Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-10-12-Speech-4-040"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061012.3.4-040"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I too would like to thank once again the two rapporteurs and all those who have spoken. I recognise the need, firstly, for this Parliament to show a large majority, as hoped for by the two rapporteurs, in favour of this initiative. Otherwise, our joint efforts would be thwarted. We have worked together to give Parliament a strong and authoritative voice, even in the absence of the formal codecision procedure. Let us avoid a division in this Parliament that would give the Council the impression that, all things considered, it might even take decisions alone. This is a political necessity, not least because I have heard certain influential Members of this Parliament doubting the very
of the agency.
First, we need to clarify the figures being cited. I have heard it said that the agency will cost EUR 150 million. That is not true. The institution in question will cost, in 2007, EUR 14 million, not EUR 150 million, and will eventually cost, in 2010, EUR 21 million, not EUR 150 million. The agency, which is the natural successor of the Vienna Monitoring Centre, which employs 40 people, will have 50 officials in 2007, an increase of just 10 employees. Ladies and gentlemen, 50 officials correspond to the staff of a small European municipality of 10 000 or 15 000 inhabitants. Do we really believe that it is not worth having 50 people working to maintain a high level of vigilance in connection with human rights in Europe? I believe it is worth it.
Why do we need an agency? We need an agency in order to have independent evaluation, which is precisely what many Members of Parliament have pointed out. I have heard someone ask: ‘But what has the Commission got to do with it?’ The Commission will work much better if it is able to make use of an agency that is capable independently of supplying it with material on the basis of which it can carry out evaluations and form opinions. I want to reassure Mr Rack: we will continue to carry out our duties, which in this field are not bureaucratic duties but, rather, political support for the work of Parliament and the Council. This is why we need an independent agency that will supply us with material with which to draw up our proposals. It is clear that the Commission's work will not diminish, rather it will be strengthened and increased.
What is the Council of Europe’s role? The Council of Europe will continue to carry out its own work. I can confirm: we do not want overlapping and, in this sector too, the rules of the Treaties apply. The agency will be responsible for monitoring respect for fundamental rights on the basis of Community law whereas, as you well know, the Council of Europe does not have competence in the field of human rights under Community legislation. Consequently, the areas of activity of the two institutions will be absolutely separate, and this is a requirement that we intend to safeguard.
I defend the Fundamental Rights Agency precisely because I do not believe that it should be used to point the finger at this or that Member State or to serve as a tool of political fighting, infighting even. That would be a mistake, and I agree with those who argue that the formulation of political opinions cannot be left to officials. That task will remain in the hands of the Commission. We hope for an agency that will help to increase transparency in Europe concerning the procedures for guaranteeing fundamental rights.
If I make reference to political groups and the judiciary in Europe, it is because I believe that they too must wish – and I am sure that they do – for transparency in the protection of fundamental rights in their activities. It will in fact be much better for the authority of the institutions of the police and judiciary if they are guaranteed complete transparency regarding procedures for carrying out their crime-fighting activities. This is an initiative geared towards helping them, rather than hindering them. It is certainly not the intention of the Fundamental Rights Agency to put obstacles in their way."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples