Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-02-10-Speech-3-494"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100210.28.3-494"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, first of all, I would like to say that I have listened with great interest and appreciation to all of the speeches made by the honourable Members, speeches of both support and criticism, although admittedly, the latter were in the majority, but I welcome them all.
It is true that the SWIFT agreement was used to investigate the 11 March attacks in Madrid, with good results. It is also worth remembering that the SWIFT agreement was used to prevent an attack on the city of Barcelona just over a year ago. The perpetrators of these attacks are all currently serving sentences in Spanish prisons.
Therefore, we can say that yes, it has worked, and yes, it has allowed us to get results. This being the case, then surely the honourable Members will agree with me that a suspension of the agreement will effectively mean at least a slight lowering in standards of security for European citizens. Surely, you must accept that if the agreement is working and has been working for us, then its suspension would leave us somewhat less secure, and I am choosing my words carefully so that no one can accuse the Council of being overdramatic. We would certainly be a little less secure; it is as simple as that.
That is why I want to emphasise on behalf of the Council, and I think that the Commission also agrees, that it is vital not to suspend this agreement. It may be that this agreement warrants criticism, and I want to stress once again that we acknowledge the tough criticism that we have heard here this afternoon. However, the honourable Members will surely agree with me in saying that this agreement is a lot better than the protocol over data exchange that the United States and the EU have had to comply with for years.
The agreement under debate today is probably not perfect. Improvements could certainly be made, and I can even agree with some of the criticisms made from certain quarters, but I ask you to acknowledge, as I do, that it is an improvement on what we had before. The EU, Council, and Commission have introduced several motions into the agreement, which are causing concern amongst some Members, who are trying primarily to guarantee that security is not at the expense of human rights and fundamental freedoms; and rightly so.
This is why I want to reiterate what the Commissioner said, that it is important not to suspend the agreement. I also want to reiterate to Parliament that the Council’s sincere wish is to negotiate a new agreement – which will be a definitive one – an agreement which will incorporate many of the issues mentioned here this afternoon, issues which the Council agrees with and would like to publicly endorse. The Council is making a commitment to do this. The fact is that the President-in-Office of the Council has already made this commitment in a letter to the President of Parliament, but we will still have to uphold it when the time comes to negotiate.
Therefore, we are debating an interim agreement today which improves the current situation. We are debating an agreement that will last for nine months, which is the time it will take for the Commission, the Council, and Parliament to reach a new agreement – which will be a definitive one – an agreement that will most certainly address all the very reasonable precautionary measures discussed in this afternoon’s debate in Parliament.
The Council cannot ignore this afternoon’s debate. We cannot ignore the fact that this agreement has come in for a great deal of criticism. As I said, some of the criticisms have certainly been more founded than others, but criticism there has been, and I think that this deserves serious consideration. I am asking on behalf of the Council, that Parliament give us this time for reflection.
Time, naturally, to analyse and discuss this debate with my colleagues in the Council, time to discuss it with the Commission, and time, essentially, to explore the possibility of making a better agreement with the US, which I think is a real possibility. We are asking for time, ladies and gentlemen, Mr President, to allow us to come back to Parliament within a few weeks, a few months, to be able to guarantee that we have created the foundations for the signing of a definitive agreement that adequately addresses the concerns expressed by certain honourable Members today. Concerns, which, I repeat, echo the Council’s concerns in many cases.
I would like to say firstly that I am very pleased to have confirmed once again during the debate in this House that Parliament, the Commission, and the Council are all perfectly in tune when it comes to defending our shared values and, as I said in my speech, to taking a determined stance against any kind of terrorism. In my opinion, this consensus is extremely important, and we should not forget it.
I want to make a distinction between the two radically different strands of criticism that we have heard with regard to the SWIFT agreement which we have examined this afternoon: criticism on the grounds of procedure, and criticism on the grounds of substance.
It is true that there has been constant criticism of the substance of this agreement, even by those Members who explicitly supported an agreement such as this. I reiterate what I said in my earlier speech, that things could probably have been done better; in fact, they could certainly have been done better. However, I also said, and I reiterate this too, that as the honourable Members know well, the time limits were as they were, so that the Council and the Commission had to take action within a very short time frame. In any case, let me be very clear that as I said earlier this afternoon, it is the Council’s wish that things be done differently from now on, and not as they have been done in the past.
Certain Members have said, probably based on their experience, that this is a promise, a commitment, which has been broken repeatedly in this House. I would like to say in support of the Council that it is a commitment born out of a fundamental commitment within the Treaty of Lisbon, which sets a core objective that this House should play an increasingly important role in the institutional life of Europe, so that the citizens feel better represented.
This commitment from my country, which is a fundamental commitment within the Treaty of Lisbon, is the reason why I want to state here categorically that during the Spanish Presidency, the Council will do things differently.
In case some people do not trust the Council’s word, and they would be within their rights not to, they should remember that the treaty forces us to do things differently. Therefore, if the political will of the Council does not suffice, the treaty is in place within the law to ensure that things are done differently in the future. It is reliant on this House working with the Commission, and naturally reliant on the united spirit shown here by our Members, a spirit that seeks a balance between defending security and maintaining our core values; it is a pan European spirit, with which the Council is fully in tune.
I would like to make three comments regarding the issue itself. I will not address some of the more specific issues that have been the object of criticism, some of which is unfounded in my opinion. For example, it has been said on various occasions that the SWIFT agreement, as it now stands in this House, permits the bulk transfer of data. It has not been said, and it should be stated clearly however, that this is not the logic behind the agreement, and that bulk transfer is only allowed by the SWIFT agreement in exceptional cases, always and only when there are legal suspicions (Article 4(6) of the agreement). This is just one example. There have been other somewhat superficial accusations about the content of the agreement, which I believe would respond well to scrutiny, but I am not going to address them at this point.
I would like to make two more points on this matter. Firstly, along with the Commission and some of the Members of this House, I would like to stress that the agreement has been useful in the fight against terrorism. I have given some examples, and there are more in Judge Bruguière’s report, which has been given to the Members. I can provide another example, or even better, two, which I previously referred to from my own country."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples