Madam President, I too had not intended to take the floor, but this issue has now occupied our attention for three-quarters of an hour. In the meeting of the Conference of Presidents, all of the group leaders present made a very great effort to try to understand the precedents, to try to understand the complexity and to try to arrive at a reasoned and fair decision. I believe the decision that was arrived at at the Conference of Presidents reflected a consensus view, which was a collective wisdom, and you have enunciated that view here today. Everyone who has studied this dossier in great detail and who has discussed it free from polemics, but not free from their political preferences, has a view on these issues; no one made any personal accusation or imputation against you. I want to say, on behalf of my own group, that although you find yourself in an extremely difficult personal position, you have behaved with honour personally, as President of this House, from the very first moment this issue was placed before you. On 28 August last, you requested the assistance of the Spanish authorities on the issue of the competent authority to transmit this document. I believe that the delay, for which you are now being reproached in debates like this, is totally undignified and unwarranted, and that you and this Parliament find themselves becoming the victim as bystander of a process of an Executive outside this House. I intend, on behalf of my own group, notwithstanding the mission you have conferred on Madame Garaud, to whom again, on behalf of my group, I wish to express our profound sympathy, to take direct personal contact with the Spanish authorities, because we have a right to have an early and urgent answer. The delay has been unwarranted and undignified and it has cast you in a light and in a role where you do not properly belong. I defend what you have done. I hope and believe you would similarly defend any Member. If Madame Garaud is not in a position, for perfectly understandable reasons, to undertake the mission that you have conferred on her, it could be advisable to see if, in such circumstances, an alternative may be found, if only because it is important for the Presidency of this House to be able to assure Members, as I believe we were assured at a prolonged debate of the Conference of Presidents, that you have acted with concern for due process and with propriety at all times. We discussed the matter of precedents at length and the two precedents were rather interesting. One was an Italian case which came as a direct reference from a court. This is not a good precedent in this case because the Italian Constitution had changed between the earlier format of transmission and the most recent, and consequently the law itself had changed. Therefore, because the constitution was a different constitution, it is not a precedent with regard to the issue of a competent authority to transmit such a request. The second was one of three cases to lift the immunity of a Member, as it happened I think from Spain. Two of them clearly came through the transmission mechanism where there was no argument on competent authority. But the third came with the thumbprint of Government on it, unlike this request, so it is an inadequate precedent, even if it is a modest step in that direction. All this has left you in a very difficult and delicate position, Madam President. I believe the undignified delay is the primary cause of all this concern and therefore, if we have political anger, while we are entitled to feel and express that anger, we should direct it at those who have caused the delay: that is most certainly not you and it is not the office of the Presidency of the European Parliament.

Political group: ELDR