Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-07-09-Speech-3-510"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080709.42.3-510"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, it was our intention with this initiative to guarantee interoperability between all Member States, ensure the same level of protection for personal data and equal treatment for all asylum seekers. I particularly support the efforts to facilitate procedures for issuing visas to applicants through the one-stop shop principle, and with the collection of biometric identifiers, that is, a facial image and ten fingerprints from the applicants, for storage in a centralised Visa Information System (VIS).
We should emphasise that these data will be used for identification, as Vice-President Barrot has already pointed out. This is very different to what happens with European passports, where it is only permitted to take two fingerprints so they cannot be used for anything other than verification, that is, ‘one-to-one’ comparison. From this point of view, I welcome the European Commission’s willingness, as revealed just now in plenary by Vice-President Barrot, to cooperate by conducting the study requested by Parliament on the feasibility of taking the fingerprints of children.
Mr President, given that we are going to carry out a complete review of the Community Code on Visas, separate discussion of this specific proposal would only have made sense if it would have speeded up the process. However, this objective will not achieved. We will be voting tomorrow on a proposal on which no agreement was reached at first reading and that represents only the first phase of a slow process. I therefore have serious doubts about the need to continue discussing this proposal separately, when its timetable seems to be very similar to that of the review of the code itself."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples