AA12CR26

AS (2012) CR 26

 

Provisional edition

2012 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Third part)

REPORT

Twenty-sixth Sitting

Thursday 28 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 report.

Mr Mignon, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 3.35 p.m.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The sitting is open.

1. Written declaration

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – A written declaration, No. 529, has been tabled: London Summit on Family Planning 11 July 2012: access to contraceptives for 120 million more women by 2020, Document 12992. Any member, substitute, observer or partner for democracy may add his or her signature in the Table Office, Room 1083.

2. Political transition in Tunisia and statement by Mr Mustapha Ben Jaafar, President of the Constituent Assembly of Tunisia

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The first item of business this afternoon is the debate on the report entitled “Political transition in Tunisia”, Document 12949, presented by Ms Brasseur on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy. After the debate and vote we will hear a statement from Mr Mustapha Ben Jaafar, President of the Constituent Assembly of Tunisia.

If necessary, I will interrupt the list of speakers at about 5.15 p.m. to allow time for the reply and the vote. The time limit on speeches is four minutes.

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

Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg) said that she paid tribute to the courage and determination of those who had triggered the revolution in Tunisia. She also paid tribute to civil society and to those who had recently been democratically elected. She admired what the Tunisian people had achieved over the past 17 months, but much remained to be accomplished. The path was strewn with obstacles, and radical groups were making mileage out of any difficulties. There was no intention to impose a model on Tunisia, although that was what radical groups were trying to suggest. She paid her respects to those who had been involved in the work done by the Constituent Assembly in drawing up a new constitution based on the culture and history of Tunisia. She hoped that work on drafting the new constitution would be completed by the deadline of 23 October.

The challenges facing Tunisia were enormous. There had been 110 parties in the election. Three parties were forming a coalition. One of these parties was rooted in Islam, the other two were secular and it was still not possible to identify a real opposition. The challenges included how to guarantee the safety of the social movement. There had been demonstrations and extreme violence, which had fuelled insecurity and the police and the courts did not yet function in the same manner as in a state based on the rule of law.

A serious challenge was how to get the economy back on its feet. Tourism in Tunisia had fallen by 40% and unemployment had risen from 13% to 19%. Some 72% of those who were unemployed were below the age of 30. Others were attempting to make mileage out of the situation.

She thanked the President of the Constituent Assembly for accepting the invitation to visit the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly. His presence was a strong symbol and she offered him a warm welcome.

A third challenge was how to combat extremism, which was often imported from other countries. There had been intimidation and some were preaching violence and even murder. She noted that there had been a refusal to include Sharia Law in the constitution, mainly thanks to the two secular parties in the coalition. Tunisia was a free, independent, and sovereign state. Its religion was Islam and its regime was a republic. The Salafists were attempting to attack fundamental rights and were insisting, for example, that women wore a full veil.

She was simply giving a rough summary of the challenges, but the situation was worrying. It was more important than ever to help Tunisia. Representatives of the Council of Europe would soon travel to Tunisia to implement Council of Europe programmes. She saw in the President of the Constituent Assembly a potential partner for democracy. Her colleagues had to lobby their governments with a view to ensuring that the assets that had been embezzled from Tunisia were returned to it.

She wanted to end on a positive note. She had confidence in the determination of everyone in Tunisia, leaders and citizens alike, to develop their state in a way that would ensure that people could live in freedom and dignity. Tunisia could draw on its traditions and history in this respect. She assured the President of the Constituent Assembly of the unstinting support of the Council of Europe.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. You still have three and a half minutes left.

In the debate I call first Mr Papadimoulis on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr PAPADIMOULIS (Greece) said that he congratulated Ms Brasseur on an outstanding and balanced report. On behalf of the group, he paid tribute to the people of Tunisia and to those young people who had fought in the revolution which paved the way for the Arab Spring. Nearly a year and a half later, much had changed in Tunisia and other Arab countries, but the road to democracy was fraught – the closer to the end point, the further it receded. There were a number of factors which had an impact, such as the economy, and there were hurdles placed by plutocrats to overcome, those pandering to secretive bodies and other groups conspiring against democracy. It was important for the Council of Europe to vote for the report and to send a strong signal to the Tunisian people: the Assembly was placed to assist the transition, but not to export a specific model or programme. The constitution would be completed by October 2012 and support for the report with a strong majority would strengthen this message.

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

Mr SANTINI (Italy) said that Tunisia was an example of the transition to democracy in North Africa which had become the Arab Spring. However, the summer had not followed everywhere as was seen in Libya, Egypt and, most worryingly, Syria. In Tunisia, a peaceful revolution, fired with vivacity, had been followed by democratic development which had been demonstrated by the Constituent Assembly and its positive operation, and, with a few hitches, a presidential election due in 2013. However, there was an identity question to resolve in respect of Sharia Law but this was a question for Tunisia itself and the Council of Europe could not assist that choice.

Italy was close to Tunisia geographically, culturally and economically and therefore the resumption of bilateral arrangements was important for Italy and for the European Union. The previous month, the Italian President, Giorgio Napolitano, had visited Tunisia and the two countries had signed an accord paving the way for a privileged partnership. They had issued a joint declaration for strategic co-operation on issues such as immigration, which was a sensitive matter. These laid out specific actions on clandestine immigration, training and raising awareness of legal immigration routes, all of which concerned the European Union. It was important to bring other parties into such agreements to ensure the co-management of policies which took account of the needs of young people from the south Mediterranean, ended the pain of clandestine immigration and avoided the need for the distressing phenomenon of retuning immigrants forcibly.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Mr Díaz Tejera, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain) said that it was an honour to speak on behalf of the Socialist Group, as, although there were economic difficulties in Spain, it was important for the Council of Europe to make headway on issues such as that being debated. He congratulated the rapporteurs on a prudent and balanced report, with the values of the Council of Europe at its heart. It looked to the future and drew together the differing political cultures in the Assembly to take the issue forward.

The Jasmine Revolution was the ideal example of how to address conflicts through constitutional processes with the involvement of all cultural elements and the defence of human rights and democracy. It was far more important to focus on preventive mechanisms that entrenched democracy, such as abolition of the death penalty, an independent and impartial judiciary, gender equality and respect for the law, than to focus specifically on an independent electoral body. Nobody should be required to conceal their views or characteristics as all persons had fundamental rights as members of the human race. The key was to work hand-in-hand with Tunisia and to use the Assembly’s experience to assist progress but not to impose a specific vision. Ms Brasseur had the fullest support.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Ms Memecan, who will speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Ms MEMECAN (Turkey) – I welcome President Ben Jaafar to our Assembly. On behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, I congratulate Ms Brasseur on this meticulous report and on her continued commitment to following up the developments in Tunisia. We should all keep alive our interest in the new democracies in our neighbourhood, turn this transitional period into a learning experience and use it to help others.

There is so much going on in every one of the new democracies in the Arab world. Every day, new issues are challenging traditional ways with new concepts of individual rights, women’s rights and basic freedoms. The transitional period has not been free of serious challenges, but it presents an opportunity to introduce and spread democratic values. We should all take up the challenge and be part of the change in our neighbourhood.

Tunisia, the country that initiated the Arab Spring, has undertaken many reforms and its reform process is well advanced. It offers an inspiring model for smooth democratisation to countries in the region. The proper handling of the elections, of which I was an observer in October 2011, and the apparent determination of the Tunisian electors, marked the beginning of a successful transitional period. Contrary to the scepticism expressed by some, the elected government of the Ennahda party – which defines itself as a moderate Islamic party – will prove once again that Islam and democracy are compatible. The democratically elected parliament and president and the involvement of the Venice Commission in the Tunisian transitional process are both positive indicators.

On the downside, there is serious concern about the exclusion of women from activities involving the building of the new democratic society in whose initiation they played a vital part. At the April part-session, we had a debate on women in the Arab Spring, at which we heard from many women who were disappointed at being blocked out of the political and social spheres, which was hindering any chance of contribution. We should support and encourage Tunisian women to hold on to the rights that they have enjoyed up to now, and co-operate with them further to improve those rights. We should insist that women have a say in all areas of the democracy building efforts.

Members should not lose sight of these questions. We should keep building strong bridges with the Tunisian people – men and women, young and old. We should make every effort to ensure that our values of democracy, freedom and human rights are also cherished by the Tunisian people so that they can live freely and happily.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Pozzo di Borgo.

Mr POZZO DI BORGO (France) said that on 29 March 2011 a Salafist Party had been granted legal status that allowed it to take part in the democratic process, despite a September 1988 ruling which stated that religious parties were not allowed. This had occurred after the party, the Reform Front, had stated that its views were compatible with democracy. This showed the rise of political Islam, a situation that had been given a platform following the Jasmine Revolution. Though in a minority, supporters of political Islam were a loud voice and there had been political pressure exerted to prohibit alcohol and to enforce the wearing of the burqa.

The new authorities in Tunisia had rejected Sharia Law but the Ennahda party to an extent was complicit in these pressures because it was operating politically as both the governing party and playing to opposition views. Radicalism was not inevitable and a Manichaean division between religious and secular voices was over-simplified. Instead, the dividing line was between modernisers and conservatives, with the latter gaining the upper hand and calling into question the achievements of the revolution led some time ago by M. Bourguiba. That could only lead to fears for the economic sectors whose development was essential for Tunisia’s future. Tourism and foreign direct investment were already affected and he hoped that the radicals were not seeking to play on the situation.

The Council of Europe had to be vigilant on these issues, in order to understand developments. Exchanges and co-operation with Tunisia to discuss political Islam had to be stepped up. He commended the pronouncements of the Al-Azhar mosque in Egypt on constitutional principles and fundamental liberties in 2011 and 2012, which had brought a new dimension to political Islam. If such exchanges were accepted, the Council of Europe could play its part in the democratic evolution of these countries which were so close in terms of history and geography.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The next speaker is Ms Bilgehan.

Ms BİLGEHAN (Turkey) said that it was true that the Arab Spring had started in Tunisia and that the country was an example to follow, even with the difficulties outlined in the report which was overall a positive one. Tunisia had good ties with the Council of Europe, shown in Resolution 1598 and the work of the North-South Centre and it was important to develop relations with the Maghreb. Turkey supported Tunisia, which was a sister country and ally, as it understood the difficulties of transition from its own history: it had experienced 30 years of authoritarian rule, followed by relief, then elections and a new constitution being drafted, all of which was not easy. Despite the difficulties, the broad acceptance of the election results was exceptional, for which credit was due to civil society for its involvement.

There were concerns in Tunisia with respect to the rise of religious fundamentalism, economic decline, threats to journalists and the fear of an erosion of women’s rights. Tunisia had a strong tradition of rights for women and rates of involvement in active life were high, including in political life: 27% of Tunisian parliamentarians were women, 3% lower than previously, but higher than in many Council of Europe countries. The average age of marriage, 27, was high and the rate of early marriage, 3%, was low. However, this was all potentially threatened by moves to establish Sharia Law and potentially reintroduce polygamy. There was an ongoing debate on Tunisian law regarding modernism and Islam and there were powerful voices who contended that secularism had no role. Tunisia had to find its own way to continue to be an example to the other countries of the Arab Spring.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call a former President, Mr Çavuşoğlu.

Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey) – I, too, welcome Mr Mustapha Ben Jaafar, President of the Constituent Assembly of Tunisia. It is a great honour to see you here. I also thank Ms Brasseur for the comprehensive update that she presented to us today.

Everyone agrees that Tunisia has been playing a crucial role and that it has set an example for the region. The success of Tunisia is not only a victory for its people, but important for the people in the neighbourhood, in the Middle East and North Africa. So far, Tunisia has proved that it is on the right track. It had a very democratic election to the Constituent Assembly, which we observed, and Tunisia now has a government and a president. I hope that Tunisia will prepare a draft constitution and that the Constituent Assembly will adopt it as soon as possible.

I have no doubt that we will strengthen our co-operation with Tunisia, which is something that has been on our agenda. As a former President, I visited with the Presidential Committee and the rapporteur has been there too – the Venice Commission is always ready to offer its expertise as well – and we will be working in this manner in the future as well. On the other hand, I hope that Tunisia will request our new Partner for Democracy status. Indeed, the last letter I signed as President was an invitation to Tunisia to do just that. Through these formal relations, and also through learning from each other, we will both be helping each other.

When I listen to the comments and criticisms – and, sometimes, the prejudiced comments – in this debate, as well as in the debates about Morocco and Egypt, it reminds me of early 2003, when we came here for the first time after the elections in Turkey. At that time, there was also a lot of prejudice about my party, the Justice and Development Party. People were asking whether we were Islamists or whether we would introduce Sharia Law in Turkey, and so on. I also remember the debate in June 2004, after this Assembly had ended the monitoring process in Turkey, when every single leader of the political groups apologised for being prejudiced about Justice and Development Party and about the government in Turkey.

The same thing is valid for the new governments in the region right now, because they have been formed by conservative parties. However, we should be clear that all the people in these countries who are seeking democracy and human rights, as well as the political parties, are following the Turkish model and the Justice and Development Party model, so we should not be so furious about what is happening. We can help and support them in seeking justice, development and democracy in their countries, as well as high standards for their own people. Is everything perfect in Tunisia today? No – we are particularly aware of the economic crisis, from which Tunisia is also suffering. However, we can continue to support our neighbours and partners, just as Ms Brasseur and this Assembly have been doing, and they can be a good example for the region. I therefore thank Ms Brasseur again for an excellent report and update.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, former President Çavuşoğlu. I am looking for Mr Agramunt. What has become of him since Spain’s victory in the semi-finals of the European cup last night?

I call Mr Schennach.

Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) said that he was deeply impressed by the report and delighted that Mr Ben Jaafar was present for the debate. The very success of the Arab Spring depended on Tunisia as it had started there. Tunisia had the particular advantage of its high standards of education, which promised opportunities for the young. Tunisia also had a relatively strong record on women’s rights and a recent report by a Palestinian lawyer had concluded that the rights of women were central to debate in Tunisia to an extent not seen in any other Arab country. There was a high awareness of women’s issues, polygamy was banned, there were rights to divorce and family planning and abortion had been legal since 1973. These measures were the foundation of a modern society and it was important that they were not reversed. The success of democracy in Tunisia would be measured by its treatment of women. He feared that the police were not doing enough to combat criminal and hooligan behaviour by Salafists. It was imperative that such people were not allowed to operate in a legal vacuum.

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

Mr ROUQUET (France) said that he congratulated Mrs Brasseur on her outstanding report and introduction to the debate. He noted that the Julia Taft award had been presented to Dr Mohammed Belhocine, the UNDP Resident Representative in Tunisia, and his staff. He was concerned about recent attacks on an art exhibition in the Tunis suburb of La Mansa by violent Salafists who deemed art blasphemous and who accused artists of inflaming the country. They were being treated with some ambiguity by the Ennahda party. Islamists were targeting rural populations and the disadvantaged and there was a danger that hooligans could weaken the institutions of state. Tunisia was not as weak as Egypt, but for democracy to flourish and for chaos to be avoided, strong action was needed. Tunisia triggered the Arab Spring and had a relatively strong record on women’s rights and as such was a role model for other countries in the region. He hoped that it would become a model democracy.

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

Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) said that he welcomed Mr Ben Jaafar to the Assembly and praised the excellent work of Ms Brasseur. Tunisia had seen the departure of a despot and democratic transition was broadly following the right path, which was creating hope and having repercussions across the region. The elections had seen the positive emergence of many political parties but also the alarming success of Islamist groups. Islam was inherent to Tunisian culture, but religious dogma had no place in law, the constitution or in democratic institutions as it was a private matter. The Council of Europe should be available to assist Tunisia in establishing its constitution, if it wished. It was also important to help Tunisia restore its economy and increase tourism as economic success was vital for continued social and political progress.

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

Ms BOURZAI (France) said that a year and a half after the Jasmine Revolution, Tunisia seemed to be making excellent progress, as the report made clear. However, it did not underestimate the difficulties Tunisia still faced. It was right to draw attention to the emergence of the Salafists and the difficulty that this presented.

The position of women was a vital consideration. The progress that had been made since January 2011 was mainly in relation to male-oriented human rights. Women’s rights did not seem to be a priority in Tunisia and in some respects there had been a regression. The Tunisian family planning organisation was coming up against fresh difficulties, as this was profitable terrain for religious, radical groups. There had been an increase in unwanted births because abortion was frowned upon, as was contraception. The family planning organisation was under financial pressure. It was crucial that the Parliamentary Assembly remained vigilant about the position of women in Tunisia.

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

Mr BOCKEL (France) said that 18 months after the fall of the old regime, the Jasmine Revolution was leading to a revitalisation of society, but there was a danger that the emergence of the Salafists could put this to the test. There was a fear that the political turmoil might have led to the postponement of attempts to tackle the economic crisis. This was significant because extremism fed on economic problems. Corruption and plunder had characterised the economy under the old regime, and there were many challenges facing the new regime, including a lack of reserves in the coffers of the Tunisian state.

The equation was simple: it was necessary to combine freedom and a better life. It was not possible to have one without the other. The OECD and foreign investment had a role. It was important to encourage forthright action, but also to keep in mind the serious problems that were looming in relation to the central bank in Tunisia. He did not want to leave anyone with the impression that he was here to preach. He knew it was difficult and he had huge admiration for leaders in Tunisia, to whom he extended his deep respect and encouragement.

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

Mr YATIM (Morocco) said that he welcomed the President of the Constituent Assembly and, through him, paid tribute to the courage of the Tunisian people. In particular, he paid tribute to Mohamed Bouazizi, who had sacrificed himself to usher in a new era in contemporary history. There had been a change in the image of the Arab world and it had become possible to show that when people wanted change, they could make that change happen. What had occurred in Tunisia had put an end to the illusions propagated by totalitarian regimes. When modernity was totalitarian in nature it was the epitome of regression. The revolution in Tunisia had proved that it was possible to reconcile Islam and modernity. It had given, and could still give, inspiration to the Arab people. It was necessary that Tunisia should be seen to make the transition beyond revolution to democratic institutions.

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

Ms MARIN (France) said that from the outset of the Arab Spring, women had been on their feet, but now the Constituent Assembly was about to draft a new constitution and the rights of women were being threatened. It had been agreed that there would be no Sharia Law in the constitution, but people were worried because the position of the authorities seemed ambiguous. The status of women in Tunisia was unique in the Arab world. There was a code that had given women freedom but certain conservative forces wanted to call the code into question, to impose the veil, to support polygamy, and to prohibit adoption. In 1959, Tunisia had agreed that international conventions would take precedence over national law in this context. That should be included in the new constitution. It was essential to remain vigilant and to monitor the position of women in Tunisia. For women in Tunisia, the Spring seemed to be coming to an end, but women’s rights should be an irreversible achievement.

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

Ms HÄGG (Sweden) – The challenges common to the whole region are the transition to democracy, economic development and the future of the younger generation. One of the greatest challenges in Tunisia is the new constitution. Khalil Zaouia, Minister for Social Affairs, from the Ettakatol Party said that in one or two years Tunisia needs to have finalised how the process towards democracy is going to work. The constitution must first be finalised, and then it has to be voted in with a two-thirds majority.

The road map of reforms that Tunisia has to follow contains four steps: constitutional reform, democratisation of electoral law, a parliamentary commission to monitor elections, and a law on political parties to promote diversity. As far as parliamentary elections are concerned, Tunisia is in a unique situation, as the Arab Spring is generally considered to have originated in Tunisia and the country is now regarded as the most progressive in the region. A new press code is also in force in Tunisia.

Even though the Islamists have said that there is no place for Sharia in the constitution, other voices can be heard. Tunisia needs an open dialogue on economic, political and social issues. A challenge for the entire Arab world is how to bring society more into line with the values of democracy and closer to secularity. There is also concern that developments in Tunisia can be influenced by the current unrest in more than one country to the south, a problem that we are sure to return to even though it is outside the geographical area covered by the Council of Europe.

Some of the conclusions from Tunis were that the Arab world still had a long way to go, and that the fight for human rights, peace and justice continues. Europe has to support this process and assist the region, particularly in view of the fact that there is common interest on both sides. Many challenges remain and, although they might seem the same in all the countries, Tunisia can serve as an example for the whole region in the future.

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

Mr CHAGAF (Morocco) said that he congratulated the rapporteur on her outstanding report. The revolution in Tunisia had been the first spark that had released the forces of the masses, who had declared that enough was enough. He and his colleagues were duty-bound to support the wonderful experiment that was taking place and that would serve as an example to others. There were a number of challenges in Tunisia including the economy, unemployment, security issues and clandestine immigration. Tunisia faced a difficult economic and social situation,. Europe must make an effort to help and Tunisia’s Arab neighbours must display solidarity.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Mr Berkia is not present so I call Mr Ameur from Morocco, Partner for Democracy.

Mr AMEUR (Morocco) said that he congratulated the rapporteur on her report which had the dual merit of covering the subject in all its variety and of enabling a debate to take place. Throughout the debate, many members had shown concern about events, particularly in regard to the constitution and the position of women. It was important to put trust in the people and the democratic forces in Tunisia to consolidate their achievements regarding pluralism, women and freedom of expression, which had not been obtained without great sacrifice. Tunisia had men and women of great worth who could make the transition a success and the address by Mr Ben Jaafar, was a token and promise of success.

Morocco was undergoing its own transition and was following Tunisia with interest. The embedding of democracies across the region would give those countries the ability to face political and economic challenges, could serve as the basis on which to relaunch the Maghreb Union, and would be crucial for the region and its relations with Europe. Tunisia and others were making irreversible progress and were waiting for tangible support from Europe, as the danger lay not in religious extremism but in social inequalities and problems and youth unemployment which fuelled extremism. He praised Mr Jaafar, the head of the Tunisian Assembly, its members and the Tunisian people on their path to a new democracy.

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

Mr SABELLA (Palestinian National Council) – The Tunisian revolution has been, for the most part, a non-violent revolution that can serve as a model for the rest of the Arab world and its societies as we search for our democratic identities. As we hope that the revolution and its values will not be hijacked by extremist groups, we want to stress that the success of the democratic transition in Tunisia will be good not only to improve economic prospects, especially for young people, but to establish systems of governance and responsibilities that are compatible with the aspirations and expectations of all Tunisians.

We welcome Mr Ben Jaafar. I am sure that he is aware that our Palestinian members of parliament participated in observing the Tunisian elections, and that the Palestinian Central Elections Commission has had exchanges with its partner in Tunisia on election procedures and experiences.

Ms Brasseur has given a very positive report on Tunisia and its parliamentary experience, which, in our opinion, reflects the support that Europe has given to the Jasmine Revolution since it began. We hope that, within the Partnership for Democracy, Tunisia can join Morocco and Palestine in this important exchange of partnership across the Mediterranean.

We cannot but aspire to a Mediterranean space in which partnership between northern and southern neighbours promotes an agenda of democracy that is beneficial to all. Tunisia, certainly, with its rich experience of non-violent revolution and its tackling of the difficult issues of socio-economic development, deserves the support of all, particularly its northern neighbours, but it also deserves the respect of its Arab and Muslim neighbours as it seeks to mould a society based on the values of citizenship and pluralism.

We wish the Tunisian people all the best and we cannot, as Palestinians, forget all the support, hospitality and love given to our leadership, people and cause by the Tunisian people. I hope that we will see Tunisian representatives sitting next to the Moroccan and Palestinian representatives here in this august and well-liked Chamber of the Council of Europe.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Sabella.

That concludes the list of speakers.

I call Ms Brasseur, rapporteur, to reply. You have up to four minutes if you so wish, because there is a little time remaining.

Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg) said that not all aspects of the report were mentioned in her initial address, so she thanked those who had added to it. Several issues deserved further comment. The first was women’s rights, to underscore the need to resist pressures from those fundamentalists who wished to roll back progress made, and Mr Ben Jaafar was fully aware of the importance of these issues. Freedom of expression was important too, as shown by the exhibition example, as was dealing with the insecurity from which hooligans – who were not Salafists or extremists, but simply seeking destabilisation – were benefiting. The differences in the region had to be analysed and monitored. If granted an extension in her term, she hoped to visit all Tunisia’s regions to better understand those concerns. It was important not to forget about immigration, which was a reflection of the economic situation. She thanked all speakers for their interventions in what had been a constructive debate. There were two points to conclude with: concern at the situation, with a recognition for the need for vigilance; and hope in the determination of those fighting to improve the situation.

THE PRESIDENT called Mr Marcenaro, the chairperson of the committee.

Mr MARCENARO (Italy) said that he had no more to add to the important report by Ms Brasseur, which did not conceal the committee’s concerns but still reflected the trust and hope placed in Tunisia. It avoided giving lessons, which Europe was not entitled to do because it risked showing double standards, given that the French Government had been content to seek to develop ties with Mr Ben Ali when he was in power, and the rights of Tunisians in member countries were not always considered sufficiently. He had known Mr Jaafar and other members of his Assembly when they were a persecuted minority, but they were present today as heads of a national assembly. Hope had to guide the way forward and members had to put their trust in the Tunisian people. Finally, it was important to note that the term “Islamist” ignored the great cultural history of Islam and was often used in Islamophobic rhetoric.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you.

The debate is closed.

The committee has presented a draft resolution to which nine amendments have been tabled. Of these, Amendments 1 to 3 were unanimously approved by the committee, and may therefore be agreed by the Assembly under Rule 33.11.

Is that so, Mr Marcenaro?

Mr MARCENARO (Italy) (Translation) – That is the case.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – As there is no objection, I declare that Amendments 1 to 3 have been agreed.

The following amendments have been adopted:

Amendment 1, tabled by Ms Brasseur, Mr Jakič, Mr Kox, Lord Tomlinson, Mr Gross, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 17, insert the following paragraph:

“The Assembly calls on the authorities of the member and observer states of the Council of Europe to speed up legal procedures for the restitution to Tunisia of misappropriated assets and unlawfully acquired property held abroad by the former President Ben Ali and members of his entourage.”

Amendment 2, tabled by Ms Brasseur, Mr Jakič, Mr Kox, Lord Tomlinson, Mr Gross, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 18, insert the following paragraph:

“Taking into account the crucial importance of Tunisia's transition for the democratic processes throughout the Mediterranean region and the Middle East, and consequently for Europe, the Assembly decides to continue to follow closely developments in Tunisia.”

Amendment 3, tabled by Mr Mendes Bota, Mr Braga, Mr Kalmár, Ms Bilgehan, Ms Hägg, Ms Ohlsson, Ms Christoffersen, Mr Haugli, Ms Durrieu, Mr Rouquet, Mr Michel, Mr Baykal, Ms Vučković, Mr Stoilov, Ms Gajdůšková, Mr Lebeda, Ms Jonica, Ms Roseira, Mr Díaz Tejera, Mr Koç, Ms Marin, Ms Marland-Militello, Ms Quintanilla, Ms Schou, Mr Hunko, Ms Bergamini, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 1, replace the words “and dignity” with the following words: “, dignity and equality”.

We come now to Amendment 4, tabled by Mr Mendes Bota, Mr Braga, Mr Kalmár, Ms Bilgehan, Ms Hägg, Ms Ohlsson, Ms Christoffersen, Mr Haugli, Ms Durrieu, Mr Rouquet, Mr Michel, Mr Baykal, Ms Vučković, Mr Stoilov, Ms Gajdůšková, Mr Lebeda, Ms Jonica, Ms Roseira, Mr Díaz Tejera, Mr Koç, Ms Marin, Ms Marland-Militello, Ms Quintanilla, Ms Schou, Mr Hunko, Ms Bergamini, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 8, after the words “limitations of freedom”, insert the following words: “, particularly for women”.

I call Ms Bourzai to support Amendment 4.

Ms BOURZAI (France) said that women’s rights were key and therefore it was appropriate to refer to them in the text.

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

Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg) said that, though it was important to be vigilant regarding women’s rights, the text in the report referred to freedoms which concerned everybody, so a change would reduce the impact as women were already covered, and this applied to Amendments 4, 5 and 6.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – What is the view of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy?

Mr MARCENARO (Italy) (Translation) – The committee is against Amendments 4, 5 and 6, as they are all identical.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Amendment 4 is rejected.

We come now to Amendment 5, tabled by Mr Mendes Bota, Mr Braga, Mr Kalmár, Ms Bilgehan, Ms Hägg, Ms Ohlsson, Ms Christoffersen, Mr Haugli, Ms Durrieu, Mr Rouquet, Mr Michel, Mr Baykal, Ms Vučković, Mr Stoilov, Ms Gajdůšková, Mr Lebeda, Ms Jonica, Ms Roseira, Mr Díaz Tejera, Mr Koç, Ms Marin, Ms Marland-Militello, Ms Quintanilla, Ms Schou, Mr Hunko, Ms Bergamini, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 10.3, after the words “fundamental freedoms”, insert the following words: “, particularly for women”.

I assume that Ms Bourzai also supports Amendment 5.

Ms BOURZAI (France) (Translation) – Yes.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I take it that Ms Brasseur’s view is the same as for the previous amendment.

Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg) (Translation) – Yes.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – We know the view of the Committee.

The vote is open.

Amendment 5 is rejected.

We come now to Amendment 6, tabled by Mr Mendes Bota, Mr Braga, Mr Kalmár, Ms Bilgehan, Ms Hägg, Ms Ohlsson, Ms Christoffersen, Mr Haugli, Ms Durrieu, Mr Rouquet, Mr Michel, Mr Baykal, Ms Vučković, Mr Stoilov, Ms Gajdůšková, Mr Lebeda, Ms Jonica, Ms Roseira, Mr Díaz Tejera, Mr Koç, Ms Marin, Ms Marland-Militello, Ms Quintanilla, Ms Schou, Mr Hunko, Ms Bergamini, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 12.1.1, after the words “human rights”, insert the following words: “, particularly for women,”.

I assume that Ms Bourzai also supports Amendment 6.

Ms BOURZAI (France) (Translation) – Yes.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I take it that Ms Brasseur’s view is again the same.

Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg) (Translation) – Yes.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – We know the view of the Committee.

The vote is open.

Amendment 6 is rejected.

We come now to Amendment 7, tabled by Mr Mendes Bota, Mr Braga, Mr Kalmár, Ms Bilgehan, Ms Hägg, Ms Ohlsson, Ms Christoffersen, Mr Haugli, Ms Durrieu, Mr Rouquet, Mr Michel, Mr Baykal, Ms Vučković, Mr Stoilov, Ms Gajdůšková, Mr Lebeda, Ms Jonica, Ms Roseira, Mr Díaz Tejera, Mr Koç, Ms Marin, Ms Marland-Militello, Ms Quintanilla, Ms Schou, Mr Hunko, Ms Bergamini, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 12.1.3, add the following words:

“, including the Convention on Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)”.

I call Ms Bourzai to support Amendment 7.

Ms BOURZAI (France) (Translation) – The amendment speaks for itself.

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

Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg) said that she was against the amendment for the same reasons.

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

Mr MARCENARO (Italy) (Translation) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Amendment 7 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 8, tabled by Mr Mendes Bota, Mr Braga, Mr Kalmár, Ms Bilgehan, Ms Hägg, Ms Ohlsson, Ms Christoffersen, Mr Haugli, Ms Durrieu, Mr Rouquet, Mr Michel, Mr Baykal, Ms Vučković, Mr Stoilov, Ms Gajdůšková, Mr Lebeda, Ms Jonica, Ms Roseira, Mr Díaz Tejera, Mr Koç, Ms Marin, Ms Marland-Militello, Ms Quintanilla, Ms Schou, Mr Hunko and Ms Bergamini, which is, in the draft resolution, insert paragraph 12.1.8 after paragraph 12.1.1.

I call Ms Bourzai to support Amendment 8.

Ms BOURZAI (France) (Translation) – I support Amendment 8 for the same reasons that I gave earlier.

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

Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg) said that there was a logic in the enumeration used in the report and she wished to keep it.

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

Mr MARCENARO (Italy) (Translation) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Amendment 8 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 9, tabled by Mr Mendes Bota, Mr Braga, Mr Kalmár, Ms Bilgehan, Ms Hägg, Ms Ohlsson, Ms Christoffersen, Mr Haugli, Ms Durrieu, Mr Rouquet, Mr Michel, Mr Baykal, Ms Vučković, Mr Stoilov, Ms Gajdůšková, Mr Lebeda, Ms Jonica, Ms Roseira, Mr Díaz Tejera, Mr Koç, Ms Marin, Ms Marland-Militello, Ms Quintanilla, Ms Schou, Mr Hunko, and Ms Bergamini, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 12.2, after the word “NCA”, insert the following words:

“, including women’s organisations”.

I take it that Ms Bourzai supports Amendment 9?

Ms BOURZAI (France) (Translation) – Yes, for the same reasons given earlier.

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

Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg) said the report referenced consultations with civil society which already included women and so the amendment was not required.

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

Mr MARCENARO (Italy) (Translation) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Amendment 9 is rejected.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 12949, as amended.

The vote is open.

Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg) said that she had neglected to thank the Secretariat and, in particular, Mr Pavel Chevtchenko.

THE PRESIDENT underscored the importance of the excellent work of the secretariats of the committees, which often took place at very short notice.

He reiterated his words of welcome to Mr Ben Jaafar, President of the Constituent Assembly of Tunisia, on behalf of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. The august Chamber was a temple of democracy and history and a fitting venue in which to receive him. The fact that the Assembly had held an important debate that week on the situation in Tunisia and that Mr Ben Jaafar was present for this discussion boded well for future co-operation. The words of Mr Marcenaro had underscored the enormous importance of this collaborative process.

Indeed, events in the Arab world in the past two years had highlighted the importance of such co-operation. Democracy, stability, peace and sustainable development were not the exclusive privilege or prerogative of a particular people or nation; every human being had that need and right. The Tunisian revolution had demonstrated this to the world and established irresistible momentum among the people of the region, momentum which needed to be supported.

Under the presidency of Mr Ben Jaafar, the Constituent Assembly had an historic duty to write a constitution that embodied the hopes and aspirations of the Tunisian revolution and secured basic rights and democratic freedoms. These were the very reasons for which the Council of Europe had been set up in 1949. The resolution just unanimously adopted by the Council of Europe clearly expressed its commitment to contribute its experience and expertise and he encouraged Mr Ben Jaafar to avail himself of this assistance. He reiterated his invitation to the Constituent Assembly to Partner for Democracy status in the Assembly of the Council of Europe as enjoyed by Morocco and the Palestinian National Council. He noted with pleasure that the Palestinian delegation had invited the Tunisians to sit with them in the Assembly.

He then gave Mr Ben Jaafar the floor.

Mr BEN JAAFAR, (President of the Constituent Assembly of Tunisia), said that he had prepared a traditional speech presenting the work of the Constituent Assembly elected on 23 October 2011. He expressed heartfelt thanks to Ms Brasseur for her report, which had made it clear that the Assembly had made considerable progress. However, he did not want to give that traditional speech and instead wanted to give a snapshot of the work of the Constituent Assembly, answer questions from delegates and discuss their concerns. He was aware that voting on the resolution had already taken place, but he did not want to leave without addressing any misunderstandings.

All observers had agreed that the Tunisian Revolution was exemplary. It had been quiet and peaceful and had removed a dictator at much lower cost than in comparable uprisings in neighbouring and distant countries alike. Tunisia had undergone remarkable change in the short period between 14 January 2011 and the first pluralistic elections in the country’s history on 23 October 2011. It was inevitable that there would be some problems in this process.

Ms Brasseur had visited Tunisia during the elections to observe proceedings. He stressed that the Tunisian experience was not so different from other democratic transitions and discussion of this had been absent from the debate. There were forces in Tunisia pulling in different directions. The new Constituent Assembly was preparing a constitution but elements of security, administrative and media institutions still loyal to the Ben Ali regime were pushing in the opposite direction. This factor had not been given appropriate consideration in the debate. There was a risk that every democratic transition, including, for example, those in eastern Europe following the fall of the Berlin Wall, could fail because of internal forces loyal to previous regimes who sought to recover lost privilege and influence. It was imperative that this should never be forgotten.

There had been violent episodes by the Salafists, but these incidents were more isolated and unusual than implied by Ms Brasseur’s report. These disruptions appeared new and suggested forces external to Tunisian society. However, these views had always existed in Tunisia but, like pro-democratic opinions, they too had been suppressed by the previous regime. Tunisia was no longer under total oppression and there was now freedom for every viewpoint, including those we found repugnant. This phenomenon explained events that had taken place. Violent incidents perpetrated by Salafists were more newsworthy than institutional progress in the Assembly and Tunisia was not the Kandahar it appeared on the news. He said that 2011 had been a difficult year for Tunisia, with economic difficulty and demonstrations and that this environment was conducive to unwelcome events. He was concerned that there was a lingering nostalgia for Ben Ali’s time in some quarters.

One of the contributors to the debate had spoken about political Islam. Based on recent election results, it seemed that the wind was blowing in favour of political Islam. It was important to strengthen links with those groups in order to understand them. Too much oppression led to extremism. However, there were extremists in every society. Even old democracies had extremists. Every day, it was possible to read in the newspapers about individual acts of extremism. Obviously, Tunisia must deal with its extremists, but the question was how. One of the answers was through dialogue. When extremism entered the political arena the only solution was to apply the rule of law. The people who were running the country today had been the victims of oppression in the past. Now, those people were holding the stick, but the question was whether they would use it in the same way as Ben Ali. To begin with, it had seemed that there was a great deal of hesitancy, which had been interpreted as leniency. However, hesitancy and leniency were over if there was anyone who was even thinking about using violence. The door to dialogue remained open, though.

No less important was the issue of the place of women in Tunisian society. There were no important movements or parties represented in the National Constituent Assembly that had not said time and time again that they were committed to what women had achieved so far in society. Many Tunisians had fought for equality for men and women, but it was important to remain vigilant. No gain was guaranteed for life. Tunisia was in a post-revolutionary phase and was dealing with many problems, but it had a model of society that it would protect tooth and nail. Tunisian women were doing well.

There had been 20 years of “desertification” under Ben Ali. It had been a time without discussion or dialogue, when some groups had to meet and work in secret. As a result, now it was necessary to fight poverty and ignorance and to address low levels of political and social culture, which did not thrive in a context of oppression. The few Salafist groups that had been mentioned were the result of poverty and a lack of freedom. What women had achieved had been the result of a great struggle on the part of democrats, who were the real majority in Tunisia. He wanted fairness and objectivity in dealing with the facts. It was important to see things with one’s own eyes. That was why the report was so important. Ms Brasseur had produced a report that was based on reality as she had come to Tunisia and seen the situation there herself. Everyone said that Tunisia’s revolution should be an example, but no one in Tunisia wanted to have to defend biased views about what was going on in the country.

He would explain what had happened in relation to the art exhibition. A few photographs had been displayed and no one had taken any interest, but on the last day someone had taken photographs of the photographs and had posted them on the Internet. The photographs were taken into mosques, the Salafists were asked what they had been doing about the situation and this ignited a strong reaction. In the end, it had been revealed that the person who took the photographs was a member of the political party of the old regime. It was not the Salafists who had created the situation. People who were a thousand kilometres away might not find it probable, but it was what had happened. The situation had been manipulated by forces that did not want democracy to continue. That sort of thing usually happened when the train of democracy was on track. Tunisia was sticking to its timeline and moving forward, which was why some people were trying to derail the train of democracy.

Transition to democracy could take many years and Tunisia was in a delicate phase in that transition. There were still forces that were nostalgic about the past. Lots of attention was being paid to Tunisia, which made Tunisians proud and pleased, but it gave those who were taking democracy forward an even bigger responsibility, because if they succeeded the impact would be felt outside Tunisia as well. This was a heavy responsibility but it would only make Tunisia work even harder. He asked delegates whether they remembered that in the first few weeks after the revolution it had been suggested that presidential elections should take place 60 days after the revolution was over. He asked those present to imagine what would have happened if that had occurred. Instead, Tunisia had chosen to stick to the path of drafting a new constitution, which meant creating a constituent assembly.

In his personal opinion, no matter which path Tunisia chose to reach democracy, it would have been made clear that democracy could be combined with Islam. The first demand of the revolution had been freedom, and freedom would remain Tunisian’s goal no matter what price it had to pay. Tunisia was on track towards democracy, but it could not shoulder the responsibility of the transition to democracy alone. The problems had accumulated over many years and could not be solved over one year. An economic plan would be one of the top priorities for the government that would be created after the elections. That government would also start a programme of fundamental reforms, but those reforms could not be started while Tunisia was still in a state of emergency. In an emergency, one can only deal with problems as they come up. Tunisia had devoted a quarter of the budget next year to solving social problems. However, it would have to return to economic orthodoxy soon and to apply traditional standards to preserve an economic balance.

It was clear that problems remained in some fields and he would do his utmost to solve them. He was grateful for the compassion, solidarity, warmth and hospitality shown to Tunisia since 14 January 2011, and thanked the President for the hospitality that the Assembly had shown during his visit.

Tunisia’s future was obviously in the hands of its people and had to be considered in the correct geopolitical context, but it was clear that future was unimaginable without co-operation in the Maghreb region and between Europe and Tunisia, and such partnerships would be based on universal values such as freedom and equality for men and women.

Illegal immigration remained an acute problem, and one which increased during the summer and kept many people awake at night. It was therefore important for North-South Mediterranean relations to be reassessed in the context of a co-development plan, because this offered one possible way to solve the problem. Frequent references were made to the idea of a common future for prosperity, but this was not possible without changing policy approaches to trade, investment and commercial activities which prevented the free movement of peoples. Only with such a change of vision would Europe be able to look to a common future.

Despite what was said in some quarters, there was no conflict between democracy and Islam in the Tunisian Revolution. Both the political elite and the young people had chosen a road of change which looked to build up democracy slowly and with care, with consensus between different factions; this was the best path to take, even with the obstacles created in the conflict between progressive and conservative forces.

He thanked the Assembly for its hospitality and apologised for going beyond his allotted time.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you very much.

I am terribly sorry, but we have another debate, so we must conclude.

3. Roma migrants in Europe

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The next item of business this afternoon is the debate on the Report titled “Roma migrants in Europe”, Document 12950, presented by Ms Annette Groth on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, with opinions presented by Mr Miloš Aligrudić on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, Document 12987, and Mr Ferenc Kalmár on behalf of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, Document 12982.

We will also have an address by Mr Rudko Kawczynski, President of the European Roma and Travellers Forum.

In order to finish by 7.30 p.m., we must interrupt the list of speakers at about 7.10 p.m. to allow time for the reply and the vote.

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

Ms GROTH (Germany) said that she intended to speak in German at this stage and then in English when taking questions and dealing with amendments. It was difficult to move directly from the issue of Tunisia to that of the Roma, but hoped that those present had read at least the summary of the report.

The report was directed against prejudice against migrant groups, an unacceptable phenomenon which had to be combated, as it lay at the heat of discrimination against the Roma. Such discrimination was unfair and often resulted in persecution and in violence. One such prejudice was the idea that Roma were nomadic and always looked elsewhere for work and a new life. This had been perpetuated for many decades but was false: only between 5% and 20 % of Roma were nomadic and classed as Travellers.

Another prejudice was the idea of Roma as foreigners. Again, this was false: Roma had been an integral part of Europe’s diverse society and culture for more than 700 years. The third, and worst of the prejudices perpetuated, was the idea that migration by Roma was illegal. The reality was that many were EU citizens of countries such as Greece and Bulgaria, and as a result had a right to travel, but this was being reduced at present. This led to an association with criminality, but this was false and had to be tackled. There was work to be done to combat the idea, spread by the media, that Roma begged and lived at the expense of others.

In order to combat such prejudices, it was important to examine and analyse structural discrimination at all levels of society, particularly concerning access to housing and disproportionate levels of unemployment in the Roma community, which was often the case for foreigners in countries. To do this, efforts had to be made to develop national action plans to combat discrimination, promote integration and ensure better access to schools and housing.

The report also made an urgent appeal to member states to stop mass expulsion of Roma, particularly where they would be deported to Kosovo, until their safety could be guaranteed. At present, France and the UK were deporting Roma back to Kosovo, even though they were EU citizens, and Germany had done the same. It was a situation fostered by widespread prejudice and it was unacceptable, and a clear violation of human rights to deport those Roma who had grown up in the countries concerned and who lacked any understanding of Romany languages. It was also imperative to ensure that stateless Roma were given passports because these were an important proof of identity document. The Council of Europe was committed to human rights, which existed for everybody, whether Roma or not, and so there was a clear challenge to confront whilst there remained structural discrimination and the daily abuse of binding conventions.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Groth. You have about five minutes remaining.

I call Mr Aligrudić, Rapporteur of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, to present the committee’s opinion. You have four minutes.

Mr ALIGRUDIĆ (Serbia) – I welcome Mr Rudko Kawczynski and thank him for participating in the debate. He is the President of the European Roma and Travellers Forum. The Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy welcomes Ms Groth’s report on Roma migrants in Europe. By combating prejudice and hatred, it strives to provide the preconditions for the realisation of all fundamental human rights. The Roma are among the most vulnerable and discriminated against ethnic groups in Europe. Their position is objectively very difficult in almost all member states. They experience various forms of humiliation because of their traditional way of life, as well as the unwillingness of society to allow their proper inclusion. We should speak openly about this issue, and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe is the right place to do that.

Perhaps some of Ms Groth’s proposed recommendations were a little overstated, including her position on the three deep-rooted prejudices. I am sure that hardly anyone really believes that all Roma are nomads, illegal migrants or foreigners. Nevertheless, the fact is that prejudices exist. They appear on a daily basis in the form of generalisations and the labelling of whole groups of people. One of the most dangerous biases involves the widespread tendency to make a generalised link between the Roma and criminality. Such biases greatly affect the Roma and leave them vulnerable to all forms of discrimination. The Roma are also often the victims of direct and indirect racial discrimination, by state institutions and by individuals, in such areas as access to employment, housing, health care and social care. It is evident that Ms Groth is pledging to fight these prejudices in her report.

The constant fight against these prejudices and against discrimination in general is a crucial, indispensable step towards improving the position of this vulnerable group. The recommendations address various forms of discrimination and examine how prejudices arise in the first place. They also urge the Committee of Ministers to pay special attention to the dangerous situation of the Roma who do not have their own state and now live as refugees or internally displaced persons in member states. Furthermore, the report supports the recommendation of the Commissioner for Human Rights that the forced return of Roma to Kosovo be suspended until it is shown to be safe and sustainable.

The Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy has proposed one amendment to Ms Groth’s draft recommendation, which would insert an important sentence in the explanatory memorandum emphasising the legitimate interest of member states in regulating migration in such a manner that the asylum system is not abused. This implies that the right to regulate migration should be implemented in accordance with uniform rules, which is currently not always the case. The amendment would introduce the necessary balance and improve the recommendations. On behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, I ask that you vote for the report and the recommendations proposed by Ms Groth, as well as the proposed amendment.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Mr Kalmár, Rapporteur of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, to present the Committee’s opinion. You have four minutes.

Mr KALMÁR (Hungary) – The Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination congratulates the rapporteur on her well-researched report, and supports the draft recommendations. History has shown us that poverty and large gaps between social strata represent a serious threat to the stability of our social and political system. Therefore, we can say that the position of the Roma people is an economic, social and also political risk for Europe which we have to address.

The report demolishes widespread misconceptions and stereotypes of Roma migrants in Europe, while presenting factual evidence about their situation. The report is also in line with the principles consistently promoted by the Parliamentary Assembly and enshrined in its texts. The Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination can only support reports that identify discriminatory policies affecting migrants and ask that Council of Europe member states address them. The measures proposed in the draft recommendation are all the more necessary and timely during this economic crisis and financial emergency, as the rights of minorities and disadvantaged groups go down the list of priorities on the political agendas of Council of Europe member states.

In addition, Roma people and migrants are often made scapegoats for the current, difficult situation. The report is very comprehensive and I can subscribe to it in its entirety. As Ms Groth highlights, Roma migrants live in particularly difficult conditions and suffer from multiple discrimination – as Roma and as migrants. Stigmatisation in public discussion and political discourse, as well as stereotyping in the media, fuel discrimination against Roma and make their integration even more difficult.

Roma women and girls face particular difficulties, as they are discriminated both within and outside their communities, and are victims of gender-based violence in a number of forms. These include domestic violence, forced marriage, rape and marital rape, economic violence, and physical and verbal abuse. Roma women and girls – but also children generally – are disproportionately affected by human trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation, labour exploitation and coercion into illegal activities. The social and economic vulnerability of these groups in particular, but also of Roma people in general, increase the incidence of human trafficking. Limited access to justice jeopardises the opportunity of Roma people to seek redress against discrimination and human rights violations. Laws should be the same for everyone.

My committee has proposed three important amendments. However, I have been told that they have been accepted, so I will not talk about them now. Let me finish by thanking the secretariat of our committee for its back-office work.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Kalmár.

Distinguished colleagues, I now have the pleasure of welcoming among us Mr Rudko Kawczynski, the President of the European Roma and Travellers Forum. Mr Kawczynski, we are happy to be able to hear the voice of the Roma today, as you are the largest minority to live throughout Europe. Too often, the Roma are not given sufficient involvement in discussions in which they have a stake. However, this is not the first time that our Assembly has taken up the issue of the status and situation of the Roma. On the contrary, it has had a pioneering role since the 1960s. Unfortunately, progress in this field remains modest, which is why we regularly draw the attention of member states and the Committee of Ministers to the situation.

On the institutional front, our Assembly last year signed a co-operation agreement with the European Roma and Travellers Forum, of which you are president. This co-operation agreement is unique. It means that, henceforth, we can bring in representatives of the Roma to participate in the Assembly’s work on Roma issues. I am confident that this co-operation will develop fruitfully from today’s beginnings.

Sir, allow me to thank you for the tangible contribution that you have made to the preparation of the report that we are discussing. We are particularly happy that you should be able to participate in our discussions today. You have the floor.

Mr KAWCZYNSKI (President of the European Roma and Travellers Forum) said that he was delighted to speak for his organisation in the Assembly. No other minority had been so persecuted over centuries as the Roma, only Jews had suffered the same amount of injustice and no minority had been subject to so many false portrayals. He was delighted to welcome this objective and accurate report. For many years, the Council of Europe had highlighted the lack of observance of human rights across Europe, but its reports often left the perpetrators, who failed to heed international pressure, cold. “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, in the last year, had introduced a policy of prohibiting Roma from exit visas. This was tantamount to overt discrimination and threatened a new Berlin Wall. Even in the darkest days of Stalinism there had never been an explicit ban on travel for a specific ethnic group. Special passport markings for Roma from “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” recalled 20th century German history. Roma were prevented from attending family occasions. Across Europe, Roma had found their settlements destroyed or suddenly declared illegal. Too many European countries ignored the rights of Roma and failed to combat the segregation of ethnic groups and media harassment. Many Roma had emigrated to Canada or elsewhere and, in many ways, it was the most unfortunate who had remained in Europe.

European governments had passed the buck and prevented the 2 million Roma refugees from settling, resulting in widespread poverty and starvation. In a climate of rising nationalism, minorities were being made scapegoats and the victims were too often labelled as perpetrators. Governments had adopted a default anti-Roma stance and targeted their policies on them.

The co-operation agreement had been signed in 2011 and work on a programme for political progress had begun, but the report would not deliver overnight change. A strong relationship between the Council of Europe and the European Roma and Travellers Forum was vital to force a change of approach in member states. Fifteen million Roma were living under a state of apartheid and it was time to put an end to 700 years of persecution. He called on the Assembly to continue to support progress.

THE PRESIDENT said that he thanked Mr Kawczynski and called Ms Sanin to speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Ms SANÍN (Spain) said that she hoped that the report would be unanimously approved. It was imperative to retain the sanctity of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations in 1948 and guarantee fundamental freedoms without exception. Ethnic minorities were often the most vulnerable groups and therefore the first to have their human rights breached. They therefore needed the most protection to guarantee minimum standards of human dignity.

It was necessary to take steps to counter discrimination against the Roma, to permit free legal migration, to better educate the population, to facilitate access to society until minority groups were fully integrated and prohibit any forced collective expulsions based on ethnicity. It was vital that politicians were not swept along by xenophobic values and instead fought for social justice.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Schennach on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) said that reading the report made it clear that the situation of the Roma represented a failure throughout Europe. It was an issue in western Europe as well as in eastern Europe. Europe was failing to deal appropriately with its largest minority and confronted a catastrophic situation. Some 12 million Roma were European citizens. Europe was denying them the right to housing, health services and education. It was a vicious circle, because Europe had started to combat the Roma as a problem rather than looking at the sources of the problem. Life expectancy among the Roma in Europe was 50 and child mortality levels were higher than among any other group in Europe. In Slovakia, 80% of Roma children attended schools that specialised in learning difficulties. In Bulgaria, the school drop-out rate for Roma children was above 30%. In Romania, 5% of Roma children were denied birth certificates. In Austria, the Roma also faced a difficult situation. It was not until the 1990s that they had been acknowledged as a minority and granted rights. Roma in Austria were sometimes attacked.

When it came to organised criminality, Roma played a role both as perpetrators and also as victims. In some places, Roma settlements were being blocked by concrete walls so they could not be seen. This was a serious situation. Roma had a part to play in resolving it. It was essential that they stopped seeing themselves as victims and started to act. They must acknowledge that some Roma were involved in organised crime and prostitution and in sending their children out on the streets to beg.

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

Ms ACKETOFT (Sweden) – A famous Danish author once wrote, “Everybody knows that Jeppe is drinking but nobody is asking why.” To me, that seems to be the way that we regard the Roma in many of our member countries. We all seem to know exactly what the Roma are, but we never ask ourselves who they are or why.

I congratulate the rapporteur on exploring the myths and prejudices that exist and on asking the all-important question of what lies behind them. She has also suggested remedies. We all seem to be in agreement today, but I must say that when we were debating this report in the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, I was not just surprised but astonished by some of the remarks made by my fellow members. They said Roma do not want to mix with others; Roma do not want to live in proper homes; Roma do not want to go to school, or send their children to school; Roma do not want to work. They said that Roma seemed to want to be on the move constantly, to live out in the free and to beg, steal or be active in other types of criminal activity. Nobody asked why.

Why do Roma not want to live in proper homes? Because they cannot acquire a lease. Why do they not want to go to school? Because schools have been used as a tool by the state apparatus to “de-Romanise” them. Children have even been taken into care and placed in “normal” families in the quest for assimilation. Why do Roma not want to work? Because they cannot get employment, due to discrimination and a lack of schooling. Why do Roma not want to mix with others, and why are they moving or migrating? Because of everything that I have just said. Why should they want to mix with us, or to stay in communities that do not want them?

We must also consider whom we are really talking about. Roma people should have the same right as other Europeans to be seen and treated individually. They have the same right to non-discrimination as any other citizen. I am not saying that there are not individual Roma who cause problems, or that laws should be applied differently for cultural reasons, particularly in the case of the rights of girls and women. Just as I do not have any problem saying that there are criminal Swedes, Englishmen, or French people, I know that not all Roma are angels. However, we have laws for dealing with problems on an individual basis. Roma must not be passed off as a social problem – they are people who have social problems, and they are a national minority.

We in this Assembly are always keen and eager to fight for human rights and non-discrimination for people all over the world, but we turn our backs on our own minority. That is simply not acceptable, and it is high time that we started turning centuries of malpractice into good practice in this Assembly and in our own nations. This report is a good contribution to that work, and on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, I stand fully behind it. I am happy to say that the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination has tabled a motion focusing on schooling and education as a way of ending discrimination against Roma children. The work continues.

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

Ms ANDERSEN (Norway) – I thank the rapporteur for her important work and I thank Ms Acketoft for her speech. I truly agree with everything that she said.

This is a test for us, because human rights apply to everybody. When it comes to the subject of Roma, a lot of people and a lot of politicians – even here, as we have heard today – try to back away. As the rapporteur said, Roma are seen as foreigners and strangers, not as our people. That is the situation in Norway. We have to tackle hundreds of years of discrimination at a time when Europe is facing austerity, a financial crisis and other such problems. That fuels right-wing nationalist and racist movements, which are currently strengthening themselves. This is difficult. I have been working on that problem back home, and I know that not one voter will vote for me because I fight on this. On the contrary, my e-mail inbox is full of messages from people who say, “They’re all criminals. You are stupid and naďve.” We have to speak the truth about the situation, and that is how it is in many countries.

I wonder what will happen when we go home. Will we really do what we are committing ourselves to do today? It is a test. The rapporteur said a lot of important things, including that we need action plans against racism. Yes, we do; in every country we need action plans to tackle education, housing, jobs and so on. Every country has tried, and my country has not been effective at it at all, but some countries must have best practice. We will need to look into that best practice, so I also welcome the proposal from Ms Acketoft that we should look further into this; it has to be done.

We also have to recognise that those who travel and those who do not can need different policies. More people are travelling these days because of the situation in their home countries. Perhaps some countries are not interested in bettering that situation because they would rather that people left. In Norway, some parties want to prohibit begging on the streets, to minimise the incoming Roma population – and they argue, of course, that Roma are all criminals and are engaged in human trafficking. It is not harmful to reach out your hand and beg for money, and we cannot deny people the right to ask their fellow citizens for help if they are in need.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Mr Frunda is not here, so the next speaker is Ms Bourzai.

Ms BOURZAI (France) said that it had been just two years since the Assembly had last talked about the situation of the Roma in Europe. This demonstrated how difficult and active the problems were, and how inadequate the response had been. The report had targeted one of the most knotty parts of the problem: the negative image people had of the Roma. The situation had not improved at all. If anything, anti-Roma talk was increasing in the media and among some politicians. It was the duty of members of the Council of Europe to make representations in their own countries to stress that there was nothing illegal about the Roma being present in European Union countries. The European Union had free movement of people. However, some countries, such as the United Kingdom, still limited access to the jobs market in the case of people from Bulgaria and Romania. This was problematic and it would be good if it were brought to an end before the scheduled finishing date of 31 December 2013. The example of other countries suggested that the impact of the Roma on the jobs market would not be significant.

The Roma were a diverse population. To take just one example, every year the French Senate awarded a prize to the best apprentice in France. For the last two years, it had been won by young Roma women. This provided a positive example. Education was a crucial factor. It was important to explain who the Roma were, without promoting unnecessary positive discrimination. It was important to bring the Roma into the fold to join all other citizens.She had one regret about the report: it did not say anything about Roma women. Whereas Roma men were the victims of double discrimination in that they were migrants and they were Roma, Roma women were the victims of triple discrimination in that they were women, migrants and Roma.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Ms Erkal Kara is not here and nor is Ms Brasseur, so Ms Christoffersen has the floor.

Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – I thank Mr Kawczynski for his statement. Reading Ms Groth’s report makes a strong impression, and hearing the story told by someone in the midst of this situation makes an even stronger impression. The core question is: are we ready to act? So far, willingness to act seems in short supply all over Europe. This is our third debate on Roma questions in two years. In addition, we had the pan-European summit brought about by the expulsion of Roma from France in summer 2010.

We all remember our Secretary General’s initial ambition to re-establish the Council of Europe as the strongest voice on human rights in Europe. The position of the Roma people is an important touchstone of that effort. He also underlined the need to concentrate our resources against the most significant threats to human rights in Europe today. One of them is the growing existence of extreme groups that attack vulnerable minorities. Such forces are very active in relation to Roma. Another threat is pure discrimination, especially when staged by governments; the report clearly states that as the fact when it comes to Roma. What will be our response to that, not only in this Assembly but back home as national parliamentarians? Do we have the courage to confront the racist forces loud and clear? Do we have the will to challenge legislation and practices in our own countries? Or do we simply choose the path of least resistance? I am afraid that we will tend to choose the latter.

Why am I saying this? Simply because of the fact that the Roma question has been on our agenda for a long, long time – ever since 1969, when the first official documents on the situation for Gypsies and other Travellers were adopted. So far, there has been more than 40 years of talking. It is also worth noting that it took as many as 20 years from the founding of the Council of Europe until the human rights of Roma were even placed on the agenda, despite the ethnic cleansing they were exposed to during the war.

It is high time for action. Therefore, I am content with the fifth paragraph in the draft recommendation, which calls for an analysis of legislation and practices in all member states. In Norway these days, we face two proposals, which call for attention. The first is to criminalise begging. The other is imprisonment on special terms for pickpockets from Romania, and only Romania. With our present red-green majority, those proposals will not be adopted, but they could be in the future. Therefore, I hope that the proposed analysis involves not only legislation that is in force, but any proposal from governments or oppositions.

In voting for the recommendation today, each of us will take on an obligation to secure proper follow-up from the Committee of Ministers. We can do that by posing a direct request from each parliament to our respective Minister of Foreign Affairs. I think we should do that.

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

Mr NIKOLOSKI (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”) – To be honest, I was planning to give another speech, which I had prepared, but I have to cut down my remarks because of the address from the President of the European Roma and Travellers Forum.

In short, I welcome the report and thank the rapporteurs for the great work that they have done. I am clearly saying that I will support this.

To go to my points, which were provoked by the speech we heard earlier, I respect the democratic right of everybody to say whatever they want or think, but we should be very careful with the terms that we use and we should be responsible in what we say.

To say that somebody is acting like the Nazis in the Second World War is something that someone should think about before they say it. I think this is an abuse of the freedom that this Assembly gives to the representatives who come here. Mr President, I think that you should have reacted during the speech. Democracy does not allow the use of words that mean something to all of a nation and for which that nation was not responsible. I will give the facts. First, Mr Kawczynski, you said that there is a prohibition on Roma people from the Roma region who live in Macedonia leaving the country and that there are special systems because they are Roma. That is not true. There are facts, which can be checked, and it is not true.

It is true that after the visa liberalisation that happened for three countries of the western Balkans, a lot of people were leaving Macedonia and asking for asylum. It is true that, mainly, the Belgian authorities came to the country and asked for that process to be stopped. If you are ready to use these words, please say the same words about Belgium, but I think that you are not ready to do that because Belgium is in another position. So please, next time, say that the Belgians are acting like the Nazis in the Second World War if you want to be fair.

What happened was that a lot of people – mainly from the Roma region, it is true – sought asylum in Belgium, because when they go and apply for asylum they receive some funds there. A request was made to change the law and to ask all people when they are leaving the country, “What is the purpose of leaving the country?” So everybody – everybody – no matter whether they are Macedonian, Albanian, Turkish, Serbian, Roma, Vlach or any nationality that lives in Macedonia, when they are leaving the country, has to say to the authorities, first, why they are leaving and, secondly, where they are going, as well as whether they have someone waiting for them there, whether they have booked a hotel or whether they have somewhere to stay. If they are going to work, they have to say whether they have a working visa. There is nothing different from any other European country.

I have just spoken with the MPs of Macedonia who are Roma and they do not agree with what Mr Kawczynski said. Furthermore, just to inform members, first, the Roma people are mentioned in the preamble of the Constitution of Macedonia, which is the only example in Europe of the Roma people being part of the constitution and part of the nation that founded the country.

Secondly, Roma are members of parliament and Ministers of the Roma region. There are not many such examples in Europe. Thirdly, the first municipality of the Roma people was created in Macedonia, in the capital, Skopje. Fourthly, there is primary and higher education in the Roma language in Macedonia.

Fifthly, there is special medical care for everybody who is unable to pay for it if they are from the Roma region. Sixthly, the Decade of Roma Inclusion was adopted, and it was presented by Macedonia. Seventhly, the Parliament of Macedonia adopted a declaration on the improvement of the situation and the rights of the Roma on 8 April 2011, supported by all political parties.

Those are the facts about Macedonia, and the facts about how we work and how we respect the people who are one of the six founding nations of our country. The founding nations of our country are the Macedonian, Albanian, Turkish, Vlach, Roma and Serbian nations. Those six founding nations are respected in the country.

I have given some examples and we can discuss them. Please, next time, choose the words you are using carefully.

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

Mr VORUZ (Switzerland) said that Ms Groth’s report demonstrated the reality of the situation. Before new legislation on asylum was enacted in Switzerland, he always asked for consideration of the causes of immigration. This was because national law was enacted upstream; when one looked downstream, to the situation in the countries from where people emigrated, there was often poverty and instances of people being chased from their homeland, so it was important to take steps at that level first. In some cases, there were people who were refugees. Despite this, action had to be taken to stop the begging – which was not a substitute for social services – and this presented a challenge for governments. It was also important to dismantle mafia networks, as shown by the discovery the previous week of a large criminal network who were trafficking women and children, as well as committing acts of theft and fraud, at the border between Switzerland and France. This was a facet that was not emphasised enough in the otherwise excellent report.

Attention had to be directed towards the 680 000 Roma rendered stateless following the non-renewal of their passports after events in eastern Europe. The situation was unacceptable: individuals needed passports, whether from home or host countries, and the committee had to focus its attention on the issue. Nevertheless, the report, even with the amendments proposed, should be approved, and its recommendations addressed in member states.

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

Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – It is important that our Assembly keeps the issue of the Roma in Europe high on its agenda. The Council of Europe has contributed substantially to drawing attention to Roma issues, including fighting stereotypes and empowering the Roma. In particular, I should mention Dosta, an awareness-raising campaign aimed at bringing non-Roma closer to Roma citizens. Dosta tries to put an end to prejudice and stereotyping not by denouncing them but by breaking them down, to show who the Roma really are.

The establishment of the European Roma and Travellers Forum is another commendable effort of the Council of Europe. As a matter of fact, the ERTF has become the first ever representative body of European Roma, which not only gives a voice to the Roma but clearly demonstrates the professional and intellectual potential of the European Roma community. Today’s speech by the ERTF president, Rudko Kawczynski, was good evidence of that. I am convinced that our Assembly needs permanent contacts and institutional co-operation with the ERTF.

Nevertheless, I regret to have to admit that I do not see many reasons for optimism. In the past 20 years, all major European organisations have taken up the issue of Roma inclusion. Great efforts have been made and substantial funds have been spent, but the results so far are no more than modest. The situation is dangerous because it causes so-called donor fatigue and a feeling of hopelessness. People wonder why they should do anything if nothing ever changes.

The report illustrates that gloomy picture. The rapporteur highlighted in a courageous and sincere manner the deplorable facts relating to the inhumane and discriminatory attitudes that are displayed towards migrants solely because they belong to the Roma community. Let me be candid. When solemn declarations on adherence to the principles of human rights, equality and respect of each person’s dignity are compared with the practical deeds of many governments, hypocrisy is the only word that comes to my mind.

The Roma are victims of systemic discrimination that has lasted for centuries. It is impossible to fix that situation in just a couple of years; we need a long-term programme which should include, inter alia, elements of position action. Successful integration of the Roma and the protection of Roma rights are among the main challenges for today’s Europe. The first battle that we have to win is the fight against our own stereotyping and prejudices, which are clearly reflected in people’s attitudes towards Roma migrants. I fully support the report and the draft resolution, and I hope that our Assembly will remain actively involved in Roma issues.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The next speaker is Ms Hägg.

Mr HÄGG (Sweden) – The Centre for Roma Initiatives is the first organisation to work for the rights of Roma women in Montenegro, and it is this year’s winner of the Anna Lindh prize. Last Monday, the centre was praised for its work by the chair of the Anna Lindh memorial fund, Mona Sahlin, at a stirring ceremony at the Riksdag in Stockholm. One of the speakers at the ceremony was Thomas Hammarberg, the former Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, who spoke about the situation of Europe’s 12 million Roma. He described how the Roma have been subjected to widespread racism, including from high-level political leaders. In the light of that, it is important to have individuals who can fight back against this extensive anti-Ziganism and racism and who also have the courage to highlight sensitive issues such as the oppression of Roma women within their own community.

“This prize means a lot to us. We feel very honoured that our work has been recognised at such a high level. The award also gives us further strength to continue our work; it inspires us with hope and optimism.” So said one of the founders of the Centre for Roma Initiatives, Fana Delija, who was in Stockholm to receive the Anna Lindh prize together with Fatima Naza, the CRI’s other founder. The two of them have also established a network for young Roma women. They are also advisers to Montenegro’s justices of the supreme administrative court on matters relating to the situation and rights of Roma women.

Fatima and Fana believe that the Anna Lindh prize will serve as an inspiration for the CRI’s work and draw greater attention to the situation of Roma women. They work with concrete problems in the Roma community. I believe that these worthy award winners will also welcome this report. We as politicians and this entire Assembly have a responsibility on these matters, but the most effective way of combating discrimination is to work together. We need the CRI, and I would greatly welcome the emergence of more Roma organisations in our communities.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Chisu, Observer from Canada.

Mr CHISU (Canada) – I welcome this opportunity to comment on the draft recommendation of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, on the situation of Roma migrants in Europe. I also thank the rapporteurs for their excellent work. Canada shares many of the same concerns as the Council of Europe and the European Union with regard to the situation of Europe’s Roma population and its impact on movements within Europe and to Canada.

Our government will soon pass legislation to speed up our refugee determination process, so that those in genuine need of protection can more quickly be settled in Canada, while those not in need of protection will be more quickly removed. I just want to mention that a quarter of refugee claimants in Canada last year came from European countries. Canada received 5 800 refugee claims from European countries, 95% of which were either abandoned or rejected. We believe strongly that that legislation represents a positive step forward, not only for refugees and Canada’s refugee determination system but for the interests that we have in common with European countries.

The draft recommendation acknowledges that the Roma are among the most disadvantaged, discriminated against, persecuted and victimised groups in Europe. That disadvantage makes the Roma vulnerable to human trafficking, as has been observed by international experts, so it is important that the recommendation calls on the relevant bodies to “establish whether the Roma community is affected by and/or involved in trafficking in human beings”.

Our government recently announced a national action plan to combat human trafficking, which is a comprehensive blueprint to guide the Canadian Government’s fight against this serious crime. The draft recommendation seeks to debunk myths about the Roma in Europe, in relation to their sedentary habits, historical roots in Europe and use of legitimate immigration channels.

One way of addressing this issue is by celebrating the contributions that Roma people have made to our communities. Canada is firmly committed to defending human rights. We greatly appreciate the Canadians who are committed to serving their communities, including the staff and volunteers of the Toronto-based Roma Community Centre for their dedicated service to Canada’s Roma community. In addition, the draft recommendation instructs the Council of Europe’s committees and bodies to conduct an analysis of the possible contributing factors to the Roma’s difficulties.

Canada has a longstanding interest in national and pan-European efforts to address the situation of the Roma, such as the Decade of Roma Inclusion, running from 2005 to 2015. We look forward to hearing about actions – such as those proposed by the recommendation – that would complement initiatives that are already under way to improve the situation of the Roma, all of which have Canada’s full support.

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

President Kawczynski, would you like to respond to what has been said?

Mr KAWCZYNSKI said that he wanted to clarify his statement following comments made by Mr Nikoloski. He had not compared Macedonia to the Third Reich, but to the German Democratic Republic.

He had written to the Macedonian Prime Minister regarding the issue of exit visas but had not received a reply. He had visited Macedonia in May and had met Roma leaders who had confirmed that the denial of exit visas was commonplace for Roma and did not apply to other ethnic groups. This was a violation of human rights.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Rapporteur, you have five minutes to respond to the speakers before Mr Santini takes the floor as chairman of the committee.

Ms GROTH (Germany) – I thank colleagues on the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy and the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination for their support and constructive proposals, which I appreciate. Some people said the report was fine, but it was interesting to listen to Mr Kawczynski, who spoke from personal experience and illustrated very well what daily discrimination means. It is shocking, and when we think that the Roma topic has been on the agenda for 40 years or so, we need to ask ourselves where we are now. It is a shame. As Mr Schennach said, it is a complete failure on the part of Europe.

I am grateful to Ms Acketoft, who quoted what some of our fellow committee members had said. She said that she was rather surprised; indeed, I was a little shocked. What she described showed that there is indeed deep prejudice against the Roma, and this confirms it. We are not free from it. Indeed, I gave an interview this afternoon in which the journalist asked me where this deep-rooted prejudice against Roma and this uneasy feeling about them came from. I said it was perhaps because they seemed so alien and distinct. This raises a lot of questions, because most of us are not familiar with the rich Roma culture. There is also – if I may put it this way – a lot of ignorance.

What really concerns, frightens and enrages me are the violent attacks against Roma – throwing Molotov cocktails at their houses, hunting them down, killing them and burning their houses. There has been an outcry, but I wonder whether the people who committed these crimes have really been punished for them. We have heard verbal condemnation, but I have never read – I simply do not know – what happened to them. The people who did these things need to be put in prison, because they are criminal acts.

I agree that we need to take the report back to our own countries, challenge our colleagues in our parliaments and governments, and demand action, measures, discussion and proper analysis. If any of our colleagues use anti-Ziganer language, we should immediately react. We must not tolerate it. I know myself that it can take a little courage, but we should be prepared to do it. We deal with atrocities and human rights violations all over the world, but when it comes to their own countries people are a little more sensitive. This is a lesson for us all.

Ms Andersen spoke about best practice. I agree that we need best practice – we heard about the two ladies from Montenegro who won the Anna Lindh award. This is a positive sign to the Roma community and others. So, there are lots of things to do, and I guess we are all prepared.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Does the Chairperson of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons wish to speak? You have two minutes.

Mr SANTINI (Italy) said that the Roma were a young population: 60% were under 18 and 46% were under 14. They also faced substantial health issues and had markedly lower life expectancy than the general population. He agreed with Ms Groth that there should be an analysis of legislation on the matter, with reconsideration of that which was too severe. Roma, especially young Roma, had to be given a role and a future at the heart of our society. He reminded the Assembly that Jesus had said that we should do as we would be done by and that what we did to the least among us, we did to God.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Santini.

The debate is closed.

The committee has presented a draft recommendation, to which five amendments have been tabled. Of these, Amendments 1, 3, 4 and 5 were unanimously approved by the Committee and may be agreed by the Assembly under Rule 33.11.

Is that so, Mr Santini?

Mr SANTINI (Italy) – Yes.

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

As there is no objection, I declare that Amendments 1, 3, 4 and 5 have been adopted.

The following amendments have been adopted:

Amendment 1, tabled by the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, which is, in the draft recommendation, before paragraph 1, insert the following paragraph:

“The Parliamentary Assembly underlines that States have a justifiable interest in managing migration and to see to it that the asylum system is not abused. “Migration management” must, however, take place in compliance with the relevant rules, which currently may not always be the case.”

Amendment 3, tabled by the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 6.3, insert the following paragraph:

“urge member States who have not yet done so to sign and ratify Protocol No. 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No. 177)”.

Amendment 4, tabled by the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 6.3, insert the following paragraph:

“ask member States to ensure that fair, impartial and non-discriminatory policing practices are enforced for dealing with all migrants, including Roma”.

Amendment 5, tabled by the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 6.3, insert the following paragraph:

“recommend that member States carry out an in-depth analysis in order to find the general and country-specific causes of movement and migration and to work out and implement measures which could tackle the causes. Furthermore, to recommend that member States and the European Union raise funds which could be used for the above cause”.

We come to Amendment 2, tabled by Mr Jirsa, Ms Fischerová, Mr Mencl, Mr Kubata, Ms Gajdůšková, Ms Andrýsová, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 4.5, replace the words “the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia” with the following words:

“the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia”.

Explanatory note: Following the break-up of Czechoslovakia, a number of Roma living in the newly established Czech Republic acquired Slovak citizenship due to the fact that they (or their parents) were born in Slovakia. They did not become stateless and they could, under certain conditions, obtain Czech citizenship. Paragraph 4.5 should therefore reflect the fact that there is no precarious situation of stateless Roma resulting from the break-up of Czechoslovakia.

As no one is here to support the amendment, it falls.

We will now proceed to vote on the draft recommendation contained in Document 12950, as amended. A two-thirds majority is required for the draft recommendation to be adopted. The vote is open.

I thank the rapporteur, the secretariat and the committee.

4. 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.

The sitting is closed.

(The sitting was closed at 7.20 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. Written declaration

2. Political transition in Tunisia and statement by Mr Mustapha Ben Jaafar, President of the Constituent Assembly of Tunisia

Presentation of report of the Committee on Political Affairs and Development by Ms Brasseur in Doc. 12949

Speakers:

Mr Santini (Italy)

Mr Papadimoulis (Greece)

Mr Díaz Tejera (Spain)

Ms Memecan (Turkey)

Mr Pozzo di Borgo (France)

Ms Bilgehan (Turkey)

Mr Çavuşoğlu (Turkey)

Mr Schennach (Austria)

Mr Rouquet (France)

Mr Gardetto (Monaco)

Ms Bourzai (France)

Mr Bockel (France)

Mr Yatim (Morocco)

Ms Marin (France)

Ms Hägg (Sweden)

Mr Chagaf (Morocco)

Mr Ameur (Morocco)

Mr Sabella (Palestinian National Council)

Replies:

Ms Brasseur (Luxembourg)

Mr Marcenaro (Italy)

Amendments 1 to 3 adopted

Draft resolution, as amended, adopted

Statement by Mr Mustapha Ben Jaafar, President of the Constituent Assembly of Tunisia

3. Roma migrants in Europe

Presentation of report of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons by Ms Groth in Doc. 12950

Presentation of opinion of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy by Mr Aligrudić in Doc. 12987

Presentation of opinion of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination by Mr Kalmár in Doc. 12982

Address by Mr Rudko Kawczynski, President of the European Roma and Travellers Forum

Speakers:

Ms Sanin (Spain)

Mr Schennach (Austria)

Ms Acketoft (Sweden)

Ms Andersen (Norway)

Ms Bourzai (France)

Ms Christoffersen (Norway)

Mr Nikoloski (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”)

Mr Voruz (Switzerland)

Mr Cilevičs (Latvia)

Ms Hägg (Sweden)

Mr Chisu (Canada)

Replies:

Mr Kawczynski

Ms Groth (Germany)

Amendments 1, 3, 4, and 5 adopted

Draft recommendation, as amended, adopted

4. Date, time and agenda of the next sitting

Appendix

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

Francis AGIUS*

Pedro AGRAMUNT

Arben AHMETAJ*

Alexey Ivanovich ALEKSANDROV*

Miloš ALIGRUDIĆ*

José Antonio ALONSO*

Karin ANDERSEN

Lord Donald ANDERSON*

Florin Serghei ANGHEL*

Khadija ARIB*

Mörđur ÁRNASON

Francisco ASSIS*

Ţuriđur BACKMAN

Daniel BACQUELAINE*

Viorel Riceard BADEA*

Gagik BAGHDASARYAN*

Pelin Gündeş BAKIR*

Gerard BARCIA DUEDRA*

Doris BARNETT*

José Manuel BARREIRO*

Deniz BAYKAL

Marieluise BECK*

Alexander van der BELLEN*

José María BENEYTO*

Deborah BERGAMINI*

Robert BIEDROŃ*

Grzegorz BIERECKI*

Gülsün BİLGEHAN

Oksana BILOZIR*

Brian BINLEY*

Ľuboš BLAHA*

Roland BLUM*

Jean-Marie BOCKEL

Eric BOCQUET*

Olena BONDARENKO*

Olga BORZOVA

Mladen BOSIĆ*

António BRAGA*

Anne BRASSEUR

Márton BRAUN

Federico BRICOLO*

Ankie BROEKERS-KNOL*

Piet DE BRUYN*

Patrizia BUGNANO*

André BUGNON/Luc Recordon

Natalia BURYKINA*

Sylvia CANEL*

Mevlüt ÇAVUŞOĞLU

Mikael CEDERBRATT/ Mikael Oscarsson

Otto CHALOUPKA*

Vannino CHITI*

Christopher CHOPE

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Desislav CHUKOLOV/Irena Sokolova

Lolita ČIGĀNE*

Boriss CILEVIČS

James CLAPPISON*

Deirdre CLUNE*

Georges COLOMBIER*

Agustín CONDE*

Titus CORLĂŢEAN*

Igor CORMAN

Telmo CORREIA*

Carlos COSTA NEVES

Cristian DAVID*

Joseph DEBONO GRECH*

Giovanna DEBONO*

Armand De DECKER*

Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA

Peter van DIJK

Klaas DIJKHOFF*

Şaban DİŞLİ

Karl DONABAUER*

Daphné DUMERY

Alexander (The Earl of) DUNDEE*

Josette DURRIEU/Bernadette Bourzai

Mikuláš DZURINDA

Baroness Diana ECCLES*

József ÉKES*

Tülin ERKAL KARA*

Gianni FARINA*

Nikolay FEDOROV*

Relu FENECHIU*

Vyacheslav FETISOV*

Doris FIALA/Elisabeth Schneider-Schneiter

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/Pavel Lebeda

Sir Roger GALE*

Jean-Charles GARDETTO

Tamás GAUDI NAGY*

Valeriu GHILETCHI

Sophia GIANNAKA/Dimitrios Papadimoulis

Paolo GIARETTA*

Michael GLOS*

Pavol GOGA*

Obrad GOJKOVIĆ*

Jarosław GÓRCZYŃSKI*

Svetlana GORYACHEVA*

Martin GRAF*

Sylvi GRAHAM/Ingjerd Schou

Andreas GROSS

Arlette GROSSKOST/Alain Cousin

Dzhema GROZDANOVA*

Attila GRUBER*

Antonio GUTIÉRREZ*

Ana GUŢU/ Corina Fusu

Carina HÄGG

Sabir HAJIYEV

Andrzej HALICKI*

Mike HANCOCK*

Margus HANSON

Davit HARUTYUNYAN

Hĺkon HAUGLI*

Norbert HAUPERT/Fernand Boden

Oliver HEALD

Alfred HEER

Olha HERASYM'YUK

Andres HERKEL

Adam HOFMAN*

Serhiy HOLOVATY*

Jim HOOD/Jim Dobbin

Joachim HÖRSTER*

Anette HÜBINGER*

Andrej HUNKO*

Susanna HUOVINEN*

Ali HUSEYNLI*

Rafael HUSEYNOV*

Stanisław HUSKOWSKI*

Shpëtim IDRIZI*

Željko IVANJI*

Igor IVANOVSKI*

Tadeusz IWIŃSKI*

Denis JACQUAT*

Roman JAKIČ*

Ramón JÁUREGUI*

Michael Aastrup JENSEN*

Mogens JENSEN

Mats JOHANSSON/Tina Acketoft

Birkir Jón JÓNSSON*

Armand JUNG*

Antti KAIKKONEN*

Ferenc KALMÁR

Božidar KALMETA*

Mariusz KAMIŃSKI*

Michail KATRINIS*

Burhan KAYATÜRK*

Bogdan KLICH*

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

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE

Lone LOKLINDT*

François LONCLE*

Jean-Louis LORRAIN/Yves Pozzo Di Borgo

George LOUKAIDES*

Younal LOUTFI*

Yuliya L'OVOCHKINA/Serhii Kivalov

Saša MAGAZINOVIĆ*

Philippe MAHOUX*

Gennaro MALGIERI*

Nicole MANZONE-SAQUET*

Pietro MARCENARO

Milica MARKOVIĆ*

Muriel MARLAND-MILITELLO*

Meritxell MATEU PI

Pirkko MATTILA

Frano MATUŠIĆ*

Liliane MAURY PASQUIER/Eric Voruz

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*

Joăo Bosco MOTA AMARAL

Arkadiusz MULARCZYK*

Alejandro MUŃOZ-ALONSO*

Lydia MUTSCH*

Philippe NACHBAR*

Oľga NACHTMANNOVÁ*

Adrian NĂSTASE*

Gebhard NEGELE/Leander Schädler

Aleksandar NENKOV*

Pasquale NESSA*

Fritz NEUGEBAUER*

Baroness Emma NICHOLSON*

Elena NIKOLAEVA*

Tomislav NIKOLIĆ*

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI

Carina OHLSSON

Joseph O'REILLY*

Sandra OSBORNE*

Nadia OTTAVIANI*

Liliana PALIHOVICI*

Vassiliki PAPANDREOU*

Eva PARERA

Ganira PASHAYEVA*

Lajla PERNASKA*

Johannes PFLUG*

Alexander POCHINOK*

Ivan POPESCU

Lisbeth Bech POULSEN*

Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN/Jonas Gunnarsson

Cezar Florin PREDA*

Lord John PRESCOTT*

Jakob PRESEČNIK*

Radoslav PROCHÁZKA*

Gabino PUCHE*

Alexey PUSHKOV*

Valeriy PYSARENKO*

Valentina RADULOVIĆ-ŠĆEPANOVIĆ

Elżbieta RADZISZEWSKA*

Mailis REPS*

Andrea RIGONI*

François ROCHEBLOINE*

Maria de Belém ROSEIRA*

René ROUQUET

Marlene RUPPRECHT*

Ilir RUSMALI*

M. Armen RUSTAMYAN*

Branko RUŽIĆ*

Volodymyr RYBAK*

Rovshan RZAYEV

Džavid ŠABOVIĆ*

Giacomo SANTINI

Giuseppe SARO*

Kimmo SASI*

Stefan SCHENNACH

Marina SCHUSTER*

Urs SCHWALLER

Senad ŠEPIĆ*

Samad SEYIDOV*

Jim SHERIDAN*

Mykola SHERSHUN

Adalbi SHKHAGOVEV*

Robert SHLEGEL*

Ladislav SKOPAL*

Leonid SLUTSKY

Serhiy SOBOLEV

Roberto SORAVILLA/Luz Elena Sanín

Maria STAVROSITU*

Arūnė STIRBLYTĖ*

Yanaki STOILOV

Fiorenzo STOLFI*

Christoph STRÄSSER*

Karin STRENZ*

Giacomo STUCCHI*

Valeriy SUDARENKOV*

Björn von SYDOW

Petro SYMONENKO*

Vilmos SZABÓ*

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 *

Ilyas UMAKHANOV*

Giuseppe VALENTINO*

Miltiadis VARVITSIOTIS*

Stefaan VERCAMER

Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN*

Luigi VITALI*

Luca VOLONTČ*

Vladimir VORONIN*

Tanja VRBAT*

Konstantinos VRETTOS

Klaas de VRIES*

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ*

Piotr WACH

Johann WADEPHUL*

Robert WALTER

Katrin WERNER*

Renate WOHLWEND/Doris Frommelt

Karin S. WOLDSETH

Gisela WURM*

Karl ZELLER/Paolo Corsini

Kostiantyn ZHEVAHO*

Emanuelis ZINGERIS*

Guennady ZIUGANOV/Anvar Makhmutov

Naira ZOHRABYAN*

Sičge vacant, Chypre*

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote

Václav MENCL

Observers:

Mr Doron AVITAL

Corneliu CHISU

Hervé Pierre GUILLOT

Partners for democracy:

Mohammed AMEUR

Abdelkebir BERKIA

Ali Salem CHAGAF

Bernard SABELLA

Mohamed YATIM