Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-04-03-Speech-1-146"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060403.12.1-146"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, firstly, I should like sincerely to thank Mr Cashman for his constructive cooperation over the years in the cause of increased openness. The European Parliament has always been the driving force, but I must, in all honesty, also acknowledge that the Commission and the Council have also contributed lately to the really quite huge increase in quality that we have seen over the last five years. We now have a legislative procedure in the EU that, in certain respects, is much more open than that of most national parliaments, my own included.
The purpose of this overhaul is to produce the same rules for all three institutions. I of course hope that, in the long term, the process will rub off on the national bodies. The regulations must be designed in such a way that they can be embraced by the majority of institutions in both the EU and the Member States. Parliament is taking this initiative on openness in order to increase democratic control and produce clarifications when legislation is unclear. The minutes of meetings of the Council must be published when the Council acts in its legislative capacity, which does not mean that details of all the Coreper meetings have to be made public.
Just as in the conciliation process, some scope for negotiation should be guaranteed. Openness should, of course, be applied, however, when decisions on the actual legislation are actually taken. To give the general public access to legal opinions as a matter of course would be to restrict the scope for political action. Either that, or the opinions would be of lower quality. The alternative would be opinions of reduced quality. Parliamentarians involved in a particular issue should, however, be allowed in certain instances to study the legal opinions, once they have undertaken in writing to observe the confidentiality that applies to everyone else who has had a part to play in the matter.
Clear and robust data protection is a basic condition of increased openness. The rights concerned - openness and data protection - complement and reinforce each other. Information given out in confidence must be respected. Nor must we have any retroactive measures in this area. I am convinced that, once the Commission has completed its work, we shall have a fair and balanced proposal. I have every confidence in Mrs Wallström. There must be further development of the way in which people are given access to documents, and the Council must show respect for people and for the democratic process. A lot remains to be done in this area."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples