Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-24-Speech-3-299"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030924.10.3-299"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I, too, would like to thank Mr Cashman both for his excellent report and for succeeding in bringing to plenary an extremely important report containing essential provisions with almost unanimous support.
In my view, over and above the democratic deficit which we all condemn, this debate reveals the existence of a discrepancy between what it is possible to achieve and what is necessary. I fully agreed with the first part of Mr Oreja Arburúa’s speech, but then he appeared to take a step backwards regarding the need to make committee debates public too, which are much more like proper debates than the debates in the Chamber and are certainly much more of a political exercise.
Transparency and access to documents are not just a slogan – they mean, first and foremost, democratic control on the part of the citizens. If we look now at the possibilities for democratic control of the institutions’ work, we see that they are extremely limited.
In the context of major policies – justice, home affairs, foreign policy, defence – the European Parliament is, as a general rule, merely consulted. The national parliaments are informed, the Court of Justice has limited powers and, lastly, of course, the citizens benefit from direct access to documents.
For example – as has been pointed out – there is no justification for banning the disclosure of which Member State has tabled a particular proposal in the Council or of how it voted. We see this as a serious violation of the citizens’ civil and political rights. The citizens, like we members of national parliaments and the European Parliament, are being denied the right to know what their governments are doing and to express an opinion. Thus, democracy is being prevented from working as it should.
Moreover, it was the European Ombudsman who noted, in one of his special reports to Parliament, that it makes no sense to keep legal opinions secret when they are not like communications between lawyers and clients. I fail to understand why this step towards greater transparency is so feared by the institutions’ legal services and is, likewise, concealed by politicians.
Another positive aspect of the report is the criticism levelled at the Commission for bowing to Member States’ refusal to allow citizens access to their correspondence with the Commission in the context of infringement proceedings, whereas, in our opinion, the same regulation gives the Commission a facility to take independent decisions which it is refusing to use. Our fear is that, in this way, the Commission is covering up the misdeeds of the Member States and, in so doing, acting unlawfully itself.
I believe, for instance, that, concerning what happened with regard to the requests for access to Spain and Portugal’s correspondence on the infringement proceedings which the Commission intended to instigate against these countries for violation of a taxation directive – given that the Catholic Church is exempt from paying VAT – there is no reason for the public not to know the grounds on which the two States convinced the Commission to file the case despite the fact that genuine infringement had clearly occurred.
I feel that we need to look at practical cases in order to see what is necessary, not just what is possible, in this attempt to reconcile genuine needs and make good the democratic deficit."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples