Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-05-10-Speech-2-547-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110510.64.2-547-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, Minister, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I will make a single statement covering both matters, which are on the same subject.
With this debate and the vote which will follow, we will conclude a task and a period of negotiations in the working group chaired by Mrs Wallis and composed of fellow Members from all political groups, as well as a Commission delegation led by Mr Šefčovič, which has resulted in the drafting of an agreement for the establishment of a common Transparency Register. The Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFCO) has prepared this report in a few months and has also finalised a report on the amendment of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure.
Personally, I was very surprised at the amount of public attention that this transparency agreement has garnered. I fear that people think the results will have a greater effect than was actually pursued. Transparency is the defence of right political action, but it is not the right instrument for getting to the heart of corruption. The recent cases of journalists trying to corrupt a few MEPs could also happen outside parliamentary premises. Furthermore, would-be corruptors know how to avoid being identified and the registers are not, therefore, a silver bullet.
The right tool for the job is criminal law. Yet if the criminal law of the Member States is not sufficient, we will need to reread Articles 82 to 86 of the Treaty of Lisbon, reflect on whether we can consider the corruption of MEPs to be cross-border crime or an act otherwise detrimental to the Union’s financial interests and determine whether or not to create a European Public Prosecutor, which would, moreover, be a significant step along the path to unity.
The Transparency Register has a more modest task. In some countries the term lobbyist has a negative meaning, while in others lobbying is seen as an almost an act of public service because it informs decision-makers on issues they might not otherwise know about. This is especially important for the European Parliament, because often the issues faced by MEPs are very complex and technical and we almost always need to find a balance between businesses and countries with divergent interests.
This is where lobbyists become very useful. So we shall no longer call them lobbyists but stakeholders. Of course, interests can be conflicting, and rightly so. I used to be a judge and I can say that cross-examination of opposing sides is considered a condition for uncovering the truth and obtaining justice. So, having lobbyists or stakeholders with conflicting interests is a good thing: what is important is that the judge – and therefore also the MEP – maintains his freedom of thought, independence, and his honest search for the common good. Hence, we have established the Transparency Register, in mutual agreement between Parliament and the Commission with the hope that the Council will soon join the agreement.
Those who wish to represent their interests are free to have access to our premises but they must be listed in the Register, where all information needed to identify their legal and financial status will be recorded. The Register is public. There are also organisations that do not pursue selfish interests but try to collaborate in European policies in the name of general values, such as churches, political parties and regions. They do not need to be added to this Register: but, if they have separate offices exclusively tasked with maintaining contact with European institutions, they must be included in their Register, though subject to a different legal regime to stakeholders.
As already stated, the new Register also contains an amendment to the Rules of Procedure. There are therefore two reports, but in any case this is just a first step towards more complete transparency. Some hypotheses are already being researched and could be turned into rules after further reflection hence point 9 of the document adopting the agreement indicates the possibility for the reports to carry the details of the stakeholders who met with MEPs during the preparation of the report in question.
This broad provision for possible amendments leads me to express a negative opinion on amendments which would put limits on such future deliberations. I hope, however, that Council will join this agreement in short order and that there is also immediate and broad consensus in this House, a strong signal of the duty of transparency and also a call to action. I hope that the vote is nearly unanimous."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples