You are on page 1of 1

C 40/474 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 7.2.

2001

Friday 14 April 2000

 European Parliament and Council regulation regarding public access to European Parliament, Council
and Commission documents
(COM(2000) 30  C5-0057/2000  2000/0032(COD))
(asked for opinions: AFCO, AFET, CONT, JURI, PETI)
Hughes procedure between LIBE, AFCO and JURI

JURI:
 White Paper on environmental liability
(COM(2000) 66  C5-0140/2000  2000/2084(COS))
(asked for an opinion: ENVI)
Hughes procedure between JURI and ENVI

7. COM in milk * (vote)

The next item was the vote on the Pesälä report  A5-0081/2000.

Mrs Buitenweg referred to her remarks at the opening of Monday’s sitting (Minutes of 10.4.2000, Item 2)
and, noting that she had written on the matter to the Conference of Presidents, repeated her request either
to give some substance to Friday’s agenda or to delete the Friday sitting. In this context she asked for the
quorum to be checked pursuant to Rule 126(3).

More than 32 Members rose in support of this request.

The President established that there was not a quorum.

The vote was therefore placed on the agenda of the next sitting (see Minutes of 3.5.2000) pursuant to the
same Rule.

Mr Posselt asked for an electronic check of the number of Members present and protested against what he
considered sabotage of Friday’s business (the President replied that the Rules did not allow the electronic
voting system to be used for such a check).

8. COM in milk * (vote)

The next item was the vote on the Maat report  A5-0074/2000.

Mr Van Hulten endorsed Mrs Buitenweg’s remarks concerning the previous item and asked for the quorum
to be checked pursuant to Rule 126(3).

More than 32 Members rose in support of this request.

The President established that there was not a quorum.

The vote was therefore placed on the agenda of the next sitting (see Minutes of 3.5.2000) pursuant to the
same Rule.

The following Members protested against this procedure:
 Oomen-Ruijten, who also considered the request to be sabotage;
 Schulz, who considered that the Rules should be amended through debate and reform of Parliament’s
work and not through occasional measures such as this;
 Bourlanges, who drew attention to an inconsistency in the Rules, namely that if there were fewer than
32 Members in the Chamber there would not be a sufficient number to request that the quorum be
checked, which would mean that business could continue as normal; he asked for the matter to be
referred to the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (the President drew his attention to Rule 126(5)
and said he would refer the matter to the Bureau);