WRITTEN QUESTION P-0392/00

by Inger Schörling (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 February 2000)

Subject: Public access to information and protection of source

Commissioner Neil Kinnock has maintained in the Swedish press that the Swedish model of public access to information and protection of the source of information is not appropriate for the Commission. In Kinnock's view, apparently, important decisions would be taken informally if public access were introduced and protection of the source of information would result in more secretiveness. Kinnock also claimed that Paul van Buitenen had changed from being a worthy informant exposing irregularities within the Commission into an unworthy informant aiming to blacken the name of the Commission as an institution.

Can Commissioner Kinnock elaborate on the reasons why he has concluded that public access to information and protection of the source of information would have the opposite effect from that intended if applied in the EU? Can the Commissioner describe in more detail what it is in Paul van Buitenen's conduct which has transformed him from a worthy into an unworthy informant?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2000)

The Commission recently published its proposal for a regulation concerning public access to documents of the European Institutions(1). It sets out the principles and rules, which are in the Commission's opinion necessary in order to guarantee transparency for the European citizens with regard to information held by the Institutions. In drawing up its proposal the Commission has taken account of the positive experience it has acquired in connection with the code of conduct(2), Member States' legislation on access to documents, in particular good practice in the Nordic countries, and the specific situation of the Communities.

The Parliament and Council will discuss this text and finally lay down the binding rules on this topic.

In Parliament and elsewhere, the Vice-President responsible for Personnel and administrative reform has given particular recognition to the fact that Sweden has a long and positive tradition of public access to information and, consequently, standards which are worthy of aspiration but, realistically, not likely to be completely replicated in the European Institutions in the very near future.

In public statements, the Vice President also noted the fact that, in Sweden, the informal exchanges that take place before a document is given the status of being official are not accessible to the public. In the proposal put forward by the Commission, the definition of a document excludes texts for internal use such as discussion documents, opinions of departments and informal messages. If there was no such exclusion which in the view of the Committee of Independent Experts was necessary because the Commission needs the space to think to formulate policy before it enters the public domain people might be reluctant to produce and exchange those documents and that could lead to greater secrecy whilst not adding to the effectiveness of work.

Meanwhile, the references in the question misquote the Vice President. He has repeated that the irregularities disclosed by a Commission official were all the subject of disciplinary or legal proceedings before that disclosure. He has also referred to allegations reported in the Swedish press that fraud was continuing among thousands of officials within the organisation. Patently this is not true and it is the sort of generalised allegation that unfairly defames the Commission and its staff and provokes unjustified distrust of citizens.

(1) COM(2000) 30 final.

(2) Code of conduct concerning public access to Council and Commission documents, adopted by the Council on 20.12.1993 (OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 43), and by the Commission on 8 February 1994 (OJ L 46, 18.2.1994, p. 58). The European Parliament adopted a decision on public access to its documents on 10 July 1997 (OJ L 263, 25.9.1997, p. 27).