What Michael spoke about.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, It is good that since December last year we have had the opportunity to use this sanctions regime to sanction individuals who have been guilty of serious human rights violations. It is an advantage that we do not have to impose sanctions on an entire country, but can use it very specifically against the individual offenders. However, as has already been mentioned, we believe that the mechanism is incomplete. Certainly, it would have to be considered to include the aspect of corruption in a reform or, as the British have done, to introduce a separate mechanism in this context. I am flexible. But in the matter itself, I think it is right that we include corruption here. Another deficit is certainly unanimity, and we should talk about it with the Member States concerned. In fact, it cannot objectively be the case that, if one finds a human rights violation, then in extreme cases 26 Member States take the view that: Yes, this person is responsible, and only one Member State claims the opposite. In fact, this can only be based on non-objective considerations, such as financial interests, and we consider this to be politically unacceptable. That is why, I think, we should also use the normal legislative approach in the case of an amending regulation. That is to say, there is a proposal from the Commission, which then goes to the Council and Parliament, and then it is decided in codecision. And then, I think, on the one hand, we will be able to involve corruption, but we will also be able to talk to the Member States concerned, which have so far been opposed to the lifting of unanimity.