Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2016-04-13-Speech-3-562-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20160413.42.3-562-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, today’s debate and tomorrow’s vote are something which at times I doubted would actually happen in my lifetime. I hope that tomorrow’s result is a positive one. We have created a directive which I know is going to save lives, protect rights, catch criminals and make Europe a safer place for our citizens. Throughout this process there has been more than enough finger-pointing, enough games and enough politics, but today I hope to add some facts and the arguments for why I feel we need this instrument – a view shared by governments of all political persuasions and by all law-enforcement authorities across the whole EU.
There may be people here in this debate today who still want to vote against this report, but I believe this is the best deal we could have reached. Too often politicians come away from negotiations in possession of a piece of legislation which feels like the lowest common denominator, something they can live with, something which could have been worse. I do not feel that way at all. I can say with my hand on my heart that I am proud of what we will vote on tomorrow. I know that we pushed for sound data-protection provisions which mirrored those of the Data Protection Directive and which provided specific rules for PNR data exchange. I know we allowed for the ECJ judgment on retention to have resonance and to be a meaningful basis for any review. I know that we have retention periods which are proportionate and that we are collecting PNR data to combat a list of crimes which we must prevent and prosecute.
Never have the challenges Europe faces been so prevalent, and inevitably the fight against terrorism has become the focus of this directive for many, given its value in combating EU foreign fighters. But I have been urging this Parliament to support PNR for nearly five years, not just because of terrorism but because it tackles the worst and darkest kinds of criminality as well – human trafficking, child trafficking, drug trafficking, paedophiles, murderers and rapists. PNR does not just help bring perpetrators to justice, it can also save people from the horrors that criminality brings. There are many examples from the UK where PNR has helped rescue children and women from a life of exploitation and suffering. PNR is not a hypothetical instrument and the UK has had a system in place for a decade. It works, it saves lives, it puts criminals where they belong: behind bars.
To the critics who say we are sacrificing civil liberties in the name of security, let me emphasise that without this PNR Directive there would be no European standards whatsoever specific to PNR, no specific rights of redress, no rules on data retention periods, no rules on who can access the information, no rules on pseudonymising data, no rules on keeping logs, no rules on reviews or compliance with the principles of proportionality and necessity and ECJ rulings. For those who ask why we need a European solution, on this I have listened to the experts, to Europol Director Rob Wainwright, to anti-terrorism coordinator Gilles de Kerchove, and to law-enforcement experts from around Europe. By having a single set of rules at a European level we close the legal loopholes criminals seek to exploit under different legal jurisdictions. By collecting and sharing the same information across the EU we make data comparable and relevant. We cut down the lengthy delays of exchanging information through bilateral agreements, allowing for an expediency which is so vital today in criminal investigations. And to those who say we need mandatory sharing of all information for a centralised EU database, I would say that mandatory exchange of personal data without regard to necessity and proportionality would be contrary to the fundamental principles of data protection. But sharing relevant information with law enforcement agencies in other Member States and with Europol should take place whenever necessary.
Irrelevant or unnecessary processing of data would undermine individuals’ rights and will make it more difficult for authorities to prioritise the most relevant and serious cases. But throughout this process I have always welcomed positive contributions from my colleagues. I look forward to today’s debate because I believe that the sooner the better as far as PNR across Europe is concerned."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples