2011 ORDINARY SESSION

_________________

(Second part)

REPORT

Thirteenth sitting

Tuesday 12 April 2011 at 3 p.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

2.       Speeches in other languages are summarised.

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

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

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

THE PRESIDENT – The sitting is open.

1. Election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of
Norway and Switzerland (continued)

THE PRESIDENT – I understand that many members have yet to vote in the election for judges to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Norway and Switzerland. Please do so before 5 p.m.

2. Communication from the Committee of Ministers to the Parliamentary Assembly

THE PRESIDENT – We now come to the communication from Mr Ahmet Davutoğlu, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkey and Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers. Dear Chairman, it is with great pleasure that I welcome you again to the Assembly Chamber to present your communication. Your chairmanship, which will come to an end next month, has been an ambitious and far-reaching one since the outset. It fell on Turkey, one of the founding members of the Council of Europe, to chair this Organisation during one of the most crucial moments in its history, when we are facing the necessity of making it relevant to today’s world and its multiple challenges.

The reform is well under way and the Parliamentary Assembly is actively contributing to it with its own reform process. We are also contributing to the forthcoming high-level conference on the future of the European Court of Human Rights in Izmir, which has been one of the key priorities of the Turkish chairmanship. The Assembly, which is actively involved in its own monitoring process of obligations and commitments of member states, equally highly appreciates your efforts to strengthen the Council of Europe’s monitoring mechanisms.

Your chairmanship has coincided with a complex political situation in several member states, and your personal involvement in reasserting the values and principles of the Organisation has been of great value. I also wish to praise your efforts in strengthening relations with the European Union and other major international organisations, and in accelerating the process of accession of the EU to the European Convention on Human Rights.

Dear Chairman, your mandate coincided with a challenging time not only for Europe but also for our closest neighbours, with which we have closely interrelated. The ongoing revolutions in the Arab world give our Organisation an unprecedented opportunity to promote our values and share our expertise and thus contribute to strengthening democracy and human rights in the world. Your visit to Tunisia, together with the Secretary General, was part of this effort which we, in the Assembly, will further with a series of debates in June. We hope to receive our first “partners for democracy” in the Assembly in the very near future.

Dear Chairman, on behalf of the Assembly, I express our gratitude for your personal involvement and commitment to this Organisation, as well as that of Turkey in general at the highest political level, with the visit of President Gül last January and the visit of Prime Minister Erdoğan tomorrow. I am confident that this exemplary co-operation will continue after the end of your chairmanship. Please accept our best wishes for the future.

Chairman, you have the floor.

Mr DAVUTOĞLU (Minster of Foreign Affairs of Turkey and Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers) – Mr President, distinguished members of the Parliamentary Assembly, ladies and gentlemen, I welcome this new opportunity to address your Assembly just a few weeks before the ministerial session marking the high point of our chairmanship on 11 May.

Some months ago, I spoke to you about our determination, which I believe is shared by all member states, to restore our Organisation to its rightful place on the European scene, firmly convinced of the relevance of its values.

Recent developments have since shown that those values are more central than ever to people’s expectations. The important events of recent months on the southern shores of the Mediterranean and in the Middle East have been an eloquent reminder. Among other things, they provide an opportunity for us in the Council of Europe to forge a strong partnership founded on trust with those countries, for our common interest and benefit. We must not miss that opportunity. We have a duty to do what is within our power and remit to help those who show a desire for freedom and the will to live in a democratic society that respects human rights and the rule of law.

Given the Council of Europe’s expertise in these areas, I paid a visit to Tunisia in February with Secretary General Jagland, with a view to offering our Organisation’s assistance for establishing a democratic transition process, fully respecting the sovereignty of the country. I am delighted to see that our proposals were well received and have taken tangible form.

In mid-March, a delegation from the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission travelled to Tunisia, where it laid down the basis, with the competent authorities, for co-operation on future constitutional and electoral reforms. Encouraged by the member states, the Turkish chairmanship is providing both political and financial support for that co-operation.

Beyond the question of Tunisia, the Committee of Ministers has engaged in a broader discussion on establishing a coherent strategy for a neighbourhood policy. The core mandate of the Council of Europe is and will remain geographically focused on Europe, but in today’s increasingly globalised world, we cannot simply be indifferent to the regions around us. Withdrawing into ourselves cannot be the solution. On the contrary, it is by paying closer attention to Europe’s neighbourhood that the Organisation’s mission can better be fulfilled.

In this context, the ramifications for our member states of a possible mass arrival of asylum seekers from the regions affected are particularly important. What the Council of Europe could and should do in such a situation has already been on the agenda of the Committee of Ministers. On 3 March, the Ministers’ Deputies considered the question on the Secretary General’s initiative. Two important points were stressed: on the one hand, the priority that should be given to respect for the human rights of those who have fled or might flee the southern Mediterranean to seek asylum in Europe; on the other hand, consideration for the legitimate interests of the member states. In this context, the principles of solidarity and burden sharing between member states were emphasised, as well as the need for co-ordination with the other international stakeholders.

I myself had the opportunity to stress the importance of co-ordinating the efforts made at the level of the European institutions during talks in Brussels on 4 March, with the first Vice-President of the European Commission and High Representative of the European Union, Catherine Ashton, together with Secretary General Jagland.

On a separate note, the high-level dialogue meeting of the two organisations with Ms Ashton, which took place in a very constructive atmosphere, was also an opportunity to discuss a number of topics of common interest, in particular, co-operation between the Council of Europe and the European Union, as well as the prospects regarding accession by the Union to the European Convention on Human Rights.

I am pleased to see your Assembly taking the same approach, which is geared to support and assistance for the emerging democracies on the southern shores of the Mediterranean and also those in the Middle East and central Asia. Through the “partner for democracy” status, you are offering those countries access to the activities of the Assembly in exchange for their commitment to progress towards the values advocated by the Council of Europe.

The issues I have just raised as well as other topics will be on the agenda of the ministerial session that we are organising in Istanbul on 10-11 May. In particular, we are convinced that the Council of Europe has a leading role to play in fostering conditions for living together as harmoniously as possible in our European pluralist societies. Europe must make its cultural, linguistic, religious and social diversity a strength and a catalyst for sparking energy, rather than a source of division or even confrontation. As I stressed in my previous address to your plenary session last January, intolerance and extremism are on the rise everywhere. On the occasion of the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination on 21 March, I expressed my strong confidence in the Council of Europe’s determination to pursue its work through all the means at its disposal to ensure that no one is subjected to discrimination or exposed to hatred because of their race, colour, sex, language, religion, origin or for other reasons.

In this process, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, as the only body established in Europe to monitor combating racism and racial discrimination, which are unfortunately still prevalent in European societies, deserves our special tribute. Within its limited resources and secretariat, the ECRI strives to carry out its important mandate. We should all support its valuable activities.

In today’s world, people increasingly become the target of discrimination and intolerance, leading to hatred and violence, just because they are perceived as different. As I said in January, we, the Council of Europe members, cannot just stand idly by and, indeed, we have not. In this context, we expect the report of the Group of Eminent Persons on “Living together in 21st century Europe – pan-European project”, which will be presented during the ministerial session in Istanbul, to deliver innovative proposals to guide the action that the Council of Europe might take in future to promote the values of tolerance, respect and mutual understanding.

I know that the Assembly has a keen interest in this question and I congratulate you on the initiative of bringing together several eminent guests from the religious world today to debate the religious dimension of intercultural dialogue. I understand that the debate this morning was lively and enriching. Promoting mutual knowledge and respect, built on common values of human rights, must mobilise all efforts within this Organisation and its member states.

The second major item on the agenda for the ministerial session will be the future of the European Court of Human Rights. As you know, we are organising a high-level conference on this topic in Izmir, on 26 and 27 April. Through that conference, our main goal is to further the reform process that was launched by the Interlaken conference in February 2010. The present difficulties challenging the long-term effectiveness of the control mechanism set up by the European Convention on Human Rights are our common concern. The Izmir conference will be the venue, inter alia, first, to take stock, in accordance with the Interlaken action plan, of the proposals that do not require amendments to the Convention and, secondly, having regard to recent developments, to take requisite measures to continue the reform process. The conclusions of the Izmir conference will be examined and given the appropriate follow-up at the Istanbul ministerial session in the form of concrete decisions.

We very much hope that the Izmir conference will identify measures that will contribute in a comprehensive manner to providing an effective and lasting response to the recurrent – and even, growing – problem of the current volume of cases pending before the Court, so that the effectiveness of the Convention mechanism can be further strengthened.

Another project to which the Turkish chairmanship is greatly attached is the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence. Thanks also to the opinion issued, through the diligence of your Standing Committee, work on this important convention was finalised in time, and we were able to adopt it last week. The convention will be opened for signature at the ministerial session in Istanbul.

I take this opportunity to laud the Assembly’s active involvement in the different campaigns mounted by the Council of Europe, whether to combat violence against women, act against trafficking in human beings or protect children’s rights. The Assembly has a key role to play, particularly in raising awareness of the importance of ratifying and implementing Council of Europe conventions in the relevant circles in member states.

The Istanbul ministerial session will also provide an opportunity for an initial assessment of the follow-up to the Strasbourg Declaration on Roma. In connection with this, the chairmanship welcomes the operational measures taken by the Secretary General, in particular the recent launch of a project to train Roma mediators in Council of Europe countries. We await the interim report that he will present in Istanbul. In view of the importance of the topics on the Istanbul ministerial session’s agenda, high-level participation will be all the more important, as we expect the ministerial session to reaffirm the Council of Europe’s unique political role as a pan-European forum for devising common responses to the numerous challenges facing our member states.

The Committee of Ministers pays particular attention to the development of the reform process of the Council of Europe – an issue to which the Assembly is also committed and that holds its interest. I know that a discussion on this question was held at the last meeting of the Joint Committee in January this year. Since then work has progressed, and on 6 April the Secretary General presented detailed proposals for priorities for the programme and budget for 2012-13 to the Ministers’ Deputies. More in-depth discussions on these proposals will continue in the coming weeks.

Turning now to current political questions, a number of issues continue to hold the attention of the Committee of Ministers. In particular, I would like to mention the question of Belarus. Unfortunately, since I last addressed you there has been no progress towards adopting the values upheld by the Council of Europe. This has led only to the widening of the gap between Belarus and the rest of the democratic European family. Despite the difficult situation, we do not want to close the door on this country. We still hope that Belarus will join the family of European countries brought together around the values championed by the Council of Europe, and that it will give tangible signs of willingness to this end.

I would also like to say a few words about the political situation in Albania. At the request of the Central Electoral Commission of Albania, the Committee of Ministers approved a scheme to assist with the preparation of local elections to be held in May. I very much hope that these elections will take place in a calm atmosphere. I once again appeal to the sense of responsibility of all Albania’s political movements, in order to settle their differences through dialogue.

Another situation we are closely following is that in Bosnia and Herzegovina. You visited the country last month, Mr President, and I pay tribute to your commitment and efforts aimed at the main political stakeholders there. Unfortunately, no central government has been formed since the elections of October 2010. This political stalemate can only be harmful to the country’s stability and prosperity. It is important that the political forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina mobilise their efforts in a constructive manner and assume their responsibility to fill this gap without further delay.

Finally, the follow-up to the August 2008 conflict in Georgia remains on the Committee of Ministers’ political agenda. Last week the Secretary General presented his new six-month report, which gives a detailed picture of the situation on the ground, reviewing the activities carried out by the Council of Europe. As I indicated in my presentation last January, the Committee of Ministers’ chairmanship hopes that these activities will continue to develop for the benefit of all individuals in need as victims of the conflict.

Before I conclude, I would like to refer to the events that we have organised and supported since the end of January, in the framework of our chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers. We have focused in particular on strengthening the Council of Europe’s monitoring mechanisms – in connection with which we organised a seminar last February in Istanbul, together with the Commissioner for Human Rights, Thomas Hammarberg, on the human rights dimension of migration in Europe. This provided an opportunity to debate the main divergences between migration law and practice in Europe, and human rights protection standards, as well as to discuss the best ways of helping states to review and develop their migration policies.

We also organised a seminar last month in Antalya on improving detention conditions, in conjunction with the Committee for the Prevention of Torture. The Council of Europe has valuable expertise in this field, and the seminar provided an opportunity to showcase the scope and content of the work carried out by our Organisation in the prisons sphere, with a special focus on the role of the Committee for the Prevention of Torture.

Finally, again in the framework of our chairmanship, and in acknowledgment of the important role that NGOs play in many issues of concern to our societies, such as dealing with the resurgence of intolerance and discrimination, we also hosted a forum of the conference of INGOs – international non-governmental organisations – of the Council of Europe on the theme “New multicultural challenges: how can NGOs play their part?” in Istanbul in March. The forum aimed to give a civil society dimension to the Council of Europe’s activities and projects in the field of intercultural dialogue, according to the practical experience of the NGOs concerned. It highlighted the importance of the civil society dimension in projects and initiatives to promote living together in Europe. In that respect, the forum also complemented the work of the group of eminent persons.

Mr President, distinguished members of the Parliamentary Assembly, today is the last time that I will address your Assembly in my capacity as Chairman of the Committee of Ministers. I would therefore like to express my deep gratitude for the constant support that you have shown to our chairmanship. I hope that the fresh impetus that we have sought to give the Organisation will be maintained in the future. I am sure that your Assembly will continue to mobilise its efforts in that direction alongside the coming chairmanships, notably that of Ukraine, which will take up where we left off, and to which I express my best wishes and our support.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Mr Davutoğlu, 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 be asking questions and not making speeches.

The first question is from Mr Mendes Bota, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr MENDES BOTA (Portugal) – I consider the Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence to be the main achievement of Turkey’s presidency of the Council of Europe. It is a landmark that will benefit millions and millions of European women. How do you intend to promote the broadest group of signatories to the convention on 11 May?

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Mr Davutoğlu, you have the floor to answer the question.

Mr DAVUTOĞLU – Thank you for your question. As I mentioned, the Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence was adopted by the Committee of Ministers, and we will bring it to Istanbul for member states to sign. As Chairman of the Committee of Ministers, I assure you that we will do everything possible to get all those signatures, especially before the dinner – based on how many signatures we get, we will serve dinner – because we know how significant this issue is for our continent. We hope that we will complete the process in Istanbul. I would also like to thank you personally, Mr Mendes Bota, for your support for this aspect of the Assembly’s work.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Mr Gross will ask the next question, on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – Dear Minister, we think that your firm policy is a unique opportunity for Europe to solve difficult situations, especially in Libya, Syria and Yemen, and to prevent and stop civil wars. I would like to ask you to develop how you want to use this opportunity that Turkey has to serve Europe.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Mr Davutoğlu you have the floor to answer the question.

Mr DAVUTOĞLU – In the Middle East and North Africa, we are going through a historic transformation. The positive side of this transformation is that the values of the masses in Tahrir Square, Tunisia and other countries are compatible with those of the Council of Europe. They want more democracy, free elections, transparency, the rule of law and accountability. These are the values of the Council of Europe.

As Turkey has good relations with all those countries, we have been very active in helping them. Despite these general demands, and the expressions of the people of the Middle East, each country has its own characteristics. Our preference is that this historic transformation should be peaceful and without violence, clashes or divided situations such as that in Libya. In Tunisia and Egypt, we supported the process. As Chairman of the Committee of Ministers, I went to Tunisia with Secretary General Jagland. It was a very fruitful meeting. The Venice Commission visited and agreed with the Tunisian Government that 300 election officers will be trained by the Council of Europe. This is a very important contribution from the Council of Europe. I especially thank the member states which gave us this mandate to work in the region. It is the first time that the Council of Europe has become so active.

President Gül and I have both visited Egypt. We had extensive consultations about how Turkey and European institutions can help in the transformation. The day before yesterday I was in Egypt, and I had meetings with ministers in the new government. In both Tunisia and Egypt, we have evidence that makes us more optimistic about this transformation through peaceful methods.

In Libya, we face a big challenge because of the situation on the ground, the extensive clashes and the attacks on civilians. Turkey tried to help any process that would stop the violence in the early days and weeks of the crisis, but the attacks against civilians continued. After the Arab League’s decision and UN Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973, all of which we supported, there is now an international commitment to protect civilians in Libya. The process is continuing. As we know, Prime Minister Erdoğan made a statement and started an initiative based on three parameters: first, an immediate ceasefire and the withdrawal of armed forces from the cities; secondly, humanitarian access corridors to all the cities; and thirdly, starting a political dialogue for real political change based on the aspirations of the Libyan people. The Libyan people should decide their future. This is what we are working on.

From Strasbourg, I will be going to Qatar to a Contact Group meeting on Libya, after the London meeting. I will take the spirit of this Assembly to the Qatar meeting. I visited Syria and Bahrain last week. We are urging both those countries to make political reforms in the direction of democracy, political participation, transparency and accountability without harming stability in that region which is crucial not only for the people of the region but also for the world economy and global peace. We will continue to work. As Chairman of the Committee of Ministers, I will do my best to be a bridge between the region and the Council of Europe. I am grateful to Secretary General Jagland. We work together very efficiently in this direction.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Kosachev to ask his question on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Mr KOSACHEV (Russian Federation) – Dear Mr Minister, in your communication you mentioned the Group of Eminent Persons and the report it is soon going to present on the pan-European project and living together in the 21st century. As you probably know, this Assembly will pay attention to this report and we are going to have a separate discussion on it. What is your vision of how it could be followed up in the Committee of Ministers if that is necessary?

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Mr Davutoğlu you have the floor.

Mr DAVUTOĞLU – One of the objectives of our chairmanship was to strengthen the culture of co-existence and living together in Europe. Therefore, together with the Secretary General, we established the Group of Eminent Persons. It has been working very hard. I have participated in some of the meetings in Istanbul. It is now completing the report and will submit it to the Istanbul meeting. It will be a comprehensive report and will be a guideline for the future. Because of the inclusive composition of this group, I am very optimistic that it will bring us a good report. I have been in other eminent persons’ groups and know very well that if this report just stays on paper it will not help anything. The report is to show some guidance as well as to lay out an action plan. We are firm that at the Istanbul meeting we will be able to develop an action plan and process based on this report. This type of effort cannot be seen as a one-time event. It is a process. I hope this report will enlighten the next stages of this process, but all of us need to work together. The Committee of Ministers, the Assembly, public opinion, NGOs and the political leaders of member states should work together to continue this process. Even after its chairmanship, Turkey will follow this and do everything possible for the success of the process.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you very much. Mr Badré will now ask a question on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Mr BADRÉ (France) said that the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights would be important for the protection of human rights. He asked Mr Davutoğlu to give an account of the negotiating process between the European Union and the Council of Europe.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Mr Davutoğlu you have the floor.

Mr DAVUTOĞLU – Another important priority for us was to have this link and achieve accession to the European Convention on Human Rights. We had a meeting on 4 March in Brussels with Baroness Ashton, First Vice-President and High Representative, and her team. Our team included the Secretary General. It was a very fruitful meeting. We went through all the files of the negotiations. Our joint committees are still working very hard. We hope that this will be concluded by Istanbul, but if more time is needed we will follow up after the Istanbul meeting. However, it is going quite well. It will be a historic development, as you mentioned, and we are sure that we will achieve this goal.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Petrenco, on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr PETRENCO (Moldova) – Maltese nationals have no right to legally divorce at present. The Moldovan authorities contrive by all means to turn off the only opposition TV channel in our country. In Lithuania, the leader of one of the left opposition parties, Mr Paleckis, faces penal action for his political views and statements expressed in the media. In fact, the list of countries and recent violations extends even further. Of course, we are all different, but all member states of the Council of Europe have a common commitment to respect fundamental rights and freedoms. Minister, can we expect the Committee of Ministers to raise these issues at one of its meetings?

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Minister, you have the floor.

Mr DAVUTOĞLU – This issue has not been raised before, but we are of course following events in Moldova very closely and trying to assist it to reach a solution on the ground.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Girardin.

Ms GIRARDIN (France) said that in 1952 Turkey had become a member of NATO. Following the point made earlier by Mr Gross, she would like to know more about Mr Davatoğlu’s position on NATO’s action in Libya and whether Colonel Gaddafi was currently a politician one could sign agreements with.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Minister, you have the floor.

Mr DAVUTOĞLU – Yes, this issue has been diligently pursued by NATO in the last few years. Since Gaddafi’s forces attacked Benghazi and other cities including Ajdabiya and Ras Lanuf, there has been a humanitarian disaster. This issue has been discussed by NATO, which sets out two important parameters. The first is that the UN Security Council resolution is the main source of a mandate. The second is the requirement for the support of the Arab League. NATO does not want to be part of any conflict if there is no UN resolution or regional ownership. That is even more important for Turkey, as a country of the region and a member of NATO at the same time.

A decision was made by the Arab League to call for a UN Security Council resolution on a no-fly zone, and once Resolutions 1970 and 1973 had been adopted, a decision was taken by NATO. The important issue here is the protection of civilians. The UN mandate covers four main areas: humanitarian access and assistance; the arms embargo; the no-fly zone; and protecting civilians. Based on those parameters, NATO took action. We want NATO to be active and efficient in pursuing all four elements of Resolution 1973. They form the limit, but also the objectives, of the resolution.

Clashes are continuing on the ground. An African Union delegation was talking to both sides yesterday. As I have said, the aim is to bring an end to the crisis through an immediate ceasefire, the achievement of humanitarian access to the cities and the withdrawal of armed forces from the cities. All of this should have a political objective, which is to bring about political change in the direction of the aspirations of the Libyan people. The Libyan people will decide what happens and how Libya will be governed in the future. That is our main approach.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Zohrabyan.

Ms ZOHRABYAN (Armenia) said that the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which was currently chaired by Turkey, had tackling intolerance as one of its priorities. Would an observation mission be sent to Nakhchivan in Azerbaijan, in line with this priority?

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Minister, the floor is yours.

Mr DAVUTOĞLU – This has not been discussed in the Committee of Ministers, and I therefore cannot go into detail, as I do not have any concrete information. However, as the Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs, I can say that we always place an emphasis on tolerance in the Caucasus, the Balkans and the Middle East. That should be respected by all. If that happens, tensions in the region can be eased, but if we do not act properly in relation, for example, to the return of refugees from the occupied lands of Azerbaijan, it is difficult to talk about preventing intolerance in the region. We have to take a comprehensive approach to Caucasian questions to allow all the Caucasian nations and peoples to live together and fully respect each other.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Ms Strik is not here, so I call Mr Iwiński.

Mr IWIŃSKI (Poland) – Turkey has contributed a great deal to peaceful solutions in the Arab world recently. What can you do, as Chairman of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, to solve the humanitarian problems? The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population has just adopted a special resolution which will be discussed here this week on the situation in the southern countries such as Malta and Italy. Do you think that the Council of Europe Development Bank could and should be used in these circumstances?

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Minister, you have the floor.

Mr DAVUTOĞLU – The humanitarian situation on the ground is also a matter of concern for us. Turkey has been active in trying to facilitate humanitarian access, and we have sent many ships to Benghazi to meet the medical and food needs of the people there. This humanitarian corridor is still functioning, and we are sending planes and ships every day to help the people there, because the situation on the ground is really very bad.

The situation is even worse in Misrata. The city has been surrounded and there is heavy shelling there. Last week, a Turkish ship – a ferry boat – reached Misrata for the first time, and we were able to take about 300 wounded people out of the conflict zone. We took them to Izmir, and I have visited the wounded people in the Turkish hospitals there. I had the chance to hear what those people had to say, and they told me that there was a humanitarian disaster in Misrata. On humanitarian grounds, there is an urgent need to achieve access to the cities and to send food, medicine and even personnel to work in the hospitals. We also need to establish mobile hospitals on the ground.

The second stage will involve adopting a migration policy to control the flow of migrants, but we cannot avert another humanitarian disaster without solving the situation on the ground. The situation on the ground needs to be brought under control, and then we can take care of the problem of migration. Your proposal about the bank might be a good one, and other institutions should also be established in order to help the situation, especially in the post-conflict era.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Vareikis.

Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania) – Minister, thank you for a good speech. I have always supported Turkish integration into the European institutions. Nevertheless, I have a question about the Cyprus problem. For many years, the people in the north of Cyprus have had to rely on Turkey to get passports and visas to travel to Europe. Now, however, the people prefer to have passports from the Republic of Cyprus, in order to enter the Schengen area and travel freely in Europe. Does this mean that you are losing the political project known as the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus?

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Mr Davutoğlu, you have the floor.

Mr DAVUTOĞLU – I will answer that question in my capacity as the Turkish Foreign Affairs Minister.

Let me first thank you for highlighting a humanitarian issue. As you suggest, implementing the sanctions against the people of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus contravenes human rights. There is no legal, ethical or political ground for such isolation. No nation in Europe, especially a unified Europe, should be prevented from engaging freely in sporting and cultural activities. Unfortunately, however, Turkish Cypriots have been banned from enjoying those modern rights, although they said yes to the UN plan in 2004.

Who should be blamed for this discrimination against Turkish Cypriots? The UN plan was supported by the Council of Europe and the European Union, but during the past seven years there has been no real improvement in their circumstances. In my opinion, the international community should be blamed. The blame should lie with those who are imposing these sanctions on the democratic people of Turkish Cyprus, rather than with Turkish Cypriots. That is the perspective from which your question should be viewed. Working towards a real, comprehensive settlement on the island is better than engaging in tactical manoeuvres. The Turkish position remains clear: there should be a solution based on the UN parameters of bi-zonality, bi-communality and respect for each other.

THE PRESIDENT – I call Ms Pashayeva.

Ms PASHAYEVA (Azerbaijan) said that she would ask her question in Turkish. She recalled that in March an Azerbaijani child of nine had been killed by Armenians. Armenia had occupied Azerbaijani land and was now building an airport. How would the Committee of Ministers put a stop to such initiatives?

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Mr Davutoğlu, you have the floor.

Mr DAVUTOĞLU said that the Committee of Ministers had not discussed this issue: this conflict was an issue to be taken care of by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Speaking as Foreign Minister of Turkey, he would say that Turkey had followed the situation closely, had always been against the occupation and had tried to draw the world’s attention to it. Many people had had to leave the region and Turkey wanted peace in the Caucasus.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Vera Jardim.

Mr VERA JARDIM (Portugal) – Now that we are confronting the new politics of the Council of Europe, and given that this is a unique institution dedicated to dialogue and co-operation with the southern countries, what do you think about the role of the North-South Centre in Lisbon? Morocco has become a partner, and Tunisia is negotiating its entry. Will Turkey also enter in the near future?

THE PRESIDENT – Mr Davutoğlu, you have the floor.

Mr DAVUTOĞLU – We consider the North-South Centre an important institution, and I believe that, following the developments in North Africa, it will have an even more important strategic role. Turkey is considering membership, but I think that all institutions need to be revised when historic turning points occur. If the North-South Centre can reassess its activities following the historic turning point involving the Mediterranean area and take steps towards reorganisation, that will be a big asset for the Council of Europe and all the countries affected by the situation in the Mediterranean and North Africa in particular. In parallel with the reassessment of the structure of the North-South Centre, Turkey is giving positive consideration to becoming part of it.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Ms von Cramon-Taubadel and Ms Kaufer are not present, so I call Mr Vrettos.

Mr VRETTOS (Greece) – Among the spots in the Mediterranean region where uprisings take place, with demands for democracy and respect for human and social rights and freedom, are the occupied territories of northern Cyprus. Do you agree that continued colonisation ordering the demographic composition and the presence of a repressive mechanism involving the participation of the occupying forces and violations of basic human rights of Turkish Cypriots should also concern the Council of Europe?

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Mr Davutoğlu, you have the floor.

Mr DAVUTOĞLU – I will answer this question too in my capacity as Turkish Foreign Affairs Minister.

I am happy that you are so concerned about Turkish Cypriots, but I think that confusing some demonstrations on the Turkish Cypriot side with events in North Africa is misleading. In the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, there have been free and fair elections and a democratic process for many decades, and no one has questioned or criticised those procedures till now. The demonstrations have been basically against economic measures taken by the government. In fact, the situation is more similar to that in Greece than to the circumstances in North African countries. I think that you will understand better than anyone what demonstrations against economic measures mean. It is not a matter of human rights or democracy but a matter of economic measures taken by the government.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Postanjyan.

Ms POSTANJYAN (Armenia) – It is no secret that Turkey has occupied western Armenia, northern Cyprus and other territories, leaving the indigenous people without homelands, and that Turkish occupation has led only to the great dispossession of which I stand before you as an unwilling descendant. The Ottoman Empire committed the crime of genocide against such diverse nations and ethnic groups as the Armenians, the Greeks and the Assyrians, among others. Today, in order to avoid responsibility and liability for crimes committed against humanity, the Turkish Government is using Article 301 of the Criminal Code to deny and distort the historical record.

Sir, I ask you, in your capacity as Chairman of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, what measures you are taking to make the Turkish Government face this historical truth honestly and sincerely, and to take the first steps towards recognition of the Armenian genocide and the abolition of Article 301.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Mr Davutoğlu, you have the floor.

Mr DAVUTOĞLU – Again I have to answer that as the Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs, but I do not know how to answer. It was a one-sided statement read from a paper, repeating the same accusations. I think it is better that you should study international law, how this esteemed body functions and the difference between accusation and allegation and facts. This is an intellectual debate. If you want to have this debate, I am ready, as an academic, to have a debate on history. However, this forum is not the forum for that debate. We have certain values upon which these institutions are based, and there are certain mechanisms by which you can bring these issues to the agenda. We can have debates about historical facts or other issues at any time, but it is better to study the matter and understand each other.

In our last session, I underlined that what we needed was a just memory. If everybody judges on his or her own memory, there will be no mutual respect and understanding. It is better for Turkish and Armenian people to come together and establish a historical commission to discuss this. We offered that in 2005, and from 2005 until now we have been expecting a positive reply to our call to research all the historical events together, or with third parties, based on the historical archives rather than one-sided memories. One day I am sure that a new generation from both nations – and we hope it will be our generation – will come together to share and discuss all the historical texts rather than accusing each other and using the matter for political objectives. This is our call as Turkey: please come and accept our offer to establish a commission to study all the events. Using rhetoric will only harm our nations. It is better to be fair and study all the events in a much more open-minded manner, in the spirit of a global approach.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The last question is from Ms Marin.

Ms MARIN (France) said that many countries around Turkey, especially Syria, were moving towards democracy and asked what role Turkey would play in the process.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Mr Davutoğlu, you have the floor.

Mr DAVUTOĞLU – Syria is one of our most important strategic neighbours, and we have developed excellent relations in the past 10 years. Our relations are continuing in a very positive mode. Of course, as I said, not only in Syria but throughout the region there is a popular demand for democratic values, transparency and accountability. That is mainly the change that we support, but we want to achieve that change without creating instabilities.

We have close contacts and close dialogue with Syria. Prime Minister Erdoğan has called Syrian President Bashar al-Assad several times to encourage the Syrian leadership to make political reform. I was in Syria last week, in Damascus, and I had a chance to have a meeting of almost three hours with President Bashar al-Assad and his team. We will continue to encourage Syria to fulfil the reforms that it promised. As you know, he himself said in 2005 that he planned a reform package, and last December, when the events in Tunisia started, he said that there was a need for reform in all the Arab countries. Now we expect that they will bring in those reforms, and that through them there will be a peaceful transformation in Syria. That is our objective, and we will do everything possible to calm the situation and achieve those political reforms.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you Minister. If you agree, I have been advised that since we have enough time for the next debate, we can take four more questions. I call Mr Huseynov.

Mr HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – Armenia, which occupied 20% of Azerbaijani territories through various external forces and has been keeping those territories under occupation for the past 20 years, is continuing to impede the diplomatic and peaceful solution of the conflict by any means. The next blow intended by occupant Armenia to the negotiation and regulation process is to construct an airport at Khankandi in the occupied territory and open an air route to Yerevan. Violating the air borders of other states through such diversionist initiatives, Armenia instigates the need for Azerbaijan to take adequate measures and apply force. What preventive steps within its powers can the Committee of Ministers take to make Armenia abstain from such dangerous actions?

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Minister, you may reply.

Mr DAVUTOĞLU – As I said before, this issue has not been discussed in the committee. If there is a new situation, of course we can consider it. The OSCE mechanism should be working on that through the Minsk process. As Foreign Minister of Turkey, I want to underline again that this type of provocative action will not help any process for a political settlement on the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. They are provocative actions by Armenia, and they should be stopped in order to open, facilitate or accelerate the continuing talks between President Aliyev and President Sargsyan through the Minsk process.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Çağlar to ask the next question.

Mr ÇAĞLAR (Representative of the Turkish Cypriot Community) – Negotiations for a solution within UN parameters in Cyprus have been going on since 2008, and we know that Turkey supports the solution of a united federal Cyprus. As the Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers and the Foreign Minister of Turkey, what are your assessments of the negotiation process and of the expectations and proposals to bring the current negotiations to a successful end?

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Minister, you have the floor.

Mr DAVUTOĞLU – Again, I want to answer as Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkey. Turkey has supported this process since 2008, hoping that there will be a strong will for a comprehensive settlement. We still support it, and we hope that there will be a comprehensive settlement through the UN efforts on the island. Unfortunately, when we look at the records of several meetings in the past three years and more, we can see that the Greek Cypriot side, in trying to slow down the process, does not accept any timetable for the negotiations. All the initiatives coming from the Turkish Cypriot side have been either rejected or postponed. We hope that there will be a new atmosphere in talks and that with the strong support of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, we can achieve a solution to these frozen conflicts in a peaceful manner based on the values of the Council of Europe.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next question is from Mr Frécon.

Mr FRÉCON (France) said that a week ago, colleagues had gone to Kazakhstan to observe the presidential elections. There were obvious questions over the conditions in which the elections had been held, with the re-elected president winning 95% of the vote after opposition candidates had stood down. Would the Committee of Ministers react to this parody of democracy, and what was the point of sending observers?

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call the Minister.

Mr DAVUTOĞLU – This issue has not been raised and discussed in the Committee of Ministers, so I cannot give any details about this issue as its Chairman.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The last question is from Ms Durrieu.

Ms DURRIEU (France) said that the Minister had said that Turkey wanted to be a global leader in the Middle East. What did this mean, would Turkey become the leader of Sunni Islam and how would Turkey take forward the founding principles of the Council of Europe, namely of human rights, democracy and the rule of law?

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Davutoğlu?

Mr DAVUTOĞLU – I do not know in which part of my speech I referred to Turkey wanting to play a global role in the region. I never said such a thing. I do not remember any statement from me, the Prime Minister or the President of Turkey suggesting that Turkey is a leader of Sunni Islam. As a modern nation state, we have no intention of imposing anything on surrounding states. All the nations that surround us are equal to us. We do not want to impose anything on anyone. We are equal partners with all the states in the region. We will continue to work with them, especially on sectarian issues. Turkey never took a sectarian line. We never supported Sunnis against Shi’ites, Christians against Muslims or Muslims against Christians. That would be against our secular principles and contradict our historical background, because in Turkish society throughout the centuries all the sects lived together. In our foreign policy, we have no intention of playing a global role in the region or of supporting one group against another. I always emphasise that we want to contribute to regional order as an equal partner with all the other countries. Yes, we want to play a role in global peace through global institutions. For example, we want to be more active in the Council of Europe to contribute to peace and stability in Europe and around the globe. As a member of the G20 and the United Nations Security Council and as a sponsor of the Alliance of Civilizations, we want to contribute to those processes as a country with a global role. However, that never meant that we wanted a global role in the region or to use some groups against others.

THE PRESIDENT – We must now conclude the questions to Mr Davutoğlu. On behalf of the Assembly, I thank you most warmly for your communication and for the answers you have given to questions.

I must remind delegates that the vote is in progress to elect judges to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Norway and Switzerland. 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.

3. The religious dimension of intercultural dialogue – resumed debate

THE PRESIDENT – We now continue the debate on the report on “The religious dimension of intercultural dialogue” (Doc. 12553 and Doc. 12576). I remind members that yesterday the Assembly agreed that speaking time in this debate be limited to three minutes. To allow sufficient time for replies to the debate, and voting, we will have to interrupt the list of speakers at about 5.30 p.m.

In the debate, I call Mr Kalmár. You have three minutes.

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

Mr KALMÁR (Hungary) – I am very glad that this important issue is being discussed here. We all agree that intercultural dialogue is crucial to prevent conflicts. However, the religious dimension of that dialogue is only one aspect. To find the correct answers and solutions, it is necessary to discuss the problem in a more complex way, with other important aspects and dimensions – the historical, educational, ethnic and political ones. They are all linked. For example, some religions identify themselves with a national cause, as the report points out in the case of the Orthodox Church.

European culture is related to Christianity, although religious intolerance has claimed many victims over the centuries. The first decision in Europe on freedom of religion was taken in 1568 by the Hungarian Assembly, led by the Prince of Transylvania, Gábor Bethlen, in the city of Torda.

Today, history teachers throughout Europe could do much to enhance tolerance and intercultural dialogue. I am convinced that we will never share the same interpretation of certain historical events, but history should be taught looking to the common European future. If the European nations cannot co-operate, there is no future for any of them. Cultural diversity in our continent is a source of future developments, and it should not be used for raising tensions.

In Europe, the borders have changed so many times that it is impossible to create countries inhabited by one nation with one culture. Moreover, in western Europe cultural and religious diversity is constantly fed by immigration. A first step would be for states to recognise officially the cultural diversity of territories. By doing that, questions of cultural or ethnic autonomy would not be unacceptable.

Representatives of different Churches at any level must spread respect for other nations and religions. They can do much. I must point out that that does not happen in many European countries at the moment. For example, in Romania, the religious authorities prevent the Csango Hungarians from attending mass in their Hungarian mother tongue. After all, we all know that God is love and not hate.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Seyidov.

Mr SEYIDOV (Azerbaijan) – I congratulate the rapporteur on the excellent and important report that she presented today to our Assembly. The religious dimension of intercultural dialogue is an important topic not only in the Assembly and in Europe, but throughout the world. Unfortunately, there are clashes throughout the world and problems everywhere, even in our Assembly. At the beginning of this discussion and during the questions and answers to the Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs, we heard some speeches and questions that are not particularly acceptable in the Council of Europe. That is very bad. We should start by reaching understanding between cultures and religions in this Assembly.

I am from Azerbaijan. A few days ago, in Baku, we organised a conference on a similar subject between cultures and religions. The President of my country and many guests took part. We reached the conclusion that if we are to change the world, we should start with ourselves. If we want to present something to the rest of the world we should change our attitudes and values. Unfortunately, tolerance is lessening. Tolerance means that although I may not like you, we have to live together. Today, we need something more – we need tolerance-plus; perhaps plus our religious and spiritual values. That is why we so greatly appreciated the speeches that our religious leaders made today. We are not here because of the Assembly or the Council of Europe, but because we seek the same values. Different values in the same organisation means the beginning of something else – not unity. Unfortunately, those of us from Azerbaijan have heard a lot of blackmailing against our country today. I do not want to reply to those speeches, but I do want to say that we should find common values. We should work together to find our future here in the Council of Europe, together with our friends from Europe.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr O’Reilly.

Mr O’REILLY (Ireland) – All are free to have or not have a religion. Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights sees freedom of thought, conscience and religion as an absolute right. Everyone is free to practise their religion alone, in private, or collectively. Dialogue with those of a different faith, or even with those of the same faith, leads to mutual understanding and enrichment in the religious sphere. Recommendation 8 of this excellent report says: “The Assembly considers it…necessary, that the various Churches and religious communities…Christians, Jews and Muslims…recognise each other” and engage in dialogue.

Our European community is a diverse one. We all need to learn positively to accept and respect diverse views, in order to build cohesive societies that respect the dignity of the human person. For those who believe, religious dialogue strengthens the maturity of their faith. Some people find scripture of great importance in trying to understand faith. They place great emphasis on study and living their lives in accordance with its teachings. Others find no relevance in scripture. They fail to see how it connects with their lives in today’s world. This is where I believe inter-religious dialogue can be of huge benefit. By conversing with those with a different system of beliefs and values, we can make connections between our own beliefs and the wider world around us.

Today’s society is becoming increasingly multicultural. The paths of communication must be opened – and must stay open – if the global community is to flourish peacefully. Inter-religious dialogue is therefore an absolute necessity. If future generations are to flourish, inter-religious dialogue must be taken seriously. Dialogue is not just about conversing with someone of a different faith on a basic level. For it to be truly successful in its impact on the community as a whole, religions need to collaborate in their common task of providing inspiration to a multi-religious society. It is about finding common ground socially, spiritually and theologically.

Finally, there needs to be dialogue within faiths and Churches to avoid extremism, as manifested in sectarianism and, ultimately, violence, various forms of antisocial behaviour and the ill-treatment of our fellow human beings. All faiths face a challenge in dealing with their extremes, which ultimately lead to violence and the negation of the very beliefs that they profess. Therein lies the biggest challenge for that dialogue.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker is Ms Karamanli.

Ms KARAMANLI (France) said that the report and its recommendations were designed to promote inter-religious dialogue in Europe. However, the report omitted certain issues which should rightly be a part of that dialogue, including individualism, equality and rationality. Respect for the individual and the private sphere were crucial both to society and to the individuals within it, and should be extended to all areas of life as long as this did not become oppressive of the rights of others. The relationship of the state to religion should be carefully examined: the state should support all religions equally and must not give support to just one religion because equality was one of the most fundamental freedoms in our society. Hallowed religions affirmed immutable truths which transcended history and there was nothing to stop people rallying to these truths, even within a secular society. Religions should respect one another but must also accept a degree of criticism. The quest for freedom should always take precedence over dogma.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Hancock.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) – I should make it clear that I am a believer, but I do not belong. I spent much of my younger life as a member of one of the Churches represented here this morning, and I became fundamentally disillusioned. However, I ought to caution myself and remember what Voltaire said on his deathbed when asked to renounce the devil, he replied, “This is not the time to make enemies”. I feel that what I have to say might make me a few enemies today.

It was amazing that we had these men come in here in their finery, but if a woman had come in like that, with her face covered, the police would have arrested her at the door. They spoke about religion and bringing people together, but there were no women represented. Does anyone remember them mentioning women? Half the world’s population are women. Those men will go home, dressed in their finery, to have dinner in the palaces that they live in, yet they never once mentioned the poor of the world, or the destitute, the hungry, the sick or the disabled. There was not a single mention from any of them about the issues that we as parliamentarians face in our constituencies.

That is the fundamental problem: everyone agreed with what they said, but how can we have a problem if everyone agrees? The truth of the matter is that we do not all agree, and some of the people leading the biggest disagreements are the princes of the Church. It is appalling that people in Africa are still dying of AIDS and yet the Catholic Church is still in denial. The Catholic Church does not take action against its own priests who committed acts of gross abuse against children in the past, and yet it stands here and talks about human rights. The Muslim faith is represented here, yet we all know about the perpetration of crimes by Muslim against Muslim in the name of their God. If we are ever to have a serious debate about what religion stands for, religions themselves must spend some considerable time cleaning up their act and start caring for the poor and those who have nothing.

I do not want to see five men dressed in finery that would be better seen in a pantomime in London. I would rather they came here dressed in sackcloth and sandals and said that all their wealth was going to the people of the world who need it most. Then, just maybe, there would be some credibility in religious leaders talking to us about their compassion, tolerance and understanding. It was not that long ago that a priest in equal finery called homosexuals evil people and people in this Assembly applauded. What a disgrace in the home of human rights that first we allowed such a statement to be made and secondly that people applauded. That is the problem of the world today. That is why culture, religion and human rights do not go together well, because religions do not accept their share of the responsibility.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Hancock. I call Ms Pashayeva.

Ms PASHAYEVA (Azerbaijan) said that in Europe and in the world, xenophobia and intolerance were increasing: this was extremely disturbing. It was vital to consider the reasons for this situation and to find a way to combat it. Not only religious leaders but also politicians were complicit in this problematic state of affairs. There were places in the world where the Koran was being burned and this should not be tolerated. There should be mutual respect between different religions, and teaching children about intercultural dialogue would be a step in the right direction. The people of Azerbaijan had suffered greatly: in 1988 the Armenian Government had started to operate a policy of ethnic cleansing in Azerbaijan, killing more than 20 000 people and internally displacing 1 million. Cultural monuments had been destroyed. This situation should be addressed, not least in order to avoid similar atrocities elsewhere in the world. Historically, many different cultures and religions had co-existed peacefully in Azerbaijan, which acted as a bridge between east and west and between different cultures and religions. All mankind had a responsibility to work towards peace: harmony brought welfare, whereas confrontation brought only poverty.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Pashayeva. I call Ms Keleş.

Ms KELEŞ (Turkey) – As the report states, most people accept that we should create a new culture of living together, which necessitates the acceptance of everyone’s equal dignity and adherence to the principles of democracy and human rights. If we want to realise a successful intercultural dialogue, we should not give the impression that one religion is more apt to terrorist activities, radicalism and fundamentalism than others.

Some of the reports prepared by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe give the impression that fundamentalism or radicalism belong exclusively to the Muslim religion. For example, they use the word “fundamentalism” as Islamic fundamentalism. If one uses the word “fundamentalism” together with Islam only, it is natural for people to think that fundamentalists are found only in Islam, whereas there are fundamentalists and radicals in every country and in every religion. In some of those reports, a similar impression is given with regard to terrorism. I am sure that distinguished members of the Parliamentary Assembly are preparing those reports with very good intentions but I agree with the rapporteur that instead of emphasising what separates us, we should build on what unites us. I also agree that all religious authorities should openly and unreservedly condemn intolerance, discrimination, hate and violence.

Rather than encouraging intercultural dialogue, I believe in the merit of training people about all religions and about religious philosophy in the same courses to show them how similar the values and principles of different religions are. Once people are trained about the main principles and philosophy of religious culture, religious diversity will not be a source of anxiety, fear and tension.

I think so because every dialogue has at least two sides. They try to reconcile the differences but they see each other as the other side. This may go on as an open-ended process. If the people within a country or a union accept democracy, human rights and the rule of law, I think it is enough to integrate with the community. People coming from different countries live together in peace in another country such as the United States. There is no reason why people from different religions cannot do it. We should be objective in our evaluations. We should train ourselves not to be biased towards a religion or a country, and we should respect freedom of thought. I congratulate the rapporteur on preparing a comprehensive report.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Keleş. I call Mr Rzayev.

Mr RZAYEV (Azerbaijan) said that religion had played a major role in shaping the morals and philosophical outlook of society. A difference of opinion within society, particularly religious opinion, was not necessarily a basis for conflict. Religious bigots were, however, misusing and politicising religion in order to generate conflict and justify crimes. In Azerbaijan, different religions had co-existed for many hundreds of years and only recently both a synagogue and a German church had opened in the country. Armenia had asserted that the conflict in Azerbaijan was religious in nature, but this was not the case. Azerbaijanis were determined to contribute to inter-religious dialogue across the world. Dialogues could become politicised. Armenia had tried to show that occupation of Azerbaijani territory was a conflict on a religious basis, with attempts to tear down monuments. Other claims had been made to a similar effect. However, there was an inter-religious dialogue with members of one religious group who had been seen to help each other in the restoration of their religious buildings. It was important that religion was seen as separate from politics, and existing alongside states.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Varvitsiotis.

Mr VARVITSIOTIS (Greece) said that in the past religion had often led to war and tension. Some historians predicted that wars in the future would still be due to religion. This possibility should be countered and in order to reverse the direction being travelled, it was important to bridge the widening gulf in Europe. Economic development over the past 15 years had helped. Intercultural dialogue was based on tolerance and understanding: a greater knowledge was needed of who others were. An awareness of various changes in recent years, such as new religious references, was also necessary. The plight of the poor should be recognised, since some among them might have extremist tendencies, particularly irregular migrants. In Greece there had been thousands of illegal immigrants already that year who had not always been able to integrate. The country had done its best for intercultural and inter-faith dialogue, but different backgrounds were an issue, since sometimes faiths worked differently. Poverty and ignorance could lead to extremism. Dialogue in itself might not be enough: education was needed and it was important to address illegal migration.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Huseynov.

Mr HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – There is a well-known saying that east is east and west is west. However, we want to see changes that will bring east and west much closer, working hand in hand, as well as making them search for more common ground. That intention provides the origin of our continued calls for intercultural and inter-religious dialogue. What are the moments of rejoicing and trouble in the relationship between east and west, set against the background of current world politics? The Arab world is in a state of anxiety. The West supports and patronises these processes, even in certain cases finding official and direct intervention to be necessary. The West presents this as a support of democracy and human rights. Some people, however, perceive it as a new crusade or a form of democratic aggression at top state level against the East. To what extent are the statements about dialogue and co-operation sincere, and to what extent do the words and deeds coincide?

The prophet Jesus is sacred, and in the Muslim east there have never been any attempts to describe him naked or draw abusive caricatures of him; this would never happen. Nonetheless, such insulting deeds are still permitted with regard to the prophet Mohammed. Those who do this, and their supporters, are the hired performers of those who are interested in the perpetration of the above-mentioned confrontation between East and West.

The words “west” and “east” are harmonious in eastern and western languages. They suggest a necessity for mutual adaptation, and the inter-relation of the two poles arises from the words themselves and their fundamental root. The world’s religions are not simply belief systems; they are also a collection of globally significant moral values that have withstood the test of history. In history, religions facilitated bringing cultures together.

Now, in a tense period dominated by natural and political cataclysms, the role of religions and cultures is greater than it was previously. This means responsibility for religion and culture and the people associated with them. Will religions and cultures be able to extinguish the hotbeds of evil resulting from complicated policies? Will we ever say “East is west and west is east” instead of “East is east and west is west”? If today’s debate continues and success can be achieved because these are more than just words, the reply will be a positive yes.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Özden.

Mr ÖZDEN (Turkey) – I thank our rapporteur, Ms Anne Brasseur, for preparing this report on such an important and cross-cutting issue. As she set out thoroughly in her report, the diversity that is characteristic of our society is increasingly, and wrongly, considered to be a source of tension and divisions that jeopardise solidarity and cohesion among us. The Council of Europe model is, by definition, a multicultural one that has evolved based on the values of democracy, human rights, the rule of law, tolerance and mutual respect. In recent years, however, we have witnessed an unacceptable tendency in Europe to stigmatise, alienate and discriminate against particular groups, labelling them as “other”, due to cultural differences.

Diversity is a risky asset for societies. It can be the catalyst for social cohesion and democracy, but if we start to perceive it from the viewpoint of “us and the others”, it will be a source of tension and division as it has been in Europe for several years.

The problem, as stated in the report, often lies in our attitude to diversity. We should see it as an asset uniting rather than separating us, and we should consider differences normal. Tolerance should be our guide when it comes to living together with all our differences. Intolerance is not a spontaneous fact in our lives; it is a behavioural pattern acquired in time, and so is tolerance.

First and foremost, we must learn to respect different beliefs, and to that end it is important for the various religious communities to recognise each other. This will be the first step towards initiating a true dialogue between people of all beliefs and views. A new culture of living together based on tolerance can be attained notably through education, which can make a decisive contribution to the promotion of human rights values and, particularly, of attitudes and behaviour. With that conviction in mind, I join the rapporteur in calling for the religious institutions to be invited to consider together, within the framework of inter-religious dialogue, the most appropriate way of training the holders of religious responsibilities in knowledge and understanding of other religions and convictions and in openness, dialogue and collaboration between religious communities.

The Assembly is best fitted to contribute to the promotion of a new culture of living together. In that context, I welcome the initiative of the Turkish chairmanship, namely the establishment of the Group of Eminent Persons, which is working on the definition of a new concept of living together.

The Council of Europe has developed a wide set of norms and standards for the protection of human rights as well as the enhancement of tolerance and intercultural dialogue. I believe that its truly pan-European character can allow it to deal more effectively with this issue.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Özden. I now call Mr Dendias.

Mr DENDIAS (Greece) – I congratulate Ms Brasseur on a report that deals with a difficult issue. I hope that, as we are discussing the issue of intercultural dialogue, I will be permitted to continue in Greek.

(The speaker continued in Greek)

He said that inter-religious dialogue was an important part of intercultural dialogue. Such dialogue was not easy, since in contrast to political life where everything was relative and everybody knew that no truth was ever absolute, in religion each camp was convinced of the absolute truth of their faith because it was a revealed faith. However, this did not mean that dialogue should not take place. The Council of Europe should avoid over-simplifying matters. Religious representatives should be sent to confront poverty and to see and care for people where they lived. This should be encouraged in the Council of Europe and the responsibilities of representatives of states should be examined. There were some bad examples in Europe, particularly in Cyprus where Turkish soldiers had committed violence against Christian groups. The Assembly should produce a text to help protect Christian groups at risk.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I do not see Ms Gajdůšková, so I call Ms Bilozir.

Ms BILOZIR (Ukraine) – Pope John Paul II, who was the first pope of Slavic origin, said “Prayer without action is dead.” I represent the Parliament of Ukraine, a country in which the freedom of religion has been repressed for more than 70 years. Let me give a positive example of the way in which, in a very short time, my country has managed to create an effective mechanism for inter-religious dialogue.

Ukraine is a multi-confession country with a fairly complicated history of religion. Today 55 confessions are represented there, and more than 35 000 religious organisations function within them. It is evident that further development of Ukraine as a European democratic state is not possible without further ensuring inter-religious harmony. The establishment of the All-Ukrainian Council of Churches and Religious Organisations has provided an opportunity to reduce conflicts, and to start searching for mechanisms to deal with complicated issues of inter-Church relations through dialogue rather than confrontation.

The All-Ukrainian Council of Churches and Religious Organisations consists of representatives of major Christian Churches and leaders of ethnic confessional religious centres acting in Ukraine. Today the formation of the Churches’ management structures is almost complete, and 362 spiritual centres and departments are dealing with issues relating to its further development. The problem of human resources for Churches has been almost solved owing to the successful work of 200 Church higher educational establishments and schools, whose number has increased five times during the last 15 years. The evidence of the spiritual rebirth of the Church is the existence of 459 active monasteries and 357 charitable missions.

I want to highlight the positive role of the Ukrainian Parliament, and in particular the parliamentarians representing the Christian Democratic Union political party, which has initiated both inter-confessional and inter-ethnic dialogue. Our main priorities are the protection of all-human moral values and of social rights. The gospel includes the words of Jesus: “He who does not gather with me, scatters.” Our discussion today constitutes the important action that makes the prayer come to life.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you very much indeed, Ms Bilozir.

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

In that case, the ballot for electing judges to the European Court of Human Rights is now closed.

The counting of votes will take place under the supervision of the tellers, Mr Baghdasaryan and Ms Zohrabyan.

I invite them to go at once to meet behind the President’s Chair.

The results of the election will be announced before the end of this sitting.

We now continue with the list of speakers in the debate on the religious dimension of intercultural dialogue. The next speaker is Mr Sudarenkov.

Mr SUDARENKOV (Russian Federation) said that he was trying to grasp the question of the religious dimension and had understood some, but not all, of today’s contributions. The report had continued the work started in 1993 on intercultural dialogue, but the draft recommendation noted no great progress as well as the continued existence of tension and violence. It was more important than ever to have intercultural dialogue. Europe was a model for multiculturalism and this was a central tenet for the continent. International institutions did not always help: recently over 30 countries had walked out of a UN anti-racism conference in Geneva. It was important to ask who held the reins in intercultural dialogue – religion or civil society? What was the balance between religious freedom and religious tradition? This was an issue that must be looked at. Dialogue was important in both bringing countries together and avoiding conflict. In the Russian Federation there were many faiths and over 20 000 religious organisations. It was crucial to uphold common values.

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

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Ms Guţu.

Ms GUŢU (Moldova) said that everyone should support the report. Council of Europe states shared values and the religious dimension entailed an ecumenical dialogue. Moldova was a young country trying to find its way. It had achieved independence in 1991. Perhaps due to identity problems, there had been a schism in the Orthodox Church. There was now a Metropolitan Orthodox Church looking toward Romania, and an Orthodox Church looking towards Russia. These two Churches co-existed in one religion and the hierarchy of both Churches engaged in dialogue and organised common events. However, there was less dialogue between the faithful and some political parties were manipulating activities to use religion for their own purposes.

The religious leaders had spoken of the search for liberty and truth. This was important and to be welcomed. In Eastern Europe, a lot remained to be done. In Moldova for example, the two Churches should be more tolerant over adopting anti-discrimination laws and teaching religion in schools. This last issue was one touched upon by His Beatitude Patriarch Daniel of Romania. Reform of the Council of Europe would make these issues more visible.

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

Mr DONALDSON (United Kingdom) – In participating in this debate, I recognise, coming from Northern Ireland, that religion has played a part in conflict in the country that I belong to. Yet I think it has played an even greater part in resolving that conflict. I echo the sentiments of Mr O’Reilly, from the other part of the island, about the importance of the Churches in promoting dialogue and understanding.

My personal journey in life through conflict has been heavily influenced by my Christian faith, which has helped me to understand that tolerance and respect for the views of other people is a mark of my religion. We should therefore practise that tolerance and respect if we truly believe in our faith. We can still be strong in our faith, but surely if we are to be true to that faith, we must practise tolerance. As Mr Seyidov reminded us, tolerance is important. You do not have to embrace another person’s religion to tolerate their right to express that religion and practise it freely.

Some have criticised the Churches in this debate. I think it is wrong to be sweeping in our criticism when we know that the vast majority of people who are members of Churches are good people. They practise what Jesus taught us, which was that when we found someone who was hungry, we should feed them, and when we found someone who was a stranger, we should take them in. I believe that most Churches and most members of Churches practise that in their day-to-day existence. It is therefore wrong to blacken an entire faith or religion because some people have gone wrong and committed crimes that are, of course, to be condemned.

Religion can be a positive thing in the world today, and there needs to be tolerance of those who have a religious faith. In the United Kingdom, Christians have been arrested because they have spoken of their faith-based position on issues such as homosexuality. Whether we agree or disagree with their view, they should be allowed to express it freely without the fear of arrest. This body, this Council of Europe, which upholds human rights, should uphold the rights of those who wish to pursue their religion.

Dialogue is important. We found in Northern Ireland that the only way to achieve a peaceful way forward was through dialogue. An absence of dialogue means suspicion and misunderstanding, which leads to conflict and sometimes to violence. Dialogue is important and, for my part, I want to encourage it.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Donaldson. I call Mr Stolfi.

Mr STOLFI (San Marino) said that religious diversity was an increasing problem in many countries. In the best case, religious diversity led to mistrust and suspicion of others. There was also the problem of intolerance and conflict, and conflict not only between religious groups but also between states. The debate that morning had been very useful but there was a long way to go. It was important to keep up the pressure and not to become discouraged. In 2007, when the Committee of Ministers was chaired by San Marino, a first meeting had taken place between the Council of Europe and religious leaders. What had been a one-off meeting had continued and the Assembly was now to examine a proposal to give continuity to the relationship between the Council of Europe and religious leaders. This was an excellent proposal that allowed observation of the situation and gave an opportunity to speak to religious leaders. It was important to hear about the ongoing commitment of the religious leaders to ensure tolerance prevailed.

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

Mr LOUTFI (Bulgaria) said that the religious aspect of intercultural dialogue was as important today as it had been for many centuries. Religions and beliefs had lived together and clashed in the past. This had created today’s Europe, the Europe it was important to reform. Religion was clearly central, and the goal should be not only to believe in religion but to create conditions for the freedom of religion as guaranteed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It was essential that there was a separation between Church and state and that the state was neutral between religions. The report underlined that states should create the conditions for good relationships between the state and religions. Non-interference in religious affairs was essential. In some countries of the Council of Europe, there were religions that were banned by law. Hopefully, this situation would be rectified. The report noted that religious belief was the right of the person: the individual had the right to choose in freedom and to forge an identity, and the conditions for this must be created. Dialogue between state and religion and religions themselves was essential.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Ms Gafarova.

Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – The subjects presented for discussion here are very significant in Europe. When speaking about intercultural dialogue, it is important to mention the role of different factors, including religion. Nowadays, many different interested groups in the world take advantage of religion to achieve their insidious aims. They put forward destructive ideas, based on differences between religions, which lead to a collision of civilisations. Some separatist groups have begun to use religious factors to justify their activities. Under such circumstances, it is very important to develop a dialogue between religions and cultures to preserve the various cultures in our world civilisation.

The existence of different religions and cultures should not cause confessional strife. Instead, we must preserve all our common values and act jointly with mutual respect, equality, love, sincerity, good will and tolerance, without imposing on others particular faiths and thoughts. We have already managed to establish such a model in our country.

Today, the government cares greatly about the Christian and Jewish communities in Azerbaijan. Their holy places are protected by the state and they are provided with all the necessary conditions to celebrate and conduct their services. Pope John Paul II paid a historic visit to our country in 2002 and greatly appreciated the tolerance there.

Last year, the world religious leaders summit was held in the capital of our country. The Azerbaijani Government organised that event at the highest level. More importantly, just a few days ago, a new synagogue was inaugurated in Baku. It is my pleasure to mention again the World Forum on Intercultural Dialogue, which was recently held in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan, and brought together prominent representatives of science, art, culture and religion.

Nowadays, despite the variety of religions represented in our country, the differences never cause confrontation. On the contrary, such diversity enriches our cultural values. We acknowledge that the Council of Europe possesses much experience in this matter. Alongside states with majority Christian populations, many countries with majority Muslim populations, such as Azerbaijan, are also represented in the Council of Europe. We jointly make every effort to build a stronger Europe.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I cannot see Mr Markov, so I call Ms Reps.

Ms REPS (Estonia) – We have listened to the debate for many hours, so let me concentrate on only a couple of points, which are perhaps a little bit different. First, I am very grateful to the rapporteur for introducing such an interesting discussion. It has been a genuine pleasure to sit here and listen to the debate.

Our distinguished guests today addressed many aspects, including living together and learning from one another, as well as education, which the rapporteur also addressed. This is a sensitive matter, because in protecting fundamental rights and values, we have been very keen on letting parents choose not to believe or not to give their children a religious education in school. I come from a country that, to put it mildly, is not very religious. We have had a very long debate about whether to have any form of inter-religious or intercultural teaching at school, and so far it has been strictly for the parents to decide. As a result of competing subjects, such teaching is not normally the top priority.

If we are talking about inter-religious or intercultural dialogue, it is becoming increasingly clear that traditional, white, well-off children do not have a very good overview of religion and tradition. However, immigrant communities are often very religious. One of the causes of misunderstanding throughout Europe is the lack of a common language and mutual understanding. Perhaps one of the things that we should discuss is the level at which it should be obligatory to study religion, at least at the level of comparative study, in order to gain an overview.

The second aspect that I would like to address is how deep intercultural dialogue goes if we are talking about non-believers – that is also important when talking about different sects: for example, there are different ways of practising Christianity – or are we, in fact, just talking about the so-called freedom of non-belief? There is a thin line there, too, especially if we are talking about education.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Mr Vyatkin is not here, so I call Ms Fataliyeva.

Ms FATALIYEVA (Azerbaijan) – It is difficult being the last speaker, so I apologise if I mention some ideas that previous speakers have mentioned.

I thank Ms Brasseur for producing an important yet difficult report. Despite the speeches about peace in the world and friendship between nations, which are as old as the world, there is much to be done in this direction. The report is important for our times, and arises from the necessities of society and the rapidly increasing number of conflicts.

I would like to say a few words about my country. Most of the population of Azerbaijan is Muslim, but alongside them are representatives of many other nationalities and religions, who have lived together in brotherhood in Azerbaijan for centuries. We have never suffered from any kind of religious misunderstanding. Despite Azerbaijan being in a state of war with Armenia, thousands of Armenians live in Azerbaijan, and no one is oppressed on the grounds of religion or nationality. From this point of view, Azerbaijan has the full authority to determine what intercultural dialogue is.

We should remember that intercultural dialogue is built on tolerance and respect for each religion, nation and culture and their histories. It is not right to inflict our values on other nations. Despite the process of globalisation, we should not forget that each religion, state and nation has its own national and religious peculiarities.

Owing to the development of telecommunications, the world has become smaller. The modern world has all kinds of facilities for intercultural dialogue, but the most important thing is the desire to communicate. If we really want to stop existing conflicts and prevent future ones, we should learn ourselves, and teach future generations, to respect other nations and religions and to communicate with those who are different from themselves – to listen and hear them, to respect and value them, and to see the world not only with their own eyes, but through the eyes of others.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you very much, Ms Fataliyeva. I know that it is hard to be the last person to speak in such a debate, but I am sure that you noticed other members listening to you carefully and silently, because what you said was very interesting indeed. You could have been the last or the first person on the list – frankly, I could see no difference in your case.

That concludes the list of speakers. I call Ms Brasseur, rapporteur, to reply. You have three and a half minutes, but given the quality of the report, I will grant you four.

Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg) said that the debate had been both interesting and exceptional for many reasons. The Assembly had been addressed by representatives from five different religions, who had been brought together in the Chamber for the first time. The atmosphere in the Chamber had been attentive and delegates had listened very carefully to the presentations given by the religious representatives. Those representatives had delivered their presentations in a tone of mutual respect, which demonstrated that they understood the importance of embarking on a new method of collaboration. She had detected a strong consensus in the Chamber that the Assembly should continue to work in the direction indicated by the report and the Assembly should now move towards positive action on the basis of the consensus shown today. She hoped that religious representatives and the Assembly could be brought together again in the future to work on this issue. All communities could work together for the common good and that was her message today. She thanked those who had contributed to the report which, she thought, was balanced and demonstrated a new way for religious communities to live together.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Does the Chairperson of the committee, Mr Flego, wish to speak? You have two minutes.

Mr FLEGO (Croatia) – First of all, this report and the discussion demonstrate that intercultural dialogue is needed and possible. It clearly stresses that diversity is not an obstacle but richness that we are all supposed to enjoy. This report may be considered as a founding document of the coalition of institutions and organisations entrusted with promoting this richness of intercultural and inter-religious dialogue. It may be the beginning of the new culture of dialogue and of the establishment of a regular intercultural and inter-religious forum consisting of the Council of Europe and the highest level of representatives of religious communities. This report makes the Council of Europe a leader in intercultural and inter-religious dialogue.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The debate is closed. The Committee on Culture, Science and Education has presented a draft recommendation to which nine amendments have been tabled. They will be taken in the order in which they appear in the “Organisation of Debates”.

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

We come to Amendment 8, tabled by Mr Petrenco, Mr Kox, Mr Kosachev, Mr Cilevičs and Mr Gross, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 6, after the first sentence, to insert the following sentence: “In this regard, the Assembly considers undesirable and counterproductive the recent statements made by officials and leaders of several Council of Europe member states that the multicultural model of society has failed.”

I call Mr Kox to support Amendment 8.

Mr KOX (Netherlands) – The amendment is clear. It says that we have to consider it undesirable and counterproductive that several Council of Europe member states have declarations against the multicultural model. We propose to announce that in this amendment.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr FLEGO (Croatia) – After discussion, the committee decided not to accept the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Amendment 8 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 9, tabled by Mr Petrenco, Mr Kox, Mr Kosachev, Mr Cilevičs and Mr Gross, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 6, after the last sentence, to insert the following sentence: “The Assembly calls on officials of the Council of Europe member states to refrain from statements that are directed against the European multicultural model.”

I call Mr Kox to support Amendment 9.

Mr KOX (Netherlands) – It is the same argument. We think that heads of state and government should refrain from harsh criticism of the multicultural European model. We support Ms Brasseur’s report. We think that our leaders of government have an obligation to contribute positively to intercultural dialogue.

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

Mr CONNARTY (United Kingdom) –The debate was not against the principle in this statement. This statement does not fit into a positive document on dialogue. It is in the wrong context. That is why I spoke against the amendment in the committee and speak against it again here.

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

Mr FLEGO (Croatia) – As with the previous amendment, the committee is against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Amendment 9 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 2, tabled by Mr Latchezar Toshev, on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 8, to replace the words “recognise each other” with the following words: “recognise each other’s right to freedom of religion and belief”.

I call Mr Toshev to support Amendment 2.

Mr TOSHEV (Bulgaria) – In this amendment, we address the recommendation that the main monotheistic religions recognise each other. The Political Affairs Committee’s proposal is to amend this wording to say, “recognise each other’s right to freedom of religion and belief”. This makes the text more concrete. We are calling on the main monotheistic religions to recognise the freedom, not just to recognise each other in a general and unclear sense.

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

Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg) was against the amendment because the text of the report went further than the amendment itself. The report urged that religious communities should explicitly recognise each other and its recommendations were not restricted merely to the idea of freedom of belief.

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

Mr FLEGO (Croatia) – In this case, the committee does not agree with the rapporteur. The committee is in favour of the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Amendment 2 is adopted.

We come to Amendment 3, tabled by Mr Toshev, on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 8, third sentence, to delete the word “new”.

I call Mr Toshev to support Amendment 3.

Mr TOSHEV (Bulgaria) – In this amendment, we propose to delete the word “new” before “culture of living together”. We have heard that the Group of Eminent Persons is working on drafting a new concept of “culture of living together” but that the work has not yet been completed. Since the time of the founding fathers, there has been a concept of living together that has been the core of the European idea. That is why it is better to delete the word “new” and wait to see what the committee will produce.

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

Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg) said that the Assembly had heard countless times in the debate about a new concept of living together. She disagreed with the amendment because deleting the word “new” from the recommendation gave the impression that different religious communities had not historically co-existed peacefully and that was not the case. It was necessary to give that culture a new dimension.

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

Mr FLEGO (Croatia) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Amendment 3 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 4, tabled by Mr Toshev, on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 10, to replace the words “accepting the common fundamental values” with the following words: “abiding by the law”.

I call Mr Toshev to support Amendment 4.

Mr TOSHEV (Bulgaria) – The Political Affairs Committee debated this text, and we took the position that freedom of religion is unconditional. It is a fundamental, unconditional right and it should not be linked with other requirements, such as “accepting the common fundamental values”. We suggest the new wording “abiding by the law”. From a legal point of view, this wording is better. Otherwise, there could be a misunderstanding that this fundamental freedom was not unconditional.

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

I call Ms Brasseur.

Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg) said that it was unnecessary to say that one should abide by the law. This was clearly what the report said, and common fundamental values had to be defended.

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

Mr FLEGO (Croatia) – The committee is against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Amendment 4 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 5, tabled by Mr Toshev, on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 10, to replace the words “persons with humanist convictions who adhere to these fundamental values” with the following words: “persons with no religious beliefs”.

I call Mr Toshev to support Amendment 5.

Mr TOSHEV (Bulgaria) – Three amendments presented by the Political Affairs Committee were adopted unanimously, which is rare in that committee. They are similar in intention, which is to delete direct reference to the humanist movement and to use the wider description “persons with no religious beliefs”. I would like to defend the amendments because of the unanimous position adopted by the committee.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – I have been informed that Ms Brasseur wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, as follows:

In Amendment 5, after the words “religious beliefs” insert the words “who adhere to these same fundamental values”.

In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules.

However, do ten or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated?

That is not the case. I therefore call Ms Brasseur to support her oral sub-amendment. You have 30 seconds.

Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg) said that she thought there had been confusion in the Political Affairs Committee. The Committee on Culture, Science and Education had deleted the notion of having humanist convictions by replacing this with persons of no religious belief. The Committee on Culture, Science and Education had agreed with this and she thought that the point had been lost in transmission between the committees.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

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

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The committee is in favour.

I will now put the oral sub-amendment to the vote.

The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

We will now consider Amendment 5, as amended.

Does anyone wish to speak again Amendment 5, as amended? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education on the amendment, as amended?

Mr FLEGO (Croatia) – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – I shall now put Amendment 5, as amended, to the vote.

The vote is open.

Amendment 5, as amended, is adopted.

We come to Amendment 6, tabled by Mr Toshev, on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 12, to replace the words “including humanist associations” with the following words: “including relevant non-religious associations”.

I call Mr Toshev to support Amendment 6 on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee. You have 30 seconds.

Mr TOSHEV (Bulgaria) – As I said, the Political Affairs Committee unanimously adopted the principle that no special names of organisations, convictions or associations should be mentioned. That is why the committee unanimously proposed to replace the words “including humanist associations” with “including relevant non-religious associations”. This gives the provision a much wider sense.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – I have been informed that Ms Brasseur wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, as follows:

In Amendment 6, to replace the word “relevant” with the words “humanist and”.

In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules.

However, do ten or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated?

That is not the case. I therefore call Ms Brasseur to support her oral sub-amendment. You have 30 seconds.

Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg) (Translation) – The amendment speaks for itself and I do not need to add any comment.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Does anyone wish to speak against the oral sub-amendment? I call Mr Toshev.

Mr TOSHEV (Bulgaria) – I am against the oral sub-amendment because it again tries to introduce concrete names, convictions and associations, which goes against the decision of the Political Affairs Committee.

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

Mr FLEGO (Croatia) – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – I will now put the oral sub-amendment to the vote.

The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

We will now consider Amendment 6, as amended.

Does anyone wish to speak against the Amendment 6, as amended? That is not the case. The committee is in favour, so I shall now put Amendment 6, as amended, to the vote.

The vote is open.

Amendment 6, as amended, is adopted.

We come to Amendment 1, tabled by Mr Sannen, Ms Franssen, Mr de Groote, Mr Moriau, Mr Van der Maelen, Mr Vercamer, Ms Saïdi and Ms Dumery, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 16, to insert the following paragraph: “The Assembly recognizes the importance of both the fundamental values that we hold in common, and the acknowledgement and mutual acceptance of our cultural and social differences. For this purpose, it is essential that those who hold religious responsibilities, permanently and directly linked to a local community, gain knowledge and understanding of the cultural, social and economic characteristics of the societies in which they will exercise these responsibilities. This will foster mutual respect and understanding between local religious leaders and the societies in which they live.”

I call Mr Sannen to support Amendment 1.

Mr SANNEN (Belgium) – Knowledge and understanding of each other’s way of life and of the cultural, social and economic realities is important to intercultural dialogue. That knowledge and understanding is specific and concrete, and is not the same as respect for democratic principles and the rule of law. It is vital that those who hold religious responsibilities, permanently and directly linked to a local community, gain knowledge and understanding of the cultural, social and economic characteristics of the societies in which they will exercise these responsibilities, and we hope that the amendment underlines that.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Sannen. Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Ms Brasseur.

Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg) referred to paragraph 16.2 of the draft recommendation. Everything with reference to fundamental rights was included in the original paragraph.

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

Mr FLEGO (Croatia) – The committee is against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Amendment 1 is rejected.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – We come to Amendment 7, tabled by Mr Toshev, on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 17.1, to replace the words “the religious faiths and the main humanist organisations” with the following words: “the religious institutions and the relevant non-religious organisations”.

I call Mr Toshev to support Amendment 7.

Mr TOSHEV (Bulgaria) – We want to clarify the fact that the dialogue should involve institutions rather than just ideas, without specifying the names of those to be included.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – I have been informed that Ms Brasseur wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, as follows:

In Amendment 7, replace the word “relevant” with the words “humanist and”.

In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules.

However, do ten or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated?

That is not the case. I therefore call Ms Brasseur to support her oral sub-amendment.

Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg) said that the oral sub-amendment was the logical consequence of Amendment 6, which had already been adopted.

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

I call Mr Hancock.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) – I thought that the first oral sub-amendment proposed by Ms Brasseur was wrong. She was at the meeting of the Political Affairs Committee, which conducted a very good debate on the whole issue. I am rather surprised that, because she did not like the committee’s decision, the rapporteur is trying to usurp it.

The debate was fair and open. It was proposed to remove the word “humanist” because many people in the room did not really understand what their beliefs were. Even humanists who spoke made that point. For goodness’ sake, let us leave the wording as it is. We should have left it as it was on the last occasion. I do not think that it does the Assembly any good when the rapporteur wants to fight a corner that she has already lost in the Political Affairs Committee.

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

Mr FLEGO (Croatia) – There have been some factual inaccuracies. The proposal came not from Ms Brasseur but from the committee. Ms Brasseur is being wrongly accused.

The committee is in favour of the oral sub-amendment.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – We will now consider Amendment 7, as amended.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 7, as amended? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education on Amendment 7, as amended?

Mr FLEGO (Croatia) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Amendment 7, as amended, is adopted.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 12553, as amended. A two-thirds majority is required.

The vote is open.

The draft recommendation in Doc. 12553, as amended, is adopted, with 95 votes for, 4 against and 3 abstentions.

We congratulate the rapporteur and the committee.

4. Election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of
Norway and Switzerland (results of the ballot)

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – I will now announce the results of the ballot in the election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Norway and Switzerland.

Norway

Number voting: 160

      Blank or spoiled ballot papers: 6

      Votes cast: 154

      Absolute majority: 78

The votes cast were as follows:

      Ms Anne Grøslad: 47

      Mr Erik Møse: 93

      Mr Karl Nicolai Vogt Skjerdal: 14

Accordingly, Mr Møse, having obtained an absolute majority of votes cast, is elected a judge of the European Court of Human Rights for a term of nine years starting on 1 September 2011.

Switzerland

      Number voting: 160

      Blank or spoiled ballot papers: 6

      Votes cast: 154

      Absolute majority: 78

The votes cast were as follows:

      Ms Ruth Herzog: 41

      Ms Helen Keller: 103

      Mr Robert Zimmerman: 10

Accordingly, Ms Keller, having obtained an absolute majority of votes cast, is elected a judge of the European Court of Human Rights for a term of nine years starting on 4 October 2011.

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

5. Combating poverty

THE PRESIDENT – The next item of business this afternoon is a debate on the report on “Combating poverty” presented by Mr Volontè on behalf of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee (Doc. 12555), with an opinion presented by Ms Ferić-Vac on behalf of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men (Doc. 12577).

I remind members that yesterday the Assembly agreed that speaking time in this debate be limited to three minutes.

To allow sufficient time for replies to the debate, and voting, we will have to interrupt the list of speakers at about 7.30 p.m.

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

Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy) said that months of work had been concluded and the committee had tried to introduce a discussion on the important theme of poverty and combating poverty.

This was a subject not only covered by the Council of Europe, but also by the United Nations in the Millennium Development Goals 2015, and the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion in 2010. This subject was of great interest to the committee.

The report had been approved by all committee members, with amendments unanimously accepted. The intention was to make governments more aware of the issues. This subject was often mentioned and discussed, but little had actually been done to combat poverty. Poverty was a violation of human rights and concerned everyone. Poverty reduced the level of efficiency of human rights for individuals.

Who was affected by poverty? It was clear from both statistics and a number of face-to-face meetings that those most at risk were single parents, families with many children, women, the elderly, and the disabled. Poverty was often transmitted from generation to generation and was impossible to escape.

Anyone could enter the spiral of poverty. Many wanted to escape but could not without the help of external organisations. It was important to draw the attention of the Committee of Ministers to practicalities. Governments, non-governmental organisations and other groups should exchange views on policies such as the minimum wage and share best practice, so as to ensure that people could escape poverty and develop their human rights. People should be put in a condition to become active on their own account. Combating poverty was both the most expedient and the most just path for the Council of Europe. Government investment and action were needed to help people help themselves.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you Mr Volontè, you have six minutes remaining. I call Ms Ferić-Vac to present the opinion of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men. You have three minutes.

Ms FERIĆ-VAC (Croatia) – The Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men congratulates the Rapporteur of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee, Mr Volontè, on his excellent report and supports the draft resolution and draft recommendation.

This excellent report deals with an issue that concerns all countries. Unfortunately, a remarkable part of the population across our continent is at risk of poverty. I welcome the human rights approach of the report and praise Mr Volontè for it. Poverty is a barrier to exercising human rights. Political, civil, social and cultural rights are all affected by poverty. There cannot be genuine enjoyment of human rights unless poverty is addressed.

Poverty causes problems in different fields. Women are particularly affected by poverty, both because they have a higher risk rate and because their poverty is more severe. The Assembly came to that conclusion a few years ago, when dealing with the “feminisation of poverty” in 2007. Our remarks and the proposed amendment are therefore aimed at emphasising the gender-related aspects of the issue and proposing a gender-sensitive approach to tackling it. It is worth mentioning that combating women’s poverty is not just an expression of the solidarity principle, though that is very important in itself. It is also a way of promoting higher and more solid development based upon human rights overall.

I propose a gender-sensitive approach to tackling poverty. Gender equality and women’s economic empowerment are considered by leading economists to be tremendous development factors. Indeed, according to recent studies, the gross domestic product of European countries could increase by up to 30% if women contributed to the economy on an equal footing with men.

Having seen poverty in my country, in Europe and all over the world, I want to conclude my remarks on this complex subject by saying that the responsibility lies with all stakeholders – private, public and governmental.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Reps on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Ms REPS (Estonia) – I thank the rapporteur for introducing such an important debate. Poverty today, at a time of economic crisis, which is hopefully passing, is extremely significant. As the rapporteur said, if we are considering extreme poverty or so-called absolute poverty, we are not talking about civil, economic, cultural or social rights, but the inability to exercise the most fundamental rights. What can we do? There are many aspects that we could discuss, but let me consider just a few on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

The first point, which the rapporteur also made, is about young people staying in education. When pupils drop out of school as young as compulsory primary school age – if they do not finish primary school or get a good education or training – it is a clear sign that those young people are likely to end up in poverty.

Preventing very early pregnancy is also important. We should consider the issue of very early teenage pregnancy and very young mothers. Even if we provide them with help and support, too often they end up with a whole family in absolute poverty. Let us consider children in poverty. In some countries, every fourth or fifth child lives in poverty. One issue is big families, which are often from an immigrant background.

Another aspect of poverty, which should perhaps be discussed on another day, involves people who enter countries undocumented – the so-called illegal arrivals. We often try to pretend that they do not exist and close our eyes to them, but they are all around us. More often than not, they are not only vulnerable, but in extreme poverty.

Employment opportunities are also important. If you do not speak the language well or have education or professional training, you are more likely to end up in poverty. Following the rapporteur’s suggestions, we should consider a clear programme that tackles education, professional training, instant help and the help that non-governmental organisations can give those who are so-called illegals or live in a state of flux.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Werner on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Ms WERNER (Germany) said that it was true that as Europe was becoming richer, poverty was becoming greater. Poverty was a result of the economic crisis, but had of course also existed before the crisis. In 2008, 42 million people were coping with extreme poverty. Europe was discussing solutions for the economic crisis, but austerity measures heightened poverty. Political will was needed to fight poverty. Economic policy should be on the right level, and politicians should focus on people’s needs. Investment in education was needed for both old and young. Certain categories of people were more at risk of poverty, such as minorities, women, the elderly, the disabled and single parent and large families. There was sometimes a stigma attached to asking for help. Not only material services, but social integration was needed. Governments must guarantee participation in anti-poverty measures without restrictions. A minimum wage was essential.

In Strasbourg, the socialists were united. Nationally, however, individual countries had different views. It was imperative to work together. In Germany, for example, Chancellor Merkel should reflect on the debate.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Mr Conde Bajén on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr CONDE BAJÉN (Spain) said that it was a truism that although Europe was rich, poverty existed. But this was not relative poverty, lying just above or below the threshold, but absolute poverty. Sixty million people in Europe lived on less than $2 a day. It was very important to have this debate. Poverty meant it was impossible to enjoy human rights, such as education, a home, food, clothes or personal development. It was necessary to find not just a material solution, but a solution for the full exercise of rights. It was worrying that poverty often became a permanent state and people fell into a downwards spiral. If a person was poor, they often had no access to an education. This meant they were unable to find a job, leading to continued poverty. This vicious cycle passed from generation to generation. As Europeans we should not allow this. Support for families was necessary, since supporting the family was an important way of combating poverty.

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

Mr KONEČNÝ (Austria) – Like those who spoke before me, I thank the rapporteur for putting together such valuable data on such an important topic, and for compiling a report with a broad, free view on the relevant elements of the problem. Nevertheless, I have a somewhat conflicted view of the report, because the rapporteur seems to be a little shy about pointing out the political decisions that must be made if we are to follow his recommendations.

In his introduction, the rapporteur rightly said that we had to invest. However, in all our countries we must debate what we can afford, and there are many political decisions to be made. First, what can we really afford: investing in our armies, or in the poor and education? Secondly, if we do not have enough money to do that, where do we get it from? That is a fundamental question. We are not poor countries, but we have different – and insufficient – tax systems. We could indeed collect more money for the tasks that the rapporteur mentioned if we taxed high incomes or people’s possessions – the wealth that they have accumulated. That is the political debate that is necessarily linked to fulfilling the aims that he described. We have other decisions to make as well. The rapporteur mentioned elderly people, but we have to decide what system to have: a publicly run system or private investments in dubious financial areas, where sometimes the money is lost?

Finally, we also have to debate what role we should allow the economy to play. Of course the economy can contribute enormously to wealth and jobs, but in many cases it does quite the opposite. Every euro – or whatever the currency is – that a firm saves in costs means less income for working people, and firms use these opportunities.

If you will allow me, I would like to say one more thing, having dealt with the report. After roughly 10 years, I am now leaving the Assembly. I have had a wonderful time and I have learnt a lot. I hope that I can give a little back to the Assembly. This Assembly has an important role to play for our common continent, and I wish it a fruitful and successful future. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT – Let me say thank you very much on behalf of the Assembly. We have enjoyed your always balanced participation in debates. We have learned a lot from you and we hope to see you in some other capacity – and yes, you may all applaud such a good colleague. There is nothing wrong with that. The next speaker is Ms Woldseth, on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Ms WOLDSETH (Norway) – I congratulate Mr Volontè on producing a really good report that points out some of the challenges that Europe is facing. As he says, poverty is not only a matter of income, but a matter of being able to live with dignity while enjoying basic human rights and freedoms.

In my former life, before politics took me, I worked as a debt consultant in public social services. Through that job I met many troubled people – people who had long ago lost their hope and dignity. Men who had lost their families, their houses and even their jobs came to me for help. Parents who could not prevent their children from being socially excluded asked me desperately for help, along with single parents who could not make ends meet. Mr Volontè described all this in his report in a very realistic way.

Even in countries such as Norway we have people living in poverty. There are long lines in front of the Salvation Army for food and clothing. I guess it is just as hard being poor in Norway as in any other country, because the gap between the average and the poor is perhaps even bigger there. We do not have a minimum wage in Norway, but we do have wage setting through negotiations between employers, and employees and their organisations. We also have the Nordic welfare model, which, in a way, catches those who really struggle. Our welfare system ensures that they have food and a roof over their heads.

What concerns me most is the children. It is for them that we as politicians must make an effort. All children should be followed up on, to ensure that they get a basic education. Education is the only way out of poverty, because those with an education have a better chance of getting a job. Properly following up on children will also make them feel that they are worth something. Many of the people I met in my work told me that the worst thing was not the lack of money, but the feeling that they were not worth anything – the feeling that society had no need for them or did not even see them. To avoid social exclusion, we must invest our resources in the children. They are our future. It is up to us as politicians to give them hope for the future.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The rapporteur will reply at the end of the debate. I now call Ms Schou.

Ms SCHOU (Norway) – I commend the rapporteur for his comprehensive and eye-opening report. The fact that many Europeans are living in poverty in 2011 is not something that we can live with. After all, the ramifications of poverty can mean the restriction of individuals’ ability to exercise their lawfully guaranteed human rights.

Europe is a diverse continent, in terms of both culture and the economic position of each state. However, the need of every individual for shelter, food and dignity through meaningful work is universal. This is something that we as politicians need to address in a manner suited to each of our countries. However, it is also important to have a common goal and guidelines, and to share best practice. I therefore fully support the resolution and recommendation.

Child poverty in Europe is unacceptable. As politicians, we cannot remain ignorant of the challenge that this represents. In Norway, we are also seeing the number of children living in relative poverty increase. Poverty is hereditary, but it does not have to be. It is for us, as decision makers, to break the vicious cycle. We need to focus on both the children and their families, with education and training for the children, and income-generating work for the parents.

The report that we are discussing today refers to an OECD finding that countries with a higher rate of mothers in paid work enjoy lower rates of child poverty. Equal opportunities for men and women in the work place should not be underestimated as a means of providing a better financial environment for children to grow up in. Income-generating work is the single most effective measure in combating poverty. The primary goal is for everybody to be able to provide for themselves, but, this cannot be achieved unless the system creates opportunities for all. Preventing students from dropping out of school, helping immigrants to integrate into the work place and giving those dependent on social benefits a chance to re-enter the work force are all important measures.

I would like also to focus on the importance of shelter. Having a place to live is fundamental to being able to function as a productive member of society. Also included in the Norwegian action plan are measures for ensuring access to housing. Examples are housing subsides, government loans and housing guarantees for those who have been living in government institutions such as prisons, foster care or hospitals.

Norway took an active part in the 2010 European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion. Campaigns such as these are important in order to create awareness and political impetus. However, the fact that the year 2010 has ended does not mean that we can forget about the poverty issue and move on to other issues.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Schou. I call Ms Strik.

Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – I compliment Mr Volontè on this excellent and comprehensive report which addresses the need for basic social rights for everyone living in Council of Europe member states. Poverty is closely related to human rights as you cannot function completely in extreme poverty.

There are different levels of basic social rights, as has already been stressed. The first level, of course, is the level which is necessary to survive and stay healthy. The second level is the level which you need to function as a social person. People who live in poverty are not able to participate in our society and can therefore become isolated. We, as members of the Council of Europe, should not be satisfied with meeting the criterion of the first level. All people should have the chance to develop themselves, to build personal relationships and to play their role in society. Therefore, Ms Reps rightly stressed the need for education and adequate childcare in order to avoid people staying in a vicious circle which they cannot get out of. Human dignity implies more than just survival. It means respect for everyone’s personal integrity. I am very glad that the report upholds this ambition.

Our new right-wing government recently proposed to withhold social welfare from citizens who cannot speak the Dutch language at a certain level. Of course, you may demand that people do their best to become as suitable as possible for the labour market, but the sanction can never be that you exclude them from the minimum level of social assistance which has been established to avoid people ending up below a certain minimum level of existence. The essential thing about basic rights is that they cannot be made conditional.

One element lacking is the need for member states to safeguard human dignity for everyone in our country, irrespective of their residence status. I point out the need for social rights for irregular migrants. The European Committee of Social Rights made it clear that complying with the Social Charter implies safeguarding the human dignity of all persons residing in your country. With regard to the Netherlands, the committee therefore decided that families without documents should not be deprived of all basic provisions. In our country, rejected asylum seekers end up on the street with nothing, whether or not they are able to return to their home country. Especially because children were at stake, the committee thought that our government acted against human dignity.

We should further define exactly what human dignity as a human right means and what obligations are derived from that. I should say that at least the first level of basic needs should be fulfilled. That means access to basic social rights such as a minimum level of social welfare, health care and housing. Education for minors should be guaranteed for everyone. If we do not, we will create second-class human beings in our country. If we take combating poverty seriously, that should be unacceptable to us.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Strik. I call Mr O’Reilly.

Mr O’REILLY (Ireland) – According to recent reports, approximately 80 million people are living affected by poverty in the European Union. That represents some 16% of the total population. I know that that does not change in Council of Europe states outside the EU. In Ireland, our most recent reports find that some 80 000 people are living below the poverty line.

Poverty has many facets and combating it requires a multifaceted response. One of the most destructive effects of poverty is social exclusion: being unable to participate in society due to a lack of resources. As Mr Volontè’s outstanding report correctly identifies, “Poverty is not only a matter of income but also fundamentally a matter of being able to live a life of dignity and enjoy basic human rights and freedoms”. Poverty is a vicious cycle. It leads to homelessness, inequality and loss of confidence for individuals. It has a largely negative psychological effect on individuals and their families and loved ones. Many families are totally torn apart by extreme poverty. Relationships break down under the stress and children are sometimes taken into care.

Page 8 of the report refers to Eurochild, an organisation that was launched during the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion in 2010. It states: “The measures proposed by Eurochild include: empowering children, provision of universal access to quality services…prevention and early intervention, supporting vulnerable children, strengthening families”. In our current economic climate, these proposals are now, more than ever, crucial. The former President of Ireland and United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, called upon the international community to do all that is possible to tackle poverty and protect human rights. Human rights are universal and indivisible. They are the cornerstones of any society’s moral order. Unfortunately, this is not the case for a large number of people living in Europe. Poverty is a barrier for them.

In solving the economic and fiscal crisis we should be conscious that we are building not just successful economies but societies. The reckless gambling of international banks should not now become a reason to impose unbearable poverty levels on populations. As legislators and as leaders of our societies we have a collective moral responsibility to make sure that people who gambled recklessly are not now compensated with the income that should properly be given to our needy citizens.

THE PRESIDENT– Thank you, Mr O’Reilly. Mr Seyidov is not here, so the next speaker is Ms Goryacheva.

Ms GORYACHEVA (Russian Federation) said that poverty was an urgent topic for all states. It was a shame that such an important debate was taking place at the end of the day: it would have been better to have had a morning discussion with more delegates present.

A global trend was emerging, with some sections of society becoming impoverished and others correspondingly enriched. This polarisation of economic status was becoming established and the middle classes were being diminished, with many of their number increasingly impoverished.

Many states had said that they had been forced to inject money into their banks. The results of this in the Russian Federation were obvious: the numbers of the poor had swelled while billionaires had become richer. It was possible that the crisis had been artificially induced. The hungry poor and the rich inhabited different planets. Government assurances would be empty if they could not ensure people’s fundamental right to a decent life and to earn money. Everyone knew that the destitute could not be free. The poor were more likely to be aggressive and radical. Women, the elderly and young children were particularly at risk from poverty.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker is Ms Caparin.

Ms CAPARIN (Croatia) – Mr Volontè’s report tackles the extremely important, basic problem of any society – namely, eradicating poverty and thus restoring the essential prerequisites for the fulfilment of most human rights. On 11 February, we marked the day of people who are sick the world over, and we in Croatia paid special attention to the sick and the poor, because theirs is one of the most urgent conditions of all and needs the absolute attention of our society. Similarly, in November last year, Croatia organised a conference entitled “Children at Risk of Poverty and Social Exclusion – Challenges and Possibilities”, as children are the most vulnerable group, especially when poverty is involved.

The Ministry of Health and Social Care has co-ordinated a memorandum on social inclusion, together with Croatian UNICEF and representatives of the EU Commission. Devised by the Technical Assistance and Information Exchange – TAIEX – and the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance of the EU, it is a way of establishing support for social inclusion and the employment of socially endangered and marginalised groups. PROGRESS, the EU programme for employment and social solidarity, deals with fulfilling the expectations of European citizens to produce a stronger social dimension in EU policies that favour an increase in growth and employment and the gradual eradication of poverty.

There is no time for me to go into further detail, but please allow me to underline that the Council of Europe is a major actor in combating poverty, as it provides the most effective human rights protection mechanism in Europe. I am a member of the Croatian delegation, and I hope that my country will finish the negotiation process with the EU by the end of June this year, thus becoming the 28th member of the EU. I am positive that in both organisations, Croatia will follow the common efforts of Europe in the field of eradicating poverty. No effort is large enough when attempting to diminish and eradicate the rising poverty on our continent.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker is Ms Karamanli.

Ms KARAMANLI (France) said that the report and its recommendations for the fight against poverty were clearly intended for all states. It reminded everyone of the human rights of the poor. Several questions could be asked, including why there had been such a rise in poverty in Europe recently. Globalisation and the abolition or relocation of jobs had played a part. In addition, the benefits of measures that had been taken to combat poverty had not been felt and unemployment had continued. Job security had to be developed: a quarter of workers faced a precarious situation. In France the minimum wage and universal health cover had checked but not eradicated the problem. There had, for example, been a growth in household debt.

The causes of poverty must be discussed and there were questions to be asked about why states were not more sensitive to this. One point was that the rich were mobilised and had had their voices heard. Governments were obsessed with the idea that economic development and other factors justified deregulation; this had continued until the financial crisis in 2008. There were several measures that could be taken, including taxation of the richest and redistribution on a large scale. Economists had shown that this would help to reduce the excessive risks taken in the financial sector. International negotiations were needed to help combat unemployment. Renewable energy should be integrated as a priority. It was also important for poverty to be analysed and a long-lasting improvement to be made.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Mr Markov is not here, so I call Ms Andersen.

Ms ANDERSEN (Norway) – I support the report. We are having a series of debates on these issues. Yesterday, we debated the dangers for democracy and human rights of the over-indebtedness of states, which is linked to this subject. We have also debated our responsibilities under the Social Charter. These debates have shown us that we need to take much greater political responsibility if we are to achieve the fairer redistribution of resources and political power, because that is the only solution if we are to deal with this matter. It is not about doing a little bit of this and a little bit of that; we have to think about this in new ways. Business as usual is not the solution.

We all know that huge social differences exist in health, education and all the other areas identified in the report. To deal with that, it is necessary to distribute resources in a fairer way. The optimistic view is that societies with smaller economic differences do better in every way: in health, in education and in regard to trust within society. They even do better economically. Such policies do not represent a threat; but provide real possibilities. We have a responsibility to support the political and social empowerment of underprivileged people, because they do not have the resources to fund lobbying for strong action against political parties or parliaments in order to promote their interests. It is therefore our responsibility to provide them with the resources to speak for themselves, because they cannot do so. It is better if they speak for themselves, and everyone wants to do that.

In every country, we are now seeing an ethnic dimension to poverty. It is very challenging, and we must deal with it firmly, because it is capable of fuelling dangerous tendencies in society that violate our obligations to all the European charters.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Andersen. I now call Ms Kaufer.

Ms KAUFER (Hungary) – I agree with Mahatma Gandhi that “Poverty is the worst form of violence”, and I congratulate Mr Volontè on an excellent report and an even better draft resolution. I am pleased to note that serious debate has begun in the Council of Europe about tackling the growing poverty and inequality faced by our continent; that is particularly timely and important when member states are imposing a succession of cuts and budgetary restrictions in social and universal public services. Most of those cuts result from political choice in relation to support for different sectors, and they are being introduced not because they are necessary but because people who live in poverty have the least political power in our countries.

In my country, social transfers represent only 3% of GDP. However, the conservative government is joining some other European states in blaming and punishing those who are living in poverty and introducing serious cuts in funding for social services. It is reducing the age for obligatory school attendance, and introducing unnecessary conditions for child benefit and other cash transfers. The government may turn its back on those poor families, but local councils will have to face the major social problems created by the budgetary cuts and conditional transfers in their towns and villages. Social problems cannot be eliminated through cuts in the funds that could be used to solve them. I welcome Mr Volontè’s proposal to base poverty elimination on human rights, a universal value shared by us all which can help to end the division of society between the rich and the poor.

The draft resolution accurately states that “Poverty is a barrier to exercising human rights, be they political, civil, social, economic or cultural rights.” In fact, poverty is a barrier and empowerment is the solution. Empowerment should involve not only individuals, but marginalised communities. It is crucial to acknowledge that political participation, the state of democracy and the level of social inclusion are interconnected. We as parliamentarians have a duty to work proactively to facilitate the political participation of all, including those living in poverty, who – as we have heard today – unfortunately constitute a growing group of European citizens.

As a Green MP working for a just and sustainable future for Europe, I urge you to support the report, to do all that you can to uphold Europe’s core values of human rights and social inclusion, and to work against the increasing number of short-sighted budgetary cuts and blame campaigns that are targeting those who live in poverty. We make the political choices, we vote on the budget, and we decide whether we support people or power.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Kaufer. I now call Ms Trettebergstuen.

Ms TRETTEBERGSTUEN (Norway) – The resolution gives us an excellent opportunity to share our experience of national strategies to combat poverty across Europe and in society throughout the globe. We need more discussions of this kind.

We must admit our failures in poverty reduction so far. Much has been done, but in comparison with our promises and plans, we are far behind on a global scale. There is no lack of knowledge about how to reduce poverty, nor is there a lack of resources in the world to make it possible. We know what works and we have the means to do more of it, but there is obviously a great lack of political will to get it done.

The European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion has just ended, and it has been a sad year for the poverty statistics. People in Europe and the rest of the world are bleeding from the financial crisis. What began as a crisis in the financial sector is now a huge job crisis that will create even more poverty in times to come. Together with increased unemployment, we are seeing an increase in the number of people who are experiencing poverty despite having jobs. We are seeing a huge rise in the working poor throughout Europe. Securing and creating new jobs, securing decent wages and fighting unemployment through an active labour market policy are the most important ways both to prevent and to fight poverty. Universal access to education for all, regardless of income or background, is the key to achieving our aims.

We must take our responsibility to fight poverty outside Europe more seriously. We know that we will not reach our Millennium Development Goals by 2015, but we will have to keep up our work in order to reach them later, and we will have to finance it. Needless to say, many European countries are cutting their foreign aid budgets because of the financial crisis, and a number of countries are using the crisis as an excuse to do that. We must call on all Council of Europe member countries to be more responsible, and to step up and contribute more to financing poverty reduction and the Millennium Development Goals in the future through foreign aid budgets.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Trettebergstuen. Mr Egorov is not here, so I call Mr Flynn.

Mr FLYNN (United Kingdom) – In 1979, Margaret Thatcher was elected in Britain. It is fascinating to examine the British experience between 1979 and 1997, when we moved from being one of the most equal countries in Europe to being one of the most unequal. The incomes of the top quintile of the population increased by 2.5%, while those of the bottom quintile increased by just 1%.

We will understand the whole nature of this debate if we recognise that it is not just a question of making the poor richer, but a question of – preferably – making the rich poorer, or at least ensuring that they do not become even richer. The rich are very clever at becoming even richer by doing the things that made them rich in the first place. We should bear it in mind that, although there is poverty in Europe, there is very little absolute poverty in the continent. The poverty that we have does not compare with the poverty of the war-time years in this continent – dirt poverty – and it does not compare with the killer poverty of Africa.

Tomorrow we will debate another aspect of life in Europe: obesity. In that instance the great crisis is caused not by a lack of resources but by over-provision of resources, and by abuse of the great wealth that we now have in our continent. We must understand the problems of inequality. There are huge, obscene riches at one end of society, and if we are not prepared to tackle them, the gap will increase and the problems of poverty will grow.

The Blair government had a policy to reduce poverty. A huge number of measures were introduced, based on the very good welfare state that already existed. There was a new minimum wage and a host of tax handouts to those who were on the bottom level. Unfortunately, although it had some effect, it did not meet any of Tony Blair’s targets. We ended up with a society in which the gap between rich and poor expanded. One hundred thousand people were taken out of poverty, but we still had a record of failure.

Of course we all want to follow the recommendations in this splendid report. Our war against poverty cannot be fought on one side alone. We must have the courage to ensure that those at the top of society who grab an unequal share of the wealth and resources of society are tackled and that we take hard measures against them as well as being generous to those who are living in dirt poverty.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Mr Flynn. The last speaker on the list is Mr Harangozó. Before I give him the floor, I see that we have some time left, so if there are more colleagues who wish to contribute to the debate I will call them after the next speaker.

Mr HARANGOZÓ (Hungary) – Unemployment and poverty levels continue to rise across Europe as its member states face enormous deficits following the bail-out of the financial sector. The main attention of the EU institutions is on reducing the expenditure side of national budgets and strengthening the repressive side of economic governance. The cuts being made are destroying social cohesion. Too little is being done to overcome the social crisis, to end inequalities and social exclusion and to move ahead with the social Europe. The disadvantaged and the socially excluded are left behind, paying for the crisis caused mainly by financial market actors. Although 2010 was the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion, no concrete proposals to fight poverty have been put forward by the EU.

Our welfare states are fundamental in enabling citizens to participate in society and the labour market, in providing freedom and solidarity, in guaranteeing gender equality and the integration of all groups in society, and in protecting people from the harshest effects of the financial and economic crisis. Initiatives focusing on solidarity, as well as on social and regional cohesion, are especially important these days. For example, new social economy solutions are needed, with the goal of solidarity and common financial interest instead of profit. Such institutions cannot be replaced by any market-oriented organisations.

A lot of people, such as Roma but also other large parts of the European population, are being left behind as growth and development rush on. That leads to serious consequences even for a wealthy majority. We now have the situation of internal refugees in Europe. That is why I really welcome Mr Volontè’s report stating that poverty is a question of basis human rights and freedom, and calling for real action. As Ms Kaufer said, we are the political decision makers and we have the responsibility to take urgent action to solve the social crisis together with the financial one.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Mr Harangozó. As I said, there is some time left, so if any colleague wishes to participate in the debate they may do so. Ms Groth, you have the floor.

Ms GROTH (Germany) said that she agreed with everything that had been said. The Lisbon strategy had been forgotten. Europe had agreed strategies to ensure it would become the most competitive market. European states had created more flexible markets, with increased working times and an increased retirement age. This had led to increased poverty, with the rich becoming richer and the poor becoming poorer. It was important to give thought to this: and ask who was at fault: the European Union or national governments? The Europe 2020 strategy mentioned more flexibility regarding working hours and a retirement age. This would lead to a similar outcome. There was an urgency which meant these issues must be addressed. Often, European policies were not popular within countries. These policies were forgotten until their results, such as increased wealth and increased poverty, were seen.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you Ms Groth. I call Mr Díaz Tejera.

Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain) said that up to this item, he had had to struggle with drowsiness but that it would be a crime not to speak in this debate. Previously, there had been a debate on whether the right to a good environment should be a fundamental right like civil, political and religious rights. It was to be hoped that in the future, economic, social and cultural rights would have the same status as civil, political and religious rights, and that these rights would be fundamental, and not second generation, rights. On social matters, the Assembly were broadly in agreement. Brazil had reduced poverty in a short time by giving money to the poor and giving mothers the responsibility of ensuring their children were in school. What was the committee’s view on this? Finally, there was the question of whether there should be an ombudsman for each issue, such as health or combating poverty. Problems could also arise in the practical application and monitoring of policies.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you Mr Díaz Tejera. I did not notice that you were tired. It did not look like it. The last speaker is Lord Boswell.

Lord BOSWELL (United Kingdom) – You might see some irony in a lord speaking in this debate, and you might see some irony in a representative of the centre-right speaking. However, I believe it is entirely appropriate that we should have this debate, and I am glad that I have a chance to speak in it.

Mr Volontè is absolutely right in two respects. The first is in focusing on the causes of poverty and the need for us to be alert to it. The second is the need to treat it as a matter of human rights. I agree strongly with those speakers, including our friends from Norway, who have mentioned the importance of empowerment, because it is the destruction of hope that is the really corrosive effect of poverty.

Politicians generally, certainly in my country, whether right or left, tend to neglect poverty until there is a time of economic challenge. Then, understandably and for a variety of reasons, people on the left of politics tend to perceive the failures of the capitalist system as somehow causing it. I agree that there have been failures, which should be punished, but they are not the whole cause.

As some speakers have said, it is important to emphasise work as a main route out of poverty. In my view, we should also emphasise a growing economy. We need to restore that to provide a context in which we can tackle poverty. However, we need some specific interventions. One theme that has come across today is the importance of education, because if that is truncated or inadequate or does not lead to adequate attainment, there will be trouble, and whatever we say cannot remediate it. We need good education and the ability to acquire suitable skills for the work place.

We should then consider levels of employment. As someone who has done my best to educate members of my party on this subject, I have always been concerned that we tend to concentrate on the conventional measurement of around 60% of average income as the point of poverty. It is possible to move people across that line, but there is deep disempowered poverty that goes down to 40% of average income. There we have some genuine social problems, which we have to tackle, including exclusion, abuse, family breakdown and so on.

I have never regarded this debate as the exclusive preserve of left or right. It is important to focus on it and treat it dispassionately, as the report does. However, in a sense, we should also treat it passionately, because none of us in this Assembly can be happy while some of our citizens are so obviously and distressingly disempowered.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Lord Boswell. That concludes the list of speakers. I call Mr Volontè, the rapporteur, to reply. You have seven minutes.

Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy) said that there had been unanimity on all political sides. The report could not embrace all economic theory on the redistribution of wealth. The objective was more modest and more concrete: not to forget the 60 to 80 million citizens in poverty near us. The resolution and recommendations were practical not theoretical. There was an element for reflection and the involvement of everyone. The world was full of paradoxes, such as the increase in both poverty and obesity. Many of these paradoxes resulted from a lack of opportunity. It was important to increase opportunities and knowledge. Human rights were not just an affirmation but something concrete for everyone. The report was set in the context of committee work already under way, such as work on social cohesion, and work to be done, such as on consequences of the financial crisis and pensions.

In Europe the Lisbon strategy meant a great leap forward. It was important to be realistic regarding the Europe 2020 strategy. Objectives were set according to political will, but these changed with changes of government. The report informed governments of the current situation. It was not enough to mention poverty once a year. It should be mentioned constantly and governments should work individually as well as sharing best practice to resolve the deficit in human rights caused by poverty. The report included a recommendation on regular monitoring. This was crucial as 60 to 80 million people were in poverty, which amounted to the population of Italy and was a significant proportion of the Council of Europe. Without extending opportunities for life, education, a vocation and the call of the heart, the trap of poverty and loneliness would continue. In poverty, nothing was important. Without a helping hand, it was impossible to move forward. Countries would become richer and society poorer. Work would not only be done by voting in the Chamber but also in national parliaments.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Does the Chairperson of the Committee, Ms Maury Pasquier, wish to speak? You have two minutes.

Ms MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) said that the committee agreed with many of the points made in the debate, including the assertion that levels of poverty had risen sharply in recent years. She stressed the importance of access to a decent standard of living and of fundamental liberties. Society should aim to combat poverty wherever it was found, especially amongst the most vulnerable: children were over-represented amongst the poor, even though they represented the future of society and society should be investing in them. Others were also at risk, including immigrants and those with a limited education. Combating poverty should be the first priority of all members of the Council of Europe and of delegates to the Assembly as parliamentarians

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The debate is closed.

The Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee has presented a draft resolution to which 16 amendments have been tabled and a draft recommendation to which five amendments have been tabled. They will be taken in the order in which they appear in the “Organisation of Debates”. I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

I understand that the Chairperson of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that the following amendments, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly under Rule 33.10.

The amendments are Amendments 6, 19, 7, 9, 13, 14, 16, 1 and 2 to the draft resolution.

Is that so, Ms Maury Pasquier?

Ms MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) – Yes.

THE PRESIDENT – Are there any objections? That is not the case.

The following amendments have been adopted:

Amendment 6, tabled by Ms Kaufer, Mr Saar, Mr Lotman, Mr Gross and Mr Harangozó, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 2, to insert the following words: “and to new redistribution policies disadvantaging the poor in many countries, as well as to massive cuts in social services.”

Amendment 19, tabled by Ms Ferić-Vac, on behalf of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 5.1, to insert the following sub-paragraph: “take action to combat the poverty of women and adopt a gender-specific perspective as a key component of all policies and national programmes to eradicate poverty and combat social exclusion;”.

Amendment 7, tabled by Ms Kaufer, Mr Saar, Mr Lotman, Mr Gross and Mr Harangozó, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5.2, after the words “involving and empowering people”, to insert the following words: “and communities”.

Amendment 9, tabled by Ms Kaufer, Mr Saar, Mr Lotman, Mr Gross and Mr Harangozó, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5.3, after the words “social rights by people”, to insert the following words: “and communities”.

Amendment 13, tabled by Ms Kaufer, Mr Saar, Mr Lotman, Mr Gross and Mr Harangozó, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5.7, after the words “increase investment in”, to insert the following words: “early child development,”.

Amendment 14, tabled by Ms Kaufer, Mr Saar, Mr Lotman, Mr Gross and Mr Harangozó, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5.7, after the words “leaving the education system”, to insert the following words: “and to reducing school drop-out;”.

Amendment 16, tabled by Ms Kaufer, Mr Saar, Mr Lotman, Mr Gross and Mr Harangozó, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5.13, after the words “in order to find new solutions”, to insert the following words: “, to disseminate good practices”.

Amendment 1, tabled by Mr Volontè, on behalf of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5.15, after the words “and family cohesion”, to insert the following words: “. The dissolution of the family is one of the main causes of poverty and the strengthening of family ties is a significant part of an integrated policy against poverty. Particular attention needs to be paid to large families because children of large families are very often poor”.

Amendment 2, tabled by Mr Volontè, on behalf of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 7, to insert the following paragraph: “The Assembly welcomes the establishment by the European Union of the “European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion: A European framework for social and territorial cohesion”, and stresses the importance of strengthening cooperation with the European Union in this field.”

We come to Amendment 18, tabled by Ms Ferić-Vac, on behalf of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 4, to insert the following paragraph: “Reiterating its Resolution 1558 (2007) on the feminisation of poverty, the Assembly recalls that women have a higher incidence of poverty than men and that their poverty is more severe. Tackling the root causes of women’s poverty, namely de facto gender inequality and discrimination, is not only a human rights obligation but also a way to make full use of women’s economic potential and contribution to economic growth.”

I call Ms Ferić-Vac to support Amendment 18.

Ms FERIĆ-VAC (Croatia) – The amendment is consistent with the Assembly’s previous text on this issue, particularly when it comes to the feminisation of poverty, and we should not forget that. The amendment aims to underline the fact that the root causes of poverty among women are discrimination and de facto gender inequality. It also points out that women can make a conspicuous contribution to economic growth. I warmly urge you to adopt the amendment.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Ms MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 18 is adopted.

We come to Amendment 8, tabled by Ms Kaufer, Mr Saar, Mr Lotman, Mr Gross and Mr Harangozó, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5.3, after the words “access to and full enjoyment of”, to insert the following words: “individual and collective”.

I call Ms Kaufer to support the amendment.

Ms KAUFER (Hungary) – Quite simply, we felt that the text needed to highlight the fact that poverty affects not only individuals, but communities, and not just individual rights, but collective rights.

THE PRESIDENT – We come to sub-amendment 1, to Amendment 8, tabled by Mr Luca Volontè, on behalf of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee, which is, in Amendment 8, to replace the word “collective” with the following word: “community”.

I call Mr Volontè to support the sub-amendment.

Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy) said that the formulation “individuals and communities” should be used.

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

What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

Ms KAUFER (Hungary) – I support the sub-amendment.

THE PRESIDENT – The committee is obviously in favour of the sub-amendment.

The vote is open.

Sub-amendment 1 is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 8, as amended? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Ms MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 8, as amended, is adopted.

We come to Amendment 10, tabled by Ms Kaufer, Mr Saar, Mr Lotman, Mr Gross and Mr Harangozó, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5.6, to delete the words: “business capital,”

I call Ms Kaufer to support Amendment 10.

Ms KAUFER (Hungary) – We simply believe that governments need no extra encouragement to promote business capital, as opposed to the other forms of capital that are listed. We therefore feel that “business capital” should be deleted.

THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Lord Boswell.

Lord BOSWELL (United Kingdom) – Briefly, disadvantaged communities need all the help that they can get, and that can come from the private sector as well as the public sector.

THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

Ms MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) (Translation) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 10 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 11, tabled by Ms Kaufer, Mr Saar, Mr Lotman, Mr Gross and Mr Harangozó, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5.6, before the word “infrastructure”, to insert the following word: “public”.

I call Ms Kaufer to support Amendment 11.

Ms KAUFER (Hungary) – Poor people are more likely to use public infrastructure, which we felt should be emphasised as the focus on investment to tackle poverty.

THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Lord Boswell.

Lord BOSWELL (United Kingdom) – My argument is the same as last time.

THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

Ms MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 11 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 12, tabled by Ms Kaufer, Mr Saar, Mr Lotman, Mr Gross and Mr Harangozó, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5.6, after the word “infrastructure”, to insert the following words: “of poor areas”.

I call Ms Kaufer to support Amendment 12.

Ms KAUFER (Hungary) – Targeted investment has been proved to be very important in tackling poverty. We feel that poor areas should be mentioned in the recommendation for investment and development.

THE PRESIDENT – We come to sub-amendment 1 to Amendment 12, tabled by Mr Volontè, on behalf of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee, which is, in Amendment 12, before the words “of poor areas”, to insert the following words: “, in particular”.

I call Mr Volontè to support sub-amendment 1.

Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy) invited Ms Kaufer to assess the work of the committee positively. However, he did not deny that poor areas were to be found everywhere.

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

What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment? I call Ms Kaufer.

Ms KAUFER (Hungary) – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT – The committee is in favour of the sub-amendment. I shall now put the sub-amendment to the vote.

The vote is open.

Sub-amendment 1 is adopted.

THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 12, as amended? That is not the case.

The committee is in favour.

The vote is open.

Amendment 12, as amended, is adopted.

We come to Amendment 15, tabled by Ms Kaufer, Mr Saar, Mr Lotman, Mr Gross and Mr Harangozó, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5.12, after the words “public governing bodies”, to insert the following words: “, including local governments”.

I call Ms Kaufer to support Amendment 15.

Ms KAUFER (Hungary) – This amendment is simply to specify what we mean by public governing bodies. We would like to include local government. As I mentioned in my earlier intervention, we feel that local government has a key role in fighting poverty.

THE PRESIDENT – We come to Sub-amendment 1 to Amendment 15, tabled by Mr Luca Volontè, on behalf of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee, which is, in Amendment 15, before the words “local governments”, to insert the following words: “central, regional and”.

I call Mr Volontè to support Sub-amendment 1.

Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy) said that the choice was simple: either the amendment should be left as it was or he proposed an alternative sub-amendment “central and local government”.

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

What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment? I call Ms Kaufer.

Ms KAUFER (Hungary) – I can accept Mr Volontè’s specification in saying central, regional and local governments.

THE PRESIDENT – The committee is in favour of the sub-amendment. I shall now put the sub-amendment to the vote.

The vote is open.

Sub-amendment 1 is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 15, as amended? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Ms MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 15, as amended, is adopted.

We come to Amendment 17, tabled by Ms Kaufer, Mr Saar, Mr Lotman, Mr Gross and Mr Harangozó, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5.16, after the words “with the aim of”, to insert the following words: “no longer blaming the poor,”.

I call Ms Kaufer to support the amendment.

Ms KAUFER (Hungary) – As I said in my earlier intervention, we need to prevent and fight the political rhetoric spreading across European member states that blames the poor. We feel that the language in the draft resolution is not strong enough to do that. We feel that we need to be specific by saying, “no longer blaming the poor,”.

THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Volontè.

Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy) said that being against the amendment did not mean that he was in favour of poverty. The amendment was inappropriate for technical reasons.

THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

Ms MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 17 is rejected.

I have received an oral amendment from Lord Boswell which reads as follows:

In the first line of paragraph 6, replace “the most advanced human rights protection instrument” with “one of the most advanced human rights protection instruments”

I remind the Assembly of Rule 33.6 which enables the President to accept an oral amendment or sub-amendment on the grounds of promoting clarity, accuracy or conciliation and if there is not opposition from 10 or more members to its being debated.

In my opinion the oral amendment does not meet the criteria of Rule 33.6 and therefore cannot be debated.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Doc. 12555, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Doc. 12555, as amended, is adopted, with 51 votes for, 0 against and 1 abstention.

We will now proceed to the five amendments on the draft recommendation.

I understand that the Chairperson of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that the following amendments, which were approved unanimously by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly under Rule 33.10.

The amendments are Amendments 20, 21 and 3 to 5 to the draft recommendation.

Is that so Ms Maury Pasquier?

Ms MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) – Yes.

THE PRESIDENT – As there is no objection, I declare that the following amendments to the draft recommendation have been agreed:

Amendment 20, tabled by Ms Ferić-Vac, on behalf of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 4.6, to insert the following sub-paragraph: “ensure that its policies and programmes in the field of poverty and social exclusion take into account the gender-dimension;”.

Amendment 21, tabled by Ms Ferić-Vac, on behalf of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 4.7, after the word “relevant”, to insert the following words: “, gender-disaggregated”.

Amendment 3, tabled by Mr Volontè, on behalf of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 4.7, after the words “minimum wage”, to insert the following words: “or equivalent instruments,”.

Amendment 4, tabled by Mr Volontè, on behalf of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 4.8, after the words “the rights of”, to insert the word “families,”.

Amendment 5, tabled by Mr Volontè, on behalf of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 4.8, after the words “in situations of poverty”, to add the following words: “, granting them the right to family reunion and the possibility of normal family life”.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Doc. 12555, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft recommendation in Doc. 12555, as amended, is adopted unanimously, with 50 votes for.

6. Date, time and agenda of the next sitting

The Assembly will hold its next public sitting tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. with the agenda which was approved yesterday.

The sitting is closed.

(The sitting closed at 7.40 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1.       Election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Norway and Switzerland (continued)

2.       Communication from the Committee of Ministers to the Parliamentary Assembly

Presentation by Mr Ahmet Davutoğlu, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkey and Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers

Questions:

Mr Mendes Bota (Portugal)

Mr Gross (Switzerland)

Mr Kosachev (Russian Federation)

Mr Badré (France)

Mr Petrenco (Moldova)

Ms Girardin (France)

Ms Zohrabyan (Armenia)

Mr Iwiński (Poland)

Mr Vareikis (Lithuania)

Ms Pashayeva (Azerbaijan)

Mr Vera Jardim (Portugal)

Mr Vrettos (Greece)

Ms Postanjyan (Armenia)

Ms Marin (France)

Mr Huseynov (Azerbaijan)

Mr Çağlar (Representative of the Turkish Cypriot Community)

Mr Frécon (France)

Ms Durrieu (France)

3.       The religious dimension of intercultural dialogue (resumed debate)

Speakers:

Mr Kalmár (Hungary)

Mr O’Reilly (Ireland)

Ms Karamanli (France)

Mr Hancock (United Kingdom)

Ms Pashayeva (Azerbaijan)

Ms Keleş (Turkey)

Mr Rzayev (Azerbaijan)

Mr Varvitsiotis (Greece)

Mr Huseynov (Azerbaijan)

Mr Özden (Turkey)

Mr Dendias (Greece)

Ms Bilozir (Ukraine)

Mr Sudarenkov (Russian Federation)

Ms Guţu (Moldova)

Mr Donaldson (United Kingdom)

Mr Stolfi (San Marino)

Mr Loutfi (Bulgaria)

Ms Gafarova (Azerbaijan)

Ms Reps (Estonia)

Ms Fataliyeva (Azerbaijan)

Replies:

Ms Brasseur (Luxembourg)

Mr Flego (Croatia)

Vote on a draft recommendation

4.        Election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Norway and Switzerland (results of the ballot)

5.        Combating poverty

Presentation by Mr Volontė of report of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee (Doc. 12555)

Presentation by Ms Ferić-Vac of opinion of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men (Doc. 12577)

Speakers:

Ms Reps (Estonia)

Ms Werner (Germany)

Mr Conde Bajé (Spain)

Mr Konečný (Austria)

Ms Woldseth (Norway)

Ms Schou (Norway)

Ms Strik (Netherlands)

Mr O’Reilly (Ireland)

Ms Goryacheva (Russian Federation)

Ms Caparin (Croatia)

Ms Karamanli (France)

Ms Andersen (Norway)

Ms Kaufer (Hungary)

Ms Tretterbergstuen (Norway)

Mr Flynn (United Kingdom)

Mr Harangozó (Hungary)

Ms Groth (Germany)

Mr Díaz Tejera (Spain)

Lord Boswell (United Kingdom)

Replies:

Mr Volontė (Italy)

Ms Maury Pasquier (Switzerland)

Vote on a draft resolution

Vote on a draft recommendation

6.        Date, time and agenda of the next sitting

APPENDIX

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.

Ruhi AÇIKGÖZ

Francis AGIUS/Joseph Fenech Adami

Pedro AGRAMUNT FONT DE MORA*

Arben AHMETAJ*

Miloš ALIGRUDIĆ

Karin ANDERSEN

Florin Serghei ANGHEL*

Miguel ARIAS CAÑETE*

Khadija ARIB/Tuur Elzinga

Mörđur ÁRNASON*

Sirpa ASKO-SELJAVAARA*

Francisco ASSIS*

Lokman AYVA

Alexander BABAKOV*

Daniel BACQUELAINE

Viorel Riceard BADEA*

Denis BADRÉ

Gagik BAGHDASARYAN/Zaruhi Postanjyan

Doris BARNETT

Meritxell BATET LAMAÑA*

Marieluise BECK*

Alexander van der BELLEN

Anna BELOUSOVOVÁ

Marie-Louise BEMELMANS-VIDEC

Ryszard BENDER*

Deborah BERGAMINI*

Andris BĒRZINŠ*

Oksana BILOZIR

Brian BINLEY

Rosa Delia BLANCO TERÁN*

Roland BLUM

Olena BONDARENKO

Louis BONTES/ Hans Franken

Anne BRASSEUR

Márton BRAUN

Federico BRICOLO/Rossana Boldi

Han TEN BROEKE*

Patrizia BUGNANO*

André BUGNON/Maximilian Reimann

Sylvia CANEL*

Mevlüt ÇAVUŞOĞLU/Yüksel Özden

Erol Aslan CEBECİ

Mikael CEDERBRATT

Otto CHALOUPKA/Pavel Lebeda

Igor CHERNYSHENKO/Ivan Savvidi

Vannino CHITI/Vladimiro Crisafulli

Christopher CHOPE

Pia CHRISTMAS-MØLLER*

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Desislav CHUKOLOV*

Boriss CILEVIČS

Ingrida CIRCENE

James CLAPPISON

Ann COFFEY/Michael Connarty

Georges COLOMBIER

Agustín CONDE BAJÉN

Titus CORLĂŢEAN

Lena DĄBKOWSKA-CICHOCKA*

Per DALGAARD*

Cristian DAVID*

Joseph DEBONO GRECH*

Giovanna DEBONO/Joseph Falzon

Armand DE DECKER*

Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA

Karl DONABAUER/Franz Eduard Kühnel

Miljenko DORIĆ

Gianpaolo DOZZO*

Daphné DUMERY/ Dirk Van Der Maelen

Earl of Alexander DUNDEE*

Josette DURRIEU

Baroness Diana ECCLES/Tim Boswell

József ÉKES

Lydie ERR/Fernand Boden

Arsen FADZAEV/Sergey Markov

Frank FAHEY*

Piero FASSINO*

Nikolay FEDOROV*

Valeriy FEDOROV/Vladimir Zhidkikh

Relu FENECHIU*

Mirjana FERIĆ-VAC

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ*

Axel E. FISCHER

Jana FISCHEROVÁ

Paul FLYNN

Stanislav FOŘT

Pernille FRAHM*

Dario FRANCESCHINI*

Erich Georg FRITZ

Martin FRONC

György FRUNDA*

Guiorgui GABASHVILI/David Darchiashvili

Alena GAJDŮŠKOVÁ*

Jean-Charles GARDETTO

Tamás GAUDI NAGY

Gisèle GAUTIER/Laurent Béteille

Sophia GIANNAKA/Nikolaos Dendias

Paolo GIARETTA

Michael GLOS*

Obrad GOJKOVIĆ

Svetlana GORYACHEVA

Martin GRAF

Sylvi GRAHAM/Ingjerd Schou

Claude GREFF

Francis GRIGNON/Maryvonne Blondin

Patrick DE GROOTE

Andreas GROSS

Arlette GROSSKOST/Christine Marin

Dzhema GROZDANOVA

Attila GRUBER/Péter Mihalovics

Ana GUŢU

Sam GYIMAH

Carina HÄGG

Sabir HAJIYEV/Sevinj Fataliyeva

Mike HANCOCK

Davit HARUTYUNYAN

Håkon HAUGLI/Anette Trettebergstuen

Norbert HAUPERT

Olha HERASYM'YUK

Andres HERKEL

Serhiy HOLOVATY*

Jim HOOD

Joachim HÖRSTER*

Anette HÜBINGER*

Andrej HUNKO

Sinikka HURSKAINEN

Ali HUSEYNLI/Sahiba Gafarova

Rafael HUSEYNOV

Shpëtim IDRIZI*

Željko IVANJI

Igor IVANOVSKI*

Tadeusz IWIŃSKI

Denis JACQUAT/ Muriel Marland-Militello

Michael Aastrup JENSEN*

Mogens JENSEN*

Mats JOHANSSON

Birkir Jón JÓNSSON

Armand JUNG

Antti KAIKKONEN/Jaakko Laakso

Stanisław KALEMBA/Bożenna Bukiewicz

Ferenc KALMÁR

Karol KARSKI/Zbigniew Girzyński

Michail KATRINIS

Jan KAŹMIERCZAK

Cecilia KEAVENEY*

Birgen KELEŞ

Haluk KOÇ*

Albrecht KONEČNÝ

Konstantin KOSACHEV

Tiny KOX

Václav KUBATA

Pavol KUBOVIČ

Jean-Pierre KUCHEIDA/Annick Girardin

Ertuğrul KUMCUOĞLU

Dalia KUODYTĖ/Egidijus Vareikis

Athina KYRIAKIDOU*

Markku LAUKKANEN*

Sophie LAVAGNA/Bernard Marquet

Darja LAVTIŽAR-BEBLER*

Jean-Paul LECOQ*

Harald LEIBRECHT*

Yuliya LIOVOCHKINA*

Dariusz LIPIŃSKI

François LONCLE

Younal LOUTFI

Marian LUPU/Stella Jantuan

Philippe MAHOUX/Ludo Sannen

Theo MAISSEN

Gennaro MALGIERI*

Pietro MARCENARO

Dick MARTY

Jean-Pierre MASSERET/Jean-Claude Frécon

Frano MATUŠIĆ

Alan MEALE

Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA*

Silver MEIKAR/Aleksei Lotman

Evangelos MEIMARAKIS

Ivan MELNIKOV/Sergey Egorov

Assunta MELONI

Nursuna MEMECAN

José MENDES BOTA

Ana Catarina MENDONÇA MENDES*

Dragoljub MIĆUNOVIĆ*

Jean-Claude MIGNON

Dangutė MIKUTIENĖ

Akaki MINASHVILI*

Krasimir MINCHEV

Andrey MOLCHANOV*

Patrick MORIAU*

Juan MOSCOSO DEL PRADO HERNÁNDEZ*

Lilja MÓSESDÓTTIR

João Bosco MOTA AMARAL

Alejandro MUÑOZ ALONSO

Felix MÜRI/Francine John-Calame

Philippe NACHBAR*

Adrian NĂSTASE*

Gebhard NEGELE*

Pasquale NESSA

Fritz NEUGEBAUER*

Baroness Emma NICHOLSON/Jeffrey Donaldson

Cora VAN NIEUWENHUIZEN/ Tineke Strik

Tomislav NIKOLIĆ*

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI*

Mirosława NYKIEL

Carina OHLSSON*

Jim O'KEEFFE/ Joseph O'Reilly

Sandra OSBORNE

Brian O'SHEA/ Maureen O'Sullivan

Elsa PAPADIMITRIOU

Vassiliki PAPANDREOU/ Georges Charalambopoulos

Valery PARFENOV*

Ganira PASHAYEVA

Peter PELEGRINI

Lajla PERNASKA*

Claire PERRY/ Donald Anderson

Marijana PETIR/Karmela Caparin

Johannes PFLUG*

Viktor PLESKACHEVSKIY*

Alexander POCHINOK*

Ivan POPESCU

Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN

Christos POURGOURIDES*

Cezar Florin PREDA*

John PRESCOTT

Jakob PRESEČNIK/Zmago Jelinčič Plemeniti

Gabino PUCHE RODRÍGUEZ-ACOSTA

Milorad PUPOVAC*

Valeriy PYSARENKO*

Carmen QUINTANILLA BARBA

Valentina RADULOVIĆ-ŠĆEPANOVIĆ/Zoran Vukčević

Mailis REPS

Maria Pilar RIBA FONT*

Andrea RIGONI*

François ROCHEBLOINE

Luisa ROSEIRA*

Maria de Belém ROSEIRA

Amadeu ROSSELL TARRADELLAS/Joan Torres Puig

René ROUQUET/ Marietta Karamanli

Marlene RUPPRECHT*

Ilir RUSMALI*

Armen RUSTAMYAN

Branko RUŽIĆ/Elvira Kovács

Volodymyr RYBAK*

Rovshan RZAYEV

Joan SABATÉ BORRÁS

Džavid ŠABOVIĆ*

Giacomo SANTINI

Giuseppe SARO

Manuel SARRAZIN*

Kimmo SASI*

Marina SCHUSTER

Samad SEYIDOV

Jim SHERIDAN

Mykola SHERSHUN/Oleksiy Plotnikov

Ladislav SKOPAL/Dana Váhalová

Leonid SLUTSKY

Anna SOBECKA/Andrzej Cwierz

Serhiy SOBOLEV

Maria STAVROSITU*

Arūnė STIRBLYTĖ*

Yanaki STOILOV

Fiorenzo STOLFI

Christoph STRÄSSER

Karin STRENZ*

Michał STULIGROSZ

Doris STUMP/Liliane Maury Pasquier

Valeriy SUDARENKOV

Björn von SYDOW

Petro SYMONENKO*

Vilmos SZABÓ/Gábor Harangozó

Melinda SZÉKYNÉ SZTRÉMI/Virág Kaufer

Chiora TAKTAKISHVILI

Guiorgui TARGAMADZÉ*

Mehmet TEKELİOĞLU

Vyacheslav TIMCHENKO

Dragan TODOROVIĆ*

Lord John E. TOMLINSON

Latchezar TOSHEV

Petré TSISKARISHVILI*

Mihai TUDOSE/Tudor Panţiru

Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ

Özlem TÜRKÖNE

Tomáš ÚLEHLA/Tomáš Jirsa

Ilyas UMAKHANOV*

Mustafa ÜNAL

Giuseppe VALENTINO/Oreste TofaniMiltiadis VARVITSIOTIS

José VERA JARDIM

Stefaan VERCAMER

Peter VERLIČ*

Luigi VITALI*

Luca VOLONTÈ

Vladimir VORONIN/Grigore Petrenco

Konstantinos VRETTOS

Klaas de VRIES*

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ*

Dmitry VYATKIN

Piotr WACH*

Johann WADEPHUL*

Robert WALTER*

Katrin WERNER

Renate WOHLWEND*

Michał WOJTCZAK/Stanisław Huskowski

Karin S. WOLDSETH

Gisela WURM

Jordi XUCLÀ i COSTA*

Karl ZELLER/Giulana Carlino

Kostiantyn ZHEVAHO*

Emanuelis ZINGERIS*

Guennady ZIUGANOV*

Naira ZOHRABYAN

Vacant Seat, Bosnia and Herzegovina*

Vacant Seat, Bosnia and Herzegovina*

Vacant Seat, Bosnia and Herzegovina*

Vacant Seat, Bosnia and Herzegovina*

Vacant Seat, Bosnia and Herzegovina*

Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

Vacant Seat, Moldova/ Valeriu Ghiletchi

Vacant Seat, Moldova*

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote:

Johannes HÜBNER

Kerstin LUNDGREN

Observers:

Humberto AGUILAR CORONADO

Rosario GREEN MACÍAS

Hervé Pierre GUILLOT

José Luis JAIME CORREA

Alfonso Abraham SÁNCHEZ ANAYA

Francisco Arturo VEGA DE LA MADRID

Martha Leticia SOSA GOVEA

Representatives of the Turkish Cypriot Community

(In accordance to Resolution 1376 (2004) of the Parliamentary Assembly):

Mehmet ÇAĞLAR,

APPENDIX II

Representatives or Substitutes who took part in the ballot for the election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Norway and Switzerland

Karin ANDERSEN

Khadija ARIB/Tuur Elzinga

Daniel BACQUELAINE

Olena BONDARENKO

Anne BRASSEUR

Mikael CEDERBRATT

Otto CHALOUPKA/Pavel Lebeda

Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA

Jana FISCHEROVÁ

Martin FRONC

Jean-Charles GARDETTO

Tamás GAUDI NAGY

Sophia GIANNAKA/Nikolaos Dendias

Paolo GIARETTA

Obrad GOJKOVIĆ

Martin GRAF

Dzhema GROZDANOVA

Sabir HAJIYEV/Sevinj Fataliyeva

Mike HANCOCK

Jim HOOD

Andrej HUNKO

Ali HUSEYNLI/Sahiba Gafarova

Rafael HUSEYNOV

Mats JOHANSSON

Birkir Jón JÓNSSON

Pavol KUBOVIČ

Harald LEIBRECHT/Annette Groth

Pietro MARCENARO

Alan MEALE

Evangelos MEIMARAKIS

Assunta MELONI

Krasimir MINCHEV

Lilja MÓSESDÓTTIR

João Bosco MOTA AMARAL

Alejandro MUÑOZ ALONSO

Carina OHLSSON/Lennart Axelsson

John PRESCOTT

Valentina RADULOVIĆ-ŠĆEPANOVIĆ/Zoran Vukčević

Joan SABATÉ BORRÁS

Samad SEYIDOV

Jim SHERIDAN

Ladislav SKOPAL/Dana Váhalová

Anna SOBECKA/Andrzej Cwierz

Serhiy SOBOLEV

Fiorenzo STOLFI

Michał STULIGROSZ

Chiora TAKTAKISHVILI

Mehmet TEKELİOĞLU

Miltiadis VARVITSIOTIS

Karin S. WOLDSETH

Vacant Seat, Moldova/ Valeriu Ghiletchi