AA18CR33

AS (2018) CR 33
Provisional edition

2018 ORDINARY SESSION

________________

(Fourth part)

REPORT

Thirty-third sitting

Wednesday 10 October at 3.30 p.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Ms Maury Pasquier, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 3.35 p.m.)

      The PRESIDENT* – The sitting is open.

1. Current affairs debate on the future of the Council of Europe

      The PRESIDENT* – The first item of business this afternoon is a current affairs debate on the future of the Council of Europe. I remind colleagues that the duration of the debate is limited to 90 minutes. Speaking time is limited to three minutes for all members, except the first speaker, chosen by the Bureau, who is allowed 10 minutes. He was among the initiators of the debate. Without further ado, I give the floor to Lord Blencathra. You have 10 minutes.

      Lord BLENCATHRA (United Kingdom) – When my group first applied for this debate, we called it “The Council of Europe: an organisation in crisis”. Yesterday morning, I wrote two alternative introductory sentences. The first began: “The Council of Europe has no future because the unelected bureaucrats are in charge and we the politicians have to dance to their tune.” However, the sentence I will use today is: the Council of Europe has a future, because the will of the politicians has prevailed, but we are still in crisis. We have had a major corruption scandal that has damaged the reputation of this august body. Am I the only one who thinks that we did not punish the perpetrators properly?

      Then we come to our financial difficulties. The Secretary General’s solution is to get Russian money at any price, but that is a price that the Assembly rightly rejected yesterday. As Sir Roger Gale said yesterday: “The UK delegation has taken a united position in stating clearly that the principles of the Parliamentary Assembly are not for sale, that the Assembly will not be held to ransom by the Russian Federation and that it reserves its right to challenge credentials and to impose sanctions when necessitated by nations’ breaches of the Convention.” He continued: “This exercise has represented a gross miscalculation on the part of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe. The Parliamentary Assembly is an elected and representative body that cannot be browbeaten or bought.”

      Everyone knows that the use of the word “strengthening” is George Orwell doublespeak when what was envisaged was a weakening of the opportunity for elected members to make decisions on the legitimacy of national delegations. Russia broke international law by invading a foreign country, yet our bureaucrats commissioned a report suggesting that we exceeded our legal authority by taking sanctions against them. This Assembly of hundreds of legitimate politicians from nearly every country in Europe could have been silenced, gagged and neutered and our decision overturned by a lawyer’s opinion on a technicality of our rules. It is like the scene from the Monty Python film “The Life of Brian” where Christ is arrested and about to be crucified and the various Judean factions are arguing over draft resolutions criticising it. In the “Life of Jagland” version, Russia invades Crimea in an act of war, but we argue whether we have the legal authority to take action.

      Let me make it clear: I want to meet Russian colleagues and hear from them. Coming from the United Kingdom, there are a few things we would like to talk to the Russians about, but we cannot have them here on terms dictated by Mr Putin. So I want to appeal directly to the Russian people: you are a great people who deserve to be heard by all the other representatives of the countries of the Council of Europe. It is a loss to all of us that you are not sitting here at the same table. Please pressure your government and politicians to join us again in the Council as equal partners enjoying all our rights and sharing our responsibilities. Write to the president about peace. Make your views known.

      In the meantime, the Secretary General must produce a sustainable budget. That means cutting some programmes and not pandering to the big players and big payers just to get more money. We need a fundamental reappraisal of our key roles. We are the Parliamentary Assembly, with the emphasis on the word “parliamentary”. Why then are we spending time, money and resources on the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe? The Council of Europe website says that it is: “Composed of two chambers and three committees…it brings together 648 elected officials representing more than 200 000 local and regional authorities.” However, it costs €7.6 million to run. How many of our 2 200 staff are working on its activities?

      Then we have the Conference of International Non-Governmental Organisations. Our website says that: “The Conference includes some 400 international Non Governmental Organisations (INGOs). It provides vital links between politicians and the public and brings the voice of civil society to the Council.” But why do we need NGOs to outreach to European citizens? That is an insult to all the parliamentarians on this Council. It is the job of elected members to outreach to their citizens and not be bypassed by unelected NGOs.

      The Council of Europe is a unique organisation, and Europe needs this Council and this Assembly more than ever before, but we should concentrate on our core responsibilities. There are some things we do exceptionally well. I got here on Tuesday having spent the last week monitoring the election in Bosnia-Herzegovina. That visit was led by our excellent colleague, Dame Cheryl Gillan. Another team from PACE will go to Georgia in two weeks’ time, and I have been on monitoring visits to Turkey and Azerbaijan this year. The Turkey visit was superbly led by our colleague Olena Sotnyk. I simply cannot begin to tell you how brilliantly our colleagues on those missions do that work, supported by a hard-working, small, highly professional PACE secretariat.

      Everywhere we go, local organisations beg us to send more observers. Opposition politicians in Turkey wanted us to send hundreds more. We should aim to double the numbers we send so that we can check on twice the number of polling stations and do more of what we excel at. There are new massive problems affecting Europe that we are currently ignoring and that we should look at. Over the next few years, we will face tens of millions of Africans coming to Europe, not as refugees escaping war or torture or horrors, but simply looking for a better life. They will bring a culture completely different from the European liberal democratic consensus we have prospered under for the past 500 years.

      While we rightly worry about those unfortunate people who die in the Mediterranean, we are doing little to report on solutions that encourage them to stay in Africa and prosper there. On Thursday, we have a debate in this Assembly on empowering women as key actors for the integration of migrants. When will we have a report on empowering women in Africa to get economic and political equality in their own countries? That should be a priority for rapporteurs. We have representatives here from Israel and Palestine sitting in the same committees. What an opportunity for us to make progress on the Middle East. But instead we leave it to the USA, the EU, the troika, or even Tony Blair.

      We should reorganise our week in Strasbourg. We are the Parliamentary Assembly. It is supposed to be a place where parliamentarians from all member countries get a chance to speak and make our voice heard, yet we take second place to so-called celebrity speakers who add little to our deliberations. We waste time hearing set-piece speeches from minor politicians who are not even well known in their own countries. Our debates do not get the attention that they deserve, and far too many parliamentarians are frozen out from making a speech because the time has expired. There is no point in a parliamentarian being here unless he or she can speak in a debate.

      The free debate on Monday must be sacrosanct and longer. There is no need for a Secretary General progress report on a Monday, nor some of the other routine information. That should be held over till Tuesday or done last thing at night. It is not urgent. There should be two emergency debates, one on a Wednesday and one on a Thursday, in prime time. We should abandon the nonsense of a rushed rapporteur report done in 48 hours with recommendations on every emergency debate. Those emergency debates should be on a “take note of situation X” basis and permit as many people as possible to participate. The only vote should be, possibly, that the Assembly authorises the relevant committee to go away and prepare a report for the next Strasbourg plenary, when rapporteurs will have had ample time to prepare a proper report.

      We have far too many reports on irrelevant issues that take up debating time. With all due respect, can anyone tell me what the debate this Friday morning is about? It is called “Deal-making in criminal proceedings: the need for minimum standards for trial waiver systems”. No wonder only one person has signed up to speak on that earth-shattering subject.

      In summary, we should cut our spending to match our income. We should tackle the new issues facing Europe. We should concern ourselves with the human rights of those who might come to Europe; they are equally as important as the human rights of those who have come here. We should give parliamentarians the central role in the plenary. We should have fewer rapporteur reports and more time for debates on important subjects. To borrow a phrase from the United Kingdom Brexit referendum, it is time for parliamentarians to take back control. Let us give the Council of Europe a bright new future once again.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Lord Blencathra.

      I now call Ms Kavvadia.

      Ms KAVVADIA (Greece, Spokesperson for the Group of the Unified European Left) – Dear colleagues, it is right that the title of today’s debate was changed to reflect a more positive light on the prospects of our Organisation. However, the previous title, which characterised the Council of Europe as “an organisation in crisis”, is also an accurate description of the situation that we face. Of course, it would be far more correct to say that it is not the Council of Europe itself that is in crisis but Europe as a whole - especially the institutional framework of European integration created after the Second World War to ensure peace and promote democracy, human rights, the rule of law and economic prosperity. Is that framework adequate for the challenges facing our continent today, in the 21st century? Can we hide the fact that the EU has suffered a violent amputation in Brexit, that the eurozone is in a state of constant disequilibrium that casts doubt over its viability, that Europe has failed to deal with the refugee and migrant issue in a manner consistent with its values and interests, and that the extreme right is steadily becoming mainstream, along with racist, xenophobic and fascist rhetoric and policies in many European countries?

      The Group of the Unified European Left has consistently held a position of principle, offering arguments on the reasons for this great European decline, as we might call it: neoliberalism, social and economic inequalities, the exclusion of vast parts of our populations, the tearing of the fabric of social cohesion, and the use of nationalism as a tool to divert popular anger. However, as a political power in favour of European solidarity, peace and democracy, we offer proposals that are linked to the debate that took place in the Ad Hoc Committee on the future of the Council of Europe and of this Assembly. Most colleagues would agree that our proposals went a long way towards strengthening both our Organisation, an alternative engine of European integration, and our Assembly, which has rightly been called “the democratic conscience of wider Europe". We must safeguard our unique system of human rights protection, founded on our main conventions, particularly the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Social Charter.

      Do we honestly believe that our Assembly can have an impact as a forum of interparliamentary diplomacy if it fails to live up to that title? The great advantage of the Council of Europe is that it includes the vast majority of European States. If we forget that advantage and start excluding member States, the only thing that we will achieve is to accelerate the decline of our own Organisation as well. Do we really want to be responsible for that?

      Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania, Spokesperson for the Group of the European People’s Party) – This time, I promise to speak not about Russia but about the Council of Europe and the Parliamentary Assembly. The Organisation is 70 years old. Being a specialist on strategic studies I know that, after 70 years, different international organisations are coming to a crisis. If you look at history, you will see that even countries can go through crises in 70 years. It is time for change.

      We are really in crisis. What happened this week shows that we are not happy with our Organisation, so we have to look for solutions. There is nothing wrong with change and improvement, but we need to recognise that the Organisation is not functioning properly. Did the people who created this Organisation 70 years ago ever dream that we would have a sub-committee on the conflicts among member States? Instead of a gentlemen’s club, we have an Organisation in which countries fight each other. We do not have a post-war situation any more; unfortunately, we are working in a war situation. We can give more examples of how things are not going right.

      We need reform, so we need to think what we have to do. This time, it is not enough to organise someone to write a Rules Committee report on how to improve the situation. The problem is not the rules; the problem is the principles and values. We probably have to organise some specialist “wise man” group to dream up a new Council of Europe – not to work out how to change the old one, but to invent a new one. We had clever, strong and brave men 70 years ago; we also have them now, so let them think what we need to do. There can be lots of different ideas. We are on a battlefield, but we should work out how to be in the discussion room so that we can have clever discussion.

      I agree with Lord Blencathra that we are writing many small reports instead of doing things right. We have to change. Where is our place between universality and effectiveness, between values and geography, between values and virtues? My proposal is to think about a completely new, brave and fresh Council of Europe.

      Mr COAKER (United Kingdom, Spokesperson for the Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group) – It is about time that we, as members of the Council of Europe, had some confidence in ourselves. Yes, we face challenges and issues, and sometimes our debates bring us into conflict with one another, but it is great that the countries of Europe are here together.

      For inspiration we should go back and talk to the founding fathers. I apologise for the term, but the founding fathers, as they are described on our website, are Churchill, Bevin, Adenauer, Schuman, Spaak and de Gasperi. We say that we have problems, yet at the end of the Second World War – with millions killed, Europe destroyed, countries ruined and human rights abuses that we had never seen before – those men, and there were women with them too, stood together and said, “We will find a better way.” Their words should inspire us now. Rather than a counsel of despair, we should look to overcome the present situation.

      Spaak said, “because it is here that all of Europe comes together, and because there are occasions like today’s when problems arise…and need to be examined by all the countries of Europe.” Churchill said, “The dangers threatening us are great but great too is our strength, and there is no reason why we should not succeed in achieving our aims”. Konrad Adenauer said, “And it is also greatly significant that here, at any rate, there is a place where almost the whole of Europe gathers together”.

      Those are words from 1949, and here we are in 2018. Those words should echo down the ages to us, as though those men were speaking to us today. Of course there are issues and problems, including Russia and migration. Everybody here could speak of those things, yet we stand here together to discuss and debate how to overcome those problems. This is not the Europe of old that fought with itself and in which armies battled over ideas. It is in this Chamber and others like it that such ideas are battled for. Whether it is freedom of association, freedom of the press, LGBT rights, ending imprisonment without trial or freedom of religion, all those things are the principles on which this Assembly is based.

      We are at a crossroads. Either countries turn inwards and look to themselves for their own solutions, or we have the confidence to say that we are established according to principles that believe that, by co-operating and working together, countries can deliver much better than if we seek to pursue our own aims and fight one another. That should be our inspiration. Let the words of the past echo down the ages and speak to us today. We can overcome these challenges, but we will do it better by working together. That is the message we should be sending out to the people of Europe.

      Mr SEYIDOV (Azerbaijan, Spokesperson for the European Conservatives Group) – I am grateful to Lord Blencathra for his excellent introductory remarks and for his ideas about the future of this Organisation. I agree with the previous speakers that this discussion is not only about the future but about the crisis that we unfortunately face. Without analysing where we are it will be impossible to understand in which direction we should go.

      We frequently hear that the way out of this crisis is to change the procedures or financial arrangements, but it is impossible to do that without thinking about our values and attitudes. We should look at ourselves. Could we have an Organisation in which seven or eight countries out of 47 are at war with each other? Could we imagine member States of this Organisation fighting each other? That would be very difficult. Could we have an Organisation in which 10, 11 or 12 countries are under strict monitoring and in which the “old democracies” have very different attitudes?

      We frequently discuss – even today – Islamophobia and anti-Semitism. We should understand that without changing our attitudes to each other, we are not able to think about the future of this Organisation. We should immediately create a special ad hoc group to think about how we can find the way out of this crisis. We should seek new ideas that are acceptable to all 47 member States. Only in that way will we be able to be together. Otherwise the future of this Organisation will be in question.

      I hope we will be able to find the future. We should use our limited time to understand each other, to listen to each other and to respect each other.

      Mr BECHT (France, Spokesperson for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe)* – No one can deny that the Council of Europe is experiencing a profound crisis. This was the first European institution to be created after the Second World War. How could it not be affected by the crisis in Europe? After two world wars our elders took the tremendous gamble of uniting their States around the powerful dream of peace, prosperity and the common values that came from the age of enlightenment – human rights, the rule of law and democracy. Seventy years later, that dream has become a reality for our citizens.

      European institutions, relying on their success, have been in management mode and have not looked forwards. This legal Europe has its own raison d’être, but it has lost the strength of its ideals. In the face of issues such as globalisation, terrorism and mass migration, Europe is not able to find effective answers that will help us to overcome our fears.

      Let us be realistic. If Europe takes a strictly legal and technocratic approach, it will die at the ballot box, rejected by our citizens. The deconstruction of Europe will see the return of the wars of the 20th century. We need to protect the bedrock of the Council of Europe – human rights, democracy and the rule of law – but to guarantee our values we have to reawaken the European dream. We have to motivate our citizens and give them a new reason to believe in Europe. In order to do that, Europe must take up the challenge of interesting people and renewing their enthusiasm, which is why I suggest that we proceed without further ado to a profound reform of our institution.

      Let us overcome our quarrels and let us imagine concrete projects that will unite our States and our citizens. Let us try to improve health and find therapies that will rid us of cancer and free us from disease. Let us find a circular economy and let us stop using and exhausting our resources. Let us find new forms of transport and not leave the conquest of space to America and China. The Council of Europe would then find renewed strength.

      This proposal is not a pipe dream. We do not have to recast our Statute, because Article 1b says clearly that the Council of Europe should pursue agreements on “economic, social, cultural, scientific, legal and administrative matters” while developing human rights. The time has come to recover the audacity, faith and courage of our founding fathers. That is what will save Europe and the Council of Europe. Peace will thus be saved.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Becht.

      Ms Katsarava, let me point out that you are not seated in your place. Exceptionally, I will give you the floor, but in future please note that speakers are to speak from their assigned place, otherwise it is too difficult to manage the microphones.

      Ms KATSARAVA (Georgia) – Thank you, Madam President.

      I wish to make three points regarding our vision of the future of the Organisation and what should be done to make it more effective and result-oriented. First, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe should focus and give its attention to its core mandate. With the available resources we have, we should focus more on our key priorities, which resonate with each member State.

      My second point is on keeping the foundation of this Organisation strong and resilient. It is my strong belief that the future of the Council of Europe should be defined by the values and high standards it stands for, which are about credibility, effectiveness and building resilience. To touch briefly on yesterday’s debate, if changes are to be made to the Rules of Procedure, they should primarily serve the purpose of strengthening the principles and core values and should not undermine them. Calling those values into question will serve as a bad signal to Europe as a whole and jeopardise the integrity of this Organisation. I was happy to see the decision yesterday, which resonated with key principles of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Decisions and actions of that kind are exactly what increases the trust in and credibility of the institution, which should continue to set an example to its member States.

      In that light, I cannot avoid mentioning corruption, which is a concern not only for the Council of Europe. Corruption is the most destructive type of social deformation. It distorts good governance and the management of funds. I represent a country with a solid track record of significantly reducing corruption and building effective, transparent and accountable institutions, which has been vital for us. If the Council of Europe wants to restore its credibility, priority should be given to fighting corruption within the Organisation. There is no cure for this disease other than applying a zero-tolerance policy against corrupt practices. Anti-corruption reforms should be at the heart of the Council of Europe agenda and a top priority for member States.

      My final point is on financial obligations. It is important that all member States implement the Council’s shared standards and live up to their obligations, including financial ones. The fulfilment of the latter commitment by all member States is vital for the functioning of the Council. No country should be allowed to use it as a leverage. The Organisation should use available financial resources more effectively, although I understand that that requires more thorough revision.

      Another important obligation that we share is a comprehensive observation of the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. It is our duty to implement the judgments in good faith in order to ensure that international law is upheld. We should come up with specific mechanisms to respond jointly and effectively to cases of non-compliance with the obligations that member States undertake.

      In conclusion, those are three major areas with considerable space for improvement. It is critical that we ask the right questions and discuss the issue in a comprehensive manner. However, the more important and a more challenging part – acting on these challenges – is yet to come.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Katsarava. I call Mr Usov.

      Mr YEMETS (Ukraine) – On a point of order, Madam President. I am before Mr Usov on the speakers list.

      The PRESIDENT* – Yes, but you not in the place you should be in, so I could not know that you were in the Chamber. As I said earlier, if you speak, you should do so from the place where you are supposed to be, otherwise it is not easy for me to conduct the session. That is why I give the floor to Mr Usov.

      Mr USOV (Ukraine) – Yesterday, I started to have deep doubts about the future of our Assembly. I had the feeling that the very core of the Organisation came close to cracking, which was surprising. Yesterday, that core, which was forged from political principles and dignity, and was designed by Winston Churchill and some of the most prominent minds of the post-Second World War period, hardly survived blunt and primitive financial blackmailing. How could that happen? Is there a problem with the basis of the Council of Europe, or are the high branches of our multinational tree being poisoned?

      In facing the challenges of this fast-changing world, Europe needs a strong and powerful human rights defender. That much is obvious. We spend our time and energy here to ensure that the Council of Europe works, and so that it is the real watchdog of the European Court of Human Rights, and not just a fancy puppy that entertains top officials and brings them tasty Russian bones.

      To be strong and to get the Organisation to work, we have to achieve just four goals. First, we have to defeat corruption inside and clean all the political mud off under-the-table money and shady agreements with special interests, which can destroy any political body. Secondly, we have to develop immunity from the virus of parties that try hard and get far in degrading this Organisation from within. Thirdly, we must lessen our dependence on some of the bureaucrats in the Council of Europe, particularly those who think that their job is not to be a tool of democracy, but to influence democracy. We saw that yesterday. Fourthly, we must never forget why we are here and what we are here for. What is our supreme goal and what is our role in achieving it? We have to defeat corruption inside, develop immunity against those who erode us, lessen our dependence on bureaucrats and money, and never forget what we are here for.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Usov. I will now call Mr Yemets.

      Mr YEMETS (Ukraine) – Thank you. I would be happy if today I could say that the crisis has passed, that we are united as never before and that we continue to work for the benefit of the citizens of our countries, Europe and the whole world, but I cannot. The future of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the civilised values on which our Organisation is built are under threat, and we all know the name of the aggressor who is doing everything it can to crush our community.

      Russia is set on changing the world order with its hybrid war. It is not satisfied with a format in which everyone has equal rights. It is not happy that large and rich Russia, with its nuclear weapons and large army, has the same rights as a country without nuclear weapons, oil and gas. It wants to change the rule of law to the rule of power. Our Organisation, yesterday and today, remains at the forefront of this struggle. When I say yesterday, I mean, to be exact, the day before: the day we chose what will prevail – our values or Russian money.

      There is good news: values are still important, at least for the majority here. The bad news is that the leadership of the European institutions is not on this side. I consider it unacceptable when the Secretary General of the Council of Europe takes the Floor, contrary to our rules – no position gives him an unlimited right to speak – and unacceptable when the President of the Parliamentary Assembly, contrary to the rules governing the rights of the President, begins to abuse his right of presiding. I have evidence. Paragraph 20.2 directly prohibits the President from speaking on the subject that is being considered, but yesterday the President allowed herself to comment on the speech of our colleague, Mr Goncharenko, who spoke in protective gloves. Those gloves were an integral part of his speech. Moreover, at a time when the Russian intelligence services use poisonous substances that lead to the death of random people, these security measures do not seem so extreme. A British woman who died from Novichok poisoning would not find such measures ridiculous or excessive.

      As an Organisation that builds its work on the principles of equality and the rule of law, we must respect our rules and remember that they are a reflection of our values. Of course, if the values are changing, then the rules are changing too – but not today. Today PACE is still guarding human rights, and I believe that this will continue.

      The PRESIDENT* – Mr Yemets, can I ask you to put your headphones on so that you can understand what I am saying? You are not respecting the rules of this Chamber. I recall that the code of conduct says that members of the Assembly shall have a courteous, polite and respectful demeanour between themselves and with regard to the President. Anybody who takes the Floor in this Chamber should do that. You have not respected that behaviour, and I would ask you to do so in future.

      Ms D’AMBROSIO* (San Marino) – It is fundamentally important at this point in time – at this historic moment – to discuss and confront the future of the Council of Europe and our Assembly. There are problems: that cannot be denied. But the Council of Europe has always had to confront problems, and we have succeeded in guaranteeing the values upon which it is based. It is not just a question of one country doing this and another not. The Council of Europe has managed to guarantee the values upon which it is based. It is important always to have this in mind. We will resolve problems. We can roll up our sleeves and pick up the values that were the origin of this Assembly – the founding fathers’ values, as our colleague just recalled. Only in this manner can we find satisfactory solutions on a par with our ideals. We can make errors and mistakes, and fail as politicians, but we can never refrain from respecting the mandate given to this Assembly. Some years ago, a colleague said, “I don’t have political ideals but values.”

      We have to bring forward dialogue and joint projects to consolidate democracy, the rule of law and human rights here and in our countries too. Our task, and our honour too, is to find the path for a new, inclusive effort. It is not just a question of the results of the Council of Europe’s decisions. What we want to provide is of fundamental importance for the millions of citizens of the countries that we represent here. This new effort is not just a political matter; it is a matter of rights and guaranteeing these rights. As I said, the Council of Europe is not a country; it is a community. It is an Assembly of persons, parliamentarians in our case, who have decided to work together for rights and equality so that we achieve the absolute value of democracy and the guaranteeing of the rule of law. We must not reduce things to a purely political confrontation. The value of this Assembly is to bring together people who come from different political horizons and experiences but work together in order to guarantee a future for this Assembly. Thus I would invite us to have a fresh, renewed dialogue. This is an opportunity for us to do that, and it would be silly to abandon that opportunity.

      Ms SOTNYK (Ukraine) – What are the main challenges today for our Parliamentary Assembly? Of course it is about trust, about unity, and about a commitment to the idea of our founding fathers who created this Assembly, created the Council of Europe, and created the European system of protecting human rights. What should we do today with all these challenges? How can we proceed? There are several ways, and they are all very important. First, we need to stop the practice of double standards – rules for competitors and excuses for friends. That is unacceptable on any level. We also need to become more transparent, because for our citizens, as I can witness from my experience, and for our member States, the effectiveness of what we are doing here, and how much it costs, is still not clear. Our budgets, and the organisation of the entire financial system of the Council of Europe, should be more transparent, and linked to results.

      Of course we need to stick to our principles and our official documents. Perhaps one of the biggest parts of our activity is not taking decisions – it is the implementation of those decisions in member States. We have had many discussions with our colleagues about how to correct the problem or improve the situation, perhaps by finding some kind of equal standards for member States, not just monitoring, to see how they follow up our decisions and implement them on the national level. It would be a new challenge but also create new possibilities for this Organisation to become stronger and to have more meaning in our member States.

      If you ask me about vision, I think we do have vision. It did not change for 70 years, and there is still vision, because today democracy is under threat. There is no difference between liberals, socialists and left-wingers. We have one and the same values, and we are united: democracy is very important. What we really need is strategy. That strategy should be focused and based on a very realistic estimation of what we can really do and how we can be united. We need timelines to bring back the meaning of this Organisation to our citizens.

      Mr KANDELAKI (Georgia) – When great Europeans like Winston Churchill and Konrad Adenauer established this Organisation in 1945, they were guided not only by the horrors of the Second World War but by an understanding derived from this catastrophe that democracy is a fragile system of government – that democracy always needs protection, that democracy is a work in progress, and that democracy is always under attack by agents of non-freedom. As Edmund Burke, one of the great thinkers of the enlightenment, said, all it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. Good people always have to work hard here against those who want to undermine democracy.

      For decades, this Organisation has addressed many burning issues. Indeed, as has been said, there are many burning issues other than Russia in various member States, including in my own. I am having a very hard time attracting attention to the issues in my country, including that of democracy, but a vigorous and concerted effort, including in the literature about this Organisation, to grant an exception from the rules to Russia has undermined the Organisation’s ability to scrutinise other important issues. A great example of the dramatic erosion of the Council of Europe’s ability to monitor and scrutinise other issues is the surge in the number of irrelevant topics under discussion. These are topics of second or third-rate importance. I remember well that we had a debate once on some insects, yet somehow the Council of Europe and this Assembly does not find the time to discuss burning issues of democracy, freedom of expression, scrutiny of the Executive or political figures in jail, as is the case in my country.

      Scrutiny is one key word, but the inadmissibility of exceptions is also key. The great news yesterday was that such exceptions are not possible. If we have rules, they should be the same for everyone, without exceptions. I want to end with another great quote, from Benjamin Franklin, which applies to this whole saga: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

      Mr KITEV (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”) – This topic is especially current and it gives us a good opportunity, through argument and debate, to identify weaknesses and propose alternatives for the future action of the oldest international Organisation. We must continue to work tirelessly to promote human rights, democracy and the rule of law, both on the European continent and beyond, in the face of rising extremism, violence and repression, and in a context in which migration and security are very strained.

      The Parliamentary Assembly is at the heart of the institutional framework of the Council of Europe. The European Court of Human Rights and the reinforced role of the Parliamentary Assembly constitute the most interesting specific aspects of the Council of Europe, compared with other regional organisations, and give it added value. The difficult institutional and financial context in which our Assembly finds itself also requires us to strengthen our values of transparency, responsibility and commitment to the democracy that we defend. We must all strengthen together and not abandon the idea of closer unity between all the like-minded countries of Europe in order to safeguard and realise the ideals and principles that make up their common heritage and to facilitate their economic and social progress. It seeks to uphold and develop common democratic and legal principles based on the European Convention on Human Rights and numerous other treaties that have been negotiated and adopted within the Organisation’s institutional framework.

      In future, parliamentarians can take a more active role in holding their governments to account on the implementation of court judgments by establishing special review commissions, holding hearings, allocating funds for implementation measures and proposing relevant legislation. Upholding human rights is not only an obligation, but an opportunity for parliamentarians. As much as we have different concepts and political differentiations, we must maintain unity. The unity of the Parliamentary Assembly will fight all attempts to destroy the principles of the Council of Europe. From here – from the temple of democracy – let us repeat that we will fight against corruption at all levels among institutions. The fight is eternal but the Council of Europe, together with the institutions inside it, must win dominantly.

      Even today, the words of Václav Havel are remembered: “I see these twelve stars as a reminder that the world could become a better place if, from time to time, we had the courage to look up at the stars.”

      Mr MARQUES (Portugal) – I would like to take a moment for self-evaluation, which we should do frequently. The role of the Council of Europe and the Assembly is to promote peace, human rights and the rule of law, but sometimes we spend more time discussing the differences between right and left, or Russia and Ukraine, or Armenia and Azerbaijan. At other times, discussion is spread across so many topics that we forget human rights and the rule of law. Human rights and the rule of law have no left or right. When we are promoting these values, we cannot use the words that our colleague from Ukraine used in discussing “excuses for friends” or talk about punishment for our enemies. If we are here to defend human rights, we should always be on the same side, whether we are from the left or the right. Sometimes we spend too much time trying to excuse our friends or punish our neighbours or enemies.

      This should be the place to promote these values and not to try to do something back home to cause problems for other Governments. We should be seen as people who come together from different parties in our Parliaments to work for the same purpose. Too often, we talk about topics that are not quite important enough for human rights and the rule of law but just fulfil private agendas. In speaking about this, I have probably made those same mistakes. However, the Council of Europe’s most important values have been shaken because of recent events. It is time to see the Council of Europe again as the main institution to protect human rights. We also cannot be a second Chamber of the European Union and use this floor to blame the European Union for all our mistakes or to ask it to solve all our problems. The EU is not the place to solve all our countries’ problems, but if we work together with European Union institutions, we can protect human rights and the rule of law more effectively.

      Mr GONCHARENKO (Ukraine) – I wanted to speak more about our Organisation’s strategy, but now I need to change my topic a little. We are feeling emotional – I was very emotional yesterday, and so are my colleagues from Ukraine. We are all emotional. Why? Dear colleagues, please realise that our voters often come to us not to solve economic problems or to change legislation, but to say, “My son was killed yesterday.” “My daughter was killed yesterday.” “My house has been destroyed,” and that this has been done by another Council of Europe member State. Do you understand? If people think about that, they will understand our emotions clearly. In Ukraine, we have almost 2 million internal refugees. The population of some member States is smaller than that, and we have been dealing with those refugees ourselves.

      We do not ask for your money – quite the opposite. Ukraine recently gave one more voluntary tranche to the Council of Europe budget. Why, given our difficult situation, are we sending money here? It is because we believe in this Organisation. It is the only Organisation in the world that has at its source the highest standards of human rights, written into conventions for which we all are fighting – standards such as the rule of law and democracy. We call ourselves the watchdog for the rule of law, democracy and human rights, and we are – that is why yesterday we were fighting.

      Who wants a watchdog that cannot bite but can only lick? Nobody wants such a watchdog. We want to be a watchdog. Hundreds of millions of people on our continent, including these people sitting here listening to us, want this from us. Look at our agenda for the week – it is extremely important: nuclear safety, issues facing women, human rights, and so on. These are extremely important things, and we are dealing with them here, so do not underestimate our Organisation. Let us fight for it. We can be a powerful force, and I believe in our future.

      Yesterday, we were debating some very big challenges, including the corruption scandal and, for the first time in our history, the annexation of the territory of one member State by another member State – I am talking about Ukraine and Crimea. Despite all of this, I believe in our Organisation. The election of a new Secretary General next year will give a new impulse to what we are doing, so please let us not underestimate ourselves, but be firm and go ahead. The people of Europe need us.

      Mr WHITFIELD (United Kingdom) – I am grateful to follow such an emotional speech that ties into something that makes this debate so important. We have rules and regulations, and morals and beliefs, but we each also have emotion, and it is that emotion that we bring from those who elect us to this Chamber to talk about the things that are important to us.

      Today is the 16th World Day against the Death Penalty – a day that highlights human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Seventy years ago, this Organisation rose from the catastrophe and wreckage of World War Two. The road it has travelled in those 70 years has not been easy – we have faced many crises – and sometimes people will say we took the wrong road or made the wrong decision, but we have moved forward, and together we took those decisions. We have never ended up in a cul-de-sac where we could not solve a problem. It might not have been the best solution, but it was a solution. We will find ourselves at crossroads again, and we will be faced with crises – some we will anticipate, some will take us by surprise – but it is only by sitting, talking, debating and listening in this space that we will find an answer. It might not always be the best answer, but it will be an answer that we can all get behind.

      We live in a time when many people are taking an insular approach to solving problems, but this is a venue where we can look outwards and see beyond our borders and current conflicts. That is important because it means that we can provide moral leadership to nations, the continent, indeed the world, and we can defend those who cannot speak for themselves, including those we have talked about this week, from the Palestinian minors to women and the LGBTI community – in fact, every single living person.

      I will finish with a quote, not from one of our ancient parliamentarians, but from Sir Roger Gale. I found this quote just today, while looking around the Václav Havel exhibition, and it is about Murat Arslan, when he was unable to be here to receive the award. Sir Roger said: “We applaud their efforts to build a more just and peaceful society, as Václav Havel himself advocated; to prompt us to reflect on what we are, or are not, doing; and to guide us, like a moral compass, in the right direction.” That is why we gather here four times a year.

      Ms DURANTON (France)* – The Council of Europe is not in good health, and a debate entitled “The future of the Council of Europe” is a very broad-ranging debate. Our discussions yesterday were a good example. We have recently faced many problems, including a corruption scandal within the very bosom of our Assembly.

      The Council of Europe is in a paradoxical situation: it has a legitimate ambition to become a pan-European Organisation, but it is suffering from the effect of its dilution following an enlargement that was too rapid and lacked sufficiently stringent requirements. In the euphoria of a supposed new world order, we sometimes did not want to see the immense difficulties in certain member States – we naively thought that they would adopt our values without blinking – and today we see the results. Some member States do not respect the commitments they gave when they became members, despite assistance from the Council of Europe and our Assembly. That is sometimes deliberate – after all, democracy and human rights are not priorities for all European leaders.

      Can it be said, however, that the Council of Europe has no future? I do not believe that. Human rights, democracy and the rule of law are the common heritage of our States and continent, and ensuring respect for these values is the raison d’être of the Council of Europe. That is why we must remain united. In the greater Europe that emerged after the fall of the Berlin Wall and Soviet totalitarianism, the Council of Europe played an essential role in bringing together States too long divided by murderous wars.

      Europe today must resist attempts to divide it – attempts that sometimes come from without. Let us not fool ourselves: beyond the economic, commercial and trade aspects, Europe is a target also because of its values. At a time when narrow identity politics, protectionism, brutality and even violence are being used to resolve disputes, European values are being attacked and their universal scope questioned, and the blows are coming from both radical Islamism and major – and usually undemocratic – powers. Since the beginning of last year, we have even come under attack from our great natural ally. I regret that profoundly.

      Promoting our values in co-operation with the United Nations and the European Union and developing a counter discourse, particularly on the Internet and social networks, to combat fake news – those must be the thrust of the work of our Organisation in the years to come. It has a great future indeed.

      Ms FIALA (Switzerland) – As Chairperson of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, I feel a personal obligation to express my opinion in this important debate. I am convinced that our future depends on how strongly we can defend our common values. To sustain our original idea – an Organisation created to prevent war, promote democracy, protect human rights and safeguard the rule of law – we must be independent and self-sustainable financially. Our financial sustainability should not depend on one or another country. If it does, our values can be easily hijacked, as we see now, and our resolutions become just pieces of paper.

      The logical solution to our financial problem, created by financial shortages in some member States, is to take a common responsibility and to show that member States can jointly cover the lack of resources and ensure the future activities of this Organisation. It needs to find innovative solutions to problems and be able to react quickly and effectively. I will give you an example: an idea inspired by a committee meeting in Jordan, where we saw blockchain solutions helping refugees by providing them with digital identity documents, allowing them to use humanitarian funds for their everyday life without using real money and with full transparency, and giving them job opportunities, as blockchain can.

      In Europe, we promote migrants’ and diasporas’ direct investment in the economies of their countries of origin and encourage intellectual capital transfer and the creation of job opportunities thanks to diaspora-supported projects. Those projects, due to the unique blockchain technology, could permit this Organisation to finance its own activities. I initiated a motion for resolution, which for the last six months has had a problem being referred to the committee for the report. Meanwhile, the European Parliament, the World Economic Forum, the OSCE and other progressive organisations have already started to work on blockchain. Just two hours ago we had a statelessness organisation asking for the same help. We need to be more effective and innovative to ensure that the Council of Europe can defend its values and be an independent and prosperous Organisation.

      Mr GAVAN (Ireland) – There is no doubt, as other speakers have alluded to, that Europe is in crisis today. We are witnessing a Fortress Europe, an unprecedented refugee and migrant crisis, and unfortunately we are hearing the shrill voices of intolerance, dark voices from the past that we thought would never come back. To me, all that emphasises why the work of the Council of Europe is so important, now more than ever.

      As a relatively new member of this Assembly, I must say I take great pride in and inspiration from the work carried out here: the tremendous work of Ms Fiala and the Migration Committee, the tremendous campaign against the detention of children and the debates on Palestine. We need greater publicity in our own parliaments about what happens here – we need to bring that back to our own parliaments – but we also need to reaffirm our core values, the European Court of Human Rights and the Social Charter.

      We must also remember that, in the light of Brexit, this Chamber becomes more important again. For my country Ireland and our near neighbours Britain, this will be the European forum where we get to meet, discuss and make progress. I refer to the Irish peace process in particular because for years there were voices of exclusion telling us that Irish Republicans could not be spoken to. For years, that delayed the peace process. We now have a peace process embedded and a peaceful path to a united Ireland. That did not happen through exclusion.

      I say to you all that the core values that we all must embrace here are the values of inclusion and dialogue. We need to be able to hold people to account, and we cannot do that if they are not in this Chamber. While we may disagree with each other or even dislike each other, we must always show respect. That respect must begin with remembering that this Council is always stronger when everybody is in it. My message is one of inclusion and dialogue; let us build a stronger future for the Council of Europe.

      Mr ZINGERIS (Lithuania) – I will start with what I said yesterday about my mother’s experience in the concentration camp. She is still alive. She is 97 years old, and she told me about her experiences before the Second World War and how Europe became ruled by Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin. She always told me, “You should feel it; you should have a sixth sense for when they are coming to silence us.” She told me about the elections in Germany in 1933 and the silence of Europe after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and, of course, after a shameful agreement in Munich.

      In this case, we face a huge problem of the radicalisation of Europe, so please tell me, colleagues: how will we behave when the applicants from all possible parties based on hatred make applications to be our members? How will we discuss with them our new realities? How will we implant our values in the consciousness of these new colleagues? We should organise ourselves, be on top of the new problem and learn from the terrible lessons of the Second World War. That was my message about priority number one, radicalisation. Who is on the side of stability in Europe and who is on the side of radicalisation and hatred?

      In this case, I will mention that we now have a remembrance established in this Organisation. The people who were here in the 1990s from the mid-European countries after their revolutionary journeys are now in this fantastic Organisation under the name of the Council of Europe and the Parliamentary Assembly. I remember Miguel Ángel Martínez, who was from the opposite party from me, said a fantastic phrase: “We former leftists – even leftists from Latin America – congratulate you, centre and centre-right party guys from Polish Solidarność and the Lithuanian Sąjūdis, on standing for democracy.” That was their vision, implemented in the abolition of capital punishment and the death penalty. I was Chairman of the Human Rights Committee when that was done successfully, in other countries that were prior applicants up to 1991. I encourage you to remember our fantastic success in building Europe, to defend our current house and to strengthen parliamentary democracies.

      Mr KIRAL (Ukraine) – This is a very important debate and long overdue. I endorse what some of the speakers here have referred to: one of the key issues and principles that we must start with and secure is trust and confidence. We must be frank among ourselves, first of all – not lying to each other or manipulating information. That said, I reiterate that we have not excluded anybody from this body. Russia, as one of the member States, chose not to participate. That is an extremely important point, because I hear that in some groups there is still a debate about that.

      As far as the Organisation is concerned, all organisations consist of two major elements. The first is the nature, core values and mission of the organisation; the other is the institutional capacity and whether the organisation is operating effectively as an institution, with the right bodies, the right procedures and so on and so forth. Is there a problem with the first element? I do not think so. I think what the founding fathers wanted this Organisation to be is still relevant. We still need to protect democracy, and I support Mr Kandelaki here; it is an internal process. We need the rule of law, including in my own country, and we need this Organisation to help us to build a proper judiciary and the rule of law, reform our prosecutors’ office and so on and so forth. We need human rights. There is nothing wrong with that.

      Where we have a problem is with the institution. The institutional capacity is not adequate for the current environment. The world has changed in 70 years, but how much have we changed? How much have our procedures and internal bureaucracy changed? Are the departments and units not overblown, a legacy from the times when everybody was happy and we had a lot of money?

      Maybe we should start looking into that and stop following the destructors that distract our Organisation. We should stop following Russian policy, trying to get them back. It has already been four years, and we have made enough efforts to demonstrate our willingness for them to be part of this Organisation. It is enough. If they want to exclude themselves further – if they want to leave the Council of Europe – that is fine; we have a lot of other things to be getting on with. The institutions are not yet led by artificial intelligence, but by human beings. All of the leadership is present right here in front of us – Secretary General Jagland, for example. I would like all of you to join me in calling on Mr Jagland to present a reforms and contingency plan covering what we are going to do without Russian money next year, by 10 December, which is the next meeting of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs, so that we can all discuss those plans.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Kiral. The Secretary General, Mr Jagland, would like to respond.

      Mr JAGLAND (Secretary General) – I will respond to that right away. I have said in this Assembly and in the Committee of Ministers time and again that I will come forward with a new budget if the Russian Federation leaves the Council of Europe. I think it is pretty clear that that will happen and therefore I will inform the Committee of Ministers of my plans about how that will be done. I have said that time and again here.

      I will also inform the Committee of Ministers about my view on Article 9 of the Statute, which states that if a member State fails to pay, the Committee of Ministers may apply Article 9, which would mean suspension of the representation rights. There is a rule – I also said this yesterday – that the Committee of Ministers established: if a member State fails to pay for two years, Article 9 applies. Two years will be in June next year. My view is that the Committee of Ministers not only may apply Article 9, it must apply Article 9, because it will be completely intolerable to have a member State that does not pay but is still here – that is half in, half out. That would be a catastrophe for the whole European Convention.

      We should remember that the European Court of Human Rights was in a huge crisis 10 years ago because of an overload of applications. We carried out deep reforms of the Court and it is now on safe ground. We also deployed resources to member States to help them to reform legislation and judicial practices. We had the biggest representation and action plan ever in Kiev, in Georgia and in Moldova, to help them to reform so that not so many applications were coming to the European Court of Human Rights. Only a few weeks ago, I signed a letter to President Poroshenko, who had asked us to provide experts to pick new judges, so that they could get a big loan from the International Monetary Fund. They would not get that loan without expertise to safeguard the process. We did that. We have taken action in many member States. We have mobilised €60 million in addition to the budget in assistance to many member States, where we now have bigger representations. The European Convention and the European Court is very strong today. As a result, it can also deal with the many applications that are coming from Turkey. It is the last resort for many of those who are in prison in Turkey today.

      I reiterate once again what I have said here for two or three years. If it becomes clear that Russia is out, I will immediately present a budget based on the fact that we do not have that money. I will inform the Committee of Ministers about that on Friday.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Secretary General. I give the floor to Mr Kiliç.

      Mr KILIÇ (Turkey) – I had prepared a speech on this subject, but as the discussion has evolved and Mr Jagland has made some comments, I will not make my prepared speech. Instead, I ask myself whether we are doing enough to work against all kinds of racism, intolerance, xenophobia and hate speech in Europe. We have problems in Europe and problems here, but are we doing enough to address what is happening in our countries? We are the representatives of our people. We are elected, and our constituents expect certain things from us. They want to know what we are doing here. They want to know whether their ideas and voices are being heard, and whether their rights are being addressed.

      Some of our friends mentioned displaced peoples. There are 3.5 million Syrian refugees in Turkey, the highest number of refugees in a single country in the world right now. We are dealing with that. I ask you to consider the issues we are discussing here. Are we addressing the right problems? Yes, we have a crisis in the Organisation, but should we not look into what we are doing and concentrate on the issues? Should we not consider the overlapping use of our resources? We will be able to find a way out of particular crises, but what are we doing to address the real problem that is arising, which is that of the voices that are coming from the past? I like that phrase. This Organisation was founded so as not to hear those voices again. In Europe, unfortunately, voices raised against beliefs, against colour, against heritage or where somebody comes from, are being heard.

      We believe living together, being together and being in dialogue is the right way forward. We have problems in this Organisation right now, but dialogue is the way out of them. Some of you will not like what I am saying, but we must address hate speech and intolerance and call it plainly what it is. It is not populism. It is racism. We do not want to have to relive the background to the founding of this Chamber again.

      Mr OEHME (Germany) – In the 70 years of this Organisation’s history, the Council of Europe has experienced many highs and lows, and in every crisis, solutions have been found. I am not trying to minimise the major tensions and the danger of further political pressure being brought to bear by one State or another, but I hope that it will be possible for the Council of Europe to overcome this serious situation.

      I would like to air some thoughts about the Council of Europe’s future. I hope that the report being prepared will mention the need for national delegations in the Parliamentary Assembly to be given official status, with certain rights – for example, the right to be consulted by committees of national parliaments. The time is ripe for finding solutions so that all member States can work constructively in all the bodies of the Council of Europe and fulfil their financial obligations. Yesterday’s debate about credentials would have been a step in the right direction. Without Russia, there can be no security on the old continent and no common European future.

      Britain’s exit from the European Union will test that country’s relationship with the Council of Europe and the OSCE, which were both formed at a completely different time, in different political circumstances. The Council of Europe should not have to live with a Statute designed for the period between 1949 and 1951. The Statute ignores completely major changes in the European architecture and progress in international parliamentarianism. It is, therefore, understandable and logical that Russian President Putin wants a new Helsinki agreement.

      Leaving aside its contribution to democratic stability, the Council of Europe no longer has a political project. In the past, it played an important role as a forum that received and acted as an instrument of stabilisation for European countries outwith the institutions of Brussels and Strasbourg. However, leaving aside the special status of Kosovo, no country has joined since 2007. Furthermore, any enlargement of the European Union and any growth in the powers of Brussels have a direct effect on the Council of Europe and weaken its legitimacy.

      In the future, European Union countries in the Council of Europe will form a two-thirds majority on its most important bodies, especially the Committee of Ministers, which is where all countries come together, and the monitoring process of the Council of Europe will grow in influence, but the States on which it focuses will reject it, and true co-operation of the 47 – the added value of Council of Europe membership for non-European Union countries – will be diminished.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Oehme. I now call the last speaker, Mr Whalen.

      Mr WHALEN (Canada, Observer) – It is such an honour to appear in this Chamber as an observer. Of course, Canada respects all of our relationships with all the member States.

      It is in that spirit of respect that I will make some observations about what is being referred to as the crisis. Of course, a crisis is also an opportunity. I was not in this Chamber at the time of the reunification of Germany and glasnost, perestroika and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, but I am sure that those who were here felt that that represented a crisis. A Chamber such as this exists to deal with the opportunities and crises that arise from time to time. That is the primary reason we are here – to discuss the important motions of the day.

      There have been calls today for unity, as if unity is an important aspect of a democratic Chamber. I would argue that unity is not important for this Chamber. In fact, we want to hear dissenting voices. It is a sign of a healthy democratic institution where people disagree but ultimately are able to move forward with the decision made by democratically elected representatives in a democratic Chamber. We have experienced that today and in yesterday’s debate. From Canada’s perspective, a crisis that has arisen is being dealt with appropriately, with thoughtful, democratic debate in an open forum. In order to protect and respect those values, an institution such as this needs to accept the consequences of exercising its liberty in accordance with its values.

      We would like all people of Europe represented in this Chamber because their governments adhere to the values and principles of human rights and peace, with which we all agree. I include in that Russia and Belarus, should they adhere to the values. Some believe that a cynical or indirect solution to the crisis was proposed yesterday, and some have said that there is a better way; I am sure that this Organisation will be able to find that better way.

      That is not the only challenge, however. During the three years that I have been attending as an observer with the Canadian delegation, we viewed as something of a crisis our initial inability to get the comprehensive economic and trade agreement, which is an important multilateral relationship between Canada and member States and the European Union. Of course, Brexit presents a crisis but also an opportunity to this Organisation. As the United Kingdom separates from the European Union, this Organisation will provide the principal opportunity to have dialogue and interface with UK parliamentarians.

      In conclusion, Canada should continue to observe what happens here and to share with this Organisation our commitment to peace and human rights not only in Europe but throughout the world.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Whalen.

      The list of speakers has been exhausted. The Assembly is not called on to vote after the current affairs debate, but that has made it possible for an interesting exchange of views among members. The Bureau may propose that the matter be sent to the competent committee for report.

2. Private and family life: achieving equality regardless of sexual orientation

      The PRESIDENT* – The next item of business this afternoon is the debate on the report titled “Private and family life: achieving equality regardless of sexual orientation”, Document 14620, presented by Mr Jonas Gunnarsson on behalf of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination.

      On Monday morning, it was decided to limit the speaking time to three minutes. I call Mr Gunnarsson, rapporteur. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.

      Before I give you the floor, Mr Gunnarsson, I would like to underscore that you are presenting your last report in plenary, because this is your last session at the Assembly. I congratulate you on the work you have done, thank you for your involvement in the service of our common values, and wish you all the best for the future.

      I call Mr Ghiletchi on a point of order.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – On a point of order, Madam President. In accordance with Rule 37.1, I ask for the report to be referred back to the committee. I believe that deeper reflection is needed on this very important topic. The hearings and conferences that took place were always one-sided, with the experts present supporting only one view concerning gay marriage.

      Lord FOULKES (United Kingdom) – On a real point of order, Madam President.

      The PRESIDENT – Let Mr Ghiletchi finish.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – I want to move my proposal, in accordance with the Rules. I anticipate that one argument against my proposal will be that the resolution was unanimously adopted, but if I am not mistaken, Ms De Sutter’s report, which had also been unanimously adopted, was yesterday referred back to the committee. In accordance with Rule 37.1, I propose that the report be referred back to the committee.

      The PRESIDENT* – I need to ask you, Mr Ghiletchi, if you want your proposal to refer the report back the committee to be submitted to a vote now or at the end of the debate. It is for you to decide.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – I want to submit it to a vote now. If the Assembly decides otherwise, we will of course have a debate.

      The PRESIDENT* – May I remind members of the procedure? The only members who can be heard are the author of the motion, somebody who speaks against it, and then the rapporteur or the chair of the committee. Given that Mr Ghiletchi would like to have the vote now, that is how we will proceed. If the motion is carried, we will not have a debate today. That is the decision that the Assembly is called upon to take. Does anyone wish to speak against the motion?      

      Mr Mogens JENSEN (Denmark) – There is absolutely no reason whatever for sending the report back to the committee. It has been produced under the normal procedure for all resolutions and reports. Everyone has had the chance to put forward their proposals. We have produced a single proposal, so why should the report be referred back to the committee? It is crazy. This is a balanced, ordinary, good report that we can take a decision on today.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Jensen. Can I have the view of the committee on the proposal to refer the report back to the committee?

      Ms KOVÁCS (Serbia) – The timetable for the report was agreed a long time ago. We had six committee meetings where we discussed the report. We had a conference in Copenhagen at the beginning of March this year. With six committee meetings, there was plenty of time for additional input and to add things. The procedure was normal from beginning to end. At the last committee meeting in Paris in September, we adopted the report unanimously.

      The PRESIDENT* – The opinion is clear.

      The Assembly will decide on a simple majority on the proposal to refer the report back to the committee. Those who want to send it back to the committee should vote yes. Those who would like to reject the proposal should vote no.

      The vote is open.

      The proposal is rejected.

      We can now move on to the debate. I call Mr Gunnarsson.

      Mr Jonas GUNNARSSON (Sweden) – Thank you, Madam President, for your kind words. It has been a privilege to work in this great Organisation for the past seven years. It has been very rewarding, and I wish all my colleagues as parliamentarians could have the opportunity.

      I am very proud to be able to stand here in this Chamber today, as the issues at hand are at the core of this great Organisation’s responsibilities. How societies treat LGBTI people has really become a litmus test for their overall ability to grant and protect fundamental rights. It is eight years since the Assembly last addressed these issues, with the Gross report. That report was crucial for this Organisation’s ability to understand the importance of the questions we are now dealing with. Additionally, it set things in motion.

      Since 2010, we in this Chamber have taken huge and important steps on the rights of LGBTI people through the work of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination and its courageous members. This Chamber is a good reflection of the political situation across Europe. It is evident that the overwhelmingly positive shift that is going on in many member States is also seen in decisions and debates here. This, as well as the fact that the case law of the Court in matters like these has evolved greatly, shows that it is time for us through this resolution not only to politically confirm what has been going on, but also to be part of the change.

      I know that many people – colleagues and citizens across Europe – have a hard time accepting this change and want to preserve how things were. I want to stress that this change – this shift from discrimination and oppression – is not dangerous. It is no threat to families or individuals. It really is as simple as recognising that people are different and that how they want to live their lives differs from person to person and from family to family. Recognising that will not take away rights from others; it will only strengthen our societies, as more will be able to live their lives in the manner they desire.

      As we all know, safe and secure families are important for building societies that prosper. I am very grateful for the work and effort that the Danish chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers did on this matter. The conference organised by the chairmanship in Copenhagen in March this year gave an important opportunity to discuss these issues in a deeper way with politicians, scholars and experts, as well as with NGOs and activists. All of us who were there with warmth in our hearts remember how the teenager Gabriel Santos from Spain bravely took the floor and spoke about his life growing up with two fathers. He gave us evidence of what we all already know: families, regardless of how they are constituted, foster strong, able and loving members of our societies through the guidance and love they give to children.

      At the same conference where Gabriel spoke, our former colleague and current Minister for Children and Youth Affairs in Ireland, Katherine Zappone, stated: “When confronted with the stories, experiences and families of members of the LGBTI community, the Irish people were accepting, fair and just”. That quote and the outcome of the referendum in Ireland say a lot about the mechanisms of the human mind and how we function as people. We need to confront our fears, prejudices and misconceptions instead of using them as tools for building societies that are not inclusive. When the Irish people did that, change was inevitable. We should applaud the Irish and all other nations doing the same thing.

      Sometimes I hear that not so much energy and effort should be put into such issues as granting rights to LGBTI people, gender equality or the rights of minorities. I hear that these are fringe issues or that they push away more urgent and pressing things from our agenda. That stance is not only sad, but dangerous. Societies that are not inclusive and not accepting of difference and diversity will create groups who feel that they do not belong and who are legal prey for discrimination and even violence.

      If you have read my explanatory memorandum, you will see that we are discussing issues that are close to people. It is about the right to visit and make decisions when one’s partner or spouse is rushed to the hospital. It is about a child’s right to its parents. It is about pension rights in case your partner or spouse dies. It is about having the right to stay living in the house you and your partner lived in for ages when you become a widow or widower. It is about all the things we as politicians have chosen to regulate when it comes to love and living together.

      We should also remember that these issues concern many people. LGBTI people are everywhere. It is about your sons and daughters. It is about your colleagues. We are your parents or friends. LGBTI people are everywhere and have the right to be treated fairly, without discrimination and with respect and love. Anything else is just cruel and will only harm individuals, families and their children. We must all remember that regardless of what we do here today or how we choose to regulate this issue in our respective countries, LGBTI people will still be around. They will love, will move in together and will move apart. Rainbow families will be formed and children will be born regardless of regulations.

      I have tried as well as I can to describe what the report is all about, but of course I have not been able to cover everything in it, so I look forward to the debate and to answering questions. However, before I stop I want to say something. I have heard that people think the draft resolution, if adopted, will result in us demanding marriage equality. That is not the case, as will be clear if you read the report. However, I personally believe that marriage equality is the right way to go if you would like to create an inclusive society for all.

      Thank you for having listened to me. I really look forward to hearing what you have to say.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Gunnarsson. You have five minutes and 11 seconds remaining for the end of the debate.

      In the debate I call first Mr Shehu.

      Mr SHEHU (Albania, Spokesperson for the Group of the European People’s Party)* – Dear colleagues, first I thank the authors and rapporteurs for having raised some problems that need to be confronted. I come from an ex-communist country and am against any type of discrimination. In 1991, in my parliament I requested that we abolish the paragraphs in our penal code that condemned homosexuals. Then I tabled an Albanian law against discrimination based on the criteria of the Council of Europe.

      However, I do not agree with some of the interpretations and conclusions of the resolution, which are not compatible with some of our universal values, particularly that of the family, which is the pillar of our society. Family is sacred. It is made up of a man and a woman and, with God’s blessing, children will come. That cannot be changed through law or decisions. The concept of family cannot be made simpler. Family is linked to our very existence as a species and a human society. The resolution talks about adoption by gay couples, but there are problems with that. The life of children must be compatible with the concept of family, so rules for adoption should take that into account.

      I understand the good will of the majority of homosexual couples who want to adopt children, but some principles are indispensible and profound and need to be respected. I do not want to offend anyone, but things cannot operate in this way. A child should be able to call his parents mummy and daddy, as has been the case for thousands of years. Those are our values. They are at the very basis of our existence and culture, and they must be defended.

      With regard to financial aspects such as inheritance, other laws can be established for homosexual couples, as for heterosexuals who are in partnerships, but they should not be mixed with the family code.

      Because of all the contradictions, I shall vote against the resolution as I deem it inappropriate.

      Ms GURMAI (Hungary, Spokesperson for the Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group) – We are here to discuss an important aspect of equality in our society, that of the rainbow families. Since 1989 and the first legal recognition of same-sex couples in Denmark we have seen immense developments in granting equal rights to same-gender couples. Today, 25 countries in our political community provide legal recognition to them, either through marriage or a civil union with a similar set of rights. As we started to tear down the wall of prejudice, more members of the LGBTIQ community came out of the closet and lived a life authentic to their identity. That new freedom translates into a higher number of rainbow families. Their existence proves to us every day that the most critical element of family life is love and compassion – nothing more.

      As the Gunnarsson report rightly notes, however, our job is not finished yet. The legal developments in all those societies happened through intense debate, and no nation is safeguarded from the possibility that those developments could be turned back and taken away. One striking example of such an action is the new US State Department visa policy for LGBT diplomats, under which it will require the marriage certificate of United Nations employees’ spouses for visas to be approved. A talented diplomat from, say, Denmark can become a United Nations representative regardless of their sexual orientation. LGBT people may marry in Denmark, therefore enjoying full equality of the law with heterosexual couples. However, the same opportunity is not open to 22 countries of our Council of Europe. That is an unfortunate reality in 2018. LGBTQ citizens of those 22 countries will suffer the consequences of their sexual orientation in their careers. No matter how great they are in their professions, they will be denied the possibility of bringing their partners with them because marriage as a legal institution in their country is not open to them.

      The case I have outlined is only one recent example of how our regulations can help or hinder many aspects of the lives of minorities. Inclusive and non-discriminatory policies benefit us all. They benefit the members of minorities by letting them be who they are, and they benefit society as a whole as we do not lose talent and dedication by closing doors on our own people. Therefore, I strongly support the Gunnarsson report and suggest that my fellow representatives make an effort to make a more inclusive European space for all of us, no matter what sexual orientation we have.

      Mr EVANS (United Kingdom, Spokesperson for the European Conservatives Group) – I congratulate Jonas Gunnarsson on his excellent report, which I read today; it is absolutely fantastic.

      The Council of Europe is a human rights body. We believe in equality, that we should not have hate or prejudice in our societies, and that we should respect all human beings and diversity. That is what the legislation in our countries should aim to do in employment, health, death, pensions, marriage, partnerships and adoptions. Equality is not an à la carte decision; you either believe in it or not. The simple rule of thumb should be one of non-discrimination. If heterosexual couples can do it, gay couples should be able to do it as well.

      In the United Kingdom, we were on a long journey. It started with Tony Blair and civil partnerships, and then David Cameron took it up so that we could get married. We still have not finished; we still have a little way to go. I am a Christian but I cannot get married in the Church of England. It appears that I am a first-class gay but a second-class Christian; that cannot be right. There should not be discrimination in the church either. As Jonas said about the Irish referendum, sometimes politicians can be behind public opinion. People were surprised when Ireland voted 62% in favour of gay marriage. Australia is a macho country, yet it voted 61% in 2017 to have gay marriages. Three countries have gay leaders at the moment: Ireland, Luxembourg and Serbia. Belgium and Iceland recently had gay prime ministers. We have more gay members of parliament in the United Kingdom Parliament than in any other parliament in the world. I am proud of that, and proud to be one of them.

      The record of non-discrimination policies in the Council of Europe is a mixed bag, to say the least. The good thing to say about it is that the direction of travel is right, which is important because countries from all over the world look to our Organisation because they respect our values and beliefs. In a number of countries throughout the world, especially in Africa and the Middle East, people do not respect diversity and equality, and the effects on individuals must never be underestimated. There, people are forced to live a lie, in misery, to live through rejection, to confront self-loathing, and to live in isolation and repression. Some even contemplate suicide.

      For the first time in this Assembly, I will quote Judy Garland: “Somewhere over the rainbow, skies are blue, and the dreams that you dare to dream really do come true.” We have an opportunity not to stand in the way of people’s dreams but to make their dreams come true. Come with me and make sure that we act on what we say. We believe in equality and diversity for all, whether they are heterosexual or LGBTI.

      (Sir Roger Gale, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Ms Maury Pasquier.)

      Ms STIENEN (Netherlands, Spokesperson for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe) – I compliment Mr Jonas Gunnarsson on this important report, which gives meaning to the idea of a modern family in 2018. As I read the report I thought of the opening scene of my all-time favourite movie “Love Actually”, in which we see images of the arrival gate of Heathrow Airport and we hear a voiceover from Hugh Grant – this is probably also the first time he has been quoted in this Assembly – “Whenever I get gloomy with the state of the world, I think about the arrivals gate at Heathrow Airport. General opinion makes out that we live in a world of hatred and greed, but I don’t see that. It seems to me that love is everywhere. Often it’s not particularly dignified or newsworthy, but it’s always there – fathers and sons, mothers and daughters, husbands and wives, boyfriends, girlfriends, old friends. When the planes hit the twin towers…none of the phone calls from the people on board were messages of hate or revenge – they were all messages of love. If you look for it, I’ve got a sneaky feeling you’ll find that love actually is all around.”

      In this Assembly we say that we want to protect human rights, and one of those fundamental human rights is the right to respect for private and family life, as enshrined in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In many member States, including the Netherlands, enormous progress has been made in eliminating laws that prevent greater equality for rainbow families. Many countries have also made progress on the social acceptance of rainbow families, but I would like to call them normal families, even though I like the rainbow metaphor.

      My political party in the senate, the socially liberal D66, is looking forward to congratulating our leader Annelien Bredenoord and her wife, Ayla Schneiders, on the arrival of their child later this month. Our Deputy Prime Minister, Kajsa Ollongren, and her wife, Irene Van den Brekel, have two sons together. In 2018 they consider themselves to be normal families. They and many other same-gender couples know that they will be treated equally when they want to rent or buy a house, get health insurance or, in an emergency, access a hospital.

      I reiterate that my group believes that all citizens of Council of Europe member States should be able to enjoy the same rights. We therefore urge the Assembly to vote in favour of this report.

      Ms KAVVADIA (Greece, Spokesperson for the Group of the Unified European Left) – LGBTQI people are often vulnerable to prejudice and discrimination, so it is important that their families are protected and acknowledged by the law in order to minimise social scorn and to facilitate their acceptance and incorporation into society. Until recently there were few, if any, targeted laws for the protection of rainbow families, but that does not mean that rainbow families did not exist. It meant only that such families went under the radar, making the most of what the general legislation had to offer. In that context, rainbow families have for years experienced problems and demands from the State.

      The Greek State, under the Syriza government, has made a substantial effort in the past few years to advance the social and family rights of LGBTQI people by updating the relevant legislation to introduce civil partnerships between people of the same sex. The gender identity Bill has helped rainbow families and families with LGBTQI children or teenagers. Those Bills reflect the principles of the UEL.

      Our group favours policies that will bring rainbow families and LGBTQI life partners out of the closet, making them visible to member States by acknowledging tax, inheritance, divorce and alimony rights, as they apply to all other couples. As these people and their rights become respected by the State, they will gain respect, pride and equality. In that context, a lot more needs to be done. First, parenting remains a challenge for LGBTQI couples in many member States, including my own. Secondly, refugee LGBTQI couples should enjoy the same privileges as straight couples. Complex issues become even more difficult in times of crisis, yet State laws and governments need to lead communities to tolerance and progress. We must sustain our efforts to advance family rights for all families and to advance the right of belonging – the right for all people to belong in a couple.

      I congratulate Mr Gunnarsson on this important report.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Kavvadia. We now move on to the general speakers’ list.

      Ms ÅBERG (Sweden) – I thank the rapporteur for his excellent and important report. I underline that I strongly disagree with Mr Shehu’s opinions.

      At a time when referendums on forbidding same-sex marriage are taking place in member States of the Council of Europe, it is of great importance to defend all people’s equal human rights and their right to love and marry whom they desire, and to start a family with whom they want. The question of rainbow families’ rights is a question of justice. No human being or family should be discriminated against due to their sexual orientation.

      It is disheartening that so many countries lack policies that cater for all types of family. It is the state’s duty to help people to live a dignified life and to organise their families after their own preferences, regardless of their sexual orientation. It is reprehensible when colleagues in the Council of Europe refer to religion or tradition to deny LGBT people their fundamental rights.

      Changing public opinion takes time and needs great effort from us politicians. It is our duty to promote equality and inclusion. We should be on the frontline to defend human rights and combat prejudice and hate. Some may think that is easy for a Swedish politician to say. Well, Sweden has come a long way on the rights of rainbow families and LGBT people, but a lot remains to be done. Too many young LGBT people of immigrant origin are subject to violence and oppression because their relatives want to maintain what they consider to be their honour.

      As this is Mr Gunnarsson’s last debate in this Assembly, I thank him for his unremitting struggle for human rights, for his collegiality and for his co-operation beyond party divisions and country borders.

      Mr TORNARE (Switzerland)* – We have heard that rainbow families exist everywhere in Europe. Are they to be condemned to live in shame or should they live in dignity? Who is bothered if someone is allowed to live in dignity? I sometimes get the impression that, in our societies, people are more bothered by love than by war.

      As the rapporteur said, there has been progress, but it has been slow. There are still disparities, which is worrisome. Our German colleague told us that he regrets that we do not have more European projects, but all member States moving together without exception would be a strength for Europe and would be brilliant.

      We talked this morning about the founding fathers. The strength of Europe is respecting differences. Why should those differences bother us? The report says that case law coming from the European Court of Human Rights is not yet perfect, but that it has evolved in the right direction. Europe should speak with one voice and avoid legislative backsliding. Parenthetically, we saw what happened in Romania on homosexual marriage. It was not a pretty picture. We need to put in a place a stable legal framework and enjoin member States to vote in the right laws everywhere without exception.

      Our rapporteur gave examples of improvements for rainbow families in respect of medical care, property inheritance and so on – I will not give the whole inventory – but there is progress. I have one example to give that pleases me very much as a Swiss citizen. Some 20 years ago, the Swiss people voted in a referendum on the criminal code to punish any public expression of anti-Semitism or other forms of discrimination. Just a few weeks ago, both Chambers of the Swiss Parliament added homophobia to the list. Homophobic statements in the media or in public places can result in imprisonment of as much as three years and a fine of 50 000 Swiss francs.

      I will close with a tribute to our rapporteur. As the Vice-Chair of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, I very much regret that he is leaving the Committee, of which he was a pillar. He embodies everything that is best about human rights in Scandinavia.

      Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – Last month, I received an email: “We are writing to you in your capacity as a delegate to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. During the forthcoming PACE session, the Assembly will debate a resolution by Mr Jonas Gunnarsson titled ‘Private and family life: achieving equality regardless of sexual orientation’. The importance of this subject was underlined in a conference on this topic organised by the PACE Equality and Non-Discrimination Committee and the Danish authorities in Copenhagen in March. As the presentations at this conference showed, in Europe discrimination in this field can have serious consequences for millions of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people in same-sex partnerships, and their children. Mr Gunnarsson’s resolution will be the first by the Council of Europe, or indeed by any international human rights body, to address this subject in such depth. It is therefore of the greatest significance to Europe’s LGBTI community. Regrettably, it is likely to be met with intense and well organised opposition that will seek to weaken or even nullify its recommendations. We would be very grateful if you could make every effort to be present for the debate and support Mr Gunnarsson’s resolution.”

      I am more than willing to support the draft resolution in the report. It is my pleasure as well as my duty as a member of this Assembly. Three important points in that email deserve to be highlighted. First, even in our member States, commitment to the Convention of Human Rights and equality in private and family life regardless of sexual orientation is not guaranteed. Discrimination against rainbow families is widespread, ruining the quality of life for both adults and children.

      Secondly, I am proud that the Council of Europe is in front, and that it is the first international human rights body to address this subject. Thirdly, I hope the person who sent the email is wrong for the longest possible time in anticipating an intense and well-organised opposition in this Assembly against obvious human rights.

      Progress has been made towards greater equality for rainbow families but, as Mr Gunnarsson shows in his report, more efforts are required. Let us take yet another step forward by supporting the report and by underlining the principle of non-discrimination in all aspects of life.

      Ms ENGBLOM (Sweden) – For what reason does one take up politics in the first place? My own story is short and simple. I became angry and fed up with politicians spending hard-earned taxpayers’ money on various inexplicable projects and bureaucracy, and taking decisions way over the heads of citizens. I wanted personal freedom for myself and others to form our lives around our dreams and abilities. If you can’t beat them, join them, and here I am – that is an old and well-known strategy.

      Why on earth do I share that with you and what does it have to do with this report? It has everything to do with the report. The report is essentially all about why I joined politics. It is about the individual’s right to live their own life and fulfil their dreams, and their freedom to fall in love with whomever, and to form a family and be treated and respected just like any other citizen, regardless of whether they are European, Asian, African or anything else; regardless of whether they are Catholic, Jewish, Buddhist or Muslim; and regardless of whether they are a man, a woman, transgender, heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual.

      The rainbow families in my circle consist of both close friends and family members. They are people who have the same dreams – the same longing for love and family life – as anyone in this distinguished Hemicycle. Women live with women and men live with men. They get married and bring up children. The children of rainbow families are just as loved and cared for as any other children – maybe even more. They should not be met with prejudice. Children are not born biased. It warmed my heart to hear the interaction between two four-year-olds on my kids’ first day in kindergarten. One said: “How cool! You have two mums. Lucky you! Double the fika!” If colleagues do not know about the wonderful Swedish tradition of fika, I will be happy to tell them.

      From my point of view, and from the point view of my party and my country, the draft resolution should be self-evident. The report is about fundamental human rights, equal rights and individual freedom. It is about the very foundation of this distinguished Assembly, as Mr Evans said.

      Thank you Jonas, and thanks to Ms Kovács and the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, for a very important report. I encourage colleagues to honour it.

      Ms ÆVARSDÓTTIR (Iceland) – First, I congratulate Jonas on his excellent and historic report. It is great to be debating it here in the Chamber today.

      A few decades ago, homosexuality was considered a mental illness and defined as such in medical handbooks. Just as we have moved on from that ludicrous approach, so have we, by and large, moved on from punishing and imprisoning people for who they love – with a few horrible exceptions, I am afraid, in the Council of Europe. Just as we moved on from these discriminatory practices, so will we move on from outdated and discriminatory views such as those expressed by the representative of the EPP, who harbours some misunderstandings about human biology and love that I believe we can work together to rectify. Our colleague said that family is sacred. What I say in return is that, yes, family is sacred, but family is also who we choose, and our choice of our family should also be sacred. I believe that this will become a common truth before we know it.

      However, this progress will not come for free and it will not come easily. In my home country, Iceland, it was tireless campaigning and outreach, and endless conversations with many, many stakeholders, that resulted in public opinion shifting so that it went from being overwhelmingly negative towards LGBTI people to being overwhelmingly positive, in just a few decades. Among other things, this resulted in our country not too long ago, in 2009, appointing the first openly gay prime minister – Ms Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir. But yet again I remind you that this progress is not certain. It is not permanent unless we keep moving the line forward, just as this report does, and we always remain vigilant against backlash – a danger that all progressive movements face. We also see this happening, right now, with regard to women’s rights.

      I believe that all of us here believe that every person has the right to pursuit of happiness and to love whomever they wish to love – as long as that is also the case in reverse. Only ignorance and fear stand in the way of all our colleagues here accepting this as a fact and as a given right with regard to LGBTI families. I also strongly believe that this report is a step in the direction of informing people that rainbow families are just like any other families and deserve the same rights and the same recognitions as everyone else.

      Yet again, I congratulate Jonas on his great report. I thank him for putting all this work in and for a great and excellent collaboration in this Assembly.

      Ms RODRÍGUEZ HERNÁNDEZ (Spain)* – I thank the rapporteur for this report. We often say that reports are unnecessary, but there are countries represented in the Council of Europe where people are perceived according to their sexual orientation and the rights of LGBTIs are not respected. The Rainbow Index says that rights need to be protected 100%. Eight countries are represented at the Council of Europe whose percentage is below 20%, and three countries whose percentage is lower than 10%. This is an objective justification for supporting the raison d’être of this report. We have recently seen different persecutions of LGBTIs in certain countries that are represented here in the Council of Europe. It is incredible that we should have to continue to debate this, because defending human rights means defending people independently of who they love, with whom they go to bed, or with whom they decide to live their lives.

      With regard to rainbow families – I am not sure about the adjective, “rainbow” – people who do not believe in equalities say that they are not families. There are all types of families. Who is going to tell us how our families are going to have to be? Families are very important. Love and respect are the essences, and not the sexual orientation of people belonging to these families. Equality means defending the rights of the whole family. Negating an obvious reality does not mean that that reality will disappear. Society constantly gives us examples and lessons as to how we advance, and prejudices make us lag behind. We are working for the rights of people. When you meet somebody, you do not ask them who they love – who they sleep with – in order to say whether they are doing good or wrong. We want to create greater equality, but we have to understand the raison d’être of the Council of Europe, which is to defend the rights of all of us, and above all to defend individual freedoms. I do not have the power to tell anyone of you what you should do about your private life; it does not define you. The excess of labels means that our society becomes inward-looking and we are losing the very soul of things. We are persons independently of whom we decide to share our lives with. I believe in different models of family. It is much broader and goes beyond what many people still believe, unfortunately.

      Mr MULLEN (Ireland) – I am sorry to have to break with the apparent near-consensus in this Chamber this afternoon, because listening to the debate, I see everywhere evidence of a false dichotomy. It appears to be the case now that you are either in favour of every single thing, including same-sex marriage and same-sex adoption, or you are homophobic and against gay people’s right to a private life, to respect for their personal situation, and indeed to respect for their family life. That is both illogical and unfair. It is evidence of a new intolerance, and it operates from a very weak evidence base. It actually shows a lack of respect for diversity, because there are lots of sophisticated, intelligent, compassionate and kind people on both sides of this argument.