Ms Maite Pagazaurtund?a:

I thank the Chairman for allowing me to take the floor. We have listened to members' very pertinent comments. There are objective issues on which we can intervene. There are some other issues that they have told us about that have more to do with perceptions that everyone may have, or with the parliamentary work that members are going to develop from now on.

If the committee members and we are concerned about the issue of the general data protection regulation and how it is applied in Ireland, it is because it goes beyond Ireland and because there is a bottleneck. In very important cases we do not have the tables of law to say what is a perfect performance or best practice. The metrics are not perfectly comparable, but we do know there is a certain percentage of cases that refer to the big technology companies, which move a very large volume from an economic point of view. We are aware a percentage of cases are transnational and we are aware authorities in other member states do not feel they have much transparency with regard to these cases where there could be more co-operation, more collaboration and an exchange of analysis in this regard. That is objective. I cannot answer about the performance. As we have seen, there may be differences here on the thresholds of implementation or not, but objectively there is a bottleneck here.

On the other hand, in the meetings we have had, we have been told about the need for the improvement of a culture of transparency of the GDPR with regard to those who handle complaints to the agency and with regard to other heads. We know that. When we talk about a review, we are not inquisitive. We are extremely respectful of your competences and of the bodies that must be independent and that must have a culture of independence, but also a culture of transparency. We must know what that means, to manage the cases and to know why some cases are considered solved without us knowing. We must understand that we are on the threshold of a policy of protection, not only of data but of our private life and of what our democracies are. That is why we come in a constructive way to learn with the committee. There are things we will not be able to answer, but together we will be able to put in place, each in his or her own area, the pieces that will improve and minimise the bottleneck that exists.

With regard to the question of the two commissioners, I believe we are all very close in terms of selecting the most competent people to do the job. In Spain the courts have just invalidated the process of choosing the new heads of the Spanish GDPR because there had been interference by political parties in a pact to choose who should be the first and deputy head of the office. The courts have said "No", that they should start from scratch, that there should be no politicking, and that there should be no intervention of politics for something that has to be based on capacity, merit and experience to do the job well, as well as to avoid other external interference. I think we are very close on what not to do and what to do. People should be chosen when there is a bottleneck. There seems to be no doubt. What should they be like? They have to be people with a great capacity for work, and they have to know about the work they are going to do.

Another aspect is whether the structure should be hierarchical or horizontal. I do not believe we as a parliament can tell the committee that, but they should be competent and their interest should be to improve working capacities. They should help to ensure the culture that is established in the institution is stable and that the flow of people in and out of the institution does not cause instability, so the culture of independence and stability is solid, as the committee has said, along with transparency in the context of rules of procedure, protocols, and everything the committee has mentioned, and everything that others who have met with us have said to us. I think we are very close. I believe we are very close and with a very constructive scope.

As for the one-stop shop, we have to tell the committee these things because here is the one-stop shop for the most relevant cases that are defining the future of a technology, and a way of protecting our societies. I will now pass over to my colleagues, who are huge experts.