AA14CR17

AS (2014) CR 17

2014 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Second part)

REPORT

Seventeenth sitting

Thursday 10 April 2014 at 3.30 p.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

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

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

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

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

(Mr Rouquet, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 3.35 p.m.)

1. Organisation of debates

      The PRESIDENT* – The sitting is open. A large number of members wish to speak in the three debates this afternoon. We will have to interrupt the list of speakers at about 4.05 p.m. in the first debate, at about 4.55 p.m. in the second debate, and at about 7.30 p.m. in the third debate, in order to leave sufficient time for the replies on behalf of the committees and the votes.

2. Urgent need to deal with new failures to co-operate with the European

Court Of Human Rights

      The PRESIDENT* – The first item of business this afternoon is the debate on the report entitled “Urgent need to deal with new failures to co-operate with the European Court of Human Rights”, Document 13435, presented by Mr Kimmo Sasi on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. The Assembly decided on Monday to restrict speaking time to three minutes.

      I call Mr Sasi, rapporteur. You have 13 minutes’ speaking time in total, which you may divide as you see fit between presentation of your report and your reply to the debate.

      Mr SASI (Finland) – Dear colleagues, we are once again called on to play our role as the parliamentary support squad for the European Court of Human Rights, and to remind all member States of their duties vis-à-vis the Court. In 2007, we adopted for the first time a resolution on member States’ duty to co-operate with the Court on the basis of a report prepared by our distinguished former colleague Christos Pourgourides. Now, as then, we must uphold the duty of Council of Europe member States to co-operate with the Court. Now, as then, we must stress the importance of the right of individual petition to the Court – a European achievement that potentially benefits all our constituents.

      The protection of that right is the purpose of the so-called individual measures set out in Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. These measures are designed to prevent a fait accompli before the merits of a case are decided by the Court. Any disrespect of legally binding measures ordered by the Court, such as interim measures set out under Rule 39, must be condemned as a clear disregard for the European system of protection of human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. As the draft resolution says, we must therefore condemn any outright violation by States parties to the Convention – including Italy, the Russian Federation, the Slovak Republic and Turkey – of measures aimed at protecting applicants from extradition or deportation to countries where they would be at risk of torture in particular.

      As rapporteur, I invited all the national delegations of the countries named in the draft resolution to provide explanations for the cases mentioned in the report. I received a reply from Turkey that was not very convincing. I have also received replies from the Ukrainian delegation, sent in the middle of the turmoil leading to the flight of Mr Yanukovych, and a few days ago. The new information has convinced me to table an amendment to the draft resolution to delete Ukraine from the list of main offenders. The reason is simply that the Strasbourg Court has not yet found a violation of Article 34 in the case at issue – the case is still pending. I therefore prefer to leave it up to the Court to decide whether it finds it credible that the expelled person left Ukraine voluntarily and that Ukrainian officials merely helped him to buy his airline ticket. I have some doubts, but I find it encouraging that the Ukrainian authorities left no doubt in their replies that they accept, in principle, the legal duty to respect the Court’s interim measures.

      A case from a country that is not on our list of offenders was brought to my attention by Amnesty International and a Belgian law professor, namely the case of Trabelsi v. Belgium. They argue that Belgium’s extradition to the United States of Nizar Trabelsi on 3 October 2013 was the result of a deliberate decision by the Belgian Government to disregard the interim measure forbidding it. A representative of the Belgian Government even admitted, in reply to a parliamentary question, that the disregard for the interim measure was not accidental. I have nevertheless decided against proposing an amendment to include Belgium in paragraph 4 of our draft resolution. The reason, as in the Ukrainian case, is that the question of whether Belgium violated the right of individual petition is still pending before the Court. I expect, however, that Belgium will fully adjust its practice to the requirements of the Court. As I will be mandated to follow up our resolution for a year after its adoption, I will not hesitate to comment publicly on any problem in that respect.

      Among the cases about which we should be particularly worried is the recent phenomenon observed in the Russian Federation, namely the temporary disappearance of applicants protected by interim measures and their subsequent reappearance in the country that had requested extradition. The clandestine methods used indicate that the authorities were well aware of the illegality of such actions. It can be likened to the practice of extraordinary rendition carried out by the Central Intelligence Agency, which the Assembly has repeatedly condemned.

      In addition to naming and shaming some States for failing to co-operate with the Court, we should also commend the Court for its reactions to some such failures. Some States fail to provide full, frank and fair disclosure in response to requests by the Court for further information or evidence. As a result, the Court increasingly uses factual presumptions and the reversal of the burden of proof in order to help applicants to overcome obstacles created by such blockades, which is good. The Court is increasingly specific in indicating interim measures to ensure their effectiveness. We can encourage the Court to go further in that direction and even cautiously to explore the possibility of ordering damages in cases where interim measures are violated. We should, however, also support States’ legitimate interest that, in cases in which interim measures were ordered, the proceedings on the merits should be accelerated so that the interim measures do not stay in force for too long.

      Dear colleagues, let me conclude by asking you for your support for the draft resolution and recommendation, so that we can send a strong signal to the relevant authorities in our member States to uphold the authority of the Court for the benefit of threatened applicants.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you. You have six minutes left to reply to the debate.

      I call Mr Díaz Tejera, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain)* – We are considering a report that will contribute to the prestige of this distinguished parliamentary body, because it reflects the concerns of our rapporteur, who is always extremely factual and detailed. I commend the rapporteur for his rigorous and detailed report. I encourage him to continue in this line of work, because when we talk about what we often call the jewel in our crown, we sometimes neglect to consider the Court’s effectiveness. It has handed down some terrific rulings, but we fall down when it comes down implementing legal judgments that have an effect on people in our member States. That is why it is a good idea to evaluate the actual impact of the Court’s rulings.

      The Council of Europe can contribute to helping new democracies, not by substituting for them in any way, but by lending a helping hand. I am honoured to be speaking on behalf of the Socialist Group, and I want to invite everyone to support the report, in particular the follow-up provision proposed by the rapporteur. It would be good to follow up the countries mentioned in this detailed and precise piece of work to try to ensure that we do not have to debate a similar report in a few years’ time. I congratulate the author of the report and the secretariat on everything that they have achieved. We should try to ensure that we check the effectiveness of both the report and the Court, bearing in mind of course that our individual ministries of justice in our member States have responsibility for executing the rulings handed down by the Court.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Ms Schou, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Ms SCHOU (Norway) – I must first commend our colleague Mr Sasi for taking on the challenge of this report, the title of which does not reveal the highly technical legal issues on our table today. Before I address the technicalities of the report, I will state the obvious. As members of the Council of Europe, we are obliged to comply with decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. That should be obvious to all member States, but the number of cases before the Court and the fact that we need to repeat that in our Assembly and remind the Committee of Ministers show that it is not. The European Convention on Human Rights is the foundation of our Organisation, the Council of Europe, and it is safeguarded by the European Court of Human Rights.

      The right of individuals to apply to the Court is the cornerstone of our Convention system and the basis of the functions of the European Court of Human Rights. As individuals we are subject to our national legal frameworks, but as Europeans we have the extra protection that the Strasbourg Court guarantees through the right of individual application. It gives people somewhere to go when their State violates their human rights. In the process of reforming the Court, the Norwegian Government focused on reform measures that avoid undermining it. We, as parliamentarians, should emphasise that right and give a strong message through Mr Sasi’s proposed resolution and recommendations.

      The tables on the last two pages of Mr Sasi's report list cases in which the Court’s Rule 39 has been breached. The rule is highly technical and one needs to study it to understand it. However, it is clear that the rule is important for individuals who bring their cases to the Court. It keeps them safe from extradition and expulsion to places where they are at risk of torture, for example, while their case is being investigated by the Court. It is therefore worrying that there are so many violations. The examples that Mr Sasi cites in his report should cause us great concern about the practices of the Russian Federation and other member States whose names we often see on the list of countries with the highest number of cases brought to the Court. However, as the list shows, they are not the only countries in breach of the rule. I therefore encourage you to support both the resolution and the recommendation so we send a strong message to all Council of Europe member States that the decisions of our Court are to be followed.

      The PRESIDENT* – I call Mr Binley from the United Kingdom, who will speak on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

      Mr BINLEY (United Kingdom) – Sadly, I am unable to commend the rapporteur for his report because it falls short of meeting the international human rights standards on religious freedom, tolerance and pluralism, which this Council has long stood for. It violates the State’s duty of neutrality in matters of religion and belief, in that it focuses exclusively on selective and biased information from sources that support repressive action against minority religions. It infringes on fundamental freedoms and stimulates hostility against targeted groups. The report refers to Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but the stigmatisation of minority religious movements as sects has been consistently condemned by human rights institutions under the same article.

      The PRESIDENT* – Mr Binley, you are speaking on the wrong report. It is the next report that you want to speak on.

      Mr BINLEY (United Kingdom) – What were you saying? Would you please ask other members not to interrupt me? When other people speak, I do not interrupt them.

      The PRESIDENT* – Mr Binley, you are not on the right report. Your speech is about the next report.

      Mr BINLEY (United Kingdom) – Then I will come back later.

      The PRESIDENT* – You will not be taking the floor on behalf of the European Democrat Group in this debate. I call Ms Fiala, who will speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Ms FIALA (Switzerland) – On behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, I thank Kimmo Sasi for his important work on the difficult subject of failures to co-operate with the European Court of Human Rights. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe is worried about the phenomena we observe in member States such as Russia. The temporary disappearance of applicants protected by interim measures and their extraordinary rendition has been repeatedly condemned by the Parliamentary Assembly. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe therefore agrees with the rapporteur’s conclusions. Non-compliance with the Court’s interim measures is a political, as well as a legal, issue. We must continue to remind States of their legal obligations, which they undertook voluntarily, such as co-operation with the Court to ensure effective protection of the rights in the Convention to anyone within their jurisdiction. We must not act out of political self-interest; we must act within the law.

      I will give an example from my country that demonstrates the political challenges we face. In Switzerland, refusal to participate in military service is not a reason to claim asylum. However, in some cases of hardship, asylum seekers cannot be sent back to their country of origin – for example, Eritrea – because they risk being tortured or even killed. Such cases create challenges in our States, but we are called upon to follow the European Court of Human Rights and the principles of human rights. I warmly recommend that you adopt the report.

      Mr RECORDON (Switzerland)* – I am satisfied with Mr Sasi’s report. I thank and congratulate him. Perhaps in the future we can take it even further. Paragraph 8.1, which pertains to possible damages, gives some pointers on how to do that. We must rap on the knuckles countries that fail to carry out the Court’s interim measures. However, if they systematically violate the measures, we must do more than rap them on the knuckles. In some cases, awarding damages may be the solution. However, as the report highlights, in serious cases in which a person’ life or safety is in jeopardy, we should think about adopting much harder hitting sanctions. A mechanism could be set up and targeted at countries that fail to carry out their responsibly not to transfer prisoners or applicants. Measures could be taken against the country if there has been mass non-compliance with the Court’s rulings.

      The report is excellently drafted. We are looking at how to strengthen the formal authority of the Court’s decisions, at how they can be properly enforced and at the effectiveness of the institution’s decisions. That is vital. They need to be properly implemented. These texts sometimes culminate in conventions. Effectiveness is of paramount importance. Let us attach the importance to this issue that it deserves. Perhaps not enough energy and effort are devoted by governments to implementing these decisions fully. I do not think that the amendments have great value. The report is very good.

      Mr POZZO DI BORGO (France)* – The individual right of petition, enshrined by Article 34 of the Convention, and conformity with interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court is unfortunately not new to the Council of Europe. The European Court of Human Rights, the Committee of Ministers and the Assembly have addressed the problem on several occasions. It is, however, a relatively recent phenomenon. For about 10 years, States that suspect someone of terrorism or other criminal activity and want to transfer them to another State to have them arrested, imprisoned or interrogated, have tended to resort to rendition, rather than extradition, although extradition would be the normal legal procedure. In that way, they bypass the law; it is completely outside the law. The State of origin deprives the person concerned of any possible appeal to the Court.

      The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights is, however, clear. Under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, interim measures have been drawn up that seek to protect applicants against any extradition or expulsion, especially to countries where they may be tortured. Failure to comply with the interim measures is a breach of the right of individual petition, guaranteed under Article 34, unless the State concerned can cite an objective obstacle.

      Examples of non-compliance abound because of the lack of co-operation by various States with this mechanism. They are not providing full, fair and frank disclosure, so the Court has resorted to such technical measures as factual presumption or reversal of the burden of proof. Italy has fallen foul of the rules on several occasions.

      Those examples are embarrassing and worrying. They harm the credibility of the Court and the Assembly. Such repeated breaches are one of the reasons for the backlog of cases in the Court, which has paralysed it. Compliance with the Court’s rulings is a key issue for the Council of Europe, as it is an effective safeguard of human rights, the rule of law and democracy.

      Mr MICHEL (France)* – I thank Mr Sasi for his excellent report and for the draft recommendation and draft resolution. We should encourage the Committee of Ministers to oversee as closely as possible decisions handed down by the European Court of Human Rights. If the Committee of Ministers does that, it can show that it is doing a good job.

      Our Assembly is examining again the failure of certain States parties to co-operate with the Court. As we know, for quite some time the Court has been involved in long-term reform designed to enable it to cope with the exponential growth in work load. The high level conference has borne fruit.

      The year 2013 was remarkable, as Dean Spielmann, President of the Court, said. The backlog of manifestly inadmissible applications was reduced. There was a drop in the number of pending applications, particularly those concerning Turkey and Russia. There was an increase in the number of applications resulting in decisions. The Court still has a number of challenges, including continuing to reduce the backlog of single-judge cases, repetitive applications and the length of proceedings. It is important to underline the work of the filtering section, as well as the importance of training judges. A report on these issues will be drafted for a future session of the Assembly. Other challenges include the urgent need to apply more effectively, in all States parties, the rights and liberties recognised by the European Convention on Human Rights. Mr Sasi pointed that out clearly.

      The Court is not necessarily a victim of its success. It is more a victim of the failings of member States. Since its creation, the Court has handed down more than 15 000 decisions, of which half concern four States: Turkey, Italy, Russia and Poland. Some State parties, including Russia, are bypassing interim measures handed down under Rule 39. Those measures are applied against a State if it is felt that an applicant will be at risk of serious and irreparable harm if they are expelled or extradited. By doing that, States parties are undermining the rights of the individual and the effectiveness of the protection granted to the applicant by the Convention.

      The report flags up a number of cases where applicants have been secretly transferred – applicants who are under the protection of interim measures, who are now in countries that sought their extradition, even though they are at risk of ill treatment and torture. Those cases are serious for the people concerned and it is unacceptable that the basic principles of the Court are not being complied with. That is happening not for legal reasons but because of a lack of political will. As the rapporteur said, this situation is the result of the cynicism shown by member States. It seriously undermines the Court’s credibility. He was right to speak out against that.

      The PRESIDENT* – I cannot see Mr Sobolev, Mr Xuclà, or Mr Labaziuk. Therefore, I give the floor to Ms Karamanli.

      Ms KARAMANLI (France)* – The issue that we are debating, notwithstanding its technicality, is vital in safeguarding human rights and ensuring that we recognise the guarantees to individuals before the European Court of Human Rights. We should recognise the fundamental nature of individual petition, the role that is played by Rule 39 in the Court machinery and the significance of the number of cases where interim measures that were taken pursuant to that rule were not respected.

      The report sets out some of the legal remedies – for example, factual presumption or reversal of the burden of proof – that have been implemented to improve the situation and to challenge States when they drag their feet or try to fake co-operation. Certain political interests tend to motivate the States concerned.

      I would like to look at the considerable rise in the number of interim requests pursuant to Rule 39 in the second half of the last decade, particularly in cases where people are being sought by their countries. Many members of religious and political minorities facing criminal prosecution or extradition have been concerned, as this is possible thanks to inter-State co-operation. Of course the Court has to take decisions quickly because we are talking about tight deadlines and the consequences of a failure to co-operate might be extremely serious or irreversible. This trend is such that the Court has found against a number of States that have not implemented a measure it has advocated pursuant to Rule 39, which has strengthened the scope of this provision. As the President of the Court, Jean-Paul Costa, has noted, this is a general trend in international law.

      The report reminds us that a number of States are prepared to take improper decisions to defend their interests. We should remember that we live in an age when many States are coming together in more vast regional groupings. We see greater political and economic migration, which is why such cases are likely to increase in number. That is why the appeal we are making today is an important component of remedying the situation and why States should continue to co-operate fairly and not breach the obligations they have signed up to. They should proactively make life easier for the institutions in which they place their trust. We should be battling for that in this Assembly, so I am grateful to the rapporteur for doing just that today.

      The PRESIDENT* – I do not see Ms Mulić or Mr Biedroń, so I call the last speaker, Mr Geraint Davies.

      Mr G. DAVIES (United Kingdom) – As austerity across Europe makes people more vulnerable to human rights abuses, it is important that we are all united in their defence. The European Court of Human Rights must raise its game, in terms of activeness and efficiency, and it has, so this should not be used as an excuse not to comply or for States to sidestep their human rights obligations.

      In Britain, as elsewhere, austerity has created conditions for vulnerable, dispossessed youths to adopt extreme right-wing views, blaming immigrants and their so-called human rights for the hardship they face from Conservative and Liberal Democrat cuts. The rise of the fascist-lite United Kingdom Independence Party, which masquerades as a moderate, mainstream party, is really a modern-day resurgence akin to Oswald Mosley’s followers before the war, as the Nazis grew in Germany. The party presents simple tribal problems and solutions and a context in which talk of human rights is seen as outside interference. In Britain, tribal separatism is the genesis of UKIP, the Scottish National Party, which bangs the drum of national separation in the United Kingdom in its referendum, and, in Wales, Plaid Cymru, which is also driven by tribal opportunism, appealing to a “them versus us” mentality that does not sit well with universal rights.

      In the United Kingdom Parliament, a well organised group of Conservative Eurosceptics has gathered like flies in the European Scrutiny Committee to argue that Britain should disapply the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights, which has been used to protect people in cases involving interim measures. The Justice Secretary, Chris Grayling, has talked of the need to curtail the role of the European Court of Human Rights in the United Kingdom and to remove and replace our Human Rights Act, so that people cannot appeal against the United Kingdom Supreme Court in the European Court, which would violate a core principle of the Convention: the right of individual petition to challenge violations in member courts. The Conservatives are considering withdrawing from the European Convention and therefore the Council of Europe, which would leave Britain and Belarus as the only European countries outside the Convention.

      At a time when what is happening in Ukraine challenges the Council of Europe’s founding principles of human rights, democracy and the rule of law, austerity encourages the growth of right-wing nationalism and the turning of a blind eye to human rights. Human rights obligations – especially the social and economic rights of the most vulnerable, who in Britain have been driven from poverty to destitution, as food banks bear witness – must be respected, as must access to justice and equal treatment. The choice for the Council of Europe is to mumble in the background or raise the flag of human rights above the stench of austerity on the economic battlefield and stand firm to our principles in our all countries.

      The PRESIDENT* – I must now interrupt the list of speakers. I call the rapporteur, Mr Sasi, to reply. You have six minutes.

      Mr SASI (Finland) – Thank you, colleagues, for the broad support I have received – although it is not support for me, but support for the Court and its authority and ability to make decisions that are followed in member countries. Many good views have been presented in the debate. I will take them into consideration in the one-year follow-up to the report. I will also follow the developments that have been mentioned.

      Just recently – last autumn – the case of Belgium came up and the case of Ukraine will also be followed. I hope that good faith will be shown in Ukraine that similar cases will not appear in future.

      It is also important for the Court that the system should be effective. As mentioned in the report, we have taken stock of the latest developments. For example, the change in the burden of proof is key in cases where the issues are studied to see whether decisions have been followed or not. It is good that the latest statistics show fewer decisions involving interim measures last year. It is also good that the time it takes the Court to handle cases has been reduced, which helps, in that interim decisions do not have to be made. If an interim decision is made, however, it is important to try to handle the case as soon as possible, so that the parties do not have to wait very long for a final decision.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Sasi. Does the chairperson of the committee wish to speak? You have two minutes, Mr Clappison.

      Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – Speaking on behalf of the committee, let me say that we adopted the report in December last year. As Mr Sasi has rightly said, it gave the countries criticised in the report ample opportunity to respond. It would appear that only Ukraine provided a reply that convinced our rapporteur. Let me also say on behalf of the committee that Mr Sasi has the committee’s full support in the work he has done and the report he has presented to the Assembly.

      The PRESIDENT* – I have an important announcement to make. I am delighted to announce that the Europe prize 2014 has just been awarded to the town of Słupsk in Poland. I might have mangled the pronunciation, but we send our warmest congratulations.

       The debate is closed.

      The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has presented a draft resolution, to which four amendments have been tabled, and a draft recommendation, to which no amendments have been tabled. They will be taken in the order in which they appear in the Compendium and the Organisation of Debates.

      I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

      I understand that the chairperson of the committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendment 1, which was unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly under Rule 33.11.

      Is that so Mr Clappison?

      Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – Yes.

      The PRESIDENT* – Are there any objections? That is not the case.

      The following amendment has been adopted:

      Amendment 1, tabled by Ms Taktakishvili, Ms Lībiņa-Egnere, Ms Mateu Pi, Mr Kandelaki, Ms Reps and Ms Čigāne, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 4, after the word “torture”, add the following words: “as well as of the interim measures in relation to Russia’s military actions in Georgia (see Georgia v Russia II)”.

      We come to Amendment 3, tabled by Mr Dişli, Mr Türkeş, Mr Önal, Mr Selvi and Mr Denemeç, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 4, delete the words “(Italy, the Russian Federation, the Slovak Republic, Turkey and Ukraine)”.

      I call Mr Dişli to support Amendment 3.

      Mr DIŞLI (Turkey) – I ask the rapporteur either to delete the parenthesis or to add the other country’s name. There appears to be no precise reason for putting those States in parenthesis.

      The PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Sasi.

      Mr SASI (Finland) – I think that it is very important that we, in a way, shame those countries that have not followed the Court’s interim decisions. We went through the cases very thoroughly – they are listed in the report’s appendix. Turkey has delivered material, but we are not convinced as far as that country is concerned. As I mentioned, the reason Ukraine is not included in the list is that the case is pending in the Court, and we do not want to interfere in its decisions in any way.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

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

      The PRESIDENT* – I will put the amendment to the vote by show of hands.

      Amendment 3 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 4, tabled by Mr Sasi, Mr Chope, Mr Díaz Tejera, Mr McNamara and Mr Clappison, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 4, delete the words “and Ukraine”.

      I call Mr Sasi to support Amendment 4.

      Mr SASI (Finland) – As I have said, we drew the line because the case is pending. It seems quite likely that Ukraine is a sinner, but at this stage no decision has been taken, which is why that country is not listed in the report.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

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

      The PRESIDENT* – I will put the amendment to the vote by show of hands.

      Amendment 4 is adopted.

      We come to Amendment 2, tabled by Ms Taktakishvili, Ms Lībiņa-Egnere, Ms Mateu Pi, Mr Kandelaki, Mr Ghiletchi and Ms Čigāne, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 6, insert the following paragraph:

      “The Assembly strongly condemns the ongoing violation by the Russian Federation of the Court’s interim measures in relation to military actions in Georgia (see Georgia vs. Russia II).”I

      I call Ms Taktakishvili to support Amendment 2.

      Ms TAKTAKISHVILI (Georgia) – I do not wish to press the amendment, because its content has been incorporated in another amendment.

      The PRESIDENT* – Amendment 2 is not moved.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13435, as amended. A simple majority is required.

      The vote is open.

      The draft resolution in Document 13435, as amended, is adopted, with 50 votes for, 5 against and 4 abstentions.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 13435.

      The vote is open.

      The draft recommendation in Document 13435 is adopted, with 53 votes for, 4 against and 1 abstention.

      I congratulate the rapporteur and the chair of the committee.

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

2. The protection of minors against excesses of sects

      The PRESIDENT – The next item of business this afternoon is the debate on the report entitled “The protection of minors against excesses of sects,” Document 13441, which will be presented by Mr Rudy Salles on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, with an oral opinion presented by Mr André Bugnon on behalf of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, which is set out in Document 13467.

      I remind members that we have agreed that in order to finish by 6.55 p.m. we shall interrupt the list of speakers at about 4.55 p.m. in order to allow time for the reply and the vote.

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

      Mr SALLES (France)* – Mr President, my report is the result of the motion for a resolution that called for an examination of the influence of sects on minors. Since the term “sect” is considered derogatory and cannot be defined in law – sects generally are considered a form of non-governmental association – I looked at the question of violations or abuses by sects. In other words, I looked at behaviours and at the exertion of pressure to manipulate a person, not just at the sects themselves.

      It is clear that if sects are abusive, they can have an influence on the family and friendships of minors, as well as on their education, their social and mental well-being and even their health. The abuse can even extend to sexual abuse under the guise of doctrine or education. Therefore, such behaviour can lead to breaches of human rights, including the right to life, the right to protection from inhuman treatment, the right to respect for a private life and the right to education.

      The Parliamentary Assembly has already looked at the question of illegal activities by sects, in particular in 1992 and 1999. Nevertheless, no progress has been made since then. What is most striking is the lack of information about how widespread sects are. Can the Council of Europe do nothing in the face of this danger to our young people?

      In preparing my report, I tried to fill this gap. I organised a hearing to draw on the opinions of experts and I carried out fact-finding visits to Sweden and Germany. I also sent out a questionnaire to parliamentary delegations, and 25 member States replied.

      It emerges that in Europe the level of protection for young people against the abuses of sects, and the amount of information on it, varies considerably from one country to another. Only a few member States, including France, Belgium and Luxembourg, have taken legislative measures to deal with the problem. Other States, including Germany, Austria and Switzerland, have taken measures to monitor abuses by sects. From various other countries we received no data.

      In the light of this, the draft resolution calls on member States, for example, to draw up statistics on crimes by sects, and to create national centres to monitor religious and spiritual movements, so that we can have an exchange of information about these bodies. They should also centralise information, in particular for social services, the courts and the police, to identify any dangers to young people. They should strengthen State inspection of private schools and of those educated at home, and they should criminalise the psychological or physical manipulation of people through an explicit provision included in their criminal code.

      The draft resolution also puts forward the idea of setting up parliamentary study groups on sects in our national parliaments to make people – both society in general and parliamentarians – of this phenomenon. Of course, this would not be compulsory, because every national parliament has to decide how to organise things.

      In the past four decades, national parliaments in various member States have taken initiatives along these lines. We should encourage all our parliaments to work in this way. Furthermore, it would be useful for the Committee of Ministers to carry out a study of the scale of the phenomenon affecting young people in Europe. It could perhaps set up a working group to exchange information. I am convinced that we cannot abandon the idea of establishing rules and policies at European level to protect young people from abuses by sects. The best interests of children should always prevail because of their vulnerability.

      I am aware that there have been many complaints – some very strongly expressed – about my report. Some people felt that I was targeting minority religious groups. I was subject to outrageous pressure from people seeking to stop me carrying out the job assigned to me. I noted that an enormous amount of resources were deployed to discredit our work. A glossy magazine was even issued. This attack seemed to be very well organised and not spontaneous at all.

      I stress that I am not trying in any way to restrict freedom of religion or belief, which is a fundamental freedom both in my country and in other Council of Europe member States. All I am trying to do is protect young people from groups that might use manipulative techniques that are often disguised by ideology.

      I am very much in favour of freedom of conscience, minority religions and any kind of philosophical group that sticks to the law. I do not need to remind members that the main difference between sects and religions is that you can leave a religion when you want to, whereas you have great difficulty in leaving a sect. That is why I want to make you aware of the importance of the debate this afternoon, which should lead us all to seek to protect minors against abuses by sects.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Mr Salles. You have approximately seven minutes remaining for the rest of your presentation and response.

      I now call Mr Bugnon, the rapporteur of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development to present the committee’s opinion. You have three minutes.

      Mr BUGNON (Switzerland)* – The Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development generally supports the report that was submitted by Rudy Salles on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. The text analyses in detail the developments that have occurred at national and European level, and those that should occur from a legislative point of view, to combat abuses by sects, in particular where children are concerned.

      The report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights and the draft resolution that resulted reveal a very close link between the situations of children in various European member States. The measures that need to be taken to protect children could be developed further. As the rapporteur said, here we are talking about defending the greater interests of the child. We are not trying to call into question the freedoms of religion and thought, which of course are completely acceptable and part and parcel of the fundamental values of the Council of Europe.

      Having said that, there are a number of abuses that exist within some sects. It is very important that we strengthen our efforts to protect minors from abuses by sects. That is why the committee has tabled a number of amendments, which we will deal with later.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Bugnon. We now move to the debate and the list of speakers. I call first Mr Michel on behalf of the Socialist Group. You have three minutes.

      Mr MICHEL (France)* – First, I congratulate my colleague Rudy Salles on this very comprehensive report, and on the way he resisted the terrible pressure he was put under. Indeed, all of us were put under such pressure. It is a sensitive subject. We do not have much statistical information – and not much information generally. The term “sect” is not well defined. It has to be said that the case law from the European Court of Human Rights is rather scant and, I have to say, unreliable.

      However, any abuses are liable to breach the human rights of both adults and minors. Of course, minors are more trusting and easier to win over, and are therefore prime targets for sects.

      The difficulty in tackling this phenomenon is finding where to draw a line between religious freedom and freedom of conscience on the one hand and people being indoctrinated on the other. We must try carefully to establish whether there is a risk of sectarian abuse. That is why we need the list of risks that our rapporteur has set out very clearly. We should clamp down only on abuses and in no way attack religious freedom, particularly that of so-called minority religions. First, we do not want to succumb to the pressures that we have been put under. Secondly, in the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, a number of amendments have been tabled to try to overturn the text by going on about the threat to religious freedom, whereas, in fact, nothing could be further from the truth. That is why I invite you to consider these amendments carefully in due course.

      Some non-governmental organisations, rather than government authorities, sounded the alarm bell and said that public freedoms, including religious freedom all too often, were being manipulated. There has been a lot of inertia and, indeed, indifference among too many member States. That is why we need reliable comparative data, such as that furnished by Mr Salles, and to consider the measures that some countries such as my own have taken, but this is not the right place to talk about those measures. However, I was a vice-chair of a committee in the French Senate that considered an important issue: the influence of sects on doctors and, indeed, medical professors who harm adults and children in this way, with serious consequences.

      We therefore need to protect children and minors against all such abuses. We should not see religious freedom or freedom of thought subverted.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Mr Schneider, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Mr SCHNEIDER (France)* – Thank you, President.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – But I am on the list.

      The PRESIDENT – There seems to be some confusion. I originally had Mr Ghiletchi on my list, and then I was told that he was replaced by Mr Schneider. I am told that Mr Schneider is the spokesman.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – But the group decided that I should speak on its behalf.

      The PRESIDENT – Your group secretary is coming to sort this out. Mr Ghiletchi, if it helps, we will try to insert your name on to the speakers’ list. I call Mr Schneider.

      Mr SCHNEIDER (France)* – Thank you very much indeed, President. I congratulate the rapporteur on the in-depth work he has carried out and on the draft resolution, which is designed to implement effective measures to protect children from abuse by sects. Children are easy prey to sects because of their vulnerability. It is easy to manipulate them mentally, and the actions taken by sects constitute a violation of fundamental rights. Sometimes, the reality of the situation is far worse than that. Children are victims of sect abuses committed by their parents who are members of such communities. Sometimes, these are daily abuses.

      Such abuses can emanate from medical practitioners or from messages designed to put children under their control. Children can be schooled at home, which is, of course, a problem if they are under the influence of a sect or an association. It is important to point out any signs of this taking place and to protect minors more effectively. Sometimes, victims do not turn up at trials for fear of reprisals. We and other parliaments should therefore adopt provisions that criminalise such psychological bullying. I have heard such accounts from people in different countries. I should like to reassure them that I have worked on religious matters for the Assembly, and we have always defended the freedom of religion. In Alsace, we have always welcomed people who felt persecuted and the freedom of religion is an important value to us.

      I make a key distinction between religions and the sects and movements to which the text refers. Regardless of which religion people are part of, it is always possible to leave or to convert freely to another religion. People cannot leave a sect of their own free will. Preachers and gurus will not let people leave sects. Religion is not a danger to minors – sects are. The French poet Jacques Prévert said that children are everything apart from what we take away from them. That is why it is very important that we support the proposals made by Mr Salles. No minor in greater Europe should have their childhood taken away from them as the result of sect practices.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you very much indeed. I have inserted Mr Ghiletchi’s name on the speakers’ list. I call Mr Binley, who will speak on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

      Mr BINLEY (United Kingdom) – Thank you, President. I will get the right debate this time.

      Sadly, this very French report falls far short of meeting international human rights standards on religious freedom, tolerance and pluralism that the Council of Europe has long stood for. It violates the state’s duty of neutrality in matters of religion and belief, in that it focuses exclusively on selective and biased information from sources that support repressive action against minority religions. It infringes on fundamental freedoms and stimulates hostility by stigmatising targeted groups.

      The report refers to Article 9 of the Convention on Human Rights, but the stigmatisation of minority religions as sects has been consistently condemned by human rights institutions under the same article. Instead of protecting the rights of the child, it could well endanger them, as well as the rights of parents to raise their children in accordance with their religious beliefs, which are protected by Article 2 of Protocol 1 to the Convention on Human Rights, which states “that the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions”.

      The report relies on sweeping generalisations, serious factual inaccuracies and vague allegations to conclude that special measures should be employed against minority groups classified by the pejorative term “sects”. This blacklisting of so-called sects has been used in France to deny the renting of halls, the opening of bank accounts, the granting of nursing home licences and the custody of children in family disputes to members of religious minorities such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, Pentecostals, Baptists and others.

      Let me give one example among many. In 2008, the Miviludes focused on minorities that had their own schools, and even though the education authorities witnessed their good results, they were accused of mental manipulation and some were closed, despite the fact that French law states that parents are responsible for their children’s education. Fortunately, the decision was eventually overturned on appeal, but at great cost.

      Sadly, the rapporteur not only appears partisan but displays a lack of logic, as proved by stating in paragraph 5 of the draft resolution: “The Assembly notes that the phenomenon of excesses of sects affecting minors is ever more present in Europe.” He immediately follows by stating: “It is concerned by the lack of comprehensive data on the subject”. The latter discredits the former. Such statements make this report not only illogical but downright dangerous, and it should be rejected in its totality.      

      The PRESIDENT – Mr Salles, if you wish you may reply to the political groups, or you can reply at the end of the debate.

      Mr SALLES (France)* – I will reply at the end of the debate.

      The PRESIDENT – From the list of speakers I call Mr Rouquet.

      Mr ROUQUET (France)* – The text that we are called on to examine this afternoon is of particular importance because it is about protecting minors. As the rapporteur said, minors are most vulnerable to the actions of sects, and they should be given special attention. Minors cannot defend themselves from sects, which is why the rapporteur’s proposals constitute a real step forward. They are concrete proposals and offer a real tool box for States to take efficient action against abuses committed by sects on children. We cannot allow such situations to continue when, under the pretext of respecting the freedoms of their parents, minors fall victim to social and psychological imprisonment, and sometimes physical violence. We can also no longer accept that under the pretext of alternative therapy minors are deprived of medical care, sometimes when their lives are in danger, and I can give the Assembly a number of examples to back that up. For all those reasons, I cannot accept the claim that there is no issue as far as sects and minors are concerned. Although abuses by sects may have different aspects, they all have one thing in common: they stop a child’s childhood.

      Despite the points that help bolster the arguments made by the rapporteur, whom I thank for his accurate and comprehensive work, some colleagues have shared their concerns with us. Those concerns mainly relate to the risk of people mixing up sects with minority religions. Faced with those concerns, it is important for us to state clearly and forcefully that sects are driven by a very different logic to that of religions, regardless of what they are. A religion always allows its members freedom of choice, whereas sects do not. Throughout Europe sects heap suffering on their members, which is not the case for religions.

      The Council of Europe’s experience of protecting children is recognised by all, and our Assembly has always led the way in that field, particularly in the framework of its network against sexual violence committed against children. We have always flagged up the best interests of the child in accordance with the recommendations of the European Convention on Human Rights, and today with this report we can strengthen even further the protection of children in Europe. I call on you, dear colleagues, to adopt the report submitted by Mr Salles.

      The PRESIDENT – Ms Hovhannisyan is not here, so I call Ms Karamanli.

      Ms KARAMANLI (France)* – This is an extremely important debate because it concerns not only freedom of thought and various collective freedoms, but also youth. This accomplished report by Rudy Salles shows that the destructive effects of sects, and the mental and psychological repercussions of brainwashing and manipulation on young people and minors, are extremely dangerous.

      Having reminded us that the Council of Europe has been dealing with such matters for some time, the report sets out a number of practical proposals. We need to raise awareness, ensure that the general public understand the phenomenon better, and try to pass laws to protect our citizens and ensure that children go to school and complete their schooling. We must ensure that all the different youth services co-operate and try to stem any religious abuses or excesses.

      It is true that this matter pertains to individual freedom of thought, and I want to talk about the legal implications as well as the scale of the phenomenon. In France we have a human rights commissioner who has stated that these movements represent themselves as religions, and that their practices would therefore fall under legislation to protect individuals in any State governed by the rule of law. That is an interesting point because it emphases the protection of an individual. There would be some kind of prosecution if somebody committed an act that in any way harmed the physical integrity of an individual.

      We live in a globalised world, and people can feel isolated but at the same time they are in competition with others. We have local traditional, religious and family life, which does not confer automatic recognition on an individual, and I think that that creates more fear. People are worried about their future and one way of assuaging those concerns is to seek to enter a reassuring environment. We live in a world and society that resembles what I have just described, and these religious organisations tend to target the most fragile and youngest in our society first by alienating them, until they no longer belong to themselves. That is why we are duty bound to protect their freedom and freedom of thought. I believe that the Assembly is in a good position to raise awareness of this issue and make a real contribution.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Karamanli. I now call Mr Ghiletchi who is a member of the Group of the European People's Party.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – Thank you, Mr President, for being generous and giving me the opportunity to speak about this report. I regret what happened earlier because I feel that there was an arrangement to prohibit me from expressing my view on this report.

      The protection of minors is a legitimate concern, but the report is far from responding to it. The report by my colleague, Rudy Salles, has proved extremely controversial and has provoked strong opposition, including many letters to the President and Secretary General, and a petition that received about 10,000 signatures in just one week. The key problem lies in the rapporteur’s approach and insistence on using undefined terms such as “sects”, “sect-like movements” and “excesses” in both the title and text of the report, despite many previous recommendations of the Assembly against such practice. To ask a State to initiate criminal proceedings on the basis of undefined terms runs completely contrary to all that this institution stands for. Human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law are all undermined when there is legal uncertainty for the citizen, and when authorities are asked to act from a position of prejudice against minority groups in society.

      At this morning’s meeting of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, confusion reigned. The committee was unable to come to a view on about one third of the amendments because the votes were tied with equal numbers on each side. All must agree that the protection of minors against abuse, violence and other criminal acts must be paramount, but that does not need special measures against undefined “excesses” – which may be legal or illegal; we are not told – and for which only certain undefined minority groups within society are to be investigated.

      The correct way for children to be protected is for the law to be enforced on the same non-discriminatory basis for all, without fear or favour. However, it is precisely in that area of non-discrimination that Mr Salles’s report is most unsatisfactory, and he clearly has not acted as an impartial or neutral rapporteur. Despite being told again and again by authorities in the member States he visited that there was no significant difference between the incidence of abuse in their countries by minority religious groups and the general population, and that therefore they did not see any need to establish special lists, registers of “sects” or initiate special investigations against them, the report asks for exactly that. This is clearly not an evidence-based report and it seeks to undermine those rights and stir up prejudice against some minorities by using the label of “sects”. To me, such attitudes have no place in an institution dedicated to upholding human rights.

      I recall Resolution 1412 passed by this Assembly in 1999, in which it was decided not to use the term “sect”, and that was replaced by “groups of a religious, esoteric or spiritual nature”. Unless we define that term, we cannot approve this report.

      The PRESIDENT – I am now going to call Mr Wold, who I am afraid must be the last speaker, because we have an awful lot of amendments to get through.

      Mr WOLD (Norway) – The Assembly is currently dealing with an extremely difficult issue. When someone’s belief, attitude, morals or principles are being challenged, people usually respond strongly and wholeheartedly. So it is with regard to this report – according to a press release, more than 10,000 people have signed a petition against it in just over one week.

      Let me underline that I am a good Norwegian Christian. I am not a very regular visitor to my church, but I know where I stand, and I know for sure that several points in this report do not take into consideration the fantastic and voluntary work being carried out in the best interests of all persons of belief with links to a parish.

      Numerous inquiries have been made to many of the Assembly’s members, both before the report was discussed in the Committee of Legal Affairs and Human Rights and before this plenary session. Common to them all is a strong wish that the Assembly should not adopt the report.

      In essence, the draft resolution’s recommended measures will result in rising government restrictions and social hostility against minority religious organisations and communities. The measures pose serious threats to the human rights and fundamental freedoms of millions of members of minority faiths throughout the Council of Europe.

      The use of the term “sect” will establish a restrictive classification system that will stigmatise and marginalise targeted minority faiths. It is notable that in 2005 the United Nations Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief was critical of the French attempt to stigmatise and label genuine Christian minorities as sects, stating that it could lead to discrimination and limitations on basic fundamental freedoms.

      The report seems to have been written with the aim of protecting children and young people. However, it includes measures from France that although not discriminatory have had serious consequences for French minority families. I really do not think we want the same sorts of conditions in other Assembly member States. I also have to mention that the report is authored by our colleague Mr Salles, who works on an official basis with anti-religious groups such as Miviludes, a fact that he himself has confirmed to the media.

      On that basis, I warn strongly against us regarding genuine minority faiths throughout Europe as dangerous cults and sects.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Wold.

      I must now interrupt the list of speakers. The speeches of members on the speakers list who have been present during the debate but have not been able to speak may be given to the Table Office, in typescript only, for publication in the official report.

      (The speaker continued in French.)

      I call Mr Salles, rapporteur, to reply. You have seven minutes.

      Mr SALLES (France)* – I will say just a few words, to set the record straight. A number of members have supported what we are trying to do. The report is a thorough piece of work that has been carried out over the past two or more years in the Council of Europe. I have been working on the issue in the French Parliament for 20 years now.

      I am sorry to say that I have heard all kinds of untruths. Mr Binley has alleged that the report is purely French. That is absolutely not the case – in the Council of Europe we work for Europe, and we have not written a purely French report. Mr Wold mentioned Miviludes, and said that it is anti-religious. He probably does not know what type of body we are referring to. In fact, it is an official French Government body on which parliamentarians sit so as to ensure that they are kept properly informed. It is not any kind of sect, as he might have thought.

      I can assure you that French parliamentarians have done an awful lot of work on this subject. God only knows that in France we respect freedom of religion and freedom of thought – they are fundamental rights enshrined in our constitution. But we have done a great deal of work on sects and every vote we have had on the matter in the French Parliament has been unanimous. The fact that this issue is so thorny, vexed and difficult is indicated by the fact that although we would normally expect to be faced with some kind of political split, as we see on other subjects in the National Assembly, that is not the case on this subject. As I say, there is unanimity on this issue in the French Parliament, which is rare in our democratic parliaments.

      Members also talked about legal uncertainty, about which Mr Ghiletchi was much exercised. He said that there was no definition of the word “sect”. It is true that, generally speaking, sects are associations. But having said that, it is not the case that sects are on trial or anything like that; rather, the issue is the kind of abuses or excesses that would breach minors’ rights. I will give a few examples, and I can assure you that all these abuses or excesses are covered by the penal codes in all our countries. They include mental destabilisation, excessive financial demands, breakdown of relations with one’s original environment, undermining of physical integrity, indoctrination of children, antisocial speech and public order problems. It also involves looking at whether there is any rerouting of the traditional economic flow.

      You can always claim that those kinds of abuses do not exist, and we would of course all rather that they did not, but I can tell you that they do. We have been producing reports on this subject for over 20 years now in France, and in your own countries there are about 200 different sect-like movements. There are 180 000 Jehovah’s Witnesses in France alone. We have talked to victims – people who have managed to get out of the clutches of these sects but have not been strong enough to go to court because often they are impaired psychologically, and physically as well. They have told us that a lot of children are forced to give 23 hours of their time every week to the Jehovah’s Witnesses to distribute pamphlets and engage in propaganda for that sect.

      You might think that the report is pointless and that everything that we are doing is counter-productive, or that we are somehow against minority religions, but you could not be more wrong. In France I can assure you that we would have gone to the courts but have not been able to take the matter further. We are standing up today to defend children – to defend their integrity and to protect them. If the Council of Europe does not adopt this resolution today it will be complicit with those who are harming young people.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Salles. Does the chairman of the committee wish to speak? You have two minutes, Mr Clappison.

      Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – On behalf of the committee, I express support for the draft resolution, the draft recommendation and the report of my colleague. As the Assembly has heard, the report stresses the need to take more measures at national and European level to counter excesses of sectarian movements that affect minors. It puts emphasis on the need to protect them against acts intended to place them in psychological or physical submission and calls on member States to collect reliable data relating to sectarian excesses.

      The PRESIDENT – The debate is closed.

      The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has presented a draft resolution to which 42 amendments and four sub-amendments have been proposed, and a draft recommendation to which 16 amendments have been tabled.

      The amendments will be taken in the order in which they appear in the Compendium and the Organisation of Debates. I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

      We will start by considering the draft resolution. I understand that the Chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendments 2 and 9 to the draft resolution, which were unanimously approved by the committee, be declared as agreed by the Assembly under Rule 33.11. Is that so, Mr Clappison?

      Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – That is so, but I believe that there were a number of other amendments in the same category.

      The PRESIDENT – Unfortunately, sub-amendments were tabled to the others, which means that they cannot be considered under this procedure. Does anyone object to the adoption of Amendments 2 and 9? I call Lord Anderson.

      Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom) – You will note that I have tabled a number of amendments about the word “sect”, and that word appears in Amendment 2. I object to its appearance in Amendment 2 for the same reason that I object to its appearance in a number of other instances.

      The PRESIDENT – You therefore object to us adopting the amendments; is that correct?

      Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom) – I have objected to use of the word “sect”, which is loaded, throughout the document, so I object, unless there is some means of examining the issue now. Otherwise, we allow through the door the use of a word that I object to throughout the report.

      The PRESIDENT – I think your point is made, Lord Anderson, and for the avoidance of any doubt, we will consider those two amendments when we reach them in the Compendium.

      We come to Amendment 1, tabled by the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 1, replace the word “minors” with the word “children”.

      I call Mr Bugnon to support Amendment 1.

      Mr BUGNON (Switzerland)* – As colleagues will have heard in the debate, the report often uses the terms “minors” and “children” indiscriminately. Paragraph 1 of the draft resolution refers to texts of resolutions that have already been adopted. It is important that we get the terms right. In the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the term “children” is used for anyone under 18. I suggest that we use that term here, instead of “minors”.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

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

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 1 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 2, tabled by the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of the paragraph 1, add the following words: “, and which may be relevant where the excesses of sects lead to exploitation and abuse of or trafficking in children or to disregard for their rights in the framework of judicial proceedings.”

      I call Mr Bugnon to support Amendment 2.

      Mr BUGNON (Switzerland)* – The amendment was agreed to by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, but its adoption is contested because it mentions “excesses”. We need to call a spade a spade. We are not challenging religious freedom, but certain religious movements are sects. We are talking about excesses, abuses, or pernicious influence.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Lord Anderson.

      Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom) – I shall speak to several amendments relating to use of the word “sect”. If the mover of Amendment 2 is prepared to have in place of that word the formulation that I give elsewhere, I will take my objection no further.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

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

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 2 is adopted.

      We come to Amendment 41, tabled by Mr Dobbin, Mr Ghiletchi, Sir Alan Meale, Mr Donaldson and Mr Benton, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 1, insert the following paragraph:

      “The Assembly is particularly concerned about the protection of minors, in particular minors who belong to religious minorities. It is committed to a policy for respect for freedom of religion or belief as stated in Article 9 of the European Convention for Human Rights and condemns intolerance and discrimination against children on grounds of religion or belief, in particular in the education system.”I

      I call Mr Ghiletchi to support Amendment 41.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – I support this amendment because we should be thinking about children and their welfare, and should make sure that their freedom and the freedom of their parents is respected, in line with Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

      The PRESIDENT – We come to Sub-Amendment 1, tabled by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in Amendment 41, at the end of the first sentence, after the words “belong to religious minorities”, insert the following words: “including sects”.

      I call Mr Salles to support Sub-Amendment 1.

      Mr SALLES (France)* – At the end of the first sentence of Amendment 41, after “religious minorities”, we would insert “including sects”.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the sub-amendment? I call Mr Ghiletchi.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – I am against the sub-amendment because the word “sect” is not defined, as I and other colleagues have explained clearly. Adding the word “sects” will not add any value.

      The PRESIDENT – The proposer of Amendment 41 is therefore against the sub-amendment. What is the opinion of the committee?

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

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Sub-Amendment 1 is adopted.

      Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 41, as amended? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

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

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 41, as amended, is adopted.

      We come to Amendment 42, tabled by Mr Dobbin, Mr Ghiletchi, Sir Alan Meale, Mr Donaldson and Mr Benton, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 1, insert the following paragraph:

      “The Council of Europe is also committed to a policy for the protection of rights mentioned in Article 2 of the additional protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights to respect the rights of parents to ensure that their children are raised and educated in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions. The Assembly has expressed concern regarding discrimination that may arise from unnecessary restrictions on the rights of parents to raise and educate their children in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions. The Parliamentary Assembly therefore recalls Recommendation 1720 (2005) on education and religion, Recommendation 1396 (1999) on religion and democracy, Resolution 1928 (2013) on safeguarding human rights in relation to religion and belief and protecting religious communities from violence (particularly paragraph 9.11) and Resolution 1904 (2012) on the right to freedom of choice in education in Europe.”I

      I call Mr Ghiletchi to support Amendment 42.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – The amendment refers to documents adopted by the Assembly, some recently and some a while ago. They are very important, because they refer to the protection of children. If the main goal of the report is to protect children, we should agree to the amendment, which will balance the report and ensure that we are talking about the protection of children, not about sects.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 42? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

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

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 42 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 9, tabled by Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Badea, Mr Preda, Ms Guţu and Mr Wadephul, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraphs 3, 5, 6.2, 6.6, 6.7 and 6.8, to replace the words “excesses of” by the following words: “violations of the law by”.

      I call Mr Ghiletchi to support Amendment 9.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – I want to replace “excesses of” with “violations of the law by” because defined terms are important. We have laws and if someone violates one, they should be punished.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case

      What is the opinion of the committee?

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

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 9 is adopted.

      We come to Amendment 30, tabled by Lord Anderson, Mr Binley, Mr Benton, Mr Donaldson and Mr Dobbin, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraphs 3, 5, 6.1, 6.3, 6.6, 6.8 and 7, to replace the word “sect[s]” with the following words: “religious, esoterical and spiritual groups”.

      I call Lord Anderson to support Amendment 30.

      Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom) – Sect is a pejorative word. We have been advised by a UN special rapporteur on human rights that it should be avoided in legal terms wherever possible. Why do we ignore that advice? Why do we ignore the precedent that we have set for ourselves?

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

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

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 30 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 43, tabled by Mr Dobbin, Mr Ghiletchi, Sir Alan Meale, Mr Donaldson and Mr Benton, which is, in the draft resolution, to delete paragraph 3.

      If this amendment is agreed to, Amendments 33, 10, 3 and 4 fall.

      I call Mr Ghiletchi to support Amendment 43.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – I propose to delete paragraph 3 because we should not say that the Assembly is “concerned about the influence which sect-like movements can have on minors” when there is no evidence for it. It would just open up a Pandora’s Box in terms of attacks on religious minorities.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

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

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 43 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 33, tabled by Mr Binley, Lord Anderson, Mr Donaldson, Mr Benton and Mr Dobbin, which is, in the draft resolution, to replace paragraph 3 with the following paragraph:

“The Assembly is concerned when any minors are abused in any way. It is vital that existing legislation be firmly applied and that this is done within the context of respecting the rights of children and their parents in line with articles 9 and 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights.”

      If this amendment is agreed to, Amendments 10, 3 and 4 will fall.

      I call Mr Binley to support Amendment 33.

      Mr BINLEY (United Kingdom) – The proposal cannot be substantiated by evidence in the report. Furthermore, the terminology is discriminatory and prejudicial. A reasoned human rights approach must be taken in alignment with Council of Europe principles. The report does not understand any English common law values, under which an individual – not a group – is held to be responsible.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Salles.

      Mr SALLES (France)* – We of course respect the principles of the Council of Europe and this amendment is of no use.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

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

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 33 is adopted.

      Amendments 10, 3 and 4 fall.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – On a point of order, Mr President. Amendment 4 should not fall. It was tabled by the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development and deals with the order and not the substance of paragraphs. It was adopted in the committee, which I have the honour of chairing, and is supported by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Ghiletchi. I am just consulting the Secretariat

      The content of paragraph 3 has been completely changed, so Amendment 4 no longer applies.

      We come to Amendment 34, tabled by Lord Anderson, Mr Donaldson, Mr Binley, Mr Benton and Mr Dobbin, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 4, to replace the last sentence with the following sentence:

“The Assembly believes that any religious or quasi-religious organisation should be accountable in the public sphere for any contraventions of the criminal law and welcomes annoucements by established religious organisations that reports of child abuse within those organisations should be reported for investigation to the police. The Assembly does not believe that there are any grounds for discriminating between established and other religions, including minority religions and faiths, in the application of these principles.”

      Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom) – As a Christian, I am ashamed when something happens against the interests of minors in the name of religion – whether by a priest, a pastor or an Islamic school. We should not discriminate between minority and mainstream religions. When minors’ interests are affected, the criminal law should bear down on them with all its severity. Why discriminate?

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Salles.

      Mr SALLES (France)* – We are not talking about religions. We are talking about sects. Lord Anderson is not pleased to hear that, but that is why I am against the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

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

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 34 is adopted.

      Amendment 11 falls.

      We come to Amendment 44, tabled by Mr Dobbin, Mr Ghiletchi, Sir Alan Meale, Mr Donaldson and Mr Benton, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 4, to add the following sentence:

“These Recommendations apply to minors and their protection as individuals or as part of a religious group is to be addressed.”

      I call Mr Ghiletchi to support Amendment 44.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – I propose this amendment with the same thing in mind. The draft recommendation applies to minors and their protection as individuals as part of a religious group. We need to think about the protection of minors.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

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

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 44 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 5, tabled by the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 4, insert the following paragraph:

“The Assembly recalls that from the moment minors come into contact with sects in any way, a balance must be struck between different categories of human rights. Indeed, having regard to freedom of thought, conscience and religion as a human right for all, children themselves can also claim this right (without being forced by influences limiting their freedom of thought), while having the right to be protected against any form of violence. Where adjudication is necessary, the child’s best interests must be the primary consideration in all decisions concerning children, as stipulated by Article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.”

      I call Mr Bugnon to support Amendment 5.

      Mr BUGNON (Switzerland)* – There is a contradiction between the rights to freedom of religion and conscience, and the desire to protect children from sects. We want to add to the draft resolution to underline the importance of taking the best interests of the child into account if they are in a sect.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

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

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 5 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 35, tabled by Lord Anderson, Mr Donaldson, Mr Binley, Mr Benton and Mr Dobbin, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 5 with the following paragraphs:

“The Assembly recalls that in 1992, when examining the issue of freedom of religion and religious minorities, it chose to discontinue the use of the word “sect” and replace it with “groups of a religious, esoteric or spiritual nature” (Recommendation 1412 (1999)). This decision recognised that the word “sect” and other pejorative or stigmatising labels should not be used in Council of Europe reports. In reaching such a conclusion the Assembly reflected international standards such as the UN standards regarding freedom of religion and religious minorities.

The Assembly notes the results of the questionnaire distributed to all Parliamentary delegations that the unlawful activities of members of religious organisations fall within the scope of the general criminal law and the laws on freedom of worship. It further notes that France is the only country where there is currently an initiative in Parliament to increase protection for minors against the influence of religious minorities. Furthermore, it takes solace from the fact that, even in France, senior politicians, the police, education officials or child protection organisations regard cases of physical or psychological ill-treatment of minors as exceptional (reference Prime Minister Dominic de Villepin, Sept 2005, et al). The Assembly draws attention to the work done by the French Prime Minister's office MIVILUDES and, in particular, the conclusions of the report of George Fenech in 2009 that there was no real problem in sixteen other Council of Europe countries which had been studied.

The Parliamentary Assembly reaffirms its belief that freedom of thought, conscience and religion is a fundamental right and, therefore, supports the approach of the European Court of Human Rights in, for example, its decision to deem unlawful the refusal of the Hungarian Court to allow a father to see his child because the father belonged to a Pentecostal movement (Vojnity). It also welcomes the Court's determination to expose the danger of prejudice unrelated to fact when deployed against particular religious minorities such as Jehovah's Witnesses (see Jehovah's Witnesses of Moscow vs Russia (app 203/02).”

      If this amendment is agreed to, Amendments 45 and 12 fall.

      I call Lord Anderson to support Amendment 35.

      Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom) – This rather long amendment is self-explanatory. Effectively, it reflects current information about the positions of the Assembly and the European Court of Human Rights on religious minorities. It is non-discriminatory, and based on factual information, which, alas, is sadly lacking elsewhere.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – Against.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 35 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 45, tabled by Mr Dobbin, Mr Ghiletchi, Sir Alan Meale, Mr Donaldson, Mr Benton, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 5 with the following paragraph:

“The Assembly notes that, in conformity with Resolution 1530 (2007), paragraph 1, the protection of minors, parental rights and freedom of religion or belief are to be promoted in any context, whether public (including public schools, hospitals, etc.) or private (including private education systems, the family, sport and other recreational activities, religious activities, etc.).”

      If this amendment is agreed to, Amendment 12 falls.

      I call Mr Ghiletchi to support Amendment 45.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – Amendment 45 would improve the resolution by emphasising that the rights of parents and children should be promoted in public and private – for example, in hospitals. We need to think about the welfare of children and their parents.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – The committee is in favour of the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 45 is adopted.

      Amendment 12 falls, so we come to Amendment 36, tabled by Mr Binley, Lord Anderson, Mr Donaldson, Mr Benton and Mr Dobbin, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 6 with the following paragraph:

      “The Assembly therefore calls on the member States to sign and/or ratify the relevant Council of Europe conventions on child protection and welfare if they have not already done so.”If

      If this amendment is agreed to, the following amendments will fall: 13, 46, 47, 14, 48, 6, 49, 15, 16, 7, 50, 8, 51, 17, 18 and 52.

      I call Mr Binley to support Amendment 36.

      Mr BINLEY (United Kingdom) – The amendment is straightforward and needs little explanation. We are calling on all member governments to ensure that child protection and welfare is written into their laws.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – Against.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 36 is adopted.

      In that case, we come to Amendment 19, tabled by Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Badea, Mr Preda, Ms Guţu and Mr Wadephul, which is, in the draft resolution, delete paragraph 7.

      If the amendment is agreed to, Amendments 53 and 20 will fall.

      I call Mr Ghiletchi to support Amendment 19.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – I tabled the amendment because I believe it is up to national parliaments to decide what kind of study groups to set up and what kind of phenomena to research. It is not our business to tell national parliaments what to do. We must respect them because they know what the problems in their countries are. Therefore, paragraph 7 is inappropriate.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – Against.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 19 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 53, tabled by Mr Dobbin, Mr Ghiletchi, Sir Alan Meale, Mr Donaldson and Mr Benton, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 7, replace the words “phenomenon of sects and its impact on minors” with the following words:

“protection of minors, in particular those belonging to religious minorities.”

      I call Mr Ghiletchi to support Amendment 53.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – The amendment would replace the words “phenomenon of sects and its impact on minors” with the words “protection of minors, in particular those belonging to religious minorities.” I remind the Assembly that we do not have a definition of the word “sect”. In the past, this Assembly used different terminology. We cannot use terminology that is not defined: think about children who belong to religious minorities.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Salles.

      Mr SALLES (France)* – The same reasoning is being used again. Some people refuse to recognise the phenomenon of sects and are trying to distort the truth. I am against the amendment.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

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

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 53 is adopted.

      Amendment 20 falls, so we come to Amendment 21, tabled by Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Badea, Mr Preda, Ms Guţu and Mr Wadephul, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 7, insert the following paragraph:

“The Assembly calls on member States to ensure that no discrimination is allowed on the basis of which movement is considered as a sect or not, that no distinction is made between traditional religions and non-traditional religious movements, new religious movements or ‘sects’ when it comes to the application of civil and criminal law, and that each measure which is taken towards non-traditional religious movements, new religious movements or ‘sects’ is aligned with human rights standards as laid down by the European Convention on Human Rights and other relevant instruments protecting the dignity inherent to all human beings and their equal and inalienable rights.”

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – My committee voted for Amendment 20 because it adds words to the paragraph. The two amendments do not contradict each other. We voted for Amendment 20 in the committee. There was a tied vote, but I explained to the committee that the amendments do not contradict each other because Amendment 20 would add words to the end of the paragraph.

      The PRESIDENT – Please bear with me. Apparently, because Amendment 53 removes the word “sects”, Amendment 20 falls.

      I call Mr Ghiletchi to support Amendment 21.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – Amendment 21 calls on member States to ensure that no discrimination is allowed on the basis of which movement is considered a sect. It is important that we respect the principle of non-discrimination, which is the fundamental principle of this Assembly. The amendment would ensure there is no discrimination when such sensitive issues are tackled.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Sobolev.

      Mr SOBOLEV (Ukraine) – If the report does not exclude the word “sect”, we cannot vote for it. We are not gods. We cannot choose which religions are sects. Orthodoxy, Judaism and other religions can be deemed sects in countries in which they are minority religions. For us, it is a point of principle. If that does not happen, we cannot vote for the report. We must protect children and minorities, but we should not choose which religions to protect – Islam, Christianity or anything else.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – The committee is in favour of Amendment 21.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 21 is adopted.

      We come to Amendment 22, tabled by Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Badea, Mr Preda, Ms Guţu and Mr Wadephul, which is, replace the title of the draft resolution with the following words: “Tackling the issue of minors and religious, spiritual and esoteric groups”.

      If the amendment is agreed to, Amendments 40 and 29 fall.

      I call Mr Ghiletchi to support Amendment 22.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – I propose to change the title of the draft resolution, in line with what Mr Sobolev just said. From the beginning, I have tried to emphasise that we do not have a definition of the word “sect”, so let us use the terminology that is understood by the Assembly and member States. The proposal is that the title be, “Tackling the issue of minors and religious, spiritual and esoteric groups”. That was in Recommendation 1412 of 1999.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Salles.

      Mr SALLES (France)* – Sects go way beyond what Mr Ghiletchi has just described. There are medical sects and sports sects, which are not covered by what he has just said. If you want to distort the whole text, carry on.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

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

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 22 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 40, tabled by Mr Dobbin, Mr Ghiletchi, Sir Alan Meale, Mr Donaldson and Mr Benton, which is, in the title of the draft resolution, replace the words “against the excesses of sects” with the following words:

“belonging to religious minorities”.

      I call Mr Ghiletchi to support the amendment.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – I am trying again to change the word “sects”. We want to protect children not belonging to sects but belonging to religious minorities.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?       I call Mr Salles.

      Mr SALLES (France)* – For the reasons I gave earlier, sects are not just religious or esoteric movements. It is a much wider term. I am sorry, but Mr Ghiletchi does not seem to want to understand that.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

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

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 40 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 29, tabled by Lord Anderson, Mr Binley, Mr Benton, Mr Donaldson and Mr Dobbin, which is, in the title of the resolution, replace the word “sects” with the following words:

“religious, esoterical and spiritual groups”.

      I call Lord Anderson to support Amendment 29.

      Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom) – We are back to the word “sects”. We are very strongly against them, but we do not know what they are, so why not at least use the terms that are already available? As for the suggestion that there are sects that are non-religious, surely the word “esoteric” covers that adequately.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

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

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 29 is rejected.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – On a point of order, Mr President, I propose that the report be sent back to the committee. As we have seen, the lack of definition is causing a lot of confusion and contradiction. The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights must take additional time either to find a definition of the word “sect” or to get rid of the word. I propose that the Assembly vote on sending the report back to the committee.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. That is in order. Does anyone wish to speak against?I call Mr Sobolev.

      Mr SOBOLEV (Ukraine) – I want to support my colleague. It is a very dangerous –

      The PRESIDENT – No: I am afraid that is out of order. Mr Ghiletchi has moved that the Assembly send the report back to the committee. It is in order. I now ask whether someone wishes to speak against the motion to refer the report back. Does anyone wish to speak against?       I call Mr Díaz Tejera.

      Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain)* – I respect all kinds of religions: minority religions, majority religions. But we have made a real effort on this issue. Mr Ghiletchi knows I supported a couple of his amendments in the committee because I thought that that was the generous thing to do, but the core of the report is sound. It is good, so why would you want it to go back to the committee? This has taken a long time. Hard work has been done over a long period. This shows a lack of respect for the people involved.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you.

      Either the rapporteur or the chairman of the committee has a right to speak on this. I call Mr Salles.

      Mr SALLES (France)* – I am opposed to referring the report back. This afternoon, there has been an attempt to undermine the text and strip it of any meaning. Nevertheless, we have made a bit of progress. Again, I realise that the Council of Europe is behind in the fight against abuses of children by sects. That is a subject of regret.

      Mr BINLEY (United Kingdom) – On a point of order, Mr President. Is it parliamentary language to accuse other members in that way? It is disgraceful.

      The PRESIDENT – Mr Binley, you have made your point and it is on the record.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – The committee has not taken a position on this, but it has voted in favour of the resolution and recommendation and gone through the amendments with some care. I cannot say other than that. I do not want to present an opinion on something on behalf of the committee that it has not taken an opinion on. All I can say is that it has supported the resolution and recommendation.

      The PRESIDENT – The Assembly will now vote on the motion to refer the report back to the committee.

      The vote is open.

      The motion is rejected.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13441, as amended.

The vote is open

The draft resolution in Document 13441, as amended, is adopted, with 29 votes for, 14 against and 11 abstentions.

      (Mr Giovagnoli, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Walter.)

      The PRESIDENT – We shall now proceed to consider amendments to the draft recommendation. There are 16 amendments to consider. I draw your attention to the fact that there is an error in the French version of the Compendium. Amendment 24 should read as follows: “replace the word ‘excesses’ with the word ‘violation of the law by groups’.”

      I understand that the Chairperson of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendment 24 to the draft recommendation, which was unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly under Rule 33.11. Is that so Mr Clappison?

      Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – Yes.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone object? As there is no objection, I declare that Amendment 24 to the draft recommendation has been agreed.

      The following amendment has been adopted:

      Amendment 24, tabled by Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Badea, Mr Preda, Ms Guţu and Mr Wadephul, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraphs 1, 1.2 and 1.3, replace the words “excesses of” with the following words: “violations of the law by”.

      We come to Amendment 23, tabled by Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Badea, Mr Preda, Ms Guţu and Mr Wadephul, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraphs 1, 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3, replace the word “sects” with the following words: “religious, spiritual and esoteric groups”, and Amendment 32, tabled by Lord Anderson, Mr Binley, Mr Benton, Mr Donaldson and Mr Dobbin, is, in the draft recommendation, paragraphs 1, 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3, replace the word “sects” with the following words: “religious, esoterical and spiritual groups”.

      I draw attention to the fact that Amendments 23 and 32 are identical. As Amendment 23 was tabled first, I will call the mover of that amendment to move both amendments.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – I am glad that we excluded one undefined term – “excesses” – but we need to exclude another. A recommendation passed in 1999 used different terminology, namely “religious, esoteric or spiritual groups”. We need to get rid of the word “sects”; otherwise there is no way in which we can agree to this recommendation.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – Against.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendments 23 and 32 are rejected.

      We come to Amendment 55, tabled by Mr Dobbin, Mr Ghiletchi, Sir Alan Meale, Mr Donaldson and Mr Benton, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 1, replace the words “minors against excesses of sects” with the following words: “the rights of minors belonging to religious minorities”.

      I call Mr Ghiletchi to support Amendment 55.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – The same line of argument applies. We need to protect children and minors belonging to religious minorities and not attack them or put them on a dangerous path. That is why we propose replacing “minors against excesses of sects” with “the rights of minors belonging to religious minorities”.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Salles.

      Mr SALLES (France)* – If we were to adopt such an amendment, we would stigmatise religious minorities. We refuse to do that, which is why we wish to keep the term “sects”, which is entirely different.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – Against.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 55 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 37, tabled by Mr Binley, Lord Anderson, Mr Donaldson, Mr Benton and Mr Dobbin, which is, in the draft recommendation, replace paragraph 1.1 with the following paragraph:

      “conduct a survey through their Interior Ministries to determine whether there is any issue within their own countries that is in violation of international human rights standards with regards to religious groups and child rights and to make recommendations should there be any concerns;”I

      I should inform the Assembly that Amendments 56 and 25 will fall is this amendment is agreed to. I call Mr Binley to support Amendment 37.

      Mr BINLEY (United Kingdom) – The reasons for this amendment are really very simple. The recommendation as drafted uses pejorative language and should be amended to ensure that surveys are conducted in the context of a legal and human rights framework that make the matter clearer.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Salles.

      Mr SALLES (France)* – It is not a matter of carrying out surveys, because excesses of sects are caught by the legislation anyway, so there is no point to the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – Against.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 37 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 56, tabled by Mr Dobbin, Mr Ghiletchi, Sir Alan Meale, Mr Donaldson and Mr Benton, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 1.1, replace the words “the phenomenon of sects” with the following words: “abuses, violence and criminal offences”; and add at the end the following words: “, in particular concerning minors belonging to religious minorities”.

      I must inform the Assembly that if the amendment is agreed to, Amendment 25 will fall. I call Mr Ghiletchi to support Amendment 56.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – If we do not want to stigmatise sects or other groups, let us accept this amendment, which uses clear terms: “abuses, violence and criminal offences” – things for which people can be prosecuted in our penal courts. Let us not use words that stigmatise people and have no definition whatever.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Salles.

      Mr SALLES (France)* – Stigmatisation is contained in this amendment, which is why I am entirely opposed to it.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – Against.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 56 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 25, tabled by Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Badea, Mr Preda, Ms Guţu and Mr Wadephul, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 1.1, replace the word “sects” with the following words: “religious, spiritual or esoteric groups”; and, at the end of the sentence, insert the following words: “, in partnership with the Venice Commission;”.

      I call Mr Ghiletchi to support Amendment 25.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – In addition to my previous arguments, this amendment calls for something new. It says that the work should be done in partnership with the Venice Commission, the legal body that can help us to write a definition. The amendment should be accepted. I see no reason not to co-operate with the Venice Commission, which is what we do whenever we need legal advice.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Salles.

      Mr SALLES (France)* – I would like to say to Mr Ghiletchi that, in point of fact, the Venice Commission does not enjoy competence in this case.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – Against.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 25 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 38, tabled by Mr Binley, Lord Anderson, Mr Donaldson, Mr Benton and Mr Dobbin, which is, in the draft recommendation, replace paragraph 1.2 with the following paragraph:

“establish a working group within the Venice Commission to determine if there are any fundamental legal or human rights conflicts with regards to the use of such words as ‘sect’ or ‘cult’ and whether there should be a differentiation between traditional, new, minority or majority religions when it comes to determining whether they have committed illegal activities;”

      I must inform the Assembly that if the amendment is agreed to, Amendments 26 and 57 will fall. I call Mr Binley to support Amendment 38.

      Mr BINLEY (United Kingdom) – The rapporteur is quite certain that everybody understands the word “sect”. I argue that in my country it is a very pejorative word and detracts enormously from the work he is trying to do for minors and children. I therefore suggest that we put it to the Venice Commission to get an understanding, so that we can all be certain that we are using the right words when we talk about legal matters.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Salles.

      Mr SALLES (France)* – I am against the amendment for the same reasons that have just been set out. The term “sect” is understood by everyone and I am sorry if that is not the case for my colleague.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – Against.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 38 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 26, tabled by Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Badea, Mr Preda, Ms Guţu and Mr Wadephul, which is, in the draft recommendation, replace paragraph 1.2 with the following paragraph:

“set up a working group to exchange information between member States on religious, spiritual or esoteric groups, develop good practices for preventing the problems that might arise in that field which affect minors, and involve experts on religion and law for extensive consultation in order to do so;”

      I must inform the Assembly that if Amendment 26 is agreed to, Amendment 57 falls.

      I call Mr Ghiletchi to support Amendment 26.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – How can we call on member States to exchange information on the excesses of sects when the absolute majority of member States do not use that term? It is ridiculous, because most of us use a different terminology.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Salles.

      Mr SALLES (France)* – I have the same objection, for the same reasons I set out earlier. Unfortunately, Mr Ghiletchi, sects do exist, even if you want to insist that you are unaware of them.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

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

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 26 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 57, tabled by Mr Dobbin, Mr Ghiletchi, Sir Alan Meale, Mr Donaldson and Mr Benton, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 1.2, replace the words “excesses of sects affecting minors” with the following words: “cases of child abuse, in particular of minors belonging to religious minorities, and on the protection of minors.”

      I call Mr Ghiletchi to support Amendment 57.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – Again, we want to replace the words “excesses of sects affecting minors”. Mr Salles believes that everybody knows what that means, but only he knows what he has in mind. Do not impose your definition on others, Mr Salles. Have respect for other members of this Assembly. There is no legal definition of a sect. Ultimately, a legal definition should be what counts, not personal opinions.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Salles.

      Mr SALLES (France)* – Mr Ghiletchi, I respect everyone here in the Assembly. The purpose of the Assembly is to exchange information, and sadly sects have no borders.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

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

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 57 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 39, tabled by Lord Anderson, Mr Donaldson, Mr Benton, Mr Dobbin and Mr Binley, which is, in the draft recommendation, replace paragraph 1.3 with the following paragraph:

“call upon established academic and legal experts in the field of religion to come together to seek to improve co-operation at European level with a view to providing insight into the activities of religious, esoterical or spiritual movements and to study any areas of concern expressed by the Committee of Ministers;”

      I must inform the Assembly that if Amendment 39 is agreed to, Amendments 27 and 58 fall.

      I call Lord Anderson to support Amendment 39.

      Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom) – Even our French colleagues are unable to define their target: sects. The word “cults” would run into the same problem in our language. They do not know what sects are. What they have said implies that they accept that the evidence is weak. To avoid any arrogance, why not turn to the wealth of academic and legal experts, who can help us define and co-operate in this field?

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Salles.

      Mr SALLES (France)* – Lord Anderson is not aware of sects and how they are defined, but the victims know only too well. With regard to calling upon senior experts, it seems to me that the largest sects will pay for the best experts to produce reports in their favour, so be very careful.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

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

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 39 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 27, tabled by Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Badea, Mr Preda, Ms Guţu and Mr Wadephul, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 1.3, replace the words “to prevent excesses of sects and protect minors against them” with the following words: “to gather accurate information on religious, spiritual or esoteric groups and the way they affect minors, while respecting the right of parents to educate their children in adequacy with their own religious or non-religious beliefs”.

      I must inform the Assembly that if Amendment 27 is agreed to, Amendment 58 will fall.

      I call Mr Ghiletchi to support Amendment 27.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – If in this Assembly we are unable to show the necessary respect, can you imagine what will happen in our societies if we do not have a clear definition of a sect? Mr Gross, you advocate a non-discriminatory approach, so let us vote for something that will defend religious freedom in a non-discriminatory manner.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Salles.

      Mr SALLES (France)* – I repeat what I have said from the outset. Unfortunately, even if Mr Ghiletchi is unaware of sects, their victims know them only too well.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

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

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 27 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 58, tabled by Mr Dobbin, Mr Ghiletchi, Sir Alan Meale, Mr Donaldson and Mr Joe Benton, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 1.3, replace the words “to prevent excesses of sects and protect minors against them to” with the following words: “protect minors, especially minors belonging to religious minorities.”

      I call Mr Ghiletchi to support Amendment 58.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – I have already used the arguments that would support this amendment, so I will not repeat myself. If people do not want to see the danger of the report using such terminology, what can I do?

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Salles.

      Mr SALLES (France)* – The adoption of the amendment would do away with prevention, which is very important.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

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

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 58 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 28, tabled by Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Badea, Mr Preda, Ms Guţu and Mr Wadephul, which is, replace the title of the recommendation with the following words: “Tackling the issue of minors and religious, spiritual and esoteric groups”.

      I must inform the Assembly that if Amendment 28 is agreed to, Amendments 54 and 31 fall.

      I call Mr Ghiletchi to support Amendment 28.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – This is a very sad day for me. I belong to a religious minority, and the whole time I was in the Soviet Union I was told that I belonged to a sect. I regret that today we will produce such a recommendation. I call on members of this Assembly who do not want to endanger people to reject the recommendation. We must not produce something that attacks people for their religious convictions. This is very sad.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Salles.

      Mr SALLES (France)* – I remind you, Mr Ghiletchi, that the title of the report refers to “excesses of sects”, which are covered in the penal codes of all our countries. You cannot object to something that is self-evident.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

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

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 28 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 54, tabled by Mr Dobbin, Mr Ghiletchi, Sir Alan Meale, Mr Donaldson and Mr Benton, which is, in the title of the draft recommendation, replace the words “against excesses of sects” with the following words: “belonging to religious minorities”.

      I must inform the Assembly that if Amendment 54 is agreed to, Amendment 31 falls.

      I call Mr Ghiletchi to support Amendment 54.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – I have just moved the same amendment, so there is no reason to speak to it.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

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

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 54 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 31, tabled by Lord Anderson, Mr Binley, Mr Benton, Mr Donaldson and Mr Dobbin, which is, in the title of the draft recommendation, replace the word “sects” with the following words: “religious, esoterical and spiritual groups”.

      I call Lord Anderson to support Amendment 39.

      Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom) – Our French colleagues are prone to boast, “Ce qui n’est pas clair n’est pas français.” It is clear that the formulation “sect”, just like cult, is unclear. They cannot define it. What does it mean? Why not use the formulation used as a precedent by this Assembly? Sect, like cult, is not the same in the Anglo-Saxon languages. This is a sort of French language imperialism.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Salles.

      Mr SALLES (France)* – I regret that Lord Anderson ends on a note insulting my country. There is no French imperialism in the matter; it is just realism, and that relates to a situation causing thousands upon thousands of children to suffer.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

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

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 31 is rejected.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 13441, as amended. A two-thirds majority is required.

      The vote is open.

      The draft recommendation in Document 13441 is not adopted, with 28 votes for, 18 against and 13 abstentions.

(Mr Seyidov, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Giovagnoli.)

3. Decent work for all

      The PRESIDENT – We come to the last item on today’s very difficult agenda. It is a debate on the report entitled “Decent work for all”, Document 13456, presented by Mr Roel Deseyn on behalf of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development.

      I remind members that we have already agreed that in order to finish by 8 p.m. we shall interrupt the list of speakers at about 7.30 p.m. to allow time for the reply and the vote.

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

      Mr DESEYN (Belgium) – Thank you. I will take a few minutes to introduce the report, “Decent work for all”. I thank my colleagues in the Chamber for their bravery in listening to my exposition.

      We want to use the report to spread the concept of decent work. It may also be useful for colleagues to recall the different social dimensions of work. Of course the report is about access to employment, but it is also about safe working conditions – and by that I mean both physical and psychological conditions. We cannot remain blind to the growing phenomenon of burn-out and work-related stress.

      The third dimension of decent work is social rights, and the basic strategy of the text is to give orientation marks for a better Europe that we can advance through society as a whole. If we cannot do this, there can be no progress and we cannot go ahead in partnership with both workers and employers.

      Guaranteeing social rights requires setting out social standards and giving direction. The direction we want is clear. We should strive to ensure that people can live their lives in dignity and with a salary. We should strive to ensure that they have a good work-life balance. With a social contract, there is of course the opportunity for more flexibility, but this should be kept in balance.

      Of course, we are promoting free trade. That is a good thing, but it should create win-win situations around the world. We will not accept social dumping. If we pay sufficient attention to working conditions in other partner countries, we can create a market in those countries – and then a global market – without social dumping. Our report is all about creating win-win situations. When it comes to decreasing the price of labour, we cannot win such a competition: instead, we should create win-win situations around the world.

      Our report pays particular attention to child labour. We call on all partners in the Council of Europe to sign the European Social Charter, which is an important treaty. I recall that 43 countries have signed, with three remaining. However, only 15 countries have recognised the collective complaints procedure, which is a problem.

      We have worked on the report for a long time and I am very grateful to the secretariat and to my colleagues for their positive contributions. I thank also the members of the International Labour Organization with whom we had interesting meetings, and also the World Trade Organization.

      In summary, protecting labour standards is not protectionism at all; on the contrary, it is something that gives more chances to more people. The resolution and recommendations have their place in this Assembly, because human rights and social rights are our core business.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Deseyn. You will have a further chance to speak and present your ideas. We now come to the speakers’ list. First in the debate I call Mr Pintado, who speaks on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Mr PINTADO (Spain)* – Mr President, I begin by congratulating the rapporteur, Mr Deseyn. This is a balanced document that introduces a number of concepts that shore up the arguments behind the call for decent work for all, and it also covers all the interests at play.

      Reference was made by the rapporteur to the impact of globalisation, the problems of social dumping and how we can prevent unfair competition from occurring. Mr Deseyn makes an objective observation when he states that sometimes minors in Europe are subject to conditions of work that are far from decent. Clearly, there may well be a link to the economic crisis experienced by the West in recent years. Indeed, some countries are affected by exports from more liberal markets. Many young people are affected and often fall back on their families for support but still struggle.

      International institutions discuss social improvements in the world of work – we in the Council of Europe are talking about the European Social Charter – but how do we improve productivity, while enhancing workers’ social and health conditions, as well as motivation, and offering them decent work opportunities? Ultimately, the answer to that would benefit not just individual workers, but society as a whole. That is an interesting argument to pursue as well.

      Work can be seen as a social right, a human right and even a fundamental right. Ultimately, it is for individuals and their families to decide how to progress through life, but my group wishes to support the work that has been done. I thank the secretariat for its work.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you very much, Mr Pintado. I call Mr David Davies, who will speak on behalf of the European Democrat Group. He is not here, so I call Ms Gorghiu, who will speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Ms GORGHIU (Romania) – I speak on behalf of my group, but I will begin by referring to a Romanian saying that is relevant to this debate: work is like a golden bracelet. The economic crisis has brought to our attention worries about the future and removed employees’ rights and freedoms from the list of employers’ priorities, but they should be respected. We are at the point where not even individuals value these principles any more.

      In the past, the average person would have chosen his job by taking into account how close it was to home or because of the pay and social benefits. Today, he settles for just a job, and nothing more. With this in mind, I venture to say that work is not a simple dependable. Fortunately for some people, but unfortunately for many others, labour has turned into life itself for a great many employees. Clear evidence of that is shown by the case of 60 employees in a communications company who have chosen to end their lives as a result of their dismissal or the amount of pressure that they were put under by the management board. Labour should be decent and accessible to all.

      We therefore support tools that help employees and the development of new communication channels to report labour abuses and ensure the protection of their needs. At the same time, we emphasise the importance of co-ordination and co-operation among the competent authorities in regulating labour laws. We rely on everyone’s good will to do their jobs properly and to respect employee’s rights and freedoms.

      Given the global commercial system, European countries should put pressure on one another into opening and encouraging international mobility and competition. The primary need of citizens is to create new jobs that comply with legislation – jobs that are better paid. However, the reality is that 1.1 billion people now live in poverty. Among them, 200 million people are unemployed. In Europe, half of poor families live on a single income.

      To return to the report, we Liberals suggest that the strategies should contain solutions identified both at the global and national level which can address the specifics of each problem that needs attention. We thank the rapporteur again for this fully comprehensive report, and we love the conclusion: “Decent work is not a utopia of policy maker.”

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you very much. I call Mr Elzinga, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Mr ELZINGA (Netherlands) – The decent work agenda, or promoting decent work for all, is at the core of the International Labour Organization’s mission. The agenda has forged a broad international consensus among governments, employers, workers and civil society that productive employment and decent work are key elements to achieving a fair globalisation, reducing poverty and achieving inclusive and sustainable development.

      The decent work agenda reflects priorities on the social, economic and political agenda of countries and the international system. However, despite the broad international consensus on these priorities, the reality of today’s world shows a huge decent work gap in Europe and in the rest of the world. After a mild recovery from the depth of the financial and economic crisis, global unemployment has been rising again since 2012, according to the ILO. Yesterday, the OECD published figures showing that, even in the rich world, unemployment is rising again after a very mild recovery. In the euro area, unemployment was already unacceptably high, and youth unemployment is at its highest everywhere.

      Even the World Economic Forum warned this year of a lost generation of young people without jobs and an ever-widening gap between the rich and the poor. In some other parts of the world, decent work in the formal economy is increasingly the exception and precariousness in the informal sector the norm. Almost everywhere, including in Europe, precarious work is increasing in both the formal and the informal economy. We have to stop this race to the bottom and we need to protect decent employment and labour conditions. For sceptics or free-market fundamentalists, that has nothing to do with protectionism.

      Upholding decent labour and trade union rights is just part of our work, as social and economic rights are also human rights. The core labour standards of the ILO, such as the freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining, are important human rights and widely recognised in ratified human rights instruments. I therefore compliment the rapporteur on his balanced report that helps to keep the fight for decent work for all on the political agenda.

      We can all help to urge our governments to implement integrated decent work programmes, developed in good social dialogue and aimed at creating jobs – decent jobs, not precarious work, that provide a living wage – guaranteeing labour rights to obtain and respect workers’ social and economic human rights, extending social protection and providing a social protection floor everywhere. This fight is no luxury: without decent work, we will lose social cohesion and human rights are at risk.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Elzinga. I call Ms Bonet Perot to speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Ms BONET PEROT (Andorra)* – I thank the rapporteur for this excellent report, which, as the title indicates, sets out the framework within which all our countries could work to achieve decent work for all. The economic and financial crisis has destroyed jobs for a long time now, and it has particularly affected vulnerable groups in society such as women, the young and so on. The economic model on which everything seems to be predicated is clearly unsustainable. We need a fairer, more democratic society and sustainable growth, and there are few indications that the employment crisis is now over. Millions of jobs have been lost due to the financial crisis, which has thrown people into the direst poverty. Indeed, I believe that the work done by the International Trade Union Confederation has upheld the call for decent work for all as a way of getting a fairer society, and I think that social inclusion should be supported by the profits generated by business.

      I do not think work can be decent if it does not respect fundamental labour rights, and if remuneration is not a fair reflection of the effort put in, without any discrimination based on gender or race. We find people working hours that are too long and not being paid effectively. There is a problem with excessively young people being forced to work under such conditions, and some people end up without a pension. We need better social protection and welfare systems, and we want a firmer dialogue between both sides of industry.

      I believe that migrant workers, sustainable development, young people and female employees should be priorities, and we must ensure that the European Social Charter is the basis of our commerce and trade. The protection of workers is vital to ensure full respect for universal rights. Changes to labour legislation destabilise the labour relationship, and we find people looking to the State to provide a safety net. Young people are in the firing line of this economic crisis. They deserve decent work and employment, and so do women.

      The PRESIDENT – As I see that Mr Davies is now here, would you like to take the floor on behalf of the European Democrat Group?

      Mr D. DAVIES (United Kingdom) – One thing that is missing from this report is a mention of sustainable development and environmental ideology, which has destroyed many jobs in the manufacturing industry across Europe. This is not the moment to go into the science – although there is a great deal of doubt about the suggestion that carbon dioxide is causing runaway global warming – but we ought to be thinking about how Europe’s policies on that issue have impacted on many of our industries.

      In the United Kingdom and much of western Europe the policy has been to tax energy generated from fossil fuels and to subsidise less reliable and more expensive forms of energy. That has had an absolutely huge and terrible impact on jobs in industries such as steel, ceramics, and anything that uses large amounts of electricity. Many people in those industries have told me that they are being taxed not just once but two or even three times. Today I spoke to somebody from a steel company called Celsa Steel. He gets taxed through the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), and then taxed again on the extra amount that he has to pay for the electricity he uses in the industry. It is not surprising that companies such as that and Tata Steel, the major steel manufacturer, are thinking of moving their industries elsewhere. In many cases, when they do move their industries elsewhere, as a result of rather complex schemes such as ETS they will have extra credits that they can sell. It actually pays them to take their industries to other countries outside the European regime.

      That is why this is all madness. Even if you believe what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says about carbon dioxide and global warming, it does not make any sense for European nations to single-handedly introduce all sorts of taxes when other countries such as China and India are rejecting taxes on carbon. All that happens is that we send our industries over to those other countries, where they continue to emit exactly the same amount of carbon dioxide into the earth’s atmosphere but take their jobs and money with them. That is disastrous for manufacturing industries.

      I think the committee ought to be looking at that issue and demanding a cost and benefit analysis of all our environmental policies. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that in 100 years global warming will cost 2% of GDP – that is 2% of a much wealthier world than we live in at the moment, where nations such as Bangladesh will have more than enough money to solve any problems of a small rise in sea levels. If the Dutch could do it in the 1600s, Bangladesh will be able to do it by the turn of the 21st century. I think that green ideology has been one of the most dangerous and pernicious things that has affected us. Europe was the birthplace of the industrial revolution; I hope that it will not be the graveyard of the manufacturing industries.

      The PRESIDENT – Now that we have reached the end of those speaking on behalf of political groups, the rapporteur may respond at this stage if he wishes to do so. I call Mr Deseyn.

      Mr DESEYN (Belgium) – Briefly, Mr Davies was speaking about a sustainable economy, and by definition that will create jobs. It is all about what we call economically a paradigm shift. There are many initiatives on energy, but environmental issues are not a core part of the resolution.

      (The speaker continued in French)

      All our groups have understood that our fortunes and destinies are intermingled and we are all in the same boat. We were talking about the situation of families who have to live on one salary alone, and that is why there should be some form of predictability to be able to organise one’s life. One ought to have certain principles on which that can be based, and as several colleagues have said, the report shows that the situation is not really balanced. It is sometimes rather difficult to find such a balance, but we must try to find one and be inspired by it for all our international political action.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Deseyn. You will have an opportunity to reply to the speakers at the end of the debate.

      I call first Mr Díaz Tejera.

      Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain)* – The last speaker referred to a third-generation right and a right to the environment. Clearly we are talking about civil, political and social rights, which were also referred to in other reports. In the previous report we said that we should respect the individual’s choice of religion, and not interfere too much in people’s private lives. However, I think all of us have a number of shared obligations and duties.

      Let us not forget Bangladesh. Recently, 1 000 workers died when a garment factory collapsed there. We need to appreciate that civil, economic and social rights will not persist unless we ensure that they apply across the board, so that everyone has the right to breathe clean air and have decent employment conditions.

      This is a very well written report, but it has been written at a time when there are fewer and fewer jobs, and what jobs there are are becoming less and less decent. People are accepting packages of conditions in order to get jobs that they would not have glanced at twice before the crisis. We have an economic, financial and employment crisis. Business is involved in that, and politicians are also being pointed out as jointly responsible for that evil unfolding. The report underlines that decent work is a right for everyone – for all. That goes to the very heart of our debate.

      Should public authorities set rules about the nature of employment? Should the welfare State step in to provide support or should we leave it entirely to the invisible hand of the market? Here we could go back to the issue of religious freedom. We live in a society that has to enable social co-existence to incorporate religious co-existence. The right to work is a social right, and social rights are not utopian. That is a view I support enthusiastically.

      We would like to see that come about as a day-to-day reality in the lives of the many Europeans who have dreadful jobs – if jobs they be – at the moment. We have to enable people to look forward to a better future.

      Mr SPAUTZ (Luxembourg)* – I congratulate the rapporteur. Unfortunately, I see an empty Chamber – it looks as though decent work does not interest many members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. I rather regret that.

      Work is a fundamental human right. Work has been a sensitive topic in my professional career and also in my political career. I grew up and lived in an industrial area that today is faced with major difficulties following the economic crisis. For years I have been fighting for working conditions that are fair and reasonable. I want to be able to guarantee that every worker will be promoted regularly. Europe should be a model in that regard.

      Luxembourg has a long-standing tradition of dialogue between social partners, with politicians on the one side and owners and workers on the other. That is the basis for all negotiations concerning workers, whether in the private or the public sector. The work of trade unions is particularly important during economic crises, to avoid any form of injustice or prejudice being inflicted on employees on the pretext of having to make structural changes. In that context we welcome extra-judiciary processes within companies, such as mediation.

       Unemployment is continuing to be a major headache in Europe. Recent statistics tell us that in the European Union unemployment was just below 11% in 2013, but in the United States unemployment was at 6.7%. That is not negligible but it is a lot lower than in the European Union, its major economic partner.

      Each citizen has the right to work at a decent job that makes it possible for them not only to develop personally but to participate actively in their social and family lives. There should also be protection for them should in case of illness or disability, and in old age, as well.

      Unemployment causes many social problems, such as homelessness, counterfeiting and smuggling. Dealing with unemployment has been an issue since our youth. The European Union has aimed at having a social policy under which 75% of the population aged 20 to 64 years of age are employed, the percentage of people unemployed is reduced to under 10%, the number of people with degrees is increased by 40% and the number of people threatened by poverty or social exclusion reduced to under 20 million. Those are important objectives. In order for there to be significant results, we need to work together, with a proper global approach.

      Once more, I congratulate the rapporteur.

      Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – I congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Deseyn of the Group of the European People's Party, on his well-written report on the need to secure decent work throughout Europe, based on the ILO’s decent work agenda. I agree entirely with his description of the situation and his recommended actions – I could not agree more.

      As a social democrat, I am pleasantly surprised, as this area is the subject of some quite hefty political debate back home. Since the Second World War, we have built a Norwegian welfare State based on the so-called Nordic model, defined as a tripartite co-operation between trade unions, employer organisations and the authorities. The aim of the model is to secure a balance between decent work, a decent salary and high productivity. A national minimum wage set by legislation is alien to that system, as wages are a result of collective bargaining and agreements.

      So far, our model has been a great success. There is a low level of conflict both in working life and in society as a whole, as we build on the mutual trust between the three parties. However, for the past decade or so the model has been under heavy pressure. With an unemployment rate of 3.5%, we have experienced a steady rise in labour immigration. Although we depend totally on such immigration, we have witnessed some serious side effects, in terms of social dumping, black market labour and other even more serious activities within cross-border criminal networks. Faced by irresponsible employers, immigrant workers are especially vulnerable. Often they are not aware of their rights and the rate of unionisation among them is low. Serious employers cannot compete on such terms. At the end of the day, we risk the undermining of our labour market stability, and thus our common welfare.

      Three action plans against social dumping have already been launched in Norway, containing measures such as the general application of collective agreements in exposed branches of employment such as construction, cleaning, farming, transportation, and hotel and restaurant work; the right of access to and collective legal action for union representatives; and stricter control mechanisms. But the occurrence of social dumping is still on the rise. This week, Norwegian trade unions have demanded further efforts in fighting workplace crime, among them even stricter restrictions on temporary employment. I support them.

      Obviously, we cannot solve the problem on a national basis alone. A major obstacle is the fragmentary nature of worker protection legislation across Europe. A first step in the right direction could be a greater commitment to the European social charter, as outlined in the report.

      Mr TRIANTAFYLLOS (Greece)* – I thank and congratulate the rapporteur, who has put together a full report. He remains open in spirit, and listened to all the points of view expressed. I thank him and the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, which accepted our amendments stressing the very high level of unemployment among young people.

      All the comments that we have heard go to show that decent work provides for a decent life and social cohesion. It is a necessary precondition of social justice and equal opportunities for everybody, but is there decent work in Europe at the moment? Europe is economically and socially asymmetrical. There is unemployment and job insecurity. People are obliged to work for very low salaries; that is the reality. We should stop talking and start acting, so that we can deal with the international financial markets, and the globalised market in labour and services.

      The European Union must introduce a social semester so that we can establish indicators for Europe, because we need a social Europe, and need to be able to work together – citizens, society and governments. We cannot afford antagonism between those three partners. Work must be fair for everybody. There are also issues to do with internships, and a need for jobs for older people and for the young, who must have access to jobs.

      In conclusion, we cannot tell the average citizen in our countries that there is something special about our approach to human rights, because the average citizen is living through a period of great stress. Citizens do not have decent work and need to be helped and supported.

      Ms CATALFO (Italy)* – We talk about rights in the Council of Europe. We have heard debates about trafficking, the problems faced by women, the rights of minorities, and the participation of citizens in political and social life – all subjects worthy of the Assembly’s attention. Now we are talking about decent work for everyone. The European Social Charter and various bodies tell us how essential the ability to work is if we are to guarantee the rights and dignity of all. Over the past few years, families have been at risk of social exclusion and poverty. We need a minimum wage in those countries that do not have one, but how many governments will implement the resolutions of the Council of Europe? Members are trying to fight for these rights, and for the principles that we say, in our meetings, we want to support.

      My country is criticised in the report. The Italian Government, through Prime Minister Matteo Renzi and the Minister with responsibility for work, Giuliano Poletti, have adopted a measure on work that represents yet another destruction of the rights of workers. It allows employers to offer fixed-term contracts, and to avoid having to give a reason for dismissal. We have discussed this eight times in six months. Now we are talking about flexi-working as well. People seeking work have to fill in a form that immediately eviscerates any work contract. Back in 1999, we were looking at why temporary contracts were allowed. This is a violation of the Italian constitution, human rights, and the rights established in the European Social Charter.

      The Chair of the European Parliament’s Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, Ms Pervenche Berès, has said that there has been a race to the bottom. In Europe, we are talking about looking after workers, and ensuring good working conditions, but Italy is sinking very low in this regard. We should give support to my country, which needs to take responsibility in this area, and I invite my Italian colleagues to agree with me.

      Ms ČRNAK MEGLIČ (Slovenia) – This excellent report is a clear reminder that Europe is facing phenomena that could destroy our common European values, of which we are so proud. It points out that there is a growing anxiety about the erosion of labour rights, increased job insecurity and a lack of quality employment prospects. As was pointed out, we are talking about not just employment, but a much more harmful structural problem. We are going backwards instead of forwards.

      Our core values – social solidarity, the right to work, and the right to a healthy and safe working environment – are losing their position in today's Europe, whereas we should be creating conditions for their further development. I can do no better than agree with the rapporteur that Europe should compete more on the basis of higher quality, added value and enhanced innovation, rather than on labour costs.

      We have let the principle of the free-market economy to develop too freely. As the rapporteur pointed out, that has enabled enterprises, particularly multinationals, to increase their power substantially, and has diminished the role of the State in the national economy. At some point, decision makers started to bow to the pressures of capital, which, ironically, resulted in economic stagnation and job destruction, and a growing problem of under-employment and precarious employment. It is urgent and necessary for States to regain their position and role in national economies. I agree that decent work is not just an idea for an utopia; policy makers have a responsibility to create conditions to make it a reality.

      What worries me most are the figures on the resurgence of child labour in Europe. They are frightening. What is even worse is that this is happening on our doorstep, in the countries of the European Union, some of which are very proud of their long tradition of democratic developments. I must say I was shocked by the statistics on this issue in the report. If we do not put a stop to the problem immediately, I am afraid that we will fail as a society.

      All these are common problems, and it is not enough to deal with them only at national level. International co-operation is essential. European countries must work together to ensure human rights and decent work strategies for all European citizens. Thank you.

      Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr President. There was a fundamental contradiction at the heart of the rapporteur’s introductory remarks. He said, “We are promoting free trade but will not accept social dumping.” He defines social dumping as practices aimed at gaining economic advantage through competitiveness. On the one hand, he says that he is in favour of free trade, but on the other he says that he is not in favour of a business trading in such a way that it is more competitive than others.

      Obviously, decent work for all is not an intra-European issue; it is a global issue. That is why we must take into account the people in countries outside the 47 countries of this Assembly who cannot get reasonable employment to enable them even to live. Looking inside the European Union, the United Kingdom has record numbers of people in employment and substantial reductions in unemployment. By contrast, in France, which has much higher social protection and more interference and regulation in the labour market, including in the hours that people can work and so on, unemployment, including the scourge of youth unemployment, is continuing to rise. Germany, which has enjoyed one of the fastest growth rates of any country in the European Union, has not yet implemented minimum wage legislation, which is one reason why it was able to progress so fast. My country lost millions of jobs in manufacturing because the trade unions insisted on protectionist measures for the terms and conditions of organised labour, rendering manufacturing firms totally uncompetitive in the global economy and resulting in the loss of millions of jobs. We fortunately now have a more sensible approach.

      The report mentions the problems of child labour, and I share that concern, but the rapporteur misses an opportunity in not drawing attention to the scourge of modern slavery. The global slavery index shows that of almost 30 million people enslaved across 162 countries of the world more than 1.25 million are in member countries of the Council of Europe. It would have been much better to concentrate on that, rather than on social dumping.

      Ms TURMEL (Observer from Canada)* – I worked for a trade union before having the privilege of representing the citizens of Hull–Aylmer in the Canadian House of Commons, so I am of course concerned about the plight of workers. The report covers worrying matters, including social dumping. Even if we do not agree on its definition, we understand what it means. It is unacceptable that economic clout can be used to take advantage of the fact that rights, labour standards and pay are all lower in third-world countries. I am convinced that we all share the belief that freedom, justice, job security and dignity must be at the heart of working conditions for all men and women. The recent deaths of over 1 000 textile workers in Bangladesh reminded businesses, governments and consumers of their responsibilities when it comes to rights at work. The tragic event led to the accord on fire and building safety in Bangladesh, which was signed by trade unions and more than 150 companies from 20 countries and is an example that it is possible to implement initiatives to strengthen workers’ rights.

      I want to draw the Assembly’s attention to two other initiatives that are supported by colleagues in Canada’s New Democratic Party. Following the tragedy in Bangladesh, the NDP spokesman for foreign affairs, Paul Dewar, tabled a motion in the House of Commons calling for a parliamentary inquiry into the incident and the adoption of an action plan to prevent similar events. Another member of our parliament, Ms Ève Péclet, who represents La Pointe-de-l'Île, recently presented a draft law that would establish corporate social responsibility and aims to improve the transparency of Canadian mining industries abroad, which will make it easier to monitor our businesses’ compliance with labour laws. These initiatives respond to the clearly expressed will of Canadians to see their government adopt measures to put a stop to social dumping. In fact, a 2013 survey showed that 80% of Canadians are willing to take a stance to ensure that what they consume does not hurt workers abroad. I am convinced that that desire transcends frontiers and is shared by the population of Europe. This concern among citizens should not be overlooked. As decision makers, it is our responsibility. We need co-operation and solidarity on this priority issue.

      The PRESIDENT – Our last speaker from Morocco, Mr Yatim, is not here, so that concludes the list of speakers.

      I call Mr Desyn, rapporteur, to reply. You have eight and a half minutes.

      Mr DESYN (Belgium) – It was good to hear Mr Díaz Tejera and other colleagues raising awareness and referring to Bangladesh. I want to mention here the “Clean Clothes” campaign, which says that it is not normal to be able to buy t-shirts in stores for €2.

      (The speaker continued in French.)

      Social dialogue is an essential part of a strategy to achieve decent work. Ms Spautz cited the example of Luxembourg and social dialogue between different partners means that responsibility is clearly shared, but I do not think that such dialogue means that there is an opinion.

      (The speaker continued in English.)

      Ms Christoffersen mentioned the challenging Nordic model and high productivity, but we refer to the model often because of its broad protections. We must preserve and share social protection. The tax issue is related, but if people value their money, it is an interesting model that should be studied, resulting in action plans against social dumping, as you have done in your parliament. It is not wrong to say that there is a certain contradiction between the free movement of workers and the fight against social dumping. We have such issues in Belgium, where we want to increase controls over and have sanctions to combat social dumping, but the principle of free movement of workers across the continent cannot be underestimated.

      Mr Triantafyllos has done a great job in promoting younger workers. His intervention made the resolution much more reality-based and his contribution introduced a reality check, as Greece knows about decent work in a social Europe. However, we should not be naïve, as Mr Chope has often said. Unions, other organisations or individuals do not always want to elevate the competency to the European level, so if you talk about a social Europe do not forget that there must be a transfer of competences, which is not that easy.

      (The speaker continued in Italian.)

      Ms Catalfo said that the reference to Italy was negative, but it is far from negative. There are few reports of under-age or child workers, and the Italian Government has a youth contract, which is a good example.

      (The speaker continued in English.)

      Ms Črnak Meglič also spoke of child labour, which calls for a separate action plan.

      To Mr Chope, I say that I do not see the big contradiction, because not every freedom or individual liberty is absolute. Of course, free trade is important, but no freedom should be absolute. For example, there are barriers to insulting people and racism, so freedom of speech is not absolute. With freedom of speech, we are aware that words can hurt. With free trade, we should be aware that social dumping can hurt people, so we need to set boundaries. Minimum wages have become an issue, but recently there has been a broad consensus in Europe, because many governments are aware that when the economic gap between social classes becomes too wide, the country cannot go forward. The intervention about slavery was interesting, but there is a separate report dedicated to that issue.

      (The speaker continued in French.)

      I thank Ms Turmel, Observer from Canada, who kindly used complimentary language about the report. She referred to the change in policy following the tragedy in Bangladesh.

Finally, I thank all those who bravely spoke in the debate. The political solution to this problem is not obvious. The Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development unanimously supported the report in Paris a few weeks ago.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. Does the chairperson of the committee wish to speak? You have two minutes.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – It has been a long, tiring day, but we are getting to the end. Being tired is an interesting feeling. Knowing that you have done something good and useful for your family, your country or yourself gives you a sense of fulfilment. In this time of crisis, many people in our counties want to be tired, but they do not have the chance to get a decent job. I believe that the report “Decent work for all” can help our member States provide work for all.

Mr Deseyn did a great job in preparing the report, and I do not think he pretends that it offers an ideal solution. Nevertheless, it is a solution worth looking at. There are some good principles in the report that can be applied. If we apply them in good faith, we will reap great results.

I congratulate Mr Deseyn on his report; he has a passion for this topic. I ask you to support the draft resolution, because it is a further step towards addressing the issue that our countries face.

      The PRESIDENT – The debate is closed.

      The Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development has presented a draft resolution to which nine amendments and two oral amendments have been proposed. They will be taken in the order in which they appear in the Compendium and the Organisation of Debates. I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

      I understand that the Chairperson of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendment 5 to the draft resolution, which was unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly under Rule 33.11.

      Is that so Mr Ghiletchi?

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – Yes. Amendment 4 was also unanimously approved, according to my records. Can you check?

      The PRESIDENT – Amendment 4 has consequential changes.

      Does anyone object? That is not the case.

      The following amendment has been adopted:

Amendment 5, tabled by Mr Triantafyllos, Mr Tzavaras, Ms Catalfo, Mr Nicolaides, Ms Seara, Mr Costa Neves, Ms Kyriakides and Mr Deseyn, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 7.12, insert the following paragraph:

“address effectively youth unemployment and especially the NEET category, by making interventions in the labour market and education through education and employment programmes”.

      We come to Amendment 6, tabled by Mr Chope, the Earl of Dundee, Sir Roger Gale, Mr Walter and Mr Wold, which is, in the draft resolution, delete paragraph 2.

      If this amendment is agreed to, Amendment 4 falls.

      I call Mr Chope to support Amendment 6.

      Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – Amendment 6 would delete paragraph 2, which contains a series of unsubstantiated assertions. Where, for example, is the evidence that market deregulation has destroyed more jobs than it has created? I do not think there is any evidence. Where is the evidence that “public anxiety keeps growing about the erosion of labour rights”? Surely public anxiety is growing about the loss of job opportunities for young people. I therefore urge the Assembly to reject the loose language in paragraph 2.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Deseyn.

      Mr DESEYN (Belgium) – The evidence is all around us. The financial markets were deregulated, and now we face the economic consequences and job losses. It is good to have globalisation, but we must now deal with the challenges created by economic competition – for example, social dumping in the garment industry. There is a lot of evidence all around us that market deregulation lowers salaries and leads to job losses.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – The committee was against the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 6 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 4, tabled by Mr Triantafyllos, Mr Tzavaras, Ms Catalfo, Mr Nicolaides, Ms Seara, Mr Costa Neves, Ms Kyriakides and Mr Deseyn, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 2, insert the following sentence:

“Youth unemployment rates in some member States are extremely high, and reflect the difficulties faced by young people in finding jobs. The high number of young people not in employment, education or training (NEET's) poses a threat for social cohesion”.

      I call Mr Triantafyllos to support Amendment 4. I apologise for my pronunciation of your name.

      Mr TRIANTAFYLLOS (Greece) – My name might be difficult, but it is less difficult than solving the problem of youth unemployment. Of the social problems caused by the economic and social crisis, youth unemployment is the most grave. That is why we tabled the amendment, and why the committee agreed to it.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – The committee was in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 4 is adopted unanimously.

      We come to Amendment 7, tabled by Mr Chope, the Earl of Dundee, Sir Roger Gale, Mr Walter, Mr Wold, which is, in the draft resolution, delete paragraph 4.

      I call Mr Chope to support Amendment 7. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – The European Social Charter is a convention to which individual member countries should be free to subscribe, if they so wish. The decision of countries not to subscribe to it should be respected under the principle of subsidiarity. That is not the situation as set out in the current text.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Deseyn.

      Mr DESEYN (Belgium) – For me, a treaty is like a contract. If you have a binding follow-up mechanism, that makes sense. We must strive for a community of values. If you stretch national sovereignty too much, there is no reason to come to Strasbourg. Therefore, I am against the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – The committee was against.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 7 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 8, tabled by Mr Chope, the Earl of Dundee, Sir Roger Gale, Mr Walter, Mr Wold, which is, in the draft resolution, delete paragraph 7.2.

      I call Mr Chope to support the amendment.

      Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – Free trade is the best vehicle for increasing global prosperity and it is counter-productive to promote non-tariff barriers as a restriction on such trade, which is what paragraph 7.2 would do.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Deseyn.

      Mr DESEYN (Belgium) – If one restriction can save one life, I am happy. Therefore, I am against the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – The committee was against.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 8 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 1, tabled by Mr Kox, Mr Petrenco, Mr Hunko, Mr Jónasson, Mr Villumsen, Ms Konečná, Mr Gür, Mr Elzinga, Mr Loukaides, Ms Valavani, Mr Dragasakis, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 7.2, insert the following paragraph:

“provide young people with special protection. Regarding the catastrophic situation of young people in Europe, the Assembly recommends more investments in infrastructure and non-profit sectors to ensure not only a professional education but also more working places for the population under 25;”

      I understand that Mr Kox does not wish to press Amendment 1.

      Mr ELZINGA (Netherlands) – I am not Mr Kox, but I suggested in the committee that the amendment should be withdrawn in favour of Amendment 5, which we have already adopted and which addresses the same problem: youth unemployment.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you for your constructive approach. Amendment 1 is withdrawn.

      We come to Amendment 9, tabled by Mr Chope, the Earl of Dundee, Sir Roger Gale, Mr Walter, Mr Wold, which is, in the draft resolution, delete paragraph 7.4.

      I call Mr Chope to support the amendment.

      Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – It is a pity that the text does not make it clear that only 13 countries have signed up to the European Social Charter collective complaints procedure. I suggest that the majority who are against that are perfectly entitled to retain that position.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Deseyn.

      Mr DESEYN (Belgium) – That is one of the fundamental treaties of the Council of Europe. It is our duty to promote the text. This may be an idea for the European Court of Human Rights. We are trying to encourage all countries to ratify.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – The committee was against.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 9 is rejected.

      I have received an oral amendment from Mr Deseyn on behalf of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development which reads as follows:

      In paragraph 7.5, after “employers’ associations” insert “and trade unions”.

      In my opinion the oral amendment meets the criteria of Rule 33.7. Is there any opposition to the amendment being debated? That is not the case.

      I call Mr Deseyn to support the oral amendment.

      Mr DESEYN (Belgium) – To have a more balanced text would be good. We would like to integrate employers’ associations and trade unions in one sentence.

      (The speaker continued in French)

      We would like a social dialogue, with all the opportunities that can bring. Those are already mentioned in the text. It is logical for employers’ associations and trade unions to be partners on an equal footing.

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

      I understand that the committee is in favour.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – It is.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Oral Amendment 1 is adopted.

      We come to Amendment 2, tabled by Mr Kox, Mr Petrenco, Mr Hunko, Mr Jónasson, Mr Villumsen, Ms Konečná, Mr Gür, Mr Elzinga, Mr Loukaides, Ms Valavani, Mr Dragasakis, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 7.5, insert the following paragraph:

“use contacts with labour unions and create a dialogue to understand their demands and to ensure workers' participation in the discussion about their rights;”

      I call Mr Elzinga to support the amendment.

      Mr ELZINGA (Netherlands) – Following the adoption of the oral amendment, Amendment 2 is no longer necessary, so I will not press the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – I have received an oral amendment from Mr Deseyn on behalf of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development which reads as follows:

      In paragraph 7.7, replace “minimum” with “a living”.

      In my opinion the oral amendment meets the criteria of Rule 33.7. Is there any opposition to the amendment being debated? That is not the case.

      I therefore call Mr Deseyn to support the oral amendment.

      Mr DESEYN (Belgium) – My colleague Mr Elzinga had a very good idea. I want to stress that he contributed to finding a consensus. We have tried to comply with the International Labour Organization’s technical language. It is not only about the minimum wage – with that wage, you have to meet your needs.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the oral amendment? I call Mr Chope.

      Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – There is no definition of a living wage. What is a living wage for one person may be an unaffordable living wage for someone else. For example, a young person without dependants can survive on a much lower wage than someone who has a host of dependants.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Oral Amendment 2 is adopted.

      We come to Amendment 3, tabled by Mr Kox, Mr Petrenco, Mr Hunko, Mr Jónasson, Mr Villumsen, Ms Konečná, Mr Gür, Mr Elzinga, Mr Loukaides, Ms Valavani, Mr Dragasakis, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 7.7, delete the words “at a level that corresponds to domestic development needs”.

      I call Mr Elzinga to support Amendment 3.

      Mr ELZINGA (Netherlands) – Oral Amendment 2 replaces this amendment, so we do not wish to press it.

      The PRESIDENT – Amendment 3 is not moved.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13456, as amended.

      The vote is open.

      The draft resolution in Document 13456, as amended, is adopted, with 35 votes for, 3 against and 4 abstentions.

5. Next public business

      The PRESIDENT – The Assembly will hold its next public sitting tomorrow morning at 10.00 a.m. with the agenda which was approved on Monday morning.

      The sitting is closed.

      (The sitting was closed at 7.30 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. Organisation of debates

2. Urgent need to deal with new failures to co-operate with the European Court of Human Rights

Presentation by Mr Sasi of the report of the Committee onLegal Affairs and Human Rights, Document 13435

Speakers: Mr Diaz Tejera, Ms Schou, Mr Binley, Mr Fiala, Mr Recordon, Mr Pozzo di Borgo, Mr Michel, Ms Karamanli, Mr G. Davies

Amendments 1 and 4 adopted

Draft resolution in Document 13435, as amended, adopted

Draft recommendation in Document 13435 adopted

3. The protection of minors against the excesses of sects

Presentation by Mr Salles of the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rigths, Document 13441

Presentation by Mr Bugnon of the opinion of the Committee on Social Afffairs, Health and Sustainable Development, Document 13467

Speakers: Mr Michel, Mr Schneider, Mr Binley, Mr Rouquet, Ms Karamanli, Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Wold

Amendments 2, 41, as amended, 9, 33, 34, 45, 36, 53, 21adopted

Draft resolution contained in Document 13441, as amended, adopted

Amendment 24 adopted

Draft recommendation in Document 13441, as amended, adopted

4. Decent work for all

Presentation by Mr Deseyn of the report of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, Document 13456

Speakers: Mr Pintado, Ms Gorghiu, Mr Elzinga, Ms Bonet Perot, Mr D. Davies, Mr Diaz Tejera, Mr Spautz, Ms Christoffersen, Mr Triantafyllos, Ms Catalfo, Ms Črnak Meglić, Mr Chope, Ms Turmel

Amendments 4, Oral Amendment 1 and Oral Amendment 2 adopted

Draft resolution contained in Document 13456, as amended, adopted

5. Next public business

Appendix

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

Pedro AGRAMUNT

Alexey Ivanovich ALEKSANDROV*

Miloš ALIGRUDIĆ*

Jean-Charles ALLAVENA*

Werner AMON*

Luise AMTSBERG*

Lord Donald ANDERSON

Paride ANDREOLI/Gerardo Giovagnoli

Khadija ARIB*

Volodymyr ARIEV

Francisco ASSIS/Ana Catarina Mendonça

Danielle AUROI*

Daniel BACQUELAINE*

Egemen BAĞIŞ/Suat Önal

Theodora BAKOYANNIS*

David BAKRADZE*

Taulant BALLA*

Gérard BAPT*

Gerard BARCIA DUEDRA/Silvia Eloïsa Bonet Perot

Doris BARNETT*

José Manuel BARREIRO/Ángel Pintado

Deniz BAYKAL

Marieluise BECK

Ondřej BENEŠIK*

José María BENEYTO*

Levan BERDZENISHVILI*

Deborah BERGAMINI*

Sali BERISHA*

Anna Maria BERNINI/Claudio Fazzone

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/Marc Spautz

Alessandro BRATTI*

Márton BRAUN*

Gerold BÜCHEL*

André BUGNON

Natalia BURYKINA*

Nunzia CATALFO

Mikael CEDERBRATT/Lennart Axelsson

Elena CENTEMERO*

Lorenzo CESA*

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*

Yves CRUCHTEN

Katalin CSÖBÖR*

Milena DAMYANOVA*

Joseph DEBONO GRECH*

Armand De DECKER*

Reha DENEMEÇ

Roel DESEYN

Manlio DI STEFANO

Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA

Peter van DIJK

Şaban DİŞLİ

Aleksandra DJUROVIĆ

Jim DOBBIN*

Ioannis DRAGASAKIS*

Damian DRĂGHICI*

Elvira DROBINSKI-WEIß*

Daphné DUMERY*

Alexander [The Earl of] DUNDEE*

Josette DURRIEU*

Mikuláš DZURINDA*

Lady Diana ECCLES*

Tülin ERKAL KARA*

Franz Leonhard EßL*

Bernd FABRITIUS*

Joseph FENECH ADAMI*

Cătălin Daniel FENECHIU*

Vyacheslav FETISOV*

Doris FIALA

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ*

Ute FINCKH-KRÄMER*

Axel E. FISCHER*

Gvozden Srećko FLEGO*

Bernard FOURNIER*

Hans FRANKEN

Jean-Claude FRÉCON*

Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO*

Martin FRONC

Sir Roger GALE*

Adele GAMBARO*

Karl GARÐARSSON*

Tamás GAUDI NAGY

Nadezda GERASIMOVA*

Valeriu GHILETCHI

Francesco Maria GIRO*

Pavol GOGA

Jarosław GÓRCZYŃSKI*

Alina Ştefania GORGHIU

Svetlana GORYACHEVA*

Sandro GOZI*

Fred de GRAAF/Tuur Elzinga

Patrick De GROOTE*

Andreas GROSS

Arlette GROSSKOST*

Dzhema GROZDANOVA*

Attila GRUBER*

Mehmet Kasim GÜLPINAR*

Gergely GULYÁS*

Nazmi GÜR*

Antonio GUTIÉRREZ*

Ana GUŢU

Maria GUZENINA-RICHARDSON

Carina HÄGG

Sabir HAJIYEV

Andrzej HALICKI*

Hamid HAMID*

Mike HANCOCK*

Margus HANSON*

Davit HARUTYUNYAN*

Alfred HEER

Michael HENNRICH*

Martin HENRIKSEN*

Françoise HETTO-GAASCH

Adam HOFMAN/Zbigniew Girzyński

Jim HOOD*

Arpine HOVHANNISYAN*

Anette HÜBINGER*

Johannes HÜBNER*

Andrej HUNKO*

Ali HUSEYNLI*

Rafael HUSEYNOV*

Vitaly IGNATENKO*

Vladimir ILIĆ*

Florin IORDACHE*

Igor IVANOVSKI*

Tadeusz IWIŃSKI*

Denis JACQUAT/André Schneider

Gediminas JAKAVONIS

Gordan JANDROKOVIĆ*

Stella JANTUAN

Tedo JAPARIDZE*

Michael Aastrup JENSEN*

Frank J. JENSSEN

Jadranka JOKSIMOVIĆ*

Ögmundur JÓNASSON

Čedomir JOVANOVIĆ*

Josip JURATOVIC*

Antti KAIKKONEN*

Ferenc KALMÁR*

Mariusz KAMIŃSKI*

Deniza KARADJOVA*

Marietta KARAMANLI

Ulrika KARLSSON/Kerstin Lundgren

Jan KAŹMIERCZAK

Serhii KIVALOV*

Bogdan KLICH*

Serhiy KLYUEV*

Haluk KOÇ

Igor KOLMAN

Kateřina KONEČNÁ/Pavel Holík

Unnur Brá KONRÁÐSDÓTTIR*

Attila KORODI*

Alev KORUN*

Tiny KOX

Astrid KRAG*

Borjana KRIŠTO*

Dmitry KRYVITSKY*

Athina KYRIAKIDOU*

Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT

Igor LEBEDEV*

Christophe LÉONARD*

Valentina LESKAJ*

Terry LEYDEN*

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE

Lone LOKLINDT*

François LONCLE/Jean-Pierre Michel

George LOUKAIDES*

Yuliya L'OVOCHKINA*

Trine Pertou MACH

Saša MAGAZINOVIĆ

Philippe MAHOUX*

Thierry MARIANI

Epameinondas MARIAS*

Milica MARKOVIĆ*

Meritxell MATEU PI

Pirkko MATTILA*

Frano MATUŠIĆ*

Liliane MAURY PASQUIER/Luc Recordon

Michael McNAMARA*

Sir Alan MEALE*

Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA*

Ivan MELNIKOV*

José MENDES BOTA*

Jean-Claude MIGNON*

Djordje MILIĆEVIĆ*

Philipp MIßFELDER*

Rubén MORENO PALANQUES*

Igor MOROZOV*

João Bosco MOTA AMARAL

Arkadiusz MULARCZYK*

Melita MULIĆ

Lev MYRYMSKYI*

Philippe NACHBAR/Yves Pozzo Di Borgo

Oľga NACHTMANNOVÁ*

Marian NEACŞU*

Baroness Emma NICHOLSON*

Michele NICOLETTI*

Elena NIKOLAEVA*

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI*

Mirosława NYKIEL*

Judith OEHRI*

Carina OHLSSON*

Joseph O'REILLY*

Lesia OROBETS/Andriy Shevchenko

Sandra OSBORNE/Geraint Davies

Liisa-Ly PAKOSTA*

José Ignacio PALACIOS

Liliana PALIHOVICI*

Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS*

Eva PARERA/Jordi Xuclà

Ganira PASHAYEVA/Aydin Abbasov

Foteini PIPILI*

Stanislav POLČÁK/Miroslav Krejča

Ivan POPESCU

Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN

Cezar Florin PREDA

John PRESCOTT/Joe Benton

Jakob PRESEČNIK

Gabino PUCHE

Alexey PUSHKOV*

Mailis REPS

Eva RICHTROVÁ

Andrea RIGONI

François ROCHEBLOINE/Rudy Salles

Maria de Belém ROSEIRA*

René ROUQUET

Pavlo RYABIKIN*

Rovshan RZAYEV

Vincenzo SANTANGELO/Maria Edera Spadoni

Kimmo SASI

Deborah SCHEMBRI*

Stefan SCHENNACH*

Ingjerd SCHOU

Frank SCHWABE*

Urs SCHWALLER/Elisabeth Schneider-Schneiter

Laura SEARA

Predrag SEKULIĆ*

Ömer SELVİ

Senad ŠEPIĆ

Samad SEYIDOV*

Jim SHERIDAN*

Oleksandr SHEVCHENKO

Bernd SIEBERT*

Arturas SKARDŽIUS/Algis Kašėta

Leonid SLUTSKY*

Serhiy SOBOLEV

Lorella STEFANELLI*

Yanaki STOILOV*

Karin STRENZ*

Ionuţ-Marian STROE*

Valeriy SUDARENKOV*

Björn von SYDOW/Jonas Gunnarsson

Petro SYMONENKO*

Vilmos SZABÓ*

Chiora TAKTAKISHVILI

Vyacheslav TIMCHENKO*

Romana TOMC

Lord John E. TOMLINSON*

Konstantinos TRIANTAFYLLOS

Mihai TUDOSE*

Ahmet Kutalmiş TÜRKEŞ

Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ

Konstantinos TZAVARAS*

Ilyas UMAKHANOV*

Dana VÁHALOVÁ

Snorre Serigstad VALEN/Tore Hagebakken

Petrit VASILI*

Volodymyr VECHERKO*

Mark VERHEIJEN*

Birutė VĖSAITĖ*

Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN/Jaana Pelkonen

Vladimir VORONIN/Grigore Petrenco

Klaas de VRIES*

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ*

Draginja VUKSANOVIĆ*

Piotr WACH

Robert WALTER

Dame Angela WATKINSON/David Davies

Karl-Georg WELLMANN*

Katrin WERNER*

Morten WOLD

Gisela WURM

Tobias ZECH*

Kristýna ZELIENKOVÁ

Barbara ŽGAJNER TAVŠ/Andreja Črnak Meglič

Emanuelis ZINGERIS

Guennady ZIUGANOV*

Naira ZOHRABYAN

Levon ZOURABIAN*

Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote

---

Observers

Corneliu CHISU

Percy DOWNE

Nycole TURMEL

Partners for democracy

---