Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-10-19-Speech-1-132"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20091019.19.1-132"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, I cannot reply to all of the questions that have been put to me, given that we find ourselves at a difficult moment in time. With regard to VIS, it is the tests which affect the central system and which must be performed by 11 November, and for SIS II, it is the milestone, that is to say, this criterion that must be fulfilled by the end of the year.
The analysis and repair period made it clear, however, that SIS II was built on solid, though at times excessively complex, foundations, and that, although some efforts needed to be made, the system was repairable.
This in-depth analysis enabled us to identify several ways of improving the system, but it is true, Mr Coelho – and I say this to the whole of Parliament also – that we have a very ambitious project before us in this area, and that it is not easy to see exactly what is going to happen.
I can say, however, that we have imposed contractual penalties on the Hewlett-Packard-Steria consortium in order to punish it, on the one hand, for its inability to bring the system up to the contractually required level at the end of the contractual phase of the operational tests on the ST and, on the other – for the time being, in any case – for the delays caused in the internal VIS tests.
Both of these projects are governed by the same contract, so the penalties are deducted equally from the invoices for SIS II and for VIS. These penalties amount to almost EUR 3.5 million, and the penalty meter keeps on ticking in the case of VIS, while that of SIS II has been switched off since the start of the analysis and repair exercise begun in January. Should these projects have to be abandoned, the co-contractor will obviously have to bear the corresponding costs.
Madam President, as things stand, and given what I said in respect both of VIS, about the tests that are going to take place by 11 November, and of SIS II, about the aim of confirming, via the end-of-year milestone, whether the architecture really is viable, I am unable to provide a more precise answer, since we are now at the stage of carrying out these tests and of preparing for the milestone.
I wish to say that Parliament is welcome to help us spur on the co-contractor. As you have seen, I am very determined and I have become personally involved in this matter. I hope that, as in the case of Galileo, I will succeed more or less in saving both of these projects, which are very interesting in technological terms and which would enable Europe to benefit from a high-performance system, but I cannot be sure of that yet, this evening.
Parliament is also welcome to help us spur on the Member States: as regards VIS, we are finding that the longest delays are being caused at the moment by a few Member States.
Madam President, I am well aware that I have not answered every single question, but I remain fully at Parliament’s disposal to provide all the information that the MEPs and, in particular, those who put questions to me this evening, want, as and when I receive it.
Firstly, I am very grateful to all of the speakers. I want the European Parliament to have full access to all of the information. I would remind you that these two major systems were devised by the Member States precisely so that they could enjoy freedom of movement in secure conditions, as Mr Busuttil and Mr Moraes, in particular, pointed out.
I would firstly like to try to respond on VIS, and in particular to Mrs Ludford, who, as rapporteur, has taken a particular interest in this problem. What we can say is that tests will be carried out on VIS by 11 November, and these tests will tell us whether we ought to change course. Until now, VIS can be thought of as having a sound architecture and, in fact, a few bugs, but ones that can be put right. Nevertheless, it is these tests that will show whether we need to terminate the contract with the contractor. It is too soon to tell, but the timetable would be reviewed accordingly in that instance.
I would point out that, in 2005, the Council decided that VIS had to be rolled out in a consistent and coordinated fashion by the Member States. That is why the VIS regulation stipulates that the system will begin operating in the first region on the date set by the Commission once all of the Member States have notified it that they have made all the technical and legal adjustments necessary to use VIS in that region.
This means that VIS will begin operating in the first region – North Africa, which covers the countries presenting the biggest risks in terms of illegal immigration and security – on the same date for all the Member States. This leads me to say that it really is important for all of the Member States to be able to get up and running and manage VIS because it would be extremely damaging if the central system proved to work normally but we were forced to extend the deadline even further because of these delays on the part of a few Member States. Hence, I am somewhat insistent on this point.
I note that Mrs Ludford made particular reference to the problem of the Olympic Games. I sincerely hope that we will have made progress by then. However, it is true that provision has been made for the United Kingdom to connect to SIS I + ahead of the Olympic Games, if such action proves necessary.
What I would also like to say is that, with regard to visa applicants, we sincerely hope not to deviate too much from the deadline that was set, since that is very important for us, and the serious risk of people ‘shopping’ for visas at consulates may increase if we delay VIS too much.
Mrs Ždanoka talked to me about biometric data and controlling access to the system. I think that we will have an opportunity to discuss this again, but these controls will be subject to a number of clear rules. I noted that Mrs Ernst is against the system, but I wish to remember what Mr Kirkhope told me, also. I now come to Mr Coelho. Mr Coelho is well acquainted with SIS II, and I would like to try to answer some of his questions while keeping the option open to write to him in order to give him the other answers to his seven questions.
What I can say is that the Commission opened the contractual negotiations with its co-contractor and that those negotiations were focused on two areas: the commissioning of the additional services and equipment required to perform the test of the first milestone, and an amendment to the basic contract to enable the milestones within SIS II to be formalised by contract. We reached an overall agreement at the end of July. We reached an overall agreement at the end of July, and it is true that the co-contractor pointed out that there were specifications that seemed to make the achievement of this first milestone a very complicated business
Nonetheless, we signed a contract with the contractor that stipulates that this milestone must be achieved."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples