A week ago I optimistically requested an interview with Margot Wallstrom to clarify what was going on with the EU’s Freedom of Information rules - specifically the Commission’s proposals to amend 1049/2001, which is the framework for what the Commission calls “access to documents”. That doesn’t include access to Council documents.

The proposals had got a kicking in Sweden, and civ-libbers like Statewatch and ECAS were chewing on their battered remains for days after they were published.

Her office came back refusing an interview but promising written answers to the six questions I’d outlined. These unsurprisingly never arrived. But Margot has written a post on her blog defending the proposals, and attacking The Times and other unspecified people what oughta know better. It even includes a picture of Margot looking at a document she’s accessed, and smiling happily.

Which is gratifying, considering that last week I wrote

…in a normal democracy this would offer the chance to start a dialogue. DG Comms would respond to the criticisms, perhaps by clarifying its position, perhaps by defending the proposals…

But the Directorate General for Communications is off. Not even on standby. Margot hasn’t published a press release, given an interview, or uttered a squeak…

My recommendation is that DG Comms takes its life in its hands and gets involved in the fray. The Commission is constantly complaining about how the press aren’t engaged with EU affairs, but they do little to encourage them. Pulling up the drawbridge as soon as you’ve published a new proposal is the surest way to turn people off.

Anyway, I’m not a mindreader, but I think Statewatch may have misunderstood part of the proposals. For the rest, I can’t say, as the debate goes over my head and in any case seems to focus on technicalities.

Proposed Article 12

1. Documents drawn up or received in the course of procedures for the adoption of EU legislative acts or non-legislative acts of general application shall, subject to Articles 4 and 9, be made directly accessible to the public.

2. Where possible, other documents, notably documents relating to the development of policy or strategy, shall be made directly accessible in electronic form.

3. Where direct access is not given through the register, the register shall as far as possible indicate where the document is located.

4. Each institution shall define in its rules of procedure which other categories of documents are directly accessible to the public.

Which Statewatch says removes the principle that all documents should be accessible. 

“[H]undreds of thousands of other documents would “exist” – produced and received: evaluations, studies, reports, comments, records of meetings etc – but there would be no right of public access to them whatsoever as the Regulation would not apply to them … To compound matters there is another major change in the new Article 12.4 whereby each institution can decide for itself “which other categories of documents are directly accessible to the public.”

Well, I don’t read it that way. I think it’s ambiguous, but I think it retains an in principle right to all documents (subject to exceptions mentioned in 4 and 9). I also think it doesn’t grant each institution the right to decide for itself which categories of documents are accessible full stop - merely which categories are directly accessible electronically and which will be accessible on application. I just get the impression Statewatch has missed the distinction.

As for the rest of their criticisms, they get too technical for me. But I think Article 12 is probably the most contentious so there we go.

Yesterday, Parliament held a hearing about the Commission’s proposal to amend the current rules on freedom of information (or “access to documents” as they say in Brussels).

Various expert bods were there, including Commissioner Margot Wallstrom, MEP Gérard Deprez, Michael Cashman, and representatives from Statewatch, Wobbing, and ECAS. It can’t exactly have been an explosive event because 24 hours later nobody’s mentioned who said what, except for Parliament who published a lightweight press release today.

But it’s clear from this press release that some had turned up just to drone the same robotic platitudes about how important transparency is - the same soothing message we’ve been hearing for years. The idea never crosses their minds that transparency ought to be the default, and all concealment of information ought to be justified.

An unnamed Council representative (see the irony of anonymous grey men discussing transparency!) claimed to see in the text a “clear and transparent basis”, but what he meant is anybody’s guess.

“To counter growing euroscepticism, “we must say clearly what we do for the citizen, and how we do it”, said Michael Cashman (PES, UK).”

Actually, Mr Cashman, we don’t want to have your spin shoved down our throats at your convenience and under your terms. The Europa website has a hundred thousand pages telling the citizen what you do and how you do it. But it’s all controlled information, and this is one of the reasons why euroscepticism is growing. Let’s say it again: The default ought to be that all information is available; the institutions should justify any concealment.

At least Steve Peers of Statewatch seemed to have a bit of fun. Talking about how the Commission defines “document” in its proposal as something that must be transmitted, he said “This is getting ridiculous. It’s like Bill Clinton’s definition of sex: it’s not transmitted, so it doesn’t exist”.

Anyway, Mr Cashman is away to write his report now, so all concerned can be free of this troublesome matter for a while.

UPDATE: Ddikeoma has the text of Margot’s address to the hearing.

Last week DG Communications (headed by Margot Wallstrom) published a proposal to change EU Regulation 1049/2001 on access to documents. The proposed changes have been heavily criticised by Sweden’s justice minister, the Swedish union of journalists, and UK-based Statewatch.

So far so good. However, in a normal democracy this would offer the chance to start a dialogue. DG Comms would respond to the criticisms, perhaps by clarifying its position, perhaps by defending the proposals.

This is surely an important part of the legislative process, no? A bit of give and take. I see it happening at a national level in France, Italy, the UK… I presume it happens in the Nordic countries. You’d expect it all the more from an organisation whose remit is communication.

But the Directorate General for Communications is off. Not even on standby. Margot hasn’t published a press release, given an interview, or uttered a squeak.

I can think of two possible reasons.

One is that DG Comms doesn’t give a rat’s arse what anybody thinks of its proposals.

Two is that they don’t feel the criticisms have come through the proper channels. They’re waiting for parliament to say something, because it’s too difficult to cope with the chaotic nature of the press and the lobby groups.

My money’s on the second.

My recommendation is that DG Comms takes its life in its hands and gets involved in the fray. The Commission is constantly complaining about how the press aren’t engaged with EU affairs, but they do little to encourage them. Pulling up the drawbridge as soon as you’ve published a new proposal is the surest way to turn people off.

They should study how democracy happens at a national level, where the press is rowdy and may often get things wrong, but at least they get people talking.

Even a blind man can hit a dartboard occasionally. Even Kilroy-Silk can ask a question which elicits an interesting reply from the Commission.

29 April 2008 E-2538/08
 
WRITTEN QUESTION by Robert Kilroy-Silk (NI) to the Commission 

Subject: UK Parliament and the EU 
 
Will the Commission give full details of the occasions on which the UK Parliament has commented on EU legislation including: (a) the date of the comment, (b) the legislation in question, and (c) the response of the Commission.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (22.5.2008)

Copies of national parliaments’ contributions and the Commission’s replies are sent to Parliament (department for relations with national parliaments). No doubt the Honourable Member will be kept informed in this way.

Finally, it should be noted that the House of Lords sent eighteen contributions to the Commission in 2007, while the House of Commons contacted the Commission twice during the same period.