Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-02-Speech-3-085"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010502.7.3-085"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – In November last year, I presented my report on public access to the EU institutions' documents, a subject which, as I said then, I consider crucial to the lives of the people we represent and to the future of the Union. I am happy to say that I stand before you today to ask Parliament to endorse a compromise text, as this House requested of me in November 2000. I, Hanja Maij-Weggen, my ex-co-rapporteur, and all the draftsmen of opinions and some shadows for the other Committees embarked on a series of meetings with the Council and the Commission, latterly called trialogues, in order to reach this compromise.
All the various versions of the compromise text during the trialogue processes were discussed in public meetings. Indeed, the trialogue process, it can be argued, has been more transparent than a conciliation process, in which only final texts of negotiations are published. The negotiations were not always easy and, contrary to what some believe, the distance between our institutions in January was great, but we fought hard to maintain what we considered to be essential elements to ensure the rights of the citizens.
Of course the text does not go as far as we would have liked. I am the first to admit that, but it was a priority for me and my co-rapporteur Hanja Maij-Weggen to complete the dossier in line with the Treaty deadline, so that the institutions could not be accused of failing to deliver for the citizen under Article 232 of the Treaty. The standpoints of the three institutions were difficult to reconcile in such a short space of time and even the Council, under the wonderful Swedish Presidency, found it difficult to achieve a political consensus, or at least a qualified majority, within itself.
Nonetheless, we have a text which improves on and consolidates the status quo and delivers to the citizen, within the time frame set in the Amsterdam Treaty, a comprehensive and practical framework for access to the institutions' documents. It is by no means a step backwards. We have established a self-evolving text which, I am sure, will be improved upon in the course of time. The compromise text revolutionises the rights and procedures for access to documents of the institutions and sets in motion the enshrining of freedom of information in the EU and in Member States' national legislation. It is the first common framework for the three institutions which recognises the citizen's rights so that the citizen no longer relies on the goodwill of each Institution.
Access to documents regarding the activities of the institutions enables citizens to hold the EU governing bodies accountable, stimulates greater efficiency and enhances democracy. The text would not have been possible without the hard work and commitment of the Swedish Presidency. I would like to take this opportunity to also pay tribute to the remarkable work on this dossier that they have contributed and to that of my co-rapporteur, Mrs Maij-Weggen, and Graham Watson, Chair of the LIBE Committee.
Of course there are some cases when documents from the institutions should not be released into the public domain. Indeed, it is part of our responsibility as deputies of this Parliament to protect the security of our citizens and the institutions. MEPs have a responsibility to ensure the vital interests of the Union are protected by improving its internal security, whilst at the same time balancing the citizens' rights of access. This new regime means that every document is considered on a case-by-case basis without blanket exceptions and documents concerning security and defence are by no means excluded from the Regulation. Under this compromise text, the Council is obliged to repeal or amend the Solana Decision of August 2000 so that it conforms to the principles of this Regulation.
There is assumption in favour of access to the public for all documents in all areas of the Union's activities and access will only be denied to those in areas which directly relate to a listed exception. It has to be shown that such an exception is necessary and the disclosure would cause harm. The exceptions are therefore discretionary, not mandatory. If access is refused to the citizen, the citizen must be given the reason for refusal and there is recourse to the Ombudsman and the Court of Justice.
Virtually all documents will be placed on a public register. Documents from third parties will be accessible for the first time and agencies or bodies created by the institutions will also apply the Regulation. If a document is excepted, or parts of the document are excepted, those parts of the document which are not excepted will be made public, and the exceptions will only apply for a limited maximum of thirty years, except in some cases. Finally, each Institution will produce an annual report outlining where the Institution refused access and the number of sensitive documents not recorded in the register, thus ensuring a continuing review by the European Parliament, and the Commission will also report by January 2004 on the implementation of the principles in the Regulation, thereby offering another opportunity to refine and develop access. Finally, this is not the end of the beginning. This is one small step on the road to access to documents and ensuring that the European Project is accountable to its citizens."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples