Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-01-18-Speech-3-447"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060118.26.3-447"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I should like to make it absolutely clear that I am not here to take the place of Mr Martin, but that my group has given me two minutes even though I am not a member of the committee responsible. I am very grateful, Mr President, that you are present for these questions, and I am also very grateful that you are a President who endeavours to keep in check the good many abuses by some Members in invoking the Rules of Procedure. I do not wish to discuss now whether the status of a number of Members is perhaps being enhanced by penalising their questionable conduct in the Rules of Procedure. Nor do I wish to discuss whether several members of the Presidency of Parliament perhaps simply have less sovereignty, which even an amendment to the Rules of Procedure cannot confer on them. I expressly support the inclusion in this text of breaches of the rules governing confidentiality. I do feel somewhat uneasy, however, that the Committee on Legal Affairs, which is responsible for the mandate of Members, could not be consulted on this text.
The Committee on Constitutional Affairs is responsible for the Rules of Procedure with good reason: the matter is in good hands there. Sometimes, however, Members’ rights do conflict with provisions in the Rules of Procedure. Naturally, Members’ rights are not restricted to merely the right to vote: we are a parliament and not a ‘votament’. It is with good reason that, if Members are absent and cannot present their arguments, courts may declare a vote unlawful. If the Legal Affairs Committee had been involved, I would have raised an issue that goes to the heart of the matter. Up to now, a Member who had been penalised could request five minutes’ speaking time in Parliament – this was decided by Members – which is also why no right of appeal was necessary. That procedure, which would have been a public one, is now to disappear into the parliamentary bodies, to an extent, which I consider a step backwards. Nevertheless, I support it, albeit with some misgivings. I would ask, however, that, in the event of future discussions that venture beyond merely organisational procedures, where the mandate could even theoretically be affected, the Legal Affairs Committee be included in the consultation process."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples