Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-09-07-Speech-3-007"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050907.2.3-007"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I would like to begin by thanking you for the opportunity of addressing the European Parliament. I want to take the opportunity to set out the approach that the British Government will follow in its conduct of the Presidency of the Justice and Home Affairs Council, which will be occupied by myself and my colleague Baroness Ashton, who is with me today.
I therefore believe that the whole of the European Union – but in particular the Justice and Home Affairs Council – needs to give real priority to tackling these issues in a practical and systematic way. It is that conviction which will inform the UK Presidency. In so doing I suggest three principal approaches.
The first is that in our globalised world no single nation can tackle these problems alone, even in its own country. In a world with millions of international journeys and economic transactions every year, ideas of ‘splendid isolation’ or rhetoric about ‘the White Cliffs of Dover’ can do nothing to address international criminality, terrorism or serious and organised crime or address patterns of international migration. The need to fight terrorism and serious and organised crime means that we need more European cooperation and not less. The truth is that in each of these areas we will all, including within our own countries, achieve most by sharing experience, information and resources and by identifying and then targeting the threats systematically and consistently.
I make the apparently obvious point that these threats are best tackled internationally, since there remain political parties and other organs of opinion within the European Union which believe that protection from these types of threat can best be secured by the construction of higher and higher fences between us, whilst the truth is the opposite – our best chances of success lie in deeper and deeper cooperation.
The second principle that must underlie our approach is to strengthen the foundation of practical and pragmatic police and intelligence work. In each of these areas – organised crime, terrorism, immigration, asylum – we have already taken action at the European Union level. For example, we have agreed the European Arrest Warrant, common rules on penalties for and definitions of terrorism, people trafficking and other serious crimes. We have rules on police and judicial cooperation and we have established Europol and Eurojust to support their work. We have also strengthened freedom to travel within the EU and established the European Borders Agency.
There is of course more that we can do and are doing. We have agreed a comprehensive programme of action in the Hague Programme and the Counter-Terrorism Action Plan. These contain many sensible, practical measures that will make a real difference to our citizens. If we want to demonstrate the real value of the European Union, we now need to work together to deliver on those commitments.
I would like in particular to highlight the need for practical European Union support for intelligence-led operations and cross-border prosecutions, the development of joint teams to combat drug dealing and people trafficking, the sharing of information to facilitate joint work and the development of a European criminal intelligence model.
In the field of migration and asylum, I hope that in this Presidency we will succeed in securing significant European Union readmission agreements with certain countries such as Russia, Ukraine and Morocco, and develop pilot regional protection programmes.
In the field of civil justice, we will focus on the proposal to facilitate small claims and the establishment of a single European order of payment and other measures. These are all important practical steps, which I hope will command widespread support from this Parliament.
But it is the third principle which I believe poses the greatest challenge in its modern application. That principle is that we need to use intelligence effectively and intelligently to target, track down, identify and convict the criminals who, through terrorist violence and serious and organised crime, threaten the security and strength of our society.
Indeed I would go further: it is only through the effective and intelligent use of intelligence that in our modern world we can contest the criminality which attacks us. Of course criminals and terrorists use modern technology – the Internet and mobile communications – to plan and carry out their activities. We can only contest them effectively if we know what they are communicating. Without that knowledge, we are fighting them with both hands tied behind our backs. Of course the criminals know that and actively and consciously organise themselves to take advantage of our weaknesses.
I start from the proposition that the European Union has been a massive force for good. Thirty-five years ago, when I was a student, we campaigned for democracy in this continent, to remove the fascist or military dictatorships which then existed in Greece, Spain and Portugal, and the totalitarian dictatorships which then ruled much of eastern and central Europe. Those campaigns succeeded as, it is worth pointing out, did the campaigns in other parts of the world, for example Southern Africa and Latin America.
It may seem obvious to state that we need to collect and use intelligence against the threats that we face. But the European Parliament and national parliaments throughout Europe need to face up to the fact that the legal framework within which we currently operate makes the collection and use of this intelligence very difficult and in some cases impossible.
The rules that currently govern our law enforcement bodies seriously inhibit their ability to protect us against criminals. Information is the lifeblood of law enforcement operations and it is that information which enables our police and agencies to prevent crimes with the minimum of impact on our daily lives. To tackle organised crime and stop terrorist groups before they carry out their activities, they need a clear picture of who the criminals are, what they are doing, where they are and how they communicate with each other. Often that picture is pieced together after the fact. But if we are to be effective in dismantling organised crime groups we must analyse intelligence and information so that we can target our efforts on the most dangerous criminals. However, that need is not always reflected in the rules that we apply to our police.
This is not a sterile debate about principles; it is about practical measures to contest criminality and our opponents. That is why the UK Presidency, following the proposals set out in the Hague Programme, has placed on the agenda proposals on the retention of telecommunications data, establishing a second generation of the Schengen Information System and putting in place a new Visa Information System.
That is why we argue that internationally consistent and coherent biometric data should be an automatic part of our visas, passports and identity cards where we have them – and I would even suggest driving licences as well.
That is why we will work strongly to agree with our international partners, including the United States, the best measures for consistent international use of passenger data.
These are all important and difficult measures. They can only be achieved through international agreements, particularly in the European Union and between the European Union and its partners throughout the world. They all require hard-headed discussions and practical agreement.
This Presidency accepts that, in considering proposals in these areas, it is incumbent upon the advocates of change, such as the British Government, to make the case that measures of this kind have the practical advantages against criminality that I believe they do. That is why I am publishing today, as I promised the LIBE Committee in July in Brussels that I would, an explanation of the cases for some of these measures, in particular those relating to retention of telecommunications data. I hope that Parliament will look closely at the case that we put forward. My colleagues on the Justice and Home Affairs Council will be considering these issues carefully at the informal Council meeting in Newcastle later this week.
But I believe that the central point for us to remember, as we consider these issues together, is that we now possess many hard-won rights such as the right to privacy, the right to property, the right to free speech, the right to travel and the right to life. Those rights are actively threatened by criminals and terrorists. We have a duty and a responsibility to help protect them for our citizens through practical measures. As we consider how best to do this, rights will always and inevitably have to be balanced. What matters in each case is that the steps are proportionate and that the protection against abuse is effective. I believe that our proposals offer that.
Let me just cite the example of retention of telecommunications data. This is proving invaluable in the current investigations into the London attacks and in many cases in the UK it has proved essential to solving crimes, often months or years after they were committed.
Communications service providers already retain much information for business purposes, but data protection obligations in some countries pressure them to erase data that has no business purpose. That means that catching a murderer or stopping a terrorist attack may depend on which mobile telephone company a victim, suspect or witness uses or has used, or which European Union country they were in.
In fact, 11 of the 25 current European Union Member States have since emerged to democracy as full members of the European Union. It is a magnificent achievement which we should continue to celebrate.
Some argue that to require telecommunications companies to retain data they use for billing purposes is an intrusion into privacy, or that it imposes undue costs on business. However, in the United Kingdom we have successfully established a system, in partnership with a major service provider, to retain essential data for up to twelve months for the cost of EUR 1.2 million. Compared to the average costs for forensic work on a single murder case of over EUR 0.5 million, that is an acceptable cost for the state to bear.
Others have argued that we are asking for too much data, for example, that there should not be a requirement to retain unanswered calls. In many cases, however, this is data that has already been collected by the companies for their own purposes. All that we are asking is that it be retained and made available to law enforcement under national law.
There is perhaps a more general concern that the proposal is an unnecessary invasion of privacy or that it is disproportionate. I do not believe that it is, because in many cases, some of which I have set out in the document I am circulating, the victim’s right to justice was only achieved through the retention of telecommunications data.
Similarly, with the Schengen Information System, the next generation enables our law enforcement agencies to exchange information about individuals wanted for arrest or to be refused entry to the European Union, as well as information on lost and stolen documents or other objects. This is a critical tool for ensuring our collective security and for guaranteeing our rights. Equally, without a new system in place, the new Member States will not be able to lift their internal borders with other Schengen states.
The Council and European Parliament will have to work together over the coming months to agree on the legal framework for the system. In my opinion, we will need to do this quickly so that the system can be put in place by early 2007. We all need to be sure that we are striking the right balance between our collective security and our fundamental rights.
In so doing, we need to be sure that we have thoroughly explored the question of whether the Schengen Information System II should be a control system or whether it can be used more effectively as a tool for law enforcement. In making judgements about this, we need to reflect on the balance between the civil liberty being affected and the increased security being achieved, to ensure that any changes we make are proportionate and reasonable.
This also applies to the Visa Information System, where we need to ensure that those with a legitimate right to travel can do so, while those who seek to exploit our freedoms are deterred.
Increasingly, people use multiple identities to hide their movements. Biometrics are the most effective way to ensure that we can prove someone's identity. A comprehensive database of visa applications with biometrics matched to each applicant will mean that genuine travellers are able to prove their identity easily and travel more freely. Governments will have a clear idea of who is entering and leaving the European Union, with the reassurance that they have the legal right to do so. The use of biometrics also means that if people destroy their documents or are found overstaying we are able to identify who they are and where they come from.
The Council and European Parliament will need to work closely together to agree and adopt the Visa Information System regulation. The Council aims to have the system up and running in consulates from the beginning of 2006. Given the substantial lead-in time for the equipment of posts and training, there is real urgency to adopt this regulation as soon as possible.
Each of these examples is a practical measure that can enhance security and demonstrate the practical benefits of working together. In each case they will enhance the sharing of information. They will not lead – as some have argued – to the mass surveillance of our citizens or to unnecessary invasion of their right to privacy.
Of course the nature of our societies has changed dramatically over these years, economically, socially and technologically. It has changed in the composition of our communities, which vary across the Union, with many communities of differing races, faiths and histories living together.
However, I understand concerns that data may be misused or abused or that some people will be wrongly identified. That is why we need to ensure that in each case there is a clear legal basis for the exchange of information and that the basis should include the appropriate safeguards against abuse.
Of course the proposals that I have set out are an enormous agenda for this Presidency and we will do our best to promote it. However, on behalf of the United Kingdom Government I also want to say that we believe that it is necessary to look very carefully at the way in which the jurisprudence around application of the European Convention on Human Rights is developing. The Convention, established over 50 years ago in a quite different international climate, has led to great advances in human rights across the continent. Its achievements must be fostered and developed and not undermined, but I believe that in developing these human rights it really is necessary to balance very important rights for individuals against the collective right for security from terrorist violence.
Our strengthening of human rights needs to acknowledge a truth which we should all accept: that the right to be protected from torture and ill-treatment must be considered side by side with the right to be protected from the death and destruction caused by indiscriminate terrorism, sometimes caused, instigated or fomented by nationals from countries outside the European Union.
This is a difficult balance to get right and it requires all of us, as politicians, to ask where our citizens – who elected all of us here – would expect us to draw the line. I believe that they expect from us not only the protection of individual rights but also the protection of democratic values such as safety and security under the law.
The view of my government is that this balance is not right for the circumstances which we now face – circumstances very different from those faced by the founding fathers of the European Convention on Human Rights – and it needs to be closely examined in that context. I intend to discuss with colleagues in the Justice and Home Affairs Council how we might best address these issues in a manner consistent with our international obligations.
I believe most strongly that the peoples of this continent want to be assured that the legislative regime which defends human rights must be used to defend the rights of all our citizens in a balanced and considered way and that it is our duty to discuss this openly.
In conclusion, I believe that the ‘no’ votes against the Constitution should be taken as a wake-up call to those who believe in and support the European project to focus on what matters. The right to safety and security is a fundamental concern for all our citizens. Here we can show that Europe can and does deliver real benefits to our citizens. We in the European Union have a responsibility to rise to that challenge. It is not an area where we can fail them.
But in all of this I believe that it is our duty to promote a society which is based on the true respect of one individual for another, one culture for another, one faith for another, one race for another.
It is our duty to promote the view that democracy, and not violence, is the means of bringing about change and governing ourselves. We have to defend our values of respect, tolerance, freedom and democracy against any who wish to destroy or replace them with some other doctrine, particularly if they seek to use violence to promote their ambition. That is part of the history of the European Union, but it must be central to the future of the European Union too.
As we look to that future we have to acknowledge that, despite the fantastic record, many of our citizens remain highly sceptical about the European Union, to such an extent that in some countries the national referenda rejected the proposed new Constitution in a way which suggested more deep-seated concerns.
I believe that a deep reason for these doubts is that the European Union does not appear to give sufficient priority to offering practical solutions which make a difference to some of the issues of greatest concern. I am referring specifically to serious and organised crime, including drug dealing and people trafficking, to illegal migration and false asylum seeking, and to countering terrorism, whatever its origins. These issues top the political agenda across Europe, and they are often the most potent in mobilising political activity, often in a reactionary and even dangerous way. They can even be used by poisonous demagogues to undermine the very democracy which has in some cases so recently been created.
It is not difficult to see why these threats motivate anger amongst our peoples. The threat from terrorism remains very real, as we tragically saw in London in July. In 2004 over 100 000 women were trafficked in the European Union and over 8 000 people die each year from drug use, as crime and misery is fuelled in every part of the continent. Illegal migration and a system of control which is too loose raise concerns in every city."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples