Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-12-11-Speech-2-036"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011211.2.2-036"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"President Prodi stated that he was attached to interinstitutional cooperation and full transparency. I, of course, welcome such a statement: it is essential for this process to work. But you have to start by respecting the procedures that are agreed already, that are known and that are laid down in writing.
I have here the Framework Agreement between Parliament and the Commission agreed just two years ago. I also have Rule 57 of our Rules of Procedure which lays down how we deal with the annual legislative programme and reflects the agreements that have been entered into in the past with the Commission. That rule states that the Commission shall present its Annual Legislative Programme in October. Of course, we know that there can be delays, that has happened before. But it specifies that this Annual Legislative Programme must refer to all proposals of a legislative nature and every act included in the programme must indicate the legal basis and the timetable envisaged for its adoption. On these points, what we have had before us this week fails to respect our Rules of Procedure and existing agreements reached between the two institutions. The one positive innovation is that Rule 57(6) has for the first time been implemented with the statement made by the President-in-Office which I like others welcome.
In fact we have a work programme, a work programme – not a legislative programme – outlining priorities. To outline priorities is fine and the priorities chosen are good ones – perhaps obvious ones, but nevertheless the right ones. But we need the detail, we need the detail that is required in our Rules of Procedure and in the Framework Agreement. We need it for our committees to be able to get to work and plan their work and appoint rapporteurs who can work with the Commission in the pre-legislative phase. It is in the Commission's interest as well as in our own interest. I understand that we are now receiving the detail by e-mail, but even that, as far as I can see, fails to mention the legal basis and the timetable of each proposal.
General debates are all very well on broad priorities, but we have that several times a year when the Commission presents its programme, when each Presidency presents its programme, and we tend to have that sort of debate surrounding each European Council meeting as well. What we are supposed to get there is the nitty-gritty detail as well.
President Prodi is right to say that the procedure needs improving, but we have a procedure to negotiate such improvements, the Malmström report in our committee for example. Mrs Malmström is already in dialogue with the Commission on that and, frankly, we should have waited for the outcome of that before changing procedure. The President of the Commission cannot unilaterally take existing agreements and tear them up. New procedures must be agreed by both institutions."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples