Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-15-Speech-2-093"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010515.5.2-093"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"The right of the ordinary citizen to petition the European Parliament is one that was felt to be important enough to be part of the Treaties and I believe that it merits such standing. It is an extremely effective way for anyone to make direct contact with the heart of the European institutions on matters which may not be of political importance but which are of consequence to European citizens and residents. Some may question the benefit of petitioning Parliament, but the recent success of David Petrie, who had received support from the Petitions Committee and the European Parliament as a whole for his petition, in the Italian courts in gaining equal recognition for non-Italian lecturers highlight what a petition can bring about.
My co-rapporteur and I have kept this very much in mind in our report. We have pushed for this right to be made easier to access and exercise, not only by exploiting new technologies and media but by reform of the procedures which govern petitions once they are received by Parliament and passed on to other institutions.
The current system for petitioning allows petitions to be submitted electronically, but only as an initial form. Follow-up is done via post, and this can obviously create delays in the preliminary stage of proceedings, well before it comes before the committee. Alternatives such as electronic signatures and electronic correspondence need to be investigated if Parliament wants to keep up with the increasing number of petitions that are submitted.
Clearer rules for treatment of petitions once they have been deemed admissible are also urgently required. The Petitions Committee can currently ask the Commission for information on a particular subject, but has very little say over the time the Commission or any other institution can take to provide an answer to the committee's questions, or even whether MEPs can have access to those answers once received. For example, we in the Petitions Committee are currently considering petitions on the Lloyd's organisation, but are denied the opportunity to view the response given by the UK government to the Commission's questionnaire on the matter. If the European institutions and Member State governments are serious about transparency in their working methods, then their treatment of petitions needs review. It does not help to see the very behaviour alleged in a petition replicated in its treatment. Member States in particular need to pay more serious attention to citizens claiming their European rights.
The right to petitions should aim to strengthen the concept of European citizenship, protecting the four freedoms of those in the Union and ensuring that European legislation is properly and efficiently implemented. As we move into the 21st century, with a Union of possible 28 members and an increasing body of legislation at a European level, the role and process of the petition needs to change in order to maintain its importance and usefulness."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples