Verbatim report of proceedings

Thursday, 16 February 2006 - Strasbourg

6.1. Services (vote)

- Before the vote:

  Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE). – (IT) Mr President, I just want to inform you that, in accordance with Rules 165 and 171 of the Rules of Procedure, my group asks that a request to suspend the sitting for five to ten minutes be put to the vote at the end of voting time.

  Francis Wurtz (GUE/NGL). – (FR) Mr President, my group is obviously in favour of any measure allowing Members to give an informed opinion. This is a question of transparency and responsibility, even though, as myself and my group believe, the outcome of the final vote is clearly dependent on the direction in which the debates have gone. I believe that it is only right that the other Members who remain hesitant should be able to consult each other so as to give an informed opinion.

I am therefore in favour of the suspension before the final vote.

  Hannes Swoboda (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, while I would consider using the same argument as Mr Wurtz, I come to the opposite conclusion. It is precisely because we have grappled with this in great depth over past weeks and, despite the many amendments, have, under Mrs Gebhardt’s guidance, gained a very good overview of it, that we are against it. We should vote at once.

(Applause from the left)

(Parliament rejected the request of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance)

- Following the vote on Amendments 233/403:

  Evelyne Gebhardt (PSE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, I really must ask the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats the serious question as to whether or not they will stand by the compromise that they reached with us, part of which was that we would vote against this motion. I find it unacceptable that we should negotiate for weeks on end and then people do not do what they agreed to do.

(Applause and uproar)

  Malcolm Harbour (PPE-DE). – Mr President, to respond to the rapporteur's point, I want to make it absolutely clear that our discussions on the package – which is entirely intact – were about the inclusion of private health, and this group has had a free vote on it. You will notice that there has been no signal on it whatsoever from the front bench of this group. That was what we said to the Socialists yesterday. This was a free vote on whether to include private healthcare within the scope of the directive, not healthcare overall. Many people other than members of this group clearly felt that was the case, but that does not alter in any way our commitment to the overall package that we have before us.

(Applause from the PPE-DE Group)

  Daniel Marc Cohn-Bendit (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, pursuant to Rule 171, it might perhaps be advisable for the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and its partner, the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, to request a suspension of the sitting in order to come to an agreement.

- On the vote on Amendment 233:

  Toine Manders (ALDE). – (NL) Mr President, on the basis of Rule 66, I would like to know what eventually became of the vote on Amendment 233, since, according to what I heard, you came to the wrong conclusion.

  Evelyne Gebhardt (PSE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, my apologies, but, while Amendment 380 to Article 72 is missing from my documents, Amendment 297 is not. It has to do with the removal of the reference to labour law. Article 72 was about something completely different.

  President. We have received information from the Secretariat of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection on the basis of which the vote has been prepared and which states that the approval of Amendment 72 implies that Amendment 297 lapses. Naturally, if the rapporteur is not in agreement, we shall go along with her.

  Martin Schulz (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, I think it makes sense to do as the rapporteur suggests; after all, it may be that a committee secretariat has made a mistake. We see it as very important that we should vote on Amendment 297, and I ask that we now do so.

  President. We shall proceed according to the rapporteur’s wishes. We shall vote on Amendment 297 by roll-call.

- Before the vote on Amendment 357:

  Toine Manders (ALDE). – (NL) Mr President, I wish to raise a point of order. We have voted on Amendment 233 and approved it, with the consequence that the directive applies to private health care but not to the public variety. We are now, again, voting on public health care, but I do not see this as workable. There is now a problem with the relationship between the amendments, and I think there must be some defect in the way the voting lists are put together and the sequence in which the amendments are arranged.

  President. We are not aware of any inconsistency in the voting order, but the rapporteur can tell us whether she agrees with you.

  Evelyne Gebhardt (PSE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, the Bureau has done a perfectly good job of putting the list together, and I can see no errors in the voting order.

- Before the vote on Amendment 293:

  Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE). – (IT) Mr President, in the fourth revised version of Amendment 293, the terms ‘social policy’ and ‘consumer protection’ have been deleted from paragraph 3, which enables Member States to impose conditions on the provision of services.

The deletion of these terms is not an innocent act and it sends out a clear political signal that we do not endorse. Therefore, in accordance with Rule 150(5) of the Rules of Procedure, we call for these deleted terms to be reinserted in the text.

  President. We are not really talking about an amendment being withdrawn. The rule that the honourable Member has referred to is not therefore applicable.

  Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE). – (IT) Mr President, before a revised amendment is tabled, the previous amendment must first be withdrawn. This procedure has been followed, and a revised amendment has been tabled. For this reason, I call for the previous amendment to be retabled in accordance with Rule 150(5) of the Rules of Procedure.

  Evelyne Gebhardt (PSE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, before we and the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats embarked on this revision, we got the Legal Services to examine very carefully whether this was in conformity with the House’s Rules of Procedure. The relevant departments of this House assured us that it was, and so it was in this form that we introduced it. The point I want to make to Mrs Frassoni is that this was considered carefully beforehand. It would appear to be the case that we can go down this road, and so we should now proceed to the vote.

(Vigorous applause)

  Graham Watson (ALDE). – Mr President, Mrs Gebhardt may be discovering things about the Legal Services in this House, but it would appear to my Group that Mrs Frassoni's point is absolutely justified under the rules of our House, and my Group supports her request that this amendment be voted.

(Applause)

  Robert Goebbels (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, it is about time you assumed your authority as President of the sitting. We are in the middle of voting, and this is not the time to reopen the debate.

(Applause)

I will take the liberty of pointing out to Mrs Frassoni that consumer protection and social protection feature in several places in the text on which we are voting. So let us vote in favour of the compromise as it stands.

(Applause)

  President. Ladies and gentlemen, this is not a problem of political debate but, rather, one of procedure. The Presidency wants to be sure that we are proceeding in accordance with our Rules of Procedure and the appropriate legal interpretations. Having consulted the services, I must inform you that we believe that Mrs Gebhardt’s interpretation is correct. We shall therefore maintain the voting order as planned.

  Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE). – (IT) Mr President, what Mrs Gebhardt said has nothing to do with what I requested.

Although there are a great many doubts in our group about the legitimacy of tabling a revised amendment after the deadline has elapsed, we are nevertheless prepared to accept it. I am by no means questioning the fact that it was possible for Mrs Gebhardt to table the revised amendment. Nevertheless, on behalf of my group, I am letting it be known that I wish to retable the previous amendment, in full compliance with the Rules of Procedure.

Mr President, if you wish to interpret the Rules of Procedure on the basis of what the majority – namely Mrs Gebhardt – said, then you are free to do so. That does not take away from the fact that, under the Rules of Procedure, I am perfectly within my rights to call for the amendment to be put to the vote in the form in which I retabled it. I should, however, like to point out that we are not questioning the fact that Mrs Gebhardt was right to table a revised amendment.

  Nigel Farage (IND/DEM). – Mr President, in order to try and be helpful in this rather difficult situation ...

(Mixed reactions)

Why all the scepticism? I am here to help! I am quoting Rule 168(2). I would suggest that, as this is degenerating into an absolute farce, pursuant to Rule 168(2) we move immediately to a vote. I propose that we refer this report back to the committee so that it can come back to Parliament and we can vote on it sensibly, because that is not happening now.

(Mixed reactions)

  Martin Schulz (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, I would ask that we consider the Rules of Procedure in their entirety. The House has heard two different viewpoints put forward, one – surely an acceptable one – by Mrs Frassoni, and the other by Mrs Gebhardt. Our Rules of Procedure are unambiguous, and Mrs Frassoni, as a member of the Conference of Presidents, has applied them. In cases of doubt such as this one, it is the President who decides how to proceed. You have consulted the services; they gave you a recommendation, you accepted it, and so I ask that we now do what you have announced and proceed with the vote.

(Applause)

  Roberto Musacchio (GUE/NGL). – (IT) Mr President, I support Mrs Frassoni’s legal interpretation. Your reply referred to the first remark, regarding which I would beseech the architects of the compromise not to allow political principles to prevail over the procedural principles of this Parliament, because that would not be at all desirable.

  Daniel Marc Cohn-Bendit (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, Rule 150(5) permits no such distinction. It follows that there is no dispute about two possible options, as there is only one possible course of action. Mrs Gebhardt is right to point out that you have the right to alter one of your own amendments, and the information supplied by the services is correct in that respect. Irrespective of your own intentions – and it is not the majority that is right but the law that is right – it is open to us to take over in our own name an amendment already submitted. That is what Rule 150(5) says. That has nothing to do with your actions.

On behalf of the Verts/ALE Group, I announce that we will take over your original amendment, so that it is back in play and the House has to vote on it. That is the way the rules have always been applied in this House.

(Vigorous applause)

  Nigel Farage (IND/DEM). – Mr President, I quoted Rule 168(2), where I proposed that we move to a vote to refer this back to the committee. The rule, which appears clear to me, states: ‘Such a motion shall be put to the vote immediately.’

However, perhaps things have got a little worse since my last comments. Therefore, I shall now quote your Rules – and, as you said yourself, we must be scrupulous about the Rules of this fine establishment. Rule 170(4) states: ‘Before or during a vote, a political group or at least thirty-seven Members may move that the vote be adjourned. Such a motion shall be put to the vote immediately.’ It does not matter whether you are against the EU or for the EU, surely all of you in this Chamber can see that this is now a farce! Mr President, could we please have a vote to adjourn this vote?

(Applause from the IND/DEM Group)

(Parliament rejected the proposed postponement of the vote)

- Before the vote on Amendments 307/219:

  Evelyne Gebhardt (PSE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, we agreed with the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats that Amendments 307 and 219, which deal with consumer protection, should not be included among the recitals, but should be additions to Article 3. I therefore ask that this be borne in mind when they are incorporated – on the assumption, that is, that the vote goes in their favour.

  Francis Wurtz (GUE/NGL). – (FR) Mr President, I am nonetheless surprised at these allusions to behind-the-scene discussions when we are voting on such an important directive. I propose that you ask that this does not happen again.

(Applause)

  President. The Presidency has no knowledge of the agreements amongst the political groups. It only takes account of the observations of the rapporteur contributing to the correct carrying out of the vote. Any others are unacceptable.

- Before the vote on the proposed amended directive:

  Evelyne Gebhardt (PSE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, before we proceed to the final vote, I would like to reiterate my thanks to all concerned for the very good outcome we have achieved. We have turned the directive on its head by giving it the social dimension that the citizens of our Member States need, and for that reason, my recommendation to my group is that they vote to adopt this report.

IN THE CHAIR: MR VIDAL-QUADRAS ROCA
Vice-President