Madam President, I thank the rapporteur for the work carried out and for the excellent proposal for a resolution that she drew up, a proposal with which I fully agree. It is all too clear that the United States, like any other country that seriously wants to combat terrorism, has the right to carry out any type of inspection into the identity of those entering their territory, their reason for entering and the time that they are staying. To this end, the European Parliament has often hoped for and continues to call for an international agreement defining what personal data of air passengers must be automatically transferred in advance to the United States security agencies, what further data can be requested, who can use them, how long they can be kept for, what responsibility airlines have in case of error in the transcription or transmission of data and, above all, what redress is offered to passengers in the event of error and what appeals are possible in the event of infringements of their rights. Despite the long negotiations, the unilateral commitments made by the United States do not provide the guarantees requested or an adequate level of protection. This is because these undertakings do not constitute a binding international agreement, in fact, it is explicitly stipulated that they do not result in any right for any public or private party. It is also due to the fact that a huge amount of personal data, which varies according to the practices of individual companies, is obtained through direct access to different airline archives. These data are collected for private purposes and might be different if collected for security purposes: for example, all those who failed to leave the United States on the return flight that they booked could be considered suspects. Now we are all used to buying return air tickets simply because they often cost less than single tickets. If we were to reply to a question from a policeman or a customs official concerning the date of our return, we would give the exact date and not the one appearing on the flight ticket that we do not intend to use for the return journey. The date that will be considered, however, is the one that appears in the airline records. Do you see what serious misunderstandings could be created by the uncontrolled use, for security purposes, of data collected for commercial purposes? The same goes for the accuracy of data, such as the correct and complete spelling of names. Personally, I am still waiting for the Council to reply to an urgent question on the serious misfortune of an Italian citizen, arrested on his arrival in the United States and sent back to Europe because of a misunderstanding, without being able to offer any explanation. A European manager who is a victim of a similar misunderstanding and thus unfairly considered a suspect could see his career ruined. How could he get justice? It is wrong and dangerous, even to effectively combat terrorism, to depend on the arbitrary collection of data that were not specifically selected for security purposes, and it is unfair not to provide for quick and effective instruments to guarantee the rectification of incorrect data for those concerned. I recall that Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union states that ‘everyone has the right of access to data which has been collected concerning him or her, and the right to have it rectified.’ The Commission’s decision does not respect Community law or the Union’s principles. The Commission goes beyond the powers conferred on it by Article 25 of the directive on the protection of data when it states that the United States provides adequate protection of the rights of European citizens. It is not true that it is impossible to obtain a more adequate result. The US associations for the protection of fundamental rights are themselves calling for better legislative protection in their country. IN THE CHAIR: MR PUERTAVice-President

Political group: PSE