AA18CR04
AS (2018) CR 04
2018 ORDINARY SESSION
________________
(First part)
REPORT
Fourth sitting
Tuesday 23 January 2018 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 Nicoletti, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 3.35 p.m.)
The PRESIDENT – The sitting is open.
1. Election of the Commissioner for Human Rights and a judge to the
European Court of Human Rights in respect of Spain
The PRESIDENT – I must remind you that the vote is again open for the election of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Document 14444 and Document 14455 Addendum 3, and a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Spain, Document 14460 and Document 14455 Addendum 2.
The poll was suspended at 1 p.m. and is now open for voting. The poll will close at 5 p.m. Those who have not yet voted may still do so by going to the area behind the President’s chair. I remind the tellers that they should meet behind the President’s chair at 5 p.m. If possible, the result will be announced before the end of the sitting this afternoon.
2. Changes in the membership of committees
The PRESIDENT – Our next business is to consider the changes proposed in the membership of committees. These are set out in Document Commissions (2018) 01 Addendum 3.
Are the proposed changes in the membership of the Assembly’s committees agreed to?
They are agreed to.
3. Communication from Mr Anders Samuelsen, Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers
The PRESIDENT – We now come to the communication from Mr Anders Samuelsen, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Denmark and Chairman of the Committee of Ministers. After his address, Mr Samuelsen will take questions from the floor.
Dear Minister, it gives me great pleasure to welcome you to this Chamber in the framework of the Danish chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers. We highly appreciate your readiness to come to speak to us and explore concrete ways for the Assembly to contribute to the implementation of the chairmanship’s priorities. Members of the Assembly’s Standing Committee had the chance to hold an exchange of views with Denmark’s Minister for Development Co-operation, Ms Ulla Tørnæs, in Copenhagen last November. On that occasion, Assembly members warmly welcomed the priorities identified, in particular the opportunity the Danish chairmanship gives us to reflect further on the future of the European human rights system.
As for the other priority areas identified – gender equality, the rights of people with disabilities, the involvement of children in democratic processes and combating torture – these are issues that the Assembly has identified as needing immediate action. I can therefore reiterate the Assembly’s strong support for the Danish chairmanship. I am confident that together we will be able to move in the right direction towards a future-proof Council of Europe.
Thank you again for coming, Minister, and we look forward to your address.
Mr SAMUELSEN (Minister of Foreign Affairs of Denmark and Chairman of the Committee of Ministers) – Mr President, Mr Secretary General and dear members of the Parliamentary Assembly, I am very happy to address you, the Assembly, for the first time in my capacity as Chairman of the Committee of Ministers.
I have been in Strasbourg many times as a member of the “other” parliament – the European Parliament. But this is a first time for me and it is also a first time for you, Mr President. I would like to begin by offering you my warmest congratulations on your election. Rest assured that the Danish chairmanship intends to work closely with both yourself and the Secretary General at a time when our Organisation is facing several major challenges – all at the same time.
In November last year, my colleague, Ms Ulla Tørnæs, Minister for Development Co-operation, presented your Standing Committee with the priorities of the Danish chairmanship. Today, I will inform you about some important aspects regarding these priorities and brief you on the work done by the Committee of Ministers since your last session.
I will begin with the main priority of the Danish chairmanship – continued reform of the European human rights system. During the current reform process, much has been achieved on the road to a more balanced, focused and effective human rights system. We are on the right track, taking steps in the right direction. But we are obviously not yet there. Rather than close our eyes to the problems, we need to engage in a constructive, open and honest dialogue on how to deal with them.
Our focus is to ensure that reforms already agreed are put into effect. This requires, among other things, that all member States ratify Protocol No. 15 as agreed in Brighton. We also want to explore new tools on how to ensure a closer dialogue between the European and national level on how to apply and develop the European Convention on Human Rights. An important platform for such dialogue is the Parliamentary Assembly. Making it easier for member States to intervene in cases before the Court – and argue their case – will be a specific priority for us. We see this as an important tool for enhancing a constructive dialogue on the interpretation of the Convention.
At the High-Level Expert Conference in Denmark in November, we had a very constructive discussion which we look forward to continuing. In April, we will host a ministerial conference in Copenhagen with the ambition of adopting a political declaration that will contribute to a better and more effective human rights system.
In addition to our main priority, we have four other topics on our chairmanship agenda. First is the priority on equal opportunities. The new gender equality strategy of the Council of Europe will be launched at a conference in Denmark in May 2018. Furthermore, we will – in co-operation with you – organise a conference focusing on good practices and inclusive policies on private and family life for same-sex couples.
Second is the priority on people with disabilities. With the conclusions reached at the seminar on awareness-raising on the rights of persons with disabilities held in Copenhagen in December 2017, steps have been taken to change attitudes towards persons with disabilities.
Third is the priority on children and youth in democracy. It is important to involve children and young people in democracy. At a seminar in Copenhagen in April 2018, we wish to support the Council of Europe’s efforts to strengthen democratic competencies such as mutual understanding, reflection, and critical thinking.
Lastly, the fight against torture is a key priority for Denmark. It is very important for us to promote this further. Torture is often committed in the early stages of police custody and pre-trial detention. We will host a conference on this issue in March 2018 in Copenhagen. The aim will be to share and develop best practices.
I know our chairmanship comes at a time when the Council of Europe is challenged. I am referring to the participation of the Russian delegation in your work. The Committee of Ministers and I as chairman are following very closely the ongoing dialogue between your Assembly and the Russian authorities. As chairman, I have worked to raise awareness on the situation. Yesterday in Brussels, I brought the issue to the attention of my colleagues in the Foreign Affairs Council.
It was an important step to set up an ad hoc committee on “the role and mission of the Parliamentary Assembly”, following up on the Nicoletti report calling for a Council of Europe summit. In December 2017, the Ministers’ Deputies held a constructive exchange of views with Mr Nicoletti in his capacity as rapporteur for this report.
I note with interest the meeting which the Assembly’s Presidential Committee held in December in Paris with Russian MPs. I sincerely hope that all the efforts made to reconcile the different viewpoints will produce tangible results. Finally, on this point, I hope that the Russian Federation will now execute its commitments to the Council of Europe by starting to pay its obligatory contribution to our budget.
Since your last session, the Committee of Ministers has taken a number of decisions concerning the situation in various member States. Among these, I would like to mention the decision adopted in connection with Mr Ilgar Mammadov’s case against Azerbaijan. Last month, the Committee of Ministers launched infringement proceedings against Azerbaijan due to the authorities’ continuing refusal to ensure Mr Mammadov’s immediate and unconditional release. The Parliamentary Assembly will be kept informed about any developments in that case, given your particular interest in his welfare.
The Committee of Ministers has adopted a series of decisions in relation to Ukraine, and it is encouraging the authorities to continue the process of reform to ensure that Ukraine’s domestic law and practice are fully compliant with Council of Europe standards. I hope the current discussions on a new action plan will be completed soon. The Committee of Ministers has likewise underlined the importance of fundamental freedoms in Ukraine, including freedom of expression, media freedom, freedom of association and assembly, and the rights of all persons belonging to national minorities. In that context, the situation in Crimea and eastern Ukraine cannot be ignored. The Committee of Ministers has repeatedly spoken out in support of Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity within its internationally recognised borders.
Of course, Turkey’s recent decision to end its status as major contributor has made the Organisation’s financial situation even more complicated. The Committee of Ministers is currently working to minimise the impact as much as possible. The Committee of Ministers will soon discuss more long-term measures and adjust the programme and budget for 2018-19 accordingly.
At its December session, the Venice Commission adopted two opinions on judicial reform in Poland. It is important that the commission’s recommendations are implemented, and the Council of Europe will provide any assistance that the Polish authority feels is necessary.
Outside its current geographical area, the Council of Europe intends to pursue co-operation with Belarus. It is worth noting, however, that the country’s integration into the Council of Europe has to be based on our values and principles. Although the Council of Europe has played a key role in abolishing the death penalty in Europe, we also have a duty to take action to ensure that that inhumane punishment is abolished wherever it still exists in the world.
That brings me to a more general issue. In two years’ time, the Council of Europe will celebrate its 70th anniversary, which sets a milestone for our co-operation within the European family. It will be a historic opportunity to have a general and comprehensive discussion about the future of the Council of Europe and the Organisation’s priorities. The overall goal of the discussion must be to aim for a better and even more effective Council of Europe. That process is already in place with the ongoing reforms initiated by the Secretary General, but this is not the time to stop. I therefore hope that as many of your foreign ministers as possible will attend the ministerial meeting at Kronborg – Hamlet’s castle of Elsinore – in May, where we expect to have a thematic discussion about the future of the Council of Europe. In short, the Council of Europe – “To be, or not to be: that is the question.” Thank you for your attention.
The PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Mr Samuelsen, for your very clear presentation of the priorities of your presidency. We will now proceed to questions. I remind members that questions must be limited to 30 seconds and no more. Colleagues should ask questions, not make speeches.
The first question is from Ms Schou from Norway.
Ms SCHOU (Norway, Spokesperson for the Group of the European People’s Party) – I thank the Foreign Minister of my neighbouring country, Denmark.
The programme of the Danish chairmanship is comprehensive and ambitious. I commend your focus on the implementation of reform of the Court. The ratification of Protocol No. 15 by all member States is, in that respect, very important. However, my question is not directly linked to the chairmanship’s programme. The Council of Europe faces budgetary challenges at the moment. One member, the Russian Federation, is withholding two thirds of its contribution for 2017, and Turkey has announced that it will no longer continue to be a major contributor to the budget. What is your assessment of that difficult situation, and what can Denmark do to solve it?
Mr SAMUELSEN – I touched on that question in my speech. The Council of Europe is indeed facing a very difficult budgetary situation. The Russian Federation’s outstanding balance from 2017 amounts to about €22.3 million. In addition, the Turkish authorities’ decision no longer to be a major contributor will lead to a loss of €20 million. The situation will obviously have a serious negative impact on the Organisation’s operational capacity. In response to Turkey’s decision to reduce its contribution, the Secretary General adopted a number of precautionary measures, pending future decisions to be taken by the Committee of Ministers on sustainability measures and adjustments to the programme and the budget for 2018-19.
On the Russian Federation’s withholding of its contribution, my predecessor informed you in October that he wrote to our Russian counterpart, Mr Lavrov, to express his strong regret about that decision, which jeopardises the proper functioning of the Council of Europe. He reminded the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs that payment of the contribution is an unconditional obligation that the Russian delegation willingly accepted. In co-operation with the Secretary General, I have been active in trying to resolve the situation.
I believe that the dialogue that your Presidential Committee has entered into with our Russian counterparts and the initiative to establish an ad hoc committee are very important. If the Russian Federation continues to withhold its contribution in 2018, that would obviously have a serious negative impact on the overall functioning of the Organisation, as it would lead to a loss of €32.8 million, or 11.6% of its general budget. We have to take this matter very seriously, and I promise that I will work as hard as I can on it.
Mr CRUCHTEN (Luxembourg, Spokesperson for the Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group) – On the very difficult issue of asylum seekers in the Balkans, we are starting to receive a growing number of reports documenting systematic violations of basic human rights by police and border control units, especially on the Hungary-Serbia border and the borders between Serbia and Croatia. According to independent sources – non-governmental organisations and volunteers – no fewer than 857 cases of people being subjected to extreme brutality and violence were reported in 2017 alone. What does the Committee of Ministers intend to do to put an end to such incidents immediately and to ensure that the authorities of Hungary and Croatia comply with their obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights?
Mr SAMUELSEN – These recent events have not been discussed by the Committee of Ministers. We are all aware of the obligations of member States under international law with regard to migrants and refugees, in particular under the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees and the 1967 protocol, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
With regard to the situation on the border between Hungary and Serbia, I would underline that the Secretary General’s Special Representative on Migration and Refugees paid an extensive fact-finding visit to Serbia and to transit zones in Hungary in June 2017. His report was issued in October last year. I trust that the Hungarian Government will pay heed to the recommendations contained in that report with a view to ensuring compatibility with international human rights standards.
Mr TÜRKEŞ (Turkey, Spokesperson for the European Conservatives Group) – The rights of refugees, which are safeguarded by international law, should be respected. However, many countries fail to meet European standards in this field. What measures will you adopt to address this during your chairmanship?
Mr SAMUELSEN – Addressing the crisis is a responsibility for all member States and calls for a response based on respect for human rights and solidarity. We are all aware of the obligations of member States under international law with regard to migrants and refugees, in particular – and again – the 1951 Geneva Convention, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Ensuring the implementation of relevant commitments, while managing overwhelming numbers of refugees and migrants, represents a significant challenge for all member States of the Council of Europe. The Committee of Ministers regularly recalls member States’ obligations in this respect, including under the Danish chairmanship.
However, you will be aware that the Council of Europe is one among many organisations and institutions working in this field. Our activities therefore focus on priority areas that fall within the Council of Europe’s areas of competence, where we can deliver real added value. These activities focus on two strengths: responses to the large-scale arrival of migrants, and anti-discrimination and inclusion measures. These are implemented through, first, the Secretary General’s Special Representative on Migration and Refugees, who has already made visits to a number of member States and come up with concrete suggestions for improving the treatment of refugees, and who also underlines the need for compliance with international standards; and, secondly, through the Council of Europe’s action plans on building inclusive societies, launched in 2016. The strong interest of the Parliamentary Assembly in the situation of refugees and migrants is of course particularly welcome.
Ms SOTNYK (Ukraine, Spokesperson for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe) – The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe welcomes all your priorities, Minister, but the Council of Europe is going through difficult times, and it is clear that its commitment to its principles and values is being undermined by several member States. In your view, how can this Organisation strike a balance between co-operation and firm protection of its principles and values?
Mr SAMUELSEN – Political co-operation is needed to promote the principles and values of the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe has a unique role as a forum for pan-European political dialogue and co-operation with a view to promoting human rights, democracy and the rule of law. The Committee of Ministers works as a collective forum, where European responses to common problems confronting the 47 member States are being worked out, as well responses to the specific challenges of individual countries.
Technical co-operation activities cannot be addressed separately from principles and values. They are primarily aimed at facilitating the implementation of the Council of Europe’s legally binding standards in member States, and often the number of Court cases gives a good indication of what the problems are in individual countries.
Mr KOX (Netherlands, Spokesperson for the Group of the Unified European Left) – I welcome your clear call, Minister, on behalf of the Committee of Ministers for a much-needed reconciliation between the Assembly and the Russian Parliament. I hope that colleagues listened very carefully to this most important call.
“A future-proof Council of Europe” is mentioned in the title of the priorities of the Danish chairmanship. Accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights would make a tremendous contribution towards this goal. However, after nine years we are in stalemate. Can we expect the Danish chairmanship to make a serious effort to speed up negotiations on accession of the European Union to the Convention, or will we have to accept that in this respect the Lisbon Treaty has become empty? Mr
Mr SAMUELSEN – This question has been discussed a number of times by the Committee of Ministers and also with high officials from the European Union. Accession of the European Union continues to be a priority for the Council of Europe and also for the Danish chairmanship. It is essential to complete the construction of one coherent area of human rights protection in the wider Europe. All our European Union interlocutors have recalled that accession is a treaty obligation under Article 6 of the Lisbon Treaty and confirmed that it is also a priority for the European Union.
In December 2014, the European Court of Justice issued an opinion on the draft agreement that had been negotiated between the Council of Europe and the European Union so as to allow accession by the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights. The Council of the European Union and the European Commission are examining the follow-up to be given to the European Court of Justice’s opinion. Only after that can work on the draft accession agreement resume. I hope that these steps will be completed without further delay. The Committee of Ministers and the Danish chairmanship continue to follow this matter closely.
Ms GAMBARO (Italy, Spokesperson for the Free Democrats Group) – Minister, our group approves all the points you mentioned in your speech, in particular your intention to improve young people’s participation in politics and the democratic process and to improve their critical thinking. Have you thought of any concrete measures to be taken, in particular in schools, universities or any other forums?
Mr SAMUELSEN – One of the main priorities for the Danish chairmanship, as you now know, is the continued reform of the European human rights system to ensure its long-term effectiveness. That is the core idea of our priorities. We also have four other priorities: equal opportunities, as I mentioned in my speech; people with disabilities; children, youth and democracy; and the fight against torture. We will ensure that those are followed up, in close co-operation with the future Croatian and Finnish chairmanships. The Danish chairmanship will also continue to follow the issues put forward by the outgoing Czech chairmanship. I will be happy to return with more in-depth answers if that is needed.
The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Samuelsen. I will now give the floor to speakers for individual questions, which we will group three by three.
Mr R. HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – My question relates to the problem of security and terrorism in Europe. News appeared lately of the entry and settlement of terrorists from abroad to the Armenian-occupied territories of Azerbaijan. According to the recent news, such terrorists have been placed in the occupied district of Qubadlı. The occupied territories have long been used as a refuge and training camp for terrorists belonging to the international terrorist network of Armenia. What is your attitude towards the recent actions by Armenia, which pose a serious threat to the continent and the world, and what preventive measures within your competence could you take in response?
Ms BARTOS (Hungary) – Your excellency, my question is linked to the question from my colleague from Italy. You mentioned that the Danish chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers will pay particular attention to the involvement of children and young people in democracy. However, current sensitive developments in Europe have led to a sceptical attitude in European society. How will you motivate the young generation and European society to better participate in the democratic mechanism?
Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – Your excellency, changing attitudes and prejudices about persons with disabilities is one of the five priorities of the Danish chairmanship. In what way do you think the Council of Europe – through the Committee of Ministers as well as the Parliamentary Assembly – can make a difference, for instance on discrimination against disabled persons in the labour market?
Mr SAMUELSEN – The first question relates to some of the sad and dramatic consequences of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The tensions and the violence, which also affect civilians, are a source of deep concern for the Committee of Ministers. It is essential that Armenia and Azerbaijan abide by their commitments to the Council of Europe to settle the conflict by peaceful means.
The ongoing efforts under the aegis of the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group towards a negotiated solution have my full support. Another meeting between the ministers of foreign affairs of the two countries took place last week to discuss the implementation of agreements reached by previous summits. I hope that rapid progress will be made in the search for a peaceful solution. The Council of Europe can help to establish conditions conducive to a peace agreement by encouraging confidence-building measures. The co-chairs of the Minsk Group consider such measures an important contribution to the negotiation process. We shall pursue our efforts in this field until a peace agreement is finally reached.
On the second question, as I indicated in my communication, the participation of the Russian delegation in the work of your Assembly is an issue that falls within your own remit. However, it directly affects the whole of the Organisation, and it has led to some imbalance in the functioning of its two main organs – the Parliamentary Assembly on the one hand, and the Committee of Ministers on the other. The Committee of Ministers and I are therefore following with particular attention any development that may have a bearing on the current situation.
I warmly welcome your decision to establish an ad hoc committee on the role and mission of the Parliamentary Assembly, which will meet for the first time on Thursday this week. The fact that representatives from the Russian Federation will take part in the work of that committee is, I hope, a positive development, and I hope that it will lead to concrete results. As I said earlier, we are convinced that the Council of Europe must retain its role as a forum for pan-European political dialogue and co-operation. In my capacity as chair of the Committee of Ministers, I will continue to use any opportunity, whether on a bilateral or multilateral level, to sensitise my European colleagues to the important matters raised here.
On the last of the three questions, protecting and promoting the rights of persons with disabilities is indeed a priority of the Danish chairmanship and of the Committee of Ministers. A new Council of Europe disability strategy for 2017-23 was adopted by the Committee of Ministers in November 2016. The overall goal of the new strategy is to achieve equality, dignity and equal opportunities for persons with disabilities. That requires bringing down barriers for persons with disabilities to allow them independence, freedom of choice and full and effective participation in all areas of life and society, including the labour market.
Using that strategy, the Danish chairmanship wishes to strengthen co-operation between member States on human rights work in the disability field, focusing on changing attitudes. To that end, we hosted a working seminar in Copenhagen in December last year, the objective of which was to launch initiatives in the individual member States with a view to making progress on the strategy’s development and implementation. We also want to highlight the need to combat violence and abuse against persons with disabilities – especially girls and women. Members of the Assembly can play a crucial role, first, in helping to raise the visibility of persons with disabilities in their home countries, and secondly, by raising awareness of the need to take concrete measures to ensure equality, dignity and equal opportunities for all persons with disabilities.
Mr ABUSHAHLA (Palestine, Partner for Democracy) – The decision of Donald Trump to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is a violation of international law and agreements and United Nations Security Council decisions. What action did the Committee of Ministers take about that? Foreign ministers in the European Union confirmed the adoption of the two-state solution. Do you think that the time has come to recognise Palestine as a State under occupation?
Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – Mr Samuelsen, the number of frozen conflicts is unfortunately increasing, especially in eastern Europe – the Republic of Moldova, Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan. Do you plan to take any actions to tackle these complex issues? In particular, what do you intend to do to ensure the respect of basic human rights in the frozen conflict zones?
Dame Cheryl GILLAN (United Kingdom) – Research now indicates that one in 100 people are autistic, and autistic people continue to face stark inequalities in education, employment, life expectancy and access to services. In Denmark, your own study found in 2016 that young autistic people are twice as likely as their peers to die early. Following your seminar in December, what can you do to increase support, provision and understanding for autistic people and their families during your chairmanship?
Mr SAMUELSEN – The answer to the first question is that the matter has not been discussed in the Committee of Ministers. Therefore, there is no official position to report. The Israel-Palestine conflict falls outside the scope of the Council of Europe’s mandate. That being said, I hope that a political solution in full compliance with international law can be found soon in order to ensure sustainable peace in the region. Jerusalem is probably the most delicate issue on which the two parties must agree. Denmark fully supports European Union policy on Jerusalem and the peace process. Any embassy move to Jerusalem under present circumstances is likely to cause serious reactions between the parties and in the wider region because the status of Jerusalem is not just a bilateral issue. Denmark has no plans to move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
The second question was about human rights in frozen conflict zones. The human rights of people living in areas affected by conflicts must be secured in accordance with the relevant Council of Europe instruments, particularly the European Convention on Human Rights. The Committee of Ministers is paying particular attention to the human rights of people in these zones, including in the context of the supervision of the judgment from the European Court of Human Rights. However, to ensure that all individuals living in these areas can fully benefit from the protection afforded by the Council of Europe’s standards, it is important to ensure that all human rights bodies of the Council of Europe can carry out their monitoring activities. I therefore encourage all parties involved in the ongoing conflicts to take the necessary steps to give such unimpeded access to the Council of Europe’s monitoring bodies.
On the third question, as I already mentioned in my reply to Ms Christoffersen, protecting and promoting the rights of people with disabilities – which, of course, includes people with autism – is a priority for both the Danish chairmanship and the Committee of Ministers. People with autism, like others with disabilities, have the right to human dignity, to equal access to public services, work and employment, and to be protected from discrimination. The Council of Europe’s strategy, which we fully support, aims to achieve equality, dignity and equality of opportunity for all people with disabilities. This can only be done if we bring down the barriers that prevent people with disabilities from enjoying independence, freedom of choice, and full and effective participation in all areas of life and society.
As I have mentioned, the Danish chairmanship aims to strengthen co-operation between member States on human rights work in the field of disability, focusing on changing attitudes and with a view to making progress. However, to ensure real progress, all stakeholders need to make a coherent and sustained effort. In this respect, members of the Assembly can make a real contribution. I therefore encourage you to raise the visibility of people with disabilities and to continue to work towards strengthening the protection of their fundamental rights at both European and national levels.
Ms PASHAYEVA (Azerbaijan) – Two Azerbaijanis, Shahbaz Guliyev and Dilgam Asgarov, have been illegally held hostage by Armenia for several months. As you are the new Chairman of the Committee of Ministers, their families are awaiting your support to release them. What steps can they expect to be taken in this direction? At the same time, 1 million Azerbaijani refugees and internally displaced persons cannot return to their homes due to the Armenian occupation of Azerbaijani lands. What would you like to say to those people, who are waiting for your support as the new chairman?
Mr XUCLÀ (Spain) – Secretary General Jagland is promoting the reflection, and I suppose a campaign, on fake news and reality – on what is true and false in these times of social networks. How can your chairmanship contribute to these initiatives?
The PRESIDENT – The last question would have been Mr Khader from Palestine, but he is not here. I therefore call Mr Kiliç from Turkey.
Mr KILIÇ (Turkey) – Minister, we are pleased to see that the reform of the European Court of Human Rights is among the priorities of the Danish chairmanship. What can Denmark offer to maintain the reform agenda without compromising the status of the Court? Will you make concrete proposals during your tenure?
Mr SAMUELSEN – First, regarding the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, mediation for the settlement of the conflict is the responsibility of the OSCE Minsk Group. This has been repeatedly underlined by the Committee of Ministers. It is essential that Armenia and Azerbaijan abide by their commitment to the Council of Europe to settle the conflict by peaceful means. The Council of Europe can help to establish conditions conducive to a peace agreement by encouraging confidence building measures.
Regarding fake news, disinformation or fake news is a growing problem for the functioning of our democracies. The mass dissemination of deliberately misleading information online can have a very serious impact on democratic political processes. This issue was the main focus of last year’s report by the Secretary General on the state of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Any response to the challenge of false information must address the root causes of the problem, rather than its symptoms, and must be carefully balanced not to affect the legitimate exercise of human rights and democratic participation. In the report, the Secretary General referred to his initiative to bring together the 10 partner organisations of the Platform to Promote the Protection of Journalism and Safety of Journalists, in an effort to identify possible solutions to the difficulties faced in journalism today and the fake news phenomenon. Such a dialogue has now been established. I should also add that the CDMSI – the intergovernmental committee responsible for media issues – will examine the phenomenon of disinformation, fake news, manipulation and other threats in a digital context, including their impact and responses to them.
Lastly, ensuring the long-term effectiveness of the supervisory mechanism of the European Convention on Human Rights is a key priority for the Committee of Ministers and the Danish chairmanship. Denmark is and always has been a strong supporter of the European human rights system and we wish to ensure that it remains effective and maintains its vital role in Europe. Although the current reform process has led to notable improvements, the Convention system still faces considerable challenges. The significant backlog of cases has been a serious impediment to the Court’s functionality and authority for a long time. The Danish chairmanship wishes to ensure that reforms already adopted are implemented, including the ratification of Protocol No. 15 by all member States.
We also wish to launch a renewed discussion on our future work of reforming the Convention system beyond 2019. Our view is that enhanced communication and dialogue between the central players, with respect for the Court’s role and independence, will strengthen the authority and effectiveness of the Convention system and ensure a better mutual understanding between member States and the Court, which will increase support for and ownership of the system. To support such a renewed discussion, Denmark hosted a high-level expert conference in Kokkedal in November. Based on the outcome of that conference and subsequent dialogue with stakeholders, the Danish chairmanship will hold a meeting of ministers in Denmark in April, hosted by the minister of justice. Its purpose will be to adopt a political declaration that takes stock of the current reform process, proposes new measures to strengthen the Convention system and provides guidance for further reform work.
The PRESIDENT – We must now conclude the questions to Mr Samuelsen.
Mr Samuelsen, on behalf of the Assembly, I thank you most warmly for your presentation and your very precise answers this afternoon.
I remind members that the polls are now open for voting for the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights and for a judge for the European Court of Human Rights. The polls will close at 5 p.m.
(Mr Seyidov, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Nicoletti.)
4. The case for a basic citizenship income
The PRESIDENT – The next item of business this afternoon is a debate on the report titled “The case for a basic citizenship income”, Document 14462. Ms Nunzia Catalfo was the rapporteur for the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, but today the report will be presented on behalf of the committee by Mr Stefan Schennach. In order to finish by 6 p.m., I shall interrupt the list of speakers at about 5.55 p.m. to allow time for the reply and the vote.
I call Mr Schennach. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and your reply to the debate.
Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* – As you can see, I am a man and am not from Italy. However, I hope that it will nevertheless be possible for me to present the report on behalf of our colleague Nunzia Catalfo, who unfortunately is ill, like many in our ranks. Liliane Maury Pasquier and Sir Roger Gale are also ill with the flu, which often goes round in January.
Basic citizenship income has been discussed at great length by the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development. Indeed, a certain amount of time was required even to grasp the idea behind it. The idea itself is not so new, however. The Catholic and Protestant Churches in Europe have both expressed support for it in the face of growing youth unemployment and the fact that, at age 18, young people simply do not earn enough to leave home or live on what they earn in part-time employment. They face a very precarious situation. The lowest-paid in our societies really struggle to live in dignity.
The report drawn up by Ms Catalfo tries to dissociate income and employment. I can tell you, given my role as rapporteur on science and technology, that we live in an age – or we are moving towards an era – in which digitisation will encroach more and more on jobs: we will lose jobs. Although we know digitisation will also create new jobs, we will not necessarily have the same people moving into them, because we will need IT specialists. Let us contrast their position with that of women who are bringing up children on their own and may need some kind of part-time employment, such as operating a till in a supermarket. There are not going to be any more cashiers in supermarkets in future. There is growing awareness of the need to look at how we generate income, given a situation where, in the Federal Republic of Germany, close to 50% of all jobs will be replaced by automation or digitisation. How are we going to find employment for people? We cannot invest limitless amounts in leisure facilities if people are unable to make use of them. We have not yet got to the end of that discussion, but this report is designed to help us along our way.
I must confess that I was rather sceptical about this report at the outset, but we should support it because we are going to have to reflect on these issues. Six or seven years down the road, half of society will have a job and be in work, and the other half will not. A chemist’s shop near me used to have jobs for 20 people, but it has now been automated, with robots working there now, so only five people are employed there, and not all of them are certain to keep their jobs. Against that backdrop, we are talking about the prospects for the future and the way in which we can adjust our income support systems. Ms Catalfo has mapped out the way forward for us. She has weighed up all kinds of different alternatives, and although a lot of this derives from a Catholic social philosophy, an awful lot has no link to that philosophy. Clearly, we will have to try to arrive at similar outcomes for people, because more and more of them are falling down the gaps. Ms Catalfo hails from Italy, where young people are living in mum’s hotel into their mid-20s, with many moving from mum’s hotel into grandma’s hotel because the situation is so difficult.
We have huge challenges ahead of us. We have discussed this, including against the backdrop of the Panama papers, the Bahamas papers and all the other papers that we have discovered in Europe. We have come to realise that, if people do not pay their taxes, there can be no redistribution or equalisation. We, as taxpayers, of course want to have a social basis for exchanges, because even tax evaders want infrastructure: they want to use the education system, the cultural amenities of a country, the social welfare system and, not least, the health service. Individuals, as well as companies, must therefore pay their taxes, because we have ended up with a rotten state of affairs as things stand.
We need to put in place a subsistence level income which is not dependent on employment; it has to be seen as something quite different from a minimum income. We need to improve on our minimum income systems. The Council of Europe could be driving that forward, and Ms Catalfo has done a very good job of starting this process. She also calls for the elimination of all forms of discrimination and arbitrariness when it comes to providing minimum income support, and for the kinds of national basic income systems that most of us already have – I hope we all do. If we do not, some countries have a certain amount of catching up to do. Most of us have some kind of minimum insurance – a minimum income – and we have to make sure it is set at an adequate level. What is new about all this is dissociating that minimum income from employment, and we will certainly need to reflect on that further in the years to come.
In addition to all that, we need to be engaging in social dialogue. We need social dialogue, because, as I realised last year, we are facing a difficult decade as a result of digitisation and automation. We are talking about people being thrown on to the scrapheap. We have to look at how we shape our future. These technological advances are coming. The only real question is: what do we do, as lawmakers – as legislators here in the Council of Europe – to steer these changes? We might have enormous supermarkets and hypermarkets being run by just three members of staff; that is just one example that I have plucked from many more. For example, in the hotel business automation has gone up by 39% in the space of just a year and a half – a very short space of time.
That is what I wanted to say to you. In the absence of Ms Catalfo, I urge you to support this report, which is being offered to you as food for thought; it is an incentive to reflect further on issues that we will inevitably have to deal with in future as a result of technological advances, which are coming our way – this is eminently predictable – as well as in the interest of millions of young people who are entitled to have and lead independent lives. We need to ponder these issues, and I believe this resolution is a good basis for doing just that.
The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Schennach. We especially thank you for your kind words about the rapporteur and Sir Roger Gale – God bless them. You have one minute and 36 seconds remaining.
We now come to the debate and we will start with those who are speaking on behalf of political groups. The first speaker will be Mr Howell, who will speak on behalf of the European Conservatives Group.
Mr HOWELL (United Kingdom, Spokesperson for the European Conservatives Group) – I am sorry to start on a negative note, but I have to say that I disagree with almost everything that has just been said. I have a number of strong reservations about the ideas behind the report.
The international situation is not supportive. I draw your attention to the Swiss rejection of the idea of a basic income at a referendum. I understand that an experiment is being conducted in Finland, but we must wait before we can draw any conclusion or cast judgment on that.
My reservations revolve around a number of issues. The first is technology. There is nothing to be frightened of in the advances being made on the technological front, nor is there any need to be frightened of the level of employment that can be justified by that.
Another reservation I have concerns the absence of a link to employment. This flies in the face of the success we have had in the United Kingdom, where people have been moving away from benefits and into employment. The basic income seems to be tolerant of joblessness. More than 3 million new jobs have been created in the United Kingdom since 2010, which is a huge contribution to the employment statistics.
The cost of a basic income for the United Kingdom has been estimated at £100 billion more than the current benefits claim. It cannot take into account the varying needs of households. For example, if someone has a disability, that is an additional cost. It does not take away the need for laborious assessments. That money has to come from somewhere, and it comes from the tax system, so we are not really reducing taxes by doing this. We are increasing the rates at which taxes are collected.
The shift away from the idea of targeted support to a blanket State-sponsored amount that allows no flexibility is to be deprecated. A basic income is unfair. It takes no account of poverty and makes no contribution to tackling poverty. It does not take into account the needs of individual families, and it would mean, paradoxically, cuts in entitlements for some, whether those are disabled people or single parents. Its impact on the minimum living wage needs to be thought through more carefully. Why should people pay the minimum living wage when the State is paying it for them?
Mr Aleksandar STEVANOVIĆ (Serbia, Spokesperson for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe) – Ladies and gentlemen, in an innovative political statement, I would make comments as Dean Martin did in the song “Santa Claus is Coming to Town”. However, let us give this a chance.
For more than two decades, we have had comprehensive discussions about the growing innovation and entrepreneurship gap between Europe and its main global competitors. We face a diminishing share in the world market. We are suffering from high unemployment, especially among the youth, as well as a lack of integration in some parts of Europe and low GDP growth rates, but we are still the best place on earth. Unfortunately, that is not guaranteed.
The report has one bright side. Without any doubt, it unveils problems of existing European welfare States and all the terrible consequences of the fiscal burden and taxation. However, the proposed remedy is toxic and substantially worse than existing solutions. There is no analysis at all of the enormous costs of the proposed citizenship income. The role of State health insurance in the citizenship income concept is completely foggy.
At the very beginning, someone has to pay for someone’s dreams. Providing each citizen with 60% of the average income would, without doubt, substantially destroy European competitiveness, kill the entrepreneurial spirit and result in increased poverty. It would create a passive society instead of a society of active individuals who are looking for chances, innovations and ways to improve the life quality of all Europeans. ALDE’s vision is a Europe of free citizens belonging to the greatest place in the world, able to compete with all competitors and to innovate – a Europe of responsible citizens. I am very unhappy with the Ned Ludd-style paragraphs lamenting the IT revolution. In addition, ALDE rejects any aggressive reducing of inequality and will always rather support policies to increase vertical mobility in society.
I come from a part of Europe that suffered in serfdom for more than 40 years. Serfdom was justified by one very attractive sentence: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” It did not function, and it will never function. The result is darkness and a suspension of freedom and human rights. In addition, one of the most successful European nations rejected with a large majority in a referendum a less radical proposal. There is no case of political freedom without economic freedom in the history of humankind. ALDE is completely against the citizenship income proposal.
Mr NORDQVIST (Denmark, Spokesperson for the Group of the Unified European Left) – It is good that it is time for me to speak, to sparkle some positivity over this debate. First, I wish to congratulate and thank the rapporteur, who is not here, on the report. It raises many important questions and points to think about.
We live in a time of change. Change is exciting, but it is also challenging. As was stated in the introduction, the development of technology is changing the way our workplaces are functioning and what work there is. The change we are seeing is as big as when we went from an agricultural society to an industrial society. Now we are going from an industrial society into something new, and we need to be aware of the changes we need to make. We see global inequality, including in our countries, which we have to deal with. We see working poor people and huge youth unemployment. There is also the climate crisis, which will demand that we change everything we know about production, how we use resources and so on.
I am well aware that the debate on a basic citizenship income or a universal basic income is one in which people have many opinions, including within political parties; that is the case in my political group here and in my political party back in Denmark. I welcome the report, because it points out that we need to test, research and experiment with formulas of basic income, to see what the best way of doing things is. We can look around Europe and see that experiments are already being done. Let us learn from them and be clever. We have to study new possibilities. The time is right for finding new ways.
The report raises the important issue of taxation. We all need to go further to ensure that multinational enterprises and very wealthy individuals pay their taxes. Tax evasion should be a thing of the past. That is only a fair and very necessary point about the time we are living in.
The report states that we need to create flexible systems in our countries that eliminate punitive conditionality for income support. We need to meet citizens with trust and support. It is not a crime to need help. The report also raises the right to decent jobs and job opportunities for everybody. How do we share jobs in the future so that there are jobs for everyone? Thank you again for an important report with a lot of important questions that I look forward to discussing in the future.
The PRESIDENT – Before giving the floor to the next speaker, I have to ask one question. Does any member still wish to vote in the election of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights and of the judge to the European Court of Human Rights? It is nearly five o’clock, when the ballot will be closed.
The next speaker is Roger Zavoli.
Mr ZAVOLI (San Marino, Spokesperson for the Free Democrats Group)* – On behalf of the Free Democrats Group and speaking in a personal capacity, I congratulate Mr Nicoletti on his election. I wish him all the best in his work as President.
On basic citizenship income, I would like to refer to my country, the Republic of San Marino, which offers its citizens, without any distinction relating to income or social category, some of the highest welfare and living conditions anywhere in the world. More than €80 million is spent on the health system and we only have 33 000 inhabitants. We have a social welfare system that is based on the notion of solidarity between generations. We offer high contributions for the right to study. We have a system of social shock absorbers for those who have lost employment, which we offer over a relatively long period compared with what is available in other countries. A series of measures was launched recently to support the disabled. Even though poverty is experienced by only a small number of the population, we are trying to tackle it.
The idea of a basic citizenship income raises serious issues. All member States are called on to consider the issue and to come up with responses, looking at the general fiscal system and the tax system. A number of proposals have been put forward to tackle poverty. We should look at the more advanced welfare systems and see how we can apportion resources so that they go to the neediest in society. We should give priority to tools such as education and training to reintegrate within the workforce those who have lost employment. We should move in the direction of a guaranteed minimum income, perhaps identifying the neediest so that they are given social support over a sufficiently long period to enable them to lead lives of dignity and get back into the employment market.
The PRESIDENT – It is already 5 p.m. The ballot for elections is now closed. The counting of the votes will take place under the supervision of the tellers, whom I invite to go at once to meet behind the President’s chair. The result of the election will be announced before the end of today’s sitting. The next speaker is Ms Åberg.
Ms ÅBERG (Sweden, Spokesperson for the Group of the European People’s Party) – The idea of a basic citizenship income is built on the assumption that robotisation will cause people to be permanently put outside the labour market and that, as such, provision for them will need to be alternatively secured. That is incorrect. Robotisation and digitisation are not a threat but a solution, creating new possibilities for people to earn their income. Earlier technological revolutions have always led to the creation of new jobs.
The imposition of basic citizenship income would undermine the essential incentive structure of the national economy. How many people would be interested in taking a heavy-load, low-paying job when the difference between that and living on basic citizenship income is negligible? What happens with the willingness to pay tax, if basic citizenship income is to be given to those who are able to work but simply are not willing to do so? It is contradictory on the one hand to claim that basic citizenship income will not decrease people’s desire to pursue employment while on the other asserting that the intention of basic income is that citizens could occupy themselves with unpaid or voluntary work.
Advocates of basic income claim that it would lead to lower administrative costs. However, there are people who suffer from complex diseases and people with functional impairments. A basic income would not cover their needs. Further economic assistance would be required regardless of a basic income.
Another issue is whether the basic income should be tied to citizenship or residence within a nation. Should it be a free-for-all, so that anyone who gets into a country with basic income will be included in the system? Should the basic income continue to be paid even though a citizen chooses to move abroad? If not, who will check where the citizen resides? Would that not lead to more bureaucracy?
Most people need the structure that employment provides. The feeling of being needed and being useful is universally appreciated. How can we enjoy a vacation if we are on holiday every day? In a respectable State, no one is left behind, but society must prioritise those with real needs. Those who can provide for themselves should continue to do so.
Ms De SUTTER (Belgium, Spokesperson for the Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group) – Poverty and income inequality are growing in most countries. It is pessimistic to start with such a statement about the future, but the facts do not lie. As Ms Catalfo mentions in her report, the 2012 Gini index showed that the highest rates of income inequality were recorded in Georgia, the Russian Federation, Turkey, Greece and Bulgaria, but also in Portugal and Spain. Citizenship income could be a solution to bridge these income inequalities, but, and this is important, everything depends on how we interpret “basic income”. It can be interpreted in a liberal way or in a social way. Citizenship income can in no way completely replace social security systems and will always need some form of correction. On the other hand, corrections are also possible so that people who want to work will earn more than people who do not work. There are different models and systems.
Governments have a duty to guarantee social protection for every citizen, including residents, migrants and vulnerable people, although many member States do not always seem to comply with that duty. The European Committee of Social Rights is very critical of what is happening in our region and the commitment of States to the social charter. Let us face the truth: we cannot ignore the fact that the pressure of the free market is challenging our social models. Philipp Blom made a relevant comment in his latest book, saying that the market must be there for democracy, not the other way round. We are not advancing any more. Social inequality is dangerous; it is a threat to democracy. In this negative context, any idea, analysis or proposal that could lead to a reinforcement of our social rights, reducing social inequality, must be welcomed. That is how we must see the debate on citizenship income; we must have the political will to think outside the box and reinvent some of our social models.
At first, I was rather critical of the idea of a basic income, but the report encourages me to believe that it is possible to create a better future for the 45 million people who have a disposable income below the poverty threshold. It is possible to streamline all social statuses and guarantee a basic income unconditionally, as well as for unpaid work. This could be the cornerstone of a renewed human-centred social system if we show courage and the political will.
The PRESIDENT – Thank you. You are the last speaker on behalf of the political groups, and after those speeches, the rapporteur can reply. If you do not wish to do so, you can reply at the end of the debate. As the rapporteur does not wish to reply now, I will move on to the list of speakers. I call Ms Dalloz.
Ms DALLOZ (France)* – The philosopher Bertrand Russell reminds us that man needs for his happiness not only the enjoyment of this or that but hope, enterprise and change. The report on creating a basic citizenship income raises many different questions. The suggestion is that this should be implemented in each country based on reference baskets. In Europe, and even more so in greater Europe, there are huge disparities between countries and it is therefore likely, as we have seen with other social subjects, that if such an income were to be put in place without any harmonisation between the States, some citizens might well feel tempted to go to the country with the most attractive basic income, thus causing the system to become unstable.
The second question is about principles. A universal income will in fact not be that, because only the neediest would be entitled to it – or at least to all of it. As for an unconditional income, applying the citizenship income proposals requires better harmonisation between the sector covered by welfare and the labour market. This income might well help remove the barriers that are hindering efforts to reduce unemployment and poverty, but that would also be valid if such income were used to promote enterprise, and that is my second point. As for the whole notion of a citizenship income that would enable each person to take part in democratic life, I do not think that the mere fact of being poor means that someone cannot take part in democratic life. Having said that, it is very obvious that supplementary income can enable people to take initiatives and change their lives.
Two examples struck me. The first is the experiment carried out in London with 13 homeless people. Through £3 000 paid by an NGO, they were taken off the streets and were able to create employment for themselves. Social welfare benefits of all different kinds cost a lot more without any result on the reintegration of such people into society. More striking was the experiment carried out in Kenya, where €500 of funding per family enabled small businesses to be created and houses to be repaired in one village.
These are not examples of an income being paid to all by a State, but rather of micro-projects that are well thought out. Not requiring anything in return for the payment of the citizenship income would mean that once again the State was becoming a nanny State, and this would be wrong. Giving to poorer people and unemployed people who have ideas for micro-projects and self-entrepreneurship would be a benefit to all and would be a real citizenship income. As the founder of the NGO GiveDirectly has said, it is about giving individuals not a gift but a choice. That is a much more efficient way of distributing income and would help us avoid the pitfalls that I pointed out.
Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – I fully agree with the rapporteur about highlighting the public responsibility to fight poverty and increasing inequalities. It is a basic right of every human being to find their place in society and to use their personal competence to create wealth for the benefit of their communities, as well as to enjoy decent living conditions and adequate social protection.
First and foremost, decent living conditions are inseparably connected to the right to work for decent pay and with decent working conditions. The Norwegian welfare model has developed over a long period, step by step, and is the result of social dialogue and tripartite co-operation between employer organisations, labour unions and governments, based on the principle of work for all – men and women. Over that time, we have developed a national insurance scheme for elderly people, the disabled, single parents, the bereaved and the unemployed, as well as a local social security system.
Lately, those basic rights have been under attack. We have seen a worrying rise in social dumping, moonlighting and other severe forms of organised labour crime. Unemployment is at an unacceptable level of 4%, and the employment rate has fallen. Immigrants are over-represented among the employed, and their children over-represented among those living in low-income families. At the same time, we have had a conservative government which, through its five years in power, has conducted a consistent policy of tax reduction for rich people, combined with severe cuts to national insurance schemes. The number of poor people has risen from 7.5% to more than 9.3%. For some reason, our government seems to be driven by a strange logic based on the undocumented thesis that those who have much are motivated by getting more whereas those who have little are motivated by getting less.
The idea of a basic citizenship income has been debated in Norway on several occasions and, so far, the great majority of the political parties have been reluctant. We fear that such a scheme will make us less concerned with active labour market measures and will tend to individualise the negative aspects of unemployment. That is the opposite of a welfare society based on work for all. Nevertheless, I will vote in favour of the draft resolution, because we need a thorough discussion about our future society, a discussion that includes robotisation, the taxation of surplus, the digital platform economy and a redefinition of work, including today’s concept of paid and voluntary work.
Mr WILSON (United Kingdom) – In the middle of the Second World War, the United Kingdom looked at how best to establish a society that could cater for all its citizens – to help those who can and to look after those who cannot. In 1942, William Beveridge presented his report on the social ills facing the country and identified five great social evils from which people should be freed: want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness. The post-war British consensus allowed the Labour Government to implement the foundations that would alleviate those evils. The answer was not a universal basic income but a universal basic service that provided a safety net through which the social evils would fall but by which the dignity of all people, especially those in need, would be saved: a health service, free at the point of delivery; comprehensive education; social housing; a benefits system for those without work; and a pension that came after a lifetime of work.
Three quarters of a century later, reform continues to be needed, and it should always be required. Nothing stays the same, except, perhaps, the values. I say to those who promote the idea of a universal basic income that they should continue with the experiments as part of the thought process of how best to conceive future social security systems. In France, an experiment has been based on a geographic area. In Finland, one is focused on the unemployed. In Alaska, where universal basic income has been generated by the profits from state-wide royalties from mineral rights since the 1980s, there is no health service as I would recognise it to look after equality and the needs of people in that state.
Whatever the outcome of the experiments, the basic services will still need to be paid for and proponents of the basic income have acknowledged that some models will need a substantial increase in taxes, which might be problematic at the ballot box. We must be careful that the idea of a basic income that is devised to promote equality is not twisted by those of a more libertarian economic persuasion, and sees the start of the dismantling of the social democratic model, which I find most persuasive and which provides the services we have today.
Artificial intelligence and robotics may lead to a loss of jobs, but I believe the history of industrial revolutions has not been the loss of jobs, but changes to the type of jobs. Therefore, the answer is industrial strategies, education and training, for the many and not the few, and is best achieved by government and industry, with the public and private sectors working together. Let us not forget all we have achieved to improve the lot of our people is through our common endeavour – working together for the benefit of all.
The PRESIDENT – Mr O’Reilly is not here, so I call Lord Blencathra.
Lord BLENCATHRA (United Kingdom) – I congratulate Senator Catalfo on the work that she has put into the report. I wish her and Five Star well in the forthcoming Italian elections. If they are successful, it will make European politics much more exciting. However, I am afraid that I cannot agree with her report, because the concept is fundamentally flawed and utterly wrong. She states in paragraph 3.1 of her memorandum that every person, irrespective of age, descent, place of residence and profession should be entitled to receive this allocation because every woman, every man and every child has the right to a basic income on an individual basis. There is no such right, because one cannot have a right to get things unless someone else is under an obligation to provide them. She provides no proper costings.
I do not think that countries with 20, 40 or 60 million people who would be entitled to this income can make this fundamental shift away from well-established principles of social insurance based on an experiment with a mere 2 000 people in Finland who were all unemployed in the first place. Every example she quotes as granting a minimum income is one where it is just another name for the existing social security systems targeted at the most needy. There has been no large-scale study of everyone, poor and wealthy, employed and unemployed, fit and disabled, getting this income and then studying what lifestyle changes have occurred.
I understand that the cost of the Five Star plan in Italy will be €84 billion. Of course, Mr Berlusconi is offering €1 000 a month and free pet care, and the cost of that will be €157 billion. No wonder the former Italian Prime Minister, Mr Renzi, said that it could only be paid with Monopoly money. If any citizenship income is to be cost-neutral overall, there will be massive benefit cuts for many people in need, such as the disabled. If it is not cost-neutral, and if current levels of social security are to be maintained and new money given to everyone else, massive increases in taxation would be needed, leaving less scope to increase taxes for other worthy causes. There is no financial gain for people out of work, and without conditions relating to work or training, the system encourages long-term unemployment. And we will still need complex means-testing systems to provide the essential extra benefits for the disabled or helping with housing costs.
Finally, it is wrong. As my colleague in the United Kingdom House of Commons, Nick Boles MP, pointed out in an article, the main objection is not practical, but moral. He said, “Mankind is hard-wired to work. We gain satisfaction from it. It gives us a sense of identity, purpose and belonging…we should not be trying to create a world in which most people do not feel the need to work.”
Mr BECHT (France)* – I thank the rapporteur for this text on a basic citizenship income. I agree that there is an increase in imbalance of income and social inequalities. The richest 1% of the people have taken 82% of generated wealth, whereas the poorest 50% have not benefited from any increase in income. This aspect of globalisation is not acceptable, especially in Europe, which has made through prosperity and solidarity the conditions for peace between nations. The situation is also unacceptable because among the most fragile are children, who see their opportunities for education and social promotion disappear in the poverty of their homes,
None the less, I do not support a citizenship income paid to all irrespective of resources or without a quid pro quo. There has always been a subtle balance of rights in the human community as well as a balance of duties, so I do not think there can be the payment of a permanent income without any quid pro quo. I suggest that we think in terms of a different system which would take into account the right to labour, the right to transformation and solidarity, a right for all those deprived of jobs because of economic circumstances or structural change, especially because of the digital revolution, the effects of which should not be overlooked.
While a minimum wage could be guaranteed for all who are deprived of jobs, it can only be paid if the person agrees to undergo training and can adapt his or her skills to the needs of the labour market or to do some community work to benefit society if no training is available – looking after children after school or looking after the elderly. Thereby we would create a strong link with the mission of finding work for all, we would keep a strong link between the rights and duties that are inherent in citizenship, and we would guarantee social status for each individual in society while seeking to ensure that none of them, particularly children, are plunged into poverty.
Mr MANNINGER (Hungary) – First, we agree that the Parliamentary Assembly considers that a decent standard of living for all is a cornerstone of social justice and human dignity. The question is whether a basic income, providing each citizen with a regular sum of money to live on without test or work requirements, is for that aim or against
The main conclusion of a 2017 OECD study was that current benefit spending is not enough to finance a basic income close to the poverty line. Big tax rises and reductions in other benefits would be needed for even a modest basic income, and losses would be more common among the poor. A basic income lifts some people out of poverty, but others fall below the poverty line. In another study, the OECD’s main conclusion was that the unconditional payment to everyone at meaningful but fiscally realistic levels would require tax rises as well as the reduction of existing benefits and would often not be an effective tool for reducing income poverty.
It is clear that the impact of a basic income could be very different according to the country or the benefit models. There are some positive results on a local level in very developed countries, and a further option to reduce the number of recipients of a basic income could be to introduce it gradually to different groups. It was mentioned that in Switzerland the referendum was rejected. The basic income proposal has an ideological reason. In my childhood living under a communist regime, we had to learn about the communist future, when everybody would get the same salary. I know that a basic income is not the same, but it is no accident that it is often said to be a utopia.
Information technologies and intelligent machines can replace humans, and millions of jobs may disappear in the future, but that means we need alternative employment and reskilling. In countries where the majority of the population has a low income, the basic income would create a massive disincentive to work, even if the basic income was only enough for food and housing. That means it would increase inequality, especially for the next generation.
The average income and the degree of inequality are so different in Europe that to establish even different basic incomes at the European level, we would need first to decrease inequality between the countries.
The main concern about a basic income is the belief that it is the solution to reducing inequalities. We do not focus on why inequality is growing across Europe, according to the Gini index. However, a globalised economy can produce economic growth.
It is important that we have a parallel debate about how to finance a more equal sharing of the benefits of economic growth; how to create more jobs; how to help people look for alternative employment, part-time jobs and so on; how to raise the minimum wage; how to create incentives for low-income groups to find work; and how to ensure reskilling. That is how to raise the level of low-income groups and establish a better standard of living for all.
Mr GYÖNGYÖSI (Hungary) – I thank the rapporteur for this great opportunity to have a valuable debate about one of the most pressing issues for Europe today. As the report points out – some of my colleagues also pointed to this fact – social inequality is a great source of tension across our continent. It is no exaggeration to say that it is one of the greatest threats to our stability. It exists at the level of member States and at the level of Europe as a whole.
In Europe today, there is mass migration from the countries of the periphery to the core countries, from east to west and from south to north. As the rapporteur pointed out, youth unemployment is high, and there is a shortage of skilled labour. Unfortunately, in some European countries today, we see the interesting phenomenon of a minimum wage that is below the living wage. That is completely unacceptable.
We welcome the fact that attention is finally being paid to those pressing issues. Emmanuel Macron and, to some extent, the new Austrian Administration, are addressing social dumping. Juncker, in his state of the union speech, talked about social inequality, and the Stockholm Declaration on the social pillar addressed that issue adequately. It is good that we can finally discuss unifying the minimum wage and creating a basic citizens’ income.
It is clear that wage regulation is required to eliminate social tension, but all previous discussions, and this report, have failed to take into account the geographical differences on our continent. There is nothing to justify the enormous social and wage differences that are characteristic of our continent, particularly given that the European Union defines itself as a common economic sphere. Since the Second World War, western European countries have been obsessed with neoliberal economic policy. They pursue a policy whereby much attention is paid to multinational organisations’ profits. The return on capital by far outstrips the return on labour – in other words, wages – which is why we have come to this unsustainable situation.
At the same time, eastern countries – the countries on the periphery – are obsessed with the idea that foreign direct investment can be attracted with flexible labour laws, cheap labour and tax exemption, but that does not lead to development. Specific steps are needed. The European Union needs a commissioner for convergence, cohesion policy should finally be reformed, statistics and methods of measurement should be unified, and the elimination of tax evasion and offshore tax havens is desperately needed. I draw your attention to a European citizens’ initiative that is on the table in Europe today – the wage union – which addresses all of those issues.
The PRESIDENT – Ms Aleksandra Tomić from Serbia is not here, so I call Mr Melkumyan from Armenia.
Mr MELKUMYAN (Armenia)* – This is an important, topical subject. We need to come up with the right solution, but that is difficult because we are dealing with high unemployment. More and more activities are being carried out by major companies, rather than smaller enterprises, and we need to avoid social dumping.
It is clear to us all that, in Europe as well as in most countries in the world, social tension is not going down; on the contrary, it is taking on new forms. The main task of States is to reduce tension and the polarisation in society between the wealthy and the poor. How can that be done? The standard way of solving the problem is to create new jobs, to promote continuous specialist training and to support the elderly and disabled.
One thing is clear to us all: the wealthiest should pay more income tax than poor people, but that is not necessarily as equitable as it might be. Modern States should create a minimum wage through legislation. It is important to develop a consumer basket system with a proportionate minimum pension and wage. We underline the importance of defining a basket of basic necessities and measuring the inflation of the price of those products. That said, it is clear that, with the onset of the fourth industrial revolution, many jobs will disappear as a result of the application of new technologies. It is therefore of paramount importance to prepare society. In particular, we should give middle-aged and elderly people adequate training. It is often the State that has to cover the cost of such training and provide a reliable future for its citizens.
Young people must be able to live and work more independently. We should not put together young people and the elderly, and the wealthy and the poor. The aim of introducing a minimum wage through legislation is to create a balance, to find a compromise in the relationship between generations, and to prevent social dumping. This is a very topical matter. It is possible to create social consensus on that basis. It is also possible to give children and people with the greatest needs access to education and high-quality health care. Of course, it is important that we introduce that solution to solve this problem. I appreciate this report. We need to introduce practical instruments.
Mr FRIDEZ (Switzerland)* – Two years ago, my country had an opportunity to speak out about an unconditional basic citizenship income, and three out of four citizens said no to the proposal. It was a totally revolutionary text for a country such as mine, and it gave rise to some fascinating debates and shook up several well-held convictions. It was a reminder that not everything is working out in our society. There is too much social inequality, in terms of income levels, and it is impossible for some to take up their rightful place in society.
In taking up this issue, I cannot help thinking about the famous book by Thomas More, “Utopia”, which described in great detail an ideal world. It was written a long time ago, and that perfect, egalitarian world has not put in much of an appearance on the world stage. On the contrary, our society is built on violence, inequality is growing in a climate of indifference, and everyone is out for themselves. It is true that, over the centuries, thanks to workers’ struggles and sacrifices, we have managed slowly to lay the foundations of a fairer society, with the State providing social benefits and a real safety net for the poorest, but in spite of everything this imperfect world has too many inequalities. For some, it is about chasing the tail of profit, working all the hours that come and unlimited competition; for others, it is about unemployment, precariousness, fear of what tomorrow might bring and the obligation to migrate to escape insecurity.
This text lays the foundation for a new philosophy of life that would give everyone the possibility to lead a life of dignity with more time for personal development, to love, to share, to help, to create – merely to live. It is a concept that represents a true Copernican revolution, compared with the traditional values and paradigms that govern society. A basic citizenship wage would enable us to establish new priorities, to put man at the centre of our concerns, to fight alienation in our society and to improve social cohesion. Rather than talking about gross domestic product, we could talk about the product that is human and about personal development.
I am fully aware of the difficulties that such a reorganisation of society would entail, but what is at stake is social cohesion. A fairer society, with a better distribution of wealth, would enable all to find their rightful place in society, in harmony with others and the environment: a less violent society, a more tolerant society – one where social cohesion would reign. Such a society would be better armed to fight some of the ills that surround us, such as the poorest in society feeling forgotten, a phenomenon that plays into the hands of populism.
I supported the proposal in Switzerland, drawing on my experience as a GP, because I had seen for myself how dysfunctional the welfare system was in respect of those no longer in a position to work and earn a living because of health problems or because they had lost their employment. In Switzerland, if a person cannot provide for their own livelihood, they have access to various social benefits, through loss of earnings insurance, unemployment insurance, invalidity insurance or social welfare. However, various obstacles are put in the way of those requiring benefits. The various institutions responsible for providing social insurance are so numerous that they all pass the buck to a certain extent. There is a lot of time and energy wasted, humiliation of those concerned and administrative red tape – something that an unconditional citizenship income would resolve so easily, which is why I will vote in favour of the proposal.
Ms MERGEN (Luxembourg)* – I very much appreciated the content of the report, given that in our country we recognised very early that some citizens who were without work for one reason or another were in poverty with their families. Major efforts were made in our country to introduce a citizenship income, which we did in 1986. At that time, there was some opposition to the concept, as is the case today, especially after the introduction of the measure. Such opposition has also been expressed in the committee, but I think most members were, fortunately, in favour of the report.
This measure also comes into play for single-parent families and, in particular, women with child dependants. For many years, they were the main recipients. Then there are the sick who may not have access to disability allowance. For those sorts of people, this income has been essential. Among the beneficiaries are also people in temporary jobs and part-time workers, people with an irregular income and those whose income is below the threshold of our minimum wage. We should also keep in mind the need to distinguish between a basic citizenship income and the minimum wage.
Ms Catalfo’s report covers an issue that also arises in our country, which is that even a decent basic income – I think ours is one of the highest in Europe – is not enough to allow people to live above the poverty line, because of the very high cost of living. They need housing and the equality of opportunity should be established. Although the level has regularly been adjusted, since we established this measure, those adjustments have been insufficient, as the report states, to meet 50% of the adjusted median income. We therefore need to be able to calculate the costs using more objective indicators, to ensure a decent standard of living while also including those without enough to live on or even to pay for their own funerals.
Ms KERESTECİOĞLU DEMİR (Turkey) – I thank the rapporteur, Ms Catalfo, for bringing this crucial topic before the Assembly. Living in a decent way, without struggling with poverty, is a human right, but today the economic system forces people to work in order to live on the one hand and, on the other, creates mass unemployment. For 20 years, the world economy has grown rapidly, but unemployment is not decreasing. The International Labour Organization’s “Global Employment Trends” shows that the world economy’s growth does not create jobs.
Unemployment is not the only problem. Today, many college graduates are forced to work in lower positions than the education they received prepared them for. On the other hand, social benefits that are supposed to decrease inequality in society are very fragmented. Only a part of the poor can access them. In addition, social assistance has been used in political relations in many countries. Benefits are politicised and directly associated with governments. In election periods, for example, social benefits rise dramatically. They are distributed like grace, in an attempt to create a sense of gratitude in society. Social benefits also reproduce the sexual division of labour. Women are tasked with searching for social assistance and communicating with social workers during the household survey. For instance, around 80% of applicants in Turkey are women.
We therefore need an alternative social benefit system, and citizenship income offers a solution. Huge subsidies for corporations and tax evasion by multinational enterprises and wealthy individuals creates a budget gap. Thus, through bold revisions to the taxation system, a citizenship income can become affordable. The value and wealth created in society are formed from the contribution of every individual living in society and those who lived in the past. Therefore, everyone has the right to receive the share of this wealth.
The poverty that exists in society is too deep to be solved by social policies alone. The real cause of poverty is the inequality created by the relation of labour and capital. Unless a fair and equal division of the economy is ensured, a minority group will continue to make enormous profits at the cost of poverty for others. Nevertheless, even if citizenship income does not entirely solve the problem of inequality, as a citizenship right it will save millions of people – women, children and men – from the deep problems created by poverty in an honourable way. For this reason, I would like to express my support for the report.
Mr BLAHA (Slovak Republic) – Ms Catalfo’s report is excellent. As a political scientist, I also appreciate its theoretical power and empirical evidence. I have always admired the concept of a basic income advanced by social-liberal scholar Philippe Van Parijs. I also believe that the European social model is “under the pressure of ‘free-market ideologies’,” as the report says in the explanatory memorandum.
A basic income can give people more positive freedom and human dignity. I draw attention to the progressive alternative concept of a “participating income”, of Marxist scholar Claus Offe, but in general I agree that a dignified life should not be something you have to deserve. It is a basic social right for every human being. We should not live in a Darwinian capitalist jungle but in a civilised social Europe of the 21st century. Moreover, Mr Schennach is absolutely right: with the upcoming automation and “Industry 4.0” economic changes, basic income will shortly be a necessity for the bulk of jobless people. That is why I am glad that there are ever more people in my home country of Slovakia who support this basic income revolution.
However, we also need to understand the limitations of this concept. Basic income is a guaranteed minimum for every citizen, but it cannot replace the State’s social help and social benefits, which are based on the principle of need. It can replace a few overlapping social benefits, as is rightly written in the report, but we need to pay attention to some neoliberals who would like to replace all the progressive social systems with one flat benefit. That would be an atrocity. I support a socialist interpretation of basic income, not a neoliberal one – there is a big difference.
Universality of basic income means that Bill Gates would get the same money as the homeless people under the bridge. If it only supplements other social policies arranged by the State to help poor people, it can be tolerated. However, if it replaces complex social State policies based on redistribution and need, it would not be fair. Moreover, it would not be fair if we subvent the poor wages of workers and indirectly helped corporations, with the social tensions and union pressure that would bring. We have to combine basic income with strong pressure on the minimum wage.
I believe in social equality and solidarity, not in a social minimum and then the Darwinian jungle. Basic income is a social minimum tool with no real impact on inequality. If the benefit is flat and universal, there will be no income redistribution, only the conservation of the previous market inequalities. That is why I support basic income as a starting point, not the end point, of social policy.
Mr MADISON (Estonia) – I am really surprised, because I did not imagine that, in the 21st century, we would be discussing a new form of communism here in the Council of Europe. The biggest problem with the report is that it has no proof. We can talk about Finland, but Finland only started with this project a year ago, so we do not know the results from there or how it has changed the labour market or people’s standard of living. We know nothing, and this project supports recommending to member States of the Council of Europe to try basic income, without knowing what would happen. I do not think that is responsible. This is no place to play with taxpayers’ money, because although it may work, it also may not.
I mentioned communism, which was also a good idea: everybody gets as much as they want and everybody works as much as they can. However, it did not work, and the problem is that I really do not believe this idea will either. The first thing we have to understand is where the budget comes from: taxpayers’ money. Where does taxpayers’ money come from? It comes from the companies and the people who make the jobs in the labour market. I would like to see how many people here who will vote on this have made jobs in the labour market. How many of you? That would be good to know.
The second problem is about equality. It is a good word, and I really like having equal rights and possibilities. However, the problem is that, in the societies or countries where there is 100% equality, there is no freedom. Where there is freedom, there is not 100% equality. That is the biggest problem, and it is why this idea will not work.
I am pretty sure that most of you will not support this idea. I remind members of the most hilarious conservative in history, Margaret Thatcher, who said that socialism does not work because eventually you run out of other people’s money. That is why I do not like it.
Ms D’AMBROSIO (San Marino)* – I thank Ms Catalfo for this valuable report and the draft resolution that we will examine and vote on. The invitation to member States to look into and propose forms of citizenship income is all the more necessary as we see larger swathes of the population at risk of living beneath the poverty line, and therefore suffering humiliation and an assault on their personal dignity, with all the negative consequences that that brings for both themselves and the community as a whole.
I agree with the idea of a new social compact between citizens and the State. The need to establish adequate living standards should be a central concern for any country; it is a basic issue of social justice and therefore fundamental to any democracy. I therefore welcome the proposals on citizenship income and the case studies on countries that have introduced similar income support systems in order to provide adequate solutions taking account of the principles of dignity and equity.
However, I introduce a new concept: the right to employment as an active income support policy. It would not be exclusively geared towards solidarity, but it would be a pact between citizens and needier citizens, such as the long-term unemployed who are over the age of 50 and who find it difficult to take up employment. We are talking about something that would be universally recognised and that would guarantee the dignity of individuals, enabling them to participate in social and professional life within the community and not lose their link with the world of work.
Time is a tyrant and does not give me the opportunity to say anything more about that important social shock absorber. Basic citizenship income and employment income both focus on certainty, universality and equity. Of course, citizenship income does not exclude an employment income; they are not mutually exclusive and they meet differing needs within society. As they say, it enables the State to promote active income support policies, although it is not exclusively geared towards the aims of solidarity and subsidiarity.
Ms GÜNAY (Turkey) – I congratulate Ms Catalfo on her important work. It seems that this issue might be a major concern for Europe in the forthcoming period, as it concerns the wealth of the citizens as well as the social and economic life of Europe.
It is stated in the report that: “The Assembly believes that introducing a basic income could guarantee equal opportunity for all more effectively than the existing patchwork of social benefits, services and programmes. However, the Assembly is fully aware of the practical difficulties of such a radical change in social policy.” I totally agree with that awareness, as most scholars and experts think Europe is facing the most turbulent time in its history since the Second World War, not only in economic terms but politically, socially and ethically.
The first aspect of the issue is the current state of the economy. Since 2010, recovery from the debt crisis has continued sluggishly in Europe. Most importantly, the ratio of public debt to gross domestic product is still high in most countries. We must therefore understand that it might take a while to reach pre-crisis levels of wealth. That reality can create strong disaffection and resistance in certain communities, as they believe that public and private resources should be allocated to different areas or problems.
The second aspect of the issue is the current political situation in Europe. Brexit, the rise of the far right and xenophobia, and the rising tendency of disobedience towards the European Union and its institutions, are all serious concerns for the future of the continent. That uncertainty provides a basis for the rise of populist parties, and citizenship income could easily be exploited by popular movements. Also, the current flow of refugees could be used to create an objection to basic income initiatives.
Taking all that into account, I believe that we need to do more research and share our opinions about basic citizenship income. I once again thank our rapporteur for the starting point she has presented.
Ms BARDELL (United Kingdom) – It is a pleasure to speak for the first time at the Council of Europe. As a Scottish member of the United Kingdom Parliament, I hope that I can bring a slightly different perspective. I congratulate the rapporteur on an excellent report, which is extremely positive and recognises that poverty and increasing inequalities are persistently undermining human dignity, and that most European countries are struggling to ensure a decent standard of living for all. Some members have been negative about the costs but, in the words of Robert Schuller, “I’d rather attempt to do something great and fail than to attempt to do nothing and succeed.”
In Scotland, we have had a very different approach to benefits. Although we do not have many of those powers, the notion of universalism is not new to us. We have free prescriptions, for example, and we have recently followed in Finland’s footsteps to provide baby boxes. Wales also has free prescriptions. We have been able to prove that giving those universal benefits actually costs less, and does more positive and good for society than means-testing people. As an elected parliamentarian, a stream of people have come to my constituency office in Livingston, which is just outside Edinburgh, with horrendous examples of the pernicious benefits system that is pushing them further into poverty. Let us not forget that the United Nations has condemned the United Kingdom’s benefits system, which is killing people. By all accounts, we must consider a universal benefit seriously.
Four areas of Scotland – Edinburgh, Fife, Glasgow and North Ayrshire – are piloting a Scottish basic income. I appreciate that we are at the early stages of having evidence, but nobody knew what good the national health service would do when it was founded in the United Kingdom in 1940, and it has proved to be an excellent project and endeavour. We know from the painful and damaging experiences of our constituents across the country that the United Kingdom social security system is not working. I am sure that many colleagues in the Council of Europe have similar experiences. The United Kingdom Government’s department for work and pensions is actually looking at a universal basic income and at how it can be part of that. I hope that the message sent by our support of this report is that a universal basic income is a good thing.
Helen Keller said, “Optimism is the faith that leads to achievement. Nothing can be done without hope and confidence.” The Scottish Government is different from the United Kingdom Government. We are going to have a new social security system. We will only have 15% of those powers, but we hope to put dignity and compassion at the heart of our policy because we have to think about how the rest of the world will view us if we cannot look after our citizens. As the famous Scottish poet, Robert Burns, once said, “O wad some Power the giftie gie us, to see oursels as ithers see us!”
The PRESIDENT – As Mr Honkonen and Ms Louhelainen are not here, I call Mr Bildarratz.
Mr BILDARRATZ (Spain)* – I, too, thank the rapporteur for the splendid work achieved.
I hail from the Basque country, where we have experience of this matter: we have an income guarantee benefit. Something was said that might have appeared frivolous – how many of us are providing people with jobs? I generate jobs. I have to pay a certain amount in salaries every month and I pay lots of taxes. I pay taxes precisely because I am part of a community that does not want to leave any of its members behind. We can hold many objectives as a society, but we have to shape that society with all its members. I have been a mayor, so I have seen things at close quarters, and I have known very few people who can work and do not. Those who can work and do not do so often have different problems that society has to try to remedy. The conservative parties bring these issues before us at times, but the party that brought this topic forward into public debate during the last municipal elections lost the election, because people understand that it is important not to leave anybody behind. There is fraud in the system, just as there is in many systems, but this fraud is analysed.
The text before us is very cautious. We are not saying that we are going to make definite plans and execute them, but we should analyse, promote and attempt to ensure that each of our societies leaves nobody behind. Our Lehendakari – our president – had a meeting with Juncker on that very subject, and Juncker undertook to visit the Basque country in order to analyse our project and the work we are undertaking. And I invite you to visit us. I am aware that the reality of each country is different and there are only 2.5 million people in the Basque country. I know that things should be relativised; what are 2.5 million people out of 30 million? But there is a solution and a way out. Society cannot give itself the luxury of leaving anybody behind. The dismantling of structures is diminished considerably under these programmes.
Sir Edward LEIGH (United Kingdom) – About 30 years ago as a young member of parliament – inspired by a think-tank that was concerned by the poverty trap – I wrote to the then Prime Minister, Mrs Thatcher, in favour of a basic income guarantee. I was promptly handbagged by her; it is an experience that I have not forgotten. She reminded me of the enormous cost. Indeed, nothing has changed. It is reckoned that if the United Kingdom were to bring in a very basic income guarantee of only £3 000, it would be the equivalent of the entire cost of the national health service. I can understand why people have argued for a basic income guarantee, as it does reduce bureaucracy in social security, but the cost is completely unaffordable.
Another reason why people are now pushing for a basic income guarantee is because they believe that, with the increasing use of robots, people will find it harder and harder to find work. But that is simply a Luddite argument. I am not sure how the word “Luddite” translates into all the many languages of the Council of Europe. The Luddites were textile workers in early 19th-century England who believed that all their jobs would go out of the window because of the new machines. Of course, they were proved completely wrong, and the industrial revolution created infinitely more jobs through mechanisation and industrialisation than it destroyed. The same thing is happening in the modern world. It is reckoned that in the United States alone, there has been a net gain of 25 million jobs since computers took off. We should be self-confident. We should not be concerned or over-worried about what new technology brings. We should embrace new technology, which will create new prosperity and wealth.
The truth is that the basic income guarantee is the last gasp of socialism. If we were to proceed down that route, any country that adopted it would be ruined and would not be able to help the poor alone. The only result would be a massive increase in taxation. I am sure that the Council of Europe will reject this ridiculous proposal.
(Mr Jonas Gunnarsson, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Seyidov.)
Ms ANTTILA (Finland) – I thank the rapporteur for her informative report on this topical matter. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to bring to this discussion some practical information about the matter, because Finland is the first European country to have launched a basic income experiment. In our pilot, 2 000 people have been selected at random to be paid a basic income of €560 per month. Everyone included in the experiment receives the same amount, which is not available to anyone else by application or otherwise. The experiment has been designed in a way that ensures that no participant will suffer negative financial consequences. This means that people receiving a basic income can continue to claim, as normal, any benefits to which they are entitled. We will analyse information from the experiment at the end of 2018 and then decide what role basic income will play in the Finnish social system in future.
I agree with the report that the social model of Europe is now under strain, following changes in economic structures, the nature of work, demographic profiles and increasing inequalities. We also need to keep in mind that this is a global question that is affected strongly by global economic trends. According to recent reports, 82% of the wealth generated last year went to the richest 1% of the global population and the gap between the richest and poorest in the world is widening. That is why we need stronger social structures and initiatives to balance injustice in society.
It is highly important that we have an open-minded discussion about the matter. By doing so, perhaps we will encourage more countries to pilot basic income.
Mr GRIN (Switzerland)* – Poverty in all its forms must be eliminated everywhere in the world by the efforts of regional, international and national authorities. All work deserves remuneration, but all remuneration deserves work. It is absurd to think that a universal income would make it possible for all individuals to participate in socio-economic life. On the contrary, if remuneration for no particular effort fell like manna from heaven every month, it would encourage laziness and would therefore stop economic growth in all countries. That would make it very difficult to fund such income; it would have to be funded – any social system that supports the vulnerable must be properly funded – but the public treasuries of many countries are already confronted with significant deficits. If this idea were accepted, it would mean higher taxation on goods and services, making consumption more expensive and reducing the purchasing power of all individuals. Paying an unconditional income every month would also attract people to move to countries that provided it.
All individuals should be independent and autonomous; they should not depend on the support of the State. Of course there needs to be a social safety net for the most disadvantaged, especially given the consequences of climate change, but each and every individual must be able to find dignity by participating in the economic life of their country and being properly remunerated for it in order to have personal economic and financial independence. Professional training is an advantage in eliminating the precarious situation of young people. Every individual has the right to dignity, but also the right to be trained and educated to contribute to the prosperity of the country in which they live.
In Switzerland, as has already been mentioned, we voted on an initiative that called for unconditional guaranteed remuneration. That initiative was rejected by three quarters of the voters. As I say, all work deserves remuneration, but all remuneration deserves work. If the idea of a universal income were accepted, how would it be funded? There would be a lack of incentives to find a job. Such incentives are always the best way for a country to combat poverty, because an active and dynamic economy, not a passive one, is the best solution to the precarious situation of members of the population who cannot find a dignified existence.
The PRESIDENT – I cannot see Mr Troy or Ms Kalmari in the Chamber, so that concludes the list of speakers.
I call Mr Schennach to reply on behalf of the rapporteur. You have two minutes.
Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* – Mr President, please give me two minutes for Ms Catalfo and two as Chair of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development.
(The speaker continued in German.)
On behalf of Ms Catalfo, I thank all members who have contributed to this debate. What strikes me as positive about it is how the various political groups have made their position clear, as have members from all the regions that make up our Organisation. To Ms Åberg and Mr Madison, I respond on behalf of Ms Catalfo by suggesting that you talk to Mr Ghiletchi about basic social values. To Mr Stevanović, I would say that there is a difference between free citizens who find themselves in free competition. The question, however, is what handicaps people start out with in life.
Ms Mergen of the Group of the European People’s Party and Mr Fridez of the Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group, as citizens of Luxembourg and Switzerland, you supported the report from different viewpoints. You both said it was timely and that it points clearly at a very topical issue. Mr Gyöngyösi from Hungary, Mr Blaha from the Slovak Republic, Ms D’Ambrosio from San Marino, Ms Bardell from the United Kingdom and Mr Bildarratz from Spain all said that we have to address this issue, recognising that it will become increasingly topical and pressing over the next few years. I listened carefully to our colleague from Finland who said that her country has started work on the matter and that its report will be available in a year’s time.
I remind colleagues what Ms Catalfo’s report says: it is an encouragement to us all to start addressing the issue. I remind those who are critical of the endeavour that we cannot afford to shy away from discussions that accompany major social change. As Mr Becht from France said, when we talk about a basic income, we obviously have to measure up what it means in the context of the overall balance of social benefits. All colleagues were quite right in saying that.
The rapporteur cannot have got it all wrong. The fact that there was only one amendment to the report demonstrates that. In a debate that has been going on for more than a year in a major committee, she succeeded in pushing the report through with a large majority. Today, as we will hear from the President, only one amendment has been tabled. I think we should leave Ms Catalfo to continue to expand the idea and the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development to work on it. There is broad support across borders that we need a debate on this issue. I commend the report to you and ask you to support that endeavour. Many thanks on behalf of the rapporteur.
The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Schennach. The debate is closed.
The Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development has presented a draft resolution, to which one amendment has been tabled.
I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.
We come to Amendment 1.
I call Ms Günay to support Amendment 1. You have 30 seconds.
Ms GÜNAY (Turkey) – This amendment aims to draw particular attention to migrants, who constitute one of the most vulnerable segments of European society and are prone to radicalisation because of their vulnerability. We are talking about human dignity and social inclusion in the report. International migration is a reality of today’s world and we cannot ignore it. My colleague from Hungary also drew attention to the migration problem.
The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Schennach.
Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – Our rapporteur was not present at the time, so I told Ms Günay that we should not mix citizenship, the income of citizenship and social security with the special topic of refugees and migrants; we should divide these things. The committee followed my arguments, with a large majority.
The PRESIDENT – I understand that the committee is against the amendment.
Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – Yes.
The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.
Amendment 1 is rejected.
We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 14462. A simple majority is required.
The vote is open.
The draft resolution in Document 14462 is adopted, with 48 votes for, 33 against and 12 abstentions.
5. Humanitarian consequences of the war in Ukraine
The PRESIDENT – The next item of business is the debate on the report titled “Humanitarian consequences of the war in Ukraine”, Document 14463, presented by Mr Egidijus Vareikis on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons.
In order to finish by 8 p.m., I will interrupt the list of speakers at about 7.30 p.m. to allow time for the reply and the vote.
I call Mr Vareikis, rapporteur. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.
Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania) – We live now in the 21st century. When I am discussing with people what can happen in the world, many of them say to me, “War is impossible because we have clever societies. Money decides on everything. Business decides on everything. Agreement decides on everything.” They say, “There will be no war”, but that was stated after the First World War, the Second World War and the Cold War. It was stated after ancient Greek wars. They said war would never happen because they had lots of clever people, but, my clever people, we have a lot of wars in the 21st century. They are even more ugly than before because we have so-called “hybrid wars”, where people are fighting without uniform and without rules – without leaders and without States. This is horrible and we had a hybrid war in Ukraine.
One universal consequence of a hybrid war is a humanitarian crisis. Where we have these wars in the 21st century, a humanitarian crisis follows – this gets bigger and bigger, deeper and deeper. My report was about the humanitarian consequences of the war in Ukraine. The situation there is alarming. More than 4 million people need humanitarian assistance as a result of the war and the annexation of the Crimean peninsula by the Russian Federation. The war has already taken more than 10 000 people, and the number of people injured during it has reached more than 24 000. In addition, more than 1.5 million people are internally displaced and almost half a million are seeking asylum in other countries – 1.5 million is more than the population of Estonia. We are a continent of medium-sized countries, so these millions represent a horrible number.
The most difficult situation is along the front lines in eastern Ukraine, particularly now, during the winter. The civilian population living close to the contact line and in areas not controlled by either side systematically faces difficulties in accessing basic services, such as electricity, heating and medical care. Due to military action, the water supply infrastructure has been frequently damaged by bombing, and people living in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions are suffering from the lack of drinking water. With the worsening economic situation in Ukraine, some 1.2 million people are now reported to be food insecure. During my visit to the area, I heard testimonies from local people who were complaining that their monthly salary is not sufficient to buy enough coal for winter.
In the occupied territories in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, the situation is also alarming because of the restrictions imposed by the illegal armed groups on freedom of movement and humanitarian access. Despite security risks, the affected people are pushed to cross the contact line in order to access social benefits and pensions, and to seek essential provisions in government-controlled territories. People are also facing daily security threats, as military actions are concentrated in highly populated urban areas. The international organisations and non-governmental organisations registered in the temporarily occupied territories record constant violations of international humanitarian law, including murder, harassment, abductions and torture.
The occupation of Crimea has had a huge impact on the local population. The Russian authorities have started implementing a policy of transferring citizens from the Russian Federation to Crimea, while also discriminating against, and persecuting on a politically motivated basis, the pro-Ukrainian population and, in particular, the Crimean Tatars. In international humanitarian law, the transfer of populations from their own territory into an occupied territory by the occupying powers amounts to a war crime. Since the occupation in 2014, 44 Ukrainians have disappeared in Crimea: six of them were found dead, 17 were released from detention, two people have been convicted and 19 are still considered missing.
That brings me to the issue of captured and missing persons during the war in Ukraine. Two separate reports were dedicated to this important issue. Until recently, the process of exchanging captured persons has been highly politicised and blocked. However, I am pleased to say that we need to amend the draft resolution, because on 27 December last year, a big exchange of captured persons in Ukraine took place, during which 74 persons were released from captivity by the illegal armed forces of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions in exchange for 238 persons released by Ukrainian authorities. I can only call on all sides of the war to show their good will and to release all captured persons as soon as possible. The recent exchange has shown that people released from captivity have a long and difficult life experience and need serious medical and moral support. We therefore call on the Ukrainian authorities to provide the mechanisms to ensure support for people who have been released from captivity and for the families of captured persons.
More than 600 people are still considered missing in that war. I would like to praise the work of the International Committee of the Red Cross for all its efforts in helping the families of missing people to find information about their loved ones. To support that important work, an appropriate legal framework is needed in order to introduce the status of missing person in Ukrainian legislation and to address all the needs of families of missing people in an effective way.
In line with captured and missing persons during the war, 64 Ukrainians have been prosecuted by the Russian authorities on a politically motivated basis. The situation of people who have been displaced as a consequence of the war and of the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation remains a crucial challenge for the Ukrainian Government. Despite some assistance from international organisations, there is a lack of sufficient financial resources to cover all the needs of internally displaced persons.
We understand that nobody in Ukraine was prepared for the displacement of 1.5 million people, but it was only at the end of last year, three years after the beginning of the war, that the government finally adopted its strategy for the integration of IDPs and a durable solution for IDPs. The action plan for implementing the strategy is pending. There is still no exact procedure for the protection of the housing and property rights of IDPs, and no assessment of the housing needs or of lost and damaged private property of IDPs has been carried out. Up to now, the government has not proposed any long-term strategy to tackle their accommodation needs.
The vulnerability of IDPs is exacerbated by the limitation of their access to pensions and social benefits. IDPs entitled to social payments or pensions are subjected to four levels of identification procedure by different institutions, which is discriminatory as that only applies to IDPs. On visiting the Donetsk oblast, I had the strong impression that the local administration is doing much work for the rehabilitation of the territories liberated after the occupation. Many international non-governmental organisations are present on site and are working in close contact with the authorities. However, many IDPs testified that they were discriminated against and did not have governmental protection.
In the draft resolution, we stress the alarming humanitarian situation in Ukraine and call on all sides of the war to ensure the protection of civilians and their full access to essential services; to release and exchange all prisoners and people captured during the war; to provide the families of missing persons with the necessary information and assistance; and to take urgent measures to remove the explosive remnants of war. Finally, we call on the international community to convene an international humanitarian conference on Ukraine to raise funding for the humanitarian relief plan.
The Council of Europe is doing a lot to help Ukraine in this difficult period. In the framework of the Council of Europe action plan for Ukraine, the project entitled “Strengthening the Human Rights Protection of Internally Displaced Persons in Ukraine” is being implemented to support governmental efforts to improve the situation, especially in the Dnipro, Kiev, Luhansk and Donetsk regions. The Committee of Ministers is now considering a new action plan for Ukraine, and its adoption has been significantly delayed. I have also proposed a draft recommendation encouraging the Committee of Ministers to continue its efforts to assist Ukraine in solving IDP problems in the framework of the action plan 2018-2021.
Dear colleagues, this resolution and recommendation are very important for the Ukrainian people, and I ask you to support them. Many thanks for your attention.
The PRESIDENT – Mr Vareikis, you have just over two minutes remaining. The first speaker on behalf of the political groups is Kerstin Lundgren.
Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden, Spokesperson for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe) – I thank Mr Vareikis for an excellent report. It is important that we all follow what is ongoing in Ukraine – and ongoing it is. There is an alarming humanitarian crisis and an unsolved situation due to the war by the Russian Federation in eastern Ukraine and, of course, the illegal annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. It is not possible for us to fully monitor the situation for people in the war zone or Crimea, but it is important that this report follows in the footsteps of reports by former rapporteurs for missing people, captured persons, IDPs and all in need of humanitarian support.
We know well how many people are concerned, and it is costly for every society. About 1.6 million IDPs were registered last year from Donetsk and Luhansk. About 60% of them are women. Some 4.4 million people have been affected by the war, of whom 4 million are estimated to be in need of humanitarian support. That is almost 10% of the population affected. Of course there is a humanitarian crisis. There is a lack of means to handle the situation inside war-torn Ukraine. The economy is affected, as are growth and prosperity.
Still, there are possibilities. People want peace and development. We hope and urge the Verkhovna Rada to do what it can to help the situation. Ukraine needs our support. Only 26% of its appeal for funds has been fulfilled. The suggestions in the report are timely. I hope that the agreement to exchange all prisoners of war will be fulfilled. A good message has been put forward by prisoners being released by the Ukrainian side at first and then by others, and I hope that that will be followed by more. Most of all, I hope that Ukraine will get peace and full control over its territory.
Mr HUNKO (Germany, Spokesperson for the Group of the Unified European Left)* – It is a good thing that we are talking this evening about the humanitarian impact of this crisis. It is also good that the report sets out a series of practical proposals. I have had the opportunity to visit the east of Ukraine. I have seen refugee camps and hospitals that have been destroyed, and I have seen people working on the ground to provide aid. It is very good that the report proposes a series of practical measures concerning both sides, such as the release of political prisoners. In a time of war, it is essential that we do everything that we can to alleviate the pressure on the civilian population. Sadly, on both sides, journalists are being persecuted. We have a journalist with us today who was threatened with 13 years in prison.
I have two critical comments to make about the report. It not only sets out practical measures but provides a narrative to the conflict, talking about who is responsible and the background to the situation. Unfortunately, the Russian side is criticised on 17 occasions, including in the concept of the illegal annexation of Crimea, but no reference made to the fact that the Ukrainians have some share of the blame, with the mention of the deployment of the Ukrainian military in April 2014 in the so-called anti-terrorist campaign in Donbass. Such a one-sided depiction of the crisis is not necessarily helpful in addressing the humanitarian crisis.
Minsk II was the only possible window to enable us to move towards peace, but it is hardly touched on in the report. Paragraph 3 makes a positive reference to a law that Minsk II should have replaced. It is somewhat dangerous that the report, which I remind delegates is supposed to address humanitarian issues, seems to have a concealed agenda. We have tabled Amendments 2 and 3, which would maintain the commitment to Minsk II. I hope that they will be adopted. I would like us to have the opportunity to ask the rapporteur whether he believes that Minsk II still represents the road to peace for Ukraine.
Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova, Spokesperson for the Group of the European People’s Party) – On behalf of the EPP, I thank the rapporteur for a detailed and comprehensive report concerning the humanitarian crisis in Ukraine and the consequences of the war and the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. It is very sad indeed to know that so many lives were lost and that many more people were injured or displaced as a result of the war. It is a heart-breaking situation. Much more needs to be done to help Ukraine to ease the humanitarian crisis. That is why I endorse and support the findings and recommendations of the report.
In an article published in The Economist, a senior rebel commander in Donetsk said: “Too much blood has been spilled to speak of peace.” If I had a chance to talk to this man, I would have said to him that it is never – but never – too late to speak of peace. I also wholeheartedly agree with the words of Mr Walker, the United Nations Humanitarian Co-ordinator in Ukraine, who said that “lasting peace is the only solution for millions of people affected.”
I am particularly glad that the resolution calls for compromises from all parties involved in the armed conflict. One such example is the call to “release all … prisoners and persons captured by the illegal armed groups of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions and imprisoned in Ukraine in the context of the war, while respecting their rights and freedoms, and, until they are released, allow the monitoring of their state of health and conditions of detention by independent international monitors”. Access by the Red Cross is very important. In this day and age, when polarisation reaches dangerous levels, people seem to be more interested in the blame game than in identifying solutions and making compromises that would achieve tangible results on the ground.
I agree that more funding is needed. Thus, the request that the Council of Europe Development Bank should create affordable loan programmes is to be welcomed. Ongoing funding by the international community is essential in the response to such a humanitarian crisis. We should not forget that this crisis is taking place at the heart of Europe. If we cannot be good neighbours, how can we be good and trustworthy partners for countries from other continents? The time to act is now.
The report is well timed, as Ukraine and its war are no longer on the front pages of our media. It is interesting to note this aspect of human nature: if it is not on television, we think that everything must be fine. Nothing can be more misleading than that. My hope is that, by debating and approving this report, we will increase the visibility of the crisis, as war is war and millions of women and children are suffering and pressingly require our help. I hope that today all member States will show solidarity and support the report and its recommendations, thus creating favourable circumstances for starting to solve the problem that affects Ukraine.
Ms CHUGOSHVILI (Georgia, Spokesperson for the Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group) – I thank Mr Vareikis for the important resolution that he has proposed on the humanitarian consequences of the war in Ukraine. I represent a country that in recent history has experienced the consequences of war and witnessed a humanitarian crisis. In my view, the resolution deserves not only political support but personal support from another victim of Russian aggression.
War in eastern Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation resulted in an alarming humanitarian situation and, as the rapporteur mentioned, affected more than 4 million people. Armed conflict has taken the lives of more than 10 000 people and has injured 24 000 people, with more than 1.6 million people being internally displaced. The Assembly should be concerned about the fact that no significant progress has been made on the implementation of its previous resolutions on the war in Ukraine.
The proposed resolution once again calls on the Russian Federation to stop military aggression against Ukraine, to restore territorial integrity, to cease all financial and military support to the illegal armed groups in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions and to ensure respect for human rights and the security of all people living in annexed Crimea. Those demands are legitimate. The real question is what stand this Assembly will take if its resolutions continue to be ignored.
It is also important that a comprehensive strategy for internally displaced persons is adopted, ensuring their political and social rights as well as their reintegration. My country, Georgia, went through this process years ago. Although we acknowledge the challenges relating to implementing a comprehensive strategy on IDPs, it is vital for the people who suffered in the war.
In the name of the group that I represent, I highlight the importance of the Minsk Agreements, which are a roadmap for a peaceful and diplomatic resolution of the conflict in the east of Ukraine. I once again thank the rapporteur and hope that the Assembly will find ways effectively to implement this important resolution once it is adopted.
Ms GOGUADZE (Georgia, Spokesperson for the European Conservatives Group) – I thank the rapporteur for preparing this document and for once again revealing the dramatic humanitarian crisis in Ukraine. Along with the military interventions, we are witnessing human rights violations in the most brutal ways, including the isolation of the Ukrainian people who reside in the occupied territories and the demographic changes in Crimea. Reading this document gives one an unavoidable feeling of déjà vu, relating to the situation in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
The isolation of people residing in the occupied territories is the main feature of Russia’s aggressive policy. Like the populations of Donetsk and Luhansk, people in Abkhazia and South Ossetia have their freedom of movement restricted. A 100-kilometre barbed-wire fence surrounds these two Georgian territories, splitting the country and dividing families. People living along the occupation line face the threat of illegal detention by Russian soldiers every day. The imposition of demographic changes in the occupied territories is another signature of Russian policy. In Crimea, Crimean Tatars are forced to leave their homes. In Georgia, in the Gali region, for similar reasons, local ethnic Georgians have been forced to change their Georgian names and deny their ethnic identity, or else they cannot access even basic local social services. This is another indirect pressure to force people to leave their homes.
The Russian Federation is exclusively present in the occupied territories. An international presence is completely forbidden in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. In the same manner, international humanitarian organisations are restricted in the occupied territories of Ukraine. This creates a significant barrier for international organisations in providing essential assistance for the conflict-affected population. That is the dramatic face of Russian occupation, which still continues. This process is not in the interest of Georgia and Ukraine, or in the interest of the people residing in occupied territories. It is not in the interest of European security.
It is obvious that using ethnic conflicts as a tool to keep the situation in the region unstable is a main characteristic of Russia’s policy. Almost all the countries in Russia’s neighbourhood – Georgia, Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova, Azerbaijan, and Armenia – have unresolved conflicts. They have different features, but one orchestrator. And still, in Georgia, we move forward to implement our peaceful policy, which aims for the de-occupation of the country and reconciliation of the people divided by the conflict. We try to reach people suffering from the humanitarian crisis and offer more services than are available in other parts of the country. Finally, I stress the importance of the principled position of the international community in this process, and especially of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. All member States should raise their voices against continued occupation and humanitarian crisis in conflict-affected areas.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The rapporteur will reply at the end of the debate, but does Mr Vareikis want to respond at this stage? That is not the case.
6. Election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Spain
THE PRESIDENT – I break into the debate to announce the results of the election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Spain.
Number voting: 248
Blank or spoiled ballot papers: 21
Votes cast: 227
Absolute majority: 114
The votes cast were as follows:
Ms María Elósegui Ichaso: 114
Mr José Martín y Pérez de Nanclares: 76
Mr Francisco de Asís Pérez De Los Cobos Orihuel: 37
Accordingly, Ms María Elósegui Ichaso, having obtained an absolute majority of votes cast, is elected a judge of the European Court of Human Rights for a term of office of nine years starting not later than three months after her election.
7. Election of a Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights
THE PRESIDENT – I must also announce the results of the election for the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights.
Number voting: 250
Blank or spoiled ballot papers: 2
Votes cast: 248
Absolute majority: 125
The votes were cast as follows:
Mr Goran Klemenčič: 67
Mr Pierre-Yves Le Borgn’: 105
Ms Dunja Mijatović: 76
None of the candidates having obtained an absolute majority of the votes cast, a second round of voting will be held on Wednesday 24 January from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. and from 3.30 p.m. to 5 p.m., in which a relative majority will be required.
8. Humanitarian consequences of the war in Ukraine – resumed debate
THE PRESIDENT – We resume the debate on the humanitarian consequences of the war in Ukraine. I call Ms Duranton.
Ms DURANTON (France)* – I welcome Mr Vareikis’s excellent report. Once again, he reminds us of the dramatic situation in eastern Ukraine, and I support his balanced draft resolution.
The conflict, lasting nearly four years, between armed forces and separatist insurgents, supported militarily and financially by the Russians, has resulted in more than 10 000 deaths, 25 000 people injured and more than 1 million IDPs, while 4 million people require humanitarian assistance. These terrible figures are shocking and there have been many cease-fire violations. For instance, 26 people died in December alone. Civilian infrastructure is being targeted, mines are laid out in the area of conflict and de-mining activities are not as significant as required. Russia’s decision to withdraw from the Joint Centre for Control and Co-ordination is making it very difficult for the OSCE mission to carry out its work properly. I welcome the courage of the members of that mission.
The Minsk Agreement of February 2015 is not respected, cease-fires are never kept, heavy arms have not been withdrawn, Ukraine cannot control its frontier and the withdrawal of foreign armed forces is still hypothetical. No credible solution seems to be on the horizon. The political aspect of the Minsk Agreement is blocked, whether by the constitutional revision introducing decentralisation, the law on local elections in Donbass, the special status of the areas of this region currently controlled by the separatists or the amnesty law. Political dialogue is continuing in the Normandy format, and France has made its will clear: it is committed to this issue. The President of the Republic met his Russian homologues on 29 May and his Ukrainian ones on 26 June, but in the field, concrete progress is extremely limited. However, we welcome the exchange of prisoners on 27 December, the only such event in 2017, which involved more than 300 people.
Finally, I remind the Ukrainian authorities how important it is to meet their commitments in combating corruption. It is fundamental for the economic development of the country and, more broadly, for the future of democracy in Ukraine, to deal with this scourge. The arrest under absolutely extraordinary circumstances of the former Georgian President, Mikheil Saakashvili, who, rightly or wrongly, incarnated this combat, is disquieting. It is vital that we let the national anti-corruption bureau of Ukraine work freely. It will not help much if Ukraine continues to fight in Donbass but capitulates when it comes to corruption.
Mr NOVYNSKYI (Ukraine)* – I, too, thank Mr Vareikis, who has done an enormous job of work preparing this exhaustive, balanced and objective report on the serious humanitarian consequences of the war in Donbass.
It is obvious that Mr Vareikis has the main aim of trying to help ordinary Ukrainians in the area of military activity who are suffering because of the conflict. However, this cannot be said of the Ukrainian authorities, who treat residents of Donetsk and Luhansk as guilty for the conflict. After the Monitoring Committee’s text was adopted, the Ukrainian authorities went even further. They have adopted a law – the so-called de-occupation law – that makes it possible for army soldiers and special services to search people’s homes and detain them without judicial oversight. It also makes it possible to open criminal proceedings against individuals without any decision by the prosecution. At the beginning of December, at a meeting of the committee, I made it clear that the law directly contradicts the Ukrainian Constitution and, in particular, the provision that sets out the procedure for declaring a state of war on Ukrainian territory.
A state of war can only be proclaimed by the president, but it was done by parliament, which sent a delegation to the president to declare a state of war on the territory of Donbass. That means that in these two oblasts the electoral process is being fully controlled by the central authorities. In the law, there is no reference to the Minsk Agreements, which have been confirmed by the United Nations Security Council and are mentioned in four Assembly resolutions. This means that the Ukrainian Parliament is making it clear to the entire world that they do not want a diplomatic settlement to the conflict.
I believe that these steps by the Ukrainian authorities are a flagrant violation of the commitments taken on by the country, and we must not give legitimacy in an Assembly resolution to this law. So I call on the Assembly to reject this proposal and to support my amendment.
Mr GOLUB (Ukraine) – We are facing the fourth year of Russian aggression against Ukraine. During this time, more than 10 000 Ukrainians have been killed, more than 20 000 wounded and 1.8 million people from Donbass and Crimea have become internally displaced persons. The total number of people who left their homes as a result of hostilities in Donbass exceeded 2 million, while 3.4 million people need protection and humanitarian assistance. In 2017, 1.2 million people were below the poverty line because of the war in Donbass. About 1 million people were not provided with food. Those figures will only increase every day unless we find a way to force the Russian Federation to withdraw from Ukraine and to subdue its imperial ambitions in the territory of modern Europe.
The war in Donbass caused many tragedies. First was the tragedy of the people who perished or lost relatives, their homes, property, work and, for some, even hope of a return to regular life. The pro-Russian militants turned cities and villages in the occupied Ukrainian territories into enclaves, where people must try to survive in every possible way.
The war in Donbass is a tragedy of the military, activists, volunteers and all Ukrainian citizens who became the innocent victims of the war and were taken captive, which is sometimes laced with slavery. Twenty-six sites with mass graves and concentration camps have been recorded. Prisoners are used extensively in hard labour to construct fortifications and military defence works and to take the property of Ukrainian enterprises to the Russian Federation. Diseases, hunger, cold, lack of opportunities to work, study or receive proper social assistance and risk of premature death are all things that the Russian Federation has brought to Ukraine.
When discussing the humanitarian consequences of Russian aggression in Donbass, we must understand that it is not only about Ukraine. It is also about the history of the European continent. The war concerns not only my country: it could have large-scale regional consequences that will shape the emergence of a new Europe where conflicts and the power of force, rather than the power of law, will determine laws and relationships.
The only effective means of accelerating the solution to the humanitarian problems of occupied Donbass and Crimea is withdrawal by the Russian Federation of its military forces from Ukrainian territories. We will not be able to speak about a solution of the problem otherwise, because further presence – especially an increase of the Russian military force in Donbass – will indicate the Russian Federation’s desire to hold the occupied territories as a zone of “controlled chaos” or “frozen conflict”, which will affect both Ukraine and Europe.
I note that humanitarian catastrophe may be one of the Russian Federation’s tactical gambits in its hybrid aggression against Ukraine. The profound humanitarian catastrophe weakens Ukraine and creates problems for Europe, as it will affect the situation with refugees and deepen contradictions regarding the situation in Donbass in general.
Lord BALFE (United Kingdom) – I thank the rapporteur for the report. I am not sure, though, that it takes us much further forward. It seems that we now have a quarterly report on Ukraine, but we never get down to the basic problems. The fact of the matter is that Ukraine was always a frail state: we turned it into a failed state.
There was a lot of activity from the West, from the European Union and from the United States that led to the present problems. Yanukovych had just about managed to hold the country together. The West was part of the reason it fell apart. We hear a lot at the moment about the Crimea. I cannot find anything in the annals of this noble body in 1954 protesting when the Russian Federation decided to add the Crimea to Ukraine. We did not seem to mind when it went one way: we now mind when it goes the other. Why do we not come out for a United Nations-run plebiscite in Ukraine? Let the people there decide where they want to be.
The absence of the Russian Federation from our deliberations is not helpful, because it is an unbalanced debate. We never hear the other side, however unreasonable the other side may be. I am quite prepared to believe that it is unreasonable, because Russians have a habit of being slightly unreasonable. It is not a very balanced debate if you only have one side putting forward their problems. The fact is that the boundaries of Ukraine have moved backwards and forwards. Crimea has been added and, as late as 1945, the western boundary of Ukraine was moved. After the First World War, the western boundary was moved into Poland. So we are not looking at a country like France with 2 000 years of history: we are looking at a country that has had a lot of mobility on its borders. Some sort of plebiscite in the various areas may be a way forward.
The report does identify a lot of major problems which need a solution. It will certainly need a lot of money to solve it, and it will certainly need Ukraine to tackle its corruption if that money is ever to get where it is directed. For the moment, I welcome our quarterly report, but I am not confident that we are any further forward than we were three months ago.
Mr BLAHA (Slovakia) – I am very sorry for the people in Ukraine who are dying in the war. They are dying especially in Donbass and this region should have our strong solidarity. I stress that the war is the responsibility of the geopolitical powers and I am very sorry that the innocent Ukrainian people are dying because of the geopolitical struggle of the superpowers.
I agree with Mr Hunko that there is also responsibility on the Ukrainian side. As far as I know, Ukraine soldiers do not throw flowers at Donbass destinations. They use weapons against their own citizens. To blame only the Russian Federation is not objective. There are many authentic Ukrainian supporters of autonomy for the Donbass living in the region: nobody can believe that all the people of Donbass are Russian agents. Dialogue and diplomacy is always better than war and anti-terrorist rhetoric by the State authorities.
I do not believe in fairy tales about angels and devils. I do not consider Ukraine or the Russian Federation either angel or devil. Slovakia has very good relations with both Ukraine and the Russian Federation. We did our best in providing humanitarian help to Ukraine and I see the authentic efforts of ordinary Slovakian people to help the victims of war in Donbass. The Slovakian Government even helped the Ukrainian Government with the reverse transit of gas when the winter crisis came some time ago. We like the Ukrainian people and want to support them, but we do not consider the Russian Federation an enemy. No, the Russian Federation liberated us from fascism. It is an important European partner for us, and many people in Slovakia respect it as a friend. Of course, we condemn its breaches of international law, but we believe in dialogue and diplomacy, not in sanctions and Russophobia. We should debate with Russians whenever possible, even here in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. I do not understand why there are sanctions against the Russian delegation, not because I defend the Russians – I criticise Mr Putin a lot – but because I believe in open debate. I do not believe in a one-sided lynching.
Without an open parliamentary debate with the Russians, I cannot support this report, because I do not consider it the result of a democratic process. We are writing about one Council of Europe member State without giving it an opportunity to vote on the report. That is not fair. I wish for peace for the people of Ukraine, and I hope that Europe displays less Russophobia.
Ms SOTNYK (Ukraine) – I prepared a speech, but I am not going to read it. I was shocked by some of my colleagues’ interventions. Perhaps they did not read the title of the report: it is about a war in Ukraine that was started by the Russian Federation. That means that there is a victim and an aggressor. This Parliamentary Assembly was the first to name the Russian Federation the aggressor and Ukraine the victim, so I would have thought that, after four years, there was no doubt about that, but I can see that something has changed.
Three days ago, I went to Ukraine and was invited to an interview on TV. Before my interview was the news, and the last slot was about the humanitarian situation in Ukraine that has been caused by the war. It was about children in Luhansk. The video was made by accident: some TV journalists went there to conduct some interviews and to ask military personnel how everything was going, and when they were talking to one of the soldiers, bombing started from the side of occupied Donetsk and Luhansk. It was the middle of the day, and children were coming back from school. They began to cry and run, and they asked the soldiers to help them and take them home because they were scared. I sent that video to my ALDE colleagues to explain not with words but through people’s real lives the humanitarian consequences of the war in Ukraine, which was started by the Russians.
Those people do not understand politics. They do not know what you are talking about and what interests you are protecting. They just want peace. Our only chance to kick out Putin from our land, which is in the centre of Europe, just some hundreds of kilometres from this place, is to be united. Together we can kick out Putin.
Ms SCHOU (Norway) – I thank the rapporteur, Mr Vareikis, for this important and well-written report. He describes an alarming humanitarian situation in the occupied territories in Donetsk and Luhansk. More than 4 million people are estimated to be in need of humanitarian assistance. Four years after the outbreak of the military conflict in eastern Ukraine and the Russian annexation of Crimea, the number of civilian victims is on the rise, while damage to housing and critical infrastructure, such as the water supply and electricity, is increasing. Such a situation should be unheard of in Europe in 2018.
I therefore find it disappointing that the humanitarian response plan proposed by the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs for 2017 was largely under-financed – only 26% of the required funding was received. As members of the Council of Europe, we should do our utmost to support Ukraine, both through bilateral efforts and through a co-ordinated international humanitarian response. It is our responsibility to follow the situation carefully. It cannot be overlooked.
Norway’s support for Ukraine remains firm. It has fully implemented the European Union sanctions imposed on the Russian Federation, and we continue to stand alongside our NATO allies and our partners in the European Union in response to the Russian Federation’s violations of international law. Norway’s support package to Ukraine, which amounted to about 200 million Norwegian krone in 2017, goes to the extensive reform process and humanitarian work in the area affected by the conflict in eastern Ukraine, and to Ukrainian and international humanitarian organisations that operate in the affected area. Norway also provides personnel for the OSCE monitoring mission in Ukraine.
I commend Ukraine for its reform agenda and the results it has achieved so far under very difficult circumstances. It is now important to follow through on the implementation of reforms, particularly those relating to corruption and justice, which are a crucial part of building a sustainable democracy.
Mr LIASHKO (Ukraine)* – While we discuss the important issue of how to cope with the humanitarian consequences of the Russian aggression, in this very Chamber the representatives of the Russian Federation and political groups are taking part in secret negotiations, in which the issue of returning the Russian Federation to this Chamber is being discussed. The motive is that there is a shortage of funds, and they want to bring the aggressor to this Chamber.
People have talked about peace and friendship, but how can they talk to the aggressor? Who is going to return parents who have been killed? My friend Sergei from the Poltava region was killed yesterday as a result of Russian bombing. Who is going to reunite parents and their children, given that so many children have already died as a result of Russian aggression? Some 20% of industrial production has been lost. Who is going to bring back Prokofiev airport in Donetsk – one of our best airports? When are we going to hear the Ukrainian anthem in the stadium in Donetsk city? When are Ukrainian miners going to go back to their mines and start working? They cannot do that because of Russian aggression.
Some of the people saying that we should make friends with Putin are from countries that suffered from Hitler’s aggression. One of the United Kingdom’s representatives said that something is wrong with the borders. Perhaps he forgot that Strasbourg was once not part of France. We should be discussing not how to return the Russian Federation to this Chamber, but how to stop Russian aggression. Today, Ukrainians are paying with their blood and their territory in their struggle to protect us all and defend human rights, the rule of law and democracy. I assume that most of you still respect the inviolability of borders, so you should respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity, because if Ukraine’s integrity is disrespected today, where is the guarantee that your own countries’ borders will be respected tomorrow? Ukraine is a strong nation and one of the biggest in Europe, so it is important to secure peace, but at this important time of struggle against a modern tyranny, we should look for unity, not subterfuge or excuses for eating red caviar at the same table as the Russians.
Ms IONOVA (Ukraine) – I thank Mr Vareikis for his report. My colleagues have already mentioned a lot of issues, but I draw your attention to the grave human rights violations in the temporarily occupied territories of the Donbass region. More than 70 Ukrainians who were illegally detained have been released, but I draw your attention to terminology. Ukraine has handed over more than 300 criminals – a few days ago Ukraine even handed over a woman who had let off a grenade, killing two Ukrainian soldiers – but we are ready to bring our hostages back home. After one and a half years the process was unblocked, yet there are still dozens of hostages in Donbass, Crimea and the Russian Federation. These are all grave violations of Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which cover the right to life, the prohibition of torture and forced labour
Last week, we organised a meeting between our ambassadors and those who had recently been released. The ambassadors cried when they heard their testimonies. “Inhuman treatment” often implies torture, solitary confinement – almost four years of it – and forced labour, which included sorting out and burying the corpses of Ukrainian soldiers killed in action. These people were also victims of blatant intimidation. Examinations conducted in the course of providing medical help to those liberated confirmed indications of torture and the denial of access to medical aid. Not one of these 70 people had any teeth. There were sexual violations, and they were denied contact with relatives and not allowed to receive food supplies from them. That is why international human rights organisations usually have no access to prisoners in the occupied territories. The international community should be alarmed by these most recent testimonies. Together, we must take action to prevent flagrant human rights violations and alleviate people’s suffering in the illegally occupied territories.
Yesterday, the Secretary General highlighted the four articles of the European Convention on Human Rights that are red lines for membership of the Council of Europe. There is clear evidence of brutal violations of these articles by the Russian Federation and Russian-led forces in Ukraine. I cannot understand the position of the leadership of this Organisation in speaking about principles and values but advocating the lifting of restrictions on those guilty of violating them. In Ukraine, we have adopted missing person legislation, as we have more than 1 000 missing people in the occupied territory, and we are also finalising a draft law on civilian de-mining.
Ms TOPCU (Turkey) – I thank the rapporteur for this important, meaningful and comprehensive report. Recent developments have led to a further separation of the civilian population living on both sides of the line of contact. Almost four years since hostilities began in eastern Ukraine, human suffering is intensifying. With negotiations not resulting in a political breakthrough thus far. and funding for humanitarian aid at critically low levels, the situation is still at crisis level for the 4 million people in need of assistance.
It is crucial that humanitarian needs are given appropriate consideration and that all stakeholders share a common understanding of the situation on the ground in order to find realistic solutions. Besides humanitarian needs, there have been ongoing serious human right violations in the area since 2014. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights published a report on 25 September 2017, entitled “Situation of human rights in the temporarily occupied Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol”. The report says that those most affected were opponents of the March 2014 referendum and other critics, such as journalists, bloggers, civil society activists and supporters of the Mejlis, a representative institution of Crimean Tatars that was declared an extremist organisation and banned in April 2016. Under the pretext of fighting extremism, the Russian Federation authorities in Crimea carried out house searches and intimidated and detained members of the Crimean Tatar community.
It is almost four years since hostilities began in the region, and human suffering and human rights violations are intensifying. With negotiations not resulting in a political breakthrough thus far and international humanitarian aid at critically low levels, the situation is still at crisis level for the 4 million people in need of assistance. In this context, I firmly hope that this unacceptable human tragedy ends as soon as possible.
Mr FRIDEZ (Switzerland)* – Since 2014, the fighting under way in Eastern Ukraine has led to terrible consequences for the civilian population. We very much welcome the desire voiced in the report to seek the most appropriate and humane solutions available to enable us to alleviate the humanitarian consequences of the conflict in Ukraine and bring about improvements for the civilian population affected by combat, improving their future in the region.
The war in eastern Ukraine is one of the knock-on effects of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the geopolitical upheaval in the region. The States are based on former administrative frontiers that are often questioned by current States, some of which want to be closer to their big Russian neighbour. In 2014, the then president of the OSCE, a Swiss compatriot of mine, Didier Burkhalter, set out a position, with which I agree, namely that the best way of trying to solve this conflict is dialogue, negotiation and practising the art of compromise. This is perhaps a long road, but it is always the most effective. The Minsk Agreements are of decisive importance if we are to bring about the hoped-for solution to this problem. I call on all involved to take a step in the right direction and enable us to move towards a solution. We have to try to find a compromise that will enable us to find a way out of this conflict – a dignified solution that will respect human rights and enable major improvements in the short term for the local civilian population.
I very much welcome the exchange of prisoners on both sides of the divide that took place in the Christmas break. That provides a sign of hope that we are moving towards a solution to this difficult question. I remind you that the Minsk Agreements provided for an immediate cease-fire. Monitoring the cease-fire would be the responsibility of the OSCE, an organisation universally recognised as neutral. Permanent monitoring of the border between the Russian Federation and Ukraine by the OSCE would enable the setting up of a security zone, the immediate release of all hostages and illegal detainees and the adoption of Ukrainian legislation outlawing the criminal pursuit of those accused of war in the Donbass region – all this to pave the way to peace, not to mention dialogue between the different parties, the implementation of measures to bring about improvements in the humanitarian situation in Donbass, the organisation of early elections in the zones in question, demilitarisation of the conflict zone with the withdrawal of military hardware, armed forces and foreign fighters, and the implementation of an economic programme to promote development in the zones in question.
I am still convinced that the future of the region depends on the implementation of the agreements. I see no other potential solution. We obviously support all proposals designed to alleviate the humanitarian consequences of this war on the outer edges of our continent.
Mr TILKI (Hungary) – I congratulate the rapporteur on his comprehensive analysis. The humanitarian situation deserves particular attention from the member States of the Council of Europe. We welcome the fact that the report pays special attention to the needs of the people who have been displaced by the war. We agree with the rapporteur’s assessment that the adoption of the comprehensive strategy for internally displaced persons, ensuring their political and social rights and their integration, should be one of the Ukrainian Government’s priorities.
I highlight that Hungary has been a strong supporter of the independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine. The conflict in eastern Ukraine, and its humanitarian consequences, continue to be a cause for grave concern. Hungary supports a peaceful overall political solution. Hungary was committed to supporting the Euro-Atlantic integration of Ukraine, but we express our serious concerns regarding the new legislative initiatives, especially the adoption of the new law on education. We remain convinced that that new law will not help the proper settlement of the conflict in eastern Ukraine and is therefore in contradiction of the international efforts of the Normandy format to resolve the situation in eastern Ukraine.
None the less, Hungary does not pursue a policy against Ukraine. On the contrary: the restrictive legislative process of Kiev was initiated, despite the Hungary aid policy. During the past four years, Hungary granted $105 million to Ukraine. That sum includes special aid granted for injured Ukrainian soldiers, language teaching of Ukrainian military staff and humanitarian aid for the internally displaced families and children of eastern Ukraine, as well as for holiday programmes for those Ukrainian children whose fathers were active or were killed in eastern Ukraine. Furthermore, Hungarian authorities granted full scholarships, in the framework of the Stipendium Hungaricum, to Ukrainian nationals to undertake studies in Hungary.
We welcome the special attention of the Council of Europe on Ukraine. We hope that the Ukrainian authorities will use the means and advice given by this Organisation to speed the proper implementation of the democratic reform process, in line with their international obligations.
Ms MEHL (Norway) – The Council of Europe was founded on the values of all member States to promote democracy, human rights and the rule of law, and we are living in a world where those values are ever so important. Yet again, the Council of Europe is dealing with a serious humanitarian crisis inflicted by the attack of one member State on another. Like many members, I am deeply concerned about the situation of the millions of people in Ukraine who are directly or indirectly affected by the illegal Russian annexation of Crimea. I therefore welcome and support the report, which is important for securing a better outlook for the future of Ukraine and its people.
The report points out a range of serious matters, but it is important to keep in mind that they are also urgent. First of all, the need for humanitarian support is urgent, because every day the situation is allowed to continue means more suffering for the civilians affected. Essential human rights are at stake. Every child has the right to grow up in a safe environment. Every person in the world should have access to fresh water, to shelter at night and to live free of poverty and despair. No one should be deprived of their freedom without good reason, without judgment and without trial, which is now not the case for millions of people affected by the war in Ukraine.
Secondly, things are urgent because every day the occupation is allowed to continue, the outlook for a solution becomes increasingly complex. I specifically refer to the serious issue that, according to the report, Russian authorities are transferring civilian populations from the Russian Federation to the Crimea, discriminating against the pro-Ukrainian population and deporting people who lack Russian citizenship from the annexed area to Ukraine. We have seen in conflicts previously that occupiers aim to change the demography, in order to make it more difficult for the occupied State to regain sovereignty over the occupied area.
On those grounds, I once again underline the importance of the report and of the Council of Europe standing together to take the necessary actions to aid the humanitarian situation, and working together to ensure a peaceful future for Ukraine and its population.
The PRESIDENT – I must now interrupt the list of speakers. The speeches of members on the speakers list who have been present during the debate but have not been able to speak may be given to the Table Office for publication in the Official Report. I remind colleagues that typewritten texts can be submitted, electronically if possible, no later than four hours after the list of speakers is interrupted.
I call Mr Vareikis, the rapporteur, to reply. You have just over two minutes. The floor is yours.
Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania) – I thank my friends and colleagues who participated in the debate. It is extremely important that they not only read the report but expressed their views on it. I understand from their opinions that there is a general understanding that the consequences of the war in Ukraine are very serious and that the countries that are guilty and responsible for those consequences are member States of the Council of Europe, so all the guilt and solutions are here.
I also thank Lord Balfe, who said that Ukraine is not really a complete State. It changed its border. It was not a known political entity until the end of the First World War, and it has changed many times; it is not like France, or like Britain, which cannot change its borders because it is an island. Ukraine has a 1 000-year history and historical responsibilities. It has not to be part of the Russian Empire or the Ottoman or Habsburg Empires; it has to be an independent, responsible, strong and well-organised State. When writing the report, we sometimes criticised Ukraine and also tried to help it. We tried to establish the long-standing political project of Ukraine. What we do now, if members support the report, will be a step toward the creation of a strong, responsible State that can defend itself.
I thank the secretariat, who helped very much in preparing the report, especially in supplying technical data and numbers. That was very useful. We have a few amendments to the report, which we will consider and probably support.
The PRESIDENT – I call the chairperson of the committee.
Ms FIALA (Switzerland) – I thank Mr Vareikis for his serious and valuable work. I call on member States to support the adoption of the draft resolution and recommendations.
It is my honour and pleasure to speak on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, which I now chair following this morning’s election. The committee has been dealing with the different aspects of the humanitarian situation in Ukraine since the outbreak of the armed conflict. We have submitted to the Assembly a number of resolutions on internal displacement, Ukrainian refugees, and captured and missing people. We have very firmly insisted on the release of Nadiia Savchenko, who was a member of our committee.
The committee has contacts not only with representatives of the Ukrainian authorities, but with representatives of civil society and with international organisations active in troubled areas, as illustrated by a number of hearings and exchanges of views. The members of the committee – which is also working on another report on addressing the humanitarian needs of internally displaced persons – received lessons on future challenges in Europe. Mr Munyama, acknowledged that the number of internally displaced persons in Ukraine is by far the highest of all European countries, as it amounts to 1.7 million people – almost 2 million lives that have been affected by the war. Finally, I recommend that members see the exhibition in the foyer because sometimes photos can say more than words.
The PRESIDENT – The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons has presented a draft resolution to which 14 amendments have been tabled.
The committee has also presented a draft recommendation to which no amendments have been tabled.
I understand that the committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendments 11, 13 and 9 to the draft resolution, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly. Is that so Mr Vareikis?
Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania) – Yes.
The PRESIDENT – Does anyone object? That is not the case.
Amendments 11, 13 and 9 are adopted.
The remaining amendments will be taken individually in the order in which they appear in the Organisation of Debates and the revised Compendium issued today. We will therefore now consider Amendment 7. I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.
I call Ms Ionova to support Amendment 7.
Ms IONOVA (Ukraine) – Our amendment concerns the ongoing Russian aggression. Twelve people were killed only this month since the start of 2018. There is no cease-fire and there is effective control by the Russian authorities, so we want to underline the fact that the Russian aggression is still ongoing.
The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Ms FIALA (Switzerland) – The committee, with an overwhelming majority, is in favour of the amendment.
The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.
Amendment 7 is adopted.
We come to Amendment 4. If the amendment is agreed to, Amendment 1 will fall. I call Ms Ionova to support Amendment 4.
Ms IONOVA (Ukraine) – This is a technical amendment, as the Ukrainian Parliament has adopted the legislation as a whole. The draft law defines the policy of restoring sovereignty over the temporarily occupied territories that are under pro-Russian administration.
The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Ms FIALA (Switzerland) – The amendment is supported by an overwhelming majority of the committee.
The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.
Amendment 4 is adopted.
We come to Amendment 2. I call Mr Novynskyi to support the amendment.
Mr NOVYNSKYI (Ukraine)* – The Minsk Agreement is the only hope for a peaceful settlement now that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has, in four resolutions, confirmed the Minsk Agreements. Please be consistent and support this amendment in order that this is fully taken into consideration.
The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Ms FIALA (Switzerland) – The committee voted 14 to 11 against the amendment, with two abstentions.
The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.
Amendment 2 is rejected.
We come to Amendment 12. Mr Türkeş is not here to support Amendment 12 on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons.
Amendment 12 is not moved.
We come to Amendment 5. I call on Ms Ionova to support the amendment.
Ms IONOVA (Ukraine) – At the end of paragraph 4, we would like to add that, “the Assembly welcomes the long-awaited exchange”, and we underline that we hope the next exchange will be in a short while. During my speech, I gave more details of the violations of human rights that we have heard about.
The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Ms FIALA (Switzerland) – The overwhelming majority was for the amendment.
The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.
Amendment 5 is adopted.
We come to Amendment 6. I call Ms Ionova to support the amendment.
Ms IONOVA (Ukraine) – We would like to remind the Russian Federation that it has to implement our Resolution 2133 of 2016. The amendment would express the Assembly’s regret that it has still not been implemented.
The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Ms FIALA (Switzerland) – In favour, by an overwhelming majority.
The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.
Amendment 6 is adopted.
We come to Amendment 8. I call Ms Ionova to support the amendment.
Ms IONOVA (Ukraine) – The amendment would urge the Russian Federation to “uphold all its obligations under applicable international law as an occupying Power and ensure respect for the human rights and the security of all people living in occupied Crimea.” Unfortunately, there is no access even for the International Committee of the Red Cross.
The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Ms FIALA (Switzerland) – In favour.
The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.
Amendment 8 is adopted.
We come to Amendment 10. I call Ms Ionova to support the amendment. You have 30 seconds.
Ms IONOVA (Ukraine) – The amendment would enforce access by “international organisations as well as by Ukrainian diplomatic and consular representatives”, because unfortunately there is no access for any of our consular representatives or doctors, or even for our Commissioner for Human Rights, who has a special immunity.
The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Vareikis.
Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania) – This amendment is a little lacking in logic, because it demands that Russian authorities organise Ukrainian consular and post-consular operations. Generally it is a good idea, but not in this case, so we would reject it.
The PRESIDENT – Ms Fiala, I understand that the committee is against the amendment.
Ms FIALA (Switzerland) – Yes, by an overwhelming majority.
The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.
Amendment 10 is rejected.
We come to Amendment 14, to which a sub-amendment has been tabled.
I call Mr Logvynskyi to support Amendment 14 on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons. You have 30 seconds.
Mr LOGVYNSKYI (Ukraine) – The amendment would insert information about several existing resolutions of the Parliamentary Assembly.
The PRESIDENT – I call Mr Vareikis to support Sub-Amendment 1 on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons. You have 30 seconds.
Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania) – The sub-amendment would replace the word “execute” with “implement”, which is better wording. It would also delete the phrase “and fully implement the Minsk Agreements”, because the Minsk Agreements do not relate directly to Crimea.
The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the sub-amendment? That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the mover of the main amendment?
Mr LOGVYNSKYI (Ukraine) – I accept the sub-amendment from Mr Vareikis.
The PRESIDENT – The committee is in favour of the sub-amendment.
I shall now put the sub-amendment to the vote.
The vote is open.
The sub-amendment is adopted.
Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment, as amended? That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Ms FIALA (Switzerland) – In favour, unanimously.
The PRESIDENT – I shall now put the amendment, as amended, to the vote.
The vote is open.
Amendment 14, as amended, is adopted.
We come to Amendment 3. I call Mr Novynskyi to support Amendment 3.
Mr NOVYNSKYI (Ukraine)* – Let me repeat once again that the Minsk Agreements are the only possibility for a peaceful settlement to the conflict in the east of Ukraine, so it is very important that the Ukrainian authorities draft their laws in a way that is consistent with the Minsk Agreements and that they provide full socioeconomic and legal protection to people living in that area. I ask colleagues to support the amendment.
The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Ms FIALA (Switzerland) – The committee was in favour by 12 to 10, with nine abstentions.
The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.
Amendment 3 is adopted.
I call Mr Logvynskyi on a point of order.
Mr LOGVYNSKYI (Ukraine) – Perhaps I have made a mistake, but I do not recall having had the vote on Amendment 13.
The PRESIDENT – Amendment 13 was unanimously adopted, so we took care of that at the beginning.
We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 14463, as amended. A simple majority is required.
The vote is open.
The draft resolution contained in Document 14463, as amended, is adopted, with 56 votes for, 0 against and 10 abstentions.
We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 14463. A two-thirds majority is required, counting only affirmative and negative votes.
The vote is open.
The draft recommendation in Document 14463 is adopted, with 50 votes for, 0 against and 7 abstentions.
9. 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 p.m.)
CONTENTS
1. Election of the Commissioner for Human Rights and a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Spain
2. Changes in membership of committees
3. Communication from Mr Anders Samuelsen, Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers
Questions: Ms Schou, Mr Cruchten, Mr Türkeş, Ms Sotnyk, Mr Kox, Ms Gambaro, Mr R. Huseynov, Ms Bartos, Ms Christoffersen, Mr Abushahla, Mr Ghiletchi, Dame Cheryl Gillan, Ms Pashayeva, Mr Xuclà and Mr Kiliç
4. The case for a basic citizenship income
Presentation by Mr Schennach of report of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development in Document 14462
Speakers: Mr Howell, Mr Aleksandar Stevanović, Mr Nordqvist, Mr Zavoli, Ms Åberg, Ms De Sutter, Ms Dalloz, Ms Christoffersen, Mr Wilson, Lord Blencathra, Mr Becht, Mr Manninger, Mr Gyöngyösi, Mr Melkumyan, Mr Fridez, Ms Mergen, Ms Kerestecioğlu Demir, Mr Blaha, Mr Madison, Ms D’Ambrosio, Ms Günay, Ms Bardell, Mr Bildarratz, Sir Edward Leigh, Ms Anttila and Mr Grin
Reply: Mr Schennach
Draft resolution in Document 14462 adopted
5. Humanitarian consequences of the war in Ukraine
Presentation by Mr Vareikis of report of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons in Document 14463
Speakers: Ms Lundgren, Mr Hunko, Mr Ghiletchi, Ms Chugoshvili and Ms Goguadze
6. Election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Spain
7. Election of a Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights
8. Humanitarian consequences of the war in Ukraine – resumed debate
Speakers: Ms Duranton, Mr Novynskyi, Mr Golub, Lord Balfe, Mr Blaha, Ms Sotnyk, Ms Schou, Mr Liashko, Ms Ionova, Ms Topcu, Mr Fridez, Mr Tilki and Ms Mehl
Replies: Mr Vareikis and Ms Fiala
Amendments 11, 3, 19, 7, 4, 5, 6, 8, 14 as amended and 3 adopted
Draft resolution in Document 14463, as amended, adopted
Draft recommendation in Document 14463 adopted
9. Next public business
Appendix I / Annexe I
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]
AGHAYEVA, Ulviyye [Ms]
AGRAMUNT, Pedro [M.]
AKBULUT, Gökay [Ms] (SCHÄFER, Axel [Mr])
AKTAY, Yasin [Mr]
AMON, Werner [Mr]
ANTTILA, Sirkka-Liisa [Ms]
ARNAUT, Damir [Mr]
BALÁŽ, Radovan [Mr] (PAŠKA, Jaroslav [M.])
BALFE, Richard [Lord] (ECCLES, Diana [Lady])
BALIĆ, Marijana [Ms]
BARDELL, Hannah [Ms]
BARNETT, Doris [Ms]
BARTOS, Mónika [Ms] (CSENGER-ZALÁN, Zsolt [Mr])
BATRINCEA, Vlad [Mr]
BECHT, Olivier [M.]
BEREZA, Boryslav [Mr]
BĒRZINŠ, Andris [M.]
BEUS RICHEMBERGH, Goran [Mr]
BILDARRATZ, Jokin [Mr]
BİLGEHAN, Gülsün [Mme]
BILOVOL, Oleksandr [Mr]
BLAHA, Ľuboš [Mr]
BLAZINA, Tamara [Ms] (ZAMPA, Sandra [Ms])
BLENCATHRA, David [Lord] (DONALDSON, Jeffrey [Sir])
BLONDIN, Maryvonne [Mme]
BRASSEUR, Anne [Mme]
BRYNJÓLFSDÓTTIR, Rósa Björk [Ms]
BUSHATI, Ervin [Mr]
BYRNE, Liam [Mr]
ĆATOVIĆ, Marija Maja [Ms]
CHITI, Vannino [Mr]
CHRISTOFFERSEN, Lise [Ms]
CHUGOSHVILI, Tamar [Ms]
CILEVIČS, Boriss [Mr] (LAIZĀNE, Inese [Ms])
CORLĂŢEAN, Titus [Mr]
CORSINI, Paolo [Mr]
COURSON, Yolaine de [Mme] (GAILLOT, Albane [Mme])
COZMANCIUC, Corneliu Mugurel [Mr] (PLEȘOIANU, Liviu Ioan Adrian [Mr])
CROWE, Seán [Mr]
CRUCHTEN, Yves [M.]
DAEMS, Hendrik [Mr] (DUMERY, Daphné [Ms])
DALLOZ, Marie-Christine [Mme]
D’AMBROSIO, Vanessa [Ms]
DE TEMMERMAN, Jennifer [Mme]
DIVINA, Sergio [Mr]
DURANTON, Nicole [Mme]
EBERLE-STRUB, Susanne [Ms]
EIDE, Petter [Mr] (WOLD, Morten [Mr])
ENGIN, Didem [Ms] (BAYKAL, Deniz [Mr])
ESSL, Franz Leonhard [Mr]
ESTRELA, Edite [Mme] (ROSETA, Helena [Mme])
EVANS, Nigel [Mr]
FIALA, Doris [Mme]
FOURNIER, Bernard [M.]
FRIDEZ, Pierre-Alain [M.]
GAFAROVA, Sahiba [Ms]
GAMBARO, Adele [Ms]
GARCÍA HERNÁNDEZ, José Ramón [Mr]
GATTI, Marco [M.]
GERASHCHENKO, Iryna [Mme]
GHILETCHI, Valeriu [Mr]
GILLAN, Cheryl [Dame]
GOGUADZE, Nino [Ms] (PRUIDZE, Irina [Ms])
GOLUB, Vladyslav [Mr] (ARIEV, Volodymyr [Mr])
GONÇALVES, Carlos Alberto [M.]
GONCHARENKO, Oleksii [Mr]
GORGHIU, Alina Ștefania [Ms]
GOUTTEFARDE, Fabien [M.]
GOY-CHAVENT, Sylvie [Mme]
GRIN, Jean-Pierre [M.] (HEER, Alfred [Mr])
GÜNAY, Emine Nur [Ms]
GUTIÉRREZ, Antonio [Mr]
GUZENINA, Maria [Ms]
GYÖNGYÖSI, Márton [Mr]
HAIDER, Roman [Mr]
HAJIYEV, Sabir [Mr]
HALICKI, Andrzej [Mr]
HARANGOZÓ, Gábor [Mr] (MESTERHÁZY, Attila [Mr])
HENRIKSEN, Martin [Mr]
HONKONEN, Petri [Mr] (PELKONEN, Jaana Maarit [Ms])
HOWELL, John [Mr]
HUNKO, Andrej [Mr]
HUSEYNOV, Rafael [Mr]
IONOVA, Mariia [Ms] (YEMETS, Leonid [Mr])
JANSSON, Eva-Lena [Ms] (GARSSON, Jonas [Mr])
JENSEN, Michael Aastrup [Mr]
JENSEN, Mogens [Mr]
JONES, Susan Elan [Ms]
JORDANA, Carles [Mr]
KALMARI, Anne [Ms]
KARLSSON, Niklas [Mr]
KAVVADIA, Ioanneta [Ms]
KERESTECİOĞLU DEMİR, Filiz [Ms]
KESİCİ, İlhan [Mr]
KILIÇ, Akif Çağatay [Mr]
KITEV, Betian [Mr]
KLEINWAECHTER, Norbert [Mr]
KOBZA, Jiři [Mr] (BENEŠIK, Ondřej [Mr])
KOPŘIVA, František [Mr]
KORODI, Attila [Mr]
KOX, Tiny [Mr]
KRIŠTO, Borjana [Ms]
KROSS, Eerik-Niiles [Mr]
KYTÝR, Jaroslav [Mr]
LACROIX, Christophe [M.]
LEIGH, Edward [Sir]
LEITE RAMOS, Luís [M.]
LIASHKO, Oleh [Mr]
LĪBIŅA-EGNERE, Inese [Ms]
LOGVYNSKYI, Georgii [Mr]
LOMBARDI, Filippo [M.]
LOUHELAINEN, Anne [Ms] (PACKALÉN, Tom [Mr])
LOUIS, Alexandra [Mme]
LUCHERINI, Carlo [Mr] (BERTUZZI, Maria Teresa [Ms])
LUNDGREN, Kerstin [Ms] (SVENSSON, Michael [Mr])
LUPU, Marian [Mr]
MADISON, Jaak [Mr] (MIKKO, Marianne [Ms])
MAIRE, Jacques [M.]
MALLIA, Emanuel [Mr]
MANNINGER, Jenő [Mr] (GULYÁS, Gergely [Mr])
MAROSZ, Ján [Mr]
MARQUES, Duarte [Mr]
MARSCHALL, Matern von [Mr]
MARUKYAN, Edmon [Mr] (FARMANYAN, Samvel [Mr])
MASSEY, Doreen [Baroness]
MAVROTAS, Georgios [Mr] (KASIMATI, Nina [Ms])
McCARTHY, Kerry [Ms]
MEHL, Emilie Enger [Ms]
MEIMARAKIS, Evangelos [Mr]
MELKUMYAN, Mikayel [M.] (ZOHRABYAN, Naira [Mme])
MERGEN, Martine [Mme] (HETTO-GAASCH, Françoise [Mme])
MILEWSKI, Daniel [Mr]
MULARCZYK, Arkadiusz [Mr]
MÜLLER, Thomas [Mr]
MUNYAMA, Killion [Mr] (TRUSKOLASKI, Krzysztof [Mr])
NICK, Andreas [Mr]
NICOLAE, Andrei [Mr] (TUȘA, Adriana Diana [Ms])
NORDQVIST, Rasmus [Mr] (SØNDERGAARD, Søren [Mr])
NOVYNSKYI, Vadym [Mr] (LIOVOCHKINA, Yuliya [Ms])
OBRADOVIĆ, Marija [Ms]
OHLSSON, Carina [Ms]
ÖNAL, Suat [Mr]
OOMEN-RUIJTEN, Ria [Ms]
PASHAYEVA, Ganira [Ms]
PAVIĆEVIĆ, Sanja [Ms] (SEKULIĆ, Predrag [Mr])
POCIEJ, Aleksander [M.] (POMASKA, Agnieszka [Ms])
PODERYS, Virgilijus [Mr] (BUTKEVIČIUS, Algirdas [Mr])
POLETTI, Bérengère [Mme] (ABAD, Damien [M.])
POPA, Ion [M.] (ȘTEFAN, Corneliu [Mr])
PREDA, Cezar Florin [M.]
PRUNĂ, Cristina-Mădălina [Ms]
PSYCHOGIOS, Georgios [Mr] (ANAGNOSTOPOULOU, Athanasia [Ms])
RIGONI, Andrea [Mr]
RODRÍGUEZ HERNÁNDEZ, Melisa [Ms]
SANTA ANA, María Concepción de [Ms]
SCHENNACH, Stefan [Mr]
SCHOU, Ingjerd [Ms]
SCHWABE, Frank [Mr]
ŠEPIĆ, Senad [Mr]
SHARMA, Virendra [Mr]
SILVA, Adão [M.]
SMITH, Angela [Ms]
SOBOLEV, Serhiy [Mr]
SOLEIM, Vetle Wang [Mr] (EIDE, Espen Barth [Mr])
SORRE, Bertrand [M.]
SOTNYK, Olena [Ms]
STELLINI, David [Mr]
STEVANOVIĆ, Aleksandar [Mr]
STRIK, Tineke [Ms]
STROE, Ionuț-Marian [Mr]
SUTTER, Petra De [Ms] (BLANCHART, Philippe [M.])
THIÉRY, Damien [M.]
THÓRARINSSON, Birgir [Mr] (ÓLASON, Bergþór [Mr])
TILKI, Attila [Mr] (CSÖBÖR, Katalin [Mme])
TOPCU, Zühal [Ms]
TORNARE, Manuel [M.] (MAURY PASQUIER, Liliane [Mme])
TROY, Robert [Mr] (COWEN, Barry [Mr])
TÜRKEŞ, Yıldırım Tuğrul [Mr]
VALLINI, André [M.] (GROSDIDIER, François [M.])
VAREIKIS, Egidijus [Mr]
VARVITSIOTIS, Miltiadis [Mr] (BAKOYANNIS, Theodora [Ms])
VEN, Mart van de [Mr]
VENIZELOS, Evangelos [M.] (TZAVARAS, Konstantinos [M.])
WENAWESER, Christoph [Mr]
WERNER, Katrin [Ms]
WIECHEL, Markus [Mr] (NISSINEN, Johan [Mr])
WILSON, Phil [Mr]
XUCLÀ, Jordi [Mr] (BARREIRO, José Manuel [Mr])
YAŞAR, Serap [Mme]
ZINGERIS, Emanuelis [Mr]
Also signed the register / Ont également signé le registre
Representatives or Substitutes not authorised to vote / Représentants ou suppléants non autorisés à voter
ATSHEMYAN, Karine [Ms]
BULIGA, Valentina [Mme]
COAKER, Vernon [Mr]
CORREIA, Telmo [M.]
DANESI, René [M.]
GUNNARSSON, Jonas [Mr]
HUSEYNOV, Vusal [Mr]
JØRGENSEN, Jan E. [Mr]
KAMMENOS, Dimitrios [Mr]
KELLEHER, Colette [Ms]
LEŚNIAK, Józef [M.]
OVERBEEK, Henk [Mr]
PALLARÉS, Judith [Ms]
RIBERAYGUA, Patrícia [Mme]
RUSSELL, Simon [Lord]
SHEPPARD, Tommy [Mr]
TOUHIG, Don [Lord]
VERDIER-JOUCLAS, Marie-Christine [Mme]
WHITFIELD, Martin [Mr]
ZAVOLI, Roger [Mr]
ZOHRABYAN, Naira [Mme]
Observers / Observateurs
LUNA CANALES, Armando [Mr]
SANTANA GARCÍA, José de Jesús [Mr]
Partners for democracy / Partenaires pour la démocratie
ABUSHAHLA, Mohammedfaisal [Mr]
ALAZZAM, Riad [Mr]
ALQAWASMI, Sahar [Ms]
BOUANOU, Abdellah [M.]
EL MOKRIE EL IDRISSI, Abouzaid [M.]
HAMIDINE, Abdelali [M.]
KHADER, Qais [Mr]
MUFLIH, Haya [Ms]
SABELLA, Bernard [Mr]
Appendix II / Annexe II
Representatives or Substitutes who took part in the ballot for the election of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights and in the ballot for the election of a Judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Spain / Représentants ou suppléants qui ont participé au vote pour l’élection du/de la Commissaire aux droits de l’homme du Conseil de l’Europe et au vote pour l’élection d’un juge à la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme au titre de l’Espagne
AGRAMUNT, Pedro [M.]
AKTAY, Yasin [Mr]
ALLAVENA, Jean-Charles [M.]
ANTTILA, Sirkka-Liisa [Ms]
BAKOYANNIS, Theodora [Ms] / VARVITSIOTIS, Miltiadis [Mr]
BEREZA, Boryslav [Mr]
BEUS RICHEMBERGH, Goran [Mr]
BILDARRATZ, Jokin [Mr]
BILOVOL, Oleksandr [Mr]
BLONDIN, Maryvonne [Mme]
BUTKEVIČIUS, Algirdas [Mr] / PODERYS, Virgilijus [Mr]
CORSINI, Paolo [Mr]
COWEN, Barry [Mr] / TROY, Robert [Mr]
CRUCHTEN, Yves [M.]
DALLOZ, Marie-Christine [Mme]
DIVINA, Sergio [Mr]
DONALDSON, Jeffrey [Sir] / BLENCATHRA, David [Lord]
DUMERY, Daphné [Ms] / DAEMS, Hendrik [Mr]
DZHEMILIEV, Mustafa [Mr]
FIALA, Doris [Mme]
GONCHARENKO, Oleksii [Mr]
GOY-CHAVENT, Sylvie [Mme]
GÜNAY, Emine Nur [Ms]
GUZENINA, Maria [Ms]
HENRIKSEN, Martin [Mr]
JENSEN, Michael Aastrup [Mr]
JENSEN, Mogens [Mr]
KRONBICHLER, Florian [Mr]
KROSS, Eerik-Niiles [Mr]
LEIGH, Edward [Sir]
MAIRE, Jacques [M.]
MARSCHALL, Matern von [Mr]
MAURY PASQUIER, Liliane [Mme] / TORNARE, Manuel [M.]
MEIMARAKIS, Evangelos [Mr]
MESTERHÁZY, Attila [Mr] / HARANGOZÓ, Gábor [Mr]
MİROĞLU, Orhan [Mr]
MULDER, Anne [Mr] / BRUIJN-WEZEMAN, Reina de [Ms]
NĚMCOVÁ, Miroslava [Ms]
OOMEN-RUIJTEN, Ria [Ms]
PELKONEN, Jaana Maarit [Ms] / HONKONEN, Petri [Mr]
QUARTAPELLE PROCOPIO, Lia [Ms] / CIMBRO, Eleonora [Ms]
SCHOU, Ingjerd [Ms]
STROE, Ionuț-Marian [Mr]
TAMAŠUNIENĖ, Rita [Ms]
TERIK, Tiit [Mr]
TUȘA, Adriana Diana [Ms] / NICOLAE, Andrei [Mr]
VERCAMER, Stefaan [M.]