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.

Image: Dover and Chichester getting a rocket earlier today

Guido is doing some excellent work uncovering the distinctly odd channeling of two UK MEP’s expenses through companies owned by themselves.

What puzzles me is why bloggers from Germany, France, Italy… everywhere in fact, aren’t finding out this sort of thing about their MEPs too. Surely there’s not a lack of material?

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.

Or, The Benefits of Immigration.

Heather says

“Today was the big day and again I’ve won a complete and total victory in my campaign to make MPs directly accountable to citizens.

In their judgment handed down today at the High Court, the judges agreed with an earlier Information Tribunal ruling which criticised the Additional Costs Allowance system as ‘deeply unsatisfactory’. The judges ordered disclosure of all receipts and claims of the 14 MPs in the original requests along with the addresses of their second homes.”

Heather’s a Freedom of Information campaigner. She’s also an American.

Her account continues with a simple explanation of what’s wrong with the idea of secrecy in government: It’s not right.

It’s not right!? This is a revolutionary idea! Next she’ll be claiming that some things are wrong! Who the hell does this jumped up yank think she is?

“It’s not right that a citizen is forced to fight so hard for such a basic level of democratic accountability from our elected representatives. All the while MPs have used taxpayer money to appeal this case through the courts - just so they can avoid being accountable to their constituents for how they spend public money. They should be ashamed.

[…]

This ruling makes clear that in a democracy it is the people who are the masters and politicians must be directly accountable to them. Anyone making a claim on the public purse must be prepared to put forward their receipts to justify their expenses and to make those receipts public.”

Message to Euro-MPs: We’re coming for you too.

Today, the EU Parliament will be voting on a proposal to set up a register of lobbyists.

The text and amendments are here.

Commentary from EUractiv is here.

I’ll post more about this later today.

The European Voice notes that the Commission has published further proposals to improve access to documents in the EU, and summarises the state of play as regards transparency in the institutions.

Along the way, it presents the argument that if you force transparency onto an institution, the decision-makers will simply resort to horse-trading behind the scenes. This red herring has become received wisdom in Europe and needs to be squashed.

In law-making, as in clothing, too much transparency is risky. Over-exposure can impair efficiency and indiscretion can reduce the options for negotiation. If they feel that too much transparency is being forced on them by public sessions, legislators will conduct their real decision-making elsewhere, and present no more than a pre-cooked masquerade to the outside world.

The whole point about transparency is that “pre-cooked masquerades” are easier to spot. Furthermore, transparency has numerous elements and is not simply a matter of following an argument or a dialogue to see how two sides reached a decision. Important also are when individuals said whatever they said, who else is involved in addition to the official actors (think lobbyists), who stands to benefit from seeing policy steered in a particular direction. Demands for transparency in the EU aren’t simply demands for public sessions, they’re intended to give those interested the necessary clues to carry out the detective work needed to view all aspects of law and policy.

Emerging Privacy Issues Between the US and the EU: Bridging the Transatlantic Gap

The EU and the US are engaged in a race to the bottom as regards privacy and data retention. At issue are the Passenger Name Record (PNR), commercial use of personal data, and lack of privacy policies in both blocs.

Various MEPs discussed the issue with US lawyers in Georgetown today. There’s a webcast available of the whole discussion at http://www.law.georgetown.edu/webcast/eventDetail.cfm?eventID=557

It’s pretty interesting, though the moderator should have squashed Sophia in’t Veld when she started her 5 minute anti-american rant. Here’s the programme:

MODERATOR: Marc Rotenberg, Executive Director, Electronic Privacy Information Center, and Adjunct Professor, Georgetown University Law Center

PANELISTS: Sophia in’t Veld, Member of European Parliament Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (Netherlands)

Baroness Sarah Ludford, Member of European Parliament Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (United Kingdom)

Alexander Alvaro, Member of European Parliament Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (Germany)

Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, Member of European Parliament Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (Netherlands)

Ignasi Guardans Cambo, Member of European Parliament Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (Spain)

Adam Levitin, Professor, Georgetown University Law Center
 
NOTE: The United States and the European Union are confronting many common privacy challenges -  promoting trust and confidence for Internet commerce, developing safeguards for behavioral targeting and search histories, security breach notification and identity theft. There are also areas - identification requirements, border control and passenger record transfers - where national security requirements
appear to conflict with privacy laws. The panelists will discuss current efforts to address these challenges.

They’re available on the Statewatch front page.

Why Statewatch can’t sort out its website to be more user friendly escapes me. Everything goes into PDF format with no indication of file size. News items aren’t dated. They dump a whole year’s news items into one massive long page so it’s impossible to link to any one item. And there aren’t any pictures, dammit!

Sort it out, Statewatch!

So European Voice reports that the Commission will next week propose making access to documents easier for EU citizens.

Interesting stuff. I rang up the press office to find out more.

Me: Can I see these proposals?

Press officer: I will send you what I can, but at this stage there may be information which can’t be published yet.

Me: I see. There may be information about proposals to facilitate access to EU documents, but I can’t have access to it?

Press Officer: …

Me: That sounds a bit funny. Does it sound funny to you?

Press Officer: I’m not an expert. This is the press office, and I will send you details of the number you need to call for general enquiries.