Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-12-10-Speech-1-121"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20071210.18.1-121"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is right that the capture and harmonisation of statistics on the most important economic and social characteristics of the regions is essential for the European Union. The allocation of structural funds, one third of the budget, actually relies on this base data. What the Commission is proposing here in its regulation on population censuses, however, in reality has nothing to do with these necessities. The data that it wants to capture and harmonise in this statutory text, which directly applies to all EU Member States, is personal data on our fellow human beings, which is not really of any concern to the EU. Included in this are personal data on family and sex life, housing situation and religious affiliation. Furthermore, it also has the audacity to want to include this data by law in uniform standards without including any reference in the law to data protection.
It is therefore our duty as representatives of our citizens to stop any such intrusion into individual rights, particularly as there is no reason to harmonise data on family life, personal circumstances or the housing situation when this does not in any way fall within the competence of the European Union and is not provided for in the Reform Treaty. The EU cannot be allowed, through the back door, to claim competences here that should remain solely with the Member States, and the supervision of data collection would presume this. For us it is not a question of time or speed, but a question of the prime necessity that the protection of personal data has absolute priority. This Commission text does not guarantee this. I am happy that the rapporteur wants to delete the non-mandatory text here. We already backed this, even at committee level. Unfortunately, she had not obtained a majority for it at that time.
The citizens expect us to ensure that what the judgment now stipulates, namely adjournment, will actually compel the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs to make sure that data protection is checked here once again and that only then will the decision on Parliament’s position and first reading be made. I would ask all groups to be true to their word here."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples