Home 

Do you live in Eryl's area?

Contact

Eryl's work

Biography

All about Europe

News

Forthcoming engagements 

in the UK

Young people in Europe

Links

Site map

Sturdy (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I would like to thank the Commission and Mr Cunha for their hard work. We in the British Conservative delegation reluctantly took the decision that we were unable to support the recommendations in the Cunha report. We see the need for reform, and the need for reform for our farmers. Therefore we cannot support horizontal or partial decoupling and as that was an integral part of Mr Cunha's report, we are unable to support that.

However, we support the Commission in its legislative resolution and want the Council to come to an agreement as soon as it possibly can. We believe that the Commission's proposals are along the right lines.

I would add that Mr Cunha is an esteemed Member of this House; he is also a personal friend. However, we believe, and I personally believe, that farmers need security. Mr Cunha's report would probably mean a second reform and we could not accept it.

Sturdy (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I am rather concerned that I have been looking at a slightly different document from the rest of this Parliament. I very much agree with the Commissioner's views on decoupling and very much support them. It is important to keep it simple, to keep away from partial decoupling and to cut red tape. Let us have total decoupling. It will mean that for once the funding will get down to the farmer and he will receive it. That is perhaps partly behind the Commissioner's principles.

One of the problems we have always had in the common agricultural policy is that the funding has gone to multinationals such as supermarkets and not actually got down to the farmers. I must confirm what Mrs Kinnock said about the poorest people not receiving the funding. A statement made in the United Kingdom recently made it clear that British farmers were virtually at the bottom of the table for earnings: they were third from the bottom. So let us hope that the funding reaches some of those people who need it.

I have a question for the Council. Does it want reform because of enlargement or because of the WTO? Do not go into bed with the USA, because the USA's farm bill certainly went against the principles that we in the European Union want. The USA has no interest in or concerns about the EU.

I have three short questions for the Commissioner, which I hope he may be able to answer, if not today then certainly later on. They concern problems arising from the 2002 reference period in the Commission's report. If national reserves for a single farm payment, i.e. for additional claims, are to be raised from 1% to 3% of the total allocation, where will this come from? The fruit and vegetable problems are great. Where are we going to find funding for such areas as starch potatoes? The Commissioner mentioned this very briefly. I hope he can confirm what he said.

Finally, as regards biofuels on set-aside land, I know the Commissioner has changed his views on that. I hope he will keep to that and still reconsider biofuels on set-aside.

Sturdy (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I would like to thank the Commission for being present in this debate. As Commissioner Byrne has said, this is about the marketing of seeds and I am rather disappointed that Mrs Auroi has decided to bring in GMOs. This report is about the marketing of traditional, conventional seeds and to bring in GMOs is really not part of the topic that we are debating today. I say that to Mrs Auroi as a seed producer and a seed grower. We spend much time and effort making sure that the product that we produce is completely free from any contamination and this is the way that conventional and traditional seeds are grown. To bring the issue of GMOs into this piece of legislation is wrong.

It is also wrong because in fact the next piece of legislation to come from the Commission will be one on GMO seeds, after the two reports that are to go through Parliament, one of which is Mr Trakatellis's report which is currently before the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, and of which Commissioner Byrne is well aware. Therefore I see little point at the moment in bringing that up and that is why I hope this Parliament will endorse my amendments while agreeing with the principle stated by Mrs Auroi that we must be aware of the situation with contamination of GMOs. I have tried to bring a little bit more of what I call a more pragmatic approach into this legislation and I hope this House will support my amendments on Mrs Auroi's report which, while supporting in principle what she said, will in practice enable the Commission to bring in the proposal that is due to be submitted after the two reports in Parliament. Therefore it is quite important that we look at these.

I say to Mrs Auroi that, yes, we are all aware of the risk of GMO contamination but it has not happened yet and there is no certainty that it will happen in the future; everyone involved in seed production is concerned about it, but please wait until this legislation comes from the Commission, when we will be able to take a decision on it.

Sturdy (PPE-DE). – Mr President, on a day when we will be discussing democracy to the end, I rise on a matter of democracy within the European Union. It was brought to my attention by a constituent of mine last night that European Union citizens are being refused the right to register for their local elections. I will give you the example of Calvia, in the Balearic Islands, where they are obstructing EU citizens of many nationalities from registering to vote. It is particularly urgent because they only have until 31 March to register. I request therefore, on behalf of this House, that you either write to the necessary councils or at least look into the matter.

Sturdy (PPE-DE). – Mr President, firstly I should like to thank Mr Byrne for his statement and all those involved in drawing up this report. When I first brought it to the attention of Parliament, I had no idea that it was going to be the success that it has been. It has been a positive achievement, not just for the people of the United Kingdom, and not just for the people of the European Union, but also for the European Parliament.

There were many cases, as we travelled across the European Union in our quest to find out what had happened, where people said ‘thank goodness you are organising a public inquiry’. This is the only true public inquiry into foot and mouth. It gave the general public an opportunity to voice its opinion. That is what it was about and what I had hoped to achieve.

I shall read from a letter we received from the National Foot and Mouth Association. ‘May it suffice to say that without this report, many would not have been able to deal with the epidemic and its effects.’ The epidemic had a catastrophic effect on people’s lives right across the European Union, not just those in the agricultural business, but many people in the whole of the rural community. At this point I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Kreissl-Dörfler, Mrs Redondo Jiménez, the Chairman, and the Commission which helped us tremendously in the Foot and Mouth Subcommittee, working with us every single day.

I would also like to thank those people who submitted evidence to the Foot and Mouth Subcommittee. We covered businesses right across the European Union. There were people from the United States and many other countries. On one occasion some of my colleagues were sitting there almost with tears in their eyes while listening to the evidence being given. One lady summed it up when she said ‘they have taken away our dreams’. That was a direct reference to the British Government. This must never happen again. This is why this temporary committee was set up.

Yes, the report has been critical of the British Government and, yes, it has attacked it on many aspects, but if the government made mistakes we, as a committee, had to look into it. The report would have been wrong if it had not looked into it and then made a judgement because the whole principle of the inquiry was that we needed to know what had gone wrong – and things had gone wrong – and then put forward proposals. We needed to see how we could put in amendments to the proposals that Mr Byrne is going to bring out.

I look forward with great interest to what Mr Byrne will say. I have one criticism of what he has just said – and here we will have to agree to disagree. In the United Kingdom, we still only have two dogs – in fact they are still in training – to check imports, compared with the 3 000 people in the United States to cover illegal imports. Mr Byrne said that he was against any proposal that would control imports from countries where FMD is endemic. I would say to him that we still do not know where this outbreak originated. We do not know exactly how it was brought into the United Kingdom. One thing we found out was that the US, Australia and New Zealand still do not have foot and mouth and they control their imports wholly.

I will sum up by saying that we need to change legislation, but we need to change attitudes – welfare, transport, imports. I know the Commission values the findings of this report and I look forward with great interest to its own report.

Sturdy (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I also congratulate our Danish colleagues on the way in which they have handled enlargement. But, obviously, I have completely misunderstood the fact that we have resolved overnight the issue of the common agricultural policy. The President of the Commission said that the common agricultural policy has been solved. I feel that what has actually happened is that the agreement between President Chirac and Chancellor Schröder went in some way to undermine the way in which Commissioner Fischler was proposing his reforms. The other day when he spoke to the Agriculture Committee I felt very much that he will be a strong leader in his mid-term review and will carry the reforms through.

I also noted that one of the proposals is that we reform the Agriculture Committee and go for codecision. I hope the Council and the Commission will support this because it will help to reform the common agricultural policy. We would have a totally different agricultural policy if the Agriculture Committee had codecision.

We have also heard many vague ideas about how we are going to reform it and I put to you one or two ideas that I believe to be important. I ask the Commissioner, how will modulation work? How are we going to cope if we do not really reform the common agricultural policy in Commissioner Fischler's mind when we come to discuss the WTO negotiations? There has been talk about capping the common agricultural policy and yet there has been no mention of how we are going to use the funding from Pillar One to Pillar Two. How are we going to fund the new proposals in Pillar Two?

Finally, I wish to speak particularly for my constituents in East Anglia, many of whom have not drawn on the common agricultural policy because they grow crops which have never been subsidised by this Union. They are going to be disadvantaged because, under the new proposals, there will be a payment on historical claims. I urge the Commission to rethink that and look at the old IACS forms. You have the measurements, make sure you look at those before you take a final decision. Let us make sure we have an agricultural policy which helps our farmers, helps the budget and helps the new democracies.

(Applause)

Sturdy (PPE-DE). – Mr President, some three years ago I led a march of MEPs down the Champs Elysées in Paris and almost got arrested. My real concern is that we are enlarging the European Union even though we still do not have a single market among the 15 Member States. I have asked the Commission and Parliament to put pressure on the French to lift the illegal ban on British beef. Yet we seem not to have got anywhere. We had the British minister in Paris yesterday refusing to eat British beef. I admit that was terrible. She did not eat it in front of the cameras, but I understand that she ate it in private.

I urge this House and you, Mr President, to make every effort to try and put pressure on the French to lift the ban on British beef or at least to put pressure on the Commission to take action against the French, so that we have a single market before we enlarge the European Union.

Sturdy (PPE-DE). – draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. – Mr President, I wish to begin by congratulating the two rapporteurs. I would add my great thanks to Mrs Grossetête with whom I have worked extremely closely on this particular issue. I am only here to represent the Committee on Agriculture on the veterinary medicines side. It would be remiss of me if I did not say at the outset that one of the problems facing agriculture is that it is going through the worst time it has ever had – I will not mention the problems facing British beef today.

Any legislation that this Parliament adopts and pushes through the Commission could have a detrimental effect on industry if it is not put through correctly. Mrs Grossetête has worked extremely well with me and other members on the veterinary medicines bill and, therefore, we will totally support all the legislation in that bill.

I would like to raise three issues. Mrs Read briefly covered one. I totally endorse what she says about what is termed 'duality'. One of the problems we have in the European Union is that animals in the very far north, for example, are not necessarily the same as animals in the south. I use the term 'the reindeer syndrome', which many colleagues will have heard me say before. Duality is something that will help to promote the proper use of medicines for species that are not found across the European Union. It may be difficult to get someone to spend the money to test these products for one particular species. Therefore, we have retabled Amendment No 137, which I hope the Commission and Mrs Grossetête will consider. I hope this House will consider supporting it. As I have mentioned, this would help those species that are not widespread.

Mrs Grossetête mentioned the way that medicines are dispensed in certain countries. I am delighted that she has taken this on board. I fully support the compromise amendment, which is something I worked particularly hard in the Committee on Agriculture to get through. We are in a situation where Member States differ, firstly, in their definition of what a veterinary surgeon is and what it means and, secondly, in the dispensing of these drugs.

In many instances in the United Kingdom, Ireland and one or two other countries, qualified people dispense minor medicines – in particular, products such as worming pills and flea powders. The real worry is not particularly with food-chain animals. But, if this option is removed, we are in a situation where the pets in the animal world will suffer because people will not be able to afford to go to a veterinary surgeon, for example, to get a worming pill for a cat. Therefore, it is important that we have flexibility. I am delighted that both rapporteurs have taken this on board and am totally in favour of it.

The final point concerns the use of medicines for equine species. Again, if we are not careful, we are going to inflict hardship on animals that do not deserve it. For example, horses are not eaten in the United Kingdom. It may be that horsemeat is accepted in other countries. If the medicines available to us are restricted, then again it is the animal that suffers. Therefore, it is vitally important that the new Amendment No 65 for equine species is adopted. I shall leave it there, as I have covered the agricultural scene totally. I thank the two rapporteurs for taking on board the opinion of the Committee on Agriculture and look forward to a worthwhile result. I hope the Commission will also follow my opinion.

Sturdy (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I wish to raise a point of order concerning something Mrs Plooij-van Gorsel said the other day. It came to my notice yesterday that the problem of the drivers had been considerably eased by the addition of many people coming back from their holidays from the Brussels-based group. Parliament ought to thank them for their support in making sure that we had a smooth transition back to normal transport here in Strasbourg. Might I suggest that, if the French are unable to continue to support us, we consider moving, if not to Brussels then to Luxembourg, where there is a large hemicycle and where I am sure they would look after us extremely well.

2001

Sturdy (PPE-DE). – I am sorry to interrupt this august House but I rise on a very important point. A few minutes ago the ECJ ruled in Luxembourg that the French ban on British beef was illegal. (Cheers) Could I have assurances from you, Madam President, that you will do everything you can to make sure that the French fully compensate the poor hard-pressed British farmers as a result of this ruling?

(Applause)

Sturdy (PPE-DE). – Mr President, the British countryside is at the moment in total crisis. I have a document here in front of me stating that the British government admits that it was unable to meet the required deadlines for the slaughter of infected animals. It goes on to say that the control of the disease, as my colleague there has said, has failed because we are now having new outbreaks in the centre of Britain, in the centre of the region where we thought we were rid of it.

We have failed to control it and we have also failed to provide the necessary border controls. Last Sunday I drove from my farm in North Yorkshire to Strasbourg. I was never questioned about whether I was carrying any meat and there were no border controls at all to check my vehicle. There were no disinfection points. There was a simple carpet in the middle of the road and that was all.

I say to Mr Lamy, who is the really important man here today, that we have a situation where England is the dustbin of Europe. We are importing food from these countries. We must look at that.

Finally, will he consider the possibility of a public inquiry into the way this matter has been handled?

Sturdy (PPE-DE), in writing. – The British Conservative Delegation of the EPP-ED Group voted against the Martínez Martínez report on specific measures for agricultural products for various countries. My colleagues and I are wholly sympathetic to the special needs of the EU's outermost regions given their isolation and the problems this causes. However, it is our view that the Commission has produced a sensible proposal to combat their difficulties and that going beyond this, as the rapporteur proposes, is not justifiable in terms of policy or budgetary implications. Across Europe, the agricultural sector is in severe difficulties and stretching its budget further does not seem feasible at this stage. Similar thinking instructed my delegation's decision to vote against Mr Martínez Martínez's other report on structural measures.

Sturdy (PPE-DE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. – Mr President, I should like to congratulate Mr Busk on his excellent report. He has managed to incorporate most of the legislation that went through the Committee on the Environment, which is important. It is also important that we push this legislation forward so that the consumers can have a product which they know is perfectly safe, is reared in an environmentally-friendly manner and which they can eat with total safety, knowing that the animal has had an excellent life. It is up to farmers to follow the legislation through.

Mr Busk touched on two or three important issues. I will reiterate them very quickly. One of them was transport of animals. We are well aware of the importance of that and I know Commissioner Byrne, is equally aware of it. Bringing that legislation into the WTO negotiations is vitally important, as is clear labelling. Let me add, speaking not just from the viewpoint of the Committee on the Environment but also as farmer, that what we must not do within the European Union – and here I plead with the Commissioner, knowing his views on the way we import and export our products – is to end up putting legislation in place which exports the very industries on which we are legislating now in the EU.

If we do that, then we simply end up exporting animal welfare outside the European Union where we have no control over it. We must have equality, not just within the European Union, but also for products coming into the European Union. I plead with the Commissioner to make sure that sort of legislation is in place, so that we do not have products coming into the European Union which are not of the same standard that we set. I know it is very difficult for people to understand this, but I hope that the Commissioner will follow it through and keep that legislation in place.

Sturdy (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – Mr President, it is a pleasure to see the Commissioner here. I may well disagree with his proposals but I wish to begin by saying that we believe that Commissioner Fischler is an excellent Agriculture Commissioner, although he might have got this report slightly wrong. That is no criticism of Mr Fischler himself. It is well known that we need to address the serious problem facing the beef industry, and that is certainly what brought about the Commission's proposal.

I say to the Commissioner that there is a Byzantine proverb: for those who have food, there are many problems; for those who have not, there is only one problem, and it is, of course, a great problem when there is too much beef in the marketplace. This is exactly what the Commissioner is trying to address. However, in my opinion as rapporteur, he has missed the mark.

It is easy for me to stand here and criticise, but what I tried to do in my report was to be constructive and move the situation forward – I realise that the Commissioner does not agree with some of the measures. I hope that when the Commissioner addresses us he will perhaps answer one question: Will the 15 Council members agree with the Commission's proposals? I think they might not. I should like to know whether the view of the Commission is that they will agree with the Commission's proposals or not.

First, the one thing that was voted out in the Committee on Agriculture that I believe was a mistake was the 90-head limit. One of the major problems that we have – and the Commissioner is quite right that we have a problem with overproduction and we have pushed forward the proposals to allow the intervention limits to be raised – is that by changing the 90-head limit there is a real risk that we cut off some of those producers in their prime. I say to those Members who do not understand agriculture that to raise a beef animal from conception to the actual marketplace takes somewhere in the region of three years. It is a very long process. You cannot switch off something like that overnight and just say: well, hang on a minute, these cattle cannot be supported because suddenly we have changed our minds. If the Commissioner cannot at least change that 90-head limit – and we hope that one of the amendments may help us; we are looking at that at the moment – then at least he should look at helping those farmers who are affected by the 90-head limit so that they can adjust, because agriculture is a long-term process, not a short-term process.

We have seen the effects of BSE. This is again why I am concerned a little about the report. As the Commissioner knows, BSE has been a major problem in the United Kingdom. It has been the archetype of the BSE crisis. We got through it and with careful construction we brought our market back. It was rather unfortunate that foot-and-mouth disease played a part in destroying the very work that had been done to get the marketplace back, bearing in mind that foot and mouth has nothing to do with food, in as much as it is of no danger to the public.

I ask the Commissioner not to make knee-jerk reactions, because I believe this is a knee-jerk reaction. At the moment I cannot accept the new amendments tabled. I have a great concern that we are trying to move away from the real issues here. As I said, it is easy to stand here and criticise and I hope the Commissioner takes on board the amendments. The question we ask is whether or not the proposals satisfy the requirements: I believe a few of the Commission's proposals do but the majority fall short. I leave the Commissioner with one last thought: if he finds it impossible to accept Parliament's proposals, then he may wish to see the report referred back to the Committee on Agriculture. Then we could rediscuss it, because we have put forward some good proposals and if it is a wish of this august House that it be referred back, then so be it.

Sturdy (PPE-DE). – Mr President, Commissioner, I welcome Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf's report although I personally find it quite difficult to support in full. My view is that the common position by the Commission is excellent. Let me just go back to what Mr Pesälä has just said: what is the real problem facing the food industry today? It is usually fraud. If we look back over the recent food scares, if we look at the problem of foot-and-mouth, it was a misuse of swill feeding; if we look at the problems of dioxin, there are sufficient measures there to prevent it. It was the illegal use of an oil in a mixture. Then there was sewage sludge which we had in one other Member State, and BSE which was all to do with changing temperatures. But the legislation is present. The first and primary position of this House is to guarantee that the Commission does everything it possibly can to ensure that the present legislation and the common position are put in place and enforced. Therefore, I call upon the Commission, first of all, to promise us that the present legislation is enforced.

Turning now to the protein situation, Commissioner Fischler would not be surprised to hear that I would slightly disagree with his position on whether or not we grow our own proteins or import them. But could he actually give me a guarantee: I understand that the European Union has regulations in place at the moment about the volume of GM crops allowed in and the percentage at present is – and I stand to be corrected on this – about 1% maximum of GM crops. Could the Commission now guarantee that none of the soya entering the Union in current and future imports will exceed the 1% maximum?

The US has strict measures and regulations on imports. We in the European Union must follow these regulations and ensure that we follow the same patterns.

Sturdy (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I should like to thank the Commissioner for making sure that EU funding is available to the British Government to help them in this tragedy. Could the Commissioner tell me whether the British Government has applied for all the EAGGF funding available to them? In the past it has not bothered to take this. Has it taken advantage of this for this current national tragedy? Mrs Doyle said that it was a crisis. Indeed it is a crisis: 225 cases at present, a quarter of a million animals to be slaughtered! Our minister said on television three days ago that it is under control. Could the Commission tell me whether it is under control?

Could I also ask what the EU is doing? Has the British Government approached the EU for some sort of consensus on how we stop this spreading across Europe? I noticed when I travelled into Europe the other day there were no disinfectant mats, there were no bloodhounds checking whether I had a ham sandwich in my pocket, no questions. I know that when you travel to other countries you are questioned about what you are carrying. Has the veterinary advice been coordinated? We seem, as Mrs Doyle said, to have a huge variation between Member States across the European Union. Is it safe to transport infected carcasses across the United Kingdom as we are doing at the moment? Finally, has the British Government been particularly lax about stopping imports from countries where the disease is endemic?

(Applause)

Sturdy (PPE-DE). – Mr President, can I congratulate Mr Daul on his report and first of all say that I will be supporting it tomorrow. I will be supporting my electorate, who are large sugar producers, and I will not be supporting the multinationals who are lobbying very hard. I would just say to you Commissioner that I worked on the 77 Protocol which was very much involved with helping the developing world countries. I heard Mrs Gill talking about the way in which the consumer was going to benefit. Let me make it absolutely plain to all of you here today, that the consumer will not benefit from a reduction in the price paid to British and European farmers for sugar. They certainly do not in the rest of the world where sugar is much cheaper. Why is it that I am being lobbied by the biggest single user of sugar in the world, a US company, specifically to get the price down? I heard Commissioner Lamy speaking before about trade relations with the US. Will the United States be reducing the price that they pay their farmers for their sugar as we are going to do, or are they going to continue with their very high support?

Mr Daul, you said that the sugar regime was a special agreement. I would argue a little bit with you on that because I believe it is unique. First of all, the tax-payer does not pay for it. Secondly, it benefits farmers directly, unlike many parts of the present CAP, and thirdly, the sugar protocol itself helps some of the poorest countries in the world. It is very important that we continue to support those countries. I worked very hard to get them support and I intend to keep that support for those ACP countries. We have a saying, Commissioner, in the UK, if it is not broke, don't mend it. Please do not try to mend this system.

Sturdy (PPE-DE). – Thank you, Commissioner, for coming today. It was my request in the Agriculture Committee that we had a debate on this and I much appreciate your coming. I also echo Mr Adam’s feelings. I would like to express my heartfelt sympathies to those in Britain affected by it and my sorrow that we may have exported this disease. On that note, I would like to say how worried we are. However, it is vitally important that we use everything within our power to stop a future occurrence of this. I want to know whether or not you will be looking – and you did indicate this in your speech – at strengthening phytosanitary measures so that we can have healthy, safe food within the United Kingdom and within Europe.

Could the Commissioner answer two quick questions. Has the British Government applied for full funding from the EU, using agrimonetary systems and other systems, and what is the position of sheep in Germany? Have we finally sorted the problem of infected sheep?

Sturdy (PPE-DE), in writing. – British Conservative Members of the PPE-DE Group voted against this report because we feel that it moves too far away from the Commission's original intention of tightening up budgetary control mechanisms. Further, while being sensitive to the socio-economic function of cotton-growing in certain regions, we strongly dispute the rapporteur's assessment that cotton is less environmentally hazardous than other crops. It is well known that a vast array of chemicals are used in cotton-production and we therefore support the Commission's aim for Member States to determine and adopt the appropriate environmental measures to regulate the use of agricultural land used to produce cotton. The insistence that Member States remind producers of the need to comply with environmental legislation is particularly welcomed by British Conservatives.

Sturdy (PPE-DE). – Mr President, one of the problems with the banana issue, it seems to me, is that it has become rather emotive. I see my job as a Member of the European Parliament as not just to look after those banana producers within the European Union but all the people in Europe. I understand how people feel about changes to the system but, as I said, I want to look after everyone within the European Union as a whole.

If, in that process, I can safeguard the interests of our ACP countries then that is all to the good, but I believe that it is important that we safeguard and look to the welfare of European citizens.

We seem sometimes to have lost sight of this fact. I am not one to welcome the way in which the USA has implemented these draconian measures, but it is desperately important that we get a settlement. In my constituency I have industries that are being forced out of business. Jobs are being lost within the European Union because of 100% tariffs on products.

I have received many letters about the fact that it is an emotive issue. It may well be to some of our southern Members even more emotive. Well, I just say to them, this is about real people. It is about real emotions and about real jobs.

People are being forced out of business because of the Americans and therefore I say it is important that we accept the ruling of the WTO. Either we are in a club or we are out of it and it is particularly important that we accept this. As I said just now, I never accepted the way the Americans acted but it is too late now to deal with that. Therefore, I call upon this House to take a decision tomorrow and I support the proposals by Mr Vatenen, who is speaking later.

Sturdy (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I rise on a matter concerning the meeting today of the College of Commissioners, under Rule 38 or 64. I would like to request that Commissioner Lamy makes an emergency statement to this House as to why he is avoiding parliamentary scrutiny on a paper known as "everything but arms".

This has profound implications for this House, for ACP countries and for Europe as a whole. I say profound implications because this House wants more and more democratic accountability. This particular issue will not only affect this House, but most of the European Member States, particularly those that have such products as bananas – which are very topical – rice and sugar.

Mr Lamy should make this statement today to make sure that we do have democratic accountability. It appears that he has no wish to discuss this issue with Parliament. It is of great importance.

Sturdy (PPE-DE). – Madam President, following your statement yesterday regarding the state of the air conditioning in the building, I have a slight problem in my position as Chairman of the Delegation for relations with Canada. I have a group of Canadian members of parliament coming to the next part-session in Strasbourg. I will have to take a decision on Monday as to whether they will be travelling to Strasbourg or Brussels. Bearing in mind the French position on the precautionary principle, can a decision be taken rather sooner than a fortnight on where we will be meeting next month?

Sturdy (PPE-DE). – Mr President, on a point of order. I will be very brief but I rise on a matter which is dear to the hearts of most Members here. On a number of occasions this week the Members bar has had in it visitors from outside Parliament and, actually, just members of the public. I know a number of Members during the week have been unable to get any food. Could we have some clarification from the Quaestors so that we can have a Members bar? We have a Members bar in Brussels. I am not against taking one or two members of staff or whoever it might be into the bar, but to bring visiting groups of 20 or more into it is wrong. I hope we can have some clarification.

Sturdy (PPE-DE). – Madam President, I rise on a matter which is of great importance to everyone in this House. Yesterday afternoon, we had the Commission with their usual answering of questions. Mr Provan in the chair had a major problem because Mr Byrne took up 29 minutes answering questions. It is particularly important to this House that we have the opportunity to question the Commissioners and for a Commissioner to spend 29 minutes answering questions is, in my opinion, ridiculous. I believe that he was particularly concerned about having to answer a question which I know a number of colleagues – not myself – wanted to ask him concerning the reason why he did not instigate interim measures against the French on beef.

That apart, I would suggest that, whoever is in the chair, if we have another situation where a Commissioner is just talking his time out, then the chair should have the power to stop the Commissioner or make him shorten his answers.

Sturdy (PPE-DE). – Unfortunately, Mr Whitehead has stolen my line. I totally agree with him that if a Commissioner, with today's modern transport methods, cannot get to a meeting in time we should be holding all our part-sessions in Brussels.

(Applause)

However, I would like to move on to the point made by Mr von Wogau and also Mr Goepel’s very important point. The suggestion that Council may have taken a decision already without Parliament is particularly important. I am not sure about that. I have the conclusions here from the Presidency and the Council meeting. When the Commissioner arrives, I would like to have a clear statement from him saying whether or not the Council has taken a decision on beef labelling. Otherwise, there is no point at all in our debating it and making fools of ourselves.

Sturdy (PPE-DE). – Madam President, do you want to wait until the meeting has finished here or not? Could I first of all address my comments to the Commissioner? Commissioner, I have attacked you vociferously on three previous occasions for not taking a decision, because I thought you were weak. I would like now to first of all extend my thanks to you for the way in which you have at long last taken a decision and are going to take the position you are with the French.

We know that it is extremely difficult. I actually believe that you have been – and I will use British words here, "stitched up"; and "stitched up" not only by the French. I also think you were used by the British Government. I look forward to seeing a quick response to your actions.

I might add to Mr Whitehead that I speak here now not just as a Member of this august Parliament but as a farmer. It is particularly important that people understand that this crisis has affected every individual farmer, not just in France, but right across Europe. I have with me today – and I risk being arrested, I brought them for you, Mr Byrne – two British prime steaks. They are from a local butcher and farmer who lives next door to me, who will almost certainly not be in business by the end of the week.

I have to say, after hearing what Mr Martinez had to say, that I am deeply concerned that BSE may now be transmitted to human beings. I would just like to add, since you are about to announce a White Paper on food safety, that, whatever people say, food right across Europe can never be 100% safe. I would just like to suggest to Mr Martinez that last year over 20 people died from listeria in France – more people than caught BSE. Therefore I do hope that you use objective scientific evidence when it comes to food safety, and not just a precautionary principle, which is understood under Article 30 (ex-Article 36). I look forward to hearing your reply later on.

Sturdy (PPE-DE). – To help Mr Galeote and one or two other Members in the state-of-the-art plenary that we have here, I wondered if it would be possible at some future date for Members actually to be able to keep the same seat. We seem to be continually rotating and it is often difficult for Members to find their seats. Even in the old chamber when we did not have places allocated, we were at least able to continue to sit in the same places. One wonders how long we will have to keep printing new seating orders. Could this be rectified?

Sturdy (PPE-DE). – I congratulate Mr Byrne on his position. He may well remember that I asked him last week in Brussels to say whether he would instigate proceedings today and obviously he has done so and I am delighted at that. But he must understand the feelings of this House. Today, we have half the Conservative delegation in this Chamber to hear his responses – and I have to say very few of my Socialist colleagues from the UK party. As of today, there are eighty-six infringement proceedings against France, so this is not something new to France. One of those infringement proceedings concerns bovine products – could the Commissioner actually answer the question as to what that case involves. Secondly, has the UK Government applied for compensation, because it should be doing so on behalf of the British farmers who have lost out?

Sturdy (PPE). – Thank you for addressing us so clearly.

I just wonder whether or not, having listened to all the debates, you are actually totally and utterly aware of the devastating effect of this decision on UK farmers. You have said already quite clearly that the standing committee on scientific evidence is the highest authority.

Mrs Jackson asked you as the very first question if we have another committee to look at our food safety across the European Union will that actually be better than the present standing committee and will people take any notice of it. It appears to me that they have not taken any notice of it. You actually argued almost to the contrary that in actual fact the standing committee on scientific evidence is probably not as good as a food agency. British farmers are suffering as a result of indecision. It is about time the decision was ratified. The previous speaker said in a few days; it was actually in August the decision was taken. How many more days do we need to have a decision?

Can I also ask you: there is a practice within Member States, or some Member States, to feed what I would call banned substances to some of their beef cattle. Is the scientific committee and the Commission going to look at that? Or are we going to continue with a situation where the press are just going to use it to attack Member States?

Commissioner, all I say to you is that British farmers, the European Union and agriculture are suffering as a result of indecision. We want to see the decision taken on Friday evening, not waiting until Strasbourg. There is no more scientific evidence. Did the French sign up to the Florence agreement? Has the United Kingdom met all the conditions that were laid down in that agreement? Why has a decision not been taken immediately?

(Applause from the PPE group)