AA16CR30

AS (2016) CR 30

2016 ORDINARY SESSION

________________

(Fourth part)

REPORT

Thirtieth sitting

Tuesday 11 October 2016 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 Agramunt, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 10.05 a.m.)

      The PRESIDENT – The sitting is open.

1. Election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights

      The PRESIDENT – This morning, the agenda calls for the election of two judges to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Azerbaijan and of “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”.

      I refer members to the list of candidates and biographical notices, which are to be found in Documents 14131 and 14138, and an opinion from the Committee on the Election of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights in Document 14150 Addendum II.

      The voting for both elections will take place in the area behind the President’s chair. At 1 p.m. the ballot will be suspended. It will reopen at 3.30 p.m. I shall close the ballot at 5 p.m. Counting will then take place under the supervision of four tellers.

      I shall now draw by lot the names of the four tellers who will supervise the counting of the votes.

      The names of Ms Anttila, Mr Geraint Davies, Mr Hunko and Mr Daems have been drawn. They should go to the back of the President’s chair at 5 p.m.

      I hope to announce the result of the election before the end of the sitting this afternoon.

      If needed, a second ballot will take place on Wednesday during the morning and afternoon sittings.

      I now declare the ballot open.

2. Changes in the membership of committees

      The PRESIDENT – Our next business is to consider the changes proposed in the membership of committees. These are set out in document Commissions (2016) 07, Addendum II.

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

      They are agreed to.

3. The activities of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 2015-2016 – enlarged debate

      The PRESIDENT – The next item of business is the debate on the activities of the OECD in 2015-2016.

      We welcome the participation of parliamentary delegations from OECD member States which are not members of the Council of Europe, from Canada, Israel, Japan and Mexico. We begin with a statement from Ms Mari Kiviniemi, Deputy Secretary-General of the OECD. To finish by 12 p.m., we must interrupt the list of speakers at around 11.45 a.m. to allow time for the reply. I remind colleagues that there is a time limit of three minutes on speeches.

      We now come to the debate on the activities of the OECD. I am very pleased to welcome to the Chamber Ms Mari Kiviniemi, Deputy Secretary-General of the OECD. Thank you very much for being with us today. Your presence is a signal of the strong and fruitful relations between our two organisations, which started formally in 1962. After 54 years, our co-operation remains strong and we can still work together for the achievement of our common goals, including promoting economic growth and development and making our society more equitable. Ms Kiviniemi, we are keen to hear your message to us. You have the floor.

      Ms KIVINIEMI (Deputy Secretary-General of the OECD) – President Agramunt, distinguished members of parliament, ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure to join you for the annual debate on the activities of the OECD. I was a member of the Finnish Parliament for 19 years and I believe that the OECD’s dialogue with the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe is fundamental to both our institutions.

      I also take this opportunity to welcome the Latvian MPs present as new members of the OECD family. Latvia recently joined the OECD as its 35th member country and will be able to tap into the vast reservoir of OECD expertise. At the same time, the OECD will benefit from Latvia’s unique experiences.

      This year, the OECD has drafted a report on the organisation’s activities, which provides a solid basis for our discussion today. Let me share some thoughts on the urgent issues on our agenda before I take comments and questions.

I turn first to the current global economic outlook. While labour market conditions are improving, the recovery remains very uneven. In our most recent “Economic Outlook”, released a few weeks ago, we project global GDP growth to remain at only around 3% this year and to be barely better in 2017. The world economy is stuck in a low-growth trap, where poor growth expectations are further depressing investment, productivity and wages. Weak trade is exacerbating this trend, while the recent UK vote to leave the European Union further complicates the picture. Around two thirds of OECD countries have yet to regain their pre-crisis employment rate, with youth unemployment still above pre-crisis levels in 26 OECD countries. As monetary policy has become overburdened and creates risks, stronger collective fiscal and structural policy actions are necessary to break out of the low-growth trap. Further, improved structural reforms are needed and the fiscal space provided by low interest rates can be used to boost growth and equity.

We must do everything in our power to address the concerns of those who have suffered years of unemployment and have little prospect of improvement by creating more inclusive societies where the benefits of growth are more equally shared. This challenge is growing in urgency as we see a rising tide of popular discontent, with a potentially significant impact on our common future.

The lingering crisis has sharpened the focus on two long-term trends that are hampering our economies and tearing at our social fabric. The first is a decline in productivity growth, while the second is a rise in inequality of wealth, income, well-being and opportunity. Almost all our member countries experienced a decline in productivity growth after the turn of the millennium, which accelerated after the crisis. This slowdown in productivity has spread to emerging market economies, despite their efforts to catch up.

This decline in productivity growth has happened at a time of rising inequalities. Our most recent studies reveal that the average income of the top 10% of earners in the OECD is 10 times that of the bottom 10%, up from around seven times in the mid-1980s – a huge increase. Wealth is also concentrated in the hands of the few: the top 10% own 87% of global wealth. This is a symptom of a deeper malfunction in our economic systems. Our analysis reveals two important tectonic fault lines in the economics of productivity. First, we can no longer take it for granted that technological advances will automatically spread throughout the economy, leading to better economic performance and stronger productivity growth overall. Second, there is no guarantee that the benefits of higher levels of growth will be broadly shared across the population. These are game-changers.

The central message of our recent report “The Productivity-lnclusiveness Nexus” is a call for policy makers to adopt a broader, more inclusive approach to productivity growth, one that considers how to expand the productive assets of an economy by investing in the skills of its people and provides an environment where all firms have a fair chance to succeed, even in lagging regions. Any effort to raise productivity cannot ignore the imperative of safeguarding our planet, or our duty to strive towards better functioning, more equitable societies.

We spent much of 2015 working on major international agreements: the sustainable development goals at the United Nations in New York in September and the Paris Agreement on climate at COP21 in December. Our future welfare relies on honouring and implementing the goals we set ourselves.

We are generating evidence and helping to design and implement innovative policies in all areas covered by the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). We are also helping countries with the significant structural change required to overcome the carbon dependency of economies and scaling up the financing needed to meet the commitments of both agreements. More effective international tax policy is clearly central to this. I am very pleased that it is very high on your agenda, too, and that we are working together to tackle base erosion and profit-shifting – BEPS – and to implement automatic exchange of financial account information to end the era of bank secrecy. The inclusive framework on BEPS is the latest OECD initiative to ensure that tackling tax evasion and tax avoidance is a truly global effort. Eighty-five countries have joined the OECD to implement BEPS.

I congratulate you ahead of the debate later today on the PACE report ‘Lessons from the “Panama Papers” to ensure fiscal and social justice’. The report’s call for the effective implementation of solid existing agreements is extremely important. I thank members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe for their proactive support over a number of years.

      This brings me back to a topic that was very high on the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe’s agenda in last year’s debate and continues to be a top concern for you now: the refugee crisis. The 40th edition of the “International Migration Outlook” was launched on the occasion of the United Nations Summit for Refugees and Migrants on 19 September. It was launched at the United Nations to underline the OECD’s commitment to a comprehensive global response to the current crisis. Permanent migration flows into OECD countries rose again in 2015, to 4.8 million people. That is a 10% rise on the previous year, but still represents only around 0.4% of the total population of the OECD. Within this overall figure, we have seen an unprecedented number of asylum applications. In 2015, more than 1.5 million new asylum seekers came to OECD countries, and 1.3 million of them came to Europe. But it is important to put these numbers in context. Syria’s neighbours remain the largest refugee receiving countries, and while the rise in asylum seekers might give the impression that migration has spiralled out of control, this is simply not the case: refugees still account for a small portion of the 4.8 million new permanent immigrants to OECD countries.

      Many countries have stepped up their integration efforts in response to the current humanitarian crisis, but we need to focus more on what migration means for communities. Large, sudden inflows of refugees may exacerbate long-standing structural problems in local infrastructure, such as a lack of teachers and access to social housing. We need to better understand where there are local challenges, and how best to address them.

      Our evidence shows that in most countries migrants pay more in tax and social contributions than they receive in individual benefits. Positive outcomes depend on being able to make use of migrants’ skills and, more broadly, on their labour market integration. This is where we must now focus our efforts.

      Another major source of change in today’s world is the digital economy. Fundamental digital shifts are reshaping our economies and societies, and have the potential to facilitate access to healthcare, education, jobs and transport, and make a major contribution to our well-being and the preservation of our planet. But all these benefits go hand-in-hand with major disruptions to the world of education and work. The OECD Future of Work initiative was launched early this year to assess the potential impact of digitalisation on workers. So far, fears that digitalisation may lead to large-scale worker displacement appear overblown, although we are seeing that those with higher skills levels will benefit more from job opportunities, while routine jobs, which are often middle skilled, are the type most easily automated.

      Digitalisation may generate further inequality through new ways of organising work, the so-called "platform economy", largely based on non-standard work arrangements. This can provide workers with more flexibility, but also raises concerns about job quality and social protection. Countries will need to invest in the right skills, promote job quality, and adapt labour market institutions and social protection to this new world of work. In 2017, our work on the new OECD Job Strategy will be looking into these issues.

      The OECD is also working on a multidisciplinary, cross-cutting project on the digitalisation of economies and societies, helping policy makers with system-wide transformations and the ability to respond to rapid and frequent changes. Our work will also feed into a new G20 task force on innovation, which aims to take forward the G20 agenda on innovation, new industrial revolution and digital economy.

      We must harness the enormous potential of new technologies to promote more inclusive growth. We must do everything in our power to address the concerns of those who have suffered years of unemployment and have little prospect for improvement, by creating more inclusive societies where the benefits of growth are more equally shared. We must not allow the current surge in pessimism and populism to throw us off-course. I look forward to your comments and questions.

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

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Ms Deputy Secretary-General, for your statement, which has been listened to with keen interest by all the members of the Assembly. I will invite you to reply at the end of the debate. The OECD is an important tool for addressing our challenges in member States and in a larger scope, and its contribution is crucial.

      Colleagues, I want to remind you of the election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights. The ballots to elect judges to the European Court of Human Rights is still open. Those who have not yet voted may still do so by going to the area behind the President’s chair. I hope to announce the results of the elections before the end of the sitting this afternoon.

      We now come to the list of speakers. In the debate, I call first Mr Geraint Davies.

      Mr G. DAVIES (United Kingdom, Spokesperson for the Socialist Group) – We have just heard from the OECD that the problems are to do with productivity and inequality, and that the United Kingdom leaving the European Union complicates matters, but I suggest that Brexit is a complete economic disaster not only for Britain, but for Europe, and will cause wider ripples throughout.

      On 23 June, the British people were promised three things: lower costs, less immigration and continued market access. But in fact what they will get is higher costs – the government has already abandoned its deficit reduction targets. We will also have similar immigration; in fact, immigration has just gone up. And we are looking, in terms of a hard Brexit, at the possibility of massive tariffs and an inability to access the European market, a huge loss of investment and job losses. Already Nissan, a typical company that has come from Japan to platform into Europe from Britain without tariffs, is saying it wants compensation, and others will follow. It is a complete disaster in terms of jobs and investment, and also in terms of borrowing: the new Prime Minister, Theresa May, has said she will now have to borrow more, and in the next breath she criticised the Bank of England strategy on interest rates and quantitative easing, which has pushed up the cost of borrowing, so she will borrow more at a higher cost – what a disaster – to do the same thing.

      Sterling has been torpedoed: it is at a 30-year low because of the pronouncement of a hard Brexit, which was not what the British people voted for. It is my considered view that the British people will demand – and I am certainly demanding this – a referendum on the European Union exit package: not on whether in principle we should leave, but on whether what we are offered represents what people reasonably assumed they would get, which it clearly will not.

      We have seen a rise in xenophobia, which is a problem for workers from elsewhere in the European Union. The average worker from the European Union pays 34% more in tax than they consume in public services, so if we swapped young Polish workers for retired British people in Spain and France we would face massive strain on our tax and public services, which is not something I would want. The City of London has been undermined by passporting. Maybe those jobs will go to New York, or elsewhere in the world; some, of course, will remain in Europe. Without skills access or market access and with higher capital costs, I consider this situation a complete nightmare.

      What is more, the British Government will now reach out for bilateral trade deals akin to TTIP and CETA – the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement – that give companies unnecessary powers that undermine democracy through arbitration courts and enable them to sue the government for passing environmental, health and other such laws to protect its people. Essentially, Theresa May has positioned Britain as a tax haven off Europe with lower standards for health, the environment and workers’ rights, and I am concerned about contagion. I hope that we turn back from the brink of becoming an impoverished and isolated country, that we have a second referendum – or at least the vote in parliament that is currently being denied – and that we rejoin our happy home in Europe.

Mr DAEMS (Belgium, Spokesperson for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe) – Deputy Secretary-General, you cannot create a social paradise on an economic cemetery, and in ALDE we also think that you cannot build an economic paradise on a social cemetery. Those are simple principles.

My eye fell on a particular chapter in the report concerning international trade, in which you discuss the gains from trade and the costs of protectionism. Specifically, your analysis of trade in value-added global value chains – a difficult phrase, TVAGVC – shows that reducing global trade costs by only 1% would increase worldwide income by more than US $40 billion, and on top of that, 65% of it would accrue to developing countries. Further on in your report, you state that merely implementing the World Trade Organisation’s trade facilitation agreement, which we as the OECD are basically supporting, could cut trade costs by 10% to 17%, depending on countries’ current level of development. In simple arithmetic, reducing those costs by 10% to 17% would enhance world income by somewhere between $100 billion and $1 trillion. The lowest estimate is equal to the gross domestic product of my country, and the highest would be more or less equal to the gross domestic product of a BRIC country such as Russia.

My comment on the report, and my question to you, is simple. Would the OECD, and you personally, agree that those who defend free trade are basically defending a rise in income, an increase in jobs and more income for public services to redistribute to social costs? On the flip side of the coin, would you also agree that those who fight free trade – those who fight TTIP, CETA and all other similar agreements – would, although without wanting to, hurt that rise in income and the creation of those jobs? Do you and the OECD agree on those two statements? That is what I conclude from your report.

My last question is this. Can the OECD set out a toolbox of policies to enable and stimulate free trade, to counteract the partisan way in which discussions of TTIP, CETA and similar agreements are being handled in our different parliaments?

Ms GÜNAY (Turkey, Spokesperson for the European Conservatives Group) – The report has been submitted for the annual debate in Strasbourg and aims to share information about OECD’s activities to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. I thank those who contributed to the report.

Less than a decade ago, the world economy sank into its deepest and most widespread downturn since the great depression of the 1920s. The global economy remains vulnerable to recessions and new debt crises. The Eurozone, the United Kingdom and the United States are making fragile recoveries, while Japan remains in recession. Financial and banking systems remain vulnerable, and geopolitical risk in the Middle East, increasing tensions among Russia, China and Western powers and the growing spectres of terrorism and war threaten world peace and welfare.

The OECD, as an umbrella institution, has a vital role in addressing issues from economic slowdowns to the refugee crisis; from ever-rising numbers of terrorist and cyber-attacks to water shortages; from reducing greenhouse gas emissions to fighting corruption; from boosting international trade and investment to reinvigorating the fight against tax evasion. Here, we are talking about inclusive growth and development. The OECD approach to inclusive growth is multidimensional and goes beyond income.

This inclusive economic approach is deeply interconnected with social, cultural, political and environmental dimensions of life such as food security and nutrition, water and sanitation, sustainability, gender equality, trust in democratic institutions, infrastructure investments and public-private partnerships. Global tax transparency is an important part of establishing a sub-structure for inclusive growth by promoting better government policies and fair and accountable public institutions.

We believe that joining forces and working together to expand opportunities and reduce vulnerabilities within societies as well as among countries will help us tackle global risks and threats. The OECD is an active partner with the G7 and G20 and works closely with international bodies such as the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund and the European Commission. However, co-ordination and co-operation are not enough to reach the sustainable development goals. We must move beyond simply talking about the importance of inclusive growth; effective implementation and monitoring will make the difference in establishing proper mechanisms to tackle today’s problems and make future advances possible.

Mr HUNKO (Germany, Spokesperson for the Group of the Unified European Left)* – Thank you for the report. To recall the history of the OECD, it was founded after the Second World War to assist in the rebuilding of Europe, like the Marshall Plan, which worked and from which my country profited. However, what we see today, following the latest financial and economic crisis, does not suggest a similar reconstruction. Instead, rather than economic co-operation, economic competition between member States is increasing, and austerity rather than development is writ large, particularly in Europe, and Europe is suffering considerably from those policies. We need to connect with the previous history of the OECD. We need a reconstruction and development plan for Europe, particularly for southern Europe.

I welcome the fact that you have concentrated on inequality. You discuss income disparities. Compared with the 1980s, income disparity has risen considerably. I am rapporteur for this Assembly on income disparity. It is an important issue because it has many consequences, first and foremost economically, because inequality can lead to economic and political instability.

      One of the consequences is the rise of right-wing populism and populist forces, which we are seeing in Europe. That is a symptom, not a cause, of something dysfunctional. What practical solutions do the OECD advocate to tackle issues such as income disparity? It is important to hear such proposals. You might also want to say a word about another important area: our report on the Panama Papers and their sequel, the Bahamas leaks. I would also like to hear you comment on the deregulation of the banking sector. That was a problem in the 2008-09 economic and financial crisis, and we need to tackle that. It affects the German banking sector and that in other countries. The sector is out of kilter and we have not been able genuinely to reform it.

As Mr Davies said, CETA and TTIP are big issues. As things stand, I do not see how those agreements can get to grips with the kinds of problems that you talked about. I fear that those free trade agreements will exacerbate inequality and disparity, and weaken our democracy, because multinational enterprises will have more power than democratic societies.

Mr FEIST (Germany, Spokesperson for the Group of the European People’s Party)* – On behalf of my political group, I thank the OECD for its report, which not only outlines the situation in different countries, but suggests what can be done to improve it.

You mentioned economic growth and trade figures. I and my political group are concerned with the very important issue of youth unemployment and what we can do to combat it. You said that it is a key component of the employment market strategy that you are working on, and that we should do everything we can to stimulate youth employment. You mentioned the importance of developing skills and capabilities.

I have a request to make of the OECD. In recent times, people with a vocational qualification have been seen as having a high level of qualification. That is important, because many young people with degrees in countries with a high level of youth unemployment find it very hard indeed to find employment. Vocational training is available and fewer people with vocational qualifications are unemployed.

You told us of the resources required and how much private funding is provided. It is important that we bring together the economy, education and training. There are sandwich courses available for young people to train and work in companies. We need to consider exactly what sort of role the companies themselves should play and how willing they are to invest in know-how and future skills and to improve education and training. The most recent report makes it patently clear that things are moving in that direction.

I ask you in your capacity as Deputy Secretary-General of the OECD to step up efforts to ensure that young people in Europe and the member States of the Council of Europe can have a better future, with more opportunities not only for academic qualifications but for vocational qualifications and training. Young people have a right to proper training. We should not take a blinkered view. We need to focus on good training and good opportunities in the employment market.

Mr MANNINGER (Hungary) – The OECD report focuses on two long-term trends, namely the decline in productivity growth and the long-standing increase in inequalities in wealth, incomes, well-being and opportunities. The gap between the rich and poor keeps widening. Income inequality gives rise not only to social and political concerns, but to economic ones, too. As the title of a recent OECD report stated, “Why Less Inequality Benefits All”. It is time to develop new concepts and approaches. It was essential that the OECD ministerial council meeting in June concluded that there is an urgent need to enhance productivity growth and decrease inequalities in income and opportunities.

The other main topic is the OECD’s strategic response to the sustainable development goals. The 2030 agenda adopted in 2015 provides a universal roadmap for sustainable development. The organisation is already generating evidence, identifying good practices, developing standards and implementing innovative policies in areas covered by the 17 SDGs, which Hungary took part in developing.

Over the past year, the unprecedented number of refugees arriving in OECD countries has moved migration to the top of the international agenda. We need to honour the fact that the OECD is the leading provider of data and policy analyses on international migration trends. We look forward to learning about the key dimensions of integration, employment, education and so on, but we are worried about the labour market outcomes for recent refugees who have arrived in an uncontrolled flow.

Another field of activity is economic surveys by country. The main findings of the 2016 survey of Hungary showed that strong economic growth had returned and that investment had started to pick up. They also showed, however, that the low skilled have weak labour market outcomes. We are continuing to integrate vocational training programmes in secondary vocational schools. Hungarian economic policies post-2010 have been generally successful and the recovery is broadening. The main statistics show that GDP growth changed from 2.9% in 2015 to 2.5% in 2016. The unemployment rate was 6.8% in 2015 and 5.8% this year. Gross government debt is declining and the Maastricht criteria have been fulfilled.

I want to address two issues significant both in Hungary and in several other European Union countries, namely the impact of the brain drain – although I do not dispute the free movement of the labour force – and how to improve people’s access to the labour market rather than them living on social subsidies. It would be worth conducting an analysis and publishing good practices in that field as in others, complementing the activities of the OECD, which plays an important role in providing answers to new challenges.

The PRESIDENT – Lord Foulkes is not here, so the next speaker is Mr Leite Ramos.

Mr LEITE RAMOS (Portugal)* – This report shows that the OECD has made a big effort to rise to the major challenges that confront each of our countries and societies. As Mr Angel Gurría writes in the foreword, the effects of the crisis are still present. Its legacy includes weak growth, consistently high unemployment in many countries, faltering trade and investment, and a profound loss of public confidence and trust. We agree with your diagnosis and what you intend to do about it.

There are two major trends that are tearing our social fabric to pieces, namely slowing growth and productivity and increasing social and economic inequalities. We really need economic growth that is inclusive and sustainable and that will equalise chances.

      Obviously, there is a lot of work to be done in terms of the objectives, but I want to concentrate on the sustainable development programme for 2030 and in particular the strategic response to that. The OECD intends to integrate the objectives with its work, the economic studies and the thematic reviews. It intends to refine its approach and support countries in adapting their national strategies for development in accordance with the sustainable development goals. That means that the OECD is committed to the action programme to implement the sustainable development goals, together with its partner countries, non-member States, other international organisations and non-State stakeholders.

      The OECD also suggests that it will work together with the United Nations to implement the 2030 agenda in a way that mobilises synergies and avoids duplication of effort. Paradoxically, I see no reference in the report to other important international organisations – not even the World Bank. The programme has ambitious objectives that obligate States and international organisations to deploy considerable and complex reforms. Organisations such as the OECD are often accused of not wanting to work together and of having tremendous shortcomings when it comes to co-ordination and co-operation. That is a key issue. If we want to achieve the sustainable development objectives for 2030, it is necessary and urgent to reform mechanisms for co-ordination and co-operation among various organisations, in particular the United Nations, the World Bank and the OECD. Therefore, how does the OECD intend to ensure that co-ordination and co-operation?

      Ms HUOVINEN (Finland) – I thank the Deputy Secretary-General for the report, which underlines several issues that have been addressed by the Assembly. It is important that the OECD conducts a lot of research and gathers data on the different situations in our countries and our different models, but to what extent is that information actually used in various countries?

      The report raises many important issues, such as the significance of education, employment measures, the fight against corruption, tax transparency and the possibilities of digitalisation. It is easy to agree on most of these issues. However, I want to raise one issue that is often left aside when we discuss economic questions: inequality. The rise of global and internal inequalities poses a threat not only to democracy, human rights and the rule of law, but to economic development and employment. It is therefore important to put more emphasis on the necessity to eradicate inequality. As decision makers, we must realise that our citizens have a difficult time understanding austerity measures imposed on them for the sake of the economy if those earning and owning the most do not participate in those savings. I therefore welcome the OECD’s longstanding efforts in promoting inclusive growth.

      Finally, I would like to raise the issue of migration and the refugee crisis. The OECD does important work in this field through data collection and analysis. The report rightly highlights the importance of integration. The importance of education is raised in the report, and it is crucial. We of course have many other ways of promoting integration, and we are discussing them in the Assembly. I hope that we can lean on the OECD’s expertise and experience in that work.

      Mr SIMMS (Canada, Observer) – Thank you so much for your presentation, Deputy Secretary-General. I can assure you that as parliamentarians we have vigorous conversations on almost all the topics that you discussed at the beginning. I am representing five parliamentarians here today from three parties and the two houses. We often discuss such things as the Panama papers and refugees. Being the second largest country in the world, but with a population of only 35 million people, you can well imagine that digitalisation and the digital economy are very important to us, too.

      Several other colleagues talked about free trade. The report outlines the importance of free trade, and we agree. Concern was expressed about CETA. I can assure the Assembly that all parties, all facets and all provinces of Canada have worked very hard on that over the past few years. We have worked with the European Union and the member States to ensure that we have come to an agreement. We have made some changes along the way, such as the investment chapter, but we did that reflecting the concerns of people. We look forward to a final agreement soon and ratification in the new year and the entry into force with, initially, all 28 States. I can assure you that I personally look forward to a conversation with the United Kingdom following that.

      In the OECD’s 2016 economic survey of Canada, the Secretary-General mentioned favourably that the Canadian Government was successfully facing difficult challenges and showing leadership in the areas of inclusive growth and environmental sustainability. He also welcomed the introduction of the Canada child benefit that targeted families in need and the fact that the Canadian Government has made improving outcomes for indigenous peoples a top priority by increasing funding for the education, housing and infrastructure, for example. The economic survey notes that indigenous peoples in Canada “suffer from various critical social problems…They are also almost 20% less likely to be employed than their non-Indigenous counterparts.”

      With regards to the environment, the OECD’s report to this Assembly States that for a long time, the OECD “has been advocating for clear, strong, credible and predictable prices on carbon as the cornerstone of cost-effective emissions reductions”. The Secretary-General recalled that Canada made a commitment at COP21 to reduce its 2030 greenhouse gas emissions by 30% in comparison with its 2005 numbers. On 3 October, our prime minister announced that a national plan to price carbon will be implemented in 2018, setting a minimum price of $10 a tonne, rising to $50 a tonne by 2022. It is also important to note that Canada fought to ensure that indigenous rights were recognised in the Paris Agreement by all 195 signatories. I thank the Assembly again and the Deputy Secretary-General for giving us his time.

      Mr HEER (Switzerland) – The Deputy Secretary-General mentioned the problems of tax evasion and the importance of the automatic exchange of information that has been set up by the OECD. Various regulations have been adopted by the OECD to avoid tax evasion, money laundering and corruption. Notably, there have been recommendations on the automatic exchange of information and the disclosure of beneficiaries. However, practice shows that not all OECD member States are complying with the recommendations and guidelines, despite the fact that they have been adopted unanimously. OECD member States should be able to compete on a level playing field.

      In addition, the non-implementation of rules set by the OECD by some member States severely undermines the aim of fighting tax evasion and corruption. We know that the trusts in the United States and on some islands are the main problem. In some States, namely Delaware and Nevada, regulations mean that we do not know who beneficiaries are and bank secrecy is 100% guaranteed. Please can you explain to us what the OECD will do in order that these guidelines and recommendations are followed by all the member States?

      Ms BAKOYANNIS (Greece) – I, too, thank the Deputy Secretary-General for her presentation and for the report. We are still living in the aftermath of the financial crisis, and I think we all agree that weak growth, high unemployment, faltering trade and investment, and loss of public confidence are still present. Declining productivity and long-standing social and economic inequalities threaten our economies and, above all, our societies. Our challenge is to identify policies that can strengthen inclusiveness and productivity growth, and secure social and environmental sustainability.

      My country is working very closely with the OECD. We have been using its so-called toolbox, and we are trying to implement the different pieces of guidance that we have. I want to ask a very precise question: does the OECD re-evaluate the guidelines that it gives to countries following the results that are produced due to the application of those guidelines? In Greece, we have had cases that were not successful – for example, a policy about milk. The cost of applying this policy was bigger than any kind of gain which we would expect. After giving these guidelines to the various countries, do you then check the results of the policies?

      I strongly believe that at the moment we need very concrete ideas and an exchange of policies – this is why I welcome all the different colleagues from overseas – that have been successful in other countries, mainly for combating inequalities and youth unemployment, which is unfortunately very high. Political stability is a major factor for prosperity. We have to work very hard not to have the kind of results that we have had to date, unfortunately, in the British referendum and the Hungarian referendum.

      Mr MELKUMYAN (Armenia)* – I thank the Deputy Secretary-General. Over recent years, the OECD has carried out considerable work in several different countries. In Armenia, this concerns, in particular, developing efficient models for implementing economic policies. Of course, these models cannot be the same in every single country, because it is important that they factor in each country’s specificities – their own conditions and traditions.

      In Armenia, the OECD has contributed to developing models for the farming sector and for the construction industry, using local construction materials, as well as applying a reliable statistics model for small and medium-sized firms. We hope that the organisation will develop more ambitious models that are regional in nature, and provide justification for having models located in Armenia. This concerns, in particular, promoting new markets, creating certification and standardisation laboratories, and putting together a policy that is designed to remove obstacles. With regard to boosting the effectiveness of our co-operation with the OECD, we are interested in implementing larger-scale programmes in the region that are designed, in particular, to increase Armenia’s export potential and to step up ties with the European Union. We set a great deal of store by putting into place co-operation models at a regional level.

      That said, is it really possible to co-operate effectively if Azerbaijan is no more than a totalitarian regime with, at its head, a president who is president for life, as was confirmed by the most recent referendum? As a consequence, the military operations triggered at the beginning of April on the border between Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh have worsened the situation. Over the past few days, Mr Aliyev has shown that he has monarchical powers by creating a very tense situation on the border between Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh, but his efforts, as always, have not been successful. Once again, we would like to warn Mr Aliyev: sir, you have lost the battle and, most of all, you have lost the trust of your own people. I think, however, that it will be possible to avoid such negative practices if we can provide a political and legal assessment of these events.

      We attach a great deal of importance to the OECD’s work and very much hope that it will enlarge the fields of co-operation and support in the region. Last but not least, I would like to put a question to the Deputy Secretary-General: what can you propose for our country to overcome the economic crisis?

      Ms VĖSAITĖ (Lithuania) – Thank you, Madam Deputy Secretary-General, for a very comprehensive report. I congratulate the OECD on its achievements in the area of anti-corruption, tax evasion, and tax avoidance. Taxes should be paid where the activities are performed.

      After the crisis, there is still slow growth, in combination with low productivity. The major challenge of our days is the long-term rise in inequalities in wealth, incomes, well-being, and opportunities. The ongoing, long-running increase in income inequality not only raises social and political concerns but is the main obstacle to economic development, dragging down GDP growth. It is also a threat to democracy itself. We should ask ourselves why more and more populist, far-right, neo-fascistic political parties are coming into the political arena. Perhaps there should be an analysis of the root causes of why people do not believe in national States and look for new saviours. Inequality in chances is probably the root cause of the conflicts and unrest in our societies.

      The so-called shared, or platform, economy gives rise to much concern. Of course, it makes some new opportunities for people, but it also involves more questions concerning social security and capital flow through States. We have the creation of new super-companies with huge salaries, and on the other hand we have the slaves working for big data.

      Finally, I would like to raise the question of the enlargement of the OECD as an organisation. My country, Lithuania, is a candidate country, so I would like to know what the prospects are. I welcome the productivity-inclusiveness nexus, which is perhaps a new initiative. In essence, it is about education, but education alone does not solve every problem. I wish you all the best in your work, and we are looking forward to hearing about new proposals for countries.

      Mr MAITACHI (Japan, Observer)* – It is very nice to meet you, Deputy Secretary-General and fellow parliamentarians. Turning first to the economic situation in Japan, we continue to implement policy in three areas – bold monetary easing, agile fiscal measures and growth strategies – in order to move out of differentiation, which impedes economic growth. Even though personal consumption has weakened due to an increase in consumption tax, tax revenue, employment and income have steadily improved, creating a virtuous circle.

      In April this year, “Japan: Boosting Growth and Well-being in an Ageing Society”, which provided policy advice on Japan’s economic and social situation, was published as part of the OECD’s “Better Policies Series”. It endorsed Japan’s current policies and in addition, the OECD’s Secretary-General Gurría said that Japan could achieve stronger and more inclusive growth by using all three areas effectively. Japan will continue to contribute to the sustainable growth of the global economy, placing the highest priority on economic revitalisation. Attention is now focused on the possible interest rate hike in the United States and the monetary policies of Japan and the European Union going forward. In order to prevent changes in monetary policies from triggering worldwide confusion, we believe that it is important for co-ordination between Japan and Europe when we consider moving away from monetary easing by closely watching developments in the United States.

      The Olympic and Paralympic games were held in Rio de Janeiro in Brazil this year. Four years from now, in 2020, it will be Tokyo’s turn to host the games. The Olympic games will promote international exchange through sport. Everyone will be warmly welcomed at the Tokyo games and we hope that a lot of people will come to Japan.

      A global mutual understanding is essential in dealing with conflicts in various parts of the world, terrorism and refugees. Further co-ordination and co-operation in the international community is vital to achieving sustainable growth of the global economy. That point was reconfirmed in the G7 Ise-Shima leaders’ declaration at the G7 Summit in May this year, which Japan chaired. I assure you that Japan will fulfil our share of responsibility and, at the same time, I ask for your further understanding and co-operation. Japan rejoined the OECD Development Centre after 16 years of absence. We will work with other member countries and share Japan’s experience in economic and social issues relating to development with emerging and developing nations, thus contributing to sustainable development and prosperity in each region. I conclude by promising that Japan will make such efforts and contribute to the activity of the OECD.

      Mr FOURNIER (France)* – First of all, I underline the fact that the biannual report that is being presented to us by the OECD is of the highest possible quality.

      The link between the social and economic situation and the state of democracy does not need any further elaboration. Trust in economic policies and the institutions that determine and implement them is decisive for the stability of our democratic societies. Today, that trust and confidence has been undermined in a number of countries, especially in Europe. Questions are being posed about the economic causes of the relative impoverishment of the middle classes in the countries of the North, and that is becoming a political challenge, as is seen in the rise of all forms of populism and extremism.

      Globalisation has resulted in a considerable increase in world wealth. Hundreds of millions of people, especially in Asia, were lifted out of poverty, which is obviously an excellent thing. They are the great winners of the second wave of globalisation, but we are discovering that globalisation also has losers. Whereas Europe and North America were the main beneficiaries of the first wave of globalisation from 1850 to 1914, over the last 30 years or so, that has no longer been the case. On a global level, the rise in revenue was very significant for the Asian middle class and for the very richest in all countries. In contrast, the middle classes of Europe and America have seen their incomes stagnate because of exploding unemployment, job insecurity and low wage growth. That was accompanied by a significant increase in inequality, which was brought to light by the crisis of 2008. That has resulted in disenchantment and anger among the middle classes of the northern countries. Various political movements are using that to denounce the evils of globalisation and to promote a self-obsession with identity. We should watch out, because those inequalities can result in conflict.

      We note that eight years after the crisis, the main ingredients are still present: weak growth, high unemployment and lethargic investment. Today, the discourse is changing, and that is to the good. Previously, there was the incitement to austerity, which was no doubt necessary in a period of consolidation, but that is now being replaced by appeals to increase public expenditure to promote a return to growth and increased productivity. That expenditure must relate to investments in projects that have the effect of leveraging private funds with public expenditure. I am thinking of the considerable potential offered by the development of co-ordinated human and digital skills. Investment in the future is indispensable to instilling confidence once again in the middle classes, which is the basis for democracy.

      Ms RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS (Spain)* – I thank the Deputy Secretary-General for her report. I will focus on the question of inequality. The report points out that there is growing inequality accompanied by low economic growth and it underlines the ravages of inequality, which is something we all suffer from and not just those directly affected.

      Inequality has continued to grow over the past three decades in particular, not only in developed countries, but in developing countries. One figure is particularly striking: in the past three decades, the income of the richest 10% of the population has been 10 times higher than that of the poorest 10%. Before that it was seven times as high – in other words, the degree of inequality has risen by three. The fact is that the richest countries are not necessarily the fairest countries and that growing inequality is undermining trust among people in society, such as in Mexico, as we have heard. Trust in democracy itself is being undermined, so we are facing a global crisis and a lack of confidence in the system.

      The traditional mechanisms for redistributing wealth have been hit hard in Europe in managing the recent crisis – I am talking about public policymaking and fiscal policy, in particular, in the areas of education and health, which have seen sharp cuts in recent years. Over and above classical policymaking, this is about wealth redistribution for the working classes, primarily stemming from pay, wages and pensions. As we have heard and as the report underlines, wages are in a constant downward spiral. We can use classical measures, but at the same time, we have to propose new measures designed to promote the redistribution of wealth.

      For example, the financial system should stop being viewed as a problem and be part of the solution. That should also be an important instrument for redistributing wealth and growth. At the same time, we should consider implementing proposals regarding basic income for citizens. Finding work is increasingly difficult in our societies and the stagnating growth rates are simply not sufficient to enable us to create enough jobs in developed countries. In Spain, for example, we have seen the employment situation devastated by the crisis. This is a fantastic report and I am delighted that we are talking about it. We should do it more often.

      Ms CENTEMERO (Italy)* – I thank the Deputy Secretary-General for the report. The economic crisis is ongoing and two trends are emerging. Productivity growth is declining and inequality of wealth, income, well-being and opportunity persists. We must intervene to reduce those inequalities. The education and training sector is particularly important because the skills that can be acquired have a direct impact on employment opportunities and the type of employment obtained and therefore on income and personal independence. I am particularly thinking of women, who continue to be at a disadvantage in the labour market in terms of opportunities, income and therefore, again, personal independence. The data show that the people with the best skills and training are more likely to be in good health, to have an impact on political decisions and to participate in social, political and economic life. The more someone earns, the greater the likelihood that they can influence political decision making.

      The PISA programme, which evaluates students’ skills and competency levels, provides tools that enable us to measure student well-being, and a report on educational policies and practices that are designed to reduce social inequality is in the pipeline. However, a worrying gap persists when it comes to ensuring that students have robust skills. One idea on which we must all concentrate and to which the OECD should sign up is to ensure that all social groups – boys, girls, students – are entitled to equal access to education and training and not only with regard to their access to the labour market.

       “The ABC of Gender Equality in Education” report stresses that teachers and schools in many countries need to be encouraged to help young girls understand how maths and science are essential to their future, giving them greater opportunities to have an impact on political life in their country. The OECD’s 2013 recommendation on gender equality in education, employment and entrepreneurship highlighted how women are underrepresented in studies and employment in the STEM sector – science, technology, engineering and mathematics. We must commit to improving that in future.

      Mr Van der MAELEN (Belgium) – In February, I attended the launch of an OECD publication called “Financing Democracy: Funding of Political Parties and Election Campaigns and the Risk of Policy Capture”. I was among the members of parliament who showed an interest in developing further co-operation on that theme and the OECD committed to collecting further information. The information in the document was very useful and I have two questions. First, do you have further information and if so, when will it be published? Secondly, what progress have you made on setting up a thematic parliamentary work group? If I am well informed, there has been contact with the European Parliament, but how will the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe be involved?

      Mr LOZANO ALARCÓN (Mexico, Observer)* – Like many countries, Mexico is concerned about the vicious circle in which we find ourselves. A lack of economic growth combined with a lack of productivity leads to a shortage of jobs, in particular for young people. Financial market volatility, the decline in international oil prices and low interest rates have made it hard for people to borrow money to invest. We have heard a great deal about the result of that combination: the terrible scourge of growing social inequality.

      In the past, we were able to establish a minimum level of well-being and human dignity, but budgetary cuts, from which all our countries are suffering, can exacerbate inequality, as Ms Rodríguez Ramos said. Social and health programmes are often the first to be cut, leading to further social inequality and fewer opportunities for people to develop their potential to find work and to benefit from social and health protection and a living wage. Education and training clearly provide an enormous opportunity to ensure that people can be integrated into the economy, rather than labour moving to other parts of the world.

      Populism and irrationality are on the rise. It is not only Mexico that is worried by the United States presidential campaign. Brexit and the peace referendum in Columbia are part of a whole series of threats that, to be blunt, go against the flow of globalisation and integration. The migrant crisis is purely humanitarian. It is not a question of statistics and we have a duty to show solidarity. Never should we allow ourselves to fall into resignation, but a worldwide trend towards that is emerging. As Mr Angel Gurría said in Mexico yesterday, all that is to a great extent due to a lack of trust and confidence in politicians, policy-making, governments and institutions. We have a great deal of influence when it comes to re-establishing that trust.

      I thank the OECD for the report and for its 2030 vision of moving towards sustainable economic growth. We have rolled out a series of structural reforms in Mexico, but we do not have a magic recipe. The secret is to combine productivity and social justice, which can achieve good results. I thank the OECD, of which Mexico is a member, and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe for giving me the opportunity to speak.

      The PRESIDENT – I remind colleagues once again about the election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights. Those who have not yet voted may still do so. The next speaker is Mr Salmond.

      Mr SALMOND (United Kingdom) – The Deputy Secretary-General reminded us of the benefits of free trade, but this continent is about to see an example of the disbenefits and damage of not having free trade in the hard Brexit process in which the United Kingdom is currently engaged. Since the United Kingdom’s referendum, a feeling has been ventilated in the newspapers that the economic damage resulting from exiting the European single market would not be great, but the Brexit process has not actually happened yet. It is a bit like jumping off the Eiffel tower and thinking halfway down that things are not going to be too bad. When the UK economy hits the ground from hard Brexit, the impact will be very severe indeed.

      This morning, a leak from the UK Treasury put some estimated figures on the process. The suggestion is that over a 15-year period there will be a 5% to 10% loss in gross domestic product, a 20% decline in foreign direct investment, and a 20% reduction in international trade. In financial terms, that is a £66 billion loss in annual government revenue. I do not have to convert that into euros, because at the rate the pound is sinking it will soon have parity with the euro.

      Why would any government engage in such economic damage? The answer is that the United Kingdom Government prioritised the restriction of the free movement of people ahead of the benefits of free trade and free movement of goods and capital.

      It is important for this Assembly to understand that while England and Wales voted narrowly for Brexit, Scotland and Northern Ireland, the other countries in the United Kingdom, voted overwhelmingly to remain part of the European structures. We want no part of the economic sabotage that the hard Brexit process entails. That is why we are looking for support from other members of this Assembly, from other Europeans, to maintain our European connections.

      Yesterday, the Secretary General of this body was asked by my colleague Ms Ahmed-Sheikh about the position of Scotland and Northern Ireland. He replied that Scotland and Northern Ireland would find their own way, but that they would of course still have the protection of the European Convention on Human Rights. That, however, overlooks the fact that the UK Government is also deeply hostile to the European Convention on Human Rights, the greatest achievement of this body and something that is actually embedded in the foundation statute of the Scottish Parliament.

      We are looking for support, therefore, from other members of this Assembly, from other Europeans, to maintain our economic connections between Europe and Scotland and to protect the European Convention for the Scottish people.

      Ms ANTTILA (Finland) – It is my great honour and pleasure to thank Ms Kiviniemi for her excellent and comprehensive contribution to this debate.

      At the global level, we are facing very challenging times in many respects. Growth and investment have been low since 2007, the unemployment rate has been on the rise and the financial crisis has required considerable efforts to establish a more resilient and transparent financial system. The challenges of the digital revolution, ageing populations and globalisation remain, as they profoundly change the types of jobs available and the way we work. At the same time, the migration and refugee crisis and terrorism are creating new challenges for us. Nor can we ignore the impact of Brexit on the markets.

      I thank the OECD for its valuable work in providing data and policy analysis with regard to different sectors. Your New Approaches to Economic Challenges initiative is being mainstreamed and has had an impact on the OECD’s analytical work, data collection and publications. This will give you better possibilities to utilise research results, cross-sectoral work and cross-committee collaboration

      One of the main questions is how to increase productivity while avoiding a rise in inequality. There is a risk that better growth and productivity will mainly benefit those already in a good position. Corruption is a severe impediment to sustainable economic and social progress. It has contributed to the sharp rise in income and wealth, but also to the increase in inequality and to record low levels of trust. Fighting corruption is therefore a component in bringing about more inclusive growth after the crisis and helping to restore citizens’ confidence in institutions and markets. We need greater tax transparency to tackle tax evasion and tax avoidance but we cannot forget our sustainable development goals, including the climate change targets accepted in Paris this year. Those issues are very well described in the report.

      A lot of work has already been done in order to achieve more equal societies, but the job is by no means finished. Let me once again thank you, Mari Kiviniemi, and the OECD for your important work.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Anttila. We enjoyed your speech. Our next speaker is Mr José Ramón García Hernández.

      Mr GARCÍA HERNÁNDEZ (Spain)* – I thank the Deputy Secretary-General for this report. I echo the words of congratulation that have been extended to you.

      I will touch on four aspects of the report. The first is the positive link between immigration and development, and I think that the time has come to look at that link positively. The second is the fight against corruption, and the third – underlined as a positive – is the funding of democracy, which has caused me a great deal of concern, because it is feeding populism and people who lead the fight against existing politics. The fourth aspect is the link between climate change and the economy, and I congratulate you on mentioning that. Spanish policymaking has concentrated on those aspects and on structural reform.

      Nevertheless, I heard you voice a note of general criticism, with which I agreed. You talked about inclusive growth, but we do not actually have measures designed to promote inclusion. All policy-making affects people. In many cases, we can make choices about the economy without the people, but we cannot do politics without the people. You referred to the need for social policies, but, ultimately, we have to protect the dignity of the people.

      We are therefore discussing four black holes, on which I would like to hear your thoughts. The first of my questions relates to the fact that you talked about productivity, but you did not talk about the role of workers or institutions such as trade unions in reducing inequality. On productivity and new fiscal policies, what can we do to move towards more equal societies?

      My second question is linked to the first. In your report, there is a very subtle reference to the fact that half the lack of growth is due to productivity, but that the other half is due to a “weak capital stock” – to cite your report. If the solution is to increase fiscal policy designed to promote spending, the effect on consumption, for example, would be felt for decades, so we really have to focus on the whole question of productivity and the link with wages.

      The third of the black holes is where you talked about the banking system, but you made no reference to retail banking. In other words, there is a spectre of another crisis ahead, with all its implications.

      The fourth black hole is the instruments that you talked about; you were right in what you said. At the same time, however, we are faced with the real problem of how we tackle youth unemployment in a world of lower productivity. If we cannot solve that, we are in a hopeless situation.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. I hope that the rapporteur will be able to answer all the questions. Our next speaker is Mr Sabella.

      Mr SABELLA (Palestine, Partner for Democracy) – The problem of inclusivity, equal distribution of wealth and increased productivity not only touches member States of the OECD and their populations, but extends worldwide, as stated in the report.

      We face a number of problems in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA): refugees from the Syrian conflict; the absence of political prospects in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; young populations – in some MENA countries, more than 40% of the population are aged under 15 – and the upheaval and civil war in Libya, Yemen, Syria and Iraq. All those problems point towards the need for the OECD, as it works out plans to deal with the repercussions of the overall economic crisis, to pay attention to the responsibility of member States to work towards a comprehensive strategy to resolve conflicts, alongside inclusive economic plans and objectives that extend to the States of the MENA region and that prioritise finding a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The French initiative in that respect should be supported.

      The drop that we have seen in economic and political confidence in governments and officials – whether elected or unelected – the disagreements in Europe about how to deal with the refugee crisis and the continuing disarray in our Middle East region all point to the fact that we are interdependent. Accordingly, solutions need to be interdependent and inclusive, and they should touch on the basic rights and human security of all segments of the population across all continents and geographic areas. If we do not give hope to young people in the Middle East and elsewhere, we will not achieve our objectives of economic recovery, inclusiveness and overall political stability.

      Lord BLENCATHRA (United Kingdom) – We are discussing the activities of the OECD just two weeks after the report admitting that its dire warnings of disaster for the United Kingdom economy if we voted for Brexit were quite wrong. The OECD has now revised its forecasts up, instead of down. For next year, it has revised them down. If it cannot predict our economic future just two months ahead, why should we pay attention to its predictions 15 months ahead, or even 15 years ahead? At least the OECD is not as incompetent in its predictions as is the IMF, which has got everything wrong since 2008, when it failed to see the economic crash. As its own internal auditors have recently said, the IMF deliberately operated the wrong policies for the eurozone in a deliberate attempt to keep the currency intact, rather than adopting economic plans that would genuinely have helped Greece, Spain and Portugal.

      There are similarities in the groupthink of both organisations, because I submit that they are both playing at politics and trying to change political taxation systems. The OECD is driven by an underlying agenda of trying to increase corporation tax levels for all countries to those of the countries with the highest rates. I submit that the OECD is not to be trusted as a neutral implementer of G20 decisions, but that it has its own agenda. Its work on base erosion and profit shifting is merely the continuation of its philosophy that there is harmful taxation. Of course there is harmful taxation – that is, when taxes are too high. Ireland has a highly successful economy, and it has recovered faster than any other European country from the economic crisis because it did two things. It cut its budget and refused to increase its corporation tax from 12.5%, which is the lowest in Europe. Ireland was threatened by the European Commission and by big, high-tax, socialist countries in Europe, but it did not give in.

      Who has been harmed by Ireland’s low corporation taxes? It is perfectly acceptable for countries to compete on taxation terms in exactly the same way as they compete using other resources that they have at their disposal. Some countries are huge and have millions of tonnes of natural resources, such as uranium, ores or precious metals. Other countries have at their disposal millions of workers who are paid very low wages by western standards. Perhaps, therefore, if we were to follow the OECD philosophy, we should penalise China and India for having unfair cheap labour, Australia for having unfair abundant iron ore, and perhaps Spain for having an unfairly good climate in which peaches and oranges can grow, which they cannot do in England. I submit that tax competition is good for countries and good for workers. If the rest of Europe is jealous of Ireland’s low tax rate, the lesson is for countries to cut their taxes to the same level and to compete.

      Mr WHALEN (Canada, Observer) – I thank the OECD for its excellent report. I am here to promote and encourage an aspect of the OECD’s work: tax transparency. In support of our common goal of inclusive growth, the OECD’s report demonstrates to this Assembly that the OECD is advancing the trust agenda through a variety of studies, events and instruments associated with anti-corruption, tax transparency, international bribery, corporate governance, public integrity and governance, and illicit financial flows. As the report recalls, in 2009 the G20 declared that bank secrecy was over. That encouraged OECD countries to reinvigorate the fight against tax evasion and establish the OECD’s restructured Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes. More than 130 jurisdictions have joined the forum, and they participate on an equal footing in its in-depth peer-review process. That certainly demonstrates a profound commitment to and desire for tax harmonisation and transparency throughout the world. That includes the monitoring of tax transparency standards, the exchange of information on request and the automatic exchange of financial account information.

      In 2014, the OECD developed the global common reporting standard, which further enhanced global tax transparency. We are greatly encouraged by the fact that 101 jurisdictions are committed to beginning the first exchanges using the common reporting standard within the next two years. The joint OECD and Council of Europe multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters remains the most powerful legal framework for countries seeking to expand cross-border co-operation on tax matters. We are very encouraged by the fact that by 26 September 2016, 104 jurisdictions had signed that convention in some fashion.

      The project to address base erosion and profit shifting, which was established in 2013 following a request from G20 leaders, is now entering its implementation phase. By closing unintended loopholes in the international tax system, we can help to prevent profits from being shifted away from the location of economic activity and value creation, and in so doing we can achieve fairer societies and more inclusive growth. One key finding from the project is that the global corporate income tax revenue losses from base erosion and profit shifting are estimated to be almost US $250 billion annually. Our efforts and the work of the OECD are worth continuing. Significant work lies ahead, and it is encouraging that OECD and G20 countries have agreed to a new inclusive framework that will allow interested countries and jurisdictions to be directly involved on an equal footing.

      I commend the OECD for its useful report to this Assembly, for its work in the field of tax transparency and for its work in support of data collection and exchange. The importance of this work in support of inclusive growth cannot be overstated.

      Ms FERNANDES (United Kingdom) – I am grateful for all the valuable contributions to this important debate. The OECD is an important membership organisation that helps to deepen international co-operation and set rules and standards – including on tax, anti-bribery and official development assistance – that underpin the rules-based international economic system. Its technical and analytical capability is an invaluable resource that helps to inform UK policymaking across a range of economic, environmental and social policy areas. Its expertise and other members’ experience are relevant to UK priorities such as productivity, anti-corruption and anti-microbial resistance.

      The OECD’s 2016 ministerial council meeting, which was held in June of this year, was attended by three UK Ministers: Lord O’Neill, Mr Swire and Mr Freeman. It focused on productivity growth and inequality in income, wealth and opportunities.

On 23 June, the people of Britain voted by a majority of a million to leave the European Union. As a member of parliament who campaigned in favour of Brexit, I was pleased with this result. Britain now has an opportunity to set her own laws, control immigration, forge new trade deals and secure more growth and job creation. I am delighted that our new prime minister, Theresa May, has set out a plan to make Brexit a reality. She will trigger Article 50 – the point at which negotiations will commence – no later than March 2017, and the government will introduce the great repeal bill to remove the European Communities Act from the statute book on the day we leave.

I am also pleased that the OECD, in its recent updates and forecasts, has revised its pre-referendum predictions of recession and a fall in growth. The warnings of recession, low growth, sell-off of assets and falls in consumer confidence and investment have all proved wrong. Three months after the vote the United Kingdom, has shown stronger than expected growth in the second quarter and a relatively calm financial market has responded to the leave vote. For 2016, the OECD revised its forecast for UK growth up by 0.1 of a percentage point to 0.8%. These new forecasts are in line with all independent economic forecasts and show that Brexit and leaving the European Union, as acknowledged by the OECD, can herald only more economic growth and productivity for a liberated United Kingdom.

Ms AHMED-SHEIKH (United Kingdom) – I share the President’s delight at the number of women speakers in this important debate and I hope it is a sign of the increased and enhanced economic empowerment of women across the world.

I welcome Ms Kiviniemi’s outline of the good work undertaken by the OECD over the past year. However, I should like to highlight some concerns regarding the seemingly contradictory support that the OECD shows towards measures to enhance inclusiveness while its Secretary-General has praised the austerity measures of the Conservative Government, which are seen to be the most terrible detriment to the most vulnerable in society. UK austerity has not decreased the ever-widening economic gap – there are increased discrepancies in educational attainment and life chances – and it has not reduced the deficit. May I please ask the OECD to explain how support for fiscal policies that increase the gap between rich and poor could possibly mirror the commitment to inclusive growth?

On inclusivity, I hope that all members listened to the remarks of my colleague Mr Alex Salmond when he spoke about Scotland wishing to remain part of the family of European nations. Is the OECD looking into the serious economic consequences of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union and the impact this will have on the labour market, not just in the United Kingdom but across the European Union?

The PRESIDENT – That concludes the list of speakers and a very interesting discussion. I now call Ms Kiviniemi, Deputy Secretary-General of the OECD, to reply.

Ms KIVINIEMI – It has been a pleasure to listen to the discussion. For the OECD, this really is the discussion of the year when it comes to interaction with MPs. I am happy about the Assembly’s support for the OECD’s work on tackling the challenges of inequality, low growth in GDP, trade and productivity, tax avoidance, youth unemployment, immigration and refugees, fighting corruption and so on. On inequality and inclusiveness, it was very nice that many members underlined the importance of more efficient, better and more inclusive education systems, which give everyone opportunities for lifelong learning. This work on inequality and inclusiveness has influenced the work streams of the OECD. One concrete example is our flagship publication, “Going for Growth”, which will now be called “Going for Inclusive Growth”. The dimensions of well-being and sustainability will carry greater weight than before.

The Better Life Initiative is also a way to measure countries’ performance in inclusion. In that initiative we do not measure only GDP growth but dimensions such as housing, environment, health, education and subjective well-being.

Taxation was a subject taken up by many speakers. I am happy with the support but want to underline the importance of implementation, which was mentioned by many members. That is an important part of the work in global forums on taxation. We are undertaking peer reviews in which we look at how countries perform, what progress they have made and whether they have really implemented these recommendations, as is the case with all our guidelines and recommendations that countries sign. It is not enough that they sign the agreement; they must also implement it. The organisation, together with its member countries, is looking at countries’ performance. We will release a kind of “name and shame” list and those countries can then improve their performance.

As to our recommendations, we can and do measure performance. For example, we measured that the G20 countries implemented only 50% of the structural reforms agreed to at the G20 meeting two years ago.

Turning to specific questions, the Jobs Strategy is to look at the quality of work. We are also undertaking a review of collective bargaining.

There was a specific question about our work on financing democracy. We are continuing this work and in the next parliamentary days, in February, we will establish a working group on financing democracy. We are also co-operating with the European Parliament and the European Union.

On free trade, it really is as we have written in our report: free trade benefits the countries that participate in it and increases their income. However, as we also say in the report, flanking policies are needed to make sure that the benefits of free trade are shared equally. An active labour market policy, social policy and investment in skills and lifelong learning are needed. As an organisation, we must communicate this better than we have so far.

Thank you for this opportunity and for your attention.

The PRESIDENT – On behalf of the Assembly, I thank Ms Kiviniemi for her very interesting statement and her response to the debate. Ms Kiviniemi, good luck, and we wish you every success in your work. The debate is closed.

      (Mr Agramunt, President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Ms Naghdalyan.)

4. Address by François Hollande, President of the French Republic

      The PRESIDENT* – We will now hear an address by Mr François Hollande, President of the French Republic. After this, President Hollande will take questions from the floor.

      Mr President, it is a great honour indeed to welcome you here to the Parliamentary Assembly, an Organisation that brings together the elected representatives of 47 member States, embodying the notion of a greater Europe. I also welcome Mr Harlem Désir, Secretary of State for European Affairs, and Ms Catherine Lalumière, former Secretary General of the Council of Europe. It is an honour to welcome you back to the Council of Europe and to this Chamber.

      Mr President, as a founding member State that is home to the seat of our Organisation, France plays a key role within the Council of Europe. Your visit to Strasbourg attests to France’s strong political commitment to our Organisation and the ideals and principles that it seeks to defend. This political backing is important to us, particularly given the current political context.

Europe today must face up to new challenges, particularly international terrorism, a scourge by which France has been hard hit. We stand in solidarity with the French people and the French authorities. You said, following the terrible terrorist attacks in Paris last November, that what terrorists want is to frighten and horrify us, and that our answer to them is, “You shall not have our fear; you shall not have our hatred.” These words, spoken by Antoine Leiris, a journalist for France Info who lost his wife in the terrorist attack on the Bataclan, prompted our initiative, #NoHateNoFear. I am profoundly grateful to you for your support for this initiative. Together, we must defend our values and our way of life.

      As we face the emergence of new conflicts between our member States and at a time when frozen former conflicts risk flaring up at any moment, we require more than ever diplomatic efforts on all fronts in order to defend our principles firmly, while knowing that it may be necessary to seek compromises in order to restore peace and promote reconciliation. France’s efforts, particularly in the context of resolving the Ukrainian crisis, and your personal role within the Normandy format are of great importance. We are keen to hear your ideas about the prospects for resolving the conflict.

      The Council of Europe, at its inception, was a laboratory for shaping European co-operation and putting to the test ideas on the subject of European co-operation, according to Robert Schuman, one of the founding fathers of our Organisation. Today, more than ever, we need to experiment and test with a view to coming up with tangible solutions, but in order to take our efforts further, we need political input at the highest level. The idea of convening a full summit of heads of State and government of the Council of Europe seems to me to take on particular significance today. In this context, your vision and your ideas about the future of the process of European integration would be highly appreciated.

      Mr President, you have the floor.

      Mr François HOLLANDE (President of the French Republic)* – Mr President, Secretary General, ladies and gentlemen, honourable members of parliament, your excellencies, ambassadors, my presence here today is designed to reiterate France’s profound commitment to your institution, the Council of Europe, here in Strasbourg, a capital of Europe. However, I am fully aware that the particularly grave circumstances in which we find ourselves add specific overtones to my visit.

The values promoted by the Council of Europe should be a constant source of inspiration to us. François Mitterrand, who attended the Hague Congress in 1948, always reminded us that what Europe is really about is safeguarding hard-won freedoms and extending them to all. This has been the work of the Council of Europe over the years since. The Council of Europe now brings together 47 countries and 820 million citizens. All its member States have solemnly committed to ensuring that human beings are at the very heart of their legal systems. The Council of Europe is the depository for 211 conventions, of which France has ratified 135. At the very pinnacle of this construction is the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in Europe. France has always endeavoured to respect all the principles set out in that Convention.

I would like to take this opportunity to commend you for your constant efforts to promote freedoms further, not only by pushing back the borders of Europe as you have done but by extending the scope for protection of freedoms at the same time. In that way, you have extended your remit to ethical questions, such as banning human cloning. You have also worked on the issue of human trafficking. You have fought hard against gender violence and worked tirelessly to protect personal data, as part of our right to privacy.

      Over and beyond those principles, however, we need binding mechanisms to ensure that we achieve compliance. That is the primary task of the European Court of Human Rights, whose president I have just met. I stress that France will carry out its duty when it comes to respecting the rulings of the Court. France has supported all reforms designed to improve the way in which the Court operates. In particular, I refer to the most recent protocols, namely Protocols 14 and 15, which France ratified. We are also preparing definitive adoption of the 16th Protocol. Our support for the Court is also designed to ensure that we achieve full implementation of those decisions. That is why we have adopted a law to ensure that we simplify procedures for delivering on criminal condemnations of France by the Court. That will also apply to the field of civil law. Decisions pertaining to individual civil status will be subject to re-examination every time a Court decision condemns France. That will apply, for example, to sex changes and changes to people’s civil status.

Every time the Court has adopted a decision, France has always ensured that our legislation is changed. In 2013, we introduced a specific offence regarding human trafficking. In 2014, our rules regarding pre-trial detention were subject to root-and-branch reform, so as to guarantee better rights for the defence during investigation. More recently, we have instigated the right to professional representation for members of the armed forces. Not only have we recognised that right; we have actually delivered on it.

I am also fully aware of France’s duty when it comes to the state of our prisons. We are fully aware of the implications of prison overcrowding and the need to move towards individual cells. The government recently announced a plan, with funding of more than €1 billion, for building new prisons. However, our prison policy involves a second problem, namely that of alternatives to imprisonment.

Those are just a few reasons why I believe so strongly in the role of the Council of Europe. You have done so much to promote the rule of law and to ensure that we all live up to the promises we have made. I pay tribute to the work of the Commissioner for Human Rights and the Venice Commission, both of which have played such an important role since 1990 in the transition in central and eastern Europe, in particular in the Balkans and today in Ukraine.

I also salute the work of the Council of Europe Development Bank. It is not sufficiently known, but it funds eminently social projects in 41 member States. Recently, the Bank set up a specific fund designed to promote support for refugees and migrants. France feels honoured to be one of the three main shareholders of the institution.

Over almost 70 years, the Council of Europe has done an enormous amount to build a continent of peace, co-operation and freedom without precedent or equal elsewhere in the world. However, let us be aware of the fact that this movement could come to a brutal stop. It is subject to a series of threats such as terrorism, as well as the upsurge in populism and extremism, promoted to an extent by the refugee and migration crisis. We have heard all about nationalism and the rise in sovereignist movements, which give people the idea that individual countries can find all the answers they need. Even your role is starting to be questioned. Some people suggest that you are not in a position to protect your fellow citizens, as if freedom could be conceived as a limit and as if a state of emergency could adequately replace the rule of law.

Terrorism undermines the principle of democracy – it threatens it. Our principles, freedom and fundamental values are being targeted by these fanatics. France has been targeted several times, with horrific consequences and symbolic moments, including on 14 July, and in places where the attacks were designed to create the idea of a war of religions, including when a priest had his throat cut in a church. In other words, these terrorists are targeting our well-being. Young people were attacked because they wanted to spend an evening together in happiness.

France is not the only country that has been attacked; there have been many others within and beyond Europe. Many of our European neighbours have been attacked by the evil of terrorism, and no country is safe.

The Council of Europe has done its duty by drafting protocols on, for example, the prevention of terrorism, as well as by addressing the issue of foreign fighters. After the terrible attacks on 13 November, France was forced to invoke Article 15 of the Convention, which provides member States with the possibility of taking special measures under judicial control within the framework of emergency legislation. I did that following the attacks on 13 November. However, together with my government and Prime Minister Manuel Valls, I have been vigilant to ensure that all measures taken are proportionate, so as to ensure that the authorities have everything they need to ensure that house searches and house arrests involving dangerous individuals can be done in full compliance with the law.

A series of laws has been adopted in France since 2014 so as to strengthen our fight against terrorism. All that legislation has been approved by the constitutional court. Moreover, you as members of this Assembly have also scrutinised that legislation. We have also committed to providing a legal framework, for the very first time in our history, for the activities of our intelligence services. It will be a comprehensive framework, so as to ensure that they can act effectively but, once again, in compliance with the law.

We cannot act alone when it comes to fighting Internet propaganda that encourages radicalisation. This is an issue that you in this Chamber have to deal with. You have an essential role to play when it comes to protecting privacy, but privacy can be circumvented by fanatics so as to peddle their propaganda. That is such a terrible danger for young people in our countries, encouraging them to leave for jihad.

France has taken the responsibility of closing down what some people referred to as prayer rooms, but which were in fact centres for propaganda for promoting hate. France has spearheaded efforts to expel hate preachers who use the freedom of speech to promote the most virulent forms of violence.

We will do our utmost, however, to ensure that nobody can stigmatise other communities, in particular Muslims. We will ensure that there is no confusion between our duty to protect our citizens and the need to guarantee religious freedoms in our country. We can never allow anybody to question those religious freedoms.

I have talked in the past about the importance of laïcité – secularism – here in France. It is a fundamental principle. According to the rules of laïcité, State funding of any religion is prohibited. Secularism gives every individual in our country the right to believe or not to believe and the right to practise their faith as long as they respect the principles of public order. Those rules are not the fruit of hastily adopted legislation. They are founded in principles that were first enunciated more than a century ago. Those same principles allow us to ensure that we can guarantee respect for freedom of conscience, while at the same time being free to prosecute those who provoke society and threaten our ability to live together in peace.

I feel that we have found the right balance and it is enough now to simply ensure that existing legislation is applied. Security is an essential need for our citizens. Our people want to be protected. However, security at the same time has to be compatible with the values of the rule of law. In France, for example, there is no question of opening detention centres for people being investigated by the intelligence services. That would be a violation of the rule of law, as one of its principles is that only judges can order the imprisonment of an individual.

I can also promise you that France will not be adopting exceptional legislation to tackle terrorism. That would be dangerous. We have specific judges and courts who are responsible for following procedure and who are doing an excellent job. Existing legislation allows us to act effectively. That is my message on behalf of a country that is caught up in fighting terrorism while safeguarding our fundamental principles. Clearly legislation has to change, but our legislation will remain in full compliance with our constitution. In the face of this threat and the efforts of terrorists to divide society and turn us against each other, exceptional measures will be taken against those who are trying to undermine our freedom, if necessary. Terrorists are trying to destroy our freedom, and we have a duty to defend it.

For several months, Europe has faced an unprecedented influx of refugees and migrants. The Syrian crisis has led to millions of refugees being forced to flee their country. Many fled to camps in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. I commend the efforts of those countries that have done so much. Other refugees and migrants have chosen to travel to Europe. I say “chosen”, but in fact they had no other option: they were fleeing violence and were forced into exile.

Europe took too long to find a common response. Our common response must be based on effective control of our external borders. That is a vital prerequisite if we are to provide a dignified reception for these refugees while establishing clear rules that they have to respect. That involves effort on sharing the burden of the refugees. Without effort on all these fronts, which involve the border control forces and legislative and non-legislative measures – I am talking about the right to asylum – Europe will be torn apart. The refugee question could tear Europe apart. France has done its duty. We will have accepted 30,000 refugees from Greece and Turkey by 2017. In parallel, we continue our resettlement programme in Jordan and Lebanon set up in co-operation with the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

France also has a large number of migrants and refugees within its borders. I know that the Assembly is aware of the tragic events in Calais. For far too long, a camp with at least 7 000 inmates has been home to people living in horrific conditions – people who have been forced to flee their countries. That is why I recently decided with my Government to dismantle the camp in Calais to ensure that we can provide dignified humane accommodation for the people who live in that camp. All the people who live in that camp will be entitled to accommodation during the period of their asylum request. As I have said so often before, people who are not entitled to seek asylum will be provided with travel back to their countries. We have a duty to deal fairly with asylum seekers.

We also have a duty to ensure that unaccompanied minors are dealt with in a fair, dignified and responsible way. We are addressing that question with the United Kingdom. Talks are under way to find solutions so that those children with family members in the United Kingdom can join their families. That is another prerequisite for removing the Calais camp. The dismantling of the camp will be a humanitarian action. Every inmate will be provided with accommodation elsewhere. We have put in place all the infrastructure necessary to deal with the problems of the camp in Calais and elsewhere, including Paris. Every person from the camp will be provided with a solution. France recognises its responsibility, but at the same time, however, this is a shared responsibility for all of us. We have to realise that we cannot dismantle the Calais camp without providing solutions throughout the country.

The values of the Council of Europe also underpin France’s diplomatic action beyond the borders of our country. In Ukraine, the illegal annexation of Crimea by Russia and the destabilisation of the east of the country have created thousands of victims and thousands of displaced persons. As part of the Normandy format, I have personally undertaken, together with Chancellor Merkel, to seek a diplomatic solution to the conflict. This is the Minsk Agreement. I admit that progress has been too slow from the outset. We have to work hard to establish the political and security conditions necessary to ensure that elections are held in the east of the country under Ukrainian and international law, in line with the Minsk Agreement. Together with Chancellor Merkel, we are ready at any time to reconvene the Normandy format together with President Poroshenko and President Putin to ensure that we can fully deliver on the Minsk Agreement. Ukraine has to adopt the reforms promised, and the Council of Europe has an essential role to play in helping it do that.

France has certain major disagreements with Russia. For example, there is disagreement on Syria. The Russian veto on the French Security Council resolution prevented us from bringing an end to the bombing of cities and instigating a truce. The primary victims of that failure to act are the civilian population – the people who live and die under constant bombing. That is why I am convinced that we have a profound need for dialogue for Russia, but that dialogue must be firm and honest, otherwise it is pointless and a sham. That is why I reiterate my willingness to meet President Putin whenever he deems necessary. We have a duty to work together to promote peace, to bring an end to the bombing and to instigate a truce.

I also call for dialogue with Turkey. Turkey has borne the bulk of the burden in welcoming refugees. Turkey is a lynchpin when it comes to finding a solution to the conflict in Syria. On 14 and 15 July, Turkey was hit by a coup d’état. Turkey dealt with that coup and now has to ensure that our fundamental values prevail in the aftermath. That is France’s position: we are always committed to dialogue and to seeking peace. France’s position is to invoke the primacy of the Security Council, which is why we recently tabled our resolution. I remind the Assembly that the Russian resolution got just three votes, and the Russian veto prevented us from bringing the bombing to an end. Dialogue, responsibility, and seeking peace: that is what we believe in.

      I felt that I had to talk about Syria today. Syria is a monumental challenge to the international community. Our very honour is at stake. Either we can live up to our honour by finding a solution or we will have to face the eternal shame of watching millions of Syrians leave their homes and suffer massacres, and allow terrorism, which has found a new breeding ground there, to put down deeper roots. That terrorism comes to us from Syria, both through its ideology and the terrorists who are sent here from Syria. In Aleppo, the very conscience of humanity is at stake. We have to do our utmost to ensure that Aleppo does not join the terrible list of martyred cities.

      Ladies and gentlemen, I felt I had to share that message with you here today, because in this Chamber the values of principle, hope and democracy were established. Just after the Second World War, it was in this Chamber that we were able to launch those appeals for peace. Here in this Chamber, the first efforts for reunification were announced – efforts to bring together and reconcile countries which up until then lived under the yoke of totalitarianism and dictatorship.

      The unstinting work of the Council of Europe is not yet completed, though – very much the contrary. In the difficult circumstances I have just described, we need the Council of Europe and its values more than ever. In 2019, the Council of Europe will be celebrating its 70th anniversary. France will be holding the chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers. We will also be organising the fourth summit to chart out the future of your Organisation.

      So, ladies and gentlemen, that is my message to you – my message about the values which bring us all together. France stands shoulder to shoulder with the Council of Europe, and I am convinced that the Council of Europe will stand shoulder to shoulder with France in our untiring efforts to promote peace, freedom and democracy. Thank you. [Applause.]

      The PRESIDENT* - Mr President, thank you very much indeed for your address, which was incredibly interesting for all Members in the Chamber. A number of colleagues have questions they would like to put to you. I remind them that questions must be limited to 30 seconds and no more, and that they should not be speeches, but questions only. I first call Mr Nikoloski.

      Mr NIKOLOSKI (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, Spokesperson for the Group of the European People’s Party) – Mr President, in your speech you mentioned the migrant crisis. Europe is facing one of the biggest migrant crises since the Second World War. At the moment, we see only one approach – that of finding a common solution as to how to protect, as you said, the external borders. Unfortunately, Europe is failing to do that. As you know, Macedonia is on the main migrant route and tried to contribute a lot last year with keeping to the decision on closing the border. Do you see other solutions if this plan fails, no matter whether that is because of a failed agreement between Brussels and Turkey or because it will be impossible to protect our external borders? Do you see alternatives as to how we deal with the migrant issue?

      Mr HOLLANDE* – I have already spoken about the migrant crisis, because of course it concerns countries that are members of the European Union but also countries that are not members of the Union. In that regard, it is for the Europe of the 28 – still the 28 – to ensure protection of its borders, particularly within the Schengen area, but that of course can only be done in co-operation with other countries. Our first duty, therefore, is to control our borders and, in co-operation with Turkey, to implement the agreement that has been reached. But we must also look to what is happening elsewhere – other routes or itineraries that are being used by smugglers. I am very much aware of the fact that the Balkans are in the front line. That is why a number of measures were taken unilaterally by a certain number of countries. Europe needs to support the Balkans when it comes to controlling migratory flows. This is something that we have done, together with Germany, so that we can not only have proper control of our borders but give support to those countries that are concerned by migration.

      Mr NICOLETTI* (Italy, Spokesperson for the Socialist Group) – Thank you very much, President Hollande, for your presence here this morning, for what you have said in your statement, and for recalling your faith and confidence in our institution – France of course being one of the founding members of this Organisation. Thank you for your support for a proposal currently under debate, namely, the convening of the fourth summit of heads of State and government, for which we believe there is an urgent need. I would like to have your views on that subject. You also touched on the Syrian tragedy. Is there something that you believe could be done straight away so that we can bring around the negotiating table the countries involved – not only Europe but Russia and Turkey?

      Mr HOLLANDE* – Perhaps I could reiterate France’s intentions when it comes to 2019. We shall certainly do all in our power to ensure that we celebrate the event as befits it, and not just have a ritual or a ceremony commemorating the 70th anniversary of the Organisation: we also need to take up some specific issues, as you have suggested.

      On Syria, first and foremost, of course we need to ensure a truce – in other words, a cessation of hostilities on the ground and an end to the bombing so that humanitarian aid can be got into the regions in need. As I speak to you, no humanitarian aid can get through to Aleppo, so the civilian population is doubly hit with not only the bombing but hunger, poverty, and the absence of any kind of medical care: as we know, hospitals and medical facilities have been bombed in Aleppo. So, firstly, a truce is required so that we can get in humanitarian aid, and then we can start talking about negotiations that will of course have to include all the parties involved in the conflict – the countries in the region and also Russia and Turkey, and even Iran. We need around the negotiating table all those countries that are concerned by the tragedy that is unfolding in Syria. That is why the dialogue with Russia is necessary. But that dialogue can only take place on a clear foundation – a clear basis. When Russia vetoes a resolution that embodies the principles that I have just spoken about, then what can we say? How can we talk about taking further a dialogue that has been broken off? I hope that Russia can decide definitively to put an end to the bombing to which it is a party in terms of its support to the Syrian regime. As soon as that happens, we will embark together with Russia on the path towards dialogue.

      Mr LEYDEN (Ireland, Spokesperson for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe) – On my own behalf, and on behalf of the Irish delegation and my ALDE colleagues, I say fáilte – welcome – to President Hollande. We in Ireland are deeply concerned about the economic impact of Brexit, as we have a 499 km border with the United Kingdom, and €1 billion in trade in goods and services every week, and are the only country in Europe with a border, within Ireland, with the United Kingdom. Mr President, would you support Ireland having a representative at the negotiations between the European Union and the United Kingdom to protect our economic interests in this regard?

      Mr HOLLANDE* – Brexit was a decision made by the British people and now, of course, that has to be fully respected and implemented. I had hoped that the negotiations would start quickly, but Theresa May, the British Prime Minister, prefers to put them off and open the negotiations in March, and we respect that. There can be no negotiations between now and then. As of March, the European Commission together with the European Council will be able to engage in negotiations that determine the conditions under which the United Kingdom will leave the European Union. Obviously, certain issues directly affect Ireland and that will have to be taken into consideration by European Commission negotiators, in close consultation with the Irish authorities. Having been to Ireland – I visited Dublin recently – I have made it clear what the situation is and what rules will need to be applied. At present, the United Kingdom is an integral part of the European Union, but when the negotiations start, what you said will have to be taken into consideration.

      Mr GONCHARENKO (Ukraine, Spokesperson for the European Conservatives Group)* – On 19 October, there will be a visit from the Russian Federation. Given the war crimes being committed by the Russian Federation in Syria, Ukraine and elsewhere, the illegal kidnapping of Sushchenko, a Ukrainian journalist, and the danger that President Putin represents to the world as a whole, I call on you to cancel that meeting with President Putin. Is that possible?

      Mr HOLLANDE* – Mr Putin, the President of the Russian Federation, was to visit Paris soon to participate in a number of ceremonies and inaugurations. I agreed to a meeting only if it was possible to talk about Syria. I have made it clear to President Putin that if he were to come to Paris, I would not join him at those ceremonial occasions, but that I would be prepared to meet him in order to continue a dialogue on Syria. He preferred to put off the visit, but there will be other opportunities to meet him. In any event, he will not come to Paris.

      Mr PSYCHOGIOS (Greece, Spokesperson for the Group of the Unified European Left) – Thank you for your presence in our Assembly today, Mr Hollande. Under the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Social Charter, fundamental social and economic rights must be guaranteed within member States. However, recent reforms in various countries, including France, have led to further deregulation of the labour market and collective bargaining. How is that compatible with the standards set by the Council of Europe, taking into account the fact that that recipe proved totally unsuccessful when applied to other countries, such as Greece?

      Mr HOLLANDE* – Let me reassure you that French laws and the French labour code recognise the existence of trade unions and, indeed, even strengthen trade unions. The principles of collective bargaining and social dialogue are required at company level and sector level. All the rules and standards of the International Labour Organisation are followed in France. If there is a single country in Europe or the world that has genuine protection of workers, providing for an appropriate balance between the protection of workers and labour productivity, it is France. It will continue to be such a country as long as I am the President of France.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr President. Six speakers from the Assembly will now have the floor to ask questions, and the President will answer all the questions in one go. The first speaker will be Mr Schwabe.

      Mr SCHWABE (Germany)* – Thank you for underlining the importance of renewing the values of the Council of Europe and for announcing that there will be a summit. It is important to protect what we have already and to implement existing measures. You mentioned that you met the President of the European Court of Human Rights. Unfortunately, a number of judgments that were handed down are not being enforced, not only in Russia but in the United Kingdom, and the system is being called into question. What can you do to ensure that the European convention on human rights is properly protected and that judgments are enforced?

      Ms FATALIYEVA (Azerbaijan)* – Your excellency, sceptics feel that the policy of multiculturalism has exhausted itself, but experience shows that only a celebration of the ideas of multiculturalism, taking its roots from European values, carries a deadly threat to terrorism. In a society where there is sympathy and empathy with those from other ethnicities and religions, there is no place for the germs of intolerance and hatred, which are the main source of terrorism. Do you agree that multiculturalism in European politics as a means of combating terrorism has not exhausted itself, and what can be done to raise the status of this idea in Europe?

      Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania) – Mr President, France is one of the countries responsible for the Minsk Agreement concerning the Ukraine. What is your opinion of that agreement? Does it fulfil your expectations, or is it failing, and what is your finalité politique? What has to happen in Ukraine? Should there be deliberations or a frozen conflict, or something else?

      Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands) – You are rightly very concerned about the terrorist attacks in France. Many European citizens, including Dutch and French citizens, have joined Daesh/ISIS and participate in genocide. What is France going to do to make sure that these people face justice? Yesterday, we gave a prize to Nadia Murad, who survived ISIS in horrendous conditions. She told us that not one of them is on trial yet. Will you make sure that your own citizens face trial and ensure that a special tribunal will be set up in the United Nations Security Council for the genocide crimes of ISIS?

      Mr SABELLA (Palestine, Partner for Democracy)* – We appreciate the unstinting efforts by France and by you, Mr President, in seeking a resolution of the conflict based on a two-State solution. Our people – the Palestinians – are counting on your support and the successful outcome of this initiative. What do you think the prospects are of an international conference being held? If Israel were not to commit to that, would France be willing to recognise the existence of Palestine as a State? What role do you think the Council of Europe can play to ensure that the French initiative is successful?

      Mr CEPEDA (Spain)* – Welcome, President. I want to ask you about the split in Europe on security and the need to value citizens’ fundamental rights. The duality is clear in France, which is in a state of emergency. We have seen the terrible effects of the financial crisis, but the real drama in our society now relates to inequality, which is undermining people’s trust in democracy and leading to a surge in nationalism. What do you think about the role of social policy? Is there a conflict between the security and defence policies that we need in this fight?

      Mr HOLLANDE* – First, if judgments handed down by the European Court of Human Rights are not being enforced, our determination to ensure that the law prevails and is applied should be called into question. In France, there is a rule that whenever the European Court of Human Rights makes a judgment we apply it, which can have consequences for domestic political life as it is not all that easy to implement such things from a legislative point of view. Professional representation for members of the armed forces marked a change in how our defence is organised, but we accepted it. It is a serious matter that exceptions and threats of withdrawal are being made one after another. The Court is being called into question, but I cannot accept the possibility of countries withdrawing or failing to apply its decisions. Some political forces, including in my country, seem to be suggesting that the rules of the European Convention on Human Rights do not have to be applied and that countries can remove themselves from the Court’s jurisdiction, but that would sound the death knell of a process that started several decades ago. We must be fully aware of the danger that we face.

      I was asked how it is possible to maintain shared values with religions in different countries. France is secular, enabling religions to co-exist and guaranteeing religious freedom. We want all religions to be represented, but we do not want them to influence public life. In other words, legislation and laws should have primacy over religion. People are free to practise religion and that should always be possible. We can live together. We do not need to derogate from the principle of secularism in France.

      Turning to the Minsk Agreements, their purpose is peace. That and the territorial integrity of Ukraine are still the main aims, but elections must be held for those outcomes to be possible. We need a process at the end of which the Ukrainian Government can reclaim its borders. The process has different stages and each has to be carried out and respected. We need a cease-fire, security and the withdrawal of weapons and then elections must be held. The process for eastern Ukraine will involve parties from Ukraine and Russia, but it will also involve France and Germany because we were there when the agreements were signed. That is why I am willing, in the context of the Normandy format and along with Chancellor Merkel, to take further steps with a view to the full implementation of the agreements. Otherwise, it will simply become a frozen conflict like many others, which would represent a serious shortcoming of international law and would continue to heighten tensions, resulting in more fatalities – there were serious incidents not that long ago. We must do everything we can to ensure that the Minsk Agreements are fully implemented.

      Another question related to foreign fighters. While it is true that some young French people have left to take up jihad and fight in Syria or Iraq, we introduced a preventive provision to criminalise them when they return to France. If an individual ever comes back to France, legal proceedings will immediately begin against them and they will be convicted for what they have done. We must take the fight against Daesh and Islamic State to its bitter end and that is why France is a part of the coalition in Iraq and in Syria. We need to face up to our responsibilities and our actions in Syria and Iraq. We are currently preparing attacks against ISIL and to win back Mosul. I want to make a distinction here and say that Aleppo is not Mosul. Mosul is under the complete control of Islamic State, and the Iraqi authorities, with the help of coalition forces, want to liberate it. We will make every effort to ensure that civilians do not become victims. Aleppo is being indiscriminately bombed, regardless of whether civilians might be affected. They are the main victims. I will not allow a parallel to be drawn between Aleppo and Mosul.

      In the question on Palestine, we were reminded of the French initiative designed to bring to the table all the countries that want to play a part in securing a peaceful solution to the conflict. That process has many different stages that need to be reached to allow Israelis and Palestinians to carry out direct negotiations. It is not about replacing them, but about resuming negotiations. I am not necessarily in favour of the Security Council taking the initiative, or the United Nations General Assembly. We know that in the Security Council we would be doomed to failure. That is why we have taken the initiative. Our hope is that if we work with other partners to bring about a solution, the Israelis and Palestinians can draw on our joint work, enabling this conference to serve a useful purpose and role.

      On the last question I was asked, it is true that, since 13 November last year, France has been under a state of emergency, which has been prolonged. The state of emergency is an opportunity for the administrative authorities to carry out a number of searches and house arrests, but they still have to be done under the purview and control of judges and parliament. Appeals have been lodged against a number of the decisions and measures taken, and we respect every decision handed down by a judge.

      We are trying to extricate ourselves from the state of emergency, but as I am sure the Assembly can understand, when events such as the appalling one in Nice on 14 July occur, we are compelled to prolong the state of emergency. France was attacked, on such a symbolic day, in such a wonderful city and on the Promenade des Anglais, which is known by everyone throughout the world. The aim of the terrorists who carried out the attack was to kill as many people as possible, people who were simply attending a fireworks display. To prolong the state of emergency was necessary and legitimate to give ourselves the resources needed to tackle the situation. However, the state of emergency will not be permanent, because what is most important is the rule of law.

      Social rules and collective responsibility are a difficult thing, because what is problematic is collective intelligence, not individual intelligence. The role of the Assembly is to contribute to our collective intelligence. The role of the highest-level decision-making bodies and meetings between heads of State and government is to ensure that such intelligence is properly applied. It is striking that if we add individual intelligence to another form of individual intelligence, the result is not collective intelligence. We all need to be serving a greater interest or purpose for collective intelligence to win out. The greater intelligence is all those values that we defend and share.

      Even if we do not share the same views, what is most important for all of us, and what counts, is the values of democracy, freedom and peace. We are trying to avoid facing tragedies such as have occurred in the past. That is what the Council of Europe is all about. It was created in the wake of past such tragedies. We often feel that tragedies occur far from our borders, and tragedies are indeed occurring beyond our borders, but not that far away – Syria is one. There are also tragedies that might return and revisit us within our borders and, if we look at some extremist behaviour, there are direct threats.

      What do we need to do? We need to be intelligent, clear and determined, and I have no doubt that that is the position of the entire Assembly. Thank you. [Applause.]

      The PRESIDENT* – Mr President, I thank you very much indeed for your address, which was of great interest to all members of the Assembly. That brings to an end the questions to President Hollande of France. I again thank him very much for coming to our Assembly today.

      Colleagues, I remind you that the elections of judges to the European Court of Human Rights for Azerbaijan and “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” are suspended, to be resumed this afternoon at 3.30 p.m.

5. Next public sitting

      The PRESIDENT* – The next sitting will start at 3.30 p.m. in accordance with the agenda of the part-session.

      The sitting is closed.

      (The sitting was closed at 1.12 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. Election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights

2. Changes in the membership of committees

3. The activities of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 2015-2016 – enlarged debate

Statement by Ms Kiviniemi, Deputy Secretary-General of the OECD

Speakers: Mr G. Davies, Mr Daems, Mr Hunko, Mr Feist, Mr Manninger, Mr Leite Ramos, Ms Huovinen, Mr Simms, Mr Heer, Ms Bakoyannis, Mr Melkumyan, Ms Vėsaitė, Mr Maitachi, Mr Fournier, Ms Rodríguez Ramos, Ms Centemero, Mr Van der Maelen, Mr Lozano Alarcón, Mr Salmond, Ms Anttila, Mr García Hernández, Mr Sabella, Lord Blencathra, Mr Whalen, Ms Fernandes and Ms Ahmed-Sheikh

Reply: Ms Kiviniemi

4. Address by François Hollande, President of the French Republic

Questions: Mr Nikoloski, Mr Nicoletti, Mr Leyden, Mr Goncharenko, Mr Psychogios, Mr Schwabe, Ms Fataliyeva, Mr Vareikis, Mr Omtzigt, Mr Sabella and Mr Cepeda.

5. Next public sitting

Appendix/Annexe

Representatives or Substitutes who signed the register of attendance in accordance with Rule 12.2 of the Rules of Procedure. The names of members substituted follow (in brackets) the names of participating members.

Liste des représentants ou suppléants ayant signé le registre de présence, conformément à l’article 12.2 du Règlement Les noms des titulaires remplacés figurent (entre parenthèses) après les noms des membres participants.

AHMED-SHEIKH, Tasmina [Ms]

ANTTILA, Sirkka-Liisa [Ms]

ARDELEAN, Ben-Oni [Mr]

ARENT, Iwona [Ms]

ARIEV, Volodymyr [Mr]

ARNAUT, Damir [Mr]

BAKOYANNIS, Theodora [Ms]

BARILARO, Christian [M.] (ALLAVENA, Jean-Charles [M.])

BARNETT, Doris [Ms]

BARTOS, Mónika [Ms] (CSÖBÖR, Katalin [Mme])

BAYKAL, Deniz [Mr]

BERNACKI, Włodzimierz [Mr]

BĒRZINŠ, Andris [M.]

BIES, Philippe [M.] (BAPT, Gérard [M.])

BILDARRATZ, Jokin [Mr]

BİLGEHAN, Gülsün [Mme]

BILLSTRÖM, Tobias [Mr]

BILOVOL, Oleksandr [Mr]

BLANCHART, Philippe [M.]

BLENCATHRA, David [M] (BEBB, Guto [Mr])

BLONDIN, Maryvonne [Mme]

BOJIĆ, Milovan [Mr]

BOSIĆ, Mladen [Mr]

BRUYN, Piet De [Mr]

BÜCHEL, Roland Rino [Mr] (MÜLLER, Thomas [Mr])

BUDNER, Margareta [Ms]

CATALFO, Nunzia [Ms]

CENTEMERO, Elena [Ms]

CEPEDA, José [Mr]

CHRISTODOULOPOULOU, Anastasia [Ms]

CHRISTOFFERSEN, Lise [Ms]

CIMBRO, Eleonora [Ms] (BERTUZZI, Maria Teresa [Ms])

CIMOSZEWICZ, Tomasz [Mr] (POMASKA, Agnieszka [Ms])

CORLĂŢEAN, Titus [Mr] (NEACȘU, Marian [Mr])

CSENGER-ZALÁN, Zsolt [Mr]

DAEMS, Hendrik [Mr] (MAHOUX, Philippe [M.])

DAVIES, Geraint [Mr]

DEBONO GRECH, Joseph [Mr]

DESKOSKA, Renata [Ms]

DESTEXHE, Alain [M.]

DİŞLİ, Şaban [Mr]

DIVINA, Sergio [Mr]

DJUROVIĆ, Aleksandra [Ms]

DOKLE, Namik [M.]

DURRIEU, Josette [Mme]

DZHEMILIEV, Mustafa [Mr]

ECCLES, Diana [Lady]

ESEYAN, Markar [Mr]

EẞL, Franz Leonhard [Mr]

EVANS, Nigel [Mr]

FABRITIUS, Bernd [Mr] (HENNRICH, Michael [Mr])

FATALIYEVA, Sevinj [Ms] (HAJIYEV, Sabir [Mr])

FAZZONE, Claudio [Mr] (BERNINI, Anna Maria [Ms])

FEIST, Thomas [Mr] (WELLMANN, Karl-Georg [Mr])

FENECH ADAMI, Joseph [Mr]

FERNANDES, Suella [Ms] (HOWELL, John [Mr])

FIALA, Doris [Mme]

FILIPIOVÁ, Daniela [Mme]

FINCKH-KRÄMER, Ute [Ms]

FISCHER, Axel E. [Mr]

FISCHEROVÁ, Jana [Ms] (BENEŠIK, Ondřej [Mr])

FOULKES, George [Lord] (PRESCOTT, John [Mr])

FOURNIER, Bernard [M.]

FRESKO-ROLFO, Béatrice [Mme]

FRIDEZ, Pierre-Alain [M.]

GAFAROVA, Sahiba [Ms]

GALATI, Giuseppe [Mr] (QUARTAPELLE PROCOPIO, Lia [Ms])

GAMBARO, Adele [Ms]

GARCÍA HERNÁNDEZ, José Ramón [Mr]

GERASHCHENKO, Iryna [Mme]

GHASEMI, Tina [Ms]

GHILETCHI, Valeriu [Mr]

GIRO, Francesco Maria [Mr]

GONÇALVES, Carlos Alberto [M.]

GONCHARENKO, Oleksii [Mr]

GOY-CHAVENT, Sylvie [Mme]

GRECEA, Maria [Ms] (STROE, Ionuț-Marian [Mr])

GROSDIDIER, François [M.]

GÜNAY, Emine Nur [Ms]

GUNNARSSON, Jonas [Mr]

GUTIÉRREZ, Antonio [Mr]

HAMID, Hamid [Mr]

HANŽEK, Matjaž [Mr] (KORENJAK KRAMAR, Ksenija [Ms])

HEER, Alfred [Mr]

HEINRICH, Gabriela [Ms]

HIGGINS, Alice-Mary [Ms] (CROWE, Seán [Mr])

HOFFMANN, Rózsa [Mme] (VEJKEY, Imre [Mr])

HOPKINS, Maura [Ms]

HUNKO, Andrej [Mr]

HUOVINEN, Susanna [Ms] (GUZENINA, Maria [Ms])

HUSEYNOV, Rafael [Mr]

JAKAVONIS, Gediminas [M.]

JENSEN, Mogens [Mr]

JÓNASSON, Ögmundur [Mr]

JONICA, Snežana [Ms] (TUPONJA, Goran [Mr])

JORDANA, Carles [M.]

JOVANOVIĆ, Jovan [Mr]

KALMARI, Anne [Ms]

KANDEMIR, Erkan [Mr]

KARAPETYAN, Naira [Ms] (ZOURABIAN, Levon [Mr])

KARLSSON, Niklas [Mr]

KASIMATI, Nina [Ms]

KERESTECİOĞLU DEMİR, Filiz [Ms]

KESİCİ, İlhan [Mr]

KIRAL, Serhii [Mr] (SOTNYK, Olena [Ms])

KLEINBERGA, Nellija [Ms] (LAIZĀNE, Inese [Ms])

KOBAKHIDZE, Manana [Ms]

KOÇ, Haluk [Mr]

KORODI, Attila [Mr]

KORUN, Alev [Ms]

KOVÁCS, Elvira [Ms]

KOX, Tiny [Mr]

KRIŠTO, Borjana [Ms]

KROSS, Eerik-Niiles [Mr]

KÜÇÜKCAN, Talip [Mr]

KÜRKÇÜ, Ertuğrul [Mr]

KYRIAKIDES, Stella [Ms]

KYRITSIS, Georgios [Mr]

L OVOCHKINA, Yuliya [Ms]

LE BORGN', Pierre-Yves [M.]

LE DAIN, Anne-Yvonne [Mme] (KARAMANLI, Marietta [Mme])

LE DÉAUT, Jean-Yves [M.]

LEITE RAMOS, Luís [M.]

LESKAJ, Valentina [Ms]

LEYDEN, Terry [Mr] (COWEN, Barry [Mr])

LĪBIŅA-EGNERE, Inese [Ms]

LIDDELL-GRAINGER, Ian [Mr]

LOGVYNSKYI, Georgii [Mr]

LOUCAIDES, George [Mr]

LOUHELAINEN, Anne [Ms] (PACKALÉN, Tom [Mr])

LOZOVOY, Andriy [Mr] (VOVK, Viktor [Mr])

LUIS, Teófilo de [Mr] (BARREIRO, José Manuel [Mr])

MAELEN, Dirk Van der [Mr] (DUMERY, Daphné [Ms])

MAIJ, Marit [Ms]

MANNINGER, Jenő [Mr] (GULYÁS, Gergely [Mr])

MARKOVIĆ, Milica [Mme]

MARQUES, Duarte [Mr]

MARTINS, Alberto [M.]

MASSEY, Doreen [Baroness] (SHERRIFF, Paula [Ms])

MAURY PASQUIER, Liliane [Mme]

MEIMARAKIS, Evangelos [Mr]

MELKUMYAN, Mikayel [M.] (ZOHRABYAN, Naira [Mme])

MENDES, Ana Catarina [Mme]

MIGNON, Jean-Claude [M.]

MIKKO, Marianne [Ms]

MILEWSKI, Daniel [Mr]

MILTENBURG, Anouchka van [Ms]

MULARCZYK, Arkadiusz [Mr]

NAGHDALYAN, Hermine [Ms]

NÉMETH, Zsolt [Mr]

NENUTIL, Miroslav [Mr]

NICOLETTI, Michele [Mr]

NIKOLOSKI, Aleksandar [Mr]

NISSINEN, Johan [Mr]

OBRADOVIĆ, Marija [Ms]

OBRADOVIĆ, Žarko [Mr]

OEHRI, Judith [Ms]

OHLSSON, Carina [Ms]

OMTZIGT, Pieter [Mr] (OOMEN-RUIJTEN, Ria [Ms])

ÖNAL, Suat [Mr]

O'REILLY, Joseph [Mr]

OSUCH, Jacek [Mr] (HALICKI, Andrzej [Mr])

PALIHOVICI, Liliana [Ms] (NEGUTA, Andrei [M.])

PALLARÉS, Judith [Ms]

PANTIĆ PILJA, Biljana [Ms]

PASHAYEVA, Ganira [Ms]

PECKOVÁ, Gabriela [Ms] (KOSTŘICA, Rom [Mr])

PELKONEN, Jaana [Ms]

POPA, Ion [Mr] (GORGHIU, Alina Ștefania [Ms])

POSTOICO, Maria [Mme] (VORONIN, Vladimir [M.])

PREDA, Cezar Florin [M.]

PRITCHARD, Mark [Mr]

PSYCHOGIOS, Georgios [Mr] (KAVVADIA, Ioanneta [Ms])

QUÉRÉ, Catherine [Mme] (ALLAIN, Brigitte [Mme])

QUINTANILLA, Carmen [Mme]

RADOMSKI, Kerstin [Ms]

RAWERT, Mechthild [Ms] (DROBINSKI-WEIß, Elvira [Ms])

REICHARDT, André [M.] (DURANTON, Nicole [Mme])

REISS, Frédéric [M.] (JACQUAT, Denis [M.])

RIGONI, Andrea [Mr]

RODRÍGUEZ HERNÁNDEZ, Melisa [Ms]

RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS, Soraya [Mme] (BATET, Meritxell [Ms])

ROSETA, Helena [Mme]

ROUQUET, René [M.]

RZAYEV, Rovshan [Mr] (MAMMADOV, Muslum [M.])

SALLES, Rudy [M.] (ROCHEBLOINE, François [M.])

SALMOND, Alex [Mr]

SAMMUT, Joseph [Mr] (SCHEMBRI, Deborah [Ms])

SANTANGELO, Vincenzo [Mr]

SANTERINI, Milena [Mme]

SAVCHENKO, Nadiia [Ms]

SCHÄFER, Axel [Mr] (SIEBERT, Bernd [Mr])

SCHENNACH, Stefan [Mr]

SCHNEIDER, André [M.] (MARIANI, Thierry [M.])

SCHNEIDER-SCHNEITER, Elisabeth [Mme] (LOMBARDI, Filippo [M.])

SCHOU, Ingjerd [Ms]

SCHRIJVER, Nico [Mr]

SCHWABE, Frank [Mr]

SCULLY, Paul [Mr] (GALE, Roger [Sir])

SEYIDOV, Samad [Mr]

SHARMA, Virendra [Mr] (BUTLER, Dawn [Ms])

SILVA, Adão [M.]

SOBOLEV, Serhiy [Mr]

STOILOV, Yanaki [Mr]

SUTTER, Petra De [Ms] (VERCAMER, Stefaan [M.])

TARCZYŃSKI, Dominik [Mr]

THIÉRY, Damien [M.]

TORUN, Cemalettin Kani [Mr]

TRENCHEV, Antoni [Mr]

TRUSKOLASKI, Krzysztof [Mr]

TZAVARAS, Konstantinos [M.]

UNHURIAN, Pavlo [Mr] (YEMETS, Leonid [Mr])

USTA, Leyla Şahin [Ms]

UYSAL, Burhanettin [Mr] (BABAOĞLU, Mehmet [Mr])

VÁHALOVÁ, Dana [Ms]

VAREIKIS, Egidijus [Mr] (SKARDŽIUS, Arturas [Mr])

VASILI, Petrit [Mr]

VEN, Mart van de [Mr]

VĖSAITĖ, Birutė [Ms]

WILK, Jacek [Mr]

WILSON, Phil [Mr] (CRAUSBY, David [Mr])

WURM, Gisela [Ms]

XUCLÀ, Jordi [Mr]

YAŞAR, Serap [Mme]

ZELIENKOVÁ, Kristýna [Ms]

ZIMMERMANN, Marie-Jo [Mme]

Vacant Seat, Andorra/Siège vacant, Andorre (JORDANA, Carles [M.])

Vacant Seat, Croatia/Siège vacant, Croatie*

Vacant Seat,Cyprus/Siège vacant, Chypre

Also present/Egalement présents

Représentants et Suppléants non autorisés à voter/

Representatives or Substitutes not authorised to vote

ALIU, Imer [Mr]

BEREZA, Boryslav [Mr]

BESELIA, Eka [Ms]

CORREIA, Telmo [M.]

DAVIES, David [Mr]

EATON, Margaret [Baroness]

EFSTATHIOU, Constantinos [M.]

EROTOKRITOU, Christiana [Ms]

FRÉCON, Jean-Claude [M.]

MAGRADZE, Guguli [Ms]

MAMMADOV, Muslum [M.]

MEALE, Alan [Sir]

PACKALÉN, Tom [Mr]

RUSTAMYAN, Armen [M.]

SITARSKI, Krzysztof [Mr]

SOTNYK, Olena [Ms]

SPADONI, Maria Edera [Ms]

VARVITSIOTIS, Miltiadis [Mr]

ZOHRABYAN, Naira [Mme]

Representatives of the Turkish Cypriot Community (In accordance to Resolution 1376 (2004) of the Parliamentary Assembly)/ Représentants de la communauté chypriote turque (Conformément à la Résolution 1376 (2004) de l’Assemblée parlementaire)

Mehmet ÇAĞLAR

Partners for democracy/Partenaires pour la démocratie

ABOULFATH, Hanane [Mme]

ABUSHAHLA, Mohammedfaisal [Mr]

BENSAID, Mohammed Mehdi [M.]

LEBBAR, Abdesselam [M.]

SABELLA, Bernard [Mr]

Members of Parliament of an OECD member State non-member of the Council of Europe

Membres d’un parlement d’un Etat membre de l’OCDE non membre du Conseil de l’Europe

ARITA Yoshifu [Mr], Japan

DAVIES, Don [Mr], Canada

DOWNE, Percy [Mr], Canada

GASTÉLUM BAJO, Diva Hadamira [Ms], Mexico

LARIOS CÓRDOVA, Héctor [Mr], Mexico

LOZANO ALARCÓN, Javier [Mr], Mexico

MAITACHI Shouji [Mr], Japan

RAMÍREZ NÚÑEZ, Ulises [Mr], Mexico

SIMMS, Scott [Mr], Canada

TILSON, David [Mr], Canada

WELLS, David [Mr], Canada

WHALEN, Nick [Mr], Canada

Appendix/Annexe II

Representatives or Substitutes who took part in the ballot for the Election of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Azerbaijan and “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”

Liste des représentants ou suppléants qui ont participé au vote pour l’élection de juges à la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme au titre de l’Azerbaïdjan et de « l’ex-République yougoslave de Macédonia »

AHMED-SHEIKH, Tasmina [Ms] 

ANDERSON, Donald [Lord] 

ARDELEAN, Ben-Oni [Mr] 

ARIEV, Volodymyr [Mr] 

ARNAUT, Damir [Mr] 

ASCANI, Anna [Ms] 

BABAOĞLU, Mehmet [Mr]/UYSAL, Burhanettin [Mr]

BAKOYANNIS, Theodora [Ms] 

BARNETT, Doris [Ms] 

BAYKAL, Deniz [Mr] 

BEBB, Guto [Mr]/BLENCATHRA, David [Lord]

BENEŠIK, Ondřej [Mr]/FISCHEROVÁ, Jana [Ms]

BERGAMINI, Deborah [Ms] 

BERNACKI, Włodzimierz [Mr] 

BERNINI, Anna Maria [Ms]/FAZZONE, Claudio [Mr]

BILOVOL, Oleksandr [Mr] 

BLONDIN, Maryvonne [Mme] 

BORK, Tilde [Ms]/SANDBÆK, Ulla [Ms]

BOSIĆ, Mladen [Mr] 

BRUYN, Piet De [Mr] 

BUDNER, Margareta [Ms] 

CENTEMERO, Elena [Ms] 

CEPEDA, José [Mr] 

CHRISTOFFERSEN, Lise [Ms] 

COWEN, Barry [Mr]/LEYDEN, Terry [Mr]

CROWE, Seán [Mr]/HIGGINS, Alice-Mary [Ms]

CSENGER-ZALÁN, Zsolt [Mr] 

CSÖBÖR, Katalin [Mme]/BARTOS, Mónika [Ms]

DEBONO GRECH, Joseph [Mr]

DESKOSKA, Renata [Ms] 

DESTEXHE, Alain [M.] 

DİŞLİ, Şaban [Mr] 

DOKLE, Namik [M.] 

DUMERY, Daphné [Ms]/MAELEN, Dirk Van der [Mr]

DURRIEU, Josette [Mme] 

ESEYAN, Markar [Mr] 

EẞL, Franz Leonhard [Mr] 

EVANS, Nigel [Mr] 

FINCKH-KRÄMER, Ute [Ms] 

FISCHER, Axel E. [Mr] 

FOURNIER, Bernard [M.] 

FRIDEZ, Pierre-Alain [M.] 

GAFAROVA, Sahiba [Ms] 

GALE, Roger [Sir]/SCULLY, Paul [Mr]

GARCÍA HERNÁNDEZ, José Ramón [Mr] 

GERASHCHENKO, Iryna [Mme] 

GHILETCHI, Valeriu [Mr] 

GONCHARENKO, Oleksii [Mr] 

GORGHIU, Alina Ștefania [Ms]/POPA, Ion [Mr]

GÜNAY, Emine Nur [Ms] 

GUNNARSSON, Jonas [Mr] 

GUTIÉRREZ, Antonio [Mr] 

HAJIYEV, Sabir [Mr]/FATALIYEVA, Sevinj [Ms]

HAMID, Hamid [Mr] 

HEER, Alfred [Mr] 

HEINRICH, Gabriela [Ms] 

HENNRICH, Michael [Mr]/FABRITIUS, Bernd [Mr]

HOWELL, John [Mr]/FERNANDES, Suella [Ms]

HUNKO, Andrej [Mr] 

HUSEYNOV, Rafael [Mr] 

İHSANOĞLU, Ekmeleddin Mehmet [Mr] 

JACQUAT, Denis [M.]/REISS, Frédéric [M.]

JENSEN, Mogens [Mr] 

JOVANOVIĆ, Jovan [Mr] 

KANDEMIR, Erkan [Mr] 

KARLSSON, Niklas [Mr] 

KESİCİ, İlhan [Mr] 

KOÇ, Haluk [Mr] 

KORENJAK KRAMAR, Ksenija [Ms]/HANŽEK, Matjaž [Mr]

KORUN, Alev [Ms] 

KOSTŘICA, Rom [Mr]/PECKOVÁ, Gabriela [Ms]

KOVÁCS, Elvira [Ms] 

KOX, Tiny [Mr] 

KRIŠTO, Borjana [Ms] 

KROSS, Eerik-Niiles [Mr] 

KÜÇÜKCAN, Talip [Mr] 

KÜRKÇÜ, Ertuğrul [Mr] 

KYRIAKIDES, Stella [Ms] 

KYRITSIS, Georgios [Mr] 

L OVOCHKINA, Yuliya [Ms] 

LAIZĀNE, Inese [Ms]/KLEINBERGA, Nellija [Ms]

LE BORGN', Pierre-Yves [M.] 

LĪBIŅA-EGNERE, Inese [Ms] 

LIDDELL-GRAINGER, Ian [Mr] 

LOMBARDI, Filippo [M.]/SCHNEIDER-SCHNEITER, Elisabeth [Mme]

LOUCAIDES, George [Mr] 

MAHOUX, Philippe [M.]/DAEMS, Hendrik [Mr]

MAIJ, Marit [Ms] 

MAMMADOV, Muslum [M.]/RZAYEV, Rovshan [Mr]

MARIANI, Thierry [M.]/SCHNEIDER, André [M.]

MARKOVIĆ, Milica [Mme] 

MARQUES, Duarte [Mr] 

MAURY PASQUIER, Liliane [Mme] 

MEHMETI DEVAJA, Ermira [Ms]/GJORCHEV, Vladimir [Mr]

MEIMARAKIS, Evangelos [Mr] 

MIGNON, Jean-Claude [M.] 

MILEWSKI, Daniel [Mr] 

MİROĞLU, Orhan [Mr]/CERİTOĞLU KURT, Lütfiye İlksen [Ms]

MULARCZYK, Arkadiusz [Mr] 

NAGHDALYAN, Hermine [Ms] 

NEGUTA, Andrei [M.]/PALIHOVICI, Liliana [Ms]

NÉMETH, Zsolt [Mr] 

NENUTIL, Miroslav [Mr] 

NICOLETTI, Michele [Mr] 

NIKOLOSKI, Aleksandar [Mr] 

OBRADOVIĆ, Marija [Ms] 

OBRADOVIĆ, Žarko [Mr] 

OEHRI, Judith [Ms] 

OHLSSON, Carina [Ms] 

ÖNAL, Suat [Mr] 

PACKALÉN, Tom [Mr]/LOUHELAINEN, Anne [Ms]

PALLARÉS, Judith [Ms] 

PANTIĆ PILJA, Biljana [Ms] 

PASHAYEVA, Ganira [Ms] 

PELKONEN, Jaana [Ms] 

QUARTAPELLE PROCOPIO, Lia [Ms]/GALATI, Giuseppe [Mr]

RADOMSKI, Kerstin [Ms] 

SALMOND, Alex [Mr] 

SCHEMBRI, Deborah [Ms]/SAMMUT, Joseph [Mr]

SCHENNACH, Stefan [Mr] 

SCHOU, Ingjerd [Ms] 

SEYIDOV, Samad [Mr] 

SKARDŽIUS, Arturas [Mr]/VAREIKIS, Egidijus [Mr]

SOBOLEV, Serhiy [Mr] 

SOTNYK, Olena [Ms]/KIRAL, Serhii [Mr]

STOILOV, Yanaki [Mr] 

STROE, Ionuț-Marian [Mr]/GRECEA, Maria [Ms]

TARCZYŃSKI, Dominik [Mr] 

TORUN, Cemalettin Kani [Mr] 

TRENCHEV, Antoni [Mr] 

USTA, Leyla Şahin [Ms] 

VÁHALOVÁ, Dana [Ms] 

VASILI, Petrit [Mr] 

VEJKEY, Imre [Mr]/HOFFMANN, Rózsa [Mme]

VĖSAITĖ, Birutė [Ms] 

VORONIN, Vladimir [M.]/POSTOICO, Maria [Mme]

WELLMANN, Karl-Georg [Mr]/FEIST, Thomas [Mr]

WOJTYŁA, Andrzej [Mr]/OBREMSKI, Jarosław [Mr]

WURM, Gisela [Ms] 

XUCLÀ, Jordi [Mr] 

YAŞAR, Serap [Mme] 

YEMETS, Leonid [Mr]/UNHURIAN, Pavlo [Mr]

ZELIENKOVÁ, Kristýna [Ms] 

ZIMMERMANN, Marie-Jo [Mme]

Vacant Seat, Andorra/Siège vacant, Andorre (JORDANA, Carles [M.])