Mr President, it was a long time before the European Commission submitted a proposal in the field of openness of government. A number of MEPs had been asking for one for years. At the beginning of this part-session I even submitted a complete proposed initiative to the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. The latter then announced that it would produce a concrete proposal within six months, and it has kept its word. It is just a shame that the content was not what we had expected it to be. There has been a fair amount of criticism on the part of the journalist organisations, the NGOs, a number of Member States and also Parliament. It therefore comes as no surprise that there is a broad package of amendments, so broad in fact that the regulation is being adapted to a quite considerable extent. Adapted to the legislation on openness of government in a number of Member States, but also to the Freedom of Information Act of the kind in force in the United States. After all, why would we want to give our European citizens less openness with regard to Brussels than the Americans get with regard to Washington? So there is a huge number of amendments and I would like to thank the rapporteur for the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, Michael Cashman, for his cooperation with the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and with myself. What we have before us is, in fact, the work of these two committees. So what are the most important amendments? The most crucial one is of course the amendment relating to Article 4, in which the Commission laid down 17 exceptions for access to documents and we managed to whittle the exceptions down to six. Moreover, when it comes to information on military and defence matters we suggest that an interinstitutional agreement should be concluded between the Council and Parliament so that secret information can be imparted to a so-called select committee. This committee could then assess if it was right to keep it secret. In this way, Parliament would function as a link between the Council and the citizens, and that is why it is entirely appropriate that this proposal should be incorporated into this regulation. Another important amendment is the proposal to have not just the Council, the Commission and Parliament fall within the scope of the regulation, but also all the external bodies. Why should we not force these bodies, which are funded by the Commission and whose staff are European officials, to adopt a culture of openness? I think that is a very important point, and a substantial annex will be appended to this regulation in order to ensure that this is done. Turning now to classification: in short, I completely agree with what Michael Cashman had to say. I, too, find it quite hard to understand the criticism voiced by the Liberals and the because classification is exactly what we need to achieve openness. That explains why the Council has such an aversion to the idea. I consider a fifth important amendment to be that relating to the annual report, which must relate specifically to the documents that must be kept secret, or which are kept secret at any rate. That could be reviewed again on an annual basis in order to establish whether it is reasonable or not. The European Commission has advised us on an informal basis that it has not quite finished working out the position vis-à-vis Parliament. That might not be a good thing, but if Mr Cashman is of the same mind then we can consider whether it might be possible to postpone the final vote. Finally, Mr President, this proposal is particularly important in terms of democratic standards within the Union. That is what it is all about, i.e. the citizens, which is why I hope that the broad majority here in Parliament will vote in favour of this document.

Political group: PPE-DE