Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-02-17-Speech-4-066-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110217.5.4-066-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, it really warms my heart to listen to this discussion. In fact, it would be good to have some kind of memo about the history of this issue.
Let us develop our response in this issue, but let us also not underestimate the efforts which have been made so far.
The Commission takes note of all these good ideas and advice on how to increase transparency. I should point out that in 2005 we launched a transparency initiative which included the question of expert groups. This was very largely my brainchild, as Mr Hans-Peter Martin has just recalled.
There have, of course, been huge changes in relation to this question, with all the websites and information now available. But you should never regard the experts as some kind of decision-makers. They are not decision-makers and they clash with each other.
It is the same issue as has just been raised in relation to genetically modified organisms. One knows that it is not just industry that is concerned. There are different groups of experts. In the last months of the last Commission I also had responsibility for security, so all information about demonstrations came to my desk. One of the last huge demonstrations was against the abolition of subsidies for tobacco producers.
So there are different views, but we are the decision-makers: the Commissioners and Members of Parliament and our Institutions. Agencies also make decisions, as do the Council and the Member State governments. Experts are not the decision-makers. There is no arithmetical link.
Yes, I am in favour of greater transparency. It is clear that some very high-level expert groups were set up only to quietly disappear because they were not able to give any advice as they held such contradictory views.
So let us work with this transparency register, which I also consider to be a great achievement, because experts and advisers are everywhere. No politician survives without advisers. Political groups have advisers and are approached by different interests, and finally it is for political decision-makers to take one stand or another. There will always be subjects where the experts will say that now you must take this or that position. This is a matter for the political decision-makers: Commissioners, parliamentarians, political groups, in accordance with the democratic system.
There is also the question of the composition of the expert groups. Many issues have been raised about composition. Who should assess whether their composition is balanced or not? The composition of the expert groups is determined by specific cases. Some people may mistakenly want to enter these expert groups to be part of the decision-making process, but expert groups are not decision-makers.
Back in 2005, as some of us remember, there really was an element of opacity and the Commission, together with Parliament, has introduced substantial changes in this regard. By this I mean the transparency register, which registers representatives of interest groups. This applies to lobbyists at Parliament and the Commission, and a lot of information is now available to assess how great their influence is and the composition of the expert groups."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples