Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, it often takes a very long time before visible results can be discerned when issues are dealt with at European level. Impatient citizens complain that the wheels of European bureaucracy turn infinitely slowly. However, things have happened amazingly quickly within the field of European security policy since the decision to set up a joint European rapid reaction force was taken in December 1999 in Helsinki. These are welcome developments. We need to show ourselves and the countries around us that Europe has the strength and the will in future to prevent tragedies such as that in the Balkans. Naturally, the EU must take increased responsibility for conflict-prevention measures, crisis management, peacekeeping operations etc in the immediate vicinity of the European Union. Those of us in the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party entirely support Mr Brok’s report. We also back Mrs Lalumière’s report in the main. We nonetheless think that the importance of not developing structures which overlap with those of NATO cannot be emphasised enough. It therefore seems a little unnecessary to regulate in great detail how, for example, European forces in space are to be organised. It is important to safeguard the transatlantic link and the United States’s continued commitment to Europe. The EU ought not to develop its own defence involving permanent troops. As I say, things are developing quickly. In the course of the week, country after country has reported on how many soldiers, aircraft, submarines etc it can contribute to make the rapid reaction force operational. Judging from the debate in a number of Member States, many people are clearly rather bewildered by the debate. Commissioner Patten gave a first-hand account of the debate in Great Britain. In another country close to my heart, the debate has been quite heated. In Sweden, a somewhat sluggish debate about neutrality is taking place, a concept which most of us perceive as a hangover from the days of the Cold War and as not being relevant today. Those of us in the European Parliament, who represent the people of Europe, nonetheless have an additional responsibility to lead this debate and to discuss, and conduct a critical examination of, defence and security policy in the form in which it is developing. This means that, as MEPs, we need structures to enable us to obtain information about the decisions made and to enable us to engage in debate, to participate and to hold people to account. However, citizens too must, as far as possible, be given access to information and documents. This is crucial if the policy in question is to win people’s confidence. Last summer’s so-called Solana decision was criticised vociferously in this Chamber. The decision meant that all documents relating to foreign and security policy were to be automatically exempt from public scrutiny. That is unacceptable, of course. It is also why we have asked the Court of Justice to examine this decision. The same ideas about the greatest possible transparency were expressed in Mr Cashman’s report which we adopted with a broad majority two weeks ago in Strasbourg. I am therefore hoping for broad support for the Liberal amendments which deal specifically with the issues of transparency and public access to documentation. Finally, I want to express my group’s considerable concern about the ever worsening situation in Afghanistan and urge the Commission and the Council to do all they can to increase their efforts to achieve a peaceful solution and to support the civilian population, especially now before the winter sets in.

Political group: ELDR