Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-02-12-Speech-1-168"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070212.16.1-168"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, the problem we are discussing today is a complex one. Indeed, in the final analysis, what matters is that we strike the right balance between two things that are very dear to us and that can appear conflicting at times, namely the pursuit of the highest level of effective security and a sense of security on the one hand and protecting fundamental human rights, citizens’ rights, including the right to privacy, and the free movement, to which we have grown so accustomed, on the other. The consequences of the measures that have been taken were quite spectacular: longer waiting times at security check-in, confiscations of large amounts of perfume, drink and other consumer goods, but also many questions the answers to which were only slow in coming, such as what to do with liquid medicines and other items.
One could say that the rapid reaction of the European security agencies can be interpreted as a sign of decisiveness. On the other hand, we are also faced with two types of questions, the first one concerning the effectiveness of the measures, for we all know that a number of exceptions will inevitably be made for such persons as medical staff, for example, and so we are justified in asking whether well prepared, well informed terrorists would be stopped by these measures, while vast numbers of people are left to suffer the effects. I understand that the Commission will be planning an initial assessment this spring. This is to be welcomed, and should be done on a regular basis. In addition, we should also keep an eye out for side-effects on such things as personal freedoms. This balance is at risk of being lost, and this requires a democratic debate, as we are having this evening.
This brings me to a second fundamental issue, which is the democratic control over decisions of this kind and hence the involvement of this House. Commissioner, I am convinced that the Commission has purely formally complied with all the rules. There is no doubt in my mind about that. Indeed, a few days before the regulation was formally ratified, a number of members of the Committee on Transport and Tourism – and I was there – managed to verify the lawfulness of the draft regulation; they did so individually, alone, without staff, without taking legal advice first, without any form of consultation. We were therefore able to conclude that the committee of experts has taken a decision in accordance with the regulation that applies in this context. Allow me, Commissioner, to say that it has become apparent that the comitology procedure applied to this issue is inadequate. We will therefore need to join forces in order to look for ways of holding a truly democratic debate on sensitive issues of this kind that have a major impact on our citizens' way of living. To make it absolutely clear, I am not arguing in favour of Parliament being able to decide on the types of scanners used at airports or determine when a threat is alarming. What is important, though, is to become more involved, more so than today, in the thorough assessments and the impact analyses, for example. At the same time, I should also like to make a case for making sufficient credits available in the mean time via research and development in order, as you have just said, to detect liquid explosives of this kind and thus be able to take action against them.
I hope, Commissioner, that we can draw a few conclusions after this evening, and I am relying on your support and experience in this respect."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples