Mr President, those sympathetic to the United States also have cause to criticise legislation that forces airlines to choose between the EU and the United States. It is extremely unfortunate that there has been no political discussion of this issue, either with the United States or within the Commission, in spite of the fact that it has been known about for 15 months. It is good that the attempt has been made to bring about legal guarantees, but this has unfortunately been unsuccessful. A form of technical data protection has, however, been established, which is obviously quite effective, and perhaps as effective as it can be. As we all know, legislation must balance personal privacy and the fight against crime. Instead, we are now in danger of seeing a misuse of information – concerning, for example, credit card numbers, religious affiliation and race – which goes much further than what the airlines are entitled to supply. The United States has also introduced unreasonable storage periods for information, apparently based upon the notion that each of us is some kind of potential criminal. There is a period of ten years in the case of ordinary citizens and of 50 years for those who are under suspicion. This must be seen in the perspective of our discussions in the EU of a one-year storage period. Our points of view are oceans apart. It would of course be more sensible to delete information once it has served its purpose and once it has been used. Global discussions are obviously required in this case, and not only with the United States. Rather, we also need to hold discussions with other countries in the world that have special rules. It would probably be a good idea if the Commission were also to make use of Parliament, which can in actual fact contribute to this discussion. I believe that Commissioner Patten has understood this in as much as he talked about Parliament’s and the Commission’s needing to join forces. Just over a week ago, we had discussions in Parliament with US congressmen who, we clearly observed, now have a much greater understanding of data protection and the protection of privacy than they would have done two years ago, for example. If we do not organise serious discussions, we shall end up in a position in which we have to discuss mutual and reciprocal reactions, and it would probably be better if we were to reach agreement in some other way. What is at issue here? The aim is to protect people. People are, then, also entitled to know what information has been given out to whom and how it is used. This is also a good example of the discussion in the Convention and of the need for people to be able to demand political accountability. It clearly shows that this is the way matters stand. In conclusion, I hope that my fellow MEPs will give very strong backing to this resolution so that our voice is heard in the Commission. We are perhaps heard already, but our voice must also be heard across the Atlantic and lead to joint talks prior to legislation’s being introduced. In that way, we shall obtain legal guarantees and be able to combat crime. Finally, a message to the United States and the Commission: respecting someone means talking with them in time.

Political group: PPE-DE