2012 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Fourth part)

REPORT

Twenty-eighth Sitting

Monday 1 October 2012 at 11.30 a.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

2.       Speeches in other languages are summarised.

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

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

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

Mr Mignon, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 11.37 a.m.

1. Opening of the fourth part of the 2012 Ordinary Session

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – I declare open the fourth part-session of the 2012 Ordinary Session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

I regret to have to inform you of the recent death of one of our former members, Mr Roberto Soravilla of the Spanish delegation, who died on 21 September.

I also regret to inform you of the death of the Speaker of the Croatian Parliament, Mr Boris Šprem.

I propose that we stand to observe a moment’s silence in memory of their contribution to democracy.

2. Statement by the President

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – “This is a time of turmoil, transition and transformation”, to quote UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, speaking in New York last week at the opening of the 67th session of the UN General Assembly. I remind delegates that Ban Ki-Moon will be joining us shortly; on Monday, he will be in Strasbourg to open the first World Forum for Democracy. His words perfectly encapsulate the situation in the world we live in today: a world in which there is a constant quest for things that should be everyday realities, such as respect for fundamental rights and equality of opportunities; a world hit by a global economic and financial crisis that is jeopardising our social model and our institutions; a world where increasing intolerance and extremism are undermining dialogue and interaction between all the different peoples, cultures and religions.

The continent of Europe is not spared or immune. It is Europe’s duty today to provide speedy and effective responses to these global challenges, and our Assembly seems to me to be an ideal place for facing up to the real problems of today and putting forward solutions that will work.

First, we need to take urgent action to deal with the threats to political and democratic stability in the wide-ranging Euro-Mediterranean region. The situation in Syria is serious; after several fruitless attempts at negotiation and with paralysis affecting existing internal mechanisms, war is raging, giving rise to the most dreadful atrocities without any real prospect of finding a way out.

During the session, we have an opportunity to work together to find practical ways of providing an effective and co-ordinated European response to the humanitarian crisis in Syria. I personally support the holding of a debate on the subject and hope that you will vote for this proposal.

In a more general context, I can only share with you today a degree of anxiety about the events that have followed the Arab Spring. Now that the new authorities in the countries concerned – set up after elections which we considered generally free and democratic – are attempting to put in place major reforms, we still have some questions about compliance with the values and standards we uphold, particularly in the spheres of equality between men and women, the place of religion in the state and respect for the rights and fundamental freedoms of all, without discrimination.

Last week, we considered the subject at the highest political level during the European Conference of Presidents of Parliaments. Our debate was very rich and we identified some practical ideas for gearing our action as appropriately as possible to the situation on the ground. That said, in providing targeted responses to emergency situations we should not forget the general context: increasing intolerance and the propagation of extreme and extremist ideas represent a real danger to democracy.

The unrest in the Muslim world following recent dissemination on the Internet of an Islamophobic film, the worst manifestation of which was the killing of the United States Ambassador to Libya, makes clear to us the effect that such ill-considered and provocative acts might have. What has happened highlights the importance of “living together”, a field in which our Organisation has developed sound expertise.

Last year, my predecessor Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu and Anne Brasseur began a series of initiatives to develop intercultural dialogue and its religious dimension. This week, bearing in mind the fact that the subject is one of the priorities of the Albanian chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers, we shall follow with all the more interest the statement to be made by Mr Edmond Panariti, chair of the Committee of Ministers and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Albania.

Our political model is underpinned by the unity of the values and standards we have undertaken to promote. Our co-operation is based on mutual trust and good faith and that is why the Safarov case, in my view, constitutes a real challenge to the values we uphold in this Organisation. Consequently, the subject deserves to be discussed within the Assembly. Glorification of the heinous crime committeed by Mr Safarov is unacceptable and I deeply regret the obtaining of a pardon for a criminal through the use of a legal instrument of the Council of Europe that was developed for truly humanistic purposes.

Tomorrow, we are to discuss the report on the honouring of its obligations and commitments by the Russian Federation – the first report for seven years. The Russian Federation is a big player on the European and international political stage and it is also a member state of our Organisation which has undertaken to uphold its values and standards. Consequently, the debate on the monitoring report enables us to make a political appraisal of Russia’s participation in the work of the Council of Europe while we join together to identify concrete measures for strengthening our co-operation further, inter alia, on the issues that still raise debate.

In that context, I must admit that the tensions surrounding the report make me uneasy as they have no foundation. Our Assembly is an arena of debate between parliamentarians, freely expressing their ideas and opinions. Our debates are organised according to the principles of dialogue and mutual respect, on an equal footing and without double standards. The Russian delegation is part of our Assembly and the Russian MPs and senators have the same opportunity to express their views as their colleagues from the 46 other parliaments of the Council of Europe member states, and I hope that they will do so in the Monitoring Committee today and in plenary session tomorrow.

Dialogue must have two sides, it is said. I am in favour of a dialogue with our Russian friends and colleagues. I hope that they fully share that approach and that we will soon have another opportunity to hold an exchange of views with Mr Naryshkin, President of the State Duma of the Russian Federation, who has unfortunately cancelled his trip to Strasbourg during this part-session.

In our proceedings on the honouring of obligations and commitments, all member countries of our Organisation are on an equal footing and it is our duty to react whenever we detect possible lapses. This summer, we closely followed the developments in Romania. To understand the situation better, I went to Bucharest on 18 and 19 July with my colleagues on the Presidential Committee. We asked the principal political forces to open serious dialogue among themselves to put an end to the practices that undermine the democratic functioning of the institutions. After the constitutional court’s decision to invalidate the results of the referendum of 29 July, I issued an appeal to all political players to ensure compliance with that decision and today I note with satisfaction that the situation has since stabilised.

We have set up direct dialogue with the Romanian authorities. On 11 September, I personally met the Romanian Foreign Affairs Minister, our former colleague, Mr Corlăţean, and I assured him of our eagerness to give our Romanian partners the support they may need, including after the parliamentary elections scheduled for December 2012.

This week, we are to receive Mr Nicolae Timofti, President of the Republic of Moldova and Mr Bujar Nishani, President of the Republic of Albania. Both Mr Timofti and Mr Nishani were recently elected by their respective national parliaments in the context of particularly difficult relations between the majority and the opposition. I find it highly symbolic that they have come to the Parliamentary Assembly in Strasbourg at the very beginning of their term of office. We will hear them with great interest and the shared intention of identifying further co-operative actions to support the Republics of Moldova and Albania on the path of European integration.

In conclusion, allow me to recall in addition that the part-session forms part of a series of very high-level international events taking place in Strasbourg. I have already mentioned the European Conference of Presidents of Parliaments, which a week ago brought together more than 60 Presidents or Speakers of Parliaments. I noted with great satisfaction that the vast majority decided to attend the conference in person. Publicly, once again, I thank the Secretary General of the Council of Europe and all the Secretariat for the excellent work they performed enabling us to hold a very successful conference indeed. I personally received 18 Presidents or Speakers in my office, together with the President of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly. Their appraisal of the conference was very positive and I am glad of that. I congratulate Sir Nicolas Bratza, President of the European Court of Human Rights, who agreed to introduce the debate on the future of the Court.

This Friday we are to start off the second Council of Europe Youth Assembly in this Chamber, with 170 participants from the entire European continent. Next week, Strasbourg will host the first World Forum for Democracy – a major political event staged at our Assembly’s suggestion – with the participation of eminent personalities such as the United Nations Secretary-General Mr Ban Ki-Moon. That succession of events at international level bears witness to the fact that our Organisation’s action is still politically relevant, much to my satisfaction.

I wish all of you a worthwhile session and thank you for your attention.

I would like to thank the Secretariat. As you know, when I was elected President of this Parliamentary Assembly, I mentioned that I thought it would be a good idea to draw up a handbook for new members to the Assembly so that they could understand how everything works, who we are and what the customs of the Assembly are. That handbook has now been drawn up by Mr Horst Schade, and I congratulate him on that. It is available in English and French. The handbook is useful for new people and even for those who have been here for a while. It is good to see you again, Michael Hancock.

Before we move on, may I personally, and in the name of all the members of the Assembly, thank someone who has been a stalwart of this House, ensuring the smooth running of parliamentary sessions for more than 30 years. His first contract with this Assembly dates back to 1 January 1980, and this will be his last part-session. He is a familiar figure to all of you – the gentleman standing behind me, Jean-Marcel Ibazizen, who is Chief Usher of the Chamber. Everyone knows him as Marcel, and we have known him for a long time. I thank him most warmly for his work. He has assisted us in our work for many years. Marcel, we have very much appreciated your helpfulness, your professionalism, your tact and of course your discretion. We will all retain fond memories of these years of working with you, and I am sure that you too will take away many fond memories of your long experience with us. Have a very happy retirement, but of course only from the end of this part-session onwards! I thank Marcel particularly for the excellent coffees that he brings in when he sees that I am flagging or having trouble with the august responsibilities that I have to handle. There is a great deal of teamwork going on here. Thank you very much, Marcel. I hope very much that you will be able to attend my office later on with your colleagues when I will give you a small gift.

3. Voting cards, register of attendance and written declarations

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – I remind all members of the Assembly that every time they attend a part-session they must sign the attendance register that is outside the door of the Chamber. It is an alphabetical list. Under Rule 53 of our rules, several written statements were submitted during the part-session of June 2012 and are still available for signature until the end of this part-session. The list of written declarations is on the back of the organisation of debates sheet. In addition, under Rule 53, written declaration number 531, Document 13013, on violence against Christian communities in northern Nigeria has been tabled. Representatives, Substitutes, Observers and Partners for Democracy who wish to add their name to the written declaration should go the Table Office as usual in room 1083.

4. Examination of credentials

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The first item of business is the examination of credentials of new members submitted in accordance with Rule 6. The names of the Representatives and Substitutes are in Document 13034. If no credentials are contested, they will be ratified.

The credentials are ratified.

5. Election of a Vice-President

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – I come now to the Vice-President of the Assembly. I have received one candidate, my friend Mr René Rouquet. If there is no request for a vote, the candidate proposed by the national delegation – in this case France – is declared elected without a vote having to be held. There is no request for a vote.

Mr Rouquet therefore stands elected as a Vice-President of the Assembly.

Congratulations to him. I remind all those who have been unanimously elected that the bar is open and that anyone who wants to benefit from René’s generosity is very welcome to do so.

6. Changes in the membership of committees

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Changes in membership have been published in Document 2012/07 and addendum. Is there any opposition to those changes?

They are agreed to.

7. Requests for debate (urgent procedure and current affairs)

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Before we move on to the current agenda, the Assembly must pronounce on two requests for urgent procedure and current affairs debates that have reached me. First, there is a request for a current affairs debate on “The Safarov case”, submitted by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. The second request is for an urgent procedure debate entitled “The European response to the humanitarian crisis in Syria”, requested by the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons. At its meeting this morning, the Bureau approved the requests and agreed to propose that the current affairs debate should take place as the last item on Thursday and Mr Christopher Chope should be the spokesman, and that the urgent procedure debate should be the first item of business on Thursday morning. There is no opposition to that.

They are agreed to.

The Bureau suggests that the lead committee of the urgent procedure debate should be the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, and suggests the Political Affairs Committee for an opinion. There is no opposition and no abstentions.

That is agreed to.

8. Adoption of the agenda

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – This morning the Bureau looked at the agenda as proposed and unanimously adopted it. Do you also agree with the agenda as laid down? There is no opposition and no abstentions.

It is agreed to.

9. Time limits on speeches

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – This morning there was also a proposal, since there are so many speakers in some of the debates, that speakers’ time be reduced to three minutes for all debates from this afternoon onwards. There are no objections to that.

It is agreed to.

10. Progress report

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The next item on the agenda is the presentation of the progress report of the Bureau and the Standing Committee. I call Ms Tina Acketoft to present the progress report. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.

Ms ACKETOFT (Sweden) – Thank you, Mr President. I will be sure to keep within those 13 minutes. The progress report that we will discuss today covers three meetings of the Bureau, from the meeting on the Friday in June, through the meeting in the wonderful Nice that unfortunately I could not attend, until this morning’s Bureau meeting. Although the summer months are of course less hectic than others and we do not have any election survey observations to report today, I would still like to highlight a few issues that I consider of particular importance for members to be aware of, and which perhaps will lead to a fruitful debate after my speech. As usual, at the close of the previous part-session the Bureau discussed what follow-up was required to the Assembly’s resolutions that week. I welcome two of the Bureau’s decisions in particular: first, the decision to urge the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights to continue monitoring the situation faced by human rights defenders in Council of Europe member states and, secondly, the decision to make use of the Assembly’s democracy and human rights debates to assess progress by member states in improving the access of young people to social rights. Those are two very different topics that we should keep close to our hearts in this Assembly.

Today is an extraordinary occasion, as 20 of our members, headed by the chairperson of the Group of the European People’s Party, are absent from this sitting, as they are observing parliamentary elections in Georgia. Of course, I wish that the Georgian Government had had its elections at a time more convenient to the Council of Europe and this Assembly, but it is not always easy to make everybody happy.

As we are speaking, the Georgian people are casting their votes. We cannot, of course, yet make any observations on those elections, but our pre-election team visited the country a fortnight ago. The delegation welcomed the competitive and pluralistic pre-election environment, as well as several improvements that had been made in the run-up to the elections. However, it also expressed serious concerns about the increasing polarisation and antagonism in the pre-electoral environment, and I understood that the situation got even worse after the visit.

No one in the Assembly would doubt that Georgian democracy needs more pluralism in decision making and more engagement on the part of the population at large, so these elections will be crucial for Georgia’s democratic development, and it is important that our delegation should be there to observe the elections. However, we all know that when a country is so deeply polarised, it is in the days after the elections that we should really keep our eyes on it.

This month, we shall also take our election observation mission to Montenegro and Ukraine. The Assembly recently had two current affairs debates on Ukraine at two successive Standing Committee meetings, voicing its strong concern about the dubious sentences and deteriorating situation regarding imprisoned opposition politicians in Ukraine. These soft messages that we have been sending on behalf of the Assembly have not yet had any effect, I am afraid. Despite numerous calls – from our President, the co-rapporteurs and, most recently, a pre-electoral delegation – on Ukraine to release Yulia Timoshenko and others, and to provide fair conditions for all political parties ahead of the elections, that has not happened.

My predecessor, Mr Mota Amaral, said in the June part-session in this very room that we cannot allow ourselves merely to state, after yet another election, “Oh yes, the elections were free – but not fair.” All Council of Europe member states have voluntarily agreed to abide by the statutes of the Organisation, and they must know that there are consequences to failing to fulfil those obligations. In that regard, I welcome the Bureau’s decision at the end of the last part-session that the Monitoring Committee co-rapporteurs should become ex-officio members of not only the main electoral missions but the pre-electoral ad hoc committees. We have debated for years whether we should observe elections only on the day, or the processes around them as well. Our co-rapporteurs are following developments in the countries in question daily, and can give us valuable input into our election briefings and reports, providing us with a full, rather than a partial, picture.

Tomorrow, the Assembly will elect a number of judges to the European Court of Human Rights. This morning, the Bureau approved the proposal of the Sub-Committee on the Election of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights that we should declassify the recommendations of the sub-committee once it decides to forward a report to Assembly members. It also decided to extend voting from 1 o’clock to 5 o’clock if an absolute majority is not obtained in the first vote.

Also this morning, the Bureau took note of the report drawn up by the sub-committee following interviews with candidates in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the Republic of Moldova and the Russian Federation, and decided to transmit the reports to all members of the Assembly. What is now submitted to the Assembly for ratification is the recommendation by the sub-committee to accept the single-sex lists that Croatia and the Republic of Moldova have submitted on the grounds of exceptional circumstances. I stress “exceptional circumstances”; this is not the way we want to do things in future.

I have tried to be brief. You will find in the report mention of all the other activities that I was not able to discuss today. I invite all members to endorse the decisions of the Bureau by adopting the report. Finally, I should like to support the President’s idea that we should bring more content of political discussions into Bureau meetings. As I say, I could not attend the meeting in Nice, but I know from my colleagues that there were thoughtful and positive discussions on the situation in Romania, following the visit of the Presidential Committee, and on the case of Ramil Safarov; that led to the tabling of the current affairs debate that we shall have on the subject this week.

Although the principal mandate of the Bureau is of course to co-ordinate the activities of the Assembly and its committees, it also has a statutory role in assisting the President in carrying out his or her functions and in guiding the external relations of the Assembly. As a result of the initiative to enlarge the Presidential Committee to include committee chairpersons – the enlarged committee met for the second time only yesterday – I sincerely hope that we will have more time for important political discussions. Thank you for your attention.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Ackertoft. You have five minutes left in which to respond to the speakers in the debate. I now open the debate. I call Mr Frunda, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr FRUNDA (Romania) – Thank you, Mr President. As you know, tomorrow we will debate the progress made by the Russian Federation; that will be one of the most important moments of the part-session. My colleague Mr Andreas Gross and I will present a very balanced report, in which we have an inventory of the good things done, and the things not yet done, in Russia since the last report in 2005, and indeed since Russia became a member of the Council of Europe in 1996.

It was a political decision to invite the Speaker of the Duma, Mr Naryshkin, here today. He has to come here; it would be a very good opportunity for Council of Europe members to put questions to him. There are already 65 speakers on the list for tomorrow’s debate, and most of them would like to put questions to Mr Naryshkin. He could build with us a bridge to dialogue on democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law. Mr Naryshkin accepted an invitation to come here in the middle of last week, but last Friday he reneged on that opportunity. That was a very wrong political decision. We are here to share our experiences with other member states, to help each other – there is no perfect country – and to build democracy, rule of law and respect for human rights. To do that we need dialogue. We need politicians to be here, representing their member state, to try to find common solutions. If they do not come here, it is difficult, if not impossible, to build such dialogue.

We, the Group of the European People’s Party, should like to express our disappointment in the fact that Mr Naryshkin has refused to come here, and we ask the Russian authorities to respond to our attempt to build democracy with them. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Frunda. I call Mr Gross to speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – Thank you, Mr President. Dear colleagues, I share Mr Frunda’s disappointment that the Speaker of the Russian Duma is not here; I think that was the result of a misinterpretation of what happened in the committee, and I hope that we can correct it soon.

I want to take up Ms Acketoft’s suggestion to give this debate more political content, because she is right in what she says. I want to show why the Presidential Committee went to Romania and what we learnt there. First, a political crisis – we could even call it a constitutional crisis – arose because 20 members of the Romanian Parliament switched sides and changed the majority. They did so because they saw that the authoritarian, austerity politics of the President, who, in this presidential system, is not the central element of the government, did not coincide with the interests of the people. We must reflect on the fact that this type of situation underlies all of what is happening at the moment. Yesterday, we saw how so many people in so many capitals protested because they have seen that billions have been spent to save banks but now there are no more millions to safeguard their schools, universities and health care services. That is a contradiction, and it made the parliamentarians in Romania switch sides.

We saw how the government behaved subsequently – there was nearly a confrontation on the streets. That situation arose because the constitution contains contradictory sources of legitimacy and does not prevent violence. Such a mechanism is perhaps the biggest quality of a well-established constitution and a democracy. The Presidential Committee was shocked by what it found. We were shocked that this could happen in a member state of the European Union and we did not foresee this in the Council of Europe. Perhaps we do not follow developments in all our member states as we should.

The last explosion was prevented because the constitutional court was respected, and we now have elections in Romania, but we must stress what the Presidential Committee learnt: we need to investigate the history of the functioning of Romania’s democratic institutions in the past five years. We rightly criticise today’s government because it governs on the basis of urgent measures. It never discusses things in the parliament; it always decides without discussion. It says, “The others also did it”, but the fact that others have made mistakes in the past is not a reason to repeat them. That is only one of the elements that shows the deeply problematic political or democratic culture there – we can choose which term we want to use. That is why we said that we would not go for the opening of the monitoring process, because that would be misused at election time, but that we would make the motion allowing the Political Affairs Committee to report on the functioning of the democratic institutions. That will allow us to come back to the matter in January. We cannot overlook such a problem, such a confrontation and such a constitutional crisis happening in one of the biggest and most important European countries – it is even a member of the EU.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Gross. I call Mr Hancock to speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) – Thank you, Mr President. I wish to raise four points, the first of which is how judges are elected to the Court. I was pleased to hear some of the rapporteur’s comments, but I believe that we are fast approaching a time when we need to reform how our judges are elected. We have to hold on to that responsibility, because if we are not careful and if we do not do something to reform it, it will be taken away from us. It is one of the things that we are mandated to do and it is part of the origins of the setting up of the Council of Europe, and we should treat the election of judges as a very important issue that we face – we should cherish it. Unfortunately, problems have arisen for a considerable time and excuses have been made. They are wholly unacceptable, and how we judge the judges needs reforming. I hope that the message goes back to the Bureau: “We will do something about that in the very near future.”

Secondly, I wish to raise the issue of how we deal with conflicts outside Europe and how we have neglected two major conflicts, which involve four member states of this Assembly. We have rightly spent a lot of money and time discussing the Arab spring – sadly, some of that is now turning into a nightmare and it is now more of a winter of discontent throughout many of those countries – but we have neglected the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh. We should be working internally, in Europe, to try to resolve that. We are going to discuss Syria to see what we can do about the humanitarian problems there, but crucial issues of humanitarian need remain in Nagorno-Karabakh and in the two countries involved. Equally, we should be working with our Turkish, Greek and Cypriot friends to address the issues associated with the partition of Cyprus, in order to try to bring about a peaceful resolution. We owe it to ourselves to concentrate our efforts on the frozen conflicts that exist in our continent.

Thirdly, I wish to discuss the Ukrainian elections. I read the monitoring report with great fascination, and I consider it to be a balanced and sensible document. I raise the matter because I would like Mr Gross to clarify something. I read with dismay the press report that was attributed to him, as it paints a very different picture from the one portrayed in the agreed press statement that the delegation put together. The article said that Ukraine needs a new revolution – is that really a fitting statement to be made by someone who is leading a delegation to examine the elections impartially? Is it right for them to make such strident comments about Ukraine? I think not, and I hope that Mr Gross will clarify the position and say that his words were misinterpreted by the journalists. If that is not the case, our responsibility is diminished if a leader of a delegation is making such judgments well in advance of the elections. Although the comments are attributed personally to him as a Swiss MP, this is crucial to how we act when we monitor countries.

Fourthly, I wish to thank you, Mr President, for your kind regards and to thank all those who wrote, phoned or e-mailed about my recent ill health. I had a near-death experience, during which I was heavily sedated. The first thing that happened when I came to was that my phone rang and I heard a voice saying, “Sorry” – I could not hear the rest of it. I thought someone was saying, “Sorry, we have made a mistake and sent you to hell instead of heaven.” Instead, it was Mevlüt, our former President, phoning to offer me two weeks’ holiday in Antalya. So if anyone sees Mevlüt, please would they remind him of what he told me on the phone.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Hancock. I call Mr Walter to speak on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Mr WALTER (United Kingdom) – Thank you, Mr President. It is great to see Mike Hancock back in action, and I can tell him that Mevlüt is on his way from the airport to Strasbourg and will be here within the hour, so we will be able to fulfil his promise to you.

I thank the rapporteur for her report on the progress of the Bureau, and congratulate her on it. I will not congratulate the Bureau because I am a member of it. The report covers a period of great turmoil in our neighbourhood, with economic problems close to home, a decline in the economy, the crisis in the eurozone and the social consequences flowing from it. On Wednesday, we will debate the report on the activities of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, when I am sure that many of those issues will come to the fore. The report also covers the conflict in Syria, which we will debate on Thursday. The lack of resolution of that conflict, and the lack of respect by the Government in Syria for the rights of its citizens, is something that affects us all. I know there is disagreement among member states of the Council of Europe as to the way forward, but I think we are all frustrated by the lack of progress in finding a way forward in that conflict.

I too regret that the chairman of the Duma, Mr Naryshkin, is not here, but I also regret the circumstances that led to this non-appearance. Russia is the largest member state of the Council of Europe and it is important that the Russian delegation and the Russian Government are fully engaged in our proceedings. The report in question acknowledges the progress made, much of which is a result of that dialogue. None of us is perfect, and there are of course criticisms of Russia in the report, but I hope that we can work constructively to ensure that we reaffirm to our Russian friends that they are not being singled out for special treatment. Russia is in the monitoring process, and all of us want to bring that to an end, as we do for all the member states who are in the monitoring process in pursuit of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. If that is to succeed, we must acknowledge that real progress has been made among the newer member states of this Organisation.

As I have said, none of us is perfect. Many of us have been working for centuries on our democratic institutions. We can all learn from each other, from the oldest to the youngest democracies. In this session, the Bureau has given us the challenging agenda that we have just approved, but it is that challenge – the challenge of democracy – that all of us must defend, all 47 member states.

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

Mr KOX (Netherlands) – One of the activities mentioned in the progress report by Ms Acketoft is the Conference of Presidents of Parliaments, which took place in this Hemicycle only a few weeks ago. I congratulate you, Mr President, on this conference, which I was allowed to observe on behalf of our Assembly. It was a very fruitful meeting.

Now I wish to take this opportunity to call on the speakers of all the parliaments who were present to put their money where their mouths were in that conference, and that means that we should emphasise once again that they, as the speakers of their parliaments, should allow all their elected members to participate in the work of this Assembly in a proper way. Far too many parliaments have far too many restrictions on members doing their work in this Assembly properly, and it is up to the speakers to do what they promised during the conference and help the work of this Assembly. I hope that you, Mr President, will remind them of their obligations. Being a member of this Assembly does not come for free — it carries obligations with it.

One of the obligations that being a member of the Assembly of the Council of Europe brings with it is not allowing member states to hinder physically members of parliament who wish to participate in the work of this Assembly. To be concrete, I am thinking of Turkey, which now imprisons elected members of parliament, so that they cannot do their work properly. My colleague, Mr Kürkçü, is sitting there and he could be the next one to be imprisoned by the authorities. We should not allow that, and we should call on the Government of Turkey to allow members of parliament to be members of parliament, not prisoners.

I call on the authorities of Israel to release from prison the more than 20 elected members of the Palestinian National Council, our partners for democracy, so that they can do their work properly. Parliamentarians should not be put in prison: they should work in parliament. We should all make that appeal to support our elected colleagues in doing their work properly.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Kox. I call Mr Seyidov.

Mr SEYIDOV (Azerbaijan) – On behalf of the Azerbaijani delegation, I wish to draw your attention to some very important items and comments. We are always told to be objective and balanced during the discussions and the exchange of views, and to take into account the opinions of the different sides, especially as within the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe we have conflicts between member states – between Armenia and Azerbaijan. It would be fantastic if the Council of Europe would listen to both sides and analyse opinions from Azerbaijan and Armenia. This is the only way to find a solution and make progress.

I have read the progress report and paragraph 2.10 contains information given by the chairman of the delegation of Armenia to the Parliamentary Assembly about the case of Ramil Safarov. On 3 September 2012, the Bureau took note of that statement, but why did it not invite the head of the Azerbaijan delegation to explain the situation? Why did we not receive any formal request to describe what happened? Why did we get no official request for our explanation?

It would be very good to understand the realities of the situation. The reality of the Safarov case is connected to the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and if we are going to analyse that case we should listen to both sides. From that point of view, I think it would have been much better to listen to the Azerbaijan side. Please take into account that Azerbaijan insisted that the situation be analysed in conjunction with the Karabakh war, which we are unfortunately unable to discuss at the Council of Europe.

For years, from session to session, the Azerbaijan side has asked for hearings to be organised and views exchanged, to listen to the Azerbaijani position and to express our opinion, but at the end of the day we see one side’s opinion about the Safarov case. We need to not only understand the realities of the Safarov case but realise that this is not good for the Council of Europe itself. That is why we ask the rapporteur and the Bureau to invite Azerbaijan, to listen to us and to analyse the situation objectively. That is why, early this morning, I went to the Bureau and said that I wanted to say a few words at that meeting, but you, Mr President, and Mr Sawícki said that it was not according to the rules and that I was not allowed to take part in the Bureau meeting. I know that I do not have the right to take part in the Bureau, but I have a right to ask you to be very objective and balanced.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – We still have some time left. If no one wishes to speak, I call Ms Acketoft to respond to the debate.

Ms ACKETOFT (Sweden) – Thank you, Mr President; I will do my best. We have all expressed in our own ways the fact that we are unhappy that we will not be receiving the Speaker of the Duma today, but we were promised earlier today that he will arrive at a later date – that was the word from the Russian delegation. I, too, am sorry that we will not have the opportunity to have that dialogue because, as Mr Frunda and Mr Gross expressed in their own ways, dialogue between parliaments and the Council of Europe and discussion within the parliaments are the core tools we have to work with here.

Mr Gross explained why we went to Romania: the protests about austerity measures. That is definitely a political discussion we will be having this week in a number of debates, for example the debate on Friday and the debate on Wednesday.

Mr Hancock rightly took up the matter of judges of the European Court of Human Rights, which I think is one of the core subjects we have to raise. We must have the highest and best competence when it comes to the judges from whom we are supposed to elect. It is not only a question of gender balance, although that is very important; I happen to think that brains are fairly equally distributed between men and women, but unfortunately life chances are not. We want the three best candidates from each country to be sent to us, and we must have a sub-committee that is able to judge those judges. That is not a task to be lightly tampered with, because it is a very important matter – it is one of the core matters we have to work on. I will be happy to take up the discussion again in the Bureau on the quality of the sub-committees and the quality of the judges who are sent to us.

Mr Walter rightly talked about worrying times, financial turmoil and social upheaval. Even though we come from different political backgrounds, we all see that happening across Europe today. We all come from different countries that have had different experiences, but we need to understand that this is the Council of Europe and that we all need to listen to each other to find common solutions where possible.

Mr Kox stressed the importance of nations allowing delegations to come here. That is something each and every one of us must take home and bring up as an important matter of discussion. If delegations are not allowed to come here, we can say that we have X amount of members, but in reality the chairs are empty and our decisions will become empty as well.

Finally, Mr Seyidov said that we should be balanced and discuss the questions from different angles, and of course we should do that. Having said that, we all know that in certain cases we tend to stand up only for our own nations. Unless we stop doing that and actually look at things with a broader perspective – that is something we have an obligation to do – we cannot have fruitful discussions. We have to start opening up and talking about the bigger picture and not just our own back yards. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT said that all members of the Bureau were interested in the election of judges; he also knew that the chair of the relevant sub-committee was present. The Assembly had an opportunity to improve the process and he hoped that this would happen. He reminded colleagues of what he had said in respect of frozen conflicts when he had been elected. Such conflicts continued to concern him but that was not to say that they would be easy to resolve. He had listened carefully to what Mr Kox had said and noted that a message had been sent to all national parliaments through their delegations. He assured Mr Seyidov that the Bureau had not discussed the substance of the Safarov case but only whether a debate should take place. The Bureau would not have discussed the substance of the matter without reference either to him or his Armenian counterpart. He thanked Mr Seyidov for the calm and measured tone in which he had delivered his remarks and recalled the meeting that he had held in his office with both sides of the conflict. He wanted to make progress towards a solution to the frozen conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. The Bureau had decided that a debate would be held on Thursday evening and he hoped that the tone of that debate would be calm and reasonable.

(Continued in translation)

The Bureau has proposed a number of references to committees. They are set out in the addendum to Document 13031. Are there any objections to these references?

There are no objections.

The references are agreed.

I invite the Assembly to approve the remainder of the progress report.

The remaining proposals in the progress report of the Bureau and the Standing Committee are approved.

Thanks again to Ms Acketoft.

11. Date, time and agenda of the next sitting

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The Assembly will hold its next public sitting this afternoon at 3.30 p.m. with the agenda which was approved this morning.

The sitting is closed.

(The sitting was closed at 12.40 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1.       Opening of the fourth part of the 2012 Ordinary Session

2.       Statement by the President

3.       Voting cards, register of attendance and written declarations

4.       Examination of credentials

5.       Election of a Vice-President

6.       Changes in the membership of committees

7.       Requests for debate (urgent procedure and current affairs)

8.       Adoption of the agenda

9.       Time limits on speeches

10.       Progress report of the Bureau of the Assembly and the Standing Committee

Presentation by Ms Ackertoft of report, Document 13031 and Addendum, on behalf of the Bureau and the Standing Committee

Speakers:

Mr Frunda (Romania)

Mr Gross (Switzerland)

Mr Hancock (United Kingdom)

Mr Walter (United Kingdom)

Mr Kox (Netherlands)

Mr Seyidov (Azerbaijan)

11.       Date, time and agenda of the next sitting