Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-12-01-Speech-3-157"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20041201.15.3-157"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I am delighted that you are still here at this late hour. I should firstly like to thank Mr Coelho for his report on the Council’s proposal to include biometric data in identity documents, which from a liberal point of view was on the whole balanced and justifiably critical. I believe that Mr Coelho, in his report, made reference, without hesitation and with the necessary clarity, to the issues that remain unclear, whether these issues involved the guarantee of data protection or the remaining uncertainties with regard to the technical procedures for storing the data on the identity documents. Further to Mr Coelho’s comments, I wonder why it has not again been clarified as to which costs will be incurred by the inclusion of biometric data in identity documents, before the Council presses forward and takes a decision? The question must also be asked as to whether this is financially responsible.
I am, however, seriously annoyed, as the lack of clarity over some of the contents leaves me no option but to ask myself how much attention the Council really pays to such a serious issue. I am not necessarily talking about technical issues. In this connection, I have to ask myself – and this is something that was referred to by Mr Cashman – how the Council defines its relationship with Parliament. After the relevant committee issued its opinion on the proposal, the Council presented us with an amended proposal, with amendments which were clearly more than merely editorial or cosmetic changes. The original Council proposal provided, as mentioned by Mr Frattini, for the mandatory integration of a biometric feature in EU citizens’ identity documents, with the way in which this was to be implemented being at the Member States’ discretion. The new proposal we have before us is quite different. This gives rise to two questions, to which I would ask the Council to respond; why have these amendments been made after the relevant committee had discussed the proposal? The Commissioner’s answer implied that the subsidiarity principle was being circumvented here, as a number of Member States had no interest in implementing the proposal. The other question – and I know that my time is nearly up, but I have one more question I should like answered – is: what kind of way is this to act? Parliament is being threatened with ..."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples