Mr President, certainly there have been shortcomings – a great many of them – in the area of transparency. The fact is, however, that it can now be observed that the three institutions have undergone a minor revolution when it comes to openness and public access to documents. If we take 2001 as our starting point, when we began with quite a closed culture, we can now observe how Parliament hands out 90% of all documents requested and how the Commission and the Council hand out 60% to 70% of them. There is, however, still something to reflect upon in this context, namely the basic principle that it is openness that is the rule and secrecy that is the exception. We all know this, but it has probably not percolated right down through the organisation and to the people. I am convinced that it will happen, but we have a responsibility to give some impetus to the process. Further analysis is required of quite a few issues that are topical right now. I am extremely pleased that Mr Cashman is expressing a wise position – one which Mrs Schörling has also put forward and with which I agree. I should like to thank him. It concerns harmonisation of the Member States’ legislation. I do not believe that anyone in this House really wants to contribute to there being less public scrutiny. I therefore believe that this is an issue that must be reviewed carefully before the positions are established. Certain areas really must be discussed. One such area, which we have discussed at length, is the sensitive issue of the statements from the institutions’ legal services. Where these are concerned, we are now awaiting a court decision. I hope that it will soon be possible to open up certain areas and that we shall not see the systematic classification of documents as strictly secret. A first step may perhaps be for a time limit partially to be imposed upon secrecy. Certain expressions must be defined more clearly so that they cannot be misused, for example concepts such as the overarching general interest and issues that are sensitive in terms of the legislative process. Openness and access to documents is, however, a long way from just being a question of giving people formal rights. It is just as important that the institutions and their documents genuinely become accessible. There is clearly now at last an increasing interest in EU issues around Europe. We are beginning to see a growing debate, but the institutions appear still not to have succeeded in fully turning this increased interest to good effect. I hope that we shall be more successful and manage to make the institutions people-oriented. The legislation on openness is preparing the ground in this connection. At the last meeting of the interinstitutional committee, we discussed possibly producing material showing the successful work that has been done and the opportunities available to the public. The EU and its institutions are sometimes very distant from the people. No advanced computing expertise and specialist knowledge of how the institutions operate should be required in order for people to be able to benefit from the regulations on openness. There is still a good deal to do where these are concerned. As many speakers have emphasised in the course of the debate, simple user-friendly registers are required. There must be simple ways of keeping track of the legislative process. There is a wealth of computer portals and home pages and various other ways of obtaining information, but what are required are focus, consolidation, user-friendliness, simple language and, of course, a simplified procedure for finding material. It must not be too difficult. Changing the EU’s institutional culture takes time, but we have achieved a lot in a short time. I am proud of the fact that the European Parliament is the institution that is setting the pace where issues of openness are concerned. In this connection, I wish especially to address Mr Cashman and thank him not only for his report but also for the considerable amount of work he has done over many years and the friendship to which all this work has given rise. I should like to address some sincere words of thanks to Mrs Maij-Weggen now that she is to finish and say what a real pleasure I have found it to work with her, what an incredible amount I have learned and how much knowledge I have acquired. I have also learned a lot about flexibility from Mrs Maij-Weggen, something that is an important feature of European cooperation. We have also developed a friendship. I wish to conclude by sincerely wishing her success in her continued work.

Political group: PPE-DE