AA10CR9

AS (2010) CR 09

 

DVD edition

2010 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(First part)

REPORT

Ninth Sitting

Friday 29 January 2010 at 10 a.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

2.       Speeches in other languages are summarised.

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

4.       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 verbatim report.

Ms Mósesdóttir, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 10.05 a.m.

THE PRESIDENT. – The sitting is open.

1. Organisation of debates

THE PRESIDENT. – This morning the business is very full, with debates on three reports.

We will have to interrupt the list of speakers in the first debate on the report on 15 years since the international conference on population and development programme of action at about 10.30 a.m. in order to leave sufficient time for the replies on behalf of the committees and the votes.

We will have to interrupt the list of speakers in the second debate on biodiversity and climate change at about 12.15 p.m.

We will have to interrupt the list of speakers in the third debate on the Euro-Mediterranean region: call for a Council of Europe strategy at about 12.45 p.m.

Are these arrangements agreed?

They are agreed.

2. Fifteen years since the international conference on

population and development programme of action

THE PRESIDENT. – The first item of business this morning is the debate on the report on 15 years since the international conference on population and development programme of action, presented by Mrs McCafferty on behalf of the Committee on Social, Health and Family Affairs, Document 11992, with an opinion presented by Mr Greenway on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, Document 12053.

There are seven speakers on the list, and 65 amendments have been tabled.

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

Mrs McCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – At the 1994 international conference on population and development, 179 countries agreed that population and development were inextricably linked, and that empowering women and meeting the health and education needs of individuals and couples, including reproductive health, were essential both for individual advancement and international development. Advancing gender equality, eliminating violence against women and ensuring that women have the ability to control their own fertility were acknowledged as the cornerstones of population and development policies. The ICPD goals centre on providing universal education and reducing infant, child and maternal mortality through universal access to reproductive health care by 2015, including family planning, assisted childbirth and the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV/AIDS. The ICPD programme of action is firmly grounded in the affirmation of the human rights of all people and the need to empower women, whose rights have so often been denied.

The Millennium Development Goals set, as part of their overall development framework, very similar objectives. We know that we cannot achieve the MDGs unless we take forward the ICPD programme of action to achieve universal access to reproductive health care by 2015. We are very far away from achieving the MDGs, especially MDG 5, which aims to improve maternal health. In belated acknowledgement of this, the United Nations General Assembly has now introduced a new target to achieve “universal access to reproductive health” by 2015. That is, of course, very welcome.

More than 500 000 women, mainly in Africa, die every year from easily preventable pregnancy and childbirth-related complications such as fistula and pre-eclampsia, as well as a result of a lack of emergency obstetric care. That is equivalent to three 747 jets crashing every day, with everyone on board dying. That is a very powerful image. Frankly, I find it obscene that that can be allowed to happen in the 21st century.

Millions more women are living with long-term ill health and disability. They are often shunned by their husbands, their families and their communities. An estimated 137 million women have an unmet need for family planning, as do 215 million couples worldwide. We now have the world’s largest-ever group of adolescents moving into the 15 to 24-year age group; they also have an unmet need.

Europe is the world’s largest donor of official overseas development aid and it accounts for 70% of the total global family planning and population assistance. Yet even within Council of Europe member states, a large percentage of individuals and couples, particularly in eastern and central European countries, do not have access to comprehensive sexual and reproductive health information, education and services. Sadly, there is a direct correlation between countries with the lowest access rate and countries with the highest abortion rate – both safe and unsafe.

The International Conference on Population and Development programme of action called for universal access to reproductive health services and a sharp reduction in maternal deaths by 2015. It stated that if needs for family planning and reproductive health care are met, along with other basic health and education services, then population stabilisation will occur naturally. Given the choice, women want more for their children, not more children. We cannot have sustainable development unless women are in charge of their own fertility. The programme of action made commitments to meet those needs so that individuals can have genuine choice about the timing, the spacing and the number of their children.

The year 2009 – just passed – was the 15th anniversary of the ICPD, so it is time for the leaders of the 179 countries to live up to their promises. I have with me a document “Marking the anniversary with action” – on this we can all agree. It lists the names of leaders of many countries who have supported the ICPD. It includes Silvio Berlusconi, who was then and is now the President of Italy; and also Bertie Ahern who was the Taoiseach in Ireland at the time. Clearly, countries with different backgrounds and political cultures signed up to the world leaders’ statement in support of the ICPD, demonstrating the fact that around the world and here in Europe, world leaders acknowledge the importance of supporting the ICPD programme of action in all its facets and without any alteration.

Funding for the programme of action must increase; sexual and reproductive rights must be upheld; health policies and systems must be strengthened in order to save and improve women’s lives and achieve the promises of the Millennium Development Goals – particularly MDG5, which is to improve maternal health.

I urge Council of Europe member states to compare the progress that they have made on sexual and reproductive health and rights, policies and funding. On the 15th anniversary of the ICPD programme of action, we should agree on priority actions to ensure full implementation by 2015. We do not have very long, do we? Just five years are left.

A well-known professor of obstetrics and gynaecology, Professor Fathalla at Cairo university, has rightly said: “Women are not dying because we do not have the ability to save their lives. They are dying because we” – that is, we the politicians – “have yet to decide that their lives are worth saving.” I urge members to listen carefully to the debate. I am sure that members do believe that women’s lives are worth saving, so let us vote for it.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. You have four minutes and 21 seconds remaining.

I call Mr Greenway to present the opinion of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population.

Mr GREENWAY (United Kingdom). – I congratulate my UK parliamentary colleague, Mrs McCafferty, on her report. The opinion prepared on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population has concentrated on the different chapters of the International Conference on Population Development programme of action that relate to international migration and development – and there are many.

Women make up half of the world’s migrants, but the migration process carries more dangers for women than men. Women are disproportionately affected by various forms of ill treatment in their home countries – namely, rape, sexual and domestic violence, sexual exploitation and other abusive practices, which make them more vulnerable and may force them to flee. In such vulnerable circumstances, they become easy prey for smugglers and traffickers. Once in a migrant situation, women are often faced with double discrimination – as migrants and as women.

Along with women, other vulnerable groups in society such as refugees, internally displaced persons, irregular migrants or national minorities are often discriminated against in respect of their sexual and reproductive health rights as well as their access to basic health care provision in general.

It is regrettable that basic health and social services are often denied to detained migrants, including asylum seekers and irregular migrants. Only yesterday, the Assembly approved my committee’s report on the detention of asylum seekers and irregular migrants, which stressed the importance of having common standards. We are now talking about some important aspects of those standards.

I want to stress that there are benefits from international migration – not only for migrants themselves but for the receiving society. These are contingent, however, on the extent to which the rights of migrants are protected. Migrants are also important development actors. Their profile in society has changed considerably. While in earlier days women tended to migrate to follow their husbands or families, mostly as “dependents”, more and more women today migrate independently to paid employment.

The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population will be producing a report on providing enhanced protection for women migrant workers. A recent conference in Paris, conducted jointly with the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men – the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee also had an input – showed that there is a great deal more to be done.

In the little time remaining, I want to point out that everything I have just said is reflected in many of the reports from our committee. Colleagues, I believe that there is real complementarity between the ICPD core objects and those of the Assembly.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Greenway. I call Mrs John-Calame to speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mrs JOHN-CALAME (Switzerland) said that she shared the concerns of the rapporteur. Policies on sexual and reproductive health appeared to have stagnated and had even regressed in certain cases. Access to reproductive health services was an integral part of the Millennium Development Goals. Everyone had a right to be in control of their body and of their reproductive choices; everyone should be protected against poor health, including the effects of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. Given the extent of the availability over the Internet of pornography to young people, education on issues relating to sexual and reproductive health was becoming increasingly important.

Most of the amendments referred to the termination of pregnancy. Abortion was a decision that was never taken lightly. It was a painful operation and a women would never have an abortion just for fun and without good reason. Men often insisted that responsibility for taking precautions to prevent pregnancy lay with women; but men needed to take responsibility too. No woman had ever got pregnant by the Holy Spirit alone.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mrs John-Calame. I call Mr Kox who speaks on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr KOX (Netherlands). – Thank you, Madam President. Unfortunately, our group’s experts on this very important matter have already had to leave owing to business at home. As the group’s chairman, I will therefore only make some short, general remarks, the first of which is that, in general, our group fully supports Mrs McCafferty’s report.

Madam President, I am not at all expert in this matter, unless you think that the fact that I come from a 12-person family makes me an expert by experience. I am an example of the fact that family planning in the Netherlands is still a very recent development. I am personally glad about that, as you might understand, and I am the sixth child.

To return to this serious matter, family planning is still not developed very much elsewhere. That causes a lot of harm to women, men, children and society. The lack of family planning also has a lot to do with a lack of information and the necessary means and a lack of sexual and reproductive rights. We also need health systems to be strengthened, as the rapporteur clearly states, to improve lives and achieve the promises of the Millennium Development Goals – in particular, the goal of improving maternal health.

Madam President, we also need more information, means and rights to fight the awful tragedy of HIV/AIDS. More than 7 million people are in need of antiretroviral therapy, but only 28% receive it. The problem is not that we lack the means to produce the necessary medicine, but that we lack the political will to give priority to the struggle against this horrible catastrophe.

Madam President, as I have said, the Group of the Unified European Left endorses this important report, and we thank Mrs McCafferty for what she has done to present this report – of course, that was not an easy struggle, as we all know. We in the group understand that, especially in the Group of the European People’s Party, there exist fears that some of the proposals made in Mrs McCafferty’s report do not meet their perception of sexual and reproductive rights. I respect that view – I can perhaps understand some of these fears – but I also want to ask those members to consider all the alarming proof that Mrs McCafferty has brought together in the report and to decide whether their own perception of moral issues could prevent so many people from getting the assistance that they need to survive and to develop their lives in the way that they want. Therefore, my group will not support most of the amendments proposed by the Group of the European People’s Party, but it does support the report. Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Kox. I call Mrs Jonker

Mrs JONKER (Netherlands). – Thank you very much, Madam President. Fifteen years ago, 179 governments explicitly recognised sexual and reproductive health as a human right. At the International Conference on Population and Development – the ICPD – industrialised and developing countries established a plan of action that integrated a wide range of population, development and human rights issues into a plan for 20 years of action.

This year marks the 15th anniversary of the ICPD and reminds us that five years remain in which to fulfil the commitments made at Cairo. In those remaining five years, urgent political action is required. Too many women still die from treatable and preventable complications that arise during childbirth. When women die, families, communities and whole nations suffer.

The Cairo consensus placed individual human beings at the very heart of the development process. It argued that if the need for family planning and reproductive care is met, along with the need for other basic health and education services, development and population stabilisation will occur naturally, without coercion or control.

There is a broad international consensus that investing in the rights and health of women and girls represents smart economics for families, communities and nations. Concrete and systematic action must be taken to implement the ICPD programme of action, including empowering young people, strengthening health systems, promoting gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls.

Every minute, a woman dies from pregnancy or childbirth-related causes. Every year, some 536 million women are affected by this issue. Some 32,9 million people are living with HIV/AIDS, which can be largely prevented by improving access to sexual reproductive health services, education and information and access to treatment. Maternal mortality could be cut by nearly three quarters by improving women’s access to comprehensive reproductive health services. An estimated 200 million women want to delay or avoid pregnancy but do not use effective family planning. The lack of access to family planning is a major factor in the 76 million unintended pregnancies that occur every year in the developing world and lead to 19 million unsafe abortions, causing some 68 000 deaths. Worldwide, an estimated 250 million years of productive life are lost annually as a result of reproductive health problems.

Colleagues, I urge you to reaffirm Europe’s responsibility to advance the ICPD programme of action. Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you Mrs Jonker. The rapporteur will reply at the end of the debate, but does Ms McCafferty wish to reply at this stage? No. I call Mrs Petir.

Mrs PETIR (Croatia). – The rapporteur, Ms Christine McCafferty, has prepared a thorough report that, among other things, rightly emphasises that the enhancement of gender equality and satisfaction of educational needs and health care are the prerequisite for further development. With that in mind, the goals of the International Conference on Population and Development programme of action have focused on securing universal education and a reduction in the mortality rate of children and mothers by 2015, through a universal approach to care with respect to reproductive health. That includes family planning, assisted child birth and the prevention of sexually transferable infections, including HIV/AIDS.

The enhancement of gender equality and the prevention of violence against women are rightly recognised as one of the key segments of population and development policies. Unfortunately, violence – especially domestic violence – and rape are still widespread. The worrying fact is how many women are faced with the risk of contracting contagious diseases such as HIV and other sexually transferable infections as a result of the high-risk behaviour of their partners.

Unfortunately, in some countries of the world the practice of female genital mutilation still exists. That is not only a violation of fundamental rights; it presents a lifelong risk to female health. Extremely worrying is the fact that every year some half a million women die because of complications during pregnancy. Additional efforts are necessary to change the situation.

Although Europe is the world’s leading donor of official development assistance, in some European countries, as has been pointed out, there is no adequate approach to education and information on reproductive health and methods of family planning. The report does not make quite clear what is meant by “family planning”, and I have to say that abortion could not be a method of contraception in respect of family planning.

Since 2006, the Republic of Croatia has had a national population policy that recognises the importance of family support, such as maternity leave subsidies, subsidies for children and the acceptance of the need for harmonisation of family life and work life. It also includes, among other things, the importance of securing gender equality. With the aim of improving the system of health care for mothers and children, Croatia passed a National Plan of Activities for the Rights and Interests of Children for 2010 to 2012. In the end, the protection of women and young people’s reproductive health is very important for society and its future development, so resolute action is required to diminish the risks. In conclusion, I want to stress that I will support the amendments suggested by Mr Mullen and Mr Volonte'.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you Mrs Petir. I call Mr Díaz Tejera.

Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain) said that, when he was the ombudsman to the Canary Islands, he had had the opportunity to take part in the 1993 World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna. It was fundamental that human rights belonged to all human beings, without exception and regardless of race, religion or gender.

It seemed to be the case that subjects such as abortion were discussed by the Assembly only on Fridays, at the end of the part session; they should be given a higher priority and, instead, put on the agenda for Mondays, at the beginning of the part session. More women died as a result of poor access to sexual health services than through terrorism. The Assembly’s agenda should be prioritised differently in order to reflect this.

The key word in the debate on abortion was “choice”: women needed to be given the opportunity to make their own choices. The religious beliefs of others should not be imposed on women who were faced with a decision about whether to have an abortion.

Finally, as a general point, impact assessments of the work of the Council of Europe were important and should be carried out more frequently.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you Mr Díaz Tejera. I call Ms Vėsaitė.

Ms VĖSAITĖ (Lithuania). – Fifteen years have passed since the Cairo Conference on Population and Development, and much has been achieved. Fifteen years ago, it was taboo in some developing countries to speak about sex education, sexuality, reproductive health and rights, and family planning. However, there is still much to be done. Only five years remain for the implementation of the Cairo agenda. Sex and childbirth should not be a death sentence for millions of women in the world; the deaths of half a million women every year are too big a loss to humanity.

Safe and affordable abortion is still a controversial issue among the countries of this Assembly. It is not for the male politicians in this Assembly or in national parliaments to decide what women should do with their own bodies; it is for women themselves to decide. That is a universal women’s right, and women’s rights are human rights.

Climate change is closely related to family planning. Unregulated birth rates and dense populations cause soil erosion, deforestation, a lack of water and unsustainable development. Education, education, education in this area, as well as information and affordable services and access to modern contraception, are the key issues for young people from the kindergarten onwards. Development aid has been decreasing since 2007, as well as the aid aimed at sexual and reproductive health and rights. Such a crisis is not helpful. There is a risk that the goals of the ICPD programme will not be reached.

I fully support the call for member states to continue to fund development, and I fully support the report. I do not support the amendments tabled by the group of the European People’s Party.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Farina.

Mr FARINA (Italy) said that this was a good and interesting report, but it could be seen as a Trojan horse. It contained references to something which, in his view, could cause the destruction of civilisation. Speakers had asserted that abortion was a woman’s right and therefore a matter of human rights. But, on the contrary, abortion was the negation of human rights. The report treated abortion as something neutral and discussed reproduction as if were a mechanical process, like the production and destruction of commodities. For this reason, it was important to support the amendments.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Farina. I call Mr Sudarenkov.

Mr SUDARENKOV (Russian Federation) said that development and population should be looked at in their overall context. In some areas, migratory flows were changing the landscape and urbanisation had reached unacceptable levels; and it was in the urban areas that female migrants were most likely to live. The development of rural areas could improve society; it was therefore important to consider de-urbanisation. In the Russian Federation, while 13 000 villages were emptying, many people continued to strive to live in their own homes in a healthy environment. In 2008, the Council of Europe had agreed a report on urbanisation that had set out some of the risks. A new form of urban planning was needed to save cities from choking on themselves.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you Mr Sudarenkov. I now give the floor to the last speaker, Mr Mullen.

Mr MULLEN (Ireland). – Go raibh maith agat, A Cathaoirleach.

I have been very impressed by much of what I have heard today. I commend the speakers who emphasised the importance of maternal health. Ireland enthusiastically supports what has been said today, and itself has a well-known and admired track record of engagement in the developing world over many years. I especially welcomed the mention of the campaign to end fistula, a scourge against which we must all struggle.

The campaign for better maternal health must engage all citizens of good will, and it should not be controversial. The dignity of people extends to their education and empowerment, enabling them to make loving and responsible choices and decisions about their family life and such matters as the spacing of children. We do a disservice to the debate when we use the urgent and legitimate agenda of maternal health as a stalking horse for another agenda. We have heard too much today about the radical climb of a right to abortion. I think it wrong for us to seek to instrumentalise and exploit the most vulnerable people in the world in order to pursue a rights agenda that runs counter to the health and welfare not only of unborn children but increasingly, as we see, of mothers themselves in the developing world.

In talking so much of rights, we are succumbing to a worrying lack of transparency in our use of terminology. In various international forums, certain terms, whose precise meaning is unclear, have come into vogue. One example is “sexual and reproductive rights” – although I note that the World Health Organization uses that to refer to the interruption of so-called unwanted pregnancies. Transparency and honesty are important if we are to provide a good service for all, which is why I have tabled an amendment that is intended to reflect the true position arrived at in the ICPD document.

We must also take account of developments in science, in the context of, for instance, maternal mortality. I come from a country, Ireland, where, tragically, thousands of women – albeit a decreasing number in recent years – go to Britain for abortions, and they do not do so for reasons of health care. In fact, we have the lowest maternal mortality rate in the world.

It is interesting to note that the International Planned Parenthood Federation recently admitted that the troubling rise in maternal mortality rates in South Africa between 2005 and 2007 was partly due to complications of abortion in a country in which the procedure is legal and widely available. In all the continents, we see that the countries that are most protective of the unborn and have the most restrictive abortion laws also enjoy the lowest rates of maternal mortality. It is important for us to be honest and accept that abortion itself is a threat to maternal health, not just to the unborn.

We must have regard to the most up-to-date developments in science. A survey by a pro-choice scientist in New Zealand, Dr David Fergusson, has shown – although its findings are not yet conclusive – a worrying association between elective abortion and an increased risk of mental health problems for women. That must lead us to press for informed consent wherever health care is provided in the developing world and elsewhere.

Nil a bhuiochas.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Mullen.

That concludes the list of speakers. I call Mrs McCafferty, rapporteur, to reply. You have four minutes and 21 seconds.

Mrs McCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – Thank you, Madam President. Perhaps I may reprise the debate. Clearly, everyone in the Chamber is aware of the ICPD conference and programme of action. It was signed up to by 179 countries in 1994. So, Mr Mullen spoke just now of the creeping use of the terminology “reproductive health and rights”, but if one looks at the actual document, one will find that that is the language that 179 countries – including his own Prime Minister, the then Taoiseach Bertie Ahern – signed up to in 1994 and reaffirmed in 2004. So the language is very clear. Sexual and reproductive health and rights was given an international consensus definition at that conference, and that has not changed.

It is true that that phrase touches on sensitive and very important issues such as sexuality, gender discrimination and male-female power relations, and that does upset many people. The attainment of sexual and reproductive health and rights depends heavily on parliamentary promotion and protection of the reproductive health agenda.

The ICPD goal of ensuring universal access to reproductive health by 2015, the millennium declaration and the subsequent MDGs sets priorities that are very closely related to that agenda as part of their framework for a broad set of development objectives. I believe that progress towards those MDGs relies entirely on attaining the goal of achieving that access by 2015.

This new target, combined with strong indicators on family planning, should encourage and remind our governments to prioritise sexual and reproductive health, family planning and – yes – safe abortion where legal. However, that is only a very minor aspect of what the ICPD programme of action contains. Do not get carried away with the idea that the ICPD programme of action is about making abortion legal; it is not. It is about giving people universal access to sexual and reproductive health by 2015.

It is very important that countries’ strategies include sexual and reproductive health to put women at the centre of their health strategies. It is important to ensure that more aid is provided to manage strategies and monitor progress towards reaching those reproductive health targets. Death and disability due to sexual and reproductive health issues accounts for 18% of the total disease burden globally and 32% of the disease burden among women of reproductive age. Adolescents, currently about 20% of the world’s population, have special reproductive health concerns and they face risks related to early sexual experience, marriage and fertility.

Everything else being equal, our levels of fertility and population growth make it far more difficult for families and societies to overcome poverty than would otherwise be the case; yet family planning issues have lost priority. Funding has stagnated or decreased at a time when unmet need for family planning services are increasing.

Some 13% of all maternal deaths are due to unsafe abortion. Some 19 million unsafe abortions take place every year. Young girls are especially at risk of dying in childbirth, making it the leading cause of death for teenagers in the developing world, and yet family planning could prevent 25 to 30% of those maternal deaths. What the ICPD says about abortion – it is a very small part of the programme – is that it should be legal, safe and optional; and that if it is guaranteed by the state, it should be accompanied by a comprehensive policy on sexual and reproductive health. Therefore, it should be extremely rare.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mrs McCafferty. I call Mrs Jonker on a point of order.

Mrs JONKER (Netherlands). – I would like to reply to what two speakers have said. They said that the amendments were tabled by the Group of the European People’s Party. They are not EPP amendments. They were brought forward by some EPP members but that does not mean that the EPP unanimously supports them.

THE PRESIDENT. – That was not a point of order. We will proceed.

Does the chairman of the committee wish to speak? I call Mrs Maury Pasquier.

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) said that the importance of the International Conference on Population and Development Programme of Action should be emphasised. The Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee had tried to deal with the amendments but, because many of them had been submitted at the last minute, it had only been possible to consider Amendments Nos. 1 to 53.

The states which had signed up to the International Conference on Population and Development programme of action should continue to improve the health of women. The phrase “sexual and reproductive rights”, which some speakers had questioned, were the words used in the programme of action, which had been agreed to by 179 countries. For that reason, amendments seeking to change that wording should be rejected in order to ensure a consistent text.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mrs Maury Pasquier.

The debate is closed.

The Committee on Social, Health and Family Affairs has presented a draft recommendation to which 65 amendments have been tabled. These will be taken in the order in which they are listed in the organisation of debates.

We come to Amendment No. 10, tabled by Mr Luca Volonte', Mr Renato Farina, Mr Giacomo Stucchi, Mr Gianpaolo Dozzo, Mr Viorel Riceard Badea, Mrs Blanca Fernández-Capel Bańos, Mr Marco Gatti, Mr Pier Marino Mularoni and Mr Guiorgui Gabashvili, which is, in the draft recommendation, at the beginning of paragraph 1, insert the following words:

“The First Principle of the Programme of Action of the United Nations International Conference on Population (ICPD) and Development is: ‘All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ... Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person’. In the Second Principle the document affirms that ‘...People are the most important and valuable resource of any nation’, and in the Third it is written that ‘the right to development is a universal and inalienable right and an integral part of fundamental human rights, and the human person is the central subject of development’.”

I call Mr Volonte' to support Amendment No. 10. You have 30 seconds.

Mr VOLONTE' (Italy) said that the amendment had been debated in the committee.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Volonte'. Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mrs McCafferty.

Mrs McCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – On a point of clarification, in committee Mr Volonte' agreed to withdraw this amendment because we agreed together that we should have reference to all 15 principles of the ICPD programme of action. It was wrong to highlight in the report just three principles, and he agreed that we should have reference to all 15.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Volonte'.

Mr VOLONTE' (Italy). – I will withdraw the amendment. I had not realised that the committee would reformulate it.

THE PRESIDENT. – The amendment is withdrawn.

We come to Amendment No. 34, tabled by Mr Marco Gatti, Mr Luigi Vitali, Mr Lorenzo Cesa, Mrs Deborah Bergamini, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Giuseppe Galati, Mr Ronan Mullen and Mrs Mesila Doda, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 1, after the words “international development.”, insert the following words:

“Any measures or changes related to abortion within the health system can only be determined at the national or local level according to the legislative process.”

I call Mr Gatti to support Amendment No. 34.

Mr GATTI (San Marino) said that that the amendment would help to ensure that the report would take account of the different sensibilities and histories of countries.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mrs McCafferty.

Mrs McCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – The amendment incorrectly assumes that abortion is a primary topic for the ICPD. My report is a reprise and a reaffirmation of the ICPD programme of action, which was signed up to by 179 countries 15 years ago. The amendment is also superfluous because the explanatory memorandum points out that abortion should be safe and optional, where it is legal.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) (Translation). – Yesterday, the committee decided it was in favour of the amendment.

Mrs McCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – I wish to make it clear that I recommend that it should be rejected.

THE PRESIDENT. – I shall now put the amendment to the vote.

The vote is open.

Amendment No. 34 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 33, tabled by Mrs Christine McCafferty, on behalf of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee, which is, in the draft recommendation, at the end of paragraph 1, add the following words:

“This Programme of Action accepted 15 basic Principles already internationally recognised as central to an inclusive and rights-based approach to development.”

I call Mrs McCafferty, on behalf of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee, to support Amendment No. 33.

Mrs McCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – I move it formally.

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

The committee is obviously in favour.

The vote is open.

Amendment No. 33 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 11, tabled by Mr Luca Volonte', Mr Renato Farina, Mr Giacomo Stucchi, Mr Gianpaolo Dozzo, Mr Paolo Giaretta, Mr Viorel Riceard Badea and Mr György Frunda, which is, in the draft recommendation, at the end of paragraph 1, insert the following sentence:

“As affirmed by the ICPD Programme of Action and in Resolution 1607 (2008) on access to safe and legal abortion in Europe, the Parliamentary Assembly recalls that in no case should abortion be regarded and promoted as a method of family planning. There is neither a European nor an internationally-recognised right to abortion. Any measures or changes related to abortion within a health system can only be determinated at the national or local level according to national legislative processes.”

I call Mr Volonte' to support Amendment No. 11. You have 30 seconds.

Mr VOLONTE' (Italy) said that the Assembly should be reminded that the ICPD programme of action had said that abortion was not regarded as a method of family planning.

THE PRESIDENT. – If this amendment is passed, Amendment No. 12 falls.

Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mrs McCafferty

Mrs McCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – The points I would wish to raise are exactly the same as those I raised in speaking to Amendment No. 34. This amendment was tabled only yesterday but the two amendments are basically the same. Amendment No. 11 incorrectly assumes that abortion is a primary topic and purpose of the programme of action, which it clearly is not. It denies something that I do not assert, which is that abortion is a method of family planning. It is also clearly superfluous and unnecessary because in the explanatory memorandum it is stated that abortion should be safe and optional, where it is legal.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – I shall now put the amendment to the vote.

The vote is open.

Amendment No. 11 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 12, tabled by Mr Luca Volonte', Mr Renato Farina, Mr Giacomo Stucchi, Mr Gianpaolo Dozzo, Mr Paolo Giaretta, Mr Viorel Riceard Badea and Mr György Frunda, which is, in the draft recommendation, at the end of paragraph 1, insert the following sentence:

“Any measures or changes related to abortion within the health system can only be determined at national or local level according to national legislative processes.”

I call Mr Volonte' to support Amendment No. 12.

Mr VOLONTE' (Italy) said that the amendment made it clear that any action concerning abortion should be decided at a national level.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mrs McCafferty.

Mrs McCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – At the risk of being repetitious, I would make the same argument as before. This amendment incorrectly assumes that abortion is a primary topic and purpose of the ICPD, and that it recommends that abortion should be legal everywhere, which it does not; it merely says that in countries where abortion is legal, it should be safe and optional.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – I shall now put the amendment to the vote.

The vote is open.

Amendment No. 12 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 13, tabled by Mr Luca Volonte', Mr Marco Gatti, Mr Pier Marino Mularoni, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Giacomo Stucchi, Mr Guiorgui Gabashvili, Mrs Blanca Fernández-Capel Bańos, Mr Gabino Puche Rodríguez-Acosta, Mr Viorel Riceard Badea and Mr György Frunda, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 1, insert the following paragraph:

“The reference to 'sexual and reproductive health' in the Programme of Action is qualified by placing it in the contest of the right to enjoy 'the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health'; this does not expand the meaning of the phrase nor create any new rights.”

I call Mr Volonte' to support Amendment No. 13.

Mr VOLONTE' (Italy) said that the amendment made it clear that the physical and mental health of women should be considered in sexual and reproductive health policies.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mrs McCafferty.

Mrs McCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – Again, the amendment negates something that is not asserted in either my report or the programme of action. The programme of action does say that people have the right to enjoy the highest standard of physical and mental health. That seems to me to be entirely reasonable. It may not be a human right, but if it is not, it should be; the point, however, is that neither my report nor the programme of action pretends that it is. Therefore I urge members to reject this proposal.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – I shall now put the amendment to the vote.

The vote is open.

Amendment No. 13 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 14, tabled by Mr Luca Volonte', Mr Marco Gatti, Mr Pier Marino Mularoni, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Giacomo Stucchi, Mr Guiorgui Gabashvili, Mrs Blanca Fernández-Capel Bańos, Mr Gabino Puche Rodríguez-Acosta, Mr Viorel Riceard Badea and Mr György Frunda, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 1, insert the following paragraph:

“According to the June 2009 Geneva Human Rights Council, maternal mortality stems from poor nutrition, lack of basic health care such as adequate pre- and post-natal care, transportation, etc., rather than lack of legal abortion.”

I call Mr Volonte' to support Amendment No. 14. You have 30 seconds.

Mr VOLONTE' (Italy) said that the amendment added important information to the end of the paragraph regarding the causes of maternal mortality.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mrs McCafferty.

Mrs McCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – All evidence-based research demonstrates that unsafe abortion is one of the major causes of maternal death in the developing world. Any reference to the causes of maternal death that does not state that fact would be incomplete, because we have to note the impact of this. We cannot deny facts: 19 million unsafe abortions take place every year, and unsafe abortion is the cause of 13% of all maternal deaths.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – I shall now put the amendment to the vote.

The vote is open.

Amendment No. 14 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 62, tabled by Mr Ronan Mullen, Mr Terry Leyden, Mr Peter Kelly, Mr Renato Farina and Mr Latchezar Toshev, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 1, insert the following paragraph:

“For the purposes of this recommendation no reference to sexual and/or reproductive health and/or rights shall be taken to mean the provision of abortion services of any kind. Such references may connote bona fide medical treatment which is necessary to treat a woman in pregnancy and which does not intend to end the life of any unborn child and which includes all reasonable efforts to preserve the life of any unborn child in the context of the said medical treatment.”

I call Mr Mullen to support the amendment. You have 30 seconds.

Mr MULLEN (Ireland). – This amendment seeks to make clear what Ms McCafferty, in fact, accepts – that the term “sexual and reproductive health” or any variant of it does not necessarily imply any illegal abortion services. Despite the fact that Ms McCafferty acknowledged that this is not in doubt, the whole thrust of her comments, particularly when she spoke against Amendment No. 34, suggests that there is a desire in certain quarters to expand the meaning in this way. The amendment, which was accepted by the committee, simply aims to provide the necessary clarity.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mrs McCafferty.

Mrs McCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – Once again, I merely point out that one of the five major causes of women’s death in the developing world is unsafe abortion. The amendment is a deliberate attempt to introduce surplus language into the programme of action. In fact, 179 countries – including Mr Mullen’s own country – signed up to it in 1994. This amendment is similar to others that the Assembly has already rejected. I urge members to do the same now.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland). – In favour.

Mrs McCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – On a point of information, I would like to point out that, as rapporteur, I am urging members to reject this amendment.

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

Mr MULLEN (Ireland). – I completely defer to the chair’s ruling in this matter, but I have to say that Ms McCafferty seems to think that members here are so terrified that a recommendation from the committee might make them all infants. It is unfair to have a second input from an opponent on a particular amendment; I think we should be promoting equality and solidarity as we try to take a decision on a sensitive issue.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. We will proceed with the vote.

The vote is open.

Amendment No. 62 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 35, tabled by Mr Marco Gatti, Mr Luigi Vitali, Mr Lorenzo Cesa, Mrs Deborah Bergamini, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Giuseppe Galati, Mr Ronan Mullen and Mrs Mesila Doda, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 2, after the words “gender equality”, insert the following words: “, men and women”.

I call Mr Gatti to support the amendment.

Mr GATTI (San Marino) said that gender equality should be deleted from the report. It was a controversial term, the meaning of which was not clear.

THE PRESIDENT. – I call Mr Malgieri on a point of order.

Mr MALGIERI (Italy) said Mrs McCafferty should be reproached for expressing her opinion after that of the Committee.

THE PRESIDENT. – The point being raised here is correct. I must remind Mrs McCafferty that she must not speak unless I give her the floor.

Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mrs McCafferty.

Mrs McCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – The wording is not “replace”; it says, after the words “gender equality”, “insert” the following words, not replace them. What the proposer of the amendment says is not correct. This does not make sense; in fact, it makes a complete nonsense of the provision. It makes neither linguistic nor logistical sense. It simply does not make sense, so I urge members to reject the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) (Translation). – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – I shall now put the amendment to the vote.

The vote is open.

Amendment No. 35 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 36, tabled by Mr Marco Gatti, Mr Luigi Vitali, Mr Lorenzo Cesa, Mrs Deborah Bergamini, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Giuseppe Galati, Mr Ronan Mullen and Mrs Mesila Doda, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 2, delete the words “; through universal access by 2015 to reproductive health care, which includes family planning, assisted childbirth and prevention of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) including HIV/AIDS”.

If this amendment is passed, Amendment No. 15 falls. I call Mr Gatti to support the amendment. You have 30 seconds.

Mr GATTI (San Marino) said that the amendment clarified the term family planning, which might include a number of measures not all of which may be supported.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Koç. You have 30 seconds.

Mr KOÇ (Turkey) said that the Assembly’s raison d’etre was defending human rights. The report was balanced and had been well-researched. The amendment therefore should be rejected.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) (Translation). – Against.

THE PRESIDENT. – I shall now put the amendment to the vote.

The vote is open.

Amendment No. 36 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 15, tabled by Mr Luca Volonte', Mr Renato Farina, Mrs Blanca Fernández-Capel Bańos, Mr Gabino Puche Rodríguez-Acosta, Mr Guiorgui Gabashvili, Mr Marco Gatti, Mr Pier Marino Mularoni, Mr Viorel Riceard Badea and Mr György Frunda, which is, in the draft recommendation, at the end of paragraph 2, add the following words: “and excludes abortion”.

I call Mr Volonte' to support Amendment No. 15. You have 30 seconds.

Mr VOLONTE' (Italy) said that the amendment would insert “and excludes abortion” at the end of the paragraph.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mrs McCafferty. You have 30 seconds.

Mrs McCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – Thank you, Madam President. This amendment is factually incorrect because the paragraph neither includes nor excludes abortion. It does not mention abortion. In fact, the whole report does not really touch on abortion at all. So the amendment is completely surplus to requirements. It is completely unnecessary, and I urge members to vote against it.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) was against the amendment. A number of amendments had been tabled and discussed last year. Members should read the minutes for all relevant information.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 15 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 16, tabled by Mr Luca Volonte', Mr Renato Farina, Mrs Blanca Fernández-Capel Bańos, Mr Gabino Puche Rodríguez-Acosta, Mr Guiorgui Gabashvili, Mr Marco Gatti, Mr Pier Marino Mularoni, Mr Viorel Riceard Badea and Mr György Frunda, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 2, insert the following paragraph:

“If all the opportunities open to Africa and other poor countries are to be exploited, greater efforts must be made to offer economic aid and to invest in human capital and infrastructures (including institutional and constitutional infrastructures) in support of economic growth, human rights and democracy. The commitments undertaken by the G8 countries at the meeting held from 8th to 10th July 2009 in L’Aquila, Italy (commitments for which representatives from poor nations and continents were jointly responsible) all move in this urgent and realistic direction of ‘positive development’ based on ‘the integral development of the person’.”

I call Mr Volonte' to support Amendment No. 16. You have 30 seconds.

Mr VOLONTE' (Italy) said that the amendment reiterated some of the principles set out in previous international commitments.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mrs McCafferty. You have 30 seconds.

Mrs McCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – Thank you, Madam President. Again, this amendment is surplus to requirements. It merely reiterates one or two of the principles. In fact, the programme of action has 15 principles, all of which are the main topic of the report. So I urge members to reject the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland). – The committee is against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 16 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 37, tabled by Mr Marco Gatti, Mr Luigi Vitali, Mr Lorenzo Cesa, Mrs Deborah Bergamini, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Giuseppe Galati, Mr Ronan Mullen and Mrs Mesila Doda, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 3, after the words “maternal mortality and morbidity”, insert the following words: “, basic health care”.

I call Mr Gatti to support Amendment No. 37. You have 30 seconds.

Mr GATTI (San Marino) said that the amendment gave greater scope to the paragraph and made it clearer.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mrs McCafferty. You have 30 seconds.

Mrs McCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – Thank you, Madam President. Once again, this amendment tries to alter the meaning and objectives of the original document. My report merely reflects the original document. The phrase, “maternal mortality and morbidity” relates to women living with serious long-term ill health complications. Unfortunately and sadly, they cannot be helped by basic health care and need urgent, rapid obstetric pre-natal and post-natal care. I urge members to vote against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 37 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 38, tabled by Mr Marco Gatti, Mr Luigi Vitali, Mr Lorenzo Cesa, Mrs Deborah Bergamini, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Giuseppe Galati, Mr Ronan Mullen and Mrs Mesila Doda, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 3, delete the words “and the provision of universal access to sexual and reproductive health services, including family planning and safe abortion services, remain mixed. 113 countries have not reached the goals on gender equity and equality in primary and secondary education. An estimated 137 million women in 2007 had an unmet need for family planning and more than 500 000 women die every year from pregnancy-related causes, 99% of them in developing countries”.

If this amendment is passed, Amendment No. 17 falls.

I call Mrs Gatti to support Amendment No. 38. You have 30 seconds.

Mr GATTI (San Marino) said that it was not necessary to include the passage in the draft report.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mrs McCafferty. You have 30 seconds.

Mrs McCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – Thank you, Madam President. This amendment seeks to remove a statement of fact. We might not always like the facts, but facts are facts, and achievements are mixed. That is what the report says, and to remove that would make the report incomplete. So I urge members to vote against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 38 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 17, tabled by Mr Luca Volonte', Mr Renato Farina, Mr Marco Gatti, Mr Pier Marino Mularoni, Mr Guiorgui Gabashvili, Mrs Blanca Fernández-Capel Bańos, Mr Gabino Puche Rodríguez-Acosta, Mr Viorel Riceard Badea and Mr György Frunda, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 3, delete the words “and safe abortion services”.

I call Mr Volonte' to support Amendment No. 17. You have 30 seconds.

Mr VOLONTE' (Italy) said that the amendment would reduce the number of options available.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mrs McCafferty. You have 30 seconds.

Mrs McCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – Thank you, Madam President. This amendment refers to the same paragraph as the previous amendment. I reiterate that this is a statement of fact and that it relates to what the Parliamentary Assembly has already noted: progress is mixed on a wide range of issues, including safe abortion. You cannot remove facts whether you like them or not. So I urge members to reject this amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland). – The committee is against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 17 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 18, tabled by Mr Luca Volonte', Mr Renato Farina, Mr Marco Gatti, Mr Pier Marino Mularoni, Mr Guiorgui Gabashvili, Mrs Blanca Fernández-Capel Bańos, Mr Gabino Puche Rodríguez-Acosta, Mr Viorel Riceard Badea and Mr György Frunda, which is, in the draft recommendation, at the end of paragraph 3, add the following words:

“Financing centred on population control rather than the promotion of a suitable environment for development will delay rather than accelerate achievement of the Millennium Development Goals.”

I call Mr Volonte' to support Amendment No. 18. You have 30 seconds.

Mr VOLONTE' (Italy) said that the amendment related to the financing of population control.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mrs McCafferty. You have 30 seconds.

Mrs McCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – Thank you, Madam President. This amendment refers to “financing centred on population control”. Well, my report does not refer in any sense to population control. I should like to point out that I have fought against population control all my life. The ICPD moved away from demographics. That was the major change brought about by the programme of action. It moved away from demographics and control, in favour of choice. It is an undeniable fact that the Millennium Development Goals all require universal access to reproductive health care in order to be achieved.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland). – The committee is against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 18 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 63, tabled by Mr Ronan Mullen, Mr Terry Leyden, Mr Peter Kelly, Ms Cecilia Keaveney, Mr Renato Farina and Mr Latchezar Toshev, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 3, insert the following paragraphs:

“The Parliamentary Assembly notes that Ireland, as a country with no legal provision for abortion and where abortion is not available, has the lowest rate of maternal mortality in the world and benefits from a consistently high standard of maternal health care aimed at preserving the life and health both of mothers and of their unborn children.

The Parliamentary Assembly notes that emerging evidence suggests an increased risk of adverse mental health sequelae among women who choose to have abortions, and that such evidence, while not yet conclusive, points to the need to inform women seeking or consenting to abortion of possible adverse mental health sequelae arising from abortion.

The Parliamentary Assembly supports the prioritisation of high quality health care services for women in the developing world, stresses the compatibility of high quality maternal and foetal health care and urges all parties to foster a model of healthcare which aims at the health and wellbeing of mothers and their unborn children in all circumstances.”

I call Mr Mullen to support Amendment No. 63. You have 30 seconds.

Mr MULLEN (Ireland). – I should like to expand on what I said in my speech. The amendment would bring in the latest evidence on the potential psychiatric downsides of abortion in the context of providing full and responsible health care in the developing world, and it would address the issue of maternal mortality. Although I speak for a country from which people go abroad for abortions, we have the top medical care available during pregnancy. I urge people to support the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mrs McCafferty.

Mrs McCafferty (United Kingdom). – Evidence-based research from all around the world suggests entirely the opposite of what has just been said. Every year, half a million women die in childbirth or from pregnancy-related issues because of a lack of sexual and reproductive health care – emergency obstetric care and so on. It is true that maternal mortality is low in Ireland, but that is because Irish women come to the UK for abortion services that they cannot receive at home. Please vote against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) (Translation). The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 63 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 19, tabled by Mr Luca Volonte', Mr Renato Farina, Mr Marco Gatti, Mr Pier Marino Mularoni, Mr Guiorgui Gabashvili, Mrs Blanca Fernández-Capel Bańos, Mr Gabino Puche Rodríguez-Acosta, Mr Viorel Riceard Badea and Mr György Frunda, which is, in the draft recommendation, at the end of paragraph 4, add the following words:

“The proper approach to global development ought to concentrate on programmes and values that support social and personal development. Access to education, economic opportunities, political stability, basic health care and support for families must remain the basis for achieving the Millennium Development Goals.”

I call Mr Volonte' to support Amendment No. 19.

Mr VOLONTE' (Italy) said that the amendment introduced broader aspects to the report.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mrs McCafferty.

Mrs McCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – Mr Volonte' is absolutely right; the report is not just about family planning. The paragraph in question is totally about violence against women – domestic violence, cultural violence, rape and female genital mutilation. The amendment does not refer to any of that at all, so it is not germane to paragraph 4, which is entirely about violence against women. I urge members to reject the amendment because it is not relevant or germane.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) (Translation). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 19 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 39, tabled by Mr Marco Gatti, Mr Luigi Vitali, Mr Lorenzo Cesa, Mrs Deborah Bergamini, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Giuseppe Galati, Mr Ronan Mullen and Mrs Mesila Doda, which is, in the draft recommendation, at the end of paragraph 4, insert the following words:

“Basic health care services must be improved, especially against malaria and other viral infections, to help mothers and children both pre-and post-partum.”

I call Mr Gatti to support Amendment No. 39.

Mr GATTI (San Marino) said that the amendment added additional words to paragraph 4 concerning women’s health.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mrs McCafferty.

Mrs McCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – The arguments that applied to the previous amendment also apply to this one. This amendment refers to paragraph 4, which is entirely about violence against women. The amendment does not add anything to that – it does not discuss violence against women and it is not germane. It is surplus to requirements and I urge members to vote against it.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) (Translation). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 39 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 64, tabled by Mr Ronan Mullen, Mr Terry Leyden, Mr Peter Kelly, Mr Renato Farina and Mr Latchezar Toshev, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 4, insert the following paragraph:

“The Parliamentary Assembly recalls the Preamble to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and in particular where it states that ‘the child, by reason of his physical mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth’.”

I call Mr Mullen to support Amendment No. 64.

Mr MULLEN (Ireland). – The amendment would simply include a reference to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which stresses that the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards before as well as after birth. The amendment would enable the report to have a more holistic tone.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mrs McCafferty.

Mrs McCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – The paragraph in question is based entirely on ICPD and it is central to the programme of action and to the advancement of a number of Council of Europe reports. Although we respect the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the amendment is simply not germane to that particular point of the document. I urge members to vote against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) (Translation). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 64 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 20, tabled by Mr Luca Volonte', Mr Renato Farina, Mr Giacomo Stucchi, Mrs Blanca Fernández-Capel Bańos, Mr Gabino Puche Rodríguez-Acosta, Mr Guiorgui Gabashvili, Mr Marco Gatti, Mr Pier Marino Mularoni, Mr Viorel Riceard Badea and Mr György Frunda, which is, in the draft recommendation, replace paragraph 6 with the following paragraph:

“The development model and the urgent need for credible, effective and long-term responses to developing and emerging countries must take as its starting point an approach centred on man, his dignity and his inalienable rights.”

      If this amendment is adopted, Amendments Nos. 40, 41, 42 and 43 fall.

I call Mr Volonte' to support Amendment No. 20.

Mr VOLONTE' (Italy) said that it was necessary to have a development model which had a greater focus on dignity and human rights.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mrs McCafferty.

Mrs McCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – Once again, the paragraph in the amendment is trying to change the language of the ICPD programme of action by introducing other language. As I have said before, 179 countries, including those of the movers, are signed up to that programme. It would be inappropriate to change the language that is central to the programme of action and to the Millennium Development Goals and that advances quite a number of Council of Europe reports. I urge members to reject the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) (Translation). The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

We come now to Amendment No. 40, tabled by Mr Marco Gatti, Mr Luigi Vitali, Mr Lorenzo Cesa, Mrs Deborah Bergamini, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Giuseppe Galati, Mr Ronan Mullen and Mrs Mesila Doda, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 6, first sentence, after the word “comprehensive”, to delete the words “sexual and reproductive”.

I call Mr Gatti to support Amendment No. 40.

Mr GATTI (San Marino) said that the amendment sought to delete reference to sexual and reproductive rights because it did not make sense and the phrase was controversial.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mrs McCafferty.

Mrs McCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – This is another attempt to change the language of the ICPD programme of action. Removing the words “sexual and reproductive” would change the whole basis of the programme of action, which is what my report is about.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) (Translation). – Against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 40 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 41, tabled by Mr Marco Gatti, Mr Luigi Vitali, Mr Lorenzo Cesa, Mrs Deborah Bergamini, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Giuseppe Galati, Mr Ronan Mullen, Mrs Mesila Doda, which is, in the draft recommendation, to paragraph 6, second sentence, after the word “comprehensive”, to delete the words “sexual and reproductive”.

I call Mr Gatti to support Amendment No. 41.

Mr GATTI (San Marino) said that he was proposing the amendment for the same reason as he had proposed Amendment 40.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mrs McCafferty.

Mrs McCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – The wording and the objective of this amendment are identical to the wording and objective of the previous amendment, and I urge members to vote against it.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland). – Against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 41 is rejected.

We come now to Amendment No. 42, tabled by Mr Marco Gatti, Mr Luigi Vitali, Mr Lorenzo Cesa, Mrs Deborah Bergamini, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Giuseppe Galati, Mr Ronan Mullen and Mrs Mesila Doda, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 6, second sentence, to delete the words: “affordable, acceptable and appropriate”.

I call Mr Gatti to support Amendment No. 42.

Mr GATTI (San Marino) said that the reference to “affordable, accessible and appropriate” health care should be deleted. Different states had different ideas about what methods of family planning should be used.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mrs McCafferty.

Mrs McCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – Words fail me. I can only assume that the mover does not want health services to be affordable, acceptable and appropriate, but I am sure that that is what all governments aspire to on behalf of their electorates. I find the amendment astonishing, unacceptable and indeed quite embarrassing, and I urge members to vote against it.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland). – Against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 42 is rejected.

We come now to Amendment No. 43, tabled by Mr Marco Gatti, Mr Luigi Vitali, Mr Lorenzo Cesa, Mrs Deborah Bergamini, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Giuseppe Galati, Mr Ronan Mullen and Mrs Mesila Doda, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 6, second sentence, to delete the words “to prevent unwanted pregnancies, abortions, STIs and maternal ill health and death”.

I call Mr Gatti to support Amendment No. 43.

Mr GATTI (San Marino) said that the reference to unwanted pregnancies should be deleted. He wondered who would decide which pregnancies were unwanted and also what “unwanted” meant in this context.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mrs McCafferty.

Mrs McCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – It seems that the mover does not want abortions, sexually transmitted diseases, maternal ill health and death to be prevented. I am sure that that is not what he intended the amendment to mean. I certainly hope not, because again I find it embarrassing even to have to stand up and speak against it. However, I urge members to vote against it.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 43 is rejected.

We come now to Amendment No. 44, tabled by Mr Marco Gatti, Mr Luigi Vitali, Mr Lorenzo Cesa, Mrs Deborah Bergamini, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Giuseppe Galati, Mr Ronan Mullen and Mrs Mesila Doda, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 7, to replace the words “sexual and reproductive health and rights” with the following words: “basic health care system”.

