Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-09-22-Speech-1-118"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080922.20.1-118"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, first of all I want to say well done to the rapporteur, Mr Hammerstein, on his very comprehensive and wide-ranging report.
But, above and beyond that, this report also clearly indicates that systemic weaknesses need to be further investigated. This happens where petitioners cannot obtain rightful compensation and where Member States delay to avoid compliance until fines are imminent and still avoid responsibility for past intentional violations.
We as legislators, in conjunction with the Commission, surely have a responsibility to act in those situations.
I was very interested to read in the report that, while other committees have a heavy responsibility of legislative activity, the Committee on Petitions has shown that its role and function are also essential. Indeed, I fully agree with that sentiment and I become more convinced of it with every committee meeting I attend.
Our primary role in this Parliament is that of legislators, but, in order to be good legislators, we need to be aware of the impact of our legislation so that we can improve our efforts in Parliament.
In my opinion, any legislation emanating from this House should improve the quality of life of citizens in some way, and in the Committee on Petitions we see that this is not always the case. This often happens because of the non-implementation of legislation, or inadequate implementation, or because of specific circumstances or situations that the legislation does not address. I think that is a salutary lesson to all of us and we need to hear and respond.
For me, however, the core of this report is about how the committee responds to citizens, and I have said before that in order to respond effectively, we need to put ourselves in the shoes of the petitioners. They are approaching a large institution; they often have no legal or political background; they are put off by bureaucracy and are probably very frustrated at the situation in which they find themselves. For many petitioners, we are the last port of call and it is crucial that we respond effectively and efficiently.
This in my opinion starts with clear, understandable information for citizens. And we as MEPs are not always the best people to judge. Panels of citizens, I believe, should road-test any information we supply, any websites we design, any booklets we print.
We need to be very careful that we do not promise more than we can deliver, otherwise citizens will be totally frustrated and end up blaming Brussels bureaucracy.
When I use the word ‘promise’, what I mean is this: We must understand that citizens do not know about national authorities stonewalling, they do not know how the system works and we have a duty to them to tell them how it is. Certainly, we can and should try to influence change and this report is certainly doing that, but we cannot allow citizens to get caught as the meat in the sandwich.
Once citizens have good, accurate information and once they are aware of the possibilities for action, then we can provide the service they need. This report outlines in detail what is needed: sufficient resources so that the secretariat can respond in a timely way; greater involvement by the Council and Member States and maximum coordination with the Ombudsman and SOLVIT."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples