Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-12-14-Speech-3-365-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20111214.26.3-365-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, I would like to thank the honourable Members for a very lively debate, which clearly demonstrates the importance of ensuring clear rules for citizens’ access to EU documents. This is the objective of the regulation and I am very glad that it was underlined by several speakers, starting with Ms Sommer.
I would like to thank all the honourable Members for their active discussion on this file. I am open for constructive cooperation and I believe that, if we really focus on the balanced approach, we can achieve this goal.
The discussion was wide-ranging. Of course, I will not be able to respond to all the comments or all the points raised, so allow me to take this opportunity to set the record straight on some of the critical remarks on the Commission’s proposal.
First, I would like to give Ms Monika Flašíková Beňová and Ms Jäätteenmäki assurance as to the definition of ‘documents’. The proposed regulation would not lead to fewer documents being disclosed than is the case today; a more precise definition of ‘documents’ means safer administration and more clarity for the citizens. As I have already stated, many requests for competition files running to thousands of pages are made by lawyers of the companies concerned for reasons that have nothing to do with the aim of transparency. These requests do not lead to the public disclosure of documents, but create a huge administrative burden and search. These requests are made in order to create a competitive advantage over competitors or to circumvent investigation. This burden is very great in the files related to the protection of the single market.
Therefore, we believe that our proposed definition mainly clarifies the situation. On the exceptions relating to the legislative process: I believe – as do many speakers in the House – that to have a limited space to think is necessary, as was pointed out by several speakers, Mr Pirker, Mr Busuttil and others.
Here in the European Parliament, several of you reflected on what consequences the proposed amendments by Mr Cashman would have on the proceedings of the Conference of Presidents or ongoing trialogues, for example. I believe that you will agree that internal discussions must be frank, which requires a certain degree of confidentiality as regards the opinions expressed. This confidentiality must be balanced against the public interest of transparency on a case-by-case basis, as was pointed out by Mr Alfano.
A few words on the next steps. As I have stated, the Commission is looking forward to discussions with the colegislators and will participate actively with a view to reaching a balanced compromise. In light of the progress of these discussions, the Commission will decide on further steps and will do its utmost to contribute to finding common ground between the colegislators.
In the meantime, the Commission will continue to work proactively on increasing transparency. I cannot accept some of the claims that the Commission is against transparency; that we are trying to get a rollback on transparency. That is definitely not true. We are very much continuing with our transparency initiative. I truly believe that the EU institutions and the Commission are among the most transparent in the world. They would stand comparison in this respect to any Member State in the European Union.
Take the transparency register for example. We have already more than 4 600 companies registered and more that 22 000 people covered. I would very much welcome the support of the European Parliament in being even more proactive in raising awareness of the transparency register. Help us to get more law firms registered in the transparency register so that they send us fewer letters asking for documents which the Commission has to study very carefully if they are not related to ongoing investigations. They should be enrolled in the register. Why are they refusing? Help us there and I think we will do a greater service to transparency in the European Union.
Next year, thanks to the great assistance and help from this Parliament, we will start with the European Citizens’ Initiative. I think that this will be another test for all of the EU institutions: how we can react, how we can communicate and how we can exchange views and reconnect with European citizens. I think this will be further proof of how the European Commission and how the EU institutions communicate with citizens."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples