Dates of forthcoming sittings: see Minutes


Composition of Parliament
As we know, Mr Stavros Lambrinidis has communicated to me his appointment as Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Greek Government with effect from 17 June 2011.
Parliament hereby takes note of this communication and, pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Act concerning the election of the Members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage, and Rule 4(1) and (4), establishes the vacant seat with effect from 17 June 2011.
We will continue with our work, wishing our former colleague very best wishes and good luck.
The competent Greek authorities have informed me of the election of Mr Dimitrios Droutsas to replace Mr Lambrinidis. Pursuant to Rule 4(1), Parliament takes note of this replacement with effect from 22 June 2011.
I welcome this new Member...
(Applause)
... and point out that, pursuant to Rule 3(2), until such time as his credentials have been verified or a ruling has been given on any dispute, and provided that he has previously signed the declaration that he does not hold any office incompatible with that of Member of the European Parliament, Mr Dimitrios Droutsas shall take his seat in Parliament and on its bodies and shall enjoy all the rights attaching thereto.
I am sure we wish good luck to our new colleague also.
Madam President, on a point of order, I see over on the other side of the room that there are political posters displayed in the Chamber.
I believe this to be against the rules. It does not bother me personally, but what I have asked for many times in this Chamber is that there is an even application of the rules to everybody.
If the ladies and gentlemen over there are to display their political posters, then I wish to have the right to permanently display my 'Vote UKIP' poster on my desk and for anybody else to display their posters.
Can we have a ruling one way or the other please?
(Applause)
Thank you very much, Mr Batten, for drawing my attention to the posters. I would ask those displaying them to now take them down.
Madam President, whether we agree or disagree with demonstrators, it is absolutely wrong that demonstrators should be allowed inside Parliament to stop MEPs getting in to vote.
It is immaterial whether we agree or disagree with the cause; something has to be done to make sure that MEPs are allowed to get in to vote without hindrance.
(Applause)
The services were made aware of the problem and it should not happen again.
(NL) Many thanks, Madam President. I want to make a point of order. Specifically, I want to make a happy announcement, namely that my party leader, Geert Wilders, was this morning cleared of all charges against him in relation to insulting Islam. Freedom of expression in the Netherlands has been guaranteed.
This has nothing to do with our work here.


Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting : see Minutes


Order of business
The final version of the draft agenda as drawn up by the Conference of Presidents at its meeting of Thursday, 9 December 2010, pursuant to Rules 137 and 138 of the Rules of Procedure, has been distributed.
The following amendments have been proposed:
Wednesday
I have received a request from the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) that Mr Szájer's report concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commissions' exercise of implementing powers be added to the order of business.
Mr President, as you rightly said, our group is asking for the regulation on implementing acts to be put on the agenda. I feel a little awkward doing this, because it is not only my group's request; several other groups support this idea. We had a unanimous vote in the Committee on Legal Affairs on this report and on the various common understandings and statements that were annexed to it.
I would like to remind colleagues that the Lisbon Treaty entered into force a year ago. This regulation on implementing acts follows a year of very hard negotiations in an area where the new delegated and implementing acts are a very important issue for this Parliament. After one year, I think we can fully exercise this right. This is why it would be good to discuss and adopt this new regulation.
I would also like to inform you - as our colleagues know - that there was a very difficult situation in the Council with two blocking minorities. It is therefore a very delicate act, which is why I think that the right thing to do is to get through it as soon as possible. All Parliament's rights are met in this report. I ask for the support of all the other groups.
Thank you, Mr Szájer. Is there support for this proposal?
(DE) Mr President, we have no objection to this topic being placed on the agenda. However, I should like to draw your attention to the fact that members of some committees - and not just from our group, I think - still have concerns regarding the specific rules. Certainly we need a deadline for the submission of amendments, so that we can vote on Thursday at the latest. I would just like to say, however, that some discussions are still ongoing and I cannot say in advance whether or not our group will be voting in favour. The debates are yet to come. However, we have no objection to this topic being on the agenda.
I propose that we should proceed as follows. We will hold the debate on Wednesday and the sitting will close at 21:00. The deadline for tabling amendments will be 10:00 on Wednesday. The vote will take place on Thursday.
(Parliament agreed to the proposal)
(FR) Mr President, my group, in fact, wishes to see the two oral questions concerning both the report of the Van Rompuy task force and the six Commission legislative packages on economic governance reinstated in the order of business.
Firstly, for an institutional reason, since Article 9 of the Treaty of Lisbon gives us this prerogative and this authority to have applied the horizontal social clause and, in particular, the study on the social impact for the sweeping measures, the sweeping directives and decisions that have consequences for our citizens.
Mr John Monks, the General Secretary of the European Trade Union Confederation, has just written about his concern at seeing austerity plans having a direct impact on the incomes of wage earners, their wages and also their pensions. The political reason for making this request, Mr President, on behalf of my group, is that we must show that, at a time when we are discussing market regulation, we are not only giving our verdict on the markets, but also voting and legislating in favour of our fellow citizens.
I should like to see this House feel able to support the reinstatement of these oral questions.
Who would like to speak in favour? Who will come forward to speak in favour?
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is precisely because of the relationship which must exist between the three Institutions - the Council, the Commission and Parliament - that I deem it appropriate to support the Member's motion.
Does anyone want to speak against the proposal? I do not see anyone who wants to speak against. We shall therefore proceed to the vote.
(Parliament approved the proposal)
President. - These two oral questions will be added to the order of business on Wednesday afternoon. The sitting will continue until around 21:00.
(The order of business was adopted)


Agenda
(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to raise two points of order and I would like to be able to raise them one after another. Firstly, I have a request for the entire House. It refers to an urgent matter which we will be discussing this afternoon. This is the case of Aminatou Haidar.
We have an urgent matter on the agenda this afternoon. I would ask my fellow Members to put their trust in me with regard to the following process. Some Members who have been closely involved with this case know - and I cannot give any more details at this point, but I am one of those who knows - that we will have a solution for this case during the course of the day. Prominent government representatives from the EU are working to achieve a positive solution. Therefore, it would be sensible to remove this urgent matter from the agenda this afternoon, because any further debate would only hinder the work which is being done through diplomatic channels. This is why I am asking the House to agree that in this exceptional case, we should remove this urgent matter from the agenda, because this will be of greater help in resolving the case than debating it would be. That was my first request, Mr President. The second request will follow immediately.
Mr Schulz, I am not certain we can discuss this point again. I am afraid it is already too late, because we made a decision on this matter earlier. It is difficult, now, to discuss this point again.
(FR) Mr President, I support Mr Schulz's proposal. I believe that the negotiations are extremely difficult. We are talking about a case that concerns a human being, a woman, and efforts are under way to find a political solution.
I therefore believe that, when efforts are under way to find a political solution, it is important not to exacerbate the situation. I ask that we first be allowed to find a political solution.
(Applause)
(PT) I would just like to make a brief point. The diplomatic efforts are very important, but Aminatou Haidar is on her 33rd day of hunger strike in hospital. The worst thing we could do would be to tell a woman who is fighting for basic human rights that this Parliament was going to forget her here and now.
Ladies and gentlemen, in accordance with Rule 140 of the Rules of Procedure, we can vote on the proposal to remove this from the order of business.
In relation to this, I would like someone to speak in favour of the motion.
(ES) In my capacity as leader of the Spanish Socialist delegation to the European Parliament, I should like to express my appreciation of the words spoken by the President of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament supported by the President of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats). I do so for two reasons. Firstly, because as I see it, this House is clearly demonstrating its solidarity with Mrs Haidar personally and with her cause in this dangerous situation resulting from a prolonged hunger strike.
My second reason is that I believe the House is also adopting a positive stance in support of the intense multilateral diplomatic effort led by the government of the Kingdom of Spain. This is, after all, the government of the country on whose territory Mrs Haidar is currently to be found. It is also the government of the country in which the hunger strike is taking place that Mrs Haidar herself has stated will not end until she returns to a territory that is not under Spanish jurisdiction.
I therefore support the current diplomatic effort, and believe that our best course of action would be to avoid a resolution that could compromise the success of any negotiations that might take place in the next few hours...
(The President cut off the speaker)
Now I will ask for someone to speak against the motion.
(ES) Mr President, I am taking the floor to voice my group's opposition to this proposal, and I shall now explain our reasons. I do not think it is appropriate to present such a proposal this morning. Furthermore, it would amount to a failure to respect all the parliamentary groups that have tabled the text of a resolution.
We devoted three hours, only yesterday, to finding a way of taking this matter out of the political debate and ceasing to focus on what is happening in Spain. Thanks to the efforts of all the groups involved, we succeeded in reconciling differing positions and arriving at a common text for a resolution. We were also able to overcome differences of opinion in the same meeting.
Consequently, I believe that if it is deemed inappropriate, if this House does not make its voice heard on such a situation, when will it actually make itself heard? When will that be?
(Loud applause)
I have one final request ...
(The President cut off the speaker)
(ES) Mr President, it is not right to say that the House has expressed a view on the case of Mrs Haidar. That has not happened. The House was going to express its view today. It was going to do so today, after a hunger strike that has lasted 33 days, yet an attempt is being made to prevent us from debating the matter. I think this is immoral. I repeat, it is utterly immoral.
