Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-11-30-Speech-3-191"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051130.17.3-191"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, firstly I wish to thank Mr Duff for his report, which has the – highly commendable – aim of rendering Parliament’s procedure for the hearings of Commissioners-designate transparent and coherent.
The hearings procedure is a political exercise used by the European Parliament to increase the democratic legitimacy of the Commission before Parliament. It is clear, therefore, that careful reflection is required when any changes to this procedure are proposed.
As everybody knows, in May last year the President of the European Parliament and the President of the European Commission signed an extremely important document, consisting of the framework agreement on relations between Parliament and the Commission.
This framework agreement, along with the Treaties, constitutes the essential reference point. In item 7 there is a specific provision on the appointment of the new Commission. Three principles which must be applied during the hearings are very clearly detailed there: the principle of transparency and openness, the principle of fairness and the principle of consistency. These principles were decided by common agreement and were signed last May by Parliament and the Commission, and must be applied throughout the entire procedure.
That said, I wish to draw the attention of the rapporteur and my fellow Members to two points.
The first concerns the consultation of the Commission President-designate in the context of the hearings procedure. The framework agreement explicitly provides that Parliament establish the framework agreement and arrange contact with the Commission President-designate, in good time and before the start of the approval procedure for the new Commission. It also lays down that Parliament must take account of any comments made by the President-designate, as stated also in Parliament’s Rules of Procedure. For this reason, recital E of Mr Duff’s report should be interpreted in the sense that the President of the Commission has to be consulted in good time, thereby giving him the opportunity to be heard, and for any comments he has to be accorded due consideration. I therefore consider the formula set out by the rapporteur to be good.
The second point concerns the replacement of a member of the College. I personally am in favour of the principle, also set out in the framework agreement between Parliament and the Commission, according to which, in the case of a Commissioner being replaced during the College’s term of office, the relevant parliamentary committee has the right, as well as the duty, to meet and hear the new member of the Commission. This is unquestionably an important principle.
I wish, however, to point out that, while the term ‘Commissioner-designate’ is used in the report, the current Treaty on European Union clearly establishes that the new member of the College, in the case of a replacement, is not termed ‘Commissioner-designate’ but rather ‘full Commissioner’ right from the moment of his appointment. It is of course clearly understood that – even if a full Commissioner – the relevant parliamentary committee must meet and hear him before he can begin to carry out his term of office.
These are the considerations I wish to leave for the rapporteur, as confirmation of the highly positive approach both the Commission and I myself take to the views expressed."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples