Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-02-10-Speech-3-468"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100210.28.3-468"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin my speech with an unequivocal statement: Spain has shown clear, unreserved support for the Treaty of Lisbon, and it has done so from the very beginning. We did so in the certainty that the implementation of the new treaty was going to mean
that the European institutions would be brought closer to our citizens.
This is the context for the agreement we are examining today between the European Union and the United States concerning the transfer of financial messaging data. Data exchange without an agreement has worked uninterruptedly for many years.
When I appeared before the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs two weeks ago, several Members asked me about the outcomes of that data exchange. It is a pertinent issue which I think has been taken up and answered in the second report by Judge Bruguière, which has been referred to this House and from which I shall now quote: ‘during 2009, the TFTP has been a highly valuable tool used by intelligence and law enforcement agencies to help map out terrorist networks, to complete missing links in investigations, to confirm the identity of suspects, to locate the physical whereabouts of suspects and to identify new suspects as well as to disrupt attempted terrorist attacks’. I would also add that this not only applies to 2009 but earlier, in the United States, Europe and all over the world: in Barcelona in January 2008, in Germany in the summer of 2007, in London after the 7 July attacks and in the investigations into the 11 March attacks in Madrid, the Bangkok killings of April 2005 and the Bali bombings of 2002. These are just some of the examples Judge Bruguière cites in his report.
Data exchange has therefore delivered positive results. It has allowed us to investigate and prevent attacks. It has enabled us to arrest terrorists after they have committed attacks and, most importantly, before they have succeeded in committing them.
Even though SWIFT indicated in 2007 that it had made a decision to change its databases, it did not actually do so until just a few months ago. This meant we had to review the protocols which, up to then, had enabled us to exchange financial data. That had to be done in a very short space of time. The mandate was approved by Council in the summer of 2009 when there was still uncertainty over the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon.
The decision that was taken is well known. We signed an interim nine-month agreement which should be ratified in this Chamber: an interim agreement lasting nine months, during which this Parliament, the Council and the Commission should establish a new negotiation process to set out a definitive agreement. That was the decision taken.
It may not have been the best decision. However, it is important to say clearly to this House that, in terms of privacy protection, the signed
agreement that we are debating here today is a great improvement on the protocols in place prior to this agreement.
It is an improvement because this interim agreement has additional guarantees, among other elements, that were recommended by Parliament and set out by the rapporteur in the report that has been presented to us today.
At this stage, I would like to say that the Spanish Presidency of the Council has taken full account of the resolutions adopted in Parliament and the letters sent by the President of the Parliament, as well as the report that was drawn up by Mrs Hennis-Plasschaert and voted on in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs on 4 February. For this reason, the Council approved a statement that was sent to Parliament yesterday and whose key points I shall now summarise for you.
Firstly, the Council is committed to incorporating into a definitive agreement the sound guarantees that will strengthen proper protection, the deletion of data and greater precision with regard to the exchange of data obtained by the TFTP with national authorities and third countries.
We are also committed, of course, to strengthening the guarantees contained in the current agreement; these should remain – and be strengthened – in the definitive agreement, as should a strict limitation on the end use of data and an absolute ban on extracting data and using profiles.
This is an objective that the Treaty of Lisbon entrusts largely to Parliament. Giving Parliament a bigger role and greater participation in issues such as the area of freedom, justice and security is the way in which this treaty has tried to bring the citizens and the institutions closer together.
Finally, the Council, in response to the new context created by the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, is committed to negotiating an interinstitutional agreement in order to enable easier access to classified documents relating to international agreements.
In this regard, and I wish to reiterate this point as clearly as possible, the Spanish Presidency is totally committed to the Treaty of Lisbon and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, particularly Article 8, and fully recognises the legitimate concerns expressed by Parliament.
We now know that the commitment I have just set out is possible. In a letter sent to the President of Parliament by the Secretary of State of the United States, Hillary Clinton, and the Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner, the United States Government has expressed its commitment to incorporating the requisite guarantees in accordance with the position taken by the European Parliament.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is possible that in the approval process for the agreement we are debating today, the Council could have done things better. What is certain, however, is that in this process, the Council has learned lessons and taken due note of Parliament’s concerns. It is also certain that the agreement we are debating today has contributed – and I hope that it will continue to contribute – to improving the security of citizens all around the world and, of course, in Europe.
Let me begin, then, by assuring all the honourable Members that the Council is committed to working closely and honestly with Parliament. For the Spanish Presidency, this conclusion is the result of our firm commitment to the Treaty of Lisbon and its aims.
The Council also shares Parliament’s concern to ensure the security of all European citizens, for security means the guarantee that they can fully exercise their freedom. That is the context in which, together, we are fighting terrorism – all forms of terrorism.
As stated in the Resolution adopted in this Chamber on 17 September, the European Parliament ‘recalls its determination to fight terrorism and its firm belief in the need to strike the right balance between security measures and the protection of civil liberties and fundamental rights’. I agree wholeheartedly with this statement.
This is the framework within which I would like to see this debate conducted; it is a new framework under the Treaty of Lisbon, and it is based on honest, interinstitutional collaboration and a shared desire – and this is not a new desire – to fight terrorism while respecting the principles of proportionality and necessity, which are also critical if we are to fight terrorism effectively.
Mr President, it is widely acknowledged that international terrorism has brought new challenges to our societies. This is a relatively new form of terrorism which has no clear organisation, is extremely deadly and operates at a global level. A global approach is therefore needed to eradicate it. It lacks a rigid, hierarchical structure and so can only be combated with an extraordinary intelligence effort. It is so deadly that we are having to be on maximum alert in places where large numbers of people gather.
Prevention, coordination and intelligence are the three words that sum up our strategy for tackling this huge threat.
All countries have endeavoured to improve internal and external coordination, to be better informed and, ultimately, to cooperate with those who are engaged in the same struggle. The European Union has also increased its joint investigation bodies and teams, information exchange and shared analysis."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples