Brussels, 13/03/2009 (Agence Europe) - On Wednesday 11 March, the MEPs called for light to be shed on problems currently faced with the implementation of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II). SIS II, a file shared by the 25 members of the Schengen zone and with the objective of centralising the facilitating of the exchange of information (including biometric information) held by the police authorities, is supposed to be operational by September 2009. Due to technical problems, the EU decided on Thursday 26 February to take a definitive decision in early June regarding a new schedule for the SIS II, or to abandon the system in favour of an alternative solution (EUROPE 9850).
A "political problem". After a number of unsuccessful attempts, new tests were carried out on the system in December 2008. Despite some improvements and an updating of the central system, the new version of the central system is still not working as it should. There are three major problems preventing SIS from working: the loss of messages, performance and stability of the system and the quality of the data coherence of the process for the synchronisation of national copies with the central system. Presenting their oral question in Strasbourg, the MEPs stated that the problem was above all of a political, not a technical, order. "It is the political responsibility of the European institutions which is at stake, particularly that of the Council and the Commission", said French MEP Martine Roure. "Today and in the future, we expect political explanations for a problem which may have serious consequences", she added, explaining that if necessary, the Parliament could accumulate the proportion of the budget which is supposed to be earmarked for SIS II.
Outstanding issues. The EPP-ED, PES and ALDE groups asked the Council of the EU and the European Commission why the Parliament had not been kept abreast of the not inconsiderable problems encountered in the development of the system. "Since the legal bases were accepted in 2007, we have had no report back. We had to find out from the press that the tests failed in December 2008", lamented Ms Roure. "Greater transparency in this process is what is called for", stressed Portugal's Carlos Coelho (EPP-ED). The MEPs also asked what problems were persisting and what was the reason behind this. "We have our doubts about the contracting company. I hope that there will be an independent hearing to see where the problems lie", said Mr Coelho. "We must find out who is responsible", added Marian-Jean Marinescu (EPP-ED, Romania). The MEPs went on to ask whether the problems arising required a complete revision of the system and enquired as to whether an alternative solution to SIS II, possibly by updating SIS 1+, was in the pipeline. "If SIS II cannot be implemented, will a plan B be put to us and if so, when?" inquired Henrik Lax (ADLE, Finland). Criticising the incompetence which has prevailed in the management of SIS II, Bernd Posselt (EPP-ED, Germany) called on the Parliamentary committees on the single market and on budgetary control to get down to business very quickly on this dossier.
Denying the existence of any political problem, the Czech Deputy Prime Minister with responsibility for European Affairs, Alexandr Vondra, said: "this is a purely technical problem and not a smokescreen to cover a political issue". He went on to add: "we have taken this problem seriously. We have set cut-off dates and I believe that we will find a solution". He pointed out that the Council of Foreign Affairs Ministers was awaiting a report on the viability of two likely scenarios in May (continuing with SIS II or improving the current version SIS 1+) and that it would take a final decision in June in favour of one or the other of these options. The Commissioner with responsibility for justice, liberty and security, Jacques Barrot, also took pains to reassure his audience that the problem was technical in nature. "Some Member States have had ever more stringent requirements and SIS II found itself faced with increasingly sophisticated objectives and, therefore, a more complex system", he warned. "The objective is still to bring SIS II to a satisfactory level of stability and implementation (...). I regard this project as an absolute priority", the Commissioner thundered. "A great many bugs have already been repaired", he added, recalling that a process of analysis and repairs to the system was currently underway (a duration of four months), which would enable the absence of "insurmountable structural defects" to be verified. It will not be until after this phase that we will have a clearer idea of the resources to be implemented and the timescale, he stressed, acknowledging that it appears unlikely that SIS II will be ready by September this year. Pledging transparency to the MEPs, the Commissioner promised that the Parliament would be kept abreast of these developments. As for the possibility of an alternative solution, Mr Barrot confirmed that this will be included in the legal framework of SIS II as adopted. Lastly, the Commissioner reassured his audience regarding costs. Around 60 million euros have been pledged to SIS II since the project began and 27 million euros have been paid (not including the costs the Member States have committed to). If the Council decided to move to an alternative solution using SIS 1+, this would mean that the SIS II communication network could be re-used, which would help to save a large part of what has already been spent, he concluded. (B.C./trans.fl)