AA12CR22	AS (2012) CR 22
	Provisional edition

2012 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Third part)

REPORT

Twenty-second Sitting

Tuesday 26 June 2012 at 3.30 p.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

2.       Speeches in other languages are summarised.

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

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 verbatim report.

Ms Pourbaix-Lundin, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 3.30 p.m.

THE PRESIDENT – The sitting is open.

1. Changes in the membership of a committee

THE PRESIDENT – Our next item of business is to consider changes proposed in the membership of a committee. The changes are set out in document Commissions (2012) 06 Addendum 1.

Are the proposed changes in the membership of an Assembly committee agreed to?

The changes are agreed to.

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 – May I remind you that the votes are in progress to elect the Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe and five judges to the European Court of Human Rights? The polls will close at 5 p.m. Those who have not yet voted may still do so by going to the area behind the President’s chair.

I also remind the tellers for both elections, Ms Goryacheva and Ms Trettebergstuen and Mr Spahić and Mr Muñoz Alonso, to go to the area behind the President’s chair at 5 p.m.

The results of the elections will be announced before the end of this sitting or at the beginning of the session tomorrow.

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

THE PRESIDENT – We now return to the joint debate. I intend to interrupt the list of speakers at around 5.40 p.m. in order to start the next debate at 6.15 p.m.

I call Mr Jáuregui. You have 3 minutes.

Mr JÁUREGUI (Spain) said that the Assembly would justifiably adopt reports on three timely topics. The Assembly was expressing its voice on the extremely important issue of the future of the European social model. The welfare state, which was central to the very DNA of Europe, was threatened by austerity measures.

This was a particularly timely debate because on 28 and 29 June, the European Union would adopt policy measures, including some of those requested in the reports. The European Union was turning towards more balanced policies including the financial stability mechanism, which would act as a kind of European monetary fund, and more flexibility in deficit and debt reduction. Debt reduction could now take place in 2014 and 2015 as well as 2013. The four largest eurozone countries had agreed measures and there would be more action from the European Central Bank.

Progress was not possible without different fiscal policies. The Icelandic Minister was correct that it was necessary to increase tax receipts in countries with sovereign debt problems. Bolder fiscal policy could deliver a new deal as well as a new policy of solidarity.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I now call Ms Reilly.

Ms REILLY (Ireland) – Mr Volontè in his report asks whether Europe is a continent for young people. The Irish poet, W. B. Yeats said that it is “no country for old men.” But with the austerity measures currently in place across Europe, including in Ireland, it is currently not one for young men, young women or young families. This report is timely. This summer, 70 000 young Irish people will finish their final state exams, but this year 70 000 people will emigrate from Ireland.

Young people are bearing the brunt of this recession, which is not of their making. Economically driven emigration has doubled since 2005 in Ireland, and the social consequences are manifested in the little things, such as when we see county football teams unable to field a side because of emigration. We see the decimation of our cultural and social fabric of society.

This report – on pages 10 and 17, for example – talks about the economic and social consequences of austerity programmes and measures. If these austerity measures are, as the report shows, causing economic and social devastation, why are we allowing them to continue? Why are we not trying to protect the young generation and prevent their sacrifice? Why are we not recommending the discontinuation of those measures? Austerity programmes and the policies that they breed are choking growth, and the very opportunities, such as those called for in the draft resolution at point 6.1.3, relate to funding to address these issues.

I am sure that we in this Chamber are all aware of President Barroso’s action team on youth unemployment, set up by the European Commission, but we are yet to see concrete action on this, beyond the spin, the PR and the press releases.

Ireland is one of the eight priority countries on which the Commission has focused, but the one solution advocated by this action team – the reallocation of €82 million of unspent, unallocated structural funds – is void in Ireland because we have already spent those structural funds. Simultaneously, Ireland is burdened with an austerity troika programme, which is continuing to exacerbate the problems.

This report speaks of investing in young people and including them in the decision-making process, but this generation of EU leaders, who are essentially austerity cheerleaders, have no inclination to do so. Where is the investment that is needed to ensure that this generation has a chance? Where is the evidence, outside this Assembly, that there is any real intention of empowering young people through investment in training, education and job creation? The blade of austerity and financial crisis is affecting young people disproportionately. The core point of this report, and Mr Hunko’s, is that austerity is not working. It will lead to further social unrest and an unsustainable economic system.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I see that Mr Don Davies is not here, so the next speaker is Mr Lorrain.

Mr LORRAIN (France) said that borrowing at a state and local level had been seen as a miracle solution, delivering investment without the need for tax increases. However, local authorities had lacked sufficient technical skills to understand derivatives, complex structured products, exchange rate movements and the problems of toxic loans. Local authorities had borrowed beyond their means and now they had to return to previous ways of managing their finances.

Local authority loan agreements should be included in calls for tender, published and subject to competition, with banks providing advice on the safety of loans. French judges had acted to promote more responsible lending – for example, by reprimanding RBS in a case in 2011 concerning the municipality of Saint-Étienne. He supported the comments of Sir Alan Meale.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I see that Mr Pochinok is not here, so the next speaker is Mr Flynn.

Mr FLYNN (United Kingdom) – “With furrowed brow, the young survey a ruined world.” Those are the words of Alfred de Musset, which my colleague Ms Blondin eloquently quoted. An exaggeration? Not for young people. Not for a generation that has been brought up to expect a job when they leave school, get a degree and do everything right. I have just gone through the process of employing a new person in my office. I have employed one, but I could have employed 100, because there are so many people who have gone through the dispiriting process of going from internship to internship, from volunteer job to volunteer job, from unpaid job to unpaid job. Those people are the brilliant successes, so what is the situation for those who are not successful in their scholastic work – those who are handicapped by nature or by life itself and are at the other end of the employment scale? It is a terrible situation.

We can certainly blame the bankers, but we should also blame ourselves as a political generation. Those of us who have been in active politics for a long time preached such things as the private finance initiative, which gave instant gratification to us as politicians but left an unpayable debt for the future, and we now have an awful legacy.

Members should disregard some of the remarks that have been made about the United Kingdom and its relationship with the European Union. The EU has had a civilising effect on the UK and on the harsh policies of people such as the present government.

This has been a debate of great hope, because we heard from our main speaker from Iceland – it has been repeated a number of times – about the great advantage of the Nordic welfare policy. It gives the Nordic countries resilience and means that they can ride shocks such as those that have come to them. Sadly, in Britain, we have a government that is attacking and undermining the welfare state. It announced on Sunday that it wanted to reduce the benefits available to young people under 25. It is adding more poverty to their present problems, and I believe that we will see a decline in employment levels and there will be further problems ahead. We needed shock therapy; we have had the shock of austerity, we now need the therapy of growth.

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

Mr MIHALOVICS (Hungary) said that all that decision makers heard was that there was no way out of the crisis. The crisis had opened the eyes of politicians to problems that were not previously so apparent, such as youth unemployment. In 2011, the Government of Hungary had adopted a crisis management approach to youth issues, designed to formulate a programme for the future of a new generation. He had been appointed by the Minister to consult young people on burning issues that affected them. He had found that there was a lack of confidence in young people, who lacked the stability necessary to build lives. Hungary was not alone in facing this problem. Policy prescriptions included the restructuring of professional training, taking better account of regional requirements, better communication with young people and between the education and employment sectors and measures to make entrepreneurship more attractive.

Hungary was about to introduce immediate measures and to adopt longer-term strategies. The Hungarian Government intended to incorporate best practice from elsewhere and would offer the benefits of their experience to other countries.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Hanson from Estonia.

Mr HANSON (Estonia) – It is difficult to add something new to the debate, but I come from Estonia, a country that went through dramatic decline and austerity measures but which has enjoyed considerable growth since, so I shall try.

The crisis has revealed weaknesses and the unsustainability of policies based on excessive borrowing to finance public services and the social needs of our people, either directly or indirectly. It was clear from the very beginning that there were no easy solutions and that complex measures were needed. The bail-outs of the banks were necessary to a certain extent to prevent the collapse of the financial system. At the same time, those measures only postponed the need for further reforms and steps to recover the economies of the most vulnerable countries. The decisions to bail out the banks were taken by legally elected governments, so the decision process was democratic.

As the next step, austerity measures were needed in the short term to prevent the bankruptcy of countries and monetary systems. It is clear that one makes expenditures according to one’s income; states have the same constraints. One can distribute more for social needs when one is paying less interest. For example, a state with public debt of 100% of GDP, for which the interest rate for government bonds is 5%, is paying up to 15% of the state budget. That is a huge amount of money that could otherwise be distributed for social needs.

We need to keep it in mind that governments can allocate only the money that businesses are creating, which means that states have to improve entrepreneurship and job creation. That is the basis for prosperity, not taxing wealthier people or those who are engines of our economies. Structural reforms are needed in those countries that are in trouble because they increase the competitiveness of economies and states. For example, to create more jobs and to enable young people to enter the labour force, we need labour market reform to offer more flexibility.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Kalmár from Hungary.

Mr KALMÁR (Hungary) – The world economic crisis has caused many European countries to turn inwards towards their domestic markets and to try to solve the problems by themselves. In the political field, that tends to result in centralisation. Economic conditions have become primordial since the income of the states fell. Foreign and domestic companies have closed their subsidiaries and left many people jobless. In that way, the amount of tax that was paid fell and the number of unemployed people rose. That means that the support given to regional and local authorities also falls.

Let me tell you some facts from my experience as a member of the city council of Szeged. My city, situated in south-east Hungary, has 175 000 inhabitants and a good public transport network. In 2009, the previous Hungarian Prime Minister signed an agreement with the IMF that seriously restricted support for public transport in Hungary, so this year we had to cut allocations for the city’s public transport. That resulted in a drop in the quality of the service. As a result, the people of the city are discontented; they are furious. We have experienced the same process in the social field, an even more sensitive area.

To face such problems, local authorities take credits from commercial banks and thus credit crises begin or, if they already have credits, such crises become more serious. This is an endless road; there is no return. It is difficult to give advice to anyone on how to manage those problems because conditions can be very different. However, among the recommendations of the report is a suggestion that good practices should be exchanged. It is a good idea to build up that exchange of experience, and that should be one of our tasks.

I would recommend that member states consider introducing bank regulations that limit banks’ profits and orient them towards giving preferential credits to local authorities. That could considerably help local authorities to survive the crisis. Without that, local communities’ fortune in real estate will diminish, and the reaction of the population to the austerity measures could be unpredictable. In the most affected areas, that could lead to poverty riots, which should be avoided by any democratic means. It could also be a big risk for the democratic structure of our countries.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker is Ms Črnak Meglič.

Ms ČRNAK MEGLIČ (Slovenia) – One of the main victims of the global crisis is indeed the young generation. We are dealing with a problem that until now has received insufficient attention, one that we did not see, or did not want to see, in all its complexity. Austerity-only measures introduced to fight the crisis have had a bigger impact on young people than on any other group. For too many countries, we may speak of a lost generation trapped in part-time work, limited work contracts, low wages and poor social security.

I can therefore only support the excellent resolution prepared by Mr Volontè that suggests how to deal with the problem of youth unemployment. First, the adjustment of educational systems to equip people, and young people especially, with a wide array of skills is surely one of the most important steps. However, a good educational system alone is not enough. Governments, companies and educational institutions should work more closely to stimulate students to take advantage of their skills in the course of their studies, with the prospect of finding employment afterwards. Governments should also consider supporting youth entrepreneurship and enabling guidance, grants and micro-credits designed especially for young people to support the realisation of their entrepreneurial ideas and of their vision of how to take care of their future for themselves.

Structural reforms of the labour market are often seen as a successful strategy in fostering flexibility and ensuring more jobs for young people. However, too often that strategy provides new jobs with very poor social security. There should be no job without proper social rights. The best strategy to resolve the problem of unemployment is measures that support growth and create new, quality jobs, and we need to find the resources to support that. We must not forget that the future of our children is also our future, and that we should not burden them with mistakes that we have made in the past.

THE PRESIDENT –Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Zhidkikh, who is not here, so the next speaker is Mr Renato Farina.

Mr R. FARINA (Italy) said that the three reports defined the Council of Europe and reflected its source culture: the centrality of the human being. Against the backdrop of the current crisis, human beings needed to be protected. This was especially true of the most defenceless in society. He applauded all three rapporteurs, and while he did not agree with all the recommendations made by Mr Hunko, he respected his passion. The crisis was not inevitable or accidental but the result of a moral collapse. The value of human beings was protected in theory, but betrayed in practice. Nobel Prize winners, with Promethean presumption, had claimed that they had discovered the fire of the gods and that there was more and more money, but this was not the case. It was essential to re-focus on the individual and go back to Christian and liberal roots. It was vital to work against the suffocating austerity programme. The European Central Bank must act as a guarantor of last resort and Germany must give the go-ahead to eurobonds. The failing of Mr Hunko’s report was that he claimed to want a social market economy, but in fact what he described smacked of old-fashioned socialism. To paraphrase Stalin, socialism was on one continent. The only way out was to focus once more on the importance of the human being.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Gaudi Nagy.

Mr GAUDI NAGY (Hungary) – I am happy to take part in this discussion because all three reports are really important from the point of view of human values. That is the enormous difference between this and other international bodies, especially the European Union. The European Union would like to find solutions from the point of view of profit, GDP and financial balance. European Union summits would like to draw the European Community in such a way that the banks were the most important thing and the budget was centralised.

All the rapporteurs have done an excellent job in highlighting the importance of human beings in Europe. We should not forget that the main element of European culture is the community of human beings who live in territories where their ancestors lived a thousand years ago. They would like to follow their traditions.

Especially in Hungary, austerity measures and the bail-out are having a harrowing effect. The young people must leave their country if they want to live according to a standard that can be reached by young people in the western countries. There is an east-west wall, which is still alive. The Council of Europe should step in, seize this wall and highlight the fact that there is a second-class citizenship in Europe.

The Council of Europe should find a way to make states measure not GDP, but the happiness of the people. In Hungary, a small majority of people could be said to be happy, but in western countries the figure is about 80%. That should be changed and it should be the target of the Council of Europe to achieve that change. That is why I support all the reports.

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

Mr KAIKKONEN (Finland) – I thank Mr Volontè for the important work that he has done with his report, “The young generation sacrificed”. I want to say a few words about it.

This subject concerns the whole world. Not many countries have avoided the negative impacts of the financial crisis, which has caused extreme human and economic suffering, and I am afraid that there is more to come. The young generation has been hit especially hard. The young face many difficulties, such as unemployment, socio-economic inequalities and, as a final result, exclusion from society.

The feeling that you are not worth anything and that you do not have any chance to express yourself, as well as no chance to find a job, has a harmful effect on everyone, but especially on the young, who are at a vulnerable age. All those problems not only erode people’s dignity, but put political stability, social cohesion and even peace in danger.

The lost generation referred to in the report should not be allowed to happen. We really cannot lose millions of young people to emptiness. As the report says, we should consider young people as an opportunity – a key asset of an ageing Europe. The young are not a problem; they should be seen as a solution.

The most effective way to increase young people’s share is to create jobs and promote the opportunities for lifelong learning, and to promote social protection. We should also support youth enterprise. Young people need to get all the help they require, such as advisory services, grants and micro-credits. This is also very much about co-operation, which we really need between the private, public and third sectors. We must learn to see chances in new things and we have to be creative.

Europe cannot afford to lose any youngster to the lost generation.

We are building our future now, and the future is in the hands of the young people. No one should be alienated from society and everyone should have the chance to work and study. We have to believe that we can make that possible.

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

Ms SZÉL (Hungary) – We can all see that the unemployment situation for the younger generation is a significant issue all over the world. The effects of that are not solely economic; the desperation of our youth has played a significant part in the Arab Spring and the Occupy movements as well as the weakening of the system that had promised endless growth.

Hungary has several unique issues as well. Our youth unemployment rate is 28%. Our economy is stagnating and the number of jobs is not increasing. The age of retirement is going up and the public sector is facing a redundancy wave. The legal protection of employees is decreasing. On the other hand, the younger generation is decreasing in number and atypical forms of employment, which offer jobs with less security in Hungary, are on the rise.

An integrated and coherent approach is necessary, as youth is a diverse group. Naturally, what is required is a high quality free educational system that is available to all. Furthermore, according to our beliefs, we need to advance in five different areas at once. The solution consists of five elements. The first is support through economic policies, including benefits and targeted tax reductions. The second involves active work force market policies and programmes. The third involves the development of social protection for youth. The fourth involves engaging young employees in a social dialogue, and the fifth involves developing an information system for the work force market.

Let me go into a little more detail. The primary goal of economic policy must be the creation of jobs. Possible means to that end include the targeted reduction of contributions and tax benefits for employing people who have just entered the job market. Target-orientated education, similar to the system used in Argentina, could reach those who have not finished school, thereby preventing the perpetuation of social groups who lag behind. It is difficult to support young entrepreneurs, but complex packages including education and start-up funds for loans or land, as well as a few years of monitoring and support, can lead to success. By developing social protection and improving the quality of jobs, we can avoid forcing our young people to take on substandard jobs that lead only to a deterioration of human capital. A further important element involves linking the establishment of social groups with seeking jobs. This can take the form of German-style job-finding clubs or co-ordination between youth, governments, employers and employees.

Bearing this in mind, we have proposed a national round-table discussion in Hungary as a first step. This would provide a forum to discuss youth unemployment and involve youth representatives. We are also preparing specific proposals. I would also like to mention the green tax system, which would decrease the taxation of work, as well as a targeted system of benefits and decreasing contributions, an increase in the budget, and the development of strategies in sectors that can employ many people in a sustainable manner, including green construction and energy-efficient development projects.

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

Ms DURRIEU (France) said that the rapporteurs had produced reports that had stimulated an important debate on austerity and sacrifice. Europe was in a difficult situation, with rising unemployment, decreasing salaries and fewer goods being purchased. In France, there was also an increasing number of people – more than 8 million at the last count – living below the poverty line.

A number of different points of view had been expressed during the debate. With globalisation underway, some wanted further market liberalisation, but it would be wise to heed the words of French economists from the 19th century, who stressed that the law had to be followed in order to avoid unnecessary risks.

In recent years, there had been a shift in the balance of countries’ economies towards financial services, but it was the actions of banks and others that had led to the crisis. Now, although countries and companies were producing, the key was to generate profits, and the question was what action should be taken to drive this process forward. The answer could be found in greater integration and the promotion of growth, which would require the greater regulation of financial markets and effective management by states of their debts and tax systems. For such actions to be organised at a European level, which was necessary, countries had to communicate with each other more effectively – France and Germany, for example, were giving mixed messages on the euro. There were many risks in this strategy, but Europe had to be rediscovered and its future discussed. In doing so, all parties had to keep in mind the need for solidarity in order to deal with debt and to promote growth.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr David Davies.

Mr David DAVIES (United Kingdom) – Something of a myth appears to have developed among politicians across the whole of Europe. It is that the international so-called banking crisis is somehow the fault entirely of the banks. Of course, that is not true. If we look at the figures for the United Kingdom, which are reflected across the whole of Europe, we can see that in fact the politicians manage to spend 20 times the amount that they voted to lend the banks in order to bail them out. That is not a problem of the banking system or the banks; it is a problem involving all of us. Every time an election comes along, we decide that, rather than trying to balance our books, we will borrow more money to build the hospitals and motorways in order to ensure that we win the election. We think only in terms of the next election. That is why, years before the banking crisis struck in 2008, we managed to build up debts of hundreds of millions of pounds.

In the United Kingdom, we borrow more money every single year than the total amount that we gave to the banks. So when I hear these passionate speeches about the need to look after the younger generation and the need to get rid of the so-called austerity measures, I ask myself what exactly people are saying. In reality, when people say that they want no more cuts or austerity measures, they are really saying, “Let’s borrow more money.” When people say, “Let’s bash the banks”, they are really saying, “Let’s become even more dependent on the banks.” They need that money from the banks. None of us is prepared to accept that the standard of living that we currently enjoy is available to us only because we are willing to go out and borrow money from international banks and, in some cases, from countries that are far less wealthy than we are. It is time that we woke up to the reality of the situation, and realised that a problem caused by politicians spending money that they do not have will not be solved by even more politicians spending even more money that they do not have. I listened with great interest earlier to our observer from Canada. I shall misquote him slightly when I say that if the real cause of the problem is government overspending, more of the same will simply deepen the problem.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Bockel.

Mr BOCKEL (France) said that members could argue incessantly about who was to blame for the economic catastrophe, but this was to miss the point. So many radical solutions were being set out in relation to structural and currency issues that there was a risk of solution fatigue. It was important to resist the kind of populism that simply blamed financial services and failed to put the issue in its global context, as this made finding a way to produce sustainable growth more difficult. Europe was losing its way in giving in to this populism and the absence of government direction did not stem only from the crisis.

More focus and action were required, and the financial crisis had forced policy makers to concentrate on the key issues. Efforts to make sacrifices, to explain the need for such action, to push for growth and to share more power in the European Union on budgetary matters had to be redoubled. Alongside this, there had to be public information campaigns to explain the results of these potentially painful and difficult changes. In making these changes and moving forward, a balance could be found between competitiveness and respect for social rights. It was vital that, throughout these processes, best practice was shared to ensure that all were fully aware of the issues faced and the ways to tackle them, and so credit was due to the rapporteurs for facilitating this debate.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Anttila.

Ms ANTTILA (Finland) – The three reports on our agenda describe very well the different threats and dangers that we are facing – threats to democracy and human rights, including social rights – and that local and regional authorities in Europe are facing as well. Europe has led the world in the practice of democracy. Where is democratic power now? For example, where is budgetary power now? It is being transferred from national parliaments to unelected European bodies and the European Council – the heads of states.

There are profound issues to be faced concerning how Europe’s democratic governance could be undermined by the hugely increased role of financial institutions and ratings agencies. More than ever, economic power today seems to have become political power. The legitimacy of democracy is existentially endangered. A democratic order can be regarded as legitimate only if citizens have the impression and belief that they can play an adequate part in democratic life, and that good and fair political decisions are made. This is not the case now.

The “problem states” must take the main responsibility for the financial crisis, as well as for their bank crises, together with the bank owners. It is not fair that countries that have worked hard to keep their state economies in a better condition should have to take primary responsibility for other states’ debts. We cannot carry on this way. Changes are needed. In making such decisions, we must protect human rights and democracy, including social rights. I thank the rapporteurs.

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

Ms GRAHAM (Norway) – This is not the first time that the effect of the global financial crisis has been on our agenda. The three pertinent and urgent reports before us are evidence of the crisis affecting all aspects of society in Europe.

I would like to make a few remarks about the excellent report presented by Mr Volontè. In Europe we are on the verge of creating a lost generation. We are – to use the words of our rapporteur – sacrificing our youth. A large proportion of the generation now in their 20s and early 30s have never had a proper job. This is deeply tragic for all the individuals concerned,while for society, it is a waste of precious resources. We know that persistent unemployment has a long-term impact, on both the potential of the individual and the economy. If you are unemployed throughout your 20s, you may never learn the basic skills needed in any job. You might, in fact, remain outside the labour market until you reach retirement age, with all that that entails.

Unless we act to combat rising unemployment among the young, we will end up with millions of young adults in their 30s who have never had a regular job. They will end up as a blight on the economies of Europe for decades to come. This is simply unacceptable. When most of Europe is ageing and greying, we cannot afford to lose a generation. We must invest in our young. They are our future.

Most importantly, we in this Assembly must focus on what we can do to help the young generation save their dignity. When you are stuck in the unemployment, poverty and exclusion trap, you risk losing your dignity. The trap was set by the generation before – it was set by us – and we must help this generation to get out of it. I would therefore like to commend the rapporteur for focusing on employability and skills in his report. As policy makers, we have a responsibility to provide quality education, training and possibilities for life-long learning.

Young people long to find their place in society. They long to contribute to the world and to their societies. When they lose their dignity, they lose their drive and ambitions. They lose sight of how they can contribute. It is our responsibility to support them. They are, after all, Europe’s future – our common future.

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

Ms ANDERSEN (Norway) – I commend the rapporteurs for these important reports. They are timely, although we should perhaps have been dealing with these issues years ago, because that could perhaps have eased the situation in many countries today.

I have listened closely to today’s debate. I have heard different points of view, but I have also heard an almost unanimous call to take political responsibility to deal with this issue. I agree: there is a political responsibility to deal with it, because it is not a natural catastrophe that has hit us.

The other thing that I would like to highlight is what the Minister of Economic Affairs of Iceland said. There cannot be one medicine for every disease, in every country everywhere: you have to deal with the problem in your own terms. You have to safeguard the social welfare of the population, and you have to have the right mixture. You also need a lot of changes in the financial and banking systems.

I have listened to some of my colleagues saying that this problem is about only big spenders. No, it is not: it is about bad policy and the management of banking and financial systems. Iceland was not a big spender; the problem was to do with policy towards reckless banks that were putting the entire economy at risk. Some of my colleagues have also missed the important point that countries with strong welfare states and economic equality in their societies do better, including economically, so they are good for business too.

The way that we allow this to go on now – the way that austerity policies hit different countries – is not only harming the social security and welfare of the population and the young, but hurting business and the future of the different countries involved. We actually have to do something about that.

I will finish by addressing something that the speaker from the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe said, namely that we cannot say anything about the effect of austerity policy because this is about economics. Well, austerity policies are about economics – it is the root cause of those policies that we are dealing with. It is not possible to safeguard the social rights of the population or human rights if we do not talk about politics and economics and how it is possible to make these rights come into practice in real life. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Colleagues, I remind you that the votes are in progress to elect the Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe and five judges to the European Court of Human Rights. The polls will close at 5 p.m. Those who have not yet voted may still do so by going to the area behind the President’s chair. The results of both elections will be announced later at this sitting.

We shall now continue the debate, and I call the next speaker, who is Mr Geraint Davies.

Mr G. DAVIES (United Kingdom) – Europe must learn the lessons of history to strike the right balance between growth and cuts, to ensure that the strongest, not the weakest, take the strain and to protect our social justice, our economic future and our very democracy.

In the 1930s, the central bankers increased interest rates during a time of mass unemployment. France, like Germany then, was strong, with low unemployment and a current account surplus, yet it failed to lend to Germany, which was crippled by unemployment, debt from the Versailles reparations, the aftermath of hyperinflation in the 1920s and an under-capitalised banking system. Therefore, brutal austerity ensued and Germany went into 35% unemployment, the financial system in western Europe broke down and democracy in Germany was lost.

Contrast that with 2008, when a financial tsunami from US sub-prime debt washed the shores of Europe and a G8 summit was convened with President Obama, Gordon Brown and the EU to provide a fiscal stimulus, thus ensuring that we had a shallow recovery instead of a depression. By 2010, therefore, places such as the United Kingdom had a deficit, but two thirds of it was caused by the bankers and a third caused by investing beyond earnings – something that we are proud to have done to keep people in jobs.

In 2010, the Tories arrived and decided to impose austerity instead of growth. They immediately announced that 500 000 public sector workers would be sacked. What was the response? Consumer demand went through the floor, the demand for investment went down, growth stopped and we ended up with a projection that the deficit would be £150 billion more.

Most recently, it has been announced that those who are under 25 who have lost their jobs will also lose their housing benefit and their homes. So the fabric of the welfare state is torn up with the future of our children, and the poor pay for the bankers’ irresponsibility. Yet Mr Sigfússon told us this morning that Iceland has an alternative: to focus on growth, on skills, on protecting the weak from the most painful austerity measures and on making the bankers pay their fair share.

When we look at the difficulties in Greece, we should also give people there the tools to do the job – to grow as well as to save. We should invest in solar forests to power Europe, in universal broadband to hook up Greece to the global economy, in better rail links to boost tourism and in giving them their fair share of research investment to boost new products. We should not force feed them austerity and the denial of democracy that feeds the fire of extremism.

Across Europe, we can repeat the lessons of either the 1930s or those of 2008. We must decide whether to shrink or grow and invest in our children’s future or to cast an ugly shadow over it. Let us choose wisely.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Gafarova.

Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – I thank all the rapporteurs for their reports, which are very important.

It is obvious that the global crisis has affected many spheres in recent years. Many countries with unstable economies have sustained heavy losses and were defeated by the economic crisis, and the young generation was at the forefront of the various strata of society who suffered most as a result of the crisis. According to reports from international organisations, 13% of youths are jobless nowadays. Many young specialists have part-time work or are engaged in unskilled labour.

Utilising or drawing on successful economic models is a potential avenue for reducing youth unemployment. Paragraphs 20 and 23 of the report cite examples of countries, such as the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Austria and Norway, that have relatively low youth unemployment rates.

I would like to take this opportunity to inform you about the state youth policy implemented in my country. It should be noted that Azerbaijan is one of the states emerging from the financial crisis with fewer losses. Young people between the ages of 14 and 29 constitute 42% of the total population of Azerbaijan. This is a significant indicator as well as good proof of the country’s strong development potential. The state of Azerbaijan certainly strives to mobilise this strength and the potential benefit provided by the youth and takes all possible steps to ensure the participation of the youth in the social, economic and political spheres of the life of the state.

I bring to your notice the fact that Azerbaijan has adopted a law on youth and is implementing a special programme related to young people. Specific measures with regard to the development of youth are reflected in the law and the programme. To propagate and promote the development of the youth potential, the state has established the youth foundation, which enables the development of the creative abilities of young people, motivates their activity and focuses them on becoming involved in management. Every year, hundreds of young people are assigned to study abroad. Their education is financed by our state.

Within the past eight years, more than 1 million posts have been established to provide young people with jobs, 80% of which are permanent. To increase the role of youth in state governance in recent years, most of the vacancies have been taken up by young people.

As you see, despite the problems and the financial crisis, Azerbaijan is preserving its pace of development. This is certainly a manifestation of precise, successful and purposeful policy.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Huskowski.

Mr HUSKOWSKI (Poland) – There is no doubt that the global crisis has had a huge influence on the worsening situation of the young generation, leading to huge unemployment and a lack of prospects for young people’s professional development. All the other problems are just consequences of this situation.

Today, young people start their professional life as late as possible: they try to stay longer in education, they leave their countries, they take jobs below their professional qualifications and they become unemployed. Some of them just give up, finding no place in education, employment or training. Thus we hear about the NEET generation, the lost generation and sometimes about the thousand euro generation.

Too often, young people have no opportunity to enter the labour market, to gain experience in their professions. There is a great need to take more determined action, giving us the solution for the whole system, beginning with education, through to programmes of employment for school-leavers and graduates and ending with changes in employment law.

Today more than ever, we need fair social dialogue and concrete decisions.

Nowadays, young people do not have as much consideration and patience as my generation used to have. If politics does not bring answers to the problems of the young, they will see politics and politicians as unnecessary.

Improving the situation of young Europeans will not only depend on the decisions and determinations of governments. We will need understanding and social acceptance of some acts of protectionism for the younger generation. We must not forget that the situation in the labour market is mostly determined by the strategy of big corporations, which, seeking cost-cutting measures, move their production to Asia and South America.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker is Ms Alastal from Palestine, Partner for Democracy.

Ms ALASTAL (Palestinian National Council) – I congratulate all the rapporteurs on their very important reports on these topics. Like people in Europe, we are concerned about what the financial crisis is doing to the possibilities that we can offer the young generation and their families, especially women and children. In our region, the Middle East, we have a high percentage of young people in our population – between 42% and 45%. What about their future, and what about people from the young generation who have lost their jobs?

If we do not offer young people in Europe and its neighbouring southern societies opportunities for development and progress, we may all be in trouble and our vision for open, democratic and pluralist societies will be in danger.

We will follow what you decide on these topics, in order that we can learn how to work together in the present and the future. These issues are of interest to us, your southern neighbours, and have an impact on us. Austerity measures in our region would spell more trouble for poorer segments of our societies.

Austerity measures by themselves will not solve all the problems. In fact, they may pose a danger to democracy not only in Europe, but in its neighbouring societies in the Middle East. We need to work together to see how we can increase job opportunities, especially for the young generation.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker is Ms Mogherini Rebesani.

Ms MOGHERINI REBESANI (Italy) – said that this was a timely opportunity to discuss the excellent reports, alongside the debates in national parliaments and on the eve of the European Council summit. The Icelandic Minister had reminded the Assembly of some vital principles: that action was needed as the crisis would not solve itself; that it was important to be mindful of the effects of policies on the weakest in society; that the promotion of growth, training and investment was necessary; that politicians needed to explain responsibility for the crisis to the public; and that those who had more needed to contribute more.

There was a danger of not just only one lost generation, but several. For example, those aged over 50 who were unemployed were in a gap before they could receive their pensions. There was an emergency and a sense of panic and without action, a political crisis would follow the financial crisis.

Young women were among those who had lost most from the crisis. They were being forced to choose between work and a family at a time when local authority services for them were being cut. It was necessary to ensure that measures introduced applied to the many diverse kinds of families across the whole of Europe.

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

Mr SHERSHUN (Ukraine) – said that the report was balanced and addressed the impact of austerity on democracy and social rights, while agreeing that review of these policies was necessary. He feared that countries that had not signed the European Social Charter might not be able to guarantee minimum support standards.

It was necessary to consider youth rights, given the high levels of unemployment affecting young people. While employers tended to prefer experienced staff, economic recovery needed the energy of the young and the state had a role to play in promoting the tapping of this energy. There was a danger of increases in extremism, riots and crime, but creating better social conditions now would deliver more stability in the future.

He offered particular thanks to Sir Alan Meale, because he agreed that regional authorities had an important role in economic recovery. Greater social dialogue between the private sector, public sector and NGOs could assist local authorities in adapting policies to be more in tune with the needs of their populations.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Matušić from Croatia, but he is not here so I call Ms Fataliyeva.

Ms FATALIYEVA (Azerbaijan) – I thank all the rapporteurs for their important work.

An important role in forming youth motivation is played by the social conditions of life, which are strongly influenced by the economic crisis. Young and old people are the two main segments of society on which the crisis is mainly reflected. The economic problems that accompany any crisis are reflected first of all in decreasing all types of social packages – and in raising the price of medical and social services and education. One of the most important factors of the economic crisis, which causes a crucial failure for many young people, is unemployment.

For young people, it is most important to have a successful start and a successful realisation of their plans for the near future. Many factors – health, spiritual development, financial situation – determine the status of a young man. However, the existence of favourable social conditions for solving the vital questions – employment, building a family, continuation of education, social development – determines the position of youth and creates confidence and a positive attitude towards one’s environment.

A long-lasting difficult social and economic situation has negative consequences for the young generation. The increasing division of society according to income means that families cannot get free education because that is being switched to a commercial basis, while leisure activities and other centres for the physical and moral development of youth become available only to the elite. All these negative factors influence the criminalisation of young people.

The search for a job is work in itself. Today, employers’ demands are determined by the peculiarities of their businesses. Levels of professional training interest employers only if they correspond to their business demands. In such a situation, interaction between employers and educational institutions has a pivotal role. Business communities should participate in applying new educational standards, provide places for training and practice, and work out special programmes on the adaptability of graduates. The young generation is not currently capable of acquiring knowledge – or does not want to – about the modern labour market and its rules of behaviour, about building a successful professional career or about their rights and obligations in the field of labour relations. That is why youth is not ready to perform in the labour market and to compete in such a difficult economic situation.

Becoming unemployed, a young man loses his professional compass. Unemployment negatively impacts on social-psychological conditions and the development of young people, and often means that someone’s view of labour as a means of personal self-realisation disappears. It causes a breakdown in the process of normal socialisation. The economic crisis also becomes a reason for young people to reject participation in resolving public problems, as they do not see opportunities to influence social processes. Meanwhile, the social integration of young people is determined by their degree of involvement in social structures and their acquisition of the norms and values of society.

It is necessary to remember that the young generation plays an important role in the modern market. The more qualified education there is at schools and universities, and the more co-ordination there is between young people and government, the more the government of any country will be attentive to young people’s initiatives and the more realistic a picture will appear.

There are a number of ways out of the situation outlined by the rapporteurs. The most important is confidence in our strengths, and desire, both of which the reports have.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I remind you that the voting is just about to close for the Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe and five judges to the European Court of Human Rights. The polls will close at 5 p.m. so there are only five minutes left. Those of you who have not yet voted may still do so by hurrying to the area behind the President’s chair. The results of both elections will be announced later at this sitting.

The next speaker is Ms Huovinen from Finland.

Ms HUOVINEN (Finland) – I thank the rapporteurs for their excellent report, which invites us to discuss broadly these important topics. The financial crisis causes concern and insecurity among our citizens. Losing one’s job and sense of direction leads to fears and disappointments. As decision makers, we have an important role in strengthening people’s beliefs in the future and in rebuilding their confidence. That is not an easy task.

Finland struggled with a depression at the beginning of the 1990s. Those challenging times are difficult to forget and many of our welfare services have still not reached their pre-recession levels. A new European downturn is therefore particularly demanding for us Finns. The situation of young people requires extra attention. Every youngster left aside is a loss for our societies and an even bigger tragedy for themselves. I am glad that the Council of Europe has persisted in keeping the issue on the agenda as a serious consequence of the economic downturn. Investing in young people is investing in our future.

The Finnish Government has introduced a social guarantee to ensure education, employment or training for young people under 25. Doing something meaningful is an effective tool in preventing marginalisation and overcoming the lack of prospects. We are responsible for our young people – and, dear colleagues, we are also responsible for our democracy. It is evident that many Europeans are disappointed with their decision makers. Citizens have a right to expect that politicians act in a responsible way and base their decisions on facts. We must also demand fairness and accountability from the markets. Does this crisis not show that we need to improve and strengthen the regulation of global markets?

This is no longer a financial crisis; it is a crisis of democracy. New challenges require innovative solutions, and some can be found in this week’s reports. Thank you for your attention.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Marin.

Ms MARIN (France) congratulated Mr Volontè on his report and said that “Occupy” had been the slogan of the Indignados. The slogan referred not just to occupying territory, but to finding a place in society. The rapporteur had rightly stressed that work had an important part to play in integrating young people in society. Young people lacked job security and the lack of jobs and of hope was leading to real discontent. In the past, a degree had led to a job and in France that was still sometimes the case, but it was not the case everywhere. In southern Europe, for example, young people were earning as little as €700 a month, making it difficult for them to leave home. Young people were opting for emigration and there was a danger that this would undermine the future prosperity of their countries. She said that she understood the anger of young people and fully supported the draft resolution.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you.

I remind the Tellers for both elections – Ms Goryacheva, Ms Trettebergstuen, Mr Muñoz-Alonso and Mr Spahić – to go to the area behind the President’s chair. It’s 5 p.m.so the vote is closed.

We now continue with the list of speakers. The next speaker is Mr Mayer.

Mr MAYER (Austria) thanked the rapporteurs and said that he would talk about Mr Volontè’s report in particular. Europe was confronted with a situation in which young people were without prospects or jobs and member states faced the challenge of investing money in training young people who were unemployed. European countries were suffering. Some had levels of youth unemployment as high as 45%. It was essential to offer young people prospects for the future and the European Union had to act. Clearly, money had to be saved but it was also vital to promote growth.

Austria had got through the crisis successfully thanks to the steps taken by the Government. Unemployment was low and Austria was a leader in Europe in this respect. Youth unemployment was as low as 2.3%, a figure that made Austria comparable with Germany. The steps that had been taken included the introduction of apprenticeships. Austria still did not have enough people who were trained to do some technical jobs, so it was training them and also trying to attract young people from other member states such as Spain and Portugal. He looked forward to the future and hoped that it would offer better prospects for young people.

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

Mr SAAR (Estonia) – Even death cannot take if there is nothing to take. That is common knowledge in my country, Estonia, and I do not think that Estonians are unique in thinking that way. That is what the reports are saying, too, especially the report entitled “Austerity measures” from Mr Hunko. It says that we have to face the fact that there are limits on how much we can cut and how much we can expect from the most vulnerable groups. It is simple – this is not sustainable. If there is no money left, you cannot pay more taxes and budgets will not increase.

If people’s dignity is taken away from them, they get desperate. What do they do? They vote for extreme politicians, which is not what we want. I understand the pressure that we are all under as politicians. It is to offer simple, quick and effective solutions, but the crisis has shown once again that such solutions do not exist. That is the second lesson in the report, so we need complex solutions.

To achieve those complex solutions, we must find a broad consensus. We have to compromise, because if we go to the left or to the right, or to the east or to the west, half of us will not agree and they will not recognise the solution. That is not the way out from the crisis.

Kimmo Sasi, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party, said something that I think most of us will agree with. At least I do, and it is also in the report: no country can spend more than it produces. Even Mr Hunko, who has been accused of playing devil’s advocate by many people today, will agree with that.

Kimmo also said, “Let’s listen to what the IMF is saying.” It is not the IMF that will make a difference. That is our task. We have to compromise and find the solutions.

Ms Lundgren, on behalf of the Alliance and Democrats for Europe, said that Mr Hunko’s report is not about our core values. Here, I totally disagree. We all want to save welfare and to foster growth, but not at the price of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Let us try to find a balance between different beliefs. Let us support the rapporteurs. We could make a good start by listening to each other and finding a common way out of this crisis.

THE PRESIDENT –– Thank you. I remind speakers that the time limit is three minutes.

Mr ZAFFERANI (San Marino) thanked the rapporteurs for producing important reports and said that this was not a choice between budgetary rigour and growth. Both objectives had to be addressed, as the Icelandic Minister had ably explained. It was about making the right choices, such as whether to cut welfare or bureaucracy. Those choices made a big difference. It was necessary to consider raising taxes on income or capital. Europeans were living in an era in which public debt needed to be reduced and there was a lack of long-term growth. Resources must be invested in education and all European institutions, including the Troika, needed to understand that. Governments needed to find a way forward and to promote inter-generational solidarity.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Mr Knyshov from the Russian Federation is not here so the next speaker is Ms Kovács.

Ms KOVÁCS (Serbia) – I congratulate the rapporteurs on their excellent job and on their important reports stressing various impacts of the financial crisis and expressing different points of view. Even though I am an economist by profession, I am going to focus mainly on the younger generation in this debate. Young people face several challenges in securing their autonomy. There are extremely high rates of youth unemployment, under-employment and gaps in social security protection systems. At the same time, today’s younger generation is highly educated and has great potential. It is therefore essential to secure a safe transition from education to the labour market while taking into consideration the need to acquire practical skills and experience in order to enter the labour market freely.

What is needed is an active employment policy and the encouragement to recruit young people through granting tax and financial benefits to companies. It is important to promote similar policies and to try to convince businesses to move young people from a precarious link to a stable job. Internships and vocational training are among the ways to facilitate accession to the labour market while securing the principles of decent working conditions. It is also essential to encourage partnerships and co-operation among governments, the private sector, employers’ organisations, trade unions, higher education institutions, youth-led NGOs and civil society in order to create coherent, internationally recognised professional qualifications and to foster increased employment opportunities.

Another important issue is participation. This involves having the right, the means, the space, the opportunity and the support to participate in and influence decisions and to engage in actions and activities. The participation of young people at different levels and in different organisations is necessary because that is the only way to solve their specific problems and fulfil their specific needs. In a nutshell, we must ensure that young people have the education, the necessary information and the skills that they need for their effective participation.

I stress that opening up local communities to people of all ages and providing young and older people with more options and greater freedom of choice while ensuring stable income or social security must be developed in the 21st century. All in all, I think that all the different age groups should live together in harmony.

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

Mr IVANOVSKI (The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) – I am among the last speakers, but I and other colleagues should definitely not be among the least. I congratulate the rapporteurs, and I shall vote for all the reports. I reiterate that we have to deal with the problem rather than with the consequences. Austerity measures were the consequence of the problem of our model. They have often been introduced for the short to medium term, but they will have long-term consequences. That is like trying to cure a patient who is ill by giving him painkillers.

We had a model in which growth was unsustainable. Its main indicators were GDP growth, financial sector growth and investments, but these did not give the proper results. Employment, and wealth and value redistribution, were secondary issues. That growth model resulted in us favouring the present over the future. It was like in the commercials: buy now, pay later. We are now paying the price, and it is a heavy one. That is why the younger generation is having to make sacrifices at the moment. We need to exchange that neo-liberal model for a neo-Keynesian one. We need not only general market regulation but targeted and productive action and policies. We need human and social value for our money, not just profit. We need redistribution and solidarity of the actual debt, as well as the redistribution and solidarity of the actual assets.

The reports made referred to the younger generation in particular. In that regard, I add that there should be cuts in military expenses. Let me remind you that prior to the crisis in Greece, the Greek Government was buying large amounts of expensive weapons. We all agree that we need education for our young people, but it should be free and it should be applicable to those young people. We need public works, and we need more intense involvement by young people in the primary and secondary economic sectors, not just in services. We need to provide more qualifications to young people. We also need more young people to work in agriculture, for example. We need mobility across labour markets in the European Union. We need tax incentives, budget interventions and financial subventions in public and private schemes and initiatives. Poverty, low educational attainment and hopelessness are prerequisites for any kind of extremism and radicalism, and the first signs of those are appearing in almost all EU countries’ elections. It will be a plus factor if we can react promptly to this, so, to paraphrase the rapporteur, let us move from words to actions.

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

Ms VIROLAINEN (Finland) – I am very worried by the problems facing our youth. In times of austerity, let us not bite the hand that will be feeding us 20 years from now. Our ageing societies simply cannot afford to have a frustrated young generation without prospects or hope for a better future. As we all know, the biggest problem is youth unemployment. The situation is particularly alarming in countries whose unemployment rates surpass 50%. We cannot let a whole generation go to waste, and our responsibility as decision makers is to act now.

As Ms Huovinen has already mentioned, Finland’s depression at the end of the 1990s taught us that knowledge and innovation were the only ways to success. In less than 10 years, Finland’s economy went from very bad to exceptionally good. However, that period hit our youngsters hard. This time around, we do not want to repeat our mistakes. As a result, our government programme includes a youth guarantee. Its aim is to help youngsters to get an education, finalise a degree and find work within three months of unemployment. Learning by doing is encouraged through apprenticeships. We are also encouraging young people to start their own businesses with the help of experienced entrepreneurs – so-called business angels. However, the success rate is dependent on a flexible society and a flexible labour market. Through better policies on combining work and family life and through offering tax concessions for innovative job solutions, we can all create incentives to work. Our young generation will not last without the support of other generations. As Mr Volontè’s excellent report suggests, we need to solve this problem today if we are to have a better tomorrow.

PRESIDENT – The next speaker is Ms Vučković from Serbia, but she does not seem to be here so I call Ms Woldseth.

Ms WOLDSETH (Norway) – I would like to talk about “The young generation sacrificed”. I thank Mr Volontè and congratulate him on an excellent report, which is very precise in its form. Although the topic is difficult and serious, he has put forward proposals for solutions, so I thank him again.

Is there a danger of a whole generation of young people being sacrificed? Unfortunately, my answer is yes, unless drastic measures are taken. Madam President, I do not know whether you are aware that in member countries of the Council of Europe there are highly educated young people who actually pay to get a job. Most of them do not have the money, so they have to borrow it, either from their future employer or on the black market, at an extremely high interest rate. That goes for jobs in both the public sector and private businesses, and it is unacceptable, so when the rapporteur talks about how to avoid exploitation, I fully support him.

A united Council of Europe must work to find a solution to this terrible situation. There is no doubt that the situation is dangerous. If we leave a whole generation of young men and women disillusioned and in despair, something will happen. It is perhaps too early to say what that something will be, but being angry, frustrated and poor is not the best way to start your adult life. There has been an increase in young people getting involved with extreme groups on both the left and right sides of politics and religion – groups in which they feel included and with which they feel they share their destiny.

The report proposes measures to deal with the challenges facing Europe. That is why I like it so much, but there has to be action too. We can all show our empathy through words, but for a generation who are almost lost, it is action that counts. I am therefore glad to report that Norway has several projects to assist youth in getting the skills needed in the labour market. Many of these projects are in the Balkans.

I do not think that another convention is the answer to the problems we are debating. What we need are politicians who take youth seriously, listen to them and give them hope. That is what will contribute to more faith in democracy, more trust in us as politicians and, most importantly, a better life for the young generation.

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

Mr CONNARTY (United Kingdom) – This debate is so crucial that it must be ongoing at all levels. The approach and the impact of austerity policies are not context-free. Just as the deluded and undisciplined behaviour of governments, linked with immoral and at times illegal actions by casino-style banks, created the crash, so the banks’ current toxic policies of predatory disinvestment are dumping viable company loan contracts, as they write down their debt portfolios. The result is a flatlining European economy, a collapse in confidence and a negative trend in private investment.

In the UK, we have identified more than £1 billion of money lying in company accounts that is not being invested at this time. There is a desperate need for growth policies that recognise the duty of government to stimulate the productive and manufacturing economy. Giving money to banks that does not go to business investment may help government bond levels, but it does not help the economy or the people.

The main group that will suffer is the young generation. We – the politicians and the governments – have undermined their present hopes; more, we have potentially stolen their futures. In my home country of Scotland and across Europe, youth unemployment is at a 30-year high, yet the Scottish Government has cut £75 million from the budget of Scotland’s post-school education colleges.

I suggest that we should actually listen to the young generation, as I did in discussing the draft framework document on youth rights with the youth forum for West Lothian in Scotland. Those young people suggested – our Assembly adopted this proposal – that employment for young people should always guarantee training, with recognised, certificated training courses. I am an MP who has been deeply involved in the oil, gas, chemical and energy industries for 20 years. Those involved in those industries tell me that in the UK alone they will require 100 000 engineers over the next four years just to replace those who will retire. Some 44% of vacancies in the energy and chemical industries are for those with non-graduate technical skills. There are also concerns about the sustainability of manufacturing.

As the Chairman of the Assembly’s Sub-Committee on Youth and Sport, I commend the contents of both reports and the focus of President Mignon on youth issues, which will again be demonstrated at the youth assembly in this place in October. I invite Assembly members to “Listen to youth” tomorrow, which will take place at an open meeting of the committee to mark the 40th anniversary of the Council of Europe’s youth sector. You are all welcome. We will bring the voice of youth, you just bring your listening ears.

THE PRESIDENT – The next speaker is Mr Belyakov from the Russian Federation, but it seems that he is not here, so we will continue with Mr Sheridan.

Mr SHERIDAN (United Kingdom) – I, too, express my appreciation to the rapporteurs for a measured and challenging report, albeit one that is somewhat long overdue.

Unemployment is a scourge of our society. It undermines your confidence and destroys your integrity. I do not say that lightly: I say it from my personal experience of being unemployed for three years, albeit through no fault of my own. It was simply that employers did not like me because of my trade union activities. I have had three years of unemployment, so I know what it feels like. It is not a very pleasant place to be.

In the UK, we unfortunately have a saying that “We are all in this together.”. I question the word “we”. Are “we” really all in this together? The gap between the rich and the poor in the UK has grown. Alas, I have to say that unfortunately I cannot blame just the current coalition government for that. It also happened under the last Labour government, which had ample opportunities to bring those on the bottom of the pile up, but decided not to take them.

We have to look at solutions. I genuinely believe that we will not survive simply by cutting each other’s hair. We need to invest in manufacturing and education. Most colleagues have quite rightly highlighted the problems facing youth. They are serious problems, but just as important are the problems facing young families trying to bring up children in these difficult times.

I can say from my experience that unemployment shapes your political views. I am extremely concerned about the young people whose views, shaped by unemployment, will send them towards the extreme parties of left and right, because once they are there it is difficult to get them back again. That worries me.

I have very little time left, but I would just like to mention local authority funding. I have seen people in my advice surgeries – as have, I am sure, other colleagues – with extreme problems caused by the austerity measures that have been introduced. In the UK, we have what is called a local government tax freeze. Every day, I see its ramifications for both young and elderly people whose services have been cut. I have to remind myself daily that this is not the fault of public sector workers or the most vulnerable people in our society, but the fault of the bankers who let us down. Instead of being put in prison, there are people being given bonuses; indeed, they are asking for more and more. It is time for us to say: “Enough is enough”.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Shamkov. He is not here, so I call Mr Herkel.

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – This is probably a bit unjust, but I will not touch on the good reports by Mr Volontè and Sir Alan Meale. I shall deal instead with the rather controversial report by Mr Hunko, who deals with many of our common values in the fields of human rights and democracy, but my approach to austerity measures is very different. The sayings of Paul Krugman have been used. He is probably the most well known prophet on the austerity measures in the contemporary world. He says that it is a big illusion that the crisis has been generated by irresponsible budget management. However, Paul Krugman never succeeded in explaining the case of my country, Estonia.

I should give a very quick overview. We had an over-enthusiastic economic boom in 2006 and 2007. We then got into economic difficulties in 2008 and 2009. What we decided to do at the political level was to cut the budget and to implement austerity measures. It was not easy – it was difficult – but it was necessary, and even the public understood this because the government that did it was re-elected afterwards. Therefore, I cannot agree that Mr Krugman has a full monopoly of the truth, not at all.

However, to help today’s discussion with a small contribution, I wish to make a proposal. We usually speak about three basic European values here. We speak about democracy, human rights and the rule of law – perfect – but I think that there is something missing: fiscal responsibility. Of course, this is about not only political decisions at the level of governments and parliaments, but about our banking systems. I cannot imagine that human rights and our living standards, plus democracy and the rule of law, can exist without fiscal responsibility in governments and parliaments and in our political activities. It is something that is missing in our pillars or values. We simply cannot spend more than we have, and we cannot accept budgetary deficits or state loans that are too high. Not only is democracy endangered by austerity measures, but we need much more fiscal responsibility.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Sasi from Finland.

Mr SASI (Finland) – I do not think that it helps very much just to say that we are unhappy and to make declarations, because there is a clear path of action that we can take to improve the situation in Europe. We must therefore balance the expenditure and revenue of all state budgets. If we do not cut so that countries can finance their activities, Mr Krugman will not give any money to Greece or any other country because of the uncertainty about whether the country will pay back the loan.

We need growth – that is a fact – and it will be created not by spending more, but by spending wisely and differently. We should not put higher taxes on entrepreneurial companies, because such taxes work against growth in the company sector. We should look very closely at what Germany and Sweden have done. The Hartz IV programme, produced by the Social Democrats, was a very good way to proceed. We must support the labour supply. No one should be given social benefits for staying at home. Benefits should be directed at people who go to work. We have to give the money to companies or the cheque to the person who is working somewhere. That is the best way to try to fight alienation, but just being at home getting money is not the right European social way.

We must also try to encourage entrepreneurship. We must encourage people to start their own companies. If people are unemployed and have some skills, they have to do something and they could establish their own company. That is one way to try to proceed.

It is also very important that we have to keep costs low in Europe. Look at the German economy, which is splendid, and that is because costs in Germany have not increased in the past 10 years. That is why Germany is doing well. Look at other countries where costs have increased by 40% in the past 10 years. They are not competitive. That is why competitiveness is one of the key questions that we have to take care of. The problem here in Europe is that we have not been able to make decisions. We postpone things and then postpone them again.

It is important that every country that has deep problems makes the necessary cuts. Iceland is an excellent example. Deep cuts were made in all expenditure and taxes were increased on high earners. Once that is done and you are really on the bottom, there is only one way to go, which is to spiral upwards.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Boldi from Italy.

Ms BOLDI (Italy) said that, before the crisis, politicians had often debated the disconnect between citizens and their institutions. The sense of unease this generated had become more acute, particularly among young people across Europe hit by the plague of unemployment. This problem had been exacerbated by fiscal austerity and European young people, one in four of whom were unemployed, did not see any prospects for the future. It had been necessary to salvage the banks, but it was now vital to invest to secure the European social model of education, health, welfare and training as Europe needed these core values. Austerity was necessary, but as it destroyed jobs and growth, alone it was not enough. Above all, Europe’s leaders needed to make some decisions and establish credibility.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I see that Mr Liddell-Grainger is not here. I also see that Mr Kürkçü does not wish to speak, so the next speaker is Mr Binley.

Mr BINLEY (United Kingdom) – I want to deal with the report on austerity and remind the Chamber that we cannot deal with the problems unless we have the courage to recognise the causes. Sadly, this report fails to recognise one of the major causes – I refer, of course, to the eurozone. We need to recognise that excessive public spending is a cause and austerity is a result.

The single currency has allowed countries with unsustainable debts to borrow at the same rate as countries with much lower debt, with the result that public debt within the eurozone is at an unsustainable 87% of GDP. That debt is largely concentrated in southern member states. The Greek economy alone has suffered negative growth for three consecutive years, and Greece is spending 45% of its revenues just on servicing external debt. It has the eurozone’s highest debt stock, which is expected to reach 167% by 2013, and the highest trade and current account deficits.

The problems afflicting Greece are the consequence of continued economic mismanagement. Let us not kid ourselves: they are not the only ones facing such problems. We cannot expect Germany to underwrite the debts of other nations and ask the German taxpayer to bear those costs without demanding fiscal discipline. We risk an unsustainable state of quasi-permanent fiscal transfer between the north and south of Europe. The tensions that inter-state transfers cause for Germany have become apparent, and the persistent intercontinental arrangements will be completely unpalatable if we continue in the same way.

The President of the European Commission may seek to blame North America for the crisis, and it should take its share of the blame, but economic and monetary union in Europe is inherently flawed. This is not a question of economics. EMU was always a political project, progressed by the lofty ambitions of the eurocrat elites who have driven the dream of European union without heed to the cost.

Greece was fully aware that it did not meet the criteria for entry into the euro, and it submitted irregular accounts to conceal the fact. It was allowed to do so. Belgium and Italy adopted the euro despite public debt exceeding 100% of GDP, and they did so for political reasons. The President of the European Council’s comment last week that there should be a decision to proceed with further integration, irrespective of the pace, reveals the true agenda. Unless we face that problem, we will leave an unacceptable burden to our children and grandchildren. This report fails to get to the heart of the matter in that respect, and should be rejected as a result.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I see that Mr Villumsen and Mr Papadimoulis are not here.

That concludes the very long list of speakers.

I call Sir Alan Meale, rapporteur for the third report, to reply. You have six minutes.

Sir Alan MEALE (United Kingdom) – I congratulate Mr Sigfússon on his excellent contribution to the debate. I recall being with him a couple of years ago when the crisis was developing. He was talking to members of this Assembly in the Bureau and appealed to them for calm. Having got that message across, he appealed to them to give their time to develop ways out of the crisis.

I wish to make a short rejoinder to some of the contributions. I congratulate Mr Sasi on his remarks and his continued support for local and regional government. I thank him for his continued support for the belief that local authorities ought to be able to decide on remedies, the levels of investment and which priorities should be set. It is not for others simply to deposit those views upon them.

I thank Mr Schennach for his commitment to policy-supported economic growth and for his excellent explanation of the difference between simply handling the economic crisis and trying to find a way out of it.

I thank Ms Ohlsson for her call for support for local services, especially for the most vulnerable in our society, and for her view that there is a great danger that financial austerity will prolong the financial crisis. She mentioned the importance of local people having a say in decisions about how the crisis is handled.

I thank Mr Joe O’Reilly from the Irish delegation for the theme that he developed. He argued that young people had to be supported, and that local authorities should not and could not be bypassed. I also thank his counterpart, Ms Reilly, for her wise words on how austerity programmes can cause, and in Ireland actually are causing, emigration from communities. She explained why unused EU funds should be used in local communities to counter that and other effects of the financial crisis.

I thank Mr Lorrain for his excellent advice about why we should fight for the role of local authorities and the services that they deliver to our citizens. I thank Mr Kalmár for explaining the consequences of cuts in public services and why good governance can help local authorities survive the economic crisis.

I thank Mr Shershun for explaining the importance of partnership and dialogue between local and regional authorities, businesses and unions, and the opportunity of regular structural economic participation to counter the worst effects of the economic crisis.

Finally, I thank my colleague Jim Sheridan, whose contribution included his view of the importance of local authorities and of the services that they provide for the most vulnerable in our communities, especially young and the elderly, and his view that funds and mechanisms must be found and used with such groups to combat the worst effects of the crisis on the local communities in which they reside.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I now call Mr Volontè, rapporteur on the second report to reply. You have eight and a half minutes.

Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy) thanked all contributors to the debate and said that the discussion had touched on many aspects of the crisis. He was particularly grateful to those who had focused on young people. The Icelandic Minister, Mr Sigfússon, had been correct when he said that Europe could not wait for each individual country to act. A report on youth unemployment written by Ms Marija Pejčinović-Burić, Document 12626, had been adopted in 2011, following the unanimous adoption of an earlier report on the social impact of the economic crisis in April 2010.

The relevant issues of poverty and unemployment had been flagged up along the way. Europe faced the prospect of the crisis persisting. The writing was on the wall and the issue had been discussed six months ago. There was need for action by governments. There were frustrated swathes of people in society and Europe was in danger of sacrificing a whole generation. It was vital to put an end to fine words, and to act. There had been lost opportunities in 2006 and 2008, and now the brothers and sisters of those young people were facing the same problems, or worse. Delegates should raise their voices to their governments. They should speak with respect, but firmly, to ensure their governments acted in the interests of citizens. He acknowledged that sometimes governments complicated the situation with their actions.

Young people should be seen not only in terms of productivity, because that was to view society as a market place. Young people should be looked at in the round, as the architects of their own destinies, which was what they wanted. Young people were the future. Europe was facing a dramatic crisis and a challenge. He thanked his colleagues for their hard work and encouragement and hoped that the report would be adopted. He had taken a favourable view of the amendments, because there seemed to be a meeting of minds. It was vital that there was more solidarity between the generations and that finances were organised more effectively. Mobility and flexibility were essential, but unfortunately, some governments had confused flexibility with casualised labour. That is why it was so important to try to come up with the right solutions in the report.

What was needed was not words but deeds, and that action had to start there and then. There was no point waiting for a follow-up report. This subject was directly relevant to the lives of citizens. He was going to the Council of Europe Conference of ministers responsible for youth in September in St Petersburg to explore further this issue and that he would try to act as a spokesperson for the concerns of the Council of Europe.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I now call Mr Hunko, rapporteur on the first report, to reply. You have seven and a half minutes.

Mr HUNKO (Germany) thanked everyone, including those who had criticised his report, for an exciting and controversial debate. Ms Lundgren had said that the report went beyond the competencies of the Council of Europe and because it related to economics, but if austerity was being discussed it was necessary to consider the economy. There was a risk that austerity would result in a vicious circle, as the colleague from Canada had mentioned. It was vital to avoid this vicious circle. This was not an issue of left or right; but an economic problem. The Icelandic Minister had reminded delegates that there were two sides to a budget. Iceland had reduced its expenditure but had not destroyed its social security system. It had considered how to generate income from the better off. A balance had to be struck between revenue and expenditure. The Minister had also said that Iceland had not been able to save all its banks. The restructuring of the banks was important in getting through the crisis.

There had been a broad discussion of the position of young people, which was justified, especially in relation to southern Europe, where unemployment was high. In Spain, for example, after austerity measures had been introduced, unemployment had risen even further. Programmes for young people were urgently needed in countries with high unemployment. Spain was receiving a bailout of €100 billion for its banks, but no money for young people. That displayed an imbalance.

He wanted to contradict the impression that he was promoting unlimited expenditure. He simply considered that it was irresponsible to give money to the banks in that way.

Mr Gesaint Davies had drawn a comparison between this crisis and the crisis of 1929, which was valid. Looking closely at 1929, it was clear that attempts had been made, especially in Germany, to introduce radical austerity measures. This was a catastrophe because it had led to the Nazis coming to power in 1933. In the United States, in comparison, Roosevelt’s policies had resulted in the banks returning to their original roles, and the United States had come through the crisis. Europe was at a crossroads and had to decide which path to follow. He hoped that the report could help with that decision, otherwise there was a danger that right-wing parties would benefit from the financial crisis.

(Mr Mota Amaral, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin.)

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you.

Does the Chairperson of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development wish to speak? You have two minutes.

Ms MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) thanked all three rapporteurs for their work and said that the reports illustrated that the process which had led to the merger of three former committees had been justified. There were close links between the social and economic aspects of the reports and she considered that her committee was the most appropriate forum for discussing the issues. Economic and social rights were at the heart of concerns of the Council of Europe, and the Assembly was the right place for action.

This morning, there had been a statement that one group was going to vote no. This had made her question the purpose of holding a debate. Her committee had held five sessions to discuss the reports and had subjected them to in-depth analysis. To vote no was to refuse to support the work of the committee and the rapporteurs.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you.

The debate is closed.

The Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development has presented a draft resolution in Document 12948, Austerity Measures, to which eight amendments have been tabled; a draft resolution and a draft recommendation in Document 12951,The Young Generation Sacrificed, to which 16 amendments have been tabled, 15 to the resolution and one to the recommendation; and a draft resolution in Document 12944, Impact of the economic crisis on local and regional authorities in Europe, to which one amendment has been tabled.

We will first consider the draft resolution in Document 12948.

The Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development has presented a draft resolution in Document 12948, Austerity Measures, to which eight amendments have been tabled.

We come to Amendment 4, tabled by Mr Liddell-Grainger, Ms Rudd, Mr Binley, Mr Heald, Mr Chope, and Mr Walter, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 2, second sentence, replace the words “of consolidating public budgets, but risk further deepening the crisis and undermining social rights as they mainly affect lower income classes and the most vulnerable categories of the population” with the following words:

“to balance public budgets to create the ability to enforce and enshrine social rights for all citizens.”

I call Mr Liddell-Grainger to support Amendment 4. He is not here so I call Mr Chope.

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – I am happy to support the amendment. It would ensure that the principle of balancing public budgets to create the ability to enforce and enshrine social rights for all citizens was incorporated in the resolution, in place of what I must describe as the rather circumlocutory language that is in paragraph 2 at the moment. The measure would therefore be clearer and more easily understood.

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

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

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 4 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 5, tabled by Mr Binley, Ms Rudd, Mr Heald, Mr Liddell-Grainger and Mr Walter, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 3, delete the second sentence.

I call Mr Binley to support Amendment 5.

Mr BINLEY (United Kingdom) – I am delighted to support the amendment, and I do so on the basis that that particular sentence in paragraph 3, if it were allowed to stand, would simply make the Council of Europe seem totally illogical and completely out of touch. That is why I want to delete it.

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

Mr HUNKO (Germany) said that member states across the European Union were under pressure from markets which sought only short-term gain. There was a need to decouple states with longer-term needs from these pressures. The fact that the European Central Bank was providing money to banks at rates of 1% but charged rates of 7% to Spain demonstrated this.

THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

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

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 5 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 7, tabled by Mr Hunko, Ms Rupprecht, Mr Schennach, Mr Boden, Sir Alan Meale, Mr Dobbin, Ms Vėsaitė, Ms Bonet Perot, Ms Crnak Meglič and Ms Blondin, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 4, after the words “should be protected as a common European vision”, insert the following words:

“, characterised by the general principles of a “Social Market economy”,”.

I call Mr Hunko to support the amendment.

Mr HUNKO (Germany) said that the amendment was a linguistic correction to prevent duplication of the term ‘unbridled economic liberalism’.

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

Ms MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) (Translation) – The committee is in favour of the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 7 is adopted.

We come to Amendment 8, tabled by Mr Hunko, Ms Rupprecht, Mr Schennach, Mr Boden, Sir Alan Meale, Mr Dobbin, Ms Vėsaitė, Ms Bonet Perot, Ms Crnak Meglič and Ms Blondin, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 4, delete the second sentence.

I call Mr Hunko to support Amendment 8.

Mr HUNKO (Germany) said that, as like the previous amendment this was a linguistic correction.

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

Ms MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) (Translation) – The committee is in favour of the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 8 is adopted.

We come to Amendment 2, tabled by Ms Hübinger, Mr Negele, Mr Schädler, Mr Mayer, Mr Wadephul, Ms Frommelt, Mr Boden, Mr Haupert, Mr Hörster, Mr Sasi, Mr Legendre, Mr Colombier, Mr Fournier, Mr Lorrain, Mr Franken, Mr Omtzigt, Mr Gardetto, Ms Manzone-Saquet, Mr Fritz and Ms Zimmermann, which is in the draft resolution, delete paragraph 5.

I call Ms Hübinger to support Amendment 2. She is not here so I call Mr Fritz.

Mr FRITZ (Germany) said that the report as drafted asserted that the bodies concerned lacked democratic legitimacy, but this was unfounded. Though not directly legitimate they were clearly founded on a democratic basis with legitimacy derived from elections.

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

Mr HUNKO (Germany) said that the report clearly stated that the institutions had questions to answer about their democratic legitimacy. It was not, however, saying that they were undemocratic, though some perceived that to be the case.

THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

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

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 2 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 3, tabled by Ms Bakir, Mr Kayatürk, Mr Türkeş, Mr Baykal, Mr Koç, Mr Negele, Mr Dobbin, Sir Alan Meale, Mr Schennach and Mr Hunko, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 10.2, insert the following paragraph:

“sign and ratify the revised European Social Charter and the revised European Convention on Social Security, if this has not yet been done, and consider supporting an update of the latter in accordance with the needs of today's work situations and life styles, so as to improve the rights of member States' citizens to a level at least equal or above the rights guaranteed by bilateral agreements;”

I call Ms Bakir to support Amendment 3.

Ms BAKIR (Turkey) – I would like to thank the rapporteur and the Committee for accepting this amendment unanimously. The European Convention on Social Security was prepared in the 1970s, and the amendment updates it in accordance with the needs of today’s work situation and lifestyles. This is just an update.

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

That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

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

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 3 is adopted.

THE PRESIDENT – We come to Amendment 6, tabled by the Earl of Dundee, Sir Roger Gale, Mr Liddell-Grainger, Mr Heald and Ms Rudd, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 10.7, add the following words:

“and build upon economic growth measures recently co-ordinated by the United Kingdom at the European Council meeting of March 2012. These include deepening the single market in services, tackling the regulated professions, completing the internal energy market and providing a specific focus upon trade, including trade deals, with corresponding target dates in each case;”.

I call the Earl of Dundee to support Amendment 6.

EARL OF DUNDEE (United Kingdom) – The main part of my amendment concerns how growth stimulation can still occur while at the same time we take necessary austerity measures. If we come to approve this type of balance in our own countries, we should no doubt also approve it for the European Union itself. The amendment therefore focuses on the European Union’s resolve last March to do just that. No doubt we should encourage more of the same. However, I wish to propose an oral sub-amendment as follows: to leave out the words “by the United Kingdom”, for the European Union’s resolve on growth stimulation was a matter of teamwork, of which my country was simply a key supporter.

THE PRESIDENT – I remind the Assembly of Rule 33.7 which enables the President to accept an oral amendment or sub-amendment on the grounds of promoting clarity, accuracy or conciliation and if there is not opposition from 10 or more members to it being debated.

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

That is not the case. The Earl of Dundee has already supported his oral sub-amendment.

Does anyone wish to speak against the oral sub-amendment?

The Earl of Dundee is obviously in favour.

What is the opinion of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development?

Ms Maury PASQUIER (France) said that the Committee had not discussed the oral sub-amendment and so had no view, but was against the main amendment.

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

The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is rejected.

We will now consider the main amendment. Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

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

THE PRESIDENT – I shall now put Amendment 6 to the vote.

The vote is open

Amendment 6 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 1, tabled by Mr Jáuregui, Ms Batet, Mr Alonso, Mr Díaz Tejera and Mr Gutiérrez, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 10.9, insert the following paragraph:

“improve mutual information exchange, co-operation and tax harmonisation, and introduce joint measures geared to gradually eliminating tax havens and fiscal grey areas;”,

and an oral sub-amendment.

I call Mr Jáuregui to support Amendment 1.

Mr JÁUREGUI (Spain) said that the amendment was designed to improve the reference to the need for transnational fiscal harmonisation. The committee agreed with this need.

THE PRESIDENT – Mr Hunko wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, on behalf of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, as follows: to replace the words “after paragraph 10.9, insert the following paragraph” with the words “at the beginning of paragraph 10.10, insert the following words”.

In other words, Mr Hunko, you would like to move the text of Amendment 1 from after paragraph 10.9 to paragraph 10.10. I call Mr Hunko to support the oral sub-amendment.

Mr HUNKO (Germany) said that fiscal harmonisation was a prerequisite for a financial transaction tax and so he wanted the text to be placed as proposed.

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

That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Ms Maury PASQUIER (Switzerland) said that the Committee was in favour of the oral sub- amendment and agreed with the main amendment but not unanimously.

THE PRESIDENT – Is Mr Jáuregui in favour of the oral sub-amendment?

Mr JÁUREGUI (Spain) – Yes.

THE PRESIDENT – The Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development is obviously in favour.

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

The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

I shall now put Amendment 1, as amended, to the vote.

Amendment 1, as amended, is adopted.

We will now proceed to vote on the draft resolution contained in Document 12948, as amended.

The vote is open

The draft resolution in Document 12948, as amended, is adopted, with 92 votes for, 32 against and 5 abstentions.

The Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development Committee has presented a draft resolution in Document 12951 to which 15 amendments have been tabled and a draft recommendation to which 1 amendment has been tabled.

I understand that the Chairperson of the Committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that the following amendments, which were unanimously approved by the Committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly under Rule 33.11. The amendments are 14, 15, 16, 1, 9, 8, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12 to the draft resolution and Amendment 13 to the draft recommendation.

Is that so, Ms Maury Pasquier?

Ms MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) (Translation) – Yes.

THE PRESIDENT – As there is no objection, I declare that Amendments 14, 15, 16, 1, 9, 8, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 12 to the draft resolution and Amendment 13 to the draft recommendation have been agreed.

The following amendments have been adopted:

Amendment 14, tabled by the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 2, delete the words “denounces the very serious discrimination against young people and”.

Amendment 15, tabled by the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 3, replace the words “Whereas ageing Europe needs the dynamism of young people to advance and prosper, policy makers have a duty”“ with the following words:

“Europe is aging and needs the dynamism of young people to advance and prosper. Therefore policy makers have a duty”.

Amendment 16, tabled by Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 6.1.2, insert the following paragraph:

“ensure adequate remuneration and working conditions for young workers;”

Amendment 1, tabled by Mr Jáuregui, Mr Alonso, Mr Gutiérrez, Ms Batet and Mr Díaz Tejera, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 6.1.6, insert the following paragraph:

“promote the emancipation of young people by developing housing policies specifically addressed to this age group;”

Amendment 9, tabled by Mr Volontè, Sir Alan Meale, Ms Bakir, Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Vukčević, Mr Vercamer, Mr O’Reilly, Mr Lorrain, Ms Rupprecht, Mr Hunko, Mr Schennach, Ms Naghdalyan, Mr Marquet, Ms Grozdanova, Mr Bērzinš, Mr Boden, and Mr Recordon, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 6.2.5, insert the following paragraph:

“facilitate young people’s access to development programmes, patentability and employment in the green economy, health, innovation and information technology sectors;”

Amendment 8, tabled by the Earl of Dundee, Mr Volontè, Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Vercamer, Mr O’Reilly, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 6.2.8, insert the following paragraph:

“subsidise employers' contributions to social insurance schemes or even grant a moratorium on them for a limited period of time so as to stimulate the recruitment of young people;”

Amendment 6, tabled by Mr Recordon, Mr Gross, Mr Comte, Mr Mahoux, Ms Maury Pasquier, Ms Bakir, Ms Andersen, Ms Ohlsson, Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Volontè, Mr Vercamer, Mr O’Reilly, Mr Vukčević, Mr Boden, Mr Hunko and Ms Blondin, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 6.3.1, insert the following paragraph:

“ensure that young people with special needs, notably those with disabilities, can access training and employment adapted to their capacities, be adequately remunerated and become fully integrated in society;”

Amendment 7, tabled by Mr Recordon, Mr Gross, Mr Comte, Mr Mahoux, Ms Maury Pasquier, Ms Bakir, Ms Andersen, Ms Ohlsson, Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Volontè, Mr Vercamer, Mr O’Reilly, Mr Vukčević, Mr Boden, Mr Hunko and Ms Blondin, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 6.3.1, insert the following paragraph:

“propose targeted programmes and means of integration in order to help young people in precarious situations avoid the scourge of delinquency, prostitution, self-destruction or self-exclusion caused by addictions;”

Amendment 10, tabled by Mr Volontè, Sir Alan Meale, Ms Bakir, Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Vukčević, Mr Vercamer, Mr O’Reilly, Mr Lorrain, Ms Rupprecht, Mr Hunko, Mr Schennach, Ms Naghdalyan, Mr Marquet, Ms Grozdanova, Mr Bērzinš, Mr Boden and Mr Recordon, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6.4.3, after the words “start-up enterprises”, insert the following words: “and access to patents”.

Amendment 11, tabled by Mr Volontè, Sir Alan Meale, Ms Bakir, Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Vukčević, Mr Vercamer, Mr O’Reilly, Mr Lorrain, Ms Rupprecht, Mr Hunko, Mr Schennach, Ms Naghdalyan, Mr Marquet, Ms Grozdanova, Mr Bērzinš, Mr Boden and Mr Recordon, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 7, after the words “such as young people in general, and”, insert the following word: “women,”

Amendment 12, tabled by Mr Volontè, Sir Alan Meale, Ms Bakir, Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Vukčević, Mr Vercamer, Mr O’Reilly, Mr Lorrain, Ms Rupprecht, Mr Hunko, Mr Schennach, Ms Naghdalyan, Mr Marquet, Ms Grozdanova, Mr Bērzinš, Mr Boden and Mr Recordon, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 7, add the following sentence:

“Moreover, the Assembly considers that it would be useful to hold a follow- up debate in 2014.”

Amendment 13, tabled by Mr Volontè, Sir Alan Meale, Ms Bakir, Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Vukčević, Mr Vercamer, Mr O’Reilly, Mr Lorrain, Ms Rupprecht, Mr Hunko, Mr Schennach, Ms Naghdalyan, Mr Marquet, Ms Grozdanova, Mr Bērzinš, Mr Boden and Mr Recordon, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 1, after the words “and political implications of the financial crisis,” replace the word “invites” with the following word: “urges”.

We come to Amendment 2, tabled by Mr Jáuregui, Mr Alonso, Mr Gutiérrez, Ms Batet, Mr Arcadio and Mr Díaz Tejera, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 6.1.6, insert the following paragraph:

“favour a debate on national electoral systems thus allowing young people to vote at the age of 16;”

I call Mr Jáuregui to support Amendment 2.

Amendment 2 is not moved.

We come to Amendment 3, tabled by Mr Jáuregui, Mr Alonso, Mr Gutiérrez, Ms Batet and Mr Díaz Tejera, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 6.2.9, insert the following paragraph:

“create a computer software program for the exchange of information between national public employment services with a view to favouring the access of young people to all European job vacancies;”

I call Mr Jáuregui to support Amendment 3.

Mr JÁUREGUI (Spain) said that he agreed with the rapporteur on the need to include policies for more youth autonomy. The rapporteur had proposed a change with which he agreed.

THE PRESIDENT – Mr Volontè wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment as follows: to replace the words “create a computer software program” with the words “implement any programmes and databases”.

I call Mr Volontè to support the oral sub-amendment.

Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy) said that he noted that the committee agreed with his oral sub-amendment.

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

What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

Mr JÁUREGUI (Spain) (Translation) – I am in favour.

THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the Committee?

Ms MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) (Translation) – In favour.

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

The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

We will now consider Amendment 3, as amended.

Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment, as amended?

That is not the case.

I shall now put Amendment 3, as amended, to the vote.

The vote is open.

Amendment 3, as amended, is adopted.

We come to Amendment 4, tabled by Mr Jáuregui, Mr Alonso, Mr Gutiérrez, Ms Batet and Mr Díaz Tejera, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 6.2.9, insert the following paragraph:

      “address the exclusion of young people from the educational system, as well as the risk of a digital divide due to the lack of equal opportunities in the access to the Internet, through specific software programs aimed at training young people in computing and digital technologies.”I

I call Mr Jáuregui to support Amendment No. 4. You have 30 seconds.

Mr JÁUREGUI (Spain) said that the amendment was required to reflect the fact that young people did not get sufficient computer training. It had been agreed in committee.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you.

Mr Volontè wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment as follows: delete the words “through specific software programs aimed at training young people in computing and digital technologies”.

Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy) said that the committee was in favour of his sub-amendment.

THE PRESIDENT – In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules. However, do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of Mr Jáuregui?

Mr JÁUREGUI (Spain) said that he was in favour.

THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development?

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

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

The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

We will now consider Amendment 4, as amended.

The Committee is in favour.

I shall now put Amendment No. 4, as amended, to the vote.

The vote is open.

Amendment No. 4 as amended, is adopted.

We come to Amendment 5, tabled by Mr Jáuregui, Mr Alonso, Mr Gutiérrez, Ms Batet and Mr Díaz Tejera, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 6.3.4, insert the following paragraph:

“promote the establishment of a basic statute for young trainees in all member States, defining a set of minimum guarantees for working traineeships based on a written contract, Social Security contributions, a maximum working week of 48 hours and, at least, the national minimum wage for traineeships of more than three months.”

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

Mr JÁUREGUI (Spain) said that the amendment was necessary to oppose working modalities. The committee had agreed with this amendment with the exception of the words “maximum working week of 48 hours”, which it wished to remove.

THE PRESIDENT – Mr Volontè wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, as follows: delete the words “a maximum working week of 48 hours”.

Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy) said that the committee was in favour of the sub-amendment.

THE PRESIDENT – I remind the Assembly of Rule 33.7 which enables the President to accept an oral amendment or sub-amendment on the grounds of promoting clarity, accuracy or conciliation and if there is not opposition from 10 or more members to it being debated.

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

What is the opinion of Mr Jáuregui?

Mr JÁUREGUI (Spain) (Translation) – I accept it.

THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the Committee?

Ms MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) (Translation) – The Committee is in favour of the oral sub-amendment and the amendment.

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

The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

We will now consider Amendment 5, as amended.

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

The vote is open.

Amendment No. 5, as amended, is adopted.

We will now proceed to vote on the draft resolution contained in Document 12951, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Document 12951, as amended, is adopted, with 118 votes for, 2 against and 2 abstentions.

We now proceed to vote on the whole draft recommendation contained in Document 12951, as amended. A two thirds majority is required, counting only affirmative and negative votes.

The vote is open.

The draft recommendation in Document 12951, as amended, is adopted, with 112 for, 1 against and 3 abstentions.

THE PRESIDENT – I call Ms Brasseur on a point of order.

Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg) said that she had voted against in error and that she intended to vote in favour.

THE PRESIDENT – The Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development has presented a draft resolution in Document 12944 to which one amendment has been tabled. The amendment has been unanimously adopted.

I call Sir Alan Meale. You have 30 seconds.

Sir Alan MEALE (United Kingdom) – The reason for the amendment is that the committee felt that it should say something about the positive things that local authorities deliver. As you indicated, it was unanimously accepted by the committee.

THE PRESIDENT – In that case, we should consider the amendment to be adopted.

The following amendment has been adopted:

Amendment 1, tabled by Sir Alan Meale, Mr Dobbin, Mr Volontè, Mr O’Reilly, Lord Prescott, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 5.2.2, insert the following paragraph:

“ensuring that local authorities' good practices in the economic field, such as the provision of services through municipal enterprises (technical infrastructures, mutual savings banks, social services) are not sacrificed to free competition and privatisation applied out of principle. These services are, and should be, provided in the most comprehensive manner and at affordable prices through the local authorities;”

We will now proceed to vote on the draft resolution contained in Document 12944, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Document 12944, as amended, is adopted with 106 votes for, 1 against and 2 abstentions.

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

4. Election of the Deputy Secretary-General of the Council of Europe

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – I have to announce the results of the ballot in the election of the Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe.

Number of members voting: 250

Blank or spoiled ballot papers: 0

Votes cast: 250

Absolute majority required: 126

The votes cast were as follows:

Ms Gabriella Battaini-Dragoni: 133

Mr Gérard Stoudmann: 117

Accordingly, Ms Gabriella Battaini-Dragoni, having obtained an absolute majority of votes cast, is elected Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe for a three-year term of office starting on 1 September 2012.

5. Election of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights

We now come to the results of the first ballot in the election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of the Czech Republic.

Number of members voting: 250

Blank or spoiled ballot papers: 29

Votes cast: 221

Absolute majority required: 111

The votes cast were as follows:

Ms Mahulena Hofmannová: 61

Mr Zdeněk Kühn: 63

Mr Aleš Pejchal: 97

None of the candidates having obtained an absolute majority of the votes cast, a second round of voting will be held on Wednesday 27 June from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m., where a relative majority will be required.

We now come to the results of the first ballot in the election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of the Netherlands.

Number of members voting: 250

Blank or spoiled ballot papers: 46

Votes cast: 204

Absolute majority required: 103

The votes cast were as follows:

Ms Adriana van Dooijeweert: 58

Mr Johannes Silvis: 61

Ms Taru Spronken: 85

None of the candidates having obtained an absolute majority of the votes cast, a second round of voting will be held on Wednesday 27 June from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m., where a relative majority will be required.

We now come to the results of the first ballot in the election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Poland.

Number of members voting: 250

Blank or spoiled ballot papers: 42

Votes cast: 208

Absolute majority required: 105

The votes cast were as follows:

Mr Krzysztof Drzewicki: 95

Mr Krzysztof Wojtyczek: 70

Ms Anna Wyrozumska: 43

None of the candidates having obtained an absolute majority of the votes cast, a second round of voting will be held on Wednesday 27 June from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m., where a relative majority will be required.

      I have to announce the results of the ballot in the election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Sweden.

      Number of members voting: 250

      Blank or spoiled ballot papers: 48

      Votes cast: 202

      Absolute majority required: 102

      The votes cast were as follows:

      Ms Helena Jäderblom: 157

      Mr Lars Stefan Edvard Strömberg: 21

      Ms Margareta Åberg: 24

      Accordingly, Ms Jäderblom, having obtained an absolute majority of votes cast, is elected a judge of the European Court of Human Rights for a term of office of nine years starting not later than three months as from 26 June 2012.

      I have to announce the results of the first ballot in the election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of the United Kingdom.

      Number of members voting: 250

      Blank or spoiled ballot papers: 41

      Votes cast: 209

      Absolute majority required: 105

      The votes cast were as follows:

      Ms Raquel Agnello: 45

      Mr Benedict Emmerson: 61

      Mr Paul Mahoney: 103

      None of the candidates having obtained an absolute majority of the votes cast, a second round of voting will be held on Wednesday 27 June from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m., where a relative majority will be required.

6. Multiple discrimination against Muslim women in Europe: for equal opportunities

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The next item of business this afternoon is the debate on the report titled “Multiple discrimination against Muslim women in Europe: for equal opportunities”, Document 12956, presented by Ms Kyriakidou on behalf of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination with opinions presented by Mr Comte on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, Document 12976, and Ms Erkal Kara on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, Document 12973. I remind colleagues that speaking time is limited to three minutes.

In order to finish by 8 p.m., we must interrupt the list of speakers at about 7.35 p.m. to allow time for the reply and the vote.

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

Ms KYRIAKIDOU (Cyprus) – I first thank the members of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination for their valuable contributions and the Secretariat for its precious support. As members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, we aim to promote human rights and equal opportunities, to combat intolerance and discrimination on any ground and to call for action to prevent human rights violations. It is our role to speak out and to draw attention to matters when necessary.

With your support, dear colleagues, I wish to shed light on a specific group of the European population facing multiple discrimination. Muslim women living in European countries where Islam is not the religion of the majority sometimes face multiple discrimination – as women, as part of a religious minority, and as being of immigrant origin. Muslim women face discrimination in access to employment, in the workplace, in schools, in universities, and when trying to access health care. They are also victims of stereotyping as their religious beliefs are seen as the only defining element of their identity.

Often they are presented in the media as victims of violence – so-called “honour” crimes – who are not allowed to choose their own path and are forced to wear the head scarf. Too often, the political debate and legislative action concerning Muslim women have concentrated on the issues of the head scarf and the integral veil instead of focusing on non-discrimination and equal opportunities. We can and must combat discrimination and stereotypes by adopting a new and positive approach. My objective is to present Muslim women in a new way, as actors in their own empowerment – as actors of change and hope for future generations. I am convinced that Muslim women have a key role to play and can act as bridges between their communities and the rest of society. They can bring up young generations who are capable of reconciling their Muslim faith with European fundamental values, and realise that they cannot allow barriers and inequalities to continue into the next generation. Rather than being isolated, stigmatised or forced into a stereotype, Muslim women should be encouraged in their quest for equal opportunities.

Supporting empowerment in combating discrimination, the example of women of a Muslim background who have reached high-profile political positions in government or parliament show that success stories are possible. Muslim women are engaged in European societies as interpreters, parliamentarians and professionals. They can undertake challenging careers and be integrated. Networks have an important role to play to encourage more Muslim women to participate fully in society. Positive measures should be introduced to make it possible for Muslim women to be the protagonists of their own empowerment. Investing in education, encouraging networking and participating in civil and public life, as well as accompanying them in their professional development, are key actions to raise Muslim women’s awareness of their rights and help them realise their full potential.

The draft resolution includes recommendations to Council of Europe member states on combating discrimination, promoting respect and integration policies, combating violence against women and ensuring access to health care. More specifically, the draft resolution stresses the importance of having an effective legal framework to combat all forms of direct and indirect discrimination on any grounds; and of establishing a national body to monitor the implementation of anti-discrimination legislation, to advise the legislative and executive authorities, and to provide aid or assistance to victims. I also call for recognition of multiple discrimination as a legal notion, to ensure a higher standard of protection for the victims. Racist acts, discriminatory treatment, racist speech in public discourse and the stigmatisation of any religious community should be systematically condemned.

Muslim women should be provided with better instruments to play an active role in all aspects of life. That is necessary not only for their well-being, but for the cohesion of European multicultural societies. To that end, special scholarships and programmes to encourage girls and women to proceed with vocational and university education could be set up, and information about them should be made widely available.

Portrayal by the media is of key importance in the shaping of public opinion, so the media should be encouraged not to limit the portrayal of Muslim women to aspects relating to their religious beliefs. Political parties should also be encouraged to reflect European diversity in their choice of candidates for elections.

Access to health care is a major concern. The presence of interpreters in facilities providing emergency and maternal health care should be ensured when possible, together with training on diversity for health professionals. Also, effective, proportional and dissuasive sanctions for cases of discrimination in access to employment and in the workplace have to be applied if they have not yet been.

Last but not least, we cannot talk about equal opportunities without ensuring that women live free from violence. Our Assembly can once again today call for the signature and ratification of the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence, ratified to date by only one country and signed by 20. The protection of all women in Europe from violence, regardless of their religion, cultural background or nationality, or regular or irregular migrant status, has to be ensured. The role of Muslim religious leaders is very important in that regard, which is why our Assembly can call on them publicly to condemn violence against women, domestic violence and “honour” crimes.

A tangible call for equal rights is coming from Muslim women in Europe and elsewhere in the world in respect of their religious faith. That call should be not underestimated but supported. Our Assembly can encourage and assist Muslim women in their claims for equality and for the promotion and protection of their rights.

In the current financial and economic crisis, while racism, xenophobia and other forms of extremism are on the rise, Council of Europe member states should consider investing in the integration, protection and empowerment of Muslim women as a matter of primary importance. Dear members, we have to support Muslim women in their quest for empowerment, stepping up policies to facilitate their access to basic integration and participation tools such as education, vocational training and employment. We can use our political leadership to challenge negative stereotyping of Muslim women and to highlight the positive contribution that they make to our societies. We have the opportunity today to start to take a new approach: be positive and be supportive. We can support them by adopting this resolution and by building up strong legal frameworks to combat any form of discrimination. I therefore hope you will be able to support the report and vote in favour of the resolution. Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Kyriakidou. You have three minutes and 20 seconds remaining.

I call Mr Comte, Rapporteur of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, to present the committee’s opinion. You have three minutes.

Mr COMTE (Switzerland) said that he would like to thank the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, and particularly the rapporteur for an outstanding report, which highlighted issues of great importance. Muslim women faced discrimination for different reasons. Sometimes it was because they were women, sometimes because of their Islamic faith, and sometimes because they were immigrants. Caricatures persisted, but in truth there were as many realities as there were Muslim women. His Committee wished to stress the importance of education in fostering the integration of Muslim women. Integration required a reciprocal effort: both society and those who were being integrated had to be proactive. For example, those who were being integrated should make an attempt to learn the language and the culture. His committee supported the general thrust of the report but had tabled some additions in the form of amendments. There were many existing instruments of the Council of Europe that could be used to tackle discrimination. He hoped that the Assembly would accept the report with the amendments that he had proposed.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Ms Erkal Kara, Rapporteur of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons to present the committee’s opinion. You have three minutes.

Ms ERKAL KARA (Turkey) thanked the rapporteur for her important report which had brought discrimination to the notice of the Assembly. There were several different aspects to the discrimination suffered by Muslim women, including the negative image of migrants. It was necessary to be aware of the genuine issues that Muslim women faced and the obstacles in the way of integration. Muslim women were part and parcel of European society and had many different backgrounds. The policies of member states did not take account of the patterns of women’s migration. Muslim women were increasingly turning towards irregular forms of immigration, which made them particularly vulnerable to trafficking. Furthermore, Muslims were increasingly being characterised as fundamentalists following the events of 11 September 2001 and Muslim women were suffering as a result.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. We now come to the general debate. I call Ms Bakir, on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Ms BAKIR (Turkey) – On behalf of the European Democrat Group, I want to state that in the workplace, schools, universities and government buildings – all kinds of public space – Muslim women are exposed to increased discrimination in Europe because they can be easily distinguished by their appearance or head scarf.

What is essentially needed is a greater focus on developing durable and comprehensive strategies for those who face discrimination based on their identity. Education should be one of the prime strategies on our agenda, and our first step should be to eliminate the obstacles in the way of getting equal access to education. In that context, I call on all member states of the Council of Europe to abolish the ban on head scarves in universities.

Equal employment opportunities for Muslim women are no less important, and this should start with the public space. Head scarf bans and prohibitions in public spaces not only limit the religious freedom of Muslim women, but prevent them from having a job in those public spaces and from having a life outside their home. As a result, those women will have to be more subordinate to the men in their family.

Head scarf bans or prohibitions will not help the emancipation of Muslim women, but will further aggravate their social conditions and prevent their integration, resulting in isolation and encouraging the formation of ghettos and parallel societies.

I call on all member states to help Muslim women to take part in public life and to offer them equal opportunities to pursue professional careers and gain social and economic independence. In that context, it is important to give them some successful role models. Member states should effectively address the social and economic exclusion of Muslim women through the adoption of comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation, policies and practices to protect them from multiple discrimination and to ensure better access to legal remedies when their rights have been violated.

The fines applied to government officials for neglecting complaints of Muslim women regarding discrimination towards them or their children should be increased in the legislation.

I want to underline the fact that labels such as “Islamic radicalism” or “Islamic extremism” used irresponsibly in the press and the media, or in official announcements by politicians or official legal documents, make the Muslim women living in European countries the prime target of far-right extremist groups and provoke and agitate people with racist ideologies against innocent Muslim women. Those labels should certainly be avoided in member states.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The next speaker is Ms Andersen, on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Ms ANDERSEN (Norway) – The UEL supports the report, but we would like to add one remark on paragraph 7.2 of the draft resolution regarding the harmful practice of female genital mutilation. The wording could give the impression that that practice occurs only in Muslim societies, but it does not. It also occurs in Christian societies and in traditional societies in different African countries. I want to put that point on the record, because it is one of the things that links to Muslims in particular and leaves a negative mark on them. All leaders should speak up against this strongly.

It is important to recognise the double, or triple, discrimination that those women face.

Furthermore, some politicians who do not like migrants say that Muslim men treat Muslim women badly, and use that as an excuse to say, “We don’t want you.” That is a problem for the women.

I have been a gender activist all my life. We have always known that we need to create a legal framework to protect women and to create a safe environment so that women can have trust in society and in other women. That was the basis on which we worked with abused women. Women have been working in that way in Norwegian society, and in all societies, and it is important that we do so. That legal framework and social support and security must be available to women who are being threatened.

It is also important for us to recognise that Muslim women suffer discrimination through stereotyping, as the rapporteurs have pointed out. Some of the strongest, most well-educated and free women I know are Muslim women. In spite of that, they often have to carry a heavy burden. They are seen not as individuals but as representatives of their religion, whatever they do. We need to tackle that problem. It is important that we see Muslim women as individuals. Human rights are about gender equality, but they are also about religious rights. Sometimes the two come into conflict and we have to decide between them. I believe that gender equality is the more important.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The next speaker is Ms Quintanilla. She is speaking on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Ms QUINTANILLA (Spain) congratulated the rapporteur on her report, which she supported, and said that Muslim women needed to be given a voice in order to claim their role in the 21st century. Earlier, there had been discussion of Islamic feminism. It was important to talk about rights and equality. While there had to be a focus on discrimination, it should be a positive one that looked to combat discrimination and give a positive voice to Muslim women. For the first time, a rapporteur had demanded that religious leaders act against violence against women, oppression and female genital mutilation. This was key because neither religion nor tradition should affect views about the discrimination of Muslim women. The EPP would vote for the report to support moves to tackle discrimination and give freedom to Muslim women.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The next speaker is Ms Mogherini Rebesani. She is speaking on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Ms MOGHERINI REBESANI (Italy) – On behalf of the Socialist Group, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur and the committee and thank them for the work that they have done on the report. The draft resolution states: “Muslim women are often victims of stereotyping, since their religious beliefs are seen as the only defining element of their identity.” The media and political debates concentrate on headscarves and veils but, in the meantime, Muslim women are discriminated against and excluded from having equal opportunities and basic human rights. That quote tells us exactly what we need to concentrate on.

Religious identity is often presented as a pretext to hide multiple forms of discrimination, both economic and social. The first thing that we need to do – the report helps us greatly in this regard – is to break down the stereotypes and to acknowledge the complexity of the reality of Muslim women in Europe. The report seeks to specify that we need to tackle the issue of Muslim women in European countries that are not Muslim. That already tells us something – namely, that some European countries are Muslim. That might sound obvious, but it is not, given the mainstream communications that we hear about Europe. The report underlines that fact in a very definite way. The situation is different from country to country and from community to community. We heard earlier that some Muslim women in non-Muslim European countries feel perfectly at ease with being Muslim and European and women. They have no problem with any of that, but others are suffering, not just because they are Muslim women but perhaps because they are migrants or asylum seekers and their rights are neither recognised nor respected.

We face certain specific challenges: access to education and the labour market, especially in times of crisis; access to health care; and prevention of violence and domestic violence. In that last instance, the crucial factor will be the signing and ratification of the Istanbul convention by the member states. We also face general challenges, such as breaking the cycle of prejudice and tackling the myth of the clash of civilisations that has been so harmful in Europe. We have to accept that Islam is proud of the European identity and culture. We must also remember, as one Muslim woman has reminded us today, that if Europe offers an opportunity to Muslim women, Muslim women also offer a big opportunity to Europe.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The next speaker is Ms Memecan. She is speaking on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Ms MEMECAN (Turkey) – On behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, I would like to thank the rapporteur Ms Kyriakidou and the secretariat for their comprehensive and positive report, which focuses on a new approach to immigrant women as agents of change and empowerment. Rather than focusing on immigrant women as victims, we should support an understanding that is optimistic and encouraging and that targets the empowerment of Muslim women in the way the report does.

Life is and has been difficult for Muslim women in Europe, as they have been subject to multiple discriminations. They are mostly of immigrant origin, and they are of the gender that still suffers from equality issues. Their religion, Islam, is also under attack by populist politicians. Muslim women have constantly been the subject of debate because of their outfits, and they have been accused, blamed, oppressed and intimidated because of these unending public criticisms. We have to appreciate the diversity of faith and belief among Europe’s women. We should start seeing Muslim women in our countries as Europeans and as individuals – as women who want to feel secure, work, get an education and be visible, just like every other woman.

Muslim women are an integral part of European societies. Women are the key to creating harmonious and diverse societies in Europe. As one Turkish-born Dutch expert reflects, “if the woman cannot or will not integrate in a new country, it affects the whole family. She will isolate her children.” Our policies that address diversity and immigration need to focus much more on women and their needs, seeing them as resources for diverse societies. If we can manage to adopt this attitude, women can be primary agents of cohesion and solidarity in our societies. When women come together, even if they are from different backgrounds, they share stories, find commonalities and develop mutual understanding.

I was very much impressed by something that my colleague Ms Hamidi said in this afternoon’s hearing, so let me repeat it: Europe is an opportunity for Muslim women, and Muslim women are an opportunity for Europe.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Ms Bergamini, you have the floor.

Ms BERGAMINI (Italy) congratulated Mrs Kyriakidou on her report, which had dealt with a very complex and diverse issue, and had avoided a superficial approach in doing so and said that the Assembly had to focus on preventing multiple discrimination, as those discriminated against were women, migrant women and Muslim women all at once. Such discrimination could lead to isolation and the need for an intermediary in order to deal with society, which was dangerous and made the situation even more important to address. Muslim women also suffered from stereotypes, and it was often the case that these stereotypes were reciprocated. It was important to stem these trends as they served only to inhibit female empowerment.

Overall, the situation should be seen as an opportunity, not just a problem: the economic crisis was also a crisis of values, and women could be united in the struggle against common problems. Inter-cultural dialogue could serve as an important conduit in this respect, for which the Council of Europe was a particularly apt forum, as had been shown by the excellent work of the North-South Centre, in particular through its focus on empowering women to access public office.

THE PRESIDENT called Ms Bourzai.

Ms BOURZAI (France) said that the issues facing Muslim women too often boiled down to the idea of the veil or of rights infringements in their community. Though such issues needed targeted action, they must not overshadow the impact of the many other forms of discrimination that affected them. Such discrimination was most prominent in the employment sphere, and this was true not just for those wearing the veil but for all of those with a ‘visible’ identity. The driver for many of these tensions came from the pressures caused by integration, but this did not mean that such behaviour would be tolerated, and indeed it raised questions as to the position of those who claimed to promote secularity and the respect for rights.

In order to ensure equality of opportunity for all, there needed to be proper access to training and education, including university education, as well as non-discrimination in employment, active citizenship and integration into economic activities. Indeed, there were many women who combined their faith with the endorsement of the values of their society: there was no contradiction between having a profession, having children and being a Muslim woman, so to speak of a dual culture insulted the adaptability of Islam and the integrationist approach. Ms Kyriakidou should therefore be congratulated and the well-balanced report endorsed. As it stated, Muslim women provided an opportunity for Europe, because their struggles went hand-in-hand with all those discriminated more generally.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Ms Gafarova, you have the floor.

Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – I would like to congratulate my colleague Ms Kyriakidou and the secretariat on the report. The topic of this report is very important, although the process of writing it was not very easy. As a member of the committee, I remember how many discussions we had, but as a result we now have an excellent report.

It is known that ensuring women’s rights – and thereby strengthening the joint struggle to tackle women’s problems – is one of the key priorities in democratic societies. Yet despite what we might regard, theoretically, as axiomatic, there has for some reason been a failure to find practical solutions in some cases, because women still face discrimination. The complications caused by recent global processes, conflicts in countries neighbouring Europe and the global financial crisis mostly affect women. Muslim women members of the European public are subject to these problems, like those in other European nations.

As the report mentions, nowadays there are three member states of the Council of Europe with majority Muslim populations. However, the main purpose of the report is to describe the position of Muslim women in European countries where Islam is not the religion of the majority, and where they may be facing multiple discrimination – as women, as members of a religious minority and as people of immigrant origin. In fact, in some cases, especially in recent years, one can observe that the conditions necessary for the rights provided for the Muslim minority – as well as for Muslim women – to be enjoyed are not sufficient. Limiting Muslim women’s access to education, stigmatising them and reproaching them – or even, at times, inflicting violence upon them – are not acceptable. The criticism of such cases in the report is a positive step. Of course, such incidents are not occurring on a mass scale, but neither are they in compliance with the values of the European family that unite us or with the basic provisions of the Council of Europe.

One of the main thoughts expressed in the report is that discrimination is not directed solely at immigrant Muslim women. Muslim women who hold European citizenship face discrimination, especially in education and in respect of religion. The report contains sufficient, comprehensive information in this regard, so I do not want to dwell on that.

Put simply, the point that I am driving at is that these problems cannot be tackled just by merely stating that they exist or by hiding from them. On the contrary, in order to settle these problems, they must be revealed, considered and tackled by introducing urgent measures. Measures should be introduced and action taken to ensure that it is possible for Muslim women to integrate into public and civil society and to accelerate other measures that promote their activity in various spheres of life.

We should keep in mind the fact that, regardless of our religious beliefs, we are all members of the European family and that our main goal is to devise and introduce measures to improve this family. I strongly believe that our European identity should unite us, not separate us. Thank you very much.

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

Ms SCHOU (Norway) – I, too, would like to thank the rapporteurs for their reports.

In Norway, as in so many other European countries, the issue of the veil is predominant in discussions about discrimination of Muslim women. I am therefore glad that Ms Kyriakidou has focused on multiple discrimination. Muslim women are discriminated against because they are women and because they are Muslim.

Last year, a commission established by the Norwegian Ministry of Children, Equality and Social Inclusion presented a Green Paper on better integration. One of its conclusions was that if you are a woman of immigrant background, your access to the social resources needed to be fully integrated is limited. The women with the lowest participation in the Norwegian labour market are from Pakistan, Somalia, Iraq and Turkey, which are predominantly Muslim countries.

At the same time, the commission concluded that girls of immigrant background perform better than their male peers in the education system. In fact, immigrant women pursue higher education and study more than any other group in the higher education system. Working with this group in particular is one key to fighting discrimination against Muslim women. We must ensure that these young women are able to enter the labour market, and we must make sure that they are able to stay employed and develop their careers. This will contribute to better integration and decrease the labour market participation gap between Muslim immigrant women and ethnic Norwegian women.

The immigrant communities themselves have an important to role to play in the fight against discrimination. For example, the highly educated young Muslim women whom I have mentioned need support from within their communities to use the trades they have learnt. They need encouragement to take the step into the labour market and they need acceptance of their choice to pursue a career, even if it means that they marry and start a family later than they would otherwise have done. This is a responsibility for the leaders of their communities and their family elders.

Forging friendships is the best way to fight discrimination. “Tea Time” is a campaign with the goal of facilitating friendship and understanding across cultural divides. The campaign was launched by the Norwegian Centre against Racism last spring. It encouraged Muslims to invite someone to tea. With a simple e-mail to the “Tea Time” co-ordinators, hosts and guests are matched. An e-mail from a daughter of the Adampour family from Iran resulted in the Queen and Crown Princess of Norway visiting the family’s home in Oslo. After the visit, the Crown Princess tweeted that they had discussed how important it is for people to be open towards other people’s faiths and that no faith is morally superior to others.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you very much. I call Mr Bugnon.

Mr BUGNON (Switzerland) said that the report was in tune with the aims of the Council of Europe, which sought to promote the peaceful co-existence of people of different backgrounds. Discrimination should be banned and resisted by the Council of Europe wherever it occurred. Many of these issues would equally apply to any minority group. A sense of community allegiance needed to be fostered as successful co-existence could only take place in an environment of mutual respect. A social pact for the acceptance and respect of others was required.

He asked representatives of Muslim women to stop resisting measures to improve integration. For example, girls and boys in Switzerland had been separated in swimming and other sports. It was also important not to consider Muslim women a homogenous group as they encompassed a wide variety of backgrounds and circumstances. It was necessary to strike the right balance on this issue and avoid unilateral approaches. He offered whole-hearted support to the report.

THE PRESIDENT called Ms Blondin.

Ms BLONDIN (France) said she wanted to call for balance, openness and respect to promote equality of opportunity. She said that it was an evident truth that different Muslim women had different ways of practising and different origins. Muslim women faced multi-faceted discrimination, a reality not sufficiently taken on board by policy-makers. Professional groups were not sufficiently sensitive to the needs of vulnerable groups and public policies were necessary to achieve integration and emancipation. Women were the centre of the family and it was through them that change would occur.

THE PRESIDENT called Ms Marland-Militello.

Mr MARLAND-MILITELLO (France) said that she supported the French legislation banning the wearing of the full veil in public. She rejected the assertion in the report that the ban could increase the risk of discrimination; the veil itself was the most visible hallmark of discrimination. She called on the example of Tunisian women picked on outside university by those in favour of the niqab. The full veil was a straitjacket and a woman wearing one lost her humanity. Muslim representatives had confirmed to French parliamentary fact-finders that the full veil was not a religious necessity and that its wearing was attributable to social factors. The ban, which had been adopted by some Muslim countries, was breaking down barriers. It was necessary to resist religious stigmatisation and the isolation of women, in order for them to move towards genuine citizenship.

THE PRESIDENT said that the time limit for speeches was reduced to two minutes.

He called Ms Bilgehan and Ms Woldseth, who were not present. He then called Ms Marin.

Ms MARIN (France) said that Muslim women faced multiple discrimination as migrants, women and Muslims. The impact of discrimination and the activities of gang leaders affected other neighbourhood women. Women were of paramount importance for the process of integration as they were crucial to the social fabric. Knowledge of local languages was necessary for Muslim women: to be less dependent on men; to better communicate with others, thus breaking the circle of isolation; and to best contribute to the success of their children. Women were the best channel for social change.

THE PRESIDENT called Ms Carlino.

Ms CARLINO (Italy) said that Muslim women faced multiple discrimination. This was restricting their access to fundamentals such as education, health, employment and family cohesion. It was time to intervene to avoid isolation and stigmatisation, with information crucial to combating Islamophobia. Society needed to identify with Muslim women beyond basic stereotypes and Muslim women needed to be more aware of their rights.

Violence against women occurred in all countries. Muslim women faced particular issues of honour crimes and female genital mutilation. The Italian Ministry of Equal Opportunities had set up a Committee for the Prevention of Female Genital Mutilation. She called on countries to sign the Council of Europe’s Istanbul Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence.

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

Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – Thank you, Mr President. I would like to add one point, which is relevant in my country. From time to time, strong Muslim women challenge our traditional women’s movement on what they call our tacit recognition of the suppression of women in some conservative Muslim communities. We seem to confuse suppression of women with freedom of religion, thus ending in a kind of misunderstood tolerance of suppression that we would never accept against ourselves. The striking differences between Muslim women themselves show clearly that lack of equality is not about religion, but about a conservative male-dominated culture where religion is misused for the purpose of social control. This is not a new phenomenon unknown in our part of the world. On the contrary, we know these so-called religious straitjackets all too well from both the protestant and the Catholic churches.

Muslim immigrant women in Europe have to form their own future, but it is our duty to enable them to exploit the fact that others have actually cleared the path. An obvious starting point is to put the issue on the agenda within our political parties and women’s movements, thus offering our strong Muslim sisters both a rostrum and a community of solidarity and friendship, together with practical and political support. Our women’s networks should be at their disposal, on their own terms. Already, some well-educated independent Muslim women are members of our political parties, so this is not about clearing new ground. On the contrary, it is to enable new groups of women to take advantage of our former achievements.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Chagaf from Morocco, Partner for Democracy.

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

Mr CHAGAF (Morocco) congratulated the rapporteur on her sterling work and on raising the topical issue of the position of Muslim women in European society. He said that it was a complex issue that should be addressed in its entirety. Paragraphs 45 to 48 of the report related to the position of women in Islam. Islam had afforded women an honourable position. The Koran clearly said that men and women were of the same spiritual nature. The Prophet Mohammed said “the best among you are those who best treat your wives”. Any stigmatisation of Muslim women was based on a misinterpretation of the values of Islam. He hoped that the report could be the basis for further study, perhaps looking at the status of Muslim women in observer and partner countries.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Mr Ameur, from Morocco, Partner for Democracy.

Mr AMEUR (Morocco) thanked the rapporteur for a fair and balanced report, and for her courageous recommendations. She had brought light to a subject that was often brushed under the carpet. Muslim women were subject to multiple discrimination, because they were migrants and because they were women. However, they could be real agents for change and modernisation. The level of employment of migrant Muslim women was still not equivalent to that of migrant men or the population as a whole. Women were increasingly the mainstay of their families when it came to integration, especially in relation to the education of their children. Integration policies should be targeted at Muslim women in particular. Morocco was involved in a number of partnerships to target migrant women, and there was a growing divide between progress in Morocco and the isolation of migrant women in Europe.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Ameur from Morocco, Partner for Democracy.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The next speaker is Ms Alastal from Palestine, Partner for Democracy.

Ms ALASTAL (Palestinian National Council) – Good evening, Mr President. Dear colleagues, I thank the rapporteur for this excellent report, which discusses important issues about Muslim women in Europe and gives us important conclusions and recommendations. In European member states where Islam is not the religion of the majority of the population, and where Muslim women are sometimes victims of multiple discrimination – because of their gender or on grounds of ethnic origin – religion or religious beliefs are often seen as the only defining element of their identity.

We as MPs must have a new approach to protect and support Muslim women in Europe to be active in their society – to change and empower and further their citizenship. I also call for the allocation of sufficient financial resources for the integration of Muslim women in Europe into education, health systems, good access to the job market, and employment.

In the Middle East, women were at the forefront of revolutions in Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Tunisia and other countries, revolutions led by a quest for freedom, dignity, equality and justice. The Council of Europe can encourage and assist Muslim women in Europe in their claims for equality and protection from discrimination and violence, and give them their rights to choose and to freedom. That will reflect on all Muslim women and their countries, and open equal opportunities in education, health, labour, media, political life and human rights.

I call everyone to live together without violence or discrimination, and in dignity.

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

I call Ms Kyriakidou, rapporteur, to reply. You have three minutes.

Ms KYRIAKIDOU (Cyprus) – I want to make two comments. First, I thank all my colleagues for their interesting and important contributions to the debate. Secondly, I have kept it in mind that “education” is the key word. The more we educate Muslim women, the more we have equal opportunities and equality. As for the integral veil, we respect people’s freedom to choose their clothes. If we forbid them to wear what they are otherwise free to wear, they will be marginalised and stigmatised. In this case, they will never go to school or be educated.

Allow me, Mr President, because the report is elaborate, to make a suggestion in this Assembly. We should elaborate another report on discrimination against Muslim women in member states of the Council of Europe where Islam is the religion of the majority of the population, especially following the political measures that the Prime Minister of Turkey, Mr Erdoğan, has taken against Turkish women, concerning abortion rights and the violation of freedom of choice, as well as the privacy and dignity of Turkish women. This is an important opportunity for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to elaborate a significant report on Muslim women where Islam is the majority religion.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Ms Acketoft, Chairperson of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, to respond.

Ms ACKETOFT (Sweden) – Once again, we have discussed this very important topic in the Assembly – multiple discrimination against Muslim women in Europe. The Council of Europe and the Parliamentary Assembly are strongly promoting the social, economic and cultural inclusion of Muslim and other communities in Europe as a key factor in building a society. I would like to believe that the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination and the report are incremental parts of that work.

In an ideal world, non-discrimination should be the normal attitude and non-discrimination should come naturally to us all. Discrimination and stereotyping should be unnatural things, but we all know that we are not living in an ideal world – as yet at least.

Our member states are different. There are different degrees of discrimination and different mixes of causes of discrimination. Without disputing the fact that Muslim women are often victims, let us not confuse that with the image of weakness. Let us recall the pictures of all the extremely brave and strong women marching proudly in the Arab apring. These are the same women set in a context other than European society. To combat the multiple discrimination against these women in Europe, we need effective legislation to combat all forms of discrimination and to safeguard all human rights for them, irrespective of whatever religious belief they have.

We need to foster mutual respect through education and communication. We must empower these women as well by giving them incentives to participate in a society for us all.

Ms Kyriakidou rightly stresses in the report the fact that Muslim women in Europe have many identities, but that the media and the general debate do not reflect that. Also, politicians do not reflect it. We do not take this matter seriously enough. We do not take our responsibilities seriously enough.

I believe that Ms Kyriakidou’s report manages to dig much deeper into the debate that we are going to have on this community in regard to whether to veil or non-veil. I congratulate the rapporteur on her important and extensive work.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you.

The Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination has presented a draft resolution in Document 12596, to which 14 amendments have been tabled, and there are written sub-amendments to amendments 4 and 6.

I understand that the Chairperson of the Committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that the following amendments, which were unanimously approved by the Committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly under Rule 33.11.

The amendments are 1, 8, 2, 11, 3, 5, 12 and 13, and 14 to the draft resolution. Is that so, Ms Acketoft?

Ms ACKETOFT (Sweden) – Yes.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Does anyone object?

That is not the case.

The following amendments have been adopted:

Amendment 1, tabled by the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 2, insert the following paragraph: “Many Muslim women – migrants or their descendants – face particular problems in the process of feminisation of migration. These problems include, inter alia, restrictions on family reunification and recourse to irregular migration due to the closing of regular channels of migration.”

Amendment 8, tabled by Ms Grosskost, Ms Zimmermann, Mr Agramunt, Mr Cousin, Mr Halicki, Mr Iwiński, Mr Moriau, Mr De Bruyn, Mr Mahoux, in paragraph 6.1.5 of the draft resolution, after the words “necessary in a democratic society”, insert the following words: “to preserve the dignity of women, to guarantee gender equality,”

Amendment 2, tabled by Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, in the draft resolution paragraph 6.1.6, after the word “Europe’s”, insert the following words: “ethnic and religious”.

Amendment 11, tabled by the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 6.2.1.1, insert the following paragraph:

“pursue initiatives in the field of intercultural education relating to diversity of religions and non-religious convictions in order to promote tolerance, mutual understanding and the culture of “living together”, drawing on the principles set out in the Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers on the dimension of religious and non-religious convictions within intercultural education (CM/Rec(2008)12);”

Amendment 3, tabled by the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6.2.2, replace the words “managed to reconcile their Muslim faith with their European identity” by the following words:

“been successful in European society”.

Amendment 5, tabled by the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 6.2.3, insert the following paragraph:

“promote family reunification policies and access to nationality and dual-nationality for migrants and their descendants as a means of integration and ensure that there is no discrimination in terms of gender, religion or ethnicity in the implementation of the laws and rules relating to these policies;”

Amendment 12, tabled by the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 6.2.4, add the following words:

“and that they dispose of support structures to help them remain in education;”

Amendment 13, tabled by the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 6.2.4, insert the following paragraph:

“in cooperation with non-governmental organisations, develop specific training programmes for older Muslim women who wish to access employment to gain skills and qualifications;”

Amendment 14, tabled by the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 6.2.6, insert the following paragraph:

“develop awareness raising campaigns and introduce dissuasive sanctions for government agencies and banks against discrimination of Muslim women in allocation of loans and grants for business start-ups;”

We come to Amendment 7, tabled by Ms Grosskost, Ms Zimmermann, Mr Agramunt, Mr Cousin, Mr Iwiñski, Mr Halicki, Mr Moriau, Mr Bruyn, in paragraph 6.1.5 of the draft resolution, after the words “to choose their clothing”, insert the following words: “in compliance with the laws of the State in which they reside”.

I call Ms Marland-Militello to support amendment 7.

Ms MARLAND-MILITELLO (France) said that without dignity there was no democratic society.

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

I call Ms Andersen to speak against the amendment.

Ms ANDERSEN (Norway) – I agree that some veils can be looked upon as discriminatory, but I do not see it as a task for the state to dress or undress its inhabitants. That has to be up to each person to decide. A lot of comments have been made here today to show how the prohibition of the veil would isolate those who really need to come to school and go out in society.

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

Ms ACKETOFT (Sweden) –The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Amendment 7 is adopted.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – We come to amendment 10, tabled by the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, which is, in the draft resolution, delete paragraph 6.1.7.

I call Mr Comte to support amendment 10 on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media. You have 30 seconds.

Mr COMTE (Switzerland) said that this paragraph of the report had given rise to heated discussion in the committee. The majority of the committee thought that it went too far in relation to its impact on media freedom.

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

I call Ms Kyriakidou.

Ms KYRIAKIDOU (Cyprus) – The amendment is not acceptable, first, because this paragraph encourages the media. Secondly, we want the media to participate in this campaign. Thirdly, if this proposal is deleted an important paragraph will be left out. The wording is in line with the language of Assembly Resolution 1751 of 2010 on sexist stereotypes in the media, which called on the media to favour a balanced representation of women.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – What is the opinion of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination?

Ms ACKETOFT (Sweden) –The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Amendment 10 is rejected.

We come to amendment 4, tabled by the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6.2.3, after the words “specific training”, insert the following words: “on tolerance”.

I call Ms Erkal Kara to support amendment 4 on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons. You have 30 seconds.

Ms ERKAL KARA (Turkey) said that the amendment would add new text and she hoped that it would be accepted.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – We come to sub-amendment 1 to amendment 4, tabled by the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, which is, in amendment 4, replace the word “tolerance” with the following word: “diversity”.

I call Ms Kyriakidou to support the sub-amendment on behalf of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination.

Ms KYRIAKIDOU (Cyprus) – We are okay. This is acceptable.

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

What is the opinion of the mover of the main amendment?

Ms ERKAL KARA (Turkey) (Translation) – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination is obviously in favour of the sub-amendment.

I shall now put the sub-amendment to the vote.

The vote is open.

The sub-amendment is agreed to.

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

What is the opinion of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination?

Ms ACKETOFT (Sweden) – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – I shall now put the amendment, as amended, to the vote. The vote is open.

Amendment 4, as amended, is agreed to.

We come to Amendment 6, tabled by the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 6.2.5, insert the following paragraph:

“allocate sufficient funds for the teaching of the language of the host country;”

I call Ms Erkal Kara to support Amendment 6 on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons. You have 30 seconds.

Ms ERKAL KARA (Turkey) said that the amendment was designed to ensure that sufficient funds were available to provide language teaching in the resident country.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – I now call Ms Kyriakidou to support the sub-amendment on behalf of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, which is at the end of amendment 6, add the following words: “when the case”.

Ms KYRIAKIDOU (Cyprus) – The sub-amendment is approved.

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

What is the opinion of the mover of the main amendment?

Ms ERKAL KARA (Turkey) (Translation) – I am in favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination is obviously in favour of the sub-amendment.

I shall now put the sub-amendment to the vote.

The vote is open.

The sub-amendment is agreed to.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 6, as amended? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination?

Ms ACKETOFT (Sweden) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – I shall now put Amendment 6, as amended, to the vote.

The vote is open.

Amendment 6, as amended, is agreed to.

We come to Amendment 9, tabled by Ms Grosskost, Ms Zimmermann, Mr Agramunt, Mr Cousin, Mr Halicki, Mr Moriau, Mr Bruyn and Mr Mahoux, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 6.4.3, insert the following words:

“while ensuring that the functioning of the health system is not disrupted by patients’ religious customs”.

I call Ms Marland-Militello to support Amendment 9. You have 30 seconds.

Mrs MARLAND-MILITELLO (France) said that the amendment sought to ensure that religious customs did not affect the administration of effective health services

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

What is the opinion of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination?

Ms ACKETOFT (Sweden) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – I shall now put Amendment 9 to the vote.

The vote is open.

Amendment 9 is agreed to.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 12956, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Document 12956, as amended, is adopted, with 44 votes for, 0 against and 0 abstentions.

7. Date, time and agenda of the next sitting

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The Assembly will hold its next public sitting tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. with the agenda which was approved yesterday.

The sitting is closed.

(The sitting was closed 8.15 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. Changes in the membership of a committee

2. Elections

3. Resumed 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

Speakers:

Mr Jáuregi (Spain)

Ms Reilly (Ireland)

Mr Lorrain (France)

Mr Flynn (United Kingdom)

Mr Mihalovics (Hungary)

Mr Hanson (Estonia)

Mr Kalmár (Hungary)

Ms Črnak Meglič (Slovenia)

Mr R. Farina (Italy)

Mr Gaudi Nagy (Hungary)

Mr Kaikkonen (Finland)

Ms Szél (Hungary)

Ms Durrieu (France)

Mr David Davies (United Kingdom)

Mr Bockel (France)

Ms Antilla (Finland)

Ms Graham (Norway)

Ms Andersen (Norway)

Mr G. Davies (United Kingdom)

Ms Gafarova (Azerbaijan)

Mr Huskowski (Poland)

Ms Alastal (Palestinian National Council)

Ms Mogherini Rebesani (Italy)

Mr Shershun (Ukraine)

Ms Fataliyeva (Azerbaijan)

Ms Huovinen (Finland)

Ms Marin (France)

Mr Mayer (Austria)

Mr Saar (Estonia)

Mr Zafferani (San Marino)

Ms Kovács (Serbia)

Mr Ivanovski (the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia)

Ms Virolainen (Finland)

Ms Woldseth (Norway)

Mr Connarty (United Kingdom)

Mr Sheridan (United Kingdom)

Mr Herkel (Estonia)

Mr Sasi (Finland)

Ms Boldi (Italy)

Mr Binley (United Kingdom)

Replies:

Sir Alan Meale (United Kingdom)

Mr Volontè (Italy)

Mr Hunko (Germany)

Ms Maury Pasquier (Switzerland)

Amendments 7, 8, 3, and 1 as amended to the draft resolution in Doc. 12948 adopted

Draft resolution, as amended, adopted

Amendments 14 to 16, 1, 9, 8, 6, 7, 10 to 12, 3 as amended, 4 as amended, and 5 as amended, to the draft resolution and Amendment 13 to the draft recommendation in Doc. 12951 adopted

Draft resolution, as amended, adopted

Draft recommendation, as amended, adopted

Amendment 1 to the draft resolution in Doc. 12944 adopted

Draft resolution, as amended, adopted

4. Election of the Deputy Secretary-General of the Council of Europe

5. Election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights

6. Multiple discrimination against Muslim women in Europe: for equal opportunities

Presentation of report of the Committee oin Equality and Non-Discrimination by Ms Kyriakidou in Doc. 12956

Presentation of opinion of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media by Mr Comte in Doc. 12976

Presentation of opinion of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons by Ms Erkel Kara in Doc. 12973

Speakers:

Ms Bakir (Turkey)

Ms Andersen (Norway)

Ms Quintanilla (Spain)

Ms Mogherini Rebesani (Italy)

Ms Memecan (Turkey)

Ms Bergamini (Italy)

Ms Bourzai (France)

Ms Gafarova (Azerbaijan)

Ms Schou (Norway)

Mr Bugnon (Switzerland)

Ms Blondin (France)

Ms Marland-Militello (France)

Ms Marin (France)

Ms Carlino (Italy)

Ms Christoffersen (Norway)

Mr Chagaf (Morocco)

Mr Ameur (Morocco)

Ms Alastal (Palestinian National Council)

Replies:

Ms Kyriakidou (Cyprus)

Ms Acketoft (Sweden)

Amendments 1, 8, 2, 11, 3, 5, 12, 13, 14, 7, 4 as amended, 6 as amended and 9 adopted.

Draft resolution adopted

7. 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*

Miloš ALIGRUDIĆ

José Antonio ALONSO*

Karin ANDERSEN

Lord Donald ANDERSON

Florin Serghei ANGHEL*

Khadija ARIB*

Mörður ÁRNASON

Francisco ASSIS*

Þuriður BACKMAN

Daniel BACQUELAINE*

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*

António BRAGA

Anne BRASSEUR

Márton BRAUN*

Federico BRICOLO/Rossana Boldi

Ankie BROEKERS-KNOL

Piet DE BRUYN*

Patrizia BUGNANO/Giuliana Carlino

André BUGNON

Natalia BURYKINA

Sylvia CANEL*

Mevlüt ÇAVUŞOĞLU

Mikael CEDERBRATT

Otto CHALOUPKA*

Vannino CHITI

Christopher CHOPE

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Desislav CHUKOLOV/Irena Sokolova

Lolita ČIGĀNE/Andris Bērzinš

Boriss CILEVIČS

James CLAPPISON*

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/Joseph Falzon

Armand De DECKER*

Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA

Peter van DIJK*

Klaas DIJKHOFF*

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/Mario Barbi

Nikolay FEDOROV*

Relu FENECHIU*

Vyacheslav FETISOV*

Doris FIALA/Raphaël Comte

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ

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*

Paolo GIARETTA*

Michael GLOS*

Pavol GOGA*

Obrad GOJKOVIĆ*

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

Sabir HAJIYEV/Sevinj Fataliyeva

Andrzej HALICKI

Mike HANCOCK*

Margus HANSON

Davit HARUTYUNYAN

Håkon HAUGLI/Ingjerd Schou

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/Bernard Fournier

Roman JAKIČ

Ramón JÁUREGUI

Michael Aastrup JENSEN*

Mogens JENSEN

Mats JOHANSSON/Mikael Oscarsson

Birkir Jón JÓNSSON*

Armand JUNG*

Antti KAIKKONEN

Ferenc KALMÁR

Božidar KALMETA/Melita Mulić

Mariusz KAMIŃSKI*

Michail KATRINIS*

Burhan KAYATÜRK*

Bogdan KLICH/Jadwiga Rotnicka

Haluk KOÇ

Igor KOLMAN

Tiny KOX

Marie KRARUP*

Borjana KRIŠTO

Václav KUBATA

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/ Serhii Kivalov

Saša MAGAZINOVIĆ/Krunoslav Vrdoljak

Philippe MAHOUX

Gennaro MALGIERI

Nicole MANZONE-SAQUET

Pietro MARCENARO

Milica MARKOVIĆ*

Muriel MARLAND-MILITELLO

Meritxell MATEU PI

Pirkko MATTILA/Sirkka-Liisa Anttila

Frano MATUŠIĆ

Liliane MAURY PASQUIER

Michael McNAMARA*

Sir Alan MEALE

Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA*

Evangelos MEIMARAKIS*

Ivan MELNIKOV*

Nursuna MEMECAN

José MENDES BOTA*

Dragoljub MIĆUNOVIĆ*

Jean-Claude MIGNON/Christine Marin

Dangutė MIKUTIENĖ*

Akaki MINASHVILI

Federica MOGHERINI REBESANI

Andrey MOLCHANOV*

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

Nadia OTTAVIANI

Liliana PALIHOVICI

Vassiliki PAPANDREOU/Elsa Papadimitriou

Eva PARERA*

Ganira PASHAYEVA*

Lajla PERNASKA*

Johannes PFLUG*

Alexander POCHINOK*

Ivan POPESCU

Lisbeth Bech POULSEN/ Nikolaj Villumsen

Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN/Jonas Gunnarsson

Cezar Florin PREDA*

Lord John PRESCOTT/Geraint Davies

Jakob PRESEČNIK/Andreja Crnak Meglič

Radoslav PROCHÁZKA*

Gabino PUCHE

Alexey PUSHKOV*

Valeriy PYSARENKO*

Valentina RADULOVIĆ-ŠĆEPANOVIĆ

Elżbieta RADZISZEWSKA

Mailis REPS/Indrek Saar

Andrea RIGONI

François ROCHEBLOINE*

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/Maximilian Reimann

Senad ŠEPIĆ

Samad SEYIDOV*

Jim SHERIDAN

Mykola SHERSHUN

Adalbi SHKHAGOVEV*

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*

Vilmos SZABÓ/Bernadett Szél

Melinda SZÉKYNÉ SZTRÉMI*

Chiora TAKTAKISHVILI

Giorgi TARGAMADZÉ*

Dragan TODOROVIĆ/Elvira Kovács

Romana TOMC*

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/Grigore Petrenco

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:

Doris FROMMELT

Johannes HÜBNER

Kerstin LUNDGREN

Martina SCHENK

Observers:

José Luis JAIME CORREA

Hervé Pierre GUILLOT

Partners for democracy:

Najat ALASTAL

Mohammed AMEUR

Ali Salem CHAGAF

Bernard SABELLA

Mohamed YATIM

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

Karin ANDERSEN

José Manuel BARREIRO/Carmen Quintanilla

José María BENEYTO

António BRAGA

André BUGNON

Sylvia CANEL

Mikael CEDERBRATT

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Giovanna DEBONO/Joseph Falzon

Armand De DECKER/Ludo Sannen

Daphné DUMERY

Baroness Diana ECCLES

Gianni FARINA/Mario Barbi

Paul FLYNN

Tamás GAUDI NAGY

Martin GRAF

Antonio GUTIÉRREZ/ Jordi Xuclà

Margus HANSON

Davit HARUTYUNYAN

Andrej HUNKO

Susanna HUOVINEN

Ramón JÁUREGUI

Tiny KOX

Yuliya L'OVOCHKINA/Serhii Kivalov

Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA/Imer Aliu

Federica MOGHERINI REBESANI

Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN/Jonas Gunnarsson

Andrea RIGONI

Giacomo SANTINI

Giacomo STUCCHI/Paolo Grimoldi