Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-04-11-Speech-2-005"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000411.1.2-005"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, item 6 of the Minutes where we modify the agenda for the week is accurate but probably rightly does not mention that voting time on Thursday has been brought forward to 11.30 a.m. because of the large number of amendments tabled to certain reports. I rise, therefore, to question whether Rule 139(1) of our Rules of Procedure is being applied correctly.
As you know, we spend an enormous amount of time voting on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday lunchtimes. We adopted a set of changes to the Rules of Procedure last year to try to rationalise our work. In these changes we gave every Member the right to table an amendment as an individual at committee stage, but we limited the right to table amendments in plenary to 32 Members or a political group.
However, if you look at the amendments that have been tabled on Thursday, for instance to the Dimitrakopoulos-Leinen report, you will see that there are over 100 amendments which are tabled by individuals, supposedly in the name of their political group, but this may well not be the case.
I notice, for instance, that the EPP Group has over 100 amendments in its name but signed by 18 different Members, none of them the coordinator or leader of the group. Over 20 of these amendments are contradictory, so they cannot possibly all be the position of the EPP Group. Some are identical, tabled by different Members; and there is even a case of two identical amendments being tabled by the same Member. Could the EPP Group please get its act together!
So much time is spent and wasted on voting as it is and this is a way to get around the rationalisation of the Rules of Procedure we adopted as a Parliament last year. Amendments must either be tabled in the name of 32 Members or in the name of a political group and actually represent the position of that political group, not of the individual who happens to table them in the name of the group so as to circumvent the limitation on tabling rules in plenary.
I would ask the sessional services to verify in future that such amendments really are in the name of a group."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples