Mr President, although it is customary to express gratitude, please allow me to unite that with wonderment at the report that is now before us. The task in hand is clear indeed. We were asked, especially in view of the experiences of 1999, to find another, less ambiguous way whereby the Commission, and not only the Commission, was in future to be granted discharge. What was at stake was that there should be the minimum of room for manoeuvre where people are simply stalling, that proposals for decisions that are very clearly set out should also result in appropriate results, and that no areas of uncertainty should remain. If one is dealing with Parliament, one learns that this place attaches primary importance to compromises, and it is compromises that we have worked towards very intensively. For that, I would like to thank not only the officials of this House, who, with great commitment, kept on coming up with new formulations and proposals, and not only my own colleagues either, who had a part in this process, which – as we don't work as quickly as Elmar Brok – has in the meantime lasted nearly a year, but also the Members of this House belonging to other groups, who have made the effort to do this. Compromise means that there is give and take, and that is a small chance to take part in a process, if you are seated up there in the gallery or, through some other fortuity, find yourself listening to what is being said. I hear that amendments handed in by the chairman of the Committee on Budgetary Control at the very last minute, which go against this great ideal of compromise, are now to be promptly withdrawn. If they ask how it is that a rapporteur does not know that, it has to do with another of the realities of life in this House, that is, the fact that such last-minute agreements are often reached outside the plenary and are often not completely transparent. But we will shortly hear whether we have pulled it off. There is another thing, though – I am looking around to find Mr Bourlanges, with whom I did most of the negotiations – and that is something I can do. (Interjection by Mr Bourlanges) Perhaps Mr Bourlanges will hear it as well. There is another thing; that is, that I have to offer and would like to say that I withdraw the request for a split vote that we made on one point, itself very close to the heart of Mr Bourlanges and of the PPE Group that he represents, in other words that there will be no split vote on the matter that is so dear to them. It goes without saying that this is being done in the hope that we can achieve the precise result that we need, which is broad agreement to this report. It is the case that, without 314 votes, we will achieve no durable compromise, and we will make no progress without effort. My concern is not only that unambiguous rules should be created for the Commission, but also – something in Article 93a to which I would gladly return – with working out how this Parliament should at last flex its muscles a bit more at the Council in its executive capacity, and that we should make this our concern. I believe that to be this report's second pillar, if that is indeed the term to be used. It is, in this sense, my very great hope that we will now, on the one hand, hear about compromises struck outside the plenary, and, on the other hand – as Mr Bourlanges is also on the list of speakers – that we will hear him say that he agrees to it, and that we may thus bring the whole business to a satisfactory conclusion.

Political group: PSE