Madam President, we are once again debating an issue in this House with which we are all only too familiar. In fact, since data on passengers whose final destination or transit destination is the United States was first forwarded to the United States more than a year ago, this Parliament has expressed many concerns about the completely unacceptable way in which this information has been and is still being forwarded. Today, however, we are once again debating this issue, but in rather different circumstances. Firstly, because we have before us a Commission decision which describes the level of protection that the United States guarantees for the data forwarded to them as ‘adequate’, and, secondly, because the recent tragic attacks of 11 March in Madrid – following on from those of 11 September – oblige all of us to reflect and accept that only through international cooperation can we triumph over a brutal and merciless enemy which attacks free and democratic societies such as ours. Ladies and gentlemen, my group is not entirely satisfied with the decision the Commission is presenting to us. It even shares some of the criticisms expressed by the rapporteur in her report. But what shall we do? Shall we go back to the beginning? Shall we wait another year? Are we going to concern ourselves with strengthening legal safeguards as much as possible while terrorists move freely from one continent to another and mercilessly murder thousands of people, who – incidentally – have not been given any right to defend themselves? Let us be realistic. Let us accept this new legal framework for cooperation with the United States despite all our reservations. Let us subject it to a test period and, if necessary, revise it later. The general public, who are horrified by all this violence, would not understand any other option at this time. The negotiations held between the Community authorities and the United States authorities have led to agreements, the importance of which I believe must not be underestimated: we have managed to reduce the data that will be forwarded, to restrict the purposes for which they will be collected, to restrict the time for which they will be stored and to ensure that our citizens have mechanisms allowing them to correct that data and lodge complaints in the event that these are used improperly. Furthermore, following a period of three and a half years, the agreement could be revised in the light of the results achieved. In saying this, I am not implying that the agreement reached is ideal in every way, but that it is satisfactory in some respects. Furthermore – as I have said – circumstances have changed and have done so in a tragic way. The European Union – and this was demonstrated by the European Council, which has just been held – has fully and firmly declared war on terrorism. Effective action in this regard requires cooperation and coordination to be promoted within the European Union, between the police and judicial authorities of the Member States and between the bodies which the European Union has created for this purpose – of which I would highlight Europol and Eurojust – but also through cooperation with third countries, and there is absolutely no doubt that we share with the United States the common objective and firm intention of beating the scourge of terrorism. In conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that the agreement we are debating today and which has been the subject of an excessively critical report by the rapporteur, strikes a reasonable balance between implementing much-needed security measures and safeguarding civil rights. The agreement also provides citizens with a level of protection and legal certainty that we would lose if we decided to refer the Decision back to the Commission, leading to a further period in which there would be a legal vacuum.

Political group: PPE-DE