Mr President, first of all Mr Dell’Alba is certainly right with the first part of his question. The tone of the question when it was put seems very different from the tone that we are hearing now in the Chamber. First of all, we have to say that the White Paper reforms are progressing. They are progressing slowly but Rome was not built in a day and we must remember that. We all know that there is a timetable – one that we have all agreed to and must be kept. What I would like to address, before I look at the substance, is the question behind this question, – that is what we really have to look at here. It strikes me – and I will not be quite as subtle as Mr van den Berg – that the tone of this question seems to be the same tone as the Stauner report, the original Stauner report that was comprehensively rejected within the Budget Control Committee – the same tone that was set in the explanatory statement which was rejected by Parliament as a whole. We are all desperate to see reform but it will take time. The new Commission has been in office for only seven months. It was approved by the European Parliament by a huge majority. The question we really have to ask here is not to the Commission but to the PPE Group as to the motivation behind the question. It strikes me as being clearly politically motivated, trying to undermine the work done on reform, trying to shoot this new bird down before it has taken flight. This is because there is an element within the PPE Group, and I do not include Mr Pomés Ruiz in this, interested in wrecking the tactics of the Commission, wrecking Commission reform and wrecking the EU. And the PPE Group is being hijacked by that element within the group. I believe that this Commission is very open to taking on board some – I hope all – of Parliament’s concerns and criticisms, because we have criticisms too. But there is a time and place for that and this will be when we look at Mr Pomés Ruiz’ response to the White Paper. The Group want to engage in a constructive debate because we are interested in the outcome of reform, not in scoring short-term political points that do nothing but damage the European Union. Turning very quickly to the substance of the questions: in the Commission hearings the European Parliament asked for rotation of A1 and A2 posts and to end national flags on senior jobs. The Commission has taken positive steps since they came into power, ensuring that appointments are made on the basis of merit. Of course, in a multinational institution, we must be sensitive to national considerations but these must be seen within the medium and long term. As the Commissioner said, you cannot take a snapshot halfway through. We should be interested in checking systems and not checking individuals. The role of the European Parliament is to keep the Commission on its toes. We want to see appointments on merit but that does not mean interfering and questioning every single senior appointment. I would like to make a quick point on improving the equal opportunities aspect of the Commission’s reform proposals. Mrs Hautala’s question was very well put and we also would like an answer to that. We do not currently think that the proposals go far enough in terms of gender mainstreaming and equal opportunities. On parts 3 and 4 of this oral question I understand that the Conference of Presidents agreed on April 6 that these two questions should be removed. That being the case, I would like to ask you, Mr President, to look into why the services had still not removed those parts today. That is a serious problem. The fact is that Commission reform is going ahead. Mr Prodi has made some announcements today as the head of the organisation. Again, most of it looks at mobility but I would like to ask the Commissioner why the role of the new post, Director of the Economic and Political Council, was not advertised. That is a post that we would like to have seen advertised. Finally, I would like to ask the PPE Group to refrain from such politically motivated and unconstructive questions as we have here. I am confident that Mr Pomés Ruiz will not take that attitude when he responds to the White Paper, but please do not let your group be hijacked by a minority.

Political group: PSE