Brussels, 13/07/2005 (Agence Europe) - MEPs are concerned about the impact that combating terrorism will have on citizens' freedoms and wish to be involved in adopting measures to prevent any negative impact, as they told British Home Minister Charles Clarke, who had come to meet them just before the extraordinary justice and home affairs council convened in the wake of the attacks that hit London on Thursday 7 July (see other article above). Although some wanted to move on faster and even sacrifice certain freedoms, most stressed that they were not convinced the measures proposed would effectively help to combat terrorism. Discussions turned around the proposal of telecommunication data retention. British Home Minister Charles Clarke promised that he would forward a factual document to MEPs in the very near future to convince them of the need for such measures, including that on retention of telecommunications data, and of the role they play in striking a balance between security and the protection of citizens' freedoms.
One after the other, most speakers protested against the fact that, when it comes to telecommunication data retention (tracing telephone calls received and given, and sites visited), the Council works on the basis of an unanimous Council decision (3rd pillar) and not on codecision with the European Parliament (1st pillar), whereas the Commission foresees presenting a proposal on this dossier according to codecision. Kathalijne Buitenweg (Dutch Green member) stressed that she did not understand why the Council was taking the risk of losing time by referral to the Court of Justice rather than accepting codecision. On substance, “privacy is not holy, but needs to prove necessary”, she said, adding “being tough or strict is not a justification in itself”. Sarah Ludford (ALDE, UK) asked how one can be sure that a “means of massive surveillance” is not used. Stavros Lambrinidis (PES, Greece), Vice-Chairman of the EP Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, pointed out that one should “combat terrorism but citizens must control the institutions”. “There is a problem of democracy”, he said, above all with confusion between the fight against terrorism and the fight against organised crime, which do not call for the same preventive instruments, he stressed. Giusto Catania, of the GUE, protested the fact that the “security obsession” was pointless and called, on the contrary, for “all troops to be pulled out of Iraq”.
Only Agustin Diaz de Mera (EPP, Spain) placed emphasis when speaking to his colleagues on the fact that it is better to accept “less freedom on a temporary basis in order to allow prevention”. “Citizens' security requires sacrifice”, he added. “Finding the right balance is both important and difficult”, Charles Clarke answered, giving the example of closed circuit television cameras (CCTV), which, he believes, are very useful. He went on to say that there is a hierarchy between civil freedoms and the right not to be photographed by a surveillance camera is less important than that to a fair trial.