Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-04-21-Speech-1-125"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080421.16.1-125"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, the report which we have produced for debate and approval today embodies a 2005 initiative, in which the seven Member States decided to step up cross-border cooperation in all areas relating to terrorism, organised crime and illegal immigration.
All shared information must indicate the stage of the proceedings affecting the person concerned and the database from which the information was obtained.
The European Parliament must be consulted again if the Council wishes to alter the initiative of the Federal Republic of Germany in any way and particularly regarding the number of loci needed to make accurate comparisons.
I would also remind the Council that the Conference of Representatives of the Governments of the Member States called for the possibility of incorporating this framework decision in the new Lisbon Treaty system, in order to allow recourse to the Court of Justice.
I would also like to point out that, in the paragraph relating to officers and the possibility of cross-border cooperation, I do not agree with the part approved in committee, which gives officers powers to detain and to take statements in a Member State other than their own.
Finally, ladies and gentlemen, bilateral cross-border cooperation has always existed but this decision will be a first in terms of Europe-wide cooperation. It is true that there is concern, serious concern, that, despite good intentions, the proliferation of networks may lead to abuse and possibly to serious mistakes.
Protecting the innocent is without doubt the foremost concern of everyone and of our House in particular, given that it represents all our citizens.
The German Presidency proposed incorporating part of this agreement in the Community
by means of a framework decision, that is to say under the third pillar, on the lines of what was done with the Schengen Agreement, leaving aside, however, the matter of illegal immigration which, according to the Tampere mandate, should come under the third pillar.
It is therefore regrettable that clear Community powers were not included in the international treaty, since this not only creates judicial confusion, but leaves us with two legal frameworks of reference.
The first was negotiated in a less than transparent manner. National parliaments were not consulted, nor was the European Parliament. We were only consulted at the last minute, in haste and in a non-binding manner as the instrument was about to be incorporated into the Community
.
The report of our unfortunate fellow Member Fausto Correia sets out the position of the European Parliament on this matter.
Today we are pleased to be able to say that the Council consultation is being presented on the basis of the codecision procedure. This is a consultation which does not confine itself to the agreement itself but includes its preamble and annex, which we appreciate, because, although they are technical, they contain provisions which are of great political significance. Many of them are designed specifically to ensure the protection of personal and sensitive data.
However, we are sorry that the Council has still not approved the framework decision on the definition of data protection in order to lay down certain minimum rules. It is incongruous for the Council to prepare to adopt this decision rather than its own general law. Nor was the European Data Protection Supervisor consulted at any time.
Briefly, the report provides for cooperation in terms of exchanging data on DNA, fingerprints, vehicle registration numbers and personal and non-personal data. The aim is to be able to compare the DNA profile of a person with the future databases of 27 national contact points.
The report clearly indicates that common guarantees must be laid down for the protection of data and the right of defence of suspects and guilty parties. Only the non-coding parts of DNA, in other words the zones containing no genetic expression, may be transferred."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples