Mr President, when the present Commission took office in the autumn of 1999, all the Commissioners promised that it would be a case of turning over a new leaf. In future, the work would be driven by transparency and public scrutiny, and the mistakes of the Santer Commission would not be repeated. A very great deal of the general debate in 1999 was about transparency and public scrutiny. Quite a few of us voted for making the EU more open. Openness and public access to official records are necessary elements of a democratic and efficient administration, and if people can follow the decision-making process in the EU’s machinery, then there will also be an increase in confidence. We also know that there is a crystal-clear connection between a high level of transparency and a low level of corruption in an administration. The Regulation we are voting on tomorrow is a compromise between Parliament and countries in the Council of Ministers which are sympathetic towards transparency. It is a step forwards in many ways. It provides the people of Europe with unifying legislation concerning the way in which they are to obtain access to documents. It lays down important principles, a fact which quite a few of my fellow MEPs have touched upon. However, we Liberals are also sorry to see that it is deficient in a great many ways. It contains a rather ambiguous clause concerning what are called sensitive documents that are to be dealt with under a separate system. This is an unfortunate rule which may be interpreted arbitrarily. What is more, there is a certain lack of clarity as to how the Regulation would apply in relation to national law if conflicts were to arise. In some Member States, including Sweden and the Netherlands, there are more far-reaching rules governing access to documents. In Sweden, the tradition of transparency goes back to my fellow Liberal Party member, Anders Chydenius in 1766. What happens if a document is secret in Brussels but in the public domain in Stockholm? The Government and Swedish Prime Minister have said that, in a case like that, Swedish law applies, but can that be relied upon? The Presidency bears considerable responsibility, namely to ensure both that Dutch legislation and, above all, the Swedish Constitution are not undermined and that no self-censorship is practised by Swedish authorities either. There is, of course, an obvious fear in the Commission and certain Member States that people will be given too much information. Those of us who believe in transparency must constantly fight to demonstrate that the opposite is the case. Public scrutiny is not dangerous. Rather, it is democratic and efficient. The views this Regulation as a compromise involving a certain amount of progress but also containing certain shortcomings. We shall vote in favour of it tomorrow as a first step on the long journey ahead of us in terms of opening the institutions of the EU up to the people. Further efforts are required in this regard, and we shall test the limits of the legislation. We shall also take the lead in establishing still better rules in a couple of years’ time for, in spite of everything, transparency has the future on its side.

Political group: ELDR