Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-16-Speech-4-041"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001116.2.4-041"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would firstly like to express my satisfaction at being able to explain to you the Commission’s position with regard to the amendments tabled by the various committees on the proposal for a regulation, a regulation which we all consider to be of great importance to the reality of democracy and progress in our society.
I must acknowledge that the great challenge of this regulation is the precise definition of what documents are. In this respect, I believe that we must now continue to make progress in seeking a common definition, on which all the institutions can agree. Therefore, although I cannot agree to the amendments to Articles 3 and 4 today, that is to say Amendments Nos 28 and 30, this does not mean that we do not have to hold discussions and make progress in this regard.
Another problem lies in the treatment of entry documents, that is to say, documents drawn up by third parties. The institutions lack experience in this field, since the current system only deals with documents presented by the institutions themselves. The Commission’s proposal on third-party documents takes account of what was agreed at the last Intergovernmental Conference – in Declaration No 35 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which we cannot ignore – which gives them, both the institutions and the third parties, the final word on whether to publish these documents.
Parliament’s amendments completely reverse this approach and we therefore believe that greater consideration is required and that the proposal for a new Article 4c, Amendment No 36, is not yet sufficiently mature to be accepted favourably by the Commission.
With regard to other amendments, we believe that we need time to assess the consequences of the proposal from the operational point of view and we must ensure that the procedures incorporated are not bureaucratic, but are truly accessible to all the citizens. I include here amendments such as those tabled on measures which must be agreed by means of an interinstitutional agreement: Amendments Nos 34, 45, and 48.
As I pointed out previously, in certain cases we can agree in principle to the amendments, but we have to work together from a technical and administrative point of view, for example with regard to the amendments referring to the classification of documents and the register. For several decades the Commission has had a system for the classification of documents. Therefore the principle that documents should be subject to a classification system does not raise any problems. Nevertheless, there has been no discussion as to whether or not the rules for classification should be common to all the institutions.
It is premature at this point in the legislative procedure to take a position on whether there should be a direct relationship between classification and access to documents, as proposed in Amendment No 29, or whether rules to this effect should be included in the present regulation. The relationships established by the amendments between rules on classification and rules on the content of the register therefore prevent us from accepting at this stage Amendment No 46 relating to the register.
I would like to highlight that, at the right time, the Commission could accept practically all the amendments, such as Amendments Nos 9, 18, 21 in part, 23, 25, 26.1, 28(f), 35, 38, 40.1, 40.6, 41.1, 42, 43.1, 47, 49 and 52. Furthermore, the Commission believes that we will be able to reach agreement, with some modifications, on Amendments Nos 11, 12, 40.4, 40.7, 43.2, 47, 48.4, 50.1 and 50.2. Perhaps also Amendments Nos 63, 66.2, 73.1, 74.2, the final part of 75, and 78.2.
I would like to highlight the fact that, although the Commission is only able today to express certain global and positive approaches in certain respects, and with regard to other amendments we are making no comment or only doing so cautiously, this does not mean that we do not want to go ahead with the debate, the negotiation and the search for common ground between the three institutions. We hope to be able to work in this respect so that the appropriate regulation will be approved by May.
Once again, thank you very much to all the rapporteurs for the efforts they have made.
I would also like to say how much the Commission and myself appreciate the efforts made by the rapporteur, Mr Cashman, and the draftsperson of the proposal, Mrs Maij-Weggen, to present this report in such a short period of time. In accordance with Article 255 of the Treaty, the proposed regulation must be adopted before 1 May 2001, that is to say, two years after the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam.
Before presenting the Commission’s position, I would like to point out that, in drawing up its proposal, the Commission based its work, on the one hand, on the experience and functioning of the voluntary code of the last six years and, on the other, on a study of the legislation of the Member States, some of which have a great deal of experience in providing their citizens access to documents.
The Treaty recognises the citizens’ right to have access to the documents of the European institutions in accordance with certain principles and conditions. As the proposal indicates, the Commission feels that providing citizens with access will mean that they are guaranteed better information on decision-making processes, and that administrations will have greater legitimacy, efficiency and responsibility in a democratic system. The fundamental principle is therefore openness, but this must be reconciled with safeguarding the public interest and respect for certain rights which warrant special protection. This is the fundamental balance that we must achieve.
Our legislation must also respect another type of balance which is equally essential: the balance between the three institutions that are considered in the Treaty of Amsterdam. This does not mean that it would not be appropriate for the other institutions also to adopt the regulation when we adopt it. When President Prodi addressed Parliament on 3 October, he referred to the institutional triangle and stated that, in a European system based on checks and balances, the efficient functioning of each institution contributes to the common interest. Each of the institutions has a different task to perform and its needs and obligations are therefore different.
As a result of Mr Cashman’s report we now have a clear idea of Parliament’s priorities. However, the Council’s position with regard to some of the most important provisions of the proposal is still not clear. This element of uncertainty means that the Commission, at this point in the procedure, can only offer a general position. We are therefore unable to agree to some of the amendments without prejudging a future negotiation and a definitive position in relation to it.
The Commission is pleased to see that the European Parliament agrees, to a large extent, with its view of many of the aforementioned issues. Furthermore, other amendments do not present any problems of principle. We must go further in relation to the ways in which the regulation will be applied and implemented, because openness, transparency and the provision of access to documents is an attitude which must be strengthened in our respective administrations and which must become a reality.
I believe that many of us who are in favour of the maximum degree of transparency, which would allow the institutions to become more efficient, were truly amazed, a few years ago, to discover that, in a country which always sets an example in these areas, certain sterilisation practices had been taking place for several years, specifically in relation to certain categories of citizen, in the most shady and least transparent manner. I believe that this demonstrates that there are no perfect situations and that we all have to make progress in order to prevent situations of this type.
I now wish to address certain problems that currently prevent the Commission from accepting certain amendments. One of them is the need to achieve a fair balance between openness and efficiency. I am referring in particular to texts for internal use and to initial drafts and preparatory study documents for exclusively internal use by the institutions. All national legislation in this field excludes these documents. Forcing institutions to publish these internal notes could, in many cases, simply lead to confusion amongst the citizens. As one Member has said, there is a paradox here, and that is that sometimes the worst type of disinformation results from an overload of information. In this respect, I believe that access to preparatory documents would not provide much information. Furthermore, an attitude such as this would discourage creative thinking and would encourage strictly bureaucratic approaches within the institutions. I believe that this is precisely the opposite of what the institutions intend."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples