AA18CR26

AS (2018) CR 26

2018 ORDINARY SESSION

________________

(Third part)

REPORT

Twenty-sixth sitting

Thursday 28 June at 4.30 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.

(Ms Mendes, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 4.35 p.m.)

      The PRESIDENT* – The sitting is open.

1. Changes in the membership of committees

      The PRESIDENT* – Our first bit of business is to consider the changes proposed in the membership of committees. These are set out in document Commissions (2018) 06 Addendum 3.

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

      They are agreed to.

2. Striking a balance between the best interest of the child and the need to keep families together

      The PRESIDENT* – The first item on the agenda is the debate on the report titled “Striking a balance between the best interest of the child and the need to keep families together”, Document 14568, presented by Mr Valeriu Ghiletchi on behalf of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development.

      In order to finish by 6.15 p.m., I will interrupt the list of speakers at about 5.35 p.m. to allow time for the reply and the vote.

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

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – Colleagues, I am glad to be presenting my report to you today. The well-being of children across Council of Europe member States is of particular interest to me as a father, grandfather and politician, and I have been considering one of the most far-reaching interventions that the State can make into family life: the removal of children from their parents and into an out-of-home placement. The report’s findings are important to us all, because the family is the fundamental building block of society, and international law is clear that the State should intervene and separate a family only in the most exceptional circumstances, because an unwarranted intervention can have a devastating impact on family life.

      Many of us saw what happened recently in the United States, where migrant children were removed from their parents and kept in separate facilities. Anyone who saw the videos of scared children crying out for their parents will have an understanding of how traumatic the separation of families can be, and we need to avoid it wherever possible. I was glad to hear several MPs raise the topic during the free debate. The United Nations was quick to issue a statement saying that those actions were deeply contrary to the best interests of the child, and could even amount to torture. There was widespread concern from child psychologists about the long-term impact of these events, including the irreparable harm that forced separations could have on the children involved.

      We must be clear that separating children from their parents is an extreme option that should only be resorted to when absolutely necessary. Mr Nils Muižnieks, the former Human Rights Commissioner, was absolutely clear on that point. Case law from the European Court of Human Rights is equally clear on this issue, as are the relevant international human rights treaties. However, my report found that, despite the existence of clear international and European standards in this area, there continues to be a lack of uniform application in decisions on child removal, adoption, placement and reunification across Council of Europe member States. Recently, several articles in different newspapers and magazines, including The Economist and The Guardian, have covered this issue.

      The case that prompted this report was a decision taken by the Norwegian child welfare services, also known as Barnevernet. In 2015, five children from a Romanian-Norwegian family, including a three-month old baby, were taken into care by the Norwegian child welfare services, in what were widely seen to be troubling circumstances. Although the Bodnariu children were ultimately reunited with their parents, following a period of intense international pressure, the case resulted in many European media outlets – including the BBC and ARTE – producing in-depth investigative documentaries that highlighted many other concerning cases. The European Court of Human Rights has also communicated to the Norwegian Government several cases concerning Barnevernet, many of which raise similar issues.

      During my fact-finding visit to Norway, it became clear that several procedural safeguards that were built into the child welfare system have not been successful in practice. Instead of concentrating on forming relationships with children and families, in order to understand and help them better, the system has in many instances been reduced to evaluating compliance, with reference to a rather intensive checklist. It is abundantly clear that it is not in the best interests of children to separate them from their parents unless there are clear and compelling reasons to intervene. Please do not misunderstand me: Barnevernet does a very good job in protecting children from harm and violence, but unfortunately the good part can be wiped out by mistakes and abuses that the system allows.

      We must also ask about attitudes. Do child welfare officers see themselves as being there to support children and their parents, or as family inspectors? We need properly trained and educated staff who are capable of speaking to and listening to the child. We must also build better collaboration with parents – not at the expense of the child, of course, but because good communication can help to avoid mistakes.

      Sadly there will be cases where the removal of children from their family home is in their best interest. However, it is crucial to remember that, even when such separation is necessary, children have the right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, unless that is contrary to their best interests. The European Court of Human Rights has consistently reiterated that the reunification of the family must remain a central consideration in separation proceedings. It was therefore of great concern to me to discover that the visitation rights of parents in Norway are extremely rare and short, and are often supervised. Indeed, they could be as short as two hours, four to six times a year. That was particularly worrying when I learned of cases in which babies have been removed from their mother’s care shortly after birth. With such short and rare visitation rights, reunification prospects for the family are low because the pure passage of time may change the best interest determination for the child.

      We need to make sure that child removal decisions are well documented, and that court proceedings are child friendly and accessible, with full equality of resources when parents challenge decisions in court. We should ensure that, where possible, children are cared for within the wider family unit, so as to minimise the disruption of family bonds for the children. Colleagues, we are not talking just about Norway here – these findings are applicable to all member States of the Council of Europe, including my own country, the Republic of Moldova. We must stop building systems that inspect whether families are “good enough” behind closed doors. Most of us in this Assembly will recognise that none of us have ideal families – that is part of reality. Instead, we must offer real help and support to families, and build open and transparent systems in which children and parents can have confidence.

      In all member States there is a need for proper checks and balances that work in practice, not only on paper. We also need truly independent systems to ensure adequate impartial oversight of these life-changing decisions, and we must limit mistakes and miscarriages of justice as far as possible. I sincerely hope I can count on your support for my proposals, which are based on the conclusions that I included in the draft resolution, with a view to securing the best interests of children and families across the member States of the Council of Europe.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Ghiletchi. You have four minutes and 48 seconds remaining. I now call Baroness Massey on behalf of the Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group.

      Baroness MASSEY (United Kingdom, Spokesperson for the Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group) – I thank the rapporteur for this report, which has been much discussed by the Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group. We recognise that there are sometimes tensions between the best interests of the child and the need to keep families together. However, we are all of one mind that supporting the welfare of the child is paramount, as stated in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. As we know, there have been faults in the system for removing children from their families, and some adoptions have been frankly illegal, or not in accordance with best practice. On the other hand, some children have been maltreated or even killed by parents or a parent from whom they should have been removed. That is the tension, but I repeat that the welfare of the child is paramount.

      Mr Ghiletchi points out that we must be conscious of the extremely difficult nature of the work of child protection services, and we must acknowledge that they do not get things right 100% of the time – very few systems do. Systems must be subject to robust monitoring. The rapporteur raised the situation in Norway, but I will not go into that because I know that Norwegian colleagues may be able to speak about it more adequately than I can.

      I recommend that we explore further the notion of fostering children, and of children going into the care of family or friends when there are difficulties in a family. In my country, the United Kingdom, foster care is often used to provide temporary care while a child’s parents sort out problems, or to help a child go through a difficult period in their life. I have met many people who foster children successfully. Foster parents are trained and monitored; they love children and generally look after them well. The children prosper, and I think that option should be seriously explored further. Wherever possible, allowing family and friends to care for a child should, I believe, be the first consideration whenever there is a breakdown in relations with the parents.

      I have known grandparents who have taken over the upbringing of a child because one or both parents have died, are in prison or are misusing drugs or alcohol. There is evidence that such kinship care results in better outcomes for children, both socially and academically. However, there are costs to the carers, both financial and in respect of time, and there is not sufficient support for them, either economic or emotional. They are an underused resource and should be supported.

      A senior family judge in the United Kingdom recently pointed out that there is a serious problem with the number of applicants to take vulnerable children. Children and families may not get the help they deserve and need, and crises may arise from that.

      I go back to the assertion in the report that the removal of a child from their family should be handled carefully. The options should be considered and the outcomes monitored. I thank the rapporteur again for introducing these issues.

      Dame Cheryl GILLAN (United Kingdom, Spokesperson for the European Conservatives Group) – I, too, thank the rapporteur for the report. I do not agree entirely with every word of it, but I know that amendments have been tabled.

      We all know that the best possible upbringing for a child is within a loving family. Sadly, for many children, that is not an option, with the resultant separations. This subject was thrown into sharp relief by the revelation of the Trump administration’s brutal forced removals of thousands of children from their parents at the Mexican border, which caused worldwide outrage and condemnation.

      Sadly, in all our countries, neglect, abuse, drug addiction, alcoholism and family issues mean that children are at risk – sometimes even before they are born – and need to be removed to a safer place. We have all heard the stories of babies who are born already addicted to drugs. In the United Kingdom last year, about 72 000 children had to be taken into care, of whom only a third were able eventually to return safely to their families.

      Those who remain in a care setting may be safer, but they might not necessarily have a brighter future. Children who end up in care often have poorer educational, economic, social and behavioural outcomes, and are later disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system and may display poor mental health, substance abuse and self-harm. Thankfully, 14% end up being adopted by loving families and many are protected from some of the worst abuse that we can imagine. We should acknowledge and praise the terrific work of foster parents and adoptive parents not just in my country, but all over the world.

      As the last speaker said, the report relies heavily on the examination of the Norwegian system, where it seems to me that an overreaction has, in some cases, led to poor practice. In the spirit of the report, which is about “striking a balance”, we must also acknowledge the very good work that is going on with many families and children in Norway. We must acknowledge that Norway is undergoing reform and that a mediation system is being tested, which I understand is proving successful. I am sure we will hear more from my Norwegian colleagues later in the debate.

      Our children are the reason why we are all here working for a better world. The report will contribute to improving the systems that can protect them when necessary. Again, I emphasise that removal from a family setting should occur only when we have run out of options.

      Ms EBERLE-STRUB (Liechtenstein, Spokesperson for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe)* – I thank the rapporteur for his report. Children require an environment and basic social conditions that protect them against violence, whether physical or psychological in nature, neglect and sexual exploitation. Children are entitled to protection against those phenomena.

      If there is any suspicion that children are mistreated, it is essential that we urgently seek a psychological evaluation and a certificate from social services. Only then can a court summon witnesses. This is a very difficult process and should be viewed as a last resort. Children should not automatically be separated from their parents on a permanent basis. The ideal situation is that they continue to be brought up by their family and parents.

      Something that courts are willing to enter into fairly easy is the fostering of children by families. It is important that children who are fostered are able to see their parents. For very young children and children at primary school, being placed in care with a family is preferable to being placed in a children’s home. For children up to the age of 18, special in-house psychological support can be made available. It is important that children establish a daily routine. They should see adults as somewhat bothersome people whom they can trust and who will bring them up and educate them.

      When it comes to preventing excessive measures, it is important that we have prevention and early warning systems. We need to have properly trained professionals, including educational experts, who can identify children at risk at an early stage, so as to ensure that measures are taken. Educational awareness campaigns are also important, in particular for children and adolescents, to ensure that they are able to fend off sexual violence. For example, the educational programme, “My Body Belongs to Me”, is targeted at children in their early school years to enable them to avoid sexual abuse. It is important that parents are made aware of the issues so that a constructive solution can be found with them, instead of a frustrating process that ends in separation.

      The report stresses that the rights and interests of children must be central to our efforts. It is usually best to avoid separating children from their family, but the right decision is the one that is in the interests of the child. The best interests of the child must always be our main priority.

      Ms GORROTXATEGUI (Spain, Spokesperson for the Group of the Unified European Left)* – I, too, thank the rapporteur on behalf of my group. The starting point of his report is, quite rightly, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which stresses that children have the same rights as adults. Over and above that, they have specific rights deriving from their own circumstances, as young people have not yet become autonomous adults. In other words, children are subject to rights and the law. That means that they are also subject to responsibilities.

      As a result, when we talk about the rights of the child, the best interests of the child have to be the overriding priority. The convention sets out the aspects that play into that priority. That, too, is covered in the report. It is important to bear in mind the opinion of the child, as well as their identity, because children and adolescents have their own identities.

      Another important aspect in defending the best interests of the child is the need to preserve the family environment. The family environment is considered to be the basic foundation of society – the fabric of society. It is the context in which people are able to develop an independent life, while learning and acquiring the values that will inform the rest of their life. The family unit is an essential element in society and the best place in which children can grow up. Obviously, we view the family in the broadest sense of the word: a family can comprise biological parents or adoptive parents; in some cultures it can also include the community; and there can be single parent families, gay families and heterosexual families. That is the best way of guaranteeing that the rights of the child are upheld in this context.

      Separation of the child from his or her parents must be the very last resort and done only when it is absolutely necessary. It is true to say, as the report underlines, that all too often children are taken away from their family because of prejudice. For example, poverty is sometimes deemed to be a factor that causes suffering for children, which is not correct. So it is important that we adopt a highly rigorous and robust approach in evaluating the real nature of the risk to the child.

      I am just winding up my remarks, but there is something else we have to bear in mind here, which is the need for prevention. Prevention is of fundamental importance if we are to avoid the suffering of children, and this requires a change of mentality – a cultural shift. We also have to try to do away with the systemic beliefs and value systems that enable violence – for example, gender-related violence – to continue to exist, and we should take measures to try to prevent those problems.

      There are other types of solutions – I really am winding up now, Madam President. For example, we should encourage positive parenting, which is another way of tackling some of the scourges that are talked about in the report.

      Ms FILIPOVSKI (Serbia, Spokesperson for the Free Democrats Group) – Ivo Andrić, the Serbian Nobel Prize winner, said that only childhood and origin cannot be escaped from. There is no universal recipe for the best possible growth and development of a child. Therefore, making a decision that is best for the child is, in a certain sense, an imperative of civilisation and a primal need of the child’s parents and of society as a whole.

      However, the principle of the best interest of the child is not only conceived as an expression of children’s rights but as the connective tissue of the family. In addition to its legal dimension, the principle of the best interest of the child has its psychological and sociological dimensions. In my opinion, the principle of the best interest of the child should be observed from the point of view of the entire legal order towards family law relationships, whereby the child should be the starting point of family law relations.

      To find a balance between the child’s best interest and the need to keep the family together, we should therefore start from the core of the family and move towards family relations in a broader sense. In this way, the first level should comprise the best interest of the child in relation to the child themselves as a holder of their own rights. Secondly, the application of the principle of the best interest of the child should be observed with regard to the closest member of the child’s family – their parents. The third level of the application of the principle of the best interest of the child should be analysed in relations between children and other relatives. Finally, the fourth level should be observed through the actions of State authorities related to the protection of the interests of children without parental care, primarily through the actions of courts and the custody authority, as the body responsible for the protection of the family.

      If we apply all four of these levels in the right way, I believe that it will be easier to find the balance between the child’s best interest and the need to keep the family together.

      Mr MULLEN (Ireland, Spokesperson for the Group of the European People’s Party) – I congratulate the rapporteur on this excellent report, and on his thorough and careful research.

      As we know, this report grew out of certain unfortunate events that happened in Norway, but it is not a report about Norway. No country in the Council of Europe is above providing us with teaching moments and learning moments about how we can improve our defence and vindication of human rights, particularly those of the most vulnerable among us, who of course are the children of our societies. The focus of this report is clearly to identify the need to protect family togetherness as a core essential, as something for which there must always be a strong presumption in securing the best interests of children. As has been mentioned, the recent international coverage of the separation of children from their families at the southern border of the United States has led to justified international criticism of policies that break up families for dubious reasons.

      It is important to be clear on the human rights issues. According to the well-established case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the best interest of the child is almost always to be with their parents. Only in extreme cases should a child be taken away from their parents, and then temporarily, except in very extreme cases where it is not possible to reunite families. I welcome the fact that the rapporteur has highlighted important decisions of the ECHR. Sadly, despite the binding nature of the judgments of the Court, the report is clear that there continues to be a lack of uniform application in decisions on child removal, adoption, placement and reunification across member States of the Council of Europe.

      We should be aware of the legacy of unwarranted child removal in other countries. In Australia, the scandal of the “stolen generations” involved the children of Australian Aboriginal descent who were removed from their families by the Australian Federal and State Government agencies. A similar practice occurred in Canada, where last year a court case was taken by thousands of aboriginal people who had been forcibly removed as children from their families decades ago. That practice was called a “terrible legacy” by the Canadian courts. It involved the State taking indigenous Canadians from their homes between the 1960s and 1980s, and placing them in foster care or allowing them to be adopted by non-indigenous families. Such practices have been rightly condemned.

      As I have said, today’s report drew our attention to the possibility that in Norway there was a disproportionate targeting of children of certain non-Norwegian backgrounds by the child welfare agency. However, the report also acknowledges, and we need to acknowledge, that there is already improvement on the way and reform in the system.

      Children have the right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, even when they are in care – a very serious point that is made in the report. That is unless there is a very serious risk of abuse – physical or emotional -– of the child. The Grand Chamber of the ECHR held in R.M.S. v. Spain that the Spanish authorities, in taking a very young girl from her mother and then denying any contact, had acted contrary to article 8 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. So this report is not just about one country; it is about the lessons that we need to learn, so that we can do things better in the future.

      Once again, I thank the rapporteur for this important contribution to making that ever more possible.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Mullen. Does the rapporteur wish to respond now? That is not the case.

      We will therefore move on to the speakers list. I call first Mr Reiss.

      Mr REISS (France)* – The United States is only an observer in this Organisation, but I must ask how anyone could not shudder at the images of children being torn from the arms of their parents and sometimes even being put into a cage. We should have those images in mind when we discuss this report. When we are democratic countries, can we tolerate such practices? Obviously not.

      The requirement to put the child’s interest first is a fundamental right that sometimes clashes with the rights of the parents. However, we know how our choice should be guided. In France, the court of cassation reminded us that in all decisions that concern it the best interest of the child must be of primary consideration, and that is true if the parents separate or divorce; again, it is the best interests of the child that are primary. However, problems can arise when the child is placed, for instance, in shared custody. In that situation, we do not simply have a mathematical formula in which the child is a variable. Shared custody requires, as a minimum, mutual understanding between the parents and an adequate support system behind them. It should not become a rule.

      The principle of the primacy of the best interests of the child is present in other contexts, for example when one or both parents are in prison, when maintaining family links might threaten their best interests. Depending on the child’s age, the personality of the parent in prison and the family situation, a prison visit might or might not be a good idea. If such a visit is allowed, obviously it should be arranged in a way that respects the child’s best interests.

      The fact that there are now so many refugee minors in Europe, whether unaccompanied or not, is also a matter of concern. Among the refugees overseen by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, there are more and more families with children who have been separated at some point. For unaccompanied minors, the question that often arises is whether the child should be entrusted to a distant family member or someone who presents themselves as such. In all cases, including when there is family violence, again the best interests of the child must prevail.

      Social workers are not always properly trained to deal with these tragedies, and neither are judges. The working group on the best interests of the child recommended the need to provide ongoing training for judges and those working in the prison system, and dedicated training sessions should concentrate on children. It also recommended that the training for professionals who look after children – teachers, social workers and even child psychologists – should include information on the parent-child relationship in difficult cases, because the balance advocated by the rapporteur demands that such professionals have appropriate training, and on that basis they will be able to do what we all want to see them do: make the right decision.

      Ms D’AMBROSIO (San Marino)* – Article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child establishes the fundamental principle that in all laws, provisions, public or private initiatives or difficult situations, the rights of the child must prevail. That is what is meant by the principle of the best interests of the child, which of course we must always strive to uphold. The concept is clearly evident in the report – I thank our colleague, Mr Ghiletchi, for his work – and it is considered in the context of the policies adopted in individual countries, but how do we strike the right balance?

      The yardstick for determining the best interests of the child is often the ability to grow up with its parents, but how do we decide when a child’s best interests are best served by removing it from the parents? Another variable – a tacit one perhaps, but very much present – is the policies being pursued by individual countries. Are the policies flexible, and drawn up on the basis of the evidence in individual cases, or are they rigid? That is an important variable, because it has consequences for social workers, families and the minors themselves.

      In San Marino we have legislation that protects the minor, in line with the United Nations convention and international best practice, but alongside that legislation we have our Social Welfare Institute, which represents all social and health services in my country, including those aimed at minors. It looks at the most appropriate situations in respect of minors, and removing them from their parents is the solution of last resort. Various solutions can be found instead, involving minors, parents and the wider family. My country is relatively small, of course, so it is easier to follow up individual cases.

      The report talks about ensuring that child welfare systems are open and transparent, with a view to bolstering legitimacy and trust in the system, and that requires decisions to be well documented at all stages, and for court proceedings to be low-threshold, child-friendly and accessible. It also requires improved data collection and research. We are talking about well-documented approaches, such as the protocols we have in San Marino for individual cases.

      In conclusion, no one doubts the difficulty of striking the right balance when seeking to protect minors, but we need to ask ourselves whether we are training professionals in the sector as we should be. Are we establishing data banks – some kind of memory – that can be updated regularly? Are we doing all we can to create networks that allow us at the national level to exchange experience, sensitivities and know-how in the best interests of the child?

      Mr UNHURIAN (Ukraine) – I would first like to thank Mr Ghiletchi for his report. The confiscation of the children of Marius and Ruth Bodnariu in Norway by Barnevernet, Norway’s child welfare agency, caused outrage in Romania and provoked reaction in many countries. It also showed the need for an initiative on the issue in the Council of Europe.

      Yes, the best interests of the child should be our primary consideration in all actions concerning children, in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Children have the right to be protected from all types of violence, abuse and neglect, but they also have the right not to be separated from their parents against their will, except when it is absolutely necessary and in their best interests.

      The resolution asks the Assembly to recommend that Council of Europe member States focus on the process to achieve the best results for children and their families alike. Child-friendly processes should be secured throughout removal, placement and reunification. Additionally, families should be given the necessary support. We must ensure that the child welfare systems in each country are open and transparent. Moreover, all personnel involved in removal and placement decisions must be properly trained. Families should be given support, with the aim of making removal unnecessary. We should also ensure that when removal is necessary, families are reunited as soon as possible.

      To achieve those aims, we need, among other things, better collaboration with parents so that mistakes resulting from misunderstanding or stereotyping are avoided. Member States should seek to end all abusive practices, including the removal of children from parental care at birth and proceeding with adoptions without parental consent. Removing children should be seen as a last resort, and it must be ensured that it is done for the shortest possible time and when a child is subject to a real risk of serious physical or psychological harm. When children are placed in alternative care, their religious, ethnic and cultural background, as well as sibling bonds, must be considered. I call on the Assembly to support this very important resolution.

      Mr WOLD (Norway) – Let me first underline the fact that the Norwegian Barnevernet does a great job on many occasions – it is important to say that when we criticise it. I congratulate the rapporteur on his excellent work. He has shown that Barnevernet needs to rethink how it works.

      The case that prompted the motion, and ultimately the report, was a decision taken by the Norwegian Child Welfare Services in the Naustdal municipality in 2016, based on allegations of the use of corporal punishment against the five children, including a three-month-old baby, of a Romanian-Norwegian family. The children were taken into public care. This is the so-called Bodnariu case. The actions taken by Norwegian Child Welfare Services led to worldwide demonstrations in the first half of 2016, involving hundreds of thousands of people around the world. The call for a resolution was initiated by Mr Ben-Oni Ardelean on 2 June, and the draft resolution was adopted unanimously by the committee on 26 April 2018. In its report, the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development reaffirms that children have the right to be protected from all types of violence, abuse and neglect. However, they also have the right not to be separated from their parents against their will, except when absolutely necessary in the best interests of the child.

      In the same period, the European Court of Human Rights decided to look more closely into the matter, accepting 10 cases against Norway. Norway was acquitted in one case, but the best known case, Strand Lobben and Others v. Norway, was referred to the Grand Chamber. An oral hearing will take place in Strasbourg on 17 October this year. That proves that the ECHR is not convinced that Norway is complying fully with international human rights standards. As a Norwegian MP, I am sad to admit that that is a fact. Regardless of the outcome of the Lobben case, we have to acknowledge that a lack of uniform application continues in decisions on child removal, adoption, placement and reunification. Further action to bridge the gap between those standards and their implementation is thus needed. Norway must do its share.

      A few days ago, the Norwegian Board of Health Supervision criticised the governmental part of the Child Welfare Services strongly for not respecting children’s fundamental rights. Norway must therefore continue to improve child-friendly processes throughout the removal, placement and reunification services, giving necessary support to families in a timely and positive manner, and ensuring that child welfare systems are open and transparent and that all personnel involved in removal and placement decisions are suitably qualified and regularly trained.

      Lord TOUHIG (United Kingdom) – “Striking a balance between the best interest of the child and the need to keep families together” – a proud and noble ambition, and one that we should support. Our colleague Mr Ghiletchi has worked hard on the report, whose title, as I said, is a noble ambition. I regret, however, that the content of the report does not live up to the nobility of the title. There have been missed opportunities, and I will explain why.

      I became concerned after reading paragraph 1 of the draft resolution, and the last sentence in particular: “Even when such separation is necessary, children have the right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, unless it is contrary to the child’s best interests.” If separation is necessary and is deemed so after all investigative procedures have been completed, why put a child at risk by defining a “right” of “personal relationships and direct contact”? Consideration of that point has left me with one overriding concern, one question, and I do not find an answer to it in the report: how do we ensure that a child, separated from parents because of the necessity of doing so, is not subjected to pressure by or on behalf of those parents so that they may gain access? For me, the sentence in paragraph 1 underpins the right of the child, but we would be putting a child at risk in that way. There is no answer to that in this report.

      Paragraph 4.3 of the draft resolution advocates a low threshold for court proceedings. If we are to protect vulnerable, threatened and abused children, however, court proceedings intended to determine their future and a child’s relationship with parents should have a high threshold and not a low one.

      Finally, in the explanatory memo – at page 5, under the heading “2. Focus of the report” – a sentence from a Norwegian psychologist explicitly states that children in a family where one or more has suffered “awful violence” should remain in that family if they themselves have not suffered violence. That makes no sense whatever. Again, the ambition of the title of the report is not delivered in the text. To Mr Ghiletchi, I say beware: we do not defend or protect the rights of vulnerable children if we enact laws that put them at risk.

      Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – In the explanatory memorandum to the report, Norway is highlighted as “a country facing particular issues”. Given the report’s title, therefore, Norway appears to be a country with a random respect for family life and, according to the draft resolution, to have a low threshold for removing children – children from parents belonging to congregations such as those of the Pentecostal Church.

      In addition, the report referred to several cases before the European Court of Human Rights concerning the Norwegian Child Welfare Services, and to one in particular. The judgment in that case, as in two others, was that no violation of the European Convention on Human Rights had taken place. Some cases are still pending. Norway, however, has a record of respecting judgments by changing our legislation if necessary. One recent change was to prioritise finding foster parents among relatives, if possible. Another was the ratification of the Hague Convention, to enable closer co-operation with the authorities in other countries.

      I also remind the Assembly of its Resolution 2049 of 2015, on the legislation and practice of the removal of children from their families. Norway was mentioned as a country with a low rate of removing parental rights. That low figure might stem from the fact that the biological principle has strong standing in Norwegian legislation on child protection. Preventive and mitigating measures are obligatory before a possible care takeover, unless there is suspicion of severe violence or abuse. Lately, the figure has risen slightly. That might be worrying, but it might also indicate that more children are getting necessary help.

      Violence against infants is especially difficult to prove, but it still happens. The Norwegian Institute of Public Health reports that eight to 10 children are killed annually as a result of child neglect, abuse and killings, most of them by their closest caregivers. Another 10 infants get life-threatening injuries every year as a result of domestic violence, some disabling them for the rest of their life. Lack of neutral witnesses complicates police investigations. Thus, too often, the children are returned to their families, with a risk of continued abuse estimated at between 18% and 50%.

      I find this report rather biased. Too much emphasis is placed on parents, and too little on vulnerable children. Of course child protection services make mistakes, but the sad fact is that hidden figures of child abuse exceed the number of mistakes the other way around. Reunification of families is always an objective, but only to the benefit of the child.

      Ms ÅBERG (Sweden) – Before entering politics, I was a social worker and I used to investigate cases of child abuse.

      Social services legislation in Sweden is very similar to that in Norway, so I reacted strongly when I read the report. We seem to have different views about children. In Scandinavian countries, we do not regard children as their parents’ property. A child is its own individual, who needs the care and protection of loving parents. The ideal scenario is of course that the biological parents provide that, but sometimes they cannot cope and they fail, and that is when the State has to intervene.

      In Sweden and Norway, the act of removal of children from their families is not a simple task or an automatic process. Everyone involved in the act of removal is aware that this is a major intervention in the life of the parents and the children. A lot of prerequisites are required, such as substantial violence, severe drug addiction or serious neglect causing danger to the child’s health. I agree with the rapporteur that the removal of children from their parents should be the very last measure, coming only after offers to accept help voluntarily have gone without result. The only exception should be when the situation is immediately dangerous for the child.

      In neither Sweden nor Norway are decisions about removal made by professionals. Professionals can only make suggestions; the initial decision is taken by a politically assigned committee and needs approval by a court of law. It is possible for parents to appeal to a higher court if they are dissatisfied with the decision. Every six months after a child’s removal, the conditions are evaluated and a decision is made about whether they should move home. We have to be aware that the best interests of a child sometimes demand long-term or permanent foster placement. In cases where the parents have a major mental disability or suffer from severe drug abuse, for example, it is unrealistic to speak about removing children for the “shortest possible period of time”.

      The act of removing children from their parents is complicated, and every case is unique. Every single case should be handled with respect for those involved and in the best interests of the child.

      Ms BARTOS (Hungary) – Let me begin with a story. In Transylvania there is a Franciscan monk who has dedicated his life to taking in and raising orphaned children and children in need. Father Csaba Böjte operates several children’s homes for children whose parents cannot take care of them. Of course, those children can stay in contact with their parents, and parents can visit their children. One year, those children were asked where they would like to spend the Christmas holidays. Despite their modest circumstances, their home was filled with the smell of cakes, the stoves were warm and the Christmas tree was shining. One small child’s parents lived in the desolate environment of a garage, but when she was asked whether she wanted to stay or go home, she chose her parents – not the warmth of the stove but the warmth of her mother.

      For that reason, it is not possible in Hungary to separate a child from his or her family if there is only a risk of financial nature. Separating a child from their family should be a last resort to protect the child’s interests in cases where, despite the different forms of help available, they cannot be raised in their family. A child’s right to protection and their right to be raised in a family have to be guaranteed equally.

      It is an important principle in Hungary that guardianship authorities can place a child with foster parents or in a children’s home only if the child does not have a parent or relative who is able and willing to raise them. If separating a child from their parents and family is unavoidable, that can happen only in the interests of the child. Such a decision can be challenged, and temporary foster care must be reviewed regularly. During such reviews, the authorities should look at whether the circumstances permit the child to return to his or her family.

      It is important to the healthy development of someone’s personality that they feel they belong somewhere, and the most important medium for that is the family. Therefore, everything needs to be done in the member States of the Council of Europe and internationally to ensure that children can be raised by their biological parents if possible. Hungary prepared and, together with the other V4 countries and Romania, put forward a proposal with that aim during the review of the relevant European Union directive.

      I thank the rapporteur for his conscientious work, for selecting this topic and for this opportunity to reflect together on the healthy development and future of our children.

      Ms SMITH (United Kingdom) – The report’s intent is perhaps good, but its conclusions are problematic. It is primarily about the role of the State in protecting children. I believe firmly that we must put children first, and that that principle must not be compromised by a rigidly ideological commitment to the conservative model of the family. Children must come first.

      The report is important because it will send an important signal to member States about this crucial topic. In the United Kingdom, we are focused clearly on reforming the attitude of the State towards domestic violence, and a bill will soon be introduced in parliament. The issue arose primarily because of the work of Women’s Aid, whose study of serious case reviews in England and Wales between January 2005 and August 2015 found that 19 children were killed by perpetrators of domestic violence in that 10-year period. All the perpetrators were fathers to the children who were killed, and all had access to their children through formal or informal child contact arrangements, including through decisions made in the family courts.

      Two of those children, Jack and Paul, lived in my constituency. Their mother, Claire, reported to the authorities the domestic abuse she had suffered from her ex-husband. Despite that, the court granted him unsupervised access to the boys. In October 2014, he collected Jack and Paul from school and took them to the marital home. He enticed them into the attic, promising a new model railway. He then proceeded to barricade them into the attic and lit 16 fires in the home. Both children died as a consequence. On that day, Claire lost everything. Her children were murdered. Her life and her heart were, in her words, “broken completely beyond repair”. That tragedy was entirely avoidable. The State failed Jack and Paul, and it failed their mother.

      The only decent thing we can do is to reform State agencies and the family courts to ensure that we do all we can to prevent harm to our children on the part of abusive parents. It may not be easy, but we must rise to the challenge. We must, for instance, challenge the cultural assumption that a man who is violent towards his wife or partner is no more likely than other men to harm his children. It is too late for Claire and her boys, but we can create the best memorial to the lives of Paul and Jack by acting to ensure that we put children first. I hope that the report is amended to better fit that noble aspiration.

      Ms SCHOU (Norway) – The report addresses the most difficult part of the work of child welfare services. The removal of a child from parental care without the parent’s consent is always very difficult and emotionally tough. Fortunately, however, in most of our countries, children are removed from their parents only in extreme cases and always as a last resort. I commend the rapporteur for keeping this topic high on the agenda. None of us has the perfect system, and the rapporteur’s country, the Republic of Moldova, does not have it either, so we should constantly strive for better solutions and practices.

      The status of the child welfare system has been on the political agenda in Norway for several years. Last year, we adopted a wide-ranging and important reform plan, which includes a plan to increase employees’ competence in assessing children’s needs and providing the best care. We have also strengthened children’s rights to receive information, to be heard and to have their opinions regarded. Lastly, we have strengthened the obligation to look for foster homes among a child’s family and relatives and in their close network.

      The rapporteur underlined all those aspects in his report, and I fully agree with his advice and conclusions in that regard. However, I find it more difficult to agree with him that a care order should be issued for the shortest possible time, with a goal of returning the child to their family as soon as possible. That approach does not leave room for assessing the child’s best interests in the situation. Neither can I support his intention of totally ending adoption without parents’ consent and the practice of sometimes removing children from parental care at birth.

      Such measures should be used in only a few extreme cases, but sometimes they are in the child’s best interests. We should not seek to end the possibility of using them. A child is a human being with their own human rights, not the property of their parents. I therefore invite colleagues to support amendments to paragraphs 4.2, 4.5 and 4.6.2, because I believe that the suggested amendments will contribute to a better balance in the resolution between the best interests of the child and the need to keep the family together.

      Ms PELKONEN (Finland) – Family is the fundamental core of human existence, and it is a safe place. Even if the rest of the world is in chaos, family brings people security and stability. It is the basic unit of life, and we must keep it together in all situations. Sometimes, unfortunately, this core may be broken, and then the authorities are responsible for protecting children. However, a child cannot be separated from his or her family unless it is absolutely necessary.

      Children’s rights must be at the centre of our legislation. In cases of removal, placement and reunification, the child’s opinion must be heard and taken into account. We must reaffirm in our legislation and policies that children have the right to be protected from all types of violence and abuse. After all, children are the future and the leaders of tomorrow.

      Ms AGHAYEVA (Azerbaijan) – In the modern world, the disintegration of the family and the dissolution of marriage are absolutely ordinary phenomena, which do not surprise anyone. Sometimes, a divorce is the only right way out of the situation. Some families break up because of internal problems, and many people react negatively to it, while others do not understand it at all. Divorce is very painful for children, especially when families fall apart as the result of the exaggeration of minor intra-family problems that could have been avoided.

      Children worry about the separation of parents and the breakdown of the family. When the life that they are used to falls apart, they worry about how life will be in the future. For a child, the whole universe and the ideal world is a normal family where everyone loves and respects each other. Regardless of the parents’ relationship with each other, they are both equally dear and important to the child. In most cases, when families fall apart, a child will withdraw into themselves. They will become nervous and vulnerable, and they will avoid communication with their peers.

      Sometimes we hear about families that are simply alliances; they are far from the true meaning of the word. Such alliances in many cases lead to human tragedy. If their problems make it too difficult for two married people to live together under one roof; if they no longer respect each other and have become used to insulting and humiliating each other; or if a man is prone to alcohol dependence, crime or indecent living, it is unacceptable for anyone to have to endure moral and perhaps physical humiliation for the rest of their life. It should be accepted that, in such cases, a divorce is the only right way out of the situation.

      If people remain in such marriages, the moral and psychological consequences may be serious. A child suffers serious psychological trauma when he witnesses strained or hostile relations in the family, especially if the parents are aggressive towards each other or even towards their child. Therefore, the protection of children’s rights in such dysfunctional families is the responsibility not only of parents, but of society as a whole.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Aghayeva.

      That concludes the list of speakers. I call the rapporteur, Mr Ghiletchi, to reply. You have four minutes and 48 seconds.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – I thank everyone who contributed, not only those who supported the report wholeheartedly but those who expressed criticism. I want to give a few short answers. First, I mentioned in my presentation that Norway is mentioned in the report because the case that prompted it occurred there. However, no countries are named in the resolution. Ms Schou, I agree with you that we do not have an ideal system in the Republic of Moldova; I have never pretended that we do. We all need to improve our child welfare systems. I welcome the amendments made to Norwegian legislation and the announcement of reforms. However, there are still questions. For example, there is another Romanian family in Norway whose children were given back, but later taken again by the Barnevernet. In the case of the Bodnariu family, a criminal investigation was started and the parents were accused after the children were given back. There are some question marks in that regard.

      Lord Touhig and others talked about the wording “as soon as possible”. I accepted the amendments and we changed the terminology. I was asked where I got this from, and I will answer by quoting from the European Court of Human Rights judgment in the case of R.M.S. v. Spain: “it is an interference of a very serious order to split up a family. Such a step must be supported by sufficiently sound and weighty considerations in the interests of the child…Taking a child into care should normally be regarded as a temporary measure to be discontinued as soon as circumstances permit”. That is the terminology used by the Court. The judgment continues: “any measures implementing temporary care should be consistent with the ultimate aim of reuniting the natural parents and the child”. I also remind colleagues of Article 9 of the Convention: “States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child.” I emphasise those words in the context of what we are discussing. It is very important, because such measures should not be arbitrary.

      It is clear from the debate that we all have different views. There is one view in the Nordic and Scandinavian countries, and another in eastern, central and southern Europe. However, I think we all agree that we must be united when children need protection from harm and violence. I do not think that our views differ in that regard. At the same time, I am convinced that it is in the best interests of a child to stay within their family and to keep their bonds with their family. That is totally in line with what Nils Muižnieks, the commissioner, said, and what the European Court of Human Rights has said.

      Because of that, I call on colleagues to support the resolution. It is true that amendments were made to it, and the committee and I worked hard to find a compromise and a consensus with the sub-amendments. With all those amendments, I believe that the resolution will look much better. It will send a strong signal to all member States that we care for our children and that we think about their wellbeing. That wellbeing must be our primary concern, but we cannot act – this is very clear in the Convention – against the legitimate relationship between parents and children. That balance is important, and I did my best to achieve it in the draft resolution and the report. I am counting on colleagues’ support for the draft resolution to ensure that it is adopted today.

      The PRESIDENT* – Does the chairperson of the committee wish to respond?

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* – First, I thank our rapporteur and congratulate him on behalf of the committee on a very good job of work. My thanks also go to the committee because it has dealt with this issue very intensively. As we have heard in the debate, there are all kinds of different approaches to this issue. I think that is why we have had 15 amendments and seven sub-amendments to the report today. However, I think the debate also showed that what we have at the top of the pyramid is the child, an independent child, not as part of a family but as an independent entity at the top of the pyramid. Everything else must be subordinate to that. That I think we can all agree on.

      There are forms of family that differ across Europe. There are traditional families, patchwork families and same-sex families. Regardless of the model, though, family is family. Foster families are not on-and-off families; they constitute a child’s family. For that reason the foster family must be equated with family, full stop. If a child has to be removed from a family as a result of ill treatment, that is one of the most difficult decisions to reach; that child might be in a family but there is no future in that family. Under such circumstances, social workers have to remove children. I remember situations when that was often the case but that was 30 years ago, and things have changed.

      Thank you very much for a very lively discussion. I am much obliged to our rapporteur as well as to speakers who have expressed different approaches to this issue.

      The PRESIDENT* - That brings the general debate to an end. The Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development has presented a draft resolution, to which 15 amendments have been tabled. I understand that the committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendments 11, 12 and 4 to the draft resolution, which were unanimously approved by the committee, be declared as agreed by the Assembly. Amendments 8, 7, 6, 13, 7 and 15 have also been adopted unanimously but they are subject to sub-amendments, so they will be debated in the usual manner. Is that so?

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* – It is.

      The PRESIDENT* – Does anyone object?

      As there is no objection, I declare that Amendments 11, 12 and 4 to the draft resolution have been adopted.

      I call Ms Ohlsson to support Amendment 8, which has a sub-amendment. You have 30 seconds.

      Ms OHLSSON (Sweden) – It is important that member States that have ratified the respective United Nations treaties and Council of Europe instruments in the area of children’s rights be called on to implement them. I would therefore like this amendment to be in the report.

      The PRESIDENT* – I call Mr Unhurian to support the sub-amendment. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr UNHURIAN (Ukraine) – This amendment is a good idea but we propose adding this text to the general text and combining the two. These two proposals would be much better together. That is the reason for the sub-amendment.

      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? I call Ms Ohlsson.

      Ms OHLSSON (Sweden) – I am content with the sub-amendment.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you. What is the view of the committee?

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* – In favour.

      The PRESIDENT* – I shall now put the sub-amendment to the vote.

      The sub-amendment is adopted.

      We now consider the main amendment, as amended. Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment, as amended? That is not the case.

      What is the view of the committee?

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* – We are in favour, with a big majority.

      The PRESIDENT* – I shall now put the amendment, as amended, to the vote.

      I call Ms Ohlsson to support Amendment 9.

      Ms OHLSSON (Sweden) – I think the first sentence covers everything and is very necessary. As many have said, the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration in all actions concerning children. I think the second and third sentences say opposite things, so they should be deleted.

      The PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – I am against the amendment because, as I mentioned in my concluding remarks, we can have different views but when it comes to the fight against harm and violence we should stay united. That is in fact what the last sentence of this paragraph does. It talks about harm, and if we keep that sentence then we send a strong message that harm is not in the best interests of the child. That is why I am against the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 9 is rejected.

      I call Ms Ohlsson to support Amendment 10.

      Ms OHLSSON (Sweden) – I think due process safeguards are necessary. Where State intervention is deemed necessary, due process safeguards should be given sufficient weight and consideration. It is very necessary to have these safeguards.

      The PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – I am against the amendment because the paragraph that it proposes to change refers to a very important resolution adopted by our Assembly. When we adopt a resolution, we need to continue with it; in my opinion it is good practice for resolutions to build on resolutions that have been adopted before. The only thing that paragraph 4 does is make reference to Resolution 2049 (2015) adopted by this Assembly. For that reason we need to keep the paragraph, and that is why I am against the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 10 is rejected.

      The PRESIDENT* – We come to Amendment 1. I call Ms Mehl to support the amendment.

      Ms MEHL (Norway) – I think we should support the amendment because it includes in the text a statement about how the best interests of the child should always be taken into consideration. I move the amendment on behalf of those who are absent.

      The PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – A large majority of the committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 5, which has a sub-amendment. I call Ms Mehl to support the amendment.

      Ms MEHL (Norway) – We should support the amendment because the paragraph as it stands insists that family reunification as soon as possible is always best, but that is not always the case. Sometimes it is against the best interest of the child. We therefore propose to change the wording so that the best interest of the child is the strongest argument in all cases.

      The PRESIDENT* – We now come to the sub-amendment, tabled by Mr Unhurian. I call Mr Unhurian to support the sub-amendment.

      Mr UNHURIAN (Ukraine) – I understand the idea of the amendment, but we propose a compromise in our sub-amendment, which is, after the words, “and to facilitate family reunification”, to use the official language of the European Court of Human Rights and continue with, “as soon as circumstances permit”.

      The PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the sub-amendment? I call Ms Mehl.

      Ms MEHL (Norway) – I think that the sub-amendment completely removes the point of our amendment. It puts the protection of parents before that of the child’s best interest, so I do not support it.

      The PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT* – I shall now put the sub-amendment to the vote.

      The vote is open.

      The sub-amendment is rejected.

      Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Ghiletchi.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – As the sub-amendment has been rejected, I am against the amendment. I regret, colleagues, that you do not want to accept the language of the European Court of Human Rights. I used the wording “as soon as possible” and you then used “when possible”, but we have a language and a terminology that is used by the Court, and I quoted from Court with “as soon as circumstances permit”. If you want to be inconsistent with the highest court we have in Europe, be honest and vote against the amendment. What we are doing is not fair.

      The PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee took no position on it.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 6, which has a sub-amendment. I call Ms Mehl to support the amendment.

      Ms MEHL (Norway) – No one wants children to be taken from their parents except when it is completely necessary, and that also goes for taking children away directly after birth and for putting through adoptions without consent. We think that the paragraph needs to be rephrased because as it is written these practices are always abusive. We need it to be open for States to be able to use these measures when necessary, to protect the best interest of the child.

      The PRESIDENT* – We now come to the sub-amendment, tabled by Mr Unhurian. I call Mr Unhurian to support the sub-amendment.

      Mr UNHURIAN (Ukraine) – The last sentence of the amendment contradicts the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which says that family ties should always be maintained unless there are compelling reasons not to do so, and it therefore needs to be deleted.

      The PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the sub-amendment? I call Ms Mehl.

      Ms MEHL (Norway) – I disagree that the last sentence of the amendment is contrary to that convention. The sentence says that family ties shall be maintained except when it is in the best interest of the child not to do so. That is the same as saying when there are compelling reasons not to do so, so the last sentence should stand and I hope for support.

      The PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee was, with a small majority, in favour.

      The PRESIDENT* – I shall now put the sub-amendment to the vote.

      The vote is open.

      The sub-amendment is rejected.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – I am really disappointed with the way we are going. We are ignoring the European Court of Human Rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. In the committee we did something different. I regret that ideology prevails in the Assembly. We are not looking at the international treaties that our countries have ratified. For that reason, because the sub-amendment was not adopted, I call on everyone to reject the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee took no position.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 13, which has a sub-amendment. I call Lord Touhig to support the amendment.

      Lord TOUHIG (United Kingdom) – We think that the amendment explains decisions far better, retains information, and guarantees that parents and children have information. It is simply a better way of retaining information and protecting it for families and their children.

      The PRESIDENT* – We now come to the sub-amendment, tabled by Mr Unhurian. I call Mr Unhurian to support the sub-amendment.

      Mr UNHURIAN (Ukraine) – The idea of the amendment is a good one and I propose a compromise by adding the text of the sub-amendment.

      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 amendment?

      Lord TOUHIG (United Kingdom) – We accept the sub-amendment.

      The PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT* – 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?

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee adopted it unanimously.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 7, which has a sub-amendment. I call Ms Mehl to support the amendment.

      Ms MEHL (Norway) – We want to change paragraph 4.6.2 because, as it stands, it indicates that being returned to the parents as soon as possible is always best for the child, which is not true. It has been proven in many cases that being returned too soon can cause extra trauma, which is why we have proposed the change.

      The PRESIDENT* – We now come to the sub-amendment, tabled by Mr Unhurian.

      Mr UNHURIAN (Ukraine) – We see what Amendment 7 is seeking to achieve, but we should be using the language of the European Court of Human Rights. The amendment does not currently reflect the Court’s position.

      The PRESIDENT* – Does anyone want to speak against the sub-amendment?

      Ms MEHL (Norway) – The shortest possible time can be the same as the necessary time, but sometimes it is not the same. The necessary time will be what puts the child’s interests first, and I cannot believe that the Court believes that the child’s best interests should not be put first. I disagree that the amendment is contrary to what the Court has decided, and I hope that the Assembly will vote against the sub-amendment.

      The PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – In favour.

      The PRESIDENT* – I shall now put the sub-amendment to the vote.

      The vote is open.

      The vote is tied, so the sub-amendment will be rejected.

      The sub-amendment is rejected.

      Does anyone wish to speak against the main amendment?

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – I congratulate some colleagues on making some very interesting statements. We are disagreeing with what the European Court of Human Rights has decided – congratulations! We have a Court and we should listen to it, not disagree with it based on ideology. I understand that this argument will probably not win, but it is a funny and disappointing situation. I am therefore against the amendment because it does not accept the language of the Court.

      The PRESIDENT* – I call Lord Foulkes on a point of order.

      Lord FOULKES (United Kingdom) – I have been sitting here quietly throughout this debate, listening carefully to the arguments put forward, and I object to Mr Ghiletchi making a personal attack on me. It is disgraceful that he should attack people just because they disagree with him.

      The PRESIDENT* – We have taken note of your comment, but it would be best for us to remain calm and to complete our discussion.

      What is the opinion of the committee on Amendment 7?

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee took no position.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 3, which has a sub-amendment. I call Ms Mehl to support the amendment.

      Ms MEHL (Norway) – The amendment seeks to ensure that the possibility of care within the family is an option only when it is in the best interests of the child.

      The PRESIDENT* – We come to the sub-amendment, tabled by Mr Unhurian.

      Mr UNHURIAN (Ukraine) – We can make a compromise with this sub-amendment, which combines the amendment with the original wording to ensure that the best interests of the child are explicitly mentioned.

      The PRESIDENT* – Does anyone want to speak against the sub-amendment? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

      Ms MEHL (Norway) – I support it.

      The PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – In favour, with a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT* – 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?

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – Unanimously in favour.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 15, which has a sub-amendment. I call Lord Touhig to support the amendment. You have 30 seconds.

      Lord TOUHIG (United Kingdom) – My amendment simply makes the point that regular consideration must be given to family reunification and family access as appropriate, to take into account the best interests of the child. It keeps coming back to the point we have made throughout this debate about how the interests of the child must be paramount.

      The PRESIDENT* – We now come to the sub-amendment, tabled by Mr Unhurian. I call Mr Unhurian to support the sub-amendment.

      Mr UNHURIAN (Ukraine) – The sub-amendment seeks to combine the words of the amendment with the general text of the resolution. We can compromise by accepting this sub-amendment to the general text.

      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 amendment about the sub-amendment?

      Lord TOUHIG (United Kingdom) – We will accept it.

      The PRESIDENT* – Before I ask the opinion of the committee, I call Lord Touhig on a point of order.

      Lord TOUHIG (United Kingdom) – On a point of order. I apologise, but I did not deal with the sub-amendment in the committee, so I am not prepared to accept it.

      The PRESIDENT* – So, in fact, the mover of the amendment is opposed to the sub-amendment.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is in favour, with a small majority.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      The sub-amendment is rejected.

      Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 15? I call Mr Ghiletchi.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – I thought that we understood each other in committee, but something has gone wrong in the Chamber today. I will leave it up to everyone to decide. The sub-amendment was tabled because the amendment removed a very important phrase referring to support for families. It is so important that families are given support. Of course we have the best interests of the child in mind, but families need to be supported and we cannot resolve these issues without giving them the necessary support. Without the sub-amendment, I am against Amendment 15, but I regret that we misunderstood each other’s good intentions.

      The PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – I am sorry, but I made a mistake before because I have two papers – the sub-amendment was supported with a large majority of 18 to 5, not 8 to 5. I hope I can correct that mistake.

      The PRESIDENT* – And what is the opinion of the committee on Amendment 15? I presume that there was no position.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee took no position on Amendment 15.

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

      Mr MULLEN (Ireland) – I do not want to hold up proceedings, but what is the rule if there was a misunderstanding about the position of the committee, and members of the Assembly took a vote with the wrong information?

      The PRESIDENT* – The information was not erroneous because the committee said that it was in favour of the sub-amendment. The only difference is that the Assembly was informed that there was a slight majority in favour, when in fact it was a large majority. Since the main part of the information was correct, I do not believe it necessary to retake the vote. We will now vote on Amendment 15.

      The vote is open.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 14568, as amended.

      The vote is open.

(Ms Brynjólfsdóttir, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Ms Mendes.)

3. Forced marriage in Europe

      The PRESIDENT – We now come to the debate on the report entitled “Forced marriage in Europe”, Document 14574, presented by Ms Béatrice Fresko-Rolfo on behalf of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, with opinions presented by Ms Azadeh Rojhan Gustafsson on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Document 14592, and by Ms Carina Ohlsson, on behalf of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, Document 14593.

      In order to finish by 8 p.m., I will interrupt the list of speakers at about 7.45 p.m. to allow time for the reply and the vote.

      I call Ms Fresko-Rolfo, rapporteur. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.

      Ms FRESKO-ROLFO (Monaco)* – “You either come home and marry who we say or from this day forward you are dead in our eyes.” “I had no choice but to go ahead with it. It was just me against so many of them.” Those words were spoken by European women – perhaps your neighbour, a classmate of your child or the niece of a colleague. Every day, 39 000 girls are married before reaching the age of majority. One third of them are younger than 15. How many lives of women and girls must be broken? How many painful words like these must we hear before we understand that we must act urgently to bring forced marriage to an end in Europe?

      My report was not drafted with a view to pointing fingers at guilty parties. The complexity of the subject requires that we avoid certain simplifications. Our role is to protect adults and children who may be subject to these practices. Lack of consent is a crucial point that is mentioned in the report, but even where there is consent it might not be freely given. Let us not forget the weight of culture, traditions and so-called honour that can influence individuals. Let us not forget that victims of forced marriage may have been brainwashed from a very young age or simply may not have any other choice. Let us not forget that young women risk being the target of so-called honour crimes and might give their consent because they are afraid for their safety and their life, without any verbal threat having been made. It is an intolerable situation. As with female genital mutilation, it is very difficult for a young girl to resist her family or denounce them.

      This report on forced marriage in Europe deals not only with matrimonial constraint, but with a series of violations of rights and types of violence. We are talking tonight about serious obstacles to the professional development of these young girls, because they frequently do not go to school or do not do so regularly. They have great difficulty gaining access to the job market. Consequently, they lose their autonomy. The empowerment of women is crucial in our societies. That is stressed in the Istanbul Convention, which most countries that you represent have accepted. We are talking tonight about broken lives, domestic slavery, imposed sexual relations, repeated rape and high-risk pregnancies.

      “Some of the times it was in the living room that he raped me, or in the bedroom… Because he had kicked me so much in the head, my lips were bleeding, my ears were bleeding”. That was the declaration made by Banaz Mahmod before she was murdered by her family. Yes, dear colleagues – such is the fate and the tragedy of these girls, who are often less than 15 years old.Wh

      What can be done? What should be done? The draft resolution sets out 17 measures that I assure you would be effective. I will not detail all of them, but the primary measure that should be adopted is to prohibit the marriage of children by setting a minimum age for marriage at 18. I thought – no doubt like many among you – that early marriage should not be prohibited if the young girl is really in agreement, if a judge has verified her motivation and perhaps if she is pregnant. However, in the light of what certain witnesses have said, it seems that in certain communities such pregnancies occur through coercion or rape in order to obtain that authorisation. I therefore definitively believe that the principle should be that there is no marriage before the age of 18. I stress the importance of not backing away from that position.

      Our legislation and our various policies concerning the dissolution or annulment of such marriages must be harmonised to guarantee more rights for victims. Taking too long to act always makes the victim more vulnerable. Only through coercive measures can we truly dissuade these practices. Therefore, our countries must adopt the legislative measures required to make it a crime to force an individual to contract a marriage to which she has not agreed.

      Beyond the legislative reforms, we must take care of the victims and protect people who are at risk by making protective orders to prevent travel abroad. People must be given security and feel that they are being heard out, supported and accompanied. They must be provided with appropriate structures and even shelter.

      None of this will be effective, however, if we know nothing of the extent of this practice. A victim called Rubie said: “I started to bunk off school quite a lot and they wouldn’t question why I was… I feel like this build-up of red flags was not really looked at”. I therefore recommend to member States that data be collected in a comprehensive way from education services, health services, legal services and those who are responsible for immigration. Such data collection is the only initiative that can enable us to put in place the resources that are required to combat forced marriage. It must lead to awareness raising campaigns, targeted information campaigns and better co-ordination among States.

      In conclusion, what we hear about forced marriage from NGOs is absolutely shocking. The role of NGOs that work in this field and that are accepted by these communities is crucial. It is only these organisations that have people’s trust and that are heard out. Therefore, they need your support, both legal and financial. Thank you for your attention.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Fresko-Rolfo. You have about six minutes remaining.

      I call Ms Rojhan Gustafsson, rapporteur for opinion for the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. You have three minutes.

      Ms ROJHAN GUSTAFSSON (Sweden) – Dear colleagues, the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights and myself congratulate Ms Béatrice Fresko-Rolfo, who has been an excellent rapporteur for the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination and has submitted a comprehensive report on forced marriage in Europe.

      I highlight the importance of having knowledge and collecting data on forced marriages, as well as following that up with pertinent solutions to prevent, detect and facilitate the annulment of forced and early marriages. The report serves its purpose well, yet I was concerned to read that by 2013 less than half of the member States of the Council of Europe had a policy on forced or early marriage. Dear colleagues, I trust that your personal and political engagement will give this issue further weight in your respective national settings.

      I remind you that the Istanbul Convention requires member States to take “the necessary legislative or other measures to ensure that the intentional conduct of forcing an adult or a child to enter into a marriage is criminalised.” By signing, ratifying and implementing the Istanbul Convention, member States take a firm stance against forced marriage and should be held to account. The four amendments that my committee proposes aim to further strengthen the draft resolution in the light of the international standards enshrined in the Istanbul Convention and the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

      I thank the rapporteur once again.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Rojhan Gustafsson. I call Ms Carina Ohlsson, rapporteur for opinion for the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development. You have three minutes.

      Ms OHLSSON (Sweden) – I congratulate my colleague, Ms Fresko-Rolfo, on the excellent and timely report she has prepared for the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination. The Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development fully supports the draft resolution. I am very pleased that the amendments proposed by my committee to strengthen the text have been accepted by the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, with sub-amendments from the rapporteur.

      I call on all colleagues to stay until the end of the debate, despite the late hour, to support this vital resolution. The last time the Parliamentary Assembly debated this topic was 13 years ago. Unfortunately, the statistics have not changed much since then and are nothing short of shocking. According to the consortium of NGOs, Girls Not Brides, each year 12 million girls are married before the age of 18. That is 23 girls every minute or nearly one every two seconds. In the time we have for this debate, 2 000 young girls will have been married without their consent. In addition, a considerable number of adult women, boys and young men have suffered the same fate.

      This must stop. This must stop because forced marriages and child marriages violate the fundamental rights of each and every victim. This must stop because forced marriages and child marriages can in no way be justified. This must stop because we cannot accept human rights violations anywhere, but we have a particular responsibility to ensure that they do not happen in our countries, here in Europe.

      Our Assembly, and indeed the Council of Europe as a whole, has played a pioneering role in fighting forced marriages and child marriages. We have put in place standards that are widely accepted and implemented throughout Europe. They are high standards, but they are really the only way to end these human rights violations. I do not understand why, at the global level, the responsible United Nations bodies in 2014 were not in a position to make our high standards their own. Although that was regrettable, we should not lower our standards. Indeed, because the elimination of forced and child marriage is one of the United Nations sustainable development goals, I hope that in due course our standards will become the global standards.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Ohlsson.

      In the debate, I first call the speakers on behalf of the political groups.

      Mr HOWELL (United Kingdom, Spokesperson for the European Conservatives Group) – I congratulate the rapporteur on this report.

      Forced marriage is a practice that affects men and boys, as well as girls and women. For example, in the United Kingdom the proportion of men and boys affected currently runs at about one in five, or about 20%, of those who called the forced marriage unit for help. As this report points out, forced marriage can affect people in any country, including those countries that are members of this Council. In my own country, we have a forced marriage unit that is run by the equivalent of the interior ministry and the foreign ministry. The practice of forced marriage is a criminal offence, carrying a seven-year sentence, and I expect that the 1 200 or so people who have contacted the unit, or who have been contacted by it, are only a fraction of the number of people affected.

      We may all be supporters of cultural diversity, but as the report points out, culture does not justify this crime. No matter which culture people come from, the practice needs to be firmly eradicated. Incidentally, forced marriage is still an offence in the United Kingdom where the marriage takes place abroad, but a sizeable percentage of United Kingdom cases do not have any overseas element at all.

      Forced marriage is a particular problem for children, and appropriate hotlines and charities need to be created for children to call. For example, we have seen girls significantly under the age of 15 being forced into marriage. Why is this act a crime? It is a crime because we have so defined it by the Istanbul Convention, because it poses real dangers to physical and sexual health, because it goes against all that we stand for in defending human rights, and because of the violence that is part of it.

      The United Kingdom has put in place mechanisms to deal with many of the issues raised in this report, but the number of forced marriages remains the same, as can be seen from the number of people who have been seen by the forced marriage unit, which has not changed very much over the years. The important thing is to make a massive cultural effort to show how unacceptable this practice is. This is one area where it is absolutely crucial for us simply to be culturally intolerant in our own countries of people who practise forced marriage. It is right that we are culturally intolerant of it, and regardless of where the people involved come from, or where the cultures that they represent come from, we need to be intolerant of the practice as a whole, and to keep our eyes firmly on ensuring that forced marriage is eradicated permanently.

      Ms de BRUIJN-WEZEMAN (Netherlands, Spokesperson for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe) – The rapporteur, Ms Fresko-Rolfo, used narratives in her report to illustrate the issue of forced marriage. I will add some more.

      One is the story of a young woman for whom a marriage was arranged with her cousin, who lived in Europe. Her family promised her a better life away from poverty. In fact, her cousin was disabled and his parents had arranged not only a marriage but life-long nursing for their son. A situation of domestic slavery occurred, from which the young woman could not escape.

      Another is the story of Noura Hussein, a Sudanese teenager, who was also forced to marry her cousin. When she refused to have sex with him, he arranged some family members to help him to rape her. He tried to rape her again the next day, but Noura grabbed a knife and killed him. Her father, who had played a prominent role in forcing her to marry her cousin, brought her to the police station. Finally, Noura was sentenced to death by an Islamic court. After firm international pressure, the verdict has been commuted to five years of imprisonment, but that is still a punishment for this young woman, while those who forced her into the marriage, which led to this tragedy, are free to go. I will quote the rapporteur: “Forced marriage ruined many lives”. It ruined not only Noura’s life but that of her husband, who was also a victim of cultural traditions or religious beliefs that cannot be justified.

      Most of the systems behind forced marriage are based on rigid ideas about the position of women, which results in women not being allowed to make their own choices: they cannot decide when they will have sex and with whom; they are excluded from education; and they have a duty to serve their husbands. Forced marriage is not simply a question of being forced to accept a spouse; it involves a series of violent acts, primarily against women and girls.

      Figures show that forced marriage is still a persistent problem, even within Europe. Cultural traditions and beliefs are hard to deal with, so States must take action. First, forcing someone to enter into a marriage must be criminalised; secondly, we must put in place mechanisms to verify that there is true consent from both spouses; and then we must introduce measures to ensure that forced marriages can be dissolved, as recommended in this report. However, attempting to control forced marriage with legislation may fail. To avoid punishment by law, families can consider a religious wedding to be a substitute for legal marriage. So it will be of great importance to establish sufficient shelters and provide comprehensive support to victims who want to move away from the pressure and even the danger of their families. Also, legal instruments to compel an unwilling husband to co-operate with the dissolution of an informal but forced religious marriage are needed.

      Forcing someone into a marriage is a major violation of human rights. This excellent report is very clear about that and so the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe will support it.

      Ms JOHNSSON FORNARVE (Sweden, Spokesperson for the Group of the Unified European Left) – First, I thank Ms Béatrice Fresko-Rolfo for an excellent report on the very important issue of forced marriage in Europe.

      No one should be forced to get married and especially not if they are a child, but unfortunately about 12 million girls under the age of 18 get married every year. According to UNICEF, more than 650 million women in the world married as a child. Child marriage has a number of negative consequences for girls; although boys are also affected, the consequences are much more severe for girls. The girls are at risk of being isolated in their homes; abuse is common; and they risk unwanted pregnancies. In addition, young girls who get married often have to quit school earlier than they would otherwise, which leads to a lower education level, with the result that they will be less economically independent and have much greater difficulties in getting a job, to develop and take ownership of their own lives.

      Preventing and stopping forced marriages and childhood marriages are two of the most important gender equality issues at a global level. The main reasons behind these marriage arrangements are culture, tradition and poverty. Therefore, international aid must focus much more on gender equality efforts, to combat and stop child marriages and forced marriages.

      All countries must introduce laws prohibiting forced marriage and marriage with children under the age of 18, regardless of whether they are girls or boys. We must start with our own countries in Europe. Although child marriage is prohibited in most European countries, in several of them 16-year-olds can marry with the permission of their parents or a judge. That is not in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

      Sweden already has restrictive legislation, but it will now be tightened further so that we will not recognise any marriage that involves children, whether in Sweden or elsewhere. We must always consider the child’s perspective and the best interests of the child must be our focus, according to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

      There must also be protection for women and young girls and boys who are at risk of being married against their will. It is not uncommon for them to be exposed to so-called honour violence. Society must therefore provide protection and sheltered accommodation for those women and young people. Society must also invest in systematic and long-term information efforts about current legislation, as well as information about the benefits of an equal society and the major risks of child marriage.

      Mr MUNYAMA (Poland, Spokesperson for the Group of the European People’s Party) – On behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party, I thank the rapporteur for highlighting an issue of great importance in human relationships. Congratulations, Ms Fresko-Rolfo.

      A forced marriage is a relationship that has been made against the will of one of the parties, mostly the woman. It is assumed that such relationships are incompatible with human rights. Let us take a brief look at the five important international documents that make provision in relation to forced marriage, apart from the statement in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights that men and women are entitled to equal rights as to marriage.

      First, Article 1(c) of the 1956 Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery forbids forced marriage.

      Secondly, Article 1 of the 1962 Convention on Consent to Marriage, Minimum Age for Marriage and Registration of Marriages states clearly that a marriage cannot be legally concluded without the full and free consent of both parties.

      Thirdly, Article 23 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that no marriage can be concluded without the freely expressed and full consent of the future spouses.

      Fourthly, Article 16 of the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women obliges the parties to provide for women on equal terms with men, and it sets out the equal right to marry, the equal right to choose a spouse freely, and the equal right to marry only with their own free and full consent.

      Fifthly, Article 37(1) of the Council of Europe’s 2011 Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence – the Istanbul Convention – stipulates that parties to the convention should take the necessary legislative or other measures to ensure that deliberate acts of forcing an adult or child to enter into a marriage are considered to be criminal offences.

      In conclusion, the Group of the European People’s Party fully supports Ms Fresko-Rolfo’s report.

      Ms BİLGEHAN (Turkey, Spokesperson for the Socialist Group.)* – Rather unexpectedly, this may well be my last speech on behalf of my political group in a plenary sitting of the Assembly. I am really pleased that it is on such an important subject.

      Forced marriage, as Ms Fresko-Rolfo’s excellent report states, is not simply a case of someone being forced into matrimony; it is in fact a form of violence – primarily against women and girls, but sometimes against men and boys. All member States of the Council of Europe are affected by this problem, which takes many forms. We might be looking at forced marriages here in Europe, or European citizens or residents who have been forced into marriage outside Europe, or people who have been forced into marriage before arriving in Europe.

      In 2005 the Parliamentary Assembly defined forced marriage as “the union of two persons, at least one of whom has not given their full and free consent to the marriage.” It defined child marriage as “the union of two persons at least one of whom is under 18.” The Istanbul Convention – and 30 member States of the Council of Europe are now parties to that convention – views forced marriage as a serious violation of the human rights of women and girls, and a major impediment to the realisation of full gender equality. States must therefore adopt integrated policies, they must take all necessary measures in order to prevent forced and early marriages, and they must protect victims and prosecute perpetrators. Failure to act on the part of the authorities is not acceptable, yet in many cases we find that forced marriage is not considered a criminal offence.

      The phenomenon also exists in those countries where legislation on the marriageable age is not applied properly, and where there are different views on what constitutes the age of consent, or in places where the authorities do not demonstrate the necessary will to tackle the problem. For instance, how can the age of consent possibly be set at 12? These violations can never be justified by referring to custom, tradition, religious faith or cultural beliefs, and they certainly cannot be justified in the name of so-called honour.

      The report delves deep into the problem and shares testimonies about the difficulties, but it also points the way towards best practice and solutions. It has been a great honour to work in the Parliamentary Assembly for more than 10 years. If only these reports, which are prepared so efficiently by our rapporteurs and members of the secretariat, and which have been adopted as resolutions and recommendations, were properly applied by our member States, because that would give us a better Europe. I very much hope that this report will save the lives of children and transform their existence.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Bilgehan.

      That concludes the list of spokespersons for the political parties. Ms Fresko-Rolfo, do you wish to reply at this stage? That is not the case.

      We move to the list of speakers. I call first Mr Frédéric Reiss.

      Mr REISS (France)* – I wish first to thank the rapporteur for all her work, which highlights one of the worst forms of violence against women. Forced marriages cannot be justified, whether by tradition or poverty; on the contrary, they must be condemned most vehemently. In France we recently adopted legislation to step up our fight against sexual and sexist violence, and the whole issue of the age of sexual consent gave rise to a very broad debate. As the report points out, the question of consent and the age at which a child may entertain adult relations is a central part of our fight against forced marriages.

      In most of our countries, or in communities where they have child marriage, the transition from childhood to adult life happens well before the age of 18. In some cases the practice is supposed to protect the virginity of young girls and avoid social stigma, but how could a child aged 16 resist the pressure put upon them by their family? Forced marriages should be banned and age cannot constitute any kind of exception.

      Forced marriage primarily affects young girls, but we cannot make a distinction between women and men in this area. In fact, a recent article in The Guardian reported on a disturbing situation in the United Kingdom in which young men – second or third-generation European Union citizens – were being forced into marriage and forced to submit themselves to their in-laws. In addition, victims may arrive in a country on a visa, as a spouse, but not know their rights or the language of the country, and they are often subjected to physical and psychological violence. Such humiliating situations are difficult to talk about, and both men and women find it difficult to speak out. That is why such cases are rarely prosecuted successfully.

      I want to highlight the strong correlation between education and the fight against forced marriage. A recent study has shown that in countries where young girls have access to secondary education, forced marriage is on the decrease. In Europe, we find the same trend. Education should therefore take centre stage in our activities in this domain, whether through overseas development aid for countries of origin or education in the European States themselves.

      We must be careful not to allow so-called traditions to replace the values that we defend, including the rights of women, gender equality between boys and girls, or the place of women in society who are not just mothers or spouses but autonomous agents in their own economic integration. We must recall that again and again, because behind forced marriage are many other forms of violence – in particular, female genital mutilation. The fight against forced marriage is also the fight against cutting – against excision. The role of NGOs that represent women who have been the victims of that violence is essential. Unless we empower victims to speak up, our entire legislative arsenal will serve no purpose.

      Ms De SUTTER (Belgium) – Forced marriage is often synonymous with violence, repeated sexual assault and rape. We know that, but it still happens daily to women and girls in Europe.

      I was happy to read that Ms Béatrice Fresko-Rolfo had included mention of girls in the report because, for young girls, marriage often means unprotected and forced sexual relations and unwanted pregnancies that endanger their health. The use of the word “girls” also settles discussion of the age limit – often, at the United Nations level, some countries argue that at 16 you are a woman. No, at 16 you are still a child, a girl.

      Forced marriage entails serious violations of fundamental rights and, in particular, violation of women’s and girls’ rights to sexual and reproductive health. As has been said, such violations can in no circumstances be justified on the grounds of respect for cultural traditions, customs or religious beliefs, or of so-called honour. Let us be very clear about that. We must not forget that if girls get married at 14, they drop out of school, they get pregnant and they have no access to the labour market. If women and girls are to be empowered, they must have the right to decide for themselves when they get pregnant, with whom and how many children they will have, which would be impossible at such a young age.

      As the rapporteur points out in paragraph 8 of the draft resolution: “The Assembly encourages national parliaments to support action to prevent forced marriage at national level and through their international co-operation activities.” Each member State could criminalise forced marriage and prohibit all marriages involving persons under the age of 18. If States fail to act now, generations of women and girls could be lost.

      It is therefore important to put pressure on member States where forced marriage may only be punished in criminal law if another offence is committed. Another offence such as attempted rape, psychological or sexual violence, or ill treatment, should not be the only way to punish forced marriage. Force marriage in itself is a criminal act and should be punished as such.

      Finally, I stress that female refugees under the age of 18 years are often victims of sexual assault, trafficking and child marriage, both in their home country and on their migration route. They are double victims, and we should be extremely attentive to their situation.

      I thank the Assembly for its attention. I hope that we will all support this excellent report.

      The PRESIDENT – Mr O’Reilly is not present, so I call Ms Günay.

      Ms GÜNAY (Turkey) – I thank the rapporteur for preparing this extensive report on forced marriage in Europe.

      Forced marriage is a violation of fundamental human rights and cannot be justified on any religious or cultural basis. It amounts to a form of domestic violence and child abuse. It can affect women and men, as well as girls and boys, from any community or background.

      We should differentiate an arranged marriage from a forced marriage. Unlike forced marriages, in an arranged marriage both the bride and the groom choose whether they want to marry the person suggested to them by their family. In a forced marriage there is no freedom of choice. It is traumatic and can ruin people’s lives. Many individuals end up depressed, self-harming or, in the worst cases, even attempting suicide. I abhor this harmful and illegal exercise and support the rapporteur in her recommendations to prevent and penalise forced marriage and its perpetrators, as well as to support victims and empower young people to avoid forced marriage.

      I want to clarify a point made in the report about a recent amendment to Turkish civil law authorising muftis to officiate in civil marriages. Muftis are religious clerks employed by the State, and they are allowed to perform civil marriages under the same conditions as marriage registrars. In other words, people who wish to marry and fulfil the criteria set out in the civil code now have the choice to go to a civil servant or to a religious clerk to officiate at their civil wedding. Thus, it is not possible for muftis to officiate at marriages between people who do not fulfil the age criteria. In no way is the authority given to muftis to officiate at weddings more conducive to early marriage.

      Baroness MASSEY (United Kingdom) – I congratulate the rapporteur on this very thorough and thoughtful report. Forced marriage is an unacceptable crime which, as the report points out, will harm generations of women through violations of their physical, mental and emotional integrity.

      Many commentators have reflected that forced marriage comes within a wider discourse on immigration, national identity and women’s rights. In the United Kingdom, the definition of forced marriage is where one or both people do not – or, in the case of people with learning disabilities, cannot – consent to the marriage, and pressure or abuse is used. The United Kingdom Government has described it as “an appalling and indefensible practice”, and it is recognised in the United Kingdom “as a form of violence against women and men and a serious abuse of human rights”. The crime of forcing someone into marriage in the United Kingdom carries a sentence of up to seven years’ imprisonment. The Minister for Women recently stated: “We will not allow political or cultural sensitivities to get in the way of tackling forced marriage. No one should suffer because of who they are or what community they are born into.”

      Sadly, this crime still goes on. Only recently in the United Kingdom, a mother was given a four-year jail term for forcing her 17-year-old daughter to travel to Pakistan to marry a man – her second husband’s nephew – 16 years her senior. The charity Childline, a branch of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, counsels hundreds of children for suffering the threat of forced marriage. I hope that that well publicised case will encourage young victims to come forward. Many are younger than 17, and some have learning difficulties and do not understand what is going on.

      The draft resolution to the report states that “the measures put in place thus far have proved inadequate to stem this harmful practice”. The rapporteur suggests that the fight against forced marriage should be included in national policies, with specific bodies to fight against the crime. We must strengthen the structures to assist victims and those at risk, run public awareness campaigns and enhance the empowerment of women and girls through education and access to the labour market. We must criminalise forced marriage and adopt civil law measures and protection orders against it. We must also ratify Council of Europe and United Nations conventions that prevent and combat violence against women, domestic violence and forced consent to marriage.

      We need accurate data about forced marriage and more training for professionals working in the field in areas such as social care, education, health services and the police. We need co-ordination of effort between services. Most of all, perhaps – at least in the United Kingdom – we need to encourage a cultural shift in communities where girls and women are at risk of any form of violence, including forced marriage.

      This may be a long, slow process. In the meantime, our laws, community vigilance, and professional and informal support for women and girls who are at risk must be enhanced. I thank the rapporteur again for her excellent and much-needed report.

      Mr GRIN (Switzerland)* – I congratulate our colleague, Ms Fresko-Rolfo, on her excellent, highly relevant report about this act of violence – forced marriage – that is done to women in Europe. The first-hand accounts of young girls show just how powerless they are. This practice must be condemned.

      Forced marriage affects people living in all our member States. We should not close our eyes to the serious problem of matrimonial coercion in defiance of people’s freedom to choose their partner. It is a fundamental right of each and every one of us freely to choose who to love. That is why all member States must adopt integrated policies and take steps to prevent and sanction forced marriage, as well as to protect victims and prosecute those behind these practices, which violate our fundamental rights. All States must see to it that potential victims have access to preventive mechanisms and ban marriage involving anyone under 18. The mental well-being of young mothers, who are still teenagers and have no other choice because they have been promised to a husband they did not choose, is at stake.

      Not only is forced marriage coercion, but it constitutes a form of violence against women by depriving them of agency when it comes to their life choices and their sexuality – and, indeed, their choice of whether to study, which would make them autonomous and free. The figures in the report are shocking, so we must redouble our efforts to ban this unfortunate phenomenon and eliminate child marriage, which, according to our colleague, accounts for most cases of forced marriage.

      The elimination of forced marriage is one of the United Nations sustainable development goals for 2030, but the Council of Europe should be even more ambitious in attempting to eliminate this serious violation of human rights. As the report states, every day throughout the world, 39 000 girls are married off before reaching the age of majority. One third of them are under 15, so we should put an end to this serious violation of human rights as a matter of urgency. All the points in paragraph 7 of the draft resolution must very quickly be included in government policy in all member States of the Council of Europe in order to put an end to the inhumane practice of marital coercion in our civilised societies in the 21^st century.

      Mr BADIA (Monaco)* – Let me start, like previous speakers, by congratulating Ms Fresko-Rolfo on her report, which she drafted with a strong sense of commitment. As was rightly pointed out, forced marriage is not a simple question of matrimonial constraint. In fact, there are many forms of violence and attacks on fundamental rights behind forced marriage. All countries are concerned, which is why the Principality of Monaco ratified the Istanbul Convention and integrated in its body of law various provisions requiring the consent of prospective spouses, as well as sanctions when it is demonstrated that consent was obtained through violence or a threat.

      Although prevention and criminalisation are essential when we are confronted with such violence, let us not forget that we must also assist the children, women and men who are victims of forced marriage. They must be protected and supported. Such actions must be encouraged in order to bring an end to these practices, which our Assembly condemned in 2005 in resolution 1468. I am convinced that the report will be very useful in raising awareness about forced marriage and dealing with this scourge appropriately. As a husband, a father and an elected representative, I invite you to take into consideration the proposed recommendations. I shall certainly support them, and the deputy speaker of the Parliament of Monaco, who is present, agrees with what I have said.

      Ms ESTRELA (Portugal)* – First, I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate our rapporteur on the quality of her report on this very important subject.

      Forced marriage is a form of violence against girls and women. It exists in a great number of Muslim countries but also in several European ones. A lot of girls get married before they reach the age of legal majority. In many European countries, we have seen an increase in the number of young girls who run away from home just before the summer. They fear that they will be taken to their countries of origin and, once there, forced into marriage. Forced marriage affects women and girls of all social classes.

      The rapporteur made the point that we have experienced some very dramatic situations. Let me add the case of a young girl from Pakistan who was stoned by her own family because she wanted to marry for love. I also remember the case of Jack and Zena Briggs from Bradford, which was debated in the United Kingdom House of Commons. Their only crime was to be in love. Zena had been promised by her parents to a cousin in Pakistan. Her family sentenced her to death. In Guinea, almost 63% of girls are married before they are even teenagers.

      Unfortunately, honour crimes, female genital mutilation and sexual slavery are still very much part of our environment. That brutality inflicted on women continues unabated around the world. Figures demonstrate that women are often the first victims of conflict, poverty and violence. Behind the figures, you will find many broken lives and serious health risks. For young girls, getting married in this way is often tantamount to dropping out of school, being separated from their families, transitioning far too early from childhood to adult life, entering domestic slavery, and having sexual relations under coercion, unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancies – and of course it is a serious danger to their health.

      Forced marriage is a form of violence against women. The Istanbul Convention declares it a serious violation of fundamental rights. States must therefore implement all mechanisms they can find to avoid it. In addition, forced marriage should be deemed a criminal offence, and any marriage contracted into by persons under 18 should be banned or cancelled. The victims must be protected, and the perpetrators must be prosecuted. Only by pooling our resources and skills and by standing by our common values will we win the fight against forced marriage.

      Mr THÓRARINSSON (Iceland) – The tragedy of child marriage spans religions and cultures. Poverty and the restrictions of traditional society are the most prominent drivers. When this serious problem is discussed in the media, however, perhaps the factor most commonly cited is religion, and specifically Islam. According to data from the United States State Department from 2015, child marriage takes place to some degree in most countries where Islam dominates. We see less of it in similar societies where Christians are the majority, although there are plenty of exceptions. It is, however, wrong to view child marriage as simply a Muslim problem.

      Some families who migrate to Europe bring with them a traditional view of marriage and so-called honour culture. The practice of forced marriage cannot be justified by reference to tradition or culture, and it conflicts with the fundamental value of human rights, which Council of Europe member States hold dear. In the fight against forced marriage, we must operate across many different cultures, religions and societies. Making forced marriage illegal will send a strong message. People who force others to marry should also face significant immigration consequences. It is, however, not enough to criminalise child marriage; that must be combined with other measures, both legal and practical. We need to integrate a diverse range of activities and measures such as support services, awareness raising, educational initiatives, training and campaigning against forced marriage.

      I also believe that religious leaders can be our allies to end forced marriage. Religious leaders play many roles. They perform and register religious marriages, and they are often leading authorities on acceptable behaviour. Religious leaders have many opportunities to talk to families about girls’ value beyond marriage and motherhood. Religious leaders have a great potential influence. They can change girls’ lives for the better. It is important to hold workshops with religious leaders to discuss the great harms of child marriage and explore how religious texts can support children’s rights. Change happens when we enact and enforce laws that set a minimum age for marriage and when we engage with society through dialogue and education.

      Ms D’AMBROSIO (San Marino)* – I thank Ms Fresko-Rolfo for a genuinely good report on an important and tragic issue. As she pointed out, forced marriage is a form of violence against women and a violation of fundamental rights, so it is crucial for every country to adopt measures to counter it and give women access to support services and prevention mechanisms – in other words, activate a close-knit social network. The figures are terrifying: every day, 39,000 young girls across the world enter marriage before they have reached the age of majority. A third of them are below the age of 15. We are talking about children – it is a tragedy. This tragedy is all too often either hushed up or undetected.

      Forced marriage is a form of physical and psychological violence perpetrated by families and by the adult – often, they are from the child’s community – who enters into such a marriage with a child. On top of that violence, a girl may suddenly have to leave school and she will probably not be able to access employment, so she will be totally dependent on her husband. As if that were not enough, her life expectancy will decrease and her risk of early death will increase exponentially. She may suffer haemorrhaging, violence and early childbirth – at an age when she should simply be going to school.

      Forced marriage is a symbol of wickedness and a rejection of a woman’s right to make her own choices. Women are human beings; they are not pieces of meat. There is no reason to tolerate forced marriage in 2018. Traditions cannot be used as an excuse or a pretext. We are talking about violence and, in many cases, paedophilia and cruelty. Traditions are supposed to be a source of values, not a reason to accept things that are unacceptable. I am sorry that I am getting worked up, but I cannot be indifferent to the fate of girls who could be my sister or my niece. We are duty bound as parliamentarians to fight against forced marriage as we reject any violation of human rights. I thank the rapporteur once again, and I fully agree with everything in the report. I hope that this will be a point of departure, rather than an end point. We should do more to counter this phenomenon.

      The PRESIDENT – The next speaker on the list is Ms Blondin, but she is not here, so I call Ms Bayr.

      Ms BAYR (Austria) – Forced marriage, especially if it enslaves young girls, is equal to theft. Girls are deprived of their sexual and reproductive rights, and of their rights to be a child, to attend school, to play and to take decisions about their bodies, fertility, integrity, maternity and lives. I would go further and say that for these girls, marriage is equivalent to murder – the murder of their chances and their futures.

      As the Council of Europe was established to protect human rights, and to halt slavery, violence and sexual assault, we have a clear obligation to stop forced marriage in Europe and elsewhere. We have to guarantee physical integrity, physical and mental health, sexual and reproductive health and rights, education, self-determination, freedom and autonomy for everyone, but especially for the most marginalised. As Members of Parliament, it is our job to debate and decide on laws. The robust implementation of laws that hinder forced marriage – especially if they go hand in hand with effective programmes that range from safe shelters to telephone hotlines and follow the committee’s 17 recommendations – is among the most important things we can do to protect the lives of weak and underprivileged individuals. Such legislation can make a crucial difference to such people’s survival. Girls are girls, and they must not be brides.

      Mr KLEINWAECHTER (Germany)* – I thank the rapporteur for this excellent report, which shows us the importance of fighting forced marriage. The report helps us to understand this serious issue. How does forced marriage come about? Often, a father threatens his daughter and says that she will be thrown out of the family if she does not marry the man of their choosing. Brothers are often asked to kill their sisters in so-called honour crimes.

      We should recognise that a forced marriage is not an enlightened way of thinking. This way of thinking comes from cultural and religious contexts that are foreign to our own cultural heritage. Above all, this is a Muslim problem. A study by the Germany Family Ministry in 2011 showed that almost all the victims of forced marriage came from immigrant backgrounds: in 83% of cases Muslim families, 9% of whom were Yazidi Kurds. Virtually no Christians were among the victims of forced marriage. This problem is getting worse because the wave of refugees is bringing with it Muslim immigration, and among those groups forced marriages are quite normal. In refugee camps over 51% of marriages are early marriages, as a director of children’s homes in the Middle East told us. Then these people come here to France, Italy and Germany and import the problem. In Germany in 2016 there was a scandal when a court in Bamberg recognised the marriage of a Syrian girl aged 14.

      We have to do everything we can to avoid forced, arranged or early marriages being either valid or recognised in our countries. We need to take the kinds of measures that you have just outlined, but at the same time we have to give some thought to having an automatic process whereby early marriages that are contracted abroad are not recognised. We need to change our policies on uncontrolled immigration to avoid the formation of parallel societies in our countries. More than legal remedies are required, because we can control civil marriages but not religious ones. That is why early, forced and arranged marriage should be inadmissible – indeed, unthinkable – in our societies.

      Above all, this has to do with social work and cultural education. However, we also have to control immigration to limit the presence of groups who do not share a minimum of our values. We must not accept forced marriage or parallel societies in Europe.

      The PRESIDENT – That concludes the list of speakers.

      I call Ms Fresko-Rolfo, the rapporteur, to reply. You have six minutes and 45 seconds remaining.

      Ms FRESKO-ROLFO (Monaco)* – I thank the speakers on behalf of the political groups and all the other speakers for their support.

      I do not think it would be a good idea to reduce forced marriage to simply being a problem of just one religion; it concerns many communities. It is true that religious leaders can play a significant role. They can make it possible for these young girls to go in the right direction; I believe that was said by Mr Thórarinsson. However, it is not just Islamic communities that are affected by this problem. Let us not oversimplify.

      I have heard a lot of interesting points that are very important for me. The idea of integrating this resolution into our domestic legislation; the application of the resolution in all countries; references to depression, humiliating conditions and incompatibility with human rights; the idea that in a forced marriage there are sometimes two victims; people should have the right to decide for themselves; having appropriate structures and mechanisms in place to combat the scourge, as is being done in the United Kingdom; having clear data; co-operation; the fact that these women cannot choose their own lives; women who are stoned by their own families for refusing to marry someone whom they do not love – these bits of sentences that I have noted down are all very important to me. I think they reflect the spirit of the resolution and of the report. We also heard about girls who are already giving birth when they should be thinking of their education. We have heard about paedophilia, the theft of the fate of these girls and the theft of their bodies. I hope you will vote in favour of the resolution. There are a few amendments and most of them are good. I ask you for your support.

      In closing, dear Ms Bilgehan, I appreciate your support. I learned so much from you when you were chairperson of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men. We will miss you very sorely here at the Council of Europe and the Parliamentary Assembly.

      The PRESIDENT – Does Mr Jonas Gunnarsson wish to speak on behalf of the chairperson of the committee?

      Mr Jonas GUNNARSSON (Sweden) – It is a great honour for me to have the opportunity to represent the committee in this important debate. We stand as one behind Ms Fresko-Rolfo on these issues, which we think are very important. The resolution at hand is something that everyone needs to take to heart. We all know the facts about these terrible crimes. Some 27 lives are interrupted every minute – 27 more women and girls facing repeated marital rape, 27 more women and girls whose access to education or employment may be cut off for their entire life, 27 more women girls whose families have placed them at the mercy of a husband who they usually do not know and cannot trust, 27 more women and girls whose human rights are violated every minute. That is why we should stand behind Ms Fresko-Rolfo in her endeavours to fight forced marriage. The resolution sends a strong message about one of the worst crimes of our patriarchal society and the long-term effect that these crimes have. We need to fight them, and to do so as one. I am very happy once again to ask you to support this great report.

      The PRESIDENT – The debate is closed.

      The Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development has presented a draft resolution to which 10 amendments have been tabled. I understand that the committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendments 1, 2, 7, 3, 4, 8, 9 and 6 to the draft resolution, which was unanimously approved by the committee, be declared as agreed by the Assembly. Is that so?

      Mr Jonas GUNNARSSON (Sweden) – Yes.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone object?

      As there is no objection, I declare that Amendments 1, 2, 7, 3, 4, 8, 9 and 6 are adopted.

      I call Ms Rojhan Gustafsson to support Amendment 10 on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. You have 30 seconds.

      Ms ROJHAN GUSTAFSSON (Sweden) – I have nothing to say. I would just like to move the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Fresko-Rolfo.

      Ms FRESKO-ROLFO (Monaco)* – I would like to suggest an oral amendment that would help us to reconcile the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. Instead of a restraining or protection order, could we say “an order in accordance with the meaning of the Istanbul Convention” – that is, as understood in the Istanbul Convention? I think it would be preferable to refer to it in that way.

      The PRESIDENT – We have notice of an oral amendment, which we will deal with in a minute. We will continue with Amendment 10. What is the opinion of the rapporteur on Amendment 10?

      Ms FRESKO-ROLFO (Monaco) – Against.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr JONAS GUNNARSSON (Sweden) – The committee was unanimously against Amendment 10 as proposed by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. However, we support the oral amendment instead.

      The PRESIDENT – We shall come to the oral amendment in a minute. The vote on Amendment 10 is open.

      Amendment 10 is rejected.

      I have received an oral amendment from Ms Fresko-Rolfo on behalf of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, which reads as follows: “In the draft resolution, paragraph 7.5.4, replace the words ‘protection orders’ with the following words: ‘restraining or protection orders, within the meaning of the Istanbul Convention’.”

      In my opinion, the oral amendment meets the criteria of Rule 34.7.a. Is there any opposition to the amendment being debated?

      That is not the case. I therefore call Ms Fresko-Rolfo to support the oral amendment. You have 30 seconds.

      Ms FRESKO-ROLFO (Monaco)* – The idea of using the terminology set out in the Istanbul Convention is that we have specific reference to that convention.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the oral amendment? That is not the case.

      The committee is obviously in favour.

      The vote is open.

      The oral amendment is agreed to.

      We come to Amendment 5, which has a sub-amendment. I call Ms Ohlsson to support the amendment, on behalf of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development.

      Ms OHLSSON (Iceland) – The Parliamentary Assembly already adopted this exact wording 30 years ago. It is important to repeat it here, since we do not want victims of forced marriages abroad to be re-victimised just because their marriage is not recognised. They should be able to secure rights they could not otherwise claim. Victims of forced marriage have already gone through enough human rights violations and we should not add to their suffering.

      The PRESIDENT – We now come to the sub-amendment, tabled by Ms Fresko-Rolfo. I call Ms Fresko-Rolfo to support the sub-amendment, on behalf of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination.

      Ms FRESKO-ROLFO (Monaco)* – The sub-amendment does not change the thrust of the amendment; it just adds clarity and stresses the consequences of forced marriage only to the extent that it would be in the interests of the victims.

      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 amendment?

      Ms OHLSSON (Iceland) – We have not dealt with the sub-amendment in my committee but personally I am in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr Jonas GUNNARSSON (Sweden) – The committee is unanimously in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – 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?

      Mr Jonas GUNNARSSON (Sweden) – We are unanimously in favour of the amendment, as amended.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 14574, as amended. A simple majority is required.

      The vote is open.

      The PRESIDENT – I congratulate the rapporteur on the resolution.

4. Next public business

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

      The sitting is closed.

      (The sitting was closed at 7.45 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1.        Changes in the membership of committees

2.        Striking a balance between the best interest of the child and the need to keep families together

Presentation by Mr Ghiletchi of the report of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, Document 14568

Speakers: Baroness Massey, Dame Cheryl Gillan, Ms Eberle-Strub, Ms Gorrotxategui, Ms Filipovski, Mr Mullen, Mr Reiss, Ms D’Ambrosio, Mr Unhurian, Mr Wold, Lord Touhig, Ms Christoffersen, Ms Åberg, Ms Bartos, Ms Smith, Ms Schou, Ms Pelkonen, Ms Aghayeva

Draft resolution in Document 14568, as amended, adopted

3.        Forced marriage in Europe

Presentation by Ms Fresko-Rolfo of the report of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, Document 14574

Presentation by Ms Rojhan Gustafsson of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Document 14592

Presentation by Ms Ohlsson of the opinion of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, Document 14593

Speakers: Mr Howell, Ms De Bruijn-Wezeman, Ms Johnsson Fornarve, Mr Munyama, Ms Bilgehan, Mr Reiss, Ms De Sutter, Ms Günay, Baroness Massey, Mr Grin, Mr Badia, Ms Estrela, Mr Thórarinsson, Ms D’ambrosio, Ms Bayr, Mr Kleinwaechter

Draft resolution in document 14574, as amended, adopted

4.       Next public business

Appendix / Annexe

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

Liste des représentants ou suppléants ayant signé le registre de présence, conformément à l’article 12.2 du Règlement. Le nom des personnes remplacées suit celui des Membres remplaçant, entre parenthèses.

ÅBERG, Boriana [Ms]

AGHAYEVA, Ulviyye [Ms]

BADIA, José [M.]

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

BATRINCEA, Vlad [Mr]

BAYR, Petra [Ms] (ESSL, Franz Leonhard [Mr])

BİLGEHAN, Gülsün [Mme]

BRUIJN-WEZEMAN, Reina de [Ms] (MAEIJER, Vicky [Ms])

BÜCHEL, Roland Rino [Mr] (LOMBARDI, Filippo [M.])

CHRISTOFFERSEN, Lise [Ms]

D’AMBROSIO, Vanessa [Ms]

EBERLE-STRUB, Susanne [Ms]

ESTRELA, Edite [Mme]

FILIPOVSKI, Dubravka [Ms] (PANTIĆ PILJA, Biljana [Ms])

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

FRESKO-ROLFO, Béatrice [Mme]

FRIDEZ, Pierre-Alain [M.]

GALE, Roger [Sir]

GATTOLIN, André [M.] (CAZEAU, Bernard [M.])

GAVAN, Paul [Mr]

GERMANN, Hannes [Mr] (HEER, Alfred [Mr])

GHILETCHI, Valeriu [Mr]

GORROTXATEGUI, Miren Edurne [Mme] (BUSTINDUY, Pablo [Mr])

GRIN, Jean-Pierre [M.] (FIALA, Doris [Mme])

GÜNAY, Emine Nur [Ms]

HAIDER, Roman [Mr]

HEINRICH, Gabriela [Ms]

HOWELL, John [Mr]

JOHNSSON FORNARVE, Lotta [Ms] (KARLSSON, Niklas [Mr])

JORDANA, Carles [Mr] (NAUDI ZAMORA, Víctor [M.])

KAVVADIA, Ioanneta [Ms]

KILIÇ, Akif Çağatay [Mr]

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

KLEINWAECHTER, Norbert [Mr]

KOX, Tiny [Mr]

LEITE RAMOS, Luís [M.]

LĪBIŅA-EGNERE, Inese [Ms]

LOGVYNSKYI, Georgii [Mr]

MAROSZ, Ján [Mr]

MASSEY, Doreen [Baroness]

McCARTHY, Kerry [Ms]

MEHL, Emilie Enger [Ms]

MENDES, Ana Catarina [Mme]

MULLEN, Rónán [Mr] (HOPKINS, Maura [Ms])

MÜLLER, Thomas [Mr]

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

NICOLETTI, Michele [Mr]

NISSINEN, Johan [Mr]

OEHME, Ulrich [Mr] (BERNHARD, Marc [Mr])

OHLSSON, Carina [Ms]

PACKALÉN, Tom [Mr]

PELKONEN, Jaana Maarit [Ms]

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

PUPPATO, Laura [Ms] (BERTUZZI, Maria Teresa [Ms])

REISS, Frédéric [M.] (DURANTON, Nicole [Mme])

RIBERAYGUA, Patrícia [Mme]

ROJHAN GUSTAFSSON, Azadeh [Ms] (GUNNARSSON, Jonas [Mr])

SCHENNACH, Stefan [Mr]

SCHOU, Ingjerd [Ms]

SCHWABE, Frank [Mr]

SEKULIĆ, Predrag [Mr]

SMITH, Angela [Ms]

SOBOLEV, Serhiy [Mr]

SOLEIM, Vetle Wang [Mr] (EIDE, Espen Barth [Mr])

ŞUPAC, Inna [Ms]

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

THÓRARINSSON, Birgir [Mr] (ÓLASON, Bergþór [Mr])

TOUHIG, Don [Lord] (WILSON, Phil [Mr])

UNHURIAN, Pavlo [Mr] (BILOVOL, Oleksandr [Mr])

VEN, Mart van de [Mr]

WOLD, Morten [Mr]

YEMETS, Leonid [Mr]

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

BOCCONE-PAGES, Brigitte [Mme]

CORREIA, Telmo [M.]

GOODWILL, Robert [Mr]

GUNNARSSON, Jonas [Mr]

Observers / Observateurs

---

Partners for democracy / Partenaires pour la démocratie

---

Representatives of the Turkish Cypriot Community (In accordance to Resolution 1376 (2004) of

the Parliamentary Assembly)/ Représentants de la communauté chypriote turque

(Conformément à la Résolution 1376 (2004) de l’Assemblée parlementaire)

CANDAN Armağan

SANER Hamza Ersan