Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2016-12-13-Speech-2-118-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20161213.3.2-118-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I am delighted that there is, in general, a very broad level of support for what we propose to review our Rules of Procedure, even if there are still some misgivings on one point or another. Let me just respond to four or five of the key issues that have been raised.
First, the complaint from my good friend Mr Šefčovič on behalf of the Commission. Indeed, the Commission was present at all our committee meetings discussing this. I did not once hear the Commission ask for any extra consultation beyond that, though of course, nonetheless, our President has written to you to inform you of all the amendments tabled at plenary stage after we had finished our work in the Committee. But what we are doing in relation to the Commission is largely about how we organise what we already do as a Parliament, notably in terms of the Commission hearings. Some of them, other ones, actually respond to concerns of the Commission, such as on the volume of parliamentary questions tabled in writing to the Commission. But I am sure that after the vote we can explore any issues that you may feel perhaps are still there and we can look at practical solutions to that.
Second, on the question of thresholds. I repeat, we have rationalised not raised the thresholds. The lower threshold is actually lower than it is in our present Rules because it means 38 Members instead of 40 Members can trigger a whole range of parliamentary procedures. The medium and the higher thresholds are rarely used, but they are used in cases which already now have a threshold that is as high, if not actually higher. So I do not think we have made any of these procedures more difficult for smaller groups or small numbers of Members.
Third, on the issue of transparency. We have introduced legislative footprints. We have toughened up the declaration of Members’ financial interests. We are proposing to ban second jobs and lobbying of Parliament or the institutions. We are tightening up on the use of badges by outside people. We are bringing more transparency to first reading agreements and to trialogues. What we have not done on transparency are either things that are illegal, that we cannot do via the Rules of Procedure but where we need to change the primary legislation such as the Members’ Statute; or things where we need to reach agreement with the other institutions. That is true, but those issues are still open. We can revisit them and I am sure we will.
And finally, may I address Mr Ferreira’s notion that this is a coup. A coup. If you really think that a working group composed of representatives from every single political group in the European Parliament reporting back to public meetings of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs is a coup, then I really am astonished. As I said, this also lowers many of the thresholds. It introduces a new procedure for topical debates where every Group in turn can choose a debate on a subject of its choice. It introduces a number of other safeguards for individual Members. This is not a coup. And if you were implying that as an individual Member you find it difficult to make your political points within the wide, very wide, range of possibilities that this Parliament offers to individual Members, then I suggest that you may have some difficulty actually doing your job as an MEP.
Let me finish, however, by commending this package to the House. It is reasonable, it is balanced. Even on the points that are still subject to some contention I am confident that a large majority will back what the working group and I, as rapporteur, have put before this House today."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples