Mr President. In these cases which are before us, there are very serious allegations levied against two Members of Parliament, which are stated on the first page of the explanatory statement of my report, which I recommend to Members to take a look at. The procedures were commenced in July 2000, concerning illegal arms trading, influence peddling, misuse of corporate funds, breach of trust and receiving stolen goods. This concerned the sale of arms to several African countries in breach of French law on arms trading by companies through which countless transfers and even cash payments were made to a string of different people. There is a charge against Mr Pasqua, but not against Mr Marchiani, which concerns illegal funding of an election campaign through acceptance of donations and funding of the European election campaign in breach of the provisions of Article L52.8 of the Electoral Code. These being the charges, the first charge concerning illegal arms trading, etc., against both Mr Pasqua and Mr Marchiani, the second against Mr Pasqua only, the examining magistrates are requesting the waiver of parliamentary immunity of these two gentlemen, so that certain judicial supervision measures may be taken against them. The Members would be forbidden to enter into contact with certain witnesses, or co-accused, or to visit certain countries and they may be required to put up bail. This notification order was forwarded first to the public prosecutor of the Republic at the level of the Court of First Instance, then through the public prosecutor at the Paris Court of Appeal and then from that public prosecutor to the Minister of Justice and by the Minister of Justice to the Parliament here. It should be noted, at the First Instance, that the public prosecutor of the Republic firmly supports a request for judicial supervision by the examining magistrates, stressing the gravity and nature of the case and describing it as necessary in principle. However, the public prosecutor at the Court of Appeal considered that, and I quote, 'contrary to the view expressed by the other prosecutor, the present request for waiver of immunity gives grounds for reservations'. On the one hand, the request for judicial supervision does not stipulate what countries the accused would be forbidden to visit and on the other, following a ruling by the Cour de Cassation, the scope of the proceedings finally to be pursued is still to be determined by the relevant Court of Appeal. The Minister of Justice, however, forwarded the request for waiver of immunity, together with the forwarding letters from the public prosecutor at First Instance and at the Court of Appeal, without attaching any further remarks. This is the situation in which we have to take a decision. I want to say, first of all, that the crimes of which these Members are charged are serious ones. We have an absolute rule that we form no opinion either way about the merits of the charges but that the Members enjoy the presumption of innocence. The public prosecutor in France is entitled to pursue his duties under law and Parliament takes no side on that issue. They are serious crimes and of a kind that would not ordinarily attract parliamentary immunity because they do not relate to the ordinary and proper activities of a Member of this Parliament, or a politician operating in a democratic society. It does make it important that I should acknowledge that both Members strenuously affirm their innocence and denounce what they consider to have been abusive elements in the prosecution process. However, in the nature of the case, I can have no view and Parliament should take no view about these points. The present request for waiver of immunity, therefore, does not concern the issue whether these prosecutions may or should continue in accordance with French law. Under Article 10 of the Protocol of 1965, there is no relevant immunity, either for a deputy of the French National Assembly or, therefore, for a French MEP in the face of prosecution on charges of this kind. The issue of immunity and the request for waiver relates only to the issue of whether the Court may issue binding orders restricting the MEPs' freedom of movement, or their freedom in making contact with other persons. I would draw to the attention of all colleagues that if there are freedoms which are vitally important to the exercise of public representative office, especially in a Parliament of this kind, freedom to communicate with other citizens and the citizens of other countries, and freedom to move as one chooses, is critically important, as part of doing the job. In its present form, the request for waiver of immunity seems unacceptably precise and indeed the documents of the case seem to indicate that no attention has been paid to the recommendation for the request of waiver to be taken forward only on the basis of a more specific statement, concerning places and persons involved. There is one other aspect of the case which, I regret to say, gives rise to a suspicion that regard for the conditions of free parliamentary debate has not sufficiently animated the prosecution, and that is the fact, which was disclosed in the course of this, that the prosecutor at one point asked our President, your predecessor, for details of the voting records of these two Members in order that the possibility of their having exercised improper influence could be pursued further. Article 9 of the Protocol, as President Fontaine sharply reminded the prosecutor, makes us entirely free from any legal proceeding whatever in any expression of opinion of vote cast in performance of our duties as Members of this Parliament. In these circumstances, the Legal Affairs Committee, and I wholly endorsed its view, proposes that the request received from the French Minister of Justice for waiver of immunity ought to be rejected in the form in which it has been presented to the Parliament. I hope that decision, together with the explanatory statement, will be forwarded, if it is adopted by the Parliament. This may not be the end of this matter but, in the form we received it, this request for waiver of immunity was in the view of the Legal Affairs Committee unacceptable, and I commend that view to the House.

Political group: Verts-ALE