Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-10-22-Speech-1-132"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20071022.15.1-132"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, we have a free vote in our group, so I have no authority to speak for all my colleagues. We are again discussing the basic question whether a parliamentary service is worth the money or whether we must tighten our belt in response to the imperative of cutting costs. Let me say at the outset that I also regard the new concept of video presentation as a good idea which should not be jettisoned. Those people who want to have an immediate impression of our parliamentary proceedings can do so, and that is right and proper.
In my opinion, however, that is not enough, because the archiving of written records is quite simply an essential service. Let me give you four reasons. Firstly, all of the world’s parliaments make their plenary debates available in written form and archive them so that people can consult the records to find out what has been discussed in Parliament.
Secondly, the video recording conveys a vivid and very interesting impression, but we also know that the hectic nature of proceedings often results in oral translations falling short of the quality we need.
We know this internally from our dealings with the tabling office. We set up a tabling office ourselves to ensure that the formulation of motions and official documentation was absolutely correct. Because we operate so multilingually, we must exercise particular care. We want to continue taking the same care with our records of proceedings.
Thirdly, the researchers who expressed their views on this subject may not have been fully aware of the implications, for although they might obtain a lively record, there is an underlying lack of rigour in the proposed approach. Besides, it is far easier to analyse a plenary debate if the researcher can enter a term, be it ‘pesticides’ or ‘CO
’, and be directed immediately to a debate on the matter in question. It would seem that this cannot be done with video recordings. In short, I believe that keeping written records represents value for money, and I am in favour of written archives in addition to video recordings."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"2"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples