ACCESS TO EU DOCUMENTS: European Parliament votes for "deal" with Council
Topic
Country/Region
01 March 2001
European Parliament agrees "deal" on the new code of access to documents with EU governments; "the parliament could have achieved much, much, more" (Heidi Hautala MEP); the campaign for openness is to continue< br >< br >< br >< br >On 3 May (World Press Freedom Day) the European Parliament voted in favour of accepting the “deal” reached with the Council (the 15 EU governments) on a new Regulation on the citizens' right of access to EU documents. < br >< br > The vote was 400 in favour, 85 against and 12 abstentions. The two largest political groups in the parliament, PSE (Socialist, social democrat) and the PPE (conservative), together with the ELDR (Liberal) group voted in favour. Three groups voted against: the Green/EFA group, GUE (European United Left) and EDD (Europe of Democracies). On a separate vote which concerned EU member states “respecting the security rules of the institutions” the vote was 370 in favour, 115 against with 11 abstentions. In the previous vote on the parliament on 16 November last year 409 MEPs voted in favour of the PSE/PPE report with only 3 voting against and the Green group abstaining.< br >< br > The “deal” will be adopted at the meeting of the General Affairs Council on 14-15 May. The new Regulation will enter into force three days after its publication in the Official Journal and will “be applicable” six months after its adoption (that is, in November). The public registers of documents, of the Commission and the European Parliament, will be operational one year after entry into force (the Council already has a public register).< br >< br > The “unholy alliance” between the PSE and PPE on this issue, which was evident from the start of the parliamentary process last summer, had hoped to get the unanimous support of the parliament. However, as the process went on between 16 November, when the parliament first voted on the issue, and the 3 May vote, opposition to a “deal” became more evident both inside and outside the parliament. This was due to the way the “deal” was reached through secret “trilogue” negotiations and to its content.< br >< br >< br >< br >Civil society and the “unholy alliance”< br >< br >As the civil society groups who had been active on the issue for many years were excluded from playing any part in the decision-making process they organised a “working seminar” in the parliament in Brussels on 27 February (organised by the European Federation of Journalists and Statewatch). The Council, Commission and parliament rapporteurs all attended. As one observer reflected afterwards: “They spent most of their time talking to each other. They came, heard, went away and ignored our views”.< br >< br > All the civil society groups - which also included the European Citizens Action Service (ECAS), the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), Bankwatch, Professor Deirdre Curtin from Utrecht University and Steve Peers from Essex University - said the draft on the table was unacceptable: 1) it removed rights available under the existing 1993 code; 2) it patently failed to meet the commitment in the Amsterdam Treaty to “enshrine” the right of access; 3) it gave more new “rights” protecting the Brussels institutions than to citizens; 4) it should be torn up and they should start again - the 1 May deadline was unimportant, a proper code of access was the priority (it is not unusual for treaty deadlines to be extended).< br >< br > The Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights was due to discuss the “deal” at its meeting on 25 April and the deadline for amendments to be put in was Wednesday 18 April. On Thursday 12 April (the day before the Easter Bank Holiday), when the “deal” was all but agreed, the main rapporteur Michael Cashman (PSE), contacted Statewatch asking for our views by the Tuesday after Easter. The e-mail said:< br >< br >If you have any amendments to make to these [the report], I would be happy to receive them. I cannot promise as to my agreement, but I'm happy to see your ideas and see what we can do.< br >< br >Over the four-day holiday period a coalition of civil society groups prepared de