Mr President, Commissioner Vitorino, we have followed each other’s efforts for many years in the fight against cybercrime and no doubt have many basic values in common. Mr Vitorino knows as well as I do that we are concerned here with a framework directive. Because the European Parliament has significantly weaker decision-making powers than it ought to have where framework directives are concerned, I would take this opportunity to draw attention to this deficiency, as I also did in the case of the point raised by Mr Vitorino when commenting upon the amendment. I understand his point of view very well, but it is from our position here in Parliament that we must exert pressure on the Convention and on developments, for what we have here are extremely worrying threats to our common union. There is information to the effect that criminal organisations have infiltrated vital infrastructures. They have obtained access to digital circuit-breakers, which means that electricity and water can be switched off and transport brought to a halt. In particular, there have been incidents in the area of aviation that have affected the operation of control towers. Terrorists could switch off both gas and water, increasing the damage caused in connection with a physical attack. That is, of course, a situation that we must do everything to avert. We are concerned here with cross-border crime. The Commission’s proposal is a good one. I admire Mr Vitorino for his ability to present sound proposals, in spite of the defective framework he has to work within. The idea of these minimum/maximum penalties that we traditionally use for harmonisation purposes is sensible and fair. It may also put an end to the type of ‘legal shopping’, which we cannot of course encourage, in which criminals have the option of being sentenced in countries that have lower penalties. We are also concerned here with intent. That too is abundantly clear, which I think is very commendable. There must be intent, the purpose being to cause damage or to procure an economic benefit. I think that this is a proper approach. I approve of the spirit of the Commission’s work, but I want to repeat that the decision-making process is unacceptable. The EC Court of Justice has no competence in the area of the third pillar. The current system causes democratic rights to be neglected. Human rights lie outside the jurisdiction of the Court. That is why I give extra special emphasis to this in an amendment, something which Mr Vitorino too surely understands. The crimes in question can have long-term consequences, and they have direct effects upon people’s private lives. We must obtain democratic control, and I should therefore like this legislation to begin to apply from the day on which we have proper protection in this area and also data protection in the area of the third pillar. That is something I should obviously like to see right now. I fully appreciate that the operational contact points have to be set up. I do not want to slow things down in any way, but I want to give some impetus to democratic development. That is as far as we can get with today’s decision-making system. I hope, however, that a new constitution will mean our sorting out these issues and really being able to obtain a legitimate system. Commissioner Vitorino has already made positive comments about the amendments. That also applies to the subtle attitude to legal persons. I am also pleased that we have a common position where minors are concerned. I want to conclude by thanking all my fellow MEPs. I have tried to strike a balance involving as effective an assault upon crime as possible. At the same time, I have tried, within our present framework, to raise the profile of human rights and the protection of privacy. I want the Convention to feel it is under pressure, which is why I have written in this way. That is something which Mr Vitorino surely understands, and I hope that he will help exercise this pressure.

Political group: PPE-DE