Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-10-08-Speech-3-158"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20081008.20.3-158"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, first of all, the Turco judgment will be respected and implemented by the Commission too, of course. The Court judgment actually said that in this case the Council was wrong, that the Council has to correct its procedures, and I am sure that the Council will follow the judgment.
That is the starting point of this discussion. However, it has been partly confused with the discussion we had on Regulation No 1049/2001. The Turco judgment is one thing, and then there is Regulation No 1049/2001. As you know we presented a proposal and are in the process of dealing with Regulation No 1049/2001 and how that regulation should ultimately be designed.
I think there must also be some confusion about what I said. I did not ask for more time. I was explaining the fact that the modernisation of our information technology tools has to be done continuously, it cannot be done overnight. We already have a register. We are complementing the register with a number of things, such as comitology and all the expert groups. However – and I was very honest in trying to answer one of the five questions – I am not convinced that the best thing is to have one register. It is like having a telephone book for the whole of Europe instead of trying to have different national telephone books.
Are you sure that this is better, to have one huge telephone book for the whole of Europe instead of having different entry points? Because the definition you asked for today in your specific question is the definition which is in a certain paragraph, which also includes audiovisual form. This is a very wide definition. Are you sure it will be helpful to citizens to have one huge entry point for all of this?
Let us discuss that, but I am not sure that there is one simple solution like that. So we do not share that view. Modernising our tools in this area is a constant thing that we have to discuss all the time, because things happen so quickly. But we seem to share the same objectives of having openness and transparency and access to documents. That is the starting point and that is what we will continue to fight for and we will of course follow the Turco judgment.
On the specific issue where I mentioned that we have a target date for 2010, that is on a very specific project and I was just giving you the date for this. But in general we do not and should not need to ask for more time. This is something we have to do on a daily basis: to provide more openness, more transparency, to serve citizens because they need to know, and it has to be part of the culture and the attitude of all the institutions.
Along with your fellow Members I was able to applaud your good speech, Mr Cashman, because it contains the starting point for what is required now: to open up, to create access. I think that having our deliberations in the open will also help people to make their own informed judgment of what is going on and of why we have so many important things on our agenda."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples