Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-04-21-Speech-3-096"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040421.7.3-096"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"I now turn to Mrs Boogerd-Quaak's report on the freedom of expression, which I was invited to address earlier today. I shall point out a number of elements that have been drawn to my attention.
In making this proposal to you I am trying to strike a balance between the rights of different Groups in the House and the preferences of one or another to try to conduct our business in a reasonably orderly fashion. I am prepared to put my proposal to you in accordance with Rule 19. If the House rejects the proposal I shall decide on the basis of Rule 130(3) to put to the vote first the original text of the report, paragraph by paragraph, and to vote on that alone.
That is my proposal. I am prepared to hear one speaker from each Group, to vote and then make a ruling.
We have 338 amendments. I referred a request to the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs to consider the amendments under Rule 130a. I have received a report back from the committee. All the amendments tabled have received favourable votes from at least one-tenth of the members of the committee and so, under the Rules of Procedure, the amendments are entitled to stand.
I had received a letter from Mr Podestà requesting that the report be declared inadmissible. I replied to Mr Podestà and I sent a copy of our correspondence to the Civil Liberties Committee. I felt that, under the Rules, certain parts of the text could be reviewed, possibly involving the publication of a corrigendum; but that the report, as such, was admissible.
Before the debate yesterday, I received a request from Mr Ribeiro e Castro, on behalf of the UEN Group, to apply Rule 143 on the inadmissibility of the matter. The Vice-President in the Chair at the time ruled out this request because no notification had been given 24 hours in advance and because I, as President, had already decided that the report was admissible.
I have since received a letter from Mr Poettering requesting a review of the decision not to refer the report back to committee. In his letter, Mr Poettering asks me once again to review the possibility of referral back, using the prerogatives and powers of the Presidency. In sticking to my decision, I am encouraged by the comments I have received from the chairman of the Civil Liberties Committee, Mr Hernández Mollar, who pointed out that the political groups shared my evaluation on the issue of admissibility in terms of the report overall. I thus intend to hold to the view that the report is indeed admissible in its totality, although some corrections may be required.
I am prepared to take a vote on the referral back before the start of the vote on the report. This is in accordance with the Rules, it is not a question of personal preference. The House can do this at any time and we need to respect that fact.
So, why are we not voting right now? Here we begin a rather sorry story. Yesterday the services received 51 pages of requests for roll-call, split and separate votes for the Boogerd-Quaak report on the freedom of expression and information. This would amount to a total of 1 200 single votes, in addition to the 338 amendments, resulting in a vote that could last for four hours or more.
Secondly, under these conditions, it was physically impossible for the services to prepare the vote overnight in time for voting today. At the end of the debate last night, the Vice-President in the Chair therefore announced that the report would be voted on Thursday. I have been looking into the matter – not just because it was raised today, but also because of its complexity – on the basis of the powers conferred on me, as President, by our Rules, especially the interpretation of Rule 19(1), which confers on the President 'the power to put texts to the vote in an order other than that set out in the document to be voted on', and also Rule 130 concerning the order of voting on amendments.
I also fully recognise the rights of groups to table requests under our Rules. On this basis I wish to propose to you the following package. First, the vote would take place tomorrow at noon. Second, I shall allow a normal vote on all amendments, but no split votes and no roll-call votes on them. I shall also allow all requests for split votes concerning the original paragraphs of the motion for a resolution, but I shall allow only one roll-call vote per paragraph, according to indications supplied by Groups. This, I regret to inform you, would still give a total of 600 votes and a voting time that could last for two hours. It would, however, mean that this suggestion would rule out 1000 split votes on the amendments."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples