AA17CR22

AS (2017) CR 22

2017 ORDINARY SESSION

________________

(Third part)

REPORT

Twenty-second sitting

Tuesday 27 June 2017 at 3.30 p.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

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

3.        The text of the amendments is available at the document centre and on the Assembly’s website.

      Only oral amendments or oral sub-amendments are reproduced in the report of debates.

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

5.       Corrections should be handed in at Room 1059A not later than 24 hours after the report has been circulated.

The contents page for this sitting is given at the end of the report.

(Mr Gutiérrez, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 3.35 p.m.)

      The PRESIDENT – The sitting is open.

1. Communication from the Committee of Ministers

      The PRESIDENT – The first item of business this afternoon is the communication from the Committee of Ministers to the Assembly by Mr Zaorálek, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic and Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers. This will be followed by questions to Mr Zaorálek.

      Chairman, I am very glad to welcome you to our Assembly in the framework of your country’s chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers. Members of the Standing Committee had the chance to have a first exchange of views with you last month in Prague, where they gave their support to the priorities of the Czech chairmanship. Those include protecting the rights of the child, promoting human rights and democracy through education, and eliminating discrimination – all topics that the Assembly sees as crucial to addressing today’s most pressing challenges. We therefore look forward to continuing our dialogue with you and hearing your views on the Council of Europe’s overall activities and how the Assembly might contribute concretely to the implementation of the chairmanship’s priorities.

      Chairman, the floor is yours.

      Mr ZAORÁLEK – Mr President, Mr Secretary General, Madam Deputy Secretary General, Madam President of the Congress, distinguished members of the Parliamentary Assembly, ladies and gentlemen, I am honoured to address you for the first time, having had the pleasure of meeting some of you in Prague at the meeting of your Standing Committee on 30 May. I had a great opportunity to share a detailed overview of my country’s priorities for its chairmanship of the Council of Europe with members of the Standing Committee, so I will not elaborate extensively on our priorities again today, but rather refer to them in the context of the activities of the Committee of Ministers.

      My country is honoured to hold the chairmanship for the second time in our history. More than two decades ago, it was precisely the Council of Europe and its Parliamentary Assembly which, shortly after the fall of the communist regime, guided us carefully on our way back to the family of European democracies. I am proud that the Parliamentary Assembly’s human rights prize is named after Václav Havel, President of Czechoslovakia and the Czech Republic, who was a tireless opponent of totalitarianism and a symbol of the peaceful transition to democracy. Havel’s legacy was a great inspiration for us in preparing for the current chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers.

      I would like to inform you of the main developments in the Committee of Ministers since your previous part-session. The most significant event from both a political and institutional viewpoint was of course the 127th session of the Committee of Ministers held in Nicosia on 19 May. I will take this opportunity to thank again the Cypriot chairmanship for its hospitality and its perfect organisation of the meeting. In focusing on the theme of reinforcing democratic security in Europe, the Council of Europe’s ministers for foreign affairs were able to address a number of key issues that are currently of the utmost importance to all our member States.

      Among these issues, combating terrorism continues to be crucial, as the recent attacks in the United Kingdom have so tragically reminded us. In Nicosia, we adopted new guidelines on the protection of victims of terrorism, whose suffering is too often forgotten once it is no longer headline news. The Committee of Ministers reviewed the implementation of the action plan on the fight against terrorism, which will come to an end in December. We also discussed the activities to be carried out by the Organisation from 2018 onwards, and we invited the Secretary General to prepare proposals to this end. There have been some significant developments in the legal arsenal against terrorism. The first is the adoption of the new and important European Convention on Offences relating to Cultural Property, which was signed in Nicosia by six countries – the first six to do so. I hope that further signatures and ratifications will follow soon for both this convention and the protocol on foreign terrorist fighters, which will come into force on 1 July. I appeal to members of the Assembly to use their influence inside their respective parliaments to promote such ratifications.

      In Nicosia, we discussed the question of migration, which I know will be one of the major items on the agenda of your part-session this week. I am pleased to inform you that the Committee of Ministers has adopted an action plan on protecting refugee and migrant children in Europe, given the specific needs of this particularly vulnerable group. This action plan is structured around three pillars on which the Organisation can make the most useful input: ensuring access to rights and child-friendly procedures; providing effective protection; and enhancing the integration of children who remain in Europe. We have included several activities in our chairmanship programme that aim to protect the human rights of persons belonging to vulnerable or disadvantaged groups, which is our first priority for action. Migrant children are particularly vulnerable and face greater risks to their lives and well-being. We want to examine the legal and practical aspects of the detention of migrant children and its alternatives at a major expert conference that will take place in September in Prague.

      In the light of the Secretary General’s latest report on the state of democracy, human rights and the rule of law, we had a very interesting discussion in Nicosia on how to address the challenges of racism, xenophobia, social exclusion, extremism and populism. I know that these issues are of particular concern to your Assembly, and I believe that there is certainly room for action by all Council of Europe bodies, including your Assembly, in this respect.

      Our priority chapter focusing on persons belonging to vulnerable and disadvantaged groups also addresses the situation of Roma. At the meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee of Experts on Roma and Traveller Issues a few weeks ago in Prague, the Czech chairmanship presented some of the successful projects implemented in support of Roma culture, such as the unique Museum of Romani Culture in Brno and the world Roma music festival or Khamoro taking place in Prague, which are both the result of many years of co-operation between public institutions and civil society. Civil engagement and State partnerships with non-governmental organisations play an important role in the development of democracy. These are the horizontal themes of our chairmanship that will run through all our actions. In the context of this priority, I cannot but sincerely welcome the recent creation of the new European Roma Institute for Arts and Culture in Berlin, which is supported by the Council of Europe, the Open Society Foundations and the Alliance for the European Roma Institute.

      The Czech Republic has chosen strengthening the rule of law as another of its priorities for the chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers. We believe that the rule of law provides the framework in which citizens can enjoy rights and freedoms, and seek effective remedies for their violations. In its day-to-day business, the Council of Europe contributes to the rule of law at international level in various ways, and the Czech Republic actively participates in these endeavours. A practical example is the Declaration on Jurisdictional Immunities of State Owned Cultural Property, which was originally prepared and presented in the Committee of Legal Advisers on Public International Law by Austria and the Czech Republic. The declaration has already been signed by 20 signatories, and it has also been presented to the United Nations. In this connection, a seminar to discuss current developments in the international law of State immunity will be organised at the Council of Europe in September.

      A well-functioning judiciary is among the most important components of the rule of law. A major conference on the binding effect of the judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, the Court of Justice of the European Union and national courts took place last week in Brno, the capital of the Czech judiciary. It has been one of the most prominent events of the Czech chairmanship. The conference, which was opened by Secretary General Jagland and Czech Prime Minister Sobotka, provided an impressive forum for a discussion with presidents of the supreme and constitutional courts of the member States of the Council of Europe, as well as with judges of European courts and leading academics. Among other topical issues, it discussed the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and the approaches of governments of member States to the condemnatory pilot judgments in selected fields relating to the protection of human rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention.

      Having turned to the core missions of our Organisation, I should also mention that the Committee of Ministers adopted a series of decisions in Nicosia on ways to secure the long-term effectiveness of the system of the European Convention on Human Rights. In this context, the committee called on those States that are parties to the Convention but which have not yet signed and ratified Protocol No. 15, which amends the Convention, to do so as soon as possible, and to consider signing and ratifying Protocol No. 16, which provides for advisory opinions. Once again, any assistance that you, distinguished members of the Assembly, can provide to accelerate the ratification process of these two instruments would be most welcome.

      Since I am asking for your assistance in this very important area, I welcome your decision to have a debate this week on the implementation of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. As we had the opportunity to hear at the conference in Brno, this question is crucial for the effective enjoyment by individuals of their fundamental rights, as enshrined in the Convention. As you know, the Committee of Ministers attaches particular importance to this issue. In this context, I cannot but recall again the repeated appeal by our committee to the Azerbaijani authorities for the immediate release of Mr Ilgar Mammadov, in accordance with the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights.

      Moving on to the next priority of the Czech chairmanship, let me emphasise the importance of our work on local and regional democracy, which we all want to deliver the best possible outcomes for citizens in Europe. Their increased participation in decision-making processes on matters that concern them directly is vital. With this in mind, we identified support of local and regional democracy and public administration reforms as another chairmanship priority. In this context, a major expert conference, “Improving the Quality of Public Administration at the Local and Regional Level”, will be held in Prague in September.

      I am glad that the meeting of the bureau of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe took place in Brno. On that particular occasion, we had a very friendly meeting with the President of the Congress in Prague. We also had a very stimulating and timely discussion about the challenges that local and regional authorities in Europe currently face.

      In our chairmanship programme, we also devote special attention to individuals’ rights within the framework of human rights education. Human rights education is a long-term process that contributes to the prevention of human rights abuses. It promotes values, beliefs and attitudes that encourage all individuals to uphold their own rights and those of others. Young people are particularly important targets of this effort.

      In the context of our chairmanship programme, we organised a European symposium, “Youth Policy Responses to the Contemporary Challenges Faced by Young People”, in Prague in mid-June, which brought together representatives of governments and non-governmental organisations from the Council of Europe member States. It proved to be a very successful forum; I am convinced of that. The future of citizenship and human rights education in Europe, and how work in these areas can help to fight discrimination, intolerance and extremism, was another captivating topic discussed at an international conference under the auspices of the Czech chairmanship, which took place last week here in Strasbourg.

      Beyond the Council of Europe, there is also scope for greater synergy with other international organisations on all the issues that I have mentioned. The intention of our chairmanship is to increase efforts to this end. First, I have in mind the deepening of the excellent co-operation that the Council of Europe maintains with the European Union. In this regard, in Nicosia the ministers expressed their determination to strengthen further the co-operation, based on shared values, that has developed since the signature of the memorandum of understanding 10 years ago. This work should focus on three lines of action: first, the further development of dialogue between the relevant bodies of the two organisations at political and technical levels; secondly, the further reinforcement of co-operation, including in the field; and, thirdly and finally, European Union participation in Council of Europe instruments, as a way of achieving coherence and complementarity, and of promoting synergies. In this context, the exchange of views next week in the Ministers’ Deputies meeting with Ms Federica Mogherini, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, will be most timely.

      Building on the initiatives taken by the previous chairmanships, we also want to strengthen further co-operation with the OSCE. To that end, the first initiative was a ministerial round-table that we organised in Prague on 14 June, together with the Austrian chairmanship of the OSCE, regarding the fight against radicalisation. We sought answers to the current trends in radicalisation processes and other challenges that Europe currently faces in this respect.

      Another event planned under our chairmanship is a conference on Internet freedom to be held in Vienna in October, again in co-operation with the Austrian chairmanship of the OSCE, as well as with the Office of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media. We also presented and discussed our chairmanship’s priorities in the permanent council of the OSCE in Vienna on 1 June, and I am grateful for the recognition of these priorities by the members of the permanent council.

      At this juncture, I will also refer to the question of the human rights of people living in disputed areas in Europe, including those affected by conflicts. On this matter, in May the Committee of Ministers adopted two important sets of decisions regarding the situation in the Crimean peninsula of Ukraine and in the occupied territories of Georgia respectively. In both cases, the committee reiterated its commitment to the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine and Georgia within their internationally recognised borders. The committee also appealed again for full and unrestricted access to these territories to be given to all the human rights bodies and representatives of the Council of Europe, including the Commissioner for Human Rights, so that they can carry out their monitoring activities unimpeded. The Czech chairmanship hopes that concrete progress will be made in the coming months in this respect.

      These are the major developments that I wanted to bring to your attention. I look forward to the continuation of the constructive co-operation between the Committee of Ministers and your Assembly during the term of our chairmanship. I will be happy to answer any questions that you, distinguished members of the Assembly, wish to put to me.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Zaorálek, for your communication. We will now proceed to questions. I remind colleagues that questions must be limited to 30 seconds.

      Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania, Spokesperson for the European People’s Party) – You mentioned in your speech that the question of migration and refugees is very important in the Council of Europe. Your country has specific political issues with regard to immigration policy – I have in mind the situation with the European Union – so what is your position? Will you support all the Council of Europe reports, or do you take a critical attitude to them?

      Mr ZAORÁLEK – I can assure you that I support all declarations and resolutions adopted by the Assembly. I am convinced that the prerequisite and precondition for our success in striving to face the influx of migrants in Europe is being able to come together. The Czech Republic is a member of the European Union, and I am convinced that being able to develop and build a common asylum policy is a precondition. At the same time, the problem represents a big challenge for us, because there are different opinions on how to express solidarity. There are different moods and atmospheres in many countries, and we have to be able to consolidate those different positions and, above all, look for compromises. It is my personal, deeply held conviction that, especially given the particular situation we face, we have to be ready to devote time and energy to the policy of consensus and compromise. Migration is a big challenge, and we can only manage it jointly.

      I have no problem with any of the Assembly’s declarations. We cannot solve the issue of migration and refugees only at a European Union level, so it is very good that we have this Assembly as a platform and can use its instruments and the efforts of all its members. A new action plan on protecting refugee and migrant children in Europe was adopted by the Committee of Ministers at the ministerial session in Nicosia, and I am convinced it will be fundamental. I promise we will support its implementation.

      This year, the Council of Europe exchange on the religious dimension of intercultural dialogue will be devoted to migrants, refugees and the related challenges and opportunities. Such dialogue is an important part of our efforts. The Parliamentary Assembly’s strong interest in the situation of migrants and refugees is particularly welcome, and I promise to support it.

      Ms BONET (Andorra, Spokesperson for the Socialist Group) – Several socioeconomic inequalities persist in societies in which Roma people live today, and regarding children, women and LGBT people, and these are a priority for the Council of Europe. The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance has repeatedly highlighted discrimination against Roma people. As you said in your address, you have among your priorities some measures to improve their situation, but you need to find appropriate new measures to solve these problems. What kind of measures would you like to implement on issues related to children, women and LGBT people?

      Mr ZAORÁLEK – I spoke about this problem during my address, but I am happy to return to it because we must take it very seriously. The exclusion of Roma people remains widespread in Europe, despite the efforts undertaken following the Strasbourg Declaration on Roma that was accepted by the Committee of Ministers in 2010. It is essential that we overcome the barriers to the full enjoyment of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights for persons belonging to the Roma community. As I indicated in my speech, the situation for Roma people is one of the priorities of our chairmanship. From that perspective, I particularly welcome the recent establishment of the European Roma Institute for Arts and Culture in Berlin.

      As for the Council of Europe, in 2016 the Committee of Ministers approved a comprehensive four-year thematic action plan for the inclusion of Roma and Travellers. It focuses on three main priorities: the tackling of anti-Roma prejudice, discrimination and crimes – so-called anti-Gypsyism; the promotion of inclusive policies for the most vulnerable, particularly children, women and young people; and the promotion of innovative models for local-level solutions. We must continue our efforts along those three lines of action, at both national and European level, and a precondition for success is that we must do so in close co-operation with Roma civil society organisations.

       Mr SCULLY (United Kingdom, Spokesperson for the European Conservatives Group) – The Russian delegation is threatening to withhold the payment of €11 million of subscriptions, and the European Union may have to reduce its budget shortly in the light of Brexit. What cuts to the Council of Europe budget are being considered by the Committee of Ministers, and how can we help to ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent prudently and effectively in the Council of Europe?

      Mr ZAORÁLEK – I suspect that that question is a reaction to a declaration made by some representative of a Russian political institution but, as of today, I have received no notification of any kind from the Russian Government concerning an intention of non-payment by the Russian Federation of part of its contribution to the Council of Europe budget. I therefore do not think it appropriate to discuss possible scenarios at this point. The Committee of Ministers will prepare the next programme and the budget for 2018-19, based on the priorities of the Secretary General, and there will be efforts to work with the European Union and other donors. The European Union’s extra-budgetary funding of the Council of Europe’s assistance activities has increased in recent years, thanks to successful synergy between the two organisations. Although it is too early to predict the impact of Brexit, as negotiations have only just begun, should the European Union’s budget be revised downwards, it is likely that working closely with other partners will grow in importance.

      Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden, Spokesperson for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe) –I thank the Committee of Ministers for the financial support for the investigation into corruption in the Parliamentary Assembly. On strengthening the rule of law, how will the Committee of Ministers tackle the situation in Turkey? Are the ministers of the Czech Republic aware that the vice-president of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, Kristýna Zelienková, has almost been excluded from taking part in the Assembly? She has had to pay for herself.

      Mr ZAORÁLEK – There were two questions, the first of which was on Turkey, which is one of the most serious issues because the situation seems at times to be deteriorating. The Committee of Ministers has closely followed the situation in Turkey since the coup attempt in July last year. As was pointed out from the very beginning, it is legitimate to bring to justice those who took part in the attempted coup. At the same time, extreme care must be taken to respect the rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights, and to avoid any indiscriminate action that targets people who had nothing to do with the coup. From that perspective, a transparent, independent and impartial judicial process is essential. The establishment of a commission to review measures adopted under the state of emergency decree laws is a positive step. It is important that it starts its work rapidly; it must be effective; and it must function in line with the Convention and the case law of our Court. Respect for freedom of expression and of the media, as well as freedom of association and assembly, are other core principles.

      Finally, securing effective political progress is vital. Democratically elected representatives at national and local level must be able to perform their functions freely. That message has been conveyed a number of times to the Turkish authorities by both the Committee of Ministers and the Secretary General. In addition, I am convinced that it is not only the Czech Republic that raises the issue on a bilateral level. The last opportunity was at the beginning of March, when Ministers’ Deputies had an exchange of views with the Turkish Minister of Justice. The message remains valid after the constitutional referendum on 16 April. The Council of Europe’s standards and values must remain the guiding principles.

      All countries who want to join the Council of Europe have to abolish the death penalty. Re-establishing it would be a major step back and a clear contradiction of the fundamental principles and values of the Organisation. The Ministers’ Deputies recently adopted a decision reaffirming their unequivocal opposition to the death penalty, including opposition to its introduction.

      I am concerned by the detention of Taner Kiliç. It is extraordinary because Mr Kiliç is the head of the Turkish branch of Amnesty International. I have been following the case closely and hope that he will be released. The case is very serious because it could create a dangerous precedent. It is the first time in history when the head of an Amnesty International branch has been detained. I do not speak about it in detail but it is very worrying.

      I was informed about the dismissal of Ms Zelienková, the Czech deputy and representative of the Czech parliamentary delegation. I would like this matter to be dealt with primarily between the parliamentary delegation and the Assembly. I believe that the matter can be resolved to the satisfaction of both, but both sides have to stick to the rules.

      Mr VILLUMSEN (Denmark, Spokesperson for the Group of the Unified European Left) – I am very worried about the corruption allegations that have hit our Assembly. I am also very happy with the investigation body set up yesterday. What initiatives will be taken in the Committee of Ministers in respect of the corruption allegations in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe?

      Mr ZAORÁLEK – I must start by declaring that corruption, which is a big issue, poses a major threat to the core values defended by our Organisation, particularly the rule of law. Last week, the Committee of Ministers adopted a series of decisions in which we expressed our concern about the allegations of corruption within the Assembly, which could affect the reputation of the Assembly and the Council of Europe as a whole. The committee expressed the desire for a full and fair investigation into those allegations, and welcomes the Assembly’s decision to establish an independent external investigation body to look into them. The committee also urged member States’ full co-operation with the investigation body, in accordance with applicable national law.

      Ms DURANTON (France)* – My question was on Turkey, and I thank the Minister for the answer we have already heard.

      Mr CORLĂŢEAN (Romania) – I welcome warmly your comments on your priorities of combating racism, intolerance, anti-Semitism and populism. Would you be more specific, especially on anti-Semitism, which continues to be a serious European challenge? As a possible point of reference, I humbly mention the first working definition of anti-Semitism, which was obtained recently under the Romanian presidency of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. I wish you all the best for your presidency.

      Mr ZAORÁLEK – I fully agree with Mr Corlăţean, a former colleague, that racism, intolerance, anti-Semitism and populism are on the rise in Europe. They constitute a worrying development for our democracies, and I understand why he repeatedly stresses the issue, which was at the heart of the discussions at the ministerial session in Nicosia last May; it was also addressed by the Secretary General in his last report on the state of human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Europe.

      Under the Czech chairmanship, we are paying attention to activities aimed at reinforcing the cohesiveness of our society. Many items are important in striving to retain resilience. I am convinced that the action plan on building inclusive societies, which was adopted last year by the Committee of Ministers, will help us. We also want to focus on youth. Therefore, the promotion of human rights and democracy through education is one of the priorities of our chairmanship: that is why we speak about education in our priorities.

      A successful conference on the future of citizenship and humanitarian education took place in Strasbourg just last week. We have organised another major event, which will take place in October in Prague, on the implementation of the Council of Europe reference framework of competencies for democratic citizenship, which is a remarkable instrument for fostering a democratic culture in European schools. Under the Czech chairmanship, we plan to hold several conferences on the rights of people who belong to disadvantaged groups, particularly the Roma community, who are too often victims of racism and discrimination, which I spoke about in an earlier response.

      In the context of the preparation of the programme of activities of the Organisation for 2018-19, we will also ensure that concrete initiatives are undertaken to address the challenges posed by the phenomenon of increased racism, intolerance, anti-Semitism and populism. Fighting the resurgence of populist politics and the spread of racism is a responsibility we all share, as individuals and as elected bodies, local authorities and civil society organisations. We must promote and protect our democratic values. All that is in our hands.

      Mr Rafael HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – The establishment of a unique permanently functioning Council of Europe museum in Strasbourg, one of the symbolic capitals of Europe, could make a significant contribution to world culture and to the supreme goals of our Organisation. We imagine the museum as an exhibition hall large enough for 50 to 60 countries, taking into account the future enlargement of the Council of Europe. Everyone who visited the museum would have an opportunity to get closely acquainted in a short space of time with the history, culture and identity of member countries. The equal participation of all member States would make the implementation of ideas easier, without putting a heavy burden on anyone. What steps can the Committee of Ministers take, within its competence, towards the implementation of this idea?

      Mr ZAORÁLEK – Thank you for sharing with us the idea of opening a European cultural museum in Strasbourg. Your question reflects a strong attachment to culture as a tool for enhancing understanding between people and nations across Europe. The Committee of Ministers has not been seized of the proposal but, if it were, member States would need carefully to consider the budgetary implications of such an ambitious initiative. It is probably a very nice idea, but we have to think about it very carefully and consider all the budgetary implications. That is all I can tell you today.

      Ms CSÖBÖR (Hungary)* – I congratulate the Czech chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers on its priorities, especially the great attention being given to the European Court of Human Rights and the supreme courts and constitutional courts of the member States of the Council of Europe. The Czech Republic and Hungary are making efforts to help children and immigrants in Europe. What measures can be taken to convince European institutions of the importance of that effort?

Mr ZAORÁLEK – From an early stage in the migration crisis, the Council of Europe has underlined that addressing the crisis is the responsibility of all members and member States. The Council of Europe called for a response based on respect for human dignity, human rights and solidarity. As you rightly infer, the Organisation can and does contribute to the international efforts that have been undertaken since the beginning of the crisis. That contribution is concentrated in activities in which the Organisation has particular expertise and where it can bring added value to the work being carried out by the other stakeholders.

As I mentioned in my statement, the most recent example of this is the Council of Europe action plan on protecting refugee and migrant children in Europe. In preparing the action plan, the work carried out by other organisations, such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, UNICEF, the World Food Programme, the World Health Organization and the International Organization for Migration, as well as the European Union, was taken into account as well as the outcome of the World Humanitarian Summit held in Istanbul in May 2016. Moreover, the follow-up to the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants on 19 September 2016 and the process leading up to the adoption in 2018 of two global compacts – one on refugees and one for safe, orderly and regular migration – offer a great opportunity to improve the collective handling of migration issues worldwide.

It is in that spirit that the Council of Europe will continue to co-operate closely with those organisations, as well as with relevant NGOs and other key stakeholders. That will ensure complementarity, and could bring about collective initiatives whenever necessary. The Organisation also aims to convene a high-level meeting in 2019, involving its member States and partners, to foster dialogue and promote the results achieved under the action plan.

Ms ALQAWASMI (Palestine, Partner for Democracy) – As Europe deals with its own problems, we in the southern neighbourhood ask what the role of Europe is in addressing and solving the conflicts in our region. Europe’s security is tied to ending conflicts, including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I appreciate your answer, Mr Minister.

Mr ZAORÁLEK – Conflicts in the Middle East, which have dramatic humanitarian consequences, can leave no one indifferent. It is absolutely clear that they have an impact on us all, also here in Europe. That is why the Council of Europe has developed a neighbourhood policy for some of the countries in the region. When it comes to the actual conflicts in the Middle East, I feel sorry that the Council of Europe cannot do very much, but I hope that a political solution can be found in the appropriate international fora and in full compliance with international law, to ensure sustainable peace in the region.

Mr ÖNAL (Turkey) – Distinguished Minister, your government very recently started promoting the priority areas of your chairmanship and we have learned that you will emphasise five themes. In addition to those themes, how will you tackle issues such as the threat of terrorism, migration and combating populist discourse, which require international co-operation? What role will you play, under your chairmanship?

Mr ZAORÁLEK – The three issues you have mentioned are indeed among the most serious challenges our countries currently face. The first two – the threat of terrorism and migration – certainly require enhanced international co-operation, because of their transnational nature. They will be addressed effectively only though greater interaction and synergy between States and among international organisations, as I said a few minutes ago. As I outlined in my oral communication, a number of steps have been taken within the Council of Europe in those two areas to promote such international co-operation. I will mention, for example, the two most recent legal instruments prepared by the Organisation to combat terrorism and its financing: the protocol on foreign terrorist fighters and the European Convention on Offences relating to Cultural Property. I can only reiterate my appeal to all member States to sign and ratify those two instruments in order to be more effective in the fight against terrorism. That is something concrete we can do.

Regarding the migration crisis, the action plan on protecting migrant and refugee children in Europe, which was adopted at the ministerial session in Nicosia last month, is another example of how to enhance international co-operation. The action plan focuses on areas that have not yet received sufficient attention from the Organisation’s strategic partners, and where the Council of Europe has, and can, bring clear added value for the benefit of refugee and migrant children. It will be implemented in close co-operation with the European Union, the United Nations and the relevant agencies of those organisations. That will ensure complementarity and could lead to the establishment of collective initiatives when necessary.

      Although populism has common features in all countries, it is directly related to the political environment in each one. Each member State must respond, first and foremost, in the light of their specific circumstances. However, there is certainly room for international co-operation in this area; in particular, member States could share their experiences of, and domestic responses to, populism. In general, however, I believe that the issue is too intricate to be dealt with comprehensively here.

      Ms ÆVARSDÓTTIR (Iceland) – My question refers to statements made by Mr Anders Samuelsen, who will succeed you as Chair of the Committee of Ministers, about the Danish Government’s intention to focus its chairmanship of the committee on setting what he referred to as practical rules for the European Court of Human Rights to follow when rendering its judgments. I understood that as an intention to influence the Court’s jurisprudence. Although I am cognisant of the Interlaken and Brighton Declarations, which relate to certain practical and procedural matters to do with the European Court of Human Rights, I have never before come across plans to influence the substantive interpretations of the Court. Are you aware of this? Has it been discussed in the Committee of Ministers? What is your position on the matter?

      Mr ZAORÁLEK – I am not sure whether I can satisfy you. You speak about the future Danish chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers. The Danish chair has not yet indicated what its priorities will be, and it will do so only in November when Denmark takes over the chairmanship. You will therefore understand that I do not wish to comment, because I do not know the intentions of the future Danish chair, so anything that I said would be pure speculation. I can, however, make it clear that the Czech chairmanship is strongly committed to the European Convention on Human Rights and the indispensable role of the Court in ensuring the observance of the engagement undertaken by high contracting parties with the Convention and its protocols. I promise that we will strive to ensure the long-term effectiveness of the supervisory mechanism of the European Convention on Human Rights. That is a priority of the Council of Ministers. I will limit my answer to that, because my knowledge about the future Danish chairmanship is limited, so it is difficult to say more.

      The PRESIDENT – We must now conclude the questions to Mr Zaorálek. Minister, thank you for your statement and the answers you have given to the questions. I congratulate you on the advancement of the programme for your chairmanship, which includes a number of initiatives that are of direct interest to the Assembly. We are particularly glad to see the progress made on the ratification of some recent Council of Europe conventions, particularly the Riga additional protocol, which, as you have said, will come into force next week. Members of the Assembly can help to promote it, as well as other Council of Europe measures, to many national parliaments. We also welcome your focus on the further development of our co-operation with our international partners, particularly the European Union and the OSCE. We look forward to continuing our good co-operation.

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

2. Joint debate – Promoting integrity in governance to tackle political corruption and Parliamentary scrutiny over corruption: parliamentary co-operation with the investigative media

      The PRESIDENT – We now come to the joint debate on two reports from the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy and the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media. The first is titled “Promoting integrity in governance to tackle political corruption”, Document 14344, presented by Mr Michele Nicoletti, with an opinion presented by Mr Wold, in place of Mr Vusal Huseynov, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Document 14352; and the second is titled “Parliamentary scrutiny over corruption: parliamentary co-operation with the investigative media”, Document 14274, presented by Ms Gülsün Bilgehan.

      I remind the Assembly that at yesterday afternoon’s sitting, it was agreed that speaking time in all debates today be limited to three minutes.

      We will aim to finish this item by about 7.20 p.m.. I will interrupt the list of speakers at around 6.45 p.m. to allow time for the replies and the vote.

      I call Mr Michele Nicoletti, rapporteur, to present the first report. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.

      Mr NICOLETTI* (Italy) – This report deals with corruption, which is significant not just in moral terms but in economic and political terms. Our democratic societies are based on the principles of freedom, equality and justice, and corruption undermines citizens’ trust and confidence in us. Our citizens are peaceful, so speech is their weapon, but their confidence in the words that people speak is undermined by the perception of corruption. Corruption enslaves people rather than giving them freedom. It creates inequality, because it allows some to access services that others cannot. It undermines the credibility of the public sector, at a time when populism is already encouraging people to distrust politics and democracy. That is why it is essential to step up the fight against corruption, which has rightly been described as a cancer in society.

      A lot of effort has been made in the Council of Europe to tackle the problem. We have many conventions and bodies, such as GRECO, to help us to do so, and our Assembly has an active anti-corruption platform. We continue to see corruption in our countries, however, and it seems to take on new forms and scope. We are not simply talking about traditional problems related to political life, electoral campaign funding or the awarding of large public contracts. Our citizens are worried about other things. We find corruption in the management of refugee centres, for example, which means that people’s fates are even more difficult. We are talking about money, and this takes money away from servicing the needs of citizens.

      We must seek to understand and tackle corruption in different contexts. This report seeks to establish guiding principles that will apply to all 47 member States, and others, of course. There are specific aspects relating to our different cultures, histories and local traditions. I am not seeking to justify any such corruption, however; on the contrary, to effectively combat corruption we have to understand the context and circumstances and ask questions such as whether it is the pathology of a system or the very physiology, or is it the way that society is seen to operate?

      I thank all the national delegations who have supported our efforts and visits. I am also grateful to the people I met on those visits. We were looking at perceptions, and were unable to carry out academic, historical or sociological analyses per se, but we have come up with three indications. The first is that corruption is linked to the way the modern State came about historically – the public administration, the rule of law, the extent to which there is an impartial administration. If a State does not have an impartial and independent administration, it is clearly more difficult to combat corruption.

      We need to look back through history, but that should not discourage us; on the contrary, it should encourage us, as it gives us an opportunity to examine what happens in the United Kingdom or the Netherlands, for example. These are two success stories; those writing in the two countries some centuries ago felt that corruption was a real plague – a scourge on their societies. All other countries can learn from what has happened since in those countries, therefore. We need to work at finding effective ways to combat corruption.

      Secondly, we must examine the public administration at both national and local level. Countries often have sound legislation and robust instruments at central level, but we find a great deal of corruption at regional or local level.

      Thirdly, in combating corruption it is important to pay attention to legislative, institutional and educational dynamics. Where we see success stories, there are classes in the leadership and citizenry who have understood that combating corruption is not only morally right, but essential for having properly democratic institutions and sound economic development. We need to have a sound education system and a good social environment, therefore.

      Our recommended measures are measures that we are all very familiar with, given the work already performed in this area with the vital support of GRECO. We need sound legislation that sets out instruments for detecting and sanctioning any corruption offences but that can also serve to prevent them and forestall them in the first place. A universal approach for the good is to have transparency; we have to get things as transparent as possible in public administration. We have to ensure that the sphere of our parliamentary representation and government is as transparent as possible. These are key means of combating and preventing patterns of corruption.

      Corruption tends to hide itself away and we need to shed light on it. Where there are hidden areas, it is easier for corruption to hide. We need to have independent and autonomous bodies. Our own Assembly is facing up to this important challenge of combating corruption. It is important to have an external mechanism that can supervise and monitor, and come up with suggestions to improve the management of public life. Of course, the judiciary has to be as independent and autonomous as possible, but certain countries have seen fit to set up specialised bodies to tackle corruption.

      It is also important to address the question of how to regulate lobbying activity. Pressure is brought to bear on decision makers by those keen to win bids or to have access to new development sectors. We must also examine the independence of the media. Combating corruption is not merely a task to be entrusted to institutions; society as a whole has to embrace it. It is a dialectic, after all, and sometimes a rather harsh dialectic between journalists – those who provide us with news and information – and those who govern our institutions.

      Finally, in the countries we visited, the importance of education was repeatedly emphasised, as was the need to address these issues early on, at primary school level, although, of course, in appropriate social contexts, involving families, associations and local communities. I believe the Council of Europe could provide its own assistance in this regard, because we have a track record in education, and we have teaching manuals and handbooks to support gender equality, and to combat hate and gender-based violence, for example. It would be useful if anti-corruption could be the subject of a co-ordinated approach, bringing together best practice, as has been established in a number of countries.

      Our Assembly has also had a number of recommendations addressed to it. It is essential that we examine afresh our own code of conduct, and GRECO provides us with important indications. We must give clear support to the work of the independent external investigation body. I am sure all members of the Assembly will join me in supporting that. Now we have our anti-corruption platform and we should also have rules in our Assembly to govern lobbying activity.

      On the member States, I invite people to consider the appropriateness of creating a network of anti-corruption authorities at European level. Some are already running very well in certain countries. They called for better co-ordination – corruption is an international phenomenon. If we can offer common standards and a comparison of how we deal with things, the work of the various anti-corruption authorities can be even more effective.

      I thank once more all who have helped in the production of this report, particularly the countries visited and the staff of the committee.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Nicoletti. You have zero minutes remaining. I call Mr Wold, vice-chair, in place of Mr Vusal Huseynov for the opinion. You have three minutes.

      Mr WOLD (Norway) – On behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, I congratulate the rapporteur of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, Mr Nicoletti, on his excellent report. The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has dealt with similar issues in a number of previous reports concerning corruption and the protection of whistle-blowers. It supports the draft resolution as well as the draft recommendation.

      The report of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy focuses on political corruption and examines its root causes before analysing a number of anti-corruption strategies and making recommendations to promote integrity, transparency and accountability in governance and in the fight against corruption. The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights agrees with the report’s conclusion that the fight against corruption cannot be addressed through legislation alone; corruption embedded in social and cultural attitudes must also be considered and eradicated.

      That said, while generally supporting the draft resolution and the draft recommendation, the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights considers that there is still room to improve the relevant international legal framework. It therefore invites all member States to review and strengthen their legislation on corruption and to sign or ratify the relevant conventions, if they have not yet done so. The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights also reiterates its call on the Committee of Ministers to launch the process of negotiating a new convention on the protection of whistle-blowers.

      Corruption can negatively affect every level of government in all European democracies, including European institutions, threatening the rule of law, democracy and human rights. Member States must continue to ensure the effective implementation of recommendations of the relevant Council of Europe bodies, particularly those of GRECO, and co-operation between such bodies and the European Union must remain a priority.

      The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has therefore proposed some amendments to strengthen the draft resolution and the draft recommendation, regarding some legal and human rights aspects. I am happy to inform the Assembly that the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy has adopted them all unanimously.

The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Wold. I call Ms Gülsün Bilgehan, rapporteur, to present the second report. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.

Ms BİLGEHAN (Turkey)* – The report that I have the honour to present originated in an observation that I think is really quite dramatic. Corruption is a scourge that we have not managed to eradicate – we have not even managed to contain or limit it. As Mr Nicoletti stressed, that undermines our democratic systems and institutions, of which we are so proud and that we are fighting to save here. It reduces our economic growth, gives power and money to organised crime and erodes the trust of our citizens in the ability of authorities to preserve the rule of law and to guarantee a just and fair society. We are all confronted with this in our respective countries, when scandals involving elected officials, businessmen or civil servants see the light of day. We fail to combat corruption, even here, within the Council of Europe, the temple of our most precious European values.

This is my third term of office in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and I am very sad about the present situation. I wonder how we managed not to prevent it. In any event, I think that we are all resolutely determined to combat corruption, to uproot it wherever it may be. We want to strengthen the parliamentary dimension of that effort to combat corruption, in particular through our national parliaments, which have a specific role to play through their legislative action to combat corruption, as well as encouraging and promoting integrity within their own ranks, being exemplary in transparency and through more and closer co-operation with civil society and the media.

My report is entitled “Parliamentary scrutiny over corruption: parliamentary co-operation with the investigative media”. The report does not claim to provide any definitive answers. It is not patronising, nor does it provide moral lessons. Rather, it opens up some avenues for thought and questions, perhaps sketching out a number of principles that might seem self-evident but are not always so in practice.

Real investigative journalism is a very useful weapon to combat corruption. In some cases, it might be the only way of effectively preventing corruption outside an institution. There are a number of cases of corruption that would never have seen the light of day without the difficult, patient, daily, painstaking and courageous work done by investigative journalists and whistle-blowers. I suggest that we affirm something that has never been said by any parliament with the same force, namely that investigative journalism should be identified as a public asset to be protected and supported. Investigative journalism and, more generally, fighting for the liberty of the media, requires effective protection of journalists against any attacks on their safety and physical integrity, against abusive measures of detention and against undue pressure that might undermine their independence. But to proclaim this reality is not sufficient: we must act. Therefore, my report and the draft resolution identify four main ways of acting to achieve a dual objective. Setting up an echo system, if you will, that is favourable for investigative journalists and is in more general terms favourable for freedom of information and access to information by media would better integrate investigative journalism into strategies to combat the corruption that unfortunately still exists in our countries.

The four lines of action are as follows: to enact laws that would ensure the widest possible access to information by all; to set up financial mechanisms to support investigative journalism but in a way that does not compromise the independence of such journalism; to provide adequate protection for whistle-blowers, including limiting any risk they might face of criminal proceedings or retaliatory action; and to promote co-operation between national parliaments and investigative journalists. Some very concrete measures are proposed in these four lines of action. One measure that national parliaments could take right away is to include on their agendas as a priority action improving laws to ensure access to information, in order to guarantee absolute transparency about all members’ financial interests.

I stress that not only are we parliamentarians not above the law, but that we should go even further. We should in all circumstances be exemplary in our respect for the law. We are often the targets of media attacks that can be hurtful to us, but we are politicians and we must accept that. Sometimes tendentious or slanderous information about us is spread unfairly; sometimes our private lives are invaded. That is true of other public figures and individuals with important roles. We are sometimes subject to the new post-truth environment. I do not support certain types of journalism whose only objective is to be hurtful or spread lies in order to increase circulation or for some other reason. There is also the delicate issue of manipulation of public opinion through abuse of the right to information. Nevertheless, the politicians who are dubious about strengthening transparency are wrong. The only people who need to fear the truth are those who should be ashamed. The right of access to information should be limited only in line with the very strict provisions of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Another lighthouse project would be to set up, along with investigative journalists, a national fund to support investigative journalism, financed by an annual contribution. Obviously, the idea is not to introduce financial mechanisms that would link investigative journalism to the powers that be; they must remain independent.

Another important aspect is protection for whistle-blowers. Our committee and the intergovernmental sector of the Council of Europe have worked on this a lot, but the draft resolution proposes to go further by recognising the right to blow the whistle in any case where information is disclosed in good faith and is clearly in the public interest. The right to blow the whistle in such circumstances should be enshrined in law in a way that forbids or even penalises any retaliatory measures against whistle-blowers and exempts them from penal liability.

More efforts must be made to find synergies between politicians, parliamentarians and investigative journalists to root out corruption. I hope that you will be able to support the proposals, and I thank you in advance for the debate that we are about to have.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. You have three minutes remaining.

      In the debate, I will first call the speakers on behalf of the political groups. The first group is the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe. I call Mr Comte.

Mr COMTE (Switzerland, Spokesperson for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe)* – Dear colleagues, I am sure that you will agree that it is vital to clamp down on corruption. Corruption is like gangrene eating away at the relationship of trust between us and the electorate and can undermine representative democracy. Power resides with the people, and the people transfer their power to elected representatives. It is therefore paramount for elected representatives to ensure that they represent the general interest of citizens, not financial or small-group interests. In electing parliamentarians, the electorate place their trust in them, and if that trust is eroded, it undermines democracy as well.

The rapporteur has pointed this out clearly. It is vital for the Council of Europe to set an example. The debates that have been shaking our Assembly over the past few months have shown clearly that this will not be plain sailing. Paragraph 10 of Mr Nicoletti’s draft resolution is fundamental, as it deals with the role of the Council of Europe. If we want national parliaments to implement our recommendations, it goes without saying that we must set a clear example in how we conduct ourselves. If we do not do so, how can we expect it? The strength of the Council of Europe relies on persuasion. If we want to persuade parliaments to implement our recommendations, we must be beyond reproach.

It is sometimes difficult to combat corruption. It is a widespread phenomenon. We have a number of instruments at our disposal, including supervision mechanisms and supervisory bodies, which need to be put into place to combat corruption effectively. We also have outside monitoring bodies, and the judicial authorities play an important role. They must be fully independent, of course, so that they can unmask corruption if it exists within the political sphere. Ms Bilgehan presented other supervision mechanisms involving investigative media, which have an essential role to play. When domestic and external supervision mechanisms are not efficient, we rely on investigative journalism. It is a subsidiary mechanism, but it is of paramount importance in a number of cases.

As far as corruption is concerned, we should adopt a zero-tolerance policy, as should our political parties. We should clamp down on anyone involved in corruption and remove them from our parties. The electorate should also have zero tolerance for corruption. Only if we sing from the same hymn sheet can we combat corruption effectively.

Mr LOUCAIDES (Cyprus, Spokesperson for the Group of the Unified European Left) – I congratulate the rapporteurs on these two well-written reports containing interesting findings and recommendations.

The economic and social costs of corruption are evident. First, economic savings from corrupt practices could be spent on housing, hospitals and schools, and generally to promote economic and social rights and infrastructure. Secondly, corruption is directly related to the amount of trust that citizens place in public institutions. Corruption deepens citizens’ collective disaffection, which continues to be exploited by the far right across Europe and is causing dangerous consequences for the quality and resilience of our democratic societies and institutions. It is therefore clear that the fight against corruption remains the cornerstone of the rule of law and is a key component of democracy, as Mr Nicoletti says in his report.

The root causes of corruption are undoubtedly linked to the prevalent socio-economic system, which glorifies profit and considers money the ultimate principle. That is why corruption in all its forms and manifestations affects, to a greater or lesser degree, all countries and almost all institutions. As the rapporteur rightly demonstrates through the four case studies presented, the scale and impact of the phenomenon is different in each country, depending on various cultural and social parameters and on the mechanisms and preventive strategies that have been put in place to fight corruption. The degree of transparency, accountability and integrity of public institutions and the active participation of civil society are also indicative of the intensity of the phenomenon.

      While taking into account cultural specificities and existing perceptions in designing effective national anti-corruption strategies, we as legislators must continue to ensure that our governments stay committed to implementing relevant GRECO recommendations about, among other things, the criminalisation of corruption, the declaration of assets and political funding. Corruption prevention and accountability mechanisms for members of parliament, judges and prosecutors must also be taken into account. We must strive to better protect whistle-blowers and improve the regulation of lobbying activities. Efforts to streamline our legislative frameworks and close all remaining legal loopholes that undermine the rule of law – including through open and transparent legislative processes and fully functioning independent judiciaries – should be encouraged. It is also important to establish specialised independent anti-corruption bodies and introduce specific educational measures in schools and universities aimed at fostering a culture of democratic citizenship and youth involvement in anti-corruption activities. Moreover, it is crucial to ensure that the media remain free and independent and retain their capacity to effectively investigate, report and expose corruption.

      Ms HOVHANNISYAN (Armenia, Spokesperson for the Group of the European People’s Party) – I thank the rapporteurs for their hard work and for presenting these very important reports. Joe Biden once said, “Fighting corruption is not just good governance. It’s self-defence. It’s patriotism.” As Mr Nicoletti correctly identified in his report, one of the key features of fighting corruption is promoting a political and cultural environment that is conducive to a corruption-resilient society. If we look at international treaties from the Jakarta principles to the United Nations Convention against Corruption, we see that there are three components of the fight against corruption: education, prevention and fight. We should start with targeted education and follow that route.

      Let me use this opportunity to share with you the latest developments in my country with respect to this issue. Two weeks ago, we established an autonomous and independent commission for corruption prevention. For the first time, we have stipulated that whistle-blowers should be protected, in full compliance with resolutions adopted by PACE. We have increased the number of high-ranking officials who are required to declare their assets, income and interests, and we have criminalised illicit enrichment.

      Unfortunately, we cannot bypass the allegations of corruption in the Assembly. Corruption is no longer just a concept or a topic in this Assembly; it already has a face, and sometimes addressees. Regrettably, by treating allegations as mere rumour, we sometimes have not taken the issue seriously – there was possibly pressure on our opinions when we criticised the phenomenon. In contrast with the situation several years ago, when we talked about it carefully and with some reservations, we now speak openly about it.

      I do not want to accept that problems such as corruption scandals can overshadow our values. Of course, everyone here represents his or her own country, but I believe that we are all delegated here not only to protect our national interests but to pursue a global mission – a mission of generational shift. We are in this Assembly to ensure the continuity of the pillar values that were established here in 1949. What are we going to transfer to future generations? Let us think about that. Today’s discussions prove that we are mostly united in believing that we must uphold this Organisation in its original sense and uphold our basic values. We welcome the creation of investigative bodies.

      Mr LE BORGN’ (France, Spokesman for the Socialist Group)* – I congratulate our colleagues, Ms Bilgehan and Mr Nicoletti, on their reports on combating corruption. Corruption is a scourge that dangerously undermines our democratic societies. Corruption is not just something that happens in other countries; it is topical for each and every one of us as parliamentarians, and for every citizen of Europe. We must be implacable in combating corruption. Nothing justifies corruption or makes it acceptable. We live in societies of freedom and responsibility, and those things must be shared. I am pleased to note that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe is working on this issue through its anti-corruption platform, the two reports we are considering and the recommendations and resolutions that we will shortly vote on.

      Parliaments have an essential role to play in combating corruption. They must of course ensure that integrity is prevalent in their own ranks, but they must also put in place an effective arsenal of laws to combat corruption. Combating corruption means being positive and fighting for transparency and for co-operation with civil society, in particular with the press. Ms Bilgehan, I am sensitive to your appeal in favour of investigative journalism. How can one combat corruption without the commitment of journalists who engage in dangerous, painstaking investigations that sometimes last years but contribute to democracy and good governance?

      To combat corruption is to protect the integrity and security of investigative journalists, to denounce any intimidation or pressure that is exerted upon them, to recognise and value their role, and to support them financially. But to combat corruption is also to protect journalists’ sources – especially whistle-blowers, who are the guardians of democracy. To blow the whistle is a right that should be protected when it is in the general interest to make public the information that is provided. To retaliate against whistle-blowers, intimidate them or hold them criminally liable is unacceptable. There should be an independent authority to protect whistle-blowers. That could be an ombudsman or a rights defender, precisely as Ms Bilgehan’s report proposes. To combat corruption is to recognise the role of journalists and whistle-blowers not just formally but through procedures and mechanisms to which they should have a right, in the name of the values of democracy and freedom that bring us together in this Chamber.

       Mr SCULLY (United Kingdom, Spokesperson for the European Conservatives Group) – We can look at corruption on several levels. At a high level, it may be about enriching oligarchs or building up post-political careers and riches. But it is not quite the same in the UK, where we say that to end up with a small fortune in politics, you have to start with a large one. Politics is not a particularly good way of enriching yourself in the UK. At a local level, people who may be considered big fish in small ponds can take advantage of the fact that there is less scrutiny and less understanding of how government works locally. Too often, members of the public reluctantly accept endemic corruption in public services, believing that nothing will change and that they are unable to effect change. That leads to resentment and cynicism towards everyone in the public sector. We must put that right.

      Although the pair of reports is fantastic, I must take issue with one paragraph in Mr Nicoletti’s report. In paragraph 21 of his explanatory memorandum, he refers to Brexit being ascribable to a “loose notion of corruption: that the system was only working for self-interested groups”. I do not accept that. There are certainly some disaffected people who feel unable to effect change, but this is about engagement, not corruption. Cloth-eared politicians should be punishable by a system that enables them to be tackled at the ballot box. It should always be possible to punish corruption effectively through the legal system and through the courts, and it should be possible to expose such things through good and free investigative journalism.

      The UK media can be incredibly vicious and sensationalist, but there is no doubt that they have a long record of hard-hitting investigations that have uncovered scandals such as the offering of cash for parliamentary questions and the misuse of MPs’ expenses. Those investigations are helped by our open and transparent structures, such as through our Freedom of Information Act, which is rarely comfortable for government at both national and local levels, but allows for open access to information. We protect whistle-blowers by law if they report criminal offences, danger to people’s health and safety, miscarriages of justice or companies covering up wrongdoing. We also hold ourselves to the seven principles of public life – selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. We have a register of financial interests that covers travel, donations and anything that may reasonably be considered as an influence on our actions or words as members of parliament.

      As we have seen in the Assembly this week, we know what happens when confidence ebbs away, but the Council of Europe can show the way in the fight against corruption and the misuse of power by shedding light for those we represent on our interests and on the institution. Let us remember that sunlight is the best disinfectant.

      The PRESIDENT – The rapporteurs do not wish to respond now, so we will continue with the debate. I call Mr Schennach.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* – I particularly want to compliment Gülsün Bilgehan on her report on how whistle-blowing and investigative journalism should be seen as assets to society and to parliaments, and as very important ways of combating corruption. As was announced at the world congress of the International Federation of Journalists, we now have some 900 investigative journalists in 120 countries around the world, who constitute one of the most effective means of combating corruption. They deserve protection, but such protection is lacking.

      What we sometimes need is courage on the part not only of politicians, but of the media. Woodward and Bernstein uncovered Watergate and won the Pulitzer Prize. Publishers have funded journalists such as Günter Wallraff in Germany to undertake investigative journalism over a long period. There are cases that would not have been uncovered without investigative journalism, such as that of Yanukovych and the scandal of Prime Minister Mirek Topolánek attending sex parties with Silvio Berlusconi. There are brave people: I am thinking of people like Khadija Ismayilova in Azerbaijan, and there are many others. In education, we must encourage the view that investigative journalists and their reports constitute an asset to us all.

      In my remaining time, I will address the issue of whistle-blowers. In a way, they are there to uncover and reveal official secrets. In the Council of Europe, we must establish a common definition of what is permitted in combating corruption and in preventing threats to health, the environment and security. We must recognise the value of whistle-blowers, and we must create such a common definition. The Committee of Ministers knows that we do not have a common definition at the moment. Ms Bilgehan’s report is a good initiative to promote the activities of both investigative journalists and whistle-blowers.

      Mr SCHNEIDER (France)* – I am taking the floor in the Chamber for the very last time. I want to share my thoughts about the two reports submitted to us. Corruption represents a serious danger to our democracies because it undermines confidence in political institutions and, in particular, it encourages contempt for the rule of law in all fields. I noticed that when I worked on the governance of football and on combating doping. I have spoken out against corruption in the Assemblée Parlementaire de la Francophonie and in this Assembly. In the most-affected countries, corruption has a very high cost for the poorest people, because they have to put up with it if they are to access basic services.

      For all these reasons, I very much congratulate Mr Nicoletti on his proposals. Paragraph 4 of the draft resolution is particularly important because it is clear to us all that change is not easy: even with legislation, long-standing practices remain, however objectionable they are. Corruption feeds on poverty, clanism and the lack of legal certainty. We should not forget that the victims of corruption at whatever level are citizens and society as a whole. For me, paragraph 8.5 is also important because the media should enjoy the freedom of the press, which is at the heart of democracy. With that in mind, I very strongly condemn anyone who imprisons journalists, bloggers or whistle-blowers to keep them quiet.

      If we want the fight against corruption to be really effective, it is important that accusations are predicated on solid foundations. In many countries in our Organisation, most of the media is subject to oversight and the press is sometimes used against the opposition. In fact, in some countries so-called journalists take the liberty of using methods tantamount to harassment, so we must be very careful. For these reasons, I support Ms Bilgehan’s report, but as I have said to her, I have some misgivings about some of her proposals, particularly those relating to funding such investigations through a State’s budget, which is quite a sensitive issue.

      I cannot conclude without mentioning the corruption in this Assembly, about which we have talked a great deal. Some people have sold their votes, but such votes have been entrusted to us by the people. Combating such unacceptable lobbying, regardless of who is doing it, should be an unrelenting fight. We need to be very firm, as only in that way can we enable this institution to play the role it deserves. As an Alsatian, I entrust you with this our common house: it is our most wonderful inheritance and I want you to take care of it.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Schneider. As Mr Roca is not here, I call Mr Corlăţean.

      Mr CORLĂŢEAN (Romania)* – Combating corruption is a profound democratic need, so I wholeheartedly endorse the two rapporteurs’ conclusions. I welcome the draft resolutions and recommendations, particularly those in Mr Nicoletti’s report, about which I have a few comments. I support several of his proposals, several of which work in my country. I would like to mention in particular things that should be common standards across Europe, which is why I especially support the draft resolution. They relate to rigour in declaring assets and income; providing the public with ease of access to such information; a confidential council for provision of information regarding ethics and integrity; and the creation of specialised units to promote integrity within public administrations. There was also a reference to our Assembly, its code of conduct and the effective implementation of it.

      There is another issue that does not just concern legislation and its enforcement. It is the preventive aspect. Education is important in our society. There are references in the report to education.

      I should refer to another of our experiences in central and eastern Europe. It is important to combat corruption effectively, but also to respect the rules in that process. In real life, there have been plenty of examples where things have not just been black and white; there may be grey areas. There may be things that are done that do not fully respect the rules. There are even excesses, abuses and pressures in criminal investigations. I could mention several famous examples in central and eastern Europe, where we are still seeing a trend on the part of prosecutors and investigative bodies, which perhaps stems from the previous communist rule, whereby some people have attempted to overdo things in exercising authority. For example, the European Commissioner for Justice was investigated and detained, but was then found innocent by judges. However, at the end of the process those who had pointed the finger bore no responsibility.

      This issue of the responsibility of judges is very important. There needs to be a law about the responsibility of judges. This is important in Council of Europe member States. The checks and balances system should also be part and parcel of the fight against corruption. I congratulate the two rapporteurs and wholeheartedly support their conclusions.

      Mr GONCHARENKO (Ukraine) – Thank you for the chance to speak about this extremely important issue. I am not just offering the usual thanks to rapporteurs; this issue is really important. I give special thanks to Mr Nicoletti for the fact that Ukraine was one of the four countries that were observed during the preparation of the report. In Ukraine, we know very well that corruption can be a great danger, threatening even national security. Parliamentary scrutiny can be a very effective instrument in the fight against corruption, but to be really effective a parliament should itself be clean. That is why I will inform you that during the last plenary week of the Ukrainian Parliament in June, we received documents from the general prosecutor’s office on five cases against five of our colleagues who are accused of corruption. Now there is the possibility of their parliamentary immunity being waived. I draw your attention to the fact that three of them are from the majority party, which is in coalition – they are in a position of power. The only way for us to be really effective is to be clean ourselves.

      The same is true of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, because, unfortunately, we see that corruption can be found here, too. I will just inform you – perhaps you know already – that in the Committee of Ministers there was a real fight about financing the investigative body that we organised. Who was against that body? The Russian Federation. Why am I not surprised? I am not surprised because today the Russian Federation is the No.1 source of political corruption in Europe. Just as Stalin organised the Comintern in the 20th century, now Putin is organising a Kremlintern of corrupt politicians, who are mostly from extreme left or extreme right-wing groups and who are fed by him with dirty money from the Russian budget. We can see the work of these agents all over Europe. We know the story about Russian loans to Marine Le Pen’s party in France. We know many other similar stories, which means we should be very attentive to what is happening around us.

      The story about Mr Agramunt and today’s decision about accountability in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe is so important because, finally, we have an instrument to fight against corruption and against those who cast the name of our Organisation into the shadows. Thank you for this extremely important report.

      Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden) – Thank you, rapporteurs, for your timely reports. They are really spot-on with these reports in the Assembly today.

      Combating corruption is essential, as Mr Nicoletti said. I could not agree more, because the functioning of democracy, the rule of law and human rights are all affected if corruption exists. However, it is obvious that cleaning up must start from above; you have to clean from the top of the stairs. Of course, cleaning up public authorities is essential for all of us, and we have to find a way forward. I looked at Transparency International’s review of our countries in 2016. It is a gloomy picture for most Council of Europe countries, so it is really time for us all to tackle this problem.

      We must find effective tools for governments, parliaments and indeed all of us, wherever we are, to deal with corruption. There must be scrutiny. Public scrutiny is important, as we are all public servants and we must be capable of being scrutinised by all, if scrutiny is to be effective. We have to open up all our systems, to make sure that we can be scrutinised by our voters, our societies and so on. We can amend the report that we are considering to make it even better for us in the Assembly, so I ask people to support that amendment process, please.

      It is also important to consider media freedom. Whistle-blowers have been mentioned and they are, of course, essential. However, we should not forget the importance of a strong civil society, because a strong civil society can really make use of public scrutiny, building up pressure wherever there is corruption. We have to get away from the culture of corruption, which is eroding societies today. Let us go for zero tolerance of corruption and of impunity in corruption issues. We should not shelter corruption in our assemblies.

      Ms BARTOS (Hungary) – Trust is one of the cornerstones of parliamentary democracy, so we should welcome all efforts to strengthen it. Corruption affects trust. Hungary has been a member State of the Council of Europe since 1990 and is committed to European values and the building and protection of democracy. This commitment is not new: Hungary was a founding member of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the first international platform for the parliaments of sovereign States, so we have fought for these values since 1889.

      It is important for citizens to know that their elected and public officials fulfil their roles independent of any external influence, fully respect the rules, and manage national assets and public funds correctly. Since its transition to democracy, there has been a continuous political ambition in Hungary to fight corruption. To that effect, government decrees were issued and we acceded to the more relevant anti-corruption agreements. In order to harmonise international provisions and domestic law, we have developed close co-operation with the competent international organisations, allowing sufficient flexibility for the exchange of professional experiences. After 2010, one of the key public policy objectives of the new government was to establish order in this respect. That required the restoration of public confidence in the State and its institutions.

      The national programme to prevent corruption that was adopted in 2015 aimed to discourage the social phenomenon of corruption. Its aims include increasing administrative bodies’ resistance to corruption; better risk management; the repression of behaviour that affects fair competition; and the promotion of ethical business cultures. The obligation to declare assets, which is an important tool to fight corruption, has been a feature of the Hungarian legal system since the 1990s, and we have some of the most restrictive regulations and sanctions by international standards. Of course, the question arises: have these measures been efficient?

      Last but not least, I wish to underline the fact that the Group of States Against Corruption has completed the compliance procedures for the processes on incriminations and transparency of party funding with the adoption of the second addendum report. It has expressed its appreciation for Hungary’s having implemented all five recommendations on incriminations. I express my appreciation to the rapporteurs for their dedicated work.

      Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – I, too, thank both rapporteurs, whose work was very good. Not only were the suggestions that have already been mentioned very good but I suggest that members read the informative explanatory memorandums.

      Ms Bilgehan was certainly right to describe investigative journalism as a public asset. Sometimes, it is the only way to combat corruption, as she elucidated. It is important to protect effectively not only journalists but whistle-blowers, on which there was a special Council of Europe report several years ago. It is good that she mentioned the financial mechanisms necessary to support investigative journalism, and transparency and access to information are of course important.

      Mr Nicoletti’s work is not only perfect with regard to its suggestions, but an excellent and extremely interesting comparative study of four countries. We learn how the Soviet or post-Soviet past is in some ways determining how corruption works in Ukraine, and – very relevant today – about the culture of impunity among the political parties in Spain, as well as about the better practice in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.

      Mr Goncharenko mentioned, very strongly, the current allegations of corruption and bribery in the Parliamentary Assembly. I should also mention a painful issue. In 2012, the first report on so-called covert diplomacy was released, and the answer from the Assembly was simply silence. Now, five years later, an independent external investigative body has been created, and it is excellent. We were too slow to get to this point, but that body exists, so we should have hope. Today, we approved the report that makes possible the impeachment in this Chamber of the elected high officials among us. That is another sign of how painful these issues can be, but it is important to start with ourselves. I thank the rapporteurs again.

      Ms De SUTTER (Belgium) – Ms Bilgehan states in her report that investigative journalism “is a key weapon in tackling corruption”, and she is right. Without honest and courageous people, corruption will never be tackled. We need honest and courageous members of parliament, non-governmental organisations, investigative journalists and whistle-blowers to keep our democracies healthy.

In a healthy democracy, people rightly expect that members of parliament take responsibility and control the status of democracy, and in a representative democracy it is our duty as parliamentarians to do that. A parliament is probably the most important controlling body in that respect, but very often investigative journalists and whistle-blowers are the people who point out our responsibilities as members of parliament – they point out what we have to assume. Whistle-blowers and investigative journalists can make a difference, especially when official monitoring and control mechanisms fail. Paradoxically, whistle-blowers are often the ones who are persecuted, whereas as the real frauds and criminals go free.

Mr Nicoletti’s report touches on corruption in general, in institutions and in parliaments in Europe. We parliamentarians, who are defenders of human rights and the interests of the European people, should adhere to the highest standards of integrity and set an example. It is clear that the fight against corruption, outside and inside this Assembly, should be our highest priority. The Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs and the Assembly are making good progress, as we witnessed this morning.

The fight against corruption should also deal with conflicts of interest, transparency in lobbying activities, declaration of mandates and a rule against accumulating multiple political mandates. In such domains, a lot of work remains to be done in most member States. Integrity and ethics in politics and governance are key to the values we defend in this institution, which is why I fully support both excellent reports. We need to fight corruption and protect whistle-blowers and investigative journalists throughout Europe. They should be exempted from criminal liability.

Some countries have legislated for the protection of whistle-blowers using anti-corruption laws, others using public service laws, and others still using labour, criminal and sector-specific laws. This has left significant loopholes and gaps. Despite the continuous efforts of the European Parliament, the European Commission is still delaying much-needed protections for whistle-blowers. By voting for the resolutions and recommendations today, we will show the European Union that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe believes that it is time for public transparency.

If we want to keep our States’ democratic and economic systems healthy, our parliaments should co-operate with NGOs, investigative journalists and whistle-blowers. That will give us more democratic legitimacy. It is their responsibility to point out where the system fails, but it is our responsibility to fix the system. I finish with a quote from Alan Simpson, who said: “If you have integrity, nothing else matters. If you don’t have integrity, nothing else matters.” Let us make sure that it is the first that applies to us all.

      Mr MELKUMYAN (Armenia)* – Mr Nicoletti has produced a complete and high-quality report. As I said yesterday, it is very positive that Mr Agramunt does not preside over our sittings – it is excellent that he is absent. He is perhaps a very good manager, but everything he has done has been in the interest of Azerbaijan. Some would say that someone has encouraged him to support Azerbaijan.

      The fight against corruption must be targeted and appropriate. The international community and governments should join their efforts to resolve all problems connected with corruption. Sometimes, that becomes impossible. In countries such as Azerbaijan, heads of State contribute to illicit activities and trigger wars so that the people forget what they are doing, which happened when the war was triggered by the Azerbaijani authorities along the frontier between Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh.

      To have a good overview of the situation, we need to shed light on what is happening in Azerbaijan, and I have the opportunity to tell you about the fortunes and corruption of the Aliyev family. It is a country of organised crime and corruption. Back in 2006, the Aliyev family took control of a number of companies in Azerbaijan that now belong to the Aliyev children. The family owns 56% of shares in a British company active in Azerbaijan. Combating corruption is often insufficient. There are a lot of shortcomings.

      Close co-operation between parliaments and journalists, as proposed in the second report, is indispensable. We need to strengthen the role of national parliaments so that citizens put their faith in democratic institutions and the media. To combat corruption effectively, we must ensure access to information, and provide financial support to journalists. We must give them and whistle-blowers support and protection, and ensure that national parliamentarians co-operate more closely with investigative journalists to shed light on corruption.

      Mr BÜCHEL (Switzerland)* – Today, we have dealt almost exclusively with corruption, and particularly with corruption in the Assembly. Voices in my country have called for the withdrawal of Switzerland from the Council of Europe, although the majority of voices are still in favour of our remaining in it, with a very clear mission statement. We need to make a clear commitment to ensure that this Organisation has its good reputation restored.

      A member of the National Council of Switzerland has stated that – I will say this in French – if we are to advocate the Council of Europe, it is important for it to remain a forum for free discussion, which is what exists. He said that it is a good cause and it should be defended, and that the Council of Europe is a high forum where subjects, notably human rights, are discussed, alongside health, education and training, social aid and so on. He went on to say that we should nevertheless not conceal the truth, and that a number of European parliamentarians have been subject to lobbying and corruption, which also exists in Switzerland. I am sure we know what he was getting at.

      We need to strive to improve our internal workings and require a more ethical attitude on the part of Council of Europe parliamentarians, who are also parliamentarians in their own countries. Some people no longer want to come to Strasbourg, but that would be a mistake. Withdrawing from European institutions is a wrong and cowardly attitude.

      I will switch back to German, my mother tongue. On Ms Bilgehan’s report, we need to ensure that corruption cases are brought to light. Who does that? It is mainly investigative journalists. We must guarantee three things for them: media freedom, safety and security, and access to information to the largest possible extent. I support the reports of Ms Bilgehan and Mr Nicoletti, but let us sort things out in this Assembly. Of course we want to improve structures and that is a good thing. It is also good to criticise. However, it is far more important for us to ensure that we are equal to the high standards we have set within this Organisation. We therefore know what we have to do in the coming days and weeks.

      Ms GOY-CHAVENT (France)* – Our colleagues Ms Bilgehan and Mr Nicoletti propose draft resolutions and recommendations that, if adopted, will make it possible to make major progress in combating political corruption. Thanks to the work of GRECO, the Council of Europe is making a major contribution to this cause. The 17^th general activity report, which was published at the start of this month, none the less regrets the difficulties that many States have in complying with its recommendations, and calls for better use of preventive mechanisms. In France, 33% of the recommendations on parliamentarians have been implemented, and a further 50% partially carried out. Since then, the French authorities have proposed measures further to bolster our legislative arsenal for combating corruption – they should be put to the parliamentary vote very soon.

      The GRECO report frequently stresses the insufficient political will of leaders to combat corruption. That should not be over-estimated. Corruption is a multifaceted, evolving phenomenon, and a relative one. Acceptance of it varies from one country to another and is often a matter of perception. Transparency International has devised a tool called the corruption perception index that demonstrates the fact that corruption is sometimes difficult to narrow down to a purely objective fact. The situation varies substantially across Europe. According to the index, among the 47 Council of Europe member States, Denmark, of the 176 countries classified, rated top of the class, whereas the Russian Federation and Ukraine tied for 131^st place. France is 23^rd. Some behaviours are deemed to be unacceptable in some countries but acceptable in others.

      We must keep pointing the finger at elected officials. New texts are all very well but there is no reason why we should not apply existing mechanisms better, strengthen controls and, above all, strengthen penalties. Parliamentarians are the defenders of democracy. Permanent suspicion looming over our heads is a threat to that democracy. In France, some people even talk about having a presumption of guilt for parliamentarians. How far are we prepared to go? The objective of fighting corruption must naturally be pursued unstintingly but, as we say in France, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, so we must be vigilant vis-à-vis excesses and anti-parliamentarianism. We must continue to defend the democracy, of which we are the guarantors.

Lord FOULKES (United Kingdom) – I join the general welcome given to Mr Nicoletti’s report, particularly paragraph 16, where he says that as far as the United Kingdom is concerned we are “relatively un-corrupt”. The important word here is “relatively”. It is true, as Paul Scully said, that we have freedom of information legislation, but I have seen successive governments – UK and Scottish – try to get around it and prevent information from getting out. We certainly have good financial scrutiny, with a public accounts committee that keeps very strict control of expenditure, but there is another side to this, of which I want to mention three aspects.

First, in the United Kingdom, one of the jewels in our crown is the national health service and the Conservatives pretend that they support it and will do everything they can to keep it going, and effective. How can they do that? How can we believe them, when there are 64 Conservative members of parliament who have a financial interest in private health care and would love to see private care take over different aspects and parts of the health service? If that is not corruption, I do not know what is.

Secondly, we have seen more and more of our ministers and senior civil servants move out of government into industry and commerce, into bodies and companies that they were dealing with in those roles, using the information, knowledge and contacts they have in government to get them lucrative posts in the private sector. There is a committee that is supposed to advise on that but it has no teeth at all, and that needs to be addressed.

Thirdly is something that is mentioned in paragraph 21 of Mr Nicoletti’s report – he calls it a “loose notion of corruption”. Paul Scully tried to say that there was no corruption in the Brexit campaign; nothing could be further from the truth. We were sold a lie. We had newspaper after newspaper – some of them controlled by multi-millionaires living in tax havens – selling us a lie. We were told that we would be better off but we are already seeing people worse off because of Brexit. We were told that money would come back to the health service. That was totally untrue, and the newspapers and the politicians pushing the case were completely corrupt in that respect.

Those are just some examples; I could cite many more. But the conclusion I want to come from this is that if we in the Council of Europe are to assume that our older Western democracies are perfect, free and fair and that there is no corruption, I am afraid we are living with a dangerously complacent attitude. We must reject that. We must accept that we need scrutiny as much as any third world country or former Eastern European country.

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

Mr KÜRKÇÜ (Turkey) – I thank Ms Gülsün Bilgehan for her extensive and detailed report, which aims to empower investigative journalism by encouraging a joint front between the media and parliaments or, in other words, between the first and fourth powers vis-à-vis the supremacy of the second and third powers – the executive and the judicial – to, in her own words, “strengthen the role of parliaments and citizens’ confidence in democratic institutions and the media”. Parliaments in turn are expected to “enact laws to ensure the widest possible access to information, to put in place financial mechanisms to support investigative journalism without compromising its independence and to provide adequate protection to whistle-blowers”.

I welcome the leitmotif that extends throughout the report like a red thread: people have the right to information, particularly at every level of State governance. That is the sine qua non of checking ruling governments’ compliance with “social contracts”, “ethical values”, the “rule of law” and other democratic and social guidelines or election pledges. Therefore, the report’s core concept of “empowering investigative journalism” and protecting whistle-blowers by law is an inevitable conclusion at the legal level of the public aspiration to safeguard the right to protection from embezzlement and from cruel treatment by rulers.

The three traditional areas of power – legislative, executive and judicial – have throughout modern history frequently betrayed the people, fanned wars, protected the rich and persecuted the right, not only under authoritarian and dictatorial regimes, where it is mainly the political realm that is responsible for human rights violations and attacks on liberties. We have witnessed serious abuses in “democratic” countries too. I will just mention the very recent “anti-immigrant” legislation sweeping Europe and the “anti-Muslim” bans issued by the Trump administration in the United States. In that context, Ms Bilgehan’s report could also be read as an SOS to the legislative to engage in a rescue operation for the “fourth estate”, or fourth power, to form a common front against corruption.

However, Ms Bilgehan’s report at this crucial moment echoes like a swan song in this Chamber, calling parliamentarians from across Europe to come to their senses and to recall both the popular fervour of the times of the European revolutions that brought the parliaments into existence, and the popular will that empowered them to fight against corruption, exploitation and torture. I hope that Ms Bilgehan’s voice is heard, first and foremost, by the Turkish Parliament and by our colleagues from the Turkish delegation to PACE, the majority of whom turned a blind eye to the sentencing and imprisonment of Mr Berberoğlu, a member of Ms Bilgehan’s party. Berberoğlu’s alleged crime was supplying so-called State secrets to a whistle-blower who documented arms transfers under government orders to jihadists in Syria. There is no evidence that Berberoğlu provided the documents, and he has not confessed to doing so.

I support Ms Bilgehan’s report in the hope that it becomes a PACE norm and, thus, as long as Turkey remains a PACE member country, that Berberoğlu and all jailed deputies of our party are released from their imprisonment for fighting for legal protection for Turkish whistle-blowers. Nevertheless, under the new paradigms governing the age of globalism, I prefer to stick to the aim of creating a new estate, as mentioned by Ignacio Ramonet during the fourth World Social Forum: “a fifth estate, that will let us pit a civic force against this new coalition of rulers. A fifth estate to denounce the hyperpower of the media conglomerates which are complicit in, and diffusers of, neoliberal globalisation”. Thank you for your patience.

THE PRESIDENT* – Colleagues, may I invite you to stick to your allotted speaking time? Otherwise, we will run into problems. I call Ms Duranton.

Ms DURANTON (France)* – I congratulate Ms Bilgehan and Mr Nicoletti on their excellent and very comprehensive reports. They contain case studies that highlight the very damaging effects of corruption on people’s trust in democratic institutions. They put forward operational solutions to combat the corrupted and the corruptors, who are among the most efficient agents for populist forces in all their forms.

No country is immune from corruption, including France. Some 75% of the French people think that their politicians are more likely than not to be corrupt. There has never been such a high level of mistrust and it has increased because a lack of efficiency in public policy has generated disappointment vis-à-vis elected representatives. Most politicians are honest and sincere but some of them are guided by a thirst for power or the taste of money and, as a result, the entire political class has been stigmatised. We cannot accept that; we absolutely have to win back the trust of our citizens, and that means more transparency.

As far as France is concerned, the OECD and our Organisation have criticised legislative shortcomings in combating corruption. However, things are starting to change. Since 2013, a national financial prosecutor, as well as a high authority for transparency in public life and an anti-corruption agency, in which whistle-blowers were given a status, have been created.

      Two weeks ago, the new French Government unveiled two draft Bills designed to restore trust in those who hold public office. They are closely aligned with the proposals in the reports, which fulfil GRECO’s recommendations on transparency in parliamentary life. For instance, the length of time for which someone is barred from running for office has been increased for tax offences and crimes involving insider information. Protections against professional incompatibilities in consultancy have been strengthened, and more will be done to prevent conflicts of interest.

      Although the elites are being heavily criticised while representative democracy undergoes a crisis of confidence and even legitimacy, corruption is a matter of general interest. The Council of Europe and GRECO are well equipped to help countries to rid themselves of questionable practices. Once legislation has been reformed, it must be implemented under the supervision of a truly independent judiciary.

      The PRESIDENT* – I call Mr Seyidov on a point of order.

      Mr SEYIDOV (Azerbaijan) – Three speeches ago, a representative from Armenia illegally accused me and the leadership of my country of being involved in cases of corruption. I ask the leadership of the Council of Europe to prevent members from making such illegal accusations. We are talking about corruption, and nobody is allowed to make accusations – illegally and without any grounds for doing so – about members of this Parliamentary Assembly or the leadership of their countries.

      The PRESIDENT* – The presidency has taken due note of what you have said, but I am not sure that it is a point of order.

      Mr FRIDEZ* (Switzerland) – Promoting the integrity of our leaders and combating corruption are the cornerstones of sound, honest and effective democratic governance. I salute the excellent work done by the rapporteurs and wholeheartedly endorse their conclusions. Addressing this subject is crucial to ensuring that States are run properly, with the separation of powers, transparency and free democratic elections.

      Allow me to digress briefly. Although corruption is a serious problem in some European countries, it is as nothing compared with what happens elsewhere in the world. Things have become tragically acute in certain developing countries; I am thinking particularly of Africa, where clanism and the theft of public goods have become the rules of the game. In such countries, instability, inequality and widespread poverty afflict most of the population. How can things improve there? People have no confidence in the authorities, who hang on to power in a dictatorial and often violent fashion. Too often, immigration is young people’s only choice, despite all the problems that we know about at the gates of Europe.

      We have to put our own house in order, but let us not forget other parts of the world. We ought to try to help such places by providing targeted assistance and aid, by condemning the corrupters and the corrupted and by participating in missions to restore peace and carry out nation building. For example, 13 000 police officers each year are part of the United Nations missions to reconstruct States and ensure that their populations enjoy security and protection from abuse of power. I hope that my speech will trigger a few ideas in our respective parliaments about ways to combat corruption and poor governance, not just here but everywhere. I invite all members to endorse the excellent reports of Mr Nicoletti and Ms Bilgehan.

      Mr ÖNAL* (Turkey) – I thank the rapporteur for raising one of the most important challenges of our time: the fight against corruption, in which investigative journalism plays a significant role. Mass media – one of the most important indicators of a modern democracy – result in a rush of data that can only be processed through investigative journalism. Independent and ethical investigative journalism serves the public and is a critical tool in a functioning democracy. It acts as a deterrent, because people know that it will bring to light any corruption.

      Nowadays, however, there is a lot of competition in the media, much of which is owned by large corporations that pursue profit. In such a system, media organisations do not necessarily work for the good of the people; they work for their own good, and they may have political motives. In addition, new forms of media, in which the parameters are the number of page views and clicks, encourage media organisations to produce fast, popular news rather than investigative journalism, which requires long and detailed activity. That is to the detriment of journalism.

      Ms BÎZGAN-GAYRAL (Romania) – Corruption is by far the most important enemy of democracy and human rights. It puts everything we have worked for in danger and makes room for populist and dangerous individuals to strive in the political arena. It divides us and the people who have believed for many years in European values. We cannot tolerate corruption in any shape or form. We must stand firm by our principles and people.

      Corruption remains endemic, and our countries’ leaders have not yet displayed the consistent political will that is crucial if we are effectively to tackle this issue. Promoting integrity in governance to tackle political corruption is apparently a priority for all political parties, but if we look closer, we see that corruption still has an active role in our individual lives in areas such as education, access to the workplace, access to health care, the business environment and judicial equity.

      One of the most important elements of support in Romania’s fight against corruption has been its membership of the European Union and other international bodies, as well as binding treaties. A lot of progress has been made, and I am proud that Romanian society is dismissing corruption as a disease that still tries to take over our lives and society. Romania made the headlines and captured the world’s attention earlier this year with large protests against corruption and corrupt governance. Hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets to protest against a government decree backtracking on fighting corruption. Imagine the feeling of being among the 600 000 people who were peacefully but strongly protecting the rule of law and democratic values; it was breathtaking and made me feel strong and full of responsibility.

      Some say that corruption is an historical legacy and impossible to eradicate. I refuse to believe that. It is abnormal that, after so many years, we still fail to take responsibility and end this once and for all. This has been the drama of several generations, but for young Europeans this fight is about our very future. I consider education and civic action to be the winning strategies in the long term, and what we have witnessed over the past couple of years, and during the 2017 winter of our resistance in Romania, gives me hope and strength to resist as well.

      Nevertheless, in the short and medium term, the lack of real public service oriented towards effective policies and legislation in the citizens’ best interests translates into poor infrastructure, education, buying power and so forth. We have all felt it in our countries, especially over the past few years. We have all seen the frequent corruption scandals around Europe and the world. We have all seen the damage done by the lack of transparency in public administration. We are all feeling it every time there are national elections in some of the emblematic European Union countries. We know what we have to do to stop it, so let us act now. It is up to us; nobody else will do it for us. Let us feel proud and worthy of ourselves, our mission and our people.

      Mr ALLISON (Canada, Observer) – Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this debate.

      As we all know, corruption is a barrier to economic prosperity and stability. Good public and corporate governance and respect for the rule of law are essential to democratisation and ensuring the rights of all are respected. Too often, countries become mired in corruption, which is a barrier to the development of independent institutions. The road to eradicate corruption is not always an easy one, but it is the right path, which allows a free and democratic society to flourish.

      As parliamentarians, we must play a leadership role in combating corruption at every level and advocating the development, implementation and monitoring of anti-corruption policies and regulations. Together, we must promote transparency and accountability, and ensure that every actor from the public and private sector abides by the highest ethical standards of behaviour.

      It is also important to have forums such as this in which to discuss, exchange and learn about other countries’ successes in dealing with corruption and promoting these best practices where they can be of assistance to others. In Canada, our Supreme Court, in the 2016 case of World Bank Group v. Wallace, recalled the importance of “worldwide cooperation” in the global fight against corruption. That case related to four individuals charged under Canada’s Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act with regards to the Padma multipurpose bridge in Bangladesh funded by the World Bank. The Act criminalises the bribery of a foreign public official, directly or indirectly, for the purpose of obtaining or retaining an advantage in the course of business. Because the relationship between money laundering and corruption is clear, Canada updated its legislation in this regard in 2013, by expanding its jurisdiction, increasing penalties and creating a new offence in relation to books and records kept to further or hide foreign bribery. Under that regime, we currently have 10 active investigations, four convictions and four cases in which charges have been laid. Our Freezing Assets of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act also allows us to freeze misappropriated property at the request of a foreign State.

      All Canadian personnel working abroad, as well as various stakeholders across the Government of Canada, receive specialised training, which includes Canada’s international obligations to prevent and combat corruption. Our country has also developed and initiated a programme aimed at helping communities, civil society organisations, public institutions and businesses to combat corruption in 12 countries around the world. This project aims to improve the conditions for sustainable economic growth, including by an increased commitment to transparency, accountability and integrity in business practice.

      In conclusion, I would like to recall that, as parliamentarians, we have a leadership role to play in combating corruption and promoting good governance, so that all citizens have equal rights and opportunities in our societies. The credibility of our system is at stake.

      Ms SOTNYK (Ukraine) – I express my deep gratitude to Mr Nicoletti, who visited Ukraine. I hope his conclusions will help push things forward and press our authorities to make greater anti-corruption reforms.

      We should start with the fact that corruption has always existed. It has very deep psychological roots. It has appeared, and continues to arise, in many States in one way or another since the moment when State officials had the opportunity to manage resources and use them for their own benefit. However, the extent of corruption and the degree of its negative impacts depends on the level of development of society.

      In societies where political architecture has reached the level of a law-based State, the level and influence of corruption is minimal. That is achieved through the recognition and maintenance of the rule of law, and the guarantee of the activities of independent institutions.

      Corruption is, however, the most acute problem for States in the transformation and transition period. Despite the fact that corruption is a social phenomenon, it always bears specific names, surnames and positions. Corruption among those in the highest positions, or political corruption, is the most dangerous and causes the greatest damage to the State and society. The existence of political corruption directly depends on the politicians’ honesty and integrity, as well as on the basis of responsibility.

      This subject is very topical for my country. Over the last three years, after the revolution of dignity, we made a lot of progress, especially through parliament introducing anti-corruption laws, but there is not enough political will to implement them.

      The main fighters against corruption in Ukraine are anti-corruption non-governmental organisations and independent investigators. After the implementation of the e-declaration for officials, anti-corruption NGOs were the main watchdogs checking everything that was declared. What happened next? In March this year, the Ukrainian public authorities made changes to the legislation, obliging anti-corruption NGOs and their partners to file electronic declarations in a manner similar to public servants, prosecutors and judges. Thus, the public authorities use this instrument against NGOs when it was essentially created by these same organisations to control government. This instrument was supposed to be the most important measure to promote anti-corruption reform in Ukraine. This step broke the entire purpose of the electronic declaration. It reflects the intentions of the public authorities to take the anti-corruption NGOs under their full control in order to apply pressure and press independent investigators to stay silent about the public disclosures of officials.

      Mr HAJDUKOVIĆ (Croatia) – Corruption was, and unfortunately still is, a problem that plagues democratic societies. Political corruption is the most abhorred variety, as it puts in question the whole concept of democratic governance and systems. Therefore, tackling corruption deserves a special place on our agenda, now and in the future.

      First, we must be aware that all the member countries of the Council of Europe are in different gears, to put it descriptively, in dealing with this problem, and our evaluation of their efforts should take into account their background. As Mr Nicoletti’s report suggests, transitional countries are facing a different set of challenges from those facing older democracies

      Our focus should be on strengthening and emphasising the importance of an independent judiciary. Partial and corrupt judges remain a big problem. Transparent and relentless public scrutiny of the activities of politicians is also vital. Education about the perils of corruption and persistent teaching that there should be zero tolerance of corruption is crucial for all our future efforts.

      Unfortunately, not even our august institution is immune to political corruption, as recent events have shown. Hopefully, this resolution shall see progress made in tackling corruption in both member States and this Parliamentary Assembly. I congratulate the rapporteurs.

      Ms DURRIEU (France)* – May I say a huge thank you to our rapporteurs for these excellent reports? Corruption and its impact on people leads to disenchantment and lack of confidence. One thing slides into another – if a person is a politician, they must be corrupt. That is what leads to populism. We have to be vigilant in our response and to restore confidence in the political process. We must denounce corruption and break this vow of silence, and it is here that we must start that work. We must remember principles such as confidence and responsibility; we must remember the need for regular parliamentary control and require transparency. Even if we find that a President of our institution is incapable of doing his job, that President must stand down.

      In France, there are various things on which we insist. Three French speakers have already said much the same in stressing the importance of ringing alarm bells and making sure that everyone understands that there are limits. We have to be careful here; we defend human rights, and that includes the rights of honest parliamentarians. We cannot go along with the idea that everybody is corrupt and rotten. I do not want to be tarred with the same brush as corrupt politicians. Democracy needs elected politicians – certainly we need voices that can be raised against power, but we must be careful about giving all the power to investigative journalists. We, too, would like to say everything we want but it is not right that journalists should be seen as judges or should take themselves to be judges. Some journalists in France have indeed gone too far. How are things in France? People do things which may be legal but are not moral. Here, too, we must make people understand that they have to live in conformity with not just the law but morality. We need to talk about this and continue talking about it. However, in France, the presumption is not of innocence but of guilt.

      There is a new law which is ready to be put before the French Parliament. In ancient Greece, the mother of all democracies, measures were taken to punish those who denounced others vexatiously. The Greeks knew that people bearing false witness against others was another sort of corruption. We must be vigilant, and we must start here.

      Mr HARANGOZÓ (Hungary) – I congratulate our rapporteurs. Both reports are excellent and suggest well-prepared solutions, tools and principles for public institutions which are striving for a non-corrupt operation. However, by means of different bribery methods, favourable decisions are taken in the private interests of the bribe instead of the common interest.

      In most countries, these are relevant measures, but I am afraid that in illiberal States such as Hungary, this is not the case. Illiberal countries have a different level of corruption since the main political and State actors, or their straw men, finger public money and buy up entire economic sectors. Finally, they roll back a part of the unbelievable amount of money they made to retain their political power. In this method, perhaps the most important step is the elimination of the independent media; that is not a means of censorship, although it exists in the public media and the State news agency, but the acquisition of market players from the “stolen” money. This is, therefore, State capture, and I believe it is even worse than defined in Mr Nicoletti’s report.

      Perhaps that was the case in Yeltsin’s Russia, where the oligarchs could do everything because they had officers and decision makers in their pockets. But today in Putin’s Russia and Orbán’s Hungary it is not the oligarchs who capture the State but its political leaders. They basically create feudal relations in a modern legal system where the political elite shares the economic position as a loyal estate. Its main tools include legislation that distorts or directly overrides market conditions. The most extreme form is when monopolies are created by laws, then politics gives those monopolies, such as the tobacco and gambling markets, to those who are loyal. There is also manipulated public procurement – outsourcing State activities to friends, such as in the residency bond programme, or benefits given by public companies. This system works because we let it destroy the well-functioning rule of law, institutions and the independent media. Without them, it is hopeless to fight corruption.

      Mr KARLSSON (Sweden) – Corruption is the opposite of democracy, which is based on trust, openness and transparency. We, as politicians and representatives of our countries and its citizens, are carriers of people’s trust. For us, there is no other choice but the completely natural and obvious principle – live as you learn.

      Accusations of corruption, or even the merest suspicion, aimed against the Council of Europe could develop to be a fatal blow at the very core of this Organisation and the values that it was once formed to guarantee – the protection of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. In a time of growing populism, when the core values of the Council of Europe are questioned to an extent we have not seen for a long time, the Organisation has to stand up for its ideals. We, as representatives in the Parliamentary Assembly, must show courage and high morals. When we fail to live up to the core values, we endanger the Organisation and its legitimacy. Scrutiny, codes of conduct and established separate specialised anti-corruption bodies provide a platform for anti-corruption authorities, promoting integrity and transparency in public life. All these are important steps to restoring our legitimacy.

      Let us for a few seconds relate to our daily life. For example, as a parent I know that my children do not always do what I tell them, but they often do as I do. If we, as members of the Council of Europe, break our own beliefs and act against its core values, it is nothing less than pure hypocrisy. If we want to restore confidence in the Council of Europe, it is my belief that the recommendation in Mr Nicoletti’s report to “promote a political and cultural environment conducive to a corruption-resilient society, which is a cornerstone of a genuine democracy” is crucial. There is no other path forward than for each and every one of us in the Parliamentary Assembly to practise the golden rule: live as you learn. We must live by our principles, be our principles and embody our principles.

      Ms KERESTECİOĞLU DEMİR (Turkey) – I thank the rapporteur, Ms Bilgehan, for bringing this crucial topic before the Assembly. The media play a crucial role in providing citizens with information that enables them to stand up to and fight the corruption that governments, corporations and municipalities worldwide, but especially in anti-democratic countries, hide from the public. Bribery may have occurred, money may have been hijacked, international trade rules may have been violated or the government may be lying to the public about genetically modified foods. Those in authority can abuse their power, steal or break the law. These acts must be uncovered and exhibited. This is the work of investigative journalists. Society has the right to know about things that concern it but are hidden. Investigative journalism enables the community to exercise this right.

We all know of the Pulitzer prize, which honours excellence in journalism and the arts. Many of us have watched the movie “Citizen Kane”. Mr Pulitzer turned the tiny newspaper that he bought into the best-selling newspaper in the United States, while yellow journalism under the leadership of California newspaper boss William Randolph Hearst spread throughout the country. Mr Pulitzer was one of the architects of journalism’s mission to monitor governments and keep them accountable. However, journalists in Turkey and many other parts of the world who are supposed to receive the Pulitzer prize are in jail. Some 156 media bodies have been closed by decree. According to the journalists’ union of Turkey, about 2 500 journalists and media workers lost their jobs. Nokta magazine, a symbol of investigative journalism, was closed, and 12 executives and journalists from Cumhuriyet are in jail after the newspaper published a video allegedly proving that arms were transferred to jihadist groups in Syria in lorries belonging to the Turkish national intelligence organisation. The newspaper claimed that the video was taken from the prosecution file. Moreover, the deputy of the main opposition party who was accused of bringing the video to journalists was arrested.

I reiterate that I strongly support the report. It is of great importance that member States take all the measures mentioned in it. Above all, journalists want to be able to report without worrying about their lives, security and freedoms. We are the ones responsible for establishing freedom of the press for journalists in all member States.

Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – I thank both rapporteurs and the rapporteur for opinion for their extremely important reports on integrity and the prevention of political corruption. The issue at stake this morning shows how relevant it is for politicians to resist any influence that can be bought.

I am glad that the allegations of corruption within our Assembly will be investigated. I hope that we will also put an end to immunity for members of the Parliamentary Assembly, in order to ensure justice, but we can keep our Assembly clean only if the political culture and rules in our own member States are at the highest level of integrity. We should not consider corruption to be a problem of the past in any member State. It is therefore important that Mr Nicoletti has taken stock of the situation in four member States. His study shows that every member State must be alert. Even with detailed regulations, we must test continuously whether we are corruption-proof. Culture of transparency, freedom of the press, protection of whistle-blowers, social control and a sound environment are all equally important factors in ensuring that we remain corruption-proof.

Some forms of corruption are not typical or straightforward, so we can never take corruption resilience for granted. However, in some illiberal member States, the risk of corruption is extremely high due to a shortage of checks and balances, absolute power or power over the media or courts. These factors contribute considerably to a decrease in corruption resilience. Such power creates an environment of fear and intimidation, making civil society or even prosecutors decide not to express criticism or investigate allegations of corruption. Combating corruption always, therefore, goes hand in hand with striving for an open, democratic State where the rule of law is respected for every citizen. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe must therefore stand firm for these types of democracy.

Ms L OVOCHKINA (Ukraine) – I express my appreciation to the rapporteurs, Mr Nicoletti and Ms Bilgehan, who have brilliantly described the tendency towards corruption in the political environments of Council of Europe member States.

I chose to speak today because corruption is eroding democracy in my country. I represent the parliament of a nation ranked 131^st out of 176 countries in the world on the corruption perception index. Officially, there is an all-out war on corruption in Ukraine. Since 2014, three bodies have been created – a special prosecutor’s office, an anti-corruption bureau and an agency for preventing corruption – but in reality, these bodies compete among themselves, and in three years there has been no real progress in fighting corruption.

The experience of emerging democracies shows that one of the key causes of corruption in society is political corruption. During electoral campaigns, politicians often attempt to influence voters with unsubstantiated promises and financial perks. Such practices determine politicians’ behaviour and leave them open to corruption. Politicians view their elected offices as a door to personal enrichment, ignoring the mission to represent citizens. If citizens constantly face corruption at all levels of decision making, they begin to accept it and, what is much worse, to reproduce it. The whole problem is aggravated by the involvement of anti-corruption agencies in corrupt activities. Moreover, these agencies are used as weapons in political battles while the real corruption is ignored.

We say habitually that the media are the watchdog of democracy. Independent media also have an important mission to fulfil: protecting society against corruption. In many countries, we witness the dangerous and explicit tendency to silence media and journalists who address corruption or support the opposition. Journalists face threats of physical violence and persecution by trumped-up charges. We see that in Turkey, as many colleagues have mentioned in this debate.

The fight against corruption should be complex and multi-dimensional. First, we need the transparency of an electoral process, as Mr Jagland stated today during our discussion in the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy. Politicians should be held responsible for their misdeeds. Another key prerequisite for rooting out corruption is an independent judiciary. Third, freedom of the media should be protected effectively.

      Lord WILSON (United Kingdom) – I read with great interest the two reports that we are discussing, which contain practical suggestions, and I have listened with enormous interest to this debate. There seems to be a common view that corruption is like a cancer that affects the body politic, and that if it is not dealt with, it destroys the body politic. If I may, I shall draw on an example from outside the area of the Council of Europe, because there are lessons to be learned from elsewhere that may be of use to people and countries looking into corruption.

      I draw my example from Hong Kong. Many years ago, when Hong Kong was under British administration and was a well-run and prosperous territory, it became apparent that there was a serious problem of corruption in the police force. The government set up the Independent Commission Against Corruption, which was an enormous success. It really dealt with the problem of corruption in the police force and spread out to deal with corruption in wider society, particularly in commerce and industry.

      There were three key elements to setting up that independent body: first, there was government determination to do something about the problem; secondly, the body was given strong investigative powers; and thirdly, it was not for the independent body to attempt to discipline those who were corrupt but for the independent courts. That was essential; cases had to go through the independent court system. It was also important to keep the public on side and have a continuous campaign to explain to them why corruption was serious. All that was very successful indeed. That body has continued in the almost 20 years – it will be 20 years at the end of next month – since Hong Kong became a special administrative region of the People’s Republic of China, and it has brought to the courts senior figures in commerce, government and the civil service. It is alive and kicking, if I may use that expression.

      I know that that example is not in the area of the Council of Europe, but it might be worth looking at for countries that are setting up their own systems for dealing with corruption. Obviously, those with well-established systems must go on as they are, but I hope that those who are interested in this issue are prepared to look further afield, and one of the places to which they might look is Hong Kong.

      Mr SIMMS (Canada, Observer) – I shall comment specifically on the report titled “Parliamentary scrutiny over corruption: parliamentary co-operation with the investigative media”. I thank the rapporteur for a fantastic and incredibly forward-thinking report, which contains many great points. I shall touch on a few of those and a concern that I have about one of them.

      The report states that “it is necessary to enact laws to ensure the widest possible access to information”. I truly believe in that. In Canada, we are updating our laws to allow access to information. We have a commissioner who is in charge of overseeing how that is executed. That commissioner is substantially at arm’s length – he is at a safe distance, such that corruption can be prosecuted. We must strike a delicate balance between ensuring that those who seek information can access it, as is their right, and protecting privacy, business concerns and national security.

      I have 10 years’ experience of dealing with whistle-blower legislation, which is fundamental to democracies. You must ensure that such legislation is honest, that the framework is solid and, most importantly, that you communicate to potential whistle-blowers that it has the confidence of the government and the people. For someone to become a whistle-blower, which is fundamentally for the public good, they must have that confidence. To set up a great system, you have to communicate that confidence, not just in your own country but outside it.

      A fundamental concept of journalism in Canada right now is the protection of journalistic sources. Paragraph 37 of the explanatory memorandum in Document 14274 cites a very good point from the European Court of Human Rights judgment in the case of Goodwin. These are great words: “Since the Goodwin judgment, it has been recognised that the protection of journalistic sources is one of the cornerstones of freedom of the press.” Perfect. That is the way it should be. We must strive for that to ensure that we go beyond any type of suspicion.

      I have some concerns about the funding of investigative journalism. In Canada, we have the Canada Media Fund, which funds movie productions, whether they are co-productions or not. That is the type of place we want to be in, but we must ensure that such bodies are at arm’s length. We do not legislate for a production for the sake of the people involved in that production. You are talking about legislating for content. We cannot legislate for content. I do not mean to impugn his reputation, but the Prime Minister of the Republic of Moldova said yesterday that news bulletins from other countries should not be allowed and that the Republic of Moldova should use its own news bulletins. That raises a red flag. We must be careful. Thank you very much for your time and for this excellent report.

      Mr OLIVER (Canada, Observer) – Thank you for the opportunity to speak about the important matter of investigative journalism and anti-corruption strategies. I shall focus on one aspect of the draft resolution: providing adequate protection to whistle-blowers. Without whistle-blowers – or, in modern United States parlance, “leakers” – investigative journalism would come to an end. One possible form of protection that is mentioned in the resolution is a national reporting line to enable whistle-blowers, without fear of negative consequences, to bring a matter before an independent authority that has the power to investigate and intervene.

      The Assembly may be interested to hear about a current Canadian study of federal whistle-blower legislation, the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. Brought into force in 2007, the Act created a procedure for most members of the federal public service to disclose wrongdoing without fear of reprisal. It also mandated the creation of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, an independent authority who may receive and investigate complaints of reprisals against whistle-blowers. In February 2017, our parliamentary Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates began a comprehensive review of the Act. Since then, the committee has heard from more than 50 witnesses, the vast majority of whom argued that the Act is entirely insufficient. One witness referred to it as a “paper shield” that offers virtually no protection to those who speak out about wrongdoing.

      Three recommendations stand out from the suggestions put forward for any country looking to create a whistle-blower protection regime. First, the regime needs to ensure that whistle-blower disclosures are made available to as broad as possible an array of listeners – to co-workers, to law enforcement, to parliament and certainly to the media. Secondly, the regime needs to provide strong due process rights to whistle-blowers who suffer a reprisal, including direct access to a fair hearing. Some argue that presumptive measures should be in place – in other words, that we should reverse the onus of proof so that if a violation is reported, we presume that whistle-blower rights were violated. Thirdly, government whistle-blowing protections must be extended to all employees in both the public sector and the private sector to stop outsourcing as a strategy for shutting down disclosure.

      Ultimately, the lesson is that the design of whistle-blower protection is crucial. Protection needs to be broad and generous; otherwise, it may be little more than a paper shield. I congratulate the rapporteur on the report, I congratulate countries that have already implemented strong whistle-blower protections, and I encourage all lawmakers to work to embolden witnesses of corruption and wrongdoing to come forward and safely tell their stories.

      The PRESIDENT* – That concludes the list of speakers. I call Ms Bilgehan, rapporteur, to reply. You have three minutes.

      Ms BİLGEHAN (Turkey)* – I want to take advantage of your presence to say goodbye in French, but I am now going to speak in my mother tongue.

      Investigative journalism is instrumental in exposing corruption. We were involved in serious work to reiterate that important function of investigative journalism. I thank Mr Fasino, the rest of the secretariat of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, and everyone else who helped me. If the report is approved, those who have had the courage to disclose certain information may not now be sentenced or made unemployed, and may instead be considered as responsible citizens who have acted in the public good.

      I thank all the speakers for their support. It goes without saying that in investigative journalism, people who are considered whistle-blowers must provide accurate information, that the information must be in the public good and that they must act in accordance with certain conditions and rules. I thank my Canadian colleagues. This may be the first time that so many Canadians have taken the floor to speak about one issue, which seems to be a very interesting topic. I always say that for the sake of democracy, we need honest journalists and honest politicians. When one is missing, it is impossible to have a strong and robust democracy. I again thank you for your support, and I hope that you will vote for the report. My colleague Mr Nicoletti is out of time, but he may wish to use my remaining minute.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Bilgehan. I call Mr Ariev, the Chairman of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media.

      Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – In the light of the current events in our home – the Assembly – these are very important reports, so I am grateful to Mr Nicoletti and Ms Bilgehan. Before I became a parliamentarian, I was an investigative journalist. I am very grateful to them for what they have pointed out, especially in the report that Gülsün has prepared, because it touches on my own history.

      We should not forget that some passionate experts have called investigative journalism a fundamental watchdog for the public good. It is vital for upholding democracy, and it is a key weapon in tackling corruption. We should not forget that, and we must act accordingly. If we had only brought home that message and shared it with colleagues in our respective national parliaments, we would already have succeeded. We do not employ at home enough of the work we produce in Strasbourg, and this is a good example of a matter on which we need to be more active.

      I want to highlight that, as the report explains, the investigative capacity of journalism in traditional media has been eroded. The main reason for that is the crisis of the traditional model for funding the media. The number of journalists has decreased while their work load has increased, and investigative work is particularly affected by such a loss of capacity. We must protect good journalism, so I strongly support the idea of establishing national funds in our countries for investigative journalism, as Gülsün Bilgehan has argued.

      As the general rapporteur on media freedom and safety of journalists, I remind you that an ecosystem conducive to investigative journalism and to media freedom more generally cannot exist if we are not able to provide effective protection for journalists against attacks on their safety and physical integrity, against unlawful detention, and against intimidation and undue pressure that runs counter to their independence. I therefore call on you to support the proposed texts in both reports.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Ariev. I call Mr Nicoletti.

      Mr NICOLETTI (Italy)* – I thank all the speakers for their kind words and their support for my report. I was able to cover only four countries, but the contributions of so many colleagues from the 47 member States and Canada have very much enriched the panorama that I described. I just want to say that there are no such things as good countries and bad countries. The important point is that it is for us to put in place oversight machinery everywhere, because corruption can occur in long-standing member States as well as in newer ones. Such interesting comparisons can enrich our experience.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Nicoletti. The debate has been completed.

      We now come to the first report, “Promoting integrity in governance to tackle political corruption”. The Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy has presented a draft resolution to which 10 amendments have been tabled, and a draft recommendation to which one amendment has been tabled.

      I understand that the Chairperson of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendments 2 to 9, 1 and 10 to the draft resolution in Document 14344, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly. Is that so?

      Mr CORLĂŢEAN (Romania)* – On behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, I confirm that that is so.

      The PRESIDENT* – Are there any objections? That is not the case.

      Amendments 2 to 9, 1 and 10 are adopted.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 14334, as amended.

      The vote is open.

      Apart from one vote against and one abstention, the Assembly has adopted the resolution almost unanimously. Congratulations.

      We now come to the draft recommendation. I understand that the Chairperson of the Political Affairs and Democracy Committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendment 11 to the draft recommendation in Document 14344, which was unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly.

      Is that so?

      Mr CORLĂŢEAN (Romania)* – Yes.

      The PRESIDENT* – Are there any objections? That is not the case.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 14344, as amended. I remind the Assembly that a two-thirds majority of the votes cast is required.

      The vote is open.

      There is a very big majority for adopting the recommendation – again, congratulations on this excellent result.

      We now come to the second report, “Parliamentary scrutiny over corruption: parliamentary cooperation with the investigative media”. The Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media has presented a draft resolution and a draft recommendation in Document 14274. No amendments have been tabled.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 14274.

      The vote is open.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 14274. I remind the Assembly that a two-thirds majority is required.

      The vote is open.

      It has been a great pleasure to preside during the votes because these texts are extremely important. Very good speeches have been made in the Chamber, so I thank the rapporteurs, the chairs of the committees and all the speakers.

3. The situation in Belarus

      The PRESIDENT* – The next item of business this afternoon is the debate on the report titled, “The situation in Belarus”, Document 14333, presented by Mr Andrea Rigoni on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy.

      I remind you that the time limit for speeches is three minutes.

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

      Mr RIGONI (Italy)* – I thank all colleagues who have stayed here this evening. I hope that it will be a brief debate. Otherwise, we run the risk of having very few people in the Chamber when we come to the vote. I am grateful to those of you who have stayed here for this debate.

      This is a very important report on the situation in Belarus. Belarus, of course, is the last country that is still outside the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe is an Organisation that spans from Vladivostok to Reykjavík, but Belarus remains outside the Assembly for now.

      I thank the authorities in Belarus for their openness to the rapporteur and the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy. My thanks also go to civil society and NGOs, who really tried to help us and who were open to dialogue during my many visits to the country, as well as during the hearings that were held in Paris and Strasbourg.

      There have been a number of developments in recent times that are worthy of being drawn to your attention. They mean that it is now time to step up our relationship with Belarus, which, of course, we consider a European country.

      Last month, there were two very important events in Belarus. First, we condemn the execution of Syarhey Vostrykau; I think I speak on behalf of all of us in saying that that was a very negative signal. We reiterate our contention that abolition of the death penalty is absolutely essential. If there is not abolition of the death penalty, we cannot make any progress.

      Secondly, you will remember that Tatiana Korotkevich is the woman who stood against Mr Lukashenko in recent presidential elections. I congratulate Belarus on the registration of that opposition party. The Christian Democrat party was registered a few years ago, but to my mind we should continue along the path that we have adopted so far. In other words, there should be critical engagement and recent developments only serve to confirm me in that view. We need to call for respect of human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law, but first and foremost respect for the right to life. Then, of course, there are all the various civic and political rights that go hand in hand with those rights.

      We observed presidential elections in 2015 as well as parliamentary elections in 2016, but there is something new that we had not seen for many years. Notwithstanding those elections and the progress that has been made, we still have a great deal of work to do, and it is important that the electoral code is brought into line with our principles.

      As I said earlier, we should continue to have an open-door policy. Of course, we must remain true to our values and unwavering in defending the rights of freedom of assembly, freedom of expression and freedom to register political parties, and respect for the right to life. We want, at long last, to see a moratorium on the death penalty. We have to be very clear.

      We have to try to push for progress in Belarus. We have to be proactive, and we cannot simply confine ourselves to condemning the situation there; rather, as we have in the past, we must have a positive attitude. We have to continue along this long and arduous road and ensure that the voice of the Council of Europe is heard and that what we say gets through to Minsk loud and clear. I say that not just for the authorities, but for the young people in Belarus who hope and expect the Council of Europe to take a more robust position. On the one hand we must stand firm and unwavering, but on the other we have to show more flexibility, because that is what is required to ensure respect for human rights and freedom.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Rigoni. You have slightly more than seven minutes remaining.

      We now move to the list of speakers. I call Mr Overbeek to speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Mr OVERBEEK (Netherlands, Spokesperson for the Group of the Unified European Left) – I congratulate Mr Rigoni on his report. It is highly informative, presents a balanced picture of the current situation in Belarus, and recommends concrete steps that the Assembly can take to improve communication with parliament and civil society in Belarus.

      It is of the utmost importance that all European peoples can participate in the work of the Council of Europe. A gradual rapprochement between this Assembly and the Belarus Parliament could make an important contribution towards realising the goal of Belarusian membership of the Council of Europe. We realise that, given the current conjuncture, that will inevitably be a long-term process of small steps. Back in 2012, when the Assembly adopted a resolution and a recommendation on the situation in Belarus, my UEL colleague, Andrej Hunko, argued in favour of maintaining contact with Belarus, albeit at a lower level. In the past few years, as Mr Rigoni's report makes clear, the wisdom of that approach appeared to be confirmed by a slow but steady improvement in the situation, most recently confirmed by the acceptance of Assembly observation of the presidential and parliamentary elections in Belarus. Unfortunately, the political situation has deteriorated severely since February 2017.

      In the draft resolution, which we broadly support, the rapporteur outlines in paragraph 5, in clear and unambiguous language, the steps that the Belarusian Government will need to take to meet minimum international standards on democracy, rule of law and human rights. Paragraph 7 outlines how the Assembly can play its part in the long and complex process that may eventually result in the return of Belarusian members to the Assembly. We strongly support the concrete steps identified in the three sub-paragraphs of paragraph 7. Nevertheless, as the rapporteur outlined, the first step in the process needs to be taken by the Government and Parliament of Belarus. The recent execution of Syarhey Vostrykau sent a very disappointing and disconcerting signal that leads us in the wrong direction. A moratorium on the application and execution of the death penalty is a sine qua non for there to be the possibility of any progress and to get the support of the UEL.

      Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania, Spokesperson for the European People’s Party) – As a citizen of one of Belarus’s neighbouring countries, I have meetings and discussions with many people from Belarus. Sometimes they ask me why Belarus is not accepted into the Council of Europe and other international organisations, and my answer is always the same: because Belarus is not a normal country. If members wish to know why it is not a normal country, they can read the report, and paragraph 5 of the draft resolution provides a list showing why Belarus is not a normal, regular country. The report is very well done: it contains almost a complete list of why Belarus cannot be accepted into the Council of Europe and many other international organisations. I say almost because not everything is on the list, and I shall say what is missing shortly.

      The authoritarian or dictatorial – choose which you prefer – regime in Belarus is waiting for us to be softer, and for the time when we say we agree with the regime. If we start discussions with the regime, are we softer, or is the regime softer? We are waiting for the regime to become softer, but we do not want to become softer ourselves, so we have to be strict. On that principle, Belarus is still not fulfilling our requirements, but it must. We can send a positive signal without making far-reaching concessions.

      Belarus has many problems, but there is one that makes it different from our countries. Historically, Belarus has had no nuclear power plants, but it is the European country that suffered the most after the Chernobyl disaster, so people in Belarus understand how dangerous they can be. They are now building, with Russian help, an unsafe nuclear power plant near Astravyets. We have to be very firm: we cannot permit the danger of a new Chernobyl being established in that part of the country. It is of course a new reactor, but the building practices are the same and there are many things that will make it unsafe. I suggest members support all amendments relating to unsafe power plants.

      Ms L OVOCHKINA (Ukraine, Spokesperson for the Socialist Group) – As a representative of a neighbouring country, I can say that the rapporteur, Mr Rigoni, succeeded in presenting the major tendencies of the social and political developments of Belarus in a nuanced and balanced manner. The benefits of the progress in the political system that took place in the post-electoral period, as well as the significant obstructions to the freedom of social and political activities, are well reflected in the report. The difficulty of securing political rights and basic human freedoms gives rise to serious concerns. Active citizens who are involved in the opposition movement are still at risk of being detained and punished for their political views, and non-governmental organisations and unions still face severe restrictions on their activities.

      Belarus has its share of the civic movements around the world whose orientation can be characterised as radical or nationalistic. One should take into account the fact that radical movements do not only pose a threat to the incumbent government; their ideological posture and methods of political struggle usually have nothing to do with democracy. A change of power involving the participation of such political actors puts Belarus at risk of being cast further away from democracy than it currently is.

      The political strategy chosen by Belarusian leaders is wrong. The heavy-handed tactics and suppression of any opposition activities will only enforce the radicalisation of the public mood. The refusal to establish a dialogue only makes the situation tenser and plays into the radicals’ hands. To preserve peace, the government should rely not on aggressive repression but on dialogue and involvement. It is necessary to significantly enlarge the possibilities for NGO efforts, to make room for the political activity of the democratic opposition, and to provide more opportunities for the involvement of opposition parties and NGOs in the political process.

      Another crucial component is the removal of constraints concerning non-State-dependent mass media. Open coverage and discussion of problems will enable the citizens to be more aware of the situation, as well as of the ideologies of political parties and movements.

      I reckon that the task of all European institutions, including this Assembly, is to help the leaders of Belarus to realise that their strategy is erroneous and to build a dialogue with the democratic opposition. We should also offer assistance in elaborating legislative amendments for the purpose of strengthening legal safeguards in respect of NGO activities and democratic political opposition. Only a movement towards democratic transformation will minimise the risk of the intensification of the political conflict in that country.

(Ms Oomen-Ruijten, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Rouquet.)

      Lord BALFE (United Kingdom, Spokesperson for the European Conservatives Group) – I add my congratulations to the rapporteur. The thing that comes through from reading the report is how thoroughly he has followed the subject. He has made many visits to Belarus and had a high level of engagement with the authorities. That level of engagement will be needed to guide the process.

      The report opens the door. It says to the Belarusian Government and people: “We are willing and happy to welcome you as a part of the European family, but there must be some changes before you come through the door of the Council of Europe.” It is clear from the report that much more needs to be done to create an excellent framework for opposition. You cannot have a democracy without an opposition. The opposition in Belarus described in the report is far from properly functioning. Much more work needs to be done on accommodating the opposition and recognising its legitimacy. At the same time, the opposition must be prepared to play a constructive part in developing the dialogue.

      The report contains many mentions of the death penalty, to which virtually all members have referred. We are not agreed on much in the Assembly, but we are agreed that a country with the death penalty cannot qualify for Council of Europe membership. They do not have to abolish it – they can start off by suspending it. If people are used to a death penalty, we are likely to get a dusty answer if we tell them to abolish it. If we say, “Let’s suspend it for a time and see what happens,” we might have a better result – we found that in Turkey in the early 1980s when it suspended its death penalty. All the evidence is on the side of suspending it. It is not needed and we certainly cannot have it in a civilised society.

      My third point is that we need to continue the high-level contacts with parliament and civil society. The Council of Europe has to do that. We must not put the report on a shelf or in a box and forget about it. We must continue to work it forward, as it has been in the past, which we can see in the report. We want to work with rather than dictate to Belarus. If they want to come along with us, there has to be a meeting of values before they come through the door marked “Membership of the Council of Europe”.

      Mr GENTVILAS (Lithuania, Spokesperson for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe) – Belarus remains a somewhat blank space on our maps. Since its independence in 1991, 400 people have been killed in a country without war. I thank Mr Rigoni for his efforts, which included numerous visits to the country. I can see in the report his willingness to persuade and encourage changes in Belarus, but as the report says, on 23 March, the day after his last visit, the situation deteriorated.

      We must speak loudly about the minimum standard that Belarus must fill, as my Dutch colleague Mr Overbeek said. Belarus does not fulfil many of the minimum standards and we must be tough. The regime is in charge of fulfilling those minimum standards, and society must be freed and given the right of pluralism and assembly, which was taken away. Therefore, we should encourage European and other institutions not to lift sanctions until the minimum standards are fulfilled. We must encourage liberalisation for Belarusian society and people.

      In addition, we must speak of democracy. The United Nations says that elections in Belarus remain fully guided and have transformed into ceremonial tools used to perpetuate power. We sometimes have to name things to be clear what we are dealing with. Belarus is called the last dictatorship in Europe. There is no efficient dialogue with society or the international community. Mr Vareikis drew attention to a nuclear power plant that is being built without proper discussion with the international community, including its neighbours.

      Let us be tough on Belarus. We want it to be in the European family with our values, but we must be tough on the minimum standards we require. In that respect, I point out paragraph 8 of the draft resolution, which says that the suspension of special guest status should not be lifted until minimum standards are fulfilled.

      The PRESIDENT – We have heard the spokespersons for the political groups. Does Mr Rigoni want to reply at this stage or at the end of the debate?

      Mr RIGONI (Italy)* – At the end of the debate.

      The PRESIDENT – In the debate, I call Ms Åberg.

      Ms ÅBERG (Sweden) – It is not without reason that Belarus is called the last dictatorship of Europe. The political situation is characterised by President Lukashenko’s authoritarian exercise of power. He controls the most important functions of society – government, courts, State-owned businesses, the military and the security police. There is no limitation on how many terms the president is allowed to stay in power. There is a large discrepancy between theory and practice when it comes to human rights in Belarus. In theory, civil rights are guaranteed according to the constitution. However, in practice these rights are severely restricted.

      Missing from the report is the situation of women, children, minorities and LGBT people. Belarus lacks laws regarding domestic violence, and there is a risk that men subjecting their kindred to psychological or sexual violence will receive no punishment. Neither is there a law against the corporal punishment of children. According to official statistics, one third of all children between the ages of two and 14 have been subjected to physical violence.

      Despite the fact that homosexuality was legalised in 1994, LGBT people are not especially visible in Belarus. Discrimination and violence against homosexuals occurs often. Commonly, the police will not react. The Soviet stance that homosexuality is learned and infectious is present in a high degree both among the powers that be and within the population. Sexual orientation is not included in the laws against discriminatory treatment. Homosexuality and transsexuality are considered mild personality disorders by the Belarus health department. Marriage is not allowed between homosexuals and there is no domestic partnership legislature.

Belarus needs a great deal of support and attention if democracy is to become a reality. Further opening up to Europe should be conditioned by increased demands regarding human rights and improving the living standards of the people of Belarus, who truly deserve democracy.

Ms FINCKH-KRÄMER (Germany)* – I am from Germany, and Germany has a particular historical relationship with Belarus because Belarus suffered particularly in the Second World War. We would be pleased to be able to work closely with Belarus, just as we do within the OSCE. We are careful to administer suggestions to others because of our historical responsibility for the crimes perpetrated by our country, but we would be pleased if Belarus was to see itself as part of a Europe oriented around human rights. We think that the Organisation is a good example of how 47 countries can work actively, and perhaps we could show Belarus how it could go its own way without feeling pressurised into going down a particular path. Rather, it would feel as though it belonged and that it was a bridge between the Russian Federation and the other members of the Council of Europe.

In that spirit, I hope that the current decision makers in Belarus will accept these suggestions and choose to talk with us, considering which recommendations they could look at and perhaps implement. If recommendations are put into practice, I hope that we can be kept regularly informed. We could then welcome the implementation of the decisions here, in the Assembly.

Mr ZINGERIS (Lithuania) – We started our revolution together with the Belarusian people 27 years ago. I remember the time when the colours of our flag and those of the Belarusian nation were on our democratic barricades when we began to say goodbye to the communist empire and Shushkevich became the first Speaker of the House. After that, on 8 December 1991 in the Bialowieża forest, there was the signing of the dismantling of the Soviet Union – that became our big day, with Mr Yeltsin, Shushkevich and Kravchuk saying goodbye to the Soviet Union, which had become a disaster for all mankind.

We have great hope that the Russian Federation, Belarus and Ukraine will become democratic countries. The Baltic States were never recognised as part of the Soviet Union. For 400 years, we shared our common Grand Duchy of Lithuania with only Belarus and we were together with the Belarusian people for 400 years during the Renaissance, building our capitals and receiving our Magdeburg rights for the citizens of our cities. So we started on our European path together, and after 27 years we are still discussing here in this Chamber how to accept the appeal of the regime in Belarus to become part of the Council of Europe. I would like to say that our Italian friend, the rapporteur, has done an extremely good job trying to make it safe for Belarus to be together with us in the future.

During the discussions, important words have been said about building a direct bridge with Belarus’s real civic society, which is still there fighting for a democratic future for this European nation of 10 million people. I ask you to support our amendments on democracy in Belarus. Also, we should remember the huge disaster of Chernobyl, just mentioned by our friends, of which Belarus was the main victim, not only Ukraine. Please, therefore, support our amendment on the building of the biggest and most unsafe power plant next to Vilnius, a few miles from our border. I again thank the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, and the rapporteur for his great job.

Mr EFSTATHIOU (Cyprus) – I thank our colleague Mr Andrea Rigoni for his report on the situation in Belarus, which sheds light on the country’s democratic future. I stress from the start that PACE’s position towards Belarus must be designed in line with the Council of Europe’s fundamental principles and values. In that respect, although we support the positive steps taken by the Belarusian authorities we cannot turn a blind eye to the painful realities. We encourage a positive reform agenda on the basis of common interests and of the values upheld by the Council of Europe, but we must point out and strongly condemn the serious shortcomings, including in legislative terms, regarding, among other things, the organisation of elections, media pluralism and diversity, freedom of association and freedom of expression. Additionally, the absence of progress in abolishing the death penalty is undeniably a cause for great concern. That is why we must carefully balance what we are trying to achieve in Belarus. I would opt for a closer relationship, based on mutual respect, which will seek to bolster democratic forces in the country through political dialogue that should be structured, focused and results-oriented.

I agree with the rapporteur that Belarus cannot enjoy an à la carte relationship with the Organisation and achieve progress on only selected areas. Tangible results and structural reform must be achieved on core human rights issues, and we are right to insist on that in a constructive manner. If the integration of Belarus into the Council of Europe remains a strategic objective, we should also demonstrate our firm commitment to what Europe stands for, that is, democracy, freedom, social justice and human rights. We must not provide the Belarusian authorities with an excuse to perpetuate the country's continued isolation, which, in my view, is self-inflicted rather than imposed. At the same time, we must prevent far-right ideology from finding fertile ground and taking root in Belarus, as usually happens in restrictive conditions of social unrest and intimidation.

Our concerns regarding Belarus have nothing to do with the fact that the country remains one of the most significant economic, political and military partners of the Russian Federation. Our strong will to further democratise the country should not be perceived as an incitement to destabilise Belarus’s relations with its neighbours and partners. I believe that such actions are undemocratic and counter-productive. Rather, we must continue to increase the authorities’ awareness of human rights, encourage international openness and exchanges at parliamentary level, and wholeheartedly support those organisations and actors in the country that are genuinely dedicated and committed to fostering a democratic society and culture.

I welcome PACE’s firm stance on the state of human rights and freedoms in Belarus, which coincides with Europe’s standpoint on those issues. However, this stance should apply in all cases of oppression, regardless of the country. Nowadays, democratic deficiencies are not limited to Belarus, and I would welcome the expression of the same consistency and sensitivity in all cases of aggression and despotism in Europe.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Efstathiou. That was a good speech, but there were too many words. I call Mr Mularczyk.

      Mr MULARCZYK (Poland) – In the Polish Parliament, I am a member of the Polish-Belarusian group. It is important to us that Belarus heads towards the European family and reaches the standards of the Council of Europe. As far as human rights are concerned, the situation in Belarus is not ideal. However, we can identify some improvements and greater stability after the tensions connected with the actions of the opposition and its pacification in March. That stability is incomplete, because 14 people are under arrest in connection with the investigation of the White Legion, but the arrests were more numerous in March and April. We believe that the situation will continue to ease and that stability will be maintained, because that is in the interests of Minsk and its foreign partners.

      We are glad to note the decrease in tension among the Polish minority, as well as the Minsk Government’s readiness to reach a compromise on Polish education and alterations to the code of education. If that continues, it will be in accordance with the Council of Europe’s recommendations.

      It is in the interests of Belarus not to have political prisoners and to maintain progress, however small, in the area of human rights. Poland is ready to support that process. We are actively discussing such matters with our friends in Belarus to try to convince them to be more flexible and open to the external world.

      A good step has been taken with the registration of an opposition movement called “Tell the Truth”, which has been a target for six years. It is only one step, however, and it will have only a limited impact on the situation in Belarus. We encourage the government in Minsk to take more and more such positive steps in the very near future.

      The PRESIDENT – Mr Tilki is not present, so I call Mr Herkel.

      Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – I thank and congratulate Mr Rigoni. Several years ago, I started work on this report, but I never received an invitation to Belarus, as I left the Parliamentary Assembly for a short time. Things have now become a lot better. It is excellent that Mr Rigoni had access to Belarus. At the same time, reading the report gave me a sense of déjà vu. How many times have we discussed here the relationship between Belarus and the Council of Europe? Sometimes, we have even been accused of closing the door on Belarus, but of course it was Mr Lukashenko who did not want to have dialogue with us. How many times have we asked Belarus to accept freedom of assembly, association and expression, and to stop capital punishment? That is very important to us.

      There are some small signs of progress in the report. In August 2015, six political prisoners were released. Some improvements have been made in electoral administration. Years ago, in Belarus, you could follow the elections as an observer, but you never had access to the counting process. Apparently, some things have changed. Violence and harassment are still concerns, and they were perpetrated against peaceful protesters in Minsk during the spring. I would like to express my gratitude to and recognition of the human rights defenders and those who suffered under the regime. I had the opportunity to meet many of them – unfortunately, not in Minsk, but in other countries. In 2013, Ales Bialiatski was the first recipient of the Václav Havel Human Rights Prize. His wife came here to receive it, because he was in prison.

      In the remaining seconds, I want to mention two very important aspects. First, on security issues, it is very important to support the amendments proposed by our Lithuanian colleagues. Secondly, there is the question of the sovereignty of Belarus. Unfortunately, Belarus became very dependent on the Russian Federation, and we must admit that the weakness of democracy in the country also means the weakness of independent statehood.

      Ms DURANTON (France)* – The remarkable work that our Assembly is doing on Belarus gives us an idea of the situation inside this little-known country, which is still relatively closed. I thank Mr Rigoni and congratulate him on this excellent report. The fact that we have been able to observe recent elections in Belarus is a sign that Minsk is opening up, despite the destabilisation of eastern Europe after the Russian Federation annexed Crimea. The concern provoked by Russian aggressiveness is not unknown to Belarus. The willingness to engage in dialogue should be welcome; there is no other path to take.

      The Belarus authorities showed their willingness and openness to engage in dialogue on human rights with the Council of Europe, the OSCE and the European Union. However, most reports on Belarus agree regretfully that, despite progress, the country is dragging its feet on the path of democracy. That is confirmed in our reports on observing the presidential elections in 2015 and the parliamentary ones of September 2016.

      President Lukashenko has a broad range of prerogatives under the constitution and has been in power since 1994. He was re-elected in the first round with 83.5% of the vote: the next highest candidate had 4.4%. Our report says that Belarus, as a European country, needs a political system with real competition if it is fully to realise its democratic potential. In fact, its parliament has very little effective power and can neither increase nor decrease the country’s budget without the president’s approval. The party system is deficient – not a single new party has been registered since 2000, and applications to register parties are systematically rejected.

      According to our report, the climate during the election campaign was low-key. A large number of candidates preferred not to campaign at all, which contributed to the general apathy among the voting population. That situation is obviously not satisfactory, especially within the context of the government watching civil society closely, the numerous restrictions on the freedom of expression and association, and a sluggish economy. We need to create space for mutual understanding, and we must maintain constructive dialogue with the authorities of the country. We must strengthen parliamentary contact between Belarus and the Council of Europe, which I hope will mean we can get a moratorium on capital punishment, so the Assembly can ask its Bureau to re-establish special guest status for Belarus. I am fully confident that the Belarus authorities will heed this overture from us.

      Mr SEYIDOV (Azerbaijan) – I congratulate Mr Rigoni on his excellent report. It is timely and displays great personal involvement and effort by the rapporteur. It is an example of how a representative of the Council of Europe can build a bridge between this Organisation and other countries that are not member States.

      I ask myself whether it is possible for Mr Rigoni to have done this alone – to present this very objective report, which contains both criticisms and signs of positive developments – and it is not. This report is acceptable because Belarus has also done a lot; this has been a bilateral effort. There have been previous attempts by the Assembly to establish links with Belarus, but unfortunately in that period we saw only one-way activities. Importantly however, now there is bilateral interest in establishing a relationship between Belarus and the Council of Europe, and it is significant that the signals from Belarus are coming not only from representatives of civil society – although that is vital, of course – but that representatives of the political leadership of the country are ready to discuss this, and, more than that, to take some serious steps and to start to come together with the rest of Europe.

      Belarus is a vitally important country for Europe. It is at the heart of Europe, and we should help Belarus to do much more than it has done in the past. We should create confidence between the Council of Europe and Belarus. We should support the activities that Mr Rigoni reflected on in his report and we should support both the leadership of the country and its civil society representatives in coming closer to us. Again, I thank Mr Rigoni.

      The PRESIDENT – That concludes the list of speakers. I call Mr Rigoni, the rapporteur, to reply. You have seven minutes left.

      Mr RIGONI (Italy)* – I thank all who have spoken in this debate for their contributions and the effort they have made to understand the situation in Belarus.

      There are a few key points that I want to emphasise. I have said, and will continue to say, that I think this Assembly needs to pay more attention to Belarus. We must shine a brighter light on what is happening in Belarus and increase our impact there. We talk with Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Palestine and Israel, and we are looking now at our relations with Asia and Kyrgyzstan. I am not saying they are not important, because they are, but this is, after all, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, so we should focus on Europe – the 47 countries of the Council of Europe plus Belarus. I thank those colleagues who reminded us of that, saying we should do more and try to increase our impact there.

      We also want to make it possible for other colleagues to participate, as well as express their views. Mr Nicoletti, my friend, has just come along, and he will know what I am talking about, but the five chairpersons of the political groups were absent for the debate; they did not listen to what we were saying. Mr Nicoletti came along at a crucial moment, but none of those chairpersons attended to listen to the debate on Belarus. We need to focus more on that country, however, and that is what we call for in our report.

      We do not even have the Secretary General or a deputy Secretary General present. I am very pleased that my personal friend Mr Sawicki was kind enough to be here to listen to the debate, but what are we supposed to be talking about, if not Belarus? That should be at the top of the list; it should be our prime preoccupation.

      We do not have permanent representation in Minsk but we are, once again, suggesting that we should, and that at the very least we should have Belarusian parliamentarians here in Strasbourg. We made that proposal to the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy. We want them to be here taking part in all our meetings; we want those parliamentarians to come along to Strasbourg and find out what the Council of Europe is and does, and to be able to speak with representatives of 47 countries, and to have genuine exchanges. We want to have an exchange of views and to compare our views on the situation.

      We also want the opposition forces to be represented. For the first time in many years in the Belarus parliament, two independent parties are represented, with members – by the way, that is not thanks to us; it is not us who have brought this about. The two members concerned are women; that is possibly no coincidence. Be that as it may, there are those two opposition party members in the parliament now. We want to be able to talk to them and do what we can to bring about a moratorium on the death penalty. We also want to talk to the authorities and the president to bring that about. We want to put real force into the Council of Europe’s action plan; we want to have greater impact in Belarus and on Minsk.

      Basically, we want to make our values better known. If we do that, we will have a better chance of raising awareness of the importance of democracy and human rights as well as respect for minorities – not only ethnic, but sexual and gender minorities. We need to create the mechanisms to do that. Other countries see the Council of Europe as a benchmark. We do not want to have a policy that in effect creates a black hole in the middle of Europe whereby we build, as it were, fortifications around Belarus and it is simply forgotten. It is in all of our interests that we have relations with the country even if it has problems in respect of human rights, freedom of assembly, demonstrations, and freedom of expression, and also problems with the political code, although some progress has been made there. Lots of other countries in the Council of Europe have similar problems. I am not going to name them, but Belarus is not alone in having some of these issues. That is why we should be redoubling our efforts and doing more, and I thank all colleagues for their contributions. I commend all of you who have been good enough to stay until this late hour to show your support for the report.

I very much hope that in future we will have a greater impact. The time has now come for us to have that impact. We need to look Belarus in the eye. I believe that the authorities have looked us directly in the eye. Up until now there has not been much trust on either side, but the time has come for us to look one another in the eye, to promote dialogue and to try to get Belarus to move in the same direction as us. It is so important for the younger generation; it needs to have the values of the Council of Europe and its Parliamentary Assembly as its point of reference. That, after all, is our duty – it is what we do as parliamentarians. That is why we all come here and make our contribution to this Parliamentary Assembly.

      This report would not have been possible without the contribution of the committee secretariat, particularly Silvia Arzilli, who has assisted in the compilation of this important report. I hope that everyone agrees that it is important that we send out a signal that Belarus must open itself up to the values of the Council of Europe.

      The PRESIDENT – Does Mrs Lundgren want to speak on behalf of the committee?

      Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden) – No, I do not need to do that. We are ready to have the vote, but on behalf of the committee, I thank Mr Rigoni for his report. We have all seen his engagement.

The PRESIDENT – The Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy has presented a draft resolution, Document 14333, to which four amendments have been tabled and a draft recommendation to which no amendments have been tabled.

They will be taken in numerical order. I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

We will first consider the amendments to the draft resolution.

I understand that the representative of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendment 1 to the draft resolution, Document 14333, which was unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly.

Is that so, Ms Lundgren?

Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden) – Absolutely.

      The PRESIDENT – As there is no objection, I declare that Amendment 1 has been adopted.

      Amendment 1 adopted.

      We will therefore now consider Amendment 2. I call Mr Zingeris to support Amendment 2.

      Mr ZINGERIS (Lithuania) – Next to our ancient capital of Vilnius, more than 20 miles away up the river, the Russian firm Rosatom is building a huge nuclear power plant which is endangering our life. Let us remember all the horrible events relating to Chernobyl and its aftermath. I point to all the recommendations of the international organisations to vote in favour of the amendment to try to block and suspend the building of this plant.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Madej.

      Mr MADEJ (Slovak Republic) – I am afraid that I disagree with the amendment because it is out of the scope of the Parliamentary Assembly. It has no link to human rights. To build a nuclear power plant is not a question for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe but for other organisations.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden) – The committee was in favour, with 11 votes for and seven against.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 3. I call Mr Zingeris to support the amendment. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr ZINGERIS (Lithuania) – We are in favour of the rapporteur’s suggestion to open up more visa space, but it should be done with some internal insurance and a view to the general situation. We are in favour of your suggestions; we are trying to include some insurance on the issue of borders, as we have a 700 km border with Belarus.

      The PRESIDENT – Does the rapporteur wish to speak against the amendment?

      Mr RIGONI (Italy)* – I think our text is very clear and leaves no margin for doubt. Our intentions have been stated clearly. The amendment would not make it any clearer or better. Obviously, we want the greatest possible liberalisation of visas, particularly for young people and students who want to travel freely around Europe, so we are against Mr Zingeris’s amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden) – The committee was against the amendment, with 11 votes against and nine in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 3 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 4. I call Mr Zingeris to support the amendment. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr ZINGERIS (Lithuania) – I am sorry to bother you again, Madam President. My amendment relates to a key issue that is not technical but relates to all democratic processes in Ukraine. It would add the words “depending on tangible steps taken by Belarus to respect universal fundamental freedoms”, after calls from all parties in this Organisation. Belarus has been like a frozen dictatorship for 25 years. If we are trying to defrost it, we should have some values relating to tangible steps taken by Belarus. That is extremely important; it is a fundamental issue. Please accept my amendment, which relates to our key values.

      The PRESIDENT – Does the rapporteur want to speak against the amendment?

      Mr RIGONI (Italy)* – Our text is very clear. I think there is no room for misunderstanding in either English or French. You could write it in German and it would be perfectly clear. If or when there is tangible and clear progress on human rights, we suggest that the European Union will then be able to reduce or lift completely the existing sanctions. Our text is very specific. If we were to make any changes now, we would risk introducing some confusion. That is why we do not want to change it.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden) – The committee is against, with 12 votes against and 10 in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 4 is rejected.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 14333, as amended. A simple majority is required.

      The vote is open.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 14333. A simple majority is required.

      The vote is open.

4. Next public business

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

      The sitting is closed.

      (The sitting was closed at 8.20 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. Communication from the Committee of Ministers

Address by Mr Lubomír Zaorálek, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic, Chairman of the Committee of Ministers

Questions: Mr Vareikis (Lithuania), Ms Bonet (Andorra), Mr Scully (United Kingdom), Ms Lundgren (Sweden), Mr Villumsen (Denmark), Ms Duranton (France), Mr Corlăţean (Romania), Mr Rafael Huseynov (Azerbaijan), Ms Csöbör (Hungary), Ms Alqawasmi (Palestine), Mr Önal (Turkey) and Ms Ævarsdóttir (Iceland)

2. Joint debate: Promoting integrity in governance to tackle political corruption and Parliamentary scrutiny over corruption: parliamentary co-operation with the investigative media

Presentation by Mr Nicoletti of report of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, Document 14344.

Presentation by Mr Wold of opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Document 14352

Presentation by Ms Bilgehan of report of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, Document, 14274.

Speakers: Mr Comte (Switzerland), Mr Loucaides (Cyprus), Ms Hovhannisyan (Armenia), Mr Le Borgn’ (France), Mr Scully (United Kingdom), Mr Schennach (Austria), Mr Schneider (France), Mr Corlăţean (Romania), Mr Goncharenko (Ukraine), Ms Lundgren (Sweden), Ms Bartos (Hungary), Mr Herkel (Estonia), Ms De Sutter (Belgium), Mr Melkumyan (Armenia), Mr Büchel (Switzerland), Ms Goy-Chavent (France), Lord Foulkes (United Kingdom), Mr Kürkçü (Turkey), Ms Duranton (France), Mr Fridez (Switzerland), Mr Önal (Turkey), Ms Bîzgan-Gayral (Romania), Mr Allison (Canada), Ms Sotnyk (Ukraine), Mr Hajduković (Croatia), Ms Durrieu (France), Mr Harangozó (Hungary), Mr Karlsson (Sweden), Ms Kerestecioğlu Demir (Turkey), Ms Strik (Netherlands), Ms L Ovochkina (Ukraine), Lord Wilson (United Kingdom), Mr Simms (Canada) and Mr Oliver (Canada)

Replies: Ms Bilgehan (Turkey), Mr Ariev (Ukraine), Mr Nicoletti (Italy) and Mr Mogens Jensen (Denmark)

Amendments 2 to, 9, 1 and 10 adopted

Draft resolution in Document 14344, as amended, adopted

Amendment 11 adopted

Draft recommendation in Document 14344, as amended, adopted

Draft resolution in Document 14274 adopted

Draft recommendation in Document 14274 adopted

3. The situation in Belarus

Presentation by Mr Rigoni of report of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, Document 14333.

Speakers: Mr Overbeek (Netherlands), Mr Vareikis (Lithuania), Ms L Ovochkina (Ukraine), Lord Balfe (United Kingdom), Mr Gentvilas (Lithuania), Ms Åberg (Sweden), Ms Finckh-Krämer (Germany), Mr Zingeris (Lithuania), Mr Efstathiou (Cyprus), Mr Mularczyk (Poland), Mr Herkel (Estonia), Mr Duranton (France) and Mr Seyidov (Azerbaijan)

Reply: Mr Rigoni (Italy)

Amendments 1 and 2 adopted

Draft resolution in Document 14333, as amended, adopted

Draft recommendation in Document 14333 adopted

4. 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.Le nom des personnes remplacées suit celui des Membres remplaçant, entre parenthèses.

ÅBERG, Boriana [Ms]

ÆVARSDÓTTIR, Thorhildur Sunna [Ms]

AHMED-SHEIKH, Tasmina [Ms]

ANDERSON, Donald [Lord]

ANTTILA, Sirkka-Liisa [Ms]

ARIEV, Volodymyr [Mr]

ARNAUT, Damir [Mr]

AST, Marek [Mr] (TARCZYŃSKI, Dominik [Mr])

BADEA, Viorel Riceard [M.] (BRĂILOIU, Tit-Liviu [Mr])

BAK, Osman Aşkın [Mr] (TORUN, Cemalettin Kani [Mr])

BALÁŽ, Radovan [Mr] (PAŠKA, Jaroslav [M.])

BALFE, Richard [Lord] (DAVIES, Geraint [Mr])

BALIĆ, Marijana [Ms]

BARTOS, Mónika [Ms] (GULYÁS, Gergely [Mr])

BAYKAL, Deniz [Mr]

BERNACKI, Włodzimierz [Mr]

BĒRZINŠ, Andris [M.]

BİLGEHAN, Gülsün [Mme]

BÎZGAN-GAYRAL, Oana-Mioara [Ms] (PRUNĂ, Cristina-Mădălina [Ms])

BLONDIN, Maryvonne [Mme]

BRASSEUR, Anne [Mme]

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

BULIGA, Valentina [Mme]

BUTKEVIČIUS, Algirdas [Mr]

ĆATOVIĆ, Marija Maja [Ms]

CEPEDA, José [Mr]

CERİTOĞLU KURT, Lütfiye İlksen [Ms] (DİŞLİ, Şaban [Mr])

ČERNOCH, Marek [Mr] (MARKOVÁ, Soňa [Ms])

CHITI, Vannino [Mr]

CHRISTOFFERSEN, Lise [Ms]

CILEVIČS, Boriss [Mr] (LĪBIŅA-EGNERE, Inese [Ms])

COMTE, Raphaël [M.] (FIALA, Doris [Mme])

CORLĂŢEAN, Titus [Mr]

CORSINI, Paolo [Mr]

CROZON, Pascale [Mme] (KARAMANLI, Marietta [Mme])

CRUCHTEN, Yves [M.]

CSÖBÖR, Katalin [Mme]

DE PIETRO, Cristina [Ms] (CATALFO, Nunzia [Ms])

DESTEXHE, Alain [M.]

DIVINA, Sergio [Mr]

DURANTON, Nicole [Mme]

DURRIEU, Josette [Mme]

EBERLE-STRUB, Susanne [Ms]

EFSTATHIOU, Constantinos [M.] (KYRIAKIDES, Stella [Ms])

EVANS, Nigel [Mr]

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

FINCKH-KRÄMER, Ute [Ms]

FOULKES, George [Lord] (WINTERTON, Rosie [Dame])

FRESKO-ROLFO, Béatrice [Mme]

FRIDEZ, Pierre-Alain [M.]

GAFAROVA, Sahiba [Ms]

GALATI, Giuseppe [Mr] (BERGAMINI, Deborah [Ms])

GAMBARO, Adele [Ms]

GATTI, Marco [M.]

GENTVILAS, Simonas [Mr] (ŠAKALIENĖ, Dovilė [Ms])

GHILETCHI, Valeriu [Mr]

GIRO, Francesco Maria [Mr]

GJORCHEV, Vladimir [Mr] (ZZ...)

GOGA, Pavol [M.] (MAROSZ, Ján [Mr])

GOLUB, Vladyslav [Mr] (BEREZA, Boryslav [Mr])

GONÇALVES, Carlos Alberto [M.]

GONCHARENKO, Oleksii [Mr]

GORGHIU, Alina Ștefania [Ms]

GOSSELIN-FLEURY, Geneviève [Mme] (ALLAIN, Brigitte [Mme])

GOY-CHAVENT, Sylvie [Mme]

GUNNARSDÓTTIR, Bjarkey [Ms] (JAKOBSDÓTTIR, Katrín [Ms])

GUNNARSSON, Jonas [Mr]

HAGEBAKKEN, Tore [Mr] (VALEN, Snorre Serigstad [Mr])

HAJDUKOVIĆ, Domagoj [Mr]

HAJIYEV, Sabir [Mr]

HARANGOZÓ, Gábor [Mr] (MESTERHÁZY, Attila [Mr])

HERKEL, Andres [Mr] (NOVIKOV, Andrei [Mr])

HOPKINS, Maura [Ms]

HOVHANNISYAN, Arpine [Ms]

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

HUSEYNOV, Rafael [Mr]

JACQUAT, Denis [M.]

JENIŠTA, Luděk [Mr]

JENSEN, Mogens [Mr]

JORDANA, Carles [M.]

KALMARI, Anne [Ms]

KANDELAKI, Giorgi [Mr] (BAKRADZE, David [Mr])

KANDEMİR, Erkan [Mr]

KARLSSON, Niklas [Mr]

KAVVADIA, Ioanneta [Ms]

KERESTECİOĞLU DEMİR, Filiz [Ms]

KESİCİ, İlhan [Mr]

KIRAL, Serhii [Mr] (GERASHCHENKO, Iryna [Mme])

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

KOÇ, Haluk [M.]

KRESÁK, Peter [Mr]

KRIŠTO, Borjana [Ms]

KÜRKÇÜ, Ertuğrul [Mr]

L OVOCHKINA, Yuliya [Ms]

LE BORGN', Pierre-Yves [M.]

LESKAJ, Valentina [Ms]

LEŚNIAK, Józef [M.] (MILEWSKI, Daniel [Mr])

LOGVYNSKYI, Georgii [Mr]

LOMBARDI, Filippo [M.]

LOUCAIDES, George [Mr]

LUNDGREN, Kerstin [Ms] (BILLSTRÖM, Tobias [Mr])

MADEJ, Róbert [Mr]

MAGAZINOVIĆ, Saša [Mr] (BOSIĆ, Mladen [Mr])

MAHOUX, Philippe [M.]

MAMMADOV, Muslum [M.]

MARQUES, Duarte [Mr]

MAURY PASQUIER, Liliane [Mme]

MEALE, Alan [Sir]

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

MENDES, Ana Catarina [Mme]

MIKKO, Marianne [Ms]

MULARCZYK, Arkadiusz [Mr]

MULLEN, Rónán [Mr] (CROWE, Seán [Mr])

MUNYAMA, Killion [Mr] (TRUSKOLASKI, Krzysztof [Mr])

NĚMCOVÁ, Miroslava [Ms] (BENEŠIK, Ondřej [Mr])

NENUTIL, Miroslav [Mr]

NICOLETTI, Michele [Mr]

OHLSSON, Carina [Ms]

ÖNAL, Suat [Mr]

O'REILLY, Joseph [Mr]

OVERBEEK, Henk [Mr] (MAEIJER, Vicky [Ms])

PALLARÉS, Judith [Ms]

PASHAYEVA, Ganira [Ms]

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

POLIAČIK, Martin [Mr] (KAŠČÁKOVÁ, Renáta [Ms])

POMASKA, Agnieszka [Ms]

POPA, Ion [M.] (KORODI, Attila [Mr])

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

PREDA, Cezar Florin [M.]

PSYCHOGIOS, Georgios [Mr] (ANAGNOSTOPOULOU, Athanasia [Ms])

REICHARDT, André [M.] (GROSDIDIER, François [M.])

RIGONI, Andrea [Mr]

ROCA, Jordi [Mr] (BARREIRO, José Manuel [Mr])

ROUQUET, René [M.]

RUSTAMYAN, Armen [M.]

ŞAHİN USTA, Leyla [Ms]

SALMOND, Alex [Mr]

SANTA ANA, María Concepción de [Ms]

SANTERINI, Milena [Mme]

SCHENNACH, Stefan [Mr]

SCHNEIDER, André [M.] (ROCHEBLOINE, François [M.])

SCHNEIDER-SCHNEITER, Elisabeth [Mme] (HEER, Alfred [Mr])

SCHOU, Ingjerd [Ms]

SCHWABE, Frank [Mr]

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

ŠEPIĆ, Senad [Mr]

SEYIDOV, Samad [Mr]

SILVA, Adão [M.]

SOBOLEV, Serhiy [Mr]

SOTNYK, Olena [Ms]

STRIK, Tineke [Ms]

STROE, Ionuț-Marian [Mr]

SUTTER, Petra De [Ms] (DUMERY, Daphné [Ms])

THIÉRY, Damien [M.]

TOPCU, Zühal [Ms]

TROY, Robert [Mr] (COWEN, Barry [Mr])

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

VÁHALOVÁ, Dana [Ms]

VAREIKIS, Egidijus [Mr]

VARVITSIOTIS, Miltiadis [Mr] (BAKOYANNIS, Theodora [Ms])

VEN, Mart van de [Mr]

VERCAMER, Stefaan [M.]

VILLUMSEN, Nikolaj [Mr]

VIROLAINEN, Anne-Mari [Ms]

VITANOV, Petar [Mr] (JABLIANOV, Valeri [Mr])

WENAWESER, Christoph [Mr]

WIECHEL, Markus [Mr] (NISSINEN, Johan [Mr])

WILK, Jacek [Mr]

WILK, Jacek [Mr]

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

WOJTYŁA, Andrzej [Mr]

WOLD, Morten [Mr]

YAŞAR, Serap [Mme]

ZAMPA, Sandra [Ms] (QUARTAPELLE PROCOPIO, Lia [Ms])

ZINGERIS, Emanuelis [Mr]

ZOTEA, Alina [Ms] (GHIMPU, Mihai [Mr])

Also signed the register / Ont également signé le registre

Representatives or Substitutes not authorised to vote / Représentants ou suppléants non autorisés à voter

BILLSTRÖM, Tobias [Mr]

BONET, Sílvia Eloïsa [Ms]

ENGBLOM, Annicka [Ms]

HAMOUSOVÁ, Zdeňka [Ms]

KYRIAKIDES, Stella [Ms]

RIBERAYGUA, Patrícia [Mme]

ZOHRABYAN, Naira [Mme]

Observers / Observateurs

ALLISON, Dean [Mr]

LARIOS CÓRDOVA, Héctor [Mr]

OLIVER, John [Mr]

SANTANA GARCÍA, José de Jesús [Mr]

SIMMS, Scott [Mr]

Partners for democracy / Partenaires pour la démocratie

ABU DALBOUH, Reem [Ms]

ALBAKKAR, Khaled [Mr]

ALQAWASMI, Sahar [Ms]

AMRAOUI, Allal [M.]

CHAGAF, Aziza [Mme]

SABELLA, Bernard [Mr]

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

Erdal ÖZCENK