1004271500E

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.

1. Election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights with respect to Ukraine

THE PRESIDENT – I must remind you that the vote is in progress to elect one judge to the European Court of Human Rights with respect to Ukraine. The poll will close at 5 p.m. and the result will be declared in the Chamber at the end of the sitting. Those who have not yet voted may still do so by going to the area behind the President’s Chair.

THE PRESIDENT – In accordance with Rule 52 of the Rules of Procedure, a written declaration, No. 439, has been tabled, on the need to eliminate activities preventing a peaceful resolution of the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, which has been signed by 20 members, Document 12218.

Any Representative, Substitute or Observer may add his or her signature to this written declaration in the Table Office, room 1083.

Any Representative or Substitute may add his or her signature up to the close of the next part-session, after which no further signatures may be added. The declaration will be issued with the names of all members who have signed it.

THE PRESIDENT – This afternoon we have debates on five reports, among other business. We will have to interrupt the questions to Mr Jagland at about 4 p.m., the list of speakers in the debate on the consequences of the economic crisis at about 6.45 p.m. and the list of speakers in the final debate at about 7.50 p.m. in order to leave sufficient time for the replies on behalf of the committees and votes.

The Assembly agreed yesterday that the speaking time in this afternoon’s debate be limited to four minutes.

4. Communication by Mr Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe

THE PRESIDENT – We now come to the communication from Mr Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe.

Dear Secretary General, thank you very much for coming to us today to give us an account of the process that you have engaged of reforming the Council of Europe. We know well how active you have been over the recent months and we deeply appreciate your efforts to increase the proactive role and the visibility of our Organisation. You have visited many of the most problematic areas of the continent and, in dealing with them, you have promoted a better-focused and co-ordinated approach among all the competent Council of Europe sectors. You have also invested a lot of energy in strengthening co-operation with the European Union, including its long-awaited accession to the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Assembly follows with great attention the reforms that you have initiated in the Council of Europe, as we fully share your view that such reforms are vital for the future of our Organisation. Thank you for the good co-operation in that respect. We are therefore looking forward to hearing your address.

Mr JAGLAND (Secretary General of the Council of Europe) – Thank you for your kind words, Mr President.

This is the second time that I have spoken to the Parliamentary Assembly. I know that the practice of my predecessors was to come here once a year to give the state of the Council of Europe speech. However, my priority is to keep in close consultation with the Parliamentary Assembly all the time on the most important issues. Today I want to inform you and to get feedback on the reform process. I should also like to say some words in the Council of Europe about very important political topics that are related to the need for a reform process in order to be more relevant and to do more in relation to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, and Belarus. All this underlines the need for a more coherent approach from Council of Europe entities and bodies. It underlines the need to reinforce and sharpen what is happening with the most important instruments and mechanisms. It demonstrates clearly the need to be forward-looking and to anticipate new things on the political, social and economic scene. It also underlines the need to have the resources to implement programmes and for things that were not foreseen when the budget was set up.

I will come back to that, but first I want to say a few words about Georgia. It is very clear that the Council of Europe has not done enough in its field of competence to help the population affected by the conflict. This is of course not only because of the Council of Europe – it is due to obstacles that exist in accessing the areas affected by the conflict. There are two very important exceptions – one is the work that the Commissioner of Human Rights has done, and there is also what you on the parliamentary side have done, including what Corien Jonker achieved when she reported on the human rights situation there.

The Committee of Ministers should be the driving force for meaningful action in the area, but it has been locked in an 18-month-long discussion on the format of the reporting. There has been an argument about how to report on the situation rather than doing something with and for the people living in the area. That is why I took an initiative to work out a different way of reporting that can, I hope, pave the way for more action from the Council of Europe side. The first step would be for the Committee of Ministers to accept the new way of reporting, which we are dealing with on 5 May, to agree on modalities for human rights work and humanitarian action in the area. We have many instruments to play on. First, there is the work of the Human Rights Commission, and then there are the monitoring bodies and the Parliamentary Assembly. We can do a lot to facilitate people-to-people contacts – for instance, among young people in the area. To this end, we need resources. That is one of the reasons why I want to strengthen the office of the Human Rights Commissioner when we set the priorities for next year’s budget. That is also why I have proposed a contingency reserve account that can be used for purposes in Georgia or elsewhere in Europe.

You are all aware of the fact that the constitution in Bosnia and Herzegovina is based on the Dayton Agreement. That was an ethnically based arrangement to end the war, but it was inadequate to provide sustainable peace, stability and prosperity for Bosnia and Herzegovina. The present constitution based on the Dayton Agreement gives special rights to those who belong to the three constituent peoples, but the problem is that there are 200 000 people in Bosnia and Herzegovina who do not belong to one of the three constituent peoples, so rather than constituting a multi-ethnic state we have a federation that is, for all practical purposes, not functioning.

The Council of Europe has asked for change for quite a long time; the Parliamentary Assembly has done this several times. The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina violates the European Convention on Human Rights. This gives the Council of Europe a special role in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and we have to live up to that by developing a coherent policy within the Council of Europe and a coherent approach between the different European institutions and also vis-à-vis the Americans, who are playing a particular role in the country. What makes the Council of Europe so important in this respect is the ruling by the Court and the demand from this Assembly, which means that we are dealing with Bosnia and Herzegovina as a normal state with normal obligations that it undertook when it entered the Council of Europe under the European Convention on Human Rights. This is a very important asset that the Council of Europe has, and we have to utilise it. We have to be in close communication with the other European institutions, particularly the European Union.

Belarus also calls for a co-ordinated approach from our side. You are all aware of the role that the Parliamentary Assembly has played. You offered guest status to Belarus. It was suspended. There has been a series of efforts by the various chairmen of the Committee of Ministers over many years. The outcomes have been mixed. One positive thing was that we were able to open the information point in Minsk. We nearly achieved accession to GRECO — Group of States against Corruption.

However, there have been setbacks, too, as you all know. The most severe setback was the use of the death penalty. There were two executions recently. After that, I as Secretary General sent a clear signal to Minsk that if we are to continue a process of co-operation between the Council of Europe and Belarus, we need clear signals from the highest authorities in Belarus that they want a process that will lead first to a moratorium and then the abolition of the death penalty. Some days ago, I received a letter from the Foreign Minister of Belarus saying basically two things. The first was that Belarus recognised that the abolition of the death penalty is a matter of principle for the Council of Europe, and, secondly, that Belarus wants to work with the Council of Europe on a process for a moratorium and abolition of the death penalty.

That is not a new approach. What is new is that I as Secretary General received a letter from the highest authorities – from the Foreign Minister of Belarus – saying that they want to work with us on the death penalty. We should take note of that; it may not be significant, but it should not be put under the table. We should look at how we can have a process on what is a fundamental point for us, namely the abolition of the death penalty. We need a co-ordinated approach. We have to be firm about the principles but open to dialogue and engagement. However, we need to see some progress regarding the death penalty, that is for sure.

I have focused very much on those three political topics as examples of why we need a more coherent Organisation, and why we need to reinforce the important instruments the Council of Europe has to implement all its political goals. That is what the reform process is about. It is not administrative reform but political reform. What is the Council of Europe? The Council of Europe sets standards for the entire continent. We set standards on the rule of law, democracy and human rights for all countries in the European continent. We monitor member states to ensure that they comply with those standards. We run co-operation programmes with member countries so that they can implement the standards. Our human rights commissioners keep an eye on what is going on out there all the time. That is a very important part of the whole monitoring process.

We have the Court of Human Rights. More than 800 million people can petition the Court if they are not satisfied with the way they are treated domestically. We have the Venice Commission, which advises on constitutional and legislative changes, according to need and the findings of the monitoring process. These are the main tools for the Council of Europe.

We have the different parts of the car. We have the engine, the wheels and the dials on the dashboard. Our task is to make sure that the parts are strong enough and that they are assembled into a car, with the steering wheel firmly in place. That is what the reform process is about – to see that there is a steering wheel that can govern this Organisation and create more cohesion. It is about reinforcing the various parts of the car – the different instruments of the Council of Europe.

We have taken a lot of measures in respect of the steering wheel, but I shall not bother you with them. For instance, we have already done what I promised and come forward with a new integrated budget programme that can be explained on one piece of paper. Everybody can understand it and, therefore, we can discuss the priorities. That was not possible in the past. It was totally impossible to read the budget and the programme. If one tried to read it, one got lost. There were 700 pages. We could not understand what we were doing and who was doing what. Now we have come forward with a new budget, an all-inclusive document. Everything can be explained on one page – what and who. It is a very important instrument for us.

We have established an internal oversight service so that we can evaluate everything we do. That is needed in every organisation and every company. We have created new governing bodies; for instance, yesterday I invited all the leaders of the various independent entities – the Congress, the Court, the Parliamentary Assembly and the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers – to co-ordinate and exchange information so that we can come forward with a more coherent policy.

The different parts of the car have to be reinforced, as I said. That is what the budget is about. It represents a reprioritisation and concentration of our resources. For instance, we have moved from 130 programmes to 37. We need fewer programmes, but better and stronger programmes. Our resources must go to strengthen the most important tools, instruments and mechanisms of the Council of Europe. The office of the Human Rights Commissioner will be reinforced, as will the monitoring bodies, in particular the one that monitors the important conventions on human trafficking and on combating corruption – ECRI, the European Commission against Racial Intolerance and MONEYVAL. We are giving more resources to targeted co-operation, which means that we can follow up the results of monitoring. We need to follow up with particular countries the findings of the monitoring bodies; otherwise, the monitoring process has no meaning. So we need to have more funding for such activities.

We have put on the table reform in the field of external relations. Until now, we have had many different kinds of offices in different countries. For instance, in Kiev the Council of Europe has three different offices, and we have six different kinds of offices in Europe. We are proposing to have only one type of office – namely, Council of Europe offices – where we need such offices. We need to have strong offices that can undertake co-operation programmes with member countries where that is needed.

We also need offices in the European Union and have established one in Geneva, where there are UN bodies and important NGOs. We need to have one in Vienna, where the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe is located, and one in Warsaw, where the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights is located. This is part of the reform: to reinforce co-operation with the other European institutions, such as the European Union and the OSCE.

All this will help the Court of Human Rights. Of course, ratification of Protocol 14 was very important because it will help to reform the Court and make it more efficient, but it is not at all sufficient. We need to work much more with member states, so that not so many applications come to the Court. This is the only way to rescue this important institution of the Council of Europe. That is why we need to strengthen the monitoring bodies, to strengthen the office of the Human Rights Commissioner, and to strengthen targeted co-operation with member states. If we can do that, we can help member countries to move forward and take care of many of the applications that today end up in the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

The Court of Human Rights is increasingly becoming a first-instance court, rather than a last-instance court, because so many citizens in our member states do not trust their own judicial system. This is the main problem for the Court.

The most important goal for us, as it should be for the entire continent, is to see to it that we get EU accession to the European Convention on Human Rights and therefore become a party to the Court of Human Rights. As I said, this must be the main goal for us. We are the only ones who can create a common legal space for all European nations and for the European Union, as the legal body that it has become after entering into force the Lisbon Treaty. If we cannot achieve this, we will get new dividing lines in Europe. The danger is that we will get one case law under the Luxembourg Court and one under the Strasbourg Court, but if we can get EU accession to the Convention and to the Court, that would be an historic achievement for the Council of Europe.

If we are not able to reform the Organisation – if we are not able to reinforce the various instruments or to reform the Court – that will be used against EU accession to the Convention. So in this context, reform is very important. As I said, it is the most important political goal for us and the imperative for Europe today. The imperative is to avoid new dividing lines on the continent; rather, we should achieve the opposite: to unite Europe under the same standards, the same rules and the same Court.

We also need to implement many human resources measures, because the financial situation for the Council of Europe is very difficult. Governments continue to pursue this zero growth policy. There is no additional funding for the Council of Europe and we cannot foresee that that will change, given the financial crisis. There is also an automatic increase in staff costs every year that feeds from the operational problems and activities of the Organisation. If we are unable to stop this, there will be no activities left and more operational problems, and therefore there will be no Council of Europe left. We cannot have an Organisation consisting only of staff here in Strasbourg, without any co-operation programmes and activities. We need to stop this increase in staff costs year on year, so we have taken strong measures to do that, on a solidarity basis among the staff here in Strasbourg. I wanted to tell you about this because, if we are unable to do this, we will pay for more and more staff costs in the future and there will be fewer programmes and activities in all the different entities of the Organisation.

This is what reform is about. Look at Europe today. There has been an ongoing process of setting standards on human rights, the rule of law and democracy, and of getting member states to comply with these standards. In that regard, the Council of Europe has been in the front seat. There has also been an ongoing integration process – integration of economies, of politics – in which the European Union has been the driving force. These two processes are interconnected and unprecedented in history. We have created a Europe in which people can live their lives and not lose their lives. The Council of Europe has been and is indispensable. As I have said, we are the only ones who can set the same standard for everybody. We are the only ones who can monitor all the countries with the unique monitoring bodies that we have. Without this, the integration process cannot take place.

At the same time, we are witnessing some old ghosts returning to the scene and playing a role in European politics and the appearance of new human rights problems related to migration and the fact that societies are becoming multicultural. We also have warm and frozen conflicts on our continent – I say this because the process of standard-setting, monitoring and implementation within the framework of the Council of Europe must continue. The process of integration in Europe must also continue.

The only way in which the Council of Europe can be relevant in the future, as we were in the past, is by reforming. That means that we must unite our forces and concentrate our resources on the most important issues. If we do not have more coherent policies and unite our forces, and if we do not direct the Council of Europe’s resources towards the most important issues, we will not be relevant in the new Europe that is now being shaped. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to address you; I will gladly take your questions.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Mr Jagland, for your interesting address. Members of the Assembly have questions to put to you; I remind them that questions must be limited to 30 seconds. Colleagues should ask questions, not make speeches. The first question is from Mr Volontè, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy) thanked the Secretary General for his enthusiasm and his commitment to reorganise the Council of Europe. He paid tribute to the Secretary General’s realism and asked what he would do to create a better delineation between the work of the Council of Europe, the European Union and the European Parliament.

Mr JAGLAND – This is a very important question. First, our Organisation needs to do its work; then you can do your work in your national parliaments, and this is up to the member states of the European Union. We therefore need to influence political leaders in the nation states. The political will is there in the European Commission. Accession will take place according the Lisbon Treaty, although I am aware that a lot of problems could be created in order to avoid accession. We therefore need political leadership, and that is why we have political bodies – it is why we have you here, and why we have leaders at the national level. We need to follow the process closely and remain in contact with the European Parliament across the river, because it will be very important in this respect. I have already made many contacts there, and I know that the mood in the European Parliament is very positive on this issue.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next question is from Lord Tomlinson, on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Lord TOMLINSON (United Kingdom) – The Socialist Group supports your reform efforts, but will you agree to present a written outline of your reforms, so that this Assembly may play a constructive role in the process? Changes affect the staff, and the Socialist Group expects two things: first, that the staff bear only a fair share of the burdens – and then only in full consultation with their trade unions – and, secondly, that our staff are not significantly more adversely treated than those in other European institutions funded by our taxpayers. Do you agree?

Mr JAGLAND – To the first question I can say yes. In answer to the second question, I would expect the most important thing for the Socialist Group to be for the burden to be borne on the basis of solidarity in this Assembly. The choice is either continuing as we are, paying more and more for staff costs, which will mean doing away with more jobs in the Organisation, or taking an approach based on solidarity, which is my approach.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next question is from Mr Marquet, on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Mr MARQUET (Monaco) said that he fully supported the Secretary General’s reform agenda. He said the Assembly enjoyed a comparative advantage when compared to some of the other European institutions and asked what steps the Secretary General would take to further the excellent work of the Council of Europe’s conference on counterfeit medical products.

Mr JAGLAND – May I speak to you about this afterwards? I cannot give you a concrete answer now.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next question is from Mr Greenway, on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Mr GREENWAY (United Kingdom) – You heard me say yesterday that the European Democrat Group probably has more members from non-EU countries than any other group, so many in the group will strongly agree with what you said about the indispensability of this Organisation. We want your reform process to succeed, in order to make this Organisation more relevant. That is extremely important, particularly in those eastern European countries from which our members come. You said in your speech that the human rights problems surrounding migration remain profound. If we in this Assembly are to continue to take a stand on the human rights of migrants, asylum seekers, refugees and displaced persons, will you reassure us that your reform process will leave in place coherent intergovernmental machinery to respond to our concerns and work with us to make a difference?

Mr JAGLAND – Yes. My intention is to reinforce that aspect. Indeed, I am glad that you have asked that question, because that issue is part of the new budget. We are discontinuing some activities that are not convincing, and transferring the money into work with Roma and other vulnerable people. However, we will also look into how we can continue to do what we do now, but in a different way. We are spending a lot of money on salaries and seminars that do not serve migrants. We need to look into what we can do for migrants. You are right: we also need intergovernmental work on this issue, and we very much appreciate the work of the Parliamentary Assembly on this question. The Human Rights Commissioner is also keeping an eye on this issue, along with the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, the monitoring body, so it will continue to be an important part of the Council of Europe’s human rights work.

THE PRESIDENT – The next question is from Mr Kox, on behalf of the Group of Unified European Left.

Mr KOX (Netherlands) – This may be a good opportunity to say that I am happy that we elected you to the driving seat of this Organisation, but I am sorry that the car does not function that well. You rightly complained about the synergy of this Organisation. What do you think about improving the synergy through co-operation between the Committee of Ministers, the Parliamentary Assembly and you as Secretary General? How should we develop that? There have been new developments – we are fighting less and working together more. What more can we do?

Mr JAGLAND – Coming to the Parliamentary Assembly and holding consultations more often is one step forward. That should also happen with the committees – for example, I was invited to your committee in Paris some weeks ago. There are many things we can do to facilitate more consultations and more exchanges of views and information. I am glad that the climate has changed so much. Yesterday, we had a meeting of the Joint Committee, during which David Wilshire said, “Now we like each other.” I agree – we are now on the same team.

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden) – We have already heard about the importance of immigration; the Council of Europe has an important role to play in that. However, I have heard that the Secretary General is planning to terminate the European Committee on Migration, so what other measures will you take to safeguard intergovernmental co-operation and capacity, and to guarantee consultations within and outside the Organisation? For example, UNHCR has an office on our premises. What will you do to guarantee that that remains?

Mr JAGLAND – As I said, we have already established a presence in Geneva, where UNHCR is located. We did that because there are several UN agencies there as well as many of the most important NGOs. I did not include it in my speech – I think it was in my notes – but part of the reform means reforming interaction with NGOs so that we interact more directly with the most relevant ones for us. That is important for questions relating to migration, intercultural dialogue and so forth.

The Human Rights Commissioner has intergovernmental machinery on the agenda. We still have a steering committee on human rights and we also have the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance. We will look into what more we can do, but we now have an internal oversight service, which evaluates our actions. We have been convinced that some of what we have done was a waste of money. We have been paying salaries, which is good for somebody, but not so important for migrants. We have therefore been considering how we can establish a more effective way of working, which has a stronger impact for migrants.

Ms PASHAYEVA (Azerbaijan) – Dear Secretary General, you stress the need for reform in the Council of Europe. However, the fact that several resolutions have not been implemented impacts negatively on the Organisation’s prestige. For example, Resolution 1416, adopted in 2005, remains unimplemented. It stresses that Armenia should withdraw from the occupied Azerbaijani territories and that Azerbaijani refugees and internally displaced persons should be allowed to return to their homes. The number of such unimplemented resolutions is not small. Do you intend to take any steps about that?

Mr JAGLAND – In general, you are right. Many resolutions and findings by the monitoring bodies are not being implemented. We therefore have to strengthen this Organisation and place more emphasis on it so that we can implement the standards and findings of the monitoring bodies.

The Minsk process is the recognised international process for dealing with the conflict you mentioned. I do not believe that the Council of Europe could or should interfere in that.

Mr CORLĂŢEAN (Romania) said the Romanian Government was engaged on a programme of reform of education and had pledged to introduce further legislation. He was concerned that such measures might violate European standards, such as the universities’ independence from political interference and asked the Secretary General to comment.

Mr JAGLAND – I shall be a little cautious about making any commitments on this case. Education and culture remain important for the Council of Europe, but we also need to consider the impact of our activities. I am not aware of what the Council of Europe can do in this case, but I take the opportunity to emphasise that, while I have focused on the excellent instruments of the Council of Europe, we can do many other things to offer support. There were discussions in the past about the so-called core issues, and then we had the enabling factors. We have done away with that and everything now comes under the three pillars of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Of course, what we do about education and culture is important in building democratic societies, achieving the rule of law and complying with human rights requirements. That will remain important in future, but we must examine the impact of our different activities.

Mr ZINGERIS (Lithuania) – Dear Secretary General, we are all suffering from the consequences of the economic crisis. For my part, now that I am a rapporteur on the political consequences of the crisis, I want to ask whether you think it would be useful to organise a conference under the auspices of the Council of Europe to oversee the political consequences of the economic crisis and the radicalisation of some of our societies.

Mr JAGLAND – I do not know about a conference on that, but the crisis is a new development and we must keep an eye on vulnerable groups. That is why we are transferring money from paying salaries to staff and holding internal seminars to work for vulnerable groups such as the Roma people. However, we can look into your proposal – I am not able to comment on it now.

Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania) – My question concerns the Council of Europe as a European organisation. Fifty years ago, we created an organisation of values, but now this is increasingly an organisation of geography. In each part-session, we complain that one or another country is not respecting the fundamental values of the Council of Europe. What is your opinion about the future of such countries as Belarus? We have said what we believe Belarus should be doing, but nothing happens. Belarus still uses the death penalty. What should we do about this country?

Mr JAGLAND – I do not agree that this is an organisation of geography. This is still an organisation of values. It is right to say that there are different problems in different countries, but this is also an organisation for moving things forward. I was not present when all the new democracies that appeared after the Berlin Wall came down were taken into the Organisation, but I assume that we allowed that to happen because we wanted to help these new democracies based on our standards and values.

There are of course certain limits to that approach. There is a specific limit in the case of Belarus. Belarus has many human rights problems, which is why it cannot become a member of the Council of Europe. As I understand it – and I agree very much with this – it cannot get back its guest status in this Assembly before it has a moratorium on or abolishes the death penalty.

We have to see Europe as a continent that is moving forward. It is right to say that there are different problems in different countries, but it is wrong to say that human rights problems are present only in specific parts of Europe. We have human rights problems in most European countries and we need to work on them. Mr Greenway mentioned migration and the fact that, although we have become intercultural societies, we have not been able to adapt to this new reality. We have to work on that in all European countries. There are problems in specific countries but, as long as those countries are willing to move forward and to work with us, I think that we are on the right track.

Of course there are limits to which countries can be members of the Council of Europe. One is geographical; we do not want to go beyond the geographical boundaries that we have today. Also, we cannot take in countries that are violating the basic standards and values that we have in the Council of Europe.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. There are two speakers left on the list and I should like to give both of them a chance to speak. I ask them to be brief. I call first Mr Iwiński.

Mr IWIŃSKI (Poland) – Mr Secretary General, reform is needed, among other reasons, to prevent the decline in the Council of Europe’s role in international relations. Your proposals are in line with the ideas developed here by your contender for your position, the former Polish prime minister, Mr Cimoszewicz. I agree that the key issue today is the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights. However, what should we do about the unsatisfactory situation whereby in 9 000 cases every year the verdict of the international court is not implemented by Council of Europe member states?

Mr JAGLAND – That is why we need reform of the Court. The reform process was launched at the important ministerial conference at Interlaken. We very much welcome the Russian ratification of Protocol No. 14. This is about making the Court more efficient. We have to take many measures, some of which are very controversial. However, without taking controversial measures, we cannot do anything. More importantly, as I said, we have to work with member countries on improving their judicial systems and legislation in order to ensure that most of the applications can be dealt with in their own courts and do not come to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. That is the main problem and it is why we need to strengthen Council of Europe instruments and bodies.

Mr TOSHEV (Bulgaria) – Secretary General, I admire your courage on these reforms and your willingness to reform the Council of Europe. Where, in this new structure, is the place for the very important activity of education for democratic citizenship, which was adopted in the 1999 declaration of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe?

Mr JAGLAND – I can assure you that, as I said, education is a very important part of the strategy to foster democracy, the rule of law and human rights. That will continue. However, we must also look at the impact of our programmes. Everything is about influence and what kind of influence our programmes have on developments on the ground for ordinary citizens. Thank you for saying that I have a lot of courage. I could have had an easy life without this reform, but I have always enjoyed having a more interesting life, which is why I am putting these reforms on the table. I welcome the prospect of working with members of the Assembly because I know for sure that this reform cannot be implemented without political guidance and support. You are the politicians on whom I will rely. I am convinced that you, in this Assembly, see the need for having a Council of Europe that is more relevant. As I and others have said, this Organisation is indispensible, but we can be relevant only if we implement these reforms. Thank you for listening to me and thank you for your good questions. I will continue the dialogue.

THE PRESIDENT – Mr Secretary General, on behalf of this Parliamentary Assembly, I thank you for your address, for sharing your opinions with us and for answering the questions from our Members.

Dear colleagues, I must remind you that the vote is in progress to elect one judge to the European Court of Human Rights with respect to Ukraine. The poll will close at 5 p.m. Those who have not yet voted may still do so by going to the area behind the President’s Chair.

THE PRESIDENT – We now come to the joint debate on reports from the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee, the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, and the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men. The first is on the social impact of the economic crisis, Document 12026, presented by Ms Roseira. The second is on the impact of the global economic crisis on migration in Europe, document 12200, presented by Mr Agramunt Font de Mora, followed by an opinion presented by Mr Lindblad on behalf of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development, Document 12217. The third is on women and the economic and financial crisis, Document 12195, presented by Mrs Wurm. The fourth is on investing in family cohesion as a development factor in times of crisis, Document 12103, presented by Mr Volontè.

I remind you that we have agreed to interrupt the list of speakers at about 6.45 p.m. to allow time for the replies and votes. I also remind you that speeches are limited to four minutes.

I gather that Mr Pedro Agramunt Font de Mora has a flight to catch. Therefore, with the permission of Ms Roseira, I call first Mr Agramunt Font de Mora, the rapporteur, to present the second report. You have 13 minutes. Given that Mr Agramunt Font de Mora has to leave right after his speech, any of the 13 minutes that he does not use will be allocated to the speaking time of the chairperson of the committee, Mr Greenway, in replying to the debate. Mr Agramunt Font de Mora, you have the floor.

Mr AGRAMUNT FONT DE MORA (Spain) apologised for the fact that he had to fly to Madrid before the end of the debate; he would be back tomorrow.

The consequences of the economic crisis had been significant, affecting everyone, including immigrants. The rate of unemployment of immigrants was twice that of indigenous workers, showing that the crisis had been most sorely felt by the weakest sectors of the population. Many member states had responded to the crisis by tightening immigration controls. For example, Spain had encouraged immigrants to return to their country of origin despite the fact that in many cases the impact of the economic crisis was felt more strongly in those countries.

The report from the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population argued that Europe needed to find medium to long-term solutions to the problems posed by immigration in an economic crisis. Immigrants should not be blamed as they were not taking jobs from nationals in their own country. In fact they contributed to the wealth to their host country. European countries should not resort to such arguments.

Illegal immigration had to be addressed as this was often linked to exploitation of workers. Sometimes, lawful immigrants had found themselves in the same situation after they fell outside the protection of the law as a result of the economic crisis. A realistic solution that reconciled excessive immigration with the demand for manpower was needed.

The increase in unemployment as a result of the economic crisis had led to an increase in xenophobia. To counter this, migrants needed equal rights and equal pay in comparison with nationals. Europe should set an example in this respect.

Europe should ensure that it did not end immigration but nor should it attract immigrants to Europe without imposing some controls; Europe’s future depended on getting the balance right.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Agramunt Font de Mora. You have seven minutes and 20 seconds remaining. I call Ms Roseira, Rapporteur of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee.

Ms ROSEIRA (Portugal), said that the crisis had affected society deeply and undermined trust in politics. The social and human dimension of the crisis was obvious: increasing unemployment, especially amongst the vulnerable; low growth; and an increasing gap between the wages of the rich and poor. A failure to regulate markets and globalisation had contributed to the growing lack of trust in politicians.

The Council of Europe had a role to play in ensuring that economic arguments did not take precedence over the rule of law. The Council of Europe, and Europe as a whole, had to face the challenges presented by climate change, the global energy crisis, a food crisis and the impact on welfare services of Europe’s changing demographic make-up. Europe needed consistent economic and social policies that would improve working conditions and recognised the role played by small and medium-sized enterprises. Actions to improve research and development and to develop “green” services were needed. The challenges posed by such issues highlighted the importance of applying the values of the Council of Europe in the development of social and economic policy.

Short-term measures implemented by member states had lessened the social repercussions of the crisis. Health and welfare protection could not be forgotten in stabilising economies. Decent work was a tool to ensure a dignified life for everybody. The revised European Social Charter should help to build a better society. The work of the ILO and the World Health Organisation had shown that welfare provision system was a means of dealing with conflicts and managing inequalities.

Inequalities and oppression caused resentment and at the same time created injustice. There could not be a completely fair world, but the Council of Europe’s work was important if ways of correcting injustices were to be found. Social rights helped to overcome inequalities and were vital to increasing democracy and ensuring the rule of law. Everyone had a duty to promote human rights.

She called on the Assembly to vote in favour of the draft resolution tabled by the Committee on Social, Health and Family Affairs.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Roseira. You have five minutes and 30 seconds remaining.

I was supposed to give the floor to Mr Lindblad after Mr Agramunt Font de Mora’s speech, but I made a mistake. I apologise for that. I now call Mr Lindblad, the rapporteur, for the opinion of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development on Mr Agramunt Font de Mora’s report. You have four minutes, Mr Lindblad.

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden) – Thank you, Mr President. That is not a problem. Even the sun has spots. I am not unhappy, because I had a few more seconds to prepare.

It is important that we deal with migration issues from an economic viewpoint. As Rapporteur of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development, I have not been trying to make a migration report-lite. It was a report in which we tried to focus on the economic effects. However, we have to look deeper into many of those economic effects. We need more research to find all the facts and figures. It is an ongoing issue for the Parliamentary Assembly and the Council of Europe.

As we know, many migrants send money back to their country of origin. Those sums are much larger than the amounts donated from all European countries. Private aid to countries of origin is very important to help developing countries.

Demography is a problem for Europe. We have an ageing population. We need migration, but we must organise it in a way that is economically efficient and effective for our countries. There are examples in member countries of free working migration. It works really well. No people are deprived of their jobs by migrants. The migrants are specialists in various fields and are doing work that would not have been done before.

It is important that we look into the situation of irregulars. We need more facts. What would be the costs and benefits of regularisation? Is there a balance point in such situations? In countries where regularisation has taken place, more tax money has come in, but there are costs. We need to look into that carefully.

We see a lot of entrepreneurs among migrants. The recovery of our countries after the recession would have been worse had we not had so many entrepreneurs in the migrant population. It is important to point that out.

Before I took the floor, I received an e-mail from one of the racists who are always e-mailing me about this and that, blaming everything on migrants. As the Council of Europe, it is important that we stand up for human rights, democracy and the rule of law, but it is also important that we have real economic facts to use in our arguments and debates. We will then be much better armed to fight attacks from racist organisations and people who are afraid of what is different, which they find a little scary.

I end on that point. I hope that we have a really good debate and that the report and my opinion are adopted.

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

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Lindblad. I shall not interrupt the applause for you – I hope you appreciate it. The next speaker is Mrs Wurm, the Rapporteur of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men.

Mrs WURM (Austria) said that a year ago the financial and economic crisis reached its height. She had tabled a motion on the impact of the crisis on women. Many thought that the crisis was over and economies were up and running again. The IMF had been strengthened and there had been taxes on banks – business was continuing as usual, but a report on women was needed. Women did not have much of a role in banks; it was Lehman Brothers bank, not Lehman sisters, that collapsed. In 2006, the Iceland banking crisis led to several resignations; only one was a woman, the rest were men. The crisis was made by men but its impact was not felt just by those who created it.

Taxpayers were funding various recovery packages, but women at home had had little input into the design of the packages. Women might have temporary contracts.

They were more likely to be employed in public services and therefore more likely to lose their jobs. It was easier to dismiss a woman on €400 than a man with long service and trade union involvement.

Systemic changes were needed and the Council of Europe could ensure positive action by complying with the Maastricht criteria. A tax on transactions was needed. It should not be grandmothers with small bank accounts who were penalised.

There had been a lot of financial speculation during the crisis and people had been gambling away their money. The Council of Europe should talk about stock markets and taxation on gambling.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you very much, Mrs Wurm. You will have six minutes and 50 seconds in which to respond to questions if you so wish. Mr Lindblad, I forgot to make it clear earlier that you will have seven and a half minutes.

I now call Mr Volontè, rapporteur, to present the fourth report. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of your report and reply to the debate.

Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy) said the report was discussed in the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee in the middle of the financial crisis. The European Central Bank and its director had told the committee that there was light at the end of the tunnel, but no one knew how long it would take. Social efforts would continue to have effect, but unemployment continued to rise. Some predicted that at the end of 2011 people would be at a level of welfare last seen 10 years ago; 10 years of progress had been lost.

One of the solutions advocated by the committee was greater investment in the family. The family was a vital way of educating children and developing inter-generational relationships; the family was the best place for individuals to develop such relationships. Promoting the family in the context of the crisis was important and family-friendly policies were needed. The family should be the starting point and could be seen as the shock absorber for future crises. If the family was abandoned, it would affect the crisis and exacerbate difficulties in families and have a negative impact on society.

Family-friendly policies should be seen as an investment because they bolstered both the links between generations and a country’s social capital. Welfare support should be increased; it was a fundamental component of social policy. The family should be recognised as more than an accidental association of individuals and acknowledged as the foundation of all social networks. The work of non-governmental organisations was important, especially when they campaigned for the needs of families as a force for good. Family-friendly policies had both economic as well as social benefits. Companies ought to be encouraged to do their bit. Their social, as well as environmental, policies had great potential in a time of such economic difficulty. The Committee on Social, Health and Family Affairs asked for the Assembly’s support.

THE PRESIDENT said that members would have four and a half minutes in the general debate that followed and called Mr Pochinok to speak on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Mr POCHINOK (Russian Federation) said that it would be very difficult to respond to all five reports in such a short time. The world was accustomed to the illusion of economic stability, and indeed Nobel prizes had been awarded to economists for apparently defeating the laws of economics, but the latter had won in the end. What was needed now was a period of rapid technological global change with the creation of millions of new jobs in new and emerging sectors of the world’s economies.

The report from the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population made it clear that immigration policy should in no way be discriminatory. Russia was in fact the second most active country in promoting labour migration. In 1990 the United Nations adopted its current policy on migration. Now the world needed a unified approach to labour and migration as the two were inextricably linked. Otherwise, there would be far too many under-filled and underpaid jobs. Employers should be encouraged to take joint action, and countries should work together, both those that exported labour and those that imported it. National economies had begun to grow once more, but it was important to prevent the development of too much inequality.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr. Kox, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the United European Left.

Mr KOX (Netherlands) – As I have only a few minutes at my disposal, I will concentrate on Mrs Roseira’s report, “The social impact of the economic crisis”, although I of course congratulate the other rapporteurs – Mr Agramunt Font de Mora, Mrs Wurm and Mr Volontè – on their reports, which have all helped us in trying to understand what is happening in our continent and in our world.

When a volcano erupts and causes the loss of €1 billion, owing to the unforeseen interruption of air transport, should we blame the volcano? The answer is no. The volcano is just acting according to its nature. Volcanoes do erupt once in a while; the problem is that we do not know when they will erupt, what the magnitude of those eruptions will be, how long they will last or what kind of damage they will cause. The modern world, as we have learned in the past few weeks, appeared to be badly prepared for the volcano’s decision to erupt, although we knew that an eruption could – and normally would – happen.

Let us now forget the volcano and consider the huge financial, economic and social crisis, and compare that explosion with what we know about volcanoes. When capitalism erupts and causes the loss of hundreds of billions of euros, of millions of jobs and – especially in the poorer parts of the world – of even the lives of millions of young children who will die due to lack of food, should we blame capitalism? Yes or no?

It is no secret that capitalism, like a volcano, is built on enormous contradictions. Those contradictions are between capital and labour, the haves and the have-nots and the short-term interests of the powerful and the long-term interests of the masses. Karl Marx warned us about that in the 19th century, John Maynard Keynes did it again in the 20th century and Paul Krugman does it now in the 21st century. Capitalism is indeed like a volcano. We know for sure that it will erupt due to its enormous contradictions, but we do not know the timing, the magnitude of the eruption or the damage that it will do.

Although the structure of capitalism could not have been a secret, the world was badly prepared when banks started collapsing and the economy got into its deepest crisis for almost a century. The main difference between a volcano and capitalism is that the latter is man-made. Man-made means two things: we should blame ourselves for what is happening now, and we can prevent the crisis from happening again.

Ms Roseira’s remarkable report proposes measures to influence capitalism to prevent it as far as possible from erupting again. The rapporteur has our full support when she concludes that we have to ensure synergies between the state and the markets, and effective and efficient regulations of market economies. Her report proposes giving priority to protecting employment through sustainable businesses, quality public services and adequate social protection for all. It states that we should maintain wage levels and enhance support to vulnerable people who are hit hardest by the crisis, especially women, migrants and poor families. Ms Roseira says that we should extend the duration and coverage of unemployment benefits and safeguard pension guarantees. The report states that we should strengthen effective public employment services and ensure that short-term actions are consistent with economic, social and environmental sustainability. Wonderful, Ms Roseira! It is as if I were quoting my party’s programme for the next election.

You will understand, Mr President, that we of the Unified Left have no problem with Ms Roseira’s conclusions. The left has always maintained that there was something really rotten about capitalism, even during the glorious years of neo-liberalism, which affected not only Liberals and Conservatives, but Social Democrats and even some Greens.

Now we are no longer alone in our criticism of capitalism and in our conclusion that an unregulated market economy is a volcano waiting to erupt. I say especially to our Social Democratic colleagues, “Welcome back.” We again share the idea that unregulated capitalism is a tremendous and unacceptable danger to mankind, now and in future. We should therefore all take action together to prevent that form of capitalism from erupting again at the cost of so many lives, rights, jobs and futures.

It is now nearly 5 p.m. Does any member still wish to vote in the election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights with respect to Ukraine?

The ballot for electing a judge to the European Court of Human Rights with respect to Ukraine is now closed.

The counting of votes will take place under the supervision of the tellers, Mr Austin and Mr Stoilov.

Mr SANTINI (Italy) thanked the rapporteurs for their speeches and noted the words of Ms Roseira, who had said that the economic crisis may have been caused by the failure of political institutions in their role of regulating world economies. The crisis had had an untold influence on the vulnerable in society and migrants were often the first to suffer. Although discussion often centred on single income breadwinners, if a migrant lost their job, they also lost their status and became clandestine workers, working only in the black market economy. Some of the statistics pertaining to women that had been mentioned in the debate were staggering, particularly those that suggested that women comprised 70% of those in poverty but only 1% of those in leadership positions. Perhaps if more women had been present in European governments before the economic crisis, the consequences would have been less severe.

On the question of the family, the fact that women were increasingly present in the workplace meant that it was necessary to provide more support for families, which were the motor of society. The family could, in and of itself, be seen as an anti-crisis task force, but only if love was at the centre. Love was indeed stronger than economics.

Mr KONEČNÝ (Austria) said that the world had moved into the second phase of the economic crisis. He drew attention to the industrial and real estate sectors in America and the high-risk speculation on the money markets that had devastated the reputations of some companies. The cost of the state bailouts of financial institutions had been truly enormous, as had the recovery packages intended to breathe new life into the ailing financial system. The human cost had also been high, and the vulnerable had suffered particularly badly. In such a short period he could not possibly go into the details, but families, investors, women and migrants had all been victims of the economic crisis.

It was important to ensure that the ordinary people who had paid for the first phase of the crisis should not pay again. The “little people” were being made to pay a second time indirectly through the social effects of the crisis. Meanwhile, bonuses were once again being awarded to those who caused it.

He concluded that Europe must maintain social provisions and standards for all and those that caused the crisis should be penalised for their role. He noted that in Austrian economy had a double meaning; it also meant chaos.

In the Austrian version of German, I could use the word “economy” to mean two different things and say that this type of economy has created enormous chaos and we are up for rectifying this chaos at the expense of those who created it.

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

Mrs REPS (Estonia) – On behalf of the group, I thank all five rapporteurs. This is a unique opportunity to speak on all their excellent reports.

The economic and financial crisis has created many questions among the public and even distrust about the future. Many countries have needed to make serious budget cuts in sensitive areas. Some countries have difficulty in maintaining access to health care and substantial cuts have been made in different areas of the social system, including benefits for children and care for the elderly. That in turn enlarges the number of vulnerable groups that are not receiving enough support from the state.

Many countries face high rates of unemployment. It is difficult to find any work or to enter the labour market, especially if one is less skilled and less educated, a migrant who does not speak the state language, someone with disabilities or a woman with a part-time job or with many children.

Many countries have gone through or are going through serious reforms to deal with the crisis, some with International Monetary Fund experts. One thing is clear: the population is becoming increasingly disappointed. As a previous speaker said, there is a second phase. People ask why there is a state, why there are taxes and why there are support systems if they cannot last in a crisis. We need to build up confidence and a sustainable system that can last through such difficult times.

Today, one of the most urgent tasks is to enable enterprises to sustain and create jobs. There can be regulatory and financial support for enterprises, including micro and small enterprises, to promote employment across different sectors. However, we also need to create public sector jobs – even temporary or short-term jobs – to keep people from long-term unemployment, to bring them back into society and to give them hope and the ability to re-enter the work force. We also need to take people out of unemployment, especially those who have been unemployed for more than a year, and give them training and education, new skills and new hope.

Another issue outlined in the report relates to policies to tighten borders against migrants and the increasing phenomena of xenophobia and hatred. I am talking about hatred against anybody who is a little bit different, not only migrants; this week, we are also discussing people with different family set-ups. Anyone who does not live to the normal standard is being blamed for taking away scarce work. There is an increasing incidence of irregular migrant flows because the crisis is also affecting so-called host countries.

Lastly, I raise the question of family set-ups. Careful attention should be given to people with families in difficulties, such as single parents, those with very large families or those with family members with disabilities. However, we need to understand that the most careful attention should be paid to children because, as all the statistics show, children are affected the most. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mrs Reps. The rapporteurs may respond immediately or, if not, they may use their four minutes at the end. I call Mr Grignon.

Mr GRIGNON (France) said that the effects of the economic crisis were still underestimated and the reports did not rise to the challenge that the crisis posed to Europe. European responses to the crisis did not compare to the new deal of the 1930s; there had not been an emergence of a system to replace the old, defunct, social system. As a result, unpopular social measures were required to allow the existing social system to survive.

There were several striking features of the crisis: inequality had increased, as it had in previous crises, and the rich had profited, as the most affluent were affected the least by the crisis. These features showed that the European and economic social model needed modernisation.

The crisis posed the very real possibility of the rise of anti-democratic parties, as the young were among the foremost of its victims. An additional 4 million young people had become unemployed as a direct result of the crisis and a report of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development had indicated that this figure would rise further, creating an explosive situation of increasing radical tendencies among young people who were out of work, as had been shown in previous economic crises.

The economic crisis had also had an unequal global impact. Developing countries, such as China, had experienced only a dip in economic growth, showing their strong social and political cohesion.

Mrs BLONDIN (France) said that she would refer in her speech to the report of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population. Migrants had been doubly penalised by the economic crisis; they had suffered both the economic effects and had in many cases been made scapegoats.

The national preference schemes that many member states might implement as a result of the crisis were not the solution. Migrant workers were vulnerable and politicians should ensure labour market policies addressed this. Migrants attended to many of the long-term labour needs of their host country and provided benefits through the remittances they sent to their country of origin – estimated to be about $340 billion per year, or over three times the amount of global official development assistance. This remittance acted as a lever for economic growth, providing a social safety network for families; this could be described as “the human face of globalisation”. The economic crisis had also led to a decrease in financial transfers, which had contributed to an increase in the number of those in extreme poverty, which was now between 55 and 90 million.

Restrictive policies on migration would have the unintended effect of making illegal previously legal migrants, resulting in further negative economic consequences for those affected. Migration policies needed to be developed in co-operation with the country of origin and to move from the current focus on security to a new approach that recognised the positive developmental aspects of migration. This would further increase the positive benefits of migration and reduce global poverty.

She concluded that migrants remained the main victims of immigration, because of the hardships they went through in leaving their home country and making the dangerous journey to their destination.

Mr O’REILLY (Ireland) – I congratulate our rapporteurs on their excellent and timely reports.

I wish to speak to the social impact of the economic crisis. One of the very visible and painful consequences of the current economic and financial crisis is the difficulty that many people are experiencing in getting credit and mortgages and the difficulty that those who have them are experiencing in paying them off. Both situations are a consequence of years of under-regulated and reckless behaviour by financial institutions. It is a real hardship for a young couple or individual if they cannot get a mortgage to buy a first home.

As Council of Europe members, it is our duty to protect young people’s inalienable right to have a fair and reasonable opportunity to own their own home. Those who, through the impact of unemployment or income reduction, cannot pay their mortgage should be given a considerate and reasonable opportunity over time to do so. In this regard, I am very concerned about the recent rise in court cases taken by financial institutions in my own country to repossess the homes of young people and families who are struggling to make repayments. Terms of loans and repayment schedules should be dealt with flexibly and in consultation with all parties involved. National governments and, indeed, this Assembly should be proactive in ensuring this fair and flexible treatment.

Small business is also a big victim of this recession. Credit is virtually unobtainable in many instances. Without credit flow, a business cannot function. The collapse of a small business can threaten the very fabric of a community. If there is to be recovery, small indigenous business will lead it.

There is unprecedented alienation from government among our citizens. This alienation arises from the degree to which financial institutions are being cushioned from recession while ordinary people are exposed. This alienation threatens democracy itself, and we all have a role to play in combating it. Financial institutions must be seen to experience the impact of recession too.

Unemployment is the most painful manifestation of the economic crisis throughout Europe. We, as Council of Europe members, should be active proponents of the right to work. Governments must pursue policy agendas that place the emphasis on job creation rather than the restoration of the fortunes of those who gambled with all our futures in such a cavalier fashion. Unemployed people should receive ongoing education and other support as they await their right to work.

At times of recession, the vulnerable, such as those with a disability, the unemployed or the low paid tend to be scapegoated and left on the margins. It is our duty as members of parliament and members of the Council of Europe to fight this and to highlight examples of it without fear or favour. As a Europe-wide Assembly charged with the maintenance and support of human rights, we are best placed to do this.

Mr GIARETTA (Italy) said that the financial crisis had been caused by the excessive nature of the economy and a lack of appropriate regulatory tools. As a consequence, the economy had slowed down, unemployment had increased, and there had been an impact on the vulnerable in society. A higher burden on public finances meant less finance was available for innovative solutions. Falling incomes had worsened the weakening of society. The inability of companies to deal with the financial crisis had led to a weakening in the welfare system.

The consequences went hand in hand with growing inequalities as capital was favoured over labour. If it had not been for the fact that welfare policies were widely used, the social effects of the crisis would have been exacerbated. Recent forecasts by the European Central Bank suggested further growth in unemployment. Employment in the eurozone was at its lowest; this itself undermined growth in global demand. An opportunity had to be taken to choose a model focused on environmental sustainability with new roles for the International Labour Organisation alongside the International Monetary Fund and the World Health Organisation. Positive globalisation could be achieved and ensuring social justice should not be forgotten.

Mr CHITI (Italy) said that the economic crisis continued to affect the world. It was not a natural event but the consequence of neo-liberal policies that had led to globalisation without rules. People had become objects; the young were finding it difficult to get jobs; and resources had been squandered, resulting in inequalities.

Women and the poor had been affected by the crisis. Human rights were at the centre of the Council of Europe’s concerns, so the issue of development and the crisis was timely and relevant.

The crisis could slow progress on the achievement of equality between men and women, on migration and undermine peace and co-operation. Mr Volontè had underlined three objectives of the report from the Committee on Social, Health and Family Affairs: international co-operation and dialogue to sustain quality jobs; education and equality of opportunity; and wealth based on equality and targeted measures for the vulnerable in society.

Mr MULLEN (Ireland) – It is a truth universally acknowledged that the test of a civilised society is the way it treats its most vulnerable members. This afternoon, we are rightly considering some of the various consequences of the economic crisis in terms of its impact on families, the poor in our societies, migrants and women, to name some groups.

In considering the suffering and hardships now being suffered by many people, we can think of various causes – the economic crisis itself and the reckless behaviour of financiers and bankers – but the necessary correctional measures can also lead to suffering and hardship. We must all bear responsibility for solving our problems, but we have a moral onus not to make the vulnerable groups in our societies the main victims of our correctional measures.

A key value is subsidiarity – looking in particular at the role of families in fostering generous attitudes and in providing economic shelter and protection. Another value is solidarity. At this juncture, I want to say that I disagree with the comments made to the effect that if the Lehman Brothers had been Lehman sisters, we should not have had an economic or banking crisis. That seems to me a rather untested proposition. We can all agree that we need to support gender equality and to enhance the participation of women, but I do not think we should resort to a certain kind of narrow feminist rhetoric when advancing that case. We demean the argument for gender equality when we over-simplify the analysis of our problems. We also risk undermining the necessary solidarity between men and women that is key to the resolution of our problems. For every person who is impressed by such arguments, there is somebody else who is repulsed, and who may even lose the case for respect for true solidarity among the sexes because of what they see as overly aggressive rhetoric veering into misandry.

Solidarity is the key, not divisiveness. The two issues that seem most important to me are the needs of migrants and the needs of families. It is simply not acceptable to welcome migrants when we need them for our economy and then to treat them as a nuisance or a challenge when a time of scarcity comes. We cannot claim to be a civilised society unless we respect the equal dignity of all persons who make it to our respective shores. When trying to attract immigrants for the labour markets, there should be proper channels, administered through member states’ embassies abroad, to help prospective immigrants understand the culture into which they are coming, and their obligations and rights. We need structures for immigration that are structured but generous.

When the time of challenge comes, there must be equal treatment of people regardless of their national origin. The idea that migrant people suddenly lose rights within a country because they can no longer find work should be an affront to our sense of decency.

Our debates about family life are sometimes dominated by political correctness. We simply must recognise that the family as we have always understood it – in which some people have the role of earners, some the role of carers and others are cared for, all within a unity – is a key cushion at a time of economic crisis. We must therefore embrace in particular the family based on marriage, because of the stability and comparatively positive social outcomes for children with which it is associated. We must support through the taxation system the contribution made by non-earning parents within the home. We need to look at the greatly enhanced provision of parental leave – for fathers as well as mothers – supporting in particular the relationship between fathers and their children, and the importance of that relationship.

While supporting all those currently parenting – including lone parents – in a generous fashion, we must educate people for marriage and child-rearing as couples, and offer incentives for people to provide this caring environment. This is not to adopt some doctrinaire, ideological position, but to recognise that what works best for children, according to the data, is the society of their biological parents. That is the generally accepted position. The fewer social problems children face in life, the greater their happiness, the lower the pressure on the economy and the greater the number of economic contributors – as distinct from economic dependants – in a society.

Ms VĖSAITĖ (Lithuania) – Developing countries are exposed to global crises and are even more vulnerable to their knock-on effects, such as lower remittance payments from overseas workers and the threat of local conflict as competition for resources grows.

Baltic countries, including my country of Lithuania, were hit hard by the crisis, too. We had two waves of immigration. The first occurred when we joined the EU and was connected with the free movement of labour; the second was connected with the present crisis. That will have deep consequences for the future development of the country when the economic recovery takes place, and the shortage of labour will become apparent. The pity is that we lost young people and have been left with an elderly population. The crisis increased the gap between the poor and the rich, and severely hit the most poor: single-parent families, women, migrants and elderly people.

I want to speak about preventive measures to ensure that the mess caused by this crisis can never happen again. During the climax of the crisis, everybody was speaking about more and better regulation of financial markets and institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, but now it is hard to believe that the financial sector will learn the lessons of the crisis. What we need, which this Assembly can propose, is a permanent mechanism that would make a difference. Why not consider a financial transaction tax? That could be a good measure to prevent such a disaster from happening again.

Mrs KADRIU (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”) – I congratulate the rapporteur on her excellent report, and I fully agree with the point expressed in it that the economic crisis has a different impact on women and men. Women suffer more during times of financial crisis, because they are more likely to be unemployed than men and tend to have lower social security benefits. Even though women and men are affected by job losses, women lose their jobs first because men are traditionally considered the main wage earners.

The financial and economic crisis not only involves monetary costs but impacts on human rights, especially the economic rights of women. I agree with the rapporteur that an holistic approach is required in addressing this crisis. It is crucial to ensure that policy responses take into account the needs of women, and do not undermine policies and plans that promote gender equality and women’s empowerment.

It is the responsibility of governments and parliaments to ensure that women are not discriminated against in times of economic recession. Our authorities, especially in the less-developed countries, need to ensure that macroeconomic policies, including financial and public sector reforms, are gender sensitive. Gender-responsive budgets are also increasingly important in ensuring adequate resources for gender equality and women’s empowerment.

In order to ensure that attention is paid to gender perspectives in policy responses to the financial crisis, women need to participate fully in the decision-making processes. So far, women have had unequal access to and control over economic and financial resources, and there has been limited progress in increasing their access to financial and economic decision making. We have to increase women’s participation in economic governance structures and processes to ensure policy coherence and adequate resources for gender equality and the empowerment of women.

The financial crisis caused economic instability in many countries and had a big impact on the lives of women. Women make up half the world’s population. Empowerment should be something normal that happens daily. It is fundamental in achieving a more just and safe world.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Mr Zernovski, from “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”.

Mr ZERNOVSKI (The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) – I congratulate the rapporteur on an excellent report. As has been mentioned by my colleagues, it is based on a very good analysis. The economic crisis has not only imposed financial costs but affected social policies and social relations. It has had an impact on the everyday life of citizens, and an especially negative impact on family cohesion. The negative consequences of the crisis for families are manifested in low birth rates, long-term demographic changes, lower income, increased unemployment and reduced social services, including education.

In that context, I should point out that the social analysis conducted in my country of Macedonia has noted a constant deterioration of economic and social conditions. In this time of economic crisis, more and more men and women have been laid off, all of which has resulted in fewer marriages on the one hand and an increase in divorce on the other. Unfortunately, this is the case in all countries in transition, and in Macedonia official figures confirm this to be true for us.

However, the economic crisis should not be an excuse for not taking measures to preserve family cohesion. On the contrary: it is exactly now, in the recession, that we have to strengthen measures to protect family relationships and the well-being of adults and children. I fully support the idea of adopting comprehensive measures and family policies, as suggested in the report. Only an holistic approach can address such a serious and complex challenge.

I am convinced that the experience of more developed countries, as well as that of the different departments of our organisation, can provide examples of best practice. It is necessary for governments to ensure policy coherence and provide adequate resources to strengthen public services and provide access to stable jobs and housing and quality care. Otherwise, traditional family values will be lost, poverty will increase and societies in general will be destabilised.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I do not see Mr Markov in the Chamber, so I call Mr Ivanovski.

Mr IVANOVSKI (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”) – It is good that we are having a joint debate on these reports. I congratulate Ms Roseira on her report, to which I shall refer. This debate is timely, and afterwards we must be accurate in tackling the issues, reasons, consequences and solutions.

So far, when the world economic crisis and its results have been discussed, the negative financial and economic effects have been dominant. The social consequences have been underestimated and have been addressed more in a statistical than a substantial manner. Even nowadays, the public, the experts and most politicians largely talk about falls in GDP, the recovery, trade indices and the balance of payments. The social impact is neglected. Lost jobs, reductions in the quality of life, lower education standards, uncertainty for pensioners, the rise in divorces, increased suicides and depression, social transfers, and cuts in health and children’s programmes are some of the many social impacts of the economic crisis.

In that sense, the negative impacts are not isolated within countries. The latest recession clearly demonstrated the high level of interdependence among the countries of the world. The economic crisis hit the global economy, and resulted in general and worldwide negative outcomes. The question is: which countries suffer most?

Of course, developing and underdeveloped countries are less well prepared to face the challenges of the current crisis. While rich countries are bigger exporters than importers, and save more than they consume, developing countries, such as my country, Macedonia, are, as a rule, more dependent on imports and loans. As there is common agreement that the current crisis is to a large extent also a crisis of trust in financial and political institutions, we need a global solution to address a global problem. Strong and effective measures have to be applied. The global financial system has to be reformed as a priority, and at the same time – not afterwards – we need action to stabilise our systems of social justice, to absorb the impact of the crisis on the basis of solidarity.

We can see that the number of billionaires in England or Moscow, for example, has not decreased, whereas poverty and the number of socially endangered people has increased significantly. The crisis was followed by another negative redistribution, from the poor to the rich, and nothing serious has been done to stop that.

It is the responsibility of every government to protect its citizens’ social and human rights, especially in an economic downturn. We are aware that the economic crisis seriously affects citizens’ living conditions, and in that sense it endangers the basic values of democracy. It is also important to have economic and social solidarity, as well as co-operation and co-ordination between governments, the business sector and the trade unions. Governments should monitor and address the social impact and human dimensions of the financial crisis, and parliaments need to exercise their control more actively, in order to monitor the application of the measures needed to soften the recession.

I would like to finish by referring to what Mr Kox said. Can we – or should we – abolish capitalism because of the crisis? No; we should get it under control. That does not mean business by any means or rapid and risky growth, but sustainable growth, measured by sustainable employment.

Mr ROCHEBLOINE (France) congratulated Ms Roseira on her excellent report, which managed to link the complex economic, social and cultural aspects of the economic crisis. Even though it appeared to be taking a favourable direction, the crisis was not over and there was a need for a change in thinking on the operation of the international financial system. A more balanced operation was needed, with the state acting as regulator. The crisis had shown the limits of deregulation, which had been so popular in the past, and common sense now demanded reform of international banking. The large banks had not realised how greatly their reputations had suffered and the report from the Committee on Social, Health and Family Affairs reminded all members of the Assembly of the role of the state in regulating the economy. Any response would, of course, be formulated within the spectrum of absolute freedom and total state control, but the question was not whether the market or globalisation were good or evil, but rather of the ends to which they were used. Good practice in these areas would reinforce basic social rights and defend against unemployment, as well as the growing gap between rich and poor.

Mrs BARNETT (Germany) thanked the rapporteurs for their hard work and said that although it was accepted that it was possible to learn from the mistakes of the past some in Germany were suggesting that, since there had been some improvement in the economy, it would be possible to return to the old ways of doing things. She was concerned that some Republicans in the United States House of Representatives were blocking the reforms proposed by President Obama in order to maintain the status quo. The economy would surely grow again in the future, but such growth should not be based on speculation. A new vision of progress needed to be developed and the work of the Assembly should be taken note of in all national parliaments, particularly the conclusions of its recent reports. Wages ought not to be cut arbitrarily and small- and medium-sized enterprises should be given a fair chance. The Council of Europe should consider its temporary contracts and ensure that temporary staff were not viewed as mere commodities. Costs could always be reduced, but falling investment in innovation often went hand in hand with the loss of jobs, so policies needed to be both family friendly and people friendly. Both knowledge and ability needed to be valued in the entrepreneurial society. The pursuit of profit should not become a life and death matter and, in this respect, the world economy still had some way to go.

Ms KOVÁCS (Serbia) – I congratulate all the rapporteurs, but given that I have only four minutes I shall concentrate on Mrs Wurm’s report.

When we consider women and the financial crisis, we should ask the question: is it a new opportunity or a backlash? We all know that the European continent has experienced its deepest recession since the 1930s. The crisis still affects all European citizens, women and men, in all countries, confronting us all with the risk of de-stabilising society and politics. The economy is not an end in itself. The European economic project always had a social dimension, illustrated by the concept of the social market economy.

The crucial matter in the report is the effect of the economic crisis on women. Conversely, it also explains how women can contribute to safeguarding our social economies. The most important issue today is how to recover from the global economic and financial crisis. I agree with the rapporteur, as I personally believe that we should take account of the gender dimension in future initiatives to counteract the crisis or limit its impact. We should ensure that all proposed policies are subject to a gender impact assessment as a matter of good policy making.

Without analysing and publishing key employment data by gender, it is impossible to improve the understanding and monitoring of the gender impact of the economic and financial crisis or to facilitate the identification of measures to prevent adverse effects. We must target policies in a gender-sensitive way and recognise that women may be exposed to additional financial insecurity through lower pay, broken employment histories and limited financial assets.

All Council of Europe member states should build a gender budget mechanism into their work to increase gender equality, and make efforts to improve women’s participation at all levels of decision making, especially budget management. It would be good to consider further adaptation of European structural funds as well as national funds to focus on additional support for mainly female professions that are likely to be affected by the crisis.

We should support work-life balance, close the gender pay gap and stimulate female entrepreneurship. Having a balanced number of men and women in top leadership and decision-making positions is necessary for healthy growth of the global economy. Such diversity will produce healthier approaches to problem solving.

Adult education should play a key role in promoting a general culture of learning through media campaigns and information, as well as in tackling low employment rates among female and older workers, in particular those who have had atypical career paths or lack ICT skills. It is essential to put in place the necessary conditions for providing life-long learning services at every level.

I want to stress that I support drafting an additional protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, which would integrate the equality of women and men, and allow positive discrimination measures for the under-represented sex.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I do not see Mr Jónsson in the Chamber, so I call Mr Zhidkikh.

Mr ZHIDKIKH (Russian Federation) said that the limitation of time meant that he would concentrate his remarks on the report presented by Mrs Wurm on behalf of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men. She had performed admirably, having not known until this morning that she would be the Committee’s rapporteur. She spoke of the impoverishment of the world’s richest resource – its people. It was essential that the serious material and economic consequences of the crisis be minimised. Women suffered the most, as they were often in weak positions. It was important that they be given the opportunity to overcome these problems. A gap still existed between the have and the have-nots. This emphasised the importance of the declaration on the right to work which should be implemented as soon as possible.

As a result of the crisis, Russian gross domestic product had dropped by record levels. Budget expenditure had increased by 27%, whilst budgetary income had dropped by 20%. It had also caused greater unemployment: in February 2008, 7 million Russians were unemployed, and this figure had continued to rise. This illustrated the need to create new jobs that may, in turn, require increased spending.

Child allowances should be increased, particularly given that women were the foundation stone of economic recovery. The Assembly should support the draft resolution.

Mrs GORYACHEVA (Russian Federation) said that instead of reducing the wealth of the rich, all previous economic crises had reduced the wealth of the poor.

Russia had ratified the European Social Charter, but this was not enough to avert the negative consequences of the economic crisis. The drop in oil price had seen the budgetary income of Russia fall by one third, or 3 trillion roubles, reducing the ability of the Government to spend its way out of recession. A regional employment programme had been instituted to prevent mass unemployment, which was funded in part by 40 billion roubles from the federal budget.

The economic crisis had also had negative effects on Russia’s small and medium-sized enterprises. These represented only 15% of Russian GDP, compared with 50% in developed countries. This sector of the economy had suffered further as a result of increased interest rates since the onset of the crisis. The Russian Government had attempted to provide economic stimulants for this sector with varying success.

The real value of pensions and wages had been reduced by the rise in energy prices. Pensions in Russia were on average 28% of wages compared with 40% in the European Union. Average wages were €470 per person per month, which was modest in comparison with other European countries. These low wages made it a struggle to survive for many, with an increasing problem of unpaid mortgages as a result of the increased interest rates. The number of Russians below the poverty line had also increased to one in five persons. It was important that the state supported these citizens.

Mr SIMMS (Observer from Canada) – Thank you, sir. I thank the entire Council of Europe for allowing me these few moments to speak. As observers, we tend to be at the end of the list, but none the less I am very grateful.

This is an important debate and I congratulate the rapporteurs on their reports. I will focus on the report entitled, “The social impact of the economic crisis”. The report is very well prepared. It touches on the major themes that cross all regions, including the continent of North America. Many times when I address this Assembly, I say that I have come across the ocean but, this month, I have to say that I come from the other side of the volcano.

Coming here, I saw this report and I realised how common these themes and the problems that we face are. The economic crisis has shaken up the entire system in more ways than we can imagine. The catalyst was south of our border. In many ways, we sleep next to a giant - the United States of America. Over 80% of our export trade is with that one trading partner, which means a great degree of dependency. We have certainly felt the sting of the crisis. One of the reasons we were able to come through it as easily as we did is that we established a great banking system back in the late 1990s and the early part of this century.

However, I should like to address an issue that has been a cause for concern in Canada and the whole of North America – the security of our seniors’ pensions. Public and private pensions took a major hit in all of North America, but in Canada especially. In some cases, pensions devalued by more than 50% in a year. For the most part, our pensions work through what we call direct benefits, so they are paid out until the end of life. Pensions devalued by half, so many people have been thrust into poverty who were not in poverty before.

We now have a crisis under way, and everything that happened was created by speculative measures. We throw so many of our social programmes at the will of speculators that it is becoming alarming. Because there is a dangerous situation with pensions, we end up with so-called crowding of other social programmes in our country that need desperate attention. Child care is going to be the new frontier for social policy in Canada because it is in such high demand among young people: so many more women are in the work force, as well as men, that child care has become essential. Such an economic crisis in the pensions sector and other social sectors, including health care, means that what needs urgent attention is now being crowded out. As one of my colleagues pointed out earlier, we have to be prepared for when this volcano erupts again. International standards – yes. Standards for how we conduct business – absolutely. That is why I commend this report, with its emphasis on health care and labour standards. Workers’ compensation, employment insurance: these are the methods that we must hold dear.

Finally, I would like to quote from paragraph 58 of the report that I like the most: “We all allowed the value of goods to overcome the value of values and the replacement of solidarity by greediness.” Let us build a better world first and foremost through our social programmes. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak.

Mrs MARIN (France) said that the resolution proposed by Mr Volontè on behalf of the Committee on Social, Health and Family Affairs was very topical and indicative of social progress. The crisis had provided the opportunity to question aspects of society and its make-up. It had shown the limits of targeting the individual through measures such as the minimum wage as no one lived in a vacuum; it had shown the importance of society and family values.

The weakening of the family had led to the lowering of individual conduct. Those who had not had the benefit of growing up within a family had lost the tools to function adequately in society. Therefore, the family was important to engender a feeling of collective responsibility, and she subscribed to the resolution.

The transition from welfare state to welfare society had increased the importance of individual responsibility. Previously, the state had intervened directly in social and economic policy but citizens could no longer expect to receive handouts. The need for individual responsibility had increased, particularly the responsibility of the most privileged to support those less privileged than themselves.

It was important that those more privileged than others should take responsibility for making the family a partner in efforts to achieve solidarity in society. Parenting support should be provided to those who needed it to engender respect and dialogue within the family. This would then feed through to engendering respect for others in wider society. These goals should not come at the expense of the advances through feminism made in regard to the role of women in society

Mr HENDERSON (United Kingdom) – In my four minutes, I want to refer to the global crisis and migration. I want to make one point, which is that the long-term gains that have been achieved for people throughout the world because of migration should not be derailed because of a relatively short-term crisis in our economic system. We have to remind ourselves of those long-term gains. That applies not only to those of us in this Chamber – we also have to remind people in our countries that migration has allowed the economy worldwide to be buoyant for a very long time.

It is not all upsides. The upsides, I hope, are relatively obvious. Some countries – Moldova and the Philippines come to mind – have benefited by remittance return. That cannot go on for ever, but in the short to medium term it is beneficial, with a better lifestyle for many of those who have made the effort to migrate from a relatively low area of economic activity to a relatively high area of economic activity. Some of those migrants eventually return to their own countries and take back the skills, knowledge and enterprise that they have gained, perhaps in Europe, although the same would probably apply in North America.

There are of course downsides, one of which is that it is not always the case that the migrant returns. There are – it is a horrific statistic – more Malawian doctors in Britain than there are in Malawi. These are not always returnees – people who make that return to contribute to the welfare of their original societies. Another downside is that there is often a feeling of alienation among indigenous people who see migrants coming in and say that they are not getting the opportunities for work or for housing. That needs to be addressed by all our nations through innovative schemes for improving housing and good schemes to try to raise the skills of indigenous workers.

I might add that in the long term the labour shortages that migration has addressed will probably get very much worse in Europe, and we will have a major labour shortage. To me, the great threat is that we allow the relatively short-term difficulties that the international economy faces to derail what I consider to be desirable and beneficial patterns. We must ensure that that does not happen. When anyone in any of our constituencies in our own countries stands up and says, “The migrants are to blame for the recession, and that’s why I can’t get a job”, we should be saying, “That is not true.” It is not the migrants who are causing the international recession. Mr Kox may have exaggerated when he said that this was the demise of international capitalism. Certainly the banking system has something to do with the recession, but the one part of our economy that does not have anything to do with it is the impact of migrants. In a recession, migrants often suffer worse than others. That is clear from the excellent documents that the rapporteurs have produced. The unemployment rate among migrants is significantly higher.

There are many positive proposals. One of the proposals in the migration document that I like is that we should all spend much more of our resources on retraining migrants, who through no fault of their own have come to a country in good faith and lost their job because of the problems of their employer.

There are many good ideas in the documents, but my main plea is that we should stand up. If we believe in human rights, we believe in human rights for migrants, and we should all resist any attempt to say that the international recession is based on migration.

Mr KELEMEN (Hungary) – Dear colleagues, in her valuable report, Ms Roseira points out that in the current circumstances of world crisis, governments have to strengthen their social and health protection systems. Perhaps she is right in theory, but in practice that is not the case. States’ general reaction to the crisis is to try to rescue banks and finance companies and cut allocations to finance social and health security benefits, because they sense stronger pressure from the role-players of the globalised world than from voters.

Let me mention some experiences in Hungary. Following the political change of 1990, the stock of state assets disappeared as a result of a forced privatisation process and the state is up to its teeth in debt, as are a great number of families. In addition, Hungarian entrepreneurs cannot secure credit for their investments, while banks make their profits mainly from government bonds and interest paid by our central bank. More and more workplaces disappear. That is why the people of Hungary withdrew their confidence from the ruling political forces in the recent general elections.

That kind of behaviour on the part of governments may possibly show a need for a regulatory framework for the financial sector, with the strength to push states to serve the real economy, as the rapporteur says. However, I cannot see the driving force for so-called fair globalisation. By the way, the term used by the International Labour Organisation – “fair globalisation” – reminds me of the past, when proponents of the Soviet system used to speak about a paradoxical “human-faced Socialism”.

The Polányi problem is more evident today than ever before. Unfettered economic competition and a global free market economy with its inherent inequalities – nowadays distorted by financial superstructures – regularly cause deep social disruption.

Bearing those problems in mind, I do not share the comments in the draft resolution about the need to avoid national protectionism. Weakening the role of states opens a window of opportunity to international financial actors to abuse their power. In local shops all over the western world, why is it written that the consumer goods on sale come from within a 30 km area? If there is a need for regional protectionism, why is it not true at national level?

Human society is built from smaller groups and grows to larger ones. Within a family, within a local society and within a nation, there is some means to control elected authorities. Such efficient, binding rules do not exist at global level. The rapporteur says that as well as having an ecological, Keynesian view, she would like to see a socially responsible state. If we are thinking in terms of democratically organised states, such a state must be strong enough to intervene and protect effectively the vital interests of its citizens. Does it protect or not? That is its responsibility, and the voters will respond.

Mr FRITZ (Germany) said that the debate had been based on reports of high quality that included a raft of proposals for the future. Humanity and solidarity were important, but their part in resolving the crisis would depend on whether the right solutions were adopted.

Experience in Germany had shown that state intervention worked and Germany’s market remained stable. Germany had helped its companies and as a result, small and medium-sized enterprises were as well regarded as larger companies. Shortening hours and benefits had proved beneficial for companies. Shorter working hours had meant that people could hold on to their jobs and companies could weather the crisis and retain their staff. This should not be forgotten by people who think that the state gets in the way. The state was in the best position to help organisations and enable companies to provide social security to their employees. In the long-term, the crisis could be overcome only through regulation that imposed some boundaries on development. Of course there was a need for competition, but unfettered competition harmed the well-being of all. There was a need for the right rules to be in place for the benefit of all.

People had demonstrated solidarity with the weaker parts of society and were concerned also with the environment and questions sustainability. These were the principles needed to transform the economy.

Mrs KYRIAKIDOU (Cyprus) thanked the rapporteurs for their excellent reports. The economic crisis had unfortunately left the vulnerable in society exposed but European countries had been better prepared than some to protect them. The reports had shown that a collective response was required to protect gender equalities. It was also important to hear the voice of women in respect of plans for the recovery to avoid a new crisis in the future. Women made up half of humanity. None the less, they faced economic and politic discrimination. Action in respect of gender equality should continue. There was a need to promote a fairer distribution of domestic work between women and men. It was usually women who had to sacrifice their careers to take care of children. Therefore, there was a need to support men and women in jobs to reconcile the time spent in the home. There was also a need for women to be represented in political organisations. For those reasons, the report had to be adopted and implemented.

Mr FALZON (Malta) – As a member of this Assembly, it is a pleasure for me to take the floor to deliver a message on behalf of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean and its President, Rudy Salles, who cannot be in Strasbourg today due to the meetings of PAM’s first and second committees, which are being held in Nice. PAM is very attentive to the activities of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and appreciates its work, most of which is very relevant to the Mediterranean; it is honoured to be represented today at this session.

The financial crisis that Europe faces today has not spared the Mediterranean – on either of its sides. What is true for Spain and Greece, which has become the symbol of Europe’s tough economic challenges, is also true, to a certain extent, on the southern coast of the Mediterranean. Europe is struggling to find a common response to these challenges, despite the fact that it can already rely on functioning institutions such as the European Union and the Council of Europe, yet there is almost a consensus that a co-ordinated approach would benefit the whole continent.

In the Mediterranean, PAM is working hard to achieve its ambition to make our region an area of peace and prosperity for all. The economic issues are not underestimated, and representatives from PAM’s 25 member states have already stated that establishing an integrated Mediterranean economy is key to achieving our goal.

To meet this ambition, PAM’s second standing committee on economic co-operation has set priorities: first, to support small and medium-sized enterprises; secondly, to support the internationalisation of companies, including through training of company directors and staff; and, thirdly, to attract foreign direct investment. PAM is also actively promoting the establishment of a Mediterranean investment bank to support economic progress in the region. Next month, on 27 and 28 May, PAM will hold a parliamentary meeting on this topic in Lisbon with representatives from the main European and Mediterranean banks, chambers of commerce and other important economic actors in the region. I am honoured to forward an invitation to you, as delegates from this Assembly, to attend the meeting, at which PAM will officially launch the Mediterranean panel on external trade and investments to deal with the consequences of the economic crisis the region is facing.

I am convinced that this is a regional issue that can be solved only at such a level, as we will all benefit from the progress made by our neighbours. Our common, co-ordinated and determined action will surely lead to some improvements, and will contribute to making Europe and the Mediterranean region, which are so tightly interconnected, a prosperous land for its peoples.

Mr KATRINIS (Greece) thanked the rapporteurs and said that the crisis had affected all countries and all sections of the economy. For instance, in Greece, which was a port of entry for many illegal immigrants, it was estimated that 250 000 immigrants, mostly from Turkey, came into Greece to stay or travel onwards. There was a need to safeguard human rights, which were vital for these migrants, but there was also another requirement – to help those who had been in the country for many years to achieve Greek citizenship.

Greece had a friendly policy. During the crisis, Europe should not become a fortress, but remain open and welcome immigrants and ensure that it acted as a beacon in a difficult crisis.

The role and status of women and young people was vital. Unemployment in Greece was very high. Greek scientists were leaving to work in other countries and a policy was needed to retain them. There was also a phenomenon of increased internal migration in the European Union. The role of the family remained important but there was a need to strengthen that role.

Mr SASI (Finland) – This debate is timely, because we are now seeing the consequences of the economic crisis in our countries. I congratulate the rapporteurs on their very good reports, which provide us with a way forward.

We should consider the responsibilities of politicians in our different countries. Some countries managed better; some countries managed worse. However, I would like to make a distinction. In some countries, economic policies have been irresponsible and politicians have not taken their duties seriously. Those are the countries where credit rating is developing badly and where there are difficulties in financing the state. Those are the countries where we can see cuts in public sector salaries, social security and subsidies. We can also see large increases in unemployment in those countries; indeed, those who become unemployed are hardest hit.

In those countries we also see consumer demand slowing, with lower salaries and lower subsidies, which means the economy slows down, and that is a problem for the whole country. The only thing that can be done in those countries is to try to measure cuts in a way that enables households to adjust their expenditure to lower incomes. If that is possible, you can survive; if not, you will have huge problems. In those countries we can see families with large loan portfolios because they have bought homes for themselves. Making adjustments will be very difficult, and can lead to problems in the housing sector as well.

On the other hand, there are countries where politicians have taken care of state finances and acted responsibly. Those countries can stimulate their economies and maintain demand, and in that way minimise falls in employment. They are not obliged to make social security cuts. People can survive without any problems, and the economic stabilisers work to balance the economy. There are huge differences between countries, depending on the responsibilities of politicians.

That said, even those countries with responsible politicians have had to borrow a lot of money to balance their economies and tackle their problems. High economic growth makes tackling problems easier, but in most cases you need to raise taxes and make spending cuts. I think that we in Europe are too lazy. We should work longer and have longer careers. That would be the easiest way to balance the economy.

In the long run, we need to look forward. There are two ways for politicians to act correctly. One is always to apply the principles of the European Union’s growth and stabilisation pact. When you have good times, you should try to have budget surpluses; when you have bad times, you can go down to a 3% deficit. You should try never to increase aggravated debt to more than 60%. The second point is that you should try to keep the public sector share at around 40%, so that in times of difficulty you can try to increase the public sector, which gives you the freedom of movement to tackle employment problems.

Mr SUDARENKOV (Russian Federation) said that when faced with the question of what the Assembly had achieved he was more pessimistic at the end of the debate than he had been at the beginning. No one seemed to know for how long the crisis would continue or how hard things would become. There had not been many sensible suggestions. The major slump in share and house prices had not led to a mass redistribution of wealth, but in fact the rich had just become richer. The proposals put forward by Russia were designed to preserve the stability of the welfare system, but much of that depended on how the regional governments responded to the crisis. In his region of Kaluga, three European car companies had opened factories and provided guaranteed offers of employment.

It was a year since the Assembly had last discussed the economic crisis, when everything had seemed clear. One year on, things were not any better, and it was open to debate whether the crisis had been inevitable. The G20 had agreed a memorandum and the Russian Government had played a key part in the discussions leading to it.

THE PRESIDENT thanked Mr Sudarenkov and called Mrs Vučković, who was not there. He then called Mrs Sosa Govea.

Mrs SOSA GOVEA (Observer from Mexico) thanked the President and said that she wished to respond to the report on women and the economic and financial crisis. It was especially meaningful to say that the crisis had been “man-made”. More women were needed in politics. The Graeco-Latin origins of the word “economy” were to be found in the running of the home, which had much in common with the running of a city or country. The female perspective needed to be borne in mind when considering such matters. Women, for example, had a different approach to risk, which could have benefitted the financial institutions that suffered as a result of their own actions. Mexico welcomed the proposals on oversight mechanisms designed to prevent future crises. Gender equality was not a luxury but a moral duty with an economic impact. In a period of economic crisis women suffered the most painful consequences, and in Mexico there was a gender equality standard setting organisation designed to prevent such problems.

THE PRESIDENT said that the list was now closed and called on Mr Volontè to respond on behalf of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee.

Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy) thanked all the speakers who had contributed to the debate and apologised to Mrs Wurm for not having been in the Chamber for all of her speech. The family was indeed an agent of solidarity and social cohesion, and family-friendly policies were therefore required in support of this fact. A year ago in Vienna, 47 family affairs ministers from across the world had met to discuss how this could be achieved. Governments were working towards building strong societies and recognised the role of the family in this respect. In times when young people often struggled to get jobs or start families, strong relationships were essential, especially when an individual could find themselves suddenly unemployed at the age of 45. Matters were worse for single parent, migrant or poor families, and that is why the committee had agreed not just generic proposals but specific proposals capable of implementation.

Social cohesion was an issue that should be of interest not only to the Parliamentary Assembly or the Council of Ministers. Mr Kox had referred to the work of Karl Marx which he thought might have been overly dramatic until he realised that the consequences of the recent crisis were just as dramatic as anything written about by Marx.

THE PRESIDENT thanked Mr Volontè and called on Mrs Wurm to reply on behalf of the Committee for Equal Opportunities for Women and Men.

Mrs WURM (Austria) thanked the speakers for their interesting contributions and recounted the measures listed by Ms Kovács that needed to be taken most seriously. Who could say that looking after a sick mother was less important than carrying out a job requiring technical expertise, especially given the value of such work to a nation’s economy. It was important to invest in the future, and she thought that the Council of Europe could valuably examine its own budgets in order to assess whether there was any gender bias in the reimbursement of its staff. She wanted to see the introduction of gender impact assessments in addition to environmental impact assessments. She noted the words of Mr Sudarenkov in relation to the value of the female perspective in government.

The world would be a better place if it were split 50:50, which would in turn lead to a better system. It was not only the issue of fairness in favour of women having access to the economic, social and political systems, it also made sense. Removing gender inequality was a moral imperative and it was essential for the sharing of economic gains. In addition, its removal would lead to the end of the boom and bust economic cycle.

With the money that was spent on rescuing the financial sector, a huge number of jobs in the education or social sectors could have been created. Ending the discrimination against women in the economy and in power relationships would remove this imbalance.

There should be quotas for the number of women on boards of companies, as in Norway, and there should be parity in the gender balance of government, as in Spain. Without achieving these goals, there would be a new economic crisis. To avoid this situation, it was important to learn lessons from the crisis.

She thanked the committee for the work on the report and concluded that the Council of Europe should serve as a model for gender equality to ensure its credibility.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Mr Mendes Bota, as the Chair of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, you have two minutes.

Mr MENDES BOTA (Portugal) – Thank you. I will be very brief. I have only two constants. The first constant is that women are victims of the crisis. They were victims before the crisis, but I shall not mention any figures, because they have already been given in this Chamber. The main resources and measures to combat the crisis were aimed at male-dominated sectors, such as the financial sector, automobiles and construction.

The second constant is that women were not responsible for the crisis. We can barely trust the same people who were responsible for the financial crisis to save the world. We have the example of the scandal of those who enabled borrowing, whose main principle was greed. Women were not in high positions in the economic and financial companies that drove us to this crisis. As Mr Mullen said – I regret that he is not here at the moment – we could lose solidarity between men and women. We do not want to replace Lehman brothers with Lehman sisters; we want Lehman Brothers and sisters in the future. We need to break the glass ceiling and change the model. The current model drove us to all this confusion, so we must reinforce and re-empower women. That is the solution for the future.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Mendes Bota. Mr Greenway, as Chair of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, you have nine minutes and 30 seconds, including the aggregate from Mr Agramunt Font de Mora.

Mr GREENWAY – I shall try not to take nine minutes, but let me try to make some sense of the report from the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population. Its central philosophy is that migrants have made and are making a significant contribution to Europe’s economies. However, unemployment among migrants is twice the rate of that among the general population.

As Mr Henderson said, there have been long-term gains as a result of migrant workers but, as Mr Grignon said, inequality gets worse in the current financial climate. Young people are badly affected – ethnic communities particularly so – and there is a threat to so-called social cohesion. The loss of a job can be devastating to migrants if governments withdraw their work permits and visas because they are no longer in work. There is also an adverse impact on remittances, as Mrs Blondin pointed out. However, Europe’s economies will need migrants to support the recovery. This is true at every level of skill – not just for the highly qualified, who are in many ways protected by the EU’s points-based system, which has been adopted by many of our countries, but also for unskilled workers, such as those in hospitality, agriculture, food processing, low-skilled manual jobs in manufacturing and, dare I say it, jobs in construction, where there has been massive unemployment in migrant communities.

We all know that demography in Europe points one way, so let us be clear that, as Mr Henderson said, migrants are not the cause of the problem. We cannot hope to have the economic recovery that we all want to see without migrant workers. That is the central message.

Our committee’s call for greater sensitivity to and understanding of the particular problems faced by migrants is not based on special pleading or on what we would call in Britain the bleeding-heart approach; it is based entirely on national self-interest, for the reasons that I have given.

We need to be clear about the impact of tightening regulations in our economies. We also need to have regard to the impact on irregular migrants. A migrant in a regular situation who loses his job can suddenly find himself in an irregular situation. Financial pressures on employers tempt them to employ irregular migrants in the black economy on lower wages, undermining regular jobs in the economy. This can lead to more exploitation, abuse and discrimination. I say to Mrs Wurm that women migrant workers are particularly badly affected; indeed, our committee hopes to produce a report on that. We need to be clear about these trends, but we also need evidence-based data collection to inform our thinking and our policy in the future. We must also have regard to the perverse consequences of the rise in xenophobia, which make integration more difficult and can lead to public unrest and even disorder.

However, as always with our committee, we do not just point to the problems but offer solutions. I want in particular to draw the Assembly’s attention to our draft resolution, in which we say that we should keep open the channels of regular migration. We need to be serious about the retention of immigration status. We need long-term migration management policies. We need to provide guarantees to migrants based on human rights. We need to strengthen co-operation in the fight against irregular migration, human trafficking and the illegal employment of foreigners, but we must also avoid mass regularisation as a solution to fight irregular migration. We need to facilitate remittance flows. We need to combat racist violence and xenophobia. We should encourage the media to portray migrants in objective terms, recognising their positive contributions to society. We need to work with civil society groups and the many NGOs with whom we have good working relations, and we need to ensure that migrants are treated with dignity.

The first thing that we say to our Committee of Ministers in the recommendation is that we need to remind them that all member states should adhere to and implement the relevant Council of Europe conventions ensuring the protection of migrant workers. We have done the work before – the conventions are there and they should be honoured.

In a way, I want to address my concluding remarks to Mr Sudarenkov, who had a pessimistic view. First, we need solutions, but they must be based on appropriate conventions and legal instruments; I believe that we have them, and they need to be adopted. Secondly, solutions will require political will. Migration is the biggest hot potato in politics at the moment, certainly in the general election in my country. Thirdly, we need other actors to take forward the necessary and appropriate action. In the recommendation, we talk about asking the European Committee on Migration – the CDMG – to issue a policy paper on the consequences of the global crisis on migration in all 47 member states of the Council of Europe. Under the reform proposals from the Secretary General, the Migration Committee might not exist any more. We can work with him – we will debate this again on Friday – to discuss the right machinery. However, it is absolutely no use those of us in this Assembly, as we have done for the past three hours, asking governments to do things unless there is, in parallel with the work that we do in this Assembly, intergovernmental machinery that we can insist takes the appropriate action. That is the message. We have the right ideas, but they have to be taken forward by governments.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Greenway. It is true that you did not take up your nine and a half minutes. Ms Roseira, you have five minutes to reply.

Ms ROSEIRA (Portugal) thanked the Chair for her support and contribution to the debate.

Mr Simms said that he came from the other side of the volcano. Yes, he came from the other side of the European volcano, but he also came from the other side of the economic and financial volcano. Coming from Canada, he knows very well the difference between having social protection, health protection and retirement protection systems and not having them. He is well aware of the problems that his country’s neighbours suffered because of not having a social protection system. That is why I gave all importance to that in my report.

She had worked with social protection services for many years. These services were important to prevent the vulnerable from being excluded from society and the exacerbation of inequality and abuse. While systems could not achieve everything, they were vital in supporting the primacy of human beings.

Parliamentarians should ensure that greed did not replace solidarity and altruism, that the speculation that ruined countries and individuals was condemned and that interests should not be allowed to supplant values.

In order to preserve human dignity, countries should pool efforts to regulate globalisation and make a common effort to avoid damage to unity.

THE PRESIDENT called Ms Maury Pasquier, Chairperson of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee.

Ms MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) said that two of the reports being debated had three points in common. First, they focused on the effects of the economic crisis on the vulnerable sectors of the population, including the young, women and migrants. Secondly, they called for the development of public services and funding. The cost of the crisis should not be placed on the vulnerable by cutting the social aspects of governmental budgets. Thirdly, they argued that countries must consolidate and unite to survive and prosper.

She concluded that the economic crisis had shown that something had to change; the world could not continue with business as usual. Parliamentarians must shoulder the responsibility of their duty to the unemployed and others who suffered as a result of the crisis.

The Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee has presented a draft resolution to which no amendments have been tabled.

We will now proceed to vote on the draft resolution contained in Document 12026.

The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population has presented a draft resolution and a draft recommendation to which no amendments have been tabled.

We will now proceed to vote on the draft resolution contained in Document 12200.

We will now proceed to vote on the draft recommendation contained in Document 12200.

The Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men has presented a draft resolution and a draft recommendation to which no amendments have been tabled.

We will now proceed to vote on the draft resolution contained in Document 12195.

Not much by way of applause; the right seems to be applauding more than the left.

We will now proceed to vote on the draft recommendation contained in Document 12195.

The Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee has presented a draft resolution and a draft recommendation to which no amendments have been tabled.

We will now proceed to vote on the draft resolution contained in Document 12103.

We will now proceed to vote on the draft recommendation contained in Document 12103.

Thank you very much. I think you can congratulate yourselves. From the Chair, I cannot, but it is most pleasant presiding over the proceedings when texts are agreed unanimously!

6. Election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights with respect to Ukraine

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – I have to announce the results of the first ballot in the election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Ukraine.

Dr Yudkivska, having obtained an absolute majority of votes cast, is elected a judge of the European Court of Human Rights for a term of office of six years starting as of the date of taking up office and in any event not later than three months as from 27 April 2010. When Protocol No. 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights comes into force on 1 June 2010, this term of office will be extended ipso jure to a period of nine years.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The next item of business this afternoon is the debate on the report presented by Mr Vrettos on behalf of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development, Document 12199.

I remind you that we have agreed to interrupt the list of speakers at about 7.50 p.m. to allow time for the replies and votes. I also remind you that speeches are limited to four minutes.

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

Mr VRETTOS (Greece) – After a very exciting debate on the economic crisis and its consequences for various vulnerable groups in our societies, we need to approach our future from another perspective. The current financial crisis provides an opening to make significant changes in the system, and forces our societies to rethink their relationship with wealth creation and to consider economic growth in the light of societal well-being.

One could easily say to me, “What are you talking about? We, and especially you – Greece – are in the middle of an economic storm. What we need you to do is to take on your responsibilities and act, leaving out the theories.” The new Greek Government is implementing painful measures aimed at reducing the deficit and, which is much more difficult, at changing our attitude towards socio-economic policies. We have resolved to confront the turmoil, and it is very encouraging that the member states of the Euro group decided to establish a mechanism to address such problems.

It is not a question of solidarity between the EU member states, but of the need for the European community to create new and effective tools to protect and strengthen the well-being of European citizens. This is the spectrum through which the leaders of the strong European economic powers should approach our crisis – separate from the fact that Greece is the consumer of their products, the supporter of their defence industry and the ally who was almost totally destroyed in the last war, without any compensation.

Economists have warned since the introduction of gross domestic product that it is a specialised tool, and that treating it as an indicator of general well-being is inaccurate. However, over the last 70 years it has become the benchmark of the progress of our civilisation and the well-being of our citizens. As Robert Kennedy noted in one of his last speeches, GDP “measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile”. Like a faulty calculator, GDP adds up each and every expenditure made in an economy by households, businesses and governments, without distinguishing between those that actually contribute to a genuine improvement in the well-being of society, and those that many would consider regrettable, such as those relating to environmental pollution and the building of weapons of mass destruction.

The time has come to develop and put into use parameters that take into account other, non-monetary or non-financial factors that contribute to countries’ national wealth and the well-being of their peoples. Political and economic decision makers must now equip themselves with new transversal tools that reflect the major challenges of the 21st century, such as those stemming from the reorganisation of the global economy, climate change and demographic issues.

Many European and international institutions – the OECD, the European Commission, the European Parliament, the Club of Rome and the WWF – have begun to consider this issue and the initial practical applications. A high level of international debate on developing such benchmarks should be encouraged. Governments need a range of options that go beyond a simple choice between all-pervading government control or the sole rule of the free market.

Economic well-being results from many different factors, which explains the difficulties encountered in trying to measure and quantify it. Among others, its various components are a healthy environment, easy access to education, low unemployment, easy access to health services, an adequate income, a tolerant living environment with no discrimination, social diversity, a stable democracy in which each citizen can freely express his or her opinions, access to pluralist information, equality before the law and respect for human rights. However, GDP must not necessarily be abandoned; on the contrary, it needs to be improved, perfected and enriched, so that it covers economic data not measured so far, such as the various activities within the household economy.

Fostering the well-being of societies while maintaining a sufficiently high level of wealth certainly seems to be the main challenge that our states’ economies will face in years to come. States must understand that the indicators will be constantly changing because the world is changing rapidly under the influence of the development of communication tools, the economic crisis and global warming.

More emphasis should be placed on people and less on the market, because economic growth means nothing unless it is combined with the well-being of our fellow citizens. To achieve this, we need to improve people’s economic and social circumstances. These new indicators will help us to determine more readily exactly what those circumstances are. As Joseph Stiglitz pointed out, producing better, truer ways of measuring economic, environmental and social performance is a critical step in making progress towards building a better world.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, rapporteur. You have exactly six minutes left to speak at the end of the debate.

In the debate, I call first Mr Lecoq, on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr LECOQ (France) congratulated the rapporteur on the remarkable report, but it did not go far enough in defining an economic model. It used GDP as its basis for accounting but needed to integrate a GDP co-efficient. Issues were still tackled only within the economic sphere. There was a need to question the terms of the debate.

There had been progress but it had not gone far enough, and there remained doubts about the future. The report dealt with notions leading to greater well-being but only that of material well-being. Society needed to look at aspects of public notions and assets which excluded wealth. The report used notions of well-being which implied the type of society we wished to live in. The Council of Europe needed to take the opportunity of the report to rethink a new economic model. Although destitution had virtually been eradicated, man had been led to despair.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call next Mrs Papadimitriou, on behalf of the Group of the European People's Party.

Mrs PAPADIMITRIOU (Greece) – I congratulate the rapporteur and the Secretariat of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development on producing an excellent, well-balanced and comprehensive report.

The ongoing economic crisis – the worst witnessed by today’s generation – has shaken the very foundations of our world’s and our continent’s societal structures. The least that we owe to ourselves, our countries and, mainly, those of our citizens who have paid the heaviest toll in this tunnel, which now appears to have some light at the end, albeit light that we are failing to see, is to let our people know and believe that we have learned our lessons, that we are ready to address the underlying economic crisis – the multi-sectoral crisis – and that we understand the need to rediscover our forgotten values and principles, and make out of them the basic instruments to rebuild what, to some of us, seems to have been irrevocably lost.

Analysing Europe’s truly irrational development policies of the past 30 years and assessing their impact on the welfare and well-being of European citizens, we can easily recognise that the accumulated wealth not only resulted in environmental degradation and the depletion of natural resources, but created murderous models of urban gigantism, devouring the family nucleus and the balanced habitat, and damaged not only the social fabric, but the valuable cultural thread that we pass from generation to generation – the collective memory of our trans-temporal civilization.

Let me raise a question: what is the canvas upon which we are called to paint our pledge for democracy, human rights and the rule of law? As the report wisely suggests, we must – and we soon will – have at our disposal the technocratic indicators to measure all the necessary co-efficients, beyond the economic and financial ones. It would indeed be wonderful if mathematics could solve our already deep-rooted problems, but it does not work that way.

Allow me to suggest that we should take refuge in the “première civilization sans livre sacré,” as Malraux referred to my pagan ancestors. Among them was humankind’s first planner, Aristotle, whose basic teaching was on “metron”, or measure – the equipment or instruments for establishing, using and respecting the best in a sustainable way in all our actions and endeavours. Much of this was in the minds of Europe’s founding fathers, who shaped a divine vision of uniting countries of equal and prosperous citizens. The sustainable “measure” in that unity was to be the bond among EU countries and all their peoples, and was blessed in the name of solidarity.

Today’s crisis – this is especially so in the case of Greece – is the first test of that solidarity in our European family, and I want my colleagues to look at it in that way, especially those who can and should draw from their historical memories the important lessons that we all paid in blood to learn. Greece will find its way; so will all the countries that are queuing for their turn. But let us in here ensure that Europe does not lose its collective way.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Mrs Kyriakidou, on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mrs KYRIAKIDOU (Cyprus) thanked Mr Vrettos for his excellent report and agreed that the tools of the past would be of no use in solving the problems of the future. They needed to be constantly adapted to the changing needs of the society in which they were used. It was necessary to consider not only economic factors, but societal and psychological aspects of well-being. The provision of sporting facilities played a key role in a prosperous and dynamic society. It was imperative that social matters be considered at the same time as the effectiveness of an economy. Access to high quality care and protection for disadvantaged and vulnerable groups were two standards by which a society could be judged. It was important that national media were encouraged to address issues of inequality fairly. On the environment, energy scarcity was an issue of ever-increasing importance and it was essential that the aspirations of young people were borne in mind.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Mr Giaretta, you have the floor on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Mr GIARETTA (Italy) said that the global economic crisis had caused great suffering among families throughout Europe, and the limitations of gross domestic product had been highlighted as a measure of a nation’s success. GDP measures only economic activity in a defined market and the nature of the crisis had proved the need for a new measure. GDP did not indicate how resources were distributed or how people felt. There were notable increases in inequality even in times of economic growth. There needed, therefore, to be international agreements over an improved form of GDP. The Italian National Institute of Statistics had developed a statistical constitution, which incorporated psychological, physical and social indicators in a measure of national well-being. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe would be voting in favour of Mr Vrettos’s report, which it hoped would help move beyond the acquisition of wealth and growth as key drivers of individual motivation.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call the Earl of Dundee, on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Earl of DUNDEE (United Kingdom) – I join others in thanking Mr Vrettos for the excellent report. As he outlines, the challenge is how to reconcile wealth, welfare and well-being in a changing Europe. His prescription is to direct wealth much more towards the delivery of welfare, and he identifies some of the main tools for that, such as health, education, employment and the environment. In paragraph 59, he cites 12 recommendations from the recent Stiglitz Commission. In addressing happiness and economic well-being, that commission looks for better measurements than those usually afforded by conventional statistics. It does not abandon the latter, yet by simply transcending them, it seeks revised indicators for the well-being of European citizens.

Within political philosophy, and for the 21st century, the rapporteur’s approach implies a different and more enlightened balance between state and citizen. Ironically, this new relationship between the two may reflect a double paradox. At first sight, it might seem inconsistent that the state should serve the citizen rather than the other way round, yet if the state chooses to assess the quality of its performance not solely on its national GDP but on measures for improved welfare and well-being its priority must become serving the citizen. Nevertheless, the corollary of that points in the other direction. It is that those improved conditions of citizens will in turn enhance the reputation and integrity of individual states, hence the double paradox reflecting the constructive opportunity for a new form of give and take between state and citizen in Europe.

A further anomaly may appear to affect each of our 47 countries in the Council of Europe or each of our 27 countries in the European Union. It could be objected that conformity and consensus of any kind among us somehow restrict the independence of our separate states. Be that as it may, the focus of Mr Vrettos’s report goes a long way towards dispelling such an objection. For between us, the shared moral values, which propelled the improved well-being of European citizens in the first place, produce a reciprocal effect. As outlined earlier, that also enhances the worth and standing of individual European states.

Previous centuries have tended to deny Europe a balanced reconciliation between wealth, welfare and well-being. As Mr Vrettos urges today, Europe must now put that deficiency right. On its resolve to do so will depend the continuing peace of its nation states and, for citizens, the sustained prospect of confidence, motivation and happiness.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Mr Vrettos, would you like to reply at this point?

Mr VRETTOS (Greece) – I do not want to comment on the speeches. Although few of us are present in the debate, the quality of the contributions was great. That also applies to the contributions of committee members at the various meetings that we held in different places before we concluded the report. I thank the Secretariat for its contribution and our president, Paul Wille.

The reason for the lack of amendments is positive and negative. Some colleagues may think that the report is perfect while others may believe that it is horrible. I prefer the first explanation. I thank you all, dear colleagues.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Mr Galati is not here. I call Mrs Barnett. Please keep to the time limit because we must finish at 8.10 p.m. at the latest.

Mrs BARNETT (Germany) thanked Mr Vrettos for his forward-looking report and noted the five recommendations it had made. She recalled the words of Robert Kennedy, who had said that GDP excluded everything that made life worthwhile. GDP excluded so much that was valuable and there was a need, therefore, for a new cross-cutting measure, which included the economy, the climate and demography. It was important not just to invest more money in the economy, but to spend more wisely. In medical affairs, prevention would become increasingly important if rationed medical care was to be avoided. The only real resource was the human imagination and it was essential, therefore, that everybody had the opportunity for as good an education as possible. Industrial lobbyists ought not to be allowed to place downward pressure on wages, and individuals ought to be place at the centre of any economic plan.

She supported paragraph 12 of the resolution. The well-being of citizens needed to be considered.

Mr HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – Dear colleagues, achieving decent life and welfare is a supreme objective that each progressive country in this generally democratic Europe is endeavouring to achieve. Notwithstanding the fact that notions such as wealth, welfare and well-being have an economic essence, their realisation is not possible solely through the power of the economy. Reliable political bases are necessary for ensuring continuous economic progress and continuous progress is possible only in the absence of war and conflict, as well as in an environment of mutual assistance and respect.

It is a pity that such ideal conditions do not exist in every place in Europe today. Ongoing military conflicts between certain member states, as well as efforts by some of them to interfere in the life of others, generate serious problems and delay the realisation of general well-being that all of us desire.

These processes are most vividly seen in the South Caucasus. My country has a decisive position in the region. The reality is that no regional project that would be favourable for each counterpart country can be implemented or be successful without the participation of Azerbaijan. The realisation of such projects through the joint activities of all the regional states could certainly bring economic wealth and well-being to each of these states. Nevertheless, that is not taking place across the entire region.

Azerbaijan has been subjected to the aggression of neighbouring Armenia for nearly 20 years and, due to this aggression, 20% of its territories have been occupied and nearly 1 million people have become refugees and internally displaced persons.

When we investigate past years and the present economic state of the peoples of the region, and when we compare the living conditions in these states, we witness that the country that has lost the most as a result of the conflict is Armenia. Despite the fact that, because of Armenia, 1 million people have become refugees and IDPs who have lost their homes, that state did not become the owner of the occupied territories. More than half the Armenian population abandoned their country and emigrated abroad due to the unbearable economic life. Those staying in the country have to live with hard economic conditions. Economic decay is intensifying day by day and the condition of the population is unceasingly deteriorating in Armenia, which has become an outsider in all regional economic projects.

Azerbaijan backs a peaceful solution of this conflict through diplomatic means. That is what the Council of Europe wishes, too; the Parliamentary Assembly notified the related intention in its separate resolution.

Armenia wants economic co-operation, yet it does not want to withdraw from the occupied territories. Armenia makes territorial claims on Turkey, yet charges it with a made-up genocide, which has no historical ground, and tries to secure recognition of this so-called genocide by applying pressure in various ways. Despite that, it thinks of opening the border with Turkey, thus achieving progress by strengthening economic co-operation.

This cannot be viewed as friendship, co-operation and partnership. It contradicts normal logic when one demands kindness in place of the malice that one has caused. Armenia primarily acts against its own people through such an undesirable policy, thus depriving hundreds of thousands of Armenian citizens of wealth, welfare and well-being.

Azerbaijan acts in collaboration with neighbouring Georgia, near and distant European countries and the United States in global projects on the joint exploitation and transportation of the hydrocarbon reserves of the Caspian Sea. Territorial integrity, the inviolability of borders and the well-being of the population are primary conditions for Azerbaijan and for every country that wants to co-operate in the economic sphere with Azerbaijan. Every country that wants to perceive Azerbaijan as a partner should take these primary conditions into consideration. It is useless to cherish the idea of ongoing co-operation with Azerbaijan in joint projects without taking this approach to the liberation of and justice for Nagorno-Karabakh and the seven adjacent Azerbaijani districts, as well as to the norms and principles of international law.

This example is not just an issue for one or several countries, nor is it about the destiny of one region. A common truth hides in the example. If we want wealth, welfare and well-being for our peoples in Europe and in the world, we should permanently approach the rights of other peoples and states with respect and we should be constructive in all spheres of our mutual relations. Only through this formula will our future be lucky.

Mr POCHINOK (Russian Federation) – First of all, I thank the rapporteur for the quality and seriousness of the research into this most complicated process of the interaction of such fundamental concepts as wealth, welfare and well-being.

In spite of the deep world economic crisis, the Russian Federation continues actively to implement measures to improve the welfare system, to alleviate poverty and to increase living standards. Even under these crisis conditions, more than 60% of the federal budget has been appropriated to address social problems. For the first time in the past 20 years, we have established not only a minimum salary but a minimum income for pensioners that exceeds the subsistence line. Health care reform is being actively conducted. Assignments to obligatory medical insurance have increased by more than one and a half times. Employment policy has enabled us to stop fast unemployment growth. For the first time, the gap between the richest and the poorest has declined and the number of poor people has decreased.

However, demographic challenges and the lessons of the crisis are making us pursue a much more active policy in this sphere. The dilemma is that, on the one hand, it is necessary to provide for high economic growth, which requires the establishment of taxes that are as low as possible, while, on the other hand, it is impossible to achieve the maximum well-being of the population without a high level of health care, powerful mechanisms of social protection and guarantees of education, social equality and employment. This situation is complicated by the fact that, in most of our countries, the proportion of the elderly population is growing against a background of a decrease in the number of workers – in this respect, the population is decreasing.

It is necessary to co-ordinate action on the modernisation of fiscal and budgetary policy. Further steps to decrease taxes and to liberalise tax systems are required. At the same time, in order to secure social justice, it is possible to consider imposing additional taxation on luxury goods and expensive property – an increase in taxes on the richer part of the population.

Budget expenditure should definitely be redistributed in favour of social issues. However, the conservation of current distribution systems in relation to social protection means that no funds will be enough. The crisis showed that countries with developed and targeted systems of social protection survived better. With targeted systems, funds are assigned solely to the needy and packages of measures that satisfy the interests of specific households are formed. Besides, priority is given to measures that provide employment, new workplaces and retraining and that stimulate an active demographic policy. The Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress should become for us the basis for the modernisation of national legislation.

THE PRESIDENT asked whether the rapporteur, Mr Vrettos, wished to reply to the debate. Mr Vrettos declined. He then called Mr. Wille.

Mr WILLE (Belgium) said that it was a comprehensive report that deserved better than a 20 minute debate in an empty room. He said it was an injustice that the debate had been left to the end of the day’s business and he would protest to the Bureau about the timetabling.

THE PRESIDENT thanked Mr Wille and agreed that he would also complain to the Bureau about the timetabling.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Wille. There will be at least two of us protesting in the Bureau about this. I personally wanted everybody on the list to be able to speak. It was extremely unfair to prevent them from speaking as they had made the effort to stay this evening. I would like to thank the interpreters for allowing us to extend this debate somewhat.

The Committee on Economic Affairs and Development has presented a draft resolution to which no amendments have been tabled.

We will now proceed to vote on the draft resolution contained in Document 12199.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – I propose that the Assembly hold its next public sitting tomorrow at 10 a.m. with the agenda which was approved yesterday.

1. Election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights with respect to Ukraine (continued)

4. Communication by Mr Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe

Mr Volontè, (Italy), [EPP/CD]

Lord Tomlinson, (United Kingdom), [SOC]

Mr Marquet, (Monaco), [ALDE]

Mr Greenway, (United Kingdom), [EDG]

Mr Kox, (Netherlands) UEL

Mr Lindblad, (Sweden)

Ms Pashayeva, (Azerbaijan)

Mr Corlăţean, (Romania)

Mr Zingeris, (Lithuania)

Mr Vareikis, (Lithuania)

Mr Iwiński, (Poland)

Mr Toshev, (Bulgaria)

• The impact of the global economic crisis on migration in Europe (Doc. 12200)

• Investing in family cohesion as a development factor in times of crisis (Doc. 12103)

Mr Agramunt Font de Mora (Spain, EPP/CD) Rapporteur of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population

(Mr Mignon, Vice President of the Assembly took the Chair in place of Mr Çavuşoğlu)

Ms Roseira (Portugal, SOC) Rapporteur of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee

Mr Lindblad (Sweden, EPP/CD) Rapporteur of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development (for opinion)

Mrs Wurm (Austria, SOC) On behalf of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men

Mr Luca Volontè (Italy, EPP/CD) Rapporteur of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee

Mr Pochinok, (Russian Federation), [EDG]

Mr Kox, (Netherlands), [UEL]

Mr Santini, (Italy), [EPP/CD]

Mr Konečný, (Austria), [SOC]

Mrs Reps, (Estonia), [ALDE]

Mr Grignon, (France)

Mrs Blondin, (France)

Mr O’Reilly, (Ireland)

Mr Giaretta, (Italy)

Mr Chiti, (Italy)

Mr Mullen, (Ireland)

Ms Vėsaitė, (Lithuania)

Ms Kadriu, (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”)

Mr Zernovski, ("The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia")

Mr Ivanovski, (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”)

Mr Rochebloine, (France)

Ms Kovács, (Serbia)

Mr Jónsson, (Iceland)

Mr Zhidkikh, (Russian Federation)

Mrs Goryacheva, (Russian Federation)

Mr Simms, (Observer of Canada)

Mrs Marin, (France)

Mr Henderson, (United Kingdom)

Mr Fritz, (Germany)

Mrs Kyriakidou, (Cyprus)

Mr Falzon, (Malta)

Mr Katrinis, (Greece)

Mr Sasi, (Finland)

Mr Sudarenkov, (Russian Federation)

Mrs Sosa Govea, (Observer of Mexico)

Mr Volontè (Italy) [Rapporteur of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee]

Mrs Wurm, (Austria) [on behalf of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men]

Mr Mendes Bota (Portugal) [Chair of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men]

Mr Greenway, (United Kingdom) [Chair of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population]

Ms Roseira (Portugal) [Rapporteur of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee]

Ms Maury Pasquier (Switzerland) [Chair of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee]

6. Election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights with respect to Ukraine (continued)

Mr Vrettos (Greece, SOC), Rapporteur of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development

Mr Lecoq, (France), [UEL]

Mrs Papadimitriou, (Greece), [EPP/CD]

Mrs Kyriakidou, (Cyprus), [SOC]

Mr Giaretta, (Italy), [ALDE]

Earl of Dundee, (United Kingdom), [EDG]

Mrs Barnett (Germany)

Mr Huseynov (Azerbaijan)

Mr Pochinok (Russian Federation)

Mr Willie, (Belgium) [Chair of the Committee on economic Affairs and Development]]

Representatives or Substitutes who signed the Attendance Register in accordance with Rule 11.2 of the Rules of Procedure. The names of Substitutes who replaced absent Representatives are printed in small letters. The names of those who were absent or apologised for absence are followed by an asterisk.

AÇIKGÖZ, Ruhi*
AGHAJANYAN, Artsruni
AGIUS, Francis/ Falzon, Joseph
AGRAMUNT FONT DE MORA, Pedro
AHMETAJ, Arben
ALIGRUDIĆ, Miloš
ANDERSEN, Karin*
ANGHEL, Florin Serghei*
ANTONIONE, Roberto*
ARIAS CAÑETE, Miguel*
ARRIGO, Robert/ Fenech Adami, Joseph
ASKO-SELJAVAARA, Sirpa/Korkeaoja, Juha
ASSIS , Francisco*
AUSTIN, John
AYVA, Lokman*
BABAKOV, Alexander*
BADEA, Viorel Riceard*
BADRÉ, Denis
BAKOYANNIS, Theodora*
BARNETT, Doris
BARTOŠ, Walter/Jirsa, Tomáš
BATET LAMAÑA, Meritxell*
BECK, Marieluise*
BELLEN, Alexandervan der/Kühnel, Franz Eduard
BEMELMANS-VIDEC, Marie-Louise*
BENDER, Ryszard/Korfanty, Bronisław
BERÉNYI, József
BERGAMINI, Deborah/Galati, Giuseppe
BĒRZINŠ, Andris*
BILOZIR, Oksana/Jemiliev, Mustafa
BLANCO TERÁN, Rosa Delia*
BLUM, Roland
BONDARENKO, Olena*
BRANQUINHO, Agostinho*
BRASSEUR, Anne
BRAUN, Márton
BREEN, Patrick/Mullen, Ronan
BRICOLO, Federico/Boldi, Rossana
BROEKE, HanTEN/Franken, Hans
BUGNON André.
ÇAVUŞOĞLU, Mevlüt
CEBECİ, Erol Aslan*
CESA, Lorenzo/Volontè, Luca
CHELEMENDIK, Sergej*
CHERNYSHENKO, Igor/Zelenskiy, Yury
CHITI, Vannino
CHOPE, Christopher/Dundee, Alexander Earl Of
CHRISTMAS-MØLLER, Pia*
CHRISTOFFERSEN, Lise*
CHUKOLOV, Desislav/Dimitrov, Kirtcho
CIRCENE, Ingrida
COLOMBIER, Georges/Fournier, Bernard
CONDE BAJÉN, Agustín*
CORLĂŢEAN, Titus
COSTELLO, Joseph/O'reilly, Joseph
CSAPODY, Miklós*
ČURDOVÁ, Anna
CZINEGE, Imre/Kelemen, András
DĄBKOWSKA-CICHOCKA, Lena
DAEMS, Hendrik*
DALGAARD, Per*
DAVID, Cristian
DEBONO GRECH, Joseph*
DÍAZ TEJERA, Arcadio*
DONABAUER, Karl
DORIĆ, Miljenko*
DOZZO, Gianpaolo*
DUCARME, Daniel*
DUDZIŃSKI, Tomasz/Rotnicka, Jadwiga
DURRIEU, Josette/Blondin, Maryvonne
EÖRSI, Mátyás*
ERR, Lydie*
ETHERINGTON, Bill
FAHEY, Frank*
FASSINO, Piero*
FEDOROV, Valeriy
FENECHIU, Relu*
FERIĆ-VAC, Mirjana/Pejčinović-Burić, Marija
FILIPIOVÁ, Daniela/Lebeda, Pavel
FISCHER, Axel E.*
FLYNN, Paul*
FRAHM, Pernille*
FRANCESCHINI, Dario/Farina, Gianni
FRITZ, Erich Georg
FRUNDA, György*
GABASHVILI, Guiorgui*
GAJDŮŠKOVÁ, Alena
GARDETTO, Jean-Charles
GATTI, Marco/Mularoni, Pier Marino
GAUTIER, Gisèle
GEDEI, József*
GEORGIOU, Aristophanes/Kyriakidou, Athina
GIANNAKA, Sophia*
GIARETTA, Paolo
GLOS, Michael*
GORYACHEVA, Svetlana
GOSOVIĆ, Neven*
GOUTRY, Luc*
GRAF, Martin
GRAHAM, Sylvi*
GREENWAY, John
GREFF, Claude
GRIGNON, Francis
GROSS, Andreas
GROSSKOST, Arlette/Marin, Christine
GROZDANOVA, Dzhema/Petrov, Petar
GUŢU, Ana
HADŽIAHMETOVIĆ, Azra*
HAJIBAYLI, Gultakin
HAJIYEV, Sabir
HANCOCK, Michael*
HARUTYUNYAN, Davit*
HAUGLI, Håkon*
HAUPERT, Norbert
HERASYM'YUK, Olha*
HERKEL, Andres*
HOLOVATY, Serhiy
HÖRSTER, Joachim
HÜBINGER, Anette
HUNKO, Andrej
HURSKAINEN, Sinikka
HUSEYNOV, Ali / Abbasov, Aydin
HUSEYNOV, Rafael
HUSKOWSKI, Stanisław
IDRIZI, Shpetim
IVANIĆ, Mladen
IVANJI, Željko
IVANOVSKI, Igor
IWIŃSKI, Tadeusz
IZETBEGOVIĆ, Bakir
JACQUAT, Denis*
JENSEN, Michael Aastrup*
JENSEN, Mogens
JOHANSSON, Morgan/Hagberg, Michael
JONKER, Corien W.A.
JÓNSSON, Birkir Jón
JOVANOVIĆ, Čedomir*
JUNG, Armand
KAIKKONEN, Antti
KALEMBA, Stanisław/Nykiel, Mirosława
KAŹMIERCZAK, Jan
KEAVENEY, Cecilia
KELEŞ, Birgen*
KNIGHT OF COLLINGTREE, Jill Baroness/Boswell, Tim
KOÇ, Haluk*
KONEČNÁ, Kateřina*
KONEČNÝ, Albrecht
KOSACHEV, Konstantin
KOX, Tiny
KUBOVIČ, Pavol*
KUCHEIDA, Jean-Pierre*
KUMCUOĞLU, Ertuğrul*
KUODYTĖ, Dalia/Vareikis, Egidijus
LAUKKANEN, Markku
LAVTIŽAR-BEBLER, Darja
LECOQ, Jean-Paul
LEIBRECHT, Harald*
LINDBLAD, Göran
LIPIŃSKI, Dariusz
LONCLE, François*
LOUTFI, Younal
LUNDGREN, Kerstin
LUPU, Marian*
MAISSEN, Theo
MALGIERI, Gennaro
MALINS, Humfrey*
MARCENARO, Pietro
MARKOVIĆ, Milica*
MARQUET, Bernard
MARTY, Dick*
MASSERET, Jean-Pierre*
MATIĆ, Slavko
MATUŠIĆ, Frano/Caparin, Karmela
McCAFFERTY, Christine
McINTOSH, Andrew
MEALE, Alan/Henderson, Doug
MEHMETI DEVAJA, Ermira/Kadriu, Flora
MEIKAR, Silver
MEINHARDT, Patrick*
MELČÁK, Miloš
MELNIKOV, Ivan/ Markov, Sergey
MELO, Maria Manuela de
MEMECAN, Nursuna*
MENDES BOTA, José
MIĆUNOVIĆ, Dragoljub*
MIGNON, Jean-Claude
MIKUTIENĖ, Dangutė/Vėsaitė, Birutė
MINASHVILI, Akaki*
MOLCHANOV, Andrey/Zhidkikh, Vladimir
MONFILS, Philippe*
MORIAU, Patrick *
MOSCOSO DEL PRADO HERNÁNDEZ, Juan*
MÓSESDÓTTIR, Lilja*
MOTA AMARAL, João Bosco*
MUÑOZ ALONSO, Alejandro
MÜRI, Felix/Maury Pasquier, Liliane
NACHBAR, Philippe*
NACHTMANNOVÁ, Oľga*
NAGACEVSCHI, Vitalie/Ghiletchi, Valeriu
NĂSTASE, Adrian
NEGELE, Gebhard
NÉMETH, Zsolt/Gruber, Attila
NESSA, Pasquale
NEUGEBAUER, Fritz
NIKOLIĆ, Tomislav/Kovács, Elvira
NIKOLOSKI, Aleksandar/Zernovski, Andrej
NOVIKOVA, Yuliya*
O'HARA, Edward
OHLSSON, Carina
OMTZIGT, Pieter
ÓSKARSDÓTTIR, Steinunn Valdís*
OSTROVSKY, Alexey/Vyatkin, Dmitry
PAPACHRISTOS, Evangelos/Katrinis, Michail
PAPADIMITRIOU, Elsa
PAPANDREOU, Vassiliki/Ntalara, Anna
PARFENOV, Valery
PASHAYEVA, Ganira
PEIRO, Germinal / Karamanli, Marietta
PELEGRINI, Peter*
PERNASKA, Lajla*
PETIR, Marijana
PFLUG, Johannes*
PLESKACHEVSKIY, Viktor*
POCHINOK, Alexander
PODLESOV, Alexander Minovitch
POPESCU, Ivan*
POURBAIX-LUNDIN, Marietta de
POURGOURIDES, Christos
PREDA, Cezar Florin*
PRESCOTT, John/Anderson, Donald Lord
PRESEČNIK, Jakob
PUCHE RODRÍGUEZ-ACOSTA, Gabino*
PUIG i OLIVE, Lluís Maria de
PUPOVAC, Milorad*
PYSARENKO, Valeriy*
QUINTANILLA BARBA, Carmen*
REPS, Mailis
RIBA FONT, Maria Pilar
RIGONI, Andrea
ROCHEBLOINE, François
ROSEIRA, Maria de Belém
ROSSELL TARRADELLAS, Amadeu
ROWEN, Paul*
RUGĀTE, Anta*
RUPPRECHT, Marlene
RUSMALI, Ilir *
RUSSO, Giacinto
RUSTAMYAN, Armen
RUŽIĆ, Branko/Vučković, Nataša
RYBAK, Volodymyr*
ŠABOVIĆ, Džavid*
SANTINI, Giacomo
SARO, Giuseppe
SARRAZIN, Manuel*
SASI, Kimmo
SCHUSTER, Marina
SEKULIĆ, Predrag*
SEYIDOV, Samad*
SHERSHUN, Mykola*
SLUTSKY, Leonid
SOBKO, Sergey*
SOBOLEV, Serhiy*
ŠOJDROVÁ, Michaela
STAVROSITU, Maria*
STIRBLYTĖ, Arūne*
STOILOV, Yanaki
STOLFI, Fiorenzo
STRÄSSER, Christoph
STRENZ, Karin/Hennrich, Michael
STULIGROSZ, Michał
STUMP, Doris
SUDARENKOV, Valeriy
SYDOW, Björn von
SYMONENKO, Petro*
SZABÓ, Zoltán*
TAKTAKISHVILI, Chiora*
TARGAMADZÉ, Guiorgui*
TEKELİOĞLU, Mehmet*
TIMCHENKO, Vyacheslav
TODOROV, Zhivko/Minchev, Krasimir
TODOROVIĆ, Dragan*
TOMLINSON, John E. Lord
TOSHEV, Latchezar
TSISKARISHVILI, Petré*
TUDOSE, Mihai*
TÜRKEŞ, Tuğrul*
TÜRKÖNE, Özlem*
UMAKHANOV, Ilyas/Sabsabi, Ziyad
ÜNAL, Mustafa*
URECHEAN, Serafim*
VALENTINO, Giuseppe/Tofani, Oreste
VANDENBERGHE, Hugo/Tindemans, Elke
VARVITSIOTIS, Miltiadis*
VERA JARDIM, José*
VERLIČ, Peter/Rihter, Andreja
VIS, Rudi/Williams, Betty
VITALI, Luigi
VRETTOS, Konstantinos*
VRIES, Klaas De*
WAALKENS, Harm Evert*
WACH, Piotr
WADEPHUL, Johann*
WALTER, Robert*
WERNER, Katrin*
WILLE, Paul
WILSHIRE, David*
WOHLWEND, Renate/Schädler, Leander
WOJTCZAK, Michał *
WOLDSETH, Karin S.*
WURM, Gisela
XUCLÀ i COSTA, Jordi*
ZHEVAHO, Kostiantyn*
ZINGERIS, Emanuelis
ZIUGANOV, Guennady*
ZOHRABYAN, Naira
Vacant Seat, Cyprus*
Vacant Seat, Moldova*
Vacant Seat, Poland/ Rachoń, Janusz

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote:

JOHN-CALAME, Francine
HÜBNER, Johannes
TORRES PUIG, Joan

Special Guests
-

Observers

AGUILAR CORONADO Humberto
CORREA José Luis Jaime
POLEVNSKY, Yeidckol
SOSA GOVEA Martha Leticia
TILSON, David
VEGA DE LA MADRID Francisco Arturo

Representatives or Substitutes who took part in the ballot for the election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Ukraine

ALIGRUDIĆ, Miloš
BLUM, Roland
CESA, Lorenzo/Volontè, Luca
CHERNYSHENKO, Igor/Zelenskiy, Yury
DAVID, Cristian
FRANCESCHINI, Dario/Farina, Gianni
GRAF, Martin
GROSSKOST, Arlette/Marin, Christine
GROZDANOVA, Dzhema/Petrov, Petar
HAJIBAYLI, Gultakin
HUNKO, Andrej
IVANJI, Željko
JONKER, Corien W.A
MARCENARO, Pietro
McCAFFERTY, Christine
MEALE, Alan/Henderson, Doug
MELČÁK, Miloš
MELO, Maria Manuela de
NIKOLIĆ, Tomislav/Kovács, Elvira
O'HARA, Edward
PODLESOV, Alexander Minovitch
RUSSO, Giacinto
SANTINI, Giacomo
SARO, Giuseppe
SASI, Kimmo
VANDENBERGHE, Hugo/Tindemans, Elke
ZINGERIS, Emanuelis

AA10CR13	AS (2010) CR 13
	Provisional edition