Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-04-03-Speech-1-137"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060403.12.1-137"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I would like to associate myself wholeheartedly with the statement by my friend Mr Hammerstein Mintz. I was the original rapporteur on Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 on public access to documents and I well remember the heated debates, not only within Parliament but within the Council and within the trialogue, as we set out to win the arguments for what was at that time a groundbreaking regulation. I remember – and it is worth naming some of the old EU-15 – the vehement opposition from France, Spain, Italy, Germany and Austria. I am pleased to say that the Austrian Presidency has now changed its attitude, but I mention this because it shows what a long way we have come.
There are different approaches to openness and transparency. We have the wonderful Nordic example, and then we have the rather suspicious view taken in other Member States, but arguably we have nothing whatsoever to fear from transparency. What is there to fear from opening our decisions to external examination? What does a Member State have to fear from explaining to its own parliament why the minister voted as he or she did?
I make several recommendations in my report and I call upon the Commission to take action. We recognise that Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 was not the end of the game but merely the beginning of a long – arguably cultural – journey to win the argument for openness and transparency within the three institutions. We come from different traditions. That is why I have called for a further review of the regulation. This review was provided for in the original recommendation and there are several areas concerning the regulation’s implementation which now, several years later, could be substantially improved on the basis of the lessons that we have learned from its implementation.
We need to look again at the definitions of legislative and non-legislative texts in relation to public access to documents, in order to ensure that all the institutions are working in an open and transparent manner. Access to documents is not a gift – it is a right. This is especially important when Parliament and the Council are working in a legislative capacity. Increased interinstitutional cooperation and increased use of the codecision procedure necessitate greater openness by the Council in particular. Citizens must be able to see what is being agreed in their names by national ministers of national governments so that they and opposition parties can hold them to account.
We need to look at the way we define the circumstances in which specific documents can be classified completely, or in part, as confidential. These rules should provide legitimate derogations for specific clearly-defined reasons, but should not be interpreted in a broad sense, which would essentially have the result of denying public access to documents.
Here is the point on which I shall finish: we won the argument from 1999 until May 2001 when the regulation was adopted. Time and time again we have won the argument for a review of the internal rules of the institutions so that the Council in particular, when meeting in its legislative capacity, should meet in public and vote in public. The arguments have been won. I know the Vice-President is personally committed to the whole notion of openness and transparency. The House is committed, but that is not enough. We have a wonderful window of opportunity on 9 May, Europe Day. Let us make Europe Day a positive day when we can announce how we will improve the citizens’ right to know what is done in their name.
Finally, there is a rise of anti-Europeanism, not least in the ten new countries that joined us two years ago. Often governments which bring a country into the family of the European Union suffer as a result; they are not re-elected. We would be a friend of anti-Europeanism if we continue to cloak what we do in secrecy. Let us take on the anti-Europeans. Let us promote our institutions. Let us celebrate what we do. Let us bring forward that review of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, not reluctantly but with enthusiasm."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples