Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-02-Speech-3-079"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010502.6.3-079"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, the previous two cases we have considered dealt with issues of free speech and the conditions of maintaining robust political debate. This case raises no such issue. It is a case concerning a traffic violation, as the second to last paragraph on page 10 of my report says, "the charge against Mrs Jeggle relates to the offence of dangerous driving since it is alleged that when driving her car on 4 May 1999 she acted recklessly and in gross violation of road traffic regulations by overtaking another vehicle at a point that did not afford sufficient visibility to do so."
We are not in any sense called upon to form a judgment on the truth or falsity of these allegations or on Mrs Jeggle's conduct. We are called upon only to decide whether an allegation and a trial on a matter of this kind attracts parliamentary immunity which ought not to be waived. The German authorities have rightly halted proceedings which were already quite far advanced on learning that Mrs Jeggle had been elected to this Parliament and in due course sent a request to Parliament for Mrs Jeggle's immunity to be waived.
We come up here against what I regard as an extremely important principle: that we elected politicians ought to enjoy no special privileges over our fellow citizens. Members of a democratic assembly of this kind should only not be subjected to harassment or persecution for carrying out their duties. We are agreed, Mrs Jeggle as fully and firmly as anybody else, that traffic offences are not covered by that principle and that Parliament should never claim immunity for any of its Members on a matter of this kind.
Mrs Jeggle has passed to me word through another colleague that she is unable to be present in the House this afternoon and she wanted to assure me, and the House, that this is no intentional discourtesy on her part but an unavoidable conflict of obligations. I am very happy to pass that assurance on, because it certainly has been the case that at no point in the discussion of this matter has she in any way deviated from the view which I am putting to the House. This is not a case where Parliament should insist on a Member's immunity and I have no hesitation at all in reporting to the House the unanimous view of the Committee on Legal Affairs that immunity ought in this case to be waived on the request of the German authorities."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples