Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-02-Speech-3-086"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010502.7.3-086"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Mrs Lejon, Commissioner, today is a joyful day for the citizens of the European Union. After years of sabotage and delay, there is now a Regulation before us which addresses public access to the EU institutions. This European Parliament has pressed for this to happen for years. Since 1979, I have been one of the MEPs who repeatedly put the need for public access on the agenda, even when I was allowed to sit on the European Council of Ministers. Indeed, public access is directly linked to the democratic content of an institution and guards a government body from underhand politics, nepotism and financial irregularities.
Finally, an annual report will be drafted, and the Commission will need to compile an evaluation report with proposals for improvement before 2004.
Is this Regulation now perfect? No, quite a few areas could be honed down further, such as the handling of documents of third parties, and the registration of secret documents, as well as a number of other issues. However, in our opinion, it is better to grant approval now and to tighten the rules in two years’ time, should this prove useful and necessary. If we were to overhaul the Regulation now, we would end up in a long-term codecision procedure. Moreover, we are familiar with this procedure: the Council could put us out of action if the European Commission were not to lend us their support. I am not expecting the Commission to do this, but you never know.
All that remains for me now is to express my thanks to my fellow MEPs who have helped us over the course of last year to achieve this result. I should first like to thank Mr Cashman. He has done a sterling job, but that is also true of Mr Watson, Mrs Hautala, Mrs Cederschiöld and of the other draftsmen of opinions. I would also like to thank Mrs Dean who, as Parliament official, has carried out much of the work on our behalf. I should also like to thank the Swedish Presidency, of course. I am convinced that, without the cooperation with the Swedish Presidency, we would not have achieved the result that is now before us, one that can withstand any criticism.
Finally, we should be acutely aware of what is at issue: democracy, transparency and the rights of the citizens. That is the most important aspect, that is what this is all about, and this Regulation constitutes a step forward in this respect.
When this proposal was submitted by the European Commission last year, it left a great deal to be desired. The French Council proposal, which appeared subsequently, was not acceptable either. In November, our Parliament tabled its proposal with a huge majority. Since then, intense negotiations have taken place among the three institutions. In this respect, Parliament was a great support for the Swedish Presidency. This coalition, which has, step-by-step, brought the Council and Commission closer to Parliament’s position, has proved to be very fruitful.
The outcome was a considerably improved text in which Parliament’s key points were adopted. I would like to quote seven as these proved crucial to our positive stance vis-à-vis this compromise.
Firstly, Article 4, the most important article, which articulates the limitations of public access, has been cut down to size and the limitations are tied down to conditions. A reason for secrecy should be given at all times, and there is an opportunity to appeal to the Ombudsman or the European court. In the case of huge public interest, documents are to be disclosed nevertheless. That was a key element for our Parliament.
Secondly, the term “document” should be taken in a broad sense. Electronic mail also falls under this heading.
Thirdly, a register will be introduced after all, in which all documents need to be included with attendant details and which must be published on the Internet.
Fourthly, the Union’s agencies, such as the European Environment Bureau, the European Trade Mark Office and Europol, will fall within the remit of the Regulation. This will happen in the near future thanks to a new act which has now been promised.
Fifthly, national legislation which goes beyond this Regulation – and this is a sensitive area for the country that I come from – should not be hindered by this Regulation. This is clearly stipulated in recital 16. I should like to see it explained accordingly.
Sixthly, the rules which Mr Solana imposed last year in August without any consultation now fall under this Regulation and will also be verified against the same. The Netherlands has already noted that the appeal at the Court of Justice can then be withdrawn, and I believe that the European Parliament could follow suit."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples