Madam President, Madam Minister, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the improvement of judicial cooperation between the European Union's Member States is an important key to the European area of freedom, security and justice. The establishment, at long last, of Eurojust puts this key in our hands, so that we can combat serious crime, such as terrorism, trafficking in human beings and drug-smuggling flexibly and successfully, without regard to the Community's internal borders. When Parliament approved the establishment of Eurojust, as long ago as early 2001, it envisaged 1 January 2002 as its starting date. The Council has made substantial changes to the initiatives underlying Eurojust, which made it necessary to consult Parliament again, but, despite this, I do not see Eurojust's starting date early next year as having been jeopardised. The Council has, since 11 September, demonstrated its capacity for rapid reaction when circumstances require it, as the safety of people in Europe most certainly does. The document under consideration today already incorporates significant amendments by the Council at Parliament's suggestion in the first consultation. Eurojust's areas of competence were therefore defined in such a way as to include borderline cases and new forms of serious crime. Eurojust can also, moreover, at the request of a competent national authority, support investigations and prosecutions outside the areas described. This ensures maximum flexibility and efficiency in our shared struggle against crime, which knows no boundaries. Parliament's proposals for smooth cooperation between Eurojust and the national authorities are also welcomed in the Council's new document, something for which I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude. Despite this, we still have to make a few changes in order to make Eurojust the best possible instrument against cross-frontier crime. If I rightly understand the indications from the Member States' governments and from the Council, these will meet with wide-ranging agreement between Parliament and the Council. Last weekend, the German and French governments, at their summit in Nantes, underlined Parliament's view that Eurojust should become the basic unit of a European State Prosecution Service. This would strengthen the European Union's judicial aspect, give effect to conventions that have been drawn up but not yet ratified, and continue existing initiatives in this area. I also consider it important that Eurojust's involvement in investigations and prosecutions should not be hampered by unnecessary bureaucracy. It makes no sense for Eurojust to set up national branch offices. Investigators and prosecutors, in Eurojust and in the Member States, must be able to communicate with each other directly. We know from our experience of organised crime that short routes and procedures alone can offer hope of speedy and sure success in investigations. Let me conclude with data protection, a point which is of especial importance to me. The processing of data by Eurojust must include an appropriately high level of protection for the individual citizen. This can only be taken for granted if the storing of personal data is kept to the minimum required and if data is not stored for longer than is absolutely necessary. It goes without saying that special requirements must apply to the handling of data on victims and witnesses. There is also a clear need to safeguard the individual's right to information, which he must be in a position to demand. It is most encouraging to receive favourable indications from the Council, including in data protection matters. I hope, though, that they will go much further yet. Only one wish will no doubt not be granted me: Eurojust will not be based in Luxembourg, which would have symbolised so well this institution's independence and its closeness to European Community law.

Political group: PSE