WRITTEN QUESTION P-3789/00

by Cecilia Malmström (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: Commissioner de Palacio's remarks regarding the Cashman report on 16 November 2000

In the remarks she made regarding the Cashman report at the sitting of 16 November 2000, Commissioner Loyola de Palacio del Valle-Lersundi made a reference to the sterilisation of people in Sweden and, with regard to the debate on that subject, considered that problems can arise even in a country which seeks to ensure maximum openness.

The principle of public access to official documents is enshrined in the Swedish constitution and means that documents are in the public domain and may be requested by members of the public unless they are covered by any of the exceptions that have been specified. This principle, which dates back to 1766, has ensured that Sweden enjoys a transparent system of government. There is also clear evidence that a high degree of openness reduces corruption.

Like Commissioner de Palacio, we, too, were dismayed when we learnt that people had been sterilised without their consent in Swedish clinics and hospitals. However, we do not agree with her assertion that the use of sterilisation had been a secret and that it may thus be concluded that there is no perfect system when it comes to ensuring openness. In fact, it is thanks to Sweden's open system of government that it was possible to discover that people were being sterilised and to debate the issue.

We find it offensive that a Member of the Commission has chosen to single out an individual Member State for criticism in a parliamentary debate, especially when the assertions she made are ill-founded. Does the President of the Commission consider it appropriate in a debate on openness to make thinly veiled references to a specific country and a tragic part of its history in an attempt to argue that the democratic credentials of that country are dubious? What does the sterilisation issue have to do with the current debate on public access to EU documents?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(10 January 2001)

The Member of the Commission has clearly explained that her comment in the Parliament was not meant to hold back efforts to strengthen transparency in the Community institutions nor to criticise any particular Member State. Quite the contrary. The sole purpose of it was to stress that in the Community there are different legislations and traditions to what is commonly known as transparency, and all of them have to be respected. There is not a single model of transparency. Furthermore, all the Member States and Members of the Parliament, can and must contribute with their experience to improve transparency in the Community institutions.

In those circumstances, the best way to make progress on the Commission's proposal on access to documents, is dialogue and trying to understand each others' concern rather than trying to impose its own point of view. That was the only purpose of her words.

She understands however that if her words are taken out of context, they can easily be misinterpreted which she regrets. The Commission hopes nevertheless that this reply makes the point clear. Indeed, the Commission and Sweden share many common views on how to improve transparency in the institutions. The Commission is therefore confident in that respect, that the Commission's proposal on access to documents, currently under examination, will receive a great political input from the Parliament and the incoming Swedish Presidency since Sweden has a well deserved reputation of being a Member State with a long tradition in this field and that has taken the lead in the task of improving transparency in the Community. The Commission is looking forward to it.