Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-07-07-Speech-1-228"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080707.22.1-228"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, parliamentary procedure is not a mere formality in our work; it is the very essence of the work of any parliament, even a parliament like ours, which has 780 Members from so many different countries, is so far from the public eye and, as a result, is often far removed from matters of interest to the public; a parliament with known procedures when it comes to debate – and the debate here in plenary is simply a formal procedure in relation to the real work carried out in the committees.
Any effort, then, to improve the work of this Parliament’s plenary sessions, on the basis of certain principles, is always welcome: firstly, the principle of efficiency, so that we hold discussions in order to arrive at options and finally decisions; secondly, the principle of democracy, a level playing field for all, regardless of the power they wield, so that everyone gets a hearing; and thirdly, the principle of ‘vitality’, I would call it, so that what we say is of interest to the public.
How well are these principles served by the proposal in this particular report? Satisfactorily, I think, although there is room for some small improvements, which I shall suggest.
On the issue of the ‘short presentation’, I agree. There is one reason why it is a very good idea to have a short presentation: it means that there will never be a report that is not discussed at all. I shall give you an example: the very interesting report by Mr Duff, on which we shall vote tomorrow, concerning the way in which some kind of control is to be exercised over the Commission, will not be discussed at all, although it would be a very good opportunity to use this shortened procedure.
I therefore say ‘yes’ to this, but beyond that I would point out – we are seeing it today, we see it every time – how interesting the catch-the-eye procedure is, and how uninteresting a discussion is when only the rapporteur and the Commission take part, although it would be interesting if others could speak.
One final comment: with regard to questions, I think the course we are taking is quite correct. Lastly, on the own-initiative reports, I think amendments to these reports should be discussed."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples