2012 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Third part)

REPORT

Twenty-first Sitting

Tuesday 26 June 2012 at 10 a.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

2.       Speeches in other languages are summarised.

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

4.       Corrections should be handed in at Room 1059A not later than 24 hours after the report has been circulated.

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

Mr Mignon, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 10.05 a.m.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The sitting is open.

1. Written declaration

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – A written declaration, No. 523, has been tabled, calling for the release of the Polish journalist, Mr Andrzej Poczobut, from a Belarusian prison, Document 12975. Any member, substitute, observer or Partner for Democracy may add his or her signature in the Table Office, Room 1083.

2. Election of the Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe and election of judges

to the European Court of Human Rights

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – This morning and afternoon the agenda calls for elections in two categories. First, there is the election of the Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe. There are two candidates: Ms Gabriella Battaini-Dragoni and Mr Gérard Stoudmann. The candidates’ curricula vitae are to be found in Document 12945.

Secondly, there is the election of five judges to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

The list of these candidates and their curricula vitae are to be found in Document 12936.

Both elections will be held in the area behind the President’s chair between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. and between 3.30 p.m. and 5 p.m. this afternoon.

At 5 p.m. the polls will be closed. As usual, counting will then take place under the supervision of two tellers. We will proceed to choose the tellers by lot for each type of election.

The names of Ms Goryacheva and Ms Trettebergstuen have been drawn for the election of the Deputy Secretary General.

The names of Mr Spahić and Mr Muñoz-Alonso have been drawn for the election of the judges to the European Court of Human Rights.

Both sets of tellers should go to the back of the President’s chair at 5 p.m.

I now declare the ballots open.

I call Lord Tomlinson on a point of order.

Lord TOMLINSON (United Kingdom) – My point of order concerns the election of judges to European Court of Human Rights. I have the document that was produced by the Sub-Committee on the Election of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights, and I see that there is a difference in how different candidates have been treated. As I look at it, I find that of the five elections that came to a successful conclusion –

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – Point of order.

Lord TOMLINSON (United Kingdom) – You cannot have a point of order in the middle of my point of order.

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – You are going to disclose a document that is confidential.

Lord TOMLINSON (United Kingdom) – It is not confidential at all. That is what a plenary is entitled to do. I am amazed to see a British Conservative in this Assembly trying to stifle free speech.

When it comes to the Czech Republic, they selected –

THE PRESIDENT said that the document to which Lord Tomlinson was referring was confidential and therefore he was in violation of the Rules of Procedure.

He declared the ballots open.

Lord TOMLINSON (United Kingdom) – When it comes to the United Kingdom –

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – I am sorry, I am just going to have to speak more loudly than you, Lord Tomlinson.

3. Joint debate on (a) Austerity measures – a danger for democracy and social rights (b) The young generation sacrificed: social, economic and political implications of the financial crisis and (c) The impact of the economic crisis on local and regional authorities in Europe

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – We now come to a joint debate on three reports from the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development: Austerity measures – a danger for democracy and social rights, Document 12948; The young generation sacrificed: social, economic and political implications of the financial crisis, Document 12951, with an opinion from the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, Document 12974; and The impact of the economic crisis on local and regional authorities in Europe, Document 12944. After the rapporteurs have spoken, we will have a contribution from Mr Steingrímur Sigfússon, Minister of Economic Affairs of Iceland.

I will interrupt the debate, which will continue at the sitting this afternoon, at noon for the communication from Mr Edmond Haxhinasto, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Albania and Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers. May I remind the Assembly that it was agreed at Monday’s sitting that speaking time in all debates today be limited to three minutes?

Each rapporteur for a report has 13 minutes in total, which they may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.

I call first Mr Hunko, Rapporteur for the Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development Committee.

Mr HUNKO (Germany) said that the debate would be important as there was a deep crisis with threats to democracy. The Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development had reported on sovereign debt a year ago and had looked at the social impact of the crisis in a separate report last year. He had met representatives of civil society from Spain and Greece, which had been particularly affected by austerity. He acknowledged the work of Professor Arne Heise and Professor Flassbeck.

It was important to examine the problems caused by austerity policies two to three years after their imposition. Mr Muižnieks, the Commissioner for Human Rights, had been to Portugal and had seen first-hand the suffering of the young, the elderly and the Roma population.

There were problems with the core argument behind austerity policy. It assumed that sovereign debt problems were attributable to irresponsible stewardship of public funds and profligate welfare policies. However, between 2000 and 2008, Eurozone sovereign debt fell from 72% to 67% of GDP. The debt problems were caused by bank rescues after the 2008 crisis which originated in the United States. Social welfare was not the problem. Professor Paul Krugman had referred to this major misunderstanding. Yesterday, Cyprus had required European funds, though its debt was lower than Germany’s.

The problem was not just that there was a crisis in the banking sector but that austerity programmes were hitting the weakest in society. This Assembly, with its focus on human rights, should send a signal that things were developing in the wrong way. The report made that very clear.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Hunko. You have seven and a half minutes remaining. I call Mr Volontè, on behalf of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, to present the second report.

Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy) said that the report concentrated on a subject that was fundamental to the future of Europe, because there was a danger that the younger generation would be sacrificed. The economic crisis seemed never ending and, although countries were trying their hardest, the younger generation was losing out. A lot of time had passed since the G20 decision in Pittsburgh, but nothing had happened. If anything, the situation of young people was getting worse. In some countries, more than 50% of young people were unemployed. Others were in part-time or temporary jobs. It was important that young people felt that they were represented by their politicians and that they could see a way out of the crisis. It was equally important that countries drew on the innovative capacities of their young people in an attempt to emerge from the crisis.

It was necessary to move on from theoretical discussions, because young people were tired of hearing fine words. There was a need for a change in approach, to create opportunities for young people. Young people should be seen not as a problem, but as the solution. He thanked his colleagues and said that producing the report had been something of a learning curve for him. A great deal of data had been gathered and many different youth organisations had offered their opinions.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. You have eight minutes and 45 seconds left. I call Mr Jakič to present the opinion of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy. You have three minutes.

Mr JAKIČ (Slovenia) – The Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy congratulates Mr Volontè on his report and agrees with the rapporteur’s main conclusions in the draft resolution tabled by the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development.

Youth unemployment has been climbing in many EU member states, as economies struggle and governments impose stringent austerity plans. The youth unemployment rate in Spain reached 45%, the worst among EU members, followed by Greece with 42.9% according to EUROSTAT. Rising unemployment among the young is especially worrying because it can easily lead to long-term unemployment and make it harder for the next generation to find its way into the work force. It is a problem not just for them but for all of us, believes the economist, Professor Allard from Madrid, who says, “This is the generation that will be paying for the welfare state and pensions in the future. If they can’t get started with relatively secure, well-paying jobs, start to put away some savings, start to accumulate assets, start paying into the welfare system, where does that leave the rest of us?”

That is why it is important for our Organisation to present a useful recommendation to improve youth employment in Europe. My committee proposes three amendments intended to improve and supplement the text of the draft resolution without affecting the main conclusions.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Jakič. It is now my pleasure to give the floor to Sir Alan Meale, Rapporteur of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development.

Sir Alan MEALE (United Kingdom) – I am very pleased to contribute to this most important debate. People who know me in this Assembly know that I have always taken the opportunity to defend the cause of local and regional authorities, not only in my own constituency of Mansfield in Nottinghamshire, but in another life as a former parliamentary under-secretary of state for the environment in the United Kingdom. Today I am speaking as the general rapporteur on local and regional authorities of the Parliamentary Assembly, a function that I was appointed to at the last part-session in April.

Today’s debate is about how to overcome the “threats to democracy” generated by the current financial and economic crisis. The debate is important for local and regional authorities across Europe, which are the first line of institutions suffering from the tight economic situation, with public budget constraints that they have to pass on to their citizens – something that they had no responsibility for causing. In the face of the economic crisis, the reality today is that the resources of local and regional authorities are affected by both diminishing tax revenues and restricted intergovernmental transfers, while demand for their local services is on the increase – a situation in no small part caused by the recession itself.

In such a situation, there is a need for innovative approaches to help local and regional authorities overcome the crisis, while making their finances more resilient to future crises. Such innovative policies will need to involve various partners, public, private and associative. In particular, they must ensure that quality public services are maintained for all categories of society, especially groups in need of special protection such as children, the elderly and people with disabilities.

Let me illustrate the situation of local and regional authorities by way of a few facts. First, the direct tax revenues of many local authorities have undoubtedly been significantly reduced due to the current economic recession. That can be seen in figures provided by the French Dexia bank. In 2010, reductions were recorded in several countries of central and eastern Europe, as well as in Spain, Luxembourg, the United Kingdom and Germany, while only a few countries saw a rise in tax revenue, those being Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Finland and, of course, France.

Secondly, following the financial and economic crisis, national government revenues continued to decline in many countries, forcing them to apply austerity measures, which are also affecting transfers to local government.

In that respect, once again, figures from Dexia indicate that in 2010 budget cutting measures led many central governments to reduce or freeze transfers to their sub-national sectors, while in contrast, in 2009, they had set up substantial aid measures for local authorities as part of growth stimulation plans. Indeed, in my own country, the United Kingdom, government cuts in grants to local authorities are forecast to reach 12% per annum by 2015.

Through those examples, we can see that local and regional authorities suffer directly and indirectly from the crisis. My committee believes that the Parliamentary Assembly should therefore call upon member states to initiate national reform processes aimed at making local and regional authorities stronger. What is more, via their legislative and fiscal frameworks, governments should also ensure a certain discretion for local and regional authorities in setting local tax bases and rates, while maintaining a balanced mix in financing local budgets. By adopting such strategies, the effectiveness and efficiency of local service provision should be greatly improved.

Due to the scale of the recent difficulties, making the most of limited resources will be a continuous challenge for national governments and local government. The constraints that they face should, however, not undermine the social responsibilities that many local governments across Europe have, especially as their activities often concern the most vulnerable groups.

Whatever approach is followed, local and regional authorities should at least be actively involved in any new national reform programmes to express their specific needs, especially as many cities and regions vary greatly, reflecting the diversity of the greater European area.

Let us hope that in these times of crisis, which are affecting the whole of Europe, joint action by all forces at European, national and local level will help to improve the situation of local and regional authorities while at the same time contributing to people’s well-being in their own communities.

Let me add at this point that it will be of the utmost importance to co-ordinate the work of the different bodies involved with local and regional democracy to increase their impact. In that respect, I am in favour of developing action according to the common agenda promoted by the Council of Europe Conference of Ministers Responsible for Local and Regional Government, which met in Kiev in 2011 and is currently being discussed by the Committee of Ministers.

On behalf of the Parliamentary Assembly, I ask members to support me in saying that, yes, we need to continue to act as the independent advisory body of the Council of Europe, but we also need to focus collectively on the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe and the Committee of Ministers to find ways to tackle difficulties so that we might overcome them by joint action.

In that respect, I invite all members of the Assembly to speak out on behalf of our local and regional authorities, which are indispensable and vital institutions in all our democracies. I also invite members to support my draft so that governments will see our view that local and regional authorities remain lively institutions of democracy, which are close to their citizens when we involve them as much as possible in the decisions that might concern them.

THE PRESIDENT thanked Sir Alan Meale and said that he had six minutes remaining.

He welcomed Mr Sigfússon and said that it was a pleasure to see him, both as a former colleague and Assembly member, and as a key figure in Iceland’s Government. He reminded Mr Sigfússon that during his time as a member of the Assembly, he had chaired the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men. As Iceland’s Finance Minister, Mr Sigfússon had had to deal with what was known as the sovereign debt crisis. Mr Sigfússon had been personally responsible for a number of crucial decisions and was still involved in managing the consequences of those decisions in his current role as Minister of Economic Affairs. He would listen with interest to what Mr Sigfússon had to say. Iceland had left the worst behind it, but no one in Europe had a panacea for dealing with the crisis.

Mr SIGFÚSSON (Minister of Economic Affairs of Iceland) – First, thank you for the invitation; it is good to be back. I really enjoyed my work here in the Parliamentary Assembly, not least chairing the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, but I was called back to other duties when the financial crisis hit Iceland hard in autumn 2008. I became Minister of Finance on 1 February 2009 in the midst of the crisis and the social and political turmoil that followed it. I have built on my experience from that time, dealing with the sovereign debt crisis and the overall economic crisis. I tried to draw some lessons from that with relevance to the topic that is being discussed here today.

What happened in Iceland? Well, we had the traditional overheated economy, which had been growing rapidly for a number of years. The newly privatised banks took advantage of the free regulation to invest and expand their balance sheets all over Europe. They grew to an amazing number – 10 times the size of the Icelandic economy in a matter of a few years. Then they collapsed in the first week of October, following the fall of Lehman Brothers. No doubt they would have had some problems regardless.

What happened? We lost 85% of our financial sector in a matter of a few days. An emergency law was put in place allowing the authorities to move all deposits and assets from the failed banks over to new ones. Capital controls were introduced and, by mid-2009, 93% of the financial sector was gone. Our crisis was at least threefold. We had a banking and financial crisis, we had a currency crisis as the krona devalued by about 50%, and we had a major crisis in the building and contracting business, which had expanded during the bubble and which then came down very hard. Unemployment rose from practically nothing – from 1.5% to more than 9%. Sovereign debt accumulated from about 30% to 80% in one and a half years, and the net debt went from zero to more than 40%. The revenue fall was dramatic, as expenditure rose through increased unemployment and higher interest payments on the accumulated debt. The interest payments rose from between 2% and 3% of the budget to 15% in two years. So all of a sudden, we had to take away 15% of the budget to pay the interest. The number of non-performing loans rose from the usual 1% to 2% in the banking sector to around 50%, so about half of all debt was not being repaid in the usual way.

In short, we fell victim to the extreme neo-liberal exercise that was carried out in Iceland in the years before the crisis, and which came to a sudden, costly and painful end for the Icelandic population in October 2008. We entered into an International Monetary Fund programme. The economy contracted 6.8% in 2009 and an additional 4% in 2010, making a contraction of around 11% altogether. The deficit rose to about 14% in 2008 and about 10% in 2009. We were therefore dealing with a two-digit figure for sovereign debt.

So, what did we do? What actions did we take? In the middle of 2009, immediately after the elections, we took the first measures, both on the revenue and the expenditure sides. We did not wait, as had been intended. Many thought that we should allow the automatic stabilisers to work and wait for a while until things calmed down, but we did not do so. We immediately went in and took the first measures. That was followed by very tough budgets in 2010, 2011 and 2012. At the same time, the government made a firm commitment to preserve Iceland’s Nordic-style welfare system, and I believe that we have done so. I can honestly say that we have done all in our power to try to take society through this as softly as possible.

On the revenue side, we took extensive measures involving tax increases. We introduced a three-bracket private income tax, which put the burden on medium and high-income groups. We raised capital gains tax and corporate taxes. We introduced a CO₂ tax and raised the taxes on alcohol and tobacco. In fact, there were very few things left that we did not raise a tax on in that way. We even introduced a wealth tax on the richest families.

We also took extensive measures on the expenditure side, but we designed them in such a way as to cut two to three times more in general expenditure and investments than in welfare expenditure. I believe that that was the socially right thing to do, and in Iceland’s case at least, it also turned out to be the economically wise thing to do. The fact that we were able to preserve the purchasing power of the lower income groups has definitely helped to carry the economy through.

We chose what we called a mixed approach, in which we acted on the revenue side and the expenditure side, as well as taking quite a lot of side measures to compensate those who were most affected. That was extremely important. To deal with unemployment, we introduced several programmes, not least those that made it feasible for young people to go to school and educate themselves instead of being unemployed. We transferred a lot of money from unemployment benefit to the education system, so instead of paying out unemployment benefits, especially to young people, they took that money with them into the education system. We have succeeded in bringing several thousand people out of unemployment and into school.

Iceland’s co-operation with the IMF was interesting. Iceland was running a rather unorthodox programme. In the light of what I have already said, how did the IMF react to that? We are often asked that question. The fact is that trust was built up as the IMF saw that we were serious about tackling the problems, and it became more at ease with the situation. It decided that it was up to us to design and adapt the programme to suit our needs. We said that we were going to preserve the Nordic welfare system, but that we would take measures to deliver the necessary economic results. The IMF said, “Okay, that’s up to you as long as you deliver.” And we have done so. In the light of the IMF’s past history, it has to be said that it showed a good degree of flexibility as things moved on.

How has it all worked out? We have brought the deficit down from that horrible two-digit figure to about 1.52% this year. We have a slight primary surplus on the budget this year, and we are aiming for a fully balanced budget in 2014. Unemployment has been reduced from around 9% to 6%. The latest figure, for May this year, is 5.6%. Growth is back; the economy grew 3.1% last year and we estimate economic growth of between 2.6% and 3% this year. We completed the IMF programme successfully at the end of August last year. We have already repaid more than 50% of the loans from the IMF, the Nordic countries, Poland and the Faroe Islands much earlier than expected. Iceland is back on the international capital markets. We issued US $1 billion in June 2011 at decent terms, and we repeated that this spring, with and additional US$1 billion with 10 years’ maturity in June this year.

We are not out of the woods yet, however. The debt burden still weighs heavily on households and certain businesses. Unemployment is of course too high by our standards, even though our figures would not amaze some European countries, and a lot of work remains to be done in many areas. The outlook is steadily improving however. What are the main lessons? First, do not wait. Act on the problems right away, otherwise they will just get worse. You only have a certain amount of time and support for doing the most difficult things, and if you do not do them early on, it becomes more and more difficult to carry them through. People get impatient and they want to see results. They are entitled to see the light at the end of the tunnel, and we must keep their hope and spirits up.

Secondly, if you have to apply for assistance and to work with international institutions, be it the IMF, the World Bank or the European Union, try to take as much ownership of the programme as possible. It is the key to success to be involved on your own terms. It is all very well to draw up a programme at a desk in Washington or Brussels, but the hard part is to execute it. That can be done only by the authorities at home.

Thirdly, try to preserve the welfare structures and to shelter the low-income groups and the weakest in society. Fourthly, choose the right mixture. In Iceland’s case, it was impossible to solve the problems through austerity alone or by raising taxes alone; we had to do both. It was a delicate matter to choose the right mixture and to include certain activating programmes to support growth and create jobs at the same time.

Fifthly, you must try to explain to the population what you are doing and why you have to do it. Try to get people to understand that what is being done is necessary. If you do not do it now, someone else will have to do it later. There is also a question of responsibility. Do we as a generation shoulder the burden of these events, or do we defer the bill to the future and expect our children to pay it?

Sixthly, a lot has to be done in the financial system. We cannot have a system that constantly privatises the gains and socialises the losses. That is an awful system. Why on earth should we – ordinary people, the taxpayers – pay when financial institutions get into trouble? They see it as perfectly normal to take the gains themselves, paying outrageous bonuses and salaries in the good times, so-called. Many of these practices, such as the short-sighted gains-based bonuses, turned out to be extremely harmful, and in my mind they should be abolished or banned. There is therefore still a lot to do if we do not want a repeat of what has happened in 10, 20, 30 or 50 years.

Anyway, the main lesson of all this is: do not give up. These problems can be tackled. They can be solved, and they must be. There is hope and light at the end of the tunnel.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you very much, Minister, for your statement. You will have seen from the applause that you were heard out with great interest.

In the general debate I call Ms Lundgren, on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden) – This is a joint debate about what are certainly important topics. It is clear that the ongoing economic crisis is deeply felt by many, many people all over the world. I spent two weeks at the Rio+20 conference on sustainable development. It was obvious that, as Pascal Lamy, the head of the World Trade Organization, put it, the world has been put on hold by the challenge of this crisis.

Our institution, created out of the lessons learnt from the past, has an important responsibility in this situation: to safeguard human rights, the rule of law and democracy, not only for the citizens of today, but for our children and their children’s children. And please, do not say that they do not have a future, because they do. Children – people – always have a future in our old Europe. It is our responsibility to work. It is all about sustainable development.

Having said that, I want to focus on the report on austerity measures, because it does not deal with our core issues, as we see it. We in the Council of Europe should focus on safeguarding and promoting basic human rights in our societies, along with the rule of law and democracy, but this report takes us into economic and political theory building. That can be very interesting to debate, but it is not something on which this advisory body should give advice, good or bad. When we examined Mr Hunko’s report, we in the ALDE group realised that it could not be improved by amendments. On behalf of the group, let me inform you all that we have therefore decided to vote against the report this afternoon. I hope you all have a good debate and a good day, and I hope you vote against the report this afternoon.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – I call Mr Leigh, on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Mr LEIGH (United Kingdom) – I apologise in advance if what I say may not be popular with everybody in the Assembly, but sometimes you have to say what you have to say. The truth is that, as we know, we in Europe are faced with record deficits. If you have a deficit that is caused by debt, you cannot spend your way out of it. You have to deal with the problem through an austerity package, but you also have to deal with it in terms of your own national needs, as we are attempting to do – with great difficulty – in Great Britain. You cannot have solutions imposed on your country from above.

We heard from the Minister of Economic Affairs of Iceland about the steps that his country took – a balanced set of steps – which were based on tax rises and spending cuts. However, he did not tell us that he devalued his country’s currency by 40%. Sometimes you have to do that to make yourself competitive. This crisis is therefore made infinitely worse by the existence of the single currency, which is preventing countries in the Mediterranean from doing what is necessary for their people. We talk about democracy, but are the people of Europe being consulted? Are the people of Germany, Austria and Holland being consulted about the fact that they will have to make enormous fiscal transfers to the people of the Mediterranean if the euro is to be saved? No, they are not. We are talking, potentially, about €100 billion. Are the people of Greece, Italy and Spain, who face record unemployment, being consulted about what is happening?

The euro is fundamentally a political creation, designed to create a united Europe, initially without fiscal and monetary union. We all know it has not worked, but we are now told that, because it has not worked hitherto, we have to create fiscal and monetary union. However, as I have said, that would entail massive transfers of wealth, which I suspect the people of Germany, Austria and Holland would not be prepared to make, if they were being consulted, which they are not. The people of Greece, Italy and Spain would have to have their freedom of action and their independence severely curtailed.

We in the Council of Europe believe in democracy, freedom and the free movement of people, and I say yes to all those concepts. Surely we do not believe in an economic solution imposed by elites. Those of us in the United Kingdom do not believe in a single currency. We say no to that, and we say to the people of Europe: “All you have to lose is your chains. Cast them off and embrace economic and political freedom.”

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

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Loukaides, on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr LOUKAIDES (Cyprus) – On behalf of my group, I congratulate Mr Hunko on his report. Regardless of the fact that it is the product of a compromise, it manages to portray the fundamental weaknesses inherent in the austerity measures imposed thus far. The report contains an alternative, progressive approach to the current crisis which is compatible with democracy and social rights. The failure of austerity measures illustrates the deadlock in the neo-liberal capitalist model and the failure to address the needs of European societies.

It is obvious that the current austerity programmes have failed, both in theoretical and practical terms. In social terms, they have imposed enormous costs, as described in the report presented today. Economically speaking, the measures imposed have not redressed macroeconomic imbalances or structural weaknesses. On the contrary: countries that have undertaken severe austerity measures targeting the working class and vulnerable groups of the population have witnessed a vicious cycle of recession, resulting in wider public deficits and worsening macroeconomic figures.

The case of Greece clearly reveals the hardship endured. We in the Group of the Unified European Left are well positioned to describe and bear testimony to the very harsh conditions imposed on the working class. It is our strong conviction that vulnerable groups in society should be protected, not targeted, during times of crisis. In parallel, the wealthier segments of the population should contribute more substantially to dealing with the current crisis through appropriate fiscal measures. Moreover, it is equally important, as stated in the report, to create the conditions for economic growth and to restore confidence, so that economic activity can take off.

We agree with the rapporteur that austerity measures constitute a danger for democracy, but unfortunately we are already beyond this point. It is no exaggeration to say that democratic rights have already been seriously undermined by the austerity measures imposed. Indeed, how democratic is it to have appointed technocratic governments that lack popular legitimacy? How do we assess the troika’s functioning? Are those three bodies in any way accountable, and how are they democratically supervised and controlled? Is the sudden sharp increase in extreme rightist movements across Europe a mere coincidence or a direct consequence of worsening economic conditions due to the austerity programmes? How democratic is it to ignore citizens’ and people’s will concerning important decisions that directly affect their lives? Why are European institutions consciously avoiding the use of referenda to legitimise and add credibility to far-reaching policy mechanisms such as the fiscal pact or the European stability mechanism?

Finally, we must make it clear that we have no illusions that capitalism will find realistic solutions to its basic systemic contradictions. Nevertheless, while functioning within this system, we are convinced that the neo-liberal model is only making the situation worse and that a different economic model characterised by social sensitivity and solidarity should prevail.

To conclude, the UEL supports these three reports, as they send a clear signal to our governments and parliaments that austerity policies are part of the problem, whereas we urgently need a solution.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Sasi, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr SASI (Finland) – Thank you, Mr President. I thank Mr Sigfússon very much for explaining how the IMF programmes saved your country. Those programmes involve austerity, but there is, of course, flexibility. It is an agreement between the country and the IMF, and it tries to help other countries in Europe as well at the moment. We should follow the advice of the IMF.

Mr Volontè and Sir Alan Meale have written very good reports on two aspects of the foreign debt crisis. The EPP group fully supports Mr Volontè’s findings. For example, we must support the European Union job-creation strategy, and we must support the OECD study “Jobs for Youth”, especially in respect of reforming labour markets for young people because that is the best way to find employment for the young. The youth guarantee is central, too. We must guarantee that everyone gets a job or education within four months, and that is our obligation. Education makes it more possible to find employment, but it must be directed correctly.

Sir Alan Meale very rightly points out that local services are often inefficient. They must be provided more effectively. That is the first thing to do. We then have to reduce local expenditure. However, we have to maintain services while reducing administrative costs and expenditure. When we cut budgets, we should not make disproportionate cuts in local services or in transfers to local communities because they take care of such services. I think that local communities have a right to impose more local taxes. Tax-rate competition is fine, but it can be difficult to deal with.

The vision in Mr Hunko’s report is strong: no austerity measures and financing by the European Central Bank. When you print money, you get huge inflation, as happened in Germany in the 1920s. You then need price control, and then you need currency control. At that moment, people will flee from Europe, and we then have to ask, “Do we need to build a wall to stop people fleeing Europe?” That is not the vision of the EPP group.

Our vision is that we want a welfare state, but it must be based on sound national finances. We must understand that no country can spend more than it produces. Every country must balance within a reasonable time frame revenues and expenditures, and the European fiscal treaty is intended to support that policy in the long run. It is an essential tool in this work.

The EPP group fully supports the European social model. We support the social market economy that was founded by Ludwig Erhard – one of the founding fathers of our economic policies – but democracy is based on the markets. When a country tries to sell bonds, that can be mismanaged by the politicians. For example, a pension fund for metal workers will not buy those bonds if it does not trust the country’s politicians. That can mean an interest-rate crisis, and interest rates are very important to civil society and a democratic tool of control if politicians have done their jobs correctly in their own countries.

We need growth and we should therefore look at the Hartz IV growth programme in Germany. A bigger labour supply means growth, and we can follow that path very well.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The last person to speak on behalf of one of the political groups is Mr Schennach, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) said that he congratulated the rapporteurs on their reports. The renowned Austrian economist, Stephan Schulmeister, had said that current economic policies were tantamount to committing suicide out of fear of death. Governments were throwing economies to the markets out of fear of the markets and as a result triggering recession. The Commissioner for Human Rights had said that austerity measures were already denying human rights. Some €100 billion had been found to bail out the Spanish banks, but money had not been found to assist unemployed young people. Education was not enough if the only work available was the precarious employment of internships without pension contributions.

Local authorities had the potential to bring about positive changes, but excessive savings meant that their programme budgets were being cut. President Hollande had rightly said that Europe needed an investment offensive. It was misleading to view state finances as equivalent to a private bank account.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you.

I remind members that voting is in progress to elect a deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe and five judges to the European Court of Human Rights. The polls will close at 1 p.m. and will then be open again between 3.30 p.m. and 5 p.m. Those who have not yet voted may still do so by going to the area behind the President’s chair.

The rapporteurs will reply at the end of the debate, but do Mr Hunko, Mr Volontè or Sir Alan Meale wish to respond at this stage?

That is not the case.

I gave those speaking on behalf of the political groups a few extra seconds, but from now on we have to be strict as so many of you want to participate in this debate. We will have a strict three-minute limit.

Ms OHLSSON (Sweden) – I congratulate all the rapporteurs on their excellent and important reports. I am sure that everyone here will have had discussions both in their own parliaments and with friends and citizens about the financial crisis, the unemployment rate, the negative social consequences of austerity and what to do about them. In the discussions about how to solve the problem, it is important not to forget the values that we talk about a lot here in the Council of Europe – transparency, solidarity between states, social and economic rights, sustainable development and so on.

Sweden, where I come from, has had a rather good unemployment rate, economic growth and national finances. However, instead of guaranteeing the existing benefits of social security, the Swedish Government has decreased taxes – mostly for rich people. At the same time, it has cut the welfare and education systems, decreased benefits in the social insurance system, worsened the rules for citizens who are ill and impaired people’s ability to get unemployment insurance.

The gap between rich and poor in OECD countries has reached its highest level for more than 30 years, even in Sweden. The OECD report “Divided We Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising” finds that the average income of the richest 10% is now about nine times that of the poorest 10% across the OECD. The main driver behind the growing income gaps has been greater inequality in wages and salaries, and the wage gap has also been extended by the rise in part-time and low-paid work. Women and young people make up the majority of those in such work.

Women are also suffering from cuts in social services, such as those to child benefits and childcare centres, which disproportionately affect single mothers and women on low incomes. That is leading to poverty for many children.

What can we do? The most important binding instrument at European level is the revised European Social Charter, but we must also guarantee welfare for all in our own countries. We must combat poverty and ensure that there is good childcare and elderly care so that both men and women can work, and there must be gender-equal parental insurance and leave for both parents. We all have a lesson to learn.

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

Mr PHELAN (Ireland) – I, too, commend the rapporteurs. I will focus primarily on the report on youth unemployment, for which I commend Mr Volontè.

In Ireland, at the height of our economic success five or six years ago, the unemployment rate stood at 4%. Now it has stood above 14% continuously for the past 12 months and remains stubbornly at that level. One third of men under the age of 25 are now unemployed, and the figure is similar, if only slightly smaller, for women. Obviously we must consider the economic loss to individuals and families associated with that, but we must also consider the wider loss caused to any economy by a lack of young people becoming employed.

In Ireland, a lot of our younger population are emigrating. People who would have been key components in any economic recovery have often been the first forced to leave because of the lack of a job. There is also an economic loss to the state in revenues forgone and the need to make welfare payments. Perhaps even more important are the social costs of unemployment to society and the individual. The importance of a job is not measured just by how much somebody earns; it is also about giving somebody a sense of value in what they do. There is a real danger, as we have seen in my own country, of people leaving school and college and getting into the habit of not working. That is a difficult habit to break.

I particularly support Mr Volontè’s recommendation with regard to young families, because in Ireland those families have the highest debts, having paid astronomical prices for the homes that they live in and with one or both partners often no longer working. We particularly need to focus on that problem.

I wish briefly to refer to the other reports. I mostly agree with Mr Leigh when I watch him from across the Irish sea, but I disagree profoundly with most of what he said today. However, he made one point that was absolutely correct. Countries that have deficits and large public debt will not solve their difficulties by increasing public debt exponentially. There is an absolute requirement for public expenditure to be reduced, and we are in the midst of that in Ireland, which is difficult. I do not agree with colleagues who have expressed the view that large-scale public expenditure by the state is the way to resolve our situation. We have seen that happen in many European countries in the past couple of years, and it has not worked. In Ireland, we have the highest ever level of private savings, and we need to get as much of that money as possible into the economy.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I see that Mr Sergey Kalashnikov and Mr Ghiletchi are not here, so the next speaker is Mr Fritz.

Mr FRITZ (Germany) said that the future of the young was the future itself. High unemployment offered no prospects for the young, but the accumulation of debt would put a lasting burden on them. German policy had demonstrated that local authority-level policies could have the quickest effect on employment and training.

The debate on the impact of austerity on democracy and social rights had been exciting but the Assembly was not the right place to decide economic strategy. Debt policy had reached a dead end in Europe and governments could not spend money that was not there as this would simply increase the burden on the next generation. He and his colleagues had difficulties with this report and had tabled a series of amendments. It was not a report they could support. He thanked the Icelandic Minister, Mr Sigfússon for his contribution. These problems needed political leadership as this was not the time to wait, but the time to look for solutions.

THE PRESIDENT – I remind you that we have to stick to three minutes, so that all members who want to participate can do so. As Mr Giaretta is not here, the next speaker is Ms Blondin.

Ms BLONDIN (France) said that she concurred with the report by Mr Volontè on the disastrous consequences of the economic crisis on young people. Young people felt very disillusioned and it was important that the Assembly put forward proposals to address the situation. It was interesting that the French President had chosen young people as a major aspect of his campaign. As had been said yesterday, education had a cost, but it had no price. Vocational training should be adapted to economic needs and it was important that there was proper back-up for training. It was also vital not to neglect students who had to work while studying. It was necessary to improve the working conditions of young people and to ensure that they had access to affordable housing. One example of the way in which this could be achieved was the use of inter-generational housing, in which young people shared the houses of older people in return for help with various tasks. If steps such as these were not taken, the future would be put in jeopardy.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Blondin. The next speaker is Mr Chiti.

Mr CHITI (Italy) said that the crisis could not be addressed simply by cutting spending because that led to a fall in living conditions and worsening social cohesion. The issue of the economic crisis was not unrelated to human rights. However, the crisis could not be overcome simply by thinking about it. The necessary measures must be taken internationally, otherwise young people risked becoming a lost generation. There was a need for more emphasis on Europe in this situation. Rigour in public spending was necessary but it should not be undifferentiated. Autonomy in economies was the essential backbone of democracies. It was important to consider employment and the environment. There was a need not to destroy, but to renovate. He would vote in favour of all three reports.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Chiti. The next speaker is Ms Borzova.

Ms BORZOVA (Russian Federation) thanked all three rapporteurs, and especially Mr Hunko for his objective assessment of the consequences of austerity. Complex issues were being discussed and appropriate measures needed to be taken. The economic crisis had resulted in declining household incomes. Governments were attempting to fulfil their obligations. In her country, the government had fulfilled its social obligations. However, unemployment stood at an average of 5.4%, with some regional variation. The task of those involved was not only to create new jobs but to stimulate investment. The problem of unemployment was of concern to everyone. Enormous efforts had been made to match supply with demand in the jobs market. Some retraining was necessary so that people could move from one sector to another. The problems of young people must be a high priority. The Minister of Economic Affairs of Iceland had made an important point when he said there must be a minimum income for the most vulnerable groups.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Borzova. The next speaker is Mr Dişli.

Mr DİŞLİ (Turkey) – I thank all the rapporteurs. Europe was one of the regions most affected by the global financial crisis, mainly because of weak prudential and macroeconomic policies. While other advanced economies showed some signs of recovery, Europe lagged behind, and its lack of a credible, timely and co-ordinated approach to the growing problems also contributed to that gloomy outlook for Europe. The rise of government intervention in the economy to ensure a well-founded recovery led to further deterioration in the fiscal balances of European countries. The global financial crisis has shifted economic power from west to east. With the rapid rise of emerging Asia, European countries must do more in order not to lose their economic power globally.

Although austerity is required to attain sustainable public finances, fiscal consolidation, especially tax increases, will dampen economic activity in the near term. Moreover, austerity measures applied across Europe are criticised by some international experts.

The impact of the global crisis on the Turkish economy was relatively brief. The government was able to restore confidence relatively quickly by implementing timely, targeted and efficient macroeconomic policy combined with the announcement of medium-term programmes. Hence, Turkey was able quickly to transform a policy-driven recovery into self-sustained growth. However, I shall not discuss the whole of the Turkish economy.

Europe overcame the devastation of the Second World War by integration and European solidarity. The key to Europe overcoming the current economic crisis cannot be retreating into national markets and succumbing to nationalist rhetoric. The problem in Europe is not Greek, Italian or Spanish, and the best way to address it is through international solidarity and further regional and European integration.

Demagogues may claim that they have easy solutions to our complex and difficult problems. Foreigners, immigrants or anyone deemed to be different may be turned into scapegoats. We must realise that, unless we resist such things, we might find ourselves going down a slippery road. At the end of that road, there is no Europe as the guardian of our values or as the continent of free and prosperous nations.

Free and prosperous countries in Europe are possible only in a Europe where there is deep, extensive and dynamic integration. Such hard times should be used as an opportunity further to consolidate European integration. Trade and investment should be encouraged between neighbours and the regions of Europe to boost continental solidarity and interdependence.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Dişli. The next speaker is Mr Heer.

Mr HEER (Switzerland) said that he thanked the President for arranging the address by the Minister of Economic Affairs of Iceland. As far as the left was concerned, it had been agreed that there would be a policy of austerity. However, austerity had not been taking place. Many countries had large debt ratios and this was not sustainable. There was now a situation of great turmoil and there was no point in getting any further into debt because future generations would have to pay the price. It was essential to have less red tape and corruption. There should be a situation in which companies could invest and prosper. It was wrong to increase taxes, especially because of the effect this would have on the vulnerable. The International Monetary Fund had a great deal of power. There was no way round having a reasonable policy and adopting measures to achieve savings. The introduction of the euro had obviously been a mistake.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Heer. The next speaker is Mr Gunnarsson.

Mr GUNNARSSON (Sweden) – I compliment the rapporteurs and the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development on the good work put into these reports.

Young people all over Europe suffer from their respective countries’ inability to create an environment that is inclusive and that grants a good transition from childhood to adulthood. The young are often referred to as the future of our society. If that is the thesis of Europe today, we must be blindfolded, as it seems that we cannot see what we are doing to that very future. We need another approach: instead of viewing the young as people who have to become older and more mature before taking on the responsibilities, we should allow young people to take their place in the labour market as well as in political and social life.

Young people all over Europe are suffering from unemployment, underemployment, short contracts and a lack of social security. That is not a problem created by the crisis, but the crisis has shown how vulnerable the young are and how the structures work against young people.

Exclusion of the young is not restricted only to the labour market; young people are also excluded from the democratic political arena and debate. The problems that young people encounter in life are seldom addressed in a constructive way that involves them. Instead, they are often portrayed as the problem.

The social contracts in our different countries all have an element of intergenerational solidarity. The problem is that that way of thinking requires as many as possible of those who can to work. That is something that young people, in many ways, are denied today. That will affect their support for the social contract and the idea of intergenerational solidarity. If we want to keep these ideas alive, we must let youth in. We must let them take their place, and some of us might have to give up our places to them.

It is not too late to do something about this, but we have to do it now. A good start would be to give our youth a political voice as well as viewing them as an invaluable resource that is available in all our countries. The decision would then be whether to let that resource in or not.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you Mr Gunnarsson. Before giving the floor to Mr O’Reilly from Ireland, I first call Mr Don Davies, our observer from Canada.

Mr Don DAVIES (Observer from Canada) said that resolving the economic situation in Europe required proactive measures, but austerity measures were ineffective and aggravating, and served in fact to dehumanise the crisis.

(The speaker continued in English)

This is not just a European problem; it also affects North America. Expenditure cuts have focused almost exclusively on social areas such as pensions, health, social services and family benefits. They have therefore targeted the most vulnerable segments of the population. There have been substantial reductions in services as well as cuts in the quality of social services in general. Women and children will be affected disproportionately by austerity measures, largely because a large majority of single parents are women. Since the implementation of austerity measures, women have seen their quality of life undermined by tax and benefit changes and by other cuts in social services, such as those relating to child benefits and childcare, which have a tremendous effect on single mothers and women on low incomes.

(The speaker continued in French)

He said that austerity measures had inhibited the creation of jobs, led to significant cuts in public unemployment and, for those in work, reduced minimum salaries. The climate had also resulted in the end of fundamental rights, such as the right to take collective action in the European Union.

(The speaker continued in English)

From a purely economic standpoint, in recessionary contractions, cuts in government expenditure, social safety nets or wages contravene sound economic principles. They undermine an individual’s purchasing power and their capacity for economic independence, and they inhibit growth. It has become clear that austerity measures, as they have been applied so far, pose a serious threat to social cohesion and the social and economic rights of vulnerable groups. We must reflect on the fact that the degradation of social and economic rights could be avoided if governments were to evaluate the real causes and consequences of implementing austerity measures.

As the rapporteur has so cogently pointed out, the causes of the crises were unbridled market liberalism and its associated political expressions. It is likely that more of the same would deepen the problem, not correct it. Pursuing a social market economy based on the creation of quality employment opportunities and support for educational and social programmes is far more likely to create growth and recovery. The rapporteur has commendably set out a series of recommendations that propose a democratic and socially responsible alternative to the austerity measures taken thus far. They are socially just and economically wise, and I fully support the plan.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you Mr Davies. I call Mr O’Reilly.

Mr O’REILLY (Ireland) – I congratulate our three rapporteurs and welcome their provocative reports. I dispute the contention that the matters raised do not impact on human rights, human dignity and the quality of life. I personally believe that they are more than germane to the debate in this Assembly. A consensus is now emerging in Europe, after the initial shock of the economic collapse, that we need to marry prudent financial management, debt reduction and financial consolidation with an economic and jobs stimulus at the macro level throughout Europe.

That view has been put forward consistently by my government at the European level in every available forum. It is a view that is now being advocated by Mario Draghi of the European Central Bank, and it has been supported by President Hollande, and indeed by Angela Merkel recently. It is now becoming mainstream opinion. It brings together all the views that have been expressed today, and it will achieve all the objectives that have been put forward. We have to go on managing our finances in a way that will reduce debt and prevent debt from crippling our countries for future generations, but we also need to provide the means to escape the economic morass that we are in. That must obviously be done through stimulus. We must generate consumer demand and confidence, and we must get a spend going in our economies.

I congratulate Mr Hunko on the first report. The other two reports address the manifestations of the economic crisis, the absence of a stimulus package to date, and the complete focus on austerity. Mr Volontè has looked at the question of youth unemployment. It is unpardonable and unacceptable that 6 million young people are unemployed, that 50% of young people in Spain are unemployed and that one third of young people in my own country are unemployed. Those figures are unacceptable and unsustainable. The Assembly should be aware that we cannot undermine our local democracies by reducing transfers to them and, as Sir Alan Meale said, by preventing local democracy from funding itself.

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

Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain) said that he thanked the rapporteurs and the Minister from Iceland. Iceland was a source of particular curiosity and astonishment because of a case alleging criminal and other responsibility on the part of some of its leaders for actions relating to the economic crisis.

With the focus on growth, not enough attention was being paid to the exclusion of the weakest members of society, including young people, both those with training and those without. The economic crisis was not an isolated study, but a systemic crisis as a result of the interconnected nature of the world, shown most prominently through the financial system. This had led to the spectre of a new tyranny of those speculating against the euro and sovereign debt, and it was no surprise to see the promotion of tax havens and bank secrecy. New income had to come from those with more, not less, because the crisis was as much a political as an economic one. Otherwise, Europe was risking its future by cutting resources and subordinating itself to the tyranny of the markets. More and better politics, which included ensuring the effectiveness of the European Court of Human Rights, could protect against double standards and the exclusion of young people. For that reason, he supported the report, and urged members to vote in favour, in order to recognise that the work had been done well.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker is Ms Burykina, but she is not here, so I give the floor to Mr Wach.

Mr WACH (Poland) – Today’s debate is very important. It is good that these reports are being debated together, because the problems they deal with are strongly linked and affect each other. For me, the most dramatic title is that of Mr Luca Volontè’s report: “The young generation sacrificed”. I will pay most attention to that report because the title is so dramatic. The title is also justified, because the report sets out numerous problems that are affecting the young generation.

There are high levels of unemployment among young people. Even if they are employed, their conditions of employment and their contracts are very poor. Their future is not good. The results that follow on from this include demographic decline and housing problems. All these things are interconnected. Another problem, which is not listed in the report, is declining faith in education, including academic education, when young people see that even formal education is not enough to gain good employment.

The reports present several measures to overcome these problems. They are small but varied measures, and we have to take them. The biggest issue, however, is that the problems of austerity are deepening because of negative feedback. As has been said, it is also necessary to find a balance between austerity and taking steps to encourage employment, investment and greater consumption, so that young people can feel more secure for the future. I very much support the steps that have been outlined, although we have to be realistic. It is not guaranteed that we will get out of the crisis, but we have to take those steps. In our own countries we have to pass domestic legislation that is favourable to young people, and to follow the steps that we agree in this place.

I would like to mention another problem, which is one that we do not know how to tackle. It is the problem of social egoism, which has been growing during the crisis. Social groups and individuals who are in a better position are not ready to open up and share. How we should tackle this I do not know.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Before I give the floor to Minister Sigfússon to respond, I call the last speaker in this morning’s part of the debate, Mr Reimann.

Mr REIMANN (Switzerland) said that Mr Hunko’s report was not a suitable means to resolve Europe’s social and economic problems. It was a surprise that the Committee, with its broad membership, had accepted such a left-leaning report. It had perhaps been a mistake for a member of the party that had followed on from the Socialist Unity Party or SED, which had been unable to lead the German Democratic Republic away from the abyss, to head the report.

The introduction of the euro, amid much pomp and circumstance, had come before the countries concerned were ready and therefore a crisis had been waiting to happen, and in the same way the measures in this report would not succeed. In fact, they could be a threat to democracy. The idea that increasing tax for higher earners and taxing profit were measures that could solve the problem was not reflected in the reality on the ground. A financial transaction tax, for example, had to be introduced across the world, not just in Europe, to be truly effective. The best approach, which was not addressed in the report was to put a brake on debt, as had been the case in Switzerland. This had meant that Switzerland had been able to pay off its debts and carry no deficits. Such an approach should be explored further.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I give the floor to Minister Sigfússon to respond to what he has heard from colleagues this morning.

Mr SIGFÚSSON – I would like first to give credit to the Assembly for calling this debate. It is important to deal with the social, political and economic aspects of the problem, because we are not talking about an isolated economic issue. This is something that involves us all, as has been mentioned in the discussions about the future prospects for young people and so forth.

I mentioned ownership of the programmes adopted and the measures taken, which relates to the fact that you have to involve society. You have to have this debate, and that is a message meant for both sides – not just the countries concerned, but the international bodies that are dealing with such issues. They should be aware that it is all very well to have a good programme, but it has to be executed.

That brings me to my friend Kimmo Sasi. I was not saying, Kimmo, that the IMF had saved Iceland. On the contrary, Iceland is saving itself. No one is doing it for us. We have to do the hard work and execute the programmes, as do the politicians and authorities in Greece. No one can do it for them, and they will not succeed unless that point is respected. What I was doing was giving the IMF a great deal of credit for allowing us to become the architect of the measures, adopt them to our type of society and carry them out in the best way that we thought was suited to Iceland as a Nordic welfare country.

Mr Leigh mentioned the effects of devaluing our currency and the fact that other countries are not in the same position, and he is right. The devaluation of the krona by about 40% to 50% obviously gave exports and industries a very good competitive advantage, but it does not come without a price. Let us remember that devaluation is often followed by inflation, that it reduces the purchasing power of communities and that it can adversely affect loans, whether foreign indexed or direct foreign debt. It is not a magic solution, but it can help in the sense that it provides a better basis to move the economy out of the crisis.

However, if everyone were to come to the same conclusion and try to use exports to get out of the crisis, who is going to buy them? That would be a problem in the end. As we have discussed, there must be some consumers, and the US is becoming tired of being the consumer of last resort. We will not solve this crisis in the old, traditional way, with everyone increasing their exports to the US – that is for sure.

I have one final point to make about the type of society we live in when we have a crisis like this. I am a supporter and admirer of the Nordic type of welfare system, and my views on that have changed dramatically during this experience. When things like this happen, it matters a lot to have a strong infrastructure and a strong social welfare system that can take care of those who are most likely to be hurt. If you have strong, public free schools and strong public health care that function despite the economic problems, that provides stability and security that you do not enjoy otherwise.

Pension systems are an additional thing to consider. If you compare a funded pension system – such as we are fortunate to have in Iceland, with about 130% of GDP in net assets – with a pay-as-you-go system with no assets, when you have an economic crisis, you find a world of difference between them. That affects how you deal with the problems of unemployment and social instability that follow crises such as this. So I value our type of system twice as much as I did before I realised how important it was for us to have that functioning during the crisis.

Thank you again for the debate – I think that it is very valid – and I congratulate all the rapporteurs on their reports.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Mr Sigfússon for sharing your views and experiences during this important debate.

The debate will continue in the afternoon, when the first speaker in the debate will be Mr Jáuregui from Spain.

I must remind you that voting is in progress to elect the Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe and to elect five judges to the European Court of Human Rights. The polls will close at 1 p.m. and will then be open between 3.30 p.m. and 5 p.m. this afternoon. Those who have not yet voted in these elections may still do so by going to the area behind the President’s chair.

The joint debate will continue this afternoon.

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

4. Communication from the Committee of Ministers to the Parliamentary Assembly, presented by Mr Edmond Haxhinasto, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Albania, Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – We now come to the communication from Mr Edmond Haxhinasto, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Albania and Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers. After his speech Mr Haxhinasto will reply to questions from members of the Assembly.

Mr Minister, it is a great pleasure for me to welcome you among us today in your capacity as Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers. I am sure I speak on behalf of all members of the Assembly when I congratulate you on your accession to that position. Albania is chairing the Committee of Ministers for the first time in its history, and we have seen how seriously you prepared for your chairpersonship. We have seen that your priorities are very ambitious, and that shows how much your country values the Council of Europe’s principles. Thank you very much for your warm hospitality and your welcome when the Bureau and the Standing Committee met in Tirana last May.

As you know, our Assembly fully supports the priorities of the Albanian chairmanship in office. During your term of office, we will make available to you both our expertise and our political support, so that we can continue together to implement the Council of Europe’s main strategic objectives, particularly in the following areas: improving the long-term effectiveness of the European Court of Human Rights; promoting human rights and strengthening the rule of law, inter-cultural dialogue, political and institutional reform of the Council of Europe; and promoting local and regional democracy.

When we met this morning, we agreed that various activities should be carried out, including joint visits in our member states and neighbouring countries. This co-operation further strengthens the political relevance of our message, as well as the visibility of our Organisation, in accordance with the objectives of the reform of the Council of Europe.

Minister, before giving you the floor, I would like to mention that meeting Mr Berisha, the Prime Minister of Albania, yesterday, when you were present in the Chamber as well, was very interesting and fruitful for us. You saw that many questions were addressed to him, and I can assure you that many questions will be addressed to you. I thank you in advance for your answers, which I am sure will be to the point.

Without further ado, I invite you to address the Assembly and tell us about the concrete actions that you intend to take during your term of office.

Mr HAXHINASTO (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Albania and Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers) – Thank you very much, President Mignon, for that warm welcome. Honourable Secretary General Jagland and distinguished members of the Parliamentary Assembly, it is a great pleasure for me to address this Assembly after our first encounter in Tirana on 25 May on the occasion of the meeting of the Standing Committee. Today, I would like to inform you of the major developments that have taken place within the Committee of Ministers since your last part-session, as well as of the initiatives taken since the beginning of the Albanian chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers.

One of the top priorities of our chairmanship, under the motto “United in Diversity”, will be the promotion of tolerance, dialogue and mutual understanding. As was noted during a debate of Ministers’ Deputies, resolute action by member states to uphold those values is of paramount importance at a time when the ongoing economic crisis in Europe raises tensions and fears, which particularly affect those who are unjustly perceived as a threat to the well-being of our societies. We can all recall the stigmatisation of migrants and calls for hatred and violence that have often happened in the political arena. It is our common duty to stand up against those who support such views, and to do our utmost to ensure that our citizens understand that diversity and multiculturalism are not a danger but rather a richness.

There can be no prosperous future without a cohesive society in which all individuals can live in harmony and develop their talents without any fear of harassment and exclusion. From that perspective, we look forward to the ideas and proposals that will emerge from the debates that the Assembly will hold tomorrow on “The crisis of democracy and the role of the State in today’s Europe” and on “The portrayal of migrants and refugees during election campaigns”, which are both issues of great interest.

As a country with a centuries-long history of tolerance and multiculturalism, Albania will spare no efforts during its chairmanship to promote tolerant and open societies in Europe. From that perspective, we particularly look forward to hosting the 2012 Council of Europe exchange on the religious dimension of intercultural dialogue, which will take place on 3 and 4 September 2012 in the coastal city of Durrës. We hope that this esteemed Assembly will be represented and take an active part in this event, the theme of which will be: “Taking responsibility for tomorrow’s Europe: the role of young people in the religious dimension of intercultural dialogue”.

We will also convene in Tirana on 9 November an international high-level conference on the main theme of our chairmanship, “Living Together”, an event which will aim to provide an open dialogue among all stakeholders and to point out what has worked well in our societies and what has not, thereby providing a good reference for other societies that are going through similar processes of reform.

The protection and promotion of human rights are among our top priorities as well. From this perspective, we attach particular importance to ensuring the effectiveness of the control mechanism of the European Convention on Human Rights. We are pleased that at its 122nd session on 23 May, the Committee of Ministers unanimously endorsed the declaration adopted in April at the Brighton Conference on the future of the European Court of Human Rights. The Committee has mandated the Steering Committee for Human Rights to submit by 15 April 2013 a number of draft amendments to the Convention, as well as a draft optional protocol relating to advisory opinions. The Parliamentary Assembly will be invited in due course to give an opinion on these drafts.

A key aspect of the Brighton Declaration is the emphasis laid on the implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights at the national level. The effective enjoyment of fundamental rights by all individuals living in Europe requires that the standards of the Convention are known and applied, particularly by domestic courts. Other stakeholders – lawyers and human rights defenders, but also state institutions like national parliaments and ombudspersons – have an equally important role to play. I had the opportunity to discuss that matter during the visit of the President of the European Court of Human Rights, Sir Nicolas Bratza, to Tirana at the beginning of this month.

The Albanian chairmanship is taking a proactive approach in that field by launching a project called “Introduction to the European Court of Human Rights” for Albanian students who wish to become familiar with the Court’s case law. Beyond the domestic scene, we will make every possible effort to encourage States Party to develop policies and practices in line with the principles espoused in the Convention. To that end, under the auspices of our chairmanship, the Directorate General of Human Rights and Rule of Law successfully organised in Strasbourg earlier this month the Conference on the European Programme for Human Rights Education for Legal Professionals – the HELP programme. It was the first time that national training institutions for judges and prosecutors, as well as bar associations of the member states of the Council of Europe, had attended such a large conference on how to use the Convention at national level.

Another important matter to which the Committee of Ministers, like this esteemed Assembly, pays particular attention is the accession of the European Union to the Convention. The Albanian chairmanship welcomes the fact that after several months of internal discussions, the European Union is now ready to resume the negotiations. Against this background, the Committee of Ministers has instructed the Steering Committee for Human Rights to finalise the draft legal instruments establishing the details of accession. In view of the urgency of the matter, that mandate should be executed without delay. The Committee of Ministers has also instructed the steering committee to report regularly on that work.

A human rights issue of particular interest to the Albanian chairmanship is the rights of children. We recently organised in Tirana, on 14 and 15 June, a regional seminar on the theme “Democracy must work for children”. We also took an active part in the first round table on the “Council of Europe Strategy for the Rights of the Child 2012-2015”, organised in Strasbourg last week.

Furthermore, within the framework of the Albanian chairmanship, the Bureau of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities was invited to hold its 14 June meeting in the Albanian capital, Tirana. President Whitmore praised the interest shown by the Albanian authorities in further improving governance and welcomed Albania’s commitment to strengthening local and regional democracy. In all the fields that I have mentioned, it is essential that our Organisation works hand in hand with the other European institutions, most importantly the European Union, and continues to share the same values.

We are particularly pleased that, as was noted in a recent report discussed by the Committee of Ministers, co-operation with the EU continues to develop at both the political and operational level. The Albanian chairmanship is strongly committed to bringing this co-operation forward. The same holds true with the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. I had the opportunity to make a number of concrete suggestions on ways to enhance synergies during my recent address to the permanent council of the OSCE on 14 June. We intend to bring those ideas forward in the months to come.

Establishing closer ties with our partners on the European scene is even more important given the number of pressing political issues before us. One such issue is the need to promote the values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law in those areas of Europe that are at present beyond the reach of our Organisation. This was one of the conclusions of the discussion on the theme “Human rights protection in Europe: closing the gaps”, which took place during the informal working lunch at the end of the ministerial session on 23 May.

In that respect, the valuable work conducted by the Council of Europe in Kosovo and the positive interaction that we have established with the EU in this context should be continued, in the interest of all citizens living in Kosovo and beyond, and for the sake of the stability of the whole region. The pragmatic Recommendation 1739 (2010) of this Assembly on the promotion of direct and significant contacts between Council of Europe staff and the Kosovo authorities at all levels is becoming a clear platform for endorsement.

In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the execution of the judgment delivered by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Sejdić and Finci is a key element in the process of European integration of the country. The Ministers’ Deputies will review the progress made on the issue at their next meeting on 4 July. The Albanian chairmanship very much hopes that the meeting will be the opportunity to register some tangible progress in the process of revision of the constitution and election law of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Beyond Bosnia and Herzegovina, other political developments in member states are regularly discussed by the Ministers’ Deputies in the context of their dialogue with the Secretary General.

I thank the Secretary General, Mr Jagland, for his active role in raising these issues, and during his visits to the capitals of member states. The constructive discussions that Albanian authorities had with you in Tirana bear witness to this.

Before I conclude, I would like to say a few words on the Council of Europe’s policy towards neighbouring regions, which I know is of particular interest to this esteemed Assembly. The ministerial session on 23 May was the occasion to take stock of the important progress made in one year, especially through the co-operation priorities that have been agreed with Jordan, Morocco and Tunisia. The Committee of Ministers is determined to continue expanding this policy on the basis of the Council of Europe’s values, and has instructed its Deputies to take the requisite decisions to this end with a view to reporting to it at its next session. From this perspective, we will follow with particular interest the debate that the Assembly will hold on Thursday on the political transition in Tunisia, where recent events have shown that the transition to democracy is still fragile.

At this juncture, I cannot refrain from mentioning the situation in Syria. As I said in a statement after the massacre committed in the city of Houla, I condemn in the strongest possible terms the violations to human rights laws that have been committed since the beginning of the hostilities in Syria. The reported acts of torture against civilians, particularly women and children, are of grave concern for the international community, and those who have ordered and committed these barbaric acts must be brought to justice. I reiterate here the appreciation expressed by the Committee of Ministers regarding the humanitarian assistance provided to the Syrian refugees by our member state Turkey, as well as other countries in the region. I also inform you that on 6 July – next month – we will attend the third ministerial meeting of the group of Friends of Syria, to be held in Paris, and we will loudly stress the need for joint action to protect human rights.

Honourable Mr President, distinguished ladies and gentlemen, these are the developments on which I wanted to inform you. I will now respond with great pleasure to the questions that the distinguished members of the Assembly may wish to ask. But before that, as this is the last session that she is attending, let me thank Ms Maud de Boer-Buquicchio for her outstanding contribution throughout her career, and particularly in her current position as Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe, to promoting the values of the Council of Europe. Her particular dedication to the rights of women and children is an example to us all and I pay tribute to her. Even though her term of office is coming to an end, I am confident that she will remain actively engaged in the promotion of human rights in Europe as she has accepted the role of the new independent person appointed by the Council of Europe to sit on the organs of the EU Fundamental Rights Agency. I wish her all the best in this position, as well as to her successor in the post of Deputy Secretary General.

Thank you for your attention.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you very much, Mr Haxhinasto, for your interesting address. Three members of the Assembly have tabled written questions which are available with the answers in Document 12972. Other members of the Assembly have questions to put to you now.

I remind them that the questions must be limited to 30 seconds. Colleagues should ask questions and not make speeches.

As Mr Vareikis is not here, the first question is from Mr Iwiński on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr IWIŃSKI (Poland) – Minister, in times of crisis, we usually see the rise of extreme political forces, and first an increasing wave of nationalism. Unfortunately, it is seen almost everywhere now, including Europe, and not only in the eurozone. What should the Council of Europe’s answer be to combat such negative processes?

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Haxhinasto?

Mr HAXHINASTO – You have raised what are important issues these days. The group of eminent persons was established at the initiative of the Secretary General to prepare a report on possible Council of Europe action in response to the resurgence of discrimination in Europe. It has produced a very good report, which has confirmed that the rise of intolerance in Europe poses a great threat to the values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Its recommendations will be a good reference point in this direction.

Subsequently, the Ministers’ Deputies held two discussions on the report, in June and October last year. They concluded that enhancing the implementation of existing instruments and tools of the Organisation should come to the fore. On 20 June, the Committee of Ministers adopted a reply to the Parliamentary Assembly’s Recommendation 1975, “Living together in 21st-century Europe: follow-up to the report of the Group of Eminent Persons of the Council of Europe”. Furthermore, “Diversity in Europe, an asset for the future”, “Promoting intercultural dialogue – a task for society as a whole in Europe and beyond”, “The role of education and the contribution of young people towards promoting mutual understanding, tolerance and better integration in society” – all elements important to living together – will be the themes of a high-level conference to be organised in Albania in November this year, during our chairmanship, and it could provide further impetus to the efforts of the Council of Europe and the Committee of Ministers to this end.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The next question is from Mr Gale, who speaks on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Mr GALE (United Kingdom) – Negotiations relating to EU accession to the European Convention on Human Rights are to recommence. How will the voices and concerns of those Council of Europe states that are not also members of the European Union be heard and heeded during those negotiations?

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Haxhinasto?

Mr HAXHINASTO – To maintain the long-term effectiveness and the supervisory mechanisms of the European Convention on Human Rights, one of the priorities of the Committee of Ministers and the Albanian chairmanship is to satisfy all the voices of member countries that are not members of the EU. The best way to achieve that purpose would be to use potential forums of debate to administer and receive all those contributions. A basic principle here is to allow all members an equal say on such matters; that principle applies to everyone.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The next question is from Ms Brasseur, on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg) – I want to ask about the European Court of Human Rights. You rightly spoke about it, but we have had Interlaken and Brighton, so what do you think we can do to improve the implementation of the decisions of the Court?

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Haxhinasto?

Mr HAXHINASTO – As you have noticed, Ms Brasseur, our chairmanship considers the implementation of the Brighton Declaration to be one of our important priorities. We believe that what is important is to involve all the bodies of this respectable Organisation to work jointly and take concrete steps towards implementing what it has already been agreed should be implemented. We will continue to do that in the future. Albania has already taken some concrete steps in this direction and we will continue to do so. I mentioned the inclusion of knowledge of this Organisation in national curriculums for students of case law.

Regarding the Committee of Ministers, in December 2010, it agreed on a new procedure to make more effective and more transparent the revision of the execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. That procedure has been implemented as from 2011. It is based on a twin-track approach with simplified supervision for cases whose execution does not present problems and enhanced provision for those cases that require particular attention owing to the nature of the issue concerned.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The next question is from Ms O’Sullivan, on behalf of Group of the Unified European Left.

Ms O’SULLIVAN (Ireland) – I believe that the non-operation of the 116000 missing children’s hotline number is facilitating the trafficking of children. What specific measures are your government taking to combat the trafficking of women and children? Is there co-operation between your government and the governments of the other Balkan states? Will you take this matter as a priority for the Committee of Ministers?

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Haxhinasto?

Mr HAXHINASTO – Of course, the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings was opened for signature at the Warsaw Summit of 2005. It is the legal tool for the Council of Europe’s action against trafficking. The convention is geared towards the protection of the rights and dignity of victims. It aims to repress and prevent trafficking by way of international co-operation. At the national level, of course this is a priority, which we have included among the priorities of our chairmanship. We already have a strategy in place to prevent such trafficking, which consists of enforcing the rule of law and standing for better family services, as well as lifting a lot of families up from the poverty level. International co-operation in this matter is of paramount importance. I can confirm here that that co-operation has produced tangible results when it comes to discouraging such trafficking in Albania and in the region.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The next question is from Ms Zohrabyan.

Ms ZOHRABYAN (Armenia) said that the International Court of Justice had decided that Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence was not in contradiction of international law and asked whether he thought that Nagorno-Karabakh deserved recognition to the same extent as Kosovo.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Haxhinasto?

Mr HAXHINASTO – The issue of the settlement of that conflict does not stand with the Council of Europe, but we have the OSCE Minsk Group, which is dealing with the matter. We stand for a peaceful settlement of the conflict. Peaceful settlement of the conflict was a commitment by both Armenia and Azerbaijan upon their accession to the Council of Europe. I can say today that negotiations for a settlement are closely followed by the Committee of Ministers. The Council of Europe can contribute to the creation of conditions conducive to a peace agreement through building more confidence between the parties. I would also like to state that the case of Kosovo is a particular one. Of course, there is fundamental respect for its specificity and the right of people to self-determination, which is a universal principle.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The next question is from Mr Toshev.

Mr TOSHEV (Bulgaria) – After the First World War, the 1919 Treaty of Neuilly gave part of the territory of the Kingdom of Bulgaria to the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenians, later known as Yugoslavia. Since then, the Bulgarian national minority in Serbia has been officially recognised. My question to you and to the Committee of Ministers is about the implementation of the human and socio-economic rights of the Bulgarian national minority in Serbia. Are you bearing in mind the fact that a number of complaints have come from those people and what commitment can the Committee of Ministers give in this respect?

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Haxhinasto?

Mr HAXHINASTO – The Committee of Ministers takes note of the written question from this honourable member of the Assembly. In accordance with applicable procedure, the Committee held a discussion on it during its meeting on 13 June. In the light of that discussion, a draft reply will be prepared for consideration by the Committee soon. You will, of course, get a reply to the question in writing. I can make no further statement until the Committee has expressed itself.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The next question is from Ms Bourzai.

Ms BOURZAI (France) said that under the Polish presidency, the European Union had started to create a European fund for democracy whose role duplicated that of the Council of Europe. She had submitted a draft resolution to the French Senate calling for the abolition of this costly project. Instead there should be more co-operation with the Council of Europe. She wanted to know the position of Mr Haxhinasto’s country on this matter, and that of the Committee of Ministers.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Haxhinasto?

Mr HAXHINASTO – The issue of creating synergies between organisations and enhancing efficiencies is well reflected in the reforms initiated by Secretary General Jagland, but is also a matter of discussion in the co-operation that the Council of Europe is working out with the EU and other organisations such as the OSCE. The issue is being discussed as we speak and we will reach a final position on this matter.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The next question is from Mr Díaz Tejera.

Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain) asked whether there was a need to regulate lobbying by oil and gas extraction companies. It was important not to allow a double standard in relation to larger and more powerful countries.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question?

Mr HAXHINASTO – I could give you my personal opinion, but this matter has not been discussed so far by the Committee of Ministers. I think it is an issue that could be discussed in future sessions.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The next question is from Mr Huseynov.

Mr HUYSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – We have repeatedly raised the issue of the utilisation by Armenia of those occupied Azerbaijani territories that are beyond international supervision, for the purposes of the cultivation, free circulation and transportation of drugs. Undeniable factors relating to this issue exist, and the problem has also been reflected in the labour reports of the United States investigation networks. Considering the great danger generated by drugs for Europe and the world, what urgent measures is the Committee of Ministers taking to stop this process that is being implemented by Armenia?

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question Mr Haxhinasto?

Mr HAXHINASTO – You have raised two issues, one of which relates to resolving the conflict. Once it has been resolved, better opportunities will be created to use all the mechanisms and tools that are in place to deal with this phenomenon. You also raised the issue of trafficking, which is an issue of great importance. It is a security threat of our times, and the commitment of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe is very profound on the matter. You know the result of this commitment and engagement.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The next question is from Mr Schennach.

Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) said that he wanted to ask about human rights, in the light of the news from Interpol that human trafficking had overtaken drugs as the main trade of organised crime. Given that young women were being brought from Russia, Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus to be auctioned in the former Yugoslavia and Albania, he asked whether Albania recognised the urgent need to act during its chairmanship.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question Mr Haxhinasto?

Mr HAXHINASTO – The Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings has been adopted and is already in place. The implementation of the convention needs further commitment and further action. In relation to national policies, the best way to deal with this phenomenon is to strengthen the rule of law. We need to discourage these families and these women from being victims of the trafficking networks. This is related to the overall commitment by our countries to fight illegal trafficking and to discourage those networks from co-operating with each other. International co-operation must come to the fore; it will be of paramount importance in dealing with this phenomenon.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The next question is from Mr Bockel.

Mr BOCKEL (France) said that, since the Memorandum of Understanding between the Council of Europe and the European Union in May 2007, the EU had established an Agency for Fundamental Rights, and created an Institute for Gender Equality and the post of Special Representative for Human Rights as well as having its own multilateral assemblies, all of which carried out functions similar to those of the Council of Europe. He asked whether such developments were getting out of hand.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question Mr Haxhinasto?

Mr HAXHINASTO – The objective to establish an EU Special Representative for Human Rights has the clear target of sharpening the focus of EU foreign policy on human rights. That will contribute to enhancing the human rights values that our Organisation defends and stands for. I believe that the excellent relationship that we have with the EU will bring about further synergies and create more value in achieving our commonality of purpose – namely, the protection of human rights.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The next question is from Mr Michel.

Mr MICHEL (France) said that a number of questions had been asked about the next steps following the Brighton Conference and asked whether action would be taken in the short-term with respect to the selection of candidates for judges of the Court and the competencies against which they were examined, particularly given that some characteristics, such as objectivity, were not always reflected in the candidates chosen?

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question Mr Haxhinasto?

Mr HAXHINASTO – This is an important issue relating to the reform of the Court, and it is has received priority attention from the Committee of Ministers. The advisory panel, which advises governments on the candidates for election as judges to the Court, will produce its recommendations. As you know, it was established in November 2010. In March 2012, the Committee adopted the guidelines for the selection of candidates for the post of judge in the European Court of Human Rights. Those guidelines address the selection procedures for candidates at national level, before the high contracting parties’ lists of candidates are transmitted to the advisory panel and later to the Parliamentary Assembly. This is certainly a matter of priority for us, and I recommend that the contracting parties apply those criteria as quickly and as rigorously as possible. This issue is fundamental to the future of the Court.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Ms Pashayeva is not here, so the next question is from Mr Beneyto.

Mr BENEYTO (Spain) – What are the views of the Albanian presidency on the situation in Iran, particularly in view of the possibility of a peak in the conflict between Iran and Israel in the coming months?

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question Mr Haxhinasto?

Mr HAXHINASTO – I am here representing the Committee of Ministers, and I can say that this issue has not been discussed there. However, the position of the Albanian Government is that we stand for peace and legitimacy in the actions of all the countries, in compliance with international law. We take a strong position against any violation of such laws, and against any attempt by Iran to develop its nuclear capacity or to pose a threat to peace and stability in the region and beyond.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The next question is from Mr Renato Farina.

Mr R. FARINA (Italy) said that he wanted to ask, in view of the positive experiences of different religious groups living together in Albania, what lessons could be learned in Cyprus given the problems experienced by different minorities there following the 1974 Geneva Declaration.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question Mr Haxhinasto?

Mr HAXHINASTO – All I can say, coming from a country with outstanding experience of cohabitation and religious tolerance, is that I hope that such values are endorsed in the area that you describe. I also hope that a sustainable solution will be found, but certain basic principles need to be applied. There needs to be respect for human rights, for diversity and for difference. The basic principles of living together and non-discrimination must be observed.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The next question is from Mr Popescu.

Mr POPESCU (Ukraine) said that he paid tribute to Albania for its choices of local autonomy and self-governance as priorities during its presidency, as these had also been major priorities during the presidencies of Ukraine and the United Kingdom. He asked what in particular would be the focus in this respect.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Haxhinasto?

Mr HAXHINASTO – In our national agenda we of course consider local democracy to be a fundamental value in our system, and actions taken by the government to this end should be in line with the best practices and principles of the Council of Europe.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – That brings to an end the questions to Mr Haxhinasto. I thank you for being prepared to answer all of them. Thank you also for your presence. I hope that we will have an opportunity to see you again in the near future.

5. Date, time and agenda of the next sitting

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – May I remind members once more that voting is in progress to elect the Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe and to elect five judges to the European Court of Human Rights? The polls will close at 1 p.m. – in just 10 minutes – and will then be open between 3.30 p.m. and 5 p.m. this afternoon.

The Assembly will hold its next public sitting this afternoon at 3.30 p.m. with the agenda which was approved this morning.

The sitting is closed.

(The sitting was closed at 12.50 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. Written declaration

2. Election of the Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe and election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights

3. Joint debate:

(i) austerity measures – a danger for democracy and social rights

(ii) the young generation sacrificed: social, economic and political implications of the financial crisis

(iii) the impact of the economic crisis on local and regional authorities in Europe

Presentation of report of the Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development Committee by Mr Hunko in Doc. 12948

Presentation of report of the Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development Committee by Mr Volontè in Doc. 12951

Presentation of opinion of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy by Mr Jakič in Doc. 12974

Presentation of report of the Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development Committee by Sir Alan Meale in Doc. 12944

Statement by Mr Steingrímur Sigfússon, Minister of Economic Affairs of Iceland

Speakers:

Ms Lundgren (Sweden)

Mr Leigh (United Kingdom)

Mr Loukaides (Cyprus)

Mr Sasi (Finland)

Mr Schennach (Austria)

Ms Ohlsson (Sweden)

Mr Phelan (Ireland)

Mr Fritz (Germany)

Ms Blondin (France)

Mr Chiti (Italy)

Ms Borzova (Russian Federation)

Mr Dişli (Turkey)

Mr Heer (Switzerland)

Mr Gunnarsson (Sweden)

Mr Don Davies (Canada)

Mr O’Reilly (Ireland)

Mr Díaz Tejera (Spain)

Mr Wach (Poland)

Mr Reimann (Switzerland)

Reply:

Mr Sigfússon (Minister of Economic Affairs of Iceland)

4. Communication from the Committee of Ministers by Mr Edmond Haxhinasto, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Albania, Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers

Questions:

Mr Iwiński (Poland)

Mr Gale (United Kingdom)

Ms Brasseur (Luxembourg)

Ms O’Sullivan (Ireland)

Ms Zohrabyan (Armenia)

Mr Toshev (Bulgaria)

Ms Bourzai (France)

Mr Díaz Tejera (Spain)

Mr Huseynov (Azerbaijan)

Mr Schennach (Austria)

Mr Bockel (France)

Mr Michel (France)

Mr Beneyto (Spain)

Mr R. Farina (Italy)

Mr Popescu (Ukraine)

5. 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.

Francis AGIUS

Pedro AGRAMUNT

Arben AHMETAJ

Alexey Ivanovich ALEKSANDROV/ Sergey Kalashnikov

Miloš ALIGRUDIĆ

José Antonio ALONSO

Karin ANDERSEN

Lord Donald ANDERSON

Florin Serghei ANGHEL*

Khadija ARIB/ Nebahat Albayrak

Mörður ÁRNASON

Francisco ASSIS*

Þuriður BACKMAN

Daniel BACQUELAINE/ Dirk Van Der Maelen

Viorel Riceard BADEA*

Gagik BAGHDASARYAN*

Pelin Gündeş BAKIR*

Gerard BARCIA DUEDRA

Doris BARNETT*

José Manuel BARREIRO/Carmen Quintanilla

Deniz BAYKAL

Marieluise BECK*

Alexander van der BELLEN/Sonja Ablinger

José María BENEYTO

Deborah BERGAMINI

Robert BIEDROŃ

Grzegorz BIERECKI

Gülsün BİLGEHAN

Oksana BILOZIR

Brian BINLEY

Ľuboš BLAHA*

Roland BLUM/ Alain Cousin

Jean-Marie BOCKEL

Eric BOCQUET*

Olena BONDARENKO

Olga BORZOVA

Mladen BOSIĆ/Mladen Ivanić

António BRAGA

Anne BRASSEUR

Márton BRAUN*

Federico BRICOLO/Rossana Boldi

Ankie BROEKERS-KNOL

Piet DE BRUYN

Patrizia BUGNANO/Giuliana Carlino

André BUGNON/Maximilian Reimann

Natalia BURYKINA

Sylvia CANEL

Mevlüt ÇAVUŞOĞLU

Mikael CEDERBRATT*

Otto CHALOUPKA

Vannino CHITI

Christopher CHOPE

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN/Tor Bremer

Desislav CHUKOLOV/Irena Sokolova

Lolita ČIGĀNE/Andris Bērzinš

Boriss CILEVIČS

James CLAPPISON/Ian Liddell-Grainger

Deirdre CLUNE/ John Paul Phelan

Georges COLOMBIER

Agustín CONDE

Titus CORLĂŢEAN*

Igor CORMAN/Stella Jantuan

Telmo CORREIA

Carlos COSTA NEVES

Cristian DAVID*

Joseph DEBONO GRECH

Giovanna DEBONO*

Armand De DECKER/Ludo Sannen

Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA

Peter van DIJK*

Klaas DIJKHOFF/Tineke Strik

Şaban DİŞLİ

Karl DONABAUER/Edgar Mayer

Daphné DUMERY

Alexander (The Earl of) DUNDEE

Josette DURRIEU

Mikuláš DZURINDA

Baroness Diana ECCLES*

József ÉKES/Péter Mihalovics

Tülin ERKAL KARA

Gianni FARINA*

Nikolay FEDOROV/Svetlana Zhurova

Relu FENECHIU*

Vyacheslav FETISOV*

Doris FIALA*

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ/Pavel Lebeda

Axel E. FISCHER*

Jana FISCHEROVÁ

Gvozden Srećko FLEGO

Paul FLYNN

Hans FRANKEN

Jean-Claude FRÉCON/Maryvonne Blondin

Erich Georg FRITZ

György FRUNDA

Giorgi GABASHVILI

Alena GAJDŮŠKOVÁ

Sir Roger GALE

Jean-Charles GARDETTO

Tamás GAUDI NAGY

Valeriu GHILETCHI

Sophia GIANNAKA/Dimitrios Papadimoulis

Paolo GIARETTA

Michael GLOS*

Pavol GOGA*

Obrad GOJKOVIĆ/Snežana Jonica

Jarosław GÓRCZYŃSKI/Mirosława Nykiel

Svetlana GORYACHEVA

Martin GRAF

Sylvi GRAHAM

Andreas GROSS

Arlette GROSSKOST/Jacques Legendre

Dzhema GROZDANOVA

Attila GRUBER

Antonio GUTIÉRREZ*

Ana GUŢU/ Corina Fusu

Carina HÄGG/Jonas Gunnarsson

Sabir HAJIYEV/Sevinj Fataliyeva

Andrzej HALICKI

Mike HANCOCK*

Margus HANSON

Davit HARUTYUNYAN

Håkon HAUGLI/Anette Trettebergstuen

Norbert HAUPERT

Oliver HEALD

Alfred HEER

Olha HERASYM'YUK

Andres HERKEL

Adam HOFMAN

Serhiy HOLOVATY*

Jim HOOD/Michael Connarty

Joachim HÖRSTER

Anette HÜBINGER

Andrej HUNKO

Susanna HUOVINEN

Ali HUSEYNLI/Sahiba Gafarova

Rafael HUSEYNOV

Stanisław HUSKOWSKI

Shpëtim IDRIZI/Kastriot Islami

Željko IVANJI*

Igor IVANOVSKI

Tadeusz IWIŃSKI

Denis JACQUAT*

Roman JAKIČ

Ramón JÁUREGUI

Michael Aastrup JENSEN*

Mogens JENSEN

Mats JOHANSSON*

Birkir Jón JÓNSSON*

Armand JUNG*

Antti KAIKKONEN

Ferenc KALMÁR

Božidar KALMETA/Melita Mulić

Mariusz KAMIŃSKI

Michail KATRINIS/Georges Charalambopoulos

Burhan KAYATÜRK*

Bogdan KLICH/Jadwiga Rotnicka

Haluk KOÇ

Igor KOLMAN

Tiny KOX

Marie KRARUP/Sophie Løhde

Borjana KRIŠTO

Václav KUBAT*

Jean-Pierre KUCHEIDA/Jean-Pierre Michel

Dalia KUODYTĖ*

Ertuğrul KÜRKÇÜ

Athina KYRIAKIDOU/Stella Kyriakides

Igor LEBEDEV/ Nadezda Gerasimova

Jean-Paul LECOQ*

Harald LEIBRECHT*

Terry LEYDEN/Kathryn Reilly

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE

Lone LOKLINDT*

François LONCLE/Bernadette Bourzai

Jean-Louis LORRAIN

George LOUKAIDES

Younal LOUTFI

Yuliya L'OVOCHKINA*

Saša MAGAZINOVIĆ/Krunoslav Vrdoljak

Philippe MAHOUX

Gennaro MALGIERI

Nicole MANZONE-SAQUET

Pietro MARCENARO

Milica MARKOVIĆ

Muriel MARLAND-MILITELLO

Meritxell MATEU PI

Pirkko MATTILA

Frano MATUŠIĆ

Liliane MAURY PASQUIER

Michael McNAMARA

Sir Alan MEALE

Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA/Imer Aliu

Evangelos MEIMARAKIS*

Ivan MELNIKOV/ Leonid Kalashnikov

Nursuna MEMECAN

José MENDES BOTA*

Dragoljub MIĆUNOVIĆ

Jean-Claude MIGNON/Christine Marin

Dangutė MIKUTIENĖ*

Akaki MINASHVILI*

Federica MOGHERINI REBESANI

Andrey MOLCHANOV/ Vladimir Zhidkikh

Jerzy MONTAG*

Patrick MORIAU

João Bosco MOTA AMARAL

Arkadiusz MULARCZYK

Alejandro MUÑOZ-ALONSO

Lydia MUTSCH

Philippe NACHBAR

Oľga NACHTMANNOVÁ*

Adrian NĂSTASE*

Gebhard NEGELE

Aleksandar NENKOV*

Pasquale NESSA

Fritz NEUGEBAUER

Baroness Emma NICHOLSON

Elena NIKOLAEVA/Anton Belyakov

Tomislav NIKOLIĆ*

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI*

Carina OHLSSON

Joseph O'REILLY

Sandra OSBORNE/Jim Dobbin

Nadia OTTAVIANI

Liliana PALIHOVICI

Vassiliki PAPANDREOU/Elsa Papadimitriou

Eva PARERA

Ganira PASHAYEVA/Fazil Mustafa

Lajla PERNASKA

Johannes PFLUG*

Alexander POCHINOK

Ivan POPESCU

Lisbeth Bech POULSEN/ Nikolaj Villumsen

Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN

Cezar Florin PREDA*

Lord John PRESCOTT/Geraint Davies

Jakob PRESEČNIK/Andreja Crnak Meglič

Radoslav PROCHÁZKA*

Gabino PUCHE

Alexey PUSHKOV/Alexander Sidyakin

Valeriy PYSARENKO*

Valentina RADULOVIĆ-ŠĆEPANOVIĆ*

Elżbieta RADZISZEWSKA

Mailis REPS/Indrek Saar

Andrea RIGONI*

François ROCHEBLOINE/ Yves Pozzo Di Borgo

Maria de Belém ROSEIRA

René ROUQUET*

Marlene RUPPRECHT

Ilir RUSMALI*

M. Armen RUSTAMYAN

Branko RUŽIĆ*

Volodymyr RYBAK/Oleksiy Plotnikov

Rovshan RZAYEV

Džavid ŠABOVIĆ/Ervin Spahić

Giacomo SANTINI*

Giuseppe SARO

Kimmo SASI

Stefan SCHENNACH

Marina SCHUSTER

Urs SCHWALLER/Gerhard Pfister

Senad ŠEPIĆ

Samad SEYIDOV

Jim SHERIDAN

Mykola SHERSHUN

Adalbi SHKHAGOVEV/Alexey Knyshov

Robert SHLEGEL

Ladislav SKOPAL/Dana Váhalová

Leonid SLUTSKY*

Serhiy SOBOLEV

Roberto SORAVILLA/Luz Elena Sanín

Maria STAVROSITU

Arūnė STIRBLYTĖ*

Yanaki STOILOV

Fiorenzo STOLFI/Andrea Zafferani

Christoph STRÄSSER

Karin STRENZ*

Giacomo STUCCHI/Paolo Grimoldi

Valeriy SUDARENKOV*

Björn von SYDOW

Petro SYMONENKO/Yevhen Marmazov

Vilmos SZABÓ

Melinda SZÉKYNÉ SZTRÉMI/László Koszorús

Chiora TAKTAKISHVILI

Giorgi TARGAMADZÉ/Giorgi Kandelaki

Dragan TODOROVIĆ/Elvira Kovács

Romana TOMC/Iva Dimic

Lord John E. TOMLINSON

Latchezar TOSHEV

Petré TSISKARISHVILI

Mihai TUDOSE*

Ahmet Kutalmiş TÜRKEŞ*

Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ*

Konstantinos TZAVARAS*

Tomáš ÚLEHLA/Lenka Andrýsová

Ilyas UMAKHANOV*

Giuseppe VALENTINO/ Renato Farina

Miltiadis VARVITSIOTIS*

Stefaan VERCAMER

Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN

Luigi VITALI

Luca VOLONTÈ

Vladimir VORONIN*

Tanja VRBAT/Ivan Račan

Konstantinos VRETTOS

Klaas de VRIES

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ

Piotr WACH

Johann WADEPHUL

Robert WALTER/ David Davies

Katrin WERNER*

Renate WOHLWEND

Karin S. WOLDSETH

Gisela WURM

Karl ZELLER/Paolo Corsini

Kostiantyn ZHEVAHO*

Emanuelis ZINGERIS/Birutė Vėsaitė

Guennady ZIUGANOV/ Anvar Makhmutov

Naira ZOHRABYAN

Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote:

Joseph FALZON

Doris FROMMELT

Johannes HÜBNER

Serhii KIVALOV

Edward LEIGH

Kerstin LUNDGREN

Martina SCHENK

Ismo SOUKOLA

Observers:

Doron AVITAL

Corneliu CHISU

José Luis JAIME CORREA

Don DAVIES

Aldo GIORDANO

Hervé Pierre GUILLOT

Yeidckol POLEVNSKY GURWITZ

Gilbert ROOS

Partners for democracy:

Najat ALASTAL

Bernard SABELLA

Representatives of the Turkish Cypriot Community

Ahmet ETI, (In accordance to Resolution 1376 (2004) of the Parliamentary Assembly)

Appendix II

Representatives or Substitutes who took part in the who took part in the ballot for the election of the Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe and the election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden and the United Kingdom

Francis AGIUS

Pedro AGRAMUNT

Arben AHMETAJ

Alexey Ivanovich ALEKSANDROV/ Sergey Kalashnikov

Miloš ALIGRUDIĆ

José Antonio ALONSO

Lord Donald ANDERSON

Khadija ARIB/ Nebahat Albayrak

Mörður ÁRNASON

Þuriður BACKMAN

Daniel BACQUELAINE/ Dirk Van Der Maelen

Gerard BARCIA DUEDRA

Deniz BAYKAL

Deborah BERGAMINI

Robert BIEDROŃ

Grzegorz BIERECKI

Gülsün BİLGEHAN

Oksana BILOZIR

Brian BINLEY

Roland BLUM/ Alain Cousin

Jean-Marie BOCKEL

Olena BONDARENKO

Olga BORZOVA

Anne BRASSEUR

Márton BRAUN

Federico BRICOLO/Rossana Boldi

Ankie BROEKERS-KNOL

Patrizia BUGNANO/Giuliana Carlino

Natalia BURYKINA

Mevlüt ÇAVUŞOĞLU

Otto CHALOUPKA

Vannino CHITI

Christopher CHOPE

Desislav CHUKOLOV/Irena Sokolova

Lolita ČIGĀNE/Andris Bērzinš

Boriss CILEVIČS

James CLAPPISON/Ian Liddell-Grainger

Deirdre CLUNE/ John Paul Phelan

Georges COLOMBIER

Agustín CONDE

Igor CORMAN/Stella Jantuan

Telmo CORREIA

Carlos COSTA NEVES

Joseph DEBONO GRECH

Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA

Klaas DIJKHOFF/Tineke Strik

Şaban DİŞLİ

Karl DONABAUER/Edgar Mayer

Alexander (The Earl of) DUNDEE

Josette DURRIEU

Mikuláš DZURINDA

József ÉKES/Péter Mihalovics

Tülin ERKAL KARA

Nikolay FEDOROV/Svetlana Zhurova

Vyacheslav FETISOV

Doris FIALA

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ/Pavel Lebeda

Jana FISCHEROVÁ

Gvozden Srećko FLEGO

Hans FRANKEN

Jean-Claude FRÉCON/Maryvonne Blondin

Erich Georg FRITZ

György FRUNDA

Giorgi GABASHVILI

Alena GAJDŮŠKOVÁ

Sir Roger GALE

Jean-Charles GARDETTO

Valeriu GHILETCHI

Sophia GIANNAKA/Dimitrios Papadimoulis

Paolo GIARETTA

Obrad GOJKOVIĆ/Snežana Jonica

Jarosław GÓRCZYŃSKI/Mirosława Nykiel

Svetlana GORYACHEVA

Sylvi GRAHAM

Andreas GROSS

Arlette GROSSKOST/Jacques Legendre

Dzhema GROZDANOVA

Attila GRUBER

Carina HÄGG/Jonas Gunnarsson

Sabir HAJIYEV/Sevinj Fataliyeva

Andrzej HALICKI

Mike HANCOCK/ Edward Leigh

Håkon HAUGLI/Anette Trettebergstuen

Norbert HAUPERT

Oliver HEALD

Alfred HEER

Olha HERASYM'YUK

Andres HERKEL

Adam HOFMAN

Jim HOOD/Michael Connarty

Joachim HÖRSTER

Anette HÜBINGER

Ali HUSEYNLI/Sahiba Gafarova

Rafael HUSEYNOV

Stanisław HUSKOWSKI

Shpëtim IDRIZI/Kastriot Islami

Igor IVANOVSKI

Tadeusz IWIŃSKI

Roman JAKIČ

Mogens JENSEN

Mats JOHANSSON

Antti KAIKKONEN

Ferenc KALMÁR

Božidar KALMETA/Melita Mulić

Mariusz KAMIŃSKI

Bogdan KLICH/Jadwiga Rotnicka

Haluk KOÇ

Igor KOLMAN

Marie KRARUP/Sophie Løhde

Borjana KRIŠTO

Václav KUBATA

Jean-Pierre KUCHEIDA/Jean-Pierre Michel

Ertuğrul KÜRKÇÜ

Athina KYRIAKIDOU/Stella Kyriakides

Igor LEBEDEV/ Nadezda Gerasimova

Terry LEYDEN/Kathryn Reilly

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE

François LONCLE/Bernadette Bourzai

Jean-Louis LORRAIN

George LOUKAIDES

Younal LOUTFI

Saša MAGAZINOVIĆ/Krunoslav Vrdoljak

Gennaro MALGIERI

Nicole MANZONE-SAQUET

Pietro MARCENARO

Milica MARKOVIĆ

Muriel MARLAND-MILITELLO

Meritxell MATEU PI

Pirkko MATTILA/ Sirkka-Liisa Anttila

Liliane MAURY PASQUIER

Michael McNAMARA

Sir Alan MEALE

Ivan MELNIKOV/ Leonid Kalashnikov

Nursuna MEMECAN

Dragoljub MIĆUNOVIĆ

Jean-Claude MIGNON/Christine Marin

Akaki MINASHVILI

Andrey MOLCHANOV/ Vladimir Zhidkikh

João Bosco MOTA AMARAL

Arkadiusz MULARCZYK

Alejandro MUÑOZ-ALONSO

Lydia MUTSCH

Philippe NACHBAR

Gebhard NEGELE

Pasquale NESSA

Fritz NEUGEBAUER

Baroness Emma NICHOLSON

Elena NIKOLAEVA/Anton Belyakov

Carina OHLSSON

Joseph O'REILLY

Sandra OSBORNE/Jim Dobbin

Nadia OTTAVIANI

Liliana PALIHOVICI

Vassiliki PAPANDREOU/Elsa Papadimitriou

Eva PARERA

Ganira PASHAYEVA/Fazil Mustafa

Lajla PERNASKA

Alexander POCHINOK

Ivan POPESCU

Lisbeth Bech POULSEN/ Nikolaj Villumsen

Lord John PRESCOTT/Geraint Davies

Jakob PRESEČNIK/Andreja Crnak Meglič

Gabino PUCHE

Alexey PUSHKOV/Alexander Sidyakin

Valentina RADULOVIĆ-ŠĆEPANOVIĆ

Elżbieta RADZISZEWSKA

Mailis REPS/Indrek Saar

François ROCHEBLOINE/ Yves Pozzo Di Borgo

Maria de Belém ROSEIRA

Marlene RUPPRECHT

Volodymyr RYBAK/Oleksiy Plotnikov

Rovshan RZAYEV

Džavid ŠABOVIĆ/Ervin Spahić

Giuseppe SARO

Kimmo SASI

Stefan SCHENNACH

Marina SCHUSTER

Urs SCHWALLER/Gerhard Pfister

Samad SEYIDOV

Jim SHERIDAN

Mykola SHERSHUN

Adalbi SHKHAGOVEV/Alexey Knyshov

Ladislav SKOPAL/Dana Váhalová

Serhiy SOBOLEV

Roberto SORAVILLA/Luz Elena Sanín

Maria STAVROSITU

Yanaki STOILOV

Fiorenzo STOLFI/Andrea Zafferani

Giacomo STUCCHI/Paolo Grimoldi

Björn von SYDOW

Petro SYMONENKO/Yevhen Marmazov

Vilmos SZABÓ

Melinda SZÉKYNÉ SZTRÉMI/László Koszorús

Chiora TAKTAKISHVILI

Giorgi TARGAMADZÉ/Giorgi Kandelaki

Dragan TODOROVIĆ/Elvira Kovács

Romana TOMC/Iva Dimic

Lord John E. TOMLINSON

Latchezar TOSHEV

Petré TSISKARISHVILI

Tomáš ÚLEHLA/Lenka Andrýsová

Giuseppe VALENTINO/ Renato Farina

Stefaan VERCAMER

Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN

Luigi VITALI

Luca VOLONTÈ

Tanja VRBAT/Ivan Račan

Konstantinos VRETTOS

Klaas de VRIES

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ

Piotr WACH

Johann WADEPHUL

Robert WALTER/ David Davies

Renate WOHLWEND

Karin S. WOLDSETH

Gisela WURM

Karl ZELLER/Paolo Corsini

Emanuelis ZINGERIS/Birutė Vėsaitė

Guennady ZIUGANOV/ Anvar Makhmutov

Naira ZOHRABYAN