Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-10-23-Speech-1-091"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech⁶
dcterms:Date	"2006-10-23"^^xsd:date⁶
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:SIS II loomine, toimimine ja kasutamine (määrus) - SIS II loomine, toimimine ja kasutamine (otsus) - Sõidukite registreerimistunnistusi väljaandvate teenistuste juurdepääs SIS II-le (arutelu)⁶
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language⁶
lpv:document identification number	"en.20061023.16.1-091"⁶
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-10-23-Speech-1-092⁶
lpv:speaker	lp:Edith Mastenbroek⁶
lpv:spoken text	"Mr President, let me take this opportunity to thank Mr Coelho for his outstanding performance on this file. It is, after all, thanks to him and his negotiating skills that the decision-making procedure on this important and complex package of legislation has been finished in time. Mr Coelho was confronted with some tough choices during this process. Producing law at record speed is efficient, but it cannot be denied that this efficiency comes at the expense of transparency. My group is worried about the lack of data protection concerning the second generation of the Schengen Information System. The Council finally agreed to refer to the framework decision on data protection in the third pillar. A referral like that is the least we can do to protect our citizens’ rights and we are not there yet – far from it. The Council initially refused the referral because the decision had not yet been taken. That is true, but why? Is it not the Council that is putting the brakes on this issue? And is it not the Council that is aiming to water down the decision, almost to the point that there is hardly anything left to protect? I cannot help but mention here the German Government’s offer to make data protection in the third pillar a priority during its Presidency, provided we agree to make some fundamental changes at the last minute . Well, that leaves a bitter taste indeed, after the British Government promised to deliver if Parliament agreed with data retention and did not; after both the Austrian and Finnish Presidencies did not seem too keen on pushing the issue forward, but are nevertheless watering down the proposal. Yes, German Government, you will have to make this one of your priorities, but not in exchange for a favour. You will have to do it because citizens deserve it and they deserve it now. The lack of data protection makes it all the more worrisome that the Parliament is asked to give up its decision-making rights concerning biometrics. Again, this is all in the spirit of efficiency, but at the expense of transparency, and therefore democracy. So why am I proposing to vote in favour, in spite of all this criticism? For many reasons. I will mention just a few. The citizens of Europe do not appear to be particularly worried about co- or framework decisions; they are, however, worried about the increasing number of stolen cars finding their way to eastern European Member States and would like us to take the necessary steps to fight that growing area of crime. In an area without internal borders, we also need to have a joint approach to illegal immigration. No matter how difficult this issue is for many of us, we need a common tool to deal with the presence of illegal immigrants. Also, the Schengen Information System will add more meaning and substance to the European arrest warrant and strengthen the role of Europol and Eurojust with the increasing cooperation of our police and security forces."@en⁴
lpv:spokenAs	member; CONT (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)²² substitute; Temporary Committee on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transport and illegal detention of prisoners (2006-01-19--2007-02-14)²² substitute; JURI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)²² member; Delegation for relations with Israel (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)²² member; PES (2004-07-20--2008-04-29)²² member; LIBE (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)²² unknown; Partij van de Arbeid (2004-07-20--2008-04-29)²²
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, let me take this opportunity to thank Mr Coelho for his outstanding performance on this file. It is, after all, thanks to him and his negotiating skills that the decision-making procedure on this important and complex package of legislation has been finished in time. Mr Coelho was confronted with some tough choices during this process. Producing law at record speed is efficient, but it cannot be denied that this efficiency comes at the expense of transparency. My group is worried about the lack of data protection concerning the second generation of the Schengen Information System. The Council finally agreed to refer to the framework decision on data protection in the third pillar. A referral like that is the least we can do to protect our citizens’ rights and we are not there yet – far from it. The Council initially refused the referral because the decision had not yet been taken. That is true, but why? Is it not the Council that is putting the brakes on this issue? And is it not the Council that is aiming to water down the decision, almost to the point that there is hardly anything left to protect? I cannot help but mention here the German Government’s offer to make data protection in the third pillar a priority during its Presidency, provided we agree to make some fundamental changes at the last minute . Well, that leaves a bitter taste indeed, after the British Government promised to deliver if Parliament agreed with data retention and did not; after both the Austrian and Finnish Presidencies did not seem too keen on pushing the issue forward, but are nevertheless watering down the proposal. Yes, German Government, you will have to make this one of your priorities, but not in exchange for a favour. You will have to do it because citizens deserve it and they deserve it now. The lack of data protection makes it all the more worrisome that the Parliament is asked to give up its decision-making rights concerning biometrics. Again, this is all in the spirit of efficiency, but at the expense of transparency, and therefore democracy. So why am I proposing to vote in favour, in spite of all this criticism? For many reasons. I will mention just a few. The citizens of Europe do not appear to be particularly worried about co- or framework decisions; they are, however, worried about the increasing number of stolen cars finding their way to eastern European Member States and would like us to take the necessary steps to fight that growing area of crime. In an area without internal borders, we also need to have a joint approach to illegal immigration. No matter how difficult this issue is for many of us, we need a common tool to deal with the presence of illegal immigrants. Also, the Schengen Information System will add more meaning and substance to the European arrest warrant and strengthen the role of Europol and Eurojust with the increasing cooperation of our police and security forces."@cs¹ "Hr. formand! Jeg benytter denne lejlighed til at takke hr. Coelho for hans enestående betænkning. Når alt kommer til alt, kan vi takke ham og hans forhandlingsevner for, at beslutningsproceduren for denne vigtige og komplekse lovgivningspakke er blevet afsluttet til tiden. Hr. Coelho stod over for nogle barske valg i denne proces. Det er effektivt at udvikle lovgivning med rekordhastighed, men det kan ikke nægtes, at denne effektivitet sker på bekostning af gennemsigtigheden. Min gruppe er bekymret over den manglende databeskyttelse i forbindelse med den anden generation af Schengen-informationssystemet. Rådet nåede langt om længe til enighed om at henvise til rammeafgørelsen om databeskyttelse under den tredje søjle. Det er det mindste, vi kan gøre for at beskytte borgernes rettigheder, og vi er endnu ikke nået så langt - på ingen måde. Rådet nægtede i første omgang at henvise til denne rammeafgørelse, fordi afgørelsen endnu ikke var blevet truffet. Det er korret, men hvorfor? Er det ikke Rådet, der sætter bremserne i? Og er det ikke Rådet, der ønsker at udhule afgørelsen i en sådan grad, at der næsten ikke er noget tilbage, der skal beskyttes? I denne forbindelse skal jeg ikke undlade at gøre opmærksom på den tyske regerings løfte om at prioritere databeskyttelse under den tredje søjle under sit formandskab, under forudsætning af at vi accepterer nogle grundlæggende ændringer i sidste øjeblik på stedet. Det efterlader sandelig en bitter smag henseende til, at den britiske regering lovede at behandle forslaget, hvis Parlamentet accepterede bestemmelserne om datalagring, hvilket den ikke gjorde, og henseende til at både det østrigske og finske formandskab ikke virkede særlig opsat på at sætte skub i sagen, idet de tværtimod er ved at udhule forslaget. Den tyske regering skal prioritere dette spørgsmål, men ikke på betingelse af en indrømmelse. Regeringen skal gøre dette, fordi borgerne fortjener det, og de fortjener det i dag. Den manglende databeskyttelse er så meget desto mere bekymrende, som Parlamentet anmodes om at give afkald på sine beslutningsbeføjelser vedrørende biometriske data. Dette krav stilles også ud fra hensynet til effektiviteten, men på bekostning af gennemsigtigheden og således demokratiet. Hvorfor foreslår jeg, at vi stemmer for på trods af de mange kritikpunkter? Der er mange grunde, og jeg vil blot nævne nogle få. Borgerne i Europa er tilsyneladende ikke særlig bekymret over fælles beslutninger eller rammebeslutninger. De er imidlertid bekymret over det stigende antal stjålne biler, der finder vej til østeuropæiske medlemsstater, og de ønsker, at vi træffer de nødvendige foranstaltninger til bekæmpelse af dette voksende kriminalitetsområde. I et område uden indre grænser bliver vi også nødt til at have en fælles tilgang til ulovlig indvandring. Uanset hvor vanskeligt dette spørgsmål er for mange af os, har vi brug for et fælles instrument til at håndtere tilstedeværelsen af ulovlige indvandrere. Som følge af Schengen-informationssystemet vil den europæiske arrestordre få større betydning og et større reelt indhold, og Europols og Eurojusts rolle vil blive styrket gennem det forstærkede samarbejde mellem vores politi- og sikkerhedsstyrker."@da² "Herr Präsident! Ich möchte die Gelegenheit nutzen und Herrn Coelho für seine ausgezeichnete Arbeit zu diesem Sachverhalt danken. Schließlich ist es ihm und seinem Verhandlungsgeschick zu verdanken, dass die Entscheidungsfindung zu diesem wichtigen und umfangreichen Legislativpaket rechtzeitig abgeschlossen werden konnte. Herr Coelho stand im Verlauf dieses Prozesses vor einigen schwierigen Entscheidungen. Es zeugt zwar von Effektivität, wenn Rechtsvorschriften in Rekordgeschwindigkeit formuliert werden, doch es ist nicht von der Hand zu weisen, dass diese Effektivität auf Kosten der Transparenz erreicht wird. Meiner Fraktion bereitet der fehlende Datenschutz im Zusammenhang mit dem Schengener Informationssystem der zweiten Generation Sorgen. Der Rat hat letztendlich Einverständnis über den vorgeschlagenen Datenschutz-Rahmenbeschluss für die Tätigkeiten der dritten Säule erzielt. Dies ist das Mindeste, was wir für den Schutz der Rechte unserer Bürger tun können, und wir sind noch nicht – noch lange nicht – an diesem Ziel angelangt. Zunächst hat der Rat die Überweisung abgelehnt, weil noch keine Entscheidung vorlag. Dies stimmt, aber warum? Versucht nicht der Rat, diese Frage hinauszuzögern? Und ist nicht der Rat bestrebt, den Beschluss beinahe so weit zu verwässern, dass es kaum noch etwas zu schützen gibt? Ich muss an dieser Stelle dringend auf das Angebot der deutschen Regierung hinweisen, dem Datenschutz für die Tätigkeiten der dritten Säule während des deutschen Ratsvorsitzes Priorität einzuräumen, vorausgesetzt wir einigen uns hier und jetzt auf einige grundlegende Veränderungen. Dies hinterlässt natürlich einen bitteren Nachgeschmack, nachdem die britische Regierung ihr Handeln zugesagt hatte, wenn das Parlament zur Datenerfassung eine Einigung erzielt, und dann nichts geschah; nachdem sowohl die österreichische als auch die finnische Ratspräsidentschaft nicht allzu bestrebt schienen, in dieser Angelegenheit Fortschritte zu erzielen, den Vorschlag nun aber dennoch entkräften. Ja, die deutsche Regierung muss daraus eine ihrer Prioritäten machen, aber ohne Gegenleistungen. Sie muss es tun, denn die Bürger verdienen es, und zwar jetzt. Angesichts des mangelnden Datenschutzes ist es umso beunruhigender, dass das Parlament aufgefordert wird, auf seine Entscheidungsbefugnisse im Bereich der Biometrie zu verzichten. Dies geschieht erneut im Sinne der Effizienz, doch auf Kosten der Transparenz und damit der Demokratie. Warum schlage ich also, trotz all der Kritik, eine Zustimmung vor? Dafür gibt es viele Gründe. Ich möchte nur einige davon nennen. Die europäischen Bürger scheinen sich keine allzu großen Gedanken über Mitentscheidungen oder Rahmenbeschlüsse zu machen; was ihnen jedoch Sorge bereitet, ist die Tatsache, dass immer mehr Autos gestohlen und in osteuropäische Mitgliedstaaten transportiert werden. Sie wünschen sich von uns, dass wir die erforderlichen Maßnahmen ergreifen, um gegen diese zunehmende Form der Kriminalität vorzugehen. In einem Raum ohne Binnengrenzen benötigen wir zudem einen gemeinsamen Ansatz im Bereich der illegalen Einwanderung. Ganz gleich wie viele Schwierigkeiten einige von uns mit diesem Thema haben, wir brauchen ein gemeinsames Instrument, um mit der Präsenz illegaler Einwanderer umzugehen. Zudem wird dem Europäischen Haftbefehl durch das Schengener Informationssystem mehr Bedeutung und Gewicht verliehen, und die Rolle von Europol und Eurojust wird durch die wachsende Zusammenarbeitet unserer Polizei- und Sicherheitskräfte gestärkt."@de⁹ "Κύριε Πρόεδρε, δράττομαι της ευκαιρίας για να ευχαριστήσω τον κ. Coelho για τις εξαιρετικές επιδόσεις του όσον αφορά αυτήν την υπόθεση. Τελικά χάρη σε αυτόν και τις διαπραγματευτικές του ικανότητες, η διαδικασία λήψης αποφάσεων όσον αφορά αυτήν τη σημαντική και περίπλοκη δέσμη νομοθετικών μέτρων ολοκληρώθηκε εγκαίρως. Ο κ. Coelho ήρθε αντιμέτωπος με ορισμένες δύσκολες αποφάσεις κατά τη διάρκεια αυτής της διαδικασίας. Η δημιουργία νομοθεσίας σε χρόνο ρεκόρ είναι αποτελεσματική, αλλά δεν μπορούμε να αρνηθούμε ότι αυτή η αποτελεσματικότητα επιτυγχάνεται εις βάρος της διαφάνειας. Η ομάδα μου ανησυχεί για την έλλειψη προστασίας των δεδομένων όσον αφορά το Σύστημα Πληροφοριών Σένγκεν δεύτερης γενιάς. Το Συμβούλιο συμφώνησε τελικά να αναφερθεί στην απόφαση πλαίσιο όσον αφορά την προστασία δεδομένων του τρίτου πυλώνα. Μια τέτοια αναφορά είναι το ελάχιστο που μπορούμε να κάνουμε για την προστασία των δικαιωμάτων των πολιτών μας και δεν το έχουμε ακόμα επιτύχει – κάθε άλλο μάλιστα. Το Συμβούλιο αρχικά απέρριψε την αναφορά γιατί η απόφαση δεν έχει ακόμα ληφθεί. Αυτό είναι αλήθεια, αλλά για ποιον λόγο; Δεν είναι το Συμβούλιο που θέτει εμπόδια σε αυτό το ζήτημα; Και δεν είναι το Συμβούλιο που σκοπεύει να αλλοιώσει την απόφαση, σχεδόν σε σημείο όπου δεν θα έχει απομείνει σχεδόν τίποτα να προστατεύσουμε; Δεν μπορώ παρά να αναφέρω εδώ την πρόταση της γερμανικής κυβέρνησης να αποτελέσει προτεραιότητα η προστασία των δεδομένων στον τρίτο πυλώνα κατά την Προεδρία της, υπό την προϋπόθεση ότι θα συμφωνήσουμε να κάνουμε κάποιες θεμελιώδεις αλλαγές την τελευταία στιγμή επί τόπου. Λοιπόν, αυτό πράγματι αφήνει μια πικρή γεύση, αφού η βρετανική κυβέρνηση υποσχέθηκε να τηρήσει την υπόσχεσή της αν το Κοινοβούλιο συμφωνούσε με τη διατήρηση των δεδομένων, και δεν το έκανε· αφού τόσο η αυστριακή όσο και η φινλανδική Προεδρία δεν φάνηκαν να ενδιαφέρονται ιδιαίτερα για την προώθηση του ζητήματος, αλλά ωστόσο αλλοιώνουν την πρόταση. Ναι, απευθύνομαι προς τη γερμανική κυβέρνηση και λέω ότι αυτό θα πρέπει να αποτελέσει μία από τις προτεραιότητές σας, αλλά όχι με μια χάρη ως αντάλλαγμα. Θα πρέπει να το κάνετε επειδή οι πολίτες το αξίζουν και το αξίζουν τώρα. Η έλλειψη προστασίας των δεδομένων καθιστά ακόμα περισσότερο ανησυχητικό το γεγονός ότι έχει ζητηθεί από το Κοινοβούλιο να απεμπολήσει τα δικαιώματά του λήψης αποφάσεών του όσον αφορά τη βιομετρία. Και πάλι, αυτό βρίσκεται στο πνεύμα της αποτελεσματικότητας αλλά εις βάρος της διαφάνειας και, επομένως, της δημοκρατίας. Έτσι, γιατί προτείνω να ψηφίσουμε θετικά, παρόλη την άσκηση κριτικής; Για πολλούς λόγους. Θα αναφέρω μερικούς από αυτούς. Οι πολίτες δεν φαίνεται να ανησυχούν ιδιαίτερα για τις συναποφάσεις ή τις αποφάσεις πλαισίου· ανησυχούν ωστόσο για τον αυξανόμενο αριθμό των κλεμμένων αυτοκινήτων που διοχετεύονται στα κράτη μέλη της Ανατολικής Ευρώπης και θα ήθελαν να λάβουμε τα απαραίτητα μέτρα αντιμετώπισης αυτού του αναπτυσσόμενου τομέα εγκλήματος. Σε μια περιοχή χωρίς εσωτερικά σύνορα, πρέπει επίσης να έχουμε μια κοινή προσέγγιση για την παράνομη μετανάστευση. Ανεξάρτητα με το πόσο δύσκολο είναι αυτό το ζήτημα για πολλούς από εμάς, χρειαζόμαστε ένα κοινό μέσο αντιμετώπισης της παρουσίας λαθρομεταναστών. επίσης, το Σύστημα Πληροφοριών Σένγκεν θα προσθέσει περισσότερο νόημα και ουσία στο ευρωπαϊκό ένταλμα σύλληψης και θα ενισχύσει τον ρόλο της Ευρωπόλ και της Eurojust με την αυξημένη συνεργασία της αστυνομίας μας και των δυνάμεων ασφαλείας."@el¹⁰ "Señor Presidente, permítame aprovechar esta oportunidad para dar las gracias al señor Coelho por su excelente labor en torno a este expediente. Después de todo, gracias a él y a sus habilidades negociadoras ha sido posible concluir a tiempo el proceso de toma de decisiones con respecto a este importante y complejo paquete legislativo. El señor Coelho tuvo que tomar decisiones difíciles durante este proceso. Elaborar leyes a una velocidad récord revela eficiencia, pero no puede negarse que esta eficiencia se alcanza a expensas de la transparencia. Mi Grupo está preocupado por la falta de protección de datos en el Sistema de Información de Schengen de segunda generación. Finalmente, el Consejo acordó remitirse a la decisión marco sobre protección de datos en el tercer pilar. Una remisión como esta es lo menos que podemos hacer para proteger los derechos de nuestros ciudadanos, y todavía no lo hemos conseguido, ni mucho menos. El Consejo rechazó inicialmente esta remisión porque la decisión no se había tomado todavía. Eso es cierto, pero ¿por qué? ¿No es el Consejo el que está frenando esta cuestión? ¿Y no es el Consejo el que intenta diluir la decisión, casi hasta el punto de que apenas quede nada que proteger? No puedo dejar de mencionar el ofrecimiento del Gobierno alemán de hacer de la protección de datos en el tercer pilar una prioridad durante su Presidencia, siempre que estemos de acuerdo en realizar algunos cambios fundamentales de última hora sobre el terreno. En realidad, eso deja un mal sabor de boca, después de que el Gobierno británico prometiera cumplir si el Parlamento aceptaba la retención de datos y no lo hiciera; después de que las Presidencias austriaca y finlandesa no parecieran muy propensas a avanzar en esta cuestión, pero siguen diluyendo la propuesta. Sí, el Gobierno alemán tendrá que hacer de esta cuestión una de sus prioridades, pero no a cambio de un favor. Tendrá que hacerlo porque los ciudadanos se lo merecen, y se lo merecen ahora. La falta de protección de datos hace que la petición al Parlamento de que renuncie a sus derechos de codecisión con respecto a los datos biométricos sea aún más inquietante. De nuevo, esto se produce en aras de la eficiencia, pero a expensas de la transparencia y, por tanto, de la democracia. Entonces, ¿por qué propongo votar a favor, a pesar de todas estas críticas? Por muchos motivos. Mencionaré solo unos pocos. Los ciudadanos europeos no parecen especialmente preocupados por la codecisión o las decisiones marco; no obstante, están preocupados por el creciente número de coches robados que se trasladan a Estados miembros de Europa Oriental y quieren que tomemos las medidas necesarias para luchar contra esta creciente actividad criminal. En un espacio sin fronteras interiores también necesitamos un enfoque común de la inmigración ilegal. Cualquiera que sea la dificultad que pueda tener esta cuestión para muchos de nosotros, necesitamos una herramienta común para gestionar la presencia de inmigrantes ilegales. Además, el Sistema de Información de Schengen dará más significado y sustancia a la orden de detención europea y reforzará el papel de Europol y Eurojust con la creciente colaboración de nuestras fuerzas policiales y de seguridad."@es²⁰ "Mr President, let me take this opportunity to thank Mr Coelho for his outstanding performance on this file. It is, after all, thanks to him and his negotiating skills that the decision-making procedure on this important and complex package of legislation has been finished in time. Mr Coelho was confronted with some tough choices during this process. Producing law at record speed is efficient, but it cannot be denied that this efficiency comes at the expense of transparency. My group is worried about the lack of data protection concerning the second generation of the Schengen Information System. The Council finally agreed to refer to the framework decision on data protection in the third pillar. A referral like that is the least we can do to protect our citizens’ rights and we are not there yet – far from it. The Council initially refused the referral because the decision had not yet been taken. That is true, but why? Is it not the Council that is putting the brakes on this issue? And is it not the Council that is aiming to water down the decision, almost to the point that there is hardly anything left to protect? I cannot help but mention here the German Government’s offer to make data protection in the third pillar a priority during its Presidency, provided we agree to make some fundamental changes at the last minute . Well, that leaves a bitter taste indeed, after the British Government promised to deliver if Parliament agreed with data retention and did not; after both the Austrian and Finnish Presidencies did not seem too keen on pushing the issue forward, but are nevertheless watering down the proposal. Yes, German Government, you will have to make this one of your priorities, but not in exchange for a favour. You will have to do it because citizens deserve it and they deserve it now. The lack of data protection makes it all the more worrisome that the Parliament is asked to give up its decision-making rights concerning biometrics. Again, this is all in the spirit of efficiency, but at the expense of transparency, and therefore democracy. So why am I proposing to vote in favour, in spite of all this criticism? For many reasons. I will mention just a few. The citizens of Europe do not appear to be particularly worried about co- or framework decisions; they are, however, worried about the increasing number of stolen cars finding their way to eastern European Member States and would like us to take the necessary steps to fight that growing area of crime. In an area without internal borders, we also need to have a joint approach to illegal immigration. No matter how difficult this issue is for many of us, we need a common tool to deal with the presence of illegal immigrants. Also, the Schengen Information System will add more meaning and substance to the European arrest warrant and strengthen the role of Europol and Eurojust with the increasing cooperation of our police and security forces."@et⁵ "Arvoisa puhemies, käytän tilaisuutta kiittääkseni esittelijä Coelhoa uskomattoman hienosta työstä. Loppujen lopuksi on täysin hänen ja hänen neuvottelutaitojensa ansiota, että tätä tärkeää ja monitahoista lainsäädäntöpakettia koskeva päätöksentekomenettely on saatu ajoissa päätökseen. Esittelijä Coelho joutui tekemään muutamia vaikeita ratkaisuja prosessin aikana. Lainsäädännön laatiminen ennätysnopeasti on tehokasta, mutta on myönnettävä, että tehokkuus kostautuu avoimuuden menetyksenä. Ryhmääni huolestuttaa toisen sukupolven Schengenin tietojärjestelmää koskeva tietosuojan puute. Neuvosto suostui viimeinkin viittaamaan kolmannen pilarin tietosuojaa koskevaan puitepäätökseen. Tällainen viittaus on vähintä, mitä kansalaisten etujen suojaamiseksi voidaan tehdä, eikä siihen ole toistaiseksi päästy – vielä ollaan kaukana. Alun perin neuvosto ei hyväksynyt viittausta, sillä päätöstä ei ollut vielä tehty. Tämä on totta, mutta miksi? Eikö juuri neuvosto jarruta asiaa? Eikö juuri neuvosto pyri vesittämään päätöksen niin pahoin, ettei jäljelle jää juuri mitään suojattavaa? Minun on aivan pakko mainita tässä yhteydessä, että Saksan hallitus tarjoutui ottamaan kolmannen pilarin tietosuojan puheenjohtajakautensa painopisteeksi, mikäli suostuisimme muutamiin viime hetken muutoksiin paikan päällä. Tästä jäi todella huono maku sen jälkeen, kun Yhdistyneen kuningaskunnan hallitus lupasi hoitaa asian, jos parlamentti hyväksyisi tietojen säilyttämistä koskevan ehdotuksen, mutta söi sitten sanansa. Itävalta ja Suomi eivät vaikuttaneet kovin innokkailta viemään asiaan eteenpäin puheenjohtajakausillaan mutta pyrkivät kuitenkin vesittämään ehdotuksen. Arvoisa Saksan hallitus, teidän on otettava asia painopisteeksi, muttei vastapalveluksen toivossa. Teidän on tehtävä näin, sillä kansalaiset ansaitsevat sen juuri nyt. Puutteellisen tietosuojan vuoksi on entistäkin huolestuttavampaa, että parlamenttia pyydetään luopumaan biotunnisteita koskevasta päätösvallastaan. Tämä kaikki tehdään taas tehokkuuden nimissä, mutta avoimuuden ja sitä kautta demokratian kustannuksella. Miksi siis kehotan äänestämään puolesta kaikesta esittämästäni kritiikistä huolimatta? Monestakin syystä. Mainitsen vain muutamia. Euroopan unionin kansalaisia eivät yhteis- ja puitepäätökset juuri huoleta. Heitä huolettaa kuitenkin se, että yhä useammat varastetut autot kuljetetaan Itä-Euroopan jäsenvaltioihin. He toivoisivat meidän toimivan, jotta tällaiset rikokset saadaan kuriin. Sisärajoja vailla olevalla alueella on myös suhtauduttava yhtenäisellä tavalla laittomaan maahanmuuttoon. Olipa kysymys miten hankala tahansa monille meistä, meidän on saatava yhteinen väline laittomien maahanmuuttajien ongelman ratkaisemiseksi. Schengenin tietojärjestelmä antaa myös lisää sisältöä ja merkitystä eurooppalaiselle pidätysmääräykselle ja vahvistaa Europolin ja Eurojustin asemaa lisäämällä poliisi- ja turvallisuusviranomaisten keskinäistä yhteistyötä."@fi⁷ "Monsieur le Président, permettez-moi de profiter de l’occasion pour remercier M. Coelho de l’excellent travail qu’il a réalisé sur ce dossier. Après tout, c’est grâce à lui et à ses compétences de négociateur que le processus décisionnel relatif à ce dossier législatif primordial et complexe a pu être terminé à temps. M. Coelho s’est vu confronté à des choix extrêmement difficiles au cours de ce processus. Produire des lois à un rythme record est certes efficace, mais il faut bien admettre que cette efficacité se fait aux dépens de la transparence. Mon groupe est inquiet quant au manque de protection des données inhérent à la seconde génération du système d’information Schengen. Le Conseil a enfin accepté de se référer à la décision-cadre relative à la protection des données dans le troisième pilier. C’est là le minimum que l’on puisse faire pour protéger les droits de nos concitoyens et nous n’en sommes pas encore là, loin s’en faut. Au départ, le Conseil avait refusé de prendre cette orientation, car la décision n’avait pas encore été prise. C’est la stricte vérité, mais pourquoi? N’est-ce pas le Conseil qui freine l’avancée de ce dossier? N’est-ce pas le Conseil qui tente de délayer cette décision à un point tel qu’il ne restera que très peu de choses à protéger. Je ne peux m’empêcher de mentionner la proposition du gouvernement allemand de faire de la protection des données dans le troisième pilier une priorité au cours de sa présidence, à condition que nous acceptions de réaliser des changements de dernière minute . Cela laisse effectivement un goût amer en bouche après que le gouvernement britannique a promis d’agir si le Parlement marquait son accord quant à la conservation des données et qu’il n’a pas tenu sa promesse, après que les présidences autrichienne et finlandaise ne semblent guère disposées à poursuivre le dossier, mais diluent néanmoins la proposition. Oui, le gouvernement allemand devra faire de la protection des données l’une de ses priorités, mais sans rien attendre en échange. Vous devrez le faire parce que les citoyens le méritent, et le méritent dès maintenant. Le manque de protection des données est d’autant plus inquiétant que le Parlement a été prié de renoncer à ses droits décisionnels relatifs à la biométrique. Encore une fois, tout ceci s’inscrit dans un souci d’efficacité, mais aux dépens de la transparence et, donc, de la démocratie. Alors pourquoi suis-je donc en train de vous proposer de voter en faveur de ce projet en dépit de toutes ces critiques? Pour de nombreuses raisons. Je n’en citerai que quelques-unes. Les citoyens européens ne semblent pas être particulièrement préoccupés par les codécisions ou les décisions-cadres; ils sont par contre préoccupés par le nombre croissant de voitures volées retrouvées dans les États membres d’Europe orientale, et ils veulent que nous prenions les mesures nécessaires afin de lutter contre cet espace croissant de criminalité. Au sein d’une zone dépourvue de frontières internes, une approche commune de l’immigration illégale est également nécessaire. Aussi difficile que soit la question pour un grand nombre d’entre nous, nous avons besoin d’un instrument commun afin de pouvoir gérer la présence d’immigrants illégaux. Aussi, le système d’information Schengen conférera davantage de sens et de substance au mandat d’arrestation européen et renforcera le rôle d’Europol et d’Eurojust grâce à une coopération accrue entre nos forces de police et de sécurité."@fr⁸ "Mr President, let me take this opportunity to thank Mr Coelho for his outstanding performance on this file. It is, after all, thanks to him and his negotiating skills that the decision-making procedure on this important and complex package of legislation has been finished in time. Mr Coelho was confronted with some tough choices during this process. Producing law at record speed is efficient, but it cannot be denied that this efficiency comes at the expense of transparency. My group is worried about the lack of data protection concerning the second generation of the Schengen Information System. The Council finally agreed to refer to the framework decision on data protection in the third pillar. A referral like that is the least we can do to protect our citizens’ rights and we are not there yet – far from it. The Council initially refused the referral because the decision had not yet been taken. That is true, but why? Is it not the Council that is putting the brakes on this issue? And is it not the Council that is aiming to water down the decision, almost to the point that there is hardly anything left to protect? I cannot help but mention here the German Government’s offer to make data protection in the third pillar a priority during its Presidency, provided we agree to make some fundamental changes at the last minute . Well, that leaves a bitter taste indeed, after the British Government promised to deliver if Parliament agreed with data retention and did not; after both the Austrian and Finnish Presidencies did not seem too keen on pushing the issue forward, but are nevertheless watering down the proposal. Yes, German Government, you will have to make this one of your priorities, but not in exchange for a favour. You will have to do it because citizens deserve it and they deserve it now. The lack of data protection makes it all the more worrisome that the Parliament is asked to give up its decision-making rights concerning biometrics. Again, this is all in the spirit of efficiency, but at the expense of transparency, and therefore democracy. So why am I proposing to vote in favour, in spite of all this criticism? For many reasons. I will mention just a few. The citizens of Europe do not appear to be particularly worried about co- or framework decisions; they are, however, worried about the increasing number of stolen cars finding their way to eastern European Member States and would like us to take the necessary steps to fight that growing area of crime. In an area without internal borders, we also need to have a joint approach to illegal immigration. No matter how difficult this issue is for many of us, we need a common tool to deal with the presence of illegal immigrants. Also, the Schengen Information System will add more meaning and substance to the European arrest warrant and strengthen the role of Europol and Eurojust with the increasing cooperation of our police and security forces."@hu¹¹ "Signor Presidente, vorrei cogliere questa occasione per ringraziare l’onorevole Coelho, che su questo ha svolto un lavoro eccezionale. In fondo è merito suo – e delle sue capacità negoziali – se questo importante e complesso pacchetto legislativo è stato completato in tempo. Nel corso di questo processo l’onorevole Coelho si è trovato di fronte ad alcune scelte davvero ardue; legiferare a tempo di può essere una dimostrazione di efficienza, ma – non possiamo negarlo – di un’efficienza che va a scapito della trasparenza. Il mio gruppo constata con inquietudine le carenze che, in fatto di protezione dei dati, caratterizzano il sistema d’informazione Schengen di seconda generazione. Alla fine il Consiglio ha accettato di fare riferimento alla decisione quadro sulla protezione dei dati nel terzo pilastro; un riferimento di questo tipo è il requisito minimo per tutelare i diritti dei nostri cittadini, eppure non l’abbiamo ancora ottenuto – tutt’altro. All’inizio il Consiglio aveva rifiutato questo riferimento, poiché la decisione non era stata ancora presa; è vero, ma qual è la ragione? Non è forse il Consiglio stesso che sta tirando il freno in questo settore? E non è il Consiglio che cerca di annacquare la decisione, fino al punto in cui non vi sarà praticamente più nulla da proteggere? A questo punto non posso fare a meno di ricordare che il governo tedesco ha offerto di rendere prioritaria la protezione dei dati nel quadro del terzo pilastro, durante la propria Presidenza, purché accettiamo di apportare alcune modifiche all’ultimo momento. Questa offerta ha il sapore di una beffa, dopo che il governo britannico aveva promesso di varare il provvedimento se il Parlamento avesse accettato le misure in materia di conservazione dei dati, mancando poi a tale promessa, e dopo che le Presidenze austriaca e finlandese hanno dimostrato scarsissimo zelo nel portare avanti la questione, cercando nel contempo di annacquare la proposta. Sì, signori del governo tedesco, voi dovrete fare di questo tema una delle vostre priorità, ma non in cambio di un favore; dovrete farlo perché i cittadini ne hanno diritto, e ne hanno diritto ora. La mancata protezione dei dati rende ancor più inquietante la richiesta, fatta al Parlamento, di rinunciare ai propri diritti decisionali in materia di dati biometrici. Ancora una volta si agisce in nome dell’efficienza, ma a spese della trasparenza e quindi della democrazia. Perché dunque propongo di votare a favore, nonostante tutte queste critiche? Per parecchie ragioni; mi limiterò a ricordarne alcune. I cittadini europei non si interessano molto, sembra, di codecisione o decisioni quadro; sono invece molto preoccupati per il numero sempre maggiore di automobili rubate che finiscono negli Stati membri dell’Europa orientale, e ci invitano a prendere le misure necessarie per stroncare questa attività criminale sempre più fiorente. In un’area priva di confini interni, dobbiamo inoltre dotarci di un approccio comune nei confronti dell’immigrazione illegale; anche se per molti di noi può trattarsi di un problema irto di difficoltà, nondimeno abbiamo bisogno di uno strumento comune per far fronte alla presenza di immigrati clandestini. E ancora, il sistema d’informazione Schengen conferirà un significato più profondo e concreto al mandato d’arresto europeo, rafforzando anche il ruolo di Europol ed Eurojust grazie a una più stretta cooperazione delle nostre forze di polizia e sicurezza."@it¹² "Mr President, let me take this opportunity to thank Mr Coelho for his outstanding performance on this file. It is, after all, thanks to him and his negotiating skills that the decision-making procedure on this important and complex package of legislation has been finished in time. Mr Coelho was confronted with some tough choices during this process. Producing law at record speed is efficient, but it cannot be denied that this efficiency comes at the expense of transparency. My group is worried about the lack of data protection concerning the second generation of the Schengen Information System. The Council finally agreed to refer to the framework decision on data protection in the third pillar. A referral like that is the least we can do to protect our citizens’ rights and we are not there yet – far from it. The Council initially refused the referral because the decision had not yet been taken. That is true, but why? Is it not the Council that is putting the brakes on this issue? And is it not the Council that is aiming to water down the decision, almost to the point that there is hardly anything left to protect? I cannot help but mention here the German Government’s offer to make data protection in the third pillar a priority during its Presidency, provided we agree to make some fundamental changes at the last minute . Well, that leaves a bitter taste indeed, after the British Government promised to deliver if Parliament agreed with data retention and did not; after both the Austrian and Finnish Presidencies did not seem too keen on pushing the issue forward, but are nevertheless watering down the proposal. Yes, German Government, you will have to make this one of your priorities, but not in exchange for a favour. You will have to do it because citizens deserve it and they deserve it now. The lack of data protection makes it all the more worrisome that the Parliament is asked to give up its decision-making rights concerning biometrics. Again, this is all in the spirit of efficiency, but at the expense of transparency, and therefore democracy. So why am I proposing to vote in favour, in spite of all this criticism? For many reasons. I will mention just a few. The citizens of Europe do not appear to be particularly worried about co- or framework decisions; they are, however, worried about the increasing number of stolen cars finding their way to eastern European Member States and would like us to take the necessary steps to fight that growing area of crime. In an area without internal borders, we also need to have a joint approach to illegal immigration. No matter how difficult this issue is for many of us, we need a common tool to deal with the presence of illegal immigrants. Also, the Schengen Information System will add more meaning and substance to the European arrest warrant and strengthen the role of Europol and Eurojust with the increasing cooperation of our police and security forces."@lt¹⁴ "Mr President, let me take this opportunity to thank Mr Coelho for his outstanding performance on this file. It is, after all, thanks to him and his negotiating skills that the decision-making procedure on this important and complex package of legislation has been finished in time. Mr Coelho was confronted with some tough choices during this process. Producing law at record speed is efficient, but it cannot be denied that this efficiency comes at the expense of transparency. My group is worried about the lack of data protection concerning the second generation of the Schengen Information System. The Council finally agreed to refer to the framework decision on data protection in the third pillar. A referral like that is the least we can do to protect our citizens’ rights and we are not there yet – far from it. The Council initially refused the referral because the decision had not yet been taken. That is true, but why? Is it not the Council that is putting the brakes on this issue? And is it not the Council that is aiming to water down the decision, almost to the point that there is hardly anything left to protect? I cannot help but mention here the German Government’s offer to make data protection in the third pillar a priority during its Presidency, provided we agree to make some fundamental changes at the last minute . Well, that leaves a bitter taste indeed, after the British Government promised to deliver if Parliament agreed with data retention and did not; after both the Austrian and Finnish Presidencies did not seem too keen on pushing the issue forward, but are nevertheless watering down the proposal. Yes, German Government, you will have to make this one of your priorities, but not in exchange for a favour. You will have to do it because citizens deserve it and they deserve it now. The lack of data protection makes it all the more worrisome that the Parliament is asked to give up its decision-making rights concerning biometrics. Again, this is all in the spirit of efficiency, but at the expense of transparency, and therefore democracy. So why am I proposing to vote in favour, in spite of all this criticism? For many reasons. I will mention just a few. The citizens of Europe do not appear to be particularly worried about co- or framework decisions; they are, however, worried about the increasing number of stolen cars finding their way to eastern European Member States and would like us to take the necessary steps to fight that growing area of crime. In an area without internal borders, we also need to have a joint approach to illegal immigration. No matter how difficult this issue is for many of us, we need a common tool to deal with the presence of illegal immigrants. Also, the Schengen Information System will add more meaning and substance to the European arrest warrant and strengthen the role of Europol and Eurojust with the increasing cooperation of our police and security forces."@lv¹³ "Mr President, let me take this opportunity to thank Mr Coelho for his outstanding performance on this file. It is, after all, thanks to him and his negotiating skills that the decision-making procedure on this important and complex package of legislation has been finished in time. Mr Coelho was confronted with some tough choices during this process. Producing law at record speed is efficient, but it cannot be denied that this efficiency comes at the expense of transparency. My group is worried about the lack of data protection concerning the second generation of the Schengen Information System. The Council finally agreed to refer to the framework decision on data protection in the third pillar. A referral like that is the least we can do to protect our citizens’ rights and we are not there yet – far from it. The Council initially refused the referral because the decision had not yet been taken. That is true, but why? Is it not the Council that is putting the brakes on this issue? And is it not the Council that is aiming to water down the decision, almost to the point that there is hardly anything left to protect? I cannot help but mention here the German Government’s offer to make data protection in the third pillar a priority during its Presidency, provided we agree to make some fundamental changes at the last minute . Well, that leaves a bitter taste indeed, after the British Government promised to deliver if Parliament agreed with data retention and did not; after both the Austrian and Finnish Presidencies did not seem too keen on pushing the issue forward, but are nevertheless watering down the proposal. Yes, German Government, you will have to make this one of your priorities, but not in exchange for a favour. You will have to do it because citizens deserve it and they deserve it now. The lack of data protection makes it all the more worrisome that the Parliament is asked to give up its decision-making rights concerning biometrics. Again, this is all in the spirit of efficiency, but at the expense of transparency, and therefore democracy. So why am I proposing to vote in favour, in spite of all this criticism? For many reasons. I will mention just a few. The citizens of Europe do not appear to be particularly worried about co- or framework decisions; they are, however, worried about the increasing number of stolen cars finding their way to eastern European Member States and would like us to take the necessary steps to fight that growing area of crime. In an area without internal borders, we also need to have a joint approach to illegal immigration. No matter how difficult this issue is for many of us, we need a common tool to deal with the presence of illegal immigrants. Also, the Schengen Information System will add more meaning and substance to the European arrest warrant and strengthen the role of Europol and Eurojust with the increasing cooperation of our police and security forces."@mt¹⁵ "Mijnheer de Voorzitter, ik wil graag de heer Coelho bedanken voor zijn voortreffelijke werk ten aanzien van dit dossier. Het is tenslotte dankzij hem en zijn onderhandelingsvaardigheid dat de besluitvormingsprocedure over dit belangrijke en complexe wetgevingspakket op tijd voltooid is. De heer Coelho heeft tijdens dit proces voor een aantal moeilijke keuzes gestaan. Met recordsnelheid wetgeving produceren is efficiënt, maar deze efficiëntie gaat ontegenzeggelijk ten koste van de transparantie. Mijn fractie maakt zich zorgen over het ontbreken van gegevensbescherming in verband met het Schengeninformatiesysteem van de tweede generatie. De Raad is uiteindelijk akkoord gegaan met een verwijzing naar het kaderbesluit over de bescherming van persoonsgegevens in de derde pijler. Een dergelijke verwijzing is wel het minste wat we kunnen doen om onze burgerrechten te beschermen en we zijn er nog niet – nog lang niet. De Raad stond aanvankelijk afwijzend tegenover de verwijzing omdat er nog geen besluit was genomen. Dat klopt, maar hoe komt dat? Is het niet juist de Raad die de zaak afremt? En is niet juist de Raad erop gespitst om het besluit zodanig af te zwakken dat er nauwelijks nog iets te beschermen valt? Ik kan het niet laten om te verwijzen naar het aanbod van de Duitse regering om gegevensbescherming in de derde pijler tijdens haar voorzitterschap tot een prioriteit te maken, mits we ermee instemmen om in de eindfase nog een aantal fundamentele wijzigingen aan te brengen. Dat geeft wel een zeer bittere nasmaak na de niet nagekomen belofte van de Britse regering om over de brug te komen als het Parlement akkoord ging met het voorstel inzake het bewaren van gegevens en nadat het Oostenrijkse en het Finse voorzitterschap er beide niet veel voor schenen te voelen om de zaak voort te zetten, maar het voorstel nu toch afzwakken. Jawel, Duitse regering, u zult dit onderwerp tot prioriteit moeten maken, maar niet in ruil voor een gunst. U zult dat moeten doen omdat burgers het verdienen en wel nu. Door het ontbreken van gegevensbescherming is het des te prangender dat het Parlement gevraagd wordt om zijn besluitvormingsrechten met betrekking tot biometrische gegevens af te staan. Nogmaals, het is allemaal omwille van de efficiëntie, maar het gaat ten koste van de transparantie en dus de democratie. Waarom stel ik ondanks de kritiek dan toch voor om vóór te stemmen? Om diverse redenen. Ik zal er slechts enkele noemen. De burgers van Europa lijken zich niet zo druk te maken over medebeslissingsprocedures of kaderbesluiten, maar ze maken zich wel zorgen over het toenemend aantal gestolen auto’s dat in Oost-Europese lidstaten terecht komt en ze willen dat wij de nodige stappen nemen om die groeiende tak van misdaad te bestrijden. Een gebied zonder binnengrenzen moet ook een gezamenlijke aanpak van illegale immigratie hebben. Ook al is dit voor velen van ons nog zo’n moeilijke kwestie, er moet een gemeenschappelijk instrument komen om de aanwezigheid van illegale immigranten het hoofd te kunnen bieden. Het Schengeninformatiesysteem zal ook meer betekenis en inhoud toevoegen aan het Europees aanhoudingsbevel en zal door de grotere samenwerking van onze politie en veiligheidsmacht de rol van Europol en Eurojust versterken."@nl³ "Mr President, let me take this opportunity to thank Mr Coelho for his outstanding performance on this file. It is, after all, thanks to him and his negotiating skills that the decision-making procedure on this important and complex package of legislation has been finished in time. Mr Coelho was confronted with some tough choices during this process. Producing law at record speed is efficient, but it cannot be denied that this efficiency comes at the expense of transparency. My group is worried about the lack of data protection concerning the second generation of the Schengen Information System. The Council finally agreed to refer to the framework decision on data protection in the third pillar. A referral like that is the least we can do to protect our citizens’ rights and we are not there yet – far from it. The Council initially refused the referral because the decision had not yet been taken. That is true, but why? Is it not the Council that is putting the brakes on this issue? And is it not the Council that is aiming to water down the decision, almost to the point that there is hardly anything left to protect? I cannot help but mention here the German Government’s offer to make data protection in the third pillar a priority during its Presidency, provided we agree to make some fundamental changes at the last minute . Well, that leaves a bitter taste indeed, after the British Government promised to deliver if Parliament agreed with data retention and did not; after both the Austrian and Finnish Presidencies did not seem too keen on pushing the issue forward, but are nevertheless watering down the proposal. Yes, German Government, you will have to make this one of your priorities, but not in exchange for a favour. You will have to do it because citizens deserve it and they deserve it now. The lack of data protection makes it all the more worrisome that the Parliament is asked to give up its decision-making rights concerning biometrics. Again, this is all in the spirit of efficiency, but at the expense of transparency, and therefore democracy. So why am I proposing to vote in favour, in spite of all this criticism? For many reasons. I will mention just a few. The citizens of Europe do not appear to be particularly worried about co- or framework decisions; they are, however, worried about the increasing number of stolen cars finding their way to eastern European Member States and would like us to take the necessary steps to fight that growing area of crime. In an area without internal borders, we also need to have a joint approach to illegal immigration. No matter how difficult this issue is for many of us, we need a common tool to deal with the presence of illegal immigrants. Also, the Schengen Information System will add more meaning and substance to the European arrest warrant and strengthen the role of Europol and Eurojust with the increasing cooperation of our police and security forces."@pl¹⁶ "Senhor Presidente, aproveito a oportunidade para agradecer ao senhor deputado Carlos Coelho o excelente trabalho que realizou nesta matéria. Afinal, foi graças ao senhor deputado e às suas capacidades de negociação que o processo de tomada de decisão sobre tão importante e complexo pacote legislativo foi concluído a tempo. O senhor deputado viu-se, ao longo do processo, perante difíceis escolhas. Produzir legislação a uma velocidade extrema é sinal de eficiência, mas não podemos negar que essa eficiência só foi possível a expensas da transparência. O meu grupo sente alguma preocupação com a ausência de protecção de dados no âmbito do Sistema de Informação Schengen de segunda geração. O Conselho concordou, finalmente, em permitir remeter a decisão-quadro sobre protecção de dados para o terceiro pilar. Note-se que é o mínimo que podemos fazer para defender os direitos dos nossos cidadãos mas ainda não chegámos a essa fase, muito longe disso. Inicialmente o Conselho tinha recusado essa remissão por a decisão não ter sido ainda tomada. Isso é verdade, mas a quem se deve o atraso? Não é o Conselho quem tem tentado travar o processo? Não é o Conselho quem tem tentado enfraquecer a decisão, a tal ponto que quase nada resta para proteger? Não posso deixar de referir aqui a oferta do Governo alemão de fazer da passagem da protecção de dados para o terceiro pilar prioridade da sua Presidência, desde que concordemos em proceder a algumas modificações fundamentais no último minuto e . Esta proposta deixa-nos algum amargo de boca, depois de o Governo britânico ter prometido avançar caso o Parlamento concordasse com a retenção de dados e não o ter feito, e depois de as Presidências austríaca e finlandesa não terem parecido muito interessadas em avançar com o dossiê mas, ainda assim, estarem a tentar diluir a proposta. É verdade, o Governo alemão terá de fazer deste assunto uma das suas prioridades, mas não em troca de um favor. Terá de o fazer porque os cidadãos o merecem e merecem-no agora. A ausência de protecção de dados torna ainda mais preocupante o facto de se pedir ao Parlamento que renuncie aos seus direitos de decisão no que respeita aos dados biométricos. Repito: tudo isto é feito a pretexto da eficácia mas à custa da transparência e, consequentemente, da democracia. Por que motivo proponho, então, que votemos a favor, apesar de todas as críticas? Há muitas razões para o fazer, de que mencionarei algumas apenas. Os cidadãos da Europa não parecem especialmente preocupados com co-decisão ou decisões-quadro; preocupa-os, porém, o número cada vez mais elevado de carros roubados que são encaminhados para os Estados-Membros da Europa de Leste, e gostariam que tomássemos as medidas adequadas para combater essa área de criminalidade em expansão. Num espaço sem fronteiras internas há que ter, também, uma abordagem comum à imigração ilegal. Por muito difícil que o assunto seja para muitos de nós, carecemos de uma ferramenta comum para lidar com a presença de imigrantes ilegais. O Sistema de Informação de Schengen permitirá conferir maior significado e substância ao mandado de detenção europeu e reforçar o papel da Europol e da Eurojust através da crescente cooperação das nossas forças de polícia e de segurança."@pt¹⁷ "Mr President, let me take this opportunity to thank Mr Coelho for his outstanding performance on this file. It is, after all, thanks to him and his negotiating skills that the decision-making procedure on this important and complex package of legislation has been finished in time. Mr Coelho was confronted with some tough choices during this process. Producing law at record speed is efficient, but it cannot be denied that this efficiency comes at the expense of transparency. My group is worried about the lack of data protection concerning the second generation of the Schengen Information System. The Council finally agreed to refer to the framework decision on data protection in the third pillar. A referral like that is the least we can do to protect our citizens’ rights and we are not there yet – far from it. The Council initially refused the referral because the decision had not yet been taken. That is true, but why? Is it not the Council that is putting the brakes on this issue? And is it not the Council that is aiming to water down the decision, almost to the point that there is hardly anything left to protect? I cannot help but mention here the German Government’s offer to make data protection in the third pillar a priority during its Presidency, provided we agree to make some fundamental changes at the last minute . Well, that leaves a bitter taste indeed, after the British Government promised to deliver if Parliament agreed with data retention and did not; after both the Austrian and Finnish Presidencies did not seem too keen on pushing the issue forward, but are nevertheless watering down the proposal. Yes, German Government, you will have to make this one of your priorities, but not in exchange for a favour. You will have to do it because citizens deserve it and they deserve it now. The lack of data protection makes it all the more worrisome that the Parliament is asked to give up its decision-making rights concerning biometrics. Again, this is all in the spirit of efficiency, but at the expense of transparency, and therefore democracy. So why am I proposing to vote in favour, in spite of all this criticism? For many reasons. I will mention just a few. The citizens of Europe do not appear to be particularly worried about co- or framework decisions; they are, however, worried about the increasing number of stolen cars finding their way to eastern European Member States and would like us to take the necessary steps to fight that growing area of crime. In an area without internal borders, we also need to have a joint approach to illegal immigration. No matter how difficult this issue is for many of us, we need a common tool to deal with the presence of illegal immigrants. Also, the Schengen Information System will add more meaning and substance to the European arrest warrant and strengthen the role of Europol and Eurojust with the increasing cooperation of our police and security forces."@sk¹⁸ "Mr President, let me take this opportunity to thank Mr Coelho for his outstanding performance on this file. It is, after all, thanks to him and his negotiating skills that the decision-making procedure on this important and complex package of legislation has been finished in time. Mr Coelho was confronted with some tough choices during this process. Producing law at record speed is efficient, but it cannot be denied that this efficiency comes at the expense of transparency. My group is worried about the lack of data protection concerning the second generation of the Schengen Information System. The Council finally agreed to refer to the framework decision on data protection in the third pillar. A referral like that is the least we can do to protect our citizens’ rights and we are not there yet – far from it. The Council initially refused the referral because the decision had not yet been taken. That is true, but why? Is it not the Council that is putting the brakes on this issue? And is it not the Council that is aiming to water down the decision, almost to the point that there is hardly anything left to protect? I cannot help but mention here the German Government’s offer to make data protection in the third pillar a priority during its Presidency, provided we agree to make some fundamental changes at the last minute . Well, that leaves a bitter taste indeed, after the British Government promised to deliver if Parliament agreed with data retention and did not; after both the Austrian and Finnish Presidencies did not seem too keen on pushing the issue forward, but are nevertheless watering down the proposal. Yes, German Government, you will have to make this one of your priorities, but not in exchange for a favour. You will have to do it because citizens deserve it and they deserve it now. The lack of data protection makes it all the more worrisome that the Parliament is asked to give up its decision-making rights concerning biometrics. Again, this is all in the spirit of efficiency, but at the expense of transparency, and therefore democracy. So why am I proposing to vote in favour, in spite of all this criticism? For many reasons. I will mention just a few. The citizens of Europe do not appear to be particularly worried about co- or framework decisions; they are, however, worried about the increasing number of stolen cars finding their way to eastern European Member States and would like us to take the necessary steps to fight that growing area of crime. In an area without internal borders, we also need to have a joint approach to illegal immigration. No matter how difficult this issue is for many of us, we need a common tool to deal with the presence of illegal immigrants. Also, the Schengen Information System will add more meaning and substance to the European arrest warrant and strengthen the role of Europol and Eurojust with the increasing cooperation of our police and security forces."@sl¹⁹ "Herr talman! Låt mig ta tillfället i akt att tacka Carlos Coelho för hans enastående insats i detta ärende. Det är egentligen tack vare honom och hans förhandlingsförmåga som beslutsprocessen för detta viktiga och komplicerade lagstiftningspaket har avslutats i tid. Carlos Coelho ställdes inför några svåra val under den processen. Att åstadkomma lagstiftning i rekordfart är effektivt, men det kan inte förnekas att det sker på bekostnad av öppenheten. Min grupp är oroad över bristen på skydd för uppgifter i den andra generationen av Schengens informationssystem. Rådet gick till slut med på att hänvisa till rambeslutet om uppgiftsskydd i den tredje pelaren. En sådan hänvisning är det minsta vi kan göra för att skydda våra medborgares rättigheter, och vi är inte där än – långt därifrån. Ursprungligen vägrade rådet att ta med en sådan hänvisning eftersom beslutet ännu inte hade fattats. Det är sant, men varför? Är det inte rådet som bromsar i denna fråga? Och är det inte rådet som tänker urvattna beslutet, nästan till den grad att det knappt finns någonting kvar att skydda? Jag måste få nämna den tyska regeringens erbjudande om att göra skyddet för uppgifter i den tredje pelaren till en prioriterad fråga under sitt ordförandeskap, förutsatt att vi gick med på att göra vissa grundläggande ändringar i sista minuten på plats. Det lämnar verkligen en bitter eftersmak, sedan den brittiska regeringen lovat att ge med sig om parlamentet gick med på lagring av uppgifter och inte gjorde det, och varken det österrikiska eller det finska ordförandeskapet verkade särskilt pigga på att driva frågan framåt men inte desto mindre håller på att se till att förslaget blir urvattnat. Just det, den tyska regeringen – ni kommer att bli tvungna att göra detta till en prioriterad fråga, men inte i utbyte mot en tjänst. Ni kommer att tvingas göra det därför att medborgarna förtjänar det, och de förtjänar det nu. Bristen på skydd för uppgifter gör det ännu mer irriterande att parlamentet blir tillfrågat om att ge upp sin beslutanderätt i fråga om biometri. Återigen, detta görs för effektivitetens skull men på bekostnad av öppenhet och därmed demokrati. Varför föreslår jag er då att rösta för, trots all denna kritik? Av många anledningar. Jag ska bara nämna några. EU:s medborgare verkar inte vara särskilt oroade över medbeslutande eller rambeslut. De är emellertid oroade över det ökande antalet stulna bilar som hamnar i de östeuropeiska medlemsstaterna och skulle vilja att vi vidtog nödvändiga åtgärder för att bekämpa den växande brottsligheten. I ett område utan inre gränser måste vi ha en gemensam strategi gentemot olaglig invandring. Det spelar ingen roll hur svår den frågan är för många av oss, vi måste ha ett gemensamt verktyg för att ta itu med de olagliga invandrarna. Schengens informationssystem kommer också att ge mer mening och innehåll till den europeiska arresteringsordern och stärka Europols och Eurojusts roll i det ökande samarbetet mellan våra polis- och säkerhetsstyrkor."@sv²¹
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(ΕΝ)"¹⁰ "Edith Mastenbroek (PSE ). –"^{5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,10,13,4} "in situ"^{5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4,17,12,8}