Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-02-Speech-3-020"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010502.2.3-020"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr Corbett, I would like to thank you for raising this issue as a point of order, as this gives me the opportunity to give the House some extremely important information. As a rule, I do not respond to controversial press stories with further controversy. I have a deep respect for the dignity of this Parliament and so I am only too happy to be able to clarify matters for its Members.
What is the current situation? As you said, there was a meeting of the Conference of Presidents. Three decisions were reached, following a first decision that we had taken at Mr Barón Crespo’s request. Mr Barón Crespo had asked that we draw up an exhaustive document of all previous requests for waivers of parliamentary immunity, in other words, all the requests received since the European Parliament was elected by universal suffrage. I thought that this very comprehensive document would be of great use. I would like to thank the Secretary-General for having diligently drawn up this document, which is extremely interesting. It confirms that all requests, apart from those made by Portugal and one request made by Spain where there is some doubt, have always passed through the governments of the relevant Member State. You have access to this document. I am sure that it will have been sent to you through the appropriate channels.
At the Conference of Presidents, three decisions were taken. The first decision was to ask the Committee on Constitutional Affairs to draw up a substantive document on how requests for waivers of immunity should be dealt with in general. There would therefore be grounds for wondering whether there is a need to amend Parliament's Rules of Procedure. In these circumstances, as in others – I am thinking of the procedures for requests to withdraw a fellow Member’s mandate, or for other things – you realise that Rule 6 does, in actual fact, seem rather inadequate. Mr Napolitano, the Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, has accepted to undertake this task on behalf of his committee and I would like to thank him for doing so. I believe that the coordinators of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs are meeting tomorrow to appoint a rapporteur.
I would repeat that this is an extremely important and serious matter which affects both this institution and the guarantee that every Member must be able to legitimately enjoy. It was then decided that I should again write to the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs, reiterating my desire to see this issue investigated as soon as possible. This letter was drafted, I believe, directly after the meeting of the Conference of Presidents. I believe that it is available to you, again, through the appropriate channels. If you do not have access to this letter, we shall, of course, put the matter right.
The Conference of Presidents then asked me to appoint a Member of Parliament who would, more or less, be responsible for monitoring this issue. I appointed Mrs Garaud, who is a member of the French Council of State, a member of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market and a member of the Conference of Presidents; she does not belong to any political group, is therefore someone with an excellent profile and is acknowledged by all to be an excellent jurist. I believe, Mr Corbett, that you are aware that Mrs Garaud has been through an extremely painful experience. I do not know if she is present, but I would like to pass on my deepest condolences to her. I do not think that we really could have blamed her for not being able to go to Spain during the period following her appointment to this position. I think that you are aware of the situation.
I have some very important information and I would like to thank Mr Corbett for mentioning the Council of Europe. The Spanish Supreme Court sent a request for the waiver of parliamentary immunity of the same Italian MEPs to the Council of Europe. However, you seem to be unaware that this request was sent to the Council of Europe via the Spanish government.
I am saying to you in all sincerity that this only adds to my doubts. Who are they trying to embarrass here? A request was made directly to the President of the European Parliament, the Supreme Court then passed this on to the European Parliament’s information office in Madrid and, a few months later, the same Supreme Court involved the government, through the Spanish government’s mission to the Council of Europe. If I had not acted in the way I did, Mr Corbett, I would have had deep regrets. I certainly would have acted in the wrong way and if I had taken a hasty decision to refer this to the Committee on Legal Affairs and to announce it to Parliament, this decision would have been subject to an appeal, a perfectly legitimate appeal, by those concerned. I repeat, in order to respect the dignity of this Parliament, I think that we must treat this situation with all seriousness.
Referring this matter to the Council of Europe, therefore, fully endorses the approach that I took when this matter first arose. I sincerely hope that the Supreme Court informs me why there are two different ways of dealing with this, one way for this Parliament and another way for the Council of Europe."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples