Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-12-13-Speech-3-492"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech⁶
dcterms:Date	"2006-12-13"^^xsd:date⁶
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Kodukorra muutmine (kvestorid ja komisjonide juhatused) (arutelu)⁶
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language⁶
lpv:document identification number	"en.20061213.43.3-492"⁶
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-12-13-Speech-3-493⁶
lpv:speaker	lp:Richard Corbett⁶
lpv:spoken text	". Mr President, I should like to begin by giving the apologies of the rapporteur, Mr Leinen, who could not be here tonight because he has to represent Parliament in a far-away part of the world. He is on his way there as I speak. I rise to propose, on behalf of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, an amendment to our Rules of Procedure, which would see a fourth vice-chairman elected in each parliamentary committee, a bureau of four instead of three, and a College of Quaestors comprising six members instead of five. Why has such a proposal come forward at this stage? It arises from an amendment to our Rules tabled by just two Members of the European Parliament – Mr Schulz and Mr Poettering – who considered that this would facilitate the participation of Members of Parliament from across 27 Member States – as we will be in January – in positions of responsibility in Parliament. It would be a measure that would be inclusive, that would enable more Members to hold positions of responsibility, and that would make it easier to distribute such posts politically across Parliament. We took cognisance of that proposal in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. It is a very important consideration. We also heard that there were strong arguments against creating what many considered to be an inflation of Parliamentary posts. There is, after all, no functional necessity to have a larger bureau of each parliamentary committee. Perhaps – although that is more debatable – there is no functional necessity to have a larger College of Quaestors. It was pointed out by many colleagues that we have enough positions of responsibility across this Parliament for most Members who wish to exercise such positions to have one. It was felt that perhaps this was a rather hasty change to the Rules being put forward, for reasons that were not convincing for all of our Members. That is why we came up with a compromise in committee. The rapporteur – the chairman of our committee – asked me to deputise for him tonight because I was the one that proposed that compromise, which is that we have a fourth vice-chairman of each parliamentary committee and a sixth Quaestor for the remainder of this Parliament, until 2009, but that we do not make it a permanent change. In 2009 we should revert to the current situation of three vice-chairmen of each parliamentary committee and five Quaestors. Indeed, the size of Parliament, which is about to increase with Romania and Bulgaria joining, will actually decline in 2009, back to 732 Members. I am sure Mr Duff will correct me if I got the figure slightly wrong. It is logical to take this step now, for inclusive reasons, but not make it a permanent change; to revert to the present numbers in 2009. That is the position of the committee, which I put forward. I must also say that it is the position adopted by a majority in my political group as well. I know that there are other views in Parliament, but I submit it to Parliament for consideration."@en⁴
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; LIBE (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)²² member; PES (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)²² member; AFCO (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)²² substitute; Delegation for relations with the countries of the Andean Community (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)²² unknown; Labour Party (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)²² member; Delegation for relations with Japan (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)²²
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, I should like to begin by giving the apologies of the rapporteur, Mr Leinen, who could not be here tonight because he has to represent Parliament in a far-away part of the world. He is on his way there as I speak. I rise to propose, on behalf of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, an amendment to our Rules of Procedure, which would see a fourth vice-chairman elected in each parliamentary committee, a bureau of four instead of three, and a College of Quaestors comprising six members instead of five. Why has such a proposal come forward at this stage? It arises from an amendment to our Rules tabled by just two Members of the European Parliament – Mr Schulz and Mr Poettering – who considered that this would facilitate the participation of Members of Parliament from across 27 Member States – as we will be in January – in positions of responsibility in Parliament. It would be a measure that would be inclusive, that would enable more Members to hold positions of responsibility, and that would make it easier to distribute such posts politically across Parliament. We took cognisance of that proposal in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. It is a very important consideration. We also heard that there were strong arguments against creating what many considered to be an inflation of Parliamentary posts. There is, after all, no functional necessity to have a larger bureau of each parliamentary committee. Perhaps – although that is more debatable – there is no functional necessity to have a larger College of Quaestors. It was pointed out by many colleagues that we have enough positions of responsibility across this Parliament for most Members who wish to exercise such positions to have one. It was felt that perhaps this was a rather hasty change to the Rules being put forward, for reasons that were not convincing for all of our Members. That is why we came up with a compromise in committee. The rapporteur – the chairman of our committee – asked me to deputise for him tonight because I was the one that proposed that compromise, which is that we have a fourth vice-chairman of each parliamentary committee and a sixth Quaestor for the remainder of this Parliament, until 2009, but that we do not make it a permanent change. In 2009 we should revert to the current situation of three vice-chairmen of each parliamentary committee and five Quaestors. Indeed, the size of Parliament, which is about to increase with Romania and Bulgaria joining, will actually decline in 2009, back to 732 Members. I am sure Mr Duff will correct me if I got the figure slightly wrong. It is logical to take this step now, for inclusive reasons, but not make it a permanent change; to revert to the present numbers in 2009. That is the position of the committee, which I put forward. I must also say that it is the position adopted by a majority in my political group as well. I know that there are other views in Parliament, but I submit it to Parliament for consideration."@cs¹ "Hr. formand! Jeg vil gerne starte med at undskylde for ordføreren, hr. Leinen, som ikke kunne være til stede i aften, fordi han skal repræsentere Parlamentet i en fjerntliggende del af verden. Han er på vej netop i dette øjeblik. Jeg tager ordet for at stille et ændringsforslag til forretningsordenen for Udvalget om Konstitutionelle Anliggender, som går ud på, at der vælges en fjerde næstformand i alle Parlamentets udvalg, et formandskab på fire i stedet for tre og seks kvæstorer i stedet for fem. Hvorfor stiller vi et sådant forslag på dette tidspunkt? Det skyldes et ændringsforslag til forretningsordenen fra bare to medlemmer af Europa-Parlamentet - hr. Schulz og hr. Poettering - som mente, at dette ville lette adgangen for medlemmer af Parlamentet fra alle 27 medlemsstater - hvilket vi vil være fra januar - til ansvarsposter i Parlamentet. Det ville være en foranstaltning, der er rettet mod alle, som vil give flere medlemmer mulighed for at indtage ansvarsposter, og som vil gøre det lettere at fordele disse poster politisk i Parlamentet. Vi fik kendskab til forslaget i Udvalget om Konstitutionelle Anliggender. Dette er en meget vigtig overvejelse. Vi har også hørt, at der var stærke argumenter imod det, som mange anså for inflation i poster i Parlamentet. Det er trods alt ikke nogen funktionsmæssig nødvendighed med et større formandskab for de enkelte parlamentariske udvalg. Måske - selv om det i højere grad kan diskuteres - er det heller ikke nogen funktionsmæssig nødvendighed med flere kvæstorer. Det blev påpeget af mange kolleger, at vi har tilstrækkeligt mange ansvarsposter her i Parlamentet til, at de fleste medlemmer, der ønsker at indtage sådanne poster, har mulighed for det. Man følte, at det måske var en temmelig forhastet ændring af forretningsordenen, som blev foreslået, ud fra en begrundelse, der ikke var overbevisende for alle vores medlemmer. Derfor fremsatte vi et kompromis i udvalget. Ordføreren - formanden for vores udvalg - bad mig fungere som hans stedfortræder i aften, fordi jeg havde foreslået dette kompromis om, at vi skal have en fjerde næstformand for alle Parlamentets udvalg og en sjette kvæstor i den resterende del af valgperioden frem til 2009, men at vi ikke gør det til en permanent ændring. I 2009 bør vi vende tilbage til den nuværende situation med tre næstformænd for hvert af Parlamentets udvalg og fem kvæstorer. Parlamentets størrelse, som snart forøges med Rumæniens og Bulgariens tiltrædelse, vil rent faktisk vende tilbage til 732 medlemmer i 2009. Jeg er sikker på, at hr. Duff vil korrigere mig, hvis jeg har fået lidt forkert fat i tallet. Det er logisk at tage dette skridt nu for at få flere med, men ikke gøre det til en permanent ændring; og så vende tilbage til det nuværende antal i 2009. Det er holdningen i udvalget, som jeg nu fremlægger her. Jeg må også sige, at det ligeledes er holdningen hos et flertal i min politiske gruppe. Jeg ved, at der findes andre synspunkter Parlamentet, men jeg fremlægger det til Parlamentets overvejelse."@da² "Herr Präsident! Zunächst einmal möchte ich den Berichterstatter, Herrn Leinen, entschuldigen, da er heute Abend nicht hier sein kann, weil er das Parlament in einem weit entfernten Teil der Welt vertreten muss. Er befindet sich gerade auf dem Weg dorthin. Ich melde mich zu Wort, um im Namen des Ausschusses für konstitutionelle Fragen eine Änderung unserer Geschäftsordnung vorzuschlagen, wonach in jedem Parlamentsausschuss ein vierter stellvertretender Vorsitzender, das heißt ein vierköpfiger statt dreiköpfiger Vorstand, und ein Kollegium der Quästoren mit sechs statt fünf Mitgliedern vorgesehen ist. Warum erfolgt ein solcher Vorschlag zu diesem Zeitpunkt? Er ist zurückzuführen auf einen Antrag zur Änderung der Geschäftsordnung, der von nur zwei Mitgliedern des Europäischen Parlaments – nämlich Herrn Schulz und Herrn Pöttering – eingebracht wurde, die der Ansicht waren, dass damit die Beteiligung von Parlamentsabgeordneten aus insgesamt 27 Mitgliedstaaten – die wir im Januar sein werden – an verantwortungsvollen Positionen im Parlament erleichtert würde. Dies wäre eine Maßnahme zu ihrer besseren Einbindung, die mehr Abgeordneten ermöglichen würde, verantwortungsvolle Positionen zu übernehmen, und die eine Verteilung solcher Ämter quer durch das politische Spektrum im Parlament erleichtern würde. Wir haben von diesem Vorschlag im Ausschuss für konstitutionelle Fragen Kenntnis erhalten. Es geht hier um eine sehr wichtige Überlegung. Wir haben auch gehört, dass ernste Einwände gegen eine Entwicklung bestehen, die als Inflation von Parlamentsposten aufgefasst werden könnte. Schließlich besteht keine funktionelle Notwendigkeit, für jeden Parlamentsausschuss einen größeren Vorstand zu haben. Womöglich besteht auch keine funktionelle Notwendigkeit für ein größeres Kollegium der Quästoren, obwohl man sich hier vielleicht streiten kann. Von vielen Kolleginnen und Kollegen wurde darauf hingewiesen, dass wir für die meisten Abgeordneten, die entsprechende Ämter bekleiden wollen, genug verantwortungsvolle Positionen in diesem Parlament zu vergeben haben. Es entstand der Eindruck, dass dieser Vorschlag zur Änderung der Geschäftsordnung womöglich etwas übereilt war und aus Gründen erfolgte, die nicht für alle unsere Abgeordneten überzeugend klangen. Deshalb haben wir im Ausschuss einen Kompromissvorschlag unterbreitet. Der Berichterstatter – der Vorsitzende unseres Ausschusses – hat mich gebeten, ihn heute Abend zu vertreten, weil ich derjenige war, der den Kompromiss vorgeschlagen hatte. Demnach soll es also einen vierten stellvertretenden Vorsitzenden in jedem Parlamentsausschuss und einen sechsten Quästor für den Rest des Parlaments geben, und zwar bis 2009, es soll also keine dauerhafte Änderung werden. Im Jahr 2009 sollten wir wieder zu den jetzigen Verhältnissen mit drei stellvertretenden Vorsitzenden pro Ausschuss und fünf Quästoren zurückkehren. Die Zahl der Parlamentsmitglieder, die demnächst mit dem Beitritt von Rumänien und Bulgarien ansteigt, wird sich nämlich 2009 wieder auf 732 verringern. Herr Duff wird mich sicher korrigieren, wenn ich mich bei der Zahl etwas vertan habe. Es ist vernünftig, jetzt diesen Schritt zu tun, nämlich wegen der besseren Einbindung, aber die Änderung nicht beizubehalten und 2009 zu den jetzigen Zahlen zurückzukehren. So lautet der Standpunkt des Ausschusses, den ich hiermit vorbringe. Dies ist im Übrigen auch die Position, die von einer Mehrheit in meiner Fraktion vertreten wird. Ich weiß, dass im Parlament auch andere Auffassungen herrschen, aber ich möchte das Parlament darüber befinden lassen."@de⁹ ". Κύριε Πρόεδρε, θέλω καταρχάς να ζητήσω συγγνώμη εκ μέρους του εισηγητή, κ. Leinen, ο οποίος δεν μπορούσε να παραστεί απόψε διότι έπρεπε να εκπροσωπήσει το Κοινοβούλιο σε μια πολύ απομακρυσμένη περιοχή του πλανήτη. Τη στιγμή αυτή που μιλάμε βρίσκεται καθ’ οδόν. Λαμβάνω τον λόγο για να προτείνω, εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής Συνταγματικών Υποθέσεων, την τροποποίηση του Κανονισμού του Κοινοβουλίου, προκειμένου να εκλέγεται και τέταρτος αντιπρόεδρος σε κάθε κοινοβουλευτική επιτροπή, το προεδρείο να είναι τετραμελές αντί για τριμελές, και το Σώμα των Κοσμητόρων να αποτελείται από έξι αντί για πέντε μέλη. Γιατί παρουσιάζεται μια τέτοια πρόταση σε αυτό το στάδιο; Οφείλεται σε μια τροποποίηση του Κανονισμού μας την οποία πρότειναν δύο μόνο βουλευτές του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου –ο κ. Schulz και ο κ. Poettering– οι οποίοι θεώρησαν ότι θα διευκολύνει τη συμμετοχή βουλευτών από 27 κράτη μέλη –καθώς αυτός θα είναι ο αριθμός των κρατών μελών της ΕΕ από τον Ιανουάριο– σε υπεύθυνες θέσεις στο εσωτερικό του Κοινοβουλίου. Είναι ένα μέτρο το οποίο στρέφεται κατά των αποκλεισμών, θα επέτρεπε σε περισσότερους βουλευτές να αναλάβουν πιο υπεύθυνα καθήκοντα, ενώ θα διευκολυνόταν περισσότερο η κατανομή των διαφόρων θέσεων στα μέλη των επιμέρους πολιτικών ομάδων του Κοινοβουλίου. Μελετήσαμε αυτήν την πρόταση στην Επιτροπή Συνταγματικών Υποθέσεων. Πρόκειται για θέμα που άξιζε να μελετηθεί σοβαρά. Πληροφορηθήκαμε επίσης ότι υπήρχαν σοβαρές αντιρρήσεις έναντι διαφαινόμενης διόγκωσης του αριθμού των κοινοβουλευτικών αξιωμάτων. Εξάλλου, δεν υπάρχει λειτουργική ανάγκη αύξησης των μελών του προεδρείου σε όλες τις κοινοβουλευτικές επιτροπές. Ενδεχομένως –αν και αυτό είναι πιο συζητήσιμο– δεν υπάρχει λειτουργική ανάγκη αύξησης του αριθμού των μελών του Σώματος των Κοσμητόρων. Πολλοί συνάδελφοι επεσήμαναν ότι διαθέτουμε αρκετές υπεύθυνες θέσεις στο Κοινοβούλιο για το μεγαλύτερο μέρος των βουλευτών που επιθυμούν να αναλάβουν τέτοια καθήκοντα. Θεωρήθηκε ότι επρόκειτο για μια βεβιασμένη μάλλον πρόταση τροποποίησης του Κανονισμού, για λόγους τους οποίους δεν θεώρησαν πειστικούς όλοι οι συνάδελφοί μας. Γι’ αυτό στην επιτροπή καταλήξαμε σε μια συμβιβαστική θέση. Ο εισηγητής –ο πρόεδρος της επιτροπής μας– μου ζήτησε να τον αντικαταστήσω απόψε επειδή εγώ πρότεινα αυτήν τη συμβιβαστική θέση, η οποία συνίσταται στη δημιουργία θέσης τέταρτου αντιπροέδρου σε κάθε κοινοβουλευτική επιτροπή και έκτου Κοσμήτορα για το υπόλοιπο της τρέχουσας θητείας του Κοινοβουλίου, μέχρι το 2009, όμως η αλλαγή αυτή να μην είναι μόνιμη. Το 2009 πρέπει να επανέλθουμε στο σημερινό καθεστώς των πέντε Κοσμητόρων και τριών αντιπροέδρων για κάθε κοινοβουλευτική επιτροπή. Πράγματι, ο αριθμός των βουλευτών του Κοινοβουλίου, ο οποίος θα αυξηθεί με την ένταξη της Ρουμανίας και της Βουλγαρίας, θα μειωθεί μετά το 2009 και θα επανέλθει στα 732 μέλη. Είμαι βέβαιος ότι ο κ. Duff θα με διορθώσει αν έκανα κάποιο μικρό λάθος ως προς τον αριθμό αυτόν. Είναι εύλογο να λάβουμε ένα τέτοιο μέτρο τώρα, προκειμένου να αποφευχθούν ενδεχόμενοι αποκλεισμοί, αλλά να μην είναι μόνιμη η αλλαγή, οπότε να επανέλθουμε στα σημερινά δεδομένα το 2009. Αυτή είναι η θέση της επιτροπής, σύμφωνα με την πρότασή μου. Πρέπει επίσης να επισημάνω ότι είναι η θέση την οποία ενέκρινε κατά πλειοψηφία και η πολιτική μου ομάδα. Γνωρίζω ότι υπάρχουν και άλλες απόψεις στο Κοινοβούλιο, αλλά την υποβάλω στην κρίση του Σώματος."@el¹⁰ ". Señor Presidente, antes que nada quisiera disculparme en nombre del ponente, el señor Leinen, que no puede estar aquí hoy por tener que representar al Parlamento en otro lugar del mundo. Mientras hablo, él se dirige hacia allí. Tomo la palabra para proponer, en nombre de la Comisión de Asuntos Constitucionales, una enmienda a nuestro Reglamento para que exista un cuarto vicepresidente en cada comisión parlamentaria, una mesa de cuatro y no de tres y una Junta de Cuestores con seis miembros en vez de cinco. ¿Por qué planteamos una propuesta así en este momento? Se debe a una enmienda al Reglamento presentada por solo dos diputados al Parlamento Europeo –el señor Schulz y el señor Poettering–, que creían que esto facilitaría la participación de diputados de los 27 Estados miembros que seremos en enero en puestos de responsabilidad del Parlamento. Sería una medida de carácter integrador, que facilitaría el acceso de más diputados a puestos de responsabilidad y que facilitaría la representatividad política de esos puestos. Tuvimos noticia de dicha propuesta en la Comisión de Asuntos Constitucionales y nos pareció digna de consideración. También supimos que había sólidos argumentos en contra la creación de lo que podría verse como una inflación de cargos parlamentarios. A fin de cuentas, no hay necesidad funcional de tener una mesa más amplia en cada comisión. Quizá no haya tampoco –si bien esto es más discutible– necesidad funcional de una Junta de Cuestores mayor. Muchos colegas han señalado que ya existen suficientes puestos de responsabilidad en el Parlamento para que la mayoría de los diputados que desean ejercerlos ocupen uno. Había la sensación de que este cambio precipitado del Reglamento obedecía a razones que no convencían a todos los miembros de la Cámara. Por eso hemos llegado a un compromiso en la comisión. El ponente –el presidente de nuestra comisión– me ha pedido que le sustituya hoy porque yo fui uno de los que propusieron ese compromiso, que consiste en que tengamos un cuarto vicepresidente de cada comisión parlamentaria y un sexto Cuestor por lo que queda de esta legislatura, hasta 2009, pero sin hacer permanente el cambio. En 2009 volveríamos a la actual situación de tres vicepresidentes por comisión y cinco Cuestores. De hecho, el tamaño del Parlamento, que se va a incrementar con la adhesión de Rumanía y Bulgaria, se reducirá en 2009 hasta 732 diputados. El señor Duff me corregirá si me equivoco al dar la cifra exacta. Es lógico dar este paso ahora, por razones de integración, pero no hacerlo permanente y regresar a la situación actual en 2009. Esta es la postura de la comisión, que yo presento. También debo decir que es la postura adoptada por la mayoría de mi Grupo político. Sé que en el Parlamento hay opiniones divergentes, pero planteo la nuestra al Parlamento para su consideración."@es²⁰ "Mr President, I should like to begin by giving the apologies of the rapporteur, Mr Leinen, who could not be here tonight because he has to represent Parliament in a far-away part of the world. He is on his way there as I speak. I rise to propose, on behalf of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, an amendment to our Rules of Procedure, which would see a fourth vice-chairman elected in each parliamentary committee, a bureau of four instead of three, and a College of Quaestors comprising six members instead of five. Why has such a proposal come forward at this stage? It arises from an amendment to our Rules tabled by just two Members of the European Parliament – Mr Schulz and Mr Poettering – who considered that this would facilitate the participation of Members of Parliament from across 27 Member States – as we will be in January – in positions of responsibility in Parliament. It would be a measure that would be inclusive, that would enable more Members to hold positions of responsibility, and that would make it easier to distribute such posts politically across Parliament. We took cognisance of that proposal in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. It is a very important consideration. We also heard that there were strong arguments against creating what many considered to be an inflation of Parliamentary posts. There is, after all, no functional necessity to have a larger bureau of each parliamentary committee. Perhaps – although that is more debatable – there is no functional necessity to have a larger College of Quaestors. It was pointed out by many colleagues that we have enough positions of responsibility across this Parliament for most Members who wish to exercise such positions to have one. It was felt that perhaps this was a rather hasty change to the Rules being put forward, for reasons that were not convincing for all of our Members. That is why we came up with a compromise in committee. The rapporteur – the chairman of our committee – asked me to deputise for him tonight because I was the one that proposed that compromise, which is that we have a fourth vice-chairman of each parliamentary committee and a sixth Quaestor for the remainder of this Parliament, until 2009, but that we do not make it a permanent change. In 2009 we should revert to the current situation of three vice-chairmen of each parliamentary committee and five Quaestors. Indeed, the size of Parliament, which is about to increase with Romania and Bulgaria joining, will actually decline in 2009, back to 732 Members. I am sure Mr Duff will correct me if I got the figure slightly wrong. It is logical to take this step now, for inclusive reasons, but not make it a permanent change; to revert to the present numbers in 2009. That is the position of the committee, which I put forward. I must also say that it is the position adopted by a majority in my political group as well. I know that there are other views in Parliament, but I submit it to Parliament for consideration."@et⁵ ". Arvoisa puhemies, aloitan esittämällä esittelijä Leinenin anteeksipyynnön. Hän ei voinut olla tänä iltana läsnä, koska hänen on edustettava parlamenttia eräässä kaukaisessa maassa. Hän on parhaillaan matkalla sinne. Pidän puheenvuoron esittääkseni perussopimusasioiden valiokunnan nimissä tarkistuksen työjärjestykseemme. Tarkistuksen hyväksymisen myötä jokaiseen parlamentin valiokuntaan valittaisiin neljäs varapuheenjohtaja, puheenjohtajisto koostuisi neljästä eikä kolmesta varapuheenjohtajasta ja kvestorikollegioon kuuluisi kuusi jäsentä viiden sijaan. Miksi tällainen ehdotus on esitetty tässä vaiheessa? Se perustuu vain kahden parlamentin jäsenen, jäsen Schulzin ja jäsen Poetteringin, esittämään työjärjestystämme koskevaan tarkistukseen. He katsoivat, että näin helpotettaisiin 27 jäsenvaltiosta – niin monta meitä on tammikuussa – kotoisin olevien parlamentin jäsenten pääsyä vastuutehtäviin parlamentissa. Se olisi ketään syrjimätön toimi, jonka avulla useammat jäsenet pääsisivät vastuutehtäviin, ja näin edistettäisiin tällaisten tehtävien jakamista poliittisesti kautta koko parlamentin. Otimme ehdotuksen huomioon perussopimusasioiden valiokunnassa. Näkökohta on hyvin tärkeä. Kuulimme myös, että sitä vastaan oli esitetty voimakkaita vastaväitteitä; monet pitivät sitä pyrkimyksenä lisätä parlamentin virkojen määrää. Ei nimittäin ole toiminnallista tarvetta laajentaa jokaisen parlamentin valiokunnan puheenjohtajistoa. Kenties ei ole toiminnallista tarvetta laajentaa kvestorikollegiota, vaikka se onkin jo kiistanalaisempaa. Monet kollegat huomauttivat, että parlamentissa on riittävästi vastuutehtäviä useimmille jäsenille, jotka haluavat päästä hoitamaan sellaisia. Ehdotusta pidettiin kenties hieman hätäisenä työjärjestyksen muutoksena, jonka syistä kaikkia jäseniämme ei saatu vakuuttuneiksi. Tästä syystä ehdotimme kompromissiratkaisua valiokunnassa. Esittelijä, valiokuntamme puheenjohtaja, pyysi minua toimimaan hänen sijaisenaan tänä iltana, koska ehdotin itse tuota kompromissiratkaisua. Sen mukaan jokaisessa parlamentin valiokunnassa olisi neljäs varapuheenjohtaja ja kvestorikollegiossa kuudes kvestori tämän toimikauden loppuun eli vuoteen 2009 asti, mutta muutos ei olisi pysyvä. Vuonna 2009 palaamme nykyiseen tilanteeseen, jossa jokaisessa parlamentin valiokunnassa on kolme varapuheenjohtajaa ja kvestorikollegiossa viisi kvestoria. Parlamentin koko, joka kasvaa Romanian ja Bulgarian liittymisen myötä, laskee tosiasiassa vuonna 2009 takaisin 732 jäseneen. Jäsen Duff oikaissee varmasti, jos esitin hieman vääriä lukuja. On johdonmukaista toteuttaa tämä toimi nyt, jottei ketään syrjittäisi, mutta siitä ei ole tarkoitus tehdä pysyvää muutosta. Nykyiset määrät palautetaan vuonna 2009. Esittelin valiokunnan kannan. On myös todettava, että se on samalla poliittisen ryhmäni enemmistön hyväksymä kanta. Tiedän, että parlamentissa on muitakin kantoja, mutta esitän sen nyt parlamentille käsiteltäväksi."@fi⁷ "Monsieur le Président, je tiens tout d’abord à vous présenter les excuses du rapporteur M. Leinen, empêché ce soir par une mission de représentation du Parlement dans une région éloignée du monde. Il est en route pour cette destination au moment même où je vous parle. Je prends la parole pour vous proposer, au nom de la commission des affaires constitutionnelles, un amendement à notre règlement, selon lequel un quatrième vice-président serait élu dans chaque commission parlementaire, le bureau passerait de trois à quatre membres et le collège des questeurs de cinq à six. Pourquoi une telle proposition survient-elle à ce stade? Elle découle d’un amendement à notre règlement déposé par deux députés européens seulement, à savoir MM. Schulz et Poettering, qui ont estimé que la participation des députés européens issus de 27 États membres différents - à compter de janvier - à des postes à responsabilité au Parlement s’en trouverait facilitée. Cette mesure prendrait la forme d’une disposition globale, qui permettrait aux députés d’occuper des fonctions majeures et faciliterait la répartition de tels postes selon des considérations politiques. Nous avons pris connaissance de cette proposition en commission des affaires constitutionnelles. Elle revêt une importance cruciale. Nous avons également appris que la création de nouveaux postes, qualifiée par beaucoup d’inflation des postes parlementaires, était loin de faire l’unanimité. Après tout, si l’on invoque des raisons de fonctionnement, l’agrandissement du bureau de chaque commission parlementaire ne se justifie pas. Peut-être - bien que cela soit plus discutable - n’est-il pas nécessaire du point de vue du fonctionnement d’agrandir le collège des questeurs. De nombreux collègues ont fait remarquer que les postes à responsabilité au sein de ce Parlement ne manquent pas, de telle sorte que la plupart des députés qui souhaitent accéder à une telle fonction voient en général leurs vœux exaucés. Le sentiment exprimé était que la modification proposée au règlement était peut-être un peu rapide, les raisons invoquées manquant de poids aux yeux de certains députés. D’où notre recherche d’un compromis en commission. Le rapporteur - le président de notre commission - m’a demandé de parler en son nom ce soir, car c’est lui qui a proposé ce compromis, lequel envisage la création d’un quatrième poste de vice-président dans chaque commission parlementaire et d’un sixième poste de questeur pour le reste du Parlement, jusqu’en 2009, sans que ce changement ne devienne permanent. En 2009, la situation devrait revenir à ce qu’elle est aujourd’hui, soit trois vice-présidents pour chaque commission parlementaire et cinq questeurs. En effet, le nombre de députés de notre Assemblée, en passe de croître à nouveau avec l’adhésion de la Roumanie et de la Bulgarie, diminuera en 2009, pour revenir à 732 députés. Je suis sûr que M. Duff me corrigera si ce chiffre n’est pas tout à fait exact. Il est logique de prendre cette mesure maintenant, pour des raisons d’inclusion, sans pour autant pérenniser ce changement, en attendant de revenir aux chiffres actuels en 2009. Telle est la position de la commission, que j’ai soumise. Je dois également ajouter que c’est la position qui a été adoptée à la majorité par mon groupe politique également. Je sais que ce n’est pas le seul avis que l’on rencontre au Parlement. Néanmoins, je vous le soumets pour examen."@fr⁸ "Mr President, I should like to begin by giving the apologies of the rapporteur, Mr Leinen, who could not be here tonight because he has to represent Parliament in a far-away part of the world. He is on his way there as I speak. I rise to propose, on behalf of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, an amendment to our Rules of Procedure, which would see a fourth vice-chairman elected in each parliamentary committee, a bureau of four instead of three, and a College of Quaestors comprising six members instead of five. Why has such a proposal come forward at this stage? It arises from an amendment to our Rules tabled by just two Members of the European Parliament – Mr Schulz and Mr Poettering – who considered that this would facilitate the participation of Members of Parliament from across 27 Member States – as we will be in January – in positions of responsibility in Parliament. It would be a measure that would be inclusive, that would enable more Members to hold positions of responsibility, and that would make it easier to distribute such posts politically across Parliament. We took cognisance of that proposal in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. It is a very important consideration. We also heard that there were strong arguments against creating what many considered to be an inflation of Parliamentary posts. There is, after all, no functional necessity to have a larger bureau of each parliamentary committee. Perhaps – although that is more debatable – there is no functional necessity to have a larger College of Quaestors. It was pointed out by many colleagues that we have enough positions of responsibility across this Parliament for most Members who wish to exercise such positions to have one. It was felt that perhaps this was a rather hasty change to the Rules being put forward, for reasons that were not convincing for all of our Members. That is why we came up with a compromise in committee. The rapporteur – the chairman of our committee – asked me to deputise for him tonight because I was the one that proposed that compromise, which is that we have a fourth vice-chairman of each parliamentary committee and a sixth Quaestor for the remainder of this Parliament, until 2009, but that we do not make it a permanent change. In 2009 we should revert to the current situation of three vice-chairmen of each parliamentary committee and five Quaestors. Indeed, the size of Parliament, which is about to increase with Romania and Bulgaria joining, will actually decline in 2009, back to 732 Members. I am sure Mr Duff will correct me if I got the figure slightly wrong. It is logical to take this step now, for inclusive reasons, but not make it a permanent change; to revert to the present numbers in 2009. That is the position of the committee, which I put forward. I must also say that it is the position adopted by a majority in my political group as well. I know that there are other views in Parliament, but I submit it to Parliament for consideration."@hu¹¹ ". Signor Presidente, innanzi tutto desidero scusarmi a nome del relatore, onorevole Leinen, che non ha potuto essere presente questa sera perché deve rappresentare il Parlamento dall’altra parte del mondo. E’ in viaggio mentre vi sto parlando. Propongo, a nome della commissione per gli affari costituzionali, una modifica del nostro Regolamento, che comporta l’elezione di un quarto vicepresidente in ciascuna commissione parlamentare, con un Ufficio di presidenza composto da quattro membri invece di tre, e un Collegio dei questori composto da sei membri invece di cinque. Perché una simile proposta in questo momento? Nasce da una proposta di modifica del Regolamento presentata da due membri del Parlamento europeo – gli onorevoli Schulz e Poettering – che hanno ritenuto che agevolerebbe la partecipazione dei deputati di tutti i 27 Stati membri – quanti saremo in gennaio – in posizioni di responsabilità in Parlamento. Sarebbe una misura di inclusione, che consentirebbe a un maggior numero di deputati di assumere incarichi di responsabilità e che faciliterebbe la distribuzione di tali incarichi in modo politicamente trasversale. Siamo venuti a conoscenza di tale proposta in seno alla commissione per gli affari costituzionali. E’ una considerazione molto importante. Inoltre, ci è giunta notizia di una forte opposizione nei confronti di quella che molti considerano un’inflazione di cariche parlamentari. Tutto sommato, non esiste una necessità funzionale di avere un Ufficio di presidenza più ampio per ciascuna commissione parlamentare. Forse – benché sia più discutibile – non esiste neppure una necessità funzionale di allargare il Collegio dei questori. Molti colleghi hanno fatto rilevare che gli incarichi di responsabilità previsti nel Parlamento sono già sufficienti per consentire alla maggior parte dei deputati che lo desiderino di esercitarne uno. Forse si è avuta l’impressione che si trattasse di una modifica piuttosto affrettata al Regolamento, per motivi che non convincevano tutti i parlamentari. Per questo motivo siamo arrivati a un compromesso in sede di commissione. Il relatore – presidente della nostra commissione – mi ha chiesto di sostituirlo questa sera perché sono stato io a proporre il compromesso, vale a dire eleggere un quarto vicepresidente per ciascuna commissione parlamentare e un sesto questore per il restante periodo della legislatura in corso, ossia fino al 2009, ma senza introdurre una modifica permanente. Nel 2009 dovremmo tornare alla situazione attuale di tre vicepresidenti per ciascuna commissione parlamentare e cinque questori. In effetti, le dimensioni del Parlamento, in procinto di aumentare con l’adesione di Romania e Bulgaria, si ridurranno nel 2009, con il ritorno a 732 membri. Sono certo che l’onorevole Duff mi correggerà se ho sbagliato leggermente la cifra. E’ logico prendere ora questa iniziativa, per motivi di inclusione, ma senza farne una modifica permanente, ritornando quindi alle cifre attuali nel 2009. Questa è la posizione della commissione parlamentare, che vi sottopongo. Devo anche aggiungere che si tratta della posizione adottata dalla maggioranza del mio gruppo politico. So che in Parlamento ci sono altre opinioni, ma sottopongo la proposta all’esame del Parlamento."@it¹² "Mr President, I should like to begin by giving the apologies of the rapporteur, Mr Leinen, who could not be here tonight because he has to represent Parliament in a far-away part of the world. He is on his way there as I speak. I rise to propose, on behalf of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, an amendment to our Rules of Procedure, which would see a fourth vice-chairman elected in each parliamentary committee, a bureau of four instead of three, and a College of Quaestors comprising six members instead of five. Why has such a proposal come forward at this stage? It arises from an amendment to our Rules tabled by just two Members of the European Parliament – Mr Schulz and Mr Poettering – who considered that this would facilitate the participation of Members of Parliament from across 27 Member States – as we will be in January – in positions of responsibility in Parliament. It would be a measure that would be inclusive, that would enable more Members to hold positions of responsibility, and that would make it easier to distribute such posts politically across Parliament. We took cognisance of that proposal in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. It is a very important consideration. We also heard that there were strong arguments against creating what many considered to be an inflation of Parliamentary posts. There is, after all, no functional necessity to have a larger bureau of each parliamentary committee. Perhaps – although that is more debatable – there is no functional necessity to have a larger College of Quaestors. It was pointed out by many colleagues that we have enough positions of responsibility across this Parliament for most Members who wish to exercise such positions to have one. It was felt that perhaps this was a rather hasty change to the Rules being put forward, for reasons that were not convincing for all of our Members. That is why we came up with a compromise in committee. The rapporteur – the chairman of our committee – asked me to deputise for him tonight because I was the one that proposed that compromise, which is that we have a fourth vice-chairman of each parliamentary committee and a sixth Quaestor for the remainder of this Parliament, until 2009, but that we do not make it a permanent change. In 2009 we should revert to the current situation of three vice-chairmen of each parliamentary committee and five Quaestors. Indeed, the size of Parliament, which is about to increase with Romania and Bulgaria joining, will actually decline in 2009, back to 732 Members. I am sure Mr Duff will correct me if I got the figure slightly wrong. It is logical to take this step now, for inclusive reasons, but not make it a permanent change; to revert to the present numbers in 2009. That is the position of the committee, which I put forward. I must also say that it is the position adopted by a majority in my political group as well. I know that there are other views in Parliament, but I submit it to Parliament for consideration."@lt¹⁴ "Mr President, I should like to begin by giving the apologies of the rapporteur, Mr Leinen, who could not be here tonight because he has to represent Parliament in a far-away part of the world. He is on his way there as I speak. I rise to propose, on behalf of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, an amendment to our Rules of Procedure, which would see a fourth vice-chairman elected in each parliamentary committee, a bureau of four instead of three, and a College of Quaestors comprising six members instead of five. Why has such a proposal come forward at this stage? It arises from an amendment to our Rules tabled by just two Members of the European Parliament – Mr Schulz and Mr Poettering – who considered that this would facilitate the participation of Members of Parliament from across 27 Member States – as we will be in January – in positions of responsibility in Parliament. It would be a measure that would be inclusive, that would enable more Members to hold positions of responsibility, and that would make it easier to distribute such posts politically across Parliament. We took cognisance of that proposal in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. It is a very important consideration. We also heard that there were strong arguments against creating what many considered to be an inflation of Parliamentary posts. There is, after all, no functional necessity to have a larger bureau of each parliamentary committee. Perhaps – although that is more debatable – there is no functional necessity to have a larger College of Quaestors. It was pointed out by many colleagues that we have enough positions of responsibility across this Parliament for most Members who wish to exercise such positions to have one. It was felt that perhaps this was a rather hasty change to the Rules being put forward, for reasons that were not convincing for all of our Members. That is why we came up with a compromise in committee. The rapporteur – the chairman of our committee – asked me to deputise for him tonight because I was the one that proposed that compromise, which is that we have a fourth vice-chairman of each parliamentary committee and a sixth Quaestor for the remainder of this Parliament, until 2009, but that we do not make it a permanent change. In 2009 we should revert to the current situation of three vice-chairmen of each parliamentary committee and five Quaestors. Indeed, the size of Parliament, which is about to increase with Romania and Bulgaria joining, will actually decline in 2009, back to 732 Members. I am sure Mr Duff will correct me if I got the figure slightly wrong. It is logical to take this step now, for inclusive reasons, but not make it a permanent change; to revert to the present numbers in 2009. That is the position of the committee, which I put forward. I must also say that it is the position adopted by a majority in my political group as well. I know that there are other views in Parliament, but I submit it to Parliament for consideration."@lv¹³ "Mr President, I should like to begin by giving the apologies of the rapporteur, Mr Leinen, who could not be here tonight because he has to represent Parliament in a far-away part of the world. He is on his way there as I speak. I rise to propose, on behalf of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, an amendment to our Rules of Procedure, which would see a fourth vice-chairman elected in each parliamentary committee, a bureau of four instead of three, and a College of Quaestors comprising six members instead of five. Why has such a proposal come forward at this stage? It arises from an amendment to our Rules tabled by just two Members of the European Parliament – Mr Schulz and Mr Poettering – who considered that this would facilitate the participation of Members of Parliament from across 27 Member States – as we will be in January – in positions of responsibility in Parliament. It would be a measure that would be inclusive, that would enable more Members to hold positions of responsibility, and that would make it easier to distribute such posts politically across Parliament. We took cognisance of that proposal in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. It is a very important consideration. We also heard that there were strong arguments against creating what many considered to be an inflation of Parliamentary posts. There is, after all, no functional necessity to have a larger bureau of each parliamentary committee. Perhaps – although that is more debatable – there is no functional necessity to have a larger College of Quaestors. It was pointed out by many colleagues that we have enough positions of responsibility across this Parliament for most Members who wish to exercise such positions to have one. It was felt that perhaps this was a rather hasty change to the Rules being put forward, for reasons that were not convincing for all of our Members. That is why we came up with a compromise in committee. The rapporteur – the chairman of our committee – asked me to deputise for him tonight because I was the one that proposed that compromise, which is that we have a fourth vice-chairman of each parliamentary committee and a sixth Quaestor for the remainder of this Parliament, until 2009, but that we do not make it a permanent change. In 2009 we should revert to the current situation of three vice-chairmen of each parliamentary committee and five Quaestors. Indeed, the size of Parliament, which is about to increase with Romania and Bulgaria joining, will actually decline in 2009, back to 732 Members. I am sure Mr Duff will correct me if I got the figure slightly wrong. It is logical to take this step now, for inclusive reasons, but not make it a permanent change; to revert to the present numbers in 2009. That is the position of the committee, which I put forward. I must also say that it is the position adopted by a majority in my political group as well. I know that there are other views in Parliament, but I submit it to Parliament for consideration."@mt¹⁵ ". Voorzitter, om te beginnen wil ik de excuses aanbieden van de rapporteur, de heer Leinen, die hier vanavond niet kan zijn, omdat hij het Parlement vertegenwoordigt op een plaats hier ver vandaan. Terwijl ik hier spreek, is hij onderweg daarheen. Ik stel namens de Commissie constitutionele zaken voor het Reglement van het Europees Parlement te wijzigen. Deze wijziging houdt in dat er in elke parlementaire commissie een vierde ondervoorzitter wordt gekozen en een bureau komt bestaande uit vier leden in plaats van drie, en dat het College van quaestoren wordt gevormd uit zes in plaats van uit vijf leden. Waarom doen wij een dergelijk voorstel op dit moment? Dit voorstel tot wijziging van het Reglement komt van slechts twee leden van het Europees Parlement, de heren Schulz en Poettering, die deze wijziging een goede manier vonden om de Parlementsleden uit alle zevenentwintig lidstaten - het aantal lidstaten per 1 januari - de mogelijkheid te bieden een van de verantwoordelijke posten in het Parlement te bezetten. Het zou een maatregel van inclusie zijn, waarmee meer leden in staat zouden worden gesteld om verantwoordelijke posten in te nemen, en waarmee het gemakkelijker zou worden om dergelijke posten in het Parlement politiek te verdelen. We hebben in de Commissie constitutionele zaken van dat voorstel kennis genomen. Het is een belangrijke gedachte. We hebben ook gehoord dat er krachtige argumenten waren tegen wat velen beschouwden als een inflatie van Parlementaire functies. Er bestaat immers geen functionele noodzaak voor een uitgebreider bureau in alle commissies. Misschien is er evenmin een functionele noodzaak voor een uitgebreider College van quaestoren - al kan men daarover van mening verschillen. Veel collega's hebben erop gewezen dat er in het Parlement genoeg verantwoordelijke posten zijn voor de meeste leden die zo'n post willen bezetten. Het werd ervaren als een misschien wat overhaast voorstel tot wijziging van het Reglement, om redenen die niet voor iedereen even overtuigend waren. Dat is de reden waarom we in de commissie tot een compromisvoorstel zijn gekomen. De rapporteur - de voorzitter van onze commissie - heeft mij gevraagd vanavond zijn plaats in te nemen, omdat ik degene ben die dat compromisvoorstel heeft ingediend, houdende dat elke Parlementaire commissie een vierde ondervoorzitter krijgt en dat er een zesde quaestor komt voor de resterende zittingsperiode van het Parlement, tot 2009, zonder dat daar een permanente wijziging van wordt gemaakt. In 2009 zouden we moeten terugkeren naar de huidige situatie met drie ondervoorzitters voor elke commissie en vijf quaestoren. De omvang van het Parlement, die met de toetreding van Bulgarije en Roemenië toeneemt, zal immers in 2009 weer worden teruggebracht tot 732 leden. Ik weet zeker dat de heer Duff mij zal corrigeren als ik mij vergis in de getallen. Het is logisch nu deze stap te zetten, om redenen van inclusie, maar het zal geen permanente wijziging zijn. De bedoeling is om in 2009 terug te keren tot het huidige aantal. Dat is het standpunt van de commissie dat ik naar voren breng. Ik moet daaraan toevoegen dat het ook het standpunt is van de meerderheid van mijn fractie. Ik weet dat ook andere standpunten opgeld doen in het Parlement, maar ik leg dit ter overweging voor aan het Parlement."@nl³ "Mr President, I should like to begin by giving the apologies of the rapporteur, Mr Leinen, who could not be here tonight because he has to represent Parliament in a far-away part of the world. He is on his way there as I speak. I rise to propose, on behalf of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, an amendment to our Rules of Procedure, which would see a fourth vice-chairman elected in each parliamentary committee, a bureau of four instead of three, and a College of Quaestors comprising six members instead of five. Why has such a proposal come forward at this stage? It arises from an amendment to our Rules tabled by just two Members of the European Parliament – Mr Schulz and Mr Poettering – who considered that this would facilitate the participation of Members of Parliament from across 27 Member States – as we will be in January – in positions of responsibility in Parliament. It would be a measure that would be inclusive, that would enable more Members to hold positions of responsibility, and that would make it easier to distribute such posts politically across Parliament. We took cognisance of that proposal in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. It is a very important consideration. We also heard that there were strong arguments against creating what many considered to be an inflation of Parliamentary posts. There is, after all, no functional necessity to have a larger bureau of each parliamentary committee. Perhaps – although that is more debatable – there is no functional necessity to have a larger College of Quaestors. It was pointed out by many colleagues that we have enough positions of responsibility across this Parliament for most Members who wish to exercise such positions to have one. It was felt that perhaps this was a rather hasty change to the Rules being put forward, for reasons that were not convincing for all of our Members. That is why we came up with a compromise in committee. The rapporteur – the chairman of our committee – asked me to deputise for him tonight because I was the one that proposed that compromise, which is that we have a fourth vice-chairman of each parliamentary committee and a sixth Quaestor for the remainder of this Parliament, until 2009, but that we do not make it a permanent change. In 2009 we should revert to the current situation of three vice-chairmen of each parliamentary committee and five Quaestors. Indeed, the size of Parliament, which is about to increase with Romania and Bulgaria joining, will actually decline in 2009, back to 732 Members. I am sure Mr Duff will correct me if I got the figure slightly wrong. It is logical to take this step now, for inclusive reasons, but not make it a permanent change; to revert to the present numbers in 2009. That is the position of the committee, which I put forward. I must also say that it is the position adopted by a majority in my political group as well. I know that there are other views in Parliament, but I submit it to Parliament for consideration."@pl¹⁶ "Senhor Presidente, gostaria de iniciar a minha intervenção apresentando as desculpas do relator, senhor deputado Leinen, que não pode estar aqui esta noite devido a ter de representar o Parlamento num país distante para onde se encontra em deslocação neste momento. Venho por esta forma propor, em nome da Comissão dos Assuntos Constitucionais, uma alteração ao Regimento do Parlamento, pela qual um quarto vice-presidente seria eleito em cada comissão parlamentar, havendo uma mesa de quatro em vez de três, e um Colégio de Questores com seis membros em vez de cinco. Qual a razão para esta proposta ser apresentada nesta fase? Provém de uma alteração ao Regimento, proposta por apenas dois deputados do Parlamento, os senhores Schulz e Poettering, que entenderam que assim ficaria facilitada a participação de deputados de 27 Estados-Membros – tal como ocorrerá em Janeiro – em cargos de responsabilidade no Parlamento. Seria uma medida com uma forte componente inclusiva, de modo a permitir que mais deputados do Parlamento detenham cargos de responsabilidade, facilitando a distribuição desses lugares politicamente pelo Parlamento. Tomámos conhecimento desta proposta na Comissão dos Assuntos Constitucionais. Trata-se de uma reflexão importantíssima. Também soubemos que havia fortes argumentos contra a criação daquilo que muitos consideram ser uma inflação de cargos parlamentares. Não existe, bem vistas as coisas, nenhuma necessidade funcional de haver um Colégio de Questores maior. Foi assinalado por muito colegas que temos suficientes lugares de responsabilidade em todo o Parlamento para a maior parte dos deputados que pretendam exercer tais cargos o poderem fazer. Sentiu-se que talvez esta proposta fosse uma alteração bastante apressada do Regimento, tendo-o sido por razões que nem todos os deputados acharam convincentes. Foi esta razão que nos levou a apresentar uma proposta de compromisso na comissão. O relator – o presidente da nossa comissão – solicitou-me que o representasse esta noite devido ao facto de ter sido eu a propor o compromisso, ou seja, termos um quarto vice-presidente em cada comissão parlamentar e um sexto questor para o resto do Parlamento até 2009, mas sem que tal corresponda a uma alteração permanente. Em 2009, a situação retomaria a que temos actualmente, com três vice-presidentes em cada comissão parlamentar e cinco questores. Na verdade, o tamanho do Parlamento, que está prestes a aumentar com a adesão da Roménia e da Bulgária, irá efectivamente diminuir em 2009, retomando os 732 deputados. Estou certo de que o senhor deputado Duff me corrigirá se este número não estiver totalmente correcto. Faz sentido dar este passo neste momento, devido à componente inclusiva, mas não tornando a alteração permanente de modo a poder retomar os números actuais em 2009. É esta posição da comissão que estou a apresentar a V. Exas. Devo referir igualmente que esta é também a posição adoptada por maioria no meu grupo político. Tenho conhecimento da existência de outras opiniões no Parlamento, mas coloco esta à consideração do Parlamento."@pt¹⁷ "Mr President, I should like to begin by giving the apologies of the rapporteur, Mr Leinen, who could not be here tonight because he has to represent Parliament in a far-away part of the world. He is on his way there as I speak. I rise to propose, on behalf of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, an amendment to our Rules of Procedure, which would see a fourth vice-chairman elected in each parliamentary committee, a bureau of four instead of three, and a College of Quaestors comprising six members instead of five. Why has such a proposal come forward at this stage? It arises from an amendment to our Rules tabled by just two Members of the European Parliament – Mr Schulz and Mr Poettering – who considered that this would facilitate the participation of Members of Parliament from across 27 Member States – as we will be in January – in positions of responsibility in Parliament. It would be a measure that would be inclusive, that would enable more Members to hold positions of responsibility, and that would make it easier to distribute such posts politically across Parliament. We took cognisance of that proposal in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. It is a very important consideration. We also heard that there were strong arguments against creating what many considered to be an inflation of Parliamentary posts. There is, after all, no functional necessity to have a larger bureau of each parliamentary committee. Perhaps – although that is more debatable – there is no functional necessity to have a larger College of Quaestors. It was pointed out by many colleagues that we have enough positions of responsibility across this Parliament for most Members who wish to exercise such positions to have one. It was felt that perhaps this was a rather hasty change to the Rules being put forward, for reasons that were not convincing for all of our Members. That is why we came up with a compromise in committee. The rapporteur – the chairman of our committee – asked me to deputise for him tonight because I was the one that proposed that compromise, which is that we have a fourth vice-chairman of each parliamentary committee and a sixth Quaestor for the remainder of this Parliament, until 2009, but that we do not make it a permanent change. In 2009 we should revert to the current situation of three vice-chairmen of each parliamentary committee and five Quaestors. Indeed, the size of Parliament, which is about to increase with Romania and Bulgaria joining, will actually decline in 2009, back to 732 Members. I am sure Mr Duff will correct me if I got the figure slightly wrong. It is logical to take this step now, for inclusive reasons, but not make it a permanent change; to revert to the present numbers in 2009. That is the position of the committee, which I put forward. I must also say that it is the position adopted by a majority in my political group as well. I know that there are other views in Parliament, but I submit it to Parliament for consideration."@sk¹⁸ "Mr President, I should like to begin by giving the apologies of the rapporteur, Mr Leinen, who could not be here tonight because he has to represent Parliament in a far-away part of the world. He is on his way there as I speak. I rise to propose, on behalf of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, an amendment to our Rules of Procedure, which would see a fourth vice-chairman elected in each parliamentary committee, a bureau of four instead of three, and a College of Quaestors comprising six members instead of five. Why has such a proposal come forward at this stage? It arises from an amendment to our Rules tabled by just two Members of the European Parliament – Mr Schulz and Mr Poettering – who considered that this would facilitate the participation of Members of Parliament from across 27 Member States – as we will be in January – in positions of responsibility in Parliament. It would be a measure that would be inclusive, that would enable more Members to hold positions of responsibility, and that would make it easier to distribute such posts politically across Parliament. We took cognisance of that proposal in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. It is a very important consideration. We also heard that there were strong arguments against creating what many considered to be an inflation of Parliamentary posts. There is, after all, no functional necessity to have a larger bureau of each parliamentary committee. Perhaps – although that is more debatable – there is no functional necessity to have a larger College of Quaestors. It was pointed out by many colleagues that we have enough positions of responsibility across this Parliament for most Members who wish to exercise such positions to have one. It was felt that perhaps this was a rather hasty change to the Rules being put forward, for reasons that were not convincing for all of our Members. That is why we came up with a compromise in committee. The rapporteur – the chairman of our committee – asked me to deputise for him tonight because I was the one that proposed that compromise, which is that we have a fourth vice-chairman of each parliamentary committee and a sixth Quaestor for the remainder of this Parliament, until 2009, but that we do not make it a permanent change. In 2009 we should revert to the current situation of three vice-chairmen of each parliamentary committee and five Quaestors. Indeed, the size of Parliament, which is about to increase with Romania and Bulgaria joining, will actually decline in 2009, back to 732 Members. I am sure Mr Duff will correct me if I got the figure slightly wrong. It is logical to take this step now, for inclusive reasons, but not make it a permanent change; to revert to the present numbers in 2009. That is the position of the committee, which I put forward. I must also say that it is the position adopted by a majority in my political group as well. I know that there are other views in Parliament, but I submit it to Parliament for consideration."@sl¹⁹ "Herr talman! Jag skulle vilja börja med att framföra en ursäkt på föredragandens vägnar, Jo Leinen, som inte kunde vara här ikväll eftersom han måste representera parlamentet i en fjärran del av världen. Han är på väg dit precis nu. Jag vill för utskottet för konstitutionella frågor lägga fram ett ändringsförslag till vår arbetsordning, vilket går ut på att en fjärde vice ordförande väljs ur varje parlamentsutskott, att det upprättas ett organ för fyra istället för tre och att det skapas ett kvestorskollegium som består av sex ledamöter istället för fem. Varför har ett sådant förslag lagts fram i det här stadiet? Det har uppkommit genom ett ändringsförslag till vår arbetsordning som lagts fram av just två ledamöter i Europaparlamentet, Martin Schulz och Hans-Gert Poettering. De ansåg att detta skulle underlätta för parlamentsledamöterna från alla de 27 medlemsstaterna, som vi kommer att bli i januari, att delta i parlamentets ledande positioner. Det vore en inkluderande åtgärd som gör så att fler ledamöter får inta ledande positioner och som gör det enklare att fördela sådana befattningar politiskt i parlamentet. Vi beaktade förslaget i utskottet för konstitutionella frågor. Det är ett mycket viktigt övervägande. Vi hörde även att det fanns starka argument mot att skapa något som många ansåg vara en inflation av befattningar i parlamentet. Det finns trots allt ingen funktionell nödvändighet av att ha ett större organ för varje parlamentsutskott. Trots att det kan diskuteras finns det kanske heller ingen funktionell nödvändighet av att ha ett större kvestorskollegium. Ett flertal kolleger påpekade att vi har tillräckligt med ledande positioner i parlamentet för att de flesta ledamöter som vill inneha sådana positioner ska kunna ha det. Det framfördes att detta kanske var en förhastad förändring av arbetsordningen som lades fram och som grundades på orsaker som inte övertygade alla våra ledamöter. Därför kom vi fram till en kompromiss i utskottet. Föredraganden – ordföranden i vårt utskott – bad mig att vara ställföreträdare för honom ikväll, eftersom jag var den som föreslog en kompromiss som innebär att vi får en fjärde vice ordförande för varje parlamentsutskott och en sjätte kvestor för den tid som återstår för parlamentet fram till 2009, men jag föreslog även att vi inte bör införa ändringen permanent. År 2009 ska vi återgå till den nuvarande situationen med tre vice ordförande för varje parlamentsutskott och fem kvestorer. Parlamentets storlek, som just ska till att utökas i och med Rumäniens och Bulgariens anslutning, kommer faktiskt att minska år 2009 och återigen bli 732 ledamöter. Jag är säker på att Andrew Duff rättar mig om jag har blandat ihop siffrorna. Av inkluderande skäl är det logiskt att ta detta steg nu, men att inte göra förändringen permanent, utan att återgå till det nuvarande antalet år 2009. Detta är utskottets ståndpunkt som jag presenterar. Jag måste även säga att det likaså är den ståndpunkt som har intagits av en majoritet i min politiska grupp. Jag vet att det finns andra åsikter i parlamentet, men jag lämnar över det till parlamentet för övervägande."@sv²¹
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Richard Corbett (PSE ),"^{5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4} "deputising for the rapporteur"^{5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4}