Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-06-10-Speech-1-056"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020610.4.1-056"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, thank you, but I am not the first to do so. Ms Thorning-Schmidt created the precedent not very long ago.
We also propose to scrap the topical and urgent procedure, not the subjects of course, these would be dealt with by other existing procedures or new procedures more appropriate to those subjects.
We also suggest changing the way we have our debates. Some Members are strongly in favour of switching to a "catch-the-eye" system as Mr Provan proposed, some strongly against. We have come up with a compromise: we start each debate, as now, with speakers from each group, maybe one or two or even three rounds of speakers, but allowing ourselves for the possibility of finishing with a "catch-the-eye" debate. That would enliven our proceedings. The same people might speak again in response to what has been said and no doubt Members who have stayed in the Chamber throughout the debate will catch the eye of the President and be able to speak.
That is a reasonable and workable compromise. It conforms to what the Conference of Presidents said, because it has the word "may". It could be tried out for a period and if it does not work we can abandon it. If it does work we can continue. I would urge those in the House who are hesitating to give it a try. Why not try out something new? See if it works. Give us the chance to enliven our debates.
Mr President, I see it says seven minutes, but if you remember you interrupted me for at least two minutes at the beginning.
I will close with a short remark on my other report. I will not go through all the items in my own report. The other report was drafted at a time when we were facing accusations that our Rules discriminated against Members who do not belong to a political group. Our committee made an inventory of all the places in the Rules where you could imagine that might be the case or where it clearly is the case. We came up with possible remedies to each of those cases. Those will be put to the House.
There are some that the House will judge are not necessary and we may have been over-zealous in our work. There are others the House will be able to approve. It is appropriate that the groups look at this. I know some have suddenly asked for more time. That is curious for a report that has been ready for a year and a half and has been envisaged for some time that it be taken in conjunction with this main report of mine, the general revision. I would regret it if it has to be referred back to committee. If necessary then fine, but it would be better to proceed and deal with this matter, recognising that further work on this is required at other levels besides the Rules of Procedure
I will stop now to allow myself some time to reply to the debate at the end.
It is with great pleasure that I am able at last to present these two reports, the general revision of the rules and a particular report which has been waiting even longer to be put on our agenda. I should like to comment mainly on the general amendment of the Rules of Procedure.
There are several reasons that compel us to revise our Rules and that are at the origin of this report. One is that we are facing enlargement and we will soon be a parliament of at least 732 Members. We must streamline our procedures and focus more on priorities if we are to function effectively as the democratic voice of the peoples of Europe.
Secondly, the Nice Treaty, although not yet ratified, implies a certain number of specific changes which, if we vote for them today, will come into force as the Treaty of Nice, or equivalent provisions, come into force. We are not prejudicing the result of any national decision-taking procedure with regard to ratification of that Treaty.
Thirdly, there was the series of problems identified by the Bureau of Parliament in the report by Mr Provan, who is sitting just behind you ready to chair this debate, and a very appropriate chairman he will be.
All this has been drawn together in the committee's report and it is a package of nearly 120 specific changes to our Rules of Procedure. Over 80 of them are not controversial. There are, however, a few that are and I will focus my comments on just a few of those.
Firstly, there is a whole package of measures to try and streamline our procedures in plenary, to try to decongest plenary, especially at voting time, but also in general. That is the item that Members single out as being in need of reform, but it is very difficult to agree on reforms meeting with the necessary support. We have put forward a number of suggestions that non-controversial items, i.e. items that get a majority of more than 90% in committee, should be assumed to be non-controversial and go through plenary with a single vote – no amendments and no debate – unless there is a specific request to have a debate or to invite amendments. The burden of proof would be that way round.
Secondly, for some own-initiative reports we should have the option of noting the report of the committee as it stands and forwarding it to the other institutions, without trying to redraft paragraph by paragraph in plenary in a drafting committee of over 600 members.
Thirdly, when he or she judges it useful, the President should be allowed to send reports which have attracted a very large number of amendments back to committee for the committee to act as a sort of filter and test which amendments have a measure of support and which do not. Those that are supported by less than one tenth of the members in committee would not need to be put to the vote in plenary because it is clear that they have no chance of being adopted. They will remain on paper, they will have been circulated and put on record but they need not detain the whole House with voting on them. That, along with several other minor measures which for reasons of time I will not go into, should decongest our plenary."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples