Mr President, I am grateful for the contributions, the compliments and the criticisms expressed so clearly. I will focus on the criticisms. Some were expected and some were surprising. I was surprised at the vehemence of Mrs Frassoni's criticisms. She made the same speech she made when we started our work in committee a year and a half ago. She also accused me of not listening to her speech, so I want to make a point of refuting her argument, because she seemed to make the point that we have moved on in one year and a half. I am glad that the shadow rapporteur from her group was very constructive. Indeed, many of the amendments I have tabled have been co-signed by her group and mine. Firstly, let me refute some arguments that various speakers made. I am not trying to stifle debate or limit minorities. I am trying to expand the debate on the important subjects, to have more time on the really important and controversial matters. That, in turn, implies using simplified procedures for the less important and the less controversial matters. How do we define less controversial? We have said that where there is a majority of over 90% in committee, we can take that prima facie as not controversial. Even then, we can go back to the usual procedures if only two groups or 32 Members make such a request. It is a very low threshold; it is very easy to go back to a full normal procedure. But let the onus be that way around. Let us assume that if it is simple and uncontroversial it can go through under a simplified procedure unless there is a request to the contrary, and then we will gain time for more debate, more views to be expressed on the important matters. Similarly, I refute the argument that there is any danger to the language regime. Every Member will continue to be able to insist on his or her own language in all instances. I refute that we are scrapping the human rights issue. Like Mr Posselt I agree that human rights are very important. I am not proposing to scrap the issue: I am proposing a different procedure for dealing with it, a procedure which will give more weight to the detailed work done in the committee and which should produce even more important results than at the moment. The same applies to other urgent matters. We are not scrapping them; we are proposing to deal with them under other procedures – either existing or new procedures. Let me just clarify one or two other points. As regards 'catch-the-eye', what is on the table is a compromise. 'Catch-the-eye' would only come at the end of debates. Even then it is not obligatory. It says the President may have a round of catch-the-eye. That is a very reasonable compromise. If the people who have reservations about this are not even willing to try it out for a while at the end of debates, when the President so decides, then really there is not much willingness to compromise at all. I would urge those who are cautious about this to give it a try. There is no harm in trying it out. As regards OLAF, the committee deliberately did not deal with this because the matter was sub judice. Now it seems that after the Court has ruled there is an appeal, so it will still be sub judice. But even if it were not, I would say that this would need thorough examination in committee rather than an amendment at the last minute in plenary. That is the reason why we have not come up with a proposal on OLAF. As regards the Commission President and the vote on the President of the Commission and the Commission as a whole, Mr Rothley has raised a valid point. Our national traditions are very divergent on this but it is right that it comes before plenary, and in many groups there will be differences of opinion on this. Mr Rothley has persuaded me personally but I know that there are many others in the House who still need to be persuaded. As regards the budget point, we had different views. Some said that for every item coming before this House there should be a detailed examination of the budgetary implications by the Committee on Budgets. Others said that this is a constraint on our rights to table amendments in plenary and we should not go down that road at all. We have come up with a compromise stating that explanatory statements must, where there are expected financial implications, contain an analysis as to how this is compatible with the financial perspective. This compromise will not satisfy everybody, but, again, it is a workable compromise for us to move forward at the moment. Finally, the question of gender language. Mr President, you were quite right to point out that it only affects some languages. The language in which I drafted the report was not one in which there is gender discrimination and I would not have put it in. I would remind the House that four years ago, when adopting the report by Mrs De Palacio Vallelersundi and myself, we adopted a decision that the Rules should be revised by the services in all languages to ensure gender-neutral language. We do not need to come back to that issue; we need to ensure that what we decided as a parliament is now applied.

Political group: PSE