2011 ORDINARY SESSION

_________________

(Third part)

REPORT

Twenty-sixth sitting

Thursday 23 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 3.10 p.m.

THE PRESIDENT – The sitting is open.

1. The political and humanitarian consequences of the situation in Syria and Libya

Current affairs debate

THE PRESIDENT – The first item of business this afternoon is a current affairs debate on the political and humanitarian consequences of the situation in Syria and Libya.

Under Rule 51.4, the debate is limited to one and a half hours, and speaking time is limited to five minutes for all members except the first speaker, chosen by the Bureau, who is allowed 10 minutes. The debate will therefore end at 4.30 p.m.

I call Lord Tomlinson on a point of order.

Lord TOMLINSON (United Kingdom) – I hope that you will excuse me for being a bit of a pedant, but a one and a half hour debate from now would end at 4.40 p.m.

THE PRESIDENT – We started late because there was no one in the Chamber. We have to consider our other business as well.

I call Mr Robert Walter. You have 10 minutes.

Mr R. WALTER (United Kingdom) – I hope that in good European fashion we will promptly stop the clock at 3 o’clock.

It is my pleasure to open this debate, which closely considers an issue that is not only current and important for the countries involved and the immediate region but highly consequential for the whole international community. It concerns democracy, human rights and the rule of law on our southern frontier, in states that will, we hope, be able to join us as Partners for Democracy, like Morocco did on Tuesday.

I am disappointed that Colonel Gadaffi has not got the message and still holds on to power in Tripoli. The Libyan people continue to suffer. I am disappointed by Bashar al-Assad. I have met him and he seemed to be a cultured man who cared about his people and about peace in the Middle East, who could have been a valuable interlocutor. I feel let down by him, however, and he has proven to be as bad as his father and the people around him.

We in Europe are no strangers to violent upheaval. We have lived through world wars and civil wars, we have languished in the trenches, and we have been mired in ideological struggle through centuries of conflict and sacrifice. We have strengthened our democratic systems, replenished our democratic institutions and learned to cherish our democratic values. Even today, some 65 years after the end of the Second World War, 20 years after the end of the Cold War and in a period of unprecedented peaceful co-existence and co-operation, our journey continues.

The issue we are addressing – namely the political and humanitarian consequences of the situation in Libya and Syria and the process by which transformation occurs and social powers are reorganised – shares profound similarities with Europe’s experience, past and present. There are lessons to be learned within our legacy.

We know, for example, that democracy can safeguard stability in the long term but the process of achieving it is, more often than not, destabilising. Moreover, current events teach us that democracy is not a static concept; it changes over time and evolves and adapts to new realities. The beauty of democracy, however, lies in its uncertainty and when citizens are free to elect their leaders, political processes become progressive, but politics, as we know, can be unpredictable.

So, the winds of change are sweeping through the Middle East at a rapid and dramatic pace, driven by youth and fed on new ideas. Like Europeans, civilians are fighting for freedom and equality and as was the case in the European experience, the fates of the countries are closely intertwined with those of their neighbours. The difference is that in today’s globalised world, the repercussions of change will be fast and far reaching.

As we saw, the unrest in Libya was almost immediately met with an armed response on 15 February 2011. Live fire, machine guns and anti-aircraft artillery were allegedly used against demonstrators, particularly in the opposition stronghold of Benghazi in the east of the country. The threatened massacre in Benghazi was the motive for the UN resolution to protect civilians. The International Criminal Court has evidence for between 500 and 700 deaths in February alone.

Following efforts by the UK and France and the UN Security Council, military action was authorised to protect civilians. The interpretation of the resolution proved controversial, however, and the intensification of the campaign could undermine its political support, with China and Russia urging a cease-fire and Italian support uncertain. The US military led the action at first but after Libyan air defences were destroyed, European NATO members took the lead.

Military action has halted the advance of Libyan Government forces and prevented the overthrow of Benghazi, Misrata and other rebel-held towns. Observers worry, however, that the situation is now in stalemate. There have been calls for more ground strikes but there is dissent in NATO about the contribution from some member states and there is also concern about retaining the support of other Arab countries in the region.

The outcome of the conflict is uncertain. On the heels of the Libyan revolt came the Syrian uprising. Protests began in March with the release of political prisoners and demonstrations in the southern town of Deraa were harshly put down, leading to several deaths and triggering further unrest. President Bashar al-Assad was quick to respond by dismissing his cabinet and announcing reforms, but the violence continues to increase with the army deploying tanks and other heavy weaponry to quell it. The number of deaths is estimated at more than 1 000.

Like Libya, Syria is in a fragile and precarious state, but Syria faces different dynamics. It is beset by deep religious divisions and the Sunni Islamic majority resents rule by the Allawite minority, an offshoot of Shia Islam. The country also has a record of brutal repression, including the massacre at Hama in 1982, when some 10 000 people were killed as a result of the leadership’s bid to crush a Sunni Islamist revolt against the rule of the then President Hafez al-Assad. The west and Syria’s neighbours fear the consequences of the regime’s collapse, given Syria’s strategic location bordering Iraq, Lebanon and, of course, Israel.

The regime might last only as long as the armed forces remain loyal. The death of some 120 soldiers in the northern town of Jisr al-Shougour could have been the result of retaliation against mutinying armed forces. The government retook the area with a level of brutality that was described by the US State Department as “absolutely revolting”.

Syria, Libya and, indeed, the rest of the Arab world have not, until now, joined the globalised move towards democracy. There had been a long-held assumption that Arab and Islamic traditions were intrinsically incompatible with western democratic values, but the latest developments have all but debunked that theory. Although the picture is still emerging, the story is clear. There is no ingrained Arab cultural resistance to democracy. The Arab Spring represents our shared aspirations and desires for dignity, rights and participative government.

So far, the uprisings have had little to do with groups such as al-Qaeda and many hope that such groups will be further marginalised by mass movements towards democracy. It is far from clear, however, what governments the region will get in the end. Islamist parties, excluded from the political process by most of the old regimes, will certainly benefit from change. That prospect leaves many nervous. What if a democratic mandate is awarded to undemocratic forces? Regionally, the Middle East is fraught with rivalries and tribal divisions. The Israel-Palestinian conflict remains one of the world’s great flashpoints. Fanning the flames of anti-western hostility is Iran, a burgeoning nuclear power that shows no serious signs of cracking under the weight of regional pressures.

As an international community, we must provide humanitarian and political support. Unlike with Iraq and other past events, we must lead from behind. We should show empathy, encouragement and a willingness to share knowledge. This is not the time however, to dictate solutions. The fate of the Libyan and Syrian people is in their own hands. We should be ready to step in to help, if we are invited, but we must accept that building democracy in the Arab world will take time. Democracy is not something that is found in the pot when the heavy lid of authoritarian government is lifted; Iraq taught us that. We all know that democracy is not a magic wand that solves all of society’s problems. As Winston Churchill famously observed, democracy is a very bad form of government, but all the others are so much worse. The changes that are required to build democratic mechanisms are extensive and profound; think constitutions, electoral systems, and laws and regulations relating to political parties, the justice system and the media – and those are just the tip of the iceberg. We democratic veterans, if I can describe us in that way, are still trying to figure it all out.

The difference is that this time, democracy is not being imposed from outside. Change is being initiated and pursued from within. The road is long, and it will not be smooth, but as we in Europe know, the prize of freedom and democracy is worth it in the end.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Walter, for introducing the debate. I now call Mr Gale, who is speaking on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Mr GALE (United Kingdom) – In response to a question from my colleague Oliver Heald, the chairman in office of the Committee of Ministers, Mr Gryshchenko, said of Syria, “The Council of Europe is geographically focused on Europe”, but that “The situation in Syria is closely followed.” In fact, of course, political events in countries around the rim of Europe have a profound geopolitical and practical effect on all of us.

Earlier in the week, we discussed how events in Libya, in addition to domestic human rights abuses, had generated a tide of refugees that has engulfed Tunisia and impacted on Italy, France and the rest of Europe. Similarly, those fleeing persecution and abuse in Syria at the hands of President Assad have headed for Turkey. It is reported that 10 500 people have crossed the Turkish border, and that some 35 000 more are clustered in the area, preparing to leave.

At the risk of widening the debate, the Assembly should not overlook the situation that the UK Foreign Secretary, William Hague, said would “endanger the hard-won peace agreement” that is developing in southern Kordofan and Abyei in Sudan. Experience tells us that if we in Europe do not invest in and support transitions to democracy from the beginning and wholeheartedly, the price that we pay through the influx of refugees and in instability will be very much greater in the long run.

I hope that in closely following the situation in Syria, the Committee of Ministers will recognise the need to be proactive if the aspirations of the Jasmine Revolution, the Arab Spring and all that follows from those events are to be realised. Simply to watch is insufficient.

As Bob Walter said in opening the debate, democracy is not a static concept. Nor will democracy just happen. Europe has a considerable and important role to play, not as an observer, but as an active participant in the process. To follow closely is not enough; Europe has to show a lead.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you very much. I now call Mr Kox, who speaks on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr KOX (Netherlands) – Measuring the humanitarian and political consequences of what is happening now in Syria and Libya is not easy. The authoritarian regimes of both countries allow neither observers nor journalists in the territories under their command. Nevertheless, it is clear that, due to the violence in both countries, thousands of citizens are seeking refuge outside their country. Only today, hundreds of Syrian citizens crossed the Syrian-Turkish border, after the Syrian army entered the border area near Khirbet el-Jouz early this morning. Since the beginning of the rebellion for democracy and against the regime of President Assad, thousands of Syrians have decided to seek shelter in Turkey. I applaud the willingness of the Turkish authorities and the activities of the Turkish Red Crescent to help those refugees.

In Libya, hundreds of thousands of citizens had to leave their home and their country, and had to cross the borders with Tunisia and Egypt. We should also applaud the solidarity of the people and authorities of both Tunisia and Egypt, who gave assistance after this great humanitarian disaster. We should ask our governments to inquire as to how our countries could be of any help to Tunisia, Egypt and Turkey, and Europe should offer shelter to those who have to leave their troubled country.

We know that in both Libya and Syria, tens of thousands of citizens have been arrested, and we have enough proof, thanks to the good work of Al-Jazeera, that many of them are brutally tortured, or are subject to degrading treatment. In the past few months, many brave citizens of Libya and Syria have paid with their lives for their wish to have their countries democratised. We owe our deep respect to all those brave women and men, many of them youngsters.

In Libya, the United Nations Security Council authorised the international community to use all means to protect Libyan citizens. It was and is clear that Libyan citizens need protection, but what seemed at first to be an attempt to guarantee that protection against shameful air strikes from Gadaffi’s airforce has developed into a daily series of aggressive air strikes against all kinds of targets in Libya by NATO. We now know that innocent civilians are dying as well in those air strikes. That painful development has led to urgent appeals from the Arab League, as well as from the Italian Government recently, to end the air strikes and to seek a cease-fire, as they are not – or no longer, at least – seen as contributing to a sustainable solution of the crisis in Libya.

My group supports the appeal for an immediate cease-fire, under international observation. My group also supports an investigation by the International Criminal Court of possible crimes against humanity committed by the Gadaffi regime.

Military intervention in Syria from outside the country has not been considered until now. Nevertheless, President Assad accuses the international community of fighting a war against his regime. He calls his citizens criminals, crooks, traitors and spies, helping foreign powers to overthrow his regime. Those who might have thought that the Assad family would perhaps now face reality have to admit that the Syrian regime has lost contact with reality and is living in a fantasy world. That fantasy world, however, is responsible for the nightmare in which millions of Syrian citizens have to live.

Nevertheless, throughout Syria, local and regional committees are co-ordinating ever better their struggle for democracy and against shameful tyranny. Fortunately, they get ever more support from solidarity movements outside Syria; we should complement those movements, too. In my contacts with representatives of the Syrian resistance, I have learned how important it is for them to get those signs of international solidarity. Perhaps the Assembly could assist the several supporting committees to develop the best possible structure for international co-operation and support.

We call on the regimes of both Libya and Syria to allow international observers and journalists to inform the world community of what is actually happening, as well as to allow international humanitarian aid and relief organisations to help all those citizens who are victims of ongoing violence in their country.

In October, we will again discuss developments in the Arab world on the basis of a report by Jean-Charles Gardetto. Many things could happen in the meanwhile, so we invite you, Mr President, to react, together with others and representatives of international organisations, whenever needed, to new developments in the Arab world in general, and in Libya and Syria in particular. The sooner the suffering in those countries ends, the sooner democracy can emerge.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I now call Mr Gardetto, who is speaking on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) said that the past six months had seen a legitimate popular uprising turn into an unexpected revolutionary movement. The scope of this revolution’s consequences had been wide ranging: two dictators had fallen in Tunisia and Egypt; and democracy was starting to wake up in Morocco, but the story in Libya and Syria was more tragic.

People were protesting for an end to the Mafiosi and corrupt dictatorships which had been in power for decades. The people were making simple universal demands for jobs, freedoms and better government, which should be supported. The Libyan and Syrian dictators were attempting to use arms and blood to bring the protesters down. The two regimes would inevitably be brought down by the waves of violence that they themselves had utilised. The horror and desperation apparent in their actions was leading the two countries into a state of chaos.

Innocent protesters had been fired on, 30 children had been killed and a total of 13 000 people, 3 000 in Syria and 10 000 in Libya, had been massacred. Hamza Ali al-Khateeb, a 13-year-old Syrian child who had chanted “down with the regime”, had been taken by the security forces and tortured and murdered, and his mutilated body had been returned to his parents to demonstrate the consequences of rebellion. That kind of violence perpetrated on unarmed civilians could not be justified. In those circumstances, international intervention was not interference with another country’s affairs but support for people’s absolute rights.

The humanitarian consequences of revolution would be great. One million Libyans had fled their country, as had many thousands of Syrians. A further flood of immigration was expected from Maghreb and Mashriq. Other Arab countries had been supporting these refugees in a spirit of solidarity.

He quoted Karl Marx who had said, “It is people who make history but they do not know the history they create.” It was important for the present struggle to be supported by the international community. The Council of Europe should bring to bear its expertise and experience on the situation, particularly through transition committees with their knowledge of embedding democracy. The coalition of protestors in Syria wanted international support to collect evidence against their terrorist oppressors. He concluded that it was also important for the Council of Europe to engage in an early dialogue with those countries in which the winds of democracy had not yet started to blow.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Gardetto. I call Mr Gross, on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – The Social Democrats share the disappointment that Mr Walter expressed in his opening statement. That disappointment is that we could not help to prevent thousands of people who fought for their democratic rights in Libya and Syria from being killed for taking that action. Another disappointment is that we do not have a quick solution or a quick fix, and we are unable to give help quickly so as to prevent perhaps other hundreds from dying for this.

We have to say that the biggest disappointment is feeling helpless in some sense. The Social Democrats think that we are at a dead end concerning Libya and the bombing. That does not mean that we did not support this at the beginning, because we were able to prevent bloodshed from happening in Benghazi. It is good that we did that on that day, because Gadaffi was ready to kill even more of his own people. Now, however, there is no political perspective, no military perspective and no economic perspective.

Most Social Democrats share the idea that we should try to bring about a cease-fire. That does not mean that it would be for ever, but we should try for a negotiation. There is a double opportunity for that negotiation. The first opportunity is that in Libya we could try to find a solution that prevented even more people from being killed. That is not a certainty, but we could try. The second opportunity is that, by doing this towards Libya, we could open a door towards Syria. There are too many in the United Nations Security Council who believe that when we ask for a resolution concerning Syria, we have a hidden military agenda.

There is no military intervention possible in Syria. Nevertheless, we must do everything that we can to ensure that the dictator there cannot violate his people any more. Mr Walter correctly said that perhaps the dictator’s power depends on the military. One of the most interesting points is that some of the military people turned their backs on him. However, he has security forces – Allawites, special elite troops – which fire on those people in the military who turn their backs on him. The majority of the members of the Syrian people’s army are Sunnis.

When there was an uprising in one of the towns near the Turkish border, the military shot in the back those others of the military who refused to fire on civilians. The victims fled to Turkey. We must praise Turkey, because the border is still open. We should do what we said we would do during our debate on asylum seeker sharing and help Turkey to keep the border open and save the refugees.

Perhaps that task will become bigger, because there seems to be even more violence used now by President Bashar al-Assad against his own people. We need a Security Council resolution that isolates the regime, shows it that it is not possible to stand any more of this and says that we want to do everything to help those democrats who try their best in Syria. However, we must ensure that we do not think about any military solution.

In that sense, the Social Democrats would like to support what Tiny Kox said about helping in respect of emigration and trying to help those at home. As the Chinese Ambassador said in the United Nations, Syria is not Libya; Syria’s regime is in a more specific region. He also said that we prefer not to lose the stability in this region. That is the old discourse, which we cannot accept any more. We should not accept stability as the price of dictatorships, where thousands of people pay the price. That discourse has to end. That is why we have to use the double opportunity that would be opened up by a cease-fire in Libya.

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

Ms MEMECAN (Turkey) – I thank Mr Walter for his realistic assessment of the situation in Syria and Libya. All people around the world strive for a better life, freedom and dignity. The Arab Spring was inevitable; the world was just not sure about its timing. Regimes that oppress and ignore the demands of their own people are doomed to failure. People will sooner or later demand freedom and their rights. We condemn those who continue to use force to silence their citizens who call for change. More than 1 100 innocent lives in Syria and an estimated 1 400 lives in Libya have been lost in the quest for freedom. By fighting against their own people, both regimes have lost their legitimacy.

As citizens of democratic and free regimes, we must assume collective responsibility to end the ongoing violence in Syria and Libya. Our primary approach should be to utilise peaceful mechanisms that create avenues for dialogue and negotiation between stakeholders. Through multilateral and co-ordinated international efforts, we must provide quick and effective responses to conflicts that result in death tolls mounting every day. The adoption of UN Security Council resolutions on Libya and the formation of the Libya contact group are good examples of such diplomacy.

The increasing political and financial support to the Transitional National Council has started to yield positive results. In Libya, we hope that all these efforts will establish a cease-fire, create secure humanitarian corridors and launch the process of political change. In Syria, intensifying international pressure is pushing President Assad to introduce comprehensive reforms. We need to hold firm in supporting and urging him not only to make statements but to expedite the implementation of the reforms.

At this time, our priority should be to focus on the men, women and children who are fleeing from the violence in their home countries. We should be prepared to welcome them and provide them with temporary housing and care until it is safe for them to return. Turkey is now host to more than 10 000 Syrian refugees, calling them guests and treating them as brothers and sisters in need. Hospitality should be coupled with humanitarian aid and reconstruction funds, such as those already given to Libya by countries that include the United States, Britain and Turkey.

Successful uprisings that meet their goals are followed by extremely delicate transition periods. As Ms Brasseur emphasised in her report on Tunisia, we should be ready to provide expertise to young democracies on building democratic institutions and processes. As Mr Walter just said, we should be there to offer our help but refrain from imposing it.

The Arab Spring will succeed because it embodies the universal values of dignity, freedom and respect for human rights, as the French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé said in a recent speech.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Mr Varvitsiotis is not here, so the next speaker is Lord Anderson.

Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom) – Libya and Syria are in the second wave of the Arab awakening. The first wave saw authoritarian regimes toppled in Tunisia and Egypt. However, it is far more difficult to predict the outcome in Syria and Libya. Most of us feel the helplessness that Andi Gross described so well. For example, will the outcome be the kind of oppression that we saw in Iran last year or, even worse, in Iran in 1979?

Both regimes have this in common: both are very low on the democratic index, both lack legitimacy and both have generated many refugees, as our Turkish colleague has just said. In both, divisions in the army may be the key factor in change. Because of the bankruptcy that faces both countries, a loss of middle-class confidence in those regimes, as stability becomes less possible, may well be the main driver of change.

However, there are also major differences between these two countries. In Libya the divisions are tribal, while in Syria they are sectarian. In Libya there is a transitional government and liberated areas. In Syria there is no centralised leadership and certainly no definite liberated areas. The United Nations Security Council, based on the Arab League platform, provided support in Resolutions 1990 and 1993 for limited action in respect of Libya. We might question whether the action so far has gone well beyond what was authorised. There is no prospect of any reasonable UN resolution in respect of Syria. The Arab League will not support it. Even the very moderate resolution expressing regret will be vetoed by China and Russia.

What can we in Europe and the Council of Europe do? Some of the choices that face us may be very sensitive as markets in these countries open up in sensitive areas. Our first reflection must be on the divisions that face us in Europe. These relate even to the recognition of the Benghazi regime. Initially, EU sanctions omitted the very name of President Assad, who is responsible, like his father, for so many massacres, even though sanctions will clearly play a key role in isolating both regimes.

I hope Europe will not remain divided on the humanitarian response. It has been easy enough to find vast resources for the bombing. The challenge will be to find similar resources for the reconstruction effort, which must, we hope, follow. It is surely in our interests and in line with our values to be positive, and to offer to share our experience of transition with both these countries. It was very important that the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development made a significant change to its policies in April of this year. We must encourage non-governmental organisations, human rights organisations and humanitarian infrastructure in so far as it exists.

I do not say this just because you are our Chairman, Mr President, but it is objectively clear that the role of Turkey, particularly in respect of Syria, is very important. Overall, we can make a positive contribution as partners and help to ensure that the Arab Spring does not turn into an Arab winter.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Lord Anderson. The next speaker is Mr Pozzo di Borgo from France.

Mr POZZO di BORGO (France) said that the thousands of Syrians fleeing to Turkey underlined the extent to which the political and humanitarian situation in the Middle East impacted upon other countries and institutions. The actions of Turkey were to be welcomed. Turkey had taken in over 10 000 victims of repression and had given humanitarian assistance to those camped along the border and suffering almost inhumane conditions. There were also victims who remained within Syria. Those who had not already been killed or imprisoned were staying at home terrorised. It was telling that the authorities were being forced to kill people in order to survive in power. Nearly 1 200 people had been assassinated while 10 000 had been imprisoned under the government’s murderous policy.

On the response of the international community, it was important to remember that diplomacy had subtleties that machine guns ignored. It was disappointing that the pitiless Assad Government in Syria had adopted an attitude which had demonstrated that it did not intend to engage in the process of dialogue. The sums committed by the international community, for example €160 million from the EU alone for humanitarian assistance, had demonstrated the political will to support the people suffering in those two countries. The terms of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 demonstrated the commitment to protecting civilians. This resolution had established a new right and ambition. Figures from Libya had to a certain extent undermined this position; there had already been 4 000 deaths in what NATO had termed “collateral damage” caused by the military intervention. More effort needed to be directed towards providing humanitarian assistance first and foremost. It was important to ensure that providing humanitarian assistance was not taken hostage to military requirements.

Thousands of refugees had entered Tunisia from Libya and were housed in temporary camps, and this had had a significant impact upon that country which was itself still responding to demands for democracy. The new right to protection created by UN Security Council Resolution 1973 would be difficult to implement. However the Council of Europe should go even further and condemn the situation in both countries without reservation.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Pozzo di Borgo. I call Mr Xuclà i Costa.

Mr XUCLÀ i COSTA (Spain) thanked the President and said he wished to make three main points. In the 1980s and 1990s, wars between many European countries had come to an end and many of the countries affected by those wars were today represented by members sitting side by side in the Parliamentary Assembly. The United Nations had made it clear that the international community had an obligation to protect citizens. A large number of innocent victims had been killed in Libya and Syria. In Libya, there had been between 6 000 and 11 000 civilian deaths and in Syria there had been between 1 000 and 2 000. Those civilians had been assassinated on the orders of the heads of state. That had provided a powerful argument in favour of UN Resolution 1973 which gave international legality for the intervention in Libya.

He wished that respect for human rights and democracy would extend to the furthest corner of the Arab world but it was necessary to recognise that to think about the situation in those terms was romantic and idealistic. The situation was not uniform across the Arab world and it was necessary to consider developments on a case-by-case and country-by-country basis. For example, while there had been revolutions in some countries that action had not been necessary in others. The Assembly had heard yesterday about the reforms under way in Morocco and it had welcomed that development. Libya had been faced with a civil war and the international community had taken sides. The situation was different in Syria, where a despotic minority was terrorising the majority. He wished that democracy and respect for human rights would reach those countries but it was not possible to give a uniform interpretation. They were individual cases and should be treated as such.

Finally, it was necessary to remember that democratic development should be accompanied by economic development. The Marshall Plan had provided economic help in the past to enable Europe to reconstruct itself, and now Europe must be aware that it would also have to contribute economically and help the Arab world in its move towards greater democracy.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Xuclà i Costa. I call Ms von Cramon-Taubadel.

Ms von CRAMON-TAUBADEL (Germany) said that Mohamed Bouazizi, the young vegetable seller in Tunisia who had set himself on fire in a protest, had triggered a rebellion, which had extended throughout the region. The leaders of Tunisia and Egypt had fled. These revolutionary events harboured some dangers. While European states had early on signalled their support for Tunisia, they were not unified on the questions of Syria and Libya.

Initially, United Nations Resolution 1973 had broad support including from the Arab League and influential states within the African Union such as Nigeria and South Africa. Intervention was seen to be justified because of the actions of Colonel Gadaffi. However, this intervention had not been entirely successful; the aims of military intervention were not clear and it had initially been expected that it would be just weeks before Gadaffi fell. There would be significant challenges to be faced once Gadaffi did eventually leave. However, there were some hopeful developments in the east of the country, particularly around the region of Benghazi. The actions of Turkey with regard to the situation in Syria had been crucial, as Prime Minister Erdoğan had been very critical of Syria.

She noted that Turkey had taken measures which showed an awareness of its responsibilities and had ensured a welcome for refugees. The European heads of state must recognise this and give full support to the refugees from north Africa. Stronger diplomatic and economic pressure had to be put on Syria. As a first step, the Russian Government had asked the United Nations to bring more pressure upon Syria. The Council of Europe had to act to bring about true reforms in Syria and Libya. Europeans should always be in favour of reforms over and above military action. The Assembly had to look to the future and consider what could happen in other unstable states such as Bahrain, Oman and Iran.

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

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Santini.

Mr SANTINI (Italy) thanked the President for the opportunity to speak in the debate and thought that it was good to link together the subjects of Syria and Libya as there were many similarities, which included the suffering of their people and the blood that had been had shed. However, the Assembly had to ask itself why the reaction of the UN to the troubles in the two countries had been so different.

European military planes flew over Libya, night after night, with the blessing of many institutional organisations, and the military intervention was considered a necessary preventative measure intended to stop Gadaffi using heavy artillery on his own people. The history of modern conflict with Libya had started 95 years ago and then led to the destruction of most the Libyan army and military installations. In contrast to the UN intervention on Libya, in Syria there had been two uprisings and the deaths of over 1 000 civilians and yet there had been no intervention. It was impossible to count the total number of victims of Assad and the Assembly should ask itself why there had been two such different approaches.

Recent calls to reduce the rate of bombing of Libya had been rejected by the French and the UK who did not wish any such reduction to occur. It was said that there was a fear that Gadaffi would take this opportunity to re-arm. On the other hand, the National Transitional Council said that if the bombing raids were suspended, they would continue their revolution against Gadaffi: Gadaffi had even said the same thing. It was as if the action against Libya was being played on a field that belonged to others with an invisible referee.

Turkey had the courage to condemn Assad and had kept its frontiers open. Many newspapers had noted that Syrian armed vehicles had placed themselves close to the Turkish border where Syrian people were fleeing. There were over 10 000 refugees in Turkish camps. Turkey should be praised for its humanitarian efforts – likewise, Italy, Greece and Malta had made sacrifices in order accept refugees from Turkey, Libya and the sub-Saharan region.

Returning to Syria, members of the Parliamentary Assembly and other international institutions should ask themselves up to what point would they stand and watch on the sidelines. Something had to be done. Dialogue could prevent military arguments and the international community needed to consider those who would wish for a pause for reflection. The countries who had not been in support of a truce should consider that issues were better solved through talking rather than through violence.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Árnason.

Mr ÁRNASON (Iceland) – In his interesting speech in the Chamber yesterday, the Foreign Minister of Bulgaria, Mr Mladenov, spoke about the choice between being on the right side of history or on the wrong side. I agree with him that by supporting the democratisation process in the Arab world, Europe has so far been on the right side of history. However, parents who have lost their children in the bombing raids in Libya may not care as much whether Europe is on the wrong side or the right side of history.

The military intervention in Libya, which may have started on the right side of history, has begun to stir uncomfortable memories, both in the minds of some of those present in this Chamber and in the collective memory of Europeans. I grew up with constant news of a war in south-east Asia that was always supposed to be over by next Christmas. In similar fashion, it is now often repeated that the war in Libya will be over in a matter of weeks. So far, those expectations have turned out to be false.

My country may not be one of the great powers in the world but, as a member of NATO, we have supported the intervention in Libya and bear our share of responsibility for it. In Iceland, there is growing concern, both in political circles and among the general public, about how the situation in Libya is developing. It gives us cause to think when Italy calls for a change of course and the outgoing Secretary-General of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, calls for a cease-fire. Let us recall that the Arab League’s support was an important condition of the military intervention – in my eyes, it was essential.

In this context, Europe must also be aware of how its colonial legacy influences its image in the Arab world. It is easy for us to demonise authoritarian leaders in the Arab world and elsewhere, but we tend to forget that many dictators have in the past been welcome guests in No. 10 Downing Street and the Palais de l’Élysée. Earlier this week in this Chamber, Lord Tomlinson contrasted Europe’s relatively meagre material support for the process of democratisation in Tunisia with its lavish financing of military action in Libya. We must carefully consider how any material support we give to the Arab Spring is best used: to wage war in Libya or to rebuild the economies of countries such as Tunisia, where a transition has already taken place. The message we send from Strasbourg must surely be that military action in Libya should cease as soon as possible in favour of a negotiated settlement. As Mr Gross pointed out, that could also be a step towards ending the bloodbath in Syria.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Árnason. I call Mr Muñoz Alonso.

Mr MUÑOZ ALONSO (Spain) thanked the President for the opportunity to speak in the debate. He had valued the analysis made by his colleagues and agreed with almost all the contributions. He wanted to underscore that what had happened in Libya was seen as a movement. The other movements in Egypt and other countries across the Arab world had been characterised by a lack of resistance to them, the crumbling of the army and a transition towards democracy. Gadaffi had set the army and mercenaries against his own people. The United Nations 1973 Resolution authorised “conditional intervention”, in effect a no-fly zone. This had lead to confusion and there was no clear communication on actions to be taken. NATO had thought that it would be a quick triumph, but this had proved not to be the case. The dictator had resisted and nobody knew how long the situation would last with its terrible consequences for the population and the possible strengthening of a dictator. There was no road map for the conflict. Mr Robert Gates, the current United States Defence Secretary, in a speech on 10 June 2011, warned NATO that it risked becoming a growing irrelevance. In Libya, there had been countless deaths of civilians and children had been used as human shields. The intervention in Libya had been an unsuccessful UN mission at a terrible human cost, with many dead.

The situation in Syria was similar yet different; the majority of the army had sided with the people but the dictator had not fled. Despite the problems the international community faced with Assad in power, military intervention was unthinkable after the Libyan experience. There had not been a majority in the UN Security Council to support intervention. Assad had some support there and also from the Arab League, which had protected his position. Assad has been deaf to warnings from the international community and had shown no respect for human rights.

There was much to be learned from the Arab Spring, which had shown that there could not be stability at all costs, but that message had not always communicated effectively to the public who wondered why the Syrian population did not deserve the same support as other countries. He agreed with Mr Xuclà i Costa that each case must be considered individually and that not everything could solved by intervention. There was no universal recipe for dealing with situations such as these; however, the Assembly could not take refuge behind indifference or ignorance when people were being trampled underfoot by their own governments, and the Council of Europe had to stand by its commitment to human rights.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Muñoz Alonso. I call Ms Lundgren.

Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden) – We have seen people raising their voices, asking for freedom, democracy, a better life and a better future for their countries. They are right to do so. During this Arab Spring – let us hope that it will be followed by a warm and healthy summer rather than a hard winter – we have heard rulers talking about their citizens as “rats”. They are chasing them from house to house. We all know that I am talking about Colonel Gadaffi.

I was shocked by the way things happened in Libya. I asked myself whether we could once again see an act of violence and crimes against humanity without acting. I was impressed by all the members of the Security Council who made it possible, for the first time in history, to pass a resolution on the responsibility to protect. It is important that all the stakeholders in that resolution and all the members of the UN are careful and carry it out in a proper manner. We should avoid the sort of mission creep that is always possible, and we must be the guardians of the resolution, ensuring that it is properly fulfilled.

Resolution 1973 does not talk about intervention or anything to do with Gadaffi. It merely concerns the responsibility to protect civilians. I am sure that Gadaffi will not take responsible measures to protect his own civilians. We have seen over time how he has shot at them, killed them, chased them and threatened them. We are still seeing it today. We must be there in the long run to fulfil the UN Security Council’s mandate.

When we hear daily reports from Syria, it is hard for us to hear the silence from the Security Council. Nothing is said.

I hope that we will not see a repetition of Rwanda in Syria, but all of us must ask our governments back home to take the position that there should be a resolution in the UN Security Council, even on Syria. I am not asking for intervention or military forces; I am asking that we take a first step, and use our diplomatic tools in a resolution that speaks clearly against violence towards the citizens of Syria. I have heard that more than 1 300 have been killed, 10 000 have been arrested, and more than 10 000 are fleeing to Turkey and other countries that have, thankfully, opened their borders.

We must take up some kind of position in the Security Council, and we must shake the system so that we are heard; it would be a shame if the system could not handle our doing that for the sake of protecting people, human rights, democracy and the rule of law – our core values.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Lundgren. The next speaker is Mr Loncle.

Mr LONCLE (France) thanked the President and said that his statement would relate to Libya alone. He wished to consider the issue of UN Security Council Resolution 1973 and what action it allowed to be taken in response to the uprising that was being referred to as the Arab Spring. The resolution had authorised military action with a view to providing humanitarian assistance. However, it was not clear that Resolution 1973 had envisaged air strikes expanding to the whole country or in particular the capital Tripoli, so a form of mission creep was being seen.

There was now a civil war in Libya, which was tragic to see. However, the scope of action permitted by the dubious “right to protect” and its interpretation by what was commonly, but incorrectly, called the international community was being questioned. France and the United Kingdom had convinced NATO to take this action which they had honestly believed was justified at the time.

He was concerned about the National Transitional Council based in Benghazi and particularly the membership of this council. Both the number two and the number three persons in the Gadaffi regime were members of this council and had been responsible with the colonel for crimes – including the torture of Bulgarian nurses, which had happened on their watch.

The military intervention was having unintended consequences. The situation of chaos in the country was leading to the looting of weapons arsenals and there were reports that Jihadist groups had access to these. On 11 May, the Foreign Affairs Minister of Mali had said that the borders in the region were very porous and it was possible to move between countries with no administrative checks. He had also noted that there was a tradition of arms trading in the region and that this situation was being made worse by the military intervention. The military action had led to much greater access to weapons arsenals; in fact some of these arsenals had become “open-air arsenals”. Now almost everyone in Libya was armed. Both anti-personnel and anti-aircraft weapons were finding their way into uncontrollable hands. He reminded the Assembly that this had been said by the Foreign Affairs Minister of Mali.

The time for military intervention had ended. Now, the search for a political solution must begin, as both Mr Gross and Mr Franco Frattini, the Italian Foreign Minister, had argued. Once the Libyan air force had been destroyed, it would be possible to impose a cease-fire; ideally this should be done under the auspices of the United Nations, the Arab League and the African Union.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). Thank you . I call now Ms Grosskost.

Ms GROSSKOST (France) thanked the Bureau of the Assembly for bringing forward the debate on a subject of such burning importance. It was right that the topic was being debated by the Assembly, which was dedicated to human rights. It was inspiring to witness the courage and bravery of the people of Libya and Syria.

Slavery was never chosen. Immanuel Kant had asked when it was right to support a country’s calls for democracy. It was right to support it now. Men and women were fighting for their rights and the regimes were attempting to drown them in blood. The Syrian police had tortured and emasculated a 13-year-old boy because he was perceived as a threat to the regime. A 13-year-old child could represent such a threat because Hamza Ali al-Khateeb had been a symbol of change. However, in the end, nothing had changed. Currently the Assembly was witnessing the death throes of these repressive regimes, who were massacring their people in order to survive.

She asked what action could be taken beyond a statement of the Assembly’s principles and support for the Libyan and Syrian people. Sanctions could be imposed but these often played into the hands of dictators who responded to them with fallacious arguments. Instead, countries should take up arms, a choice that the United Nations had given legitimacy to. She was sceptical about the work of the National Transitional Council, which met in Benghazi, as it had not prevented further massacres. Authoritative international observers should be placed in the country to prevent further repression.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Grosskost. I call Mr Tekelioğlu.

Mr TEKELIOĞLU (Turkey) – I thank Mr Walter and the European Democrat Group for their initiative, which gives us the opportunity to exchange views and listen to interesting ideas and insights regarding the situation in Libya and Syria.

Unprecedented developments have been unfolding in the immediate vicinity of our continent. Those developments have shown that there is a strong aspiration in our neighbourhood for our common values. That brings to the forefront not only the Council of Europe’s role, but its responsibility. The Council of Europe is an organisation that is capable of extending the umbrella of its human rights norms and standards to its neighbourhood.

Today, during this very timely debate, I want briefly to share some points with you. Turkey’s policy towards Libya has been based on a principled stance and an overall regional vision. Giving full support to the implementation of the United Nations Security Council resolutions, Turkey has developed a road map based on three main elements aimed at supplementing the military effort with a well-defined and coherent political strategy. Those elements are establishing a genuine cease-fire, creating secure humanitarian corridors, and initiating a new process of political change leading to a constitutional democracy.

There are two critical issues in Libya with respect to the implementation of a road map. One, of course, is ensuring the departure of Gadaffi. The other is to intensify relations with the transitional national council. Turkey also pledged to provide a fund worth $100 million for humanitarian assistance, capacity building and reconstruction projects to be carried out under TNC supervision.

Despite worsening security conditions on the ground, Turkey has maintained and even intensified its efforts to deliver humanitarian aid to the people of Libya to heal the wounds and sufferings of our Libyan brothers. To that end, from the very beginning Turkey has evacuated thousands, including foreign nationals, from the affected regions of Libya; sent humanitarian aid, medical teams and hospital ships; and transferred the injured to hospitals in Turkey for treatment in Izmir, my constituency.

Moving on to the situation in our close neighbour, Syria, we are deeply concerned about the escalation. Even before the popular uprising started, we urged our Syrian friends to announce and implement a series of comprehensive reforms to meet the legitimate demands of their people, such as abolishing emergency rule, releasing political prisoners and amending election laws.

However, the Syrian Administration has been late in developing an adequate response to the unfolding events. The use of force towards the protesters and increasing loss of life further erode the legitimacy of the regime, and also sharpen divisions and regional tensions. The main reason for internal instability is the discontent of the Syrian people with their regime.

I strongly believe that our Assembly and the Council of Europe as a whole can provide substantial assistance to Syria.

Apart from the political picture, the humanitarian situation is pressing. The number of Syrians taking refuge in our country has passed 10 000, mostly women and children. The Turkish authorities consider those people our guests, rather than treating them as asylum seekers, refugees or irregular migrants.

Those people are accommodated in some 2 000 tents located in three temporary-shelter facilities. They have all been issued with temporary ID cards following the completion of their security checks. They are provided with food, health care, security, religious services, social and educational activities, interpreters and other services. When I say food, I mean three hot meals a day. The nutritional value of the food is constantly monitored by a dietician.

Moreover, since last Friday, we have also begun to provide food assistance to Syrians who are gathered on their own side of the border. That assistance is being furnished to the Syrians by the Turkish Red Crescent.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Tekelioğlu. That concludes the list of speakers.

I remind you that at the end of a current affairs debate, the Assembly is not called upon to vote, although this debate has allowed us to proceed to very fruitful exchanges. I would like to avail myself of the opportunity to thank all the speakers. Subsequently, the Bureau may propose that the matter dealt with in this current affairs debate be referred to the competent committee for a report.

2. Organisation of debates

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – I propose that we shortly move on to the next subject on our agenda, more women in economic and social decision-making bodies. Due to the number of speakers on the list and the number of amendments tabled, I propose that we approve and adopt the following organisation. I shall interrupt the list of speakers in the debate at about 6.15 p.m. so that we can move on to the examination of and voting on the amendments and the draft resolution. Then we can move on to our debate on the strengthening of democracy by lowering the voting age to 16. I will interrupt the list of speakers at around 7.20 p.m. so that we can conclude at 7.30 p.m. as we envisaged.

Are these arrangements agreed?

They are agreed.

3. More women in economic and social decision-making bodies

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The next item of business this afternoon is the debate on the report entitled, “More women in economic and social decision-making bodies” (Doc. 12540), presented by Ms Gautier on behalf of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, with an opinion presented by Ms Naghdalyan, on behalf of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development (Doc. 12637).

We have agreed to interrupt the list of speakers at about 6.15 p.m. to allow time for the reply and the vote.

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

Ms GAUTIER (France) thanked the President and introduced the report on behalf of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men. The need to promote women on to decision-making bodies extended beyond the political sphere into the economic and social worlds, where they were still under-represented, despite their increased participation on the workplace. There was a need to increase women’s representation on governing and monitoring bodies, whether public or private, as well as professional bodies, unions, consultative bodies, the judiciary and universities. Even where women were represented on such bodies, they tended to occupy subordinate positions with the hierarchy being predominantly masculine. There were particular problems in directorships of large companies that floated on the stock exchange. Of the 732 such companies, only 64 had female directors. Certain EU countries had taken steps to move away from this situation. In Scandinavia, quotas had been introduced which enforced up to 40% female representation on boards of directors. Organisations that had embraced this equality tended to be more productive. Such action had not been limited to Scandinavia. Spain, France, Iceland and Belgium had taken similar actions and the United Kingdom was soon to follow suit.

The question that countries faced was whether “to quota or not to quota”. She wished to admit to the Assembly that, when the law on political parity had been debated in France, she had not been in favour of it. She did not think it was necessary to legislate because everyone was a decent citizen, whether man or woman. However, the law had had a real effect. For example, the French Senate had been stagnating at 6% female representation, but that had now risen to 24%. The implementation of that law had to be taken forward to achieve change. It should not be done in a hesitant or timid way.

There had been a discussion in the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men about the difficulties women experienced in balancing their public and private lives, and this was stressed in the report. Issues of maternity leave and re-integration into the work force following time off after having children had to be addressed. The current working rhythms had been designed by men for men. Ideas of coaching and networking also needed to become a greater part of the female vocabulary. Those were terms women had to get to grips with. Both women and men should be encouraged to form pro-equality networks. Political will was the key to success and an annual statistical report on progress made should be required. Significant positive actions should be implemented. If discrimination were to disappear, it would result in improved economic governance and would offer women fairer opportunities to develop their careers.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Gautier. You have seven minutes remaining.

I call Ms Naghdalyan, Rapporteur of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development, to present the committee’s opinion. You have five minutes.

Ms NAGHDALYAN (Armenia) thanked the President, and said that the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development welcomed the report by Ms Gautier and the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, and also endorsed the draft resolution and recommendation. Equality was essential for the progress of society. Women in decision-making positions should be the rule rather than the exception. Women continued to be significantly under-represented in management and decision-making positions. Progress to date had been too slow and that was why the committee wished to strengthen the resolution through an amendment, which would require a minimum of 40% representation of women in management and decision-making positions within a clearly defined timeframe accompanied by mechanisms for monitoring its implementation. The gap between the de jure and de facto situations meant that there was a need for resolute action.

There had been improvements in monitoring in recent years, which had demonstrated that progress was being made, but that was not the case in the top positions. Furthermore, a study by the EBRD and the International Labour Organization had shown that in many countries in central and eastern Europe there had been a reduction in female participation in the labour market in recent years. Women currently represented only one in 10 of board members. Some countries such as Norway had successfully introduced a quota system in an attempt to address the problem. Some companies such as Deutsche Telecom and Siemens had also taken action and had introduced innovative programmes in order to increase the number of women in top positions. However self-regulation worked only if it was accompanied by clear benchmarks and monitoring. She provided the example of a high-profile chief executive in France who had been dismissed. This was a very strange situation, which had been seen as unjustified internationally.

If progress were to continue at the current rate, it would be 50 years before equality was achieved. Some people had questioned the effectiveness of quotas and had suggested that they might harm profitability. However, quotas did not mean an artificial advantage for women. Quotas would be used only when all other factors, for example qualifications, were equal. Many studies had demonstrated that full female participation in the workplace was good for companies in many respects, not just for their social image but for their profitability. A study by Goldman Sachs had suggested that full gender equality could produce an increase of 13% in Europe’s GDP.

She considered that the Gautier report provided a professional and balanced analysis and stressed that men and women were mutually complementary and equally essential contributors to progress.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I now open the general debate. As the first speaker, I call Ms Mósesdóttir of Iceland on behalf of the Group of the United European Left.

Ms MÓSESDÓTTIR (Iceland) – Our attention is repeatedly drawn to the lack of progress on the issue of women’s representation in economic and social decision-making bodies. This lack of progress, especially in the private sector, is of great concern because everyone loses from the situation, not least in economic terms. Studies show that more gender-balanced company boards and top management positions correlate with stronger balance sheets, better performance and a more positive public image for private firms.

The rapporteur emphasises the need for various measures to be taken in the light of the wide variety of situations prevailing across Europe. For example, countries are encouraged to consider introducing a legal obligation for large companies to have a minimum 40% quota of women on the governing boards. The Group of the Unified European Left stresses that the legal enforcement of gender quotas at the company level has so far proven to be an efficient measure to ensure a more gender-balanced distribution of power. If, however, we are to resolve the dispute over whether or not to pass a law on gender quotas, we need more discussion to take place and we need more research-based knowledge about various gender equality measures and their impacts, including different forms of quotas.

Norway and Iceland have both passed a law to ensure that more women are on the boards of companies. In Iceland, private companies with more than 50 employees must have at least 40% representation of both genders on their boards by September 2013. Sanctions will be introduced if the 40% threshold has not been achieved in 2013. Norway and Iceland had different reasons for introducing gender quotas. Norway introduced them in 2004 as a matter of social justice, whereas Iceland’s main reason for introducing them was to prevent another financial crisis. After the Icelandic banking sector collapsed in late 2008, many people believed that female values would be capable of saving the country from another crisis. A study by Einarsdóttir and Pétursdóttir of the gender aspects of the banking collapse found that the pre-crisis financial sector had been governed by a small homogenous group of men, who rewarded each other on the basis of subjective evaluations. According to this study, Icelandic bankers looked out for one another’s interests, for example, by granting themselves and each other incomprehensible loans to allow their pyramid schemes to continue. Men were stars in this game while the relatively few women were supporting actresses.

It was against that background that the law on gender quotas was pushed through by MPs from various political parties. Iceland’s financial crisis therefore turned out to be a window of opportunity for implementing progressive measures to promote equality. None the less, the crisis has forced even the most left-wing politicians to look the other way while costly gender equality measures, such as that on payments for parental leave, were cut dramatically as part of the International Monetary Fund’s austerity plan. The maximum parental leave payment is now lower than the average salary, and the proportion of men using the right to parental leave is falling.

Dear colleagues, if we take the path of adopting only low-cost equality measures that benefit just a few elite women, we will surely lose the general public’s support for the gender equality project.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Mósesdóttir. I call Ms Circene, to speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Ms CIRCENE (Latvia) – Thank you, Ms Gautier, for your report. The proportion of women in the European labour market is increasing, yet discrimination still exists as far as top-level positions are concerned, and so to eliminate discrimination we need to tackle this problem. The report discusses one approach that has been taken: the quota system, which has been successfully implemented in Norway. In eight years, the level of representation in top managerial positions has increased there from 7% to 40%. Furthermore, the experience in Finland shows that increased representation of women in business management has considerably improved productivity and efficiency.

However, in real life, although the glass ceiling is invisible, it is still strong and hard to break through. This ceiling is partly constructed by women themselves; they tend to give in to “the emotional ceiling” that has been imprinted in their minds since early childhood. Previously, the stereotype was that women would go from church to kitchen and to having children. Now there is another stereotype, which is that women have to deal with the dilemma of balancing family and career. On many occasions, the situation is only aggravated by non-existent national gender non-discrimination strategies and by the involvement of the media in endorsing these stereotypes. To be fair, it is obvious that the situation may differ from country to country, for example, between Turkey and Iceland.

Quotas alone are insufficient to break these ceilings. Discussions about the role of women in society should be included in the school curriculum, and the tradition of appointing men as headmasters in charge of schools where the teaching staff are predominantly female should be discontinued. In many countries, university graduates are predominantly women, but that does not necessarily mean they are equally well placed to climb the career ladder and earn higher salaries.

The mass media plays a crucial role in all this. If it regularly showed examples of successful women, for example in interviews or in top ten lists of famous or popular women, that would help to form an anti-discriminatory public opinion. That would also help to raise women’s self-confidence and it would especially help women who suffer violence or who have been disrespected to avoid inferiority complexes.

Many possibilities are offered by local reforms; it is possible to set quotas for women in high-ranking positions both in politics and in business. Positive examples are provided by Deutsche Telekom, Deutsche Post and KPN, the largest telecommunications company in the Netherlands. Quotas have even been set for representatives of strategic partner companies in the World Economic Forum in Davos, 20% of whom must be women. The strategies of member states are also irrefutably important, because this problem relates to the balancing of career and family. States should think about: part-time work schedules; strengthening the father’s role in the upbringing of a child; social benefits; statutory days off work; the ability of people to work from home; and the prevention of gender discrimination in job advertisements. The state should take responsibility for overseeing these strategies and providing possible sanctions. Furthermore, it is high time that discussions on the drafting of budgets took into consideration the needs of both genders regarding equal salaries, health care plans and social issues. Women make up approximately 50% of the population, so it is only logical that they should fill managerial positions proportionately.

(Mr MIGNON, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Ms Guţu.)

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Circene. I call Ms Christoffersen, to speak on behalf the Socialist Group.

Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – On behalf of the Socialist Group, I want to draw the attention of colleagues to the title of the report – “More women in economic and social decision-making bodies.” There is no question mark in that title. We all concur with gender equality, do we not? However, Ms Gautier gives the overall picture – a female staff and male management, even in sectors with the majority of women and in the public as well as the private sector. How come? Is there a lack of will somewhere, for instance among ourselves as members of legislative assemblies?

The Committee on Economic Affairs and Development calls for adopting national legislation, and the Socialist Group supports that. Let me point to the Norwegian experiences in politics and business. In politics, the Labour Party binds itself to a 50:50 quota at all levels, combined with sanctions. It works. In business, an Act of Parliament requiring 40% of women on the boards of public limited companies made female representation rise from 7% to 40% in two years. This immediate effect was because companies were threatened with dissolution if they did not comply. However, the expected rub-off effect for private limited companies and management has not occurred. Some 70% of these companies have only male board members and 14 of the largest listed companies have no women in top management. Private companies are led by men. Voluntarism does not work: legislation and quotas do. We are now considering extending the Act to include private companies as well.

The lack of women in decision-making is not fair or clever. Empirical data show how much businesses gain from a better gender balance in both productivity and earnings. That is no wonder as half of their potential customers are women. Rule No. 1 of a market economy is to meet customers on their home ground. For example, cars used to be advertised by a combination of sexy pin-ups on the bonnet and lots of horsepower beneath it. However, consumer studies show that today women have the last say when families buy a new car. Mummy usually drives the children to kindergarten, school and leisure activities. Instead of pin-ups and horsepower, she is more concerned about traffic safety and the number of practical doors, and she values the load space for shopping bags and the baby buggy more than a streamlined appearance. Female board members know that. By the way, a statutory paternity leave of 10 weeks has resulted in more daddy drivers who think the same way.

Finally, one dimension is missing in this report. In Norway, daughters of immigrants pursue education to a larger extent than boys and girls of Norwegian ethnicity. Some of these girls, as females who belong to a minority in a culture of strong gender discrimination, risk facing three glass ceilings. Do they get jobs according to their qualifications? What happens when they marry? Gender research should pay special attention to those girls, and so should the Council of Europe.

The committee wants monitoring. Why not ask our Ministers for Equality for regular reports on the action plan that they themselves took up only one year ago?

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Bugnon, who will speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Mr BUGNON (Switzerland) said that he was speaking as somebody who, during a long career, had appointed many women to senior positions. Indeed, as Mayor of Saint-Prex he had appointed the first-ever female to the position of secretary general, which had previously always been held by a male. He thanked all of those involved with the report, in its writing, its drafting and its research; they had done an excellent job.

Much progress had been seen in the field but, regrettably, the female sex was still woefully under-represented. Therefore, the ALDE group welcomed the report but wanted to make three points as it felt that some proposals were not as good as others. In particular, there were concerns related to issues around quotas with which they did not agree and for three reasons. Firstly, it was a degrading concept. It implied that women did not have the skills to reach the top on their own and that there was a reliance upon quantity not quality. Secondly, anybody appointed through the quota system ran the risk that they would not be accepted by other board members who might feel that that person had not been appointed upon an equal basis. The third reason was that the Council of Europe must be seen to be credible. There would be no point in calling on parliaments to legislate on this matter when they were unwilling to do so. He wished to see a rebalancing of the proportion of women in senior jobs, not an imposition of them into those jobs.

He noted that some people wished to apply positive discrimination; however, it was still discrimination. He felt that women did not deserve any discrimination. Women should be recognised for their own ability to manage. His group was proposing a policy of “equivalent competence” which would involve women being offered positions if they, and any male candidates, were considered to be equally good. Ms Naghdalyan had accepted the proposal in committee, although he was distressed to see that it had not appeared in the final report. He hoped that she would now support that proposal, which would help put women into the positions that they deserved. As an old saying went “women were the better half of men” and he agreed with that. He supported any measures that would put women in charge in politics and the boardroom provided that it was on their own merits.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The next speaker is Ms Gafarova, who will speak on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – I congratulate Ms Gautier on her interesting and instructive report on this issue, which is full of information. This is a very important and significant issue for Europe.

There is no doubt that the Council of Europe, like other organisations declaring the protection of human rights and the encouragement of democratic values as their priorities, is concerned with the violation of women’s rights in various countries. At present, gender equality, as one of the fundamental human rights, is fixed in many international documents. Actually, in international law, women are considered as a particular subject and provided with broad guarantees that they can enjoy and implement their rights. It must be taken into account, however, that the realisation of the declared equal rights fails in many cases because of the absence of real equal chances.

In order to realise the guarantees and obtain the practical implementation of our high theoretical values, we must join efforts and concur. To obtain this purpose, women should be given more rights. Their representation should be enhanced in all spheres of life, not just in traditional spheres such as education and health. If we take advantage of the potential of women in economic and social spheres they will attain more significant success and achievements. The Council of Europe and its member states possess sufficient experience to eliminate these problems and we simply need adequate intention, will and persistence.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The rapporteurs will reply at the end of the debate, but does Ms Gautier wish to respond at this stage?

Ms GAUTIER (France) (Translation) – I would prefer to wait until the end of the debate.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – It will be my pleasure to call you then. The next speaker is Ms Kovács.

Ms KOVÁCS (Serbia) – I congratulate the rapporteur on an excellent report.

I want to highlight the promotion of gender mainstreaming in the work of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe as well as the promotion of gender equality in the functioning of its structures. Even though we are all unique individuals, different from one another, we all have the same rights. The participation of both men and women in shaping the future of our society is not only a matter of human rights but essential in solving problems and overcoming conflicts in our societies. The equal participation of women and men in all spheres of public and private life, particularly in decision making, is of the utmost importance.

In order to achieve gender equality, we must bridge the gap between de jure and de facto equality. We are all aware of the sad fact that women and men are still not always treated in the same way and we should therefore ensure that we are all treated equally in our activities and work. Training and support should be provided, especially for young women who need to achieve their full potential in schools, universities, work and all other spheres.

For me, a balanced representation of women and men at all hierarchical levels represents first and foremost respect for human rights. One of the main obstacles to having more women in economic and social decision-making bodies is the reconciliation of family and professional responsibilities, and traditional gender roles make the whole process even more difficult. One thing is certain, however, and that is that almost everything that males can do, females can do and almost everything that females can do, males can do. It is therefore necessary to ensure that private and professional lives are reconciled as regards parental leave, the balanced participation of women and men in family life and so on.

I partly agreed with Mr Bugnon when he said that gender quotas can be degrading, but I believe that right now they are still necessary to allow positive discrimination in achieving de jure and de facto gender equality. Positive measures can be adopted but the situation will not change substantially unless the appropriate sanctions are envisaged. Women should be prepared for decision-making and leadership through training courses that facilitate the realisation of their full potential.

In conclusion, acknowledging female competences by providing women with more motivating careers and the enhancement of their economic independence, as well as their general empowerment, will open the door for a new generation of female leaders.

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

Mr PLOTNIKOV (Ukraine) said that he supported the report and considered it well presented, with an excellent collection of ideas. He knew that it would receive a warm reception from a range of economic and social bodies, especially in Ukraine. Since 2002, the Ukraine Government had initiated very successful policies to encourage women to enter the work force, which had improved employment rates. Currently, 65% of government employees were women and 85% of business employees were women. However, there did not seem to be the same levels of success for different stages in the career ladder: only 5% of senior executives were women. Therefore, women were in the minority of people taking decisions about how the country would be run.

It was harder to assess the picture for women working in non-state organisations, as data were not collected systematically through the national statistics network and therefore one could only see a snapshot of the situation. What figures there were showed that females made up 20% of employees in industry and 9.5% of employees in agriculture. In non-productive economic ventures, it was considered that 25% to 30% of employees were women. However, those statistics were out of date and highly questionable.

The Ukraine Institute for Democratic Studies was planning to conduct more studies to asses how many women leaders there were in all areas and not just the public sector. In Ukraine, quotas were supported at the highest level and across political parties. When human resources decisions were taken, it was essential that the correct gender approach was applied. It was necessary to give financial support to the budgets, which enabled the government to pursue its policy of female parity.

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

Ms SCHOU (Norway) – I thank Ms Gautier for this excellent report. Some 50% of the European population is female, but the proportion of women in economic and social decision-making bodies does not reflect that. If we look around the Chamber, we can see that the majority of our colleagues are male. Not even 30% of the representatives in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe are women. The report we are discussing is therefore both timely and appropriate.

In Norway, more than 50% of university graduates are women. The number of women with university degrees is increasing throughout Europe, but why is the number of women in decision-making bodies lagging behind? In many European countries, human resources are the most important form of capital. Why do we leave this resource largely untapped? We spend a lot of money educating and training young women, but we do not facilitate their access to the arenas where decisions are made. It seems as though women must jump higher hurdles than men to win a political seat, to be allowed at the boardroom table or to climb the career ladder.

We need to break this glass ceiling once and for all. Whose responsibility is that? When it comes to equal opportunities in companies, I believe responsibility lies largely with the business community, but, in the public sector, the government is accountable. It is up to political decision makers at all levels to take that responsibility. We need to facilitate the entry of women to the top level, but our role as political decision makers can be extended further.

The report that we are discussing mentions Norway and our law on equal gender representation on the governing boards of public limited companies. In 2003, after many years with little progress on the number of women in boardrooms, the then Minister of Trade and Industry proposed a law obliging the boards of public limited companies to ensure that at least 40% of their members were from the under-represented sex. The law was heavily debated and the business community strongly opposed it. In 2006, the law entered into force, and as of today, all of the companies to which it applies have complied. Thus, the sanction of dissolving companies that do not comply has not been used, and the proportion of women in Norwegian boardrooms is now at 40,2%.

Today, many of those who opposed the law say that they are happy with the results that it has brought. Last week, the chairman of one of those special boards had to make a decision: either one woman had to leave the board, or one man had to enter. The result was the second of those two possibilities; the law had to be complied with. I think that the law is a good example of how we decision-makers can contribute to shrinking the opportunity gap. I am happy that the Norwegian example has been an inspiration to other European countries.

It has been interesting to see how the business community has responded to the law. There was strong resistance when it was proposed, but the Norwegian confederation of businesses is now running a programme called “Female Future”, giving women the skills and qualifications necessary to be a board member. “Female Future” is a good example of how the business community is taking responsibility for helping women to break through the glass ceiling.

The proportion of women in top executive positions in Norway is 27% in the public sector and 17% in the private sector. There is definitely room for improvement. I listened to Mr Bugnon; what was said was old-fashioned. We have to use different methods from those used in earlier times, and Norway is a good example of that.

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

Ms SCHUSTER (Germany) said that, across Europe, there was a debate about whether or not to introduce quotas for women’s representation in both political parties and economic bodies. It was also a question being asked in Germany: the Bundestag was debating whether to introduce binding or flexible quotas, and discussions were under way about whether to introduce 40% quotas for female representation. She wanted to know how these quotas would help women in training and how they would help a mother with two children who wished to return to full-time employment.

Policies for women were an attempt by society to provide women with more opportunities. What was needed were family-friendly corporate policies and political policy parameters. These included: a better work-life balance; longer opening hours for shops and services; better childcare facilities; and in particular support for women returning to work. Regarding leadership positions, what was needed was a generally transparent process for making those appointments. Otherwise, what happened was that companies would know they needed to find a woman and someone on the board would suggest a female friend or colleague to fill the gap. That was not a fair way to make such appointments. Fully family-friendly structures would give corporations the competitive edge as, in the future, they would not be able to succeed without the skills of women.

International Women’s Day was celebrating its 100th anniversary. Lots of progress had been made, but there was still a great distance to go to achieve full equality. Quotas were not the answer: women needed to work together to break the old boys’ network and doing this required that they were seen to be doing their job competently. Women wanted to achieve success themselves not to be given a job because of a quota.

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

Ms VUČKOVIĆ (Serbia) – I congratulate the rapporteur on this excellent report. It focuses on the gap that we continually experience between legal regulation and political declarations on one side, and women’s real lives on the other. Equal opportunities are part of our economic development policies, but the question is how to make the business sector accept that, and how to ensure that there are more women on economic and social decision-making bodies.

Despite the progressive legislation and the policy of gender mainstreaming that we all have in our countries, we have seen how difficult it is to eradicate the traditional patterns that sideline women in society. I read the report in the context of transition societies, which face the same problems. The introduction of quotas is of the utmost importance. I fully support them; they have proved very efficient in the political sphere, but bodies to ensure implementation of quotas are important and should be established.

However, quotas alone will not solve the problems. What else needs to be changed and revised in our lives and practices? First, we must stress the importance of cultural patterns, as they are often the reason for the unequal proportions of men and women in some professions, and the reason why women often have lower professional aspirations. Despite changes to legal regulations, traditional stereotypes survive, particularly within the family. Women are less encouraged to make career advancements, and the criteria required for their advancement are often more severe than those for men.

Secondly, it is of the utmost importance that we change educational patterns and eradicate the androcentric model of education. Thirdly, a balance between family and professional life is crucial for women, and for society as a whole. We should make efforts to foster family-friendly working arrangements, child care centres, and the return of women to the labour market after giving birth, and so on.

Furthermore, particularly in transition societies where the entrepreneurial culture is still under-developed, it is important to encourage women to step into the entrepreneurial world and foster business associations. Social enterprises and co-operatives seem to have important capacities not only to employ more women, but to develop their managerial skills and capacities.

Finally, the media are without doubt of the utmost importance when it comes to reducing stereotypes and promoting equal opportunities. The report rightly reiterates the importance of successful women as role models, but let me stress that those role models should be women who are educated and competent, and have achieved results, and not those who are part of the jet set, on whom the media have a tendency to focus – at least in my country.

It is important that we parliamentarians regularly monitor the implementation of strategies and laws that enhance gender equality, and anti-discriminatory policies. We women politicians should support the idea of quotas in top management positions. In the political world, quotas have proved rather efficient. I would like to share with you the news that last month in the Parliament of Serbia, we voted for changes to electoral law to ensure that one third of parliamentarians are women. This is an important achievement, but it is not the end of the process. It is just the beginning. The struggle for greater participation of women in the economy and in top posts in the business sector is a new phase. By taking this next step, we will undermine some cynical statements that women are now more present in the political world because the real power is in the economic world.

I support the report and will vote for it.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Vučković. I call Ms Caparin.

Ms CAPARIN (Croatia) – One could say that almost everything has been said about gender equality issues and that all that remains is to transfer the de jure into the de facto. However, Ms Gautier’s report on the participation of women in economic and social decision-making bodies offers a wise, mature and balanced overview that points out that we all live at the same time, but perhaps not in the same age, and that, as a consequence, we all have miles to go before we can rest, let alone sleep, with regard to gender equality issues.

The country I come from, Croatia, recently carried out a census. In time, data will be presented on the overall situation of the population and on gender as well. Therefore, I cannot speculate about figures at the moment.

The so-called ex-communist countries propagated gender equality for decades, but still, following the transition to the market economy, women are the gender that mainly pays the price during economic crises because they lose their jobs or are underpaid for their work. Meanwhile, in Switzerland, the Federal Council has four women members out of seven.

We must bear in mind the fact that in this globalised world of ours some things are changing very rapidly while others change but only at a very slow pace. It is our job to set a model pace for gender equality and to achieve 40% female participation in highly ranked managerial, supervisory, executive and governmental posts, which would mean that there were more and more nominees for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Gender Equality prize, which was launched in 2009.

Experience of quotas could advantageously be transferred to the private and socio-economic sectors. Furthermore, the Baku Action Plan on “Taking up the Challenge of the Achievement of de jure and de facto Gender Equality”, adopted on 25 May 2010 at the seventh Council of Europe ministerial conference, should be a road to follow towards respectively ensuring equal opportunities for women and men in access to employment and promotions and to equal opportunities.

Last but not least, the reconciliation of private and professional life is extremely important. We are all aware that each day lasts 24 hours, but the old formula of eight hours work, eight hours free time and eight hours sleep, which was devised as a blueprint for a healthy life, does not apply today as we are all trying to squeeze too many activities into one day.

Women are definitely more prone to burden themselves with so-called household chores and different tasks, and the gender equality issue is basically all about the partnership of the genders, not competition. Both sexes should support each other in their ambitions. That is easy to say, but not always easy to implement.

Glass ceiling or no glass ceiling, the complexity of the elements involved in overcoming the obstacles to achieving gender equality could be matched by the obvious simplicity of the natural law that women and men are equal. Thus, the just balance and synergy of those two equalities in all walks of life represent the key to the success story of prosperous societies the world over.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Caparin. The next speaker is Mr Ghiletchi.

Mr GHILETCHI (Moldova) – I thank Ms Gautier and the committee for presenting the report. As it points out, unfair representation of women in employment disregards human rights. Therefore, the lack of equal opportunities and treatment between women and men in the workplace is an issue that has to be addressed.

It is welcome that more women are entering the professions where men were previously in the majority, thereby paving the way for a more balanced distribution of roles in the future. Statistics show that the representation of women in governing bodies is rising, but at a very slow pace. On the one hand, I understand the frustration in that respect; on the other, I believe that this process has to come naturally in each culture and society, without being forced.

Values should be cultivated and incorporated harmoniously into society and not be imposed through administrative means, including positive discrimination. It is especially inadmissible to oblige private companies to guarantee a minimum of 40% representation of women on their management boards.

Demands like those mentioned in the recommendation remind me of the Soviet era, when the economy was driven by quinquennial plans. According to those famous socialist plans, certain results and quotas had to be achieved in specific time frames, regardless of the objective reality. Knowing the results of that type of economy, I wonder what else we could achieve through such an approach.

Neglecting free market rules will not do any good to our economies in the midst of this serious economic crisis. If companies that have more women on their boards achieve better productivity and business profitability, it is obvious that more will adopt this strategy. Once again, however, that has to come naturally. A child should be born nine months after conception, while a forced pre-term birth may kill the baby. Why should we twist the arm of economic entities, especially those in the private sector? Taking note of the fact that most western societies do not respect the 40% quota, how can we impose this on all member states, especially those that joined the Council of Europe not long ago?

In answer to Ms Gautier’s question, “Quota or no quota?”, two days ago we adopted Resolution 12625 (2011), which lists a series of democratic standards, one of which is encouraging the balanced participation of women and men in public life and politics. The draft resolution before us says in paragraph 2: “The Parliamentary Assembly considers that a balanced representation of women and men is a matter of justice, respect for human rights”. Let us stick with that formula, which is within the spirit of the Convention, and not add quotas to it.

We understand the need to provide equal opportunities for women in every sector, but at the same time we know that for some countries taking such a big step is almost impossible. I ask you to support Amendment 3 or Amendment 4. Again, they are in line with the spirit of the Convention. This way, we will continue positively to encourage state-owned and private companies to ensure a fair representation of women on their governing boards, rather than overwhelmingly forcing this upon them.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Ghiletchi. I call Mr Reimann.

Mr REIMANN (Switzerland) said that this debate was about whether a minimum quota of 40% women should be introduced for the boards of private and public corporations in Europe. He did not think that this was the Council of Europe’s finest hour.

Family policies were his top priority. However, his daughters had told him that they believed introduced quotas for women would be a retrograde step. They believed quotas were disrespectful and did not correspond with their view of the world. They wanted to get jobs because of their educational and professional qualifications not because of a quota. His daughters had told him a long time ago that he should never support the introduction of quotas. Doing so would not strengthen them as women.

The current composition of the Swiss Federal Council, where most portfolios were held by women, proved that his daughters were correct. It showed that there could be significant numbers of women at high levels as a result of their ability and competence, without the need for quotas. Quotas did not belong in a modern society. Private companies should be able to choose the individuals who sat on their governing and supervisory boards. Owners of companies needed to be able to choose the best person for the job irrespective of their gender. The state had no right to interfere with private companies and to insist on a composition of 40% of women. The idea should not be countenanced.

He asked whether the 40% threshold would even be enforceable. For example, certain types of employment were not of interest to women, such as mining, heavy industry and the arms industry. These so-called progressive measures would therefore be completely pointless in such cases. Women should be appointed only where it made sense and where they wished to fill positions. Women were well-represented in universities across the world and particularly in Asia, where they were in the majority. That was also the case at certain levels of leadership.

He therefore wanted the compulsory element of the proposal removed. As a result, there were amendments to this proposal which he would be supporting.

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

Ms PETIR (Croatia) – I congratulate our rapporteur on the report, which clearly outlines the position of a woman in society – her position as a decision-maker and her position in the job market. Laws and acts that regulate the promulgation of a higher rate of participation by women in politics exist, but so do the prejudices and stereotypes that women face every day. Although women comprise half the population, they are still under-represented everywhere that important decisions are made, including politics.

In the 1990s, women made up only 5% of the Croatian Parliament, but today they make up 22%. It appears that their position is improving. However, the 2007 elections were, in a way, a backward step. Women won only 18% of the seats in parliament. They subsequently reached 22% by becoming substitutes for male members of parliament who were appointed to other positions, mostly governmental ones.

The position of women in the executive branch of power is even worse. It is worst at the local level, where only 11% of participants are women. The explanation for such a poor position is the problem of harmonising business and private life. This is why women are hampered in obtaining opportunities for career development, in both business and politics. The situation in other European countries is almost the same.

As we can see from the report, discrimination still exists in the field of employment, and women are in a much worse position than men. In job interviews, women are discriminated against on the basis of family and marital status. They are asked how many children they have, whether they will have children and whether they will marry. Women still make up a high percentage of the unemployed. They work in jobs that are poorly paid and their pensions are less. Less than 10% of the highest managerial positions are filled by women. The higher you climb on the hierarchy ladder, the less likely you are to meet women, although a higher percentage of women than men graduate from faculties.

Of course, I do not think that women should go into politics just because they are women or because a party is required to put a certain number of women on a list. Being a woman should not be an obstacle to more substantial political engagement, but I am afraid that gender – the biological fact of being a woman – could be such an obstacle. As has been said, more women should participate in politics because of their capabilities and perseverance, which would diminish prejudice. The warmth that women possess could also present a human face in politics.

It is well known that politics involves engaging for the common good. It is also well known that women care for their families to the utmost. Therefore, how could we not care for the common good of society, and how could we not fight for the same? We are often criticised for our emotional nature. We have been told that emotions can blind reason, as though logical thinking is the only way of achieving good deeds. On the contrary, emotions are a sufficiently strong motivation; they are the basis on which we, as women, are capable of sacrifice. Those who are mothers know this best.

Women are excellent managers, as is proved by their everyday organisation of family life. They care for every member of the family, although they often hold jobs simultaneously. Harmonising family and business life is quite a challenge, so engaging in political life can seem too stressful. However, women are always generous and ready to sacrifice for the common good. At this point, Croatia and Europe need the best that women can give.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Ms Bondarenko is not here, so I call Ms Stavrositu.

Ms STAVROSITU (Romania) – I congratulate the Rapporteur of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, Ms Gisèle Gautier, on her report and its recommendations. Parliaments remain the peak of legislative structures all over the world; they are where countries’ political directions are set. A truly democratic and representative parliament reflects the views and interests of the society to which it belongs and allows it to shape the society’s social, political and economic future. When women are involved in all aspects of political life, including as members of parliament, societies are more equitable, and democracy is strengthened and enhanced. A parliament also allows the different experiences of women and men to influence the social, political and economic future of society.

Although Romania has made progress on meeting human rights commitments, there remains more progress to be made to ensure the participation of women and men in both decision-making bodies in society – political parties and governmental institutions. They are still not always accessible to women and men on an equal basis; women remain mostly confined in less important activities, without real possibilities for promotion or affirmation in front-line politics.

The disproportionate participation of women and men in public life and in decision-making bodies reflects the existence and perpetuation of gender-based discrimination. The men’s involvement in political and social life is more than visible, although for more than 60 years the international legal framework has recognised the need for there to be equal opportunities for women and men. As a result, only very few women are included on electoral lists and an even smaller number of women are placed in the eligible positions on those lists. In order to work for better representation, we need to change attitudes, and the first step to take is to introduce representation quotas.

I should like to mention that a draft law on a quota for female representation in the Romanian Parliament is going through our parliamentary procedures and is being debated. Only 9.7% of members of the Romanian Parliament are women, so we should seek strong support among male MPs to secure quotas that ensure that we get balanced representation between women and men in political and social decision-making bodies. A change is needed and to make this change we need to rely on the majority.

Although not spectacular, some changes have occurred in the economic field; there has been an increase in the participation of women in the management of economic bodies, especially in the private sector. This should be the beginning of a process whereby their entrepreneurial and management skills are accordingly recognised.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Stavrositu. That concludes the list of speakers.

I call Ms Gautier, to reply. You have eight minutes.

Ms GAUTIER (France) thanked the President and said that, as they had heard, quotas were seen in very different light by different people and that was only to be expected. However it showed that the process of thinking had begun and that was how the future would be built. A few years ago, the idea of gender parity in politics would have seemed inconceivable yet people were now starting to accept the idea.

Some had argued that quotas were ineffective. However it was important to remember that there were various sorts of quotas. She recognised that each member state had different financial resources and that to implement some of the systems which had been discussed would not be within their means. However, if the basic principle were accepted, a number of different systems and types of quotas could be tried out.

She disagreed with the idea, expressed by some, that quotas were in principle unacceptable. These individuals seemed to question the point behind quotas. They asked why, when women had succeeded in education, they should then benefit further in the professions. It was necessary to recognise that there remained large disparities in wages: between 19% to 25%. Women therefore often lost out twice, something which was being increasingly acknowledged. That was why she had proposed increasing monitoring and evaluation in order to see what outcomes were being achieved.

There had also been contributions on the lack of empirical data. She agreed that there needed to be further investigations. It was important to break through the glass ceiling and that very expression needed to be relegated to the past. Some had broken through the ceiling but there was now a lower limit and the problem had not gone away despite many years of efforts.

Women needed to take charge of their futures and acquire the necessary skills to improve their situations. The media had an important role to play and should give prominence in their reporting where women had, through merit, made a success of their lives. The media should report those success stories in order to demonstrate to women that there could be equal access to senior managerial positions. At the official inauguration of the judicial year, one witnessed a sea of black robes without even a token female presence. The line-up of all-male judges was offensive and the same was true in many other walks of life.

Regarding whether there should be quotas across the board in all industries, she agreed that it might not be the case where there were physical factors which meant that women were less suited to the role.

She said that the basic premise behind the report was the need to increase parity and through doing so achieve for women and men a reconciliation of family and professional life. Men were nowadays inclined to do more domestic tasks than their forebears but even so there was not full equality and this had to be achieved. She hoped that the arguments that had been put forward would lead to colleagues supporting the proposals and that the Parliamentary Assembly would agree to the draft resolution.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Ms Gautier, you have used up seven of your eight minutes, so I call Ms Naghdalyan, Chair of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development, for one minute.

Ms NAGHDALYAN (Armenia) reiterated her belief that if there was no discrimination, then there would be no need for positive discrimination, nor for quotas. Quotas were a way out of the current situation, which was discriminatory. Women for years had been told to live their lives by “Kinder, Küche and Kirche” but that phrase was not an accurate reflection of women’s current responsibilities. She agreed with her colleague Ms Schuster that in an ideal world quotas would not be needed, but it was not an ideal world and at the moment they were necessary.

The first women to become public figures – feminists – had merely said to men, “God gave us brains as good as yours”, and they wanted an opportunity to use them. Women could be good managers, and quotas would get rid of discrimination.

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

MR MENDES BOTA (Portugal) said that the courageous rapporteurs deserved praise for an excellent job. This was a campaign for fundamental rights, which should rank highly in national constitutions. It should also be an overarching priority in the private sector, given the numbers of women working there and the amount of time they spent in the work force. He noted that 97% of organisations in Europe were run by men, and only 10% of board directors were women. He asked whether if the Assembly waited 50 years, the percentage would rise to 40%. He noted that Ms Schuster had said that quotas were not necessary but he sensed that most people disagreed with that view, and that if for no other reason, quotas would be necessary to overcome men’s fear of the increasing power of women.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The debate is closed.

The Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men has presented a draft resolution to which four amendments and one sub-amendment have been tabled, and a draft recommendation to which no amendments have been tabled.

They will be taken in numerical order.

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

I understand that the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendment 1, which was unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly under Rule 33.10.

Is that so, Mr Mendes Bota?

Mr MENDES BOTA (Portugal) said that the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men had agreed unanimously with the principle of Amendment 1.

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

The following amendment has been adopted.

Amendment 1, tabled by Ms Naghdalyan, on behalf of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 1, to replace the words “an increasingly higher proportion” with the following words: “a high and growing share”.

We come now to Amendment 2, tabled by Ms Naghdalyan, on behalf of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 7.10, to insert the following sub-paragraph: “adopt legislation requiring that public and private institutions achieve a minimum 40% representation of women in management and decision-making positions within a clearly defined time frame, and put in place mechanisms for monitoring the implementation of such legislation;”.

I call Ms Naghdalyan to support Amendment 2. You have 30 seconds.

Ms NAGHDALYAN (Armenia) said that the committee had wanted a requirement for quotas to be strengthened through the use of time frames, and the requirement for monitoring that, to enable the authorities to know whether the objectives had been met or not.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – We come now to Sub-Amendment 1 to Amendment 2, tabled by Mr Bugnon, Ms Fiala, Ms Brasseur, Ms Schuster, Ms Dumery and Mr Hansjörg Walter, which is, in Amendment 2, to replace the words "requiring that public and private institutions achieve a minimum 40% representation of women in management and decision-making positions" with the following words: "requiring that measures promoting the representation of women in management and decision-making positions in public and private institutions in cases of equivalent skills are taken".

I call Mr Bugnon to support Sub-Amendment 1. You have 30 seconds.

Mr BUGNON (Switzerland) spoke in support of Sub-Amendment 1 to Amendment 2 and said that in general everyone supported the adoption of the report. However, the only problem with it was the issue of the quota, and therefore reference to this should be deleted.

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

Ms GAUTIER (France) did not agree with Sub-Amendment 1 as she did not agree with Mr Bugnon, who was personally against the quota.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – What is the opinion of the mover of the main amendment? I call Ms Naghdalyan.

Ms NAGHDALYAN (Armenia) said that Sub-Amendment 1 made a big change to the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development’s approach, so she did not support it.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – What is the opinion of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men on the sub-amendment?

Mr MENDES BOTA (Portugal) (Translation) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

The sub-amendment is rejected.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 2? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men?

Mr MENDES BOTA (Portugal) (Translation) – The committee is in favour.

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

Amendment 2 is adopted.

We come now to Amendment 3, tabled by Ms Palihovici, Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Vareikis, Ms Guţu, Mr Corman, Mr Fenechiu, Mr Corlatean and Ms Herasym’yuk, which is, in the draft resolution, to replace paragraph 7.11 with the following sub-paragraph: “recommend that state-owned and large private companies ensure fair representation of women on their governing and management boards;”.

If Amendment 3 is adopted, Amendment 4 falls.

I call Ms Palihovici to support Amendment 3.

Ms PALIHOVICI (Moldova) – When I tabled the amendment I started from the point that our institution and states cannot oblige private businesses to introduce new rules for their boards. We are interfering with private businesses. I am in favour of increasing women’s participation, but I am not in favour of giving rights to one party to the detriment of another.

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

Mr MENDES BOTA (Portugal) (Translation) – The committee is against.

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

The vote is open.

Amendment 3 is rejected.

We come now to Amendment 4, tabled by Mr Bugnon, Ms Fiala, Ms Brasseur, Ms Schuster, Ms Dumery and Mr Hansjörg Walter, which is, in paragraph 7.11 of the draft resolution, to replace the words “introduce the obligation for state-owned and large private companies to guarantee a minimum 40% of representation of women on their governing and management boards” with the following words: “adopt legislation to encourage state-owned and large private companies to appoint women to their governing and management boards in cases of equivalent skills”.

I call Mr Bugnon to support Amendment 4.

Mr BUGNON (Switzerland) spoke in support of Amendment 4, referring the Assembly back to his previous arguments.

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

Mr MENDES BOTA (Portugal) (Translation) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Amendment 4 is rejected.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Doc. 12540, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Doc. 12540, as amended, is adopted with 27 votes for, 9 votes against and 2 abstentions.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Doc. 12540.

The vote is open.

The draft recommendation in Doc. 12540 is adopted with 30 votes for, 8 votes against and 2 abstentions.

4. Expansion of democracy by lowering the voting age to 16

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The next item of business this afternoon is the debate on the Report titled “Expansion of democracy by lowering the voting age to 16” (Doc. 12546), presented by Mr Miloš Aligrudić on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee.

We have agreed to interrupt the list of speakers at about 7.20 pm to allow time for the reply and the vote.

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

Mr ALIGRUDIĆ (Serbia) – I have today the pleasant duty of presenting the draft resolution on the expansion of democracy by lowering the voting age to 16. There are at least four reasons for adopting the resolution. First, significant demographic changes in Europe could lead to the increasing marginalisation of young people in the political process, which could easily destabilise democracy at a time when social cohesion is more important than ever. Secondly, the increasingly low turn-out at elections throughout Europe shows that something must be done to involve more of society in the election process. Thirdly, young people are a part of the world’s population that is usually neglected as people often cannot see the difference between children and young people and forget that young people can sometimes be more rational than adults. Fourthly, the resolution is not merely about lowering the voting age, because that could not be our only goal. It is a resolution on expanding democracy and on inclusion.

The Political Affairs Committee discussed the issue at a meeting in Belgrade on 6 and 7 September 2010 and exchanged views with a representative of the European Youth Forum at a meeting in Paris on 14 and 15 December 2010. The Assembly has long been concerned with youth participation in politics and civic life. In its Recommendation 1019 (1985), on the participation of young people in political and institutional life, the Assembly declared that it was “convinced, if democracy is to survive and develop, of the importance of the active and effective awareness, understanding, participation and commitment to young people in political and institutional life at local, national and European levels”.

In June 1996, the Assembly adopted Order 523 on the situation of young people in Europe and noted that: “Key areas for policy discussion at national level…(include) whether or how to lower the minimum age for voting”. In Recommendation 1315 (1997), on the minimum age for voting, the Assembly called on member states rapidly to harmonise the age of 18 as the age at which people have the right to vote and stand for election in all countries and for all elections. The recommendation also called on member states to create the necessary preconditions for the participation of young people in civic life through education and the promotion of community involvement. Resolution 1630 (2008), on refreshing the youth agenda of the Council of Europe, emphasised that encouraging the active participation of young people in civic and institutional life had been a key element of the youth policy of the Council of Europe.

In parliaments throughout Europe, the question of lowering the voting age to 16 is being increasingly discussed. It is even being adopted in certain Council of Europe countries. In 2007, Austria became the first member state to adopt a voting age of 16 for all municipal, state, national and European elections. Germany has also lowered the voting age to 16 in some Länder, such as for municipal elections in Lower Saxony. In Switzerland, the canton of Glarus lowered the voting to 16 for local and regional elections. It has also happened in some British Crown dependencies between 2006 and 2008.

In Hungary, in certain circumstances, young people are permitted to vote at the age of 16. For instance, those people who marry before reaching 18 enter into full adult legal rights and can therefore vote. In Slovenia, young people can vote at 16 if they are employed. In Norway, 16-year-olds have the right to vote in 20 selected municipalities in the 2011 local elections. Some European countries have considered lowering the age of voting, including Finland, Denmark, the Czech Republic, Malta and the United Kingdom, where extra-parliamentary and parliamentary debate has lasted for years, since 1992. Outside Europe, Brazil, Cuba, Ecuador and Nicaragua have a voting age of 16, and Indonesia, East Timor, Sudan and the Seychelles have a voting age of 17. In Israel, 17-year-olds can vote in local elections. In the Philippines, 16-year-olds can vote in all elections if they are married.

As for international non-governmental organisations, the Brussels-based European Youth Forum, an independent youth-led platform representing 98 national youth councils and international youth organisations from across Europe is leading the way in calling for the voting age to be lowered to 16.

Now for the arguments. The first is the expansion of democracy. Since the onset of democratic revolutions in Europe, beginning with the French Revolution 1789, there has been a continuous movement towards a more inclusive democracy, with civic rights given to more and more citizens. An election that includes 16 and 17-year-olds is more representative than one that includes only those over 18. A threshold at 16 is consistent with the age at which compulsory school education is completed in most Council of Europe member states. Those aged 18 to 24 are the least likely to cast a vote at election time. Some research shows that the exclusion of 16 and 17-year-olds from elections is thought to fuel the disengagement of 18 to 24-year-olds, so lowering the voting age to 16 could motivate young people to participate more in democratic processes.

Research by the Institute for Social Research and Consulting and the International Sociological Association found that, in Austria, more than three quarters of first-time voters in the 2008 elections followed political issues more than once a week, and more than two thirds of the electorate who were between 16 and 18 years old stated that they were interested in the election campaign. Lowering the voting age would contribute to maintaining a demographic balance between youngsters and adults. The average of Europe’s voters is rising inexorably, year by year.

Many 16-year-olds are already active participants in society. In many states, they are allowed to leave school and find full-time work. Those who do that pay taxes and take on civic responsibilities, yet they cannot vote at elections. From a psychological point of view, the moral and cognitive development of young people is completed by the age of 14, so from that age, young people are capable of knowledge-based decision-making. There is a lack of consistency across Europe when it comes to the age of adult responsibility, as can clearly be seen if we consider the widely different approaches taken across Europe to the minimum age for consuming alcohol, the age at which young people are allowed to marry, and the age of criminal responsibility. Sometimes it seems that everyone thinks that the young are capable of assuming duties, but should not be granted rights.

Recommendation 1315 from 1997 urged states to reduce the age at which people can stand for election. The main argument for preserving a higher threshold is that a greater degree of maturity is required to act as a political representative than is required to elect such a representative. The general perception among the national youth councils working for votes at 16 is that the age at which one can stand for election should be 16. When it comes to minimum candidacy age, there is a less clear picture internationally. In many countries, the minimum age is 16, but in some countries it is 19; that is the case in Austria, although it has lowered its voting age to 16. In other countries, the minimum candidacy age is 21, or even 23 in the case of France. In Italy, to be President of the Republic, one must be 50, and to be a senator, 40.

As I have said, this text is not on lowering the voting age, but on including young people in the streams of civic life and the political decision-making process. We have to make them feel worthy and valuable, so that they are motivated to participate. If they think they cannot have any influence on society, they will never play an active role. That is exactly what has happened to 18 to 24-year-olds.

The Assembly should therefore call on member states to: create the necessary preconditions for the participation of young people in civic life through education and the promotion of community involvement; investigate the possibility of lowering the voting age to 16 in all countries and for all kinds of elections; and examine the possibility of lowering the minimum age to stand for different kinds of election – election to local and regional bodies, parliaments, senates, or presidencies – whenever advisable.

These recommendations to member states have been made bearing in mind that the issue is in some respects controversial, and that many countries need to pass constitutional amendments in order to lower the voting age.

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

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Aligrudić, for your most interesting introduction to the report and draft resolution. You have three minutes left. We have six speakers in the debate – five speaking on behalf of the political groups and one other speaker – so I propose that you answer after the six speakers have spoken. First in the debate, I call Ms Kovács, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Ms KOVÁCS (Serbia) – On behalf of the political group that I am representing, I congratulate wholeheartedly our dear colleague Mr Aligrudić on his excellent report on an issue that contributes to the strengthening of our core principles and democratic values, namely a more humane and all-embracing diversity, so that we have participation by the largest possible number of people in democratic processes.

The Group of the European People’s Party has tabled several motions referring to the situation of young people and the promotion of their role in society, as it deems those matters to be of crucial importance to the advancement of the family role in upholding our common beliefs.

Young people have the right, and should have the opportunity, to have a real say when decisions affecting them are made, whether at local, regional, national or international level. Participation means being involved in community life. I am convinced that we should support youth participation by ensuring that young people experience opportunities and face the consequent challenges.

As we have heard, the report states that the voting rate among young people is significantly lower than among the rest of the population. The new generation is less interested in politics, as there is a feeling among them that they cannot influence any political decisions in their country at all. To be honest, their opinion is indeed rarely taken into consideration; political parties address young people’s problems only occasionally.

What is lacking is a continuous structured dialogue, as only a small number of young people are consulted when policies in the youth field are discussed. Part of the solution might be a better structured dialogue between politicians and young people who are not represented by any organisation, and encouraging young people to become interested and active in politics.

Actively voting is of key importance in a democratic society, so we should motivate young people to go out and vote, thus involving them in decision making. As soon as our societies become more youth friendly, we will find that that is a driving force for the promotion of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. It is indeed nonsense that young girls or boys of 16 are liable for prosecution but cannot take part in political decision-making; they can be convicted of a crime, but do not have the right to vote. We must change that situation as soon as possible by lowering the voting age to 16. With that in mind, we have to provide a proper environment and prepare young people for their active participation in civic life by providing better education about democratic citizenship and facilitating their full integration into the structures of our society.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Kovács. I call Mr Mogens Jensen, on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr Mogens JENSEN (Denmark) – It is a particular pleasure to speak on behalf of the Socialist Group on the expansion of democracy by lowering the voting age to 16 as I was the initiator of the motion for a resolution that was presented in the Parliamentary Assembly in May 2009, which has now led to this report. On behalf of our group, I thank Mr Aligrudić for a good and clear report on the important subject of our expansion of democracy in European countries.

First, it is important to stress that a voting age of 16 is not new in Europe, as shown in the report. Mr Aligrudić shows us that Austria, Germany, Hungary and Norway have taken steps to offer the possibility for young people to vote as 16-year-olds. Other European countries are also giving serious consideration to lowering the voting age. The Irish Parliament is doing so and the Finnish Government has decided to investigate the possibilities. In my own country, Denmark, a suffrage commission was established in autumn 2010 and is expected to deliver by late 2011 a report on lowering the voting age. At the 2009 local elections, 31 municipalities organised shadow elections for 16 and 17-year-olds. The Czech Republic is considering lowering the voting age and such discussions have taken place in Malta and in the United Kingdom. Europe is on its way and is clearly moving to an expansion of our democracy.

The report gives good reasons for lowering the voting age in all European countries. The first argument is the expansion of democracy. An election that includes 16 and 17-year-olds is more representative than one that includes only those over 18. Including another section of society would make those elected more representative. It is argued, however, that a lower voting age would increase the problem of low turnout, but it is obvious that if people are given the chance to vote at a younger age, they are more likely to vote as they grow older. There is good reason to take note of the work of the researcher Mark Franklin, which is cited in the report. He has been studying election turnout in European elections for the past 20 years and he concludes that a stable context in terms of school, living at home and friends, which 16-year-old youngsters have, has a great positive influence on first-time-voter turnout.

In fact, a voting age of 18 is more sensitive due to the more insecure environment that most 18-year-olds encounter at this time, when they are leaving home, beginning their studies and making new friends. Lowering the voting age to 16 would therefore increase the chances of higher turnout among first-time voters, and thus of continued higher turnout. It is important to remember that many 16-year-olds are already active participants in our society. In many states, they are allowed to leave school and find work, and those who do so pay taxes. They are also able to get married and take on civic responsibilities.

Even though in many countries 16-year-olds cannot vote, they can take driving lessons, buy alcohol, have sexual relations, marry, have children, claim benefits and join the armed forces, and they can be convicted of a criminal offence. Arguably, they should therefore be entitled to complete their civic rights by casting their vote in elections. In addition, experience shows that the political voting pattern of the 16 to 17 age group is very similar to that of the 18 to 24 age group. They do not vote more radically.

There are many arguments in favour of lowering the active voting age to 16 and very few – perhaps none – against. The candidacy age should of course follow this. The Socialist Group wants our democracies to be active, representative and sustainable, so we fully support the report and its recommendations along the path to lowering the voting age to 16 for local, regional, national and European elections in all European countries.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Mogens Jensen. I call Ms Guţu, on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Ms GUŢU (Moldova) said she wished to tell the distinguished members of the Assembly how much she welcomed the opportunity to speak on behalf of the ALDE group. She congratulated the rapporteur, Mr Aligrudić, on his excellent report. The report, and the draft resolution contained within it, was extremely exhaustive and well-argued, and was of particular significance given the geo-political situation in Europe and elsewhere, even if the issue seemed marginal to some given discussions about the future of the Assembly.

This was a debate about democracy. Access to democracy meant access to decision-making at all levels of government. Democracy was by its nature participatory. That was the scientific definition of democracy. The right to vote when a person reached maturity was a metaphysical overlay of democracy. But the reality must also be reflected upon, and reality was multi-faceted. The information society had exploded; the population continued to grow; migration was an increasingly salient issue and countries continued to face economic and social problems.

Young people should be allowed to participate at all levels of elections: local, national and European. However, she would be honest and admit that it was not a view shared by all ALDE representatives who came from many different countries and democratic histories and cultural traditions. Nevertheless, she believed they were approaching a consensus.

The revolutions in many countries were in large part caused by young people, some of whom were younger than 16. The Venice Commission was currently drawing up draft constitutions for a number of north African countries which would require the extension of the voting franchise to 16-year-olds.

Moldova was in a transition towards greater democracy. The Twitter revolution of 7 April 2009 was a youth revolution and this had changed the distribution of power in Moldova. A new draft constitution was being drawn up by a committee of experts that would extend voting to 16-year-olds. If the Parliamentary Assembly adopted the draft resolution, it would be of great support to national parliaments in their efforts to lower the voting age. She believed that governments should give young people what they had been demanding for so long: the right to participate in democracy.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Guţu. I call Mr Bosić, on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Mr BOSIĆ (Bosnia and Herzegovina) – My compliments to the rapporteur, Mr Aligrudić, on his report. I am sure that the poor attendance for this debate is due to the fact that it is a Thursday evening and does not reflect the interest in this topic, which is extremely important for the future of Europe and democracy. We are sure that 15, 16 and 17-year-olds today have much more information than they had 20 or 30 years ago. The question is: are they capable of processing that information? Can they identify what is important and what is not? My group has a different point of view on this topic.

This draft resolution on lowering the voting age to 16 is a very serious matter, so we should raise a few questions. Is this honourable Assembly entitled to make this kind of recommendation to national parliaments? Is voting age a matter of human rights? If so, why are the human rights of 15 and 14-year-olds and younger children not violated? Shall we lower the voting age every 10 years? Connecting human rights to voting age is a slippery slope. Is it a question of increasing voter participation among the younger population? If so, another set of measures should be implemented. If we need more young people in parliaments, this is not the solution to that problem.

Many respectable national parliaments have recently discussed this kind of initiative, and very few adopted a change in the voting age. Only one, the Austrian Parliament, adopted the change. If we have rejected these initiatives in our national parliaments, why would we vote for this resolution in the Council of Europe Assembly? Would it not be wiser to wait and see the effect of such decisions in countries that have already lowered the voting age?

It is for national parliaments to decide on voting age thresholds, bearing in mind the cultural differences and habits that exist in different countries. It would not be correct to suggest to national parliaments that they lower the voting age to 16. Thank God my children did not have the right to vote when they were 16. I can imagine different political parties chasing them during school breaks. I am also sure that if they voted for me as a candidate at that time, they would have been the most demanding voters I ever had.

It is my group’s opinion that we should not push children into the cruel real world too early; we are convinced that it is not in their best interests.

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

Ms ANDERSEN (Norway) – The Group of the United European Left supports the report and thanks the rapporteur for it. It is important and concerns one of the pillars of the Council of Europe, namely democracy. We can argue that voting is a human right: I think it is. However, we cannot argue that it is not an important part of the pillar of democracy. The UEL believes it is important to limit to a minimum the number of people who cannot exercise the right to vote. Minimising the number of people who cannot vote is an important principle.

Then we have the argument about who cannot vote and why. I have not heard good reasons why 16-year-olds should not vote. Compare them to people of other ages. Adults can make wrong and foolish decisions. They can be influenced, like young people, by extremists or, indeed, by anybody. Maybe my colleague from Bosnia is afraid that his children will be influenced by people like me, a socialist. However, young people can think for themselves, just like you, Mr President, me and everybody else. Grown-up voters vote for extremist parties throughout Europe. I am a little afraid of this, but I cannot say that those people should not vote.

I have heard it argued that if you allow 16-year-olds to vote, their school teachers will influence them. That is true, but that problem should not be dealt with by raising the age at which people are allowed to vote. We would have to raise it to, say, 25, because some young people today are still in school at 30. It should be dealt with by making it compulsory for every school to teach young people about democracy and political parties. The political parties must also make arrangements to meet young people and be where they are – for instance by using social media.

I also support the idea, which has been mentioned, that young people have responsibilities. They can go to work, pay tax, decide on their education and go to jail if they violate the law. Therefore, it is only logical that they should vote in the elections that will elect the people and political values that will take decisions on how to spend common assets, or create or change the laws that they must abide by. As the rapporteur said, some people think that young people should be able to assume duties but not to exercise rights. I agree with the rapporteur.

It has also been said that young people do not take an interest in politics; I do not think that is true. Young people are more likely to show their engagement in areas other than political parties. That is a challenge for us. Young people are active in NGOs, on environmental questions and in the field of anti-discrimination. Now we see them in north Africa, where they want democracy. The signal that we send now is very important. The UEL supports the proposal.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The last speaker in this debate will be Ms Palihovici.

Ms PALIHOVICI (Moldova) – I appreciate this project, which I consider a cornerstone in strengthening democracy, especially in young democracies, such as Moldova. I thank the rapporteur for the comprehensive analysis and his exemplary presentation, which demonstrated that several countries have changed the law and given voting rights to young people from the age of 16. Positive examples from countries that have accepted a lower voting age remove the suspicions of those who believe that lowering the voting age limit is not a good idea.

Europe in its entirety and each individual country needs an active young generation that is involved in building awareness and promoting democratic values. This cannot be learned only from the family and in school; it does not appear on its own or from books. This activism and interest in community, national and international issues will be developed and strengthened over time only by participating in the decision-making process at all levels. In that way, you and your opinion count and you are convinced that you can influence the decision.

We will reach this point only through introducing the right to vote at 16. Youngsters will thus feel useful, responsible and accountable for their actions. The right to vote at 16 would increase their confidence and their confidence in other community members, who would treat them as equal decision-making partners. I firmly believe that more young people voting will bring about a change of priorities in government agendas and a change of emphasis in national policies. The knowledge and abilities that young people accumulate and develop in formal and non-formal educational systems allow them to make well-informed and well-documented decisions. The current opportunities for young people to get involved in various projects and activities from an early age allow them to know their communities, their politicians, and their political system and how it works, so they mature much earlier in their civic activism.

Young people are often presented as being apathetic and uninterested in political life, but we should not forget that history is full of cases where only the activism of young people has changed the course of a state’s development and moved it from a totalitarian regime to a democracy. Moldova is one of the countries that has had such an experience. The Council of Europe supports many projects that encourage the participation of teenagers and young people, but that is not sufficient. After 20 years of debate on this subject, it is time to give 16-year-olds the right to decide the fate of their communities and countries.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Palihovici. The advantage of having a short speakers list is that we have some time left available to us. According to the rules, I am allowed to ask whether any other member present wishes to make a contribution in the debate. Do any colleagues wish to contribute at this point? I call Mr Loncle.

Mr LONCLE (France) thanked the President and said he was sorry to drag out proceedings. He had listened carefully to the debate and with interest to the rapporteur, whom he considered to have hit the nail on the head. The debate was not just about lowering the voting age but about the up-and-coming generation. No one could dispute that European society was ageing at a rapid rate and thus so was the electorate. He himself was a part of that ageing process. That trend was very worrying for democracies. Young people were now claiming their right to vote at 16 or 17. He was sure that they would be equally as capable of voting as older people. The rapporteur had outlined the problem very well and the speakers in the debate had convinced him that lowering the voting age was exactly what should be done.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Does anyone else wish to speak in the debate? That is not the case.

I call the rapporteur to reply to the debate. Mr Aligrudić, you officially have three minutes left but you could take a bit longer.

Mr ALIGRUDIĆ (Serbia) – I thank all the participants in the debate for their contributions and for their support, with one exception – the representative of the European Democrat Group, Mr Bosić. As our previous speaker said, lowering the voting age is not a goal in itself, and this report is about inclusion. We know, and we knew when we prepared this report, that this proposal is not easy to implement in the member states, owing to some reasonable reasons. For example, the constitution of some countries, including my own country of Serbia, prevents us from changing or lowering the voting age without changing the constitution itself – the process of changing the constitution is way too complicated.

We are aware of such facts and absolutely understand them, so the way for this Assembly to communicate with member states is through provoking thought and debate. We need to provoke the start of the process; we can never know how and when it will end, but we want to provoke the start. I draw the attention of members to the exact phrase that our report used in this regard. Paragraph 7.2 of the draft resolution states that the Assembly calls on member states to “investigate the possibility of lowering the voting age to 16 years in all countries and for all kinds of elections”. We do not say, “this must be done at all levels.” Instead, we talk about investigating this possibility for all kinds of elections.

You spoke of maturity and a threshold, Mr Bosić, and you discussed whether this could be at 16, 15 or 14. As I have explained to you, we decided that the threshold should be 16 because of the simple fact that compulsory education in schools finishes at 16 in many member states. That means that we are taking an objective approach. We could move the voting age to 14, 13 or even 25. Many psychologists agree that 14 is the minimum possible threshold in respect of young people understanding the processes in the same way as adults. Even at 14, they would thus be morally and educationally capable of understanding, of telling right from wrong and of detecting differences in political aspects. However we are not proposing that 14 should be the voting age; we suggest that it should be 16.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Aligrudić.

Does Lord Tomlinson, representing the Political Affairs Committee, wish to speak? You have two minutes.

Lord TOMLINSON (United Kingdom) – Just briefly, on behalf of Mr von Sydow, whose absence was unavoidable this evening, may I say that the report was adopted overwhelmingly in committee, without any amendments? I am sure that he would want me to take the opportunity on his behalf, and on my own behalf, to congratulate Mr Aligrudić, our rapporteur, on his exemplary and unifying work. I hope that everybody will vote for the report.

THE PRESIDENT – The debate is closed.

The Political Affairs Committee has presented a draft resolution to which no amendments have been tabled.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Doc. 12546.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Doc. 12546 is adopted, with 19 votes for, 7 votes against and 1 abstention.

5. 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 which was approved on Monday.

The sitting is adjourned.

(The sitting was closed at 7 p.m.)

Contents

1.       Current affairs debate:

      The political and humanitarian consequences of the situation in Syria and Libya

Speakers:

Mr Robert Walter (United Kingdom)

Mr Gale (United Kingdom)

Mr Kox (Netherlands)

Mr Gardetto (Monaco)

Mr Gross (Switzerland)

Ms Memecan (Turkey)

Lord Anderson (United Kingdom)

Mr Pozzo di Borgo (France)

Mr Xuclà i Costa (Spain)

Ms von Cramon-Taubadel (Germany)

Mr Santini (Italy)

Mr Árnason (Iceland)

Mr Muñoz Alonso (Spain)

Ms Lundgren (Sweden)

Mr Loncle (France)

Ms Grosskost (France)

Mr Tekelioğlu (Turkey)

2.       Organisation of debates

3.       More women in economic and social decision-making bodies

      Presentation by Ms Gautier of report on behalf of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Men and Women (Doc 12540) and by Ms Naghdalyan of opinion on behalf of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development (Doc. 12637)

Speakers:

Ms Mósesdóttir (Iceland)

Ms Circene (Latvia)

Ms Christoffersen (Norway)

Mr Bugnon (Switzerland)

Ms Gafarova (Azerbaijan)

Ms Kovács (Serbia)

Mr Plotnikov (Ukraine)

Ms Schou (Norway)

Ms Schuster (Germany)

Ms Vučković (Serbia)

Ms Caparin (Croatia)

Mr Ghiletchi (Moldova)

Mr Reimann(Switzerland)

Ms Petir (Croatia)

Ms Stavrositu (Romania)

Replies:

Ms Gautier (France)

Ms Naghdalyan (Armenia)

Mr Mendes Bota (Portugal)

Vote on a draft resolution

Vote on a draft recommendation

4.       Expansion of democracy by lowering the voting age to 16

      Presentation by Mr Aligrudić of report on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee (Doc. 12546)

Speakers:

Ms Kovács (Serbia)

Mr Mogens Jensen (Denmark)

Ms Guţu (Moldova)

Mr Bosić (Bosnia and Herzegovina)

Ms Andersen (Norway)

Ms Palihovici (Moldova)

Mr Loncle (France)

Replies

Mr Aligrudić (Serbia)

Lord Tomlinson (United Kingdom)

Vote on a draft resolution

4.       Date, time and agenda of the next sitting

Appendix

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

Ruhi AÇIKGÖZ

Francis AGIUS

Pedro AGRAMUNT FONT DE MORA*

Arben AHMETAJ*

Miloš ALIGRUDIĆ

Karin ANDERSEN

Florin Serghei ANGHEL*

Miguel ARIAS CAÑETE/Gonzalo Robles Orozco

Khadija ARIB/Hans Franken

Mörđur ÁRNASON

Francisco ASSIS*

Lokman AYVA*

Alexander BABAKOV*

Daniel BACQUELAINE*

Viorel Riceard BADEA*

Denis BADRÉ*

Gagik BAGHDASARYAN

Gerard BARCIA DUEDRA*

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*

Mladen BOSIĆ

Anne BRASSEUR

Márton BRAUN*

Federico BRICOLO*

Han TEN BROEKE*

Patrizia BUGNANO*

André BUGNON

Sylvia CANEL*

Mevlüt ÇAVUŞOĞLU/Yüksel Özden

Erol Aslan CEBECİ

Mikael CEDERBRATT*

Otto CHALOUPKA*

Igor CHERNYSHENKO*

Vannino CHITI*

Christopher CHOPE

Pia CHRISTMAS-MØLLER*

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Desislav CHUKOLOV*

Boriss CILEVIČS*

Ingrida CIRCENE

James CLAPPISON*

Ann COFFEY/Lord Donald Anderson

Georges COLOMBIER/Yves Pozzo Di Borgo

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/Ludo Sannen

Earl of Alexander DUNDEE

Josette DURRIEU*

Baroness Diana ECCLES*

József ÉKES/Imre Vejkey

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/Ingjerd Schou

Claude GREFF*

Francis GRIGNON

Patrick DE GROOTE*

Andreas GROSS

Arlette GROSSKOST

Dzhema GROZDANOVA*

Attila GRUBER*

Ana GUŢU

Sam GYIMAH*

Carina HÄGG/Jonas Gunnarsson

Sabir HAJIYEV

Mike HANCOCK

Margus HANSON

Davit HARUTYUNYAN

Håkon HAUGLI/Tor Bremer

Norbert HAUPERT*

Olha HERASYM'YUK*

Andres HERKEL

Serhiy HOLOVATY

Jim HOOD/Joe Benton

Joachim HÖRSTER*

Anette HÜBINGER

Andrej HUNKO

Ali HUSEYNLI/Sahiba Gafarova

Rafael HUSEYNOV*

Shpëtim IDRIZI/Kastriot Islami

Željko IVANJI*

Igor IVANOVSKI*

Tadeusz IWIŃSKI*

Denis JACQUAT*

Michael Aastrup JENSEN*

Mogens JENSEN

Mats JOHANSSON*

Birkir Jón JÓNSSON

Armand JUNG

Antti KAIKKONEN*

Stanisław KALEMBA*

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*

Darja LAVTIŽAR-BEBLER*

Jean-Paul LECOQ*

Harald LEIBRECHT*

Yuliya LIOVOCHKINA*

Dariusz LIPIŃSKI*

François LONCLE

Younal LOUTFI*

Saša MAGAZINOVIĆ*

Philippe MAHOUX*

Theo MAISSEN

Gennaro MALGIERI*

Pietro MARCENARO

Milica MARKOVIĆ*

Dick MARTY/Liliane Maury Pasquier

Jean-Pierre MASSERET/Alain Cousin

Meritxell MATEU PI *

Pirkko MATTILA*

Frano MATUŠIĆ*

Sir Alan MEALE

Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA*

Evangelos MEIMARAKIS*

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*

Patrick MORIAU*

Juan MOSCOSO DEL PRADO HERNÁNDEZ*

Lilja MÓSESDÓTTIR

João Bosco MOTA AMARAL

Alejandro MUÑOZ ALONSO

Felix MÜRI/Maximilian Reimann

Philippe NACHBAR

Adrian NĂSTASE*

Gebhard NEGELE/Leander Schädler

Pasquale NESSA

Fritz NEUGEBAUER*

Baroness Emma NICHOLSON*

Cora VAN NIEUWENHUIZEN*

Tomislav NIKOLIĆ*

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI*

Mirosława NYKIEL/Zbigniew Girzyński

Carina OHLSSON

Jim O'KEEFFE*

Sandra OSBORNE*

Brian O'SHEA*

Liliana PALIHOVICI

Elsa PAPADIMITRIOU*

Vassiliki PAPANDREOU*

Valery PARFENOV*

Ganira PASHAYEVA*

Peter PELEGRINI/Tatiana Rosová

Lajla PERNASKA*

Claire PERRY/ Roger Gale

Marijana PETIR

Johannes PFLUG*

Viktor PLESKACHEVSKIY*

Alexander POCHINOK*

Ivan POPESCU

Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN/Kerstin Lundgren

Christos POURGOURIDES*

Cezar Florin PREDA

John PRESCOTT*

Jakob PRESEČNIK/Andreja Rihter

Gabino PUCHE RODRÍGUEZ-ACOSTA*

Milorad PUPOVAC*

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/Zaruhi Postanjyan

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/Jim Dobbin

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/Hansjörg Walter

Valeriy SUDARENKOV

Björn von SYDOW

Petro SYMONENKO*

Vilmos SZABÓ

Melinda SZÉKYNÉ SZTRÉMI

Chiora TAKTAKISHVILI*

Guiorgui TARGAMADZÉ*

Mehmet TEKELİOĞLU

Vyacheslav TIMCHENKO*

Dragan TODOROVIĆ*

Lord John E. TOMLINSON

Latchezar TOSHEV

Petré TSISKARISHVILI*

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*

Piotr WACH

Johann WADEPHUL*

Robert WALTER

Katrin WERNER*

Renate WOHLWEND/Doris Frommelt

Michał WOJTCZAK*

Karin S. WOLDSETH/Øyvind Vaksdal

Gisela WURM*

Jordi XUCLÀ i COSTA

Karl ZELLER*

Kostiantyn ZHEVAHO*

Emanuelis ZINGERIS

Guennady ZIUGANOV*

Naira ZOHRABYAN*

Vacant Seat, Bosnia and Herzegovina*

Vacant Seat, Bosnia and Herzegovina*

Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

ALSO PRESENT

Observers:

Hervé Pierre GUILLOT

Martha Leticia SOSA GOVEA

José Luis JAIME CORREA