Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-02-Speech-3-095"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010502.7.3-095"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, there is quite a gap between the euphoria expressed by some today and the view expressed by others, to the effect that this is a compromise balanced on a knife edge. If any way of characterising this result is to be found, then this is probably the most honest.
The process concerning transparency and public access to documents has, of course, been conducted for a long time behind hermetically sealed doors. This is in itself a major problem because, in tackling such an essential area as public access to, and scrutiny of, documents – which is fundamental to our having democratically active citizens able to influence the decision-making process – it is crucial to involve people, partly in the debate as to how the rules are to be designed, and perhaps, in addition, to go so far as to listen to some of people’s objections.
I think we have a result which, in some respects, can be lived with, which in other respects is good but which, on a number of points, is unfortunately a retrograde step in relation to the current situation which is, of course, the result partly of a number of rules, partly of the practice of the courts and partly of intervention by the ombudsman. One of the areas in which, in my view, there is a major problem is that of internal documents which are not clearly defined in this proposal and which can be kept secret if it is thought that publication will have a decisive influence on the decision-making process. All right, but is that not precisely what transparency is all about – enabling people to have a decisive influence on the decision-making process? I think it is a problem that Member States can demand that documents be classified and, in addition, decline to register them at all, without there being clear rules as to when and why the Solana documents, as they are called, are not generally exempt, but that the rules governing what may be exempt are so loose as to be largely meaningless. There is, of course, no doubt about the fact that these rules will be of decisive importance to the rules in all member States, but large parts of the rapporteurs’ presentation have been vague and it has been very difficult to get clear information about the whys and wherefores. I doubt if there is a single document that cannot be accessed under the current rules but which it will be possible to access under the rules now being discussed. I doubt if it will be possible to extract so much as one more document from the EU system than it is possible to extract today.
I think the European Parliament has played a difficult role in this, and I think it is also transparently obvious that the European Parliament’s own interests have, from time to time, unfortunately overshadowed the public’s interests. By far the best thing about this proposal is that we nonetheless have a chance to look at the rules again in 2004, and I think we have some detailed and substantial work to do before then."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples