Michael Cashman: "Trainspotter for transparency"

 

I think progress has been made. When we first took the issue up in 1999, we had what I would call an institutional and cultural reluctance. It was felt that it would slow up the work of institutions, that they would be less effective and that somehow scrutiny was something to be worried about. I think we can say that scrutiny enhances the democratic process, in terms of accountability whether by citizens, their representatives or by NGOs and journalists.

 

This regulation provides that all documents are accessible and when they are not, the reasons have to be clear. I have become something of a train spotter on this. I even know the articles they have to refer to. So if a document is refused, you have to say why, you can’t just say it's "national security". Confidentiality can never be used as a blanket excuse not to produce a document.

 

But we've got much more to do, not least making access to documents easy. If you are a journalist or lobbyist, you will know your way around the maze. If you don’t, it is important you go online, because, we say, documents should be accessible online, despite the administrative burden. There should be a common register, "one doorway", saying "European Union access to documents", where you go and type in your request."

 

 

Like any right, unless you know it exists, you can’t avail yourself of it. Consumer and citizens' organisations are aware of this and do access information. The Lisbon Treaty changes a lot. It enhances transparency, to bring the citizen closer to the institutions and the institutions closer to the citizen.

 

According to Lisbon, citizens will have the right to participate in the democratic life of the union. But unless you can track how it works and how you can engage yourself through your MEP, or NGOs, you can never actually be apart of enhancing or enabling that process: you became a passive observer. So the right to participate is extremely important.

 

 

Mainly because people feel disconnected, prey to europhobic propaganda that things are done in their name without ever being consulted.

 

Under Lisbon, there has to be openness, access to agendas, decisions, minutes. Once we have that, people in Finland, the UK, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Slovakia, wherever, will see that things are not imposed by Brussels, but actually agreed by their own governments sitting in the council of ministers. And they'll be able to see how their governments voted.

 

Lisbon also obliges national parliaments to scrutinise. Now they can turn around to their home affairs or consumer affairs ministers and say "this is how you voted in Council" and people will see that they can hold the institutions accountable through their national elections.

 

Equally, there have been various scandals about abuses of budgets, agricultural funds, and allegations about abuse of funds by MEPs. The more open we are, the more we put online and the more access we give, the more people will see that where this occurs and that it is the exception rather than the rule.

 

 

We've called for a number of recommendations to be taken on board. The Commission finally produced a revision which I think was met with disappointment across all the political groups. It's seen as backtracking on some of the rights that existed in the original regulation.

 

Are some of the institutions reluctant? Yes. To be honest, I think member states were not aware of the powers they gave away when they agreed to regulation 1049/2001 in May 2001. They want to claw some of those powers back. I believe the Commission also wants to in relation to competition files and says that certain files should be kept totally outside of the public domain.

 

But if there is a necessity for that, then let's reason it out  and come to a solution together, while upholding the principle that all documents are accessible.