Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-12-15-Speech-2-246"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20091215.16.2-246"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, can I start by saying that it is very good to see Commissioner Wallström in the room, as well as Cecilia Malmström, from the Presidency-in-Office, because we were both engaged in this dossier from the outset, in 1999.
It is interesting to reflect that what we achieved in our agreement in May 2001 was somehow historic, amongst 15 Member States moving from different traditions and cultures, and different approaches, to openness and transparency. We managed to reach an agreement and, interestingly, in no small way was that due to the determination of the Swedish Presidency at the time.
It was also due to the determination of the Commission to recognise that all three institutions needed a cultural change. We needed to see that openness and transparency did not prevent democracy from flourishing, but actually improved it. It allowed accountability. It allowed citizens to see what was being done in their name and, arguably, it helped us to lift the curtain and to prove once and for all that there were no terrible secrets hidden in the safes of the Commission or the Council – I am not so sure about Parliament, but hopefully not in Parliament’s safes either!
I want to thank in particular the Commissioner and, if I may, my dear former colleague, Cecilia Malmström, for that commitment. Now we need another commitment. As I said, we have achieved a huge amount. We have a register of documents. We have the jurisprudence of the ECJ, now defining and redefining what was originally agreed on access to documents. We have accepted the principle that all documents should remain accessible and that, where not accessible, access should be reasoned against quite clearly and specifically in reference to either Article 4 – the exemptions – or Article 9 – sensitive documents.
However, as we have moved on, Parliament has called repeatedly for a revision. I believe that the revision the Commission placed before Parliament, on which we subsequently voted in committee and the first reading of which was deferred in March of this year, did not go far enough, and I know we have a difference of opinion on this. Equally there were concerns – and those concerns still remain in this House – that there was an attempt to claw back on access to documents, not least in the redefining of documents – the notion that whole files could be exempted – and attempting to redefine the notion of the third-party veto.
It is interesting that our citizens sitting in the gallery must be thinking that we are talking about something that happens in outer space – articles, third-party vetoes – but actually what we are talking about is a law that allows them to make sure that we are accountable: parliamentarians accountable for what we do in their name, the Commission for what it does in their name, and, equally, the Council. How can they do that and the NGOs do that if the way we work and who does what within all of the different units remains a well-kept secret, open only to those lobbyists and those lawyers who know?
That is what I believe is at the heart of the Treaty of Lisbon. It says that we need to further enhance democracy. We need to enhance access to documents. That is why Parliament, in this oral question, is calling for a whole range of recommendations to be undertaken. Basically, it is about ensuring that the rights that we have are built upon, that they are not diminished, and about recognising that under Lisbon, it is no longer just the three institutions but all of the agencies and the bodies set up by them, including the European Central Bank, in some instances, the European Court of Justice, the European Investment Bank, Europol and Eurojust. All of these institutions are now accountable under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.
We believe that the proposals that have been brought forward since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty do not match either the spirit or the letter of that treaty or, indeed, the obligations that we believe are contained within the original Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, which, for the benefit of our listeners, governs public access to all the documents held, received or produced by the three institutions."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples