Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-02-Speech-3-091"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010502.7.3-091"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, as shadow rapporteur, I should, on behalf of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, first of all like to thank the rapporteurs for the high level of commitment they have shown in their bid to reach a compromise with the Council and Commission on the Regulation, which is informally referred to in the Netherlands as the “Euro-WOB”. Given the huge resistance on the part of a number of Member States, it was clear from the outset that the negotiations would be tough. Needless to say, I, like many MEPs, including Mr Cashman and Mrs Maij-Weggen, would have liked to see more disclosure on a number of scores in the proposal, but to many Member States, that appeared to be a bridge too far.
The compromise receives our unqualified support, as it represents in our eyes the result which is most viable. The agreement is a considerable improvement on the Commission proposal and on the existing regulations. For example, I was unable to consent to the far too extensive and exhaustive list of often vague reasons on the basis of which access to documents could be denied. But under heavy political pressure from both Parliament and a number of Member States, this list has been cut down considerably, with a ceiling put in place.
It is also very satisfying to see that Mr Solana’s rules of last summer, by means of which entire categories of documents were excluded from public access by definition, are being rescinded by the new disclosure regime.
It would also have been unacceptable to me if the European disclosure regime were to prejudice existing national legislation. Fortunately, that is not the case. Another bonus is that documents drafted in the preliminary phase of legislation and policy are now expressly made public.
At the same time, I regret that as a result of the heavy resistance of a number of Member States, among others, certain points were not included in the compromise. For example, I would have preferred it if confidential documents originating from third parties, such as NATO, or a Member State, were to fall entirely within the scope of the European disclosure regime. Instead, permission from the third party involved is now required for this.
Also, in my view, all documents should have been included in the public register, where now an exception is made for confidential documents. The European Parliament will need to closely monitor how the institutions involved will give substance to public access in their day-to-day practice. This is why I greatly value the annual report on the implementation of the disclosure regime. If in the evaluation in January 2004, it appears that the Regulation does not guarantee sufficient disclosure and that the percentage of sensitive documents is too high, then it is up to Parliament to do something about this.
Finally, I should like to say to those MEPs who wish to vote against the compromise that they cannot adopt a clean-hands policy in that way. The implications of rejecting the current compromise would be that the European citizens would remain deprived of a clear, European disclosure regime for the time being. The Swedish Presidency, in tandem with a number of Member States as well as Parliament, has bent over backwards to reach a compromise before 1 May. It very much remains to be seen whether the next presidencies will deal with this issue with just as much drive, and there is also the risk that further negotiations will not have a beneficial, but rather a detrimental, effect on the Regulation. That is why this is the right time for me to adopt this compromise."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples