Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-10-12-Speech-4-010"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061012.3.4-010"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"The Council decision asking and authorising the Commission to submit a proposal for the creation of a Fundamental Rights Agency has now grown out of its infancy. Three years have passed, yet we still have the impression that there is no consensus among Member States on certain basic questions.
The process of harmonisation between the three institutions was a very important, happy and instructive experience for us. It revealed that Parliament, the Commission and the representatives of the current Presidency were able to come to an agreement on the most important questions, although no such agreement has been reached yet among the full membership of the Council. This efficient harmonisation, even if it concerns the future, as it were, gives me a great deal of confidence and optimism.
In the preparatory work, we agreed on the most important requirements. I would like to evoke simply the keywords here: we all want this institution to be independent, accountable and endowed with efficient organisation, and its work to be transparent, so that it will increase citizens’ trust in the work of the European institutions.
We have also accepted the outlines of its scope, since – as pointed out by Mrs Gál – we all maintain that the focus of the Agency should, first of all, be on the Member States and their institutions. The Agency should have the ability to express its opinion on European legislation concerning fundamental rights, with the competence as well to monitor third countries within a certain limited geographical area, since we did not wish to deprive the agency of its main area of concern, the European Community.
My task was to put forward a draft Council Resolution to Parliament, which has provoked extensive debate because there was and still is no complete agreement on whether or not the agency should have competence beyond the first pillar. I have to inform my fellow Members that in our original conception we endorsed extending the Agency’s competence to monitoring organisations belonging to the second pillar. As there did not seem to be any chance of consensus in this regard, I withdrew these proposals, as rapporteur, before the vote in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs.
Many of us are of the opinion, however, that it would diminish the importance of the Agency if we renounced broadening its scope to include the third pillar. For that reason, we stand firm in our resolve even though we never did nor do we now reject the idea of compromise, the idea of mutual compromise. Therefore, I wish to express my thanks to the Austrian and the Finnish Presidencies, but above all to Vice-President Frattini whose dedication and effectiveness helped us reach the eventual solution.
I wish to ask my fellow Members to support the proposals presented by the Committee on Civil Liberties together with the amendments therein. Afterwards, we will hand back the competence to the Commission, because it is up to the Commission to submit proposals to the Council, where we hope they will receive the necessary support."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples