Reform of the human rights urgency procedure in the wake of the Qatargate scandal

Yesterday President Metsola announced that human rights urgency resolutions under Rule 144 that exceed the 500-word limit prescribed in the EP Rules of Procedure will not be voted on during the upcoming plenary session. This is an issue that the ID Group has been raising since last year. 

The ID Group has on numerous occasions objected to the human rights urgency procedure, particularly since the Rules allow for up to three urgencies. It does not require three topics to be included in the agenda every session. This leaves the impression that topics are fabricated to please NGOs and to help them reach their objectives.  Especially in light of Qatargate, the issue of NGO interference in the working of the Parliament needs to be reviewed.

We very much welcome the President's decision in the aftermath of Qatargate and hope it is only a first step towards a complete overhaul of the human rights urgency procedure. Our Group has raised the issue of the length of the resolutions on several occasions, in closed meetings as well as in plenary, since almost all resolutions tabled by the groups exceed the strict 500-word limit foreseen in the rules, and should therefore be deemed inadmissible. We raised this particular issue during the September plenary session, and even though the chair agreed that our interpretation was correct, she argued that this is the way it has always been done in the EP, and that the rules are interpreted in a “flexible” manner.

📹 The point of order can be viewed at 18:02:40 here: 

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/vod.html?mode=chapter&vodLanguage=EN&playerStartTime=20220914-17:59:30&playerEndTime=20220914-18:36:13#