Mr President, I hope that the small number of Members who are still present in the Chamber will pay some attention to this report. To tell the truth, given that the issue is considered very sensitive by many, I regret the fact that the debate and what I am about to say on behalf of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs is not being broadcast in any way. What I am about to say is quite important. The text, which did not obtain the required qualified majority during October’s part-session in this Chamber, has been amended on the initiative of the largest political group, which at the time expressed reservations and demanded further clarification. The Committee on Constitutional Affairs has, in fact, adopted three amendments by Mr Méndez de Vigo, which, for the purposes of the implementation of the interinstitutional agreement within Parliament, give a special role to Parliament’s President herself, to whom all information regarding the Members will be sent. In addition, the Committee has adopted an amendment by Mr Nassauer and Mr Brok, that is the new Article 4 of the model decision, and I shall quote the amendment word for word – 'Rules governing Members’ parliamentary immunity and the right to refuse to testify shall remain unchanged”. Thus, we have further strengthened the guarantee, which was already present in several parts of the text, of full compliance with the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities – and, in particular, I want to mention Article 10 of the Protocol, which is very precise and exhaustive – and full compliance with the related Rules, in particular, Rule 6 of the Rules of Procedure, which, in implementation of the provisions of article 10 of the Protocol to the Article I have just mentioned, regulates Members’ immunities even more closely. So allow me to say to those Members who have expressed doubts and concerns that, thanks to these amendments tabled by Members from the European People’s Party, they can vote for this text with peace of mind. However, I must immediately recall and reaffirm what the mandate given to the Committee on Constitutional Affairs was – President Fontaine reminded us too – and the subject of the decision that Parliament has to take. The mandate was, and still is, simply the following – the decision to be taken is this: to include the interinstitutional agreement in the Rules of Procedure, i.e. our internal regulations, so that it can be applied within Parliament, on the basis of an opinion of the Committee on Budgetary Control; to amend the Rules of Procedure by introducing a new Rule 9b and not to amend the interinstitutional agreement. I would point this out, in particular, to those Members who were not Members of the previous Parliament. Personally, I am in the same situation: Parliament gave its President the mandate to sign this interinstitutional agreement on 6 May last year, and it was signed on 25 May. I respect the opinion of those Members – newly elected or already Members of Parliament – who have expressed reservations and concerns about this Agreement, but I had to consider those amendments that seek to change the interinstitutional agreement, which we are simply required to implement as it is, to be inadmissible in committee. What you perhaps consider worrying, what you will read, is not a Parliamentary decision; it is the model decision that is part of the interinstitutional agreement, already published – with the identical wording – in the Official Journal of 31 May last year. We have limited ourselves to introducing technical adjustments to allow proper implementation within Parliament. I would like to conclude by pointing out that, if the experience of implementing this interinstitutional agreement suggests that that some of its aspects need to be discussed with the other institutions again, this can easily be done in the future. Nevertheless, today, I think that we have the duty not to deny the signature with which we confirmed our commitment to implementing the interinstitutional agreement. (Applause)

Political group: PSE