<CHAPTER ID=1>
Resumption of the session
<SPEAKER ID=1 NAME="President">
I declare resumed the session of the European Parliament adjourned on Friday , 17 September .
<CHAPTER ID=2>
Statement by the President
<SPEAKER ID=2 NAME="President">
As you know , on the morning of 21 September , a terrible earthquake , measuring 7.6 on the Richter scale , struck the island of Taiwan .
Several thousand people were killed or seriously injured and there has been enormous material damage .
I would like to express , on behalf of the European Parliament , my deepest sympathy and sincere feeling of solidarity towards the victims of this tragedy and towards their families .
<CHAPTER ID=3>
Adoption of the Minutes of the previous sitting
<SPEAKER ID=3 NAME="President">
The Minutes of the sitting of 17 September have been distributed .
<P>
Are there any comments ?
<SPEAKER ID=4 LANGUAGE="NL" NAME="Maes">
Madam President , Mr Van Buitenen 's fate has repeatedly come up for discussion in this Parliament and there have been repeated calls for his rehabilitation .
I want to express how delighted I am about the solution reached , whereby the action being taken against Mr Van Buitenen has been stopped .
This means it is now possible for him to be taken on in another position .
I hope he will be able to work in the Parliament .
<SPEAKER ID=5 NAME="President">
Thank you , Mrs Maes .
I shall take note of your statement even though it does not relate to the Minutes .
<P>
If there are no more comments , I shall submit the Minutes for your approval .
<P>
( The Minutes were adopted )
<SPEAKER ID=6 LANGUAGE="ES" NAME="Salafranca Snchez-Neyra">
Madam President , I would simply like to make the Members aware of the fact that , last week , there was a serious earthquake in the Mexican state of Oaxaca .
Given that the European Union is currently concluding the negotiation of an agreement with Mexico , I would be grateful if this Parliament would express its solidarity and sympathy for the victims of this earthquake .
<SPEAKER ID=7 NAME="President">
Absolutely , Mr Salafranca Snchez .
I shall be happy to do that on behalf of the European Parliament as a whole .
<SPEAKER ID=8 LANGUAGE="IT" NAME="Speroni">
Madam President , I submitted a question for Question Time in accordance with Rule 43 of the Rules of Procedure and I adhered to the time frame contained in Annex II A ( 13 ) which stipulates , " Questions shall be tabled to the President at least one week before Question Time begins .
Questions not tabled within this time limit may be taken during Question Time with the consent of the institution concerned .
" However , the question was rejected by the competent service because a term appears on the back of the form that is different to the term used in the Rules of Procedure .
Firstly , I wonder whether it is correct that a form can amend a ruling .
Secondly , in any case , the Rules of Procedure stipulates that , even if a question is tabled after the deadline , the question is admissible if the institution concerned agrees .
Instead , a completely different procedure has been followed .
Given that the Rules of Procedure were approved by Parliament , whereas the form was produced by internal bureaucracy , I am wondering whether bureaucracy should prevail , or whether what the citizens ' representatives voted for should prevail instead .
<SPEAKER ID=9 NAME="President">
Thank you , Mr Speroni .
There is one point at least on which I can give you satisfaction straight away .
Obviously , a form cannot amend a Rule of Procedure .
This being the case , we will look into the matter and see if we can give you a satisfactory answer , particularly on the problem of abuses .
<CHAPTER ID=4>
Agenda
<SPEAKER ID=10 NAME="President">
The next item is the order of business .
The draft agenda has been distributed and the following amendments have been proposed or included .
<P>
Relating to Tuesday President .
The Group of the European Liberal , Democrat and Reform Party has requested that the Commission make a statement on the French Government 's refusal to lift the ban on British beef .
This is an issue which could possibly be raised in the context of the Commission 's statement on food safety which is tabled for Tuesday morning .
<P>
I give the floor to Mrs Lynne , who would like to make this request .
<SPEAKER ID=11 NAME="Lynne">
Madam President , under Rule 111 of the European Parliament 's Rules of Procedure , I propose an amendment to the agenda of this part-session to include a statement by the Commission about the French Government 's refusal to lift the beef ban and its decision to stop UK beef crossing its territory , which is a vital route into Spain and Italy .
<P>
I should be grateful if the statement could be followed by a short debate as provided for under Rule 37 .
<P>
The Commission agreed that British beef is safe .
Scientific evidence proves that British beef is safe .
The French Government , as far as I know , has no new evidence .
Stringent safeguards are in place in the UK , yet one state - France - is going to opt out of the Commission ruling .
It will damage the internal market if this state of affairs is allowed to continue ; it will damage the credibility of the Commission and it will further damage British farmers .
<P>
BSE has already cost the UK GBP 1.5 billion in lost exports .
British farmers have been patient for the last two-and-a-half or three years during the negotiations .
They have abided by the rules .
They have even destroyed animals with no sign of BSE .
At long last the beef ban was lifted .
Now they are confronted with a new attack on their industry .
We need an urgent statement and debate .
I hope time can be made for this .
<SPEAKER ID=12 LANGUAGE="DE" NAME="Roth-Behrendt">
Ladies and gentlemen , those of you who have been Members of this Parliament in previous years know that there are very few people in this House who have concerned themselves so labour- intensively and , one might almost say , as enthusiastically with the question of the safety of meat , particularly British beef , as I did when I was the chair of the last BSE Committee .
A report once said that I ought to know every single cow in Great Britain by name .
That is not the case .
Herr Schmid thinks I know every other cow by name , well that is not true either , but I do know at least some of them .
<P>
I am the last person who wants to see unsafe meat anywhere in the European Union .
This Parliament saw to it that the Committee of Enquiry was set up .
We took care to ensure that , within the scope of the BSE debate , loopholes which still existed in many areas of legislation on foodstuffs were eliminated .
Parliament can be proud , on the whole , of what it has achieved in the last five years .
But we achieved it by working seriously and rationally .
That means , among other things , doing one thing at a time and in a well-founded way .
I am full of sympathy for fellow Members when they complain that one Member State is not complying with Union legislation .
Indeed , I am thankful that my own country , Germany , was not criticised some time ago for a similar attempt .
<P>
Madam President , on your interesting initiative , we will have a comprehensive debate on food safety tomorrow , that is to say , on food safety as a whole .
There is so much more to it than meat ; there is so much more to it than dioxins or sludge or swine fever .
It is a debate on the safety and quality of foodstuffs .
This is why we also wish , at some time in the future , to discuss food safety in the European Union with the President of the Commission himself , Mr Prodi .
<P>
If we wish to take away the comprehensive nature of the debate , if we wish to change this debate , then the easiest way to do so would be to add the British beef issue to the proceedings .
Then tomorrow , we will have yet another debate on BSE .
I would happily run such a debate !
I have no problem with that .
I even believe I know the many files almost off by heart .
I could do it .
But I do not think that we should do that .
I believe for a quite different reason that we should not do that .
<P>
Two days ago , the French food agency expressed doubts regarding the safety of British beef .
I have not yet read any document on the subject .
I have not yet seen anything in writing on the subject .
The appropriate committees on agriculture or the environment have not yet had time to look into the matter .
I would like to have a serious debate on the matter .
I therefore request , Madam President , that we do not debate the question tomorrow but rather in two weeks time , if it is still necessary , so that the appropriate committees can look into the matter , and that tomorrow we should debate the topic on the agenda , i.e. foodstuffs ...
<P>
( The President cut the speaker off )
<SPEAKER ID=13 NAME="Bethell, the Lord">
I understand , Madam President , that there was one speaker in favour of the suggestion , and another speaker , who has just resumed her seat , putting forward the idea that there should be a debate on this matter at the end of this month in the second October part-session .
Are you going to put both propositions to the vote ?
<SPEAKER ID=14 NAME="President">
No , we cannot do this .
This proposal comes from the Liberal Group .
It has been put forward by Mrs Lynne and aims to include in this part-session a debate on the subject which has been mentioned .
We have heard Mrs Lynne speak on behalf of the Liberal Group . We have heard one speaker against , Mrs Roth-Behrendt .
Now , I shall ask if there is a speaker in favour of the proposal .
<SPEAKER ID=15 NAME="McCartin">
Mrs Roth-Behrendt did not keep to the subject .
We accept the importance of a debate in Parliament on food safety but the proposal made was for an urgent debate on the question of whether a Member State has the right to decide for itself in accordance not with Community policy but with what suits its own political aspirations at a particular time .
<P>
This is a very urgent matter and deserves to be debated as a matter of urgency , because it is a threat to the free market .
If other Member States then proceed to behave in the same sort of way , this could lead to individual items being banned in every Member State in the Community at different times , and there will be no guarantee that the single market , which we worked so hard in this Parliament to bring about and to consolidate , will work properly .
I agree with the proposer of the motion that this is most urgent and should be discussed here immediately .
<P>
( Parliament rejected the request )
<SPEAKER ID=16 NAME="President">
I have another request , from the Group of the Greens / European Free Alliance who would like Tuesday morning 's debate on food safety to conclude in a resolution .
<P>
The Conference of Presidents does not wish this to happen .
Therefore , I shall simply put this request to the vote .
Who is in favour of a resolution at the conclusion of the debate on food safety ?
<P>
( Parliament rejected the request )
<P>


Relating to Wednesday :
<SPEAKER ID=17 LANGUAGE="FI" NAME="Hautala">
Madam President , in my opinion , Parliament should not waste this opportunity of issuing a statement on the mandate for the round of talks with the World Trade Organisation , because the Council of Ministers will give this mandate to the Commission on 13 October , and it would be completely wrong if this mandate were given without knowing the European Parliament 's opinion .
I would also like to remind you all that only a few weeks ago , when approving the Commission , the Parliament approved a declaration in which it stressed its desire to be involved in influencing the negotiation of international agreements , at the different stages of the negotiations , so it would truly be a shame if Parliament neglected to take advantage of this opportunity .
<SPEAKER ID=18 LANGUAGE="DE" NAME="Poettering">
Madam President , ladies and gentlemen , I am very sorry to have to contradict my honourable friend , Mrs Hautala .
At the Conference of Presidents , between the group chairmen , we agreed by a clear majority that we did not want a resolution on the WTO at the present time because we still need to have discussions , and we should not now draw up a summary motion for a resolution just to gain popularity in certain quarters .
We therefore abide by our decision , also out of solidarity with our vote at the Conference , not to rush the job through now .
<P>
Mrs Hautala , as regards the representatives of Parliament at the WTO Conference in Seattle , we unanimously stated that the European Parliament must be represented numerically by 15 Members of Parliament just as the American Congress claims the right to do , that is to say , this position remains unaffected regardless of whether we adopt a resolution here or not .
For my group I say : we wish to be represented on equal terms with the Americans but , at the present point in time , we are against a statement from Parliament on the matter .
<P>
( Parliament rejected the request )
<P>
Relating to Thursday : President .
Relating to the topical and urgent subjects of major importance , I have received three requests from the Greens / ALE Group , the GUE / NGL Group and the ELDR Group who would like to enter a new item entitled " Nuclear Accident in Japan " .
<P>
Pursuant to our Rules of Procedure , we must , as you know , in the event that we accept this new item being registered , remove an already existing item .
Therefore , I shall put the first request to the vote , which proposes entering the item " Nuclear Accident in Japan " , which would mean removing the item " Earthquake in Taiwan " .
<SPEAKER ID=19 LANGUAGE="ES" NAME="Barn Crespo">
Madam President , it seems to me that there has been some misunderstanding here , as there are two proposals : one which proposes that the point concerning the accident in Ustica be replaced , and another which proposes that the point concerning the earthquake in Taiwan be replaced .
I think there has been a misunderstanding and many Members of this Parliament do not know exactly which proposal they are voting for .
I am sorry that we are in the process of taking a vote , but this is the situation .
<SPEAKER ID=20 NAME="President">
Perhaps I have not made myself sufficiently clear , Mr Barn Crespo , and I apologise .

<P>
I was talking about the first proposal which aims to replace the item " Earthquake in Taiwan " with a new item titled " Nuclear Accident in Japan " .
<P>
( Parliament gave its assent )
<SPEAKER ID=21 LANGUAGE="DA" NAME="Bonde">
I , too , am pleased about the decision that has been made not to fire Mr Van Buitenen , but I would ask you to put the matter on the agenda for the next meeting of the Conference of Presidents , as the grounds for the decision are completely unacceptable .
Mr Van Buitenen 's crime consists in having given documentation to a President of the EU Parliament .
That can hardly be a crime !
These grounds must therefore be changed , and that is why I would ask you to put the issue on the agenda for the Conference of Presidents .
<SPEAKER ID=22 NAME="MacCormick">
Madam President , I have a request for information about a matter of order .
I am not sure if one is entitled to make an explanation of vote at this stage in this debate , but if so , I would like to say that I think , from the point of view of people in Scotland , it is a great pity that we will debate food safety tomorrow , without including a case where a Member State is defying the Community judgement on food safety .
That is why I voted for that motion .
<SPEAKER ID=23 NAME="President">
Thank you , Mr MacCormick .
I think that you will have ample opportunity to raise that point during the debate .
<SPEAKER ID=24 LANGUAGE="DE" NAME="Pack">
Madam President , I wanted to express my deepest thanks for dealing promptly with the difficulties which we reported to you during the last part-session .
I can now use my fax machine as it is located in a position appropriate to my height .
Thank you very much .
<SPEAKER ID=25 LANGUAGE="FR" NAME="Berthu">
Madam President , I would like to a propose a procedural motion on the layout of the new Chamber .
<P>
In the old Chamber , the President sat in front of a display of flags which symbolised all the countries of the European Union .
I see that in the new Chamber , this display has disappeared .
We can all notice it .
<P>
I would therefore like to ask the following question : Has our House thought carefully about this matter , or has it been quite the contrary , a case of the services taking a decision on their own on a matter which strikes me as extremely symbolic and important ?
<SPEAKER ID=26 NAME="President">
Mr Berthu , I can reassure you straight away in a way which I am sure will satisfy you .
I have ordered this display which , unfortunately , has been delayed . It will be here tomorrow .
<P>
( The sitting was closed at 5.35 p.m. )
