Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-05-05-Speech-2-447"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090505.30.2-447"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"−
Mr President, I will try to answer my fellow Members. Mr Leinen, you are absolutely right: it was a slip of the tongue. The procedures are completely different when it comes to appealing to the Commission under the provisions of the possible future Treaty, and appealing to Parliament via the petitions procedure.
However, in the hypothetical event that these two types of appeal – which are very different in terms of place and format – should concern an identical issue, we decided that the petitioners should be notified in order to ascertain whether or not it is appropriate to continue our investigations. We simply opted to strengthen coordination in this scenario. I do spell things out, but you were right to ask me for this linguistic clarification.
I will continue my linguistic explanations with Mr Botopoulos’s question. Obviously, there is no question of adding to this Tower of Babel, which is already extremely complex: just look at the number of interpreters still here this evening. We are quite clear that it is Parliament’s Bureau which decides that petitions and correspondence with petitioners will be drawn up in other languages used in a Member State. These languages must therefore be recognised in the State, and the State must ask for this. This is currently the case for only four languages. If tomorrow I wanted to write in Volapük – an imaginary language – clearly it would not be recognised by any State, and neither Parliament nor the Bureau would reply in that language; all that is clearly specified.
Regarding issues of conflict between the committees to which Mr Corbett drew our attention, I would point out that my report states, in accordance with Rule 46 and Annex VI, that the Committee on Petitions can already seek the opinion of another committee which has ‘specific responsibility for the issue under examination’. You say that, in this case, conflict could still arise. Well, we have put in place an arbiter, since the Committee on Petitions will not be able to issue own-opinion reports or go against an own-initiative report of a responsible committee unless the Conference of Presidents allows it. We have a referral system, namely the Conference of Presidents, which will decide whether it is down to the Committee on Petitions or the responsible committee to take action, in the event that both committees are unable to reach an agreement. We have therefore made provision for a safeguard in any case.
I think that, with those clarifications made, we can conclude, Mr President. I have waited almost 20 years for the right to speak for six minutes in the Chamber, but to do so before an audience such as this was a real pleasure."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples