Community action programme in the field of health - Action to tackle cardiovascular disease (debate)
President
The next item is:
the recommendation for second reading, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on the Council common position for adopting a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a second programme of Community action in the field of health (2007-2013) (16369/2/2006 C6-0100/2007 Rapporteur: Mr Trakatellis, and
the debate on the oral question to the Commission B6-0134/2007) by Mr Ouzký, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on action to tackle cardiovascular disease.
Antonios Trakatellis
rapporteur. - (EL) Mr President, Commissioner, I call on you to give due attention to the question of promoting health, which must be seen not only as a valuable commodity and indicator of social prosperity, but also as an investment-generating parameter.
This approach is particular evident in the field of prevention, on which the programme under debate mainly focuses, because prevention means restricting morbidity and hence reducing the costs of treatment and hospital care. There is no need to analyse the beneficial results of such a development for health insurance and, by extension, public finances.
Improving the health of the population undoubtedly drives progress, strengthens citizens, by guaranteeing them a longer, better and more productive life, and constitutes the precondition to economic prosperity. By limiting the number of man-hours lost, prevention also helps to increase the productivity and employability of workers, two indicators which are in keeping with the Lisbon process.
Prevention, therefore, is the key issue for a revised, efficiency-orientated health policy and a preferential field of action for a Union programme. That is why the European Union needs its second public health programme: because we must jointly defend ourselves against the health risks which have appeared so dramatically, with the possibility of a 'flu pandemic and with the bird 'flu epidemic, and that is one of the aims of the programme.
We must jointly promote a healthy lifestyle for our children, with a proper diet in a society free from smoke and stress and with proper socio-economic conditions in general that have a serious effect on health, and that is one of the aims of the programme.
We must jointly fight to reduce the morbidity and mortality rates of serious illnesses which destroy the body and the mind, and that is one of the aims of the programme.
We must recommend that better medical practices, which are not only the most efficient way of combating disease but which limit further loss of health, be within reach of everyone, both of those working in the health professions and of simple citizens, and that is one of the aims of the programme.
Particular importance is attached to collating data on the resistance of bacteria to antibiotics, which is currently the scourge of hospitals in Europe. Particular importance is also attached to the effect of environmental factors on health. It is also extremely important that we collate data and develop strategies on patient mobility.
I could continue by describing one by one all the aims of the programme. I think that it is not necessary, because we are all convinced that we must act jointly and at European level, while at the same time giving the Member States the possibility of increasing their efficiency on health matters. This is the second programme, which will apply in the years 2008-2013. It is better, more comprehensive and more ambitious and is marked by an integrated perception both of health and of the means, mechanisms and practices for combating health problems.
It will assist convergence and the integration of the European Union, which we must look on not only in economic terms or foreign policy terms, but also in terms of convergence in the fields of education and health, because that is when the fabric of stability and prosperity of European society is really woven.
This sort of ambitious plan which, at the same time, is of exceptional benefit not only for the health, but also for the economy of the European Union, needs financial investments that will yield exponential results, because it will considerably reduce the onerous costs of health services in the Member States.
Unfortunately, the Council made huge cuts to the European Union budget in December, which for certain programmes, such as the programme under debate, were exceptionally painful. One wonders how we can progress along the difficult path of European integration when the programmes which fundamentally build and create a European society of the future are subject to significant cuts.
The good news is that the need for adequate funding for the health programme has been understood by the Council and by the Commission and by Parliament and I believe that the arrangement brokered through unofficial consultations allows for adequate financing within a framework of the rules of the Community budget.
I call on my honourable friends to vote in favour of the agreed amendments brokered through unofficial consultations.
Miroslav Ouzký
author. - (CS) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to express my support for the words of my dear colleague Dr Trakatellis on the particular issue of cardiovascular diseases. In my question to the Commission, I focused on a widely known issue, namely the seriousness of cardiovascular diseases, which in the EU alone kill almost two million people per year. This is an established and universally acknowledged fact. As long ago as 2004, the Council recognised the importance of providing decisive solutions to the problem of cardiovascular diseases. There has been extraordinary medical progress in this field in the last 10 to 15 years. The problem, however, is the dramatic increase in costs. For the purposes of illustration, I always tell Czech citizens in debates - and I emphasise the point here in this Chamber - that treating a coronary thrombosis 15 years ago, using the methods of the time, cost around EUR 20 per day, and after streptokinase was introduced the cost rose to EUR 1,000 per treatment. Nowadays, with the advent of stents and acute catheterisation, the cost has risen to EUR 10 000 for a single treatment. In other words, there has been a huge increase in the financial cost. On the other hand, there has been enormous growth in the range of opportunities for treating a significant number of patients who would previously have had to suffer and die. Today, patients with acute coronary thrombosis, provided they are treated quickly and properly, can return home on the very same day and go back to work few days later. The money we spend, therefore, can be recouped later.
A further problem is the differences that exist not only between the various Member States but also within individual countries. According to one study in my country, the death rate from cardiovascular diseases rises according to how far from the clinic the patient lives. In this regard, the EU varies enormously and what we are proposing is a path towards a more systemic solution. Although I do not wish to go against the subsidiarity principle and tread on the toes of the various national governments, I should like to ask the Commission how it intends to bring about an exchange of information and experience, because we certainly have the resources for that, and it is one of the ways in which we can make substantial improvements this area. What steps does the Commission intend to take to reduce the economic burden and the impact of cardiovascular diseases on the economies of the Member States? What funding possibilities does the Commission have which can be recommended? In one of the amendments to which I put my name today, I called for a study into the option of mass public provision of defibrillators. We know that this has proved to be extremely effective in Japan, and I have also learned of defibrillators being made available in public places in a number of other countries, including the United States. I am aware that this is a very expensive option, and that opponents of such an indiscriminate approach would argue that a certain amount of prudence is called for. Yet this approach will in many cases save lives before the ambulance arrives. This is why I should be interested in the Commission's response to this additional question.
Markos Kyprianou
Μember of the Commission. (EL) Mr President, I should like to start by extending my warmest thanks to all the honourable Members for the interest they have shown in the Commission proposal for the adoption of a second programme of Community action in the field of health.
I should like in particular to thank the rapporteur, Mr Trakatellis, and the shadow rapporteurs for their efforts, which will allow us - and I am sure of this - to reach an agreement at second reading.
We have before us today an overall compromise which is the outcome of a number of very positive unofficial contacts between the three institutions. The compromise amendments strengthen the text in numerous sectors which are of particular importance to Parliament, such as the follow-up to Community initiatives on cancer and the more accurate wording on action for the environment and health.
As far as the budget is concerned, which we have also had the opportunity to debate in the past, unfortunately the room for manoeuvre was very limited and the Commission is strictly bound by the agreed financial framework.
Nonetheless, according to the text of the tripartite statement, the special requirements of the programme will be taken into account during the annual budget procedure. In addition, the present text will provide the legal basis, which will safeguard the more effective disposal of resources for achieving the aims of the programme.
I do not think that anyone can doubt that Parliament, the Council and the Commission made a great deal of effort to reach an acceptable compromise. I honestly hope that the vote to follow will express this positive and constructive stand, so that we can start to finance plans relating to important new public health sectors from 1 January 2008.
I should like now to turn, on the basis of Mr Ouzký's question, to a more specific aspect of public health and one of the most serious problems; I refer to cardiovascular diseases, which are certainly one of the main causes of early death and disability of the citizens of the European Union.
The causes and the risk factors are well known; they include smoking, a poor diet and obesity, lack of physical exercise and excessive consumption of alcohol.
I know that Parliament has an acute interest in this sector and that a motion for a resolution on cardiovascular diseases is being submitted to plenary by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety.
As you know, the Commission puts particular emphasis on prevention. Within the limited resources at our disposal and within the balance of competences set out in the Treaty, we put particular emphasis and expend a great deal of effort on prevention. We also do this on the question of smoking and you are all well acquainted with the 'Help' strategy, which has also been received in Parliament, the various laws and the Green Paper we have adopted on banning smoking in public places, and I really do impatiently await the view and opinion of the European Parliament.
As far as diet is concerned, we published very recently - in May - a White Paper on diet and obesity and, as you know, we have already started applying and implementing the strategy on alcohol, starting with the Alcohol and Health Forum, in cooperation with non-governmental organisations and private-sector undertakings in the aim of combating this new problem.
Through public health programmes, the Commission supports activities and networks relating to cardiovascular diseases, including an extensive catalogue of data on cardiovascular diseases in the Member States and the development of indicators for monitoring cardiovascular diseases.
The creation of centres of reference, the exchange of best practices, the combating of the inequalities which unfortunately exist in the European Union - not only from one state to another, but also within the Member States themselves - are the objectives addressed by the new programme.
However, I must emphasise for the sake of accuracy that we simply provide possibilities; they must be used by the Member States, which are responsible for providing health services.
As far as research is concerned (because the question also refers to research), the European Union has made over EUR 100 million available for research into cardiovascular diseases through the Sixth Framework Programme on research and development. These diseases are still one of the priorities of health research within the framework of the Seventh Framework Programme on research and development which started this year. Consequently, there is the facility to continue research in this sector under the Seventh Framework Programme.
I shall not comment in detail on the European Heart Health Charter, because an event and debate were held on the subject here in Parliament and we all remember the presentation event in Brussels last month. However, this cohesive document is important, because it unifies all the bodies which can help to combat this problem and, of course, it is safeguarded by the public health programme.
More action to combat the decisive factors which cause cardiovascular diseases and inequalities in health will be included in the new health strategy of the European Union which I hope - and I am sure - will be adopted later, before the end of this year.
As far as the financial part is concerned - because this too is important - there is the European Development Fund for developing countries, where the Commission is responding to the priorities set by the countries themselves through dialogue and, of course, the health sector is one of the priorities.
The same applies to the Structural Funds which exist in the European Union for the Member States and which can be used for health even more extensively in this period than in the previous period, but there is still a need for health to be a priority issue in the take-up of Funds by the Member States themselves.
We provide possibilities, by which I mean that I do not fail to raise the issue with the ministers of health whenever we meet but, at the end of the day, the decision will be taken collectively by the governments of the Member States. I advise and urge the Member States to make use of the Structural Funds in the health sector, but I must say that there is still a great deal of room for improvement.
However, it is also our priority to strengthen the national health systems which allow for the management of public health priorities, which cover not only communicable diseases, which of course are the first and obvious threat, but also non-communicable and I hope here that I shall have the support and cooperation of Parliament.
John Bowis
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, there is no wealth without health. That is the theme of this debate and the sub-plot is that we have both to care and cure, but also to prevent ill-health and promote wellbeing. The Commissioner recognises this and has come forward with an ambitious programme, as our rapporteur has said, but the budget was savaged by two-thirds. So it is clear we must do better on budgets in the future; it is clear we must use our limited resources now wisely; it is clear we must target the non-communicable diseases that cause 86% of deaths in Europe and devastate lives and families - cardiovascular disease, cancer, mental illness, diabetes, respiratory and musculoskeletal conditions. That of course links into the resolution that you have before you: 42% of deaths in the EU come from CVD problems.
Our emphasis must be on lifestyle. Some 80% of heart attacks, stroke and diabetes, and some 40% of cancers could be avoided by changing lifestyle and cutting out the risks that come from a bad lifestyle. We will sometimes need education or legislation on smoking, drugs, alcohol, salt, saturated and trans fats, lack of exercise, as well as things like stress management and all the causes of hypertension. We need partnerships between people, governments, health services and employers. And we need ideas such as the one on the defibrillator that my colleague referred to.
I could end by saying the road to hell is often said to be paved with good intentions, but the health promotion case studies show that, as in North Karelia, if good intentions are translated into action, then the road can lead not to hell but to health.
Linda McAvan
on behalf of the PSE Group. - Mr President, my first thanks go to Mr Trakatellis for his excellent work on getting agreement today on a package of amendments on the public health programme.
It has not been easy: we have had lots of meetings over the course of the last few months, but we finally have a package that the Socialist Group welcomes. We welcome the very clear commitment to tackling health inequalities which is contained in the package. We welcome, as Mr Bowis said, the action on major diseases which are the biggest killers in Europe.
We want to see better use made of the centres of reference across Europe and we are also pleased that NGOs and patients' organisations will have better access to funding thanks to this programme that will see emphasis placed on the wider environmental determinants of heath. We all know that health suffers because of environmental issues and we want to see that tackled.
Like the other speakers, I think it is regrettable that we have a lower budget than we had thought in the first place but, as the Commission has said on many occasions, there are other framework programmes where health can be investigated so this is not the only money made available for health research in the EU.
I want to draw your attention to Amendment 19, which the Socialist Group has tabled separately from the package. In recital 14 we talk about increasing healthy life years, and we want to delete the words 'also called disability-free life expectancy indicator'. We have had many approaches from disability organisations, which make the point that you can have a disability and be healthy and that, therefore, this terminology seems to suggest that if you are a disabled person you are automatically somebody who is unhealthy. Therefore, we would like the Commission and the Council to look at that when they look at the final wording for the document.
Finally, I want to put on record my thanks as well to the German Presidency negotiating team who helped us to reach agreement today and took on board so many of our parliamentary amendments from first reading. I look forward to getting the programme up and running on time next year. That is what everybody wants at this stage and that is why we have been prepared to compromise on the budget, but we are very pleased with the content.
Marios Matsakis
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, I should like to express my congratulations to the rapporteur for his excellent report. Professor Trakatellis has spent many years dealing with health issues, both as a clinician and as a politician; therefore, he knows the subject matter of this report very well and it is thus not surprising that he has tackled the issue with efficiency and wisdom. Most of us share the rapporteur's views on the main issues brought up in this report. One of the most important of these is the problem of health inequalities. Such inequalities occur not just from one Member State to another but also within Member States. They can be very substantial indeed and, in many cases, such differences exist right across the whole range of healthcare, from prevention and diagnosis to treatment. It is well known, not just amongst medical professionals but also amongst ordinary citizens, that such discrepancies more often than not make the difference between life or death.
The right to life should be accompanied by the right to health - equal health, not one health for the rich and another for the poor. In a fair and humanistic society such as the one we aspire to achieve in the EU Member States, all citizens should be equal in terms of healthcare. I agree entirely with the rapporteur that this issue should become a very major aim of the health programme and I am sure that the Commissioner also agrees with this.
A second area referred to by the rapporteur on which I would like to offer some brief comments is that of cancer. Cancer is the second commonest cause of death in Europe and the world in general, yet it is absolutely unthinkable why in this day and age no proper Community system for cooperation between centres of reference is fully functioning unhindered. And it is shameful that shortcomings exist in the establishment of a Europe-wide register for those cancers which are covered by the Council recommendation on cancer screening. The rapporteur addresses both of these issues and many others adequately and proposes appropriate amendments which we fully support.
Adamos Adamou
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (EL) Commissioner, we must indeed congratulate the rapporteur, Professor Trakatellis, on achieving today's compromise. I, however, shall comment on the financial problem because, as we all know, the biggest bone of contention between Parliament and the Council from the outset was the budget to support this policy.
The compromise between the Member States in December 2005 on the new financial framework for the period 2007-2013 left funding for numerous policy areas at much lower levels than initially proposed by the Commission. One of the policy areas which suffered the biggest cuts was public health and the biggest victim was the health programme.
The consequences of the negotiations between the Commission and the Council were very unfortunate in terms of financial support for the action programme. The budget was reduced to EUR 365.6 million, a very small sum for such an ambitious programme.
Nonetheless, the rapporteur, with the support of the shadow rapporteurs, explored every way of improving the situation. However, given the rigid stance of the Council, he accepted that the room for manoeuvre as far as the budget was concerned was very limited and accepted the compromise between the Council and the Commission.
Although the limited budget for the programme is not of course to our liking, we welcome the rapporteur's efforts in managing to keep a plethora of Parliament's recommendations and amendments intact and to avoid the conciliation procedure.
We are most relieved to see that the rapporteur's compromise includes the need to reduce inequalities in health and a reference to alternative medicine. Nor does it omit the strengthening of cross-border care and patient mobility or better access for citizens to information, which will make them better able to take decisions which are in their interests.
It is worth noting that a large part of the budget will go to non-governmental organisations, which are non-profit-making and independent of industry, trade and the undertakings which specialise in the promotion of health and the aims of the programme.
Let us hope that it will be possible to meet the ambitious actions and expectations we all have of this programme, which will finally enter into force in 2008, despite the reduced budget.
Commissioner, I should like to emphasise at this point, as my honourable friends and previous speakers have indicated, the importance of prevention and of prompt diagnosis. We must invest in this sector. You cannot imagine not only the lives we shall save, but also the money that the Member States will save by applying programmes which address this specific sector, especially heart disease and cancer. You mentioned cancer as the second cause of death. I tell you with mathematical accuracy that, in a few years' time, cancer will be the first cause of death as a result of the progress being made with cardiovascular diseases.
Commissioner, we are with you and we shall support you in applying the programme.
Urszula Krupa
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (PL) Mr President, the 2007-2013 Community action programme in the field of health aimed to set a course for European health services. From the outset, however, the programme has generated controversy. This was due not only to the lack of clarity in the provisions on funding but also to other reasons.
The funds allocated relate only to international NGOs, and other programmes have been cut out. Pursuant to the document, substantial sums amounting to 60% Community input and to as much as 80% in exceptional circumstances are to be allocated to non-governmental organisations at international level. The programmes of many such organisations include pro-abortion policies. In some cases the organisations are offshoots of pharmaceutical concerns.
Funding laboratories without establishing the type of research they are engaged in is also cause for concern. Unfortunately the programme only deals in a cursory manner with access to health services and the care of the elderly. It makes no provision for supporting the family, combating the diseases of contemporary society or for access to highly specialised advice.
The programme does, however, deal with healthy food and a healthy lifestyle. The issue of cross-border health care arises again, along with its negative impact on certain health care systems. It would seem that in view of the limited funding available, this programme cannot deal with the whole range of problems affecting European health care services.
Irena Belohorská
- (SK) With regard to this report, I subscribe to all of the observations made by the rapporteur.
Out of an original budget of EUR 969 million, the Commission has cut healthcare allocations to EUR 365 million. It did so despite the fact that Parliament had not regarded EUR 969 million as sufficient and had topped it up to EUR 1.5 billion. I view this cut of nearly 60% as highly irresponsible. It is all the more shocking in the current climate, with healthcare systems across Eastern Europe weakened by the exodus of large numbers of physicians and nurses, who are leaving to seek work in the EU-15. In a situation where other programmes have been cut to the tune of a mere 2 to 5% and when every third citizen in Europe develops cancer, I believe that in assuming this stance the Commission is ridiculing and disparaging the patients and citizens of the European Union. It is therefore necessary to support the rapporteur in his efforts to have this small budget increased by at least 10%, that is, to EUR 402 million, while keeping the variation ceiling at no more than 5%.
At the same time, the programme should explicitly stipulate that structural funds, as you mentioned, Commissioner, can be used to finance healthcare projects, provided that Member States designate health care as a priority in their national programmes. Until now, these funds have been primarily used to finance environmental projects or build up infrastructure, and only a few citizens know that the funds could also be employed to finance the modernisation of hospitals, purchase equipment and train healthcare professionals.
I very much welcome the establishment of European-wide registries for major diseases, notably cancer, which will be instrumental in collecting data and highlighting even more the fact that there are discrepancies of up to 30% between Member States in the survival rates of patients suffering from certain types of cancer. On the basis of statistics such as these, I believe that the Commission will review its healthcare priorities and endorse the appropriate allocations.
Thomas Ulmer
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the action programme on health and the prevention of cardiovascular disease are very closely related subjects. I would like first of all to offer Mr Trakatellis my sincere congratulations on his tireless fight for this programme. Prevention is better than cure. Prevention means longer life, better life, better quality of life, less medical care, less sickness, lower sickness costs.
I am sure we would have liked more resources than 20 cents per head of population per year. We are however modest and conduct many action programmes for little money. We can only set priorities of course, and I must make it absolutely clear that we are talking here about prevention, about educating people, and not about treatment, which after all is a subsidiary matter and the responsibility of the nation states. Prevention means stopping diseases from occurring in the first place, especially in the area of cardiovascular diseases, involving heart attacks and strokes, of tumour diseases and their causes, as with lung cancer and smoking, of unhealthy lifestyles such as the wrong kind of food or even doping in sport, of accidents and accident prevention, and of research and statistics, where the aim is to detect and understand diseases better in order to develop better guidelines for treatment.
I will now reply to the oral question from Mr Ouzký, to whom I also express my thanks here. Much can be done to prevent cardiovascular disease by changing one's lifestyle: exercise, health, sport, balanced nutrition and ultimately also avoiding trans fatty acids. We also need a catchy slogan for cardiovascular prevention, so that people know what is at stake. We could say, for example, 'Save your heart, save your life' or in German 'Herzlos kannst du nicht leben'.
EUR 325 million for prevention over five years is not much. I visited a German heart hospital this morning. There, 200 million were invested in just one year!
Glenis Willmott
Mr President, as my group's shadow on the motion for a resolution on action to tackle cardiovascular disease, I would like wholeheartedly to endorse this worthy initiative and thank Mr Ouzký, Mr Andrejevs and Mr Bowis for all their hard work. I feel I can but reiterate the content of the resolution and add my voice to the call for action and other points raised in the oral question.
I find it shocking that nearly half of all deaths in Europe are caused by cardiovascular disease and that it is the main cause of death for women in all European countries. I welcome the specific mention of cardiovascular disease in the 2008-2013 health programme, but I am somewhat disappointed at the vastly reduced budget allocation given the fact that cardiovascular disease costs the European Union's countries EUR 169 billion each year.
The EU has so much to offer in terms of added value which would surely repay many times any money spent on combating it. Nevertheless, I fully support the compromise reached and recognise that it is necessary to have this funding in place as soon as possible. Any further delay in adopting the programme would not be desirable.
There is much action at EU level where value can be added and it is for this reason that we need a tangible European strategy on cardiovascular disease which can help Member States to improve and coordinate their prevention strategies, identify those who are at high risk, raise awareness, inform the public and promote exchange of best practice. A set of clear political guidelines should form part of this strategy.
I would like to conclude by reiterating my support for the motion for a resolution and I urge the Commission to bring forward without delay a comprehensive and coherent EU-wide strategy on cardiovascular disease incorporating the European Parliament's suggestions.
Jiří Maštálka
(CS) I too should like to congratulate Mr Trakatellis and thank him for his report and his proposals. I would also like to make one or two comments. I do not want to go into financial details, because this has already been done. I should merely like to point out, speaking as a doctor, that if financial resources are cut, the common programme that we are debating will simply be less effective. I firmly believe that healthcare cannot, in budgetary terms, be a peripheral issue.
I should like to support Amendment 1, which contains proposals for Council recommendations as regards the necessary delivery mechanisms. I feel that this is much needed, because we have often called for documents relating to healthcare or the fight against civilisational diseases, and we of course did not have the effective instruments needed to combat such diseases. The second amendment that I should like to mention and support concerns patient awareness. We need patients to be well informed. This is not, however, solely a matter of improving access to information, it is also, in my view about access to better quality information. Such information can help our citizens not only to become more interested in their own health, and in looking after themselves, but also to be less susceptible to advertising. On the subject of advertising, I believe that we shall have a unique opportunity to show our fairness and honesty with regard to issues such as alcoholism when we debate the proposed measures in the Foglietta report on combating alcoholism. On this issue, we will certainly table amendments regarding the advertising of alcoholic products.
I should like, if I may, to express my support for the initiative of Mr Ouzký, which applies to his question regarding cardiovascular diseases. As a former cardiologist, I feel I have a fair amount of knowledge on the subject. I should like to say that cardiologists today know much more about the causes and have put the conditions in place for patients to receive very effective treatment and to return to a normal working life. The problem is the extent of the desire to invest in such programmes, in particular when it comes to prevention. At the same time, there is a failure to understand that these resources can certainly be recouped. In this respect, the Czech Republic is a very good example. I believe that as MEPs we have a duty to call for a level playing field in the healthcare sector as well as the economic sector. This is a matter of financial solidarity between the EU Member States.
Kathy Sinnott
Mr President, yesterday's media revealed the shocking results of a study of children in a large area of England. One in every 58 children has a form of autism. How could a seriously debilitating condition have increased from 1 in 2000 to 1 in 58 children in 17 years?
Mr Trakatellis's work on the programme of Community action in the field of health 2007-2013 comes at a time when the need for some joined-up, collaborative thinking about Europe's major health threats is urgently needed. One of the most important contributions Europe can make to health is statistical research and investigation, establishing the true situation of disease threats - contagious or not, chronic or acute - because, in comparing disease treatment in the Member States, we get the overall picture that helps us develop a standard of best practice and clues to both treatments and even cures.
The Commission, I am glad to say, has made a start by funding the European Autism Information System project to establish an effective method to be used by Member State health authorities to gather the essential information on the autism epidemic in Europe. However, we are very late in this. The USA has been tracking this epidemic for a decade now. On foot of the figures, the US Congress has passed 16 pieces of legislation channelling billions of dollars, but Europe has done nothing yet.
I urge the Commission to find a way to foster the highest quality healthcare in the Member States, a system that will never again allow an epidemic like autism to go unchecked as it ravishes children, robbing them of their normal development.
Christofer Fjellner
(SV) The role and responsibility of the EU within the health sphere is, and must remain, limited. Perhaps the most important contribution to be made by the EU, however, is to enable people to seek health care in other EU countries. For many who are ill, health care in another EU country may be a matter of life or death. It is therefore incomprehensible that so many Member States do everything they can to limit that very option. European health care consumers should have access to the whole range of European health care, but that means having knowledge and information, and, where these are concerned, the health programme could play an invaluable role in disseminating information about health and health care to all patients throughout Europe.
I and many like me therefore think how unfortunate it is that, in many respects, precisely this area appears to have been curtailed when, for budgetary reasons, the Commission revised its proposal for a new health programme. I understand, however, that there has been a very great deal of opposition to this happening. Why, in actual fact, is increasing the transparency between different health care systems in the Member States such a delicate issue, however? Why not focus on measuring the likely results in terms of health care and of how many people would actually be helped to get better, rather than focus on available resources such as beds and days spent in hospital? The only explanation I can see is that there is a desire to keep patients uninformed and powerless.
It is equally incomprehensible that the EU Member States' compromise with our rapporteur, Mr Trakatellis, should have called, for example, for the removal of the wordings I included precisely in order to give patients more power. Why, for example, is there no desire to confirm that patients have rights also in their capacity as health care consumers? They have deleted the sentence whose meaning was precisely to that effect. I find that embarrassing.
In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, health decisions must be made at the lowest possible level. For me, that means at patient level, irrespective of what is said by politicians and bureaucrats in the Member States. We must therefore use European cooperation to strengthen the position of patients and give them more knowledge and more power. In a nutshell, patients should be allowed to take control of their own illnesses.
Dorette Corbey
(NL) Mr President, I should first of all like to congratulate Mr Trakatellis and our shadow rapporteur, Mrs McAvan. Health is a great good, as well as an important political topic. In the first instance, health falls within the national remit but, for Europe, it constitutes clear and important added value.
At present, the access European citizens have to adequate treatment is very unequal. Cancer patients stand a considerably better chance of survival in some countries than in others. Treatment methods differ and access to the health care is imbalanced. Patients' knowledge about their illnesses differs from one country to the next, and prevention does not in all countries have the attention it deserves.
This is why action is needed. We must pool knowledge. Member States, hospitals, patients' associations and general practitioners can learn from one other. We should combine our knowledge about the prevention and treatment of the most important diseases, including cancer, rheumatism, diabetes, lung disorders and obviously cardiovascular diseases, and we should learn from other countries where improvements can be made. Knowledge centres and networks, which should be dedicated to the most important diseases, can be a vital source of information for doctors and patients alike.
Miroslav Mikolášik
(SK) It is a proven fact that money invested in human health makes the best investment. It offers the best return on investment. I am therefore gratified that the Commission's original proposal for a joint healthcare and consumer protection programme to be established for the period up to 2013 has been defeated.
Parliament did well to increase healthcare allocations to EUR 1.5 billion from the initial level of EUR 969 million, thus sending a clear signal and message to both the Council and the Commission. In the meantime, the budgets for new multiyear programmes in all policy areas have been the subject of negotiations concerning the new financial framework for 2007-2013; in this context, ladies and gentlemen, I must express great dissatisfaction with the fact that many programmes, including the health programme, have been allocated far less than the Commission originally proposed.
Even though the European Parliament later managed to remedy the situation somewhat, in the spring of 2006, the outcome is wholly inadequate from the perspective of some of the programmes, including healthcare. I am referring to public health, where the topped up budget was cut to the scarcely credible figure of EUR 365.5 million. It is a good thing that the political agreement in November 2006 for the area of health accepted the Commission's revised proposal, including the budget.
I believe that the specific programmes designed for people and for patients, such as the screening programmes for cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and many other disorders, will not be jeopardised. Nor will we put in jeopardy the necessary cooperation across the Community between specialised centres, or the establishment of Europe-wide registers of such diseases.
I fully support the approach taken by the rapporteur, Mr Trakatellis, and I believe that Parliament will again take a wise decision.
Justas Vincas Paleckis
(LT) I congratulate the rapporteur, who faced the challenging task of adapting the significantly reduced seven-year health budget to the growing expectations of EU citizens. A coordinated Community approach in this field would significantly increase the effective utilisation of funds. Now the programme has to be approved as soon as possible in order that at least the funds for 2008 are reclaimed in time.
In the expanded European Union, differences in medical care in various countries have become evident. The programme under discussion ought to help reduce these differences. Every EU citizen in any EU country has the right to receive quality medical services. It is particularly important that the new EU countries participate in the European projects.
I would also like to underline the need for attention to preventive projects, which reduce the influence of risk factors and improve the health of the Community. Preventing illnesses is always cheaper than treating them, especially at times like this, when resources are decreasing but needs are growing.
Zuzana Roithová
(CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this Community action programme establishes priorities for projects, funded at European and national level, to address the biggest causes of death in Europe, including cardiovascular diseases, neuropsychiatric disorders, cancer, digestive diseases and respiratory diseases. We all have to die of something, especially when we reach a certain age. The high quality of European medicine, along with improvements in living conditions, and in particular people's economic wealth, have led to longer life expectancy among Europeans. There are fresh challenges that lie ahead of us. One is how the health and social systems in Europe are to be funded in future from the public purse and the second is how to improve treatment for polymorbidity, which becomes more common as people live longer. Such treatment is crucial to older people's quality of life. Both of these concerns are common to all Member States, and yet neither has been included in any detail among the main goals of the Union's action plan in the area of health. Perhaps next time.
Resolving the first of these economic concerns will entail, among other things, an assessment of priorities within the Community, both in terms of government programmes and in terms of people's private lives. My professional experience has taught me that the main priority is to make people much more responsible for their own health and disease prevention. Patients are not stupid and are capable of making up their own minds. They do need adequate information for this, however, and it must be formulated in an appropriate way. I therefore strongly support the proposals in the second reading, including Amendment 2, for example, which calls for the programme to provide citizens with better access to information, and Amendment 9, which concerns policies aimed at leading a healthier lifestyle. As regards the second problem, I would like to believe that the Member States will actively support the coordination of scientific activities aimed at achieving the complex treatment of associated diseases, despite the large and regrettable reduction in the European budget for the action plan in support of health.
Markos Kyprianou
Member of the Commission. Mr President, I should like to thank the Members once again for a very interesting debate and for the support expressed.
I do not want to repeat what has already been said and what I said in my introductory remarks, but I shall make some clarifications. On the issue of cancer, I should like to clarify that cancer remains one of the Commission's top priorities and is part of the health programme. I referred specifically to cardiovascular diseases because that was in a question tabled by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, but through research and other programmes we support many initiatives regarding cancer. We had an opportunity to discuss this issue in this House quite recently.
I should like to correct one mistake. Mrs Belohorská is not here and I think that she did not follow the debate closely on how the financial perspectives were adopted and how it was decided who took the decision. It was not the Commission who reduced the budget - we are not that suicidal. As you know, it was the Council who decided unanimously that there should be a reduction, and the areas that suffered most, unfortunately, were health and education and culture. I have to say that it is regrettable and I have had the opportunity to express this on many occasions in discussions here and I understand the frustration of Mr Trakatellis when he had to deal with this issue.
However, at the end of the day we want to take action, we want to help our citizens and we want to move forward, and therefore we have to make do with what we have and make the best possible use of our limited funds and resources. That is why I agree with many of you, and it is our priority, that prevention is one of the main targets because it has added value and a multiplying effect so that we can make better use of the funds by concentrating on prevention. That is one of my main arguments. I have been trying repeatedly to convince Member States that spending on health is not a cost but an investment. It has to be viewed as such. We will benefit in the long run, and that is a disincentive for taking measures when benefits will appear sometime in the future.
Nevertheless, I think that the time has come when we cannot expect to solve the problems only through reforms of the health systems or through patient mobility or through increasing the insurance costs but we have to invest in prevention and on health and this is one of the main priorities. I am looking forward to working with you all in the next period.
Perhaps I could refer to just one specific amendment, that raised by Mrs McAvan. We have no objection to agreeing to the deletion of that sentence. You realise that for us it is a big achievement to have the healthy life years included as an indicator and this was the purpose. It was just a way of expressing it differently, but we see the point so we do not object to removing it, especially because it is the wording that is the problem and not actually the validity of the indicator.
Regarding the point raised by Mr Fjellner on the issue of patients' rights, we had the opportunity to discuss this issue in this House and we are looking into it through the healthcare initiative which should be adopted towards the end of the year. There are different systems in different Member States so we do not always agree on a common approach, but at least the first step will be taken and many issues like information for patients and other aspects of patients' rights will be tackled through the healthcare initiative.
I should like to conclude by thanking you all, in particular the Environment Committee, as well as Mr Trakatellis for being patient and persistent. I am looking forward to working with all of you in the implementation of the programme.
President
I have received one motion for resolution pursuant to Article 108(5) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Tuesday 10 July 2007.


Migration to the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) - Migration to the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) (debate)
President
The next item is the joint debate on:
the report by Carlos Coelho, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on migration to the second generation Schengen Information System (decision) (12059/1/2008 - C6-0188/2008 -, and
the report by Carlos Coelho, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on migration to the second generation Schengen Information System (regulation) (11925/2/2008 - C6-0189/2008 -.
Carlos Coelho
(PT) Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, Vice-President of the European Commission, ladies and gentlemen, we are examining two instruments: a regulation and a decision on migration from SISone4ALL to SIS II, including a comprehensive test that will assess whether the level of performance of SIS II is equivalent to that of the current system. These proposals are the result of a change in the migration strategy.
Four points: firstly, the initial plan was to have a migration of 15 Member States in a process lasting around 8 hours. In the meantime, the number of Member States increased to 25, which made the process much more complex and difficult. Secondly, an interim technical architecture will have to be created that will allow SIS1+ and SIS II to operate in parallel for a limited transitional period. This is a wise solution that we should agree to and it will enable us to have a fallback in the event of something going wrong. Thirdly, a technical tool - a converter - will be made available during this interim period that will connect the SIS I central system to the SIS II central system, enabling both to process the same information and ensuring that all Member States stay on the same level. Lastly, the mandate given to the Commission in 2001 expires at the end of this year.
We raised four concerns. Firstly, the need for the European Commission to continue to have a mandate to develop SIS II until it is operational. We are opposed to the idea, which was considered, of the Commission's mandate finishing when work on the C-SIS central system is concluded. Secondly, for there to be a clear definition of the European Commission's competences and of those of the Member States. Thirdly, that all the conditions laid down in No 2 establishing the legal basis for SIS should be fulfilled before the migration of the data takes place. Lastly, that this migration should be carried out in a single, one-shot phase, processed by all Member States.
The proposals we received on 3 September, on the same day that they were approved in Coreper, make major changes to the initial proposals. Normally Parliament should be consulted again when the texts presented involve substantial changes. However, once again, we are up against a tight schedule; the Commission's mandate expires at the end of 2008 and it is essential that the Council approve these proposals at the end of October. Once again Parliament is showing it is living up to its responsibilities and it is not our fault that the process is delayed. As a matter of fact, the changes that have been made do answer most of the concerns outlined in my draft reports, especially in terms of clarifying the Commission's responsibilities and those of the Member States and that the Commission will continue to have a mandate to develop SIS II until it is operational.
In conclusion, I should like to congratulate the French Presidency on the excellent work it has put into achieving a good agreement between the Commission and the Member States, which had looked as if it was going to be difficult. The European Parliament wants to contribute to avoiding further delays and to having SIS II operational by the new date set: 30 September 2009. We are, however, concerned, as various experts have said informally that it is more than likely that this date will once again not be respected.
There are two essential points that the European Parliament considers as key and that all the political groups support. Firstly, that the European Parliament should be updated on a six-monthly basis on the development of the project and, secondly, that the mandate given to the new Commission should not be an open-ended mandate and that a rule be included whereby the European Parliament has to be consulted again if there is a delay of more than one year. We sincerely hope that this time the project will be concluded in a timely fashion and that SIS II can start operating on the scheduled date.
President
We will now hear from the Council. Mr Jouyet, on behalf of the European Parliament, I would like to thank you for being here all day. I believe that your attentiveness before this Assembly is a reflection of your commitment to Europe.
Jean-Pierre Jouyet
Mr President, thank you for your kind words. Obviously I return the compliment in terms of commitment to Europe, and to the Vice-President of the Commission, Jacques Barrot.
Mr Coelho, ladies and gentlemen, redesigning the Schengen system is necessary to develop the new functions that crime prevention and border control will demand in future. The 'SISone4ALL' system, Minister, developed on the initiative of the Portuguese Presidency, is a happy compromise that allowed the Member States that joined in 2004 to be included and, more importantly, led to the removal of controls at internal land borders, in December, and then at air borders, in March.
We all felt emotional seeing the last iron curtain come down, seeing Slovak and Austrian ministers symbolically cut down the wooden barrier at the Berg-Petržalka crossing point to the east of Vienna. I think that this is a proud moment for any staunch European supporter, knowing that we have an area of free movement of 3.6 million km2. This is the largest area in the world, although - as you know - the necessary corollary of this great freedom is an electronic system that allows us to identify suspected criminals and to follow the trail of false papers and stolen passports, while applying stringent data protection rules to guarantee individual freedoms. I would like to emphasise this point.
However, as you quite rightly said, the current system does not allow the use of modern technology, even if this complies with the fundamental principles of data protection and especially the principle of proportionality. How can the police be efficient with a central database that does not currently allow them to look at digital photographs of wanted criminals, to identify them with any certainty? This is why the aim of the Schengen II or SIS II information system must be maintained; as you clearly explained, this is the real issue in our debate. Mr President, on behalf of the Council, I would like to thank the Vice-President, Mr Barrot, who, under a new mandate, has agreed to continue overseeing the development of the new SIS central database, in addition to the connection with national databases. I would like to thank him for being personally involved in this project.
The draft texts that you will be asked to vote on tomorrow set out a clearer division of responsibilities between the Member States and the Commission during each phase, whether in terms of project development, final tests, the interim phase, with the converter, or the final migration of one system to another, in the interests of establishing an overall balance between the obligations of Member States and the responsibilities of the European Commission.
I would particularly like to thank Mr Coelho, who has worked swiftly, effectively and imaginatively on this important project, together with his colleagues from the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. I would also ask him to pass on my thanks to the committee chairman, Mr Deprez. Mr Coelho has encouraged support for the texts needed for today's plenary, and these texts incorporate the proposals that you made, Mr Coelho. Parliament's support today allows us to embark on a new phase in the transition to SIS II, in time for the expiry of the Commission's current mandate - an ad hoc mandate, I should point out - which is due to expire on 31 December. I would just like to reassure the Vice-President on this point.
Of course, the launch of the new system represents an enormous technological challenge, and one that was no doubt underestimated at first. In fact, the transfer of 22 million records involving more than 24 parties whose national databases are in different formats is, as you can imagine, no mean feat. However, the efforts that have been made in this project are, I think, up to the task. In view of these technical and financial efforts, the European Parliament deserves to be kept fully informed of the progress and of the difficulties that exist in the transition to the new system. A deadline should be set - as you said, Mr Coelho - to test the new system and check that it will be fully operational - as we all hope - in September next year, as agreed during the Justice and Home Affairs Council Meeting on 6 June.
We realise that we have set ourselves a tight deadline. The technical experts realise this. We can only meet this deadline if everyone is wholeheartedly committed to the SIS II project and shoulders their responsibilities. With this report, the European Parliament is sending out a positive signal this evening by asking perfectly legitimate questions. This is why the Council proposes to unconditionally approve the amendments tabled, which, I should point out, have received the support of all political groups within the European Parliament. Thank you so much for all your hard work.
Jacques Barrot
Mr President, I too would like to thank the Presidency and Mr Jouyet for agreeing just now with Mr Coelho's report, since I truly believe that progress needs to be made in this crucial area now, without delay. I would also like to thank Mr Coelho for his report and for his personal commitment to the success of SIS II. If SIS II ever sees the light of day, then we will owe much to you, Mr Coehlo.
Your report again highlights the level of interest and ongoing support within the European Parliament for plans to develop the second generation Schengen Information System. Evidently, SIS II will be a key tool in the Common Space of Freedom, Security and Justice and, to that end, it is clearly essential that this system should be operational as soon as possible.
I am pleased, therefore, that an agreement has been reached on legal instruments relating to the migration of SIS I to SIS II. This agreement is acceptable because it respects the following three key principles:
a clear delimitation of the tasks and responsibilities of those involved (Member States, Commission, Council);
effective and unambiguous decision-making processes;
the setting of compulsory milestones.
The adoption of this legal framework by October will help ensure that the work necessary for SIS II continues in 2009. It is true, as Mr Jouyet pointed out - you pointed this out, President-in-Office - that 30 September 2009, a date now recognised in the proposed legal instruments on migration, is an ambitious deadline. Even this summer we actually had to suspend some tests with Member States following an informal expert consultation.
The contractor now has a period of 20 days in which to correct the existing problems. However, there is no doubt that we need to keep a close eye on all of the potential problems that might arise and prevent us from keeping to the timetable for SIS II. We are currently in discussion with Member States on the best way of finishing the work on SIS II. We also need to find the right balance between the political priority attached to this system and, at the same time, the guarantee of excellence of the service rendered to the national authorities that will use it.
In any event, the proposed adaptation mechanisms give us some flexibility and oblige us to adopt the necessary transparency with regard to the development plan. Therefore, Mr Coehlo, we are in full agreement with your amendments; that goes without saying.
On the one hand, setting an expiry date for legislative acts on migration for the end of June 2010 will give us sufficient room for manoeuvre in the event of problems with finalising the development of SIS II or with migration. This date will also ensure that SIS II is fully operational by mid-2010.
On the other hand, the twice-yearly presentation by the Commission of reports relating to the development and migration of SIS I to SIS II will ensure that work on SIS II is transparent for the European Parliament.
For my part, Mr President, I would like to emphasise - like Mr Jouyet, speaking on behalf of the Presidency - that for Schengen to truly be a complete success - which it already is - we need SIS II. This is a real technological achievement, illustrating what Europe can do when it decides to use new technology. It is also absolutely essential.
This is why I am extremely grateful to Parliament, which, almost without opposition, has accepted all of these aspects and has approved Mr Coehlo's report.
Marian-Jean Marinescu
on behalf of PPE-DE. - (RO) I endorse the rapporteur's proposal of setting the deadline for this new legislative package for 30 June 2010; this is important in order to prevent any possible delays in the implementation of the second generation of the Schengen Information System, SIS II.
The removal of border controls on land and at sea, which started on 21 December 2007, as well as in the air (March 2008) is a relevant step for nine of the ten Member States. The Council decided that border control in the three outstanding states, Cyprus, Romania and Bulgaria, would cease when the operability of the Schengen System has been guaranteed following an evaluation. However, the working of the Schengen System in the three states depends on the working of SIS II in the current Schengen countries. As is known, SIS II was initially scheduled to start operating in May 2007, then it was delayed for December 2008, and now it has been postponed again to September 2009. This rescheduling may trigger delays in the three Member States. We should not forget that all of these three Member States are border states of the European Union and that they have both land and maritime borders.
The first two measures in the Schengen acquis are the removal of border control, its movement to external borders, and common procedures for the control of persons crossing external borders. These measures in the acquis are undermined by the fact that countries such as Romania, Bulgaria and Cyprus depend on the delayed implementation of SIS II in countries which are part of the Schengen Area. Therefore, I call on the Commission and the French Presidency to solve the problem of managing SIS II and to negotiate with the contractor, so as to avoid the imposition of a new timeline for the implementation of SIS II.
Roselyne Lefrançois
Mr President, I wanted to say that Mrs Roure is the shadow rapporteur for this report. She could not be here today and so I am speaking on her behalf and on behalf of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament.
I share the comments made by the rapporteur, whom I thank for his work. This situation is in fact totally unacceptable. The launch of SIS II is considerably behind schedule. We have already had to extend the Commission's mandate once until the end of December 2008 to carry out the migration. The Commission has again fallen way behind schedule and is now asking for an unlimited extension of its mandate to carry out the migration. This seems unacceptable to me, as any future consultation of the European Parliament on this issue would then be impossible.
However, we do not want the migration of SIS to SIS II to be rushed, since this would impact on the quality and security of the data and of the system as a whole. Consequently, every precaution must be taken to ensure that data is protected and that the system is secure. This is why we could agree to moving the calendar back and extending the Commission's mandate to carry out the migration properly.
However, there is no way that this process can continue without democratic scrutiny by the European Parliament. This is why the PSE Group supports the rapporteur, in order to safeguard the powers of the European Parliament.
Henrik Lax
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, I would also like to extend my recognition to the rapporteur of his very good work.
The Schengen Information System is the largest common European database which operates as a joint information system for the Member States. This information can be used by the police and the judiciary when cooperating on criminal matters, as well as for checking individuals at external frontiers or on national territories, and also for issuing visas and residence permits.
The decision to create the second generation of the SIS - SIS II - took account of the need to introduce biometric data and new types of alerts, for instance because of the European arrest warrant. SIS II is also needed to bring on board the new Member States, as we have heard.
The new system was originally scheduled to begin operating in March 2007. We know there have been many delays, and a new timetable was announced providing for it to become operational by the end of this year. And, thanks to the transitional solution presented by the Portuguese Government and also mentioned here by Minister Jouyet, the so-called 'SIS One 4 All', it is now fully operational and it has allowed nine of the new Member Sates to be connected to the SIS. Nevertheless, as underlined by Commissioner Barrot, in this enlarged Schengen area, the reinforcement of security requirements has become even more urgent and can only be fully achieved by a full transition to the next generation of a system.
A must for this transition is that SIS II meets all the legally-defined technical and functional requirements, as well as other requirements such as robustness, response capacity and performance. Parliament is now asked to give its opinion on the two current proposals aiming to establish the legal framework governing the transition. As the ALDE shadow rapporteur, I fully support the line taken by the rapporteur, notably that the Commission shall submit by the end of June 2009, and then by the end of every six-month period, a progress report to the Council and to Parliament concerning the development of SIS II and also concerning the migration from the Schengen Information System to the SIS I+ to the second generation SIS II.
It has been extremely disappointing to face the fact that SIS II is not yet operational. With this new mandate and the rigorous testing that will take place, I hope that SIS II is finally on track to a successful launch by September 2009.
Tatjana Ždanoka
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - Mr President, I would like first of all to thank Mr Coelho for his customary productive work on the reports concerning transition to SIS II. The reports cover mainly technical things, but I would like to look at SIS II from a broader perspective.
Firstly, I would like to acknowledge the fact that the Portuguese presidency provided an opportunity for the 10 new Member States to join the old version of SIS. Otherwise, the new Member States, including my own, would have had to wait at least until September 2009 - in other words, almost two more years.
On the other hand, 'late' does not necessarily mean 'bad'. SIS II will operate under two pillars. Nevertheless, we still do not have a legally binding framework decision on data protection within the third pillar. As SIS II introduces the processing of biometric data, the issue of data protection remains largely unresolved.
I would like to stress that my political group is extremely cautious where biometrics is concerned. Maybe we really have to wait for a solid legal background for data protection before we start using SIS II.
Another field where the operation of SIS might be useful is the entry bans introduced by the Member States for third-country nationals. According to the Schengen Convention, national law is applicable when a person seeks the deletion of an alert concerning him or her. In this respect, the regulation on SIS II provides for better procedural guarantees at European level.
To sum up, in some fields SIS II gives us a better Europe. Nevertheless, we will have to continue working on various significant flaws. If we have to wait in order to get more guarantees, perhaps we should be prepared to wait.
Pedro Guerreiro
As various organisations that follow the process of communitarisation of justice and home affairs, areas at the very core of States' sovereignty, have emphasised, with the 'migration' of the Schengen Information System to its second version, the characteristics of this information system and database have been extended with the inclusion of new types of alerts, such as the European arrest warrant, the addition of new data categories, such as biometric data, and access being given to new entities. New characteristics and functionalities have also been developed that interlink alerts and connect the system to the visa information system. It is also worth mentioning the worrying possibility that records may be kept, where necessary, for a long period of time, yet I wonder who will decide when this is necessary. Clarification is also needed on the all too vague area of the possible exchange of data with third countries.
It is our belief that this extension compared to the previous system brings with it risks as regards safeguarding citizens' rights, freedoms and guarantees by adding new elements to a database which will be more accessible and which will mean a greater degree of information sharing. Basically, much more than responding to the enlargement to new countries, there is an attempt to adapt SIS to the dangerous preoccupation with security that is part of the increasing communitarisation of home affairs in the European Union, which we reject.
Hélène Goudin
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (SV) Mr President, the subject we are now debating is of much greater importance than others that are regularly debated in this Chamber. We are discussing something as fundamental as the mobility of people within the so-called Schengen area. There is no doubt that this system eases travel for many individuals, but the downside of the system, it has to be said, overshadows its positive aspects.
I am referring to the fact that Schengen also results in the mobility of huge numbers of people being restricted because of social systems. Schengen is a further step towards the creation of a superstate, Fortress Europe. The creation of a society of control with immense powers. I do not wish to contribute to that.
There is indeed no doubt that cross-border crime is one of the greatest problems we are faced with today. Hence there is a need for cross-border solutions. However, I do not believe that Schengen, or the EU for that matter, is the right forum for the purpose. There is already Interpol, an excellent and efficient international police body in which sovereign states throughout the world participate. Instead of building up parallel systems, more should be done to strengthen Interpol. We know that criminality is not limited to our continent, but consists of worldwide networks. These were a few points of a general nature; now for the more specific ones.
One aspect, which in my opinion is treated all too lightly when it comes to the Schengen information systems, is the question of confidentiality. The personal data which will be processed and stored are of a highly sensitive nature. One of the most important tasks for the State is to provide its citizens with full safeguards against unauthorised access to personal data. Hence I see this as a national matter, since it is my firm opinion that the EU is in no position to provide the safeguards required. Besides, I consider it unnecessary and costly to establish new structures. After all, it is taxpayers' money which has to finance the system.
I have long been of the opinion that the development of the EU, or European integration as some like to call it, can be compared to the growth of tyranny by small steps. Frighteningly enough, the steps are no longer particularly small. Instead we are witnessing large, determined and rapid strides towards the creation of an EU State. No true Europhile should accept that.
Zita Pleštinská
(SK) Ladies and gentlemen, we are once again discussing the Schengen Information System (SIS) which is the main tool for the application of the Schengen principles. It is undoubtedly the backbone of a 'borderless' Europe and the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice and therefore it is essential that SIS II should begin to operate.
At the present time, the SISone4ALL system is fully operational as a transitional technical solution, allowing the nine new Member States to be connected to the SIS and of course, through accession to the Schengen area, to become full members of the Union. The date of 21 December 2007 was a great day in the history of my country, Slovakia, and of the entire EU. It marked the real fall of the iron curtain.
This is why I should like to thank Carlos Coelho for producing this report and for the tremendous efforts he has made. I am convinced that, but for him, the Schengen area would not have nine new members today. I believe that the new generation SIS will also manage to operate equally quickly and without any problems.
Jean-Pierre Jouyet
Thank you very much to all of the speakers for an excellent debate and for the wide support for the principle of the new mandate, as well as the position of the rapporteur, expressed by various speakers.
Mr Marinescu, I have praised the excellent work of the Portuguese Presidency, which has allowed new Member States to join the system. I have made a note that Romania wants to join the system as soon as possible under the supervision of the Commission, subject to any technical adjustments that might be necessary in this regard.
Concerning the observations made by Mrs Lefrançois and Mr Lax, the Council can only apologise for the delay, but we all recognise the efforts made by the Commission, the personal pledge from Vice-President Barrot to get things back on track and the strict measures imposed on the contractor. The Council will also remain vigilant alongside the Commission and all the Member States, who will remain strongly committed to completing the project, as planned, by ensuring that it is both technically feasible and effective, as well as guaranteeing citizens' freedoms, of course.
In answer to Mrs Ždanoka and Mr Guerreiro, I understand - and Mrs Lefrançois underlined this - that several of you would like a further discussion on incorporating new functions into the system, but it is vital that we complete SIS II before we allow these. Therefore, I believe that it would be natural for there to be a political debate on what these new functions should be. However, as several of you have pointed out, this should not hinder the launch of the new system. In fact, it would be unacceptable to abandon these functions for the sole reason that an obsolete system - in this case SIS I - could not accommodate them. First of all, before we have this debate, it is essential that we have the system and that the technological development is completed.
In terms of the other speeches, which were mainly concerned with data protection, I would like to point out - as the President did, and we took part in this morning's debate on personal data protection with Commissioner Barrot - that we effectively want to continue the work undertaken at European level, and that we believe that the guarantees you requested, in terms of protecting this data and sharing information with third countries, must be in place. Without returning to the general debate that we had this morning, I would just like to say that, in terms of the protection of this data, it was agreed that we would follow the recommendations of the European Data Protection Supervisor so that these concerns are taken into account.
Jacques Barrot
Mr President, I too would like to thank all of the speakers and the rapporteur once again. To follow up on what Mr Jouyet said, I would also like to remind everyone that we are very mindful of compliance with data protection rules. As you said, President-in-Office, the services are in regular contact with those of the European Data Protection Supervisor to ensure that these rules are properly integrated into the development and management of SIS II. A visit to Strasbourg by the European Data Protection Supervisor is planned in the first half of 2009, before the migration takes place, to ensure that data protection is secure.
The converter, which is in the process of being developed, will also enable secure data transfer from SIS I to SIS II. Mrs Lefrançois quite rightly said that this migration should not be rushed, and she is right. We need to be very careful.
In any case, the legal instruments contain specific provisions aimed at ensuring compliance with the principles of data protection. That is all I can say about data protection, bearing in mind that we need to pay close attention to ensuring that this system is consistent with what we are trying to achieve elsewhere in Europe in terms of data protection.
Now, going back to the matter of the delay: I completely understand Mr Marinescu, Mr Lax and Mrs Lefrançois, who clearly expressed their concern following the series of delays that we have had. As for SIS II preparations at central level, we are keeping a close watch on progress, we have introduced measures that will help us monitor things closely and the Commission's services will specifically see to it that there are enough resources to follow up on the work of contractors.
Evidently, if necessary we can resort to the penalties provided for in the contracts, as my predecessor did by imposing a fine of more than EUR 1 million on one of the contractors. However, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, rather than resort to penalties, I would prefer to see contractors working efficiently and keeping to our timetable.
Nevertheless, the implementation of SIS II does not just concern the central SIS II. Clearly we also need a considerable effort from the Member States. I am glad that the French Presidency is here today, because I know how committed it is to this.
To assist the Member States in their preparations at national level, the Friends of SIS II, established by the Slovenian Presidency and recognised by the French Presidency, is extremely useful. This high-level group, in which the Commission is actively involved, has the task of monitoring the implementation of SIS II in the Member States. It is only through solid cooperation that we will succeed in overcoming the problem.
I would just like to say that we are not trying to turn Europe into a fortress with SIS III; we are simply trying to make sure that the removal of internal borders does not mean a greater risk of uncertainty, violence and terrorism for the European Union and for European citizens. Therefore, I cannot allow it to be said that by creating SIS II we are closing the doors to Europe. It is not a question of that. It is simply a case of ensuring that, having removed our internal borders, we can offer European citizens a space - yes, I will say it - a space of security and freedom.
That is all, Mr President. In any case, I would like to thank the European Parliament and Mr Coehlo personally for investing so much in the construction of SIS II, which again is key to the success of Schengen.
Carlos Coelho
Mr President, I am taking the risk of making my final comments in French in response to the courteous remarks made by Mr Jouyet and Vice-President Barrot. Therefore, I am now going to thank you in your own language. It has not been easy to reach a consensus within the Council, but you have succeeded. For us, two things are truly important: a clear division of competences between the Commission and the Member States, and the issue of the Commission's mandate.
The Commission's mandate cannot end until SIS II is working properly. I would also like to thank the Council, the Commission and all political groups in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs for their work on drafting the amendments that we will vote on tomorrow. For us, the transparency clause is crucial: citizens have the right to be kept informed about Schengen and SIS II. As for the question of the Commission's mandate, an unlimited mandate is unacceptable. However, we have managed to address that problem.
To finish, Mr President, I would like to explain why we like SIS II to those who have spoken rather negatively about the system. We like SIS II because we like freedom of movement in Europe. However, for there to be freedom of movement in Europe, we have to be sure that our external borders are secure. The security of our external borders is a condition of the freedom of European citizens, and that is why we urgently need SIS II.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow.