Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-11-12-Speech-1-062"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011112.5.1-062"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, it is customary to thank rapporteurs but we genuinely want to pay tribute to Mrs Maij-Weggen for the work she has done on this. I would like to echo what Mrs Malmström has just said about the urgency of transparency and openness, especially in Parliament and I would like to endorse Mr Cashman's remark that this must be taken as a political responsibility. We, as elected politicians, are responsible to our electorate for ensuring that all proceedings are as open as possible.
With that in mind, I should like briefly to mention the amendments in the name of our Group. I hope Mrs Maij-Weggen will accept the first one, extending the rules to cover all committees. I only have limited experience of being a vice-chairman of the recent Echelon committee, but I see no reason why special committees and committees of inquiry should not be bound. The further extension later in the amendment that broads out the range of documents from Members which count as parliamentary documents is helpful as well. I hope that will be accepted.
On the question of political responsibility, it seems to us that for some questions the Conference of Presidents would be a better organ to decide matters than the Bureau, in the sense that in the Conference of Presidents people are representing their political party, whereas in the Bureau people are supposed to speak for the Parliament as a whole, rather than putting forward a political case.
Our third amendment suggests that we need a parliamentary definition of sensitive documents. Mr Cashman has challenged the validity of this. We think that within our rules, there is room for an expanded definition in relation to parliamentary documents. We will check that and withdraw the amendment if, on reflection, we think we have gone too far.
Finally, we should like a split vote in relation to the adoption of security rules for the EP to leave out the words ‘on the basis of a proposal from the Bureau’ which would again push the responsibility back on to the Conference of Presidents. However we very much appreciate the spirit in which Mrs Maij-Weggen has put this forward and we are grateful for her willingness to look carefully at our amendments.
Parliaments must be transparent. It is very sad that the more we open our glass-houses, the less people seem to look into them. The media need to help in this as well. If this Parliament is to be transparent it must be reported, as well as open."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples