EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: MEPS EXPRESS CONCERN OVER NEW DISCIPLINE PLANS.

Presenting his report to the committee (for more details, see Europe Information 2988), the draftsman explained the key objectives of his proposed changes which follow a series of incidents where parliamentary sessions have had to be interrupted because of protests by MEPs. Gerard Onesta explained that his priorities were to "strengthen MEPs' rights, their freedom of expression and the right to vote" and to ensure the right to appeal. One of the most important elements was to differentiate between silent expressions of opinion, which were clearly acceptable, and active disturbance of the session which should be sanctioned.

He defended his plan to ask the Quaestors (the five MEPs responsible for defending MEPs' interests towards Parliament's administration) and the Bureau to decide in cases of appeals by deputies who had been punished, saying that these two bodies were less susceptible to the political dominance of the main political groups. "While the Quaestors and the Bureau are not completely neutral, they haven't always followed political lines on past decisions", he told the committee. Mr Onesta said that his aim was to avoid overt politicisation of any decision to punish MEPs by not referring decisions to the Conference of Presidents (the leaders of the political groups) or the plenary itself.

Doubts over Bureau's role.

One of main areas of concern for the committee's MEPs was the role of the Bureau in drawing up a code of acceptable behaviour. German MEP Joachim Wurmeling, the EPP-ED's shadow draftsman on the report, said that he doubted the bureau would be able to devise such a code, and suggested it would be easier to have a definition of what types of behaviour would be unacceptable. Andrew Duff (ALDE, UK) also questioned the role of the Bureau in drawing up a description of acceptable behaviour. "I would like to see a code of conduct before I agree to a reign of terror being imposed on the house", he said.

Mr Wurmeling questioned Gerard Onesta's plan to involve the Quaestors in the first part of an appeal, saying that consulting them, the Bureau and then the President was a "step too many". The bureau would be capable of handling the appeals procedure on its own, he said. Richard Corbett (PES, UK) also expressed doubts that the Quaestors should play a role in the appeals process as their main function was defending Members' interests. This view was also shared by Johannes Voggenhuber.

Question about need for tougher code.

Mr Duff...