Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-04-08-Speech-2-283"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030408.8.2-283"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the reports before us take considerations of principle as a reason for rejecting the Danish and Greek initiatives on the development of Europol. That is only right, as the only possible response to the continued attempts at letting Europol carry on working as it did before is to say that the Europol of the future must not function without being influenced and monitored by Parliament, nor will it if this House has anything to do with it. I therefore want to thank both rapporteurs for having again put this message in unambiguous terms.
I find the goings-on in this sensitive area scarcely credible. A number of reports by Parliament have, over and over again, demanded real Parliamentary control of Europol, but to date nothing has happened. Instead, Europol is to continue to be strengthened and extended. I find this quite simply scandalous.
In view of what is going on in the background at the European Convention's discussions, the various initiatives by individual governments seem positively Kafkaesque, for they go beyond the proposals before the Convention on the reform of internal affairs and judicial matters. Being a member of the Convention, I therefore support the idea of this House again putting its main demand before the Council and the governments and confronting them with it. I also endorse Mr von Boetticher's demand for there to be no amendments made to the Europol convention before the European constitution is ratified. I think this should be obvious if the Convention and its work are to be taken seriously.
I endorse the demands in the motion for a resolution, for Europol to be transferred to the first pillar and funded from the EU Budget, thus becoming subject to Parliament's full Budgetary control, and for the constitution to contain a legal basis for clear and utterly stringent data protection, with public access to documents not being able to be improperly restricted.
The most important thing, though, is something that my fellow-Members have already emphasised, namely that Europol should be entirely subject to Parliament's control. As a member of the Convention, I can only ask you to continue to observe carefully the negotiations in progress in the Convention on this issue, for, in my view – if I may give an example – the basic thrust of the proposals on Europol from the Convention's Praesidium is that it should be, to a large degree, left to its own devices when it comes to laying down precisely what its role is. As I do not regard that as acceptable, I have asked that it should be the legislatures alone – by which I mean specifically the Council and Parliament acting together – that should legislate to define the precise functions of these authorities along with all their ramifications."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples