Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-10-23-Speech-1-109"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061023.16.1-109"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I believe that the majority of the speakers have mentioned the major problems faced by the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II), and that a minority of them mentioned the legal basis. I am therefore going to speak about the legal basis and about the major problems that the functionality of the system has brought up, but before doing so, I should like once again to thank the rapporteur, Mr Coelho, for having worked closely not only with the Council, but also with the European Commission, with the aim of reaching a satisfactory compromise on the legal basis about which I shall say a few words in a moment's time.
Several of you spoke about the delay in implementing the second generation system. I will, as ever, be frank with you: I believe that the game that consists in constantly looking for someone on whom to pin the blame, instead of resolving the problem, is not helpful. Why? Because the Member States, and especially those represented by the speakers who have taken the floor in this House, know only too well what has caused this delay. The Member States have already examined on several occasions the revised time-limits for implementation, which will be submitted for approval at the December Council. One of you spoke about 2009. I cannot guarantee that final approval will be given by the December Council, but the Commission proposal’s target date for the entry into operation of a second generation system is not 2009, but indeed June 2008. As for the delays - I repeat - they are linked to the purely technical problems relating to the functioning of the sites. Thus the central site, installed in Strasbourg, where we are, has experienced some delays. However, these delays are also linked to contractual procedures in several Member States, especially in the new Member States.
Furthermore, virtually all, or, at any rate, a great majority, of the Member States have requested more time in order to test the technical connections linking their national systems to the central site. It is the Member States that have requested an additional three-month extension, not the Council or the European Commission. The Council and the Commission have committed themselves to limiting the delay, and even to making up for the time lost. I can tell you that a working group, working alongside the Commission and the Member States, has been set up in order to oversee the implementation of the revised plan that I proposed and that the Member States have examined and are going to approve in December.
We are in the process of evaluating some temporary solutions. Thus, Portugal’s proposal, which has been called SIS Plus, is only a temporary solution in terms of reducing the time limit and can under no circumstances constitute an alternative to the SIS II system. I could also take account – and I am saying so here in this Parliament – of the financial impact of the delay on the new Member States. I am saying this and I am confirming it, but on one condition: that the Member States making the requests are not themselves lagging behind in terms, for example, of contractual procedures. Furthermore, I can tell you, in all honesty, that, to date, Slovenia is the only country technically able to meet the initial deadline of October 2007.
I should like to say a few words now about the legal basis. With regard to the proposal submitted to Parliament, I can say, just as Mr Coelho himself quite rightly said, that this is a good result for the European Union. The controls carried out by the police authorities will be made more effective, with the result that the external borders will be more secure and an appropriate level of protection of personal data will also be maintained. Frankly, I hope, like several of you do, that the Council will finally act on the political commitment made by the Austrian and Finnish Presidencies, and by that I mean the agreement on the proposal for a framework directive aimed at integrating data protection into the third pillar so as to create a comprehensive system incorporating security and the protection of fundamental rights.
Parliament, the Council and the Commission have shown that they are capable of working together to reach a balanced compromise. The new Member States are rightly calling for the controls at their external borders to be lifted. The fact that we are acting fairly swiftly in guaranteeing all EU citizens a real area of free movement is one of the most visible results of EU enlargement. Finally, any delay due to the legal basis is going to affect this major political result for Europe, which was a priority objective in the accession treaty."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples