Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Schengen Information System (SIS) is a system of computer networks on which the information provided by the Schengen States is stored and consulted by the police and customs authorities of other Schengen States. The SIS is the largest database in Europe and has a dual function: firstly to maintain public order and security and, secondly, to deal with immigration, providing support for measures intended to compensate for the free movement of persons. In this context, two Spanish initiatives were submitted to us in the aim of giving the SIS new functions, primarily for combating terrorism. I must express my regret that this report, for internal European Parliament reasons, confines itself to these two Spanish initiatives and does not also cover, as initially intended, a resolution on the Commission communication on the development of the future SIS-II, which contains proposals to increase the system’s capacity, and to introduce new technical and research possibilities. I am sorry, in particular, because the two Spanish initiatives seek to include improvements in the current version of the SIS that must necessarily reflect the long-term aims of SIS-II and, consequently, must be considered to be an integral part of the process of transition from SIS-I to SIS-II. Having made a thorough study of the Spanish initiatives, we have reached the conclusion that, although we are unable to subscribe to them fully, they can be accepted if some amendments are made to them that are basically designed to ensure that guarantees of the protection of citizens’ rights are not called into question, thereby responding to the European Parliament’s main concern throughout this process. Some proposals contained in the Spanish initiatives are acceptable, such as access by Europol or by Eurojust, provided that appropriate guarantees are put in place to ensure the legitimacy and the legality of any use of data. This being the case, the conditions laid down in Amendments No 7, concerning Europol and No 10, which I tabled, concerning Eurojust, must be met before access can be granted. If this access for new users is made possible, the purpose for which it is granted must always be respected, limiting this access to information which they have the right to access and ensuring that at least the same if not a greater level of protection of our citizens’ rights is in place. It is also important that Europol and Eurojust’s needs to access the SIS data are more rigorously examined and justified. The proposals for the full recording of searches are to be welcomed, but it seems appropriate to specify in the Article what information must be recorded. A legal basis must also be provided for the operation of the Sirene offices, an idea that I had already suggested in my report of June 2001, and which forces these offices to remove data whenever this proves necessary. On the other hand, these two initiatives contain other proposals that, in our opinion, must await the development of SIS-II, when appropriate guarantees are put in place. This applies to the proposal to extend access to data on missing, stolen or lost identity documents. Although I have no objections in principle, I feel that, in the absence of additional measures to protect the rights of persons whose documents have been stolen, whose identity is used illegally or those whose data are simply input incorrectly into the SIS, the European Parliament cannot, at this stage, approve this proposal, which is likely to aggravate the problems of citizens whose identity has been usurped. The same applies to the proposal to add additional data on wanted persons and to incorporate identification material in alerts on persons, notably photographs and fingerprints, on which adequate guarantees must first be adopted. The Commission has commissioned a feasibility study to be undertaken on the development of SIS-II, which should be available in March 2003. I hope that the European Parliament will then have the opportunity to deliver an opinion on these conclusions. I wish once again to express my unhappiness at the fact that this feasibility study will not be looking into the possibility of combining the Schengen, Europol, customs and possibly Eurojust databases into one database, in the aim of eliminating duplication, streamlining resources and improving accuracy; a common database that would be made available to different users in a different way, guaranteeing restricted and specific access to the various areas of the database. It appears that there is already political agreement on the need to create a new SIS – this is a Council decision with a legal basis for the development of SIS-II, and with the necessary budget. The way in which this will be managed will be determined in a future document. I wish to recall that this has been the clear position of this Parliament: this management must be undertaken by the Commission and must be subject to parliamentary and judicial control. It is to be hoped that SIS-II will be developed by 2006. Given the danger of this development taking longer than planned, however, I think it is acceptable and appropriate for us to be making some improvements – at least those that are possible at this stage – to the SIS in force. Lastly, Mr President, I wish to thank all my colleagues in the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, whose amendments have contributed to improving this report. I should also like to thank the shadow rapporteurs for their cooperation and, particularly, the shadow rapporteur, Sérgio Sousa Pinto.

Political group: PPE-DE