Activities of Marian HARKIN related to 2016/2146(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Activities of the Committee on Petitions 2015 (A8-0366/2016 - Ángela Vallina)
Amendments (17)
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas petitioners tend to be citizens engaged in the improvement and future well-being of our societies; whereas the experience of these citizens in regard to the processing of their petitions, when based on the Committee's competences, may determine their perception of the EU institutions and respect for the right to petition contained in EU law;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas confidence in the system and in the European project as a whole has been dented by recent events in the United Kingdom, the humanitarian refugee crisis, the social and economic impact of the financial crisis, and the rise in xenophobia and racism throughout Europe; whereas the Committee on Petitions has the responsibility and the huge challenge of maintaining and strengthening constructive dialogue with EU citizens on European issues;
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas the Committee on Petitions is best able to show citizens what the European Union does for them, according to its competences, and what solutions it can provide at European, national or local level; whereas the Committee on Petitions can do excellent work explaining the successes and benefits of the European project;
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas the right to petition should enhance the European Parliament’s capacity to react, helping to resolve problems relating mainly to how EU legislation is applied, as petitions, which are based on EU competences and fulfil the admissibility criteria, constitute a valuable source of information in detecting deficiencies in how EU legislation is applied; whereas such petitions are a basic tool in the early detection of those Member States lagging behind in transposition of EU law;
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas, therefore, petitions, which are based on EU competences and fulfil the admissibility criteria, are very important for the legislative process as they provide other Parliament committees with useful and direct input for their legislative work in their respective fields; whereas such petitions are not solely the responsibility of the Committee on Petitions, but should rather be a shared endeavour of all Parliament committees;
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
L. whereas, through petitions which are based on EU competences and fulfil the admissibility criteria, EU citizens can complain about poor implementation of EU law; whereas in so doing citizens act as a useful source of information when it comes to detecting breaches of EU law;
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital N
Recital N
N. whereas during 2015 petitions lodged by citizens were processed faster and with greater efficiency, the timespan involved in correspondence with petitioners having been reduced; whereas the Secretariat has performed a noteworthy effort to achieve it;
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital O
Recital O
O. whereas petitioners actively contribute to the work of the Committee, providing additional information to its members, the Commission and representatives of the Member States who may be present; whereas petitioners, by taking part in these discussions and presenting their petitions along with more detailed information, contribute to establishing a fluid and constructive dialogue with Members of the European Parliament and with the European Commission; whereas in 2015, 191 petitioners attended and were involved in the Committee’s deliberations; whereas although this number seems relatively low, the meetings of the Committee on Petitions are broadcast, enabling petitioners to follow live discussions in real time by means of internet streaming;
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AC
Recital AC
AC. whereas the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) has to be an important tool for enabling citizens to participate in the EU political decision-making process, and its potential must be exploited fully while ensuring that citizens are fully informed as to matters of EU competence and national competence; whereas, as emerged from statements in the public hearing of 22 February 2015, there is a widespread feeling on the part of organisations processing an ECI that the administrative barriers need to be removed in order to obtain the best possible results in regard to participation by citizens; notes however the need for transparency and accountability by such organizations;
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses that the right to petition should enhance the European Parliament’s capacity to react, helping to resolve problems relating mainly to implementation of EU legislation, as petitions, which are based on EU competences and fulfil the admissibility criteria, constitute a useful source of information in detecting breaches in the implementation of EU legislation;
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses the work that the Committee on Petitions carries out in listening to and helping to solve problems affecting its citizens at the European level and which fall within the Union's competences; believes that petitions can help in assessing the impact that EU legislation has on their daily lives;
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Highlights the fact that the Committee on Petitions has an opportunity and the huge challenge of maintaining a dialogue with citizens as it has the possibility to bring the EU’s institutions and citizens together once again; notes also that it helps to promote participative democracy;
Amendment 138 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Considers it essential to improvinge cooperation with national parliaments and their relevant committees and with Member State governments, particularly to help ensure that the petition is dealt with by the relevant and competent authorities; encourages the representatives of Member States and of local and/or regional authorities concerned to attend meetings; highlights the need for Council and Commission representatives to be present at meetings and hearings of the Committee on Petitions;
Amendment 154 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. DeploresIs aware of the strict way in which the Commission has interpreted Article 51 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights with its stipulation that ‘the provisions of the [...] Charter are addressed to the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity and to the Member States only when they are implementing Union law; recalls that, owing to the existence of Article 51 of the Charter, the expectations of citizens often go beyond what the Charter’s legal provisions strictly allow for; calls on the European Commission to adopt a new approach that is more consistent with those expectations;
Amendment 164 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Stresses the wide range of subjects raised in the petitions filed by citizens, such as fundamental rights, child welfare, the rights of persons with disabilities, the internal market, environmental law, labour relations, migration policies, trade agreements, public health issues, child welfare, transport, animal rights and discrimination;
Amendment 175 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Believes that the organisation of public hearings is an important way of examining problems raised by petitioners which fall within the EU competences; draws attention to the public hearings organised on 26 February 2015 with the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety in response to the ECI on ‘Water is a Human Right’, and with the Committee on Legal Affairs for the ECI entitled ‘One of Us’;
Amendment 203 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Emphasises the important role of SOLVIT, a problem-solving network between the Member States which should be thoroughly developed to its full potential in collaboration with the States and their national SOLVIT centres under their national administrations, and requests that it be given moradequate resources and that a more systematic analysis of the problems identified by SOLVIT be conducted as this network helps to give a realistic picture of the dysfunctions of the single market;