Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-09-04-Speech-2-290"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-09-04"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Safety and air transport2
dcterms:Language	"el"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010904.11.2-290"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-09-04-Speech-2-2912
lpv:speaker	lp:Emmanouil Mastorakis2
lpv:spokenAs	member; PES (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; CONT (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Slovenia Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-10-08--2002-01-14)3 vice-chair; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegation for relations with the Maghreb countries and the Arab Maghreb Union (1999-10-06--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Panellinio Socialistiko Kinima (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, when it comes to the Schmitt report, we must congratulate both the Commission, on its proposal in response to the call from Parliament and, of course, the rapporteur on his sterling work. The basic features of an agency such as this must be independence of action and efficiency, both of which apply in the present case. However, having myself acted as rapporteur for a similar agency, the Maritime Safety Agency, which we recently debated here in the House, and having therefore addressed a similar issue, I should like to take this opportunity, without repeating the views already expressed, of endorsing the general view that similar rules should govern similar administrative mechanisms. This obviously logical precept does not always apply to European Union texts or to European Parliament texts because, as we all know full well, each final text depends on the circumstances at the time in the various debating fora, especially when it comes to the vote. For example, the proposal by our parliamentary committee which prevailed in plenary on the administrative board of the Maritime Safety Agency is completely different from the corresponding proposal in the case being debated today and amendments to improve it have, of course, been proposed. Similarly, the Commission proposals also differ. Is there any justification for these differences? The same question could be applied to numerous points in many of our legislative texts. This is not something the relevant Union services, including Parliament, can be proud of. Having said which, I think the Commission could run a comparative check on these texts and then table proposals for similar provisions to be adopted for similar cases and existing unwarranted contradictions to be abolished."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph