Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-12-14-Speech-3-145"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20051214.14.3-145"2
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spoken text
". Mr President, I judge this to have been a valuable debate and I am grateful to all honourable Members for the varied contributions we have heard this afternoon. As I made clear in my introductory remarks to this debate, the security and liberty of all our people are important issues, perhaps the most important issues that our governments presently face. I also said that it was right for democracies and their institutions to debate the questions that arise when defending both principles in our modern world, vital that we recognise the unprecedented threat from contemporary terrorism and the longevity of that threat, and crucial that we all respect the rule of law in the process. I said it was important to recognise the need for governments to take tangible steps to fulfil their principal responsibility – the security of their people, right to respect the word of other sovereign governments including our allies, and incumbent on European governments and institutions to lead by example and conduct informed debate. Overall I think we have achieved those objectives in the conversation and discussions we have had on the threat this afternoon. The images of the terrorist attacks – on commuter and underground trains in Madrid and London, places of worship, diplomatic premises, banks in Istanbul, hotels in Jordan, residential compounds in Saudi Arabia, and restaurants and bars in Bali – the list goes on – are not computer-generated. They are a reality with which we live. They are the new and frightening reality of our modern world. The contemporary terrorist is not content to limit himself or herself to conventional attacks. If he can, he will acquire and use chemical and biological means to reach his ends. On respect for the rule of law, I mentioned the question of torture – a central issue that featured in our debate – in my opening remarks. Let me reiterate the position of the United Kingdom Government. The prohibition against torture is absolute. The British Government, like all European governments, unreservedly condemns its use. We never use it for any purpose, including to obtain information. We never instigate, condone or otherwise support others using it. Indeed, we condemn it. We have worked hard with our international partners to eradicate an abhorrent practice. On government action to counter the threat within the rule of law, I am pleased that under the UK Presidency the European Union has agreed a new counter-terrorism strategy and thereby provided a clearer framework in which Member States can take forward their national and European work, striking a balance between citizens’ rights to life and to liberty. These are not just words. The recent extradition of a man from Italy to the United Kingdom to face charges connected with the terrorist attacks in London in July would not have taken place so quickly but for European arrest warrants. That is a practical example of European Union counter-terrorism and judicial cooperation. On respect for sovereign governments, I remind honourable Members of the words of the United States Secretary of State on 5 December 2005. She stated, and again I quote directly for completeness: ‘The United States has respected – and will continue to respect – the sovereignty of other countries. The United States does not transport, and has not transported, detainees from one country to another for the purpose of interrogation using torture. The United States does not use the airspace or the airports of any country for the purpose of transporting a detainee to a country where he or she will be tortured. The United States has not transported anyone, and will not transport anyone, to a country when we believe he will be tortured. Where appropriate, the United States seeks assurances that transferred persons will not be tortured’. Of course, a number of honourable Members have raised the issue of the response of European Union Member State governments to the allegations that have received wide publicity in recent months. Let me just for a moment digress from my responsibilities as the President-in-Office of the European Union and share with this Chamber the approach of the United Kingdom Government to dealing with these very serious allegations. We have researched the question of US rendition via the United Kingdom carefully and we have not identified any occasions since 11 September 2001 or earlier during the period in office of the Bush administration when we received a request from the United States for a rendition through United Kingdom territory or airspace, nor are we otherwise aware of such a case. On providing a lead to our constituents with informed discussion, it is right that the Council of Europe be allowed to conduct a factually based examination of how its members ensure the effective implementation of the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, which has featured prominently in this afternoon’s debate. This debate today has raised numerous points – many held with great conviction – for the Council of Europe to address in its coming inquiry. For its part, I can assure this Chamber that the United Kingdom will respond fully to the Council’s queries. I trust and hope that other Member States will do so as well."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph