Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-06-10-Speech-1-071"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020610.4.1-071"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, before I consider a number of the proposals to amend our Rules of Procedure which my group does not go along with, I really must express my sincere thanks to our rapporteur Mr Corbett for the immense amount of work he has done. We have been discussing for over a year now how our work in Parliament can be made more efficient and more lively. The commitment Mr Corbett has shown, both in committee and together with other Members of this House, to bringing about changes in this area is indeed admirable.
It is proposed in the report that Rule 50 of the Rules of Procedure should be amended by the abolition of debates on topical and urgent subjects and the insertion of new rules introducing such things as a special debate on highly topical events, especially of a political nature. Such a special debate would be decided on at the beginning of each part-session on Monday afternoon. Although there is much to be said for this proposal, my group would prefer us to stick with the present rule.
Why is this so? The main argument against the innovation is that the special debate would not result in anything. It is not, in our view, acceptable to do without a vote in plenary on the issue in question, above all because our debates on matters of topical and urgent importance have hitherto seen us pass resolutions which express positions especially on human rights violations, which give significant support and encouragement to many who campaign for democracy and human rights in the countries in question. No, my group does not want us to let this important political tool fall from our hands.
Procedural matters are not just binding rules for our work together, but also have to do with power. This makes it all too understandable that small groups subject every paragraph to the minutest examination under the magnifying glass. The Rules of Procedure must ensure that groups are treated equally and must not limit small groups' parliamentary opportunities. I take these premises as my starting point in rejecting, on behalf of my group, the report's proposed amendment to Rule 110 of the Rules of Procedure, which amendment provides that, in future, groups will not be able to introduce amendments into plenary on their own; only two groups acting jointly, or 32 Members, will be able to do so.
This proposal has two snags. One is that it is not evident why 32 MEPs should have more rights than a political group. The other is that we consider it to be a group's legitimate parliamentary right to table amendments to be voted on in plenary. It goes without saying that amendments express the groups' political will. As for the argument presented by Mr van den Berg, that small groups' amendments have no chance anyway and that they get in the way of voting, I do not believe that that holds water.
In committee, I moved that the Rules of Procedure should be framed in gender-neutral language, and Mr Corbett agreed with this. That had not been done the last time, for some reason or other. I hope that something can now be done about this in cooperation with the services."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples