AA15CR15

AS (2015) CR 15

2015 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Second part)

REPORT

Fifteenth sitting

Wednesday 22 April 2015 at 4.30 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.       The text of the amendments is available at the document centre and on the Assembly’s website. Only oral amendments or oral sub-amendments are reproduced in the report of debates

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

5.       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.

(Ms Brasseur, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 4.30 p.m.)

      The PRESIDENT* – The sitting is open.

1. Discrimination against transgender people in Europe

      The PRESIDENT* – The first item of business this afternoon is the debate on the report, “Discrimination against transgender people in Europe” (Document 13742) presented by Ms Deborah Schembri on behalf of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, with a statement by Ms Helena Dalli, Minister for Social Dialogue, Consumer Affairs and Liberties of Malta.

      In order to finish by about 6.10 p.m., I shall interrupt the list of speakers at about 5.35 p.m. to allow time for the reply and the vote, as well as to hear from Ms Dalli. I remind members that speaking time is limited to three minutes.

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

      Ms SCHEMBRI (Malta) – I cannot but stand before you very happy that I come from a small State that, although it left civil rights unattended for very many years, is now at the very top of the list for civil rights. We are championing civil rights.

      My report on discrimination against transgender rights in Europe is meant to contribute to setting the standard for countries with either a cumbersome medical model that has had disastrous outcomes over the years, or no laws at all in relation to gender recognition. We stand here in the house of human rights, democracy and the rule of law seeking these ideals for all human beings. The resolution I ask you to support today does not, in fact, ask for anything other than for those basic fundamental human rights to be observed without distinction.

      Transgender people have had their basic human rights denied for way too long, causing them hardship, violations of their physical dignity and integrity, violations of their right to family life, and violations of their right to be free from inhuman and degrading treatment. The procedures they have to go through to have their legal gender recognised include: sterilisation, divorce, diagnosis of mental illness, surgical intervention and medical treatments. This is a failed medical model, and it serves no other purpose than that of making the lives of our fellow brethren miserable and painful to the point of exasperation. Attempted suicide among transgender people is among the highest in any community. We need to lean towards a more humane law and towards a human rights model. This is what the resolution firmly proposes.

      My report gives a detailed account of the constant battles that transgender people have to face in their everyday lives. They are generally misunderstood, heavily discriminated against and constantly asked to give up one human right to obtain another. They have problems finding and retaining work due to discrimination. Many are on social benefits not because they want to be, but because we leave them no choice. They suffer from poor health and refrain from seeking help due to a fear of discrimination and stigmatisation by health professionals. They are denied medical insurance cover and generally left to their own devices, which, without work, are next to none at all.

      Transgender people, especially transgender children, suffer a lot when it comes to education. Procedures to change name and gender markers are generally available only at the age of 18, thus posing problems for the use of gendered facilities and participation in daily life. This is not acceptable and makes children highly susceptible to self-harm – and suicide.

      You will find all the relevant data and information in my report, but I would like to pinpoint some of the most important and salient aspects of the report, which I am asking you to support today. The mandatory diagnostic process to obtain legal gender recognition – in other words, the requirement to be labelled as mentally ill to be given the chance to change gender marker on identification certificates – reinforces stigma. It makes prejudice and discrimination more likely, and renders transgender people more vulnerable than they already are. We have to put a definitive stop to this. We need to move – as has been done, encouragingly, by a few member States – from pathologisation to informed consent.

      We need to stop forcing people to get sterilised. The Commissioner for Human Rights remarked that “Transgender people appear to be the only group in Europe subject to legally prescribed, State-enforced sterilisation”. This is totally unacceptable in a democratic society such as ours, which is based on human rights. We need to stop forcing people who are happily married to divorce in order to be permitted to change their legal gender. Gender identity is one of the most intimate areas of a person’s life. There is no better judge of a person’s gender than the person himself or herself.

      I ask you to be sensitive to the plight of these people. Let us not engage in an “us and them” mentality. We cannot keep on looking at our differences. We need to look at what actually unites us and what unites us is our humanity. We need to be a more sensitive, more caring Europe. We need to give a better life to all our people. We cannot be selective. We cannot leave a category out. We are responsible for setting the bar. We need to be the positive drivers of change.

      Our little island has been described as a beacon of hope for transgender rights. Today, I hope the report will continue to inform people of the great challenges faced by transgender people in Europe. I hope the resolution will find support among your kind selves. It was passed unanimously by the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, for which I thank the committee. Thank you.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, rapporteur, for all your work and for your presentation. I now have the great pleasure of welcoming Ms Dalli, Minister for Social Dialogue, Consumer Affairs and Civil Liberties of Malta. I am grateful that you agreed to come here today. I congratulate you and the Parliament and Government of Malta on having passed an important law on equal rights for everyone, establishing that transgender people are equal citizens and must enjoy equal rights. Your country has managed to pass a law that was adopted unanimously. I congratulate you. Your contribution to our debate is most welcome and important. Thank you for agreeing to be here with us.

      Ms Dalli, you have the floor.

      Ms DALLI (Minister for Social Dialogue, Consumer Affairs and Civil Liberties of Malta) – Good afternoon, distinguished President and members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Thank you, Ms Brasseur, for inviting me, for your words of encouragement earlier today at the exhibition and for your kind hospitality.

      It is my great pleasure to be here with you and to inform you about the process undertaken in Malta to address breaches of the human rights of transgender people in Europe. As I am sure many of you know, on the first of this month the Maltese Parliament unanimously adopted the Gender Identity, Gender Expression and Sex Characteristics Act. The Act establishes the right to gender identity for all Maltese citizens; a transparent procedure for the change of legal gender and first name for adults and minors alike; the removal of the sterilisation requirement and divorce requirement prior to the change of legal gender; and the removal of the need for any proof of medical or surgical interventions and any other requirement beyond the clear, unequivocal and informed declaration that one’s gender identity does not correspond to the sex assigned at birth. The Act also provides for the recognition of the decisions of foreign countries regarding gender identity with regard to non-Maltese residents; the option for refugees to have their gender and name rectified on their official documents; the option for parents to postpone the entry of the gender marker on their children’s birth certificates; the ability to change one’s gender characteristics on all official documents, such as one’s identification card, passport and educational certificates; the protection of the privacy of those persons who have rectified their gender and name on official documents; the introduction of a positive obligation on government entities to ensure that their services meet the objectives of the law; extended protections and legal remedies against discrimination, hate crime and hate speech; a right to bodily integrity and physical autonomy for all persons; the criminalisation of all non-medically necessary treatment relating to sex characteristics of persons without their informed consent; and provision of psychosocial counselling, support and medical interventions related to sex and gender.

      The adoption of the law generated international interest. International media headlines included “Surgery and sterilisation scrapped in Malta's benchmark LGBTI law” and “World’s most progressive gender identity law passes in Europe”. Australia focused on the intersex aspect of the law, with the headline “Malta intersex protections spur hope for Australian reform on forced surgical intervention”. Similarly emphatic and celebratory statements were issued by international civil society organisations.

      Beyond the international acclaim, what fills me with the greatest joy is the positive impact on the individual lives of transgender, queer and intersex people. Individuals who could not change their documents under previous legislation had contacted me to inform me of the hardships they suffered, whether with regard to their inability to find employment, the effects of social exclusion, including loneliness, depression and poverty, or other forms of discrimination such as harassment in the street or even sexual violence. Those who came to me ranged from trans and intersex individuals to their parents and trans rights groups. Their stories were filled with suffering and sorrow, and it was clear that in all cases there was a common perpetrator – the State. The State was denying them their right to have documents reflecting their gender and name.

      Now, those same people are contacting me to inform me about the process of rectifying their documents and moving on with their lives. Each meeting, e-mail or phone call represents a life that is no longer ignored or on the margins, a person who now, instead, is able to join the rest of society in striving for a better life, with fewer hurdles.

      Today, as members of this Assembly, you can make history. Amnesty International estimates that there are around 1.5 million transgender people in Europe – 1.5 million people who could live better lives if governments across Europe implemented the draft resolution and introduced legislation providing for the ability to change legal gender within a human rights framework. The report authored by my friend and colleague Deborah Schembri shows clearly how much discrimination continues to hamper trans people’s rights and quality of life, whether with regard to employment, health, housing and education, or as a result of stereotyping and transphobic prejudice, hate crimes and physical violence, or because of the absence of necessary gender-reassignment treatment and adequate gender recognition legislation.

      As the draft resolution states clearly, legal gender recognition procedures must do away with any requirement for sterilisation, divorce, diagnosis of mental illness, surgical intervention or medical treatment as preconditions if they are to give justice to trans individuals. Such requirements violate the right to private and family life and to physical integrity. I understand that one has to work hard to win the hearts and minds of people who may not be aware of the hardships faced by trans and intersex people. As the saying goes, out of sight, out of mind; but trans and intersex people exist, just like you and me. As is the case in many countries, trans people did not feature in public conversations about human rights in Malta. Indeed, in 2007 a trans woman took the denial of her right to marry to court; after exhausting domestic remedies, she had no choice but to take her case to the European Court of Human Rights. My party took on her case, and expressly included the rights of trans people in our electoral manifesto. As she declared publicly after my government reached an out-of-court settlement with her in 2013, she was always sad when she received letters from the European Court of Human Rights informing her about the progress of her case, as she loved her country but had to fight it if she was to be treated like everyone else.

      In the past two years, my government has set up an LGBTIQ consultative council, composed of civil society organisations working for the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, intersex and genderqueer people. I am grateful to the council for enriching the Act through its suggestions. Likewise, I am grateful to pan-European organisations such as TransGender Europe and ILGA-Europe for their support and their eagerness to exchange views with us about the provisions of the Act.

      I am a firm believer in human rights. When it comes to lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, intersex and genderqueer issues, everything boils down to two simple facts. Human rights are universal and indivisible, and we are all born free and equal in dignity and rights. Put differently, society will not be affording any favour or special rights to trans people through the adoption of the resolution you are considering today. Instead, you will be affirming that all individuals have a gender identity and have the right to have it respected by others. By approving the resolution you will simply be honouring our obligation as politicians to ensure that all members of society can enjoy their lives, succeed and prosper without discrimination. I am proud that Malta has turned around our national image in this policy area and that we are now seen as a beacon of light and hope. If we did it, you can do it too.

      (Applause.)

      The PRESIDENT – Minister, you can hear from the applause how much we appreciate your commitment. Thank you very much. We now have speakers on behalf of the political groups. I call Mr Gunnarsson, on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Mr GUNNARSSON (Sweden) – First of all, on behalf of the Socialist Group, I thank the Maltese Minister for Social Dialogue, Consumer Affairs and Civil Liberties, Dr Dalli, for coming here and contributing to this ever so important and timely debate. I congratulate and thank the rapporteur, Ms Schembri, and the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, on a job well done.

      I should like to tell the short story of Tina, a citizen of my rural hometown. Tina is 63 years old. When she was born, she was given the name Tommy by her parents. She was raised as a boy and lived her life as a man until she was 60. She chose the manliest job she could come up with for her career – she was an electrician. She even chose to be a homophobe. Tina chose both a job and an attitude to distance herself from what she knew. In Tina’s own words: “I thought a job in the building industry could help me to suppress the lady within.”

      Tina is one of the bravest people I know. She has overcome societal stigma, shame and fear of discrimination to be able to live as and be the person she needs to be. As she described it in a newspaper back home the other day, she could either choose life as Tina or commit suicide.

      That is not in any way an uncommon story. We do not have to dig very far in statistics and surveys to see that transgender people in Europe are much more affected by suicide, including thoughts of suicide, than most other groups in society. For me it is clear that we, as responsible politicians, need to react and facilitate that group’s needs as well as we possibly can. It is actually a matter of life and death.

      As I have said, Ms Schembri’s report is timely. There has not been much debate on a European level on these issues, even though it is clear that transgender people in Europe face widespread discrimination. In too many parts of our continent, they are in many ways denied their fundamental rights. The approach in the report, and the reforms in Malta and a few other countries, are the right way to go. An approach based on self-determination and removal of administrative and legal obstacles is a good route to establish respect for the individuals concerned.

      I thank the President for giving me the floor and urge my colleagues to vote in favour of the resolution.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Gunnarsson. I call Ms Gambaro, on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Ms GAMBARO (Italy) – On behalf of the ALDE group, which it is my honour to represent, I commend the rapporteur on her excellent report and thank the Minister for coming to the Chamber this afternoon.

      I should like to talk about the various legal standards that the Council of Europe – this prestigious institution – should help us to achieve in all Council of Europe countries, but particularly those where there is still an unpleasant degree of sexual discrimination in the 21st century. The recognition of gender identity must be the objective of our legislation and should apply across the European continent. A number of countries have made considerable strides forward in that direction in recent years, particularly European Union countries. For example, Malta has enshrined protection for transgender people in its constitution, which affords them adequate protection. Malta also enshrines the right to gender identity.

      I believe we need to take urgent action on cultural recognition, which ought to go hand in hand with the process of legal reform. It is a crucial part of the process because the psychological pressure put on transgender people who live outside our towns and cities is intolerable. The Chair of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media believes that that can be done by mounting a wide-ranging, hard-hitting awareness-raising campaign on gender identity. That should precede the recognition of sexual identity in educational establishments. We need to allow individuals freely to determine whether they wish to belong to the so-called third gender. That should be an absolute right. Laws should be enshrined in our constitutions to afford those rights to the individual.

      Those are the kinds of legal reforms that we should put in place to speed up the process of full legislative recognition for transgender people. We should enshrine such standards in our administrative laws and through public relations campaigns.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Gambaro. I call Ms Katrivanou, on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Ms KATRIVANOU (Greece) – This is a great discussion and it is a pleasure to take part in it. The legislation is a beacon of light and hope for everyone. We must follow it. The report is excellent, and I thank the rapporteur for it.

      It is great that we are focusing on this subject exclusively. It means that we can support transgender people in all ways – socially, politically and legally – in their struggle, and give a space for hope and dignity for them. That includes the protection of human rights, which apply to everyone in Europe. Human rights broaden our perception and concept of gender and sexuality.

      I want to describe three images. First, when I was a kid, another kid in my broader family was alienated. He became a transkid and was excluded. The second image is from the Greek Parliament. Transgender people wanted to visit but were not allowed in by the police. The police could not match the name on the identity cards with the figures in front of them – they saw women in front of them but the names of men on the cards. We had to intervene to let them in. The third image is from when I was studying conflict resolution in Portland State University. The main secretary was transgender. She had the start she needed and now educates. Those images are three different realities. We can see that, with social and legal changes, we can create space for people’s lives so that they can have human rights and democracy.

      I am totally in favour of the rapporteur’s suggestions, and those of the human rights and transgender organisations. We need legislation and policies that explicitly prohibit discrimination based on gender identity, to provide effective protection. We need to provide access to employment, housing, justice, health care and education. In my country and elsewhere in Europe, transgender people are a main target of fascist and neo-Nazi groups. We must enact legislation and protect transgender people from discrimination.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Katrivanou. I call Ms Kyriakides, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Ms KYRIAKIDES (Cyprus) – I congratulate the rapporteur and the Maltese minister and thank them for being with us today. I thank the rapporteur for this extremely interesting report, which raises important and sensitive issues. The report was discussed extensively and constructively within the EPP group. Many different voices and views were expressed, but the group was unanimous in being against any form of discrimination and violation of human rights, collective as well as individual. It is this clear position against discrimination that we are advocating here today.

      The importance of this debate lies foremost in giving transgender individuals visibility. Often they describe themselves as invisible, but their feelings, their needs and their very existence are ignored by society. In fact, transgender individuals are either highly visible, which may result in them becoming victims of bullying and discrimination, or invisible when other people do not see them, do not want to see them and are sometimes afraid even to acknowledge their existence, thus not addressing effectively their specific needs, problems and concerns. Do we need to give transgender people more visibility or, rather, more positive visibility? Yes, we do. We need to make transgender people more visible because we know, as the facts tell us, that raising visibility will allow us to raise awareness. This will allow us to fight many forms of discrimination that they are subjected to – discrimination in schools, in health care, in work and in their communities. What we are discussing is the right of individuals to determine their gender identification. This is the gist of what is asked by societies to recognise as the inalienable right of every person, which may eventually lead to adjustment and positive change in legislation and policies in order to safeguard the rights of transgender individuals.

      Discrimination on the grounds of gender identity is already prohibited in some of our member States through specific legislation. Some have moved a step further. We need to look at this carefully today and understand that we are not being asked to do special favours for transgender individuals. We are asking to give them the right to move across and forward with their lives without discrimination. That is what we are being asked to decide.

      The PRESIDENT – Does the rapporteur want to answer the speakers immediately? As that is not the case, we will proceed with the list of speakers.

      Mr LAVESSON (Sweden) – If you go to the Council of Europe’s webpage on the internet, it states: “The Council of Europe’s standards and mechanisms seek to promote and ensure respect for the human rights of every individual. These include equal rights and dignity of all human beings, including lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons.

      In our societies, homophobia and intolerance towards lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons are still widespread. Many of them are still suffering from discrimination, violence and exclusion on grounds of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity is not compatible with Council of Europe standards.”

      I welcome this report and congratulate the rapporteur on putting these words into practice. As stated in the report, the situation of transgender persons is still very difficult. Far too many people are suffering discrimination, harassment, physical and psychological violence, and social exclusion. Progress has been made in several member States and I applaud what has been done in Malta, as presented here today by Minister Dalli. My country, Sweden, has taken several steps and measures to improve the situation of transgender persons in our country. You no longer have to be a Swedish citizen or dissolve your marriage to have your change of gender recognised by law, or to get gender reassignment. We recently abolished coercive sterilisation and have agreed to review how we can strengthen the transgender perspective when it comes to our legislation on hate crimes. We have made this progress across party lines, with initiatives from both the former centre right government as well as the present one. But even though Sweden is considered one of the more open countries in this context – a country where it is often easier to live your life as a transgender person – we still have a long way to go.

      Some opinions have been voiced that this resolution interferes with national legislation and that it is a matter for national courts and authorities. I have to disagree. We may have different opinions in this Assembly on the phenomena of transgender persons. We may have different opinions on the term “medical status”. We may even have very different opinions on what we call normal. There are different opinions – I respect that. But human rights – the equal rights and dignity of all human beings; the right not to be discriminated against; the right not to be bullied; the right to achieve the same level of service and support – are something that we all believe in, and that each and every citizen should be entitled to. That is why we have our conventions and why we decide on our resolutions and recommendations. And this is why the report is so important.

      Once again, I thank the rapporteur and all my colleagues here who have acted in favour of the resolution.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – I appreciate the rapporteur’s desire and sincere hope that this report will contribute to a greater equality and respect for the rights and dignity of all human beings, without discrimination. I am also against discrimination, but I could not agree with a series of statements, definitions and solutions proposed in the report, including the draft resolution. I would like to underline several of them – let me start with facts and several rhetorical questions.

      How can we ask the mass media and educational institutions to “provide relevant accurate, unbiased information” when the data we have are based on very subjective and biased surveys? How can we say that “transgender people face widespread discrimination in Europe” when the report recognises on page 6 that “reliable figures on the size of the transgender population are not available”?

      When it comes to the request to amend classifications of diseases used at national level and advocate the modification of international classifications, let me ask a simple question: is medical classification of diseases a matter of science or politics? We can disagree with what the doctors say, but who gave us the right as politicians or human rights activists to decide on what should be classified as a disease?

      Basing change of gender on the self-determination principle would create an individual right to choose one’s legal sex. How often during their lifetime could a person change his or her gender based on the self-determination principle? Once in a lifetime? Once every year? If the access to such procedures is based solely on the principle of self-determination, the present resolution will no longer refer to transgender people but to everyone who wishes to change his or her gender as many times as he or she wishes.

      There is another alarming issue. The resolution implies in paragraph 6.2.1 and 6.2.3 that children should also have access to such procedures. I remind members of the fundamental principle of the best interests of the child. The preamble to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child says: “Bearing in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, ‘the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection.’”

      The wording of paragraph 6.2.3 implies the recognition of same-sex marriages, which goes beyond the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the consensus among member States. On moral and sensitive issues and in the absence of a European consensus on the matter, the Court reiterated several times that the State enjoys a wide margin of appreciation. I honestly do not see how we can vote for such a resolution without crossing the line of subsidiarity and the margin of appreciation, basic principles of this Assembly. The necessary minimum to improve the report is to support the amendments that I and colleagues have tabled.

      I conclude with a quote: “Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate.”

      Ms RAWERT (Germany)* – Madam President, colleagues, I specifically wish to thank Deborah Schembri for this future-oriented report, which constitutes a landmark in the issue of recognition for trans people and transgender people. The report also raises awareness among Europeans of the special concerns of transgender people. I very much hope it raises awareness among specialists in the spheres of education, law, health, psychology and – I have to confess – politics. I very much welcome the fact that the situation of trans people is being looked at from a human rights point of view, and I am impressed by the way in which this carefully researched report has been compiled in close consultation with human rights and anti-discrimination agencies, as well as with non-governmental organisations such as Transgender Europe. I am sorry to say that we still have discrimination against transgender people in access to the labour market, housing and health care, and that when it comes to hate crime trans people are particularly concerned. That is why steps must be taken.

      The report makes a number of suggestions to member States on what they can do to eliminate existing forms of discrimination, and I know that Germany can learn from many of these lessons. As chair of the German-Maltese friendship group in the German Bundestag, I am delighted to be able to say that we can learn from Malta. We have dramatically to improve the situation of transgender people. As a health policymaker, I am a member of the German Bundestag Committee on Health, and I particularly wish to flag up the following points. First, sterilisation and medical interventions, as well as a medical diagnosis, should no longer be required as prerequisites for the legal recognition of gender identity. Secondly, transgender people must be given access to the necessary gender alignment measures, such as medical intervention – hormone treatment – as well as psychological assistance. All of this must be provided by the State health care system. Thirdly, national and international standards for medical diagnostics should be de-pathologised in the case of transgender people; they must no longer be stigmatised as being mentally ill.

      This report makes many of us who are fighting for human rights extremely hopeful. I hope that it will be implemented and that you will vote in favour of it.

      Ms BLONDIN* (France) – Our colleague Ms Schembri has presented us with a thorough report on a sensitive issue, with which she deals with great humanism and a real drive to ensure that trans people’s rights are respected. Like other colleagues, I shall refer to Resolution 1728, put forward by Andreas Gross, which is considered to be a step forward in this field, about which too little is still known. The fight against discrimination is especially difficult when it comes up against the pervasiveness of stereotypes and rigidity of people’s mindsets. France has made some progress – this is no longer deemed to be a disease and care is covered by the State. In addition, sexual identity has been recognised in the criminal code since 2012 in the context of the fight against discrimination, but that is not yet the case for gender identity. Such provision exists in several international texts but it is still unknown in French law, yet it is better suited to and more protective of these people. They still face the problem of trying to change the reference to their sex in official records, which is all too often a source of discrimination they endure.

      Notwithstanding the attempts of some Members of the French Parliament, including me, there is still no legislative or regulatory provision on this issue in French law. So everything depends on the innermost conviction of the judge or the case law of the Court of Appeal. In 2012 and 2013, that court laid down two conditions: the diagnosis of transsexualism; and the irreversibility of the change in physical appearance. The expert assessments are experienced as intrusive, humiliating and costly, and they contribute to prolonging the process of changing one’s gender in legal status – that process can take between two and nine years. In 2013, the national consultative commission on human rights in France expressed an opinion in support of abolishing the medical conditions and recommended partially removing the procedure for legally changing gender from the purview of the courts.

      There has been, there is and there will always be objections from the usual people and groups to these changes, but we are the Assembly of human rights and here today, in 2015, we are faced with a perfect illustration of people who do not enjoy such rights. We must therefore continue the fight.

      Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – First, I thank Ms Schembri for her excellent report and thank Ms Dalli, the liberties minister – an excellent title – for her statement. I also congratulate Malta on being a pioneer country in protecting human rights for transgender people – the rest of us must now follow. Earlier this month, we all received a reminder from NGOs working in the field that said: “If adopted as drafted, the resolution will unquestionably be the most important and wide-ranging statement of support for the rights of transgender persons ever made at European level.” It is about time we did this and so clearly state that human rights apply without exception.

      Amnesty International recently reported on the situation for transgender people in Europe, and the present Norwegian conditions – among others – for changing legal gender were strongly criticised as violating transgender human rights. Today, these conditions include castration. Treatment is offered only to persons diagnosed at Oslo University Hospital with the psychiatric diagnosis of transsexualism. Forced divorce, however, is not an issue, as Norway allows same-sex marriages. Dear colleagues, when a member country is proven to violate human rights, there is only one thing to do: bring the legislation into conformity with our values. Therefore, I am happy to say that the Norwegian Labour Party two years ago took a clear stand in this matter and that our new Conservative Government has undertaken to complete the necessary legal changes. A governmental expert committee recently presented its conclusions, recommending bringing forced psychiatric diagnoses and forced castration to an end. It recommend that from now on transgender persons are entitled to decide for themselves, by a personal declaration to the national registry authorities and, after receiving an information letter, returning a reply form to confirm the decision to be definite.

      This is a debate about personal integrity, non-discrimination and human rights. Adopting this resolution would be an immense victory for freedom for all, whoever you are. Sadly, some colleagues have put forward a number of amendments based on pure intolerance, and I urge you to reject them. They are embarrassing to this Organisation. Please, give your support to this small group of persons who really have suffered enough. The Council of Europe should be on their side, not add to their burden.

      Ms ANTIČEVIĆ MARINOVIĆ (Croatia) – I am proud that LGBT rights in Croatia have been expanded in recent years, but LGBT people may still face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. In 2014, the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association ranked Croatia 12th out of 49 observed European countries on LGBT rights. Croatia is among 11 member countries that make up an LGBT core group in the United Nations on ending violence and discrimination. Since the introduction of the Life Partnership Act in 2014, same-sex couples have been equal to married couples in Croatia in everything except adoption. However, an institution similar to stepchild adoption called “partner-guardianship” has been created.

      Croatia bans all anti-gay discrimination, but the reality is far from being only about laws, even if they are the best ones. Only seconds after our birth, the doctor’s cry of “Girl” or “Boy” throws us into a closed category that will define us until the end of our life. Transgenderism is still seen as some kind of whim, and as something unnecessary, and health services can be deficient due to that. The requirements of transgender persons are considered as something extra rather than a priority, and there is a certain amount of wondering and questioning why somebody would want to do something to a healthy body. That indicates a lack of elementary understanding of transgenderism.

      With the recent surge of right-wing conservatives throughout Europe, collective public education on equality is needed more than ever. We must broaden solidarity, strengthen our communities and break down the barriers that gender norms create. To my mind, the right of self-determination of sex and gender is a fundamental value. Gender is often used against us, but we can also use it to free each other and ourselves. The idea of gender is based not on any natural, biological concept of gender difference, but rather on patriarchal domination.

      Self-determination is a freedom that will ultimately require that we are no longer ruled by the State, nor by anyone else. No authority can tell us who we are, and no one can control our body. Self-determination is how we empower ourselves. Transgenderism is all about that – being committed to building a world in which each and every person can express and live their gender and their body in a way that is liberating, full and healing. How many times have we been told, “Be a real woman”, or “Be a real man”? But what does that mean? I don’t know, and frankly, my dear, I don’t care. The most important thing is to be a real human.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. I now give the floor to Ms de Sutter.

      Ms DE SUTTER (Belgium) – As a transgender woman myself and a member of this Assembly, I cannot but speak this afternoon. The draft resolution on discrimination against transgender people in Europe is a unique endeavour in many ways, and I congratulate the rapporteur and her team on their extensive research, their commitment to the subject and the thoughtful recommendations that they have made.

      Ignorance breeds fear, and fear breeds aversion and hatred. That is the mechanism of all discrimination and violence in the world. The resolution will contribute to a better understanding of the transgender cause, and will therefore fight doubly against discrimination – first, simply by discussing the issue, and secondly by dealing specifically with discrimination against transgender people.

      It is true that being transgender in 2015 is still a huge cause of discrimination and violence in most countries of the world. I myself experienced a very painful personal journey before I truly understood who I was, and that identity crisis brought me to the verge of death. I survived, but many others did not and do not. I am still grateful for the help and understanding that I received from many people at my university and at the hospital where I work when I came out 10 years ago. However, many others are not so lucky. They lose their jobs, their friends, their partners and sometimes their lives because of ignorance, hatred, discrimination and violence. Around the world, one transgender person is murdered every three days just for being transgender, and often the victim is blamed rather than the murderer. Some 41% of people who are transgender or gender non-conforming have attempted suicide at some time in their life – being transgender is one of the most deadly conditions one can be born with.

      Colleagues, please give the resolution the attention it deserves. Being gender non-conforming is not a disease, and it is not a sin. It is a variation on the gender continuum, an example of the rich diversity of humankind, and it is not right if people are discriminated against because of it. I ask you to spread this insight in your parliaments and put it in the highest place on your agendas, because it may save many people’s lives.

      I ask those of you representing countries where LGBT rights are already protected to follow the example of Malta, where gender identity has been recognised as something that only the individual himself or herself can experience, and grant a legal right of self-determination. Remove from your laws the psychiatric labelling of the condition and the requirement of forced sterilisation, and grant transgender people full human rights, the same as any other citizen in your country.

      Colleagues, I ask you, for all my peers out there, to take the resolution to heart. In helping to fight discrimination against transgender people, you can, for many of them, truly make the difference between life and death. I thank you.

      (Applause.)

      The PRESIDENT – I would like to thank and congratulate you, Ms de Sutter. It is not usual for the President to make a statement after a member of the Assembly has taken the floor, but I do it now. All that I can say is thank you, with all my heart.

      I now give the floor to Mr Davies, Observer from Canada.

      Mr DAVIES (Canada) – It is my pleasure to contribute to the debate from a Canadian perspective. I thank the rapporteur for her excellent report on this important matter, and it is a special privilege to follow Ms de Sutter’s powerful remarks.

      Not fitting in with perceived gender norms can make certain aspects of daily living challenging for transgender persons. Those individuals also face considerable, often profound, discrimination from others in accessing services, accommodation and employment. According to Egale Canada, 74% of transgender youths across Canada have experienced verbal harassment in schools, and 37% reported experiencing physical violence. Some 77% of transgender individuals in Canada report having considered suicide, and 43% have attempted it at least once. Community-based research surveys have observed that 24% have been harassed by police, and even though 71% of transgender people have at least some college or university education, about half make $15,000 a year or less – under the poverty line.

      A discussion paper by the United Nations Development Programme, published in 2013, recommended that all States enact legislation to prohibit discrimination based on a person’s gender identity. Although six Canadian provinces and one territory have now recognised gender identity or gender expression among the prohibited grounds for discrimination in human rights laws, the federal Canadian Human Rights Act does not currently do so.

      The official opposition in Canada’s parliament, the New Democratic Party, has introduced five Bills since 2005 in an attempt to protect the rights of transgender people. The latest, Bill C-279, an Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code, is intended to address the various types of discrimination experienced by the transgender community. Those efforts have been opposed, however, at least in part, by those who fear that non-transgender sexual predators could take advantage of a change in the law by unlawfully accessing gender-segregated facilities. Other concerns have been raised about the perceived difficulties in accommodating transgender persons in sex-segregated prisons and in ensuring that abused women in shelters are served only by non-transgender women. These concerns are hollow, and supporters of the Bill assert that they should not prevent transgender people from having their rights protected by law.

      As a transgender woman who appeared before our parliament explained, “We do not ask for or deserve extra rights; we need the same rights as our Canadian brothers and sisters of all races, creeds, denominations and identity.” That statement echoes Article 1 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” It is time for all States to extend vital and basic protection to all transgender people and people of diverse gender identities.

      (Mr Flego, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Ms Brasseur.)

      Ms LYMPERAKI (Greece) – Transgender individuals are familiar with the burden of stereotypes. Being non-conforming as to gender, they deny the most ubiquitous stereotype of our society, and as a result they suffer prejudice, hostility, discrimination, and violence, but also all sorts of humiliations in day-to-day dealings with health care providers, bureaucracy and even in simple matters such as using public toilets. All this is very well known and should concern everyone who really cares about one’s ability to define oneself as one thinks fit. It should also push us into action, to complete the project of eliminating stereotypes, which was initiated by the feminist movement in the 1980s and which has been continued ever since.

      A 2011 study in the US found that a fifth of LGBT people did not have access to or were denied health care, and among trans people the percentage was even higher. European studies report similarly disappointing findings.

      In this context, I would like to sound a cautionary note by asking: what of older transgender individuals? I think that analysis of the ageing of transgender individuals is probably the only element missing from this otherwise perfect report. We all live in societies that are ageing fast, and once one enters into old age the penalties that society holds for those who do not conform all rise. Transgender people entering into their old age – and there will be more and more of them in the years to come – are likely to pay a greater cost than they did previously, because transgender individuals often do not have the social networks to supplement the social protection that may be lacking. They have to rely to a greater extent on social services that enforce rigid gender codes and practices, and they must access public bodies and bureaucracies that in the past denied them the right to make their own independent choices. Those who are old and transgender will be doubly disadvantaged. Their problems will be doubly invisible, because they are both old and different. Society, if it wants to be truly tolerant, should be willing to overcome all stereotypes together. Giving transgender people the potential to age with dignity is a test to which society must rise.

      It goes without saying that I enthusiastically support the resolution and I fully oppose all the amendments.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Morin, Observer from Canada.

      Ms MORIN (Canada)* – Thank you very much indeed for giving me this opportunity to speak on the subject of discrimination against transgender people in Europe. I also thank the rapporteur, Ms Schembri, for her extremely detailed report on the subject, and I commend Ms de Sutter, who explained the situation very clearly indeed to us.

      Echoing the Assembly’s position, as set out in the draft resolution, I, too, very much regret the fact that transgender people are victims of discrimination in Europe, either when it comes to accessing the labour market, housing or health services, or because they are victims of harassment, physical and psychological violence or even hate crimes. The report also notes that the general public’s awareness of the situation of transgender people is largely inadequate, and precise and impartial information in the media is rare. The same description might apply to Canada.

      In Canada, LGBT rights are protected by several laws, policies and complementary programmes. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects the right to equality for all Canadians, regardless of grounds such as gender, age and religion. The Canadian Supreme Court has in the past confirmed that one’s sexual orientation cannot be grounds for discrimination, but it has not yet had an opportunity to rule on gender identity. Moreover, seven Canadian provinces and territories explicitly protect gender identity, or the expression of gender identity, in their legislation.

      However, there is still progress to be made, because there is a gulf between the legal equality and the social equality of LGBT people, particularly transgender people. A study by an NGO of LGBT students showed that a high number of transgender people and gays and lesbians had been subjected to verbal, physical or sexual harassment at school, and indeed that they were not in a safe environment at school. That is why I believe we should have a right to gender identity that is based on self-determination, without having to make someone go through all kinds of complex and humiliating procedures. That would be a positive development, and the examples that I have cited constitute a model for future legislation in Europe and will also serve to improve laws in Canada.

      Mr ROUQUET (France)* – I begin by thanking the rapporteur for her comprehensive and very accurate work. Transgender people experience de facto and de jure discrimination in virtually all the countries of the Council of Europe. One of the key problems – especially in my country, France – lies in trying to obtain legal status consistent with a choice of identity made by the trans person. This issue, which might appear on the surface to be purely administrative, has consequences for all the fundamental rights of the individual. Indeed, without identity papers consistent with one’s appearance, the right to vote, the opening of a bank account and all rights requiring an identity check are effectively restricted, or even sometimes made impossible to access.

      That is not to mention the embarrassment of being called “Sir” or “Madam” if your appearance indicates the reverse. Taking its cue from the European judges and the Goodwin judgment, the National Advisory Commission on Human Rights in France rightly felt that the refusal to acknowledge the social appearance of a trans person placed them “in an abnormal situation, provoking in that person feelings of vulnerability, humiliation and anxiety”. In France, the Act of 6 August 2012 pertaining to sexual harassment prohibited direct or indirect discrimination on grounds of sex or sexual identity. The Minister of Justice, Madam Taubira, clarified that the term “sexual identity” made it possible to encompass trans people, and thus made it possible to put an end to the difficulties that they encounter daily. However, we must acknowledge that problems remain, even though the French ombudsman, in a 2014 decision, ruled that the application of the 2012 Act implied, for example, that banks should agree to change the legal status of an individual in accordance with their social appearance.

      There remains room for progress, including in our democracies. Several Bills have been tabled by French members of parliament to facilitate access to recognition of legal status for transgender people and thus to move the procedure forward. The change of procedure that has been requested deals, in particular, with the issue of prior sterilisation. Doubtless, the road ahead will be long, because we are talking about the development of our societies towards the provision of more rights and more equality. That is not always easy, as we saw in the case of same-sex marriage. The law in France intends to uphold equality and freedom of choice.

      A change is under way in Europe. A Bill to put an end to sterilisation has been announced in Norway and we can only congratulate the Maltese parliamentarians on their vote, taken on 1 April, on this societal issue; of course, I take advantage of this opportunity to greet the Minister from Malta who has joined us today. It behoves us as parliamentarians and lawmakers to move the law forward, towards the provision of more justice for all.

      The PRESIDENT – Does Ms Dalli wish to respond to the general debate? That is not the case. I call Ms Schembri, rapporteur, to reply. You have six minutes.

      Ms SCHEMBRI (Malta) – I thank all those who have contributed to the debate; I was touched by what many had to say. This is my first report. I was very excited when I started to investigate this issue. I thought it would get easier, although it is not after all your testimonies.

      I want to answer some of the difficulties raised by Mr Ghiletchi, whom I also thank for his contribution. He questioned whether discrimination was widespread in Europe. Discrimination against transgender people cannot be questioned; those who, like me, work hand in hand with the relevant organisations see it every day. The stories of the people involved are touching. Yesterday, at an event, we heard a gentleman who described being made to wear a dress at school, when he was just a bit younger than he is now. For him that was humiliating and debilitating as a student. Another person told us that in his country people have to spend about three months in a mental institution to have their gender recognised. These stories come from the real human beings whom this report and recommendation are meant to protect.

      I turn to the change of medical classification and the issue of self-determination. The Commissioner for Human Rights has said that there should be a review of any requirement for a diagnosis of mental disorder before access is given to transgender health care, to remove obstacles to transgender persons’ effective enjoyment of the right to self-determination and the highest attainable standard of health. Only the person themselves can say which gender they feel most comfortable in; the state certainly cannot.

      People should not be made to undergo surgical treatment or to divorce – they should not be forced into anything. Why should they be? Are any of us forced to leave our marriages? Nobody should be made to leave a marriage or undergo surgery if they do not feel that they should. Transgender people should not be discriminated against and it is up to us to see that it does not happen.

      I agree with Mr Ghiletchi that the best interests of children are paramount. The report and its recommendations, and the resolution, are also for children. They protect everyone. Why should we remove children – the most vulnerable people – from the protection of the resolution? I have tabled a sub-amendment in line with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. We should support it because it promotes children’s right to be taken into consideration, although not as Mr Ghiletchi has proposed in his amendment – that is, not in respect of their parents’ marriage. Children should not be made to intrude in the marriage of their parents, but their rights always have to be taken into consideration.

      Mr Ghiletchi said that if we pass the resolution, people could end up in same-sex marriages. That is not the case, although it might seem so at face value. When a couple get married, a contract of marriage is enacted. That is how the family is made and we should not force people to divorce. The resolution does not ask anyone to stay in a marriage if they do not want to, but states that someone should not be forced to leave a happy marriage. After all the traumas and heartache, and having been accepted by wife, husband or children, why should a person be forced to divorce? That is against human rights.

      I should end with a big thank you to the Secretariat, whose work has been immeasurable. I thank it for all its help. I want to leave members with one thought: things are better well done than well said. We need to help our parliaments do something about this issue.

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

      Ms BİLGEHAN (Turkey)* – For the first time, we are called upon to take a stand on discrimination against transgender people. I, too, congratulate the rapporteur, Ms Schembri, on her excellent work and her many recommendations. I also thank the Secretariat for the hearings that took place at the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination. They allowed us better to understand the daily lives of transpeople and the extent of discrimination that they have to deal with.

      We were moved by the personal experience of one of our colleagues who spoke earlier. Transpeople are victims of multiple forms of discrimination in all walks of life – particularly in access to work, health care, housing and education. In recent years we have been witnessing greater awareness of the need to fight discrimination on grounds of gender identity. Ms Schembri’s report and the resolution stress the lack of awareness among the public at large on this issue. Moreover, national policies are poorly tailored to the needs of these individuals.

      The resolution highlights the many violations against the fundamental rights of transpeople. It calls on States to take appropriate measures – specifically, to prohibit discrimination on grounds of gender identity in national legislation. Transpeople’s privacy and dignity should be respected and everyone’s fundamental rights should be recognised, irrespective of how they define themselves. I call on everyone to support the resolutions and I thank members for their contributions.

      The PRESIDENT – The Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination has presented a draft resolution to which 12 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 call Mr Ghiletchi to support Amendment 1.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – The proposal is to delete one sentence in the first paragraph, and I explained why in my speech. Medical classification is a matter of science, not politics. It is dangerous for democracy when politicians decide what should or should not be classified as a disease – that is typical of authoritarian regimes, but not democracies. It is not that I am against the proposal, but such classification should come from scientists not politicians.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Schembri.

      Ms SCHEMBRI (Malta) – The last sentence of the first paragraph is not about science but human dignity. Currently the medical classification of diseases conveys the message that something is wrong with transgender people, which is clearly disrespectful of their dignity. It also adds other obstacles to their inclusion. The paragraph simply describes the reality and the wording should stay as it is. I remind members that homosexuality was also classified as a disease. That ended through political will, not scientific advance.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms BİLGEHAN (Turkey) – The committee was against.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 1 is rejected.

      I call Mr Ghiletchi to support Amendment 2.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – I propose in paragraph 4 to replace the words “some regulations” with “regulations in Denmark, Ireland and Malta” to be more specific and not to have general statements, because it is only in those three member States that regulations are based on the principle of self-determination. That is also the case to a certain extent in Switzerland, Sweden and the Netherlands, but to be more accurate and specific I propose that change.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Schembri.

      Ms SCHEMBRI (Malta) – The suggested deletions refer to legislation on gender recognition that has been produced recently and to regulations that are currently being discussed in a number of Council of Europe member States. The scope of the paragraph is much larger than the three countries mentioned in the amendment. The main point of the paragraph is to describe an important, positive trend that we observe in Europe today. The amendment therefore should be rejected.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms BİLGEHAN (Turkey) – The committee was against.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 2 is rejected.

      I call Mr Ghiletchi to support Amendment 3.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – This argument is similar to the previous one. I propose to delete paragraph 5 because in my opinion we cannot talk about an emerging right when we have only three member States that recognise the self-determination principle. Therefore, let us be accurate and use real facts, not what we wish to see in our member States.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Schembri.

      Ms SCHEMBRI (Malta) – The word “emergence” refers to the fact that a new trend has appeared. The new Maltese legislation in itself justifies the use of that expression and hopefully the draft resolution will help to spread that principle, which deserves our support. For the moment, it has just emerged. In any case, the paragraph’s focus is on the fact that every individual should be entitled to be treated and identified according to their actual gender, which is the gender that they feel that they belong to. In a democratic society based on human rights, nobody should have their gender imposed on them by a State or anyone else.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms BİLGEHAN (Turkey) – Against.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 3 is rejected.

      I call Mr Ghiletchi to support Amendment 4.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – Amendment 4 proposes to delete the words “based on self-determination”. I mentioned this in my speech: basing the change of gender on self-determination would create an individual right to choose one’s legal sex. We need to be careful when we make such proposals, because otherwise everything will become relative and no one can tell us how many times we can use that principle. Therefore, the self-determination principle would undermine the protection of transgender people.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Schembri.

      Ms SCHEMBRI (Malta) – This is one of the main points of the draft: we should leave it to the individual to determine what gender they feel comfortable in. There is a long story of abuses, human rights violations and challenges faced by transgender people in their everyday lives precisely because the procedures for changing their names are cumbersome and allow other people, whether doctors, psychologists or civil servants, to interfere with an eminently personal, intimate decision that should be based only on individual choice.

      The European Court of Human Rights has consistently upheld that principle, including in the case of Y.Y. v. Turkey last month. Legislation may also include safeguards in respect of the opposition case that Mr Ghiletchi makes.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms BİLGEHAN (Turkey) – The committee was against.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 4 is rejected.

      I call Mr Ghiletchi to support Amendment 5.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – Amendment 5 proposes to use the word “adults”. The idea is to protect children, because we want adults to make such decisions, owing to the physical and psychological immaturity of children. I am glad that Ms Schembri agreed that it is paramount to take into account the child’s best interests and I believe it is important to specify that the procedures are for adults.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Schembri.

      Ms SCHEMBRI (Malta) – The limiting of legal gender recognition procedures to adults may be very harmful to transgender youth. It is correct that children need special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, and the paragraph aims precisely to ensure that children are safeguarded and receive appropriate care and legal protection. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child includes sexual orientation and gender identity among the aspects of a child’s well-being that must be taken into account. Children who are not allowed to seek legal gender recognition suffer greatly in the educational context, as they cannot function in their preferred gender. I therefore ask for the amendment to be rejected.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms BİLGEHAN (Turkey) – Against.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 5 is rejected.

      I call Mr Ghiletchi to support Amendment 6.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – This amendment is in line with Amendment 5, because I propose to delete words about age. I want to stress to colleagues the important point that we are not against children; we are in favour of children. A child is not able to make such complex decisions, so those decisions should be made only when the child reaches an adult age.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Schembri.

      Ms SCHEMBRI (Malta) – May I remind the Assembly that we are not talking about surgery? We are speaking only of legal recognition of children. Children suffer a lot when they are made not to be comfortable with their gender in schools and society. I kindly ask for this amendment to be rejected.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms BİLGEHAN (Turkey) – The committee was against.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 6 is rejected.

      I call Mr Ghiletchi to support Amendment 7.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – Amendment 7 is based on a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights against Turkey, which says very clearly that member States can impose certain conditions and enjoy a large margin of discretion in this area. We should not cross the line of discretion in this case. If a State decides to abolish this, it is up to the nation State: it is not for the Assembly to tell member States what to do when we have a clear decision from the European Court of Human Rights.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Schembri.

      Ms SCHEMBRI (Malta) – This paragraph should remain in the text if we want to end the absurd violations of human rights that transgender people still face. As Commissioner Hammarberg pointed out, transgender people are the only group still facing forced sterilisation imposed by law in Europe today. In 2015, it is high time that stopped.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms BİLGEHAN (Turkey) – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 7 is rejected.

      I call Mr Ghiletchi to support Amendment 8.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – Amendment 8 proposes a change to the wording of paragraph 6.2.3. It is based on two rulings by the European Court of Human Rights, in which it was decided that there is no obligation on member States to recognise the acquired gender of a person without terminating their existing marriage as the marriage between two persons of the same sex is not authorised in the respective country. We should not indirectly force member States to recognise same-sex marriage when the European Court of Human Rights has stated clearly that States have the right to decide and define family and marriage.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Schembri.

      Ms SCHEMBRI (Malta) – The amendment would weaken the text unnecessarily. What we should aim to do is avoid public authorities deciding whether a marriage should continue or end. That decision should be left to the personal choice of the people in the marriage. This is not the recognition of same-sex marriages as it is a very specific situation aimed at preserving the private life of transgender people. The amendment should therefore be rejected.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms BİLGEHAN (Turkey) – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 8 is rejected.

      I call Mr Ghiletchi to support Amendment 9.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – The amendment would insert, at the end of paragraph 6.2.3, the sentence, “in all decisions concerning children, their best interests should prevail over any other rights and interests;”. The argument has been made several times: the best interests of the child should prevail. This paragraph deals with children, families and spouses or partners.

      The PRESIDENT – I have been informed that Ms Schembri wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment to this amendment, on behalf of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination. It reads as follows, in Amendment 9, after “In the draft resolution”, delete to end, and replace with the words

“after paragraph 6.2.4 insert the following new paragraph: ‘ensure that the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration in all decisions concerning children’.”

      In other words, the sub-amendment would insert a revised wording of Amendment 9 as a new paragraph after paragraph 6.2.4.

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

      However, do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated?

      That is not the case. I therefore call Ms Bilgehan to support the oral sub-amendment.

      Ms BİLGEHAN (Turkey)* – The committee felt that it was advisable to include in the text of the draft resolution a specific reference to the interests of the child as indicated in Amendment 9. However, the committee proposed the oral sub-amendment in order to use exactly the wording that appears in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the oral sub-amendment?

      That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of Mr Ghiletchi?

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – As a compromise, and so that at least one amendment is accepted by the Assembly, I accept the rapporteur’s proposal.

      The PRESIDENT – The Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination is obviously in favour.

      The vote is open.

      The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

      We now consider the main amendment, Amendment 9, as amended.

      Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment, as amended?

      That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment, as amended?

      Ms BİLGEHAN (Turkey) – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      I call Mr Ghiletchi to support Amendment 10.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – This amendment would delete paragraph 6.2.4, which requires member States to recognise a third gender. I do not think we realise the implication of such a decision. Before we make such requests of member States we need to investigate thoroughly the legal and other implications. It clearly violates the margin of discretion and the principle of subsidiarity.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Schembri.

      Ms SCHEMBRI (Malta) – Including a third gender option does not mean creating a third gender, but would simply give an additional option to all those who, for a variety of reasons, do not accept the traditional binary male/female, or do not wish to declare themselves as belonging to either.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms BİLGEHAN (Turkey) – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 10 is rejected.

      I call Mr Ghiletchi to support Amendment 11.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – I suggest that when it comes to medical treatment, this procedure should not be submitted to arbitrary conditions. I do not want to discriminate against anyone, but I believe that the State has the right to make policies on public health insurance, including what such insurance covers. We do not have the right to tell States to cover this area and not to cover another area. We should not apply arbitrary conditions to public health insurance.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Schembri.

      Ms SCHEMBRI (Malta) – The aim of the text is to ensure that transgender people have access to gender reassignment procedures when they need them, irrespective of their economic situation. Many transgender people are jobless and face difficult economic situations, particularly because of discrimination at work. It is important to ensure that all those who need such treatments have access to them, just like any other treatment that is important to people’s health. It is important to note that these are not cosmetic or elective treatments: they are necessary treatments.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms BİLGEHAN (Turkey) – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 11 is rejected.

      I call Mr Ghiletchi to support Amendment 12.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – The rapporteur said that the Commissioner for Human Rights mentioned the classification of diseases, but I reiterate that neither we as politicians nor the Commissioner for Human Rights have the legal or moral right to tell scientists and doctors what to do. In fact, it was a revelation for me today to hear that homosexuality had been taken from the list of diseases because of political will. I thought it was a scientific fact! We need scientific facts, not political will, influencing medical and scientific decisions.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Schembri.

      Ms SCHEMBRI (Malta) – If the Commissioner for Human Rights is not listened to in the house of human rights, I do not know where he should be listened to. It is necessary to amend classifications of diseases to avoid transgender people, including children, being labelled as mentally ill. It is a matter of respecting human dignity, promoting equality and combating discrimination. That is very much part of the competence of the Parliamentary Assembly. In fact, who else should fight for these rights if not this Assembly?

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms BİLGEHAN (Turkey) – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 12 is rejected.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13742, as amended.

      The vote is open.

      Congratulations to the rapporteur, the committee and the secretariat.

(Mr Wach, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Flego).

2. Social services in Europe: legislation and practice of the removal of children from their families in Council of Europe member States

      The PRESIDENT – The next item of business is the debate on the report, “Social services in Europe: legislation and practice of the removal of children from their families in Council of Europe member States” (Document 13730) presented by Mr Valeriu Ghiletchi on behalf of Ms Olga Borzova, who is rapporteur for the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, with an opinion presented by Ms Olena Sotnyk, who is rapporteur for the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights (Document 13760).

      I remind you that we have already agreed that in order to finish by 8 p.m., we shall interrupt the list of speakers at about 7.45 p.m. to allow time for the reply and the vote. I remind members that speaking time is limited to three minutes.

      I call Mr Ghiletchi, to present on behalf of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – I see that after the heated debate on transgender many people have left the Chamber. I hope they will come back shortly, because this report is also very important. It touches on issues that are very important to our countries, especially in relation to children.

      As the Chairperson of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, I have been asked to present this report to you today in the absence of our rapporteur, Ms Olga Borzova from Russia. I would like to start by paying tribute to Ms Borzova, who has worked very hard on this report over the past three years. In preparing the report, she undertook three fact-finding visits – to Finland, Romania and the United Kingdom – and analysed 30 replies to a parliamentary research questionnaire.

      The result is a very balanced report, but one that nevertheless does not mince words. It was passed unanimously by the committee in January. Ms Borzova’s report is centred on one thing and one thing only: to ensure that the best interests of the child are put first when the initial decision is taken – usually by social services – to remove a child from his or her birth family. I see it as my responsibility to defend the core of her report. We are fortunate to have the support of the committee seized for opinion, the Legal Affairs Committee, and its excellent rapporteur, Ms Olena Sotnyk, in this endeavour. However, allow me to announce that the committee has not been able to accept all the amendments to the draft resolution that were proposed by Ms Sotnyk. This is because we wanted to keep Ms Borzova’s emphasis on the “best interest of the child” principle.

      First of all, allow me to remind you of the two main questions that Ms Borzova set out to answer in this report: has there been an increase in unwarranted removal decisions in the last years; and is there a pattern to those decisions? Are migrant parents, parents from national minorities, minority religious groups or poor socio-economic backgrounds disproportionately victims of such unwarranted removal decisions? Unfortunately, I must report to you that we do not have a clear answer to these two questions.

      Data collection and statistical analysis on the issue is woefully inadequate in most of our member States, making it impossible to estimate the number of justified or unwarranted decisions to remove children from their families. It is thus equally impossible to answer the question of whether there is an increase in unwarranted removal decisions in Council of Europe member States. It is even more difficult to find out whether families belonging to ethnic or religious minorities, migrant families or families from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds are being disproportionately affected. I underline that this is not simply a question of number crunching: without proper data, it is impossible to put in place effective public policies to assist families and prevent the unwarranted removal of children in the first place.

      The rapporteur discovered that the misunderstanding, and sometimes abuse, of the concept of the best interests of the child is one of the prime factors in unwarranted removal decisions. It is a paradox. The principle of the best interests of the child should be applied in such a way that not only laws and regulations but actors on the ground – in this case, social services – truly put the child’s best interests first in removal, placement and reunification decisions.

      Our conclusion was as follows. On the one hand, in some countries, or regions thereof, social workers take some children into care too rashly, and do not make enough effort to support families before and/or after removal and placement decisions. Those unwarranted decisions usually have a – sometimes unintended – discriminatory character, and can constitute serious violations of the rights of the child and those of his or her parents, a situation that is all the more tragic when the decisions are irreversible, as in cases of adoption without parental consent. On the other hand, in some countries, or regions thereof, social services do not take children into care quickly enough, or return children too rashly to abusive or neglectful parental care. Those decisions can constitute equally serious or even more serious violations of the rights of the child, and can put a child’s life and health in danger.

      So what should we do? I will highlight five recommendations that I hope we can all subscribe to today in adopting the resolution and recommendation. First, it is necessary to make visible and root out the influence of prejudice and discrimination in removal decisions, including through appropriate training for all professionals involved. Professionals are human too, and there will be a lot of pressure on social workers to err on the side of caution, particularly in the wake of much-publicised cases of children dying at the hands of their parents.

      Secondly, families need to be supported appropriately, including financially and materially, to avoid the need for removal decisions in the first place and to increase the percentage of successful family reunifications after care. It should be obvious, but the solution for a hungry child is not to take them into care, but to ensure that their family has the resources to feed them.

      Thirdly, some practices should be avoided except in exceptional circumstances. These include severing family ties completely, removing children from parental care at birth, basing placement decisions on the passage of time and having recourse to adoptions without parental consent, particularly when those become irreversible.

Fourthly, it is important to ensure that the personnel involved in removal and placement decisions are suitably qualified and regularly trained, have sufficient resources to take decisions in an appropriate timeframe and are not overburdened with too large a case load.

      Finally, we need better data collection. Data collected on the care population in member States should be disaggregated not only by age, gender and alternative care type, but by ethnic minority status, immigration status and socio-economic background, as well as by length of time spent in care until family reunification. We will then have a clearer picture of how we can better help children who need our protection, while also protecting the rights of the birth families.

      Only when these recommendations have been implemented will we have put the best interests of the child first. I thus humbly ask members to support the report.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you Mr Ghiletchi. You have three minutes 50 seconds remaining.

      I call Ms Olena Sotnyk, rapporteur of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, to present the committee’s opinion. You have three minutes.

      Ms SOTNYK (Ukraine) – On behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, I thank the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development and its rapporteur for this comprehensive report and the important recommendations made in the draft resolution and recommendation. There is no doubt that the rapporteur’s task was not an easy one, given the complexity of the issues surrounding the removal of children from their families and the corresponding responsibilities of social services.

      The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights finds it particularly praiseworthy that the lead committee's report starts from the only correct premise there can be: it insists that member States must guarantee every child’s right to have his or her best interests assessed and taken into account as a primary consideration in all removal, placement and family reunification procedures. This requirement constitutes one of the four general principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and we are pleased to note that it features prominently in the draft resolution.

      I will highlight four additional points that, in the view of our committee, merit special attention. First, we appreciate the fact that the report highlights the importance of the family environment and discourages unnecessary separation of children from their parents. I cannot but emphasise that the natural parents have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of their children. That is also clearly stated in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. In this connection, I should add that the removal of a child from his or her parents by State authorities constitutes an interference with both the parents’ and the child’s rights to respect for their family life, something that is justified only if the requirements set out in paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights are met.

      My second point is connected to that. Our committee welcomes the rapporteur’s emphasis on the need to put in place appropriate social, psychological and financial family support policies to help parents care for their children. Such support is essential to preventing or reducing cases in which family separation becomes necessary in the best interest of the child.

      Thirdly, we note with satisfaction that, as already mentioned, the draft resolution contains important recommendations relating to the collection of statistics on the ethnic and religious minority status, migrant status or socio-economic situation of children taken into care, as well as recommendations relating to the adequate funding, staffing and training of social workers. Finally, it is highly commendable that Ms Borzova did not shy away from addressing particularly sensitive issues such as adoption without parental consent, the basing of placement decisions primarily on the passage of time and the removal of children from parental care at birth. We fully support the call in the draft resolution for member States to avoid such practices.

      The few amendments proposed by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights that were not accepted unanimously by the lead committee aim to strengthen further the human rights aspect of the draft resolution. Some of them would make the resolution more complete; others aim to insert express references to the applicable standards in international human rights law. In particular, several members of our committee with relevant judicial experience stressed that it was important to put more emphasis on the need for strict legal safeguards and effective, timely and comprehensive judicial review of removal decisions. I therefore call upon members of the Assembly to support Amendment 6 in particular.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Sotnyk. I call Ms Fiala, on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Ms FIALA (Switzerland)* – On behalf of the ALDE Group, I thank our rapporteur, Olga Borzova, from the Russian Federation, most warmly for her important work. It is striking that she is not in a position to present her report today. That shows us how painful it is to have to do without the commitment and involvement of the Russian delegation. We miss them in our dialogue, and we miss their contributions to solutions to overcome problems.

      The Council of Europe has dealt with the question of the integrity of our children for a long time, which is important. We should protect children against any form of violence, abuse and neglect. Apart from that, children have a right not to be separated against their will from their parents. Authorities and courts sometimes have to investigate whether a separation is in the best interests of the child. In the case of sexual and mental abuse and neglect, children could be put with foster parents or brought under the aegis of private institutions. Often, adoption is not the best solution for the child. We should avoid over-hasty action – the child can go from the frying pan into the fire in those circumstances.

      Financial poverty should never be a justification for removing a child from their parents. We should try to support the poorest families. It is important for us to take on board the sensitivity and special circumstances of Roma children. We should ensure that that is our leading concern. The protection of the child should be done in the child’s best interests. We should not go for short-term measures, but should exchange best practice.

      On behalf of the ALDE Group, I ask delegates to follow the recommendations of our rapporteur. I ask them to do everything possible in their own countries to find appropriate ways of dealing with children, even in difficult circumstances and, if possible, to avoid separating children from their parents. The children should always be involved in those decisions. European directives often work, as does legislation, but if they are not properly put into practice, there can be difficulties. I call on delegates to support this important report.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Fiala. I call Mr Evans, on behalf of the European Conservatives Group.

      Mr EVANS (United Kingdom)* – The clear position of my group is that the most important principle in child protection is that the interests of the child must be paramount. No step should be taken that dilutes that commitment in favour of any other interests.

      The first requirement must be to identify children who are at serious risk of abuse or neglect, and then take action to prevent further abuse. Experience has shown that better sharing of information between professionals – health workers, police, social workers and other agencies – is the key to better child protection. Experience has also shown that the causes of abuse and neglect can be very complex. It is simplistic and wrong to dismiss the causes as relating solely to poverty or deprivation. In fact, such arguments defame poorer families.

      The United Kingdom has a highly developed system of child protection, but major scandals have taken place even there. Social workers have missed evidence and not shared information, or have got the balance wrong. The result has been several major public failings involving the deaths of young children, such as Victoria Climbié, Peter Connolly, Daniel Pełka and Khyra Ishaq. Another complicating factor is the pressure that is on health and social care professionals. The report rightly argues for greater professionalism across Europe, but there is compelling evidence that the everyday pressures on well qualified social workers leads to the signs of abuse being overlooked.

      The report is right that children should be removed from home only where there is clear evidence that they are at risk of serious abuse or neglect, but there are major differences within European society about the extent to which the extended family can offer alternative safe environments for at-risk children. Similarly, authorities should take steps to ensure that, when children are removed, siblings are kept together. It is a double tragedy when a child is removed from their parents, but still more traumatic if they are then separated from their brothers and sisters. It is desirable that children should be reunited with their parents when their parents can offer a safe environment. It is crucial that the test remains the paramount interests of the child rather than the interests of the parent or foster parent.

      Finally, I should like to draw attention to one case in the United Kingdom that received massive publicity in my country. In the case of Aysha King, powers were abused. Aysha suffered from a rare form of cancer. His parents found themselves in dispute with the United Kingdom authorities. Fearing that their son would be removed from their care, the parents took him to Spain with the intention of accessing European treatment. In the United Kingdom, an order placed the child in emergency care. A European arrest warrant was issued and the parents ended up in a Spanish jail. Eventually, the British Prime Minister had to intervene to stop the proceedings. That shows that, even in a sophisticated country such as mine, with extensive experience of dealing with child protection, people can get things very badly wrong.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Evans. I call Ms Werner, on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Ms WERNER (Germany)* – On behalf of my group, I thank the rapporteur for her report and analysis. We agree with many of her points. Children should not be separated from their families. We must protect them. Young people and children have rights, one of which is the right to proper care and attention. They have a right to an education and to have an upbringing free of violence. They have the right not to work. Children with handicaps should be treated on an equal footing with others.

      In Germany in 2012, two out of three children whose welfare is jeopardised show signs of neglect. Those are terrible figures in one of the wealthiest countries of Europe. That makes one thing clear: member States of the Council of Europe need modern laws and regulations to protect children. That is a sensitive issue, but there are two sides to the coin. First and foremost, we need preventive measures – we need to prevent children from suffering. If there are signs of physical, mental or emotional neglect, we cannot attribute it simply to the parents. We can find the roots of the problem in social structures. We must find different ways of dealing with crimes against children. We sometimes bring people to court individually, but we need to improve protection and preventive measures.

      We need to ensure that children grow up independently of the poverty or otherwise of their parents. We need to be able to offer support. Council of Europe member States should not allow children to be removed from their parents for simple economic and financial reasons. We must have a way of setting this up across the board. We need to have very good infrastructure; child poverty is a major problem and we must combat it actively. The protection of children is in fact best managed by providing support where the children live. We must set up preventive measures in our policies. We need special teachers as well as early access to education.

      We need to extend the preventive measures and consider the possibility of having special youth workers. It is very important that there should be sufficient teachers available who must be appropriately trained. The decision to remove children from their families should not be carried out by one person alone; a team of specially trained people must make such a decision. The separation of a child from their family must not be allowed without a court decision. This can prevent children being wrenched away from their family. Children have rights, and they should be enshrined in the constitution.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Werner. The next speaker is Ms Palihovici from Moldova on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Ms PALIHOVICI (Republic of Moldova) – This report is very thoroughly prepared. It raises additional questions and related issues in specific regions of Europe that will have to be further analysed and taken into account. Perhaps some of these could be fully analysed, quantitatively and qualitatively, in a separate report.

      I express my great appreciation to the rapporteur for the initiative to amend the title of this report; it brought impartiality to the subject, which is a matter that we are all interested in. I also appreciate the fairness of the information and analysis provided by the rapporteur, despite the difficulties in analysing the data owing to the fact that many countries lack a system to collect statistics on this issue. I fully support the author’s conclusions on the matter – member States must develop standards in collecting statistics and analysing the data in a way that will establish the most effective services in supporting the child and the family and to avoid any abuse in removing a child from the family.

      Member States should set laws, regulations and procedures that truly put the best interests of the child first in removal, placement and reunification decisions. They should ensure that the personnel involved in the decision-making process are qualified, well paid and regularly trained.

      Another finding of the report that was relevant for many countries in eastern Europe and the Balkans is that the most at-risk children to be removed from their family are those from poor families and families in which one or both parents went abroad looking for employment, leaving their children without tutors and supervision. The report provides examples when the reason for removing a child from the family is extreme poverty. From my point of view, this is not the best solution. I am convinced that the Council of Europe member States should, in the best interests of the child, develop more opportunities to support families in generating income and overcoming poverty.

      The report clearly shows that legislation in all countries meets international standards, whereas the mechanisms to implement legislation are under-developed and not always sufficiently funded. There are a few countries that can show a positive model. Thus, one of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe objectives should be to continue monitoring respect of children’s rights in all countries. I therefore propose that member States invest more in developing the child ombudsman institute, which is one of the main instruments of acting in defence of children’s rights in each State. I firmly believe that a children’s ombudsman is a precondition to ensuring a democratic environment and a full increase in genuine respect, protection and promotion of the rights of children.

      Many conflict regions are labelled as “frozen conflicts”. Moldova has had Transnistria for 24 years, Ukraine has Crimea and Georgia has her region. Away from the official talks and negotiations, those who suffer most are children and young people, day by day.

      I urge the Assembly to focus efforts and investments on problem prevention. This will help to avoid abuses and to increase the number of children who grow up without the danger of being separated from parents, and other forms of abuse. I also urge the Assembly to ensure that every country has an active child advocate working to defend child rights.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker is Ms Bonet Perot, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Ms BONET PEROT (Andorra)* – I congratulate the rapporteur on her report. I regret that we have not been able to share this discussion with her. This is a subject of great importance: the removal of children from their parents’ care should be the ultimate measure of resort prior to which people need to work with families to help them through their difficult circumstances by appropriate care.

      We in the Socialist Group share the basic premise that despite the description of the situation in various countries and the high degree of diversity in the type of care provision afforded to children even in different areas of the same country, the proposals in the resolution might be taken even further. Thanks to the amendments provided by the Legal Affairs Committee, we have given a greater degree of legal certainty to the highly sensitive subject of removing children from their parents’ care, with a possible impingement on their human rights.

      Legislation is being carried forward in various countries; it is already applicable in some States. The basic focus needs to be the best interests of the child. That means, among other things, that in any procedure to remove a child from its parents’ custody, you need to listen to what the child has to say as the child will always have a view on these matters. You need to understand where the chief interests of the child lie.

      There needs to be a protocol, a set of rules, that will comply with a certain number of criteria. First, any procedure must involve all the agents. Any measures that are enacted need to be regulated on the basis of legal certainty if children are to be removed from their parents’ care. We also need to avoid administrative procedures and ensure that the courts are responsible for conducting these procedures. In this set of rules we need to identify the fundamental responsibilities to be apportioned between the various actors. Social workers need to have a prior plan before they intervene, and they must work very closely with the family if removal is the measure of last resort. We also need to identify any measures that might be implemented to return children to their family. They may have to be removed at some point but later on they may be able to rejoin their parents. We also need to ensure that such removals should not automatically impact on other members of the family so that they may appeal and enjoy contact with the child. There can be very traumatic effects on people other than the child, so we need to avoid having the environment of the child – that includes their school friends – disrupted. That applies to the child’s psychological environment as well.

      The PRESIDENT – The rapporteur will reply at the end of the debate, but does Mr Ghiletchi wish to respond at this stage? As that is not the case, the next speaker will be Mr Schennach.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* – I, too, agree with the previous speakers, and I warmly thank the rapporteur, who unfortunately could not be with us here today. As Ms Bonet Perot and others have said, we need to build on the important suggestion being made; we need to set joint standards across the board in Europe and develop them. In particular, we need to look at things from the viewpoint of the child; the child should be the centre of interest, so we must take measures to put the child and the child’s interest at the centre of all this.

      Some 35 years on, I can still remember a child looking at me in despair as he was taken away from his parents. A child is very attached to its parents and we have to be very careful when we act. We have to be careful to consider the psychological and physical aspects, too. We must examine the way in which we protect children, because children may die as a result of abuse or may live in a situation of neglect. So in a separate report we need to go a bit further and examine other situations. Where children are the subject of abuse or neglect and we have to remove them for those reasons, we need to look at what the available institutional forms are, because we have foster families and therapeutic treatment communities now. Where a child has to be removed immediately and placed as a transitional measure, we need to make sure that that place is suitable, too.

      The recession in Europe has led to an increase in the number of adoptions. There is a very close link to poverty, but we should not think of poverty alone as grounds for removing a child from its family. In other words, we are dealing with an accumulation of situations, and I recommend to the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development that we build on the basis of this excellent report to provide for something that we would like to create: across-the-board standards for the treatment of children. We need to make sure that the child and its viewpoint are at the centre of our interests, along with prevention. We should concentrate on that.

      Mr LE BORGN' (France)* – Taking children away from their families is an issue of particular importance, not only for the children and the families involved, but for our European societies as a whole, which make respect for the rights of the child as an extremely high policy priority. These serious decisions can result in a lot of consequences and suffering, so how can we assess the higher interest of the child, as between the protection the child deserves against any form of violence or mistreatment, and the equally legitimate right not to be separated from her or his parents? What definition of “immediate danger” should result in a removal? Who should take that decision? Should it be authorities responsible for protecting childhood or should it be a judge?

      The right to one’s family is a fundamental right and it is important to recall that a separation from parents should not exclude the possibility for those parents of continuing to maintain relations with their child. I should also mention the right that children have to engage in relationships with their grandparents. In my voting district we have a terrible battle between two grandparents over their grandchild, whose life circumstances have resulted in a shunting from one to another. I am also thinking of more vulnerable populations – single parent families, Roma and migrants – where the share of children who are placed may be higher. They may be victims of poverty and illiteracy, and I suspect, although I hope I am wrong, that some prejudices or stereotypes can result in placement decisions in such cases. I wonder whether it is not faith in the social State that has resulted in our too frequently placing children, rather than assisting families actively in financial, material, social and psychological terms. After all, that is what should characterise Europe and its model of society.

      For all those reasons, it is important to note that Ms Borzova’s report, rather than being a conclusion or a wrap-up, is the beginning of a process. We are lacking a complete overview of what the situation is in 47 member States on placement and return to families, and we need to have that. How is the higher interest of the child defined and interpreted? It is not just that a principle defined in international law results in divergent interpretations among member States of our organisation. We have a common destiny and a project. Families and children can cross borders, and be made up of different nationalities and be mixed together, but they can pay the price of the incompleteness of social Europe. That European co-operation must be strengthened for our children, and we should do this without further ado.

      The PRESIDENT – As Ms Ionova is not here, I call Ms Kovács.

      Ms KOVÁCS (Serbia) – First, I congratulate the rapporteur and the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development on their work on children’s rights in general. I also wish to stress that the child’s right to better protection against all types of violence, abuse and neglect should be a priority, while bearing in mind their best interests. On the other hand, it is of the utmost importance to support families by providing them with the necessary means to make a better environment for a child’s upbringing.

      I would like to take this opportunity to inform all of you about Serbia’s legislation on this issue, so I shall set out the most important laws in the normative framework regulating the protection of, and support for, families and children. First, we have the Family Law, which stipulates that everyone needs to consider the best interests of the child in all the actions that are related to him or her. The state is obliged to take all the necessary measures to protect the child against neglect; against physical, sexual, and emotional abuse; and against every kind of exploitation. Moreover, the State is obliged to respect, protect and enhance the rights of the child. A child born out of wedlock has the same rights as a child born in it. An adopted child has equal rights in respect of the adoptees and the parents. The State has an obligation to ensure protection in a family environment for children without parental care, whenever possible.

      Secondly, we have the Law Ratifying the Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Inter-country Adoption, which was adopted in October 2013. It aims to ensure the more efficient protection of children without parental care; increase the level of security of children that are subject to international adoption procedures; and provide post-adoptive protection of an adopted child.

      Thirdly, with the aim of providing a child with the right to an adequate standard of living, the Law on Financial Assistance to Families with Children ensures financial support, which includes: the improvement of conditions for meeting the basic needs of children; particular incentives in respect of child birth; and support for underprivileged families with children, families with children with special needs and children without parental care. Besides such financial assistance, which is also envisaged in the Law on Social Protection, it will support the reform of the concept of integrated social protection through the development of a community service network to provide support to families.

      The National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia has a Committee on the Rights of the Child, which has several working groups within it addressing various issues. Their main task is to monitor the implementation of the laws that I have mentioned. One of the working groups monitors the implementation of the Law on Social Protection, and particularly its provisions relating to community services. Another monitors the implementation of the provisions of the Family Law relating to child abuse.

      In my opinion, pre-emptive measures and timely and adequate support for families in crisis are pivotal in the prevention of the removal of children, and for children’s safe and healthy development.

      (Mr Nikoloski, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Wach.)

      Ms VĖSAITĖ (Lithuania) – More and more news has appeared recently about children being taken from immigrant families in Nordic countries and Great Britain due to inadequate child care, after it has been decided that preventive measures have failed and that the child’s biological parents do not have the necessary skills and capacity to ensure the child’s safety and meet their needs. That has mostly involved single mothers, and the problem has acquired a transnational scope. I regret that the biological family and close relatives are not given priority in relation to short-term care. Parents or relatives can also face problems in obtaining information about their children from countries’ authorities.

      The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child requires that the rights of the child should be respected, and that their identity should be protected, including their nationality, name and family relations. Due regard should be paid to their ethnic, religious, cultural and linguistic background. As globalisation increases, nationals of different States experience cultural differences, and different child-rearing principles cause misunderstandings. It is therefore necessary to implement international agreements that would allow the exchange of information about a child and emphasise the importance of co-operation with the competent authorities of the child’s State of origin. Those principles are enshrined in the Hague Convention of 1996.

      The Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption legalises the principle of subsidiarity that when a child is adopted, priority should be given to the country of origin. I call on countries such as Norway to ratify the Hague Convention, and on those that have already ratified it to implement it. The document before us is the first step, and we should go further, for the benefit of our children.

      Ms PECKOVÁ (Czech Republic) – Although children’s rights have developed considerably in the past 25 years, following the adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the protection of children, and particularly the fulfilment of their right to family life, remains one of the most serious human rights challenges in Europe. Despite the extensive evidence that researchers have presented over the past several decades of the devastating effects of institutionalisation on very young children, a large number of children, including infants, continue to be placed in long-term institutional care in many countries, including the Czech Republic, for reasons that can no longer be justified.

      As the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has highlighted, member States should primarily focus on supporting and budgeting for a wide range of services. That should include financial support to allow families to cope with difficult situations, thus preventing the displacement of children from their family environment. If the removal of a child is unavoidable, care should be provided in a family-based setting, with exceptions warranted only in highly specific situations and for a strictly limited duration.

      Large residential care facilities need to be subjected to a thorough deinstitutionalisation strategy that carefully seeks to identify care alternatives and complies fully with international human rights law while reflecting the individual needs of each child.

      Although a worrying number of children remain under institutional care in the Czech Republic, it made a clear commitment in 2012 to change the situation. Over the past few years, it has achieved a 20% decrease in the number of institutionalised children, and it has made a continuous effort to create and further strengthen preventive services and to carefully select, recruit, train and, in particular, further support both long-term and emergency foster carers. The process of positive change is well under way and irreversible.

      If we are to succeed in our honest effort to promote the rights of each child, and to translate that into mainstream practice, a mere political commitment will not suffice. We need consensus on the necessity of the transition from institutional care to family care, and we a common understanding of the fact that deinstitutionalisation is imperative. National stakeholders need to comprehend that point fully, through a rational debate stripped of emotion. The good practices of many European countries show us the way ahead and provide great inspiration.

      Ms ERKAL KARA (Turkey)* – I thank the rapporteur for her excellent job, and I very much hope that governments will consider the recommendations in the report.

      In some European countries, the removal of children in accordance with legislation is carried out only when there are severe difficulties. However, when the families involved are migrant families, the social services tend to be less tolerant. Each culture has its own nuances when it comes to the perception of the parental role, and social services often do not take those cultural differences into consideration. Erroneous decisions – or deliberate wrong decisions – can have terrible consequences. Families are torn asunder and children are taken away from their mother tongue and their mother culture.

      Youth agencies in the Netherlands, Germany and Austria have wide-ranging powers. According to experts in the field, including legal experts, the exercise of those powers is not subject to sufficient control by the national authorities. Parents can be in a weak position in their relations with those agencies, because they have language difficulties and cannot communicate their problems. Furthermore, when children are removed from a family, parents do not see their children for a long period and cannot speak freely with them even if they are authorised to see them, because they are under strict supervision. The rupture caused by putting a child with a host family or foster family is a violation of the rights of the child concerned. In a number of cases, the European Court of Human Rights has also underlined the fact that family links must be maintained, unless the circumstances are truly exceptional.

      I wish to emphasise the fact that in order to end discrimination against migrant families, removal of children should not be decided by administrative bodies but rather by judicial bodies. That would be in the best interests of the child and the family.

      Mr LUND (Denmark) – I thank the rapporteur for her report, which addresses a very important matter, and I am glad that we are here today to debate the legislation and practice across Europe regarding the removal of children from their families.

      It is of the utmost importance that we keep fighting for children’s rights, both the fundamental ones – the child’s right to a roof over their head, food on their plate and, when needed, health care – and other rights, which are nonetheless equally important. They are the right to a safe childhood, so that the child is protected from abuse and violence; the right to education; and the right to be allowed just to be a child.

      It is mainly up to a child’s parents to ensure that they have these rights and are shielded from the troubles of this world. However, when parents are the ones who abuse or neglect their child, we need to have measures in place to protect the child. These measures can be a variety of things, ranging from government supervision or guidance to the final and most drastic measure, which is the removal of the child from the care of its parents. As the report states, in some cases the decision to remove a child is definitely the right one, but in most cases the situation is much more complicated. That is why such decisions should not be made without the involvement of people who know and understand the child and the entire situation. Such decisions should never be made just as part of a regular case review.

      Child removal cases are mostly very complicated. Often, when all the relevant parties are heard, there will be different accounts of the problem. That is why it is important that there is transparency in the handling of cases, so that in the event of disputes it is clear why a decision to remove a child was made and by which authority, and so that in the event of complaints being made there is a process in place to ensure the fair and open treatment of those complaints. However, the most important aspect is that the child is involved and has a say in the decision; it is their life that is at stake, so of course they need to have a say in it. That is the most important point when social services are dealing with children in general and with child removal cases in particular. Decisions about whether a child should be removed must always be made solely on the basis of the child’s interests.

      I hope that this report will be a good start in the work of improving the situation of children. It is their life and their future that we are discussing.

      Ms KYRIAKIDES (Cyprus) – I congratulate the rapporteur, Madam Borzova, on preparing such an excellent report, which tackles the many difficult aspects involved in the removal of children from their families, and does so in a very balanced way.

      The decision to remove a child from its family is never an easy one; in fact, it is an extremely serious, life-changing decision for the child and, of course, the family. We all know or have heard of situations when not taking this decision has had disastrous consequences for the child. Conversely, removing a child for the wrong reasons and breaking up a family unit can also be traumatic.

      Of course, we all advocate that such decisions always need to be taken with the child’s best interests as the priority. However, those interests are not always easy to assess. The report highlights some of the procedures that are followed in various Council of Europe member States, including the lack of consistency that is sometimes evident, the discrepancies between the procedures that are followed and the discrepancies in the data that is collected. We need to put in place best practice; we need to pursue a multidisciplinary approach to the taking of such serious decisions; and we need to ensure that the services that deal with these issues specialise in dealing with children’s needs. That applies not only to social services but the health system, the judiciary and educators.

      The child must always be heard, but especially in cases of child abuse or neglect there needs to be expert assessment, because leaving a child in such a situation can be disastrous. Parental programmes need to be in place, both in terms of the prevention of abuse or neglect and to deal with the removal of a child from its family unit. Indeed, family reunification programmes need to be in place and given priority.

      This report is truly excellent. As member States, we need carefully to consider all its conclusions and recommendations.

      To conclude, we must only keep one thing in mind: our priority is to safeguard the interests of the child. We must not be guided by stereotypes if the child comes from a low-income background or a migrant background; instead, we must be guided by expertise. The decisions made are life-changing for a child.

      Ms KARAMANLI (France)* – I am delighted to speak in this debate and I thank our colleague Olga Borzova, who has produced this excellent report. It is a very timely and balanced report on a sensitive issue.

      The rapporteur reminds us that children are entitled not to be separated from their parents unless there are real, serious and unavoidable risks involved. She also stresses the need for a child to maintain links with its family, unless there is a serious and unavoidable risk involved in their doing so. I commend this approach and I will also make three further comments.

      First, if there is danger involved in a family environment, monitoring and care of the child should be a priority before any removal of the child, even a short-term removal, is envisaged. We need to assist and counsel the family, but of course the social services cannot take the place of the child’s parents when it comes to caring for the child. Nevertheless, proper provision must be made for the health care, schooling and leisure activities of the child. So, social services have a direct educational responsibility for the child, but as joint upbringers with the parents.

      Whenever a removal is decided by a court, there should still be the opportunity to assist the family, so that the child can spend all or part of the time with its family. Experience has shown that educational assistance over time makes it possible to tailor interventions and avoid removals. That is very much in keeping with the second recommendation of the rapporteur. When it comes to providing appropriate and sustainable support for the family, including financial support for poorer families, what is also required is psychological support for parents who have personal problems.

      My second comment concerns the need to preserve, as far as possible, a link between the children who have been removed and their original family, even if the children are put up for adoption. It is important to sustain a child’s bonds with its original family. Over time, that is the most effective approach, leading to better-balanced children and youngsters. Children are more able to construct their personal identity when the provision of information about their original family, and communication with them, is still possible. So what we are talking about is a wider network of parenthood and upbringing. These are complex relations that are involved, but very often they are promising. Those who care for children need sound interpersonal qualities and commitment, even if such qualities are inevitably taken for granted. Experience shows that these techniques need to be learned, and providing support for the family is also a positive approach.

      Thirdly, may I also suggest that this very important subject should be monitored very closely, especially in States where acute problems and issues arise regularly, so that parliamentarians can monitor the progress that has been achieved and suggest new measures?       

      Ms SCHOU (Norway) – I start by thanking the rapporteur for a good and balanced report that illustrates well the many dilemmas and challenges we face when working to ensure that our children grow up in secure, loving and caring surroundings. The report underlines again and again the principle of the best interests of the child. That guiding principle should always be the primary consideration in the work of our national child welfare services. However, as the report points out, the difficult part is often agreeing on what the best interests of the child are. These are all sensitive cases and emotions are high. There is never a clear cut answer about the best solution. Nevertheless, most of us agree that in the majority of cases, the best interests of the child are to grow up in a secure environment with their parents and families.

      The primary service of child welfare in any of our countries should be to provide voluntary help and assistance to children and families, so that they can function better and live together. That happens in Norway, where the child welfare system places great importance on family ties. In eight out of 10 cases, child welfare services offer voluntary assistance to families. Help may be provided in many different ways – in the form of advice and guidance to parents on parental practices, counselling, economic aid, kindergartens and so on.

      Taking a child away from their home should be a last resort, when voluntary measures are not enough and the child is subject to serious neglect, mistreatment or abuse. Any such decision should always be based on the obligation to protect the best interests of the child. The guiding principle should be long-term stable care in safe and loving surroundings. I support the resolution’s suggestion to develop policy guidelines on how best to secure the best interests of the child in practice. Action plans can be useful in this regard. Well founded policy guidelines can be useful in many ways, including in avoiding unwanted discrimination. The decision on whether to remove a child from their parents’ care should not be influenced by nationality, ethnicity, religion or socio-economic background.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Schou. I now give the floor to Mr Rivard, Observer from Canada.

      Mr RIVARD (Canada)* – I am very pleased to have this opportunity to address the Parliamentary Assembly. I thank the rapporteur, who unfortunately is absent, for the excellent report. Canada welcomes the committee’s efforts to ensure that child protection services serve the best interests of the child and are in full conformity with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).

      As a member of the Canadian parliamentary delegation, I want to take advantage of this opportunity to share Canada’s experience of protecting children. In Canada, although the protection of children falls mainly within the competence of provinces and territories, the federal government nevertheless plays a more and more important role in implementing national programmes designed to avoid situations in which children are removed from their families. That respects Canada’s obligations under the UNCRC, which Canada ratified in 1991, as well as under the “Jordan’s” and “Child First” principles adopted unanimously by the Canadian House of Commons in 2007.

      In the past 30 years, the federal government has taken initiatives to inform and provide resources to vulnerable groups, to prevent household violence or intervene when it occurs. That has improved children’s safety by making sure that as many as possible can remain with their families. An initiative to combat family violence, implemented in 1988, is based on actions by 15 federal bodies; its objective is to raise awareness of family violence and strengthen the ability to prevent it and intervene when it occurs.

      The federal government has also implemented a preventive approach to the welfare of indigenous children, with a view to providing services such as child care, including after-school care, mediation services and others. Thanks to that, Canada is following up on its commitment to promote the best interests of the child. It recognises that although national measures can be adopted to resolve child protection issues, pan-European progress would have a positive impact on the whole world. Canada is aware of the important contribution of the Parliamentary Assembly to child protection and is pleased to collaborate with the international community so that best practices can be exchanged.

      Mr RECORDON (Switzerland)* – We will all have various examples of what happens to children who have been put into care. This excellent report shows that abuse may arise when a child has not been put into care or when they have been put into care too soon. We need to get the balance right. I want to consider the issue from another standpoint that the report does not explore: the redress that might be available.

      In Switzerland, we have launched an investigation into pecuniary and non-pecuniary compensation for people who, as children, were placed in intolerable situations. The people concerned are now about 70, and their average age when they were put into care was about six; this takes us back to the aftermath of the Second World War. We are discussing how much compensation should be paid; it could be as high as €300 million or €400 million. We need to find out how terrible events came to happen. There is a terrible example of an individual who in the 1950s had to reimburse the cost of being put into an orphanage and was then put to work by a farmer who exploited him. The Tages Anzeiger, a Zurich daily newspaper, has featured an article showing the terrible circumstances into which children were placed; they suffered the same distress as those who have undergone war trauma. That is an additional reason for redress and compensation.

      Ms MAGRADZE (Georgia) – The problem written about in the report is very sensitive and important. Each country has tried to solve it according to its capacity, but the main problem is that the child needs family and a family atmosphere. In that sense, we have taken some serious steps in Georgia.

      Reform of the Georgian health care system started in 2005. Georgia had a heavy inheritance from the Soviet system of 47 large children’s shelters, with 5 000 children in them. Can you imagine that in a country that has a population of only about 5 million? From much research we know that children who are educated in large institutions suffer from, most importantly, mental development problems, but also eternal loss of social contact and minimal chance of social success in life. That is why de-institutionalisation was and is the priority of the reforms, which involves replacing the large children’s shelters with an alternative form of care for children in which they grow up in a family environment.

      The ongoing process of child welfare reform implies the closure of all large children’s shelters in Georgia and the creation of a mechanism that will attempt to prevent child abandonment and develop alternative services in such cases of abandonment. Within the reform, a relevant legal framework and alternative services have been developed. The number of large children’s shelters has decreased, 47 small family shelters have opened and the number of social workers has increased from 139 to 239. As the report says, the requirement for professional quality in social workers is high in Georgia: we demand that social workers have university degrees.

      Nowadays, the priorities of the deinstitutionalisation process are reintegration and support for families with children; development of alternative services; and strengthening the social worker services. We now have only two large shelters in Georgia and we also prioritise the creation and development of relevant alternative forms of care for children under State care from zero to six years. Children with disabilities will be helped by the closure of the Kojori shelter for children with disabilities and the Tbilisi infant shelters.

      The expected results of the reform are as follows: there will be no large shelters in Georgia; family support services will ensure the strengthening of families; an increased number of social workers; and much greater effect obtained from the expenses for the development of alternative and preventive services. The State’s main objective is to support families, but if there are circumstances in which it is necessary to remove a child from their family, it needs to provide special, alternative services that are like family – small shelters where children have a mother, a father, sisters and brothers.

      Ms HOFFMAN (Hungary)* – I congratulate the rapporteur, Ms Olga Borzova, on drawing our attention to an issue that is tricky but at the same time very important. We are talking about real treasures: children. From birth through to when they become adults, they cannot act responsibly to protect their interests. Therefore, they need the protection of adults and society.

      Every child has the right to reach adulthood in circumstances that are appropriate for their development, even if they are born into a disadvantaged situation – that is to say a family whose material, social or cultural situation is difficult. Every child represents a real value. One can never know in advance whether, in the personality that is developing and evolving, someone extremely important is hidden – a future scientist, artist, solider, economist, worker, farmer or what have you. Our children will make the societies of the future work, so we must take particular care of their fate.

      Unfortunately, there are more and more cases in which families do not exist in the traditional sense of the word; they no longer function normally as an appropriate community in which to bring up children. That is why politicians have a huge responsibility to put in place the best possible framework through appropriate legislation.

      How and when should children be removed from their families, and how and when should they be returned to them where that is possible? Ms Borzova deals with all of the important aspects of that problem in her report. I agree with her findings and would like to underscore some points. First, the legislation must really give priority to the interest of the child. Secondly, children have the right to be protected against any form of violence. Thirdly, they must not be separated from their parents against their will and poverty must never be the sole reason for removing a child. There are other important points as well.

      I would like to report that Hungarian legislation conforms fully with European regulations as well as European practice. We follow the same standards and rules that we find described in detail in the report. Hungary has put in place institutions to support families that can serve as models for others and I will mention just a few of them. Families can take advantage of a tax credit in the taxation system and they can ask for and receive protection when they suffer bankruptcy. We consider that the best way to protect children is to protect families and the report, which I support, also stresses that approach.

      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – I support the report and the draft resolution as well as the sensible amendments tabled by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. Indeed, the removal of children from their families should be considered an extreme measure to be applied only if absolutely necessary, such as when staying with parents could entail a real threat to the child’s life and health. However, when people considering particular situations and complaints turn to me as an MP, I get the impression that that view is not always shared by competent authorities and some member States.

      I want to mention a particular group of people besides immigrants and minorities: citizens of those States of central and eastern Europe who relatively recently joined the European Union and now make use of freedom of movement within the Union. As a rule, those people have to work particularly hard to establish themselves in a new country.

      As the rapporteur rightly pointed out, the level of harmonisation of legislation on child protection is low and newcomers are usually not aware of the specifics of the laws and customs in their new countries. Often they have limited access to legal advice and assistance, and lack a perfect command of the official language. Also they are not always informed about their rights, obligations and relevant safeguards. Sometimes they are even forced to sign documents when they do not fully understand their content and possible consequences.

      Single mothers are particularly vulnerable in that regard and often find themselves to be victims who are deprived of their parental rights. I will not mention particular names and States, although I could do so – and more than one or two. Some cases, where diplomatic protection of citizens of Council of Europe member States is effectively denied, are of particular concern, such as where a child who is a citizen of Latvia is removed from her mother and handed for adoption to a family with different culture, language and traditions. The competent institutions and judiciary of the State of the child’s citizenship have no say. In my view that is fundamentally wrong. The relevant bodies of the child’s citizenship State must be involved in the decision making. Therefore, I support the draft resolution, but I believe that our Assembly should continue its work on this issue to improve the protection of children and their rights, and to find solutions to the remaining serious deficiencies.

      Ms ZIMMERMANN (France)* – I regret the absence of our rapporteur, but I thank her for the thorough job she has done on an often delicate and always painful subject. The French system attempts to provide a balance between the protection of the child and respect for the biological parents. As Daniel Rousseau, the child psychiatrist who gave evidence at the hearing on the protection of children in the French Parliament, said, the precautionary principle should always apply in the interests of the child, not the parents, as is often still the case. That is very important in order to make a proper evaluation of the situation and to know whether the child can be withdrawn from a family and therefore be adopted.

      Every child should have positive prospects for the future. The absence of any positive prospects means that adoption is not possible, so the child loses the second chance of having a family. We have to analyse the situation and quickly detect those children who have no true contact with their parents, who have disappeared from their day-to-day existence despite the support given by social services. Those children are victims of their parents.

      For some children in care, a return to their family is difficult to envisage. The report does not talk about the question of the law or specialised justice, which is very important, because the judge can decide that regular checks should be set up to follow the development of the child. That suggests that relationships with the biological family are in danger. It is important that the rules governing visitation rights and housing rights, and the way in which parental authority is exercised, should be carefully examined. In France, a judge might authorise some visits in the presence of a third person, but might also decide that those pose too great a danger to the child and that therefore their address must be concealed. The conditions in which the meetings with the family take place will make it possible to decide whether a child can be returned to their parents or not.

      The report of a working party on the protection of children in adoption, which was published in 2014, underscored the fact that decisions concerning total withdrawal from the parents because of neglect are very late in coming, so adoption cannot take place in proper conditions. Many families have to wait years to be able to adopt a child and that deprives the child of the chance to have a family, as well as depriving the family of the chance to have a close relationship with a young child. Another solution could be a simple adoption which would make it possible for a child to have a new family life while keeping links with their original family.

      Another important factor is the need to have better recognition of family welfare officers and their help in rebuilding children’s lives. The family of origin may have limited contact with the child.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Zimmermann. 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 for publication in the Official Report. I remind colleagues that the texts are to be submitted in typescript, electronically if possible, no later than four hours after the list of speakers is interrupted.

      I call Mr Ghiletchi to reply. You have three minutes and 50 seconds.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – I thank everyone for taking part in the debate. I know it is a nice evening outside, so it is good that you decided to stay. I see the faces of some of our voting champions, such as Mr Gross, Ms Christoffersen and others, but I also see people who care about this subject so have decided to stay.

      We all share the view that the best interests of the child must be our primary consideration, but as Mr Le Borgn’ and Ms Schou pointed out, we do not always agree on what those best interests are. Several speakers emphasised the following recommendations. First, we need to focus on prevention. We need to ensure that proper assistance for families is in place, especially for poor families, so that the removal of children is avoided in the first place. Secondly, we need to ensure that when it does become necessary to remove a child from a family, we act in the best interests of the child by aiming to reunify the family and take the child’s view into account. Also we should not unfairly target certain families based on prejudice. The third point was that the report is just the beginning. We need to continue our work on this issue, as Mr Cilevičs suggested. Ms Karamanli also asked us to continue to monitor this issue.

      I emphasise that Ms Borzova attaches particular importance to ensuring that certain practices, which are unfortunately common today in many countries and are even provided for by law, are applied only in exceptional circumstances, such as severing family ties completely, removing children from parental care at birth and having recourse to adoption without parental consent. That is why I oppose Amendment 6, proposed by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. It was passed narrowly, and I want the Assembly to understand that so I am not accused of bias. I wear two hats today, one as chairman of the committee and the other as the replacement for Ms Borzova, but it is important to stress this point. We want to keep the proposal in the amendment for exceptional circumstances. If an exception becomes the law, it is not an exception any more. An exception is not the norm: the law is the norm. We should not allow this opportunity to introduce exceptions, otherwise we will lose children. That was not Ms Borzova’s intention. We want to avoid severing ties with families, so I ask you not to support Amendment 6.

      I pay tribute again to Ms Borzova. We all regret that she is not here. I hope that she is watching our proceedings and that she hears our appreciation for her work. I would also like to thank all the speakers for their contribution and the Secretariat for its hard work in helping Ms Borzova to put together this report and recommendation. Please support the report and resolution unanimously, except for Amendment 6.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Ghiletchi, and I also thank the Secretariat for the live streaming so that many people can watch us.

      Does a vice-chairperson of the committee wish to speak? As that is not the case, the debate is closed.

      The Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development has presented a draft resolution to which nine amendments have been tabled. The committee has also presented a draft recommendation to which no amendments have been tabled.

      I understand that the Chairperson of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendments 1, 8, 7 and 9 to the draft resolution, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly.

      Is that so, Mr Ghiletchi?

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – Yes.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone object? As there is no objection, I declare these amendments to the draft resolution agreed.

      I call Mr Dişli to support Amendment 2 on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr DIŞLI (Turkey) – This amendment is merely a matter of legal clarity. There may be a need for member States to not only adopt new laws, regulations and procedures, but review and revise existing ones.

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

      What is the opinion of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development?

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

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 2 is rejected.

      I call Mr Dişli to support Amendment 3 on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr DIŞLI (Turkey) – The Legal Affairs Committee considers that children are too often regarded as mere objects of decisions taken by the competent authorities. They are the bearer of rights, including participatory rights. Given the far reaching impact on their lives, children should be heard in separation placements and reunification processes, according to their age and level of maturity.

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

      What is the opinion of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development?

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

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      I call Mr Dişli to support Amendment 4 on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr DIŞLI (Turkey) – Both the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Strasbourg Court have underlined that States must grant parents any assistance needed to cope with their problems. Our committee therefore considers that we should we add references to international instruments, setting out States’ obligations in this respect.

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

      What is the opinion of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development?

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

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 4 is rejected.

      I call Mr Dişli to support Amendment 5 on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr DIŞLI (Turkey) – The amendment would make the resolution more complete by outlining States’ duties in cases where social services had to remove a child from his or her family. The case law of the Strasbourg Court is clear on this point: the placement of a child in alternative care should normally be a temporary measure. Social services should facilitate regular contact between the child and his or her parents with a view to reuniting the family.

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

      What is the opinion of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development?

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

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      I call Mr Dişli to support Amendment 6 on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr DIŞLI (Turkey) – When adopting its opinion, several members of the Legal Affairs Committee – all of them possess judicial expertise; one is a former judge – stressed the importance of judicial review, especially when it comes to such drastic measures as those mentioned in paragraph 8.4 of the draft resolution. It is crucial that the resolution is phrased in the clearest terms possible. This is why our committee proposes to underscore the importance of strict legal safeguards and effective judicial review.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Palihovici.

      Ms PALIHOVICI (Republic of Moldova) – From my point of view, it is a nonsense to amend the provision. I propose not to accept the amendment, because its recommendation is to avoid “removing children form parental care at birth” and to do so only in exceptional cases. If we accept Amendment 6, it will state “provided for in law”. We cannot be sure of the possibility of describing all exceptions in law. If that becomes law, it would mean that they will not be an exception; they will be the law. We have to keep the text proposed by the rapporteur. We will save many children. Please do not support the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development?

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – In my capacity as the chair of the committee, I have to say that the committee was in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13730, as amended.

      The vote is open.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 13730. I inform you that a two thirds majority is required.

      The vote is open.

      I have been informed that Mr Zingeris would like to take the floor, in accordance with the rules, to explain his voting.

      Mr ZINGERIS (Lithuania) – I am sorry, ladies and gentlemen. I do not have any crazy idea to extend your time. I have been here with you since 1993 and this is the first time that I have done this. I congratulate you on the successful vote on the resolution. The previous resolution was on the sensitive matter of gender equality. I would like to say that I voted in favour of the resolution. My mother spent years in a Nazi concentration camp. She is 93 years old. She told me horrible stories of the Nazis killing homosexuals on a massive scale. I grew up with that story.

      I am sorry to take up members’ time – as I say, this is the first time I have done this – but there were a few points in the resolution about asserting gender that were, for me, a little beyond what I could accept. I am absolutely in favour of making people equal and accepted, and protecting them against humiliation in society, but I would like to distance myself a little. A few amendments were voted against. I am sorry to take your time before dinner, but I distance myself from the vote. I am absolutely in favour of humankind taking human rights forward – indeed, I was chairman of a committee on human rights – but some things that were put forward were a little doubtful for me. I think the Assembly voted correctly and I support all your votes. But I am a member of a Christian democratic party and so I feel I should distance myself from those elements that were a little doubtful for me – for example, those about asserting gender. I am sorry for that. I support the Assembly’s votes and thank you for listening me – this is the first time I have said something like this in this Chamber since I became a member in 1993.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Zingeris. There is always a first time for everything.

3. Next public business

      The PRESIDENT – The Assembly will hold its next public sitting tomorrow at 10 a.m. with the agenda that was approved on Monday morning.

      The sitting is closed.

      (The sitting was closed at 8 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. Discrimination against transgender people in Europe

Presentation by Ms Schembri of the report of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, Document 13742

Statement by Ms Dalli, Minister for Social Dialogue, Consumer Affairs and Liberties of Malta

Speakers: Mr Gunnarsson (Sweden), Ms Gambaro (Italy), Ms Katrivanou (Greece), Ms Kyriakides (Cyprus), Mr Lavesson (Sweden), Mr Ghiletchi (Republic of Moldova), Ms Rawert (Germany), Ms Blondin (France), Ms Christoffersen (Norway), Ms Antičević Marinović (Croatia), Ms de Sutter (Belgium), Mr Davies (Canada), Ms Lymperaki (Greece), Ms Morin (Canada), Mr Rouquet (France)

Amendment 9, as amended, adopted

Draft resolution in Document 13742, as amended, adopted

2. Social services in Europe: legislation and practice of the removal of children from their families in Council of Europe member States

Presentation by Mr Ghiletchi of the report of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, Document 13742

Presentation by Ms Sotnyk of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Document 13760

Speakers: Ms Fiala (Switzerland), Mr Evans (United Kingdom), Ms Werner (Germany), Ms Palihovici (Republic of Moldova),Ms Bonet Perot (Andorra), Mr Schennach (Austria), Mr Le Borgn' (France), Ms Kovács (Serbia), Ms Vėsaitė (Lithuania), Ms Pecková (Czech Republic), Ms Erkal Kara (Turkey), Mr Lund (Denmark), Ms Kyriakides (Cyprus), Ms Karamanli (France), Ms Schou (Norway), Mr Rivard (Canada), Mr Recordon (Switzerland), Ms Magradze, (Georgia), Ms Hoffmann (Hungary), Mr Cilevičs (Latvia), Ms Zimmermann (France)

Amendments1, 8, 7, 9, 3, 5 and 6 adopted

Draft resolution in Document 13730, as amended, adopted

Draft recommendation in Document 13730 adopted

3. Next public business

Appendix I

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*

Brigitte ALLAIN*

Jean-Charles ALLAVENA*

Werner AMON*

Luise AMTSBERG*

Athanasia ANAGNOSTOPOULOU

Liv Holm ANDERSEN*

Lord Donald ANDERSON*

Paride ANDREOLI

Ben-Oni ARDELEAN

Khadija ARIB*

Volodymyr ARIEV

Egemen BAĞIŞ*

Theodora BAKOYANNIS/Antigoni Lymperaki

David BAKRADZE*

Gérard BAPT/Jacques Bigot

Doris BARNETT/Mechthild Rawert

José Manuel BARREIRO/Ángel Pintado

Deniz BAYKAL

Marieluise BECK*

Ondřej BENEŠIK/Gabriela Pecková

José María BENEYTO*

Deborah BERGAMINI*

Sali BERISHA*

Anna Maria BERNINI*

Maria Teresa BERTUZZI*

Andris BĒRZINŠ/Nellija Kleinberga

Gülsün BİLGEHAN

Brian BINLEY*

Ľuboš BLAHA*

Philippe BLANCHART/Dirk Van Der Maelen

Maryvonne BLONDIN

Jean-Marie BOCKEL/Yves Pozzo Di Borgo

Olga BORZOVA*

Mladen BOSIĆ*

António BRAGA*

Anne BRASSEUR/Marc Spautz

Alessandro BRATTI*

Piet De BRUYN

Beata BUBLEWICZ/Michał Stuligrosz

Gerold BÜCHEL

André BUGNON/Elisabeth Schneider-Schneiter

Natalia BURYKINA*

Nunzia CATALFO

Elena CENTEMERO*

Irakli CHIKOVANI*

Vannino CHITI*

Christopher CHOPE*

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Henryk CIOCH

James CLAPPISON*

Igor CORMAN

Telmo CORREIA

Paolo CORSINI

Carlos COSTA NEVES*

Celeste COSTANTINO*

Yves CRUCHTEN

Zsolt CSENGER-ZALÁN*

Katalin CSÖBÖR/Rózsa Hoffmann

Joseph DEBONO GRECH

Reha DENEMEÇ

Alain DESTEXHE*

Manlio DI STEFANO

Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA*

Peter van DIJK*

Şaban DİŞLİ

Sergio DIVINA

Aleksandra DJUROVIĆ

Namik DOKLE*

Elvira DROBINSKI-WEIß*

Daphné DUMERY*

Alexander [The Earl of] DUNDEE*

Nicole DURANTON/Marie-Christine Dalloz

Josette DURRIEU*

Mustafa DZHEMILIEV*

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/Ivana Dobešová

Ute FINCKH-KRÄMER*

Axel E. FISCHER*

Gvozden Srećko FLEGO

Bernard FOURNIER

Hans FRANKEN

Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO*

Martin FRONC*

Sir Roger GALE/Lord Richard Balfe

Adele GAMBARO

Karl GARÐARSSON

Iryna GERASHCHENKO/Mariia Ionova

Tina GHASEMI/Boriana Åberg

Valeriu GHILETCHI

Francesco Maria GIRO*

Pavol GOGA*

Carlos Alberto GONÇALVES

Alina Ştefania GORGHIU*

Svetlana GORYACHEVA*

Sandro GOZI*

Fred de GRAAF*

François GROSDIDIER/Jacques Legendre

Andreas GROSS

Dzhema GROZDANOVA*

Mehmet Kasim GÜLPINAR*

Gergely GULYÁS*

Jonas GUNNARSSON

Nazmi GÜR*

Antonio GUTIÉRREZ/Jordi Xuclà

Maria GUZENINA*

Márton GYÖNGYÖSI*

Sabir HAJIYEV*

Margus HANSON*

Alfred HEER/Luc Recordon

Michael HENNRICH*

Martin HENRIKSEN*

Françoise HETTO-GAASCH/Marcel Oberweis

Oleksii HONCHARENKO

Jim HOOD*

Arpine HOVHANNISYAN*

Anette HÜBINGER

Johannes HÜBNER*

Andrej HUNKO*

Ali HUSEYNLI*

Rafael HUSEYNOV*

Vitaly IGNATENKO*

Florin IORDACHE/

Tadeusz IWIŃSKI*

Denis JACQUAT/Damien Abad

Gediminas JAKAVONIS/Dalia Kuodytė

Gordan JANDROKOVIĆ/Ingrid Antičević Marinović

Tedo JAPARIDZE/Guguli Magradze

Michael Aastrup JENSEN*

Frank J. JENSSEN/Hans Fredrik Grøvan

Florina-Ruxandra JIPA*

Ögmundur JÓNASSON*

Aleksandar JOVIČIĆ/Stefana Miladinović

Josip JURATOVIC*

Antti KAIKKONEN*

Mustafa KARADAYI*

Marietta KARAMANLI

Niklas KARLSSON

Andreja KATIČ/Matjaž Hanžek

Vasiliki KATRIVANOU

Ioanneta KAVVADIA

Charles KENNEDY*

Tinatin KHIDASHELI*

Danail KIRILOV*

Bogdan KLICH/Helena Hatka

Haluk KOÇ*

Igor KOLMAN

Željko KOMŠIĆ*

Unnur Brá KONRÁÐSDÓTTIR*

Ksenija KORENJAK KRAMAR*

Attila KORODI

Alev KORUN*

Rom KOSTŘICA*

Elvira KOVÁCS

Tiny KOX*

Borjana KRIŠTO*

Julia KRONLID*

Marek KRZĄKAŁA*

Zviad KVATCHANTIRADZE*

Athina KYRIAKIDOU*

Serhiy LABAZIUK/ Sergiy Vlasenko

Inese LAIZĀNE

Olof LAVESSON

Pierre-Yves LE BORGN

Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT*

Igor LEBEDEV*

Valentina LESKAJ*

Terry LEYDEN

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE/Boriss Cilevičs

Georgii LOGVYNSKYI

François LONCLE/Catherine Quéré

George LOUKAIDES/Stella Kyriakides

Yuliya L'OVOCHKINA*

Jacob LUND

Trine Pertou MACH*

Philippe MAHOUX*

Thierry MARIANI*

Soňa MARKOVÁ/Pavel Holík

Milica MARKOVIĆ*

Meritxell MATEU PI

Ana MATO*

Pirkko MATTILA/Mika Raatikainen

Frano MATUŠIĆ*

Liliane MAURY PASQUIER/Eric Voruz

Michael McNAMARA*/Jim D'arcy

Sir Alan MEALE*

Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA*

Evangelos MEIMARAKIS*

Ivan MELNIKOV*

Ana Catarina MENDES*

Attila MESTERHÁZY*

Jean-Claude MIGNON

Philipp MIßFELDER*

Olivia MITCHELL*

Igor MOROZOV*

João Bosco MOTA AMARAL

Arkadiusz MULARCZYK*

Melita MULIĆ

Oľga NACHTMANNOVÁ*

Hermine NAGHDALYAN*

Piotr NAIMSKI*

Sergey NARYSHKIN*

Marian NEACŞU*

Andrei NEGUTA

Zsolt NÉMETH

Miroslav NENUTIL

Baroness Emma NICHOLSON*

Michele NICOLETTI

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI

Marija OBRADOVIĆ

Žarko OBRADOVIĆ

Judith OEHRI*

Carina OHLSSON/Eva-Lena Jansson

Joseph O'REILLY*

Maciej ORZECHOWSKI*

Sandra OSBORNE*

José Ignacio PALACIOS

Liliana PALIHOVICI

Judith PALLARÉS CORTÉS

Ganira PASHAYEVA*

Florin Costin PÂSLARU*

Waldemar PAWLAK*

Vladimir PLIGIN*

Cezar Florin PREDA

John PRESCOTT*

Gabino PUCHE*

Alexey PUSHKOV*

Carmen QUINTANILLA*

Mailis REPS*

Andrea RIGONI*

François ROCHEBLOINE*

Soraya RODRÍGUEZ

Alexander ROMANOVICH*

Maria de Belém ROSEIRA*

René ROUQUET

Rovshan RZAYEV*

Indrek SAAR*

Àlex SÁEZ*

Vincenzo SANTANGELO/Maria Edera Spadoni

Milena SANTERINI*

Kimmo SASI*

Nadiia SAVCHENKO/Boryslav Bereza

Deborah SCHEMBRI

Stefan SCHENNACH

Ingjerd SCHOU

Frank SCHWABE

Urs SCHWALLER*

Salvador SEDÓ*

Predrag SEKULIĆ

Ömer SELVİ*

Aleksandar SENIĆ

Senad ŠEPIĆ*

Samad SEYIDOV*

Jim SHERIDAN

Bernd SIEBERT*

Valeri SIMEONOV*

Andrej ŠIRCELJ

Arturas SKARDŽIUS

Leonid SLUTSKY*

Serhiy SOBOLEV

Olena SOTNYK

Lorella STEFANELLI/Gerardo Giovagnoli

Yanaki STOILOV*

Karin STRENZ*

Ionuţ-Marian STROE*

Valeriy SUDARENKOV*

Krzysztof SZCZERSKI/Andrzej Jaworski

Damien THIÉRY

Lord John E. TOMLINSON

Antoni TRENCHEV*

Goran TUPONJA*

Ahmet Kutalmiş TÜRKEŞ

Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ

Theodora TZAKRI*

Ilyas UMAKHANOV*

Dana VÁHALOVÁ*

Snorre Serigstad VALEN*

Petrit VASILI*

Imre VEJKEY

Stefaan VERCAMER/Petra De Sutter

Mark VERHEIJEN*

Birutė VĖSAITĖ

Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN*

Dimitris VITSAS

Vladimir VORONIN*

Viktor VOVK

Klaas de VRIES*

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ

Draginja VUKSANOVIĆ*

Piotr WACH

Robert WALTER

Dame Angela WATKINSON/Jonathan Evans

Tom WATSON*

Karl-Georg WELLMANN*

Katrin WERNER/Annette Groth

Morten WOLD/Ingebjørg Godskesen

Gisela WURM*

Maciej WYDRZYŃSKI

Leonid YEMETS/ Vladyslav Golub

Tobias ZECH*

Kristýna ZELIENKOVÁ*

Sergey ZHELEZNYAK*

Marie-Jo ZIMMERMANN

Emanuelis ZINGERIS

Guennady ZIUGANOV*

Naira ZOHRABYAN*

Levon ZOURABIAN*

Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

Vacant Seat, ‘‘The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’’*

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote

Sílvia Eloïsa BONET PEROT

Charlò BONNICI

Kerstin LUNDGREN

Katrin WERNER

Observers

Corneliu CHISU

Don DAVIES

Percy DOWNE

Michel RIVARD

David TILSON

Partners for democracy

---