Strasbourg, 07/09/2005 (Agence Europe) -Increased security and surveillance, reinforced European co-operation based on practice rather than standards, dialogue between the communities: the UK Presidency and the European Commission stood united, before the European Parliament on Wednesday, on the outlines of the best way to fight terrorism. On the eve of the informal Justice and Home Affairs Council, to be held in Newcastle (see EUROPE 9021), the President in exercise of the Justice and Home Affairs Council, Charles Clarke, and the Commissioner in charge of Freedom, Security and Justice, Franco Frattini, stressed the importance of stepping up the collection, analysis and sharing of information. Although both defended the importance of plans to retain telecommunications data, it came to light that the Council, the European Parliament and European Commission differ on both the content and the legal basis of this text (see yesterday's EUROPE, p.7).
The British Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, proposed an approach based on three principles. The first principle is to note the imperative need for cooperation between the countries. The second principle is the importance of "stepping up police work and practical information-sharing" within the European Union and with third countries , particularly the United States. The third principle is that "the greatest challenge" will be the use of information "effectively and intelligently". "This is the only way we will be able to fight crime and terrorism", said Mr Clark, stressing the importance of finding out how criminals communicate.
Highlighting the fact that surveillance must be tightened up, particularly in terms of tracing telephone and Internet communications, Charles Clarke rebutted all opposition to the concept of retaining such data. He reaffirmed the need to do so, pointing out that being able to trace communications had been of "huge value in the investigations into the attacks on London". He took pains to allay any misgivings, stating that "the European Parliament and the national parliaments alike must realise that from a legal point of view, collecting information is very difficult, occasionally even impossible". "Very often, we do not have this information until the acts have already been committed", but no national legislation allows the police access to these data, he added, to reinforce his point. The President in exercise of the JHA Council said that it was not expensive as commonly thought to collect data (see yesterday's EUROPE, p.7), adding that if the average costs of investigations were compared, "these costs are not excessive". In order to convince the MEPs, the Presidency was to publish an explanatory note, he said.
Criticising the fact that there are currently "25 different legal situations" governing the retention of data within the European Union, Commissioner Franco Frattini also called for the adoption of common standards. The European Commission must present a proposal to compete with the one the Council is in the process of examining, which was proposed by several of the Member States. He also stressed the importance of cooperation between the information services of the Member States, by "developing the principle of availability" of information between the countries. He pointed out that the European Commission was to present a communication on radicalisation at the end of September, and a proposal on the protection of critical infrastructure by the end of the year. More generally, we need "fewer standards whenever possible, and more operational co-operation", he said.
These measures "will not lead to mass surveillance of our citizens, nor to a reduction in people's right to a private life", said Charles Clarke, calling for the adoption of "a very clear legal framework", containing "safeguards". The Home Secretary and the Commissioner spoke of the balance between freedom and security. In the view of Commissioner Frattini, "the right to security, and thus to life, is a pillar on which the other fundamental rights all rest". Charles Clarke stressed that these measures are also needed to adapt to societal changes in Europe, but also because "many of our citizens are highly sceptical about the idea of the European Union", because the EU "does not seem to grant enough of a priority to practical solutions" to combat terrorism, drug trafficking, trafficking in human beings and illegal immigration. He expressed the view that the Justice and Home Affairs Council should give "the priority to these issues, in a highly pragmatic way".
During the course of the debate which followed these addresses, the president of the EPP-ED group, Hans-Gert Pöttering (Germany), criticised the fact that a "good number" of the measures adopted by the Council had not been implemented.
He said all available legal instruments should be used within respect for the rule of law, warning that the mistake should not be made of associating terrorism and Islam. Fellow countryman Martin Schultz, head of the EPP group, criticised the way Member States talked of cooperation but left the policy under the third pillar with intergovernmental, rather than Community, decision-making rules. He made a connection with Turkey's application to join the EU, saying that Turkey's road to Europe should not be blocked because Turkey's road to Europe is a genuine fight against terrorism.
