I have reservations about that suggestion, because, after all, there is a certain logical sequence in the bill. It does not seem to me a good idea to try and adopt particular clauses quickly because they have not been amended. The way we are proceeding helps us to follow the thread of the bill, and I wouldn’t want to lose that. I don’t think it requires a greater investment of time. We have to spend the same amount of time on each of the amendments anyway; we have to examine them one by one and adopt them; we have to say yes, etc. Let's examine them as we go along then. That way we won’t lose the thread of the text; we’ll follow the bill step by step, which will give us a better understanding. I hesitate to adopt clauses selectively, as is proposed, in case there are minor changes to make subsequently. Therefore, I am opposed to that proposal.
On November 21st, 2006. See this statement in context.