Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-25-Speech-4-034"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030925.4.4-034"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, it is very easy to react on emotion but this House should not react on emotion, it should react on facts. That is why I cannot support this report. I believe it to be highly selective and deeply flawed. It fails to give a balanced assessment. The quotes used in the report are highly selective and outside the context, and therefore fail to give a fair summary of the legal situation.
There are errors of fact, for example relating to the Lloyd's accounting system. Closed accounts do not, as is suggested, come back to life. Rather, as with all insurance, claims are made against a policy after it has ended. The report states that directives have not been implemented. This is an opinion. It has not been proven. Also, the report does not detail the substantial efforts made by Lloyd's to alleviate the Names' losses. But there were also problems within the Committee on Petitions. I repeatedly pointed out that the way Mr Perry was trying to set up a committee of inquiry was not the correct way, was against the Rules of Procedure and, indeed, the Treaties.
Sir Nigel Sheinwald did not seek to block an inquiry, but pointed out quite rightly, that any inquiry should be within the Rules of Procedure and indeed our Treaties. Let me quote the relevant section of his letter. He believes that 'they do not permit a committee of inquiry to be established where the alleged facts are being examined before a court and while the case is still subject to legal proceedings'. As we have heard from the Commissioner, there is now a case before the Appeal Court of the United Kingdom, and it is right that we should be very careful and considered before we set up a committee of inquiry. Again, Mr Perry has used comments and quotes from the Jaffrey case in the Court of Appeal selectively.
I could go on and on, but let me reassure Mr Perry. The PSE Group will vote in favour of his amendments. I believe his amendments actually tie up some of the problems that we have been dealing with. Indeed I am pleased that at my suggestion Parliament's services have called for other changes and, in particular, the deletion of Mr Perry's insistence in paragraph 5 that his explanatory statement should be incorporated into the resolution.
These are just some concrete examples of changes that had to be made to a deeply flawed report. I will finish on this. If, in this Parliament, we raise expectations for citizens and petitioners that we cannot meet, we do so at our peril. Mr Perry's process throughout has been genuine and sincere, but I believe he is raising expectations that cannot be met. He is demanding documents that he knows cannot be supplied. I am the author of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. Mr Perry is making demands of the Commission for an inquiry which he knows the Commission cannot make.
Finally, the PSE Group will support this but, in all honesty I have to say to the House, with my hand on my heart, I cannot support this report and therefore I will not."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples