2011 ORDINARY SESSION

_________________

(Third part)

REPORT

Twenty-Third sitting

Wednesday 22 June 2011 at 10 a.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 10.05 a.m.

THE PRESIDENT – The sitting is open.

1. Changes in the membership of committees

THE PRESIDENT – Our first business is to consider changes proposed in the membership of committees. These are set out in document Commissions (2011) 06 Addendum 3.

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

They are agreed to.

2. Living together in 21st-century Europe: follow-up to the report of

the Group of Eminent Persons of the Council of Europe

THE PRESIDENT – The next item of business this morning is the debate on the report titled “Living together in 21st-century Europe: follow-up to the report of the Group of Eminent Persons of the Council of Europe” (Doc. 12631), presented by Mr Toshev on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, with opinions presented by: Ms Kaufer on behalf of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee (Doc. 12653); Mr Chope on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population (Doc. 12650); Mr Flego on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, (Doc. 12651); Ms Kovács on behalf of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men (Doc. 12640).

We will also hear a statement by Mr Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe.

I remind you that we have already agreed that we shall interrupt this debate at noon, and the debate will resume this afternoon. I also remind you that we agreed on Monday to limit speaking times in today’s debates to three minutes.

I call Lord Tomlinson on a point of order.

Lord TOMLINSON (United Kingdom) – Mr President, before you introduce the debate on the report, may I draw your attention to the report’s subtitle, which is “follow-up to the report of the Group of Eminent Persons of the Council of Europe”? I believe that that is a misnomer, because I believe that this is a report of a Group of Eminent Persons – I give them the benefit of the doubt – to the Council of Europe; they are not of the Council of Europe. I hope that we can get that remedied in both the record of the debate and on the report itself.

THE PRESIDENT – Your comments have been noted, and I thank you very much, Lord Tomlinson.

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

Mr TOSHEV (Bulgaria) – Thank you, Mr President. Distinguished ladies and gentlemen, since the first moves towards the unification of Europe, Europe’s founding fathers decided that this should be a multinational and multicultural union based on values. The European multicultural model, as accepted at the time, was more than merely a collection of diverse identities. It incorporated the national differences and specificities into a common will for a shared future, for collective actions and for the establishment of supranational joint entities with fair multinational representation – the model incorporated differences without erasing them. The three general pillars of this united Europe are democracy, the rule of law and the protection of human rights.

However, all that is not sufficient to describe the contemporary European model, as it also incorporates concrete solutions derived from the history and culture of each member state and unifies them in a common will for the future. We must also recall that when the decision was taken to build a united Europe without dividing lines – during The Hague Congress of Europe in 1948 – there were several empty seats, which had symbolically been reserved for future member states from central and eastern Europe – at the time, they were unable to attend this extraordinary event. Those absent countries were suffering communist dictatorships, and they had fallen on the other side of the already erected iron curtain.

After the events of 1989 and the destruction of the Berlin Wall, those states were affiliated to the Council of Europe – many of them were also affiliated to the European Union – and they took the seats that had been reserved for them in the European family. The changes that took place after 1989 did not just affect the central and eastern European states; to a significant extent, they also caused changes in western European countries. Cohesion and adaptation in the reunited Europe is still in progress.

Aware of our different cultures, we thought that the multicultural European model was a well-established, unquestioned and mutually accepted system that we have all strongly advocated. This is how we live together in Europe! However, a few months ago, the political leaders of Germany, the United Kingdom and France – Angela Merkel, David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy – cast doubt on the success of multiculturalism using nearly identical expressions. These statements caused serious concern in Europe with regard to the general issue of how to live together in the 21st century.

Even before the statements of the aforementioned leaders, the Council of Europe’s Secretary General asked the independent Group of Eminent Persons to prepare a report on the challenges arising from the resurgence of intolerance and discrimination in Europe. The report is therefore timely. It assesses the risks, identifies their sources and makes a series of proposals for living together in open European societies.

The group highlights eight specific risks to the Council of Europe’s values: widespread intolerance; growing discrimination, especially against Roma and immigrants; rising support for xenophobic and populist parties; parallel societies; Islamic extremism; loss of democratic freedoms; the presence of a population without rights; and the potential clash between religious freedom and freedom of expression.

The report underlines some of the reasons behind the threat – insecurity arising from the old continent’s financial crisis and sense of relative decline; distorted perceptions of large-scale immigration; detrimental stereotypes of minorities in the media and public opinion; and a clear leadership deficit in shaping Europe’s present and future.

The report contains 17 strategic recommendations and many other specific proposals for action. On several issues, the group’s findings corroborate positions already taken by the Assembly while in some cases suggesting different ways of achieving similar goals. The challenge has been, and still is, to ensure implementation in a situation that the group correctly refers to as a “crisis of leadership”.

I wish to underline that the promotion of all the proposed measures cannot be imposed as a sort of holistic approach to social engineering. That would clearly be unacceptable. The goals we pursue can be achieved only through dialogue, understanding and mutual acceptance. That is why my report proposes a recommendation as a first but not last reflection by the Assembly on the group’s suggestions. My point is that the group’s analysis provides a basis for further reflection on Europe’s future, which should involve acting politicians, NGOs, trade unions, youth organisations and academics, as well as representatives of religions, the media and local authorities from different backgrounds and countries.

The general question before us today is: “If the multicultural model is not working properly in some European states, what is the solution?” Assimilation is obviously not an option, and we can all agree on that. Some people think that if the necessary laws are adopted and conditions provided, this could be the solution to all the problems. But obviously that is not enough. It is not laws that form society. Society is formed first by citizenship, which in turn establishes freedom, and only then is it the turn of the state to adopt laws. The cultivation of obedience to law is part of European culture, but the other elements of this culture are equally important. Quid leges sine moribus vanae proficiunt! In vain are laws when there are no mores. The words of Horace more than 2 000 years ago are still valid.

In the Statute of the Council of Europe, signed in London on 5 May 1949, the representatives of the founding member states reaffirmed their devotion to the spiritual and moral values that are the common heritage of their peoples and the true source of individual freedom, political liberty and the rule of law – the principles that form the basis of all genuine democracy. That is why education is of crucial importance for the cultivation of values.

I remind the Assembly of the Declaration and Programme for Education for Democratic Citizenship based on the Rights and Responsibilities of the Citizens, by the Committee of Ministers, adopted in 1999, and the Charter on Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education, by the Council of Europe and adopted by the Committee of Ministers in 2010. Both these documents develop an understanding of the normality of differences, something that is much more than tolerance.

If laws and conditions are not enough for the real integration of newcomers and other marginalised groups, what should be done? Groups that cannot be integrated successfully into society need our active assistance to enjoy the available opportunities. In this interaction, they are also active participants. They are not an object, but a subject. People coming lawfully to live in a country should not be expected to leave elements of their identity – faith, language and culture – behind. However, they are expected to show willingness to integrate themselves into their new country’s society not only by learning its language, but through gaining knowledge and understanding of the local culture, and they must respect democracy, human rights – including the rights of women – and the rule of law. On the other hand, the communities of origin should not ostracise those who choose to change their faith or culture.

We should build cultural bridges by encouraging European citizens to familiarise themselves with, and respect, the culture, language, traditions and history of immigrant groups. That active interaction we call the intercultural approach. This is not the first time that the Assembly has called for the implementation of this approach. In it, we see the solution to the existing problems.

The intercultural approach implies an active interaction of the culturally different groups in society in order to develop the best approach to living together. The Political Affairs Committee suggests that our Assembly should find ways to encourage politicians and elected representatives at all levels to speak out about the challenges raised at present by the threat to the European project and solidarity. We recommend also a reflection on the proposal for an annual forum against extremism, while bearing in mind the necessity for the Assembly to maintain its capacity for rapid reaction in the face of new and disturbing developments.

I wish to propose another name for this initiative, which is different to the one proposed by the Eminent Persons Group and which could unite us to a greater extent. Our committee has a number of recommendations to the Committee of Ministers, including launching a major “Campaign on Living Together”, along the lines of the two “All different – all equal” campaigns. We suggest exploring the possibility of enhancing the role of the Council of Europe’s Development Bank in integration projects in member states.

I stress that in this debate today there is no room for confrontation or filibustering, only for sincere contributions on these very important problems. I sincerely hope that we can reach a common position in addressing this issue. As the rapporteur of the Political Affairs Committee, I invited the other four committees that must give their opinion on my report to contribute their ideas in the initial stages of its preparation. I am grateful to them all that we have largely reached agreement on the text of the draft recommendation.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Toshev. You have two minutes and 45 seconds left to reply to the debate.

I call Ms Kaufer on behalf of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee. You have three minutes.

Ms KAUFER (Hungary) – I welcome the Group of Eminent Persons’ report with a short quote from Commissioner Hammarberg. His words should be a guiding light in understanding this report. He said in February 2009 about the economic crisis, “The increase in unemployment will place a further burden on state budgets. Less income and more expenditure and the argument will be made that there is little space for social assistance to match growing needs. This conclusion is likely to cause tension and perhaps even social unrest. There is a risk that xenophobia and other forms of intolerance will spread further and that minorities and migrants may become targets. Extremists might seek to exploit and provoke those tendencies. We have learned from bitter history that such forces may even threaten democracy itself.” These words were said in 2009 and today, in 2011, we are reading a report with the same conclusions and warnings. We can clearly say that this is the right time to take social rights very seriously.

Commissioner Hammarberg pointed out that second generation social rights are often treated as the poor cousin of civil and political rights. The report, which the committee welcomes, highlights the importance of taking social rights seriously and of providing access to them for all. That means everybody who lives with us in Europe, regardless of their citizenship and status. The report mostly focuses on the ethnic dimension of living together as regards ethnic minorities and irregular immigrants, and the committee welcomes that because those people often live in extreme poverty with no rights. They are invisible in our societies and need urgent assistance.

We regard the report as a good starting point for discussion. As we know, in the Assembly we have talked about social rights and social inclusion on various occasions, and we have made resolutions and recommendations to the Committee of Ministers that are in harmony with the recommendations of the “Living Together” report. This is a good starting point to encourage the Council of Europe to take social rights seriously and to widen and deepen the discussion, including other groups and other social dimensions, such as living together for those of different age groups or of different genders.

Two amendments were unanimously carried by the committee. The first concerns the responsibility of member states to provide access to social services for all and the second takes the European Social Charter as a basis for the social services we provide.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Chope, Chairperson of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population to present the committee’s opinion. You have three minutes.

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – This is the report of my colleague, Mr Díaz Tejera, but he has had to go back to Spain for parliamentary business, so I am introducing it for him.

When Mr Toshev introduced his report, he again misinterpreted the expression “multiculturalism”. I want to draw the attention of members of the Assembly to the report’s wise introduction, which makes it quite clear that the political leaders of Germany, the United Kingdom and France asserted that multiculturalism had failed. The authors of this report decided not to use the word “multiculturalism” because they were not sure what it meant and they thought that it confused more than it clarified. I hope that, in the course of this debate, we can follow that wise advice rather than misrepresenting what has been said.

The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population has tabled a number of amendments, knowing that they will be debated by the Political Affairs Committee later this afternoon before we vote on them. Let me draw attention to Amendment 1, which would change the recommendation in paragraph 6 so that, instead of applying to people who come “lawfully” to a country, it would apply to all people. We think that it is unrealistic and counterproductive to suggest that those who arrive in a country unlawfully should have a different range of rules with which they should comply. I hope that that can be sorted out by the acceptance of the amendment.

We also think that Amendment 4 is important as it concerns the follow-up to the report. There is not much point in having this debate and an address by the Secretary General – we congratulate him on getting this report together – unless the report is effectively followed up. Amendment 4 states that: “Following this conference, an action based agenda for the Council of Europe should be set during a ministerial session, and this should feed into, any future Council of Europe Summit of Heads of State and Government.” If the report is to be worth while and taken seriously, it must be followed up properly, and we hope that the amendment will find favour with the committee.

Above all, it is a good idea for members to look at the report in detail. There is a lot of good stuff in it, and although we do not agree with every dot and comma, it makes a useful contribution to the debate.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Chope. I call Mr Flego, Rapporteur of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education to present the committee’s opinion. You have three minutes.

Mr FLEGO (Croatia) – The challenge of living together is not new. Our Assembly has regularly addressed the problems that undermine the cohesion of our society, seeking to promote mutual respect. In the world that we want, we will have a society that bans any form of marginalisation, in which everyone has the right and opportunity to develop as a person whose dignity and identity are fully respected. In such a society, everyone will adhere wholeheartedly to the concept of democracy and human rights. Building such a society should not be reduced to mere politics, and policy design must encompass not only legal, but political, socio-economic and cultural factors. The pan-European project for living together should therefore strengthen political rights and democratic participation, reduce inequalities in the enjoyment of social, economic and cultural rights, reinforce social cohesion and foster cultural development. Those elements are not sufficiently present in the “Living Together” report.

Education, cultural co-operation, youth and media policies must be enhanced in order to develop a new culture that can sustain the living together society. I wonder whether we can build a new culture of living together without improving our education systems and combating the educational and cultural divide in our societies. Can we expect others to enjoy human rights, follow the rule of law, promote diversity and be broad-minded if they are uneducated? Who will promote the Council of Europe’s values if our schools do not start the process? How can a living together society develop if the young generations are not fully involved in the process? Can we achieve better democracy and promote our common values without working with the media much more than we have so far?

Has anyone the right to reduce rather than enlarge and strengthen our strategic activities in education, culture, youth, sport and media? I am grateful to the Political Affairs Committee for having considered and accepted the amendments on those elements of the problem.

Dear colleagues, building a living together society is at the heart of the core mission of our Organisation and we must fight so that our recommendations do not remain merely on paper. The Council of Europe has a role to play, and we must urge the Committee of Ministers not to disregard it. The intention of education, cultural co-operation, youth and media policies is a crucial part of the living together society, implying that such activities should become the basis of our priorities. Consequently, they will trigger the redefinition, at least, or perhaps the reform, of intergovernmental bodies.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Flego. I call Ms Kovács, who is speaking on behalf of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men. You have three minutes.

Ms KOVÁCS (Serbia) – I support the views expressed in the report of the Political Affairs Committee. However, it is necessary to highlight the fact that the Committee of Ministers should carefully take into account the different situation of women and men within minority groups by fully incorporating the dimension of gender mainstreaming.

It is vital that we emphasise the situation faced by women belonging to minorities, because they are a minority in a minority, and are most affected by exclusion. They face marginalisation and exclusion on several levels, because they belong to a group that is perceived to be different, because they are women and are therefore disadvantaged by the lack of de facto gender equality in society, and because of the patriarchal mentality that is widespread among the minority groups to which they belong, which confines them to a stereotyped role and to a position that is subordinate to that of men.

Compared to other women, and to men from the same background as them, women from minority groups face, among other problems, a lower employment rate, lower salaries and/or worse working conditions, less education, and a lower level of participation in public and political life. They are also at greater risk of being victims of violence and of trafficking, especially for the purposes of sexual exploitation.

There should be a continuum in the enjoyment of human rights in the home, in the community and in society at large. In a nutshell, women should be free from being beaten up, from being raped and from being subjected to child marriage. They should be free to marry whom they choose, to work outside the house and to wear what they like. Diversity is here not only to stay, but to grow.

Our committee is happy to see that Mr Toshev has included in his text a recommendation asking that the Committee of Ministers fully integrate gender mainstreaming in the implementation of the recommendations of the “Living Together” report. He also proposes that the Council of Europe takes positive measures to avoid women from minority groups being subjected to multiple discrimination, to promote their active participation in social, economic and political life, and to promote the signing and ratification of the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence. There is also our additional amendment to the introductory part of the preliminary recommendation, highlighting the specific exclusion experienced by women who are from minorities, and the need to build up their role bridging their community and society. I ask members to keep in mind that human rights are universal. They are not bound to a region, a nationality or a community.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. In the debate, I first call Mr Lipiński, who speaks on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr LIPIŃSKI (Poland) thanked the President and the rapporteur for an excellent report, a follow-up report on the report of the Group of Eminent Persons. He hoped that the report would be welcomed and he noted that it had been written at a time when France, Germany and the United Kingdom had been casting doubt on multiculturalism. Across Europe there were instances of threats, exclusion and marginalisation of some people and the rise of extremist groups. Communities were living together but separately. No real solution had been found for these challenges.

Europe itself was diverse in its nature, and an intercultural approach was needed. Each individual had the right to keep their own religious, cultural and linguistic identity, but had to comply with the laws of the country in which they resided. Education was an important tool to encourage the right mindset and youth, religious and media organisations all had a role to play too.

The Council of Europe could do much to increase understanding of the issues contained in the report, and the report had many recommendations it could endorse. The Council of Europe should increase its visibility by getting involved and he called on the Assembly to endorse the report.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Lipiński. I call Mr Moriau, who speaks on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr MORIAU (Belgium) said he had expected more of the report. Its mentions of intolerance, sociology and the lack of integration could lead to misinterpretation. It appeared to be a reference work on what Europe’s shared values should be. He noted that it referred to the term “threat” in the singular, and stated that European society was subject to the threat of unregulated globalisation and austerity. Europe should be greater than the sum of the national countries within it. It consisted of an economic market, rather than the market as envisaged by Jacques Delors. A consistent, just and equitable approach was required, different from that taken by the United States of America, and the Council of Europe had a part to play in this.

He noted that the text was interesting and thought-provoking and covered a range of issues. However, education, youth, media and political matters had not been touched. Social cohesion could not be imposed, but needed to be constructed and the important concepts of science, humanism and tolerance should be advocated. He would abstain in the vote as he felt there were some unresolved issues within the report. For example: its use of the term “race”, which as a concept was genetically and politically meaningless; its coverage of diversity and its view on combating abortion which he felt showed a total contempt for the long battle for women’s rights and relegated women back to the kitchen. In conclusion, as there were some contradictions in the report – for example, it appeared to have forgotten about the issue of secularism – he could not endorse it.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Moriau. I call Ms Brasseur, who speaks on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg) felt that the questions that the report should be asking were: whether society had led to excess; what was the cost of globalisation; and whether living within nuclear families was a strange set-up. The contradiction of talking about the failure of multiculturalism, while Europe was in its nature and history multicultural, should be explored. Despite globalisation, Europe was turning inwards.

The Secretary General should be congratulated on asking the Group of Eminent Persons to compile the report and the rapporteurs should be thanked. The report was just the first stage: they were just at the beginning and far from reaching conclusions. She admitted that she was not satisfied with the report and noted that all groups had welcomed it with a qualifying “but ...”. She noted that her colleague Mr Flego had talked about the importance of education which was lacking as a theme in the report. There were many ideas in this report that had previously been put forward in the 2008 White Paper “Living Together as Equals in Dignity”.

There was not enough time today to discuss all the issues in the report, but she wished to highlight what Mr Toshev said in the last paragraph, which called for the Secretary General, Committee of Ministers, the Group of Eminent Persons and the rapporteurs to enlarge the dialogue on how to develop democratic society. ALDE would only vote for the report on the premise that everyone had to continue to work together to find ways to live together to ensure a better quality of life.

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

Earl of DUNDEE (United Kingdom) – I should like to join with others in congratulating Mr Toshev on his useful report, which we are debating today. He has identified certain unattractive and corroding tendencies in Europe, and encourages us to reduce and eliminate them. Those include racist, anti-Semitic and xenophobic acts and attitudes. As he observes, against those and other manifestations of intolerance, our societies may be rather too indulgent.

Mr Toshev may well imply a distinction between two different contexts. The first is that of the 20th century, when the abuse of human rights followed directly from its wars and political systems of fascism and communism. On the other hand, the second is formed by the recent years of our 21st century. Here we are fortunate. Human rights abuse no longer derives from European wars and political friction. Instead, it has reduced to an awkward aberration within the political consensus. Mr Toshev’s point, therefore, is that we should deal with it from the solid human rights consensus enjoyed among our Council of Europe’s affiliation of 47 states.

Taking the two contexts together, that of the 20th century may at least provide a service if it can give a constant warning. In that regard, I am glad that last month the United Kingdom Administration announced a government contribution of over £2 million to the preservation of the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp to help to ensure that the lessons of Auschwitz live on for generations to come. Yet, before attempting to devise solutions to current problems, perhaps we should spend a moment reminding ourselves of how and why the background to human rights in Europe has so radically changed.

A principal catalyst has of course been the success of Europe’s political experiment – firstly, that of our own Organisation, the Council of Europe. As a result, states and citizens now stand before the European Court of Human Rights on an equal footing. Such a development was inconceivable before 1950. The second is that of the European Union, for, through subsidiarity and other means, and contrary to previous misconceptions, this has proved that the protection of the European citizen does not undermine the integrity of European states.

Among proposed remedies, Mr Toshev includes three essential expedients. The first is the focused partnership of relevant institutions, such as that between politicians, non-governmental organisations, trade unions, the media, local authorities and so on. Next, within school education a greater emphasis should be placed upon teaching the skills of tolerance and good citizenship. Then, as also urged by the Council of Europe’s 2005 Warsaw Declaration, within member states the creation of sustainable communities where people want to live and work together, now and in the future.

On educating towards good citizenship, the United Kingdom has some constructive offerings. In particular, those include the Duke of Edinburgh’s international award scheme, which started in the 1950s and has been adopted in a large number of states. It instils community skills and responsibilities within school learning, helping to develop tolerance and understanding from an early age, and remains a valuable model of good practice.

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

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Lecoq, who speaks on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr LECOQ (France) said that the question was not how to implement this report, which had already been discussed. The real question was: What was the point in this report at all? There was no added value and no real gain in producing this list of preoccupations that had already been heard many times before. He asked why so much European taxpayers’ money had been wasted on the production of this report and queried how many meetings had been necessary to produce this flabby and gutless collection of platitudes.

He was not certain why the Council of Europe had asked a group of former politicians to write this report. Was it because it was believed they would be able to give a more informed opinion? Members of the Council of Europe already knew the problems facing Europe’s citizens, which included poverty and xenophobia. What had these people done to address these problems when they were in power? Members of the Council of Europe were much better placed to provide this insight because they represented the vast majority of the people of Europe.

Was it believed that these people possessed some special skill? If so, why had they not come to the Council of Europe to present the report themselves? There were better people who could have been asked these questions, such as the “Indignant of Madrid”. The report also failed to address the issue of the financial crisis and of economic government. A handful of bankers had deeply damaged the economy of Europe and there was now an unfair distribution of work. Financial government had replaced political government by elected representatives.

He wished to close on a humorous note. If the Council of Europe wished to appoint a Group of Eminent Persons again, the UEL Group would be more than happy to fill this role, and its report would not cost anything.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I would now like to welcome Mr Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe.

Mr Jagland, you have the floor.

Mr JAGLAND (Secretary General of the Council of Europe) – Thank you, Mr President. I have listened carefully to all the rapporteurs and the speeches from representatives of the party groups. I am very thankful for the constructive approach that all of you have taken to this. I will explain why I think this is probably the most important issue that both this Organisation and Europe are facing.

First, however, I would like to say that I agree with Lord Tomlinson. That said, the wording should state that this is a report from the Group of Eminent Persons to the Council of Europe. Not only that, it is to many other institutions in Europe as well – the European Union, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, NGOs and the whole European family – because we want to engage with all actors in Europe today. The Council of Europe should play a leading role here. If we are not able to do that, we will be unable to be relevant. I will say a few words about that later. This goes directly to the core issue of the Council of Europe’s mandate. We need to protect human rights and live together on the basis of the European Convention on Human Rights. If we cannot play a role here, we cannot play a role in any issue.

How did this group come into being? It started during the preparations of the Turkish chairmanship. We saw that the debate on integration and immigration was becoming increasingly polarised in Europe. That has been going on for many years but the debate is now even more polarised. We also heard important leaders, who have been referred to, say that multiculturalism has failed. They warned against the development of parallel societies. Therefore, the Turkish chairmanship and I, the Secretary General, said that we have to take this seriously. We need a response to this. We could say that we agree or disagree, or accuse somebody, but we need a debate on this important issue. The Council of Europe must play a leading role in that debate.

We therefore agreed that we needed an independent group to report to us on how we could start the process and how we could interact with other players in Europe. It was important that it should be an independent group. The representative of the Socialist Group, which was outside the Council of Europe, said that this misunderstood what the Council of Europe is. The Council of Europe is an organisation of some 700 million people. All the people in the group belong to the Council of Europe because they are citizens of Europe. It explains everything if the Council of Europe is perceived as something internal, to which nobody from outside can come to speak.

I must say clearly: it was important to have an independent group. It was also important to use this opportunity to involve people who are listened to as friends of the Council of Europe. I listened to Joschka Fischer when he presented to 400 or 500 people in Berlin. I had never heard such a good explanation of the role of the Council of Europe in Europe today from anybody else. He explained the important role of this Organisation. I listened to Timothy Garton Ash, a leading intellectual in Europe today and a member of this group, whose articles are published in all the big newspapers. His explanation of what the Council of Europe is was even better than that of Joschka Fischer’s.

The Council of Europe has very good friends. That is important because we must take the Council of Europe outside this house. This Organisation needs good ambassadors. It was not by accident that, on Monday, I was invited to speak to some 500 journalists in Bonn as a key speaker on human rights and the Council of Europe.

The report is only the starting point in a process. This was pointed out by all the rapporteurs. We cannot expect everybody to say about the report, “Hallelujah! This is very good.” It is just a starting point. The goal of this process should be to find common ground in how to master the increasing diversity of the European continent. If we continue as we are today, by having a more polarised political debate, it will be quite dangerous, as we know from the past and as was pointed out by the European Democrat Group. We know from the past how dangerous it is when Europe cannot deal with the fact that it is a continent of diversity. If we do not find common ground, we will head for more dangerous problems that are related to this.

That is why it is so important, as Rapporteur Toshev said, to understand that this can be achieved only through an inclusive dialogue. We cannot just make a decision and say that everything is fine; we need a dialogue in which everyone can have a say. This is a starting point. Since this report has not been presented to the Committee of Ministers, all the governments need to sit down and discuss this and take a position. I hope they will interact with the national parliaments and the national parliaments will interact with broader civil society. I am very glad that we have taken this seriously. It must also be a starting point for the Council of Europe. We must facilitate a process that includes the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly, so that we can put something on paper that unites as many of us as possible. I shall come back to how important this is.

There is an important point in this report: diversity is a fact of life in Europe today. Trying to do away with it will lead to disaster. If we do not accept diversity, the conclusion will be that somebody has to leave. We have tried that before. We must not only live with diversity but see that we can benefit from it. That is a very important point made by the group. Another important point it raised is that when you come to the European continent and settle here you are not obliged to do away with your identity, whether cultural or religious. On the contrary, you have the right to keep your identity, but you are also obliged to respect and live in accordance with the culture, standards and values that are accepted in Europe.

That is why I see this as an opportunity for the Council of Europe. What is this group saying? We must strengthen our common values and the instruments that uphold them, namely the European Convention on Human Rights and all the instruments of the Council of Europe. As I said, diversity means the right to keep your own identity, but we also need something that holds us together. What is common in Europe today if not the values and standards enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights?

So we must use this debate to show how important the European Convention on Human Rights and our organisation are in this opportunity to build our entire continent, because you cannot warn against parallel societies while also speaking against the European Convention on Human Rights. Such an approach does not make sense. If you are afraid of the development of parallel societies, you must strengthen what holds people together so that you can avoid the development of parallel societies. We are held together by our common values in the European Convention on Human Rights. So the Council of Europe has an extraordinary opportunity to play a role in Europe through our interaction with other important European players.

My final point is that if one examines European history after the Second World War, one finds that two important historical processes have shaped this continent. The first is European economic integration, which has paved the way for political integration. There is no doubt that the European Union has been in the driving seat in that process. However, the other equally important historical process on the European continent has been the quest for human rights, which has shaped and reshaped the whole continent. When people climbed up on to the Berlin Wall in 1989, they did so in the quest for human rights, which has reshaped the whole continent; this started a revolution on the whole continent, and now the same thing is happening in many other places. That tells us something about the important force that the quest for human rights has been in history, particularly after the Second World War.

That quest is the reason why we built all the institutions that we have today and why I firmly believe that the Council of Europe has a very important role to play in Europe. We represent the most important transformative force in Europe and in the world today – the quest for human rights. This is the basis for handling the diversity that we have on the European continent. The main message from the Group of Eminent Persons is that we have to live with diversity and to benefit from it, and we have to find a common way to do so.

It is clear that Europe has developed through common action. The main political forces and political ideologies on the European continent that have competed in every nation state came together to shape Europe. The Socialists, Conservatives and Christian Democrats – all these main political forces – had one common goal: to create the Europe that we have today. So we should now try to unite the main political forces and ideologies on the European continent to find common ground on how to live together in the 21st century and how to cope with this increasing diversity. That is equally as important as building the European institutions was in the first place. So I call on all the main political forces to come together to find common ground so that we can avoid increasing the polarisation of this debate, as that can be very dangerous.

I thank you very much for the constructive approach that you have taken. This is a starting point for a process, and you have to play a key role in that process, together with guidance from the Committee of Ministers. I welcome you in this important process for the Council of Europe. If we are not able to play a leading role in this process, nobody else will be able to do so, because we are the only pan-European organisation. If we are not able to do this, we will not be relevant. That is because this goes to the core mandate of the Council of Europe.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Secretary General, for your passionate contribution to this debate. I call Ms Marin.

Ms MARIN (France) thanked the President and welcomed the remarkable report delivered by Mr Toshev. The Parliamentary Assembly was duty bound to provide some follow-up to the report of the Group of Eminent Persons. It was hard not to agree with the majority of the report and indeed many of its proposals were based on Assembly resolutions. However as parliamentarians, and thus guardians of democracy, it was the duty of Members to cast a critical eye over the report.

Contrary to what appeared in the report, speaking as a representative from France, she wished to draw attention to the fact that the French Constitutional Council had condemned the collection of ethnic-based statistics. Decision 2007-557 DC of 15 November 2007, relating to the law on the control of immigration, integration and asylum, had stated that this was contrary to Article 1 of the French Constitution, which guaranteed equality for all citizens. There was no general consensus in this area of the report and she felt that it gave greater prominence to differences rather than similarities and equality. All citizens were equal in the eyes of the law. It was important that differences were transcended. Living together in the 21st century would work only if people thought in terms of commonalities, but this needed political will to be achieved. As parliamentarians, they had to restore faith in the European project.

It was perhaps a mistake of the report that it proposed too many initiatives, which ran the risk of obscuring the basic underlying philosophy. It was important that the Assembly focus on those overarching themes and principals. Ending on a positive note, she said that living together meant a daily plebiscite.

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

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Harangozó.

Mr HARANGOZÓ (Hungary) – Dear colleagues, the report deals with important questions of political failures and the challenges involved in living together, but I wish to focus on something that is missing from the solutions that it provides.

I fully agree with the report’s statement that Roma people are distinguished from the rest of the population by their social exclusion. Therefore, initiatives that focus on solidarity, as well as on social and regional cohesion, are especially important. Vulnerable groups, especially the Roma, face multi-dimensional problems, through which poverty deepens. Such problems take the form of exclusion and increasing segregation. Prolonged inactivity and long-term unemployment reduce the capacity of those affected to overcome their social exclusion and economic difficulties. Exclusion has a strong spatial character. Exclusion from the flow of economic and social development mostly appears spatially and is inter-related to territorial exclusion; therefore, the access of vulnerable groups to work and services is lower. The living prospects of social groups are determined by their geographical location – the regions and micro-regions and specifically their living environment. The spatial determination of the risk of being excluded is therefore very strong.

The process of segregation is more clearly visible in the cities than it is in the surrounding less densely inhabited areas. The situation in rural areas affected by segregation is, however, even worse. The rural population suffers from a very disadvantaged situation in the new member states of the European Union where the economic transition has strengthened the intra-regional disparities.

On that analysis, horizontal approaches are not enough to solve the problems of vulnerable groups. In order to tackle the situation of vulnerable groups such as the Roma, a territorial approach is needed that addresses the complexity of the problems locally, in the concerned areas themselves. There is a genuine need for a micro-regional approach focusing on intra-regional disparities and on the most sensitive areas. If not, the polarisation process will deepen, especially if economic and social interventions are concentrated on the dynamic centres. The excluded areas will decline further. When we tackle this problem, greater emphasis should be placed on spatial planning and integrated spatial development.

The basis of growing extremism is the extreme differences between vulnerable and prosperous groups and territories. Therefore, we have to focus on the fight against those differences.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Gautier.

Ms GAUTIER (France) said that, in several previous part-sessions, concern had been expressed over issues including xenophobia, religious intolerance and the continued discrimination within society. The report represented a timely contribution to the thinking of the Assembly in this area. The history of the 20th century had been one of a long quest for freedom. To a certain extent, this seemed to have been achieved in the 1990s with the accession of the eastern European countries. She hoped that the 21st century would be the century where equality for all citizens was finally achieved. The proposals set out in the report were a step in the right direction. As a female representative to the Assembly, she felt it was important to highlight that a life of equality could not be achieved without first achieving equality between men and women. The debate the following day on women in economic and social decision-making bodies would be important in this respect. There was a lot of work to be done in this sphere of social policy, including ensuring equal pay for women, increasing their representation in political life and combating violence against women. The media should understand the important role that it had to play in this process.

Immigrant women were often victims of double indemnity, facing discrimination as a result both of their origin and their sex. The Assembly had done much work on the integration of these women and combating domestic violence, of which such women were often victims. She called on members of the Assembly, when they returned to their national parliaments, to devote their efforts to finding ways of putting principles into action. “Living together in the 21st century” should not be a synonym for simply co-existing.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Naghdalyan.

Ms NAGHDALYAN (Armenia) said that each generation asked itself a number of questions, including: who they were; where they were; and where they were going. Each generation had to find its own answers to these questions which were important not only for the present but for the future. In order to lead normal lives, it was necessary for people to be able to live in peace. This was particularly important for her as a representative from Armenia where the right formula had still not yet been found.

There remained conflict in the North and South Caucasus. For a number of military, strategic and geographical reasons, those areas remained the constant focus of the super-powers. She was sure that the Assembly was well aware of the situation. Frozen conflicts were like a dormant volcano and the places where these occurred were not good places to live. Self-determination should be the basic principle guiding actions in those areas. It was a fundamental right for an individual to be able to be part of their own nation. She was convinced that the 21st century would witness a move in this direction.

Globalisation had made the world a smaller place and made things move faster. Politicians should reflect upon the fact that all nations were different and diverse but also mutually complementary. Large and small nations alike should have similar opportunities. Work in this area should be based upon models which had already proved themselves.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Gafarova.

Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – In the 21st century, the epoch of globalisation and assimilation of national boundaries, the formation of a culture of co-existence is of great importance. Of course, co-existence drastically rejects discrimination and racism. Co-existence requires the elimination of such problems. In the era of global threats such as terrorism and religious confrontation, the aim of co-existence requires a careful and tactful approach. Current steps and future measures in that direction should not result in disowning our national, cultural and moral values. On the contrary, we have to co-operate with love, sincerity and goodwill. We should preserve and protect common human values without forcibly imposing our beliefs on others.

In my country, Azerbaijan, representatives of different religions and other nations live peacefully. The Christian and Jewish communities of Azerbaijan live side by side with the Muslim majority and enjoy and exercise equal rights. Azerbaijanis, Russians, Jews, Georgians, Ukrainians and others – irrespective of nationality – all our citizens consider it their duty to live for the sake of common values and concerns. The representatives of different nations who visit Azerbaijan can see that the country is an example of tolerance and will deem the model implemented there progressive.

I believe that nowadays the ideal formula, which will unite us, concerns the development of a mutual co-existence culture. When we talk about co-existence, we must not refrain from confessing the problems and menaces that hinder the process. At this point, I want to draw attention to the Armenian-Azerbaijani Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. That conflict, which has lasted for more than 20 years within the boundaries of Europe, contradicts human rights and international peace principles. Although a ceasefire agreement was reached in 1994 and negotiations commenced, the conflict has not yet been settled.

Since the first day of the negotiations, Azerbaijan has demonstrated sincerity about solving the conflict and supported just and negotiated solutions based on objective arguments and international law. However, Armenia has manoeuvred to protract negotiations, thus reducing to nothing all values and international codes.

Ladies and gentlemen, the only way to settle a number of global political, economic, humanitarian and social problems is to strengthen our joint efforts, co-operation and contacts. I believe we can realise this in Europe, which is a common space for us all.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Haugli.

Mr HAUGLI (Norway) – The sub-title of the document that we are debating is “Combining diversity and freedom”, which summarises the challenge well. Although diversity is a given, individual freedom is not. I want to thank Ms Kovács for her contribution, which correctly points out that minority women are particularly vulnerable.

When the historians of the future write the history of Europe in our time, they will find that European women enjoy greater freedom than in past centuries. At the same time, however, they might also find that, in the name of cultural tolerance, European societies came to accept a double standard for equality between men and women: one for men and most women, and another for minority women.

I read “Living Together” with great enthusiasm. It strikes a good balance between recognising on the one hand that people should not be expected to abandon their cultural identity, and setting out on the other the principles that need to form a common platform for the values that are not relative or up for negotiation and that define our societies.

Just as democracy is better than dictatorship, certain values, to put it simply, are better than others. Recognising men and women as human beings of equal value is better than considering women inferior to men and belief systems that allow women to participate in society are better than those that demand that women remain isolated and invisible.

The challenge to us as parliamentarians is to build a common platform and to ensure that all enjoy the same human rights. Legal protection is important, but having legal rights is not enough. In Norway, we have had laws against genital mutilation for some time, but the practice still goes on. Our efforts need to go beyond passing laws. Education is important and so are dialogue, providing support to victims and other measures.

Leadership starts by standing up for what we believe to be universal rights. Diversity is a strength. At the same time, the pattern of looking away from the injustices of which minority women are victims must stop.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Haugli, and thank you for speaking within the time limit. The next speaker is Mr Fournier.

Mr FOURNIER (France) noted that on 11 May, the Group of Eminent Persons had delivered the report that had been commissioned by the Secretary General. It defined the strategic priorities which were integral to achieving the fundamental priority of living within democracy. He noted the increasing power of populist parties, the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and illegal immigration, all of which could lead to a clash between religious freedom and freedom of expression.

He noted that the report had 17 recommendations which it said would lead to greater diversity if accepted by societies in the European Union. He felt that this was an optimistic view. Heads of state had recently talked about the failure of multiculturalism and the need to rethink following the arrival of certain groups and the failure of integration. Sometimes, the rights of migrants appeared to presuppose their duties to the host society. Only by acknowledging the shortcomings of the 20th century could a working society be built in the 21st century. The concept of diversity needed to be accepted but equally diversity had to include the host country as its generosity could not be infinite.

The first 10 years of the 21st century had been marked by terrorism, war and economic instability, which had led to fears of waves of immigration. A rethink of national identities and reinvention of the security model were necessary processes before a discussion on the challenges of multiculturalism could be useful.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Christoffersen.

Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – The Group of Eminent Persons sums up Europe’s main challenge in 10 words: “Living together – Combining diversity and freedom in 21st-century Europe”. It is that simple and that difficult.

A major risk pointed out in the report is the rising support for xenophobic and populist political parties. Europe knows too well what that could lead to. The report describes the link between growing intolerance, xenophobia, discrimination, religious conflict, parallel societies, extremism and the loss of democratic freedoms. Even more importantly, it points out the lack of political leadership. As parliamentarians, we must ask ourselves whether we are about to repeat old mistakes. Are we the type of politicians who might be described as following public opinion rather than leading it, whatever the result?

If we are not that type of politician, we have been supplied with 17 guiding principles for peaceful co-existence between people of different race, religion and culture. Guideline 14 is especially important and reminds us that purely legal equality will not be enough to enable immigrants or members of minority groups to enjoy full equality and participation in society. Special measures must be taken to avoid ethnic differences in living conditions. Such differences are unfair and a waste of human resources, and may lead to social anxiety.

In Norway, three different governmental panels had just delivered reports. One analysed whether migration might challenge future welfare, the second presented 230 measures for improved integration, and the third, entitled “In the Waiting Room of Welfare Society”, described the situation in asylum reception centres. Despite their different approaches, all the panels had reached the same conclusion: welfare schemes should be reorganised so that passive disbursement is replaced with qualifying measures that enable migrants to take part in education, employment and civil society. Integration is about combining rights and duties.

Immigrants who are given opportunities on an equal footing with others have the same obligations as all others to participate in work and contribute to the common welfare; that is what they want. Enabling immigration is a common interest; the European population is ageing, and if we are to maintain a high level of welfare, we will need even more immigrants in the near future, so it would be wise to follow the proposals for action in the Group of Eminent Persons’ report. Indeed, the list of actors for change identifies several such actions, but we politicians have a special obligation to stand on the front line and take a lead in future processes.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you for keeping within the time limit, Ms Christoffersen. I call Mr Kalmár.

Mr KALMÁR (Hungary) – Despite the fact that several rapporteurs and members of the Group of Eminent Persons are from central and eastern Europe, the problems dealt with in the document affect mostly western Europe. After a very turbulent 20th century, the main problems in living together in central and eastern Europe still mostly relate to ethnicity. We who live there still experience the persistence, even among some leading political groups, of ideas that come from the time of the Second World War. That is why, when speaking about ethnic autonomy or collective rights, some politicians become very suspicious and angry.

The document states the principle that immigrants should not be “expected to renounce their faith, culture or identity”, but what about ethnic communities? Why does Europe assist the assimilation attempts being made in certain countries? I would have expected the Group of Eminent Persons to have stated in their strategic recommendations the right of ethnic communities to self-determination, autonomy or whatever else is necessary to preserve their culture, language, and traditions in a way that gives them a perspective on the future. To reach that situation, the country in which a community lives and its kin state should work together to ensure that the necessary conditions prevail. Otherwise, many human values will be lost to Europe, as they were in many cases in the past.

For instance, a few weeks ago the Government of Romania announced its intention of changing the regional organisation of the country. The Romanian authorities, when acceding to the Council of Europe in 1993, committed themselves in a written declaration to “basing their policy regarding the protection of minorities on the principles laid down in Recommendation 1201”. Article 5 of that document reads as follows: “Deliberate changes to the demographic composition of the region in which a national minority is settled, to the detriment of that minority, shall be prohibited.” If the proposals go ahead, it will lead to the forced change of the demographic composition of the region. It would break the commitments that Romania made to the Council of Europe.

We must not forget that, on our continent, borders have changed quite often throughout the centuries without the people concerned having been asked, so that today it is impossible to draw ethnically pure borders. Under the frameworks of the Council of Europe and the EU, it would be possible to deal successfully with those issues. The document that we are discussing could have given us a very good occasion on which to do so, and it represents a very good base from which to continue that work.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Zohrabyan.

Ms ZOHRABYAN (Armenia) said that she was certain of one thing: everyone needed to work together to reconcile diversity and freedom for all people, and thanked the Group of Eminent Persons for its candid views about current threats. The forces of xenophobia, racism, intolerance and extremism were blocking this. She welcomed the suggestion that an annual forum against extremism should be organised, as that would allow debate on such issues. The Group of Eminent Persons should not overlook the recent xenophobic statement by the Turkish Prime Minister about expelling Armenians from Turkey.

Those concerned about the threat represented by discrimination and intolerance in Europe were right to talk about the need to deepen intercultural dialogue. However, the removal of a monument commemorating the friendship between Turkey and Armenian – done on the orders of Azerbaijan authorities – had gone unnoticed.

The rapporteur had spoken of attacking intolerance via politics, and she mentioned the discrimination against Kurds in the recent Turkish elections.

She appreciated the setting-up of the Group of Eminent Persons, and hoped that it would appeal to the better nature of Council of Europe member states where extremism and xenophobia had become a state ideology, as that would represent a step in the direction of peaceful co-existence.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Gross.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – Thank you, Mr President. Dear colleagues, I wish I could have said to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe that I liked the report from the Group of Eminent Persons, because it is clear that we need multiculturalism; that cannot be avoided. Multiculturalism is not contradictory to integration based on participation. I felt that you, Mr Kalmár, showed that you had misunderstood when you said that it was only for the west. The example that you gave of the Romanian Government showed that if that government had taken the issue seriously, it would have come to another conclusion. This is a matter for the eastern and western parts of Europe.

There is a clear need for multiculturalism. That is not the same as what Mr Toshev wrote in paragraph 3, in which he tended more towards view of the so-called leaders of the three big European countries, who think that multiculturalism is for yesterday. I would have liked to have listened to Mr Fischer, because earlier, Mr Jagland praised him, saying that he spoke very well in Berlin. Yesterday, in a very good article in the Süddeutsche Zeitung, and in another journal last month, Mr Fischer showed exactly what is missing in the Group of Eminent Persons’ report, namely the polity that we need in Europe to realise what is seen as a real European way of life, as Mr Moriau so nicely put it.

Polity cannot be replaced by leadership or role models; that would be weakness. We need a transnational European polity, as was foreseen by our founding fathers, because the European Human Rights Convention can only be understood historically, when we see it as the side effect of the bigger project of building a European democracy. Perhaps if we had such a European democracy that enables every citizen to influence it, we would overcome what our two French colleagues so aptly said we could not. We should never forget that diversity does not mean total inequality in life chances, because when life chances are not fairly distributed, diversity cannot be accepted. A real multicultural integrated society needs that common polity. We have to add that to the report, and that is why I am happy that there is to be a follow-up, and that there is a common will to work together to add what is missing from, but necessary to, the report.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Gross, for your essential remarks. I now call Lord Boswell.

Lord BOSWELL (United Kingdom) – I, too, congratulate the rapporteur on the report and the Group of Eminent Persons on its report, although we all understand that this is work in progress. There is no magic silver bullet that will create conditions of paradise in which we all live in harmony with one another. I am a little wary of overselling the proposition of, for example, an annual forum on extremism, although some years ago there was a successful conference in London on anti-Semitism, in which I participated.

There is nothing wrong with that kind of focus, but we need to understand that there is continuing work to do to underpin resolution and the mechanisms for achieving it. We are rather in the position of the chicken: it is no good laying the egg and cackling about it, then going away and deserting it. We have to sit on the egg and hatch something from it.

There are some proper actions to be taken at national and international level. That is the centre of our approach here, through the Convention on Human Rights. What does that Convention mean if it is not about treating all people decently and on an equal basis? So to an entirely proper role for national anti-discrimination and equality legislation: I have worked long and hard on that in Britain and we have some good experience from there. There is a need for targeted public programmes, reaching out to people who are excluded, but I put it to the gathering that the essential issue is a change in sensitivity and consciousness – a change in our hearts.

We are all in some respects a minority. I support Aston Villa, not Manchester United or Barcelona, but I make the serious point that any maltreatment of minorities diminishes us, even if we are members of the majority. We need to stop demonising individuals, even if it is behind the back of our hand and very discreet, rather than in public.

We need to find every means of reaching people – not just the social partners, but those who are perhaps excluded from work or from the political process – and we must listen to them. We must set an example in our public statements and ensure that the media does not fall to the lowest denominator of what is legally permissible. We need constant exposure through the education system and we need jobs to ensure that people can find places.

I leave you with a thought: if there is one simple message, it is that what we need to do in difficult times is, if I may say so, talk rather less and listen rather more to those whose voices demand to be heard.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Lord Tomlinson.

Lord TOMLINSON (United Kingdom) – I agree with Mr Moriau and Mr Lecoq in finding this a somewhat disappointing report. Only six meetings took place, yet the report relies on six pages of listed bibliography. Inevitably, such a report will be based more on scissors and paste than on evidence. That shows through this report.

I regret that no recent migrant to our countries was deemed sufficiently eminent to qualify for a place on the Group of Eminent Persons. Picking up on the point made by Lord Boswell, it would have been a lot better if we had had the opportunity to hear a little more and had talked to each other a little less.

I shall get all my regrets out of the way first. I regret that no member of the so-called Group of Eminent Persons has deemed it possible to come and occupy one of the seats on the front bench to defend its report to us today. Perhaps Mr Martin Hirsch discovered that the Political Affairs Committee was not a sufficiently compliant, docile or receptive audience and the others decided that absence was probably their best choice.

I take issue with two things in the report. I want to address them; I could have addressed more; but time prevents it. The report talks about the crisis of leadership. That shows fairly substantial arrogance from the committee. It is a committee comprised largely of retired politicians. Of course, they all think that nobody is as good as they were. The rest of them are sociologists and journalists. I urge you to look at that so-called crisis of leadership. It reflects substantial arrogance on their behalf.

I really want to consider the question of multiculturalism. I remember when President Giscard d’Estaing opened the Convention on the Future of Europe. He produced this great vision of our wide, multinational, multicultural Europe, but it suffered from the same deficiency as we have here. As a member of the Convention, I pointed out to President Giscard that this great multicultural Europe, in a room of 700 or 800 people, had three faces that were visibly different – three faces that could be identified as black. One was the British Minister, Patricia Scotland, who was representing the British Government. One was my wife, who was sat in the public gallery. The third was the guy serving the drinks.

That is the problem that we have to face: how do we make those voices heard directly in our deliberations, rather than just talking about them? That is a deficiency that this report suffers from.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. With respect to your speeches, we should all think about time limits. I call Mr Vareikis.

Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania) – I shall speak in a different mode from the previous speaker. The Council of Europe was created in the 20th century to fulfil our dreams and visions of that time – to implement human rights and the rule of law, and to regulate values. It was created by Europeans for Europeans. Over a few decades, we Europeans declared ourselves spiritually and we declared ourselves happy nations. We know everything. We know what human rights are and what the rule of law is.

We created the so-called European model, but we are now in the 21st century, which is a different century. The 21st century has things that we lacked 100 or even 50 years ago. We have globalisation. We have a post-modern society. We have a multicultural society, although we do not really understand what it means. We also have intolerance and xenophobia. Of course, we also have the crisis of leadership. I think the new generation is a little different from the old.

The question sounds simple, but the answer is not simple. What should we do with our European model, which we created in the last century? Do we defend it and say that there is nothing wrong and we are happy? Do we improve the model by changing it, or do we simply abolish it and look for something new?

The report is about what we can do. The answer is positive. We are not abolishing the European model, but the answer is very clear – we have to improve and think about new challenges and how we can face them.

There is a lot of immigration, but that is not the only issue. The main issue is whether the values of the 20th century are the values of the 21st. Sometimes, we speak too much about economic integration, budgets and money, but very little about spiritual integration and what we are looking for. Here, I agree with Lord Tomlinson. We really lack spiritual integration – the understanding of what we really are. Without that understanding, we cannot live in the 21st century.

The report is the first step, as the Secretary General said. We need to do more and to be more precise. We should not be afraid to say, “Sorry, some time ago we were wrong. Now we have to live in a society that is a little bit different.”

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Vareikis. The next speaker is Mr Santini.

Mr SANTINI (Italy) said that if he was to give a title to this debate, considering the content of the report and what has been said by the rapporteurs, it would be respect and diversity or rather respect for diversity. Diversity was the opposite of uniformity, which required people to abandon their roots: such action was never going to lead to a cohesive society.

Jacques Delors, speaking before the European Parliament after his time as the Head of the European Commission, said that “there will never be a European people but a diverse group of peoples brought together by a common destiny.” He thought that this was the correct sentiment as all worked to create a multifaith, multicultural and multi-ethnic society. Therefore, there should be no tolerance for gender, ethnic or cultural discrimination.

The Council of Europe needed to be more forward-looking in its work. There were already signs that the Council was moving in this direction as illustrated by its work with Morocco and Tunisia. The Council should broaden its horizons and expand its work to central Asia and southern Africa. It was also important to improve relations between citizens and politicians. Far too many political parties sidelined ordinary people. Family policy was very important to citizens, especially to children, women and the elderly.

He hoped that the Council of Europe would continue to work towards creating a fairer and more democratic societies and he noted that this was the image which had been outlined by Mr Jagland.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Santini. I call Ms Guţu.

Ms GUŢU (Moldova) said that everyone could take satisfaction from the fact that these important issues continued to be debated in the Assembly. The report by the Group of Eminent Persons on “Living Together” was to be welcomed and she congratulated Mr Toshev on his work; especially on integrating ideas from so many of the Council’s other reports on intercultural dialogue.

The text was full of the idea of multiculturalism. This was an idea which many statesman advocated, but it was also becoming an increasingly relevant concept for scientists and academics. However, the creation of a multicultural society did not guarantee that all individuals within that society would have a multicultural outlook and that was the risk highlighted by the report.

She wished to discuss the issue of parallel societies. The geopolitical space that Moldova inhabited was a multicultural space. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, there had been a great movement of people and this had led to the creation of parallel societies within Moldova. There were two main groups of people who had arrived in Moldova; the first had learned the national language and were willing to integrate, the second refused to learn the language and saw any attempts to bring them into the fold as an attack on their identity. This situation was a scourge for the citizens of Moldova.

Moldovan people from all backgrounds were unconvinced of the value of European citizenship and she did not believe this was an end worth pursuing in Moldova until its citizens were comfortable living together as one people.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Guţu, for your insights. I now invite Mr Heald to speak.

Mr HEALD (United Kingdom) – I do not know a great deal about Moldova but it is important that we should not live in the sort of parallel society that Ms Guţu described. The key to changing our society and living together is education – a point that is made in Recommendation 7. It is important that our schools should teach citizenship, and that when there are important cultural events for particular communities schools should explain them, so that we all come to appreciate them. For example, in my area the Sikh new year is an important cultural event; it is good that young people should learn about it.

As a member of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, I support what Mr Flego said. There is a very important role for the arts and culture – for dance, theatre and sport – in enabling people to come together and understand one another. In Hertfordshire, where I come from, there is a festival called “Rhythms of the World”. It is a music festival in which each community, from many different communities, has its artists perform. As in Strasbourg last night, there are musicians playing on every corner. It is a good thing because the communities come together and understand each other. Some of the music, when they jam, is cross-cultural. People hear African influences in European music. This is good and something that everybody enjoys. In the theatre, many of us have seen cross-cultural plays, dance and music. They are the way forward and produce the most marvellous performances.

It is not just in dance that we see this. When Russia and Britain were a little unhappy with one another a year or two ago, the most popular exhibition in London was of Russian art. Both governments were surprised by the thirst of the ordinary people of London for Russian art. Such cross-cultural dialogues are very important and something that this Organisation encourages. I hope many people will enjoy the Olympics in London next year. Again, this will be an occasion for us all to come together.

Finally, I just make the point that the Chairman of the UK Equality and Human Rights Commission has recently made it clear that he is concerned about the pressure on people of faith – people of all faiths, not simply one, including Christians. He has made the point that it may be fashionable at present to attack religion but we should all be tolerant. I agree.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Heald. I must now interrupt the debate. The debate will be continued this afternoon after the debate on reform of the Parliamentary Assembly.

(Mr Çavuşoğlu, President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Zingeris.)

THE PRESIDENT – I call Mr Hancock on a point of order.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) – My point of order relates to the meeting being held at 1.30 p.m. on the reform of the Council of Europe. I am seeking advice on the role that will be played by people who have tabled amendments. The normal practice when members table amendments in a committee is that they are then able to present their amendments, so that people can understand what lies behind the amendments. I would be grateful if you could tell me what procedures are being put in place to enable members who have tabled amendments to the report on reform of the Parliamentary Assembly, which is being dealt with by the Ad hoc Committee, to present their amendments so that they are properly understood.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Mr Hancock. Mr Sawicki, Secretary General of the Assembly, will meet you to explain the situation later.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) – If I may say so, that is not a satisfactory response, because other members have also tabled amendments. Mr Sawicki can come to talk to me, but what about the other members?

THE PRESIDENT – This has nothing to do with the President, which is why I wanted to let the Secretariat deal with it. This is directly related to the agenda of the Ad hoc Committee. These two things are independent. Thank you very much, Mr Hancock.

3. Address by Mr Serzh Sargsyan, President of Armenia

THE PRESIDENT – We now have the honour of hearing an address by Mr Serzh Sargsyan, President of Armenia. After his address, the President has kindly agreed to take questions from the floor.

Dear President, it is an honour and a pleasure to welcome you to this Chamber. Besides your experience as head of state since 2008, I wish to mention your extensive career in parliament and, above all, in government, as a former Prime Minister and, prior to that, successively, as Minister of Defence, Minister of Interior and National Security, Chief of Staff of the President, and Secretary of the National Security Council led by the President.

Dear President, you took office in very difficult circumstances in your country, following the 2008 presidential elections. Since then, you have taken several important steps, including the declaration of two general amnesties, to overcome the political crisis and to contribute towards dialogue and reconciliation in the country. These steps have resulted in the fact that the political stalemate in your country has generally been overcome and the political environment has been normalised. A new dialogue between all political forces has now started, and it offers great opportunities for the further democratic consolidation of Armenia. We hope that the same constructive approach will be used to strengthen dialogue at a regional level to solve lingering conflicts, and to promote greater stability and co-operation in the region.

Since your election, you have always attached great importance to co-operation with the Council of Europe in general and with the Assembly in particular. This willingness to engage in a dialogue is truly appreciated by our Assembly. I therefore wish to take the opportunity to assure you that we very much look forward to continuing our contacts with the Armenian Parliament and Armenian authorities in the same positive spirit.

Mr President, we look forward to hearing your address to the Assembly. You have the floor.

Mr SARGSYAN (President of Armenia) thanked the President, the Secretary General and members of the Parliamentary Assembly for their welcome. He expressed his gratitude for the crucial role that the Council of Europe had played in the process of democracy in Armenia. He considered it an honour to be able to address the Assembly today.

On 21 September 1991, Armenia had declared its independence. That was the fulfilment of a dream of many centuries. It reunited Armenia with the community of nation states. Since Armenia had joined the Council of Europe in 2001, it had been able to reaffirm its cultural history with other member states. He recalled the milestones in this process and the achievement of the people of Armenia. Armenian citizens had experienced oppressive regimes and were aware of the price of freedom. Freedom and peace had been their dream for centuries and it had been a long struggle to achieve those goals. Nevertheless, Armenia was now firmly on the right road and the people of Armenia had made an important and irreversible choice.

Armenia’s journey to membership of the Council of Europe had been unique and there had been some obstacles in the process, notably the artificial and illegal blocks experienced from some of its neighbours. However Armenia was aware of where it was going and considered this process to be a homecoming to Europe and the cultures and traditions to which it had belonged for centuries. The Council of Europe was the embodiment of this, as it defined Europe not as a geographical term but as a series of common values. The people of Armenia had paid a high price for believing in those values and at many points in their history had been silenced in brutal and violent ways. The Council of Europe was important in ensuring that such events did not recur and had played a vital part in the strengthening of democracy in Armenia. In Armenia, some people joked that the political system had three components: the government, the opposition and the Council of Europe. That reflected the strong involvement of the Council of Europe in the process of change under way in Armenia.

In 2008, Armenia had experienced serious problems and challenges to the process of change, but steps had been taken by the government to overcome this. In March 2008, there had been discussions with a number of partners, including the Council of Europe. Sometimes, there had been disagreement, but Armenia had nonetheless benefited from the wisdom of dialogue, which had been constructive. Without this process of dialogue, it would not have been possible to move forward. He expressed his thanks to Lord Prescott, Mr George Colombier and the Venice Commission for their constructive and consistent engagement.

The Armenian Government was consistent in its aim of ensuring progress along the democratic path. No doubt had been cast on its commitment to the democratic process, even at the darkest points in its history. This determination was at the heart of the government’s comprehensive and continuous programme of reform of its institutions. Armenians had learned to listen and to respect the views of others: the government and opposition no longer viewed each other as enemies and they were aware that strength did not lie in elimination of the other side. The government had learned not to reciprocate insults and was now consulting widely with stakeholders on key issues. The government did not shy away from constructive criticism; it had learned to live by another set of rules. This might seem an obvious approach to those member states of the Council of Europe for whom those principles were deep-rooted, but it remained an approach that it was absolutely critical for Armenia to adopt. The process of reform required a high degree of effort and perseverance but Armenia was committed to the process and ready to take all opportunities available to them.

Armenia was proud of its achievements in the last two decades when there had been a wide-scale building of democracy. Particular efforts to promote democracy, human rights and the rule of law had been made following the constitution’s adoption in 2005. Armenia had seriously and irreversibly aligned itself with the principles of the liberal world. The Venice Commission and the European Commission had been indispensible in this process. The European Court of Human Rights was a unique structure promoting human rights in the country.

The 2008 political crisis in Armenia had demonstrated vulnerabilities in the democratic system and had provided a new impetus to the government’s efforts. As a result of the crisis, there had been major revisions, including reform of the police force and reform of the judicial system, which was necessary in order to safeguard the independence of those institutions. There were also changes being made to the criminal code. Legislation on freedom of assembly was also being revised and was now underlined by a new philosophy which undertook to guarantee freedom of association rather than restricting it. A comprehensive review of legislation relating to corruption was high on the political agenda and an anti-corruption monitoring commission had been created to as a result. A public service law would require disclosure of property and income along with any potential conflict of interest. It also set out a number of ethical rules. Work was also under way on laws relating to television and radio, and defamation laws had been revised in order to ensure freedom of speech. Reforms over the next three years would harmonise changes made in these various areas. However, further improvements would be necessary to ensure Armenia’s democratic development and no doubt some of these changes would be painful.

The people of Armenia had been the main driving force behind changes and he took pride in their attitude, as this would help ensure a speedy and comprehensive process towards freedom, democracy and the rule of law. The changes made would be consolidated within a framework of diversity. The next milestone would be next spring, when elections would be held. The government was committed to ensuring that the electoral process was both fair and transparent.

The establishment of free and fair elections would not be enough – they had also to be seen to be so. A new electoral code had been developed after a review of the findings of the Election Observation Mission and he was confident that the new code would help the process of achieving free and fair elections. If Armenia were seen to have a fair electoral system, that would in turn help to generate full acceptance of the election result by the electorate. Public trust was essential and if developed this would strengthen the government’s accomplishment. No effort would be spared by the Armenian Government to achieve this. It was grateful to the Council of Europe for its important advice in this area and would continue to co-operate with all the institutional stakeholders and accept the advice and support offered in order to ensure a transparent election. There would be no shortcuts in the process: the government was not looking for praise, nor would it attribute any failure to achieve a fair election to the unresolved conflict.

He asked that the Council of Europe apply fair and consistent rules when assisting member states. He was very grateful to the OSCE Minsk Group for its efforts to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and he was hopeful that the involvement of the presidents of the member states of that group would help the situation. The most important contribution of the Council of Europe would be the encouragement of tolerance but it pained him that hotbeds of intolerance, xenophobia and racism existed within the lands represented by the Council of Europe. This was bad for the society there and across the whole of Europe.

In two days’ time there would be a trilateral meeting involving Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia and he noted that the co-chairs had exerted every effort to reach agreement on the principles of resolution. Armenia would be willing to make concessions but it could be difficult to persuade the people of Nagorno-Karabakh that all parties were equally committed. He wished to see progress and overall a safe future for young people. Final agreement would be implemented only when all racism was eliminated.

Surely no one would question the right of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh to live freely in their own land; he expected that the Council of Europe had no desire to harm the process that could lead to the achievement of that aim. The talks of the OSCE Minsk Group could lead to peace and must not be jeopardised. He was sure that the vast majority of Council of Europe colleagues would express good will towards this aim. He urged all to exercise some restraint in their remarks until the full situation was known.

He was certain of one thing: Nagorno-Karabakh would remain part of Europe. It had to be remembered that Karabakh society was part of the European family. He thought that the time had come for the Council of Europe to ensure the protection of the Karabakh people, their human rights and their civil society, and the promotion of democracy and tolerance in that region. The Council of Europe should engage first with the people of Karabakh before talking about them, and include them in its talks. He noted that the collapse of the Berlin Wall had happened 20 years ago but the people of his mountainous region were still waiting for their wall to come down.

Two years ago, diplomatic relations between Armenia and Turkey had been established and he was grateful for the assistance in this of mediators from national communities, including senior members of the Council of Europe. He regretted that the two countries were still in deadlock and he was unsure when the next opportunity for negotiation would be. Armenia had started the process with good intentions based on the principles of living together peacefully. He considered that Turkey’s denial of the Ottoman genocide of 1915 was at odds with Armenia’s tireless efforts to gain international recognition of it. However, he was determined that the current conflict would not be left unsolved for future generations.

It was important for Europe to have peace, stability and co-operation and obstacles to achieving this had to come to an end. He believed in a peaceful Europe with a common platform for its shared values, extending from the Atlantic to the Urals. Europe should not tolerate new dividing lines and the Council of Europe should become the arena for European-wide discussion aimed at increasing European unity. Member states shared a common responsibility to the future generation.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you for your address, Mr Sargsyan. 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, not making speeches. The first question is from Mr Vareikis, speaking on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania) – Mr Sargsyan, you mentioned in your speech your interesting experience investigating the events of 1 March 2008, but the investigation has not been finished. My question is: why? Do you not have the right people to enable you to finish it? If not, change them. Do you not have the legal basis on which to finish it? If not, change the legal basis. It is a question of your honour.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Vareikis. Mr Sargsyan, would you like to answer that question?

Mr SARGSYAN said that the investigation was not completed for the simple reason that the guilty had not been found. There were many reasons for this, which were generally understood. In Armenia, the best professionals had been engaged to work on the investigation and he had appealed to all institutions to help them. He was grateful for the expert help provided to Armenia by Commissioner Hammarberg. He had recently given a statement to the prosecutor of the case requesting that the authorities carry out a more detailed investigation and use all available resources to resolve the crime in a transparent manner. The investigation team would now be holding two meetings a month with the media and the public to ensure that all questions were answered transparently. If no arrests had been made by autumn, the prosecutor’s office would publish an interim report on the investigation.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next question is from Mr Rouquet, who is speaking on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr ROUQUET (France) asked how optimistic the President of Armenia felt about the OSCE Minsk Group seminar due to take place on 25 June.

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

Mr SARGSYAN said it was hard to be completely confident that the seminar on 25 June would achieve a positive outcome but he was absolutely sure that the OSCE Minsk Group was the right forum to act as a mediator. He would attend the seminar in Kazan with the desire to reach a common denominator and shared the desire of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh to have the quickest possible and fair resolution that would lead to lasting peace. The document under discussion in Kazan had been in existence for over a year and had been debated at many meetings. The document did not completely reflect the dreams of Armenians but it did provide an opportunity to embark on discussion for a general agreement that could be signed. Therefore there could be a constructive approach provided that Azerbaijan introduce any extra proposals.

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

Mr BUGNON (Switzerland) said he wished to ask a question about the security of the people of Armenia and of the whole eastern European region. Fukushima had shown the risks associated with nuclear power plants, especially elderly power plants based in areas prone to earthquakes. Could the president guarantee the safety of his country’s own power plants?

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

Mr SARGSYAN said that it was not just the opinion of his government that mattered. It was with joy that he could announce that Armenia had been visited by the International Atomic Energy Agency, whose team of inspectors had come to a favourable assessment and found the situation satisfactory. For quite a long time, efforts had been made to improve the security and operation of Armenia’s nuclear power stations and the government would continue to work with the IAEA as part of the international regime to ensure global nuclear safety.

The operation of nuclear power in Armenia would continue as a matter of policy. It did not pose a risk to the people of the region. Much greater risks were posed by the hyper-profits generated by other energy industries which supported the unsustainable purchase of arms and ammunition. Energy supplies to Armenia were currently being blockaded by two countries and this meant that Armenia had to rely on its own supply of nuclear energy.

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

Mr PARFENOV (Russian Federation) said he wished to return to the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh. His political group thought the issue was central to securing regional security. He asked what was preventing a solution being found through the work of the Minsk Group along OSCE principles.

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

Mr SARGSYAN said that Armenia had no problem coming to an agreement that would reflect the principles proposed in Madrid in 2007 to find a just and sustainable solution to the problem. There were three main principles. These were: the non-use or violence of the threat of violence; the territorial integrity of states; and the right to self-determination of regions. The problem was that Azerbaijan’s understanding of these principles differed from Armenia’s.

It was known that Azerbaijan had recently declared that it was willing to pursue a military solution showing that it was not abiding by the first principle. Armenia accepted the second principle which was why it had never presented any territorial claims either to Azerbaijan or to any international body. That was why the Republic of Armenia had still not recognised the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh. The third principle was both understandable and acceptable. Indeed, acceptance of that principle had allowed many states to emerge over the last two decades. However, Azerbaijan’s understanding of that principle was different and it accepted only a particular interpretation with regard to Nagorno-Karabakh. It was only willing to allow the region’s independence as part of Azerbaijan. He believed that self-determination should allow people to be masters of their own destiny. He concluded that Armenia had no problem in fully accepting the Madrid principles.

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

Mr PETRENCO (Moldova) – I have two questions to ask on behalf of our group. First, many people remember that when you were elected there was a lot of violence. Unfortunately, 10 people got killed. Has anybody been convicted? Secondly, the Bureau of our Assembly decided to create an Ad hoc Committee on Nagorno-Karabakh, according to Resolution 1416 of 2005. The committee contains the heads of the national delegations from Armenia and Azerbaijan. Without the participation of the representatives of Armenia, the work of that committee is useless. What is your opinion on the committee and your further participation in its work?

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

Mr SARGSYAN said that he agreed with the question; the Armenian delegation’s refusal to participate in the committee made it impossible for the committee on Nagorno-Karabakh to conduct its work. This was something the Assembly’s Bureau should have thought about before it established and then later resuscitated the committee without consulting Armenia.

It was unclear what the Assembly expected this committee to achieve. Nevertheless, the Assembly did play an important role in promoting peace and stability in the region. There were steps that the Assembly could take to improve the situation. For example, within these walls, the Assembly should encourage the Azerbaijani and Armenian delegations not to file reciprocal allegations at each other. This would promote an atmosphere in which a solution could be found through dialogue and that was why it had been recommended in the 2005 report of the committee.

Some believed that the work of the committee had stopped because its chair, Lord Russell-Johnston, had passed away. This was not the case, as could be seen by reading documents or remembering what had been said. The committee had no access to the peace negotiations and possessed no institutional or historic memory so was not in a position to provide useful suggestions.

The Assembly had no mandate to intervene in the matter of Nagorno-Karabakh. The matter had been assigned to the OSCE Minsk Group, which contained three of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. He could not think of a more credible body to discharge this role. He concluded that the committee would not produce a positive outcome and fully supported the decision of his delegation not to participate.

THE PRESIDENT – I call Mr Kox on a point of order.

Mr KOX (Netherlands) – I think the President was going to answer the first question from Mr Petrenco.

Mr SARGSYAN (Translation) – Please remind me what the first question was.

THE PRESIDENT – Mr Petrenco, would you please repeat your first question?

Mr PETRENCO (Moldova) – As many people remember, there was a lot of violence when the President was elected. Unfortunately, 10 people were killed. Has anybody been convicted yet?

Mr SARGSYAN said that it had been not just one person but many people who been arrested, including four police officers. He had gone into the details of the case in response to an earlier question. The reason the investigations had not been brought to a close yet was because not all the crimes had been solved.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next question is from Ms Postanjyan.

Ms POSTANJYAN (Armenia) said that Mr Sargsyan had told the Assembly that progress was being made in Armenia. She disagreed and said that elections had been rigged since 1995. She would like to ask when the government would act on the judgment from the International Court of Justice and hold extraordinary elections. She believed Mr Sargsyan should leave the country as it had been shown that authoritarian regimes never succeeded and so it would be easier in the long run if he left now.

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

Mr SARGSYAN said that he did not doubt that they had a difference of opinion. He had been kept informed of Ms Postanjyan’s views as her voice was often heard in parliament and she also took her debate to the streets and to the media, as she had a right to do. He respected her opinion but disagreed with her; people who make assertions should also be willing to listen to the response and it was important to hear the voices of both the opposition as well as those of one’s own colleagues. As the Assembly had heard, he had had meetings with senior officials of the Council of Europe and he was glad to report that their view was not the same as Ms Postanjyan’s.

He agreed that there was an important process of political reform under way and that it was useful to be open to criticism but critics should be in a position to offer specific and constructive feedback and inputs. He did not believe that it was necessary to hold an extraordinary election and, furthermore, the constitution of Armenia did not make this easy to arrange. He encouraged her to participate in the next ordinary elections, which would provide an opportunity for all voices to be heard. It was useful to have external input into elections and there would be monitors present from third-party countries to ensure that elections were conducted in a free and fair manner. He accepted that there was an atmosphere of mistrust towards elections in the country. Therefore, it was important that the elections were seen by the public to be free and fair.

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

Ms KEAVENEY (Ireland) – Gurbh maith agat, a Uachtaràn. Mr Sargsyan, you spoke about the promotion of tolerance and countering Armeno-phobia. Having researched the report on history teaching in conflict and post-conflict areas, which we passed here unanimously in July 2009, I wonder what efforts are being made in Armenian history teaching to support peace building and to develop a more positive image of the other for the next generation. Can you advise whether any collaboration with the Council of Europe and its very innovative work in this field in the past, present and, perhaps, the future might be deemed useful in Armenia or the wider region? Gurbh maith agat.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Keaveney. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Sargsyan?

Mr SARGSYAN said that he appreciated the work of the Council of Europe. Armenia was still learning, both as a government and a society. It was important to ensure that its response to intolerance was not itself an intolerant one.

Regarding the problem of Nagorno-Karabakh, he himself was very aware of the issues involved, having worked as Minister of Defence for 15 years. Since 1993, Armenia had been talking in terms of mutual respect and compromise. He asked when anyone had ever heard Azerbaijan speak in those terms. He was aware of a sense of responsibility towards future generations and stressed that racism and xenophobia were unacceptable. Many of those who now formed the core of the Azerbaijani army had been born since 1993 and had been raised in an atmosphere of hostility and animosity towards Armenia. He asked how it was possible, in those circumstances, for confidence-building measures to take place on the front line. These would be possible only if all sides were convinced that they were necessary.

He very much appreciated the Deauville statement by the Presidents of the United States, of France and of Russia. He agreed that people should be preparing for peace rather than war. Armenia had an advantage in this respect in that, unlike Azerbaijan, it had taken this approach for the last 20 years. Nevertheless, he remained hopeful that there would not be a war if only because the number of casualties on both sides would be great. Rather than investing resources into preparing for war, resources should be directed towards resolving the issues peacefully. This was even more important in light of the fact that, although Azerbaijan was a relatively wealthy country, both countries were still in need of financial resources.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Mr Sargsyan.

We must now conclude the questions to Mr Sargsyan. Mr President, on behalf of the Assembly, I thank you for your address and for the answers that you have given to the questions.

Before Mr Sargsyan began his address, one of our colleagues, Mr Hancock, raised a point of order. Our Secretariat has since contacted the Chair of the Ad hoc Committee and rapporteur, Mr Mignon, so I would like to give the floor to Mr Sawicki in order that he can provide clarification on this point.

Mr SAWICKI (Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly) – I apologise for not replying immediately to Mr Hancock’s point of order, but he will understand that I had to consult the Chair of the Ad hoc Committee on the Reform of the Parliamentary Assembly, Mr Mignon. I wish to let you know that the rules concerning the functioning of, and the proceedings in, the Ad hoc Committee are the same as those for the Assembly general committees. Mr Mignon has therefore asked me to inform all members of the Parliamentary Assembly that, during the Ad hoc Committee’s proceedings, he will be strictly observing the rules. That means that, during the Ad hoc Committee’s meeting, in line with Rule 46.4 of the Assembly Rules of Procedure, only members of the Ad hoc Committee will be allowed to speak – that includes speaking in favour of or against amendments.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Sawicki.

4. Date, time and agenda of the next sitting

THE PRESIDENT – The Assembly will hold its next public sitting this afternoon at 3 p.m. with the agenda which was agreed on Monday.

The sitting is adjourned.

(The sitting was closed at 1.05 p.m.)

Contents

1.       Changes in membership of committees

2.       Living together in 21st-century Europe: follow-up to the report of the Group of Eminent Persons of the Council of Europe

      Lord Tomlison (United Kingdom) on a point of order.

      Presentation by Mr Toshev of report of the Political Affairs Committee (Doc. 12631); presentation of opinions by Ms Kaufer on behalf of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee (Doc. 12653); by Mr Chope on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population (Doc. 12650); by Mr Flego on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education (Doc. 12651); by Ms Kovács on behalf of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Men and Women (Doc. 12640)

      Speakers:

      Mr Lipiński (Poland)

      Mr Moriau (Belgium)

      Ms Brasseur (Luxembourg)

      Earl of Dundee (United Kingdom)

      Mr Lecoq (France)

      Statement by Mr Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe

      Speakers:

      Ms Marin (France)

      Mr Harangozó (Hungary)

      Ms Gautier (France)

      Ms Naghdalyan (Armenia)

      Ms Gafarova (Azerbaijan)

      Mr Haugli (Norway)

      Mr Fournier (France)

      Ms Christoffersen (Norway)

      Mr Kalmár (Hungary)

      Ms Zohrabyan (Armenia)

      Mr Gross (Switzerland)

      Lord Boswell (United Kingdom)

      Lord Tomlinson (United Kingdom)

      Mr Vareikis (Lithuania)

      Mr Santini (Italy)

      Ms Guţu (Moldova)

      Mr Heald (United Kingdom)

3.       Address by Mr Sargsyan, President of Armenia

      Questions:

      Mr Vareikis (Lithuania)

      Mr Rouquet (France)

      Mr Bugnon (Switzerland)

      Mr Parfenov (Russian Federation)

Mr Petrenco (Moldova)

Mr Kox (Netherlands) on a point of order

Ms Postanjyan (Armenia)

Ms Keaveney (Ireland)

4.       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*

Pedro AGRAMUNT FONT DE MORA*

Arben AHMETAJ*

Miloš ALIGRUDIĆ

Karin ANDERSEN

Florin Serghei ANGHEL*

Miguel ARIAS CAÑETE*

Khadija ARIB*

Mörđur ÁRNASON

Francisco ASSIS*

Lokman AYVA*

Alexander BABAKOV/Sergey Sobko

Daniel BACQUELAINE

Viorel Riceard BADEA*

Denis BADRÉ*

Gagik BAGHDASARYAN/Zaruhi Postanjyan

Gerard BARCIA DUEDRA/Sílvia Eloïsa Bonet Perot

Doris BARNETT/Viola Von Cramon-Taubadel

Meritxell BATET LAMAÑA*

Marieluise BECK

Alexander van der BELLEN*

Anna BELOUSOVOVÁ

Marie-Louise BEMELMANS-VIDEC

Ryszard BENDER

Deborah BERGAMINI*

Andris BĒRZINŠ/Lolita Čigāne

Oksana BILOZIR

Brian BINLEY

Rosa Delia BLANCO TERÁN*

Roland BLUM/Christine Marin

Olena BONDARENKO

Louis BONTES/Tuur Elzinga

Mladen BOSIĆ

Anne BRASSEUR

Márton BRAUN*

Federico BRICOLO*

Han TEN BROEKE*

Patrizia BUGNANO*

André BUGNON

Sylvia CANEL*

Mevlüt ÇAVUŞOĞLU/Yüksel Özden

Erol Aslan CEBECİ

Mikael CEDERBRATT

Otto CHALOUPKA/Tomáš Jirsa

Igor CHERNYSHENKO/Oleg Lebedev

Vannino CHITI*

Christopher CHOPE*

Pia CHRISTMAS-MØLLER/Jørgen Poulsen

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Desislav CHUKOLOV/Aleksandar Nenkov

Boriss CILEVIČS

Ingrida CIRCENE

James CLAPPISON

Ann COFFEY/Lord Donald Anderson

Georges COLOMBIER/Bernard Fournier

Agustín CONDE BAJÉN*

Titus CORLĂŢEAN

Igor CORMAN*

Lena DĄBKOWSKA-CICHOCKA/Bronisław Korfanty

Per DALGAARD*

Cristian DAVID*

Giovanna DEBONO/Joseph Falzon

Joseph DEBONO GRECH*

Armand DE DECKER/Guy Coëme

Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA*

Karl DONABAUER*

Miljenko DORIĆ/Karmela Caparin

Gianpaolo DOZZO*

Daphné DUMERY

Earl of Alexander DUNDEE

Josette DURRIEU

Baroness Diana ECCLES

József ÉKES*

Lydie ERR*

Arsen FADZAEV/Ziyad Sabsabi

Frank FAHEY/Terry Leyden

Piero FASSINO*

Nikolay FEDOROV/Vladimir Zhidkikh

Valeriy FEDOROV

Relu FENECHIU*

Mirjana FERIĆ-VAC*

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ*

Axel E. FISCHER*

Jana FISCHEROVÁ/Dana Váhalová

Paul FLYNN

Stanislav FOŘT

Pernille FRAHM*

ario FRANCESCHINI*

Erich Georg FRITZ

Martin FRONC

György FRUNDA/Attila Bela Ladislau Kelemen

Guiorgui GABASHVILI*

Alena GAJDŮŠKOVÁ

Jean-Charles GARDETTO

Tamás GAUDI NAGY

Gisèle GAUTIER

Valeriu GHILETCHI

Sophia GIANNAKA/Dimitrios Papadimoulis

Paolo GIARETTA*

Michael GLOS*

Obrad GOJKOVIĆ

Svetlana GORYACHEVA

Martin GRAF

Sylvi GRAHAM

Claude GREFF*

Francis GRIGNON/Frédéric Reiss

Patrick DE GROOTE*

Andreas GROSS

Arlette GROSSKOST

Dzhema GROZDANOVA

Attila GRUBER*

Ana GUŢU

Sam GYIMAH/Lord Tim Boswell

Carina HÄGG

Sabir HAJIYEV/Sevinj Fataliyeva

Mike HANCOCK

Margus HANSON

Davit HARUTYUNYAN/Hermine Naghdalyan

Håkon HAUGLI

Norbert HAUPERT

Olha HERASYM'YUK

Andres HERKEL

Serhiy HOLOVATY

Jim HOOD/Joe Benton

Joachim HÖRSTER*

Anette HÜBINGER

Andrej HUNKO*

Ali HUSEYNLI/Sahiba Gafarova

Rafael HUSEYNOV*

Shpëtim IDRIZI/Kastriot Islami

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

Stanisław KALEMBA/Marek Wikiński

Ferenc KALMÁR

Karol KARSKI/Andrzej Cwierz

Michail KATRINIS

Pia KAUMA*

Jan KAŹMIERCZAK

Cecilia KEAVENEY

Birgen KELEŞ*

Krista KIURU*

Haluk KOÇ

Konstantin KOSACHEV*

Tiny KOX

Václav KUBATA/Kateřina Konečná

Pavol KUBOVIČ

Jean-Pierre KUCHEIDA

Ertuğrul KUMCUOĞLU

Dalia KUODYTĖ/Egidijus Vareikis

Athina KYRIAKIDOU*

Sophie LAVAGNA/Bernard Marquet

Darja LAVTIŽAR-BEBLER

Jean-Paul LECOQ

Harald LEIBRECHT

Yuliya LIOVOCHKINA*

Dariusz LIPIŃSKI

François LONCLE/Rudy Salles

Younal LOUTFI

Saša MAGAZINOVIĆ/Boško Tomić

Philippe MAHOUX

Theo MAISSEN

Gennaro MALGIERI*

Pietro MARCENARO

Milica MARKOVIĆ

Dick MARTY*

Jean-Pierre MASSERET*

Meritxell MATEU PI

Pirkko MATTILA*

Frano MATUŠIĆ

Sir Alan MEALE

Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA*

Evangelos MEIMARAKIS*

Ivan MELNIKOV*

Assunta MELONI/Marco Gatti

Nursuna MEMECAN

José MENDES BOTA*

Ana Catarina MENDONÇA MENDES*

Dragoljub MIĆUNOVIĆ*

Jean-Claude MIGNON

Dangutė MIKUTIENĖ/Birutė Vėsaitė

Akaki MINASHVILI

Krasimir MINCHEV

Andrey MOLCHANOV/Tatiana Volozhinskaya

Patrick MORIAU

Juan MOSCOSO DEL PRADO HERNÁNDEZ*

Lilja MÓSESDÓTTIR

João Bosco MOTA AMARAL*

Alejandro MUÑOZ ALONSO

Felix MÜRI

Philippe NACHBAR*

Adrian NĂSTASE*

Gebhard NEGELE*

Pasquale NESSA*

Fritz NEUGEBAUER

Baroness Emma NICHOLSON/Oliver Heald

Cora VAN NIEUWENHUIZEN*

Tomislav NIKOLIĆ*

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI*

Mirosława NYKIEL/Zbigniew Girzyński

Carina OHLSSON

Jim O'KEEFFE/Joseph O'Reilly

Sandra OSBORNE/Michael Connarty

Brian O'SHEA/Maureen O'Sullivan

Liliana PALIHOVICI

Elsa PAPADIMITRIOU

Vassiliki PAPANDREOU/Charoula Kefalidou

Valery PARFENOV

Ganira PASHAYEVA*

Peter PELEGRINI/Tatiana Rosová

Lajla PERNASKA*

Claire PERRY*

Marijana PETIR

Johannes PFLUG

Viktor PLESKACHEVSKIY*

Alexander POCHINOK

Ivan POPESCU

Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN

Christos POURGOURIDES*

Cezar Florin PREDA

John PRESCOTT

Jakob PRESEČNIK*

Gabino PUCHE RODRÍGUEZ-ACOSTA*

Milorad PUPOVAC/Gvozden Srećko Flego

Valeriy PYSARENKO*

Carmen QUINTANILLA BARBA*

Valentina RADULOVIĆ-ŠĆEPANOVIĆ

Mailis REPS*

Andrea RIGONI*

François ROCHEBLOINE

Luisa ROSEIRA*

Maria de Belém ROSEIRA*

René ROUQUET

Marlene RUPPRECHT*

lir RUSMALI

Armen RUSTAMYAN

Branko RUŽIĆ/Elvira Kovács

Volodymyr RYBAK*

Rovshan RZAYEV

Joan SABATÉ BORRÁS*

Džavid ŠABOVIĆ*

Giacomo SANTINI

Giuseppe SARO*

Manuel SARRAZIN*

Kimmo SASI*

Stefan SCHENNACH

Marina SCHUSTER

Samad SEYIDOV*

Jim SHERIDAN

Mykola SHERSHUN

Ladislav SKOPAL

Leonid SLUTSKY*

Anna SOBECKA

Serhiy SOBOLEV*

Maria STAVROSITU

Arūnė STIRBLYTĖ*

Yanaki STOILOV

Fiorenzo STOLFI

Christoph STRÄSSER

Karin STRENZ

Michał STULIGROSZ

Doris STUMP

Valeriy SUDARENKOV

Björn von SYDOW

Petro SYMONENKO/Yevhen Marmazov

Vilmos SZABÓ/Gábor Harangozó

Melinda SZÉKYNÉ SZTRÉMI

Chiora TAKTAKISHVILI*

Guiorgui TARGAMADZÉ*

Mehmet TEKELİOĞLU

Vyacheslav TIMCHENKO*

Dragan TODOROVIĆ

Lord John E. TOMLINSON*

Latchezar TOSHEV

Petré TSISKARISHVILI/Guiorgui Kandelaki

Mihai TUDOSE*

Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ

Özlem TÜRKÖNE

Tomáš ÚLEHLA/Pavel Lebeda

Ilyas UMAKHANOV

Mustafa ÜNAL

Giuseppe VALENTINO*

Miltiadis VARVITSIOTIS

José VERA JARDIM*

Stefaan VERCAMER/Dirk Van Der Maelen

Peter VERLIČ*

Luigi VITALI*

Luca VOLONTÈ*

Vladimir VORONIN/Grigore Petrenco

Konstantinos VRETTOS

Klaas de VRIES

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ

Dmitry VYATKIN/Natalia Burykina

Piotr WACH

Johann WADEPHUL*

Robert WALTER*

Katrin WERNER*

Renate WOHLWEND

Michał WOJTCZAK/Janusz Rachoń

Karin S. WOLDSETH/Øyvind Vaksdal

Gisela WURM*

Jordi XUCLÀ i COSTA*

Karl ZELLER*

Kostiantyn ZHEVAHO*

Emanuelis ZINGERIS

Guennady ZIUGANOV*

Naira ZOHRABYAN

Vacant Seat, Bosnia and Herzegovina*

Vacant Seat, Bosnia and Herzegovina*

Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote:

Hans FRANKEN

Doris FROMMELT

Kerstin LUNDGREN

Liliane MAURY PASQUIER

Edgar MAYER

Observers:

Sladan ĆOSIĆ

Alberto ESQUER GUTIÉRREZ

Aldo GIORDANO

Martha Leticia SOSA GOVEA

Alejandro ZAPATA PEROGORDO