Mr President, I must say firstly that it was I who proposed the content of that report, which was supported by a majority in the Conference of Presidents, and it deals with freedom of expression and information in the European Union – particularly in Italy, but in the European Union as a whole – and Mrs Boogerd-Quaak’s excellent report refers to the majority of countries in the European Union, including my own, and I therefore believe that it is a good piece of work which does credit to Parliament. Having said that, I would like firstly to make a political criticism, because I believe it is very positive that during this last plenary session of this legislature we should hold an in-depth political debate, and this relates to the case of filibustering which has arisen in relation to this report. You have mentioned a series of incidents which have taken place during the negotiation of the report. I can add some more information: for example, documents have disappeared in the committee, something which is entirely inexplicable. We are facing an obstacle course. And since you yourself have mentioned a letter which was written to you by Vice-President Podestà, I am aware of an article Mr Podestà has written today in the well-known Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, in which he makes a series of serious accusations with regard to the European Parliament’s behaviour. He says – and I quote in Italian: il Regolamento del Parlamento Europeo è stato aggirato, consentendo di dare un corso inarrestabile alla discussione in aula, [the Rules of Procedure have been flouted, by allowing the debate in Parliament to run on indefinitely] and further on it says that nella commissione per le Libertà Pubbliche, di maggioranza di centrosinistra ... [in the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, which is dominated by the centre-left ...] Well, I did not know that we were so dominant in Parliament and I do not know if Mr Poettering will agree with this. He then refers to the letter which he wrote to you and says that President Cox, in his reply, ha dovuto ammettere che sostanzialmente avevo diverse ragioni [had to admit that I was to a large extent right]. I would also like to make it clear that I believe that we in the so-called centre-left coalition have strictly observed the Rules of Procedure; we have had the patience of Job in the face of systematic manoeuvring involving blocking and filibustering. However, if we look at the issue in political terms, I accept that there are two groups in the House – and I am coming to an end, Mr President – who indulge in filibustering, because it is they who have tabled all the amendments but four, and I understand why they would defend Mr Berlusconi, who is currently the leader of the Group of the European People’s Party . I accept that as well, but they should say so clearly, because ... (Protests and applause) ... because I would remind you of an old Roman Law principle which said – and this was what made Rome great – that one cannot legislate for the benefit of just one person. We must legislate for all the citizens, and that is what is at stake here. And I will therefore end, Mr President ... (Protests and applause) ... I will end with a proposal, Mr President: the so-called centre-left coalition has four amendments. You have 350. We accept that they be voted on en bloc and, if not, we accept that the President’s proposal should be voted on paragraph by paragraph. (Applause)

Political group: PSE