Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-04-27-Speech-3-159"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050427.14.3-159"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Mr Frattini, ladies and gentlemen, we all want to combat theft and the illegal trade in stolen cars. This is a growing form of crime, with more than 1 million cars stolen per year, of which fewer than 40% are recovered.
This is an alarming problem, not solely from an economic point of view, but more importantly because of its links with other forms of crime such as drug-trafficking, arms trafficking and the trafficking of human beings. It is also a highly lucrative activity, which has become very attractive to organised crime networks, as it does not entail too much risk. Fresh measures to combat crime of this nature must therefore be taken. In a Europe in which internal border checks have been scrapped, a response must be found that involves effective action at Community level. The purpose of this proposal is to provide the public vehicle registration authorities direct access to certain categories of data contained in the Schengen Information System (SIS) and, in turn, to restrict private vehicle registration services solely to the right to request indirect access through a public authority with access to the SIS. The aim is thus to enable the SIS to be an even more important instrument in the fight against crime. It is necessary to check quickly and efficiently whether vehicles presented to them for registration have been stolen, misappropriated or lost.
We have also improved the functioning of the internal market by strengthening the principle of free movement and, in so doing, we have fostered the gradual creation of the area of freedom, security and justice, along with the implementation of the common transport policy.
This direct access will ensure that cars stolen in one country cannot be registered – and thus made legal – in another, a process that sometimes takes less than 24 hours. There are two reasons for introducing this measure: firstly, efficiency – there are millions of vehicles registered in the EU and direct access will make it possible to check the legal status of a vehicle quickly and easily; and secondly, transparency – at the moment, the various Member States have different ways of checking whether a vehicle has been stolen, at the moment when it is being registered. All of these ways are, to a greater or lesser extent, opaque and complicated. The proposed solution, within the scope of the Schengen Convention, is transparent and offers more guarantees than the current situation.
We want to maintain data protection and our citizens’ privacy. We have therefore restricted the type of data that can be accessed and have proposed that access to data relating to identity documents and to blank official documents be removed, in line with the opinion of the joint supervisory authority. The range of data to which the competent vehicle registration authorities will have access is clearly laid down and limited in terms of what is necessary and appropriate.
I should also like to point out that Directive 95/46 on personal protection data is applicable here, along with the specific rules of the Schengen Convention on data protection. We should like to be sure that these rules are being effectively complied with and monitored. The authorities in charge of data protection must therefore have sufficient resources at their disposal to carry out their work and the Member States must be firmly committed to upholding the fundamental right to data protection.
My report, which tabled ten amendments to the Commission’s initial proposal, was approved at first reading in April 2004 and the Council common position was adopted in December 2004. I wholeheartedly welcome this common position, and I am delighted that, in accepting seven of the ten amendments put forward, it largely took on board Parliament’s recommendations. As for the three amendments not accepted, I shall first mention Amendment 4. I have dropped this amendment, because it is no longer relevant, given that on 24 February 2005, the Council finally adopted the initiative by the Kingdom of Spain with a view to adopting a Council Decision concerning the introduction of some new functions for the Schengen Information System, in particular in the fight against terrorism; secondly, Amendment 11, an attempt to amend the rules of data protection for the SIS, but I agree that this question should be addressed within the scope of the legal proposal on SIS II, the second generation of SIS; and thirdly, Amendment 10, which requested an annual report on the implementation of the proposed access for the authorities concerned.
I must stress that only if Parliament receives a report enabling it to assess the system will it be able to carry out its duties as a legislative body and a budgetary authority. I propose a slightly different wording, which I presume the Council would be in a position to accept, following an informal meeting with the Luxembourg Presidency.
The conditions are thus in place whereby this legal act can finally be adopted and this useful measure can enter into force. Accordingly, Mr President, we can help to fight crime and to make our citizens feel safer."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples