2011 ORDINARY SESSION

_________________

(Third part)

REPORT

Twenty-Fourth sitting

Wednesday 22 June 2011 at 3 p.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

2.       Speeches in other languages are summarised.

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

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

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

THE PRESIDENT – The sitting is open.

1. Written declaration

THE PRESIDENT – A written declaration, No. 483, has been tabled, on Guantanamo prisoner Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, which has been signed by 28 members (Doc. 12660).

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

2. Address by Mr Mladenov, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Bulgaria

THE PRESIDENT – We now have the honour of hearing an address by Mr Nikolay Mladenov, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Bulgaria. After his address, the Minister has kindly agreed to take questions from the floor.

In welcoming you to this Chamber, I take the opportunity to thank you for your initiative to address the Parliamentary Assembly. Particularly at this crucial moment of reform of the Council of Europe, the strong personal involvement of the members of the Committee of Ministers and the dialogue and co-operation with the Assembly are of utmost importance for the future of our Organisation.

Throughout your political career, you have worked for the values and principles that the Council of Europe promotes – as a member of the Bulgarian Parliament and then of the European Parliament, as an election observer, as a consultant for the World Bank and several other international organisations and most recently as defence minister.

As foreign minister you have promoted an active and open policy, taking full advantage of Bulgaria’s important geostrategic position. Bulgaria, as a member of the European Union and NATO, can greatly assist the countries from the western Balkans in their Euro-Atlantic integration and thus bring more stability and prosperity to the region. It also plays a dynamic and constructive role in its relations with its other neighbours and in the Black Sea region.

In the light of our discussions this week in the Assembly on the so-called Arab Spring, I wish to give a particular mention to your recent initiative to organise the Sofia Platform, dedicated to the lessons that the emerging democracies in the Arab world can draw from the transition in eastern Europe.

Dear Minister, I am sure that my fellow parliamentarians are eager to hear your address and put questions to you. Thank you again for taking this opportunity to share your thoughts with us. You have the floor.

Mr MLADENOV (Minister for Foreign Affairs of Bulgaria) – Dear Mr President, Mr Secretary General, ladies and gentlemen and members of the Parliamentary Assembly, I first came to this Chamber in 2001 as a member of the Bulgarian Parliament. I attended the part-session that followed the 11 September attacks by al-Qaeda on the United States. The interesting debate on terrorism that followed in the plenary session of the Parliamentary Assembly, as well as everything that happened after that debate and after those terrible events in New York, influenced our lives as both parliamentarians and human beings. How much the world has changed since that day in 2001, when 4 000 died in a single terrorist attack. The Council of Europe was brave and open then and the Parliamentary Assembly spoke with one voice, condemning terrorism and the murder of innocent human life.

Today, ladies and gentlemen, we are faced with a challenge of historic proportions, the scale of which can only be compared with the scale of change that engulfed central and eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Some call it the Arab Spring, and I recently heard someone call it the “quicksand of change”. Others have referred to it as the perfect storm and yet more have called it the Arab revival. We are still in the process of understanding the revolutions in the Arab world, but one thing is sure: no elected politician in Europe and no member of this Assembly or of our national bodies would deny that the historic scale of the change coming to the Mediterranean is unmatched in history.

Many comparisons have been drawn between what is happening now and that which happened 20 years ago in central and eastern Europe. The historical context is different, the political traditions are different and so are the people, and one might even say that the reasons for what is happening are different, but one unifying goal allows us to compare the strength of the voices of the people who went out on the squares of Cairo and on the outskirts of Tripoli with those who stood up in Prague, in Sofia and in Berlin and demanded the end of communism. That is the call for liberty echoed by thousands of people across the Middle East and amplified by voices from Morocco to Yemen, throughout the world.

That voice had two parts, the first said, “Kefaya”, or “Enough”, and asked for no more corruption or government mismanagement. The people of the Arab world stood up against corruption. Who can better guarantee that the standards implemented in the countries in our southern neighbourhood will be based on fairness and the rule of law than the Council of Europe? Who else has been the guarantor of human rights throughout Europe, the member states and our democracies?

The people of the Arab world stood up not only against corruption, but for democracy. They wanted to participate in their government, to be able to elect their representatives and to hold them accountable. Who but the Council of Europe in our continent guarantees that the highest standards of secular government and democracy are implemented across Europe? Who guarantees that if not the conventions, agreements and institutions that we have set up in this magnificent Assembly?

The people of the Arab world stood up against corruption, demanding democracy and fair economic opportunity. I stress the word “fair” because it is important that people throughout our southern neighbourhood have access to not only the opportunities that we have in Europe, but the guarantees that they can succeed on their own merit and skill. Where, if not in Europe, are such opportunities best guaranteed? Where, if not in the biggest single market in the world – the European Union – are there such guarantees?

I believe very strongly that it is the role of both the Council of Europe and the European Union to be involved, engaged and visionary in their support for democracy and fair economic opportunity and against corruption in the Arab world. The people of the Arab world stood up with one voice, demanding their dignity. You can call it the Arab Spring, or the quicksand of change, or the Arab revival, but what it is is a revolution of human dignity, in which hundreds of thousands of people demand to be given the standards that we in Europe hold dear and as part of our tradition of democracy and government. Who, if not us, can provide the lessons that we have learned over the past 20 years from the tremendous changes we have lived through, particularly in central and eastern Europe?

If it were not for the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of communism, many countries that are represented in the Parliamentary Assembly today and are signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights and a number of other international instruments would not be part of this family. The experience that we have gained over the past 20 years could be a useful well of information and knowledge for those who are embarking on this road.

It is not up to us to tell people in our neighbourhood how to run their governments or how they should organise their states, but it is up to us to understand that what we have learned and our experiences can provide a useful beacon of hope and a tool for those who want to embark on a similar transition. That is why, in early May, I hosted a conference in Sofia to which you referred in your introduction to my speech, Mr President. The Sofia Platform conference brought together bloggers from Egypt, students from Yemen, government officials from Morocco and Tunisia and the rest of the Arab world, as well as activists, politicians and non-governmental organisations from central and eastern Europe who had been involved in changing our countries over the past 20 years. It was an honour that the conference was opened by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Mr Jagland, and the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon. Their presence reiterated the strength of the message that we can all carry together to our friends in the Middle East and north Africa: you are not alone in your struggle to develop institutions built on the rule of law, accountable government and free and transparent governance.

With that conviction, following the conference, I decided to come to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to speak to you not as a diplomat or as a government official, but as a politician. The strength of our democracies in Europe is that the politicians drive the agenda of change and the political leaders of our countries set the agenda for the future. The Council of Europe can be proud because it has guided so many nations and societies on the path to democracy and because it embodies the fundamentals of European civilisation today. The understanding that, in a democracy, you have not only elections, but a guarantee of the rule of law, that human rights are not just written on paper, but should be implemented and observed by all institutions, that freedom of speech is sacrosanct, and that an independent judiciary and impartial administration are key to the functioning of every state.

The Council of Europe has amassed a huge amount of knowledge and experience of transitions and support for countries in transition. Yesterday, the Assembly was visionary enough to create the Partnership for Democracy status and, on behalf of Bulgaria, I am happy to welcome Morocco as the first country to subscribe to that new initiative of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. That important initiative creates a dialogue between politicians in Europe and Morocco. I hope that, in the coming months, you will extend that partnership to other countries, such as Tunisia and Jordan – countries that want to move forward on the democratic road.

However, colleagues, beware: when we create these instruments, it is extremely important to focus on the real work that comes with them and to make sure that, when we create institutions, we use them to transfer our knowledge and experience, and not to rubber-stamp other people’s work. The leadership of this Parliamentary Assembly, and your political leadership when you go back to your national capitals and parliaments, should sound a call – a call for Europe and the Council of Europe to support political reforms in north Africa and the Middle East; a call to engage at parliamentary level and through the Venice Commission, supporting those who want to create constitutions, based on the rule of law, that enshrine the fundamental principles to which we subscribe; a call to create a legal environment that guarantees that corruption is uprooted in that part of the world and tackled as soon as possible; a call for more transparency in the way that governments are managed and held accountable; and a call to guarantee that the media are free from their owners’ interference and subscribe to the multitude of ideas and initiatives in every society.

To do that, the Council of Europe must come to the front of efforts. It should not run things from the back. It should not support other people; it should lead them. That is why I very much welcome, on behalf of Bulgaria, the initiative of the President of this Assembly, who believes it is time to call a summit of the Council of Europe’s member states. It is time for the political leaders of those countries to come together around three issues. First and foremost, there is an important issue that affects many members of the Council of Europe and the EU: the accession of the EU to the treaties. Secondly, there is the finalisation of the extremely important process of reform in the Council of Europe that was initiated by the Secretary General and President of the Assembly. Last but not least, we face a tremendous challenge in our southern neighbourhoods, and in how we address our friends across the Mediterranean. We should not tell them how to run their lives, but should support them in making the changes that we believe are in the interests of civil society, freedom and democracy. On that point, Bulgaria will back and support wholeheartedly all initiatives that come from the Council of Europe, because we believe strongly that it is our common goal to expand the community of values of which we are part.

Before I close, I cannot but mention the events of the past few months, with which I am sure the Council of Europe has been engaged. I cannot but mention the situation in Libya, which continues to deteriorate. One person – Colonel Gadaffi – has stood against the voice of the nation. It is important for all of us to move forward and provide not just humanitarian but political support, including support for the road map drafted by the Transitional National Council in Benghazi, so that we can move forwards towards a political solution to the crisis in that country.

I cannot fail to mention the deteriorating situation in Syria, a country that is close to Bulgaria historically and geographically; the largest Arab community in my country is from Syria, and there is a large Bulgarian community in Syria. Indeed, I visited President Assad in the middle of April, carrying two messages. The first was, “End the violence now.” The second message was, “Move forward with the most radical and innovative reforms – reforms that even the people on the streets of Syria have not yet demanded.” Unfortunately, since then we have seen more people killed, more brutality and anger, and more attacks on civilians. There have been a number of words spoken about reform, but now is the time to call strongly on the Syrian authorities, and to say, “Enough tanks; enough repression. Move forward with the agenda of reform. Do not tell us what you will do – do it.”

I cannot but mention the situation in Yemen, a country that is key to the security of the whole Arabian peninsula, and much more than that. I hope that the Vice-President of Yemen, who now effectively yields the power of a president, will stick to the plan that has been agreed to by the Gulf Cooperation Council, and will work with the opposition and the students who are still protesting on the streets of Yemen to end the violence, to hold quick elections, and to put in place the guarantees that we need to make sure that the country comes back from the brink of violence.

For all those conflicts, and for many others both in our regions and around the world, we should appreciate that what we say in our parliaments, in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, in the European Parliament and before the media has reverberations. I hope that the message that we carry from this day forward will not be one of simply putting forward our demands, but that we will say what we would be willing to put on the table in support of change in the Middle East.

The European Union can support the mobility of people in the Mediterranean by providing visa facilitation to students and others who want to study and develop their careers in Europe. It can provide increased market access so that we can support the economies of these countries. It can provide money to support change. However, the Council of Europe holds the key to the institutionalising in many of those countries – at least in those that wish for it – of the fundamental guarantees that we want to see embedded in a secular government that is based on the rule of law and the protection of human rights.

In times like this, we must choose whether to be on the right side of history, or on the wrong side. I am sure that, given the wisdom of this Assembly and under its esteemed leadership, the Council of Europe and its Parliamentary Assembly will not just choose, but lead the choices of others, to be on the right side of history in embracing liberty and the call for freedom, in supporting those who want to build secular societies founded on the rule of law and the protection of human rights, and in sharing the experience of what we have gone through in our part of the world over the past 20 years. If we do not do that – if we are not up to that challenge – we will bring about a self-fulfilling prophecy. We will be giving tools to those who are radically opposed to the way in which our societies are structured and run, to those who believe that a radical hijacking of religion can be used to subjugate a civilisation and stop it developing. That is why I believe that it is very important for all of us – politicians, governments and non-governmental organisations – to do everything that we can in support of those who want to build countries on the foundation of secular government and the rule of law. Otherwise, we will face what Samuel Huntington years ago called the clash of civilisations; we will make that a reality. We will build walls around ourselves. We will be afraid of the rest of the world.

I say this as the Bulgarian Minister for Foreign Affairs. I come from a country that is home to Christians, Muslims and Jews, and to Bulgarians, Armenians, Turks and Roma. It is the country that brings together the diversity of Europe. I could not stand idle while we failed to meet the challenge of this generation. Therefore, ladies and gentlemen, I am convinced – based not just on my presence today, but on a number of conversations that I have had with the leadership of the Council of Europe and with a number of political leaders across Europe – that it is indeed our understanding and our common goal that we have to be practical, innovative and specific in our support for transformation in the Mediterranean and north Africa.

In that, I hope that you will heed the call for the Council of Europe to take the leading position. Again, I feel that that is important given the traditions and the role that this Organisation has taken for democracy in Europe, particularly over the last 20 years. Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Mr Mladenov, for your most interesting address. Members of the Assembly wish to put questions to you.

I remind colleagues that questions must be limited to 30 seconds and no more. Colleagues should be asking questions, not making speeches.

I call Mr Lipiński, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party. He is not present.

I call Mr Iwiński, on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr IWIŃSKI (Poland) – Minister, you were talking about the lessons of the transformations in central and eastern Europe. However, that experience was significantly different in Poland and Hungary on the one hand, and Romania and the German Democratic Republic on the other. Do you think that similar great pluralism exists now among 22 Arab countries? Let us compare, for example, Morocco and Saudi Arabia. Finally, do you think that some of these lessons should apply to Bulgaria?

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

Mr MLADENOV – Thank you for that question, Mr Iwiński. I believe that we in central and eastern Europe all come from different countries. The reasons for change coming to the Middle East as well are the reasons why change came to central and eastern Europe. That was the same, but the circumstances in every country are different. Our collective knowledge of what has been built and developed from Poland to Bulgaria can be applied in a different way to different countries. I would not compare Egypt to Tunisia, or Morocco to Yemen.

One of the most fundamental lessons that we all have learned is that the circumstances in each country are quite different and that it takes strong political leadership to move forward on reforms in the context that is relevant to each country. Just as the context in Poland was different, the contexts for Bulgaria and for the Czech Republic were different. The end goal, however, must remain the same: institutionalising in the fundamentals of the legal system of each country those values that make this Council of Europe the defender of human rights and democracy in Europe.

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

Ms MEMECAN (Turkey) – I welcome you to our Parliamentary Assembly and thank you for your inspiring address, Mr Mladenov. I also thank you for the statements that came from the Bulgarian Parliament strongly condemning the attacks against the Muslims in Banya Bashi mosque last May. Will you please tell us what further concrete measures your government is taking to stop the escalation of racist verbal and physical violence against the Muslim community in Bulgaria?

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

Mr MLADENOV – Thank you, Ms Memecan. Indeed, what happened in the mosque in Sofia was an extremely unfortunate and despicable incident. It was condemned not only by the political parties in parliament and by the government, but in a strong declaration by the National Assembly, adopted by consensus of all political forces. The government services have instituted an investigation to see who were the real perpetrators of these violent acts. I can assure you that it is the wish of the government and the political establishment in Bulgaria to see that such cases are never repeated – not just in our country, but anywhere else in the region.

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

Mr BENDER (Poland) – Bulgaria is fundamentally an Orthodox Christian country with a significant Muslim minority. Can Christian-Muslim relations in Bulgaria be an example for European countries? In Bulgaria, Catholics are an even smaller minority, but there is an Apostolic Nuncio in Sofia. Do you consider your country’s relations with the Holy See important?

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

Mr MLADENOV – Thank you, Mr Bender. Indeed, you are right. Relations between the different religions and denominations in Bulgaria can serve as an example not just to other parts of Europe, but to other parts of the world. However, there are a number of specific circumstances. First, Bulgaria is a country that has, for hundreds of years, been populated by Orthodox Christians, Muslims, Jews and representatives of other religions. Secondly, Bulgaria has had its stellar moments in ethnic tolerance and its dark periods of ethnic intolerance. Indeed, during the Second World War, Bulgaria was the only country to save its Jewish population from the death camps of the Nazi regime. Unfortunately, years later, the same civil society was not present to stand up to the acts of the communist dictatorship expelling the Turkish minority into Turkey. Understanding the good sides of our own history and acknowledging the bad makes us very strong in our ability to defend ethnic tolerance.

Also important is the fact that, since 1989, there has been a concerted political effort on behalf of most political forces in our country – the vast majority of them – not to play with issues related to ethnicity or religion. I am sure that that consensus will continue to be upheld. Unfortunately, that has not been the case in many of our neighbours in the western Balkans. We saw the destruction and the terrible injustices in many countries during the collapse of the former Yugoslavia.

The example that Bulgaria can serve today is also important for other countries, because in the Arab world there are many countries in which Christians and Muslims live together side by side, whether in Egypt, Syria or other parts of the region.

On the relationship with the Holy See, that relationship is important for us and we recently celebrated 20 years since the establishment of diplomatic relations between Bulgaria and the Vatican.

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

Mr PETRENCO (Moldova) – Frankly, I expected to hear more in your speech about the situation in Bulgaria. On behalf of the group, I want to put to you a question about the state of monuments in your country. Some, such as the monument to the Soviet army in the centre of Sofia, are regularly vandalised. The recent case, from three days ago, is one of the most shocking. What is your government going to do to protect our common European heritage and history, and to protect monuments from being vandalised and destroyed?

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

Mr MLADENOV – Thank you for that question. The Bulgarian Government attaches equal importance to all monuments to our history. We do not separate them into different groups or categories. What happened over the past few days in Sofia was an interesting attempt by some artists to reinterpret history. Some in our society agree with that attempt; others do not. The government has been quite quick in restoring the former state of the monument and will continue to protect it, as well as all other monuments, against attacks by extremists on all sides.

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

Mr FOURNIER (France) said that, last January, concern had been expressed at the failure of a number of countries to execute judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. Bulgaria was among those countries where the length of the delay was particularly concerning. Bulgaria was exhorted to take measures in a number of fields, including the behaviour of the police, the treatment of aliens and the excessive length of the judicial process. He asked what actions it had taken in response and what actions it would be taking in the future.

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

Mr MLADENOV – Thank you for that question. Last week in Sofia, I played host to the President of the European Court of Human Rights, Jean-Paul Costa. We had a long discussion about the mechanisms that are included in the government’s strategy. I shall highlight just three issues. First, the government will create a mechanism for addressing complaints within our national legislation. Secondly, we have initiated a review of the judgments that have come out of the European Court of Human Rights to identify loopholes in legislation that need to be closed to protect the rights and obligations of our citizens. Thirdly and importantly, I am personally pressing for stronger engagement with the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights in providing training for the judiciary, so that it can fully comprehend and integrate the practice of the European Court of Human Rights. The government is fully committed to implementing the strategy that it has put in place, and strongly believes that the best guarantee of the protection of the human rights of every citizen is through national legislation. We should definitely not turn the European Court of Human Rights into an appeals court for immigrants.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Mladenov. The next question is from Mr Gaudi Nagy from Hungary.

Mr GAUDI NAGY (Hungary) – In the past two decades, Bulgaria has taken visible and effective steps to implement the principal values of the Council of Europe. Nevertheless, your neighbouring country, Romania, plans radical change in its regional organisation, changing its demographic composition to the detriment of national minorities, among them 1.5 million Hungarians. This violates Recommendation 1201, which is obligatory. Can you imagine such an action happening in your country or any other country within the Council of Europe?

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Gaudi Nagy. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Mladenov?

Mr MLADENOV – Thank you for that question. I assure you that Bulgaria’s view is based entirely on its constitutional law. Bulgaria recognises that human beings have fundamental human rights that need to be protected no matter what their ethnic or religious background. This is fundamental to our legislation and it is the understanding on which we base all decisions and legislative proposals.

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

Ms GROZDANOVA (Bulgaria) – How can eastern Europe assist in the process of democratisation by taking account of its mistakes with hindsight?

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

Mr MLADENOV – Thank you very much for that question. That was very much the topic of our discussion in Sofia in early May. I am convinced of two things. First, it is not the successes but the failures of transition over the past 20 years that it is most important to share with our partners in the Mediterranean. Helping others avoid the mistakes that you yourself have made is twice as valuable as telling them how to get things right. That is lesson No. 1. Lesson No. 2 is that, as we embark on a process of transition in the Mediterranean, we should look carefully at the experiences of negotiated transitions in eastern and central Europe. If we do not address the issue of transitional justice right now, in many of these countries there will be failures that we will have to address in the future.

Addressing transitional justice also means not hiding from looking into the archives of the past – at what happened under each regime – and being open about that. It is also very important for us to use the experiences of central and eastern Europe to bring young political leaders from these countries together. The Council of Europe has in the past supported an initiative that has worked very well in Bulgaria – the School of Politics. It has worked in other countries as well, including Georgia, Serbia and Russia. It is a beautiful network of initiatives that has been funded and supported by the Council of Europe. Now the Bulgarian Government will support the extension of the work of the School of Politics in Bulgaria to at least one country in the Middle East and north Africa. The goal of that project, of which it is important to be reminded, is to bring political leaders, journalists and non-governmental actors together at the same table. Throughout the course of a calendar year, it provides them with different training and common experiences to which they can refer in the future.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Mladenov. I now call Ms von Cramon-Taubadel to ask the next question.

Ms VON CRAMON-TAUBADEL (Germany) thanked the minister and said she had a question regarding domestic policy on the Roma. She asked what measures had been put in place in order to implement the points made by the Court on the integration of the Roma. She also asked whether, by the end of this year, there would be in place an action plan to implement the EU framework for national Roma integration strategies put forward by the European Commission.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms von Cramon-Taubadel. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Mladenov?

Mr MLADENOV – Thank you very much for the question. The problems that the Roma face in Bulgaria are cross-sectoral. I am fully convinced that it is not a matter of separating them and putting them in a little box to one side. It is a matter of addressing them through our heath care system and our system of social protection, and of making the administrative system much more sensitive to the problems faced by Roma people. They have traditionally – not only over the past 20 years – faced discrimination. They have had fewer working opportunities, fewer educational opportunities and less access to health care. These are the issues that the government is now trying to address through a comprehensive approach.

I can give two successful examples The first is the initiative to have health care mediators in Roma communities who provide access to health care – an exemplary project. Secondly, there are educational mediators who help children who are under-achieving in school to reach the standards that are required. This is a long-term investment. There are many other things that need to be done, including in housing, particularly in some communities.

Finally I shall say something broader on the subject, which is important. I am very wary, when speaking about problems related to Roma communities in Europe, of saying that this is a European problem. Every time somebody says that something is a European problem, they are saying, “We don’t want to deal with it.” We must approach this at a national level in a co-ordinated manner, with the support of European institutions, whether the Council of Europe or the European Commission, and whatever the subject is. This is the approach on which Bulgaria bases its policies. It is fundamental to our contribution to the European Roma strategy, which was put forward by the Hungarian presidency of the European Union.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Mladenov. The Earl of Dundee is not here, so the last question is from Mr Katrinis.

Mr KATRINIS (Greece) said that a few days before the earthquake in Japan and its devastating consequences at Fukushima, the Bulgarian Government had decided to continue the operation of the Kozloduy nuclear power plant, with its two 1 000 megawatt reactors, until 2030. This was instead of continuing with the new power plant it had been planning in Belene and therefore was a problem. He asked whether Bulgaria was considering reviewing its nuclear policy as Germany had done. In particular he asked whether Germany and other countries in south-east Europe could consider themselves safe while the Kozloduy power plant was still in operation.

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

Mr MLADENOV – With due respect to your questions, Mr Katrinis, I believe that issues relating to the safety of nuclear power stations should be left to those who understand the specifics and the details of how to make these facilities safe. I can assure you that the Kozloduy nuclear power station has gone through the stress testing that has been instituted by the European Commission, that it is up to internationally recognised standards and that any new project that we initiate, including the Belene nuclear power station, to which I believe you were referring, will be taken forward on the basis of the highest standards that exist in Europe for all member states.

The question of whether or not a country continues to accept nuclear energy has been divisive in some countries and has led to policies that implement a move away from nuclear energy. This debate has a different aspect in Bulgaria, as Bulgarian society believes very strongly that we must diversify our energy sources. Our country is almost 100% dependent on the import of Russian gas. A couple of years ago, when the tap was switched off in the middle of the winter of 2009, by Moscow – this was not done by us – we ended up paying the highest price in terms of losses to our economy.

We wish, first, to diversify the sources through which we receive energy – that very much includes co-operation with Greece on building interconnectors so that we can reverse the flow of gas pipelines. We also wish to review and expand the routes through which we receive our gas supplies. That is why projects such as Nabucco and South Stream are extremely important for us. Last, but not least, the Bulgarian Government is investing in a number of schemes that strengthen the position of green energy in Bulgaria. That is the extent of the debate we are currently having.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Mr Mladenov.

That brings to an end the questions to Mr Mladenov. Mr Minister, I thank you most warmly on behalf of the Assembly for your address and for the remarks that you have made in the course of questions.

3. Organisation of debates

THE PRESIDENT – This afternoon the business is full. We agreed on Monday morning that speaking times in the debates this afternoon would be limited to three minutes. In order to allow sufficient time for replies to the debates and the votes, we will have to interrupt the list of speakers in the first debate at about 6.10 p.m. and in the second debate at about 7.45 p.m.

Are these arrangements agreed?

They are agreed.

4. Reform of the Parliamentary Assembly

THE PRESIDENT – The next item of business this afternoon is the debate on the report titled “Reform of the Parliamentary Assembly” (Doc. 12627), presented by Mr Mignon on behalf of the Ad hoc Committee on the Reform of the Parliamentary Assembly.

I remind you that we have already agreed that in order to finish by 7.15 p.m., we shall interrupt the list of speakers at about 6.10 p.m. to allow time for the reply and the vote.

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

Mr MIGNON (France) thanked the President and colleagues and said that it had been an honour to be entrusted with such a difficult, time-consuming and laborious task and to look at ways in which the work of the Parliamentary Assembly could be reformed. This work was not done by him alone. He had been supported by an ad hoc committee which consisted of representatives from all political groups and all committees within the Parliamentary Assembly. This work had been undertaken in a positive manner and decisions had been taken unanimously. The report was relevant to the Parliamentary Assembly but also to the Council of Europe as a whole. In particular, he welcomed the work of the Secretary General on this subject, which had done under difficult circumstances.

The report was also relevant and of interest to the staff of the Council of Europe as it would represent reform for them as well as for future generations of the Parliamentary Assembly. He stressed that the ad hoc committee had tried to ensure that consultation was as broadly based as possible and included all those parliamentarians who had wished to contribute. The leaders of the political groups, of the national delegations, and of the committees had all provided input. In only 13 minutes, it was impossible to set out all the reasons why reform was needed. It was important that everybody who wished to would have the opportunity to speak. For the report to be successful, it had to be accepted by everyone.

The world had changed and the member states of the Council of Europe had increased from 23 to 47. It was therefore impossible for the Parliamentary Assembly to work in the same way as it had done 20 or 30 years ago. The report put forward a number of proposals which were based on principles of common sense. He believed that, in general, the Parliamentary Assembly worked well but that it was possible for it to be even more visible, relevant and responsive to change. The report looked at what worked and what did not in depth and objectively. Work would continue with the Secretary General, the European Union and European institutions. He hoped that, in 60 years’ time, members of the Parliamentary Assembly would continue the noble task which had been started in 1949 and that they would be proud of the work the current Parliamentary Assembly members had done today. He expressed his interest to learn what other members of the Parliamentary Assembly had to say on the report and its proposals.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Mignon. You actually spoke for only four minutes, so you have nine minutes left in which to reply to the debate.

In the debate, I first call Mr von Sydow, who will speak on behalf both of the Socialist Group and the Political Affairs Committee.

Mr VON SYDOW (Sweden) – I will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group now – I am happy to do that. In our view, there is more scope for politics and democracy in today’s troubled Europe. Of course, there is also scope for more effective representative democracy. We have the international collaboration of 47 countries here, and we are part of a reforming scheme for the Council of Europe. We need better parliamentary scrutiny, more interaction and more follow-ups between us, the Secretary General and the Committee of Ministers. We know that from experience and even from statistics and research. We know that there is a need for fewer reports and for the reports to be of higher quality and more relevant. All of us agree, in general, that the number of committees should be reduced, but how?

Allow me to start with some of the important issues before us. Yes, we need a committee on equality and non-discrimination. We need that because it concerns hundreds of millions of men and women. Yes, we need a committee on migration, refugees and displaced persons, because thousands of individuals are concerned. And yes, we need a committee on social affairs, health and sustainable development, because we need a tripartite committee to address those issues.

At all times, the need for social welfare commitments and environmental policies and regulations must be balanced, but what about the economy? How can we improve and regulate it? What about taxation? How can we take all this into account in our reports?

The Bureau is not a political body: it is a procedural body. The political groups are political bodies, but we act within the scope of the committees. The most convincing argument is that this is the core duty of domestic politics, but in today’s Europe it is very difficult to govern a representative democracy. This is what we must take into account when we consider the committee structure. We must merge the aspects of social welfare, environmental protection and development with business and taxation in every report that we bring to the Hemicycle.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Marquet, on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Mr MARQUET (Monaco) thanked Mr Mignon for a remarkable piece of work and said that he was pleased to confirm that everyone had been consulted during its production. There was an absolute need for the Assembly to investigate what was the most effective way it could operate. He did not share the earlier view expressed by Mr von Sydow: he believed that economic matters did govern the world and the recent nuclear disaster at Fukushima had shown that matters relating to energy were vital as well. There could be interesting discussions relating to the rapprochement of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development, the Social Health and Family Affairs Committee and the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local Regional Affairs. He could not understand why the EBRD reports did not come under economic questions as the sinews of war.

He would be supporting Ms Naghdalyan’s amendment. Enormous thanks were due to the staff who assisted in the production of reports and they deserved to be consulted as well. He thought that it would be useful to have a political committee, which would ensure the Council of Europe could remain close to the public it represented.

He noted that it was the 60th anniversary of the Social Charter and that the second and third generations who had been born since then deserved the full attention of the committees to the protection of their human rights.

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

Mr R. WALTER (United Kingdom) – I thank the rapporteur for the work that he has done in this report. As a member of his sub-committee, I can say that this was a complex task. We were examining not only the rules of the Assembly, but its very purpose. Why are we here? I believe that we are here to defend the conventions, most importantly the European Convention on Human Rights. We are here to scrutinise and hold to account the inter-governmental organisation of the Council of Europe, most importantly the Committee of Ministers, the Secretary General and the officials of the Organisation.

We are also the conscience of the peoples and parliaments of Europe in the fields of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. We are here to take forward that agenda. My group, the European Democrat Group, has been discussing this kind of reform package for several years. In fact, we brought to the sub-committee a radical proposal. There are those who have complained about the reduction to eight committees, but we started by proposing just three committees – one on democracy, one on human rights and one on the rule of law. We know that that was an extreme position, but it stimulated the debate and focused our work on the real purpose of this body.

The report is a compromise, but it will make this Assembly more relevant, more effective and more visible. We have to be more visible. If we talk to our constituents, the media and our own parliaments, we are often met by blank faces, and people know nothing of what we do. We must improve and this document is a start in that improvement. It deserves our support in its entirety. It is a well-balanced report with well-balanced proposals that will once again make us relevant, visible and effective.

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

Mr KOX (Netherlands) – This morning, the Secretary General spoke of the Council of Europe as “one of the leading European organisations” alongside the European Union. Mahatma Gandhi would have said “That might be a good idea.” Indeed, it might be, but reality tells us another story. Just watch the European media and see how little they report the ideals, ideas and activities of the Council of Europe. I am aware that former President Martinez used to say that we should make not headlines but history. But I am more in line with my predecessor Jaakko Laakso, who always said that we should make history and headlines.

In order to achieve that goal, reform is needed – reform of the Organisation as such and reform of this Assembly. Today we deal with that aspect, described in the report, for which we thank the rapporteur and the ad hoc committee.

As we discuss this report, we have to bear in mind that, whatever change in structure we implement, a change in culture is far more important. A Council of Europe, once meant to prevent new wars in Europe and guarantee peace and prosperity along the lines of democracy, human rights and the rule of law, can function properly only if people, politicians and governments in European countries share the idea that we should all seriously comply with what could be called the only true European constitution – the European Convention on Human Rights together with the European Social Charter. If we had an agreement in Europe that the rights and obligations mentioned in those two conventions should guide us all – people, politicians and governments – we would have a far better, more democratic and more social Europe than we do now. We would also have a better known and more relevant Council of Europe as our guiding organisation. This Assembly would also play a more important role as the parliamentary dimension of value-oriented pan-European co-operation.

The reality is quite different to what we preach and, in my group’s opinion, that has to do with the fact that there is a large gap between the words of the European Convention on Human Rights and the day-to-day policy of most of our countries. While we proclaim respect for human rights, they are violated day after day, as shown by the huge case load of the European Court of Human Rights. While we proclaim equality, social gaps and all other inequalities are becoming ever larger. While we proclaim democracy, more and more major decisions are being taken not by elected parliaments but by big companies and big capital. When heads of government meet at the weekends, they always conclude by saying that they hope that the all-mighty financial markets will react positively to their decisions on Monday. So long as such a culture continues, changes in the structure of the Council of Europe and of this Assembly will not help us to make history.

It is wise, nevertheless, to update our Organisation and our Assembly and therefore my group supports most of the proposals of the ad hoc committee. We ask the Assembly, however, to listen to the voices in our committees that propose that we merge our Committee on Economic Affairs and Development and our Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs without their being merged with the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee. I propose that the Assembly should accept that amendment.

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

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) thanked Mr Mignon for his report outlining possible reform of the Parliamentary Assembly. He felt that the Organisation had spent too long looking inwards at its own reform, which had limited its opportunities for communication with the outside world, and that was not a good thing. He recognised that the proposals provided an opportunity to remedy this. There were a number of minor changes but also serious changes were proposed to the structure of committees. He welcomed that, as it would give Estonia, with just three representatives, a greater chance to participate in the work of the Assembly and its committees and increase control of its regulation.

There would also be the opportunity for the Parliamentary Assembly to get more involved in follow-up work, for example, considering the Russia–Georgia war and the issue of human rights in the Northern Caucasus. Such disputes could not be healed in the short term and he was aware that short-comings of democracy were not solved by reports. However, they could be healed by concentrating on individual problems. This report, and the amendments proposed, were very important but one had to remember that political will was even more vital.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Herkel. I call Mr Pourgourides, who will speak on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

Mr POURGOURIDES (Cyprus) – I shall make only two very short remarks, so that our colleagues have sufficient time for the real debate on this important matter. First, let me congratulate Mr Mignon on his report. His task in preparing the report, “Reform of the Parliamentary Assembly”, was not at all easy.

My first comment is made on my behalf as Chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights and not on the committee’s behalf. I address it to the Secretary General of the Assembly, who is sitting next to you, Mr President, and although it is strictly speaking ultra vires for a parliamentarian, I shall do it none the less. Once the new structures are in place, will you please ensure that the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has sufficient – by this I mean more – staff so that it can continue to play a leading role in the Assembly? It is sufficient for me to mention Mr Dick Marty’s reports on secret prisons and extraordinary rendition, on organ trafficking in Kosovo and on the UN and EU terrorist blacklists, as well as our work to ensure that member states abide by the judgments of the Strasbourg Court, for everyone in this Chamber to understand what I mean.

My second comment is, in a way, closely linked to my first. The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights made an important contribution to the Assembly’s reform process. I refer to the information report presented by our colleague, Marina Schuster. We are convinced that the Assembly should strengthen its investigatory powers and be given more teeth in order to ensure – to quote from Mr Mignon’s report – that we remain the “unique, politically visible statutory organ of the Council of Europe”. If we do not take a leading role in doing so, nobody else will.

I have the great honour and privilege of chairing a committee that has undertaken outstanding work and we must ensure that the reforms we accept today strengthen the position of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights to ensure that it can continue to ensure that the rule of law and human rights remain at the forefront of the Assembly’s work in the years to come.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I now call Ms Naghdalyan, who will speak on behalf of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development.

Ms NAGHDALYAN (Armenia) noted that reform process was a very topical subject for the Parliamentary Assembly, which had been in existence for over 60 years. It would help the Assembly achieve its objective to ensure the highest possible level of respect for human rights within Europe.

It was no coincidence that the economic crisis was occurring at the same time as reform. The economic crisis had led to high levels of unemployment and poverty and had shown that the economic system was not fully viable. It had transferred the debts accrued by the private sector to the taxpayer, which was unfair. The Parliamentary Assembly had to be reformed to ensure that it fulfilled its role. Both the Council of Europe and the Parliamentary Assembly had to work to bring the issue of the economic problems to the forefront of discussions. The Political Affairs Committee was an appropriate forum for difficult economic issues facing European families that had to be discussed. A socially responsible market economy was needed, as was more control over the executive and legislative powers. The financial centres of Europe had to be controlled and there had to be levers to ensure control over the decision makers in the financial sectors.

She considered it odd that at this important time the vital work of the Parliamentary Assembly could be weakened by reform when what was needed was more attention and more time given to scrutiny of economic systems. She had concerns over the merging of three committees into one to save money and considered that very important economic issues would be marginalised and not dealt with in a manner of sufficiently high quality. She warned that human rights could not be had on the cheap without risking a sad result.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Maury Pasquier, who is speaking on behalf of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee.

Ms MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) expressed her sincere thanks on behalf of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee to Mr Mignon and the members of the ad hoc committee for their proposals and also all the members of the Assembly who had been involved in the debate. In these situations, the process was as important as the outcome.

These proposals underlined the Council of Europe’s resolve to achieve beneficial change both for itself as an organisation but also more importantly for the citizens whose rights it existed to protect. The Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee had submitted detailed proposals and had studied the outcome of the report carefully and had proposed one amendment, which she would discuss later.

The Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee was one of the most productive committees; the themes that the committee covered included access to health care and social issues which were extremely important as signified by the recent anniversary of the universal social charter. Her preferred solution would be to maintain the status quo and keep the committee constructed as it was. If the Assembly decided it did want to go forward with reform then she would prefer that it did so along the lines of the ad hoc committee’s proposals rather than merging it with either the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men or the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population. She hoped members would show their support for her committee during the debate. The one amendment her committee had proposed questioned whether it was necessary for the committee’s title to contain reference to social cohesion

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Chope, who will speak on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population.

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – May I say how much our committee welcomes the report? We congratulate Mr Mignon on it, and we thank him very much for the extensive consultation. The report satisfies many of our objectives; we think that it will help to focus the Assembly on the issues on which it can have a real impact. It will help the Assembly to improve on its follow-up work, which is vital, and it will breathe new life into the committees, which, after all, are where the bread-and-butter work of the Assembly is done.

We are obviously pleased that the importance and relevance of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population is recognised in the report. We have put forward two amendments. Amendment 11 would change the title of the committee, so that it mentioned not just migration and refugees, but displaced persons, as dealing with issues relating to displaced persons has been, and continues to be, a major part of the work of our committee. Amendment 10 would simply provide the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and International Affairs with a little bit more leeway and flexibility when looking at the mandates of the different committees, so that it can decide on population issues. We have made it clear throughout our discussions that population is an issue that could be dealt with by our committee or other committees. This modest amendment would give the Rules Committee a bit of flexibility on that.

The rapporteur has shown in the past few months that he is a very good listener. It is incumbent on members of the Assembly to reciprocate today; we should enable the rapporteur to listen carefully to us, but should also listen carefully to what he has to say, so that when we finish today’s proceedings, we do not have a report that lacks coherence because it has had a number of inconsistent amendments made to it. As the rapporteur is keen to ensure a consistent report, I hope we will listen carefully to his responses to the various amendments that are put forward.

In summary, our committee supports the reforms. We believe that they will complement the wider reforms to the Council of Europe effectively and ensure that, collectively, we can make a bigger impact with our work in years to come.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Flego, who will speak on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education.

Mr FLEGO (Croatia) – By reforming the Council of Europe, we intend to achieve better visibility and, if understand correctly, better efficiency, internal and external. It has been said today that perhaps we would do better if we did less. In some or perhaps many cases, there are too many, too detailed, reports. I personally would welcome more general reports paying more attention to common questions, instead of dealing with very particular issues.

To achieve greater internal efficiency, committees would need guidance on proposing motions, and the Bureau needs clearer rules on approving motions. I would welcome such practices. I do not plead at all for any restrictive mechanism, such as an annual quota, or any other linear limitation.

External efficiency could be achieved through greater implementation of our valuable resolutions and recommendations. We need better follow-up on our documents. The issue is how we transfer our documents to our national parliaments and governments. Perhaps it should be up to the heads of our national delegations to inform their national parliament about the Assembly’s resolutions, or perhaps we could inform the Parliamentary Assembly annually of national implementation. Perhaps we could do both.

The Committee of Ministers is supposed to be more engaged in the implementation of our recommendations. That is why reforms to both the Parliamentary Assembly and intergovernmental bodies should be very well co-ordinated and synchronised. It would be an enormous pity if the reformed intergovernmental bodies could not follow the Parliamentary Assembly’s activities and implement our documents. Only by working together more closely can we achieve better internal and external efficiency and visibility.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Papadimoulis, who will speak on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs.

Mr PAPADIMOULIS (Greece) thanked the President and congratulated Mr Mignon and the ad hoc committee on the excellent work that had been done. There was a mistake in the current proposals but, if this could be corrected, it would result in an even better package of reforms. The mistake was the proposed creation of a mega-committee combining the Economic Affairs and Development Committee, the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee and the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs. This would result in one mega-committee that had to deal with everything, but could ultimately end up dealing with nothing.

He supported Mr Mignon’s approach to examining this issue from a common-sense view and reflecting the reality of the situation that the Parliamentary Assembly found itself in. The social question continued to be of the utmost importance. The crisis in Greece was clearly rooted in unemployment and poverty and for this reason he believed the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee should be maintained.

However the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs Committee had agreed unanimously that it should be reformed and merged with the Economic Affairs and Development Committee. The issues of the economy and the environment went hand in hand and the Fukushima disaster showed the need to balance economic and environmental concerns. The merger of those two committees would send a message to the citizens of Europe that those two issues should be considered together.

The Assembly did need to make reductions in its budgetary expenditure. This might have been done by issuing fewer reports or by taking other technical measures.

He concluded by appealing to Mr Mignon and the ad hoc committee to support his amendments to merge the Economic Affairs and Development Committee and Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs Committee together, thus highlighting the links between the two issues, while keeping Social, Health and Family Affairs separate. A mega-merger should be avoided

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Mendes Bota, on behalf of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men.

Mr MENDES BOTA (Portugal) – I thank the rapporteur and the members of the ad hoc committee for producing a well-thought-out reform proposal that is wise, coherent and forward looking. If we are serious about our engagement as members of this Assembly, we should realise that this reform is necessary. If we are serious about our engagement, we should realise that we do not want just any kind of reform.

The reform should not be dictated by the need to save money. Nor should it aim at cutting structures for the sake of cutting structures, or be the result of amendments aimed at disruption more than constructing something that makes sense.

The reform should aim at strengthening the Assembly’s political relevance, and at enhancing its effectiveness and visibility, as well as the involvement of its members. In the committee’s opinion, Mr Mignon’s reform proposals are the best suited to achieve those objectives.

The committee welcomes the proposals to hold a free debate, have more time for committee meetings during sessions and limit the number of committees to which a member can belong. In addition, the committee believes that it will not be possible to achieve the objectives of the reform without touching the structure of committees.

Also in that regard, we support the proposals made by the ad hoc committee, which would review the five structures and mandates of committees so as to ensure that they were more in line with the core business of the Council of Europe, focused on areas where the Assembly could make a difference, and allowed for a better division of responsibilities among committees, therefore contributing to better sharing of responsibility, visibility and engagement between Assembly members.

On the proposal to transform the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men into a committee on equality and non-discrimination, our committee expresses its full support.

Equality and non-discrimination are core business of the Council of Europe and areas in which our Organisation has consolidated expertise and credibility. Such a new committee would have clear counterparts in the Council of Europe’s intergovernmental structures, as well as at national level, where numerous bodies exist that deal with equality and non-discrimination on all grounds. The extent of the problem of discrimination in Europe fully justifies the existence of a specific committee dealing with it.

Needless to say, our committee does not support ill-advised amendments that confuse gender equality with a social problem or would like to sweep it under the carpet.

The Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men praises Mr Mignon’s report as a tremendous achievement in devising a coherent reform proposal. Following the reform, I hope that we will be seen by European citizens as the real parliament of human rights.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Holovaty, on behalf of the Monitoring Committee.

Mr HOLOVATY (Ukraine) – On behalf of the Monitoring Committee, I congratulate Mr Mignon on his report.

Our committee held an exchange of views on the draft report at an earlier stage of its preparation. I am glad to note that our conclusions concerning the need to make uniform the requirements for tabling ordinary motions and initiatives to open a monitoring procedure have been taken into account by the rapporteur and integrated in the report.

As now proposed in the text before us, both categories of motion will have to be signed by at least 20 representatives or substitutes belonging to at least five national delegations. That is justified in particular because the initiative to open a monitoring procedure should have meaningful support to ensure that it is not abused for particular and narrow interests. Otherwise, the committee shares the rapporteur’s ideas and supports his proposals.

I want to draw your attention to another issue and another report that is directly relevant to our discussions here. That report will be presented on Friday morning; I am talking about the progress report of the Monitoring Committee.

In the light of the forthcoming 15th anniversary of the establishment of the Monitoring Committee, we have decided to launch a discussion on the future of the monitoring procedure. We find that timely also in the context of the current reflection on the reform of the Assembly so as to consider ways to increase the efficiency and impact of the monitoring procedure.

I suppose that we all agree that the overall positive assessment of the Assembly monitoring achievements remains unquestionable and that the monitoring should continue. However, the question is, what should be the modalities?

We are confronted with a number of countries having been subject to the monitoring procedure for many years and not seeming to have advanced meaningfully in the fulfilment of their obligations and commitments. That is sometimes a cause of justified frustration among other member states anxious for the credibility of the Organisation, as well as in the countries concerned. On the other hand, our periodic reports on member states that are not subject to a monitoring procedure do not seem to have the desired impact.

In such a situation, we must face up to the inevitable questions. Should we modify our strategy and identify new measures or look for a completely renewed framework with a view to achieving the same ultimate goal?

I invite you all to join the Monitoring Committee in its reflections and to express your views during Friday’s debate, which in a way will constitute a continuation of this debate and which will, of course, mark only the beginning of the discussion, not the end.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Vareikis, on behalf of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and International Affairs.

Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania) – I warmly welcome the report and the draft resolution presented by the ad hoc committee.

A greater impact for the Assembly’s actions, both externally and in-house, which the draft resolution aims to achieve, has for many years been the core business of the Rules Committee. Since 2006, the committee has been reflecting on what steps could be taken to counter the lack of visibility that the Assembly has been facing over the past years. In particular, I want to mention the 2006 report on the institutional balance at the Council of Europe by our former President, Peter Schieder, and the 2007 report on “Improving the participation of members in Assembly plenary sessions and committee meetings”, by our colleague Andreas Gross.

The committee has come up with several suggestions and is grateful that today most of them have been taken up by the ad hoc committee in its draft resolution.

The crucial element of the reform is the strengthening of the follow-up to the Assembly’s texts. I would like to point out that in 2008 the Assembly adopted Resolution 1640 on “Use by Assembly members of their dual parliamentary role – both national and European” and its recommendations are still entirely valid.

The rules committee is preparing a new report on the follow up to Parliamentary Assembly activities by the Committee of Ministers, which would allow, I am convinced, the exploration of some new avenues for implementing this proposal. I especially welcome the proposal in paragraph 6.4.2, “to transfer budgetary and financial matters” to the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs. Combining the budgetary functions with the institutional facet of its activities would allow the committee to propose to the Assembly, as the next step, a comprehensive strategy on the implementation of the reforms.

Finally, I invite the Assembly, after a certain period of time, to accept the practical outcome of the reform that we are discussing today. As Sir Winston Churchill once said, “However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.” The report currently being prepared by the rules committee on self-evaluation by parliaments contains some useful points, from which the Assembly could draw inspiration in the future when evaluating its activities to assess their scope, impact, cost and the value that they add, with a view to managing its resources efficiently. Thank you for your attention.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Vareikis. The next speaker is Mr Salles from France.

Mr SALLES (France) congratulated Mr Mignon on an excellent report. As everyone knew, these reforms were very important. A certain amount of disagreement was to be expected, as with all such reports and this was reflected in the large number of amendments which had been tabled. However, this also demonstrated that the subject was one of much interest to members of the Parliamentary Assembly, who had paid it great attention. He praised the visionary courage of the rapporteur whose report would play an important role in ensuring the future visibility of the Parliamentary Assembly. He would not comment on all the draft resolutions but had three points to make regarding visibility, which was necessary for the work of the Assembly. A recurrent criticism of the Assembly was that its work and actions were too fragmented and that it was sometimes difficult to see what was being done. He favoured the restructuring of the plenary sessions and a reduction in the number of reports and recommendations.

On the subject of the proposed reduction in the number of committees, the current organisation did not reflect the range of relevant subjects that were dealt with; for example there were some cross-cutting issues, such as gender equality. This should therefore be extended in to a new committee on equality and non-discrimination. The proposals did not imply a hierarchy between first and second-generation rights, both of which were important. However it was important that the committees were better defined and it did not imply that any subject was being diluted. Speaking as a member of the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee, he felt that grounds should be given for opinions and when commenting on judgments; the sub-committee should not be afraid to criticise, following the example of France.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Salles. The next speaker is Mr Gaudi Nagy from Hungary.

Mr GAUDI NAGY (Hungary) – I congratulate Mr Mignon and his group on preparing this ambitious report and the proposals for the reform of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. I am a little embarrassed because I am a non-aligned member of the Assembly. This is the first time that I have had the chance to speak in this advantageous position. I am grateful for this opportunity and hope it will be good practice for the future. It could be because there are many sympathetic points in the report, which would strengthen the effectiveness of the Assembly and improve its members’ involvement in its work. The non-aligned members of the Assembly are discriminated against by the current operation of the Assembly.

One year ago, I made a personal statement to the Assembly in the hope that there would be some reform that would provide an opportunity for non-aligned members to take part more effectively in the work of the Assembly. For example, we have no kind of influence on, or information from, the Bureau. The list of speakers list is compiled in a way that means the first position for non-aligned members could be the 38th position. I ask Mr Mignon and all the competent persons to produce as much as they can from these recommendations, which are good for the members who are not representatives of any political group.

As a human rights lawyer, I believe that human rights activity and rule of law issues should not be connected to political groups. The dominance of the political groups in this important body should be diminished at least a little. The private activities of any members should be strengthened. National minority efforts could be given more impetus and reflected on further in the Assembly. The amalgamation of the national minority efforts in the new committee could threaten the importance of this matter.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Gaudi Nagy. Ms Circene is not here, so I call Ms Schuster.

Ms SCHUSTER (Germany) said that discussion on the reform of Parliamentary Assembly was important. The reforms had the important aim of guaranteeing the political relevance and visibility of the Assembly and the Council of Europe to the outside world. She was delighted to welcome a group from her home region of Franken, whose members were here to observe and take back to Franken what they had learned. Turning to points she had previously highlighted, she said that the role of the rapporteur should be strengthened, particularly with regarded to follow-up work: Christos Pourgourides’s work on human rights violations was a good example of this. It was important that reports were not just put in drawers but that work was done to ensure their implementation. Member states also had a duty to meet with the rapporteurs and to allow them to conduct fact-finding missions in their countries. As an example, she drew attention to the case of Christoph Strässer, who had still not received a visa to travel to Azerbaijan in connection with his work on political prisoners.

The secretariat supported rapporteurs well; however, given the vast range of human rights violations that the Council of Europe was faced with, additional temporary staff should be guaranteed in order to provide assistance when needed.

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

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

Ms PASHAYEVA (Azerbaijan) thanked Mr Mignon and congratulated him on the report. Increasing the efficiency of the Parliamentary Assembly would be important for its future functioning. Proper control mechanisms in order to implement declarations of the Parliamentary Assembly should not be limited to future resolutions but also those from the past. For example, Resolution 1416 agreed by the Parliamentary Assembly six years ago had still not been implemented by the Armenians. Earlier that morning, the President of Armenia had addressed the Parliamentary Assembly. She was sorry that there had not been enough time for a representative from Azerbaijan to ask certain questions. If she had the opportunity, she would have asked when Armenia was intending to implement the resolution.

The President of Armenia had mentioned the ad hoc committee on Nagorno Karabakh but the Armenian delegation had not taken part in the negotiations of that committee. He should have commented on the implementation on the resolution of 1416, which would ensure important necessary steps allowing refugees to return to their country. He had made incorrect insinuations about Azerbaijan. In particular, he had said that Armenians in Azerbaijan wanted self-determination, however there were national minorities in every country and if all were to make those demands it was necessary to ask what the resulting situation would be. She therefore found it necessary to speak up on that subject.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Pashayeva. I ask all members to concentrate on the subject in hand. I call Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin.

Ms de POURBAIX-LUNDIN (Sweden) – Thank you, Mr President. Although the word “change” was on everybody’s lips during Barack Obama’s campaign, I know that changes and reforms are difficult to make in big organisations. That is why I am very impressed with Mr Mignon’s work and that of the ad hoc committee, and I thank them very much for it.

There are two reasons why reform is needed in the Council of Europe. The first is that the Parliamentary Assembly needs to be more relevant, more listened to and more concerned with protecting our core values – human rights, democracy and the rule of law. We all have our own responsibility in that regard.

The second reason is that we have to save money. Thus, when this report was first put together, the Swedish delegation assembled a small group to deal with this issue. All our parties were involved and we all agreed on the comments we sent to the ad hoc committee. Our delegation is pleased that most of our main points are included in today’s report.

We said that the Council of Europe should follow up its reports, recommendations and resolutions, rather than just produce new ones. Our second point related to the need to merge committees, and it is good that this has been taken up. However, I have a word of warning: we should not create more new sub-committees, because, if we do that, we will have gained nothing. It is a good idea to keep a committee on migration and refugees because, as we can see when we look around the world today, this issue is very important.

Our delegation tabled some amendments, and I understand that the ad hoc committee is positive about two of them. I refer to our proposals that the Monitoring Committee and the committee that deals with procedure should be excluded from the idea that someone can be a full member of only two committees. I say that because those two committees are appointed by political parties, so they are different. A very important part of the Council of Europe’s work is in observing elections, so it is vital to systematically collect the experience that people gain when they go to observe elections. We also need to improve our co-operation with other international organisations. I hope that we vote for that approach so that we can do this in a good way.

Thirdly – I know that we might not vote for this – we believe that we should have set voting times. I know that there are practical problems with that proposal, but I want our turnout to be high. When we go to observe elections, we always talk about the importance of turnout in providing credibility, but sometimes when we vote here 20 or 30 members are present, but more than 300 should be present. Perhaps more people would be here if we had set voting times. I know that there are difficulties with this proposal and that we may have to return to it. Once again, I thank the rapporteur and the entire ad hoc committee.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin. I call Ms Vėsaitė.

Ms VĖSAITĖ (Lithuania) – I am in favour of improving the effectiveness of the work of the Assembly, but I cannot agree with the report’s proposed way of doing that. There is a direct link between human rights and the economic situation of people in Europe, as we can see in what is happening on the streets of Europe, where young people are deprived of the right to work. This Assembly, and its Committee on Economic Affairs and Development, was the only forum where we could discuss the challenges to Europe posed by the global economy. Our reports had an educational purpose for parliamentarians in the Council of Europe so, although I understand that we should save money and limit the number of committees, we should not create one mega-committee out of three committees, as that goes too far. The Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee should be left as it is.

If we are looking to secure green growth for Europe and we are looking for innovative strategies with which to save the environment, we could merge two committees – the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development and the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs – but we should not merge three. If we really are results oriented, we must listen to what the people from those two committees are telling us.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Vėsaitė. I call Ms Woldseth.

Ms WOLDSETH (Norway) – First, I wish to congratulate my dear friend, Mr Mignon, on his great work and concrete ideas on how we can reform our assembly. I am happy that everyone in the Assembly was consulted during the process. This is our Assembly and we must work together to be politically relevant and efficient.

On behalf of the Norwegian delegation, I give our support to the reform process and the resolution we are debating. From the outset, we have supported Secretary General Jagland in his work to make the Council of Europe more relevant, effective, visible and cost-efficient.

Democracy, human rights and the rule of law are and should be our core activities. The Council of Europe is an important driver for Europe coming together as a continent where all citizens enjoy democracy in just societies. But, to stay relevant, we must co-ordinate with the EU, the OSCE and other organisations with overlapping mandates.

Reform and change are often associated with resistance and challenges. We all need to focus on the larger picture and the overall aim of our organisation. Turf fights are not productive.

In January, I pointed out that the number of committees was very high. The Norwegian delegation welcomes the proposal to reduce this number and we think it is a great idea to establish a new committee on social cohesion, health and sustainable development, replacing committees in the present structure. We believe that this will contribute to more focused committee work and avoid overlap.

The Norwegian delegation also fully supports the transformation of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men to the committee on equality and non-discrimination. We think that this is more in synch with developments in Europe.

It is high time to review the Assembly’s communication tools to make them more efficient and visible. We welcome the suggestion in paragraph 5.5. Our website is outdated, the extranet is not user-friendly and we use paper as if computers and electronic tools were not available.

Mr Mignon addresses the importance of our reports being more co-ordinated with the rest of the Council of Europe. It should be as a matter of course that rapporteurs draw on in-house expertise and that work is not duplicated in different parts of the organisation.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Kovács.

Ms KOVÁCS (Serbia) – First, I welcome the report by the ad hoc committee as an ambitious effort to reform our Parliamentary Assembly, which can be proud of its achievements over the last 60 years.

We are all aware of the fact that this report is the result of a delicate and long discussion and an effort to achieve a reasonable balance. As a member of one of the committees that will be affected by the changes, I support the transformation of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men into the committee on equality and non-discrimination, to deal with the enlarged concept of non-discrimination, not only towards women, but national and other minorities.

The PACE should indeed become more visible, more effective and, of course, more politically relevant. As one of the members of the group working on a new website back home in my national parliament, I wish to highlight how important improved visibility is. Good websites are more user-friendly and interactive, and thus more useful to both members and the general public. That can be achieved via specific profiles of Assembly members, linked to the website of their national parliaments as well as their personal websites, if they have them.

At the moment, the interaction between the Assembly and national parliaments is unfortunately very low and poor. As some of the Assembly members are inactive, it is necessary to improve Assembly members’ involvement, while reinforcing our interaction with national parliaments.

I share the general approach of the report and support some of the views and proposals it contains, including the idea of filtering motions on the basis of transparent and objective criteria; the view that the PACE should deal with a more limited number of issues of greater interest to the general public; the introduction of leading themes for sessions; and a free debate in a specific period during the plenary week, reserved for members to speak freely on any subject they would like to raise.

I personally welcome the recommendation to make us more effective, which involves sending our adopted texts directly to the chairpersons of the national committees concerned. That would help a lot, because sometimes it is extremely difficult to keep an eye on all the working documents and all the decisions made.

Bearing these points in mind, I sincerely hope that the reform process will be conducted successfully, to the benefit of all of us.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Cebeci.

Mr CEBECİ (Turkey) – The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe can be proud of its role as the only truly pan-European forum where elected representatives from the whole continent can conduct debates on current issues. The last 60 years have furnished us with valuable experience on how best to structure these debates and follow them up in a politically relevant and effective manner that serves the interests of our citizens.

The momentum created by the Council of Europe reform process initiated after the election of Secretary General Jagland should certainly be echoed in the Parliamentary Assembly. I therefore welcome the great work done by Mr Mignon, one of the most hard-working members of the Assembly, and the members of the ad hoc committee.

As part of its reform, the Assembly should strengthen its role in shaping the European political agenda by acting as an initiator of debates that deal with pressing issues related to democracy, inter-cultural dialogue, sustainable development and many other relevant domains. Also, selectivity can be a key factor in ensuring the quality of our reports.

We should continue to invite key figures and political leaders to enrich our debates. While performing our work, we also need to co-ordinate with other international organisations, in order to avoid duplication.

I also support the proposed modifications to the working methods and structure of the Assembly. On the restructuring of the committees, the creation of one single committee on social cohesion, health and sustainable development will strengthen the work currently conducted by three different committees, by better co-ordination and the avoidance of duplication.

Furthermore, I fully support the modernisation of the Assembly’s working methods and efforts aimed at administrative rationalisation. In my role as rapporteur on the budgets and priorities of the Council of Europe for 2012-13, I prepared two reports that have already been discussed in this part-session. I asked for the necessary funds to enable this modernisation effort. We should also be open to voluntary contributions that could make this work possible.

As for the need to ensure diversity of speakers in plenary debates, as mentioned by Mr Mignon, this issue is a key factor to improve debate quality and content.

Finally, I thank Mr Mignon again for his great work.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I now call Sir Alan Meale.

Sir Alan MEALE (United Kingdom) – I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak in this debate, not least because I wish to congratulate the rapporteur and all members of the committee, who have worked very hard on this issue. At times, we all have opportunities to disagree among ourselves, but there has been a full and frank debate about this reform and it has stood the test of time. We have not just been debating it for the past few days; it has been discussed for months and I congratulate everyone involved.

You will not be surprised, Mr President, to hear that I want to speak in favour of the part of the report that suggests the amalgamation of two committees, the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development and the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs. They are a perfect fit when we consider the subject areas they cover, such as the economic crisis faced by the world at the moment, the effects of which our member states are feeling, and the energy issues that have been at the fore for some years now and will be worse in years to come. Other such subjects include environmental degradation and the topic with which I am regularly involved, which is climate change, as well as resource depletion, food security and – last but not least – unemployment, which is important.

You will also not be surprised to learn that I am against another amalgamation suggested in the report, which is that of the two committees I have mentioned and the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee. I am not critical of the work that committee – quite the reverse – and I think it deserves more attention than being lumped together with the work of the other two committees.

It deals with social rights, children’s rights, family affairs and health, bears an awful lot of responsibility, and I do not want to see it being lost in a mega-committee such as the one suggested in the report. I urge all delegates to vote for the amalgamation of the two committees but to support the amendment that means that the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee will remain on its own.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Toshev.

Mr TOSHEV (Bulgaria) – The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe needs such reforms as can make it more efficient and better represented in the European architecture. It should remain an important actor in Europe, providing the unique opportunity for dialogue between its European Union and non-EU member states, as well as being open for co-operation with its observers, such as the United States, Canada, Mexico, Israel and the Holy See. That list will be further enlarged for our Partners for Democracy, the first of which is the Parliament of Morocco. We hope that Morocco will be followed by other Mediterranean and Middle Eastern countries.

The Assembly should continue to be a forum for dialogue not only between states but between citizens of our united Europe. An important recommendation of the rapporteur, Mr Jean-Claude Mignon, is the aim to increase the visibility of the Assembly’s work and reinforce interaction between the Assembly and national parliaments. I fully subscribe to that proposal.

I want once again to introduce the idea that the committees of the Assembly should receive an annual ticket to organise joint meetings with the relevant committees of the national parliaments of the member states. Of course, that proposal would not extend to the Rules Committee and the Monitoring Committee, because of their specific areas of activity.

If the proposal is accepted, many more political stakeholders will be involved in our debates and the enlarged dialogue will support European society as a real democratic community. The agenda of such meetings should be drafted jointly with the chairpersons of the national parliamentary committees and representatives of the countries in the neighbourhood of the Council of Europe, as well as interested NGOs and media, could also be invited where appropriate.

An important principle in the Organisation up until now has been the equality of member states and members of the Assembly. That principle has been observed within the European family since the very beginning of our Assembly’s existence. I was astonished to see that the Bureau unanimously adopted the proposal to allocate the position of ex-officio members of the new Committee on the Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs to the chairpersons of five privileged delegations from the biggest member states – France, Germany, Italy, the Russian Federation and the United Kingdom. The committee is composed of members proposed by the political groups, so why should part of its membership be elected in a different way? Every delegation should be treated equally, whether it is large or small, and I am strongly convinced that the political groups could nominate the leaders of the five delegations through the ordinary procedure. I am certain that nobody could oppose their nomination by those groups.

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

Ms GUŢU (Moldova) congratulated Mr Mignon and the ad hoc committee on the report and said that she was aware that it could not have been an easy task taking account of the opinions of 47 different delegations. The report was of real importance for the Parliamentary Assembly and it would enable it to increase its visibility and to work towards increased co-operation with national parliaments. The Moldovan delegation welcomed the outlined changes to the committees and their structure.

She wished to draw the Assembly’s attention to issues relating to improvements to communication, which were covered in point 5.1.5 of the report, particularly the website. Members had very busy lives and had a number of commitments, and these could sometimes make it challenging to participate, especially for those involved in monitoring committees, where attendance at meetings would take up at least two days. Why was new technology, such as video conferencing, not being used for the monitoring committees, which would save time for people involved in these committees and could lead to greater levels of participation? This would affect not just the two members representing their national delegation but all members. The Moldovan delegation knew little about how the Parliamentary Assembly functioned but would vote for the draft resolution and hope that reform would lead to genuine results. She noted that the debate on reform had coincided with a heavy rain shower. She hoped that the reforms would lead to more fresh air for the Parliamentary Assembly and indeed all matters of political pertinence.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Pochinok.

Mr POCHINOK (Russian Federation) thanked the President and said that he was going to be honest with the Assembly: he did not have much faith in the likely success of the report. It reminded him of the story of Don Quixote.

Looking at the report, it could be seen that one of the main themes was strengthening the relationship between the Council of Europe and the European Union. This was important as the two organisations often did work in the same spheres.

He had a sincere respect for the work that Mr Mignon and his committee had done. One of the factors informing these reforms was finance, and that was why the Assembly was looking at its committee structure. It was particularly important to look at the future of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee. The work of this committee was very different to that of any other committee, and it therefore should be kept separate.

He drew the Assembly’s attention to the groups of amendments that he had proposed and hoped that they would be considered very carefully.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Bilozir.

Ms BILOZIR (Ukraine) – Mr Mignon, your report certainly represents an important contribution by the Assembly to the reform of the Council of Europe, and the main aim of that reform is to make the work of the Organisation more efficient. However, the reform process should not undermine the main role of our Assembly, which is to be the voice of our people and to respond to major challenges faced by European countries. One of the main ways in which the Assembly – an important part of the Council of Europe – adds value is through our ability to react immediately and raise the concerns of European citizens on the main issues that impact on our common well-being.

The dramatic environmental catastrophe in Japan raised great concerns in Europe about the link between natural disasters, environmental protection and the economy, and how those things may affect human rights. The Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs is the only all-European platform for the discussion of issues such as stress-testing nuclear power stations, a new European energy policy, and the impact of climate change on Europe.

We are living through the consequences of the world economic crisis, and we know that local authorities are bearing the main burden of responsibility when it comes to responding to the immediate needs of the population in this difficult situation. The Ukrainian chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers will therefore focus on strengthening and developing local democracy. We are relying on the committee’s contribution to the 17th session of the Council of Europe Conference of Ministers responsible for Local and Regional Government, which will be held on 3 and 4 November in Kiev under the Ukrainian chairmanship. All that leads me to say that Mr Mignon’s proposal to merge the committee with two others seems counter-productive, given the current situation in Europe.

The Assembly needs to keep separate the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs, as the main subjects that the committee deals with are of major political concern to our member states, especially Ukraine, after the Chernobyl catastrophe. I therefore strongly oppose the proposal and support the amendment deleting paragraph 6.4.1 in the draft resolution.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Falzon.

Mr FALZON (Malta) – I congratulate Mr Mignon on this important report, and I congratulate the ad hoc committee on its valuable input on, and consideration of, the report on the reform of the Assembly.

Reform is very important, and it will be effective if the pursuit of the Assembly’s values remains our vision. All the committees are important, and their work supports the overall objectives of the Parliamentary Assembly. I really appreciate the fact that there have been useful thoughts on merging the committees. I draw particular attention to the fact that a focus on sustainable development would be enhanced by the amalgamation of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development and the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs. That is a very good proposal, as it sends a message to organisations around the world that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe not only understands that the economy and the environment should be considered together, but emphasises that through its reforms.

However, the amalgamation of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee with those committees unfortunately diminishes the important concepts that it covers. Various members of the Assembly have expressed that thought, and we should revisit the idea, so that the Assembly has a supporting structure in which environmental and economic issues are merged, and so that the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee stands alone, focusing on its core activities. I appreciate the efforts made in the reform process, but my concern is that the Assembly will lose its focus on the important concept of sustainability.

I support the views of colleagues who submit that the Environment Committee and the Economic Committee should be integrated, but that the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee should not.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Negele.

Mr NEGELE (Liechtenstein) thanked colleagues and said that at last the Assembly had a draft report that could form the basis of real reforms to the Parliamentary Assembly. As it was the most important part of the Council of Europe, reform to strengthen it was long overdue. He remembered that the discussions about reforms six years ago, when he joined the Assembly, had focused mainly on the budget. However, it was not enough to talk about reform – action was needed. The report provided the meat necessary to go ahead with these reforms.

The 12 members of the ad hoc committee and the two members of the secretariat had produced these proposals in only five months. Politicians from 11 countries and five political groups had worked together in committee to produce a package of reforms which had been agreed unanimously. He singled out Mr Mignon for particular praise for the work he had done: he had brought the necessary political experience to craft these reforms and his skill could be seen in the quality of the final product.

The report made 27 structured points which would improve the political relevance and the effectiveness of the Assembly. He wished to draw attention to two reforms in particular. The first was that the Assembly should be more selective about which reports were selected for debate. In this area, less could be more. The second was an emphasis on better follow-up to the resolutions adopted by the Assembly, this should strengthen the Assembly’s links with national parliaments.

Financial issues had not been addressed in the report, but he was certain that a more effective Assembly would receive more positive attention from the public and that in turn would strengthen the case from increasing the Assembly’s finances. In Liechtenstein, the parliament was waiting for the Assembly’s report on its reform processes. The report could become a reality following today’s debate.

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

Mr KANDELAKI (Georgia) – I thank the rapporteur for this important and timely report. I hope that this timely reform will only strengthen our Organisation and help it to be more efficient in defending our core values, and not be at the expense of them.

Let us remember that the concept of Europe whole and free is not yet complete. I want to draw your attention briefly to a number of points and amendments. First, I urge all members to vote against Amendment 27, which speaks of classification of the monitoring procedure. I believe that that amendment would significantly weaken the philosophy and effectiveness of the monitoring procedure, which is the most important instrument of our Assembly.

Secondly, I call on you to support Amendment 32, which speaks against ex officio membership in respect of the five largest financial contributors to the Council of Europe. That concept basically differentiates between members and is against the philosophy and approach of one member state, one vote.

Finally, I am rather sceptical of the concept of deep security. That term is unclear; I had not heard of it, and it is not accepted within the language of the Council of Europe. The equivalent, which is an accepted term in our Organisation as far as I know, is democratic stability.

Those three points are very important for making the report better.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Szabó.

Mr SZABÓ (Hungary) said that he thought that this was a very good, indeed an excellent report, and he congratulated Mr Mignon on it. The reform proposals were timely but also posed great challenges. Members of the Assembly were naturally very interested in the proposals, and he welcomed the system of structured input which would allow delegates to feel they had ownership of the process.

The report underlined the need for better co-operation between the Council of Europe and the European Union. The EU had changed greatly since 1957, especially since the fall of communism, which had lead to the number of member states increasing to 27. Further changes had come following the Lisbon Treaty and he looked forward to the EU ascending to the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe had to remain as a forum for a debate to benefit European citizens focusing particularly on human rights. This did not invalidate the need for greater co-operation between the Council of Europe, the European Commission and the European Parliament. There had been a number of welcomed reforms that had come out of the European process but there remained some gaps. He drew attention to recent developments in Hungarian media law and felt European legal basis for action in this area should be strengthened. He also expressed his thanks to Thomas Hammarberg, the Council’s Commissioner for Human Rights for his work in this area and many others.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Mr Kucheida is not here, so I call Mr Huseynov.

Mr HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – Notwithstanding the dictionary meaning of the word “reform”, which can also be taken to mean a change of shape, the essential philosophical meaning of that word includes fundamental change from the inside. When radical change is related to the main principles of the activities that are taking place, the form of the organisation is eventually affected. That leads to the substitution of activities.

Reforms in the Council of Europe should also relate to the main approaches and methods of working, otherwise we would be unable to hope to achieve renewal through changing our shape. Proposals have been made to liquidate the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs, which is tackling the problems that are most important to everybody. Through that committee, we are able to take soundings in the Parliamentary Assembly on whether to adopt resolutions that might lead to useful outcomes.

Is this a matter of direct liquidation? The question is one of unifying that committee with the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development. Actually, that would mean a genuine liquidation that narrowed the circle of the works done within the committee.

Limiting the activities of such committees, or their factual liquidation through uniting them with other committees, would deepen the crisis within the Council of Europe. The area of the Council of Europe that is in greatest need of reform is the establishment of operating mechanisms that should ensure the implementation of decisions and resolutions. On 25 January 2005, the Assembly adopted Resolution 1416. The first paragraph of that resolution reflected the official position of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which unequivocally referred to the occupation of Azerbaijani territories by another member state, Armenia; the existence of the separatist regime within Nagorno-Karabakh; and the implementation of ethnic cleansing against Azerbaijanis by Armenia.

The Parliamentary Assembly even set up an ad hoc committee on implementation of that resolution. What was the result? There was no result. Today, the Council of Europe should try to get rid of double standards, thus raising the ties between words and deeds to a desirable level. Today, the Council of Europe should focus on the investigation of the ecological problems that have turned out to be an important component of human rights, as well as the themes of culture, science and education, which ensure interrelationships between states and nations.

Reform comes from taking such resolute steps, which are directly related to the essence, the work, the principles and the authority of an organisation. It is not generated from tiny cosmetic changes that have no big effect, nor through making savings by uniting certain committees.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Fournier.

Mr FOURNIER (France) thanked the President and congratulated Mr Mignon on his excellent report. The Assembly needed to become more politically effective and relevant. To become more effective, it needed to refocus on its core activities: democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

He welcomed the desire of the rapporteur to merge the three committees whose work sometimes took the Assembly away from those core tasks. The reforms could be implemented quickly with benefits being seen by 2012.

A recent report written for the French President had suggested other reforms. There was a need for setting aside draft resolutions and recommendations that did not relate to the Council’s core activities, as that would help combat legislative inflation. Secondly, a mechanism was needed for following up on recommendations and resolutions; this should enable the Parliamentary Assembly to ask Ministers targeted questions when they failed to act on a resolution. It was also important to strengthen links with the European Parliament. This relationship should be strengthened in a structured way but not in a way that totally institutionalised the relationship. There was scope for joint working between the rapporteurs of the Parliamentary Assembly and the European Parliament on common topics. He welcomed the EU’s intention to join the European Convention on Human Rights. He hoped these reforms would enable the Parliamentary Assembly to end up in a stronger position.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Fournier. I now call Mr Hancock.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) – There is a saying in the Bible: he who is last will one day be first. I live in hope of that and am delighted to have been given the chance to take part in this debate. I congratulate Mr Mignon not only on the calibre of the report but on the sheer tenacity and endurance he has shown in seeing this through. It would have worn down weaker people than him. He has rightly been congratulated on that.

When I came back into the Chamber, I had to force my way through hordes of journalists and people who were interested in the fact that the Council of Europe is reforming itself. Was there really such a crowd out there? As I look around, how many of the Committee of Ministers are represented in the Chamber today? Very few. Do we not have an opportunity to strike a light of reform if we are genuine?

I commend my amendment, which would abolish all the committees except four. I would be an extraordinarily wealthy man today if I had a euro, a pound or a dollar for every time somebody said, “Please let the Council of Europe return to its core values.” However, once again, we have avoided our responsibilities. We talk the talk but, unfortunately, we are not prepared to walk the walk by producing the sort of structure that would deliver the core values.

Such a structure would have three main committees: one to defend the rule of law; the second to deal with democracy; and the third, most importantly, to deal with human rights. I have included a fourth committee in my proposal because we should accommodate the fringe elements that have been so much part and parcel of the Council’s work. There should be four committees and the Bureau would be that fourth political committee.

If a message is to be sent out tonight that the Council of Europe is reforming itself, surely that reform should be based on those three core issues. We should not, once again, invent other names for committees so that they can exist in the same format. We should not amalgamate committees and believe that we can still do the same things in them. There must be an element of self-discipline.

I am amazed when I see that some members of this Assembly are sitting on four committees while others sit on one, and that members are rapporteurs on a rolling programme. They hold rapporteur post after rapporteur post but others never get the chance to do it. It is not that they do not get the chance because they do not ask. They do not get the chance because, when it comes to committees, it seems that the matter has already been dealt with. Someone has decided that this person will be the ideal rapporteur. I have heard that mentioned a number of times; other members must have heard the same. Maybe someone wants to put their name forward but suddenly the chairman will announce that the ideal person has come forward. That turns out to be the ideal person who did the last four reports.

If we are to make changes let us, for goodness’ sake, reform along the lines that we have all said we want – by reforming the core values, the internal structures and the way that the Organisation works. If we do not, people out there will not crowd to hear us and they will not get a positive message from the Assembly.

(Mr Cebeci, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the chair in place of Mr Vrettos.)

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Mr Hancock. Now I call Mr Mignon, the rapporteur, to reply. You have nine minutes.

Mr MIGNON (France) said he would try to answer the points made by colleagues. His name had been mentioned a lot in the debate and he was embarrassed by this as the report had been the result of collective effort. He thanked the Table Office in particular for ensuring that the maximum number of members had been able to take the floor. It had been a very positive and genuine debate with some very interesting comments. The Parliamentary Assembly had risen to the challenge. All had had the opportunity to contribute and that was crucial to the process.

Responding to Mr von Sydow, who had been a member of the ad hoc committee, he agreed with all of his points on the number of reports produced. Responding to Mr Marquet, who had raised a number of economic issues, he noted that Mr Marquet had been involved in discussions with the ad hoc committee. He was in favour of Mr Marquet’s points on visibility, which had also been raised by Mr Hancock in his own way. All wanted to see a more social Europe. It should not be forgotten that the Parliamentary Assembly represented a Europe of more than 800 million citizens even if the Chamber was not always populated as fully as it might be. Unfortunately human rights were not respected in all countries. He thanked Mr Herkel for his points and for speaking in French. He wished his own English was as good. He was sad that Mr Pourgourides was leaving the Assembly. Since he himself had joined in 1993, Mr Pourgourides had left his mark on the Assembly. He took note of the points made by Ms Naghdalyan and stressed that while he disagreed with her, nobody in the Parliamentary Assembly was a dictator and change would not be imposed upon it either by himself or by the ad hoc committee. Changes would be decided by the Parliamentary Assembly itself. Turning to the points made by Ms Maury Pasquier he said he would be voting in favour of her amendment. He thanked Mr Chope for his kind words and said that if the report resulted in positive changes, he would be delighted.

On the points made by others regarding delegations and their responsibility for the work of the Parliamentary Assembly, he agreed with them. When delegations returned to their home states, it was essential that issues were followed up. On suggestions that merging three committees into one would be a mistake, he personally did not agree but this was of course a matter for the Parliamentary Assembly to decide.

On the point raised by Mr Gaudi Nagy on members who were not registered with a political group, he said this should be taken into consideration. He agreed with the problems around observation of elections raised by Ms Pourbaix-Lunden and noted that an amendment had been tabled. He hoped that people would vote in favour of it.

On the separate points raised regarding the extent of consultation, he asked what more it would have been possible to do. Responding to the points from Mr Kox, he thanked him for all his work on behalf of the Parliamentary Assembly and especially his work on the budget, a subject on which he had great experience. However he stressed that it was not just budget problems which had initiated the current discussion on reform. While it was not always possible for agreement, compromise would be sought wherever possible. Responding to the points by Mr Toshev, he said that he had taken into account concerns that Mr Toshev had had about the first draft of the report. He agreed with Mr Toshev’s points regarding the fact that the five largest delegations, although that did not necessarily mean the most important, should be represented ex officio on the committee. He and Mr Hancock had been together in the Parliamentary Assembly for a long time and had worked closely together. Reforms were always insufficient in that more could always be done. However, it was important that respect and esteem for each other remained even when they did not agree.

He hoped that the reforms were something on which the majority could agree and again expressed his thanks to the ad hoc committee.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Mignon.

The debate is closed.

The ad hoc committee has presented a draft resolution, to which 36 amendments, an oral amendment, one sub-amendment and two oral sub-amendments have been tabled.

They will be taken in the order in which they appear in the Compendium and Organisation of Debates.

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

Dear colleagues, I know that this is an important report. We have time available to us, so we will proceed slowly and thoroughly. Please be patient with the process.

I understand that the Ad hoc Committee on the Reform of the Parliamentary Assembly wishes to propose to the Assembly that the following amendments, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly under Rule 33.10.

The amendments are Nos. 29, 2, 3, 28, 6 and 26 to the draft resolution. Is that so, Mr Mignon?

Mr MIGNON (France) – It is okay.

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

The following amendments have been adopted:

Amendment 29, tabled by Mr Kandelaki, Mr Minashvili, Mr Davitaia, Ms Taktakishvili and Mr Darchiashvili, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 2, at the beginning of the second sentence to insert the following words: “The still persisting challenges and unresolved conflicts in Europe, and the”.

Amendment 2, tabled by Mr Toshev, Mr Dimitrov, Mr Minchev, Ms Grozdanova, Mr Vareikis, Ms Pernaska, Mr Matušic, Ms Caparin and Mr Falzon, which is, in the draft resolution, to delete paragraph 5.1.3.

Amendment 3, tabled by Mr Toshev, Mr Dimitrov, Mr Minchev, Ms Grozdanova, Mr Vareikis, Ms Pernaska, Mr Matušic, Ms Caparin and Mr Falzon, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 5.2.1, to add the following words: “, as well as to proceed, when appropriate, in accordance with the mechanism set out in Resolution 1640/2008”.

Amendment 28, tabled by Mr Herkel, Ms Papadimitriou, Mr Neugebauer, Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin, Ms Circene and Mr Kandelaki, which is, in the draft resolution, to replace paragraph 5.6.1 with the following sub-paragraph: “to diversify the funding of the Assembly’s actions (other than statutory activities) and new initiatives through external sources compatible with the values and principles of the Council of Europe.”

Amendment 6, tabled by Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin, Mr Iwiński, Mr Johansson, Ms Lundgren, Mr Hunko and Ms Ohlsson, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 5.6.1, to add the following sub-paragraph:

“Follow-up on structural issues regarding election observations:

to establish an advisory group, preferably under the President and appointed by political groups, on election observations with the responsibility to sum up and systematize the structural experiences with other international election observation institutions.”

Amendment 26, tabled by Mr Pochinok, Mr Vaksdal, Mr Gale, Baroness Eccles, Ms Belousovová, Mr Seyidov, Lord Boswell, Earl of Dundee, Ms Liovochkina, Mr Kosachev, Mr Valeriy Fedorov, Mr Harutyunyan and Mr Jirsa, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6.1.3, before the words “to assure”, to insert the following words: “to seek”.

We now come to Amendment 30, tabled by Mr Kandelaki, Mr Minashvili, Mr Davitaia, Ms Taktakishvili and Mr Darchiashvili, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 3, first sentence, after the words “to improve its members’ involvement”, to insert the following words: “and to ensure the implementation and respect of its previously taken decisions”.

I call Mr Kandelaki to support amendment No. 30.

Mr KANDELAKI (Georgia) – If there is one way we can make this Organisation more efficient, it is by ensuring the implementation of previously taken decisions. Therefore, it is natural to support this amendment, which draws people’s attention to the importance of previously taken decisions.

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

Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – We were against this amendment in the working group because it could create a misunderstanding. We are not a court that judges or a government which can impose. We can propose and we can convince, but we can never ensure that something is implemented. We can only do what we can do. The wording in this amendment is too tough, because we do not have the power it suggests.

THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MIGNON (France) (Translation) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 30 is rejected.

We now come to Amendment 24, tabled by Mr Pochinok, Mr Vaksdal, Mr Gale, Baroness Eccles, Ms Belousovová, Lord Boswell, Earl of Dundee, Ms Liovochkina, Mr Kosachev, Mr Valeriy Fedorov, Mr Harutyunyan and Mr Jirsa, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 4, to add the following sentences: “A position taken by the Assembly once in the past could be updated if necessary considering the relevant accumulated experience and information. Otherwise, the Assembly might become hostage to the decisions that no longer enjoy the support they had when these decisions were taken.”

I call Mr Pochinok to support Amendment 24.

Mr POCHINOK (Russian Federation) – This amendment is very simple and useful. It requires only that the Assembly updates its own position. For example, Europe before the Cold War and after the Cold War are different Europes. It is not about resolutions of our Assembly – it is only about our positions.

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

Mr MARQUET (Monaco) spoke against Amendment 24, as he and his colleagues felt that it carried the risk that the Parliamentary Assembly’s function would grind to a halt

THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MIGNON (France) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 24 is rejected.

We now come to Amendment 25 Rev., tabled by Mr Pochinok, Mr Zhidkikh, Mr Hancock, Mr Kosachev and Mr Harutyunyan, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 4, to insert the following paragraph: “The principle of democracy implies the participation of the largest possible majority when taking decisions. It is particularly important for the work of the Assembly. In this respect the issue of a quorum becomes a principled one when important decisions are taken, especially those on the vote on resolutions and recommendations, including the vote on a draft resolution or recommendation at a committee meeting as well as at a sitting of the Assembly. The Assembly therefore decides that:

The quorum of the Assembly remains one-third of the number of representatives of the Assembly authorised to vote. Before the voting has begun, the President may be requested to ascertain whether there is a quorum of at least ten members of the Assembly belonging to at least three national delegations and representing at least two political groups. In the absence of a quorum the vote shall be postponed until the next sitting;

Except for the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (the Monitoring Committee) and the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs, the quorum in the committees remains one-third of its members. Before the vote on a draft resolution or recommendation or on amendments to it, the issue of a quorum may be raised by at least five members belonging to at least two national delegations. If less than one-third of the members are present at a meeting the vote shall be postponed to a later meeting;

As the Committee of the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (the Monitoring Committee) and the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs are composed on the principle of representation of political groups, the quorum is not only one-third of the members of the Committee but also the representation of all political groups at a Committee meeting. The issue of a quorum may be raised by at least five members belonging to at least two political groups.”

I call Mr Pochinok to support Amendment 25 in its revised form.

Mr POCHINOK (Russian Federation) – We try to find the easiest agreement procedure and, at the same time, to find a procedure that represents all political groups in each committee. That would be very useful.

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

Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – It is an old question, the quorum. We are against this amendment, because those who are present should not be prevented from making a decision by those who go out. It is an invitation to boycott any possibility of making a decision and we do not want to introduce such a quorum.

THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MIGNON (France) (Translation) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 25, in its revised form, is rejected.

We now come to Amendment 36, tabled by Mr Pochinok, Mr Vaksdal, Ms Belousovová, Mr Seyidov, Lord Boswell, Earl of Dundee, Ms Liovochkina, Mr Kosachev, Mr Valeriy Fedorov, Mr Harutyunyan and Mr Jirsa, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 5.3.1, to add the following sub-paragraph: “to table amendments to draft resolutions and/or recommendations together with explanatory notes in written form”.

I call Mr Pochinok to support Amendment 36.

Mr POCHINOK (Russian Federation) – Thirty seconds is not enough in almost every case. But this amendment asks only one thing – that all amendments are accompanied by a simple written explanation. That would help us to decide.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MIGNON (France) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 36 is adopted.

We now come to Amendment 4, tabled by Mr Toshev, Mr Dimitrov, Mr Minchev, Ms Grozdanova, Mr Vareikis, Ms Pernaska, Mr Matušic, Ms Caparin and Mr Falzon, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 5.4.2, to insert the following sub-paragraph: “to grant the committees of the Assembly, except the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States and the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs, an annual ticket to organize a joint meeting with the relevant committees in the national parliaments of the member states.”

I call Mr Toshev to support Amendment 4.

Mr TOSHEV (Bulgaria) – The amendment speaks for itself. We are dealing with the same issues and such meetings would strengthen the position of the Assembly and those involved in the dialogue. With the involvement of national parliaments, we could achieve our goals.

THE PRESIDENT – We now come to Sub-Amendment 1 to Amendment 4, tabled by Mr Mignon, Mr Rochebloine, Mr Reiss, Ms Marland-Militello, Mr Rouquet, Mr Gardetto and Mr Marquet, which is, in Amendment 4, to replace the word “grant” with the following word: “invite” and, after the word “Affairs,”, to insert the following words: “to use”.

I call Mr Mignon to support Sub-Amendment 1.

Mr MIGNON (France) spoke in favour of Sub-Amendment 1, and said that in principle he agreed with Amendment 4 but he wished to change the word “grant” to “invite” and to insert “to use” after “affairs” to avoid any misunderstanding and to make completely clear the powers and privileges of each committee and to spell out clearly what each committee did.

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

What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

Mr TOSHEV (Bulgaria) – I am fully in favour.

THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MIGNON (France) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Sub-Amendment 1 is adopted.

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

What is the opinion of the committee? I call Mr Mignon.

Mr MIGNON (France) (Translation) – The committee is still in favour.

THE PRESIDENT – I shall now put the amendment, as amended, to the vote.

The vote is open.

Amendment 4, as amended, is adopted.

We now come to Amendment 9, tabled by Mr Gross, Sir Alan Meale, Ms Durrieu, Ms Christoffersen, Mr Haugli, Mr Bremer, Mr Corman, Ms von Cramon-Taubadel, Mr Strässer, Ms Strik, Lord Anderson, Mr Sudarenkov, Lord Tomlinson, Mr Sarikas, Mr Benton, Mr Rouquet, Ms Ohlsson, Ms Hägg, Mr Axelsson, Mr Gunnarsson, Mr von Sydow, Mr Moriau, Mr Díaz Tejera, Ms Ablinger, Ms Muttonen, Ms Wurm, Mr Stolfi, Mr Cilevičs, Mr Islami, Mr Ahmetaj, Mr Vrettos and Mr Debono Grech, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5.5.1, to replace the words “the general public;” with the following words: “the citizens of Europe;”.

I understand that Mr Gross wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment to Amendment 9, as follows, to delete the words “the citizens of Europe” and to insert the word “Europeans”.

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

However, do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated? That is not the case.

I therefore call Mr Gross to support both Amendment 9 and his oral sub-amendment.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – The first point is that in a democracy nobody should feel they are just part of “the public”, because publics cannot act. That is why we replace the word with “the people”. The word “citizen”, especially in French, is an exclusive notion in regard to the nation state. We are talking about Europe and therefore “Europeans” would be better.

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

Mr Gross is obviously in favour.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MIGNON (France) (Translation) – The committee is in favour.

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

The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

We will now consider the main amendment, as amended. Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment, as amended? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment, as amended?

Mr MIGNON (France) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT – I shall now put Amendment 9, as amended, to the vote.

The vote is open.

Amendment 9, as amended, is adopted.

We now come to Amendment 31, tabled by Mr Kandelaki, Mr Minashvili, Mr Davitaia, Ms Taktakishvili and Mr Darchiashvili, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6.1.3, to replace the word “assure” with the following word: “guarantee”.

I call Mr Kandelaki to support the amendment.

Mr KANDELAKI (Georgia) – The amendment is very simple and will make the resolution stronger by replacing the word “assure” with the word “guarantee”, thus guaranteeing the fair geographical and political distribution of speakers.

THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 31? I call Mr Mignon.

Mr MIGNON (France) said the ad hoc committee was not in favour of Amendment 31 as this sought to guarantee rather than ensure a chance for members to speak, something that would not always be possible.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The committee is obviously not in favour.

Mr MIGNON (France) (Translation) – Absolutely, sir, you are entirely right.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 31 is rejected.

We now come to Amendment 7, tabled by Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin, Mr Johansson, Ms Lundgren, Mr Hunko and Ms Ohlsson, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 6.1.4, to add the following sub-paragraph: “to have set voting times;”.

I call Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin to support the amendment.

Ms de POURBAIX-LUNDIN (Sweden) – As you see, 122 of us are in the Chamber now, and we could have been more than 300. We want to set voting times as a tool to ensure that turnout is greater when we vote.

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

Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – We are against because everybody on the list of speakers should be able to speak and we never know when the list will finish. Those who have been speaking should listen, and then they can vote. They should not go out and come back to vote without listening or speaking. We should seek to maintain our character, which is that of a real parliament.

THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MIGNON (France) (Translation) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 7 is rejected.

We now come to Amendment 18, tabled by Mr Hancock, Ms Pernaska, Ms Liovochkina, Mr Xuclà i Costa and Mr Debono Grech, which is, in the draft resolution, to replace paragraph 6.4 with the following sub-paragraph:

“to create the following four committees:

Committee on the Rule of Law;

Committee on Democracy;

Committee on Human Rights;

Committee on Political Affairs, which will also serve as the Bureau of the Assembly;

The Assembly will decide at the fourth sitting in 2011 the make-up and the number of members serving on each Committee.”

If the amendment is agreed to, Amendments 16, 12, 21, 15, 35, 13, 5, 32, 19, 22, 10, 33, 1, 8, 17, 14, 23, 11 and 20 will fall. I know what is going through members’ minds.

I call Mr Hancock to support Amendment 18. You have 30 seconds.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) – If ever there was an incentive for people to vote for something, that is it. The most important incentive, is, as I said in my speech, the fact that this amendment answers the question asked by every delegate – including those who spoke in the debate – on every occasion. Whenever delegates speak about the Council of Europe, they repeat the mantra: “We must return to our core values.” This is the only amendment tabled tonight that provides that opportunity and so I commend it to the Assembly.

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

Mr MIGNON (France) said he was against Amendment 18 in the light of what had been discussed in the debate, and that explanation spoke for itself. Despite his friendship with Mr Hancock, he would consider himself to be a Republican but not that much of a revolutionary.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The committee is obviously against?

Mr MIGNON (France) (Translation) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 18 is rejected.

We now come to Amendment 16, tabled by Mr Hancock, Mr Falzon, Mr Huseynov, Ms Bilozir, Ms Bondarenko, Ms Herasym’yuk, Mr Sudarenkov, Mr Marmazov, Mr Valeriy Fedorov and Mr Mustafa, which is, in the draft resolution, delete paragraph 6.4.1.

If this amendment is agreed to, Amendments 12, 21, 15 and 35 will fall. I call Mr Hancock to support Amendment 16.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) – The amendment simply says that the proposal is not acceptable to the Parliamentary Assembly. I sit on the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee, and I do not see the proposal as a reasonable state of affairs. We have heard from other members who share that view. If we are going to start reorganising the committees, we will have to agree to this provision. That will lead to the later provisions, which are the ones that are acceptable.

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

Mr VON SYDOW (Sweden) – The proposal to merge some committees to create a domestic committee emphasises and brings together all the issues and puts them into context as regards human rights, the rule of law, democracy and social cohesion, which are the issues at the forefront of our Assembly. The deliberations in the committee and in the Parliamentary Assembly will then be on equal terms.

THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MIGNON (France) (Translation) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 16 is rejected.

We now come to Amendment 12, tabled by Ms Naghdalyan, Mr Abbasov, Mr Vukčević, Mr Boden, Mr Haupert, Mr Van Der Maelen, Ms Dumery, Ms Kyriakidou, Mr Hanson, Mr Sasi, Earl of Dundee, Mr Muñoz Alonso, Mr Xuclà i Costa, Mr Kaikkonen, Mr Huskowski, Mr Elzinga, Mr Omtzigt, Mr Bugnon, Mr Müri, Ms Pejčinović-Burić and Mr Binley, which is, in the draft resolution, to replace paragraph 6.4.1 with the following sub-paragraph: “to merge the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development (AS/Ec) and the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs (AS/Ena) into one Committee on Economic Affairs and Sustainable Development (AS/ESD);”.

If this amendment is agreed to, Amendments 21 and 35 will fall.

I call Ms Naghdalyan to support Amendment 12. You have 30 seconds.

Ms NAGHDALYAN (Armenia) spoke in support of Amendment 12 as she did not believe that the merger of three committees was a good thing. She felt that this would create too large an agenda for one committee and would result in the important areas of economics, social issues and the environment not being examined properly or too superficially. If committees had to be merged, could it not just be two committees with subject matters that were linked rather than those three committees?

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Robert Walter.

Mr R. WALTER (United Kingdom) – I think that the tablers of the amendment have misunderstood or perhaps not read the report. The work of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development is divided among several committees to which it will be more relevant. The proposal is a measure not simply to pile the work of three committees into one, but to rationalise the work of the committees.

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

Mr MIGNON (France) (Translation) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 12 is rejected.

We now come to Amendment 21, tabled by Sir Alan Meale, Mr Papadimoulis, Ms John-Calame, Mr Dobbin, Mr Marquet, Ms Marin, Mr Marmazov, Mr Rouquet, Ms Papadimitriou, Mr Blaga, Mr Preda, Mr Fenechiu, Mr Falzon, Mr Gardetto, Mr Iwiński, Ms Bilozir, Mr Kox, Mr Boden, Mr Ünal, Mr Sudarenkov, Mr Huseynov, Mr Mustafa, Mr Flynn, Mr Baghdasaryan, Mr Huss, Mr Debono Grech, Mr Maissen, Mr O’Reilly, Mr Koç, Mr Gale and Mr Toshev, which is, in the draft resolution, to replace paragraph 6.4.1 with the following sub-paragraph: “to merge the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development (AS/Ec) and the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs (AS/Ena) into one Committee on Sustainable Development (AS/SD);”.

If this amendment is agreed to, Amendment 35 falls.

I call Sir Alan Meale to support Amendment 21. You have 30 seconds.

Sir Alan MEALE (United Kingdom) – As I stated in my speech, this is a wise, common-sense decision, as it allows the subjects to be put together, so that members can examine their subject areas in depth.

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

Mr von SYDOW (Sweden) – We are discussing three aspects of welfare, or human well-being. In the political context, they are to be studied jointly. Outcomes of welfare, or whatever we call it in modern terms – well-being and respect for life – are at the core of our work in the Assembly and the Council of Europe.

THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MIGNON (France) (Translation) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 21 is rejected.

We now come to Amendment 15, tabled by Mr Hancock, Mr Prescott, Mr Falzon, Mr Baghdasaryan and Mr Marmazov, which is, in the draft resolution, to replace paragraph 6.4.1 with the following sub-paragraph: “to merge the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men and the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee into one Committee on Social Cohesion and Non-discrimination;”.

If this amendment is agreed to, Amendment 35 falls.

I call Mr Hancock to support Amendment 15. You have 30 seconds.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) – Well, Mr President, I do not think this amendment stands much chance, given that the last one failed. Once again, I urge members to think seriously about what they are doing. I am putting forward a recommendation that we merge the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men and the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee. That would bring everything together. They would form the Committee on Social Cohesion and Non-discrimination. Having served in this Assembly for a very long time, I believe that the move is long overdue, and would be helpful to the work of the Assembly and the committees. I hope that members will support the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT – I have been informed that Ms Maury Pasquier wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment as follows: in Amendment 15 replace the words “Social Cohesion” with the words “Social Rights”.

In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules. However, do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated?

Mr MARQUET (Monaco) said that this was Amendment 35 and not a sub-amendment.

THE PRESIDENT – Ms Maury Pasquier, will you please explain the position?

Ms MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) said that she would be happy to explain if given more than 30 seconds. She had indeed tabled Amendment 35 but if Amendment 15 were agreed to, Amendment 35 would fall and that had necessitated her tabling an oral sub-amendment to Amendment 15

THE PRESIDENT – I think that is now clear. Ms Maury Pasquier has spoken to the oral sub-amendment; does anyone wish to speak against it? I call Mr Mendes Bota.

Mr MENDES BOTA (Portugal) – I also wish to speak against Amendment 15 later on. We should vote against the oral sub-amendment for the same reason that applies to voting against Amendment 15. We should not agree to the proposal.

THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of Mr Hancock?

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) – The oral sub-amendment is extraordinarily helpful, and I am delighted that it has been put forward, because it helps my case.

THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MIGNON (France) (Translation) – We have not had an opportunity to examine the sub-amendment, but we are against Amendment 15, so we are against the oral sub-amendment.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is rejected.

We now come to the main amendment. Does anyone wish to speak against it? I call Mr Mendes Bota.

Mr MENDES BOTA (Portugal) – Gender equality is not a social issue, but a human rights issue. The merger would be artificial; should we discuss the political representation of women in the Committee on Social Cohesion and Non-discrimination? That would be in contradiction with the reforms to the Council of Europe, because gender equality is not grouped with any issue other than the other discrimination grounds under the general framework of human rights. That is why I am against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MIGNON (France) (Translation) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 15 is rejected.

We now come to Amendment 35, tabled by Ms Maury Pasquier, Mr Lecoq, Ms Andersen, Ms Ohlsson, Mr Spautz and Mr Marquet, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6.4.1, to replace the words “Social Cohesion” with the following words: “Social Rights”.

I call Ms Maury Pasquier to support the amendment.

Ms MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) spoke in favour of Amendment 35 and said that the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee had suggested this amendment as it did not feel that the use of the term “social cohesion” was appropriate, especially as the Council of Europe’s social cohesion directorate was being done away with. Social rights followed on logically from human rights which were the core business of the Council of Europe.

THE PRESIDENT – I have been informed that Mr Gross wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment as follows: in Amendment 35, to delete the word “Rights” and to insert the word “Affairs”.

In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules. However, do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated? That is not the case. I therefore call Mr Gross to support the oral sub-amendment.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – The logic is that we have political affairs, legal affairs and social affairs. Social rights are included under social affairs, but social rights is a narrower subject than social affairs. That is why we chose the wider phrase. In French, the same goes for “question”.

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

What is the opinion of the Ms Maury Pasquier?

Ms MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) (Translation) – I can go along with Mr Gross’s proposal without any difficulty.

THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MIGNON (France) (Translation) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

We will now consider the main amendment, as amended. Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment, as amended? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MIGNON (France) (Translation) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 35, as amended, is adopted.

We now come to Amendment 13, tabled by Ms Naghdalyan, Mr Vukčević, Mr Boden, Mr Haupert, Mr Van der Maelen, Ms Dumery, Ms Kyriakidou, Mr Sasi, the Earl of Dundee, Mr Muñoz Alonso, Mr Xuclà i Costa, Mr Kaikkonen, Mr Elzinga, Mr Omtzigt, Mr Bugnon, Mr Müri, Ms Pejčinović-Burić and Mr Binley, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6.4.2, to delete the words “, and the preparation of the reports on the activities of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) to the Political Affairs Committee (AS/Pol)”.

I call Ms Naghdalyan to support Amendment 13. You have 30 seconds.

Ms NAGHDALYAN (Armenia) spoke in support of Amendment 13 and said that the Economic Affairs and Development Committee’s function included the scrutiny of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the OECD. This function required a degree of technical understanding, specific knowledge and experience in economics. She did not believe the Political Affairs Committee had this required knowledge, as it had never looked at those issues before.

THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Robert Walter. You have 30 seconds.

Mr R. WALTER (United Kingdom) – The logic in putting this with the Political Affairs Committee is that the work of these two institutions is basically political. It is the scrutiny of these institutions that we are talking about and this is a logical package. As I said earlier, we are not trying just to merge three committees; we are trying to reallocate the roles of the committees. This fits very logically with the Political Affairs Committee.

THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment?

Mr MIGNON (France) – Against.

THE PRESIDENT – I shall now put the amendment to the vote.

The vote is open.

Amendment 13 is rejected.

We now come to Amendment 5, tabled by Mr Toshev, Mr Dimitrov, Mr Vareikis, Ms Pernaska, Mr Matušic, Ms Caparin, Mr Falzon, Mr Ghiletchi, Ms Palihovici and Mr Gardetto, which is, in the draft resolution, delete paragraph 6.4.3.

If this amendment is agreed to, Amendment 32 falls.

I call Mr Toshev to support Amendment 5. You have 30 seconds.

Mr TOSHEV (Bulgaria) – The amendment refers to the proposal to grant special new privileges to the Assembly’s biggest delegations. I oppose that proposal. I was encouraged by the readiness of the rapporteur to co-operate with those who oppose him and who are trying to keep the spirit of equality in this Assembly. I would support his new proposal, which meets this point and takes our concern into consideration.

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

What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment?

Mr MIGNON (France) said the ad hoc committee was against Amendment 32 but was offering an oral amendment which he hoped would deal with the concerns expressed in the original amendment

THE PRESIDENT – I am assuming that the committee is against, Mr Mignon?

Mr MIGNON (France) – Yes.

THE PRESIDENT – I shall now put the amendment to the vote.

The vote is open.

Amendment 5 is rejected.

I have received an oral amendment from Mr Mignon, on behalf of the Ad hoc Committee on Reform of the Parliamentary Assembly, which reads as follows: “In paragraph 6.4.3 of the draft resolution, to replace the words ‘of the five largest national delegations (France, Germany, Italy, the Russian Federation and the United Kingdom)’ with the following words ‘to increase the number of members with a view to ensuring an equitable geographical representation of members. With this in mind each member state shall not have more than one member on this Committee’.”

If this oral amendment is agreed to, Amendment 32 falls.

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

In my opinion the oral amendment meets the criteria of Rule 33.6. Is there any opposition to the amendment being debated? That is not the case. I therefore call Mr Mignon to support Oral Amendment 1. You have 30 seconds.

Mr MIGNON (France) spoke on behalf of the ad hoc committee in support of Oral Amendment 1, saying that he thought this dealt with the concerns raised by Mr Toshev and his co-signatures as well as the other members who had supported Amendment 32. This oral amendment would ensure a more equitable geographic representation of members on the committee.

THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the oral amendment? I call Mr Vareikis to speak. You have 30 seconds.

Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania) – Maybe from one point of view, this looks like a good idea. On the other hand, we will have to invent a mechanism. How will we manage to keep to the geography and to the rules? The members of the Rules Committee are appointed by the political groups, so this probably needs more clarification. For the time being, it might be better not to have it.

THE PRESIDENT – The committee is obviously in favour, Mr Mignon?

Mr MIGNON (France) – Yes.

THE PRESIDENT – I shall now put the oral amendment to the vote.

The vote is open.

Oral Amendment 1 is agreed to and therefore Amendment 32 falls.

We now come to Amendment 19, tabled by Mr Hancock, Mr Huss, Mr Ghiletchi, Ms Palihovici and Ms Guţu, which is, in the draft resolution, to replace paragraph 6.4.4 with the following sub-paragraph: “to abolish the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men (AS/Ega) and to transfer its competencies to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights (AS/Jur);”.

I call Mr Hancock to support Amendment 19. You have 30 seconds.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) – Again, this is an attempt to be helpful – to abolish the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men and transfer its competencies to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. The work that it does is very much about human rights, so why would you not want to have all those issues in the same committee? The amendment is intended to be helpful to the Assembly and I am sure that those people who like to be helpful will be only too happy to support it.

THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Mendes Bota. You have 30 seconds.

Mr MENDES BOTA (Portugal) – To abolish the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men would send a wrong signal to the citizens and to other international organisations, as well as to the Council of Europe itself. It would be unacceptable for the issue of gender equality to be dealt with by a committee with such a broad mandate as the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. Gender equality would lose visibility and importance, which would mean a downgrading that nobody outside would understand.

THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment?

Mr MIGNON (France) – Against.

THE PRESIDENT – I shall now put the amendment to the vote.

The vote is open.

Amendment 19 is rejected.

We now come to Amendment 22, tabled by Sir Alan Meale, Mr Papadimoulis, Ms John-Calame, Mr Dobbin, Mr Marquet, Ms Marin, Mr Marmazov, Mr Rouquet, Ms Papadimitriou, Mr Blaga, Mr Preda, Mr Fenechiu, Mr Falzon, Mr Gardetto, Mr Iwiński, Ms Bilozir, Mr Kox, Mr Boden, Mr Ünal, Mr Sudarenkov, Mr Huseynov, Mr Mustafa, Mr Flynn, Mr Baghdasaryan, Mr Huss, Mr Debono Grech, Mr Maissen, Mr O’Reilly, Mr Koç, Mr Gale and Mr Toshev, which is, in the draft resolution, to replace paragraph 6.4.6 with the following sub-paragraph: “to transfer the issue of population from the Committee of Migration, Refugees and Population (AS/Mig) to the new Committee on Sustainable Development (AS/SD);”.

If this amendment is agreed to, Amendment 10 falls.

I call Sir Alan Meale to support Amendment 22.

Sir Alan MEALE (United Kingdom) – This is a technical amendment to transfer the issue of population to the Sub-Committee on Sustainable Development. Population is highly relevant to its work, as Mr Mignon himself recognised in his report.

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

Mr MIGNON (France) (Translation) – We are against the amendment for the reasons we mentioned earlier. It runs counter to the spirit of the reform that we seek to implement.

THE PRESIDENT – We can assume that the opinion of the committee on the amendment is negative?

Mr MIGNON (France) – Yes, against.

THE PRESIDENT – I shall now put the amendment to the vote.

The vote is open.

Amendment 22 is rejected.

We now come to Amendment 10, tabled by Mr Chope, Ms Strik, Mr Bugnon, Mr Vannino Chiti, Mr Fenech Adami, Ms Fiala, Ms Memecan, Mr Clappison, Mr Santini, Ms Acketoft, Mr Gunnarsson and Mr Cederbratt, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6.4.6, after the word “transfer”, to insert the following words: “, as appropriate,”.

I call Mr Chope to support Amendment 10.

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – This amendment would introduce some flexibility. It asks to include the words “as appropriate”. There are arguments that say population is inextricably linked to migration; there are also arguments that say population can be looked at as an aspect of social affairs. If my amendment were accepted, it would be open to the Rules Committee to make a decision. It would not have its hands tied by this Assembly today.

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

Mr MIGNON (France) said Amendment 10 would mean deferring a decision until an indeterminate date and was therefore contrary to the spirit of the report, so the ad hoc committee was against it.

THE PRESIDENT – So the opinion of the committee would be against the amendment?

Mr MIGNON (France) (Translation) – Yes.

THE PRESIDENT – I shall now put the amendment to the vote.

The vote is open.

Amendment 10 is rejected.

We now come to Amendment 33, tabled by Mr Kandelaki, Mr Minashvili, Mr Davitaia, Ms Taktakishvili and Mr Darchiashvili, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6.4.7, after the words “to limit each member of the Assembly”, to insert the following words: “, including those nominated as ex officio members,”.

I call Mr Kandelaki to support Amendment 33.

Mr KANDELAKI (Georgia) – If we accept that each member shall be limited to membership of two committees, it would be natural to extend this approach to the ex officio members. Therefore, this is a very logical and rather technical amendment.

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

Mr MIGNON (France) said Amendment 33 was not logical. Therefore, the ad hoc committee was against.

THE PRESIDENT – So the committee is against the amendment.

I shall now put the amendment to the vote

The vote is open.

Amendment 33 is rejected.

We now come to Amendment 1, tabled by Mr Gardetto, Mr Marquet, Mr Vareikis, Mr Kox, Mr Gross, Ms Maury Pasquier, Mr Negele, Mr Volontè, Mr Robert Walter, Ms Brasseur, Mr von Sydow, Mr Chope, Mr Kosachev, Ms Naghdalyan and Mr Marty, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 6.4.7, to insert the following words: “with the exception of the committees whose members are nominated by the political groups”.

If this amendment is agreed to, Amendment 8 falls.

I call Mr Gardetto to support Amendment 1.

Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) spoke in favour of Amendment 1, saying that the reason for introducing it was that small countries which had smaller delegations would be handicapped if their participation were limited to two committees. He therefore sought an exception for certain committees.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MIGNON (France) (Translation) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT – I shall now put the amendment to the vote

The vote is open.

Amendment 1 is agreed to and therefore Amendment 8 falls.

We now come to Amendment 17, tabled by Mr Hancock, Mr Falzon, Mr Huseynov, Ms Bilozir, Ms Bondarenko, Ms Herasym’yuk, Mr Sudarenkov, Mr Marmazov, Mr Valeriy Fedorov and Mr Mustafa, which is, in the draft resolution, to delete paragraph 6.4.8.3.

If this amendment is agreed to, Amendments 14 and 23 fall.

I call Mr Hancock to support Amendment 17.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) – This is self-explanatory, is it not? It calls for the complete deletion of paragraph 6.4.8.3, which would open the door to making a better decision than the report suggests. I hope members will see that as being an optimistic and hopeful suggestion.

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

Mr MIGNON (France) said he had already answered these points and that he considered Amendment 17 to be contrary to the spirit of what was being proposed in the report, therefore, the ad hoc committee was against it.

THE PRESIDENT – So the opinion of the committee is against.

I shall now put the amendment to the vote.

The vote is open.

Amendment 17 is rejected.

We now come to Amendment 14, tabled by Ms Naghdalyan, Mr Abbasov, Mr Vukčević, Mr Boden, Mr Haupert, Mr Van der Maelen, Ms Dumery, Ms Kyriakidou, Mr Sasi, Earl of Dundee, Mr Muñoz Alonso, Mr Xuclà i Costa, Mr Kaikkonen, Mr Elzinga, Mr Omtzigt, Mr Bugnon, Mr Müri, Ms Pejčinović-Burić and Mr Binley, which is, in the draft resolution, to replace paragraph 6.4.8.3 with the following sub-paragraph: “Committee on Economic Affairs and Sustainable Development (AS/ESD);”.

If this amendment is agreed to, Amendment 23 falls.

I call Ms Naghdalyan to support Amendment 14.

Ms NAGHDALYAN (Armenia) spoke in favour of Amendment 14, saying that since this amendment was similar to the previous amendment, she did not have much hope that the committee would support it.

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

Mr MIGNON (France) said that the ad hoc committee was against Amendment 14.

THE PRESIDENT – So the committee is against.

I shall now put the amendment to the vote.

The vote is open.

Amendment 14 is rejected.

We now come to Amendment 23, tabled by Sir Alan Meale, Mr Papadimoulis, Ms John-Calame, Mr Dobbin, Mr Marquet, Ms Marin, Mr Marmazov, Mr Rouquet, Ms Papadimitriou, Mr Blaga, Mr Preda, Mr Fenechiu, Mr Falzon, Mr Gardetto, Mr Iwiński, Ms Bilozir, Mr Kox, Mr Boden, Mr Ünal, Mr Sudarenkov, Mr Huseynov, Mr Mustafa, Mr Flynn, Mr Baghdasaryan, Mr Huss, Mr Debono Grech, Mr Maissen, Mr O’Reilly, Mr Koç, Mr Gale and Mr Toshev, which is, in the draft resolution, to replace paragraph 6.4.8.3 with the following sub-paragraph: “Committee on Sustainable Development (AS/SD);”.

I call Sir Alan Meale to support amendment 23. You have 30 seconds.

Sir Alan MEALE (United Kingdom) – Again, this is a technical amendment, and it is coherent with the mergers of these committees into one committee.

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

Mr MIGNON (France) said the ad hoc committee was against Amendment 23 for the same reasons that it had been against previous similar amendments.

THE PRESIDENT – So the committee is against.

The vote is open.

Amendment 23 is rejected.

We now come to Amendment 11, tabled by Mr Chope, Ms Strik, Mr Bugnon, Mr Chiti, Mr Fenech Adami, Ms Fiala, Ms Memecan, Mr Clappison, Mr Santini, Ms Acketoft, Mr Gunnarsson and Mr Cederbratt, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6.4.8.4, to replace the words “and Refugees” with the following words: “, Refugees and Displaced Persons”.

I call Mr Chope to support Amendment 11. You have 30 seconds.

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – This amendment proposes to change the title of the Committee on Migration and Refugees to the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons. It reflects the reality that issues relating to displaced persons are an important part of this committee’s work.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MIGNON (France) (Translation) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 11 is adopted.

We now come to Amendment 20, tabled by Mr Hancock, Mr Huss, Mr Ghiletchi, Ms Palihovici and Ms Guţu, which is, in the draft resolution, delete paragraph 6.4.8.6.

I call Mr Hancock to support the amendment.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) – I shall not move the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT – The amendment is not moved.

We now come to Amendment 27, tabled by Mr Pochinok, Mr Vaksdal, Baroness Eccles, Ms Belousovová, Mr Seyidov, Lord Boswell, Earl of Alexander Dundee, Mr Binley, Mr Heald, Ms Liovochkina, Mr Kosachev, Mr Valeriy Fedorov, Mr Harutyunyan, Mr Jirsa and Mr Bender, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 6, to insert the following paragraph:

“The Assembly confirms that the monitoring procedure is one of the most important instruments to implement the Council of Europe standards and values within its entire territory. The Assembly decides to increase the efficiency of the monitoring procedure by clearly defining categories of monitoring with regard to:

the member states fulfilling obligations assumed under the terms of the Council of Europe Statute, the European Convention on Human Rights and all other conventions concluded within the Organization to which they are parties (annual report);

the member states which are under the monitoring procedure since their accession to the Council of Europe – on honouring the commitments taken upon the accession (one report in two years);

the member states which are being monitored in accordance with paragraph 5.1.4 of the present resolution (one report in two years);

the member states under the post-monitoring procedure (one report in three years).”

I call Mr Pochinok to support Amendment 27. You have 30 seconds.

Mr POCHINOK (Russian Federation) – The amendment organises the monitoring procedure for all countries, especially in respect of the European Convention on Human Rights. The amendment speaks for itself, and I think it will be useful.

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

Mr HOLOVATY (Ukraine) – There are two reasons to oppose this amendment. The first is that all member states that enter the Council of Europe already subject themselves to the statutory obligations of the Council of Europe. This is why we seek to prevent the monitoring procedure from dealing with adherence to the statutory obligations. The second reason is that, as I announced in my speech, on Friday morning Dick Marty’s report will launch a new discussion on the modalities relating to how to increase or change the monitoring procedure in our Assembly. Thus, to accept the amendment would be to pre-judge the discussion that will be going on in the Assembly, and we therefore oppose the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MIGNON (France) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 27 is rejected.

We now come to Amendment 34, tabled by Mr Kandelaki, Mr Minashvili, Mr Davitaia, Ms Taktakishvili and Mr Darchiashvili, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 7, second sentence, to replace the words “deep security” with the following words: “democratic stability”.

I call Mr Kandelaki to support Amendment 34. You have 30 seconds.

Mr KANDELAKI (Georgia) – This is a technical amendment. The term “deep security” is unknown in the discourse of the Council of Europe and many European institutions. The use of this term could therefore lead to ambiguity, and that would not be beneficial for this reform process. I therefore propose to substitute this with the accepted term “democratic stability”.

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

Mr R. WALTER (United Kingdom) – It is not true to say that this term has not previously been used; it has been used on a number of occasions by the Secretary General. Changing these words would completely change the meaning of the proposal. Our view is that in the field of democracy and human rights, security is very important indeed, and that is why we wish to include these words.

THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MIGNON (France) (Translation) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 34 is rejected.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Doc. 12627, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Doc. 12627, as amended, is adopted, with 104 votes for, 7 votes against and 7 abstentions.

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

Eminent Persons of the Council of Europe (resumed debate)

THE PRESIDENT – The next item of business this afternoon is the continuation of the debate on the report “Living together in 21st-century Europe: follow-up to the report of the Group of Eminent Persons of the Council of Europe” presented by Mr Toshev on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, Document 12631.

I remind you that we have already agreed that in order to finish by 8 p.m. we shall interrupt the list of speakers at about 7.45 p.m. to allow time for the reply and the vote.

In the debate, I call next Ms Graham. You have three minutes.

Ms GRAHAM (Norway) – We are living together in Europe in the 21st century, but unfortunately we are not all living together in harmonious communities. The Group of Eminent Persons has found, and I quote from the report, “discrimination and intolerance are widespread in Europe today”. Sadly, this is something to which many Europeans, both those who were born and raised on our continent and those who have recently arrived, can testify.

I am glad that we have the opportunity to discuss this report today. The kind of Europe in which we wish to live is an important issue for all of us. I commend the rapporteur on his excellent report, written in such a short time.

What this report is all about – and what we are discussing today – is decency. It all boils down to having the decency to make the effort of getting to know each other. Respect for other cultures and religions comes only from getting to know them, and decency and respect are necessary for living together.

Public opinion is often formed from misconceptions and even myths. The media, and sometimes politicians, fuel these instead of contributing to switching direction on to a more constructive track. It is important that discussions are based on factual information. In each of our countries, we need to discuss how we can live together, and we need to have the facts available for the discussion to be productive.

In Norway, the result of the work of two select committees has recently been presented. One committee looked at how our welfare system has been affected by increased migration and the other looked at the integration of minorities into Norwegian society. I will not go into the findings of the committees, but my point is that their work gives us a good factual basis for further discussion. Both committees have received considerable attention in the media, and I hope that this will lead to a continuing debate in which public opinion is based on facts rather than myths.

As a parliamentarian in Norway, I have seen individuals fall victim to discrimination. But I have also seen examples of how people in their local community have taken the initiative to include newcomers and educate the young on how it is possible to live together and respect each other, regardless of cultural heritage or religious belief. A good example in this case is the sports associations and local sports clubs, which do good work.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Sudarenkov.

Mr SUDARENKOV (Russian Federation) asked the President to allow him to recall that today was a meaningful day as they had witnessed the re-emergence of Neo-Nazism and the rise of terrorism across Europe. He would have liked the report to react to the dreadful events of the 20th century – dreadful events which should never be repeated. The Group of Eminent Persons had breathed new impetus into the Parliamentary Assembly’s mission for respect of human rights with the outlining of 17 actions to help achieve this. Every citizen of Europe would like to understand the benefit of living in peace and the report set out best practice for living together. However he had noticed that there had been no mention of the importance of migrants respecting the laws, customs and history of their host countries, which he felt was essential. Paragraph 6 of the report talked about the importance of willingness to respect the language, culture and tradition.

He wished to find out whether the Bologna Process was working and whether it had improved levels of education in Europe. He noted that the relevant authorities had only started to consider the effectiveness of the Bologna Process. He would like to see its implications considered in depth

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Radulović-Šćepanović.

Ms RADULOVIĆ-ŠĆEPANOVIĆ (Montenegro) – There are thousands of people in Europe who live abroad for different reasons. Some of them live in the margins of populated places and towns, but unfortunately some of them also live in the margins of social life. Montenegro makes great efforts to integrate the Roma into social life.

Montenegro integrates Roma people into the education system through integration programmes, provides scholarships for their education and allocates funds for projects that preserve the culture and customs of the Roma people. They have a television broadcast in their own language and they got their own radio station recently. They have their own representatives in some political parties.

For those reasons, I think that neither marginalisation nor assimilation should be the response to displaced persons. The solution is integration. Integration into a society does not depend solely on the state. Habits and cultural barriers may sometimes be serious obstacles. Integration goes two ways. It implies the readiness of migrants to become familiar with, and respect, the social values of the country they have moved to and their wish to be integrated into life there. But integration also means the readiness of a state to respect all the differences of its inhabitants – religious, national, cultural and others.

I wish to underline the role of education. The state should provide for the education of displaced persons’ children, with other children. Schools must have trained teachers and educational programmes and subjects that promote tolerance, recognition of differences, non-discrimination, dialogue and other democratic achievements. School programmes, performances and similar events offer the possibility of becoming familiar with other cultures, customs and people in general.

The media are a second important step towards integration into a society. Programmes in displaced persons’ languages provide information about the situation in the new country and also foster their own identities.

Education, media and social engagement, which are closely connected, are very important to integration in our common lives and our European future, and I would have expected that those issues would receive greater emphasis in the report.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Mr Shershun is not here, so I call Mr Reiss.

Mr REISS (France) saluted the excellent report that had been produced by Mr Toshev. He noted that there was a cultural divide which in some places had replaced the idea of the nation state. There was the risk that this could lead to a clash of identities. The Secretary General had said that diversity enriched life but members of the Assembly had expressed concern about the rise in xenophobia, Islamaphobia and racism.

In the National Assembly of France, there had been a parliament of children which was intended to increase political awareness among young people. The children had voted on draft legislation to decide what was to be done. They had voted to fight against discrimination in sports, a policy that was also advocated by the Culture, Science and Education Committee, which also had key principles of involving youth and inter-cultural ideology in sport. This indicated that children were aware of the difficulties involved in different cultures living together and the importance of sporting unity. He asked whether there could be a children’s parliament at the Parliamentary Assembly, as this could help raise awareness of living together.

“Living Together” was a deliberate idea on which education was required from an early age. Young people needed to learn the value of living together, as that had the same value system as politics and encompassed both politeness and civility. He felt that this etymological detour reminded the Assembly of the Council of Europe’s mission to spread liberty and equality. He repeated his call for a children’s parliament to be held at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

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

Ms FATALIYEVA (Azerbaijan) – First, I thank the rapporteurs for the good job that they have done. The question of living together in the 21st century is very important.

Attitudes in the world towards certain nations and religions are changing, but we understand that the problems are about not religion but politics. We should free ourselves from all prejudice towards certain nations, religions, cultures and so on.

In particular, I want to draw attention to the problems, mentioned in the report, that are faced by migrants. I agree that people who come to live in a new country should not forget their faith, culture, identity and language and that they should transfer them to their descendents, but they must accept all the rules and laws as well as the language and culture of the country in which they live. This is the best way of building intercultural dialogue.

An interesting idea has been mentioned this afternoon: unity is based on diversity. I would add that both unity and development are based on diversity. Let me use my country, Azerbaijan, as an example. As my colleague mentioned, people of different nationalities live in Azerbaijan and each is provided with all the necessary rights and opportunities. In comparison with other Commonwealth of Independent States countries, the number of Russian schools has not been reduced. All conditions for the Russian-speaking population – I do not want to divide them into nations – are provided.

Our purpose in gathering at the Council of Europe, as well as at any other international organisation, is to make the world better and to try to make a perfect world where everybody lives in peace and has no problems. It sounds like Utopia, but it is almost possible if every member state of the Council of Europe fulfils the obligations and follows the resolutions that are accepted here. Unfortunately, the modern world is full of problems caused by religious, national, social, financial, psychological and other issues. The report reflects all the important points that interfere with building the perfect world.

The participation of all members of society, beginning with children and moving up through youths, men and women, will provide a peaceful life. Any relationships between people and nations, whether they are cultural, political, economic or anything else, lead to development. If we hold various discussions, conferences and forums and provide television programmes and the necessary direction in education, I am sure that we will make the situation better.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Fritz.

Mr FRITZ (Germany) noted that Mr Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe, was close friends with Mr Joschka Fischer, who had stressed the importance of the Council of Europe. That had taken place at a meeting in Berlin, but it would have been even better had it been in the Chamber of the Council of Europe. Unfortunately, it had not been possible for Mr Fischer to do so when he was Foreign Minister for Germany. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe had an important role to play in promoting “Living Together”, which was a fundamental right and essential to the European principles of culture and freedom.

Currently an increase of nationalist parties could be seen across Europe. Discrimination, exclusion and intolerance which flouted human dignity were apparent and the Assembly had to act now. No distinction had been drawn between countries where it had been a long time since they had lived under dictatorship and those countries where it was a recent experience – for example, those who had lived through a war and those who only knew of it second-hand. He considered that the report appeared to have a western European viewpoint.

The priority of human rights in Europe needed to be rediscovered by a new generation, and by that he meant the youth. Many young people did not feel that they had a role in society. That was particularly the case in areas of high unemployment and the young people there felt that they were paying the price for the mistakes made by generation which preceded them. The writers of the report had to work with the next generation and encourage them to get involved in the debate.

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

Mr O’REILLY (Ireland) – The challenging economic environment in which we live contributes to racism and xenophobia. As cuts in areas such as welfare and health set in and the choice of jobs narrows, indigenous populations can seek to scapegoat immigrants. Governments must show vigilant leadership to avoid that.

Europe is transparently a multicultural society and assimilation is not a policy option that the Council of Europe could approve. Active integration or interculturalism with respect for diversity is the way forward. The debate cannot pass without our hearing the assertion that newcomers or immigrants have a responsibility to respect the culture of their new country. That should be achieved through our education system, the welfare system and the naturalisation process. An example of injudicious behaviour that fuels fear is radical Islam. That minority group can greatly contribute to racial tensions.

Our challenge is to implement the reports, which urge the appointment of a high-level representative to work with national governments to encourage good practice. They urge the Committee of Ministers to launch public education campaigns. I propose that those initiatives be taken. All of us in this Parliamentary Assembly have a duty to stand up for what is right. To quote Edmund Burke, the great English philosopher, for evil to prosper, all that is required is that good men and women do nothing.

If we are to achieve respectful living together, education is key. A particular challenge is that particular ethnic groups discourage young women from participation in education after primary level. That situation must be reversed. I am very proud that in my constituency there is a town that is a model of best practice when it comes to integration and mutual respect. Ballyjamesduff is a small town in east Cavan of about 2 000 persons. About one in five of its citizens is from eastern or southern Europe. Through a soccer league involving all areas and nationalities, a samba festival and reserved places on the community council, it has achieved a remarkable level of interculturalism, mutual respect and harmony. I congratulate my colleague, Councillor Paddy Smith, on the community leadership that he has given. What I most want to draw attention to in that example is the use of sport as a vehicle for integration.

In conclusion, I again urge members to give practical effect to the reports at national level. May I take this opportunity to congratulate the Turkish Presidency on its initiative, and the authors of the two reports?

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Hancock. You have three minutes.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) – If I were wearing a hat, I would take it off in admiration for Mr Toshev’s report, because he has done more to bring a semblance of common sense to the report than the whole raft of Eminent Persons did.

I am very sorry that the Secretary General, who commissioned the report, did not do the Assembly the courtesy of listening to the end of the debate. He missed a golden opportunity when he attempted to present – I think that is what he was trying to do – the report and commend it to us. He used every cliché in the book without really addressing what was wrong with the report. When the issue was addressed by the Political Affairs Committee, not a single person who spoke in the debate – I think that more than half the members present spoke – had a good word to say for it. That is an indictment in itself.

One of the Group of Eminent Persons was with us, and one could have believed that he was living in a parallel universe, because he was really out of touch with the issue. It reminded me very much of Militant, an ultra left-wing organisation in Britain when I was first in politics. Its members were always talking about the working class, but they had never met them. The Group of Eminent Persons claims to know about the issues, but it did not even start to take an objective look at what could be done to improve the situation.

Mr Toshev, in his report, has tried to start that process, and I hope that we will accept that it has a future. In three minutes, one cannot do justice to the report, or offer alternatives to it, but one can suggest that if this sort of exercise is ever undertaken again, the Parliamentary Assembly should be done the courtesy of being told what the brief is in advance. The Secretary General took it upon himself to commission the report, and did not give the Parliamentary Assembly any opportunity to comment on the brief of the Group of Eminent Persons’ report.

A lot can be made of the use of the word “eminent”, but though the report may have been constructed by Eminent Persons, it eminently misses the point on many issues that we politicians deal with daily on the streets of the cities and towns, and in the countryside, that we represent. There are always good examples, but sadly there are many bad examples.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Herkel.

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – Living together is necessary and an existential choice in human life and in history. The first question is: living together with whom? The second question should be: who are we? Our common house of Europe has quite big differences in perspective on those issues. Some difficult problems are rightly formulated in the so-called Group of Eminent Persons’ report, as well in our report. From time to time, it seems to me that the main focus in western Europe is on the following questions: what are the problems with immigrants or with populist anti-immigrant parties? Why does multiculturalism not function, and what did Mr Cameron, Mr Sarkozy and Ms Merkel actually say on the subject?

I remind the Assembly that there are also questions to do with the complicated ethnic problems in the Balkans, problems with Roma, and unresolved problems in the Caucasus and Transnistria; there are many problems on the European continent. In many member states, including mine, the structure of the population was changed drastically during the Soviet occupation. That, too, is a problem.

The report is very general, but there are hundreds of case studies to be addressed. As was said earlier, we are at the beginning of the process. I should like to thank two people. The first is our rapporteur, Mr Toshev, for his patience and for one very clever point that he made; he said that if multiculturalism does not function and there are problems with parallel societies and with segregation within societies, we must speak about intercultural dialogue and interculturalism. I also thank Mr Jagland for today’s speech, and the speech he made in Brussels at the end of February, in which he said that Merkel, Cameron and other state leaders had raised an important problem that must be addressed, not suppressed.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Ghiletchi.

Mr GHILETCHI (Moldova) – I congratulate Mr Toshev on presenting a good report and putting together a relevant draft recommendation. I thank the Secretary General, Mr Jagland, for taking the initiative and appointing the Group of Eminent Persons to prepare a report on the challenges arising from the resurgence of intolerance in Europe. However, like Mr Hancock, I regret the fact that the Secretary General, and many members, are not here.

As many have mentioned, today’s debate is the starting point of a long, complex and painful process. The decision on how we continue to address the current cultural battle will decide whether the European will succeed. If the subject is treated properly, it can help us cast a prophetic vision for the future of our continent. The growing tension between unity and diversity, and multiculturalism and identity, and the potential clash between fundamental freedoms and rights, forces us to reflect on the current crisis in order find ways to live together in 21st-century Europe.

It seems that unity in diversity, translated into multiculturalism, is not an adequate solution for current collisions between cultures, religious groups and minorities in Europe. Similar concerns were raised by political leaders of Germany, the United Kingdom and France, according to whom multicultural models have not led to an acceptable state of living together.

Taking note of the increasing diversity, it is essential to find common ground that can be reached through continuous dialogue. However, with the composition of our societies being so diverse, clashes between values and ideas are inevitable. What should prevail then? On the one hand, we have a set of fundamental values that are guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights. Those values have stood the test of time and are accepted by all European players. On the other, we are observing a tendency to promote new values that are emerging under the pressure coming from different interest groups. As a result, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopts resolutions and recommendations while the European Court of Human Rights delivers judgments affirming values that are not directly mentioned in the Convention.

New values should be cultivated and incorporated in society in a harmonious way, but should not be imposed through administrative means, including positive discrimination.

We should not oppose the right to promote new values, but they must not undermine our identity, which is built on fundamental values. While building the Europe of the 21st century, we should not renounce our faith, language or culture. In other words, our motto should be, “Unity in diversity, but without denying the identity”.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The last speaker in the debate is Mr Huseynov.

Mr HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – For almost 70 years, mankind has been making flights from Earth to remote places, as well as searching for possible living space in the endless outer space. Nevertheless, so far we have one common house called Earth, on which we are all sentenced to reside. For that reason, we should not forget that we are, in essence, all the same. We have no superiority before one another. Our sole superiority is our humanity, and as humans our supreme duty is to help each other.

To give an example, I shall talk about South Caucasus, our small house, which is part of our big house, Earth. There are three newly independent states in South Caucasus, which at one time even used to be part of one federation, in the early decades of the 20th century. However, at that time those three states were not independent as they were part of the Soviet empire and had no opportunity to establish a separate house.

Already, 20 years have passed since the three South Caucasus republics – Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia – became independent. History gave them a chance to establish a common Caucasus house, which could facilitate mutual enrichment, welfare and useful co-operation with near and distant neighbours.

That common Caucasus house could have been founded 20 years ago, but it has not yet been established. Azerbaijan and Georgia have lost out due to the absence of such development. Nevertheless, the great loser is Armenia. Armenia has been pursuing a policy of aggression towards Azerbaijan for 20 years, thus occupying 20% of its territories by means of external forces, as well as making constant territorial claims with regard to both Azerbaijan and Georgia.

As a result, Armenia fell away and stood aside from all profitable international economic projects, and it will go on being isolated unless it brings to an end the policy that it has conducted up to this day. Just a single example will provide proof enough. The Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline, which is bringing increasing profits to Azerbaijan, Turkey, Georgia and other countries, could have passed through the territory of Armenia. That could have been an economically more suitable option for those who construct pipelines. However, Armenia’s aggressive policy led to the rejection of that option.

Armenia encroached on Azerbaijani territories, but failed to be an owner of them, and it will never succeed. Armenia – unwilling to live in peaceful co-existence with its neighbours – instigated the deepening decay of its own people. Despite constantly accusing others with respect to the long-suffering Armenian people, it is the Armenian authorities that have made the Armenian people long suffering.

Simply, that lesson from our recent history clearly affirms the fact that the single right path in the 21st century, which is under way and progressing as time passes, is living together – living hand in hand, helping and supporting each other in sincere co-operation. Those who oppose that way of life will face the bitter fate of Armenia. Please, make your choice!

THE PRESIDENT – That concludes the list of speakers.

I call Mr Toshev, the rapporteur, to reply. You have two minutes and 45 seconds.

Mr TOSHEV (Bulgaria) – I should take this opportunity to express my gratitude to the Secretariat of the Political Affairs Committee – namely, Mr João Ary and Despina Chatzivassiliou. I also thank the secretariats of the other committees, which have actively contributed to the preparation of this common paper. I also express my gratitude to the Secretary General of the Assembly, Wojciech Sawicki, for facilitating this process.

It is important that we have been able to present our point of view before the Committee of Ministers, which is to consider also the paper produced by the Group of Eminent Persons. It is important for the voice of the Assembly to be heard.

I am grateful to all those who took part in the debate and contributed sincerely. I do not have enough time to answer all the points that have been raised, but with respect to the remarks made by Mr Gross, I want to say that the inter-cultural approach is not substituting for multiculturalsim, but complementing it. These are additional measures. We propose additional measures on how to improve the situation where it is not working well.

Lord Tomlinson addressed mainly the report produced by the Group of Eminent Persons. I did not hear much criticism of the report produced by the Political Affairs Committee. We should not mix the two documents up; they are different.

I would like to address the remarks made by Mr Moriau. First, the question of race is used only in the context of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, hate and racist speeches or xenophobia. That is the situation as it is described in paragraph 14.3 of the draft recommendation.

I am not saying anything about abortion, because that is beyond the scope of the report, but the text about family-supporting policy refers to supporting families with children, women on maternity leave and so on. That is what I meant when I spoke about family-supporting policy in order to fight the ageing of the European population.

I would have liked more time to reply to all the remarks that have been made, but I shall end by expressing my gratitude to all those who contributed to the preparation of our document. I hope that our voice will be heard in the Committee of Ministers.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Does Mr Franken wish to speak on behalf of the committee? You have two minutes.

Mr FRANKEN (Netherlands) – There are no other remarks to be made. We have discussed the report and some amendments were proposed. One was rejected while the others were all accepted. As the rapporteur said – this is an important point – the report will be submitted to the Committee of Ministers, so it will continue on its way.

THE PRESIDENT – The Political Affairs Committee has presented a draft recommendation to which five amendments and an oral sub-amendment have been tabled.

They will be taken in the following order: 1 to 3, 5 and 4.

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

We come now to Amendment 1, tabled by Mr Chope, on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 6, after the words “People coming”, to delete the word: “lawfully”.

I call Mr Chope to support the amendment.

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – Amendment 1 would delete “lawfully” from paragraph 6, which means that it would apply to all people in a country whether they had arrived there lawfully or unlawfully. The obligations of people who are resident in a country to comply with the rule of law are the same, whether they arrive there legally or illegally.

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

Lord TOMLINSON (United Kingdom) – It is rather a tortuous argument to suggest that everybody should abide by the rule of law, whether they arrived in a country lawfully or not. If they did not arrive in a country lawfully, they have one route by which they can make it lawful. If they are in fear of their life or persecution they can apply for asylum. However, other people do not have the rights in the country and should not be associated with them.

THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the Political Affairs Committee?

Mr FRANKEN (Netherlands) – The amendment was rejected.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 1 is rejected.

We come now to Amendment 2, tabled by Mr Chope, on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph after 14.5, to insert the following sub-paragraph: “address the democratic deficit resulting from the lack of democratic participation of groups such as migrants, Roma, and other groups susceptible to marginalisation;”.

I call Mr Chope to support Amendment 2.

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – This would add an extra sub-paragraph to paragraph 14, which makes recommendations from the Assembly to the Group of Eminent Persons. These would require them to address the democratic deficit resulting from the lack of democratic participation among groups such as migrants, Roma and other groups susceptible to marginalisation.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr FRANKEN (Netherlands) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 2 is adopted.

We come now to Amendment 3, tabled by Mr Chope, on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 16.6, to insert the following sub-paragraph: “examine the steps needed to guarantee the basic rights of irregular migrants and their children, recognising that many of these persons are exploited and can not or will not be returned to their countries of origin;”.

I call Mr Chope to support Amendment 3.

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – This adds another sub-paragraph after paragraph 16.6 to the list of recommendations that the Committee of Ministers should take into account when implementing its report. It calls on them to examine the steps needed to guarantee the basic rights of irregular migrants and their children, recognising that many of these are exploited and cannot or will not return to their countries of origin.

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

Lord TOMLINSON (United Kingdom) – We have already kept the word “lawfully” in the report, yet this seeks to do by the back door what cannot be done by the front door. It refers to the basic rights of irregular migrants. In law, irregular migrants do not have basic rights. They might have rights to receive minimum health care, shelter and so on. However, the amendment goes on to talk about “cannot or will not” be returned to their countries of origin. The way to remedy that is to apply for asylum rights if you qualify.

THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the Political Affairs Committee?

Mr FRANKEN (Netherlands) – The committee voted in favour.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 3 is adopted.

We come now to Amendment 5, tabled by Ms Kaufer, on behalf of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 16.15, to insert the following paragraphs:

“The Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers, in implementing the recommendations of the Group of Eminent Persons, take specific measures to ensure the protection of those who are particularly vulnerable or at risk of exclusion and marginalisation, enabling them to live in dignity. In this connection, the Assembly stresses that everyone is entitled to respect of social rights that cannot be denied. The Council of Europe in its Committee of Ministers’ Recommendation No. R (2000) 3 on the right to the satisfaction of basic material needs of persons in situations of extreme hardship, stressed that this right should contain as a minimum the right to food, clothing, shelter and basic medical care. The Recommendation underlines that the exercise of this right should be open to all citizens and foreigners, whatever the latter’s position under national rules on the status of foreigners.

The Assembly calls upon member states to guarantee access to the rights enshrined in the European Social Charter (revised) for all, priority being given to the right to health, to housing, and to work, notably for migrant and minority communities such as Roma, thereby creating favourable conditions for living together based on inclusion and non-discrimination.”

I call Ms Kaufer to support Amendment 5.

Ms KAUFER (Hungary) – This amendment recognises access to social rights for all, which nobody rejected or objected to in the debate. It recognises member states’ responsibility to deliver that under our common instrument, the European Social Charter, which is recognised in the amendment as the basis for delivering these rights.

THE PRESIDENT – I have been informed that Mr Toshev wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee as follows:

In Amendment 5 delete the words “The Recommendation underlines that the exercise of this right should be open to all citizens and foreigners, whatever the latter’s position under national rules on the status of foreigners.

The Assembly calls upon members states to guarantee access to the rights enshrined in the European social Charter for all, priority being given to the right to health, to housing, and to work, notably for migrant and minority communities such as Roma, thereby creating favourable conditions for living together based on inclusion and non-discrimination.”

In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules. However, do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated? That is not the case. I therefore call Mr Toshev to support the oral sub-amendment.

Mr TOSHEV (Bulgaria) – The committee wanted to keep a significant part of this text – the first part. Unfortunately, we did not reach agreement on the second part. Lord Tomlinson was strongly opposed to this text. To reach consensus on a position, we decided to support the uncontested part of the amendment, since we value this text and are grateful to the committee which proposes to delete the rest.

THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the oral sub-amendment? I call Ms Kaufer.

Ms KAUFER (Hungary) – This sub-amendment would take out the gist of the amendment that is suggested by the committee. As I said, access to social rights for all has not been contested by any of the speakers, which is why I cannot support the sub-amendment.

THE PRESIDENT – The mover of the original amendment is against the oral sub-amendment. I ask Mr Franken for the opinion of the Political Affairs Committee of the oral sub-amendment.

Mr FRANKEN (Netherlands) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT – I shall now put the oral sub-amendment to the vote.

The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

We will now consider the main amendment, as amended.

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

What is the opinion of the Political Affairs Committee on the amendment, as amended?

Mr FRANKEN (Netherlands) – The committee is in favour.

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

The vote is open.

Amendment 5, as amended, is adopted.

We come now to Amendment 4, tabled by Mr Chope, on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, which is, in the draft recommendation, at the end of paragraph 19, to add the following sentence: “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.”

I call Mr Chope to support Amendment 4. You have 30 seconds.

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – This fits in at the end of our draft recommendation, where we say that a conference is to be organised by the Secretary General and the Committee of Ministers. The amendment is about ensuring that ideas are carried forward, and it speaks for itself.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr FRANKEN (Netherlands) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 4 is adopted.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Doc. 12631, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft recommendation in Doc. 12631, as amended, is adopted, with 45 votes for, 8 votes against and 12 abstentions.

I thank the rapporteurs and co-rapporteurs for their work.

6. Date, time and agenda of the next sitting

THE PRESIDENT – The Assembly will hold its next public sitting tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. with the agenda that was approved on Monday.

The sitting is adjourned.

(The sitting was closed at 7.50 p.m.)

Contents

1.       Written declaration

2.       Address by Mr Mladenov, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Bulgaria

      Questions:

      Mr Iwiński (Poland)

      Ms Memecan (Turkey)

      Mr Bender (Poland)

      Mr Kox (Netherlands)

      Mr Petrenco (Moldova)

      Mr Fournier (France)

      Mr Gaudi Nagy (Hungary)

Ms Grozdanova (Bulgaria)

Ms von Cramon-Taubadel (Germany)

Mr Katrinis (Greece)

3.       Organisation of debates

4.       Reform of the Parliamentary Assembly

      Presentation by Mr Mignon of report of the Ad hoc Committee on the Reform of the Parliamentary Assembly (Doc. 12672)

Speakers:

Mr von Sydow (Sweden)

Mr Marquet (Monaco)

Mr R. Walter (United Kingdom)

Mr Kox (Netherlands)

Mr Herkel (Estonia)

Mr Pourgourides (Cyprus)

Ms Naghdalyan (Armenia)

Ms Maury Pasquier (Switzerland)

Mr Chope (United Kingdom)

Mr Flego (Croatia)

Mr Papadimoulis (Greece)

Mr Mendes Bota (Portugal)

Mr Holovaty (Ukraine)

Mr Vareikis (Lithuania)

Mr Salles (France)

Mr Gaudi Nagy (Hungary)

Ms Schuster (Germany)

Ms Pashayeva (Azerbaijan)

Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin (Sweden)

Ms Vėsaitė (Lithuania)

Ms Woldseth (Norway)

Ms Kovács (Serbia)

Mr Cebeci (Turkey)

Sir Alan Meale (United Kingdom)

Mr Toshev (Bulgaria)

Ms Guţu (Moldova)

Mr Pochinok (Russian Federation)

Ms Bilozir (Ukraine)

Mr Falzon (Malta)

Mr Negele (Liechtenstein)

Mr Kandelaki (Georgia)

Mr Szabó (Hungary)

Mr Huseynov (Azerbaijan)

Mr Fournier (France)

Mr Hancock (United Kingdom)

Reply

Mr Mignon (France)

      Vote on a draft resolution

5.       Living together in 21st-century Europe: follow-up to the report of the Group of Eminent Persons of the Council of Europe (resumed debate)

      Speakers:

      Ms Graham (Norway)

      Mr Sudarenkov (Russian Federation)

      Ms Radulović-Šćepanović (Montenegro)

      Mr Reiss (France)

      Ms Fataliyeva (Azerbaijan)

      Mr Fritz (Germany)

      Mr O’Reilly (Ireland)

      Mr Hancock (United Kingdom)

      Mr Herkel (Estonia)

      Mr Ghiletchi (Moldova)

      Mr Huseynov (Azerbaijan)

      Replies

      Mr Toshev (Bulgaria)

      Mr Franken (Netherlands)

      Vote on a draft resolution

6.       Date, time and agenda of the next sitting

Appendix

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

Ruhi AÇIKGÖZ

Francis AGIUS*

Pedro AGRAMUNT FONT DE MORA*

Arben AHMETAJ*

Miloš ALIGRUDIĆ*

Karin ANDERSEN

Florin Serghei ANGHEL*

Miguel ARIAS CAÑETE*

Khadija ARIB/Hans Franken

Mörđur ÁRNASON

Francisco ASSIS*

Lokman AYVA

Alexander BABAKOV*

Daniel BACQUELAINE

Viorel Riceard BADEA*

Denis BADRÉ/Alain Cousin

Gagik BAGHDASARYAN

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*

Oksana BILOZIR

Brian BINLEY*

Rosa Delia BLANCO TERÁN*

Roland BLUM/Christine Marin

Olena BONDARENKO

Louis BONTES/Tuur Elzinga

Mladen BOSIĆ*

Anne BRASSEUR

Márton BRAUN/László Koszorús

Federico BRICOLO*

Han TEN BROEKE*

Patrizia BUGNANO*

André BUGNON/Francine John-Calame

Sylvia CANEL*

Mevlüt ÇAVUŞOĞLU/Yüksel Özden

Erol Aslan CEBECİ

Mikael CEDERBRATT

Otto CHALOUPKA*

Igor CHERNYSHENKO/Oleg Lebedev

Vannino CHITI*

Christopher CHOPE

Pia CHRISTMAS-MØLLER*

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Desislav CHUKOLOV/Aleksandar Nenkov

Boriss CILEVIČS

Ingrida CIRCENE

James CLAPPISON

Ann COFFEY/Lord Donald Anderson

Georges COLOMBIER/Bernard Fournier

Agustín CONDE BAJÉN/Blanca Fernández-Capel Baños

Titus CORLĂŢEAN*

Igor CORMAN

Lena DĄBKOWSKA-CICHOCKA/Bronisław Korfanty

Per DALGAARD*

Cristian DAVID*

Giovanna DEBONO/Joseph Falzon

Joseph DEBONO GRECH*

Armand DE DECKER*

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*

Frank FAHEY*

Piero FASSINO*

Nikolay FEDOROV*

Valeriy FEDOROV

Relu FENECHIU*

Mirjana FERIĆ-VAC/Marija Pejčinović-Burić

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ*

Axel E. FISCHER*

Jana FISCHEROVÁ*

Paul FLYNN*

Stanislav FOŘT

Pernille FRAHM*

ario FRANCESCHINI*

Erich Georg FRITZ

Martin FRONC

György FRUNDA*

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/Cindy Franssen

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*

Rafael HUSEYNOV

Shpëtim IDRIZI/Kastriot Islami

Željko IVANJI*

Igor IVANOVSKI*

Tadeusz IWIŃSKI

Denis JACQUAT/Muriel Marland-Militello

Michael Aastrup JENSEN*

Mogens JENSEN

Mats JOHANSSON/Mikael Oscarsson

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*

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*

Philippe MAHOUX

Theo MAISSEN

Gennaro MALGIERI*

Pietro MARCENARO

Milica MARKOVIĆ*

Dick MARTY/Liliane Maury Pasquier

Jean-Pierre MASSERET*

Meritxell MATEU PI

Pirkko MATTILA*

Frano MATUŠIĆ

Sir Alan MEALE

Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA*

Evangelos MEIMARAKIS/ Nikolaos Dendias

Ivan MELNIKOV*

Assunta MELONI*

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*

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/Oleksiy Plotnikov

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*

Vilmos SZABÓ

Melinda SZÉKYNÉ SZTRÉMI*

Chiora TAKTAKISHVILI/David Darchiashvili

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*

Ilyas UMAKHANOV*

Mustafa ÜNAL

Giuseppe VALENTINO/Oreste Tofani

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

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:

Doris FROMMELT

Kerstin LUNDGREN

Observers:

Hervé Pierre GUILLOT

Martha Leticia SOSA GOVEA