Saeima Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in Saeima for { <http://dati.saeima.korpuss.lv/entity/speech/2015_11_26_332-seq2> ?p ?o. }

• 2015_11_26_332-seq2 type Speech.
• 2015_11_26_332-seq2 number "2".
• 2015_11_26_332-seq2 date "2015-11-26".
• 2015_11_26_332-seq2 isPartOf 2015_11_26_332.
• 2015_11_26_332-seq2 spokenAs 62.
• 2015_11_26_332-seq2 spokenText "Labrīt, cienījamie kolēģi! Šodien jūsu izvērtēšanai vai, pareizāk sakot, nodošanai komisijām ir piedāvāts likumprojekts “Grozījumi Saeimas kārtības rullī”. Nedaudz argumentēšu, kas šajā likumprojektā ir ietverts. Pirmām kārtām jāteic, ka jūs noteikti ikviens katras sēdes noslēguma daļā dzirdat, ka tiek nosaukts saraksts par deputātu uzdotajiem jautājumiem konkrētiem ministriem. Un vienmēr tiek pateikts, ka deputāts ierasties nevar... es atvainojos! - ministrs ierasties nevar. Un tās atsevišķās reizes, kad ministrs ir gatavs ierasties un parunāt ar deputātiem, - tas ir zināms prieks visai Saeimai, ka beidzot viens ministrs ir uzklausījis deputātus. Protams, jūs varat teikt, ka šie jautājumi pārsvarā interesē opozīcijas deputātus, jo, loģiski, pozīcijas deputātiem jeb vairākumam savi ministri ir zināmi vai arī viņiem ir neērti saviem ministriem uzdot tos jautājumus, ar kuriem varētu nostādīt ministru neērtā pozīcijā. Šī jautājumu uzdošanas procedūra parlamentārās demokrātijās ir tradicionāla. Un, ja mēs nereaģēsim uz to, kādā veidā ministri izturas pret parlamentu un kā nāk vai, pareizāk sakot, nenāk un nepilda savu pienākumu, mēs īstenībā radām draudus parlamentam. Tas ir parlamentārisma apdraudējums, jo patiesībā ataino ministru uzskatu, ka parlaments nav nekas. Un to, starp citu, ļoti labi pierādīja tā Saeimas sēde, kurā apspriedām budžeta projektu - ministri gan bija atnākuši, taču par savas ministrijas budžetu uzstājās tikai divi ministri. Vai tas ir normāli - uztraukums par savas sfēras atbalstīšanu parlamentā? Tas nozīmē, ka ministri zina, ka parlaments šo jautājumu vispār nelems, ka tas jau sen ir izlemts. Līdz ar to viņiem ir pilnīgi vienalga, ko runā parlamentā. Taču īstenībā tā nav tikai teoretizēšana. Tā nav tikai parlamenta labā tradīcija. Cienījamie kolēģi, izlasiet Satversmes 27.pantu! Tur ir skaidri un gaiši ierakstīts ministru un Ministru prezidenta pienākums sniegt šīs atbildes. Un Saeimas kārtības rullī ir tikai aprakstīta sīkāk procedūra, kā šīm atbildēm uz jautājumiem jānoris. Nākamais jautājums. Vai tā ir tikai tradīcija vai tikai... arī likuma prasība un īstenībā tam nav nekādas nozīmes? Iepazīstoties ar Latvijas parlamenta vēsturi, mēs redzēsim, ka pirmskara Latvijā ministri sēdēja visās parlamenta sēdēs, piedalījās diskusijās par saviem jautājumiem, un līdz ar to bija loģiski, ka pēc Saeimas sēdes notika ministru atbildes uz deputātu jautājumiem. Un vēl vairāk! Tās nebija ierobežotas laika ziņā, un bija pat debates šādos gadījumos. Tas nozīmē, ka mēs vienkārši arvien vairāk attālināmies no tā. Un, ja mēs paskatāmies uz šībrīža situāciju, tad redzam, ka ar katru Saeimu ministru attieksme pret parlamentu kļūst arvien sliktāka un sliktāka; beidzot gadās pat tādas situācijas, ka ministrs deviņas reizes pēc kārtas neatnāk, lai sniegtu atbildes. (No zāles: “Kurš?”) Cerējām, ka, protams, partijas pašas parunās ar saviem ministriem un teiks, ka tā rīkoties nevar, ka tas ir tiesiskais nihilisms. Nezinu, kāpēc reakcijas nebija. Ļoti cerējām, ka tas Satversmē neparedzētais veidojums, ko sauc par Koalīcijas padomi, parunās ar premjerministru un teiks: “Kolēģi, tā darīt nedrīkst! Vajag nākt un runāt!” Izrādās, ka tas nenostrādāja. Cienījamie kolēģi! Domāju, ka šāda ministru attieksme pret parlamentu... ka šādai ministru attieksmei īstenībā vajadzētu radīt neērtības sajūtu to partiju deputātiem, kuru ministri neatnāk uz sarunām. Es nerunāju par tiem, kuri bieži atnāk. Belēviča kungs bieži vien atnāk un runā, un pareizi atbild uz jautājumiem - atbild uz jautājumiem, nevis atnāk un nostāv savas minūtes! Un nevar kā finanšu ministrs... Kad finanšu ministram jautā: “Kur jūs ņēmāt naudu, pusmiljonu, savai ministrijai?” -, tad viņš atbild: “Mēs ietaupīsim uz elektrību un apkuri.” Tātad tas nozīmē, ka viņiem ir piešķirts liels finansējums virs nepieciešamās summas, ja var tik daudz ietaupīt vienas ministrijas iekšienē. Un visbeidzot. Cienījamie kolēģi! Šis likumprojekts ir sagatavots ar vienu mērķi - noteikt stingrākus rāmjus, ka ministram ir jānāk, ka ministram ir jāatbild un, ja viņš neierodas, ir jābūt attaisnojošai situācijai, kāda konkrēti likumprojektā norādīta. Es ļoti vēlos, lai deputāti padomātu par parlamentārismu un par likuma un Satversmes prasībām un balsotu par šī likumprojekta nodošanu komisijām. Paldies. (Aplausi.)".
• 2015_11_26_332-seq2 language "lv".
• 2015_11_26_332-seq2 speaker Gunars_Kutris.
• 2015_11_26_332-seq2 translatedText "Good morning, dear colleague, today your assessment, or rather the transfer of commissions, has been put forward by the draft bill " Amendment of the Rules of Procedure, " a little bit of an argument that you will certainly say to anyone in the final part of each sitting. The list of the questions put by its members to specific ministers, And always being told by a Member to come cannot I am sorry! - the Minister cannot come and speak to him on some occasions when the Minister is prepared to come and speak to the Members - that is a certain point. It is a pleasure for Saeima to say that, finally, one minister has listened to Members of the House of course, you can say that these issues are of great interest to Members of the opposition, because, logically, the position of the Members or majority of your ministers is known or embarrassed by their ministers to ask themthe issues that could put ministers in an inconvenient position on this question-raising procedure in parliamentary democracies is traditional And if we do not respond to the way in which ministers treat parliaments and, rather, do not fail and fail to fulfil their obligation, wein fact, there is a threat to the parliament, That is the threat of parliamentarianism, because the fact is that the ministers believe that the parliament is nothing and that, by the way, it proved very well to the meeting of the Parliament, which discussed the draft budget - but ministers have played with, but on their own. The ministry's budget only spoke to two ministers Will this be normal - worries about supporting their own sphere in the parliament? This means that ministers know that the parliament does not decide at all that this has long been decided with themI don't really care what Parliament is talking about in reality, but it is not just a tradition of parliament, not only in the parliamentary good, read the Constitutional Treaty, " the Prime Minister and Prime Minister are clearly obliged to provide these answers to MPs and the Prime Minister. The order is only described in a more detailed procedure, how these answers to questions need to be addressed in the future as it is a mere tradition or a mere requirement of the law and, in fact, it does not have any role in the history of Latvia's parliamentary history, wewe will see that in pre-war, ministers sat in all parliamentary hearings, took part in discussions on their issues and, consequently, it was logical that, following the meeting of the meeting of MPs, ministers answered questions from MPs even more! They were not limited in time, andthere was even a debate in such cases, It means that we are simply becoming more and more distant from this, and if we look at the present situation, we can see that every Saeima minister's attitude towards the parliament is getting worse and worse; it is happening at last. Even situations that the minister does not come to meet nine in a row to provide answers (From the floor: " who? ") hoped that the parties would of course speak with their ministers and to say that it cannot do so in the legal nihiliarism of why not to know why the reactions were legal nihilialism. It was not the Very Constitution that would have hoped the unintended arrangement, known as the Coalition Council, to speak to the Prime Minister and say: " colleagues, do not! Need to come and talk! " That such ministerial attitudes should in fact cause a discomfort to the party members whose ministers do not speak for the negotiations, I am not talking about those who often rat and talk, and rightly answer questions -answering the questions instead of a rat and narrative in your minutes! And cannot be named as finance minister When the finance minister asks:' where did you take the money, half a million, my ministry?' - then he replies:' we will save on electricity and heating', Sothis means that they have been allocated large amounts above the necessary amount, if there is so much to save within the same ministry, And finally, colleagues, this bill has been drafted with one goal - to set out more stringent frames that the minister has to come to saythe minister must answer and, if he does not arrive, there has to be a case for the situation in which I very much want MEPs to think about parliamentarianism and the requirements of the law and of the Constitution and to vote on the tabling of this bill to the committees (applause)".
• 2015_11_26_332-seq2 mentions Q822919.
• 2015_11_26_332-seq2 mentions Q211.