Mr President, this is a third and, I believe also slightly unnecessary, proposal that has come from the Kingdom of Spain. It seeks to institutionalise the provision of protection for public figures. The protection of public figures is, by definition, something which should be arranged between the Member States, or other states, and in the case of visitors, between the visiting state and the host state. I found it quite odd that there also it was based only on Article 29 of the Treaty of the European Union when it seems to me that both Articles 30(1) and 34(2)(c) needed to be added. However, there is the germ of a good idea here. So I have taken the proposal and amended it in such a way as to facilitate cooperation between national intelligence, police and security services without setting up a bureaucratic institution and with no further cost. One of the problems that I had with the proposal initially, was that it seemed to want to codify or create a tariff of protection. Therefore, someone like yourself, Mr President, of supreme importance in the affairs of the European Union, would no doubt have been provided with two armoured cars filled to the gunnels with armed policemen with machine-guns, whereas a mere humble back-bencher like myself would be lucky to see one policeman walk past his house every other day. This struck me as being a slightly odd idea because, if nothing else, it would provide an absolutely perfect guide to a would-be assassin, as to what he was likely to come up against. So I removed all that. However, there is, as I still say, the essential point and what I have added to it is that there should be cooperation and some kind of harmonisation, not only of the protection that is afforded, but the response mechanism in the event of such a tragedy, or an attempt being made. There are a number of institutions ranging from the SAS in Britain through the German border guards, the excellent military police in Spain and Italy and other countries, who, since the tragic events of the Munich Olympics, have acquired a great expertise in the response. It seemed to me madness to leave the response element of this problem out of the question. On the issue of shared information, I think that the information should be shared on a need-to-know basis and, above all, should be kept away from politicians, bureaucrats and even the people who are being protected themselves, because operational security in this area must be paramount. Nor should there be any extra levels of decision-making that could interfere with operational effectiveness. Knowing how long it sometimes takes for all the institutions of the Union to arrive at a decision, the thought of introducing another tier between the attempt on your life, Mr President, and the response by the policeman, and it would have to pass through several committees, I hope sends a shiver down your back. Finally, the other important thing that I have added is that any sharing of information must be subject to the principles of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This is an area in which information would be shared on known threats, known possible suspects but, nevertheless, we have to make absolutely certain that fundamental rights are maintained. That said, I hope that the House will be sufficiently impressed to know that my amendments were the only ones that went before the Committee. They were passed unanimously without any votes against, which I understand may be a rare if not unique event.

Political group: PPE-DE