Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-11-10-Speech-3-097"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20101110.15.3-097"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, I would like to thank the Commissioner and the Minister for their introductions. I very much welcome the very cooperative attitude of the Commission and the Council. We have had examples in the past where the cooperation was less intimate. I think that this example shows that, if the three main institutions can reach an agreement, we can speak with a single voice on behalf of 500 million citizens – and that is a very powerful voice.
The resolution has been tabled jointly by six political groups, meaning that this Parliament is sending a very strong political signal. I would also like to thank all the shadow rapporteurs of the other groups for their very good cooperation. There is one point which the Commissioner and the Minister did not address in their presentations: the issue of proportionality and necessity. Both the Council and the Commission still claim that the massive – not ad hoc – collection and storage of PNR data is necessary and proportional in view of the fight against terrorism. I am willing to believe them, but this claim has to be substantiated: we need proof of necessity, proof of proportionality. Why? The proportionality test is not a political test; it is a legal test.
European data protection laws require the collection and storage of data to be proportional and necessary. This is not something that we can agree on politically; it is something that has to be proven in court. If somebody goes to court and the court rules that these agreements are not watertight, then we look like idiots. The European Parliament cannot be asked to endorse something which is open to legal challenge. That is a key issue.
There are some other things which need clarification. I am pleased to hear that the Commission is looking into the profiling issue, but I think that we need some further discussion on that. Some of the Member States are proposing a sunset clause. I would, of course, wholeheartedly endorse that; I hope that the Council decides to introduce that. Finally, the European Commission refers to good relations with third countries, but these agreements cannot be seen as instruments of international diplomacy. They are instruments of international cooperation in law enforcement and protecting civil liberties and the rule of law. We need to get it right now, because we are not only negotiating with the US, Canada and Australia, but also setting a model and example for agreements with other countries."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples