Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-12-11-Speech-2-033"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-12-11"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Presentation by Mr Prodi of the Commission work for the 2002 programme and the communication on the future of the European Union and strengthening the Community method2
dcterms:Language	"sv"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20011211.2.2-033"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-12-11-Speech-2-0342
lpv:speaker	lp:Cecilia Malmström2
lpv:spokenAs	member; AFCO (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Folkpartiet liberalerna (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 vice-chair; Delegation to the EU-Hungary Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Latvia Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3 member_of_the_bureau; ELDR (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, my fellow MEPs have presented a great deal of justified criticism concerning the procedures in relation to today’s programme. Allow me, however, to welcome the fact that a kind of evaluation from the year gone by is included and that there is more strategic thinking when it comes to the Commission’s intended way of working. Now let us talk about the future, however. President Prodi outlined, of course, how it will be possible in future to deal with the issue of the annual programme. As Parliament’s rapporteur, I have had the opportunity to monitor this matter for quite a long time. I hope we can conclude it soon and begin work on the programme for 2003. As the co-decision procedure has developed, Parliament and the Council, too, must also play a larger role in devising the annual programme. That does not mean that the Commission’s right of initiative is being questioned, but that all three institutions should be more in step in encouraging both openness and efficiency in our joint work. Moreover, it would then be easier for national parliaments and citizens to follow the process. Where the timetable is concerned, it looks as if we can now perhaps agree. There is an introductory presentation of the general priorities, followed by thorough discussions between the Commission and the committees concerned with a view to establishing the details. It is important for the parliamentary committees to be involved at an early stage because it is the committees which will then deal with the proposal. We can then present the definitive proposal by no later than the beginning of November. When it comes to the content of the programme, last year’s criticism does not mean that we do not want any legislative proposals. On the contrary, our common framework agreement states that what we are concerned with here is the annual legislative programme. Parliament has demanded clear proposals in order of precedence, explanatory statements with timetables, budget references, legal bases and information about who is responsible. Follow-up and evaluation must also be improved. As we have seen, a very great many proposals are being re-introduced, at the same time as other proposals are disappearing. It should be possible to set up a joint database to monitor the decision-making process for each topic. A process which is clear, open and predictable should benefit all the institutions and also the citizens we are here to serve. It is our joint responsibility to ensure that this happens."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph