The proposal received 72 votes, while 97 voted no. The opposition still about strong criticism of the minister through a so-called daddelvedtak – the strongest criticism Parliament can express without resorting to mistrust.
The decision was based on a proposal from the Left and states the following:
“Parliament believes it is highly reprehensible that the justice and readiness Minister Anders Anundsen has not provided adequate information to Parliament and not ensured that the announced policy change was followed, in the case relating to the distribution of long remaining asylum children.”
This proposal was adopted by 92 against 77 votes. A similar criticism suggestion of KrF and MDG was just before being rejected by 83 against 86 votes.
– It was good to put a full stop. There are different perceptions of the facts in this case. It will be interesting to see how posterity interprets this, saying Anundsen in the hallway afterward. He was clearly relieved after mistrust proposal was dropped but the criticism against him had been fierce inside the hall even though his post calmed tempers anything.
– The Minister has said today is different from what he has said earlier. It might come under what he calls learning. He has shown the necessary humility before a parliamentary majority. But concessions will not come until we leave them out, and it has been totally unnecessary. If he had brought the approach he today has made, at an earlier stage, would the matter could have been different, said Aps Martin Kolberg from parliamentary rostrum.
– The responsibility is mine
Justice and Public Security Minister Anders Anundsen (FRP) takes the criticism in asylum children case seriously but declined disclaimer in the debate in Parliament on Tuesday.
– It is important for me to be a good leader and take responsibility, said Anundsen when he explained from parliamentary rostrum.
– In this case, I have been clear that the responsibility has been mine. The existence disclaimer I would strongly reject, he added.
Anundsen takes therefore responsible for ensuring that the political guidelines of the Ministry of Justice was not relayed from the Police Directorate for Police Immigration Service (PU), but he pointed out also that errors can happen.
– It is also good leadership to have confidence in the underlying agencies, that they undergo and follow up letters of allocation. But errors and routine failure may occur. We must use in a learning process which in the future makes us stronger, said Anundsen.
Ap: – He has violated the Constitution
It is the first time in 33 years that the Labour Party votes for a confidence motion in Parliament.
– Justice Minister Anders Anundsen (FRP) has not Labour’s confidence. He has violated the Constitution and he has violated the duty of disclosure, said Aps Jette Christensen in his speech.
Her party colleague Martin Kolberg followed up by submitting that Anundsen has put itself in an “untenable situation”. He noted that it is a State Council clear task to thoroughly explain the work on the issues he is responsible for, and to give Parliament the necessary information.
– That’s what the majority think he has not done, said Kolberg.
SV Deputy Bård Vegar Solhjell struck in his speech stated that Anundsen has given Parliament incorrect information.
– Parliament must be able to rely on information from the Minister is correct, said Solhjell . He gave Anundsen anyway praised for having provided “an orderly and factual posts”.
Rejects violating disclosure
Anundsen denies that he has breached the duty of disclosure and claims it was not until after the control hearing earlier this year that he became aware that the Police Directorate had not understood the change in the allocation letter.
KrF and Left are clear in their criticism, but left while the doubt Anundsen as great when they voted against mistrust proposal. They found no evidence that the minister had violated the Constitution, paragraph 82 on minister’s duty to report to Parliament.
– He has not demonstrably conveyed information that he knew was not accurate. His deficient orientation emerges not as a deliberate act against their better judgment, said Christian Democrat Hans Fredrik Grøvan. The same argument had left. Party Abid Raja stated that his party agrees with Labor, SV and the Centre Party “in the very most of the case” – but added that the parties’ stand any team when it comes to the conclusion. “
Outside in Walking hall afterwards, the atmosphere less bleak. Indeed joked one to another, those who a few minutes before had been implacable inside the courtroom. We were, after all, in Norway.
Tetzschner and Solhjell in war of words: – It was an embarrassing posts by Tetzschner:
Tetzschner and Solhjell in war of words: – It was an embarrassing posts by Tetzschner
Published:
No comments:
Post a Comment