Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-11-24-Speech-2-328"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20091124.32.2-328"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, thank you for all of your points of view. In fact, I am not sorry that ten Members did not get the floor. I am very pleased to see the commitment that you are showing in respect of these important issues.
Finally, someone said that we should make the Stockholm Programme more tangible. The programme contains a lot of very tangible and practical elements, but the real work starts now. Some Members pointed out that the resolution had to be drawn up within a tight deadline and that it was very difficult to do it all in time. I can say to you that it will get worse yet. Once we have adopted the Stockholm Programme, you will be involved in the important work that needs to be done in implementing and dealing with the details of the various proposals. This will involve a lot of time pressure and a lot of stress, but also great challenges and great opportunities to make a difference. Thank you very much for your views and, as I said, please use the internet if you want to contact the Presidency in the coming days.
Someone said that this programme is ambitious. I am pleased to hear that, because the work has been ambitious, but also practical in that we wanted to combine the vision with a pragmatic approach to how to improve things from the perspective of the citizens. As I was listening, it seemed that many of you share at least the main idea of the draft programme that we are dealing with today.
Allow me to comment on two areas. The first one is the question of form. Today’s debate has been a little bit confused – if I may say so – as some people have been referring to the Stockholm Programme but they were really talking about the interesting proposal for a resolution that you will debate and take a decision on in Parliament, in other words, your views on the draft that the Presidency has tabled.
Someone said at the start of the debate ‘why are we discussing one draft when there is already a new one?’. The truth is that the European Parliament is mid-way through the discussions and negotiations that are ongoing. It is changing all the time and on Friday, or at the weekend, there will be another draft. However, to the Member who thought that he had an old document, I can say that we have always presented the most recent draft on the Presidency’s website. Those Members who wish to keep up to date and see what is happening with this and also how your debate affects the final result should, of course, ensure that they obtain the documents that we publish.
As far as the Presidency is concerned, it has been of the utmost importance to work with transparency and openness. That is why we have very many discussions. The ten of you who did not have the opportunity to present your views here are very welcome to email me or Mr Billström. It is very simple; the address is beatrice.ask@justice.ministry.se and Mr Billström’s address follows the same format. You can then send us your points of view so that they are taken into account. We must start to work in a modern way, and openness is the modern way for the Swedish Presidency. I look forward to the resolution and its outcome, as I detect a lot of support for some of the views, nuances and emphases that the resolution contains. We will, of course, give these careful consideration.
There are also a few political issues that I would just like to mention. Firstly, two Members, one of whom was Mr Batten, mentioned specific examples of how citizens are affected – perhaps in another country – and it is their opinion that conditions are not very good. Those are typical examples of a lack of trust in one another’s legal systems. In this case, we have two choices: the first is to tell our citizens to stay at home, because we always have the best legal systems at home. However, if we believe that our citizens will continue to take advantage of the opportunity for free movement, then it is perhaps time to think about how we can improve procedural rights and other aspects across the Union as a whole. That is precisely the aim of the Stockholm Programme. That is why I am so very pleased that we have been able to take the first step in strengthening procedural rights in order to guarantee that anyone who is suspected of a crime or is a victim of a crime and is involved in a legal process in Europe will now actually receive help with translation and interpretation. This fundamental right can be found in the conventions of the European Council and elsewhere, but is not found in practice. Now we can make a difference and that is exactly what we should do.
Mrs Macovei raised the issue of corruption and financial crime and was of the opinion that the wording was too weak on this. I would like to say that this is a very clear section, which makes high demands. The fact that we mention the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) has nothing to do with us intending to adopt a lower level of ambition on account of their views – nor is that what is stated in the Stockholm Programme. What is stated is that, along with many other tasks, we aim to cooperate closely with this important body on these matters, as we need to go for the money if we are to combat organised crime. I believe that this is important.
Many people mentioned subsidiarity. I think that the proposal that is currently under discussion takes a very clear position in that EU cooperation in the areas of justice and home affairs should constitute an added value. Anything that is dealt with just as well at national level should be allowed to remain there. It is when we need cooperation that we must use the European institutions. I do not think that we are taking away the rights of the nation states, but instead we are providing an added value that could benefit all citizens.
Lastly, I would like to talk about the issue of privacy and data protection, which is a major and important debate. I believe it was Mr Borghezio who mentioned this and felt that there was a great deal of concern about the Stockholm Programme as it stands. He expressed concern about monitoring and large databases, among other things. He also compared what we are working on in this area with the situation in the former East Germany and in the communist states that used to exist in Europe. I think that this type of argument is completely irrelevant. In East Germany, there was no data protection, no democracy and there were no fundamental rights for citizens – three important factors that are fundamental to our cooperation. As regards the Stockholm Programme, we are strengthening and tightening up the regulations for data protection and respect for the rights of individuals, and democracy, too, in a number of different respects. The fact is that the information strategy that we want the EU to draw up balances a methodical and effective exchange of information with stringent requirements for the protection of privacy and secure data management, but also the requirement for information not to be retained for a long period. Please feel free to read these sections again, as they are very clear. This represents progress, for which we have also received praise from the EU ombudsman, who is working on this."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples