Doslovný záznam ze zasedání

Středa, 12. ledna 2005 - Štrasburk

8. Schválení zápisu z předchozího zasedání: viz zápis

  Przewodniczący. Wznawiam obrady.

Protokół z wczorajszego posiedzenia został doręczony i chciałbym się spytać, czy są jakieś uwagi czy zastrzeżenia do protokołu.

  Knapman (IND/DEM). – Mr President, if the sitting is supposed to resume at 3 p.m. then would it not be a good idea to start at 3 p.m. and not have lunch until all hours of the afternoon? However, there are more serious points which we should perhaps draw to your attention.

You will be aware that your employees assaulted two of our employees – that is, employees of the United Kingdom Independence Party – this morning, causing bodily injury. I would like to ask whether this happened as a result of your instructions and whether or not you are prepared to take responsibility for this?

I appreciate that you are not the President of Parliament, who has always proved partial. At Westminster, the Speaker's job is to protect the rights of backbenchers. All that the President of this Parliament – who is totally inexperienced – seems to do is to want to preserve the status quo.

This morning he has really blotted his copy book because, last month, he permitted all the signs saying 'Yes to Turkey' to remain up in this Chamber for a considerable period of time. He set a precedent then, so why were we not permitted this very day to hold up signs saying 'Say no'?

…

  President. You made your point. Your question will be answered in due time.

(Mr Knapman continued speaking off-microphone)

It is not a point of order. You have made your point and you will get your answer. Thank you.

I understand that there are no objections as far as the Minutes are concerned.

(Mr Knapman continued speaking off-microphone)

I am sorry, Mr Knapman, I will not give you the floor.

(Mr Knapman continued speaking off-microphone)

It is not a point of order. You will get your explanation in due time.

We can assume that the Minutes are approved.

  Ryan (UEN). – Mr President, the gentleman, his colleagues and his staff should be cleaning up the 'No to Europe' literature and mess that is strewn around the grounds of this Parliament. It is spread all over the place! Perhaps he could clean up the litter.

  President. The matter is closed. Let us proceed with the sitting.

  Batten (IND/DEM). – Mr President, I should like to know who is responsible for security staff outside the Chamber. I cannot find anything about this in the Rules. Who authorised the security staff to interfere with free and peaceful expressions of political opinion outside this House, and on what authority was this done, having regard to the Rules of Procedure or any other relevant authority?

Secondly, why was violence used against women, and thirdly, what steps will the President take to bring to account those responsible? This follows on from my previous complaint to the President, Mr Borrell Fontelles, asking for this matter to be investigated.

  President. As I told the previous speakers, you will get your answer in due course.

  Knapman (IND/DEM). – Mr President, please would you look at Rule 166 and tell me whether you have applied this Rule in response to the points of order, following your decision to tell your staff to assault ours, causing them bodily injury. The Rule stipulates that 'A Member may be allowed to speak to draw the attention of the President to any failure to respect Parliament's Rules of Procedure'. We have done that. 'A request to raise a point of order shall take precedence over all other requests to speak'. We have done that – at least, for once, you got something right!

Paragraph 4 states that 'The President shall take an immediate decision on points of order'. We ask you – although I know you are not that important in the pecking order – to take a decision on these very important points of order; probably the most important points of order you will ever get in your life!

  President. I am sorry, but you have already had the floor. You have now spoken for the second time.

'No answer!' from Mr Knapman

You may find it unsatisfactory, but that was my answer.

  Clark (IND/DEM). – Mr President, Rule 166 states very clearly that you are required to give us a response to complaints such as those already made by my colleagues, Mr Batten and Mr Knapman, concerning violence used against our members of staff by your members of staff. What steps are you taking or proposing to take to hold to account those who have used violence apparently in your name? We want to know what steps you are going to take or have already taken – it says so in Rule 166 – and we need that answer now, not tomorrow.

  President. As I said, you will be given an answer in due course, not at this moment. I consider the whole issue closed. There will be no more points of order.