Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-09-13-Speech-2-567-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110913.42.2-567-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, my thanks to Commissioner Šefčovič and Mr Meyer for their work. I do not want to repeat what my fellow Members have said. I agree with most of it, although I would just like to say to the Commissioner that it is, in fact, a problem that he does not believe that human rights are important in this context. In committee, we heard from the Commission that, for example, the Copenhagen Criteria can only be mobilised when a country is in the process of accession. Clearly, it is not good for our credibility if all of these fundamental values can be disregarded. However, we will be carrying out a consultation with regard to this in the near future, so let us leave it at that.
I would like to use my speaking time here first and foremost to describe what are, in fact, the rather poor conditions that I think Parliament sets for our committee. Our committee is the one that is close to citizens. We are very proud of this when we talk about citizens’ rights to the outside world, but when it comes down to it, we actually work under very poor conditions.
The website is designed for advanced users. People cannot find our committee. I have now heard that it is possible to lodge a complaint electronically, and I am pleased about that. I was not aware that this was possible up to now, but it is good to hear. It is something new. Thank you for that.
We also need better resources so that, in the meantime, we can carry out our own investigations, including in relation to the legal investigations. The arrangement with the Commission usually works well, but it would be nice if we could deal better with the many complaints that we receive. We must not forget that citizens have rights laid down in the Treaty to come to us with their complaints.
Lastly, there are also two areas where I do not think that we are being treated well enough. The committee’s neutralisation, in other words, the fact that it is a second class committee, means that the members are very often unable to be present and carry out the work of the committee. This is a very bad signal to send to citizens, as it will give them the impression that they are not being respected.
Last of all, I would like to say that the name of the Committee is totally incomprehensible, at least in Danish, Finnish and Swedish: ‘
’ (the Committee on Petitions). It is an obsolete bureaucratic word that not a single soul can fathom at all. As names go, it ought to be a simple matter to give the committee a name that citizens can recognise, such as the ‘Committee on Citizen Complaints’."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Udvalget for Andragender"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples