Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-10-23-Speech-1-086"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061023.16.1-086"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, even though the primary reason why SIS II is needed is that it enables the citizens of the new Member States to avail themselves of their right to unrestricted freedom of movement within the EU, my group will nevertheless be voting against the draft legislation, and there are two reasons why we have decided to do that.
The first has to do with data protection. The fact is that SIS II is not just about the free movement of persons, but also – and above all – about cooperation between police and justice authorities and a system of investigation. It is common knowledge, however, that the current arrangements for data protection within the third pillar are unsatisfactory. If citizens’ rights and the requirements of security are to be kept in balance, what is needed is the framework decision on the protection of personal data.
This is something that this House recently voted unanimously to endorse, but what is the Council doing? The framework decision has not been forthcoming. As we have heard, there are those in the Council who still have reservations about it, and what that means in plain language is that we know, at present, neither when this framework decision is to enter into force, nor what substantial changes the Council has made to it, even though considerations of human rights make it imperative that proper data protection be guaranteed, and, moreover, even before this sort of comprehensive database is created.
Secondly, the inclusion of biometric data is problematic, and for a variety of reasons. For a start, the impact of the use of biometric data in such a large system has not been assessed, and nor have the conditions for the inclusion of such data been adequately laid down. Another consideration is that it is not – in my group’s view – acceptable that the question of when biometric data should be allowed to be used as a primary search criterion should be decided without reference to Parliament.
In conclusion, I would like to thank the rapporteur Mr Coelho for the good cooperation, but, while I am on that subject, I would like to emphasise that I take an unsympathetic view of the way in which the Council – largely in response to pressure from my own country – has dealt with this House over recent days. It is not acceptable that new demands should be made after the conclusion of the trilogue, thereby putting a pistol to Parliament’s head.
It is made even less acceptable if one is aware of precisely why Berlin chose to try to blackmail the Council. By all means let the police have access to SIS II, but I have to tell the House that I do not believe that the secret services should be allowed to get their hands on it, for, as we have discovered all too often, they are accountable to themselves alone, and for that reason we should not make SIS II more accessible than it already is."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples