Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-09-07-Speech-3-007"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech6
dcterms:Date	"2005-09-07"^^xsd:date6
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Vabadus ja turvalisus6
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language6
lpv:document identification number	"en.20050907.2.3-007"6
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2005-09-07-Speech-3-0086
lpv:speaker	lp:Charles Clarke6
lpv:spoken text	". Mr President, I would like to begin by thanking you for the opportunity of addressing the European Parliament. I want to take the opportunity to set out the approach that the British Government will follow in its conduct of the Presidency of the Justice and Home Affairs Council, which will be occupied by myself and my colleague Baroness Ashton, who is with me today. I therefore believe that the whole of the European Union – but in particular the Justice and Home Affairs Council – needs to give real priority to tackling these issues in a practical and systematic way. It is that conviction which will inform the UK Presidency. In so doing I suggest three principal approaches. The first is that in our globalised world no single nation can tackle these problems alone, even in its own country. In a world with millions of international journeys and economic transactions every year, ideas of ‘splendid isolation’ or rhetoric about ‘the White Cliffs of Dover’ can do nothing to address international criminality, terrorism or serious and organised crime or address patterns of international migration. The need to fight terrorism and serious and organised crime means that we need more European cooperation and not less. The truth is that in each of these areas we will all, including within our own countries, achieve most by sharing experience, information and resources and by identifying and then targeting the threats systematically and consistently. I make the apparently obvious point that these threats are best tackled internationally, since there remain political parties and other organs of opinion within the European Union which believe that protection from these types of threat can best be secured by the construction of higher and higher fences between us, whilst the truth is the opposite – our best chances of success lie in deeper and deeper cooperation. The second principle that must underlie our approach is to strengthen the foundation of practical and pragmatic police and intelligence work. In each of these areas – organised crime, terrorism, immigration, asylum – we have already taken action at the European Union level. For example, we have agreed the European Arrest Warrant, common rules on penalties for and definitions of terrorism, people trafficking and other serious crimes. We have rules on police and judicial cooperation and we have established Europol and Eurojust to support their work. We have also strengthened freedom to travel within the EU and established the European Borders Agency. There is of course more that we can do and are doing. We have agreed a comprehensive programme of action in the Hague Programme and the Counter-Terrorism Action Plan. These contain many sensible, practical measures that will make a real difference to our citizens. If we want to demonstrate the real value of the European Union, we now need to work together to deliver on those commitments. I would like in particular to highlight the need for practical European Union support for intelligence-led operations and cross-border prosecutions, the development of joint teams to combat drug dealing and people trafficking, the sharing of information to facilitate joint work and the development of a European criminal intelligence model. In the field of migration and asylum, I hope that in this Presidency we will succeed in securing significant European Union readmission agreements with certain countries such as Russia, Ukraine and Morocco, and develop pilot regional protection programmes. In the field of civil justice, we will focus on the proposal to facilitate small claims and the establishment of a single European order of payment and other measures. These are all important practical steps, which I hope will command widespread support from this Parliament. But it is the third principle which I believe poses the greatest challenge in its modern application. That principle is that we need to use intelligence effectively and intelligently to target, track down, identify and convict the criminals who, through terrorist violence and serious and organised crime, threaten the security and strength of our society. Indeed I would go further: it is only through the effective and intelligent use of intelligence that in our modern world we can contest the criminality which attacks us. Of course criminals and terrorists use modern technology – the Internet and mobile communications – to plan and carry out their activities. We can only contest them effectively if we know what they are communicating. Without that knowledge, we are fighting them with both hands tied behind our backs. Of course the criminals know that and actively and consciously organise themselves to take advantage of our weaknesses. I start from the proposition that the European Union has been a massive force for good. Thirty-five years ago, when I was a student, we campaigned for democracy in this continent, to remove the fascist or military dictatorships which then existed in Greece, Spain and Portugal, and the totalitarian dictatorships which then ruled much of eastern and central Europe. Those campaigns succeeded as, it is worth pointing out, did the campaigns in other parts of the world, for example Southern Africa and Latin America. It may seem obvious to state that we need to collect and use intelligence against the threats that we face. But the European Parliament and national parliaments throughout Europe need to face up to the fact that the legal framework within which we currently operate makes the collection and use of this intelligence very difficult and in some cases impossible. The rules that currently govern our law enforcement bodies seriously inhibit their ability to protect us against criminals. Information is the lifeblood of law enforcement operations and it is that information which enables our police and agencies to prevent crimes with the minimum of impact on our daily lives. To tackle organised crime and stop terrorist groups before they carry out their activities, they need a clear picture of who the criminals are, what they are doing, where they are and how they communicate with each other. Often that picture is pieced together after the fact. But if we are to be effective in dismantling organised crime groups we must analyse intelligence and information so that we can target our efforts on the most dangerous criminals. However, that need is not always reflected in the rules that we apply to our police. This is not a sterile debate about principles; it is about practical measures to contest criminality and our opponents. That is why the UK Presidency, following the proposals set out in the Hague Programme, has placed on the agenda proposals on the retention of telecommunications data, establishing a second generation of the Schengen Information System and putting in place a new Visa Information System. That is why we argue that internationally consistent and coherent biometric data should be an automatic part of our visas, passports and identity cards where we have them – and I would even suggest driving licences as well. That is why we will work strongly to agree with our international partners, including the United States, the best measures for consistent international use of passenger data. These are all important and difficult measures. They can only be achieved through international agreements, particularly in the European Union and between the European Union and its partners throughout the world. They all require hard-headed discussions and practical agreement. This Presidency accepts that, in considering proposals in these areas, it is incumbent upon the advocates of change, such as the British Government, to make the case that measures of this kind have the practical advantages against criminality that I believe they do. That is why I am publishing today, as I promised the LIBE Committee in July in Brussels that I would, an explanation of the cases for some of these measures, in particular those relating to retention of telecommunications data. I hope that Parliament will look closely at the case that we put forward. My colleagues on the Justice and Home Affairs Council will be considering these issues carefully at the informal Council meeting in Newcastle later this week. But I believe that the central point for us to remember, as we consider these issues together, is that we now possess many hard-won rights such as the right to privacy, the right to property, the right to free speech, the right to travel and the right to life. Those rights are actively threatened by criminals and terrorists. We have a duty and a responsibility to help protect them for our citizens through practical measures. As we consider how best to do this, rights will always and inevitably have to be balanced. What matters in each case is that the steps are proportionate and that the protection against abuse is effective. I believe that our proposals offer that. Let me just cite the example of retention of telecommunications data. This is proving invaluable in the current investigations into the London attacks and in many cases in the UK it has proved essential to solving crimes, often months or years after they were committed. Communications service providers already retain much information for business purposes, but data protection obligations in some countries pressure them to erase data that has no business purpose. That means that catching a murderer or stopping a terrorist attack may depend on which mobile telephone company a victim, suspect or witness uses or has used, or which European Union country they were in. In fact, 11 of the 25 current European Union Member States have since emerged to democracy as full members of the European Union. It is a magnificent achievement which we should continue to celebrate. Some argue that to require telecommunications companies to retain data they use for billing purposes is an intrusion into privacy, or that it imposes undue costs on business. However, in the United Kingdom we have successfully established a system, in partnership with a major service provider, to retain essential data for up to twelve months for the cost of EUR 1.2 million. Compared to the average costs for forensic work on a single murder case of over EUR 0.5 million, that is an acceptable cost for the state to bear. Others have argued that we are asking for too much data, for example, that there should not be a requirement to retain unanswered calls. In many cases, however, this is data that has already been collected by the companies for their own purposes. All that we are asking is that it be retained and made available to law enforcement under national law. There is perhaps a more general concern that the proposal is an unnecessary invasion of privacy or that it is disproportionate. I do not believe that it is, because in many cases, some of which I have set out in the document I am circulating, the victim’s right to justice was only achieved through the retention of telecommunications data. Similarly, with the Schengen Information System, the next generation enables our law enforcement agencies to exchange information about individuals wanted for arrest or to be refused entry to the European Union, as well as information on lost and stolen documents or other objects. This is a critical tool for ensuring our collective security and for guaranteeing our rights. Equally, without a new system in place, the new Member States will not be able to lift their internal borders with other Schengen states. The Council and European Parliament will have to work together over the coming months to agree on the legal framework for the system. In my opinion, we will need to do this quickly so that the system can be put in place by early 2007. We all need to be sure that we are striking the right balance between our collective security and our fundamental rights. In so doing, we need to be sure that we have thoroughly explored the question of whether the Schengen Information System II should be a control system or whether it can be used more effectively as a tool for law enforcement. In making judgements about this, we need to reflect on the balance between the civil liberty being affected and the increased security being achieved, to ensure that any changes we make are proportionate and reasonable. This also applies to the Visa Information System, where we need to ensure that those with a legitimate right to travel can do so, while those who seek to exploit our freedoms are deterred. Increasingly, people use multiple identities to hide their movements. Biometrics are the most effective way to ensure that we can prove someone's identity. A comprehensive database of visa applications with biometrics matched to each applicant will mean that genuine travellers are able to prove their identity easily and travel more freely. Governments will have a clear idea of who is entering and leaving the European Union, with the reassurance that they have the legal right to do so. The use of biometrics also means that if people destroy their documents or are found overstaying we are able to identify who they are and where they come from. The Council and European Parliament will need to work closely together to agree and adopt the Visa Information System regulation. The Council aims to have the system up and running in consulates from the beginning of 2006. Given the substantial lead-in time for the equipment of posts and training, there is real urgency to adopt this regulation as soon as possible. Each of these examples is a practical measure that can enhance security and demonstrate the practical benefits of working together. In each case they will enhance the sharing of information. They will not lead – as some have argued – to the mass surveillance of our citizens or to unnecessary invasion of their right to privacy. Of course the nature of our societies has changed dramatically over these years, economically, socially and technologically. It has changed in the composition of our communities, which vary across the Union, with many communities of differing races, faiths and histories living together. However, I understand concerns that data may be misused or abused or that some people will be wrongly identified. That is why we need to ensure that in each case there is a clear legal basis for the exchange of information and that the basis should include the appropriate safeguards against abuse. Of course the proposals that I have set out are an enormous agenda for this Presidency and we will do our best to promote it. However, on behalf of the United Kingdom Government I also want to say that we believe that it is necessary to look very carefully at the way in which the jurisprudence around application of the European Convention on Human Rights is developing. The Convention, established over 50 years ago in a quite different international climate, has led to great advances in human rights across the continent. Its achievements must be fostered and developed and not undermined, but I believe that in developing these human rights it really is necessary to balance very important rights for individuals against the collective right for security from terrorist violence. Our strengthening of human rights needs to acknowledge a truth which we should all accept: that the right to be protected from torture and ill-treatment must be considered side by side with the right to be protected from the death and destruction caused by indiscriminate terrorism, sometimes caused, instigated or fomented by nationals from countries outside the European Union. This is a difficult balance to get right and it requires all of us, as politicians, to ask where our citizens – who elected all of us here – would expect us to draw the line. I believe that they expect from us not only the protection of individual rights but also the protection of democratic values such as safety and security under the law. The view of my government is that this balance is not right for the circumstances which we now face – circumstances very different from those faced by the founding fathers of the European Convention on Human Rights – and it needs to be closely examined in that context. I intend to discuss with colleagues in the Justice and Home Affairs Council how we might best address these issues in a manner consistent with our international obligations. I believe most strongly that the peoples of this continent want to be assured that the legislative regime which defends human rights must be used to defend the rights of all our citizens in a balanced and considered way and that it is our duty to discuss this openly. In conclusion, I believe that the ‘no’ votes against the Constitution should be taken as a wake-up call to those who believe in and support the European project to focus on what matters. The right to safety and security is a fundamental concern for all our citizens. Here we can show that Europe can and does deliver real benefits to our citizens. We in the European Union have a responsibility to rise to that challenge. It is not an area where we can fail them. But in all of this I believe that it is our duty to promote a society which is based on the true respect of one individual for another, one culture for another, one faith for another, one race for another. It is our duty to promote the view that democracy, and not violence, is the means of bringing about change and governing ourselves. We have to defend our values of respect, tolerance, freedom and democracy against any who wish to destroy or replace them with some other doctrine, particularly if they seek to use violence to promote their ambition. That is part of the history of the European Union, but it must be central to the future of the European Union too. As we look to that future we have to acknowledge that, despite the fantastic record, many of our citizens remain highly sceptical about the European Union, to such an extent that in some countries the national referenda rejected the proposed new Constitution in a way which suggested more deep-seated concerns. I believe that a deep reason for these doubts is that the European Union does not appear to give sufficient priority to offering practical solutions which make a difference to some of the issues of greatest concern. I am referring specifically to serious and organised crime, including drug dealing and people trafficking, to illegal migration and false asylum seeking, and to countering terrorism, whatever its origins. These issues top the political agenda across Europe, and they are often the most potent in mobilising political activity, often in a reactionary and even dangerous way. They can even be used by poisonous demagogues to undermine the very democracy which has in some cases so recently been created. It is not difficult to see why these threats motivate anger amongst our peoples. The threat from terrorism remains very real, as we tragically saw in London in July. In 2004 over 100 000 women were trafficked in the European Union and over 8 000 people die each year from drug use, as crime and misery is fuelled in every part of the continent. Illegal migration and a system of control which is too loose raise concerns in every city."@en4
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, I would like to begin by thanking you for the opportunity of addressing the European Parliament. I want to take the opportunity to set out the approach that the British Government will follow in its conduct of the Presidency of the Justice and Home Affairs Council, which will be occupied by myself and my colleague Baroness Ashton, who is with me today. I therefore believe that the whole of the European Union – but in particular the Justice and Home Affairs Council – needs to give real priority to tackling these issues in a practical and systematic way. It is that conviction which will inform the UK Presidency. In so doing I suggest three principal approaches. The first is that in our globalised world no single nation can tackle these problems alone, even in its own country. In a world with millions of international journeys and economic transactions every year, ideas of ‘splendid isolation’ or rhetoric about ‘the White Cliffs of Dover’ can do nothing to address international criminality, terrorism or serious and organised crime or address patterns of international migration. The need to fight terrorism and serious and organised crime means that we need more European cooperation and not less. The truth is that in each of these areas we will all, including within our own countries, achieve most by sharing experience, information and resources and by identifying and then targeting the threats systematically and consistently. I make the apparently obvious point that these threats are best tackled internationally, since there remain political parties and other organs of opinion within the European Union which believe that protection from these types of threat can best be secured by the construction of higher and higher fences between us, whilst the truth is the opposite – our best chances of success lie in deeper and deeper cooperation. The second principle that must underlie our approach is to strengthen the foundation of practical and pragmatic police and intelligence work. In each of these areas – organised crime, terrorism, immigration, asylum – we have already taken action at the European Union level. For example, we have agreed the European Arrest Warrant, common rules on penalties for and definitions of terrorism, people trafficking and other serious crimes. We have rules on police and judicial cooperation and we have established Europol and Eurojust to support their work. We have also strengthened freedom to travel within the EU and established the European Borders Agency. There is of course more that we can do and are doing. We have agreed a comprehensive programme of action in the Hague Programme and the Counter-Terrorism Action Plan. These contain many sensible, practical measures that will make a real difference to our citizens. If we want to demonstrate the real value of the European Union, we now need to work together to deliver on those commitments. I would like in particular to highlight the need for practical European Union support for intelligence-led operations and cross-border prosecutions, the development of joint teams to combat drug dealing and people trafficking, the sharing of information to facilitate joint work and the development of a European criminal intelligence model. In the field of migration and asylum, I hope that in this Presidency we will succeed in securing significant European Union readmission agreements with certain countries such as Russia, Ukraine and Morocco, and develop pilot regional protection programmes. In the field of civil justice, we will focus on the proposal to facilitate small claims and the establishment of a single European order of payment and other measures. These are all important practical steps, which I hope will command widespread support from this Parliament. But it is the third principle which I believe poses the greatest challenge in its modern application. That principle is that we need to use intelligence effectively and intelligently to target, track down, identify and convict the criminals who, through terrorist violence and serious and organised crime, threaten the security and strength of our society. Indeed I would go further: it is only through the effective and intelligent use of intelligence that in our modern world we can contest the criminality which attacks us. Of course criminals and terrorists use modern technology – the internet and mobile communications – to plan and carry out their activities. We can only contest them effectively if we know what they are communicating. Without that knowledge, we are fighting them with both hands tied behind our backs. Of course the criminals know that and actively and consciously organise themselves to take advantage of our weaknesses. I start from the proposition that the European Union has been a massive force for good. Thirty-five years ago, when I was a student, we campaigned for democracy in this continent, to remove the fascist or military dictatorships which then existed in Greece, Spain and Portugal, and the totalitarian dictatorships which then ruled much of eastern and central Europe. Those campaigns succeeded as, it is worth pointing out, did the campaigns in other parts of the world, for example Southern Africa and Latin America. It may seem obvious to state that we need to collect and use intelligence against the threats that we face. But the European Parliament and national parliaments throughout Europe need to face up to the fact that the legal framework within which we currently operate makes the collection and use of this intelligence very difficult and in some cases impossible. The rules that currently govern our law enforcement bodies seriously inhibit their ability to protect us against criminals. Information is the lifeblood of law enforcement operations and it is that information which enables our police and agencies to prevent crimes with the minimum of impact on our daily lives. To tackle organised crime and stop terrorist groups before they carry out their activities, they need a clear picture of who the criminals are, what they are doing, where they are and how they communicate with each other. Often that picture is pieced together after the fact. But if we are to be effective in dismantling organised crime groups we must analyse intelligence and information so that we can target our efforts on the most dangerous criminals. However, that need is not always reflected in the rules that we apply to our police. This is not a sterile debate about principles; it is about practical measures to contest criminality and our opponents. That is why the UK Presidency, following the proposals set out in the Hague Programme, has placed on the agenda proposals on the retention of telecommunications data, establishing a second generation of the Schengen Information System and putting in place a new Visa Information System. That is why we argue that internationally consistent and coherent biometric data should be an automatic part of our visas, passports and identity cards where we have them – and I would even suggest driving licences as well. That is why we will work strongly to agree with our international partners, including the United States, the best measures for consistent international use of passenger data. These are all important and difficult measures. They can only be achieved through international agreements, particularly in the European Union and between the European Union and its partners throughout the world. They all require hard-headed discussions and practical agreement. This Presidency accepts that, in considering proposals in these areas, it is incumbent upon the advocates of change, such as the British Government, to make the case that measures of this kind have the practical advantages against criminality that I believe they do. That is why I am publishing today, as I promised the LIBE Committee in July in Brussels that I would, an explanation of the cases for some of these measures, in particular those relating to retention of telecommunications data. I hope that Parliament will look closely at the case that we put forward. My colleagues on the Justice and Home Affairs Council will be considering these issues carefully at the informal Council meeting in Newcastle later this week. But I believe that the central point for us to remember, as we consider these issues together, is that we now possess many hard-won rights such as the right to privacy, the right to property, the right to free speech, the right to travel and the right to life. Those rights are actively threatened by criminals and terrorists. We have a duty and a responsibility to help protect them for our citizens through practical measures. As we consider how best to do this, rights will always and inevitably have to be balanced. What matters in each case is that the steps are proportionate and that the protection against abuse is effective. I believe that our proposals offer that. Let me just cite the example of retention of telecommunications data. This is proving invaluable in the current investigations into the London attacks and in many cases in the UK it has proved essential to solving crimes, often months or years after they were committed. Communications service providers already retain much information for business purposes, but data protection obligations in some countries pressure them to erase data that has no business purpose. That means that catching a murderer or stopping a terrorist attack may depend on which mobile telephone company a victim, suspect or witness uses or has used, or which European Union country they were in. In fact, 11 of the 25 current European Union Member States have since emerged to democracy as full members of the European Union. It is a magnificent achievement which we should continue to celebrate. Some argue that to require telecommunications companies to retain data they use for billing purposes is an intrusion into privacy, or that it imposes undue costs on business. However, in the United Kingdom we have successfully established a system, in partnership with a major service provider, to retain essential data for up to twelve months for the cost of EUR 1.2 million. Compared to the average costs for forensic work on a single murder case of over EUR 0.5 million, that is an acceptable cost for the state to bear. Others have argued that we are asking for too much data, for example, that there should not be a requirement to retain unanswered calls. In many cases, however, this is data that has already been collected by the companies for their own purposes. All that we are asking is that it be retained and made available to law enforcement under national law. There is perhaps a more general concern that the proposal is an unnecessary invasion of privacy or that it is disproportionate. I do not believe that it is, because in many cases, some of which I have set out in the document I am circulating, the victim’s right to justice was only achieved through the retention of telecommunications data. Similarly, with the Schengen Information System, the next generation enables our law enforcement agencies to exchange information about individuals wanted for arrest or to be refused entry to the European Union, as well as information on lost and stolen documents or other objects. This is a critical tool for ensuring our collective security and for guaranteeing our rights. Equally, without a new system in place, the new Member States will not be able to lift their internal borders with other Schengen states. The Council and European Parliament will have to work together over the coming months to agree on the legal framework for the system. In my opinion, we will need to do this quickly so that the system can be put in place by early 2007. We all need to be sure that we are striking the right balance between our collective security and our fundamental rights. In so doing, we need to be sure that we have thoroughly explored the question of whether the Schengen Information System II should be a control system or whether it can be used more effectively as a tool for law enforcement. In making judgements about this, we need to reflect on the balance between the civil liberty being affected and the increased security being achieved, to ensure that any changes we make are proportionate and reasonable. This also applies to the Visa Information System, where we need to ensure that those with a legitimate right to travel can do so, while those who seek to exploit our freedoms are deterred. Increasingly, people use multiple identities to hide their movements. Biometrics are the most effective way to ensure that we can prove someone's identity. A comprehensive database of visa applications with biometrics matched to each applicant will mean that genuine travellers are able to prove their identity easily and travel more freely. Governments will have a clear idea of who is entering and leaving the European Union, with the reassurance that they have the legal right to do so. The use of biometrics also means that if people destroy their documents or are found overstaying we are able to identify who they are and where they come from. The Council and European Parliament will need to work closely together to agree and adopt the Visa Information System regulation. The Council aims to have the system up and running in consulates from the beginning of 2006. Given the substantial lead-in time for the equipment of posts and training, there is real urgency to adopt this regulation as soon as possible. Each of these examples is a practical measure that can enhance security and demonstrate the practical benefits of working together. In each case they will enhance the sharing of information. They will not lead – as some have argued – to the mass surveillance of our citizens or to unnecessary invasion of their right to privacy. Of course the nature of our societies has changed dramatically over these years, economically, socially and technologically. It has changed in the composition of our communities, which vary across the Union, with many communities of differing races, faiths and histories living together. However, I understand concerns that data may be misused or abused or that some people will be wrongly identified. That is why we need to ensure that in each case there is a clear legal basis for the exchange of information and that the basis should include the appropriate safeguards against abuse. Of course the proposals that I have set out are an enormous agenda for this Presidency and we will do our best to promote it. However, on behalf of the United Kingdom Government I also want to say that we believe that it is necessary to look very carefully at the way in which the jurisprudence around application of the European Convention on Human Rights is developing. The Convention, established over 50 years ago in a quite different international climate, has led to great advances in human rights across the continent. Its achievements must be fostered and developed and not undermined, but I believe that in developing these human rights it really is necessary to balance very important rights for individuals against the collective right for security from terrorist violence. Our strengthening of human rights needs to acknowledge a truth which we should all accept: that the right to be protected from torture and ill-treatment must be considered side by side with the right to be protected from the death and destruction caused by indiscriminate terrorism, sometimes caused, instigated or fomented by nationals from countries outside the European Union. This is a difficult balance to get right and it requires all of us, as politicians, to ask where our citizens – who elected all of us here – would expect us to draw the line. I believe that they expect from us not only the protection of individual rights but also the protection of democratic values such as safety and security under the law. The view of my government is that this balance is not right for the circumstances which we now face – circumstances very different from those faced by the founding fathers of the European Convention on Human Rights – and it needs to be closely examined in that context. I intend to discuss with colleagues in the Justice and Home Affairs Council how we might best address these issues in a manner consistent with our international obligations. I believe most strongly that the peoples of this continent want to be assured that the legislative regime which defends human rights must be used to defend the rights of all our citizens in a balanced and considered way and that it is our duty to discuss this openly. In conclusion, I believe that the ‘no’ votes against the Constitution should be taken as a wake-up call to those who believe in and support the European project to focus on what matters. The right to safety and security is a fundamental concern for all our citizens. Here we can show that Europe can and does deliver real benefits to our citizens. We in the European Union have a responsibility to rise to that challenge. It is not an area where we can fail them. But in all of this I believe that it is our duty to promote a society which is based on the true respect of one individual for another, one culture for another, one faith for another, one race for another. It is our duty to promote the view that democracy, and not violence, is the means of bringing about change and governing ourselves. We have to defend our values of respect, tolerance, freedom and democracy against any who wish to destroy or replace them with some other doctrine, particularly if they seek to use violence to promote their ambition. That is part of the history of the European Union, but it must be central to the future of the European Union too. As we look to that future we have to acknowledge that, despite the fantastic record, many of our citizens remain highly sceptical about the European Union, to such an extent that in some countries the national referenda rejected the proposed new Constitution in a way which suggested more deep-seated concerns. I believe that a deep reason for these doubts is that the European Union does not appear to give sufficient priority to offering practical solutions which make a difference to some of the issues of greatest concern. I am referring specifically to serious and organised crime, including drug dealing and people trafficking, to illegal migration and false asylum seeking, and to countering terrorism, whatever its origins. These issues top the political agenda across Europe, and they are often the most potent in mobilising political activity, often in a reactionary and even dangerous way. They can even be used by poisonous demagogues to undermine the very democracy which has in some cases so recently been created. It is not difficult to see why these threats motivate anger amongst our peoples. The threat from terrorism remains very real, as we tragically saw in London in July. In 2004 over 100 000 women were trafficked in the European Union and over 8 000 people die each year from drug use, as crime and misery is fuelled in every part of the continent. Illegal migration and a system of control which is too loose raise concerns in every city."@cs1 "Hr. formand, jeg vil starte med at takke Dem for denne lejlighed til at tale til Europa-Parlamentet. Jeg ønsker at benytte lejligheden til at præsentere den fremgangsmåde, som den britiske regering vil følge i udøvelsen af formandskabet i Rådet (retlige og indre anliggender), som beklædes af undertegnede og min kollega baronesse Ashton, som er til stede i dag. Jeg mener derfor, at hele EU - men især Rådet (retlige og indre anliggender) - bør prioritere disse anliggender og træffe praktiske og systematiske foranstaltninger til håndtering af problemerne. Det britiske formandskab vil prioritere disse anliggender, og jeg vil fremlægge tre grundprincipper, som vi bør følge. Det første grundprincip er, at det ikke er muligt for en enkelt nation i vores globaliserede verden at løse problemerne alene, selv ikke i Storbritannien. I en verden med millioner af internationale rejser og økonomiske transaktioner om året, er bekæmpelse af kriminalitet, terrorisme eller andre former for alvorlig og organiseret kriminalitet eller omstændighederne omkring international migration ikke problemer, som man kan løse i de enkelte medlemsstater. Behovet for at bekæmpe terrorisme og andre former for alvorlig og organiseret kriminalitet betyder, at vi skal have et forstærket samarbejde i Europa. Sandheden er, at vi på alle disse områder, herunder inden for vores egne lande, vil opnå de bedste resultater ved at udveksle erfaringer, oplysninger og ressourcer og ved at identificere og dermed sætte ind over for truslerne på en systematisk og konsekvent måde. Jeg ønsker at understrege, at det er mest hensigtsmæssigt at håndtere disse trusler på internationalt plan. Der findes stadig politiske partier og andre organer inden for EU, som mener, at den bedste måde, hvorpå man kan sikre sig imod disse trusler, er gennem opbygningen af højere og højere mure. Det modsatte er tilfældet - vores bedste chance for at bekæmpe disse trusler er gennem bedre og mere intensivt samarbejde. Det andet princip, som skal ligge til grund for vores indsats, er at styrke grundlaget for praktisk og pragmatisk politi- og efterretningsarbejde. På begge disse områder - organiseret kriminalitet, terrorisme, indvandring, asyl - har vi allerede truffet foranstaltninger på europæisk plan. F.eks. har vi godkendt den europæiske arrestordre, fastsat fælles regler om straf for og definitioner af terrorisme, menneskehandel og andre alvorlige forbrydelser. Vi har endvidere fastsat regler om politisamarbejde og retligt samarbejde, og vi har oprettet Europol og Eurojust til fremme af dette samarbejde. Vi har endvidere styrket muligheden for at rejse frit inden for EU og oprettet Det Europæiske Grænseagentur. Der er naturligvis meget mere, vi kan gøre, og som vi er i gang med. Vi har godkendt en omfattende handlingsplan i Haag-programmet og handlingsplanen til bekæmpelse af terrorisme, som indeholder mange fornuftige og praktiske foranstaltninger, som vil gøre en reel forskel for borgerne. Hvis vi ønsker at fremhæve de universelle værdier, som EU står for, skal vi samarbejde for at leve op til de forpligtelser. Jeg ønsker især at understrege behovet for praktisk EU-støtte til operationer ledet af efterretningstjenesterne og retsforfølgning på tværs af grænserne, oprettelsen af fælles ekspertgrupper til bekæmpelse af narkotikahandel og handel med mennesker, udvekslingen af oplysninger til afhjælpning af det fælles arbejde og udviklingen af en europæisk model for efterforskning af kriminalitet. På området for migration og asyl håber jeg, at det under dette formandskab vil lykkes os at indgå vigtige genoptagelsesaftaler med visse lande, f.eks. Rusland, Ukraine og Marokko, og udvikle regionale beskyttelsesprogrammer. På området for civil retfærdighed vil vi fokusere på forslaget om at afhjælpe søgsmål om krav af mindre værdi, og oprettelsen af en fælles europæisk betalingspåbudsprocedure og andre foranstaltninger. Disse foranstaltninger er alle vigtige praktiske skridt, som jeg håber vil modtage bred støtte fra Parlamentet. Men det er det tredje grundprincip, som efter min opfattelse vil være den største udfordring i sin moderne anvendelse. Princippet er, at vi skal benytte efterretning effektivt og intelligent for at målrette, afdække, identificere og retsforfølge kriminelle, der gennem terror og vold samt alvorlig og organiseret kriminalitet truer sikkerheden og styrken i vores samfund. Jeg vil endog gå et skridt videre: Kun gennem effektiv og intelligent anvendelse af efterretning kan vi i den moderne verden bekæmpe den kriminalitet, som hærger. Kriminelle og terrorister benytter sig naturligvis af moderne teknologi - internettet og mobilkommunikation - til planlægning og udførelse af deres aktiviteter. Vi kan kun bekæmpe disse lovovertrædelser, hvis vi ved, hvad de pågældende personer kommunikerer om. Uden denne viden kæmper vi en ulige kamp. Det ved de naturligvis, og de udnytter bevidst vores svagheder. Jeg tager udgangspunkt i udsagnet om, at EU har været en massiv positiv kraft. For 35 år siden, da jeg var studerende, kæmpede vi for demokrati i Europa, for udryddelsen af de fascistiske diktaturer eller militærdiktaturer, som på dette tidspunkt herskede i Grækenland, Spanien og Portugal, og de totalitære diktaturer, der herskede i Øst- og Centraleuropa på dette tidspunkt. Disse kampagner lykkedes ligesom kampagnerne i andre dele af verden, f.eks. Sydafrika og Latinamerika, som også er vigtige at nævne. Det er muligvis indlysende at understrege, at vi skal indsamle og anvende efterretningsoplysninger imod de trusler, vi står over for. Men Europa-Parlamentet og de nationale regeringer i Europa skal indse, at retsgrundlaget for vores indsats på nuværende tidspunkt gør indsamlingen og anvendelsen af disse oplysninger vanskelig og sommetider helt umulig. De regler, som vores retshåndhævende myndigheder følger på nuværende tidspunkt, hæmmer i høj grad deres evne til at beskytte os imod kriminalitet. Oplysninger er afgørende i forbindelse med retshåndhævelse, og det er disse oplysninger, som sætter vores politi og agenturer i stand til at forhindre kriminalitet med minimal påvirkning af vores dagligdag. Myndighederne skal for at bekæmpe organiseret kriminalitet og stoppe terrorgrupper, inden de gennemfører deres aktiviteter, kunne udarbejde en klar profil af forbryderne, hvad de foretager sig, hvor de er, og hvordan de kommunikerer med hinanden. Denne profil bliver ofte stykket sammen efter udførelsen af de pågældende handlinger. Men hvis det skal lykkes os at opløse organiserede kriminelle grupper, skal vi analysere efterretningsaktiviteterne og oplysningerne, så vi kan målrette vores bestræbelser over for de farligste kriminelle. Dette behov afspejles imidlertid ikke altid i de regler, vi fastsætter for vores politi. Dette er ikke udelukkende en debat om principper. Det handler om praktiske foranstaltninger til bekæmpelse af kriminalitet og modstandere af de værdier, som EU bygger på. Således har det britiske formandskab som følge af forslagene i Haag-programmet medtaget forslag om opbevaring af telekommunikationsdata, oprettelse af anden generation af Schengen-informationssystemet og fastsættelse af et nyt visuminformationssystem. Derfor argumenterer vi for, at internationalt ensartede og sammenhængende biometriske data skal være en del af vores visa, pas og identifikationskort - hvor dette forefindes - og jeg vil endvidere foreslå, at man også inkluderer kørekort. Og derfor vil vi arbejde hårdt for at blive enige med vores internationale partnere, herunder USA, om de bedste foranstaltninger til ensartet international anvendelse af passagerdata. Det er vigtige og vanskelige foranstaltninger, som kun kan gennemføres gennem internationale aftaler, især inden for EU og mellem EU og EU's partnere rundt om i verden. Alle foranstaltningerne kræver nøgtern drøftelse og praktiske aftaler. Formandskabet erkender, at det i forbindelse med overvejelse af forslag på disse områder er vigtigt, at fortalerne for forandring, f.eks. den britiske regering, fremhæver de - efter min opfattelse - praktiske fordele af foranstaltninger af denne type i forhold til kriminalitet. Derfor offentliggør jeg i dag, som jeg lovede Udvalget om Borgernes Rettigheder og Retlige og Indre Anliggender i juli i Bruxelles, en beskrivelse af argumenterne for nogle af disse foranstaltninger, især de foranstaltninger, der omhandler opbevaring af telekommunikationsdata. Jeg håber, at Parlamentet vil se nærmere på de argumenter, vi fremfører. Mine kolleger i Rådet (retlige og indre anliggender) vil overveje disse spørgsmål nøje på det uformelle rådsmøde i Newcastle senere på ugen. Når vi drøfter disse anliggender, er det efter min opfattelse meget vigtigt at huske, at vi har fået etableret mange hårdt tilkæmpede rettigheder, f.eks. retten til privatlivets fred, ejendomsret, ytringsfrihed, ret til at rejse og ret til livet. Disse rettigheder trues aktivt af kriminelle og terrorister. Vi har en forpligtelse til og et ansvar for at beskytte disse rettigheder for vores borgeres skyld gennem praktiske foranstaltninger. Når vi overvejer, hvordan vi bedst opnår denne beskyttelse, skal vi huske, at rettigheder altid og uundgåeligt skal være afpassede. Det vigtigste er at træffe afpassede foranstaltninger, og at beskyttelsen imod misbrug er effektiv. Jeg mener, at vores forslag giver mulighed for netop det. Lad mig nævne et eksempel på opbevaring af telekommunikationsdata. Opbevaring af denne form for oplysninger har vist sig at være uvurderlig i den nuværende efterforskning af bombesprængningerne i London og har i mange tilfælde i Det Forenede Kongerige været afgørende for opklaringen af forbrydelser, ofte måneder eller år efter at de er begået. Kommunikationstjenesteyderne opbevarer allerede mange oplysninger til erhvervsformål, men kravene til databeskyttelse presser dem i nogle lande til at slette data, der ikke er erhvervsrelateret. Det betyder, at anholdelsen af en morder eller afværgelsen af et terrorangreb kan afhænge af hvilket mobiltelefonselskab, et offer, en mistænkt eller et vidne har benyttet, eller hvilket EU-land de har opholdt sig i. Faktisk har 11 ud af de 25 nuværende europæiske medlemsstater siden da fået indført demokrati som fuldgyldige medlemmer af EU. Det er en enestående bedrift, som vi fortsat skal glæde os over. Nogle hævder, at det er en invasion af privatlivets fred, at teleselskaber opbevarer data, som de anvender til fakturering, og at det medfører urimelige omkostninger for erhvervslivet. I Det Forende Kongerige har vi i samarbejde med en større tjenesteudbyder etableret et velfungerende system til opbevaring af vigtige data i op til 12 måneder, som har kostet 1,2 millioner euro. Sammenlignet med gennemsnitsomkostningerne for retsmedicinsk arbejde i forbindelse med en enkelt mordsag, som beløber sig til over 0,5 millioner euro, er det en helt acceptabel omkostning for staten. Andre hævder, at vi f.eks. anmoder om alt for mange data, at der ikke bør være krav om at opbevare ubesvarede opkald. Det drejer sig imidlertid i mange tilfælde om data, der allerede er indsamlet af selskaber til eget brug. Alt, hvad vi beder om, er oplysninger, som allerede opbevares til brug for retshåndhævende myndigheder i henhold til national ret. Der er måske en mere generel bekymring om, at forslaget er en unødvendig invasion af privatlivets fred, eller at det ikke kan betale sig. Jeg er dybt uenig, da det i mange tilfælde, flere af hvilke jeg har inddraget i det dokument, som jeg offentliggør, forholder sig sådan, at ofrets ret til retfærdighed kun blev opnået gennem opbevaring af telekommunikationsdata. Hvad angår Schengen-informationssystemet vil den næste generation give vores retshåndhævende myndigheder mulighed for at udveksle oplysninger om personer, der er eftersøgt, eller som nægtes adgang til EU, samt oplysninger om forsvundne dokumenter eller andre objekter. Det er et kritisk værktøj til beskyttelse af vores fælles sikkerhed og rettigheder. Samtidig vil det ikke være muligt for de nye medlemsstater at ophæve deres interne grænser med andre Schengen-stater uden dette system. Rådet og Europa-Parlamentet skal samarbejde i de kommende måneder for at fastsætte retsgrundlaget for systemet. Efter min opfattelse skal det gøres hurtigst muligt, således at systemet er iværksat i starten af 2007. Vi skal være sikre på, at vi finder den rette balance mellem vores kollektive sikkerhed og grundlæggende rettigheder. I denne sammenhæng skal vi sikre, at vi grundigt har udforsket spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt det nye Schengen-informationssystem skal være et kontrolsystem, eller hvorvidt det kan anvendes mere effektivt som et værktøj til retshåndhævelse. Når vi træffer beslutning herom, skal vi reflektere over balancen mellem påvirkningen af borgernes frihed og den øgede sikkerhed, der opnås, for at sikre, at alle de ændringer, som vi foretager, er rimelige. Dette gælder også visuminformationssystemet, hvor vi skal sikre, at de personer, som har ret til at rejse, rent faktisk kan rejse, hvorimod de personer, der forsøger at udnytte vores frihedsrettigheder, skal stoppes. Folk benytter sig mere og mere af flere identiteter for at skjule deres aktiviteter og bevægelser. Biometri er den mest effektive måde, hvorpå man kan sikre, at en persons identitet kan bevises. En omfattende database med visumansøgninger med biometrisk statistik for hver ansøger vil betyde, at lovligt rejsende let kan bevise deres identitet og rejse mere frit. Regeringerne vil have et klart billede af personer, der rejser ind i og forlader EU, og en forsikring om, at de har en juridisk rettighed hertil. Anvendelsen af biometri betyder endvidere, at man kan identificere personer og fastsætte, hvor de kommer fra, hvis deres dokumenter bliver ødelagt, eller hvis dokumenterne ikke længere er gyldige. Rådet og Europa-Parlamentet skal arbejde tæt sammen og nå til enighed om og vedtage forordningen om visuminformationssystemet. Rådets mål er, at systemet skal være iværksat i konsulaterne i starten af 2006. På grund af den omfattende indkøringsperiode for udstyr og uddannelse af personale skal forordningen vedtages hurtigst muligt. Alt dette er eksempler på praktiske foranstaltninger, som kan forbedre sikkerheden og vise de praktiske fordele af et samarbejde. I hvert enkelt tilfælde vil det fremme udvekslingen af oplysninger og ikke medføre - som nogle har hævdet - masseovervågning af vores borgere eller unødvendig invasion af retten til privatlivets fred. Vores samfund har naturligvis ændret sig dramatisk i løbet af disse år, både socialt og teknologisk. Der er sket ændringer i sammensætningen af vores samfund, som varierer rundt om i EU, med mange samfundsgrupper med forskellig etnisk baggrund, trosretning og historie. Jeg forstår dog bekymringen om, at oplysninger kan misbruges, eller at nogle personer vil blive identificeret fejlagtigt. Derfor skal vi sikre, at der i alle tilfælde er et klart retsgrundlag for udveksling af oplysninger, og at dette grundlag skal omfatte relevante beskyttelsesforanstaltninger imod misbrug. De forslag, som jeg har stillet, fylder naturligvis en del på formandskabets dagsorden, og vi vil gøre vores bedste for at fremme denne dagsorden. På vegne af den britiske regering ønsker jeg imidlertid også at understrege, at det efter vores opfattelse er nødvendigt at se nøje på udviklingen af retsvidenskaben omkring anvendelsen af den europæiske menneskerettighedskonvention. Menneskerettighedskonventionen, der blev etableret for over 50 år siden i et helt andet internationalt klima, har givet store fordele i forbindelse med menneskerettigheder i Europa. Resultaterne af denne konvention skal beskyttes og udvikles og må ikke undermineres, men efter min opfattelse er det i forbindelse med udviklingen af disse menneskerettigheder nødvendigt at afpasse de meget væsentlige rettigheder for den enkelte i forhold til den fælles ret til beskyttelse imod terror og vold. I vores styrkelse af menneskerettigheder er der en rettighed, vi skal anerkende og acceptere, nemlig retten til beskyttelse imod tortur og dårlig behandling, som skal være sideløbende med retten til beskyttelse imod død og ødelæggelse forårsaget af tilfældig terrorisme, sommetider forårsaget, iværksat eller anstiftet af statsborgere fra lande uden for EU. Det er en vanskelig balance, og det kræver af os som politikere, at vi spørger os selv, hvor vores borgere - som har valgt os - ønsker, at vi skal sætte grænsen. Jeg er sikker på, at de ikke blot forventer beskyttelse af den enkeltes ret, men også beskyttelse af demokratiske værdier, f.eks. sikkerhed og beskyttelse i henhold til lovgivningen. Den britiske regerings holdning er den, at der ikke er tilstrækkelig balance under de nuværende omstændigheder - omstændigheder, der er meget forskellige fra de omstændigheder, som grundlæggerne af den europæiske konvention om menneskerettigheder levede under - og som kræver en grundig granskning i denne sammenhæng. Jeg vil drøfte med mine kolleger i Rådet (retlige og indre anliggender), hvordan vi bedst kan løse disse problemer i overensstemmelse med vores internationale forpligtelser. Jeg er af den faste overbevisning, at borgerne i Europa ønsker en forsikring om, at den lovgivning, hvormed menneskerettighederne forsvares, skal anvendes til at forsvare rettighederne for alle borgere på en afbalanceret og gennemtænkt måde, og at det er vores pligt at drøfte dette forhold åbent. Som konklusion ønsker jeg at understrege, at afvisningen af forfatningen skal opfattes som en brat opvågnen for de personer, der tror på og støtter det europæiske projekt, om at fokusere på det, der er væsentligt. Sikkerhed og beskyttelse er grundlæggende rettigheder, der ligger vores borgere meget på sinde. Her har vi chancen for at vise, at Europa kan skabe reelle fordele for vores borgere. Vi i EU har en forpligtelse til at leve op til denne udfordring. Vi må ikke svigte borgerne på dette område. ) Men jeg mener helt overordnet, at det er vores pligt at fremme et samfund, der er baseret på ægte respekt for ethvert individ, enhver kultur, enhver trosretning og enhver etnisk baggrund. Det er vores pligt at understrege, at det er gennem demokrati og ikke gennem vold, at man opnår ændringer og fremme af retsstatsprincippet. Vi skal forsvare vores værdier, hvad angår respekt, tolerance, frihed og demokrati, over for enhver, der ønsker at ødelægge eller erstatte disse værdier med en anden doktrin, især hvis de udøver vold til at fremme deres ambitioner. Det er en del af EU's historie, men det skal også være helt centralt i forbindelse med EU's fremtid. Når vi ser fremad skal vi erkende, at mange af vores borgere er meget skeptiske over for EU til trods for det historiske aspekt, og der er tale om en skepsis af et sådant omfang, at folkeafstemningerne i nogle lande resulterede i en afvisning af den nye forfatning - et fingerpeg om en dybereliggende tvivl og bekymring. Jeg mener, at en væsentlig årsag til denne tvivl er det forhold, at EU ikke synes at prioritere opgaven med henblik på at finde praktiske løsninger, som vil gøre en forskel i forbindelse med de anliggender, der ligger borgerne mest på sinde. Jeg henviser specifikt til alvorlig og organiseret kriminalitet, herunder narkotikahandel og handel med mennesker, ulovlig migration og asylansøgninger på falsk grundlag samt bekæmpelse af terrorisme, uanset hvordan den opstår. Disse anliggender ligger øverst på den politiske dagsorden i Europa, og det er ofte disse anliggender, der mobiliserer størst politisk aktivitet, ikke sjældent på reaktionære og endog farlige måder. Farlige folkeforførere udnytter endda disse anliggender til at underminere det demokrati, der i nogle tilfælde for så kort tid siden er indført. Det er ikke svært at forstå, hvorfor disse trusler vækker vrede blandt befolkningen. Der er stadig en helt reel terrortrussel, som vi med stor sorg oplevede det i London i juli. I 2004 omfattede handelen med mennesker i Europa over 100.000 kvinder, og hvert år er der 8.000 personer, som dør af narkotikamisbrug på grund af den stigende kriminalitet og elendighed i hele Europa. Ulovlig migration og et kontrolsystem med alt for mange smuthuller vækker bekymring i alle byer i Europa."@da2 ". Herr Präsident! Zunächst einmal möchte ich mich für die Möglichkeit bedanken, hier im Parlament sprechen zu dürfen. Ich möchte die Gelegenheit nutzen, um das Konzept der britischen Regierung für die Ausübung des Vorsitzes im Rat „Justiz und Inneres“ darzulegen, den ich selbst und meine Kollegin Baroness Aston, die heute ebenfalls anwesend ist, übernehmen werden. Daher vertrete ich die Ansicht, dass die gesamte Europäische Union – aber insbesondere der Rat „Justiz und Inneres“ – der Behandlung dieser Fragen Vorrang einräumen und sie in praktischer und systematischer Weise angehen muss. Diese Überzeugung wird die Grundlage für die Arbeit der britischen Präsidentschaft bilden. In diesem Zusammenhang möchte ich drei grundsätzliche Konzepte vorschlagen. Das erste Konzept hat damit zu tun, dass in unserer globalisierten Welt diese Probleme von keinem Staat allein gelöst werden können, nicht einmal im eigenen Land. In einer Welt, in der jedes Jahr Millionen von Auslandsreisen unternommen und Millionen von wirtschaftlichen Transaktionen abgewickelt werden, kann man mit Vorstellungen wie der von der „splendid isolation“ oder blumigen Worten über die „weißen Klippen von Dover“ die internationale Kriminalität, der Terrorismus, die schwere und organisierte Kriminalität und die weltweiten Migrationsbewegungen keinesfalls in den Griff bekommen. Die Bekämpfung des Terrorismus und der schweren und organisierten Kriminalität erfordert nicht weniger, sondern mehr Zusammenarbeit auf europäischer Ebene. Fest steht, dass wir alle – auch in unseren eigenen Ländern – auf all diesen Gebieten am meisten erreichen werden, wenn wir Erfahrungen, Informationen und Ressourcen teilen, die Bedrohungen ausmachen und sie dann systematisch und kontinuierlich angehen. Ich möchte auf den nahe liegenden Punkt hinaus, dass diese Bedrohungen am besten auf internationaler Ebene bekämpft werden können. Denn in der Europäischen Union gibt es noch immer politische Parteien und andere Meinungsbildungsorgane, die der Ansicht sind, dass man sich vor solcherart Bedrohungen am besten durch die Errichtung immer höherer Zäune schützen kann. Dabei trifft doch genau das Gegenteil zu: Die besten Erfolgsaussichten bietet eine immer engere Zusammenarbeit. Der zweite Grundsatz, der unserem Konzept zugrunde liegen muss, ist die Verstärkung der Grundlagen für die praktische und pragmatische Arbeit der Polizeikräfte und der Geheimdienste. In allen angesprochenen Bereichen – organisierte Kriminalität, Terrorismus, Einwanderung und Asyl – haben wir bereits Maßnahmen auf europäischer Ebene ergriffen. So haben wir uns beispielsweise auf den Europäischen Haftbefehl sowie gemeinsame Strafbestimmungen und Tatbestände für Terrorismus, Menschenhandel und andere schwere Verbrechen geeinigt. Die polizeiliche und justizielle Zusammenarbeit ist geregelt, und wir haben zur Förderung dieser Zusammenarbeit die Behörden Europol und Eurojust eingerichtet. Des Weiteren haben wir die Reisefreiheit innerhalb der EU ausgebaut und die Europäische Agentur für die Außengrenzen gegründet. Wir können natürlich noch weitere Maßnahmen ergreifen und tun dies auch. So haben wir uns mit dem Haager Programm und dem Aktionsplan gegen den Terrorismus auf ein umfassendes Aktionsprogramm verständigt. Beide enthalten viele vernünftige und praktische Maßnahmen, die für unsere Bürger spürbare Verbesserungen bedeuten werden. Wenn wir zeigen wollen, was die Europäische Union wirklich wert ist, dann müssen wir jetzt zusammenarbeiten, um diesen Verpflichtungen auch gerecht zu werden. Ich möchte insbesondere darauf hinweisen, dass die Europäische Union praktische Unterstützung leisten muss bei nachrichtendienstlichen Operationen und der grenzüberschreitenden Strafverfolgung, bei der Bildung gemeinsamer Teams zur Bekämpfung des Drogen- und Menschenhandels, der Weitergabe von Informationen zur Erleichterung der Zusammenarbeit und der Entwicklung eines europäischen Modells für die kriminalistische „Intelligence“. Was den Bereich Migration und Asyl anbelangt, so hoffe ich, dass es uns während dieser Präsidentschaft gelingen wird, umfassende Rückübernahmeabkommen zwischen der Europäischen Union und bestimmten Ländern wie Russland, der Ukraine und Marokko zu schließen und erste regionale Schutzprogramme aufzustellen. Im Bereich der Ziviljustiz werden wir uns auf den Vorschlag zur leichteren Beilegung von Streitigkeiten mit geringem Streitwert und auf die Einführung eines einheitlichen europäischen Zahlungsbefehls sowie weitere Maßnahmen konzentrieren. Das alles sind wichtige praktische Schritte, die in diesem Parlament hoffentlich breite Unterstützung finden werden. Doch meines Erachtens stellt der dritte Grundsatz in unserer modernen Welt die größte Herausforderung dar. Dieser Grundsatz besagt, dass wir mit Informationen effektiv und klug umgehen müssen, um Kriminelle, die mit terroristischer Gewalt und schwerer und organisierter Kriminalität die Sicherheit und Stabilität unserer Gesellschaft bedrohen, aufzuspüren, zu verfolgen, zu identifizieren und zu verurteilen. Ich würde sogar noch weiter gehen: Nur durch einen effektiven und klugen Umgang mit Informationen können wir in unserer modernen Welt die uns bedrohende Kriminalität bekämpfen. Natürlich nutzen Kriminelle und Terroristen moderne Technologien wie das Internet und die Mobilkommunikation, um ihre Aktivitäten zu planen und auszuführen. Wir können sie nur wirksam bekämpfen, wenn wir den Inhalt ihrer Kommunikation kennen. Ohne dieses Wissen sind uns bei der Bekämpfung der Kriminalität die Hände gebunden. Natürlich wissen die Kriminellen das und organisieren sich ganz bewusst so, dass sie unsere Schwachstellen ausnutzen können. Ich möchte mit der Feststellung beginnen, dass die Europäische Union eine starke Triebkraft ist und viele positive Veränderungen bewirkt hat. Vor 35 Jahren, als ich noch Student war, kämpften wir für Demokratie auf diesem Kontinent, um die faschistischen und militärischen Diktaturen, die es damals in Griechenland, Spanien und Portugal gab, und die totalitären Diktaturen, die in jener Zeit in großen Teilen Ost- und Mitteleuropas herrschten, zu stürzen. Diese Kampagnen waren von Erfolg gekrönt, was auch – wie an dieser Stelle hervorgehoben werden sollte – für die Kampagnen in anderen Teilen der Welt, beispielsweise in Südafrika und Lateinamerika, gilt. Es mag vielleicht trivial sein darauf hinzuweisen, dass wir Informationen über die Bedrohungen, denen wir gegenüberstehen, sammeln und verarbeiten müssen. Das Europäische Parlament und die nationalen Parlamente in ganz Europa müssen allerdings endlich einsehen, dass der Rechtsrahmen, in dem wir uns derzeit bewegen, die Sammlung und Verwendung dieser Informationen sehr erschwert und bisweilen sogar unmöglich macht. Durch die Bestimmungen, denen derzeit unsere Strafverfolgungsbehörden unterliegen, wird ihre Fähigkeit, uns vor Kriminellen zu schützen, beträchtlich eingeschränkt. Bei Operationen der Strafverfolgungsbehörden sind Informationen das A und O, denn erst dadurch können unsere Polizeikräfte und Agenturen Verbrechen verhindern, wobei es darum geht, so wenig wie möglich in unseren Alltag einzugreifen. Zur Bekämpfung der organisierten Kriminalität und zur Verhinderung terroristischer Anschläge müssen sie über die Identität der Kriminellen, ihre Aktivitäten, ihren Aufenthaltsort und ihre Kommunikationsmittel im Bilde sein. Oft fügt sich dieses Bild allerdings erst zusammen, nachdem sich bereits ein Vorfall ereignet hat. Wenn wir jedoch kriminelle Gruppen in effektiver Weise enttarnen sollen, dann ist die Analyse von nachrichtendienstlichen Erkenntnissen und Informationen unabdingbar, damit wir unsere Anstrengungen auf die gefährlichsten Kriminellen konzentrieren können. Diese Notwendigkeit spiegelt sich jedoch nicht immer in den Bestimmungen wider, die für unsere Polizeikräfte gelten. Wir führen hier keine nutzlose Grundsatzdebatte, sondern eine Aussprache über praktische Maßnahmen zur Bekämpfung der Kriminalität und unserer Gegner. Deshalb hat die britische Präsidentschaft – in Anlehnung an die Vorschläge im Haager Programm – Vorschläge zur Speicherung von Telekommunikationsdaten sowie zur Einführung des Schengener Informationssystems der zweiten Generation und des neuen Visainformationssystems auf die Agenda gesetzt. Daher setzen wir uns dafür ein, dass international einheitliche und kohärente biometrische Daten automatisch Bestandteil unserer Visa, Pässe und – sofern vorhanden – Personalausweise werden, und ich würde sogar den Führerschein noch mit dazu nehmen. Aus diesem Grund werden wir unermüdlich daran arbeiten, mit unseren internationalen Partnern, darunter den USA, eine Einigung über die besten Maßnahmen für einen international einheitlichen Umgang mit Fluggastdaten zu erzielen. All dies sind wichtige und schwierige Maßnahmen. Sie können nur im Rahmen internationaler Abkommen verwirklicht werden, was insbesondere für die Europäische Union und ihre internationalen Partner gilt. All diese Maßnahmen erfordern nüchterne Diskussionen und praktische Übereinkommen. Die Präsidentschaft ist sich bewusst, dass die Befürworter von Veränderungen – wie die britische Regierung – bei der Erörterung von Vorschlägen in diesem Bereich überzeugend darlegen müssen, dass derartige Maßnahmen bei der praktischen Bekämpfung der Kriminalität wirklich von Vorteil sind, was meiner Meinung nach der Fall ist. Deshalb lege ich heute – wie ich dem Ausschuss für bürgerliche Freiheiten, Justiz und Inneres im Juli in Brüssel versprochen habe – eine Begründung für einige dieser Maßnahmen vor, insbesondere was die Speicherung von Telekommunikationsdaten angeht. Ich hoffe, dass sich das Parlament unsere Begründung genau anschauen wird. Meine Kollegen im Rat „Justiz und Inneres“ werden diese Fragen auf dem informellen Treffen des Rates Ende dieser Woche in Newcastle sorgfältig prüfen. Meiner Meinung nach sollten wir jedoch bei der gemeinsamen Betrachtung dieser Fragen nicht die überaus wichtige Tatsache vergessen, dass wir jetzt viele hart erkämpfte Rechte wie das Recht auf Privatsphäre, das Recht auf Eigentum, das Recht auf freie Meinungsäußerung, das Recht auf Reisefreiheit und das Recht auf Leben besitzen. Diese Rechte werden durch die Aktivitäten von Kriminellen und Terroristen bedroht. Wir haben die Verantwortung und die Pflicht, diese Rechte unserer Bürger durch praktische Maßnahmen zu schützen. Bei der Prüfung der Frage, wie dies am besten bewerkstelligt werden kann, müssen einzelne Rechte zwangsläufig stets gegeneinander abgewogen werden. In allen Fällen kommt es jedoch darauf an, dass die Maßnahmen verhältnismäßig sind und ein effektiver Schutz vor Missbrauch besteht. Ich vertrete die Auffassung, dass unsere Vorschläge diesen Erfordernissen gerecht werden. Ich möchte hier nur als Beispiel die Speicherung von Telekommunikationsdaten anführen. Diese Maßnahme hat sich bei der laufenden Untersuchung der Londoner Anschläge als äußerst wertvoll erwiesen und war in Großbritannien in vielen Fällen für die häufig erst Monate oder Jahre später erfolgende Aufklärung von Verbrechen unabdingbar. Anbieter von Telekommunikationsdiensten speichern bereits viele Informationen für geschäftliche Zwecke, doch in einigen Ländern sehen sie sich aufgrund der dortigen Datenschutzbestimmungen gezwungen, Daten zu löschen, die keinem geschäftlichen Zweck dienen. Das bedeutet, dass die Ergreifung eines Mörders oder die Verhinderung eines Terroranschlags davon abhängen kann, welche Mobilfunkgesellschaft ein Opfer, Verdächtiger oder Zeuge in Anspruch nimmt oder genommen hat bzw. in welchem EU-Land er sich aufhielt. Seitdem haben 11 der 25 gegenwärtigen EU-Mitgliedstaaten den Übergang zur Demokratie und den Weg zur Vollmitgliedschaft in der Europäischen Union geschafft. Dies ist eine großartige Leistung, die es stets aufs Neue zu würdigen gilt. Einige vertreten die Ansicht, dass die von Telekommunikationsunternehmen geforderte Speicherung von Rechnungsdaten eine Verletzung der Privatsphäre darstellt bzw. dadurch den Unternehmen unangemessene Kosten aufgebürdet werden. In Großbritannien haben wir jedoch in Zusammenarbeit mit einem großen Anbieter erfolgreich ein System entwickelt, mit dem für 1,2 Millionen Euro wichtige Daten bis zu zwölf Monate gespeichert werden können. Verglichen mit den durchschnittlichen Kosten für die gerichtsmedizinische Untersuchung bei einem einzigen Mordfall, die sich auf mehr als 0,5 Millionen Euro belaufen, sind diese Kosten für den Staat doch recht annehmbar. Andere sind der Meinung, dass wir zu viele Daten anfordern. So sollte beispielsweise nicht verlangt werden, dass nicht angenommene Anrufe gespeichert werden. Oftmals handelt es sich hierbei jedoch um Daten, die von den Unternehmen bereits für ihre eigenen Zwecke erfasst wurden. Wir fordern doch nur, dass diese Daten gespeichert und den Strafverfolgungsbehörden gemäß einzelstaatlichem Recht zur Verfügung gestellt werden. Möglicherweise steckt dahinter die generelle Sorge, dass der Vorschlag einen unangemessenen Eingriff in die Privatsphäre mit sich bringt oder eine unverhältnismäßige Maßnahme darstellt. Ich denke nicht, dass dies zutrifft, denn in vielen Fällen – einige davon habe ich in dem Dokument beschrieben, das ich verteilt habe – konnte dem Opfer nur durch die Speicherung von Telekommunikationsdaten zu seinem Recht auf Gerechtigkeit verholfen werden. Zugleich wird das Schengener Informationssystem der nächsten Generation unseren Strafverfolgungsbehörden die Möglichkeit eröffnen, Informationen über einzelne Personen, die per Haftbefehl gesucht werden oder denen die Einreise in die Europäische Union zu verwehren ist, sowie Informationen über verlorene und gestohlene Dokumente bzw. andere Gegenstände auszutauschen. Das ist ein wichtiges Instrument, um unsere kollektive Sicherheit zu gewährleisten und unsere Rechte zu schützen. Zudem werden sich die neuen Mitgliedstaaten ohne die Einführung eines neuen Systems außerstande sehen, ihre Binnengrenzen zu anderen Schengen-Staaten abzubauen. In den nächsten Monaten werden der Rat und das Europäische Parlament zusammenarbeiten müssen, um sich auf einen Rechtsrahmen für das System zu verständigen. Meiner Meinung nach müssen wir hier schnell handeln, damit das System Anfang 2007 eingeführt werden kann. Wir müssen alle davon überzeugt sein, dass wir das richtige Gleichgewicht zwischen unserer kollektiven Sicherheit und unseren Grundrechten gefunden haben. Dabei müssen wir uns sicher sein, dass wir gründlich geprüft haben, ob das Schengener Informationssystem II ein Kontrollsystem sein sollte oder ob es nicht effektiver als Werkzeug bei der Strafverfolgung genutzt werden kann. Bei unserer Entscheidung sollten wir abwägen, welche bürgerlichen Freiheiten eingeschränkt werden und inwieweit ein höheres Maß an Sicherheit erreicht wird, um zu gewährleisten, dass jegliche Änderungen verhältnismäßig und vernünftig sind. Das gilt auch für das Visainformationssystem, denn hier müssen wir einerseits sicherstellen, dass die Bürger ihr legitimes Recht auf Reisefreiheit ausüben können, andererseits müssen wir aber auch dafür sorgen, dass diejenigen abgeschreckt werden, die unsere Freiheiten missbrauchen. So kommt es immer häufiger vor, dass sich Personen mehrere Identitäten zulegen, um ihre Spuren zu verwischen. Die Biometrie stellt das effektivste Mittel dar, um die Identität einer Person festzustellen. Daher wird eine umfangreiche Datenbank mit Visaanträgen und den biometrischen Daten aller Antragsteller dazu beitragen, dass ehrliche Reisende ihre Identität leicht nachweisen und ungehinderter reisen können. Die Staaten wüssten dann immer genau Bescheid, wer in die Europäische Union einreist bzw. wieder ausreist, wobei sie sich sicher sein könnten, dass diese Personen auch berechtigt dazu sind. Die Verwendung biometrischer Daten würde uns ferner die Möglichkeit geben, die Identität und das Herkunftsland von Personen zu ermitteln, die ihre Dokumente vernichtet oder ihre Aufenthaltsdauer überschritten haben. Der Rat und das Europäische Parlament werden eng zusammenarbeiten müssen, damit eine Einigung in Bezug auf die Verordnung über das Visainformationssystem zustande kommt und diese dann auch verabschiedet wird. Der Rat setzt sich dafür ein, dass das System ab Anfang 2006 in den Konsulaten genutzt werden kann. Da die Ausstattung der Arbeitsplätze und die Schulung der Mitarbeiter eine lange Vorbereitungszeit erfordert, muss diese Verordnung unbedingt so schnell wie möglich verabschiedet werden. Jedes dieser Beispiele bezieht sich auf eine praktische Maßnahme, die zur Erhöhung der Sicherheit beiträgt und die praktischen Vorteile der Zusammenarbeit belegt. In jedem Fall wird dadurch der Informationsaustausch verbessert. Diese Maßnahmen werden nicht – wie einige vorgebracht haben – zu einer massenhaften Beobachtung unserer Bürger oder zu einem unnötigen Eingriff in ihre Privatsphäre führen. Natürlich haben sich unsere Gesellschaften in den letzten Jahren in wirtschaftlicher, sozialer und technologischer Hinsicht stark verändert. So hat sich die Bevölkerungsstruktur in unseren Gemeinden gewandelt, wobei innerhalb der Union große Unterschiede auftreten und in vielen Gemeinden Menschen zusammenleben, die unterschiedlichen Rassen und Glaubensgemeinschaften angehören und ihre eigene Geschichte besitzen. Ich kann jedoch die Bedenken verstehen, dass Daten missbraucht oder einige Personen falsch identifiziert werden könnten. Daher müssen wir sicherstellen, dass in jedem Fall eine eindeutige Rechtsgrundlage für den Informationsaustausch vorhanden ist und dass in diesen Rechtsvorschriften angemessene Schutzklauseln gegen Missbrauch vorgesehen sind. Natürlich stellen die von mir erläuterten Vorschläge eine enorme Aufgabe für die Präsidentschaft dar, und wir werden unser Bestes tun, um diese Aufgabe zu meistern. Ich möchte jedoch im Namen der britischen Regierung auch darauf hinweisen, dass unserer Meinung nach sehr sorgfältig geprüft werden muss, wie sich die Rechtsprechung in Bezug auf die Anwendung der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention entwickelt. Die Konvention, die vor mehr als 50 Jahren in einem völlig anderen internationalen Klima ausgearbeitet wurde, hat auf dem gesamten Kontinent große Fortschritte im Bereich der Menschenrechte bewirkt. Diese Errungenschaften dürfen nicht ausgehöhlt, sondern müssen gefördert und weiterentwickelt werden. Ich vertrete allerdings auch die Ansicht, dass bei der Weiterentwicklung dieser Menschenrechte unbedingt wesentliche Rechte des Einzelnen gegen das kollektive Recht auf Schutz vor terroristischer Gewalt abgewogen werden müssen. Bei der Stärkung der Menschenrechte müssen wir alle die Tatsache berücksichtigen und akzeptieren, dass neben dem Recht auf Schutz vor Folter und Misshandlungen zugleich auch das Recht auf Schutz vor Tod und Zerstörung durch willkürliche terroristische Gewalt, die zuweilen von Drittstaatsangehörigen ausgeübt, geplant oder gefördert wird, Berücksichtigung finden muss. Es ist schwierig, in dieser Frage das richtige Maß zu finden, und daher müssen wir Politiker unsere Bürger, die uns alle hier gewählt haben, fragen, wo wir die Grenze ziehen sollten. Ich denke, dass sie von uns nicht nur erwarten, dass wir ihre individuellen Rechte bewahren, sondern auch, dass demokratische Werte wie Sicherheit gesetzlich geschützt sind. Meine Regierung vertritt die Auffassung, dass in Anbetracht des heutigen Umfelds, das sich sehr stark von dem der Gründungsväter der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention unterscheidet, nicht das richtige Gleichgewicht besteht und insofern eine gründliche Überprüfung erforderlich ist. Ich werde mit meinen Kollegen im Rat „Justiz und Inneres“ erörtern, wie wir diese Fragen in Einklang mit unseren internationalen Verpflichtungen am besten angehen könnten. Ich bin der festen Überzeugung, dass die Völker dieses Kontinents die Gewissheit haben möchten, dass die Rechtsvorschriften zum Schutz der Menschenrechte so angewendet werden müssen, dass die Rechte aller unserer Bürger in ausgewogener und vernünftiger Weise geschützt werden, und ich vertrete die Meinung, dass wir darüber offen diskutieren müssen. Abschließend möchte ich hinzufügen, dass das zweifache „Nein“ zur Verfassung von all denjenigen, die an das Europäische Aufbauwerk glauben und dieses Projekt unterstützen, als Weckruf verstanden werden sollte, sich auf die wirklich wichtigen Dinge zu konzentrieren. Das Recht auf Sicherheit liegt all unseren Bürgern sehr am Herzen. Hier können wir zeigen, dass Europa unseren Bürgern wirklich zum Vorteil gereichen kann und dies auch tut. Wir in der Europäischen Union müssen diese Herausforderung meistern. Gerade in diesem Bereich dürfen wir sie nicht enttäuschen. Doch trotz alledem sind wir meiner Meinung nach verpflichtet, eine Gesellschaft zu fördern, in der jeder Einzelne, jede Kultur, jede Glaubensrichtung und jede Rasse wirklich geachtet werden. Es ist unsere Pflicht, die Anschauung zu verbreiten, dass nicht Gewalt, sondern Demokratie das Mittel ist, um Änderungen zu bewirken und unsere Staaten zu regieren. Wir müssen unsere Werte wie Achtung, Toleranz, Freiheit und Demokratie gegenüber allen Personen verteidigen, die diese zerstören und durch eine andere Doktrin ersetzen möchten, insbesondere wenn sie zu gewaltsamen Mitteln greifen, um ihre Sache voranzutreiben. Dies gehört zwar bereits zur Geschichte der Europäischen Union, sollte aber auch in Zukunft eines ihrer tragenden Elemente sein. Wenn wir in die Zukunft blicken, müssen wir uns eingestehen, dass viele unserer Bürger – trotz der ausgezeichneten Bilanz – der Europäischen Union noch immer sehr skeptisch gegenüberstehen, was sogar so weit führte, dass in einigen Ländern bei den Referenden die vorgeschlagene neue Verfassung abgelehnt wurde, und zwar in einer Art und Weise, die auf tief sitzende Befürchtungen schließen lässt. Meiner Meinung nach liegt ein wichtiger Grund für diese Zweifel darin, dass die Europäische Union offenbar der Suche nach praktischen Lösungen, mit denen zumindest einige der Probleme, die die Bürger am stärksten beunruhigen, gelöst werden können, keine ausreichende Priorität einräumt. Ich nenne an dieser Stelle insbesondere die schwere und organisierte Kriminalität, einschließlich Drogen- und Menschenhandel, die illegale Einwanderung und das Stellen von Asylanträgen unter Vorspiegelung falscher Tatsachen sowie die Bekämpfung des Terrorismus, ganz gleich welche Ursache er hat. Diese Fragen stehen überall in Europa ganz oben auf der politischen Agenda und wirken häufig als stärkste Antriebskraft für politische Aktivitäten reaktionärer und sogar gefährlicher Art. Zudem können diese Themen von übel gesinnten Demagogen dazu missbraucht werden, die Demokratie selbst auszuhöhlen, die ja in einigen Ländern erst vor so kurzer Zeit Fuß gefasst hat. Es ist durchaus zu verstehen, warum diese Bedrohungen unter unseren Völkern Ängste schüren. Denn wie die tragischen Vorfälle im Juli in London gezeigt haben, stellt die terroristische Bedrohung nach wie vor eine sehr reale Gefahr dar. Zudem wurde im Jahre 2004 in der Europäische Union mit über 100 000 Frauen Menschenhandel betrieben, und jedes Jahr sterben mehr als 8 000 Menschen an übermäßigem Drogenkonsum, während gleichzeitig in allen Teilen des Kontinents die Kriminalität und das Elend zunehmen. Die illegale Einwanderung und ein zu lasches Kontrollsystem lösen in jeder Stadt Besorgnis aus."@de9 "Κύριε Πρόεδρε, θα ήθελα να ξεκινήσω ευχαριστώντας σας για την ευκαιρία που μου δόθηκε να απευθυνθώ στο Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο. Δράττομαι της ευκαιρίας για να εκθέσω την προσέγγιση που θα ακολουθήσει η βρετανική κυβέρνηση κατά τη διάρκεια της Προεδρίας του Συμβουλίου Δικαιοσύνης και Εσωτερικών Υποθέσεων, την οποία θα αναλάβουμε εγώ και η συνάδελφός μου Βαρόνη Ashton, η οποία βρίσκεται μαζί μου σήμερα. Πιστεύω, ως εκ τούτου, ότι το σύνολο της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης –αλλά ιδίως το Συμβούλιο Δικαιοσύνης και Εσωτερικών Υποθέσεων– πρέπει να δώσει πραγματική προτεραιότητα στην αντιμετώπιση αυτών των θεμάτων με πρακτικό και συστηματικό τρόπο. Αυτή η πεποίθηση θα δώσει τον τόνο της βρετανικής Προεδρίας. Σε αυτήν την κατεύθυνση προτείνω τρεις θεμελιώδεις προσεγγίσεις. Η πρώτη είναι ότι στον παγκοσμιοποιημένο κόσμο μας, κανένα κράτος δεν μπορεί να αντιμετωπίσει αυτά τα προβλήματα μόνο του, ακόμα και μέσα στην ίδια του τη χώρα. Σε ένα κόσμο με εκατομμύρια διεθνείς μετακινήσεις και οικονομικές συναλλαγές κάθε χρόνο, ιδέες για «καταπληκτική απομόνωση» ή ρητορική περί των Λευκών Βράχων του Ντόβερ δεν μπορούν να κάνουν τίποτα για να αντιμετωπίσουν τη διεθνή εγκληματικότητα, την τρομοκρατία ή το σοβαρό και οργανωμένο έγκλημα ή να αντιμετωπίσουν μορφές διεθνούς μετανάστευσης. Η ανάγκη για καταπολέμηση της τρομοκρατίας και του σοβαρού και οργανωμένου εγκλήματος σημαίνει ότι χρειαζόμαστε περισσότερη ευρωπαϊκή συνεργασία και όχι λιγότερη. Η αλήθεια είναι ότι σε καθέναν από αυτούς τους τομείς μπορούμε όλοι, ακόμα και μέσα στην ίδια μας τη χώρα, να επιτύχουμε περισσότερα με το να μοιραζόμαστε εμπειρίες, πληροφορίες και πόρους και να αναγνωρίζουμε και να αντιμετωπίζουμε τις απειλές συστηματικά και σταθερά. Καταθέτω την προφανή άποψη ότι αυτές οι απειλές αντιμετωπίζονται καλύτερα διεθνώς, καθώς υπάρχουν ακόμα πολιτικά κόμματα και άλλα όργανα γνώμης εντός της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης που πιστεύουν ότι η προστασία από αυτού του είδους τις απειλές μπορεί να εξασφαλιστεί καλύτερα με την κατασκευή παραπετασμάτων μεταξύ μας, ενώ η αλήθεια είναι η αντίθετη – οι καλύτερες πιθανότητες επιτυχίας βρίσκονται στην ολοένα και στενότερη συνεργασία. Η δεύτερη αρχή που πρέπει να διέπει την προσέγγισή μας είναι η ενδυνάμωση των θεμελίων της πρακτικής και πραγματικής εργασίας στον τομέα της αστυνομίας και των πληροφοριών. Σε καθέναν από αυτούς τους τομείς –οργανωμένο έγκλημα, τρομοκρατία, μετανάστευση, άσυλο– έχουμε ήδη αναλάβει δράση σε επίπεδο Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Για παράδειγμα, έχουμε συμφωνήσει για το ευρωπαϊκό ένταλμα σύλληψης, για κοινούς κανόνες για ποινές και ορισμούς για την τρομοκρατία, τη διακίνηση ανθρώπων και άλλα σοβαρά εγκλήματα. Έχουμε κανόνες για την αστυνομική και τη δικαστική συνεργασία και έχουμε ιδρύσει την Ευρωπόλ και την Eurojust ώστε να στηρίζουν τη δουλειά τους. Έχουμε επίσης ενισχύσει την ελευθερία διακίνησης εντός της ΕΕ και έχουμε ιδρύσει την Υπηρεσία Ευρωπαϊκών Συνόρων. Υπάρχουν, φυσικά, περισσότερα που μπορούμε να κάνουμε και κάνουμε. Έχουμε συμφωνήσει σε ένα περιεκτικό πρόγραμμα δράσης στο Πρόγραμμα της Χάγης και το Σχέδιο Δράσης κατά της Τρομοκρατίας. Αυτά περιέχουν πολλά λογικά, πρακτικά μέτρα που θα κάνουν τη διαφορά για τους πολίτες μας. Εάν επιθυμούμε να δείξουμε την πραγματική αξία της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, πρέπει τώρα να εργαστούμε μαζί ώστε να εκπληρώσουμε αυτές τις υποσχέσεις. Θα ήθελα, συγκεκριμένα, να υπογραμμίσω την ανάγκη για πρακτική στήριξη από την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση επιχειρήσεων που θα στηρίζονται στη συλλογή πληροφοριών και στις διασυνοριακές διώξεις ανάπτυξη κοινών ομάδων για την καταπολέμηση του εμπορίου ναρκωτικών και της διακίνησης ανθρώπων, ανταλλαγή πληροφοριών για να διευκολυνθεί η κοινή εργασία και ανάπτυξη ενός ευρωπαϊκού μοντέλου συγκέντρωσης πληροφοριών ποινικού ενδιαφέροντος. Στον τομέα της μετανάστευσης και του ασύλου, ελπίζω ότι κατά τη διάρκεια αυτής της Προεδρίας θα επιτύχουμε να εξασφαλίσουμε σημαντικές συμφωνίες επανεισδοχής μεταξύ της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και ορισμένων χωρών, όπως η Ρωσία, η Ουκρανία το Μαρόκο και να αναπτύξουμε πιλοτικά περιφερειακά προγράμματα προστασίας. Στον τομέα της πολιτικής δικαιοσύνης, θα επικεντρωθούμε στην πρόταση διευκόλυνσης της ικανοποίησης των μικρών αξιώσεων και δημιουργίας ενός κοινού ευρωπαϊκού τρόπου πληρωμών καθώς και σε άλλα μέτρα. Αυτά είναι όλα σημαντικά πρακτικά βήματα που ελπίζω να τύχουν ευρείας υποστήριξης από το Κοινοβούλιο. Αλλά η τρίτη αρχή είναι πιστεύω εκείνη που αποτελεί την πιο μεγάλη πρόκληση στη σύγχρονη εκδοχή της. Αυτή η αρχή είναι ότι χρειάζεται να χρησιμοποιήσουμε τις υπηρεσίες πληροφοριών αποτελεσματικά και έξυπνα ώστε να εντοπίσουμε, να ανακαλύψουμε, να αναγνωρίσουμε και να καταδικάσουμε τους εγκληματίες οι οποίοι, μέσω της τρομοκρατικής βίας και του σοβαρού και οργανωμένου εγκλήματος, απειλούν την ασφάλεια και τη δύναμη της κοινωνίας μας. Στην πραγματικότητα, θα πήγαινα λίγο παραπέρα: μόνο μέσω της αποτελεσματικής και έξυπνης χρήσης των υπηρεσιών πληροφοριών στους σύγχρονους καιρούς που ζούμε μπορούμε να ανταγωνιστούμε την εγκληματικότητα που μας επιτίθεται. Φυσικά, οι εγκληματίες και οι τρομοκράτες χρησιμοποιούν σύγχρονη τεχνολογία –το Διαδίκτυο και τις κινητές τηλεπικοινωνίες– για να σχεδιάσουν και να φέρουν εις πέρας τις δραστηριότητές τους. Μπορούμε να τους ανταγωνιστούμε αποτελεσματικά μόνο εάν γνωρίζουμε τις επικοινωνίες τους. Χωρίς αυτή τη γνώση, παλεύουμε μαζί τους με τα χέρια μας δεμένα πίσω από την πλάτη. Φυσικά, οι εγκληματίες το γνωρίζουν αυτό και οργανώνονται ενεργά και συνειδητά ώστε να εκμεταλλευθούν τις αδυναμίες μας. Ξεκινώ από την πρόταση ότι η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση είναι μια τεράστια δύναμη του καλού. Πριν από τριάντα πέντε χρόνια, όταν ήμουν φοιτητής, αγωνιζόμασταν για τη δημοκρατία σε αυτή την ήπειρο, ώστε να απομακρύνουμε τις φασιστικές ή στρατιωτικές δικτατορίες που υπήρχαν τότε στην Ελλάδα, την Ισπανία και την Πορτογαλία και τα απολυταρχικά καθεστώτα που κυβερνούσαν το μεγαλύτερο μέρος της κεντρικής και ανατολικής Ευρώπης. Εκείνοι οι αγώνες πέτυχαν όπως επίσης, είναι άξιο μνείας, πέτυχαν οι αγώνες σε άλλα μέρη του κόσμου, για παράδειγμα, τη Νότιο Αφρική και τη Λατινική Αμερική. Ίσως είναι προφανής η δήλωση ότι χρειάζεται να συγκεντρώσουμε και να χρησιμοποιήσουμε τις πληροφορίες που συγκεντρώνουν οι υπηρεσίες ενάντια στις απειλές που αντιμετωπίζουμε. Αλλά, το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο και τα εθνικά κοινοβούλια σε όλη την Ευρώπη πρέπει να αντιμετωπίσουν το γεγονός ότι το νομικό πλαίσιο εντός του οποίου ενεργούμε τώρα κάνει τη συλλογή και χρήση αυτών των πληροφοριών πολύ δύσκολη και σε μερικές περιπτώσεις ακατόρθωτη. Οι κανόνες που διέπουν τώρα τα σώματα επιβολής της τάξης εμποδίζουν σοβαρά την ικανότητά τους να μας προστατεύσουν από τους εγκληματίες. Οι πληροφορίες είναι η ψυχή των επιχειρήσεων επιβολής της τάξης και αυτές οι πληροφορίες επιτρέπουν στην αστυνομία και τις υπηρεσίες μας να αποτρέπουν εγκλήματα με τον ελάχιστο αντίκτυπο στην καθημερινή μας ζωή. Για να αντιμετωπίσουν το οργανωμένο έγκλημα και να σταματήσουν τις τρομοκρατικές ομάδες πριν εκτελέσουν τις δραστηριότητές τους, χρειάζονται μια καθαρή εικόνα του ποιοι είναι οι εγκληματίες, τι κάνουν, πού βρίσκονται και πώς επικοινωνούν μεταξύ τους. Αυτή η εικόνα συμπληρώνεται συχνά μετά το αδίκημα. Αλλά εάν επιθυμούμε να είμαστε αποτελεσματικοί στη διάλυση των ομάδων οργανωμένου εγκλήματος πρέπει να αναλύσουμε τις πληροφορίες που συλλέγουν οι υπηρεσίες μας ώστε να μπορέσουμε να επικεντρώσουμε τις προσπάθειές μας στους πιο επικίνδυνους εγκληματίες. Ωστόσο, αυτή η ανάγκη δεν αντικατοπτρίζεται πάντοτε στους κανόνες που εφαρμόζουμε στην αστυνομία μας. Δεν πρόκειται για έναν στείρο διάλογο περί αρχών, πρόκειται για πρακτικά μέτρα για να ανταγωνιστούμε την εγκληματικότητα και τους αντιπάλους μας. Για αυτόν τον λόγο, η βρετανική Προεδρία, ακολουθώντας τις προτάσεις του Προγράμματος της Χάγης, έχει εγγράψει στην ημερήσια διάταξη προτάσεις σχετικά με τη διατήρηση των στοιχείων των τηλεπικοινωνιών, την εφαρμογή ενός δεύτερης γενιάς Συστήματος Πληροφοριών Σένγκεν και τη θέση σε ισχύ ενός νέου συστήματος πληροφοριών για τις θεωρήσεις. Για αυτόν τον λόγο επιμένουμε ότι τα διεθνή συνεπή και εμπεριστατωμένα βιομετρικά χαρακτηριστικά θα πρέπει να αποτελούν αυτομάτως τμήμα των θεωρήσεων, των διαβατηρίων και των αστυνομικών μας ταυτοτήτων όπου υπάρχουν και θα πρότεινα ακόμα και των διπλωμάτων οδήγησης. Για αυτόν τον λόγο θα εργαστούμε σθεναρά ώστε να συμφωνήσουμε με τους διεθνείς εταίρους μας, συμπεριλαμβανομένων των Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών, τα βέλτιστα μέτρα για συνεπή διεθνή χρήση των στοιχείων επιβατών. Αυτά είναι όλα σημαντικά και δύσκολα μέτρα. Μπορούν μόνο να επιτευχθούν μέσω διεθνών συμφωνιών, ιδίως στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και ανάμεσα στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και τους εταίρους της ανά τον κόσμο. Όλα απαιτούν δύσκολες συζητήσεις και πρακτικές συμφωνίες. Η παρούσα Προεδρία αποδέχεται ότι, κατά την εξέταση των προτάσεων στους εν λόγω τομείς είναι υποχρέωση εκείνων που συνηγορούν υπέρ των αλλαγών, όπως η βρετανική κυβέρνηση να διασφαλίσουν ότι τέτοιου είδους μέτρα έχουν τα πρακτικά πλεονεκτήματα για την καταπολέμηση της τρομοκρατίας που εγώ πιστεύω ότι έχουν. Για αυτόν τον λόγο, δημοσιεύω σήμερα, όπως υποσχέθηκα τον Ιούλιο στις Βρυξέλλες στην Επιτροπή Ελευθεριών και Δικαιωμάτων των Πολιτών ότι θα έκανα, μια αιτιολόγηση ορισμένων από αυτά τα μέτρα, ιδίως εκείνων που σχετίζονται με τη διατήρηση των στοιχείων των τηλεπικοινωνιών. Ελπίζω ότι το Κοινοβούλιο θα εξετάσει πιο προσεκτικά τις προτάσεις μας. Οι συνάδελφοί μου στο Συμβούλιο Δικαιοσύνης και Εσωτερικών Υποθέσεων θα εξετάσουν αυτά τα θέματα προσεκτικά στην άτυπη σύνοδο του Συμβουλίου στο Newcastle την άλλη εβδομάδα. Αλλά πιστεύω ότι το κεντρικό σημείο που θα πρέπει να θυμόμαστε, καθώς εξετάζουμε αυτά τα θέματα μαζί, είναι ότι τώρα έχουμε πολλά δικαιώματα για τα οποία αγωνιστήκαμε σκληρά όπως το δικαίωμα στην ιδιωτική ζωή, το δικαίωμα στην ιδιοκτησία, το δικαίωμα στην ελεύθερη έκφραση, το δικαίωμα να ταξιδεύουμε και το δικαίωμα στη ζωή. Αυτά τα δικαιώματα απειλούνται ενεργά από εγκληματίες και τρομοκράτες. Έχουμε καθήκον και ευθύνη να τα διαφυλάξουμε για τους πολίτες μας μέσω πρακτικών μέτρων. Καθώς εξετάζουμε τον καλύτερο τρόπο για να το επιτύχουμε, τα δικαιώματα θα πρέπει πάντα να είναι αμετάβλητα και ισορροπημένα. Αυτό που μετρά στην κάθε περίπτωση είναι ότι τα βήματα είναι ανάλογα και ότι η προστασία ενάντια στην κατάχρηση είναι αποτελεσματική. Πιστεύω ότι οι προτάσεις μας το προσφέρουν αυτό. Επιτρέψτε μου να παραθέσω απλώς το παράδειγμα της διατήρησης των στοιχείων των τηλεπικοινωνιών. Αυτό έχει αποδειχθεί υπερπολύτιμο στις τρέχουσες ανακρίσεις για τις επιθέσεις στο Λονδίνο και σε πολλές περιπτώσεις στο ΗΒ έχει αποδειχθεί ουσιώδες στη διαλεύκανση εγκλημάτων, συχνά μήνες ή και χρόνια από τότε που διαπράχθηκαν. Οι παροχείς τηλεπικοινωνιακών υπηρεσιών διατηρούν ήδη πολλές πληροφορίες για εμπορικούς σκοπούς, αλλά οι υποχρεώσεις αναφορικά με την προστασία δεδομένων σε μερικές χώρες τους πιέζουν να διαγράψουν δεδομένα που δεν προορίζονται για εμπορικούς σκοπούς. Αυτό σημαίνει ότι το να συλλάβεις ένα δολοφόνο ή να σταματήσεις μια τρομοκρατική επίθεση μπορεί να εξαρτάται από το ποια εταιρεία κινητής τηλεφωνίας χρησιμοποιεί ή χρησιμοποιούσε ένα θύμα, ένας ύποπτος ή ένας μάρτυρας, ή σε ποια χώρα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης βρίσκονταν. Πράγματι, 11 από τα 25 τωρινά κράτη μέλη της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης έγιναν έκτοτε δημοκρατικά κράτη, πλήρη μέλη της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Είναι ένα καταπληκτικό κατόρθωμα που θα πρέπει να συνεχίζουμε να το γιορτάζουμε. Κάποιοι υποστηρίζουν ότι το να απαιτείται από τις εταιρείες τηλεπικοινωνιών να διατηρούν δεδομένα τα οποία χρησιμοποιούν για σκοπούς χρέωσης είναι μια εισβολή στην ιδιωτική ζωή ή ότι συνεπάγεται υπέρμετρος κόστος για τις επιχειρήσεις. Ωστόσο, στο Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο, έχουμε δημιουργήσει με επιτυχία ένα σύστημα, σε συνεργασία με ένα μεγάλο παροχέα υπηρεσιών, ώστε να διατηρούμε σημαντικά δεδομένα για διάστημα έως δώδεκα μηνών με κόστος 1,2 εκατομμύρια ευρώ. Εν συγκρίσει με το μέσο κόστος της εγκληματολογικής εργασίας για μια απλή υπόθεση δολοφονίας που είναι μεγαλύτερο από 0,5 εκατομμύρια ευρώ, αυτό είναι ένα αποδεκτό κόστος για το κράτος. Άλλοι ισχυρίζονται ότι ζητάμε πάρα πολλά δεδομένα, για παράδειγμα, ότι δεν θα έπρεπε να υπάρχει απαίτηση διατήρησης των αναπάντητων κλήσεων. Σε πολλές περιπτώσεις, ωστόσο, αυτά είναι δεδομένα που έχουν συλλεχθεί από τις εταιρίες για τους δικούς τους σκοπούς. Αυτό που ζητάμε είναι να διατηρούνται και να είναι διαθέσιμα στις αρχές επιβολής του νόμου βάσει του εθνικού δικαίου. Υπάρχει, ίσως, ένας γενικότερος σκεπτικισμός ότι η πρόταση είναι μια αδικαιολόγητη παραβίαση της ιδιωτικής ζωής ή ότι είναι δυσανάλογη. Δεν πιστεύω ότι είναι, καθώς σε πολλές περιπτώσεις, κάποιες από τις οποίες έχω συμπεριλάβει στο έγγραφο που έχει διανεμηθεί, το δικαίωμα του θύματος για απόδοση δικαιοσύνης διασφαλίστηκε μόνο μέσω της διατήρησης των στοιχείων των τηλεπικοινωνιών. Ομοίως, με το Σύστημα Πληροφοριών Σένγκεν, η επόμενη γενιά επιτρέπει στις υπηρεσίες επιβολής της τάξης να ανταλλάσσουν πληροφορίες για άτομα που καταζητούνται για σύλληψη ή που δεν πρέπει να τους επιτραπεί η είσοδος στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, καθώς και πληροφορίες για απολεσθέντα ή κλεμμένα έγγραφα ή άλλα αντικείμενα. Αυτό είναι ένα σημαντικό εργαλείο για την εξασφάλιση της συλλογικής μας ασφάλειας και για τη διασφάλιση των δικαιωμάτων μας. Ομοίως, αν δεν τεθεί σε εφαρμογή ένα νέο σύστημα, τα νέα κράτη μέλη δεν θα είναι σε θέση να ανοίξουν τα εσωτερικά τους σύνορα με άλλα κράτη του χώρου Σένγκεν. Το Συμβούλιο και το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο θα πρέπει να συνεργαστούν τους ερχόμενους μήνες για να συμφωνήσουν στο νομικό πλαίσιο για το σύστημα. Κατά τη γνώμη μου, πρέπει να το κάνουμε γρήγορα ώστε το νέο σύστημα να τεθεί σε λειτουργία στις αρχές του 2007. Πρέπει να είμαστε όλοι σίγουροι ότι θα επιτύχουμε τη σωστή ισορροπία μεταξύ της συλλογικής μας ασφάλειας και των θεμελιωδών δικαιωμάτων μας. Σχετικά, θα πρέπει να είμαστε σίγουροι ότι έχουμε διερευνήσει διεξοδικά το ερώτημα του εάν θα πρέπει το Σύστημα Πληροφοριών Σένγκεν II να είναι ένα σύστημα ελέγχου ή εάν θα μπορεί να χρησιμοποιηθεί πιο αποτελεσματικά ως εργαλείο για την επιβολή του νόμου. Κατά την εξέταση αυτού του θέματος πρέπει να αναλογιστούμε την ισορροπία μεταξύ των επιπτώσεων στην πολιτική ελευθερία και την επίτευξη αυξημένου επιπέδου ασφαλείας, ώστε να διασφαλίσουμε ότι οποιεσδήποτε αλλαγές κάνουμε θα είναι ανάλογες και λογικές. Το ίδιο ισχύει και για το Σύστημα Πληροφοριών Θεωρήσεων, όπου θα πρέπει να διασφαλίσουμε ότι εκείνοι που έχουν νόμιμο δικαίωμα να ταξιδέψουν το κάνουν, ενώ εκείνοι που αναζητούν τρόπους να εκμεταλλευθούν τις ελευθερίες μας εμποδίζονται. Όλο και περισσότεροι άνθρωποι χρησιμοποιούν πολλαπλές ταυτότητες για να κρύψουν τις κινήσεις τους. Η βιομετρική είναι ο πιο αποτελεσματικός τρόπος για να διασφαλίσουμε ότι μπορούμε να αποδείξουμε την ταυτότητα κάποιου. Μια εμπεριστατωμένη βάση δεδομένων αιτήσεων για θεωρήσεις με βιομετρικά χαρακτηριστικά που ταυτοποιούνται με κάθε αιτούντα σημαίνει ότι οι αυθεντικοί ταξιδιώτες μπορούν να αποδείξουν την ταυτότητά τους εύκολα και να ταξιδεύουν πιο ελεύθερα. Οι κυβερνήσεις θα έχουν μια πιο ξεκάθαρη εικόνα του ποιος μπαίνει και ποιος βγαίνει από την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, με τη διαβεβαίωση ότι έχουν το νομικό δικαίωμα να το κάνουν. Η χρήση των βιομετρικών χαρακτηριστικών σημαίνει επίσης ότι εάν οι άνθρωποι καταστρέψουν τα έγγραφά τους ή παραβιάσουν τον επιτρεπτό χρόνο παραμονής τους θα είμαστε σε θέση να αναγνωρίσουμε ποιοι είναι και από πού έρχονται. Το Συμβούλιο και το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο θα πρέπει να συνεργαστούν αγαστά ώστε να συμφωνήσουν και να εγκρίνουν τη νομοθεσία για το Σύστημα Πληροφοριών Θεωρήσεων. Το Συμβούλιο στοχεύει να έχει το σύστημα έτοιμο και λειτουργικό στα προξενεία από τις αρχές του 2006. Δεδομένου του μεγάλου χρόνου εισαγωγής για τον εξοπλισμό θέσεων και την εκπαίδευση, είναι πραγματικά επείγον να εγκρίνουμε αυτή τη νομοθεσία το συντομότερο δυνατόν. Κάθε ένα από αυτά τα παραδείγματα είναι ένα πρακτικό μέτρο που μπορεί να ενισχύσει την ασφάλεια και να καταδείξει τα πρακτικά πλεονεκτήματα της συνεργασίας. Σε κάθε περίπτωση, θα ενισχύσουν την ανταλλαγή πληροφοριών. Δεν θα οδηγήσουν –όπως έχουν υποστηρίξει μερικοί– στη μαζική παρακολούθηση των πολιτών μας ή σε αχρείαστη εισβολή στο δικαίωμα της ιδιωτικής ζωής. Φυσικά, η φύση των κοινωνιών μας έχει αλλάξει δραματικά με την πάροδο των χρόνων, οικονομικά, κοινωνικά και τεχνολογικά. Έχει αλλάξει η σύνθεση των κοινωνιών μας, οι οποίες διαφέρουν σε όλη την Ένωση, με πολλές κοινωνίες διαφορετικών φυλών, θρησκειών και ιστορίας που ζουν μαζί. Ωστόσο, κατανοώ τις ανησυχίες ότι τα δεδομένα μπορεί να χρησιμοποιηθούν με λάθος τρόπο ή να γίνουν αντικείμενο κατάχρησης ή ότι ορισμένοι άνθρωποι θα αναγνωριστούν λανθασμένα. Για αυτόν τον λόγο, πρέπει να διασφαλίσουμε ότι σε κάθε περίπτωση θα υπάρχει μια ξεκάθαρη νομική βάση για την ανταλλαγή πληροφοριών και ότι η βάση πρέπει να περιλαμβάνει τις απαραίτητες ασφαλιστικές δικλείδες ενάντια στην κατάχρηση. Φυσικά, οι προτάσεις που έχω διατυπώσει αποτελούν μια πολύ μεγάλη ατζέντα για αυτήν την Προεδρία και θα κάνουμε το καλύτερο δυνατόν για να την προωθήσουμε. Ωστόσο, εξ ονόματος της κυβέρνησης του Ηνωμένου Βασιλείου, θέλω επίσης να πω ότι πιστεύουμε πως είναι απαραίτητο να εξετάσουμε πολύ προσεκτικά τον τρόπο με τον οποίο αναπτύσσεται η νομολογία γύρω από την εφαρμογή της Ευρωπαϊκής Σύμβασης για τα Ανθρώπινα Δικαιώματα. Η Σύμβαση, που καταρτίστηκε πριν από 50 και πλέον χρόνια σε ένα διαφορετικό διεθνές κλίμα, έχει οδηγήσει σε μεγάλη πρόοδο στα ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα σε όλη την ήπειρο. Τα επιτεύγματά της πρέπει να καλλιεργηθούν και να αναπτυχθούν και όχι να υπονομευθούν, αλλά πιστεύω ότι για την ανάπτυξη αυτών των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων είναι πραγματικά απαραίτητο να υπάρχει ισορροπία μεταξύ των πολύ σημαντικών δικαιωμάτων του ατόμου και του συλλογικού δικαιώματος για ασφάλεια ενάντια στην τρομοκρατική βία. Η ενίσχυση των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων πρέπει να συμβάλλει στην αναγνώριση μιας αλήθειας που θα πρέπει να αποδεχθούμε όλοι: ότι το δικαίωμα στην προστασία από τα βασανιστήρια και την κακομεταχείριση πρέπει να θεωρείται ισάξιο με την προστασία από τον θάνατο και την καταστροφή που προκαλείται από την τυφλή τρομοκρατία, η οποία μερικές φορές προκαλείται, υποκινείται ή υποδαυλίζεται από εθνικιστές οι οποίοι προέρχονται από χώρες εκτός της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Αυτή η ισορροπία δύσκολα μπορεί να επιτευχθεί και πρέπει όλοι εμείς, οι πολιτικοί, να ρωτήσουμε τους πολίτες μας –που μας έχουν εκλέξει– σε ποιο σημείο περιμένουν να θέσουμε το όριο. Πιστεύω ότι περιμένουν από εμάς όχι μόνο την προστασία των ατομικών δικαιωμάτων μας, αλλά επίσης την προστασία των δημοκρατικών αξιών όπως η προστασία και η ασφάλεια βάσει του νόμου. Η άποψη της κυβέρνησής μου είναι ότι αυτή η ισορροπία δεν είναι σωστή για τις περιστάσεις τις οποίες αντιμετωπίζουμε τώρα –περιστάσεις πολύ διαφορετικές από εκείνες που αντιμετώπισαν οι ιδρυτές της Ευρωπαϊκής Σύμβασης για τα Ανθρώπινα Δικαιώματα– και πρέπει να εξεταστεί στενότερα σε αυτό το πλαίσιο. Σκοπεύω να συζητήσω με τους συναδέλφους στο Συμβούλιο Δικαιοσύνης και Εσωτερικών Υποθέσεων πώς μπορούμε να αντιμετωπίσουμε καλύτερα αυτά τα θέματα με τρόπο που να συνάδει με τις διεθνείς μας υποχρεώσεις. Πιστεύω σθεναρά ότι οι λαοί αυτής της ηπείρου θέλουν να είναι βέβαιοι ότι το νομοθετικό καθεστώς που υπερασπίζεται τα ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα πρέπει να χρησιμοποιείται για να υπερασπιστεί τα δικαιώματα όλων των πολιτών μας με έναν ισορροπημένο και συνειδητό τρόπο και αυτό είναι καθήκον μας να το συζητήσουμε ανοιχτά. Καταλήγοντας, πιστεύω ότι οι «αρνητικές» ψήφοι για το Σύνταγμα πρέπει να εκληφθούν ως μια κλήση αφύπνισης προς εκείνους που πιστεύουν και στηρίζουν το ευρωπαϊκό σχέδιο να επικεντρωθούμε σε ό,τι έχει σημασία. Το δικαίωμα στην προστασία και την ασφάλεια είναι μια θεμελιώδης ανησυχία για όλους τους πολίτες μας. Εδώ μπορούμε να δείξουμε ότι η Ευρώπη μπορεί να παραχωρήσει, και πράγματι παραχωρεί, πραγματικά προνόμια στους πολίτες μας. Εμείς στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση έχουμε ευθύνη να αντιμετωπίσουμε αυτή την πρόκληση. Δεν είναι ένας τομέας στον οποίο μπορούμε να τους απογοητεύσουμε. Εν μέσω, όμως, όλων αυτών πιστεύω ότι είναι υποχρέωσή μας να προάγουμε μια κοινωνία που θα βασίζεται στον αληθινό σεβασμό του ενός ατόμου προς το άλλο, της μιας κουλτούρας προς την άλλη, της μιας θρησκείας προς την άλλη, της μιας φυλής προς την άλλη. Είναι καθήκον μας να προάγουμε την άποψη ότι η δημοκρατία, και όχι η βία, είναι το μέσο ώστε να επέλθει η αλλαγή και η αυτο-διακυβέρνηση. Πρέπει να υπερασπιστούμε τις αξίες μας του σεβασμού, της ανοχής, της ελευθερίας και της δημοκρατίας απέναντι σε όποιον επιθυμεί να τις καταστρέψει ή να τις αντικαταστήσει με κάποιο άλλο δόγμα, ιδίως εάν επιθυμεί να χρησιμοποιήσει βία για να προαγάγει τις φιλοδοξίες του. Αυτό είναι μέρος της ιστορίας της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, αλλά πρέπει να τεθεί στο επίκεντρο του μέλλοντος της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Καθώς ατενίζουμε αυτό το μέλλον πρέπει να αναγνωρίσουμε ότι, παρά τα καταπληκτικά επιτεύγματα, πολλοί από τους πολίτες μας παραμένουν εξαιρετικά σκεπτικοί σχετικά με την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, σε τέτοιο βαθμό ώστε σε κάποιες χώρες τα εθνικά δημοψηφίσματα απέρριψαν το προταθέν νέο Σύνταγμα με τρόπο που υποδηλώνει πιο βαθιές ανησυχίες. Πιστεύω ότι ένας βαθύτερος λόγος για τις εν λόγω αμφιβολίες είναι ότι η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση δεν φαίνεται να δίνει επαρκή προτεραιότητα στην προσφορά πρακτικών λύσεων που κάνουν τη διαφορά σε μερικά από τα θέματα που προκαλούν τη μεγαλύτερη ανησυχία. Αναφέρομαι ειδικότερα στο σοβαρό και οργανωμένο έγκλημα, συμπεριλαμβανομένου του εμπορίου ναρκωτικών και της διακίνησης ανθρώπων, στην παράνομη μετανάστευση και την ψευδή αναζήτηση ασύλου, καθώς και την αντιμετώπιση της τρομοκρατίας, όποια κι αν είναι η προέλευσή της. Αυτά τα θέματα είναι πρώτα στην πολιτική ατζέντα ανά την Ευρώπη και είναι συνήθως αυτά που κινητοποιούν περισσότερο την πολιτική δραστηριότητα, συχνά με έναν αντιδραστικό και ακόμα και επικίνδυνο τρόπο. Μπορούν να χρησιμοποιηθούν ακόμα και από φαρμακερούς δημαγωγούς για να υπονομεύσουν την ίδια τη δημοκρατία που σε πολλές περιπτώσεις δημιουργήθηκε τόσο πρόσφατα. Δεν είναι δύσκολο να καταλάβουμε γιατί αυτές οι απειλές προκαλούν θυμό στους λαούς μας. Η απειλή της τρομοκρατίας παραμένει πολύ ζωντανή, όπως είδαμε με τραγικό τρόπο στο Λονδίνο τον Ιούλιο. Το 2004 περισσότερες από 100 000 γυναίκες διακινήθηκαν στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και περισσότεροι από 8 000 άνθρωποι πεθαίνουν κάθε χρόνο από χρήση ναρκωτικών, καθώς το έγκλημα και η μιζέρια διαπερνούν κάθε μέρος της ηπείρου. Η παράνομη μετανάστευση και ένα σύστημα ελέγχου που είναι πολύ χαλαρό εγείρουν ανησυχίες σε κάθε πόλη."@el10 ". Señor Presidente, quisiera empezar dándole las gracias por concederme esta oportunidad de dirigirme al Parlamento Europeo. Mi deseo es aprovecharla para explicar el enfoque con el que el Gobierno británico va a abordar la Presidencia del Consejo de Justicia y Asuntos de Interior, que ocuparé junto con mi colega la Baronesa Ashton, que me acompaña hoy aquí. Por lo tanto, creo que la Unión Europea en su conjunto –pero sobre todo el Consejo de Justicia y Asuntos de Interior– debe dar prioridad real a la búsqueda de soluciones a estos problemas de una forma práctica y sistemática. Esa convicción será la base de la Presidencia del Reino Unido. Para hacerlo, sugiero tres enfoques principales. El primero es que, en este planeta mundializado, ningún país puede abordar estos problemas en solitario, ni siquiera dentro de su propio país. En un mundo con millones de viajes y transacciones económicas internacionales cada año, el orgullo del aislamiento no contribuye a solucionar problemas como la delincuencia internacional, el terrorismo y la delincuencia grave u organizada, ni tampoco a abordar las pautas de la inmigración ilegal. La necesidad de luchar contra el terrorismo y la delincuencia grave y organizada exige más cooperación europea, y no al contrario. La verdad es que, en cada uno de esos ámbitos, todos lograremos más éxitos, incluso dentro de nuestros propios países, si compartimos experiencias, información y recursos, e identificamos y luego luchamos contra las amenazas de forma sistemática y coherente. Si utilizo el argumento, aparentemente obvio, de que estas amenazas se abordan mejor internacionalmente, es porque sigue habiendo partidos políticos y otros grupos de opinión dentro de la Unión Europea que creen que la mejor forma de protegernos contra amenazas de ese tipo es construir vallas cada vez más altas entre nosotros, cuando la verdad es, por el contrario, que para tener las máximas posibilidades de éxito debemos mantener una colaboración cada vez más estrecha. El segundo principio que debe sostener nuestro enfoque es el refuerzo de los cimientos de una labor policial y de inteligencia práctica y pragmática. En cada uno de estos ámbitos –delincuencia organizada, terrorismo, inmigración, asilo– ya hemos tomado medidas a escala de la Unión Europea. Por ejemplo, hemos acordado la orden de detención europea y normas comunes para definir y castigar el terrorismo, la trata de personas y otros delitos graves. Tenemos normas sobre la cooperación policial y judicial y, a fin de apoyar esa labor, hemos creado Europol y Eurojust. También hemos reforzado la libertad de desplazamiento dentro de la UE y hemos creado la Agencia Europea de Fronteras. Por supuesto, hay más cosas que podemos hacer y, de hecho, estamos haciendo. Hemos acordado un amplio programa de acción en el marco del Programa de La Haya y del Plan de Acción contra el terrorismo. Estos programas contemplan muchas medidas sensatas y prácticas que supondrán una diferencia real para nuestros ciudadanos. Si queremos demostrar el verdadero valor de la Unión Europea, ahora tenemos que trabajar juntos para cumplir esos compromisos. En concreto, quisiera destacar la necesidad de que la Unión Europea preste un apoyo práctico a operaciones de inteligencia y procesamientos transfronterizos, al desarrollo de equipos conjuntos para luchar contra el tráfico de drogas y de personas, a la puesta en común de información para facilitar el trabajo conjunto y al desarrollo de un modelo europeo de inteligencia contra actividades delictivas. En el ámbito de la inmigración y el asilo, espero que en esta Presidencia consigamos celebrar importantes acuerdos de readmisión de la Unión Europea con países como Rusia, Ucrania y Marruecos, así como desarrollar programas piloto de protección regional. En el ámbito de la justicia civil, nos centraremos en la propuesta de facilitar los pleitos de menor cuantía y la creación de una orden de pago única europea y otras medidas. Todas son importantes medidas prácticas, que espero que reciban el apoyo mayoritario de esta Cámara. Sin embargo, es el tercer principio el que, a mi juicio, constituye el mayor reto en su aplicación moderna. Ese principio es que necesitamos usar los servicios de inteligencia de forma eficaz y con inteligencia para buscar, detectar, identificar y condenar a los delincuentes que, mediante la violencia terrorista y la delincuencia grave y organizada, ponen en peligro la seguridad y la fortaleza de nuestra sociedad. De hecho, voy a ir más allá: la única forma de luchar contra la delincuencia que nos ataca en este mundo moderno es a través de un uso eficaz e inteligente de la inteligencia. Como es lógico, los delincuentes y los terroristas utilizan la tecnología moderna –Internet y las comunicaciones por móvil– para planificar y llevar a cabo sus actividades. La única forma de luchar contra ellos con eficacia es saber qué se están comunicando. Sin ese conocimiento, estamos luchando contra ellos con las manos atadas a la espalda. Por supuesto, los delincuentes lo saben y se organizan activa y conscientemente para aprovechar nuestras debilidades. Parto de la base de que la Unión Europea ha sido una gran fuerza del bien. Hace treinta y cinco años, cuando yo era estudiante, nos movilizábamos por la democracia en este continente, por la eliminación de las dictaduras fascistas o militares que entonces existían en Grecia, España y Portugal, y las dictaduras totalitarias que gobernaban buena parte de Europa Central y Oriental. Aquellas movilizaciones dieron sus frutos, como también los dieron –merece la pena mencionarlo– las que hubo en otras partes del mundo, como el sur de África y América Latina. Puede parecer obvio decir que tenemos que recoger y utilizar datos de inteligencia para luchar contra las amenazas que nos acechan. Sin embargo, el Parlamento Europeo y los Parlamentos nacionales de toda Europa deben admitir que el marco jurídico en el que actualmente nos movemos dificulta mucho, y en ocasiones imposibilita, la recogida y el uso de esa información. Las normas que regulan actualmente a nuestras fuerzas del orden reducen gravemente su capacidad para protegernos contra los delincuentes. La información es la esencia de las operaciones de los cuerpos de seguridad y es precisamente esa información la que permite a nuestra policía y a nuestras agencias evitar delitos, con una incidencia mínima en nuestras vidas diarias. Para luchar contra la delincuencia organizada y detener a los grupos terroristas antes de que cometan sus acciones, nuestras fuerzas del orden precisan tener una idea clara de quiénes son los delincuentes, qué están haciendo, dónde se encuentran y cómo se comunican entre sí. A menudo, este cuadro no se acaba de componer hasta después de cometido el acto delictivo. Pero si queremos ser eficaces a la hora de desmantelar grupos criminales organizados, debemos analizar la información que obtenemos para poder centrar nuestros esfuerzos en los delincuentes más peligrosos. Sin embargo, esa necesidad no siempre se refleja en las normas que aplicamos a nuestra policía. Este no es un estéril debate sobre principios; estamos hablando de medidas prácticas para luchar contra la delincuencia y nuestros adversarios. Por eso la Presidencia del Reino Unido, siguiendo las propuestas del Programa de La Haya, ha puesto sobre la mesa propuestas sobre la conservación de datos de telecomunicaciones, estableciendo una segunda generación del sistema de información de Schengen y creando un nuevo sistema de información sobre visados. Por eso afirmamos que nuestros visados, pasaportes y documentos de identidad en los países en los que existen –y yo sugeriría incluso que también los permisos de conducir– deberían incluir datos biométricos normalizados internacionalmente. Por eso trabajaremos denodadamente para acordar con nuestros socios internacionales, incluidos los Estados Unidos, las mejores medidas para el uso internacional coherente de datos de pasajeros. Todas estas medidas son importantes y complicadas. Solo es posible conseguirlas mediante acuerdos internacionales, sobre todo en la Unión Europea y entre la Unión y sus socios en todo el mundo. Todas precisan un debate realista y un acuerdo práctico. Esta Presidencia admite que, cuando se analizan propuestas en estos ámbitos, corresponde a los partidarios del cambio, como el Gobierno británico, demostrar que las medidas de este tipo tienen las ventajas prácticas contra la delincuencia que yo creo que tienen. Por eso hoy voy a hacer pública, como prometí a la Comisión LIBE en julio en Bruselas, una explicación de los argumentos a favor de algunas de estas medidas, sobre todo las relativas a la conservación de datos de telecomunicaciones. Espero que el Parlamento analice atentamente los argumentos que presentamos. Mis colegas del Consejo de Justicia y Asuntos de Interior estudiarán estas cuestiones detenidamente en la reunión informal del Consejo que tendrá lugar en Newcastle esta misma semana. Sin embargo, creo que la cuestión más importante que debemos recordar cuando estudiemos juntos estos asuntos es que ahora disponemos de muchos derechos que nos ha costado mucho ganarnos, como el derecho a la intimidad, el derecho a la propiedad, el derecho a la libertad de expresión, la libertad de desplazamiento y el derecho a la vida. Esos derechos están siendo amenazados activamente por delincuentes y terroristas. Tenemos la obligación y la responsabilidad de contribuir a proteger esos derechos de nuestros ciudadanos mediante medidas prácticas. Cuando estudiemos cuál es la mejor manera de hacerlo, siempre tendremos que poner en la balanza esos derechos. Lo que importa en cada caso es que las medidas sean proporcionadas y que la protección contra los abusos sea eficaz. Creo que nuestras propuestas consiguen eso. Permítanme citar el ejemplo de la conservación de datos de telecomunicaciones. Esta medida está teniendo un valor incalculable en las actuales investigaciones de los atentados de Londres, y en muchos casos ocurridos en el Reino Unido ha sido esencial para resolver delitos, con frecuencia meses o años después de que se cometieran. Los proveedores de servicios de comunicaciones ya conservan mucha información para fines comerciales, pero las obligaciones de protección de datos en algunos países les presionan para borrar los datos que no tienen fines comerciales. Eso significa que capturar a un asesino o detener un atentado terrorista puede depender de qué compañía de telefonía móvil use o haya usado una víctima, un sospechoso o un testigo, o del país de la Unión Europea en que se encuentre. De hecho, 11 de los 25 Estados miembros de la Unión Europea han alcanzado la democracia desde entonces y se han convertido en miembros de pleno derecho de la Unión Europea. Es un magnífico logro que debemos seguir celebrando. Hay quien dice que obligar a las compañías de telecomunicaciones a que retengan los datos que usan para la facturación es una violación de la intimidad o que impone costes indebidos a las empresas. Sin embargo, en el Reino Unido hemos establecido un sistema, en asociación con un importante proveedor de servicios, para conservar datos esenciales durante hasta 12 meses a un coste de 1,2 millones de euros. Si comparamos esa cantidad con los costes medios de la actividad forense en un único caso de asesinato, que ascienden a medio millón de euros, vemos que se trata de un coste aceptable para el Estado. Otros han argumentado que estamos pidiendo demasiados datos, por ejemplo, que no se debería solicitar que se conserven las llamadas perdidas. Sin embargo, en muchos casos las compañías ya recogen ese dato para sus propios fines. Todo lo que estamos pidiendo es que se conserve y se ponga a disposición de las fuerzas de seguridad de conformidad con el derecho nacional. Existe una opinión probablemente más general de que la propuesta es una innecesaria invasión de la intimidad y es desproporcionada. Yo no creo que lo sea, porque en muchos casos, algunos de los cuales están expuestos en el documento que estoy pasándoles, el derecho de la víctima a que se haga justicia solo prevaleció gracias a la conservación de datos de telecomunicaciones. De forma similar, la nueva versión del sistema de información de Schengen permite a nuestros órganos de seguridad intercambiar información sobre personas cuya detención se ha solicitado o personas a las que se debe negar la entrada a la Unión Europea, así como información sobre documentos u otros objetos perdidos y robados. Esta es una herramienta esencial para garantizar nuestra seguridad colectiva y nuestros derechos. Además, los nuevos Estados miembros no podrán eliminar sus fronteras internas con otros Estados de Schengen si no se establece un nuevo sistema. El Consejo y el Parlamento Europeo tendrán que trabajar juntos durante los próximos meses para acordar el marco jurídico del sistema. A mi juicio, tendremos que hacerlo rápidamente, de forma que el sistema pueda entrar en funcionamiento a principios de 2007. Todos tenemos que estar seguros de que conseguimos el equilibrio adecuado entre nuestra seguridad colectiva y nuestros derechos fundamentales. Para ello, tenemos que estar seguros de que hemos analizado exhaustivamente la cuestión de si el sistema de información Schengen II debe ser un sistema de control o si puede usarse con mayor eficacia como herramienta policial. Cuando tomemos decisiones a este respecto, debemos reflexionar sobre el equilibrio entre la libertad civil que resulte afectada y el incremento de seguridad que se consiga, a fin de que todos los cambios que realicemos sean proporcionados y razonables. Lo mismo cabe decir del sistema de información de visados: tenemos que garantizar que todas aquellas personas que tengan un derecho legítimo a viajar puedan hacerlo, mientras que se detenga a quienes tratan de aprovecharse de nuestras libertades. Cada vez con mayor frecuencia, la gente utiliza múltiples identidades para ocultar sus movimientos. La biometría es la forma más eficaz de garantizar que podemos demostrar la identidad de alguien. Una amplia base de datos de solicitudes de visado con los datos biométricos de cada solicitante permitirá que los viajeros que no tienen nada que ocultar puedan probar su identidad fácilmente y viajar más libremente. Los Gobiernos tendrán una idea clara de quién está entrando y saliendo de la Unión Europea, con la tranquilidad de que tendrán derecho a saberlo. El uso de la biometría también nos permite identificar y saber de dónde vienen las personas que destruyen sus documentos o aquellos a los que se descubre en la Unión cuando han caducado sus visados. El Consejo y el Parlamento Europeo tendrán que colaborar estrechamente para acordar y aprobar el reglamento del sistema de información de visados. El Consejo desea tener el sistema montado y en funcionamiento en los consulados a partir del comienzo de 2006. Dado que la dotación de puestos y la formación va a tardar bastante, es realmente urgente que este reglamento se apruebe lo antes posible. Cada uno de estos ejemplos es una medida práctica que puede mejorar la seguridad y demostrar las ventajas prácticas de la colaboración. En cualquier caso, mejorarán la puesta en común de información. No darán lugar, como algunos han afirmado, a la vigilancia masiva de nuestros ciudadanos ni a una invasión innecesaria de su derecho a la intimidad. Como es lógico, la naturaleza de nuestras sociedades ha cambiado espectacularmente durante estos años, en términos económicos, sociales y tecnológicos. También ha cambiado la composición de nuestras comunidades, que varía entre los distintos países, con la convivencia de muchas comunidades de distintas razas, religiones e historias. No obstante, entiendo la preocupación por la posibilidad de que se produzca un uso indebido o abuso de los datos o de que se identifique incorrectamente a algunas personas. Por eso tenemos que asegurarnos de que, en cada caso, haya un fundamento jurídico claro para el intercambio de información y de que ese fundamento incluya las salvaguardas apropiadas contra abusos. Por supuesto, las propuestas que he descrito constituyen una agenda descomunal para esta Presidencia, que haremos todo lo posible por promover. Sin embargo, en nombre del Gobierno del Reino Unido quiero decir también que creemos que es necesario analizar con mucho cuidado la forma en la que se está desarrollando la jurisprudencia sobre la aplicación del Convenio Europeo para la protección de los derechos humanos. El Convenio, aprobado hace más de 50 años en un clima internacional bastante distinto, ha dado lugar a grandes avances de los derechos humanos en todo el continente. Sus logros deben promoverse y desarrollarse, y no socavarse, pero creo que a la hora de desarrollar estos derechos humanos es muy necesario poner en la balanza, junto a derechos muy importantes de las personas, el derecho colectivo a la seguridad ante la violencia terrorista. Nuestro trabajo para reforzar los derechos humanos debe reconocer un hecho que todos nosotros debemos aceptar: que el derecho a recibir protección contra la tortura y los malos tratos debe considerarse conjuntamente con el derecho a recibir protección contra la muerte y la destrucción causadas por el terrorismo indiscriminado, en ocasiones causado, instigado o fomentado por nacionales de países no pertenecientes a la Unión Europea. Se trata de un complicado equilibrio, que exige que todos nosotros, como políticos, nos preguntemos dónde querrían nuestros ciudadanos –los que nos han elegido a todos los que estamos aquí– que trazáramos la línea. Creo que esperan de nosotros no solo la protección de los derechos individuales, sino también la protección de los valores democráticos como la seguridad bajo el imperio de la ley. La opinión de mi Gobierno es que este equilibrio no es correcto en las actuales circunstancias –muy distintas de las que vivían los padres fundadores del Convenio Europeo para la protección de los derechos humanos– y debe analizarse detenidamente en ese contexto. Tengo la intención de hablar con mis colegas del Consejo de Justicia y Asuntos de Interior sobre cuál es la mejor forma de abordar estas cuestiones de una forma coherente con nuestras obligaciones internacionales. Estoy convencido de que los pueblos de este continente desean que el régimen legislativo que defiende los derechos humanos se utilice para defender los derechos de todos nuestros ciudadanos de una forma equilibrada y estudiada y es nuestra obligación debatir esto abiertamente. En conclusión, creo que los votos en contra de la Constitución deben considerarse una llamada de atención a quienes creen en el proyecto europeo para que se centren en lo que realmente importa. El derecho a la seguridad es una preocupación esencial para todos nuestros ciudadanos. Este tema nos permitirá demostrar que Europa puede generar y genera ventajas reales para nuestros ciudadanos. En la Unión Europea tenemos la obligación de estar a la altura de ese reto. Precisamente en este terreno no podemos fallarles. Sin embargo, a este respecto creo que es nuestra obligación promover una sociedad que se base en un respeto real entre las personas, entre las culturas, entre las religiones y entre las razas. Es nuestra obligación promover la idea de que la democracia, y no la violencia, es la forma de generar cambios y de gobernarnos. Tenemos que defender nuestros valores de respeto, tolerancia, libertad y democracia contra los que desean destruirlos o reemplazarlos con otra doctrina, sobre todo si promueven sus objetivos mediante el uso de la violencia. Este principio forma parte de la historia de la Unión Europea, pero también determinar su futuro. Cuando miramos hacia delante, nos vemos obligados a reconocer que, a pesar de ese magnífico historial, muchos de nuestros ciudadanos siguen siendo muy escépticos con respecto a la Unión Europea, hasta tal punto que, en algunos países, los ciudadanos rechazaron en sendos referendos nacionales la propuesta de nueva Constitución, con unos resultados que sugieren dudas más arraigadas. Creo que una razón principal de esas dudas es que no parece que la Unión Europea conceda prioridad suficiente a la consecución de soluciones prácticas que marquen la diferencia en algunos asuntos que preocupan mucho a los ciudadanos. Me refiero concretamente al gran crimen organizado, incluidos el tráfico de drogas y la trata de personas, a la inmigración ilegal y las solicitudes de asilo falsas, así como a la lucha contra el terrorismo, venga de donde venga. Estos asuntos ocupan los primeros puestos de la agenda política en toda Europa y son a menudo los que tienen más fuerza a la hora de movilizar la actividad política, muchas veces de forma reaccionaria e incluso peligrosa. Incluso pueden ser utilizados por odiosos demagogos para socavar la propia democracia que, en algunos casos, se ha instaurado hace tan poco tiempo. No es difícil entender por qué estas amenazas causan el enfado de nuestros pueblos. La amenaza del terrorismo sigue siendo muy real, como, por desgracia, pudimos comprobar en julio en Londres. En 2004, más de 100 000 mujeres fueron víctimas del tráfico en la Unión Europea y más de 8 000 personas mueren cada año por el consumo de drogas, mientras que la delincuencia y la miseria aumentan en todo el continente. La inmigración ilegal y un sistema de control demasiado relajado preocupan en todas las ciudades."@es20 "Mr President, I would like to begin by thanking you for the opportunity of addressing the European Parliament. I want to take the opportunity to set out the approach that the British Government will follow in its conduct of the Presidency of the Justice and Home Affairs Council, which will be occupied by myself and my colleague Baroness Ashton, who is with me today. I therefore believe that the whole of the European Union – but in particular the Justice and Home Affairs Council – needs to give real priority to tackling these issues in a practical and systematic way. It is that conviction which will inform the UK Presidency. In so doing I suggest three principal approaches. The first is that in our globalised world no single nation can tackle these problems alone, even in its own country. In a world with millions of international journeys and economic transactions every year, ideas of ‘splendid isolation’ or rhetoric about ‘the White Cliffs of Dover’ can do nothing to address international criminality, terrorism or serious and organised crime or address patterns of international migration. The need to fight terrorism and serious and organised crime means that we need more European cooperation and not less. The truth is that in each of these areas we will all, including within our own countries, achieve most by sharing experience, information and resources and by identifying and then targeting the threats systematically and consistently. I make the apparently obvious point that these threats are best tackled internationally, since there remain political parties and other organs of opinion within the European Union which believe that protection from these types of threat can best be secured by the construction of higher and higher fences between us, whilst the truth is the opposite – our best chances of success lie in deeper and deeper cooperation. The second principle that must underlie our approach is to strengthen the foundation of practical and pragmatic police and intelligence work. In each of these areas – organised crime, terrorism, immigration, asylum – we have already taken action at the European Union level. For example, we have agreed the European Arrest Warrant, common rules on penalties for and definitions of terrorism, people trafficking and other serious crimes. We have rules on police and judicial cooperation and we have established Europol and Eurojust to support their work. We have also strengthened freedom to travel within the EU and established the European Borders Agency. There is of course more that we can do and are doing. We have agreed a comprehensive programme of action in the Hague Programme and the Counter-Terrorism Action Plan. These contain many sensible, practical measures that will make a real difference to our citizens. If we want to demonstrate the real value of the European Union, we now need to work together to deliver on those commitments. I would like in particular to highlight the need for practical European Union support for intelligence-led operations and cross-border prosecutions, the development of joint teams to combat drug dealing and people trafficking, the sharing of information to facilitate joint work and the development of a European criminal intelligence model. In the field of migration and asylum, I hope that in this Presidency we will succeed in securing significant European Union readmission agreements with certain countries such as Russia, Ukraine and Morocco, and develop pilot regional protection programmes. In the field of civil justice, we will focus on the proposal to facilitate small claims and the establishment of a single European order of payment and other measures. These are all important practical steps, which I hope will command widespread support from this Parliament. But it is the third principle which I believe poses the greatest challenge in its modern application. That principle is that we need to use intelligence effectively and intelligently to target, track down, identify and convict the criminals who, through terrorist violence and serious and organised crime, threaten the security and strength of our society. Indeed I would go further: it is only through the effective and intelligent use of intelligence that in our modern world we can contest the criminality which attacks us. Of course criminals and terrorists use modern technology – the internet and mobile communications – to plan and carry out their activities. We can only contest them effectively if we know what they are communicating. Without that knowledge, we are fighting them with both hands tied behind our backs. Of course the criminals know that and actively and consciously organise themselves to take advantage of our weaknesses. I start from the proposition that the European Union has been a massive force for good. Thirty-five years ago, when I was a student, we campaigned for democracy in this continent, to remove the fascist or military dictatorships which then existed in Greece, Spain and Portugal, and the totalitarian dictatorships which then ruled much of eastern and central Europe. Those campaigns succeeded as, it is worth pointing out, did the campaigns in other parts of the world, for example Southern Africa and Latin America. It may seem obvious to state that we need to collect and use intelligence against the threats that we face. But the European Parliament and national parliaments throughout Europe need to face up to the fact that the legal framework within which we currently operate makes the collection and use of this intelligence very difficult and in some cases impossible. The rules that currently govern our law enforcement bodies seriously inhibit their ability to protect us against criminals. Information is the lifeblood of law enforcement operations and it is that information which enables our police and agencies to prevent crimes with the minimum of impact on our daily lives. To tackle organised crime and stop terrorist groups before they carry out their activities, they need a clear picture of who the criminals are, what they are doing, where they are and how they communicate with each other. Often that picture is pieced together after the fact. But if we are to be effective in dismantling organised crime groups we must analyse intelligence and information so that we can target our efforts on the most dangerous criminals. However, that need is not always reflected in the rules that we apply to our police. This is not a sterile debate about principles; it is about practical measures to contest criminality and our opponents. That is why the UK Presidency, following the proposals set out in the Hague Programme, has placed on the agenda proposals on the retention of telecommunications data, establishing a second generation of the Schengen Information System and putting in place a new Visa Information System. That is why we argue that internationally consistent and coherent biometric data should be an automatic part of our visas, passports and identity cards where we have them – and I would even suggest driving licences as well. That is why we will work strongly to agree with our international partners, including the United States, the best measures for consistent international use of passenger data. These are all important and difficult measures. They can only be achieved through international agreements, particularly in the European Union and between the European Union and its partners throughout the world. They all require hard-headed discussions and practical agreement. This Presidency accepts that, in considering proposals in these areas, it is incumbent upon the advocates of change, such as the British Government, to make the case that measures of this kind have the practical advantages against criminality that I believe they do. That is why I am publishing today, as I promised the LIBE Committee in July in Brussels that I would, an explanation of the cases for some of these measures, in particular those relating to retention of telecommunications data. I hope that Parliament will look closely at the case that we put forward. My colleagues on the Justice and Home Affairs Council will be considering these issues carefully at the informal Council meeting in Newcastle later this week. But I believe that the central point for us to remember, as we consider these issues together, is that we now possess many hard-won rights such as the right to privacy, the right to property, the right to free speech, the right to travel and the right to life. Those rights are actively threatened by criminals and terrorists. We have a duty and a responsibility to help protect them for our citizens through practical measures. As we consider how best to do this, rights will always and inevitably have to be balanced. What matters in each case is that the steps are proportionate and that the protection against abuse is effective. I believe that our proposals offer that. Let me just cite the example of retention of telecommunications data. This is proving invaluable in the current investigations into the London attacks and in many cases in the UK it has proved essential to solving crimes, often months or years after they were committed. Communications service providers already retain much information for business purposes, but data protection obligations in some countries pressure them to erase data that has no business purpose. That means that catching a murderer or stopping a terrorist attack may depend on which mobile telephone company a victim, suspect or witness uses or has used, or which European Union country they were in. In fact, 11 of the 25 current European Union Member States have since emerged to democracy as full members of the European Union. It is a magnificent achievement which we should continue to celebrate. Some argue that to require telecommunications companies to retain data they use for billing purposes is an intrusion into privacy, or that it imposes undue costs on business. However, in the United Kingdom we have successfully established a system, in partnership with a major service provider, to retain essential data for up to twelve months for the cost of EUR 1.2 million. Compared to the average costs for forensic work on a single murder case of over EUR 0.5 million, that is an acceptable cost for the state to bear. Others have argued that we are asking for too much data, for example, that there should not be a requirement to retain unanswered calls. In many cases, however, this is data that has already been collected by the companies for their own purposes. All that we are asking is that it be retained and made available to law enforcement under national law. There is perhaps a more general concern that the proposal is an unnecessary invasion of privacy or that it is disproportionate. I do not believe that it is, because in many cases, some of which I have set out in the document I am circulating, the victim’s right to justice was only achieved through the retention of telecommunications data. Similarly, with the Schengen Information System, the next generation enables our law enforcement agencies to exchange information about individuals wanted for arrest or to be refused entry to the European Union, as well as information on lost and stolen documents or other objects. This is a critical tool for ensuring our collective security and for guaranteeing our rights. Equally, without a new system in place, the new Member States will not be able to lift their internal borders with other Schengen states. The Council and European Parliament will have to work together over the coming months to agree on the legal framework for the system. In my opinion, we will need to do this quickly so that the system can be put in place by early 2007. We all need to be sure that we are striking the right balance between our collective security and our fundamental rights. In so doing, we need to be sure that we have thoroughly explored the question of whether the Schengen Information System II should be a control system or whether it can be used more effectively as a tool for law enforcement. In making judgements about this, we need to reflect on the balance between the civil liberty being affected and the increased security being achieved, to ensure that any changes we make are proportionate and reasonable. This also applies to the Visa Information System, where we need to ensure that those with a legitimate right to travel can do so, while those who seek to exploit our freedoms are deterred. Increasingly, people use multiple identities to hide their movements. Biometrics are the most effective way to ensure that we can prove someone's identity. A comprehensive database of visa applications with biometrics matched to each applicant will mean that genuine travellers are able to prove their identity easily and travel more freely. Governments will have a clear idea of who is entering and leaving the European Union, with the reassurance that they have the legal right to do so. The use of biometrics also means that if people destroy their documents or are found overstaying we are able to identify who they are and where they come from. The Council and European Parliament will need to work closely together to agree and adopt the Visa Information System regulation. The Council aims to have the system up and running in consulates from the beginning of 2006. Given the substantial lead-in time for the equipment of posts and training, there is real urgency to adopt this regulation as soon as possible. Each of these examples is a practical measure that can enhance security and demonstrate the practical benefits of working together. In each case they will enhance the sharing of information. They will not lead – as some have argued – to the mass surveillance of our citizens or to unnecessary invasion of their right to privacy. Of course the nature of our societies has changed dramatically over these years, economically, socially and technologically. It has changed in the composition of our communities, which vary across the Union, with many communities of differing races, faiths and histories living together. However, I understand concerns that data may be misused or abused or that some people will be wrongly identified. That is why we need to ensure that in each case there is a clear legal basis for the exchange of information and that the basis should include the appropriate safeguards against abuse. Of course the proposals that I have set out are an enormous agenda for this Presidency and we will do our best to promote it. However, on behalf of the United Kingdom Government I also want to say that we believe that it is necessary to look very carefully at the way in which the jurisprudence around application of the European Convention on Human Rights is developing. The Convention, established over 50 years ago in a quite different international climate, has led to great advances in human rights across the continent. Its achievements must be fostered and developed and not undermined, but I believe that in developing these human rights it really is necessary to balance very important rights for individuals against the collective right for security from terrorist violence. Our strengthening of human rights needs to acknowledge a truth which we should all accept: that the right to be protected from torture and ill-treatment must be considered side by side with the right to be protected from the death and destruction caused by indiscriminate terrorism, sometimes caused, instigated or fomented by nationals from countries outside the European Union. This is a difficult balance to get right and it requires all of us, as politicians, to ask where our citizens – who elected all of us here – would expect us to draw the line. I believe that they expect from us not only the protection of individual rights but also the protection of democratic values such as safety and security under the law. The view of my government is that this balance is not right for the circumstances which we now face – circumstances very different from those faced by the founding fathers of the European Convention on Human Rights – and it needs to be closely examined in that context. I intend to discuss with colleagues in the Justice and Home Affairs Council how we might best address these issues in a manner consistent with our international obligations. I believe most strongly that the peoples of this continent want to be assured that the legislative regime which defends human rights must be used to defend the rights of all our citizens in a balanced and considered way and that it is our duty to discuss this openly. In conclusion, I believe that the ‘no’ votes against the Constitution should be taken as a wake-up call to those who believe in and support the European project to focus on what matters. The right to safety and security is a fundamental concern for all our citizens. Here we can show that Europe can and does deliver real benefits to our citizens. We in the European Union have a responsibility to rise to that challenge. It is not an area where we can fail them. But in all of this I believe that it is our duty to promote a society which is based on the true respect of one individual for another, one culture for another, one faith for another, one race for another. It is our duty to promote the view that democracy, and not violence, is the means of bringing about change and governing ourselves. We have to defend our values of respect, tolerance, freedom and democracy against any who wish to destroy or replace them with some other doctrine, particularly if they seek to use violence to promote their ambition. That is part of the history of the European Union, but it must be central to the future of the European Union too. As we look to that future we have to acknowledge that, despite the fantastic record, many of our citizens remain highly sceptical about the European Union, to such an extent that in some countries the national referenda rejected the proposed new Constitution in a way which suggested more deep-seated concerns. I believe that a deep reason for these doubts is that the European Union does not appear to give sufficient priority to offering practical solutions which make a difference to some of the issues of greatest concern. I am referring specifically to serious and organised crime, including drug dealing and people trafficking, to illegal migration and false asylum seeking, and to countering terrorism, whatever its origins. These issues top the political agenda across Europe, and they are often the most potent in mobilising political activity, often in a reactionary and even dangerous way. They can even be used by poisonous demagogues to undermine the very democracy which has in some cases so recently been created. It is not difficult to see why these threats motivate anger amongst our peoples. The threat from terrorism remains very real, as we tragically saw in London in July. In 2004 over 100 000 women were trafficked in the European Union and over 8 000 people die each year from drug use, as crime and misery is fuelled in every part of the continent. Illegal migration and a system of control which is too loose raise concerns in every city."@et5 "Arvoisa puhemies, haluan aloittaa kiittämällä mahdollisuudesta puhua Euroopan parlamentille. Haluan käyttää tilaisuuden hyväkseni ja esitellä linjan, jota Yhdistyneen kuningaskunnan hallitus aikoo noudattaa neuvoston puheenjohtajavaltiona. Oikeus- ja sisäasioiden ministerien neuvoston puheenjohtajina toimimme minä itse ja kollegani Ashton, joka on kanssani täällä tänään. Olen siis sitä mieltä, että koko Euroopan unionin ja erityisesti oikeus- ja sisäasioiden ministerien neuvoston on paneuduttava todella näiden ongelmien ratkaisemiseen käytännöllisellä ja järjestelmällisellä tavalla. Juuri tämä vakaumus leimaa Yhdistyneen kuningaskunnan puheenjohtajakautta. Ehdotan siis kolmea pääasiallista toimintatapaa. Ensinnäkin globalisoituneessa maailmassamme mikään yksittäinen valtio ei kykene selviytymään näistä ongelmista yksin, ei edes omien rajojen sisällä. Maailmassa, jossa tehdään miljoonia kansainvälisiä matkoja ja taloudellisia liiketoimia joka vuosi, "ylhäisen eristäytyneisyyden" kaltaiset ajatukset tai puheet "Doverin valkoisista kalliosta" eivät paljoa auta selviytymään kansainvälisestä rikollisuudesta, terrorismista, vakavasta ja järjestäytyneestä rikollisuudesta tai kansainvälisestä muuttoliikkeestä. Terrorismin ja vakavan järjestäytyneen rikollisuuden torjunta edellyttää lisääntyvää ei vähenevää yhteistyötä eurooppalaisella tasolla. Totuus on, että me kaikki saavutamme eniten kaikilla näillä osa-alueilla, myös omien rajojemme sisällä, jakamalla kokemuksia, tietoa ja voimavaroja sekä tunnistamalla nämä uhat ja ottamalla ne kohteeksi järjestelmällisellä ja johdonmukaisella tavalla. Haluan huomauttaa, vaikka asia onkin itsestään selvä, että nämä uhat voitetaan parhaiten kansainvälisesti. Euroopan unionissa on vieläkin poliittisia puolueita ja muita mielipidejärjestöjä, jotka uskovat, että tämäntyyppisiltä uhilta suojaudutaan parhaiten rakentamalla entistä korkeampia aitoja välillemme. Totuus on kuitenkin juuri päinvastainen – parhaimmat mahdollisuudet menestyä ovat entistä tiiviimmässä yhteistyössä. Toinen linjamme taustalla oleva periaate on käytännönläheisen poliisi- ja tiedustelutyön perusteiden vahvistaminen. Euroopan unionin laajuisia toimia toteutetaan jo kaikilla näillä aloilla – järjestäytynyt rikollisuus, terrorismi, maahanmuutto, turvapaikka-asiat. Olemme sopineet esimerkiksi eurooppalaisesta pidätysmääräyksestä, johon sisältyy yleisiä säännöksiä terrorismista, ihmiskaupasta ja muista vakavista rikoksista määrättävistä rangaistuksista sekä näiden määritelmät. Meillä on säännöksiä poliisivoimien välisestä ja oikeudellisesta yhteistyöstä, minkä lisäksi olemme perustaneet Europolin ja Eurojustin tukemaan tätä työtä. Olemme myös vahvistaneet matkustusvapautta EU:n sisällä ja perustaneet EU:n rajaturvallisuusviraston. Voisimme tietysti tehdä enemmänkin kuin nyt teemme. Haagin ohjelmassa ja terrorisminvastaisessa toimintasuunnitelmassa on sovittu kattavasta toimintaohjelmasta. Edellä mainitut sisältävät monia järkeviä ja käytännöllisiä toimenpiteitä, joilla on todellisia vaikutuksia kansalaistemme elämään. Mikäli haluamme näyttää Euroopan unionin todellisen arvon, meidän on työskenneltävä yhdessä täyttääksemme nuo lupaukset. Haluan korostaa erityisesti sitä, että tarvitsemme Euroopan unionilta käytännönläheistä tukea tiedustelupalvelun johtamissa operaatioissa ja rajatylittävissä syytteeseen asettamisissa, huumeiden välitystä ja ihmiskauppaa torjuvien yhteisten joukkojen kehittämisessä, yhteistyötä helpottavan tiedon jakamisessa ja eurooppalaisen rikostutkintamallin kehittämisessä. Maahanmuutto- ja turvapaikka-asioissa toivon, että onnistumme tällä puheenjohtajakaudella tekemään huomattavia takaisinottosopimuksia tiettyjen maiden, kuten Venäjän, Ukrainan ja Marokon kanssa sekä kehittämään alueellisia kokeiluohjelmia suojelun alalla. Siviilioikeuden alalla keskitymme ehdotukseen pienten kanteiden nostamisen helpottamisesta ja yhtenäisen eurooppalaisen maksumääräyksen ja muiden toimenpiteiden toteuttamisesta. Nämä ovat kaikki tärkeitä käytännön vaiheita, joiden toivon saavan Euroopan parlamentin laajan kannatuksen. Kolmas periaate on kuitenkin se, jonka nykyaikainen soveltaminen asettaa uskoakseni suurimman haasteen. Periaate on se, että meidän täytyy käyttää tiedustelutietoja tehokkaasti ja älykkäästi sellaisten rikollisten yksilöimiseen, löytämiseen, tunnistamiseen ja tuomitsemiseen, jotka väkivallan ja vakavan ja järjestäytyneen rikollisuuden kautta uhkaavat yhteiskuntamme turvallisuutta ja vahvuutta. Menisin vieläkin pidemmälle. Vain hyödyntämällä tehokkaasti ja älykkäästi tiedustelutietoja voimme torjua meitä vastaan hyökkäävän rikollisuuden kanssa nykyaikaisessa maailmassa. Rikolliset ja terroristit käyttävät tietysti nykyaikaista teknologiaa – Internetiä ja tietoliikenneyhteyksiä – toimintansa suunnitteluun ja toteuttamiseen. Torjunta on tehokkaampaa, jos tiedämme, mistä he viestivät. Ilman tätä tietoa kätemme ovat sidotut. Rikolliset ovat tietysti tietoisia tästä ja pyrkivät tietoisesti käyttämään hyväksi heikkouksiamme. Jotkut ovat esittäneet, että Euroopan unioni on saanut aikaan paljon hyvää. Ollessani opiskelija kolmekymmentäviisi vuotta sitten osoitimme mieltä mantereemme demokratian puolesta ja pyrimme poistamaan siihen aikaan Kreikassa, Espanjassa ja Portugalissa vallalla olleet fasistiset ja sotilaalliset diktatuurit sekä Itä- ja Keski-Eurooppaa hallinneet totalitaariset diktatuurit. Mielenosoituskampanjat menestyivät meillä hyvin, kuten myös muualla maailmassa, esimerkiksi Etelä-Afrikassa ja Latinalaisessa Amerikassa, mikä on korostamisen arvoinen seikka. Tämä toteamus voi vaikuttaa itsestään selvältä, mutta meidän on kerättävä ja käytettävä tiedustelutietoja hyväksi meitä kohtaavien uhkien torjumiseen. Euroopan parlamentin ja kansallisten parlamenttien ympäri Eurooppaa on kuitenkin tunnustettava, että oikeuskehys, jossa nyt toimimme, tekee tietojen keruusta ja käytöstä erittäin vaikeaa ja joissain tapauksissa mahdotonta. Säännöt, jotka tällä hetkellä ohjaavat lainvalvontaelimiämme, rajoittavat totisesti niiden kykyä suojella meitä rikollisilta. Tieto on lainvalvontatoimenpiteiden elinehto ja juuri tiedon avulla poliisimme ja virastomme kykenevät ehkäisemään rikoksia niin, että ne vaikuttavat mahdollisimman vähän meidän jokapäiväiseen elämäämme. Järjestäytyneen rikollisuuden voittamiseksi ja terroristiryhmien pysäyttämiseksi ennen kuin nämä toimivat poliisilla on oltava selvä kuva siitä, keitä nämä rikolliset ovat, mitä he tekevät, missä he ovat ja miten he kommunikoivat keskenään. Usein se kuva hahmottuu vasta, kun on tietoa. Jos kuitenkin haluamme hajottaa järjestäytyneitä rikollisryhmiä tehokkaasti, meidän on analysoitava tiedustelutietoja ja muita tietoja niin, että voimme keskittää voimamme kaikkein vaarallisimpiin rikollisiin. Tämä tarve ei kuitenkaan aina näy säännöksissä, joita sovellamme poliisivoimiimme. Tämä ei ole puhtaasti periaatekeskustelu, vaan se koskee käytännönläheisiä toimenpiteitä rikollisuuden ja vastustajiemme torjumiseksi. Sen vuoksi Yhdistynyt kuningaskunta on puheenjohtajavaltiona ottanut asialistalle Haagin ohjelman ehdotusten mukaisesti ehdotuksen teleliikennetietojen tallentamisesta, toisen sukupolven Schengenin tietojärjestelmän kehittämisestä ja uuden viisumitietojärjestelmän perustamisesta. Tämän vuoksi olemme sitä mieltä, että viisumiemme, passiemme ja henkilöllisyystodistustemme jopa ajokorttiemme tulisi sisältää automaattisesti kansainvälisesti yhdenmukaiset ja johdonmukaiset biotunnistetiedot. Tämän vuoksi työskentelemme ahkerasti päästäksemme yksimielisyyteen kansainvälisten kumppaneidemme, myös Yhdysvaltojen, kanssa siitä, miten matkustajatietoja voitaisiin parhaiten käyttää hyväksi yhtenäisellä tavalla kansainvälisesti. Nämä ovat kaikki tärkeitä ja vaikeita toimenpiteitä, ja ne voidaan toteuttaa ainoastaan tekemällä kansainvälisiä sopimuksia erityisesti unionin jäsenvaltioiden kesken sekä Euroopan unionin ja sen Euroopan ulkopuolisten kumppaneiden välillä. Tämä vaatii järkeviä keskusteluja ja käytännönläheisen sopimuksen. Puheenjohtajavaltion mielestä muutosta kannattavien tahojen, kuten Yhdistyneen kuningaskunnan hallituksen, velvollisuutena on esittää perustelut sille, että tämäntyyppisillä toimenpiteillä on käytännön etuja rikollisuuden torjunnassa. Minä ainakin uskon niin. Sen vuoksi julkaisen tänään, kuten lupasin heinäkuussa kansalaisvapauksien ja -oikeuksien sekä oikeus- ja sisäasioiden valiokunnassa Brysselissä, esimerkkejä, joissa toimenpiteet, erityisesti teleliikennetietojen tallentamiseen liittyvät toimenpiteet, ovat olleet hyödyksi. Toivon, että Euroopan parlamentti harkitsee huolella esittämiäni perusteluja. Kollegani oikeus- ja sisäasioiden ministerien neuvostossa pohtivat näitä asioita huolellisesti myöhemmin tällä viikolla Newcastlessa pidettävässä neuvoston epävirallisessa kokouksessa. Mielestäni tärkein seikka, joka meidän on muistettava, kun tarkastelemme yhdessä näitä asioita, on kuitenkin se, että olemme suurella vaivalla saavuttaneet monia oikeuksia, kuten oikeuden yksityisyyteen, oikeuden omaisuuteen, sananvapauden, oikeuden matkustaa ja oikeuden elää. Rikolliset ja terroristit uhkaavat kuitenkin alituiseen näitä oikeuksia. Meillä on velvollisuus ja vastuu suojella käytännön toimenpiteillä niitä oikeuksia kansalaistemme puolesta. Samalla, kun pohdimme, mikä olisi paras tapa tehdä niin, meidän on aina ja väistämättä arvioitava oikeuksia. Merkitystä on joka tapauksessa sillä, että kaikki toimet ovat suhteellisia ja että väärinkäytöksiltä suojelu on tehokasta. Mielestäni ehdotuksemme takaavat sen. Mainitsen esimerkkinä teleliikennetietojen tallentamisen, joka on osoittautunut korvaamattomaksi meneillään olevissa Lontoon iskujen tutkimuksissa ja välttämättömäksi monien muidenkin Yhdistyneessä kuningaskunnassa tapahtuneiden rikosten selvittämisessä usein kuukausia tai vuosiakin tapahtuman jälkeen. Tietoliikenneyhteyksien palveluntarjoajat tallentavat jo nyt paljon tietoa liiketoiminnan harjoittamista varten, mutta joidenkin valtioiden tietosuojavelvoitteet velvoittavat ne hävittämään tiedot, jotka eivät suoraan liity liiketoiminnan harjoittamiseen. Tämä tarkoittaa sitä, että murhaajan kiinni saaminen tai terrori-iskun pysäyttäminen voi riippua siitä, mitä matkapuhelinoperaattoria uhri, epäilty tai todistaja käyttää tai on käyttänyt tai missä Euroopan unionin valtiossa he olivat. Itse asiassa yksitoista Euroopan unionin nykyisestä kahdestakymmenestäviidestä jäsenvaltiosta on sen jälkeen kehittynyt demokraattiseksi Euroopan unionin täysivaltaiseksi jäseneksi. Se on suurenmoinen saavutus, jota meidän on ylistettävä jatkossakin. Joidenkin mielestä vaatimus, jonka mukaan teleliikenneyhtiöiden olisi säilytettävä tieto, jota ne käyttävät laskutustarkoituksiin, on yksityisyyden loukkaus tai aiheuttaa yrityksille kohtuuttomia kustannuksia. Olemme kuitenkin Yhdistyneessä kuningaskunnassa menestyksekkäästi kehittäneet yhteistyössä merkittävän palveluntarjoajan kanssa järjestelmän, jonka avulla olennaisia tietoja voidaan säilyttää enintään 12 kuukautta 1,2 miljoonalla eurolla. Jos otetaan huomioon, että yhden murhatapauksen rikosteknisen tutkimuksen kustannukset ovat yli 0,5 miljoonaa, tämä on varmaan hyväksyttävä kustannuserä valtiolle. Toiset puolestaan ovat väittäneet, että vaadimme liikaa tietoja ja että esimerkiksi vastaamattomia puheluja ei pitäisi vaatia tallentamaan. Monissa tapauksissa yritykset ovat kuitenkin jo keränneet tämän tiedon omia tarkoituksiaan varten. Pyydämme ainoastaan, että tieto säilytettäisiin ja saatettaisiin kansallisen lainsäädännön mukaisesti lainvalvonnan käyttöön. Yleisemmin ehkä huolestuttaa se, että ehdotus loukkaa tarpeettomasti yksityisyyttä tai on suhteeton. En usko, että niin on, sillä monissa tapauksissa, joista osan olen esitellyt teille jakamassani asiakirjassa, oikeus on uhrin kohdalla toteutunut ainoastaan teleliikennetietojen tallentamisen ansiosta. Sama koskee Schengenin tietojärjestelmää, jonka toinen versio antaa lainvalvontaviranomaisille mahdollisuuden vaihtaa tietoja etsintäkuulutetuista henkilöistä tai henkilöistä, joilta on evättävä pääsy Euroopan unioniin, kuten myös kadonneista tai varastetuista henkilöllisyystodistuksista tai muista tavaroista. Tämä on ratkaiseva väline yhteisen turvallisuuden takaamiseksi ja oikeuksien turvaamiseksi. Ilman uutta järjestelmää myöskään uudet jäsenvaltiot eivät pysty poistamaan sisärajoja muiden Schengen-maiden kanssa. Neuvoston ja Euroopan parlamentin on tulevina kuukausina työskenneltävä yhdessä sopiakseen järjestelmän oikeuskehyksestä. Mielestäni meidän on suoriuduttava tästä nopeasti, jotta järjestelmä saadaan käynnistettyä alkuvuoteen 2007 mennessä. Meidän kaikkien on oltava varmoja siitä, että yhteisen turvallisuutemme ja perusoikeuksiemme välillä vallitsee tasapaino. Varmistaaksemme tasapainon meidän on tutkittava perinpohjaisesti, pitäisikö Schengenin tietojärjestelmän II-vaiheen olla valvontajärjestelmä vai olisiko se tehokkaampi lainvalvontaviranomaisten työkaluna. Tätä seikkaa arvioitaessa on myös pohdittava, vallitseeko kansalaisoikeuksien loukkaamisen ja saavutettavan lisääntyvän turvallisuuden välillä tasapaino, jotta varmistetaan, että kaikki tekemämme muutokset ovat suhteellisia ja järkeviä. Sama koskee myös viisumitietojärjestelmää, jonka osalta meidän on varmistettava että ne, joilla on laillinen oikeus matkustaa, voivat tehdä sen ja, että niitä, jotka yrittävät käyttää hyväksi vapauksiamme, estetään tekemästä näin. Ihmiset käyttävät yhä useammin useita henkilöllisyyksiä peitelläkseen liikkeitään. Biotunnistetiedot ovat tehokkain keino varmistaa, että voimme todistaa ihmisen henkilöllisyyden. Kattava tietokanta viisumihakemuksista jokaiseen hakijaan sopivine biotunnistetietoineen merkitsee, että rehelliset matkustajat voivat todistaa henkilöllisyytensä helposti ja matkustaa vapaammin. Hallitukset saavat näin selkeän kuvan siitä, kuka tulee Euroopan unioniin ja kuka lähtee pois sekä varmuus siitä, että heillä on laillinen oikeus tehdä niin. Biotunnistetietojen käyttö merkitsee myös sitä, että jos ihmiset tuhoavat henkilöllisyystodistuksensa tai viipyvät maassa liian kauan, voimme tunnistaa heidät ja tietää ja tietää, mistä he tulevat. Neuvoston ja Euroopan parlamentin on työskenneltävä tiiviisti yhdessä tavoitteenaan sopia viisumitietojärjestelmää koskevasta asetuksesta ja hyväksyä se. Neuvosto tähtää siihen, että järjestelmä olisi konsulaattien käytössä vuoden 2006 alusta alkaen. Kun ottaa huomioon, että toimipaikkojen varustaminen ja koulutuksen läpivieminen vie merkittävästi aikaa, asetus pitäisi hyväksyä kiireellisesti mahdollisimman pian. Kaikki esimerkit ovat käytännönläheisiä toimenpiteitä, joilla parannetaan turvallisuutta ja osoitetaan yhteistyöllä saavutettavat käytännön hyödyt. Jokainen toimenpide parantaa tiedon jakamista. Toisin kuin jotkut ovat väittäneet, tämä ei johda kansalaisten massavalvontaan tai yksityisyyden suojan tarpeettomaan loukkaamiseen. Yhteiskuntamme on tietysti muuttunut dramaattisesti näiden vuosien aikana niin taloudellisesti, sosiaalisesti kuin teknologisestikin. Samalla on muuttunut myös yhteisöjemme rakenne, joka vaihtelee eri puolilla Eurooppaa, ja monissa yhteisöissä eri rodut, uskonnot ja erilaisen taustan omaavat ihmiset elävät yhdessä. Ymmärrän kuitenkin huolen siitä, että tietoja voidaan käyttää väärin tai että jotkut ihmiset tunnistettaisiin väärin. Tämän vuoksi meidän on varmistettava, että jokaisessa tapauksessa tietojenvaihdolle on olemassa selkeä oikeusperusta ja että perusteisiin kuuluvat myös asianmukaiset takeet väärinkäyttöä vastaan. Esittämäni ehdotukset muodostavat valtavan suuren tehtäväkentän puheenjohtajakaudellemme, ja teemme parhaamme edistääksemme niitä. Haluan kuitenkin sanoa Yhdistyneen kuningaskunnan hallituksen puolesta, että mielestämme meidän on tarkkaan katsottava, mihin suuntaan Euroopan ihmisoikeussopimuksen soveltamiseen liittyvä oikeuskäytäntö kehittyy. Viisikymmentä vuotta vanha sopimus tehtiin hyvin erilaisessa kansainvälisessä ilmapiirissä, ja se on parantanut merkittävästi ihmisoikeuksia koko maanosassa. Sen saavutuksia on vaalittava, eikä niitä saa heikentää, mutta mielestäni näiden ihmisoikeuksien kehittämisessä on välttämätöntä löytää tasapaino erittäin tärkeiden yksilönoikeuksien ja kaikkien terroristiväkivallalta suojaavan yhteisen turvallisuuden välille. Ihmisoikeuksia vahvistettaessa tulisi ottaa huomioon se tosiasia, joka meidän kaikkien on hyväksyttävä eli että on tarkasteltava rinnakkain oikeutta tulla suojelluksi kidutukselta tai pahoinpitelyltä sekä oikeutta tulla suojelluksi kuolemalta ja tuholta. Tätä tuhoa ja kuolemaa on aiheuttanut summittainen terrorismi, jonka syynä, taustavoimana ja lietsojina ovat joskus olleet Euroopan unionin ulkopuolisten valtioiden kansalaiset. Tätä tasapainoa ei ole helppoa saavuttaa ja se edellyttää, että me kaikki poliittiset päättäjät kysymme kansalaisilta, jotka ovat meidät tänne äänestäneet, minne he haluavat rajan vedettävän. Uskon, etteivät he odota meiltä vain yksilönoikeuksien suojelua vaan myös demokraattisten arvojen, kuten lainmukaisen turvallisuuden, suojelua. Yhdistyneen kuningaskunnan hallituksen mielipide on, että tasapaino ei ole oikea tässä tilanteessa, jossa olemme ja joka on hyvin erilainen kuin tilanne, joka vallitsi ihmisoikeussopimuksen tekohetkellä. Näin ollen sopimusta on tutkittava lähemmin tässä asiayhteydessä. Aion keskustella kollegoideni kanssa oikeus- ja sisäasioiden ministerien neuvostossa siitä, miten voimme parhaiten tarttua näihin ongelmiin johdonmukaisesti kansainvälisiä velvollisuuksiamme unohtamatta. Uskon vahvasti, että tämän maanosan kansa haluaa olla varma siitä, että lakiasäätävää hallintojärjestelmää, joka puolustaa ihmisoikeuksia, käytetään puolustamaan kaikkien kansalaistemme oikeuksia tasapainoisella ja harkitulla tavalla ja että velvollisuutemme on keskustella asiasta avoimesti. Lopuksi sanoisin, että mielestäni perustuslakia vastaan annettujen "ei" äänien olisi herätettävä ne, jotka uskovat eurooppalaiseen hankkeeseen ja tukevat sitä, ja saada heidät keskittymään siihen, millä on merkitystä. Kaikkien kansalaistemme suurimpana huolena on oikeus turvallisuuteen ja varmuuteen. Täällä voimme näyttää, että Eurooppa voi ja tuo todellisia etuja kansalaisillemme. Meillä Euroopan unionissa on velvollisuus vastata haasteeseen. Tässä asiassa emme voi pettää heitä. Kaiken kaikkiaan velvollisuutemme on mielestäni edistää yhteiskuntaa, joka perustuu erilaisten yksilöiden, kulttuurien, uskontojen ja rotujen väliseen todelliseen kunnioitukseen. Velvollisuutemme on edistää näkökantaa, jonka mukaan demokratia, eikä väkivalta, on se keino, jolla saadaan aikaan muutosta ja joka ohjaa meitä. Meidän on puolustettava arvojamme, joita ovat kunnioitus, suvaitsevaisuus, vapaus ja demokratia, kaikkia niitä vastaan, jotka haluavat tuhota ne tai korvata ne joillain muilla opeilla, ja varsinkin jos he pyrkivät käyttämään väkivaltaa päämääränsä edistämiseksi. Näiden arvojen puolustaminen on osa Euroopan unionin historiaa, mutta sen täytyy olla myös keskeinen osa Euroopan unionin tulevaisuutta. Tällaiseen tulevaisuuteen katsoessamme on myönnettävä, että suurenmoisesta menestyksestä huolimatta monet kansalaisemme ovat erittäin skeptisiä Euroopan unionin suhteen, jopa siinä määrin, että joissain valtioissa on kansanäänestyksellä hylätty ehdotus uudeksi perustuslaiksi tavalla, joka antaa ymmärtää, että on olemassa syvempään juurtuneita huolia. Pohjimmaisena syynä näihin epäilyihin on mielestäni se, ettei Euroopan unioni näytä tarpeeksi paneutuvan tarjoamaan käytännönläheisiä ratkaisuja, joilla hälvennettäisiin joitakin suurimpia huolia. Viittaan erityisesti vakavaan ja järjestäytyneeseen rikollisuuteen, johon kuuluvat huumekauppa ja ihmiskauppa sekä laittomaan maahanmuuttoon ja väärin perustein tapahtuvaan turvapaikanhakuun sekä terrorismiin, mikä tahansa sen alkuperä onkaan. Nämä ongelmat hallitsevat poliittista keskustelua halki Euroopan, ja ne ovat aiheita, jotka saavat tehokkaimmin aikaan poliittista toimintaa, usein taantumuksellisella ja jopa vaarallisella tavalla. Ongelmia voivat jopa käyttää hyväkseen vihamieliset kansankiihottajat horjuttaakseen demokratiaa, joka joissain tapauksissa on vasta äskettäin luotu. On helppo ymmärtää, miksi nämä uhat aiheuttavat vihaa kansojemme keskuudessa. Terrorismin uhka on hyvin todellinen, kuten saimme traagisesti todeta heinäkuussa Lontoossa. Vuonna 2004 yli 100 000 naista myytiin Euroopan unionissa ja vuosittain yli 8 000 ihmistä kuolee huumeiden käytön vuoksi, kun rikollisuus ja kurjuus rehottaa joka puolella Eurooppaa. Laiton maahanmuutto ja liian löyhä valvontajärjestelmä lisäävät huolestuneisuutta jokaisessa kaupungissa."@fi7 ". Monsieur le Président, je voudrais commencer par vous remercier de me donner l’occasion de prendre la parole devant le Parlement européen. Je souhaite saisir cette occasion pour présenter l’approche que le gouvernement britannique tient à suivre dans la conduite de la présidence du Conseil «Justice et affaires intérieures», auquel je participerai de même que ma collègue, la baronne Ashton, qui m’accompagne aujourd’hui. Je suis dès lors d’avis que l’Union européenne dans son ensemble - mais tout particulièrement le Conseil «Justice et affaires intérieures» - doit véritablement accorder la priorité à ces questions de manière concrète et systématique. C’est cette conviction qui guidera la présidence britannique. Pour ce faire, je suggère trois approches principales. La première est que, dans notre monde globalisé, aucun pays ne peut régler ces problèmes seul, même à l’intérieur de ses propres frontières. Dans un monde où des millions de voyages internationaux et de transactions économiques ont lieu chaque année, les idées de «splendide isolement» ou la rhétorique des «falaises blanches de Douvres» ne peuvent rien lorsqu’il s’agit de lutter contre la criminalité internationale, le terrorisme, le crime grave et organisé ou de se pencher sur les modèles des migrations internationales. La nécessité de lutter contre le terrorisme et le crime grave et organisé signifie que nous avons besoin de plus et non de moins de coopération européenne. En vérité, dans chacun de ces domaines, nous parviendrons tous, y compris au sein de nos propres pays, à obtenir les meilleurs résultats en partageant nos expériences, nos informations et nos ressources et en identifiant puis en ciblant les menaces de manière systématique et cohérente. Je formule la remarque apparemment évidente que l’échelon international est le plus à même de s’attaquer à ces menaces, car il reste des partis politiques et d’autres organes d’opinion au sein de l’Union européenne qui croient que la construction de barrières de plus en plus infranchissables est le meilleur moyen de se protéger de ce genre de menaces, alors qu’en vérité, c’est tout le contraire - nos meilleures chances de réussites résident dans une coopération de plus en plus étroite. Le deuxième principe qui doit sous-tendre notre approche est le renforcement du fondement du travail concret et pragmatique des services de police et de renseignements. Dans chacun de ces domaines - la criminalité organisée, le terrorisme, l’immigration et l’asile -, nous avons déjà pris des mesures à l’échelon communautaire. Nous avons par exemple trouvé un accord sur le mandat d’arrêt européen, les règles communes en matière de peines et les définitions de terrorisme, de traite des êtres humains, ainsi que d’autres crimes graves. Nous disposons de règles de coopération judicaire et policière et nous avons créé Europol et Eurojust pour les aider dans leur travail. Nous avons également renforcé la liberté de voyager au sein de l’UE et avons institué l’Agence européenne pour la gestion des frontières. Nous pouvons bien sûr faire encore davantage. C’est ce que nous faisons. Nous nous sommes mis d’accord sur un programme d’action détaillé dans le programme de La Haye et sur le plan d’action contre le terrorisme. Ceux-ci contiennent de nombreuses mesures concrètes et raisonnables qui feront réellement la différence pour nos concitoyens. Si nous tenons à démontrer la valeur réelle de l’Union européenne, nous devons travailler ensemble pour être à la hauteur de ces engagements. Je voudrais en particulier souligner qu’il y a lieu que l’Union européenne apporte son soutien dans la pratique aux opérations des services de renseignement et aux poursuites judiciaires transfrontalières, à la mise en place d’équipes communes de lutte contre le trafic de drogues et la traite des êtres humains, à l’échange d’informations pour faciliter le travail en commun et au développement d’un modèle européen en matière de renseignements de nature criminelle. Dans le domaine de l’immigration et de l’asile, j’espère que, lors de cette présidence, nous parviendrons à obtenir des accords importants de réadmission entre l’Union européenne et certains pays tels que la Russie, l’Ukraine et le Maroc et à développer des programmes pilotes régionaux de protection. Dans le domaine de la justice civile, nous nous pencherons sur la proposition visant à faciliter les petits litiges, l’établissement d’un virement européen unique, ainsi que d’autres mesures. Ce sont toutes des mesures concrètes importantes qui, je l’espère, enjoindront le Parlement à apporter son soutien sans faille. C’est cependant le troisième principe qui, à mes yeux, pose le plus grand défi dans son application moderne. Ce principe avance qu’il nous faut utiliser les services de renseignements avec efficacité et intelligence en vue de cibler, de localiser, d’identifier et de condamner les criminels qui, au moyen de la violence terroriste et du crime grave et organisé, menacent la sécurité et la force de notre société. J’irais en effet même plus loin: ce n’est que par une utilisation efficace et intelligente des renseignements que notre monde moderne pourra combattre les criminels qui nous attaquent. Bien entendu, les criminels et les terroristes utilisent les technologies modernes - l’internet et les communications mobiles - pour concevoir et mener leurs activités. Nous ne serons en mesure de les combattre efficacement que si nous connaissons la teneur de leurs communications. Sans cela, nous les combattons avec les deux mains liées dans le dos. Évidemment les criminels le savent pertinemment et s’organisent consciemment pour tirer parti de nos faiblesses. Je pars de l’hypothèse que l’Union européenne s’est avérée une écrasante force du bien. Il y a trente-cinq ans, lorsque j’étais étudiant, nous faisions campagne pour la démocratie sur ce continent, pour mettre fin aux dictatures fascistes ou militaires qui existaient alors en Grèce, en Espagne et au Portugal, et pour en finir avec les dictatures totalitaires qui gouvernaient à ce moment-là la plus grande partie de l’Europe centrale et orientale. Ces campagnes ont porté leurs fruits, à l’instar - il n’est pas inutile de le souligner - des campagnes dans d’autres parties du monde, par exemple en Afrique du Sud et en Amérique latine. Il peut sembler évident de dire que nous devons collecter et utiliser les renseignements contre les menaces auxquelles nous sommes confrontées, mais le Parlement européen et les parlements nationaux de l’Europe toute entière doivent admettre que le cadre juridique que nous connaissons à l’heure actuelle rend la collecte et l’utilisation de ces renseignements extrêmement difficile et, dans certains cas, impossible. Les règles qui régissent actuellement nos organismes de répression entravent sérieusement leur capacité à nous protéger contre les criminels. Les informations sont essentielles aux opérations des organismes de répression et ce sont ces informations qui permettent à notre police et à nos agences de prévenir les crimes avec un impact minimal sur nos vies quotidiennes. Pour prendre la criminalité organisée à bras le corps et arrêter les groupes terroristes avant qu’ils ne réalisent leurs activités, ils ont besoin d’une image claire de l’identité des criminels, de ce qu’ils font, d’où ils sont et de la manière dont ils communiquent entre eux. Souvent, cette image est reconstituée après les faits. Pourtant, si nous voulons être efficace dans le démantèlement des groupes de criminalité organisée, nous devons analyser les informations et les renseignements de sorte à pouvoir cibler nos efforts sur les criminels les plus dangereux. Cette nécessité n’est toutefois pas toujours reflétée dans les règles que nous appliquons à notre police. Il ne s’agit pas d’un débat stérile sur des principes. Il s’agit de mesures concrètes pour combattre la criminalité et nos opposants. C’est pourquoi la présidence britannique, suivant les propositions élaborées dans le programme de La Haye, a mis à l’ordre du jour des propositions sur la rétention de données de télécommunications, en établissant une deuxième génération du système d’information Schengen et en mettant en place un nouveau système d’information sur les visas. Par conséquent, nous soutenons que des données biométriques cohérentes et compatibles au niveau international devraient automatiquement faire partie de nos visas, de nos passeports et de nos cartes d’identité, le cas échéant - et je suggérerais même aussi des permis de conduire. C’est pourquoi nous allons travailler d’arrache-pied pour décider avec nos partenaires internationaux, y compris les États-Unis, des meilleures mesures pour une utilisation cohérente des données des passagers à l’échelon international. Ces mesures sont toutes importantes et difficiles. Elles ne peuvent être réalisées que par des accords internationaux, notamment au sein de l’Union européenne et entre l’Union européenne et ses partenaires partout dans le monde. Ils requièrent tous des discussions réalistes et des accords concrets. La présidence accepte qu’en considérant les propositions dans ces domaines, il appartienne aux partisans du changement, tel que le gouvernement britannique, d’expliquer que les mesures de ce type ont les avantages concrets contre la criminalité que je crois qu’elles ont. C’est pourquoi je publie aujourd’hui, comme je l’avais promis à la commission LIBE en juillet à Bruxelles, une explication des cas pour certaines mesures, notamment celles qui portent sur la rétention des données en rapport avec les télécommunications. J’espère que le Parlement examinera soigneusement le cas que je lui présente. Mes collègues du Conseil «Justice et affaires intérieures» examineront attentivement ces questions lors de la réunion informelle du Conseil à Newcastle qui se tiendra dans la semaine. Cependant, je suis d’avis que le point central dont nous devons nous souvenir lorsque nous examinons ces questions ensemble est que nous bénéficions d’un grand nombre de droits remportés de haute lutte, tels que le droit à la vie privée, le droit de propriété, la liberté d’expression, le droit de voyager et le droit à la vie. Ces droits sont sérieusement menacés par les criminels et les terroristes. Nous avons le devoir et la responsabilité d’essayer de les protéger par des mesures concrètes pour nos concitoyens. En réfléchissant à la meilleure façon d’y parvenir, nous devrons toujours - c’est inévitable - pondérer ces droits. Ce qui importe dans chaque cas, c’est que les mesures soient proportionnées et que la protection contre les abus soit efficace. Je crois que nos propositions offrent ces garanties. Permettez-moi de citer l’exemple de la rétention des données de télécommunications. Elle s’avère inestimable pour les enquêtes actuelles sur les attaques de Londres et, dans de nombreux cas au Royaume-Uni, elle s’est avérée essentielle pour résoudre des crimes, souvent des mois ou des années après qu’ils ont été commis. Les prestataires de services de communications retiennent d’ores et déjà énormément d’informations à des fins commerciales, mais les impératifs de protection des données dans certains pays font pression sur eux pour qu’ils effacent les données qui ne sont pas à caractère commercial. En d’autres termes, attraper un meurtrier ou empêcher une attaque terroriste peut dépendre de la compagnie de téléphonie mobile qu’une victime, un suspect ou un témoin utilisent ou ont utilisé, ou du pays de l’UE où ils se trouvent. En réalité, 11 des 25 États membres actuels de l’Union européenne ont depuis lors rejoint la démocratie en tant que membres de plein droit de l’UE. Voilà une magnifique réussite que nous devrions continuer de célébrer. Certains avancent qu’exiger des compagnies de télécommunications qu’elles retiennent les données qu’elles utilisent à des fins de facturation est une intrusion dans la vie privée ou que cela entraîne des coûts excessifs pour les entreprises. Au Royaume-Uni, nous avons toutefois créé avec succès un système, en partenariat avec les principaux prestataires de services, leur permettent de retenir les données essentielles pendant 12 mois tout au plus pour un coût d’1,2 million d’euros. En comparaison aux coûts moyens du travail des médecins légistes pour une affaire de meurtre, qui s’élève à 0,5 million d’euros, c’est un coût acceptable à supporter pour un État. D’autres soutiennent que nous demandons trop de données, par exemple. Qu’il ne devrait pas y avoir d’obligation de retenir des appels manqués. Dans de nombreux cas, pourtant, ces données ont déjà été collectées par les compagnies pour leurs propres fins. Nous demandons simplement qu’elles soient retenues et accessibles aux services de répression en vertu d’une loi nationale. Il existe peut-être une préoccupation plus générale, à savoir que la proposition est une intrusion inutile dans la vie privée ou qu’elle est disproportionnée. Je ne crois pas que ce soit le cas parce que, dans de nombreux cas, dont certains que j’ai exposés dans le document que je fais circuler, le droit des victimes à la justice n’a été obtenu que grâce à la rétention des données en rapport avec les télécommunications. De même, la prochaine génération du système d’information Schengen permet à nos services de répression d’échanger des informations sur les personnes faisant l’objet d’un mandat d’arrêt ou dont l’entrée est refusée dans l’Union européenne, ainsi que des informations sur les documents perdus et volés ou d’autres objets. Il s’agit là d’un outil fondamental pour assurer notre sécurité collective et garantir nos droits. Sans la mise en place d’un nouveau système, les nouveaux États membres ne seront pas non plus en mesure de supprimer leurs frontières internes avec les autres pays de l’espace Schengen. Le Conseil et le Parlement européen devront travailler de concert les mois à venir pour décider du cadre juridique du système. À mon avis, nous devrons procéder rapidement pour que le système puisse être en place début 2007. Nous devons tous être certains que nous trouvons le juste équilibre entre notre sécurité collective et nos droits fondamentaux. Pour ce faire, nous devons être sûrs que nous avons étudié la question suivante sous tous ses aspects: le système d’information Schengen II doit-il être un système de contrôle ou peut-il être utilisé plus efficacement en tant qu’outil chargé de faire respecter la loi. En portant des jugements à cet égard, il nous faut soupeser l’équilibre entre une réduction de la liberté civile et un accroissement de la sécurité, pour garantir que tout changement que nous apportons soit proportionné et raisonnable. Cela s’applique également au système d’information sur les visas. Nous devons en effet nous assurer que ceux qui ont un droit légitime à voyager peuvent le faire, alors que ceux qui cherchent à exploiter nos libertés en sont dissuadés. De plus en plus, les gens utilisent de multiples identités pour cacher leurs mouvements. La biométrie est la manière la plus efficace de prouver l’identité d’une personne. Une base de données détaillée des demandes de visa avec une biométrie correspondant à chaque candidat signifie que les vrais voyageurs sont en mesure de prouver aisément leur identité et de voyager plus librement. Les gouvernements auront une idée précise de l’identité des personnes entrant et sortant de l’Union européenne, avec l’assurance qu’ils ont le droit d’agir de la sorte. L’utilisation de la biométrie signifie également que si les gens détruisent leurs documents ou ont dépassé la durée de séjour autorisée, nous sommes en mesure d’identifier qui ils sont et d’où ils viennent. Le Conseil et le Parlement européen devront travailler en étroite collaboration pour trouver un accord et adopter le règlement relatif au système d’information sur les visas. Le Conseil souhaite que le système soit mis en place et fonctionne dans les consulats à partir de 2006. Compte tenu de la longue entrée en la matière pour l’équipement des postes et la formation, il y a véritablement urgence à adopter ce règlement le plus rapidement possible. Chacun de ces exemples est une mesure concrète qui peut renforcer la sécurité et démontrer les avantages concrets d’une collaboration. Dans chaque cas, elles augmenteront l’échange d’informations. Elles ne mèneront pas - comme certains l’ont avancé - à une surveillance massive de nos concitoyens ou à une intrusion inutile dans leur vie privée. Bien entendu, la nature de nos sociétés a changé de manière spectaculaire tout au long des années, tant sur les plans économique et social que technologique. Elle a changé dans la composition de nos communautés, qui varient sur tout le territoire de l’Union, avec de nombreuses communautés de races, de religions et d’histoires différentes cohabitant ensemble. Je comprends toutefois les préoccupations suivant lesquelles ces données pourraient être utilisées à mauvais escient, mener à des abus ou à ce que certaines personnes ne soient pas correctement identifiées. C’est pourquoi nous devons nous assurer que, dans chaque cas, il existe une base juridique claire pour l’échange d’informations et que cette base comporte les garanties appropriées contre les abus. Bien entendu, les propositions que j’ai exposées représentent un ordre du jour énorme pour cette présidence et nous ferons de notre mieux pour le promouvoir. Au nom du gouvernement britannique, je tiens toutefois aussi à dire que nous croyons qu’il est nécessaire d’examiner soigneusement la manière dont la jurisprudence relative à l’application de la Convention européenne sur les droits de l’homme se développe. La Convention, établie il y a 50 ans dans un climat international tout à fait différent, a entraîné de grandes avancées dans les droits de l’homme sur le continent tout entier. Ses réussites doivent être favorisées et développées et non entravées, mais j’estime qu’en développant ces droits de l’homme, il est réellement nécessaire de trouver un équilibre entre les droits de l’homme fondamentaux pour la personne et le droit collectif à se prémunir contre la violence terroriste. Notre renforcement des droits de l’homme doit reconnaître une vérité que nous devons tous accepter: le droit d’être protégé de la torture et des mauvais traitements doit être considéré en parfait accord avec le droit d’être protégé de la mort et de la destruction causées par un terrorisme aveugle, parfois causé, provoqué ou fomenté par des ressortissants de pays en dehors de l’Union européenne. Il est difficile de trouver le juste équilibre et cet équilibre exige de chacun de nous, en tant qu’hommes et femmes politiques, de demander à nos concitoyens - qui nous ont tous élus - où ils souhaitent que nous placions la barre. Je crois qu’ils attendent de nous non seulement la protection des droits individuels, mais aussi la protection de valeurs démocratiques telles que la sûreté et la sécurité dans le cadre de la loi. Mon gouvernement est d’avis que cet équilibre n’est pas juste vu les circonstances auxquelles nous sommes confrontées - des circonstances très différentes de celles des pères fondateurs de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme - et il est nécessaire de l’examiner avec soin à la lumière de ce contexte. J’ai l’intention de discuter de la meilleure façon d’aborder ces questions de manière cohérente à nos obligations internationales avec mes collègues du Conseil «Justice et affaires intérieures». Je crois avant tout que les peuples de ce continent tiennent à être assurés que le régime législatif qui défend les droits de l’homme doit être utilisé pour défendre les droits de tous nos concitoyens de manière équilibrée et réfléchie. Et il est de notre devoir d’en débattre ouvertement. En conclusion, je crois que le «non» à la Constitution devrait être pris comme un avertissement pour ceux qui croient et soutiennent le projet européen afin de se concentrer sur l’essentiel. Le droit à la sécurité est une préoccupation essentielle de tous nos concitoyens. Dans ce cas-ci, nous pouvons montrer que l’Europe peut et doit distribuer des bénéfices réels à ses citoyens. Au sein de l’Union européenne, nous avons la responsabilité de relever ce défi. Nous ne pouvons leur faire faux bond dans ce domaine. Toutefois, dans tout cela, je crois qu’il est de notre devoir de promouvoir une société basée sur le respect véritable pour son prochain, le respect d’une culture pour une autre, d’une religion pour une autre, d’une race pour une autre. Il est de notre devoir de promouvoir l’opinion selon laquelle la démocratie, et non la violence, est la voie du changement et nous gouverne. Nous devons défendre nos valeurs de respect, de tolérance, de liberté et de démocratie contre tous ceux qui veulent les détruire ou les remplacer par une autre doctrine, en particulier si le moyen qu’ils utilisent pour promouvoir leur ambition est la violence. Ces valeurs font partie de l’Union européenne, mais elles doivent aussi être au cœur de l’avenir de l’Union européenne. En regardant cet avenir, nous devons reconnaître qu’en dépit de tout ce que nous avons accompli, nombre de nos concitoyens demeurent extrêmement sceptiques à propos de l’Union européenne, au point que, dans certains pays, les référendums nationaux ont rejeté le projet de nouvelle Constitution d’une façon qui suggérait des préoccupations plus profondes. Je reste convaincu que le fait que l’Union européenne ne semble pas accorder une priorité suffisante à la recherche de solutions concrètes qui font la différence pour certaines questions très préoccupantes est une raison profonde de ces doutes. Je fais référence en particulier à la criminalité grave et organisée, notamment le trafic de drogues et la traite des êtres humains, à l’immigration clandestine et aux faux demandeurs d’asile, ainsi qu’à la lutte contre le terrorisme, quelles que soient leurs origines. Ces questions sont des priorités à l’ordre du jour politique partout en Europe, et ce sont fréquemment celles qui mobilisent le plus l’activité politique, de manière souvent réactionnaire, voire dangereuse. Elles peuvent même être utilisées par des démagogues pernicieux pour saper cette même démocratie qui, dans certains cas, vient d’être créée. Il n’est pas difficile de comprendre pourquoi ces menaces sont sources de colère parmi nos populations. La menace du terrorisme reste très réelle, comme nous l’avons tragiquement vu à Londres en juillet. En 2004, plus de 100 000 femmes ont souffert de la traite des être humains au sein de l’Union européenne et plus de 8 000 personnes meurent chaque jour de la drogue, alors que le crime et la misère sont attisés partout sur le continent. L’immigration clandestine et un système de contrôle trop peu rigoureux suscitent des préoccupations dans chaque ville."@fr8 "Mr President, I would like to begin by thanking you for the opportunity of addressing the European Parliament. I want to take the opportunity to set out the approach that the British Government will follow in its conduct of the Presidency of the Justice and Home Affairs Council, which will be occupied by myself and my colleague Baroness Ashton, who is with me today. I therefore believe that the whole of the European Union – but in particular the Justice and Home Affairs Council – needs to give real priority to tackling these issues in a practical and systematic way. It is that conviction which will inform the UK Presidency. In so doing I suggest three principal approaches. The first is that in our globalised world no single nation can tackle these problems alone, even in its own country. In a world with millions of international journeys and economic transactions every year, ideas of ‘splendid isolation’ or rhetoric about ‘the White Cliffs of Dover’ can do nothing to address international criminality, terrorism or serious and organised crime or address patterns of international migration. The need to fight terrorism and serious and organised crime means that we need more European cooperation and not less. The truth is that in each of these areas we will all, including within our own countries, achieve most by sharing experience, information and resources and by identifying and then targeting the threats systematically and consistently. I make the apparently obvious point that these threats are best tackled internationally, since there remain political parties and other organs of opinion within the European Union which believe that protection from these types of threat can best be secured by the construction of higher and higher fences between us, whilst the truth is the opposite – our best chances of success lie in deeper and deeper cooperation. The second principle that must underlie our approach is to strengthen the foundation of practical and pragmatic police and intelligence work. In each of these areas – organised crime, terrorism, immigration, asylum – we have already taken action at the European Union level. For example, we have agreed the European Arrest Warrant, common rules on penalties for and definitions of terrorism, people trafficking and other serious crimes. We have rules on police and judicial cooperation and we have established Europol and Eurojust to support their work. We have also strengthened freedom to travel within the EU and established the European Borders Agency. There is of course more that we can do and are doing. We have agreed a comprehensive programme of action in the Hague Programme and the Counter-Terrorism Action Plan. These contain many sensible, practical measures that will make a real difference to our citizens. If we want to demonstrate the real value of the European Union, we now need to work together to deliver on those commitments. I would like in particular to highlight the need for practical European Union support for intelligence-led operations and cross-border prosecutions, the development of joint teams to combat drug dealing and people trafficking, the sharing of information to facilitate joint work and the development of a European criminal intelligence model. In the field of migration and asylum, I hope that in this Presidency we will succeed in securing significant European Union readmission agreements with certain countries such as Russia, Ukraine and Morocco, and develop pilot regional protection programmes. In the field of civil justice, we will focus on the proposal to facilitate small claims and the establishment of a single European order of payment and other measures. These are all important practical steps, which I hope will command widespread support from this Parliament. But it is the third principle which I believe poses the greatest challenge in its modern application. That principle is that we need to use intelligence effectively and intelligently to target, track down, identify and convict the criminals who, through terrorist violence and serious and organised crime, threaten the security and strength of our society. Indeed I would go further: it is only through the effective and intelligent use of intelligence that in our modern world we can contest the criminality which attacks us. Of course criminals and terrorists use modern technology – the internet and mobile communications – to plan and carry out their activities. We can only contest them effectively if we know what they are communicating. Without that knowledge, we are fighting them with both hands tied behind our backs. Of course the criminals know that and actively and consciously organise themselves to take advantage of our weaknesses. I start from the proposition that the European Union has been a massive force for good. Thirty-five years ago, when I was a student, we campaigned for democracy in this continent, to remove the fascist or military dictatorships which then existed in Greece, Spain and Portugal, and the totalitarian dictatorships which then ruled much of eastern and central Europe. Those campaigns succeeded as, it is worth pointing out, did the campaigns in other parts of the world, for example Southern Africa and Latin America. It may seem obvious to state that we need to collect and use intelligence against the threats that we face. But the European Parliament and national parliaments throughout Europe need to face up to the fact that the legal framework within which we currently operate makes the collection and use of this intelligence very difficult and in some cases impossible. The rules that currently govern our law enforcement bodies seriously inhibit their ability to protect us against criminals. Information is the lifeblood of law enforcement operations and it is that information which enables our police and agencies to prevent crimes with the minimum of impact on our daily lives. To tackle organised crime and stop terrorist groups before they carry out their activities, they need a clear picture of who the criminals are, what they are doing, where they are and how they communicate with each other. Often that picture is pieced together after the fact. But if we are to be effective in dismantling organised crime groups we must analyse intelligence and information so that we can target our efforts on the most dangerous criminals. However, that need is not always reflected in the rules that we apply to our police. This is not a sterile debate about principles; it is about practical measures to contest criminality and our opponents. That is why the UK Presidency, following the proposals set out in the Hague Programme, has placed on the agenda proposals on the retention of telecommunications data, establishing a second generation of the Schengen Information System and putting in place a new Visa Information System. That is why we argue that internationally consistent and coherent biometric data should be an automatic part of our visas, passports and identity cards where we have them – and I would even suggest driving licences as well. That is why we will work strongly to agree with our international partners, including the United States, the best measures for consistent international use of passenger data. These are all important and difficult measures. They can only be achieved through international agreements, particularly in the European Union and between the European Union and its partners throughout the world. They all require hard-headed discussions and practical agreement. This Presidency accepts that, in considering proposals in these areas, it is incumbent upon the advocates of change, such as the British Government, to make the case that measures of this kind have the practical advantages against criminality that I believe they do. That is why I am publishing today, as I promised the LIBE Committee in July in Brussels that I would, an explanation of the cases for some of these measures, in particular those relating to retention of telecommunications data. I hope that Parliament will look closely at the case that we put forward. My colleagues on the Justice and Home Affairs Council will be considering these issues carefully at the informal Council meeting in Newcastle later this week. But I believe that the central point for us to remember, as we consider these issues together, is that we now possess many hard-won rights such as the right to privacy, the right to property, the right to free speech, the right to travel and the right to life. Those rights are actively threatened by criminals and terrorists. We have a duty and a responsibility to help protect them for our citizens through practical measures. As we consider how best to do this, rights will always and inevitably have to be balanced. What matters in each case is that the steps are proportionate and that the protection against abuse is effective. I believe that our proposals offer that. Let me just cite the example of retention of telecommunications data. This is proving invaluable in the current investigations into the London attacks and in many cases in the UK it has proved essential to solving crimes, often months or years after they were committed. Communications service providers already retain much information for business purposes, but data protection obligations in some countries pressure them to erase data that has no business purpose. That means that catching a murderer or stopping a terrorist attack may depend on which mobile telephone company a victim, suspect or witness uses or has used, or which European Union country they were in. In fact, 11 of the 25 current European Union Member States have since emerged to democracy as full members of the European Union. It is a magnificent achievement which we should continue to celebrate. Some argue that to require telecommunications companies to retain data they use for billing purposes is an intrusion into privacy, or that it imposes undue costs on business. However, in the United Kingdom we have successfully established a system, in partnership with a major service provider, to retain essential data for up to twelve months for the cost of EUR 1.2 million. Compared to the average costs for forensic work on a single murder case of over EUR 0.5 million, that is an acceptable cost for the state to bear. Others have argued that we are asking for too much data, for example, that there should not be a requirement to retain unanswered calls. In many cases, however, this is data that has already been collected by the companies for their own purposes. All that we are asking is that it be retained and made available to law enforcement under national law. There is perhaps a more general concern that the proposal is an unnecessary invasion of privacy or that it is disproportionate. I do not believe that it is, because in many cases, some of which I have set out in the document I am circulating, the victim’s right to justice was only achieved through the retention of telecommunications data. Similarly, with the Schengen Information System, the next generation enables our law enforcement agencies to exchange information about individuals wanted for arrest or to be refused entry to the European Union, as well as information on lost and stolen documents or other objects. This is a critical tool for ensuring our collective security and for guaranteeing our rights. Equally, without a new system in place, the new Member States will not be able to lift their internal borders with other Schengen states. The Council and European Parliament will have to work together over the coming months to agree on the legal framework for the system. In my opinion, we will need to do this quickly so that the system can be put in place by early 2007. We all need to be sure that we are striking the right balance between our collective security and our fundamental rights. In so doing, we need to be sure that we have thoroughly explored the question of whether the Schengen Information System II should be a control system or whether it can be used more effectively as a tool for law enforcement. In making judgements about this, we need to reflect on the balance between the civil liberty being affected and the increased security being achieved, to ensure that any changes we make are proportionate and reasonable. This also applies to the Visa Information System, where we need to ensure that those with a legitimate right to travel can do so, while those who seek to exploit our freedoms are deterred. Increasingly, people use multiple identities to hide their movements. Biometrics are the most effective way to ensure that we can prove someone's identity. A comprehensive database of visa applications with biometrics matched to each applicant will mean that genuine travellers are able to prove their identity easily and travel more freely. Governments will have a clear idea of who is entering and leaving the European Union, with the reassurance that they have the legal right to do so. The use of biometrics also means that if people destroy their documents or are found overstaying we are able to identify who they are and where they come from. The Council and European Parliament will need to work closely together to agree and adopt the Visa Information System regulation. The Council aims to have the system up and running in consulates from the beginning of 2006. Given the substantial lead-in time for the equipment of posts and training, there is real urgency to adopt this regulation as soon as possible. Each of these examples is a practical measure that can enhance security and demonstrate the practical benefits of working together. In each case they will enhance the sharing of information. They will not lead – as some have argued – to the mass surveillance of our citizens or to unnecessary invasion of their right to privacy. Of course the nature of our societies has changed dramatically over these years, economically, socially and technologically. It has changed in the composition of our communities, which vary across the Union, with many communities of differing races, faiths and histories living together. However, I understand concerns that data may be misused or abused or that some people will be wrongly identified. That is why we need to ensure that in each case there is a clear legal basis for the exchange of information and that the basis should include the appropriate safeguards against abuse. Of course the proposals that I have set out are an enormous agenda for this Presidency and we will do our best to promote it. However, on behalf of the United Kingdom Government I also want to say that we believe that it is necessary to look very carefully at the way in which the jurisprudence around application of the European Convention on Human Rights is developing. The Convention, established over 50 years ago in a quite different international climate, has led to great advances in human rights across the continent. Its achievements must be fostered and developed and not undermined, but I believe that in developing these human rights it really is necessary to balance very important rights for individuals against the collective right for security from terrorist violence. Our strengthening of human rights needs to acknowledge a truth which we should all accept: that the right to be protected from torture and ill-treatment must be considered side by side with the right to be protected from the death and destruction caused by indiscriminate terrorism, sometimes caused, instigated or fomented by nationals from countries outside the European Union. This is a difficult balance to get right and it requires all of us, as politicians, to ask where our citizens – who elected all of us here – would expect us to draw the line. I believe that they expect from us not only the protection of individual rights but also the protection of democratic values such as safety and security under the law. The view of my government is that this balance is not right for the circumstances which we now face – circumstances very different from those faced by the founding fathers of the European Convention on Human Rights – and it needs to be closely examined in that context. I intend to discuss with colleagues in the Justice and Home Affairs Council how we might best address these issues in a manner consistent with our international obligations. I believe most strongly that the peoples of this continent want to be assured that the legislative regime which defends human rights must be used to defend the rights of all our citizens in a balanced and considered way and that it is our duty to discuss this openly. In conclusion, I believe that the ‘no’ votes against the Constitution should be taken as a wake-up call to those who believe in and support the European project to focus on what matters. The right to safety and security is a fundamental concern for all our citizens. Here we can show that Europe can and does deliver real benefits to our citizens. We in the European Union have a responsibility to rise to that challenge. It is not an area where we can fail them. But in all of this I believe that it is our duty to promote a society which is based on the true respect of one individual for another, one culture for another, one faith for another, one race for another. It is our duty to promote the view that democracy, and not violence, is the means of bringing about change and governing ourselves. We have to defend our values of respect, tolerance, freedom and democracy against any who wish to destroy or replace them with some other doctrine, particularly if they seek to use violence to promote their ambition. That is part of the history of the European Union, but it must be central to the future of the European Union too. As we look to that future we have to acknowledge that, despite the fantastic record, many of our citizens remain highly sceptical about the European Union, to such an extent that in some countries the national referenda rejected the proposed new Constitution in a way which suggested more deep-seated concerns. I believe that a deep reason for these doubts is that the European Union does not appear to give sufficient priority to offering practical solutions which make a difference to some of the issues of greatest concern. I am referring specifically to serious and organised crime, including drug dealing and people trafficking, to illegal migration and false asylum seeking, and to countering terrorism, whatever its origins. These issues top the political agenda across Europe, and they are often the most potent in mobilising political activity, often in a reactionary and even dangerous way. They can even be used by poisonous demagogues to undermine the very democracy which has in some cases so recently been created. It is not difficult to see why these threats motivate anger amongst our peoples. The threat from terrorism remains very real, as we tragically saw in London in July. In 2004 over 100 000 women were trafficked in the European Union and over 8 000 people die each year from drug use, as crime and misery is fuelled in every part of the continent. Illegal migration and a system of control which is too loose raise concerns in every city."@hu11 ". Signor Presidente, innanzi tutto la ringrazio per la possibilità di intervenire in seno al Parlamento europeo. Colgo l’occasione per illustrare l’impostazione che il governo britannico intende seguire nell’esercizio della Presidenza del Consiglio “Giustizia e affari interni”, affidata a me e alla collega Baronessa Ashton, qui con me oggi. Ritengo quindi che l’Unione europea nel suo insieme – in particolare il Consiglio “Giustizia e affari interni” – debba dare reale priorità alla necessità di rispondere a queste preoccupazioni in modo pratico e sistematico. Questa convinzione informerà il lavoro della Presidenza del Regno Unito. Al riguardo, propongo tre indirizzi principali. Il primo è che nel nostro mondo globalizzato nessun paese è in grado di risolvere questi problemi da solo, nemmeno al suo interno. In un mondo in cui ogni anno si effettuano milioni di viaggi internazionali e di operazioni economiche, le idee di “splendido isolamento” o la retorica sulle “bianche scogliere di Dover” non hanno alcuna possibilità di dare risposta alla criminalità internazionale, al terrorismo o alla criminalità grave e organizzata, né di far fronte ai flussi migratori internazionali. La necessità di combattere il terrorismo e la criminalità organizzata esige una maggiore, non minore, cooperazione a livello europeo. La verità è che in ciascuno di questi ambiti tutti noi, anche all’interno dei nostri paesi, otterremo maggiori risultati condividendo esperienze, informazioni e risorse e identificando e affrontando le minacce in modo sistematico e coerente. Vorrei dare risalto al concetto apparentemente ovvio che queste minacce si affrontano meglio a livello internazionale, perché nell’Unione vi sono ancora partiti politici e altri organi di pensiero convinti che la protezione contro questo tipo di minacce si possa garantire meglio costruendo muri sempre più alti tra noi, mentre è vero il contrario: le nostre migliori possibilità di successo risiedono in una cooperazione sempre più profonda. Il secondo principio che deve informare la nostra strategia è la necessità di rafforzare le basi per il lavoro pratico e pragmatico di polizia e di . In ciascun ambito – criminalità organizzata, terrorismo, immigrazione, asilo – abbiamo già intrapreso azioni a livello di Unione europea. Per esempio, abbiamo adottato il mandato d’arresto europeo, norme comuni in materia di sanzioni penali e definizioni dei reati di terrorismo, tratta di esseri umani e altri reati gravi. Abbiamo adottato norme in materia di cooperazione giudiziaria e di polizia e abbiamo istituito l’Europol e l’Eurojust per sostenere tale lavoro. Abbiamo anche rafforzato la libera circolazione all’interno dell’Unione e istituito l’Agenzia europea per le frontiere esterne. E’ chiaro che si può fare di più, e lo stiamo facendo. Abbiamo approvato un programma d’azione completo nel quadro del programma dell’Aia e del piano d’azione sulla lotta al terrorismo. Essi prevedono numerose misure pratiche e ragionevoli, che faranno una vera differenza per i nostri cittadini. Se vogliamo dimostrare il valore reale dell’Unione europea, dobbiamo lavorare insieme e tener fede a questi impegni. In particolare, vorrei sottolineare la necessità di un sostegno pratico dell’Unione europea per le operazioni fondate sull’ e i procedimenti giudiziari transfrontalieri, lo sviluppo di squadre comuni per la lotta contro il traffico di droga e la tratta di esseri umani, la condivisione di informazioni per agevolare il lavoro in comune e lo sviluppo di un modello europeo di penale. Nel campo della migrazione e dell’asilo, mi auguro che durante questa Presidenza riusciremo a concludere importanti accordi di riammissione tra l’Unione europea e alcuni paesi, quali la Russia, l’Ucraina e il Marocco, e a sviluppare programmi pilota di protezione regionale. Nell’ambito della giustizia civile, ci concentreremo sulla proposta volta a semplificare i procedimenti per le controversie di modesta entità e sull’istituzione di un procedimento europeo d’ingiunzione di pagamento e altre misure. Sono tutte iniziative pratiche importanti e mi auguro che otterranno ampio sostegno in seno al Parlamento. E’ però il terzo principio quello che a mio parere presenta le maggiori difficoltà nella sua applicazione moderna. Il principio è che dobbiamo usare l’ in modo efficace e intelligente per individuare, rintracciare, identificare e condannare i criminali che, con la violenza terrorista e la criminalità grave e organizzata, minacciano la sicurezza e la solidità della nostra società. Mi spingerei addirittura oltre: è soltanto con un uso efficace e intelligente dell’ che nel nostro mondo moderno possiamo combattere la criminalità che ci attacca. Come sappiamo, criminali e terroristi utilizzano le tecnologie moderne e le comunicazioni mobili – per pianificare e svolgere le loro attività. Possiamo combatterli in modo efficace soltanto se sappiamo che cosa si comunicano. Senza tali conoscenze, lottiamo contro di loro con entrambe le mani legate dietro la schiena. I criminali chiaramente lo sanno e si organizzano in modo attivo e deliberato per trarre vantaggio dalle nostre debolezze. Parto dalla premessa che l’Unione europea è una grandissima forza che tende al bene. Trentacinque anni fa, quand’ero studente, organizzavamo campagne a favore della democrazia in questo continente, per estirpare le dittature fasciste o militari allora al potere in Grecia, Spagna e Portogallo e le dittature totalitarie che governavano gran parte dell’Europa centrale e orientale. Tali campagne ebbero successo, così come – merita rilevare – le campagne condotte in altre regioni del mondo, per esempio nell’Africa meridionale e in America latina. Può sembrare ovvio affermare che dobbiamo raccogliere e usare le informazioni contro le minacce che abbiamo di fronte. Tuttavia, il Parlamento europeo e i parlamenti nazionali in tutta Europa devono affrontare il fatto che il quadro giuridico in cui attualmente operiamo rende molto difficile, e in alcuni casi impossibile, raccogliere e usare tali informazioni. Le norme che disciplinano l’attività delle nostre agenzie incaricate dell’applicazione della legge limitano fortemente la loro capacità di proteggerci contro i criminali. Le informazioni sono l’anima delle operazioni di applicazione della legge, e sono tali informazioni a permettere alle nostre agenzie e forze di polizia di prevenire i reati con un impatto minimo sulla nostra vita quotidiana. Per affrontare la criminalità organizzata e fermare i gruppi terroristici prima che compiano le loro azioni, è necessario avere un chiaro quadro di chi sono i criminali, che cosa fanno, dove sono e come comunicano tra loro. Spesso tale quadro è ricostruito dopo il fatto. Se vogliamo essere efficaci e smantellare i gruppi criminali organizzati, dobbiamo analizzare l’ e le informazioni in modo da poter indirizzare i nostri sforzi verso i criminali più pericolosi. Tuttavia, non sempre le norme cui devono attenersi le nostre forze di polizia tengono conto di questa necessità. Questo non è un dibattito sterile su questioni di principio: riguarda misure pratiche volte a combattere la criminalità e chi si oppone ai nostri valori. Per questo motivo, a seguito delle proposte contenute nel programma dell’Aia, la Presidenza britannica ha iscritto all’ordine del giorno le proposte relative alla conservazione dei dati delle telecomunicazioni e all’introduzione del sistema d’informazione Schengen di seconda generazione e di un nuovo sistema d’informazione sui visti. A tal fine, riteniamo che dati biometrici compatibili e coerenti a livello internazionale debbano essere un elemento automatico nei nostri visti, passaporti e carte d’identità, là dove esistono, e io includerei anche le patenti di guida. Lavoreremo sodo per definire insieme con i nostri internazionali, tra cui gli Stati Uniti, le migliori misure per un uso internazionale compatibile dei dati sui passeggeri. Sono tutte misure importanti e difficili. Si possono adottare solo tramite accordi internazionali, in particolare nell’Unione europea e tra l’Unione europea e i suoi nel mondo. Richiedono tutte discussioni realistiche e accordi pratici. La Presidenza accetta che, quando si esaminano le proposte in questi ambiti, spetta ai sostenitori del cambiamento, come il governo britannico, dimostrare che questo tipo di misure offre vantaggi pratici contro la criminalità, cosa di cui sono convinto. Per questo motivo, pubblico oggi, come promesso alla commissione per le libertà civili, la giustizia e gli affari interni in luglio a Bruxelles, un documento che spiega la necessità di alcune di queste misure, in particolare quelle relative alla conservazione dei dati delle telecomunicazioni. Mi auguro che il Parlamento esaminerà con cura gli argomenti che proponiamo. I miei colleghi del Consiglio “Giustizia e affari interni” lo faranno in occasione della riunione informale del Consiglio che si svolgerà questa settimana a Newcastle. Tuttavia, quando esaminiamo insieme queste misure, a mio parere l’elemento essenziale da ricordare è che ora abbiamo molti diritti conquistati a fatica, come il diritto alla vita privata, il diritto di proprietà, il diritto alla libertà di espressione, il diritto di viaggiare e il diritto alla vita, e questi diritti sono attivamente minacciati da criminali e terroristi. Abbiamo il dovere e la responsabilità di contribuire a tutelarli per i nostri cittadini con misure pratiche. Nell’esaminare il miglior modo in cui farlo, i diritti devono sempre e inevitabilmente essere bilanciati. In ogni caso, ciò che conta è che le misure siano proporzionate e che la protezione contro gli abusi sia efficace. Sono convinto che le nostre proposte rispondano a queste esigenze. Permettetemi di citare solo l’esempio della conservazione dei dati delle telecomunicazioni. Questo strumento si sta rivelando prezioso nelle indagini relative agli attentati di Londra e in molti casi nel Regno Unito è risultato essenziale per risolvere reati, spesso mesi o anni dopo che erano stati commessi. I prestatori di servizi di comunicazioni conservano già molte informazioni a fini aziendali, ma gli obblighi in materia di protezione dei dati in alcuni paesi impongono loro di cancellare i dati che non hanno finalità aziendali. Ciò significa che la cattura di un assassino o la prevenzione di un attentato terroristico può dipendere dalla società di telefonia mobile utilizzata da una vittima, un sospetto o un testimone, o dal paese dell’Unione europea in cui vive. Infatti, dopo di allora 11 dei 25 attuali Stati membri dell’Unione europea sono approdati alla democrazia, divenendo membri a pieno titolo dell’Unione europea. E’ un risultato magnifico, che dovremmo continuare a festeggiare. Alcuni sostengono che imporre alle società di telecomunicazioni di conservare i dati che usano a fini di fatturazione sia un’intrusione nella vita privata, o che imponga costi eccessivi alle aziende. Tuttavia, nel Regno Unito abbiamo introdotto con successo, in cooperazione con un importante prestatore di servizi, un sistema che permette di conservare i dati essenziali per dodici mesi al costo di 1,2 milioni di euro. Rispetto ai costi medi del lavoro forense su un singolo caso di omicidio, che superano il mezzo milione, per lo Stato è un costo accettabile da sostenere. Altri ritengono che i dati richiesti siano troppi; per esempio, non si dovrebbe prevedere la conservazione delle chiamate non risposte. In molti casi, tuttavia, tali dati sono già stati raccolti dalle società per fini propri. Chiediamo solo che siano conservati e resi disponibili per l’applicazione della legge conformemente alla legislazione nazionale. Potrebbe esistere una preoccupazione più generale, cioè che la proposta rappresenti un’ingerenza non necessaria della vita privata o che sia sproporzionata. Non sono d’accordo, perché in molti casi, alcuni dei quali sono descritti nel documento che ho distribuito, il diritto della vittima di ottenere giustizia è stato garantito solo grazie alla conservazione dei dati delle telecomunicazioni. Analogamente, il sistema d’informazione Schengen di seconda generazione permette alle nostre agenzie incaricate dell’applicazione della legge di scambiare informazioni su individui ricercati o ai quali negare l’ingresso nell’Unione europea, nonché informazioni su documenti persi o rubati o altri oggetti. E’ uno strumento cruciale per garantire la nostra sicurezza collettiva e per tutelare i nostri diritti. Inoltre, senza l’introduzione di un nuovo sistema, i nuovi Stati membri non saranno in grado di abolire le frontiere interne con altri Stati aderenti a Schengen. Nei prossimi mesi il Consiglio e il Parlamento europeo dovranno lavorare insieme per definire il quadro giuridico per tale sistema. A mio parere, dobbiamo procedere il più rapidamente possibile, al fine di poter introdurre il sistema all’inizio del 2007. Dobbiamo tutti essere certi di ottenere il giusto equilibrio tra la nostra sicurezza collettiva e i nostri diritti fondamentali. A tal fine, dobbiamo essere sicuri di aver valutato con cura se il sistema d’informazione Schengen II debba essere un sistema di controllo o se non possa essere utilizzato in modo più efficace come strumento per l’applicazione della legge. Per formulare giudizi in proposito, dobbiamo riflettere sull’equilibrio tra la libertà civile interessata e la maggiore sicurezza che si otterrebbe, per garantire che i cambiamenti introdotti siano proporzionati e ragionevoli. Ciò vale anche per il sistema d’informazione sui visti, nell’ambito del quale si deve garantire la possibilità di viaggiare a chi ne ha legittimo diritto e negarla a chi invece tenta di profittare delle nostre libertà. L’uso di identità diverse per occultare i propri spostamenti è sempre più diffuso. I dati biometrici sono il modo più efficace di assicurare che sia possibile verificare l’identità di una persona. Disporre di una base di dati completa delle richieste di visti, con dati biometrici corrispondenti a ciascun richiedente, significa permettere ai veri viaggiatori di dimostrare facilmente la propria identità ed essere più liberi di viaggiare. I governi avranno un quadro chiaro di chi entra ed esce dall’Unione europea, con la certezza di averne legalmente diritto. L’uso di dati biometrici significa anche che, se una persona distrugge i propri documenti o ha il permesso di soggiorno scaduto, sarà possibile identificarla e sapere da dove proviene. Il Consiglio e il Parlamento europeo dovranno lavorare in stretta cooperazione per definire e adottare il regolamento sul sistema d’informazione sui visti. Il Consiglio mira ad avere il sistema in funzione nei consolati all’inizio del 2006. Considerati i notevoli tempi richiesti per l’allestimento dei posti e la formazione, sussiste l’urgenza reale di adottare il regolamento il più presto possibile. Ciascuno di questi esempi è una misura pratica che può rafforzare la sicurezza e dimostra i vantaggi pratici della cooperazione. In ogni caso, le misure miglioreranno lo scambio di informazioni. Non porteranno – come affermano alcuni – al controllo massiccio dei cittadini o a una erosione non necessaria del loro diritto alla vita privata. Naturalmente, la natura delle nostre società è cambiata profondamente a livello economico, sociale e tecnologico. E’ cambiata la composizione delle nostre comunità, che varia nei diversi paesi dell’Unione, in cui convivono molte comunità di razze, fedi e tradizioni differenti. Tuttavia, comprendo il timore che i dati possano essere oggetto di abusi o che alcune persone siano identificate in modo erroneo. Questo è il motivo per cui dobbiamo garantire in ogni caso che vi sia una chiara base giuridica per lo scambio di informazioni e che tale base preveda un’adeguata tutela dagli abusi. E’ chiaro che le proposte che ho illustrato sono un programma enorme per la Presidenza, e faremo del nostro meglio per promuoverlo. Tuttavia, a nome del governo del Regno Unito, vorrei dire anche che reputiamo necessario esaminare con grande attenzione il modo in cui si sviluppa la giurisprudenza relativa all’applicazione della Convenzione europea dei diritti dell’uomo. La Convenzione, adottata più di 50 anni fa in un clima internazionale molto diverso, ha permesso di compiere grandi progressi in materia di diritti umani in tutto il continente. Tali risultati devono essere promossi e sviluppati, non compromessi, ma ritengo che per sviluppare questi diritti umani sia realmente necessario trovare un equilibrio tra diritti importantissimi per gli individui e il diritto collettivo alla sicurezza dalla violenza terrorista. Per rafforzare i diritti umani si deve riconoscere una verità che tutti dovremmo accettare: il diritto di essere protetto dalla tortura e dai maltrattamenti deve essere valutato parallelamente al diritto di essere protetto dalla morte e dalla distruzione causate dal terrorismo indiscriminato, a volte causato, istigato o fomentato da cittadini di paesi al di fuori dell’Unione europea. E’ un equilibrio difficile da ottenere e impone a tutti noi, in quanto rappresentanti politici, di chiederci dove i cittadini – che ci hanno eletto – si aspettano che segniamo il limite. Sono convinto che da noi non si aspettino solo la tutela dei diritti individuali, ma anche la protezione di valori democratici come la sicurezza ai sensi della legge. Il mio governo ritiene che tale equilibrio non sia adeguato alle attuali circostanze – circostanze molto diverse da quelle in cui operavano i padri fondatori della Convenzione europea dei diritti dell’uomo – e che debba essere valutato con cura in questo contesto. Intendo discutere con i colleghi in seno al Consiglio “Giustizia e affari interni” il miglior modo di affrontare queste problematiche, compatibilmente con i nostri obblighi internazionali. Sono fermamente convinto che i popoli di questo continente vogliano avere la certezza che il regime legislativo che tutela i diritti umani sia usato per difendere i diritti di tutti i cittadini in modo equilibrato e ponderato, ed è nostro dovere discutere la questione pubblicamente. Per concludere, ritengo che i “no” alla Costituzione debbano essere considerati come un segnale di sveglia lanciato per spronare chi crede nel progetto europeo e lo sostiene a concentrarsi su ciò che veramente conta. Il diritto alla sicurezza è una preoccupazione fondamentale di tutti i cittadini. In questo ambito, possiamo dimostrare che l’Europa può offrire e offre vantaggi reali ai cittadini. Noi nell’Unione europea abbiamo la responsabilità di essere all’altezza della sfida. Non è un ambito in cui non possiamo deluderli. Tuttavia, in questo contesto, ritengo sia nostro dovere promuovere una società fondata sul reale rispetto reciproco tra individui, culture, razze e religioni. E’ nostro dovere promuovere l’idea che la democrazia, non la violenza, è lo strumento per operare cambiamenti e governare la nostra società. Dobbiamo difendere i nostri valori di rispetto, tolleranza, libertà e democrazia contro chiunque voglia distruggerli o sostituirli con altre dottrine, in particolare se tenta di usare la violenza per promuovere le proprie ambizioni. Ciò fa parte della storia dell’Unione europea, ma dev’essere un elemento centrale anche per il futuro dell’Unione europea. Se guardiamo al futuro, dobbiamo riconoscere che, nonostante i risultati fantastici, molti cittadini sono ancora estremamente scettici riguardo all’Unione europea, al punto che in alcuni paesi i nazionali hanno respinto la nuova Costituzione proposta, lasciando trasparire preoccupazioni più profonde. A mio parere, un grave motivo di tali dubbi è che l’Unione europea non sembra dare sufficiente priorità alla necessità di offrire soluzioni pratiche, che facciano la differenza, per alcune questioni di massimo interesse. Mi riferisco specificamente alla criminalità grave e organizzata, tra cui il traffico di droga e la tratta di esseri umani, all’immigrazione clandestina, alle false richieste di asilo e alla lotta contro il terrorismo, quali ne siano le origini. Queste problematiche sono in cima all’ordine del giorno in tutta Europa e di frequente sono quelle che più mobilitano l’attività politica, spesso in modo reazionario e persino pericoloso. Possono addirittura essere usate da demagoghi astiosi per indebolire la stessa democrazia che in alcuni casi è stata appena creata. Non è difficile capire perché queste minacce suscitino rabbia tra le nostre popolazioni. La minaccia del terrorismo è molto reale, come abbiamo tragicamente visto a Londra in luglio. Nel 2004 oltre 100 000 donne sono state vittime di traffici nell’Unione europea e ogni anno più di 8 000 persone muoiono a causa dell’uso di droghe, mentre criminalità e miseria si diffondono in ogni regione del continente. L’immigrazione clandestina e un sistema di controlli troppo permissivo sono fonti di preoccupazione in ogni città."@it12 "Mr President, I would like to begin by thanking you for the opportunity of addressing the European Parliament. I want to take the opportunity to set out the approach that the British Government will follow in its conduct of the Presidency of the Justice and Home Affairs Council, which will be occupied by myself and my colleague Baroness Ashton, who is with me today. I therefore believe that the whole of the European Union – but in particular the Justice and Home Affairs Council – needs to give real priority to tackling these issues in a practical and systematic way. It is that conviction which will inform the UK Presidency. In so doing I suggest three principal approaches. The first is that in our globalised world no single nation can tackle these problems alone, even in its own country. In a world with millions of international journeys and economic transactions every year, ideas of ‘splendid isolation’ or rhetoric about ‘the White Cliffs of Dover’ can do nothing to address international criminality, terrorism or serious and organised crime or address patterns of international migration. The need to fight terrorism and serious and organised crime means that we need more European cooperation and not less. The truth is that in each of these areas we will all, including within our own countries, achieve most by sharing experience, information and resources and by identifying and then targeting the threats systematically and consistently. I make the apparently obvious point that these threats are best tackled internationally, since there remain political parties and other organs of opinion within the European Union which believe that protection from these types of threat can best be secured by the construction of higher and higher fences between us, whilst the truth is the opposite – our best chances of success lie in deeper and deeper cooperation. The second principle that must underlie our approach is to strengthen the foundation of practical and pragmatic police and intelligence work. In each of these areas – organised crime, terrorism, immigration, asylum – we have already taken action at the European Union level. For example, we have agreed the European Arrest Warrant, common rules on penalties for and definitions of terrorism, people trafficking and other serious crimes. We have rules on police and judicial cooperation and we have established Europol and Eurojust to support their work. We have also strengthened freedom to travel within the EU and established the European Borders Agency. There is of course more that we can do and are doing. We have agreed a comprehensive programme of action in the Hague Programme and the Counter-Terrorism Action Plan. These contain many sensible, practical measures that will make a real difference to our citizens. If we want to demonstrate the real value of the European Union, we now need to work together to deliver on those commitments. I would like in particular to highlight the need for practical European Union support for intelligence-led operations and cross-border prosecutions, the development of joint teams to combat drug dealing and people trafficking, the sharing of information to facilitate joint work and the development of a European criminal intelligence model. In the field of migration and asylum, I hope that in this Presidency we will succeed in securing significant European Union readmission agreements with certain countries such as Russia, Ukraine and Morocco, and develop pilot regional protection programmes. In the field of civil justice, we will focus on the proposal to facilitate small claims and the establishment of a single European order of payment and other measures. These are all important practical steps, which I hope will command widespread support from this Parliament. But it is the third principle which I believe poses the greatest challenge in its modern application. That principle is that we need to use intelligence effectively and intelligently to target, track down, identify and convict the criminals who, through terrorist violence and serious and organised crime, threaten the security and strength of our society. Indeed I would go further: it is only through the effective and intelligent use of intelligence that in our modern world we can contest the criminality which attacks us. Of course criminals and terrorists use modern technology – the internet and mobile communications – to plan and carry out their activities. We can only contest them effectively if we know what they are communicating. Without that knowledge, we are fighting them with both hands tied behind our backs. Of course the criminals know that and actively and consciously organise themselves to take advantage of our weaknesses. I start from the proposition that the European Union has been a massive force for good. Thirty-five years ago, when I was a student, we campaigned for democracy in this continent, to remove the fascist or military dictatorships which then existed in Greece, Spain and Portugal, and the totalitarian dictatorships which then ruled much of eastern and central Europe. Those campaigns succeeded as, it is worth pointing out, did the campaigns in other parts of the world, for example Southern Africa and Latin America. It may seem obvious to state that we need to collect and use intelligence against the threats that we face. But the European Parliament and national parliaments throughout Europe need to face up to the fact that the legal framework within which we currently operate makes the collection and use of this intelligence very difficult and in some cases impossible. The rules that currently govern our law enforcement bodies seriously inhibit their ability to protect us against criminals. Information is the lifeblood of law enforcement operations and it is that information which enables our police and agencies to prevent crimes with the minimum of impact on our daily lives. To tackle organised crime and stop terrorist groups before they carry out their activities, they need a clear picture of who the criminals are, what they are doing, where they are and how they communicate with each other. Often that picture is pieced together after the fact. But if we are to be effective in dismantling organised crime groups we must analyse intelligence and information so that we can target our efforts on the most dangerous criminals. However, that need is not always reflected in the rules that we apply to our police. This is not a sterile debate about principles; it is about practical measures to contest criminality and our opponents. That is why the UK Presidency, following the proposals set out in the Hague Programme, has placed on the agenda proposals on the retention of telecommunications data, establishing a second generation of the Schengen Information System and putting in place a new Visa Information System. That is why we argue that internationally consistent and coherent biometric data should be an automatic part of our visas, passports and identity cards where we have them – and I would even suggest driving licences as well. That is why we will work strongly to agree with our international partners, including the United States, the best measures for consistent international use of passenger data. These are all important and difficult measures. They can only be achieved through international agreements, particularly in the European Union and between the European Union and its partners throughout the world. They all require hard-headed discussions and practical agreement. This Presidency accepts that, in considering proposals in these areas, it is incumbent upon the advocates of change, such as the British Government, to make the case that measures of this kind have the practical advantages against criminality that I believe they do. That is why I am publishing today, as I promised the LIBE Committee in July in Brussels that I would, an explanation of the cases for some of these measures, in particular those relating to retention of telecommunications data. I hope that Parliament will look closely at the case that we put forward. My colleagues on the Justice and Home Affairs Council will be considering these issues carefully at the informal Council meeting in Newcastle later this week. But I believe that the central point for us to remember, as we consider these issues together, is that we now possess many hard-won rights such as the right to privacy, the right to property, the right to free speech, the right to travel and the right to life. Those rights are actively threatened by criminals and terrorists. We have a duty and a responsibility to help protect them for our citizens through practical measures. As we consider how best to do this, rights will always and inevitably have to be balanced. What matters in each case is that the steps are proportionate and that the protection against abuse is effective. I believe that our proposals offer that. Let me just cite the example of retention of telecommunications data. This is proving invaluable in the current investigations into the London attacks and in many cases in the UK it has proved essential to solving crimes, often months or years after they were committed. Communications service providers already retain much information for business purposes, but data protection obligations in some countries pressure them to erase data that has no business purpose. That means that catching a murderer or stopping a terrorist attack may depend on which mobile telephone company a victim, suspect or witness uses or has used, or which European Union country they were in. In fact, 11 of the 25 current European Union Member States have since emerged to democracy as full members of the European Union. It is a magnificent achievement which we should continue to celebrate. Some argue that to require telecommunications companies to retain data they use for billing purposes is an intrusion into privacy, or that it imposes undue costs on business. However, in the United Kingdom we have successfully established a system, in partnership with a major service provider, to retain essential data for up to twelve months for the cost of EUR 1.2 million. Compared to the average costs for forensic work on a single murder case of over EUR 0.5 million, that is an acceptable cost for the state to bear. Others have argued that we are asking for too much data, for example, that there should not be a requirement to retain unanswered calls. In many cases, however, this is data that has already been collected by the companies for their own purposes. All that we are asking is that it be retained and made available to law enforcement under national law. There is perhaps a more general concern that the proposal is an unnecessary invasion of privacy or that it is disproportionate. I do not believe that it is, because in many cases, some of which I have set out in the document I am circulating, the victim’s right to justice was only achieved through the retention of telecommunications data. Similarly, with the Schengen Information System, the next generation enables our law enforcement agencies to exchange information about individuals wanted for arrest or to be refused entry to the European Union, as well as information on lost and stolen documents or other objects. This is a critical tool for ensuring our collective security and for guaranteeing our rights. Equally, without a new system in place, the new Member States will not be able to lift their internal borders with other Schengen states. The Council and European Parliament will have to work together over the coming months to agree on the legal framework for the system. In my opinion, we will need to do this quickly so that the system can be put in place by early 2007. We all need to be sure that we are striking the right balance between our collective security and our fundamental rights. In so doing, we need to be sure that we have thoroughly explored the question of whether the Schengen Information System II should be a control system or whether it can be used more effectively as a tool for law enforcement. In making judgements about this, we need to reflect on the balance between the civil liberty being affected and the increased security being achieved, to ensure that any changes we make are proportionate and reasonable. This also applies to the Visa Information System, where we need to ensure that those with a legitimate right to travel can do so, while those who seek to exploit our freedoms are deterred. Increasingly, people use multiple identities to hide their movements. Biometrics are the most effective way to ensure that we can prove someone's identity. A comprehensive database of visa applications with biometrics matched to each applicant will mean that genuine travellers are able to prove their identity easily and travel more freely. Governments will have a clear idea of who is entering and leaving the European Union, with the reassurance that they have the legal right to do so. The use of biometrics also means that if people destroy their documents or are found overstaying we are able to identify who they are and where they come from. The Council and European Parliament will need to work closely together to agree and adopt the Visa Information System regulation. The Council aims to have the system up and running in consulates from the beginning of 2006. Given the substantial lead-in time for the equipment of posts and training, there is real urgency to adopt this regulation as soon as possible. Each of these examples is a practical measure that can enhance security and demonstrate the practical benefits of working together. In each case they will enhance the sharing of information. They will not lead – as some have argued – to the mass surveillance of our citizens or to unnecessary invasion of their right to privacy. Of course the nature of our societies has changed dramatically over these years, economically, socially and technologically. It has changed in the composition of our communities, which vary across the Union, with many communities of differing races, faiths and histories living together. However, I understand concerns that data may be misused or abused or that some people will be wrongly identified. That is why we need to ensure that in each case there is a clear legal basis for the exchange of information and that the basis should include the appropriate safeguards against abuse. Of course the proposals that I have set out are an enormous agenda for this Presidency and we will do our best to promote it. However, on behalf of the United Kingdom Government I also want to say that we believe that it is necessary to look very carefully at the way in which the jurisprudence around application of the European Convention on Human Rights is developing. The Convention, established over 50 years ago in a quite different international climate, has led to great advances in human rights across the continent. Its achievements must be fostered and developed and not undermined, but I believe that in developing these human rights it really is necessary to balance very important rights for individuals against the collective right for security from terrorist violence. Our strengthening of human rights needs to acknowledge a truth which we should all accept: that the right to be protected from torture and ill-treatment must be considered side by side with the right to be protected from the death and destruction caused by indiscriminate terrorism, sometimes caused, instigated or fomented by nationals from countries outside the European Union. This is a difficult balance to get right and it requires all of us, as politicians, to ask where our citizens – who elected all of us here – would expect us to draw the line. I believe that they expect from us not only the protection of individual rights but also the protection of democratic values such as safety and security under the law. The view of my government is that this balance is not right for the circumstances which we now face – circumstances very different from those faced by the founding fathers of the European Convention on Human Rights – and it needs to be closely examined in that context. I intend to discuss with colleagues in the Justice and Home Affairs Council how we might best address these issues in a manner consistent with our international obligations. I believe most strongly that the peoples of this continent want to be assured that the legislative regime which defends human rights must be used to defend the rights of all our citizens in a balanced and considered way and that it is our duty to discuss this openly. In conclusion, I believe that the ‘no’ votes against the Constitution should be taken as a wake-up call to those who believe in and support the European project to focus on what matters. The right to safety and security is a fundamental concern for all our citizens. Here we can show that Europe can and does deliver real benefits to our citizens. We in the European Union have a responsibility to rise to that challenge. It is not an area where we can fail them. But in all of this I believe that it is our duty to promote a society which is based on the true respect of one individual for another, one culture for another, one faith for another, one race for another. It is our duty to promote the view that democracy, and not violence, is the means of bringing about change and governing ourselves. We have to defend our values of respect, tolerance, freedom and democracy against any who wish to destroy or replace them with some other doctrine, particularly if they seek to use violence to promote their ambition. That is part of the history of the European Union, but it must be central to the future of the European Union too. As we look to that future we have to acknowledge that, despite the fantastic record, many of our citizens remain highly sceptical about the European Union, to such an extent that in some countries the national referenda rejected the proposed new Constitution in a way which suggested more deep-seated concerns. I believe that a deep reason for these doubts is that the European Union does not appear to give sufficient priority to offering practical solutions which make a difference to some of the issues of greatest concern. I am referring specifically to serious and organised crime, including drug dealing and people trafficking, to illegal migration and false asylum seeking, and to countering terrorism, whatever its origins. These issues top the political agenda across Europe, and they are often the most potent in mobilising political activity, often in a reactionary and even dangerous way. They can even be used by poisonous demagogues to undermine the very democracy which has in some cases so recently been created. It is not difficult to see why these threats motivate anger amongst our peoples. The threat from terrorism remains very real, as we tragically saw in London in July. In 2004 over 100 000 women were trafficked in the European Union and over 8 000 people die each year from drug use, as crime and misery is fuelled in every part of the continent. Illegal migration and a system of control which is too loose raise concerns in every city."@lt14 "Mr President, I would like to begin by thanking you for the opportunity of addressing the European Parliament. I want to take the opportunity to set out the approach that the British Government will follow in its conduct of the Presidency of the Justice and Home Affairs Council, which will be occupied by myself and my colleague Baroness Ashton, who is with me today. I therefore believe that the whole of the European Union – but in particular the Justice and Home Affairs Council – needs to give real priority to tackling these issues in a practical and systematic way. It is that conviction which will inform the UK Presidency. In so doing I suggest three principal approaches. The first is that in our globalised world no single nation can tackle these problems alone, even in its own country. In a world with millions of international journeys and economic transactions every year, ideas of ‘splendid isolation’ or rhetoric about ‘the White Cliffs of Dover’ can do nothing to address international criminality, terrorism or serious and organised crime or address patterns of international migration. The need to fight terrorism and serious and organised crime means that we need more European cooperation and not less. The truth is that in each of these areas we will all, including within our own countries, achieve most by sharing experience, information and resources and by identifying and then targeting the threats systematically and consistently. I make the apparently obvious point that these threats are best tackled internationally, since there remain political parties and other organs of opinion within the European Union which believe that protection from these types of threat can best be secured by the construction of higher and higher fences between us, whilst the truth is the opposite – our best chances of success lie in deeper and deeper cooperation. The second principle that must underlie our approach is to strengthen the foundation of practical and pragmatic police and intelligence work. In each of these areas – organised crime, terrorism, immigration, asylum – we have already taken action at the European Union level. For example, we have agreed the European Arrest Warrant, common rules on penalties for and definitions of terrorism, people trafficking and other serious crimes. We have rules on police and judicial cooperation and we have established Europol and Eurojust to support their work. We have also strengthened freedom to travel within the EU and established the European Borders Agency. There is of course more that we can do and are doing. We have agreed a comprehensive programme of action in the Hague Programme and the Counter-Terrorism Action Plan. These contain many sensible, practical measures that will make a real difference to our citizens. If we want to demonstrate the real value of the European Union, we now need to work together to deliver on those commitments. I would like in particular to highlight the need for practical European Union support for intelligence-led operations and cross-border prosecutions, the development of joint teams to combat drug dealing and people trafficking, the sharing of information to facilitate joint work and the development of a European criminal intelligence model. In the field of migration and asylum, I hope that in this Presidency we will succeed in securing significant European Union readmission agreements with certain countries such as Russia, Ukraine and Morocco, and develop pilot regional protection programmes. In the field of civil justice, we will focus on the proposal to facilitate small claims and the establishment of a single European order of payment and other measures. These are all important practical steps, which I hope will command widespread support from this Parliament. But it is the third principle which I believe poses the greatest challenge in its modern application. That principle is that we need to use intelligence effectively and intelligently to target, track down, identify and convict the criminals who, through terrorist violence and serious and organised crime, threaten the security and strength of our society. Indeed I would go further: it is only through the effective and intelligent use of intelligence that in our modern world we can contest the criminality which attacks us. Of course criminals and terrorists use modern technology – the internet and mobile communications – to plan and carry out their activities. We can only contest them effectively if we know what they are communicating. Without that knowledge, we are fighting them with both hands tied behind our backs. Of course the criminals know that and actively and consciously organise themselves to take advantage of our weaknesses. I start from the proposition that the European Union has been a massive force for good. Thirty-five years ago, when I was a student, we campaigned for democracy in this continent, to remove the fascist or military dictatorships which then existed in Greece, Spain and Portugal, and the totalitarian dictatorships which then ruled much of eastern and central Europe. Those campaigns succeeded as, it is worth pointing out, did the campaigns in other parts of the world, for example Southern Africa and Latin America. It may seem obvious to state that we need to collect and use intelligence against the threats that we face. But the European Parliament and national parliaments throughout Europe need to face up to the fact that the legal framework within which we currently operate makes the collection and use of this intelligence very difficult and in some cases impossible. The rules that currently govern our law enforcement bodies seriously inhibit their ability to protect us against criminals. Information is the lifeblood of law enforcement operations and it is that information which enables our police and agencies to prevent crimes with the minimum of impact on our daily lives. To tackle organised crime and stop terrorist groups before they carry out their activities, they need a clear picture of who the criminals are, what they are doing, where they are and how they communicate with each other. Often that picture is pieced together after the fact. But if we are to be effective in dismantling organised crime groups we must analyse intelligence and information so that we can target our efforts on the most dangerous criminals. However, that need is not always reflected in the rules that we apply to our police. This is not a sterile debate about principles; it is about practical measures to contest criminality and our opponents. That is why the UK Presidency, following the proposals set out in the Hague Programme, has placed on the agenda proposals on the retention of telecommunications data, establishing a second generation of the Schengen Information System and putting in place a new Visa Information System. That is why we argue that internationally consistent and coherent biometric data should be an automatic part of our visas, passports and identity cards where we have them – and I would even suggest driving licences as well. That is why we will work strongly to agree with our international partners, including the United States, the best measures for consistent international use of passenger data. These are all important and difficult measures. They can only be achieved through international agreements, particularly in the European Union and between the European Union and its partners throughout the world. They all require hard-headed discussions and practical agreement. This Presidency accepts that, in considering proposals in these areas, it is incumbent upon the advocates of change, such as the British Government, to make the case that measures of this kind have the practical advantages against criminality that I believe they do. That is why I am publishing today, as I promised the LIBE Committee in July in Brussels that I would, an explanation of the cases for some of these measures, in particular those relating to retention of telecommunications data. I hope that Parliament will look closely at the case that we put forward. My colleagues on the Justice and Home Affairs Council will be considering these issues carefully at the informal Council meeting in Newcastle later this week. But I believe that the central point for us to remember, as we consider these issues together, is that we now possess many hard-won rights such as the right to privacy, the right to property, the right to free speech, the right to travel and the right to life. Those rights are actively threatened by criminals and terrorists. We have a duty and a responsibility to help protect them for our citizens through practical measures. As we consider how best to do this, rights will always and inevitably have to be balanced. What matters in each case is that the steps are proportionate and that the protection against abuse is effective. I believe that our proposals offer that. Let me just cite the example of retention of telecommunications data. This is proving invaluable in the current investigations into the London attacks and in many cases in the UK it has proved essential to solving crimes, often months or years after they were committed. Communications service providers already retain much information for business purposes, but data protection obligations in some countries pressure them to erase data that has no business purpose. That means that catching a murderer or stopping a terrorist attack may depend on which mobile telephone company a victim, suspect or witness uses or has used, or which European Union country they were in. In fact, 11 of the 25 current European Union Member States have since emerged to democracy as full members of the European Union. It is a magnificent achievement which we should continue to celebrate. Some argue that to require telecommunications companies to retain data they use for billing purposes is an intrusion into privacy, or that it imposes undue costs on business. However, in the United Kingdom we have successfully established a system, in partnership with a major service provider, to retain essential data for up to twelve months for the cost of EUR 1.2 million. Compared to the average costs for forensic work on a single murder case of over EUR 0.5 million, that is an acceptable cost for the state to bear. Others have argued that we are asking for too much data, for example, that there should not be a requirement to retain unanswered calls. In many cases, however, this is data that has already been collected by the companies for their own purposes. All that we are asking is that it be retained and made available to law enforcement under national law. There is perhaps a more general concern that the proposal is an unnecessary invasion of privacy or that it is disproportionate. I do not believe that it is, because in many cases, some of which I have set out in the document I am circulating, the victim’s right to justice was only achieved through the retention of telecommunications data. Similarly, with the Schengen Information System, the next generation enables our law enforcement agencies to exchange information about individuals wanted for arrest or to be refused entry to the European Union, as well as information on lost and stolen documents or other objects. This is a critical tool for ensuring our collective security and for guaranteeing our rights. Equally, without a new system in place, the new Member States will not be able to lift their internal borders with other Schengen states. The Council and European Parliament will have to work together over the coming months to agree on the legal framework for the system. In my opinion, we will need to do this quickly so that the system can be put in place by early 2007. We all need to be sure that we are striking the right balance between our collective security and our fundamental rights. In so doing, we need to be sure that we have thoroughly explored the question of whether the Schengen Information System II should be a control system or whether it can be used more effectively as a tool for law enforcement. In making judgements about this, we need to reflect on the balance between the civil liberty being affected and the increased security being achieved, to ensure that any changes we make are proportionate and reasonable. This also applies to the Visa Information System, where we need to ensure that those with a legitimate right to travel can do so, while those who seek to exploit our freedoms are deterred. Increasingly, people use multiple identities to hide their movements. Biometrics are the most effective way to ensure that we can prove someone's identity. A comprehensive database of visa applications with biometrics matched to each applicant will mean that genuine travellers are able to prove their identity easily and travel more freely. Governments will have a clear idea of who is entering and leaving the European Union, with the reassurance that they have the legal right to do so. The use of biometrics also means that if people destroy their documents or are found overstaying we are able to identify who they are and where they come from. The Council and European Parliament will need to work closely together to agree and adopt the Visa Information System regulation. The Council aims to have the system up and running in consulates from the beginning of 2006. Given the substantial lead-in time for the equipment of posts and training, there is real urgency to adopt this regulation as soon as possible. Each of these examples is a practical measure that can enhance security and demonstrate the practical benefits of working together. In each case they will enhance the sharing of information. They will not lead – as some have argued – to the mass surveillance of our citizens or to unnecessary invasion of their right to privacy. Of course the nature of our societies has changed dramatically over these years, economically, socially and technologically. It has changed in the composition of our communities, which vary across the Union, with many communities of differing races, faiths and histories living together. However, I understand concerns that data may be misused or abused or that some people will be wrongly identified. That is why we need to ensure that in each case there is a clear legal basis for the exchange of information and that the basis should include the appropriate safeguards against abuse. Of course the proposals that I have set out are an enormous agenda for this Presidency and we will do our best to promote it. However, on behalf of the United Kingdom Government I also want to say that we believe that it is necessary to look very carefully at the way in which the jurisprudence around application of the European Convention on Human Rights is developing. The Convention, established over 50 years ago in a quite different international climate, has led to great advances in human rights across the continent. Its achievements must be fostered and developed and not undermined, but I believe that in developing these human rights it really is necessary to balance very important rights for individuals against the collective right for security from terrorist violence. Our strengthening of human rights needs to acknowledge a truth which we should all accept: that the right to be protected from torture and ill-treatment must be considered side by side with the right to be protected from the death and destruction caused by indiscriminate terrorism, sometimes caused, instigated or fomented by nationals from countries outside the European Union. This is a difficult balance to get right and it requires all of us, as politicians, to ask where our citizens – who elected all of us here – would expect us to draw the line. I believe that they expect from us not only the protection of individual rights but also the protection of democratic values such as safety and security under the law. The view of my government is that this balance is not right for the circumstances which we now face – circumstances very different from those faced by the founding fathers of the European Convention on Human Rights – and it needs to be closely examined in that context. I intend to discuss with colleagues in the Justice and Home Affairs Council how we might best address these issues in a manner consistent with our international obligations. I believe most strongly that the peoples of this continent want to be assured that the legislative regime which defends human rights must be used to defend the rights of all our citizens in a balanced and considered way and that it is our duty to discuss this openly. In conclusion, I believe that the ‘no’ votes against the Constitution should be taken as a wake-up call to those who believe in and support the European project to focus on what matters. The right to safety and security is a fundamental concern for all our citizens. Here we can show that Europe can and does deliver real benefits to our citizens. We in the European Union have a responsibility to rise to that challenge. It is not an area where we can fail them. But in all of this I believe that it is our duty to promote a society which is based on the true respect of one individual for another, one culture for another, one faith for another, one race for another. It is our duty to promote the view that democracy, and not violence, is the means of bringing about change and governing ourselves. We have to defend our values of respect, tolerance, freedom and democracy against any who wish to destroy or replace them with some other doctrine, particularly if they seek to use violence to promote their ambition. That is part of the history of the European Union, but it must be central to the future of the European Union too. As we look to that future we have to acknowledge that, despite the fantastic record, many of our citizens remain highly sceptical about the European Union, to such an extent that in some countries the national referenda rejected the proposed new Constitution in a way which suggested more deep-seated concerns. I believe that a deep reason for these doubts is that the European Union does not appear to give sufficient priority to offering practical solutions which make a difference to some of the issues of greatest concern. I am referring specifically to serious and organised crime, including drug dealing and people trafficking, to illegal migration and false asylum seeking, and to countering terrorism, whatever its origins. These issues top the political agenda across Europe, and they are often the most potent in mobilising political activity, often in a reactionary and even dangerous way. They can even be used by poisonous demagogues to undermine the very democracy which has in some cases so recently been created. It is not difficult to see why these threats motivate anger amongst our peoples. The threat from terrorism remains very real, as we tragically saw in London in July. In 2004 over 100 000 women were trafficked in the European Union and over 8 000 people die each year from drug use, as crime and misery is fuelled in every part of the continent. Illegal migration and a system of control which is too loose raise concerns in every city."@lv13 "Mr President, I would like to begin by thanking you for the opportunity of addressing the European Parliament. I want to take the opportunity to set out the approach that the British Government will follow in its conduct of the Presidency of the Justice and Home Affairs Council, which will be occupied by myself and my colleague Baroness Ashton, who is with me today. I therefore believe that the whole of the European Union – but in particular the Justice and Home Affairs Council – needs to give real priority to tackling these issues in a practical and systematic way. It is that conviction which will inform the UK Presidency. In so doing I suggest three principal approaches. The first is that in our globalised world no single nation can tackle these problems alone, even in its own country. In a world with millions of international journeys and economic transactions every year, ideas of ‘splendid isolation’ or rhetoric about ‘the White Cliffs of Dover’ can do nothing to address international criminality, terrorism or serious and organised crime or address patterns of international migration. The need to fight terrorism and serious and organised crime means that we need more European cooperation and not less. The truth is that in each of these areas we will all, including within our own countries, achieve most by sharing experience, information and resources and by identifying and then targeting the threats systematically and consistently. I make the apparently obvious point that these threats are best tackled internationally, since there remain political parties and other organs of opinion within the European Union which believe that protection from these types of threat can best be secured by the construction of higher and higher fences between us, whilst the truth is the opposite – our best chances of success lie in deeper and deeper cooperation. The second principle that must underlie our approach is to strengthen the foundation of practical and pragmatic police and intelligence work. In each of these areas – organised crime, terrorism, immigration, asylum – we have already taken action at the European Union level. For example, we have agreed the European Arrest Warrant, common rules on penalties for and definitions of terrorism, people trafficking and other serious crimes. We have rules on police and judicial cooperation and we have established Europol and Eurojust to support their work. We have also strengthened freedom to travel within the EU and established the European Borders Agency. There is of course more that we can do and are doing. We have agreed a comprehensive programme of action in the Hague Programme and the Counter-Terrorism Action Plan. These contain many sensible, practical measures that will make a real difference to our citizens. If we want to demonstrate the real value of the European Union, we now need to work together to deliver on those commitments. I would like in particular to highlight the need for practical European Union support for intelligence-led operations and cross-border prosecutions, the development of joint teams to combat drug dealing and people trafficking, the sharing of information to facilitate joint work and the development of a European criminal intelligence model. In the field of migration and asylum, I hope that in this Presidency we will succeed in securing significant European Union readmission agreements with certain countries such as Russia, Ukraine and Morocco, and develop pilot regional protection programmes. In the field of civil justice, we will focus on the proposal to facilitate small claims and the establishment of a single European order of payment and other measures. These are all important practical steps, which I hope will command widespread support from this Parliament. But it is the third principle which I believe poses the greatest challenge in its modern application. That principle is that we need to use intelligence effectively and intelligently to target, track down, identify and convict the criminals who, through terrorist violence and serious and organised crime, threaten the security and strength of our society. Indeed I would go further: it is only through the effective and intelligent use of intelligence that in our modern world we can contest the criminality which attacks us. Of course criminals and terrorists use modern technology – the internet and mobile communications – to plan and carry out their activities. We can only contest them effectively if we know what they are communicating. Without that knowledge, we are fighting them with both hands tied behind our backs. Of course the criminals know that and actively and consciously organise themselves to take advantage of our weaknesses. I start from the proposition that the European Union has been a massive force for good. Thirty-five years ago, when I was a student, we campaigned for democracy in this continent, to remove the fascist or military dictatorships which then existed in Greece, Spain and Portugal, and the totalitarian dictatorships which then ruled much of eastern and central Europe. Those campaigns succeeded as, it is worth pointing out, did the campaigns in other parts of the world, for example Southern Africa and Latin America. It may seem obvious to state that we need to collect and use intelligence against the threats that we face. But the European Parliament and national parliaments throughout Europe need to face up to the fact that the legal framework within which we currently operate makes the collection and use of this intelligence very difficult and in some cases impossible. The rules that currently govern our law enforcement bodies seriously inhibit their ability to protect us against criminals. Information is the lifeblood of law enforcement operations and it is that information which enables our police and agencies to prevent crimes with the minimum of impact on our daily lives. To tackle organised crime and stop terrorist groups before they carry out their activities, they need a clear picture of who the criminals are, what they are doing, where they are and how they communicate with each other. Often that picture is pieced together after the fact. But if we are to be effective in dismantling organised crime groups we must analyse intelligence and information so that we can target our efforts on the most dangerous criminals. However, that need is not always reflected in the rules that we apply to our police. This is not a sterile debate about principles; it is about practical measures to contest criminality and our opponents. That is why the UK Presidency, following the proposals set out in the Hague Programme, has placed on the agenda proposals on the retention of telecommunications data, establishing a second generation of the Schengen Information System and putting in place a new Visa Information System. That is why we argue that internationally consistent and coherent biometric data should be an automatic part of our visas, passports and identity cards where we have them – and I would even suggest driving licences as well. That is why we will work strongly to agree with our international partners, including the United States, the best measures for consistent international use of passenger data. These are all important and difficult measures. They can only be achieved through international agreements, particularly in the European Union and between the European Union and its partners throughout the world. They all require hard-headed discussions and practical agreement. This Presidency accepts that, in considering proposals in these areas, it is incumbent upon the advocates of change, such as the British Government, to make the case that measures of this kind have the practical advantages against criminality that I believe they do. That is why I am publishing today, as I promised the LIBE Committee in July in Brussels that I would, an explanation of the cases for some of these measures, in particular those relating to retention of telecommunications data. I hope that Parliament will look closely at the case that we put forward. My colleagues on the Justice and Home Affairs Council will be considering these issues carefully at the informal Council meeting in Newcastle later this week. But I believe that the central point for us to remember, as we consider these issues together, is that we now possess many hard-won rights such as the right to privacy, the right to property, the right to free speech, the right to travel and the right to life. Those rights are actively threatened by criminals and terrorists. We have a duty and a responsibility to help protect them for our citizens through practical measures. As we consider how best to do this, rights will always and inevitably have to be balanced. What matters in each case is that the steps are proportionate and that the protection against abuse is effective. I believe that our proposals offer that. Let me just cite the example of retention of telecommunications data. This is proving invaluable in the current investigations into the London attacks and in many cases in the UK it has proved essential to solving crimes, often months or years after they were committed. Communications service providers already retain much information for business purposes, but data protection obligations in some countries pressure them to erase data that has no business purpose. That means that catching a murderer or stopping a terrorist attack may depend on which mobile telephone company a victim, suspect or witness uses or has used, or which European Union country they were in. In fact, 11 of the 25 current European Union Member States have since emerged to democracy as full members of the European Union. It is a magnificent achievement which we should continue to celebrate. Some argue that to require telecommunications companies to retain data they use for billing purposes is an intrusion into privacy, or that it imposes undue costs on business. However, in the United Kingdom we have successfully established a system, in partnership with a major service provider, to retain essential data for up to twelve months for the cost of EUR 1.2 million. Compared to the average costs for forensic work on a single murder case of over EUR 0.5 million, that is an acceptable cost for the state to bear. Others have argued that we are asking for too much data, for example, that there should not be a requirement to retain unanswered calls. In many cases, however, this is data that has already been collected by the companies for their own purposes. All that we are asking is that it be retained and made available to law enforcement under national law. There is perhaps a more general concern that the proposal is an unnecessary invasion of privacy or that it is disproportionate. I do not believe that it is, because in many cases, some of which I have set out in the document I am circulating, the victim’s right to justice was only achieved through the retention of telecommunications data. Similarly, with the Schengen Information System, the next generation enables our law enforcement agencies to exchange information about individuals wanted for arrest or to be refused entry to the European Union, as well as information on lost and stolen documents or other objects. This is a critical tool for ensuring our collective security and for guaranteeing our rights. Equally, without a new system in place, the new Member States will not be able to lift their internal borders with other Schengen states. The Council and European Parliament will have to work together over the coming months to agree on the legal framework for the system. In my opinion, we will need to do this quickly so that the system can be put in place by early 2007. We all need to be sure that we are striking the right balance between our collective security and our fundamental rights. In so doing, we need to be sure that we have thoroughly explored the question of whether the Schengen Information System II should be a control system or whether it can be used more effectively as a tool for law enforcement. In making judgements about this, we need to reflect on the balance between the civil liberty being affected and the increased security being achieved, to ensure that any changes we make are proportionate and reasonable. This also applies to the Visa Information System, where we need to ensure that those with a legitimate right to travel can do so, while those who seek to exploit our freedoms are deterred. Increasingly, people use multiple identities to hide their movements. Biometrics are the most effective way to ensure that we can prove someone's identity. A comprehensive database of visa applications with biometrics matched to each applicant will mean that genuine travellers are able to prove their identity easily and travel more freely. Governments will have a clear idea of who is entering and leaving the European Union, with the reassurance that they have the legal right to do so. The use of biometrics also means that if people destroy their documents or are found overstaying we are able to identify who they are and where they come from. The Council and European Parliament will need to work closely together to agree and adopt the Visa Information System regulation. The Council aims to have the system up and running in consulates from the beginning of 2006. Given the substantial lead-in time for the equipment of posts and training, there is real urgency to adopt this regulation as soon as possible. Each of these examples is a practical measure that can enhance security and demonstrate the practical benefits of working together. In each case they will enhance the sharing of information. They will not lead – as some have argued – to the mass surveillance of our citizens or to unnecessary invasion of their right to privacy. Of course the nature of our societies has changed dramatically over these years, economically, socially and technologically. It has changed in the composition of our communities, which vary across the Union, with many communities of differing races, faiths and histories living together. However, I understand concerns that data may be misused or abused or that some people will be wrongly identified. That is why we need to ensure that in each case there is a clear legal basis for the exchange of information and that the basis should include the appropriate safeguards against abuse. Of course the proposals that I have set out are an enormous agenda for this Presidency and we will do our best to promote it. However, on behalf of the United Kingdom Government I also want to say that we believe that it is necessary to look very carefully at the way in which the jurisprudence around application of the European Convention on Human Rights is developing. The Convention, established over 50 years ago in a quite different international climate, has led to great advances in human rights across the continent. Its achievements must be fostered and developed and not undermined, but I believe that in developing these human rights it really is necessary to balance very important rights for individuals against the collective right for security from terrorist violence. Our strengthening of human rights needs to acknowledge a truth which we should all accept: that the right to be protected from torture and ill-treatment must be considered side by side with the right to be protected from the death and destruction caused by indiscriminate terrorism, sometimes caused, instigated or fomented by nationals from countries outside the European Union. This is a difficult balance to get right and it requires all of us, as politicians, to ask where our citizens – who elected all of us here – would expect us to draw the line. I believe that they expect from us not only the protection of individual rights but also the protection of democratic values such as safety and security under the law. The view of my government is that this balance is not right for the circumstances which we now face – circumstances very different from those faced by the founding fathers of the European Convention on Human Rights – and it needs to be closely examined in that context. I intend to discuss with colleagues in the Justice and Home Affairs Council how we might best address these issues in a manner consistent with our international obligations. I believe most strongly that the peoples of this continent want to be assured that the legislative regime which defends human rights must be used to defend the rights of all our citizens in a balanced and considered way and that it is our duty to discuss this openly. In conclusion, I believe that the ‘no’ votes against the Constitution should be taken as a wake-up call to those who believe in and support the European project to focus on what matters. The right to safety and security is a fundamental concern for all our citizens. Here we can show that Europe can and does deliver real benefits to our citizens. We in the European Union have a responsibility to rise to that challenge. It is not an area where we can fail them. But in all of this I believe that it is our duty to promote a society which is based on the true respect of one individual for another, one culture for another, one faith for another, one race for another. It is our duty to promote the view that democracy, and not violence, is the means of bringing about change and governing ourselves. We have to defend our values of respect, tolerance, freedom and democracy against any who wish to destroy or replace them with some other doctrine, particularly if they seek to use violence to promote their ambition. That is part of the history of the European Union, but it must be central to the future of the European Union too. As we look to that future we have to acknowledge that, despite the fantastic record, many of our citizens remain highly sceptical about the European Union, to such an extent that in some countries the national referenda rejected the proposed new Constitution in a way which suggested more deep-seated concerns. I believe that a deep reason for these doubts is that the European Union does not appear to give sufficient priority to offering practical solutions which make a difference to some of the issues of greatest concern. I am referring specifically to serious and organised crime, including drug dealing and people trafficking, to illegal migration and false asylum seeking, and to countering terrorism, whatever its origins. These issues top the political agenda across Europe, and they are often the most potent in mobilising political activity, often in a reactionary and even dangerous way. They can even be used by poisonous demagogues to undermine the very democracy which has in some cases so recently been created. It is not difficult to see why these threats motivate anger amongst our peoples. The threat from terrorism remains very real, as we tragically saw in London in July. In 2004 over 100 000 women were trafficked in the European Union and over 8 000 people die each year from drug use, as crime and misery is fuelled in every part of the continent. Illegal migration and a system of control which is too loose raise concerns in every city."@mt15 "Mijnheer de Voorzitter, ik wil allereerst mijn dank uitspreken voor de gelegenheid die u mij biedt om het Europees Parlement toe te spreken. Ik wil deze van gelegenheid gebruik maken om een toelichting te geven op de koers die de Britse regering zal volgen als voorzitter van de Raad Justitie en Binnenlandse Zaken. Dat voorzitterschap zal bekleed worden door ondergetekende en door mijn collega Baroness Ashton, die vandaag ook hier aanwezig is. Ik ben dan ook van mening dat heel de Europese Unie - maar met name de Raad Justitie en Binnenlandse Zaken - een duidelijke prioriteit dient te geven aan een praktische en systematische oplossing van deze problemen. Het Britse voorzitterschap zal zich door die overtuiging laten inspireren. Daarbij willen wij in onze aanpak drie principiële uitgangspunten hanteren. Het eerste is dat in onze gemondialiseerde wereld geen enkel land in staat is om deze problemen in zijn eentje op te lossen, zelfs niet op nationaal niveau. In een wereld waarin elk jaar miljoenen internationale reizen en economische transacties plaatsvinden, leveren ideeën als “ ” of retoriek als “ ” geen enkele bijdrage aan oplossingen voor internationale en zware criminaliteit, terrorisme, of internationale migratiepatronen. Wij moeten terrorisme en zware en georganiseerde criminaliteit bestrijden, en dat betekent dat wij juist meer en niet minder Europese samenwerking nodig hebben. Feit is dat wij op al deze gebieden, ook in onze eigen landen, het meest zullen bereiken indien wij ervaringen, informatie en middelen uitwisselen en indien wij potentiële bedreigingen traceren en deze vervolgens systematisch en consequent aanpakken. Ik trap weliswaar een open deur in als ik zeg dat die bedreigingen het beste op internationaal niveau aangepakt kunnen worden, maar er zijn nog steeds politieke partijen en media in de Europese Unie die vinden dat de beste bescherming tegen dergelijke bedreigingen het optrekken van steeds hogere muren tussen onze landen is. De waarheid is echter net andersom: wij hebben de meeste kans van slagen als wij onze samenwerking blijven intensiveren. Het tweede principiële uitgangspunt waarop onze aanpak gebaseerd moet zijn, is dat wij het fundament van onze praktische en pragmatische politie- en inlichtingenactiviteiten moeten verstevigen. Op alle gebieden - georganiseerde criminaliteit, terrorisme, immigratie, asielbeleid - hebben wij op communautair niveau al actie ondernomen. Zo hebben wij overeenstemming bereikt over het Europees arrestatiebevel, over gemeenschappelijke regels voor de definitie van terrorisme, mensensmokkel en andere zware criminaliteit, en over de bijbehorende strafmaatregelen. Wij beschikken over regels voor politiële en juridische samenwerking en wij hebben Europol en Eurojust opgericht om de betreffende werkzaamheden te ondersteunen. Wij hebben ook de vrijheid om binnen de Europese Unie te reizen verbeterd en het Europees Agentschap voor Buitengrenzen opgericht. Uiteraard kunnen wij nog meer doen, en dat doen wij ook. Wij hebben overeenstemming bereikt over een allesomvattend actieprogramma, dat is vervat in het Programma van Den Haag en het EU-actieplan ter bestrijding van terrorisme. Daarin komt een groot aantal zinvolle en praktische maatregelen voor waar onze burgers daadwerkelijk voordeel van zullen hebben. Om echter de ware betekenis van de Europese Unie aan te kunnen tonen, moeten wij nu gaan samenwerken en onze intenties hard maken. Ik wil met name benadrukken dat wij behoefte hebben aan praktische communautaire ondersteuning voor op inlichtingen gebaseerde operaties en grensoverschrijdende strafvervolgingen, aan de ontwikkeling van gezamenlijke teams voor de strijd tegen de drugshandel en de mensensmokkel, aan het delen van informatie om de gemeenschappelijke taken beter het hoofd te kunnen bieden, en aan een Europees model voor misdaadinlichtingen. Ik hoop dat wij, op migratie- en asielgebied, tijdens dit voorzitterschap in staat zullen zijn om belangrijke communautaire overnameovereenkomsten te sluiten met landen als Rusland, Oekraïne en Marokko en om proefprogramma’s voor regionale bescherming te ontwikkelen. Wat het civiel recht betreft, zullen wij de nadruk leggen op de voorstellen voor de vergemakkelijking van kleine schuldvorderingen, op de invoering van een Europees betalingsbevel en ook op andere maatregelen. Dit zijn allemaal belangrijke praktische maatregelen en ik hoop daarvoor op een brede steun van het Parlement te mogen rekenen. Volgens mij vormt het derde principiële uitgangspunt de grootste uitdaging als het gaat om de toepassing in de moderne tijd: wij moeten namelijk inlichtingen op een effectieve en intelligente wijze gebruiken om criminelen die middels terroristisch geweld en zware en georganiseerde criminaliteit de veiligheid en het fundament van onze samenleving bedreigen, aan te pakken, te traceren, te identificeren en te veroordelen. Ik zou zelfs nog een stapje verder willen gaan: wij kunnen de criminaliteit die ons bedreigt alleen maar bestrijden als wij inlichtingen op een effectieve en intelligente manier gebruiken. Uiteraard maken criminelen en terroristen ook gebruik van moderne technologieën - van internet en mobiele communicatie - om hun activiteiten te plannen en uit te voeren. Wij kunnen hen echter alleen maar effectief aanpakken als wij weten wat de inhoud is van hun communicatie. Zonder die kennis zijn wij in onze strijd met beide handen gebonden op onze rug. Natuurlijk weten de criminelen dat, en zij organiseren zich actief en bewust zodanig dat zij profijt kunnen trekken van onze zwakte. Ik begin met de constatering dat de Europese Unie tot nu toe een factor met een grote positieve betekenis is geweest. 35 jaar geleden, toen ik nog student was, voerden wij campagne voor de democratie op dit continent, voor de afschaffing van de fascistische en militaire dictaturen, die er toen in Griekenland, Spanje en Portugal waren, en voor de afschaffing van de totalitaire dictaturen in het grootste deel van Oost- en Midden-Europa. Die campagnes hebben hun doel bereikt, evenals de campagnes in andere delen van de wereld, zoals Zuid-Afrika en Latijns-Amerika. Het is belangrijk om dat een keer te benadrukken. De constatering dat wij inlichtingen moeten verzamelen en gebruiken tegen de bedreigingen waarmee wij geconfronteerd worden, lijkt een open deur. Het Europees Parlement en de nationale parlementen moeten zich echter realiseren dat door het juridisch kader waarbinnen wij op dit moment opereren, het verzamelen en gebruiken van die inlichtingen beperkt, en in sommige gevallen zelfs onmogelijk is. De regels waaraan onze rechtshandhavingsinstanties zich op dit moment moeten houden, beperken hun mogelijkheden om ons tegen criminelen te beschermen. Informatie vormt de levensader voor onze operaties op het gebied van rechtshandhaving. Dankzij die informatie zijn onze politie en agentschappen in staat om misdaden te voorkomen en het effect daarvan op ons dagelijks leven zoveel mogelijk te beperken. Om de georganiseerde criminaliteit aan te kunnen pakken en om te kunnen voorkomen dat terroristische groeperingen hun plannen uitvoeren, hebben wij een duidelijk beeld nodig van wie die criminelen zijn, van wat zij precies doen en wanneer zij dat gaan doen, en van de wijze waarop zij met elkaar communiceren. Vaak kan dat beeld echter pas vervolledigd worden nadat het kwaad al is geschied. Als wij georganiseerde criminele organisaties daadwerkelijk willen ontmantelen, moeten wij inlichtingen en informatie kunnen analyseren, zodat wij ons op de aanpak van de gevaarlijkste criminelen kunnen richten. Die noodzaak komt echter niet altijd tot uiting in de regels die wij voor de politie hanteren. Dit is overigens geen steriel debat over beginselen. Het gaat ook over praktische maatregelen om de criminaliteit en onze tegenstanders te bestrijden. Daarom heeft het Britse voorzitterschap, op basis van de in het Programma van Den Haag geformuleerde voorstellen, vraagstukken op de agenda gezet als het bewaren van telecommunicatiegegevens, het ontwikkelen van een tweede generatie van het Schengeninformatiesysteem en de invoering van een nieuw visuminformatiesysteem. Daarom zijn wij van mening dat op alle visa, paspoorten en identiteitskaarten - en ik zou zelfs zeggen: op alle rijbewijzen - internationaal consequente en coherente biometrische gegevens vermeld moeten worden. Daarom zullen wij ons tot het uiterste moeten inspannen om in samenwerking met onze internationale partners, met inbegrip van de Verenigde Staten, tot de best mogelijke maatregelen te komen voor een consequent internationaal gebruik van passagiersgegevens. Het zijn allemaal belangrijke en complexe maatregelen, die alleen maar verwezenlijkt kunnen worden op basis van internationale overeenkomsten, met name binnen de Europese Unie en tussen de Europese Unie en haar partners overal ter wereld. Voor al die maatregelen zijn zakelijke discussies en praktische afspraken onontbeerlijk. Het voorzitterschap beseft dat de voorstanders van deze nieuwe voorstellen, zoals de Britse regering, bij de behandeling daarvan tot taak hebben duidelijk te maken dat dergelijke maatregelen inderdaad praktische voordelen bieden tegen criminaliteit. Ik ben er zelf van overtuigd dat die voordelen er zijn. Dat is dan ook de reden dat ik vandaag de belofte nakom die ik tijdens de bijeenkomst van de Commissie burgerlijke vrijheden, justitie en binnenlandse zaken in juli heb gedaan en een toelichting publiceer op een aantal van deze maatregelen, met name met betrekking tot het bewaren van telecommunicatiegegevens. Ik hoop dat het Parlement onze argumenten zorgvuldig zal bestuderen. Mijn collega’s van de Raad Justitie en Binnenlandse Zaken zullen zich tijdens de informele bijeenkomst van de Raad later deze week in Newcastle intensief met deze kwesties bezighouden. Aangezien wij al deze kwesties als een geheel beschouwen, is het van cruciaal belang daarbij in gedachten te houden dat wij thans over veel, zwaar bevochten rechten beschikken, zoals het recht op privacy, het eigendomsrecht, het recht op vrijheid van spreken, het recht op reizen en het recht op leven. Deze rechten liggen onder vuur door de activiteiten van criminelen en terroristen. Wij hebben de plicht en de verantwoordelijkheid om deze rechten in het belang van onze burgers via praktische maatregelen te beschermen. Bij het zoeken naar de manier waarop dat het beste kan gebeuren, zullen rechten altijd en onvermijdelijk tegen elkaar afgewogen moeten worden. Het is altijd zeer belangrijk dat de maatregelen in een juiste verhouding tot elkaar staan, en dat er sprake is van een effectieve bescherming tegen misbruik. Naar mijn idee voldoen onze voorstellen aan deze eisen. Staat u mij toe om, bij wijze van voorbeeld, slechts nader in te gaan op het vraagstuk van het bewaren van telecommunicatiegegevens. Deze mogelijkheid is van onschatbare waarde gebleken bij het lopende onderzoek naar de aanslagen in Londen. In veel gevallen zijn die telecommunicatiegegevens in het Verenigd Koninkrijk van essentieel belang geweest bij het oplossen van misdaden, vaak maanden of jaren nadat deze gepleegd waren. Service providers op communicatiegebied bewaren nu al veel informatie voor zakelijke doeleinden, maar vanwege de wettelijk voorschriften inzake de bescherming van persoonsgegevens zijn ze in een aantal landen verplicht om gegevens te wissen die niet voor zakelijke doeleinden bestemd zijn. Dat betekent dat het opsporen van een moordenaar, of het voorkomen van terroristische aanslagen, afhankelijk kan zijn van het mobiele telefoonbedrijf dat door het slachtoffer, de verdachte of de getuige wordt of werd gebruikt, of van de betrokken lidstaat van de Europese Unie. In feite hebben elf van de huidige vijfentwintig lidstaten zich sindsdien tot een democratie en tot volwaardige lidstaten van de Europese Unie ontwikkeld. Dat is een fantastische prestatie en dat moeten wij blijven vieren. Sommige mensen beweren dat het een inbreuk op de privacy is als telecommunicatiebedrijven verplicht worden om gegevens te bewaren die zij voor de facturering gebruiken, of zijn van mening dat bedrijven hierdoor op veel te hoge kosten worden gejaagd. In het Verenigd Koninkrijk hebben wij echter in samenwerking met een grote service provider met succes een systeem geïmplementeerd waarin essentiële gegevens voor een periode van maximaal twaalf maanden bewaard worden, terwijl de kosten van dat systeem slechts 1,2 miljoen euro bedragen. Vergeleken met de gemiddelde kosten van meer dan een 0,5 miljoen euro voor het forensisch onderzoek in één enkele moordzaak, is dat een acceptabele kostenpost voor de overheid. Anderen zijn van mening dat wij om teveel gegevens vragen, en dat het bijvoorbeeld niet verplicht zou moeten zijn om gegevens over onbeantwoorde telefoongesprekken te bewaren. In veel gevallen gaat het echter om gegevens die toch al door bedrijven verzameld worden voor eigen gebruik. Wij willen alleen maar dat die gegevens bewaard worden en dat zij uit hoofde van de nationale wetgeving beschikbaar kunnen worden gesteld aan opsporingsinstanties. Men maakt zich misschien meer algemeen bezorgd over het feit dat het voorstel een onnodige inbreuk op de privacy zou vormen, of dat de gevolgen daarvan onevenredig groot zouden zijn. Daar ben ik het niet mee eens, omdat in veel gevallen aan de roep van slachtoffers om gerechtigheid alleen maar voldaan kon worden dankzij die opgeslagen telecommunicatiegegevens. In het document dat ik heb verspreid, staan daarvan een aantal voorbeelden. Zo kunnen onze wetshandhavingsdiensten op basis van de volgende generatie van het Schengeninformatiesysteem informatie uitwisselen over personen van wie opsporing is verzocht of aan wie toegang tot de EU moet worden ontzegd, en over gestolen documenten en andere voorwerpen. Dit is een essentieel instrument om onze collectieve veiligheid te beschermen en onze rechten te waarborgen. Zonder dat nieuwe systeem is het voor de nieuwe lidstaten ook niet mogelijk om hun grenzen met andere Schengenlanden af te schaffen. De Raad en het Europees Parlement zullen de komende maanden overeenstemming moeten bereiken over een juridisch kader voor het systeem. Naar mijn idee moet dit op korte termijn gebeuren, zodat het systeem begin 2007 operationeel kan worden. Wij zullen er echter wel allemaal voor moeten waken dat er een goed evenwicht wordt gecreëerd tussen onze collectieve veiligheid en onze grondrechten. Daarbij moeten wij er zeker van kunnen zijn dat de vraag of het Schengeninformatiesysteem als controlesysteem moet fungeren, of dat het op een effectievere wijze, als een instrument voor wetshandhaving, zou kunnen worden gebruikt, grondig is onderzocht. Bij onze overwegingen moeten wij zowel rekening houden met de mate waarin de burgerlijke vrijheden worden aangetast als de mate waarin de veiligheid wordt vergroot. Alleen op die manier kunnen wij ervoor zorgen dat de wijzigingen die wij doorvoeren, proportioneel en redelijk zijn. Dit geldt eveneens voor het visuminformatiesysteem. Bij dit systeem moeten wij waarborgen dat mensen met een legitiem reisdoel hun bestemming ongehinderd kunnen bereiken, terwijl degenen die misbruik willen maken van onze vrijheden, worden afgeschrikt. Mensen maken steeds meer gebruik van verschillende identiteiten om hun handel en wandel te verbergen. Biometrische gegevens vormen dan ook het beste hulpmiddel om iemands identiteit vast te stellen. Een uitgebreide databank van visumaanvragen, waarin de biometrische gegevens van elke aanvrager zijn opgenomen, maakt het voor bonafide reizigers eenvoudiger om hun identiteit aan te tonen, waardoor hun bewegingsvrijheid wordt vergroot. Regeringen krijgen door dit systeem een duidelijk beeld van wie de Europese Unie in- en uitgaat, met de geruststellende gedachte dat zij de desbetreffende informatie op rechtmatige wijze verzamelen. Als mensen hun identiteitsbewijzen vernietigen, of als zij langer dan toegestaan in een bepaald land verblijven, kunnen wij dankzij die biometrische gegevens toch de identiteit en herkomst van die mensen vaststellen. Met het oog op de vaststelling van een verordening betreffende het visuminformatiesysteem zullen de Raad en het Europees Parlement nauw moeten samenwerken om hieromtrent overeenstemming te bereiken. Het is de bedoeling van de Raad dat dit systeem vanaf begin 2006 operationeel is in de consulaten. Gezien de aanzienlijke voorbereidingstijd die nodig is om de consulaten van de benodigde apparatuur te voorzien en medewerkers met het systeem vertrouwd te maken, is het dringend noodzakelijk dat deze verordening zo snel mogelijk wordt aangenomen. Alle voorbeelden hebben betrekking op praktische maatregelen die de veiligheid kunnen verbeteren en die tevens een illustratie vormen van de concrete voordelen van een goede samenwerking. Deze maatregelen zullen ook altijd een betere uitwisseling van informatie tot gevolg hebben. Zij zullen echter niet leiden tot grootschalige controle van onze burgers of tot een onnodige inbreuk op hun privacy, zoals door sommige mensen wordt beweerd. Uiteraard is de structuur van onze samenleving gedurende deze periode drastisch gewijzigd, zowel op economisch en sociaal als op technologisch vlak. Ook de samenstelling van de bevolking van de Unie is veranderd. Deze varieert van gebied tot gebied, waarbij mensen van verschillend ras, geloofsovertuiging en geschiedenis samen leven. Ik begrijp echter wel dat er bezorgdheid bestaat over het mogelijke misbruik van gegevens of over een verkeerde identificatie van mensen in sommige gevallen. Daarom moeten wij ervoor zorgen dat er in alle gevallen een duidelijke rechtsgrondslag aanwezig is voor de uitwisseling van informatie en dat er in die rechtsgrondslag adequate waarborgen zijn ingebouwd tegen het misbruik van gegevens. De voorstellen die ik hier heb toegelicht vormen een enorme agenda voor ons voorzitterschap, maar wij zullen ons hiervoor tot het uiterste inspannen. Namens de regering van het Verenigd Koninkrijk moet ik er echter ook op wijzen dat het volgens ons noodzakelijk is zorgvuldig na te gaan hoe de rechtsbeginselen in verband met de toepassing van het Europees Verdrag tot bescherming van de rechten van de mens zich ontwikkelen. Dit Verdrag, dat meer dan vijftig jaar geleden in een heel ander internationaal klimaat tot stand kwam, heeft in heel Europa tot een aanzienlijke verbetering van de mensenrechten geleid. De successen van dat Verdrag moeten gekoesterd en verder ontwikkeld worden en mogen niet ondermijnd worden. Ik ben echter van mening dat het bij het verbeteren van die mensenrechten echt noodzakelijk is een evenwicht te creëren tussen de uiterst belangrijke individuele rechten enerzijds en het collectieve recht op veiligheid en bescherming tegen terroristisch geweld anderzijds. Bij ons streven naar verbetering van de mensenrechten zouden wij allemaal een waarheid moeten onderschrijven, namelijk dat er naast een recht op bescherming tegen marteling en mishandeling ook een recht bestaat op bescherming tegen dood en verderf door blinde terroristische aanslagen waarvan de daders, aanstichters of ondersteuners soms burgers van landen buiten de Europese Unie zijn. Het is moeilijk om het juiste evenwicht op dit gebied te vinden. Daarvoor is het noodzakelijk dat wij, politici, ons afvragen waar volgens onze burgers - die ons allen per slot van rekening hebben gekozen - de lijn moet worden getrokken. Naar mijn idee verwachten onze burgers van ons dat wij niet alleen hun persoonlijke rechten beschermen, maar ook de democratische waarden, zoals de hoogst mogelijke zekerheid en veiligheid die onze wet- en regelgeving hen kan bieden. Mijn regering is van mening dat het huidige evenwicht niet berekend is op de situatie waar wij thans mee geconfronteerd zijn. Wij verkeren namelijk in een heel andere situatie dan indertijd de grondleggers van het Europees Verdrag tot bescherming van de rechten van de mens. Dat evenwicht moet dan ook, uitgaande van de context, zorgvuldig geëvalueerd worden. Ik ben voornemens om met mijn collega’s in de Raad Justitie en Algemene Zaken te bespreken op welke manier wij deze kwesties, met inachtneming van onze internationale verplichtingen, het beste kunnen aanpakken. Ik ben er vast van overtuigd dat de mensen op dit continent de zekerheid willen hebben dat het rechtskader voor de bescherming van de mensenrechten gebruikt wordt om de rechten van al onze burgers op een evenwichtige en weloverwogen wijze te beschermen. Het is onze plicht om hier een open discussie over te voeren. Tot slot geloof ik dat de “nee”-stemmen tegen de grondwet als een wekker moet fungeren voor degenen die in het Europese project geloven en de verwezenlijking ervan ondersteunen. Zij moeten zich nu echter wel richten op de zaken die van wezenlijk belang zijn. Het recht op vrijheid en veiligheid is van fundamenteel belang voor alle burgers. Wij kunnen nu laten zien dat Europa praktische voordelen voor onze burgers kan en zal hebben. Wij hebben als Europese Unie de verantwoordelijkheid om die uitdaging aan te gaan. Wij kunnen onze burgers op dit gebied niet in de steek laten. Tegen die achtergrond is het naar mijn idee onze plicht om te streven naar een maatschappij die gebaseerd is op waarachtig respect van de ene mens voor de ander, van de ene cultuur voor de andere, van de ene geloofsovertuiging voor de andere en van het ene ras voor het andere. Het is onze plicht om iedereen ervan te doordringen dat democratie, en niet geweld, het middel is om veranderingen tot stand te brengen, en aan de grondslag moet liggen van onze bestuursvorm. Wij moeten onze waarden van respect, tolerantie, vrijheid en democratie verdedigen tegenover eenieder die probeert deze waarden kapot te maken of door een andere doctrine te vervangen, zeer zeker als dit met geweld gepaard gaat. Onze waarden zijn verankerd in de geschiedenis van de Europese Unie, maar moeten ook in de toekomst van de Europese Unie een essentieel element blijven. Als wij naar die toekomst kijken, moeten wij onderkennen dat veel van onze burgers, ondanks de geweldige staat van dienst, nog steeds sceptisch staan tegenover de Europese Unie. Die scepsis is in sommige landen zelfs zo groot dat tijdens nationale referenda het voorstel voor een nieuwe grondwet zo duidelijk is verworpen dat er welhaast sprake moet zijn van dieper liggende twijfels bij de betreffende burgers. Ik denk dat een van de belangrijkste redenen voor deze twijfels gelegen is in het feit dat de Europese Unie niet altijd voldoende prioriteit lijkt te geven aan praktische oplossingen, aan oplossingen waarmee een aantal van de grootste zorgen bij de burgers weg kan worden genomen. Ik doel daarbij vooral op de zware en georganiseerde criminaliteit (met inbegrip van drugshandel en mensensmokkel), op illegale immigratie en het onder valse voorwendselen aanvragen van asiel, en op het bestrijden van terrorisme, van welke aard dan ook. Deze kwesties staan in heel Europa bovenaan op de agenda en worden vaak gebruikt om politieke steun te mobiliseren, op een veelal reactionaire en zelfs gevaarlijke wijze. Deze problemen kunnen door gif spuwende demagogen worden gebruikt om de democratie te ondermijnen, die in sommige gevallen nog maar zo kort geleden tot stand is gebracht. Het is niet moeilijk in te zien waarom deze bedreigingen aanleiding vormen tot boosheid onder de bevolking. De terroristische dreiging is en blijft reëel, zoals wij in juli nog op tragische wijze in Londen hebben kunnen constateren. In 2004 waren meer dan 100 000 vrouwen in de Europese Unie het slachtoffer van mensensmokkel, terwijl elk jaar meer dan 8 000 mensen sterven ten gevolge van drugsgebruik. Criminaliteit en ellende nemen toe op elk deel van ons continent. Bovendien vormen illegale immigratie en een te soepel controlesysteem voor alle steden een probleem."@nl3 "Mr President, I would like to begin by thanking you for the opportunity of addressing the European Parliament. I want to take the opportunity to set out the approach that the British Government will follow in its conduct of the Presidency of the Justice and Home Affairs Council, which will be occupied by myself and my colleague Baroness Ashton, who is with me today. I therefore believe that the whole of the European Union – but in particular the Justice and Home Affairs Council – needs to give real priority to tackling these issues in a practical and systematic way. It is that conviction which will inform the UK Presidency. In so doing I suggest three principal approaches. The first is that in our globalised world no single nation can tackle these problems alone, even in its own country. In a world with millions of international journeys and economic transactions every year, ideas of ‘splendid isolation’ or rhetoric about ‘the White Cliffs of Dover’ can do nothing to address international criminality, terrorism or serious and organised crime or address patterns of international migration. The need to fight terrorism and serious and organised crime means that we need more European cooperation and not less. The truth is that in each of these areas we will all, including within our own countries, achieve most by sharing experience, information and resources and by identifying and then targeting the threats systematically and consistently. I make the apparently obvious point that these threats are best tackled internationally, since there remain political parties and other organs of opinion within the European Union which believe that protection from these types of threat can best be secured by the construction of higher and higher fences between us, whilst the truth is the opposite – our best chances of success lie in deeper and deeper cooperation. The second principle that must underlie our approach is to strengthen the foundation of practical and pragmatic police and intelligence work. In each of these areas – organised crime, terrorism, immigration, asylum – we have already taken action at the European Union level. For example, we have agreed the European Arrest Warrant, common rules on penalties for and definitions of terrorism, people trafficking and other serious crimes. We have rules on police and judicial cooperation and we have established Europol and Eurojust to support their work. We have also strengthened freedom to travel within the EU and established the European Borders Agency. There is of course more that we can do and are doing. We have agreed a comprehensive programme of action in the Hague Programme and the Counter-Terrorism Action Plan. These contain many sensible, practical measures that will make a real difference to our citizens. If we want to demonstrate the real value of the European Union, we now need to work together to deliver on those commitments. I would like in particular to highlight the need for practical European Union support for intelligence-led operations and cross-border prosecutions, the development of joint teams to combat drug dealing and people trafficking, the sharing of information to facilitate joint work and the development of a European criminal intelligence model. In the field of migration and asylum, I hope that in this Presidency we will succeed in securing significant European Union readmission agreements with certain countries such as Russia, Ukraine and Morocco, and develop pilot regional protection programmes. In the field of civil justice, we will focus on the proposal to facilitate small claims and the establishment of a single European order of payment and other measures. These are all important practical steps, which I hope will command widespread support from this Parliament. But it is the third principle which I believe poses the greatest challenge in its modern application. That principle is that we need to use intelligence effectively and intelligently to target, track down, identify and convict the criminals who, through terrorist violence and serious and organised crime, threaten the security and strength of our society. Indeed I would go further: it is only through the effective and intelligent use of intelligence that in our modern world we can contest the criminality which attacks us. Of course criminals and terrorists use modern technology – the internet and mobile communications – to plan and carry out their activities. We can only contest them effectively if we know what they are communicating. Without that knowledge, we are fighting them with both hands tied behind our backs. Of course the criminals know that and actively and consciously organise themselves to take advantage of our weaknesses. I start from the proposition that the European Union has been a massive force for good. Thirty-five years ago, when I was a student, we campaigned for democracy in this continent, to remove the fascist or military dictatorships which then existed in Greece, Spain and Portugal, and the totalitarian dictatorships which then ruled much of eastern and central Europe. Those campaigns succeeded as, it is worth pointing out, did the campaigns in other parts of the world, for example Southern Africa and Latin America. It may seem obvious to state that we need to collect and use intelligence against the threats that we face. But the European Parliament and national parliaments throughout Europe need to face up to the fact that the legal framework within which we currently operate makes the collection and use of this intelligence very difficult and in some cases impossible. The rules that currently govern our law enforcement bodies seriously inhibit their ability to protect us against criminals. Information is the lifeblood of law enforcement operations and it is that information which enables our police and agencies to prevent crimes with the minimum of impact on our daily lives. To tackle organised crime and stop terrorist groups before they carry out their activities, they need a clear picture of who the criminals are, what they are doing, where they are and how they communicate with each other. Often that picture is pieced together after the fact. But if we are to be effective in dismantling organised crime groups we must analyse intelligence and information so that we can target our efforts on the most dangerous criminals. However, that need is not always reflected in the rules that we apply to our police. This is not a sterile debate about principles; it is about practical measures to contest criminality and our opponents. That is why the UK Presidency, following the proposals set out in the Hague Programme, has placed on the agenda proposals on the retention of telecommunications data, establishing a second generation of the Schengen Information System and putting in place a new Visa Information System. That is why we argue that internationally consistent and coherent biometric data should be an automatic part of our visas, passports and identity cards where we have them – and I would even suggest driving licences as well. That is why we will work strongly to agree with our international partners, including the United States, the best measures for consistent international use of passenger data. These are all important and difficult measures. They can only be achieved through international agreements, particularly in the European Union and between the European Union and its partners throughout the world. They all require hard-headed discussions and practical agreement. This Presidency accepts that, in considering proposals in these areas, it is incumbent upon the advocates of change, such as the British Government, to make the case that measures of this kind have the practical advantages against criminality that I believe they do. That is why I am publishing today, as I promised the LIBE Committee in July in Brussels that I would, an explanation of the cases for some of these measures, in particular those relating to retention of telecommunications data. I hope that Parliament will look closely at the case that we put forward. My colleagues on the Justice and Home Affairs Council will be considering these issues carefully at the informal Council meeting in Newcastle later this week. But I believe that the central point for us to remember, as we consider these issues together, is that we now possess many hard-won rights such as the right to privacy, the right to property, the right to free speech, the right to travel and the right to life. Those rights are actively threatened by criminals and terrorists. We have a duty and a responsibility to help protect them for our citizens through practical measures. As we consider how best to do this, rights will always and inevitably have to be balanced. What matters in each case is that the steps are proportionate and that the protection against abuse is effective. I believe that our proposals offer that. Let me just cite the example of retention of telecommunications data. This is proving invaluable in the current investigations into the London attacks and in many cases in the UK it has proved essential to solving crimes, often months or years after they were committed. Communications service providers already retain much information for business purposes, but data protection obligations in some countries pressure them to erase data that has no business purpose. That means that catching a murderer or stopping a terrorist attack may depend on which mobile telephone company a victim, suspect or witness uses or has used, or which European Union country they were in. In fact, 11 of the 25 current European Union Member States have since emerged to democracy as full members of the European Union. It is a magnificent achievement which we should continue to celebrate. Some argue that to require telecommunications companies to retain data they use for billing purposes is an intrusion into privacy, or that it imposes undue costs on business. However, in the United Kingdom we have successfully established a system, in partnership with a major service provider, to retain essential data for up to twelve months for the cost of EUR 1.2 million. Compared to the average costs for forensic work on a single murder case of over EUR 0.5 million, that is an acceptable cost for the state to bear. Others have argued that we are asking for too much data, for example, that there should not be a requirement to retain unanswered calls. In many cases, however, this is data that has already been collected by the companies for their own purposes. All that we are asking is that it be retained and made available to law enforcement under national law. There is perhaps a more general concern that the proposal is an unnecessary invasion of privacy or that it is disproportionate. I do not believe that it is, because in many cases, some of which I have set out in the document I am circulating, the victim’s right to justice was only achieved through the retention of telecommunications data. Similarly, with the Schengen Information System, the next generation enables our law enforcement agencies to exchange information about individuals wanted for arrest or to be refused entry to the European Union, as well as information on lost and stolen documents or other objects. This is a critical tool for ensuring our collective security and for guaranteeing our rights. Equally, without a new system in place, the new Member States will not be able to lift their internal borders with other Schengen states. The Council and European Parliament will have to work together over the coming months to agree on the legal framework for the system. In my opinion, we will need to do this quickly so that the system can be put in place by early 2007. We all need to be sure that we are striking the right balance between our collective security and our fundamental rights. In so doing, we need to be sure that we have thoroughly explored the question of whether the Schengen Information System II should be a control system or whether it can be used more effectively as a tool for law enforcement. In making judgements about this, we need to reflect on the balance between the civil liberty being affected and the increased security being achieved, to ensure that any changes we make are proportionate and reasonable. This also applies to the Visa Information System, where we need to ensure that those with a legitimate right to travel can do so, while those who seek to exploit our freedoms are deterred. Increasingly, people use multiple identities to hide their movements. Biometrics are the most effective way to ensure that we can prove someone's identity. A comprehensive database of visa applications with biometrics matched to each applicant will mean that genuine travellers are able to prove their identity easily and travel more freely. Governments will have a clear idea of who is entering and leaving the European Union, with the reassurance that they have the legal right to do so. The use of biometrics also means that if people destroy their documents or are found overstaying we are able to identify who they are and where they come from. The Council and European Parliament will need to work closely together to agree and adopt the Visa Information System regulation. The Council aims to have the system up and running in consulates from the beginning of 2006. Given the substantial lead-in time for the equipment of posts and training, there is real urgency to adopt this regulation as soon as possible. Each of these examples is a practical measure that can enhance security and demonstrate the practical benefits of working together. In each case they will enhance the sharing of information. They will not lead – as some have argued – to the mass surveillance of our citizens or to unnecessary invasion of their right to privacy. Of course the nature of our societies has changed dramatically over these years, economically, socially and technologically. It has changed in the composition of our communities, which vary across the Union, with many communities of differing races, faiths and histories living together. However, I understand concerns that data may be misused or abused or that some people will be wrongly identified. That is why we need to ensure that in each case there is a clear legal basis for the exchange of information and that the basis should include the appropriate safeguards against abuse. Of course the proposals that I have set out are an enormous agenda for this Presidency and we will do our best to promote it. However, on behalf of the United Kingdom Government I also want to say that we believe that it is necessary to look very carefully at the way in which the jurisprudence around application of the European Convention on Human Rights is developing. The Convention, established over 50 years ago in a quite different international climate, has led to great advances in human rights across the continent. Its achievements must be fostered and developed and not undermined, but I believe that in developing these human rights it really is necessary to balance very important rights for individuals against the collective right for security from terrorist violence. Our strengthening of human rights needs to acknowledge a truth which we should all accept: that the right to be protected from torture and ill-treatment must be considered side by side with the right to be protected from the death and destruction caused by indiscriminate terrorism, sometimes caused, instigated or fomented by nationals from countries outside the European Union. This is a difficult balance to get right and it requires all of us, as politicians, to ask where our citizens – who elected all of us here – would expect us to draw the line. I believe that they expect from us not only the protection of individual rights but also the protection of democratic values such as safety and security under the law. The view of my government is that this balance is not right for the circumstances which we now face – circumstances very different from those faced by the founding fathers of the European Convention on Human Rights – and it needs to be closely examined in that context. I intend to discuss with colleagues in the Justice and Home Affairs Council how we might best address these issues in a manner consistent with our international obligations. I believe most strongly that the peoples of this continent want to be assured that the legislative regime which defends human rights must be used to defend the rights of all our citizens in a balanced and considered way and that it is our duty to discuss this openly. In conclusion, I believe that the ‘no’ votes against the Constitution should be taken as a wake-up call to those who believe in and support the European project to focus on what matters. The right to safety and security is a fundamental concern for all our citizens. Here we can show that Europe can and does deliver real benefits to our citizens. We in the European Union have a responsibility to rise to that challenge. It is not an area where we can fail them. But in all of this I believe that it is our duty to promote a society which is based on the true respect of one individual for another, one culture for another, one faith for another, one race for another. It is our duty to promote the view that democracy, and not violence, is the means of bringing about change and governing ourselves. We have to defend our values of respect, tolerance, freedom and democracy against any who wish to destroy or replace them with some other doctrine, particularly if they seek to use violence to promote their ambition. That is part of the history of the European Union, but it must be central to the future of the European Union too. As we look to that future we have to acknowledge that, despite the fantastic record, many of our citizens remain highly sceptical about the European Union, to such an extent that in some countries the national referenda rejected the proposed new Constitution in a way which suggested more deep-seated concerns. I believe that a deep reason for these doubts is that the European Union does not appear to give sufficient priority to offering practical solutions which make a difference to some of the issues of greatest concern. I am referring specifically to serious and organised crime, including drug dealing and people trafficking, to illegal migration and false asylum seeking, and to countering terrorism, whatever its origins. These issues top the political agenda across Europe, and they are often the most potent in mobilising political activity, often in a reactionary and even dangerous way. They can even be used by poisonous demagogues to undermine the very democracy which has in some cases so recently been created. It is not difficult to see why these threats motivate anger amongst our peoples. The threat from terrorism remains very real, as we tragically saw in London in July. In 2004 over 100 000 women were trafficked in the European Union and over 8 000 people die each year from drug use, as crime and misery is fuelled in every part of the continent. Illegal migration and a system of control which is too loose raise concerns in every city."@pl16 "Senhor Presidente, gostaria de começar por agradecer a oportunidade de me dirigir ao Parlamento Europeu. Desejo aproveitar esta oportunidade para apresentar a abordagem que o Governo britânico vai adoptar ao conduzir a Presidência do Conselho “Justiça e Assuntos Internos”, que vai ser detida por mim e pela minha colega, Baronesa Ashton, que aqui se encontra comigo hoje. Creio, portanto, que toda a União Europeia – mas em particular o Conselho “Justiça e Assuntos Internos” – precisa de conceder uma prioridade real ao confronto com estas questões, fazendo-o de uma forma prática e sistemática. É essa convicção que irá inspirar a Presidência do Reino Unido. Nesta perspectiva, gostaria de sugerir três abordagens principais. Em primeiro lugar, no mundo globalizado que temos, não há uma única nação que consiga enfrentar, sozinha, estes problemas, mesmo dentro do seu próprio país. Num mundo em que, todos os anos, se fazem milhões de viagens internacionais e transacções económicas internacionais, as ideias de “esplêndido isolamento” ou a retórica sobre “as brancas falésias de Dover” não servem de nada para enfrentar a criminalidade internacional, o terrorismo ou o surto de criminalidade grave e organizada ou ainda para analisar os padrões de ocorrência e de características da migração internacional. A necessidade de combater o terrorismo e a criminalidade grave e organizada significa que precisamos de mais, e não menos, cooperação europeia. A verdade é que, em cada uma destas áreas, todos nós, mesmo dentro dos nossos próprios países, conseguiremos obter mais resultados ao partilhar experiências, informações e recursos, identificando as ameaças e seguidamente fazendo pontaria sobre elas de modo sistemático e coerente. Apresento o ponto de vista aparentemente óbvio de que se enfrenta melhor, a nível internacional, este tipo de ameaças, e faço-o por continuar a haver partidos políticos e outros órgãos de opinião no seio da União Europeia que crêem haver melhor protecção para este tipo de ameaças se forem construídas barreiras cada vez mais altas entre nós. Mas a verdade é precisamente o oposto – as nossas melhores hipóteses de êxito situam-se ao nível da cooperação cada vez mais aprofundada. O segundo princípio que deve estar subjacente à nossa abordagem é o reforço das bases do trabalho prático e pragmático da polícia e dos serviços de informações. Em cada uma destas áreas – criminalidade organizada, terrorismo, imigração, asilo – já actuámos ao nível da União Europeia. Por exemplo, chegámos a acordo sobre o mandado de captura europeu, regras comuns sobre penas a aplicar ao terrorismo, bem como definição de terrorismo, tráfico de pessoas e outros crimes graves. Temos regras sobre cooperação policial e judicial e criámos a Europol e a Eurojust para apoiar este trabalho. Também reforçámos a liberdade de circulação no seio da UE e estabelecemos a Agência Europeia de Fronteiras. Claro que há mais para fazer e estamos a fazê-lo. Acordámos um vasto programa de acção no Programa de Haia e acordámos também o Plano de Acção Anti-terrorismo. Neles estão contidas muitas medidas correctas e práticas que vão fazer verdadeiramente a diferença para os nossos cidadãos. Se pretendemos demonstrar o real valor da União Europeia, temos agora de trabalhar em conjunto para cumprir esses compromissos. Gostaria em particular de chamar a atenção para a necessidade de apoio de ordem prática da União Europeia para a realização de operações orientadas pelos serviços de informações, bem como para acções penais transfronteiriças, para o desenvolvimento de equipas conjuntas de combate ao tráfico de droga e de pessoas, para a partilha de informação com vista a facilitar o trabalho conjunto e para o desenvolvimento de um modelo de informação criminal europeu. No domínio da migração e do asilo, espero que esta Presidência consiga com êxito assegurar importantes acordos de readmissão entre a União Europeia e determinados países como a Rússia, a Ucrânia e Marrocos, desenvolvendo programas-piloto de protecção regional. No campo da justiça civil, vamos fazer incidir a nossa atenção sobre a proposta no sentido de facilitar a tramitação das acções de pequeno montante e o estabelecimento de uma ordem europeia de pagamento única e outras medidas. Todas estas acções constituem importantes passos, que eu espero venham a merecer o apoio generalizado deste Parlamento. Mas é o terceiro princípio que eu penso que coloca o maior desafio na sua moderna aplicação. Esse princípio é o de que precisamos de utilizar os serviços de informações com eficácia e inteligência, de modo a conseguirmos localizar, perseguir, identificar e condenar os criminosos que, pela violência do terrorismo e pela criminalidade grave e organizada, põem em risco a segurança e a força da nossa sociedade. Até diria mais: é apenas através da utilização eficaz e inteligente dos serviços de informações que, no mundo moderno em que vivemos, podemos dar resposta à criminalidade que nos ataca. Claro que os criminosos e os terroristas usam as modernas tecnologias – a Internet e as comunicações móveis – para planear e pôr em prática as suas actividades. Apenas lhes poderemos dar resposta eficaz se soubermos o teor das suas comunicações. Sem esse conhecimento, estamos a dar-lhes combate com as duas mãos atadas atrás das costas. Claro que os criminosos sabem disso e organizam-se activa e conscientemente para tirar partido das nossas fraquezas. Começo, partindo da premissa de que a União Europeia tem sido uma enorme força benéfica. Há 35 anos atrás, quando era estudante, fazíamos campanha pela democracia neste continente, para acabar com as ditaduras fascistas ou militares então existentes na Grécia, Espanha e Portugal, e contra as ditaduras totalitárias que então dominavam a maior parte da Europa Central e Oriental. Estes movimentos foram bem sucedidos, do mesmo modo que, vale a pena referi-lo, o foram na África do Sul e na América Latina. Pode parecer óbvio afirmar que precisamos de recolher informações e usá-las contra as ameaças que se nos deparam. Mas o Parlamento Europeu e os parlamentos nacionais em toda a Europa têm de encarar o facto de que o enquadramento jurídico com que funcionamos presentemente dificulta enormemente, e em certos casos impossibilita, a recolha e a utilização de informações. As regras que presentemente regem os nossos órgãos de aplicação da lei inibem seriamente a sua capacidade para nos proteger dos criminosos. A informação é a alma das operações de aplicação da lei, e é essa informação que permite que as nossas polícias e agências efectuem a prevenção de crimes com o mínimo de impacto nas nossas vidas quotidianas. Para combater a criminalidade organizada e deter os grupos terroristas antes de estes levarem a cabo as suas actividades, estas entidades precisam de ter uma imagem clara de quem são os criminosos, o que fazem, onde se encontram e como comunicam entre si. Frequentemente, essa imagem é composta depois do facto consumado. Mas, para sermos eficazes no desmantelamento dos grupos de criminalidade organizada, temos de poder analisar os dados dos serviços de informações, de modo a podermos direccionar os nossos esforços para os criminosos mais perigosos. No entanto, esta necessidade nem sempre se reflecte nas regras que aplicamos à nossa polícia. Este não é um debate estéril sobre princípios; estamos a falar de medidas práticas para dar resposta à criminalidade e aos nossos oponentes. É por isso que a Presidência britânica, na sequência das propostas do Programa de Haia, colocou na ordem do dia propostas sobre a retenção de dados das telecomunicações, criando uma segunda geração do Sistema de Informação Schengen e pondo em prática um novo Sistema de Informações sobre Vistos. É por isso que nós contrapomos que, dados biométricos coerentes e consistentes deveriam fazer automaticamente parte dos nossos vistos, passaportes e bilhetes de identidade, nos casos em que os temos – e sugeriria inclusive a sua aplicação também às cartas de condução. É por isso que nós trabalharemos em estreita colaboração para chegar a acordo com os nossos parceiros internacionais, incluindo os Estados Unidos, sobre as melhores medidas para uma utilização internacional consistente dos dados dos passageiros. Todas estas medidas se revestem de importância e dificuldade. Apenas podem ser concretizadas através de acordos internacionais, particularmente no seio da União Europeia e entre a União Europeia e seus parceiros em todo o mundo. Todas elas requerem discussões pragmáticas, seguidas de um acordo prático. A Presidência aceita que, ao serem consideradas propostas nestas áreas, compete aos que advogam a mudança, como é o caso do Governo britânico, explicar e defender como as medidas deste tipo possuem as vantagens práticas contra a criminalidade que nós lhes apontamos. É por essa razão que hoje publico, tal como havia prometido à Comissão LIBE, em Julho, em Bruxelas, uma explicação dos casos que justificam algumas dessas medidas, em particular os relacionados com a retenção de dados das telecomunicações. Espero que o Parlamento aprecie atentamente o caso que lhe apresentamos. Os meus colegas do Conselho “Justiça e Assuntos Internos” vão apreciar cuidadosamente estas questões no decurso da reunião informal do Conselho, em Newcastle, no final desta semana. Mas creio que o ponto fundamental que devemos ter em mente, ao apreciar estas questões no seu conjunto, tem a ver com os muitos direitos duramente conquistados de que agora usufruímos, tais como o direito à privacidade, o direito à propriedade, o direito à liberdade de expressão, o direito a circular livremente e o direito à vida. Estes direitos são activamente ameaçados pelos criminosos e pelos terroristas. Temos o dever e a responsabilidade de ajudar os nossos cidadãos a protegerem-se destas ameaças através das necessárias medidas práticas. Ao reflectirmos sobre a melhor forma de o fazer, terá de, sempre e inevitavelmente, se encontrar um equilíbrio de direitos. O que importa, em cada caso, é a proporcionalidade das medidas e a eficácia da protecção contra situações abusivas. Creio que as nossas propostas oferecem esse equilíbrio. Permitam-me apenas citar o exemplo da retenção de dados das telecomunicações. Esta acção está a demonstrar ser inestimável nas actuais investigações em curso relativamente aos ataques a Londres, tendo em muitos casos, no Reino Unido, demonstrado ser essencial para a resolução de crimes, muitas vezes meses ou anos depois de terem sido cometidos. Os operadores de serviços de telecomunicações retêm sempre muita informação para efeitos comerciais, mas, em alguns países, as obrigações decorrentes da protecção de dados pressionam-nos a apagar os dados que não possuem finalidade comercial. Quer isto dizer que apanhar um assassino ou impedir a concretização de um ataque terrorista pode depender de qual o operador de telemóvel que uma vítima, um suspeito ou uma testemunha usa ou usou, ou do país da União Europeia em que essas pessoas se encontravam. Na verdade, 11 dos 25 actuais Estados-Membros da União Europeia emergiram desde essa altura para a democracia como membros de pleno direito da União Europeia. Trata-se de um feito magnífico que devíamos continuar a celebrar. Há quem rebata, afirmando que, requerer aos operadores de telecomunicações que retenham os dados por si usados para fins de facturação, constitui uma intromissão na privacidade, ou que tal medida impõe custos indevidos às empresas. No entanto, no Reino Unido criámos com êxito um sistema de parceria com um importante operador, em que este retém dados essenciais por um período até doze meses pelo preço de 1,2 milhões de euros. Comparado com o custo médio envolvido pelo trabalho forense num único caso de assassínio, ascendendo a mais de meio milhão de euros, podemos dizer que se trata de um valor aceitável a custear pelo Estado. Há ainda quem tenha rebatido, afirmando que estamos a pedir demasiados dados, não devendo haver, por exemplo, o requisito de serem retidas as chamadas não atendidas. No entanto, em muitos casos, tais dados fazem já parte dos que foram recolhidos pelos operadores para as suas finalidades internas. A única coisa que pedimos é que tais dados sejam retidos e disponibilizados às autoridades de execução da lei ao abrigo da legislação nacional. Existe talvez uma preocupação mais generalizada relativamente ao facto de a proposta constituir uma desnecessária invasão da privacidade ou à sua falta de proporcionalidade. Não creio que assim seja, pois em muitos casos, alguns deles por mim expostos no documento que estou a fazer circular, o direito da vítima a ter justiça apenas foi concretizado mediante a retenção de dados das telecomunicações. De igual modo, a geração seguinte do Sistema de Informação de Schengen, permite às nossas agências de execução da lei a troca de informações sobre os indivíduos procurados por mandado de captura ou sobre aqueles a quem deve ser recusada entrada na União Europeia, bem como as informações sobre documentos roubados e perdidos ou outros objectos. Trata-se de um instrumento decisivo para garantir a nossa segurança colectiva e para garantir os nossos direitos. Do mesmo modo, sem estar em funcionamento um novo sistema, os novos Estados-Membros não poderão abolir as suas fronteiras internas com os restantes Estados Schengen. O Conselho e o Parlamento Europeu vão ter de trabalhar em conjunto durante os próximos meses, de modo a chegarem a um acordo sobre o enquadramento jurídico para o sistema. Na minha opinião, vamos ter de actuar rapidamente, de modo que o sistema esteja operacional no início de 2007. Todos precisamos de ter a certeza se estamos a estabelecer um correcto equilíbrio entre a nossa segurança colectiva e os nossos direitos fundamentais. Ao fazê-lo, temos de estar certos de ter explorado amplamente a questão de saber se o Sistema de Informação de Schengen II deve ser usado como um sistema de controlo ou se pode ser utilizado mais eficazmente como um instrumento de execução da lei. Ao analisar este ponto, precisamos de reflectir sobre a questão de o equilíbrio entre as liberdades cívicas ser afectado e da obtenção de um aumento da segurança, de modo a assegurar que quaisquer alterações que possamos fazer se caracterizam pela proporcionalidade e pela razoabilidade. O mesmo se aplica ao Sistema de Informações sobre Vistos, em relação ao qual temos de garantir que aqueles que têm o legítimo direito de viajar o possam fazer, ao mesmo tempo que aqueles que procuram explorar as nossas liberdades são detidos. Cada vez mais as pessoas utilizam múltiplas identidades para esconderem os seus movimentos. A biométrica constitui o meio mais eficaz de garantir que podemos provar a identidade de alguém. Uma base de dados global, contendo os pedidos de vistos juntamente com os dados biométricos de cada requerente, significará que os verdadeiros viajantes vão poder provar facilmente a sua identidade e viajar mais livremente. Os Governos terão uma ideia mais clara sobre quem está a entrar ou a sair da União Europeia, tendo a segurança de que têm o direito jurídico de o fazer. A utilização dos dados biométricos quer também dizer que, mesmo se as pessoas destruírem os seus documentos ou excederem o tempo de permanência que lhes foi concedido, poderemos sempre identificar quem são e de onde vêm. O Conselho e o Parlamento Europeu vão ter de trabalhar em estreita colaboração por forma a acordar e adoptar o regulamento sobre o Sistema de Informações sobre Vistos. É objectivo do Conselho ter o sistema operacional nos consulados a partir do início de 2006. Dado o substancial tempo de avanço necessário para equipar os postos e formar pessoal, existe uma real urgência em adoptar este regulamento com a maior brevidade possível. Qualquer um destes exemplos representa uma medida prática que pode aumentar a segurança e demonstrar os benefícios práticos do trabalho em equipa. Em qualquer dos casos, estes vão aumentar a partilha de informações, e, contrariamente ao que alguns afirmam, não vão levar à vigilância em massa dos nossos cidadãos ou à desnecessária invasão do seu direito à privacidade. Claro que a natureza das nossas sociedades tem mudado dramaticamente durante estes anos sob o ponto de vista económico, social e tecnológico. Mudou em termos de composição das nossas sociedades, a qual varia ao longo de toda a União, com muitas comunidades de diferentes raças, fés e histórias vivendo em conjunto. No entanto, entendo as preocupações sobre a má utilização ou a utilização abusiva de dados ou sobre uma incorrecta identificação de algumas pessoas. É por isso que temos de assegurar que, em cada caso, existe uma clara base jurídica para o intercâmbio de informações e que essa base inclui adequadas salvaguardas contra acções abusivas. Claro que as propostas que acabei de apresentar constituem uma agenda ambiciosa para esta Presidência, e tudo faremos para a promover. Contudo, em nome do Governo do Reino Unido, quero também dizer que cremos ser necessário analisar de modo muito cuidadoso o modo como está a evoluir a jurisprudência em torno da aplicação da Convenção Europeia dos Direitos do Homem. A Convenção, estabelecida há mais de 50 anos, num clima internacional completamente diferente, deu origem a grandes avanços em matéria de direitos humanos em todo o continente. As suas conquistas têm de ser encorajadas e desenvolvidas, nunca as subvertendo, mas creio que o desenvolvimento destes direitos humanos torna necessário conjugar o equilíbrio de direitos muito importantes para o indivíduo com o direito colectivo de segurança contra a violência terrorista. O nosso reforço dos direitos humanos tem de reconhecer uma verdade que todos temos de aceitar: que o direito a sermos protegidos contra a tortura e os maus-tratos tem de ser equacionado lado a lado com o direito a sermos protegidos da morte e da destruição causados pelo terrorismo indiscriminado, por vezes causado, instigado ou fomentado por nacionais de países terceiros da União Europeia. Trata-se de um difícil equilíbrio, requerendo que todos nós, enquanto políticos, perguntemos aos nossos cidadãos – que nos elegeram para estar aqui – em que ponto esperam que estabeleçamos o limite. Creio que eles esperam de nós, não apenas a defesa dos direitos individuais, mas também a defesa dos valores democráticos como é o caso da segurança e da protecção perante a lei. A opinião do meu Governo é de que este equilíbrio não é o correcto para as circunstâncias com que nos defrontamos – circunstâncias muito diferentes das encontradas pelos pais fundadores da Convenção Europeia dos Direitos do Homem – havendo que proceder à sua análise aprofundada nesse contexto. Tenciono debater com os colegas do Conselho “Justiça e Assuntos Internos” a melhor forma de solucionar estas questões, fazendo-o de uma forma coerente com as nossas obrigações internacionais. Não tenho dúvidas de que as populações deste continente pretendem ser tranquilizadas quanto ao facto de o regime legislativo que defende os direitos humanos ter de ser usado para a defesa dos direitos de todos os nossos concidadãos de uma forma equilibrada e ponderada, sendo nosso dever debater esta questão abertamente. Concluindo, creio que os votos de “não” contra a Constituição deveriam ser tomados como uma chamada de atenção para que aqueles que acreditam no projecto europeu e o apoiam, despertem e dêem atenção a estas questões. O direito à segurança e à protecção constitui uma preocupação fundamental para todos os nossos cidadãos. Neste ponto, podemos demonstrar que a Europa pode trazer, e traz, reais benefícios aos nossos cidadãos. Na União Europeia temos a responsabilidade de estar à altura desse desafio. Não é uma matéria em que possamos decepcionar os cidadãos. Mas, em tudo isto, eu creio que é nosso dever promover uma sociedade baseada no verdadeiro respeito de um indivíduo pelo outro, de uma cultura pela outra, de uma fé pela outra, de uma raça pela outra. É nosso dever promover a ideia de que é a democracia, e não a violência, o meio para desencadear a mudança e para nos governarmos. Temos de defender os nossos valores de respeito, tolerância, liberdade e democracia contra seja quem for que pretenda a sua destruição ou substituição por qualquer outra doutrina, em especial se houver tentativa de uso da violência para promover tal ambição. Faz parte da história da União Europeia, mas também tem de ser fundamental para o futuro da União Europeia. À medida que olhamos para esse futuro, podemos reconhecer que apesar deste fantástico historial, muitos dos nossos cidadãos permanecem altamente cépticos em relação à União Europeia, a tal ponto que, em alguns países, os referendos nacionais rejeitaram a nova Constituição proposta, tendo-o feito de uma forma que dá a entender preocupações muito mais profundas e enraizadas. Creio que uma razão profunda para estas dúvidas é o facto de a União Europeia não parecer dar suficiente prioridade às soluções de carácter prático e é também o facto de estas soluções fazerem a diferença relativamente a alguns temas de maior preocupação. Estou a referir-me especificamente à criminalidade grave e organizada, incluindo o tráfico de droga e o tráfico de pessoas, à migração ilegal e aos falsos pedidos de asilo, e à resposta ao terrorismo, sejam quais forem as suas origens. Estes temas são títulos da agenda política por toda a Europa, sendo frequentemente os mais potentes na mobilização da actividade política, muitas vezes de uma forma reaccionária e até perigosa. Podem inclusive ser utilizados por demagogos malévolos para pôr em causa a própria democracia, tendo esta sido, em certos casos, obtida tão recentemente. Não é difícil ver a razão pela qual estas ameaças desencadeiam a ira entre as populações. A ameaça do terrorismo permanece muito real, como tragicamente constatámos em Londres, no mês de Julho. Em 2004, mais de 100 000 mulheres foram objecto de tráfico na União Europeia e mais de 8 000 pessoas morrem em cada ano devido ao uso de drogas, à medida que a criminalidade e a miséria actuam como rastilho em todos os pontos do continente. A imigração ilegal e um sistema de controlo muito difuso causam preocupações em todas as cidades."@pt17 "Mr President, I would like to begin by thanking you for the opportunity of addressing the European Parliament. I want to take the opportunity to set out the approach that the British Government will follow in its conduct of the Presidency of the Justice and Home Affairs Council, which will be occupied by myself and my colleague Baroness Ashton, who is with me today. I therefore believe that the whole of the European Union – but in particular the Justice and Home Affairs Council – needs to give real priority to tackling these issues in a practical and systematic way. It is that conviction which will inform the UK Presidency. In so doing I suggest three principal approaches. The first is that in our globalised world no single nation can tackle these problems alone, even in its own country. In a world with millions of international journeys and economic transactions every year, ideas of ‘splendid isolation’ or rhetoric about ‘the White Cliffs of Dover’ can do nothing to address international criminality, terrorism or serious and organised crime or address patterns of international migration. The need to fight terrorism and serious and organised crime means that we need more European cooperation and not less. The truth is that in each of these areas we will all, including within our own countries, achieve most by sharing experience, information and resources and by identifying and then targeting the threats systematically and consistently. I make the apparently obvious point that these threats are best tackled internationally, since there remain political parties and other organs of opinion within the European Union which believe that protection from these types of threat can best be secured by the construction of higher and higher fences between us, whilst the truth is the opposite – our best chances of success lie in deeper and deeper cooperation. The second principle that must underlie our approach is to strengthen the foundation of practical and pragmatic police and intelligence work. In each of these areas – organised crime, terrorism, immigration, asylum – we have already taken action at the European Union level. For example, we have agreed the European Arrest Warrant, common rules on penalties for and definitions of terrorism, people trafficking and other serious crimes. We have rules on police and judicial cooperation and we have established Europol and Eurojust to support their work. We have also strengthened freedom to travel within the EU and established the European Borders Agency. There is of course more that we can do and are doing. We have agreed a comprehensive programme of action in the Hague Programme and the Counter-Terrorism Action Plan. These contain many sensible, practical measures that will make a real difference to our citizens. If we want to demonstrate the real value of the European Union, we now need to work together to deliver on those commitments. I would like in particular to highlight the need for practical European Union support for intelligence-led operations and cross-border prosecutions, the development of joint teams to combat drug dealing and people trafficking, the sharing of information to facilitate joint work and the development of a European criminal intelligence model. In the field of migration and asylum, I hope that in this Presidency we will succeed in securing significant European Union readmission agreements with certain countries such as Russia, Ukraine and Morocco, and develop pilot regional protection programmes. In the field of civil justice, we will focus on the proposal to facilitate small claims and the establishment of a single European order of payment and other measures. These are all important practical steps, which I hope will command widespread support from this Parliament. But it is the third principle which I believe poses the greatest challenge in its modern application. That principle is that we need to use intelligence effectively and intelligently to target, track down, identify and convict the criminals who, through terrorist violence and serious and organised crime, threaten the security and strength of our society. Indeed I would go further: it is only through the effective and intelligent use of intelligence that in our modern world we can contest the criminality which attacks us. Of course criminals and terrorists use modern technology – the internet and mobile communications – to plan and carry out their activities. We can only contest them effectively if we know what they are communicating. Without that knowledge, we are fighting them with both hands tied behind our backs. Of course the criminals know that and actively and consciously organise themselves to take advantage of our weaknesses. I start from the proposition that the European Union has been a massive force for good. Thirty-five years ago, when I was a student, we campaigned for democracy in this continent, to remove the fascist or military dictatorships which then existed in Greece, Spain and Portugal, and the totalitarian dictatorships which then ruled much of eastern and central Europe. Those campaigns succeeded as, it is worth pointing out, did the campaigns in other parts of the world, for example Southern Africa and Latin America. It may seem obvious to state that we need to collect and use intelligence against the threats that we face. But the European Parliament and national parliaments throughout Europe need to face up to the fact that the legal framework within which we currently operate makes the collection and use of this intelligence very difficult and in some cases impossible. The rules that currently govern our law enforcement bodies seriously inhibit their ability to protect us against criminals. Information is the lifeblood of law enforcement operations and it is that information which enables our police and agencies to prevent crimes with the minimum of impact on our daily lives. To tackle organised crime and stop terrorist groups before they carry out their activities, they need a clear picture of who the criminals are, what they are doing, where they are and how they communicate with each other. Often that picture is pieced together after the fact. But if we are to be effective in dismantling organised crime groups we must analyse intelligence and information so that we can target our efforts on the most dangerous criminals. However, that need is not always reflected in the rules that we apply to our police. This is not a sterile debate about principles; it is about practical measures to contest criminality and our opponents. That is why the UK Presidency, following the proposals set out in the Hague Programme, has placed on the agenda proposals on the retention of telecommunications data, establishing a second generation of the Schengen Information System and putting in place a new Visa Information System. That is why we argue that internationally consistent and coherent biometric data should be an automatic part of our visas, passports and identity cards where we have them – and I would even suggest driving licences as well. That is why we will work strongly to agree with our international partners, including the United States, the best measures for consistent international use of passenger data. These are all important and difficult measures. They can only be achieved through international agreements, particularly in the European Union and between the European Union and its partners throughout the world. They all require hard-headed discussions and practical agreement. This Presidency accepts that, in considering proposals in these areas, it is incumbent upon the advocates of change, such as the British Government, to make the case that measures of this kind have the practical advantages against criminality that I believe they do. That is why I am publishing today, as I promised the LIBE Committee in July in Brussels that I would, an explanation of the cases for some of these measures, in particular those relating to retention of telecommunications data. I hope that Parliament will look closely at the case that we put forward. My colleagues on the Justice and Home Affairs Council will be considering these issues carefully at the informal Council meeting in Newcastle later this week. But I believe that the central point for us to remember, as we consider these issues together, is that we now possess many hard-won rights such as the right to privacy, the right to property, the right to free speech, the right to travel and the right to life. Those rights are actively threatened by criminals and terrorists. We have a duty and a responsibility to help protect them for our citizens through practical measures. As we consider how best to do this, rights will always and inevitably have to be balanced. What matters in each case is that the steps are proportionate and that the protection against abuse is effective. I believe that our proposals offer that. Let me just cite the example of retention of telecommunications data. This is proving invaluable in the current investigations into the London attacks and in many cases in the UK it has proved essential to solving crimes, often months or years after they were committed. Communications service providers already retain much information for business purposes, but data protection obligations in some countries pressure them to erase data that has no business purpose. That means that catching a murderer or stopping a terrorist attack may depend on which mobile telephone company a victim, suspect or witness uses or has used, or which European Union country they were in. In fact, 11 of the 25 current European Union Member States have since emerged to democracy as full members of the European Union. It is a magnificent achievement which we should continue to celebrate. Some argue that to require telecommunications companies to retain data they use for billing purposes is an intrusion into privacy, or that it imposes undue costs on business. However, in the United Kingdom we have successfully established a system, in partnership with a major service provider, to retain essential data for up to twelve months for the cost of EUR 1.2 million. Compared to the average costs for forensic work on a single murder case of over EUR 0.5 million, that is an acceptable cost for the state to bear. Others have argued that we are asking for too much data, for example, that there should not be a requirement to retain unanswered calls. In many cases, however, this is data that has already been collected by the companies for their own purposes. All that we are asking is that it be retained and made available to law enforcement under national law. There is perhaps a more general concern that the proposal is an unnecessary invasion of privacy or that it is disproportionate. I do not believe that it is, because in many cases, some of which I have set out in the document I am circulating, the victim’s right to justice was only achieved through the retention of telecommunications data. Similarly, with the Schengen Information System, the next generation enables our law enforcement agencies to exchange information about individuals wanted for arrest or to be refused entry to the European Union, as well as information on lost and stolen documents or other objects. This is a critical tool for ensuring our collective security and for guaranteeing our rights. Equally, without a new system in place, the new Member States will not be able to lift their internal borders with other Schengen states. The Council and European Parliament will have to work together over the coming months to agree on the legal framework for the system. In my opinion, we will need to do this quickly so that the system can be put in place by early 2007. We all need to be sure that we are striking the right balance between our collective security and our fundamental rights. In so doing, we need to be sure that we have thoroughly explored the question of whether the Schengen Information System II should be a control system or whether it can be used more effectively as a tool for law enforcement. In making judgements about this, we need to reflect on the balance between the civil liberty being affected and the increased security being achieved, to ensure that any changes we make are proportionate and reasonable. This also applies to the Visa Information System, where we need to ensure that those with a legitimate right to travel can do so, while those who seek to exploit our freedoms are deterred. Increasingly, people use multiple identities to hide their movements. Biometrics are the most effective way to ensure that we can prove someone's identity. A comprehensive database of visa applications with biometrics matched to each applicant will mean that genuine travellers are able to prove their identity easily and travel more freely. Governments will have a clear idea of who is entering and leaving the European Union, with the reassurance that they have the legal right to do so. The use of biometrics also means that if people destroy their documents or are found overstaying we are able to identify who they are and where they come from. The Council and European Parliament will need to work closely together to agree and adopt the Visa Information System regulation. The Council aims to have the system up and running in consulates from the beginning of 2006. Given the substantial lead-in time for the equipment of posts and training, there is real urgency to adopt this regulation as soon as possible. Each of these examples is a practical measure that can enhance security and demonstrate the practical benefits of working together. In each case they will enhance the sharing of information. They will not lead – as some have argued – to the mass surveillance of our citizens or to unnecessary invasion of their right to privacy. Of course the nature of our societies has changed dramatically over these years, economically, socially and technologically. It has changed in the composition of our communities, which vary across the Union, with many communities of differing races, faiths and histories living together. However, I understand concerns that data may be misused or abused or that some people will be wrongly identified. That is why we need to ensure that in each case there is a clear legal basis for the exchange of information and that the basis should include the appropriate safeguards against abuse. Of course the proposals that I have set out are an enormous agenda for this Presidency and we will do our best to promote it. However, on behalf of the United Kingdom Government I also want to say that we believe that it is necessary to look very carefully at the way in which the jurisprudence around application of the European Convention on Human Rights is developing. The Convention, established over 50 years ago in a quite different international climate, has led to great advances in human rights across the continent. Its achievements must be fostered and developed and not undermined, but I believe that in developing these human rights it really is necessary to balance very important rights for individuals against the collective right for security from terrorist violence. Our strengthening of human rights needs to acknowledge a truth which we should all accept: that the right to be protected from torture and ill-treatment must be considered side by side with the right to be protected from the death and destruction caused by indiscriminate terrorism, sometimes caused, instigated or fomented by nationals from countries outside the European Union. This is a difficult balance to get right and it requires all of us, as politicians, to ask where our citizens – who elected all of us here – would expect us to draw the line. I believe that they expect from us not only the protection of individual rights but also the protection of democratic values such as safety and security under the law. The view of my government is that this balance is not right for the circumstances which we now face – circumstances very different from those faced by the founding fathers of the European Convention on Human Rights – and it needs to be closely examined in that context. I intend to discuss with colleagues in the Justice and Home Affairs Council how we might best address these issues in a manner consistent with our international obligations. I believe most strongly that the peoples of this continent want to be assured that the legislative regime which defends human rights must be used to defend the rights of all our citizens in a balanced and considered way and that it is our duty to discuss this openly. In conclusion, I believe that the ‘no’ votes against the Constitution should be taken as a wake-up call to those who believe in and support the European project to focus on what matters. The right to safety and security is a fundamental concern for all our citizens. Here we can show that Europe can and does deliver real benefits to our citizens. We in the European Union have a responsibility to rise to that challenge. It is not an area where we can fail them. But in all of this I believe that it is our duty to promote a society which is based on the true respect of one individual for another, one culture for another, one faith for another, one race for another. It is our duty to promote the view that democracy, and not violence, is the means of bringing about change and governing ourselves. We have to defend our values of respect, tolerance, freedom and democracy against any who wish to destroy or replace them with some other doctrine, particularly if they seek to use violence to promote their ambition. That is part of the history of the European Union, but it must be central to the future of the European Union too. As we look to that future we have to acknowledge that, despite the fantastic record, many of our citizens remain highly sceptical about the European Union, to such an extent that in some countries the national referenda rejected the proposed new Constitution in a way which suggested more deep-seated concerns. I believe that a deep reason for these doubts is that the European Union does not appear to give sufficient priority to offering practical solutions which make a difference to some of the issues of greatest concern. I am referring specifically to serious and organised crime, including drug dealing and people trafficking, to illegal migration and false asylum seeking, and to countering terrorism, whatever its origins. These issues top the political agenda across Europe, and they are often the most potent in mobilising political activity, often in a reactionary and even dangerous way. They can even be used by poisonous demagogues to undermine the very democracy which has in some cases so recently been created. It is not difficult to see why these threats motivate anger amongst our peoples. The threat from terrorism remains very real, as we tragically saw in London in July. In 2004 over 100 000 women were trafficked in the European Union and over 8 000 people die each year from drug use, as crime and misery is fuelled in every part of the continent. Illegal migration and a system of control which is too loose raise concerns in every city."@sk18 "Mr President, I would like to begin by thanking you for the opportunity of addressing the European Parliament. I want to take the opportunity to set out the approach that the British Government will follow in its conduct of the Presidency of the Justice and Home Affairs Council, which will be occupied by myself and my colleague Baroness Ashton, who is with me today. I therefore believe that the whole of the European Union – but in particular the Justice and Home Affairs Council – needs to give real priority to tackling these issues in a practical and systematic way. It is that conviction which will inform the UK Presidency. In so doing I suggest three principal approaches. The first is that in our globalised world no single nation can tackle these problems alone, even in its own country. In a world with millions of international journeys and economic transactions every year, ideas of ‘splendid isolation’ or rhetoric about ‘the White Cliffs of Dover’ can do nothing to address international criminality, terrorism or serious and organised crime or address patterns of international migration. The need to fight terrorism and serious and organised crime means that we need more European cooperation and not less. The truth is that in each of these areas we will all, including within our own countries, achieve most by sharing experience, information and resources and by identifying and then targeting the threats systematically and consistently. I make the apparently obvious point that these threats are best tackled internationally, since there remain political parties and other organs of opinion within the European Union which believe that protection from these types of threat can best be secured by the construction of higher and higher fences between us, whilst the truth is the opposite – our best chances of success lie in deeper and deeper cooperation. The second principle that must underlie our approach is to strengthen the foundation of practical and pragmatic police and intelligence work. In each of these areas – organised crime, terrorism, immigration, asylum – we have already taken action at the European Union level. For example, we have agreed the European Arrest Warrant, common rules on penalties for and definitions of terrorism, people trafficking and other serious crimes. We have rules on police and judicial cooperation and we have established Europol and Eurojust to support their work. We have also strengthened freedom to travel within the EU and established the European Borders Agency. There is of course more that we can do and are doing. We have agreed a comprehensive programme of action in the Hague Programme and the Counter-Terrorism Action Plan. These contain many sensible, practical measures that will make a real difference to our citizens. If we want to demonstrate the real value of the European Union, we now need to work together to deliver on those commitments. I would like in particular to highlight the need for practical European Union support for intelligence-led operations and cross-border prosecutions, the development of joint teams to combat drug dealing and people trafficking, the sharing of information to facilitate joint work and the development of a European criminal intelligence model. In the field of migration and asylum, I hope that in this Presidency we will succeed in securing significant European Union readmission agreements with certain countries such as Russia, Ukraine and Morocco, and develop pilot regional protection programmes. In the field of civil justice, we will focus on the proposal to facilitate small claims and the establishment of a single European order of payment and other measures. These are all important practical steps, which I hope will command widespread support from this Parliament. But it is the third principle which I believe poses the greatest challenge in its modern application. That principle is that we need to use intelligence effectively and intelligently to target, track down, identify and convict the criminals who, through terrorist violence and serious and organised crime, threaten the security and strength of our society. Indeed I would go further: it is only through the effective and intelligent use of intelligence that in our modern world we can contest the criminality which attacks us. Of course criminals and terrorists use modern technology – the internet and mobile communications – to plan and carry out their activities. We can only contest them effectively if we know what they are communicating. Without that knowledge, we are fighting them with both hands tied behind our backs. Of course the criminals know that and actively and consciously organise themselves to take advantage of our weaknesses. I start from the proposition that the European Union has been a massive force for good. Thirty-five years ago, when I was a student, we campaigned for democracy in this continent, to remove the fascist or military dictatorships which then existed in Greece, Spain and Portugal, and the totalitarian dictatorships which then ruled much of eastern and central Europe. Those campaigns succeeded as, it is worth pointing out, did the campaigns in other parts of the world, for example Southern Africa and Latin America. It may seem obvious to state that we need to collect and use intelligence against the threats that we face. But the European Parliament and national parliaments throughout Europe need to face up to the fact that the legal framework within which we currently operate makes the collection and use of this intelligence very difficult and in some cases impossible. The rules that currently govern our law enforcement bodies seriously inhibit their ability to protect us against criminals. Information is the lifeblood of law enforcement operations and it is that information which enables our police and agencies to prevent crimes with the minimum of impact on our daily lives. To tackle organised crime and stop terrorist groups before they carry out their activities, they need a clear picture of who the criminals are, what they are doing, where they are and how they communicate with each other. Often that picture is pieced together after the fact. But if we are to be effective in dismantling organised crime groups we must analyse intelligence and information so that we can target our efforts on the most dangerous criminals. However, that need is not always reflected in the rules that we apply to our police. This is not a sterile debate about principles; it is about practical measures to contest criminality and our opponents. That is why the UK Presidency, following the proposals set out in the Hague Programme, has placed on the agenda proposals on the retention of telecommunications data, establishing a second generation of the Schengen Information System and putting in place a new Visa Information System. That is why we argue that internationally consistent and coherent biometric data should be an automatic part of our visas, passports and identity cards where we have them – and I would even suggest driving licences as well. That is why we will work strongly to agree with our international partners, including the United States, the best measures for consistent international use of passenger data. These are all important and difficult measures. They can only be achieved through international agreements, particularly in the European Union and between the European Union and its partners throughout the world. They all require hard-headed discussions and practical agreement. This Presidency accepts that, in considering proposals in these areas, it is incumbent upon the advocates of change, such as the British Government, to make the case that measures of this kind have the practical advantages against criminality that I believe they do. That is why I am publishing today, as I promised the LIBE Committee in July in Brussels that I would, an explanation of the cases for some of these measures, in particular those relating to retention of telecommunications data. I hope that Parliament will look closely at the case that we put forward. My colleagues on the Justice and Home Affairs Council will be considering these issues carefully at the informal Council meeting in Newcastle later this week. But I believe that the central point for us to remember, as we consider these issues together, is that we now possess many hard-won rights such as the right to privacy, the right to property, the right to free speech, the right to travel and the right to life. Those rights are actively threatened by criminals and terrorists. We have a duty and a responsibility to help protect them for our citizens through practical measures. As we consider how best to do this, rights will always and inevitably have to be balanced. What matters in each case is that the steps are proportionate and that the protection against abuse is effective. I believe that our proposals offer that. Let me just cite the example of retention of telecommunications data. This is proving invaluable in the current investigations into the London attacks and in many cases in the UK it has proved essential to solving crimes, often months or years after they were committed. Communications service providers already retain much information for business purposes, but data protection obligations in some countries pressure them to erase data that has no business purpose. That means that catching a murderer or stopping a terrorist attack may depend on which mobile telephone company a victim, suspect or witness uses or has used, or which European Union country they were in. In fact, 11 of the 25 current European Union Member States have since emerged to democracy as full members of the European Union. It is a magnificent achievement which we should continue to celebrate. Some argue that to require telecommunications companies to retain data they use for billing purposes is an intrusion into privacy, or that it imposes undue costs on business. However, in the United Kingdom we have successfully established a system, in partnership with a major service provider, to retain essential data for up to twelve months for the cost of EUR 1.2 million. Compared to the average costs for forensic work on a single murder case of over EUR 0.5 million, that is an acceptable cost for the state to bear. Others have argued that we are asking for too much data, for example, that there should not be a requirement to retain unanswered calls. In many cases, however, this is data that has already been collected by the companies for their own purposes. All that we are asking is that it be retained and made available to law enforcement under national law. There is perhaps a more general concern that the proposal is an unnecessary invasion of privacy or that it is disproportionate. I do not believe that it is, because in many cases, some of which I have set out in the document I am circulating, the victim’s right to justice was only achieved through the retention of telecommunications data. Similarly, with the Schengen Information System, the next generation enables our law enforcement agencies to exchange information about individuals wanted for arrest or to be refused entry to the European Union, as well as information on lost and stolen documents or other objects. This is a critical tool for ensuring our collective security and for guaranteeing our rights. Equally, without a new system in place, the new Member States will not be able to lift their internal borders with other Schengen states. The Council and European Parliament will have to work together over the coming months to agree on the legal framework for the system. In my opinion, we will need to do this quickly so that the system can be put in place by early 2007. We all need to be sure that we are striking the right balance between our collective security and our fundamental rights. In so doing, we need to be sure that we have thoroughly explored the question of whether the Schengen Information System II should be a control system or whether it can be used more effectively as a tool for law enforcement. In making judgements about this, we need to reflect on the balance between the civil liberty being affected and the increased security being achieved, to ensure that any changes we make are proportionate and reasonable. This also applies to the Visa Information System, where we need to ensure that those with a legitimate right to travel can do so, while those who seek to exploit our freedoms are deterred. Increasingly, people use multiple identities to hide their movements. Biometrics are the most effective way to ensure that we can prove someone's identity. A comprehensive database of visa applications with biometrics matched to each applicant will mean that genuine travellers are able to prove their identity easily and travel more freely. Governments will have a clear idea of who is entering and leaving the European Union, with the reassurance that they have the legal right to do so. The use of biometrics also means that if people destroy their documents or are found overstaying we are able to identify who they are and where they come from. The Council and European Parliament will need to work closely together to agree and adopt the Visa Information System regulation. The Council aims to have the system up and running in consulates from the beginning of 2006. Given the substantial lead-in time for the equipment of posts and training, there is real urgency to adopt this regulation as soon as possible. Each of these examples is a practical measure that can enhance security and demonstrate the practical benefits of working together. In each case they will enhance the sharing of information. They will not lead – as some have argued – to the mass surveillance of our citizens or to unnecessary invasion of their right to privacy. Of course the nature of our societies has changed dramatically over these years, economically, socially and technologically. It has changed in the composition of our communities, which vary across the Union, with many communities of differing races, faiths and histories living together. However, I understand concerns that data may be misused or abused or that some people will be wrongly identified. That is why we need to ensure that in each case there is a clear legal basis for the exchange of information and that the basis should include the appropriate safeguards against abuse. Of course the proposals that I have set out are an enormous agenda for this Presidency and we will do our best to promote it. However, on behalf of the United Kingdom Government I also want to say that we believe that it is necessary to look very carefully at the way in which the jurisprudence around application of the European Convention on Human Rights is developing. The Convention, established over 50 years ago in a quite different international climate, has led to great advances in human rights across the continent. Its achievements must be fostered and developed and not undermined, but I believe that in developing these human rights it really is necessary to balance very important rights for individuals against the collective right for security from terrorist violence. Our strengthening of human rights needs to acknowledge a truth which we should all accept: that the right to be protected from torture and ill-treatment must be considered side by side with the right to be protected from the death and destruction caused by indiscriminate terrorism, sometimes caused, instigated or fomented by nationals from countries outside the European Union. This is a difficult balance to get right and it requires all of us, as politicians, to ask where our citizens – who elected all of us here – would expect us to draw the line. I believe that they expect from us not only the protection of individual rights but also the protection of democratic values such as safety and security under the law. The view of my government is that this balance is not right for the circumstances which we now face – circumstances very different from those faced by the founding fathers of the European Convention on Human Rights – and it needs to be closely examined in that context. I intend to discuss with colleagues in the Justice and Home Affairs Council how we might best address these issues in a manner consistent with our international obligations. I believe most strongly that the peoples of this continent want to be assured that the legislative regime which defends human rights must be used to defend the rights of all our citizens in a balanced and considered way and that it is our duty to discuss this openly. In conclusion, I believe that the ‘no’ votes against the Constitution should be taken as a wake-up call to those who believe in and support the European project to focus on what matters. The right to safety and security is a fundamental concern for all our citizens. Here we can show that Europe can and does deliver real benefits to our citizens. We in the European Union have a responsibility to rise to that challenge. It is not an area where we can fail them. But in all of this I believe that it is our duty to promote a society which is based on the true respect of one individual for another, one culture for another, one faith for another, one race for another. It is our duty to promote the view that democracy, and not violence, is the means of bringing about change and governing ourselves. We have to defend our values of respect, tolerance, freedom and democracy against any who wish to destroy or replace them with some other doctrine, particularly if they seek to use violence to promote their ambition. That is part of the history of the European Union, but it must be central to the future of the European Union too. As we look to that future we have to acknowledge that, despite the fantastic record, many of our citizens remain highly sceptical about the European Union, to such an extent that in some countries the national referenda rejected the proposed new Constitution in a way which suggested more deep-seated concerns. I believe that a deep reason for these doubts is that the European Union does not appear to give sufficient priority to offering practical solutions which make a difference to some of the issues of greatest concern. I am referring specifically to serious and organised crime, including drug dealing and people trafficking, to illegal migration and false asylum seeking, and to countering terrorism, whatever its origins. These issues top the political agenda across Europe, and they are often the most potent in mobilising political activity, often in a reactionary and even dangerous way. They can even be used by poisonous demagogues to undermine the very democracy which has in some cases so recently been created. It is not difficult to see why these threats motivate anger amongst our peoples. The threat from terrorism remains very real, as we tragically saw in London in July. In 2004 over 100 000 women were trafficked in the European Union and over 8 000 people die each year from drug use, as crime and misery is fuelled in every part of the continent. Illegal migration and a system of control which is too loose raise concerns in every city."@sl19 ". Herr talman! Jag vill börja med att tacka er för möjligheten att tala inför Europaparlamentet. Jag vill ta tillfället i akt och framföra den strategi som Förenade kungarikets regering kommer att följa under sitt ordförandeskap i rådet (rättsliga och inrikes frågor), som jag själv kommer att leda tillsammans med min kollega baronessan Ashton of Upholland, som är med mig här i dag. Därför anser jag att hela EU – men särskilt rådet (rättsliga och inrikes frågor) – verkligen måste prioritera dessa frågor på ett praktiskt och systematiskt sätt. Det är denna övertygelse som kommer att genomsyra Förenade kungarikets ordförandeskap. Därmed föreslår jag tre huvudsakliga strategier. Den första är att ingen enskild nation i vår globaliserade värld ensam kan tackla dessa problem, inte ens i det egna landet. I en värld med miljontals internationella resor och ekonomiska transaktioner varje år kan idéer om ”förnäm avskildhet” eller retorik om ”Dovers vita klippor” inte göra någonting för att ta itu med internationell brottslighet, terrorism eller grov och organiserad brottslighet eller handskas med de internationella migrationsmönstren. Behovet att bekämpa terrorism och grov och organiserad brottslighet innebär att vi behöver mer europeiskt samarbete, inte mindre. Sanningen är den att vi inom alla dessa områden, inklusive inom våra egna länder, kommer att få till stånd mer genom att dela erfarenheter, information och resurser och genom att identifiera hoten och sedan systematiskt och konsekvent rikta in oss på dem. Jag gör det till synes uppenbara påpekandet att dessa hot bäst tacklas internationellt eftersom det fortfarande finns politiska partier och andra åsiktsorgan inom EU som anser att det bästa sättet att skydda sig mot denna typ av hot är att bygga allt högre murar mellan oss då sanningen är den motsatta – vi har störst möjlighet att lyckas om vi inleder ett allt djupare samarbete. Den andra principen som måste bära vår strategi är att stärka grunden för det praktiska och pragmatiska polis- och underrättelsearbetet. Inom vart och ett av dessa områden – organiserad brottslighet, terrorism, invandring och asyl – har vi redan vidtagit åtgärder på EU-nivå. Vi har exempelvis enats om den europeiska arresteringsordern, gemensamma regler för påföljderna och definitionen av terrorism, människohandel och andra grova brott. Vi har regler för polisiärt och rättsligt samarbete och vi har inrättat Europol och Eurojust för att stödja deras arbete. Vi har också stärkt friheten att resa inom EU och inrättat den europeiska gränsförvaltningsbyrån. Det finns naturligtvis mer som vi kan göra och som vi gör. Vi har enats om ett övergripande handlingsprogram i Haag-programmet och handlingsplanen för terrorbekämpning. Dessa innehåller många förnuftiga och praktiska åtgärder som kommer att betyda mycket för våra medborgare. Om vi vill visa EU:s verkliga värde måste vi nu arbeta tillsammans för att fullfölja dessa åtaganden. Jag vill särskilt betona behovet av praktiskt EU-stöd för underrättelseverksamhetsledda insatser och gränsöverskridande åtal, utveckling av gemensamma grupper för bekämpning av narkotika- och människosmuggling, informationsutbyte för att underlätta det gemensamma arbetet och utveckling av en europeisk kriminalunderrättelsemodell. När det gäller migrations- och asylfrågor hoppas jag att vi under Förenade kungarikets ordförandeskap kommer att lyckas med att säkra EU:s återtagandeavtal med vissa länder såsom Ryssland, Ukraina och Marocko samt att utveckla pilotprogram för regionalt skydd. Inom området för civilrätt kommer vi att fokusera på förslaget att underlätta för småmål och att införa en enda europeisk förmånsrättsordning och andra åtgärder. Allt detta är viktiga praktiska steg och jag hoppas att de kommer att få allmänt stöd här i parlamentet. Men jag anser att det är den tredje principen i dess moderna tillämpning som utgör den största utmaningen. Denna princip är att vi måste använda underrättelser på ett effektivt och intelligent sätt för att upptäcka, spåra, identifiera och döma de brottslingar som med hjälp av terroristvåld och grov och organiserad brottslighet hotar säkerheten och styrkan i vårt samhälle. Jag vill verkligen gå steget längre och säga att det endast är genom ett effektivt och intelligent användande av underrättelser som vi i vår moderna värld kan bekämpa den brottslighet som attackerar oss. Brottslingar och terrorister använder naturligtvis modern teknik – Internet och mobila kommunikationer – för att planera och utföra sina handlingar. Vi kan endast bekämpa dem effektivt om vi vet vad det är de kommunicerar. Utan denna kunskap bekämpar vi dem med bakbundna händer. Naturligtvis vet brottslingarna detta och de organiserar sig aktivt och medvetet för att utnyttja våra svagheter. Jag utgår från påståendet att Europeiska unionen har gjort enormt mycket nytta. För trettiofem år sedan, när jag studerade, bedrev vi kampanjer för demokrati på denna kontinent för att avsätta de fascistiska eller militära diktaturer som då fanns i Grekland, Spanien och Portugal och de totalitära diktaturer som då styrde stora delar av Central- och Östeuropa. Dessa kampanjer lyckades och det är värt att påpeka att också kampanjerna i andra delar av världen, exempelvis i Sydafrika och Latinamerika, lyckades. Det kan verka uppenbart att påstå att vi måste samla och använda underrättelser mot de hot vi står inför. Men Europaparlamentet och de nationella parlamenten i EU måste ta itu med problemet att den rättsliga ram som vi för närvarande har att rätta oss efter gör det mycket svårt, och i vissa fall omöjligt, att samla och använda dessa underrättelser. De regler som i dagsläget styr våra rättsvårdande organ hindrar allvarligt deras förmåga att skydda oss mot brottslingar. Information är livsnerven i den rättsvårdande verksamheten och det är denna information som gör det möjligt för våra polismyndigheter och organ att förebygga brottslighet så att den får minsta möjliga inverkan på våra dagliga liv. För att de ska kunna ta itu med organiserad brottslighet och stoppa terroristgrupper innan de utför sina handlingar behöver de en tydlig bild av vilka brottslingarna är, vad de gör, var de är och hur de kommunicerar med varandra. Denna bild pusslas oftast ihop i efterhand. Men om vi på ett effektivt sätt ska kunna göra slut på den organiserade brottsligheten måste vi analysera underrättelserna och informationen så att vi kan rikta våra ansträngningar mot de farligaste brottslingarna. Detta behov återspeglas dock inte alltid i de regler vi tillämpar för vår polis. Detta är inte en steril debatt om principer; det handlar om praktiska åtgärder för att ta itu med brottslighet och med våra motståndare. Därför har Förenade kungarikets ordförandeskap följt förslagen i Haag-programmet och satt upp förslag på dagordningen om bevarandet av uppgifter inom telekommunikationsområdet, upprättandet av andra generationen av Schengens informationssystem och ett nytt informationssystem för viseringar. Därför anser vi att internationellt överensstämmande och sammanhängande biometriska uppgifter automatiskt bör ingå i våra visumhandlingar, pass och identitetskort där de används – och jag skulle även föreslå körkort. Därför kommer vi att arbeta hårt för att komma överens med våra internationella partner, inklusive Förenta staterna, om de bästa metoderna för en överensstämmande internationell användning av passageraruppgifter. Allt detta är viktiga och svåra åtgärder som endast kan fullföljas genom internationella avtal, särskilt inom EU och mellan EU och dess partner världen över. För varje åtgärd krävs sakliga diskussioner och praktiska överenskommelser. Ordförandeskapet håller med om att det, när man överväger förslag inom dessa områden, åligger förespråkarna för förändringar, såsom Förenade kungarikets regering, att förklara att denna typ av åtgärder har de praktiska fördelar mot brottslighet som jag anser att de har. Därför offentliggör jag i dag, som jag lovade utskottet för medborgerliga fri- och rättigheter samt rättsliga och inrikes frågor i Bryssel i juli, en förklaring av hur det förhåller sig med en del av åtgärderna, särskilt de som rör bevarandet av uppgifter inom telekommunikationsområdet. Jag hoppas att parlamentet noggrant granskar det ärende vi lägger fram. Mina kolleger i rådet (rättsliga och inrikes frågor) kommer att omsorgsfullt överväga dessa frågor på rådets informella möte i Newcastle senare i veckan. Men jag anser att det viktigaste att komma ihåg när vi överväger dessa frågor tillsammans är att vi nu har många rättigheter som vi kämpat oss till, såsom rätten till personlig integritet, äganderätt, yttrandefrihet, reserätt och rätten till liv. Dessa rättigheter hotas aktivt av brottslingar och terrorister. Det är vår skyldighet och vårt ansvar att skydda dem för våra medborgare genom praktiska åtgärder. När vi överväger hur vi bäst kan göra detta kommer rättigheterna förstås alltid att vägas mot varandra. Det viktiga i varje enskilt fall är att stegen är avvägda och att skyddet mot missbruk är effektivt. Jag anser att våra förslag möjliggör detta. Låt mig hänvisa till exemplet med bevarandet av uppgifter inom telekommunikationsområdet. Detta har visat sig ovärderligt i de pågående undersökningarna av attackerna i London, och i många fall i Förenade kungariket har det visat sig oumbärligt för att lösa brott, ofta flera månader eller år efter att de begåtts. De som tillhandahåller kommunikationstjänster bevarar redan mycket information för affärsändamål, men dataskyddskraven i vissa länder tvingar dem att radera uppgifter som inte tjänar något affärsmässigt syfte. Detta innebär att man för att gripa en mördare eller stoppa en terroristattack kan vara beroende av vilket mobilföretag offret, den misstänkte eller vittnet använder eller har använt, eller vilket EU-land de befann sig i. Sedan dess har faktiskt 11 av de 25 nuvarande EU-medlemsstaterna blivit demokratier och fullvärdiga EU-medlemmar. Det är en fantastisk bedrift som vi bör fortsätta att fira. Vissa hävdar att det är integritetskränkande eller innebär en oskälig merkostnad för företaget om man kräver att telekommunikationsföretagen ska bevara uppgifter som de använder för faktureringsändamål. I Förenade kungariket har vi dock, tillsammans med en större tjänsteleverantör, lyckats få till stånd ett system för att bevara viktig information ända upp till tolv månader till en kostnad av 1,2 miljoner euro. I jämförelse med den genomsnittliga kostnaden för det kriminaltekniska arbetet för ett enda mordfall, som uppgår till över 0,5 miljoner euro, är detta en acceptabel summa för staten att betala. Andra har hävdat att vi ber om för mycket information, att det exempelvis inte bör vara ett krav att bevara obesvarade samtal. Men i många fall är detta uppgifter som företagen redan har samlat in för sina egna syften. Det enda vi ber om är att det bevaras och görs tillgängligt för ordningsmakten enligt nationell lagstiftning. Det finns kanske en mer allmän oro över att förslaget är onödigt integritetskränkande eller oproportionerligt. Jag anser att det inte är det, för i många fall, varav en del finns med i det dokument jag skickar runt, var det endast genom bevarandet av uppgifter inom telekommunikationsområdet som offrets rätt till rättvisa kunde uppfyllas. På liknande sätt möjliggör nästa generation av Schengens informationssystem för våra rättsvårdande myndigheter att utbyta information om efterlysta personer eller personer som ska nekas inträde i EU liksom information om försvunna och stulna dokument eller andra föremål. Detta är ett viktigt verktyg för att garantera vår kollektiva säkerhet och våra rättigheter. Utan ett nytt system kommer heller inte de nya medlemsstaterna att kunna avlägsna sina inre gränser mot andra Schengenländer. Rådet och parlamentet kommer att behöva arbeta ihop under de kommande månaderna för att enas om den rättsliga ramen för systemet. Jag anser att vi måste göra detta snabbt så att systemet kan sättas i gång i början av 2007. Vi måste alla försäkra oss om att vi gör en bra avvägning mellan vår kollektiva säkerhet och våra grundläggande rättigheter. När vi gör detta måste vi försäkra oss om att vi noggrant har utforskat frågan om Schengens informationssystem II bör vara ett övervakningssystem eller om det kan användas mer effektivt som ett redskap för ordningsmakten. När vi bedömer detta måste vi tänka på avvägningen mellan hur mycket de medborgerliga rättigheterna påverkas och hur mycket säkerheten ökar för att se till att alla förändringar vi gör är väl avvägda och rimliga. Detta gäller även Informationssystemet för viseringar där vi måste se till att de som har laglig rätt att resa kan göra det medan de som försöker utnyttja våra friheter hindras. Man använder i allt större utsträckning flerdubbla identiteter för att dölja sina förflyttningar. Biometriska uppgifter är det mest effektiva sättet att försäkra oss om att vi kan bevisa någons identitet. En övergripande databas för visumansökningar med biometriska uppgifter som kopplas till varje sökande kommer att innebära att seriösa resenärer enkelt kan bevisa sin identitet och resa på ett friare sätt. Regeringarna kommer att få en tydlig bild av vem som reser in i och ut ur EU, med en försäkran om att de har laglig rätt att göra det. Användningen av biometriska uppgifter gör också att vi kan identifiera människor som förstört sina dokument eller stannat längre än tillåtet och kontrollera varifrån de kommer. Rådet och parlamentet måste ha ett nära samarbete för att enas om och anta förordningen om Informationssystemet för viseringar. Rådets mål är att systemet ska vara i bruk på konsulaten från och med början av 2006. Eftersom det inledningsvis behövs en längre period för tillsättning av tjänsterna och för utbildning brådskar det verkligen med att anta denna förordning så snart som möjligt. Alla dessa exempel är praktiska åtgärder som kan öka säkerheten och visa de praktiska fördelarna med att arbeta tillsammans. Informationsutbytet kommer att öka i alla enskilda fall. Det kommer inte – som vissa har hävdat – att leda till en massövervakning av våra medborgare eller till onödiga kränkningar av deras personliga integritet. Våra samhällen har naturligtvis genomgått dramatiska ekonomiska, sociala och tekniska förändringar under dessa år. Samhällsstrukturen har förändrats och den varierar från land till land inom EU. Det finns många samhällen med olika folkgrupper, trosuppfattningar och historiska bakgrunder som lever tillsammans. Jag förstår dock oron över att uppgifter kan missbrukas eller att människor kommer att bli felidentifierade. Därför måste vi se till att det i varje enskilt fall finns en tydlig rättslig grund för utbytet av information och att den inbegriper lämpliga skyddsåtgärder mot missbruk. De förslag som jag har lagt fram innebär en enorm dagordning för detta ordförandeskap och vi kommer att göra vårt bästa för att främja den. På den brittiska regeringens vägnar vill jag dock också säga att vi anser att det är nödvändigt att mycket noggrant granska utvecklingen av rättspraxisen i tillämpningen av Europakonventionen om de mänskliga rättigheterna. Konventionen, som grundades för över 50 år sedan i ett ganska annorlunda internationellt klimat, har inneburit stora framsteg för de mänskliga rättigheterna på hela kontinenten. Dess framgångar måste främjas och utvecklas och inte undermineras, men när man utvecklar de mänskliga rättigheterna anser jag att det verkligen är nödvändigt att göra en avvägning mellan mycket viktiga rättigheter för individen och den kollektiva rätten till skydd mot terroristvåld. I vårt stärkande av de mänskliga rättigheterna måste vi framhålla en sanning som vi alla bör acceptera: att rätten till skydd mot tortyr och misshandel måste beaktas sida vid sida med rätten att skyddas mot den död och förödelse som orsakas av urskillningslös terrorism, som ibland är orsakad, sporrad eller underblåst av medborgare från länder utanför EU. Detta är en svår avvägning, och alla vi politiker måste fråga oss var våra medborgare – som valde alla oss här – förväntar sig att vi drar gränsen. Jag förmodar att de förväntar sig att vi inte bara skyddar de individuella rättigheterna utan även de demokratiska värderingarna såsom säkerhet och skydd enligt lag. Min regering anser att nuvarande avvägning inte är anpassad efter de omständigheter som vi nu står inför och som är mycket olika de omständigheter som grundarna av Europakonventionen för de mänskliga rättigheterna stod inför, och vi anser att balansen måste granskas noggrant med detta som utgångspunkt. Jag avser att föra en diskussion med kollegerna i rådet (rättsliga och inrikes frågor) om hur vi bäst kan ta itu med dessa frågor på ett sätt som är förenligt med våra internationella skyldigheter. Jag är helt säker på att människorna på denna kontinent vill vara försäkrade om att det rättsliga system som försvarar de mänskliga rättigheterna måste användas för att försvara alla våra medborgares rättigheter på ett väl avvägt och genomtänkt sätt och att det är vår skyldighet att diskutera detta offentligt. Sammanfattningsvis anser jag att nej-rösterna mot konstitutionen bör vara den väckarklocka som får dem som tror på och stöder det europeiska projektet att fokusera på det som har betydelse. Rätten till säkerhet och skydd är en grundläggande angelägenhet för alla våra medborgare. Här kan vi visa att EU faktiskt kan vara och är till verklig nytta för våra medborgare. Vi inom EU har ett ansvar att anta den utmaningen. Det är inte ett område vi kan svika dem på. Men därför anser jag att det är vår skyldighet att främja ett samhälle som är grundat på verklig respekt för individer, kulturer, trosuppfattningar och folkgrupper emellan. Det är vår skyldighet att stödja uppfattningen att det är genom demokrati och inte genom våld som vi skapar förändringar och styr våra länder. Vi måste försvara våra värderingar om respekt, tolerans, frihet och demokrati mot alla som vill förstöra eller ersätta dem med någon annan doktrin, särskilt om de försöker använda våld för att främja sin sak. Detta är en del av EU:s historia men det måste också vara en central fråga för det framtida EU. När vi ser på denna framtid måste vi erkänna att det trots detta fantastiska förflutna fortfarande finns många medborgare som är mycket skeptiska till EU, och detta till den grad att man i folkomröstningen i vissa länder förkastade förslaget till en ny konstitution på ett sätt som antyder en mer djupt liggande oro. Jag anser att en djup orsak till dessa tvivel är att EU inte tycks ge tillräcklig prioritering åt de praktiska lösningar som verkligen har betydelse för några av de största problemen. Jag menar uttryckligen grov och organiserad brottslighet, inbegripet narkotika- och människosmuggling, olaglig migration och falskt asylsökande samt terrorismbekämpning, oavsett ursprung. Dessa frågor toppar de politiska dagordningarna i Europa och är ofta de mest kraftfulla när det gäller mobiliseringen av politiska insatser, ofta på ett reaktionärt och till och med farligt sätt. De kan även användas av illvilliga demagoger för att underminera själva demokratin som i vissa fall är helt nybildad. Det är inte svårt att förstå varför dessa hot skapar ilska bland vårt folk. Hotet från terrorismen är fortfarande mycket verkligt, som vi tragiskt nog såg i London i juli. Över 100 000 kvinnor utsattes för människohandel i EU år 2004 och över 8 000 människor dör av narkotikamissbruk varje år eftersom brottsligheten och misären ges näring i alla delar av kontinenten. Olaglig migration och ett alltför slappt kontrollsystem leder till oro i alla städer."@sv21
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(Aplausos)"20,17 "(Applaudissements)"8 "(Applaus)"3 "(Applause)"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,13,4 "(Applausi)"12 "(Applåder)"21 "(Beifall)"9 "(Bifald"2 "(Suosionosoituksia)"7 "(Χειροκροτήματα)"10 "Charles Clarke,"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,7,13,4 "Internet"12 "President-in-Office of the Council"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4 "intelligence"12 "neuvoston puheenjohtaja"7 "partner"12 "referendum"12 "splendid isolation"3 "the White Cliffs of Dover"3

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph