So what the Council is now proposing to us is precisely what the three legal services unanimously ruled out. It is obvious that we cannot go along with this! There is a similar situation as regards primary law. Why is it that this House is in this difficult position? It is because, in 1976, when the Act concerning the election of the Members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage was introduced, the Council fought shy of harmonising the general conditions applicable to the exercise of the mandate. It found that too much of a hot potato. That is why the European Parliament retained the structure of a parliamentary assembly even after it started to be directly elected, a structure it retains to this day. The object of this statute is to break down this parliamentary assembly-style structure and for us to become a real Parliament. That is what the Statute is for! (Applause) The fundamental issue is of whether this European Community is a real community or an international organisation. If it were merely an international organisation, then the Council would indeed have the prerogative as regards Members’ privileges and immunities. The question as to whether or not we should now regulate MEPs’ privileges and immunities boils down to the question of whether this European Community is a community or an international organisation, of whether we are a parliamentary assembly or a parliament worthy of the name. That is what it is about! (Applause) The rules we have now date back to 1965, when the Protocol was introduced. In that year, Charles de Gaulle beat Mitterrand to win the French presidential elections, and it was in that year that the first contraceptive pill was put on the market. (Laughter) And now the Council – it is apparently the Council, although I am unsure, as it used to be only the Permanent Representatives who dealt with these matters – is trying to tell us that it is these rules by which Parliament should continue to be governed in the future, almost a quarter of a century after it was first directly elected. If we do not get to grips with this issue now, then when is it going to be dealt with? After all, it is not as if the Council thought that the system of privileges and immunities had to be reformed. It expressly confirmed that only last year, when the uniform right to vote was introduced. It is clear that the Council sees this as a long-term solution, and of course Parliament cannot accept that. As I have said, the Council has not previously given this issue its serious consideration. The governments are showing themselves to be something less than interested in it. That is why it is no bad idea to say that the Statute should enter into force at the same time as the European Union’s new constitution. We would then have a guarantee that both the Council and the Intergovernmental Conference would do intensive and serious work on this topic, and also that the issues of taxation and of primary law would be discussed at intergovernmental level in an appropriate way. If we now dispense with these rules – which we do not want to come into effect, something they can of course do only after those provisions in the Protocol that are contrary to them have been suspended – then we will remain, for an unforeseeable period of time, in the Council’s Babylonian captivity. That is what this Statute is about! I am very grateful to the Bureau for coming up with rules on the reimbursement of costs, general expenses, the daily subsistence allowance, and the lump sum for staff. That was very helpful and a step in the right direction. I am very grateful to you, Mr President, generally, for having taken more trouble over this Statute than any previous President. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the PPE- Group’s Mr Lehne, (Applause) who, with his criticisms, his solidarity, and his reliability, has been with this project every step of the way. Many thanks for that, and many thanks to you all! (Applause)

Political group: PSE