AA13CR36

AS (2013) CR 36

2013 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Fourth part)

REPORT

Thirty-sixth sitting

Friday 4 October 2013 at 10 a.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

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

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

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

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

(Mr Mignon, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 10 a.m.)

THE PRESIDENT* - The sitting is open.

May I just say a few words first? This is the last sitting I shall preside over, as my term of office will expire at the end of January. This is therefore the last time that I shall take my seat up here to preside over a sitting of the Parliamentary Assembly, and I am feeling quite emotional. Liliane Maury Pasquier has kindly allowed me to be here this morning so I can preside for a little longer.

It has been a real pleasure for me to serve as President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and to work with all of you and with all the political groups and to have worked together as we have. I hope that by pulling together we have managed to advance the objectives of the Council of Europe. My successor as President can count on my full support, and I am certain that they will continue along that path, and we will build on everything that has been done by everyone involved in the Council of Europe since 1949 to help it achieve its aims. Thank you very much.

1. Changes in the membership of Committees

THE PRESIDENT* – Our first item of business is to consider the changes proposed in the membership of committees contained in Commissions (2013) 07 Addendum 5.

      Are the proposed changes in the membership of the Assembly’s committees agreed to?

      They are agreed to.

2. Combating discrimination against older persons on the labour market

The PRESIDENT* – The next item of business on the agenda this morning is the debate on the Report titled “Combating discrimination against older persons on the labour market”, Document 13292, presented by Ms Sahiba Gafarova on behalf of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination. Mr Hanson will present the opinion of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, Document 13308. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.

      We aim to finish the debate at 11.40 a.m. If necessary, I will interrupt the list of speakers around 11.20 a.m. for replies and voting.

May I remind colleagues that speaking time is limited to four minutes.

Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – Thank you very much, Mr President.

This report stems from the motion on addressing age discrimination in the labour market tabled by Ms Acketoft and others on 6 June 2012. The fact is that people over a certain age face discrimination in staying, entering or re-entering the labour market in Europe. Their competences are looked down on and they are often the first to be made redundant when staff numbers are being reduced. Age is an important factor in careers and promotions, as well as working conditions.

According to research carried out in Italy, age is a more frequent ground of discrimination than sex. In the United Kingdom complaints of age discrimination presented to labour courts have risen from 972 in 2006-07 to almost 4 000 in 2008-09. In the context of the current economic crisis, workers aged 50 and over are the most affected by job losses. However, age is still considered as an objective and neutral criteria, without discriminatory effect. In fact, it creates mostly indirect discrimination.

I should also point out the multiple types of discrimination against older women, who suffer discrimination based mostly on age and gender. Older women are harder hit by poverty because they build up smaller retirement pensions than men. One contributory factor in that is the fact that pensions are broadly linked to wage levels and older women are lower paid than men. Furthermore, the care functions traditionally carried out by women throughout their working lives, such as maternity leave care, child care and care of elderly relatives, means they experience work discontinuity, which also has an impact on their retirement pension. Consequently, women more often become dependent on public and private services than men, including public health services, whether as care providers or recipients. This places them in a difficult position when these services are unavailable or deficient. I should also mention that older migrant women suffer many different types of discrimination, including discrimination based on their age, gender and country of origin.

The draft resolution outlines my main conclusions, which are that age discrimination is one of the most widespread forms of discrimination and that there are substantial differences between Council of Europe member States in terms of awareness of the problem and the scale of their efforts to combat it.

In the current European context of economic crisis and an ageing population, older workers face increased difficulties in all aspects of employment. It is necessary to establish effective legal provisions to tackle age discrimination and also to introduce positive action for older persons wishing to enter or re-enter the labour market as well as for older employees, and in particular for those extremely vulnerable groups that are affected by multiple forms of discrimination.

Moreover, age discrimination goes hand in hand with the more general phenomenon of ageism, driven by society having a negative image of ageing. It is therefore vital to strive to change mentalities in order to do away with stereotypes and build a positive and true image of all age brackets.

The existing international instruments on age discrimination, such as Recommendation No. 162/1980 from the International Labour Organisation, set out detailed recommendations for the development of national policies and legislation by states. Although that recommendation does not define older workers as such, it recommends that their employment problems should be dealt with in the context of a well-balanced overall strategy for full employment and, at the level of undertaking, a well-balanced overall social policy, with due attention given to all population groups, thereby ensuring that employment problems are not shifted from one group to another.

At European Union level, reference to age discrimination in the labour market is found in Article 10 of the Treaty on European Union, which empowers the European Union to combat discrimination based on six criteria, including age. In turn, Council Directive 2000/78 established a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation and includes age as a potential ground for discrimination. The directive prohibits direct and indirect discrimination, including harassment and any instruction to discriminate. Although it would be impossible to define a single legislative framework suited to all situations, I believe that some parameters can be established in national legislation.

I also propose positive action to protect groups that are subject to discrimination as European Union member States start transposing the directive into national legislation. Some States have established specific employment measures to integrate particular groups into the working population. With regard to positive action, however, we must bear in mind the mixed results of such measures. For instance, the introduction of special protection for certain categories might lead some employers to try to get workers to retire by treating them badly. Measures to change employers’ and employees’ attitudes must therefore be considered alongside the legislative measures needed to protect vulnerable groups.

In addition to the legislative measures needed to combat age discrimination, dialogue and partnership between all parties concerned must be promoted if stereotypes are to be combated and attitudes changed fundamentally. In that respect, mentoring programmes can be very worth while. Mentoring involves establishing a long-term relationship between an experienced mentor and a younger mentee who can benefit from the mentor’s experience, know-how and network of contacts. I firmly believe that such programmes should be encouraged so as to change attitudes and combat the stereotypes on which age discrimination is based while also promoting inter-generational solidarity.

Fair treatment of older workers in legislation is a vital precondition for combating age discrimination and creating the necessary conditions for giving older workers greater access to the labour market. Legislation protects people against discrimination, but it can also encourage employers to introduce positive measures to support older workers while ensuring an integrated approach to the needs of aging populations in national policies. It is just as necessary to seek to change attitudes by educating the public, eliminating stereotypes about older people and building a realistic and positive image of older workers.

Our resolution therefore proposes several recommendations for member States on tackling discrimination against older workers. I draw attention to paragraph 5, which recommends: changing legislation to include age among the criteria for non-discrimination; introducing monitoring arrangements, with an effective system of incentives and sanctions where applicable; introducing positive measures aimed at facilitating access to employment for older people, taking into account the situation of vulnerable groups; facilitating re-entry to the labour market for older workers who have had long periods of unemployment or gaps in their employment; and developing access to further training for older people, both the unemployed and those in employment, so that they can update their knowledge and remain attractive in the labour market. The resolution also calls for information campaigns aimed at changing attitudes to ageing and building public awareness of ageism and its ramifications for everyday life and programmes designed to encourage inter-generational dialogue.

I wish to thank Mr Margus Hanson and the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development for its opinion. The amendments proposed are clearly meant to sharpen the resolution’s key messages and increase its impact in member States. I thank members for their attention and look forward to listening to colleagues in the debate.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Gafarova. You will have just over three minutes to reply at the end of the debate. I call Mr Hanson to present the opinion of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development.

Mr HANSON (Estonia) – It has been a pleasure following this most interesting activity of the Parliamentary Assembly on behalf of the committee, which appointed me as rapporteur. I must admit that I am not a specialist when it comes to labour market questions, but in my professional life I have had plenty of opportunities to gain experience of the matter in different contexts, for example in my former role as vice-mayor of Tartu, the second largest town in Estonia.

We should all remember that in an ageing society such as ours we are all bound to become specialists in this area at some stage. By growing older, we all increasingly face the risk of being subject to age discrimination. We also have increasing opportunities to see such discrimination affecting colleagues, friends or community members.

As parliamentarians, in particular, we also know that our willingness to commit ourselves as professionals to our countries’ development, and our capacity to do so, does not automatically stop at pensionable age. Rather, life and work experience is a comparative advantage in our profession. It is also against that background that I wish to contribute to the debate in the most positive and constructive manner.

The committee proposes a number of amendments intended to strengthen the text and sharpen its terminology, thereby increasing its impact in member States. We are in favour of shedding more light on several particular points. First, we wish to highlight the rich work experience and potential of older workers. Secondly, the fact that people are living longer means that some older people wish to continue working beyond pensionable age. Moreover, in many cases older people have to continue working beyond pensionable age in order to maintain living standards. Thirdly, women who have had long periods without paid employment face greater difficulties in re-entering the jobs market and maintaining employment. Finally, innovative and more flexible working arrangements are needed if we are to capitalise on older workers’ potential in the most effective manner. Keeping those important aspects in mind, I hope that the Assembly will agree with our proposed amendments.

I congratulate Ms Gafarova on this excellent report and thank the secretariat of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development for its valuable contribution in preparing this opinion.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Hanson. For the general debate, I call Mr Reimann to speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Mr REIMANN (Switzerland)* – The report tackles a problem that one becomes more aware of as one gets older. My group welcomes Ms Gafarova’s positive report. We stand behind its measures to prevent and remedy ageism. The report benefits from being concise, as that makes it more likely that it will be read.

It is important that we look to national legislation to overcome the increasing difficulties for elderly people who continue to work in the labour market. We have to start with our state-run companies. People are being forced into early retirement, and younger people are being forced to work longer hours. We also have to look at the practices employed in our diplomatic and consular services. The report overlooks one issue – mobility. We need to consider mobility to and from the work place. If no public transport is available one becomes reliant on private cars, making it more difficult to remain in the labour market, and we need to tackle anything that constitutes a hurdle to that.

We need to consider anything that might constitute age discrimination, and this is why we have tabled Amendment 6. It makes an appeal to road traffic authorities to allow common sense to govern extensions to driving licences. This is just one measure, but it is important enough to belong to the raft of measures proposed. When all is said and done, not enough is being done to combat age discrimination. The labour market is a particularly important part of that fight, because being in work means that people have an income and can look after themselves. Anybody who wishes to continue working, at least part time, should be able to do so.

I come from a generation of retirees. Recently, I met with primary school teachers who said, “Aren’t you lucky that you are able to continue working?” The report will contribute to making it possible for as many older people as possible to continue to work in the labour market and, at the very least, not be discriminated against.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. On behalf of the European Democrat Group, I call Ms Gillan.

Ms GILLAN (United Kingdom) – I am delighted to follow Mr Reimann and to speak on behalf of the EDG. Mr President, on behalf of the EDG and the British delegation, may I thank you for your sterling service to the Organisation? I hope you enjoy your last morning presiding over our proceedings – thank you very much. I congratulate my colleague from Azerbaijan, Ms Gafarova, on producing a valuable draft resolution on combating age discrimination in the labour market. It certainly adds to the debate.

In the UK, as in many other places, people are living and keeping fit for longer. Most of today’s 65-year-olds – I am not quite there yet myself – will live beyond 80, and some will live beyond 110. Older workers are increasingly looking to extend their working lives, with more than 50% of workers aged 55-plus planning to work beyond the state pension age. I count myself as one of them.

The demographics are working against us. Put simply, in the UK we are running out of workers. Current employers’ plans suggest that we will need to fill 13.5 million job vacancies in the next 10 years, but that only 7 million people will leave school and college in that time. Already in the UK, the over-50s form 27% of the current work force; by 2020, a third. Employers need to make the most of this resource by maximising the skills and productive contribution of all their workers, both younger and older, especially in the current economic climate.

There are misconceptions about employing older workers relating to productivity, upskilling, health and blocking opportunities for young workers, just to name a few. Most successful employers report the benefits of employing older workers as part of a multi-generational work force: a broader range of skills and experience, opportunities for mentoring new recruits, transfer of skills across the work force, reduced staff turnover and improved staff morale. Far be it from me to advertise, but in the UK, McDonald’s reports a 20% higher performance in their outlets where workers aged 60-plus are a part of the multi-generational work force. This is why the UK, as well as the EDG, welcomes the report. It recognises that age discrimination against older people – and ageism more generally – remains an issue of concern right across the member States.

In the UK we have already acted on some of the points raised by Ms Gafarova in the report. Back in the 1990s, among my ministerial responsibilities I was the Minister for Older Workers. Building on the work we did in the UK in the 1990s, we now have the Equality Act 2010, which provides protection against direct and indirect discrimination in employment because of age and against harassment relating to a person’s age. We have also been moving forward to ensure that our anti-discrimination legislation is implemented effectively. We are about to review the Equality Act 2010 to ensure that it is working effectively to protect people and individuals from discrimination.

I hope that the report contributes to the valuable work across the Council of Europe States to eliminate ageism and to maximise the experience of all our people, particularly older citizens in all our societies.

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

Mr JÓNASSON (Iceland) – I have read the report carefully and the political parties under the umbrella of the Group of the Unified European Left are in full agreement with its recommendations. I am sure, however, that we all agree that the problems identified in the report are not easy to resolve.

In Iceland, we have tried to strengthen the rights of older people in the labour market by creating pay structures in their favour, and by enacting laws and regulations that strengthen their rights in contract and in law. Such measures can prove a handicap, however, as they make older people more expensive to employ. If they are difficult to get rid of in times of cuts, it makes it less desirable to employ them in the first place. This is why we have been changing pay structures to make them more neutral to age. With stronger pension systems, there is always a tendency in times of crisis and cuts, not least in the public sector, to say to the oldest employees, “You are of an age where you have pension rights waiting for you around the corner. We can bridge the gap by paying you for several months, but since we are plagued with youth unemployment it is more practical and just that you leave and make space for younger people.”

In addition, there is a widespread belief that older people cannot adapt, especially in fields where adaptability is necessary. To make things worse, I am in no doubt that in recent years the labour market has become more inhumane and harsh, particularly in the public services where the attitudes and working methods of the market – a profit mentality – have replaced more human attitudes.

All that, however, can be changed. The laws that need to be altered first are those that relate to accessibility and the right to lifelong learning. In Iceland, there have been good awareness campaigns to tell the labour market and – I would emphasise this – older workers themselves that older workers are the most reliable part of the work force and that their experience is extremely valuable when it comes to the crunch. That was demonstrated by Ms Gillan’s example about McDonald’s, and there is plenty of evidence to the same effect.

We must have more flexibility for people to move within the workplace and within the labour market in general, as was stressed by the spokesman for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe. First and foremost, however, we need more flexibility in the mind: it is a question of attitude. On that, as with the report in general, I agree with the rapporteur.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Jónasson. I call Mr Mendes Bota on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr MENDES BOTA (Portugal) – I congratulate Ms Gafarova on her excellent report. The rise in life expectancy and pension costs for retired workers is considered by many to be widely responsible, among other causes, for our ailing welfare systems. Indeed, older workers are cursed with a series of stereotypes: from being technologically handicapped, inefficient and averse to innovation, to being costly, unproductive and so on, but facts are facts. According to recent studies, at least a third of Europe’s population will be 60 or older by 2050. That is a looming problem that will not go away, and it therefore needs to be addressed.

      Extending the age of retirement is only the first step, although perhaps the most logical one. It amounts to nothing, however, when States find it increasingly difficult to pay decent pensions, and the elderly are often forced to go back to searching for employment to support their living expenses. One way to reduce age discrimination, as Ms Gafarova suggests in chapter 6 of her report, is to establish a generalised practice of mentoring programmes. Indeed, what was once thought to be a natural practice in the labour market – with parents passing on knowledge to their children, the older and more experienced to the younger – has now become a friction factor in a labour market that finds itself hungry for younger, cheaper labour, with businesses eager to shed more and more senior jobs. It is primarily companies that, through their policies, are inadvertently sponsoring such an intergenerational schism.

      Establishing widespread tutoring programmes would not only benefit the young, through shared experience and knowledge, but enable a salutary transmission the other way, from young to old, of renewed habits of competitiveness, which could only re-energise a waning senior work force. It is important to extend training programmes to a wider range of senior workers. Despite the general perception that such instruction is wasted on workers nearing retirement age, studies show that, regardless of age, people as a rule become more productive after attending such programmes.

Finally – this topic is dear to me – I want to draw attention to the specific case of senior female workers. It is true that the problem of age discrimination affects both genders equally, but women find themselves doubly struck by prejudice: over their age and their gender. It is not overstating the case to say that their plight is twice as scarring. Any legislative initiative at European Union or national level that would yank the problem away from legal vagueness and expose it in the framework of a clear moral debate would benefit both genders and all generations. Senior workers today have the sort of vitality that would not have been possible only a few decades ago. They have a potential in knowledge and experience that we cannot and must not waste.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Mendes Bota. I call Ms Vučković on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Ms VUČKOVIĆ (Serbia) – I congratulate the rapporteur on the report and her important draft resolution. The issue of discrimination against older people in everyday life and in the labour market is significant. We all agree about the paradox that we live in ageing societies, in which life expectancy is increasing and in which we require reforms to our pension systems to postpone the retirement age, but we face ever-growing ageism and discrimination against older people.

      One problem is that very often, for example in my country, such ageism and discrimination against older people is not recognised as a type of discrimination, so we should work harder to identify the various forms that it can take. Even the elderly do not see such practices as discrimination, but find them normal types of behaviour. For instance, age is frequently the most important criterion in job advertisements, but that is not always identified as a form of age discrimination. It is therefore important that institutions in our societies, such as ombudsmen and anti-ageism commissioners, help in the fight against discrimination, as should the judiciary, which also realises the importance of tackling the issue.

       Another problem is the high rate of youth unemployment, and it is certainly justified to make tackling it a high priority. We must bear in mind that unemployment, which is often a consequence of discrimination against older people in the labour market, is harmful and dangerous because people in their 40s and 50s often have to raise children and any kind of unemployment multiplies poverty among those children, who will not have had a competitive education or the same opportunities, once they reach the labour market.

      We must improve the legal framework and promote anti-ageism, lifelong learning mechanisms and self-employment in our societies. Many of our countries do not have a long tradition of market economies and entrepreneurial culture is still very poor, but we must promote such factors to improve the image of older people, create greater potential for them to be employed and reduce discrimination. We should also bear it in mind that non-governmental organisations have had significant results in some countries on this issue, and that should be stressed as we do our work. The draft resolution is very important and will make a significant contribution to meeting all our objectives.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Vučković. The rapporteur will respond at the end of the debate. I call Ms Schneider-Schneiter.

Ms SCHNEIDER-SCHNEITER (Switzerland)* – I thank the rapporteur for this important report. In the decades to come, demographic change will be one of the biggest challenges for politics, the economy and society.

In Switzerland, there are fewer and fewer people. Only net immigration is compensating for the dwindling population. The population continues to dwindle, despite the continuing rise in life expectancy, because the birth rate is decreasing. More and more young people are moving from the country to the towns. There are more and more people who need care and the economy has a shortage of workers. We are getting older and older. The number of pensioners in the country, as compared to the number of people in work, will double by 2050. That is putting an enormous strain on the funding of social and health services. The labour market also requires major adjustments.

Alarmingly, many of the rules within enterprises and much of our social policy make it less attractive for older people to stay in work, not least because of the economic pressures on companies. Work processes must become more effective and efficient, and work must be of a higher quality. Being older is often equated with being less efficient. However, the loss of experienced workers can have an adverse effect on the work that is done and on the atmosphere at work. We should not underestimate the resulting loss of know-how in the workplace. We cannot afford that. Our economies will continue to have the necessary productivity only if we involve older people fully.

      Pension systems are largely based on labour contributions. We can only ensure that the social security system works if there are enough people in the work force. Although Switzerland is faring better than other countries, the participation of older workers still needs to be increased.

Governments need a strategy to meet the demographic challenges of the next few decades. We must maintain the contract between the generations. We need solidarity between the generations in the labour market, in society and in politics. In my country, we have been calling for a change in mentality for years. We need targeted measures for older workers. Incentives must be created to keep people in work for longer. People’s ability to survive in the labour market can be improved through further training. I am pleased that in the last session, our parliament passed a law on further training, which included massive tax incentives to continue with life-long learning.

Furthermore, we need a change in the social security rules that disadvantage older workers. We need better working conditions for so-called “best-agers”. Companies should be supported in anchoring experience and ability by introducing flexible forms of work for older workers. Partial or gradual retirement can benefit businesses as well as older workers.

We have launched a campaign to end discrimination against older people in the labour market in my country. I hope that you will do the same in your countries.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Schneider-Schneiter. I do not see Ms Quintanilla or Mr Jakavonis, so I call Mr Schneider.

Mr SCHNEIDER (France)* – The ageing population is a challenge for European societies. In France, the unemployment figures show that over-50s are being pushed out of the labour market. It is estimated that on losing their job, an older person is four to five times less likely than other unemployed people to find another job.

Why should that be the case? The lack of training to help people switch jobs is one of the root causes of long-term unemployment. Only 10% of our unemployed people are in training. The figure falls to 4% among older workers. Older unemployed people have to make a greater effort to engage in training later in life. However, that does not mean that people over the age of 55 are incapable of learning to do a new job or mastering new technologies. The key to finding a job at any age is training.

We must think of ways to encourage companies to hire older people. The report states that many companies will hire retirees because they are willing to work for less as they are already drawing a pension. In countries such as France, the non-wage labour costs are particularly high. Tax breaks for hiring older people can only serve as an incentive.

We should be concerned about the fate of older women in particular because they are hit hardest by unemployment. Even when they are in work, they are subject to other forms of discrimination. They have the prospect of lower pensions because the time that they have spent on maternity leave or bringing up their children is not properly accounted for. One solution in the medium term might be to allow women to work beyond the legal retirement age to improve their pensions. We need to think of ways to reintegrate women into the labour market and to ensure that periods during which they are not remunerated or are in part-time work are better accounted for. We have tabled an amendment along those lines.

If we do not integrate older people into our labour markets, there will be increasing tensions in our societies. That is why it is urgent that we adopt proper reforms with respect to training, employment and retirement.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Schneider. I call Mr Kalmár.

Mr KALMÁR (Hungary) – I congratulate the rapporteur, Ms Gafarova, and her team on their work. This issue seems increasingly to be of interest in Europe. I welcome the discussion of this issue because as European societies age, more and more people are affected by it. I agree with the speakers who have said that the alarming demographic trends in Europe have a strong influence on this issue. It is natural to discuss this matter in a period of economic crisis because there are fewer jobs and more unemployed people.

Paragraph 4 of the resolution states that there must be a change in mentalities to effect positive change. That is true, but it is not enough because economic entities are profit-oriented. Perhaps it would be possible to effect change through a change of mentality in the state-owned sector.

Governments should introduce regulations that protect jobs for older people, as is recommended in the resolution. In Hungary, for example, the parliament has passed laws to protect the jobs of employees in the five years leading up to retirement. That means that people can be fired only in exceptional circumstances and in well-founded cases. Those regulations were introduced in the work law and have been active since the beginning of 2012. The government also has a workplace preservation programme. That includes a regulation that provides a tax break to companies that employ people aged over 55. Generally speaking, senior employees who have a lot of experience and a good knowledge of foreign languages are less endangered.

Finally, I urge the rapporteur to table a motion on a similar and important subject, namely the unemployment rate among European youngsters. The rate is extremely high in some countries.

In conclusion, I support the adoption of the report.

      I will say a few words in French to conclude. I thank and congratulate you, Mr President, for the work that you have done over the past two years. We look forward to seeing you in January when you will be among us, rather than in the chair.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Kalmár. I call Mr Reiss.

      Mr REISS (France)* – The question of discrimination against older persons in the labour market is acute, since in most of our countries that group constitutes an important portion of unemployed and employed persons. Life expectancy is increasing and older persons have accumulated much experience during their professional life, so they have plenty to teach, and now they remain in good shape, and they want to pursue their path to the end and to transmit their skills.

      Two proposals in the draft resolution drew my particular attention: life-long training is essential and, as the rapporteur appositely underscored, it should concern not only unemployed older persons, but active ones. There are two obstacles: the complexity and lack of clarity of the vocational training systems of our countries, which involve a multiplicity of actors; and the fact that some might consider – wrongly – that older persons are unable to learn new jobs or to adapt to new technologies.

The transmission of skills is an important element in sponsorship programmes, allowing the younger generation to have a more positive image of older persons. Furthermore, that should be set in another context, which is that of conditions at the end of a career. Skills transmission should involve the idea of an unconditional relay between two employees, one at the beginning and the other at the end of a career. Systems only create windfall effects if they push for employment of a package of juniors instead of seniors, and that is dangerous. Transmitting knowledge is a lofty task that should be respected for its just value.

      In France, there is a big debate about demanding work and the measures that could be taken to allow older persons, towards the end of their careers, to be relieved of some of the more onerous tasks, allowing that person to train younger employees. That is a solution to be explored. Generally, adapting the employment of older people to favour part-time work or flexible hours is an advantage, allowing them to stay in the labour market longer. Amendments proposed by the committee to add that to the draft resolution are an excellent initiative.

      Something that does not appear in the draft resolution is that, nowadays, some people want to stay in employment beyond the legal pension age – they want to work longer, because they feel fit. Account should be taken of that, because the demographic evolution of our societies is inevitably leading to an increase in the numbers of older people. The report mentioned the need to reflect on the adequacy of the developing demographics and the length of professional careers – we will be debating such things in the French Assembly on Monday. Older persons represent an opportunity for our economies. In recognising that, we will have won the fight against the discrimination against older persons on the labour market.

      In my few remaining seconds, I thank you, Mr President – he is not listening, but I will say it none the less – for the very effective and attentive manner in which you have presided over our Assembly. You have advanced it considerably on the international scene.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Reiss, you will make me blush. I do not see Mr Belyakov in the Chamber, so I call Mr Hawn, Observer from Canada.

      Mr HAWN (Canada)* – Thank you, Mr President. I am happy to have the opportunity to address the Assembly, and I thank the rapporteur for her excellent work.

      (The speaker continued in English.)

      Discrimination against older workers in employment is a reality. It exists even in countries with historically high levels of employment and strong anti-discrimination laws, including constitutional protection against age discrimination. I will focus on the experience of my own country to illustrate that the problems concern all of us.

      The perspective that I would like to offer is that older workers are a valuable resource for companies and the economy in general. We need to find ways to tap into this resource to address growing shortages of skilled workers. Part of the problem is the so-called ageing of the work force. Canada, for example, is in the midst of a major demographic shift. Today, it is ranked as the 27th oldest country among OECD countries, but within 20 years, it is expected to become the 11th oldest country.

      Employer organisations such as the Canadian Chamber of Commerce acknowledge that older workers play an important role in business and industry. They serve as the institutional or corporate memory, as the repository of valuable skills and knowledge, as mentors to younger workers and in the transfer of knowledge from older worker to younger worker. They are a valuable resource for employers and for the economy.

      Employers are also reporting major labour shortages. According to a survey by the Bank of Canada, 36% of employers in Canada in 2011 faced labour shortages that affected their ability to meet demand. The challenge for Canada, as for other industrialised countries, is how to ensure sufficient skilled people to replenish the ageing work force. Retention of older workers is key to the challenge. Many older workers would like to remain in the work force, but are unable to do so because of restrictive laws on retirement or business practices, or because for many the incentives to remain in work are insufficient.

      Various solutions have been proposed to ensure a continued attachment to the work force, including amending legislation that sometimes leads to discrimination against older workers, such as mandatory retirement laws. In Canada, at the federal level and in all but one province, human rights laws and other legislation have been amended to end the practice of mandatory retirement. At one time, being 65 or over was a permissible ground for age discrimination, but in Canada this obstacle to remaining in employment has now been removed.

      Legislation alone, however, cannot address the problem. Effective solutions also require businesses to change their corporate culture and human resource policies to facilitate the retention of older workers. A number of companies are already succeeding in this respect by improving benefits, including health benefits, and introducing flexible work schedules to accommodate the health and family needs of older workers. Other companies assist older workers with retirement planning and establish policies for integrating older workers in their work forces.

      Clearly, however, more needs to be done, and more employers need to be aware of the value of older workers. As a first step, legislators and businesses need to work together to find solutions. The report is a good place to start.

      (The speaker continued in French.)

      Finally, I offer my congratulations to you, Mr President, for your leadership over the past two years. Thank you very much.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Hawn. I call Mr Díaz Tejera.

      Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain)* – Good morning to you all. As in Alejandro Sanz’s song, I am split on this, my heart is in two.

For a long time, in my capacity as an ombudsman, I worked in the interests of the most vulnerable sections of our population, for people without the cultural wherewithal to say no. I am talking about our younger population; we have a huge amount of protection in place for the younger generation, which makes it impossible for them to develop and to meet the challenges of life. However, I am 59 and moving towards a certain demographic – other colleagues are in a similar situation – although even younger people are starting to get frustrated that the labour market is driving them out. They are gradually being pushed out of the labour market, whereas in actual fact, when you reach 55, that is when you are at your most productive.

      What we are doing is squandering all the experience of older workers, built up over the years. For centuries, older age was a badge of prestige, because the tribe went to its elders for their wisdom and advice. These days, we seem to get our knowledge from books or the Internet, and we have gradually come to undervalue the wisdom and experience of older people. We seem to think that youth in and of itself is a source of prestige, whereas in fact it is just a biological fact. The image of young people is different now.

      Although, as I said, I am in two minds about all this, I think that having an upper age limit is wrong. People must decide for themselves whether they are fit to do a particular job. We cannot take a one-size-fits-all approach to human beings; it is fundamentally wrong. We all live our lives in different ways. We must view work as a source of personal esteem. For some groups, work has a religious dimension; for others, it is a form of personal development, but the most important determiner of social prestige in work is how much someone earns at the end of the month and the image that they project to the outside world.

      In Spain, there are moves to raise the retirement age to 70, and even beyond that to 73. If we go down that road, we must be generous to other generations in order to ensure that they have an opportunity to gain knowledge in the first place by taking up a job. Otherwise, how will they be able to live their lives and find personal fulfilment? The watchword is inter-generational solidarity. It is shocking that some people must be forced to retire at 73. They are blocking the way for other people to have a career. I support your report, Ms Gafarova – it is sound – but I think that there is more work to be done on the issue. There are many amendments that would add to the work that you have done, and that is not always the case.

Mr President, as of January, you will no longer be the President of the Assembly. You will go back to your republican passions, which I have very much missed down here on the floor of the Chamber. I am sorry, of course, that you will no longer serve as President, but I am looking forward to your return, with all your republican fire, to the floor of the Chamber. Thank you for all your work.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Mr Shipley, an Observer from Canada.

Mr SHIPLEY (Canada) – Thank you, Mr President. I think you may have left the oldest till last in this discussion of discrimination against older workers. I thank the rapporteur for the report.

On 1 October this year, the United Nations celebrated its international day of the older person. It presents us with an opportune moment to reflect on the important changes taking place in our societies as populations age and to rethink our approaches to dealing with older people in the workplace. Although many countries are better prepared to deal with those shifts and the challenges that they pose, many others, including prosperous countries with strong economies and high employment levels, may not be equipping themselves to address the needs of older workers.

Addressing those challenges requires an understanding of the conditions faced by older workers. In my own Parliament, a committee has been studying the experience of older workers in the work force. The experts have told us that older workers tend to be disproportionately affected by company downsizing or restructuring, especially during recessionary periods such as the one that we have just gone through. Older workers are seen as dispensable.

Once they are out of the work force, older workers face greater obstacles re-entering it due to a combination of factors, including the fact that they may have skills very specific to their previous occupations, often in declining industries, which are less relevant to emerging industries. Older workers tend to have less education or advanced training than younger workers, and some employers have the perception that investing in older workers will not bring sufficient returns. Even while actively working, many older workers report that they receive less training than their younger counterparts, creating further obstacles to remaining in the work force.

In Canada, we have taken some steps to help overcome some of those obstacles. For example, as my colleague Mr Hawn mentioned, mandatory retirement has been removed in most of Canada. We have implemented skills training for older workers, linked the unemployed with job opportunities involving their trade and professional expertise and removed some of the restrictive conditions on pension plans, old age security benefits and employment insurance. As my colleague also noted, employers could do more to help older workers remain in the work force and to profit from their valuable life and work skills. Suggestions include tying life-long training and continuous learning to the workplace, allowing flexible work schedules, telework and job sharing and providing mental health and family support. Governments can do their part to help by supporting organisations that work on behalf of older workers in such areas as job searching, training and matching unemployed workers with employers looking for specific skills. We should never overlook the value of people’s experience and life skills.

Thank you, Mr President. I congratulate you on the incredible leadership that you have given this Assembly, and I wish you well in future.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Shipley.

That concludes the list of speakers, so I call Ms Garafova to respond to the debate.

Ms GARAFOVA (Azerbaijan) – I thank everybody who has contributed to this debate, and I thank the members of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination for their support during the preparation of this report. Finally, I thank the secretariat of the committee, particularly Ms Marine Trevisan.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Ms Wurm on behalf of the committee.

Ms WURM (Austria)* – In this report, Ms Gafarova has addressed an important question affecting all member States on the continent. Discrimination against older people – I am not using the ageing of the population deliberately; the terminology is discriminatory – will definitely be a preoccupation for us over the next years and decades. Europe is the continent that will experience negative population growth in the next 50 years. Fortunately, life expectancy here is going up, but on the other hand, people are often put on the scrap heap even at the age of 50, and women more often than men. That is why the rapporteur has highlighted the issue. Incentives must be created so that women and men can stay in work longer: perhaps measures making it easier for employers to hire older workers, or social security measures such as facilitation or tax relief. On the other hand, fit and healthy workers should have the opportunity to stay in work longer. Such measures are important, as are labour market policies.

Ms Gafarova has highlighted important measures that Governments can take, for instance to change people’s attitude so that older people are not put on the scrap heap. Various programmes can be brought in to change this mentality and attitude toward older people.

      I hope that you will support this report, which deals with a question that is important for all our societies.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Wurm.

The Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination has presented a draft resolution to which six amendments and one sub-amendment 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 the following amendments, which were unanimously approved by the Committee, should be declared as adopted by the Assembly under Rule 33.11: 1, 2 and 5.

Is that so, Ms Wurm?

Ms WURM (Austria)* – Yes.

THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone object?

As there is no objection, I declare that amendments 1, 2 and 5 to the draft resolution have been adopted, as follows:

Amendment 1, tabled by the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 1, to replace the words “older people” with the following words: “older workers (active persons aged between 50 and 64) and older persons more generally (65 and older)”.

Amendment 2, tabled by the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 3, after the words “to introduce positive action for”, to replace the words “older persons wishing to enter or re-enter the labour market as well as for older employees” with the following words: “older workers wishing to enter or re-enter the labour market and for older employees, including those who wish to continue working beyond pensionable age.”

Amendment 5, tabled by the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5.6, after the words “raising public awareness of”, replace the words “the issue of ageism and its ramifications for everyday life” with the following words: “the substantial experience of older workers, and promote innovative approaches for their employment, such as flexible work schemes wherever appropriate (for example part-time work, job-sharing, task rotation);”.

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

We come to Amendment 3, tabled by the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 3, to replace the second sentence with the following sentence:

“The particularly vulnerable position of persons affected by multiple forms of discrimination by cumulating different criteria, such as age, gender or ethnic origin, should be specifically taken into account when it comes to conceiving legislative or policy responses.”

I call Mr Hanson to support Amendment 3.

Mr HANSON (Estonia) – This amendment introduces into the draft resolution some of the more differentiated criteria for discrimination in the labour market, which may in some cases be accumulated with older age. This is developed in the explanatory memorandum.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Hanson.

We come to sub-amendment 1 to Amendment 3, tabled by the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, which is, in Amendment 3, delete the words “, such as age, gender or ethnic origin.”.

I call Mr Ghiletchi to support sub-amendment 1.

Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – I move the sub-amendment, which proposes to delete the words, “such as age, gender or ethnic origin.” If we are to list the grounds for discrimination, we should list all or none, to have a general formula “cumulating different criteria”.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Ghiletchi.

What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

Mr HANSON (Estonia) – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT* – The committee is obviously in favour of the amendment.

The vote is open.

The sub-amendment is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 3, as amended?

That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Ms WURM (Austria)* - In favour.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

We come to Amendment 4, tabled by the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 5.4, to add the following words: “, in particular for older women who have had long periods without paid employment, for example whilst raising children or caring for other family members, and whose employment has been marked by temporary and part-time contracts;”.

I call Mr Hanson to support Amendment 4.

Mr HANSON (Estonia) – It is a well-known fact, backed by studies and statistics, that among older workers, older women face particular difficulties when they wish to re-enter the job market.

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

That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Ms WURM (Austria)* - In favour.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

We come to Amendment 6, tabled by Mr Reimann, Mr Haupert, Mr Hörster, Lord Anderson, Ms Durrieu and Mr Gross, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 5.5, to insert the following paragraph:

“protect older persons' personal mobility, in particular in aiming to guarantee their journey to work by not hindering the extension of their driving licence with unnecessary administrative requirements.”

I call Mr Reimann to support Amendment 6.

Mr REIMANN (Switzerland)* – As I have said, a job that people do not have access to is not something that they want, and that applies particularly to older people who have to drive. We are talking about obstacles to maintaining a driving licence. The State should not erect extra hindrances, which have nothing to do with road safety, to older people keeping their driving licence. That is what my amendment is about. There should be no discrimination against older people’s extending their driving licence automatically, therefore allowing them to get to work.

THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 6?

Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – I am sorry, President, but this amendment is irrelevant to our report, and I am not convinced that the Assembly should take a position on it. It does not bring much to the resolution. I am against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT* – So that is the opinion of the committee.

The vote is open.

Amendment 6 is rejected.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13292, as amended. A simple majority is required.

The vote is open.

Excellent work. And thank you, of course, to the secretariat of the committee, which as usual has also done excellent work.

I call Mr Schennach on a point of order.

Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* - I apologise, President, but I have to make a correction. If you speak freely there are certain risks when it comes to the minutes. I am afraid that in the Syria debate there was a rather serious mistake and, as I preside over the Union for the Mediterranean, I cannot leave it uncorrected.

The Official Report says that there are “50 000 Armenian, Christian and Chaldean refugees” in Syria. However, yesterday I said that in the Kurdish, Armenian and Chaldean-controlled areas there were 850 000 refugees with no international assistance. To leave the 50 000 figure uncorrected would be a slur on my reputation, and that is why I ask you to see to it that it is corrected. I crave your understanding.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Schennach, we take note of that. I assume that the Table Office will deal with that as well. We will correct the verbatim record and check that that happens.

3. Strengthening the Institution of Ombudsman in Europe

THE PRESIDENT* – We now come to the debate on the report by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, entitled “Strengthening the institution of Ombudsman in Europe” (Document 13236), presented by Mr Jordi Xuclà.

In order to finish by 1.00 p.m., I will interrupt the list of speakers at about 12.45 p.m. to allow time for replies and the votes.

Mr Xuclà, you have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to debate.

      Mr XUCLÀ (Spain)* – The institution of ombudsman is crucial to strengthening democracy, the rule of law and human rights, but throughout Europe, no single model is followed: some countries have a single general ombudsman, others have regional or federal ombudsmen and others have specialised ombudsmen by sector. The purpose of the report is not to impose a single model, but to encourage member States without such an institution to create one as soon as possible. It is fundamental to defending citizens against maladministration and breaches of human rights.

      In 2003, the Assembly adopted Recommendation 1615. In addition, the Committee of Ministers has made recommendations and the Venice Commission has done a lot of work. Ten years on, this report assesses the progress made in the creation of new, and the strengthening of existing, ombudsmen. Paragraph 4.1 lists the basic features of an ombudsman: first, independence and impartiality protected in law, and the constitution if possible; secondly, an appointment procedure overseen by parliament, to which the ombudsman should report; thirdly, the authority to investigate maladministration by all bodies of the executive and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms; fourthly, unrestricted access to all documents and detention facilities; and fifthly, and importantly, a right to challenge the constitutionality of laws before constitutional courts.

      Following constitutional reform on 12 September 2010 and a law passed in 2012, an ombudsman was established in Turkey – previously the most populous and politically important country without one – on 23 March 2013. Shortly after he took office, I had a constructive discussion with the new ombudsman about how the institution could be improved, and members can read my detailed conclusions on page 15 of the report. We hail the institution of an ombudsman in Turkey.

      The ombudsman created in Denmark following a constitutional reform in 1953 and the venerable institution in Norway constitute the two great Nordic reference models. Since the middle of the last century, many member States have adopted constitutional and legislative reforms in order to establish an ombudsman. For example, 30 years ago today, an ombudsman was established in Spain called the Defensor del Pueblo. As I said, however, there is no single model, and nor should there be; there are distinct profiles: France has the Médiateur, while many other countries, including Germany, have specialised ombudsmen by sector. We must follow countries’ constitutional traditions – this plurality is the basis of this house of democracy and of respect for human rights.

It is important that ombudsmen have clear-cut functions, so the draft resolution encourages some member States to make clearer the distribution of functions between the different sectorial, regional and federal bodies with the responsibilities of an ombudsman and to improve the co-ordination between them in order that they can defend the rights of citizens. I would also encourage member States that do not yet have an ombudsman to introduce one in order to guarantee the protection of fundamental rights and the rule of law.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Xuclà. You have six minutes to reply to the speakers later on. I now call Ms Kazakova, to speak on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Ms KAZAKOVA (Russian Federation)* – I congratulate the rapporteur on this high-quality document. We support him in recognising the importance of the ombudsman as a tried-and-tested means of protecting human rights throughout the world. To be effective, an ombudsman should be independent and unaccountable to government. Of course, that does not happen everywhere, but it is what we should be striving towards. It is also important that the ombudsman not be subject to criminal or civil prosecution and that he cannot be arrested or have his premises searched.

In the Russian Federation, we have national and regional ombudsmen, as well as ombudsmen for the rights of the child, entrepreneurs and students, and, under President Putin, work is under way on one to defend the rights of disabled people. To ensure public support for the ombudsmen, our parliament recommends worthy candidates with the necessary clout, authority and experience in protecting human rights. Like parliaments in many countries, the State Duma works constantly to strengthen the ombudsmen and looks at the experience of other countries where the institution works well.

In conclusion, we support the conclusions of the report and thank the rapporteur for his good work.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Kazakova.

      The next speaker is Mr Palacios, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Mr PALACIOS (Spain)* – I congratulate the rapporteur on this very interesting report, which bolsters the position of the ombudsman—an office that is vital in strengthening democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

This idea has to be welcomed by the Council of Europe. From here, we must press all member States to set up an office of ombudsman and give it the financial wherewithal to deal with the public’s complaints and to influence public authorities so as to ensure that they practise good governance. Such an office should protect citizens from breaches of their rights, supervise and investigate the activities of public authorities, flag shortcomings in legislation and suggest possible changes to the law. It should also look for solutions to problems with citizens’ rights and ensure that they are dealt with by the appropriate authorities and bodies.

The ombudsman has to do many things and cannot simply be viewed as a decorative figure. The institution should certainly not be viewed as a waste of money, and its budget should not be cut as a result of the economic crisis. For the ombudsman to be able to carry out all its tasks it must be an institution that is public, independent, impartial, objective, free of charge and easily accessible to the public. It must also be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

We are very much in favour of each State having a single general ombudsman, and not a host of sectoral ombudsmen, as is the case in many countries across Europe. We take the view that there is a need to put an end to that pointless state of affairs. In Spain, alongside the national ombudsman, we have 17 ombudsmen in the autonomous regions. We think that that is a waste of money, and it also confuses people, as they do not know where to turn. That is why autonomous ombudsmen should either be scrapped or properly co-ordinated with national ombudsmen, as paragraph 5 of the draft resolution recommends.

We welcome the fact that, as the document was being drawn up, Turkey decided to set up the office of ombudsman. We would encourage all member States of the Council of Europe that do not yet have an ombudsman to set up such an office as soon as possible, ensure that it is recognised by the constitution and stipulate that the ombudsman is appointed and held to account by parliament.

We have an institution in Spain that has been up and running for 30 years. It is well embedded and is held in high esteem by the public. That is why we believe that we can serve as a model for all countries that have either recently set up the office of ombudsman or do not yet have such an institution.

We encourage everyone to vote in favour of the report. Above all, we would encourage all countries that do not yet have an ombudsman to create such an office as soon as possible.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Palacios.

      The next speaker is Mr Gunnarsson, on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr GUNNARSSON (Sweden) – I congratulate the Legal Affairs Committee, and especially the rapporteur, Mr Xuclà, on an excellent and important report.

As I come from Sweden, I cannot help but feel proud of our having invented the institution of the parliamentary ombudsman. As is stated in the explanatory memorandum, the Swedish system was formed in the early 19th century, at the same time as our first steps were taken towards a representative parliamentary political system.

The institution of ombudsman is a crucial tool for us parliamentarians. Since we do not hold executive powers in our respective countries, we need some sort of tool for scrutinising the public sector that our governments are governing. Without the eyes and ears of an independent institution working in a professional way in accordance with the principle of the rule of law, we risk public authorities and agencies not being transparent and not respecting the fundamental rights we have all agreed to stand up for.

Besides being an important part of the scrutinising powers of a parliament, the institution is also important for individual people. I had a look at the website of the parliamentary ombudsman in Sweden. As of yesterday, it had dealt with 105 cases this year, and it gave a critique in respect of most of them. On looking more closely at those cases, it becomes clear that they involve people in very vulnerable situations such as detention, as well as people who are subject to court decisions in sensitive circumstances such as custody cases.

The report pinpoints all those things and much more. Europe needs strong ombudsman institutions to foster public services and to ensure that our fundamental rights are respected. We as parliamentarians need them to be able to do our job in scrutinising our governments properly and effectively. Our citizens need them to be able to get restitution if they have been ill-treated or denied their rights.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Gunnarsson.

      The next speaker is Ms Schuster, on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Ms SCHUSTER (Germany)* – I thank Jordi for the report, which highlights a key issue for the Assembly: the need to strengthen the institutions that the citizen turns to when their human rights are trampled on.

The report draws the attention of our parliaments and governments back home to whether they are doing everything they can to strengthen the institution of ombudsman. Jordi is right that there is not one single model of the institution of ombudsman everywhere in Europe. The various institutions have grown up differently, depending on each country’s history and constitution. It is only normal that there is not one single version, and indeed he has not advocated any single version as the model that must be adopted. We must do everything we can to strengthen these institutions so that the criteria are fulfilled, but a single model cannot apply everywhere.

In my trips around the continent, I have met lots of ombudsmen in my time, with different types of institutions behind them. Sometimes there are thematic ombudsmen who have remits such as dealing with the rights of the child or of disabled people, and some federal states have several ombudsmen, but one thing that is really important is that these have to be genuine institutions and not just paper tigers. I have also seen ombudsmen who seemed to be very committed people, but who could not do their job effectively. For example, some of them could only issue recommendations because they were not really independent. Others were appointed by the government and expected to reflect its opinion, while some were swamped by work and could not effectively deal with the cases as they came in because the staff and financial resources available to them were kept so restricted.

The aim should be to have good, independent, well-equipped ombudsmen with a broad mandate who can be a real support to citizens. It is therefore very important that we pass on these recommendations to the Committee of Ministers, and that we pass on to society and to our governments the recommendations of the Venice Commission, and basically do our work back home.

      In closing, I would like to say that my party is for the first time - since 1949 - no longer represented in the German Bundestag. That was a surprise to me, and it means that this will, unfortunately, be my last appearance in this Chamber. I would like to thank my political group, and Anne Brasseur, the leader of my group, who has always been a great model for me. I would like to thank my colleagues in the group and the committee secretariat, including Andrew and everybody who has worked so productively with us on the various reports, and, of course, all my colleagues here in this Assembly. I have learned a great deal here, and have found a lot of new friends here, and it has been an honour for me to work for the Council of Europe, promoting human rights, democracy and the rule of law. I hope you will continue to devote great energy to this great beating heart of Europe. I am very grateful for every day I was here.

      The PRESIDENT* - Thank you, Ms Schuster. I think that ringing applause was a sign of the esteem in which you are held. You have been with us for a number of years now. You have served as a rapporteur on many subjects and have always produced high-quality reports, so we thank you most warmly. It is always sad to see some of our number leaving us, but unfortunately that is life, that is democracy, and it is the voters who decide.

      You talked about friendship, and I would like to assure you of our friendship towards you, and I am sure you will have an opportunity to see your friends again – and, who knows, maybe even to come back to the Parliamentary Assembly one day – but in all events I personally want to thank you for everything you have done and the valuable contribution you have made. This is a place where you learn what friendship means and learn about tolerance and respect. Thank you very, very much.

      I have lost my place now. Emotions are running high this morning.

      I call Ms Karapetyan.

      Ms KARAPETYAN (Armenia) - Mr President, dear colleagues, as the rapporteur has stressed: “Ombudsman institutions play a crucial role in consolidating democracy, the rule of law and human rights. While there is no standardised model across Europe all share the goal of reviewing maladministration and protecting the rights of individuals.” The concept of the ombudsman reverberated worldwide in the course of the 20th century. The constitutional concept of independent, easily accessible and so-called “soft” control of public administration through highly reputable persons is nowadays inextricably linked to the principles of democracy and the rule of law, as it makes an essential contribution to the efficiency of those principles. The ombudsman institution is one of the main places where the citizen faces democracy or the lack of it.

      The Paris principles encompass a number of essential criteria to be followed for ombudsmen to be efficient. These include: a clearly defined, broad-based human rights mandate, incorporated in legislation or in constitutions; independence from government; membership that broadly reflects the composition of society; appropriate co-operation with civil society, including NGOs; and adequate resources.

The Paris principles state that such an institution must have the right to submit to the government or other appropriate authority advice and recommendations on “any situation of violation of human rights which it decides to take up”. One of the main guarantees of the effectiveness of the ombudsman institution’s investigation power is the duty of disclosure, which is also guaranteed by the Paris principles.

In Armenia, the human rights defender institution can already be considered as an institution that has a crucial role for the people. That can be seen from the amount of complaints the defender’s office receives. Between 2006 and 2013 the institution of the human rights defender of Armenia was accredited with “A” status by the International Coordinating Committee, meaning it is in full compliance with the Paris principles.

It is important to note that from the very beginning in the 18th century the role of the ombudsmen was to protect citizens’ rights and they claimed to be independent from the judiciary and the Executive. Unfortunately, experience shows that in some countries this principle is disregarded, and some of them are serving not only the Executive and authorities of their country of origin, but also another country.

Independence and equity are the points that should be stressed most for strengthening the institution of the human right defender.

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

Mr BIEDROŃ (Poland) – I thank the rapporteur for his important and useful report.

Poland should be taken as a positive example in promoting the institution of the ombudsperson in Europe. Poland introduced this institution in 1987, just before the collapse of communism. Although it was thought to be just a decorative institution, thanks to the courage and personal skills of the first ombudswoman - Professor Ewa Łętowska - it became a fully independent and powerful institution, winning enormous public trust and being responsive to people’s complaints.

As the rapporteur mentioned, the Polish model has been followed by other countries in the region, including Hungary, Georgia, Lithuania, Latvia, Moldova, Romania, the Russian Federation and Ukraine. Over the years the institution of the ombudsperson in Poland has been strengthened by comprehensive constitutional provisions that guarantee the ombudsperson a high level of independence. Poland was fortunate to have great lawyers as ombudspersons, which was crucial in building the authority of the office. Sometimes it is a question not of how such institutions are regulated, but of who is performing the role and how willing they are to oppose abuses of human rights by the government. Therefore, the selection procedures for the ombudsperson are of crucial importance so as to secure the best candidates for the office.

One of the most important competences of the ombudsperson is the ability to challenge laws before the constitutional court. A lot of important human rights problems were resolved in Poland as a result of the ombudsperson’s initiatives. Sometimes constitutional interventions concern technical issues, which at first sight are difficult to understand, but which have great practical importance for thousands of affected citizens. Thanks to employing a staff of 300 professionals, the ombudsperson institution has the capability to deal with almost any human rights issues that arise in Poland.

Just two days ago, the ombudswoman, Professor Irena Lipowicz, asked the Polish prosecutor’s office to examine the consequences of the operations of the National Security Agency in Polish territory through the use of the Prism system and the violation of the privacy of internet users. This one intervention shows the enormous importance of the ombudsperson’s integrity in fighting for human rights. Therefore, I encourage the Council of Europe States that do not have a strong and independent ombudsperson institution to follow the Polish example.

The PRESIDENT* - Thank you. I cannot see Mr Zourabian, so the next speaker is Mr Neill.

Mr NEILL (United Kingdom) – I, too, welcome the work of the rapporteur and his very good report.

The report rightly stresses that there is no one-size-fits-all model appropriate for all ombudsmen in Europe, but that there are certain principles that we wish to see adhered to across the piece. I was interested to note that the explanatory memorandum makes reference to the United Kingdom having adopted what is described as a “weak” model for our ombudsman because of the “MP filter”. We need to remember that the ombudsman is part of a system of checks and balances that is necessary to civil society and that the state of development of the different checks and balances will vary and therefore have differing impacts when aligned with the institution of the ombudsman.

For example, as a constituency MP I regularly receive requests to pass on complaints of maladministration, and I certainly take the role of the MP filter very seriously. That might be because in the United Kingdom MPs represent individual constituencies and so constituents have quite a strong moral and political hold on them. I can see that in a list system of elections that hold might not be as strong, so a different system can apply. Similarly, in France there are different systems of interrelation for the ombudsman and the administrative and constitutional courts, which has been well developed for many years, so we need to look at how those matters inter-relate.

      I welcome the report’s reference to the importance of the ombudsman as a means of redress for not only individuals, but legal personalities, because, as I am sure we all know, companies and enterprises can also be victims of maladministration and injustice as a result of decisions of the State or its executive agencies. That has an economic impact on their activities and a human impact on their staff, shareholders and the communities in which they carry out their operations. I also appreciate the report’s emphasis on the importance of the ombudsman’s staff having proper technical expertise.

There was some discussion earlier about whether we should have a national model, a series of sectoral models, as we have in the United Kingdom with the five public sector ombudsmen, or individual regional ombudsmen. I am not going to argue which is the best, but I will say, as a former local government minister, that we should embark on a programme of devolution of powers to local authorities. It is important that there are adequate ombudsman facilities to deal with the activities of local authorities at their level. I think that it is probably appropriate to do that on a sectoral basis, where there is proper expertise, but we also need to strengthen the powers of the ombudsman – I sought to do that as minister – so that there is a genuine means of redress. It is important not only that the ombudsman can make a finding of maladministration, but that there is then a proper follow-up to ensure appropriate recompense for victims. That is important for ensuring the credibility of the institution. This is a good report and I am very happy to welcome it.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Neill. The next speaker is Ms Gorghiu.

      Ms GORGHIU (Romania) – I congratulate the rapporteur on the excellent work that allows us to have this debate today. The institution of the ombudsman is essential for the consolidation of democratic societies in the 21st century. Like other colleagues, I believe that any contribution on this topic ought to acknowledge the particular merit of Swedish society in the early 19th century. The Swedish Parliament came up with this generous institutional innovation aimed at addressing an imbalance of power that was affecting ordinary citizens and furthering the separation of powers in a modernising society.

      I am aware that the debate questions the efficiency of the institution in countries where it was imported beyond the boundaries of Nordic societies. Nevertheless, I am one of the optimists who see a positive trend in the expansion of national ombudsman institutions in Europe. I believe that optimism is the key to the success of any generous institutional initiative aimed at helping the weak when they are confronted with possible abuses by the strong.

It is my conviction that we, as decision makers, have a duty to see that the institution of the ombudsman is not only expanded to all our member States, but enabled to keep up with the new realities and challenges facing our societies. In January 2009 an interactive Internet guide on the European ombudsman website was launched in all official language of the European Union. It aims to direct complainants to the body best placed to respond to them, whether the services of the national or regional ombudsman in member States or existing problem-solving mechanisms established by the European Commission, such as Europortal or the SOLVIT network for cross-border problems. Thanks to that guide, citizens can identify the most appropriate complaint-handling body at the outset, sparing themselves the frustration and delay that might occur if they complained to the wrong body.

That strategy also helps to increase people’s trust in the national, regional and international institutions, which ensures social stability. Such a development is proof of the importance of unrestricted access to the internet in order to make effective use of other rights. In 2012 more than 19 000 people received advice thanks to the aforementioned portal. This impressive figure tells us that electronic communication is being used as a means of communicating efficiently on matters relating to people’s fundamental rights. The accessibility of complaining mechanisms is important, but more important is the legal framework that regulates their functioning. This Assembly’s earlier debates on topics related to the institution of the ombudsman have highlighted its uneven development in our member States. In some cases they have a weak mandate, requiring us to have a closer look at ways of improving them.

As the ombudsman was as innovation allowing us to benefit from the lessons learnt earlier by the direct experiences of Sweden and other Nordic societies, allow me to share with you the Romanian experience. Although it has now been running for quite a few years, with a mandate whose strength is generally considered adequate, recent scrutiny has shown that the Romanian ombudsman would benefit from better clarification of the procedure of appointment, tenure and duties. I intend to take advantage of the upcoming constitutional update in my country and put forward an amendment aimed at solving these issues through constitutional provisions. I congratulate the rapporteur again.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Gorghiu. I cannot see Mr Sabella, so the next speaker is Ms Giannakaki.

Ms GIANNAKAKI (Greece)* – I thank the rapporteur for this excellent work. I would like to flag up one thing. The ombudsman is an historical term, but it has to be reflected in the texts of the Council of Europe and the European Union, and the term might be used differently. In my country the ombudsman is, by definition, responsible for control and scrutiny, so he or she not only safeguards the rights and freedoms of citizens, but puts in place the framework for the promulgation of new laws. If individual rights are enshrined in law, the ombudsman can carefully scrutinise the details and propose that rights be enshrined in statute. Essentially, the ombudsman is there not only to supervise, but to act as an intermediary between the public and the institutions, so we would want to have a strict legal framework for the ombudsman to carry out his or her role. If there is an appeal against the administration, the ombudsman cannot reject a role as a supervisor, because he would then be duty bound to supervise the work of the public administration. It would be quite wrong to believe that an ombudsman should only act as an intermediary or mediator. The ombudsman’s role is also to supervise the implementation of decisions, to ensure that proper legal doctrine is followed, and to submit arguments to convince the administration to provide redress on the basis of public law that has been shaped by case law.

      In Greece, we have dragged our heels when it comes to instituting the office of ombudsman, but we now have an independent authority that is useful to the smooth functioning of the state. The ombudsman can resolve problems and exercise scrutiny over public bodies, while, at the same time, suggesting that other rights be enshrined in law. This is what is currently happening.

Inter-state co-operation by various ombudsmen is extremely important for co-operation between member States in a variety of different fields. That is why we can safely say that so far the institution of ombudsman has been successful and we should not underestimate the important the role plays in co-ordinating and providing information to the Commissioner for Human Rights here in the Council of Europe.

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

      Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – Has anyone ever heard of an ombudsman who cares about defending officials, but not citizens who appeal against the violation of their rights? I will talk about such an individual in a moment. First, I would like to remind colleagues of the most important principle, which is that an ombudsman is the key body at state level for the defence of human rights. If it does not function in a proper way it will create problems. We have heard from one of Russia’s Pussy Riot prisoners of conscience, who described the terrible conditions for women imprisoned in Mordovia, one of Russia’s republics. I did not hear any reaction to that from Mr Lukin, the Russian ombudsman.

      The situation is not much different in Ukraine, where people in prison have cut their veins in protest at the constant violence of guards and inhuman living conditions. What was the reaction of the Ukrainian ombudsman, Valerya Lutkivska? The violations are ignored. Even worse, grievances are rejected with the simple explanation that it is none of her business. Human rights NGOs have raised a huge number of such cases with Ms Lutkivska. She has responded by accusing them of bullying her and providing false information.

      Some time ago, the Ukrainian and the Russian ombudsmen signed a joint agreement to react quickly to human rights violations. However, they ignored the illegal arrest of Ukrainian fishermen, and the murder of three other fishermen by Russian border guards in the shared water territory of the Azov Sea.

      There have been brutal violations of the rights of Ms Tymoshenko, the opposition leader, including physical violence. There was only one reaction from Ms Lutkivska: she advised Ms Tymoshenko to respect the court. The ombudsman has strongly rejected calls for the President to free Ms Tymoshenko.

      The case of Anhar Kochneva, a Ukrainian hostage in Syria, was also ignored by Ms Lutkivska. She stated that the case was for some other state institution to deal with. She rejected an appeal by one Ukrainian MP, saying that the funds allocated to her department were too small. There are many other cases I could mention, but time is limited.

      Ms Lutkivska presented statistics relating to the number of appeals heard in the ombudsman’s annual report to Parliament. She claimed that there were more than 100 000 appeals, but documents show that the number was actually less than 17 000. There was not a single successful case where Ms Lutkivska had done her job as defender of human rights. The result was disastrous – less than one third of Parliament has voted in favour of her report. That is a catastrophic result, the first of its kind in the history of the Ukrainian ombudsman.

      The same low assessment of Ms Lutkivska’s professionalism was provided by the United Nations Development Programme office in Ukraine. The rapporteur identified a low level of credibility among society in the ombudsman’s actions. Earlier high levels of credibility in the ombudsman are falling sharply. In Poland, only 14% of people have a negative opinion of their ombudsman. In Ukraine, our ombudsman received no positive feedback. A resolution of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly in Monaco focused on this point. One paragraph reads: “The Assembly calls on the Ukrainian authorities to reinforce the position of the ombudsperson and to ensure that the post is occupied by an individual with relevant experience in human rights.”

      Strengthening the institution of the ombudsman is very important and I thank the rapporteur. No less important is the choice of ombudsman. The question is whether this person will, in a professional and independent manner, defend human rights. I call on the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights to pay more attention to the activities of the Ukrainian ombudsman.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. Ms Guţu, you expressed a wish to take the floor. The floor is yours.

Ms GUŢU (Republic of Moldova)* – I congratulate my colleague, Mr Jordi Xuclà, on this useful report. I would like to take the opportunity to note how useful reports discussed at the Council of Europe and the resolutions we pass are for us representatives of national legislatures. Our colleague draws our attention to the rule of law and strengthening the institution of the ombudsman in the member States of the Council of Europe. The resolution is a logical follow-up to the report. It should be considered not only by the member States of the Council of Europe, but by partner countries Morocco and Tunisia, where the Arab Spring left a less painful trace because they have reached sufficient political maturity and are engaged on the path to democratisation.

One key principle of the institution of ombudsmen, as is mentioned in paragraph 4.11 of the draft resolution, is the independence and impartiality of the ombudsman. Mediation does not mean being involved in political affairs or adopting attitudes towards political events, because it could lead to undesirable misunderstandings. Our colleague from Ukraine has just mentioned this clearly. An ombudsman has to protect the rights of all citizens, not just officials. The political affiliation of the mediator is inadmissible.

I would like to mention a Moldovan ombudsman who participated in an international forum on frozen conflicts. She did not mention the situation concerning the violation of human rights in Transnistria, the secessionist area in Moldovan territory, but referred to breaches of human rights in Nagorno-Karabakh. She sided with one of the countries involved in that conflict. This was totally disproportionate and led to an international scandal between the Republic of Moldova and one of the countries involved in the conflict. She was awarded a medal, although I will not say by which country. The ombudsman was elected by parliament when the Communist Party was governing, a fact that again shows that impartiality should be fundamental to the ombudsmen’s performance of their tasks.

      The election of ombudsmen is a task that falls to parliaments. We are all members of parliament, and we should recognise that political ambition and party interests do not make for good counsel. It is up to us to decide, as objectively as possible and without discrimination, who can best deal with the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens and the good administration of State institutions.

      We should review national legislation on ombudsmen, who are an important presence in public life, to ensure that they have free access to information. In the Republic of Moldova, the parliament is currently examining a new law about the ombudsman. The right path to promote today’s draft resolution is to adjust our domestic legislation along the lines envisaged in the report. I thank you, Mr Rapporteur, for your report, and I wish you every success.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Guţu. Mr Xuclà, you have six minutes to respond to the debate.

Mr XUCLÀ (Spain)* – Thank you, Mr President. Mr Neill is absolutely right that what unites us are the principles and that we should respect the existence of different models, so it is to the principles that we need to pay attention.

      I exhort member States that do not yet have an ombudsman to create such an institution. Having heard the various speeches, it is important to recall that some member States have ombudsmen that do not fulfil the requirements of independence, impartiality and distance from the executive. Ours is a dual message: to invite countries to strengthen such principles by creating ombudsmen; and, particularly through the monitoring process, although it applies to all 47 member States, to remember the importance of the independence of ombudsmen and of the criteria set out in paragraph 4.1 of the draft resolution.

      Ms Giannakaki, I used the term “ombudsperson” as well in my report, but each member State uses its own word rather than “ombudsman”. For example, in Spain, we have the “defensor del pueblo”. Ombudsman is a well-established and old term, and we should not change a tradition through making such an amendment, but I will of course consider what you have said.

      I thank the delegations of Denmark and Turkey for their warm welcomes. I am particularly grateful to the secretariat for its work, and the secretary, Agnieszka Szklanna, for her involvement in the production of the report and for her contributions earlier this morning.

      May I refer to my friend and colleague in the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, Marina Schuster, who defended the position of our group? She is leaving the Assembly after several years of work here. Marina, you are very warm-hearted and very much concerned about the protection of human rights, so I thank you for your involvement. Wherever you are, I know that you will always be on the side of human rights and working to support them. I wish you and your family all the very best for the future.

      This is the last day of the last part-session of 2013, so I want to thank Mr Mignon, who will be President until the end of January, but is finishing his last plenary session, for his presidency. Mr President, you have all the necessary qualities, know-how and savoir faire, and I wish you a great future, good health and much political success.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Xuclà. I call the Chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Mr Chope.

      Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – I congratulate our rapporteur, who has brought tremendous and infectious enthusiasm to the subject of ombudsmen. Some committee members were not perhaps very enthusiastic, but he has got everyone excited about it. The fact that so many members have spoken today is testament to that.

      As the rapporteur said, this is the last day of last part-session for this year, so it is a time for thinking about those members who may return in different roles in 2014. We are all sad to hear that Marina Schuster will not be returning in 2014 because of the verdict of the electorate. Marina, you should try to change the German electoral system – perhaps the British system would suit you better – but that debate is for another occasion. In paying tribute to you, people have mentioned that you have been a member of the Assembly for years. I looked up your record, and you have been here for less than four years, which shows what an enormous impact you have made in that short time. I hope that you will be able to attend one of our committee meetings in November or December. You have had a prominent role in our committee, being the first vice-chair, as well as our general rapporteur on the death penalty, and you were recently appointed as our rapporteur on drones. Thank you very much for your work for the Assembly, and particularly for the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

      Mr President, you will also take on a different role in 2014. Our committee has much to be thankful to you for. As the chairman, I thank you for your indulgence and your advice and counsel during the past two years. I put on the record my appreciation, as a committee chair, of how you have involved committee chairs more in the Assembly’s work by asking us to attend meetings of the extended Presidential Committee for discussions about the agenda for Bureau meetings. That worthwhile reform is much appreciated.

Mr President, during the past few months and indeed over the past two years, I have detected that you are taking a greater interest in the English language, and perhaps even developing an affection for it. Following our short debate in the Bureau this morning about rapporteurs and rapporteuses, you will be interested to see that we have established today, because no amendments have been tabled about this, that the term “ombudsman” is gender-neutral, as is its French equivalent, “mediateur”. I hope that that establishes an important precedent for when the rules committee considers the assignment given to it by the Bureau today.

      I thank everyone for their contributions to the debate. Mr President, I am sure that you will have many important roles to play in future in the Council of Europe, which you have served so well as President over the past two years – you have a lot more to give in the future.

      THE PRESIDENT – My friend, thank you in English.

      (The speaker continued in French.)

      The debate is closed.

The Legal Affairs Committee has presented a draft resolution to which two amendments and one sub-amendment have been tabled. The amendments will be taken in numerical order. I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

We come to Amendment 1, tabled by Ms Gorghiu, Mr Neacşu, Mr Stroe, Mr Florea, Mr Fenechiu and Mr Korodi, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 4.2, to insert the following words: “and include, where needed, the Ombudsman's mandate, appointment, duties and revocation in national laws and Constitution, where possible”.

I call Ms Gorghiu to support Amendment 1.

Ms GORGHIU (Romania) – As I said in my speech, I tabled the amendment because I wanted to underline the idea that we must strengthen the role of the ombudsman.

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

I call Mr Xuclà.

Mr XUCLÀ (Spain)* – Ms Gorghiu, you defended your amendment yesterday in committee so that you would be able to defend it in plenary. I said that I did not want to oppose the amendment, because it appeared to be apposite. However, I ask you to consider paragraph 4.1.1 of the draft resolution, which states that the ombudsman must be protected “in law and, if possible, in the constitution”. I hope that you feel that your views are represented by that proposal.

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

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

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

I am sorry, but I cannot give the floor to Ms Gorghiu because I cannot interrupt the vote.

Amendment 1 is rejected.

      Do you wish to speak now, Ms Gorghiu?

      Ms GORGHIU (Romania) – I just wanted to say that I did not want to press the amendment.

      THE PRESIDENT* – We come to Amendment 2, tabled by Mr Díaz Tejera, Ms Blanco, Mr Palacios, Mr Jáuregui, Mr Gutiérrez, Ms Taktakishvili, Mr Stroe, Ms Orobets and Mr Bardina Pau, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 5, to insert the following paragraph:

“The Assembly recommends, especially in this moment of crisis, not to make any budget cuts resulting in a loss of independence of ombudsman institutions or even their extinction. In those places with particular legislative systems, i.e. with parliaments legislating on rights and freedoms, whether at the national or at the regional level, there is a function to be carried by bodies supervising the administration, as Ombudsmen do by definition, in order to supervise the executive power in regard to applying the law.”

      I call Mr Díaz Tejera to support Amendment 2.

      Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain)* – For 10 years, I was “defensor del pueblo”. Most of the ombudsmen in Europe were 40 years old. I was 40 years old when I was elected chairperson. Our budget was often cut in times of crisis and we could not work for the people with no voice or power who came to us to be defended. Hence, my concrete proposal is that in times of crisis, everything possible must be done in order that the budget of this institution is not cut because it is there to defend the rights of people who have no voice to defend their own rights.

      THE PRESIDENT* – We come to Sub-Amendment 1 to Amendment 2, tabled by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in Amendment 2, replace the words “recommends, especially in this moment of crisis, not to make an budget cuts” with the following words: “calls on member states to use all endeavours to avoid budget cuts”.

      I call Mr Xuclà to support Sub-Amendment 1.

      Mr XUCLÀ (Spain)* - Yesterday, we came to an agreement on the sub-amendment. It will be an improvement because it is more precise about the efforts to avoid budgetary cuts in the context of the restrictions that are being experienced in member States. It is not only a formal, but a substantial amendment. I ask members to consider it positively.

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

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

Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain)* – The sub-amendment improves the amendment so I agree with it. Nothing is divine and we are all human, so we all learn from each other constantly.

THE PRESIDENT* – The committee is obviously in favour.

The vote is open.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 2, as amended? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

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

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13236, as amended.

The vote is open.

4. References to committees

THE PRESIDENT* – The Bureau has proposed a number of references to committees for ratification by the Assembly. They are set out in AS/Inf (2013) 09.

Are there any objections to the proposed references to committees?

There is no objection, so the references are approved.

I call Mr Ghiletchi on a point of order.

Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – The Moldovan delegation has checked the verbatim record and the resolution that was adopted on the monitoring of Moldova. We discovered that what the resolution says does not correspond to what we voted for. There was a lot of debate about the last amendment in the Assembly. The amendment was to “replace” the last paragraph. However, the verbatim record says “insert”. We checked the video twice and nobody, including you, Mr President, or Ms Taktakishvili mentioned the words “add” or “insert”. Amendment 20 contained the words “replace paragraph 33”. The Assembly sub-amended Amendment 20, which said very clearly “replace”. Nobody heard the word “insert”. My request, on behalf of my delegation, is that the Secretariat verifies the minutes. Everybody in this Assembly who voted for the amendment was informed that it would replace paragraph 33. We do not want to believe that there was bad will. It was probably a mistake. However, our kind request is that the minutes be verified and that the final version of the resolution concerning Moldova be reviewed.

THE PRESIDENT* – That was not a point of order, but a declaration and we take it as such. You were perfectly entitled to make your point because I gave you the floor. We will, of course, check that. I recall the debate well. It is true that at one point I had to reread the text several times so that everybody knew exactly what they were voting on. I recall putting very specific questions to the chairperson of the committee and the rapporteur. Everybody was able to vote pursuant to his conscience and to the texts that we had. You have asked for a check to be carried out. We will do that and provide you with an answer. It is true that it was a difficult debate to chair. At the end of the session, there were interventions that might have caused confusion. The check will be carried out and your request will be considered.

      I call Ms Christoffersen.

      Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – On a point of order, if the situation is as Mr Ghiletchi claims, the sub-amendment before the Assembly would have been the same as the one before the committee, in which case the committee’s opinion would have been against. So let us go through things thoroughly and not jump to any conclusions.

      THE PRESIDENT* – I am not taking sides, but I fully recall what happened. I clearly remember the oral sub-amendment from Ms Taktakishvili, which, as she herself said in the debate, was different from what was submitted in committee. That complicated matters a bit, then someone else was supporting the amendment, but afterwards agreed to the sub-amendment – in other words, there was a bit of confusion. I put several questions to the committee and to the authors of the amendment and the sub-amendment to establish exactly what the position was. We will check all that, but, frankly, Mr Ghiletchi, I do not think that there was a mistake.

5. Voting champions

      THE PRESIDENT* – I am pleased to be able to announce the names of our voting champions, those members who have taken part in most votes during this fourth part-session.

      They are Ms Bonet Perot, followed by Mr Gross, Ms Mateu Pi and Mr Schennach.

      I congratulate all of them, and those who have not been mentioned. We have small gifts for the champions, which we invite them to collect.

6. End of the part-session

      THE PRESIDENT* – We have now come to the end of our business.

I thank all members of the Assembly, particularly rapporteurs of committees, for their hard work during the part-session. I thank the staff and the interpreters, both permanent and temporary, who have worked hard to make the part-session a success. I apologise to the interpreters about the overtime – it was a bit complicated, but thank you very much for your availability, your competence and your kindness.

      Thank you for all the kind words addressed to me – I am deeply touched. I confirm to my friend, Mr Díaz Tejera, that I will be back in the Chamber. I will continue to serve our Organisation, Mr Chope, but what you said about me touched me deeply, and I only regret that I do not speak better English today than I did two years ago. I have learned a lot none the less. Thanks to all of you.

      The first part of the 2014 session will be held from 27 to 31 January 2014.

      I declare the fourth part of the 2013 session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe closed.

      The sitting is closed.

(The sitting was closed 12.30 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. Changes in the membership of committees

2. Combating discrimination against older persons on the labour market

Presentation by Ms Gafarova of report, Document 13292, on behalf of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination

Presentation by Mr Hanson of opinion, Document 13308, on behalf of the committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development

Speakers: Mr Reimann, Ms Gillan, Mr Jónasson, Mr Mendes Bota, Ms Vučković, Ms Schneider-Schneiter, Mr Schneider, Mr Kalmár, Mr Reiss, Mr Hawn, Mr Díaz Tejera, Mr Shipley, Ms Wurm.

Amendments 1, 2 and 5 adopted.

Amendment 3, as amended, adopted.

Amendment 4 adopted.

Draft resolution contained in Document 13292, as amended, adopted.

3. Strengthening the institution of Ombudsman in Europe

Presentation by Mr Xuclà of report, Document 13236, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights

Speakers: Ms Kazakova, Mr Palacios, Mr Gunnarsson, Ms Schuster, Ms Karapetyan, Mr Biedroń, Mr Neill, Ms Gorghiu,Ms Giannakaki, Mr Ariev, Ms Guţu, Mr Chope.

Amendment 2, as amended, adopted.

Draft resolution contained in Document 13236, as amended, adopted.

4. References to committees

5. Voting champions

6. End of the part-session

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*

Daniel BACQUELAINE*

Theodora BAKOYANNIS*

David BAKRADZE*

Taulant BALLA*

Gérard BAPT*

Gerard BARCIA DUEDRA/Silvia Eloïsa Bonet Perot

Doris BARNETT*

José Manuel BARREIRO*

Deniz BAYKAL

Marieluise BECK*

José María BENEYTO*

Levan BERDZENISHVILI*

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*

Olga BORZOVA*

Mladen BOSIĆ*

António BRAGA*

Anne BRASSEUR

Alessandro BRATTI*

Márton BRAUN*

Gerold BÜCHEL*

André BUGNON

Natalia BURYKINA*

Sylvia CANEL*

Nunzia CATALFO*

Mevlüt ÇAVUŞOĞLU*

Mikael CEDERBRATT*

Özlem CEKIC*

Elena CENTEMERO*

Lorenzo CESA*

Otto CHALOUPKA*

Irakli CHIKOVANI

Vannino CHITI*

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*

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/Cheryl Gillan

Tülin ERKAL KARA*

Joseph FENECH ADAMI*

Cătălin Daniel FENECHIU*

Vyacheslav FETISOV*

Doris FIALA/Maximilian Reimann

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ*

Axel E. FISCHER*

Jana FISCHEROVÁ*

Gvozden Srećko FLEGO*

Bernard FOURNIER*

Hans FRANKEN*

Jean-Claude FRÉCON*

Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO*

Erich Georg FRITZ

Martin FRONC*

Sir Roger GALE*

Adele GAMBARO*

Karl GARÐARSON*

Ruslan GATTAROV*

Tamás GAUDI NAGY*

Nadezda GERASIMOVA*

Valeriu GHILETCHI

Francesco Maria GIRO*

Michael GLOS*

Pavol GOGA

Jarosław GÓRCZYŃSKI*

Alina Ştefania GORGHIU

Svetlana GORYACHEVA*

Sandro GOZI

Fred de GRAAF*

Martin GRAF*

Sylvi GRAHAM*

Patrick De GROOTE*

Andreas GROSS

Arlette GROSSKOST/Frédéric Reiss

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

Håkon HAUGLI/Anette Trettebergstuen

Norbert HAUPERT*

Alfred HEER

Martin HENRIKSEN*

Andres HERKEL

Adam HOFMAN*

Jim HOOD*

Joachim HÖRSTER*

Arpine HOVHANNISYAN/Naira Karapetyan

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*

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 KONRÁÐSDÓTTIR*

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*

Yuliya L'OVOCHKINA*

Saša MAGAZINOVIĆ*

Philippe MAHOUX*

Thierry MARIANI*

Epameinondas MARIAS

Milica MARKOVIĆ*

Meritxell MATEU PI

Pirkko MATTILA*

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*

João Bosco MOTA AMARAL*

Arkadiusz MULARCZYK*

Melita MULIĆ*

Lydia MUTSCH/Felix Braz

Lev MYRYMSKYI*

Philippe NACHBAR*

Oľga NACHTMANNOVÁ

Marian NEACŞU*

Fritz NEUGEBAUER*

Baroness Emma NICHOLSON*

Michele NICOLETTI*

Elena NIKOLAEVA*

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI*

Mirosława NYKIEL*

Judith OEHRI*

Carina OHLSSON/ Jonas Gunnarsson

Joseph O'REILLY*

Lesia OROBETS

Sandra OSBORNE*

José Ignacio PALACIOS

Liliana PALIHOVICI

Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS*

Eva PARERA/Jordi Xuclà

Ganira PASHAYEVA*

Johannes PFLUG*

Foteini PIPILI/Maria Giannakaki

Ivan POPESCU

Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN*

Cezar Florin PREDA*

John PRESCOTT*

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/Fazil Mustafa

Vincenzo SANTANGELO*

Kimmo SASI*

Deborah SCHEMBRI*

Stefan SCHENNACH

Marina SCHUSTER

Urs SCHWALLER/Elisabeth Schneider-Schneiter

Senad ŠEPIĆ*

Samad SEYIDOV*

Jim SHERIDAN

Oleksandr SHEVCHENKO

Boris SHPIGEL*

Arturas SKARDŽIUS*

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/ Konstantinos Triantafyllos

Tomáš ÚLEHLA*

Ilyas UMAKHANOV*

Petrit VASILI*

Volodymyr VECHERKO*

Mark VERHEIJEN*

Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN*

Vladimir VORONIN*

Klaas de VRIES*

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ

Zoran VUKČEVIĆ

Draginja VUKSANOVIĆ

Piotr WACH*

Johann WADEPHUL*

Robert WALTER*

Dame Angela WATKINSON/ Robert Neill

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

Observers

Laurie HAWN

Grant MITCHELL

Michel RIVARD

Bev SHIPLEY

Partenaires pour la démocratie

Mohammed Mehdi BENSAID

Nezha EL OUAFI