Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-02-11-Speech-3-040"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040211.1.3-040"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I thank the rapporteur, once again, and all those who have participated in this debate.
When we discuss asylum and migration on behalf of the Commission, I would like to stress that all our proposals were totally in line with the goals decided upon by the heads of state and government in Tampere. It is extremely unfair and pure demagogy to say that the approach of the Commission to this policy area is lax. It is not at all. All the instruments on the table try to strike the right balance between proactive and positive actions towards migrants and asylum-seekers on the one hand, and on the other hand, guaranteeing the security of the borders and adequate management of migratory flows. The Commission has tried to achieve this balance through a very broad set of proposals. I recognise before the House that in some cases the degree of the Commission's ambition has not been matched by the Council. This is, as you all know much better than I, the normal way of building Europe: a step-by-step approach and an incremental approach. If you compare the legally-binding
and that is a very appropriate word – in this area today with the
of five years ago, you have to recognise that there has been enormous progress and we should not be self-defeating. We should be proactive and voluntarist and try to mobilise citizens to do even more and better in the near future.
In the field of civil liberties, there is permanent tension between the guarantee of fundamental rights and the guarantee of security. It is not a given; it is something that you need to find in each decision taken every day. I believe, to be frank, that when we integrate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the new constitutional treaty, when we discuss procedural guarantees, when we include some procedural guarantees in the framework decisions on approximation of criminal sanctions, we are trying to find the right balance between freedom and security. Mr Santini reminded us that one of the greatest achievements of this legislature – I hope it will be possible to conclude the process before the end of the term of this Parliament – is the new legislation on the freedom of movement of our own citizens.
I remind you of the fact that when we talk about reinforcing our external border security and guaranteeing our internal security, we do it, not in a repressive way, but in the name of freedom. It is to preserve the freedom of movement and the abolition of our internal borders that we need to reinforce the security of our external borders. It is in the name of freedom that we say we should be more efficient in integrating legal migrants. For that purpose, we need to guarantee to our own public that we have the situation under control.
I cannot give you a different speech, because this is the one I have been making since the very beginning. May I invite you to re-read the Commission's communication of November 2000 about immigration policy and compare it with the speech that UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan made two weeks ago before Parliament. I am sorry if this looks a little presumptuous on my part, but please make the comparison and then we will talk about it.
My third remark is about data protection. To be frank with you, when we talk about introducing biometrics in some travel documents, we need to be very careful in guaranteeing that we are proportionate in the kind of data that we choose, in the types of data storage systems and in the types of control and supervision carried out by the necessary authorities. My argument is to draw your attention to the fact that today data protection in the third pillar is under the full authority and responsibility of Member States. We are trying to create a level playing field at European level to guarantee that in all 25 Member States there will be the same pattern of protection of personal data when it comes to law enforcement. For this purpose, the existing directives based on the first pillar are not sufficient. I hope that I will have the possibility to introduce these proposals by June this year and to present them to you.
My last remark is about the budget. I thank Mr Ribeiro e Castro and Mr Coelho for drawing attention to the fact that in order to fulfil our ambitious goals, we need to have the necessary financial tools. As you will see in the proposals that the Commission presented yesterday for the new financial perspectives for 2007-2013, the area of freedom, security and justice has been given the adequate financial tools to address our ambitious goals.
When it comes to Tampere II I endorse what Mr McDowell has just said. I hope that during the Netherlands' presidency it will be possible to have a Tampere II European Council. What will be the suggestions for that Tampere II? I shall highlight three main issues: first, being fair in assessing the shortcomings and the unfinished business of Tampere I – there will be the heritage from Tampere I that should be taken on board in Tampere II; second, clear objectives are set out in the constitutional treaty – Tampere II should closely follow the agenda that was defined in that treaty; and last but not least, Tampere II should focus more adequately on the quality of the transposition of European legislation in this area at national level, and on monitoring concrete implementation of the
in the 25 Member States. I look forward to the debate on this subject that has been suggested by Mr Hernández Mollar, and the Commission will come forward with its own ideas in a new communication in June 2004."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples