AA13CR35

AS (2013) CR 35

2013 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Fourth part)

REPORT

Thirty-fifth sitting

Thursday 3 October 2013 at 3.30 p.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 3.35 p.m.)

      THE PRESIDENT* – The sitting is open.

1. Changes in the membership of committees

      THE PRESIDENT* – Our next item of business is to consider additional changes proposed in the membership of committees. These are set out in document Commissions (2013) Addendum 4.

      Are the proposed changes agreed to?

      They are agreed to.

2. Missing persons from Europe’s conflicts: the long road to finding humanitarian answers

      THE PRESIDENT – The next item of business this morning is a debate on the report entitled “Missing persons from Europe’s conflicts: the long road to finding humanitarian answers” (Document 13294) presented by Mr Sheridan on behalf of the Migration Committee, with a statement from Mr Peter Maurer, President of the International Committee of the Red Cross.

      We will be closing this debate at 5.10 p.m., so if necessary I will interrupt the list of speakers at 5 p.m. so that we can hear the replies and vote on the amendments and resolution.

      Following our debate this morning, and before we go any further, I would like to inform the Assembly of a new tragedy that has occurred not far from Italy. Some 400 to 500 migrant refugees, mostly Eritreans and Somalis, have capsized not far from Lampedusa. Some 90 bodies have been found, and about 250 persons are still missing and unaccounted for. This is a terrible, inhuman tragedy and I am sure we are all affected by it. Unfortunately this is not the first time such a thing has happened, and I very much fear that it will not be the last time either. We have dealt with the same issue on a number of occasions; we find it completely unacceptable. I am thinking in particular of Ms Strich’s report on missing persons. Unfortunately, more and more Syrian refugees are also trying to reach the shores of Europe by sea by travelling in very dangerous boats along very dangerous shipping lanes.

Something must be done to bring such tragedies to an end, if only for humanitarian reasons. We must launch an urgent appeal for a strong commitment by all member States of the Council of Europe to do whatever is necessary to make sure that this does not happen again.

      I wanted to make that statement at the opening of our sitting. Of course, a press release will be published on the website of the Parliamentary Assembly. Life continues, however, and we will now return to our business.

      I now give the floor to Mr Sheridan to present the report. You will have the floor for 13 minutes in total, and it is up to you to decide how to divide that time between your presentation of the report and your reply to the debate.

      Mr SHERIDAN (United Kingdom) – Thank you, Mr President. I am sure that all colleagues will share the sentiments you have just expressed about the disaster off the coast of Italy.

I begin by thanking members of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons for their support and encouragement, and members of the secretariat for their professionalism.

      The problem of missing persons from Europe’s conflicts has been a long journey, especially for the families. Today I hope to articulate their emotions in my contribution. I want you to see the faces behind the stories. Please take a good look at these people. See the sorrow and despair that they are living with. Look at their eyes and understand what losing a family member does to you. Colleagues, imagine if you will losing the closest member of your family. Contemplate, if you will, not knowing where that close relative is—not knowing, indeed, whether they are alive or dead. Day and night, people you see in the photographs carry such thoughts with them. It is every person’s nightmare to outlive their children, and that is what these people are living with on a daily basis. Behind each of these pictures there is a story. It is really not a happy story. This is not politics. This is human life. I am disappointed and sad that it is us who have not yet found a solution to this problem. From the outset I have tried in this report to be non-partisan - to take politics out of the issue and concentrate on the humanitarian consequences.

There are more than 20 000 missing persons in Europe, following a number of armed conflicts. The fate of the missing often remains unknown for decades. This has an impact not only on the individual who has disappeared, but also on the family, friends and community of the missing. From there, it reaches outwards to the whole of society. As long as a person is missing, this issue will remain an open wound for all concerned - a sore which never heals. It stops everyone moving on after conflicts. Colleagues, comrades, ladies and gentlemen, parents – call yourselves what you will - we cannot afford to ignore the missing any longer.

A lack of answers is an endemic problem in the issue of the missing. We are talking about missing persons, but it is not just people who are missing: facts are missing, and information that would allow for the location, recovery and identification of their remains is frequently inaccessible or missing, too. Even when burial sites have been found, and even when bodies are discovered and identified, crucial evidence is sometimes withheld. In some cases there is an obvious reluctance on the part of local courts to pursue the matter and thus a refusal to ensure that justice is done.

Without bilateral agreements to endorse co-operation, former belligerent parties refuse to exchange information on burial sites and the location of dead bodies. They sometimes impede access to the facts or give inaccurate information about them. Worse still, they may even use such data as bargaining chips to exert political leverage with each other.

A lack of financial resources has also played a part in this problem, especially during the present economic crisis in Europe. DNA identification is very costly. Although the collection of ante-mortem data from the families has been mainly financed by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), governments have other priorities and do not provide the additional financial support needed to meet the substantial budget that is required. As a result, economic constraints have also put on hold the process of the recovery and identification of missing persons at this time.

However, apart from these causes, the fundamental reason for the failure to resolve the issue of missing persons is fear: fear of families to seek answers about their relatives, and fear of authorities to tell the truth about their fate. Authorities are afraid of legal proceedings: they want to cover up the crimes of previous regimes, and put security and political stability before the right of people to know what has happened to their loved ones. Families are afraid of reprisals: they have no recourse to legal protection when they demand information about the missing, and are intimidated by the possibility of further arrests and yet more disappearances. Therefore, I have drawn up five priorities for the member States of the Council of Europe in order to resolve the problem of missing persons.

The first priority for national authorities should be to respect the right of families to know the fate of missing persons. The authorities should investigate all disappearances which have occurred on their territory. States should be obliged to communicate the results of the investigation to families and to return the remains of their relatives whenever possible.

I am pleased to note that there has been some notable progress in the development of approaches and initiatives to ensure that families receive proper care and support. However, there is scope for more engagement by States and relevant governmental and non-governmental organisations. They should ensure that the rights of the families of missing persons are protected and respected at all times. They should be aware of their needs and should address them in a comprehensive and holistic manner.

The second priority is the development and promotion of national legislation. Such legislation remains essential in preventing disappearances and ascertaining the fate of missing persons. It is also important in ensuring the proper management of information and supporting the families of the missing. Member States of the Council of Europe should create and implement the necessary legal and administrative framework for addressing the issue of missing persons in their countries. 

The third priority is to create national, regional and international mechanisms to prevent and solve the problem of missing persons, and to support their functioning. European governments should accord the necessary human and financial resources to ensure the effective functioning of these mechanisms.

I consider access to information on missing persons as a fourth priority issue. It is essential in establishing the identity, location and fate of the missing. Governments should ensure that the collection, protection and management of data on missing persons are performed according to international standards. Data on missing persons should only be used for the purposes for which they were collected and not for any other purpose, unless the consent of the persons concerned is obtained.

The fifth and final priority is the speedy identification of the human remains of missing persons and the recording of their identity.

It would not have been possible for me to prepare this report without the precious help of experts from the ICRC. They provided me with updated statistics and relevant information. I would like to personally thank Mr Maurer for the precious assistance of the very qualified staff of that organisation.

Let me conclude by calling on all member States to speed up the resolution of the problem of missing persons. If we want to prevent future armed conflicts in Europe, we need to unite in our efforts to ascertain the fate of missing persons and provide help to their families.

Please remember the faces that you have seen today: remember their expressions, their sorrow and despair. If we want to see peace in Europe, we need to give peace to the families of missing persons and honour the memory of their lost loved ones. I say to you, colleagues, that you have the chance to do that – not the person sitting beside you, not the people on the platform before you, and not even the Secretariat, but you, as politicians, have the power to influence this in your own country.

There is a saying: “'The past we inherit, the future we build”. Today let us start the process of rebuilding the hopes of the relatives of the missing persons.

THE PRESIDENT* - Thank you. You have two and a half minutes left to answer the debate.

It is now my pleasure to welcome Mr Peter Maurer, president of the ICRC. Mr Maurer, the ICRC recently received me in Geneva, and I am very pleased to be able to receive you today in this Chamber. The issue we will be debating today is persons missing in European conflicts, and you have just heard the presentation of the report by our colleague, Mr Sheridan.

For the families of missing persons, the silence and uncertainty simply adds to the suffering inherent in any conflict. For them, the fate of their missing loved ones is an open wound. Sometimes they learn nothing for many decades. I have had occasion, as a member of the Parliamentary Assembly, to visit a lot of camps, and I have seen the suffering in the eyes of those whose loved ones are missing. I saw a 10-year-old child who still did not know what had happened to his parents. It was distressing. In my country we are fortunate not to have experienced that for many generations.

Apart from the personal suffering, which we must end to the extent that we can, we cannot ignore the importance of the issue in post-conflict reconciliation and the maintenance of peace in Europe. I welcome the remarkable work of the International Committee of the Red Cross. It is making every possible effort to shed light on disappearances during and after armed conflict. The enormous work done in the Balkans has borne fruit, as nearly 70% of the missing persons have been found, but in Cyprus and the North and South Caucasus unfortunately the results are not as good.

      At the same time as we are debating this issue, people are disappearing in Syria and elsewhere. The problem is very serious. For more than two years now, people have been disappearing in the region and nothing is being done about it. We must not forget that when it comes to locating and identifying missing persons, political will is essential. It behoves us, as members of the Parliamentary Assembly, to do what we can to transmit the message to the political decision makers and make the appropriate decisions ourselves.

      Mr Maurer, the organisation you represent works very hard on this, together with many other NGOs, and we need to support that. It is a pleasure to give you the floor.

      Mr MAURER (President of the International Committee of the Red Cross)* – Thank you for this opportunity to address the Parliamentary Assembly on a subject of major importance for our two organisations. I begin by highlighting the excellent co-operation between the Council of Europe and the International Committee of the Red Cross. The dialogue between our two organisations has been constant and fruitful. The issue sits at the crossroads of our two mandates and our respective roles. Your position is unique when it comes to protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms on the European continent, including in countries still suffering the consequences of armed conflict or violence. The ICRC is active in member States in situations of armed conflict or violence, the intensity of which is fortunately no longer comparable with that of the past, but the humanitarian consequences are unfortunately unresolved, as you have just alluded to, Mr President – I endorse your comments – and as I know from travelling across Europe and beyond. It is the long-term effects of missing persons that speak to me the most.

The Assembly’s adoption today of a resolution and recommendation on missing persons from Europe’s conflicts is an important opportunity to recognise the need to protect the human dignity of the victims. I express my particular thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Sheridan, and congratulate him on his constant efforts on this subject in the Assembly and in other bodies of the Council of Europe. As he said in his report, the issue of missing persons remains a major problem and is rightly on the Assembly’s agenda.

The resolution you are about to adopt recognises the importance of resolving this issue. That is vital if we are to bring about genuine reconciliation between communities and peoples in Europe. We welcome the fact that the needs of the families of missing persons is at the heart of the report. It must be said that it is for States and parties to a conflict to take the necessary measures to prevent people from disappearing and to face up to the consequences when that occurs. But that obligation brings with it rights vis-ŕ-vis the victims, whether the missing persons themselves or the families. The right to know, which Mr Sheridan included in his five priorities, is essential. The UN’s 2006 Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance is another legal tool available to us in this area. The ICRC invites all member States of the Council of Europe to sign up to that convention and adopt national provisions to ensure its implementation.

The ICRC’s approach to missing persons is essentially operational, particularly in the Balkans and the Caucasus, where we seek to help families obtain some response on the fate of their loved ones and alleviate their suffering. Our approach is therefore humanitarian and far removed from political considerations. In the active phase of a conflict, we will attempt to trace an individual who has broken off links or contacts with their families, searching in all likely areas, such as detention centres, centres for displaced persons or refugees, hospitals, mortuaries and the like. Our subsequent efforts involve encouraging the establishment of machinery by the parties concerned to help provide families with answers on the fate of their loved ones and machinery that allows the centralisation of information on missing persons and co-ordination of such efforts, clarifying their fate and identifying bodies, drawing on forensic and scientific expertise. I understand that Mr Sheridan has attached considerable importance to that issue in his priorities, and I thank him for that.

In a number of Council of Europe member States the ICRC acts as a neutral intermediary in the mechanisms established to enable the parties concerned to enter into dialogue and exchange information on the fate of missing persons, information that will enable families to ensure that their right to know is respected. These efforts include assistance programmes to accommodate the families’ many needs, such as: the right to know; socio-economic needs; administrative, legal and psychological assistance; the need for some kind of recognition; and the need for a proper tribute to their loved ones.

On the occasion of this year’s international day of missing persons, 30 August, the ICRC presented a publication entitled “Assisting the families of missing persons: a practical guide”, which I recommend. The ICRC also encourages and supports States to adopt a number of measures at the domestic level, including the adoption of a legislative framework to prevent the phenomenon of missing persons and on how best to respond to the needs of the families. To do that, we have developed a model law on missing persons. In February 2003 the ICRC organised an international conference on missing persons, which enabled us to raise the international community’s awareness of the issue. That, in turn, gave rise to specific recommendations on implementing the right to know. The work of your Assembly dovetails very nicely with the progress that has already been made; it also attests to your commitment to continue to work in this area.

      The year 2013 is the 150th anniversary of the work done in this field by the ICRC, so I am particularly pleased to be able to address the Assembly today. I am sure you have had the opportunity to have a look at the photo exhibition outside the Chamber, which, through 40 photographs, gives you some idea of the work that has been done by the ICRC since its inception. I have every confidence in the work that the Council of Europe will continue to undertake to ensure the respect of human dignity in situations where the ICRC is also active. Thank you very much again for your commitment.

      THE PRESIDENT* – It is we who thank you, President Maurer.

We now come to the general debate. I call Mr JÓNASSON on behalf of the Group of the Unified Left. You have the floor.

      Mr JÓNASSON (Iceland) – The rapporteur, Mr Sheridan, has urged us to try to imagine the faces of the people who have disappeared. In his speech and in his report he reminds us that we are talking about real people – real individuals. Behind each and every face we imagine, there are many others – suffering relatives, heartbroken families and even whole communities – who continue to deal with the open wound of not knowing and still hoping for answers. That is why Mr Sheridan is so right to put the family at the heart of the issue. The families of the missing must be placed at the centre, and their right to know acknowledged.

      The report combines statistics and facts with personal stories. I thank the rapporteur for this approach. After all, the key to any humanitarian action is recognition, empathy and shared humanity – the sense of real faces behind the statistics. When it comes to the fate of missing persons, we do have some tools to find out the truth. It must be said that in some regions progress has been made, while in other regions this is not the case. It is therefore relevant to ask about political will. The truth may not bring back those missing, but only the truth can bring a sense of closure and reconciliation, thereby helping individuals, families and broken communities to move on.

These are the principles we must bear in mind, but to achieve our aims we need practical action. The report’s recommendations have much to offer, with the focus on assessing and addressing the needs of families, implementing legal frameworks, addressing the question of provisional amnesties and the dilemmas involved where individuals complicit in the disappearance of persons are the only ones who know their real fate – they are often the only witnesses. It is essential to create competent mechanisms to help people to come forward with information and to help them access information – all these steps are highly important and should be endorsed.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you very much. I call Mr Pintado to speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr PINTADO (Spain)* – I would like to start, Mr Sheridan, by saying that it is important to bring about reconciliation between peoples who have suffered war. That is the way ahead for our societies. We now need to try and close some of the open wounds of the conflicts that have marked Europe throughout the 20th century. We cannot allow unjust acts to go unpunished, but peace and reconciliation between peoples who have experienced the horror of war needs to be achieved via the process of discovering the fate of missing persons. I therefore echo the words of Mr Maurer from the ICRC.

Psychiatry shows us that when people lose someone close to them in such circumstances the pain never goes away. Knowing the fate of their loved ones is important – it provides great relief. That is why we need the humanitarian responses that are outlined in the report. We need to provide legal assistance and psychological counselling to family members of missing persons, to look at the specific circumstances for women, and to help the groups that provide support to those who have lost family members – the people who are experts on missing persons. We need to give legal recognition to missing persons and ensure that the rights of their families are guaranteed. Recent findings show us that conflicts have many long-term ramifications for families – thousands of men and women – and that the scars do not heal. We need to look at the root cause of the problem. I am not being naďve, but it ought to be possible for us to do everything within our power to remedy the aftershocks of conflict.

We have dealt with these issues in my own country. On occasion, however, we have felt that this approach has perhaps been misguided. Mr Sheridan, we agree that the formula for peace is reconciliation, the principle that derives from Christianity and which the Assembly is duty bound to promote with all necessary sacrifices. We need to do everything in our power to ensure that we do not have a repeat of this situation.

THE PRESIDENT* – I call Ms Kyriakidou on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Ms KYRIAKIDOU (Cyprus) – On behalf of the Socialist Group, I congratulate Mr Sheridan on this extremely important report.

The answer to the humanitarian issue of the missing persons from Europe’s conflicts is of paramount importance, because it involves disappeared people whose fate is still unknown, as well as their families and their inalienable right to know of the fate of their loved ones.

As the rapporteur rightly states in his report, the fate of the missing often remains unresolved for decades, becoming an open wound for their families and friends, as well as for society at large. Talking from experience – this issue has for many decades haunted many of my Cypriot compatriots – the most horrific consequences of the Cyprus tragedy of 1974 are the missing persons and the effect on the families. After so many decades, many still have no information on the fate of their loved ones, or the circumstances of their disappearance.

The aim of the Republic of Cyprus has always been to establish the fate of each and every missing person, whether Greek or Turkish Cypriot, on the basis of concrete and verifiable evidence. For this reason, the Government of Cyprus cannot accept the notion of the presumption of death as a solution to this humanitarian problem. I most strongly condemn such enforced disappearances, because both the Greek and the Turkish missing are Cypriots – my compatriots – and they all have families waiting to learn their fate.

Concerning the Greek-Cypriot missing, one cannot ignore the fact that precious time has inexcusably elapsed due to the non-co-operative attitude of the Turkish side. Despite many relevant European Court of Human Rights decisions, interim resolutions of the Committee of Ministers and other international calls, Turkey has only recently, after four decades, shown a first positive sign by allowing the Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus to have access to a fenced military zone in the occupied areas.

Although that is an encouraging development, it is only a beginning. We sincerely hope that Turkey will continue to co-operate genuinely on that matter, and fully implement all relevant European Court of Human Rights decisions. I appeal to my Turkish colleagues to exert all possible pressure on their government to co-operate sincerely, and to allow unrestricted access to all military areas throughout occupied Cyprus and in Turkey itself, as well as to open its military archives.

      The issue of the missing is one that cannot and should not be politically exploited under any circumstances or for whatever reason. It concerns human beings. No one has the right to play with the pain and agony of relatives. In that respect, an utterly important parameter for ascertaining the fate of all the missing from European conflicts is effective and immediate investigation into the circumstances surrounding their disappearance. That principle applies to all the missing.

Last but not least, I must appeal to European governments, whose input is required for any investigation into the fate of the missing to be effective, to provide all necessary information generously and to co-operate effectively, putting aside political expediencies, because the families of the missing have a right to know.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Kyriakidou. I call Ms Acketoft on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Ms ACKETOFT (Sweden) – Mr Rapporteur, thank you for the report, which may be a tool for thawing frozen conflicts between nations and between regions and serve as a healing remedy for families who have not only been deprived of their loved ones, but denied the right to bury them and mourn for them.

      There are missing people from conflicts all over Europe. The report gives the horrific number of 20 000, but, sadly, that figure is very conservative, as it depends where and when you draw the line. The number in recent times is 20 000, but when does a missing person case become obsolete? Those 20 000 people are from Europe alone. How many would there be if we included Asia and Africa? Cyprus, Turkey, Spain, the Caucasus, the Balkans – I cannot mention you all, but please believe me when I say that I do acknowledge all of you.

Living in a country which will soon celebrate 200 years of peace, my awakening to this human tragedy and political failure was as a rapporteur on the humanitarian consequences of the wars between Russia and Georgia. I tried to retain a humanitarian aspect on that, believe me, and I congratulate the rapporteur on managing to do so in this Assembly. Sitting with Georgian families, I found out that there can be no reconciliation or any true peace or understanding until the missing – they are often young men: sons, fathers, husbands – are identified and brought home, something which is even more important for them than revenge. However, there are almost 2 000 missing from Georgia alone.

      The 1929 Geneva Convention states: “Whenever circumstances permit, each party to the conflict must, without delay, take all possible measures to search for, collect and evacuate the dead.” The law is therefore very clear, but the political will is not. Let us all accept that that is a genuine problem. I thank the International Committee of the Red Cross for all the work it is doing. I have seen it on the ground, and I know the commitment and the highly skilled efforts that it puts in. The ICRC is doing that work where it can, but politicians must put the family, not politics, at the centre. Let us agree that the pain is individual, but the solution is political.

Until now, we have all been in agreement in discussions, so there should be no problem in resolving this humanitarian issue. As legislators, we are bound to listen to the families, to recognise them and to ensure that we cater for their living conditions. As member States of the Council of Europe, we should feel obliged to follow international legislation and conventions and, of course, the recommendations of this report. I again congratulate the rapporteur.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Acketoft. I call Mr Donaldson on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

      Mr DONALDSON (United Kingdom) – I commend the rapporteur, Mr Sheridan, my colleague from the United Kingdom, for this excellent report, and I support the International Committee of the Red Cross, which has been involved in this work for many years.

      I chose to participate in the debate because, coming from Northern Ireland, I recognise the issue’s importance. When we were engaged in the negotiations that led to the Belfast Agreement, the issue was a priority, because we recognised the deep sense of suffering felt by the families of those who had disappeared, as Mr Sheridan said. The numbers involved in the conflict in Northern Ireland were small, but that does not in any way diminish the sense of human suffering felt by a family when their loved one has disappeared and the remains have never been returned.

A key part of the agreement we entered into was the establishment of the Independent Commission for the Location of Victims’ Remains. I am pleased to report to the Assembly that so far more than half of the missing persons have had their remains identified and returned to their families. That is a mark of the progress we have made on this very difficult issue. I suggest that what we have been able to do in Northern Ireland, as a joint endeavour between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, offers a model that might be drawn on by others seeking to address this issue in a post-conflict situation. We would be very happy to share our experience with others.

I have been to Cyprus and met families from both the north and the south of the island to hear the deep sense of loss and suffering that they feel, even many years later, as they await the return of their loved ones. If there is reconciliation, healing will come with it. It is difficult for a family to heal from the consequences of conflict if their loved one’s remains are not returned, or if they do not have a place to go to and recognise as their loved one’s place of rest.

      In the Council of Europe, we often have debates about human rights, and even about the rights of the unborn, but this is an issue that involves the rights of those who have passed on and are no longer with us. We have a duty to those who die in conflict or who disappear to ensure that all reasonable action is taken to have their remains identified and returned. We are therefore happy to endorse the report and to accept the draft resolution.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Donaldson. The rapporteur will reply at the end of the debate. I cannot see Ms Djurović, Mr Drăghici or Ms Miladinović, so I call Ms Schuster.

      Ms SCHUSTER (Germany)* – I thank the rapporteur warmly because he has managed, on a sensitive topic, to write an excellent report. I am glad that Mr Maurer is also with us. I have visited the International Committee of the Red Cross in Geneva on a number of occasions with the Committee on Human Rights and Humanitarian Aid of the federal parliament and have always been very impressed by its work.

      Two points in the report are especially important. First, without coming to terms with the past, there can be no reconciliation. We must come to terms with the past using legal provisions so that a culture of impunity does not develop. However, there must also be a process of social transformation, as a number of people have mentioned, otherwise the wounds will not heal. I am grateful that we are discussing this report because it opens our eyes to the fate that is suffered by many people in Europe – victims and the families of victims, many of whom still do not know where their family members are.

      When the Assembly discussed the Dick Marty report on the situation in the Northern Caucasus, my group organised a side event. People from the Northern Caucasus attended and spoke about the fates that had befallen them. A farmer’s wife recalled being in front of the farm house with her son, when a black car appeared and people dressed in black dragged her son away. She went to the police to report the matter, but the police said, “We cannot help you because if we report the incident, we will suffer the consequences.” To the present day, she does not know what happened to her son. It is incredibly important that we do all that we can to give such people a voice. People must be told where their children or relatives are; they have a right to the truth.

      I thank the rapporteur for his work, as well as the ICRC and the many other organisations that are active in this field. I hope that the report is adopted with a large majority, because we owe that to the families of missing persons.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Schuster. I call Ms Gafarova.

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – I congratulate Mr Sheridan on his excellent report. This is an important issue in Europe. It is obvious that conflict is fraught with serious humanitarian disasters and contradictions that long remain unresolved.

      Azerbaijan has been forced into conflict by Armenia. As the citizens of a country that has 20% of its territory occupied, we recognise this issue much more than others because we are still experiencing the severe outcomes of the conflict.

      As is mentioned in the report, Azerbaijan has established the State Commission on Prisoners of War, Hostages and Missing Persons. The main task of the commission is to conduct investigations so that answers can be given to the families of missing persons. I will adduce some general information about our citizens who have been taken hostage and held in captivity since the beginning of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

      The commission has registered 4 055 missing Azerbaijani citizens. According to the commission’s data, 553 people have been killed in Armenian captivity or have died for various reasons, such as torture or illness. That number includes not only military personnel, but civilians – women, children and elderly people. Some 877 people were captured and live in the occupied territories, but Armenia does not recognise that fact. Between 1988 and 2013, 1 402 Azerbaijani citizens have been released from Armenian captivity.

      The rehabilitation of people who have been released from captivity is a big problem. It is difficult for them to forget their impressions of torture and captivity, and they suffer from those memories. We should assist people in adapting to life after captivity and secure appropriate conditions for them.

      Armenia and Azerbaijan have signed a ceasefire agreement, but that has not settled the conflict. Because of Armenia’s destructive manipulation of the peace process, the conflict remains unsettled. Despite the international appeals, the Yerevan administration will not act constructively. Yesterday, the Assembly witnessed how the President of Armenia interprets resolutions 822, 853, 874 and 884 of the UN Security Council on the unconditional and immediate withdrawal of Armenian troops from the occupied territories of Azerbaijan.

In conclusion, in considering this important and urgent issue, I believe that it is important to draw the attention of the international community to the violence that has been caused by the Armenian state so that we can avoid such cases occurring in Europe in the future.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Gafarova. I call Ms Bulajić.

      Ms BULAJIĆ (Serbia) – I congratulate our esteemed rapporteur on selflessly investigating how the forms of governance that objectify the missing may be addressed and, ultimately, altered. The existing practices are manifestly inadequate and, as such, represent a genuine threat to European security.

      The stories of the missing offer profound insights into the tension between how political systems see us and how we see each other. The search for people who go missing as a result of war, political violence or genocide reveals that forms of governance that objectify the missing person must be challenged. Contemporary political and legal systems treat people instrumentally – as objects to be administered, rather than as singular beings. The apparatus of government recognises categories, not people. In contrast, the relatives of the missing demand that the authorities focus on a particular person. Families and friends are looking for someone who is unique and irreplaceable.

      Although human rights take centre stage in the agenda of international politics, little empirical evidence has been provided on the precise relationship between dealing with the human rights violations of the ancien régime and the prospects for a peaceful, democratic transition. Although enforced disappearances as a result of political violence are an endemic feature of contemporary conflict around the globe, the study of the phenomenon and its relationship to transitional justice has not received the attention that it deserves. Consequently, little notice has been taken of the long-term political, legal, social, security and psychological risks associated with the mismanagement of the problem of enforced disappearances in societies emerging from conflict.

      Admittedly, an advanced, normative framework on dealing with enforced disappearances has been developed over the past few decades, mainly through the adoption of important legal instruments and the admirable body of work of the European Court of Human Rights. However, such instruments do not improve the prospects of the families of missing or disappeared persons in locating their relatives and relieving their prolonged distress.

      I have given but a few ideas that could contribute to a new, albeit idealistic, vision of governance based first and foremost on human beings. However, institutions and movements do not change until people demand change. The time for change is now. We need a peaceful transition to a more equitable and humane society. The problem of missing persons calls for immediate action in order to decrease suffering and forestall the culture of victimhood that only perpetuates violence. The report urges us to seek normative social and political means to recover the truth about missing persons without delay and to provide a lasting solution to this sensitive human rights problem.

      The report guides and assists policy makers in how to deal with enforced disappearances in post-conflict settings, encouraging us to make an innovative contribution to the limited knowledge on how to transform protracted human rights problems into stepping stones of conciliation. Eloquence and clarity are the distinguishing features of Mr Sheridan’s language. Missing people have been turned into objects, their irreplaceability denied, but, in firm narrative, he nudges us beyond the politics of missing persons to a politics that misses the person. The report changes the way we think about missing persons and follows in the footsteps of the grand work of the ICRC.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Mr Marias.

      Mr MARIAS (Greece) – I have the sad and unpleasant duty of reminding everyone in the Chamber that Greece is directly concerned about the issue of missing persons in Cyprus. On top of the 1 493 missing Greek Cypriots, 64 Greek citizens are still officially recorded as missing, 39 years after the Turkish invasion in 1974.

      For many decades, the Turkish side has maintained an outstandingly negative attitude on this humanitarian tragedy, downplaying the suffering and the legitimate rights of families to be informed of the fate of their relatives. The universal obligation of a state to “combat the impunity” of those responsible for the tragedy of missing persons is still in place, and it was touched on by the Parliamentary Assembly in its illuminating report last year on “The International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance”. Turkey must inform us about measures it has taken and about the time frame of its effective investigation; it must also allow access to all relevant information included in Turkish army reports and archives, as well as to military zones in the occupied part of Cyprus, where missing persons may have been buried or removed from mass graves.

Last but not least, let me once more underline that the issue of missing persons is first and foremost a legal one, not simply a humanitarian, technical, military-orientated or political one. As a legal matter, it does not and should not involve any geographical or time restraints. Thus, the report, to follow its letter, may apply to the Balkans, Cyprus and the Caucasus, but, to follow its spirit, one cannot exclude many more cases from the recent past, such as the mass murder of thousands of Greek citizens in the Nazi concentration camps during the Second World War. Apart from Greek Jews, thousands of other Greek citizens were abducted, either as hostages or as forced labour, and sent to Nazi concentration camps located in various occupied countries. The majority of them never returned to Greece and were reported as “missing persons” or as “dead” – in fact, killed.

      In conclusion, I urge all the partners involved not to palter with the truth, but to restore justice, which involves not only vindicating the families of victims, but legally obliging the states responsible for such tragedy and to compensate them fully, thus stopping tragedy from becoming parody.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Marias. I do not see Mr Belyakov in the Chamber, so I call Mr Rivard, Observer from Canada.

      Mr RIVARD (Canada)* – I thank the rapporteur, Mr Sheridan, for his praiseworthy work in drawing our attention to the forgotten of world conflicts – in most cases, the innocent victims of terrible conflict. I agree with his general observation, namely that it is mainly political obstacles that make it so difficult for us to respond to this urgent humanitarian problem. The topicality of the report and the debate is obvious: on 30 August, we celebrated the International Day of Missing Persons, organised by the ICRC.

      Today, I will speak about the work of international organisations and of non-governmental organisations in this field. First, I congratulate them and, secondly, I stress not only how important their contribution is, but how inspiring it is in promoting the objectives of the resolution tabled by Mr Sheridan. He has already mentioned in the report the excellent co-operation he received from the ICRC, and he has recognised its important role in his resolution on the disappearances that occur during armed conflict. He also mentioned the contributions of the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances and the International Commission on Missing Persons.

The work of such organisations must be supported financially, as well as through full co-operation by countries whose residents have been victims of a conflict or who have lost members of their family. Such organisations have a lot to offer in logistics, scientific and technical expertise and, in the case of the International Commission on Missing Persons, legislative support to assist countries to reform their laws, so that they can deal better with the consequences suffered by families who have lost loved ones. That means more effective laws, which facilitate access to basic information that governments may possess on family members who have disappeared, and to better information on property, for the recovery of the mortal remains of missing persons and to provide appropriate financial and other support to the families of missing persons.

      We should also insist, as the rapporteur does, on the importance of political will in each of the countries concerned to bring political conflict to an end, because it is the source of so much human suffering. In the interim, while negotiations continue, it is imperative that legislators act to help families of missing persons in zones of conflict.

The resolution will be an important step in the world’s effort to help families who are trying to find their loved ones, or who are mourning them. I thank the Assembly for allowing observer states to take the floor.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Rivard. It is always a pleasure to hear from an observer country; such countries have an important contribution to make to the work of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. I now call Ms Giannakaki.

      Ms GIANNAKAKI (Greece)* – War, of course, remains on the mind of those who have experienced it. The same holds true for those who do not know the fate of missing persons.

      I will talk about Cyprus, because of its close links with my country and because Greek citizens have gone missing. In 1991 a special committee was set up under the aegis of the UN. Turkey is responsible for the fate of missing persons, and provision of information on them, in line with rulings by the European Court of Human Rights, pursuant to a judgment of 2001. There are resolutions by the Council of Europe calling for the Court’s judgment to be carried out – Turkey has been repeatedly condemned for its failure to do so.

      Investigators should be given full access to military zones in the occupied territories. In 2012, access was permitted to only one single camp in the occupied territories, while military zones are considered to lie outside those territories. In January 2008 the European Court of Human Rights passed a sentence against Turkey in its judgment on nine missing persons. There are many more missing persons whose cases need investigation and who need to be tracked down.

      Similarly, this issue is part of public dialogue in Turkey as well as discussions between Turkey and Turkish Cypriots. Considerable progress has been made. We have received the remains of some missing persons, which have been returned to their families. That is a model for institutional co-operation between the two communities on the island. We also have various victims’ groups, as well as other efforts by civil society.

      The special committee should make public its work. I submit that Greek Cypriots have suffered most cruelly, which is why it is important to have a dialogue about what happened in the past. That is the only way to guarantee a common future for the island of Cyprus.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Ms Zohrabyan.

Ms ZOHRABYAN (Armenia)* – Colleagues, we are debating a very sensitive issue that concerns tens of thousands of individuals and families. About 20 000 persons are missing as a result of armed conflicts in Europe. This is a highly topical issue in many member States of the Council of Europe. There is one undeniable truth: the families of persons who have gone missing in the course of armed conflicts are entitled to be informed of what has happened to their nearest and dearest. It is important that the families concerned are at the heart of any Government initiatives.

I have had the opportunity to meet the mothers and children of people who went missing in the war in Nagorno-Karabakh, a war triggered by Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan is falsifying all the facts, and is here peddling lies. I can hardly describe the emotions experienced by the parents, spouses and children of those who have gone missing. Every time there is a knock at the door, a glimmer of hope returns: they hope that it is their son or father coming home.

We as parliamentarians and national Governments must find humanitarian solutions and responses to these important issues; Jim Sheridan explored numerous avenues in his report. It is important that the de facto authorities co-operate and exchange information when it comes to the measures taken to uncover the remains of missing persons. I am grateful to the rapporteur for sharing our views and approving our proposal. It is a question of paramount importance, which is why we need more flexible machinery to institute genuinely effective co-operation with the de facto authorities. I commend the fact that that position has been set out in the report. We must work towards the common objective of doing everything within our power to find missing persons. I assure you that co-operation with the de facto authorities is one of the humanitarian avenues for resolving this grave issue. We are all aware that resolving the problem of missing persons will have a direct impact on establishing peace in Europe.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Mr Chikovani.

Mr CHIKOVANI (Georgia) – I come from the country with the second largest number of missing persons in Europe, but it is awkward to talk about the issue in numbers. President of the ICRC, I thank you on behalf of the people in my country whom you have helped. Knowing them personally, I understand the hope and support that you have brought them. The ICRC remains their one ray of hope for some resolution of the ambiguity.

I also thank Mr Sheridan, our colleague, who put together the report, which explicitly shows how close the work of this Assembly can come to the lives of individual citizens of our countries. If you read the report closely, you will find two boxes, one describing the story of the Ekizashvilli family from Georgia and one describing the Matanović family. Those boxes frame the history, the everyday life and the future of those families. Without the knowledge of what has happened to their spouse, child or parent, reconciliation is impossible. I could not agree more with Mr Sheridan’s report, which suggests that the roots of the problem lie in the families’ fear and the lack of political will, but I think that every politician must realise that without understanding the causes clearly and letting families know where those people have gone, there will be no reconciliation. There will always be the search, and efforts that can turn ugly.

One of our colleagues mentioned that this is Europe’s scar from the 20th century, but unfortunately it has not come only from the 20th century. My country has witnessed it in the 21st century. During the war of 2008, 32 people went missing, 24 of whom were civilians. We can get no information about them. The irony of the situation is that our colleagues from the country that went to war with my country and occupied 20% of its territory are doing absolutely nothing to address either that problem or many other problems that came with the war.

We must ensure a clear understanding in everybody’s mind that the matter must be taken care of. I have spoken a few times in this Chamber. Every time I do, I always call on my colleagues in this Chamber to ensure that the report does not stay on the shelves of this Organisation, and that we work hard to make our Governments back home spend money on this issue. Money is absolutely necessary to ensure a proper procedure. We will try to make international and regional arrangements to ensure that results are delivered. I thank you once again, Mr Sheridan. This report marks crucial developments that have unfortunately taken place in our everyday lives.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Ms Erkal Kara.

Ms ERKAL KARA (Turkey)* – I thank the rapporteur, Mr Sheridan, and the committee members for taking up this delicate issue and dealing with it in such a fair, constructive and even-handed way. I fully share the view of the rapporteur, who believes that families must be at the heart of any action having to do with missing persons, but the question that we must ask ourselves is how to go about it. I am most grateful to the rapporteur for sharing his ideas with us and putting out guidelines to help us as we go about realising that aim. The sensitivity of the subject also demands that we be cautious. We should not seek to get mileage out of individual examples or tragic stories, nor organise subsidised tours, as some Governments have been doing for a number of years.

The report contains numerous references to missing persons in Cyprus. I say to the rapporteur and Assembly members that the issue of missing persons in Cyprus concerns both parties: the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots. That being said, paragraphs 7 and 10 of the explanatory memorandum do not really reflect the current situation regarding missing persons in Cyprus. The official list of missing persons approved by the two leaders suggests that 1 508 Greek Cypriots and 493 Turkish Cypriots are missing. In other words, that is lower than the figures that appear in the table on page 6. That table will have to be revised according to the updated statistics published by the Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus in August 2013.

      Not only the Turkish Cypriot authorities, but the Greek Cypriot authorities, too, are legally obliged to carry out an effective investigation into the 500 Turkish Cypriots reported missing.

The rapporteur notes in paragraph 10 that the problem started some 40 years ago, but that is not true. The problem goes back beyond that, to some 50 years ago, when a number of Turkish Cypriots disappeared during an internal conflict. For that reason, the mandate of the Committee on Missing Persons also covers its clarifying the fate of disappeared persons during the events of 1963-64. In other words, it did not start in 1974.

What encourages us and gives us hope is that that committee is, of course, the major piece of machinery that concerns both communities and it is making progress on exhumation, identification and information shared with the families as to the conclusions that it has reached.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you.

I cannot See Ms El Ouafi or Mr Sabella in the Chamber. I call Mr Çağlar.

Mr ÇAĞLAR (Representative of the Turkish Cypriot Community) – President, distinguished members, I speak with a touch of sorrow. Missing persons have been an open wound for my country for decades. I am grateful to the rapporteur, Mr Sheridan, for his relatively balanced approach. However, there is no reference in the report to the important issue of the Turkish Cypriots who went missing in the events of 1963-64. That creates a factual mistake, since the great majority of Turkish Cypriots went missing during that period. This is also contrary to the agreement reached between Turkish and Greek Cypriots, as well as to the terms of reference of the Committee of Missing Persons on Cyprus, established by Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot sides together.

The report documents how countless people – soldiers and civilians, including women and people of all ages – have gone missing and how most of them are still unaccounted for. Losing someone is a tragedy, but to have a relative or a loved one – actually, anyone – go missing and still be unaccounted for is a pain beyond words. It is unacceptable and we should do all within our means to prevent the recurrence of such events.

We are not talking about a natural disaster that we cannot prevent. We are not talking about an unstoppable train of events that we must watch helplessly. Usually, it is in an armed conflict, a civil war or a chaotic situation in which people go missing. The value and wisdom of the peace and stability built in Europe since the Second World War should be seen in this light as well. That is why bodies such as the Council of Europe are so important. International co-operation and solidarity is the best way to prevent wars, to prevent people – our loved ones and our sons and daughters – from going missing.

The European Convention on Human Rights lists many rights, all for us to enjoy. Let us remember that among those is the right to have a proper burial place and to have our loved ones perform their last duties when we depart. That is to say, it is also every person’s human right to be accounted for – to complete his journey in life in tune with his own faith and choices. That is why this report is so important. It reminds us of an issue that is quickly forgotten, yet leaves so many scars.

Cyprus is one of those unlucky places still struggling with her own missing persons. I am glad that the report also mentions missing Turkish Cypriots. Usually, and unfortunately, only missing Greek Cypriots are remembered whenever the problem of missing persons in Cyprus is raised. For this I thank the rapporteur, Mr Sheridan. It would have pleased me if the report explained how these Turkish Cypriots went missing.

      A side event took place yesterday where the families of missing Turkish Cypriots shared their experiences and told their personal stories. I hope that this report and the side-event will prove to be turning points for everyone. They deserve to be remembered.

THE PRESIDENT* – Would you like to respond to the contributions, Mr Maurer?

Mr MAURER (President of the International Committee of the Red Cross)* – Ladies and gentlemen, parliamentarians and dear friends, I shall briefly make three comments, but first I thank you for the positive and kind words that you have said about the work of the Red Cross. I will certainly pass those on to colleagues, who appreciate the work that you do.

A lot of you stressed the importance of approaching this from the humanitarian point of view, not from the political point of view – especially not from a petty political point of view. But let me state once again, modestly, as the representative of a humanitarian organisation, that political problems do not have humanitarian solutions. There are no humanitarian solutions to political problems. Often, missing persons represent – some of you said this – a political problem that cries out for a political response from politicians, such as you. It is through your support for reports such as this one by Mr Sheridan, and through political initiatives and political will expressed in bodies such as this one, that the conditions for organisations such as mine to do their work properly can be created. I wanted to introduce that new answer in respect of the humanitarian versus the political.

I should like to bring to the fore something that Ms Acketoft said in her speech. The numbers that we talk about today in Europe are people we know about. These are missing persons whose disappearance is registered. However, there is also the unknown number. What we know may be just the tip of the iceberg. Let us not underestimate the size of the iceberg under the water line. We do not know. That should be kept in mind. There may be a lot of missing persons who we do not know about.

      In our experience, the problem of disappeared persons does not disappear with time. On the contrary, it becomes more acute as time passes. Let us not forget that with the life expectancy we now have in the 21st century that can be a problem in the next generation. These problems do not disappear. Without definitive news it can be a long time before being certain that someone has died.

      In conclusion, some other time you could perhaps deal with another subject that requires strong political support – the security of health care workers around the world, which today is one of the most horrible problems confronting us. Some 150 years ago, there was a political consensus to create the International Committee of the Red Cross based on the argument that people wounded in armed conflict deserved the appropriate health care. Unfortunately, that consensus is becoming fragile, and that is horrible.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Maurer. The rapporteur has a few minutes left to reply to the speakers.

      Mr SHERIDAN (United Kingdom) – It was remiss of me not to thank you personally, Mr President, for giving us the authority to show the images of the families of missing persons. We really appreciated it.

      I thank all the speakers in what has been a mainly non-partisan debate for their excellent contributions, although there remains some friction in certain States. As I said, we have tried to be non-partisan. The statistics and the start date in the report, which was adopted in February, posed questions and challenges. On the statistics, we have used the ICRC’s figures because it is independent and well-respected. Had we not, other figures would have been produced, so I think it was the best thing to do. On the date, we needed a point from which to start. I can well understand our colleagues from the Turkish-Cypriot side who feel aggrieved, and they have raised questions with the best of intentions, but as far as I and the committee are concerned, a missing person is a missing person, regardless of where they come from or how they came to be missing.

      We have to learn from the past. Unfortunately, a disaster is unfolding now in Syria, and no doubt, when that conflict comes to an end, which it will do, organisations such as the ICRC will be asked to pick up the pieces. That is why, if we did not have an ICRC, we would have to invent one, but we must give it the resources it needs to do its job. This has been a constructive, mainly non-partisan debate, but I emphasise again that if we leave this Assembly and do nothing to help these missing persons, it will be a lost opportunity. As an Assembly and as national politicians, we must take this issue forward. As far as the relatives of the missing persons are concerned, if we can make this a robust report and deliver on our promises, we will be on the side of the angels.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Sheridan. I call Ms Virolainen, the Chair of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced People.

      Ms VIROLAINEN (Finland) – I thank Mr Sheridan for this excellent report and all members for the support they gave him in their speeches.

      The issue of missing persons has long been a priority humanitarian and human rights issue for the Assembly and my committee. We first addressed it in 1987, when discussing national refugees and missing persons in Cyprus. In 2004, our colleague Mr Çavuşoğlu tackled the problem in his report on persons unaccounted for as a result of armed conflict or international violence in the Balkans. He analysed the situation in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Kosovo. Three years later, the issue was again raised in Assembly Resolution 1553 and Recommendation 1797 on persons in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia missing as a result of the conflicts over the Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia and South Ossetia regions.

      The aim of today’s report is to review the committee’s previous work on the subject and to assess progress made on the issue of persons missing as a result of conflict in Europe. Today’s debate is symbolic, as we celebrate the 10th anniversary of the international conference on governmental and non-governmental experts on missing persons and their families organised in 2003 by the ICRC. We hope that our recommendation will be considered partly as an assessment of progress since this conference. Finally, I would like to thank Mr Maurer for being with us today and for the important work done by the ICRC in resolving cases of missing persons and helping their families to find the truth.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The debate is closed.

      The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons has presented a draft resolution to which nine amendments have been tabled.

I understand that the Chairperson wishes to propose to the Assembly that because all of the amendments were unanimously approved by the Committee, they should be declared as adopted by the Assembly under Rule 33.11.

Is that so, Ms Virolainen?

Ms VIROLAINEN (Finland) – Yes.

THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone object?

As there is no objection, I declare that Amendments 1 to 9 to the draft resolution have been adopted.

      The following amendments have been adopted:

      Amendment 1, tabled by the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 1, to replace the words “warring factions” by the following words: “war torn societies and former warring parties”.

Amendment 7, tabled by Mr Ángel Pintado, Mr José María Beneyto, Mr José Ignacio Palacios, Mr Pedro Agramunt, Mr Agustín Conde, Ms Carmen Quintanilla, Mr Antonio Gutiérrez, Mr Arcadio Díaz Tejera, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5, first sentence, to delete the words “in Spain”.

Amendment 2, tabled by the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 7.1, to replace the words “those involved in conflicts” by the following words: “member States and relevant de facto authorities”.

Amendment 3, tabled by the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 7.2.1, to replace the replace the words “right to know” by the following words: “right to an effective investigation and to know the truth”.

Amendment 8, tabled by Ms Stefana Miladinović, Mr Vladimir Ilić, Ms Aleksandra Djurović, Mr Miloš Aligrudić, Mr Anvar Makhmutov, Ms Nadezda Gerasimova, Ms Svetlana Goryacheva, Mr Robert Shlegel, Ms Melita Mulić, which is, in the draft resolution, to replace paragraph 7.3.4 with the following paragraph: “offer clear and strong support and provide all necessary assistance to existing national, bilateral and regional mechanisms addressing the issue of missing persons;”

Amendment 9, tabled by Ms Stefana Miladinović, Mr Miloš Aligrudić, Mr Anvar Makhmutov, Mr Robert Shlegel, Ms Nadezda Gerasimova, Ms Svetlana Goryacheva, Ms Melita Mulić, Ms Aleksandra Djurović, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 7.3.4, to insert the following paragraph: “support joint projects developed through bilateral and regional cooperation mechanisms which could be of assistance to other countries and regions in addressing the issue of missing persons.”

Amendment 4, tabled by the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 7.4, to replace the words “those involved” by the following words: “member States and relevant de facto authorities”.

Amendment 5, tabled by the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 7.5, to replace the words “those involved in conflicts” by the following words: “member States and relevant de facto authorities”.

Amendment 6, tabled by the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, which is, in the draft resolution, to replace paragraph 10 with the following paragraph:

“The Assembly recognises the important role played by the ICRC and other organisations such as the ICMP, in resolving cases of disappearance during and after armed conflicts and on raising awareness of the problem of missing persons in Europe. It encourages the ICRC and other organisations to continue their valuable assistance to the countries and regions concerned in solving the issue of missing persons.”

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13294, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Document 13294, as amended, is adopted, with 74 votes for, 0 against and 0 abstentions.

THE PRESIDENT* – I congratulate the rapporteur and the committee. As usual, they have done an excellent job of work. I also thank you, Mr Maurer, for your participation.

3. Urgent debate: European Union and Council of Europe human rights agendas: synergies

not duplication!

      THE PRESIDENT* – The next item of business is a debate under the urgent procedure on a report entitled “European Union and Council of Europe human rights agendas: synergies not duplication!” (Document 13321), presented by McNamara on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

      We will aim to finish the debate 6.20 p.m. If necessary, I will interrupt the list of speakers at about 6 p.m. for replies and voting.

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

Mr McNAMARA (Ireland) – Following the Assembly’s decision to hold a debate under the urgent procedure, I was appointed as rapporteur. As I am also rapporteur on European institutions and human rights, I was happy to present a draft report on this topic.

Following the appointment of the EU Special Representative for Human Rights, the Assembly held a current affairs debate during the June 2012 part-session. Since then, there have been further developments concerning the expansion of EU activities in the area of human rights. My draft report therefore focuses on a number of initiatives that have recently been taken, mainly by the European Parliament and the European Commission to set up a monitoring mechanism for EU member states’ compliance with common values such as fundamental rights, democracy and rule of law standards.

      In my opinion, the initiative of the EU to set up a mechanism for monitoring the respect for the rule of law stems from its own failure to date to respond adequately to pressing human rights problems within the EU itself and its member states. We do not yet know how this new mechanism will operate or when it will commence. According to our colleague from the European Parliament, Mr Louis Michel, who is going to present his report on this subject to the European Parliament Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs this week, the new mechanism should be triggered by a decision of the European Commission, based on the experience of the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights, whose competence may yet be extended. Last month, Mr Michel was received by the Council of Europe’s Secretary General, Mr Jagland, with whom he discussed the possible added value, as well as the disadvantages, of introducing the proposed mechanism.

      On several occasions, the Assembly and the Legal Affairs Committee have expressed concerns about unnecessary duplication of the Council of Europe’s work by the EU, especially after the establishment in 2007 of the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights. This possible overlapping of the agency’s work with Council of Europe activities has already been examined by the Assembly in 2010, following the publication of a report by my Legal Affairs Committee colleague Mr Cilevičs.

      Some of the fears that have been raised previously have not materialised, perhaps due to the vigilance of this Assembly. As proposed in Resolution 1756 of 2010, EU member States and institutions were called upon to reflect once again on the allocation of financial and other resources to the different European human rights protection mechanisms in order to distribute them in a way that ensures their most effective use. This Assembly also regretted that the funding for the Council of Europe’s core human rights activities was far lower than that of the EU’s Agency for Fundamental Rights. I believe, therefore, that the Assembly should reiterate its previous position, according to which the duplication of the Council of Europe’s work should be avoided, alongside any unnecessary waste of resources, especially when we are asking taxpayers to tighten their belts during a time of economic crisis.

      The Council of Europe’s binding legal instruments, and in particular the European Convention on Human Rights, constitute an effective system for human rights protection and the promotion of democracy and rule of law in all its member States, including those that are also members of the European Union. Any initiative in this respect should take into account the Council’s role as the benchmark for human rights, the rule of law and democracy in Europe, as stipulated in the memorandum of understanding agreed with the European Union in 2007.

Higher levels of human rights protection at a regional level are always welcome, but the setting up of parallel mechanisms in the EU can lead to double standards, forum shopping and lowering of the Council of Europe’s standards. Before putting any new mechanism in place, one should therefore explore synergies with the existing Council of Europe monitoring mechanisms. We should not forget that EU accession to the European Convention on Human Rights is also under way, and that it is now in the hands of the EU Court of Justice, which should give its opinion on the draft accession agreement. I believe that this Assembly should call on member states and the EU to finalise this process as accession to the ECHR is the best way to ensure full coherence of standards.

I hope that the Assembly will support my draft report and that of the Legal Affairs Committee, and I promise to follow these issues closely while preparing my report on European institutions and human rights.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr McNamara. You have eight minutes left to respond.

      In the debate, I call first Mr Agramunt, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Mr AGRAMUNT (Spain)* – Thank you, Mr President.

      Many of you will remember the Western European Union, which is an example of what happens when an international organisation is stripped of all its substance and powers. Ultimately it was subsumed into other organisations, and that is precisely the fate that might befall the Council of Europe.

The issue that we are debating today merits serious reflection on the part of the Assembly, because the vast majority of citizens perceive the Council of Europe as representing Europe. With all our member States and observers, we provide a forum for discussing human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Europe, and we are far broader than any other European organisation. Our reports and committees, along with our resolutions and recommendations, have all played a part in modernising many countries and making them democratic—countries that for many years had been governed by dictators.

The European Union simply cannot compete with us. It has 28 member States, whereas we in the Council of Europe have 47 States. We certainly do not want to duplicate efforts with the European Union. There is no doubt that debates about the rule of law and democracy should be held here, in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. We must send out a clear signal to the Union authorities. We do very serious work and we are highly relevant. It would be a serious mistake on the part of the European Union if it did not take full advantage of all the work that is done here, day in, day out.

That is why we need to stand firm. We need to be clear about this, because the Council of Europe stands for the defence and respect of human rights and democratic values. There is no point duplicating effort, because all that would do is distort the pan-European vision. It may well be that we should be more self-critical; there are things that we could do better, and we could be more efficient and effective in our work. There is room for improvement, but that applies across the board. Certainly the 47 member States know that what we are doing here is not preserving the Europe of powers; rather, we are preserving the Europe of democracy, the rule of law and human rights that has created the longest period of unbroken peace in Europe’s history. Let us state that loud and clear.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Agramunt. I now call Mr Gross, on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland)* – I thank Michael for the report. It is very important that he does not approach these matters using an alarmist tone and that he does not push the panic button. With the amendments tabled by Mr Walter and others, I think that the resolution will be an excellent one.

      The report says everything that needs to be said on the subject. The Copenhagen dilemma is new to me. In paragraph 5 of the explanatory memorandum we learn that the European Commission has been urged to seek a solution based on co-operation. That is important. If the European Union decides to do something, the question should be not whether to try to stop it, but how it will go about it.

      As Michael McNamara said, it is not necessarily bad if another organisation wants to take things further than we do in certain areas. The key is the join between our system and its system. If the European Union decides it wants to establish its own monitoring mechanism, we must ensure we have agreement on human rights and the Luxembourg court bowing to the precedence and standards set by our Court. Were it to go further than our Court in respect of its own members, we would probably be unable to prevent that. What is important is that it accepts the European Convention on Human Rights as the supreme standard. There must be no difference between the convention and the first part of the Lisbon treaty, dealing with fundamental rights. That must be reflected in its monitoring.

      Its monitoring must fall beneath the convention and should not interfere with our own monitoring. It must accept the limits of the European Union; not all our member States are members of it, although some of them may well like to join it one day, and they would have to understand that a more stringent monitoring system might apply. The prime reference, however, must be our monitoring and, first and foremost, our Court.

      We must calibrate the systems and prevent repetition. I remember that René van der Linden dug in his heels and wanted to resist the Fundamental Rights Agency. There is no point. What we have to do is ensure the systems dovetail and the supreme reference remains the convention and the Court here in Strasbourg. That should not be called into question. I therefore support the amendments tabled by Mr Walter. They are a fine addition to the McNamara report.

      The PRESIDENT* - Thank you. I call Mr Kennedy on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Mr KENNEDY (United Kingdom) - Two people, Mr President, more than any others brought me into politics. One was Russell Johnston, one of your distinguished predecessors, and my local MP from schooldays and subsequently a great friend and mentor. The other was Roy Jenkins, whom I initially knew only from afar. Yet I was to go on and share a House of Commons office with him for four years when, at the age of 23, I was elected as an MP 30 years ago. I could not have received a greater grounding and education in the topic of Europe from both of them. It was Rolls-Royce stuff, indeed.

They both might be smiling a little wryly, however, at this potential European turf war over the issue of human rights. As one of my British colleagues – who had better remain nameless - joked last night socially, this is the “Keep your tanks off our lawns” debate of the week. Yesterday, Secretary General Jagland reminded us that the Council and EU partnership has brought us much-needed and appreciated cash to help enable valuable Council projects. That is the spirit of synergy to which this report aspires, and that is why it has ALDE support, and that is why Mr McNamara and his committee have our congratulations.

      The UK government is on record as having “seen no evidence of unhelpful overlap or duplication between the Council Commissioner and the EU Special Representative”, and it makes other similar statements, too. That is very good, but history teaches us that institutions can, and do, evolve, and in so doing they tend to develop their own distinct identities. In political institutions that usually takes the form of accruing ever more power. So while we do not want armed neutrality, perhaps a dose of cautious vigilance might be in order. That is the point of this debate and this report.

      There is one way forward we would all welcome. The European Union now has a very potent identity. Indeed, it has a personality; it is a Nobel prize-winner. If it could take the next step and complete its accession to the European Convention on Human Rights, nobody would be happier than us.

      Europe and human rights within Europe are our DNA – do not antagonise. I cannot help but feel that instead of this slight institutional flexing of arms that is going on in Brussels, Roy Jenkins and Russell Johnston would probably have sorted all this out over a very good bottle of wine - or two.

      The PRESIDENT* - That is a good idea, Mr Kennedy, but it is perhaps a bit early for one, or two, bottles of wine. We had better finish the debate first! In any event, thank you very much for your statement. I now call Sir Roger Gale on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

      Sir Roger GALE (United Kingdom) – The amendments tabled by my colleague, Bob Walter, and supported by me and others, sum up the EDG’s concerns about the European Union’s activities in the field of human rights. Working in a spirit of co-operation with the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights, there is no reason why the European Union’s Fundamental Rights Agency should not play a useful and complementary role in the pursuit of objectives that are common to us all. That said, the Council of Europe and the ECHR are, and must remain, the arbiters of human rights for the benefit of the Council of Europe’s 47 members, including those states who are also members of the European Union.

      The Monitoring Committee of the Council of Europe has been charged with the responsibility of monitoring compliance with the convention both within and outwith the European Union. That fact was recognised in the treaty of Lisbon 2009. It is not acceptable that the European Union continues to fail to accede to the convention without, as Amendment 1 says, qualification and without further delay.

      As I have indicated, there is very real concern that the European Union is embarking on a predatory turf war, with an objective of extending its competence beyond its boundaries and way beyond its remit.

      In an age of austerity there can be no justification for duplication of effort. It is therefore vital that any work at European Union level should not undermine the valuable work already conducted by the Council of Europe. To do so could seriously weaken the spreading of European values and the rule of law further afield. The European Union should instead recognise the true value and authority of the Council of Europe and inject any additional resources into strengthening it still further and enhancing the capacity of the Council of Europe.

      In his summary, the rapporteur referred to “forum shopping” and the very real danger that duplication could lead to a lowering of the Council of Europe’s high standards. He refers to the Council of Europe’s “benchmark standards for the rule of law and human rights” and he is absolutely correct to do so.

      I hope and expect this Assembly will see fit to adopt the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights and that it will further accept at the very least Amendment 3, which is designed to strengthen the thrust of this initiative, taken quite properly under the Assembly’s urgent procedures provision.

      The PRESIDENT* - Thank you. I call Mr Kox on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Mr KOX (Netherlands) – I congratulate the rapporteur on a very balanced report. All of us will applaud the European Union’s attempts to ensure that its members live up to their obligations in the field of human rights, the rule of law and democracy, but it is important that the European Union does not create new structures that duplicate existing Council of Europe structures as that would only lead to chaos, a lack of transparency and possible double standards across Europe. It would be bad if the European Union took care of its 28 members and we in the Council of Europe were to take care of the other countries. That is a development that my group does not want. Rather than creating new mechanisms in the European Union, it would be better to implement the promises made in the Lisbon Treaty in relation to the European Convention on Human Rights, but the European Union is taking quite a long time to do that, which we should worry about.

What Michael McNamara did not mention in his report is that if we want to remain the Organisation that is the benchmark for human rights, the rule of law and democracy in Europe, we must improve our monitoring mechanisms substantially. The Secretary General, Mr Jagland, said yesterday that we need better monitoring systems and more synergy. I added that we also need better quality mechanisms, because we will remain the benchmark only if we are the best at monitoring. Frankly, it has been apparent on several occasions recently that our monitoring mechanisms need to improve. I am happy that this week the Assembly decided that the Monitoring Committee should set up an ad hoc committee to look at proposals for improving how we monitor the European Convention on Human Rights in all member States. This morning we decided that the ad hoc committee will be set up in January and that it will take into account proposals made by national delegations and others.

By avoiding duplication and increasing synergy and the quality of monitoring, it must be possible, through the European Union and the Council of Europe, to improve respect for democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Therefore, my group fiercely supports the report and the resolution and the amendments, which interestingly have been proposed by both British and Russian MPs. They all say that they are concerned about European Union imperialism and that we need to safeguard the role of the Council of Europe. Well, when the argument comes from both sides of the continent there must be something to it, so my group will certainly support the amendments.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Kox. Mr McNamara, do you want to reply to the group spokespersons now or at the end of the debate?

Mr McNAMARA (Ireland)* – At the end.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Mr Korodi.

Mr KORODI (Romania) – Two weeks ago the European Commission decided to reject a proposal submitted by a wide coalition of minorities and minority language communities in Europe. The proposal was in the form of a European citizens’ initiative and proposed substantial improvements to various EU policies, such as those on languages and culture, regional policy, equality, participation and the media. The Minority SafePack initiative is backed by minority organisations from 14 European Union countries and includes the Hungarian community in Romania, which I represent. The initiative is also supported by several ministers and prime ministers from regions in Europe and by the European umbrella organisation for minorities, the Federal Union of European Nationalities, which was created in the same year as the Council of Europe.

The initiators had been preparing the initiative for more than two years, and with the help of a group of legal experts they drafted the Minority SafePack. The idea behind the package is to use the existing European Union treaties and to propose specific improvements for minorities within the European Union’s legislative framework. The Commission’s answer was disappointing: without proper motivation it rejected the initiative, stating that it falls manifestly outside the European Union’s competencies.

We are speaking of synergies between the human rights agendas of the European Union and the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe has adopted important treaties for minorities in Europe. The framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages and the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly protocol 12, prohibit discrimination against minorities. The European Charter of Local Self-Government states that the right of citizens to participate in the conduct of public affairs is one of the democratic principles shared by all member States, and the main principle of the European Convention is that statelessness shall be avoided. The European Union knows many of those principles in its treaties. The initiators wanted to give substance to those principles with the Minority SafePack initiative. Unfortunately, the Commission’s position seems to be that the European Union has no competence with regard to minorities.

The European Union treaties might speak about respect for minorities and for cultural and linguistic diversity, but it looks as if they are empty words, at least for the European Commission. The only exception is reserved for European Union candidate countries; according to the Copenhagen criteria, they must show that their systems for minority protection live up to Council of Europe standards. Once part of the European Union, however, member States can do what they want with their minorities. The European Commission is not willing to think about what the policies mean for minorities in the European Union. That is a double standard that the European Union should address.

In my opinion, the Council of Europe should continue to promote its principles and recommendations regarding national minorities in relation to the European Union, facilitate dialogue and share best practice among the pan-European institutions and member States.

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

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Korodi. I call Lord Anderson.

Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom) – All the contributions we have heard have been consensual, as they are based on a moderate report, which was introduced very realistically by Mr McNamara. His message was clear: that there are dangers of creep, that all institutions are dynamic, not static, and that we should therefore be vigilant. That is the message we should all receive. The danger for us is the temptation to glare across the divide at the European Union and challenge what it is doing, saying, “Who do you think you are? Get off our pitch”.

When the Fundamental Rights Agency was set up in 2007, the fact that it was established in Vienna, rather than Strasbourg, tells us something about the dangers. Had it been in Strasbourg, there would have been an easier relationship between the two bodies, but perhaps that was part of a political fix within the European Union to ensure that Austria had at least one institution. Realistically, rather than glaring and shouting across the divide, surely we should be sensitive to the fact that that agency has a specific role in human rights. It provides help and advice to European Union institutions on fundamental rights and to member States on implementing European Union law. It analyses and disseminates data, published reports and organises seminars. But – this is the important point – it cannot consider complaints about violations of fundamental rights or national matters outside the European Union.

The danger, of course, is the new monitoring mechanism proposed. The Council of Europe’s Secretary General said yesterday that it poses a danger to the whole pan-European institutional system and, if developed, could cause confusion, duplication and forum shopping.

What should be done? The challenge is clear. The European Union should affirm the primacy of the Council of Europe in this field, the Council of Europe should assert itself more when it comes to the quality of its work and its primacy, and the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights should liaise very clearly with his European Union counterpart. In June the European Commission was tasked with presenting proposals. We should urge our governments to ensure that the existing mechanism be upheld, that the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights should liaise and that we should encourage continued co-operation, as happened when the European Union’s special representative in Egypt urged co-operation with the Venice Commission. It has the money and we have the expertise, so let us realise the limits of both organisations and work together constructively.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Lord Anderson. I call Mr Sobolev.

Mr SOBOLEV (Ukraine) – I have one question: are the European Union and the Council of Europe the same organisation? Of course they are not. The European Union’s tasks are wider and focus on economic matters as well as those of democracy, the rule of law and the other matters in which we are engaged.

However, we first have to establish whether we have duplication in some questions of democracy. I can illustrate this with examples from Ukraine. The 27 countries of the European Union cannot even imagine a former Prime Minister being put in prison for signing international economic contracts. They will never announce the results of an election where the opposition win the election because the majority in the central electoral committee is controlled by the acting president. Can you imagine your countries not having elections for a whole year – no mayoral elections and no local council elections – as happened in the capital of Ukraine, Kiev, because the acting president was afraid of not winning? Countries in the European Union are at a different level to those in the Council of Europe.

      The main problem is not one of duplication, but that we have to have some codification of our decisions and that they have to be implemented. The European Union and the Council of Europe have to do this together. When we hear the Monitoring Committee and the excellent work of the co-rapporteurs on Ukraine, they do good work. It is good that the European Union has a committee to do this work, too, but from another angle. We do not need a controversial report, with the European Union and the Council of Europe taking different positions. What will this report give us in our negotiations with the European Union? Nothing. The main thing we need in this report, and in other reports, is how we can implement our decisions together with the help of the European Union, and how to have one answer for each of the main issues – human rights, democracy and the rule of law – with which we are engaged at the Council of Europe.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you very much. I now call Mr Dişli.

      Mr DİŞLİ (Turkey) – I would like to join others in thanking the rapporteur for his efficient work. As Secretary General Jagland said yesterday in this Chamber, we are at a critical juncture in the history of the Council of Europe. If the European Union develops its own work on human rights, instead of benefiting from the expertise and the instruments that the Council of Europe can offer, it would be a clear duplication that would inevitably harm the pan-European convention system.

In the past six and a half decades, Europe has built a unique mechanism for the protection and promotion of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. The distinctive character of the European model lies in the legally binding character of its standards, institutional set-up and continent-wide geographical scope. The European Convention on Human Rights, to which the European Court of Human Rights is central, lies at the heart of the common heritage that this Organisation has built over the years to establish common standards for the respect and protection of human rights.

Ensuring consistency in human rights protection in Europe is of crucial importance. At present, there is a considerable gap in the human rights protection system in Europe, which will hopefully be closed by the EU accession to the European Convention on Human Rights. Accession will constitute a major step forward for the consolidation of political, legal and social European structures, with their special emphasis on the protection of human rights. It will help to rectify discrepancies in human rights standards and reinforce the partnership between the Council of Europe and the European Union, based on each other’s acquis.

As emphasised by the rapporteur, the excellent partnership between the Council of Europe and the European Union can be further expanded on the basis of respect for the integrity of the two organisations and without introducing new parallel mechanisms. Creating synergies between the European Union and the Council of Europe in the fields of human rights, democracy and the rule of law will provide greater efficiency and further benefits for the citizens of Europe. I am pleased to see that the right emphasis has been put on these issues in Mr McNamara’s report, and I fully concur with it.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I now call Ms Brasseur.

      Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg)* – I would like to start by reading Article 2 of the Treaty of the European Union: “The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are shared by the Member States in a society characterised by pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between men and women.” If we analyse the article, it should apply to everybody, whether one is a national of a member State of the European Union or a non-EU country. Human rights, human dignity and respect for the rule of law should not know any frontiers and should not be applied to some and not to others. That is why it is our duty – not just our duty, but the duty of those in the European Union – to work together to do our level best to defend human rights in all countries. The 800 million inhabitants of the member States of the Council of Europe have the right to the same treatment.

We had a debate this week – this was nothing new – on the different approaches taken to countries that are under monitoring and those that are not. People say that there are dual standards, but if that is so we should try to avoid creating new distinctions between those who are members of the European Union and those that are not. It behoves us to find mechanisms whereby we can work together. We need to search our own hearts. We have already started improving and reforming our mechanisms. When new countries come in, our mechanisms adapt and are brought up to date. We should welcome the fact that within the Assembly we are beginning to think about improving our mechanisms.

I would also like to call on everybody, before we embark on new methods, to not throw the old ones out. You must not abolish what you have because you know what it is, but you do not know what is coming and what you will end up with. We must retain the mechanisms we have now and work together on trying to establish mechanisms together with the European Union. The rapporteur referred to the rapporteur from the lead committee in the European Parliament, Mr Louis Michel. I suggest that our rapporteur gets in touch with Mr Michel, so that they can work together to see how we can strengthen the mechanisms to the benefit of all citizens.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I give the floor to Mr Clappison.

      Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – I congratulate Mr McNamara warmly on his excellent work, especially on the careful and sober way in which he analyses the risks of duplication and complexity if the European Union ventures so far into the field of human rights with phenomena such as forum shopping, double standards and greater and greater complexity. The greater the complexity, the less accessibility there is for ordinary citizens. Reading Mr McNamara’s report, I fear that we are at risk of creating yet another paradise for lawyers and lobbyists within an institutional structure of the European Union.

I mean no disrespect to the European Union, but I have to disagree slightly with Ms Brasseur. The European Union may have some laudable intentions in Article 2, as in its other treaties, but it cannot take the place of this Assembly. It cannot be the independent and impartial guarantor of human rights throughout Europe, because the European Union is not independent or impartial; it is a political project to create ever-closer union between its member States. It has its own market, currencies, laws and policy, including its own growing and developing foreign policy, and Mr Kennedy reminded us that it has its own legal personality. It is parti pris: it cannot be independent or impartial.

The European Union cannot speak for the whole of Europe. What about those important members of this Assembly that are not also members of the European Union? Some of them may wish to become members of the European Union and others may not; there may, of course, be existing members of the European Union that choose to leave it of their own free will. Will such countries be expected to submit to the decisions of a body in which they have no say, or are they to be cast into the outer darkness? At all costs, we must avoid the risk of creating further divisions, and learn the lessons of the last century, because this Assembly was formed to overcome divisions, not create new ones.

Perhaps the European Union has planted its flag in the field of human rights and intends to go no further. If that was so, it would be the first such case in the history of the European Union, because in every other field it has displayed mission creep and gone further and further. I mean no disrespect to the European Union, but it has its role to play and we have ours. It may be our much stronger neighbour. It may, as we have been told, be awash with money and be very powerful, with funding at its disposal, but it is not independent and impartial, and it cannot take the place of this Assembly. As so many speakers have already said, we must remain vigilant to make sure that it does not do so, and that we continue to play our own unique role.

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

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Clappison. I call Ms Orobets.

      Ms OROBETS (Ukraine) – I am pleased that the very important issue of the effectiveness of the protection of human rights has been raised. To my mind, that idea is like the creation of a safe passenger aircraft. How much safety would you want for a plane in which you or your children are sitting? I do not doubt that you would say 100% safety. The same applies to the protection of human rights: how much protection do you want?

      We have come here from very different states and, as my colleague Serhiy Sobolev has already mentioned, we have very different criteria and situations. Before taking the floor, I consulted human rights experts in eastern Europe, who pointed out several important reasons why human rights protection is not working today. I draw your attention to some internal problems involving what might have worked within societies, but is not doing so.

First, there is the problem of those who are the immune system of society being discriminated against and discredited – I am thinking of journalists, NGO activists, human rights activists and opposition politicians.

Secondly, there is the problem of limitations placed on the right of peaceful assembly, the right to vote and to be elected, and the right of access to a decent and reliable court. Without such access and all other human rights, there will be no economy. Therefore, it is not simply a matter of finding more money or of finding someone to provide finance; it is about creating a society in which such human rights will boost the people’s effectiveness and willingness to work more efficiently.

      Finally, the biggest problem is the ineffectiveness of international structures in protecting human rights. I do not refer only to the inability of the United Nations Human Rights Council to implement its decisions on Belarus or the failure of the European Court of Human Rights to implement its pilot decisions on Ukraine. It is not a question of creating another commission. Come on – that would not solve the issue. It is a question of having teeth and having the political will to get our decisions implemented. We need that, so I do not understand those who voted to clip the wings of our Monitoring Committee and to prevent us from being able to seize the Committee of Ministers to ask for more teeth to implement decisions already taken.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Orobets. I call Mr Gozi.

      Mr GOZI (Italy)* – The rapporteur clearly made the point that we must face up to co-operating with the European Union, and he is on the right lines, but we should avoid duplication. The Assembly has been waging this struggle for years, and it needs strengthening in that struggle. We must help to develop a human rights policy within the European Union, but the European Union currently does not do much about grave violations of human rights. I should remind members about what I consider to be the nuclear option – the suspension of voting rights in the Council of Europe. There are two extremes, but given the standards of the Council of Europe, we must develop stronger synergies, especially following the Lisbon Treaty, and avail ourselves of the potential involved, as we are doing.

      On internal monitoring, it is necessary to have a new system for the division of labour as regards screening and assessments in relation to the fundamental principles of legality and democracy, not only within the European Union, but among candidate States in the accession process. Much more could be done by the Council of Europe about the new screening policy in relation to candidate States’ respect of fundamental rights, with financial support from the European Union. There are already examples of good practice involving enlargement, and we should refer to them when moving in the direction set by the rapporteur concerning the fundamental rights of our citizens. Europe is a single entity, and there are not many distinctions between its different institutions, so our citizens expect a Europe of fundamental rights, rather than one of financial algorithms or austerity.

      We face deadlines, and it is important to strengthen the relations and synergies between the Council of Europe and the European Union. We await the opinion of the European Court of Justice about the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights. Things are happening, with important stages in the enlargement process of the European Union next year, and the new programme on fundamental rights for 2014 to 2020 that the European Union has to observe. The Council of Europe should certainly have something more to say about the Stockholm programme and how it compares with the previous one.

I am convinced that synergies and co-operation between the European Union and the Council of Europe are not only possible, but absolutely necessary. We in the Democratic Party seek to make the theme of co-operation between the European Union and the Council of Europe one of the priorities of the Italian presidency of the European Union.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Gozi. That concludes the list of speakers. I call Mr McNamara, who has eight minutes left to reply to the debate.

      Mr McNAMARA (Ireland)* – I thank colleagues for their warm words throughout the debate, and for their support of much of the contents of the report. At the outset, Mr Agramunt spoke about the importance of monitoring procedures within the European Union, which was hardly surprising, as he has been a very distinguished rapporteur for the Monitoring Committee. The report and the draft resolution repeatedly stress the importance of our monitoring procedures and of not undermining or duplicating them in any way.

Mr Sobolev illustrated clearly, in the context of Ukraine, the dangers of not speaking with one voice and how important it is that European institutions do so.

It is illustrative that not a single member spoke against the proposition that a higher level of human rights protection at a regional level is always welcome. In so far as that is the proposition of the European Union with this initiative, it must be welcomed. However, the overriding words that I took from the speeches were vigilance and synergy. Although we would greatly welcome what the European Union proposes if it was merely a higher level of human rights protection within the European Union area, we must remain vigilant to see whether what is proposed is something more. The necessity for vigilance is reflected in the resolution and has been expressed in the previous resolutions of the Assembly to which I referred.

The other point was the importance of synergy. There cannot be synergies between two or more parties unless those parties are willing to act in synergy. We at the Council of Europe therefore have a part to play in developing that synergy. We, too, have to be careful that we do not inflame the situation, while remaining vigilant to ensure that our roles are not duplicated and that the taxpayer’s money is not expended unnecessarily.

On the topic of synergy, I thank the various political groups and national delegations for the synergy that was displayed in committee when dealing with the report and the amendments. One amendment, which was referred to by Sir Roger Gale, was agreed to unanimously. Two other oral sub-amendments were agreed to. I thank everybody who was involved. I also thank the secretariat for turning around the report in such a short period of time.

I hope that the report obtains the support of the Assembly.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr McNamara. Does Mr Chope, Chairperson of the Committee, wish to speak?

      Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – I hope that it would not be wrong for me to congratulate the European Democrat Group on bringing forward this issue for discussion under the urgent procedure. It is notable that the leaders of all five political groups have participated or are about to participate in the debate. Mr Walter has not yet spoken, but he has proposed amendments and he helped to initiate the debate. The groups have spoken with one voice about the importance of ensuring that this Assembly can take control of its own responsibilities and does not find itself subject to interference and duplication by the European Union.

      What is happening is like a game of grandmother’s footsteps, in that the European Union often seems to come and catch us when we are not expecting it. The report refers to the fact that, as we speak, members of the European Parliament are planning to extend the competence of the Fundamental Rights Agency, even if that means extending the European Union treaties. That is the problem that we are up against. The clarity of the report, coupled with the wise words of Mr Jagland earlier in the week, is useful and provides a good way to proceed. As Mr Kox said, we cannot rest on our laurels, but must ensure that we continue to be relevant. We must modernise our procedures accordingly to ensure that our monitoring is worthwhile.

      May I conclude with a story, which was brought to mind by Mr Kennedy’s reference to the late Roy Jenkins and Mr Agramunt’s reference to the Western European Union? In his memoirs, Mr Roy Jenkins said that the big disappointment when he was first appointed to the Western European Union was that the allowances were only sufficient to enable him to stay in a back room of the George V hotel. That just shows how things have moved on and how the age of austerity has affected us parliamentarians. I am sure that Roy Jenkins would have been very concerned about that.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Chope. I am grateful to you for thanking the EDG. May I also mention the chairs of the other four groups, who supported the EDG spontaneously? The President of the Parliamentary Assembly immediately bowed to the proposal since so many wonderful people proposed it.

The debate is closed.

The Legal Affairs Committee has presented a draft resolution to which four amendments have been tabled. They will be taken in the order in which they appear in the Organisation of Debates. I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

I understand that the Chairperson wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendment 3, which was unanimously approved by the Legal Affairs Committee, should be declared as adopted by the Assembly under Rule 33.11.

Is that so, Mr Chope?

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – Yes.

THE PRESIDENT* – The effect of agreeing to Amendment 3 would be to turn the draft resolution into a draft recommendation. Therefore, if it is agreed to, the final text will require a two thirds majority.

Does anyone object?

As there is no objection, I declare that Amendment 3 to the draft resolution has been adopted. The draft resolution is now a draft recommendation.

The following amendment has been adopted:

Amendment 3, tabled by Mr Walter, Sir Roger Gale, Mr Correia, Mr Donaldson, Mr Neill, Ms Woldseth, Mr Sasi, Mr Agramunt, Mr Sheridan, Baroness Eccles, Sir Edward Leigh and Mr Pushkov, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 9, to insert the following paragraph:

“This Assembly invites the Committee of Ministers to report back urgently to the Assembly on what it is doing to enhance the Council of Europe's role as the benchmark for Human Rights, the Rule of Law and Democracy in Europe, as is set out in the Memorandum of Understanding between the Council of Europe and the European Union concluded in May 2007.”

The remaining amendments will be taken in the order set out in the Organisation of Debates.

Before we consider the written amendments, I have received an oral amendment from Mr McNamara, on behalf of the Committee, which reads as follows: “In paragraph 3 after ‘must not be undercut’ to insert ‘or undermined’.”

The sentence will therefore read: “The Europe-wide common standards and the level of protection set by the Council of Europe’s legal instruments must not be undercut by member States of the Council of Europe or by the European Union.”

Is that correct Mr McNamara?

Mr McNAMARA (Ireland) – No. The oral amendment would add the words “or undermined” to paragraph 3 so that it would read: “The Europe-wide common standards and the level of protection set by the Council of Europe’s legal instruments must not be undercut or undermined by member States of the Council of Europe or by the European Union.”

THE PRESIDENT* – The document that I have appears to say that the desire is to replace the word “undercut” with the word “undermined”. You need to agree on this. You need to sing from the same hymn sheet.

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – We are singing from the same hymn sheet. The word “undercut” is already in the text. We want to add the words “or undermined”. That is the amendment that was agreed in committee.

THE PRESIDENT* – But Chairman, the document that I am looking at appears to say that the word “undermined” should replace the word “undercut”. You are saying something very important. You want to add the words “or undermined”. We now agree. Is that clear to everybody?

The President may accept an oral amendment or sub-amendment on the grounds of promoting clarity, accuracy or conciliation and if there is not opposition from 10 or more members to it being debated.

In my opinion the oral amendment meets the criteria of Rule 33.7a. It is a conciliation amendment. I understand that if the oral amendment is accepted, Mr Walter will withdraw Amendment 2.

Is there any opposition to the oral amendment being debated?

That is not the case. I therefore call Mr McNamara to support Oral Amendment 1.

Mr McNAMARA (Ireland) – I refer again to the synergy in the committee. Mr Neill proposed the amendment and the committee agreed to it. It was agreed that we should add the words “or undermined”, rather than insert the wording of Amendment 2.

THE PRESIDENT* – That is now clear. Does anyone wish to speak against the oral amendment? That is not the case.

The vote is open.

Oral Amendment 1 is adopted.

We come to Amendment 1, tabled by Mr Walter, Sir Roger Gale, Mr Correia, Mr Donaldson, Mr Neill, Ms Woldseth, Mr Sasi, Mr Agramunt, Baroness Eccles, Sir Edward Leigh and Mr Pushkov, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 9, to insert the following paragraph:

“The Assembly is concerned that the European Union is dragging its feet in submitting to the authority of the European Convention on Human Rights as required by the 2009 Treaty of Lisbon and calls upon the European Union to accede to the Convention without qualification and without further delay, thereby putting beyond doubt the European Union’s acceptance of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in Europe and of the supremacy of the European Court of Human Rights.”

      I call Mr Walter to support Amendment 1.

      Mr WALTER (United Kingdom) – I thank some of my fellow political group leaders, who indicated their support for the amendment. Part of the problem is that the European Union has not fulfilled the obligation of acceding to the Convention that it signed up to in 2009, in the Lisbon Treaty. If the European Union had done so, it would feel that it had greater ownership of this Organisation as the pre-eminent human rights body. I urge the European Union to accede to the Convention without further delay.

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

      I call Lord Anderson.

      Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom) – It is surely impractical to say “without further delay”. There are many legal and technical difficulties. We can only ask for all reasonable speed – to say “without delay” implies a lack of technical or legal difficulties, which is absurd.

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

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

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 1 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 2, tabled by Mr Walter, Sir Roger Gale, Mr Correia, Mr Donaldson, Mr Neill, Ms Woldseth, Mr Agramunt, Mr Sheridan, Baroness Eccles, Sir Edward Leigh and Mr Pushkov, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 9, to insert the following paragraph:

“The Assembly condemns any proposal by the European Union and/or the European Parliament to undermine or challenge the supreme position of the European Convention on Human Rights as the definitive European legal instrument which addresses Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law in the 47 member countries of the Council of Europe.”

      I understand that because the oral amendment was agreed to, Amendment 2 might be withdrawn.

      Is that so, Mr Walter?

      Mr WALTER (United Kingdom) – I have had no indication that I should withdraw the amendment, so I continue to propose it. I understand, however, that the rapporteur has an oral amendment. With Amendment 2 we want to condemn any proposals by the European Union or European Parliament to challenge the position of the Council of Europe and of the Convention. We are right to restate that in no uncertain terms.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

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

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 2 is adopted.

Amendment 3 was carried unanimously, so we come to Amendment 4, tabled by Mr Walter, Sir Roger Gale, Mr Correia, Mr Donaldson, Mr Neill, Ms Woldseth, Mr Sasi, Mr Agramunt, Mr Sheridan, Baroness Eccles, Sir Edward Leigh and Mr Pushkov, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 9, to insert the following paragraph:

“The Assembly invites the Committee of Ministers to take all necessary actions to ensure that the European Convention of Human Rights continues to be the supreme and definitive European legal instrument which addresses Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law among all Members of the Council of Europe, including those countries which are also Members of the European Union.”

I call Mr Walter to support Amendment 4.

      Mr WALTER (United Kingdom) – The amendment reaffirms that the Committee of Ministers is being asked to take all necessary action to ensure that the Convention is the supreme and definitive European legal instrument. In this way we will ensure that the Assembly and the Committee of Ministers are working as one, in the spirit of yesterday’s speech by Mr Jagland, the Secretary-General.

      THE PRESIDENT* – I have been informed that Mr McNamara wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, on behalf of the Legal Affairs Committee, as follows:

      In Amendment 4, to delete “continues to be the supreme and definitive” and to insert “is not undermined as the”.

      Is that correct, Mr McNamara?

      Mr McNAMARA (Ireland) – Yes.

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

      However, do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment? That is not the case.

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

      Mr McNAMARA (Ireland) – The oral sub-amendment was agreed with Mr Neill, who initially proposed Amendment 4 in the sub-committee. It maintains what it is hoped that Amendment 4 will achieve, while allowing individual member states to develop new standards into the future without hindrance.

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

      What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

      Mr WALTER (United Kingdom) – In the interests of synergy, I accept the oral sub-amendment.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The committee is in favour.

      The vote is open.

      The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

      Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 4, as amended?

      I call Mr Sobolev.

      Mr SOBOLEV (Ukraine) – I remind colleagues that, two days ago, when we were discussing the report of Mr Herkel, the same people making the current proposals dismissed control by the Committee of Ministers as reinforcing its position too much – the same people are now proposing to control these procedures through the Committee of Ministers. Where is the logic?

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

      Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 4, as amended, is adopted.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 13321, as amended.

      The vote is open.

      The draft recommendation in Document 13321, as amended, is adopted, with 57 votes for, 0 against and 4 abstentions.

Thank you. We congratulate the secretariat of the committee on work very quickly done, and the rapporteur, not forgetting the chairman of the committee.

      Dear colleagues, we are absolutely on time – I say this while looking at the interpreters – provisional on this last debate. Let us try.

4. Food security – a permanent challenge

THE PRESIDENT* – The next item of business is a debate on the report entitled “Food security – a permanent challenge for us all”, Document 13302, presented by Mr Boden on behalf of the Social Affairs Committee.

We will aim to finish this debate at 8 p.m. I will therefore interrupt the list of speakers in this debate at about 7.40 p.m. for replies and voting. We could, of course, finish before 8 o’clock.

I call Lord Anderson on a point of order.

Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom) – On a point of order, we have passed an important resolution, and the danger is that it will just remain in the air. Is it in order to suggest that it might be proper to send a copy of our resolution to all members of the relevant committees of the European Parliament, so that they are well aware of the strong views of this Assembly?

THE PRESIDENT* – Lord Anderson, I think that it is quite possible. It is no longer a resolution – it is a recommendation that you voted on – but of course we can refer the recommendation to the competent persons whom you mentioned. There is no problem with that; I think that it is a great idea. It is quite possible, and it tallies with all the discussions that I had with all the persons whom I met at the European Parliament, so I see only advantages in doing so. It shall be done.

Mr Boden, as you know, you have an overall speaking time of 13 minutes, which you may divide between presenting the report and responding to questions.

Mr BODEN (Luxembourg)* – Food is man’s most fundamental need. It is fundamental to life and development. The right to food is at the basis of all rights, and it is achieved when all human beings have access at all times to sufficient healthy, nourishing food for them to live a healthy and active life. Public powers and Governments play a fundamental role in implementing the right to food. It is up to them to facilitate their populations’ unlimited access to food and to protect them from breaches of that right. Furthermore, they have the obligation to help people in need who cannot obtain food by themselves. Although today the right to food is well established in international human rights law and recognised at the international, regional and national levels, numerous states still refuse to recognise the enforceable nature of that fundamental right. I therefore appeal to all member States of the Council of Europe to recognise it in their legislation, and fully to respect the international obligations incumbent on them to protect that right.

Ensuring food stability and sustainable food production should feature among the first priorities of all public authorities, but it must be noted that food security, from both a quantitative and a qualitative point of view, is far from being attained and constitutes one of the greatest challenges for the 21st century. Our planet, with its abundant natural resources, could provide sufficient food for all the 7 billion souls who inhabit it, yet about 1 billion people suffer from hunger and malnutrition, principally in sub-Saharan Africa and southern Asia. Worldwide, one person dies of hunger every second, and one child dies every five seconds from the consequences of malnutrition.

In the current economic crisis, food insecurity affects an increasing number of people without means, even in Europe. Paradoxically, at the same time, about 2 billion women and men are overweight or suffer from obesity: they eat too much, endangering their health. It is fundamental to overcome these imbalances in order to provide sufficient and adequate food, as well as decent living conditions, to all human beings.

We also face yet another paradox. While we must produce more food to combat hunger, we are increasingly wasting it too. Between 30% and 50% of the food produced in the world is wasted. Wastage takes place at every level of the food supply chain. In developed countries, 300 million tonnes of food still fit for human consumption is thrown away annually. If that food could be recovered, it would suffice to guarantee better food to about 870 million poor and hungry people worldwide. Food waste also costs millions for consumers, who are penalised by higher prices, and affects the environment negatively. In the global context of growing threats to food security, it is urgent to eliminate that phenomenon. The European Union has established the objective of reducing food waste by half by 2020, an objective that I invite all member States to support.

In my report, I highlight the principal threats to food security, including the demographic boom – the population of the world will exceed 9 billion by 2050 – developing consumption habits; increasing social inequality; massive pressure on natural resources and biodiversity; climate change; new risks and food frauds and asymmetry in the world trade system and the food supply chain. It is man who is basically responsible for the food crisis with which we are constantly confronted. We must tackle questions of governance especially resolutely. The problem concerns us all, and the imbalances and governance problems can only be resolved if the political will and citizen involvement are strong enough.

Risks to food security should be avoided as well as anticipated. Given that countries are increasingly interdependent, international relations play a key role in mitigating negative trends and ensuring that we better exploit new possibilities for improving food security for present and future generations. We shall have to use natural resources more responsibly, adapt our strategic development orientations and pursue consistent, cross-cutting policies to stall poverty, develop rural areas and manage food supply chains intelligently.

Our key objectives for the future should be developing sustainable agriculture and implementing measures to combat hunger and poverty effectively in the face of climate change and irresponsible food consumption. Agriculture plays a fundamental role in combating food insecurity, hunger and poverty. It should be oriented towards more socially just and environmentally sustainable production methods. We must produce more and better with less water and less arable land if we want to nourish a growing population while preserving the natural ecosystems that are indispensable to our life on earth.

We have to sustain the efforts of international institutions – the United Nations, the World Trade Organization and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development – to protect food against financial speculation, contain the volatility of the price of staples and encourage the constitution of food reserves; we must have progress on the WTO negotiations at the Doha round; and concerning the agriculture chapter, we must have safeguard clauses for fundamental products to protect subsistence agriculture and to favour the sustainable development of local populations in developing countries.

Effective combating of hunger and poverty means we have to redouble our efforts to attain the millennium development objectives for development on the horizon of 2015 and beyond.

Combating climate change, which constitutes a genuine threat to food security, requires as soon as possible a global solution in the context of international negotiations, to adopt a binding world agreement between now and 2015 by all the parties on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. All member States of the Council of Europe should firmly support that objective.

To guarantee more responsible food consumption, we shall have considerably to reduce the food waste that I have already mentioned and to promote the acquisition of healthy food habits – eat less meat and eat more nutritional foodstuffs – to resolve the increasingly alarming problem of overweight and obesity. In Europe, more than half the adult population is concerned by that problem. The number of children and young people suffering from overweight is constantly growing.

Furthermore, the quick growth of meat consumption has a direct repercussion on food offers. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, almost half of cereal production serves as animal fodder. The redirection of part of those cereals to human consumption would help reduce food insecurity. We should also show more solidarity with the poorer countries and vulnerable populations and honour our undertakings with regard to development aid.

We shall have to invest more in health equality and food security, where the general principle of precaution should obtain to preserve public health. To that effect, we shall have to intensify food control, strengthen requirements for labelling, and increase research on new food risks connected to genetically modified organisms, endocrine disrupters, nanotechnologies and chemical residues in foodstuffs.

These are the principal measures to improve food security that I recommend in my report to member States. These measures are spelt out in the draft resolution, which I ask you to support.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. You have a little bit more than three minutes in hand.

In the general discussion, I call Mr Recordon on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr RECORDON (France)* - Thank you, President. President and colleagues, I emphasise that, although I may be quite corpulent, which might lead me to support this report, that is not the only reason why I do so, with all its amendments and sub-amendments. I pay tribute to the quality of this report, originally launched by Ms Francine John-Calame and taken on with great energy by Mr Boden.

First, fighting food wastage is so important in our societies. It is not difficult to combat food waste. Doing so would allow us, in practical terms, also to fight food poverty in our regions. Mr Boden was right to mention that as his first and most important point. He also raises the need to develop an ecological approach to agriculture. In my country, major efforts have been made to ensure that there is a logical circuit in agriculture. This is fundamental and is particularly important for countries with fish resources. We must respect the resources in the sea, which we know are over-fished. That is not often to the benefit of the local population, but benefits major groups coming from elsewhere, being allowed to over-fish the stocks through major fishing agreements.

The problem of graspers is not mentioned as such in the report. That is a term used in Senegal – I visited there recently – for a phenomenon that is widespread in Africa, where land-grabbers, and so on, are depriving smallholders of the tools to do their work and, once again, prevent the locals from being able to feed themselves adequately.

Finally, I underline everything that has been said about the scandals, which are terrible latent risks as well. The rapporteur is right to say that GMOs are a great danger if they are not controlled. So there needs to be a close watch kept on this and we should not just leave things up to the major food industry groups, because our food supply could be adulterated.

We have a lot still to do on this in our Assembly, not only in terms of food security, but also having control over our food, which is the key to clean, healthy, localised food.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you.

I do not see Ms Guţu in the Chamber. I call the Earl of Dundee.

The Earl of DUNDEE (United Kingdom) – I congratulate warmly Mr Fernand Boden on his excellent report. He begins with stating the paradox concerning food security. One billion people are still hungry and undernourished. Yet twice as many over-eat and put themselves at risk.

In my own part of the United Kingdom, in Scotland, it is a sad reflection that, as affected by food consumption, our national health actually benefitted from necessary restrictions during the Second World War; for our diet improved then, because owing to rationing we did not eat so much of all the wrong things.

Yet now in peacetime, in all our countries we ought to become healthy not through imposition and restriction but instead through intelligent choice and endeavour. We want more proper food education and campaigns to promote sensible eating. These can help to combat obesity and bad health and, as Mr Boden urges, they should advocate healthy and sustainable foods reduced in fat, sugar and salt.

On food production, as he suggests, we need sustainable farming which is climate resistant. Clearly, food growing comes before that for biomass for bioenergy. In the United Kingdom we now have a 5% cap on food crop-derived biofuels. Correctly, he also argues for better controls and labelling to protect the consumer from unwholesome foods.

Internationally, within the post-2015 framework, and as recommended within this report, a priority should certainly be to end extreme poverty through sustainable development.

The World Health Organisation is anxious to achieve an improved delivery of health programmes. It seeks better co-ordination among health bodies. Recipients require programmes for nutrition, vaccination and hygiene to be much more combined together, rather than separately delivered, as too often they now are. In this connection, as Chairman of the PACE Sub-Committee on Public Health, I am particularly glad that earlier this year we managed to revive a working partnership between the WHO and the Council of Europe.

There are only a few of Mr Boden’s economic prescriptions with which I slightly disagree. Certainly, we need regulations. However, a great many are already in place. I do not think we should add to them as he proposes. I also believe that trading in commodity markets enables liquidity and that this is an essential facilitator.

Nevertheless, on global food security, this report is wide-ranging and well-focused. It provides us all with much needed good sense and good policy.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Mr Jónasson, to speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr JÓNASSON (Iceland) – The first sentence in the rapporteur’s memorandum, which I commend and thank him for, is very short. It simply says that food is a basic human need – and indeed it is. When we do not have access to food, we cannot live, and if we cannot afford to buy food, we are deprived of a human right. At the heart of food security, therefore, is distribution of wealth.

There is ample food in the world to feed all the 7 billion people living on our planet. Nevertheless, nearly 1 billion people – one thousand million people – starve or are undernourished. The report presented by Mr Boden maps out various aspects of food security, including various threats to food security, such as climate change and food wastage – it is estimated that there is 50% wastage in the developed world and 30% in the underdeveloped world. We are reminded that even if there is ample food in the world, it is estimated that agricultural production must be increased by 70% before 2050 to feed the growing population of the world.

And it matters how we go about that. The paper warns that there might be a contradictory relation between, on the one hand, employing intensive production techniques to speed up food production and, on the other hand, soil impoverishment and erosion, biodiversity loss and reduced fertility, all of which in the long run might harm food production. The recommendations are for increased sustainability, with an emphasis on solidarity with the poorest countries in the world and vulnerable population groups. In that context, it refers to the WTO Doha round on agriculture and the suggestion that support for agricultural exports should be phased out to improve food security in developing countries. We should note that that is very qualified – and rightly so – since we are not advocating the abolition of all food subsidies. For example, I am in favour of subsidising milk production in my country, but not the production of Coca-Cola, with all due respect to that drink.

On the whole, this is a good resolution, and I would like to reiterate my gratitude to the rapporteur, Mr Boden.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Ms Virolainen, to speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Ms VIROLAINEN (Finland) – On behalf of the EPP group, I would like to thank the rapporteur for an excellent and balanced report on this important issue. Food is not a luxury item reserved for the rich and few, but a basic necessity for us all and a limited resource that some have too much of while others struggle to eat on a daily basis.

      Our challenges concern both sufficiency and quality of food. The global population is expected to grow to 9 billion by 2050, and we need to ensure that all of us have enough to eat. But population growth is not the only thing affecting food sufficiency. Changes in culture and improvements to standards of living will further escalate the demand for food. In response, food production should increase by 50%, but this requires action. In 2008, the global food price rose so sharply that it led to a severe food shortage in poorer countries. Farmland and production resource limitations, as well as demands for environmental sustainability, will further slow growth in food production. Responding to the challenges of food security requires efficient yet sustainable measures to utilise the full potential of food production.

      The quality of food is an essential part of a balanced diet. In developing countries, malnutrition leads to disease and early death, especially among children. In western societies, obesity and welfare diseases are growing problems. We need measures to tackle these imbalances and raise awareness of the nutritional value of food. Globalisation brings with it food-related risks. Contaminated food, infected animals and plant diseases spread from countries with weak production systems and control mechanisms. Such epidemics are hard to control. Food supply imbalances increase food-related fraud, forgeries and sabotage. Climate change will further enhance our problems. At the same time, changes in the population structure and the segmentation of consumers bring new challenges to the food industry. This problem will only escalate if we do not react urgently at the national and international levels. We need to rethink our food strategies to ensure enough farmland and food for future generations. People do not live to eat; we eat to live.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Mr Pintado.

      Mr PINTADO (Spain)* – I apologise to Mr Boden for not assisting the debate on the amendments – I was in another committee meeting.

      The debate on food security is complex and cannot be discussed in three minutes. I agree with the declaration of principles in the report – food security should be guaranteed as an enforceable right in all countries – but it suggests a friction between production and consumption that I do not think exists. Apart from possible intermediate interests between production and the markets in the major distribution chains – relating to prices and crops – producers and consumers are allies with common interests around quality, security and the prices guaranteed for producers.

      It is true that 50% of cereals are used for food fodder, but in south-east Asia and India, people are growing them as well. The growing of cereals is moving from the traditional areas of production, such as southern Europe, Brazil, Uruguay and the United States, towards those areas. Still, we must work towards improved productivity, while also respecting the environment, as farmers in the European Union try to do.

Prices are affected by the requirements and norms imposed in Europe by the European Parliament and the Commission that must be met before food can enter the market. To resolve the problem of hunger we must not only deal with the 300 million tonnes of wasted food, but look at these distribution norms and stimulate increased production in countries suffering from hunger and facing serious difficulties in trying to establish agrarian programmes. The Council of Europe could do a lot of work on agricultural production in the coming years.

      Finally, biotechnology seems to scare people in Europe, but is a fundamental part of the solution. We associate it with major industries and companies, but it can resolve not only problems of quantity and quality, but environmental problems. For example, one hectare of maize removes 30 times as much CO2 as a forest of conifers, so it can make an important contribution.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Pintado. The next speaker is Mr Schennach.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* – As chair of the sub-committee on the environment and energy, I compliment Mr Boden and thank him for his excellent co-operation over the past few years. I know that this is his last report, so it is a particular honour for me to speak in this debate.

      The report refers to all sorts of mis-developments—obesity here and hunger there. Consumer behaviour is such that we want everything to be available all the time, but we also want agricultural reform. We are planting biofuels, but feeding our cows inappropriately. The need for food transportation encourages global warming. We are always looking for quantity instead of quality. Having too many cows leads to climate warming. Germany has a slaughterhouse where 20 000 pigs are slaughtered every day. The same sort of thing happens in the Netherlands. This is a concerning development. The agricultural budget in Europe is as big as the budget of a developing country.

      Climate refugees are also becoming more common. The Nile delta has a large area of fertile land, but 6 million people will have to settle in that area within the next few years. If we focus on producing meat, we must realise that meat production requires a lot of water. Only 3% of our water globally is drinkable. On the one hand, 1 kg of corn needs 2 kg of water, but on the other, 1 kg of meat needs 25 kg of water. The salination of water and climate warming mean that there is less and less drinkable water. All the risk studies suggest that the wars of the future will be water wars. Water also produces fish, but the amount of plastic in the seas is producing water degradation. In the Mediterranean, fish cannot reproduce because they are eating too much plastic. The same is true of internal lakes. Some 40% of the bed of Lake Constance is now covered in plastic.

It is very important that we support fair trade initiatives and encourage regional agriculture and regional and local markets. That is one of the ways in which we as consumers in Europe can help to improve things.

The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Schennach. The next speaker is Ms Schneider.

      Ms SCHNEIDER (France)* – Food security is a major challenge to the future of humanity and remains the cornerstone of our rights. Unfortunately, while the 2015 millennium development goals target date is approaching, it is certain that in many parts of the world the goal of halving the number of hungry people on earth is not going to be achieved.

      Your work, rapporteur, brings together the problems that impact on food security, and several points about them caught my attention. You propose that we intensify the effort to combat global warming and make sure that any international agreement on climate change reached by 2015 should recognise the inherent risks for food security. In 2012, I worked on the impact of climate change on security and defence. It is clear that natural disasters have been proliferating recently. They have a double impact on world food security; they reduce to nothing the meagre resources of families living off subsistence farming, and create a price hike that leads to outlandishly expensive foodstuffs.

      Nothing can be done without sustainable agriculture. We also need to do some serious thinking about the producer/consumer relationship, as that will allow us to combat the speculation that is affecting the markets in agricultural commodities. Your proposal for world regulation of markets seems essential to achieving any real food security and the health benefits that that would bring. I am also especially sensitive to concern about the need to focus on sub-Saharan Africa. It is a part of the world that I know well, and the report is right: projects that could improve livelihoods in rural areas are essential. For Africans just as for us, food aid is no solution to the problem of food insecurity.

The proposal for the gradual removal of agricultural export subsidies that distort the market is more complicated. The problem arises within the heart of the European Union, because differences in labour costs between member countries create unfair competition that leads some farmers to stop gathering their harvests because they would be doing so at a loss. That is unacceptable in a context in which many families in Europe no longer have access to certain foodstuffs because they are just too expensive.

      The report rightly highlights the issues of wastage and a lack of the management needed to prevent losses in the agriculture and food sectors. While millions of human beings cannot fill their bellies, we are filling our dustbins with food that is past its sell-by date. That, too, is unacceptable. The battle with hunger, to take up the Food and Agriculture Organisation’s expression, should be won, otherwise our democracies and our values will be under threat.

The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Schneider. The next speaker is Ms Allain.

      Ms ALLAIN (France)* – The food crisis that hit the world in 2008 put the agricultural question right back into the limelight of the international community’s concern. For some years, the financial markets have been exacerbating the cyclical causes of food crises, such as the 2008 drought. By speculating on the prices of staples such as rice, corn and wheat, investment banks push up the price of food. These speculators on hunger carry a heavy responsibility for the lack of food security of which the poorest countries will always bear the brunt. Campaigns against such activity and the growing outcry among NGOs have led some European banks to extricate themselves from agricultural funds. Unfortunately, although that is a step forward it is not enough.

      Policies to support biofuels are playing a decisive role in the upward movement of food prices. The slogan, “Eat or drive—you choose”, has become more and more relevant. We must welcome the European Parliament’s recent decision to lower the targets for incorporation of biofuels. The ceiling on so-called first-generation biofuels made from food crops is a vital first restriction. Although access to reasonably priced food is a necessity, the legitimate concerns of consumers and politicians about transparency and traceability must also be taken into account to ensure genuine food security.

      The recent “horsegate” scandals have shown above all that food industry practices today are the health scandals of tomorrow. Whether we are talking about GMOs, the cocktail effect of pesticides or endocrine disrupters, we already know the potential dangers. It is important to inform consumers, particularly through accurate labelling, as to the origin of raw materials and to the method of husbandry used. It is a fundamental right to know what we are eating. That is why green MPs have urged the European Commissioner, Tonio Borg, to form a better framework of practices at a European level, in order to ensure traceability of all food so that agriculture can be more locally based and focus on quality, particularly when it comes to public procurement.

      You have managed, rapporteur, to cover all these aspects in your very thorough work. I congratulate you on the result, and I hope that all our colleagues will vote in favour of your draft resolution, which I hope will become the benchmark in respect of a European agricultural policy based on the right to European sovereignty on food for all our countries, for the sake of the food security for all our people.

The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Allain. The next speaker is Ms Tuiksoo.

      Ms TUIKSOO (Estonia)* - I greatly welcome Mr Boden’s report on food security. The world is not only undergoing globalisation; there is also increasing specialisation. The global population is growing, and at the same time people’s tastes are developing; we are enjoying ever broader ranges of cuisines and many different sorts of foods. It is therefore important to educate people about how to feed themselves, and in particular to educate children, because habits are developed in childhood.

Consumers need to know about the nutritional value and origin of the food they buy and eat. In Estonia we have drawn on the German model and have good quality marks for food. The countries of Europe should also pay more attention to advertising traditional foods that are produced locally in our own countries.

There seems to have been a shift in values in the food industry and among the public. Food used to be seen almost as something sacred, but now it is often played with – there are fights with tomatoes and so forth. That reflects a change in the ethical view of food that is not good. Schoolchildren tend to think milk comes from supermarkets, not from cows. Everything has to be ever cheaper, even in agricultural production, which means farmers find it ever harder to make a living.

The education of consumers should begin in early childhood, and we should promote local food. Children should be educated about food at school – perhaps with reference to the food prepared for them to eat there - because they will be the consumers of the future.

      The PRESIDENT* - Thank you. I call Mr Gorbunov.

      Mr GORBUNOV (Russian Federation)* - I congratulate Mr Boden on his excellent report, and agree with the document’s conclusions and proposals.

Obviously our main human right is the right to wholesome food and clean water, and every country is required to implement that right. In my country a lot of work has been done over the past four years to establish the legal standards to do that. There are laws on consumer protection, quality and safety of foodstuffs, public health for the nation, and trading standards. The law also imposes many technical requirements for foodstuffs, and we have adopted a whole swathe of regulations governing the provision of consumer services.

      At least once in five years we reset the consumer basket for the main social demographic groups. When we joined the World Trade Organisation we adopted an integrated set of measures to bring Russian law into line with international requirements for the quality of foodstuffs.

      As everyone knows, if a country imports more than half its foodstuffs, that is a direct threat to its security. We have not reached there yet, but there is concern and fostering our own producers is on the agenda. I therefore draw the Assembly’s attention to paragraphs 8.1.2 and 8.5.4 of the resolution which call upon states to invest in agriculture, and in particular organic agriculture. We must also support developing countries’ agriculture by gradually stripping away the current subsidies for agricultural exports. That will lead to healthy competition.

      Russia is one of the richest countries in the world in terms of its land and water resources. Paragraphs 8.3.3 and 8.3.4 urge increasing support for independent research on new food-based risks. We have been talking about genetically modified organisms. The academic community is divided pretty much 50:50, so one cannot be for or against, but we cannot say that we must increase quantity at the expense of quality. That would be a crime against humanity. We need to make sure GMO foods are prominently labelled as such and are stored in a different part of the shop. Only then can the buyer make an informed decision about whether or not to buy them. Until we have complete clarity about what exactly GMOs do to the human body, their distribution should be limited.

      The PRESIDENT* - Thank you. I call Mr Japaridze.

      Mr JAPARIDZE (Georgia) – I commend Mr Boden on his excellent and timely report.

It is well known that the region I represent – the wider Black sea-south Caucasus area and in particular some of the countries that are expected to sign an association agreement with the European Union in the near future – have tremendous potential in terms of the agro-sector. The region is diverse, and dietary habits are changing. Given the sector’s fundamentals, this is not a strategic point to be missed. Prioritising agriculture also makes sense because the region is haunted by under-employment and the sector allows for small and medium-sized enterprise development and is labour-intensive. The bottom line is that the region is clearly significant for global food security. We need to be able to strategically position ourselves in this market, and to do so through Europe. That raises strategic questions, which Mr Boden addressed very well.

The deep and comprehensive free trade agreements to be signed soon at Vilnius should provide for better market access and the possibility for growth, increasing both European and global food security. However, be that as it may, there is a policy development challenge. As many of the states in the region are middle or lower-income states, development cannot be postponed, but it is not easy to capitalise on regional dynamics and attract direct foreign investment while certain fundamentals are not known. Subsidies and policies regarding genetically modified crops and research and development will greatly affect business planning, financing and market access in years to come.

      Therefore, one of the questions to be addressed is whether, under the auspices of the Eastern Partnership framework, our region can be at least consulted on any policy agreements to be made. Another question is whether the overall significance of the region for this sector should have a spill-over effect into discussions taking place in different policy areas, such as the common foreign and security policy or, indeed, aid policy from relief to overseas development assistance.

In summary, as we are redefining our countries’ role within a European architecture, the question to pose is whether there is room for a multilateral engagement that goes beyond normative alignment and links into the equation a strategic vision for the Black sea and the south Caucasus as a European neighbourhood.

THE PRESIDENT* - Thank you. I call Mr Jakavonis.

Mr JAKAVONIS (Lithuania)* – I am pleased with Mr Boden’s report. I would like to draw attention to a recent inquiry in Slovakia into food products intended for the eastern and western European markets. A group of scientists looked at food products labelled identically in Germany, Austria, the Czech Republic, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria. The study revealed a bitter truth: the international food producers supplying different European Union countries use foods of varying quality but put the same mark on it. In other words, some purchasers in the European Union will get second or third-quality food because they are in the wrong country.

Some members of the European Parliament recognised openly that some producers supplying eastern Europe use cheaper raw materials. For example, they might use honey in the products intended for the western market but only sugar in those intended for the eastern market. The labels would be the same, but the taste would be very different. Unfortunately, that seemed completely normal to the MEPs. They think that the reason is that the eastern countries do not need top-quality products because their consumers are not as rich. Unfortunately, coffee is more expensive in Lithuania than it is in the European Union’s founding countries.

I would also like to draw attention to the sale of energy drinks to children. The labels often state that they are not recommended for children or pregnant women, but we cannot necessarily protect our children from those drinks, because to do so would be to violate the producers’ rights. A study of energy drinks was conducted in 2009. There has never really been any investigation of the effects of the ingredients on humans. Our doctors feel that they are very dangerous to children’s health.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Jakavonis. I call Ms Bonet Perot.

Ms BONET PEROT (Andorra)* – I congratulate Mr Boden on an excellent report. As has been said, feeding oneself is one of the basic necessities. In order to have food security, everyone should physically, socially and economically have access to enough food and nutrition to satisfy food necessity and food preferences and to lead a healthy and active life. Food security and nutrition are the responsibility of us all. We must highlight the fact that, according to FAO data, food insecurity affects more than 870 million people, an eighth of the world’s population. This world crisis in food security requires decisive global action to eliminate hunger and certain diseases, to make all food systems sustainable and to avoid food waste.

Climate change constitutes a major global concern. It has an impact on the environment and on agricultural production and will affect the development of present and future generations. The major impact will be on more vulnerable groups that have problems with food scarcity and periods of hunger. Agriculture also affects climate change because the search for food and fuel and changes in food habits are generating an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. The consequences affect nutrition and provoke changes in the quantity and composition of the food consumed. That change has an important effect in relation to food allergies. All health authorities must establish norms and obligations to inform consumers about the presence of allergens in foodstuffs, so labelling is obligatory for food security.

Food security cannot be guaranteed solely by the removal of risk or potentially harmful foodstuffs. We must secure a food chain that ensures that foods are free of harmful substances from the land or sea to final consumption, for example ensuring that there are not high levels of mercury in fish. We must then educate people on responsible food consumption. Balanced food consumption will of course improve nutrition and combat obesity and diseases linked to food, and we must combat food waste.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Bonet Perot. I do not see Mr Sabella, Ms Al-Astal or Mr Khader, so the next speaker is Mr Mitchell, Observer from Canada.

Mr MITCHELL (Canada) – I congratulate the rapporteur and the many people who helped him on an excellent report. To use the Canadian vernacular, good job! Several points particularly commend the report to me. First, it emphasizes the threat of climate change to food security. The risks in climate change are considerable – some would say infinite. There is little doubt that there is a tremendous risk that it will further disrupt our ability to feed an already hungry world.

Secondly, the report reinforces the powerful point that access to food is a fundamental human right and that nations should fully respect their international obligations to protect that right properly. Thirdly, the report reiterates an observation that I think we all understand implicitly: countries with abundance collectively waste enough food to adequately feed literally hundreds of millions of hungry and often starving people. In many respects the challenge is not so much about production as it is about politics and logistics, or perhaps the overwhelming of logistics by politics.

Although climate change has an impact on food production, the unfortunate irony is that food production, particularly in industrialised nations, also has a significant impact on climate change through the greenhouse gas emissions generated by modern agricultural techniques. Yet a variety of emerging agricultural techniques are being used more and more in countries such as Canada. They are no more expensive and no less efficient than traditional techniques, but at the same time they reduce emissions. They need to be promoted broadly.

It is also true that food production in much of the world, particularly the developing world, is a responsibility and a burden borne disproportionately by women. Successfully ensuring food security will be further enhanced by considering the particular role and challenges women face in this enterprise and designing specific strategies accordingly. I speak of the report in the context of my experience with a Canadian aid organisation, the Canadian Hunger Foundation. That group focuses its international aid efforts on food production through climate change mitigation projects and other food development projects specifically involving women.

A case can be made that increasing international market access and reducing artificial barriers and trade-distorting agricultural subsidies would increase the prospects for getting excess food from people who do not need it to those who do desperately. The report and the draft resolution are outstanding work and deserve the Council’s support. They promise to change the world for the better.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Mitchell. The next speaker is Ms Szél.

Ms SZÉL (Hungary) – The gravest dangers to food security are global food trade and the borderless European food market. The scandals of European food security signal that the current system decreases, rather than increases, security for consumers. It remains unclear what the European Union understands to be food security and how it helps European people obtain a long-term, secure and environmentally sustainable food supply, because the European Commission proposes accepting a draft regulation that allows the sowing only of seeds owned by a few multinational agro-biological companies. The regulation will no doubt displace crop varieties that are well adapted to local conditions, tolerant to droughts and not dependent on pesticides. Moreover, those varieties could have a key role when, as a result of climate change and shifting environmental conditions, our crops need fast adaptive capacities.

All in all, throughout Europe we are further from food self-determination and from using the Earth as a community resource. People and local producers are separated by ever more administrative, financial and physical barriers from the land and local costumers. The local family farmers, who in theory are the basis of both European and Hungarian agricultural production, are further and further away from making a decent living from producing foodstuffs through the generations, despite all of their efforts.

My country suffers with this, too. The current Hungarian government has introduced measures that are contrary to food sovereignty and a secure food supply. All practices aiming to achieve food sovereignty – a secure food supply, matching of local producers to consumers and community control over land and production – are achieved outside, and often in opposition to, current Hungarian agricultural regulations.

A typical example is what happened to the Kishantos Centre of Rural Development, one of the intellectual cradles and workshops of Hungarian ecological agriculture. The government simply gave away the land, which had been cultivated to the highest organic standards, to new renters coming from as far away as 160 kilometres from the region. It did not require them to continue farming organically after 1 November. One spraying of pesticide can destroy the work of 20 years for ever. The pesticides and fertilizers will be back in business.

What is necessary for food security is the protection and familiarisation of local varieties, and sustaining and disseminating the practice of participatory breeding. In Hungary, for example, it would be necessary to follow the practice of a network, which would allow the communal breeding of hundreds of apple, pear, plum and other fruit varieties. Moreover, acknowledging and assisting the right to free association, securing seed sovereignty and facilitating the preservation of agro-biodiversity and GMO-free status is of great importance.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you very much. That concludes the list of speakers. Mr Boden, you still have three minutes to respond to the debate. I will then call Ms Maury Pasquier, the chairperson of the committee.

Mr BODEN (Luxembourg)* – My first intervention was very long, so I have little time left to respond to all the speakers. First, I thank them all for their appreciation of the report and the draft resolution. I avail myself of this opportunity to thank all those who co-operated in the production of the report: the members of the committee, the chairperson, the secretariat and the experts who came to hearings.

I think that everybody agrees that food is a fundamental need. The need to guarantee food security – the right to food – is therefore the most fundamental of rights. It is the duty of us all to co-operate and see to it that the right to food is guaranteed. I noticed a great convergence of views on the threats that weigh on food security and on the key remedies I propose in my report. Everybody emphasised the fundamental role of agriculture, which should change its methods and become more sustainable. Sustainability in agriculture not only means being careful with natural resources and protecting them, but guaranteeing sustainability, economically speaking, and societal acceptability. Farmers should be able to live off their production.

I am not pleading in favour of a reduction in all subsidies to farmers – on the contrary, for a number of years I was Minister of Agriculture and always encouraged farmers. Farmers should be honoured for their provision of public services that are not honoured by the markets. We should, however, avoid subsidies for exports that are counter to the market and which thus penalise the poorer countries. In my view, we should show solidarity towards the poorer countries. I therefore strongly plead in favour of an increase in co-operation aid. All States should reflect and examine their consciences to see if they spend enough money on aid development. We should increase the share of aid that is devoted to agriculture, because it plays a fundamental role. Some 40% of co-operation assistance is consecrated to agriculture – that is far too little and should be changed.

I would like to conclude by again thanking everyone for their contributions. Mr Schennach said that this would be my last report and indeed it is. I am no longer a candidate for the elections that will take place on 20 October, so I would like to avail myself of this opportunity to say what a great pleasure it was for me to be a member of this Assembly. For years I was a Vice-President, and I encourage you all to continue to defend the values of the Council of Europe. If you wish to please me, then please vote for the draft resolution and follow up on the issue of food security in the coming years. It is an important and permanent challenge that concerns not just politicians, but everybody. Everybody should contribute to guaranteeing better food security, and I thank you in advance for doing so.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you very much indeed, Mr Boden. Thank you very much for the work you have performed here at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe since 28 September 2009. Time flies, and you have been with us too short a time. The work you have done has been substantial and extremely important in your capacity as the head of your delegation, vice-President, an active member of a political group and, in particular, as rapporteur. We will of course cherish excellent memories of Fernand Boden and I thank you for all you have done. You finish in triumph and apotheosis, because this is a very important report. In the light of all we have heard this evening, it is good recompense for all you have done. Thank you, Mr Boden.

Ms Maury Pasquier, you now have the floor.

Ms MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland)* – President and dear colleagues, may I be allowed to associate myself with all those who have thanked our colleague, Fernand Boden – and not only for his report? It should be said that he broke the fate that had been cast upon this report. He is its third rapporteur and he succeeded in completing the task. It is not easy to pick up a report that is already under way, with the work that has been done, but Mr Boden succeeded perfectly. There is no doubt that the report, in all his years of activity in the Council of Europe, represents a high point – the cherry on top of the cake, to keep with the theme of the debate. All aspects of food security have been well presented by the rapporteur and developed by our colleagues, and I just wanted to reiterate that.

I want to emphasise the right to food – the fundamental right to food – and to refer to the report on access to health care by our late lamented colleague, Jean-Louis Lorrain, which was adopted by the Assembly in June this year. In the preparation of that report we were confronted, during a fact-finding visit to Greece, with a situation that was unthinkable only a little while ago – the undernourishment of babies. This has reappeared in Greece, on our continent. I want to underscore this point – it is taken up by Amendment 1, which we will examine in a moment – not to downplay the 1 billion people who are suffering from hunger, but to show our special responsibility to combat the re-emergence in Europe of this phenomenon that is unacceptable in the 21st century. I rely on your support of the resolution. As the rapporteur said, I rely on your involvement so that such situations may cease to exist.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Maury Pasquier. The debate is closed.

      The Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development has presented a draft resolution to which four amendments have been tabled.

I understand that the chairperson of the committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendment 2 was unanimously adopted by the committee and should be declared as adopted under Rule 33.11. The committee also unanimously approved Amendment 1 after agreeing a sub-amendment to it, so it cannot be agreed to using that rule. Only Amendment 2 can therefore be adopted under Rule 33.11. Is that so, Ms Maury Pasquier?

      Ms MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland)* – Yes.

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

      The following amendment has been adopted:

      Amendment 2, tabled by Ms Kyriakides, Mr Nicolaides, Mr Loukaides, Ms Bakoyannis and Mr Triantafyllos, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 8.3.4, to insert the following paragraph:

“strengthen the legislative framework concerning the sales of energy drinks to children and adolescents with a view to preventing the adverse effects that these drinks may have to their health and behaviour;”.

       We come to Amendment 3, tabled by Mr Pintado, Mr Palacios, Mr Conde, Ms Quintanilla and Ms Bonet Perot, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 8.1.3, to insert the following paragraph:

“enhance irrigation policies in order to improve land productivity in a sustainable way, allowing an increase of food production.”

      I call Mr Pintado to support Amendment 3.

      Mr PINTADO (Spain)* – Following Mr Boden’s argument about the right to food, the amendment is intended to move forward the policies of the Council of Europe in the promotion of more flexible agriculture, although we do not have competence in the matter. Reference was made by a representative of Georgia to the possibility of increasing such policies, and Georgia, Ukraine, Bulgaria and Poland have lots of potential for growth if important infrastructure is put in place. If we do not provide that infrastructure, Latin America and Asia will produce it at the expense of our markets.

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

      Ms ALLAIN (France)* – The amendment does not fit in the draft resolution because it concerns energy-consuming techniques, and as it has been proved that agro-ecological practices would guarantee food production better, it would be dangerous to steer agriculture in such a direction.

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

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

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 3 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 1, tabled by Ms Kyriakides, Mr Nicolaides, Mr Loukaides, Ms Bakoyannis and Mr Triantafyllos, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 8.3.2, to add the following words: “recognise children as a particularly vulnerable group and take specific measures to avoid their malnutrition and its devastating effects on children's development.”

      I call Ms Maury Pasquier to support Amendment 1.

      Ms MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland)* – The sub-amendment was unanimously adopted by the committee, so I think that I can speak in its support. Ms Kyriakides’s wish is to underscore, as should be done by the General Rapporteur on Children, the importance of the protection of children and their rights as a particularly vulnerable group that deserves specific attention. I invite you to support the amendment.

      THE PRESIDENT* – A sub-amendment to Amendment 1 has been tabled by the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, which is, in amendment 1, to replace the words “at the end of paragraph 8.3.2, add the following words” with the following words: “after paragraph 8.4.2, insert the following paragraph: ”.

      I call Mr Boden to support the sub-amendment.

      Mr BODEN (Luxembourg)* – I support the sub-amendment, because we should have a specific paragraph to recognise children as a particularly vulnerable group, and it should go after paragraph 8.4.1, not paragraph 8.3.1.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the sub-amendment? That is not the case. I would normally ask for the opinion of the mover of the amendment, but Ms Maury Pasquier has already spoken, so the committee is obviously in favour of the sub-amendment.

      The vote is open.

      The sub-amendment is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 1, as amended? That is not the case. The committee is obviously in favour.

The vote is open.

Amendment 1, as amended, is adopted.

       We come to Amendment 4, tabled by Mr Pintado, Mr Palacios, Mr Conde, Ms Quintanilla and Ms Bonet Perot, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 8.5.5, to insert the following paragraph:

“be aware of the relevance of agricultural production and to encourage investigation in this field, as a significant element for the limitation of CO2 in the atmosphere, in the fight against climate change”.

I call Mr Pintado to support Amendment 4.

Mr PINTADO (Spain)* – I do not think there should be any problem with approving this amendment, because it would earmark funds to support research on CO2 emissions from agricultural production. The amendment says nothing that runs counter to what all the international organisations are aiming at.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

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

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 4 is rejected.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13302, as amended.

      The vote is open.

      The draft resolution in Document 13302, as amended, is adopted, with 37 votes for, 2 against and 1 abstention.

5. Next public business

      THE PRESIDENT* – The Assembly will hold its next public sitting tomorrow morning at 10.00 a.m. with the agenda which was approved on Monday morning. We are ending before time, so we are catching up on the overtime.

The sitting is closed.

(The sitting was closed at 7.40 p.m.)

      CONTENTS

1. Changes in membership of committees

2. Missing persons from Europe’s conflicts: the long road to finding humanitarian answers

Presentation by Mr Sheridan of report, Document 13294, on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons

Statement by Mr Peter Maurer, President of the International Committee of the Red Cross

Speakers: Mr Jónasson, Mr Pintado, Ms Kyriakidou, Ms Acketoft, Mr Donaldson, Ms Schuster, Ms Gafarova, Ms Bulajić, Mr Marias, Mr Rivard, Ms Giannakaki, Ms Zohrabyan, Mr Chikovani, Ms Erkal Kara, Mr Čağlar, Ms Virolainen.

Amendments 1 to 9 adopted.

Draft resolution contained in Document 13294, as amended, adopted.

3. Urgent debate: European Union and Council of Europe human rights agendas: synergies not duplication!

Presentation by Mr McNamara of report, Document 13321, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights

Speakers: Mr Agramunt, Mr Gross, Mr Kennedy, Sir Roger Gale, Mr Kox, Mr Korodi, Lord Anderson, Mr Sobolev, Mr Dişli, Ms Brasseur, Mr Clappison, Ms Orobets, Mr Gozi, Mr Chope.

Amendment 3 adopted.

Oral amendment 1 adopted.

Amendment 2 adopted.

Amendment 4, as amended, adopted.

Draft recommendation contained in Document 13321, as amended, adopted.

4. Food security – a permanent challenge

Presentation by Mr Boden of report, Document 13302, on behalf of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development

Speakers: Mr Recordon, Earl of Dundee, Mr Jónasson, Ms Virolainen, Mr Pintado, Mr Schennach, Ms Schneider, Ms Allain, Ms Tuiksoo, Mr Gorbunov, Mr Japaridze, Mr Jakavonis, Ms Bonet Perot, Mr Mitchell, Ms Szél, Ms Maury Pasquier.

Amendment 2 adopted.

Amendment 1, as amended, adopted.

Draft resolution contained in Document 13302, as amended, adopted.

5. 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

Miloš ALIGRUDIĆ*

Jean-Charles ALLAVENA*

Karin ANDERSEN*

Lord Donald ANDERSON

Paride ANDREOLI*

Khadija ARIB*

Volodymyr ARIEV*

Francisco ASSIS*

Danielle AUROI/ Brigitte Allain

Daniel BACQUELAINE*

Theodora BAKOYANNIS/Konstantinos Triantafyllos

David BAKRADZE*

Taulant BALLA*

Gérard BAPT*

Gerard BARCIA DUEDRA/Silvia Eloďsa Bonet Perot

Doris BARNETT*

José Manuel BARREIRO/Ángel Pintado

Deniz BAYKAL

Marieluise BECK*

José María BENEYTO*

Levan BERDZENISHVILI/ Guguli Maghradze

Deborah BERGAMINI*

Sali BERISHA*

Anna Maria BERNINI*

Teresa BERTUZZI*

Robert BIEDROŃ

Gülsün BİLGEHAN

Brian BINLEY*

Ľuboš BLAHA/Darina Gabániová

Philippe BLANCHART*

Delia BLANCO

Jean-Marie BOCKEL*

Eric BOCQUET*

Mladen BOJANIĆ/Snežana Jonica

Olga BORZOVA*

Mladen BOSIĆ*

António BRAGA*

Anne BRASSEUR

Alessandro BRATTI*

Márton BRAUN*

Gerold BÜCHEL*

André BUGNON/Luc Recordon

Natalia BURYKINA*

Sylvia CANEL*

Nunzia CATALFO

Mevlüt ÇAVUŞOĞLU*

Mikael CEDERBRATT/Tina Acketoft

Özlem CEKIC*

Elena CENTEMERO*

Lorenzo CESA*

Otto CHALOUPKA*

Irakli CHIKOVANI

Vannino CHITI/Carlo Lucherini

Tudor-Alexandru CHIUARIU*

Christopher CHOPE

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Desislav CHUKOLOV*

Lolita ČIGĀNE*

Boriss CILEVIČS*

Henryk CIOCH*

James CLAPPISON

Deirdre CLUNE*

Agustín CONDE

Telmo CORREIA*

Paolo CORSINI

Carlos COSTA NEVES

Celeste COSTANTINO*

Jonny CROSIO*

Katalin CSÖBÖR/Bernadett Szél

Milena DAMYANOVA*

Joseph DEBONO GRECH*

Armand De DECKER*

Roel DESEYN*

Manlio DI STEFANO*

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

Joseph FENECH ADAMI*

Cătălin Daniel FENECHIU*

Vyacheslav FETISOV*

Doris FIALA/Raphaël Comte

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ*

Axel E. FISCHER

Jana FISCHEROVÁ*

Gvozden Srećko FLEGO*

Bernard FOURNIER*

Hans FRANKEN*

Jean-Claude FRÉCON/Jean-Pierre Michel

Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO*

Erich Georg FRITZ

Martin FRONC

Sir Roger GALE

Adele GAMBARO*

Karl GARĐARSON

Ruslan GATTAROV*

Tamás GAUDI NAGY

Nadezda GERASIMOVA

Valeriu GHILETCHI

Francesco Maria GIRO*

Michael GLOS*

Pavol GOGA

Jarosław GÓRCZYŃSKI/ Iwona Guzowska

Alina Ştefania GORGHIU*

Svetlana GORYACHEVA*

Sandro GOZI

Fred de GRAAF*

Martin GRAF*

Sylvi GRAHAM/Ingjerd Schou

Patrick De GROOTE*

Andreas GROSS

Arlette GROSSKOST*

Dzhema GROZDANOVA*

Attila GRUBER*

Gergely GULYÁS*

Pelin GÜNDEŞ BAKIR*

Antonio GUTIÉRREZ*

Ana GUŢU*

Maria GUZENINA-RICHARDSON

Carina HÄGG

Sabir HAJIYEV*

Andrzej HALICKI*

Hamid HAMID*

Mike HANCOCK*

Margus HANSON

Davit HARUTYUNYAN

Hĺkon HAUGLI*

Norbert HAUPERT

Alfred HEER

Martin HENRIKSEN*

Andres HERKEL/ Ester Tuiksoo

Adam HOFMAN*

Jim HOOD*

Joachim HÖRSTER

Arpine HOVHANNISYAN

Anette HÜBINGER

Andrej HUNKO*

Ali HUSEYNLI*

Rafael HUSEYNOV/Sahiba Gafarova

Vladimir ILIĆ*

Florin IORDACHE

Igor IVANOVSKI*

Tadeusz IWIŃSKI*

Denis JACQUAT*

Gediminas JAKAVONIS

Stella JANTUAN

Tedo JAPARIDZE

Ramón JÁUREGUI*

Michael Aastrup JENSEN*

Mogens JENSEN*

Jadranka JOKSIMOVIĆ*

Ögmundur JÓNASSON

Čedomir JOVANOVIĆ/Svetislava Bulajić

Antti KAIKKONEN

Ferenc KALMÁR*

Božidar KALMETA/Ivan Račan

Mariusz KAMIŃSKI*

Deniza KARADJOVA*

Marietta KARAMANLI*

Ulrika KARLSSON*

Burhan KAYATÜRK*

Jan KAŹMIERCZAK*

Serhii KIVALOV*

Bogdan KLICH*

Serhiy KLYUEV*

Haluk KOÇ

Igor KOLMAN

Unnur Bra KONRÁĐSDÓTTIR*

Attila KORODI

Alev KORUN*

Tiny KOX

Borjana KRIŠTO*

Dmitry KRYVITSKY*

Václav KUBATA*

Ertuğrul KÜRKÇÜ

Athina KYRIAKIDOU

Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT

Igor LEBEDEV/ Olga Kazakova

Harald LEIBRECHT*

Orinta LEIPUTĖ

Christophe LÉONARD*

Valentina LESKAJ*

Terry LEYDEN*

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE*

Lone LOKLINDT*

François LONCLE*

George LOUKAIDES/ Stella Kyriakides

Yuliya L'OVOCHKINA*

Saša MAGAZINOVIĆ*

Philippe MAHOUX*

Thierry MARIANI*

Epameinondas MARIAS

Milica MARKOVIĆ*

Meritxell MATEU PI

Pirkko MATTILA/Jaana Pelkonen

Frano MATUŠIĆ*

Liliane MAURY PASQUIER

Michael McNAMARA

Sir Alan MEALE

Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA*

Ivan MELNIKOV*

Nursuna MEMECAN*

José MENDES BOTA

Jean-Claude MIGNON/ André Schneider

Djordje MILIĆEVIĆ*

Jerzy MONTAG*

Rubén MORENO PALANQUES*

Igor MOROZOV*

Joăo Bosco MOTA AMARAL

Arkadiusz MULARCZYK*

Melita MULIĆ

Lydia MUTSCH/ Fernand Boden

Lev MYRYMSKYI*

Philippe NACHBAR*

Oľga NACHTMANNOVÁ

Marian NEACŞU

Fritz NEUGEBAUER*

Baroness Emma NICHOLSON/Charles Kennedy

Michele NICOLETTI*

Elena NIKOLAEVA*

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI*

Mirosława NYKIEL*

Judith OEHRI*

Carina OHLSSON/ Jonas Gunnarsson

Joseph O'REILLY*

Lesia OROBETS

Sandra OSBORNE/Joe Benton

José Ignacio PALACIOS

Liliana PALIHOVICI

Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS*

Eva PARERA/Jordi Xuclŕ

Ganira PASHAYEVA*

Johannes PFLUG*

Foteini PIPILI*

Ivan POPESCU

Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN*

Cezar Florin PREDA*

John PRESCOTT/David Crausby

Jakob PRESEČNIK*

Gabino PUCHE

Alexey PUSHKOV*

Mailis REPS/Maret Maripuu

Eva RICHTROVÁ*

Andrea RIGONI

François ROCHEBLOINE*

Maria de Belém ROSEIRA*

René ROUQUET

Marlene RUPPRECHT*

Pavlo RYABIKIN*

Rovshan RZAYEV*

Vincenzo SANTANGELO

Kimmo SASI

Deborah SCHEMBRI*

Stefan SCHENNACH

Marina SCHUSTER

Urs SCHWALLER

Senad ŠEPIĆ*

Samad SEYIDOV*

Jim SHERIDAN

Oleksandr SHEVCHENKO

Boris SHPIGEL*

Arturas SKARDŽIUS/Algis Kašėta

Ladislav SKOPAL*

Leonid SLUTSKY*

Serhiy SOBOLEV

Lorella STEFANELLI*

Yanaki STOILOV*

Christoph STRÄSSER*

Karin STRENZ*

Ionuţ-Marian STROE*

Valeriy SUDARENKOV

Björn von SYDOW

Petro SYMONENKO*

Vilmos SZABÓ*

Chiora TAKTAKISHVILI*

Vyacheslav TIMCHENKO*

Romana TOMC*

Lord John E. TOMLINSON

Mihai TUDOSE*

Ahmet Kutalmiş TÜRKEŞ

Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ*

Theodora TZAKRI*

Konstantinos TZAVARAS/Maria Giannakaki

Tomáš ÚLEHLA*

Ilyas UMAKHANOV/ Guennady Gorbunov

Petrit VASILI*

Volodymyr VECHERKO*

Mark VERHEIJEN/Marjolein Faber-Van De Klashorst

Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN

Vladimir VORONIN*

Klaas de VRIES*

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ

Zoran VUKČEVIĆ*

Draginja VUKSANOVIĆ*

Piotr WACH

Johann WADEPHUL*

Robert WALTER

Dame Angela WATKINSON/Jeffrey Donaldson

Katrin WERNER*

Karin S. WOLDSETH*

Gisela WURM

Barbara ŽGAJNER TAVŠ*

Emanuelis ZINGERIS

Guennady ZIUGANOV*

Naira ZOHRABYAN

Levon ZOURABIAN

Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote

Maria GIANNAKAKI

Representatives of the Turkish Cypriot Community (In accordance to Resolution 1376 (2004) of the Parliamentary Assembly)

Mehmet ÇAĞLAR

Observers

Grant MITCHELL

Michel RIVARD

Bev SHIPLEY

Partners for Democracy

Mohammed Mehdi BENSAID

Nezha EL OUAFI