Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-02-Speech-3-102"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-05-02"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Public access to documents2
dcterms:Language	"sv"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010502.7.3-102"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-05-02-Speech-3-1032
lpv:speaker	lp:Jonas Sjöstedt2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Members from the European Parliament to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Union (ACP-EU) (1999-09-14--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Vänsterpartiet (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; EUL/NGL (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Delegation to the European Economic Area Joint Parliamentary Committee (EEA) (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3 substitute; AFCO (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, transparency and the right to study the contents of documents are central elements of a living democracy, but the proposal on which we are now to adopt a position and which concerns access to EU documents is a disappointment. In some areas, it is downright worse than the EU’s existing practice. Moreover, the very negotiations concerning the proposal have been a display of lack of transparency. The normal parliamentary process has been set aside, and significant parts of Parliament, including our group, have been excluded from influence. Respect for national rules on transparency is guaranteed by the proposal. National rules are subordinate to an EU Regulation. Paragraph 14 of this Regulation also specifies that the Member States must be loyal to the contents of the Regulation. Furthermore, Article 5 states that, in cases which are not clear, Member States must ask the EU’s institutions for guidance in order to decide if EU documents are to be handed over. Nor is it the case that the Swedish principle of public access to official records is guaranteed by this proposal. On the contrary, it is the EU’s Court of Justice which has the power to decide in the event of conflicts arising in this area. There are extensive and partially unclear exemptions from the rules concerning access to documents. Whole areas such as security policy, internal documents and documents from the Member States are exempt in practice. What are called ‘sensitive documents’ do not even need to be shown in the registers. These exemptions substantially undermine the improvements made by the proposal, for example the demands for registers, time limits and access to electronic documents. The European Parliament’s access to classified documents has also been dealt with in these negotiations, at the same time as the public’s right of access to documents. It is an unfortunate confusion of different issues which ought not to have happened. I cannot see how the advantages of this proposal significantly outweigh the disadvantages. This is not the time to conclude this work, for it is not complete. The conciliation ought to continue as normal."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"not"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph