Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the right to become acquainted with the contents of the documents of the European Union’s institutions is a precondition of the public’s ability to monitor decision-making generally and influence it. At present, we are creating an open and modern-style administration, in which it is natural that the public should have this direct right. Obviously there have to be limits to such a right, and that is something we are also discussing today. At the moment in the European Union there already exists the practice of public access to documentation, and we should remember that brave citizens and many progressive Member States have been fighting for increased transparency for many years. We are not exactly starting this discussion from scratch: we can consider it our duty to see to it that transparency is increased and the criteria of the Treaty of Amsterdam are met. The report we are now examining in many respects takes the situation in a better direction. It is excellent that the report should state that public access to documents and the obligation to release documents affect all the institutions, and not just the three main ones. It is also excellent that the institutions should be obliged, or they should be allowed, rather, to release documents also to those not resident in the European Union, or who are not citizens of the European Union. This principle should be strengthened further. Ladies and gentlemen, you can no doubt imagine that one day an EU citizen will need information, for example, on what the administration in the United States of America is doing. In fact, there is no reason for restricting public access geographically. However, the report does not sufficiently explain how possible separate provisions, which would remain in force at the same time as this regulation, would meet the criteria of greater transparency. This is a vague area, and it is possible that more restrictive provisions may also remain in force, and this is one point in respect of which we have tabled amendments. As regards the definition of documents, this is a crucial question, and we could surely argue about just that for a whole year, which is probably what has happened. It is essential that scope for practising some degree of internal thought process should be allowed for the institutions, but we have to be very careful here, as we might create a situation in which documents drafted to prepare a decision may be excluded from the principle of transparency, and obviously decision-making cannot then be influenced. In my opinion, the report also goes too far in its recognition of the rights of so-called third parties to restrict the availability of documents. It may be the job of the Council and the Commission to uphold such restrictions, but I think it is not in the interests of Parliament or the public. The list of exceptions, as Mrs Maij-Weggen said, is essential, and perhaps the most important part of this work. That aspect of the matter has made substantial progress, but I would like to focus special attention on the fact that if we want our citizens to be able to follow general developments in security policy in the future, I repeat, general, an exception regarding defence, security and military matters is much too broad in scope. It should be defined more precisely or a harm test should be attached to it. Mr President, the right of Members of Parliament to confidential documents is a very important issue, but it cannot replace the direct right of access to information on the part of the public. Parliament still needs to work on this report more, and for that reason I believe that it must be improved upon still here.

Political group: Verts-ALE