Verbatim report of proceedings

Wednesday, 6 June 2007 - Brussels

18. Prüm Treaty: cross-border cooperation in combating terrorism and cross-border crime - Visa Information System (VIS) - Consultation of the Visa Information System (VIS) - Protection of personal data (continuation of debate)

  Sarah Ludford (ALDE), rapporteur. – Mr President, perhaps I could start by endorsing your welcome to those very important visitors. Before I turn to my prepared remarks – and I will try not to take ten minutes, I am sure to your fervent relief – I am afraid I just wish to start on a slightly negative note, which is that this is billed as a joint debate on cross-border cooperation, combating terrorism and crime. Up on the screen it just says that it is a debate about terrorism. In his introduction, Mr Altmaier said that we were going to talk about three cross-border policing projects. Well, the major part of what I want to speak about is the regulation setting up the Visa Information System, which is a border-management system. Its principal purpose is not combating terrorism and crime. I am sorry, but I take severe objection to the labelling of this debate, because I think sloppy thinking like this is what leads us into the idea that you set up a border control or immigration control database – and let us remember that 99.9% of visitors to the European Union are legitimate travellers who do not have any connection with criminality whatsoever, nor indeed do illegal immigrants or unauthorised entrants. It is not itself a criminal offence to be unauthorised on a territory. I am sorry to take up rather a lot of time making that point.

It is two and a half years since the Commission made its proposals on the Visa Information System and we have had nearly a year and a half of often intense negotiations. So I am very pleased indeed that we have reached a strong and balanced agreement on these two highly complex legislative proposals, a regulation and a decision.

I would like to thank the German Presidency, in particular Interior Minister Wolfgang Schäuble, but also Mr Altmaier, for their strong political commitment to these dossiers, as well as previous presidencies, in particular the Finnish Presidency, which also worked hard towards an agreement. In my long list of thanks, I also want to thank the Commission, in particular Vice-President Frattini, who was very hands-on in accompanying us throughout the process and in facilitating the final agreement. I also know that this result would not have been possible without the support of all the shadow rapporteurs – Mr Cashman, Mrs Klamt, Mrs Kaufmann and Mrs Ždanoka – to whom I would like to express my gratitude. Finally, I should like to express my warm thanks to the Parliament staff who put a huge amount of work in and were invaluable. My own assistant, Alexandra, deserves special thanks. She has been absolutely superb.

I would like to make an important institutional point. We have dealt here with two proposals, one in codecision and the other in consultation, but in reality we managed to treat them as a package, so we achieved quasi-codecision on the third-pillar measure as well.

The agreement shows that Parliament is a valid partner in codecision on highly complex justice and home affairs matters. It also shows that the separation between the first and the third pillars is simply inefficient and absurd. Involving the European Parliament on an equal footing in deciding legislation in police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters cannot but increase the legitimacy of the measures decided in this area. So I would take this opportunity to urge leaders gathered for the Summit on 21 June to agree on lifting national vetoes in this area as a general rule.

Turning to the content of our agreement, I think we have managed to achieve what were my goals from the beginning: to have a system with clear purposes, rules and responsibilities and one which represents first and foremost a significant contribution to secure and well-managed borders. It will also deliver real facilitation for lawful travellers, who are the majority of those issued with Schengen visas, as well as an improvement in internal security.

Parliament has introduced much more clarity and rigour into the VIS, limiting the risk of abuse or malfunction and giving citizens the right to receive redress for mistakes. I am confident the system we have built will deliver both proper security and respect for people’s rights and civil liberties. Many other improvements have been introduced in terms of data protection and data security, fall-back procedures for the use of biometrics, strengthened rules on access, use and transfer, and monitoring powers for data protection authorities.

One new element represents a very positive achievement by Parliament and should be seen as a precedent. It concerns access by law enforcement authorities to the VIS database. After quite difficult negotiations, Member States did recognise that the VIS is not primarily a law enforcement tool and that therefore any access by police or intelligence services cannot be direct on-tap access, but must be indirect and supervised through filtering by central access points. These will check the legitimacy of each request, though since Parliament is just as concerned as Member States to have adequate tools to tackle crime and terrorism, we have agreed on an urgency procedure for emergencies of ‘request first, justify later’, which will cover exceptional cases of imminent threats.

The VIS will become the largest biometric database in the world, with details of around 20 million applicants, at any one time holding 70 million sets of fingerprints. Biometrics can enhance but also invade privacy, and the same rigour that has been applied to the VIS has to be applied to building safeguards for other existing or future biometric systems. This is even more important when it comes to possible future interoperability or even interlinkage, which could put privacy severely at risk, as data protection authorities – including the UK Information Commissioner Richard Thomas – have said.

We must make sure as legislators that we do our best to maximise the benefits and minimise the risks of the new technologies. Codecision means co-responsibility, and therefore an important part of the project will be implementation-monitoring and evaluation. Parliament must be kept fully informed on the testing of the system, which I hope will be positive and allow the smooth entry into operation of the system. In EU legislation we are rather too fond of putting in review clauses that remain a dead letter. This must not happen with the VIS.

I would like to finish by highlighting two other important issues. The Council has committed itself through two political declarations to coming up soon with a satisfactory agreement on two crucial pieces of legislation. The first of these is the framework decision on data protection that we are talking a lot about this evening: bringing in proper rules for exchanging the security related data, including that which police will get for accessing the VIS. The second is the so-called ‘return directive’.

It is unnecessary to say why these instruments are so important for Europe and its citizens and I would just urge the Council to keep to its political commitments.

  Martine Roure (PSE), rapporteur. – (FR) Mr President, police and judicial cooperation is a priority for the European Union in order to fight more effectively against organised crime and international terrorism. We are in agreement about that. More police cooperation, however, entails an increased exchange of data between the competent authorities in the Member States.

The European Union must, however, allow a level of protection of the right to privacy that is at least comparable to that guaranteed in the context of the first pillar. That will make it possible to strengthen the principle of mutual confidence which is the cornerstone of police and judicial cooperation. Indeed, if all the competent authorities know that the data they receive is completely reliable and that the data they transfer is protected in the same way as in their own countries, they will not hesitate to exchange information. This joint discussion is therefore positive.

I regret, however, that the Council has not included the need to link the adoption of the framework decision on data protection and the tools for sharing data such as the second generation Schengen Information System (SISII) or the Visa Information System (VIS). In fact, as we have said on numerous occasions, for the European Parliament, it will be impossible to take further the discussions about new exchanges of data without legislation at European Union level regarding data protection.

That is why I deplore the way in which the Prüm Treaty was negotiated and concluded, outside of all the existing instruments at European Union level. We are, of course, very pleased that the German Presidency has allowed it to be incorporated into the competences of the European Union in order, particularly, to ensure democratic monitoring by the European Parliament. Even so, it is not acceptable for consultation with us about this Treaty, which has clear implications for the protection of the right to privacy for European citizens, to have been rushed. The Prüm Treaty includes some provisions concerning data protection, but these are still not sufficient. The adoption of the Prüm Treaty should also be subject to the adoption of the framework decision on data protection in the third pillar.

Having said that, I should like to thank the German Presidency for its efforts to overcome the deadlock over the framework decision on data protection within the Council. I very much appreciated the very constructive contacts I had with the Ministers, Mr Schäuble and Mr Altmaier, and I should like to thank them. I wish also to thank the Commissioner, Mr Frattini for his helpful support.

What we can agree on is that the framework decision is a first step for data protection in the third pillar and must not, under any circumstances, allow a level of protection less than that guaranteed by Convention 108 of the Council of Europe and its protocols.

I hope that the Council will emphasise our compromise proposal concerning the scope of the framework decision. In fact, an assessment in three years will, as Mr Frattini has said, enable us to give practical evidence of the need to extend the scope to data processed at national level.

I recall also that it is absolutely essential for Parliament to tackle the issue of access and management of data by private persons. We are absolutely committed, also, to the need to establish an adequate level of data protection for all transfers to third countries. To be more precise, it is not a matter of setting up a list of countries where the level of data protection is appropriate. It is not about that, but rather about establishing the adequacy of data protection case by case.

The German Presidency recognised our legitimate concern through the adoption of a policy statement attached to VIS. This specifies that the Council is continuing to give priority to the adoption, as soon as possible, of the framework decision on data protection, by the end of 2007 at the latest.

In conclusion, I wish to remind the Council that it made a first political commitment for the swift adoption of this text in December 2005 during the discussion about the retention of data. Today, I can say that the European Parliament has great hopes: the Council will keep its promises.

  Manuel Medina Ortega (PSE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs. – (ES) Mr President, the Committee on Legal Affairs was required by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs to examine the legal basis of the proposal for a Council decision on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime.

The proposal drawn up by the governments that have taken this initiative was based on two articles: Article 30(a) and (b), on operational cooperation, and Article 31, and also Article 34(2c).

The reference to Article 34(2c), and the other previous references, implied that cooperation measures could be adopted, but not the approximation of laws, and in reality the text of the proposal involves the approximation of laws.

The Committee on Legal Affairs took the view that the applicable article would not be Article 34(2c), but Article 34(2b), which allows for the approximation of laws. This proposal, which was approved unanimously within the Committee on Legal Affairs, has been accepted by the Committee on Civil Liberties, and I therefore believe that the proposal is correct and that it should be approved by this Parliament.

  Herbert Reul, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Vice-President Frattini, ladies and gentlemen, the fact that the general public cannot raise much enthusiasm for the European project often casts a shadow over our debates on the future of Europe. What we are initiating now in connection with the Prüm Convention is a major contribution to the bid for a little more support from the people of Europe for this European project. That has something to do with the fact that, by virtue of this Council offensive and the cooperation between ourselves and the Commission, we have managed to take an important issue, namely the public threat emanating from terrorism and organised crime, and go beyond mere speech-making to achieve tangible improvements. We have discussed this on various occasions here in Parliament and in the competent committee and have established that there is an urgent need to act on the question of cross-border police cooperation. Time and again we have expressed regret at not making more rapid progress or indeed any progress at all.

We know that, in the domains of DNA-matching and fingerprint-matching, exchanging information could increase people’s security. I am therefore extremely pleased that a degree of success has been achieved with the proposal to bring parts of the Prüm Convention into a European legislative framework.

Let me also say in all honesty that I would have hoped for more. In our preceding debates, we had already gone further. May I also say that, at some points, our group would not have gone so far on the detailed weighting of the data-protection structure, because we believe that these additional decisions would not have been necessary, given that the matters in question are already covered by the Prüm Convention. On assessing the instrument as a whole, however – and the rapporteur has already made this point – we ultimately decided to support the project in its entirety, despite our remaining reservations on one or two provisions.

It is important that this project should have an impact and that we should register a success in this sphere. It will serve to enhance the public image of Europe.

  Michael Cashman, on behalf of the PSE Group. – Mr President, it is always good to see you in the Chair when we are discussing fundamental freedoms and human rights. I am speaking on the VIS regulation and decision.

I would like to say that after two and a half years it feels as though it is the end of an unrequited love affair. I have admired this dossier from afar; I have wrestled with it, I have caressed it, but I have never felt that it has really returned my passion. I would nevertheless like to thank Baroness Ludford and the other shadow rapporteurs for the close cooperation that we have had.

However, two and a half years is not really good enough. We should not be patting ourselves on the back. It is a first reading deal, but progress has been slow. We have before us a good package, but nonetheless if we are to be efficient when we are working in codecision, we need to work more quickly and more efficiently. I have to say that this is a call for greater resources, not only for the Commission, but for the Parliament, both within the committee secretariat and within our own delegation secretariats.

As I said, we have a text which represents a balanced position. It does not include everything that the Socialists would have wanted, but my Group feels it does contain the major elements: limited and proportionate access; data protection rules; the right of appeal, which is absolutely essential; sanctions for misuse and the principle of non-discrimination, which I am proud to say was set in the precedent of my report on the Schengen border code. We are also pleased that the German Presidency can agree to the package of the VIS regulation and the VIS decision, again equally important for us. We also welcome the Council’s willingness to reach agreement on the third-pillar data protection framework decision. This is of prime importance.

I would like to finish perhaps on a somewhat controversial note: the issue of biometrics and in particular fingerprints. Here we need a change of mindset if we are properly to enhance civil liberties, in particular freedom of movement, and, essentially, the protection of minors who are travelling unaccompanied. I believe this will help us to prohibit the trafficking of minors. Will privacy be invaded or at risk? I do not think so. The risk to privacy is dependent upon the use of biometrics and the storage of biometrics.

I end, as I began, by applauding all sides of the House, the Commission and the Presidency on the close cooperation that we have had.

  Alexander Alvaro, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Altmaier, ladies and gentlemen, we have had a very detailed briefing on the VIS, and anything I might add to that would only water down the good things that have already been said.

Accordingly, I would like to concentrate on the Prüm Treaty. I agree with my honourable colleague, Mr Herbert Reul, that a sound instrument has been created here. The fact that the data I used to request through the system of official and judicial assistance can now be exchanged digitally makes thoroughly good sense. There is not a great deal to be said on the aim and the idea. I do fear, however, that we are making three cardinal errors – one in the field of internal security, one in the realm of justice and home affairs and one with regard to the third pillar. We believe that speed, per se, is a virtue. We no longer take time to consider whether certain things are actually working or how they could be improved. As far as the third pillar is concerned, we have heard one or two comments today about transparency and democracy, at least with regard to the involvement of Parliament and its right to receive information. The main point I want to make is this: of course exchanges work well between Germany and Austria. We know that successes have been registered there. But now imagine the situation with 27 Member States. Work out the sheer number of possible combinations, what that will mean in terms of the volume of data exchanges and also what a database has to be able to deliver in this context. We do not know whether it is even technically feasible in its present form.

My other point is that data, particularly the likes of fingerprints and DNA data, are stored in the various Member States for different reasons. The United Kingdom, as my honourable colleague Sarah Ludford is probably all too well aware, is currently establishing a database that will eventually cover the entire population. At what point does the exchange of such data become legitimate and workable in these circumstances? Cost is another matter. The Member States still have to foot the bill, although I believe that, at a pinch, parts of the cost could be transferred to the community budget – we would have to see what agreement is reached; I know that Poland, for example, takes a different view. I seem to remember reading a document from the Presidency of the Council, which estimated that Germany would incur costs of around EUR 900 000. This makes me wonder how, in its study, the House of Lords could estimate the cost of the project for Britain at some EUR 35 million. Surely there cannot be such huge differences in the way these figures are assessed!

Had we not had such an excellent committee secretariat and such outstanding staff, we should not even have reached page 2 in our assessment of the Prüm Treaty and the accompanying parliamentary opinion. Finally, I have a request to make. You have heard often enough that the procedure has come under heavy fire here. It certainly does not accord with the principle of better lawmaking or with the democratic involvement of a third institution. Let us cooperate properly and reasonably in future rather than proceeding in the way that was done with the Prüm Treaty – even if you do have a formal right to exert pressure on us through the three-month limit. It is not entirely conducive to a good working climate either if a senior civil servant from the Council Presidency, when asked in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs what is happening with the parliamentary amendments on Prüm, replies, ‘Well, if we took them into account at this stage and reopened the package that has been sealed with the Member States, we would never make any progress’. That is no way to cooperate. In all other respects, Mr Altmaier, you know that I hold you in high regard!

  Andrzej Tomasz Zapałowski, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Mr President, terrorism and crime are currently amongst the most serious threats to the daily lives of the inhabitants of the European Community. Clearly, greater cooperation is needed between Member States of the Union concerning the exchange of information on individuals representing a potential threat. It must be borne in mind, however, that sensitive data on Union citizens cannot be made available to police and border guard bodies in the course of standard checks. Of course, as far as possible, the aforementioned services must have access to such information with regard to citizens of third countries. This is particularly true of those countries where criminal activity may be widespread.

Making sensitive data available to the special services and investigative authorities of Member States in cases where it is likely that certain individuals are involved in criminal groups is quite another matter. I endorse the view of the Committee on Legal Affairs, namely that this issue should be regulated on the basis of the provisions of the Treaty on European Union, as some of the provisions of the resolution relate to the sovereignty of European Union Member States.

  Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Mr President, I would like to speak briefly on the visa-information system. It is undoubtedly something we need. At the same time, I must say that I still have several concerns about the actual structure of the VIS.

These concerns relate primarily to the extensive introduction of biometrics. We still have no specific impact assessment, and it is totally unclear whether it is even administratively possible to handle such large volumes of data. That, however, has crucial implications for data security and, above all, for the fundamental rights of every single registered person.

I also envisage problems with regard to the access of security authorities to the VIS in the framework of police and judicial cooperation, for there is still no appropriate harmonised mechanism for the protection of data within the third pillar.

In my view, the draft that has now been presented by the German Presidency of the Council is a far cry from the text that was originally approved by Parliament in September 2006, and it falls far short of the level of data protection applicable to activities within the first pillar. For these reasons I cannot support the regulation or the decision in their present form, and I shall abstain from voting.

Let me conclude by thanking all of the rapporteurs for the cooperative spirit in which they went about their work.

  Gerard Batten, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – President, the purpose of the Prüm Treaty clearly states that it is to play a pioneering role in the integration of the EU. We all know that talk of combating crime and terrorism is secondary to the real purpose. As a framework decision of the Council, it will become part of the EU body of law, its provisions set in stone and not subject to any real democratic scrutiny or approval. The British Parliament will have no opportunity to prevent the implementation of this Convention, and even this Parliament only has a consultative role.

Britain faces a particular danger. For example, it has the largest DNA database in the world with samples collected from over 4.2 million people, many of whom are entirely innocent and have never been charged with any offence. These people are suspects in waiting. This is the creation of a Big Brother Europe by the back door in pursuit of further political integration.

  Ewa Klamt (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the legal basis for the visa-information system on which we are to vote tomorrow is one of those dossiers that has been finally brought to a successful conclusion after intense wrangling on all sides and lengthy negotiations. It is therefore to be hoped that an important European instrument for the acceleration and supervision of the visa-issuing process will be on its way to the statute book before the summer recess. Exchanges of data on visa applicants from non-Schengen countries between the asylum and immigration authorities and between the border and security authorities will considerably speed up the processing and checking of visas. That will help those bona fide travellers without criminal records who enter the European Union, including those who travel frequently to and from the Union, because they will now obtain a visa more quickly and with fewer formalities, whether they are travelling as tourists or on business. At the same time, it will facilitate surveillance, which is indispensable in a European Union with open internal borders.

All of the political groups can be satisfied with the outcome. On the one hand, the European Union seeks to ensure that visas are dealt with speedily and hospitably. On the other hand, it seeks to protect its citizens by preventing illegal entry and the associated forms of organised crime.

My thanks go the rapporteurs and to all of my honourable colleagues who have worked constructively to find solutions. Let me also say a special word of thanks to the German Presidency, which won acceptance in the Council for many of our wishes.

  Stavros Lambrinidis (PSE). – (EL) Mr President, the German Presidency deserves our congratulations for having at long last stirred up the stagnant waters of data protection under the third pillar. However, the same cannot be said for the procedures followed in the case of the Prüm Treaty.

The history of the Prüm Treaty is that it got off on the wrong foot, continued on the wrong foot and I hope that it will somehow end well. It was wrong for seven Member States to proceed initially with this Treaty by circumventing the European institutions. It was wrong for another 10 to hasten recently to declare their readiness to join this extra-institutional cooperation. The German Presidency was right to decide ultimately to integrate the Prüm Treaty into the European frameworks, but it is wrong to promote it all of a sudden, without so much as a serious evaluation of its efficacy. It is very wrong to promote it without any valid and adequate data protection framework under the third pillar and it is very wrong to promote it with such haste, thereby undermining in practice the facility for Parliament to play its advisory role in an integrated manner.

Despite the problems, Parliament has managed to draft a very good report and Mr Correia naturally deserves our warmest congratulations. A series of albeit few but serious safeguards will be adopted tomorrow on the legal and limited exchange, use and protection of DNA and data files.

I hope that the Council will adopt our amendments, in order to rescue the credibility of what is, all other things being equal, the necessary – I repeat necessary – cooperation between police forces. This cooperation has over recent years tilted dangerously towards surveillance and repression, without adequate safeguards for fundamental rights. This slippery slope is often tempting in the short term to police forces and governments, but in the long term it is extremely dangerous to the functioning of democracy.

  Adina-Ioana Vălean (ALDE). – Mr President, I am very satisfied with the package of proposals that Parliament is going to adopt tomorrow. In recent years we have stepped up efforts at European level to encourage cross-border cooperation in combating terrorism and crime. Ensuring effective exchange of information between national police services is essential in a Europe without internal borders, but I believe that this should automatically imply a higher level of data protection. This is why I also warmly welcome the adoption of the decision ensuring protection of personal data used for security purposes.

Undoubtedly, these instruments will be extremely useful, but the Prüm episode also demonstrates that we now need a global vision for policymaking in judicial and police cooperation. I believe that it is time to stop piling up new laws. Instead, the Commission would be inspired to make an evaluation of the existing legislation in this area. This would allow us to eventually start adopting a coherent approach. In that perspective, it is also crucial to adopt the Constitution that provides for better decision-making in the justice area as it exclusively gives the Commission the right of initiative. In an era when the most exciting hobby seems to be collecting mountains and piles of data, perhaps we should stop for a minute and wonder: is it really used, useful and necessary?

  Adamos Adamou (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Mr President, we are taking a stand today in principle on an agreement concerning exchanges between the security services of the Member States of information of a strictly personal nature, on a Treaty which includes joint action by foreign and domestic special services on the territory of the Member States, on the pretext of maintaining public order.

The Treaty also includes the provision for joint action by the police and special forces of two or more states at events of international importance – both political and sporting – where demonstrations and gatherings are planned. At the same time, a third Member State is entitled to hand over DNA profiles, fingerprints and other personal data on suspects. However, most dangerous of all is the legalisation of the presence of foreign agents and their action in a third Member State. Services are granted the right to enter and invade the territory of a contracting state in an emergency at any time, even in the absence of any local authority.

I call on us all to be very careful in how we vote. We must not sacrifice our civil liberties in the name of combating terrorism.

  Manfred Weber (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, these are good times for those of us who work in the realm of home-affairs policy. On the one hand, we can see progress being made in pursuit of the area of security and justice with the Prüm and VIS instruments, while on the other hand we can also see progress on civil rights with the framework decision on data protection.

I should like to focus on data protection. In the third pillar we have taken a real step forward. I must stress that we in this House, including my political group, have great faith in the public authorities. When we speak of protecting data, this is not intended to sound like distrust. Much progress has been achieved, and the successes connected with the integration of the Prüm Convention in particular are there for all to see. To my honourable colleague Alexander Alvaro I have to say that I am less worried about the anticipated high volumes of stored data; on the contrary, I am delighted that they will enable us to solve thousands of serious crimes in Europe and to give people security.

The data-protection framework restores the balance between the existing and necessary powers of our authorities on the one hand and people’s civil rights on the other. There are still many unanswered questions, but we are now taking a step forward. I would like to emphasise that we in the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats support a clearly defined data-protection framework, which we regard as a very important objective.

At the end of the day, it was a hard nut to crack. I should therefore like to express my appreciation to everyone involved in the effort: the German Presidency, without which this progress would have been inconceivable, Martine Roure, who negotiated magnificently on behalf of Parliament, and, of course, our Commissioner, Franco Frattini, who lent us suitably vigorous support.

I would still point out to the Council that a few objections, albeit far fewer than before, are still surfacing in the discussion of the data-protection framework. We hope that a result can nevertheless be achieved and that we can sign, seal and deliver the whole package.

With regard to the procedure, let me say that my own personal view is that, in the area covered by the Prüm Convention, we would not have progressed so far in the domain of police cooperation by today if certain Member States had not sailed ahead as flagships, for it took their success to enable us to achieve these present results in the Council. For that reason I have no problems with the procedure. All I would say – and this is also addressed to the Council – is that, when it comes to incorporating the Prüm provisions into EU legislation, the European Parliament must be involved. During today’s proceedings it was noticeable that Parliament occasionally comes in for praise, even though its Members are sometimes recalcitrant. They are ultimately very sensible people, however, and will support sound compromises.

  Marianne Mikko (PSE). – (ET) The Treaty of Prüm is an excellent example of how the European Union can take rapid and effective action. The need for the treaty is shown by the doubling in the number of states that have joined, or shown interest in, it during the last three months, in other words during the period in which we have been discussing this report.

As a quick fix, the partial integration of the Treaty of Prüm into the framework of the European Union is a welcome development. Yet the fact that such an important treaty had to be snuck in through the back door is a worrying symptom.

Most Member States did not have the opportunity to have a say in shaping cooperation that is of importance to internal security. This is yet another step towards a two-speed Europe.

A two-speed Europe can, however, only be a temporary solution. It is only when the European Union is united that it can be greater than the sum of its Member States. When divided, we cannot even organise a stable energy supply.

We did not have enough time to do thorough work to create a stable basis for cross-border cooperation in the area of internal security. That is very unfortunate. In discussing this report, it became clear how poorly the Member States’ practices match each other.

We require a common set of rules, especially in the area of data protection, but as long as important problems in the area of internal security fall under the third pillar, there is no cause for optimism.

I would like to congratulate the rapporteur and thank him for the amendments that greatly compensate for the institutions’ unfinished work.

Naturally, Parliament cannot simply be satisfied with what has been achieved. Europe must awaken from its period of consideration and move forward decisively. The European Union needs rapid cooperation mechanisms that work smoothly even when our Union has more Member States than it has today.

  Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE). – President, I am very pleased that the German Presidency has made data protection in the third pillar one of its priorities. However, I am less pleased if I look at the various proposals that have been circulated. I would urge the Council to take on board not only the recommendations of the European Parliament, but also the criticisms and concerns expressed by the European Data Protection Supervisor.

First of all, I am a bit mystified by the fact that we still seem to have 27 different regimes, which creates a lot of uncertainty for citizens and businesses. Secondly, there are so many vague and open definitions, for example on purpose limitation; there are so many exceptions to citizens’ rights and to safeguards, that in the end it seems that this proposal will undermine the position of citizens rather than strengthen it.

To give an example, Article 7 on the exchange of sensitive data such as political preference, medical data or data on sex life are supposed to be exchanged ‘only when strictly necessary and with adequate safeguards’. What does that mean? Who is to define what is strictly necessary? What are the criteria? What are the adequate safeguards? That is dangerously open.

And a final question to which we have never had a straight answer: we know that the Council and the Commission are having talks with the US on a transatlantic regime for data protection. That in itself is a good thing, but right up to now and despite repeated questions, it is not clear to me what the basis is for those talks. If the basis is the low standards in your proposal for EU data protection in the third pillar, then I am very concerned about the rights of European citizens in our dealings with the US.

  Philip Bradbourn (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I rise to speak in this debate on one issue only, and that is the Prüm Treaty. In my view, this issue has been rushed through by the Council with what can only be described as indecent haste. The implications of this Treaty are far-reaching and will affect all EU citizens. To give just one example, the provisions of the Treaty could mean that data is shared and exchanged on all EU citizens regardless of whether they are suspected or convicted of a crime. Indeed, the European Data Protection Supervisor, as was mentioned by our previous speaker, has highlighted this and is gravely concerned. In a recent report, he said that the circle of data subjects that can be included in this system is not limited to data on persons suspected or convicted of specific crimes.

In the European Union, where we promote civil liberties and data protection, why are we allowing this to happen? Also, there is the issue of hot pursuit, where foreign police are free to enter other Member States without permission and with powers of arrest, thus negating civilised extradition procedures. In my view this is unacceptable. The system used in the recent World Cup in Germany, where foreign police were sent to assist the local forces but without the powers of executive action, worked perfectly well. To use the English expression, ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’.

Overall, this Treaty is a classic example of where a few Member States are trying to impose their system on all other Member States. In this case only eight countries have signed up to this Treaty and we are now trying to foist it upon the rest. We should not be going in this direction and I would prefer to see Member States being given the option to opt into the parts of the Treaty where it suits their national interest and not to seek to have opt-outs or derogations. Unless this is the case, I could not support bringing such a provision into the EU acquis. It is a dangerous and ill-thought-through measure which does little to inform public safety, but does much to shatter public confidence in due process.

  Panayiotis Demetriou (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr President, it would appear from the debate, both today and on other occasions, that we all agree that everything possible must be done to combat terrorism, organised crime and immigration. We also all agree that there must be police and judicial cooperation in order to achieve results in this sector and we also all agree that information needs to be exchanged between the competent bodies in each Member State for the purpose of the cross-border combating of crime, terrorism and immigration.

Where do we disagree? Where is our disagreement focused? It focuses on the point that we must take care of the human rights chapter. We must take care of the personal data protection chapter and there is, I think, no one who disagrees with this position. The question is, where must we draw the line in order to strike a balance between the general public interest and private interests? I am of the opinion that, because we are all sensitive to the issue of human rights, there is no need for an auction; the auction which some people are trying to create or present in this chapter is an insult. I would, however, say this: that academic debate is not needed in the face of reality. The ancient Romans said, 'Primum vivere, deinde philosophari'. Crime, terrorism and illegal immigration are there and we must therefore find ways of addressing this situation without infringing the principle and the right of protection of human rights.

I am of the opinion that the three rapporteurs have presented balanced reports and that is why I congratulate them and call on the House to put prejudices aside and to support these reports.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE). – (PT) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr Frattini, ladies and gentlemen, increasing security and fighting cross-border international crime and terrorism entails not only strengthening our common external borders but also rapid and efficient exchange of information regarding border controls and judicial cooperation.

Establishing closer police and judicial cooperation on criminal matters and setting up a visa information system (VIS) are similarly important. I therefore support the reports presented to us by Mr Correia, Baroness Ludford and Mrs Roure, and special mention goes to Baroness Ludford for finally achieving an agreement after two and a half years of negotiations.

The proposal to step up cross-border cooperation includes some of the main provisions of the Prüm Treaty, in particular as regards the fight against terrorism, cross-border crime and illegal migration, whereby the most substantive requirements of the Hague Programme can be fulfilled. It also contains some improvements on the exchange of information and on the provision of personal data, the protection of which is a fundamental right.

I welcome the proposal and support Mr Correia’s view that this initiative should take the form of a framework decision, given that its objective is to bring together the Member States’ laws and regulations. On the other hand, the VIS should be the third major system supported on computer technology to be created as part of the area of freedom, security and justice.

I welcome the fact that agreement has finally been reached, in such a way that we can press ahead with setting up such a vital system, which will improve the administration of the common visa system, consular cooperation and consultation between the central consular authorities, will help prevent threats to internal security and visa shopping, will facilitate the fight against fraud and checks at the external border posts and in the territory of the Member States and, lastly, will contribute towards identifying and returning – I stress the word ‘returning’ – illegal immigrants, thus facilitating the implementation of the Dublin II Regulation.

  Barbara Kudrycka (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, I welcome the fact that Parliament has succeeded in adopting a unified stance on the Prüm Treaty. The compromise amendments indicate that certain issues still remain to be considered by the Council, however. In this way, the European Parliament is making it clear that the chosen method of negotiation in a small group and the attempt to introduce provisions adopted earlier into Union legislation is not an appropriate way to proceed, and this should be emphasised. This method fails to afford equal treatment to Member States, bypasses Parliament and gives rise to serious legal, organisational and political concerns. It should therefore be the exception not the rule, and also serve as a warning not to proceed in that way with regard to other third pillar issues in the future.

Everyone is agreed on the need for a visa system to ensure better implementation of the visa policy. It is important to understand that adoption of the legal basis is only the beginning. We are all aware of the history of SIS II. Pressure was applied to ensure swift adoption of the legal basis and then serious problems regarding technical implementation emerged at a later stage. An effort must therefore be made to put this legislation into practice and implement specific actions so that the visa system can come into operation in the spring of 2009.

Finally, concerning Mrs Roure’s report I should like to say that surely we are all now hoping that it will prove possible to reach agreement with the Council on this issue. The protection of what is very often highly sensitive personal data under the third pillar should not be weaker than the protection of such data under the first pillar. I am aware of the legal limitations we have to take into account, and I trust that the compromises reached in Parliament will become binding legislation at the earliest opportunity. I also hope that they will no longer be an obstacle to the introduction of SIS and a single visa management system at the agreed time.

IN THE CHAIR: MR McMILLAN-SCOTT
Vice-President

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE-DE). – Succesul punerii în aplicare a Tratatului de la Prüm poate fi deplin doar în momentul în care toate statele Uniunii Europene îşi vor asuma prevederile acestuia. Eficienţa controlului transfrontalier este decisivă în combaterea terorismului şi a crimei organizate. Pentru moment însă, datorită dispunerii geografice a statelor semnatare se creează frontiere artificiale în interiorul Uniunii, ceea ce poate fi considerat un pas înapoi. Cooperarea transfrontalieră este, astfel, obstrucţionată iar infractorii şi-ar putea găsi refugiul în ţări care se găsesc în afara sistemului comun de baze de date poliţieneşti şi judiciare. Transpunerea în legislaţia comunitară a clauzelor referitoare la schimbul automat de date va permite combaterea mult mai eficientă a criminalităţii.

Cele două aspecte importante pentru a asigura succesul demersului sunt finanţarea creării bazelor de date şi protecţia acestora. De aceea, instituţiile europene trebuie să identifice mijloace care să asigure armonizarea la nivel european şi, în acelaşi timp, să sprijine statele membre în finanţarea sistemului. Dacă se va asigura acest lucru, implementarea va fi mult mai facilă şi rezultatele vor fi pozitive.

  Peter Altmaier, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) Mr President, Let me make three very brief remarks. Firstly, I should like to apologise to Baroness Ludford for not having explicitly emphasised the aspect of securing borders in connection with the VIS. In that respect you are quite right.

Secondly, I hope you will understand why we pressed so hard for the speedy integration of the Prüm Convention. I realise this was asking a lot of you. But please also bear in mind that so many states have acceded to the Prüm Convention that I do not know whether, in a year’s time, the Council would still have encountered sufficient willingness to incorporate its provisions into the legislation of the European Union.

Thirdly, at the end of this debate I reiterate my sincere thanks to all those who have helped to ensure that we were able to demonstrate the capacity of the European Union to act in three very important areas.

  President. The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Katalin Lévai (PSE), in writing. – (HU) I congratulate the rapporteur and support the fight against terrorism and cross-border crime, as well as the efforts directed at strengthening cross-border cooperation.

I would emphasise that this struggle is directed against a deleterious phenomenon of our age, one which makes victims of ordinary citizens, including women and children.

Therefore, I consider it highly significant that at the informal meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Ministers held in January 2007 in Dresden under the leadership of the German Presidency, an initiative was announced regarding the transposition of the Prüm Convention into EU law.

Important elements of the proposal are developing reciprocal access to special databases, the development and operation of national contact points, and the high level of data protection. I would like to emphasise police cooperation in border regions, and carrying out joint operations as well as cooperation in cases of events that draw large crowds and in the event of catastrophes.

I consider it regrettable, however, that the proposal omitted the scope of actions that can be taken in the event of immediate danger, as well as the issue of air marshals, the struggle against illegal immigration, as well as the broader range of rules for police cooperation along border areas.

Every person must be guaranteed the right to live in safety. At the same time, in the interest of protecting personal data, I consider it to be necessary to specify, in relation to the rules for the transmission of data, to which crime-fighting body the data requested may be submitted via the central contact points. It is, moreover, necessary to develop the good practice of achieving the requisite level of data protection, while the automatic use of the latter does not impede the desired exchange of information among the Member States.

  James Nicholson (PPE-DE), in writing. – I will abstain in the vote on this report mainly because the UK is not a part of the Schengen agreement and as such I should not be involved in determining policy in other Member States. However, I also recognise the difference in jurisprudence in the UK in contrast to other Member States. This issue of compatibility has broader implications and needs to be dealt with in an appropriate manner. I will be interested in the outcome of the court rulings on this issue. I recognise the positive aspect that this system will bring to security; however, the dangers are also relevant and need to be taken into account. Thus the broader implications of the Visa Information System make me hesitant to approve or denounce its implementation.