions, the way the central bank is functioning,
:13:02. > :13:08.has to do with the legal certainty of investment. I have not put a
:13:08. > :13:13.condition that I have linked it to the legal certainty. The end result
:13:13. > :13:17.is we have a situation where a member of the European Union has
:13:17. > :13:23.changed the way that it operates in a way that the European Union
:13:23. > :13:27.considers authoritarian. It is in danger of going bankrupt. I wonder
:13:27. > :13:31.whether this goes to the heart of one of the problems of Europe.
:13:31. > :13:39.You're under pressure to be tougher on Hungary. Can you really be
:13:39. > :13:45.tougher? You always come back to your first particular iterations,
:13:45. > :13:49.which are a said -- which I have said I'm not the right ones. The
:13:50. > :13:53.quote does not come from the European Commission. We're not
:13:53. > :14:03.going to leave the country to become bankrupt because of
:14:03. > :14:05.
:14:05. > :14:11.One writer has said that Hungary is playing with fire. EU countries
:14:11. > :14:18.must play by the rules. He makes the points that he is worried the
:14:18. > :14:21.government in Hungary has not got the message. It is not an unusual
:14:21. > :14:29.thing that the European Commission brings a country in front of
:14:29. > :14:35.support. For the independence of the regulator for data, we brought
:14:35. > :14:45.Germany in front of the cause and it has changed its laws. It is not
:14:45. > :14:45.
:14:45. > :14:50.something that is unusual -- the court. We have the obligation to do
:14:50. > :14:55.this. I understand you want the laws changed. It is this question
:14:55. > :14:58.of the financing. You do not want to tie it in but it still remains
:14:58. > :15:07.the situation. Do you think that Hungary should get that extra
:15:07. > :15:13.money? That is not for me to decide. That is there another case. The IMF
:15:13. > :15:18.as well as my colleague who is responsible for the euro, they are
:15:18. > :15:28.going to tackle this subject. Hungary has been under fire for the
:15:28. > :15:29.
:15:29. > :15:36.way it treats its human rights centre. It is mistreating some of
:15:37. > :15:41.the Roma people. Seven adults and two children have died in a 50
:15:41. > :15:44.attacks on Roman communities. What do you feel you can do to put
:15:45. > :15:51.pressure on the Hungarian government to improve the rights of
:15:52. > :15:57.these people? I am not only putting pressure on the Hungarian
:15:57. > :16:05.government but on all governments. We have a real problem in Europe
:16:05. > :16:10.with our gypsy population. They are Europeans, 10 million people, who
:16:10. > :16:15.often live under the level of poverty. 57% go to primary school.
:16:15. > :16:19.We will have a lost generation. That is why I have asked from
:16:19. > :16:27.member states to present to me their own national action plan in
:16:27. > :16:36.order to solve the problem of d
:16:36. > :16:39.of health for these people. We want all of the governments on board. We
:16:39. > :16:46.will see what will be the actions that the different governments are
:16:46. > :16:51.going to take. Hungary is one of those participating. To have the
:16:51. > :16:55.security in the country, not people who are killing other people, that
:16:55. > :17:03.is the basis of the national responsibility. Every member state
:17:03. > :17:07.needs to look at the security on its own territory, that it is done
:17:07. > :17:13.correctly. The EU hold the Hungarian government responsible
:17:13. > :17:18.for these attacks? -- do you. hold them responsibility, as with
:17:18. > :17:22.all governments, for having a system, a police, a judiciary
:17:22. > :17:31.system, which protects the population whatever background this
:17:31. > :17:41.population has. The year before last, you got in trouble when he
:17:41. > :17:46.
:17:46. > :17:56.said that France had expelled 8,000 Roma migrants. The French Minister
:17:56. > :17:58.
:17:58. > :18:02.said it was a gap. -- gaff using a language. Be you agree? It was not.
:18:02. > :18:10.But it was a terrible thing that had happened in France. You cannot
:18:10. > :18:16.expel a citizen because they have been put in contempt of court for
:18:16. > :18:21.crimes. You cannot expel whole ethnic groups or families. That is
:18:21. > :18:29.something that is against the human rights in the European Union. It is
:18:29. > :18:34.something that is inscribed in a European laws. We have the freedom
:18:35. > :18:41.movement director of 2000 than four. The French had not inscribed the
:18:41. > :18:50.rise of the individuals in to French law -- 2004. France has
:18:50. > :18:56.changed its laws so we do not need to bring France in front of the
:18:56. > :19:00.European Court of Justice. Human Rights Watch says the European
:19:00. > :19:06.Commission has not given France the all clear. The situation has only
:19:06. > :19:12.grown worse. They say it is a vital that you renew the scrutiny, that
:19:12. > :19:18.you tackle it. They suggest France is still breaching European law.
:19:18. > :19:22.That may be the case. This is not for me to judge. After the new
:19:22. > :19:28.French law, the citizens have the possibility to address themselves
:19:28. > :19:35.to the French courts if there is this behaviour of the state or the
:19:35. > :19:41.institution of that state. Things are clarified under French law. The
:19:41. > :19:48.people can go through the French courts in order to get justice.
:19:48. > :19:54.you wash your hands of it? I want to bring together all the
:19:54. > :20:02.government with their action plans to help these people integrate, to
:20:02. > :20:08.get them off the streets, to help their children into the schools.
:20:08. > :20:13.Sure. So... This is what we have been asking from them. Do you think
:20:13. > :20:17.France has got any better? You have seen the reports. Do you think that
:20:17. > :20:21.France is doing on the ground what it should be doing? Many member
:20:21. > :20:29.states are doing a big effort in order to get the integration of
:20:29. > :20:32.this population. There are shortcomings in others. That is why
:20:33. > :20:37.all the national reports and the National Action Plans will be
:20:37. > :20:43.discussed in the European parliament in a public and that
:20:43. > :20:49.will be a large pressure on many of those member states. That will be
:20:49. > :20:53.information for the citizens that they can utilise the national
:20:53. > :21:01.courts when they feel they have been discriminated against. When
:21:01. > :21:05.you look at what has happened across Europe, do you think that
:21:05. > :21:11.the very ideals on which Europe was founded, the idea that everybody
:21:11. > :21:15.should be treated the same, they should be democracy and freedom, as
:21:15. > :21:23.a result of what we are seeing and the way the different governments
:21:23. > :21:28.have been reacting, the financial crisis is testing those ideals?
:21:28. > :21:33.is easier to have rights and equal rights for everybody when there is
:21:33. > :21:43.plenty Nurse and there is enough money. It is much more difficult
:21:43. > :21:46.
:21:46. > :21:49.when people are fighting for a piece of cake plentiness. We are
:21:49. > :21:55.not only speaking about financial difficulties and have the strength
:21:55. > :21:59.of the euro. We have to speak about the rise of the citizens to a
:21:59. > :22:04.decent life and non-discrimination. There is a problem with that. You
:22:04. > :22:12.make the point that we should not just be talking about the financial
:22:12. > :22:17.situation, but take Greece. You have politicians warning of a
:22:17. > :22:23.social explosion. One argument is that what Europe is asking of
:22:23. > :22:28.Greece is too much. It is a time bomb for the entire Western model.
:22:28. > :22:30.Do you think there is a danger that what the European it Union and the
:22:31. > :22:37.European Commission is asking to solve the problem could be making
:22:37. > :22:41.it worse? I am aware of the situation in Greece is very
:22:41. > :22:46.dangerous and difficult. There you have a country which has been
:22:46. > :22:51.living above it means for so many years, which does not have the
:22:51. > :22:57.institutions it needs to bring that country forward. We need to help
:22:57. > :23:03.that country to be on its own feet. It needs to be capable to have
:23:03. > :23:10.growth and jobs and a future for its people, and to do that in a
:23:10. > :23:16.very short time span of that is difficult. That is not easy. We are
:23:16. > :23:21.or where we need to help. We are beyond the questions of debt and
:23:21. > :23:26.reductions, there are also the questions of reforms. Our people
:23:26. > :23:35.are there to help, to reform the justice system so that legal
:23:35. > :23:41.certainty can be there for the investors. Taxation and needs to
:23:41. > :23:46.function normally. The land register needs to excess. We have
:23:46. > :23:52.people helping the Greeks to take advantage of structural funds. We
:23:52. > :23:59.have changed the legislation are some money can be given out more
:23:59. > :24:05.easily. Forgive me for interrupting. Just a final brief thought. If
:24:05. > :24:14.Greece is forced out, is your Commissioner rides when she says
:24:14. > :24:22.the eurozone will not be in trouble? -- correct there is a lot
:24:22. > :24:27.of debate about the Greek crisis. can say clearly, I am the
:24:27. > :24:35.Commissioner for just out. I do not participate in argumentation. --