Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-10-27-Speech-3-046"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991027.1.3-046"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Members of the European Parliament, I would like to thank you for your speeches; they have been very constructive. I would like to take up your valuable time, first to move on to some general comments, and then to reply to your points in detail, and finally speak about the future, and about implementation and monitoring.
Mr Brock raised the issue of the situation in Kosovo and the Stability Pact. They were discussed on the evening before the meeting at Tampere. The President of the Republic of Finland, Martti Ahtisaari, spoke on the subject, considering it necessary that the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, the Secretary-General of NATO, Javier Solana, and Balkans representative, Bodo Hombach, should now work together more effectively to safeguard both the implementation of the Stability Pact and, obviously, the progress in practical matters, such as cooperation between Priština and Thessaloniki. The country to hold the presidency is therefore monitoring this issue very closely. As for the Obnova regulation, the Council will carefully look into Parliament’s draft amendments. I discussed this this morning with President Fontaine. The purpose is to clear the matter up immediately, as the European Parliament has adopted its opinion, and the Council will already be initiating discussions at the end of this week about how the amendments proposed by the European Parliament might be taken account of when making the final decision on Obnova. I hope this will also be one of those issues that will be settled during the Finnish presidential term, signifying that we have, as it were, got beyond this problem of the institutions, and that is what our citizens actually expect.
Moving on to how the European Parliament participates in decision-making, and what has happened in this matter, I accept the criticism, as the representative of the country to hold the presidency. I would, however, like to point out that in the part-session in September, three of our Ministers were here to report on the Tampere meeting. They were the Minister for the Interior, the Minister for Justice and the Minister for Foreign Affairs. A fourth was present too: our Coreper representative. As far as we understand it, all that information, which has been at the disposal of governments, has also been at the disposal of Parliament. Generally, what was achieved at Tampere is founded on our adherence to transparency, and we did not, for example, at the last moment produce any surprises for governments or Parliament. Everything was known; our draft agenda was available to all.
In the future, the European Parliament will participate in decision making, and this will obviously be rooted in the Treaty of Amsterdam. The conclusions of Tampere will improve further the European Parliament’s practical opportunities for involvement and monitoring. The conclusions of Tampere show a commitment at the highest political level to an assurance of much-needed transparency and to the practice of regular supplies of information conveyed to the European Parliament. I have already told the ministers that if something is unsatisfactory, they have to come here. The constructive and active nature of the conclusions of Tampere will provide Parliament with better opportunities to participate in the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice. In other words, the aims and means have now been more clearly defined, and it will be easier to take part in their implementation. For this, that adopted proposal provides an important aid. I would like to thank Mr Suominen for the advice on terminology. It was, if I remember correctly, a ‘balanced score card’, which we have to achieve. That will also facilitate the work of Parliament.
Regarding transparency, may I be so bold as to remind everyone that in the Treaty of Amsterdam it was Finland that proposed a change to the paradigm. Until then, it was a principle in the Union that documents were not generally public, although there were exceptions. We proposed that the opposite principle should be adopted, that documents should be public, although there might be some exceptions. Now the question is whether all the institutions, within the framework of their own responsibility, will put this principle into practice and whether the Commission will actually make proposals for acts on these issues. Then I would speak finally about implementation, which was something Mr Suominen and others drew attention to. The Council on justice and home affairs will initiate the implementation of the Tampere resolutions on Friday of this week. As the country to hold the presidency, we have drafted a certain sort of agenda for that meeting, which comprises all the action required of the conclusions of Tampere, which is to say, what needs to be done, who is to do it, and according to what timetable. I hope that we will succeed with this model of working, so that it will also facilitate the work of Parliament.
I would like to thank the President, the Bureau and those who have spoken for their very kind words, but also for their criticism, as we simply cannot be complacent in the wake of the Tampere meeting. We have to really take the decisions reached there seriously and start work accordingly.
In my opinion, the last speech, by Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi, was very important, as it put forward the notion that we should be setting ambitious targets. On the other hand, Mr Holmes, in his speech, was concerned that the harmonisation of legislation and administrative practices would advance too hastily. The problem for Tampere was that the issue of justice and home affairs is, all in all, a very conservative area. On the one hand, there is the worry that national practices will have to change too quickly. On the other hand, we have a real need for the convergence of legislation, inter alia, in the fight against crime and the enhancement of police cooperation. For example, we do not have in our legislation any coherent definition of what organised crime is. The method we use here is the single market method, where we look pragmatically at how progress is to be made, using problems as the point of departure. The mutual recognition of sentences is one line of action, and the other is that we examine the need for the harmonisation of legislation.
First, I will speak of Eurojust and the European prosecuting authority. Eurojust itself aims, not just at networking among the prosecuting authorities, but also at achieving a situation where investigations and action can be initiated in investigation teams. The question of a prosecuting authority of benefit to the Community was raised in the final stages by the Commission. It is quite another question, as it would be expressly concerned with crimes committed within the territory of the Community, in which the Community has a financial interest. This has quite a lot to do with the issues that were discussed mainly last spring, but they can certainly be returned to once more.
Regarding Europol, worry has been expressed here concerning Europol surveillance. I think that is very justifiable, as this must be monitored as Europol’s mandate or, to be precise, its competences, expand. However, Europol’s basic operational model and nature were not altered at Tampere. Europol and its officers did not acquire independent competences, but will work more closely with the Member States, providing aid and support. This must be monitored closely.
Some speeches focused attention on the status of nationals of third countries. At Tampere the term “comparable” status was used. This means that we shall go as far as possible in the direction of full citizens’ rights but, for example, there is perhaps a certain unwillingness to grant voting rights in parliamentary elections. Instead, the right to vote in local elections is a good example of the sort of European practice we should be hoping for.
The question of a refugee fund, of the share of the burden, gave rise to some discussion, and we agreed that we should return to the question of a fund. We must clarify our concept of what we are trying to do. What we mean here is that, when masses of refugees suddenly arrive seeking temporary protection, we should support those countries that are the target of such large-scale migration. The request is entirely legitimate, and financial aid may also come into it, but the matter will take more preparatory work. Speaking of the share of the burden, we might say that in the situation in Kosovo we saw that we were not prepared. We should be able to agree policies to build solidarity among the Member States. We perhaps do not have to go as far as an automatic share of quotas, but we are in need of better practices when it comes to solidarity. Obviously, we have to work in cooperation with the UNHCR, as in the Kosovo situation. The capacity for action by the international community in these situations must, on the whole, be improved.
I want to return once more to the question of organised crime, which Mr Di Lello Finuoli referred to in his speech. At Tampere we in fact agreed some very far-reaching aims. Money laundering came within the scope of Europol’s mandate. In my opinion, the work will be enhanced on a very broad front when the prosecution authorities are involved.
Now I would like to speak on certain other matters that have been raised here. Firstly, the Charter of Fundamental Rights: will it be a political act or a draft for a new constitution. As the country to hold the presidency of the European Council, we shall take the matter further on the basis of what was decided at Cologne, i.e. that it is a political act. But that will not prevent us from raising the question at some stage that the Union needs some sort of constitution, into which fundamental rights should be written. This is a matter of processes. At Tampere resolutions were made on the working party’s mandate and composition, and it will assemble for the first time during the Finnish Presidency. I hope that it will acquire a prestigious chairman.
The question of an Intergovernmental Conference was raised, for example by Mr Brock. I would like to emphasise that this is a matter for the presidency. We were charged with the task at the Cologne Summit. Obviously, we will work on the basis of the Commission’s proposal, but I hope that it will not be forgotten here in Parliament that such an institution as the Council and its presidency do exist."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples