AA15CR36

AS (2015) CR 36

2015 ORDINARY SESSION

________________

(Fourth part)

REPORT

Thirty-sixth sitting

Friday 2 October 2015 at 10 a.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

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

3. 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 Walter, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 10.05 a.m.)

      THE PRESIDENT – The sitting is open.

1. Equality and shared parental responsibility: the role of fathers

      THE PRESIDENT – We are missing the Chair of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, but I am hopeful that she will turn up as the meeting proceeds. I know that she is in the building because she was at the Bureau meeting earlier.

      The first item of business this morning is the debate on the report titled “Equality and shared parental responsibility: the role of fathers,” Document 13870, presented by Ms Françoise Hetto-Gaasch on behalf of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, with an opinion presented by Mr Stefan Schennach on behalf of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, Document 13896.

      I call Ms Hetto-Gaasch, the Rapporteur of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between your presentation of the report and your reply to the debate.

      Ms HETTO-GAASCH (Luxembourg)* – This report is particularly important to me. I stress the words “the role of fathers.” This report sheds light on the relationship between fathers and their children after a divorce or separation. It is not a question of defending the rights of fathers to remain in touch with their children but of stressing how important it is for children to maintain relations with both parents. As a former equalities minister in Luxembourg, I always stress the importance of men and women sharing responsibilities within the family in order to achieve genuine equality. However, stereotypes persist.

      On the one hand, countries recognise the role of fathers within the family and its importance for their children. Parental leave is often used by both parents and is recognised as an important way of stimulating a child’s cognitive development. On the other hand, that role seems to become secondary when a couple separates. Yet, even if a relationship has ended, parents continue to exercise all their responsibilities, including the payment of child support. Unfortunately, in the event of divorce or separation, personal relations between fathers and their children are not always maintained. That is sometimes the fault of the father, who might start to turn away from his child, but it must be accepted that persistent stereotypes about the roles of women and men in relation to their children can contribute to increasing the distance between a father and his child, with the mother considered to be naturally more able to take care of her children, but the child continues to love both parents. For a good, secure link to exist between parent and child, there must be frequent and regular contact. I am convinced that, with the exception of relationships that clearly involve abuse and domestic violence, alternating custody could be in the child’s interests because it ensures a link with both parents.

      The right for children and their parents to be together is protected by the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 9 of the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child recalls that the right of a child not to be separated from their parents, and to have a personal relationship with both parents if they are separated, is in the child’s best interests.

      In preparing the report, I heard from parents, associations, mediators, family magistrates and judges, and professors. We held a hearing with parents – both fathers and mothers – who were directly affected and their lawyers. We spoke to researchers to hear their experiences, as well as their proposals on how parental responsibility can best be shared through alternating custody.

      The people we spoke to recognised that the role of the father is very important in the harmonious development of the child. It is important that the child has a close connection with both parents, even after they separate. It benefits the development of the child when there is alternating custody that is well-planned and rigorously respected. They recognised the advantages of family mediation, which can bring calmness to relationships and re-establish dialogue. It can also make the parents more responsible because they are able to define the living arrangements of their child after separation.

      The people we spoke to also recognised the importance of ensuring that transitions between different arrangements happen calmly, so that the child feels safe. It is also important for the opinions of the child to be heard on any matters or decisions that concern them. Professionals must be consulted if previous decisions need to be revised. It is important that all those who are involved are trained in the rights and needs of children.

      That is why the draft resolution appeals to member States to ensure that there is equality between parents vis-à-vis their children; to do what is necessary to guarantee the execution of judicial decisions on where children live; to encourage all those who are involved to have recourse to mediation; to introduce in their laws the principle of alternating residence as a right of the child and not a right of parents; to ensure that in all judicial proceedings, the people involved act professionally; and, finally, to respect the right of the child to be heard.

      In preparing the report, I heard a lot of painful personal stories from couples who had torn themselves apart and children who had been taken hostage by a parent because of the conflict between the parents. I hope that the report will open up ideas on parental co-responsibility that make situations more harmonious and make us more respectful of children’s rights and interests.

The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Hetto-Gaasch. You have seven minutes remaining.

I call Mr Schennach, the rapporteur, for the opinion. You have four minutes.

Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* – I thank Ms Hetto-Gaasch on behalf of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development. We very much welcome her report.

People tend not to give due importance to the role of the father. Over the past 10 or 15 years, our equality policies and gender policies have reminded fathers of their responsibilities, whether it is within a relationship or once a relationship has fallen apart.

We are all aware of the pattern of patchwork families that we have today in Europe. The average duration of a marriage that fails is seven years and every third marriage in Austria does not succeed. We must ensure that the child is not used as a pawn in a game between the parents. There are all sorts of reasons why relationships do not prosper. We must seek to understand the position of the parents. There are a lot of mediation services on offer. It is very painful when your relationship does not make it because you start out with love and hope for the future. However, when things do not work out between the parents, the child should not be penalised.

We are talking about shared custody, but that must not turn into a sword of Damocles that enables the bitterness of a failed relationship to persist. Sometimes sole custody is awarded to one parent. Society has to understand that sole custody may be awarded to the father or the mother. We must also recognise that domestic violence does not just mean physical violence, but can mean psychological violence. It is possible for a man to be physically violent and abusive towards his wife, while cherishing his children, but it still affects them.

Another problem is when one parent goes to a foreign country such as Turkey, Iran, Tunisia or even Brazil. The child then loses their right to contact with both of their parents, irrespective of the background of the dispute between the parents.

      I have been a sole parent myself. People asked, “What about the mother?”, but my ex-wife and I had agreed that it was in the interests of the children for them to remain with me. Why do people think that there must be something wrong with a woman if she agrees to that arrangement? Why is it any less strange than a father agreeing to the mother having sole custody?

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Schennach. We now come to the list of speakers, starting with those speaking for the political groups. I call Mr Gunnarsson, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group. You have four minutes.

      Mr GUNNARSSON (Sweden) – The report from the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination is yet another brick in the ongoing building of a fairer and more equal Europe. On behalf of the Socialist Group, I thank both rapporteurs for being constructive and open-minded in their text. I also thank the committee for pushing what are sadly still seen in many cases as very radical ideas. The scope of the report is in essence to do with a child’s right to both its parents. Article 7.1 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child is clear on every child’s right to his or her parents.

      If I look at the measures taken in my own country to grant children better contact with both their parents, it is clear that we have been successful, but still have a lot to do. As in the report, our legislation stresses the importance of both parents being able and expected to exercise parenthood. It all starts with the birth of a child and its early years growing up. Generous parental leave insurance of 480 days, with a few months being non-transferable, has proven to be a great tool to improve shared responsibility. This model has even created a phenomenon unique to cities in Sweden, latte dads. The joke is that when visitors come to Sweden, they are amazed at what they believe to be crowds of male nannies having coffees with colleagues; in actual fact, they are fathers enjoying their right to be home from work to connect to the baby at an early stage, as well as to share the responsibility with the mother for nurturing a young child.

      Shared residence after a separation is another model applied in my country. That, too, stems from the notion of the right of the child to both its parents. In non-conflict separations that is the main rule on how to uphold parental responsibility for both parents, as well as for granting children their rights. Of course conflicts in separation occur even in Sweden, but in such cases the law strives to uphold the principles laid down in this report.

      There are a lot of good practices in many of our member countries, as well as in other parts of the world, on how to solve such conflicts, mainly through mediation. The report mentions the Cochem model, but there are others, and our parliament has looked a lot at the Norwegian Trondheim model. Those models gives necessary tools to courts and other official bodies to help parents solve their problems, so that they may find a way of upholding their joint responsibility for the child even after a separation.

      I thank you, President, for allowing me to speak. I urge my colleagues to vote in favour of this very important report.

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

      Ms GAMBARO (Italy)* – I am honoured to be able to speak on behalf of the ALDE group. I congratulate the rapporteur for having drawn the attention of the Assembly to a question that is so important for the family in the broader sense of the word.

      The draft resolution covers an important legal aspect. Over the past 12 years in many European countries we have seen a sequence of developing case law, presided over by judges, that has in essence moved towards shared responsibility after the failure of the marriage contract; the law had not taken much account of the psychological development of the offspring. The separation of goods under an old-fashioned separation of assets settlement has given way to a situation in which greater attention is given to the position of the child. We could not continue with the old-fashioned method. In a modern, progressive legal system, we have to pay greater attention to the welfare of the child, which means recognition of specific rights and duties, in particular for the father – in most cases the weak link in the failure of a marriage is the situation of the father.

      In qualitative and quantitative terms, we must look at both parental figures, the parents of both genders. In various States, legal systems have moved in that direction – greater emphasis on the interests of the child. Considerable progress has been made with the alternate approach to residence, which is shared residence and shared custody. This is an interesting principle: the equal and shared responsibility of both parents. The point of the draft resolution is to encourage member States – to push them – to have a unified approach to those modern mechanisms, which allow the child to develop its own personality in the best possible conditions, and to have shared responsibility in law.

      Supranational organisations should establish the best possible guidelines and the best model legal instruments to ensure that the psychological and physical health of children is the best possible, so allowing the child to develop in the best possible way. I am therefore in favour of the draft resolution and I again thank the rapporteur.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Gambaro. I now call Mr Davies, who will speak on behalf of the European Conservatives Group.

      Mr David DAVIES (United Kingdom) – Thank you, President. I hope that this is not your last term as a member of the Council of Europe and that you will be back here in another capacity, but if this is the last time that we see each other in this place, I very much wish you all the best and thank you for your help to me over the past few years.

      I thank you, Ms Françoise Hetto-Gaasch, for the report, which must have been difficult to do, because it must raise such sensitive issues and so many emotions among the people whom you were looking into, as I know from work that I have done in the past.

      Over the past few decades there have been huge changes in how we in Europe view issues such as gender equality. Anyone who looks at television programmes – sitcoms and so on – from 30 years ago on YouTube or something is astonished at the way in which the attitudes then expressed openly have now changed. It is quite instructive to do that from time to time.

      One area in which we have failed to catch up, however, is in awarding custody of children in the courts. All too often today, as was the case 10, 20 or 30 years ago, the temptation for the courts is to assume that children should always go with the mother. That is wrong on two levels. First, it is as much gender stereotyping as in the negative attitude towards women in the workplace common decades ago. Secondly, from a practical point of view, these days women are as likely to be out working as men are – so things are wrong from that point of view as well.

      I also think it is important to remember that children always benefit from having a mother and a father – a male and a female role model. Speaking personally, I think that that is particularly the case with boys, and I worry that some boys are growing up without a responsible male role model. In some cases – again, I do not want to generalise; this is a minority – that leads them to start following unsuitable male role models, which has all sorts of negative social consequences.

      The United Kingdom courts have started to recognise this, albeit rather slowly, but we are still hampered by a problem. Marriage break-up is a fact of life; it happens to many of us, and if we are lucky enough not to have been involved with it we will certainly know many people who are. When children are involved, the majority of people take the responsible view that they will put their children first. So what I say, I say about a minority. I do not want everyone to start e-mailing me as they have in the past saying that I have insulted them; I am not. There are a minority of people who behave in an irresponsible fashion when family break-ups take place. There are a minority – generally women, but not always – who, having been awarded custody of the children, with them visiting the father on certain days, will then try not to hand the children over to the father and almost keep them as a hostage, either in order to take some kind of revenge or for other motives.

      Equally, there are a minority of men – again, it may not always be men but often it is – who will try to avoid making the maintenance payments that they need to make on behalf of their children. There is a wider social problem, with some men – a minority, I am again quick to say – who take no responsibility at all for their children. There has been an unfortunate tendency in the United Kingdom to talk about single mothers, forgetting that for every single mother there is a single father, and in some instances it is them who we need to be looking at.

      These are minorities, albeit minorities that we have to look at. We accept that the majority of people are responsible. I welcome what you are doing as a step forward in tackling the behaviour of a small minority who do not behave responsibly with their children in divorce cases and in ensuring that at all times, if possible, we can do this without recourse to expensive courts and lawyers and get things done as informally and cheaply as possible through mediation, which is less likely to have a negative impact on the children who are at the heart of this.

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

      Mr JÓNASSON (Iceland) – I thank the rapporteur for a good and comprehensive report on parental responsibility, and on the role of fathers in particular. The rapporteur rightly reminds us that the well-being of the child should always be at the centre of such discussions, and emphasises in that context the right of the child to enjoy the contact and caring of both parents, father and mother alike.

      I strongly agree with the rapporteur that when disagreement arises between parents, mediation should be ensured. Only a court should be able to order parent-child separation and even then only in exceptional circumstances, most notably when there is a risk of abuse of some kind. Although we should recognise that parents have rights, these are by no means unconditional.

      Family mediation, when professionally carried out, has proved to be beneficial. What is suggested in this regard in the draft resolution is highly commendable. Here I refer to paragraph 5.9, where an amendment has been tabled that I am not convinced is better than the original text.

      Shared residence is encouraged in the report and the draft resolutions. This is of course in accordance with the spirit of our time, and increasingly it is the practice – that is, when everything is normal and the relationship between parents is on friendly or at least civilised terms. This development is certainly for the good.

      There are exceptions, though, and it is those exceptions that we must always bear in mind when we make changes in the law. Here I have some reservations – conservative reservations, some might say. But in a world dominated by male power, we should be careful not to diminish the rights of the mother, who, and here I am talking from my personal standpoint, has greater rights than the father when it comes to very young children. Reservations regarding shared residence are indeed made in the report and draft resolutions, and here I refer to paragraph 5.5.

      As far as the reservations made in this paragraph go, I am in agreement, but when it comes to mandatory shared residence and parental decision-making, difficulties may arise that should be recognised. Stefan Schennach referred to some of these in his intervention on behalf of the social affairs committee. The report talks not only about rights but about responsibilities, and I emphasise that when it comes to the rights of the father we should never forget that he also has responsibilities to shoulder. And this is recognised in the report and draft resolution - for example, in paragraph 5.12 relating to rights and responsibilities, when it is requested that member States introduce paid parental leave available to fathers, with preference being given to the model of non-transferable periods of leave. This has been the practice in Iceland for a period, with good results.

      The best thing about this report, for which I reiterate my thanks, is the way in which it strives to put the child, their rights and their will at the centre of things. My reservations I have already accounted for.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Ghiletchi on behalf of the EPP Group.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) –        On behalf of the EPP Group, I congratulate Ms Hetto-Gaasch on this report. There are not many reports about the role of fathers, and even fewer written by mothers. Tackling this issue is of great importance, especially for the well-being of the children. Thank you, Ms. Hetto-Gaasch, for writing a good report that is focused on the interests of the child.

      The report says that in Europe there are more than 10 million children whose parents are divorced. That is unbelievable – they would fill two and a half countries the size of Moldova. What a drama, if not a tragedy, for so many children. Divorce is a huge problem nowadays. Reading the report and talking to Ms Hetto-Gaasch, I came to the conclusion that as a follow-up to this report we must tackle the issue of divorce and look for ways to prevent it.

      Meanwhile, let us deal with one of the worse consequences of a divorce, which is the separation of the child from one of the parents, usually the father. To maintain links with both parents is very important. As the report shows, children living primarily with their mother are more likely to be stressed and depressed and are less balanced and unable to deal with conflicts. It is clear that for a parent and child to be together is an essential part of family life. I believe it is very important, as the rapporteur mentions, that only a court should be able to order separation and only in exceptional circumstances. However, to eliminate the separation imposed by the court is not enough; we must find ways to facilitate the link with both parents. One of the main solutions proposed is the principle of shared residence. I believe it is a good principle, but it will be very difficult to put it in practice.

      There is a need for new legislation that will take on board the principle of shared residence. There is also a need to develop mediation on child residence following a separation. Family-friendly policies are of great importance. There is no doubt that the best thing is to keep the family together, but when a family falls apart we need to do our best for the best interests of our children.

      Ms Hetto-Gaasch is inviting us to take a road full of challenges. It is not an easy road but, being convinced that both fathers and mothers must play a full role regarding their children from the time of birth until they become adults, I am willing to support the construction of a new road called “shared residence”. For a better and brighter future for those 10 million children, let us support this report and its draft resolution.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The rapporteur will reply at the end of the debate, but if she wishes she can respond now to the contributions from the political groups. Do you wish to say anything at this moment? No. The first speaker is Mr Cruchten.

      Mr CRUCHTEN (Luxembourg)* – Let me start by congratulating our colleague Ms Hetto-Gaasch on her excellent report and her presentation of it. The subject it covers is of great importance for many daddies who are deprived of their rights and their role and responsibilities vis-à-vis their children. What could be more cruel for a human being than to be separated from his children? It is also cruel, of course, for the children themselves, for whom it can be even worse.

      Unfortunately, changes in our society are having quite an impact on the situation of families – how they are composed and their daily lives. We can regret this, as Mr Ghiletchi has just done, but that is not sufficient. We must, first and foremost, adapt our laws to these new situations, and that is precisely what the report calls for. Today’s fathers – allow me to call them mothers and fathers – must not be deprived of being involved in the education of their children. They are not the same fathers as those of a century ago; they want to be present in the lives of their children. In the past, men often gave priority to their careers over their families, but that is no longer the case. The sub-title of the report – “the role of fathers” – may suggest something else, but in fact it puts children at the centre of things, and that is what we must take most into consideration when we adapt our laws to the new times.

      I am not going to go into the details of the report, as Ms Hetto-Gaasch has done that with conviction and brilliance, but I would like to draw your attention to a subject that was touched on only lightly – namely, the situation of mothers and fathers who live separated from one another in different countries with different legislation that is sometimes contradictory, resulting in a number of organisational and logistical problems.

      As a parliamentarian but also as a father personally affected by such situations, I would like our Assembly to delve into this subject a bit more deeply. On Sunday in my country, Luxembourg, and in many other European countries, we will be celebrating father’s day. How appropriate, then, that we are today adopting this report, which deserves the support of all and sundry. I wish all of you, and everyone in the world, a happy father’s day.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Rodríguez.

      Ms RODRÍGUEZ (Spain)* – I, too, congratulate the rapporteur on the excellent work that has resulted in this report. This is a very sensitive topic, and she has taken a broad approach, discussing things with organisations that have different views on shared residence arrangements. Obviously, the focus is to ensure that the child’s welfare is centre stage rather than the preferences of the parents. The child must always be involved in decisions affecting them.

      In the case of separation or divorce, clearly the best thing for the children is not to lose contact with their parents. Children need to be with both their parents. It is not the child who decides to separate from either parent. In the event of a family break-up, the most sensible thing is to seek solutions that will allow the child to spend as much time as possible with each of the parents. One might assume that before the break-up the man would spend 50% of his time looking after the child, but that is not usually the case in a viable relationship. In reality, the father is faced with devoting that much time to the child after the break-up of a relationship. You then have to recognise the situation of mothers, too, who often have to sacrifice some of their career prospects in order to give appropriate care and attention to the child. I would wish a 50:50 share to happen, but often it does not. If it were the norm that we had proper shared parental responsibility before a marriage break-up, then it would not be such a shock to the fathers afterwards. Basically, the parents have a huge commitment to doing the best possible for their children. Certainly, there are situations where it is not possible to have shared residence arrangements – I recognise that. For instance, it is not possible where there is domestic, gender-based violence. If the father is physically violent, they can never be a good father. In Spain, there have been instances where fathers who enjoyed access to their children decided to kill them in order to hurt the mother.

      The approach taken in the report is balanced and appropriate. Shared residence arrangements, where possible, are beneficial to the child, and we would seek to achieve this through mediation that is beneficial to both parents.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Thiéry.

      Mr THIÉRY (Belgium)* – In my turn, I thank Ms Retto-Gaasch for this excellent report. We had an extremely interesting debate in the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination. The strength of the debate was that it was very open and constructive. The position of the previous speaker was very clear as she defended a number of ideas that have been accepted in the report. We have made a step forward with regard to parental responsibility. The work that we do in this body does not always have the outcome that it should, but thanks to that work, progress will be made.

      We want to upgrade the notion of family mediation and to guarantee the effective rights of the parents whatever the family situation. While the two parents have rights, they also have a certain number of duties and responsibilities to their children. One responsibility is to provide education, which is all too often set aside, sometimes leading to school drop-out and children being marginalised, or even to delinquent behaviour. We need to find solutions that will place the child at the centre of everyone’s interests. Indeed, the parents’ own interests should be taken into consideration.

      In this debate, there should be three points – the mother, the father and the child. If something is done through the services of an intermediary, perhaps that should be taken into consideration when we are thinking about the notion of shared custody or shared residence with both parents in turn. Perhaps we should sometimes ask for the revision of arrangements that directly concern them. The fact that they can have their say is crucial and can be justified, as we have just been reminded, when the parents no longer live together, and particularly, when they no longer live on the same continent. We see that daily when children of school age change their school and move away from their old school, and it should be done with the agreement of the three parties concerned.

      Thanks to all the progress being made, we can move ahead, and I call on all colleagues to support the draft resolution.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Christoffersen.

      Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – This report on shared parental responsibility is mostly about shared custody and residence after matrimonial break-ups. That is an important question, not least for the children. If mum and dad cannot agree, the children become the real victims. It is not their divorce and they should not be kept away from either of their parents. It is not fair to add stones to the burden that they already carry.

      Mediation is mentioned as a possible solution for such situations, and I agree with that. In Norway, mediation is obligatory by law when parents split up, whether there is conflict between them or not, just to be sure that the best interests of the children are taken care of. The best thing that the authorities can do, however, is to try and prevent parental conflicts by facilitating a family life that treats mothers and fathers equally in the upbringing of the children. One way of doing that is through introducing non-transferable mummy and daddy quotas into the system of parental leave. In Norway, we have had that system since 1993 – not without political discussion, though. The conservatives have opposed the non-transferable daddy quota from the very beginning.

      In 2013, the daddy quota was expanded to 14 weeks. At the same time, the whole parental leave was organised into three parts: two non-transferable quotas for mum and dad respectively and a common period for sharing as they wish. They can choose 49 weeks with 100% wage compensation or 59 weeks with 80%. Unfortunately, our conservative government last year reduced the daddy quota from 14 to 10 weeks, but the basics of the system still stand.

      Has the system worked as intended? Actually, the figures are convincing. Before the introduction of a non-transferable daddy quota in 1993, only 3% of all fathers made use of their right to parental leave. Only two years later, 60% of all fathers took advantage of that right, and today, the rate is 90%. There is no doubt that fathers today play a much greater part in the upbringing of their children. That is undoubtedly for the benefit of the father, the mother and the children. In the event of a break-up of the parents, the basis for agreement on shared custody and residence is much better. If it should still come to conflict between the parents, the father’s position is much stronger, which is good for the children. An additional positive side effect of fathers taking greater responsibility at home is that that promotes gender equality, both inside the family and in working life. That is also good for productivity and economic growth – but that is another story.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Bonet Perot.

      Ms BONET PEROT (Andorra)* – I begin by thanking the rapporteur for the excellent work done in this report. I also pay tribute to the contributions made by Mr Schennach, the rapporteur for opinion.

      In cases of domestic violence, shared residence arrangements are not possible when the welfare of the children cannot be guaranteed. Often, in acrimonious break-ups, the parents will repeatedly use their children to get at each other, and I am very much in favour of bringing in and boosting mediation for couples. Shared custody and shared residential arrangements need a high level of communication between the two parents, and that should be done in the interests of their children. The children’s well-being should be taken into account during a relationship, during a marriage and also afterwards.

      We hear a lot about equality, but that will never happen unless we see men stepping up to the plate and playing their part in marital relationships. I am the daughter of a father who did look after us well, but we have to ensure that both fathers and mothers give due priority to the needs of their child. We have heard about paternity leave today. When it comes to parental leave, we know that mothers physiologically deserve maternity leave. Paternity leave, unfortunately, is not particularly prominent in Spain. Men tend to want to continue to work rather than take advantage of paternity leave. Should it not be common for men to take time out when their children are small, and to take them to school and pick them up at the school gates? We need fathers and mothers to show the same level of attention to their children during a relationship. If that happens, shared arrangements will be more natural in the event of a break-up. It is possible to have improvements to promote shared responsibility, but it will be difficult. We need to stress the need for mediation when there is acrimony between the two parties in a break-up, and without it, there can be great psychological trauma.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Kiral.

      Mr KIRAL (Ukraine) – In my speech, I want to draw the Assembly’s attention to families, which should be given a greater focus in order to prevent family break-up. Our families are irreplaceable and vital in securing the strength and stability of our countries. The family is a forging rod that preserves and keeps together our societies. The situation is critical, as Mr Ghiletchi suggested, when he spoke about the 10 million children whose parents are divorced.

      Ukraine, for example, is very much a traditional, family-centred society that makes sure both parents share equal responsibility for upbringing of a child. This is written in law: articles 141 and 157 to 161 of the family code state that if one of the parents lives separately from a child, they are obliged to participate in a child’s development and have a guaranteed right to private communication with the child.

       Ukraine has a State programme running until 2016, based on which a presidential decree has been drafted to celebrate a “day of the father” in Ukraine, which is in accordance with the traditions of other member States of the Council of Europe. The health of the family should be protected and made the focus of public services and policies, through the promotion of family values and a focus on the advantages and strengths that brings to children, giving them a chance to develop in harmony with society and make better citizens, fully integrated into society. I could not agree more that parents certainly have rights, but foremost they have duties and responsibilities towards their children.

      We put nasty but realistic pictures on packs of cigarettes, as a warning about how our choices can ruin our bodies. We should introduce information campaigns and mandatory mediation and psychological sessions, to make sure that we do all we can to preserve families and protect the rights of children. Even before they are thinking of becoming parents, couples should be fully aware of the consequences of a failure to preserve family life and, thus, the secure upbringing of a child.

      I believe that what families can teach us, which cannot be learned in other environments, is how to build, sustain and manage relationships. In love, in friendship and in our professional and political lives, the success of our relationships stems from the lessons we learned by watching our parents’ relationship in a family setting. When a politician goes crazy and starts doing stupid things, you may be almost 100% sure that he was deprived of a balanced and harmonised family life in his childhood. I think that you all know who I mean.

      The report basically suggests means and tools to try to mend a situation that is already broken. I agree with many of them, and particularly appreciate the vast arsenal of lessons learned from different cultures and societies. But it would not be right to impose any of them as a general rule, as specifics of a region and ethnic group, and cultural and even religious traditions should be taken into account, as the report also mentions.

      I commend the rapporteur on selecting this subject, but the report deals only with the consequences of the failure of public and non-governmental authorities to do their best to preserve the family in our society, and their failure to prevent the abuse of the rights of a child, which, as stated in the report, must take precedence over the rights of parents to shared residence.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Nissinen.

      Mr NISSINEN (Sweden) – I congratulate our rapporteur, Ms Hetto-Gaasch, on her excellent report – a report that was, by the way, drawn up and discussed in a very constructive atmosphere in our Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination.

      The report deals with a subject of the greatest importance for the future of our societies, which is how happy and harmonious our children will turn out to be. The rapporteur argues that both parents need to be actively involved from the very beginning in the child’s care and upbringing, and she stresses the often underestimated role of the father, not at the expense of the mother but by her side. What better period indeed could there be than the first few months and years of a child’s life to lay the foundations for its future happiness and inner harmony – a time when its pristine and wide-open mind is frantically absorbing all the impressions bombarding it, and above all, the love, care and protection it can find? Life-long emotional bonds, the basis for a child’s whole future emotional and intellectual universe, are formed during this crucial time.

      Fortunately, our societies are waking up to this truth, and most now permit at least a minimum of remunerated time off work for both parents. My own country, Sweden, permits a total of 16 months, and we are now debating whether that should be shared among the parents as they see fit – as is the preference of my own party, the Sweden Democrats – or whether it should be so many months for the mother and so many for the father.

      The report goes on to stress that shared parental responsibility must continue beyond early childhood, up to and including the child’s adolescence, and even, should the worst happen, in the event of a divorce. Ms Hetto-Gaasch specifically refers to the highly successful Cochem model, whereby parents are encouraged to meet regularly after a divorce in a conciliatory spirit, in order to ensure their child’s best interests.

      I have not yet reached the stage of fatherhood, but I hope to, some day. I may not keep the report by Ms Hetto-Gaasch and our committee under my marital pillow, the way Alexander the Great is said to have kept his copy of Homer’s “Iliad” under his pillow during his conquest of foreign lands, but I will certainly keep it close by and return to it for precious guidance whenever parental duties call. In the meantime, I can only commend this very thoughtful and exhaustive report and draft resolution to our Assembly for adoption.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Jakavonis.

      Mr JAKAVONIS (Lithuania)* – I thank our rapporteur for her excellent work. The subject is very topical and we certainly need such reports because when we talk about the family we are really basing what we do on Christian values. I take this opportunity to share with you some information about the situation of our families in Lithuania. It is difficult for me do so because my wife is in charge of the service that guarantees the rights of children.

      Lithuanian law guarantees the rights of mothers and fathers to educate their children, and gives no priority to either sex. We have also enshrined the principle that the best interests of the child will govern all decisions. Neither parent has more rights, or responsibilities, than the other when a couple falls apart, irrespective of whether the child is born into a marriage or outside of marriage and thus whether there is a divorce or just a separation. The basic rights guaranteed by our laws are that parents living separately can both participate in the education of the child, and those rights can be restricted only if there is a sound basis for doing so. There have been individual cases in Lithuania in which mothers felt that they could forbid their children from being in touch with the father; those cases have gone to court, and the courts have intervened. The principle of the best interests of the child is enshrined in legislation.

      THE PRESIDENT – As Ms Al-Astal from Palestine, Partner for Democracy, is not here, that concludes the list of speakers. I call Ms Hetto-Gaasch, the rapporteur, to reply to the debate. You have seven minutes.

      Ms HETTO-GAASCH (Luxembourg)* – Thank you all very much for having participated in this debate. It is a subject that gives rise to passionate responses and affects us a great deal. As Mr Ghiletchi said, some 10 million children in Europe are the issue of divorced couples. I am sure that we all know families who have experienced that, or people who have gone through a painful separation or acrimonious divorce, and we know that the feelings involved are very painful for the children. The report and resolution will, I hope, make it possible to open ways of thinking about balanced co-responsibility in the interests of the child.

      I would like to respond to some of the comments made by speakers in this debate, starting with Mr Jónasson. Alternating residence, or shared residence between parents, must of course take the age of the child into consideration. Arrangements could perhaps be revised over time, but for a very young child, regular contact with the father is very important in order for a true bond to be established. It is up to the parents to work out a parental plan together to help build the future of the child.

      Mr Cruchten spoke about couples of different nationalities. We must find a joint solution by harmonising existing legislation in all our countries, which I think will be a real challenge for the committees working here in the Council of Europe. I say to Ms Rodríguez that shared residence or alternate residence does not necessarily mean that the child must spend 50% of the time with the mother and 50% with the father; parents need to come to an agreement in the interests of the child. Mediation should lead the parents to a shared solution. You mentioned domestic violence. I remind you of paragraph 5.5 of the resolution, which says that situations involving domestic violence and child neglect are unsuitable for shared residence.

      I do not know where Mr Thiéry is sitting now – I have lost sight of him – but he was saying, along the same lines as Mr Ghiletchi, that we need to avoid family breakdown and divorces, which are very painful for families. We have a 54% divorce rate in Luxembourg. Of course we must support families. Backup and support from specialised services is needed to protect couples and prevent family breakup. That is a challenge for the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee.

      Mr Nissinen, you said how important it is for the father to have a role as soon as a child is born, in order to establish a strong bond. Of course, that role does not disappear after divorce, and it must always be taken into consideration. I am sure, Mr Nissinen, that you would be a very good father.

      Colleagues, I hope with all my heart that all the suggestions made in the report will lead member States to consider introducing shared residence, as we have called it, to ensure that the separation of parents is less painful for the children. We should encourage parents who are separating or divorcing to set up a parental plan for shared and fair responsibility for any children in order to support them in their emotional and psychological development. That should be done in the interests not of the parents but of the children, who should be involved in all decisions taken that concern them.

The measures proposed in the resolution are also aimed at promoting equality between women and men in parental co-responsibility. To quote Gérard Poussin, in order to have equality of relationships, you need to have relationships. That requires a certain amount of time spent together. If parent and child do not spend time together, it is not possible to establish an attachment process. You cannot replace or create the father’s role if it is impossible for the father and child to establish a bond.

Colleagues, thank you very much for your interest. I thank Elise Cornu, head of the secretariat, and the committee for their valuable support.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Ms Bilgehan, as chair of the committee, you may speak for up to two minutes if you wish.

      Ms BİLGEHAN (Turkey)* – Dear colleagues, on the question of shared parental responsibility, we have been considering the family unit, which is the bedrock of our society. I thank the rapporteur, Ms Hetto-Gaasch, for the breadth of her work and for having drawn our attention to a subject that is often overlooked. I also thank Mr Schennach, who has given us his own personal experience, which is an example of good practice.

In recent decades, the family has evolved and changed in terms of household structure and the fairer sharing of tasks between parents, but of course we do not yet have 50:50 equality. Parents often disagree about what should happen to the children when they break up, and sometimes fathers are subject to stereotyping that can affect their relationship with their children. How can we ensure that fathers maintain contact with their children after separation? If there is no regular contact, that is particularly difficult. We must allow the child to spend time living with each parent through shared residence arrangements, but it must be implemented sensitively and should never be an automatic response. It must be decided on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the needs of the child.

The draft resolution was adopted unanimously by our committee at the beginning of September. I call on you as members of this Assembly, which stands up for human rights, to support the rights in it and how they translate into the family. I commend the report and the draft resolution to you.

      THE PRESIDENT – The debate is closed.

      The committee has presented a draft resolution to which two amendments have been tabled.

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

      Is that so, Ms Bilgehan?

      Ms BİLGEHAN (Turkey) – Yes.

      THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone object?

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

      Amendments 1 and 2 are adopted.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13870, as amended. A simple majority is required.

      The vote is open.

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

2. Rethinking the anti-doping strategy

      THE PRESIDENT – The next item of business is the debate on the report, “Rethinking the anti-doping strategy”, Document 13852, presented by Mr Schneider on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media.

      The rapporteur has 13 minutes’ speaking time in total, which he may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.

      Mr SCHNEIDER (France)* – I am delighted to present my report with you in the Chair, Madam President, because we worked together on it. I hope that I will not disappoint you, because you had a lot of input into it.

      Within the framework of the Council of Europe’s action in the field of sport, doping was always its primary concern. The Council of Europe’s Anti-doping Convention was opened for signature in November 1989 and entered into force on 1 March 1990. All member States of the Council of Europe ratified the convention, and four non-member States have acceded to it.

      UNESCO’s International Convention against Doping in Sport, which came into force in February 2007, sets up an international legal framework that makes it possible for governments to deal with certain aspects of the problem of doping that cannot be dealt with by the sporting movement. Furthermore, since 1999 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has co-ordinated and monitored the combating of doping, inter alia through its world anti-doping code, the most recently revised version of which entered into force in January 2015. It offers a harmonised framework for the anti-doping practices and standards of public authorities and sporting organisations. The code promotes co-operation and the sharing of information among all stakeholders and establishes four anti-doping agencies with the obligation to strengthen their investigation mechanisms.

      The standard-setting arsenal of national laws contributes to the strengthening of the system put in place at the international level with legal provisions making it possible to punish the production and sale of doping substances and the organisation of a system of anti-doping and the taking of illicit substances by athletes. One can add standards as well as control and sanction mechanisms adopted by sporting organisations to combat doping.

      Much progress has been made, so why do we have a new report? Despite all our efforts and our achievements, the scourge of doping is still with us. It continues to constitute a very serious threat to sporting ethics, to sport and to society. It does not affect only professional sportsmen. Far from the spotlight of the media, doping broadly affects amateur sport, so it affects thousands of young people. I am very concerned about the serious threat to sporting ethics and the major risk that doping represents for public health.

      The public have some knowledge of the risks of cardiovascular disease from doping, but there are far more dangers: the development of cancers; disorders of the immune system and of the endocrine system; metabolism problems; mental and psychiatric disorders; and many more. Doping affects not only the quality of life but life expectancy, as the abnormal frequency of cases of so-called non-traumatic sudden death among sportsmen tragically confirms.

      The development of the phenomenon of doping among minors is extremely disquieting: about 1.5% of girls and about 3.7% of boys have used or are using doping substances. The consumption of doping substances sometimes starts at a very young age – between 9 and 13 – and tends to increase with age. In school environments, 4% of young sportsmen have been tempted to use doping and are sometimes encouraged to do so by adults, in whom they put their trust. They end up believing that it is not possible to succeed in sport without some pharmaceutical support.

      It must be understood that the phenomenon of doping also has a psychological foundation. In the context of self-medication and the use of dietary substances, energy drinks or other products of rather dubious composition, this can result in the taking of substances that seek artificially to improve sporting performance. Young sportsmen may be encouraged to consume these products by mendacious advertising that exaggerates the beneficial effects. That is so prevalent that in August 2013 Mr Michel Marle, president of the doping prevention committee of the French athletics federation, declared to Le Monde that dietary supplements amount to generalised societal doping. We are far from having won the war against doping, even if scientific progress has improved detection methods, but the new science has also made it possible to develop new doping substances that are virtually undetectable, at least for the time being.

      In my report, I have sought, with numerous experts, to identify several avenues for action that our States could usefully explore. We must start by reviewing our strategies to combat doping in order to implement various actions in a concerted manner that are mutually supplementing and reinforcing. I shall not mention all of them, but let me stress a few aspects. We must ensure the maximum co-operation among the various agencies of the State and with other stakeholders and partners. In this regard I am thinking of the reinforcement of police co-operation and the development of more synergies between the world of sport and public authorities.

      I thank all the experts for their participation, and the committee’s secretariat, especially Mr Fasino and the Chair of the committee for the trust they put in me. All the experts agreed that it is important to work together to become more effective. That applies to the system of controlled detection, prosecution and sanction of violations of the standards of doping. There must be stronger co-operation with associations in the field and sports educators. For example, I propose that we develop certification of sports venues and the dissemination of codes of conduct that exclude not only marketing but any form of encouragement.

      We need to strengthen our intelligence capacity. We must have a real information gathering service against doping at the national level. Perhaps that is excessively ambitious, but I believe that it is possible through better co-operation of the various entities of State that are involved in combating doping to promote exchange of information with police authorities and national anti-doping organisations. That would make it possible to act more effectively against the criminal groups that are often behind the production and distribution of doping products. Exchange of information at the international level could improve the combating of trafficking in doping substances. In that respect, we have to take data protection into consideration. That is a question of trust, which can only be built up with time, but if we work together, we can achieve that.

      A third strategic element would be a double-barrelled approach consisting of the training of health care professionals who work directly with sportsmen and the establishment of regional or local bodies with staff trained to combat doping. Such bodies would have the mission of awareness-raising and training doctors and other professionals. Strengthening our preventive actions vis-à-vis amateur and semi-professional young sportsmen is indispensable. States should have national doping prevention programmes and develop a partnership between their national education systems and sporting organisations. With public authorities and schools, they should also be committed to raising young people’s awareness of the risk of doping and to helping develop a culture of sport based on respect for the values and ethics of sport, and not on the idea of winning at any cost.

      I encourage you to read the report, which contains many other ideas. Let us not forget that what is at stake is not just the ethical values of sport but public health, and particularly the health of our children. I urge you to support my proposals and call upon you to become convinced militants fighting our cause in your respective parliaments.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Schneider. You deserved applause for that presentation. I know this is a subject dear to your heart, as it is to mine. It is important for all of us. We need to combat doping together because it destroys the health of sportsmen. To save the health and lives of sportsmen, and to save sport, we need to combat doping with all the means available to us.

      I call Mr Reiss to speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Mr REISS (France)* – I congratulate the rapporteur on his excellent report on a real problem in public health. It is not just elite sport that suffers from doping. Alas, this scourge also affects amateur sport. It is not just high-level cyclists. I support the proposal to develop a strategy for preventive action in respect of young amateurs and professionals to combat doping. While the global anti-doping strategy may say that support staff cannot use forbidden products, that does not lay enough stress on doping among young sportsmen.

      Targeted action should be compulsory in all our countries. The French Ministry of Sport has a plan for 2015-17 to carry out greater awareness campaigns, both for elite sportsmen and for leisure sporting enthusiasts. That should be compulsory not only in schools but in training centres, as the rapporteur suggests. Teachers, school nurses and also general practitioners and pharmacists should be made to play a responsible role in combating doping. In France, the Institut national de prévention et d’éducation pour la santé published a pamphlet entitled “To dope or not to dope?” That is important because we must face up to this phenomenon. It makes the point that even if your friends or your nearest and dearest are encouraging you to dope, it is the sportsman himself alone who is responsible for what shows up in his urine.

      We must look at the problem of awareness of doping. In France, we have a Freephone number, but it is not much used. We need a proper strategy, co-ordinated between the ministries concerned and the sporting federations. Prevention in relation to tobacco and alcohol abuse is undertaken at school, but arrangements are more haphazard for doping. More than 5% of French schoolchildren say that they have encountered such substances. Some are aware of the rules but they also know that it is easy to obtain banned substances, either in other countries or on the Internet. The widespread use of energy drinks is not only a health risk but represents a potential move towards addictive doping behaviours. This aspect is not generally covered in preventive programmes.

      Some States lack the necessary will and, far from playing the game, have made sport into a game that must be won at any cost. We are very far away from Pierre de Coubertin, who said that it was more important to participate than to win. We need to combat doping across the world. As Martin Luther King said, those who accept evil without fighting against it are co-operating with it.

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

      Mr JORDANA MADERO (Andorra) – I congratulate Mr Schneider on his excellent report, but some points deserve greater emphasis. He rightly talked about healthy sport at both elite athlete and amateur level. I engage in amateur sports and I am aware of very odd things happening around me. People attach great importance to record breakers and sports heroes, such as Marco Pantani, an idol for many Italians, Richard Virenque of France and, above all, Lance Armstrong. He created an iconic image of himself worth millions of dollars, claiming that he could overcome all sorts of setbacks through sheer will power, but that was not the case. My group will certainly support the report.

      THE PRESIDENT – I call Mr David Davies on behalf of the European Conservatives Group.

      Mr David DAVIES (United Kingdom) – I also welcome this report. I have taken part in sport almost every day since I was 15. Sport is incredibly important to me, and it is an important part of my life. I was president of an amateur sporting body in Wales for several years, so I feel this subject emotionally.

      The rapporteur has rightly drawn attention to the fact that doping is at least as widespread in amateur sport as it is in professional sport. I might go further and say that it is perhaps even more widespread, depending on how widely we define the word “doping.” A certain amount of money floats around at the professional level, which allows governing bodies to establish mechanisms for finding out whether people have been taking banned substances, but that does not always exist at amateur level. Somebody talked earlier about putting more money into anti-doping strategies at amateur level but, even in my wealthy European Union country, there is hardly any money at the amateur level of some sports, so I am not sure how we will do that. It is not only people competing at amateur level who are taking these substances. People who are not interested in competition at all are also taking such substances.

      Let us draw a big line between legal and illegal substances. We all know of people who go into a gym built like a scarecrow and then, six months later, look like Arnold Schwarzenegger because of steroid use. They are taking illegal substances bought off the web or, sometimes, in the gym, which should be fairly easy to control. We try to enforce the law and, frankly, it is not all that effective, but we can at least try. The problem, particularly at amateur level, is with substances that are not banned. Some substances may have a dual use. Ventolin, for example, is used by asthmatics, but it can also be used to open up airways and boost performance—that use is well known and is banned. Caffeine was banned in sport until 2004. There are other dual-use substances, such as cough medicines. Marathon runners sometimes take painkillers to get them through. Is that doping? Presumably, it is.

      I am 45 years old, and I still train. I do not drink or smoke, and I am obsessed with sport, but I was even more obsessed as a 20-year-old. I took substances that were then perfectly legal—I have been a police officer, and I would never buy an illegal substance—and would come under the broad category of doping. I have taken: ephedrine, which was legal in the 1990s; creatine; protein drinks, which are now ubiquitous in the sporting world; and energy drinks. I bought all of them over the counter in health food shops.

      I have talked to people who want to get on in sport. People competing in sports such as boxing know that the other person will be doping and, frankly, it is not enough to participate—they really want to win. These are not people who are going to the pub every night. They do not go nightclubbing, smoke cigarettes or take illegal drugs because they are completely dedicated to improving their sporting abilities. I have been that person. How would you tell the 25-year-old me that I should not take an energy drink, a creatine supplement or something else if it is legal? In a nutshell, I do not think you could. I would not have listened because I would not have wanted to know. I would not have taken that advice because I wanted to succeed, and I considered it perfectly reasonable to buy legal substances that could help me improve. That is a problem that I will not be able to answer in one second.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Johnsson Fornarve, who speaks on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Ms JOHNSSON FORNARVE (Sweden) – I thank the rapporteur, Mr André Schneider, for an excellent report on rethinking the anti-doping strategy. Doping has long been prohibited in sports for very good reasons. The arguments can be summarised in four points. First, doping is cheating. Honesty and fair play are the nature of sports. It is pointless to compete if not everyone is following the same common rules. Secondly, doping is dangerous for medical reasons. Thirdly, doping will damage the credibility of sports. Finally, doping might be illegal.

      Despite all that, doping is still taking place and new cases are revealed even at the highest level, which is deeply regrettable and should not be happening. Professional athletes are role models for young people who are active in sport, and they must therefore set a good example, otherwise young people might believe that it is acceptable to take drugs. It is therefore a priority to increase prevention work, especially for children and young people, and it can be done in different ways. We can inform young people through schools and in other contexts. That work must be done in co-operation with sporting organisations at local, regional and national level, gyms, the police and communities.

      It is necessary to have a national co-ordinator for anti-doping work. The anti-doping programme within the Swedish sports movement is led and co-ordinated by the Swedish Sports Confederation and its anti-doping commission. All 70 of its affiliates have adopted their own anti-doping strategies. We must carry out a large number of tests if we want to solve the problems with doping. Those tests must be done without warning and must happen at all levels, rather than just at elite level. It is therefore necessary to train more doping officials, and it is crucial to conduct more research and to develop working methods to increase knowledge of doping.

      It is essential to co-operate at international level on doping. The World Anti-Doping Agency has been co-ordinating international anti-doping work since 1999. Today, WADA has representatives from across the world of sport, and it is important to strengthen its work. We must continue to work until we have achieved our goal of a world of sport without doping in which athletes can compete in the context of fair play.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Gross, who speaks on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Mr GROSS (Switzerland)* – I thank Mr Schneider on behalf of the Socialist Group. I am grateful for this report, which sets out our options for acting to prevent doping. Paragraph 3 says that we need new approaches and that we must expand our views. In paragraphs 2 and 3 we can see that sport has degenerated. Many people think that they must not lose at any cost—they oversubscribe to the importance of winning everything. Sport is becoming a business. The whole point of sport is to win if you can, but the total obsession of people who feel that they cannot be allowed to lose is a degeneration of the ethos of sport.

      Paragraph 11 refers to the experts’ report and states that experts have detected a doping culture. People are being seduced by doping as a way of life. Sport is just an expression of society, because many people are under such pressure to perform at all costs that they think they can only do it with artificial stimulants and assistance. Society has completely forgotten that we need to accept our bodies as they are, rather than assuming that people should be pushed beyond their natural boundaries.

      The Rolling Stones sang “Mother’s Little Helper” in the 1960s, and now we find that people are under such pressure at work that they can only survive by having recourse to chemical substances. If sports people face the same thing, it is because sports are the tip of an iceberg that affects society as a whole. Seen in that context, we can see how early we need to step in if we are to prevent such things. We must encourage people to accept the limits of their own bodies and not to push themselves using artificial substances. We are talking not just about the health of sports people, but about public health. We must look for new ways to prevent this problem.

The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Gross. Do you wish to reply at this stage, Mr Schneider? No. In that case, I call Ms Christoffersen.

Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – I thank the rapporteur, Mr Schneider, for this important report.

Despite all the efforts, doping is still a major problem in sports in every country. Usually, we hear about doping scandals among athletes at the highest level, nationally and internationally. We often associate doping with individual sports, but gradually we have realised that doping exists in large team sports such as football, handball, skiing and hockey.

We associate athletes with a range of values and ethical standards such as fair play, being healthy role models and carrying out impressive achievements. They are national heroes. They have given us some of our greatest experiences, as well as huge disappointments. Every time one or more of these heroes is revealed as a cheat, we lose a little more of our admiration for and faith in all of them.

That is bad enough, but as the report clearly underlines, the consequences of doping go far further. It represents a major threat to public health because of its contagion to the wider group of young athletes with hopes and dreams of standing on top of the podium.

The undermining of sports ethics is a threat to democracy itself. In my country of Norway, the sports organisation was the very first democratic mass movement, founded in 1861, and was based mainly on volunteering by thousands of people. That is still the case, even in branches of sport where business and big money play a major role. Every sporting event – local, national and international – depends on large numbers of volunteers and board members. The same goes for the daily operation of local sports clubs, which are a prerequisite for participation in sport at all levels.

Norway is a small country with just 5 million inhabitants. Nevertheless, our Confederation of Sports consists of more than 2 million memberships and 12 000 sports clubs. It is the largest child and youth organisation in Norway and, as such, is an important arena for integration and inclusion in society. Due to the migrant crisis, for instance, the confederation has allocated resources to the organisation of activities for new migrants in local sports clubs.

More than 80% of all children and young people attend sports during adolescence. That fact, combined with the values of sports, makes the sports movement an important partner for authorities at all levels. One example is the implementation of a recent decision to introduce one hour of daily physical activity in schools. Another is the United Nations’ decision to include organised sports in the new sustainable development goals. If doping undermines public trust, such activities could be at risk.

Anti-Doping Norway is doing a good job of preventing and uncovering the scourge of doping, as the rapporteur so aptly put it, but obviously more needs to be done. As a board member in my regional confederation, I will put this report on the agenda of the upcoming board meeting to ensure that we discuss how we can make the good attitude against doping that we have at a local level even better.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Christoffersen. I call Mr Nissinen.

      Mr NISSINEN (Sweden) – The report before us is of a very high quality. It reflects the great knowledge of our rapporteur, Mr Schneider, and his commitment to fighting the scourge of doping in sport. If all the valuable measures that the report calls for are realised, from more countries signing up to international conventions to new legislation and better detection of doping, it will take us much of the way towards mastering the problem.

There is one aspect that I would like to underline – something that we have not learned from our bitter experience in the fight against narcotics. It is not enough to reduce the supply of drugs; we also have to reduce demand by persuading athletes and the general population who are engaged in sport never to start using performance-enhancing substances. We therefore have to change our whole approach to the mission and role of sports in life.

The ancient Greeks, who brought us so many sporting disciplines that are still practised today, saw sport as essential for the entire person – mind and body – in reaching maturity and wisdom. We use the word “gymnasium” to mean a secondary school. In the Athens of Socrates and Plato, a gymnasium was a sports centre where young people practised different disciplines and then went on to the next room, where they were taught philosophy, logic and rhetoric. The well-known expression “a sound mind in a sound body” was coined in the 5th century B.C. by the Greek philosopher Thales, who argued that there were close links between physical exercise, mental harmony and the ability to enjoy life.

One of the most serious offences of doping is that it destroys all that, quite apart from its likely health consequences. For he who competes when doped will always be haunted by uncertainty about whether he won on his own or whether the drug won it for him. He will always know that he placed others at an unfair disadvantage. It will gnaw at him. Cyclist Lance Armstrong’s pained confession to having practised doping at many Tours de France and other races bore witness to the agony he must have gone through before deciding to come clean.

Perhaps our societies are also partly at fault. Perhaps we all need to become less materialistic, less obsessed with profit in sport, less narcissistic, less fascinated with personal success and fame. Perhaps we need to pay more attention to higher ethical and spiritual values. Perhaps we should compete more alongside each other, rather than against each other. And perhaps we should recall the words of someone who truly felt this – the Frenchman Pierre de Coubertin, the founder of the modern Olympics, who said: “The important thing in life is not triumph, but struggle. The essential thing is not to have conquered, but to have fought well.” In other words, we should be humble in victory and gracious in defeat. It is about “fair play” – that very British term that has spread across the world. An awareness campaign in our schools, media and sports arenas could lead to a more relaxed and balanced attitude to sports and pull the rug from under the present doping rage.

Madame President, dear colleagues, if you want to see a good illustration of what I have been trying to say, all you have to do is go out through the main entrance of this Palace and on to the big lawn in front. I would ask you to stop for a few minutes and contemplate the copy of the ancient Greek statue called “The Javelin Thrower”, which was a gift to the Council of Europe from the Greek people. Here you will see the understanding of sport in ancient Greece as I described it. It is all there: the harmony in the athlete’s body proportions; the calm and composure in his posture and face. He is ready to throw his javelin, win or lose. Here, there is no need, no place for doping.

I thank you all for your attention and the rapporteur for his excellent report.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Kiral.

      Mr KIRAL (Ukraine) – The world has changed since the end of the Second World War, with advances in technology, greater mobility and growing competition inside our societies putting a lot of pressure on individuals. By nature, we are vulnerable and keen on achieving success in our professional careers – we simply want to be better than others. As human beings, however, we have our limitations, both physical and mental. There is a wise saying, almost a prayer: “God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, The courage to change the things I can, And the wisdom to know the difference.” Our efforts as politicians should probably be concentrated on helping those who do not have that wisdom, whether on the side of supply or demand, and so to grasp that difference in the end, or to accept their responsibility in some way.

      In considering the responsibility of the pharmaceutical industry in this debate, we may draw parallels with another report from earlier in the part-session, on the issue of that industry’s responsibility for the good of public health. The draft resolution refers to a need to ratify the Council of Europe Convention on the counterfeiting of medical products and similar crimes involving threats to public health, but more action is needed, and can be taken by imposing bans on the production and circulation of some products and placing restrictions on their marketing, advertising and distribution.

      Another responsibility to consider is that of the parents, which implies the need to enhance parents’ capacity to deliver any necessary message in a proper form and format, so that it is not rejected automatically by their children, as is often the case given the spirit of rebellion typical at certain ages and the conflict between generations.

      Sports federations have a responsibility as well. They should be obliged to spend part of their budgets on information campaigns. Indeed, their role is largely underestimated. Nevertheless, in many countries they are extremely rich and spend money on excessive luxury items, instead of proper care for the sports people who contribute enormously to their success.

      There is the responsibility of various stakeholders who do not know the difference between what can and cannot be done. That must be explicit, stated in clear terms and fully enforced through legal and other mechanisms in all our member States.

      Other measures listed in the report, however, I have a problem agreeing with, such as the certification of sports facilities. Those measures are unlikely to address the issue or contribute to a solution of the problem, and they might even counteract other important measures and areas in need of attention mentioned in the report. For example, a negative impact on the promotion of sports might be a reduction in the number of business people willing to take on a project if some countries introduced tough certification criteria. In any case, those criteria would often not be applied anyway, and might only cause further corruption.

      I congratulate the rapporteur on his report, which is of close interest to my country. In recent years we have witnessed a number of cases involving sportsmen who have died, including from a famous football team. I hope that the measures recommended in the report will empower countries to make necessary changes to their policies and legislation for the good of the sportspeople.

      I still have 10 seconds available, so I ask you to sign my motion on freedom of movement, which I will circulate, in the hall after the Assembly rises.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. That concludes our list of speakers. I call the rapporteur. You have four minutes remaining.

      Mr SCHNEIDER (France)* – Thank you, Madame President, I will try to be concise. I thank all the speakers for their contributions and to seeing to the heart of the matter. You have all understood that what is at stake here is the individual person who is in danger. One scourge can hide another.

      There are two traps to be avoided in confronting the doping phenomenon. The use of doping substances affects the users – I mean that they are used because they are effective and there is an overall development of self-medication. There are also the changes to the law. One colleague, for example, said, “Yes, this is prohibited, but I took doping substances when I was 20 and they were not labelled as doping substances at the time.” So there have been changes in that regard. Turning things into a commonplace phenomenon, however, is dangerous – “Oh, you took something. You can use it in sport.” Others might use it to participate in some other competition, to prepare for an exam or what have you – that has become commonplace.

      I mention dietary supplements in the report and that UEFA, the Union of European Football Associations, has called for a training module for professionals on the dangers associated with dietary supplements. We take things today that are not yet prohibited. People are always trying to do something to enhance their performance to go beyond their capacities. That is serious. Our colleague, Mr Nissinen, who mentioned the statue outside on the lawn, was right to do so, because it is emblematic.

      We are here at the heart of the sort of things that our Parliamentary Assembly should be doing. That is what hides behind our slogans about human rights – we need to protect people against themselves. I would prefer to eat some foie gras rather than to medicate myself and I encourage you to do the same thing. People who give drugs to their children for a very minor problem are part of the overall culture of personal tolerance for that kind of over-medication.

      Doping is present in sport, schools and families and we need to work together, in full solidarity, to combat the scourge of it. We at the Council of Europe started work on this issue a very long time ago. We need to take advantage of the technical methods that are available today. We need to put in place preventive actions and tackle people who produce and market such substances and who drug our children, all for the purpose of earning extra money. These substances can lower the quality and affect the length of our children’s lives.

      In conclusion, I heartily thank all those who contributed to the drafting of the report. I am just a humble spokesperson this morning. Thank you, Roberto Fasino – he is very modest but he contributed greatly to it. Madame President, we started working on this together, sometimes in places that were not always easy to get to. I did not mention any particular organisation or any particular sports discipline, because everyone in the sporting world is concerned and we need to respect all of them. Godspeed to you – you have been an excellent president. Andreas Gross, we are neighbours; you are from Switzerland and I am from Alsace. You have been with us for so long and contributed so much. Thank you for your statement. You rose to the occasion and our fight for human rights is really what counts. You have done so much.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Schneider, and thank you for your words of tribute concerning me. As we are reaching the end of the part-session, I shall make one comment. You have said that foie gras is better than taking medication but, you know, if you eat too much foie gras that is probably not good for your health either. Any excess is dangerous. Ms Gambaro, you have two minutes.

      Ms GAMBARO (Italy) * – It is difficult add to what has been said. It is an excellently drafted report on an extremely important subject. My colleague Carles Jordana Madero referred to Mr Pantani. I am Italian so I was aware of those goings-on at the time. The media are only really interested in doping when things go wrong. They tend not to mention it if things are ticking over normally.

      Mr Schneider, you rightly point out that doping is something that concerns us all, not only at the level of elite athletes; children are affected too because of the problems we see in young people in sport.

      We are discussing this on a Friday morning, which is something of a pity as some of our colleagues have already left. Nevertheless, the report will be of great use to our colleagues in all our countries; indeed, Ms Christoffersen has said that she will take this proposal back home and it will be discussed there. So even if we are perhaps a little thin on the ground at this moment, the repercussions of your report will be wide.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. That brings our general debate to an end. We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13852. A simple majority is required.

      The vote is open.

3. Progress Report (continued)

      THE PRESIDENT * – We now turn to the Progress Report of the Bureau.

      The Bureau has proposed several references to committees. They are set out in the Progress Report (Doc. 13872 Addendum III). Are there any objections to these references?

      There are no objections.

The references are approved.

      I now propose that the other proposals in the Progress Report (Doc. 13872 Addendum III) be ratified. Are there any objections?

      There are no objections.

The Progress Report is approved.

4. Voting Champions

      THE PRESIDENT – I am pleased to be able to announce the names of our voting champions, those members who have taken part in the most votes during this part-session. It is always the same members who vote every time, and they always win. They are:

      Mr Ghiletchi

Mr Gross

      I congratulate both of them. There were others who were close behind them but they have managed to be present for the votes on all reports, resolutions and recommendations. As is traditional, we have small gifts for the champions and I invite them to come and collect them.

5. End of the part-session

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

      I thank all members of the Assembly, particularly rapporteurs and chairpersons of committees, for their hard work during this Session.

      I thank all those vice-presidents who have assisted me by presiding over sittings of the Assembly this week. They are Mr Bosić, Mr Flego, Ms Guzenina, Ms Korenjak Kramar, Mr Nikoloski, Mr Rouquet and Mr Walter. I am also grateful to those who volunteered but on this occasion did not preside.

      I also thank those who will no longer be with us in the next Part Session in January. There are too many for me to name them all. I referred to a number of members in my opening statement, such as Mr Gross and Mr Mota Amaral, but I would like to add Mr Walter, Mr Flego, Mr Denemeç, Mr de Vries and Mr Franken. There are others as well who will no longer be members of this Assembly, either because they have not stood for re-election or because they are moving on to other positions. For all those who will not be with us in January, thank you for your past commitment. I know that after your terms of office here as members of the Parliamentary Assembly, you will continue to defend, support and promote the values of the Council of Europe. For all those who are leaving the Assembly, goodbye and thank you.

      I myself will not be leaving the Assembly; I will remain a member after January, but my term of office as President will come to an end at the beginning of the next Session. So I take this opportunity to thank everyone for your support. We do not always agree, and we have differences, but what is important is dialogue, to listen and speak to others, to hear them out and try to understand them, and to respect what they say, even if you do not agree with them and have a different point of view. That is what I have tried to do during my term of office as President.

      We cannot work without the support of a competent, strong and devoted administration. Secretary General, Mr Sawicki, very warm thanks to you and all your team for the extraordinary support that you have extended to me in the course of my term of office. Thank you to the members of my presidential office; we really became a family. I must tell you that I would never have stood as a candidate for the presidency of the Parliamentary Assembly if I had not understood that I would be very strongly supported, and that support was extraordinary. I cannot name all of you, but I think you know how grateful I am to you and how much I owe you. And to all other members of the Secretariat who have contributed – those who work for the Bureau, for the Table Office, for the committees and for the Presidency – thank you very much. Secretary General, please pass these expressions of gratitude on to your team.

      As President, I also thank the interpreters. We would not get very far in understanding one another without you. I thank you personally because it is not easy for you when I speak. I took the liberty of jumping from language to another, and sometimes I mixed them up – all this because I was not able to speak my mother tongue. Finally, on Tuesday last, I had the pleasure of saying a few words in my mother tongue in the Chamber. So thank you.

      Madame Deputy Secretary General, we work together very closely and very well. Even before I became President, you were always there for all the meetings of the Bureau and the Standing Committee, and for many committee meetings as well. I am sure that we can continue this co-operation. I thank the Secretary General and to the Committee of Ministers. The co-operation with them has been good and very important. I think I have managed to improve relations somewhat between the Parliamentary Assembly and the Committee of Ministers. Madame Deputy Secretary General, please pass on my thanks to all the various entities of the Council of Europe. I thank them for their excellent work and the very good co-operation we have had. You have contributed to helping me to address this enormous challenge. It was a great experience, a huge challenge, and a very difficult task.

(The speaker continued in English.)

      I think of Baden-Powell. I have been linked closely with the Scouts movement for many, many years – for decades. He said: “Leave the world a little better than you found it.” Unfortunately, I have not succeeded in that, because when I look at the world now, two years after I took the presidency, we have more points to worry about. I hope my successor – I wish him all the best – will be more successful, and that after the degrading of human rights in a number of countries and the increase in violence around us, including in our member States, together we can build a better world for the benefit of all its citizens.

      Thank you very much for everything – it was great. I leave as a President but not as a member, and I am glad to continue to work in this Assembly. We have a tremendous opportunity as members of this Assembly. I learned a lot, but I have the feeling that I still have to learn much more. For as long as I have that feeling, I hope I can stay in this Assembly. Thank you so much for everything.

      Mr Xuclà, you asked for the floor.

      Mr XUCLÀ (Spain) – Thank you very much indeed, Madame President.

      I know that you will have a final word to say in presiding over our Assembly, but in the home straight of this plenary week, a number of colleagues and I wanted to ask for the floor before you adjourn our business in order to thank you for the work that you have done. You have been an outstanding President. In fact, you will remain in office until 25 January at 11.29 a.m. precisely, but this is of course the last sitting of the Parliamentary Assembly over which you will preside. We are delighted that you will continue to sit alongside us, because you have an outstanding contribution to make given your track record of commitment, your culture and education, and your ministerial responsibilities. Despite all those responsibilities, it is nevertheless a major commitment to preside over our business, which brings together freedom, human rights and democracy.

      We have been most impressed by the way in which you have discharged your duty as President. Once you were elected, you became the President for the entire Assembly, and over the past two years you have stood up for the rights of all members with total impartiality, without fear or favour institutionally. Speaking on behalf of my colleagues, Ms Brasseur, you who love freedom and democracy have given us the great privilege of being able to work alongside you. Thank you so much.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Mr Xuclà – dear Jordi – for those nice words, and thank you once more to all of you.

      (The speaker continued in French.)

      I would like to inform the Assembly that the first ordinary part-session of 2016 will be held from 25 to 29 January 2016. As you said, Mr Xuclà, I shall be your President up until 11.30 a.m. on 25 January, when the session will begin.

      I declare the fourth part of the 2015 session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe closed.

      The sitting is closed.

      (The sitting was closed at 12.25 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. Equality and shared parental responsibility: the role of fathers

Presentation by Ms Hetto-Gaasch of report, Document 13870, on behalf of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination

Presentation by Mr Schennach of opinion, Document 13896, on behalf of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development

Speakers: Mr Gunarsson, Ms Gambaro, Mr David Davies, Mr Jónasson, Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Cruchten, Ms Rodríguez, Mr Thiéry, Ms Christoffersen, Ms Bonet Perot, Mr Kiral, Mr Nissinen, Mr Jakavonis, Ms Bilgehan

Amendments 1 and 2 adopted.

Draft resolution contained in Document 13870, as amended, adopted.

2. Rethinking the anti-doping strategy

Presentation by Mr Schneider of report, Document 13852, on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media

Speakers: Mr Reiss, Mr Jordana Madero, Mr David Davies, Ms Johnsson Fornarve, Mr Gross, Ms Christoffersen, Mr Nissinen, Mr Kiral, Ms Gambaro

Draft resolution contained in Document 13852 adopted.

3. Progress report (continued)

4. Voting champions

5. End of the part-session

Speaker: Mr Xuclà

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/Antigoni Lymperaki

Lord Donald ANDERSON*

Paride ANDREOLI*

Sirkka-Liisa ANTTILA*

Ben-Oni ARDELEAN*

Khadija ARIB*

Volodymyr ARIEV*

Anna ASCANI*

Egemen BAĞIŞ*

Theodora BAKOYANNIS*

David BAKRADZE*

Gérard BAPT*

Doris BARNETT*

José Manuel BARREIRO*

Deniz BAYKAL

Marieluise BECK*

Ondřej BENEŠIK/Jana Fischerová

José María BENEYTO*

Levan BERDZENISHVILI/Guguli Magradze

Deborah BERGAMINI*

Sali BERISHA*

Anna Maria BERNINI*

Maria Teresa BERTUZZI*

Andris BĒRZINŠ*

Gülsün BİLGEHAN

Brian BINLEY*

Ľuboš BLAHA*

Philippe BLANCHART*

Maryvonne BLONDIN

Tilde BORK*

Olga BORZOVA*

Mladen BOSIĆ*

António BRAGA*

Anne BRASSEUR/Marcel Oberweis

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*

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/ Mechthild Rawert

Daphné DUMERY*

Alexander [The Earl of] DUNDEE *

Nicole DURANTON*

Josette DURRIEU*

Mustafa DZHEMILIEV/Serhii Kiral

Mikuláš DZURINDA*

Lady Diana ECCLES*

Tülin ERKAL KARA*

Franz Leonhard EßL*

Samvel FARMANYAN

Joseph FENECH ADAMI*

Cătălin Daniel FENECHIU*

Vyacheslav FETISOV*

Doris FIALA/Raphaël Comte

Daniela FLIPIOVÁ*

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*

Gergely GULYÁS*

Jonas GUNNARSSON

Nazmi GÜR*

Antonio GUTIÉRREZ*

Maria GUZENINA*

Márton GYÖNGYÖSI*

Sabir HAJIYEV*

Alfred HEER*

Michael HENNRICH*

Martin HENRIKSEN*

Françoise HETTO-GAASCH

Oleksii HONCHARENKO/Vladyslav Golub

Jim HOOD*

Anette HÜBINGER*

Johannes HÜBNER/Barbara Rosenkranz

Andrej HUNKO*

Ali HUSEYNLI*

Rafael HUSEYNOV*

Vitaly IGNATENKO*

Ekmeleddin Mehmet İHSANOĞLU

Florin IORDACHE*

Tadeusz IWIŃSKI*

Denis JACQUAT*

Gedimnas JAKAVONIS

Gordan JANDROKOVIĆ*

Tedo JAPARIDZE*

Michael Aastrup JENSEN*

Mogens JENSEN*

Frank J. JENSSEN*

Florina-Ruxandra JIPA*

Ögmundur JÓNASSON

Aleksandar JOVIČIĆ*

Josip JURATOVIC

Anne KALMARI*

Mustafa KARADAYI*

Marietta KARAMANLI*

Niklas KARLSSON*

Vasiliki KATRIVANOU*

Ioanneta KAVVADIA*

Danail KIRILOV*

Bogdan KLICH*

Manana KOBAKHIDZE*

Haluk KOÇ/Metin Lütfü Baydar

Igor KOLMAN*

Željko KOMŠIĆ*

Unnur Brá KONRÁÐSDÓTTIR*

Ksenija KORENJAK KRAMAR*

Attila KORODI*

Alev KORUN*

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 *

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*

Philippe MAHOUX

Thierry MARIANI/Frédéric Reiss

Soňa MARKOVÁ/Pavel Holík

Milica MARKOVIĆ*

Meritxell MATEU PI/Carles Jordana Madero

Ana MATO*

Frano MATUŠIĆ*

Liliane MAURY PASQUIER/Eric Voruz

Michael McNAMARA*

Sir Alan MEALE*

Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA*

Evangelos MEIMARAKIS*

Ivan MELNIKOV*

Ana Catarina MENDES*

Attila MESTERHÁZY*

Jean-Claude MIGNON/André Schneider

Marianne MIKKO*

Olivia MITCHELL*

Igor MOROZOV*

João Bosco MOTA AMARAL*

Arkadiusz MULARCZYK*

Melita MULIĆ*

Oľga NACHTMANNOVÁ*

Hermine NAGHDALYAN

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/Lotta Johnsson Fornarve

Joseph O’REILLY*

Maciej ORZECHOWSKI*

Sandra OSBORNE*

Tom PACKALÉN*

José Ignacio PALACIOS*

Liliana PALIHOVICI

Judith PALLARÉS CORTÉS/Sílvia Eloïsa Bonet Perot

Ganira PASHAYEVA*

Florin Costin PÂSLARU*

Waldemar PAWLAK*

Jaana PELKONEN/Anne Louhelainen

Vladimir PLIGIN*

Cezar Florin PREDA*

John PRESCOTT*

Gabino PUCHE*

Alexey PUSHKOV*

Lia QUARTAPELLE PROCOPIO*

Carmen QUINTANILLA/Jordi Xuclà

Kerstin RADOMSKI*

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*

Deborah SCHEMBRI*

Stefan SCHENNACH

Ingjerd SCHOU*

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*

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*

Ilyas UMAKHANOV*

Dana VÁHALOVÁ

Snorre Serigstad VALEN*

Petrit VASILI*

Imre VEJKEY*

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*

Katrin WERNER*

Morten WOLD*

Bas van ‘t WOUT*

Gisela WURM*

Maciej WYDRZYŃSKI*

Leonid YEMETS*

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/David Davies

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote

Eva-Lena JANSSON

Observers

__

Partners for democracy

Bernard SABELLA