Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-25-Speech-4-013"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030925.2.4-013"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, Ombudsmen, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I should like to congratulate my colleague, the Earl of Stockton on this report, which my group fully supports. The comparison with a pair of scales is sometimes made when talking about the future of Europe and the future Constitution. On the one hand, the Union has to be democratic and open, and on the other hand, it has to be efficient and functional. We in Parliament have to watch over those scales and ensure that they do not tip at the expense of openness. I extend my greetings to the first European Ombudsman, Mr Söderman, whose last report we are discussing today, and thank him once more, on behalf of my group, for his work over many years. He has never ceased to emphasise that transparency and openness are the cheapest means of ensuring good administration and combating fraud. I shall not embark on a discussion of the Eurostat question here: that would lead us off on too much of a tangent.
In addition, the annual reports by the Ombudsman have shown us how complaints by citizens regarding maladministration can lead to tangible improvements in the way in which the institutions work. In most cases, the institutions have reacted positively to the Ombudsman’s comments and solutions have been found to the complaints. Sometimes, however, there is reluctance on the part of the institution concerned to change bad rules and practices. In that case, the Ombudsman can go to Parliament with a special report.
Two matters of this kind are currently at issue. There is need of a common Code of Good Administrative Behaviour for all the institutions. Parliament decided on this on the basis of the Perry report. I still do not see why it should be so problematic, especially for the Commission, the very ones that should be setting a good example in this. Why are we waiting for the IGC when we could be taking the lead ourselves?
The other report, for which my colleague, Mrs Lambert, was rapporteur, concerns data protection and its use for the purposes of requiring confidentiality in matters that should actually be of a public nature. Two fundamental rights are at odds here: the right to information on the one hand, and the right to the protection of personal data on the other. I should like to ask the Commission, in this connection, how it intends to resolve this matter and the problems between our institutions."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples