Okay, thank you.
I am, of course, happy to wear what you expect me to wear, because the fourth report calls on the witnesses to be heard today. If we had not called the witnesses or if I had not called the witnesses and the report had passed, the witnesses would not be here, and the report would be irrelevant.
The witnesses were told that there would be a fourth report and that there was a possibility that there would be debate. But it makes no logical sense, given that the fourth report specifies a date upon which to hear witnesses, to then entertain not having those witnesses invited, and then try to pass this report--and if the report is passed, everybody says, “Well, where are the witnesses? We passed the report; Mr. Chairman, you should have invited them.”
In an abundance of caution, we invite the witnesses. If the report passes, we hear from them; if the report doesn't pass, the chairman apologizes for the witnesses being here unnecessarily. That's the rationale, and I'm happy to wear it.
Is there any further debate on the amendment proposed by Mr. Van Kesteren?
Go ahead, Mr. Martin.