AA15CR26

AS (2015) CR 26

2015 ORDINARY SESSION

________________

(Third part)

REPORT

Twenty-sixth sitting

Thursday 25 June 2015 at 4 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 p.m.)

      THE PRESIDENT* – The sitting is open.

1. Missing persons during the conflict in Ukraine

      THE PRESIDENT* – The first item of business is the debate on the report titled “Missing persons during the conflict in Ukraine”, Document 13808, presented by Mr Jim Sheridan on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population.

      I remind members that the time limit for speeches in debates this afternoon has reverted to four minutes.

      I call Mr Sheridan, rapporteur. During Mr Sheridan’s speech, photographs of some of the missing persons will be displayed on the screens. Mr Sheridan, you have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.

      Mr SHERIDAN (United Kingdom) – The report has a special meaning for me. Two years ago, I was the rapporteur for a report titled “Missing persons from Europe’s conflicts: the long road to finding humanitarian answers”. At that time, I could not have imagined that we would be dealing with a new conflict in Europe and with the tragic fates of missing people in Ukraine.

      I will start with the story of Lera Kulish from Luhansk. I want to show the real faces behind each story so you can see her and her parents on the screen. Lera is a young and beautiful Ukrainian girl in her 20s. She was studying and planning for the future, but horror suddenly entered her life and this is her story: “At 4 in the morning on 8 August 2014, 8 armed persons forced their way into the house of my parents in the town of Peremozhne of the Luhansk region. I was away, but my parents and my grandfather were at home. The terrorists were searching for weapons, but did not find any. So they took my mother, Elena Kulish, and my stepfather, Vladimir Alekhin. My mother had created a web blog giving news from the town to relatives living outside the occupied territory. I presume that it is because of this activity that my parents were abducted. In December, I was called by the LNR authorities to identify the bodies, but it was impossible to do so, as the bodies were in a very poor condition. The authorities are not handling the bodies and will not take DNA samples. They promise to send them to Rostov oblast in Russia for the metric expertise, but nevertheless nothing is happening.”

      Now Lera lives and works in order to support her grandfather. Please, take a good look at the face of this brave girl. Despite the sorrow and despair that she lives with, she is strong enough to help other families of missing people. If you read the stories of missing persons included in the report, you will realise the pain that the families of missing persons are living through and how important it is to do everything possible to alleviate it.

      The worst thing is that we do not even know the exact number of people missing due to conflict in Ukraine. We do not know whether the number will continue to increase. It is harmful not only for the Ukrainian people, but for the whole of Europe, which is endangered by this conflict. One year after the conflict started, more than 1 330 people have been reported missing. That is an official figure, but it only takes into account data collected by Ukrainian authorities. In reality, the number of missing people is certainly higher and it is changing every day.

      The missing persons include not only soldiers, but also civilians, including volunteers who were helping victims of the conflict. There are also reports of abductions of Ukrainian civilians and their illegal transfer to the territory of the Russian Federation. Since Crimea’s occupation by the Russians, at least two dozen civilians have gone missing, and the overwhelming majority of victims are representatives of opposition to the illegal occupation of Crimea and members of the Crimean Tatar community. No official information on missing Russian soldiers has been provided by the Russian authorities, as they have so far not recognised their involvement in this conflict. On the other hand, the security service of Ukraine has received more than 20 applications from Russian families seeking information on Russian soldiers who have disappeared in the Donbass.

      My approach to the problem was a humanitarian one. As stated in the Geneva Conventions and their protocols, all parties to the conflict have obligations to search for persons who have been reported missing and to provide information to the families of the missing on the fate of their loved ones. To facilitate the search for missing and captured persons, the Ukrainian authorities established an Interagency Centre for Assistance in the Release of Captives and Hostages and the Search for Missing Persons and created a unified register of pre-trial investigations – a database of DNA samples of unidentified bodies and the relatives of missing persons – both of which have significantly helped to facilitate the identification procedure.

      Nevertheless, the relatives of missing persons and non-governmental and volunteer organisations are concerned with the many different lists of missing persons in which information is unverified and duplicated. It leads to painful situations, such as a mother receiving information after having buried her son that he was in fact still missing or had been captured by separatists. It is understandable that the Ukrainian authorities, who have been confronted with the need for an emergency response, have reacted by instructing all relevant bodies to deal with the issue of missing persons in the frameworks of their respective competencies. However, I suggest that some improvements in the current mechanisms and co-ordination system be made. First, the co-ordinating body should be placed within the institutional framework and under the responsibility of the cabinet of ministers, and should include representatives of civil society and the families of missing persons.

      One of the most significant problems is mass graves. After the Ilovaysk tragedy where 243 Ukrainian soldiers were killed, the morgues were unable to accommodate such a huge number of corpses. Therefore, many bodies of unidentified soldiers were buried in temporary mass graves. It is also reported that there are several mass graves in the occupied territories in the Luhansk and Donetsk regions, but at this stage it is not possible to exhume and identify these human remains. It is remarkable how much civil society has mobilised in this difficult period for Ukraine.

      I praise the efforts of a number of Ukrainian NGOs, human rights organisations and volunteer groups working to identify and collect information on missing soldiers and civilians. They also provide logistical, legal and material assistance to the families of the missing. Special tribute should be paid to the work of the all-Ukrainian organisation The Union of People's Memory and its head Mr Yaroslav Zhylkin. Since the beginning of the conflict, these courageous people have found and exhumed more than 450 bodies of Ukrainian soldiers. In fact they are doing the work which should be done by the State and are not even receiving financial support from the State. The monthly cost of such operations is around €20 000. For the moment, all tracing missions are financed by donations from people. I also thank the Russian NGO Soldiers’ Mothers of St Petersburg, which has received information about at least 100 killed and 300 injured Russian soldiers. It appealed to the Russian military authorities to investigate these cases.

      The people who suffer the most in these situations are the families of missing persons. Unfortunately, very often they are left alone, without financial help, or legal, psychological and social assistance. The primary need of the families of missing persons is to get the true information on the fate of their loved ones and also to have accountability. Another main priority for the families of missing persons is to receive an official acknowledgement of the status of “missing person” and governmental support linked to it. The undefined legal status of a missing person’s spouse or descendant may have consequences for property rights, the guardianship of children, inheritance and the possibility of remarriage.

      Today, the families of missing civilians do not receive any financial or other support from the government, while the families of missing military staff at least obtain the salary of their missing relatives. There is also a great need for psychological support for the relatives of missing persons. Therefore, a more comprehensive approach to the problem of missing persons should be developed at governmental level. It should involve various volunteer and humanitarian organisations in its work and provide medical, social and financial assistance to the families of missing persons.

      I have stressed that a cease-fire must be the main condition for the successful operations of exhumation and identification of the remains of missing persons. In the draft resolution, we urge Ukraine, the Russian Federation and the separatist groups controlling the territories of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions to share information on the fate and whereabouts of missing persons and return the unidentified bodies where appropriate to the respective sides of the conflict. I am grateful to the Ukrainian NGOs, including the Centre for Civil Liberties, which provided me with the photos of the missing persons we have seen today.

      It is important to see the faces of these people who, two years ago, could not have imagined even in their worst dreams that this war in Ukraine would start. We must understand that peace is very fragile, and the war in Ukraine is a war in the heart of Europe. Let us do whatever possible to stop it.

      THE PRESIDENT – Now I give the floor to speakers on behalf of the political groups. First, I call Mr Hunko on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Mr HUNKO (Germany)* – The fate of missing or disappeared people is a very unfortunate secondary effect of war. We are seeing that today in Europe, as we did in the past. I remind you all that several thousand people are missing in Turkey as a result of the conflict between the Turkish State and the PKK at the end of the 1990s. That is just one other example.

      Mr Sheridan made a lot of good proposals and said the prerequisite for clearing up the fate of the missing was that there must be a peace process and at the very least the Minsk II commitments must be respected. If the conflict in the east of Ukraine continues to escalate, as appears to be the case, it will be extremely difficult to heed any of these demands. As we have been hearing day after day since the end of April, there is an escalation of violence and Minsk II is being breached by both sides. Today, for example, the deputy head of the OSCE mission, Alexander Hug, said both sides have failed to abide by the agreement; they have not withdrawn their heavy weapons, nor have they respected the cease-fire. I cannot judge which party is more in breach. The fact of the matter is that both parties are failing to respect earlier agreements. It is important that we be neutral in our approach to the issue, and that is certainly what the OSCE is doing in exemplary fashion.

      On the missing people, unfortunately, the report refers almost exclusively to the Ukrainian authorities. It might not have been possible to do otherwise, but the figure of 1 300 people is given, and I have heard there are 1 732 missing people in the People’s Republic of Donetsk. I would have hoped that it might have been possible to collate all the available information in order to provide a comprehensive overview of the situation. It is not just one side that is responsible for people going missing, or for the breaking of the cease-fire. In all probability, both sides are responsible.

      The report is entitled “Missing persons during the conflict in Ukraine” but I do not think that goes far enough, because it is wrong to focus exclusively on the disputed territories in the east of Ukraine and Crimea. There are still missing people after the massacre in Odessa on 2 May last year. Official figures say there were 48 deaths, and I have heard from other sources that there are 60 missing, so there is certainly a discrepancy there that needs to be investigated. Again, the group convened by Secretary General Jagland is trying to clarify matters.

      These proposals are worthwhile from a technical point of view, but if we are to implement them we need to ensure Minsk II is respected and there must be a cease-fire as that is the prerequisite for being able to deal with the missing people issue seriously.

      THE PRESIDENT –  I call Mr Schennach to speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* – I thank Mr Sheridan most warmly for this report, because it shines a light on one of the darkest chapters in the history of our continent. One of the bleakest facets of conflict is the fate of missing people, whether someone’s child, husband or wife. It is possible that those who are missing are now dead, and might be found in mass graves. The process in Bosnia shows how important it is to realise that, even if someone went missing and did not return, one can take one’s leave from that person. Closure is important for individuals, the family and society. It is extremely important that we find out what has happened to those who have gone missing, so the international community must do everything in our power to try to keep alive the glimmer of hope of Minsk II and try to ensure that peace is sustainable.

      I am not as pessimistic as Mr Hunko. I think that there is a realisation on both sides that there is simply no alternative to Minsk II. Nevertheless, I know about the 1 700 people – Russians, Ukrainians and Tatars – who have gone missing, as well as people from other ethnicities, and there is also the Donbass region and Crimea to consider. Of course, when it comes to Crimea, we reiterated a demand repeatedly on Wednesday. It is vital that we carry out the necessary investigations immediately. I remember the process in Bosnia, where we had to go through national bodies and authorities, so I appeal to the Ukrainian authorities and the Russian Federation to look into whether they would be willing to accede to and recognise the court in The Hague.

      In Bosnia, a supreme court judge has been responsible for the exhumations. We need to exhume the bodies to show respect to all those who continue to hope that their missing loved ones are still alive. The International Committee of the Red Cross, the OSCE and the Council of Europe must all be given access to the region. I think we have learned from the shameful episode in Bosnia, so it is important that we now set in motion the machinery that was used then. If people are languishing in mass graves, thorough investigations are very important for future societal co-existence. There must be no holds barred when it comes to investigating war crimes. I hope that the exchange of prisoners will be continue, but they are named individuals and we are discussing people who have gone missing. I thank Mr Sheridan again.

      THE PRESIDENT –  I call Mr Vareikis to speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania) – I thank Mr Sheridan for his excellent report, which is not only timely but important in its essence. We live in the 21st century. There are more than 7 billion human beings. We are connected by Facebook, Twitter, and many other links; nevertheless, people are missing. They are not missing because they wanted to disappear, but because of the political or military environment that surrounds them.

      We still do not know how many people are missing in Ukraine – we can only guess. It is important to stress that everyone who is physically missing is never missing from human memories: families will remember them. One of my relatives went missing in the Second World War, and we remember him as a living person, but he is still missing and no one knows where he is. A few years ago, I had the opportunity to visit laboratories in Tuzla in Bosnia where they were identifying the missing bodies. It was a very strange experience. I saw it and said, “Never again. It cannot be repeated.” But now the same thing is happening in Ukraine.

      We are talking about missing civilians. People are free to travel, so what is there to do when they go missing? We need to keep track of everyone. Sometimes, volunteers do not want to show where they are, so it is difficult to keep track of them. We also hear more and more news about very strange events in Russian military units. There have been numerous so-called unexpected fatalities in Russian units that were formerly stationed in certain Russian cities. No one believes in these unexpected fatalities – something is going on.

      The conflict on Ukrainian soil is full of strange goings on, so the report is very serious. I would point to four things that we need to do. First, as the report says, we have to create a legal framework to facilitate the identification of missing persons. We have good experience from previous wars, such as in Bosnia and Herzegovina, so we can suggest what the Ukrainian and Russian sides should do. We can also supply the technical equipment and materials for identifying people.

       The two other things are more complicated. Political will is missing from the Russian side. Probably the most important and difficult thing is political responsibility, which lies not only with the legal countries, but with the political entities that are not recognised. The universal laws do apply to them. We have to tell them that responsibility also lies with them.

      THE PRESIDENT – I call Sir Roger Gale to speak on behalf of the European Conservatives Group.

      Sir Roger GALE (United Kingdom) – I thank my friend and parliamentary colleague, Jim Sheridan, for his very moving report and illustrated presentation. As Mr Schennach said, he has shone a light into some very dark and murky corners and offered an important insight into the plight of what the Red Cross estimates to be 1 460 persons who have gone missing since the commencement of the annexation of Crimea, the Russian Federation-backed hostilities in Donetsk and Lugansk, and the subsequent attacks on sovereign Ukrainian territory. As he illustrated so graphically, this is a human tragedy. The families, friends and loved ones of those missing on both sides of the conflict are experiencing despair and misery. That is as true of what are known as the “Cargo 200” bodies of the undead Russian military as it is of Ukrainian soldiers and civilians.

      It is vital that the Ukrainian authorities, Russia and separatist groups co-operate first to provide the details of known missing persons and then to reunite those still living with their families. In some cases, that may involve the exhumation and DNA identification of bodies, which in itself can be extremely distressing.

      We know from the example of Cyprus that, following the Turkish invasion more than 40 years ago, there are still families unable to reach closure in relation to the loss of their relatives. The uncertainty caused by the absence of honest information adds huge insult to injury and to death without dignity.

      Jim Sheridan’s report makes eminently sensible and practical suggestions designed to resolve a problem that will only get worse if it is not addressed now. This issue must be addressed not only by the Parliamentary Assembly, but by the Committee of Ministers, which must seek to resolve it with absolute urgency in the interests of the family, friends and relatives – the husbands, the wives and the children – who are currently suffering.

      THE PRESIDENT – I call Mr Chikovani on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Mr CHIKOVANI (Georgia) – I thank Mr Sheridan for his very emotional report. As we all know, many of the issues discussed in the Chamber are important to the everyday lives of many Europeans, but this report is on a very emotional matter. The figures in the report are not just figures; they are the families who have never recovered from their loss. They live in great doubt about whether their relatives will ever be back or are already dead and should be paid proper tribute.

      We understand that the number of missing is not final. It will never be final until all parties to the conflict agree that this should not be a matter of political speculation. As previous speakers have noted, many other people who cannot be accounted for are not included in the report. I want to underline that there are human beings whom families do not await – the children who lived in the orphan houses in the occupied territories. The Ukrainian authorities have never been able to get proper information about what has happened to those young girls and boys. That is the gravity of the situation we face. Our hearts go out to the families, and we keep in mind those in sorrow. Mr Sheridan has clearly underlined the importance of the actions taken by Ukraine and the need for such actions to continue. It is clear that all of us in the Chamber should unite in supporting our Ukrainian friends in doing so, whether with technical help or through sharing our experience.

      One of the most important steps that must be taken to address the problem is to have a cease-fire. We should not lie to ourselves: we all understand that an active conflict is going on in eastern Ukraine. Such discussions cannot just be about missing persons. A few days ago, we discussed the Ukrainian issue in connection with another delegation. Unfortunately, this will not be the last report that we will discuss on the conflict in Ukraine and the occupation of Ukrainian territory. Many more resolutions will have to be passed before we will all find the force to stand up to what we can call aggression and inhumanity towards our European citizens.

      THE PRESIDENT – The rapporteur has asked to respond to the speakers from the political groups. I call Mr Sheridan. You have three minutes left.

      Mr SHERIDAN (United Kingdom) – I welcome the kind words of all five speakers. I am sure that they understand the importance of the report and of where we go from here.

      May I say to Mr Hunko that the collation or collection of figures is difficult? It is a constantly moving number. I understand the comments about focusing just on Ukrainian victims, but given that Russia does not accept or admit that it has any involvement in the conflict, it is very difficult to get figures from it. Figures that are difficult to determine are open to challenge, but I would say – Mr Chikovani is certainly of the same opinion – that although the figures are of course important, we are talking about human beings: families, fathers, mothers and children. Imagine the uncertainly of not knowing whether your loved ones are living, dead or in prison somewhere. Trying to live with that on a daily basis must be extremely difficult.

      Mr Vareikis used his own experience to illustrate the pain and anguish of the relatives. I certainly welcome the approach of using personal experience. Sir Roger Gale rightly drew a parallel with the situation in Cyprus. I would not like to think that in 40 years’ time we will still be talking about the missing persons in Ukraine, so I urge the appropriate authorities to do what they can to try to alleviate the situation. Mr Schennach rightly talked about how the practice of exhumation can be expedited, but as I said in my presentation, it is a very expensive exercise. All the non-governmental organisations, volunteers and others involved in it are currently dependent on charity. I therefore urge the Assembly to do what it can to ensure that resources are provided to help with the exhumation of bodies.

      We should help in corresponding with the families of missing persons to make sure they know that the Assembly is on their side. Indeed, we should do whatever we can to ensure that the relatives understand that we are on their side. There is a saying in the United Kingdom: “The past we inherit, the future we build.” On this occasion, we are on the side of the angels, and the relatives of the missing persons are depending on us to deliver.

      THE PRESIDENT – I congratulate the rapporteur on his very good work. Thank you, Mr Sheridan. I call Mr Ariev.

      Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – I am grateful to Mr Sheridan for his in-depth and very good work as rapporteur. I assess the report as very fair.

      War is always against humanity. It is terrible, and the first to suffer are the civilians, who do not always have the chance to survive, especially in combat zones where fighting is actively going on. I want to refer to the numbers from one NGO, which collects information on missing persons and hostages. Mirnyi Bereg said that 239 people are missing on the Ukrainian side in the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. That information has been provided by allies to the NGO. A minimum of 73 civilians are being kept hostage. Also, 371 military personnel are missing and 260 military personnel are being kept hostage by the so-called republic. Keeping those people hostage is a crime against humanity. So-called officials of the republic have sent people to cellars and illegal prisons, sometimes without food. They torture those people and make them dig trenches and do other acts of forced slavery. Ukraine cannot influence the situation in the occupied territories, but the Ukrainian Parliament has ratified the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. That was a voluntary step in supporting the fight against the sad facts outlined in the report.

      Russia does not just support terrorism, but tries to hide the truth by using the Russian Federation military to hide victims on Ukrainian territory. We condemn the decision of the Russian President to classify information on casualties among Russian forces personnel during peacetime. That decree by Putin was signed on 28 May. We also see Russia kidnapping people, as happened with my assistant who was kidnapped in the Chernihiv region in March last year and moved to the Russian Federation. No one knows his destiny. The only information we have is that he is held in a prison in the North Caucasus. There is also the situation faced by our colleague, Nadiia Savchenko.

      I conclude with one thing: we should not be modest in relation to the report. We have to support it. The Assembly should react strongly to the facts of kidnapping and torture.

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

      Ms DOBEŠOVÁ (Czech Republic) – I thank the rapporteur for preparing this very good report on "Missing persons during the conflict in Ukraine". In war, many people go missing, and that causes uncertainty for family and friends. Since the start of the conflict in Ukraine, more than 1 300 persons have gone missing, and their families and relatives have the right to know what happened to them.

      Human rights law and international humanitarian law require parties to an armed conflict to take measures to ensure that people do not go missing. If people do go missing, the parties to the conflict are required to take all possible measures to ensure that their fate is known and that their families are informed.

      The Governments of Ukraine and the Russian Federation, the military authorities and armed groups of separatists controlling the occupied territories of Donetsk and Luhansk region have an obligation to provide information and assist efforts to put families back together. Regrettably, the measures necessary to prevent disappearances and provide vital information have not been taken with the Ukraine conflict.

      I am afraid that we could be repeating the Balkan tragedy. As members know, the Balkan conflict was symbolised by mass executions and unmarked graves. In that conflict, about 20 000 people disappeared. In Ukraine, we so far have 1 300 missing persons. We must do our best to ensure that the number does not increase. The pain caused by such events is often hidden and personal, and whole communities suffer.

      In that respect, I welcome the efforts of the Ukrainian authorities in opening an all-Ukrainian centre for the search for prisoners and dead and missing soldiers during the anti-terrorist operation. The authorities have also established a hotline for the families of missing Ukrainian and Russian citizens who disappeared in the Donbass region, but it is not enough. I ask the authorities of Ukraine and the Russian Federation to undertake all the necessary measures to help the families of missing persons without delay.

      The conflict in Ukraine has become a sore point in Europe, and it must be stopped as soon as possible. The Council of Europe should play a role in that and help to clarify the fate of missing persons in connection with the conflict in Ukraine by offering relevant expertise, especially through the framework of co-operation programmes. I will vote to approve the report and the relevant resolution.

      Ms IONOVA (Ukraine) – The report is truthful and at the same time very painful for all Ukrainian families. We thank Mr Sheridan very much for his comprehensive report. Ukraine is extremely interested in resolving the problem of missing persons on all sides of the ongoing war. Ukraine is the only side in the war that recognises the norms of international humanitarian law and adheres to them not only in words, but in deeds. I underline that Russia is responsible for all the violations and crimes, as well as all the violations of international humanitarian law on the territories.

      I was a member of the commission that investigated the Ilovaysk tragedy. We saw burned bodies and hundreds of murdered patriots who were cynically shot by Russian troops when they passed through the so-called humanitarian corridor. I am sure that the International Criminal Court will investigate that crime.

      We are dealing with the systematic violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantees the right to life, freedom from torture, the right to a fair trial, freedom of thought and the right of peaceful assembly. It is a fact that all the leaders of terrorist groups are Russian citizens – that information is openly available.

      To implement the recommendations that the Council of Europe made to Ukraine, such as creating a separate governmental body for the issue and supporting a system of single registry, the Ukrainian Government needs significant funding. It is difficult to implement change when a war is going on in our country. We therefore expect additional financial support and the assistance of European countries in implementing the recommendations.

      We would also like more attention to be paid to the violation of children’s rights, not only in Donbass, but in Crimea. There is much evidence of sexual violation and of the revelation that terrorists train children at their military bases. It is important that the report contains detailed information from NGOs that fully co-operate with Ukrainian authorities. I wish this was our last resolution, but regrettably, unless we put an end to the war, the issue will remain on our agenda.

      Ms GERASHCHENKO (Ukraine)* – On behalf of the Ukrainian delegation, I thank the rapporteur for finding sophisticated and tactful words to discuss this thorny issue. The subject of this debate is of enormous importance to our country. In Ukraine, people say that the war will not be over until we find every missing person and bury every dead soldier, but that will not happen until we have a centre to seek out all those lost in action or being held prisoner.

It is important also to work closely with the ministry of defence and volunteers. I thank the volunteers and non-governmental organisations for their titanic work in helping the country and, first and foremost, the families to look for their missing relatives. The Ukrainian delegation to the Minsk humanitarian sub-group, of which I am a member, has proposed that the search for missing people be one of the sub-group’s priorities. We also propose that experts from the International Committee of the Red Cross take an active part in the process, and we are happy that this week, for the first time, an expert from that organisation participated in a meeting of the sub-group and suggested ways of looking for and identifying missing people.

As correctly noted, however, all Ukraine’s efforts are being blocked by the other side. We are talking not about a civil conflict in Ukraine, but about aggression against Ukraine, and all our efforts are being blocked by the Russian and Donetsk elements. The Red Cross humanitarian mission was fired at by fighters while it was bringing medical and food aid to people in the occupied territories. It is also outrageous that to this day no international humanitarian mission has been allowed to where the Malaysian Boeing fell, and no one has been allowed to identify the bodies of those who perished. That is something else we need to talk about.

If I may, I will take the report to the Minsk humanitarian sub-group because it is important that all parties there know of its contents. It will be of enormous help in our work. I assure the rapporteur that it will be seriously assessed in the committees of our parliament too – in our human rights committee, for instance – because we understand how important it is to improve Ukrainian legislation in this thorny field. That is Ukraine’s duty because we need to find every single missing person. Moreover, we have sent an official list of the 1 200 Ukrainians missing without trace to the other side so that they can help in the search.

The Minsk sub-group has been working for a month. Of the 270 people held by the other side, we have been able to free only nine. We are getting no help in looking for them. Close to Ilovaysk, 243 Ukrainian soldiers were tragically shot – the Russian army was there – and we still have not been allowed to take home the bodies. The number of children held in those territories is also an outrage. Boarding schools and orphanages have been evacuated, but some children are too ill to travel, and we cannot offer humanitarian help and support to them.

As I said, this subject is of primary importance, and we are grateful to the Council of Europe and the rapporteur for dealing with it with such sensitivity. We should be talking not only about the victims of the war, however, but also about the aggressor. We should also be talking about the 270 people still being held, the 17 000 people wounded or injured and the 1 300 people already mentioned.

Lord BALFE (United Kingdom) – I congratulate the rapporteur on his report and hope I do not upset too many people with my few words. One consequence of all wars is that people disappear. Most European countries have a tomb of the unknown soldier, often dating back over 100 years, the unknown soldier being someone who had disappeared and was not accounted for.

Having received representations on Cyprus for more years than I care to remember, I think that the key to sorting out this problem – in so far as it can be sorted out – is good will. There is not just one side in this conflict. It takes two sides, however defined, to start a war and to go off shooting, and it will take two sides to sort out this problem. I am told that the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has identified 345 unidentified bodies in the Dnipropetrovsk Oblast, and I hope that, using DNA techniques, we will be able to identify them – but we do need some good will. I note that the mission in Ukraine believes that the governmental bodies do not effectively co-ordinate their activities. There is probably room for better co-ordination. I certainly hope there is.

Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the report contain a good list of practical steps that can and should be taken to identify people more efficiently and bring some relief. I am sure we all recognise the work the Ukrainian Government has done, but in many people’s opinion, quite a lot more needs to be done to create the necessary legal framework and national mechanisms to sort this out. I am impressed that nine of the 11 speakers in the general debate are Ukrainian, but I am sorry that we have got ourselves into a situation where only one side in this difficult situation can be represented in the Chamber. If the Council of Europe is to play its part, it has to get back to being just that – a council of Europe.

Ms SOTNYK (Ukrainian) – I thank the rapporteur for his report. It is an important report not just for Ukraine or the Assembly, but, first of all, for the families, because it puts the question on an international level. I ask colleagues to imagine for one moment that their loved ones were missing without trace. What would they feel? What would they do? In Ukraine, there are now thousands of families living a nightmare. They do not have any information about their relatives, they do not know if they are alive or dead, and they live every day in hope. Of course, we have official figures, but I am afraid that the reality is much crueller and the real figure much higher.

      As the report states, “Ukraine’s legislation was not prepared for the situation of military actions on its territory and could not foresee all the different legal aspects of problems incurred”. It is absolutely true that without the contributions of our international partners, it will be extremely difficult to find a way out of this situation. However, it is not only about legislation. Ukraine lacks technical support, appropriate medical support, and educational and informational programmes. We know that Ukraine is neither the first nor the only country that faces the problem of missing persons. Therefore, there are many organisations and professionals who can share with us their experience, knowledge and appropriate skills.

      I would like to draw another issue to your attention: missing Russian soldiers in Ukraine. The Russian authorities do not provide any official information about these soldiers because they do not admit their involvement in the current war and call their soldiers “volunteers”, or they simply lie and say that a big group of their soldiers “got lost” on Ukrainian territory. Only in May, two Russian fighters, Alexander Alexandrov and Yevgeny Yerofeyev, were captured in Ukraine and confessed their affiliation to the Russian military forces. Even after a Russian NGO, Soldiers’ Mothers of Saint Petersburg, appealed to the Russian military authorities to investigate, nothing changed. We consider this situation unacceptable and ask for an immediate intervention of the international community. I hope that we all not only understand this situation but will unite in our efforts to solve it.

      Ms ZALISHCHUK (Ukraine) – I thank Jim Sheridan for preparing this report and collecting information from the different sides, including the Ukrainian authorities, Ukrainian civil society organisations, Russian civil society organisations and international NGOs. However, one thing was missing: information from the Russian opposition. I would like to draw your attention to this information because it is very difficult for the Russian opposition to spread it – not abroad, of course, but inside Russia.

      As members know, a report entitled “Putin War” has recently been published, and I mentioned it yesterday. It states that thousands of Russian soldiers have been sent to Ukraine, and hundreds of Russian soldiers have died or are missing on Ukrainian territory. I want to talk about these soldiers because their families probably have the least chance of getting information about whether their relatives are alive or dead. Why? First, the Russian Government denies the involvement of regular Russian troops in the war in the east of Ukraine. Secondly, through a recent decree, Mr Putin has classified information about Russian military casualties. Thirdly, even if the Russian delegation were here in this Chamber, we would hear no support from them for the families of these missing Russian soldiers.

      That is why I think that paragraph 8.5 of the report is so important. It states that the Assembly urges the authorities of the Russian Federation to “provide the families of missing Russian soldiers with accurate information on the fate and whereabouts of their missing relatives”. Mr Hunko said in his speech that this is a civil war. We can all decide which term to use to describe this aggression. However, by calling it a civil war, you deprive the families of these Russian soldiers of the opportunity to know the truth.

      Mr KIRAL (Ukraine) – My colleagues from the Ukrainian delegation as well as other parties have said much that I support, and I fully agree that this strategy should stop. However, it will stop only with a cease-fire and the cessation of Russian aggression in Ukraine.

Missing persons are nothing more than enforced disappearances, in the terminology of the International Committee of the Red Cross. These are persons who have been arrested, detained or abducted with the authorisation or support of a State – in this case, we all realise which State we are talking about – which refuses to admit the deprivation of freedom or provide information about their fate and condition. The rapporteur, Mr Sheridan, has admitted that he was unable to access any information from the Russian side on those issues in carrying out his work. This definition of enforced disappearances also includes an “intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time”. That is from Article 7 of the Rome Statute dated 1998.

      This activity – basically the kidnapping of people – was further criminalised in 2006 in the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. Therefore, with this activity, and with the aggression in Ukraine, Russia has failed to perform its obligations under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, dated 1950, to apply all efforts to protect the lives of the people under its jurisdiction. That is what is happening today in the case of Nadiia Savchenko and many other people who are missing in Russia. The key here is accountability. We can discuss matters among ourselves and share our views, but people need be held accountable for their actions to the relatives of these missing persons. I believe that we should consider including another covenant in the renewal of the Russian credentials requiring it to adopt the Rome Statute and to be accountable in the International Criminal Court, as these are crimes against humanity as defined in the legal documents that I mentioned.

      Mr SOBOLEV (Ukraine) – They are such simple words: missing persons. However, we need to understand that each missing person is a big tragedy. I shall mention just four of them – concrete cases of civilians, soldiers and officers who have been classified as missing and then as dead. The first person was a civilian from Horlivka, a city in Donetsk: his name was Volodymyr Rybak, and he was a member of the local council. He took the Ukrainian flag on to the main square of this city. He disappeared and his wife could not find him for three days. He was then found in a lake containing turtles. His body had been cut up from his legs to his head.

      Another story – the story of an officer – comes from a soldier who did not save him, but did save his body, although without the head. That soldier is still alive. When he called his wife, she said, “You are lying, because just an hour ago I had a call from a man from the LPR” – the Luhansk People’s Republic – “who offered me my husband, alive, for $3 000.” He was dead, but they tried to sell his body, “alive”.

      The third story is about Ilovaysk and Debaltseve, where there were hundreds of bodies of people killed with heavy weaponry from the Russian Federation. We cannot identify them and nor can their relatives. In my native city of Zaporizhia and the nearby city of Dnipropetrovsk, hundreds of these people were buried together.

      The fourth story is about the soldiers from the Russian Federation who have been killed on the territory of Ukraine. When Russian journalists investigated their families, their mothers cried but shut their mouths, because of Mr Putin’s special decree not to give any information about this war.

      So these “missing persons” are not missing persons. For each day that Ukrainian mothers or Russian mothers find these “missing persons”, it is the responsibility of each of us to stop this. We have to stop Putin, because this is not a war between Ukrainians; it is an occupation by the regime of Putin, who is trying to prove that he is the owner of Europe and the world.

      THE PRESIDENT – That concludes the list of speakers, but given that we have not used all the time allocated for this afternoon’s debate, I invite spontaneous contributions from members who have not spoken in the debate. Would anyone like to speak? That is not the case.

      (The speaker continued in French.)

      Since Mr Sheridan has left the Chamber, I call Vice-President Rouquet. You have two minutes left to respond on behalf of the rapporteur and also in your capacity as chairman of the committee responsible for this report.

      Mr ROUQUET (France)* – Mr Sheridan had to leave the Chamber, but I would like to thank you all on his behalf. On behalf of the committee, I also thank all colleagues who have taken the floor. Today we saw photos of people who are missing. I think we felt exactly the same feelings of sadness that all the loved ones of these missing people are experiencing, and we of course want to reduce their suffering.

      As we have heard, the situation with missing persons is also linked to people being captured during the conflict in Ukraine. We intend in our committee to give thought to this matter as well, because it is our duty to ensure that they are freed as soon as possible. First and foremost, we are very concerned about the illegal detention by the Russian Federation of Ms Nadiia Savchenko, a member of our Parliamentary Assembly who was captured by terrorist armed groups in June 2014. Despite a large number of appeals issued by Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the President, the Bureau and all other bodies in the Parliamentary Assembly, the Russian authorities continue to hold this person in pre-trial detention.

      Colleagues, it just remains for me to ask you to support the resolution and the recommendations. However, I would also like to take this opportunity on behalf of the chair of the committee and all its members to thank Mr Sheridan for his work – for this report, but also for all the other work he has done in the committee. This report marks the culmination – the end, in fact – of Mr Sheridan’s term as a member of the Parliamentary Assembly. Therefore, I am sure you can imagine just how emotional he was when delivering his report to you just now and answering some of the questions raised. The committee very much appreciated his enthusiasm and willingness to deal with very sensitive and urgent political matters. We very much regret that this is his last report. Let me again appeal to you to approve this report, unanimously if possible, as well as the amendments.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The debate is now closed. The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons has presented a draft resolution, to which six amendments have been tabled, and a draft recommendation, to which no amendments have been tabled.

      I understand that the chairperson of the committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendments 2, 1, 4, 5 and 6 to the draft resolution, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly.

      Is that the case?

      Mr ROUQUET (France)* – Yes.

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

      As there is no objection, I declare that Amendments 2,1,4,5 and 6 to the draft resolution have been agreed.

      Amendments 2,1,4,5 and 6 are adopted.

      We come to Amendment 3.

      I call Ms Ionova to support Amendment 3. You have 30 seconds.

      Ms IONOVA (Ukraine) – Our Resolution 1990 says: “The Assembly considers that the actions of the Russian Federation leading up to the annexation of Crimea, and in particular the military occupation of the Ukrainian territory and the threat of the use of military force”. Resolution 2034 recognised the presence of Russian troops on the territory of Ukraine, in Crimea as well as Ukrainian Donbass. Resolution 2063 also confirms that the Russian military intervention continues.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr ROUQUET (France)* – In favour.

      THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 3 is adopted.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13808, as amended.

      The vote is open.

      The draft resolution in Document 13808, as amended, is adopted, with 54 votes for, 1 against and 3 abstentions.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 13808.

      The vote is open.

      The draft recommendation in Document 13808 is adopted, with 55 votes for, 0 against and 3 abstentions.

      Congratulations on the resolution and the recommendation, which has been adopted unanimously.

2. Towards a new European social model

      THE PRESIDENT – The next item of business is the debate on the report titled “Towards a new European Social Model”, Document 13795, presented by Ms Maria de Belém Roseira on behalf of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development.

       I remind members again that the time limit for speeches in debates this afternoon has reverted to four minutes.

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

      Ms ROSEIRA (Portugal) – This report is strictly linked to the core mission of the Council of Europe, organised around the three pillars – the rule of law, democracy and human rights – and the latter implies the equal recognition of dignity in all human beings and the achievement of that objective through organised solidarity.

      The European social model (ESM) found normative expressions in the Treaty of Rome 1957, and the European Social Charter 1961 and its revised version of 1996. In its different expressions, according to the International Labour Organisation, it builds upon the following main pillars: increased minimum rights on working conditions; universal and sustainable social protection systems; inclusive labour markets; strong and well-functioning social dialogue; public services and services of general interest; and social inclusion and cohesion. Those pillars are a mixture of values, accomplishments, aspirations and a basic understanding that we share, but the ESM is not a static concept and, as indicated by the title of this report, needs adaptation that is evidence-based and values-driven. Indeed, the progress that the ESM allowed in human development indicators and shared economic prosperity through the reduction of inequalities, the promotion of inclusive societies and lasting peace, is undeniable. Nevertheless, recent events such as globalisation, technology and demographic changes and the social, economic and financial crisis put the ESM under stress.

      There are socio-economic challenges to be addressed and I emphasise the contribution of the OECD to the debate. In its most recent publication “In it together – Why Less Inequality Benefits All”, the OECD illustrated how, beyond its impact on social cohesion, inequality also affects economic growth. According to OECD data, there is a growing gap between low-income households, which constitute about 40% of society, and the rest of the population. Precarious work further cements existing inequalities, while high wealth concentration among a few people reduced investment opportunities. On the other hand, measures considered to add positively to the growth potential were: increased participation of women in labour markets, equal opportunities in education and training from an early age onwards, and better redistribution of wealth through taxation systems.

      I entirely support these measures suggested by the OECD and propose that the Assembly should look more deeply into effective strategies for overcoming inequalities and creating a stronger basis for economic growth, possibly in a new report. In that respect, I underline that the International Labour Organisation, which has closely co-operated with my committee to prepare the report debated today, is currently working on the effects of the crisis on the middle class. The middle class is more and more affected by the current economic situation, and that point cannot be neglected. We should continue to observe such worrying developments and raise awareness about them in time, once they represent social disruption and obstacles to economic recovery.

      According to the European Commission, some key elements of the ESM can serve as factors of resilience and cornerstones on the way out of crisis. In its Europe 2020 strategy, the European Union defines the overall aim of delivering growth that is smart, sustainable and inclusive, by focusing on five main goals in the areas of employment, innovation, education, poverty reduction, and climate and energy.

      We need a renewed ESM to face the challenges of the 21st century, upholding humanist values like social inclusion, cohesion and solidarity, ensuring that we do not live at the expense of future generations by protecting the environment, working against climate change, rebuilding public trust in public finances, fighting corruption and tax evasion, and revising modes of redistribution through tax reforms that reconcile efficiency and equity concerns. Other crucial issues are health policies and employment – namely decent jobs and youth employment. Europe should be in the first line of those marching ahead, in not only reforming and sharpening its socio-economic policies, but proposing alternatives and more sustainable societal values.

      As Jean-Claude Juncker reminded us this week, Europe should make an effort to obtain a social triple A rating. Taking this framework into consideration, the Parliamentary Assembly should concentrate on key recommendations to renew and strengthen the ESM. To provide a path for the future evolution of European societies and their socio-economic and democratic functioning, we should take the most urgent measures to overcome current rising social and economic inequalities, such as corruption and the large-scale phenomena of tax evasion, fraud, and austerity measures, which are threatening social cohesion and political stability in a number of countries. The Council of Europe and the European Union share the same values of human dignity, individual freedom, social solidarity, political liberty and the rule of law which are the basis of genuine democracy.

      Recalling some of its previous resolutions on the continuous downgrading of employment and working conditions, young people's difficulties in accessing the labour market, the weakening of collective bargaining procedures and agreements, and the reduction of the scope and quality of public services, including for the most vulnerable, the Parliamentary Assembly should call upon member States to take the following actions.

      As regards social rights, member States should consult, in advance, national human rights institutions and reinforce supervisory mechanisms linked to the European Social Charter and its additional protocol on collective complaints.

      As regards national socio-economic policies, member States should develop and implement comprehensive strategies to combat child poverty – the most threatening burden on future generations – and youth unemployment, and to encourage the empowerment of women, the employment of the elderly, the inclusion of groups most subject to discrimination and the creation of jobs in sectors such as renewable energy, digital technology and innovative health and social services.

      As regards national education and training policies, member States should create equal opportunities to break cycles of disadvantage through early intervention and strategies for life-long learning, professional training and transition between education systems and the labour market.

      As regards fiscal legislation and taxation policies, member States should strengthen their redistributive efforts. They should improve tax compliance by fighting tax evasion and the use of tax havens, and they should redirect those revenues towards social and economic investment. Member States must improve the sustainability of social protection systems and social benefits. They must establish appropriate targets and good governance, and they must fight any form of corruption.

      As regards public services and investment, member States must redirect savings towards social investment in new types of infrastructure, modernise the provision of public services using new digital technologies and develop the capacity of their citizens.

      As the Commissioner for Human Rights recently underlined, there is an urgent need to reinvigorate the European social model, based on the foundations of human dignity, inter-generational solidarity and access to justice for all. As the European Social Protection Committee recently argued: “now is the time to build adequate, effective social protection systems that combine a strong social investment dimension with better protection”. In other words, a new ESM should not only be a safety net, but positively contribute to wealth creation through social investment.

      The Parliamentary Assembly stated in 2012 that austerity measures have a lasting negative impact on social rights, and it should stick to that position in 2015. Not everyone may know that during the past year, even European Union Commission President Juncker presented his excuses to the Government of Portugal for the harsh austerity conditions imposed on our people. Other observers have sounded the alarm that the current crisis could become one of democracy.

      These are the main messages that we must convey. Financial savings made on public budgets are by no means sufficient to create new growth. We need to do better than that, ending current austerity policies and making sustainable social investment at all levels, as I have tried to convey in the resolution. Our current problems are not simply linked to the crisis; they reach much deeper and have structural causes linked to globalisation, technology, demographics and education systems. We need to question current societal systems and processes deeply to create a better world for all in a sustainable manner. We need to create a new ESM.

      Thank you very much for your attention and support. The report was made possible by the competent work of the secretariat of the committee, and the support of my colleagues and the president of the committee.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Roseira. You have two minutes remaining. I call Ms Bonet Perot to speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Ms BONET PEROT (Andorra)* – On behalf of the Socialist Group, I thank the rapporteur for this crucial work, which follows up on the Assembly’s reports on the impact of austerity on democratic values. The political, economic and cultural cornerstones of Europe established in the wake of the Second World War are coming under increasing strain, and the future is uncertain. European society has faced a raft of economic, geopolitical, social and demographic challenges since the onset of the crisis, and Europe is likely gradually to lose economic and demographic importance in the world.

      Even though we have welfare societies and an ESM, Europe is in a dangerous place, so we are justified in looking at the unsustainability of the system. We need to secure the future of our welfare States. The ESM boils down to the fact that our States must be democratic and our public policies must favour cohesion and solidarity. We must face up to the fact that because of our demographics, welfare systems and pension systems will pose a real challenge. We must try to get more women into the labour market, and we must fight corruption. The recommendations in the report are designed to ensure that European citizens can take advantage of their welfare societies.

      The European Social Charter and the additional protocol on collective bargaining play an essential role in inspiring the policies of member States. We must ensure that people’s civic rights are not ground down, and we must preserve our welfare States. We have different conceptions of our social models, but we must guarantee economic and social cohesion through social networks and collective solidarity. Social equity and productive efficiency will lead to equality of opportunity as well as a fight against all forms of discrimination. On the other hand, austerity is leading to increases in inequality and poverty, and a lot of the recent difficulties have been linked to pensions and health. Many grandparents find themselves supporting their entire family on their retirement pension. In the health sector, some people simply do not have the money to buy the medicines that they need to deal with their illnesses. Some people live in situations of outright despair, which causes all kinds of societal problems.

      The report provides an indication of how we should conceive of an ESM that will encourage growth, investment and the creation of a sustainable economic environment. We must preserve appropriate levels of environmental, social and economic protection, fighting against poverty and social exclusion.

      THE PRESIDENT – I call Mr Mota Amaral on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Mr MOTA AMARAL (Portugal) – Ms Roseira’s report on the European social model is timely and accurate. The rapporteur elaborates briefly but elegantly on the ESM and gives us a glimpse of its origin, its achievements and its challenges and formulates suggestions for reforms that could strengthen it and give it a new start. The rapporteur deserves thanks and congratulations from the Assembly, and I am happy to perform that duty in my name and in that of the Group of the European People’s Party, on the behalf of which I take the floor in this debate.

      The so-called ESM is a consequence of the wise commitment of the post-Second World War leaders of Europe to build open, free and fair democratic societies in order to grant freedom, social justice and peace for generations to come. The unthinkable and unforgettable horrors of the war should never be repeated again on European soil. Public education, a national health service and social security, together with laws protecting the rights of workers and their unions and promoting conditions for a fruitful social dialogue, are the cornerstones of the ESM. With the model and enhanced economic co-operation, initiated with the Marshall Plan for the recovery from the devastation of war and culminating with the Treaty of Rome, Western Europe countries experienced a long period of economic progress and social and cultural change without historical precedent.

      As our rapporteur correctly points out, some different formulations of the ESM exist, but it is a fact that a free market economy, balanced with effective government intervention in order to secure social justice for citizens and the common well-being of our societies, has proved to be the most suitable environment for democracy, in all its dimensions: political, economic, social and cultural. In fact, both democracy and the rule of law and the social market economy are consequences of the full recognition of the paramount dignity of the human person and its inviolable freedom and rights. The proclamation of human rights needs to be tempered with the recognition of the duties and obligations derived from them, to other persons and to society as a whole. A Greek philosopher long ago, in the origins of European culture, defined the human being as a zoon politikon. Winds of an egotistic individualism are damaging the fundamentals of our societies, which simply cannot survive without solidarity among their members, with neighbouring societies and between successive generations.

      The recent crisis of international financial capitalism has grown as another serious threat to the ESM. We must not close our eyes to the scandalous inequalities derived from unregulated globalisation, which remains restricted to economic realities, capital and goods – not people – and should be met by the globalisation of human rights. The conventional wisdom imposed by the neo-liberal ideology is most advantageous for the happy few, but it is impoverishing the middle class and keeping millions of men, women and children on the brink of poverty.

      I sometimes wonder whether the current political discourse of the parties that built the ESM – social democrats and Christian democrats – correctly addresses the doubts and fears of present day citizens. The rise of extreme populist and radical movements seems to be a negative response. Reforms are needed for the new times in which we live. Let us make them boldly without losing the identity that made Europe, to which the Council of Europe stands as beacon and guardian, great.

      THE PRESIDENT – I call Lord Balfe, who speaks on behalf of the European Conservatives Group.

      Lord BALFE (United Kingdom) – It is difficult to disagree with anything in this report, but it is also difficult to see where it takes us. Paragraph 3 states that the “the European Social Model started to be challenged in the 1970s”. That is a useful starting point, because the model is completely broken in many areas, but the report does not get to grips with that. We must face the fact that the post-war welfare consensus is effectively broken. If anyone thinks that is false, I would counsel them to take this report to the British Labour party. A month ago it would have endorsed it, but now, after the election, it is busy junking every aspiration in it. We must return to the start and realise that austerity has not meant a move to the left. I do not know the situation in all Council of Europe countries, but Britain has had five years of being told how wicked the government is and how austerity is a terrible thing that the people will rise up against. That does not seem to have happened.

      We also have to face the fundamental challenge to welfare solidarity. When we had basic communities where people were united in background and interest, it was easy to get solidarity. Today, certainly in the United Kingdom, the one area where we get solidarity is health. There is a common acceptance that we must have a good health service. I was interested and a little saddened to hear the speaker from Andorra talking about the cost of medicine, because that is not an issue in the United Kingdom. For most of the population, medicines are free or available at a fixed price. However, the consensus on benefits has largely collapsed and a general acceptance that a generous social security system is a good thing no longer exists.

      I have noted on the television recently that thousands of people are trying to flee France to get to Britain. They will not find much in the way of welfare benefits, but they will find a flexible labour market. They will find that they have the ability to get work, and it will be possible for them to build a new life for themselves. I have never been against immigration, because it has done marvels for Britain. In fact, I come from a family of migrants. Britain’s flexible labour market system is extremely good for migrants, because they can get jobs fairly easily and can progress.

      The only other thing that needs to go with the ESM, which could be mentioned in the report, is a lack of discrimination. You cannot discriminate on grounds of gender, sexual orientation or race and expect to build a successful and dynamic economy. That is an absolute necessity when moving forward.

      Finally, while such reports have their use, international intervention in what are fundamentally national priorities is inappropriate. We recognise the difficulties, but they will not be solved by the imposition of standards from outside. They will, however, be helped by consensual debate between countries and the exchange of experience so that we can build a better society for everybody. That is the society of the future, but the report is about the past.

      THE PRESIDENT – I call Ms Kalmari, who speaks on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Ms KALMARI (Finland) – We all understand that we cannot have the same social policy in every country, but with minimum standards and sufficient economic equalities, we can increase our competitiveness. The report contains six recommendations and ALDE supports them. I want to concentrate on a few of them.

      Creating equal opportunities through education from an early age allows the possibility of breaking cycles of disadvantage. In Finland, we go a little further and provide free school lunches for everyone and allow people to study as much as their diligence will allow – whether their parents are rich or poor. In fact, my family was poor and I would not be here if the system did not exist. It is also important to enable women to integrate in the labour market by providing childcare services and ending discrimination.

      In every case, we think work is the best social service. We must help our continent grow by providing incentives and investing in new activities such as renewable energy and those using natural resources, thus creating new jobs. We must not encourage people to avoid taking up work that is offered; social services of too high a level can have that effect. On the other hand, employment and working conditions should be reasonable.

      We can make remarkable progress in taxation policies if we tackle them together. For example, taxes on financial transactions should be global. If we increase tax compliance by fighting tax evasion and the use of tax havens, we can redirect revenues to social and economic investment, thus creating quality employment opportunities.

      We must improve our social services and health care in a modern way by using modern technology and best practices. By doing so, we will find the cheapest way to do things well. Otherwise, we will leave too big a bill to our children.

      THE PRESIDENT – I call Mr Loukaides to speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Mr LOUKAIDES (Cyprus) – What has become known as the European social model is in reality an expression of the living standards and social achievements of the peoples of our continent. However, these achievements were not given, nor conferred on us by unanimity. On the contrary, it is the working people’s determined and fierce struggles, together with the most progressive forces of our societies, that brought about these achievements, despite frequent bloodshed. Persistent confrontations against employers’ limitless actions, suppression and the establishment brought about these important gains.

      No one can doubt that these gains have suffered a huge blow as a result of the global capitalist crisis. It is no exaggeration to say that today’s young generation will be the first in a century to live in worse conditions than their parents and grandparents. In this context, some proposals contained in the report are particularly relevant. Targeted policies to protect vulnerable segments of our societies are crucial. Similarly, it is important to support the ratification by all member States of the additional protocol of the European Social Charter, which provides for a collective complaints system.

      These mechanisms constitute invaluable tools. Nonetheless, their effectiveness will always be defective if not coupled with an assessment of social needs and a fundamental shift of policy at both national and European Union level. The potential benefits of implementing the provisions of the European Social Charter and the second article of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union will remain to a great extent meaningless and devoid of any content if not accompanied by a change of direction in International Monetary Fund and European Union policies and the memoranda imposed, which continue to thrive on the privatisation of profits and the socialisation of banks’ losses. That is what is happening now in respect of Greece, which is why we are talking once more.

      We need to be bolder in our proposals. We need to ensure that the economic elite, who in times of crises and in periods of growth witness soaring and growing profits, contribute to the resolution of the economic crisis and take due account of States' fiscal needs. We need fair and radical redistributive taxes on accumulated wealth, large immovable property, business super-profits and excessive financial transactions. Let me remind you that in the midst of the crisis the number of billionaires in Europe rose to 775, while last year their total wealth exceeded $2.3 trillion.

      This Assembly must also look at the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership negotiated between the United States and the European Union and already under way. It is targeting labour relations, public services, social benefits and the environment, and thus democracy itself and the sovereignty of member States. Must we therefore debate the effectiveness of social models when the notorious TTIP will irrevocably damage the rights and gains of European and American working people? The Assembly has a duty to raise its voice on these issues and raise the alarm about what is happening behind closed doors.

      THE PRESIDENT – Ms Roseira will respond at the end of the debate. I do not see Ms Rawert, so I call Mr Japaridze.

      Mr JAPARIDZE (Georgia) – This report comes at a very difficult time when programmes of fiscal consolidation within the European Union have challenged a number of the social rights that distinguish the European social model. It also comes following the publication of the work by Thomas Piketty, “Capital in the 21st Century”, which has dominated the discussion on global inequality, which no one doubts is rising, and profoundly so within the context of the European crisis.

      The report is a commendable effort to consolidate what is regarded as the European social model and outline the challenges ahead. The challenges are obvious: we live in a global economy, in which the State sees its tax bases eroded and its demographic profile unsettled. With an explicit reference to Anthony Giddens, the report points towards the adaptation of traditional tools and means of redistribution in the 21st century. This is obviously not the end of the discussion, but it is a legitimate and brave exercise because it contributes towards a new consensus in European politics that we have not established but which we should be establishing.

      I am a Georgian, and the Georgian perspective is clear: we have been trying to become a more competitive economy following global and European benchmarks. The European Union is a normative power and in many respects it sets the tone for reform in States at its periphery, particularly those striving for membership. The existential discussion the European Union holds with itself about social cohesion, which is meant to address the age-old geopolitical problem of unequal development, always concerns Europe beyond the European Union Because of Europe’s institutional blueprints and constitutional traditions, the ways in which our State tames, or unleashes, the power of the market is shaped by the discussion taking place in the European Union. We carefully read the report you have tabled if not as a problem-solving guide, then at least as an agenda-setting platform.

      We live in a period in which cohesion within and around Europe are profoundly linked themes, and we live in an era where there is no such a thing as stating the obvious. There is currently no consensus on the meaning of inequality and its significance in terms of growth and development. In this sense, I find your report commendable and brave. It paves the way for a discussion that will define the future of Europe and everyone who wants to share it.

      Mr NICOLETTI (Italy)* – I appreciate and support this report on such an important subject. It reminds us of the indivisibility of fundamental rights, which in the past few years have been broken down into civil, political and social rights.

      Social rights are a precondition for the full enjoyment of civil and political rights, as the great philosopher Norberto Bobbio often reminded us. The idea of a close relationship between social rights and civil rights was evident in Roosevelt’s four freedoms, as well as in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 22 of which refers to the right to social security. One can discuss how that can be safeguarded, but one cannot dispute the fact that it is a fundamental right, as many international conventions have said. Social rights are different, because they require resources from the State and society, but they are all equally fundamental. Their enjoyment is not a matter of indifference. If they are not safeguarded, the issue is not only people’s lives and dignity but the vibrancy of our democracy. If a system does not adequately safeguard social rights, their absence can be a threat to democracy.

      Perhaps we should ask ourselves whether the populism and chauvinism that we are seeing is in fact the fruit of the right-wing policy of dismantling social rights in our countries over the past few years. The report highlights very well the problem with the sustainability of the social model and intergenerational solidarity. It is of course not acceptable that one generation can offload on to future generations the cost of its quality of life. There is also the problem of how to organise an effective system. Again, the report features some interesting highlights. We need to look at who should be organising such a system and how we can involve not only the local and regional branches of the State but society more widely. It is clear that there should be a public, collective concern and public monitoring of the level and standards of social rights. The dismantling of social rights has led to unacceptable imbalances and inequalities that are not acceptable, even from an economic point of view, with damaged to the purchasing power of a major part of the population.

      There are questions in the report about minimum levels of health and education, and it also mentions the all-important social question, which is a human and democratic dimension. It is important to support, as the report does, the central nature of the social charter and its additional protocols, which are so important to this Organisation. It is not enough simply to write about rights and enshrine them in law; we also need instruments to implement them. The social charter and its complaints procedure is one such instrument. I hope that it will be ratified as soon as possible by as many countries as possible.

      Ms SUTTER (Belgium) – Our European social model is currently under high pressure. The rapporteur of this excellent report, Ms Roseira, demonstrates that the European social model based on solidarity is in fact based on human rights and dignity, which rightfully brings it into the scope of the Assembly. The report reminds us that the most successful economies are found in countries with the most effective systems of social protection. The European social model is threatened by today’s economic crisis, increasing inequality, and an overall tendency to replace solidarity with what is called individual responsibility but is often, in truth, selfishness.

      The latest developments in the Greek crisis are a further demonstration of an unfortunate evolution. We need to work urgently on a new and sustainable pan-European social model to find an answer to increasing globalisation and liberalisation, which have led to the myth of an eternally growing economy. We must also respond to the challenging demographic changes that Europe faces.

      I would like to highlight three points in the resolution that I find particularly important. The first has to be seen in view of the sustainable development goals that the United Nations is going to set as targets for the development agenda for the upcoming 15 years. Goal 5 is to achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls. Empowering women in the labour market is extremely important, but perhaps it should be done by not only providing better child care but offering pregnancy protection measures and organising adequate maternity and parental leave, in order to protect women from unfair discrimination in the labour market. It is very difficult to combine motherhood with an active professional career. Although it has been shown that gender equality can promote economic growth, many European countries still have a long way to go.

      My second point concerns the promotion of non-discriminatory access to labour. We should not only target ethnic minorities, migrants or disabled people, but protect people who are discriminated against in the labour market on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Even in LGBTI-friendly countries, that happens all the time. It cannot be tolerated. An all-inclusive labour market offers opportunities to all people, irrespective of what makes them different from a normative majority. It has been shown over and over that diversity at the workplace enhances productivity.

      Thirdly, the report rightfully stresses that, contrary to what one may think, our economy should invest strongly in sectors with bad reputations for being often expensive and cost-inefficient, such as health and social services. Indeed, those domains are exactly where we will need innovative research and investments to meet the requirements of ageing European societies. I therefore conclude by saying that what is perceived as a problem by many actually holds the solution for the future. Promoting gender equality and diversity in the workplace and investing in health and social services will be beneficial for our economy, so should be central to our new European social model. We have only to be willing to see that.

      Ms OHLSSON (Sweden) – I thank Ms Roseira for an excellent and important report. It is important to discuss social rights, equality and gender equality, and the relation between individual and collective social rights. If we can trust the welfare system, it will increase individual rights and freedoms – many scientists have proven that. We need to combat child poverty and empower women, have high-quality child care and elderly care, have a sustainable social protection system, favour youth employment and strengthen education. As we all know, knowledge is the key in a society where development satisfies our present needs without compromising future generations.

      It is also important to remember that women’s rights are human rights, and human rights are women’s rights. Efforts and actions to achieve gender equality must tackle the structural drivers of gender inequality that are common to many societies: unequal power relations between women and men, discriminatory laws, and social norms and practices. Gender inequality tends to intersect with other forms of inequalities and increases the risk of poverty. Marginalised groups of women – such as women with disabilities, migrant women and poor elderly women – are at particular risk of poverty, discrimination and violence.

      Women’s and girls’ disproportionate share of unpaid care work is one crucial universal constraint that limits their enjoyment of human rights. It also limits their economic empowerment and their ability to engage in income-earning activities. That is worrying, since enhancing women’s access to decent paid employment can be one of the most effective ways to reduce income poverty. Enabling policies, such as child care services and parental leave, are essential to facilitate women’s participation in the labour market and in all spheres of society. Social protection is crucial for reducing poverty and inequality, and for reducing women’s risk of poverty throughout the life cycle. These policies not only increase women’s income security, but strengthen their autonomy within the household.

      When we discuss “Towards a new European Social Model”, it is important to remember both equality and gender equality. Everyone – both women and men – must have the power to decide about their own lives. Therefore, it is necessary to combat unemployment. At the same time, it is important for the labour market to follow rules and provide good conditions for everyone. In this context, that includes protecting the right to bargain collectively and the right to strike.

      I of course hope that everyone in the Chamber will get involved in the struggle for gender equality. We can start with the very difficult task of closing the pay gap between men and women. Even in our countries, women are both beaten and have lower salaries just because we are women. Both women and men can be involved in this important work on gender equality. For men, UN Women has a special campaign, HeForShe, which many leaders are involved in, such as our prime minister, Stefan Löfven, in Sweden. Please look at and be part of that campaign.

      THE PRESIDENT – I do not see Mr Khader, so I call the next speaker, Mr Braga.

      Mr BRAGA (Portugal) – I congratulate Ms Maria de Belém Roseira on providing the opportunity to relaunch the European social model and substantiate the most important related issues.

      There is no doubt that all Europe is today at the crossroads on the social model, which is one of the most difficult topics we face. Given current economic conditions, such a model is no longer something to be put in place in advance, but is required as a necessary reaction to what is happening. Our urgent mission is to find support for the development of the sort of model that should underlie the functioning of the welfare State, and find support for the conditions needed to sustain it.

      As the rapporteur states, one starting point is to look at the various areas of social accountability corresponding to the policies of States beset by financial and social economic crises. Rethinking the model and ensuring the consistency of the values that underpin it requires policy makers to try to share such concerns, to search for consensus and to learn from the experience of others in order to stabilise procedures and policies over time, taking into account the role of the State in life of communities in each country.

      The confrontation of ideologies with reality imposes an assessment that validates States in providing the minimum level of services that give access to essential goods such as health, education or social security. That, as well as primary guarantees of freedom and the structural elements of democracies, are all areas that we want to review.

      It is true that the moment of the model’s conception corresponded with a certain expansionist period for economies and therefore with abundant resources. However, today and for the future, apprehension about how the functioning of markets leads to waves of cyclical adjustments is imposing a reconsideration of the validity of decisions that depend almost exclusively on the direct revenues of the State and often lead to corrections being made en route. Perhaps this is the occasion to ask what the State should do at favourable points in the cycle about other parts of the economy.

      The dignity of human beings is the direct responsibility of democracies, and our history has taught us hard lessons about what happens when the State denies us such dignity. This extremely comprehensive report makes an important and well-informed contribution on this topic.

      THE PRESIDENT – That concludes the list of speakers. As we have not used the all the time available for this debate, I invite members who have not spoken to make contributions. Does anyone wish to speak? That is not the case.

      I call Ms Roseira, the rapporteur, to reply. You have two minutes left.

      Ms ROSEIRA (Portugal) – I thank all the speakers both for their support for and for their criticisms of the report. I have very little time, but I want to underline the contributions of Mr Mota Amaral on the globalisation of human rights, which is urgently needed, and of Mr Nicoletti on the indivisibility of fundamental rights. Norberto Bobbio told us that the challenge with human rights is not to justify them, but to preserve them, as we are seeing and hearing.

      As you were so critical of the report, Lord Balfe, I ask you to read the Black report and other fantastic reports produced in England. You said that in the United Kingdom there is solidarity only in relation to the field of health, but that report clearly demonstrates the linkages between inequality and health; how the poor have the worst health, and cost the most money in the health system; and how low or weak levels of skills acquired in training cost so much money in relation to health. If you read such reports and look at health as something to which everything relates, you may see my report with different eyes. The austerity mentioned in this report is not the austerity experienced in the United Kingdom, but other programmes that have pushed countries to reduce the minimum standards for the protection of human rights. I am sure that you would like such standards to be preserved in the United Kingdom.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Roseira. I call Mr Ghiletchi to speak on behalf of the committee. You have two minutes.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – First, on behalf of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, I thank Ms Roseira for her work, her report and the resolution in front of us. I also thank the secretariat that diligently helped her to draft the report and resolution. Like her, I appreciate the contributions to the debate on the report and the support that most political groups showed. I thank Lord Balfe for his criticism. I do not know whether he spoke on behalf of his group on or on a personal basis, but we understand that there is some criticism. When we talk about the European social model, we have to question whether it is an ideal or a goal. For me, the European social model that we talk about in the report and draft resolution is a goal that it is worth striving towards. Indeed, the title of the report is “Towards a new European Social Model”.

      In Chisinau, we discussed the revised social charter when the committee met there in May, and we agreed that it will be a long journey; we do not expect things to happen tomorrow. It is important to talk about inequality, corruption, tax havens and other sensitive issues. The report that has been brought to the Assembly’s attention today is just one piece of the committee’s work, and some of its previous reports are mentioned in the draft resolution.

      In conclusion, I ask the Assembly to support the report. I hope that we are on the right path to the European social model.

      THE PRESIDENT – The debate is closed.

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

      I understand that the Chairperson of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced People wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendments 2 and 1 to the draft resolution, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly.

      Is that the case?

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – Yes.

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

      Amendments 2 and 1 are adopted.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13795, as amended.

      The vote is open.

      The draft resolution in Document 13795, as amended, is adopted, with 36 votes for, 0 votes against and 4 abstentions.

3. Next public business

      THE PRESIDENT – The Assembly will hold its next public sitting tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. with the agenda that has been approved.

      The sitting is closed.

      (The sitting was closed 6.25 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. Missing persons during the conflict in Ukraine

Presentation by Mr Sheridan of report of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons in Doc. 13808

Speakers: Mr Hunko (Germany), Mr Schennach (Austria), Mr Vareikis (Lithuania), Sir Roger Gale (United Kingdom) and Mr Chikovani (Georgia)

Reply to the speakers for political groups: Mr Sheridan (United Kingdom)

Speakers: Mr Ariev (Ukraine), Ms Dobešová (Czech Republic), Ms Ionova (Ukraine), Ms Gerashchenko (Ukraine), Lord Balfe (United Kingdom), Ms Sotnyk (Ukraine), Ms Zalishchuk (Ukraine), Mr Kiral (Ukraine) and Mr Sobolev (Ukraine)

Reply: Mr Rouquet (France)

Amendments 2,1,4,5,6 and 3 adopted

Draft resolution in Doc 13808, as amended, adopted

Draft recommendation adopted

2. Towards a new European social model

Presentation by Ms Roseira of report of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development in Doc. 13795

Speakers: Ms Bonet Perot (Andorra), Mr Mota Amaral (Portugal), Lord Balfe (United Kingdom), Ms Kalmari (Finland), Mr Loukaides (Cyprus), Mr Japaridze (Georgia), Mr Nicoletti (Italy), Ms De Sutter (Belgium), Ms Ohlsson (Sweden) and Mr Braga (Portugal)

Replies: Ms Roseira (Portugal) and Mr Ghiletchi (Republic of Moldova)

Amendments 2 and 1 adopted

Draft resolution in Doc. 13795, as amended, adopted

3. Next public sitting

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*

Sirkka-Liisa ANTTILA

Ben-Oni ARDELEAN*

Khadija ARIB*

Volodymyr ARIEV

Egemen BAĞIŞ

Theodora BAKOYANNIS*

David BAKRADZE*

Gérard BAPT/Geneviève Gosselin-Fleury

Doris BARNETT*

José Manuel BARREIRO*

Deniz BAYKAL*

Marieluise BECK*

Ondřej BENEŠIK/Pavel Holík

José María BENEYTO*

Levan BERDZENISHVILI*

Deborah BERGAMINI*

Sali BERISHA*

Anna Maria BERNINI*

Maria Teresa BERTUZZI*

Andris BĒRZINŠ*

Gülsün BİLGEHAN

Brian BINLEY*

Ľuboš BLAHA*

Philippe BLANCHART*

Maryvonne BLONDIN/Jean-Claude Frécon

Jean-Marie BOCKEL*

Olga BORZOVA*

Mladen BOSIĆ*

António BRAGA

Anne BRASSEUR/Claude Adam

Alessandro BRATTI*

Piet De BRUYN*

Beata BUBLEWICZ*

Gerold BÜCHEL

André BUGNON/Luc Recordon

Natalia BURYKINA*

Nunzia CATALFO

Elena CENTEMERO*

Irakli CHIKOVANI

Vannino CHITI*

Christopher CHOPE

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Henryk CIOCH/Helena Hatka

James CLAPPISON*

Igor CORMAN*

Telmo CORREIA*

Paolo CORSINI*

Carlos COSTA NEVES*

Celeste COSTANTINO*

Yves CRUCHTEN*

Zsolt CSENGER-ZALÁN*

Katalin CSÖBÖR*

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/Petra De Sutter

Alexander [The Earl of] DUNDEE*

Nicole DURANTON*

Josette DURRIEU*

Mustafa DZHEMILIEV*

Mikuláš DZURINDA*

Lady Diana ECCLES*

Tülin ERKAL KARA

Franz Leonhard EßL*

Joseph FENECH ADAMI*

Cătălin Daniel FENECHIU

Vyacheslav FETISOV*

Doris FIALA

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ/Miroslav Antl

Ute FINCKH-KRÄMER*

Axel E. FISCHER

Gvozden Srećko FLEGO

Bernard FOURNIER*

Hans FRANKEN*

Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO*

Martin FRONC*

Sir Roger GALE

Adele GAMBARO

Karl GARÐARSSON*

Iryna GERASHCHENKO

Tina GHASEMI/Boriana Åberg

Valeriu GHILETCHI

Francesco Maria GIRO*

Pavol GOGA*

Carlos Alberto GONÇALVES

Alina Ștefania GORGHIU*

Svetlana GORYACHEVA*

Sandro GOZI*

Fred de GRAAF*

François GROSDIDIER*

Andreas GROSS

Dzhema GROZDANOVA*

Mehmet Kasim GÜLPINAR*

Gergely GULYÁS*

Jonas GUNNARSSON

Nazmi GÜR*

Antonio GUTIÉRREZ*

Maria GUZENINA

Márton GYÖNGYÖSI*

Sabir HAJIYEV*

Hannes HANSO

Alfred HEER*

Michael HENNRICH*

Martin HENRIKSEN*

Françoise HETTO-GAASCH

Oleksii HONCHARENKO/Serhii Kiral

Jim HOOD*

Arpine HOVHANNISYAN*

Anette HÜBINGER

Johannes HÜBNER*

Andrej HUNKO

Ali HUSEYNLI*

Rafael HUSEYNOV*

Vitaly IGNATENKO*

Florin IORDACHE*

Tadeusz IWIŃSKI*

Denis JACQUAT/André Schneider

Gediminas JAKAVONIS

Gordan JANDROKOVIĆ*

Tedo JAPARIDZE

Michael Aastrup JENSEN*

Frank J. JENSSEN

Florina-Ruxandra JIPA*

Ögmundur JÓNASSON

Aleksandar JOVIČIĆ*

Josip JURATOVIC*

Anne KALMARI

Mustafa KARADAYI*

Marietta KARAMANLI*

Niklas KARLSSON/Eva-Lena Jansson

Andreja KATIČ*

Vasiliki KATRIVANOU*

Ioanneta KAVVADIA*

Danail KIRILOV*

Bogdan KLICH*

Manana KOBAKHIDZE*

Haluk KOÇ

Igor KOLMAN

Željko KOMŠIĆ*

Unnur Brá KONRÁÐSDÓTTIR*

Ksenija KORENJAK KRAMAR/Matjaž Hanžek

Attila KORODI

Alev KORUN*

Rom KOSTŘICA/Marek Černoch

Elvira KOVÁCS

Tiny KOX

Borjana KRIŠTO*

Julia KRONLID/Johan Nissinen

Eerik-Niiles KROSS*

Marek KRZĄKAŁA*

Athina KYRIAKIDOU*

Serhiy LABAZIUK/Mariia Ionova

Inese LAIZĀNE

Olof LAVESSON

Pierre-Yves LE BORGN'*

Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT*

Igor LEBEDEV*

Valentina LESKAJ

Terry LEYDEN*

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE

Georgii LOGVYNSKYI

François LONCLE*

George LOUKAIDES

Yuliya L'OVOCHKINA*

Jacob LUND*

Trine Pertou MACH*

Philippe MAHOUX/Dirk Van Der Maelen

Thierry MARIANI*

Soňa MARKOVÁ/Ivana Dobešová

Milica MARKOVIĆ*

Meritxell MATEU PI/Sílvia Eloïsa Bonet Perot

Ana MATO*

Frano MATUŠIĆ*

Liliane MAURY PASQUIER

Michael McNAMARA*

Sir Alan MEALE*

Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA*

Evangelos MEIMARAKIS*

Ivan MELNIKOV*

Ana Catarina MENDES*

Attila MESTERHÁZY*

Jean-Claude MIGNON*

Philipp MIßFELDER*

Olivia MITCHELL/Catherine Noone

Igor MOROZOV*

João Bosco MOTA AMARAL

Arkadiusz MULARCZYK*

Melita MULIĆ*

Oľga NACHTMANNOVÁ*

Hermine NAGHDALYAN

Piotr NAIMSKI*

Sergey NARYSHKIN*

Marian NEACȘU*

Andrei NEGUTA

Zsolt NÉMETH*

Miroslav NENUTIL

Baroness Emma NICHOLSON*

Michele NICOLETTI

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI*

Julia OBERMEIER*

Marija OBRADOVIĆ*

Žarko OBRADOVIĆ*

Judith OEHRI*

Carina OHLSSON

Joseph O'REILLY*

Maciej ORZECHOWSKI*

Sandra OSBORNE*

Tom PACKALÉN

José Ignacio PALACIOS/Jordi Xuclà

Liliana PALIHOVICI*

Judith PALLARÉS CORTÉS

Ganira PASHAYEVA*

Florin Costin PÂSLARU*

Waldemar PAWLAK*

Jaana PELKONEN/Olli-Poika Parviainen

Vladimir PLIGIN*

Cezar Florin PREDA*

John PRESCOTT/Joe Benton

Gabino PUCHE*

Alexey PUSHKOV*

Carmen QUINTANILLA*

Mailis REPS*

Andrea RIGONI*

François ROCHEBLOINE*

Soraya RODRÍGUEZ*

Alexander ROMANOVICH*

Maria de Belém ROSEIRA

René ROUQUET

Rovshan RZAYEV*

Àlex SÁEZ

Vincenzo SANTANGELO*

Milena SANTERINI

Nadiia SAVCHENKO/Boryslav Bereza

Deborah SCHEMBRI*

Stefan SCHENNACH

Ingjerd SCHOU/Kristin Ørmen Johnsen

Frank SCHWABE*

Urs SCHWALLER/ Elisabeth Schneider-Schneiter

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*

Yanaki STOILOV

Karin STRENZ*

Ionuț-Marian STROE*

Valeriy SUDARENKOV*

Krzysztof SZCZERSKI*

Damien THIÉRY*

Lord John E. TOMLINSON*

Antoni TRENCHEV*

Goran TUPONJA*

Ahmet Kutalmiş TÜRKEŞ*

Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ*

Theodora TZAKRI

Ilyas UMAKHANOV*

Dana VÁHALOVÁ

Snorre Serigstad VALEN/Hans Fredrik Grøvan

Petrit VASILI*

Imre VEJKEY*

Stefaan VERCAMER*

Birutė VĖSAITĖ*

Dimitris VITSAS*

Vladimir VORONIN/Violeta Ivanov

Viktor VOVK

Klaas de VRIES*

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ*

Draginja VUKSANOVIĆ*

Piotr WACH

Robert WALTER*

Dame Angela WATKINSON*

Tom WATSON*

Karl-Georg WELLMANN*

Katrin WERNER*

Morten WOLD*

Bas van 't WOUT*

Gisela WURM*

Maciej WYDRZYŃSKI

Leonid YEMETS/Svitlana Zalishchuk

Tobias ZECH*

Kristýna ZELIENKOVÁ*

Sergey ZHELEZNYAK*

Marie-Jo ZIMMERMANN*

Emanuelis ZINGERIS/Egidijus Vareikis

Guennady ZIUGANOV*

Naira ZOHRABYAN*

Levon ZOURABIAN*

Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

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

Vacant Seat, Turkey*

Vacant Seat, Turkey*

Vacant Seat, Turkey*

Vacant Seat, Turkey*

Vacant Seat, Turkey*

Vacant Seat, Turkey*

Vacant Seat, United Kingdom/Lord Richard Balfe

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote

---

Observers

Eloy CANTU SEGOVIA

Héctor LARIOS CÓRDOVA

Partners for democracy

Najat AL-ASTAL

Bernard SABELLA