Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-05-05-Speech-2-440"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090505.30.2-440"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, it is with great pleasure that my group can announce its support for the report by Mr Onesta, who has done a fine job in looking at this, and did it some time ago. It is a somewhat curious fact that the Conference of Presidents waited so long to put this report on our plenary agenda.
However, the fact that it has waited so long and has put it on the agenda at the same time as my report means there is a slight interface on one point between our two reports, which Ms Frassoni alluded to in our previous debate. That is the matter of cooperation between the Committee on Petitions and the committee responsible for the subject matter. Everyone agrees that they both have to cooperate and they need to work together, but there is an argument about what you could call the bottom line: if they disagree, who has the final say?
You can understand both sides. The members of the Petitions Committee feel that they have received petitions, they have looked into the matter, they may have had hearings, they may have had a visit, they have sometimes found something that is perhaps wrong in the legislation that the subject committee has dealt with, and they feel they have got to grips with that and should have the final say if the subject committee disagrees. On the other hand, you can understand the subject committee. Why should it suddenly find another committee responsible for the subject matter just because somebody sent a petition to that other committee? You can understand both sides.
What I have tried to do to reconcile the two is to say that yes, of course, they should work closely together and, at the end of the day, the Petitions Committee must listen to the views of the subject committee. It can, if it so chooses, depart from the views of the subject committee – it is allowed to do so – but if it does, the price to pay is that the subject committee has the right to table amendments in plenary.
I think that is a reasonable quid pro quo. I do not understand why Ms Frassoni said earlier that would destroy the Petitions Committee. I really have no understanding of how she could reach such a conclusion. Certainly, the members of the Petitions Committee in my group have told me that they are happy with that compromise and I think it is a workable compromise. It is a compromise. If you are an extremist on one side or the other of this argument you will not be happy, but I think it is a workable compromise. It blends in very nicely with the excellent report by Mr Onesta, and I think altogether this package will work."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples