AA15CR29

AS (2015) CR 29

2015 ORDINARY SESSION

________________

(Fourth part)

REPORT

Twenty-ninth sitting

Monday 28 September 2015 at 3 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.

      (Mr Rouquet, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 3.05 p.m.)

THE PRESIDENT* – The sitting is open.

1. Changes in the membership of committees

      THE PRESIDENT* – Our first business is to consider the changes proposed in the membership of committees. These are set out in Document Commissions (2015) 07 Addendum 2.

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

      They are agreed to.

2. Progress report of the Bureau and the Standing Committee

      THE PRESIDENT* – The next item on the Agenda is the debate on the Progress Report of the Bureau and Standing Committee, Document 13872 and Addenda 1 and 2, and Document 13883, presented by Mr Andreas Gross, on behalf of the Bureau.

      I call Mr Gross to present the Progress Report. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.

      Mr Gross, you have the floor.

      Mr GROSS (Switzerland)* – I will speak German, as I can be more specific in that language and perhaps say more in the time available.

      “Progress Report” is a bit anachronistic, because in the last three months we have seen three catastrophes. “Disaster report” would be a better title, to be honest. We must consider why things have got to such a stage, why we could not deal with the crisis without it turning into a humanitarian catastrophe and what we can learn from it. I would like to do so in my presentation. All the specifics are available in the report, which explains in detail how we discussed the crisis and tried to overcome it.I

      I forgot to say at the outset that when the June part-session ended, we were already in the middle of a humanitarian crisis affecting Greece. Refugees were going to Greece, 30% to 40% of whose people had moved into poverty due to the Greek crisis. The Greeks defended themselves institutionally as best they could, including by voting the opposition into government, but they could not deal with this situation. Democracy – I would like to take up this point in our discussion – is no longer sufficient to decide how people are dealt with. People do not have the right to decide about their own lives. We did not work properly in that case.

      We were also trying to deal with the flow of refugees coming mainly through the Mediterranean. In the first six months, 300 000 or 400 000 people came, and the Mediterranean has become a mass cemetery as about 1% of them have died there. It has been a total catastrophe, completely unworthy of Europe. It could be said to be a question of values. One cannot just say they are economic refugees. We must be aware that the flow of capital from Africa to Europe is €50 billion a year, far more than we pay for refugee aid. We also sell Africa expensive agricultural products so that people there are not in a position to make a living from selling their produce. Those are the catastrophic conditions which we are unable to control. It explains why we feel so powerless to influence the refugee situation.

      Suddenly, we are saying that there are about 500 000 people not only wanting to come to Europe but at the gates. They are clearly war refugees from Syria – the result of political activity, not economic refugees – and are therefore totally covered by the Geneva convention. What has Europe done? It has rejected them, with razor wire and tear gas. The governments have fought among themselves over how to manage the situation. When the refugees arrived in Germany, the Government developed a new policy towards them and took in many refugees, but if people continue on their journey, their ability to be received is restricted.

Turkey, which has a population of 76 million, has already taken in 2 million refugees, and Lebanon has taken in a number equal to about a quarter of its population, yet Europe is unable to deal with 500 000 refugees. This demonstrates a lack of order in Europe and of institutions to deal with people’s needs or to implement the European Convention on Human Rights, of which we are so proud, whereby anyone on European soil should be treated in a dignified manner.

Furthermore, we do not have the institutions necessary to deal with conflicts without running the risk of breaking Europe apart or of its imploding. We need a new European order, inside and outwith the European Union, to meet the demands being made of us. We must bear it in mind that following the war the aim was to create transnational institutions and reach agreed solutions, but the problems with the euro show that we still cannot agree a common taxation and economic policy. If European institutions are able to exercise some democratic influence, people will be happy to have more Europe, but if Europe leads people to believe that decisions are being made against their own interests they will of course be against Europe.

This dilemma has arisen three times in the past few months, which is why we should be brave in tackling these questions and not simply praise Mr Havel for saying that we will move forward only if we are brave enough to look ahead at a broader universe. The three recent humanitarian crises show that we cannot continue with business as usual or go off on holiday in the summer for a rest, as we normally do.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Gross. You have five minutes remaining to answer questions.

The next speaker is Mr Iwiński, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr IWIŃSKI (Poland) – I welcome Mr Gross’s substantial report, in which he gives us a written tour d’horizon of the Bureau and Standing Committee’s activities over a turbulent three months.

It is good that our Assembly is observing elections in Turkey, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan and, despite some doubts, in Azerbaijan. As rapporteur on Azerbaijan, I recall the popular oriental proverb that it is always better to see once clearly than to hear something 100 times.

Our rapporteur is right to hint that we are living in chaotic times: the continuing stalemate in Ukraine, the complicated situation in the Middle East, the abundance of failed States such as Libya, Iraq, Syria and Yemen, the terrible activities of Daesh/ISIS, which the former Australian Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, recognised as being worse than fascism, the destabilisation of several African countries and the rise in terrorist acts present a gloomy picture.

In addition there are secessionist tendencies in Spain and the United Kingdom and, last but not least, the huge migration and refugee crisis in Europe. The British novelist, Terry Pratchett, who died recently, said that chaos overcomes order because it is better organised. We in the Council of Europe, in co-operation with other international organisations, should do everything possible properly to tackle these enormous challenges. Our President rightly emphasised today that we need not words but concrete actions.

The so-called Islamic State is a serious problem, but it is a fundamental mistake to focus solely on it without taking into account the context in which it was established and operates. Daesh’s activity and the civil war in Syria are the main sources of the enormous refugee influx into Europe. The gradual disintegration of order in the Middle East is a crucial feature of all these issues. The emergence of Islamic State is the effect and not the primary cause and is living proof of the scale of the problems. The fight against Daesh is extremely difficult, not militarily but politically. No realistic plan exists for sustainable stabilisation of the region following the putative defeat, other than the vague chance of American-Russian co-operation.

At this historic moment European leaders cannot afford to be afraid of refugees. The human cost of the crisis is appalling and some politicians fear the burden that migrants will impose on local communities and taxpayers. Other politicians fear extremists masquerading as genuine refugees. Many politicians are, above all, scared of public opinion, which remains unsure and hostile to the prospect of still more migrants from war-torn countries, especially if they practise the different religion of Islam.

The Council of Europe’s main task is to change attitudes to migrants. We need a dialogue of civilisations, not a clash of civilisations. Many years ago I collaborated with Samuel Huntington, who coined the notion of a clash of civilisations. This is the biggest threat facing us today.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Iwiński. I give the floor to Mr Conde, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr CONDE (Spain) – I absolutely agree with the rapporteur, Mr Gross. My group is concerned about all the points made by the rapporteur and by Mr Iwiński. I wish to emphasise that on behalf of my group.

      THE PRESIDENT* – I call Mr Xuclà to speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Mr XUCLÀ (Spain)* – I thank Mr Gross for his report, which focused on the key issue that will dominate this week’s debates, namely the question of migration. He raised the most important aspect and went to the root of the problem. We need to take into account two aspects. We are seeing the end of the colonial borders of the Middle East, which is one of three areas that are especially in flux: first, the Balkans, which had to be readjusted during the 1990s; secondly, the Caucasus; and, thirdly, the Middle East. The future borders of the Middle East are unpredictable.

We will also discuss migration in the light of a war of religion between the Sunnis and the Shiites. It is not just difficult but impossible to take sides in such a war. It is difficult for me to take sides in wars of religion stemming from affiliation to Mohammed. Wars of religion have been very protracted in the past and this one probably will be, too. The Council of Europe needs to provide a response. We need to provide a humanitarian response rather than a merely military response. The military response must take into account the errors of the invasion of Iraq and those made in Libya. Exporting democracy as if it were fast food – fast democracy – is not a straightforward endeavour and often has counterproductive effects. We must consider how to develop the response, not only to Islamic State but to those who are driving the refugees in the Balkans and elsewhere and to those who are likely to join the ranks of the migratory movement heading towards prosperous, rich Europe.

I asked to speak on behalf of my group because this is the last plenary session where we will be working with Mr Gross, the leader of the Socialist Group, who has decided not to stand in the elections in Switzerland on 18 October. On behalf of my group, but also in my own name, I thank him very sincerely for the many years of dedication he has put into our institution and our Parliamentary Assembly. We have not always agreed. Sometimes we have disagreed profoundly, but I must acknowledge that he has always come to the debates with tremendous intellectual honesty. Sometimes he has been irritated when party interests came into play. Sometimes we have disagreed because he was trying to find the best rapporteurs when they often have to come from a particular political party. More often than not, he was right and we were wrong.

Mr Gross, you refer to yourself as a social democrat and I am not going to discuss the definition thereof, but I think that you are also a liberal radical, in the light of European history. That is where we have worked together, and I say this with positive thoughts in mind in referring to radicalism. Thank you very much for all your endeavours for the benefit of the Council of Europe.

THE PRESIDENT* – I call Mr Chope to speak on behalf of the European Conservatives Group.

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – I should like immediately to follow up what Jordi Xuclà said about Andy Gross, who has taught me a lot. I learned some good lessons and some bad ones, but I am very grateful to him for the contribution that he has made, and continues to make, to this Assembly.

It is a great pleasure to follow Jordi Xuclà because, during the period we are considering in this progress report, he led the pre-electoral mission to Azerbaijan. That mission produced a unanimous report recommending to the Bureau that we send a full contingent of members to monitor the elections in Azerbaijan. I was delighted this morning that that report was overwhelmingly endorsed by the Bureau, as I hope it will be by the Assembly later this afternoon.

Andy Gross referred to the rule of law and the lack of order in Europe. One example is the manifest failure of so many of the European institutions to apply the rule of law in their own cases. In recent days, we have had information relating to the failure of the European Union to be frank and open with the people of Europe about the emissions from vehicles into the atmosphere. That issue is of great significance to Assembly members who are concerned about the environment. It took an American organisation to investigate this and discover that the European Union had not been complying with its own rules. Basically, the European Union seems to have known that it was not complying with its own rules and covered up the situation in order to feather-bed its automotive industry. That feather-bedding of industry and the failure to be outward-looking are contributing to the problems in Africa and other places from where people are trying to come to Europe.

I said this before in this Chamber: many years ago, Chris Patten, a former European Commissioner, when asked what should be done to reduce migratory flows from North Africa, said “Start buying their tomatoes.” The European Union should be setting an example of open markets, lack of regulation, lack of self-interest and the desire to open up trade with the rest of the world. Unfortunately, the mentality in many European Union member countries is quite the reverse – it is protectionist. As the rapporteur said, the result is that people have to come from Africa to Europe to earn a living rather than we in Europe, with our strong consumer economy, purchasing goods that they have made or farmed in their home countries.

That is a fundamental issue that needs to be addressed more coherently, but it also has a lot to do with the rule of law. We shall discuss tomorrow the failure of the European Union to apply its own rules relating to the Dublin Convention, which makes it clear that if people come into a country from outside, that country has an obligation to register their presence. If they wish to seek asylum, they have to seek asylum in that country. If they subsequently try to seek asylum elsewhere, they should be returned under the provisions of the Dublin Convention. That has not been applied. It is a fundamental failure to apply our own rules and it is setting another bad example. We believe in the rule of law in this Assembly and we need to ensure that it is applied a lot more consistently.

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

Mr KOX (Netherlands) – As the other speakers have noted, today Andy Gross defends his last report to the Assembly. It is a remarkable moment in our Assembly’s history. He is still with us because he will chair our very important election observation mission to Turkey and report back in Sofia to the Standing Committee.

Somewhat cynically, we call this report our progress report, but Andreas would be among the first to state that not much progress has been made in recent times. We are in certain respects not moving forwards but backwards. I know how much this makes our rapporteur worry. He has often talked about our being meant to be the school for democracy but frequently appearing to be the hospital for democracy. For example, after years of progress in electoral processes in our member States, we now observe backward developments. Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom from fear in casting votes are, to quote our rapporteur, the gasoline for democratic elections. Without those freedoms, elections become meaningless. Andreas Gross has observed by far the most elections among us, often as a chair but always very much involved. We will miss his experience in this Assembly. Now he has time to spare, perhaps he will contribute his analysis of what we are doing right, and what we are doing wrong, in organising elections in our 47 member States. I, like many of my colleagues, would be most interested in his analysis. Election observation is a core business of this Assembly, but it must lead to improved electoral processes, instead of less respect for elementary rights in the electoral process and the ongoing exclusions and banning of political parties and politicians from participating in elections and taking part in political life.

It is a very worrying development that our member States increasingly exclude elected politicians from doing their political work, including in this Assembly. A growing number of countries consider it appropriate not to allow certain members of the Assembly to participate in election observation missions or in committee meetings outside Strasbourg and Paris. Sometimes parliaments do not allow their own members to participate in such activities, and some countries do not allow our members in—Ukraine, Georgia and Azerbaijan to mention a few. Furthermore, some countries are creating so-called blacklists that prohibit politicians, journalists, human rights activists and others from entering. Russia is known for doing that, and Ukraine has just published a list of 400 blacklisted people. Member States of the European Union have produced a long list of politicians from the Russian Federation and Ukraine who are not allowed in. If Europe does not allow parliamentarians to meet, to talk and to make decisions together, we are on the wrong track.

On top of all that, this Assembly has excluded, for good or bad reasons, the delegation of our biggest member State from participating on an equal footing, after which that member State decided not to allow elected members of parliament to participate in any part of our work in Russia. Whatever reasons lie behind that exclusion, it ultimately makes no sense. All these exclusionary measures make us lame ducks. Does the rapporteur agree that we are moving backwards and that we should do our utmost to overcome the very worrying exclusions in our member States and in our Assembly? Does he support the idea that this Assembly should, to begin with, call for an end to the blacklisting of politicians and the exclusion of members of parliament from doing their job?

(The speaker continued in German.)

      Thank you, Andreas. You have worked very hard for us.

(The speaker continued in English.)

      We wish you well, and we will miss you.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Would the rapporteur like to reply now? That is not the case, so I call Mr Ariev.

      Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – In this part-session we will focus on the migration crisis in Europe, which has caused instability and new challenges on the continent. In these circumstances, the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons plays a leading role in the Assembly’s actions, and the chairman plays a key role in that Committee.

At the August Bureau meeting in Paris, we discussed a case that happened this summer involving Mr Mariani. A group of French members of parliament—including delegates to this Assembly Mr Mariani, Mr Pozzo di Borgo and Ms Dalloz—brutally trespassed on Ukrainian and international legislation with their visit to Russian-occupied Crimea from Moscow. That action looks like an act of disrespect to the territorial integrity of Ukraine. I remind members that paragraph 7 of the code of conduct for members of the Parliamentary Assembly States: “Members shall respect the values of the Council of Europe and the general principles of behaviour of the Assembly and not take any action which would cause damage to the reputation and integrity of the Assembly or its members.” Action taken by the aforementioned colleagues contradicted not only two paragraphs of the members’ code of conduct but five Assembly resolutions adopted one-and-a-half years ago—two of those resolutions were drafted by the Migration Committee—which is a kind of tyranny. Those facts reduce the credibility of the Committee’s chair and members, and the Ukrainian delegation revised its confidence in Mr Mariani.

During our discussions at the last Bureau in August, Mr Mariani said in response to my speech that if I could find an example of him not being a fair chairperson, he was ready to withdraw—that is in the minutes. Today our colleagues proposed the matter for discussion, but Mr Mariani did everything to avoid the discussion in the Committee. He is playing with the rules, not following the rules. That is not fair, and I hope Mr Mariani will keep his promise.

At the Bureau meeting this morning we also discussed another potential conflict. Mr Hunko, who also illegally visited the occupied part of the Donetsk region, has been nominated to take part in a mission to observe local elections in Ukraine. Mr Hunko has expressed no regrets and has made no excuses, and it is a provocative act for the Group of the Unified European Left to nominate him to the mission in Ukraine, which shows the group’s wish to bless the violation of Ukrainian and international law despite the existing code of conduct for Assembly members.

      I ask the Bureau to consider sending the aforementioned cases, and previous similar cases, to the Rules Committee to find a solution in order to avoid conflicts between the Assembly’s immunity regulations and local legislation of our member States. I call for all groups to abstain from conflict nominations before the Rules Committee announces its conclusion. On behalf of the Ukrainian delegation I call for all Assembly members not to visit Russian-occupied territories in contravention of Ukrainian and international legislation and to strictly follow legal procedures to avoid unnecessary conflicts.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thanks. I call Mr Beneyto.

      Mr BENEYTO (Spain)* – I take the floor to pay personal tribute to Andy Gross. I thank him for his work over many years in the Council of Europe. We have had different views on many issues, but we have always been able to come to an agreement. Sometimes he was able to obtain a majority for his position, and on other occasions it was my side, but I pay a personal tribute to him in bidding him farewell. He always sought democratic consensus, dialogue and the ability to express and champion different views.

I will quickly touch on three issues that are dear to Andy Gross and that are in his progress report. The first is the situation facing the World Forum for Democracy. We all know that democracy is a fragile substance, and it is being threatened in Europe by populism from the extreme right generated by xenophobia, intolerance and the inability to understand each other. The forum works to foster the exchange of opinions, and I wish to speak in favour of democratic consensus and policies of reason. There are increasing opportunities for us to speak out and reach agreement, which is democracy in practice, and it is troubling that populism, extremism and radical xenophobia are spreading and threatening the central policy of dialogue that Andy Gross embodies.

The most important thing is intercultural and inter-religious dialogue, which is the platform for the future of Europe. We cannot escape the fundamental importance of dialogue with other religions and openness to other religions, cultural pluralism and religious pluralism, which are part and parcel of the Europa cultural identity—that is my third point. The European cultural heritage is the basis of European democracy. Often, the European Union and European integration have been based on economic and technocratic criteria. We in the Council of Europe are the conscience of European values. We can never forget that central to the DNA of the Council of Europe is European culture and a concern for the European cultural heritage. We cannot abandon or forsake that line, which has been so essential ever since the founding fathers created the Council of Europe, predicated on a cultural idea. That cultural idea must be preserved, upheld and buttressed.

The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Beneyto. I call Mr Huseynov.

Mr HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – This part-session and this report have a symbolic meaning for my country of Azerbaijan. It is the 15th anniversary of our successful activities in the Parliamentary Assembly, and this report is the 60th report of the Standing Committee and Bureau on the progress and implementation of the Assembly’s activities. Our 15-year term and the chain of 60 reports enable us to draw logical conclusions and to note the most progressive and negative aspects of our work.

The report obviously demonstrates the dynamics of the activities of the Parliamentary Assembly and the sensible attitude that the Council of Europe takes to the greatest problems of the political and social life of Europe. However, there is also the dangerous presence of double standards, which are a permanent element of the Council of Europe’s activities. When assessing the activities of the Bureau and the Standing Committee, we should consider not only the work that has been implemented, but the activities where there has been a failure in implementation.

      It is a principal rule of our Organisation that if a member State creates impediments to a rapporteur who has been appointed by the Bureau, thus preventing his entry to the country and his investigation of the facts and events on the ground, the disobedient country is subjected to punitive measures, including sanctions. If such a principal rule exists, why is it not applied to all States equally? The progress report does not contain a single word about the related unlawful activities of Armenia. However, during the progress report period, Armenia did not provide opportunities for the two rapporteurs to visit the country who had been authorised to investigate two serious problems.

Ms Milica Marković, the rapporteur on inhabitants of frontier regions of Azerbaijan who are deliberately deprived of water, and Mr Robert Walter, the rapporteur on the escalation of tension in Nagorno-Karabakh and other occupied territories of Azerbaijan, have had little time to conclude their work and submit their reports. Nonetheless, Armenia has persistently prevented their visits and left most of their inquiries without reply. That is an alarming precedent that will serve as a negative example for other member States.

It is surprising that the Bureau betrays its most important principles and rules in respect of Armenia. For what secret reasons does Armenia enjoy such a kind and protective attitude, regardless of its indifferent and insulting attitude to the Bureau and the Council of Europe more generally, as was expressed in the rejection of two rapporteurs? Do you not see that such an approach discredits the image of the Council of Europe?

We would like those alarming aspects of our activities to reverberate in the reports of the Bureau and the Standing Committee. Unfortunately, it has not happened this time, yet again. If that course of events continues, double standards and unfairness will take deeper root in our work, thus generating new implications. One cannot avoid deploring this.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Huseynov. I call Ms Zimmermann.

      Ms ZIMMERMANN (France)* – Recently, many people have been very exercised about the lack of visibility of the Council of Europe. If we want our work to be better recognised, we must support and encourage the Council of Europe. I will mention two examples that show that when we bravely defend our values and convictions, we can bring about progress in human rights not only in Europe, but throughout the world.

      We have just celebrated the first anniversary of the entry into force of the Istanbul Convention, the first legally binding treaty to deal with violence against women. How could we not be pleased at the success and interest to which that text has given rise? It is a pioneer convention. For the first time, violence towards women is recognised as a violation of human rights. For the first time, it is strongly affirmed that the principle of zero tolerance must apply in this area. Our Assembly has a role to play – a role that no other assembly can play – in the evaluation of the implementation of the treaty. Of course, the black book on violence against women is far from closed, but we should be proud of our convention; we should be proud to make it known that this indispensable tool was produced by the Council of Europe.

      Secondly, the ratification of the Medicrime Convention by Guinea on 30 May meant that that convention on combating counterfeit drugs achieved the requisite number of ratifications to enter into force. Tomorrow, we will debate the cost of drugs, transparency and conflicts of interest. This is the only convention that aims to consolidate the fight against counterfeit drugs. The text indicates our values because counterfeit drugs undermine public confidence in health systems and their monitoring authorities. In fact, they undermine our democracies. That is why I hope that France, which signed the text as early as 2011, and many other member countries will ratify the convention soon. The text has been submitted to the French Parliament.

      Our Assembly and all our members of parliament must defend those conventions to their parliaments and governments. We must explain to our citizens that the Council of Europe is not simply about judgments being handed down by the European Court of Human Rights. Our visibility is essential to the survival of this Assembly. We must not forget that among inter-parliamentary assemblies, this is one of the rare assemblies that has true power, starting with the appointment of judges to the European Court of Human Rights.

      We are at a crossroads. We are faced with increasing tensions and crises that are getting more and more serious. The oldest European Assembly cannot give up. That is part of our dignity as members of parliament – that is what is at stake. Also at stake is the hope of those throughout Europe and the world who defend our values, the rule of law and democracy.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Zimmermann. I call Mr Seyidov.

      Mr SEYIDOV (Azerbaijan) – First, let me express my gratitude to the rapporteur, Mr Andreas Gross, for his report. It is important to note that one of the most experienced and valued people in this Parliamentary Assembly has criticised the European institutions. Thank you, Andy, for understanding and for taking such an approach.

      Twenty years ago, Azerbaijan was faced with the problem of refugees and internally displaced persons. Can you imagine 1 million refugees in a population of 9 million people? However, we managed that situation. We resettled those people. We gave them normal lives and all the conditions that are necessary for human beings.       Recently we have seen the situation in Turkey. Turkey alone has resettled and given opportunities to 2 million refugees from Syria, spending more than $6 billion. Today I want to congratulate Hungary. During the meetings of the political groups, the leader of the Hungarian delegation came to our group meeting and explained how difficult it was to be on the front line of the Schengen zone – if I may put it like that. Why have three countries been able to manage the situation, even if with difficulties and problematic issues? Azerbaijan, Turkey and Hungary have the institutions, but the European Union, the European Community, does not have such institutions.

      We should admit that for 20 years in this Assembly we have done our best to create a more visible and valuable image for non-governmental institutions. We have done our best to create a good image for civil society, but not for the parliaments of States, and now we can see that without States, governments and parliaments we cannot manage the crisis. When we discuss such things as this or that State not being so perfect, we should first do our best for government and parliament within that State – not destroy the government or parliament of the State. Thank God that realisation is returning to the Parliamentary Assembly. My friends in different international organisations have confessed that democracy is not a fruit that can be exported, as Mr Xuclà said. Human rights are so valuable and such an important thing that we should protect it together, not separately in each country. Shared values should be distributed and shared in real life when we are thinking about real stability, real States and real parliaments.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Seyidov. The next speaker is Mr Sabella from Palestine, Partner for Democracy.

      Mr SABELLA (Palestine) – Parliamentary work is not simply preparation of reports, attendance at meetings or making one’s position on issues clear again and again; it is rendering our work more personally, over-riding differences and emphasising that problems here in Europe and in its southern neighbourhood touch all of us and that we need to find answers together. Mr Andreas Gross, in his report, has exemplified the ideal that we should work together in spite of differences.

In the name of the Palestinian delegation, I thank Mr Gross for his example. I will also ask him a couple of questions. How can we promote the same values as in Europe in the southern Mediterranean or Africa when economic and other indicators show increasing inequality and increasing disparities between the relatively rich Europe and the more and more disadvantaged South? How can we use the Partner for Democracy programme that includes Morocco, Palestine and soon, I hope, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan and other countries in order to find institutional answers to problems affecting all of us? In that sense, the model offered by parliamentarians such as Mr Gross prompts us all to work together and to find solutions together; we must not simply repeat our positions ad infinitum and, at certain times, ad nauseam.

Thank you, Mr Gross. In the name of Palestine and the Palestinian delegation, I wish you all the best in your future endeavours.

The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Sabella. I call Mr Babayan.

Mr BABAYAN (Armenia)* – Mr Huseynov’s statement that Armenia rejects the visit of any Parliamentary Assembly rapporteur to Armenia is nothing but a blatant lie. Consultation on the dates of the visits of rapporteurs is in progress. I have no need to remind colleagues that it was Azerbaijan that consistently rejected the visit of Mr Strasser when he was preparing his report. That is a well-known fact. I thank Mr Gross for his comprehensive work.

Nagorno-Karabakh is topical in the Assembly’s Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy. The recent escalation of tension on the Armenia-Azerbaijan border is a cause of serious concern. By breaking the Minsk Group principles of peaceful negotiation, Azerbaijan intensified cease-fire violations by using heavy weaponry not only on the line of contact with Nagorno-Karabakh, but also along the border zone with the Tavush region in Armenia. Among the victims of that violent breach of international law are peaceful residents. Far from the immediate danger zone, four young Armenian soldiers engaged in everyday activities 5 km away from the front line were killed, and 16 were wounded. One day ago, in the garden of their own homes, three women peacefully taking care of their families were killed in front of their loved ones. My colleagues and I have visited those areas personally and have seen the destruction. With such provocations, Baku demonstrates its disregard both for human life and for its own commitments. This is yet another futile attempt of the Azerbaijani authorities to divert attention from the outrageous human rights situation in their country and the growing criticism of the international community.

Another important reason why Azerbaijan blatantly violates its own commitments is the absence of targeted criticism by the international community, which is wrongly perceived by Baku and leads to human losses. I call on the Parliamentary Assembly of Council of Europe to pay attention to the behaviour of Azerbaijan and to undertake required measures, because the Azerbaijani side is obviously the one to provoke new tensions on the border and it is Azerbaijan that has to take and will have all the responsibility for further developments. I assure you, that provocation is organised by Azerbaijan. I add that the Armenian army can protect our borders, which it has proved many times. Thank you for your attention.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Babayan. That closes the list of speakers. The rapporteur, Mr Gross, has the floor.

      Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – I thank Jordi Xuclà, Christopher Chope, Tiny Kox, José María Beneyto and Bernard Sabella for their very nice personal words. I shall not forget them; I shall keep them in my heart. I wish the same to them, and I am grateful for the good co-operation that we have had.

Jordi and Tadeusz made the very good point that we can learn from Libya. We hear now that the French are bombing IS. That may be the right thing to do but it is certainly not the only thing. When we want to overcome these conflicts and wars, we have to do more than just bomb. After we bombed Libya we left it alone, and that increased the problems even more. That is one lesson that we should take into account.

Tiny made the very good point that we could add to the crisis if we do not tackle Russia. He is right. There is regression there, not progress; I spoke earlier of a disaster report, not a progress report. One of the elements that I thought we should take into account is that in a small town close to St Petersburg a parliamentarian who was elected immediately lost his seat again because he criticised what he saw as the government’s illegal actions in Crimea. That should not be possible and it is not acceptable. We should protect and help these people to overcome this kind of thing.

On the other hand, we should again include the Russians in our dialogue and our work. Of course they will never carry out what we ask them to do, but we have some propositions that they should follow as a condition of coming back. When we do not do anything, we get a majority against them as we did in January. When we want them back and we want to have a majority for their credentials, both we and they will have to come together and find common elements of work – for instance, a common working group of the Ukrainian and Russian Parliaments and the Parliamentary Assembly to observe and evaluate human rights conditions in Crimea. That is one of the three possibilities that we discussed in the Bureau and the Presidential Committee, as you know.

Mr Ariev, I agree with Tiny that we should not enlarge the obstacles in the way of members of our Parliamentary Assembly entering and observing. Although perhaps you think they did not respect our internal rules, international co-operation standards and agreements have a higher quality, so to speak. That is why you should be tolerant, in the sense that saying “This was a mistake and we do not like it” should not be used to undermine the possibility of our working together because it is to our common benefit.

José María Beneyto made the very good point that we underestimate the World Forum for Democracy, where the Council of Europe tries to be the place where the crisis of democracy is considered, tackled and analysed in the sense of making good propositions. We parliamentarians tend to forget about the 1 000 young people who come from about 20 countries and work in summer schools for democracy. As a reward, they are invited to come here and take part in this big gathering. Perhaps the parliamentarians should use that more seriously and take part in it. As a member of the Scientific Committee, I try to improve the quality of the forum’s speakers and organisation.

My Huseynov, I can tell you that Armenia was never an issue in any of the Bureau discussions, so it cannot be an issue in the Bureau’s report. Perhaps the real issue is that in order to save democracy today, we have to transnationalise. The point that Europe is missing is the transnational institutions, which take over what the State alone cannot do any more. All the catastrophes that we have lived through this year are issues that no State alone can tackle. In order to do it together we need new institutions, but in order to get them we also need to build democracy because people are not ready to build new institutions outside their democratic scope.

      Mr Sabella, as you see I have no time to answer your questions, but I promise you that we will come to your homeland, discuss the issue seriously and answer your questions. Thank you very much.

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

      THE PRESIDENT* – Once again I thank the rapporteur, Mr Gross, for the work that he has done today. I reiterate my thanks to him for all the work that he has done over many years in the Parliamentary Assembly. His voice will be missed, as indeed will his ideas. We did not always share his ideas, which sometimes were controversial, but it is important to have debates that give opportunities to voice lots of different ideas. I listened carefully to his answers to members just now, and they give us excellent food for thought about how to find solutions to problems through a multinational approach. One cannot just look inwardly towards one’s own nation State. Thank you once again, Andy, most warmly.

      In Addendum I to the Progress Report, the Bureau approves the proposal of the Monitoring Committee that no monitoring procedure should be opened in respect of France. Is there any objection to the proposal?

      There is no objection, so the proposal by the Bureau and the Monitoring Committee not to open a monitoring procedure in respect of France is agreed to.

      The Bureau has proposed a number of references to committees for ratification by the Assembly, set out in Document 13872. Is there any objection to the proposed references to committees?

      There is no objection, so the references are approved.

      I invite the Assembly to approve the other decisions of the Bureau, as set out in the Progress Report (Doc. 13872 and Addendum I).

      The Progress Report of the Bureau and the Standing Committee is approved.

3. Questions to Mr Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe

      THE PRESIDENT* – We now come to questions to Mr Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe. Usually I do not welcome the Secretary General in this Chamber to answer our questions because he is part of the same family, but I would like to do so today as we are facing so many problems and this is the last opportunity that I will have in this Chamber to address the Secretary General, as he has to leave on Wednesday for other commitments.

We are facing tremendous challenges and I believe that the Council of Europe, with all its organs and institutions, is more important than ever, not only because of the asylum crisis but because human rights are being threatened and we are seeing a decline of some commitments by some member States to the values of the Council of Europe. We need to concentrate on that. I thank you, Secretary General, for the co-operation that we have had, because even though you have a very difficult task we have always had a very open exchange of views. I give you the floor in order to answer parliamentarians’ questions.

      The first question is by Mr Schennach, on behalf of the Socialist Group.

       Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* – Europe has the impression that it is being subjected to huge migratory pressures. The European Union is divided – disunited – and that is why it falls to the Council of Europe to guarantee human rights for all people on the territory of its member States. What do you think the specific role of the Council of Europe can and should be, and what is the state of discussions in the Committee of Ministers in this regard?

      Mr JAGLAND (Secretary General of the Council of Europe) – Before I answer that question, I would like to thank Anne for her nice words. I can say the same to you: we have had excellent co-operation and it will continue after this Assembly part-session and the next one also.

      We are witnessing a European crisis. I cannot say that we could have avoided it, but we could have done more earlier to help countries like Turkey, Italy, Greece and Malta. We could also have done a lot more in the neighbouring countries not only to prevent the crisis but to help them with the challenges they have. A couple of weeks ago I met the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Geneva. He told me that the UNHCR’s operations for Syria are heavily underfunded. Only 20% of its needs have been financed, and the World Food Programme has reduced its budget in the midst of such a crisis. It therefore should not be a surprise that many are trying to leave the camps in order to reach Europe. We could have done much more earlier, and we can do much more now.

      With regard to Council of Europe action, it is clear what our mandate is: namely, to see to it that all people who arrive on the European continent, from the moment they put his or her foot on the European continent, are under the protection of the European Convention on Human Rights and have exactly the same rights as others under the Convention. That is why I have distributed a paper that contains the standards that all governments are obliged to guarantee. I have just come from a meeting with Hungary’s Minister of Justice. I wrote a letter to Prime Minister Orbán after what we saw on television, and having looked into the new laws that have been adopted by the national assembly, he decided to send the Minister of Justice here to discuss all this with us. So you can see that we are observing what is going on and taking action when it is needed. We are as active as we can be. We do not have a say on, for instance, how many should be allowed to access the European continent, how they should be distributed and so on, but we have a fundamental mandate when it comes to guaranteeing the rights of all these people, regardless of who they are, where they come from, or what kind of status they have. We have also said clearly that those who are without papers or documents also have rights. Of course they do not all necessarily have rights to assimilate on the European continent, but they have basic human rights, whatever status they have and wherever they come from.

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

      Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – As you are aware, Mr Secretary General, during our last Assembly session we adopted Resolution 2034 on the previously challenged credentials of the delegation of the Russian Federation. In this resolution we encouraged you to prepare a report on the situation regarding human rights and democracy in the Russian Federation. This request was caused by a significant deterioration of the human rights situation in Russia, with the continuing offensive against freedom of assembly and freedom of speech, and harassment and pressure on the opposition. I would like to ask you about the report on the Russian human rights situation and the state of its preparation.

      Mr JAGLAND – Actually I am writing a report on all the 47 member countries, and then I will issue an annual report on the state of human rights, the rule of law and democracy for the whole of the continent. I collect information from all the member States and then I engage in dialogue with them, including, of course, the Russian Federation, about the main topics in my report. Based on the last annual report, we have decided to look further into two areas, namely independence of the judiciary and freedom of the media. On those topics I will get a more thorough report from other excellent bodies in these areas. This will be ready at the end of the year and then the Committee of Ministers will look into it. So you can see that we are taking these things very seriously. We are in constant dialogue and contact with the Russian authorities on many other problems you have in mind. For instance, the NGO laws concern us a lot. Yes, we have reports and we have dialogue with all member countries, including the Russian Federation.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Garđarsson, on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Mr GARÐARSSON (Iceland) – Today President Barack Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin are meeting in New York, where they will discuss rising tensions over Moscow’s military engagement in Syria as well as the crisis in Ukraine. Putin supports President Assad and has opened the possibility of supporting further military action in Syria, but at the same time wants western countries to reduce sanctions against his country. My question is this: are there any negotiations or discussions going on between the Council of Europe and Russia concerning the position of Russia within the Council?

      Mr JAGLAND – Yes, but not on the issue of Syria because we do not have a mandate. Of course we are having discussions with the Russian Federation. We are not only discussing but have issued a lot of decisions from the Committee of Ministers regarding the illegal annexation of Crimea and the involvement in eastern Ukraine. At the same time, as you know, we are giving strong support to the Ukrainian efforts to build a solid, non-corrupt State. I think it is positive that President Putin and President Obama are meeting. They have an obligation to meet, actually. Here I refer to international law. We should start to read the UN Charter again, because it says that the Security Council has the responsibility for peace and security for all the United Nations family, so the 15 members have that responsibility on behalf of all of us, but they have failed to take it.

That is why we have this crisis in Syria. I think it is absolutely unbelievable and unacceptable that the Security Council, and particularly the five permanent members with veto powers, have looked at their own strategic interests rather than taking responsibility, as stated in the United Nations charter, for all of us. That has to come to an end, which is why I think it is good that the Russian Federation and the United States have started to discuss how they can find a compromise on Syria. This was done on nuclear weapons in Iran. All the P5 members were there. They signed the agreement, and I hope that they can do that for Syria and find a solution to the crisis in Ukraine, so that Ukrainian independence and territorial integrity can be safeguarded. Otherwise, it will be about the power of the strong, which we did away with after the war, putting power in the hands of the UN. I hope that those countries will look to their responsibility under the United Nations charter.

      The PRESIDENT – I call Mr Wold of the European Conservatives Group.

      Mr WOLD (Norway) – We are all concerned about the migration and refugee situation, particularly in the Mediterranean Sea. We are witnessing Schengen not functioning in countries that do not register migrants or refugees, even though there is a fear that IS militants could be among them. Given that perspective, it is hard to criticise nations such as Hungary for controlling migrants and refugees and for protecting its borders. Within the framework of the Council of Europe, what is your opinion on the future role for the Council in the ongoing situation?

      Mr JAGLAND – Thank you. I have already said some words about that. I agree with you that it is unfortunate that member States are pushing people on one another, back and forth, and closing borders. For a very long time, there has been a failure to register people when they come to the Schengen border, and they then proceed to other countries. There is a route going from Greece—many are coming from Turkey, actually—to “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, and then further on to Serbia and Hungary. Given the action that Hungary has taken on the border, people would rather go to Croatia, because they want to proceed to other European States, and Germany in particular. This situation comes from a lack of European policy, and I see that the European Union is trying to get a European policy in place. However, that is extremely difficult because there are so many opinions about the matter, but it is high time that we try to do so. The Council of Europe’s role is actually to ensure that all the people who arrive on the European continent are treated in compliance with the European convention on human rights. All are equal and all who arrive here have certain rights under the convention. We are watching the situation carefully with the instruments that we have—with the Commissioner for Human Rights, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and my secretariat. That is what we are doing.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Tiny Kox, on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Mr Tiny KOX (Netherlands) – Secretary General, I would like your opinion on the worrying developments in two of our member States and on what the Council of Europe can do to ease tensions in those States. First, there is Moldova, where, after a series of scandals, thousands of people are protesting day after day in front of parliament. The Government reacts by arresting demonstrators, including our former member, Grigore Petrenco. The second is our big member State, Turkey, where tensions ahead of the elections are ever increasing. The Government there seems to be more part of the problem than part of the solution. What is the Council of Europe doing to prevent things from exploding in both of those countries?

      Mr JAGLAND – With regard to Moldova, I am also concerned about what is going on there. Again, we see how important the rule of law and human rights are for security in Europe. We have seen so many times now that when corruption develops, we get social unrest, dissatisfaction, demonstrations, and from time to time, revolutions and instability. In Moldova recently, US$1 billion disappeared from Moldovan banks. It is the poorest country in Europe. Can you imagine? I think it is understandable that people are angry and take to the streets. Again, we see how important it is to fight against corruption and the misuse of power. What are we doing there? It is the same old story: we are trying to help the Moldovan Government to put in place necessary reforms to the judiciary and the Prosecutor General to establish an independent judiciary, as we have in Ukraine. Of course, it is a long process, but it has to be started to give the people there a horizon to look towards, other than what they have seen for such a long time—namely, that corruption is spreading and the country is being deprived of possibilities and opportunities for the future.

      On Turkey, I am also concerned about many things there. Ahead of the election, we have seen attacks on the media. There has been a curfew in one of the cities in the south-east, and the situation is very complicated. Therefore, I had a very long telephone conversation with Prime Minister Davutoğlu a week ago. Today, I met one of the main opposition parties—the Kurdish party, the HDP, the People’s Democracy Party. On Thursday, I met the chairman of the biggest opposition party—the CHP, Republican People’s Party—to collect as much information as possible, to get their views and to see what we can do. Of course, we do not want to interfere in the election campaign, but it is important that that campaign provides possibilities for everybody, that there is freedom of speech and that at the end of the day everybody can vote.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. That concludes the list of questions from the political groups. We now come to the speakers on my list, the first of whom is Mr Villumsen.

      Mr VILLUMSEN (Denmark) – I would like to follow up on the situation in Turkey, because I must admit, I am very worried about what is taking place. From my point of view, when journalists are being threatened, the media is being attacked, mayors are put into jail and civilian areas are being bombed, it is not a good environment in which to have a free and fair election. Do you agree that action should be taken by the Turkish Government to secure a free and fair election and, if so, what should that action be?

      Mr JAGLAND – You have indicated the answer yourself: namely, that the Turkish Government has an obligation to secure freedom of speech, to protect the media, to secure freedom of assembly and to ensure that everybody has the right to go to the polls. That is of concern as the tensions are now so high, particularly in the south-east of Turkey. We are following the issue very carefully.

      There is one piece of good news. Today I asked the leader of the Kurdish party whether the constitutional court is still functioning. We have put a great deal of emphasis on the establishment of a constitutional court which is independent and rules on the basis of case law or the Court here in Strasbourg. The answer was positive. Of course, the court cannot interfere directly in the election campaign but it can secure the basic principles of the rule of law now and after the elections.

      Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – On 8 September you sent a letter to all member States about the on-going migrant crisis in Europe. You underlined the fact that a minority of countries are being asked to absorb the majority of incomers, and that consequently political solidarity among our member countries is being severely tested. Have you had any response to your letter – positive or negative – appealing for pan-European solidarity?

      Mr JAGLAND –        I cannot say that we have had a direct, positive response to the appeal for solidarity. You can see that there are discussions and difficulties within the European Union on that matter. I have had a positive response in the sense that we have reminded member States of their basic obligations, which I have mentioned two or three times, and distributed the standards that should be met at the border when people arrive and when detaining them or placing them in transit zones, as is being done in Hungary. One cannot simply say that because people are in a transit zone the articles of the Convention do not apply. Article 7 applies on every inch of the European continent, whatever you call it. It is important to remind ourselves of that fact, which has been appreciated by many, including those in other international organisations such as the European Union. When I met the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Mr Guterres, he greatly appreciated that fact, and referred many times to issues that have arisen in case law or the Court because of this challenge. It is good to have the matter in hand when we are discussing it with governments.

      Mr HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – I have a two-part question about the painful problem of migrant flows in Europe. Did you realise that Azerbaijan has suffered from this devastating problem for 25 years, accepting Armenians and providing accommodation and normal living conditions? Further, do you appreciate the difference in tolerance displayed by those who mostly greet migrants making their way towards Europe with racist sentiments and by Azerbaijan, which, regardless of national and religious distinction, welcomed with the same solicitude refugees from South Caucasus, Iran, middle Asia and even belligerent Armenia?

      Mr JAGLAND – Yes, I am aware of that. Regrettably, because we are now so focused on refugees coming from outside Europe, we tend to forget all the internally displaced people on our continent. We have had that problem for a long time. You referred to one aspect of it. We also have a very big problem in Ukraine, where there are about 1 million internally displaced people. [Interruption.] Obviously, I gave the wrong figure, but the problem is huge. We had the problem long before this refugee crisis started two or three months ago. I am aware also of the fact that countries with an overwhelmingly Muslim population, such as Turkey and Azerbaijan, are more inclined to open their doors, whereas in Europe we are more inclined to close borders and push people back and forth. I cannot say more, but I am very well aware of that, and we should keep it in mind when we are dealing with the current crisis.

      Mr ROCHEBLOINE (France)* – Twenty-one years after the ceasefire in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, deadly clashes are happening again and again on the border, triggered by the Azeri forces. What initiatives do you plan to take to put a stop to this spiralling threat? Apart from the Minsk Group negotiations, what can the Council of Europe do? Will you intervene with regard to Leyla Yunus and her husband, who are still in jail?

      Mr JAGLAND – With regard not only to Leyla Yunus and her husband but to several others, we raised the issue with the authorities in Azerbaijan, and the Court has intervened in one case. We are not only following the issue, but raising it, as is the Committee of Ministers.

      I am aware of the increasing tension between Armenia and Azerbaijan. I have been informed that there was an exchange of heavy weapons not between Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan but between the two countries directly, which is very worrying. You referred to the Minsk Group, and that is our only course. We have asked the two parties whether they want some involvement, but neither has responded positively, so the matter continues to be in the hands of the Minsk Group. We have continued to say that the countries must solve the conflict in a peaceful way, as we said when they acceded to the Council of Europe – one reason they got accession was that they promised to solve the conflict peacefully. The statute of the Council of Europe says that member countries are obliged to solve conflicts peacefully, and an exchange of heavy weapons is not a peaceful solution.

      Mr RIGONI (Italy)* – I would like to ask you about a country that is not in the Council of Europe, but is a European country and probably the centre of Europe – Belarus. At a time when it is fashionable to re-erect walls or build new ones, the Council of Europe is trying to take them down. It is time to take down the wall of distrust with Belarus and open a structured dialogue between us and the Parliament of Belarus.

      Mr JAGLAND – Here I cannot speak on behalf of the Parliamentary Assembly because I know that you took away the guest status of Belarus some years ago, for understandable reasons. On the intergovernmental side, we have established a good process. Belarus has acceded to several of our conventions, and is interested in others. The Council of Europe is the only Organisation that has been able to keep up a presence in Minsk; we have an info point there. It is not a very big one, but it is there, whereas the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) was kicked out some years ago, as you may know. The Council of Europe is keeping up its work there. We are able to spread information about the European convention and campaign against the death penalty, which is a major obstacle to Belarus taking things forward with this Assembly. We welcome the recent release of political prisoners in Belarus, and I have said that it would be a good follow-up to put a moratorium on the death penalty.

So there is a good process in Belarus, but I must also say that Belarus has not signalled that it wants full membership of the Council of Europe at this time. I agree that Belarus is in Europe and that the final aim should be to have Belarus in our family, but they are not asking for that. They are asking for the process that I have explained.

Mr BENEYTO (Spain) – Mr Secretary General, I would like to return to the practical help that the Council of Europe is giving with the refugee crisis, and particularly whether the Council of Europe Development Bank is helping back home in countries of origin, for instance, or in refugee camps. When refugees come to different entry points to the European continent, are we helping establish refugee officers? These issues would give more information and more visibility to the work the Council of Europe is doing in that respect.

Mr JAGLAND – That is an important question, because it reminds me of a couple of important things that I had forgotten; you see I am a little too old to keep everything in mind. Yes, the Bank wants to contribute by giving loans to set up more solid registration centres or hot spots. It has set aside a fund for that, and it now wants to mobilise additional resources from States parties to the bank. That is a very good initiative. You are right that we could also contribute a lot to registration centres, for instance by providing expertise on how to apply the standards of the European convention on human rights. If we can walk hand in hand with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which has responsibility for the Geneva Convention, and see to it that the Geneva Convention is applied in the right way, it would be a good assurance both for countries that have such centres and for the European Union, which would be behind such an initiative.

THE PRESIDENT – I call Mr Khader, a Partner for Democracy.

Mr KHADER (Palestine) – Mr Secretary General, an extremely explosive situation has been created in East Jerusalem by Israeli provocations and attempts to change the status quo at the al-Aqsa mosque compound, the third holiest shrine of Islam. It threatens to unleash a religious war that may reflect detrimentally on the security and stability of Europe. What action will the Council of Europe take to address that threat and help maintain the status quo?

Mr JAGLAND – Again, we have limited possibilities, because the area is not under our jurisdiction. Of course, it is always possible for us to remind all parties of their responsibilities here, particularly Israel. By the way, I was appointed to the commission set up by President Clinton and Kofi Annan when Sharon went up to Temple Mount more than 10 years ago, if you remember, and there was so much violence. We – the five people in the group – came forward with recommendations to the United States President and Kofi Annan, but Israel in particular made it a precondition that there should be seven days of quiet before the recommendations could be implemented. Of course, somebody immediately started violence, which gave an excuse not to do what we recommended. It is time to come back to that concept and to the recommendations that we came up with. A ceasefire is not the right word, but the violence should be stopped so that we can start talking about it, because all people have the right to access that very important world site.

Mr TILKI (Hungary) – Mr Secretary General, since the escalation of the migration crisis, which has affected much of Europe, you have been very active in communicating with member States and other relevant international organisations, including the UNHCR, about the situation. You have also stated that the Council of Europe has a role to play in addressing the greatest migration crisis since the Second World War. How do you envisage the role of the Council of Europe in the current situation?

Mr JAGLAND – Again, we must watch what every member State does with refugees and migrants. There are people who have the right to asylum, but there are also migrants. It is for the UNHCR to decide, under the Geneva Convention, who has the right to asylum and who is a migrant, but we do not distinguish between asylum seekers and migrants when it comes to the European Convention on Human Rights. All of them have the same rights, although not all of them have the right to stay on the European continent. While they are staying here, they shall be treated in compliance with the European Convention. We are doing that vis-à-vis each member country, at the borders, and we can help. As I have said, the Bank has a plan to help those in charge of the centres where refugees arrive apply the right standards under the convention.

I reiterate that we as parliamentarians should all remind our member States what we can do in our own neighbourhoods. It is a shame and a scandal that the UNHCR programme for Syrian refugees is funded only by 20%. You can raise that in your Parliaments. The World Food Programme has reduced its budget for people staying in the awful camps in Jordan. They are getting less food. Why are they going to Europe? They are starving and being given less food, living in misery in those camps. Of course they are. All of us, if we found ourselves in the same situation, would try to go to Europe. At least we should do everything we can, in every Parliament and every government, to fund international action by the UNHCR and the World Food Programme.

      Mr NEGUTA (Republic of Moldova)* – I thank you, Secretary General, for the complex analysis of the situation in Moldova in your 10 August article in the New York Times, with which we agree: there has been no movement in the past seven years. Reforms are not being promoted and we see intolerance among citizens on the streets. What are your plans for Moldova? What needs to be done?

      Mr JAGLAND – Our plans are concrete. Our action plan for Moldova focuses on the problems to which you refer and makes two proposals: to establish an independent judiciary that people can trust, offering access to justice; and reform of the Prosecutor General’s office, which we have demanded time and again, to ensure it is independent and trustworthy. Those are incredibly important, because corruption will not be combated without independent courts and an independent prosecutor’s office.

Corruption is the main problem, although another name can be attached to it – oligarchisation, whereby oligarchs have too much power over politics and State institutions. We come back to the old story – the separation of powers. Without independent institutions you always get awful things. We must therefore work hard on reforms to separate the judiciary and the prosecutor from politics.

      Mr HUNKO (Germany)* – In our debate on the progress report we heard about a trend in Council of Europe member States – Azerbaijan, Russia and Ukraine – to compile black lists and sanction members of the Parliamentary Assembly, making it impossible for them to work. What is your view on this matter of great concern, and how do we ensure that members of the Assembly may travel freely to do their work?

      Mr JAGLAND – I share your concerns about parliamentarians being prevented from doing their job in our 47 member countries. When I had the opportunity, I raised the issue with the appropriate authorities. You can rest assured that I keep it in mind and that I fully agree with you.

      THE PRESIDENT – I call Mr Sabella from Palestine, a Partner for Democracy.

      Mr SABELLA (Palestine) – Given the refugee and migration problems facing Europe and elsewhere, what practical steps and policies do you foresee for the Council of Europe in addressing the causes of migration and their related challenges, whether it is the wars in the Middle East or the economic and social disparities that seem to be increasing and making Europe a magnet of attraction for millions of migrants? The Council of Europe is not responsible for these areas, but how can you influence European governments and parliaments to move forward on policies towards Syria and the other problems?

      Mr JAGLAND – I thank you for putting that question, but it is high time we focused more on how we stop the terrible war in Syria, about which I spoke earlier. We discussed the responsibilities of the Security Council, especially its permanent members.

There is one promising country in the region – Tunisia. There was agreement on a constitution and presidential elections. Civil society played an important role in the peaceful handover from the previous president and the Venice Commission provided much good assistance to the constitutional process. Tunisia therefore offers a good example, albeit a fragile one because of neighbouring countries having to cope with the flow of refugees from Libya, which is more or less a failed State now – it has totally dissolved. We can do more to help the neighbouring countries and to help the humanitarian crisis.

You said that Europe has become a magnet of attraction. People in the camps and in the region face misery, which makes Europe even more attractive.

      Ms DURRIEU (France)* – We have talked a lot about the refugees and the dramatic situation facing them and Europe directly. We have discussed the economic root causes – poverty and the politics of the conflicts – but we have not discussed one of the major causes that is likely to have a huge impact on future migration: climate change. Between 50 million and 150 million people are likely to get on the move towards Europe, so COP 21 is crucial as we must achieve a binding agreement. How will you rally the countries of Europe, because it would appear that they are not yet rallying behind this essential cause?

      Mr JAGLAND – I do not know how much I can do. France plays a leading role and I look forward to this year’s summit in Paris, at which I hope agreement will be reached. You speak of rallying. I will try to exert as much influence as I can, but Prime Ministers and Foreign Ministers will probably say that I should look after human rights and not the environment. I will reply by saying that democracies can play an important role in safeguarding the planet. I say this because we do not have much in our toolbox to influence the process, but we are all politicians – you are in your parliaments and I am here. We can all influence our home countries to take the right position at the Paris summit.

Mr XUCLÀ (Spain) – I am in charge of the report on the progress of the partnership for democracy with Palestine. We have a very good relationship with our colleagues from Palestine and Mr Sabella, who leads the delegation. There may be a lack of co-operation between the executive branch and the parliament. How are the channels of co-operation between the Council of Europe and the Palestinian authorities working in building democracy in that country?

Mr JAGLAND – I visited the Palestinian authorities about three years ago and met President Abbas, the prime minister of the time and others. I know them all from 30 years back and we discussed how we could co-operate and interact more. They were interested but we did not get a complete response when we asked them about their needs. But now something is starting to happen. They have made approaches and they want some very concrete assistance that we will now start to discuss with them. It is good to see that this is happening, but I hope that it is not too late.

THE PRESIDENT – The last speaker will be Mr Ghiletchi and I must then interrupt the list of speakers. Members who are on the list and present in the Chamber may table their questions in writing for the Secretary General to answer in writing.

Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – Mr Secretary General, I thank you for supporting the reforms that Moldova needs and for what you said about corruption and the independence of the judiciary. However, I must disagree with you on this: we will not have an independent judiciary when we have political statements, including political statements made by you. Have you seen the Kroll report? Do you know the exact amount? Do you know the period of time over which this money disappeared? I am firmly convinced that we need a fair and complete investigation but we also know that this bank crisis has exploded for different reasons, including geopolitical ones. Is it not better to refrain from any statement before the investigation is finalised and complete?

Mr JAGLAND – With regard to that, I have not blamed any particular person. You spoke about corruption. When a poor country like Moldova loses $1 billion, it is a serious matter. Everybody, particularly the current government, can see the problems with corruption and with the judiciary and the Prosecutor General. It is important that we all speak up. Moldova cannot be excluded from speeches from my side.

      Thank you very much for many good questions that gave me the opportunity to explain what we are doing on the governmental side. I carefully follow what you parliamentarians are doing and, as I said, you are playing an important role in influencing Europe and your home countries.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Secretary General. This is a more than useful exercise and I hope that it will continue.

4. Next public business

THE PRESIDENT – The Assembly will hold its next public sitting tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. with the agenda which was approved this morning.

The sitting is closed.

      (The sitting was closed 5.05 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. Changes in the membership of committees

2. Progress report of the Bureau and the Standing Committee

Presentation by Mr Gross of report, Document 13872, Document 13872 Addendum I, Document 13872 Addendum II and Document 13883, on behalf of the Bureau of the Assembly

Speakers:

Mr Iwiński (Poland)

Mr Conde (Spain)

Mr Xuclà (Spain)

Mr Chope (United Kingdom)

Mr Kox (Netherlands)

Mr Ariev (Ukraine)

Mr Beneyto (Spain)

Mr Huseynov (Azerbaijan)

Ms Zimmermann (France)

Mr Seyidov (Azerbaijan)

Mr Sabella (Palestine)

Mr Babayan (Armenia)

3. Questions to Mr Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe

Questions: Mr Schennach, Mr Ariev, Mr Garđarsson, Mr Wold, Mr Kox, Mr Villumsen, Ms Christoffersen, Mr Huseynov, Mr Rochebloine, Mr Rigoni, Mr Beneyto, Mr Khader, Mr Tilki, Mr Neguta, Mr Hunko, Mr Sabella, Mrs Durrieu, Mr Xuclà, Mr Ghiletchi

4. Next public business

Appendix I

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

Pedro AGRAMUNT

Alexey Ivanovich ALEKSANDROV*

Brigitte ALLAIN/Geneviève Gosselin-Fleury

Jean-Charles ALLAVENA

Werner AMON/Bernhard Ebner

Luise AMTSBERG*

Athanasia ANAGNOSTOPOULOU

Lord Donald ANDERSON

Paride ANDREOLI

Sirkka-Liisa ANTTILA/Petri Honkonen

Ben-Oni ARDELEAN*

Khadija ARIB*

Volodymyr ARIEV

Anna ASCANI*

Egemen BAĞIŞ/Ahmet Berat Çonkar

Theodora BAKOYANNIS*

David BAKRADZE

Gérard BAPT*

Doris BARNETT*

José Manuel BARREIRO/Ángel Pintado

Deniz BAYKAL

Marieluise BECK*

Ondřej BENEŠIK/Jana Fischerová

José María BENEYTO

Levan BERDZENISHVILI*

Deborah BERGAMINI*

Sali BERISHA*

Anna Maria BERNINI/Claudio Fazzone

Maria Teresa BERTUZZI*

Andris BĒRZINŠ

Gülsün BİLGEHAN

Brian BINLEY

Ľuboš BLAHA/Darina Gabániová

Philippe BLANCHART*

Maryvonne BLONDIN

Tilde BORK

Olga BORZOVA*

Mladen BOSIĆ*

António BRAGA*

Anne BRASSEUR

Piet De BRUYN/Dirk Van Der Maelen

Beata BUBLEWICZ/Iwona Guzowska

Gerold BÜCHEL*

André BUGNON

Natalia BURYKINA*

Nunzia CATALFO*

Elena CENTEMERO

Irakli CHIKOVANI

Vannino CHITI/Francesco Verducci

Christopher CHOPE

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Henryk CIOCH*

James CLAPPISON*

Igor CORMAN/Valentina Buliga

Telmo CORREIA*

Paolo CORSINI

Carlos COSTA NEVES*

Celeste COSTANTINO*

Yves CRUCHTEN

Zsolt CSENGER-ZALÁN

Katalin CSÖBÖR

Joseph DEBONO GRECH

Reha DENEMEÇ

Renata DESKOSKA*

Alain DESTEXHE

Manlio DI STEFANO*

Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA

Peter van DIJK*

Şaban DİŞLİ

Sergio DIVINA*

Aleksandra DJUROVIĆ

Namik DOKLE

Elvira DROBINSKI-WEIß*

Daphné DUMERY*

- Alexander [The Earl of] DUNDEE*

Nicole DURANTON/André Schneider

Josette DURRIEU

Mustafa DZHEMILIEV*

Mikuláš DZURINDA*

Lady Diana ECCLES*

Tülin ERKAL KARA

Franz Leonhard EßL

Samvel FARMANYAN*

Joseph FENECH ADAMI

Cătălin Daniel FENECHIU

Vyacheslav FETISOV*

Doris FIALA

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ*

Ute FINCKH-KRÄMER

Axel E. FISCHER

Gvozden Srećko FLEGO

Bernard FOURNIER

Hans FRANKEN

Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO*

Martin FRONC

Sir Roger GALE

Adele GAMBARO

Karl GARÐARSSON

Iryna GERASHCHENKO*

Tina GHASEMI

Valeriu GHILETCHI

Francesco Maria GIRO

Pavol GOGA

Carlos Alberto GONÇALVES

Mustafa Sait GÖNEN*

Alina Ștefania GORGHIU*

Svetlana GORYACHEVA*

Sylvie GOY-CHAVENT

Fred de GRAAF*

François GROSDIDIER

Andreas GROSS*

Dzhema GROZDANOVA

Mehmet Kasim GÜLPINAR/ Ali Şahin

Gergely GULYÁS/Attila Tilki

Jonas GUNNARSSON

Nazmi GÜR*

Antonio GUTIÉRREZ/Jordi Xuclà

Maria GUZENINA/Susanna Huovinen

Márton GYÖNGYÖSI*

Sabir HAJIYEV

Alfred HEER*

Michael HENNRICH*

Martin HENRIKSEN

Françoise HETTO-GAASCH

Oleksii HONCHARENKO/Vladyslav Golub

Jim HOOD/David Crausby

Anette HÜBINGER

Johannes HÜBNER

Andrej HUNKO

Ali HUSEYNLI/Sahiba Gafarova

Rafael HUSEYNOV

Vitaly IGNATENKO*

Ekmeleddin Mehmet İHSANOĞLU*

Florin IORDACHE/Daniel Florea

Tadeusz IWIŃSKI

Denis JACQUAT/Jacques Legendre

Gedimnas JAKAVONIS

Gordan JANDROKOVIĆ*

Tedo JAPARIDZE*

Michael Aastrup JENSEN*

Mogens JENSEN

Frank J. JENSSEN/Tore Hagebakken

Florina-Ruxandra JIPA*

Ögmundur JÓNASSON

Aleksandar JOVIČIĆ*

Josip JURATOVIC

Anne KALMARI

Mustafa KARADAYI*

Marietta KARAMANLI*

Niklas KARLSSON/Eva-Lena Jansson

Vasiliki KATRIVANOU

Ioanneta KAVVADIA

Danail KIRILOV*

Bogdan KLICH*

Manana KOBAKHIDZE*

Haluk KOÇ/Metin Lütfü Baydar

Igor KOLMAN*

Željko KOMŠIĆ*

Unnur Brá KONRÁÐSDÓTTIR/Brynjar Níelsson

Ksenija KORENJAK KRAMAR*

Attila KORODI*

Alev KORUN/Andreas Schieder

Rom KOSTŘICA/Gabriela Pecková

Elvira KOVÁCS

Tiny KOX

Borjana KRIŠTO*

Julia KRONLID/Johan Nissinen

Eerik-Niiles KROSS*

Marek KRZĄKAŁA*

Ertuğrul KÜRKÇÜ

Athina KYRIAKIDOU

Serhiy LABAZIUK/Ihor Huz

Inese LAIZĀNE

Olof LAVESSON

Pierre-Yves LE BORGN’

Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT/Frédéric Reiss

Igor LEBEDEV*

Valentina LESKAJ

Terry LEYDEN

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE*

Georgii LOGVYNSKYI*

François LONCLE/Pascale Crozon

George LOUKAIDES

Yuliya L’OVOCHKINA

Philippe MAHOUX

Thierry MARIANI

Soňa MARKOVÁ/Pavel Holík

Milica MARKOVIĆ*

Meritxell MATEU PI

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

Olivia MITCHELL

Igor MOROZOV*

João Bosco MOTA AMARAL

Arkadiusz MULARCZYK*

Melita MULIĆ*

Oľga NACHTMANNOVÁ

Hermine NAGHDALYAN/ Vahan Babayan

Piotr NAIMSKI*

Sergey NARYSHKIN*

Marian NEACȘU/ Titus Corlăţean

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/Michal Stuligrosz

Sandra OSBORNE/Joe Benton

Tom PACKALÉN

José Ignacio PALACIOS

Liliana PALIHOVICI

Judith PALLARÉS CORTÉS*

Ganira PASHAYEVA/Sevinj Fataliyeva

Florin Costin PÂSLARU

Waldemar PAWLAK/Jan Rzymełka

Jaana PELKONEN/Anne Louhelainen

Vladimir PLIGIN*

Cezar Florin PREDA*

John PRESCOTT*

Gabino PUCHE

Alexey PUSHKOV*

Lia QUARTAPELLE PROCOPIO*

Carmen QUINTANILLA*

Kerstin RADOMSKI*

Mailis REPS/Andres Herkel

Andrea RIGONI

François ROCHEBLOINE

Soraya RODRÍGUEZ*

Alexander ROMANOVICH*

Maria de Belém ROSEIRA*

René ROUQUET

Rovshan RZAYEV/Fazil Mustafa

Àlex SÁEZ*

Vincenzo SANTANGELO*

Milena SANTERINI

Nadiia SAVCHENKO/ Sergiy Vlasenko

Deborah SCHEMBRI/Joseph Sammut

Stefan SCHENNACH

Ingjerd SCHOU/Ingebjørg Godskesen

Frank SCHWABE

Urs SCHWALLER/Elisabeth Schneider-Schneiter

Salvador SEDÓ*

Predrag SEKULIĆ*

Ömer SELVİ/Suat Önal

Aleksandar SENIĆ

Senad ŠEPIĆ

Samad SEYIDOV

Jim SHERIDAN*

Bernd SIEBERT*

Valeri SIMEONOV*

Andrej ŠIRCELJ*

Arturas SKARDŽIUS

Jan ŠKOBERNE*

Leonid SLUTSKY*

Serhiy SOBOLEV

Olena SOTNYK

Lorella STEFANELLI/Gerardo Giovagnoli

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/Eirini Kasimati

Ilyas UMAKHANOV*

Dana VÁHALOVÁ

Snorre Serigstad VALEN*

Petrit VASILI*

Imre VEJKEY/Rózsa Hoffmann

Stefaan VERCAMER

Birutė VĖSAITĖ

Nikolaj VILLUMSEN

Dimitris VITSAS*

Vladimir VORONIN*

Viktor VOVK

Klaas de VRIES*

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ

Draginja VUKSANOVIĆ*

Piotr WACH

Robert WALTER

Dame Angela WATKINSON*

Tom WATSON*

Karl-Georg WELLMANN/Johann Wadephul

Katrin WERNER*

Morten WOLD

Bas van ‘t WOUT/Marit Maij

Gisela WURM

Maciej WYDRZYŃSKI*

Leonid YEMETS/Pavlo Unguryan

Tobias ZECH

Kristýna ZELIENKOVÁ

Sergey ZHELEZNYAK*

Marie-Jo ZIMMERMANN

Emanuelis ZINGERIS

Guennady ZIUGANOV*

Naira ZOHRABYAN

Levon ZOURABIAN

Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

Vacant Seat, Estonia*

Vacant Seat, Turkey*

Vacant Seat, Turkey*

Vacant Seat, Turkey*

Vacant Seat, United Kingdom*

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote

Boriana ÅBERG

Agustín CONDE

Jean-Claude FRECON

Kerstin LUNDGREN

Barbara ROSENKRANZ

Partners for democracy

Qais KHADER

Bernard SABELLA

Najat AL-ASTAL