Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-01-31-Speech-4-040"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080131.4.4-040"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"−
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that this morning’s debate has shown a shared willingness to work together on the part of all three institutions. Therefore, not only is the working method important, but so is the merit. So the wish expressed at the start by Mr Deprez, on which I would say there was a broad consensus including from the President of the Council, and which I personally agree with, is the right working method to use.
Finally again, asylum policy. 2008 will be decisive, since 2010 is the deadline for setting up a European asylum system. 2008 will be the year in which the action plan will be presented to the Commission.
I have given examples to show how, in this spirit, Mr Deprez’s proposal, which I think should be welcomed, is to get together and define in concrete terms what can be done immediately because it is ready – and there are many things we can conclude during the Slovenian Presidency – and what we can continue to discuss between now and, say, June 2009.
As I said at the start, in the Council the idea of working to a timescale not limited to six months has proved a success. We should try to use it here too, because I think, from what people have said, that a number of subjects have emerged that are clearly a priority. The fact that we cannot slow down the work towards setting up SIS II – the new generation of the SIS system – is apparent to everyone. We need to go forward and, beyond the discussion of timescale, what concerns us is that the process of trialling this new system is showing it to be truly of added value for the security of our external borders.
Rather than talk about delay, I would talk about the need for the Member States – something I agree with – to trial the system in depth to see how it works and could work better, before actually rolling it out. The timescales we have been discussing with the Presidency, and which we will formalise with the February Council of Ministers in a few weeks’ time, are timescales that demonstrate our commitment to the added value from the new generation of SIS, something that is clearly a priority.
Many people have spoken about assessing the effectiveness of security measures, particularly counter-terrorism measures. This is something Parliament asked for, which I agreed to a year ago. Today we have an exercise under way. In December, all the Member States received a detailed questionnaire about the results achieved by the counter-terrorism measures being applied. I can say, not only to Baroness Ludford but to all of you, that by mid-April I will be able to publish in full the results of this analysis for all 27 Member States. This, I believe, is another priority matter for discussion, something this Parliament has always been interested in.
Some people have talked about procedural safeguards. You know that no agreement was reached on this because some Member States put insurmountable problems in the way, but now the Slovenian Presidency has raised something that I think could be dealt with as a priority: the matter of judgments in absentia. This is one of the aspects related to procedural safeguards. It is not the whole discussion, but it is an extremely important aspect: harmonising the rules on judgments in absentia – a matter I think Mrs Lambert touched on – is a matter that deserves to be dealt with as a priority in 2008.
We have already mentioned the assessment of Frontex. On 13 February we will publish our first comprehensive assessment of Frontex. Clearly, the Commission document will be discussed in the Council and in Parliament, and will form the basis for action, which I would also say is a priority, in 2008: how Frontex has worked, how we can improve it, how we can encourage Member States to participate more.
Terrorism was spoken of; many people mentioned it. Terrorist propaganda on the Internet and violent radicalisation are both matters that will be the subject of non-legislative initiatives. A few legislative measures are already planned, there will be communications from the Commission and it is worth debating.
I much appreciated what Mrs Roure said about the European PNR. This is a discussion that will continue throughout 2008. I do not believe that we will have adopted the European PNR by the end of this year. However, I believe that three criteria – mentioned by Mrs Roure if I am not mistaken – should guide us: proportionality in the collection of these data and their added value for the fight against terrorism, because this is what we are dealing with. If this instrument works, we will adopt it, if it does not work we will adapt it or else we will not adopt it. I personally believe it will be useful, but I think we need to discuss it here. And then there is the matter of how to protect the data collected and how to punish anyone who misuses these data. These are matters for discussion, obviously open, that we can tackle during 2008.
Lastly, immigration. I believe that we should now continue with the general approach to immigration, as the European Council in December said, to think, in view of the future French Presidency, about what the French Government intends to propose as a European pact on immigration, and I have already planned for the Commission to be fully available to work on this matter."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples