Verbatim report of proceedings

Wednesday, 1 April 1998 - Strasbourg

1. Approval of the Minutes

  President . – The Minutes of Tuesday, 31 March 1998 have been distributed.

Are there any comments?

  McMahon (PSE). ‐ Mr President, I would like to refer to pages 20 and 21 of the English version concerning Question Time and the conduct of Question Time. In particular, I would like to hear your views on this latest edict that has been passed down from on high regarding the rules governing Question Time. It seems to me to be excessively bureaucratic; it seems to me to be excessively undemocratic; and it seems to me that it is imposing censorship on Members and their questions. So I would like to know what was the rationale behind it, given that political groups have not discussed this; and I am asking you, as the person in charge of the organization here, to make a clear and categorical statement of why you arrived at this decision and whether it will be kept under review.

  President . – It is very clear, Mr McMahon. On the proposal of the Vice‐President who chairs Question Time some rules – not new rules, but measures to organize Question Time better – were adopted by the Bureau. The aim is simply to avoid questions being put months in advance, because then they lose their topicality. The period fixed in the rules runs from the end of one partsession's Question Time to some hours before the next part‐session; and we simply remind you that this is the period fixed, not some months in advance. These are not new rules.

If anyone thinks there has been a change in the rules, which of course is not the case, I will submit the question to the Committee on the Rules of Procedure, the Verification of Credentials and Immunities. It is very simple: the intention of the Bureau was not at all to change the rules, it was simply to have better ways of dealing with Question Time, on the proposal of the Vice‐President in charge, namely Mr Gutiérrez.

  Wijsenbeek (ELDR). – Mr President. Of course I am not calling the goodwill of the Bureau into question. But it is a bit odd that the Bureau is giving out instructions for Question Time.

I drafted a report for the Rules Committee, which has been before the Committee for four months and which has not been included on the agenda for the Plenary session. Yet you change two sets of rules, while Members do not have an opportunity to discuss these new proposals of the Rules Committee.

(Applause )

  President . – Mr Wijsenbeek, you are an expert on the rules: you ought to know that it is not the Bureau which places the reports on the agenda, but the Conference of Presidents. There were many reports from the Rules Committee and two of them have been put on the agenda of this session specially to make up this delay which is due to the many items this House has to deal with. So your report will come up as soon as the Conference of Presidents can find a place for it on the agenda. There is no discrimination against any report, and this afternoon I will be seeing the chairman of the committee at his request, precisely to consider the best time for its inclusion on the agenda by the Conference of Presidents.

  Falconer (PSE). – Mr President, I was interested in your reply to Mr McMahon when you said that if there was any alteration to the rules or the procedures you would obviously refer them to the Committee on the Rules of Procedure, the Verification of Credentials and Immunities. Given my interest in the voting in this Parliament during lunchtime, perhaps it is too late for that matter to be referred to the Rules Committee. However, given that this is the last month that this will take place, can you give me and this House an assurance that any changes which are to take place regarding Members' interests will be put to the Members of this House the way the change in the Members' voting procedure should have been put to this House in January?

  President . – Of course, if there is any doubt you may be assured that we will refer it to the Committee on the Rules of Procedure, the Verification of Credentials and Immunities and we will await its decision before introducing any changes.

  Elles (PPE). – Mr President, I rise on another matter but it does concern the role of the Conference of Presidents. This concerns the Pex report on information policy, which we tried to put on the agenda for this part‐session and which was then going to be on the agenda for the part‐session at the end of next month. However, I understand that you, as President, have taken that off the agenda and have refused to have this circulated for translation so that Members can read what the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education and the Media has decided. We in the Committee on Budgets are concerned because we need this report to release funds to enable the information policy to continue to operate. I would like your guidance on what is going on, because, once again, it seems to be a suppression of the interests of the Members of this House.

  President . – Mr Elles, you have been wrongly informed. I have not taken anything off the agenda because I cannot do so. Simply, this report, like any other report, when it is drafted is examined by the services of the House. As there was some doubt about its admissibility – taking into account that it was submitted rather late – the Conference of Presidents, the body empowered to take a decision, took the decision to wait until next month, May, so that it could examine it to see whether it was admissible or not. My view is that this report goes against the rules of the House and the Treaties. The Conference of Presidents will examine it tomorrow and take what decision it feels appropriate.

You know that no report is circulated until it is put on the agenda. Until questions on admissibility are settled, reports are not circulated. So this report has not been treated differently.

  Pex (PPE). ‐ (NL) Mr President, out of respect for you I have kept quiet this week about this matter, but now that it is being raised I would like to make some comments, otherwise you might think I agree with you. Firstly, this report was discussed openly; a number of people from your services attended the discussions. It is therefore extremely strange that its admissibility was not examined until a few days before this part‐session. Secondly, your Secretary‐General told me on the telephone last week that the report presents no difficulties. This was before the Conference of Presidents had their meeting.

Thirdly, I take exception to the fact that it was you who blocked the report, so that I was not able to defend myself as rapporteur. If you are now saying in this sitting that the report goes against the Treaties, then I would like Members to be able to read the report, so that they can see for themselves what, according to you, is questionable.

Blocking my report makes it impossible for me to defend myself, and I do not think this is a procedure which befits a democratic organization. I consider this censorship, Mr President.

Finally, the issue here is communication. I have noted that the Bureau"s external communications are extremely poor. My report therefore deals with improving this situation. Some will find this very hard to take, but I have to say that I find the internal communications even worse, because everything you have just said I only hear from you today. Nobody in your services consulted me over the past two weeks, and I find that deplorable.

  President . – Mr Pex, I can state categorically that I myself, in the presence of other people, warned you about this several months ago. You carried on with your report without taking account of either the Rules of Procedure or the Treaties. Furthermore, I do not need to tell you about the Treaties. Just like any other Member of this House, you should know them, and the Rules of Procedure too. However, this is not a question for me to decide on, Mr Pex. It is a matter for the Conference of Presidents, and they will decide on it tomorrow. This is not my problem. All I have to do is advise the Conference of Presidents that, in my opinion, this is an infringement of the Treaties and the Rules of Procedure. We shall see, that is all.

Your report has been dealt with, Mr Pex, and I am not going to continue this discussion because it is not a matter for the House to decide on at the moment, since it is not on the agenda. Your report has been treated in exactly the same way as other reports – no more, no less. No report is granted any privileges, whether it comes from your committee or from any other. Every report is examined, and if there are problems relating to the rules they are studied and resolved by the appropriate body, which is not the President but the Conference of Presidents. Then, if there is a discrepancy, it is referred to the Committee on the Rules of Procedure, the Verification of Credentials and Immunities. That is all. If you do not think it is good enough, then present the Rules Committee with a proposal to amend our Rules of Procedure. You can do that, just like anybody else.

(Applause)

Mr Pex, I am going to let you speak because I do not want it said that I insisted on having the last word on this matter.

  Pex (PPE). ‐ (NL) Thank you for your explanation, Mr President. I would like to make one comment on what you have said. You told me about your objections a few months ago. I did take these into account. The text we had, and discussed at the time, is nowhere to be found. I changed the report, and subsequently 126 amendments were tabled. That is why it so regrettable that the text is not public, because the report before us now is a completely different text to the one we discussed a few months ago. So reproaching me for not having listened to you is not right.

  President . – Mr Pex, I am not reproaching you about anything. I do not reproach any Member of this House who acts in accordance with their convictions. I am simply trying to determine whether your report is admissible or not. If it is, it will be published. If not, it will be sent to the Committee on the Rules of Procedure, the Verification of Credentials and Immunities so they can report on the matter. In any case, the honourable Members can quite easily find out which of the amendments to your report have and have not been accepted.

  Bourlanges (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, I wanted to comment regarding the vote on Mrs Theato"s report.

A large majority, virtually all of the House, voted for the report under what were perfectly satisfactory conditions and thus there is not the slightest question of challenging what has already been voted for. However, it should be noted that the conditions under which this vote took place may raise questions regarding its future interpretation.

As there was some dispute regarding corrections of a linguistic nature, the President of the sitting, Mr Cot, understandably wanted to put those corrections to a vote as he considered they could pose a fundamental problem. There was undoubtedly a fundamental problem and it would have consequently been preferable to have an oral amendment enabling harmonization of the different linguistic versions. However, the corrections were put to the vote and rejected, with the result that there is now a significant difference between many of the translations on a point which, although certainly not crucial, is not negligible either.

The President did not use the powers bestowed upon him by Article 102 of the Rules of Procedure. In the case of differences between linguistic versions, it is within his powers to determine which version should be considered adopted, either the original language version – in this case German – or one of the other versions. We will therefore be faced with a problem in the future.

I would like to request two things, Mr President. Firstly, that the question of whether the President of a sitting can or cannot put linguistic corrections of a technical nature to the vote be submitted to the Committee on the Rules of Procedure, the Verification of Credentials and Immunities. Secondly, that the Committee on the Rules of Procedure be asked to clarify which linguistic version prevails when there are linguistic differences between the texts. We cannot take texts to the outside world when they exist in different versions.

  President . – Mr Bourlanges, it says in the Minutes, and I quote, “the rapporteur withdrew the corrigendum’. Thus if the rapporteur withdrew the corrigendum, there is absolutely no reason to consult the Committee on the Rules of Procedure since we did not take a vote on it.

  Tomlinson (PSE). – Mr President, I think you have covered the point I was going to raise but Mr Bourlanges is being deliberately, or otherwise, disingenuous in the point of order he has raised. I was the person who raised an objection to dealing with a matter of substance by way of a corrigendum. To change the words ‚European Public Prosecutor’ to ‚European judicial authority’ is not just a technicality, and I am sure you, Mr President, as a jurist understand the significance of those changes. If the words were incoherent in all languages other than German, it shows how ill‐prepared the debate was in committee because we have debated all the way through on the use of those words ‚European Public Prosecutor’. But then, on the matter of substance, Mr Bourlanges is also wrong because it is in the recollection of everybody who followed it that Mrs Theato withdrew the corrigendum.

  President . – This incident is closed. I am not going to give more time to it. We have a heavy agenda, and I am not continuing something which was closed yesterday by the President in the Chair.

(The Minutes were approved)

⁽¹⁾

(1) Documents received: see Minutes.