Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-05-16-Speech-4-145"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020516.5.4-145"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, two things: firstly, I really would urge the groups to ensure that their speakers are actually present. There were many speakers, also in our group, who would have liked to rise during this important debate – and I would like to congratulate the Commissioner on his excellent statement – but who were not granted speaking time, while the Members who were granted speaking time left afterwards. I really would ask for this point to be addressed formally to the groups for once as criticism from the Bureau.
The second point I wish raise is this: I really would ask for more sensible timetabling in future. We had to cut our topical and urgent debate this afternoon from three hours to 90 minutes. Now we find that there is to be a break, and that we will be voting at 5.30 p.m. instead of 6.30 p.m. as originally planned. We would have had plenty of time from now until the original vote at 6.30 p.m. to accommodate three hours of the topical and urgent debate, which is actually what is required by the Rules of Procedure. I would ask you to draw this point to the attention of the Conference of Presidents and the Bureau as well. There was absolutely no reason to cut short the debate. Of course, if no one has anything to say, there is no point in continuing the debate, but when there is too little time available, as was the case with the topical and urgent debate here, there really is no reason why the full amount of time until 6.30 p.m. cannot be used, especially as the people who are here now will also be here tomorrow and the others have already left anyway."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples