Doslovný zápis z rozpráv

Štvrtok, 6. apríla 2006 - Štrasburg

5. Účinnosť pomoci a korupcia v rozvojových krajinách (rozprava)

  Presidente. Segue-se o relatório do Deputado Margrietus van den Berg, em nome da Comissão do Desenvolvimento, sobre a eficácia da ajuda e a corrupção nos países em desenvolvimento [2005/2141(INI)] (A6-0048/2006).

  Margrietus van den Berg (PSE), Rapporteur. – Voorzitter, commissaris, ik ben verheugd dat wij vandaag in dit Parlement een serieus debat voeren over een onderwerp dat niet altijd even gemakkelijk bespreekbaar is geweest in een discours over ontwikkelingssamenwerking. Europa is de grootste donor ter wereld in kwantitatief opzicht, maar de laatste tijd groeit mondiaal het besef dat de doeltreffendheid van de hulp minstens zo belangrijk is als de kwantiteit.

De Verklaring van Parijs over de doeltreffendheid van de hulp uit 2005 vormt een belangrijk ijkpunt voor actie op dit vlak en de Europese Commissie heeft onlangs gevolg aan deze verklaring gegeven door middel van een pakket maatregelen inzake de doeltreffendheid van de hulp, dat we binnenkort in de Commissie ontwikkelingssamenwerking zullen bespreken.

Mijn initiatiefverslag, waarover wij vandaag stemmen, geeft ook een aantal serieuze aanbevelingen om hulp effectiever te maken. Goed bestuur dat gevrijwaard is van corruptie is een belangrijke voorwaarde voor de doeltreffendheid van de hulp. Het voorkomt niet alleen dat hulpgeld aan de strijkstok blijft hangen. Corruptie vormt ook een hinderpaal voor ontwikkeling en drukt onevenredig zwaar op de allerarmste delen van de bevolking. De toegang tot essentiële diensten, zoals basisonderwijs en basisgezondheidszorg, wordt door corruptie bemoeilijkt en soms zelfs belemmerd.

Corruptie vormt over de hele wereld een gigantisch probleem. Volgens schattingen van de Wereldbank wordt jaarlijks meer dan 1 biljoen dollar, dat is 1.000 miljard, aan steekpenningen betaald. In Afrika, het armste continent ter wereld, gaat een geschat bedrag van 148 miljard dollar, ongeveer gelijk aan 25% van het Afrikaanse BNP, verloren. Bovendien zit corruptie in alle lagen van de samenleving en zijn bijna alle maatschappelijke actoren erbij betrokken: politici, ambtenaren, de media, multinationale ondernemingen en ook de internationale donorgemeenschap. Goed bestuur en doeltreffendheid van hulp zijn de gezamenlijke verantwoordelijkheid van de donorgemeenschap en de ontwikkelingslanden. It takes two to tango. Daarom gaan mijn voorstellen ook concreet over wat wij als Europese Unie, Commissie en lidstaten kunnen doen, liefst in samenwerking met de hele internationale gemeenschap.

Mijn belangrijkste voorstel is het opstellen van een zwarte lijst van corrupte regimes waaraan niet meer geleend mag worden door banken en andere financiële instellingen. Wie wél uitleent aan regeringen die op deze lijst staan, draait zelf voor de eventuele schuld op en kan niet komen aankloppen bij de internationale gemeenschap. Zo voorkomen we dat de bevolking uiteindelijk de dupe wordt van Marcos, Kabila, Abacha of een van hun opvolgers.

Daarnaast stel ik voor een klein percentage, een half procent, van het bedrag dat rechtstreeks aan de regering van een land wordt uitbetaald in de vorm van begrotingssectorsteun, verplicht te geven aan waakhonden van maatschappelijke organisaties. Deze groepen uit het maatschappelijk middenveld voeren publieke controle uit op de inkomsten en uitgaven van de regering en de resultaten op het stuk van de ontwikkelingsdoelstellingen. Ook moet er steun zijn - en dat kan uit hetzelfde bedrag - aan nationale parlementen opdat zij beter hun controlefunctie samen met die waakhonden kunnen uitoefenen.

Een volgend voorstel is om bedrijven die betrokken zijn geweest bij corruptie bij projecten in ontwikkelingslanden, in het vervolg uit te sluiten van aanbestedingen vanuit Europa. Ook hier stel ik voor een zwarte lijst aan te leggen waarop deze bedrijven terechtkomen. Wie kan aantonen dat er verbetering is, door bijvoorbeeld aanpassing van het management, krijgt een nieuwe kans en kan van de lijst verdwijnen.

Tot slot moeten alle Europese lidstaten haast maken met het ratificeren van het VN-Verdrag tegen corruptie uit 2003. Momenteel is dit verdrag slechts door twee lidstaten geratificeerd: Frankrijk en Hongarije. Dat moet anders. Dit verdrag is de eerste internationale overeenkomst waarmee internationale rechtsmiddelen worden ingesteld om corruptie aan te pakken. Ik noem daarbij het voorkomen en vervolgen van witwasserij, het in een vroeg stadium bevriezen van financiële tegoeden bij banken in het buitenland en het terughalen van deze tegoeden bij bewezen vormen van corruptie.

Voorzitter, dit zijn enkele van de voorstellen die ik in mijn verslag doe. Natuurlijk zijn het slechts een paar stappen die Europa kan zetten in het gigantische probleem dat corruptie voor de samenleving vormt. Laten we hier allemaal - Commissie, Parlement en lidstaten - een prioriteit van maken en niet alleen met de vinger wijzen naar de ontwikkelingslanden, maar ook de hand in eigen boezem steken. Ik ben benieuwd wat de reactie van de Commissie op deze concrete voorstellen is. Want onthoud: it takes two to tango.

  Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. Mr President, first of all I would like to thank the rapporteur for his excellent report. The Commission is particularly keen on ensuring that the aid it manages serves the objectives of combating and ultimately eradicating poverty, and in that respect the power management of financial resources is crucial. Hence the decision to make governance in general a horizontal and central theme in the programming of the tenth EDF, because combating corruption can only be successful when embedded in a broader agenda of capacity building.

In this context we share the view of the rapporteur, Mr van den Berg, on the importance and scale of the problem. Corruption is indeed a major obstacle to development. It hits the poorest in developing countries the hardest. It is responsible for political instability and the violation of human rights, and it reduces the level of resources available for development funding.

Secondly, we agree that corruption is a very complex phenomenon which needs to be addressed through a whole range of different measures. International agreements are important, and the report notes that the UN Convention on Corruption still has to be ratified by several of our Member States. We need to work with private-sector organisations, and we need civil society watchdogs.

In our assistance programmes we have various measures to support good governance, such as reforms of the legal system, support for Supreme Audit Institutions, assistance for civil society, and support for national parliaments, which was the subject of a debate at the recent ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly. We already support civil society watchdogs, for instance Transparency International chapters in some countries.

Thirdly, on budget support, Mr van den Berg pays particular attention to that, and rightly so, not because it is especially prone to corruption, but because it is part of the solution. Its big advantage is that it directly addresses a major source of corruption in many countries, namely the weak management of public finances.

Our budget support goes only to those countries which are clearly committed to reforming their public finance system and, by strengthening sensitive areas like public procurement, it makes an important contribution to the fight against corruption. Project-type assistance, on the other hand, is heavily based on public procurement but cannot address weaknesses in the system.

You are aware of the special report by the Court of Auditors on public finance management in the framework of budget support in ACP countries, which supports the approach adopted by the Commission. I also want to highlight the importance of the harmonisation agenda, which was the focus of the Paris Forum on Aid Effectiveness held in March this year and emphasises the importance of strengthening beneficiary country systems of financial management and control, which is precisely one of the things that we are doing. One note of caution, however: budget support is not earmarked for a specific sector, but specific sectoral reform measures and targets can establish the conditions for the funds which are, of course, paid into the general budget.

Fourthly, the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness also underlines the importance of improving the transparency of public procurement procedures in our partner countries. Those procedures are often a source of corruption.

My last point concerns our colleagues in the field. One of the key objectives of the devolution process is to ensure that aid is more closely supervised in the field and to make the most of the detailed local knowledge of our ‘in-country’ staff. Delegations can check that aid is properly used. Moreover, for some kinds of contract we now require external audits before we make the final payment, and a comprehensive system for programming external audits was introduced in 2003, covering audits to be launched both by headquarters and by delegations.

In summary, we share much of Mr van den Berg’s analysis. We think more attention could be paid to public procurement issues, and we think some of the detailed measures proposed need to be reviewed and discussed further.

  Nirj Deva, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Mr President, I wish to begin by congratulating my colleague Mr van den Berg on an excellent and valuable report. There is no doubt that overcoming corruption in the allocation of development aid is one of the main obstacles that we face in achieving the Millennium Development Goals.

While concern mounts over a deficiency in funding for MDGs, we must ensure that the aid is being provided to developing countries and is being allocated efficiently. With increasing levels of aid, there is growing concern that politicians and officials will misuse money intended for the world’s poor. As Mr van den Berg said, corruption is widespread, affecting every sector and bureaucracy.

We must remember, however, that it is by no means solely a problem for developing countries. There is a common argument that aid should not be channelled through government. However, we are increasing budget support and I am pleased to hear what the Commissioner has said about strengthening institutions to eliminate corruption through budget support and the reform of the public sector.

Massive restructuring of civil service and public financial management is necessary. Often these reforms are the sole responsibility of a few select civil servants. Civil servants in developing countries, who live on low, public sector wages, are struggling to keep their families out of poverty. They are subject to bribes and often have to moonlight in order to supplement their incomes. How can we expect people to implement the necessary reforms if they are not paid accordingly?

I suggest to the Commissioner that we recognise and acknowledge about 200 civil servants in each developing country as the key players in the decision-making process and include them in budget support. Why do we not follow Singapore’s example and give these civil servants extra supplementary incomes, comparable to our standards, so that they are not tempted to take bribes to keep their families in the style to which they have become accustomed?

We also need to deregulate. Regulation is the mother of corruption. The power of the paper impels people to get permissions, and permissions are sought and bought by corruption. If we deregulate as much as possible in the developing countries, we will have a chance to address this problem. After all, regulation was used as a colonial instrument: the power of the paper, as opposed to the soldier in the village, to enact the imperial master’s wishes. When independence came, these countries kept those controls in place. They did not deregulate the imperial controls and, because of that, corruption has become endemic because regulation has been piled on regulation. We need to get the national parliaments in developing countries empowered with thorough investigative capacities to look at corruption in those administrations.

We are on the right track. I congratulate Mr van den Berg on an excellent report and I am very pleased to hear what the Commissioner has said.

  Ana Maria Gomes, em nome do Grupo PSE. – Senhor Presidente, antes de mais queria saudar o meu colega Max van den Berg pelo excelente, oportuno e importante relatório que elaborou. A União Europeia e os seus membros contribuem com mais de metade da ajuda pública ao desenvolvimento, globalmente. Na sequência das decisões tomadas no Conselho Europeu da Primavera de 2005 e na Cimeira do G8 de Gleneagles a ajuda internacional deve aumentar substancialmente nos próximos dez anos.

Neste contexto, e para atingirmos realmente os objectivos do Milénio, é necessário introduzir mecanismos apropriados de transparência para assegurar que a ajuda ao desenvolvimento chegue efectivamente aos destinatários no terreno. Como o relatório Max van den Berg sublinha, a gestão correcta da ajuda ao desenvolvimento é essencial para a boa governação dos países receptores. Lembro o exemplo da Etiópia, um país ACP, o maior destinatário da ajuda externa, onde ela representa quase 25% do orçamento público e onde, no entanto, se verificam sérias perversões do Estado de Direito, da democracia e dos direitos humanos.

De acordo com o Acordo de Cotonu revisto, casos sérios de corrupção podem resultar em consultas políticas nos termos dos artigos 96° e 97°. A União Europeia não devia inibir-se de usar esta ferramenta. Claro que a médio e longo prazo o estímulo de uma sociedade civil, dinâmica, com uma imprensa livre e equilibrada é fundamental. Só assim os cidadãos e as cidadãs dos países em desenvolvimento terão a possibilidade de expor e de se libertar de governos corruptos. Mais concretamente, a União Europeia deve exercer pressão sobre os parlamentos e governos dos países em desenvolvimento para que aumentem o controlo parlamentar dos gastos militares.

Orçamentos-sombra e paralelos representam uma forma de corrupção que afecta directamente a segurança interna, regional e até global. A falta de transparência neste domínio é um exemplo claro da ligação entre corrupção, Estados em falência e segurança. Por outras palavras, quando falamos de corrupção também falamos de guerra e paz e, neste quadro, o problema não está só nos países em desenvolvimento, já que os nossos governos na União Europeia e no Ocidente em geral têm a sua quota-parte de responsabilidade. Os países G8, por exemplo, são responsáveis por mais de 80% das exportações mundiais de armas.

São positivos os esforços envidados pelos Estados-Membros da União Europeia para garantir a compatibilidade das exportações de armas da União com a capacidade técnica e económica dos países importadores no contexto do código de conduta para a exportação de armas da União Europeia. Mas é fundamental garantir que o dinheiro para o desenvolvimento não seja desviado para armas. Infelizmente continuamos à espera de relatórios detalhados dos Estados-Membros sobre a implementação das regras deste código.

Nesta área de actividade opaca, em que negócios de armas, corrupção e violência se cruzam, a Europa tem a responsabilidade de garantir que armas vendidas pelas nossas empresas e pelos nossos governos cheguem aos seus destinatários legais e só a estes, e que não caiam nas mãos de criminosos, de milícias e de governos repressivos. A implementação parcial por parte dos Estados-Membros, incluindo o meu próprio país, da posição comum do Conselho Europeu de 2003 sobre a intermediação de armas significa que continuam a existir na Europa vazios legais nesta área e enquanto não formos mais rigorosos com a introdução de armas para o interior das nossas próprias fronteiras será difícil combater a corrupção neste domínio nos países em desenvolvimento.

  Marios Matsakis, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, many congratulations to Mr van den Berg for his excellent report. The scourge of corruption is neither new nor rare. It has accompanied human activity since ancient times and is widespread amongst both the developing and the developed countries – the only difference being that in the developed countries, it is practised more professionally and more elegantly and is thus more difficult to recognise.

So, with corruption being so common and extensive, how effective have attempts made at international level to curb it actually been? Not very, I am afraid. The estimated amount of USD 1 trillion paid in bribes today is not less than the corresponding amount in previous years; in fact, it is more. The reason is simple: corruption cannot be controlled by signing conventions and declarations alone, but only by the strict implementation of such conventions and declarations by all concerned. To that effect, we in the developed world must set a good example.

While passing judgment on corruption in the developing world, let us look at ourselves. Also, let us consider critically our own state of affairs and let us analyse ourselves by asking some simple questions. How free from corruption is a system that allows United States Government officials at the highest level – names like Cheney and Rumsfeld come to mind – allegedly to be involved and have a personal interest in companies awarded multi-million contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan? How corruption-free is it to have the wife of the Prime Minister of Britain, Mrs Blair, working for a large law firm and taking up highly politically sensitive cases, which directly involve and are affected by political decisions taken by her husband? Should not the Roman proverb that Caesar’s wife must not only be honest but must also be seen to be honest apply here? How free from corruption is a system that allows United Nations officials and other related persons, including the son of the United Nations Secretary-General, to be accused of involvement in oil-for-aid scandals?

Closer to home, how corruption-free can the system be seen to be when Members, or their close relatives, of the European Parliament and other EU institutions, involved in making legislation, are at the same time members of boards of companies, or are stakeholders in companies which stand to make huge profits from such legislation? Is a simple declaration of interest really good enough?

Lastly, may I draw your attention to two amendments by Mr Kristovskis, concerning recital N and paragraph 22. These amendments correct a mistake that was made in the original report in recital N, in which Cyprus was omitted from the list of EU Member States that have not yet ratified the 1997 OECD Convention. In fact, Cyprus has repeatedly attempted to participate in the OECD, but Turkey, for political reasons unrelated to the subject, blocked such participation. By voting positively for these two amendments, we will make it possible for Malta, Lithuania, Latvia and Cyprus to ratify the OECD Convention.

  Marie-Hélène Aubert, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Monsieur le Président, je voudrais à mon tour remercier Margrietus van den Berg pour son excellent rapport. Il va être ainsi couvert de lauriers, c'est déjà ça. Il est clair que la lutte contre la corruption est absolument essentielle, non seulement pour l'efficacité de l'aide européenne mais aussi pour sa crédibilité. En effet, comment convaincre nos concitoyens ou les États membres de donner plus si, par ailleurs, la corruption reste endémique? C'est aussi la condition de la viabilité d'un État de droit et d'une économie. C'est donc un combat essentiel que nous devons mener en permanence, lequel s'est quelque peu complexifié avec la mondialisation économique, en raison de la circulation facile des capitaux, et aussi en raison du nouveau processus de l'aide budgétaire au niveau de l'Union européenne.

Le rapporteur souligne bien toutes les questions que pose ce nouveau système d'aide budgétaire en matière de lutte contre la corruption, ainsi que la difficulté accrue, dans le contexte actuel, à cause de la pression croissante exercée sur les matières premières et, en particulier, sur l'énergie pétrolière qui se raréfie. On peut donc également craindre une résurgence des tentatives de corruption en vue d'accéder aux derniers gisements d'énergie fossile, ainsi qu'une montée des conflits liés au commerce et au trafic des armes. Les armes et le pétrole sont tout de même les deux grands secteurs, à l'échelle macroéconomique, dans lesquels se développe une corruption considérable.

Alors le rapporteur insiste à juste titre sur deux questions: la transparence et la responsabilité. La transparence, en effet, est un élément essentiel si l'on veut se faire une idée précise et claire des budgets qui sont utilisés. Dans ce domaine, effectivement, nous devons soutenir beaucoup plus ardemment un certain nombre d'initiatives comme Publish what you pay ou l'initiative des industries extractives, qui présentent cependant l'inconvénient d'être basées uniquement sur le volontariat. Or, nous avons besoin de faire des progrès dans le domaine du droit, de la loi plutôt que de nous contenter de compter sur la bonne volonté des acteurs économiques ou politiques pour publier, s'ils le souhaitent, les comptes ou les rentes qu'ils versent aux gouvernements concernés.

La budgétisation des rentes pétrolières et des rentes minières est aussi un aspect essentiel de la transparence budgétaire, mais de la part de l'Union européenne, cela doit être une condition pour qu'on ne puisse pas verser une aide budgétaire à un gouvernement qui ne publie pas clairement les profits qu'il dégage des industries pétrolières, minières ou forestières. L'opinion publique ne peut pas comprendre que l'Union européenne continue à aider des pays qui, normalement, devraient disposer d'un budget conséquent et de nature à financer le bon fonctionnement d'un État.

Enfin, il est indiqué dans le rapport que l'on doit aussi faire apparaître les dépenses militaires d'un gouvernement. Le rôle des parlements nationaux et de la société civile doit absolument être renforcé, y compris financièrement, avec un soutien accru qui permette aussi bien aux parlements qu'à la société civile de jouer leur rôle dans ce domaine.

Dernier point: la transparence en ce qui concerne les différents donateurs. Les gouvernements de ces pays sont aussi aidés par des villes, des régions ou des États, à tous les niveaux, et il nous manque une base de données qui indiquerait ce qui est vraiment versé, par tel pays, à tel État, à telle région ou à telle ville. Or, nous ne disposons pas de ces données aujourd'hui, ce qui alimente aussi la corruption.

Je pense donc, en conclusion, que nous devons balayer devant notre porte, comme cela a été dit, et que les affaires de corruption font partie elles aussi de l'actualité de l'Union européenne. La question de l'exercice du pouvoir, du financement de la vie politique se pose aussi bien au Nord qu'au Sud.

PRÉSIDENCE DE M. ONESTA
Vice-président

  Luisa Morgantini, a nome del gruppo GUE/NGL. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, reputo ottimo l'intervento dell'onorevole van den Berg. Non c'è dubbio: sconfiggere la corruzione è un obiettivo centrale se si vuole garantire l'efficacia degli aiuti e van den Berg ha esplicitato gli strumenti necessari affinché ciò sia possibile: trasparenza, partecipazione e responsabilità.

È fondamentale il ruolo di parlamenti e società civile e sono indispensabili delle procedure più trasparenti e la diffusione delle informazioni. Inoltre è richiesta una maggiore presenza di tutti gli attori sociali nel processo di definizione di strategie per la lotta contro la povertà, ancora poco partecipate, anche a livello nazionale. In ultimo, sono necessari dei fondi specifici per monitorare le azioni di cooperazione.

Credo che non si possa parlare della corruzione dei PVS senza vedere l'altra faccia della medaglia: quanto siamo responsabili noi, paesi sviluppati, della loro corruzione, qual è il vantaggio che noi ne ricaviamo? L'onorevole Matsakis ha dato esempi molto precisi, questo non significa assolutamente alleggerire la pressione sull'effettiva corruzione di molti dirigenti e governi dei PVS e, a volte, anche delle ONG.

La lotta alla corruzione nei paesi beneficiari deve essere estesa anche alle imprese corruttrici appartenenti ai paesi industrializzati, e la lotta contro i "corrotti corruttori" dovrebbe essere condotta nel quadro di una partnership efficace e trasparente. Le istituzioni dei paesi donatori presenti nei paesi beneficiari devono impegnarsi a combattere il fenomeno in loco, con l'individuazione e la messa al bando – e lo dice anche l'onorevole van den Berg – delle imprese corruttrici, a qualsiasi paese esse appartengano, avendo il coraggio di agire anche quando la corruzione si annida nelle nostre istituzioni in loco. Oltre che ad essere un fatto morale, il costo della corruzione è un costo per tutti, anche per i tax payer europei.

Slegare gli aiuti è un altro aspetto cruciale della relazione tra corruzione ed efficacia dell'aiuto. L'aiuto slegato – doveroso per motivi etici – garantisce una maggiore trasparenza di procedure, di assegnazione e condotta delle gare, e aumenterebbe anche l'entità degli aiuti. Le cifre parlano chiaro: l'aiuto legato determina un aumento medio dei costi di beni e servizi dal 15 al 30 per cento, arrivando fino al 40 per cento per l'aiuto alimentare.

Sarebbe auspicabile anche arrivare a una corretta definizione dell'APS. Credo che l'aiuto pubblico allo sviluppo – spesso gonfiato con massicce somme per la cancellazione del debito, per azioni di peace keeping, peace enforcing e conflict prevention, rimpatrio di emigrati e controlli alle frontiere – non debba essere modificato.

In uno scenario di questo tipo, gli aiuti al bilancio possono divenire un canale di sostegno importante ai paesi più poveri e fortemente indebitati, ai fini della lotta alla povertà e per il raggiungimento degli Obiettivi di sviluppo del millennio. Tuttavia, credo che sia cruciale – come del resto asserito nel documento tripartito sul consenso europeo per le politiche di sviluppo – che i governi degli Stati membri e le Istituzioni europee cerchino di coordinarsi ed armonizzare le proprie politiche anche all'interno delle istituzioni finanziarie internazionali, per arrivare ad essere non solo i maggiori donatori al mondo, ma anche i più responsabili tra i donatori e i più incisivi nella determinazione di politiche che mettano fine alla spirale di crescita del debito estero nel Sud del mondo, contribuendo alla sconfitta delle povertà e, perché no, anche alla sconfitta di un po' di ingiustizie e forse anche delle guerre.

  Hélène Goudin, för IND/DEM-gruppen. – Herr talman! Internationell solidaritet och att därmed kunna hjälpa människor i utvecklingsländer ligger mig mycket varmt om hjärtat. Jag anser att bistånd är ett viktigt redskap i denna kamp för en bättre värld. EU:s biståndspolitik är i sig mycket dålig. Men den motarbetas även av andra politikområden. För det första bedriver EU en jordbrukspolitik där absurda subventioner ges till relativt sett rika bönder. Detta samt de tullar som EU har på jordbruksprodukter från fattiga länder leder till att jordbrukspolitiken aktivt motarbetar biståndet.

För det andra leder EU:s handelspolitik till att fattiga länder berövas möjligheten att komma in på vår marknad med sina konkurrenskraftiga produkter. Ett aktuellt och belysande exempel på denna typ av skadlig protektionism är de tullar på skor EU nyligen infört mot bl.a. Vietnam. För det tredje och sista anser jag att utvecklingssamarbete bör bedrivas på medlemsstatsnivå. Samordning av insatser är självklart alltid en central fråga när det gäller bistånd för att det ska bli så verkningsfullt som möjligt.

Denna koordinering borde dock ske på FN-nivå, där givare från hela världen, inte bara från EU, arbetar tillsammans för att få ett effektivt bistånd som de facto leder till fattigdomsminskning. Detta skulle verkligen leda till att världens fattiga länder får det bättre, vilket borde vara biståndets huvuduppgift.

  Eoin Ryan, on behalf of the UEN Group. – Mr President, I very much welcome Mr van den Berg’s report on aid effectiveness and corruption in developing countries and I would like to congratulate him on it.

Corruption is the single biggest obstacle to the delivery of aid to the poor. We have to ask why the EU continues to channel aid to corrupt regimes. How can we stand by and watch starvation in many African countries, while the leaders are laden with the trappings of exceptional wealth? The EU must take a firm stance against governments that are exercising blatantly corrupt methods of governance.

There is a need for more transparency. The EU is the world’s largest donor of aid. The EU has a responsibility to monitor and approve the implementation of this aid. More aid must be channelled directly into specific projects rather than a handover to recipient national coffers, so it is absolutely clear where the money is being spent. The establishment of civil society watchdogs in developing countries must be seriously looked at and I call on the Commission to give the appropriate percentage of budget aid for such watchdogs.

Education and training needs to be improved and the number of women in higher level education needs to be increased in order to afford them the opportunity to become more involved in politics. Anyone who has visited Africa knows the important role that women play. They could play a far more important role if they were allowed to, so this needs to be looked at and encouraged.

A major question facing development countries is the illicit acquisition of public funds by government officials who store them in offshore accounts. I call on the financial institutions that hold these stolen funds to freeze them or confiscate them. They know where this money is coming from. If I lodge EUR 10 000 in my bank account in Ireland, the bank manager is obliged to ask me where the money came from. In these countries they put millions in and nobody asks them anything.

I call for corrupt regimes or individuals to be blacklisted, to prevent them from borrowing large sums of money from wealthy countries. Only when they have made a noteworthy move towards democracy should they be removed from the list.

We also have to examine ourselves. Take the case of Kenya and the Anglo Leasing scandal. Mr John Githongo, who is the anti-corruption tsar, had to leave the country because of what he found and he has asked that British citizens be examined concerning this scandal.

People in Europe are involved in scams and bogus companies that are lending and giving money to Africa and they have to be stopped. A number of years ago there was a campaign in all European countries. In Ireland we brought in legislation that meant that people involved in sexual offences in Third World countries could be charged in their home country. The same kind of legislation could be introduced in Europe with regard to corruption so that anybody in Europe involved in corruption or bribing officials in Africa or any other Third World country could and should be charged under legislation in their home country.

That is the sort of thing we have to look at if we are going to get rid of corruption. We cannot just blame African people. We have got to look at ourselves and how we are involved in schemes of this sort.

  Koenraad Dillen (NI). – Voorzitter, geachte collega's, de ACS-landen staan bijna allemaal in de onderste regionen van de jongste editie van de Corruption Perception Index, een veel gehanteerd meetinstrument van Transparency International. Dat moet ons niet verwonderen. Wat echter verontrust is de evolutie van die index in heel wat ACS-landen. Er was de laatste vijf jaar nauwelijks verbetering.

Dit verdienstelijke verslag maakt duidelijk dat het uitroeien van de corruptie het bruto binnenlandse product van Afrika beduidend kan doen stijgen. Voor vele Afrikanen maakt corruptie bijgevolg het verschil tussen leven en dood, aangezien de corruptie in de eerste plaats de allerarmsten treft. Het is dus van levensbelang de strijd tegen corruptie met adequate middelen voort te zetten in plaats van aan te nemen, zoals sommige illustere figuren dat doen, dat de strijd tegen corruptie van ondergeschikt belang is.

Van even groot belang is het voorzichtig omspringen met rechtstreekse begrotingssteun. Dit komt erop neer dat de EU blanco cheques uitdeelt aan ongecontroleerde buitenlandse instellingen. Laat ons op de eerste plaats hulp verlenen aan NGO-projecten die tastbare resultaten kunnen opleveren en waarvoor resultaatverbintenissen en kwaliteitseisen gesteld kunnen worden.

  Michael Gahler (PPE-DE). – Herr Präsident! Ich schließe mich der Anerkennung der Vorredner an Margrietus van den Berg für seinen hervorragenden Bericht an. Er macht deutlich, in welch vielfältiger Weise die Rahmenbedingungen dazu beitragen, dass die Wirksamkeit unserer Hilfe vermindert wird und gleichzeitig korrupte Strukturen erfolgreich sein können.

Natürlich besitzen meist diejenigen kriminelle Energie, die in diesen Ländern selbst an den Fleischtöpfen sitzen. Aber sehr schnell erkennt man, dass abgezweigte Mittel ja irgendwo deponiert werden müssen. Da sind wir in Europa sehr schnell involviert. Es sind oftmals unsere Banken, die diese Diktatorengelder auf ihren Konten aufbewahren, und es sind oftmals europäische Unternehmen, die kollusiv mit Strukturen in diesen Ländern zusammenwirken, letztlich zum Schaden der Menschen dort.

Sorgen wir also dafür, dass wir genau nachprüfen, wohin Budgethilfe geht! Ich habe so meine Zweifel, ob wir als EU tatsächlich an 28 Länder Budgethilfe geben können, ob in diesen 28 Ländern die Strukturen so sind, dass wir das vertrauensvoll tun können. Nutzen wir die rechtlichen Möglichkeiten, bei Banken nachzuforschen, wo sich schmutziges Geld befindet, und führen wir es zum öffentlichen Nutzen in die betreffenden Länder zurück! Ändern wir die Rechtsvorschriften so, dass unsere Unternehmen Bestechungsgelder nicht mehr als Betriebsausgaben von der Steuer abziehen können, und benennen wir diejenigen in Europa öffentlich, die so handeln! Name and shame – auch das hilft, den Sumpf der Korruption auszutrocknen. Nutzen wir auch den Artikel 96 des Cotonou-Abkommens, um Maßnahmen gegen notorisch korrupte Regime durchzusetzen! Ich unterstreiche insofern das, was Ana Gomes vorhin dazu gesagt hat. Ich wünsche mir, dass alle diese Leute, ihre Ehepartner eingeschlossen, niemals wieder ein Visum zum Shopping in Europa bekommen, wo sie das Geld ausgeben, das sie ihren Bevölkerungen zuvor gestohlen haben.

  Karin Scheele (PSE). – Herr Präsident! Das Thema der Wirksamkeit der Hilfe und der Korruptionsbekämpfung zieht sich wie ein roter Faden durch viele Diskussionen, vor allem aber durch unsere Diskussionen seit gestern Abend. Heute steht der Bericht von Max van den Berg über die Wirksamkeit der Hilfe und die Korruptionsbekämpfung in den Entwicklungsländern auf der Tagesordnung. Auch ich möchte mich den Glückwünschen und dem Dankeschön an Max van den Berg anschließen. Sein Bericht und auch er selbst, mit seinen einführenden Worten, zeigen sehr gut, dass Korruption bekämpft werden muss und kein Hemmschuh für Entwicklung mehr sein darf.

In Zeiten, in denen wir uns klarmachen müssen, dass wir eine bedeutende Steigerung der Ausgaben für Entwicklungszusammenarbeit brauchen, ist es notwendig, ernsthaft über Korruptionsbekämpfung zu reden, damit Korruption nicht mehr als leichte Ausrede fungieren kann.

Korruption ist ein globales und komplexes Phänomen. Die Ursachen der Korruption in den Entwicklungsländern sind nicht nur in diesen Ländern selbst zu finden. Die OECD-Konvention zur Bekämpfung der Bestechung ausländischer Amtsträger ist ein wichtiges Instrument, um den Zusammenhang zwischen der Korruption in unseren Ländern und der Korruption in den Entwicklungsländern zu bekämpfen. Ich glaube, dass wir von Seiten der Europäischen Union alles unternehmen müssen, damit die Mitgliedstaaten Lettland, Litauen und Malta diese Konvention so schnell wie möglich ratifizieren.

Ich möchte noch ein Wort zu den direkten Haushaltszuschüssen sagen. Es gibt in der Europäischen Union die Tendenz, immer mehr von Projekten auf direkte Budgetzuschüsse umzusteigen. Das ist grundsätzlich auch zu verstehen. Es bestehen jedoch sehr viele Zweifel, die hier auch schon vorgetragen wurden. Es gibt Zweifel, ob wir genügend Kapazitäten und genügend Personen zur Verfügung haben, um diese umfassende Kontrolle, wie sie notwendig sein wird, auch zu gewährleisten.

  Gabriele Zimmer (GUE/NGL). – Herr Präsident! Herr van den Berg, auch von meiner Seite herzlichen Glückwunsch zu Ihrem Bericht, mit dem Sie eines der heißesten Eisen der Entwicklungszusammenarbeit angepackt haben. Die Schätzungen der Afrikanischen Union, wonach die afrikanischen Volkswirtschaften durch Korruption jährlich etwa 150 Milliarden Dollar verlieren, also ein Viertel ihres Bruttoinlandproduktes, machen den Handlungszwang deutlich.

Ich möchte genau an demselben Aspekt ansetzen, den auch schon Herr Gahler genannt hat, nämlich den Handlungszwang von unserer Seite auch dort zu benennen, wo er uns selbst am meisten wehtut. Eine Milliarde Bestechungsgelder werden jährlich gezahlt. Von wem? Wer betrachtet die Zahlung dieser Gelder als Investitionen, die in der berechtigten Erwartung noch größerer Gewinne auf geschützte Konten überwiesen werden? So wichtig es ist, unsere Partner zur Bekämpfung der Korruption aufzufordern und sie dabei zu unterstützen, unsere primäre Aufgabe sollte doch sein, diejenigen aus dem Verkehr zu ziehen, die in unseren Ländern diese gewaltigen Bestechungssummen überhaupt erst aufbringen können und sie nutzen, um den afrikanischen Kontinent und andere Teile der Welt auszunehmen.

Ich verweise hier bewusst auf Artikel 15 der UN-Konvention gegen Korruption. Danach müssen die Mitgliedstaaten der Europäischen Union Bestechung strafbar machen. In meinem Land, in Deutschland, war es vor kurzem noch so, dass man die Bestechungsgelder von der Steuer absetzen konnte, und strafbar sind sie bis heute nicht.

Als Parlament sollten wir genau diesen übel riechenden Mist zuerst vor unserer eigenen Haustür wegkehren. Ich unterstütze mit Ihnen und dem gesamten Entwicklungsausschuss ausdrücklich die Kampagane „Publish what you pay“ und fordere sogar zwingende Regelungen für multinationale Unternehmen, Informationen über Zahlungen an Regierungen offen zu legen.

Weitere Profiteure von Bestechung, denen wir in unserem direkten Einflussbereich das Handwerk legen müssen, sind Banken, die sich für die Abwicklung solcher Geschäfte hergeben und sich auch über prall gefüllte Bestechungskonten freuen können. Dies kann innerhalb der Union nicht zugelassen werden. Wir sollten also die Union und ihre Mitgliedstaaten auffordern, die Schlupflöcher des Bestechungsgeldes auch außerhalb der Union zu schließen. Wenn wir bei uns selbst das Bestechen strafbar gemacht haben, wenn wir unseren Lebensstandard nicht länger auch durch Korruptionsgewinne teilfinanzieren, wenn wir unsere korruptionsverwaltenden Bankhäuser nicht länger für ihre so gewonnene Bonität loben und wenn wir unseren Ermittlern die Mittel in die Hand geben, die Bestecher zu jagen, dann können wir auch aufrecht vor unsere Partner treten und den gleichen Beitrag zur Bekämpfung der Korruption fordern.

  Bastiaan Belder (IND/DEM). – Voorzitter, het verslag van collega van den Berg verdient alleszins mijn steun. Corruptie staat immers een optimale doelmatigheid van de hulpverlening in de weg. Een voortvarende aanpak van corruptie is derhalve gewenst. Het verslag reikt concrete en zinvolle instrumenten aan voor een versterking van de controlemechanismen. Zo ontstaat een beter juridisch kader voor corruptiebestrijding. Het juridische kader is echter niet de enige factor. Verwerping van corruptie als maatschappelijk verschijnsel houdt evenzeer verband met heersende waarden in een samenleving. Maatschappelijke organisaties, met name ook religieuze leiders, moeten derhalve worden aangesproken op hun rol bij de bevordering van goed bestuur en corruptiebestrijding.

Versterking van het debat op dat ideëel niveau is noodzakelijk. Immers, zowel donorlanden als donateurs van hulporganisaties moeten erop kunnen vertrouwen dat hun gelden voor het bestemde doel efficiënt worden aangewend. Mijnheer de Voorzitter, een expert die ik raadpleegde over het verslag-van den Berg zei mij eergisteren dat hij hoopt dat de Nederlandse regering dit uitstekende verslag onverkort zal toepassen. Een beter compliment kan ik mijn collega niet geven.

  Marek Aleksander Czarnecki (NI). – Panie Przewodniczący! Bank Światowy szacuje, że 1 bilion dolarów jest rokrocznie wydawany na łapówki na całym świecie. Unia Afrykańska ocenia, że korupcja kosztuje gospodarkę afrykańską rocznie ponad 25% jej PKB.

Debatując jednak o korupcji w krajach rozwijających się nie możemy zapominać o haniebnej praktyce stosowanej do niedawna przez takie kraje jak Stany Zjednoczone, Dania czy Niemcy, które zezwalały na wręczanie przez firmy łapówek również w krajach Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej, w tym w Polsce, a następnie umożliwiały wliczanie tych kwot w koszty uzyskania przychodu.

Korupcja stanowi poważne zagrożenie dla rozwoju. Żeby zrozumieć problem i znaleźć skuteczne środki zaradcze konieczne jest podjęcie zdecydowanych działań, jak na przykład stworzenie systemu czarnej listy, który zapobiegałby finansowaniu przez banki w formie pożyczek skorumpowanych rządów czy ich reprezentantów.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE). – Mr President, last night the word ‘corruption’ was mentioned several times in our debate on World Health Day 2006. This morning we are debating the scale and extent of it. I congratulate the rapporteur on an excellent report.

Some Members have mentioned the global problem of corruption. I think we are deluding ourselves if we say that it is just a problem for the developing world. I would suggest that they have learned from the developed world: much to our shame, we have taught them some tricks. We therefore owe it to them and to ourselves to clean up our own act. I would support my colleague, Mr Ryan, who said that the banks and the financial institutions need to be looked at in this entire process, because if there were no home to put the money into perhaps they might not be so corrupt.

This morning I spoke to some aid agencies that have long experience in this area. Their key message to us is that we must build up the capacity within the systems and the civil service of the developing world, and then build that into all our aid programmes. They also said that this is a long-term process and we will not get results overnight. I think a big part of our crackdown on the corrupt is to take them out within the developed world first and then perhaps assist the rooting-out of corruption in the developing world.

Whatever we do, we must not penalise those who most need our aid, money and assistance. I always feel when we talk about tackling corruption that it is they who will again suffer. That is the one message. Let us build it into our programmes, but let us ensure that we keep up our aid work, that it gets to the right people and that they do not suffer.

  Robert Evans (PSE). – Mr President, in his opening remarks Mr van den Berg – and indeed others – picked up on the huge amounts of money we are talking about. In this Parliament we have to be realistic about what we can do. The report looks at some of the aspects where we can make a difference. I would like to concentrate on the role of parliaments.

The European Parliament has well-established links with parliaments in many of the countries around the world, the countries with which we are concerned. Sometimes parliaments are the problem. I accept that. But in others, as the previous speaker has mentioned, national parliaments can be excluded; they can be bypassed in the process and corrupt officials can get hold of the aid without the involvement of government. Therefore, I believe we should do more to support democratically elected governments and help them to reinforce the mechanisms in their countries for distributing the aid and making sure that the money donated is widely used.

Mr Ryan referred to a very interesting point in the report: that there is evidence that corruption falls as the proportion of parliamentary seats held by women rises. We can encourage that. We can do more in democracies to make sure that more and more women are elected. I was very proud to be part of the European Parliament’s delegation to Afghanistan to support their first parliamentary elections. There we saw women voting to elect other women. The more we can do to help women and parliaments to develop, the better.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE-DE). – Korruptsioon on nõrga valitsemiskorra kõrvalsaadus. Kuid korruptsioon võrsub samuti kindlate väärtuste puudumisest. Seetõttu on ühiskonna eetilisel raamistikul ning headel tavadel suur praktiline tähtsus, et saavutada edu selle probleemi lahendamisel.

Moraalsete põhimõtete nõrkus soodustab niihästi omakasupüüdlikuid tehinguid kui ka nende varjamist. Abiandjal on kiusatus uskuda, et nende raha kasutatakse õigel eesmärgil. Abi vastuvõtjad panevad meid sageli uskuma, et nii see ongi. Abi andmisega kaasnev korruptsioon on eriti drastiline, kuivõrd hädasolevad inimesed ise kannatavad topelt kahju. Nad kaotavad mitte üksnes ainelise toetuse, vaid neilt röövitakse ka lootus oma elu parandada, lootus solidaarsusele.

Seepärast on meie kohus järjekindlalt paljastada, aga mis veelgi tähtsam – ennetada korruptsiooni ja sellega kaasnevat heausklikkust. Kontrollikoja arvates ei arvesta Euroopa komisjoni abiprogrammid veel piisavalt korruptsiooniriske.

Kaks näidet. Euroopa Liidu abi Palestiina omavalitsusele. Täna peame tunnistama, et äärmusliku Hamasi võimuletuleku peamisi põhjusi oli eelmises administratsioonis sügavalt juurdunud korruptsioon. Komisjon lähetab humanitaarabi Tšetšeeniale. Mida on tehtud selgitamaks, kas see raha jõuab tegelikult kohalikele elanikele, kes kannatavad ametliku korruptsiooni all?

Rõhutaksin lõpuks selle väga hea raporti paari olulist punkti. Liikmesriigid peavad ratifitseerima ÜRO korruptsioonivastase konventsiooni. Teiseks, eelarvetoetusi osutada üksnes valitsustele, kes selgelt püüavad tõsta avalike finantside administreerimise taset. Mul on hea meel, et volinik seda suunda toetab. Antava abi teatavast protsendist toetada kodanikuühiskonna järelvalve organisatsioone.

Ja põhiprobleem, avaldada survet riikidele, kus asuvad rahanduskeskused, et külmutada ning repatrieerida ebaseaduslik raha, mille korrumpeerunud valitsejad on sinna talletanud. See on üliraske nõue, kuid selle täitmine on test, mis näitab, kas meil on korruptsiooni tõkestamisega tõsi taga või mitte.

  Παναγιώτης Μπεγλίτης (PSE). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, πράγματι ο αγώνας για την καταπολέμηση της διαφθοράς είναι ένας αγώνας για την ειρήνη, για τη δημοκρατία, για την καταπολέμηση της φτώχιας και για την εμπέδωση της κοινωνίας των πολιτών στις αναπτυσσόμενες χώρες· τη σχέση μεταξύ δημοκρατίας και οικονομικής ανάπτυξης στις αναπτυσσόμενες χώρες την έχει αποδείξει και την έχει επιβεβαιώσει καλύτερα από κάθε άλλον στον έργο του ο Αμάρτια Σέν, ένας μεγάλος διανοούμενος και Βραβείο Νόμπελ Οικονομίας.

Προκαλεί πραγματικά εντύπωση το γεγονός ότι πολλές φορές, και στη διεθνή κοινότητα και στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, το θέμα της καταπολέμησης της διαφθοράς αποτελούσε ένα ταμπού. Και αυτό γιατί επικρατούσαν οι πολιτικές σκοπιμότητες, τα συμφέροντα επιρροής των κρατών μελών της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, οι εθνικές πελατειακές σχέσεις.

Ο απολογισμός για την υλοποίηση των αναπτυξιακών στόχων της Χιλιετίας ήταν αρνητικός. Κανείς όμως δεν μίλησε για το ποιος ήταν ο ρόλος της διαφθοράς σ' αυτή την αποτυχία. Πιστεύω ότι πρέπει η διεθνής κοινότητα να θέσει ένα νέο αναπτυξιακό στόχο: τη δημοκρατική διακυβέρνηση και την καταπολέμηση της διαφθοράς.

Τελειώνοντας, θα ήθελα να προσθέσω ότι η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, και ιδιαίτερα η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή, πρέπει να θέσει αυστηρούς μηχανισμούς αιρεσιμότητας στη νέα αναπτυξιακή στρατηγική που έχει διαμορφώσει για την Αφρική. Πρέπει η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση να συνεργασθεί με τον ΟΗΕ, με τους διεθνείς χρηματοδοτικούς οργανισμούς, με τις μη κυβερνητικές οργανώσεις, για να αντιμετωπίσουμε από κοινού το φαινόμενο αυτό, ρίχνοντας κυρίως το βάρος στην εμπέδωση της κοινωνίας των πολιτών και των ανεξάρτητων μέσων μαζικής ενημέρωσης.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (PSE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Według szacunków Banku Światowego na łapówki na całym świecie wydaje się rocznie bilion dolarów. Ile wspaniałych inicjatyw można by zrealizować za te pieniądze, rocznie wydając bilion dolarów i pomagając tym, którzy tej pomocy naprawdę potrzebują.

Korupcja ogranicza ubogim dostęp do dóbr, obniża skuteczność świadczenia usług publicznych, a przede wszystkim powoduje utratę zaufania obywateli do ośrodków władzy. Unia Europejska jako największy ofiarodawca pomocy dla krajów rozwijających się powinna szczególnie aktywnie działać na rzecz zapewnienia przejrzystości programów pomocowych finansowanych z budżetu Wspólnoty.

Nie wystarczy zatem stworzenie międzynarodowej "czarnej listy" skorumpowanych rządów. W walkę z korupcją powinni zaangażować się szerokim frontem zarówno politycy, urzędnicy, organizacje pozarządowe, korporacje międzynarodowe, jak i media. Tylko koordynując działania międzynarodowych darczyńców, uda się zwiększyć efektywność wydatkowania środków pomocowych, zapobiegając ich niewłaściwemu użyciu czy też zawłaszczeniu przez skorumpowanych urzędników.

Dlatego tak ważne i tak na czasie jest sprawozdanie przygotowane przez pana van der Berga, któremu gratuluje znakomicie przygotowanego dokumentu.

  Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. Mr President, I welcome the debate that we have had here today. I think it is important to underline that the problem of fraud can never be considered as solved. Constant vigilance at all levels and in all circumstances is needed in the high-risk field of external actions. These actions are carried out in poorly governed States, where countervailing powers and capacities at the level of civil society are lacking.

As corruption cannot be isolated within the governance agenda, the Commission’s approach in preventing and fighting it is twofold. It consists of mainstreaming good governance practices in all EU-funded programmes and projects on the one hand, and in the implementation of specific programme interventions on the other hand.

Country strategy papers and national indicative programmes between the European Union and beneficiary countries generally include specific interventions in the fields of rule of law, democratisation, public administration reform, public finance management and reinforcement of civil society.

I shall now make a few comments on some of the questions that have been raised today. On the discussion on companies, we must make sure that companies do not benefit from corruption. We must do the best we can. We can exclude companies from participation in our tenders if they have been found guilty of fraud or corruption. We can also suspend a project that has been financed if we discover fraud or corruption at some stage. We once used that option on a project in Zimbabwe.

On support for national parliaments, the Commission sees the strengthening of the national parliaments’ supervisory role as an important means of trying to improve the overall effectiveness and impact of our development effort in these countries. For instance, through the EDF and the budget line for South Africa, the capacities of national parliaments of some 11 ACP countries have been strengthened to a total amount of EUR 35 million since 2000.

On the subject of watchdogs, it is true that we work with private sector organisations. We would be worse off if we did not have these watchdogs.

Several Members raised the issue of transparency, and it is a key issue. That is why we support several programmes in the field of budget supervisory functions. The promotion of efficient and transparent budgeting and public spending is at the heart of our budget support programmes.

Finally, through its permanent dialogue with the partner governments and the various regions, the Commission encourages the broadest possible participation of institutions at various levels, particularly at parliamentary level. I have noted the view on the positive influence of the participation of women.

  Le Président. – Le débat est clos.

Le vote aura lieu tout à l'heure, à 12 heures.

  Marios Matsakis (ALDE). – Mr President, I note that we finished 20 minutes early today. Perhaps I could make the suggestion that in future the President be given, or have at his disposal, the option to continue the debate on a catch-the-eye basis if we finish so early, so that we can make more efficient use of Parliament’s time.

  Le Président. – Vous venez de faire une suggestion que je transmettrai bien volontiers. Cela peut effectivement être une façon judicieuse d'utiliser notre temps de travail.

(La séance, suspendue à 11h40, est reprise à 12 heures)

VORSITZ: INGO FRIEDRICH
Vizepräsident