(Applause)
(ES) Mr President, I asked for the floor to make a point of order. This House is irrevocably committed to the cause of human rights and duty bound to honour that obligation. Mr Schulz made a proposal to the House this morning. If he is privy to data or important information relevant to Mrs Haidar's case, he should make that information available to the House. A decision should then be taken in plenary this afternoon at the start of the debate.
(Applause)
(DE) Mr President, for many years, I was responsible for human rights debates in this House on behalf of my group. I am dealing with this case with great care. I would like to mention that I had a very long discussion about this case with the Moroccan foreign minister last Sunday.
I have the impression that there is the possibility today of ending Mrs Haidar's hunger strike and finding a solution for her. If I had the impression that a public statement would help to resolve this case, I would make a public statement. However, because I believe that in complicated diplomatic cases of this kind, discretion is the best way of solving the problem, I would ask my fellow Members to use the necessary discretion to ensure that this lady is saved. That is my only wish.
Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to ask you for a moment's attention. We cannot continue discussion on this matter indefinitely.
(ES) Mr President, I should like to begin by expressing my surprise, given that, as Mrs Bilbao Barandica pointed out, we devoted almost three hours to debating this matter yesterday. If Mr Schulz has been in possession of relevant information concerning this matter since Sunday, we should have been informed accordingly yesterday. I repeat, the information should have been passed to us yesterday, before the joint resolution was debated. We should have been aware of this information when talks were held between the different groups, leading to an agreement, that is to say, to a compromise.
(FR) No, that is not true. We have a responsibility to adopt a resolution, at least so that we may know this House's position on the case of Aminatou Haidar. Therefore, I am not asking that we do not vote, but that we should hold a debate as usual.
(Applause)
Mr President, clearly the House is divided. This is a very delicate issue. There is a lot of confusion. Can I please request that we delay this vote until 15.00 so that we can consult both the parties and the groups, and also discover what is actually happening on the ground in Morocco?
Ladies and gentlemen, we have heard all the comments. You have heard everything and you have a full picture. In accordance with Rule 140 of the Rules of Procedure, I am putting this motion to a vote. We have a specific motion, that we do not discuss this matter today.
(Parliament agreed to the request)
(DE) Mr President, I very much regret having to ask once again for the patience of the House. On the voting list today, we have the vote on the principle of subsidiarity. Under the terms of Rule 177(4) of the Rules of Procedure, I request that we postpone a vote on this point until the next plenary session and investigate the legitimacy of passing a resolution on this point. I believe that there is substantial agreement throughout this House that the principle of subsidiarity and the fundamental rights should be guaranteed. However, there is absolutely no point in raising this to the level of the European Union. I would also like to say specifically on behalf of my Italian fellow Members that the debate taking place in Italy is an Italian and not a European debate and that, like us, my fellow Members will defend diversity and plurality. However, it does not make sense to do this in a resolution of this kind.
(Heckling)
Mr President, it is amazing that groups which have the concept of democracy in their name are not even familiar with the democratic principle of allowing a speaker to finish what he is saying.
Under the terms of Rule 177(4), I request that the vote is postponed until the next session and that the legitimacy of the resolution and the vote is investigated.
(Applause)
Ladies and gentlemen, Mr Schulz, please put on your headphones. I have a specific proposal - we will reach this point in the second part of the vote. First we will vote on the budget, and then we have several additional points. You can all think about Mr Schulz's proposal and we will come back to it in a moment, when we all have the resolution in front of us, in the second part of the vote.
(DE) Mr President, now that the urgent matter has been removed from the agenda, I would like to ask you to divide the speaking time for the Western Sahara item between the other two urgent matters, as we had some tough discussions yesterday about the speaking time for urgent matters. This is my practical proposal for this afternoon and I would ask you to accept it, as we will be spending an hour discussing urgent matters.
We will take your suggestion into account.


Resumption of the session
I declare resumed the session of the European Parliament adjourned on Thursday, 9 September 2010.