2008 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Third part)

REPORT

Nineteenth Sitting

Monday 23 June 2008 at 11.30 a.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 11.40 a.m.

1. Resumption of the 2008 Ordinary Session

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – I declare the third part-session of the 2008 Ordinary Session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe open.

      Ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues, allow me to begin my statement in my own language – Spanish – before I move on to the official languages of our Organisation. I feel proud to speak to you today in Spanish after our victory yesterday, as you know, in the European Championship. I hope that, in days to come, we will be able to continue with that same momentum in the world of football.

The opening of a part-session is always an opportunity to ask ourselves what has changed in Europe and the world since our last part-session. I think that we can claim today that, although there may have been no radical change in the space of just two months, we have nevertheless realised that, in a few decades, if we continue on the same trend, we will be living in a more difficult, completely unknown world – a world that will almost completely lack all the resources that have served to build up human civilisation.

      Energy issues, difficulties with economic growth, the paradigm shift in production, the lack of raw materials, the increasing costs of living, the soaring price of oil, which is becoming intolerable for more and more people, the shadow of economic recession that threatens our world and the recurrent natural disasters that highlight our vulnerability mean that we must find long-term responses to those serious issues. We need to do that to avoid new divides between rich and poor and to avoid devastating conflicts from the social and political standpoint. With the soaring price of oil and the increasing cost of living, we can see a real threat of economic recession. The increasing natural disasters also show how vulnerable we are, and we need to come up with responses to those threats and issues.

      Often, in the Council of Europe and the Parliamentary Assembly, we tend to see economic, agricultural and environmental issues as separate from our Organisation’s core values – the defence of human rights, in particular – but I think that that is a mistake. I will not suggest any radical change today, but we must accept that everything that affects our lives and societies – questions such as food and wages, the standard of living and nature conservation – has a direct link with human rights. We need to know how to deal with those issues, which are important for our citizens, in a more comprehensive way, so that we can also better defend human rights.

      (The speaker continued in English)

The right to food, clothing and housing is an essential human right. The right to work for one’s living and enjoy appropriate social protection is a human right. The right to live in a healthy environment is also a human right, as I stated on the occasion of World Environment Day, when I also advocated a new additional protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights on the subject.

The Council of Europe is an ideal platform from which to advance together, drawing on our shared concerns and the values which unite us. Last month in The Hague, the European movement celebrated the 60th anniversary of the process which launched European integration and whose first practical result was the setting up of the Council of Europe. On that occasion, I reminded European Union officials that Europe consists of all European countries. Some of these may never become members of the European Union, but in the Council they all work together on an equal footing.

We parliamentarians have a specific responsibility as representatives of the vox populi. I might mention here the European Conference of Presidents of Parliament which took place here in Strasbourg on 22 and 23 May 2008, producing a plethora of good ideas and recommendations in two vital fields, namely our relations with civil society and the potential ways for parliaments to help to consolidate our values throughout the European continent.

Moreover, it is no wonder that the Council of Europe’s model is increasingly attractive in other parts of the world. First, we must continue and expand the co-operation process in the Mediterranean Basin, which is the cradle of European civilisation. Our Organisation is perfectly suited to that task because our main strength is dialogue and the sharing of ideas and values.

International parliamentarianism is currently thriving, and in fact at 1 pm this Wednesday, I shall have the pleasure of presenting you with my latest publication, an examination of all the international parliamentary assemblies operating in the world. Many of these assemblies pursue the same goals as we do: defending human rights, pluralist democracy and the rule of law. During my term of office, I am therefore intending to intensify relations with some of these assemblies. For example, I have just got back from a visit to the Latin American Parliamentary Assembly, with which we have decided to liaise and co-operate more closely.

      (The speaker continued in French)

(Translation). – If we wish to place our expertise at the service of others, we must ourselves be beyond reproach vis-à-vis our own values. Although the 47-state Europe which we represent is in itself an enormous success, there are still many problems in a fair number of our member states.

I shall begin with south-east Europe. Europe is as divided as ever on the matter of Kosovo’s efforts to affirm a national identity, most recently with the entry into force of the constitution. I would sincerely hope that in Serbia the dichotomy between a European future and a dark past will be resolved in the best interests of Serbian citizens, who do not deserve isolation. I am very glad that we will be able to discuss that matter with President Tadić this Thursday.

A debate under urgent procedure has been requested on recent developments in the functioning of democratic institutions in Turkey. It is normal for people in any democracy to have different ideas and views. The main thing is that disputes are settled by democratic means, in compliance with the Council of Europe’s values. I hope that the Turkish institutions will shoulder their responsibilities in this area, but we too have a responsibility, that of providing Turkey with a clear, unequivocal European perspective.

There are still serious concerns in the Caucasus, both in the wake of the presidential elections in Armenia and in the run-up to those in Azerbaijan. I shall be visiting these two countries in July. I shall also try to organise an early visit to Georgia, whose internal political situation is by no means facilitated by the threats to its national security and sovereignty in Abkhazia and southern Ossetia.

I would at the same time like to express my great hopes as regards Cyprus. I hope that that island will set a shining example of peaceful reunification, for the sake of a prosperous future for all its inhabitants. My dear friends from both communities, you can be assured of my full support in all your efforts.

Lastly I would mention Russia, a country of which we have high expectations. I am greatly encouraged by the declarations of the new Russian President, Mr Medvedev, who has undertaken to create “a free society” in Russia and to promote a new agreement signed by Russia, the European Union and the United States.

My dear friends, on my first day as President of this Assembly I shared with you my desire for a more humane Europe, a Europe which would listen to its citizens and open up to the rest of the world. I am afraid that such a Europe is proving difficult to achieve, and that it is even regressing in some ways. Although economic liberalism remains the main driving force behind growth and prosperity, we must be careful to ensure that the laws of the market always remain compatible with human, social and civic rights. One of the most striking examples is the increasing production of bio-fuels, which are very cost-effective but are causing famine in whole regions of the globe. However, we need not always go so far afield to find reason for concern: we could take the example of the recent European directive which sets weekly working hours at 48 but none the less allows a maximum of 65 – something that surprises me greatly.

We must also be careful about security issues that can potentially violate fundamental human rights. So-called “security measures” can lead to serious tension in society and have the opposite effect of increasing insecurity. The current debate on immigration in Europe, especially the legislative package on security adopted last May in Italy, is raising serious questions. Are we really prepared to apply the same standards to ourselves as to others?

      I am alarmed that the aforementioned difficulties and many others besides are being used by a considerable number of citizens to challenge the future of European integration and co-operation, rather than uniting us in action to solve them. We saw this with the French and Dutch “no vote” to the draft European constitution, and have just seen it again with the Irish rejection of the draft Lisbon Treaty. We cannot continue along this road. Dialogue and exchange of ideas are vital, because we must find joint responses.

So I hope that we will take full advantage of our unique opportunity of meeting here in Strasbourg four times a year. I hope that your debates will be fruitful and constructive. I also hope that we will all return home with a wealth of ideas which will enable us to advance, each of us in our home countries and all of us together.

2. Voting cards and the register of attendance

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – May I remind all members – including any non-voting Substitutes and Observers – to sign the attendance lists outside the doors of the Chamber at the beginning of every sitting.

      May I also remind all Representatives and duly designated Substitutes to place their voting cards in the slot so as to ensure that the electronic system will work properly.

Thirdly, I remind you to switch off mobile phones during sittings of the Assembly and during committee meetings.

3. Examination of credentials

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The first item on the agenda is the examination of credentials of members of the Assembly, which have been submitted to the President in accordance with Rule 6.

      The names of the Representatives and Substitutes are in Document 11645. If no credentials are contested, the credentials will be ratified.

      Are any credentials contested?

      The credentials are ratified.

4. Changes in the membership of committees

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) . – Our next business is to consider the changes proposed in the membership of committees. These are set out in Document Commissions (2008) 5.

      Are the proposed changes in the membership of the Assembly’s committees agreed to?

      They are agreed to.

5. Requests for urgent procedure

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The Bureau has received three requests for urgent procedure under Rule 50, relating to the functioning of democratic institutions in Turkey: recent developments; the proposed 42 days pre-charge detention in the United Kingdom; and the implementation by Armenia of Assembly Resolution 1609 (2008).

The Bureau approved the requests for urgent debate concerning Turkey and Armenia, but decided not to approve the request relating to the United Kingdom. Instead, it proposes that the matter be referred to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights for report, and placed on the agenda for the next part-session.

The Assembly will consider the three requests in turn.

The first request was submitted by all the political groups and concerns “The functioning of democratic institutions in Turkey”.

There is objection to the Bureau’s proposal for an urgent procedure debate on “The functioning of democratic institutions in Turkey”. Therefore, we must proceed to a vote.

On the request for urgent procedure only the following may be heard: one speaker for the request, one speaker against, the chairperson of the committee concerned – in this case the Monitoring Committee – and a representative of the Bureau speaking in its name.

Who wishes to speak in favour of the request? I call Mrs Birgen Keleş. You have 30 seconds.

Mrs KELEŞ (Turkey). – Thank you for giving me the floor, Mr President. I am against the inclusion of this item on the agenda, because behind it is a written declaration entitled, “Judicial procedures against the Justice and Development Party in Turkey”. The case was instituted by the general prosecutor in Turkey in conformity with the principles of the separation of powers, meaning that the judiciary and the prosecution are independent. Above all, the judicial process has not come to an end yet – it is still under way. According to our laws and constitution, to discuss it pending a judicial decision is forbidden, to prevent domestic and foreign interference and influence.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mrs Keleş. Who wishes to speak against? I call Mr Van den Brande. You have 30 seconds.

Mr VAN DEN BRANDE (Belgium). – Thank you, Mr President. I shall be very brief. It was a joint proposal by all five political groups to go for it. As a matter of fact, it is not a question of interference in domestic affairs. We have to take into account the fact that Turkey is still in the post-monitoring period. Of course, we have to deal with it in the appropriate way without interference, but it is evident that, for a country that is being monitored and/or is in the post-monitoring period, the Assembly has to look at the situation and recent developments. Of course, I am in favour of the joint proposal from all five political groups for an urgent debate.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Van den Brande. Does the Chairperson of the Monitoring Committee wish to speak? I call Mr Mr Holovaty. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr HOLOVATY (Ukraine). – Thank you, Mr President.

      The Monitoring Committee has not yet considered the case before the Assembly but as its Chairman I ask the Assembly to support the decision taken by the Bureau this morning and to vote in favour of the debate on that matter, which was raised by the political groups of our Assembly.

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – I remind the Assembly that the Bureau is in favour.

We shall now vote on the request for urgent procedure. I remind the Assembly that the decision requires a two-thirds majority.

The request for urgent procedure is agreed to.

The urgent debate on Turkey is therefore included on the agenda for this part-session.

The Assembly must now decide to which committee the subject should be referred. The Bureau proposes that this subject be referred to the Monitoring Committee for report.

Is this agreed?

The reference is agreed to.

The second request for urgent procedure is on the proposed 42 days pre-charge detention in the United Kingdom, which has been submitted in due form by 21 members.

At its meeting this morning, the Bureau decided not to approve the request relating to the United Kingdom. Instead, it proposes that the matter be referred to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights for report, and placed on the agenda for the next part-session.

There is objection to the Bureau’s proposal concerning the request for an urgent procedure debate on the proposed 42 days pre-charge detention in the United Kingdom. We must therefore proceed to a vote.

On the request for urgent procedure only the following may be heard: one speaker for the request, one speaker against, the chairperson of the committee concerned – in this case the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights – and a representative of the Bureau speaking in its name.

Who wishes to speak in favour of the request?

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom). – Thank you, Mr President.

I hope that the Assembly agrees to a debate on the issue, which is very relevant to all the principles that the Council of Europe stands for. It would set down a very big marker. The House of Commons has voted by a very narrow majority, which included paying hundreds of thousands of pounds to get the votes through – it was a disgrace to our democratic system. The matter now has to go to the House of Lords so it would be opportune if the Assembly were to express its view before that vote is taken.

I have just received a pager message from the Houses of Parliament saying that this afternoon a statement in parliament is to be made in the British Parliament on the European Council. I do not know what the statement is about; I simply have an indication that there is to be one. It would thus be interesting if this Assembly were to set out its views about what is being proposed in the United Kingdom, which goes against the grain of anything that the Assembly stands for. In any other country it would be opposed immediately.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I now call Mr Wilshire, to speak against the request.

Mr WILSHIRE (United Kingdom). – There has been one statement in favour of a debate and I want to speak about what the Bureau suggests. I shall speak against holding a debate now.

The lower House of the British Parliament has approved giving the police powers to knock on a person’s door at six o’clock in the morning, take them to a police cell and lock them up for six weeks – 42 days – without telling them what they are accused of or giving them the evidence against them. That is something the Soviet regimes of the past would have been proud of, but it is something of which I am ashamed. It is contrary to Article 3 and Article 5, and has been roundly condemned by the Commissioner for Human Rights as a flagrant breach of the undertakings given by a founder member of the Council of Europe. It is something on which the Assembly must have an opinion. If the Bureau believes that the matter should be looked at by a committee, I am happy – unlike my friend Mr Hancock – although I wanted a debate, to support what the committee has suggested.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – We have heard one objection to the holding of the debate under the urgent procedure, with a statement to refer the matter back to the relevant committee. There has been one statement in favour of a debate under the urgent procedure. The discussion in the Bureau this morning was clear. The idea is to refer the subject back to the committee so that we can hold the debate during the next part-session in October. We had a majority in favour of that.

Mr MacSHANE (United Kingdom). – May I speak?

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – You are asking to speak. Are you in favour or against holding the debate?

Mr MacSHANE (United Kingdom). – We cannot have two speeches from within internal British political debate brought to the Council of Europe violently and inaccurately attacking a very difficult decision of the House of Commons, which will now be debated in the second House. It would be wholly improper for us to debate that this week.

I think Mr Wilshire’s interpretation – shall we say? – of what is a speech against was interesting and amusing, but that is Mr Wilshire. I certainly hope the Bureau position will be supported.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Does the Chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights wish to speak?

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – I have no comment.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – We shall now vote on the request for urgent procedure. I remind the Assembly that the decision requires a two-thirds majority. Those who are in favour of the urgent procedure debate should vote yes, those who support the Bureau’s proposal not to hold the debate should vote no.

The request for urgent procedure is rejected.

The third request for urgent procedure was submitted by the Monitoring Committee and concerns the implementation by Armenia of Assembly Resolution 1609 (2008).

The Bureau considered this proposal at its meeting on 29 May and approved it in principle, subject to the opinion of the rapporteurs following their visit to Armenia on 16 and 17 June. At its meeting this morning the Bureau approved this request, and therefore recommends to the Assembly that the matter be placed on the agenda for this part-session. If the Assembly agrees with the Bureau’s proposal, the Bureau proposes to hold the debate and vote as the second item on the afternoon of Wednesday 25 June.

Does the Assembly agree to the recommendation of the Bureau that a debate on the implementation by Armenia of Assembly Resolution 1609 (2008) should be placed on the agenda for this part-session?

The Bureau’s recommendation is accepted, and the request for urgent procedure is therefore approved.

6. References to committees

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Under Rule 24, the Bureau proposes that the question of the implementation by Armenia of Assembly Resolution 1609 (2008) be referred to the Monitoring Committee for report.

Is this agreed?

The reference is agreed to.

7. Adoption of the agenda

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The next item of business is the adoption of the agenda for the third part of the 2008 ordinary session.

The draft agenda, which is submitted for the Assembly's approval, was brought up to date by the Bureau on 29 May and this morning. It has been distributed and members have had the opportunity to read it. I remind colleagues that we have agreed to hold debates under urgent procedure on Turkey on Thursday afternoon, and on Armenia on Wednesday afternoon.

Is the draft agenda agreed to? I call Mr Walter.

Mr WALTER (United Kingdom). – The primary purpose of this Assembly is to defend human rights in Europe. Therefore, I wish to object to item 1 on the agenda on Thursday morning because I believe that it is outside the competence of the Assembly. This is not the General Assembly of the United Nations. I have not seen the report of the Political Affairs Committee, and I believe is still discussing the situation in China. However, I understand that it is fairly general and it is not critical specifically of human rights.

There is no parliamentary democracy in China, and I am sure that we would have a critical debate of it, but in the wider world there are more pressing issues, such as Burma and Zimbabwe. The response in Zimbabwe over the past couple of days to the presidential elections there has been atrocious. If we are to discuss democracy and human rights, surely we should be discussing those countries. Therefore, I propose that we delete item 1 as being outside the competence of the Council of Europe.

THE PRESIDENT reminded members that, on a motion to alter the draft agenda, the only members who could be heard were the mover of the motion, one speaker against and a spokesperson of the committee, or of each of the committees, concerned. He called Mr Hancock.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom). – I support Bob Walter’s point and I hope that the Assembly does too. However, I want to raise another point.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Then I call Mr Frunda.

Mr FRUNDA (Romania). – I am against the proposal. Human rights all over the world fall within the competence of the Assembly. I support the Olympics. They happen every four years and are the sporting event of this year. However, we must not forget that when the flame passed through the countries of member states of the Council of Europe, there were incidents involving human rights. Human rights are a competence of this Assembly. We have the responsibility of respecting human rights all over the world. We must debate the item on the agenda so that we are consistent with our principles.

THE PRESIDENT said that there had been discussion on the matter in the Bureau and for some time there had been concerned about this matter – a concern that had been expressed at the Standing Committee in Stockholm when it was considered whether it was appropriate to consider the human rights of the people of China. In Stockholm there was a unanimous decision, with which the Bureau had agreed at the meeting this morning. He asked the Chairperson of the Political Affairs Committee, Mr Lindblad, to comment, but noted that he was not in the Chamber. He said that the objector had proposed that the matter be withdrawn from the agenda and made it clear that voting “yes” would mean voting against discussion this week, while voting “no” would be a vote to include this in the agenda for this part-session.

(Translation). – We will now proceed to vote on the motion for an alteration of the agenda moved by Mr Walter.

The proposed alteration in the agenda is rejected.

Is the draft agenda agreed to?

It is agreed to.

I now call Mr Hancock.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom). – The issue relates to the time when we indicate that we want to speak in various debates. Since we have changed the Assembly’s sitting time on a Monday, we now have to declare that we want to speak on the progress report before 9.30 a.m., which is before the groups have had a chance to get an update on what the Bureau has decided on various things. That disadvantages people who want to speak against what the Bureau has decided because we have not been told what has been discussed. I want to ask for the time limit to be extended from 9.30 a.m. until 11.00 a.m. to enable groups to be briefed about what has happened at the Bureau. That will enable their members to have the opportunity to take part in a debate. Currently, there is no opportunity to do that. If we believe in everyone being able to have a say, then we should have more time. I put my name down to speak this morning and was told that at 11.10 a.m. it was too late. That cannot be right.

THE PRESIDENT said that he recognised that Mr Hancock had a valid point and that he would discuss his proposal with the Bureau to ensure that delegates were made aware of decisions in good time.

8. Minutes of proceedings

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The minutes of proceedings of the Standing Committee held on 29 May have been distributed.

      Are these minutes agreed to?

      The minutes are agreed to.

9. Time limit on speeches

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – As it is already clear that there will be a large number of speakers and amendments in this part-session, the Bureau proposes that speaking time in all the debates should be limited to four minutes, except on Friday.

      Is that agreed to?

      It is agreed to.

10. Progress report of the Bureau of the Assembly and of the Standing Committee

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – We now come to Mr Zala’s presentation of the progress report of the Bureau and Standing Committee, Document 11652. With this we will also debate the reports of two ad hoc committees on the observation of recent elections in Georgia and “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”.

      I call Mr Zala to present the progress report. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between your presentation of the report and your response to the debate.

      Mr Zala, you have the floor.

      Mr ZALA (Slovak Republic). – Dear President and colleagues, may I take this opportunity to thank the Riksdag of Sweden, and particularly Mr Westerberg, Speaker of the Riksdag? I also thank Mr Lindblad, chairman of the Swedish parliamentary delegation to the Assembly, for his kind invitation to us to hold the meetings of the Bureau and Standing Committee in Stockholm on 29 May last, and for the great hospitality shown on that occasion. Special thanks go to Mrs Malmström, Sweden’s Minister for EU Affairs, who addressed the Standing Committee meeting, and with whom we had a very interesting exchange of views. As you can see from the report, the members of our Bureau have been very busy since the last part-session. I will not comment on every item in the progress report, but will focus on the most important items.

First, through our first annual report on human rights and democracy, we launched a unique new initiative. The Assembly brought all the key players of the Council of Europe together with important outside partners to present a high-quality snapshot of the state of human rights and democracy in Europe.

      By focusing on our core activities, we underlined our Organisation’s leading role as Europe’s centre of excellence for protecting and promoting our common values, but we can never take that for granted. That protection and promotion will always be work in progress, requiring our constant vigilance and determination. That is one reason why the Council of Europe and its mission remain as vital today as they have ever been. In those circumstances, I am very happy that, as part of an annual alternation between the democracy team and the human rights team, the Bureau agreed to hold another debate this year, and to devote it to the topic of the state of democracy in Europe.

      May I remind colleagues that on the day before that debate – on 24 June – a conference on the specific challenges facing Europe and democracies will take place at 5 p.m? The purpose is to hold a debate between parliamentarians and civil society representatives, as well as representatives of relevant Council of Europe bodies and mechanisms, and to give the latter an opportunity to provide input into the text that is to be adopted by the Assembly.

      Secondly, as colleagues may know, a European Conference of Presidents of Parliaments is held every two years. This year, it took place in Strasbourg on 22 and 23 May. The main themes were “parliament and civil society” and “national parliaments and the Council of Europe: promoting the core values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law”. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the President of the Assembly for organising the conference, which was a real success. On the follow-up to that conference, on 29 May, the Bureau took note of the President’s conclusions, and authorised their transmission for information and possible action to the chairpersons of national delegations to the Assembly, and to the committees of the Assembly.

      Thirdly, members of our Assembly observed parliamentary elections in Serbia, Georgia and “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”. I wish to express my warm thanks to all those who gave up their time to ensure the Assembly’s presence at a very important moment in the history of those countries. The chairpersons of the Assembly observation missions will, of course, give colleagues further details in a few moments.

      Fourthly, on 29 May the Bureau approved the draft co-operation agreement between the Assembly and the Conference of European Regional Legislative Assemblies and this morning the agreement was formally signed. I am sure that we will spare no efforts to develop further the ongoing co-operation between the Assembly and the Conference of European Regional Legislative Assemblies and to strengthen the core values that inspire both our institutions.

      Finally, I would like to remind colleagues that the Council of Europe will be celebrating its 60th anniversary on 5 May 2009. On 29 May, the Bureau took note of a document, prepared by the Secretariat, on the Assembly’s participation in the 60th anniversary celebrations of the Council of Europe. There are many opportunities to take part in the celebrations, but it will be important to ensure that the Assembly, the Committee of Ministers and all the other Council of Europe bodies are involved in a jointly organised series of events, rather than each of them organising their own separate events.

      Mr President and dear colleagues, I have tried to be brief. In my report you will find many other matters that I have not had time to mention, but they, too, are very important. However, you have the report before you. Thank you.

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

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Zala. I now call Mr Eörsi to present the report of the Ad hoc Committee on the Observation of the Presidential Elections in Georgia on 21 May. You have three minutes.

Mr EÖRSI (Hungary). – Every election must be put it its historical and political context. However, to be fair to Georgia – and to ourselves – we should compare the election with the 5 January presidential elections to see what progress, if any, has been achieved.

I am happy to report that, although only four months have passed – that is only one third of a year – since the 5 January presidential elections, Georgia conducted its parliamentary elections substantially better than its presidential elections. I observed a number of polling stations in Tbilisi, and what I saw in those polling stations could have been seen in any polling station, in any capital city, in any western European democracy. Of course, we all know that in rural areas, we received different reports, and those reports are not yet rosy, but certainly the general view is that there has been a huge improvement.

We have been in dialogue with Georgia for quite a few years on election conditions. We are pleased to note, and to report, that many of our recommendations were taken on board by Georgia, including those on the lowering of thresholds from 7% to a more European 5%, on the composition of the election commissions, and on the abolition of voting day registration. Those are all positive signs of improvement to the elections. Of course, if one asks whether there were shortcomings the answer is that there were. If one looks at our report, one will see how the election commissions functioned; I think that that could be improved.

There were a number of problems to do with the complaints procedures and appeals, but Georgia should consider it a challenge to address those issues in future. We believe that that is a future task for the parliament, which was recently set up; it should immediately start negotiations on how elections could be improved. That should not be left until the last day – until the period before the next election. That would not be the best timing. Now is a good time, after the elections. I have good news: despite warnings from opposition parties that they would boycott the parliament, they take part in, and engage with, its work.

So if the new election framework is negotiated successfully, I truly believe that the next election in Georgia will be better than the previous one and that, in the near future, we will be able to say that Georgia is democratic and one of us. That is what we are all working towards, together with the Georgian authorities and the opposition. We would like to congratulate the Georgian Government, opposition and everyone who took part in the elections, especially the people, who were enthusiastic in deciding on their future. Thank you very much.

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

      I call Mr Çavuşoğlu to present the report of the Ad hoc Committee on the Observation of the Parliamentary Elections in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, Document 11647. You have three minutes.

      Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – I chaired the ad hoc committee that observed the parliamentary elections of 1 June in the “former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, which henceforth I will refer to as Macedonia for brevity’s sake.

      The ad hoc committee acted as part of the International Election Observation Mission that also included the election observation mission of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and that of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly.

      It was brought to our attention that the run-up to the elections was marred by negative campaigning, tensions, intimidation and violence, particularly in areas with an ethnic Albanian majority. Unfortunately, the two major Albanian parties could not come to terms with each other and contributed to the atmosphere of insecurity ahead of voting day.

      In addition, the major opposition party was put at a disadvantage through the registration of a similarly named obscure party clone, whose leadership had names very similar to the names of the opposition party’s leadership, unfortunately. Voting day showed a country where voting patterns differed enormously. While voting was genuinely calm and well administered in the country, Albanian minority areas witnessed tensions, intimidation, ballot stuffing and violence, including a death, unfortunately.

      As a result, the IEOM concluded that these elections, while well administered procedurally, did not mark progress since the authorities failed to prevent violence from occurring in ethnic Albanian areas. Organised efforts to disrupt the progress by violence on election day made it impossible for voters in many places to express their will freely. As a result, key Council of Europe and OSCE standards were not met in these elections.

      In the circumstances, the authorities annulled the results on the voting in 183 polling stations and, on 15 June 2008, held re-runs in 183 polling stations. Regrettably, I was the only member of our ad hoc committee who was available to observe the re-runs.

      Significant improvements in the security situation allowed voters to cast their votes freely. The re-runs were generally calm and non-violent. Police protection of the polling stations concerned was very impressive and effective. That was the result not least of internal measures taken by the Ministry of the Interior, which had suspended 21 police officers who were involved in the 1 June election day irregularities.

      As I stressed, Mr President, at the two press conferences in Macedonia, the time has come for a meaningful dialogue between all the political parties in the country in the greater interests of its stability. The Council of Europe should continue to monitor the developments in Macedonia closely, and we propose in our report to pay a post-election visit to observe the situation, because we believe that the problems that occurred were systematic. Thank you very much.

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

      In the debate, I first call Mrs Strik, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group. You have four minutes.

      Mrs STRIK (Netherlands). – On behalf of the Socialist Group, I am happy to approve the report and to thank the rapporteurs for their thorough assessments. I would like to make some specific remarks on the election process in Georgia, as I was one of the members of that observation mission. I agree with the conclusions about the procedures adopted on election day, but the fairness of elections and the trust of citizens in the democratic system does not only depend on the election day itself, as the rapporteur also acknowledged.

      The President and the National Party of Georgia tend to abuse their position to get even more of a grip on power over the decision-making process. To that end, it seems that they discouraged independent and critical voices in society. The change of the election code and the incidents during the campaign period illustrate that tendency. Therefore, it is vital that the sense of citizenship must grow stronger to reinforce democratic reforms in Georgia.

      The international community and the European Union, specifically in the context of the European neighbourhood policy, should not only rely on intergovernmental co-operation with Georgia, but should invest more in its civil society. Supporting NGOs and opposition parties can contribute to the independence of citizens. Only by reinforcing non-governmental movements can the checks and balances in the democratic system of Georgia be ensured and trust gained. The Council of Europe has a task to perform in that respect, but it could also remind the European Union of that crucial role. Thank you.

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mrs Strik. I call Mr Wach, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Mr WACH (Poland). – As a short-time observer in several Council of Europe ad hoc observation committees and having twice visited Georgia this year on behalf of the EPP Group, I have a couple of remarks and observations to share. In most cases, we form part of the ODHIR mission and operate as part of a common organisational system, which seems to be efficient, rather well organised and has much experience.

      One of the main co-operation links is associated with the participation of the long-time observer teams that supervise the election campaign, including its most critical elements, such as television and press coverage, meetings and rallies, the registration of candidates and so on. They also prepare the field of operation for the STOs on election day, and we are able to rely on their organisation.

      On the visit to the Georgian elections, we were received in a friendly way in a majority of the polling stations, which in my case were in small towns and rural places. However, in a few places, our experience was different, because we were treated as a kind of nuisance or as intruders, but we were never treated in a hostile way. There was always full access to the election materials and freedom of observation was ensured.

      In most cases, it seems that the international observers are regarded as a factor that indicates the importance of elections and as a kind of attraction during a long and hard election day.

      In Georgia, as well as in some other countries, the voting and vote-counting procedures in polling stations are, in our opinion, much too complicated and difficult to fulfil comprehensively. I can understand that it is designed in that way and contained in the election code to guarantee honest voting without reservations, but it is overdone in my opinion. Often, in the presence of all interested parties and local observers, everyone agrees on a simplification and abandons some of the time-consuming duties or shares the tasks, hence not strictly sticking to the rules.

      During the counting period in polling stations, we did not notice any attempts at dishonesty; rather, there were simplifications of quite impractical and excessive protection measures. The vulnerable phase of the election day seems to be the transition of electoral protocols and the tabulation of results, so that stage should be supervised cautiously.

      More generally, politics in Georgia and the election day viewed as a culmination of the political process are very emotional, and it is very difficult for opposition parties to accept the results, which do not fulfil their expectations.

      We should also notice that the problems of territorial integrity as a result of conflicts concerning Abkhazia and South Ossetia are hindering the democratic processes in Georgia and are a real problem not only for that country.

      In conclusion, we are strongly convinced that the presence and honest work of international observers representing the Council of Europe, as well as the well-balanced but strictly honest statement evaluating the electoral processes, plays an important role in assisting the progress of democracy towards obtaining the required standards of free and fair election.

      I have referred mainly to the Georgian parliamentary elections, but we clearly approve both reports. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I now call Mr Wille, who will speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Mr WILLE (Belgium) said that he had observed a large number of elections and electoral commissions in operation in new Council of Europe member states and had started to see the questions that such operations raised. After an initially good start, the credibility of such activity had been jeopardised. In a number of cases there had been complacency, and negative prejudice. The question needed to be asked: what was a democratic election? He did not like that parlance because it was media parlance. When it was said that a country was moving towards democracy, that was inadequate; it was necessary to determine whether the direction and speed of travel towards democracy was adequate and sufficient. It was important also to avoid the application of double standards. The observation and monitoring processes in this regard must be revisited to enhance credibility. The reports were, however, excellent and were endorsed by his group.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I now call Mr Margelov, who will speak on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Mr MARGELOV (Russian Federation). – The European Democrat Group values the work of the Bureau and of the President of the Assembly. That work contributes to the success of our activities for the sake of human rights and the protection of democracy. These values need to be promoted and protected in both mature and young democracies.

The group would like to note the report on the state of democracy in Europe. This is a substantial work, which has been submitted for consideration during the present session. However, its significance reaches far beyond this particular time – fundamental values of the Council of Europe should always be the main reference point in the work of the Bureau. These values, indeed, should serve as the main criteria when selecting themes for our reports.

We succeed by preserving the attractiveness of European values, spreading and defending them. That explains why we insist on being quite rigorous in our judgments about democratic procedures, especially in countries where democracy is still in the making. I refer to the activities of our elections observers, which are becoming one of the main aspects of the work of the Assembly. The high level of our requirements on the realisation of the right to elect and to be elected is justified. One cannot make allowances for the younger democracies – if we do so, the norms of the Council of Europe will never be implemented. Democracy requires efforts, but, at the end of the day, it is worth making those efforts.

The Bureau accumulates exceptionally valuable materials relating to election procedures. I would like to suggest something to the Bureau – we should summarise the experience of our work at elections. That might become, if you wish, a handbook containing methodical guidelines for PACE members working as election observers. Indeed, the composition of the Assembly changes steadily and such a handbook could be useful for new members.

This year, again, we are working on an intercultural and interethnic dialogue. Time has shown that the direction of the Assembly’s activity remains topical. Europeans and the whole international community cannot be indifferent about the relationship between cultures and religions. Let us think only about the crisis of tolerance among youngsters, about manifestations of negative cultural identity, violence in schools, carnage in the metro, real battles between fans during football events. I believe that, today, we need co-ordination and coherence of international efforts aimed at counteracting racism and neo-Nazism. The Assembly could make such a proposal to other organisations struggling against this evil. We have experiences to share with these organisations. Ethnic and religious enmity represents a real threat for European values. The European dimension of that threat cannot be isolated from global issues of relations between civilisations.

The theme of human rights is also global. That must promote one more very important direction of our work: international activities. First, we should enhance our co-operation with parliaments of observer countries. Here I would like to stress the success of the Assembly’s efforts in the Middle East, and the forum in Rhodes. However, we could have developed that success, addressing the Mediterranean region as a whole – from Morocco to Beirut. The European dimension requires understanding of the traditions of countries and peoples – not only bookish knowledge, but direct acquaintance. The European Democrat Group is ready actively to work in all the directions of the Assembly’s activities.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I now call Mr Kox, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr KOX (Netherlands). – I thank the rapporteur, on behalf of our group, for his progress report. I repeat the compliments to the Swedish Riksdag for hosting the Standing Committee in Sweden, and the compliments to Mrs Malmström. However, I was not amused that, although everything was prepared, the Chair of the Committee of Ministers, Mr Bildt, was not there. He thought that it was more important to be present at another conference. The Chair of the Committee of Ministers should have been there with us. His absence sends the wrong signal. We agreed to meet in his country, and he should have been there. That negative point should be made with the compliments to those who were there.

In the past few months, we have observed three elections as Parliamentary Assembly representatives. As the rapporteur said, we should thank all members of the Assembly who participated in that. It is very important work. It is even more important than it was in the past so we should show our gratitude to all those who participated.

There is good and bad news about the elections. The bad news is that both the Macedonian and Georgian elections did not meet our standards. Of course, Mr Eörsi is an optimistic man and says that at least the elections were better than the presidential elections. Thank God for that, but I also remember him telling us that the presidential elections were even worse than expected, so if these elections were better than the presidential elections but the presidential elections were worse than expected, how far have we developed? I underline the critical comments by Mrs Strik; the chairperson of the mission, Mr Eörsi, also said that the elections did not make full use of the democratic potential in Georgia. I know that sentence because it is familiar from the declaration following the presidential elections in Russia. We must judge elections on the same basis. On that basis, the Georgian parliamentary elections were not better than the Russian presidential elections and that must worry us a lot.

The Macedonian elections also did not meet international standards, as Mr Çavuşoğlu said. Results in over 100 polling stations had to be annulled. There was so much violence that one person died. It must make us feel ashamed that in Europe that still happens. I am glad to hear that the second round was far better than the first. Nevertheless, it happened and we must bear in mind that the Armenian elections and what followed was also shameful. That is the bad news.

The good news – it is worth repeating it here; I also made the point in Stockholm – is that the Serbian elections, which took place in difficult circumstances for the Serbian political parties, the government and the people after the split of Kosovo, were, of all the elections that we observed, the best, I think. That is another positive thing to mention: that country, with all its differences, conflicts and bad history, was able to have serious elections.

The other good news is that we are to have a meeting of the chairpersons of the election observation missions in October. That was postponed and I endorse the proposals made by Mr Wille and Mr Margelov that we should use all the evidence that we have gained in all the missions, because new members should be involved in the work and they should be professionally briefed, using the experience that we have already gained. Therefore, I endorse that proposal and I would like to hear the rapporteur’s comments on it.

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr. Kox. I call Mr Zala. You may reply, but I believe that you do not wish to do so immediately. You still have seven minutes, and I understand that you would like to speak at the end of the general debate.

      Mr ZALA (Slovak Republic). – I have no comment to make at the moment.

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Eörsi to reply to the debate. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr EÖRSI (Hungary). – In response to the critical remarks about the Georgian elections, I remind the Assembly of the remarks of Mr Paul Wille about avoiding double standards. We can be critical of the media and non-governmental organisations, but the fact is that it is in Georgia that this can still be decided far better than by any countries in the region and even beyond. If we are silent about our countries and criticise Georgia, that is unfair. What is important is that Georgia shows progress. Our role is to support and encourage it. We said earlier that Europe should respond to the improvements in the Georgian elections. Georgia did so, and it is time now for Europe to respond to Georgia.

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Eörsi. I give the floor to Mr Iwiński in the general debate.

      Mr IWIŃSKI (Poland). – Mr President, dear colleagues, since the last plenary session of the Parliamentary Assembly, many significant events have taken place in Europe, several of which have been taken up by Mr Zala. How can we have a serious discussion about different issues if 30 minutes before the beginning of the session a progress report on the election in Macedonia was not available? Such an omission must not be repeated in future. Of course, the biggest focus of attention in the past two months was the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland and the negative result. At first glance, that has nothing to do with the Council of Europe and everything to do with the European Union. However, to my mind, our Organisation, particularly our Assembly, should learn the lessons. We still see the deficit of democracy and the gap between so-called political elites and ordinary citizens in member states. That phenomenon should be combated effectively.

      As for Georgia, I share Mr Eörsi’s general approach that despite efforts to conduct the most recent elections in line with European standards, a number of problems were identified that made implementation uneven and incomplete. I observed the presidential election in June and the parliamentary election in May. Of course, some progress could be observed, but it is still a long way to Tipperary. For instance, a positive aspect was the decrease of the previous 7% electoral threshold to 5%. On the other hand – this is quite controversial – we saw the increase of majority seats up to 50%. That, it is said, is the reason for the outgoing boycott of the parliament’s activity by the newly elected opposition MPs. It clearly shows that painful wounds, so visible in Georgia last November in mass demonstrations, have not healed.

      Let me mention – no one has referred to this – the extremely important tri-partite forum on the Middle East, organised recently in Rhodes by the relevant sub-committee under the efficient leadership of Mr Pavlidis. It was extremely useful and even unique, because, for the first time to my knowledge, MPs from Israel, Palestine and our Assembly sat down at the table and discussed controversial, delicate issues. We have agreed to continue our meetings on a regular basis.

      As for the elections in Macedonia three weeks ago, and again one week ago, regrettably, we observed that the use of force and violence were worse than two years ago. Of course, a positive aspect was the partial rerun one week ago, but still, six MPs out of 120 have not been elected. Last but not least, following the parliamentary election in Serbia six weeks ago that was also observed by our committee, the good news that reached us yesterday was that agreement had been achieved to form a future government, which could lead to historic reconciliation. We have here representatives of those parties who took part in the reconciliation process, and we should seize the opportunity to discuss with them the details. I hope that on Thursday we will have a chance to debate the issue with President Tadić. Thank you.

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you Mr Iwiński. Mr Pavlidis, do you wish to make a point of order?

      Mr PAVLIDIS (Greece) said that he wished to make a substantive point.

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – I can give the floor to speakers who are not on the speakers’ list only if they wish to raise a point of order.

I call Mr Branger.

      Mr BRANGER (France) said that the violence that had taken place during the Macedonian elections had, in many ways, been predictable. For some time, tensions had been noted and reported as being on the increase between different groups in that country. But he was tempted to look for explanations for the violence elsewhere. Macedonia was a young nation characterised by the absence of a culture of debate. The increasing tension between political parts and the adoption of fixed positions was not surprising in a country which was still so young and where the concepts and institutions of nationhood were relatively fragile. This was not to be taken as an excuse for what had occurred but it was to be hoped that the debate here at the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly today would not generate fresh frustration in the region.

The agreement which had been reached would be effective only if implemented under the concerted auspices of European nations. Some allowances, and further consideration, for this young state – which had, after all, avoided civil war – was called for. The agreement which had been reached touched on ideas put forward by the French philosopher, Ernest Renan, and his proposal that the existence of a nation was based on a “daily plebiscite”. The implementation of systems including double majorities could help to create a solution whereby Macedonia would avoid the pitfalls of Serbia. The difficulties experienced today resulted at least in part from the failure to recognise Macedonia as such. He urged members of the Assembly to condemn the violations but to allow their rigour to be tempered by the points raised briefly in this short speech.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – I must now interrupt the list of speakers. The speeches of members on the speakers list who have been present during the debate but have not been able to speak may be given to the Table Office for publication in the official report.

I call Mrs Nakashidzé to make a point of order.

Mrs NAKASHIDZÉ (Georgia). – Mr President, it is absolutely unfair when our states are being discussed that no representative from the national delegation either of Georgia or Macedonia has been given an opportunity to respond. That should be taken into account.

THE PRESIDENT said that the list of speakers was the way that it was, and he, as the President, had to abide by the rules of the Assembly. The debate this morning had already been delayed. But, and perhaps he should not say this, on a personal level he agreed with the point made. He called Mr Eőrsi.

Mr EÖRSI (Hungary). – I think this Chamber could decide to postpone the end of the debate by a few minutes. That is within our competence and we have that power. The point made by my colleague was very valid and if we started a bit later nobody would be damaged. In terms of fairness, it was a valid point.

THE PRESIDENT said that the order of business was also tight this afternoon, so as President, he could not take it upon himself to deviate from the agenda. He called Mr Zala to give a reply.

Mr ZALA (Slovak Republic). – Thank you, Mr President. I have nothing to add to the comments of my colleagues and the other speakers.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Zala. I call Mr Çavuşoğlu. You have 30 seconds.

Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – Mr President, I thank all colleagues who have made comments about the elections in Macedonia. Mr Tiny Kox and Mr Branger were entirely right; the election was worse than the election that was held two years ago in Macedonia. I observed that election as well. We believe in a multi-ethnic society; both the authorities and the political stakeholders have a shared responsibility in ensuring that there are genuine conditions for the expression of the free will of the electorate. That is the problem in Macedonia.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you.

The Bureau has proposed a number of references to committees for ratification by the Assembly. They are set out in parts I and II of Document 11652.

Is there any objection to the references to committees proposed in the progress report?

There is no objection, so the references are approved.

The remaining references to committees proposed by the Bureau are ratified.

11. Date, time and agenda of the next sitting

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – I propose that the Assembly hold its next public sitting this afternoon at 3.10 p.m. with the agenda which was approved this morning.

Are there any objections? That is not the case.

The agenda of the next sitting is therefore agreed.

The sitting is closed.

(The sitting was closed at 1.10 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1.       Resumption of the 2008 Ordinary Session

2.       Voting cards and the register of attendance

3.       Examination of credentials

4.       Changes in the membership of committees

5.       Requests for urgent procedure

      Speakers:

      Mrs Keleş (Turkey)

      Mr Van den Brande (Belguim)

      Mr Holovaty (Ukraine)

      Mr Hancock (United Kingdom)

      Mr Wilshire (United Kingdom)

      Mr MacShane (United Kingdom)

6.       References to committees

7.       Adoption of the agenda

      Speakers:

      Mr Walter (United Kingdom)

      Mr Hancock (United Kingdom)

      Mr Frunda (Romania)

8.       Minutes of proceedings

9.       Time limit on speeches

10.       Progress report of the Bureau of the Assembly and of the Standing Committee

      Presentation by Mr Zala (Doc. 11652 + Part l and Part ll + Addendum)

Presentation by Mr Eörsi of report of the Ad hoc Committee on the Observation of the Presidential Elections in Georgia

Presentation by Mr Çavuşoğlu of report of the Ad hoc Committee on the Observation of the Parliamentary Elections in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”

      Speakers:

      Mrs Strik (Netherlands)

      Mr Wach (Poland)

      Mr Wille (Belgium)

      Mr Margelov (Russian Federation)

      Mr Kox (Netherlands)

      Mr Iwiński (Poland)

      Mr Branger (France)

      Replies:

      Mr Eörsi (Hungary)

      Mr Çavuşoğlu (Turkey)

      Mr Zala (Slovak Republic)

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