Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-17-Speech-4-045"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-02-17"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Mutual assistance in criminal matters between the Member States2
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20000217.3.4-045"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-02-17-Speech-4-0462
lpv:speaker	lp:Patricia McKENNA2
lpv:spoken text	"Mr President, first of all I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on his excellent explanatory statement. It points out some of the serious flaws in this proposal. The lack of clarity of language is inevitably going to lead to legal uncertainty. Legal certainty is something that is essential in such crucial matters. Because of shoddy drafting the Convention can be interpreted very widely, and it ignores the strict conditions which interception is supposed to be subject to under the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 18 allows interception in another Member State without its involvement. Not only should this be deleted, the whole interception title should be scrapped. An initiative of the FBI drew up the user requirements which form the basis of the current legislation. The Council proposal containing those requirements, ENFOPOL 98 was approved by this Parliament last May in the Schmid report. Now we are being asked to provide the legal base for such interception, and it is the combination of these two documents that should be looked at. The requirements propose to allow the authorities access to the facilities of all service providers, that is, telephones, mobile phones, Internet, etc.; and given the current extremely shoddy drafting, this is open to abuse. I would also like to ask: given that the user requirements specify that the police has access to all service providers without exception, does this include Parliament’s in-house service? Are we adopting rules that will allow the police access to our own systems on very, very shoddy grounds? Furthermore, in this proposal there is no threshold for serious offences. This leaves it wide open to abuse. Again as regards the reversal of the burden of proof, something which is recognised in international, fundamental law, the presumption of innocence is essential. That is not guaranteed. Neither the preamble nor the body of the text takes proper account of the rights of the defence, a basic principle of international fundamental rights. This issue is extremely serious. We are very concerned about the direction we are taking here without proper public debate within the national parliaments or elsewhere and without the involvement of civil liberties organisations throughout Europe which are extremely concerned about these developments."@en1
lpv:spokenAs	member; G/EFA (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; PECH (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Green Party (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegation for relations with the Member States of ASEAN, South-east Asia and the Republic of Korea (1999-09-28--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"McKenna (Verts/ALE )."1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph