Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2016-06-09-Speech-4-270-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20160609.23.4-270-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I would like to start by congratulating the Committee on Civil Liberties Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) and its chair, Labour MEP, Claude Moraes, for taking the initiative to raise this important question. But this question goes beyond the concerns of the LIBE Committee, particularly about readmission agreements. As a member of the Committee on International Trade (INTA), I know how crucial access information is. This is a fundamental prerequisite for us to be able to carry out parliamentary scrutiny, which in turn is our main tool to ensure the legitimacy of the EU’s external action and, in particular, its trade policy.
Ultimately, we need to regain the public’s trust, and this starts with upholding the highest level of transparency, not just towards the general public, but also, crucially, towards us as their representatives in the European Parliament. Certainly, as a former trade unionist, I can see – and I think the vast majority of the public would understand – that some discretion is needed in any negotiation, and that it would be detrimental to disclose certain documents when it is clear that such a disclosure could seriously weaken the EU’s negotiating position. But most people would also assume that discretion should not prevent proper parliamentary scrutiny and that MEPs should have access to all confidential information even when the general public does not.
Sadly, this is not the reality today. The frequent complaints raised by MEPs – and we have heard them today – and national and regional parliamentarians, that they are being kept in the dark when it comes to negotiations on TTIP, TISA or CETA, are not helping to shift the public perception over what is seen as a series of secretive negotiations. This is why we still have a problem with transparency on TTIP, even though in reality the TTIP negotiations are arguably among the most transparent trade negotiations ever conducted, certainly in the case of my Member State and definitely in the case of the EU.
Stories in the media about how limited the access granted to MEPs in reading rooms is certainly does not help and I strongly believe that it would be in the interests of everyone to improve the situation. For instance, as the spokesperson on TTIP for my national delegation, I do not have access to consolidated documents or other restricted documents, even in the reading room. The group of MEPs allowed to see these documents, which include our partner countries’ positions, is extremely limited: less than 5% of all MEPs.
This is just one example of how narrowly the Treaty provisions aiming at ensuring the transparency of international agreements have been implemented by the Commission. This minimalistic approach by the Commission stands in stark contrast with European case law, which has always taken a much broader view of what this obligation to inform entails. It is therefore absolutely justified for Parliament to ask the Commission how it intends to fully comply with the Treaty and guarantee a regular and comprehensive flow of information on international agreements in all areas.
This is not to say that the Commission is the only culprit, and I think it is worth mentioning that we have many problems with the Council, and many problems in terms of transparency around the Council. Parliament could also do things better. For instance, MEPs are not allowed to take notes when consulting confidential documents in the reading room as a result of a decision in this House by Parliament’s Bureau. I very much hope that the Commission will seize this initiative as an opportunity to push its transparency agenda further. Transparency is at the heart of Commissioner Malmström’s ambition for EU trade policy in the 21st century, but it is now time to turn those words into concrete action so that we are able to fully fulfil our role, in terms of parliamentary scrutiny, towards the general public and our constituents."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples