Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-02-Speech-3-099"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010502.7.3-099"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I want to begin by thanking both rapporteurs, and I also want to thank the Commission, the Presidency and the Council for the constructive work they have done.
The first question one might ask oneself is whether, in Parliament’s view, this is the best proposal that can be achieved. The answer is no. There are details in this document about which we have reservations and which we could wish were better. That applies, for example, to the issues surrounding documents of a sensitive nature. Reservations might also be entertained about the way in which the process has been conducted and about the fact that it has sometimes been conducted behind closed doors, as has been the case, on the whole, where the conciliation procedure is concerned. Even though discussions have taken place, the procedure is not especially open.
The second question we must ask ourselves is whether this proposal constitutes progress, or even considerable progress, in relation to the situation we have at present. My answer is an unqualified yes. It constitutes substantial progress in relation to the present situation. I really cannot understand those who say that it is a retrograde step. Is it not progress that all incoming documents are now to be made public, as is not of course the case at present? Is it not progress that, in principle, all documents will have to be registered in a way that they are not at present? Is it not progress that the secrecy rules which we have, which we recognise must exist and which exist in all those countries which have made the most progress of all in this area, are relatively few in number and, moreover, quite out in the open? The answer is an unqualified yes.
Furthermore, an individual requiring access to a document will only have to wait for a short period of time while the matter is administered. Documents must be more readily available on the Internet, and the administration period must be a maximum of fifteen days, meaning that the process is relatively quick. If the individual is not satisfied with the result, there must be a right to appeal and have the decision reviewed. That, if anything, surely constitutes progress. Moreover, the national rules must apply in those countries which have better legislation than that now being proposed. The proposal is not, therefore, a retrograde step for those countries which have more open legislation.
All this does constitute substantial progress. It would therefore seem very odd if this Parliament were to vote against a proposal just because it does not go the whole hog, for we are nearly there and have the opportunity to carry out an annual audit. Moreover, a review will take place in a few years’ time. It is quite clear that we in Parliament must vote in favour of this proposal. People want the institutions to be more open. This proposal constitutes a clear improvement when it comes to transparency and, in addition, to democratic administration within the EU."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples