Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-13-Speech-1-047"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001113.5.1-047"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, first of all I should like to congratulate the rapporteurs, Mr Marinho, Mrs Roure and Mrs Karamanou, on their reports concerning a complex topic which has been the subject of profound debates in this Parliament and our committee in the past. Evidence of the fact that my congratulations are not just rhetorical is that these reports gained an absolute majority of votes in the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. I therefore agree with their words and the contents of their reports. Now, Madam President, in Mrs Karamanou’s absence, I should like to focus on expressing my group’s position on her report.
Europol’s mandate is to prevent and combat certain forms of criminal activity. The draft Protocol we have before us, the result of an initiative by the Portuguese Presidency complementing other initiatives we have studied today, aims to extend the competences of Europol to money laundering in general. The fight against money laundering only comes into Europol’s current competences incidentally in connection with the types of crime that it deals with.
The aim of the proposed revision is to establish a general framework of competence for Europol in relation to money laundering. Thus, the proposed revision incorporates in Article 2(2) the combating of money laundering as one of Europol’s new tasks. That notwithstanding, Paragraph 3 of the same article states that Europol’s competence with regard to money laundering does not extend to the original offences, i.e. the crimes which preceded the money laundering and are not included in Paragraph 2. For the rest of the draft Protocol, the usual procedure for adoption by the Member States is presented.
In view of the seriousness of the money laundering problem throughout the world and its key role in the development of crime, we must approve the extension of Europol’s competence in this area. But if consultation of the European Parliament were limited to this formal aspect and we could not bring up other topics in this debate – a report without a debate – we could merely have told Europol that we agree and that it is necessary to make every means available to combat money laundering.
This report is only of interest if, through debating it, Parliament can formulate considerations and proposals on the way Europol operates and on its control. At this stage, I shall restrict myself to these two types of consideration, taking it as read that we are in favour of the fight against money laundering and that Europol should deal with it, although we do not support doing so through Council decisions or on the basis of sporadic national initiatives.
Focusing on these two topics, which are the only ones I am going to deal with, we might wonder how effectively Europol operates now that its competences are to be extended. What results has Europol achieved so far in the fight against money laundering within its related areas of competence? What has happened to Europol’s computer system, which was to be operational in 2001? What about the joint investigation teams which were in future to extend their role to combating money laundering? As Mr Watson has reminded us, Parliament has on several occasions expressed its discontent at the lack of any real democratic control over Europol’s activities. It has done so in the Cederschiöld and Nassauer reports.
Can we today grant new competences to Europol without demanding, even if it is in this debate, a revision of Article 31 of the Convention, which limits Parliament’s role to that of being the recipient of an annual report? Should Europol’s funding not be included within the general budget of the European Union, as we have already requested? And should Parliament not be consulted on the appointment of the director of Europol? The same occurs with the lack of jurisdictional control – and later we are going to see the report on Eurojust.
In conclusion, I believe this report is meaningless unless it is taken as one more opportunity for Parliament to reconsider voting on the lawful extension of Europol’s terms of reference, on the whole operation of this body, its effectiveness, the ways it can be controlled, the chance to appraise its successes and progress. We are dealing with nothing less than the future of police cooperation in Europe."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples