Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-16-Speech-4-014"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001116.2.4-014"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – I have the honour to present this report on a subject that is crucial to the lives of the people we represent and, indeed, to the future of the Union. My aim throughout the report has been to produce a proposal which is politically mature, eminently reasonable and practical for both the institutions and the citizen. I believe my report reflects that and the view of my fellow rapporteur, Mrs Maij-Weggen, to whom I pay special tribute.
Let me stress that this is a legal text; it must be detailed and watertight. It is not an information pamphlet. That will come later. However, I regret that the report has been misrepresented by some for short-term political gain. A few cheap headlines, a few inches of print remove such people from reality. This report is even more urgent in light of the rules which were adopted by the Council in August, the so-called ‘Solana Decision’. My report specifically states that the August Decision should be repealed along with other decisions.
What we are seeking is a change of culture. As a collection of 15 Member States we approach the issue of public access to documents differently, but I am glad to see that, largely, the European Parliament stands as a bulwark against the forces which seek to keep the doors of the institutions closed to the public. Access to documents and information regarding the activities of the institutions enables citizens to hold the EU governing bodies accountable and stimulates greater efficiency. I remain confident that, with the crucial input of Mrs Maij-Weggen, we have produced a mature and sensible text and introduced revolutionary changes for the institutions, but also real and tangible benefits for the European citizens.
It is clear that Article 255 of the Treaty permits a broader interpretation of citizens' access to documents of the institutions, so allow me to outline some of the changes in my report. All the institutions and bodies covered by Article 255 should be expressly stated in the regulation and should include not only committees and working groups, but all agencies created by the institutions. All documents of the institutions should be public unless there is good reason why they should not be – based on a harm test and on a limited number of exceptions. These exceptions are discretionary, not as others would have you believe, mandatory.
The term ‘document’ should be interpreted widely and must include internal documents of the institutions, although information documents, the ‘space to think’, can be excluded. As in the Commission proposal, a register of documents should be established. It should contain documents which are directly accessible. It should also include documents which are classified as ‘non public’ with the exception that applies. That way, the public knows of the documents and can challenge such classification. Furthermore, access to documents must be user-friendly via the Internet or traditional methods and there will be ongoing scrutiny – extremely important – of the new process and implementation by Parliament.
I would like to clarify some other aspects. The classification system outlined in my report is intended to make the process of access to documents easier. An application for a document would challenge the application of the exception. At the time of the request for a document, the application of the exception must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. What we must ensure is that the existing or future interinstitutional agreements, referred to in my report, have as their legal basis the Article 255 rule in order to ensure that a coherent framework is agreed between the institutions, with the maximum right of access for the citizen.
Some Members have suggested that in my text I come too close to the Council and Commission view. In fact, the fundamental problems which the Council and Commission foresee with my report are, interestingly enough, the very same differences apparent between the majority of Parliament and some of the smaller groups in this House. Therefore, I urge the Council and Commission to embrace the change. The Union must move closer to the citizen. It must be more accountable and more transparent, especially as we approach enlargement. Together we must seize this opportunity and together solve the problems that it poses. I urge the House to support my report.
(
)"@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples