Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-05-05-Speech-2-435"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090505.29.2-435"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, may I first begin by thanking my shadow rapporteurs, who have got to grips with the detail of this issue: Mr Szájer, Mr Duff, Mrs Frassoni and Mrs Dahl. Without their help and work we would not have been able to bring this work to fruition.
Finally, I will not address the Committee on Petitions issues, because we are about to have a specific debate on that and I will come back to that point then. I will just finally say, in response to Mr Gollnisch, that he is wrong on two counts. This is not the same amendment that was rejected in committee. It is a different one, a different approach to the subject. I had grave reservations about the amendment that was submitted in the committee. I am happy to support the one that has been submitted to plenary.
Secondly, the oldest member is not common to all parliaments of the world, as he suggested. It is to many, but it is by no means the only system that exists, and it is quite legitimate for us, as a European Parliament, to look at the various systems that exist and choose one which is suitable for our circumstances. It will be up to the House to decide.
May I secondly confirm what has been mentioned already. This report was actually split into two. There is another report which we have not brought to plenary yet – which we will have to revisit in the next Parliament – concerning how we adapt our procedures to the Lisbon Treaty if it comes into force. We were, of course, looking at this as preparation, without prejudice to the ratification that will, hopefully, take place tomorrow in the Czech Senate and later in the year in Ireland, but we will return to that with the preparatory work having been done if the Treaty is ratified.
Secondly, may I confirm that, indeed, there are rules here which revisit, as Mr Szájer pointed out, recent reforms that flowed from the first report of Dagmar Roth-Behrendt’s reform working group. It concerns this question of initiative reports, where we have a procedure which many Members feel is a little bit too inflexible now. We have made it slightly more flexible. For a start, the debate will not just be a short presentation by the rapporteur, a reply from the Commission and that is it. There will be up to 10 minutes of catch-the-eye possible for such occasions.
Secondly, when it comes to amendments, these are now prohibited for own-initiative reports. Instead, groups can table an alternative motion for resolution. That right would continue, but in addition we would allow amendments if they are tabled by a 10th of the Members of the House. Mr Wielowieyski, who has just left us, has criticised that point, but at the moment there is no right to amend initiative reports whatsoever. This enables a restricted right.
We do not want to open the floodgates and have hundreds of amendments rewriting lengthy resolutions by a committee of 700-and-something Members, but on the other hand a limited right of amendment where there is a strong wish for it, we felt, was a reasonable compromise and a right balance.
Another way in which a previous reform from a number of years ago is being revisited is the amendment by the ALDE Group concerning recasting. I think that is also a welcome adjustment to the procedures that we have at the moment.
May I also confirm that lots of new ideas have come from other Members. I mentioned some earlier. I forgot to mention the article on the
which Mr Botopoulos and Mr Onesta can claim the paternity for. There are other ideas on the roll-call voting for legislative reports – not for all final votes but final votes on legislative reports, which I think I did mention earlier.
Finally, the points where I disagree with some Members. Mr Duff, the rule on when there are a large number of amendments in plenary and the President can ask a committee to look at it: it is not a referral back to committee of the report. The committee simply acts as a filter for the amendments in plenary so that we do not have to spend several hours voting, but only on those amendments which have a certain degree of support. It is not a referral back.
Second, the point raised by Ms Frassoni about opinion-giving committees having the right to table amendments in plenary. I myself have grave doubts about whether that is a good idea or not, but it came from the reform working group on which you sat. It was endorsed by the Conference of Presidents. That was something that had a degree of consensus behind it, and therefore we are submitting it to the House for approval or, indeed, rejection. We will see how the House votes tomorrow."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples