Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-02-12-Speech-4-111"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040212.6.4-111"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I wish to begin by dealing with the allegation contained in Mr Perry's report that directives have not been implemented. That seems to have been accepted in this House. However, that assertion and allegation have not been proven.
Mr Bolkestein has on many occasions – both to the committee and to this House – indicated that he could not look at past regimes: he could only rule if current law was compatible. Some of us heard that, but others failed to hear it.
If there is alleged past failure, then the place to seek redress is in the national courts. This has been played before the national courts on many occasions, and the judgments have gone against the plaintiffs. Indeed, at the moment before the English High Court there is a case of alleged breach of statutory duty against Her Majesty's Treasury and the Secretary-of-State for the Department of Trade and Industry. Yet Mr Perry calls for documents which the UK Government has sent to the Commission, whilst failing to recognise that those same documents may form part of its defence. Any defence has to present its case before the relevant court. Equally, I have learnt, from being a member of the Committee on Petitions, that one of the petitioners is about to bring a case before the Court of Justice.
Let me refer now to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. There is a degree of ignorance or naivety that appals me. Parliamentarians do not have to refer to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in order to gain access to documents. There is an interinstitutional framework agreement for parliamentary access. But, if anyone were to read that Regulation, he would see that the infringement proceedings are a particular exception under Article 4.
Let me just refer to something Mr Perry said. All of us in public life must be consistent in the application of principle. Mr Perry said that he finds it shaming that the UK Government was so secretive that it undertook the withdrawal of documents. What does it have to hide? This morning I was in the STOA Panel discussing and voting on a study on inedibles in food product packaging. Mr Perry voted for the suppression of a public document. I fail to understand that. We must be consistent in the application of principle. The Commission has met its obligations. If Parliament wants to go down the cul-de-sac to the Court of Justice, let Parliament prove itself foolish."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples