Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-03-08-Speech-2-328"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050308.26.2-328"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the report that makes an appearance in this House every year is not a final report; it is both a report on work in progress and an expression of self-imposed standards for the quality control of the work we do in the Committee on Petitions.
Secondly, the Members of the European Parliament have an intense desire for more specialisation in this work and, thirdly, the public have an interest in seeing a more rigorous approach with regard to the timescales mentioned above and also greater transparency. They are entitled to see an improvement in the way they are able to track the progress of their petitions.
Various initiatives are in place to do justice to the extent, range and specialisation of our work. The extent and range of the Union’s policies are growing, and specialisation sometimes involves difficult details. In view of the course of the process, we need to be able to take decisions in good time. We have therefore proposed, as a result of our deliberations, that an ad hoc committee be set up to work out further details for the next annual report. Commissioner, we invite you most warmly to participate in this working party and to monitor its work.
To summarise, I should like to say – without any of the flourish customary in this House – that we are in fact pleasingly efficient, when you compare our work with that of many committees on petitions at national level. When the ministers for foreign affairs say that Europe needs a telephone number for the world, we can safely say that the European Parliament already has a letterbox for citizens. We have done a very good job from various points of view.
Firstly, we have some degree of overview of various national structures. Secondly, it is fully within our remit to intervene in processes implemented with varying degrees of success – Lisbon and Tampere, to name but two – which have not yet become well-established and are still in a state of flux. We are able to act on a number of abuses, with the Commission’s help, and thus also to showcase the reality of the European Union behind all the governmental channels.
A further reason why we are not doing so badly is that, compared with the national parliaments, we have very little obligation to follow majority or minority opinions, very little obligation to take account of protection and support for the relevant governing party.
Nevertheless, we should be striving for improvements, very general quality criteria for our work with regard to third parties. Firstly – and this is one of the demands made in the report – there should be a substantial shortening of the deadline for action by the Commission in response to our enquiry. Secondly, the deadline for a response by the Council or an individual Member State to the Commission should also be shortened.
We should also very much like a representative of the relevant Presidency to participate in the work of the Committee on Petitions. In addition, we should like to see the appointment of a Presidency representative or coordinator responsible for petitions, ideally as early as six months before the start of the Presidency, to enable important petitions to be followed up in time.
Finally, we must take action on the issue of the distinction between the European Ombudsman – for which we now have staffing rights – as an institution, and the Committee on Petitions as an instrument. I think that there is still a good measure of misconception in this regard. If we can be more clearly identified, we will undoubtedly be better placed to carry out our respective duties.
However, we have to consider not only outward-looking, but also inward-looking, quality criteria. By its very nature, the Committee on Petitions is a committee that is unique in terms of the extent and range of the work that comes its way. I know that quite a few Members have certain reflexes regarding this unique committee and think that we expect to be given special treatment, but, in my opinion, it is in the interests of the European Parliament and of every single Member that we are able to deal with the petitions submitted as efficiently as possible.
Although I said that the work of the Committee on Petitions is good on balance, it must nevertheless be said that individual Members sometimes see the work as positively unsatisfactory. Deficiencies are present and initial actions have been identified in three areas. The first relates to the staff. In our opinion, the committee has insufficient staff to achieve continuity in its work in terms of content and procedures. Quite colloquially, I would say that the House’s administration sometimes gives the impression of seeing the role of the services of the Committee on Petitions as that of a punishment battalion. This should be changed. We also need to improve the software system that we have."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples