President. We shall proceed to the debate on the first item, the motion of censure presented against the Commission. I must inform you that this motion of censure, presented on 12 May and announced in plenary, has been amended with regard to the list of Members presenting it, due to the fact that certain new Members have signed it and other Members have withdrawn their signatures. Nevertheless, the net result is that the number of signatures still exceeds the number required by the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure for the presentation of a motion of censure.

  Nigel Farage (IND/DEM), author. – Mr President, I wish to say to Mr Barroso that it is nice to see everyone here today. It has taken some time to organise this get–together. I am conscious that many of the Commissioners would much rather be in France campaigning for a ‘Yes’ vote. However, they are here for a very simple reason: I wrote to all of them on 3 February asking what free holidays and hospitality they had received since becoming European Commissioners – but answers came there none!

Luckily, the Die Welt newspaper has produced a series of revelations. It informed us that Mr Barroso had enjoyed a cruise aboard a luxury yacht owned by Spiro Latsis, who has done business with the EU institutions for many years, and whose Lamda shipyards, just one month after this holiday, received the green light from the European Commission for a ten–million– euro grant. Just last week a Latsis company – the Aegean Motorways Group – was put on a shortlist of two for the lucrative Athens to Thessaloniki motorway project. I now see that even within the European Commission itself, the head of the Bureau of European Policy Advisers, Mr Sidjanski, also speaks for the Latsis Foundation. Thank goodness for Die Welt!

We also learned that Mr Mandelson enjoyed a holiday with the lobbyist Peter Brown, and that he also went on a luxury yacht owned by the Microsoft co–founder, Paul Allen.

Last November, at President Barroso’s inauguration, I asked of this Commission: ‘Would you buy a used car from them?’. I suppose I should have said ‘a luxury yacht’! What fair–minded person could think that the Commission should police itself in this regard? I have not accused Mr Barroso or any of the Commissioners of any wrongdoing, but it is a case of Caesar’s wife; it is a case that you have to be seen to be above suspicion.

However, Mr Barroso’s reaction was one of denial. He stated in his letter – when it finally arrived – that ‘hospitality is a normal fact of private life’. He obviously has a better circle of friends than me, but no matter. Was the relationship with Mr Latsis really purely personal? Was there really no conflict of interests? If that is the case, perhaps Mr Barroso could tell me why he resigned the maritime portfolio shortly thereafter? I suggest that he did possibly feel compromised.

I hope that Mr Barroso will make some concessions today. We all hope that he will. However, he should remember that what we are asking for is full disclosure. As long ago as 1961, President Kennedy introduced a code of this type into the White House. It can be done and it should be done! By ignoring my simple request and by maintaining that these free holidays do not constitute a conflict of interests, Mr Barroso has put himself in an unenviable position. When in a hole, one should stop digging, and I therefore ask him to give us full disclosure.

However, none of this would have happened if it had not been for the bravery of 77 Members of this House. These independently minded people have been subject to very unpleasant threats and bullying. Mr President, with your permission and pursuant to Rule 141(4), I give way to my colleague, Mr Helmer, to put a question to me.

(Mixed reactions)

  President. One moment, please. For the time being, it is for the Presidency to give the floor.

(Applause)

  Nigel Farage (IND/DEM), author. – Thank you, Mr President! Nonetheless, there has been a lot of bullying going on. The leaders of the four big groups are so blinded by their belief in European integration that they simply cannot accept any criticism, particularly when it comes from dreaded eurosceptics like me. In fact, there are plenty of people on this list who will vote ‘Yes’ to the Constitution and who believe in the European project. It is simply a question of having this Parliament do its job! What is the European Parliament for? It cannot initiate legislation and it cannot repeal legislation. What it can do is hire and fire the bosses. It can hold to account the Commission: – the government of Europe, as I keep being told. I contend that this Parliament has failed and that it is the leaders of the four big groups who are in fact the guilty parties in this matter.

It happens time and again. Last November, when I revealed that Commissioner Barrot had recently received a criminal conviction for his part in an embezzlement case, what happened? I was attacked; I was called a hooligan; I was told I had behaved like a football supporter. However, all I had done was tell the truth!

In that episode, and in this one, Mr Schulz will say ‘something must be done’ and, like the Grand old Duke of York, he marches his ten thousand men up the hill, only to get a phone call from Gerhard Schröder and march them back down again!

I suppose that there is great irony in all this in that, as a very committed eurosceptic, I have been asked to lead this charge today. However, this is not an argument about whether the EU is a good thing or a bad thing. All we, the signatories, want is transparency and proper governmental procedures. We also want the European Parliament to stand up and to do its job for once!

(Applause)

  President. Pursuant to Rule 141(4) of the Rules of Procedure, Mr Helmer may put a question to Mr Farage.

  Roger Helmer (PPE–DE). – Mr President, with your permission, I rise under Rule 141 to put a question to Mr Farage. I wonder whether he agrees with me that the pressure exerted by the larger groups to have signatures withdrawn from the motion of censure was an affront to democracy and transparency, and brought shame and disrepute on this House?

Does he agree with me that it was particularly discreditable for Mr Poettering to bring such pressure to bear on the British Conservatives, given that we were elected on a manifesto commitment to oppose fraud and corruption?

Finally, does he agree that it was inappropriate for the leader of the British Conservatives to demand withdrawal of Conservative signatures under the threat of ‘very serious consequences’?

  Nigel Farage (IND/DEM). – Mr President, I agree with what Mr Helmer has just said, which I am sure is a surprise to everyone.

(Laughter)

I wish to thank him for illustrating so clearly the kinds of bullying tactics that have been employed. Frankly, the leaders of the four main groups should be ashamed of themselves for the way they have behaved.

(Applause)

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen of the European Parliament, the motion of censure at the heart of this debate is clearly unwarranted and entirely without foundation. Let me explain why.

Its authors tabled it on the grounds that it was the only way to compel me to come and explain myself to the House on the matter in question. In fact, you know perfectly well that I am always available to the European Parliament. I regard my availability as a sign of respect for your institution and of interest in its work and as part of a commitment to openness and transparency. The fact is that the vast majority of this House, whose views were expressed through the Conference of Presidents, considered that the present matter did not merit a plenary debate. It took the view that any questions there might be had been adequately and fully answered in my letter of 22 April 2005 to President Borrell. In other words, all the explanations I was asked to give were provided in good time.

As far as the substance of the matter is concerned, I have nothing to add to the content of that letter. Last August, together with my family, I spent a week with a former lecturer and friend of mine at the invitation of another mutual friend on the latter’s private yacht in Greece. My friendship with them goes back more than twenty years to the time when I was at the University of Geneva. In other words, this is a long–standing personal and academic association that predates my entry into politics, and its character has not changed since then. Our relations have never involved any sort of business dealings or interests, and I have no knowledge of any link between these friends and the Commission which could justifiably arouse suspicion of a conflict of interests.

The author of this motion of censure maintains that a few days on holiday among friends raises questions regarding a decision taken by the Commission authorising a payment of state aid in Greece and, in more general terms, regarding the Commission’s code of ethics. This is a malicious allegation. There is no link whatsoever between this aspect of my private life and the activities of the Commission.

With regard to the decision authorising the state aid in Greece, let me remind the House that it was taken by the previous college of Commissioners under Mr Prodi on the basis of a proposal made by Mr Monti at a time when I did not hold any position of responsibility in the Commission, which truly shows how unjust, unwarranted, unfounded and absurd is this motion of censure against the present Commission.

(Applause)

This time lag which the author neglected to mention in the text of the motion – which explains why some Members signed the motion without proper knowledge of the facts – is clear evidence of deliberate sophistry on the part of the author. Besides, I must remind you that the incumbent college of Commissioners, at my behest and under my authority, has applied the most stringent set of rules on transparency and conflicts of interest ever to be adopted by any institution of the European Union.

In short, the motion of censure is based on a gratuitous insinuation. The fact that the members of the Commission can have personal friendships – and, moreover, that the nature of these friendships is exactly the same before and after a Commissioner’s assumption of office and bears no relation to his or her appointment – does not equate to a conflict of interests and cannot be described as such. The fact that friends and acquaintances of a Commissioner might be affected by Commission policy does not and cannot of itself warrant suspicion of a conflict of interests. This applies equally to the Commission, to Members of the European Parliament and to members of governments. There is not a single political decision–maker who has no friends or acquaintances; if the thinking of the authors of this motion were taken to its logical conclusion, the very existence of these links would paralyse every democratic political process. This, as I have said already and shall say again, would be absurd.

On the other hand, if the censure motion is absurd, why are we debating it today? Why have I come here, given that my predecessor, for example, sent a representative to the debate on the last motion of censure rather than attending in person? I have come because I believe it is important to know exactly what this Parliament feels about this type of political manoeuvre.

(Applause)

If I am here, it is because I do not regard this motion as a personal attack on myself. I have nothing against the author, and I do not believe he bears me a personal grudge either. He merely finds it very strange that someone should receive an invitation to spend some days on a yacht. I must admit that I know of no one who would be brave enough to invite him aboard a yacht for a single day. I well understand his difficulty.

(Laughter and applause)

So it is not a personal issue, but it is a serious institutional issue, because this type of attack reflects a populist undercurrent which resorts to manipulation by oversimplifying important and complex matters, an undercurrent opposed to the Europe we are engaged in building.

(Applause)

This particular motion actually invokes essential values and concepts of democracy, such as ethical conduct and transparency, but it does so with a view to mystification on the basis of pure supposition. It is an attempt to disguise the true aim of the motion, which is to undermine the credibility of the EU institutions and the entire integration project by substituting the fabrication of alleged scandals for ideological debate. This is where the line separating democracy from demagogy is crossed, and we cannot accept this abuse of the democratic process.

(Applause)

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the people of our Union have no taste for political posturing. Europeans utterly reject gutter politics. I am sure that the overwhelming majority of this House thinks likewise and wishes to make that abundantly clear.

The political challenges confronting us at the present time require both deep thought and wholehearted efforts on our part. It is entirely legitimate to be more or less enthusiastic about the European Union. It is entirely legitimate to be more or less critical about the direction taken by the Commission or by the European Parliament. It is entirely legitimate to have different political visions. What is not legitimate is to play off one European institution against another. Nor is it legitimate to pervert parliamentary procedures in the way that this motion of censure does, to use sophistry and insinuation and impugn people’s motives without any evidence. These are not constructive contributions to the debate; on the contrary, they deprive the people of Europe of their rightful claim to our concentration on their expectations, their concerns and their problems.

The extremist approach adopted by the author of this motion is designed to obscure the issues rather than clarify them. Let me reiterate to all of you, President and Members of the European Parliament, that my entire college and I are committed to the highest standards of transparency and ethical conduct. Let me re–emphasise our openness to dialogue with this Assembly. Let me also express once again our gratitude for the support and solidarity shown by the vast majority of you, and in saying that I am thinking particularly of those who do not always agree with me ideologically but who have nevertheless made a point of distancing themselves from this type of political manoeuvre against the Commission.

It is in this spirit that I ask you – and I believe this will be the only merit of the present debate – to censure this motion of censure by rejecting it overwhelmingly. That is the signal of hope we could send out from here to the whole of Europe, because that would be the best way to serve the cause of democracy, which is at the heart of our European Union.

(Applause)

  Hans–Gert Poettering, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, there are debates in which one participates out of a sense of duty and responsibility towards European integration and its institutions, and this debate today is one of them.

Those who have tabled this motion of censure have done so on the basis of Article 201 of the Treaty establishing the European Community and of Rule 100 of our Rules of Procedure. Whilst respecting that right, we would also say that the authors of the motion, by availing themselves of it, devalue these rights by what is a self–evident misuse of them.

(Applause)

Along with the members of the other groups mentioned a short while ago, my friend Mr Brian Crowley, the Chairman of the Union for Europe of the Nations Group, has informed me that he endorses what we said on 13 May, that being that the action by the authors of this motion is wholly unjustified and utterly over-exaggerated.

To that, I would add today that I regard this motion as unworthy of decent human beings and as a politically transparent act of opposition to the integration of our continent.

(Applause)

As the President of the Commission has pointed out, and as I am well aware, the cruise took place in the second half of August. The Commission gave its approval for the project to which the motion refers on 23 September, this House voted to express its confidence in the Barroso Commission on 18 November, and the Commission took office on 22 November.

So it is clear that the responsibility for the approval on 23 September lay with the Commission under Romano Prodi. This shows how absurd this motion is and how it lacks credibility. So it is that this motion of censure collapses like a house of cards!

(Applause)

The authors of the motion are not, in fact, concerned with José Manuel Durão Barroso as a person. It is an attack on the European institutions and on their credibility, particularly on that of the Commission. It is a personal vendetta, pursued with the improper purpose of bringing discredit upon the European institutions, and to do so only a few days before the referenda on the Constitution in France and the Netherlands.

Five Members belonging to the European Democrat element in this group signed this motion; they did so without informing, let alone consulting, the chairman of their national delegation or the Chairman of the group. Let me say here and now that these five Members have placed themselves outside the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and no longer enjoy its solidarity.

(Vigorous applause)

I am addressing Mr Helmer when I say that there is no member of this group with whom I have had as much patience as with him. You, Mr Helmer, have just resigned your membership of the PPE–DE Group, and, out of respect for the dignity of every individual, let me say that I wish you personally all the best for the future.

(Applause)

Let me tell the House that we have confidence in the Commission and in its President. A fortnight ago, in what was for me one of the high points of my political endeavours here in this House – an overwhelming majority of us faced up to Europe’s past and, by adopting the resolution on the 60th anniversary of the end of the Second World War, joined in a great majority decision to acknowledge the historic truth of Europe and set out on the road into the future. We are well aware of our responsibility, and we will not allow anyone to undermine our determination to keep on working on the labour of peace that is the integration of Europe. So, Mr President, you and your Commission may continue with your work, for we are right behind you!

(Vigorous applause)

  Martin Schulz, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the President of the Commission tells me that his links with Mr Latsis go back a very long way into his past. In that case, Mr President of the Commission, I have to ask you whether he was with you in the Maoist youth movement, for if he were, that would make him the only Maoist billionaire in Europe.

(Laughter)

What Mr Poettering has just done is, I think, very much the right thing to do. With Members like the one you have just addressed in your group, Mr Poettering, you have no more need of political opponents. I can therefore do no other than warmly congratulate you on taking the action to which you have just referred.

(Applause)

The case we are here to discuss has, in fact, already been answered. The decision that is supposedly worthy of criticism was not taken by the Commission under Mr Barroso, but by the Commission under Mr Prodi, and was within Commissioner Monti’s sphere of responsibility. As Mr Poettering has just demonstrated by naming dates, it is in no way something for which this Commission has to answer.

The authors of this motion, or at least the brains behind it, are well aware of that, and so one has to ask why the motion was tabled in the first place. It was tabled precisely in order to bring about what is happening here right now. That is what it was aimed at, no more and no less. There are no political motives behind it. The aim was that there should be cameras up there and crowds of people jostling one another in front of the entrance to this Chamber; it was that what is happening should happen. Just for show, and nothing more: that is the political substance behind this.

(Applause)

Mr President of the Commission, you are entitled to have this House tell you what it expects of you and of your Commission. We did so in some detail when the Commission was appointed. My group has not always been satisfied in its dealings with this Commission, and you can take it as read that, if there are things to be criticised and objected to, we in the Socialist Group in the European Parliament will do just that. If these accusations turn out to be substantiated, then we will give them our attention.

I speak on behalf of all the members of this group when I say that I am not prepared to allow defamation and insinuation to become a parliamentary strategy. That is something we are not prepared to accept.

(Applause)

It is for that reason that I declare, on behalf of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, that we will not be voting in favour of this motion.

(Applause)

  Graham Watson, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (FR) Mr President, on behalf of the Democrats and Liberals in this House, let me say to the signatories of this motion of censure that they are being ridiculous. They presume to say ‘J’accuse’, but neither Mr Farage nor Mr de Villiers is an Émile Zola – far from it! This motion is nothing but a ploy to discredit the European Commission.

What is the real motive of those who have tabled this motion? It is not transparency; if it were, the signatures of at least four British separatists who refused to publish details of their financial interests on the Internet would not be appended to this motion.

(Applause)

The signatories of this motion of censure had but one aim, which was to discredit the President of the Commission and the entire Union with him. Why, moreover, did they choose to make this move only a few days before the referenda in France and the Netherlands? Not for any of the reasons they put forward, but to cause the Union maximum embarrassment in the run–up to these public consultations.

(Applause)

Mr Barroso, you must feel rather perplexed. We started a debate about hospitality. You volunteered us the information about your holiday with Mr Latsis as an example: a friendship of long duration, a holiday accepted before you took office, before there was any debate about whether you might assume certain responsibilities you are now accused of abusing – quite apart from the fact that there is hardly a major industry in Europe which does not receive some government support. And if you had no contacts with industrialists, you would have as few friends as Mr Farage!

(Laughter)

Liberals and Democrats will defend accountability and transparency in all of the European Union’s business. It is part and parcel of a government’s contract with the electorate. We are proud to have been at the forefront of the campaign for this. We all know there is a case for greater transparency. Under President Pat Cox, under President Borrell, through interinstitutional agreements with the Commission, we have made, and we continue to make, progress. The Commission’s code of conduct was revised with the entry of your Commission. It probably needs to be more explicit about the notion of hospitality.

We also defend the right of Members to bring a motion of censure under our Rules, but such tools should be used with caution. Members should beware that frivolous use such as this risks discrediting both the tool that Rule 100 gives us and this House. This debate is a deflection from serious business. We must all be vigilant on matters of public accountability, but we must also let the Commission get on with the job of bringing the European Union’s Member States closer together.

Europe needs builders, not a demolition squad; MEPs who look forward, not those who look back; parliamentarians who see opportunities, not those who exploit difficulties. There is room for diversity of view about the future of the European Union, provided those views are presented honestly and openly through public debate. As a recent election in the country I know best shows, when the views of the movers of this motion are presented openly, they get very, very little support.

I trust that this House will give a clear answer to the signatories of today’s motion.

(Applause)

  Monica Frassoni, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, a very large majority of my group considers this motion of censure to be inappropriate and they will vote against it in June. They consider it to be inappropriate because President Barroso’s personal relations with Mr Latzis do not strike us as being relevant to the future of Europe.

I very much regret that the fury directed towards the alleged financial irregularities of the Commission causes us to forget more and more that 80% of cases of mismanagement of Community finances involve the Member States. I would prefer it if Members were more active in also dealing with this issue.

We believe that using the motion of censure does nothing to help the legitimate cause of greater transparency and responsibility from the Commission, and that it only serves to strengthen the opinion of those who, like Mr Farage, believe that the Union should simply be abolished.

That does not mean, however, that our political judgment on the work of the Commission and its President has changed. I must say that my Group is slightly uneasy about the way in which this debate is being conducted. It is certainly adhering to the rules, but with such restrictions on the time and opportunity to speak that it seems to be a show for those who are for and against Mr Barroso, providing too great a platform for Mr Farage and his playmate, Mr Helmer.

Mr President, we take this opportunity to draw Mr Barroso’s attention to the fact that this is only the first and obvious consequence of the mistaken decision to keep Mrs Cruz in her role. This situation is clearly a golden opportunity for machinations and insinuations, in addition to obviously greatly delaying and complicating the legitimacy of the proceedings taking place.

In addition, it is more than obvious that only complete transparency and a greater readiness to agree immediately to a debate can help prevent us from falling into these traps. Today, the Commission is exposed to issues of potential conflict of interest which have not been tackled at their roots.

To conclude, Mr President, it is our opinion that in order to win the debate, and to sideline Mr Farage and his associates in the political debate, your role must be reasserted. You must reassert your role as the guardian of Europe’s interests. There are currently no positive initiatives emerging from the Commission in the context of the environment, society or culture. Do something in order that the people of Europe can acknowledge you and can acknowledge, alongside you, the complete legitimacy of the European plan.

  Miguel Portas, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (PT) Mr President, the president of my group cannot be here in the House today, but he made his position clear in a letter published this morning.

If the aim of the motion is public clarification as regards a potential conflict of interests, then that aim is being achieved as we speak. A number of members of my group put their names to this initiative, convinced that it would be a means of obtaining the necessary public explanations regarding the allegations that had been circulating and were consequently not expelled from our group, Mr Poettering.

On the other hand, if the intention was, or is, one of censure based on the President of the Commission’s holiday, or using the holiday as an excuse, then that is something that we wish to have nothing to do with. The Left–wing opposition in this House is political in nature. We do not seek to deflect attention away from the real issues that oppose us to the Commission, namely the neoliberal policies that it pursues.

We would have taken a different view had Mr Latsis, the owner of the yacht, been involved in financial matters requiring a decision from the European institutions, in which case the services of the Commission would have been alerted about the ill–advised holiday. As it happens, in this connection, nothing – nothing whatsoever – has yet been proven, and there is therefore no merit in this motion of censure. This is the view held my most members of the Group.

Mr President, I was one of those who signed, and was among those who withdrew their signatures when satisfactory information was forthcoming. Mr Barroso’s holiday is not worthy of a minute of attention. Transparency, on the other hand, is very much worthy of constant attention, something that we must all strive for, in light of the disengagement between the citizens and the blindness of the current leaders of Europe. The promotion of transparency requires facts, rather than insinuation or obfuscation. Ladies and gentlemen, we do not advocate a free–for–all in the cause of promoting transparency; after all, people in glass houses should not throw stones.

I want no part in this populist clamour. If we were to table a motion of censure it would seek the truth and block those policies that hinder employment, rights and the desire for peace in this world.

  Jens–Peter Bonde, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (DA) Mr President, responsibility for today’s debate lies with those who did not allow us to have the debate last time. When Mr Farage raised the matter, I asked for a list of all gifts in excess of EUR 100. I have still not been given that list. Last Sunday, I asked Eva Joly – the examining magistrate who has got business people and politicians into prison for corruption – about where the dividing line is between gifts and corruption. ‘EUR 120,’ she said. Gifts of more than that amount do not belong in the public sphere. I want to know who gets what from whom and I want to be able to check whether consideration is provided.

Matters got off to a good start with Barroso. He gave us a list of 3 000 working parties, which had so far been kept secret. That list is now at Bonde.com. We do not, however, know the names of the participants. How many friends have been placed in the expert groups? How many people have been appointed independently of the general appointment procedures? How many EU employees and consultants also receive salaries from elsewhere?

Openness is the best tool honest people in power have for defending themselves against pressure from their own friends. The new Commission is not responsible for the sins and scandals of the past, but it could demonstrate a new approach. Provide us with the names of all the experts. Let us see who obtains what from the budget. Let us see all the Commission’s contributions to the legislative process. Sack the next person who lies, instead of sacking whistleblowers. Give the Commission’s sacked accounts manager, Marta Andreasen another job. Begin afresh with openness, democracy and proximity to the people. You will lose some friends in the upper echelons, but you will gain in terms of people’s confidence in you and in terms of support for European cooperation. Thank you, Mr President, even if I still do not have enough to express gratitude for.

  Brian Crowley, on behalf of the UEN Group. – Mr President, I would like to thank the Commission President for coming to the Chamber to respond to the motion tabled by some of my colleagues. I was at the Conference of Presidents meeting which took the decision that there was no substance to the allegations being presented, and that it was right that President Barroso should respond by letter. The Conference of Presidents took on board his opinion, as expressed in that letter, that there was nothing to substantiate the allegations made.

Be that as it may, I do not deny Members and colleagues the opportunity to table this motion of censure. The fact that it makes them look ridiculous, takes up our time and diverts us from dealing with really important issues that affect the everyday lives of European citizens obviously does not matter to them. It matters to me.

We have a situation in which conspiracy theories, innuendo and general misconceptions, lies and myths are told about what goes on in the ‘dark corridors’ and ‘cubby holes’ of the European Commission. We are told we should be afraid of the danger lurking behind us, and that things are happening that we do not know about, when the reality is that every single decision taken is accountable. Every single action taken is not taken in an exclusive format or by one person, but goes through a host of motions and a series of individuals and organisations before a final decision is reached.

What we are really witnessing today is opportunism of the most crass and basest order. It is an opportunism which seeks to create a myth that ‘there is danger lurking out there’, predicated on the basis that we are the white angels who shine the light into dark corners. That is what the authors of this motion would have us believe. However, the reality is that they are trying to prevent positive action being taken, and to prevent real debate taking place on issues of concern to the people of Europe. Most importantly of all, this is an attempt to undermine a project in progress for the good of all the peoples of Europe. As we have seen with the most recent enlargement, it is one which continues to progress.

Finally, Mr President, I would like to thank President Barroso for coming to the Chamber. I apologise for being a member of a Conference of Presidents which may have put you in the embarrassing position of thinking you would not have to come to the Chamber. However, I know that in the future you will recognise it depends very much on who is asking the question, and then you will decide whether or not you should come.

(Applause)

  Hans–Peter Martin (NI). – (DE) Mr President, I would like to praise the Commission – or some Commissioners at any rate – for having produced, on 18 May, a paper from which I shall now quote: ‘We must bring more light to bear on the way we work and find new ways to reconnect with the European public.’ The document goes on to say that all official correspondence by letter should be made available in a public register. One of the people who got this initiative underway was Commissioner Siim Kallas.

There is also the issue of the power exercised by lobbyists, for, in this House, in contrast to the USA, there is a great lack of transparency where they are concerned. The reason why I signed the motion – a reason I share, I think, with many other Members – was that I expected precisely that sort of explanation from you, and what, Mr President of the Commission, did you give us? What must be the feelings of the editorial staff of Die Welt, who made the whole thing public, not to mention the reporters of the Süddeutsche Zeitung or those working on the ARD’s ‘Tagesschau’ yesterday evening, when they hear you using words like ‘rabble–rousing’ and ‘misuse’. Not least as one who has been a journalist for many years, I object to such accusations.

Your statements, Mr President of the Commission, put you on the wrong side of the debate. You are sending out the wrong messages. By saying what you say, you are defending an EU lacking any transparency whatever, full of intolerance, and – yes, I will say it – characterised by paralysis. The stunned rigidity associated with the EU Constitution is precisely because of the sort of behaviour of which you have, lamentably, given an example today. By this pushing away, you are making yourself a symbol of an EU characterised by old–boy networks and – oh, yes – the power of lobbyists. In so doing, you do damage to the ideals in which many of us believe. The fundamental problem is precisely that; this attitude of withdrawal, this no longer comprehending what is at issue, when what is at issue is the ideals of the EU.

Like many others, I am in favour of Europe, but not of this EU and its abusive practices. Without transparency, there is no democracy. Stick to what you said a fortnight ago, and then we will not have to say ‘Boa Noite, Senhor Presidente’. Wake up, I beg of you!

(Applause)

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. (FR) Mr President, first of all I should like to thank all the political groups. In fact, all of the groups, except the one that initiated this motion of censure, have rejected the terms of the motion, and I thank them for that. I do believe they have all helped us, in the European institutions, to send an unmistakable signal of our determination to distinguish clearly between democracy and demagogy.

There remains one substantive and serious question to be answered, and for all those who are committed, as I am, and as all the members of my Commission are, to the principle of transparency, I should like to spell out our position precisely. To this end, I shall repeat what I said on the matter in my letter to President Borrell. Since the letter was written in English, I shall read it in English.

‘I should add that the rules applied to members of the Commission are stricter than those currently applied in most Member States. Nevertheless, the question has been raised of whether additional rules in this area would be helpful.’ Some of you, like Mr Watson, have spoken about that possibility.

I then said to President Borrell that it is perhaps useful to recall that the Commission proposed an agreement to create an advisory group on standards in public life back in November 2000, which would have covered the European Parliament, the Council, the Court of Justice, the Court of Auditors, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, as well as the Commission. That proposal is still on the table and the Commission is of course ready to discuss it with the other institutions.

(FR) Ladies and gentlemen, I want it to be clearly understood that the Commission is ready to work constructively with all of you for transparency, good governance and proper accountability within our institutions. What I cannot, however, accept as President of the Commission is this suspicion towards the institution I have the honour to lead, this sort of anathema some people pronounce on it. I just cannot accept that.

We shall work together for greater transparency, but we shall not give in to demagogy. I therefore thank all the political groups for having drawn this distinction today between demagogy and democracy and for having contributed in this way to the realisation of our European ideal.

(Applause)

  President. The debate is closed.

The vote will take place during the next part–session.

  Jens–Peter Bonde (IND/DEM). – (DA) Mr President, we put forward a proposal, which was rejected, for a general debate. We put a number of questions to the Commission during the hearings, where we were promised information about the expert groups. (The speaker continued without a microphone) ... We have still not been given this, and nor shall we be given it. What information is it that has to be protected?

  President. Mr Bonde, I regret that the switch by means of which I intended to cut you off did not work, and that you have therefore been able to speak without the permission of the Presidency. I am very sorry.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Our position on the Commission is abundantly clear; we voted against it because we object to its profoundly neoliberal agenda, as we have highlighted on many occasions.

The reasons behind this motion of censure, however, had nothing to do with opposition to such policies. Instead it is based on personal relationships and events prior to the current Commission taking office, which we voted against.

We want more transparency in the Commission. We want different policies to address the terrible problems of unemployment and social exclusion.

We do not base our policies on personal attacks. We therefore do not endorse this motion of censure, although we are ready to back motions of censure against the Commission’s appalling policies.

  Alyn Smith (Verts/ALE). – I have listened to the debate on the motion of censure with increasing disbelief. The issue at stake here is not who lodged the motion or the motives of the Independence Democracy Group, it is about whether the Commission President is under a duty to answer questions asked of him by members of this house. The people of Europe have a perception that MEPs and Commissioners do not live up to high standards, and whether or not we like it this is the reality which we must acknowledge and remedy, not close ranks and pretend does not exist. The need for continued reform of our and the Commission procedures is urgent. I deplore the motives of the Independence and Democracy Group, but their actions could have provided an opportunity to strengthen our procedures. By attacking them rather than the problem, the leaders of the groups have missed an opportunity today.