5 Amendments of Bas EICKHOUT related to 2015/2040(INI)
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Considers that the lack of follow-up questions to Commissioners-designate in the 2014 process arguably enabled some candidates to avoid confrrespontding to more sensitive issues; whilst there is merit in examinconsiders that all Members should be allowed to ask a very short follow-up question on the same topic as raised ing this problem,e first question, respectively, to allow for a better evaluation of the candidates; underlines the importance of guaranteeing to political groups the maximum amount of question time possible, particularly in the case of joint committee hearings;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Considers that it should be possible to extend the hearing of Vice-Presidents given their enlarged competences as compared to ordinary Commissioners, not least to allow all committees involved to be able to properly assess the candidate;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recalls that section 1(a)(1) of the abovementioned Annex provides that ‘Parliament shall evaluate Commissioners- designate on the basis of their general competence, European commitment and personal independence. It shall assess knowledge of their prospective portfolio and their communication skills.’, and emphasises that no other criteria are relevant in the evaluation of the candidate; notes further that under paragraph 1a, the scrutiny of the declaration of financial interests applies to a candidate in their capacity as Commissioner-designate and not as a Member of the European Parliament; considers that an assessment by the Committee on Legal Affairs of the compliance of a declaration of financial interests can only be a formal check and cannot replace a political assessment of the independence of the candidate based inter alia on his/her declaration of interests;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses that committee coordinators should endeavour to reach a consensus on the evaluation; believes neverthelesconsiders that, where they are unable to do so, they should be able to act by a majority representing a large majority of the committee, having regard to the respective strengths of the various groups; considers further that groups which dissent from the majority view should be able to request an appropriate reference in the evaluation letter; recalls that the Rules of Procedure in any event also allow for a political group to request that the Chair convene a full committee meeting, including a vote on the evaluation of the candidate;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. As regards the deadlines applicable to the evaluation statements, believstresses that the Rules of Procedure should provide for the statement of evaluation to be adopted as soon as possible, and made public within 24 hours after the hearings are declared closedare very clear insofar as they provide for the adoption and publication of the statement "within 24 hours of the hearing"; the singular form clearly indicates that the 24 hours start ticking after the end of each of the hearings, respectively, and not after the end of all hearings; calls for a strict and uniform application of those Rules across all committees.