2008 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(First part)

REPORT

Sixth Sitting

Wednesday 23 January 2008 at 3 p.m.

Link to the voting results

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

2.       Speeches in other languages are summarised.

3.       Speeches in German and Italian are reproduced in full in a separate document.

4.       Corrections should be handed in at Room 1059A not later than 24 hours after the report has been circulated.

The contents page for this sitting is given at the end of the verbatim report.

Mr de Puig, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 3.05 p.m.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The sitting is open.

1. Minutes of proceedings

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The minutes of proceedings of the Fourth Sitting have been distributed. If there are no objections, the minutes are agreed to.

The minutes are agreed to.

2. External relations of the Parliamentary Assembly

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – We now come to the joint debate on three reports from the Political Affairs Committee. The first is “Strengthening co-operation with the Maghreb countries”, Document 11474, presented by Mrs Durrieu, which will be followed by a statement from Mr Abdelaziz Ziari, President of the National People’s Party of Algeria; the second is “The situation in the republics of central Asia”, Document 11460, presented by Mr Mercan; and the final one is “The Council of Europe and its observer states – the current situation and a way forward”, Document 11471, presented by Mr Wilshire, followed by an opinion from Mr Pieter Omtzigt on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Document 11500.

We will aim to finish this item, including votes, by about 6.30 p.m. I remind the Assembly that at yesterday afternoon’s sitting it was agreed that speaking time in all debates today be limited to four minutes.

I call Mrs Durrieu, rapporteur, to present the first report. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.

Mrs DURRIEU (France) welcomed Mr Ziari and congratulated the President of the Assembly on his election to that office. She said that her report looked at ways to strengthen relations with Maghreb countries. For some time, the Council of Europe had been engaged with these countries. While it was felt that they were committed to democracy, they were also often considered authoritarian. The Maghreb states needed to make a choice between democracy and dictatorship. There had been progress, for example, in Morocco, but more needed to be done and there was a general feeling that, while moving in the right direction, they were not moving quickly enough. For example, there had not been enough movement on women’s rights, the media was often underdeveloped, and there was frequently low turn-out in elections. The Maghreb countries needed to be confronted with these difficulties so that they could analyse them.

There was deep concern about the growth of radical Islam and its link to terrorism. Algeria, for example, had gone through a crisis of its own in the late 1980s and early 1990s. So the committee had had to consider whether radical Islam was under control or whether it was in fact a substantial threat. Should it be incorporated into public life or did it need to be confronted? There was considerable hope that a United Nations Security Council resolution would provide a solution to the crisis in Western Sahara.

The Mediterranean was the cultural cradle of Europe and of North Africa, and belonged to them both, so there was a need for the two bodies to display solidarity. Europe was stretching out its hands to the countries of the Maghreb. Progress could be difficult, and those difficulties were not underestimated by anyone, but it was essential that progress was made.

THE PRESIDENT welcomed Mr Ziari, President of the National People’s Assembly of Algeria. He was delighted to see Mr Ziari appearing before the Assembly, a practical illustration of his will to engage in dialogue and to interact with Europe. For Europe and North Africa, the Mediterranean was a mutual cradle and, in an increasingly globalised world, it was more important than ever to foster co-operation. Parliamentary assemblies were the natural forums for dialogue, and he hoped that more regular exchanges would take place. The Political Affairs Committee’s report had highlighted two key themes. The first was that Europe and the countries of the Maghreb shared universal values which formed a solid base for dialogue. The second was that it was essential to adopt a positive and frank approach to that dialogue. Relations between Europe and the Maghreb had to be approached with optimism and hope.

Mr ZIARI (President of the National People’s Assembly of Algeria) offered his congratulations to the President on his election and wished him all the best for his term of office. He also paid warm tribute to Mr van der Linden for his work at the Council of Europe, which had brought him great personal respect. The President of Algeria had expressed his thanks for the invitation to speak to the Assembly and would have accepted if he had not had an existing commitment.

Algeria was neither a member of, nor held observer status, at the Council of Europe, but, over the years, had worked closely with the Council. It had, for example, participated in the Venice Commission. Algerian parliamentarians had also attended a number of Council of Europe events including a seminar in October 2006 on the subject of equality. These links were testament to the desire of Algeria to consolidate its pluralist democracy and the protection of human rights. They also attested to the interest which Algeria paid to the Council of Europe and its Parliamentary Assembly. Co-operation with Europe had been a constant of Algerian policy since the 1960s, including friendly relationships with all members of the Council of Europe. Their common history and their physical proximity created a densely woven fabric of ties between Europe and Algeria, and it was in this spirit that he spoke.

Algerians had undergone huge social and economic changes to return their country to its feet. Algeria had reduced unemployment and was now trying to increase the availability of jobs for the less fortunate in society. All sectors of the economy had undergone major reform and Algeria was now joining the ranks of the countries that were able to attract inward investment. Algeria could not bank on its hydrocarbon resources alone: restructuring had led to a more balanced macro-economy with no foreign debt.

But all of these economic efforts made sense only if the state was based on the rule of law, human rights and democracy. Algeria was proud of its free and pluralist press. It continued to work on the development of the freedom of the press so that it was more apparent to the public. Algeria had made giant strides in relation to the role of women in its society and there was now a broad consensus about their position. Women now had access to high-quality jobs in the education and health sectors, in the judiciary and in administrative roles. Some time ago, women’s positions had been limited to the education and health spheres but they now held approximately one third of the jobs in the judiciary. There were women in the police force, women ministers, prefects and members of parliament: some, indeed, aspired to the presidency.

In spite of this progress, there were challenges such as the slow working of the administration and the fight against corruption. Progress had been hampered by the fundamental priority of dealing with terrorism. Algeria had suffered from blind, barbaric terrorism and had stood alone against it. It had now addressed the problem and was able to dress its wounds. The National Charter of Peace and Reconciliation of September 2005 had been widely supported and, without the co-operation of Algerian society, these problems would have lasted longer.

The international community had condemned the recent terrorist attacks in Algeria. These attacks would be dealt with through the legal system but with the full vigour of the law. Terrorism had spared no region of the globe and did not discriminate according to race or religion. Algeria had long suffered from these problems and was well aware of their dangers. She was especially aware that terrorism had to be combated on a trans-national level.

The Council of Europe had always fought for human rights but democracy on the ground could not always be considered to be a finished product, nor was there a single template of democracy which suited every society. That comment did not undermine Algeria’s commitment to consolidate the democratic process. It had made progress in its respect for human rights and in the security of persons and property.

He paid tribute to the Council of Europe for championing the rights of migrant workers and foreigners in Europe. Understanding of the reasons for international migration could be assisted by studying patterns of illegal migration. The Mediterranean should not become a dividing line or boundary. Interfaith dialogue in Algeria had highlighted the need to work to pacify minds and hearts, to dispel misunderstanding and to tackle prejudice. He rejected any thesis which spoke about a clash of civilisations and argued instead that it was a clash of ignorance. Europe and Algeria shared the Mediterranean, and cultural and religious ties bound the two together.

The Council of Europe had long been the democratic conscience of Europe and he thus wanted to mention the human rights of a people who had lost their rights: the Palestinians, who claimed statehood and a desire to live in peace and security.

Efforts to develop a Mediterranean Union could not be held hostage to a solution of the Western Sahara situation. The people of the Western Sahara had to have the opportunity to discuss their problems with Morocco.

He had attempted to paint a picture of an Algeria which had made progress in its democracy despite difficulties. He acknowledged that Algeria had further to go, thanked the Assembly for listening to him and offered his good wishes to its debates.

THE PRESIDENT thanked Mr Ziari for an interesting speech which had much enriched the afternoon’s debate. He called Mr Mercan.

Mr MERCAN (Turkey). – First, I wish to congratulate you, Mr President, on your election. I am sure that you will be an excellent president.

Most of us sitting around this hemicycle have democracies in our countries that date back at least 100 years, but some of us have new democracies. Some countries have yet to implement the democratic standards of the Council of Europe member states. The central Asian countries are, as we all know, former Soviet Republic countries and they lack democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Nor do they have separation of powers in many instances. Their treatment of the media suggests that their understanding of pluralism is quite different from our own. The repression suffered by many political figures in those countries is clearly apparent and covered in many newspaper articles and news programmes.

The central Asian countries, with the exception of Kazakhstan, are my concern. They have differing democratic standards and levels of democracy, but they have a couple of things in common. None of them is a Council of Europe member state. All of them are strategically important, because of their natural resources and because they are transit routes for narcotic drugs. Those countries are emerging from the post-Soviet era and there is no single recipe that will suit all of them. The recipe that we usually use in Council of Europe member states is to measure their democratic standards against strict rules.

I remember that five years ago there was a debate about Turkey. From my own experience, I can tell you that any progress towards democracy and respect for human rights has to come from within the country concerned. Council of Europe member states and the Parliamentary Assembly should try to help those countries to make progress towards democratisation, rather than distance themselves from the people.

The countries that I am talking about have many problems. Corruption is widespread and good governance is lacking. Those are the facts, with which I am sure that many colleagues will agree, but we may not agree on how to help those countries. I think that we need to be very constructive. We need to maintain good relationships with those countries and establish a dialogue with their parliamentarians, their administrations and their political elites. Only through such contact and exchange of information, without us trying to teach them anything, will they make progress. It will be a long process, but we should all be hopeful about the outcome. I have taken that approach in my report.

I am sure that, if we share our experience at the Council of Europe with those countries, it will help them. I visited some of them, and in public people use a different language than the one they use in private. They are looking towards European countries, and are especially interested in the achievements and developments in Council of Europe member countries. For example, Kyrgyzstan is co-operating with the Venice Commission.

If we have good relations with those countries, I expect them to maintain institutional contact with Council of Europe institutions. I remember how keen Kyrgyzstan was to maintain good relations with the Council of Europe. Members from the Kyrgyzstan delegation eagerly followed our debates in the Chamber and asked for co-operation and improving dialogue. I am sure that, with a positive approach, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan will join this process, which will help to improve the strategic position and location of our countries as well. I have prepared my report with that understanding in mind.

I want parliamentary and institutional dialogue, and to maintain dialogue with those countries at governmental level. To start with, I want an exchange of information and experience. I hope that the Council of Europe will take up my report, and that my colleagues in the following debate will enlighten our experience of central Asian countries.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you Mr Mercan. I call Mr Wilshire to speak on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee.

Mr WILSHIRE (United Kingdom). – Colleagues in the Chamber have been waiting a long time to contribute to the debate, so I shall not take all 13 minutes and inflict a long speech on them, as that will allow them to speak sooner.

The report has been a long time in preparation. In the time that it has taken, I have worked closely with the observer states and their representatives. I should like to place on record my thanks and appreciation for their hard work and co-operation. I should like to believe that the report is supported not only by the Political Affairs Committee but by the observer states themselves, who have played their part. They can speak for themselves as they are present. They may disagree with me, but I hope not.

One of the reasons why the report has taken a long time and why we have had to change the title twice is that the moment you start looking into the situation of observer states, you rapidly discover confusion and misunderstanding. When I started this task, I thought that I understood that it concerned something simple that we could describe. However, the truth is horribly different. We do not realise it and we do not refer to it, but there are three types of observer state. One type of observer state has no formal arrangements because those countries got that status so long ago when we just said that they were observers. There are four observer states that are covered by statutory resolution of the Committee of Ministers. There are some observer states that are covered by the rules of procedure of the Assembly. Even that group divides itself into two: one observer state is here on an ad hoc basis, and three whose relationship with us is more formalised. There is therefore chaos and confusion, and I do not mean that critically, it is just how things happen in this world.

The first task of the report was to clarify the current situation, to explain it and set it in writing so that in the future we can all read and understand exactly where we are. When we look at where we are, we discover another sort of misunderstanding, which I hope the report clears up. Some people in the Assembly think that we have observers that have signed up to something detailed. The truth is the opposite. Observers that are here on an ad hoc basis have signed up to nothing because they were not asked to, and those who are covered by the statutory resolution of the Committee of Ministers have only said that they will keep to the principles of human rights, democracy and rule of law. They were not asked to say that they would sign up to the Council of Europe’s interpretation of those principles. Therefore, there is a misunderstanding.

The criteria that emerged some years later simply said that observer states should share the values of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. The clarification did not say that they should observe the standards of the Council of Europe. It is vague and misunderstood, but it has worked and has been of great value.

The second task was to explore the ways in which we could work more closely together, to say we are where we are, that is how it has happened, now let us talk to each other and see whether by talking to each other we can come up with ideas that could make being an observer state of more value to that state and to us. The report sets out ideas.

The third task is to deal with the question of what happens next. Kazakhstan and, I suspect, others will ask to join as well. From listening to what is being said, I have no doubt that in the future the Assembly will probably say that it wants a more detailed agreement, so that people will sign up to something that we can discuss together. I guess that is right. I think that is what the Assembly will want, and we need to sort that out now before any one else joins. But – it is a big but – it would be entirely wrong to try to do this retrospectively and to say that what we will ask of the new observers we will try to force on to the existing ones. We must be absolutely clear that this is not in any way an attempt to change the relationship that we have with existing observer states, unless they want that or we want that.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Wilshire. I now give the floor to Mr Omtzigt, who will present the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands). – Thank you, Mr President. The Political Affairs Committee kindly asked the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights for an opinion on the state of human rights in the six observer states. I look forward to some useful conversations with all of these states. Canada has a good record and Mexico, for instance, managed to abolish the death penalty a few years after joining this institution. It told us that joining the Council of Europe had been instrumental in its removing the death penalty from the statute book even though it had not been used since 1937. I warmly welcome the Holy See as an observer here. It is an active campaigner for life, against the death penalty, and it is a positive factor in these times of tense relationships with some religions that we have an active dialogue on human rights with the Roman Catholic Church.

The United States was instrumental in setting up the Council of Europe – indeed, without it, we would not have started this Council in 1945. However, I have to say that both the United States and Japan still have the death penalty, apply it frequently and sometimes in circumstances which are not very good. Furthermore, we have at times noted the way that the war against terror is being fought and we have had critics today of the blacklisting that takes place within our 47 member states. That applies equally to the United States.

Israel, in turn, has a difficult security situation and handles it fairly well, but some improvements are possible there.

I look forward to a lively debate and I believe that we should have an active dialogue with these countries on the main issues – not those small issues – that concern them. We are ready to do so.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Omtzigt. I call Mr Lecoq, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr LECOQ (France) said that the Mediterranean region was experiencing a period of deep-seated problems. There had been an increase in poverty and unemployment at the same time as serious violations of human rights. He questioned whether the Assembly should agree with the occupation of the area inhabited by the Saharans. His group was struck by the haste with which the Assembly had called for a solution in Kosovo when, at the same time, there had been no condemnation of Israel breaking international law. This was a case of double standards and his group could not accept such a discrepancy.

The European Union had links with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, both of which were considering the resources of the countries in the region. The people of these countries had been victims of unacceptable European colonialism. The Assembly had to foster appropriate conditions to enable these colonised peoples to re-establish their histories.

With regard to migration, the report recognised migration to Europe but did not consider migration throughout the area. The report also did not mention the oppression of the region’s people, nor xenophobic legislation within the region: these had however been recognised by the United Nations Security Council. Things had improved but not sufficiently. The Assembly needed to set conditions, including human rights conditions, and should work towards enabling the area to be able to move forward. This was particularly important in the field of human rights, where the Council of Europe had established a record of trust and dedication in ending violations of fundamental rights.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Lecoq. The next speaker is Mr Iwiński, on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr IWIŃSKI (Poland). – Mr President, our debate is a special one. It is true that the Council of Europe Assembly encompasses 47 countries and 800 million people within a political landscape of 200 states populated by 7 billion. As Chairman of the Sub-Committee on External Relations, I welcome all three reports, which complement one another.

Since 1949, our Organisation has been keen to promote its values in the areas beyond its borders. These borders were extended, particularly after 1990. Today, speaking about the Council’s external relations, we think in terms of extra European states mainly belonging to the neighbouring zones in north Africa and east Asia and about co-operation with other international organisations, such as the UN, the EU and the OSCE. One has to remember that several conventions, as well as the work of the Venice Commission are open to non-member countries. Moreover, the possibility of opening to those states some other instrument or institutions should be envisaged. Mr Mercan’s farewell report rightly stresses the Council’s objective and deep interest in promoting stability and democratic transition in central Asia. We should share with Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan and Turkmenistan our experience. Kazakhstan, the largest country of the region, is not covered by the report, as 4% of its territory is in Europe and it is a special case in a positive sense. In recent years, it has developed close co-operation with our Assembly.

Mrs Durrieu said that Tunisia, Algeria, and particularly Morocco should be regarded by the Council of Europe as key partners as well as pillars of stability in the region. The Assembly should invite a parliamentary delegation from the three countries to take part in its work.

Mr Wilshire, in his versatile and pioneering report, makes us aware of the position here involving five observer states and three parliaments. I welcome the rapporteur’s idea of introducing with the countries concerned some kind of specific requirement for granting such status. If there is substantial progress, for example, in Kazakhstan, observer status should be granted.

Canada, Israel and Mexico enjoy observer status with the Assembly. The Knesset has held observer status for more than 50 years. If parliamentary observer status is granted, it will integrate these countries more effectively into the work and the political processes of the Assembly, which seems to be only proper.

Finally, there is Belarus, the only European state which is not yet a member of the Council of Europe. The conditions necessary for it to enjoy special guest status are not met. In this case, we should devise a special framework for dialogue. The Socialist Group, conscious of the priority that must be placed on the European dimension of our Organisation’s mission, fully acknowledges the importance of external relations to the Council of Europe. Therefore, to my mind, we should hold such debates more or less regularly.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Vareikis, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania). – On behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party, I congratulate the rapporteurs on the reports, which are timely and high level. The question for me, and perhaps for all of us, is why we are taking the three reports together. The answer is that some key words unite all the documents: democracy, geography – the countries are in the neighbourhood of Europe – and co-operation. We are speaking in one debate about the Mediterranean, central Asia and the Balkans, and about the status of non-members of the Council of Europe.

The issues of Maghreb and central Asian countries are complicated, and the reports describe the difficulties. The countries are of strategic significance – they have gas and natural resources that we need – but we Europeans also have a lot of valuable things. The main one is democracy. Those countries need us, although sometimes they must follow us in economic or even legal issues.

One of the problems that I would like to raise is whether democracy is compatible with Islam. Many people in the world say no, and give examples. We in the EPP group think that the answer must be yes. There are examples of political parties and politicians who want to build real democracy in the Maghreb countries and central Asia, and we are aware of attempts that have been made to do so. We must always try to make Islamic countries democratic. It is possible, according to our view, but good will is not enough. We must assist such countries, whether through the Venice Commission or through observer status, which I shall speak about later.

Central Asian countries are not strictly Islamic countries. They have so-called post-Soviet trauma, and sometimes a lack of real ideology has made those countries authoritarian, even totalitarian. Islam has come to such countries in its extreme form. We must hurry to assist them, so that they are not driven to the wrong side. The report says that that is a possibility. We must be optimistic.

We agree about observer status, but we need to clarify what an observer is. We may also need to clarify observers’ obligations and what they will do – whether they should participate in projects or follow our values. It is necessary to do so quickly. Perhaps in future, we can somehow combine observer status with a mechanism for the incorporation of the non-member countries that we are discussing today.

(Mr Mignon, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr de Puig.)

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Hancock on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom). – Thank you, Mr President; it is nice to see you in the Chair. It is always nice to have a friend in high places.

It is a great pity that three such important issues have been condensed in such a way, and that members should have only four minutes to cover what I consider to be three very good reports. The reports embark on issues vital to the Council, if for no other reason than that of the resources that would be incurred if we developed some of the initiatives that have been mentioned.

I think that it is right that we should clarify the position on observer status. I pay particular tribute to our colleagues from Canada. Since they have been in the Council of Europe, they have acted as a proper delegation of parliamentarians, playing an active role in Council business year after year. Despite the fact that it is extraordinarily difficult for them to get into debates, they have stuck with it. When they do contribute, they make a worthwhile contribution that relates not only to Canada but to their experience of the Canadian system and the problems with it, which generally relate to many situations that we face. Whether discussing drugs, the break-up of countries or asbestos, Canada has come with a positive message.

How sad it is that the Americans have not taken the same initiative, and that they are not here regularly as parliamentarians to engage with us in the many debates that have been directly critical of them. It is the same with the Israelis; the only times that the Israelis have come, they have come to defend the indefensible, in most instances, such as when this Assembly put pressure on them because of their deplorable attitude towards the Palestinian situation. Would I welcome the presence of Israeli politicians in this Chamber? Of course I would welcome it, so that we could hear from them regularly.

Our Turkish colleague’s report on central Asia talks about what we can and cannot do, and takes what I consider to be a walk on the wild side of life. We go further and further away from what we are trying to achieve in Europe, but the rapporteur is right – central Asia is important. The report said one thing that made me think that central Asian countries would feel well at home here: it said that politicians in those countries tend to say one thing in public and another in private. They would be immediately at home in this Assembly, where politicians from many countries have been doing so for a generation or more.

On the question of North Africa, I have serious problems. I am all in favour of engagement with it, and I was delighted that President Ziari came here to speak today. Migration from Africa into Europe is led mainly from those states. They contain the boat points where people are taken out of Africa into Europe, sometimes into great peril. They go on a journey from the depression that leads them to take this action to despair and, in many instances, sadly, to death.

We should be looking to those three countries to do more on land to prevent such treacherous journeys from being undertaken and hundreds, if not thousands, of people from dying in the Mediterranean and Atlantic in the endeavour to find a safe haven in Europe. I am all for co-operation, but partnership is a two-way thing. The north African countries need to start setting the pace in doing something about the issues that we face in Europe that emanate from their inability to do something about it on land in Africa, where it is safe to do so. I would like to see some progress there.

I welcome the initiative. I am disappointed about the lack of time, but I praise all the rapporteurs, including the Rapporteur of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, for their effort to pull together all the issues into an interesting and important debate for the Council of Europe.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Hancock. For you only, I speak English.

(The speaker continued in French)

(Translation). – I call Baroness Hooper on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Baroness HOOPER (United Kingdom). – I welcome all three reports, on which I congratulate the respective rapporteurs. It is impossible to do justice to all of them in four minutes. Suffice it to say that we fully support the recommendation in the first report to encourage greater co-operation between the Maghreb countries and international institutions such as the Council of Europe.

In that respect, let me draw attention to the report prepared by the new President – I am sorry that he is no longer present – some years ago, in 2003, on the subject of cultural co-operation between Europe and the southern Mediterranean countries, which led to an excellent debate here in the Assembly, preceded by fruitful colloquies in Majorca and Morocco.

I welcome initiatives such as those being developed on a bilateral basis between my country, the United Kingdom, and Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco, to build links and associations between moderate Islamic groups in those countries and similar organisations in the United Kingdom. I also welcome the ongoing progress in the situation of women, which Mrs Durrieu underlined, as well as the fact that education is a priority across the region.

It is vital for us all to encourage stability, security and prosperity in the region, with all that that implies for the wider Middle East.

Let me turn briefly to Mr Mercan’s report on the four republics of central Asia. It is clear that the Council of Europe has a role as the most representative European Organisation and, from that perspective, that we must first persuade the governments of the central Asian republics that security and stability are best strengthened and guaranteed by the practice of good governance, transparency and accountability in relations between central and local government and the population and, secondly, that civil society plays a crucial and positive role in that process.

We welcome and support the recommendations, particularly which contained in paragraph 11, to strengthen the existing dialogue with the authorities of central Asia.

I shall concentrate the remainder of my remarks, in the short time available to me, on the third report, on our relations with, and the procedures governing, the representatives of observer states.

Given that I am a member of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development which, as a so-called extended committee, includes OECD member countries such as Canada, Mexico and Japan – and I hope, in the near future, Brazil – I have had plenty of opportunity to observe the observers and their contribution to the Parliamentary Assembly. I very much agree with Mr Hancock about the value of that contribution.

As a lawyer myself, I support and appreciate the analysis of my colleague Mr Wilshire and his suggestions aimed at ensuring that there is a proper definition, framework and guidance for observer countries, particularly in relation to the objectives and standards of the Council of Europe and the common values that we all share.

However, I suggest that, in addition, we find other practical ways of enriching our debates and developing our contacts with existing observer countries and their parliamentarians, many of whom are present this afternoon. For example, I believe that any future revision of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliamentary Assembly should provide protection for the right of observers to speak in relevant debates and be given a reasonable place on the list of speakers, rather than appearing towards the end, which often means that the time runs out before they are able to speak.

I also believe that observers should be invited to attend committees other than the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development. For example, the Committee on Culture, Science and Education visited Mexico and had an important exchange of information and understanding that was useful to our deliberations. There may be examples of similar experiences from other committees that will point the way forward, with the Council of Europe as a forum for sharing experiences and best practice.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you Baroness Hooper. I call Mr Austin.

Mr AUSTIN (United Kingdom). – I join other members in thanking all three rapporteurs. I will confine my remarks to the report by Mrs Durrieu. A number of speakers, including the rapporteurs, have talked about the need for progress towards democracy and human rights. My country is often cited as being amongst the oldest democracies, if not the oldest democracy, in the world, but I would argue that we have only been a democracy for 80 years because it is only since the early part of the 20th century that women have shared equal rights with men in the electoral process. We should bear that in mind when we talk about the move towards democracy.

I congratulate Mrs Durrieu on her report, which stresses the importance of building good relations between Europe and the Maghreb. That view is shared by the United Kingdom Government and Parliament. Next month, the United Kingdom Parliament will be receiving a formal delegation from the Algerian Parliament, under the auspices of the Inter-Parliamentary Union; and, at the invitation of the Tunisian Parliament, a British delegation will be going to Tunisia.

The report refers to the encouraging progress towards democracy and human rights in the Maghreb and recognises the great steps forward that have been taken in those and other areas. The United Kingdom recognises the many obstacles that still exist to public and political freedom of expression and association, however, and we look forward to further reforms.

Mrs Durrieu is right to point to the problems of extremism in the region but also to refer to the fact that the region is characterised by moderate Islam. In that context, I draw the Assembly’s attention to a recent development in Morocco, which has introduced female preachers know as Morchidat, a radical innovation in the Islamic world. As far as I am aware, they are the first women in any Muslim country who can perform most of the functions of a male imam within the mosque.

I refer to the report on further parliamentary co-operation. So far, co-operation has been established through the Euro-Med process – the Barcelona process and the Euro-Med Parliament. But that is a limited engagement of the European Union and involves only some of the European countries. I want to draw the Assembly’s attention to the work of the Inter-Parliamentary Union in that regard over 15 years. Through the Committee on Security and Co-operation in the Mediterranean, there have been regular meetings of parliamentarians from all the Maghreb states, all the Mediterranean Arab states, Jordan and the European Parliaments. That was constituted in 2005, largely at the initiative of a French member of parliament, Rudy Salles, into a Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean – not to work in opposition to the Euro-Med Parliament but to work in co-operation with it and embrace the countries of the wider Mediterranean. I think the Council of Europe, which has been an observer to that process, needs to engage with that organisation.

Finally, I refer to yesterday’s debate on sustainability and energy. We are a rapidly developing energy market in Europe. Yesterday, we talked about the need for sustainable sources of energy. We are also conscious of the need for investment in the Maghreb area. The Maghreb area is rich in sun and wind and there are tremendous opportunities for Europe to co-operate with the Maghreb states in developing that as a sustainable resource, not only helping the economy of the Maghreb but providing sustainable energy resources for Europe.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Austin. I call Mr Rochebloine.

Mr ROCHEBLOINE (France) said that the centrist political family to which he belonged had long been committed to dialogue and, for that reason, he welcomed the report. His belief in dialogue was fuelled by the history of his nation. The proposal contained in the report was to foster dialogue on the Council of Europe’s central remit of human rights. The description of the Maghreb countries which had been given suggested, however, that they were perhaps not obviously fertile ground for that dialogue: what with imperfect democracy, constraints on the press and the threat of terrorism. Progress was being made, for instance, in women’s rights, but it was important to remember that this progress often took the form of formal legal processes which were not always reflected in practical change that improved people’s lives.

The report also noted that the Council of Europe was little known on the continent of Africa. To extend that knowledge was a noble ambition, but the Parliamentary Assembly had to ensure that there was no misunderstanding in the dialogue.

The draft recommendation encouraged dialogue between the religions and cultures of the Maghreb. Most of the dialogue that took place at present was of an inter-religious nature, primarily to ensure that Islam was better understood. The draft resolution reminded us that moderate Islam was the religion of Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia. That religion was dealing with local problems and was not focused on the problems of international terrorism.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Rochebloine. I now call Mr MacShane.

Mr MacSHANE (United Kingdom). – I am fascinated by the claim of my distinguished colleague, John Austin, that there are going to be women imams in the mosques of Morocco. I think that we need to know more about this and I would like to know what the Pope’s reaction might be to this remarkable development in Islam. Perhaps we can learn more at our next session.

I will concentrate on the Maghreb report.

(The speaker continued in French)

He congratulated Mrs Durrieu on her report and said that it attested to her commitment to the subject.

(The speaker continued in English)

The Maghreb countries are vital to Europe. How has the Council of Europe actually worked since it was set up in the 1940s? I would argue that it has worked in part through a process of osmosis and gradually spreading out ideas and arguments to new countries and groups of people. It has worked by integrating what is good in civil, economic and political society and tried to turn it into conventions. It is indeed the case that the time has come for all of us in the Council of Europe, particularly with regard to the Maghreb countries, which are very distinct from their Arab neighbours further to the east and from the Middle Eastern countries, to lead such regions more towards Europe and to find what bridges we can build and what common work we can undertake.

I think that the area is of the highest economic importance. In 2003, for example, Algeria had a total national income of $61 billion, while today it has a total national income of $101 billion. In other words, there has been a very great increase, but where has this money gone? As the report asks, how has it been spread out? Tunisia’s GDP and revenue per capita are higher than those in many Balkan states, including states in the Council of Europe. How can this economic and material basis extend to civic rights? People must defend the rights that do exist, particularly in Tunisia; frankly, they are quite remarkable in that particular region. Those rights must be extended not only to freedom of the press, but to writing, novels and creativity. Why do so many of the great artists and writers of the region have to come to France to find themselves published or to give full expression to their ideas?

We must certainly look at the question of Islamism – and I am not referring to the religion. Dear colleagues, please make that distinction between Islam as a faith that we respect, and Islamism – an ideology that is misogynist, anti-democratic and homophobic, and in its more extreme varieties, alas, is violent and terroristic. All three countries, as we can see in regular reports, must confront a much deeper, more serious and better organised threat than we do in our democracies. We must have some understanding of that.

Finally, let us try to work together. What we do not need for the Maghreb countries is individual initiatives from any one of our big European nations. France and Spain have to talk and find a common policy, and the European Union has to work on existing initiatives and contacts. This is a huge new area. If the Maghreb is made more like us, there will, believe me, be a huge contribution to peace in the entire region.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr MacShane. I now call Mr Greenway.

Mr GREENWAY (United Kingdom). – I want to address the three reports in respect of the issue of migration, and begin with the statement that, in my view, we cannot hope to manage migration in the Euro-Mediterranean region, which is the cause of terrible loss of life, as my colleague from the United Kingdom, Mr Hancock, mentioned, without increased and enhanced co-operation with Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia, the so-called Maghreb countries. I asked for the floor today to draw the Assembly’s attention to the Euro-Mediterranean and Euro-Asian parliamentary forum held in Antalya in Turkey in October, which I had the privilege of chairing on behalf of the Migration Sub-Committee. Politicians and officials from a number of countries took part, but particularly from Morocco and Tunisia. What we learned and discovered supports entirely the conclusions of the excellent report presented to us today on the importance of strengthening co-operation with the Maghreb countries.

We need to understand the huge migratory pressures. These are at one and the same time countries of destination and of transit for millions of migrants from sub-Saharan Africa. They are also countries of emigration of their own people, especially the young. It is critical that we in this Assembly continue to ensure that everything that can be done is done to address the push factors of migration as well as the pull factors that are the cause of millions of people seeking a better life elsewhere.

These countries need our help. I agree with my colleague, Mr Wilshire, on the need to be patient and realistic on the democratic standards that we expect from countries with which we co-operate and which we consider may in time be appropriate for observer status. As Mr Austin said, we should remember where we ourselves have come from. Conflict resolution and improving the economic, social and political opportunity are of course vital, as is the fight against terrorism. We should take this opportunity to express solidarity with our guest from Algeria and our profound good wishes to people there in their fight against extremism and the terrorism that they have suffered in recent months.

I shall conclude by stressing the need to educate and inform young people. One of the NGOs with which the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population works in Morocco, the Friends and Families of the Victims of Trafficking, undertook some research on the views of school children. The results were deeply shocking and illustrate the challenge that we face. The NGO carried out its work in three different areas and it found that 95% of children in primary schools dreamed of going to Europe as soon as they had finished their schooling. Among secondary school children, the number was still pushing 90%. We have to go into the schools and tell them that Europe is not a dream and that the means of travel to Europe that may be offered to them may not be safe.

What sort of initiatives may we expect? One example is that of Norway Telecom, which has installed telecom information in one African country that enables mobile phones used by young people to contain messages and information about resisting the lure of Europe. I hope that your report, Mrs Durrieu, will lead to great progress in this area, because it is vital.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Béteille.

Mr BÉTEILLE (France) praised the quality of Mrs Durrieu’s report, which painted a complete picture of the social and economic position in Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco. The report was optimistic about the democratic process and its continuing development. He noted that co-operation already existed between Europe and other Mediterranean countries: that co-operation was indirect at the moment but it had to become more institutionalised. Some of the French members of the Parliamentary Assembly had asked the Committee of Ministers to explore formalising relationships between the Council of Europe and other Mediterranean countries.

The European Union had set up the Barcelona process but the Council of Europe did not have anything similar. He wanted recommendations along these lines to be sent to the Committee of Ministers.

The President of the French Republic had suggested establishing a European and Mediterranean union to improve relations with Maghreb counties. Such a European and Mediterranean union would have to have appropriate structures: it could, for example, address issues such as the environment, sustainability, energy, transport and water; and civil society would have to be involved. There were indications that such an institution could soon evolve, as interest had been expressed by Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco, and also by Egypt. Alongside the European Commission, Italy and Spain had taken part in some discussions with the French about establishing such a body, which their leaders soon hoped to do. He welcomed the fact that there was to be a meeting on 14 July 2008 between European Union member states and Mediterranean countries.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. Mr Steenblock and Mr Branger are not here, so I call Mr Seyidov.

Mr SEYIDOV (Azerbaijan). – I wish to express my gratitude to all the rapporteurs for their excellent reports. These are very important, because from my point of view the future of the Council of Europe is closely connected with its relationships not only with member states, but with countries that are establishing ties with the Council of Europe, are neighbours of the Council of Europe or are just trying to create a democratic society.

I give special attention to the report on the central Asian countries, because I am from Azerbaijan and we are their neighbours. We know what is going on in that region. It is very important to the Council of Europe, not only because those countries are trying to create democratic, civil societies and implement values that are acceptable to us, but because they could form a bridge between Europe and the rest of the world, especially the east.

In considering central Asian countries, it is very important to take proper account of Kazakhstan. The majority of members may not know that Kazakhstan not only has a growing economy, but is one of the leading countries in the region – indeed, in the world – in economic growth. Kazakhstan could be an important country for the rest of the world, because it can show us how different cultures can meet. In that country, we may be able to see the real answer to a question that unfortunately exists and is very important to the rest of the world: how to resolve the clash of civilisations. In Kazakhstan, the Muslim majority, the Christian population and the Jewish community share the same values and can co-exist and collaborate normally. Kazakhstan today needs Europe, but Europe needs Kazakhstan, because it can provide the answer to dealing with the rest of the world. Kazakhstan wants to join with European countries and that is important. We look for friends, but sometimes there is resistance to the implementation of our values. However, Kazakhstan is ready to come to this Organisation voluntarily and to try to implement the values that are so important to us.

In Azerbaijan, we know that the future of our relationships with our neighbours in central Asia, especially Kazakhstan, is very important. That is why, as a member of the Council of Europe, Azerbaijan is ready to help Kazakhstan come here with special observer or guest status.

It does not matter. It is important that Kazakhstan is ready to share our values. It is the same situation with Russia, which has a special responsibility for Kazakhstan. Russia and Azerbaijan are neighbours of Kazakhstan. I hope that there will be close co-operation between central Asian countries and the Council of Europe.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Kelemen.

Mr KELEMEN (Hungary). – I ask the Assembly to give some thought to Mr Mercan’s interesting report. It is clear from his text that Central Asia has been, and is, at the crossroads of civilisation. In the two Turkistans and their outskirts, a special civilisation was shaped in the middle of a huge continent—that of the nomadic style of life based around the horseman. Nowadays, those lands are gaining importance because of their natural resources and the geopolitical position of the area.

Central Asia as it is commonly referred to, particularly by Mr Seyidov, includes Kazakhstan. The rapporteur excluded it for practical reasons. We must take into account the historical and economic links with Russia, the Chinese interest in the region and the influence of the Islamic world. We should acknowledge the historical success of political leadership, such as that of President Nazarbayev of the Kazakh Republic, in avoiding even the possibility of inter-ethnic conflicts during political transition in a country in which the diversity of its population is so characteristic. Danger exists in that area and in the whole region of a social explosion against corrupt and authoritarian leadership, which can manifest itself in Islamic rebellion. Such a development cannot be excluded and could be significant.

The rapporteur’s statement that central Asia is the neighbour of Council of Europe countries is true. These countries have a common problem: how to progress from an authoritarian past to a more democratic society.

I should like to underline the rapporteur’s assertion that it is an urgent task of the Council of Europe to help this region to avoid destabilisation with all the means at our disposal. The rapporteur’s aim of drawing our attention to the need for continuous efforts to share the experience of European democracies with the authorities and political forces of Central Asia is praiseworthy. I emphasise the need for, and importance of, grassroot connections, which can promote the democratisation process.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Kox.

Mr KOX (Netherlands). — I should like to comment on David Wilshire’s report on the Council of Europe and its observer states. I agree with the rapporteur that we need less chaos and more structure in this area. Therefore, I endorse many of his recommendations. We should have a set of standards with which new observer states are willing to comply. It is also a good idea to have more inclusion of observer states in the structures of the Council of Europe.

I also agree that there should be an improved parliamentary dimension in our co-operation with observer states. Canada has already been praised for being present during our sessions. I add my compliments to those already made. Now and then parliamentarians from Israel and Mexico are present, and sometimes also from Japan, but we never see any representatives from the United States of America. It would be good to have parliamentarians from the United States. There are no parliamentarians in the Holy See, but I gather that we have invited Pope Benedict, so perhaps when he is here we can ask him about the parliamentary dimension of the Holy See.

We share many common values with our observer states, but we should not be silent about the fact that we do not share all our values. For example, some of our observer states do not share our views on the death penalty, the Geneva Convention, some of the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, the concept of a unilateral war, the illegal occupation of neighbouring areas, the oppression of citizens, human rights above all else, and the norms of democracy. I agree with many of the ideas put forward by the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee to improve David Wilshire’s report, especially on such issues as the death penalty, the war on terrorism, and respect for human rights and democracy. I am looking forward to our debate in June on human rights and democracy. It would be great if all observer states could be involved.

I agree with David Wilshire that it is wise not to have new candidates yet. We should clean up our act first, and when we have resolved the issues in the report we can discuss whether to have new observer states. We endorse the report, and we also endorse many of the improvements made by the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee. I hope the Assembly agrees. We like to have parliamentarians from observer states, but we should not be silent on matters that really count to the Council of Europe and the Assembly.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mrs Milne.

Mrs MILNE (Observer from Canada). – I thank Mr Wilshire and the Political Affairs Committee for their openness to the participation of observer delegations in the preparation of this report on observer states. We appreciate the fact that many of our views and experiences are reflected in the text we are debating.

Our participation in the Assembly over the past 10 years reflects our interest in its work and our commitment to the principles of democracy, the rule of law and human rights, which we share with members of the Committee. I should note that the Canadian delegation did not ask for any changes to our status, but we welcome many of the concrete suggestions in the draft resolution. In my view, this report reflects the Council’s effort to extend its reach beyond the current membership, which has nearly reached its logical geographical limits. First, it aims to strengthen the Council’s role in setting and defending international standards in the areas of human rights and democratic governance. Secondly, it contributes to the development of the Council’s neighbourhood policies by preparing the way for accepting new observers.

Finally, the report seeks to address concerns about the extent to which current observer states are complying with the core values of the Council, in particular with respect to the death penalty and the practice of rendition and secret detentions.

The Council of Europe’s record is impressive, so these efforts are laudable. However, it should not be forgotten that observer status is fundamentally different from membership of the Organisation, both with regard to the obligations and rights of observers. Canadian parliamentarians and officials have always considered our role here to be that of observers. We come to listen, to learn and to add to the debate if possible. We are not potential members, nor do we aspire to become members. I believe that you cannot expect observers, especially those from overseas, to commit the same attention and resources as they would to their regional organisations or to international bodies of which they are full members. This would be true, I believe, even if greater commitment from observers were to be accompanied by significantly increased participatory rights.

At the same time, we value our role here and we do believe that our unique experience as a peaceful country of immigrants from around the world allows us to contribute to the work of the Council of Europe. So I would urge you to consider carefully what impact an expanded role and a clear set of specific obligations would have on the Council’s ability to engage observer states and parliamentarians in its work.

Let me give an example. The new Rules of Procedure which allow us to sign motions and written declarations also require observer parliaments to name a permanent delegation of Representatives and Substitutes for a calendar year. It makes sense, since you all do it. However, this is having two negative effects on the Canadian delegation. First, while in past years we were able to bring different parliamentarians to Strasbourg and to committee meetings, we are now limited to a maximum of six observers and six substitutes. As a result, fewer Canadian MPs and senators will know about you and it will be much more difficult to bring Canadians with special expertise to the Assembly to contribute to your work.

Secondly, because of the domestic political situation in Canada and frequent conflicts between our parliamentary responsibilities and PACE events, it will be difficult to bring a full delegation of six observers to future Assembly sessions. Of the 10 delegates and substitutes named for the 2008 session, only three were able to be here this week. In the past, we were able to fill in with other parliamentarians but now we cannot. Since I cannot speak directly to the amendments, I would like to end by voicing our opposition to two of them. Amendment No. 1 proposes to delete the following words: “to initiate, though appropriate arrangements, motions for resolutions and recommendations.” It should be noted that the revised rules allowed us to sign motions and written declarations. The current text, unamended, would merely extend that privilege to initiating the whole process and to contributing here more meaningful.

Amendment No. 13 calls on observer delegations to “present…an annual report on their involvement as observers.” We do not believe that such annual reports are necessary, since the contribution of parliamentary observers to the work of the Assembly will speak for itself. The draft resolution already calls on the Political Affairs Committee to report on the state of relationships with the observer delegations. I would also point out that Assembly member delegations are not required to report on their involvement. Why should observers be held to a higher standard?

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I have allowed you a little more time because you have come a long way to be with us. I call Mr Tekelioğlu.

Mr TEKELİOĞLU (Turkey). – Thank you, Mr President. First and foremost I would like to express my appreciation to all three rapporteurs, who have prepared excellent reports. All three are important, and instrumental in bringing an added value to the issues at hand.

The Council of Europe and its Parliamentary Assembly should be active in promoting and protecting the core values of the Council of Europe, not only in the European continent but beyond. These three reports are significant testimonies to the work of the Parliamentary Assembly in promoting our core values beyond our continent.

As a region in the Council of Europe’s neighbourhood, central Asia has strategic importance for the security of the Euro-Atlantic region. Those states in this area which abide by democratic and human rights enjoy the benefits of prosperity and stability. However, democratic transformation in the region has remained regrettably slow until now. As is reflected in the report, the central Asian republics should fulfil the commitments on democracy and human rights that they undertook when they became participating states of the OSCE.

One of our objectives should be to encourage these states to embrace democracy and human rights and to convince their leaders that these values are in their own interest. However, while talking about human rights and democratisation in these states, we should refrain from drawing a picture suggesting that talk of reform is only a device for overthrowing the existing regimes. Leaders who believe in the supremacy of democracy and human rights should be our main tool and strength in the transformation of this region. Therefore, while criticising these republics over their shortcomings over human rights and democracy we should sometimes see the full part of the glass rather than focusing on the empty part. Furthermore, it might sometimes be more constructive to highlight positive developments rather than using sharp and critical words in a negative fashion. A neutral wording should be preferred while criticising these republics over their shortcomings. This approach should be maintained not only for central Asian republics but for the Maghreb countries.

Although the situation in Maghreb countries differs from that in the Central Asian republics, there are some serious setbacks in human rights and democracy in these states too. However, following the same constructive approach, we should urge the governments of these states to open the way to more democracy and human rights. While doing that, we should bear in mind that a progressive approach for the gradual assimilation of democracy in these states is preferable to abrupt and hasty change. Hasty changes in the name of democracy and human rights might lead to more human rights abuses.

I want to say a few words about the observer states of the Council of Europe. An important problem in promoting human rights and democracy is the allegation of double standards and hypocrisy. To avoid these allegations, we should act consistently and we should not turn a blind eye to human rights abuses in the developed parts of the world. Using observer status to monitor these states is a reasonable way to help the improvement of human rights there. With this approach, we will at least not be accused of concentrating on human rights abuses only in certain parts of the world. Therefore the proposal to include the observer states in reports on democracy and human rights is appropriate and as such it receives my full support.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Tekelioğlu. I call Mr Konečny.

Mr KONEČNY (Austria) said that the Assembly had three excellent reports before it. Taken together, however, they produced a contradictory picture and that contradiction did not flatter the Council. The Council had failed to do its homework in this particular area in recent years. The Council and the Assembly had done much good work in Europe, but Europe was not an island: it was linked to neighbouring regions. Countries of the southern flank of the Mediterranean, not just the Maghreb countries, were partners to Europe, a term that he used deliberately. The Assembly had to address the issues of the southern flank of the Mediterranean by working together with these partners.

An occasional meeting or seminar would not be enough. What was needed was a consistent policy of partnership. The Council of Europe and its partners needed to work together to find solutions to the issues raised in the reports. Member states would undoubtedly do their part, but they needed to call on their partners to make similar efforts. The same applied to the situation in central Asia, where member states could ask something of their partners, but had to offer some contribution themselves.

The report offered a contradictory position in relation to the observer states. It was unfair to impose retrospective conditions on them. He was grateful to Mrs Milne for her perspective from the Canadian Parliament, which the Assembly had to take into consideration.

The reports and debate had been productive, but the Assembly needed a more focused approach to the issue. It had to produce a consistent policy rather than placing unreasonable demands on its partners.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. Mr Çavuşoğlu is not here, so I call Mrs Green Macias.

Mrs GREEN MACIAS (Observer from Mexico) offered her congratulations to Mr Wilshire on the content of his report, and said that she was grateful that the subject of observers was being debated and was convinced that the report’s conclusions would benefit both observers and the Assembly as a whole. When Mexico had applied for observer status in 1999, it had been aware of the commitments that went hand in hand with that status. In its eight years as an observer, Mexico had played its full part in the Council and had been involved in profound internal change.

The predominant feature of the Mexico federal and state congresses was the absence of qualified majorities, which allowed parties full debate on every important issue. It was now possible to talk about a healthy system of checks and balances in the Mexican political institutions. Democratic progress had also strengthened the judicial system and extended the protection of human rights. At the same time, Mexico’s national human rights institution had been given budgetary autonomy and now had both a federal and state presence. There was also much work being done to protect especially vulnerable groups, as witnessed by the recent general laws passed concerning the disabled and women at risk of domestic violence. Mexico also intended to recognise the most recent concepts of human rights. Electoral reform had given equal opportunities to all political parties. The role of parliamentarians in all these developments had been vital and there had been genuine dialogue between the different parts of the political spectrum. Mexico would continue to sign and ratify as many relevant international conventions as possible.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mrs Wohlwend.

Mrs WOHLWEND (Liechtenstein) gave her thanks to the rapporteurs and to the committee secretariats. She addressed herself to Mr Wilshire’s report in particular. The Political Affairs Committee had left human rights to the Legal Affairs Committee and its opinion, presented by Mr Omtzigt, was well worth reading.

The United States and Japan maintained the death penalty, but the Assembly had found in 2001, 2003, 2006 and 2007 that such a sanction was unworthy of a country which professed to value and protect human rights. The United States had been invited to participate in a moratorium on the death penalty, with the objective of working towards its abolition, but no response had been given to this invitation. It was necessary to remind those to whom the reports were addressed of the Assembly’s previously declared stance on the issue of the death penalty. The report had to highlight not only economic, cultural and interfaith matters, but also human rights; and it was essential to mention those issues, which remained outstanding. Progress would be achieved only through honesty.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you Mrs Wohlwend. I call Mr Branger.

Mr BRANGER (France) saluted Mr Mercan’s report on central Asia and said that the previous lack of interest in this part of the world was both inexcusable and detrimental, as these countries had been of so much benefit to Europe in the past. The silk road was only one example. Central Asia was a region of strategic interest to Europe, which presented three challenges. The first was radical Islam and it was important to note that, in many countries, Islam presented itself as the only alternative to authoritarian regimes. The second was the tendency of the Russian Federation to legitimise these authoritarian regimes for its own purposes, such as in Uzbekistan. The third was the growing influence of China, spurred on by the region’s energy resources. Given the importance that these others placed on central Asia, it was a matter of urgency that Europe established a presence in the region. Initiatives to further dialogue were a move in the right direction.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Grignon.

Mr GRIGNON (France) said that he was perplexed by his reading of the documents. The text did not seem to commit observers to anything at all concrete. While it made grand promises about human rights, these guarantees had also been made, for example, by the first French constitution during the period of the Terror, and by the Soviet constitution of 1977. These guarantees did not therefore necessarily translate into real action. It was also unreasonable to make demands of partners which member states themselves failed to meet. Before the issue of observers was dealt with, he considered it necessary to introduce new rules for the member states themselves, to insist that all members adopted the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The report stated that observers did not participate in the Parliamentary Assembly and sought to correct that. He wondered, however, whether this was an appropriate step for the Council of Europe to take. It was arguable that the proper forum for such involvement was the United Nations. It was unclear whether observers would deserve to vote if they were given greater power and the resolution needed to be amended to bring clarity to this issue.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – That concludes the list of speakers. I call Mrs Durrieu, the rapporteur, to reply. You have just over eight minutes.

Mrs DURRIEU (France) said that the proposal in her report was made in regard to Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco. In response to Mr Lecoq’s comment, she said that it would be a long journey until the conditions in the report were met. She had sought to discover how the Council of Europe could get closer to these three countries but it was not intended that they should be seen as candidates.

Most of those who had spoken in the debate had recognised that the dialogue proposed in the report was needed. The first stage, as Baroness Hooper had noted, involved establishing a relationship with the Maghreb countries.

She commented that all the countries around the Mediterranean shared a sea, history and culture and would share their future.

Although Eurasia was close to Europe, it was an area where the Council of Europe did not have high profile. A colleague from Azerbaijan had noted that it was necessary to move forward together: she noted that Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan were both members of the Venice Commission. She hoped that North African countries would also become members of the Venice Commission.

The role of the Council of Europe was to show solidarity with countries in all their problems and solidarity as they moved to democracy: that was true for the Caucuses and for Central Asia. It was no longer questioned whether Europe stretched to the Caucuses or to the Urals or whether Russia was a part of Europe. Now, the Council of Europe’s policy had to be to provide neighbourliness, starting with the Maghreb countries.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I now call Mr Mercan.

Mr MERCAN (Turkey). – Let me begin by thanking the Secretariat of the Political Affairs Committee for its valuable efforts and its contribution to our report. Without its help and co-operation, the report would not have been of such a high quality. I also thank everyone who has participated in this debate. I have found this a very lively debate, and it has also been very constructive and fruitful. I want especially to thank all my colleagues who have talked specifically about the central Asia report.

I am very glad that there is a common understanding on the issue of central Asia among my colleagues, and I am happy to have their support. I agree with Mr Kelemen, for example, who said that civil society must be encouraged in central Asian countries. It is true that civil society must be encouraged, but at the same time, civil society and every single individual in the central Asian countries must be given more opportunity to make their voices heard and to express their individuality. I agree that everyone in the Council of Europe should be an example for such countries, whether they are central Asian or Mediterranean. As I stated in my initial remarks, the Council of Europe exemplifies democracy, the rule of law and human rights, as well as a belief in increasing the visibility in all aspects of life.

Let me make my last remarks before I leave the Council of Europe, about some of my concerns in dealing with central Asian countries.

My first point is that the Council of Europe has to abide by its own rules and avoid double standards. If we treat countries differently or have different classes - class A and class B – of member state, our words will be heard differently in non-member states. That is why we have to stick to our principles more than anyone else. For example, when I was in Algeria, I talked to the Foreign Minister, and when I was in Iran, I talked to Mr Rafsanjani. His only question was how Turkey’s application for membership of the European Union was going. Everyone in Muslim countries eagerly inquires after our membership effort. For that reason, when we talk about Islam and democracy, or Islam and radicalism, we need to achieve a deep understanding of that religion to understand the progress that could be made in those countries. We also have to be very open with the political “elites” of those countries when we deal with them. We should treat them as equals and as partners, rather than as our students. We should not see ourselves as their masters.

Even the election of a new President of the Council of Europe is observed in all those countries. In all such cases, they look to see whether we abide by our gentlemen’s agreement. I am sure that many of you are concerned about how to deal with Islam and radicalism. As a predominantly Islamic country, we have great experience in transforming our society into a democratic society. Apart from us, there is only Azerbaijan, which is improving its standard of democracy gradually. Our existence as a member of the Council of Europe and a candidate for membership of the European Union will provide a good example for all those countries and people in central Asia and the Maghreb countries. Believe me, those people look to us and how we adapt and integrate with European values, and how we integrate our Islamic values with democratic principles. For that reason, I wholeheartedly believe in the role of the Council of Europe and how important it can be in improving those countries. But that will only happen if we stick to our rules and principles.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Omtzigt.

Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands). – This debate was an example of how the contribution of the observers to the work of the Council is appreciated by everyone. I welcome the words of support from Mrs Milne. I will take them on board and withdraw Amendment No. 13. However, we should keep in mind the values and principles of the Council of Europe — human rights, democracy and the rule of law are central. We should be willing to take them up between us and when talking to others whether they like it or not.

I welcome the support from Mr Kox and Mrs Wohlwend on the abolition of the death penalty. It does not matter whether others agree or not, because that position is fundamental to the values that we defend here. Therefore, I ask members to support the amendments tabled by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. Mr Wilshire, as rapporteur, you have seven minutes.

Mr WILSHIRE (United Kingdom). – I thank those colleagues who have contributed to the debate, especially those who spoke about the report that I presented. It has received general support, but some suggestions for amendments have been made. I shall use my time to comment on those amendments and give members a steer as to how they might care to vote. When we vote, it is important that we try to keep in mind the three tasks that, as I explained, the Political Affairs Committee was trying to achieve. In the report, we were trying to clarify the current situation, which is confused; we were trying to suggest ways to build closer working relationships with existing observer states; and we were trying to suggest that before we add any more observers, we should try to clear up the confusion, so that future observers would have a much clearer picture of where we stand.

There are 23 amendments and they fall into four categories. First, there are the technical amendments that improve or clarify the committee’s intentions. I apologise if some of those technical issues need sorting out, because it is clearly my mistake in not getting them right in the first place. I ask the Assembly to support those amendments.

Secondly, there is a group of amendments where the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has decided, as is its privilege, that there are issues of human rights and democracy that we think should be discussed but they do not think should be discussed in this context. I respect that, although I do not actually agree with it. On those amendments, I shall move sub-amendments to say that the Political Affairs Committee would still like to talk about democracy with the observers but we respect the wishes of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which would rather leave that out. So I ask members to amend rather than oppose those amendments.

Then we have two other groups. There are one or two amendments that hint that we might be seeking to make some unilateral changes to the existing position. The committee has bent over backwards to do nothing that might appear to be dictating to our observer friends. Instead, we offer the opportunity of working together to make progress voluntarily, if that is what both sides in the debate want. I ask the Assembly to avoid at all costs appearing to want to make retrospective, unilateral changes or to impose additional conditions.

Finally, there is a group of amendments on the death penalty. I wish to make it clear that I am as passionate an opponent of the death penalty as anybody in this Hemicycle. But the purpose of this report is to clarify and to seek co-operation. If we put into it criticism or condemnation on a specific issue, we will weaken the purpose of the report. For example, I have a statement from the permanent representative of Japan which states that Japan will continue the dialogue concerning the death penalty issue, even if there is a difference of opinion. That is an offer to talk.

The Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee wants to take that up and prepare a report of its own on that issue, rather than run the risk of making the Political Affairs Committee report sound condemnatory. It would be much more difficult for us to implement the process of working together if something is included that may need addressing, but not here.

It has been a long but necessary process. We now understand that there has been confusion – a sort of ad hoc arrangement – but we can sort that out together if that is what both sides want. I have spent much time talking to people from the observer states, and all of them make it clear that they want to move forward with us jointly on a voluntary basis so that we can benefit from them in a better way, and they can benefit from us.

It is clear from the debate that there is an understanding that things need to be much clearer before anyone else joins. The work must now begin to do that.

I thank all those colleagues in the Chamber and in the committee for their kind words about this report and what we are trying to do. As I said at the beginning of the debate, I thank the observers for the constructive part that they have played. Lastly, I thank the staff, because without them the report would not have been possible.

THE PRESIDENT(Translation). - Thank you. I call Mr Lindblad, Chair of the Political Affairs Committee.

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – I thank all four rapporteurs for their excellent work. I also thank the Secretariats of the Political Affairs Committee and the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee. This has been an interesting discussion. I was afraid that it would be too much with three reports and that the debate would be all over the place. However, we have had a good discussion on each report.

Some amendments were unanimously agreed to, including all the amendments on the report on central Asia. One amendment to the Maghreb report and some to Mr Wilshire’s report were also agreed unanimously. However, we did not have enough time to deal with all the amendments. On Mr Wilshire’s report, we dealt with amendments Nos. 3 to 10, but we did not vote on the rest of them.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). –Thank you Mr Lindblad. The general discussion is closed.

Strengthening co-operation with the Maghreb countries

We will first consider the draft resolution in the report on strengthening co-operation with the Maghreb countries to which there are three amendments.

They will be taken in the order in which they were tabled.

I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

We come first to Amendment No. 1, tabled by Mrs. Anna Čurdová, Mrs Lydie Err, Mrs Josette Durrieu, Ms Christine Muttonen, Mrs Gisela Wurm, Mrs Rosario Velasco García, Mrs Meritxell Batet Lamaña, Mrs Fátima Aburto Baselga, Mrs Elvira Cortajarena Iturrioz, Mrs Christine McCafferty, Mrs Tineke Strik, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 9, after the words “substantial progress has been made”, insert the following words:

“The Assembly encourages the Maghreb countries to implement these reforms as quickly as possible throughout their territories. It is also ready and willing to take part in continued parliamentary dialogue and exchange of good practices in the area of equality, particularly with regard to gender equality in civil law”.

I call Mrs Durrieu to support Amendment No. 1.

Mr DURRIEU (France) said that the amendment was necessary to encourage parliamentary dialogue, especially relating to gender equality in law.

THE PRESIDENT(Translation). - Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). - The vote is open.

Amendment No. 1 is adopted.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Before I call Mr Dreyfus-Schmidt to support Amendment No. 2. I must inform the Assembly that Mr Dreyfus-Schmidt has given notice of his intention to move an oral amendment to amend the text of paragraph 19. The oral amendment will fall if Amendment No. 2 is agreed to.

Mr Dreyfus-Schmidt, do you wish to withdraw your Amendment No. 2?

Mr DREYFUS-SCHMIDT (France) said he wished to move an oral amendment which had been presented in the committee and accepted by it. It was, in paragraph 19, delete from “regularly” to the end and insert “inviting parliamentary delegations to attend plenary sessions of the Assembly and to be heard by the Political Affairs Committee”.

THE PRESIDENT asked Mr Dreyfus-Schmidt whether he agreed to withdraw Amendment No. 2.

Mr DREYFUS-SCHMIDT (France) said he would agree to withdraw Amendment No. 2 only if the oral amendment were agreed to.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). - I have received an oral amendment from Mr Dreyfus-Schmidt which reads as follows:

In paragraph 19 delete from “regularly” to the end and inserted “inviting parliamentary delegations to attend plenary sessions of the Assembly and to be heard by the Political Affairs Committee”.

I remind the Assembly of Rule 34 which enables the President to accept an oral amendment or sub-amendment on the grounds of promoting clarity, accuracy or conciliation and if there is not opposition from ten or more members to it being debated.

That is not the case. I therefore call Mr Dreyfus-Schmidt to support the oral amendment. You have 30 seconds.

Mr DREYFUS-SCHMIDT (France) (Translation). – I agree, and I have nothing to add.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Does anyone wish to speak against the oral amendment?

That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MERCAN (Turkey). – The committee is in favour of the oral sub-amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – We come now to Amendment No. 3.

Mr DREYFUS-SCHMIDT (France) said that he wished to withdraw the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – We will now proceed to vote on the draft resolution in Document 11471, as amended. A simple majority is required.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Document 11471, as amended, is adopted, with 63 votes for, 0 against and 1 abstention.

We will now vote on the draft recommendation in Document 11471, for which a two-thirds majority is required.

The vote is open.

The draft recommendation in Document 11471 is adopted, with 64 votes for, 0 against and 1 abstention.

The situation in the Republics of Central Asia

We now move on to Document 11460, dealing with the situation in the Republics of Central Asia. The Political Affairs Committee has presented a draft resolution to which six amendments have been tabled. They will be taken in the order to which they apply to the text.

Mr. LINDBLAD (Sweden). – We have in the Political Affairs Committee unanimously agreed to Amendments Nos. 1 to 6 and according to the new rules it is possible for us to note that they are adopted. We do not have to vote on them unless someone is against the proposal.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Does anyone object to that proposal?

That is not the case.

The amendments are adopted.

The amendments are as follows:

Amendment 1, tabled by Mr Mehmet Tekelioğlu, Mr Ruhi Açikgöz, Mr Tuğrul Türkeş, Mr Mustafa Ünal and Mrs Özlem Türköne, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 4, delete the words “Political opposition is barely tolerated. Human rights are routinely abused. Civil society organisations remain fragile. Corruption and abuse of power are widespread. Torture and ill-treatment of persons deprived of their liberty are commonplace.”

Amendment 2, tabled by Mr Mehmet Tekelioğlu, Mr Ruhi Açikgöz, Mr Tuğrul Türkeş, Mr Mustafa Ünal and Mrs Özlem Türköne, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 4, add the following words:

“Human rights abuses, corruption, misuse of power and ill-treatment of persons deprived of their liberty are areas of concern, and steps by the authorities to deal with these problems must be encouraged.”

Amendment 3, tabled by Mr Mehmet Tekelioğlu, Mr Ruhi Açikgöz, Mr Tuğrul Türkeş, Mr Mustafa Ünal and Mrs Özlem Türköne, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5, replace the last sentence with the following words:

“Corrupt and inefficient public authorities force ordinary people to seek a just society.”

Amendment 4, tabled by Mr Mehmet Tekelioğlu, Mr Ruhi Açikgöz, Mr Tuğrul Türkeş, Mrs Özlem Türköne and Mr Mustafa Ünal, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6, replace the words “social explosion, political collapse and outbreak of large-scale violence” with the following words: “social and political instability”.

Amendment 5, tabled by Mr Mehmet Tekelioğlu, Mr Ruhi Açikgöz, Mr Tuğrul Türkeş, Mrs Özlem Türköne and Mr Mustafa Ünal, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 10.5.4, with the following sub-paragraph: “to enable free political discussions and investigations about political prisoners;”

Amendment 6, tabled by Mr Mehmet Tekelioğlu, Mr Ruhi Açikgöz, Mr Tuğrul Türkeş, Mr Mustafa Ünal and Mrs Özlem Türköne, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 10.5.5 with the following sub-paragraph: “to abide by all international standards as regards the torture and ill-treatment of persons deprived of their liberty.”

We shall now vote on the entire draft resolution contained in Document 11460, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Document 11460, as amended, is adopted, with 66 votes for, 0 against and 0 abstentions.

We shall now vote on the entire draft recommendation contained in Document 1460, for which the Assembly requires a two-thirds majority.

The vote is open.

The draft recommendation contained in Document 11460 is adopted, with 64 votes for, 0 against, and 0 abstentions.

“The Council of Europe and its observer states – the current situation and a way forward”

The Political Affairs Committee has presented a draft resolution in respect of Document 11471 – “The Council of Europe and its observer states – the current situation and a way forward” – to which 19 amendments and seven sub-amendments have been tabled. They will be taken in the order as set out in the notice paper. Four amendments and one sub-amendment have been tabled, and they will be dealt with in the order in which they have been listed.

We now come to Amendment No. 3, tabled by Mr Pieter Omtzigt, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 8, insert the following paragraph:

“In this respect, referring to its Resolution 1560 (2007) and its Recommendations 1760 (2006), 1627 (2003) and 1533 (2001), the Assembly reiterates that the application of the death penalty is a violation of fundamental human rights. Therefore, the Assembly deeply regrets that, to date, two Council of Europe observer states, namely Japan and the USA, continue to have recourse to and to apply the death penalty.”

I call Mr Omtzigt to support the amendment on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands). – The Political Affairs Committee report asks that the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights’ report states explicitly the main concerns of human rights in the report. There is one fundamental matter that we have achieved as the Council of Europe, and that is the abolition of the death penalty in peace time, effectively in all 47 member states. The Council of Europe has repeatedly taken that position. The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights proposes to include, by amendment, reference to those resolutions and recommendations because of the belief that the death penalty is a violation of fundamental human rights. I hope that you will agree with the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you.

Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Wilshire to speak against the amendment.

Mr WILSHIRE (United Kingdom). – This is the first of the references to the death penalty. I agree with the sentiment behind the amendment, but I plead with the Assembly not to make the amendment here. Talk to the people, produce a separate report. That is the right way.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – What is the opinion of the Political Affairs Committee? I call Mr Lindblad.

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you.

The vote is open.

Amendment No. 3 is rejected.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – We now come to Amendment No. 4, tabled by Mr Pieter Omtzigt, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, delete paragraph 9.

I call Mr Omtzigt to support Amendment No. 4 on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands). – In Amendment No. 4, we propose to restrict the report on the state of human rights to the member states of the Council of Europe. In the report, it is proposed that we should also make an annual report on the state of human rights and democracy in the United States, Mexico and Canada, but our conventions, like the CPT, do not apply there. We do not have the information and I think that we should focus on the work of my colleague, Mr Pourgourides, who has done such a good job. It would be foolish to add all other countries – even impossible, as Mr Pourgourides has just interjected.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Omtzigt.

That brings us to Sub-Amendment No. 1 to Amendment No. 4, tabled by Mr David Wilshire, Mr John Greenway, Mr Denis MacShane, Mr Andrew McIntosh and Mr Nigel Evans, which is, in amendment No 4, replace the words “delete paragraph 9” with the following words: “paragraph 9, delete the words ‘and human rights’”.

I call Mr Wilshire to support the sub-amendment.

Mr WILSHIRE (United Kingdom). – This is one of those occasions where the Political Affairs Committee wants to talk outside about democracy, but would respect the view of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights that it does not want to. The sub-amendment would remove the reference to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights and leave us talking about democracy. I hope that the sub-amendment can be accepted, because it achieves what is wanted. Otherwise, please vote for the sub-amendment and against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. Does anyone wish to speak against the sub-amendment?

Mr POURGOURIDES (Cyprus). – We cannot accept the sub-amendment, because what is proposed is impossible. It is not a question of talking to people; it is whether we have the ability to make a decent report about the state of democracy in the United States, Canada and the rest. It is impossible because we do not have the resources. The United States is making such reports about human rights and democracy, but it has thousands of people in the State Department. Here, we have difficulty in making a report about our own states. How can we do it about the United States and other countries?

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands). – We are against.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – What is the opinion of the committee on the sub-amendment?

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – The committee is in favour of the sub-amendment.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – I shall now put Sub-Amendment No.1 to Amendment No. 4 to the vote.

The vote is open.

Sub-Amendment No. 1 is adopted.

Does anyone want to speak against Amendment No. 4, as amended?

That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – As amended, the committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 4, as amended, is adopted.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – We now come to Amendment No. 22, tabled by Mr Andrea Rigoni, Mr Claudio Azzolini, Mr Lorenzo Cesa, Mr Donato Mosella, Mr Francesco Saverio Romano, Mr Pedro Agramunt, Mr György Frunda, Mr Kimmo Sasi, Mr René van der Linden, Mr Luc Van den Brande, Mr Konstantin Kosachev, Mrs Sabina Siniscalchi, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 10, to replace the words “is not covered by the Statutory Resolution and was not required to give any undertakings. Its lack of democratic institutions and its position on certain human rights matters makes it a special case.” with the following words:

“participates according to its specific nature and mission; it is not covered by the Statutory Resolution and was not required to give any undertakings.”

I call Mr Van den Brande to support Amendment No. 22.

Mr VAN DEN BRANDE (Netherlands). – The wording of paragraph 10 is not appropriate. We drafted the amendment to underline the specific nature and mission of the Holy See. The wording of the amendment is much better.

A remarkable point was made in the debate in the committee. The rapporteur was not in favour, and he was not against. According to an algebraic approach, he has to be in favour. Given the content of this paragraph, it is appropriate to vote for the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 22 is adopted.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – We now come to Amendment No. 5, tabled by Mr Pieter Omtzigt on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 11, to delete the last sentence.

I call Mr Omtzigt to support Amendment No. 5.

Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands). – This amendment deals with the same report, on human rights and democracy. Israel has a different status from the other five observer states, and here, the reasoning is the same. If we are to include human rights and democracy in respect of Israel, as a non-member state, in a report of 47 member states, we will not have enough time to debate the member states, in respect of which there are enough such issues. We would end up discussing only Israel and the Palestinian territories, and I would like to avoid that.

In addition, we do not have access to the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and we do not want it. We do not want other conventions to apply. That would not be a sensible way forward.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – An oral sub-amendment has been tabled, which reads, in Amendment No 5, replace the words “delete the last sentence” with the following words: “in the last sentence, delete the words ‘human rights and’”.

I call Mr Wilshire to support the oral sub-amendment.

Mr WILSHIRE (United Kingdom). – Let me say this as a point of order, Mr President, in case I need my 30 seconds in a moment. My understanding from the chairman of the committee is that this sub-amendment was unanimously accepted and therefore does not fall to be decided now; it has been decided. May we clear up that point first, in case I do need to speak?

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – That is correct. The sub-amendment was unanimously adopted, so only if anyone in this room is against that procedure do we have to vote on it.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Is anybody against that procedure?

Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands). – Yes.

Mr WILSHIRE (United Kingdom). – In that case, Mr President, may I use my 30 seconds to speak against voting on it, simply because it is a re-run of what we had before? Human rights people want the reference to human rights taken out, and the Political Affairs Committee wants the democracy bit left in. I agree that we should leave out “human rights”, but please leave in the reference to democracy by voting for the sub-amendment and against the amendment if it is not amended.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands). – Against.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment No. 5, as amended? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – The original amendment was withdrawn after we voted unanimously on the sub-amendment.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – We do need to vote on Amendment No. 5, as amended.

The vote is open.

Amendment No. 5, as amended, is adopted.

We now come to Amendment No. 6, tabled by Mr Pieter Omtzigt, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 12, after the words “a clearly defined set of standards”, to insert the following words: “to be elaborated by the Council of Europe Statutory Organs”.

I call Mr Omtzigt to support Amendment No. 6.

Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands). – The purpose of the amendment is to clarify matters. The original text referred only to the Committee of Ministers, and the amendment makes sure that the Parliamentary Assembly is involved in the discussion. I therefore fully support the sub-amendment tabled by Mr Wilshire.

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – On a point of order, Mr President. Again, a sub-amendment was voted for unanimously in the committee, and the amended amendment was also voted for unanimously in the committee. Therefore, we do not need to vote here.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone object? That is not the case.

Amendment No. 6 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No.7, tabled by Mr Pieter Omtzigt, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 13, replace the words “would be a perfectly acceptable response” with the following words: “would need to be assessed by the Assembly”.

I call Mr Omtzigt to support Amendment No. 7.

Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands). – The Legal Affairs Committee proposes that there is a voluntary new agreement with the observer states on how to proceed. It then says that it would be a “perfectly acceptable response” if they were unwilling to abide by the agreement. The committee therefore proposes that countries such as Canada and Mexico can refuse an agreement that they do not like, and if they do not wish to abide by it, should come back to the Assembly so that we can discuss issues such as whether particular people are present or not.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

Mr WILSHIRE (United Kingdom). – I find this a threatening comment. There is a misunderstanding regarding what the report says. Please let us not take a threatening position by saying that we will think about the situation if you do not do what you are told. Please leave the provision as it is, because it is quite adequate and implies co-operation and voluntary agreement, not a threat.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – Against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 7 is rejected.

We now come to Amendment No. 8, tabled by Mr Pieter Omtzigt, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 19, insert the following paragraph:

“The Assembly also reiterates its readiness to establish a constructive dialogue with the parliamentary delegations of Japan and the United States of America on important human rights and legal issues, including the abolition of the death penalty.”

I call Mr. Omtzigt to support Amendment No. 8

Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands). – The Assembly has a long-standing willingness to engage in dialogue, which I think we should state explicitly, particularly in relation to those two states. We are ready to talk. Mr Wilshire welcomed the talks earlier, and we should show our willingness to have a dialogue. That is why the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights unanimously voted in favour of the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Mr Wilshire.

Mr WILSHIRE (United Kingdom). – The same reasons apply. I hear what is said, but there is no need to mention it. Indeed, it will cause difficulty if it is mentioned. The offer to talk is on the table, and the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights can go away, talk and introduce a report, but can we please leave it out of this report?

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 8 is rejected.

I call Mr Omtzigt to support Amendment No. 9.

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – On a point of order, Mr President. Amendment Nos. 9 and 10 were unanimously adopted in the committee, and were the last two with which we dealt. On the rest, we have no opinion.

THE PRESIDENT. – Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 to the draft resolution were unanimously supported, so we do not have to deal with them as long as no one objects. Are there any objections? That is not the case.

The amendments are adopted.

The amendments are as follows:

Amendment No. 9, tabled by Mr Pieter Omtzigt, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 20, second sentence, replace the word “signature” with the following words: “signature and ratification”.

Amendment No. 10, tabled by Mr Pieter Omtzigt, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 22, replace the word “signatories” with the following word: “Parties”.

We now come to Amendment No. 11, tabled by Mr Pieter Omtzigt, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 25, insert the following sub-paragraph: “fully respect well-established international human rights law standards and to implement the ideals and values of the Council of Europe, including in the fight against terrorism;”

I call Mr Omtzigt to support Amendment No. 11.

Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands). – There are two fundamental points. In paragraph 27 of the Political Affairs Committee report, the Legal Affairs Committee is asked explicitly to state which questions should be addressed, so we did not do that for ourselves but were asked to do so by the rapporteur. So we took the abolition of the death penalty, unanimously agreed, and the standards in the fight against terrorism, about which we should have open dialogue. Look at the debate we had on the blacklist.

THE PRESIDENT. - Two sub-amendments have been tabled. Sub-amendment No. 1 to Amendment No. 12 reads: “in Amendment no. 12, replace the words “delete paragraph 26 with the following words: “delete the words human rights and”

I call Mr Wilshire to support Sub-amendment No. 1.

Mr WILSHIRE (United Kingdom). – I hope that the Assembly will accept the spirit of what is being said here. The first sub-amendment would take out “fully respect” and put in “take account of”. Saying “fully respect” sounds rather like an instruction whereas “take account of” sounds much more like encouragement.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Hovannisian.

Mr HOVANNISIAN (Armenia). – As with the Legal Affairs Committee’s other proposals, the objective should be to ensure an even application of Council of Europe standards and to increase the relevance and political and legal legitimacy of our Assembly. I do not think there should be a derogation from that principle. On this proposal and the others, therefore, I urge the Assembly to accept the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – What is the opinion of the mover of the main amendment?

Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands). – Against.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – From here on, the committee has no opinion because we did not deal with the amendments and sub-amendments in the other reports.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Sub-amendment No. 1 is adopted.

We now come to Sub-amendment No. 2, which reads “in Amendment No. 11 replace the word “implement” with the following word “promote”.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – I call Mr Wilshire to support Sub-amendment No. 2.

Mr WILSHIRE (United Kingdom). – The reasoning behind the sub-amendment is similar: “implement” sounds awfully like an instruction, whereas “promote” sounds much more like encouraging. The sub-amendment keeps the spirit of what we are trying to say but makes it sound much easier.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the sub-amendment? That is not the case. What is the opinion of the mover of the main amendment?

Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands). – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – I cannot tell fortunes, Mr President.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – In that case, we will find out from the vote.

The vote is open.

Sub-amendment No. 2 is adopted.

Does anyone want to speak against Amendment No. 11, as amended? That is not the case. What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – I do not have any idea.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 11, as amended, is adopted.

We now come to Amendment No. 12. I call Mr Omtzigt to support the amendment.

Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands). – Now that we have established that they will be included in the report, it would be wise for them also to have the right to take the floor, so I should like to withdraw the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – Amendment No. 12 is withdrawn.

We now come to Amendment No. 2, tabled by Mr Francis Grignon, Mr Jean-Guy Branger, Mrs Marietta Karamanli, Mr Jean-Pierre Kucheida, Mr Jacques Legendre, Mr Jean-Paul Lecoq, Mr Philippe Nachbar, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 27.2, after the word “sub-committees”, add the following words: “, without having the right to vote”.

I call Mr Grignon to support the amendment.

Mr GRIGNON (France) said that, while he had no objection to observers attending committees, it was more logical to make it clear that only representatives of member states would be able to vote.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to oppose the amendment?

Mr WILSHIRE (United Kingdom). – The rules of the Assembly make it crystal clear that observers cannot vote, so there is no need for the amendment. In fact, I think that to mention the matter is to rub in something that it would be kinder not to repeat given that the rules are clear.

THE PRESIDENT. – I shall not ask Mr Lindblad for the opinion of the Committee.

The vote is open.

Amendment No. 2 is rejected.

We now come to Amendment No. 1, tabled by Mr Francis Grignon, Mr Jean-Guy Branger, Mrs Marietta Karamanli, Mr Jean-Pierre Kucheida, Mr Jacques Legendre, Mr Jean-Paul Lecoq, Mr Philippe Nachbar, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 27.3, delete the following words: “, and to initiate, though appropriate arrangements, motions for resolutions and recommendations”.

I call Mr Grignon to support Amendment No. 1.

Mr GRIGNON (France) said that, while he had no objection in principle to greater involvement by observers, he wondered whether the Council of Europe was the appropriate forum, and felt it needed to be clearer whether the right to vote for observers would also include the right to initiate.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Wilshire.

Mr WILSHIRE (United Kingdom). – There may be a misunderstanding here and I hope that we do not delete the passage in question, as its inclusion may well mean that observers could table items such as those that are referred to. That is not the intention that is meant, which is that of encouragement to join in.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 1 is rejected.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – I call Mr Omtzigt on Amendment No. 13.

Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands). – I have been convinced by the arguments from the Canadian delegation, so I wish to withdraw the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – We now come to Amendment No. 14, tabled by Mr Pieter Omtzigt, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 27.5, insert the following sub-paragraph:

“In addition, referring in particular to its Recommendation 1760 (2006), the Assembly urges Japan and the United States of America to place an immediate moratorium on executions at last, and to abolish the death penalty as soon as possible.”

I call Mr Omtzigt to support Amendment No. 14.

Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands). – We think that it is important to talk about people who are dying inside prisons inside the United States and in Japan and on a daily basis being executed. That is one thing that we would like to avoid. Our standards of human rights are different, and as long as I am a member of this Assembly, I shall continue to talk about that. If we are not willing to mention such matters, we do not need this Assembly.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Wilshire.

Mr WILSHIRE (United Kingdom). – I am in favour of talking and I would like to support what is said about trying to get the practices referred to stop. But please, again, the proposed passage should not be in this report. Let us talk and produce something separate and different.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The vote is open.

Amendment No 14 is rejected.

THE PRESIDENT. – We come now to Amendment No. 15, tabled by Mr Pieter Omtzigt, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 28, replace the words “the Political Affairs Committee (through its External Relations sub-committee)” with the following words: “its Committees, in particular the Political Affairs Committee and the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights”.

I call Mr Omtzigt to support Amendment No. 15.

Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands). – With regard to talking behind closed doors, it is important that we include not only the Political Affairs Committee, but the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. We will then know what we are talking about, even if we do not want to state it publicly. Let us make it a broad and big delegation to talk with the observer states.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Wilshire.

Mr WILSHIRE (United Kingdom). – I am in two minds as to whether to oppose the amendment. As things currently stand, all committees may be included; there is no attempt to exclude anybody. We are trying simply to stress the role of the Political Affairs Committee. On that basis, I think it is better to leave things as they are, although I fully understand the point that was made and there is no intention of trying to exclude or down play.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 15 is adopted.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – I must inform the Assembly that Amendment No. 16 is out of order because it seeks to amendment Rule 60.1. Amendments to our Rules of Procedure cannot be made in this way.

I give the floor now to Mr Omtzigt to support Amendment No. 17.

Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands). – The observer states have now been included in the annual report, so I would like to withdraw the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – We come now to Amendment No. 18, tabled by Mr Pieter Omtzigt, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 30.6, replace the words “reclassifying existing parliamentary observers in line with any reclassification agreed by the Committee of Ministers” with the following words: “introducing new designations for existing parliamentary observers in line with any proposal that might be made by the Council of Europe Statutory Organs”.

I call Mr Omtzigt to support Amendment No. 18.

Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands). – The amendment seeks to provide clarification. Instead of reclassifying existing parliamentary observers, it seeks to introduce new designations for existing parliamentary observers. The phrase “Council of Europe Statutory Organs” means the Assembly and the Committee of Ministers.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – A sub-amendment has been tabled, which reads, “in Amendment No. 18, replace the words ‘Council of Europe Statutory Organs’ with the following words: ‘Parliamentary Assembly and the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe’”.

I call Mr Wilshire to support the sub-amendment.

Mr WILSHIRE (United Kingdom). – The amendment is the same as one that was accepted previously, and I am happy with the main amendment if it is changed in the same way as the previous one.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Does anyone wish to speak against the sub-amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands). – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – On a previous amendment, we dealt with the same formulation, and we were in favour then. However, I could not tell for sure on this one.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The vote is open.

The sub-amendment is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment No. 18, as amended? That is not the case. Again, I shall not ask the opinion of the committee.

The vote is open.

Amendment No. 18, as amended, is adopted.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 11471, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Document 11471, as amended, is adopted, with 51 votes for, 1 against and 2 abstentions.

The Political Affairs Committee has presented a draft recommendation in respect of Document 11471 (The Council of Europe and its Observer States – the current situation and a way forward) to which four amendments have been tabled, which will be taken in the following order: 19 to 21, and 23.

We come first to Amendment No. 19, tabled by Mr Pieter Omtzigt, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 2, insert the following sub-paragraph:

“reiterate the position of principle that states enjoying observer status shall respect fundamental human rights and shall not apply the death penalty;”

I call Mr Omtzigt to support Amendment No,. 19.

Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands). – I believe members should support the amendment on the basis of similar principles to those for which I have argued previously today.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Wilshire.

Mr WILSHIRE (United Kingdom). – This is another reference to the death penalty and it should not be here.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The vote is open.

Amendment No 19 is adopted.

We come now to Amendment No. 20, tabled by Mr Pieter Omtzigt, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 2, insert the following sub-paragraph:

“intensify its political dialogue with Japan and the United States, to urge both countries to place an immediate moratorium on executions at last and to abolish the death penalty as soon as possible, and to present to the Assembly by the end of 2008 a detailed account of its contacts with these countries;”

I call Mr Omtzigt to support Amendment No. 20.

Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands). – I am grateful to the Assembly for taking this courageous position. To do so, we need to intensify the political dialogue with Japan and the United States. The first step may not be immediate abolition of the death penalty, it may be to have a moratorium. Amendment No. 20 would make Amendment No. 19 more precise by suggesting a moratorium. One state in the United States, New Jersey, has recently imposed a moratorium, and we should continue that dialogue.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Wilshire.

Mr WILSHIRE (United Kingdom). – The arguments on this amendment are the same as on the last amendment. The Assembly accepted the previous amendment and this one follows on from it, but I still need to say that I think that we should not have any reference to the death penalty.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 20 is adopted.

We come now to Amendment No. 21, tabled by Mr Pieter Omtzigt, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 2.2, after the words “monitoring process” insert the following words: “, to be elaborated by the Council of Europe Statutory Organs,”

I call Mr Omtzigt to support Amendment No. 21.

Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands). – I predict that Mr Wilshire will propose a sub-amendment to ensure that when it comes to setting the standards, we are involved, instead of that being left solely to the Council of Ministers.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – A sub-amendment has been tabled by Mr David Wilshire, Mr John Greenway, Mr Denis MacShane, Mr Andrew McIntosh, Mr Nigel Evans, which is, in amendment No 21, replace the words “Council of Europe Statutory Organs” with the following words:

“Parliamentary Assembly and the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe”.

I call Mr Wilshire to support the sub-amendment.

Mr WILSHIRE (United Kingdom). – My sub-amendment has been correctly predicted. Provided that it is accepted, I would be in favour of the main amendment.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Does anyone wish to speak against the sub-amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands). – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The vote is open.

The sub-amendment is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment No. 21, as amended? That is not the case.

The vote is open.

Amendment No. 21, as amended, is adopted.

We come now to Amendment No. 23, tabled by Mr David Wilshire, Mr Konstantin Kosachev, Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, Mr Miloš Aligrudić, Mr João Bosco Mota Amaral, which is, in the draft recommendation, replace paragraphs 2.4, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, and 2.4.3 with the following sub-paragraphs:

“consider introducing new designations, without altering in any way the status of the existing observer states, in order to distinguish between:

a. observer states which either obtained a status prior to any formal arrangements or were granted observer status under Statutory Resolution (93) 26; and

b. states which could be granted a status following a possible revision of Statutory Resolution (93) 26 as recommended in paragraph 2.2. above;”.

I call Mr Wilshire to support Amendment No. 23.

Mr WILSHIRE (United Kingdom). – The amendment is in my name, because it was put to me by the observer states that the way in which the report reads is possibly not as clear is it might be. The amendment says the same thing in simpler language and makes it crystal clear that the observer states and their status will not be changed except by agreement. Things will stay as they are.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

The vote is open.

Amendment No. 23 is adopted

I call Mr Hancock on a point of order.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom). – May I ask that in future when two rapporteurs have such disagreements, they get together and talk them through in the interests of the best use of the Assembly’s time? This has been an appalling travesty of how this place should operate and I do not understand why the rapporteurs did not discuss beforehand what should happen.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Hancock. I am sure that a number of our colleagues agree with you.

We will now proceed to vote on the draft recommendation contained in Document 11471, as amended. I remind the Assembly that a two thirds majority is required.

The vote is open.

The draft recommendation in Document 11471, as amended, is adopted.

(Mr Kosachev, Vice-President of the Assembly took the Chair in place of Mr Mignon.)

3. Procedural guidelines on the rights and responsibilities of the opposition in a democratic parliament

THE PRESIDENT. – The next item of business this afternoon is the debate on the procedural guidelines on the rights and responsibilities of the opposition in a democratic parliament, presented by Mr Van Overmeire on behalf of the Committee on Rules or Procedure and Immunities, Document 11465 rev.

I call Mr Van Overmeire, rapporteur. You have 30 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.

Mr VAN OVERMEIRE (Belgium) said that he was pleased to be able to introduce his report, which concerned all 47 member states and involved all colleagues. He thanked his colleagues and the secretariat that had been involved in drawing up the report.

Most countries had parliaments, but only democratic countries had oppositions. In Council of Europe Resolution 1547, the Parliamentary Assembly had underlined and confirmed the role of an opposition. It was possible to measure the importance of an opposition to a parliament in terms of the resources granted to that opposition. It was in everyone’s interests for states to have a strong opposition that provided criticism of, or alternatives to, government policies. Strong oppositions contributed to transparency. A questionnaire had been sent by the committee to all parliaments of Council of Europe member states. Some countries had responded. Other sources of information were listed in the memorandum.

The report reviewed the ongoing discussions on the rights of opposition in various countries. It focused on opposition in parliament, although there was also extra-parliamentary opposition which was more often in the news headlines.

This report was the first step of an as yet unknown process. The system of opposition in the Westminster model was different to that in a parliament elected through proportional representation and different again to a parliament with a minority government. This diversity was not an obstacle but enriched politics on the continent of Europe and its civilisation. MPs of the opposition had to be given sufficient resources to enable them to carry out their tasks.

MPs had to be able to express their ideas freely and independently. They had to be able to develop points of view and to defend these when not popular with their governments or the population. Oppositions had to be able to undertake their mandate and take part in all parliamentary activities.

It was undesirable for rules to change after elections so as to then exclude certain groups: this had sometimes happened in Belgium. Opposition parties had to be given the financial and technical means to enable them to fulfil their roles. Members of opposition parties had to ensure that they made use of all the opportunities available to them and parliaments should be asked to reflect on their provision for opposition and change their rules accordingly.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. You have six minutes left for possible replies.

I call Mr Keskin, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr KESKIN (Germany) said that the rapporteur was to be thanked for a competent piece of work. He had, however, two additions to the report. The separation of power had been the main achievement of the French revolution: the legislature provided an oversight of the executive. He asked members of the Assembly to think about the oversight of their parliaments. Opposition should scrutinise governments. Governing parties were often protected against legitimate criticism by the majority party, so any criticism had the most modest effect. There was a need to address this issue to make parliamentary democracies more effective and to make sure parties in parliament could exercise scrutiny over government.

He questioned what part political parties played in this process: without political parties, there would no functioning democracy. Democratic structures were in turn vital to political parties. There was a need to address democracy within the structures of political parties. He questioned whether there was proper control of members of political parties. If a political party was too authoritarian, then the party would take decisions, leaving individuals with little freedom of expression. These fundamental issues had to be addressed.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I now call Mr Hovannisian on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr HOVANNISIAN (Armenia). – Thank you, Mr President. I am pleased to support this piece of European legislation, since the opposition, as we all know, is key to the Council of Europe benchmarks on the rule of rights, due process and democracy, public oversight over elections and the elected, and their accountability under the law.

In central and western Europe, the concept of the opposition is very often taken for granted, and one testimony to this assertion is the empty Chamber here today. None the less, these guidelines are needed for us all, especially those of us in the post-Soviet space. Armenia and others similarly situated are long on culture and civilisation but, because of the tragedy of our history, short on democracy and state-craft. We will gradually get there and achieve the mark in full, but for the time being these guidelines are instructive for all of us.

They are in their totality applicable to my country, Armenia, and to those in the neighbourhood. For transparency and efficiency in the management and determination of public affairs and the enhancement of citizens’ trust in democratic institutions, a viable, valid competitive opposition is key. Some of the guidelines that might be underscored are the opportunity for the opposition to take part in the leadership of a parliament as vice-speaker and as chairpersons of a relevant permanent committee that has oversight over audit or security affairs, with equal access to public funds and resources and equal access to the media without any prejudice, as well as a variety of the very timely recommendations made by the Balladur Committee of France, among others. There is also the need for every parliamentary group to be able to set, from time to time, the agenda of plenary sittings, and to have an identical allocation of speaking time between majority and opposition, and to exercise the right to set up committees of inquiry and to take a meaningful part in them.

If these guidelines are realised, the memorandum reference to a “bare existence” of opposition in certain post-Soviet countries would be extraneous, since that is not the case. Democracy is as much process as it is substance. The Council of Europe challenge, as always, is not only in the adoption but in the effective application of these values and standards.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you very much. I now call Mr Hancock on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom). – Thank you, Mr President. I am delighted to follow our Armenian friend. I would say to him that he should not be too disappointed by an empty Chamber. He has to remember that there are only two shopping days until Friday and some of our colleagues have been distracted as a result. Despite the empty Chamber, I believe that people will take serious notice of our words.

This report is excellent and the opening presentation was in keeping. Such a report is long overdue. For any democracy to have a chance of survival, it must have as a key ingredient a proactive, positive opposition that will do a job rather than simply seek election. There are three jobs that an opposition must be prepared to undertake. First, it must be prepared to take its case to the country and engage a wider population, secondly, it must be prepared to form an effective opposition in parliament, and thirdly, it must be prepared to work in parliament, with parliament, to make that body operate more effectively.

Such an opposition must be prepared to work in partnership with the parties in government and others in opposition. In the United Kingdom, we have a governing party, but we have many opposition parties. The only way we succeed in our operations is through co-operation. We could have had some very draconian measures introduced by Thatcher or Blair – two similar leaders. They could and did influence parliament, in my opinion, unfairly. But the opposition always felt that it was capable and willing of creating proper opposition. Some people might doubt that.

I have spent all my time in parliament in opposition. I have been able to become, effectively, a deputy speaker and chairman of committees in my parliament. I sit on one of the most important select committees, the Defence Committee, which is chaired by an opposition member. There is a mechanism that can work. What this place has to sell is the concept that democracy is worth cherishing. As our colleague, David Wilshire, said earlier this week, when one goes to monitor an election, one should not come back pleading the case of the opposition. One ought to come back with the real facts about what is happening. It is important not simply to listen to what the opposition is saying.

My experience over the years is that when oppositions move into power, they do exactly the same as those whom they were previously criticising – and in some instances far worse. Rather than doing some of the things that we have done and expending resources, it might have been better to spend sums of money on trying to create the right atmosphere in which democracies could flourish. There needs to be far more of a coherent and direct approach when it comes to governments and oppositions working together so that they realise that they have a responsibility between elections.

I am horrified when I hear that in some elections, political parties are born three months earlier, there is an election platform and after the election they disappear. It is as if there is no obligation to the people. For an opposition to be taken seriously, it has to show political sense and, more importantly, it needs to have a political message for the people of the country. Sadly, many of them do not.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Sharandin on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Mr SHARANDIN (Russian Federation) said that, the longer he spent in politics, the more he understood politics was like nature. He noted that many countries adopted birds, animals and flowers as national symbols. The food chain we saw in nature was similar to that in politics: if one link was removed, another link fell.

Opposition was an essential part of political life. Many people had criticised the last Russian election and had claimed that the opposition in the Russian Parliament was limited. Twenty one members of the opposition had, however, been made vice-chairman of committees and other opposition members had been placed in responsible positions, giving them a prominent role in parliamentary life.

He realised from the report that there were several sensitive issues within this subject of opposition, including conformitism, the power to ask questions and the ability to participate in hearings. If used properly, all these could be powerful tools in the hands of an opposition and would be enough to cause any government to feel that it was being properly scrutinised.

Different countries had different traditions: for example the opposition did not have the right to table bills in all countries. These different traditions had to be respected and it was not realistic to adopt a “one size fits all” approach.

He was sure that none of the members of the Assembly had always been in the majority in their home parliament; and that, in a political career, every politician would spend time both in the majority and in the minority. It was in politicians’ own interests to guaranteeing the rights of the opposition. In so doing, they were guaranteeing their own rights.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Mrs Durrieu and Mr Pourgourides are not here, so I call Mr Kaikkonen.

Mr KAIKKONEN (Finland). – I thought that I would go shopping at the weekend.

When the loyal opposition dies, the soul of democracy dies with it. I therefore applaud the rapporteur for addressing the very soul of modern democracies by drafting the guidelines and the exhaustive explanatory memorandum. The listed rights and responsibilities of parliamentary oppositions are straightforward and comprehensible.

I remind the Assembly that, sometimes, representatives of political groups opposed to government policies have little or no hope of achieving parliamentary representation. It is not completely unusual for political oppression in the form of purpose-built election laws to hinder realistic opportunities for small parties to gain seats in parliament. The government can, for instance, pass a regulation raising the threshold so high that the candidate of a small opposition party would need to collect three times as many votes as a candidate of the governing party in the same constituency in order to be elected. Similarly, setting up a new political party and running it successfully can be made too difficult by denial of access to public funding, public media or any media at all.

Every ruling party deserves the compliment of a rational political opposition that criticises government policies and offers viable alternatives. However, we must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. By its very presence in the debating chamber, a parliamentary opposition recognises the legitimacy of the political system and thus may share many of the government’s views. But there is no real opposition if opposition parties either support ruling parties directly or agree with them on virtually all crucial policy issues. In some cases, governing groups create tame opposition parties to give the impression of democratic debate. Hence, an institutional parliamentary opposition should be only half the answer when we evaluate the quality of a democratic system by its opposition rights.

Given that parliamentary oppositions are occasionally unwilling to act as proper oppositions and that the real political opposition might not always be allowed into the debating chamber, this Assembly should also endorse the rights of political oppositions that criticise and scrutinise government outside parliament. We should specifically guard the right to freedom of expression and of assembly and association, which are also codified in the European Convention on Human Rights. The report is a very good one, and it should be adopted.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Reimann.

Mr REIMANN (Switzerland) said that, while the report contained a whole raft of demands, it nevertheless had one serious shortcoming from a Swiss point of view. Switzerland was a direct democracy in which the people were the sovereign power and had the final say on any legislation. Legislation had to be submitted to a referendum if it involved amending the constitution or if 50 000 signatures were collected in favour of a public vote. The demands in the report were thus only partially relevant to Switzerland. He added that he would like to see direct democracy more widely implemented as, although it could result in lengthy legislative processes, it ensured that the people remained sovereign.

The report also mentioned access to the media. It was important that media access was equally available to all parties, especially in the period leading up to an election. This was unfortunately not always the case and this failing was true as much in Switzerland as anywhere else.

The report dealt with the concepts of majority and opposition but these distinctions were not always so clear. In Switzerland, the Swiss People’s Party had received 29% of the vote at the last election, but had in December 2007 gone into opposition because its two favoured candidates for the national government had not been selected. In practice however, this had made little difference to the influence which that party wielded.

The PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Pysarenko

Mr PYSARENKO (Ukraine). – First, let me thank the rapporteurs for their perfectly prepared reports.

Today, we are considering one of the main issues of parliamentarianism – the rights and duties of oppositions in national parliaments.

I am a representative of the bloc of Julia Timoshenko in the Ukrainian Parliament. In accordance with the results of pre-term parliamentary elections in Ukraine, our political force has acquired the right to form authorities together with our democratic coalition parties in parliament – Nasha Ukraina Narodna Samooborona.

The pre-term elections in Ukraine were held against the background of the infringement of the rights of an opposition which represented almost half of the country’s population. In its April 2007 resolution, the Parliamentary Assembly specified that there was political corruption that was tending to destroy the opposition in Ukraine. That was the background of the pre-term elections.

The suspension of the opposition from parliament and standing committees was one negative. Moreover, the authorities also make a mistake when they do not pay attention to the opposition’s opinion, infringing the right of freedom of thought.

When in opposition, we became the initiators of ensuring that the law on parliamentary opposition was enforced. As we have the support of the majority in parliament, that law will be accepted in Ukraine in the near future.

Although provisions governing the opposition are not enshrined in national legislation, the newly elected Ukrainian Government introduced the principles in a draft resolution at the end of last year. We have built democratic relations with the opposition, not waiting for the acceptance of the necessary legislation. We can already see both advantages and disadvantages.

I would like to set out the major provisions that should definitely be fixed in the national legislation concerning the rights and duties of the opposition: freedom of speech and freedom of thought, backed by free access to the state mass media; effective scrutiny based on all necessary information and the presence of opposition representatives in state supervisory bodies; unrestricted participation in the legislative process and equal access to parliamentary standing committees on issues such as finance, the struggle against corruption, freedom of speech and justice; and, finally, the right to form a shadow cabinet and other shadow bodies.

The opposition should not be irresponsible, however. I cannot agree that oppositions should have unlimited rights and duties. Any opposition should have to meet at least three requirements. First, it should operate in accordance with the laws of the state. Secondly, it should operate in the interests of the citizens and state of Ukraine. Thirdly, it should offer alternative methods and solutions to official ways of realising a parliamentary majority. It should be possible to reach a consensus where government and opposition co-operate through the equation of the rights and duties of the opposition. While I agree that it is not acceptable to make activity in parliament imperative, I should like to draw attention to members’ obligations to their electors. It is important that the proposals should be amended accordingly.

THE PRESIDENT. – I call Mr Vrettos: he is not present. I call Mrs Curtis-Thomas: she is also not present. I call Mr Goldstein.

Mr GOLDSTEIN (Observer from Canada). – I suppose I should be grateful for the shopping opportunities that Strasbourg offers, as without them, I would not have had the chance to speak.

Let me start by commending and congratulating Mr Van Overmeire and his committee colleagues and staff for an outstandingly thorough and comprehensive report. The understanding of representative democracy which is apparent throughout the report reflects an abundant amount of creative thought and insight which was brought to bear in the preparation of this report, which will serve us all well in the future.

A vibrant, responsible and unfettered opposition is probably the greatest guarantor of a democratic government and the effectiveness of the opposition in fulfilling its role in any country is the proper measure of the democratic nature of that country’s government.

The title of the report speaks of “Procedural guidelines” but the report itself deals predominantly with substantive and not procedural issues, although, admittedly, procedural issues themselves may reflect and assure substance.

Canada is a product of the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy. Indeed, the Constitution Act of 1867 states at the outset that the Parliament of Canada shall be based on the Westminster model. That model historically presupposes a two-party system, with the government being made up of members of the majority party and the minority party constituting the Opposition. Canada has always provided both financial and human resources to the Opposition to enable it to adequately perform its role as what is called “Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition”.

However, the election of a minority government skews and changes the role of the opposition, because there are a multiplicity of opposition parties that must then work and act together to hold the government to account for its activities, as that is the predominant role of an opposition. Although the second largest party in government is the official opposition, it is important to note that each opposition party, provided that it elects a minimal number of members, is entitled to significant privileges including: research funds, a vote on the agenda of each parliamentary committee; the right to introduce motions, including motions of non-confidence in the House of Commons; the right to sit on committees that perform useful legislative examination work; and obviously the right to vote in committee. Time in the daily question period, the number of seats in parliamentary committees and opposition days are also divided proportionately among opposition parties.

I should like to say something about opposition days. Our parliamentary procedure requires the government in power to allow the opposition a number of days during each session – the number is about eight – during which the opposition may debate its subject. It may deal with whatever subject it wants to deal with, and it may call votes, including votes of non-confidence in the government. If such a vote succeeds, it involves the falling of the government.

Another concern that might have been discussed in more detail in the report is the fact that the resources of government and of opposition are not symmetric. The government has access to the entire recourses of bureaucracy, while the opposition is generally limited to a relatively small pool of resources. Opposing all the proposed legislation of the government in power is not always good government. There are some issues that require all-party collaboration rather than opposition for its own sake.

The report that we are considering today and the resolution that we are called upon to approve will serve as an appropriate beacon and benchmark for both member and observer states of this Council. The creators of the report have rendered an invaluable service by producing the report.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. That concludes the list of speakers. I call Mr Van Overmeire to reply. You have six minutes.

Mr VAN OVERMEIRE (Belgium) thanked his colleagues for giving up their shopping time to participate in the debate. He thanked them for their praise and for their constructive criticism.

Mr Keskin had been right in saying that members of parliament from the majority party had to scrutinise government as well as members of the opposition, but the governing party was more likely to be subject to pressure and influence than the opposition parties.

In response to Mr Hovannisian, he said that the rules applied to all 47 members of the Council of Europe and that it was not the case that Western Europe was more democratic than elsewhere: there were examples in Western Europe where the position of the opposition could be stronger.

He noted Mr Hancock’s reference to the situation in the United Kingdom where sometimes there was a spirit of co-operation between the parties.

Mr Sharandin’s comment that members alternated between being in government and being in opposition was not always true: he himself had spent all of his life in opposition, while others had spent all their time in government. All these variations had a role to play in political life.

Another speaker had referred to electoral law but that subject was outside the remit of the committee. Opposition in parliament had been the essence of the report.

Mr Reimann had mentioned the Swiss model of referendums, an interesting model but one which he could not address at the present time. He agreed that access to the media was a problem in Belgium, as in Switzerland, where the opposition was not granted equal access.

Mr Pysarenko had referred to Ukraine, where there was a real debate on the place of the opposition. Mr Van Overmeire hoped that the committee’s procedural guidelines would contribute to that debate.

He thanked Mr Goldstein for his contribution and noted that the importance which Canada attached to the opposition had been included in the report.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Greenway. You have two minutes.

Mr GREENWAY (United Kingdom). – I congratulate Mr Van Overmeire and also our secretariat on the excellent report. It has been clear in the debate how much the report is appreciated. In view of the pressure of time, I wish to confine myself to one or two comments.

When our new President took the Chair and made his introductory speech on Monday morning, he said that when he first came here 25 years ago, there were 23 member states, while now there are 47. I have a similar sense, in that when I was elected to the House of Commons at Westminster 21 years ago, in the same way as for many of the countries represented here, countries were not free to form their own governments as they were under Russian Soviet rule – a rule that you yourself are well aware of, Mr President. What we have been able to do in recent years is foster democracy across our continent, which covers such a huge area. It is impossible for there to be any blueprint as to how an opposition should work, but what we do in the report is to produce some guidelines that we hope will be helpful to the Assembly in assessing the progress of democracy in the member states represented here, and also in our observer states.

I make this final observation. To me, democracy is about more than people going out to vote once every four or five years. It is about ensuring that there is an opposition with the rights to challenge, request information and speak openly and freely – an opposition that holds the government to account on a daily basis. My experience of being in opposition in the House of Commons, where I was a Front-Bench spokesman for over six years, tells me that, by challenging government regularly, we get better government for the people whom we represent.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. The debate is closed.

We will now proceed to vote on the draft resolution contained in Document 11465.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Document 11465 rev. is adopted, with 20 votes for, 0 against and 0 abstentions.

4. Date, time and agenda of the next sitting

THE PRESIDENT. – I propose that the Assembly hold its next public sitting tomorrow at 10 a.m. with the order of business which was approved on Monday 21 January.

Are there any objections? That is not the case.

The orders of the day of the next sitting are therefore agreed.

The sitting is closed.

(The sitting was closed at 7.30 p.m.)

Contents

1.       Minutes of proceedings

2.       External relations of the Parliamentary Assembly:

      Strengthening co-operation with the Maghreb countries

Presentation by Mrs Durrieu of report of the Political Affairs Committee (Doc. 11474)

Statement by Mr Ziari, President of the National People’s Assembly of Algeria

      The situation in the Republics of Central Asia

Presentation by Mr Mercan of the report of the Political Affairs Committee (Doc. 11460)

The Council of Europe and its Observer States – the current situation and the way forward

Presentation by Mr Wilshire of report of the Political Affairs Committee (Doc. 11471)

Presentation by Mr Omtzigt of opinion of the Political Affairs Committee (Doc. 11471)

Speakers:

Mr Lecoq (France)

Mr Iwiński (Poland)

Mr Vareikis (Lithuania)

Mr Hancock (United Kingdom)

Baroness Hooper (United Kingdom)

Mr Austin (United Kingdom)

Mr Rochebloine (France)

Mr MacShane (United Kingdom)

Mr Greenway (United Kingdom)

Mr Béteille (France)

Mr Seyidov (Azerbaijan)

Mr Kelemen (Hungary)

Mr Kox (Netherlands)

Mrs Milne (Canada)

Mr Tekelioğlu (Turkey)

Mr Konečný (Austria)

Mrs Green Macias (Mexico)

Mrs Wohlwend (Lichtenstein)

Mr Branger (France)

Mr Grignon (France)

Replies:

Mrs Durrieu (France)

Mr Mercan (Turkey)

Mr Omtzigt (Netherlands)

Mr Wilshire (United Kingdom)

Mr Lindblad (Sweden)

Amendment No. 1 and oral amendment adopted

Draft resolution in Document 11471, as amended, adopted

Draft recommendation in Document 11471 adopted

Amendments Nos. 1 to 6 adopted

Draft resolution in Document 1460, as amended, adopted

Draft recommendation in Document 1460 adopted

Amendments Nos. 4 as amended, 22, 5 as amended, 6, 9, 10, 11 as amended, 15 and 18 as amended adopted

Draft resolution in Document 11471, as amended, adopted

Amendments Nos. 19, 20, 21 as amended and 23 adopted

Draft recommendation in Document 11471, as amended, adopted

3.       Procedural guidelines on the rights and responsibilities of the opposition in a democratic parliament

Presentation by Mr Van Overmeire of the report of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs (Doc. 11465 rev.)

      Speakers:

      Mr Keskin (Germany)

      Mr Hovannisian (Armenia)

      Mr Hancock (United Kingdom)

      Mr Sharandin (Russian Federation)

      Mr Kaikkonen (Finland)

      Mr Reimann (Switzerland)

      Mr Pysarenko (Ukraine)

      Mr Goldstein (Canada)

      Replies:

      Mr Van Overmeire (Belgium)

      Mr Greenway (United Kingdom)

      Draft resolution adopted

4.       Date, time and orders of the day of the next sitting