Committee on Constitutional Affairs Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Offset
Transcript offset
Export
Live capture
Versions of this video
Transcripts may differ slightly from one version to another.
AFCO European Parliament
Follow its sittingsAntonio López-Istúriz White
I am surrounded by I know some experts on constitutional affairs, so I take this position with humbleness and also I'm a quick learner. And that was what moved me also to be with all of you. My experience tells me that I think I have landed at the right timing here in this committee. Thank you.
Sven Simon
Thank you very much. Yeah, colleagues, the candidate has submitted the required declarations and declared no conflict of interest in relation to the responsibilities of the office. Are there any other candidates? This is not the case. No other candidates have been put forward.
I therefore propose, pursuant to Rule 219, paragraph 2 of our Rules of Procedure, that we proceed to an election by acclamation. Congratulations to our newly elected second Vice-Chair. Dear Tono, please come up here on this side of the table.
I'm really looking forward to having you with us and I'm sure there will be moments when we can greatly benefit from your many years of experience in this house. Item number four, adoption of minutes. We are talking here about the minutes of the committee meeting of second September. If there are no objections, I declare the minutes adopted. Let us then proceed to the vote on the report on institutional aspects of artificial intelligence in the context of European integration.
I thank our dear colleague the rapporteur Emmanuel Kefalogiannis and the shadow rapporteurs for their work. The voting list was circulated on 30th September so that we can proceed to the vote. Let us first test the voting machines. The vote is open. The vote is closed.
Whatever you decided on it was adopted. What's going on with the EPP today? Okay. You have it? All right.
So then we start with the vote and we try to do a block vote to save time, which means that we vote on all compromise amendments in one.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions, adopted. Congratulations. Amendment 59 in favor.
Against. Abstentions, adopted. Amendment 24 in favor. Against. Abstentions, adopted.
Amendment 63 in favor. Against. Abstentions, we have to check that it's a bit difficult in this room to see. So I open the vote on amendment 63. I close the vote.
It was adopted. Yeah. Amendment 64 in favor. Against, abstentions, adopted. Amendment 15 in favor.
Against, abstentions, adopted. Amendment 16 in favor. Against, abstentions, adopted. Amendment 17 in favor. Against, abstentions, adopted.
Amendment 68 in favor. Against. Abstentions, adopted.
Amendment 72 in favor. Against. Abstentions. Rejected. Amendment 74 in favor.
Against. Abstentions. Adopted. Amendment 73 in favor. Against.
Abstentions. Adopted. Amendment 75 in favor. Against. Abstentions.
Amendment 20 in favor. Adopted. Against. Abstentions. Adopted.
Amendment 77 in favor. Against. Abstentions. Adopted. Amendment 78 in favor.
Against. Abstentions. Rejected. Amendment 27 in favor. Against.
Abstentions. Amendment 79 in favor. Adopted. Against. Abstentions.
Adopted. Amendment 29 in favor. Against. Abstentions. Rejected.
Amendment 94 part 1 in favor.
In favor? Amendment 94, part one. In favor? Against? Abstentions?
Adopted. Amendment 94, part two. In favor? Against? Abstentions?
Rejected. Check 94, part two. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Gaby, you're very good.
Adopted. Thank you. Amendment 95. In favor? Against?
Abstentions? That was also not very clear. I open the vote to check amendment 95. I close the vote. Adopted.
Amendment 99. In favor? Against? Abstentions? Adopted.
Amendment 107. In favor? Against? Abstentions? Adopted.
Amendment 37. In favor? Against?
Most of members have no opinion. So again, amendment 37 in favor. LIBE 37 page 10. Yeah, page maybe different. Who is in favor of amendment 37?
Against. Abstentions. Adopted. Amendment 24 in favor. Against.
Abstentions. Adopted. Amendment 114 in favor. Against. Abstentions.
Rejected. Amendment 115 in favor. Against. Abstentions. Adopted.
Amendment 39 in favor. Against. What's wrong with you today? So 39 in favor. Against.
Abstentions. Adopted. Amendment 123 first part in favor. Against. Abstentions.
123 second part in favor. Against. Abstentions. Rejected. I open the vote to check 123 second part.
Adopted.
I close the vote. Adopted. Unbelievable. Amendment 126 in favor. Against.
Abstentions. I think it was rejected, but let's open the vote to check. I open the vote for 126. I close the vote. Adopted.
133 and LIBE 43 in favor. Against. Abstentions, I have to open the vote to check that as well, 133 and 43. Maybe we try to get this other room again, it's... 133 and LIBE 43.
Vote is open. One is missing. Doesn't matter. Vote is closed. It was rejected.
133. In favor. Sorry, 34. In favor. Against.
Abstentions. Rejected. 135. In favor. Against.
Abstentions. Adopted. 141. In favor. Against.
Abstentions. Adopted. 142. In favor. Against.
Abstentions. Adopted. 143. 44. 144.
In favor. Against. Abstentions. Adopted. 151.
In favor. Against. Abstentions. We have to check that. I open the vote for 151.
One is missing. Okay, I close the vote. Rejected. 152 in favor. Against.
Abstentions. Adopted. 153 in favor. Against. Abstentions, we have to check that.
I open the vote for 153. I close the vote. It is adopted. 154 in favor. Against.
Abstentions, we also have to check that. I open the vote. Close the vote. Rejected. 156 in favor.
Against. Abstentions. Rejected. 155 in favor. Against.
Abstentions. Rejected. 157 in favor. Against. Abstentions.
Adopted. 158 in favor. Against. Abstentions. Adopted.
159 in favor. Against. Abstentions. We have to check that. 159.
The vote is open. The vote is closed. Rejected. 160 in favor. Against.
Abstention please. Let's check that. 160. I open the vote. I close the vote.
Adopted. 161 in favor. Against. Abstentions. Adopted.
LIBE 47 in favor. Against. Abstentions. Adopted. Amendment 178 in favor.
Against. Abstentions. I think rejected but let's check. 178. I open the vote.
I close the vote. Adopted. 179 first part in favor. Against. Abstentions.
Adopted.
179 second part, in favor. Against. Abstentions. We check 179 second part, I open the vote. Adopted.
180 in favor. Against. Abstentions. Adopted. LIBE amendment 6 in favor.
Against. Abstentions. Adopted. Amendment 9 in favor. Amendment 10 in favor.
Against. Abstentions. I think adopted, but let's check. I open the vote for amendment 10. It's a good amendment?
Okay, it's adopted. Now I close the vote. Unfortunately, it was rejected. I don't know whether unfortunately, I should not comment that. LIBE 7 in favor.
Against. Abstentions. Adopted. Amendment 11 in favor. Against.
Abstentions. Rejected. LIBE 8 in favor. Against. Abstentions.
Adopted. Amendment 12 in favor. Against. Abstentions. Check.
Sandro, is it good? I open the vote. I close the vote.
Adopted, with my little campaign. Amendment 13. In favor. Against. Abstentions.
Adopted. LIBE 9. In favor. Against. Abstentions.
Adopted. Amendment 18. In favor. Against. Abstentions.
Adopted. IMCO 2. In favor. Against. Abstentions.
Adopted. LIBE 11. In favor. Against. Abstentions.
Adopted. 12. In favor. Against. Abstentions.
Adopted. LIBE 13. In favor. Against. Abstentions.
Adopted. Amendment 19. In favor. Against. Abstentions.
I open the vote to check Amendment 19. I close the vote. Adopted. Amendment IMCO 3. In favor.
Against. Abstentions. Adopted. Amendment 20. In favor.
Against. Abstentions. Adopted. Amendment 21. In favor.
Against. Abstentions. We also have to check this one, 21. I open the vote.
I close the vote. Adopted. Amendment 22 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. 23 in favor, against, abstentions. We have to check 23.
I open the vote. It broke down. The system broke down. Can we reset the system for electronic voting? Can we get any connection to the technicians there?
Let's try to proceed without this machine. Amendment 23, in favor. Against. 12 in favor, that is adopted. Amendment LIBE 14, in favor.
But now you must raise your hand if you want to be in favor, S&D. Against. Abstentions, rejected. Amendment 25, in favor. Against, abstentions, adopted.
Amendment 24, in favor. In favor, please raise your hand if you are in favor. Against. I think it was 12 in favor, that is adopted. Shall we try?
Okay, let's try a test vote on amendment 24.
I open the vote. I close the vote. Adopted. Amendment 31 and LIBE 17, in favor. Against.
Abstentions. I think rejected. Rejected, let's open the vote, amendment 31 and LIBE 17, vote is open. Vote is closed. Rejected.
Amendment 32, in favor. Against. Abstentions. Rejected. Amendment IMCO 5, in favor.
Against. Abstentions. Adopted. Amendment 33, in favor. Against.
Abstentions. Rejected. Amendment 34, in favor. Against. Abstentions, we have to check, vote is open for 34.
Vote is closed. Adopted. Amendment 35, in favor. Against. Abstentions.
Adopted. Amendment IMCO 6, in favor. Against. Abstentions. Adopted.
Amendment IMCO 7, in favor. Against. Abstentions. Adopted. Amendment 36, in favor.
Against. Abstentions. Rejected. Amendment 37, in favor. Against.
Abstentions. Rejected. Amendment LIBE 18, in favor. Against. Abstentions.
Adopted. Amendment 38, in favor. Against. Abstentions. We have to check that.
I open the vote for 38. Adopted. Amendment IMCO 8, in favor. Against. Abstentions.
Adopted. Amendment 39, in favor. Against. Abstentions. Adopted.
Amendment 40, in favor. Against. Abstentions. Adopted. Amendment LIBE 20, in favor.
Against. Abstentions. Adopted. Amendment 41, in favor. Against.
Abstentions. Adopted.
Amendment LIBE 21. In favor. Against. Abstentions. Adopted.
Amendment IMCO 9. In favor. Against. Abstentions. Adopted.
IMCO 10. In favor. Against. Abstentions. Adopted.
Amendment 48. In favor. Against. Abstentions. Rejected.
IMCO 12. In favor. Against. Abstentions. Adopted.
Amendment 54. In favor. Against. Abstentions. Rejected.
IMCO 13. In favor. Against. Abstentions. Adopted.
LIBE 23. In favor. Against. Abstentions. Adopted.
LIBE 1. In favor. Against. Abstentions. We have to check that.
LIBE 23, the vote is open. The vote is closed. I don't know whether anybody left the room, but there's always one less. 12 in favor, so it was adopted.
What was the vote?
LIBE 23.
Sven Simon
Okay, we have to repeat this vote. I open the vote, LIBE 1.
I open the vote. I close the vote. It was rejected. Amendment 1, in favor. Against.
Abstentions. We need to check, I open the vote for amendment 1. I close the vote. Adopted. Amendment 2, in favor.
Against. Abstentions, adopted. Amendment 3, in favor. Against. Abstentions, I open the vote to check amendment 3.
I close the vote.
It was adopted. Amendment LIBE 2 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Amendment LIBE 3 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Amendment LIBE 4 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Amendment LIBE 5 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted.
Amendment 4 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Amendment 5 in favor, against, abstentions. I open the vote to check amendment 5. I close the vote. It was adopted.
Amendment 6 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Amendment 7 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Amendment 8 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. I think Nicolas was the most successful today. Final vote, the draft report as amended.
You would like a roll call vote?
Das ist notwendig.
Sven Simon
Has to be a roll call vote. I open the vote. I close the vote. It was broadly adopted. Congratulations and thank you very much for all your work.
So, please leave the room quickly and silently if you want to leave the room. If you want to stay... Colleagues, please no bilaterals now. Please leave the room that we can go on with the meeting if you want to leave the room. But Mr. Chukchuk, of course we would feel honored if you stay.
So, colleagues.
Please let us move to the presentation of the draft report on proxy voting during pregnancy and after childbirth by our rapporteur Juan Fernando López Aguilar. Colleagues, please, if you want to have bilaterals, go out of the room and if not, keep quiet. This report sets out the practical arrangements for a member to have a vote cast in plenary by another member for up to three months before the estimated date of birth and up to six months after childbirth. Yes. Following Parliament's proposal of 13 November last year and its subsequent consent, the Council adopted decision 1296 from this year, amending the Electoral Act.
The decision will enter into force the day after the General Secretariat of the Council has received notification from every member state that the representative national approval procedures have been completed, which means that all national parliaments would have to give their consent, in some member states even the second chamber. That means there's some work for you guys, the colleagues in the German Bundestag.
So listen carefully what we are talking about. Maybe Juan Fernando, who is a very convincing and experienced colleague, will convince you or not. The proposed amendments will apply only, that is also important to note, once the Council decision and the corresponding statute, which is in the hands of JURI, amendments are in force. There's another technicality which is special in this report. On July 15, coordinators agreed to launch the procedure.
As Chair, I would normally, as we have been agreed, have been the rapporteur for such amendments to Parliament's Rules of Procedure. However, at the coordinators' meeting on 2nd September, it was agreed on my proposal to appoint Mr. López Aguilar as rapporteur on an exceptional basis, given that he had already served as a rapporteur for the preceding consent procedures and that he was fighting for that amendment to the Rules of Procedure for his entire political life. And that is the reason why I now give the floor to Juan Fernando López Aguilar.
Please, the floor is yours.
Juan Fernando López Aguilar
Thank you, Chair, and thank you all for a minute of your attention and your understanding for a file which is not complex because of its length or content, but because of its procedure. The procedure is the one we have in mind, which is pretty sophisticated because it involves a number of pieces in a same kind of compound or puzzle. This is a long-awaited draft establishing practical rules, the practical rules of procedure for members of Parliament, female members of Parliament who are pregnant or have recently given birth, to vote by proxy. You remember the technique, voting by proxy in the plenary, follows the earlier reform of the European Electoral Act and the Council decision which were adopted in May this year, 2024, which requires Parliament to set out detailed arrangements in its rules of procedures.
The period covered, the period we also have in mind is up to three months before the estimated date of birth and up to six months after the birth. The delegation, which we call designation by proxy, goes as following. The delegating member chooses another member, another MEP, with of course consent, with consent of both delegating and proxy. The delegation takes effect once registered with Parliament or on later date specified by the delegating member and ends on the date specified by the delegating member or at the latest six months after the birth. It shall also end at the end of the parliamentary term, if either member ceases to be a member or when the delegating member is physically present, so she is actually there in the chamber during a plenary sitting.
The limits of this proxy vote, of this delegating technique, goes as following. Each MEP may have only one proxy and a proxy may represent only one other MEP at a time. Okay, it's a kind of a bilateral arrangement and agreement and understanding.
The scope of voting goes as following. The proxy can vote on behalf of the MEP in all forms of plenary voting, including secret ballots. It's, it follows as a consequence of the principle that we have adopted. The proxy may vote differently from their own vote. So we, we know how it's like.
You're voting by someone else, but you still hold your right to choose your own voting. The legal effect is that a proxy vote is attributed to the delegating MEP and has the same effect as if they had voted personally. Any disagreement between the two, the two MEPs, the proxy and the delegating, does not affect the validity of the vote. Explanations. The delegating MEP may submit a written explanation, but cannot give an oral explanation.
Supposedly she's not there. The proxy cannot provide an explanation on the behalf of the delegating MEP.
For roll-call votes, the proxy's identity will be recorded and the published results will indicate that the vote was cast by proxy. As to other parliamentary acts, the proxy's other actions, such as requests, signatures, procedural motions, objections, are not attributed to the delegating MEP. However, the delegation shall authorize the proxy to represent her for the purpose of the quorum. So the idea is that once the proxy vote has been endorsed by the MEP who is the proxy, with understanding and arrangement with the delegating MEP, the proxy will represent her, the absent pregnant or mother MEP, for the purpose of the quorum.
As to the role of the Bureau, the Bureau would have responsibility for establishing the technical and administrative arrangements needed to operate the system, namely registration, revocation, supporting documents, secret ballots, corrections, deadlines. So the Bureau will be responsible for the administrative arrangements which are entailed. The Parliament adopted the proposal, you remember, in November 2025 to allow the proxy voting for MEPs who are pregnant or have recently given birth. The Council subsequently adopted its position. Parliament gave its consent April 2026.
The Council formally adopted decision May 2026. The Council decisions added two elements that we actually estimated to be reasonable. One, general conditions for delegation are to be included in the statute for members, reflecting principles such as transparency, accountability, traceability, legal certainty, integrity of the vote. Second, the detailed arrangements are to be included in the Parliament's rules of procedure. That is why we're doing this kind of thing, we're doing this file, because it takes to put it in the rules of procedure.
So, the present AFCO draft report is essentially about translating that decision of the Council onto our Rules of Procedure for its implementation. As to the entry into force, it's complicated. The amendment to the Rules of Procedure would enter into force only once both conditions are met. First, Council decision 2026 and the corresponding amendment to the Statute for Members have entered into force. Statute is the competence of JURI.
However, the provisions empowering the Bureau to adopt the implementing arrangements would apply immediately upon adoption of Parliament's decision so that the system can be operational as soon as the underlying legal changes have actually taken effect. So this long-awaited reform, because we have an issue with pregnant MEPs and mothers, is one step closer. I sincerely hope, we can all hope, we can all hope that shadow rapporteurs will continue to work together to ensure that we move forward smoothly as possible to have it adopted without delay, at least without delay on our side.
And of course, I am assuring you that I'll maintain my cooperation and constructive approach throughout the negotiations with you shadows, and with you groups, and with you members of AFCO Committee. So we very much hope that Member States will also proceed swiftly with the necessary notifications, because it's up to them to incorporate the new piece of legislation according to their constitutional procedures and legislative procedures, the national legislative procedures in anyone, in everyone, in everyone, each and every one of the 27 national parliaments. Thank you for your attention.
Sven Simon
Thank you very much, Mr. Rapporteur. And now I give the floor to the shadow rapporteurs, and I start with the EPP, Loránt Vincze.
Loránt Vincze
Thank you, Chair. Dear colleagues, I would like to thank Juan Fernando for presenting this draft. The EPP Group continues to strongly support the objective of ensuring that members do not lose their ability to vote because of pregnancy or childbirth, and the draft provides a good basis for our work.
Nevertheless, we have three points for consideration, three points that we consider they are essential to have a good outcome on the Rules of Procedure side. First, concerning the quorum, we believe that is a fully AFCO competence and JURI should have not included this in the changes they do for the Statute for Members. We are not yet convinced that the delegating member should also be counted for quorum purposes. Voting by proxy and being present in the chamber are two different matters. We believe that quorum means physical presence of the members, while voting on behalf of someone as proxy is a provision that only targets the voting procedure itself and not the physical presence of the member.
Second, we believe that the same proxy should vote on behalf of the delegating member throughout the whole part-session.
The proxy should not be changed between individual voting sessions, and any replacement should therefore take effect only from the next part-session, at the beginning of the following part-session. This would provide clarity, stability, and legal certainty, and less of an administrative burden, and I would say also for the political groups, it would give more certainty regarding the votes they can count for some essential vote voting sessions. Third, the proxy should belong to the same political group as the delegating member. This requirement should be stated clearly in the rule, together with an appropriate arrangement for non-attached members. I think that is obvious, but I believe also that it should be stated in this case.
By analogy to Rule 260, in the interpretation, a committee member may not under any circumstances be a substitute for a colleague who belongs to another political group. This is on voting in committees. I think this analogy should be taken on the proxy vote rules as well. Of course, we will table amendments based on these lines, and we look forward to discussing these points with the rapporteur and colleagues from the other political groups. Thank you.
Thank you.
Marieke Ehlers
Thank you very much, Chair. Also many thanks to the rapporteur who has stuck to our mandate to keep the scope of these rules as concise and narrow as possible, and I would like to urge all colleagues to remember what our mandate is and not try to expand on the scope of this very narrow derogation from the original law that we have in place. I support the rapporteur's proposal to have the proxy count towards the quorum calculation. This avoids the legal fiction whereby the number of votes cast exceed the quorum required for valid deliberation. This draft report is also consistent with the position taken by the Committee on Legal Affairs regarding the statute for the members of the European Parliament.
I also support the rapporteur's proposal to explicitly state that the member granting the proxy may issue voting instructions to the proxy holder, meaning the proxy holder can cast distinct differing votes. This ensures the member's freedom of mandate and that it remains intact.
We also agree with the EPP's suggestion that the proxy should only apply to the entire part-session and not to separate voting sessions within one part-session. I would like to add a few elements such as the method by which the member granting the proxy can verify and if necessary correct roll-call votes. This would allow the member to personally rectify any errors made by the proxy holder. I believe this is important for further safeguarding the freedom of mandate. I also note a discrepancy between the text from the Committee on Legal Affairs and that of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs regarding the entry into force, however I believe that this is something that may be resolved bilaterally.
On the issue of political groups that was mentioned by the EPP, that the proxy should be from the same political group, I believe that is relevant in the context of committees where political groups have a certain number of seats within the committee for balance, but I believe that that is not completely relevant for the plenary and I think it should be up to the member who would in the most circumstances naturally choose someone from their own political group, but perhaps a personal relationship across political groups may cause her to want to appoint someone from a different political group and she should be free to do so.
Thank you very much.
Sven Simon
So, Tobias Pochenski is not in the room. Is there any colleague from the ECR who would like to take the floor? No. Then we have the one and only Sandro Gozi, Renew.
Sandro Gozi
Thank you, Chair. We also appreciate the important and fast work of the rapporteur. Two general points, however. First, certainly this is a major step ahead, but we would have wished to see it also a major step ahead for the paternity leave, as we had proposed several times. And the general point is that the Council is showing that it can go fast on the electoral law, and this is even make even more serious the lack, total lack of will of the Council to discuss the other part of the electoral law we have tabled and which is still sitting on the table of the Council.
We had a political institutional commitment to reopen this discussion on the electoral law by the President of the European Parliament while we decided to move ahead with this specific point and also in this I mean official discussion I reiterate our hope and our will that the President of the European Parliament will stick to her commitment and will help the institution to push on the Council to reopen the discussion on the electoral law as a whole and not only on this specific albeit very important very important point. Going to the specific part of our discussions today we we think that as the European the EPP the delegation should be given within the remit of the same political group or for the non-affiliated member within the remit of the non-affiliated members for the same and very clear legal institutional reasons. We have the precedent of the committee on the delegation in the committee according to rule 216 paragraph 7 which is makes very clear that the delegation must remain within the scope of the same political group and we think that we should ensure legal coherence between what is already stated in the committee and what is going to be stated in the plenary.
So I mean there are solid and clear legal reasons to introduce the criteria of the same political group for the proxy vote. On the practical modalities, for the temporal scope, we consider the proxy should be given per part-session and not for each voting session for, I mean, obvious operational operational reasons. And for the quorum, after long discussion within our group, we consider that the delegating MEP should be counted in the quorum. Thank you very much, Chair.
Sven Simon
Thank you very much, Sandro. So the shadow from the Greens, Daniel Freund, is not present. Would you like to take the floor, Reinier van Lanschot, for the Greens?
Reinier Van Lanschot
Yes, thank you, Chair. I would like to start by echoing the frustrations on how that Sandro just expressed on how the other parts of the electoral law act are going. But on this one, so first, thank you Juan Fernando, thank you Sven for the draft report on the amendments to Parliament's rules of procedure on proxy voting, also on behalf of Daniel, who's sorry that he's not able to be here personally. I think designating and revoking a proxy per voting session is a good compromise between flexibility and safety to plan ahead.
To count the proxy also for a quorum seems fair to us. What we really had wanted for this proxy voting was that fathers could use this too when being there for their pregnant partner and their newborn. We deplore that this was not included. Once we have collected experiences with this change, we should consider building on it, but this cannot be fixed in this file on the table today. The main issue that we still see with this report is paragraph five, the words "the proxy may cause the delegating member's vote differently from his or her his or her own vote".
What does that mean in practice? So imagine right now when we're voting in plenary, I'm already juggling all these things and sometimes I vote wrong and then you have to correct it later. But imagine now having to do that in a very quick way with two different alternating votes votes, you should almost have superhuman powers to make two different votes in two different voting machines at once, especially if there's sessions of thousand votes in a row. So an alternative would be to simply double the vote that an MEP does who does the proxy voting. And the delegating MEP has the freedom to choose an MEP whose voting intentions are sufficiently similar.
This would seem a sufficient guarantee for the free mandate of both the delegating member and the proxy and the principle of personal accountability of the delegating member vis-à-vis her constituents.
We will consider if we submit amendments in this direction. Thank you.
Sven Simon
Then we have Carolina Morace from the Left. But I think the situation you described, especially when things become more complicated and you vote in a different way for yourself than for the proxy, that makes it very clear that voting is not simply a matter of pressing a button. It's more. And that I think we should keep in mind when we decide on that question. I also don't have an answer, but it makes it very clear that situation that voting is not just pressing a button, it is a carefully considered decision that may involve weighing different factors and responsibilities until the last second of the vote.
So for the Left, is there anybody? Yes, sorry, Carolina Morace, please, for the Left.
Carolina Morace
Grazie, grazie Presidente e grazie al relatore per il lavoro svolto.
Questo è un provvedimento importante e voteremo a favore anche in plenaria. Garantire alle eurodeputate incinte o neomadri la possibilità di votare per delega significa consentire loro di continuare a esercitare pienamente il loro mandato. Non stiamo parlando di una concessione o di un privilegio per noi deputate. Stiamo parlando di democrazia, di rappresentanza. Quando una deputata diventa madre e non può votare, non è soltanto lei a perdere la possibilità di esprimersi, ma a non essere rappresentata è anche la voce dei cittadini e delle cittadine che l'hanno eletta.
Per questo il voto per delega è prima di tutto una garanzia della rappresentanza popolare, ma è altrettanto fondamentale che in ogni momento la deputata mantenga il pieno controllo politico del proprio voto. Proprio perché considero questo provvedimento molto importante, ho un rammarico. Avevamo l'occasione di fare un passo in più e voglio ringraziare i colleghi di Renew e dei Verdi con i quali abbiamo lavorato a una serie di emendamenti per estendere il voto per delega a tutti i deputati che diventano genitori, indipendentemente dal loro genere e dal modo in cui lo diventano.
Se vogliamo davvero parlare di parità di genere dobbiamo anche avere il coraggio di superare l'idea che la cura dei figli sia una responsabilità che ricade principalmente sulle donne. Riconoscere questo diritto anche ai padri avrebbe significato affermare una cosa molto semplice: la genitorialità è una responsabilità condivisa e avrebbe significato permettere a tutti i genitori di fare la propria parte senza dover scegliere tra essere presente per i propri figli ed esercitare il mandato per cui sono stati eletti. Comprendo le ragioni che hanno portato il relatore ad accettare un compromesso di fronte alle resistenze delle forze di destra e al rischio di uno stallo in Consiglio. Ma c'è un punto sul quale dobbiamo essere chiari: non possiamo continuare ad abbassare le nostre ambizioni sui diritti per paura dei veti dei governi. Se il minimo comune denominatore diventa il nostro punto di arrivo, il rischio è che sui diritti si finisca per fare un passo in meno del necessario.
Grazie.
Sven Simon
So, Christine Anderson is not in the room, there's no other from the ESN. Then I warmly welcome Lara Wolters, who has joined us today as JURI rapporteur for the corresponding amendments to the Statute for Members. Welcome Lara to AFCO, I would like to give you the floor now.
Lara Wolters
Thank you, Chair, and thanks for having me today. Very enjoyable to listen to the conversations here that mirror many of the ones that we've had in the Legal Affairs Committee. And while I will leave firmly in your remit the question of whether or not somebody can multitask and do two voting lists from different groups at the same time, I was wondering whether the EP learning service could perhaps provide some kind of multitasking training that could help members develop their skills in this area. Anyway, so thank you again for the invitation. So as AFCO begins its work on the Rules of Procedure, in JURI we are now concluding our work on the Statute for Members.
And as you will know, both of those files are intrinsically linked, and as a result of the Council's changes in the Electoral Act, both must be amended before we can set up the proxy vote. The major difference between the two files is that our changes to the Statute for Members require the consent of the Council, whereas the Rules of Procedure, as you know, of course, are an internal parliamentary matter.
Yesterday, we concluded an agreement on the Statute at shadows level, and we will vote in committee next Thursday in Strasbourg. I would like to highlight a few aspects of our agreement. Our changes to the Statute cannot enter into force prior to the ratification of the Electoral Act by all Member States. I think it was mentioned before already. So what we've done is we've inserted a device to allow us to vote the file in plenary as soon as possible, with a mechanism which would see the automatic entry into force the day after the last ratification is notified.
And then on the question of whether a proxy vote should count towards quorums and thresholds, we had an open-minded discussion on this. And a clear majority of shadows agreed that this should be the case. The EPP was included in that majority. And I think, having listened carefully to colleagues here, that that the majority is present in this committee as well.
We have at all stages been informed by the parallel discussion in AFCO on this, and I very much hope that our approaches at the end of the day can be compatible, as they seem to be. And then finally, I would like to emphasize that the overwhelming priority of political groups in JURI was that this reform be made operational as soon as possible. And I hope that that view is shared here. I want to thank all AFCO colleagues, especially my colleague Juan Fernando, of course, for the excellent cooperation during our work in JURI. And I hope that here too things can proceed smoothly so we can finally get this across the line for our colleagues who are in need of it.
Thank you.
Speaker 20
Does any other member wish to take the floor? This is not the case. Yes, of course, the final word goes to Juan.
Juan Fernando López Aguilar
Actually, I can only thank the sensitive points that have been made with all of their nuances according to the relevant priorities of the political groups. They have every right to make their point of principle. But I can only remind that we have gone through this conversation before and we have actually accepted a pragmatic approach for good reason.
Yes, we all have more ambitions when it comes to electoral act, when it comes to reviewing the electoral act, when it comes to updating even rules of procedure in many ways that are to be widened possibly according to accommodate our concerns or our priorities. But in this particular file, we're just making a very kind of framed point, which is how to respond to a long-standing demand by pregnant MEPs or mothers just recently having given birth to their children and searching for some kind of a reform of our rules of procedure, statute for the members and electoral act, which can actually fill the unacceptable gap of not letting them exercising their voting rights by no possible means unless we do what we are doing here, which is with a kind of small scissors, you know, making a patchwork in order to accommodate that demand, which is absolutely legitimate and impossible to understand that we haven't taken care of so far.
And we are doing by the technique of the proxy vote, that was the principle we accepted. Of course it's a challenge, even in constitutional terms it's a challenge to accommodate some kind of a proxy technique, but still we accepted that. And having accepted that in the electoral act, we can only try to be consistent with the principle, meaning that we have to take the consequences and draw the consequences of accepting that a delegating MEP may trust a proxy to exert voting rights for her, on her behalf. We have to do it in consistency with clarity, legal certainty and consistency with the rest of the rules which are not to be modified or reviewed. In that regard, I thank you for the sensitive points and for the constructive and cooperative approach so that we do it in the way that is least harmful for the overall architecture and the economy of the rules of procedure.
I can only reassure you that my first draft has taken into account a thorough analysis and conversation we had in a kind of an in camera session with the all the technical services involved, the legal services, the secretariat, the the cabinet of the President of the of the Parliament. We heard them carefully, we took note and we're trying to be as precise and let's let's face it as humble and as limited as possible to the purpose we are serving, which is responding to pregnant MEPs and mothers in that particular request, absolutely legitimate, impossible to delay any further of exerting voting rights, including of course its impact on the quorum. It's been said, it it it is hard to accept that the the votes cast exceed the quorum. They have to be consistent. If there have been votes cast, we have a number, that number has to be in coincidence with the quorum.
So that is a principle, we accept it. So as to the rest, I am willing to to try to combine the the nuances we just heard of and and be constructive so that we we complete the job from our side.
Yes, as to the Council, of course we can expect that they also behave. It is not a jurisdiction, but of course we can send the message. If we do our part, we are stronger in order to send the message that we expect them to behave and do their part and incorporate that ruling according to the national legislations and procedures. Thank you all and and looking forward to keep working with you in order to make it happen. Thank you.
Sven Simon
Thank you very much, colleagues. The deadline for amendments is four days after the vote in JURI, that you can take that into account on 12 October at 5:00 PM. The vote in committee is scheduled for November 10. Item number seven. Our final item.
The report of AFCO's mission to the US in July this year. Six AFCO members, including Sandro Gozi, visited Washington, DC and the United Nations in New York. I will now give the floor to the participating members, beginning with Brando. Is Brando there? Brando Benifei, where is he?
No, he's not here. Then the whole work has to be done by Sandro Gozi.
Maybe I should first thank the interlocutors for the valuable exchange, which I was told was very exciting and inspiring. I'm also particularly grateful to Amélie Giesemann and her team at Parliament's liaison office in Washington, and to Pedro Valente da Silva and his team at Parliament's UN antenna in New York, and our staff member Evelina Błaszczyk-Adamowicz for their excellent work. And now I give the floor to Sandro Gozi for the report. Either you do the US part or you do it both.
Sandro Gozi
No, thank you, Chair. Very short. First of all, I associated myself and also other colleagues who participated to the your congratulation, your compliments to the secretariat and to the European Parliament liaison office in Washington, and also to the EU delegation in New York, because they did an excellent job. It was a very interesting and busy mission. And from my perspective, only two message.
I mean, of course, we have met several member of the Congress. We have participated to the Transatlantic Dialogue Week. We have also met, had institutional meeting with judges, representatives of the Supreme Court. And I think that this was in Washington.
And this was very useful for a comparative approach between the functioning of our Parliament, the functioning of the Congress. And I think that also for our ongoing work on the revision of the rules of procedure, to learn better from inside the functioning of the US Congress was certainly very useful. And also, it was also useful to discuss the artificial intelligence and digital approaches, strategies, and positioning of the members of the Congress. On the part which Brando Benifei chaired at the UN was also very useful. I think that the report we just adopted this morning in the committee on artificial intelligence shows how useful was that mission, because it is clear that there are strong constitutional components and a growing institutional dimension around the issue of artificial intelligence.
And I think that the several meetings we had at very high level at the United Nations confirmed that we should continue to work on the aspect of the governance of artificial intelligence, both at European but also at global and UN level. So all in all, a very good mission and useful results that we are already, we have already used and I'm sure we'll use more in our common work in the committee. Thank you, Chair.
Sven Simon
Thank you very much. Is there any other business? Ah, sorry, Mr. Leggeri.
Fabrice Leggeri
Thank you, thank you very much, Chair.
I will speak in French. Je voudrais remercier l'ensemble des évidemment des collègues et en particulier Sandro Gozi qui a qui a présidé la la mission à à Washington et et notre collègue Boni-Fei à à New York auprès des des Nations Unies. Je pense que c'était une mission effectivement qui qui nous a beaucoup éclairés par rapport à des des dossiers, des questions que nous nous posons ici pour le fonctionnement du du Parlement européen, également par rapport à la Cour de justice de l'Union européenne. J'ai trouvé l'échange avec des des juges fédéraux américains extrêmement intéressant en ce qui concerne en particulier le le dialogue des juges, si j'ai bien compris, qui existe entre les la juridiction de la Cour suprême des États-Unis et des cours suprêmes des des États fédérés.
En ce qui concerne l'intelligence artificielle, bon, nous avons visité Washington et New York au moment, enfin quelques jours après des incidents sérieux qui ont été rapportés notamment par Anthropic par rapport à des tests d'intelligence artificielle ou en tout cas les tests sont sortis du cadre qui avait été fixé. Et je pense que la question un peu stratégique qui peut se poser à nous, c'est qu'en entendant les parlementaires américains, on voit bien qu'ils sont habités et que l'administration Trump semble être habitée par la crainte d'une compétition avec la Chine. Certains nous ont parlé d'une compétition semblable à la compétition qu'il y avait pour maîtriser l'arme nucléaire à la fin et après la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Et de l'autre côté, nous avons effectivement des problèmes éthiques, des problèmes quand même sérieux et je pense que ce serait intéressant de continuer le dialogue à la lumière de ce qu'ont pu déclarer récemment des grandes voix qui portent en tout cas en matière d'intelligence artificielle suite aux incidents qui se sont produits au mois de juillet. Voilà, sinon je, en tout cas, je tiens à remercier encore l'ensemble des participants et l'ensemble des personnels du Parlement qui ont fait de cette mission une mission de mon point de vue extrêmement constructive.
Merci beaucoup.
Sven Simon
Okay. If there is no objection, then I declare the mission report endorsed. Any other business? Not the case. Next meeting will take place on 10th November.
I thank you. The meeting is closed.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.