Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-04-11-Speech-1-101"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050411.15.1-101"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I certainly do not share the views expressed by some Members of the House, who have tried to cast Parliament in the heroic role of the defender of freedom and the members of the Council of Ministers of Justice and Home Affairs as the champions of security. Let me assure you that, in all the decisions we take, we try to maintain a balance between the three aims of this policy
freedom, security and justice. We have said many times that we seek the parallel development of these three components. This is particularly important to us, and I therefore refute the allegation that Parliament needs to curb our ambition to create more security because it would be achieved at the expense of freedom.
I believe, and I remain convinced, that this is a useful weapon in the fight against crime, and I hope we shall find the right mechanism. This is why, as I said, we obviously have to discuss the legal basis, and I have no problem at all with that. Those who asserted the opposite a short time ago are mistaken. Yes, I want to discuss the legal basis, but I also said that we should not waste our time with interminable discussions, because criminals could not care less about the legal basis and simply want to benefit from the absence of links between national systems and from the lack of a raft of clearly regulated mechanisms.
The Council will therefore analyse the Commission’s legal opinion and the new Commission proposal, if there is one. In fact, the four Member States that tabled the proposal we are at present discussing in the Council want nothing more than to take their national instruments and request a European solution, which the Presidency of the Council finds perfectly normal.
My third remark concerns the external dimension. It is true that I did not mention the external dimension of immigration, but I thought I had already said more than enough on that subject; more to the point, my aim was to report to you on last year’s progress towards an area of justice. I could have spoken at great length on our approach and our work during the current year. I believe that the external dimension of the common justice and home affairs policy is extremely important in the context of both the immigration component and the anti-crime component. I consider it essential that, in the Mediterranean situation, in the Balkan situation, we take account of the external dimension of the justice and home affairs policy, because it has a direct effect on our Member States’ home affairs policies, and so I plead once more for a truly common policy on asylum and immigration.
As I said to you before, with regret, regarding the progress made in 2004, these are only minimal rules, but it is good that they actually exist. We need the Constitutional Treaty in order to develop a genuine common policy on asylum and immigration, and the external dimension will certainly have to be given pride of place. I have often said that there is no longer a boundary between external and internal security, because all their component elements interact; this is the case in respect of both crime and immigration. These are two separate policy areas which are dealt with by the same configuration of the Council.
Finally, turning to the question of transparency and consultation of Parliament, I am astonished to hear some of you plead for the premature entry into force of the new treaty. I believe that the Council listens to Parliament on the matters on which the Treaty prescribes that it must listen to Parliament. It decides jointly with Parliament where the present Treaty so ordains. If a new treaty enters into force tomorrow, we shall apply its rules. I am in favour of these new rules; I think I have made that clear.
At the present time, Parliament is fully informed of the Council’s activities. Contrary to what some of you believe, we do not engage in salami-slicing tactics in relation to Parliament. We inform Parliament of all the decisions we take, and we update you on developments in all areas of the political agenda. We have done this, incidentally, with regard to our conclusions on biometric information in visas and residence permits and on the visa information system (VIS), and we shall continue to do so.
Nor do we engage in salami-slicing of our objectives, because they are clearly established. They will be even more clearly established as soon as we have the action plan that makes it possible to transpose the Hague programme. That is why we want the programme. We asked the Commission to work quickly, because I should like us to adopt the action plan that emerges from the Hague programme under the Luxembourg Presidency in June. We shall then know exactly what goals to pursue, even though we might have to adapt the action plan once the Constitutional Treaty is in force.
My final remark refers to a point I forgot to mention before, namely racism. I believe it was Mrs Roure who asked the relevant question. The Luxembourg Presidency truly attaches great importance to this directive. I have made every effort to bring it forward and put it back on the Council’s agenda, but, as with the other matters I have addressed today, there is a need to strike a balance between interests that sometimes conflict.
When I say that we should have common values in Europe and that racism must be categorically condemned, some people react by accusing us of stifling freedom of expression. This is a different type of argument from those in the other areas I spoke about before, but there is still a balance to be struck.
I did not put this draft on the agenda for this week’s meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council, because a number of Member States, especially the new Member States, said that they would like to be able to examine in detail the draft that the older members had already examined prior to enlargement. I can, however, assure Parliament that it is my firm intention to present this draft to the Council in June, because it is my wish – and we can all have our hopes and wishes – to see it adopted under the Luxembourg Presidency. Twenty-five Member States, of course, will have to agree on the wording; if that is substantially amended, it goes without saying that the European Parliament will be consulted again, but I do hope we make progress on this instrument, which is of particular importance to me.
That is quite simply false, and I shall give you a few examples to illustrate my point. The day a murderer or rapist can be brought to trial because genetic fingerprints stored in DNA databases will enable us to secure his conviction, the public will be delighted, and so will you. Today, the culprit can move to another Member State of the European Union to avoid punishment, because there are no links between DNA databases, and when that happens Parliament will ask the Council why we did nothing to change the situation.
The same applies to the linking of police records. If a person who has sexually abused children moves to another Member State, where the authorities are not made aware of that person’s past, people have every reason to ask why we continue to allow such things. We are currently examining how we can improve the interconnection of the data held in the various police records.
After 11 September 2001, we were asked – and rightly so – why we had not made any progress on the European arrest warrant when a legislative proposal had been before the Council for some time. We then took action, but, in the absence of any dramatic event, we are somewhat inclined to forget – as you are too, it occasionally seems – that active prevention of crime and terrorism means taking a number of measures while maintaining the right balance, of course, between freedom, security and justice. This is a concern we have in common, so for goodness’ sake let us forget this fallacy that Parliament houses the defenders of liberty while the Council is out to curtail our fundamental freedoms.
My second remark concerns data retention. What I have just said about the underlying principles also applies to the retention of data. I am nevertheless extremely surprised, and indeed shocked, by some of the assertions that have been made here, in which data retention has been put on a par with the use of torture chambers.
Has the European Parliament forgotten that – all of three years ago, I believe – we adopted a directive on data processing which allows Member States, under their national legislation, to preserve telecommunications data for a limited period of time for certain specific purposes. That directive was adopted by codecision.
What we are trying to do today, in other words, is not to store the results of phone-tapping, the content of telephone conversations. We are simply trying to fight crime more effectively by establishing in a legal instrument, which we are currently discussing and which may be amended, the principle that what can be done nationally can also be done on a European scale, subject to the same conditions. My request is that we should all be more ‘European-minded’ when it comes to fighting crime.
It goes without saying that clear conditions and objectives are required regarding the data that may be retained, the retention period and the consultation of the data. This is no more and no less than what we already require in many of our Member States. Retained data have shed light on many drug crimes and terrorist crimes in our Member States. Let us therefore be realistic about the options that data retention opens to us.
Naturally, if the legal basis – which we shall be examining, as I said before – is such that we find ourselves partly within the first pillar, in such an eventuality the Council will have no problem in discussing the matter with Parliament, and I shall gladly come before the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs once again to discuss it in detail."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples