Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-03-13-Speech-2-225"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010313.15.2-225"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, recommending transparency and improving public access to environmental information are aims that have my full support. The report by Mrs Korhola, however, contains several pitfalls for everyone to clearly see. I particularly regret the fact that it is not more ambitious. I equally regret that this text only addresses the public’s access to documents and not the access of Members as well, who carry out work as part of their mandate.
As evidence of this, I would like to give an enlightening example, which I myself experienced. In February 2000, I had the impertinence to request the annual publication of the scientific, technical and financial balance sheet of the Life programme, which receives a package of EUR 613 million. In August 2000, when I still had not received anything, I contacted the Director-General for the Environment and the Secretary-General of the European Commission to find out some information on the Life programme – which saved Lake Grandlieu by the way – which appears to be stamped with the words ‘official secret’. To my absolute astonishment, they sent me just a few trivial pieces of information, telling me that the project’s detailed summary of expenditure contained personal details, which meant that I could not see it.
I would like to know how communicating the purchase price of plots of land bought exclusively with public money constitutes a violation of an individual’s private life, rather than the legitimate monitoring of public funds that any self-respecting Member should be undertaking? It is also impossible to have access to the scientific studies carried out under the much-vaunted Life programme, for the simple reason that the Commission does not have them in its possession, which is the last straw. The Commission suggests that I contact the author of the document directly, who is in no way obliged to help me, and who, moreover, has not done so, which is hardly surprising, since the programme revealed a genuine ecological disaster.
It is in order to avoid this kind of abuse that we shall vote in favour of this text which is a step in the right direction. However, how can we ever expect to achieve any sort of transparency in the use of Community funds?"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples