AA13CR23

AS (2013) CR 23

2013 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Third part)

REPORT

Twenty-third Sitting

Wednesday 26 June 2013 at 10 a.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

2.       Speeches in other languages are reported using the interpretation and are marked with an asterisk.

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

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

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

(Mr Mignon, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 10.10 a.m.)

THE PRESIDENT* – The sitting is open.

1. Prolongation of the deadline for the tabling of amendments in respect

of the urgent procedure debate

THE PRESIDENT* – I remind members that the matter of “Popular protest and challenges to freedom of assembly, media and speech” has been referred to the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy in preparation for our urgent debate tomorrow morning. As a consequence, the deadline for tabling amendments, which would normally have been at 10.30 a.m. today, has been extended until 7 p.m. This should give each and every one of you the opportunity to familiarise yourself with the report submitted by the committee and mull over the subject so that you can contribute to the debate.

I call Mr Reiss on a point of order.

Mr REISS (France)* – This is a reminder of the rules. In the debate on the monitoring procedure for Hungary, I made a mistake when we voted on the final amendment. I wanted to vote in favour, not against.

THE PRESIDENT* – That is not really a reminder of the rules. You are just explaining to us that yesterday evening, perhaps because you were feeling a little tired, your finger pressed the wrong button. There are three buttons, one to vote for, one to vote against and one to abstain. Perhaps we should all practise.

Mr GAUDI NAGY (Hungary) – On a point of order, Mr President.

THE PRESIDENT* – I believe that another mistake was made – is this point of order for the same reason, Mr Gaudi Nagy?

Mr GAUDI NAGY (Hungary) – Yes. In the votes about the monitoring process relating to Hungary yesterday, I voted against starting monitoring in relation to Hungary. However, in the vote on the final report I pushed the yes button when I wanted to push the abstention button. That is my position – abstention on the final report. That is why I wanted to put this point in the record of our sitting.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Gaudi Nagy and Mr Reiss. We have taken note of what you have just said, and you can treat us to a drink or a snack later to ask forgiveness for having pressed the wrong button.

2. Corruption as a threat to the rule of law

THE PRESIDENT* – The next item of business is the debate on the report titled “Corruption as a threat to the rule of law”, Document 13228, presented by Ms Reps on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. Mr Díaz Tejera will present an opinion on behalf of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs, Document 13247.

We will aim to finish this debate at 1 p.m. I will therefore interrupt the list of speakers at about 12.30 p.m. for replies and voting.

I remind members that they have three minutes in which to speak – not three minutes and five seconds – so they should stick to their speaking time to the best of their ability.

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

Ms REPS (Estonia) – Corruption is endemic. Every week new scandals are revealed, and every day new acts of corruption are perpetrated. Europe is unfortunately no exception to that observation. The 2012 Transparency International corruption perception index placed five member States of the Council of Europe below 100th out of the 174 States listed, and some recent examples show that even countries that are not at the bottom of that ranking are seriously affected.

Today, as yesterday, corruption poses a serious threat to the rule of law, and today more than ever it is vital to fight against this scourge. Indeed, the impact of corruption is significantly amplified by the economic crisis. The burden of corruption is economically unbearable for our countries, which have been forced into austerity, and the distrust of public institutions that it causes among our fellow citizens threatens at every moment to plunge Europe into another crisis – a crisis of values. The rise of populism, hate speech and exclusion is the premise of that crisis, which may challenge the principles and values that are the raison d'être of our Organisation. I remind you that those are democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

As stakeholders of democratic institutions, we must react and show the way forward to eradicating corruption. However, the problem is so huge that the task is often too difficult. The types of corruption are numerous and the corrupters and the corrupted are various. As I mention in the report, a lot of work on this topic has already been carried out by various bodies of the Council of Europe and other international organisations. In this case, the lack of time and resources did not allow for an exhaustive approach to corruption. That was why I decided to focus on corruption in the public sector, particularly in the judicial and political arena. I am well aware that it is not always possible to distinguish clearly between the public and private sectors, and that corruption in the private sector may have an impact on the public sector and vice versa. Those complex aspects of the issue require intensive research that I was not able to carry out. I hope that in-depth work on them will be conducted in the near future.

If I can confirm that the rule of law is seriously threatened by corruption, it is because my research has shown that corruption affects each of the components of the rule of law. When standards are adopted to meet the particular interests of the corrupters, instead of the general interest, corruption disrupts the legislative process and violates the principles of legality and legal certainty. When the law is amended or not enforced to suit the requirements of those who can afford to corrupt, equality before the law disappears behind arbitrariness. When a citizen cannot apply to the courts without paying the official in charge of registering the application, there is no real access to justice. That is obvious to our fellow citizens.

To restore confidence in public institutions and ensure the rule of law, it is imperative that we fight corruption with the utmost determination. As I mentioned in my report, many means exist to fight corruption, but given the complexity of the phenomenon we cannot propose all possible solutions. However, a number of priority proposals can be made by this Assembly to eradicate this scourge, such as the promotion of overall strategies against corruption. Such strategies should include clear incrimination for acts of corruption, the reinforcement of an independent judiciary, and measures to ensure maximum transparency in political and economic life.

The ratification of the relevant conventions of the Council of Europe, as well as the implementation of recommendations by the Group of States against corruption – GRECO – and the Committee of Experts on the Evaluation of Anti-Money Laundering Measures and the Financing of Terrorism are, of course, at the forefront of measures that member States should take. We should promote the setting up of specific parliamentary scrutiny procedures at national level to ensure the implementation of those recommendations. The Council of Europe should not only encourage its member States to implement reforms, but participate in those reforms. That is why I suggest that the Assembly assess the progress made in the fight against corruption and pay special attention to the effective implementation of its own code of conduct. The Committee of Ministers should draw up a set of guidelines for codes of conduct and ethics for public officials, and ensure that training programmes implemented by Council of Europe bodies include curricula that are specifically dedicated to the fight against corruption.

The opinion of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs will be presented by Mr Díaz Tejera, and several amendments have been proposed that would allow us to go further. I acknowledge the work of that committee, as well as that done by our colleagues in the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights and all those who will participate in today’s debate.

It will take courage and boldness to implement these measures. Some of our member States are ready to do that, but others will be more reluctant. It is true that the fight against corruption, particularly the requirements of transparency, is very demanding. It is probably also true that we as elected representatives will be more exposed and, for a time, more attention might even be paid to our bank accounts than to the policies we support. That time will pass but the impact of the reforms will remain. We have the responsibility to look beyond the end of our term so that the actions we take today lead to structural and cultural changes without which the fight against corruption will not progress. At stake is nothing less than the sustainability of the model of society promoted by our Organisation.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. You have roughly five minutes left. I call Mr Díaz Tejera.

Mr DÍAZ TEJERA* (Spain) – On behalf of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs, I would like to tell the Assembly that we have completed our work, thanks also to the efforts of the secretariat, and with a great deal of support and help. We hope that that work will add to the excellent work done by our colleague, Mailis Reps. She has done her job in a spirit of consensus and we congratulate her on the result.

This is not an ideological or political debate; we are talking about the credibility of our system of co-existence. We are concerned that the rule of law, human rights and parliamentary democracy, which are all parts of underlying democracy, should be upheld, but new risks and threats that can imperil those achievements are arising all the time. During this week we have seen that instruments of communication such as the Internet, which are now so powerful, have been used to obtain information about the private lives of millions of people. That is an attack on human rights. There are no absolute values and rights; everything is relative when these things are considered together, and we must always try to protect the things that are most dear to us.

      We are particularly concerned about transparency. Transparency should not just be about rhetoric, or a fine word to bandy around. It must be upheld in practice, and that involves all sectors where transparency is relevant. Secret things should not predominate in our work. On the contrary, there should be individual freedom and no Stalinist tyranny of the sort that crushes individual freedom. Indeed, that is what it says in Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. All men are equal, and no political or religious group should take precedence or hold sway. This is about individuals and individual rights, and those fundamental rights do not apply only to one group or ethnic identity, but to each individual as a person — a man, a woman, whatever their political or religious leanings.

Our proposals are specific. The Council of Europe has a fundamental instrument at its disposal in GRECO, and we can work with GRECO to strengthen its powers and ensure that the European Union also supports it. We must continue to assess what is happening, and ensure that human rights are respected at all times and in all contexts. In that way we will enhance the prestige and authority of this body.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. It is, of course, important to mention GRECO, which we congratulate on its wonderful work. We do not talk enough about it.

In the debate, I give the floor to Mr Mendes Bota, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr MENDES BOTA (Portugal) – If one point in the report by Ms Reps is worth stressing, it is that cross-cutting, responsible, inter-State co-operation is pivotal. Corruption has no nationality; it is a global blight. Like an earthquake starting at the epicentre, the ripple effects of a bribe, threat or scheme are bound to be felt by any of us at any given time, even in the most unsuspicious areas of the globe. Corruption does not own a passport or stop at the checkpoint. It travels by stealth under the cover of inefficient laws, poor co-operation and people who feel powerless to tackle it.

The fairness of any system is put in check every time a bank takes illicit money, a judge yields to private interests, or a politician embezzles public funds. The report underlines the importance of fomenting a sense of mission and honour among the ruling elites of every nation, and we fully agree. That alone is not enough. Conditions must be created so that bribes, jewellery or favours do not seem that exciting when compared with upholding the rule of law. As a symbolic gesture, we should begin by looking at unregulated party funding, which is one of the main entry points for State-level corruption. International co-operation is required when applying measures to banks that take illicit money, sharing information, protecting whistle blowers, or following the money trail.

In the case of the judiciary, it is fundamental that magistrates, judges, prosecutors and investigators are granted maximum independence relative to political or any other power. It is equally important that all information on tax havens should be made available to the public and that legal persons should declare their composition under the law. Finally, the rules and procedures on lobbying should be enforced in every country as a means of safeguarding the independence of the public interest as regards the private. Furthermore, we vigorously call on all member States to follow the recommendations issued by GRECO and MONEYVAL.

      This is a fight that can be won for the good of future generations if we remain true to the axiom that the common good is real only when we all enjoy it on an equal footing. Restoring confidence in public institutions must remain a priority for us, but it is also our duty.

      THE PRESIDENT* – I call Mr de Vries to speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Mr de VRIES (Netherlands) – On behalf of the Socialist Group, I thank the rapporteur for her report, which deals with an essential problem in our societies. Like her, I was shocked to read that several member countries of the Council of Europe rank among the most corrupt countries in the world. We cannot do away with the problem by writing a good report. Rather, changing the culture in those countries to ensure that the rule of law is not undermined by corruption will require commitment and endurance. I also thank Mr Díaz Tejera, who made some important proposals for enlarging the message sent by this Assembly.

With this statement, we will be able to start our work afresh. That is not to say that we have not done our work in the past. We have been reminded of the work of GRECO – which is a perfect institution that needs more encouragement to continue its work – and also MONEYVAL, along with many other declarations, statements and conferences that support the fight against corruption. However, it is good for us as parliamentarians to concentrate on the problem more specifically and not only allude to all the general provisions that have been created.

      In the end, the fight against corruption starts at the top, including in our political systems, which need to clean up those who are liable to corrupt others or become corrupted. It starts by cleaning up the judiciary and protecting it against corruption, and by cleaning up the police and ensuring they are not liable to become corrupted. This all falls under the aegis of political leadership. That is where we have to concentrate. We cannot avoid our responsibility.

      I am speaking in more or less in general terms, but in countries where corruption is rampant, it also takes personal courage to stand up and say no if people offer bribes or want you to do them a service in pursuit of a goal that is not in the public interest, so this is also a call on our consciences. I hope that the report will help us to improve our work and be more conscious of our responsibilities.

      THE PRESIDENT* – I call Ms Guţu to speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Ms GUŢU (Republic of Moldova)* – Ms Reps’s report addresses a subject of great topical interest. Several hundred years ago, a theologian wrote a thesis stressing the importance of watching out for corruption and its negative effects. Here we are still, in the 21st century, talking about corruption and its devastating effects on society.

      The report is obviously complex. It talks about the concept underlying corruption, pointing out that it is no more or less than the abuse of a public or private position. The author of the report points out a plethora of problems relating to corruption that affect all sections of society. It starts with police officers and moves on to civil servants, as well as medical and educational institutions. Corruption can become a scourge for our citizens in all these areas.

      The rule of law is undermined if we do not apply the same rules to everyone. The proper functioning of the rule of law requires a firm commitment by the authorities to clamp down on corruption in all its different forms. Today, corruption is a real threat to democracy. We see how much that is the case in the more impoverished countries, such as countries of the former Soviet Union, where corruption has a detrimental effect on the well-being of the population, as well as on democratic institutions.

      Sometimes a deliberate choice is made in families – for instance, if the parents are against the measures taken by the authorities to prevent cheating in exams. Education is one of the basic cornerstones that we need to focus on if we want to promote personal integrity, which in turn can become professional and political integrity. From this point of view, a lot still needs to be done. The draft resolution and draft recommendation are, if you like, a plan of action for the member States of the Council of Europe, which need to mobilise their efforts to clamp down on corruption.

       The report heightens awareness of the impunity for corruption that seems to exist in some countries in Europe. This is something we cannot tolerate. Zero tolerance of corruption in all its forms should be imposed in all national legislation, which should contain strong measures against corruption. A clear distinction needs to be made between corruption and other offences. National legislation needs to highlight the principle of transparency, especially in banking and financial activities.

      The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe fully endorses the draft resolution and draft recommendation in the report. I again congratulate Ms Reps her work. Colleagues, it is down to us to ensure that our parliaments are made aware of everything that is said and adopted here on this matter.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Mr David Davies to speak on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

      Mr D. DAVIES (United Kingdom) – There is a growing amount of economic data that show a clear correlation between the level of corruption in a nation and that nation’s wealth. I recently read a book on economics called “Why Nations Fail”, which showed that systems of governance and rooting out corruption affect economic prosperity. It is therefore in our interest to resolve these problems, not just because it is the right thing to do morally, but because, at a time of economic crisis, it is something we need to do for the good of our people.

      As has been said, it can take a certain amount of courage. We have heard a lot – and we will hear a lot more – about the police, the judiciary, civil servants and so on. The United Kingdom has faced a certain amount of corruption in the police force. We set up a separate, arm’s length body of police officers, who are cut off from their colleagues. They are not well liked in police forces in the United Kingdom. They work on the basis that 1% of their fellow officers are fundamentally corrupt – they will tell you that 1% of any group of people, including politicians, are corrupt. Those police officers see it as their job not simply to wait for complaints, but to go out and find them and to deal with them.

      A few years ago, when there was concern about United Kingdom members of parliament and their expenses, we reacted by doing something not dissimilar. We set up a totally arm’s length body, which, to British MPs, seems to work on the basis that we are all corrupt and scrutinises every single expense claim we submit. I do not think any of my fellow British MPs finds this comfortable, but I am sure it is a very good thing from the point of view of public confidence.

      There is a great deal we can do to set an example as European politicians. I find it unacceptable that for 17 years the European Union has been unable to get its accounts signed off. I am not necessarily suggesting that people have been putting their fingers into the till and helping themselves to money, but it seems clear that taxpayers’ money has not been properly spent if nobody is prepared to sign off the certificates in a way that any small business would be expected to. It is no good our talking about dealing with corruption if we are not prepared to deal with it when it occurs in fellow transnational government organisations.

One area that is not in the report, and probably will not be mentioned anywhere else, is NGOs. There is a conflict of interest when NGOs that purport to be speaking for the people are being funded to a large extent by government bodies or by the European Union and are then lobbying for changes to legislation that would be unpopular with the very people whom they claim to represent. If governments are not prepared to argue for changes in legislation themselves, they should not fund organisations claiming to represent grass-roots feeling and get them to do it for them. I am thinking particularly of groups that are involved in environmental issues, third world aid and so on.

      It will take a lot of courage to root out corruption in all its forms and the determination to take on vested interests, and I very much hope that we are up to the task.

      The PRESIDENT* – I call Mr Petrenco, on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr PETRENCO (Republic of Moldova)* – On behalf of my group, I congratulate the rapporteur on this interesting and thorough report, into which she has put a lot of work. At the same time, there are questions that we would like to ask about what the Assembly can do to ensure that its conclusions and recommendations do not just remain on paper and get shelved in the archives of the Council of Europe.

What can the Assembly do to fight corruption when we are already undermining the authority of the Council of Europe and renouncing any possibility of influencing the members of this Assembly, as happened yesterday with regard to Hungary? What can our Assembly do specifically to combat corruption if we are afraid to set up monitoring or even to ask our own countries how their democratic institutions function and how they are fulfilling their commitments, for example, to combat corruption? This is not a sterile report and I am not a pessimist; I think it is very useful to discuss corruption here. However, I am doubtful about the effectiveness of both the report and today’s debate.

In the draft resolution, we call upon the governments of member States to do specific things with regard to supporting GRECO, ratification and working with MONEYVAL but, for example, how can the new government of Moldova fight corruption when 90% of the previous government was dismissed from the parliament because of corruption? How can we work with the committee of experts in MONEYVAL on following money trails if a whole series of structures and high-placed people in Moldova have been convicted of corruption, and oligarchs are involved in corruption and money laundering?

Fighting corruption is not just about signing and ratifying European instruments and protocols. In this connection, the report contains the necessary information about which members of this Organisation have not ratified the Convention on Corruption and the additional protocol, and there are quite a few. The problem lies elsewhere. It is basically about who in practice will implement and enforce the convention and the protocol, and how.

In the Assembly, we have to uphold these principles and be whiter than white, not only when it comes to monitoring Hungary but on other questions of principle, particularly with regard to fighting corruption in our own countries. There are two options when it comes to corruption: either we uphold the rule of law or we live in corrupt States. The current tendency is to err towards the second. We as members of parliament have a lot of responsibility here, and our group will definitely support this report.

THE PRESIDENT* – Ms Reps does not wish to respond to the groups now, so I call Ms Christoffersen in the general debate.

Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – This report is very important. Hopefully, it will raise awareness of corruption in our member countries and among us parliamentarians.

What is corruption, really? According to Transparency International, corruption is the abuse of entrusted power for personal gain. Those are the three important notions: abuse, entrusted power and personal gain. Corruption is nothing but theft – the theft of political, social and economic benefits from the people. Everybody in this Chamber would agree that stealing from a neighbour is a crime and should be punished as such. How, then, can it be that theft in the shape of corruption is so widespread in our member countries? What about us, in this Chamber? Are we all clean?

Corruption is found in the public sector, with dishonest officials and greedy politicians giving benefits to themselves at the cost of others; it is found in businesses and across the public and private sectors; and it takes place within international organisations like ours. The benefits take many different forms: they could be a bottle of whisky, paid-for travel or a “moist” party the day before an important political decision. They could be housing privileges, large amounts of money or unauthorised business deals, just to mention a few.

The consequences of corruption are many. In poor countries, but not only in poor countries, corruption creates poverty, social marginalisation and political nepotism. Corruption cases involving parliamentarians, judges or prosecutors create severe distrust between the public and our democratic institutions. It is a threat not only to the rule of law but to democracy itself.

This Parliamentary Assembly and our member States should be in the forefront of the fight against corruption. Unfortunately, that is not the case. The corruption index in appendix 2 is embarrassing for some. Five member States of the Council of Europe are at the bottom of the scale: Ukraine, followed by Azerbaijan, Russia, Albania and Armenia. On the positive side, though, all except Albania have moved in the right direction since the previous index. That is especially the case for Armenia. As rapporteur for Moldova, I am pleased to see a positive mention for that country as well.

It is also worth noting that no country is entirely clean, and that anti-corruption work should be a never-ending story. I fully support the Monitoring Committee being given the task of assessing progress in the fight against corruption. By taking advantage of the Transparency International index, that assessment could even quite easily be made continuous.

Mr POZZO DI BORGO (France)* – It is no accident that the Assembly is holding this debate today. In fact, the debate reminds us of the indisputable legitimacy of our Organisation when it comes to fighting corruption. Democracy is founded on three cornerstones: the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. I am getting tired of seeing how, in France and in other national assemblies, parliamentarians are always beating themselves up over corruption. As far as my assembly is concerned, it is down to us to manage this question, not the executive or the judiciary, and the problem is the same in other national assemblies. I say this because it is very important for democracy: parliaments need to do their own management when it comes to these risks. We should not leave it to the executive or judiciary to resolve these problems.

With GRECO, the Council of Europe has a supervisory body that is very efficient and that brings together 46 members, combining the evaluation and implementation of compliance and monitoring procedure. GRECO bears testimony to the wish of the members of the Council of Europe to set up co-operation in key areas. It also helps to combat the label that is sometimes attached to the Council of Europe as “just a producer of soft law”. Let us remind ourselves that the Juncker report that was presented to the Assembly in 2007 underlined the importance of implementing effectively full and complete co-operation between the European Union and the Council of Europe, and this should be done through concrete projects. There is no doubt that fighting corruption can embody the complementarity that is sought.

In that context, I remind members that the statutes and internal regulations of GRECO allow for the participation of the European Union in group activities. We could also seek out synergies with Eurojust. It may also be of use to step up our co-operation with the European Union’s OLAF anti-fraud office, to avoid duplication of effort. Co-operation with the United Nations would be interesting in this era of globalisation. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime has a wealth of experience on the subject. Let us also give thought to developing closer ties with the OECD’s working party on corruption.

Our work on clamping down on corruption is an example of the value added by the Council of Europe. That is something that we cannot dismiss, especially in these troubled times for this Organisation. There is an opportunity here to enhance the visibility of our work. Partnerships, which are of great importance, can only boost the steps that States have taken to crack down on corruption, and I fully endorse what Ms Reps says in her excellent report.

Mr IVANOVSKI (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”) – It is good that the Council of Europe and its Parliamentary Assembly are again discussing corruption, and I congratulate the rapporteur on her in-depth analysis of the issue. Her dilemma is that she cannot propose and promote all the solutions; it is our task to continue with that.

I agree with all those who say that corruption is endemic, but unfortunately it has begun to be a pandemic. It worries and disappoints me that corruption has started to become systemic in our society. People have started to live with it, and deal with it. They talk about whether it is bigger or smaller, rather than fighting against it and finding solutions – not so as to eradicate it, because that is not possible, but so as to bring it to a more or less acceptable level. I agree that when we talk about corruption, we are talking about a core value of democracy, because corruption gives rise to inequality and discrimination, and undermines the core value for society and citizens: freedom. It disturbs the market economy and creates inequalities in the way that our economies work.

It is our job as politicians to bring about an environment in which no corruption pays; if crime and corruption are seen to succeed, everyone will take part in them, without facing any consequences. In yesterday’s debate about Hungary – I am not talking about Hungary here; I am speaking generally – we spoke about checks and balances. Our reports show that there is always something lacking – in the independence of the judiciary, in how politicians work, or in other institutions. I cannot find any country in which all those systems function properly so as to combat crime and corruption. That applies to Macedonia, too. I will give one disturbing example. In 2010 alone, when €1.5 billion-worth of bids in the public sector were scrutinised, there were allegations that one third of that amount, or €500 million, was potentially corrupted.

When we speak about crime and corruption, we should not speak just in abstract or relative terms, but say that it is more or less becoming a systemic presence in our countries. It is primarily politicians who are responsible for combating it. We have a wonderful instrument in GRECO, but we are not paying much attention to it. On possible solutions, the Parliamentary Assembly should allow more space, visibility and executive mechanisms to GRECO; in the end, that would be of help to us.

Ms DJUROVIĆ (Serbia) – Corruption is a global phenomenon in developed and developing countries alike, and it has always existed in almost all societies. Although it manifests itself in different ways in different countries, depending on the level of economic development and cultural differences, corruption is fundamentally the same scourge wherever it occurs. In Serbia, it has grown at an alarming rate in the past 10 or so years, due to a special link of support formed between politicians and those working outside the law.

Parliaments have a pre-eminent role to play in the global effort to curb corruption by adopting anti-corruption legislation that criminalises corruption, provides appropriate punishment and creates a deterrent. A national branch of the Global Organisation of Parliamentarians against Corruption was recently founded in the Serbian Parliament. That clearly demonstrates the will of parliamentarians to go the extra mile, as parliament represents the first line of accountability in the fight against corruption, through enacting laws that contribute to curbing corruption and through strengthened parliamentary oversight.

The National Assembly, the Serbian Government, Mr Aleksandar Vučić – the First Deputy Prime Minister, who is in charge of anti-corruption policy and combating organised crime – the leader of the largest political party in Serbia, the Serbian Progressive party, and a number of conscientious civil servants stand firm in their fight against corruption. Zero tolerance for corruption is a guiding principle. Our key objective is to have a system where there are no exceptions or people who are exempt, and where the hand of justice reaches all. This fight has already brought about considerable results. Since the new government came to power in Serbia in the middle of 2012, more than 150 corruption cases have been opened.

Every six months in Serbia, the United Nations Development Programme carries out a public opinion poll on corruption and citizens’ trust in the government’s and parliament’s efforts to combat corruption. The latest results show that citizens’ trust has doubled in Serbia. That is why we can hold our head high today and speak with pride on this issue. We are doing our utmost, and are ready to do even more, to curb corruption, especially those forms of corruption that have brought our economy to such a state of difficulty. By performing our legislative activities, and strengthening the work of our committees and our parliamentary oversight, as well as our transparency, we are striving to achieve European legislative standards on our path towards European Union membership, and to make Serbia a country of prosperity, safe investments and equal opportunities for all who want to work. In the coming period, we should invest more effort and energy in the further institutional strengthening of all the forces that are united in the fight against one of the greatest evils of today.

Ms MATEU PI (Andorra)* – These are difficult political times for almost all member States of the Council of Europe. Being an elected representative today is a very difficult task. In small countries such as mine, it is hard to find applicants. We have lost the trust of many of our citizens. We seem to be disconnected from people. One reason for that can be found in the vast number of corruption cases in our member States. People do not believe us. That is why we need to do everything that we can to ensure integrity and transparency and that the values that we defend are beyond reproach.

I wholeheartedly commend the report by Ms Reps. It highlights all the problems surrounding corruption and brings to the fore the various instruments that exist for cracking down on this scourge. We need to do everything that we can to ensure that, in member States of the Council of Europe, the recommendations of organisations such as MONEYVAL and GRECO are listened to fully and, more importantly, implemented. Our credibility is at stake here. We need to combat this scourge with vigour and conviction, and use all the instruments that exist in our society.

      Mr NEILL (United Kingdom) – I congratulate Ms Reps on a good, powerful and very helpful report. In particular, I welcome the references to the work of GRECO and the amendments tabled by Mr Díaz Tejera. I have the honour of being the Parliamentary Assembly’s representative on GRECO, and I vouch for the quality of the work that it undertakes. It consists of professional law enforcers and anti-corruption agents across the Council of Europe and some of our allied bodies, and it has a highly regarded peer-to-peer evaluation system.

We can do more to make use of GRECO, as has been observed. It is keen to strengthen its relationship with the Parliamentary Assembly. I know that the bureau of GRECO has invited you, Mr President, to attend its next plenary meeting in October, and I look forward to seeing you there. GRECO is anxious to have a constructive dialogue with us to see how we can work together at an appropriate level at the earliest opportunity.

It is important that we give the technicians of GRECO the political support to do their job. GRECO has also taken steps to ensure that the parliamentary delegations of each member State will be informed at the time of publication of the evaluation reports on each country. I hope that we will each take note of what is said about our own country, because we can all learn something. That is the first concrete step that we can take.

      The second concrete step that we can take is to ensure that we set an example and press our own governments to ratify the conventions and underpinning protocols necessary to implement GRECO’s work. Paragraph 46 of the report states that several member States have yet to sign up to or ratify the convention and its associated protocols. We should make that a priority.

      The third step that we can take is to press for the swift formal accession of the European Union to GRECO, which is permitted by the statute. I welcome the letter that the Secretary General sent to the European Commission stressing the Parliamentary Assembly’s wish that the impact assessment on European Union adhesion to GRECO be carried out promptly. That has been delayed for far too long. It is a logical thing to do, because corruption does not stop at the borders of any European Union or Council of Europe member State. Money flows, criminal activity and the instruments – legal or illegal – that underpin them know no boundaries. Those are practical steps that we can take as an Assembly to strengthen the fight against corruption through an instrument that we have already in place.

      Ms TOMC (Slovenia) – Most probably, no one will disagree that corruption is a major problem and that all attention should be paid to preventing it. This topic is incredibly important for Slovenia because according to various reports and indexes, our country faces significant corruption problems. Unfortunately, the tools available for the prevention of corruption are used inconsistently and not effectively enough. Let me draw your attention to two key issues that have led to this state of affairs.

The first problem is legislation. The commission for the prevention of corruption, which acts parallel to the law enforcement and judicial authorities, operates on the basis of a special law that enables the use of terms that are hard to comprehend and that can be interpreted widely. That can lead to abuse. Many cases that the commission deals with do not represent any criminal offences; many represent only potential danger that has not occurred yet. The general public, who are not aware of those significant differences in content and who are influenced by the media, can therefore get a false understanding of the whole situation.

The second problem is the management structure of the commission. The political independence of the current management is questionable because the chief commissioner is a senior official of the former government, and the deputy is a well-known journalist and author of numerous articles that were unfavourable towards the former government and its prime minister. All those concerns can be raised in the case of Janez Janša, the former Slovenian Prime Minister, who is mentioned in the commission’s report. I remind the Assembly that his government fell as a result of that report.

Let me stress that there was no possibility of appeal against the commission. Many respected experts have stated that the report is not sufficiently justified and does not meet economic or legal criteria. Taking into account all the circumstances, especially the fact that the government of Janez Janša was incredibly successful in fighting recession and the fact that many interests of the elites of the former system were threatened by the anticipated reorganisation of the banking system and the sale of state property, the commission’s action can be seen in a different light.

To conclude, in no case should the fight against corruption become a tool for the elimination of political opponents. Because their actions have immense consequences, institutions that operate in the field of preventing corruption must be highly professional and their undisputed political independence should be ensured.

Ms VUČKOVIĆ (Serbia) – I congratulate the rapporteur on an excellent report on a topic that we all agree is one of the most important problems that our societies face. Corruption has a devastating effect on them, and it is a particular problem in new democracies, where some institutions are new, where procedures for providing accountability and transparency are still weak, and where democratic tradition is scarce. Corruption is certainly endemic in some parts of Europe, though through recent developments in Serbia, we have achieved some positive results. The anti-corruption agency was established only four years ago, and almost 80% of citizens now see it as crucial in the fight against corruption. Corruption is perceived as one of the most important problems faced by citizens in our country. They perceive it to be most frequent in political parties, the police, the judiciary and health care. I am sure we all agree that those fields are the most important in the fight against corruption.

Political will to fight corruption is of the utmost importance, but it should be underpinned by a legal framework that encourages institutions to work. We will not achieve results in the fight against corruption if we do not nurture an anti-corruption culture in our societies. That brings me to the role of the media, which is crucial; it can be positive but it can also be negative in some cases. In Serbia today, under the pretext of the fight against corruption, there is a growing tyranny of the tabloids. There is co-operation between some police circles and tabloids, and although such co-operation may produce stories and media reports, it is devoid of media responsibility and respect for the principle of presumption of innocence. In a situation where the ownership of the media is not always visible, that is quite a big problem.

The fight against corruption must not be misused to carry out a political fight against opponents, as my colleague Ms Tomc said. It should not turn into the criminalisation of opposition. It should not be selective, and if we want it to be credible, it should not be limited to former members of the government; it should include the ranks of the current government. All should be equally examined.

In Serbia, we still have a lot to do. We will debate a new strategy for fighting corruption. We must adjust our judiciary in respect of a media strategy and adopt the law on protection of whistle blowers. The fight against party employment in the public sector is also crucial. If the efforts to fight corruption are widely supported by society, they can bring real results. It is essential that we fight corruption to build a sustainable democratic environment and raise confidence in our institutions.

      Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – It is not easy for me to speak about corruption, being a representative of a country which is top of the corruption perception index list. For many years I have fought against this disgraceful practice in Ukraine. The truth is that corruption has penetrated all walks of life in Ukraine without exception, and that process is deepening.

Before that, we had some positive developments. In the summer of 2009, the National Parliament of Ukraine adopted the anti-corruption law package, which was described by GRECO specialists as one of the best in Europe. I was co-author of those draft laws. Our team also prepared some new drafts for later adoption to continue the fight against corruption. However, in Ukraine, you can create the best law ever written but you cannot make it work without political will, and the political will changed when President Yanukovych came to power in 2010.

The new parliament's majority abolished that package in 2010 and 2011. After concerns were expressed by GRECO officials, the ruling party adopted a very soft substitute law that does not really fight against corruption. Bees cannot struggle against honey, and Ukrainians obtained further evidence of that saying, because the new authorities would not struggle against corruption. The last two years have proved that. We now live in a perverted country where gangs and crooks rule the State and work as judges, prosecutors and policemen, but law-abiding people are obliged to remain in the shadows. There are corrupt judges and prosecutors. The opposition leaders Tymoshenko and Lutsenko were convicted without any evidence at all, just on the order of Yanukovych.

Ukraine has corruption at all levels. Citizens need to pay bribes to get their documents or certificates done, even though their provision is guaranteed by law. The greediness of officials at all levels has reached incredible heights. The problem is that functionaries see it as an opportunity: either city officials are stealing thousands through fake street cleaning programmes, or the Ukrainian Government is stealing billions by buying gas drill platforms via fake companies.

Ukraine cannot fight corruption if the activities of President Yanukovych’s family continue. His son's company received money from the budget to pay for a private helicopter for Yanukovych. This machine is more expensive than the other helicopters used by world leaders. I could give you hundreds of similar examples but the time limit does not allow me to do so.

I would like to praise this report, which is very honest. I ask you to support limiting the use by all corrupt people, irrespective of their position, of dirty money to purchase goods and services. Without serious international resistance to corruption, if a country does win a victory against a corrupt regime, there is a very high chance that it will re-emerge. The example of Ukraine has proved that corruption can become established if there is not serious and real resistance.

Ms MILADINOVIĆ (Serbia) – For the purpose of this report, the rapporteur relied on the definition of corruption that provides a summary of all the key aspects of this phenomenon: "Misuse of entrusted public power for private gain". The causes of corruption are various. We may see it in the government, the public sector and in legal system. Nevertheless, corruption depends in the first place on the culture and value system. Therefore, we cannot say that corruption is primarily a crime; it is an integrity issue.

Corruption prevention requires the establishment of efficient horizontal and vertical co-operation between all institutions and information sharing among the police, prosecution, judiciary and other governmental regulatory and supervisory bodies. It is especially important to improve the institutional and legal framework to provide support to civil society organisations, as the rapporteur mentioned in the recommendations.

The Republic of Serbia has taken significant steps in the prevention of corruption in recent years. Anti-corruption institutions have been set up and a more efficient legal framework has been developed. A few days ago, the Serbian Government adopted a national anti-corruption strategy, which is being debated in the Serbian Parliament. That document provides the foundation for strategic principles aimed at setting up a stronger and more efficient anti-corruption system.

Last month, we set up in the Serbian Parliament a national branch of the Global Organisation of Parliamentarians against Corruption, or GOPAC. A majority of our parliaments are vested with the power to establish the legal framework necessary to organise and manage public affairs. Parliaments must promote the commitment to principles of integrity by political figures, institutions and civil servants and transparency in State administration. It is up to us to make the maximum use of constitutional and other legal mechanisms to perform the oversight functions.

In addition – public office holders and parliamentarians belong in this category – we have to urge that positions of power be rotated and support all activities aimed at the promotion of an anti-corruption value system to emphasise the value of order and social standards, in accordance with the highest standards of socially responsible societies, where corruption is unacceptable.

Ms POSTANJYAN (Armenia) – Corruption remains a major problem, posing a serious threat to the rule of law. In the public sector, it can take many forms: presidents, prime ministers or ministers who abuse their powers, police or other officials who take bribes, elections that are bought, crooked judges, money laundering, parliamentarians claiming false expenses, and illegal lobbying. We all know about it.

After the rigged presidential elections on 18 February 2013, the Transparency International Anti-Corruption Centre in Armenia launched a campaign called, "I am checking the voting of absentees." It is urging the National Assembly of Armenia to make amendments to the electoral code to ensure voter lists are publicised to show the signatures of those who participated in the elections on 18 February 2013. It will enable Armenian citizens to be sure that absentees' votes are not used in the electoral process.

After the February 2013 election, the international community congratulated the fraudster Serzh Sargsyan, who stole the suffrage of the Armenian people. Since 1995 in Armenia, a loophole has allowed the same parties to illegally return to power. It is the international community’s choice, of course, to congratulate a thief and fraudster and from time to time to spend together meeting. But where is our conscience?

The working definition of "corruption" used by Transparency International is "Misuse of entrusted public power for private gain". The final report on the Republic of Armenia presidential election of 18 February 2013 by the OSCE/ODIHR election observation mission stated: "Public officials should refrain from abuse of administrative resources, including abuse of office towards their employees and the public. Effective efforts should be undertaken to ensure the impartiality of the public administration, including of State and local government officials. They should refrain from putting pressure on voters, both during the campaign and on election day."

Armenian citizens are deeply disappointed when officials of the Council of Europe together with other officials of the European institutions such as José Manuel Barroso and Wilfried Martens encourage corruption in the post-Soviet space. Unfortunately, today, very often, we witness corruption and we know corrupt officials in person. We have the real mechanisms to fight against them, but eventually caviar diplomacy or geopolitics, or both, still win.

Ms ZOHRABYAN (Armenia)* – I consider the report by Ms Reps to be one of the most important reports discussed in our Assembly not only in this part-session but in recent times. Indeed, today, there is no greater threat to the rule of law than that posed by corruption. I am grateful to our colleague, who has had so much courage to come back to such a serious matter. Political corruption destroys democratic values. Many respected members of this Assembly have become lobbyists in the pay of other countries. We do not want political corruption to grow to the extent that it goes unmentioned and destroys irreversibly the fundamental values of our Organisation.

      I want to discuss the report’s section on parliamentary corruption. I fully agree with Ms Reps, who gives the striking example of so-called caviar diplomacy by Azerbaijan, through which it manages to avoid criticism, both by our Assembly and by other international organisations. The time has come for an open and public report on those whose names feature in the Azerbaijani caviar scandal.

      A recently published report by Freedom House states that over recent years western diplomats have been quick to refrain from speaking out against human rights violations in Azerbaijan because caviar diplomacy has been used. Through gifts and money, Azerbaijan has created its own group of advocates in the Council of Europe and they are being used to destroy anything that is not in the interests of the Azerbaijani authorities. Recently, the German daily Der Tagesspiegel devoted some time to the issue. It named members of the Assembly who have periodically made use of Azerbaijani political hospitality. A conference in Baku in which American politicians took part was also given as an example of corruption.

We need to draw serious conclusions from this report and consider the dangerous effects of corruption. The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights should organise a special discussion on political corruption and we should draw up concrete and efficient mechanisms to crack down on politically corrupt people who are destroying European values.

Mr SIDYAKIN (Russian Federation)* – I thank Ms Reps for this well-prepared report, which the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights discussed in Izmir and in Strasbourg. The report title is very good: corruption is a threat not just to the rule of law, but to the basis of any State policy. Of course, it is difficult for any member State of the Council of Europe to get on top of corruption. Many States have taken considerable strides in fighting corruption and, as Ms Reps has said, many are prepared to take immediate measures to do so. I assure colleagues that Russia is among those countries.

Corruption goes back a long way, even to the Tsarist era. The country was so big and the functions of the State were performed by governors, who were very well fed. Even though we are now in a transitional period, the term “Russian corruption” is widespread, so we are doing everything we can to combat it. The report bears testimony to that.

We have undertaken to declare our assets. Indeed, we have gone even further, in that we are the first country to ban senior civil servants, members of the government and MPs from having foreign accounts, shares and assets. That will be an effective curb on corruption. Some 4 500 cases were filed last year, despite the involvement of governors, members of the government and mayors. They are all being tried and some have already been convicted.

We are working carefully on tightening our approach to certain crimes. It is now a criminal offence to promote bribe taking and we fine people for active and passive bribery, particularly those who try to suborn judges – they now face a fine 100 times greater than it used to be. We are doing a lot in our economy, we have ratified many conventions and we are following all the recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force. We participate in the Group of States against Corruption and were one of the first countries to ratify the Convention against Corruption.

I would have been happy to wear a T-shirt against corruption today, but Mr Mignon said that I was not allowed to wear another one.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Sidyakin. You look fine in a shirt; in fact, you look very elegant. Mr Recordon is not here, so I call Mr Beneyto.

Mr BENEYTO (Spain)* – Corruption is a cancer in democracy and it attacks society’s defences. Its metastasis creates a monster with several heads, which is why corruption is a never-ending story. It introduces arbitrary elements into the political and economic system and is a clear abuse of power, resulting in the dilapidation of public resources. This undermines people’s trust in politicians and governmental structures.

The Parliamentary Assembly has a key part to pay in clamping down on corruption. It needs to co-operate more effectively with the OECD, MONEYVAL, GRECO and other international organisations, including the United Nations. GRECO should be given a greater presence in the Assembly. GRECO appraises and keeps abreast of what is actually happening with corruption and we should do everything we can to promote membership of it. We should call on those countries that have not yet done so to ratify the GRECO convention on criminalising corruption.

Work needs to be stepped up with non-governmental organisations such as Transparency International. That would help us disseminate more widely the reports published by such organisations. The Assembly could also develop good practices and a stricter code of ethics and implement our different instruments.

We should clamp down on corruption in other areas, not only in the political field, but in the media and the corporate world. The report rightly states that minority shareholders should be able to take more action. We should also clamp down on tax fraud and tax evasion. A whole series of measures need to be taken. The Assembly needs to play a strong role in tackling corruption, which is a cancer that is attacking and destroying democracy.

Ms ANDERSEN (Norway) – I support the report. Money talks everywhere and that is why this issue is so important. Everybody recognises corruption in poor countries that lack good governance, but being rich is no guarantee against corruption for a person or a country. Countries with good governance and good laws have to be aware of that. Of course, it is important to have a decent income for every public officer and civil servant, otherwise it is easy to take a bribe, and that demoralises the whole of society. It is also important to put an end to tax havens and speculation in order to tackle corruption. Large corruption is about big money, whereas small corruption demoralises people and societies. Both are very harmful.

      When I watch the television news or read the newspapers these days, I see riots in many countries, such as Brazil. When interviewed, the young people on the street say that they lack trust in their politicians because they are corrupt. It is very important that we take notice of such feelings because that is a threat to democracy. If we cannot establish trust between the population and politicians, so that people believe we are not corrupt and that we are taking decisions based on our values and policies in our capacity as elected parliamentarians, we will be in deep trouble. Democracy is based on trust, and that is why transparency and scrutiny are so important.

      It is also important to have international agreements that make it compulsory for big companies to report in each country what they pay in tax and how they deal with their profits. Otherwise, we cannot stop corruption.

      THE PRESIDENT* - I call Mr Khader from Palestine, Partner for Democracy.

      Mr KHADER (Palestine) – It is an established fact that corruption erodes democracy, demoralises society and undermines the values to which we all subscribe. It is not possible to have sound democratic institutions that gain the confidence and trust of citizens without a commitment to fight corruption. This fight places the responsibility on us as individual parliamentarians and, just as importantly, it should motivate us to develop systems that provide a check on practices that promote corruption, and to establish mechanisms, both public and private, to monitor corrupt practices and enhance transparency.

      We in Palestine are committed to fight manifestations of corruption. This is a commitment to our people first and foremost as we struggle to end the occupation and to establish our own independent State as modern and democratic. Recent years have seen tangible progress in developing a national strategy for fighting corruption in Palestine. An anti-corruption law, which had been endorsed by our legislative council, was activated after being amended to bring it more in line with international norms and anti-corruption conventions. A law against money laundering was also promulgated. Pursuant to this legislation, an anti-corruption commission was set up, and a special anti-corruption tribunal was instituted in order to facilitate and speed up judicial proceedings on corruption cases that are transferred to trial by the anti-corruption commission.

      We realise that these are the first steps on a long and rough road, but Palestinian parliamentarians are determined to push forward in this direction. As I have said, this is mainly a commitment to our people, but it is also a commitment we take on ourselves as partners for democracy in the Council of Europe. I am sure that the ideas and practical proposals in the excellent report and draft resolution presented by Ms Reps will be a great help and a qualitative addition to our experience in this field. We thank the rapporteur for her valuable work, and we will submit the report for serious consideration by our colleagues in the Palestinian parliament and will take its recommendations as guidelines for the further improvement of our anti-corruption legislation and mechanisms.

      Mr GAUDI NAGY (Hungary) – I too congratulate Ms Reps on her wonderful and comprehensive report, which I hope will give greater impetus to the fight against corruption all over Europe. In order to realise that hope, all the States that face corruption must radically change the methods that they adopt. Corruption is, of course, present in all member States of the Council of Europe, so it is important to avoid the suggestion that so-called clean States can teach other countries how to be free from corruption.

      In Eastern Europe, during the transformation from the communist to the so-called market system, there were many occasions on which foreign investors took part in corrupt action to gain more influence with policy makers and greater slices of the market. We must face that fact. The European Union as an organisation is not free from corruption, and that is why all its member States must avoid enacting laws that are influenced by hidden groups who act from behind a curtain. That is why I agree with the important sentence in the report that, “corrupt acts undermine the rule of law and respect for human rights by allowing certain wealthy and politically powerful elites to deal among themselves, often with impunity”. That is always to the detriment of the interests of the people, and that is why it is important to raise our voices to improve law enforcement, to protect whistle blowers, to ensure tougher punishment for perpetrators and to ensure that banks are not allowed to hide dirty money.

      Mr SOBOLEV (Ukraine) – I thank Ms Reps for her excellent report. I also thank her not only for the her recommendations for Council of Europe member States, but for the concrete facts in her report including those on corruption in Ukraine. According to the figures for corruption, Ukraine is in 144th place among all countries, and 44th among member States of the Council of Europe.

You can only imagine the level of corruption in the Ukraine, but why is it so? Two years into the Yanukovych Government, we have no law that can solve the problem of corruption. Even now, only members of the government or the parliament decide whether or not to print a declaration, so what has happened to open society and open control over members of the government or parliament?

Corruption in the judicial system is the main problem in the Ukraine. The European Court made a special decision in the case of Mr Volkov, who was dismissed from his position as a supreme court judge because of serious cases in which he challenged corruption – the Court announced that the higher level authorities did everything in order to dismiss him. He is still not back in the supreme court, but those named in the decision of the Strasbourg Court are still in their positions.

We have an excellent example of corruption in parliament. An opposition member got nearly $500 000 to vote with the Yanukovych faction. He announced it, and got his money for children’s schools and hospitals, but there is still no reaction.

My last example is of political corruption and political repression in Ukraine. Former Prime Minister Tymoshenko got seven years for only one decision – the decision that one State company should sign an agreement with another to offer the possibility of transferring gas to Europe. She is still in prison. The effects of corruption are hidden by the high authorities and primarily by Yanukovych. We therefore need the recommendations in the report. The fight against corruption is real.

      Mr CONNARTY (United Kingdom) – I commend the work of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights and the excellent amendments from the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs. I support the draft resolution and particularly the draft recommendation. It was good to hear from Mr Neill of the United Kingdom about the good work of GRECO. More power to it and to MONEYVAL.

      I have twice taken part in the United Kingdom parliamentary police scheme, in which members are embedded in policing organisations in the United Kingdom. Very impressive developments in cyber-analysis of money trails have come about, in both criminal society and public bodies, particularly in procurement, in respect of which repeated malpractice and corruption have been revealed.

      Mr Davies of the United Kingdom mentioned the parliamentary expenses scandal. In reality, that was not about illegality, but about privilege at a time when people were feeling the whiplash of global financial meltdown. Fewer than 10 MPs and Lords were found guilty of illegality. That is the dilemma. Corruption is a rot in a body or system. Sometimes it is illegal, but it is often institutionalised and legalised. I suggest that legalised corruption and criminal corruption are equal threats to the fair world we wish for. When people talk of Swiss bank accounts or registration of companies in the Cayman Islands or other United Kingdom overseas protectorates, they are not talking about illegality; they are identifying the corruption of secrecy and the refusal of powerful multinational companies to be transparent in their financial and business operations. Such arrangements hide corruption.

      If a customer buys a product or uses a company’s service in their country thinking they are making a contribution to their country’s economy, only to find that fancy accounting practices allow the company to pay no taxes in that country, is that not corruption in the system and an insult to the concept of the rule of law? But it is legalised. Tax avoidance is as damaging to a country as money laundering. That is why it was on the G8 agenda this month.

      Paragraph 5 of the draft resolution calls on non-member States and relevant institutions to implement GRECO and MONEYVAL recommendations. As the Chair of the Sub-Committee on Education, Youth and Sport, I am involved in the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media investigation of football governance, particularly in respect of FIFA. Was the rule that 25% of all insurance for the World Cup had to go through a company owned by the previous FIFA president corruption? Are the current demonstrations in Brazil against the building of hugely expensive football stadiums generated in part by the proven kick-backs to past football association presidents who are now hiding out in Miami? We must counter corruption in all its definitions if we wish to create a fairer society.

      Ms KHIDASHELI (Georgia) – The problem of corruption is one of the most urgent and pressing in the world. I thank Ms Reps for this brilliant report, which clearly sets out all the problems, and the principles and values for which we stand. It also gives us solutions to those problems. It is important that we are discussing corruption today. I believe that the Assembly can come up with a concrete agenda for tackling corruption and for making our fight more effective and important in years to come.

      Unfortunately, we live in a world where democracy is undermined almost daily by the corrupt practices not only of public officials but of judges and media outlets. Sometimes it involves NGOs and the private sector. That is where the problems tend to be most dramatic and urgent. It is the duty of the Assembly to have clear benchmarks and to mark the red lines for defining violations and clearing up monitoring practices.

Many issues are outlined in this wonderful report, but I want to outline just one aspect of corrupt practice among many, namely State capture. Council of Europe and OSCE reports, and especially those on elections, often say how a ruling party is merged with the State, and how public finances have been used for concrete electoral and political purposes. That undermines democracy, which is a problem. In such a situation, electoral representatives are not representatives of the people; they have come to power only because of corrupt practices. They get such electoral results because their political parties merge with the State and use the benefit of the State budget exclusively for their concrete political and electoral purposes.

That there are no clear rules and regulations for such practices in the Council of Europe is unacceptable. It is unacceptable that we do not practise such rules on a daily basis. The reports to which I have referred are always vague and general, and say only that the line between the political party and the State has been blurred. There is no further reaction on how to address and tackle the problem, or on how we can stop it happening in another country.

I very much hope that, along with the report, we can draw up concrete rules and benchmarks for tackling the problem. There is no democracy if we have no clear rules of the game set up for all political parties equally. Without such rules, we will always have one-party systems, and the ruling party will stay as such for ever, and Arab Springs or other kinds of revolution will be needed in order to change power.

      Mr AGUZAROV (Russian Federation) – For the international community, corruption is one of the greatest threats to the rule of law and good governance. The level of corruption in a country very much correlates with the extent to which human rights are violated and political opposition is repressed. In the 20th century, corruption in Congo, the Philippines, Zimbabwe and Indonesia was associated with dictatorships and totalitarian regimes. In 1999, the Group of States against Corruption was set up to ensure that the values of the Council of Europe were respected in countries that joined it. Since 2008, the Russian Federation has been a member of GRECO, and corruption has been identified as a national threat.

The Russian Federation is a young democracy in which corruption is particularly dangerous, and during the period of transition from totalitarianism to democracy, corruption was a widespread phenomenon. That resulted in the oligarchs being involved in government decision making. A programme has now been adopted to combat corruption through the introduction of appropriate laws and regulations. In 2003, the Russian Federation signed the United Nations Convention against Corruption, and in 2007 it signed other international instruments. Since 2008, more than 2,600 standard-setting laws to combat corruption have been promulgated or adopted in the legislature, and great attention is paid to the transparency of government as a whole. Measures are being introduced to ensure that there is no unholy alliance between businessmen and politicians. The limit on assets that can be held by civil servants is part of that effort, and appropriate entities of the administration are implementing measures to ensure that corruption is uprooted. That is also being done through advisory councils in civil society, which are expert groups that look at the various standard-setting laws that are being implemented.

The Russian Federation will continue to combat corruption, working hand in hand with the Council of Europe. It is convinced that to have a truly democratic State with good governance, one needs to combat corruption effectively. Corruption is one of the greatest obstacles to the rule of law and democracy, and we must fight it resolutely, leaving no stone unturned.

Ms VIROLAINEN (Finland) – I thank our Estonian colleague, Ms Reps, for this excellent and crucial report.

As we have already heard many times, corruption is like an infectious disease that undermines democracy, creates distrust and weakens our societies. Without proper treatment, it will only get worse and spread. However, if we treat it, it forces us to change our ways and have regular check-ups to ensure that we do not fall ill again. We have the medicine, yet corruption is widespread. With the chance of gaining power comes a risk of blurring the line between right and wrong. A dishonest person can weaken the whole system, letting unhealthy influence and nepotism prevail. That results in decisions being taken that benefit a small minority and weaken people’s belief in governments.

Trust is a crucial element in fighting the disease of corruption. We as parliamentarians must strengthen people’s trust in democracy. If we trust others, we gain trust back. In my opinion, that is best achieved through openness. Transparency is the best way to fight corruption, and our parliaments have an important role to play. Indeed, we have a responsibility to act on all cases of suspected corruption. In doing so, we must put our own activities under the microscope. By allowing early public scrutiny of decision making, revealing whom we talk to and declaring our conflicts of interest, we establish a culture of trust to the benefit of our people.

There are many legal instruments to fight corruption, including our own invaluable agency GRECO. Its recent report on Finland, one of the world’s least corrupt countries, contains many calls for improved transparency. It shows that anti-corruption measures can never stop. To complement legislation, we also need mutually agreed codes of conduct that introduce zero tolerance of corruption among all actors in our societies.

In economically challenging times, it is important to observe the flow of money. We all know that the grey economy takes away jobs, worsening the situation for our young people. It also negatively affects tax revenues and puts our welfare States at risk. Let us face it, corruption is extremely costly for our societies. Painkillers will not cure this deteriorating disease; what we need now is highly invasive surgery. I strongly support the report and encourage everyone to continue fighting corruption.

Mr NICOLAIDES (Cyprus) – I congratulate the rapporteur on this thorough report. Following the extensive discussions that the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights had on the subject in Izmir, I stress that, if we are to uphold the values of this Organisation, we as parliamentarians must remain committed to combating the phenomenon of corruption at its roots. We must support practical anti-corruption measures and ensure that they are implemented at European, national and local level.

Corruption is endemic in certain cases, affecting both the private and public sectors and both high and low-ranking government officials. Bribery, the theft of public assets and illegal financial transactions must be combated regardless of the scale and severity of the offence; we must defend that principle at all costs. Governments must be held accountable for abuses of power and authority, and persons entrusted with prominent public functions must be held accountable for their actions or omissions, as well as for their sources of wealth. The accumulation of public functions by public figures also needs to be closely scrutinised.

We must continue to support Council of Europe monitoring bodies such as GRECO and MONEYVAL, and provide them with the means, including the financial capability, to carry out their duties. Their recommendations must be fully implemented. I also commend the excellent work of the Venice Commission. Our Assembly has recently adopted reports on politically motivated abuses of power, the protection of whistle blowers, the role of public prosecutors and judicial corruption. Those reports contain accurate information, and solutions and recommendations that may be used by member States facing relevant challenges in their domestic legal, political or financial systems.

The rise of populism in Europe is not unrelated to corruption. The promotion of the interests of a particular group of people for electoral purposes, to the detriment of the public good, may place politicians in a difficult position and put them under pressure to live up to their electorate’s expectations. The financing of political parties also needs to be reassessed, and there must be transparency about such transactions for the public at large.

Ms A. HOVHANNISYAN (Armenia) – I thank Ms Reps for her excellent report. The fight against corruption is ongoing, and we should respect each and every step that is taken to eliminate it effectively. With the development of society, new mechanisms of corruption are being developed and applied, thus making it even more hidden and more difficult to reveal. The only way to fight effectively against corruption is to develop new mechanisms of investigation that will keep up with the changing environment of corruption.

The basic principles of the fight against corruption include legal certainty and the prohibition of arbitrariness. Those two principles should be our guidelines when we set the margins of discretion for public officials and administrative bodies. Discretion is a necessary element of governance, as it individualises the law, but it also creates a source of possible corruption. That is why it is necessary to set out specific and clear rules to regulate the use of discretionary powers by public officials. Those rules should allow them to use power effectively and reduce the possibility of arbitrariness as far as possible. They should also guarantee respect for the principle of legal certainty, which is an essential part of the notion of the rule of law.

I certainly agree that one of the most effective mechanisms for fighting corruption is transparency. Given the right information and support, political parties and organisations can contribute a lot to the investigation and disclosure of cases involving corruption. In fact, the best way to fight corruption is to ensure the freedom and independence of the media, and have active and informed citizenship. The fight against corruption requires more investment in education, democracy, legislation and free media. In that regard, the work of international and national organisations can make an important contribution.

      I agree with the rapporteur that the link between lobbying and corruption is another area worthy of attention. The Council of Europe is the body that oversees the principles of conduct and democracy, and it should also implement those rules in the first place. The report justly mentioned that we have come across cases of inappropriate lobbying in the work of our Parliamentary Assembly. An outstanding example of that was the failure of the report by Christoph Strässer, “The follow-up to the issue of political prisoners in Azerbaijan”. That is a true example of inappropriate lobbying in the Parliamentary Assembly, which we should not tolerate. Therefore, the introduction of a new code of rules governing lobbying will make an important contribution to solving the problem, not only at national level but also in our Assembly. If we want to introduce changes, we should first start with ourselves.

      Ms TZAKRI (Greece) – In Aristotle’s famous “Politics” and Plato’s famous “Dialogues” one can find extensive references to corruption, to the way that that social phenomenon disrupts the functions of the city-State and, of course, to possible remedies. Plato answers all the relevant questions on corruption by seeing it as a problem of the political authorities, a problem of democracy. He believes that in democratic societies, the best and smartest people are not always those who rule. That may be true. Aristotle, on the other hand, deals with the problem more empirically and realistically. He, too, believes that although democracy might be a problematic system of governance, it is the best we have. Taking that as fact, the million-dollar question is how to make democracy, through its institutions, a better system of governance – not an easy question to answer.

      Nowadays, corruption is probably the most important threat to the rule of law, and that simple political diagnosis is, I believe, the most powerful political proposition of our time. Corruption has many faces and can exist in many different institutions, from administration to the political system and, of course, economic and judicial institutions. It is the most obvious threat to all political and economic systems, no matter how much they differ.

Corruption is not easily recognisable due to the complexity of the contemporary world. It is, therefore, important for political and judicial systems to seek a remedy to the problem in two different directions, first, by simplifying procedures where applicable, and secondly through transparency. How can these two directions work together? It is very simple. Above all, we must recognise that red tape does not safeguard the interests of the State, the people and, of course, the economy. Simplifying procedures does not necessarily imply that the State will lose control that is vital for society, but it can be an efficient way to fight corruption. Secondly, transparent procedures will help expose corruption.

      In a highly globalised world, it is easy to conceal corruption in tax paradises, or in small almost non-existent countries that function in this globalised world with no regulations. We welcome the examination of existing legislation with regards to a more efficient system for tracking the money trail left by corrupt practices. We also welcome any action against banks that co-operate in corrupt actions in any way, either through tolerance or through action, as well as any other suggestion that will strengthen our institutions. Most of all we welcome the faith of people, which is the basis of democracy, in these institutions.

I wish to add some thoughts about something in which I strongly believe: civil society. No society can succeed in any sphere of action unless its citizens are mature and want to succeed. Corruption is a problem of obscure practices and complex economic and political systems on the one hand, but it also concerns the maturity of citizens. No society can succeed if it has a great mass of people who co-operate with, or accept, corruption. Corruption is a way of thinking, not only of acting. If we believe in democracy, we must believe in mature societies and mature citizens. Above all, let us try to build a better and more educated society, not only mechanisms and institutions that fight corruption.

THE PRESIDENT* – Mr Seyidov is not here, so I call Mr Drăghici.

Mr DRĂGHICI (Romania) – I congratulate the rapporteur on her valuable work in drafting such a report. It is not easy to talk about corruption, which is a frightening scourge that poses a real threat to the rule of law. It is up to us as parliamentarians to devise a legal framework to prevent such dangerous practices in our societies, and also to use our instruments of oversight to ensure that those legal provisions do not remain only on paper.

In Romania, the past years brought about an impressive arsenal for fighting corruption and increasing accountability and transparency, and some of those provisions have recorded positive effects in the campaign for public integrity. The two most successful tools are the Freedom of Information Act and the decision to make transparent public declarations of assets and conflicts of interest for dignitaries and public servants.

An anti-corruption national strategy for 2012 to 2015 is now in force in Romania, and its core values focus on the political will of the legislative, executive and judicial branches to engage in an effective fight against corruption, and the integrity and obligation of public service representatives to declare any personal interests that could interfere with the objective exercise of public duties. We must also encourage the prevalence of public interest and transparency in decision-making processes by holding regular consultations and facilitating unhindered access to public information for anyone interested.

Ms ČIGĀNE (Latvia) – I fully subscribe to the conclusion of Ms Reps that corruption is a threat to the rule of law, for two main reasons. First, corruption creates inequality, meaning that some people are playing by completely different rules from others. Secondly, corruption is not transparent but fuzzy. Information is incomplete and people never really know where they stand. I had an interesting discussion with a colleague lawmaker in the Latvian Parliament. He said that we should not push for more stringent rules for campaign financing because we are the only party that observes such rules, and because other parties do not observe them, we end up in a worse situation. I told him exactly what Ms Reps told us: we must think long term and consider how institutions will create a certain culture. Therefore, the work of GRECO, the Council of Europe’s anti-corruption body, is tremendously important.

Mr von Sydow yesterday mentioned that GRECO has commented negatively on Sweden, which ranks high in terms of corruption perception, which means it is a corruption-free country. For that reason, GRECO has done a good job by specifically focusing on campaign financing regulation in many well-established democracies where we often believe that everything is perfect. It is good that GRECO has made such an analysis, and that there are recommendations on how to improve the systems.

From my perspective as a lawmaker, I have seen that our anti-corruption bodies sometimes follow GRECO recommendations very literally. I recently had a discussion with our anti-corruption agency in Latvia, which told me that the GRECO recommendations must be implemented word by word. I said that the spirit behind the letters is much more important, and all countries would benefit from more in-depth discussions about how to interpret GRECO recommendations.

It is important to create laws and an institutional framework, but also to look at enforcement and monitoring, and at how good anti-corruption laws are implemented. That is probably the biggest problem. There is also the issue of how we measure corruption. When I worked with Transparency International, we often spoke about measuring corruption and whether the corruption perception index reflected the actual level of corruption in a country. For instance, my country, Latvia, ranks quite poorly in the corruption perception index, yet all our parliamentary proceedings and meetings are open to the public, who can participate in meetings in both the parliament and the government.

      Mr SHERIDAN (United Kingdom) – Trust in our national parliaments and politicians has declined over the last few years, from between 34% and 38% of people trusting them in 2004, to 28% to 27% in 2012. The figures were disappointing to begin with, but it is evident that we need to act now to regain people’s trust.

      My country, the United Kingdom, faces even more severe problems, at least in perception, with only 25% of people trusting our government or politicians. I do not know whether this is because we have more problems with corruption in the United Kingdom or whether the public expect different things from us, but we need to show them that things can be different. I was surprised and disappointed to learn that the United Kingdom was 17th in the corruption perception index, behind Belgium, Germany, Canada and Australia, not to mention Denmark and Finland, which were joint first. Those countries are obviously doing the right thing. Our Parliamentary Assembly can play a crucial role in helping us to share best practice and learn from countries that are doing it well.

      In the United Kingdom Parliament, we have a comprehensive system of registering members’ interests. All members – and, indeed, their staff – must register anything substantial they have received as a result of their employment. Transparency International scored us 75 for integrity in that regard, specifically mentioning this system. However, despite all that, only recently we saw high-profile cases of members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords taking money for parliamentary work on behalf of clients.

      This is not correct; it is corrupt. However, it also shows that the system cannot prevent everything. We cannot stop easily corrupted people being elected to public office. It is not democratic and, in any case, it would be difficult to know in advance who might be corruptible. So although all the talk of guidelines for codes of conduct and lobbying regulations is necessary and welcome, we also need to think outside the box. We need to look at how and why public officials are corrupted and tackle these issues at source.

      Let me conclude by saying that the press, the media and the NGOs in the United Kingdom have been excellent at exposing corruption in the political system, but they must not be exempt from the same scrutiny themselves. There is clear evidence in the United Kingdom that the press and the media – and, indeed, the security forces – are also involved in corruption. They, too, should be held to the highest scrutiny.

      Mr R. FARINA (Italy)* – This is a very detailed and useful report. I have already distributed it to my colleagues in the Italian Parliament, because it looks at the situation in detail, including in Italy. However, I would prefer at this stage to concentrate on just one element in the report.

      Paragraph 8 of the draft resolution refers to “an evolution of the general cultural attitude towards corruption” – in other words, the culture in which corruption is embedded. A crackdown on corruption is vital – as is clarity in the law and the certainty and swiftness of sanctions – but perhaps I can add to what has been said by others, who have mapped out the ground from an economic and sociological point of view, by looking at the etymology of the word “corruption”.

      “Corruption” comes from “corruptus”, “ruptus” meaning to break with. However, there is another etymology, suggesting that “corruption” comes from “cor” and “ruptus” – in other words, the fractured or fragmented heart, “heart” being understood in a biblical sense. In other words, we are talking about the collapse or putrefaction of what defines us as human beings. Wh

      When we talk about corruption, we are talking about something that is worse than a criminal act, because a criminal act is singular – an error or mistake, to be explained in terms of a given impetus or criminal intention or design – but it does not require a supporting environment. Corruption is worse than homicide; it is something of a moral chancre or contagious disease. Whereas crimes are considered reprehensible in given, world-limited circumstances, corruption breeds a sense of venal triumphalism. We could even say, “Così fan tutte,” – “They all do it” – to use the analogy from Mozart.

      Corruption often starts at the apex of a system and trickles down to the lower reaches of the “Gulag” in society. How can we buck the trend? I do not think we should separate countries into the pure and the noble. We perhaps need to look at the experience gained from advocating the good life as against the contagion that is corruption. That is our role as politicians. We should support the principles of subsidiarity, but also concentrate on an educational approach that enables us to reject corruption as individuals. Education must go hand in hand with a crackdown on corruption.

      THE PRESIDENT* – I call Mr Yatim from Morocco, Partner for Democracy.

      Mr YATIM (Morocco)* – Corruption is a serious threat to well entrenched democracies, and even more so in countries seeking to make a successful transition to democracy, such as Morocco. That is why combating corruption is a strategic priority for Morocco in achieving good governance and good use of public money.

      Morocco has made great efforts in recent years to uproot this scourge. We do this institutionally, by ensuring greater transparency, but also by setting up appropriate entities to combat corruption. We have enacted laws to ensure legal protection for whistle blowers and people who denounce corruption. That was a clear expression of our country’s political will. This measure was approved by the revision of our constitution in 2012, which introduced new measures for better governance and ensuring the integrity of public officials. The new constitutional framework was approved and an anti-corruption law enacted guaranteeing the independence of entities set up to ensure good governance and the prosecution of corrupt officials.

      Of course, corruption cannot be tackled only in legal, constitutional and judicial ways. The government has therefore set up a council to prevent, educate and raise awareness, and ensure good partnership working among public authorities, the private sector and civil society.

Another aspect of this scourge that must not be forgotten is that corruption is not just a domestic or national problem but a phenomenon with an international dimension. That is why as a partner for democracy with you we are interested in this debate, and we believe that, through closer co-operation with your Parliamentary Assembly in combating all aspects of this phenomenon, we can achieve success. We are particularly interested in the rules that you have on the ethics of parliamentarians. We are in the process of working on a text on that very issue concerning the corruption of politicians and corruption during electoral campaigns.

Ms BULAJIĆ (Serbia) – I congratulate and support our esteemed rapporteur, Ms Reps, who has selflessly dedicated herself to the advancement of the rule of law and human rights in this distinguished forum. Over the years, our Assembly has embraced urgent and challenging topics affecting the reality, and the aspirations, of our region. The theme of combating corruption as a serious threat to the rule of law and human rights continues this focus in timely and comprehensive fashion.

Bearing in mind the comprehensiveness of the draft resolution and the growing enthusiasm in international circles for the transformational power of citizen participation, I particularly emphasise the role that citizens can play by partnering with governments and societies through institutional programmes and projects serving people’s needs and governments’ aspirations. An informed and aware population that can participate in political processes, hold the State to account and exercise rights and responsibilities effectively is seen as indispensable to strengthening the quality of democratic governance and the nature of State/society relations. This will certainly enhance the outcome in terms of social capital as well as in economic growth.

A sound approach to combating corruption undoubtedly requires an equation that includes two parties: governments and citizens. Governments alone, no matter how effective they are, cannot achieve success without the positive contributions of their citizens. There are three crucial contributions that a citizen must make. First, dedication, loyalty and respect for public order are the basis of good citizenship and the building blocks of society and any developmental or productive activity. A loyal citizen who gives priority to the common good over his own selfish interests, respects public order and adheres to ethics is the cornerstone of stability and economic growth.

The second contribution is self-confidence, awareness and voluntarism. Here I stress the importance of boosting confidence in ourselves and our capabilities, leaving no room for discouraging emotions and ideas to affect us, no matter how wide the gap between our reality and our aspirations. We should emphasise a can-do attitude. It is important in this respect to be proactive and to volunteer tangible contributions, to the limits of each of our capabilities, in order to enhance the spirit of genuine solidarity among us, no matter how big or small our respective resources.

Thirdly, the spirit of honest co-operation and constructive partnership is the only way in which we can develop a positive atmosphere and enhance the unity of nations. Now is the optimal time for governments and citizens to co-operate in developing new concepts and launching innovative initiatives to fight the poison of corruption.

I conclude with an idea that I firmly believe in and which I hope each and every one of you will also share, for we are all first and foremost citizens: if we do not choose to change on our own, change will choose us because it is inescapable. Where there is sufficient will, dedication, hard work and bold and enlightened thought, nothing is impossible.

Mr McNAMARA (Ireland) – I pay tribute to Ms Reps for her excellent report. There can be no doubt that corruption poses a threat to the rule of law and the values of the Council of Europe. However, we also need to consider whether corruption poses a threat to the Council of Europe itself, and perhaps this Parliamentary Assembly.

I would like to return to the matter of a vote that took place earlier this year. It was an unusually well-reported vote, in that it was even covered by The Economist, which, unfortunately, is unusual for this Assembly. As the vote was taking place, there were lobbyists sitting around here ushering people in to vote, desperately telephoning people to get them in. I would not have known that they were lobbyists if I had not been taken to lunch in advance of that vote and offered a trip to the country that was its subject and a chance to stay in a nice hotel – a high-class ticket, so to speak. However, when the conversation turned to the values of this Assembly – the rule of law, democracy and respect for human rights – the offer seemed to taper off.

It may well be that taking parliamentarians to a country that is the subject of a vote is not corruption but merely an attempt to enlighten them and explain matters to them further. Still, we need to consider this issue. Those lobbyists were also in my national parliament the week before the vote took place. Maybe they were there to promote democracy and human rights and that is their sole function, and if that is the case then it is very welcome because all human rights NGOs are welcome here. Equally, though, that may not be the case, which is why we need to look at the issue far more carefully in this Assembly. While it is easy to expound on corruption as a threat to the rule of law and to institutions outside here, it is always more difficult to identify threats to oneself and one’s own institutions.

We need to look at the role of lobbying and lobbyists and how to ensure that they are identified. There may well be a role for lobbying in modern democracy – maybe it is even an essential part of it, as it is considered to be in many countries – but we need to look at the issue in far greater detail.

Ms GERASHCHENKO (Ukraine)* – Corruption is one of the main problems confronting Ukraine, as the report from the distinguished Ms Reps made clear. Unfortunately, this is one of the main things causing problems in our negotiations for the association agreement that we were hoping to sign with the European Union at the Vilnius summit towards the end of this year. Almost every week, every day, we hear about new cases of corruption. Recently a very young person who became an instant billionaire has taken over a major proportion of the media. Can you imagine how one earns millions and billions by buying holdings in media and gas companies in a country that is not very attractive for foreign investment? Obviously there is a problem with corruption.

The opposition is convinced that one has to start by putting one’s own house in order. Recently all the members of my faction published lists of their assets, as we believe that that is an appropriate way to combat corruption. We also think that Ukrainian legislation dealing with public procurement, lobbying activities and so on should be verified. We believe that the government should set up an anti-corruption agency. It is not a good thing when combating corruption is referred to only as an international obligation; it should be the daily work of governments and legislatures. We believe that Ukraine must adopt a series of laws in order to be able to sign an association agreement before the end of the year.

There is a consensus within the parliament – these laws are being voted on jointly by the party in power and the opposition – but the opposition is insisting that these laws do not just have good-sounding titles but real European content. If those laws are just dead letters, there is no point. We believe that the Ukrainian Parliament and executive should carefully hear out and implement the recommendations to combat corruption in various international organisations, particularly the parliamentary assembly. Only then will we be able to say that there is the political will to combat corruption. For our parliament, it is particularly important to combat political corruption. When parliamentarians change their political stripes simply for personal gain, that is a very serious problem for our parliament, and we are doing what we can to combat that.

Ms GIANNAKAKI (Greece)⃰ – Since antiquity, corruption has been one of the most widespread ills afflicting society. When it involves public officials and elected representatives, it undermines the administration of public affairs. Since the 19th century, it has been understood to be a major threat to the private sector, because it undermines the confidence that is necessary in maintaining and developing social and economic ties.

Corruption is a complex social, political and economic phenomenon that affects all countries. It undermines our democratic institutions, slows down economic development and makes governments less stable. It hinders democratic institutions, can lead to the rigging of elections, and can increase bureaucracy, which may have no purpose other than enabling the soliciting of bribes. It can slow down economic development by discouraging direct investment from abroad. Small businesses may be unable to overcome the financial hurdles to which corruption gives rise. The amount involved runs into the billions each year.

Corruption weakens society, the economy and the State. Where it is deeply entrenched, it becomes an obstacle to development. It undermines the foundations of the rule of law and democracy. It leads to the siphoning-off of public funds and low confidence, which is an obstacle to investment and development. It is for those reasons that corruption is seen as a serious scourge.

Corruption is not inevitable. The Council of Europe’s role is to defend pluralist democracy, human rights and the rule of law, and it has played a pioneering role in the fight against corruption, which is a threat to the fundamental values that it defends. The report’s preamble says that corruption threatens democracy, human rights and the rule of law, good governance and a just society, which are very important. Combating corruption is not just a question of legislation. Our society takes an insufficiently robust position on the issue. What we need is a change of mentality, and our role, as parliamentarians, in that is very important.

Mr SASI (Finland) – I thank Ms Reps for a very good report. Let me pick up on some points that it raises. International co-operation is important, and we should be active in that domain. Authorities should be able to get assistance from their counterparts in other countries as easily as possible, especially where the electronic transfer of money is concerned; that is a key issue. We should be able to trace transfers.

However, the main responsibility lies with member States. There should be maximum transparency around political decisions, and good reasoning when decisions are made. A big issue in Europe today is the identity of owners of legal persons. It is not fair that people can hide behind companies. The authorities, at least, should be able to find out who is behind a company. The need to crack down on insider trading is also key. The ability to act unethically in business life is the start of corruption in all businesses, so that is something that we have to be aware of.

The report proposes having sound rules on the declaration of assets, and that is a good point. Those rules should cover members of governments and members of parliaments. As for having a public register of civil servants, that would perhaps be going too far, and would infringe the right to privacy, but some authorities, at least, should be able to look at what kind of property important civil servants have; if there was immediate growth, they could focus on that and ask why.

We are very good at giving advice to other actors, but how about the Council of Europe and this Parliamentary Assembly? Should we not have rules for ourselves? Should there not be rules about declaring our property? If there was huge growth, people could see that and ask why; we would then have to explain, at least to our voters. If we get gifts from lobbying organisations, should we declare what kind of gifts they are? For example, should we rule that we declare those worth over €1 000? Those are the key questions if we are to consider our responsibility in this Assembly, and not just talk about others. We could continue our work on this subject by making rules for this Assembly.

Another key question is the general cultural attitude to corruption. Where it is not accepted at all, there is no corruption, but if you say that in some minor things it is acceptable, that is the beginning of bigger corruption, so morals in society are a key issue. People have to understand that corruption means stealing money from other people. If a person offers a bribe, they should fear that fact being published; there would then be very little corruption in society.

This issue is important for countries’ economies. Look at the corruption statistics: countries where corruption is very low are economically successful. There is a clear link, so if you want your economy to be successful, crack down on corruption.

Mr TALIADOUROS (Greece)⃰ – Corruption is a significant problem that endangers the proper functioning of public institutions. It is against the public interest, and it undermines citizens’ confidence in their government. The report sets out clearly why corruption poses a danger to the rule of law, and why we should combat it, and I congratulate the rapporteur.

Corruption needs to be combated through concrete measures such as more transparency, better financial supervision, and better legislation. It is often loopholes in legislation that make it possible to transfer wealth. This needs to be dealt with, both by States and at a European level. There is also an important role for the registering and identification of companies. There must be the greatest possible transparency in all transactions, whether they involve real or personal property, and that should apply to bank accounts owned by public officials and decision makers.

We need more harmonisation of national legal systems to make international corruption more difficult, and mutual legal assistance needs to be improved. The appropriate supervision of banking institutions could be useful in preventing corruption. We should enact legislation that allows us to ensure the greatest possible transparency in political, administrative and economic life, and that provides for full transparency regarding money transfers, especially to tax havens. Any instances of corruption, passive or active, should be dealt with severely: there should be prosecution, where appropriate, and illegally gained assets should be seized. Minority shareholders in companies should have a right to full information; that would be an additional way of ensuring transparency and control.

Combating corruption must be a top priority for national governments and the focus of international co-operation; that is the best way to ensure the rule of law, and to protect democracy from negative influences.

THE PRESIDENT* – I do not see Baroness Nicholson, so I call Mr Zourabian.

Mr ZOURABIAN (Armenia) – I have frequently spoken here about oppression of the democratic movement, violations of human rights and falsified elections in Armenia. Armenia has become one of a few member States of the Council of Europe in which a change of power cannot be achieved through an election.

It is time to speak about the core reason for such a state of affairs. The Armenian regime simply cannot afford to lose power, because it is mired in corruption, money laundering and squeezing national wealth for the sake of the few families that rule the country. We have a classical plutocracy in which a few oligarchs, including the president, the prime minister and other high-ranking officials, have hijacked the State machine and turned it into a mechanism that serves a few monopolies through illegal tax and customs privileges. For instance, the Armenian authorities have for years implemented fiscal policies that keep the Armenian national currency artificially strong. Such a policy makes no economic sense, because it suppresses competition and an export-oriented economy. It has one important implication, however: the monopolist importers of basic consumer goods benefit enormously and make super gains.

Although the constitution explicitly prohibits members of parliament from engaging in business, according to a study by the Armenian National Assembly in 2011, 70 members of the 131-strong parliament were engaged in entrepreneurship. A programme of investment in Armenian infrastructure by the United States-sponsored Millennium Challenge Account worth $235 million was cancelled because of undemocratic and corrupt practices by the government. We recently had “offshore-gate”, in which the prime minister was alleged to be involved in the illegal creation of a private offshore company, to the account of which a bribe of $350 000 was transferred.

It is not a coincidence that in four of the five Council of Europe member States mentioned in the Reps report as ranking below 100th place in the world corruption index, a transfer of power cannot be achieved through elections. In elections, the respective governments falsify as many votes as are required to ensure the victory of the ruling party. Governments that owe their power not to the voters but to a bunch of oligarchs and local criminal strongmen are not accountable before the people, and they necessarily become plutocracies. Democracy and the integrity of the political ruling elite are interconnected. The Assembly should establish especially watchful monitoring regimes for the countries at the bottom of the list, in terms both of disregard for democracy and of corruption.

Ms GORGHIU (Romania) – I congratulate the rapporteur. I emphasise that corruption is a phenomenon found in all Council of Europe member States, although the rate of corruption in some countries is low. Whether we are talking about the public or the private sector, corruption represents a major threat to the rule of law, to democracy and to national and international stability. In that context, the adoption and implementation of suitable measures designed to combat corruption is the responsibility of all of us who want a strong democracy where the rule of law is not only a goal but a fact. I strongly believe that corruption can be stopped only if all member States adopt appropriate measures to ensure the confiscation of the proceeds of unlawful activities, and if all member States implement measures designed to combat money laundering and the activities of covert organised crime. We cannot allow individuals to evade the confiscation of gains obtained through illegal banking transactions. In addition, we cannot any more accept the fact that seemingly honest activities of the private sector hide and support corrupt acts in the public sector.

Now, more than ever, we need to adopt concrete measures: transparency of public spending and the justification of wealth acquired by occupying public office. We in the parliaments of Council of Europe member States must show that we do not agree with corruption being raised to the level of a virtue. If State institutions and officials are corrupt, the whole of society becomes corrupt. Corruption in the public sector entails the violation of other fundamental rights. It creates discrimination on the basis of wealth and it divides society into privileged and unprivileged people.

We all want strong, independent judicial institutions that can fight to protect us from corruption and abuse in general. For that to happen, Council of Europe member States should establish transparent procedures for the appointment and promotion of judges and prosecutors, as well as independent professional bodies to deal with the training and the disciplinary endorsement of judges and prosecutors when they make significant mistakes. Those aspects, distinguished colleagues, should be sufficient reasons for each of us to adopt the resolution on behalf of the States that we represent.

THE PRESIDENT* – That concludes the list of speakers. Colleagues, 46 speakers were able to speak in the debate, which is proof of the fact that if you abide by your speaking time, everybody gets a chance to speak. We will now hear the replies from the committee. Rapporteur, you have five minutes remaining.

Ms REPS (Estonia) – Dear colleagues, thank you for the very good debate. I compliment you all for having stayed on the subject. You contributed examples of corruption from different countries, and I will start with a few of those concrete examples.

As you can see from the report, we had to exclude a few fields. In a report, as in research, you have to limit yourself, so I proposed that the committee should exclude a few important subjects. One, which was also raised in Izmir, was the subject of multinational companies, a topic that has a big influence on all our decision making on corruption. We will have to look into that in future. We also excluded the use or abuse of natural resources, despite the fact that many members raised the subject in committee meetings. In addition, we excluded everything related to political party campaign finances. We appreciate the fact that GRECO’s work covers the subject, and we will have to return to it in other committees. I am grateful that many of you raised the matter, and I apologise for the fact that we do not go into it in the report. Consequently, I oppose the amendments that would insert it into the report, because that was not our intention.

I am pleased that most of you brought up the positive actions of GRECO, which we must always emphasise. I am grateful to my colleagues from the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs for introducing a substantive amendment, which I hope we will adopt today, to emphasise GRECO’s work. It is a big mistake for the European Union still to be debating the matter, so I am glad that that amendment reminds our European Union friends to join GRECO’s instruments as soon as possible.

      Many comments were made in the debate. As members of parliament, we need to take some important steps. In each of our countries, we need to consider each instrument, positive step and positive example and implement, not only ratify and sign, the international legislation and our own legislation. In most of our countries, we have wonderful legislation but many member States are still in a terrible position in the tables. There is a clear lack of will and culture to implement that legislation. Members of parliament could set an example and, as many colleagues said, look first at their own parliaments and actions. Let us see what codes of conduct we have, what kind of lobbying we use, what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. How transparent are we with our own funding? How willing are we to be transparent and how fiercely are we criticising the media, who are just trying to publicise the issue? As with many other aspects, the report does not go into media corruption, but I am sure that other motions and reports will deal with that.

      Many of you cited other examples. I will not repeat our proposals but I would be grateful if you looked at the instruments that we are proposing, took them back home and fought for their full implementation. It would be a big benefit of the debate today if we took clear steps to implement the measures and brought corruption to the forefront of our everyday work.

      I thank the international organisations that have helped us and the experts at GRECO and Transparency International, who fed important information into the report. I also thank our secretariat for their great work.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Reps. I did not want to interrupt the applause, which is well deserved and addressed also to the secretariat of your committee.

      Does the Chairperson of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights wish to speak?

      Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – I echo the thanks of the rapporteur at the end of her remarks. I also thank her, because she has put an enormous amount of work into this subject. The quality of the debate is a reflection of the content of the report.

      You mentioned the number of people who participated in the debate, Mr President. On my calculation, they came from over 30 different countries, which shows that this issue is of great concern in the member countries of the Council of Europe. It also shows that corruption is a pandemic, so none of us can be complacent about it. That is why I particularly welcome the fact that we have an opportunity to vote for an amendment to endorse the decision to give priority to this subject over the next two years. It is a subject on which we can give the lead as parliamentarians, and perhaps drag the European Union along behind us, even though it may be kicking and screaming. These are fundamental issues that we are well qualified to address.

      Mr McNamara and many others raised the issue of lobbying. I was at a Venice Commission meeting when a paper on that was discussed by the members of the commission. The issue is incredibly complex. We need to see the benefit of the advice from the commission, if it is ever able to agree on any advice, before deciding where we need to go next on the issue. We also need to be careful that we do not just call for strong anti-corruption laws. They are no panacea if they are then used to stifle the opposition in those countries, so we must be alert to the problems and the priorities that we need to address.

      The PRESIDENT* – The debate is closed.

The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has presented a draft resolution to which nine amendments have been tabled; and a draft recommendation to which five amendments and one sub-amendment have been tabled.

I understand that the Chairperson of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights wishes to propose to the Assembly that the following amendments to the resolution, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly under Rule 33.11. Those amendments are Amendments 2 to 6 and 9.

Is that so, Mr Chope?

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – Yes.

The PRESIDENT* - Does anyone object? That is not the case.

The following amendments have been adopted:

Amendment 2, tabled by the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 3, replace the words “must be in the forefront” with the following words: “must remain at the forefront”.

      Amendment 3, tabled by the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 4, insert the following paragraph:

      “The Assembly welcomes the decision of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe to make the fight against corruption one of the priority activities of the Council of Europe for 2014-2015, also as part of a broader effort to restore public confidence in the efficiency of democratic institutions.”Am

      Amendment 4, tabled by the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5, at the end of the last sentence, add the following words: “, with special emphasis on the implementation of recommendations emanating from GRECO’s Fourth Evaluation Round focusing on corruption prevention in respect of members of parliament, judges and prosecutors.”

      Amendment 5, tabled by the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 5, add the following sentence:

      “The Assembly welcomes GRECO’s intention to address the gender dimension of corruption and to mainstream gender equality into its anti-corruption monitoring activities, as a part of the overall effort to strengthen democracy, the rule of law and human rights for the benefit of all.”Am

      Amendment 6, tabled by the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 8, add the following sentence:

      “The Assembly is committed to continuing to detect new trends regarding transparency and corruption risks in parliaments, in partnership with non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and civil society, and to providing national parliaments with suitable safeguards.”Am

      Amendment 9, tabled by the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 11, insert the following paragraph:

      “The Assembly resolves to strengthen the interparliamentary dimension of the fight against corruption, by promoting a co-operation platform with the aim of: –

– promoting the ratification and implementation of Council of Europe conventions and recommendations on the fight against corruption, in particular GRECO recommendations, among national parliaments;

– taking stock of national anti-corruption initiatives, sharing good practices and brainstorming together on new working methods and approaches to tackling corruption effectively;

– collecting information about the ongoing activities of the Council of Europe anti-corruption bodies, the initiatives of other key international players in the anti-corruption field, and statistical and correlation data from NGOs and civil society related to a given country or corruption trends in specific areas.”

      We will now examine the other amendments. They will be taken in the order they appear in the compendium. Members have 30 seconds to speak for or against an amendment.

We come to Amendment 1, tabled by Mr Ariev, Ms Gerashchenko, Mr Sobolev, Mr Sasi and Mr Kandelaki, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 7.3.5, add the following words: “, including of non-residents who must prove the legal basis of their income in their state of origin for the purchased assets.”

I call Mr Ariev to support Amendment 1.

Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – I proposed the amendment but I can agree with the rapporteur that in this paragraph these words would be editorially inappropriate. Therefore, I will not move the amendment.

The PRESIDENT* - Mr Ariev does not want to move his amendment.

Does anyone wish to move Amendment 1? That is not the case.

Amendment 1 is not moved.

We come to Amendment 7, tabled by the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 8, insert the following paragraph:

      “The Assembly decides to further strengthen its co-operation with GRECO in order to improve the implementation of the recommendations contained in its reports on the observation of elections, notably through a better exchange of information regarding regulation and practice relating to the financing of election campaigns.”I

I call Mr Díaz Tejera to support Amendment 7.

Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain)* – The amendment seeks to strengthen our co-operation with GRECO. Members said during the debate that that is important and that it could improve observation of elections. We could take advantage of GRECO’s experience. We need to speak with one voice.

The PRESIDENT* - Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 7? I call Ms Reps.

Ms REPS (Estonia) – I understand the aim of the amendment. It is important to emphasise every step that GRECO has taken. I fiercely support that. However, unfortunately, as I have said, we excluded the question of party and election financing because we could not cope with dealing with that subject at this time.

The PRESIDENT* - What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – The committee is against the amendment.

The PRESIDENT* - The vote is open.

Amendment 7 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 8, tabled by the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs, which is, in the draft resolution, at the beginning of paragraph 11, insert the following sentence:

      “The Assembly recalls that the respect of the principle of leadership and duty of exemplarity incumbent on members of the Assembly would represent a small but essential step towards restoring confidence in democratic institutions.”I

I call Mr Díaz Tejera to support Amendment 8.

Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain)* – We wish to add a few words about the responsibility of parliamentarians themselves, who should act in an exemplary manner. For example, their visits to member States of the Council of Europe should be undertaken in certain ways and not others: for example, it should be clear whether they have had their trip paid for. They must be completely open. That would set a good example.

The PRESIDENT* - Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 8? I call Ms Reps.

Ms REPS (Estonia) – Paragraph 11 as drafted is clear and states that the Assembly needs to pay special attention to this matter. We did not agree to adding these words. I am against the amendment because it is perhaps not understandable on first reading.

The PRESIDENT* - What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – The committee is against the amendment.

The PRESIDENT* - The vote is open.

Amendment 8 is rejected.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13228, as amended. A simple majority is required.

      The vote is open.

      The draft resolution in Document 13228, as amended, is adopted, with 119 votes for, 1 against and 1 abstention.

      I understand that the Chairperson of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights wishes to propose to the Assembly that the following amendments to the recommendation, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly under Rule 33.11. They are Amendments 10, 11 and 13. Is that so Mr Chope?

      Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – Yes.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone object? That is not the case.

      The following amendments have been adopted:

      Amendment 10, tabled by the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 2, replace the words “The Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers” with the following words:

      “For years, the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly have been demonstrating a strong political determination to fight corruption. Therefore, the Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers”.Am

      Amendment 11, tabled by the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 2, insert the following paragraph:

      “In order to respond effectively to today’s and tomorrow’s challenges, it also invites the Committee of Ministers to reassess and consolidate the Council of Europe strategy in the field of the fight against corruption, which represents a core area and key strength of the Organisation, by: –

– taking stock of current achievements and pitfalls, clearly identifying priorities for action and measuring their implementation;

– empowering relevant Council of Europe bodies such as GRECO to contribute to the effective implementation of the new strategy, by revising its mandate if need be;

– mainstreaming anticorruption in various Council of Europe activities and programmes, such as education for democratic citizenship, social cohesion, media, sport, etc.”

      Amendment 13, tabled by the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 2, insert the following paragraph:

      “The Assembly asks the Committee of Ministers to consolidate further the co-operation between the European Union and the Council of Europe in the fight against corruption, in particular by inviting the European Union to join the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (ETS No. 173) and speeding up the negotiations on the participation of the European Union in the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO), in order to contribute to more co-ordinated anti-corruption policies in Europe. Moreover, recalling its Opinion 284 (2013) on budgets and priorities of the Council of Europe for the biennium 2014-2015, the Assembly asks the Committee of Ministers to ensure that joint programmes are further developed, are based on a suitable and stable system of financing and include a parliamentary dimension.”We

      We will proceed to consider the remaining amendments in the order set out in the Organisation of Debates. I remind members that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

      We come to Amendment 12, tabled by the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 2, insert the following paragraph:

      “Moreover, it invites the Committee of Ministers to carry out a comprehensive evaluation of the existing co-operation between the Council of Europe and other international organisations, such as the United Nations, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the European Union, with a view to creating new synergies and avoiding a potential overlapping of activities.”I

      I call Mr Díaz Tejera to support Amendment 12.

      Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain)* – Amendment 12, which has the same idea as Amendment 13, seeks to strengthen international co-operation. We do not want to reinvent the wheel. A lot of good work is being done by GRECO, MONEYVAL and others, some of whose staff have been working on this for decades and have a lot of experience. We want to make sure that we take advantage of those synergies to the greatest possible extent so that we can improve our effectiveness.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Reps.

      Ms REPS (Estonia) – We debated Amendments 12 and 13 together in committee. We decided that Amendment 13 is more clear, so that is why we do not support Amendment 12.

      THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – The committee was against.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 12 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 14, tabled by the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 5, insert the following paragraph:

      “Finally, having regard to the growing need for a Europe-wide regulatory framework in respect of lobbying, the high level of expertise of the Council of Europe’s specialised bodies, the extensive studies already carried out and the solid data collected by them on lobbying, the Assembly invites the Committee of Ministers to launch a feasibility study on lobbying in the light of which a further standard-setting work could be considered. This would be an excellent opportunity for the Council of Europe to take a leading role and gain in visibility as the guardian of human rights and democratic values.”I

      I call Mr Díaz Tejera to support Amendment 14.

      Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain)* – We seek to make progress based on the lessons learned through our work. It is a question of putting not a full stop, but a comma on the work. People have combated corruption in the past and those who will do so in the future should learn their lessons in order to be more effective.

      MR PRESIDENT* – I call Ms Reps to support sub-amendment 1, tabled by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in Amendment 14, replace the words “after paragraph 5” with the following words: “before paragraph 5”, and delete the word “Finally”.

      Ms REPS (Estonia) – We propose to put the paragraph in Amendment 14 in front of paragraph 5, not after it as proposed by the amendment. The first change, therefore, would be to change the order of sentences, and the second would be to delete the word “Finally”.

      MR PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the sub-amendment? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

      Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain) – I absolutely agree with Ms Reps.

      MR PRESIDENT* – That does not surprise me. The committee is obviously in favour.

      The vote is open.

      The sub-amendment is adopted.

      Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 14, as amended? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee? I take it that it is in favour?

      Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – Yes.

      MR PRESIDENT* – I am following things, as you can see. The vote is open.

      Amendment 14, as amended, is adopted.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 13228, as amended. A two-thirds majority is required. The vote is open.

      The draft recommendation in Document 13288, as amended, is adopted, with 117 votes for, 1 against and 1 abstention.

      I congratulate our rapporteur, the committee secretariat and the many people who enabled us to conduct this debate with dignity, without forgetting, of course, our interpreters.

3. Next public business

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

      The sitting is closed.

      (The sitting was closed at 1.10 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. Prolongation of the deadline for the tabling of amendments in respect of the urgent procedure debate

2. Corruption as a threat to the rule of law

Presentation by Ms Reps of report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights in Doc. 13228

Presentation by Mr Díaz Tejera of opinion of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs in Doc. 13247

Speakers: Mr Mendes Bota (Portugal), Mr de Vries (Netherlands), Ms Guţu (Republic of Moldova), Mr D. Davies (United Kingdom), Mr Petrenco (Republic of Moldova), Ms Christoffersen (Norway), Mr Pozzo di Borgo (France), Mr Ivanovski (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), Ms Djurović (Serbia), Ms Mateu Pi (Andorra), Mr Neill (United Kingdom), Ms Tomc (Slovenia), Ms Vučković (Serbia), Mr Ariev (Ukraine), Ms Miladinović (Serbia), Ms Postanjyan (Armenia), Ms Zohrabyan (Armenia), Mr Sidyakin (Russian Federation), Mr Beneyto (Spain), Ms Andersen (Norway), Mr Khader (Palestine), Mr Gaudi Nagy (Hungary), Mr Sobolev (Ukraine), Mr Connarty (United Kingdom), Ms Khidasheli (Georgia), Mr Aguzarov (Russian Federation), Ms Virolainen (Finland), Mr Nicolaides (Cyprus), Ms A. Hovhannisyan (Armenia), Ms Tzakri (Greece), Mr Drăghici (Romania), Ms Čigāne (Latvia), Mr Sheridan (United Kingdom), Mr R. Farina (Italy), Mr Yatim (Morocco), Ms Bulajić (Serbia), Mr McNamara (Ireland), Ms Gerashchenko (Ukraine), Ms Giannakaki (Greece), Mr Sasi (Finland), Mr Taliadouros (Greece), Mr Zourabian (Armenia), Ms Gorghiu (Romania),

Replies: Ms Reps (Estonia), Mr Chope (United Kingdom)

Amendments 2 to 6 and 9 adopted

Draft resolution in Document 13228, as amended, adopted

Amendments 10, 11, 13 and 14 as amended adopted

Draft recommendation in Document 13228, as amended, adopted

3. Next public business

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

Pedro AGRAMUNT

Arben AHMETAJ*

Miloš ALIGRUDIĆ

Jean-Charles ALLAVENA

Karin ANDERSEN

Lord Donald ANDERSON/Michael Connarty

Paride ANDREOLI

Khadija ARIB*

Volodymyr ARIEV

Francisco ASSIS*

Danielle AUROI*

Daniel BACQUELAINE*

Theodora BAKOYANNIS

David BAKRADZE*

Gérard BAPT*

Gerard BARCIA DUEDRA/Sílvia Eloïsa Bonet Perot

Doris BARNETT*

José Manuel BARREIRO

Deniz BAYKAL

Marieluise BECK*

José María BENEYTO

Levan BERDZENISHVILI/Tinatin Khidasheli

Deborah BERGAMINI*

Robert BIEDROŃ

Gülsün BİLGEHAN

Brian BINLEY/Robert Neill

Ľuboš BLAHA*

Delia BLANCO

Jean-Marie BOCKEL/Yves Pozzo Di Borgo

Eric BOCQUET*

Mladen BOJANIĆ/Snežana Jonica

Olga BORZOVA

Mladen BOSIC/Ismeta Dervoz

António BRAGA

Anne BRASSEUR

Márton BRAUN

Federico BRICOLO/Rossana Boldi

Ankie BROEKERS-KNOL*

Gerold BÜCHEL

Patrizia BUGNANO/Giuliana Carlino

André BUGNON

Natalia BURYKINA/Olga Kazakova

Sylvia CANEL*

Mevlüt ÇAVUŞOĞLU

Mikael CEDERBRATT

Otto CHALOUPKA

Irakli CHIKOVANI

Vannino CHITI/Paolo Corsini

Tudor-Alexandru CHIUARIU*

Christopher CHOPE

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Desislav CHUKOLOV*

Lolita ČIGĀNE

Boriss CILEVIČS

Henryk CIOCH/Grzegorz Czelej

James CLAPPISON

Deirdre CLUNE*

Agustín CONDE

Telmo CORREIA

Carlos COSTA NEVES

Katalin CSÖBÖR*

Joseph DEBONO GRECH*

Armand De DECKER/Ludo Sannen

Roel DESEYN

Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA

Peter van DIJK

Şaban DİŞLİ

Aleksandra DJUROVIĆ

Jim DOBBIN*

Karl DONABAUER*

Ioannis DRAGASAKIS

Damian DRĂGHICI

Daphné DUMERY

Alexander [The Earl of] DUNDEE*

Josette DURRIEU

Mikuláš DZURINDA*

Baroness Diana ECCLES*

Tülin ERKAL KARA

Gianni FARINA*

Joseph FENECH ADAMI

Cătălin Daniel FENECHIU*

Vyacheslav FETISOV*

Doris FIALA*

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ/Miroslav Krejča

Axel E. FISCHER

Jana FISCHEROVÁ*

Gvozden Srećko FLEGO

Hans FRANKEN/Malik Azmani

Jean-Claude FRÉCON

Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO

Erich Georg FRITZ

Martin FRONC*

Sir Roger GALE/David Davies

Karl GARÐARSON

Tamás GAUDI NAGY

Nadezda GERASIMOVA

Valeriu GHILETCHI

Paolo GIARETTA*

Michael GLOS*

Pavol GOGA*

Jarosław GÓRCZYŃSKI/Iwona Guzowska

Alina Ştefania GORGHIU

Svetlana GORYACHEVA

Martin GRAF*

Sylvi GRAHAM

Andreas GROSS

Arlette GROSSKOST*

Dzhema GROZDANOVA

Attila GRUBER*

Gergely GULYÁS*

Pelin GÜNDEŞ BAKIR*

Antonio GUTIÉRREZ/ Carmen Quintanilla

Ana GUŢU

Maria GUZENINA-RICHARDSON

Carina HÄGG/Jonas Gunnarsson

Sabir HAJIYEV*

Andrzej HALICKI

Mike HANCOCK

Margus HANSON

Davit HARUTYUNYAN/Zaruhi Postanjyan

Håkon HAUGLI/Anette Trettebergstuen

Norbert HAUPERT

Alfred HEER

Martin HENRIKSEN/Per Stig Møller

Andres HERKEL

Adam HOFMAN*

Jim HOOD

Joachim HÖRSTER

Arpine HOVHANNISYAN

Anette HÜBINGER*

Andrej HUNKO

Ali HUSEYNLI/Sahiba Gafarova

Rafael HUSEYNOV

Shpëtim IDRIZI*

Vladimir ILIĆ/Vesna Marjanović

Florin IORDACHE/Viorel Riceard Badea

Igor IVANOVSKI

Tadeusz IWIŃSKI

Denis JACQUAT*

Gediminas JAKAVONIS

Stella JANTUAN*

Tedo JAPARIDZE*

Ramón JÁUREGUI*

Michael Aastrup JENSEN

Mogens JENSEN

Jadranka JOKSIMOVIĆ/Katarina Rakić

Ögmundur JÓNASSON

Čedomir JOVANOVIĆ/Svetislava Bulajić

Antti KAIKKONEN

Ferenc KALMÁR

Božidar KALMETA/Ivan Račan

Mariusz KAMIŃSKI*

Marietta KARAMANLI/Jean-Pierre Michel

Ulrika KARLSSON/Kerstin Lundgren

Burhan KAYATÜRK

Jan KAŹMIERCZAK/Marek Krząkała

Serhii KIVALOV

Bogdan KLICH/Marek Borowski

Serhiy KLYUEV/Volodymyr Pylypenko

Haluk KOÇ*

Igor KOLMAN

Attila KORODI

Alev KORUN*

Tiny KOX

Borjana KRIŠTO

Dmitry KRYVITSKY*

Václav KUBATA*

Ertuğrul KÜRKÇÜ

Athina KYRIAKIDOU/Nicos Nicolaides

Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT*

Igor LEBEDEV/Robert Shlegel

Harald LEIBRECHT*

Orinta LEIPUTĖ

Christophe LÉONARD/Gérard Terrier

Terry LEYDEN

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE

Lone LOKLINDT

François LONCLE*

Jean-Louis LORRAIN/Bernard Fournier

George LOUKAIDES*

Younal LOUTFI*

Yuliya L'OVOCHKINA*

Saša MAGAZINOVIĆ

Philippe MAHOUX

Gennaro MALGIERI*

Pietro MARCENARO

Thierry MARIANI

Epameinondas MARIAS

Milica MARKOVIĆ

Meritxell MATEU PI

Pirkko MATTILA/Sirkka-Liisa Anttila

Frano MATUŠIĆ

Liliane MAURY PASQUIER

Michael McNAMARA

Sir Alan MEALE

Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA/ Imer Aliu

Ivan MELNIKOV/Vassiliy Likhachev

Nursuna MEMECAN

José MENDES BOTA

Jean-Claude MIGNON/Frédéric Reiss

Djordje MILIĆEVIĆ/Stefana Miladinović

Federica MOGHERINI REBESANI/Renato Farina

Andrey MOLCHANOV/Alexander Sidyakin

Jerzy MONTAG*

Rubén MORENO PALANQUES/Ángel Pintado

Patrick MORIAU/Fatiha Saïdi

João Bosco MOTA AMARAL

Arkadiusz MULARCZYK

Lydia MUTSCH/Fernand Boden

Lev MYRYMSKYI*

Philippe NACHBAR

Oľga NACHTMANNOVÁ*

Marian NEACŞU/Florin Costin Pâslaru

Aleksandar NENKOV*

Pasquale NESSA

Fritz NEUGEBAUER*

Baroness Emma NICHOLSON

Brynjar NÍELSSON

Elena NIKOLAEVA/Anvar Makhmutov

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI

Mirosława NYKIEL/Elżbieta Radziszewska

Judith OEHRI

Carina OHLSSON

Joseph O'REILLY

Lesia OROBETS/Olena Kondratiuk

Sandra OSBORNE*

José Ignacio PALACIOS

Liliana PALIHOVICI*

Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS

Eva PARERA/Jordi Xuclà

Ganira PASHAYEVA*

Lajla PERNASKA*

Johannes PFLUG*

Danny PIETERS/Sabine Vermeulen

Foteini PIPILI/ Maria Giannakaki

Ivan POPESCU

Lisbeth Bech POULSEN

Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN

Cezar Florin PREDA

John PRESCOTT/Joe Benton

Jakob PRESEČNIK

Gabino PUCHE

Alexey PUSHKOV*

Mailis REPS

Eva RICHTROVÁ/Pavel Lebeda

Andrea RIGONI*

François ROCHEBLOINE

Maria de Belém ROSEIRA*

René ROUQUET

Marlene RUPPRECHT*

Ilir RUSMALI*

Pavlo RYABIKIN/Iryna Gerashchenko

Rovshan RZAYEV

Giacomo SANTINI

Giuseppe SARO

Kimmo SASI

Deborah SCHEMBRI

Stefan SCHENNACH

Marina SCHUSTER*

Urs SCHWALLER/Elisabeth Schneider-Schneiter

Senad ŠEPIĆ/Nermina Kapetanović

Samad SEYIDOV

Jim SHERIDAN

Oleksandr SHEVCHENKO/Oleh Pankevych

Boris SHPIGEL*

Arturas SKARDŽIUS*

Ladislav SKOPAL*

Leonid SLUTSKY

Serhiy SOBOLEV

Lorella STEFANELLI/Gerardo Giovagnoli

Yanaki STOILOV

Christoph STRÄSSER*

Karin STRENZ*

Ionuţ-Marian STROE

Giacomo STUCCHI

Valeriy SUDARENKOV*

Björn von SYDOW

Petro SYMONENKO*

Vilmos SZABÓ

Chiora TAKTAKISHVILI

Vyacheslav TIMCHENKO/Tamerlan Aguzarov

Romana TOMC

Lord John E. TOMLINSON

Latchezar TOSHEV

Mihai TUDOSE /Ana Birchall

Ahmet Kutalmiş TÜRKEŞ

Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ

Theodora TZAKRI

Tomáš ÚLEHLA*

Ilyas UMAKHANOV*

Giuseppe VALENTINO/Oreste Tofani

Miltiadis VARVITSIOTIS/Spyridon Taliadouros

Volodymyr VECHERKO*

Mark VERHEIJEN/ Tineke Strik

Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN

Luigi VITALI*

Luca VOLONTÈ

Vladimir VORONIN/Grigore Petrenco

Tanja VRBAT/Melita Mulić

Klaas de VRIES

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ

Zoran VUKČEVIĆ

Draginja VUKSANOVIĆ/Damir Šehović

Piotr WACH

Johann WADEPHUL*

Robert WALTER

Dame Angela WATKINSON*

Katrin WERNER

Karin S. WOLDSETH

Gisela WURM*

Karl ZELLER/Paolo Grimoldi

Barbara ŽGAJNER TAVŠ/Polonca Komar

Svetlana ZHUROVA*

Emanuelis ZINGERIS

Guennady ZIUGANOV/Leonid Kalashnikov

Naira ZOHRABYAN

Levon ZOURABIAN

Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote

Christian BARILARO

Deo DEBATTISTA

Michael FALZON

Bernard PASQUIER

Jaana PELKONEN

Indrek SAAR

Konstantinos TRIANTAFYLLOS

Observers

Eloy CANTU SEGOVIA

Partners for Democracy

Najat AL-ASTAL

Mohammed AMEUR

Mohammed Mehdi BENSAID

Nezha EL OUAFI

Qais KHADER

Bernard SABELLA

Mohamed YATIM