Mr President, I wish to begin, unusually, by congratulating the institutions and all those who work within the institutions. It has become somewhat fashionable to attack the European Union project and its institutions. However, I want to pay a sincere tribute to those who work in the institutions and have made the registers and access to documents a reality. Today I looked at a briefing from an NGO which said that it was weary of congratulating institutions. That mystifies me absolutely. We need to congratulate where there is good work, and encourage good practice to spread across every department, DG and institution. Before I make some pertinent comments on the report, I want to pay tribute to my colleague, Mrs Maij-Weggen, who leaves this House this month. I have worked very closely with her on this report from its very beginning when we were working on Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, and without her contribution we would not have this outstanding regulation. Let me begin with some items in my report. I do not intend to use my full five minutes. As a rapporteur, it is important to listen – something politicians are often accused of not doing! Let me raise some issues that need highlighting. We need to have greater and more succinct information on how our citizens can access this right to the information contained within the documents. We need common coding amongst the institutions so that the process of accessing information is simplified. In relation to the Commission at least, which has a number of registers, I would also welcome the establishment of a single register, even if it is only a single doorway into the other registers. We have yet again to reinforce the notion that we are making ourselves accessible to citizens, who may not know about this right or how to access it. I also want to talk about the case of exemptions. I wish to reinforce that there are no blanket exemptions on access to documents. Every request must be considered on a case-by-case basis. There have been some criticisms about the blanket refusal to give access to legal opinions. Where they fall within the legislative process there should not be a refusal, and, again, every request must be on a case-by-case basis. The European Parliament's committees – even the non-legislative committees – must apply the principle of transparency and at present the standard of transparency is not uniform from one committee to another. There are a number of sensitive documents which have not been registered with the institutions. This needs to be reviewed. I welcome Mrs Maij-Weggen's opinion and recommendations and, in particular, her view that the European Ombudsman should give an assessment of the regulation: how it is working and how the exemptions are applied. We need a common methodology to be applied by each of the institutions and the agencies – we must not forget that the agencies and organisations set up by the institutions must apply the regulation. They should use a common approach in assessing their annual reports, and then comparison will become fruitful and productive. Everything I have said may imply that there is much to do. Of course there is, because we aspire within the European Union to perhaps defy our critics, to prove them wrong, to connect with our citizens and to prove that the European Union project is one that we should be proud of and should celebrate. We have not got it right. Sadly, perfection often eludes us in human endeavours, whether by politicians or anyone else. However, our commitment to try is there within Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and in the spirit of those people who have worked to make access a reality.

Political group: PSE