Most of the spokespeople for political groups stressed that a balance had to be struck between fighting terrorism and respecting human rights. Human rights are invisible, said Graham Watson, President of the ALDE Group, adding that those suspected of terrorism are entitled to have a lawyer, to be questioned rather than tortured and, if convicted, of being intervened in a European prison. The British Liberal Democrat MEP said governments can be eager to exploit fear to suspend our values, quoting recent security measures in Italy, France and Germany. Watson said he and his colleagues were teenagers in the 1960, part of the freedom generation, and they should not deprive their children of freedom. He told the JHA Council that they were wasting time talking about unratified conventions when there was the opportunity to take framework decisions. British Green MEP Jean Lambert also highlighted the universal nature of human rights, slamming attempts to re-evaluate the European Convention of Human Rights. The Convention has to be built upon, not dismantled, she said, also expressing concern at current debate in the UK about how to get rid of the inconvenient Article 3 of the Convention on inhuman and degrading treatment. The President of the GUE/NGL Group, Francis Wurtz, expressed concern at the freedom-restricting pressure for increased security which would mean anything is permitted to combat terrorism. The shoot to kill policy of some Member States had led to the worst case scenario this summer, he said, with the shooting dead of an innocent young Brazilian in London by the police after the July terrorist attacks. I don't want the European slogan to be 'surveillance, suspicion and repression,' said Wurtz, slamming the constant harping on about 'our values', or 'Western values' since whether one wanted it or not, this would end up giving credence to the idea that the world is split between 'us' and 'them', while focussing on the West makes us blind to injustice, oppression and humiliation around the world in the name of the West, from Jenin to Abu Ghraib or Faluja, and from Grosny to Guantanamo Bay. Wurtz's third area of disagreement with the British Presidency it its refusal to admit that the war on Iraq is creating terrorists. Wurtz argued that if criticising the Iraq war means excusing terrorists, then Jacques Straw should be aware that he is hobnobbing with people complicit with terrorism within the Council itself, since before the Madrid attacks, his counterpart Moratinos said about the Iraq war that the strategy of the US administration and other countries had been a crashing failure. The Co-President of the Independence and Democracy Group, Nigel Farage, stressed the need to respect human rights, and asked whether the terrorist threat was being used to give the EU more powers. He said there were no rules for the EU, it does what it wishes. The UK Independence Party MEP said that it was the job of nation states to counter terrorism by cooperating with one another. Brian Crowley, President of the Union for Europe of the Nations, also highlighted the role of nation states, which have to decide whether to do anything at EU level. The Irish MEP pointed out the extent to which Ireland had suffered from terrorism, saying there was the need to create a better EU that strikes a balance between individual rights and the common good.
Charles Clark counting on tangible progress during British Presidency - Franco Frattini wants to work with civil society and move beyond 'institutional jealousies'
Responding to MEPs, Charles Clark said he was reassured by the debate and confident the British Presidency could make decisive steps in counter-terrorism and fighting crime. On the 'tragic error' the young Brazilian man fell victim to in London, he said an independent committee is leading the investigation but it is legitimate to use the necessary tools to combat suicide attacks. Frattini said that during the debate on the future of Europe, security issues should be priority, warning that 'institutional jealousies' would have to be overcome since they held back decision-making. He called for people to work with civil society, religious and non-religious communities to eradicate the roots of terrorism and the recruitment of terrorists, calling for a gesture of responsibility from Muslim communities, saying it would be a partnership of values.
Clarke and Borrell hope to see rapid agreement on data retention
At a joint press conference with Charles Clarke, President Borrell stressed the importance of the European Parliament in terms of combatting terrorism while respecting the law. He said the EU Member States should avoid arguing among themselves, over legal bases, for example, and hoped that there would be progress in Newcastle on data retention with a suitable legal basis. Asked about whether the issue should be subject to a framework decision or a directive, Clarke said what he was most interested in was to be able to decide as soon as possible, adding that he had been told at the EP that the European Parliament could work very fast. He said there would have to be a yes to three questions for him to favour the codecision route, namely is codecision flexible enough to take account of the situation in every country?; are all Member States prepared to accept it?; and will it be possible to reach agreement in a very short time?
Asked about Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (inhuman and degrading treatment), Clarke said he had not asked for it to be changed, but simply for case law to be discussed in order to take account of real circumstances in the real world because the Convention is already old news. In this connection, the question of whether it should be possible to deport people to countries where they risk inhuman or degrading treatment should be discussed.