This is the umpteenth affair involving new buildings.

Promoting employment, however, is a long - winded affair and comes under structural policy.

A few things are already clear, however, irrespective of the fraud affair itself.

It is in every sense a virtual affair, with no form of inspection.

But specialists point out to us that this is a particularly questionable affair.

I shall be mercifully brief.

I would ask him to be brief.

3521 I shall, of course, be brief.

I wish to make four brief points.

A brief word on the proposed amendments.

Forgeries are big business.

Naturally, it is a complex business.

This is an inhumane business.

This is a very tricky business.

That is quite a burden for business.

We have to examine situations case by case.

The documents must be examined on a case - by - case basis.

So from case to case it looks somewhat better today.

The principle of case - by - case assessment must apply for agriculture.

It has to be looked at on a case - by - case basis.

It is therefore a good cause.

This is a cause for concern.

7783 This will cause some irritation.

This should be a cause for panic.

This was a cause for great concern.

The drugs issue is a security issue.

The second issue is the really huge and complex issue of migration.

The report, however, omits to bring up one fundamental issue: the issue of traffic rights.

Otherwise, we restrict the issue and make it just an environmental issue, which it is not.

Doctors are a sensitive issue, human health is a very sensitive issue.

So this is not a matter of principle but a matter of the formal place for this specific proposal.

Everybody supports this matter.

Borders are a sensitive matter.

This is an important matter.

Road safety is a serious matter.

Your question is the fundamental question of how we can combine economic and social policies.

I want to know why this question, this very plain and simple question, is not being answered.

The third question concerns the question of harmonised pensions.

The question of a committee of inquiry is also a question of how rigorous future measures will be.

It is now, therefore, a question not of again bringing the directive into question but of enforcing it.

Insanity prevailed over reason.

A second reason is security.

I also abstained for another reason.

Secondly, there is a political reason.

The reason is quite obvious.

We have experience of the cheapest thing not being the best thing.

To call it so is one thing, to make it so is, of course, another, more difficult thing.

Such a thing is unthinkable.

That is the crucial thing.

One thing is abundantly plain.