Rapporti verbatim tad-dibattiti

It-Tnejn, 7 ta' Lulju 2008 - Strasburgu

22. Emenda tar-Regoli ta' Proċedura tal-Parlament fid-dawl tal-proposti mill-Grupp ta' Ħidma għar-Riforma Parlamentari dwar ix-xogħol tal-Plenarja (dibattitu)

  Presidente. − L'ordine del giorno reca la relazione dell'onorevole Richard Corbett, a nome della commissione per gli affari costituzionali, sulla modifica del Regolamento del Parlamento alla luce delle proposte del gruppo di lavoro per la riforma del Parlamento concernenti i lavori dell'Aula e le relazioni di iniziativa (2007/2272(REG)) (A6-0197/2008).

  Richard Corbett, rapporteur. − Mr President, I hope colleagues will bear with me yet again taking the floor on a question of changes to the Rules of Procedure, which always seem to be on a Monday night.

As colleagues will be aware, Parliament has had a working group very ably chaired by our colleague Dagmar Roth-Behrendt which has been looking into improving the workings of our Parliament.

We have shifted from being a talking shop to a co-legislature. Whatever happens to the Lisbon Treaty, that change has already essentially taken place. It is therefore rational and logical that we should look at how we organise our work.

One major aspect of that is inevitably and rightly a shift away from own-initiative reports from committees, with no legislative impact, to focussing more on legislation.

That is the first and perhaps most important part of the package of proposals that I tabled before you today. The working group’s proposals, of course, were wide-ranging: only a few of them require adjustment to our Rules, but this is one of them.

The idea here is that we should differentiate between the types and significance of own-initiative reports. Some, of course, will continue to merit full discussion and voting in plenary; but perhaps some really do not.

We should not turn this Chamber into a drafting committee that rewrites, paragraph by paragraph, a detailed own-initiative report on a specialist subject by a specialist committee.

I would have liked to have gone further and ask: Why do such reports, that type of own-initiative report, not stand in their own right as a report of the committee?

Reports of the House of Lords, that we all talk about, are reports of House of Lords’ committees: they are not voted on and rewritten by the chamber of the House of Lords, they stand on their own merits – often very good, deep, analytical reports. They do not use the Lords as a revising chamber, paragraph by paragraph. We should not do that either for this type of own-initiative report.

With this rule change, that will be possible; we will, of course – that is the compromise – still put the report to the chamber to give a yes or no to it. We will also allow groups that disagree with it to table an alternative motion for a resolution, but we will not start voting for hours on hours, paragraph by paragraph, to redraft a committee report of that sort. That, then, I think is a first, very important change.

Another change, of a completely different sort, is to liven up our debates and the way we conduct our speaking time. The role of the rapporteur will be enhanced: the rapporteur will present the committee’s report which is in response to the Commission’s legislative proposal, immediately stating what the Parliament thinks of the Commission proposal, and will wrap up the debate at the end, perhaps answering the points that different Members have made in the way that I attempted to do just now in our previous debate. That is something that should liven up our debates and is well worthwhile.

There is, however, one detail which seems to have attracted a lot of comments: this is the suggestion that we should have guidelines for written parliamentary questions in the same way that we already have guidelines for questions at Question Time to the other institutions.

I do not see why there is such a drama about this. It is not an attempt to create a power of censorship over questions. It is simply saying in the guidelines that written parliamentary questions, just like questions for Question Time, should be within the remit of the institution that is being asked to answer the question. That seems logical and rational, yet it is missing at the moment.

The fact that it is missing has allowed one Member of this House to table over a thousand parliamentary written questions on subjects that have nothing whatsoever to do with the European Union. That has clogged up the system, making all the rest of us wait longer for our answers, costing a fortune because all such questions have to be translated into every language, circulated around the Commissioners for a collective reply and collegiate reply, and is a waste of our time and resources. Simply laying down guidelines to say that questions have to be within the remit of the European Union and of the institutions seems to be sensible.

And who should judge this? Under my proposal, our President, the President of Parliament, should judge this. If we lay down guidelines, we will not leave it to the Commission to judge that and say: ‘No, we are not answering that question or this question’. No, we will decide – and that is something to protect Members and should be a guarantee for Members. I am surprised that some Members who are not here tonight have seen fit to attack that in an e-mail to all Members of Parliament.

These are modest, sensible proposals coming out of the working group of vice-presidents and Dagmar Roth-Behrendt, and I commend them to the House.

  Margot Wallström, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, a reformed Parliament that promotes a livelier political debate on the EU is in the interests of all our citizens and also all the institutions. We need a more dynamic discussion on European affairs and I belong to those deeply convinced that debate is the lifeblood of any functioning democracy.

On behalf of the Commission, I would like to congratulate Mr Corbett on his report concerning the work of the plenary and the presentation of written questions. Over the years there have been an increasing number of parliamentary questions. In 2007, over 6 700 questions were answered by the Commission. That represents an increase of 12% compared to 2006 and almost 35% compared to 2005, and the trend so far this year suggests a further increase.

The surge in questions has at the same time meant a real challenge: almost 25% of the total number of written questions have been put by no more than eight Members of Parliament. Furthermore, quite a large number of questions are not related to issues falling under Community competence. I can give you some examples if you like.

The Commission is absolutely committed to fulfilling its responsibility and providing high-quality responses to parliamentary questions. It is a duty that flows from the Treaties; it is also a central feature of our accountability to the Parliament. The Commission welcomes the introduction of some guidelines and admissibility criteria for written parliamentary questions as proposed in the report. A system of guidelines is currently in place for oral questions addressed to the Commission and to the Council and the Corbett report suggests a method which is already implemented by Parliament and well known by the Council and Commission. The effective implementation of these guidelines will strengthen the opportunity for individual Members to address questions to the Commission and receive timely responses, as has already been explained by the rapporteur. We will be able to focus on questions that address issues really related to the Commission competence or of general interest.

Let me comment on another issue addressed in the report, and that is the order of speeches in plenary debates. The Commission recognises the logic and the opportunity of opening legislative debates with a statement from the rapporteurs. When it comes to the order of speeches and speaking time I would, however, like to stress the need to keep the principle of equal treatment of Commission and Council.

As a last word, let me recall that we recently expressed our position on the second interim report adopted by the Working Party on Parliamentary Reform and we are looking forward to having the opportunity to discuss these issues with Parliament before your institution adopts the final position on the reform package. I am confident that the spirit of good interinstitutional cooperation that both institutions have demonstrated so far will continue throughout the whole reform process.

  József Szájer, a PPE-DE képviselőcsoport nevében. – Elnök úr, ismét hallhattunk olyan hangokat, hogy ez a javaslat is arról szól, hogy korlátozzuk bizonyos parlamenti képviselőknek a tevékenységét. Én szeretném felhívni az euroszkeptikus képviselőknek a figyelmét arra, hogy mielőtt ezt állítják, olvassák el a javaslatot.

Hiszen ez a jelentés, ez a változtatása a szabályoknak már nagyon régen meg kellett volna, hogy történjen, hiszen az Európai Parlament már régóta komoly jogalkotási hatáskörökkel rendelkezik. Ezenközben, hogyha azt nézzük, hogy az időnknek, a plenáris ülésen eltöltött vitaidőnknek mindösszesen 17,4%-át töltjük jogalkotással, a többi az más jellegű tevékenység.

Tulajdonképpen ez a jelentés azt teszi lehetővé, hogy a Parlament azzal foglalkozzon, amire őt a Szerződések felhatalmazták. Vagyis ténylegesen a jogalkotásra tudunk koncentrálni, és ez nem azt jelenti, hogy lebecsülnénk a saját kezdeményezésű jelentéseket, hiszen ezek is nagyon fontos pontokat rögzítenek, de azt tudnunk kell magunk között, hogy ezeknek a hatása lényegesen kisebb annál, mint amit a jogalkotással el tudunk érni.

Amikor jogot alkotunk, akkor 500 millió ember számára már a következő években az életükre közvetlen hatással lévő változásokat hozunk létre, míg a saját kezdeményezésű jelentéseknél ez az áttétel jóval hosszabb, jóval kisebb, ennél következtében ennek a Parlamentnek jóval többet kell foglalkoznia a jogalkotással és ez a jelentés ezt teszi lehetővé.

A kérdések kapcsán sikerült szintén egyetértésre jutnunk, hiszen fontos, hogy a kérdések valóban érdemi válaszokat kapjanak. Nagyon gyakran mi, parlamenti képviselők azt tapasztaljuk, hogy a Bizottságtól nem kapjuk meg valóban azokat az érdemi válaszokat, holott, ahogyan a biztos asszony is elmondta, minden egyes képviselőnek joga az, hogy a kérdéseire válaszokat kapjon, de ezeknek olyan kérdéseknek kell lenniük, amelyek beletartoznak az Európai Uniónak és a Bizottságnak a hatáskörébe.

Annak is örülök, hogy végül is azt a korlátozást, hogy mindösszesen két kérdést lehessen csak havonta feltenni, azt a Bizottság elutasította. Ez egy bölcs döntés volt, de mindenképpen egy jobb eredményt érhetünk el és a kérdések hatékonyságát segíti ez a mostani új szabály, és ezért gratulálok a jelentéstévőnek, Richard Corbettnek. Köszönöm.

  Jo Leinen, im Namen der PSE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Initiativberichte im Europäischen Parlament haben durchaus ihre Berechtigung. Wir sind ein Parlament von 27 Staaten und Völkern und da gibt es viele Fragen, die auf den Nägeln brennen, sowohl innerhalb der EU als auch in unseren Beziehungen zu anderen Teilen der Welt.

Aber ich schließe mich auch den Äußerungen an, dass sich dieses Parlament mehr und mehr von einer beratenden Versammlung zu einer gesetzgebenden Körperschaft entwickelt hat. Der Vertrag von Lissabon wird das ja noch einmal eine ganze Stufe nach vorne bringen. Ergo müssen wir Prioritäten setzen. Wenn ich höre, dass wir nur 17,4 % auf Legislativarbeit verwenden, dann ist das effektiv zu wenig. Wir sind unter Stress, unter Zeitdruck, wir wollen better legislation machen und da brauchen wir in diesem Bereich mehr Zeit und Prioritäten.

Es ist auch gut, dass wir jetzt sagen: Nicht jeder Bericht muss im Plenum noch einmal diskutiert werden. Man kann auch ohne Aussprache abstimmen, und die Kollegen können dann schriftliche Erklärungen abgeben, wenn sie sich zu dem Bericht äußern wollen. Das muss nicht mündlich im Plenum passieren.

Ich finde es richtig, Frau Vizepräsidentin, dass hier im Parlament der Berichterstatter sowohl das erste Wort als auch das letzte Wort hat, weil wir uns hier quasi als Kammer der Bürger am Anfang und am Ende einer Aussprache artikulieren müssen. Das ist eine gute Neuerung.

Zu guter Letzt zu den Anfragen: Es geht alles solange gut, bis es missbraucht wird. Wir hören hier die Zahlen, dass acht Mitglieder 25 % aller Anfragen stellen. Das sind also fast 1 700 Anfragen von acht Kollegen. Nun kann man sagen, dass sie sehr fleißig sind, aber es riecht doch danach, dass hier das EU-System wie in vielen anderen Fällen auch ganz sträflich von den Gegnern der EU missbraucht wird. Da müssen wir eine Regel einführen, und die Leitlinien sind ein Maßstab, ein Rahmen, nach dem wir arbeiten können.

Glückwunsch an Richard Corbett, dass er sich immer wieder an die Arbeit macht, dieses Parlament weiterzuentwickeln. Vielen Dank.

  Andrew Duff, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, it is a pleasure that I can be more consensual in this speech than in my previous one. The Liberal Group strongly supports the thrust of the reforms that are encapsulated in this set of proposals, especially upon the parliamentary questions.

I think it is quite correct that we dropped the rapporteur’s first proposal to cap or to restrict the number of parliamentary questions that could be asked.

Frankly, I would propose two further minor improvements. The first is to broaden the procedure to stop bad quality committee reports – and sometimes, regrettably, there are some – from sliding through the plenary without improvement and here it would be appropriate to permit the committee itself and not simply the rapporteur or two political groups or 10% of the membership of Parliament to table amendments.

My second proposal is to add a catch-the-eye phase to the new sort of short presentation proposed by the rapporteur. I think that these two changes would slightly broaden the chance for parliamentary debate and exchange while not destroying the purpose of the working group which is, of course, to streamline and to vitalise the proceedings of the Assembly.

  Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Mir geht es ähnlich wie dem Kollegen Duff. Im Unterschied zum vorherigen Bericht möchte ich hier signalisieren, dass wir den Bericht insgesamt als Fraktion unterstützen können, denn der Bericht spiegelt die Vorschläge wider, die die Arbeitsgruppe zur Parlamentsreform eingebracht hat, und setzt sie um als Änderung der Geschäftsordnung.

Was wir nicht unterstützen können, darauf möchte ich auch kurz hinweisen, das ist der Vorschlag, bei Initiativberichten keine Änderungsanträge mehr zuzulassen. In meiner Fraktion ist man der Meinung, dass Änderungsanträge sehr wohl zur politischen Kultur, zur politischen Debatte gehören, und vor allem zum Recht der einzelnen Fraktionen, und dieses Recht der Fraktionen sollte man nicht beschneiden.

Abschließend möchte ich noch sagen, dass ich die Anträge 13 und 15 der Grünen und der Liberalen unterstützenswert finde. Auch wenn wir keine langen ausführlichen Debatten zu einzelnen Berichten hier im Plenum haben müssen, sollten wir aber Diskussionen haben, und sie sollten kurz sein — entweder ein Redner pro Fraktion, wie das die Grünen vorschlagen, oder eben das Catch-the-eye-System. Aber ganz auf die Debatte zu verzichten, da leisten wir uns selbst keinen guten Dienst, denn wir nehmen uns ja nicht ernst, wenn wir keine Debatten zulassen. Das finde ich auch nicht gut.

  Hanne Dahl, for IND/DEM-Gruppen. – Hr. formand! Ethvert lovgivende organ må til enhver tid være underlagt kontrol, og det må også, som vi er, være indstillet på at udøve selvkontrol. Men denne selvkontrol, er jeg bange for, fører for vidt i den foreliggende betænkning. Jeg vil gå så vidt som til at kalde det selvcensur. Hvis den vedtages i sin oprindelige form, foreslår Parlamentet selv, at retten til at stille spørgsmål til Rådet og Kommissionen indskrænkes til, at hvert medlem kun må stille relevante spørgsmål, hvilket selvfølgelig som sådan giver mening. Men der står også, at det er op til formanden at afgøre, om spørgsmålet kan stilles. Formanden for Parlamentet skal altså afgøre, hvilke spørgsmål det er relevant at stille til EU's øvrige institutioner. Vi indfører altså en øget selvcensur og tillader oven i købet, at Parlamentets formand derudover udøver censur.

Jeg vil minde om, at vi er det eneste direkte valgte organ og dermed har en særlig forpligtigelse. Vores opgave er at føre parlamentarisk kontrol, og derfor kan vi under ingen omstændigheder pålægge os en selvcensur, der kan misbruges! Vi har selvfølgelig alle en moralsk forpligtigelse til ikke at spilde nogen institutions tid med irrelevante spørgsmål, men vi kan ikke acceptere, at der opstilles såkaldt objektive kriterier for relevans. Objektive kriterier findes ikke i politik, og opstiller man dem, risikerer man, at de misbruges.

  Jim Allister (NI). – Mr President, in its original incarnation, this report was far more draconian and anti-democratic than its final version. Our Euro-fanatical rapporteur showed much of his true colours when he proposed diminishing the rights of elected Members in this House to dare to ask questions of the unelected Commission and of the Council; hence, his monstrous proposal to restrict Members to three questions per month.

Happily he had to beat a hasty retreat but his report still bears some of the repressive character that lay behind that proposal. In particular, the veto which he seeks to give the President over what can be posed in a question is unacceptable; not least since this present President does not enjoy the confidence of everyone in this House, given his inability to abide dissent, as was evidenced by his punitive action against those in this House who dared to demand the right of their electorate to have national referenda on the Lisbon Treaty.

The President showed his intolerance, and a President handed censorship powers which will enable him to protect the European elite against probing questions from Members – such a President will gladly exercise that censorship. Therefore it is foolish, it is wrong and it is undemocratic to bind and to gag Members in this House in the way that our rapporteur, not surprisingly, seeks to do.

  Κώστας Μποτόπουλος (PSE). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η κοινοβουλευτική διαδικασία δεν είναι ένας τύπος της δουλειάς μας, είναι η ίδια η ουσία της δουλειάς κάθε κοινοβουλίου, ακόμη και ενός κοινοβουλίου σαν το δικό μας, με 780 βουλευτές από τόσες διαφορετικές χώρες, τόσο μακριά από τα φώτα της δημοσιότητας, άρα συχνά και από το ενδιαφέρον των πολιτών, και με τις διαδικασίες που γνωρίζουμε όσον αφορά τη συζήτηση, η οποία συζήτηση εδώ, στην ολομέλεια, δεν είναι παρά μία τυπική διαδικασία σε σχέση με την πραγματική δουλειά που γίνεται στις επιτροπές.

Γι’ αυτό είναι πάντα καλοδεχούμενη μία προσπάθεια να γίνει καλύτερη η δουλειά της ολομέλειας αυτού του κοινοβουλίου με βάση κάποιες αρχές: Πρώτον την αρχή της αποτελεσματικότητας, να συζητάμε ώστε να οδηγούμαστε σε επιλογές και τελικά σε αποφάσεις· δεύτερον την αρχή της δημοκρατικότητας, ίσα όπλα για όλους ασχέτως της δύναμής τους ώστε να ακούγονται όλοι· και τρίτον της ζωντάνιας, θα έλεγα, ώστε αυτά που λέμε να έχουν ενδιαφέρον για τους πολίτες.

Πώς υπηρετούνται αυτές οι αρχές με βάση την πρόταση της συγκεκριμένης έκθεσης; Νομίζω με ικανοποιητικό τρόπο, αν και θα μπορούσαν να υπάρξουν κάποιες μικρές βελτιώσεις που και εγώ θα προτείνω.

Όσον αφορά το ζήτημα της λεγόμενης συνοπτικής παρουσίασης, συμφωνώ. Είναι μία πολύ καλή ιδέα να έχουμε αυτή τη συνοπτική παρουσίαση, για ένα λόγο: γιατί έτσι δεν θα υπάρχει καμία έκθεση που να μη συζητείται καθόλου. Θα σας πω ένα παράδειγμα: η πολύ ενδιαφέρουσα έκθεση του συναδέλφου κ. Duff, για την οποία θα ψηφίσουμε αύριο, σχετικά με τον τρόπο που θα ελέγχεται κατά κάποιον τρόπο η Επιτροπή δεν θα συζητηθεί καθόλου ενώ θα ήταν μία πολύ καλή ευκαιρία να περάσει από αυτή τη σύντομη διαδικασία.

Άρα λέω ναι, αλλά πέρα απ’ αυτό επισημαίνω – το βλέπουμε σήμερα, το βλέπουμε κάθε φορά – πόσο ενδιαφέρουσα είναι η διαδικασία του catch the eye, πόσο δεν έχει ενδιαφέρον η συζήτηση, αν είναι μόνο ο εισηγητής και η Επιτροπή, ενώ, αν μπορούν να μιλήσουν και άλλοι, έχει ενδιαφέρον.

Δυο λόγια ακόμη και τελειώνω. Όσον αφορά τις ερωτήσεις, νομίζω ότι είναι πολύ σωστή η κατεύθυνση που παίρνουμε. Τέλος, όσον αφορά τις εκθέσεις πρωτοβουλίας, οι τροπολογίες στις εκθέσεις αυτές νομίζω ότι πρέπει να συζητούνται .

  Gerard Batten (IND/DEM). – Mr President, sometimes when writing these short speeches, it strikes me that it would really take the talent of a George Orwell to do justice to these reports.

This report from the unconscious satirist and humorist, Mr Corbett, is a case in point. What monumental undemocratic arrogance it is to suggest that Members of this Parliament should have their questions to the Council and Commission censored! We are told that this is to avert abuses by the right or stop use of offensive language.

Perhaps Mr Corbett is concerned that we might ask questions about some Commissioners’ criminal records or their past careers as apparatchiks of Eastern European Communist regimes, or perhaps about former EU Presidents’ alleged careers as KGB agents?

Recently the President of Parliament assumed arbitrary powers to control the right of MEPs to speak in this Chamber. Now Mr Corbett wants to censor what MEPs can say on behalf of their constituents to the Council and the Commission.

If I may respond to Mr Corbett’s comment about my speech in the last debate, I was of course referring to his proposed rules on the formation of political groups in relation to the Independence-Democracy Group as it is currently constituted. It is the Labour Party that is facing annihilation in Britain. One reason is its Europhile fanaticism, and I can assure him that in 2009 UK Independence Party MEPs will return here in even greater numbers.

  Paul Rübig (PPE-DE). – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrte Damen und Herren! Die Anfragen stellen genau das Spektrum dar, das die Bürger an Information von der EU erwarten. Nachdem heute Kommissarin Wallström hier ist, fordere ich sie auch auf, diese Anfragen durcharbeiten zu lassen und vielleicht eine Broschüre erstellen zu lassen, wo das Frage- und Antwortergebnis auch den Bürgern Europas zur Verfügung gestellt wird, sodass sie auch im Internet nachlesen können, wie die Fragen, die hier im Parlament von den Abgeordneten an die Kommission und an den Rat gestellt werden, beantwortet werden. Es wäre für Journalisten und für die Bürgerinnen und Bürger Europas großartig, wenn das noch vor den Wahlen möglich wäre.

  Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin! Ich habe mich auf die Wortmeldung von Herrn Leinen gemeldet. Herr Leinen, wenn Sie einen Moment zuhören: Es geht um die Äußerungen zum Initiativbericht. Man kann über die Qualitäten der Initiativberichte streiten, die hier eingebracht und dann verabschiedet werden. Aber wenn Sie jetzt die Änderungsanträge nicht mehr zulassen, wie soll denn dann ein Initiativbericht verbessert werden? Ich möchte doch daran erinnern, dass wir als Parlament kein Initiativrecht zur legislativen Gesetzgebung haben. Da sind wir auf die Kommission angewiesen. Wie wollen wir denn der Kommission mitteilen, was wir an Initiativen gerne hätten, wenn wir die Initiativberichte beschneiden oder wenn wir sie nicht in eine Richtung bringen, die die Sache verbessert? Wenn ich richtig sehe, verfügen wir selbst nach dem Vertrag oder nach dem, was einmal Verfassung hieß, nicht über das Initiativrecht im legislativen Bereich. Also bleibt uns nur die Willenskundgebung im Initiativbericht. Ich finde es bedauerlich, wenn Sie das abwerten, weil wir uns einer Möglichkeit berauben. Ich meine, darüber sollten Sie noch einmal nachdenken, sowohl der Berichterstatter als auch Sie, Herr Leinen.

  Íñigo Méndez de Vigo (PPE-DE). – Señor Presidente, el ponente no necesita que nadie venga a defenderle; él se defiende solo, no tengo la menor duda, pero debo decir que he pedido la palabra porque me parece que en alguna de las intervenciones, señor Presidente, se han excedido.

Me parece que en esta Cámara hay que debatir y hay que desplegar argumentos. Acabo de oír la intervención del señor Graefe zu Baringdorf y aquí discrepamos siempre, pero me parece que determinadas calificaciones, determinados insultos y determinadas caricaturas al final hacen daño a esta Institución y, sobre todo, a sus propios autores, señor Presidente. Dado que estamos en Francia, creo que era un escritor francés quien decía que «todo lo excesivo carece de valor». Hoy ha habido alguna intervención que carecía de valor.

Nosotros apreciamos lo que ha hecho el señor Corbett, que no ha sido sino reflejar lo que hace un grupo de Vicepresidentes de esta Cámara, donde están representados todos los Grupos de la Cámara. Lo ha reflejado el Reglamento, hemos debatido con él y apreciamos enormemente la labor que él hace.

  Richard Corbett, rapporteur. − Mr President, after our previous debate I am glad to see that we are still friends and that we can reach a wider consensus on these issues.

Just let me clarify a couple of points that have given rise to controversy. On parliamentary questions: we are not proposing any limit to parliamentary questions, we are simply saying that the same guidelines that we as a Parliament have already adopted for Question Time questions should apply to written questions, namely that they should be within the remit of the European Union and of the institution called upon to answer them.

Questions about hospitals in the UK under the National Health Service and the moving of staff from one hospital to another, which have nothing to do with the European Union, should not be parliamentary questions costing a lot of money at European level. This seems to me to be common sense: only UKIP and their friends can describe it as some sort of conspiracy or some sort of censorship. Censorship? On criteria that we ourselves decide, that our President is called upon to rule on, not the Commission or the Council? If that is censorship, then my goodness…

The second question that gave rise to some controversy was speaking time. Perhaps I did not explain this fully earlier. We will keep the two options that we have now for organising debates, and add a third one. At the moment we can have a full debate, which can already be a short debate with one speaker per political group. We also now have the option of the simplified procedure where the rapporteur simply makes a two-minute statement at the time of the vote: we will keep that.

What we are proposing is to add a third option: the short presentation, where the report is consensual and own-initiative, etc. and does not merit a full debate, though the latter always remains an option. Under the short presentation procedure, the rapporteur presents the conclusions of the committee, the Commission responds and everybody else if they wish can make an extra contribution in writing. That increases the number of options available to Parliament; it does not restrict the rights of any Members. It multiplies the flexibility with which we can deal with these issues, and again I commend it to the House.

Finally a couple of short questions. In response to Mr Rübig, the questions and answers are already on line. They are visible to all Members; perhaps we should make more use of this, but they are there, that is a tool that is available. To Mr Baringdorf I would say yes, the report does distinguish between different types of own-initiative report. The type of legislative initiative to which he was referring would not come under this simplified procedure that we are proposing: that would go through the normal procedures, as that particular type of legislative initiative merits. So we have catered for that.

As for the very strange remarks by Mr Batten from UKIP and his reference to the next European elections, we shall see. Yes, his party won as many seats as the Liberal Democrats in the last European elections in the UK, having outspent them, I think, by a factor of 10 – Mr Duff is nodding, so I suppose that is right. We will see how many millionaires he gets to contribute to his campaign this time; but I hope that this time there will be greater awareness, having seen their performance in the European Parliament over these last five years, of what it actually means when you elect somebody from UKIP to this place. And if the electorate is aware of that then I am sure they will not do so well in the next European elections.

  Presidente. − La discussione è chiusa.

La votazione si svolgerà martedì 8 luglio 2008.