If this amendment is passed, Amendment No. 21 falls.

I call Mr Gatti to support Amendment No. 44.

Mr GATTI (San Marino) said that his proposed amendment would broaden the scope of the paragraph and make it more inclusive.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mrs McCafferty.

Mrs McCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – This is another attempt to change the language and the context of both the original programme of action and my report, which reflects it. I urge members to vote against it.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) (Translation). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 44 is rejected.

We come now to Amendment No. 21, tabled by Mr Luca Volonte', Mr Viorel Riceard Badea, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Giacomo Stucchi, Mr Gianpaolo Dozzo, Mr Giuseppe Galati and Mr György Frunda, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 7, after the words “sexual and reproductive health”, to delete the following words: “and rights”.

I call Mr Volonte' to support Amendment No. 21.

Mr VOLONTE' (Italy) asked the Assembly to vote in favour of this and the subsequent amendments. The report should avoid references to rights. There was too much ambiguity in this term.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mrs McCafferty.

Mrs McCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – There is no ambiguity except in the minds of those who wish to introduce it. The programme of action makes very clear what the right in question are. The right of people to choose the number and spacing of their children is central to both the programme of action and the millennium development goals, and I urge members to vote against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) (Translation). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 21 is rejected.

We come now to Amendment No. 45, tabled by Mr Marco Gatti, Mr Luigi Vitali, Mr Lorenzo Cesa, Mrs Deborah Bergamini, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Giuseppe Galati, Mr Ronan Mullen and Mrs Mesila Doda, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 7, after the words “reproductive health and rights”, insert the following words: “and basic health care system”.

I call Mr Gatti to support Amendment No. 45.

Mr GATTI (San Marino) said that his amendment provided a broader definition.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mrs McCafferty.

Mrs McCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – This is another attempt to change the concept and the context of the original document, which, of course, relates to sexual and reproductive health and rights and not to basic health care, although of course it would be excellent if those rights were incorporated in every country’s basic health care system. It is not acceptable to change the context of the paragraph and I urge members to vote against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 45 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 22, tabled by Mr Luca Volonte', Mr Viorel Riceard Badea, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Giacomo Stucchi, Mr Gianpaolo Dozzo, Mr Giuseppe Galati and Mr György Frunda, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 7, insert the following paragraph: “As affirmed in its Resolution 1607 (2008) on access to safe and legal abortion in Europe, the Assembly recalls ‘that abortion can in no circumstances be regarded as a family planning method’.”

      I call Mr Volonte' to support Amendment No. 22. You have 30 seconds.

Mr VOLONTE' (Italy) said that he was surprised at the result of the previous vote. He wanted to increase basic health care rights. Abortion was not family planning.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mrs McCafferty.

Mrs McCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – Amendment No. 22 is quite superfluous. It is, of course, a statement of fact about the resolution, but I already referred to this in paragraph 23 on page 8 of the explanatory memorandum. It is therefore completely unnecessary to introduce it here. I do not know what its purpose is. It is already there. It is a statement of fact and I urge members to vote against it.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) (Translation). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 22 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 23, tabled by Mr Luca Volonte', Mr Viorel Riceard Badea, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Giacomo Stucchi, Mr Gianpaolo Dozzo, Mr Giuseppe Galati and Mr György Frunda, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 7, insert the following paragraph: “As affirmed by the ICPD programme of action, the Assembly recalls that ‘Any measures or changes related to abortion within a health system can only be determined at national or local level according to national legislative processes’.”

I call Mr Volonte' to support Amendment No. 23.

Mr VOLONTE' (Italy) was surprised at the results of the votes. He wanted to have a report that he could support. People were talking about the International Conference on Population and Development programme of action but this report stated that the legality of abortion should be decided at local and national levels.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mrs McCafferty.

Mrs McCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – I have a feeling of déjŕ vu with this amendment. I think that we had an almost identical amendment about two pages ago. As I said earlier, this is a statement of fact. It is already in paragraph 23. The amendment is unnecessary and adds no value. The ICPD makes it absolutely clear that where abortion is available it should be safe and optional, but always that it should be legal. I therefore urge members to vote against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) (Translation). – The committee is against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 23 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 46, tabled by Mr Marco Gatti, Mr Luigi Vitali, Mr Lorenzo Cesa, Mrs Deborah Bergamini, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Giuseppe Galati, Mr Ronan Mullen and Mrs Mesila Doda, which is, in the draft recommendation, delete paragraph 8.1.

If this amendment is adopted, Amendment No. 24 falls.

I call Mr Gatti to support Amendment No. 46. You have 30 seconds.

Mr GATTI (San Marino) said that paragraph 8.1 should be deleted because it was up to individual states to decide on how family planning should be delivered, based on their culture.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mrs McCafferty.

Mrs McCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – I am not entirely sure what the Council of Europe is all about if it is not here to review, update and compare the actions of member states in relation to their human rights, including their health rights. Sexual and reproductive health rights are human rights and as such they should be observed and monitored by this Assembly. I urge members to vote against this amendment. It is quite ridiculous.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland). – The committee is against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 46 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 24, tabled by Mr Luca Volonte', Mr Viorel Riceard Badea, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Giacomo Stucchi, Mr Gianpaolo Dozzo, Mr Giuseppe Galati and Mr György Frunda, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 8.1, after the words “sexual and reproductive health” delete the following words: “and rights”.

I call Mr Volonte' to support Amendment No. 24. You have 30 seconds.

Mr VOLONTE' (Italy) said that words failed him. People kept referring to the International Conference on Population and Development programme of action, but no reference was being made to the fact that it said that access to abortion access should be decided at a national and local level and that abortion was not a right.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mrs McCafferty.

Mrs McCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – This amendment is the same as Amendment No. 21 and indeed several other amendments. It would remove the word “rights” and change the language of the original programme of action. This report merely reflects that. I urge members to vote against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland). – The committee is against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 24 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 30, tabled by Mr Luca Volonte', Mr Marco Gatti, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Pier Marino Mularoni, Mr Guiorgui Gabashvili, Mr Gabino Puche Rodríguez-Acosta, Mrs Blanca Fernández-Capel Bańos , Mr Viorel Riceard Badea and Mr György Frunda, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 8.2, insert the following sub-paragraph: “follow through on the challenging goals adopted in international forums in favour of Africa and other poor and developing countries without delay, starting with debt cancellation and investment directed at fighting world hunger and promoting education, basic health, access to water resources, hygiene, employment and the development of an entrepreneurial spirit.”

I call Mr Volonte' to support Amendment No. 30. You have 30 seconds.

Mr VOLONTE' (Italy) said that the amendment referred to the very important matter of development in Africa and drew attention to basic health care.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mrs McCafferty.

Mrs McCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – This amendment is laudable but it is certainly not germane to the subject of the report. The facts are that you cannot achieve the Millennium Development Goals without the ICPD programme of action and universal access to sexual and reproductive health by 2015. Perhaps some members do not like to accept the centrality of women having choice and being in charge of their own fertility as a means of helping families out of poverty, but it is a fact. I urge members to vote against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland). – The committee is against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 30 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 31, tabled by Mr Luca Volonte', Mr Marco Gatti, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Pier Marino Mularoni, Mr Guiorgui Gabashvili, Mr Gabino Puche Rodríguez-Acosta, Mrs Blanca Fernández-Capel Bańos, Mr Viorel Riceard Badea and Mr György Frunda, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 8.2, insert the following sub-paragraph: “invite member states to make concrete efforts to support and implement the commitments made during the various ‘high level’ meetings between representatives of the G20, G8 and G14 governments. They should do so by way of special economic, social and institutional measures.”

I call Mr Volonte' to support Amendment No. 31. You have 30 seconds.

Mr VOLONTE' (Italy) said that the International Conference on Population and Development programme of action was not just about sexual and reproductive health: it was much broader than this.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mrs McCafferty.

Mrs MCCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – I would put exactly the same arguments as before. The amendment is laudable, but it is not germane to the aims of the report. We cannot achieve the MDGs without the programme of action, which is about giving women choices. As this amendment seeks to expand the scope of the aims and address other areas, I ask members to vote against it.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) (Translation). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 31 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 32, tabled by Mr Luca Volonte', Mr Marco Gatti, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Pier Marino Mularoni, Mr Guiorgui Gabashvili, Mr Gabino Puche Rodríguez-Acosta, Mrs Blanca Fernández-Capel Bańos, Mr Viorel Riceard Badea and Mr György Frunda, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 8.2, insert the following sub-paragraph: “urge member states to commit themselves to a greater collaboration with the world's poor and less developed nations, so that democratic institutions and the protection of universal human rights may be reinforced for all citizens and all peoples.”

I call Mr Volonte' to support Amendment No. 32. You have 30 seconds.

Mr VOLONTE' (Italy) said that the amendment ensured that the report take account of poor countries.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mrs McCafferty.

Mrs McCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – I would put the same arguments again. The point is laudable, but it is not germane to the subject matter of the report, which reflects entirely the principles of the ICPD programme of action. Therefore, I urge members to vote against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 32 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 47, tabled by Mr Marco Gatti, Mr Luigi Vitali, Mr Lorenzo Cesa, Mrs Deborah Bergamini, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Giuseppe Galati, Mr Ronan Mullen and Mrs Mesila Doda, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 9.1, delete the words “reducing unsafe abortions, by”.

I call Mr Gatti to support Amendment No. 47. You have 30 seconds.

Mr GATTI (San Marino) said that the amendment would help to clarify the paragraph.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mrs McCafferty.

Mrs McCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – Until I saw this amendment yesterday for the first time, I thought that everybody in the world was against unsafe abortions and wanted to reduce the number of abortions. We are against unsafe abortions; I remind everybody that 13% of all maternal deaths are because of unsafe abortions. The idea that we should delete this reference from the document is bizarre, to put it mildly.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) (Translation). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 47 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 48, tabled by Mr Marco Gatti, Mr Luigi Vitali, Mr Lorenzo Cesa, Mrs Deborah Bergamini, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Giuseppe Galati, Mr Ronan Mullen and Mrs Mesila Doda, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 9.1.1, delete the words “and reproductive”.

I call Mr Gatti to support Amendment No. 48. You have 30 seconds.

Mr GATTI (San Marino) said that the amendment would insert a less controversial definition.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mrs McCafferty.

Mrs McCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – The amendment is illogical. When I was a schoolgirl, I quickly learned that the words “sexual” and “reproductive” were inextricably linked, and I do not believe that that has changed recently. I believe that it is imperative that the word “reproductive” remains so that we make sure that the context is fully understood.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 48 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 25, tabled by Mr Luca Volonte', Mr Viorel Riceard Badea, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Giacomo Stucchi, Mr Gianpaolo Dozzo, Mr Giuseppe Galati and Mr György Frunda, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 9.1.1, after the words “sexual and reproductive health” delete the following words: “and rights”.

I call Mr Volonte' to support Amendment No. 25. You have 30 seconds.

Mr VOLONTE' (Italy). – said that there was ambiguity between human rights and rights to abortion, and that the amendment would clarify the matter.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mrs McCafferty.

Mrs MCCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – This must be the third, fourth or fifth amendment seeking to delete the words “and rights”. Whether people like it or not, sexual and reproductive health rights are human rights, so it would be quite wrong to delete these words.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) (Translation). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 25 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 49, tabled by Mr Marco Gatti, Mr Luigi Vitali, Mr Lorenzo Cesa, Mrs Deborah Bergamini, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Giuseppe Galati, Mr Ronan Mullen and Mrs Mesila Doda, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 9.1.1, replace the words “a variety” with the following words: “all varieties”.

I call Mr Gatti to support Amendment No. 49. You have 30 seconds.

Mr GATTI (San Marino) said that, after looking into the subject, he had decided not to move the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – The amendment is not moved.

We come to Amendment No. 1, tabled by Mr Francis Agius, on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 9.1.1, after the words “skilled birth attendants at birth and access to”, insert the following words: “ gynaecological and”.

I call Mr Greenway on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population to support the amendment.

Mr GREENWAY (United Kingdom). – This is a technical amendment. We think that there should be gynaecological as well as obstetric emergency care.

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

What is the opinion of the Committee on Social, Health and Family Affairs?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) (Translation). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 1 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 50, tabled by Mr Marco Gatti, Mr Luigi Vitali, Mr Lorenzo Cesa, Mrs Deborah Bergamini, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Giuseppe Galati, Mr Ronan Mullen and Mrs Mesila Doda, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 9.1.2, replace the words “free sexual and reproductive health and rights services” with the following words: “free health care”.

If this amendment is adopted, Amendment No. 26 falls. I call Mr Gatti to support the amendment. You have 30 seconds.

Mr GATTI (Switzerland) said that the amendment would make the text of the report clearer.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mrs McCafferty.

Mrs McCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – Once again, the wording would change the context of the paragraph, which is about the specific needs of vulnerable populations, including migrants. It is a well-known fact that displaced persons, particularly those living in camps, find it very difficult to access reproductive health care. This is very important: a migrant camp is not the best place for a mother to be pregnant and give birth. I urge members to vote against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) (Translation). – Against.

THE PRESIDENT. – I shall now put the amendment to the vote.

The vote is open.

Amendment No. 50 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 26, tabled by Mr Luca Volonte', Mr Viorel Riceard Badea, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Giacomo Stucchi, Mr Gianpaolo Dozzo, Mr Giuseppe Galati and Mr György Frunda, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 9.1.2, after the words “sexual and reproductive health”, delete the words “and rights”.

I call Mr Volonte' to support the amendment. You have 30 seconds.

Mr VOLONTE' (Italy) said that a clearer definition should be sought, possibly at the international level.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mrs McCafferty. You have 30 seconds.

Mrs McCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – There is no ambiguity other than the one that some members wish to introduce. We are dealing with a consensus definition, which was signed up to by 179 countries in 1994 and which has been reaffirmed annually ever since. I urge members to vote against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) (Translation). – Against.

THE PRESIDENT. – I shall now put the amendment to the vote.

The vote is open.

Amendment No. 26, is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 51, tabled by Mr Marco Gatti, Mr Luigi Vitali, Mr Lorenzo Cesa, Mrs Deborah Bergamini, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Giuseppe Galati, Mr Ronan Mullen and Mrs Mesila Doda, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 9.2, after the word “schools”, insert the following words: “, in accordance with family culture and national laws,”.

I call Mr Gatti to support the amendment. You have 30 seconds.

Mr GATTI (San Marino) said that the report should account for the varying social circumstances in each country.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mrs McCafferty.

Mrs McCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – It might well be desirable for children to learn about sexuality and relationships in the family. Not all children, however, have that luxury; in fact, many do not. It is important for young people to get the information that will enable them to inform and protect themselves, particularly through their difficult teenage years. It is often the case that the most vulnerable children are unable to acquire this information within the family. I thus urge members to reject the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) (Translation). – Against.

THE PRESIDENT. – I shall now put the amendment to the vote.

The vote is open.

Amendment No. 51 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 52, tabled by Mr Marco Gatti, Mr Luigi Vitali, Mr Lorenzo Cesa, Mrs Deborah Bergamini, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Giuseppe Galati, Mr Ronan Mullen and Mrs Mesila Doda, which is, in the draft recommendation, delete paragraph 9.2.1.

I call Mr Gatti to support the amendment.

Mr GATTI (San Marino) asked: who had a greater right than the family to educate their children? Schools and the state should not be given a greater educational role than the family.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mrs McCafferty.

Mrs McCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – As I said about the previous amendment, not all children have the luxury of learning about their sexuality or acquiring information about sexual health through their family. In certain cultures, it is often the girls from whom this information is withheld. Under the Council of Europe convention, all children are entitled to protect themselves by receiving information about sexual health and relationships and sexual orientation. I urge members to reject the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) (Translation). – Against.

THE PRESIDENT. – I shall now put the amendment to the vote.

The vote is open.

Amendment No. 52 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 2, tabled by Mr Francis Agius, on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 9.3, delete the words “, including migration”.

I call Mr Greenway to support Amendment No. 2 on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population. You have 30 seconds.

Mr GREENWAY (United Kingdom). – This is what we call a paving amendment. We want to delete the words “including migration”. We would like to have a new sub-paragraph dealing with specific migration issues, some of which I covered in my opening remarks. This is a purely technical amendment. I urge members to support it.

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

What is the opinion of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) (Translation). – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – I shall now put the amendment to the vote.

The vote is open.

Amendment No. 2 is agreed to.

We come to Amendment No. 53, tabled by Mr Marco Gatti, Mr Luigi Vitali, Mr Lorenzo Cesa, Mrs Deborah Bergamini, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Giuseppe Galati, Mr Ronan Mullen and Mrs Mesila Doda, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 9.3.1, replace the words “reproductive health supplies” with the following words: “health care services”.

I call Mr Gatti to support the amendment. You have 30 seconds.

Mr GATTI (San Marino) said that not everyone agreed on the term included in the report.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mrs McCafferty.

Mrs McCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – Once again, this change of language changes the entire context. The words in the original document are “reproductive health supplies” and my report reflects that. It is simply unacceptable to try to change the meaning in a wider direction. I urge members to vote against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) (Translation). – Against.

THE PRESIDENT. – I shall now put the amendment to the vote.

The vote is open.

Amendment No. 53 is rejected.

We come now to Amendment No. 54, tabled by Mr Marco Gatti, Mr Luigi Vitali, Mr Lorenzo Cesa, Mrs Deborah Bergamini, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Giuseppe Galati, Mr Ronan Mullen and Mrs Mesila Doda, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 9.3.1, replace the words “a variety” with the following words: “all varieties”.

I call Mr Gatti to support Amendment No. 54. You have 30 seconds.

Mr GATTI (San Marino) said that he did not wish to move the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – The amendment is not moved.

We come to Amendment No. 3, tabled by Mr Francis Agius, on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 9.3, insert the following sub-paragraph :

“migration, by:

– integrating migration (and its positive aspects) into development policy and domestic legislation and ensuring the necessary budgetary allocation is made to guarantee the rights of migrant women to education, employment, health and social services;

– improving screening of irregular migrants following arrival, in order to identify healthcare needs, in particular as regards pregnant women, the young and the elderly;”

I call Mr Greenway to support Amendment No. 3 on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population. You have 30 seconds.

Mr GREENWAY (United Kingdom). – Madam President, colleagues, this is the new additional sub-paragraph that I referred to, and I think that its content is obvious. We need a budgetary allocation to provide migrant women with health and social services, education, employment and so on. The wording of the second part of the amendment is self-explanatory, and Mrs McCafferty has already referred to the phrase, “regards pregnant women, the young and the elderly”. Thank you very much.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) (Translation). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 3 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 55, tabled by Mr Marco Gatti, Mr Luigi Vitali, Mr Lorenzo Cesa, Mrs Deborah Bergamini, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Giuseppe Galati, Mr Ronan Mullen and Mrs Mesila Doda, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 9.4.1, delete the words “, access to affordable reproductive health supplies and non-judgmental voluntary counselling and testing and treatment and care for infected individuals”.

I call Mr Gatti to support Amendment No. 55. You have 30 seconds.

Mr GATTI (San Marino) said that the issue should not be dealt with in the way proposed in the report.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mrs McCafferty

Mrs McCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – Once again, Madam President, I am rather astonished that we are being asked to remove the phrase, “access to affordable reproductive health supplies”. Are we saying that we want contraception supplies to be unaffordable, so that no one can use them? What are we saying here? Surely, the phrase, “non-judgmental voluntary counselling” means impartial information. Individuals have a right to information about commodities and services, and I urge members to vote against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) (Translation). – The committee has no opinion on the amendment because we were unable to consider it.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 55 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 65, tabled by Mr Ronan Mullen, Mr Terry Leyden, Mr Peter Kelly, Ms Cecilia Keaveney and Mr Renato Farina, which is, in the draft recommendation, at the end of paragraph 9.4.1, add the following sentences:

“The Parliamentary Assembly notes the relative success of anti-AIDS campaigns that promote both abstinence from sexual activity prior to long-term faithful relationships and faithfulness between people within sexual relationships. The Parliamentary Assembly recognizes that these approaches must be a key part of any long-term strategy for tackling the incidence of AIDS and will contribute to greater equality and mutual respect among men and women in developing countries and elsewhere.”

I call Mr Mullen to support Amendment No. 65. You have 30 seconds.

Mr MULLEN (Ireland). – Thank you, Madam President. Just as the way to reduce unsafe abortion is to provide quality health care and to educate against abortion so also the way to reduce AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases is to recognise that condom promotion campaigns on their own are not delivering the results that we need, particularly in Africa. We need to educate people about behaviour and to seek behavioural change. Relying on the expertise of people such as Edward Green – a senior researcher in this area from Harvard – I also propose that we place emphasis on promoting fidelity in relationships and getting away from what has been called zero grazing in Africa and multiple partnering. So I think that the amendment will contribute to an holistic behavioural change approach in the struggle against AIDS.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mrs McCafferty.

Mrs McCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – I find this amendment extremely difficult, Madam President. No one is suggesting that abstinence should not be a choice – of course it should be. However, a lot of evidence-based research shows that married women, particularly those in Africa who have no access to contraception and who are unable to say no because they have no status, find that they develop HIV/AIDS, because their husbands do not protect themselves when they are having intercourse. So I urge members to reject the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) (Translation). – The committee did not have time to examine this amendment and therefore has no opinion.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 56 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 4, tabled by Mr Francis Agius, on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 9.4.2, insert the following sub-paragraph: “ensuring free, non-discriminatory access to sexual and reproductive health and rights and other health services and a healthy environment for irregular migrants who are detained, internally displaced persons (IDPs) in particular for those in collective centres, Roma and related groups, including in settlements;”.

I call Mr Greenway to support Amendment No. 4 on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population. You have 30 seconds.

Mr GREENWAY (United Kingdom). – Thank you, Madam President. If we are successfully to address specifically the challenges of the HIV/AIDS pandemic, it is extremely important that the kind of proposals that are available to the general population should be available also to irregular migrants and IDPs who are detained in collective centres, such as Roma and related groups. That fits with what the Assembly approved yesterday in regard to the treatment of migrants in detention centres.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) (Translation). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 4 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 5, tabled by Mr Francis Agius, on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 9.4.2, insert the following sub-paragraph: “guaranteeing the successful integration of migrants and their families and developing comprehensive integration polices to give migrants every opportunity to participate and contribute to the life of their host society;”.

I call Mr Greenway to support Amendment No. 5 on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population. You have 30 seconds.

Mr GREENWAY (United Kingdom). – Thank you, Madam President. The argument is the same – I hope that this will be obvious – and I urge the Assembly to agree to the amendment.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) (Translation). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 5 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 6, tabled by Mr Francis Agius, on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 9.5.1, after the words “ensuring that”, insert the following words: “age-appropriate”.

I call Mr Greenway to support Amendment No. 6 on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population. You have 30 seconds.

Mr GREENWAY (United Kingdom). – Thank you, Madam President. Colleagues, I think that the intention of this amendment is obvious. It simply makes the point that women of all ages, particularly migrants, find themselves in all kinds of situations in life. So we think that the facilities that are provided need to be appropriate to the age of the women. We can debate this some other time, but it is a very important point.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) (Translation). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 6 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 56, tabled by Mr Marco Gatti, Mr Luigi Vitali, Mr Lorenzo Cesa, Mrs Deborah Bergamini, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Giuseppe Galati, Mr Ronan Mullen and Mrs Mesila Doda, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 9.5.1, delete the words “reproductive rights and”.

If this amendment is passed, Amendment No. 27 falls. I call Mr Gatti to support Amendment No. 56. You have 30 seconds.

Mr GATTI (San Marino) said that the amendment provided greater clarity.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mrs McCafferty.

Mrs McCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – Thank you, Madam President. This is another attempt to remove the phrase, “reproductive rights”. Such rights are human rights. Rights and responsibilities go together. The existing wording is perfectly correct. I therefore urge members to vote against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) (Translation). – The committee lacked the time to consider the amendment and therefore has no opinion.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 56 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 27, tabled by Mr Luca Volonte', Mr Viorel Riceard Badea, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Giacomo Stucchi, Mr Gianpaolo Dozzo, Mr Giuseppe Galati and Mr György Frunda, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 9.5.1, after the word “reproductive” delete the words “rights and”.

I call Mr Volonte' to support Amendment No. 27.

Mr VOLONTE' (Italy) said that it was necessary to remove the reference to reproductive rights.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mrs McCafferty.

Mrs McCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – I wish to make the same argument as I made against all previous seven amendments that aimed at removing these words. Reproductive rights are human rights, and I urge members to vote against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) (Translation). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 27 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 7, tabled by Mr Francis Agius, on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 9.5.2, after the word “exploitation”, insert the following word: “, smuggling”.

I call Mr Greenway to support Amendment No. 7 on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population. You have 30 seconds.

Mr GREENWAY (United Kingdom). – The view of the committee is that we need to make a distinction between smuggling and trafficking; that is why we want to include the word “smuggling”.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) (Translation). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 7 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 57, tabled by Mr Marco Gatti, Mr Luigi Vitali, Mr Lorenzo Cesa, Mrs Deborah Bergamini, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Giuseppe Galati, Mr Ronan Mullen and Mrs Mesila Doda, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 9.5.2, first sentence, after the words “community levels”, insert the following words: “in accordance with national culture and laws”.

I call Mr Gatti to support Amendment No. 57. You have 30 seconds.

Mr GATTI (San Marino) said that the amendment related to the rights of families.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mrs McCafferty.

Mrs McCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – This amendment is not germane to paragraph 9.5 and is superfluous to what is in that paragraph. I urge members to vote against it.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) (Translation). – The committee did not have time to look at the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – The committee does not have an opinion.

The vote is open.

Amendment No. 57 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 8, tabled by Mr Francis Agius, on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 9.5.2, insert the following sub-paragraph: “ensuring that donations to countries for the treatment and prevention of HIV/AIDS are increased;”.

I call Mr Greenway to support Amendment No. 8 on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population. You have 30 seconds.

Mr GREENWAY (United Kingdom). – This very important amendment relates to paragraph 7 of our opinion. Effectively, the evidence available to us is that although development aid on the treatment of HIV/AIDS has increased, aid for prevention mechanisms has actually decreased. Therefore states should ensure that donations for development address concerns about migration and, in particular, cover the cost of disease treatment and prevention, which, I am sure colleagues will agree, is very important.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) (Translation). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 8 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 28, tabled by Mr Luca Volonte', Mr Viorel Riceard Badea, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Giacomo Stucchi, Mr Gianpaolo Dozzo, Mr Giuseppe Galati and Mr György Frunda, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 9.6.2, after the words “sexual and reproductive health”, delete the words “and rights”.

I call Mr Volonte' to support Amendment No. 28.

Mr VOLONTE' (Italy) said that there was no precise definition of human reproductive health, and therefore any reference to that would be ambiguous.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mrs McCafferty.

Mrs McCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – This is the ninth or tenth attempt to remove the words “and rights”. There is no ambiguity about those words; the ICPD programme of action is quite clear and specific about choice and the number and spacing of one’s children. It is a human right and I urge members to vote against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) (Translation). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 28 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 9, tabled by Mr Francis Agius, on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, which is, in the draft recommendation, at the end of paragraph 9.6.3, add the following words: “, and that institutional arrangements are in place for its proper and effective distribution”.

I call Mr Greenway to support Amendment No. 9 on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population.

Mr GREENWAY (United Kingdom). – Europe is the largest contributor to official development assistance. If we are to make these long-term commitments to supporting health planning, health systems and so on, the committee thinks that it would be helpful if institutional arrangements were in place for the proper and effective distribution of that important aid.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) (Translation). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 9 is adopted.

We come now to Amendment No. 58 tabled by Mr Marco Gatti, Mr Luigi Vitali, Mr Lorenzo Cesa, Mrs Deborah Bergamini, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Giuseppe Galati, Mr Rohan Mullen and Mrs Mesila Doda, which is, in the draft recommendation, delete paragraph 9.6.5.

Mr GATTI (San Marino) said that he did not wish to move the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – So Amendment No. 58 is not moved.

We come now to Amendment No. 60, tabled by Mr Marco Gatti, Mr Luigi Vitali, Mr Lorenzo Cesa, Mrs Deborah Bergamini, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Giuseppe Galati, Mr Ronan Mullen and Mrs Mesila Doda, which is, in the draft recommendation, to delete paragraph 10.1.

I call Mr Gatti to support Amendment No. 60.

Mr GATTI (San Marino) said that it was appropriate to develop a European convention which dealt exclusively with sexual and reproductive health. They were national matters.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mrs McCafferty.

Mrs McCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – We already have a Council of Europe strategy on sexual and reproductive health and rights, and it is logical for it to be developed into a convention and, furthermore, for us to monitor the extent to which member states meet their obligations. Sexual and reproductive rights are human rights. We have conventions on other human rights, and we should have one on this as well. I urge members to vote against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) (Translation). – The committee has no opinion.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 60 is rejected.

We come now to Amendment No. 61, tabled by Mr Marco Gatti, Mr Luigi Vitali, Mr Lorenzo Cesa, Mrs Deborah Bergamini, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Giuseppe Galati, Mr Ronan Mullen and Mrs Mesila Doda, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 10.2, to delete the words “and agree on priority action to achieve universal access to sexual and reproductive health and rights by 2015”.

If this amendment is passed, Amendment No. 29 falls.

I call Mr Gatti to support Amendment No. 61.

Mr GATTI (San Marino) said that the last part of paragraph 10.2 should be deleted because it could lead to controversy.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mrs McCafferty.

Mrs McCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – The amendment demonstrates a failure to acknowledge the centrality of sexual and reproductive health to the achievement of the millennium development goals. That is something that the United Nations has finally done, after 10 years, by setting a new target of 2015 for access to sexual and reproductive rights, under Millennium Development Goal 5. I urge members to reject the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) (Translation). – No opinion.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 61 is rejected.

We come now to Amendment No. 29, tabled by Mr Luca Volonte', Mr Marco Gatti, Mr Renato Farina, Mr Pier Marino Mularoni, Mr Guiorgui Gabashvili, Mr Gabino Puche Rodríguez-Acosta, Mrs Blanca Fernández-Capel Bańos, Mr Viorel Riceard Badea and Mr György Frunda, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 10.2, after the words “sexual and reproductive health”, to delete the words “and rights”.

I call Mr Volonte' to support Amendment No. 29.

Mr VOLONTE' (Italy) said that the report dealt with sexual and reproductive rights, but this was one narrow topic and ignored the many other issues discussed at the Cairo conference.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mrs McCafferty.

Mrs McCAFFERTY (United Kingdom). – I apologise for repeating myself. This must be the 10th time that an attempt has been made to remove the words “and rights” from the report. I have nothing further to add. I merely reiterate that sexual and reproductive rights are human rights, and should be supported.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mrs MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland) (Translation). – The committee was against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 29 is rejected.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 11992, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft recommendation in Document 11992, as amended, is adopted, with 50 votes for, 14 against and 4 abstentions.

3. Membership of committees

THE PRESIDENT. – Our next business is to consider the changes proposed in the membership of committees and the nomination of members of the Monitoring Committee and the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs. They are set out in Documents Commissions (2010) 1 Addendum 6 and Commissions (2010) 1 Addendum rev.

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

They are agreed to.

4. References to committees

THE PRESIDENT. – The Bureau has proposed a number of references to committees for ratification by the Assembly. They are set out in Document AS/Inf(2010)04.

Is there any objection to the proposed references to committees? That is not the case.

The references are approved.

5. Constitution of the Standing Committee

THE PRESIDENT. – The next business today is to constitute the Standing Committee under Rule 16.2.

The membership of the Standing Committee is fixed by Rule 16.3, as follows: the President of the Assembly, the Vice-Presidents of the Assembly, the chairpersons of the political groups, the chairpersons of national delegations, and the chairpersons of the general committees.

A full list of members is set out in Document Commissions (2010) 2.

The Standing Committee is accordingly constituted.

(Mr Çavuşoğlu, President of the Assembly, took the Chair.)

6. Change in agenda

THE PRESIDENT. – I wish to consult the Assembly about a change in the agenda for this morning. Because of the delays caused by voting on the last report, there is not enough time left for both the reports on the agenda. I therefore propose that we take off the agenda the last debate, on the Euro-Mediterranean region: call for a Council of Europe strategy? and that we interrupt the list of speakers in the second debate, on Biodiversity and climate change, at 1.15 p.m.

Is the proposed change agreed?

It is agreed.

Mr Badré, do you wish to speak?

Mr BADRÉ (France) said that, as the Rapporteur of the Political Affairs Committee, he had produced the report on the Euro-Mediterranean region. He was pleased that the debate would not be rushed but, rather than sending it back to committee, he proposed that debate on the report should be postponed until a plenary session, if possible the next plenary session. It was important that the Council of Europe should not be the last to make its voice heard on the issue: the progress of the Council of Europe on developing a Euro-Mediterranean strategy was being watched by partner countries. The report would define the principles of co-operation between the Council of Europe and others. It would provide an excellent example.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Badré. I will refer this point to the Bureau. Personally, I would be in favour of debating your report in the Assembly.

7. Biodiversity and climate change

THE PRESIDENT. – The next item of business this morning is the debate on the report on biodiversity and climate change presented by Mrs Francine John-Calame on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs, Document 12093.

There are 11 speakers on the list, and one amendment has been tabled. To allow time for replies to the debate and for votes, the speakers’ list will be interrupted at about 1.15 p.m., as we agreed.

I first call Mrs John-Calame, rapporteur. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.

Mrs JOHN-CALAME (Switzerland) hoped that the Italian members of the Group of the European People’s Party would consider the protection of biodiversity to be as important as debating sexual health and reproductive rights. Biodiversity was also a matter of life. For a policy on protecting biodiversity to be effective, it was necessary for people to understand what biodiversity was. If they could not recognise biodiversity, then they would not protect it.

She thanked the non-governmental organisations who worked in this area. Biodiversity concerned the multiplicity of living species and their genetic health. The importance of protecting biodiversity had to be made clear to people. Each living species was like a brick in a wall: individual bricks might not seem important but each one was needed to ensure the integrity of the construction. If a brick were removed, it would leave a hole in the wall and eventually the whole building would collapse.

Some species could seem unimportant, but they might have some property that could, in the future, be useful. It was important to protect all species. Human action often had negative consequences, both for biodiversity and for climate change. Deforestation, for example, destroyed the habitat of some species and also released carbon. The intensification of animal husbandry was another example of human action which threatened biodiversity and contributed to climate change.

Climate change was a threat and the world faced an unprecedented challenge. One effect of climate change was the thinning and withdrawal of the ice cover at the poles. This could have serious consequences. Climate change could force species to adapt, but there were limits to how far adaption was possible. Eco-corridors needed to be protected so that species had safe migratory routes. This was the United Nations Year of Biodiversity and the Assembly should promote respect and awareness of biodiversity. Promoting activities such as sustainable agriculture was one way of protecting biodiversity; another was to stop over-exploiting resources, such as marine fauna. Short-term interests, leading to over-exploitation, were being pursued at the cost of long-term interests.

Firm action should be taken to reduce biodiversity loss and to deal with climate change. The conference at Copenhagen had not achieved very much and therefore it was up to individual states to address these issues.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mrs John-Calame. I call Mr Kühnel on a point of order.

Mr KÜHNEL (Austria) requested that item 2 on the agenda should be deferred because there was not enough time to debate it. It should be taken into account that members had planned to finish at 1 p.m. and had made travel plans accordingly.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, your request is very clear; you are asking for this item to be taken back to the committee and to be debated here on another occasion. Under the rules, one person can speak in favour and one member can speak against, and I shall also ask for the opinion of the committee.

Does anyone wish to speak against Mr Kühnel’s request? I call Mr Marquet.

Mr MARQUET (Monaco) said that he opposed the proposed postponement because some members had prepared speeches and had stayed on in order to deliver them. It was unacceptable for delaying tactics by other members, such as tabling a large amount of amendments, to be allowed to undermine the programme of the Assembly. The Bureau should look into this issue.

THE PRESIDENT. – Mr Marquet is against taking the item back to the committee.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LOTMAN (Estonia). – There are some positive aspects to the proposal. If we were to debate the item in April, more members would be present and we could link it to the biodiversity day, which is an event we will be having here during the April part-session. Therefore, we are in favour of the proposal, even though we have, of course, already heard a very good speech from the rapporteur.

THE PRESIDENT. – Mr Lotman and the committee are in favour of Mr Kühnel’s proposal to take this item back to the committee. We therefore need to vote on this. A yes vote is a vote for taking the item back to the committee and to the Assembly. A no vote is a vote in support of Mr Marquet’s proposal that we should debate it today. A simple majority is all that is required.

The vote is open.

Mr Kühnel’s proposal is adopted.

The item is referred back to the committee.

8. End of the part-session

THE PRESIDENT. – We have now come to the end of our business.

I would like to thank all members of the Assembly, particularly rapporteurs of committees, for their hard work during this part-session. I would also like to thank the staff, both permanent and temporary, who have worked hard to make the part-session a success.

The second part of the 2010 session will be held from 26 to 30 April 2010.

I declare the first part of the 2010 session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe closed.

The sitting is closed.

(The sitting was closed at 1.05 p.m.)

Contents

1.       Organisation of debates

2.       Fifteen years since the international conference on population and development programme of action

      Presentation by Mrs McCafferty of report of the Committee on Social, Health and Family Affairs, Doc. 11992

      Presentation by Mr Greenway of opinion of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, Doc. 12053

      Speakers:

      Mrs John-Calme (Switzerland)

      Mrs Jonker (Netherlands)

      Mrs Petir (Croatia)

      Mr Díaz Tejera (Spain)

      Ms Vėsaitė (Lithuania)

      Mr Farina (Italy)

      Mr Sudarenkov (Russian Federation)

Mr Mullen (Ireland)

Replies:

Mrs McCafferty (United Kingdom)

Mrs Maury Pasquier (Switzerland)

Amendments Nos. 33, and 1-9 adopted

Draft recommendation, as amended, adopted

3.       Membership of committees

4.       References to committees

5.       Constitution of the Standing Committee

6.       Change in agenda

7.       Biodiversity and climate change

Presentation by Mrs John-Calame of report of the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs, Doc. 12093

Item referred back to committee

8.       End of the part-session

APPENDIX

Representatives or Substitutes who signed the Attendance Register in accordance with Rule 11.2 of the Rules of Procedure. The names of Substitutes who replaced absent Representatives are printed in small letters. The names of those who were absent or apologised for absence are followed by an asterisk.

AÇIKGÖZ, Ruhi

AGHAJANYAN, Artsruni

AGIUS, Francis*

AGRAMUNT FONT DE MORA, Pedro

ALIGRUDIĆ, Miloš*

ANDERSEN, Karin*

ANGHEL, Florin Serghei*

ANTONIONE, Roberto/Farina, Renato

ARIAS CAŃETE, Miguel*

ARRIGO, Robert*

ASKO-SELJAVAARA, Sirpa*

ASSIS , Francisco/Mendonça, Ana Catarina

AUSTIN, John*

AYVA, Lokman

BABAKOV, Alexander*

BADEA, Viorel Riceard*

BADRÉ, Denis

BAKOYANNIS, Theodora*

BARNETT, Doris

BARTOŠ, Walter*

BATET LAMAŃA, Meritxell

BECK, Marieluise*

BEMELMANS-VIDEC, Marie-Louise*

BENDER, Ryszard

BERÉNYI, József*

BERGAMINI, Deborah*

BĒRZINŠ, Andris*

BILOZIR, Oksana*

BLANCO TERÁN, Rosa Delia*

BLUM, Roland/Cousin, Alain

BONDARENKO, Olena*

BRANQUINHO, Agostinho*

BRASSEUR, Anne*

BRAUN, Márton*

BREEN, Patrick*

BRICOLO, Federico/Stucchi, Giacomo

BROEKE, HanTEN*

BUGNON, André

CĂLIAN, Petru*

ÇAVUŞOĞLU, Mevlüt

CEBECİ, Erol Aslan

CESA, Lorenzo/Volonte', Luca

CHELEMENDIK, Sergej*

CHERNYSHENKO, Igor*

CHITI, Vannino*

CHOPE, Christopher*

CHRISTMAS-MŘLLER, Pia*

CHRISTOFFERSEN, Lise

CHUKOLOV, Desislav*

CIRCENE, Ingrida

COLOMBIER, Georges/Pozzo Di Borgo, Yves

CONDE BAJÉN, Agustín

CORLĂŢEAN, Titus

COSTELLO, Joseph/Mullen, Ronan

CSAPODY, Miklós/Kelemen, András

ČURDOVÁ, Anna

CZINEGE, Imre

DĄBKOWSKA-CICHOCKA, Lena*

DAEMS, Hendrik*

DALGAARD, Per*

DEBONO GRECH, Joseph*

DÍAZ TEJERA, Arcadio

DONABAUER, Karl/Kühnel, Franz Eduard

DORIĆ, Miljenko*

DOZZO, Gianpaolo*

DUCARME, Daniel*

DUDZIŃSKI, Tomasz

DURRIEU, Josette/Rouquet, René

EÖRSI, Mátyás*

ERR, Lydie*

ETHERINGTON, Bill*

FAHEY, Frank*

FASSINO, Piero*

FEDOROV, Valeriy

FENECHIU, Relu*

FERIĆ-VAC, Mirjana*

FILIPIOVÁ, Daniela/Jirsa, Tomáš

FISCHER, Axel E.

FLYNN, Paul*

FRAHM, Pernille*

FRANCESCHINI, Dario*

FRITZ, Erich Georg

FRUNDA, György*

GABASHVILI, Guiorgui*

GAJDŮŠKOVÁ, Alena

GARDETTO, Jean-Charles/Lavagna, Sophie

GATTI, Marco

GAUTIER, Gisčle/Schneider, André

GEDEI, József*

GEORGIOU, Aristophanes*

GIANNAKA, Sophia*

GIARETTA, Paolo*

GLOS, Michael*

GORYACHEVA, Svetlana*

GOSOVIĆ, Neven*

GOUTRY, Luc*

GRAF, Martin*

GRAHAM, Sylvi

GREENWAY, John

GREFF, Claude

GRIGNON, Francis

GROSS, Andreas

GROSSKOST, Arlette*

GROZDANOVA, Dzhema

GUŢU, Ana

HADŽIAHMETOVIĆ, Azra*

HAJIBAYLI, Gultakin*

HAJIYEV, Sabir*

HANCOCK, Michael*

HARUTYUNYAN, Davit

HAUGLI, Hĺkon

HAUPERT, Norbert/Spautz, Marc

HERASYM'YUK, Olha*

HERKEL, Andres

HOLOVATY, Serhiy*

HÖRSTER, Joachim*

HÜBINGER, Anette

HUNKO, Andrej

HURSKAINEN, Sinikka

HUSEYNOV, Ali *

HUSEYNOV, Rafael

HUSKOWSKI, Stanisław*

IDRIZI, Shpetim *

IMAMOV, Aliosman*

IVANIĆ, Mladen*

IVANJI, Željko*

IVANOVSKI, Igor*

IWIŃSKI, Tadeusz*

IZETBEGOVIĆ, Bakir*

JACQUAT, Denis*

JENSEN, Michael Aastrup*

JENSEN, Mogens*

JOHANSSON, Morgan

JONKER, Corien W.A.

JÓNSSON, Birkir Jón*

JOVANOVIĆ, Čedomir/Kovács, Elvira

JUNG, Armand

KAIKKONEN, Antti/Korkeaoja, Juha

KALEMBA, Stanisław

KAŹMIERCZAK, Jan

KEAVENEY, Cecilia*

KELEŞ, Birgen

KNIGHT OF COLLINGTREE, Jill Baroness*

KOÇ, Haluk

KOLESNIKOV, Borys*

KONEČNÁ, Kateřina*

KONEČNÝ, Albrecht*

KOSACHEV, Konstantin

KOX, Tiny

KUBOVIČ, Pavol*

KUCHEIDA, Jean-Pierre*

KUMCUOĞLU, Ertuğrul

KUODYTĖ, Dalia/Vareikis, Egidijus

LAUKKANEN, Markku/Kallio, Reijo

LAVTIŽAR-BEBLER, Darja*

LECOQ, Jean-Paul*

LEIBRECHT, Harald*

LINDBLAD, Göran

LIPIŃSKI, Dariusz

LONCLE, François*

LUNDGREN, Kerstin/Lilliehöök, Anna

LUPU, Marian/Jantuan, Stela

MAISSEN, Theo

MALGIERI, Gennaro

MALINS, Humfrey*

MARCENARO, Pietro*

MARKOVIĆ, Milica*

MARQUET, Bernard

MARTY, Dick/John-Calame, Francine

MASSERET, Jean-Pierre/Béteille, Laurent

MATIĆ, Slavko*

MATUŠIĆ, Frano*

McCAFFERTY, Christine

McINTOSH, Andrew*

MEALE, Alan

MEHMETI DEVAJA, Ermira*

MEIKAR, Silver*

MEINHARDT, Patrick*

MELČÁK, Miloš

MELNIKOV, Ivan*

MELO, Maria Manuela de

MEMECAN, Nursuna

MENDES BOTA, José

MIĆUNOVIĆ, Dragoljub*

MIGNON, Jean-Claude

MIKUTIENĖ, Dangutė*

MINASHVILI, Akaki*

MITTERER, Peter*

MOLCHANOV, Andrey*

MONFILS, Philippe*

MORIAU, Patrick*

MOSCOSO DEL PRADO HERNÁNDEZ, Juan*

MÓSESDÓTTIR, Lilja

MOTA AMARAL, Joăo Bosco*

MUŃOZ ALONSO, Alejandro

MÜRI, Felix/Maury Pasquier, Liliane

NACHBAR, Philippe*

NACHTMANNOVÁ, Oľga*

NAGACEVSCHI, Vitalie

NĂSTASE, Adrian*

NEGELE, Gebhard

NÉMETH, Zsolt*

NESSA, Pasquale*

NEUGEBAUER, Fritz*

NIKOLIĆ, Tomislav*

NIKOLOSKI, Aleksandar*

O'HARA, Edward*

OHLSSON, Carina

OMTZIGT, Pieter*

ÓSKARSDÓTTIR, Steinunn Valdís*

OSTROVSKY, Alexey*

PAPACHRISTOS, Evangelos*

PAPADIMITRIOU, Elsa

PAPANDREOU, Vassiliki*

PARFENOV, Valery*

PASHAYEVA, Ganira*

PEIRO, Germinal/Marin, Christine

PELEGRINI, Peter*

PERNASKA, Lajla*

PETIR, Marijana

PFLUG, Johannes*

PLESKACHEVSKIY, Viktor*

POCHINOK, Alexander*

PODLESOV, Alexander Minovitch*

POPESCU, Ivan

POURBAIX-LUNDIN, Marietta de/Olsson, Kent

POURGOURIDES, Christos*

PREDA, Cezar Florin*

PRESCOTT, John

PRESEČNIK, Jakob*

PUCHE RODRÍGUEZ-ACOSTA, Gabino

PUIG i OLIVE, Lluís Maria de

PUPOVAC, Milorad*

PYSARENKO, Valeriy*

QUINTANILLA BARBA, Carmen

REPS, Mailis/Lotman, Aleksei

RIBA FONT, Maria Pilar*

RIGONI, Andrea*

ROBU, Nicolae*

ROCHEBLOINE, François*

ROSEIRA, Maria de Belém*

ROSSELL TARRADELLAS, Amadeu*

ROWEN, Paul*

RUGĀTE, Anta*

RUPPRECHT, Marlene*

RUSMALI, Ilir

RUSSO, Giacinto*

RUSTAMYAN, Armen

RUŽIĆ, Branko*

ŠABOVIĆ, Džavid*

SANTINI, Giacomo*

SARO, Giuseppe*

SARRAZIN, Manuel*

SASI, Kimmo

SCHUSTER, Marina

SEKULIĆ, Predrag*

SEYIDOV, Samad*

SHERSHUN, Mykola

SLUTSKY, Leonid*

SOBKO, Sergey*

SOBOLEV, Serhiy*

ŠOJDROVÁ, Michaela

STIRBLYTĖ, Arūnė/ Vėsaitė, Birutė

STOILOV, Yanaki

STOLFI, Fiorenzo*

STRÄSSER, Christoph*

STRENZ, Karin*

STULIGROSZ, Michał

STUMP, Doris

SUDARENKOV, Valeriy

SYDOW, Björn von

SYMONENKO, Petro*

SZABÓ, Zoltán*

TAKTAKISHVILI, Chiora*

TARGAMADZÉ, Guiorgui*

TEKELİOĞLU, Mehmet

TIMCHENKO, Vyacheslav/Solonin, Yury

TODOROV, Zhivko*

TODOROVIĆ, Dragan*

TOMLINSON, John E. Lord

TOSHEV, Latchezar

TSISKARISHVILI, Petré*

TUDOSE, Mihai*

TÜRKEŞ, Tuğrul

TÜRKÖNE, Özlem*

TYKHONOV, Viktor*

UMAKHANOV, Ilyas*

ÜNAL, Mustafa*

URECHEAN, Serafim/Ghiletchi, Valeriu

VALENTINO, Giuseppe*

VANDENBERGHE, Hugo*

VARVITSIOTIS, Miltiadis*

VERA JARDIM, José*

VERLIČ, Peter*

VIS, Rudi*

VITALI, Luigi*

VRETTOS, Konstantinos*

VRIES, Klaas De*

WAALKENS, Harm Evert*

WACH, Piotr

WADEPHUL, Johann*

WALTER, Robert*

WERNER, Katrin*

WILLE, Paul

WILSHIRE, David*

WOHLWEND, Renate/Schädler, Leander

WOJTCZAK, Michał*

WOLDSETH, Karin S.

WURM, Gisela*

XUCLŔ i COSTA, Jordi*

ZHEVAHO, Kostiantyn*

ZINGERIS, Emanuelis

ZIUGANOV, Guennady*

ZOHRABYAN, Naira

Vacant Seat, Albania*

Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

Vacant Seat, Moldova*

Vacant Seat, Poland*

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote:

WIKIŃSKI, Marek

Special Guests

-

Observers

CELIENTO Teresa