Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-01-13-Speech-2-244"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090113.26.2-244"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr Cappato, your report is full of good intentions, the clearest proof of which is that no amendments were deemed to be necessary by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs.
You were the one who introduced 18 amendments to your own report. It is those amendments that have given the report a radical edge – to put it in general terms – and that have raised very serious doubts for me.
I would divide into four distinct groups the amendments that you have proposed – amendments that you have proposed to yourself, I would stress – in a report that received the support of all groups initially. Firstly, some are impossible; you make some suggestions that are impossible. For example, Mr Cappato, some of your suggestions have no legal basis as yet: until the Lisbon Treaty enters into force, it will be impossible to harmonise the rules of the different institutions. Commissioner Wallström has just said something similar. You also call for 2009 to be declared European Year of Transparency, but we are too late, there is no time. Some of your suggestions are therefore impossible.
Secondly, some of your suggestions are inadvisable. For example, you call for transparency in the meetings of the political groups. This would not do. There is a need for privacy, since privacy is a political asset. If I want to disagree with my party and to maintain my opposition, I want to do so in private: that is not a lack of transparency. There must be transparency within public bodies, but not within the parties, the privacy of whose debates must be guaranteed. I cannot, therefore, agree with you on this point.
Some of your other assertions, Mr Cappato, are incorrect. For example, you state that 90% of legislative activity is done through comitology. This is a bold exaggeration, Mr Cappato. Furthermore, comitology has its own implicit transparency standards. If we introduce more mechanisms, more bureaucracy and more controls, we will be going against what we want to achieve: transparency, which is closely linked to simplicity.
Lastly – before the President signals to me, because I am already nearing the end of my time – some of your suggestions are unnecessary. For example, I understand that it is really wonderful and attractive to public opinion to speak of transparency in Members’ activities, so that it can be seen whether they attend plenary sittings. It can already be seen, Mr Cappato. It can also be seen whether they attend the committees too; there are minutes for each of them, to which all citizens have access. The allowances that MEPs claim are also public. In other words, it is perfectly possible for citizens to gain access to this information.
I therefore understand that it is wonderful in terms of public opinion and it looks good to defend transparency, but you must realise that transparency means ensuring that things are seen as they really are and that if we contribute to distorting how things are seen, Mr Cappato, we are not contributing to transparency. Thank you for your generosity, Mr President."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples