Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the integrated management of our external borders, which is where, I am sure that we are all agreed, security, for the European Union, begins. They are also the starting point for defence against such menaces as organised crime, terrorism, smugglers, and illegal immigration. We know, though, that our external borders continue to be the weakest link in our internal security system as a whole, and the reasons for this are well known. They have to do with the different ways in which Schengen is interpreted, with differences in technical standards, and with the various agencies engaged in border control, with differences in training and, in general terms, with the lack of any Community, or even joint, action in matters concerning border control. If, however, we want to improve border security and hence make the EU more secure, we need equally high standards on all our external borders, both as they are at present and as they will be in the future, all of us being aware that the EU is about to be enlarged and that this demands that action be taken. The security that we are aiming for is something on which our internal security as a whole depends, as also does our ability to make a reality of the fundamental principle of freedom of movement. I welcome the initiatives taken by the Laeken European Council in December 2001, when it mandated the Commission and the Council to take appropriate steps to deal with this. I certainly welcome the Commission proposal, congratulate the Commissioner on the excellence of his preparatory work, and welcome the Council's plan of action. On these things there is broad agreement. I can also tell you – and I am glad to be able to do so – that these proposals met with broad consensus in the committee. I want, therefore, to express my gratitude for the close cooperation, which has seen all parties united in a concern for security. I believe that, in going ahead in this way, we have set a very good example, and I would be delighted if the same broad support and consensus were to be demonstrated tomorrow. What, then, are the crucial points in my report, on which there is such agreement? I would like to single out five of them. The first is that we need to analyse and redefine the tasks involved and establish a common set of legal regulations. In order to do this, we also need to analyse the operational practice involved in the transposition of the Schengen acquis, which we know varies to a large extent. The Common Manual on border control should be revised to include the common standards and to take account of best practice. It strikes me as particularly important that we should have not merely a Common Manual, but should also establish a monitoring body to verify, at regular intervals, that the provisions are being implemented and adhered to, which is what common standards and high quality are all about. Leading on from that, the second priority is joint training and re-training. We must at long last give tangible effect to Article 7 of the Convention applying the Schengen Agreement. We are already engaged in drawing up a common core curriculum for border guards. What we need, however, in order to create a multiplier effect so that high standards may be guaranteed in the long term, is the establishment of a European Staff College for the training of senior officials, which should be supported through the ARGO programme, thus enabling the standard of training, as well as the common operating standards, to be maintained in the long term. The third priority is that the equipment used should be interchangeable. In this area, there is a lack of compatibility within the Member States, and practical cross-border cooperation is made utterly impossible by the completely incompatible technical standards involved. If we go over to using shared satellite or radar systems or start cooperating across borders, then compatible equipment becomes an absolute necessity. It would, moreover, make sense in the future – for reasons of economics as much as any other reason – to have these standards in the joint procurement of technical systems, which can be very expensive. Fourthly, we should carry out an ongoing risk analysis. As Europol also has systems for analysing organised crime, we should have them carry out a risk analysis, the results of which – reporting on situations and outlining any assistance needed – would be communicated to the Member States and made available in order to make the common standards a reality here. It would be desirable – and, in terms of increased efficiency, an overall objective – for data to be exchanged between the Schengen, Europol and Eurodac systems, with, of course, all necessary data protection provisions being adhered to. There is no doubt that this could achieve certain synergies. The fifth priority is that a European Corps of Border Guards should be established, made up of specialist units and with Community funding, which would, in an emergency and at the request of the Member States, support the national authorities at vulnerable border points for limited periods. This would enable us not only to achieve an optimum standard of security at particularly vulnerable sections of our external borders, but also to share the burden of dealing with a specific situation on the external border, which the country involved cannot be expected to bear alone. By doing this, we would be providing assistance and sharing a burden, although it has to be said that, in principle, general competence in matters of control of the external borders should remain at national level. It is my hope that all this agreement will give us the necessary stimulus to at last bring about in reality what we owe to the public – a greater degree of security even when enlargement has taken place. We can get down to work. Parliament will give its full support to the endeavours of the Commission and the Council if they go down this road. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE